CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOCOMMISSION ON THE ENVIRONMENTPOLICY COMMITTEE
REGULAR MEETING DRAFT MINUTES Monday, April 13, 2009, 5:00 P.M. 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall, Room 421San Francisco, CA 94102
COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Commissioners Johanna Wald (Chair), Ruth Gravanis (Vice-Chair), Jane MarieFrancis Martin ORDER OF BUSINESS
1. Call to Order and Roll Call. The Commission on the Environment Policy Committee Meeting convened at 5:05 p.m. Present: Committee Chair Wald, Vice-Chair Gravanis and Commissioner Martin.
2. Approval of Minutes of the February 9, 2009 Policy Committee Regular Meeting. (Discussion and Action) Upon Motion by Vice-Chair Gravanis and second by Commissioner Martin, the February 9, 2009 Meeting Minutes were approved without objection (AYES: Chair Wald, Vice-Chair Gravanis and Commissioner Martin) (Explanatory Document: February 9, 2009 Approved Minutes)
3. Public Comments: Members of the public may address the Commission on matters that are within the Commission’s jurisdiction and are not on today’s agenda. There was no public comment at this time.
Items 5 and 6 were heard before Item 4.
4. Energy Efficient, Light Emitting Diode (LED) Streetlights Pilot Project. Sponsor: Commissioner Martin; Speaker: Ms. Barbara Hale, Assistant General Manager of Power, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) (Informational Presentation and Discussion)
Ms. Hale reported that San Francisco’s streetlights are operated by the SFPUC and are maintained by either PUC or PG&E depending on who owns them. Of the 42,000 streetlights in San Francisco, PUC owns and operates about 23,000, and the balance is owned and operated by PG&E. Regardless of who owns the streetlights, the power that powers them is PUC power, and PUC pays PG&E to maintain lights they own.
Ms. Hale explained that there is a 30 to 50% savings through changing out lights to a more efficient method using new technologies such as LED’s. There is a diversity of streetlights in San Francisco, and only some are compatible with an LED retrofit because of the nature of the pole. Some streetlights would not be changed because they are unique and historic, and others can be readily retrofitted with existing technologies. Approximately 17,600 of the 23,000 streetlights that PUC owns are cobra head style streetlights, which is the style that is readily available for retrofit. A small pilot project was started in partnership with PG&E to change out lights by the Main Library and in front of the PG&E Beale Street headquarters. An electronic survey that gathered opinion about what people thought about the light quality and their experience when driving showed that there was a strong improvement in terms of driver and pedestrian visibility, glare, brightness, and overall appearance.
Ms. Hale stated that the benefits of LED streetlights include energy efficiency improvement (30 to 50% is being seen), reduction of maintenance costs, better light quality, and longer life. It was reported that there is a higher upfront cost but the lights last longer. Commissioner Martin inquired whether manufacturers issue a warranty for a specific amount of time. Ms. Hale stated that it would depend on the manufacturer. It was explained that because of PUC’s low-cost electricity, pay-back periods may be in twelve to fifteen years for new installations and 20-25 years for retrofits. It was explained that it may be more cost effective for other cities and be a quicker payback because PUC’s electricity costs are so low. It is cost effective for PUC and it is a good payback, but because PUC’s electricity is so inexpensive it doesn’t equate quite as well. It was explained that PUC is getting better at controlling light trespass so not as much light is escaping into the sky and impairing ability to see the night sky. Also, with the broader rebuild of lighting systems, you can space the poles wider apart and thereby lower the overall cost. Commissioner Wald inquired whether that would mean that there would be empty light poles when retrofitting. Ms. Hale explained that when a developer is redoing a block, not as many streetlights would be required, there would be less clutter on the street, and less street furniture, without reducing the light quality and benefits.
Ms. Hale reported that the pilot that was completed recently included installation of an additional 50 streetlights in the Tenderloin District. There was an area in the neighborhood with high cost streetlights that PUC proposed for retrofit from funds in their budget allocated to lighting improvements. This project would take the LED test to the next level. The area was identified as a high-crime area and PUC worked with the Police Department on this effort to improve lighting. Ms. Hale reported that anytime there are crimes, data points analyze the street lighting environment. The Police Department collects this information and reports back to the PUC regularly. The Tenderloin project is also a pilot that will look at lighting control technologies and the light fixture itself. It is hoped that the pilot will show that the LED conversion is a smart conversion to make, and that smart controller technologies would lower PUC’s operational and maintenance costs. It was explained that smart controllers allow you to look on a computer and see that a streetlight has diminished performance rather than someone calling in a report to 311.
Committee Chair Wald inquired whether there are plans to move from pilot to operational projects and inquired about future plans with PG&E. Ms. Hale reported that data would be collected to start a capital improvement program request for retrofitting PUC-owned lights. PUC already knows that the LED light fixtures have a higher upfront cost than the older style, and that funds are not available to do large-scale lighting retrofits quickly, so a neighborhood by neighborhood approach to retrofitting that fits PUC’s financial capacity will be taken. The PUC’s Power Enterprise does not have the ability to borrow funds and are not a credit-rated enterprise, so all projects are expensed and have competing uses from net operating revenues as well as continuing to maintain the Hetch Hetchy hydro-system that allows PUC to produce the revenues. It is anticipated that additional funds would be made available through other programs and not through operating revenues and barring the ability to borrow funds, that it would be a slow-paced retrofit. Since it is a new technology and there are not that many competitors in the market providing this technology at this time, having a slow-paced project in the beginning is not a bad idea from a business perspective.
Chair Wald stated that at some point it may not be a new technology and recommended thinking about programs that could incentivize retrofitting, such as a street light improvement district. Ms. Hale stated that the SFPUC Commission has been presented with ideas on how to interact with the development community in San Francisco in terms of establishing street lighting policy requirements so there can be an enforcement mechanism. As more LED streetlight fixtures become available in the market, it will be more of a well received response. Because the options at this point are so narrow, it might be too soon to go toward that approach. Ms. Hale reported that a lot of calls that are received are not only about street lighting, but about pedestrian and path lighting, so PUC is holding discussions with the Department of Public Works (DPW) to address community concerns.
Ms. Hale reported that there are competing technologies that include wireless and hardwire. When the communication is hard wired, PUC really needs PG&E as a partner since PUC does not own their own distribution system. PG&E is going to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to request a set fee to establish the type of service for that type of smart controller program, so there will be a set rate throughout California for PG&E service territory. To the extent that becomes available, it will factor into the decision about what technology to use and what the most cost effective method would be as there is an added cost. A dialogue has been started with PG&E and is part of the LED pilot to determine whether PG&E would convert the poles that they own.
Commissioner Martin inquired whether light pollution and bird migration has been captured in light trespass. Ms. Hale stated that would be one of the benefits of the LED conversion. Mr. Cal Broomhead, Department of the Environment Energy Manager, reported that the lights that are being replaced have mercury and LED do not. Commissioner Martin recommended combining utility undergrounding projects with light pole retrofitting at the same time. Ms. Hale stated that would be a natural conversion opportunity for PUC. Commissioner Martin inquired whether post top street lights are considered retrofittable. Ms. Hale reported that there are some manufacturers coming out with post-top compatible LED lighting, but there is not that much on the market now. However, it is expected that new products will become available since manufacturers know there is a demand. Ms. Hale explained that part of the challenge is that the development community likes the more attractive post-style pole and lights. Policy statements are being worked on with the SFPUC Commission and DPW to address these issues, light trespass, and lighting selection.
Commissioner Martin asked if part of the policy language that would be presented to the SFPUC Commission would be dark sky compatible. Commissioner Martin stated that there are new products that are specifically designed to address light pollution. Ms. Hale stated that she would ask staff to make sure that is part of the dialogue with lighting manufacturers and distributors. Commissioner Martin reported that the International Dark Skies Association on their website has a list of manufacturers who have a list of products they are promoting.
Vice-Chair Gravanis asked if a written list of criteria is available for selection of next pilot projects, e.g. selection of blocks where light pollution is an exceptional problem. Ms. Hale explained that she is conscious of light pollution as a significant issue, but the higher priority is neighborhoods where crime is an issue, and indicated that a list of neighborhoods is not yet available. Chair Wald asked whether the Environment Commission might have a list of neighborhoods other than downtown where light pollution is a serious issue. Commissioner Martin stated the lighting around San Francisco’s parks. Commissioner Gravanis indicated that the Audubon Society might have a list.
Vice-Chair Gravanis indicated that it is her understanding that DPW selects the actual fixtures, not PUC. Ms. Hale reported that by City Charter PUC chooses the actual fixtures, and DPW brings anything they want in the street to PUC for approval. Vice-Chair Gravanis recommended that an effort be made to revise the lights catalog as it contains bad examples in terms of light pollution and trespass. Vice-Chair Gravanis also recommended retrofitting the pole top with some sort of shield or painting the glass so the light doesn’t shoot straight up. Ms. Hale stated that citizens are supportive of street lighting at the highest wattage and have a lot of different views about street lighting in the City, so an effort is being made to work with DPW to go through the street light policy statements to make sure efficiency, light trespass, operation, and maintenance costs are policy priorities. PUC can’t practically afford to have a large binder of options and explained that there is a lot of diversity of opinion on what is needed and preferred from one neighborhood to another. It was explained that an approach would not be recommended in advance of neighborhood outreach and rewrite of a policy. The SFPUC Commission was presented with a presentation on street lighting and told that a policy statement would be brought back so the City can have a clearer direction in order to be responsive to community concerns.
Commissioner Martin inquired whether there is an opportunity for educating the public and including environmental benefits so they are making informed decisions. Ms. Hale explained that there would be a community outreach component. Commissioner Martin inquired whether a block would be able to raise funds and have PUC provide the installation. Ms. Hale stated that conceptually, if citizens want to provide the funding to provide services, the PUC would be amenable. Commissioner Martin recommended that the SFPUC Commission create a forum for accommodating that type of request.
Vice-Chair Gravanis inquired as to what extent the PUC has been working with the Better Streets program to integrate all of the lighting issues with issues such as planting, bicycles, and swales. Ms. Hale explained that PUC is holding discussions with Better Streets program staff. Commissioner Gravanis inquired whether there was a timetable set for a pilot pedestrian lighting program. Ms. Hale explained that dialogue has just been started with DPW staff on pedestrian lighting in order to arrive at a City-family solution, so a time schedule is not yet available. Ms. Hale was thanked for her thorough and comprehensive presentation.
5. Urban Environmental Accord Action 8: Urban Design: Treasure Island Redevelopment Project Update. Sponsor: Vice-Chair Gravanis. Speaker: Mr. Michael Tymoff, Project Manager, Office of Economic and Workforce Development (Informational Presentation and Discussion)
Vice-Chair Gravanis reported that the Department of the Environment in 2006 was involved in assisting in the development of a Sustainability Plan for Treasure and Yerba Buena Islands and stated that a status update would be presented at today’s meeting. Mr. Tymoff introduced himself as working for the Mayor’s Office on behalf of the Treasure Island Development Authority (TIDA) and introduced Mr. Mike Martin, Development Program Manager, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, who has been working in conjunction with TIDA on infrastructure plans for the Island.
Ms. Johanna Partin, Renewable Energy Program Manager, Department of the Environment presented explanatory documents: TI Geothermal Designs, TI Heat Pumps Report, TI Map Conceptual Land Use, URS Treasure Island Heat Pumps Memorandum) and reported that these documents consist of Treasure Island’s Water Source Heat Pumps Pre Feasibility Study by URS and Timmons Design Engineers, a brief presentation on the results of the study, as well as a subsequent memo on permitting requirements around the recommendations that were made in the study. Ms. Partin explained that URS and Timmons Design Engineers were asked to look at ground and water source heat pump opportunities at the inhabited portion of Treasure Island to identify opportunities for geothermal heat pump technologies that might be beneficial to the Island in terms of cost, economics, energy use and offsetting carbon as a result of those installations. The four geothermal options that were reviewed include (1) Bay Coupled Open Loop unitary heat pump; (2) Bay Coupled Open Loop Building Level heat pump; (3) Bay Coupled Closed Loop level heat pump; and (4) Ground Coupled Closed Loop Vertical Bore heat pump. It was reported that the closed loop systems (3 and 4) were rejected due to construction and operation infeasibility. The focus was on the first two systems, and the conclusion was that the second was the most cost effective option if the decision is made to go with a bay coupled geothermal heat system; however, there are permitting difficulties. The study, Tables 11-13 and 15, show the estimated annual energy use for the different systems that were reviewed and associated costs. It was explained that while the bay coupled heat pump with a plant at each building was the recommended approach if geothermal is decided upon at Treasure Island, it also would be the hardest system to permit. The other recommendation made by URS and Timmons was to possibly pursue Variable Refrigerant Flow System (VRF systems), described on page 4 of the report, a conventional boiler system that would be a more efficient process, not have the permitting difficulties, and would be cost effective.
Mr. Mike Martin reported that a preliminary study concluded that ground source heat pumps were not a feasible technology, that the scope of work would be expanded, and ARUP would be reengaged in analyzing the overall power supply for the Island. It was explained that the current thinking is that ground source heat pumps would not be feasible from a permitting standpoint and timing for final project approvals and the CEQA document. An analysis would be done on what the impact is in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, identifying other technologies available in order to reduce demand, and methodologies to reach the long-term goal of producing more energy on the Island during peak hours than would actually be used. Commissioner Martin suggested that a cogeneration plant be considered.
Committee Chair Wald inquired about the project schedule. Mr. Martin reported that the Draft EIR would be completed by December 2009, and final project approvals, e.g., Certified EIR, the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, and the Disposition and Development Agreement would be secured by mid 2010.
Public Comment:
Mr. Alex Lantsberg stated that PG&E reported that at the old Hunters Point Power Plant, between 50 and 75 gallons of chlorine and other chemicals were directly injected into the inflow to keep the pipes clean on a regular basis. It was explained that this process kept the barnacles and all critters from growing in the pipes at that plant. Mr. Lantsberg explained that the City opposed the Mirant permit to use once through cooling at the Potrero Power Plant and questioned whether it would be approved for this project.
Mr. Tymoff explained that everything that has been done to date is based on the 2006 Development Plan and Term Sheet endorsed by the Board of Supervisors and TIDA Board and is building off of the exhibits to the Development Plan, Term Sheets and Sustainability Plan. The Sustainability Plan is not being redrafted at this time and key components are being implemented, primarily around transportation and infrastructure planning, the Yerba Buena Island Habitat Management Plan, and testing of the overall Land Use Plan and Development Program. Mr. Tymoff reported on awards received on this project which include the AIA 2009 Urban Design Honor Award to Skidmore Owens and Merrill for the Master Plan and the Governors Environment and Economic Leadership Award for the sustainable communities category.
Mr. Tymoff reported that new planning work involves responding to climate change and sea level rise, and a geotechnical approach is being studied for Treasure Island. TICD has compiled a peer review panel comprised of experts in geotechnical and seismic work from around the country to review the strategy in relation to sea level rise. An approach has been identified which would involve perimeter improvements and raising the development areas three feet above a baseboard elevation to accommodate sea level rise. A funding mechanism that would levy an assessment on the property owner for long-term improvements is being considered.
Mr. Tymoff reported on transportation planning efforts with the Municipal Transportation Authority (MTA) to finalize MUNI service planning issues around the intermodal facility. It was explained that work is in process with MUNI and the MTA bike group in order to reach an agreement about how to accommodate automobiles, MUNI, AC Transit, shuttle bus service, and at the same time creating a safe pedestrian and bike environment through the shared street concept, which is part of the Better Streets Plan. Discussions are being held with the Mayor’s Office of Disability and the Department of Public Works on acceptance of this street typology per the subdivision codes and regulations. Additional transportation planning efforts are in process with the Streets Working Group, the San Francisco Bike Coalition, and the Department of Public Health (DPH) who has a Caltrans grant for a community based planning effort surrounding the issues of creating a pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment. Their final plan with high level and detailed policy recommendations were just presented to the TIDA Board last month.
Mr. Tymoff reported that work is in process with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) and MTA on establishing ferry service. Skidmore, Owens and Merrill were designated as the lead in Master Plan efforts, and Moffatt and Nichol, and C&D Landscaping would combine efforts to do the planning, design, and engineering at the Ferry Terminal. Mr. Tymoff discussed additional efforts in process that include (1) the Habitat Management Plan in which a Draft Plan would be reviewed by Commissioner Gravanis and a stakeholder group and then would be presented to the Commission on the Environment in mid-summer 2009; (2) the Design and Development Standards, which would be brought to CAB and TIDA in June or July; (3) planned discussions with the Department of Environment and Department of Buildings Inspection (DBI) on Green Building Specifications; and (4) commitment to LEED Gold level and possibly Platinum certification.
Vice-Chair Gravanis asked if there was additional thought on whether the system would use ultra violet versus chemicals for final disinfection. Mr. Tymoff explained that a determination has not been made because there are different issues to consider with respect to the Island’s interplay with the storm water wetlands and how to most efficiently reuse the storm water as opposed to the treated base water and where those things are going to go. Spatial water shed analysis is being done to try to figure that out because the uses of the water will help with an understanding of what the best treatment train would be. At the same time PUC is moving forward with other recycled water projects in the City and wants to make sure that what is done with Treasure Island makes sense with the recycled water program. Vice-Chair Gravanis stated that she heard that it is not legal to transport chlorine on the bay bridge and asked if chemical disinfectants would be barged over if they were to be used. Mr. Tymoff stated that he is not aware of the different approaches. Vice-Chair Gravanis asked who would be recommending those details on sewage treatment. Ms. Tymoff indicated that work is being done with PUC’s engineers and Brown and Caldwell. Vice-Chair Gravanis recommended that a request be made to allow the City’s SFPUC Technical Advisory Committee to get involved in Treasure and Yerba Buena Island’s storm water and wastewater planning efforts.
Mr. Martin reported that he is working with the Mayors Office, TIDA, the developer and their consultants on design concepts on the Island’s different infrastructure systems that include water, wastewater and storm water. After receiving technical design feedback and holding discussions, Letters of Agreement on the Master Plan approach will be prepared for each of these infrastructure systems. Similar discussions are being held on requirements for the power infrastructure on the Island in order to meet renewable energy and sustainability goals. An analysis is being worked on to determine whether SFPUC would be the Island’s retail service provider or PG&E. SFPUC design staff from the Wastewater Enterprise group is reviewing a preliminary conceptual approach for a wastewater treatment plant on the Island.
Vice Chair Gravanis asked what type of coordination there is with storm water and habitat management efforts and whether vegetated swales would be incorporated into the Habitat Plan. Mr. Martin stated that he hopes there would be a joint effort between all parties working on these plans, but indicated that PUC’s focus on the storm water plan is for Treasure Island, not Yerba Buena Island. Vice-Chair Gravanis stated that the opportunities for Low Impact Development (LID) facilities are there, and explained that untreated storm water continues to flow into the bay off Yerba Buena Island, and in some situations there is erosion created from some of the discharge pipes that go down into Clipper Cove that destroys large parts of the beach when runoff comes flushing down every time there is a major rain. Mr. Martin stated that he hopes that the upcoming Constraints and Opportunities Report would include those recommendations and opportunities for integrating storm water management and habitat creation. Commissioner Martin recommended that efforts to mitigate ongoing problems should be made sooner than later and should be petitioned for.
Ms. Bonnie Jones clarified that currently the treatment plant uses sodium hypochlorite, which is like strong household bleach, and explained that gaseous chlorine is not allowed on the Bay Bridge.
Mr. Tymoff reported that a presentation would be scheduled to the Commission on the Habitat Management Plan in June or July.
6. Urban Environmental Accord Action 21: Water: Update on the Sewer System Master Plan. Sponsor: Commissioner Martin; Speakers: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Representative and Mr. Alex Lantsberg, Co-Chair, SF Sustainable Watersheds Alliance (SWAle). (Explanatory Documents: March 3, 2009 SWAle Letter to SFPUC; SWAle Seven Goals of Sewer System Master Plan and Seven Goals of Sewer System Master Plan Summary) (Informational Report and Discussion)
Ms. Alex Lantsberg, Chair of SFPUC’s Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) and Co-Chair SF Sustainable Watersheds Alliance reported that the Commission on the Environment endorsed SWAle’s goals and objectives for the Sewer System Master Plan. In February, PUC staff released a draft summary of the Draft pre-Plan prior to its review by the General Manager and final revision by staff, which raised concerns for CAC members as well as independent members of the public. The CAC is going to be discussing in depth on Thursday how the summary that was released conforms to the goals and objectives of SWAle. In the meanwhile SWAle wrote a letter (see explanatory document above) raising alarm to what was seen as significant shortcuts to the plan.
Mr. Lantsberg explained that the Draft Plan is projected to be released and reviewed by the SFPUC Commission in May. Problems that were identified include 1) Low Impact Development –SWAle asked that there be discreet goals for implementation as well as performance that still needs to be done; (2) there are no reductions of combined sewer overflows—reduction of CSO’s and pollutant loading to the bay and ocean were major concerns; (3) a lack of parity on other environmental benefits and improvements; (4) Cayuga diversion was no longer being considered. Consideration of long term acquisition of property in the corridor should be back on the table because it has significant environmental benefits; and (5) concerns about the rebuild location of the southeast digesters and operations at the southeast sewage treatment plant. It was explained that comments were issued by the Technical Advisory Committee, which is a peer review panel of professors who are advising the PUC on the mechanics, technology, and the overall thrust of the program. Mr. Lantsberg stated that now is the time for bodies and citizens to weigh in and push things in the right direction.
Mr. Tyrone Jue, SFPUC, thanked Mr. Lantsberg for his and the CAC efforts and many hours working on this Plan. It was explained that a lot of folks are focusing on the Master Plan Summary Document which was presented to the CAC in February. That document is a much larger document than the capital program—it is something that is going to be guiding the wastewater system efforts in San Francisco well past the 15 years that have been identified in the first phase capital project. These capital projects are a vision of being more sustainable and trying to achieve the vision for the Wastewater Master Plan, which is the integrated urban water shed. In order to get there, there are fundamental improvements that need to be made to the system. Some of those projects focus on getting it up to par, where it doesn’t have to be repaired on a daily basis, and having a plant that can be counted on in the possibility of an earthquake. The portion of the plan which has not been delineated yet is to make a viable investment in the type of programs that will allow more sustainability.
Mr. Jue reported that Ms. Rosey Jencks is working on a Bayside Basin Report to evaluate Low Impact Design projects on the bayside. The fruition of that report is only now being seen—some of the tangible benefits have now been quantified as well as the benefits it would have on the sewer system. In order to put that plan into, action data and analysis is necessary. It should be added to the Master Plan and is something that PUC would like to accomplish also. Resources (70 million dollars) have been committed to doing projects on the bayside. This is the first phase and environmental review will have to be done for these projects, so it will take time to get the projects up and running. A vision is shared of an integrated urban watershed, moving to a greener place and looking at renewable energy possibilities within the treatment plant, looking at food waste digestion, reusing more of methane digesters for natural gas creation. Mr. Jue explained that the Plan is moving there and a lot of steps have been taken steps in the last couple of years in the right direction. The Master Plan is a 30 year vision of what should be done, and the steps necessary to accomplish the vision.
Mr. Jue explained that the LID work on the bayside would help with CSO reduction, and Ms. Jencks has quantified what she thinks the storm water diversion to the sewer system could be during a rain storm and some of these projects are being done. Those are some of the things that will be looked at to achieve CSO reductions in addition to a project at the Southeast Plant to repair the outfall. Mr. Jue discussed plans for the southeast plant, alternatives being considered, e.g., moving the plant, keeping it there, maintaining it as a wet weather facility, and what was realized was that the liquid portion of the plant was recently updated in 1980 versus the solid portion dating back to 1940’s and 1950’s. A decision was made to hold off on what to do about the liquid portion of the southeast plant and to upgrade the solid portion which was in desperate need of repair. In the meantime, programs to address issues such as odor and visual issues caused by the southeast plant’s location directly adjacent to neighbors and businesses would be implemented. Ms. Jones described several of the programs being considered to achieve this effort.
Mr. Lantsberg stated that on the western edge of the sewage treatment facility are the Caltrans tracks which are going to be widened for high speed rail, and privately held property is on the other side. It was explained that no one at the PUC had thought about the expansion of these tracks. Mr. Lantsberg indicated that he had contacted the California High Speed Rail Authority and talked to a project manager of the San Jose to San Francisco segment who also did not think about the interface of the two projects. He did mention that the High Speed Rail Authority was looking at property at Bayview Hunters Point near the track right of way (between 10 to 15 acres) for a maintenance facility for the trains. The same land that PUC was looking at, the PUC backlands and other rights of way were also being looked at by the California High Speed Rail Authority. Mr. Lantsberg encouraged them to contact the Assistant General Manager of the Wastewater Enterprise to interface and discuss ideas. Mr. Lantsberg stated that from a land use perspective, that the Bayview Hunters Point community would benefit if the obnoxious infrastructure were to be removed and design changes would be done to help integrate the western portion back into the fabric of the rest of the city.
Mr. Jue reported that next steps would be to bring the Master Plan to the PUC Commission in late May or early June in order to allow for enough time to resolve issues before it is brought to the Commission. Mr. Lantsberg stated that he hopes that a presentation would be given to the CAC in May before it is presented to the PUC Commission.
Vice-Chair Gravanis asked for suggestions on how the Commission and the Department can help to guide this effort in the right direction. It was explained that the full Commission meets every other month so the preferred action would be to bring all recommendations to the Committee first and then to the full Commission. Mr. Jue stated that a presentation would be made to the Commission on the Environment’s Policy Committee after it is presented to the PUC Commission, potentially in June, and copies of the report would be provided to the Committee for review. Mr. Lantsberg and SWAle were invited to attend the meeting to provide feedback.
7. Announcements. (Discussion) There were no announcements made at this time.
8. New Business/Future Agenda Items. (Discussion) Chair Wald reported that the next agenda would tentatively include an update on the Hunters Point Shipyard Candlestick Point Plan. Additional ideas presented for future agenda items include (1) an update on the citywide Bike plan; (2) campaign to end junk mail (Mr. Westlund, Department of the Environment Program Outreach Manager reported on Supervisor Mirkarimi’s Resolution for a Do Not Mail List); (3) update on pharmaceutical disposal; (4) AB 32 discussion; (5) framework or guiding documents to guide the Department’s and Commission’s work efforts in addition to the Urban Environmental Accords; (6) status of the City’s Sustainability Plan and effort to update; (7) mechanism for guiding Policy Committee agenda items. Vice-Chair Gravanis recommended review of the Commission’s Bylaws as a guiding document. (8) Outreach for public participation at meetings; (9) San Francisco Giants Celebratory Balloons Releases. Mr. Westlund reported that he would review the Resolution previously approved by the Commission on this issue; (10) Event searchlights and light pollution; and (11) educational presentation on energy and fuel use as it pertains to outdoor heat lamps in public spaces such as restaurants.
9. Public Comments: Members of the public may address the Committee on matters that are within the Committee’s jurisdiction and are not on today’s agenda. There was no public comment at this time.
10. Adjournment. The Policy Committee meeting adjourned at 7:34 p.m.
Monica Fish, Commission Secretary TEL: (415) 355-3709; FAX: (415) 554-6393
** Copies of explanatory documents are available at (1) the Commission’s office, 11 Grove Street, San Francisco, California between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., (2) on the Committee meeting website https://sites.google.com/a/sfenvironment.org/commission/policy-committee with each agenda or meeting minutes, or (3) upon request to the Commission Secretary, at telephone number 415-355-3709 or via e-mail at [email protected].
*Approved: May 11, 2009
|
Policy Committee > 2009 Meetings >
