Minutes of meeting with Pat Martel, July 2, 2002

Notes from 7/2/02 meeting with Patricia Martel, SFPUC General Manager
Purpose of Meeting: To assure the timely implementation of short-term measures to improve the health of the lake, and to accommodate recreational uses while assuring the protection of shoreline habitat.
AGENDA
1) Introductions
2) Interests represented
3) Status of response to Commissioner Normandy's request for a report on short-term solutions
4) Status of the wildlife study
5) Need for a shoreline maintenance plan
6) Proposed time table for water additions to precede chloramination
7) Enhancing communication between the PUC and the public re Lake Merced
8) Next steps
City representatives in attendance:
Michael Carlin (San Francisco PUC Chief of Planning)
Joshua Milstein (San Francisco Deputy City Attorney)
Patrick Sweetland (Daly City DWWR Director)
Community members in attendance:
John Plummer (Friends of Lake Merced)
Dick Allen (Golden Gate Hts. Neighborhood Assoc.)
Tim Colen (Greater West Portal Neighborhood Assoc.)
Ruth Gravanis (Sierra Club)
Tony Jones (Friends of Lake Merced)
Dick Morten (SPUR)
Howard Strassner (Sierra Club)
Katie Pilat (Neighborhood Parks Council)
David Dawdy (Merced Manor Property Owners Assoc.)
MEETING DELAY
The meeting was scheduled to start at 4:00. Shortly after 4:00, Michael Carlin announced that Pat Martel had been delayed. He offered that we could begin the meeting without her and he would speak for the PUC to answer some of the questions, or we could wait for her to arrive. The community members decided to wait, since they had requested the meeting specifically to speak with Pat.
UPDATE ON SELECTED AGENDA ITEMS
At about 4:45 it was clear that even if Pat arrived soon, there would not be enough time to hold the meeting. At this point, the community members decided they would like to get updates from Michael on certain agenda items, as long as it was expressly noted that the updates were not seen as a substitute for the meeting they requested.
Item #3
The first item discussed was Agenda item #3. Michael handed out a copy of the memo he had written to the Commissioners in response to Commissioner Normandy’s request for a report on short-term solutions to raise the lake. The memo contains information on the following topics:
1. a summary of information that Joe Scalmanini presented at the 5/30/02 Lake Merced Task Force Meeting on rates and volumes of water needed to raise the lake by 2, 4, 6, and 8 feet
2. the previous environmental review document that permitted short-term water addition to the lake (expired in March 2002)
3. a short update on the Vista Grande stormwater diversion project
Michael told us that the categorical exemption which regulated short-term water addition to the lake from 1997-2002 expired in March, and that a new environmental document, more rigorous than the previous one, was needed. He said water addition could happen this fall (2003), assuming that three prerequisite conditions are met:
1. the environmental document is redone
2. the wildlife study (to study impacts of raising lake level on wildlife) is completed
3. the water addition could be tied to drawing down reservoir levels (in fall, preparing for winter rains)
John Plummer asked if the wildlife study needed to be completed to add water just to maintain the lake level. Michael answered that they had to file an environmental document to add any water at all to the lake. John pointed out that if the water level didn’t change (water was added to maintain the current level to compensate for seasonal lake level drops), the wildlife impact would be minimal and the study wouldn’t need to be very detailed. Michael responded that they would still have to allow 30 days for public review and comment.
The community members (Dick Allen in particular) stressed that first and foremost they wanted to maintain the lake level. Before taking the time to do the environmental review necessary for raising the lake level, the community’s first interest was to keep the lake from dropping a couple more feet below the current level, which would create public safety issues for some existing uses (e.g. carrying crew boats down even steeper ramps). Michael responded that this change (from raising to just maintaining the lake level) represented a change in the whole project purpose.
Vista Grande update
Someone from the community asked for an update on the Vista Grande stormwater diversion project. Patrick answered that the construction of the pilot facilities is complete, and the 2002-2003 winter will be the pilot year. If that goes well, the full facilities would be built during the summer of 2003 and stormwater could be delivered to the lake by the 2003-2004 winter.
Item #4
Ruth Gravanis brought the discussion back to the agenda and asked for an update on item #4 – the status of the wildlife study. Michael answered that the PUC had scopes of work from two consultants and were zeroing in on one consultant. He said that a task order could be filled within a couple of weeks.
Ruth asked for a description of the involvement of Rec & Park’s Natural Areas Program in moving forward with the wildlife study. Michael answered that the PUC would coordinate with them as always. John Plummer said that the PUC did not coordinate with Rec & Park “as always,” and referred to the 1998 wildlife study, on which the PUC did not involve Rec & Park. He reminded us that this study was widely criticized by the environmental community because it did not accomplish the impacts on wildlife of raising the lake level. Josh Milstein said that coordination would have to happen this time. At this point (5:00 pm) Josh left the meeting. Ruth asked for a copy of the wildlife study scopes of work being considered that she could share with the Lake Merced Task Force Nature Committee, which Michael said would be no problem.
Ruth then asked for a timeline for when all documents could be finished and water could be added to the lake. Michael answered that work for the wildlife could start in 2-3 weeks, the study would take “a couple months,” the study would be posted and have a 30-day public review and appeal, and some staff time would be needed to incorporate public comment into the document. In summary, the new environmental document could be finished by roughly October, and water, if available, could be added to the lake by October.
Supplemental water conflict between Daly City conjunctive use study and adding water to lake:
Michael and Patrick Sweetland said that any water going to Lake Merced would conflict with the availability of supplemental water for the Daly City conjunctive use agreement. Patrick pointed out that the Daly City agreement is supposed to be the model for similar agreements with San Bruno and California Water Service Company. So if the PUC can’t deliver enough supplemental water to make the Daly City conjunctive use program a success, the other cities will be less likely to enter into similar agreements with the PUC.
Patrick said that Daly City would need a total of about 5 million gallons per day (mgd) of Hetch Hetchy water for conjunctive use (an increase of 1.4 mgd more than their current 3.6 mgd) to achieve goal of using Hetch Hetchy water for 80% of Daly City supply. Daly City would take all but 1 well (4 out of 5?) out of service.
Katie Pilat commented that the community really didn’t have a sense of how much “supplemental” water might be available in a given year. She said that she submitted this request to Michael by email on June 10, 2002, and has not yet received a response. She said that without this kind of information, she didn’t have a sense of whether or not there is enough water to fulfill Daly City’s conjunctive use agreement and add water to the lake in years when there is “supplemental” water available.
END OF MEETING
By about 5:20, many of the community members had to leave. A smaller discussion at the end, mainly between Dick Allen, Dick Morten, and Michael Carlin, focused on the idea of crafting the environmental documents to break the water addition into phases – one in which water was added only to maintain current levels and could be implemented much more quickly since there would essentially be no impact on wildlife, and a second which would consist of adding water to actually begin raising the lake level. Michael said that he now understood what the community members were driving at during the course of the main meeting, and thought this phased approach could be incorporated into the environmental documents fairly easily. He thought the PUC could get approval for maintaining the lake level more quickly, without precluding actually raising the lake level once all the environmental impact documentation was complete.
Pat Martel did arrive finally, at around 5:30. At that point, the meeting was more or less broken up with only a few community members remaining to ask follow-up questions regarding points brought up in the main discussion.
Katie Pilat, Recorder
July 7, 2002