SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

XII. SUMMARY OF COMMMENTS AND RESPONSESB. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSESM. CULTURAL RESOURCES/SUNOL WATER TEMPLEComment M-1: “The San Francisco PUC has recently committed to the restoration of the watertemple on those grounds. They’ve already put a big chunk of dollars into it and are going to domore.We cannot understand for the life of us how the same bureaucracy could either consider stripmining next to a monument that should by all rights be a national, historic monument.We feel that San Francisco has stalled in seeking national status for the award of temple becauseit would then be under the roles of the Department of the Interior, which absolutely in black andwhite, forbids mining anywhere near such monuments.” (Bree James – Pleasanton PublicMeeting)Comment M-2: “The historical Willis Polk Water Temple that is presently being restored bySan Francisco for a considerable sum of money will be subjected to the indignity of a strip mineoperating next to it.What a travesty it is to subject this revere, historical landmark to such a harsh ugly environment.People will be hampered from fully enjoying the monument and its nearby picnic grounds.”(Patricia Stillman – Pleasanton Public Meeting)Comment M-3: “In 1994, the EIR produced a report for SMP-29 [sic]. I don’t believe we hadan opportunity to do much on the SMP-32 report before it was approved, but we came, as acommunity, out with the same issues we’re still facing today and when I saw this recent EIR, Iwas flabbergasted that it was even worse than the one that was put out by Alameda County.In the last six years since 1994 the community has worked with San Francisco Water and we’vebeen on this like back and forth committee, back and forth communication about how we couldwork together and they’ve been dangling the cookie of the Water Temple and that’s where we’vebeen pushing our energies about getting the Water Temple restored because it is a nationalmonument.Alameda County has sat on making Niles Canyon an aesthetic corridor which would also preventmining along the side of it. There’s been these sorts of issues that we’ve been talking about backand forth for the six-year period, that’s why it’s such a shock to put that amount of money in thetemple is like throwing it away. You can’t use it for a wedding site. You can’t use it for picnics.No one would like to be there. It’s the dust and sound of unsightly noise.” (Maryanne Canaparo –Pleasanton Public Meeting)Response: Regarding elevating the state and federal status of the temple, during preparation ofthe Management Plan, it was determined that the temple was eligible for listing on the NationalRegister of Historic Places, which this EIR analysis took into account.NOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan C&R.101 ESA / 930385