Marin judge issues tentative ruling in Mount Tam cycling suit
A Marin County judge has issued a tentative ruling that would prevent the Marin Municipal Water District from launching two pilot programs expanding bike access on Mount Tamalpais because of environmental concerns.
Judge Andrew Sweet, who issued the tentative ruling last week, listened to oral arguments from plaintiffs and the district on Nov. 1. Sweet is expected to issue a judgment shortly.
Attorneys for the water district said two separate pilot bike programs are affected: one to open 7 miles of watershed trails to bikes, and a second to also allow class 1, pedal-assisted electric bikes.
“If operating congruently, the projects do have overlap,” Adriane Mertens, a spokesperson for the water district, said in an email. “The District explained this to the court to ensure this clarification was made as the court considers whether or not either project can proceed pending a decision.”
The plaintiffs were granted a temporary restraining order on Oct. 3 blocking the district from allowing mountain bikers and e-bike riders on the select trails. The order came one day before the two-year trial program was set to begin.
Both programs remain on hold until a further ruling is issued by the court, Mertens said. Non-motorized bikes remain restricted to fire roads, and e-bikes are not allowed on the district property.
Bike access in the Mount Tamalpais watershed has been a polarizing issue for over 30 years. The pilot programs are controversial, with critics citing safety and environmental impacts as their main concerns.
After about six years of discussions over how to provide cyclists more enjoyment of the mountain, the water board unanimously approved the pilot programs in September.
The plaintiffs in the case are the Marin Chapter of the California Native Plant Society, the Marin Audubon Society and the Marin Conservation League.
The lawsuit, filed Sept. 26, claims the pilot programs would be bad for the mountain. The suit states the water district failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act by forgoing an analysis of the potential disturbances to the habitat from bike riding.
In the suit, the group says the project area “contains critical biological resources, including dozens of rare plant species and plant communities, the federally listed Northern spotted owl and up to eight special-status bat species.”
“The addition of mountain bikes and e-bikes to these trails and roads for an indefinite two year period has the potential to harm these resources, disturbing owl nest sites and activity centers, trampling scarce and rare plant populations … and disturbing sensitive bat colonies due to the high pitch sound of the e-bikes’ mechanical engines,” the suit says.
The restraining order was to remain in place until the court determined whether to issue a preliminary injunction, which would preserve status quo on the mountain until “a final determination on the merits,” according to the tentative ruling.
Now all parties are in a holding pattern.
“There has been no environmental review,” said Barbara Salzman, president of the Marin Audubon Society. “That’s the reason we decided, along with the other organizations, to do this. We want some adequate environmental review.”
Water district officials dispute the claim that they sidestepped the state’s environmental review mandates.
Bicycle advocacy groups remain disappointed in the legal action, saying that the plaintiffs had been part of the planning for years developing recreation programs on the mountain.
“This is a pattern that they’ve demonstrated for decades,” said Vernon Huffman, executive director at the Access4Bikes Foundation. “This is a pattern of obstruction and unwillingness to share a public resource with one of the largest user groups in the public, even when district staff have determined it’s environmentally appropriate.”
Huffman said he believes mountain biking on single-track trails is safer for trail users than biking on fire roads. Single-track trails force a rider to slow down and make more controlled movements, Huffman said, whereas fire roads, which are much wider, enable riders to pick up speed.
Huffman said he’s also frustrated that ratepayer dollars are being spent on legal fees.
On Wednesday, the district’s board authorized an amendment to a contract for outside legal counsel with Best, Best & Krieger LLP to assist in the case. The original contract, issued in June for environmental law and litigation services, was not to exceed $75,000. The amendment approved Wednesday adds $200,000 for support in the litigation.