larkin and steve is writing on that not on the sequa decision but on the illegal activities of decision based on private agreements between the neighborhood groups. look in the paper may lee was there and 29 hundred people applied. with the no project alternative was called for by sequa and the method of wanting to build nonprofit use from the beginning and you know what the local methodists are also stopped by it's all over with it was sold to making determine i didn't almost 10 years ago. people have been fidgeting in court preventing the sale

>> any additional public comment? >> sue hester. the planning commission is supposed to be the representative of the public. and looking at up here i don't know how how much experience any of the 7 of you have being a member of the public dealing with a project from the prospective of the public that comes to the planning commission. maybe i've missed hearings and you've all been here but my observation is the whole public

roll is disappearing before my eyes. the reports on a project are for the public such as the commission. in fact, on love of the promises they're more for the public then for the commission. drs have a long public process baugs because of prop m but the rest of them don't have that process and the availability of documents so the public can comment on is really important. and every time your commissioners say we have enough to read every thursday you're not really getting the point. if the public doesn't have planned and the staff report from the developer so they can comment on it to you it doesn't become part of the record.

you're making it does of the aisle extremely difficult. there's a different procure for drs. your kci terminal out future comments permanently because every time you adapt an area plan you adapt exemptions but comments. and every development has a slew of exemptions >> why are what the developer submits to you what in we're not to see online. what we see online is is staff report. there's nothing from the developer pushing promise or the public available to the public.

and see if you're going to say the 7 of you are the public step into the shows you of the public once again and have a hearing that was promised about this. you haven't had a hearing at all in a long time and i'm tired of being here in a ridiculous format. thank you >> good afternoon commissioners. as a point of procure i point in a comment card inform 16 a but i can speak to the doctor >> that's correct if you wish to speak about the environmental impact and item 167 abc will be called up later.

>> i'm mike murphy i'm a resident of the outer suspect. i'll tack my 3 minutes now i have to pick up my son from school. i want to thank the commission for the eir which is subsequential the one that's before you today. it's a project who's time is well past due. i represent an organization who's primary concern is for the watersheds. this should have the watersheds into support of future. it generates a greater sense of stewardship and unfortunately, i'm the one here to see i don't want to drink the water.

the conversion of grass fields into an installation directly adjacent to the well, in golden gate park represent a health hazard. and by the cities own admission the tire is an in fill represents it's credit card toxic by the cities oppose be admission. it went through a sequa suit that san francisco 13ushg9 and just terry jackson ruled that on that last week and it will go to appeal. the plans i looked at the construction plans for the beach immediacy installation and they show a 20 mill hazard mat liner underneath the field itself and this would adequately hopefully

adequately contain any of the wastewater that would be toxic as it would attempt to enter our watershed to the nature processes. and there's also a curb around the fields that attempts to contain the tire crumble that would below into an area that would effectively. there's collections for run off and perk late into the watershed too. the sunset shouldn't be the gold stated as judged by toxics we don't want to drink the chemicals from this project. what i suggest respectfully to the commissioners in

discretionary of this ground water supply please postpone this newly the toxics are - >> thank you sir, your time is up. >> any additional general public comment? okay general public comment is closed >> commissioners, if there's any interest in resending our previous vote the commission chair can open that up for item 6 if you choose to. i don't see did interest >> hearing none commissioners we can move and places you under your regular calendar the certification for the environmental impact report.

>> good afternoon president fong and members of the commission. i'm tim from the environmental planning department. the item before you is the certification of a final impact environmental impact report or eir for the san francisco ground water project. given the other jerald agenda items before i relative to this project and following my presentation we thought it would be appropriate to have the puc provide a brief overview of the prescription. with that i'd like to present jeff from the sf puc.

>> thank you and good afternoon, commissioners. planning director ram. i'm jeff gilman the puc commission and water rousing division i'm the project manager for the ground water project. i'd like to give you a belief overview. i presented the project about 6 months ago. just first to set the stage the proposed san francisco ground water supply project is one the improvement projects additional and one of our important water component of that. the commission certified the program eir for the water system improvement program in october 2008.

part of the water system improvement program included a water supply strategy and some critical parts of that san francisco by adapting that strategy plaza limits on the water that we could import from our watersheds. and we commented to give our portfolio as we call it. and way he prop to do that is maximumings all the conservatism resources. the san francisco ground water project is one of the new supply sources. the objectives is to capitalized and diverse this portfolio and increase the use of local water outdoors and would he do reduce our dependence on surface water

supplies. this slide is a one side snapshot i'll try to walk through the component. first, it proposes to pump an average of 4 million gallows a day in the western part of san francisco. and what we will do is blend those waterfront with our recreational water conspiracy at 2 of our reservoirs those are in blue our sunset reservoirs is the largest one. then after blending this wlentd ground water would be distributed throughout san francisco and the blue areas of the map show you the detects area is 60 percent of san

francisco would receive this blend. the 2krb9d blended water would still maintain our high quality standards that the puc striefdz to meet. in doing that that would exposed all the regulatory standards. let me back up. in terms of facilities we're proposing 6 windshields or well facilities the project would be constructed in two-phase. phase one includes 4 of the wells and those are shown as the orange circle on the map and phase it would be converting two existing irrigation supply wells at the end of the golden gate park those are by the yellow triangles.

it includes $5 million of underground pipeline that connect the well water the ground water to sunset reservoir. so jumped ahead i'm sorry. so item 16-c that you'll hear is about the coastal zone permit application that was made for 3 of the facilities and the 3 facilities that are located in the costly zone are the 2 at the end of golden gate park park that's the two triangles and the lake facility and the other facility in the coastal zone is the lake merced facility. i'd like to focus a minute on some of the details of the 3 facilities and the coastal zone. the south windmill replacement facility that's located at the southwest end of dprp off of

34k9 junior drive are that would replace the existing well facility the fingerprint of our new facility would be approximately the same size as the exit facility. it would be relatively small one story building of 8 hundred square feet and the height would be about 19 feet. the north lake facility the other one in golden gate park is located near fulton and 42 avenue. it would replace an existing irrigation facility and the fingerprint would be 9 hundred i won't tell and believe height of 13 and a half feet. and finally, the lake merced facility is off our assets road

from the pump states. it's generally not assessable to the public but the facility will overlook along the lake merced area and will fats west so from lake merced facility it will be in the background. this building fingerprint will be about 2 thousand square feet with 19 and a half feet in height. that's a high-level overview of the project and if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them and thank you for your attention and wish you a happy holiday season >> thank you. >> i'm tim johnson with the san

francisco planning department. a copy of the draft certification eir certification memo is before you. because we tended to bring this to you la 90 month there's some dates we'll correct. the defrost eir was published on miracle 13. a public hearing was held before this body on april 14th. the comment period closed on april 30th and the comments to respond to the document was published and distributed on october 30th, 2013. the elevations didn't find that the mremths of the project would directly result in visible effects but because this is part of the improvement water system

the project would contribute to the invaluable program impact and it can't be - this significant level impact is related to growth emancipation proclamation document. due to the projects contribution to this un plaza valuable program impact the puc would have to adapt a statement pursuant to the california poly actress. should the puc choose to approve the project. the staff remedies that the consent of the report a adequate and accurate and the procures for which the eir comply with the sequa and the sequa guidelines and chapter 31 of the

administrator code. that concludes my presentation. unless we have questions >> thank you. we may have questions in a little while. no public comment. okay. then commissioners. commissioner antonini. >> i believe i brought this up i want to reiterate the fact my understanding is that the water would be drawn when available that if there's a situations where we have a year where we have not had enough rainfall and our lakes are in jeopardy like lake merced we would be drawing it when it's available. there's some years when the heavy radiance we have a surplus of water. i understand that's what we have in mind >> correct the mitigation

measures that we have identified in the eir do alleyway allow the project to mitigate impacts could less than significant levels concluding impacts on lake merced. and this myths measure envisions a step wise prove that where shall the organization would redistribute pumping and maybe sees pumping until the conditions improve so the water is maintained to significant levels. there's a detailed monitoring regime that going along with the mitigates measure >> thank you and the other question i have but your wells that are in golden gate park is this going to take advantage of the windmills that are operable.

i think we did the dutch one recently and it looks pretty good but it doesn't do any pulling it sounds like something to explore >> i'm sure they'll taxing but they're not proposing anything. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah. i move to certify of the eir. >> second. >> i actually don't have a conflict that i commissioners, if there's no other comment there's a motion and second. commissioner antonini. commissioner borden arrest commissioner hillis. commissioner sugaya. and commissioner wu >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously and place you an items 4.

the san francisco 6 adaptation of finding under the california environmental quality act of gentle referral and request for permit authorization and a mike smith. so mr. gillman gave you guys a go presentation. i'm going to skip to the necessary stuff. 3 of the sites are located with within the city's coastal zone the lake merced and the south wind facility and the north wind facility. pursuant to planning code section 330 the that planning zone application is required as the project site is located within the coastal zone boundary. the project is appeal able to the commission because it's a

major works project. the lake merced facility is currently in an undeveloped area adjacent to the access road that is off of lake merced boulevard it's the entrance to the pump station. the south windmill site is located at the western end of the golden gate park that's occupied by an existing well petroleum station while the surrounded area is used by the rec and park and contains stock appeals of concrete and other debris. the north lake well site also open western combrp is currently occupied by an existing well station. the site is surround by trees and bounded by fulton to the north. the proposed wall facilities

within golden gate park will replace rec and park irrigation windshields and as such, they don't - the windshields will occupy the same windshields. the south windmill replacement facility is within the site of the former richard treatment plant that was largely removed in 1996. the proposed lake merced will not effect the visiting because they will have the voibltd from the road which is lake merced. and it will have green roof. the property lake merced site will not adversely effect the lake merced resources that is

located in an area that doesn't provide any raeblg use next to the existing pimp station. it who access any local trails or docks. staff received two calls from the neighbors regarding the project neither of which expressed on a opinion only interests. you must - as part of the approval you must adapt the sequa finding related to the eir and there's a jeopardy plan referral motion included and lastly a coastal permit motion was attached the e rp if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them >> any public comment on those

3 items. seeing none, public comment is clos closed. commissioner sugaya. >> underlines there's other comments i'm going to move to approve all 3 under the california quality act. the general plan referral request for 0 zone permit >> second. >> oh, sorry. commissioner antonini >> yeah. i think this is a good plan and helping to augment our needs that was presented earlier. we have a lot of restrictions on the other uses from the lakes in the sierra and we're trying to implement more storage as we know to be able to address our problems in years they're maybe driveway years but the

additional water that could be obtained from the city and county of san francisco and so long as the effects are mitigated on the environment and that makes sense because san francisco has the lottery per capita of any places in california. but sometimes we're at the expense of our greenery we're putting in a lot of dry stuff it doesn't look good. maybe we can get a better allocate and use water in a more traditionally way if we're providing 4 million glands. i know the system is a part of the plan and i understand the economics involved but certainly i'm hoping the city and a parks can be well-handled to get

enough water to keep them green. commissioner sugaya. >> yeah. i made a motion but i have a request. on the south windmill site the map identified the ground sdurngs in red and extended all the way to your site and ant into the area that's already been acquit disturbed. i also observed the proposed native grass plantings will be in an unlimited area. is there some activity your coordinating with the department of rec and park to actually make improvement to that desire area

then just around your facility? we don't have any formal activity that we are coordinating with rec and park both departments are well aware. process actually of drafting and memoranda of understand for the project that governors the access and obligation of both party. maintaining is that as part of the bond issue that was passed also november 2012 for recreation and park improvements one of those activities the rec and park want to improve that jeopardy area in golden gate park. but it's their responsibility to move forward first with that >> thank you. i wanted to ask that because my firm has some improvement with the murphy

windmill and hits restoration so it's been american people eyesore. >> (laughter). >> to put that mildly. >> walk a few steps away and energy this moonlight environment so encourage the rec and park department to do something. >> commissioner antonini. >> just a followup to my easily remarks just on the usage of the water within san francisco. i want to employment how nicely the rewrite has been landscaped and how neat and clean it looks it's a well done project. but i'm less enthusiastic about the green areas to the east. their getting better but maybe a little bit better of management of the launders