>> you may come up and speak now, sir. >> good afternoon. here i'd like to comment on this 2013.1316 c regarding oh. the interpretation of sale of alcohol in the front. it's like i live in the neighborhood there are so many businesses that sell alcohol already i drink alcohol myself i have nothing against alcohol i live in the building inside this and this restaurants is going to be below my apartment. so it's going to generated a lot of noise and they already have a business next to this

restaurants. it generating a lot of noise. it's a jewish bar they play loud music and it's inconvenient. when i look at those planning projects in motion it's look on the back payment it says this restaurants right here in the existing restaurants so, you know, food and it was never a restaurant. and also about the comments over here it says the number of public comments received it says zero. i've made many comments i've k34u79d by mail with the building inspectors it says zero.

another thing if they zoo don't have all the permits to open this business. the question i have now by the way, i didn't have a chance to make my comment earlier are my comments going to be considered. that's my question. because they said it was closed i submitted a card but it turns out - >> sir unfortunately, this department of motor vehicles isn't a comment and question period. i will respond because i have not had a chance to respond. they have made their decision on the matter it was under scent owe the president of the commission did request if there were any public comment for any of the items read into the record at that time.

he afford anyone the stunt and unfortunately you didn't understand that and come up to the podium and speak >> i was waiting for my name to be called i was told i fill out a card and waiting to be called. >> so the commission if you choose on the one hand you could resend your previous vote and schedule it for the next hearing based on general comment. however, i would teaspoon with general comment at this time and take the matter up >> thank you, sir. >> okay. thank you. >> good afternoon peter cohen for the housing association a couple of items one is director ram we visited him to meet with our organizations it's come up

on its 5 year mark and we had a lot of go feedback both from a policy and procure standpoint. it i wanted to let you know we are going to be talking about some work the staff might be able to do to look at the policies and purse and hopefully have an informational hearing with you next year january or february. but the timing is acquit for the united states give the information we talked about affordable housing and the eastern neighborhoods is not working from a stewardship. the quality of the issues how much of hopefully, you'll be supportive and interested in yourselves of hearing about that

from the neighborhood. the second item continue to think about transit infrastructure fees there's been an issue with the t d f another amendment came our way were 0 we've been looking an office environment and the tech industry is different but the question comes to our minds as we look forward to a new kind of economy do we want to delineate our offices. it's a question i want to raise to our attendance as we look at the updates of t d i f to modernize it, if you will. those are items i hopefully hope

you're interested in those items as much as we are >> linda chapman for knob hill neighborhoods. this week at the annual dinner the honoree spoke some words i think are sentiments shared but all in the room. all we're asking asking for is a little bit of constant just to publish the rules and follow the rules. it's a sentiment shared by all organizations. it concerned me and the c s f n is those dproipz saying we represent the neighborhood we're the neighborhood organization and lip to us we can support of the developer and this is

unheard of. when i began to see this happening with those two groups that establish themselves on possible street i thought they were wonderful at first but they became forum for developers to come in before them and either people were expected to vote on the 4 liquor licenses or mike maybe no vote at all and the leaders would say they supported the project and the people who lived in the neighborhood were concerned about whether the bulk of the building or let's say the activities at the ma sonic or whatever they sort of disappeared. as you may already know a 9 page declaration has come in about the illegal information in the

masonic. every single information it illegal from the bob from his 39 years of his work that are undoubtedly this will be going to court. then we have, you know, 1601 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