in phase two the primary sites would be grounded water as it is now. the north lake well facility would be located in the northwestern of golden gate park near 42 avenue. one important addition is the north lake facility would serve as a emergency drinking source and would have designed component to it to claachieve t. the project would normally operate like wells will pump

detail and the average production will be up to 4 million gallon ones and 3 million gallons a day. we can shift the pumping around as needed to avoid adverse effects of pump. all 6 wells can products millions of gallons up to many days. they're truly emergency water emergency supply facilities and it would be furnished by a portable generate. just to wrap up the presentation

i'd like to highlight the project operations. our project objectives that to provide a local drinking sources. the project facilities would be constructed in two phases includes 6 will well facilities and 5 miles of grounded pipes. the project operations would be under no more operations to pump up to 4 million gallons of water and in an emergency we could pump up to 6 million gallons of water up to thirty days. the blend water would be described thought san francisco. thank you and i'd like to answer any questions i might have. >> thank you staff we might

have questions for you in a bit. >> thanks jeff this is a hearing to receive comments for case no. 2008 - 11 e which seas the impacts on the environment which could result from implementation. staff is not here today to respond to comments such comments will be responded in writing which will respond to ail comments during the public comment period and this is not a hearing to disapprove or approve

the project. comments today should be directed for the adequacy of the project >> commenters should state their name and address so thel they can have a copy of the projects comments. we'll take any comments from the planning commission and the public comment extended to the april 29, '96. since this is a local san francisco project this is the only draft. i recommend that the public hearing be opened. okay opening it up to public comment. tim kennedy.

>> hello, i'm timmy live on 41 avenue. i'm coming here today because i'm a certified person. my prim certain is not with the underground water. my prim certain is with the pipeline location. and particle with the south sunset well location. if the eir the well, is located

on 40 and the pipeline will make a 90 degree it goes up one block north and makes a 90-degree angle & then goes north were when the pipe runs it's a going to cause a lot of stress and that's going to cause for the residents it could cause main breaks. my other certain is that around homeowners there's no search tanks you should have a search tank following the discharge side of the well. it absorbs the pressure and

creates less stress on the pipelines. i would like to suggest in the eir there's an additional pipeline for sunset boulevard. i would like it the commission to look at that. i know that one of the concerns is traffic during the construction on that sunset boulevard but the construction would little bits at a time perhaps one lane closed off at a time. as a homeowner i'm concerned with the 90s and the fact that there could be pipeline rupture without tanks >> any other public comment? okay seeing none, the public comment section is closed >> well, i have a number of

comments and a questions. i've been a resident of western san francisco. i remember the late 90s with the merced lake getting low. unfortunately, a couple of changes were made in the earlier part of the century i understand then under the direction of a couple of supervisors. almost all of the park was being done out of the grounded water and we were trying to keep the grounded level of water higher. and then to us water to put back

into lake merced instead of going into the ocean. if you were at a line where we were losing level now we're not up to the line historical it's kind of good i don't know how we're going to take 4 million gallons out of that lake and not have it go down and we have a mitigation >> we have a mitigation measure that we would add supplemental water into the system when available and would take advantage from the canal that

come available from the park merced project. so that would be the first option the second option would be for the puc to offer pumping rates and another step would be to stop pumping at the lake merced and thereby in a step-by-step fashion reduce pumping to allow the lake to recover >> can i have a point of order here. isn't this provided through a -

>> i think we need to clarify so we shouldn't get into a lot of detail about what the commission says and a ongoing thank you. i'm not saying it's not within the document i'm raising that certain so the public need to know they have to read the document. and another comment which is a question i guess regarding the lakes and golden gate park. in recent years they seem to be stagnate and overgrown and i'm wondering if you're plan addresses the needs of those lakes to have enough movement and water supply even though

those are rec park facilities but their dependent on the water coming in. you don't have to necessarily rely. finally the other thing is we're seeing only part of the picture you alluded in the few weeks a shortage facility but that's a separate project. the answer to our inquiry we're trying to a find other sources by your biggest solution the

birth solution will be storage to take it's a drier situation and the population will grow. the question i want to ask are we addressing in this report the inintra city pipelines thirty although we're putting in new pipelines. and making sure we don't have any reoccurrences of sidewalks and analyzing what effects if any this new water supply might have on the pressures of the existing pipes that are fairly old. and are we going to utilize the

windmills we already have. it would make sense to use there's a lot of wind out there and would be a good way to draw - that's a different site but it would be good to figure out what's already there >> yes, just a quick comment on figure a. it show in green a proposed native graft but the site that you're going to be proposing to believe in the rest of the construction and the pipelines and everything are sitting in an area that's void of a lot of

vegetation. but the line of ground disturbance doesn't take into consideration the quarry of whatever it was - doesn't encompass the rest of the area and i think it would behove the puc and rec park to look at that area to see if the vegetabletion program whether it's native trees couldn't be expanded to include revej that whole area. and also, if you're going to be contradicting new pipes line i would expect that would effect

the trees between the areas of martin luther king and your well site so i would hope that any kind of vegetation would be take care of. and one last comment to the gentleman the only person who testified i can submit written comment if you want to expand on our ideas. you don't have to just do it here you can write a letter to the puc >> i find the entire story about the board of supervisors extremely fascinating. i understand the well, are highly visible and this is a

very important part when you have highly visible facilities. the second part is when you provided recycled water would do we do about cross connections. those questions i want answered >> i have another question that can come into comments and responses. as reported in your d eir. we know that the figure is 2 hundred and 65 million gallons out of that 1 hundred and tia retail the city and county of 70

country club but it's basically, the city of san francisco. this is important because we make revenue out p of it. i mean, i think that the biggest probably increase in demand or a bigger increase in demand may come from our retail side although we've seen a lot of growth in san francisco. i wonder if your exploring areas around you've had historical a good pimping going on there and if we could expand the pumping

in that area we should utilize the aqua first to meet our demand. that's a question for responses for another day but i think that's an important one >> okay. thank you. >> commissioners if there's nothing further. >> can you wait a second the commission is going to take a break here. >> commissioner are you okay with one more and taking a break in? >> the sf puc upgrade please note an additional meeting will be held excuse me. was held on

april 16th. written comments will be accepted in the depth >> good afternoon members i'm steven smith for the planning department. i'm the eir manager which is responded by the san francisco commission. this is a hearing to receive comments from the draft and environmental impact report which assesses the project. the eir was published on july 13th and given to you. the staff are not here to respond to comments. this will be addressed as appropriate. this is not a hearing to consider the approval or

disproval of the project. comments today should be directed to the adequacy of the information. comments should be given slowly so that the court reporter can contagious them down. this will be noted as one local draft hearing this was on tuesday 16. the brief overview of the project will be presented otherwise we'll move along to

the formal hearing. with that i recommend that the public hearing be opened. opening up. >> seeing none public comment is closed. commissioners any questions >> i just wanted to mention this has been somewhat segmented. it seems to me we did a pipe replacement about years ago in the area of rolling stone and belmont and this is another further north i'm not sure why this area is being dealt with

separately maybe it's geographic. i could have someone clarify that >> maybe clarifications would be okay. maybe it's better, you know, just to clarify the segments of the plan and it's been very well done just verify there might be one coming in another area and a thank you any other questions, comments? the commission will take a short break now.