PC 05/13/81 - Laserfiche WebLink

Item No. 4 of the Proposed General Plan Amendments (GP-80-8) Gene Kelleher, General Manager of the San Francisco Water Department spoke. He addressed the EIR responses and the fact that this particular land is not suitable for agricultural use -- it is not rp ime. He stated that under environmental law you cannot make a negative effect when effluent is dumped on a site and that they are not sure whether or not this ground would be suitable to grow agriculture produce. He gave a history of ownership and activity on the land. He said in 1967 they paid $350,000 for a sewer which doesn't hook up to anything. He urged this property not be changed to "Agriculture and Grazing." Brian Swift, Assistant City Attorney, addressed the comments of Mr. Kelleher concerning whether or not this is prime agricultural land. He explained that the City took a position in the past to keep the same farmers on the land who had maintained it in an efficient manner. Commissioner Jamieson asked if San Francisco Water Department's request isn't reasonable considering the surrounding uses. Mr. Swift said the EIR doesn't address this. He stated the farmers now make a profit on the land and that the 1975 Environmental Element spoke to future agriculture in the valley and soil conservation services still view it as viable agricultural land. Item No. 5 of the Proposed General Plan Amendments (GP-80-8) There were no comments on public input concerning this item. Item No. 6 Robert Pearson, 3592 Churchill Court discussed the ratio of multi- family/single-family in the General Plan and stated the General Plan should be followed inasmuch as it was put together after a very large group of the population worked on the General Plan some time ago. He addressed Item #6, (Page 19 of the draft EIR, third paragraph) stating that Items #6 and #21 are tied together. He said that these are not in conformance with General Plan policy statements #6 and #7. Mr. Pearson read the policy statements. Mr. Pearson then brought up the four acre vs. six acre parcel in Fairlands. Mr. Swift explained. Mr. Harris said that the City had retained engineers to look into the various items addressed by Mr. Pearson. Mr. Pearson was advised to check with the City Manager concerning his desire to work with the engineers. -7- ~... __.__ .T._, .._.. _...