and occupied by homeless families and want to resolve this quickly thank you very much. >> is there any additional public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner - commissioner sugaya >> in light of that can't be consider it at the beginning of the regular calendar and vote on it. >> thank you that is the appropriate. >> commissioners commissioners, if there's nothing further we can move on to the regular calendar. and in light of what we've heard ton item 6 we'll take that up at 6600 third street request for conditional use authorization there are no speaker cards >> any public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore. >> i move to approve.

on that motion to approve item 6. commissioner antonini. commissioner hillis. commissioner johnson. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you on item 12 for case the recreational great, great water for the environmental impact report please note that the public comment is closed, however, the commission will accept comments you, however, they can't be part of the irons document >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. i ask for recusal i did historic research. >> move to rouse commissioner sugaya. >> on that motion to rouse commissioner sugaya from item

12. commissioner hillis. commissioner johnson. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong. commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously have to zero and you may proceed mr. johnson. good afternoon commissioner president wu and members of the commission i'm tim johnson if the environmental impact report from the san francisco planning department the item is the certification of a financial environmental impact report or eir for the proposed recreational ground water recovery project that is supported by itself puck given the other things a representative of the puc is here and available to provide a brief overview of the plan in

this case if you wish >> let's hold off if there's questions from the commissioners. >> with that, a copy of the draft eir certification motion it was published on april 10th of 2014 and the project vicinity were held in san mateo county on may 24th, 2013, and here before the planning department the public comment closed and responses to comments documents was published and described on july 9, 2014. the evaluations of the issues contained in the eir found that the implementation of the project would result in environmental effects that cannot be mitigate to a lower level this those are mentioned

they include aesthetics impacts and land use impacts and noise as well as cumulative noise impacts and as well as impacts if implementation of one of the mitigation measures. relate to noise just to note that the draft eir did find that the - that states we - there could be significant and invaluable well interference impacts, however, upon further investigation and concussion with the puc we've revised that to find that impact less than significant. we also find that as listed in stem 7 of the draft motion that the project would transcribe to

an invaluable growth recurring the impact being in the port part of the water system approved by the puc. so due to the projects contribution to those significant and invaluable impacts the puc will adapt a statement pursuant to the california quality act should the puc choose to approve this project the staff recommends i adapt if that the comments of the report is adequate and accurate and the procedures for which the policy comply with the sequa guidelines in chapter 31 of the administrative active code that concludes my presentation. unless the commissioners have questions >> thank you. okay open for public comment

(calling names) >> thank you, madam chair and members of the commission i'm an attorney for walnut creek california i represent two of the irrigation pumpers that are be adversely impacted by the project one is the park cemetery and is california golf club i marked the card to say i'm rising no opposition to the project we're not in a position to support the project nor neutral because the project will, in fact, work on the unlawful taking of the our protein rights a significant impact on our ability to use our wells to provide irrigation

water those wells are the sole source for the pumpers. one to give you an idea of our concern one of my clients will say its principle well lose up to percent of its productive in the worse case scenario the reason you were able to change to less than significant your staff and the puc staff and it's legal and technical team did an excellent job of developing a set of mitigation measures those have been presented to both of my clients one of my clients received it 10 days ago they've not finished their evaluation of the mitigation measures nor reached a conclusion to whether those will satisfy those concerns. i rise today solely to make a brief record before you act to

say when san francisco prudes with this project located in another county you'll be having significant adverse property rights for individuals to the south of you. hopefully those adverse effects can be mitigated because the project has the potential for a recreational benefit which we recognize the project needs to be if it does precede precede with career and indication and needs to proceed in a manner in which the actual effects can be measured before and fully implement that project. thank you for your time i'll be happy to take questions from the members of the commission should there be any >> thank you. >> commissioners, i make it a point to attendee you'll see sf

puc meetings in this case months ago there was a joint meeting between the joint puc and the development of environment and at that meeting a gentleman spoke about this topic. and there was no comment from anybody from the sf puc. the gentleman who made the presentation state claerlg that the hearings were held outside of san francisco. while the san francisco public utilities commission's as another gentleman stated will be hearing about the adverse impacts so you commissioners should get a real good idea of what is going on. the puc hadn't been diligent in

this matter. they shove had one hearing where the constituents of san francisco pay attention to this matter of ground water it's not as simple as you think. we are blessed sort of blessed when in 1913 to the regular act we went and dates, times, and places a dates, times, and places the hetch hetchy dame to bring clear water to san francisco what is happening is as the years go but we supply more and more water to the region. you all need to do your homework and understand that. right now even though we spent $206 billion and the region spent $2 billion to revamp the water system improvement project

right by the house/senate dame they used a tunnel which will adversely effect the project your director and others in the know know about it. so this is a big problem. it's a big problem for clean water delivery and if you have a any questions i didn't mouse system that we think we can go and at that point into the watershed with all the adverse impacts without a reliable system we're foovl ourselves there are two things you commissioners have to pay attention to. first, as due diligence been done on the water system project and that delivery and then if we tap into the system and have the

region how will that be done without impacting the taxpayer. thank you very much >> is there any additional public comment? >> thank you dr. espanola jackson. i didn't come to speak on this issue but let me say that you are when the expansion of the sewage plant was done in 1972 the commission approved at that time when the voters voted for the expansion of the sewage plant it was supposed to be that bayview hunters point will receive 50 percent of the sewage but a lot of meetings went on we the community were not involved in the meetings when this city was told they had to also give services to sewage come from brisbane and 3 other areas there

come a time bayview hunters point we getting one hundred percent of everybody's sewage and not only that then they came up in the 90s and said we have to take one hundred percent of the sewage from presidio. there's a lot going on in the city that you commissioners are not aware of you have to get up and correct and report when we're receiving anothers bayview hunters point because i live there and never miss a meetings i never miss no meetings i know the rewrite of hiv trying to took place i agree with the man i was in san mateo county two weeks ago because they send people here to represent their area but we don't have no one i mean no one to represent us in

bayview hunters point. where the sewage plant is and where the expansion is take place. i know you all need to have some concern about us in bayview hunters point what we are going through i keep committing we're dying thank you. i'm 81 years old and god t is keeping me hear to get you to accept and do something about it psa pass. being a rubber stamp you need to all stop being a rubber stamp and for willie brown who used to be the mayor of this city >> thank you is there any additional public comment okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini >> we're handling the certification of the eir accept

for two others. >> yeah. >> i think the eir deals adequate and accurately with the issues there are points that are raised and i'll address those at the time of the consideration of the general plan referral i will move to certify the eir. >> second. >> jirgsz or dmrirgsz a motion and a second for the eir. >> commissioner antonini arrest commissioner hillis. commissioner johnson. commissioner moore. commissioner fong. commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and place ion item 13 ab for the case numbers e and r the recreational ground water adaptation of the findings from the quality act and consideration of a general plan

referral >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm with the citywide division of the vice president you have the item before you is to approve a general plan referral because of the skwoep scope of this project it was appropriate to bring to you amend so essentially this is is finding that the project is described consistent what our city's general plan specifically the general plan element. so we have draft motion to adapt the serial killer findings you have before you and the general plan referral and then kelly from the puc is here to answer questions you might have as well

>> thank you. do we take separate comment on those items >> we take public comment on items ab arrest is there public comment on items 13 ab? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini >> yeah. i have some questions for staff. in regards to some of points revised earlier. my understanding from reading the report what happens is in the wet years the water will be allowed to accommodate to keep us above the level needed for supply of the different

participants who use the ac what but in dry years urging the surplus the city and county will take you forget the figure 6.9 million gallons per day up to that amount to supplement the waters from the hetch hetchy am i correct >> yes, sir. this is a project to provide additional dry year water supply. >> but it sounds like based on what i'm reading there are mitigations to keep the ac what at a level to supply the needs for example, of the cemetery and the golf course. >> that's dealt with in the

mitigation measure 14 a 6 that is extremely detailed and technical but the bottom line if the puc through it's monitoring predicts an adverse effect to the neighboring wells there's a number of technical steps that will be implemented to reduce the effects of the agent pumpers in the area including and up to reducing pumping by this project or sensation of that pumping in the vicinity of those effected wells and a policy that allows the pumpers to come to us if they detect to call it to our attendance and other things how

to resolve the dispute and implement further measures as necessary. thank you. >> i ask another question is this in awe justify of the situation where the city and county of san francisco owns a lot of land and has wells that will petroleum from that aqua to supplement the hetch hetchy system i'm sure you have mitigation measures in place, in fact, back to the dazed of the spring valley water company i assume this is a somewhat similar situation. >> i'm not as informed apparently as you but we have members from the puc that can speak to that other situation. >> well, i guess my point this is not the situation points been going on for a long time and i assume it's been dealt with with

success i grew up in that area and don't hear complaints that the ac what has being somewhat similar. >> i can't speak to the speculators but sure the commission that the impacts to other eir garters will be mitigated to less than significant levels with the measures outlined in the eir. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> unless dollars others commissioner, i think we can approve parts ab together. >> yes. commissioner antonini the dpaupt of the sequa and the adaptation of referral. >> i will move that 13 a and b.

>> commissioner moore. >> i just wanted to briefly ask the answer to the commissioners question mentioned the peninsula they talked about the creek situation was not included in the discrimination i want to get to staff to see if that area is included as well. >> yes. to clarify things mr. madding do mentioned he's from walnut creek this project is not in walnut creek. >> he is speaking. >> eir garters on the peninsula. >> commissioners moved and seconded on that motion. >> commissioner antonini arrest commissioner hillis percentage commissioner johnson. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that

motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you on item 14 office development update this is an informational presentation. >> good afternoon commissioner president wu i commissioners corey if the department staff this is focusing on the limited program we have as you may know this is in coming up more and more in the press and the public and also discussions in the

department we do the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may present this update to the planning commission and wanted to come before you to begin a dialog on some of the issues pardons the program can be incredibly complex and detailed the purpose to have a basin of information like the mechanics of how it works to look at the historical data and the projected data we're looking at now. this is an informational presentation not an action item only to bin the dialog and looking at the potential need for a new policy and if so what the policy my look like. we definitely want to receive guidance from the planning department and looking for the next steps. so again today, we're going to cover a program overview and

prop m and the mechanics and the process how it works and the historic data on the program and further projection and future policy outlooks so what's the annual outlook it regulates how much large office space maybe predicament in the city during any one be given year it is citywide it is not did not on any district and more 25 thousand square feet specifically the program allows up to 9 hundred and 50 square feet of offers development per year that is further divided into the small and large cap of the 9 hundred square feet praus plus it goes to projects between

50 thousand and 8 hundred plus goes to larger projects. just to provide a little bit of history. the program was created with the adoption of the downtown plan in 1985 at that time, it was so it was originally adapted by board of supervisors at that time, that plaintiffs applied to projectors larger than 3 hundred and 50 square feet it was a 3 year program and it was set to expire in 1988 it secludes certain exemptions last week for example, a certain amount of residential it was adapted and could have been modified by the board of supervisors. the next year, however, in '86 proposition m was approved by the voters and basically a

reaction to the concerns of office development on transit and housing and the neighborhood businesses and character. prop mexican amended the program it created the small cap before then it didn't exist and tried to account for a number of projects approved before the downtown by removing 4 hundred and 75 thousand square feet per year so it could run its course in the late 90s we're back at the 950 every year. that created priority policies geared around protecting neighborhood buzzing and affordable housing and you'll see those policies caught out in every motion. it is lesser known created a placement and training program

by more importantly the language specific to prop m is could only be amended by the voertsz the rest of the project language which is oozed housed in the planning code was adapted by the board of supervisors. in terms of how it works. as you know all promotions that are greater than 25 thousand square feet are required to come to the mrargs the the b case in my year if there's unused space then the next year it rolls over even though it's 78 hundred and 75 thousand you may have less because its rolled over into other years. the approvals can be revoked similar to other things by the

planning commission generally revoked due to performance period running out like 18 months for the first permit and another walking way an allocation converted to residential this phase what about captured and put back into the cap. there are some expectations to how the cap applies and whether or not the commission has authority for example, regional and local and state that space is required to come out of the cap but not to the planning commission for the authorization that comes out of the cap once the construction is underway. the project areas are somewhat complicated depending on the type of port property if the planning commission is required

to approve it and when exactly it comes out that can vary and also office space specifically for the city and county of san francisco is not coming out of the cap and not requiring commission approval. it is also important to note that there have been plans adapt in the past by the planning commission that gives me certain areas like hunters point bay and treasure island. section 321 of the planning code lazy out the criteria that the planning commission must consider i'll run through those those quickly the first is the portion time to have a balance on the economic growth and the housing and transportation on the