Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Environmental Review topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Volunteer urges PUC to halt Sharp Park irrigation-tank plan and conduct full EIR

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission · February 13, 2007
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a San Francisco Public Utilities Commission meeting, Stan Kaufman and environmental groups urged the PUC to stop a planned irrigation tank, road and pipeline in Sharp Park’s significant natural area and require a full environmental impact report because of habitat impacts and major design changes.

Stan Kaufman, a volunteer with the Recreation and Parks Department’s Natural Areas Program, told the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission that the agency should halt plans to place a large irrigation tank, access road and pipeline in Sharp Park’s significant natural resource area and conduct a full environmental impact report. "This plan has been moved nearly 800 feet, the road has been doubled in length and widened by 50%, and the size of the tank installation has been doubled," Kaufman said during public comment, adding the site is habitat for the red‑legged frog and the San Francisco garter snake.

Kaufman said volunteers and members of organizations including the Sierra Club, the California Native Plant Society, the Center for Biological Diversity and Nature in the City oppose the current site because construction would damage coastal scrub, mature trees, Arrowhead Lake and Sanchez Creek. He said an environmental lawyer in Pacifica reviewed the revised plan and found the changes too extensive to be covered by an amendment to the project’s existing environmental clearance.

PUC staff indicated the Sharp Park matter was not on today’s agenda and said they would prepare a written response and bring a fuller analysis to a future meeting. A city attorney’s office representative said staff could prepare a presentation for the next agenda but could not engage in substantive discussion today because the item is not before the commission.

Commissioners asked staff to provide written materials and indicated they expect a formal follow‑up on the project’s environmental review and alternatives analysis. The exchange ended with staff agreeing to deliver a written summary and to include replies to emails submitted to the commission.