_files/image002.jpg)
Lakewood
Tenants Association
March 28, 2008
Suzanne Gautier
Communications and Public Outreach
Public Utilities Commission
City and
Dear
Ms. Gautier:
Lakewood
Tenants Association (LTA) comments on the presentation at the Lake Merced
Watershed Plan Facilitated Work Group Meeting # 2 of March 18, 2008 by the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission are as follows:
1.)
We object to the way PUC concluded the meeting: we disagree that there is
"consensus" that the status quo option should be off the table for
every site identified by PUC for possible new uses or that the mesa should be
off the table for any new uses. If PUC wanted to take away from that meeting an
endorsement of that "consensus" position, it should have told those
in attendance that it was looking for such an endorsement earlier in the
meeting and, after sufficient discussion of that point, put the question to a
show of hands. To ask those that still remained to the very end of the meeting
and as they were preparing to leave if they agreed with that proposition about
one second before thanking everyone for attending makes the conclusion utterly
invalid.
2.)
In both its written responses and its presentation at the March 18th
meeting, PUC not only did not address, it did not even acknowledge, receiving
certain written comments from LTA regarding the February 14, 2008 Lake Merced
Watershed Plan Facilitated Work Group Meeting # 1 that were highly critical of
PUC's process. By responding to some comments but not others, PUC appears to
have been attempting to create the appearance that they had been responsive to
all comments submitted when they were not.
The
gist of the LTA comments that PUC apparently did not want to confront in a
public meeting context were:
a)
Cherry-picking the invitees to the work group meetings, excluding some member
organizations of the Lake Merced Task Force (LMTF) that would be expected to
have a particular interest in the most controversial aspect of PUC's plans:
eviction of the gun clubs;
b)
PUC accepting responsibility two or three years ago to chair an LMTF committee
assembled to watch over PUC efforts in creating a master plan for Lake Merced
but then failing to carry out that commitment, sinking the LMTF committee;
c)
PUC creating its own special committee of hand picked special interest group
representatives to advise it on master planning for Lake Merced behind closed
doors while excluding Lakewood Tenants Association and, perhaps, others,
despite the fact that LTA had asked to be on that committee at that time;
d)
PUC selecting a consultant to assist PUC in master planning of Lake Merced when
that consultant had a clear conflict of interest in accepting that assignment.
The conflict is the fact that that same consultant was performing or had
recently completed another master planning assignment for one special interest
seeking to acquire use of land at
3.)
We have the following responses to PUC's written March 13th
memorandum titled: "Responses to Work Group Recommendations" of the
February 14th meeting and the related presentation at the March 18th
meeting:
A)
PUC rejects our recommendation that the SFPD firing range should be a part of
According
to the Assessor-Recorder map books we reviewed in 2006, all of the land bounded
by
The
Board of Supervisors assigned management responsibility of the then already
existing police range to the police department by Ordinance 3623, Series of
1939, App. 05/15/45 as evinced by Article 18, section 1350 of the present
Police Code. We are informed by the Division of Real Estate that SFPUC passed
their resolution # 10435 Jan. 30, 1950 proposing that SFRPD assume a
"concession" of the
We
understand the objective of the planning effort to be for the entire
B)
PUC rejects our argument that
C)
Responding to LTA's criticism of PUC's evaluation criteria for future
recreational uses at Lake Merced, PUC claims that "'Tradition/History of
Use' are not appropriate considerations in this context," leaving us
searching for that statement in our written responses. It wasn't there. PUC's
response appears to be in response to our verbal comments made in real time at
the February 14th meeting but not to the description more
thoughtfully stated in our subsequent written comments, as follows:
"We
do not believe that it is appropriate to evaluate hypothetical potential uses
of
What
PUC continues to fail to appreciate is that there are people with heart in the
lake. PUC is talking about evicting those persons who have invested themselves
and their families in the lake for decades and generations in favor of hypothetical
people proposing hypothetical uses. Where is the clamor for horseshoes,
volleyball and other potential recreational uses of lake property that PUC is
considering? Those people may not even exist and such uses are already
available in
D)
PUC rejects our criticism of their Criterion #3. That criterion favors
activities that somehow "support or encourage" other uses.
Conveniently, PUC moves their response to our criticism from their section on
criteria to their section on specific uses. We were commenting on a criterion,
not a particular use. Then they try to claim the criterion somehow makes sense
not because it satisfies some legitimate external purpose (e.g., determining if
a use is or is not an acceptable future use of the lake, i.e., "justified")
but because it merely satisfies itself. This is what they said:
"The criterion does not require recreation uses to
be “justified,” but it does evaluate how much or little they support or enhance
other uses at the lake."
Of
course it does. That is the question that the so-called criterion asks. But why
does it ask that? Circular logic. If the criterion does not serve the purpose
of determining whether the use is appropriate for the lake or not, why is it
there? This is what we stated in our written comments on the February 14th
meeting:
We do
not necessarily accept the "Evaluation Criteria for Recreational
Activities" distributed at the meeting as appropriate. For example,
Criterion #3, "complementary/synergy with other uses" includes the
following illustrative questions:
a)
"Does the activity support or encourage participation in other activities
that are or could be present at the lake?"
b)
"Does the activity enrich the experience of other users of the
watershed?"
c)
"conversely, would the activity constrain or diminish the experience of
other users at the lake?"
We do
not believe any recreational use needs to be justified on the basis of it
"supporting and encouraging" other uses. We do not believe the rowers
(crew), for example, need to justify their existence by any claim that rowing
"supports or encourages" sailing, fishing, walking or any other use
at the lake. Valid recreational uses may and typically do exist independently.
We
believe Criterion #3 is not a legitimate criterion for evaluating potential
uses of the lake.
E)
PUC similarly has moved their response to our criticism of their Criterion #4
for "increasing general public use" from their section on criteria to
their section on specific uses. Again, we were commenting on a criterion, not a
particular use. Then they again try to claim the criterion somehow makes sense
not because it satisfies some external purpose (e.g., determining if a use is
or is not an acceptable future use of the lake, i.e., "justified")
but because it merely satisfies itself. This is how they began their response:
The intent of this criterion is to evaluate the affect [sic] on
increasing general public use of the lake, not on evaluating the “legitimacy”
of any particular use....
Again,
if the criterion does not serve the purpose of determining whether the use is
appropriate for the lake or not, why is it there? This is what we stated in our
written comments on the February 14th meeting:
Criterion
# 4 is titled "Affect [sic] on increasing general public use" and is
illustrated with the following questions:
a)
"would a casual visitor be able to participate in the activity?"
b)
"does the activity appeal to a broad cross-section of
c)
"conversely, does the activity require special equipment, knowledge, or
skill?"
We
believe that rowing, sailing, horseshoes and even volleyball would score low on
an evaluation to this criterion because they all require special equipment and
are not necessarily available to the casual visitor. Try telling one of the
rowing clubs you'd like a place in one of their boats. Tell someone who brings
their own volleyball equipment that you want in on the game they organized
using their own equipment. The whole concept of public parklands such as
We
believe Criterion #4 is not a legitimate criterion for evaluating potential uses
of the lake.
4.)
Comments on the revised watershed activities presented at the March 18, 2008
meeting:
A)
Since leisure boating and competitive boating can conflict with each other, to
be fair, they should have the same rating, probably L/M.
B)
Organized running events should be classified as L for "dependence on lake
environs," "synergy with other uses" and "increasing
general public use."
C)
Bicycling should be rated as L for "dependence on lake environs,"
"synergy with other uses," "increasing general public use"
and M for "compatibility with natural resources."
D)
Nature and scenic appreciation should be rated as M for "compatibility
with natural resources" as such activities could disturb wildlife.
E)
The education/interpretive center should be rated L as to "compatibility
with natural resources."
F)
Boat storage should be rated as M as to "synergy with other uses."
G)
Urban camping should be rated M for "compatibility with natural
resources."
H)
Children's play area should be rated L for "synergy with other uses"
and "compatibility with natural resources."
I)
Playing fields should be rated L for "synergy with other uses" and
"compatibility with natural resources."
J)
Dining should be rated M as to "synergy with other uses" and H as to
"increasing general public use."
K)
Skeet shooting should be rated M as to "dependence on lake environs,"
M as to "synergy with other uses," H as to "increasing general
public use" and M for "compatibility with natural resources."
5.)
We wish to support the suggestion of others to add the former parking lot on
the west side of the intersection of
In
conclusion, PUC still does not have properly thought out criteria for
evaluating future uses of the lake. They continue to fail to respect and
appreciate the investment of long-time users of the lake or to consider fairness
to those groups to be any consideration at all in planning future uses. They
have improperly excluded some land owned by the City/County that could easily
be converted from its present use (police range and golf club) to other uses
with a stroke of the county supervisors' pen. They are holding on to a
consultant with an inherent conflict of interest. They have also failed to
disclose meeting minutes and attendance records of the closed-door meetings
they have held with hand picked special interests advising them on
Sincerely,
Mona
Cereghino, President
cc.:
[email protected]
Sean
Elsbernd, District Supervisor (
Ed
Harrington, General Manager, SFPUC
Yomi
Agunbiadi, General Manager,