|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Sara Gaiser | Bay City News Service
A proposal to further open to the public a large tract of Peninsula open space controlled by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) continues to meet with stiff opposition from environmental groups.
At a recent hearing before the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ Land Use and Transportation Committee, groups including the Sierra Club, Audubon Society and the Committee for Green Foothills spoke against a resolution urging the SFPUC to expand public access to trails in the Peninsula Watershed.
Public officials and recreation advocates have pushed for years for increased access to the watershed, a 23,000-acre open-space area in San Mateo County that includes the Crystal Springs, San Andreas and Pilarcitos reservoirs. The area has been kept largely off limits in an effort to protect water quality and wildlife.
Currently, the public has access to the Crystal Springs Regional Trail on the eastern edge of the watershed, which is managed by the San Mateo County parks department, and can sign up for docent led walks on the Fifield-Cahill Ridge Trail within the watershed.
The SFPUC is now considering moving to a system that would allow unlimited trail access to hikers who paid for an annual permit, according to Tim Ramirez, manager of land management and natural resources for the commission. In addition, the agency is working on developing 11 miles of planned trails within the watershed, including a 6-mile extension of the Bay Ridge Trail.
“Development of an annual permit system will increase education and recreation opportunities,” Ramirez said. “We’re trying always to work to provide these opportunities for people in a way that is consistent with our goals for the watershed.”
At the Sept. 12 hearing, proponents for increased access described the move as a matter of social justice and described efforts by environmental groups to limit access as “elitist.”
However, environmental groups said social justice could be served by increasing partnerships with schools and groups in underserved areas, without endangering the watershed.
They warned that hikers would inevitably wander off trails, increasing erosion, harming protected wildlife and increasing the risk of a fire. More rangers and enforcement would be required, at an unknown cost.
“This is a protected watershed and a wildlife refuge,” said Lennie Roberts of the Committee for Green Foothills. “It is not a park and it was never contemplated as a park.”
“It would take only one match to turn this treasured place into a disaster zone,” she said.
The resolution urging the SFPUC to expand public access was introduced by San Francisco supervisors John Avalos, Scott Wiener and David Campos earlier this year. It is nonbinding, and any final decision on access to the watershed will be made by the SFPUC.
Despite a bid by Avalos and Supervisor Aaron Peskin to hold the resolution over another week for further discussion with stakeholder groups, the committee voted 2-1 to forward the resolution to the full board for a vote on Sept. 27. Supervisors Wiener and Malia Cohen voted in support, with Peskin opposed.
How about getting them to allow bicycles in Fayette Park which won’t affect wildlife or water quality?
http://mv-voice.com/news/2016/02/03/a-city-park-that-bans-bikes-and-trees
Crystal Springs reservoir has a beautiful mystic quality with the morning mist or the clouds rolling over the mountains. On a sunny day it looks so inviting with the sparkling water. I have imagined many times fishing off the banks. There must be some HUGE fish in there. That being said, I think they should leave it untouched. An area for the animals and clean water. I love hiking too, but there are so many places we can hike already. Do we really need to mess up the last pristine area we have around here?
They would be using existing trails in order to access some of the most historic yet unseen areas around on a LIMITED basis. Currently PUC trucks drive these roads daily and the area is used for the recreation of PUC big wigs, their families as well as the upper end of SF politics. Several mayors have spoken about their private fishing trips on the lakes with PUC members, who also live there in the few beautiful old houses along the lake …at tax payer expense.
This is public land that has some of the most historic sites around regarding the earliest days of SF and they won’t even let people walk on the already existing trails and truck driven roads which are set way back from the lakes.
The plan does NOT call for any water contact, but for use of existing trails to areas like Pillarcitos dam (1860).
It’s really sad that a few in the PUC can use this beautiful and historic resource for their own private parties, paid for by the tax payer, while they prop up the keep out sign to the rest of us.
The same environment with the same wildlife and plant life exists directly south of this area and is indeed thriving even with humans allowed in. There is no special animal or plant in the watershed that does not exist next to it. The ONLY thing in the watershed that does not exist outside are all the historical sites from the early water days of SF. Oh, that and PUC execs in their fishing boats telling you that even though it is public land, you can’t come in.
Oh no! We can’t allow commoners to trespass in the King’s forest! The Crystal Springs watershed is a private playground and gated community for San Francisco’s elite and politically connected; they shouldn’t have to share their special place with lowly peasants.
There is a VERY good page on FB call “Open the SF Watershed” that has many great photos of this historic area as well as information on how to help.
It has absolutely been freely use by those in power, sometimes with their families, but they insist if people walk on the already established and well worn trail system, that it will somehow cause harm. meanwhile the PUC’s 4×4 pickups drive the roads and trails daily.
They’ve been stalling the suggested opening for decades using false reasoning and excuses. I think the public should be able to hike on those same trails.
The Peninsular Watershed is not a park or a recreation area. We already have over 60,000 acres of open space park lands across the peninsular ,many of these areas right adjacent to the watershed, with easy access.
We, the greatest apes of all, Homo sapiens do not have the right to disturb the rare endangered animals and plants that are uniquely present in this watershed.
The Bay Are is adding an additional 100,000 people every year as we approach the conditions seen in India, China and large cities like New York. Some areas of land should be protected from excessive encroachments by mindless, self-serving humans. WE need to become more mindful and humble in our relations with other beings.
There are NO species existing in the watershed that do not exist outside the area. Peter, Please state which species you are under the impression exist only in the watershed.
Regarding it’s original intentions, trails and infrastructure were originally built with the intention of public use. The trails and roads are already built and apparently driving PUC trucks around on them all day causes no issues at all, but people walking on them would. They even have modern brown mileage markers to the points of interest at the trail heads. Anyway, the below was taken from the Open the SF Watershed FB page:
“Before 1930 the road network our Watershed was open to the public and managed by the Spring Valley Water Company. Because of the Raker Act, in 1930 the SF Water Dept took over control and started closing down access to the public. Then in 1934 the SF Gov’t built a jail in the northernmost part of the Watershed property it acquired.
Some say that “the Watershed has never been considered as a park”. That is wholly untrue. Bours Bourn (SVWC) installed amenities to the public some built to resemble structures out of antiquity and at great expense (four headed fountains for example). Since 1930 there have been many efforts from the public to integrate the Watershed property into the surrounding open space parkland system. Including in 1964 when there was a strong effort in the CA State legislature to turn it into a State Park. All efforts were fought and shot down by the SF Water Dept who had an internal policy to keep the public as unaware as possible about what exists within the Watershed. “
If there are trucks driving the dirt roads and water company employees currently enjoying the trails, it does not seem right that the people actually footing there bill for this place are locked out from at least hiking on the upper trails. The area south, on the exact same ridge, is still wonderfully natural and minimally impacted by the users there. I think the users of those areas who make the effort to get there, are a generally more respectful group and cause less impact than other recreational groups in other areas.