of the irrigation system and training the staff and guaranteeing that there would be a site supervisor and testing and inspection. these are what we have agreed on behalf of the city. this assigns the responsibility to parks and recreation. >> these are the mitigation measures. >> correct. >> these are the agreements that we had and we are now transferring or allocating to parks and recreation? >> correct. >> the item shows that would it would give the general manager the response -- the responsibility to negotiate the mou. the wording on the agenda is slightly different from the final wording.

>> that is what we will be voting on. >> correct. >> are there any further questions? is any public comment >> we have three speaker cards. >> public comments on item 14. >> good afternoon, commissioners. we advocate the protection of national parks. a thank-you for your work on the conservation efforts. i am here to express concerns that the puc is considering

authorizing agreements for the golf course which is within the boundaries of the conservation area this is the project that has been known and documented by the fish and wildlife service. we are concerned with this potential action. this came up in march of this year and april of this year. north coast county wanted to know should we move forward with this project because there is ailing real issue here on the golf course. we are not aware of any policy

to the continued to call for. how could the water continue elsewhere? this is a serious matter. there have been notices to file in the city of san francisco for the care of these issues. why am not clear what the role of puc is. this project is unresolved. there are other organizations that can share their thoughts with you. this continues to be unresolved. the city of san francisco has had to work with the agency's.

this is clearly not a policy directive. that is what is going on right now. we know that your response to public comment, this could be directed elsewhere in the project changes. this is it part of the overall project. i believe that 80% was directed towards sharp park. it would feel fortunate to have federal funds not spent towards this project. this is also quite water intensive and the restoration

may not have that same use. thank you for the discussion. thank you for your time for conserving water. >> hello, i'm a resident of san francisco and i'm concerned because we would like to authorize a general manager to negotiate a memorandum of understanding with the parks department for the delivery and application of recycled water. i don't oppose using recycled water in place of drinking water for non drinking uses. the substitution must be.

this would be designated for a golf course. we have no resolution on the future of the park. the san francisco public utility commission should not authorize the commission. in the public utilities commission should insure that the water is constructed and the delivery contracts negotiated or require you to deliver this to other uses. it is important that the contracts include other uses for the water including when the future of the park is not yet determined. i have a letter from the alliance. "dear commissioners, this is a request that the commission

delayed a decision about the project. we did not support wasting public money on water for a golf course. the golf course is illegal and in our mental problem. the coast is continually -- the golf course is illegal and has environmental problems. we urge you to delay the decision on this project until it can be redesigned for flexible use by other customers, not as it is now. you can contact the alliance and

the information -- you can contact the alliance for further information. >> i am an undergraduate at the university of san francisco. i am not against recycled water use. i did not agree with giving the part the majority of the resources. even if the golf course remains, the facility is adjacent to a wetland community. it seems counter intuitive to jump the gun on the undecided future.

>> thank you. >> i would like to point out that i have been following this issue for a couple of years. if you consider this finished, that is inaccurate. there are lawsuits pending. all of the organizers and the supervisors are planning to look at what changed.

the plan that was currently put out is not consistent with an endangered species restoration plan. how in the world you can continue with a golf course plan when the park service said that is unreal. that is not what will result. this will be nine colson is any and there will not -- there will potentially be none. -- there will be nine holes. you have a profound responsibility when it comes to endangered species.

they will be front loading this issue. unless the decision is postponed until they have decided what will happen with the golf course and the park, this will potentially favor an outcome if you make a decision right now. i would strongly urge you to hold off on this and wait until not just conjecture but until this issue is resolved and we know it sadly what the disposition of the park will be like. there is no reason to prematurely to this parks and recreation at been aggressive -- there's no reason to do this prematurely. parks and recreation have been aggressively pursuing this. thank you.

>> colleagues. >> if the land use changes, what is the ability of the facility to redirect the recycle water? >> i would say the capacity to redirect recycle water would be possible but severely limited. they can pump this into a and existing committee but this would be very expensive. it is possible to do this but it would be high cost. -- they can pump this into an existing community. >> is 80% the correct number? >> yes.

>> it sounds like the decision on one hand has been made but there is some conversation that there could be reuse of the land. >> there are allusions to things like lawsuits and plans nothing that has come to us. we have checked with parks and recreation today. there is an action to deal with this piece of it. >> this would be a $30 million per year offset.

>> of water that is of retail demand for us. >> the endangered species question that comes up, those medications will be addressed, have those been addressed. >> as far as the golf course, those have not been addressed. we have not looked at this either with a golf course or the different types of land out

there. >> what would happen? >> nothing would happen. we are already on the hook for a contract that we of sign that says the city of san francisco would do those things. this would have to be taken by the park commission. >> the public utilities commission would be obligated rather than parks and recreation? >> what is the status of the environment impact report from parks and recreation? >> they are not doing one.

>> what form of jeopardy is out there? would this be if that they would not do what they are replanted to do? >> or if this is someone else. this is nine holes, 18 holes, is this no golf? those sort all potential problems. no one has stepped up with any money to do any thing with where it is today. that is one of the concerns. there might be a discomfort with that. we are working with water.

>> as far someone being able to change their mind for them. nothing has happened at the board of supervisors to change that. legally, they could make that decision. >> there is no statutory time? >> we can change this. if for some reason you would like us to provide more information about what official actions were taken and what the dates were and to clarify the history of what has occurred, i would be happy to do that. >> does the agreement -- let's

say that parks and recreation decided to do something. assuming that something else happens, do they have the ability to use this form on irrigation purposes? >> it would depend on what the use was. making use it for irrigation. if the project it not go forward, they would change into an irrigated use. >> if they were to build development there as an alternative, that is a public issue. >> this can only be used for

part or public service. >> this is really not an issue. i think that we should move forward and pass this. i think that this provides a very important source of water that is something that we should be looking at in the future and that is based upon your words on how this should be used. >> i'm not a huge fan of golf courses. they use a lot of pesticides and water.

i have questions about this project and could this be converted to an open space side down the road. what happened to that facility? could this be used? i feel like it don't have quite a bit of information. that is where i fall. >> i am concerned about the use of the land and the agencies. if we pay for a facility that has no revenue extreme, this is

kind of like a fine -- like a bond issue. frankly, my sense of the process is that none of these issues are new and they have considered them at some length. my concern would be have we taken the steps that we should take to protect the investment to the facility so that we don't end up with a white elephant. we are not sure about if this

was anticipated to change. >> these are some things that we have dealt with. we have submitted money to the recycling plant. this will be under construction soon. the item before us is whether this is a sign, this is not whether it is whether to go forward with the plant. this has been decided by this commission. >> i don't mind going back in research in that and making everyone comfortable with that has already happened. >> there's no merit in postponing given that we have already gone down this road. well we did debate this, we are losing water every day. that is something not towards our overall goal as we try to go

down this road in the future. >> if we are building the facility, we can have this agreement in place. >> true, but this will not be finished for some time. the critical decision that we had to make was do we go ahead or not? will we pay our share? we had committed to that years ago. last year, since there was a public debate about whether to go forward, we stopped and said that you have to go on and make a decision. then we waited for the recreation and park commission to make a decision. clearly there are people who did

not believe that this is a final decision but the decision was made and nothing will change that in any place else in san francisco. that is when we gave the authority to go ahead. >> i don't understand why we're having this discussion. >> i hear you, it is very clear now. >> i think that the horses are the left the gate. i don't know, i guess i don't really recall this happening but i don't really know. i thought that we are waiting for some more information from parks and recreation and not the future of the park and then with the board of supervisors would do.

i guess we have automated decision on the plan. >> i did not research this for today. you're shaking your head. >> i don't recall who was on the commission when this was approved. i also recall about the report and the decision to move forward with the previously acted upon approval. i cannot remember the dates. the of recreation and parks commission. you could have the option of letting this go to parks and

recreation. this will take both commissions approval. >> we will adopt this and if they don't, -- is that we are saying? >> or we can wait until they adopt this. >> i like the idea of parks and recreation doing this because this is their land. there is a little bit more information available on his questions that have been raised.

>> there is no danger. >> i would say that this this would be acted upon. >> in motion to continue to the call of the chair. >> a vote on motion to continue this until the next meeting. >> so moved. >> then moved and seconded could tell -- then moved and seconded.

corks item 15, discussion and possible action to authorize a general manager of the parks and recreation commission to execute a finding -- funding agreement with river partners, a nonprofit organization, to provide $2 million for the acquisition of a ranch located at the confluence of two rivers and stanislaus county, to result in permanent land conservation and habitat preservation of 1,600 acres and 6 miles of river front. >> we are very excited to have this. i just want to outline what has been proposed. we have a very short presentation.

on want to acknowledge and thinking our environmental program coordinator. this will be the single largest investment that we have made in this program since it started in 2005-2006. we are scheduled to provide an annual report so we can cover more ground. this is something that is timely and.