Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sharp Park Recycled Water topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFPUC delays vote on Sharp Park recycled‑water MOU after heavy public opposition
Summary
The commission voted to continue action on an MOU to assign operations and mitigation responsibilities for recycled‑water delivery to Sharp Park Golf Course after extensive public comment raised endangered‑species and land‑use concerns and urged contract flexibility.
The commission debated whether to authorize the general manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with the Recreation and Park Department to apply recycled water at Sharp Park Golf Course in Pacifica. Staff described the proposed business terms: North Coast County Water District will construct and deliver recycled water, Rec & Park would pay O&M (a wheeling‑type charge) and would assume mitigation and inspection responsibilities currently assigned to the city under agreements with North Coast.
Steve Ritchie, assistant manager for water, said the annual cost of recycled water for the golf course would be about $5,200 per acre‑foot and that the project would substitute recycled water for roughly 30 million gallons a year of Hetch Hetchy potable water. He noted the MOU would transfer to Rec & Park the list of retrofit, training and testing obligations presently in the North Coast agreement.
Public testimony was strongly opposed to adopting the MOU at this time. Neil Desai of the National Parks Conservation Association said the golf course falls within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area boundary and that Fish and Wildlife Service has previously documented harms to endangered species. Barbara Beth of Wild Equity Institute and other speakers warned that 75–80% of the recycled water is presently designated for Sharp Park and urged contract terms that permit redirecting supply if the park’s future use changes. ‘‘This vote is premature because we still have no resolution on the future of Sharp Park,’’ Beth said.
Commissioners discussed the risk of creating a ‘‘white elephant’’ if land uses change and whether the PUC should assign responsibility to Rec & Park now or wait for Rec & Park to act first. Several commissioners said the PUC had already committed its capital share to the recycled‑water plant to preserve stimulus funding and that delaying could jeopardize those funds. After discussion the commission moved to continue the item until after the Recreation & Park Commission acts; the motion passed by voice vote.
The commission did not execute the MOU and instead continued the item to a later meeting timed after Rec & Park’s consideration so both commissions can act.
