Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recycled Water Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFPUC authorizes Pacifica recycled‑water amendments, MOU with Rec & Park amid Sharp Park controversy
Summary
The commission approved an amendment to take capacity rights in the Pacifica recycled‑water project (to enable an SRF loan) and an MOU assigning Rec & Park responsibility for irrigation and mitigation at Sharp Park; environmental groups warned the action could foreclose restoration options before an EIR is complete.
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission approved two items related to the Pacifica recycled‑water project and Sharp Park: (1) an amendment to the agreement with the North Coast County Water District to change SFPUC’s role from owning facilities to owning 78% of the project’s capacity rights (item 11); and (2) a memorandum of understanding (item 12) delegating operation and maintenance of irrigation systems and project‑related mitigation at Sharp Park to the Recreation and Park Department.
Staff explained the rationale: changing from facility ownership to capacity rights allows the North Coast district to obtain a State Revolving Fund loan without obligating SFPUC to sign the loan. The MOU clarifies downstream responsibilities, training and routine testing requirements, and who will be responsible for retrofits to accept recycled water if the project proceeds.
Public comment was sharply divided. Supporters including the San Francisco Public Golf Alliance and some Rec & Park advocates said recycled water is a logical use for Sharp Park irrigation and that the MOU merely assigns responsibilities if the project occurs. Opponents — including environmental organizations and scientists — urged delay until the Recreation and Park Department completes an environmental impact review and finalizes the Laguna Salata restoration plan, arguing the recycled‑water construction could limit future habitat restoration options and raise endangered‑species and seawall questions.
Commissioners acknowledged the competing considerations. They noted the Recreation and Park Commission has repeatedly affirmed keeping an 18‑hole golf course in the near term and that the Board of Supervisors retains ultimate land‑use authority. The commission’s approval does not substitute for Rec & Park’s environmental review obligations or a Board decision.
Vote and effect: The commission approved both items by voice vote. Staff and city attorneys noted that the amendment enabling an SRF loan requires final agreement with North Coast and that the loan and amendment would proceed only if the parties reach mutually acceptable terms.
