Citizens' Advisory Committee
Water Subcommittee

Minutes

April 23, 2008
1155 Market Street, San Francisco
4th Floor Conference Room
5:00- 7:00pm

Jennifer Clary – Chair	Lurilla Harris
Tim Colen	Robert Varni
Art Jensen
Richard Hansen

Staff: David Behar, Maureen Barry, Suzanne Gautier, Michele Liapes

Order of Business

Roll Call:
Present:  Clary, Colen, Dawdy, Varni, Jensen
Absent:  Hansen, Harris     

1.  Call to Order
The Meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m.

2.  Approval of Minutes 
Motion to approve minutes of March 26, 2008
Approved with one correction:  Unanimous

3.  Announcements by members and reports on other meetings

Art Jensen expressed his appreciation for the agenda format.

Jennifer Clary announced an upcoming Water Quality Planning Meeting on Tuesday, April 29, at Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant.

4.  Public comment—matters within Subcommittee’s scope, not on today’s agenda.
No comments from the public were made at this time.  

5. Staff Presentation—Development of WSIP Branding Campaign

The order of agenda items was modified, so that this item, formerly 7 on the agenda, was advanced to precede agenda items 5 and 6.  

Maureen Barry, WSIP Communications Manager, and consultant Molly Duggan introduced preliminary plans for creating a brand representing the WSIP that would be instantly recognizable, including website updates, graphics, and print publications that could range from newsletters to door hangers. Ms. Barry passed out questionnaires soliciting comments from stakeholders on what they thought about WSIP. She urged Subcommittee members to let her know if they had comments on either the WSIP or the questions in the survey. 

In response to a comment from Jennifer Clary about the need to define internal and external stakeholders, consultant Molly Duggan confirmed that the questionnaires would be different for the two audiences. 

Other Subcommittee recommendations were that people wanted to know what the WSIP was, and that it would be a mistake to oversell today.

Ms. Duggan said that what the public wanted to know is how the WSIP would affect them. 

Ms. Barry said that they would present preliminary proposed materials at the next meeting. 

6. Staff Presentation: Lake Merced Watershed Plan Update—David Behar

David Behar delivered a powerpoint presentation addressing land use alternative possibilities for the Sunset Circle, Harding Road, and John Muir Drive. In his introduction, he said that the community-based Lake Merced Task Force had asked the City to undertake the plan process, and that a principle objective had been to ensure that the process was transparent throughout. The presentation included the following main points:

• The process is currently in phase II, scheduled for January – July 2008. This phase has addressed the exploration of recreation alternatives, the development of a comprehensive long-range vision for Lake Merced and the facilitation of work group, advisory committee and community meetings.

• Evaluation criteria for proposed recreation uses included dependence on the lake environs, compatibility with natural resources, the extent to which a use complements or supports other uses, and the effect on increasing general public use. 

• The summary evaluation of different recreation activities ranked those activities into three categories:  those most consistent with plan criteria, those somewhat consistent with plan criteria, and those least consistent with plan criteria.

• The development of preliminary directions that had been referred to the plan consultant had been based on community and staff feedback.

• Sample manifestations of those directions included a nature center and a boathouse/aquatic center. 

• Mr. Behar presented three possible alternative land use scenarios for three principal Lake Merced parcels—Harding Road, John Muir Drive, and Sunset Circle. Public comments on the plan alternatives or general plan direction are welcome and can be submitted by May 9.

• To submit comments, mail to Suzanne Gautier, SFPUC Communications, 1155 Market St., 11th floor, San Francisco 94103, or email lakemerced@sfwater.com. 

In discussion between the Subcommittee and Mr. Behar, Tim Colen, also a Lake Merced Task Force member, explained the task force’s wish to have the management of Lake Merced transferred from the Recreation and Park Department to the PUC.

Art Jensen asked about the function of the lake water, the legal limit to the master plan process activity, and whether proposed activities could support themselves financially.  Mr. Behar answered that the lake water is a nonpotable emergency water supply that could be used for firefighting, that the current plan activity was the creation of a vision, and that activities may not yet be able to support themselves financially, but there were possibilities of public/private partnerships. 

Jennifer Clary commented that an example of a failure was Harding Park Golf Course, that Sunset Circle would be a better location for a Nature Center because of its public transportation access, and that she was opposed to the idea of private clubs operating on public property.

Mr. Colen commented that contracts with Harding Park were locked in and long term. He emphasized the importance of Lake Merced as a watershed, a park, and an asset in the PUC portfolio. 

Chair Clary opened the discussion to the public.

Member of the public David Golden expressed concern that the Lake Merced Watershed Management Plan did not address the sewer pipe that currently crosses the lake and its water supply.  Mr. Behar commented that the water supply would not be drinking water, and that the pipe was beyond the scope of the present vision process. He also cited the expense of removing the pipe. Chair Clary noted that the Sewer System Master Plan process, currently out for comment, was the best place to suggest this pipe be removed or replaced. 

7. Related discussion on Lake Merced Rod & Gun Club

Subcommittee members, staff, and members of the public discussed the occupation of the John Muir Drive parcel by the Lake Merced Rod & Gun Club. Topics included the club’s low membership, an unknown but potentially significant hazardous materials problem, and whether the use of this parcel for shooting should continue as the SFPUC takes over management of the watershed and looks at actions to improve lake levels, water quality, and recreational opportunities. 

Member of the public Fred Tautenhahn, speaking for the Rod & Gun Club, said that the club was a nonprofit organization that was open to members of the public who attended its classes and used its facilities at nominal fees.  Though the membership is currently 300 to 350 members, they are family memberships, including wives and children, so that the actual number is approximately 1200. No one has to qualify for access to the property, people benefit from the club’s classes and instruction, and wheelchair access is available.  He added that approximately 25,000 people use the facilities.  The membership is diverse, and Mr. Tautenhahn cited the diversity of those members who were present at the public meeting on April 22.

Mr. Colen responded that the opposition was not to the members themselves, who were good people.  He said the key issues of concern were compatibility, land valuation, land use, and environmental legacy. He cited a recent citywide Recreation and Park Department Survey about desired recreation uses, in which shooting did not make it onto the list of what respondents wanted. He said that an 11-acre parcel of prime public waterfront land was occupied by a group, half of whose members live outside San Francisco, that the parcel was grossly underutilized since it is used 15 to 18 hours a week for shooting, that there was a long history of environmental contamination from the shooting, and that remediation would be costly.

Robert Varni asked if the incompatible shooting referred to the nearby police range too. He added that the club was a good rent-paying tenant, and suggested that there was other PUC land that could be a mutually acceptable site for a relocation of the club.

Mr. Behar confirmed that the police range was owned by the police and therefore beyond the scope of the watershed master plan. He added that the facility was an indoor one.

David Dawdy said that lead had been removed previously because it was being ingested by ducks on the lake, and that if what remained was buried, it would not harm resources. 

Mr. Behar said that monitoring was under way and new data related to lead in the lake was being evaluated. The PUC is asking the Rod and Gun Club to do a study of the uplands, and  the club has provided a scope of work the PUC is currently reviewing.  He said that, in a previous dredging project in 1985-86, 128 tons of lead had been removed. But in a subsequent study based on interviews with Rod and Gun club members, the conclusion was that 1,485 tons of lead had been shot between 1934 and 1994, when lead was banned. That meant that 1,357 tons of lead still remained in the lake or the land along its shore.

Mr. Jensen commented on the PUC’s practice of selling or leasing land for revenue, he made a distinction between watershed land and other lands, and said that decisions on appropriate use of watershed land should be left to process. 

Mr. Colen recommended that the Water Subcommittee continue to follow the process and determine when it would be appropriate to weigh in. 

Mr. Tautenhahn said that other misconceptions were the references to the low use of the parcel and the empty parking lot.  He said that, even though shooting takes place only 18 hours a week, the site is used all the time for classes, gun instruction, and activities at its facilities, which are rented out at below-market rates.  He said the organization was self sufficient, the members had made improvements themselves, they were willing to cooperate on pollution, they had not shot lead since 1994, and their targets are biodegradable. He also said that the Rod and Gun Club would be the most appropriate neighbor for the police shooting range. He added that he had already offered to negotiate a share of their facilities with another activity that made sense. 

Mr. Behar commented that in the evaluation of uses, the activity of skeet shooting was a focus, along with the safety and compatibility issues, not the Rod and Gun Club as a tenant. 

Mr. Behar asked Mr. Tautenhahn if he would substantiate the claim that the Rod and Gun Club site was used by 25,000 people by providing the records of use.  Mr. Tautenhahn replied that he would.  

Mr. Golden expressed his discomfort with the criteria drafted for the study. He suggested that, in a city review of recreational opportunities in San Francisco, a microscope was being applied to Lake Merced. He added that the Rod and Gun Club added diversity to the scope of recreational activities.

Member of the public David Hudak expressed his concern about noise pollution on the days that Rod and Gun Club shooting took place.  He noted the numbers of people in the Lake Merced area who he had seen wearing ear protection devices, and commented on the potential for hearing loss.  He asked if the PUC could retain a consultant to take measurements.

Mr. Tautenhahn said that the club had taken measurements and that the decibel level was lower than traffic.  He added that police range shooting went on 12 hours a day. 

8. Discussion and possible action regarding a resolution to support the City’s Recycled Water Program.

 The subcommittee considered the proposed resolution . 

Mr. Jensen had several questions, including how much water would be produced, how much offset to Hetch Hetchy water use would result, how much would it cost, and who would pay for it.  He said he could not support the measure until he had the answers to those questions.  He emphasized that he was not against recycled water but that it was only one of many water supply alternatives, and that there were less expensive ways to augment supplies.  He said that he could be willing to support the resolution but that  San Francisco should pay for it.  

Mr. Colen commented that San Francisco was one of eight counties in California that do not recycle, and he cited the lost opportunities for irrigation requirements. 

In further discussion, Subcommittee members made the points that recycled water is a replacement for potable water, the Daly City recycled water project had been done at a substantially lower cost,  that the space for San Francisco’s west side project was more confined than Daly City’s, and that much of the high cost of the San Francisco project was due to the required infrastructure and purple piping.

The committee members revised the language of the 7th paragraph of the resolution. 

Motion to support the attached, revised resolution to support the City’s recycled water program.
Moved:  Colen
Second: Dawdy
Adopted by Acclamation

9.  Discussion and possible action on supporting the filling of vacant opportunities to Rate Fairness Board. 

The Committee members discussed the issue of the long-term vacancies of two of the four public seats on the nine-member Rate Fairness Board.

Motion to support filling these vacancies in the form of letters to the Mayor and Supervisor Peskin. 
Moved: Dawdy
Second:  Jensen
Vote: Unanimous

10. Discussion about future agenda items.

The following items were proposed for future consideration.
a. Discussion of the City’s purple piping regulations
b. A presentation by the SFPUC Water Quality Division.
c. SFPUC Land Management. 

In reference to item c, Mr. Colen said that it would be appropriate for the Subommittee to take a stand on the issue, and that the next public meeting on the Lake Merced Watershed Master Plan would take place in June. He said it was a community-driven process, that the public, not the PUC, would make the determination on the best use of the land, and that the CAC Water Subcommittee could have an impact.  He added that eventually the plan would go to the Commission and to the Planning Department for the CEQA process.

Mr. Behar commented that people would need to make a decision on the vision before the CEQA process. He emphasized that the process was going on now, and that opinions were needed. 

For the next Subcommittee meeting Mr. Colen will draft a resolution expressing the Subcommittee position on the Watershed Master Plan, and its role on the process.  He will submit it to Mr. Jensen for review. 

11. Adjournment

The Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.