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.

this is not a great map presented here this way. this is in your packet as well. wanted to show you how this briefly. this is the bottom. you cannot get any further downstream. down the and back around again. that is a refuge for a lot of

reasons. you'll hear some of that from project sponsors. it is a critical link to how the land will be managed, going forward. just a quick shot to look at the current state of the property. a better shot may be right here. what we are talking about now is the acquisition of the land. there will be a plan to restore the land which will come later. the action we are talking about now is just having a nonprofit organization take total -- take title to the land, at which point phase two will begin, which i think some of the project sponsors will talk about. these are some of the numbers. 1,600 acres of land. that is large. 6 miles of river frontage. river partners will hold the title. the federal nrcs will hold the

conservation. there are still targeting an acquisition by the end of the calendar year, which will depend on the part commission. total project costs -- not expect -- not inexpensive to acquire land in northern california. we are talking about the proposed contribution from the puc. there are many other contribution partners. this is a rollup of the state and federal funding. $500 and change will bring the project to closure. we are hoping we have lots of these opportunities in the future when we have to fund protection of land. these people take a long time. as long as i have been with the puc, almost five years, this has been discussed with staff, and what role for the puc to play. that has become more clear overtime.

i think is a credit to the project sponsors, and particularly the land owners and funders of this program. it took a lot of patience. this is the kind of program we want to be involved in. a lot of collaboration and very broad support from the community. i think the people here to speak for the project will cover some of that ground. long ago, as part of the 1934 agreement, the puc did provide some funding for projects like this in the area. there was a very large flood. timing is everything. as a consequence, lots of landowners came forward with proposals to have their land protected with easements and acquisition. many of those projects have happened in the last 14 years.

this is another opportunity. this is one of the largest ones in terms of size and dollar value, and maybe in benefit because of its location downstream. the refuge has already been a major player under the federal law. this is the area that the salmon migrate up and down from. as such, it is part of the heart of the san joaquin valley. i think there are some folks that would like to talk as well about the project. i would be happy to answer questions if there are any. vice president vietor: what is on the land right now? is it cadillacs -- cattle? >> i will let the sponsors talk about it. it is a tough area to be at the

confluence of the two rivers. vice president vietor: the reason i asked the question is because the river is right there. if there is cattle grazing, i worry about what is going to happen to the river. >> i think the project sponsors can speak to the current and feature plans. there is cattle raising around properties, and there has been in these areas. they manage that very much to avoid those kinds of problems. i do not think that is a plan in the future given the easement that will be put in place for the area. vice president vietor: as you know, we have had problems in the past. i just want to make sure. >> there are people better able to speak on this than i am. president crowley: now we are on to public comment.

>> we have two speaker cards. >> my name is john carlin. i am here today to request your support for the dos rios acquisition. the short answer is there are not kept all right now. it is all infield and grow crops, things like alfalfa and tomatoes. there is going to be another person that is going to come up after me and talk more specifically about the property, but what i would like to do is try to frame the context of this acquisition and why we are so excited about it until it is important property. first, and mr. ramirez touched on this, it is a model of partnership. the money from san francisco puc would join with the national resource conservation service,

the u.s. fish and wildlife service, the department of water resources, the wildlife conservation board, and three other non profits that are working together to close this acquisition. one additional bit of information is that we have had conversations with the executive director of the wildlife conservation board who are interested in closing that last $5 million gap. but this point, if this is able to pass, we will be in place to close the deal. the second thing is just in the context of other statewide initiatives. this project is centro and release support all the restoration efforts that are under way on me -- ithis project is