of increasing public use. the remaining two acres to the rest of the proposed building would likely be used to the construction of the building with work trailers and construction equipment and materials. this would be returned to the management that manages any process. we have been working closely with parks and recreation staff for the last year and a half to but that the proposed sign. this is the recycled water treatment structures. this is the proposed the visitor center. all equipment and distribution pumps would be held within the main building. this would be concealed from public view with this design

concept. this and major would be used on the form our brown the building to reduce additional impacts around the building and provide for recreation. this would have green roofs on both buildings to provide for their integration into the area. >> this preliminary cross- section view shows that the primary building on the white -- right-hand side would be buried into the existing hillside with only 10 feet of wall exposed on the eastern side of the building. on the western side of the secondary structure, the landscape would be built up so that only 10 feet of the structure would be exposed. these 10-foot walls would act as a fence, providing the required level of security so that no chain-link fence would be required around the facility. there is a 1.1-million-gallon recycled water storage facility

that would be completely buried under the main treatment building. this rendering shows a view of the building from the proposed service road. again, the areas around the facilities will be landscaped to encourage public use. the current design concept does not include fences. the areas would be planted with native grasses, like the ones shown here. our current project proposals include a visitor center, which is envisioned to be a joint puc and recon park facility. the preliminary vision is it would be a space that provides learning opportunities about the puc's water system, the role of water in golden gate park, and rec and park's mission. the space could also or on-site learning either inside and out of the building, or possibly as part of the building itself. we have been actively working to

inform the public about our proposed project, and as we move forward, we will continue to keep the community informed through our web site, e-mail, printed materials, and community presentations. through all of our evidence thus far, we have raised concerns -- we have heard concerns related to site selection and alternatives as well as consideration of a fully barry building option, which was described in the golden gate master plan. the puc wants to engage the public further in addressing these plans and will be conducting a series of interactive workshops. we are at a point in a process where project alternatives may certainly still be considered, and we have invited the public to participate in a series of workshops to discuss and provide input on other potential alternatives considered feasible -- that it considered feasible could be carried forward into the environmental review process. the first workshop will be held on november 18 will follow a rigid follow workshops in

december and january. the environmental review process was recently initiated with the issuance of a notice of preparation, and we anticipate publishing our draft eir in approximately one year. our goal is to complete the environmental review and permitting process by fall 2012 and complete design in late 2012. if we need these milestones, construction could begin as early as 2013 and continue through 2015. the proposed project has the potential to bring new life to an area that is currently a dumping ground, a magnet for vandals, graffiti artist, and a meeting area for other illicit activities. the richmond sunset plan was demolished in 1996, and to date, the site remains relatively unchanged. the proposed projects will lead to an improvement over current site conditions and will help

san francisco do its part in generating recycled water to irrigate the parks and other clean spaces in a sustainable manner so that future generations may enjoy the parks for years to come. >> thank you. why don't we have public testimony, and then we can ask some questions? >> [reading names] you could come forward, please. >> good afternoon. 36 years ago, 60% of the voters approved proposition k to amend the charter to protect the golden gate park from new

buildings unless approved by a 2/3 approval vote of the board of supervisors. it clarified the term "building or structure necessary for maintenance shall mean nursery's, equipment storage facilities, and comfort stations." in 1995, the new charter increased protections to prevent buildings in the park by requiring approval of the voters for non-recreational structures. a water treatment plant is a non-recreational building. because the charter section 4.113 regulates these approvals and requires them for new buildings, it is this commission pose a responsibility to implement these parts of the charter, so before public funds are prematurely spend on project plans and an eir for the golden gate park site, the first step is to find out if the new

factory will be approved by both the board of supervisors and the voters of the city. it is important to understand that the charter specifies voting on new structures, which is a separate issue from the program to use recycled water, which i personally support, but not the factory. please agendize this matter as soon as possible and remember, the facility does not have to be located in golden gate park. all the plans of until late 2008 located this at the oceanside treatment plant. there are lots of ways of handling this. if you are not going to be the stewards of golden gate park, who is? and it is in the charter, so i'm sure you would like to do that work. thank you. >> good afternoon. i just wanted to bring a few comments in here about the

infrastructure, government projects, and currently, for projects. it is so much more important than just highways. that is one point. another point i want to try to bring across is the political economics of it. can we get funding for this particular type of projects that has homeland security funding backing of a with the horror and diseases that would be used in biological warfare, so if anything happened to our water supply, we would have a system ready to make sure our system does embody people who have good water. another thing, it used to be whether or not they would be building 80 carbonization -- carbonate tank, and i tried to

put some thinking in it. maybe we could saddlebag it around the main water supply area, but i'm in favor of this. it is something i think we as citizens in need to have a security issue as well. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here wearing titter we'll have said. first of all, i am one of the many people who serve on the committee affectionately known as prosac and i hope what you will hear when the report is given, the committee did pass a resolution expressing its great concern about the locations of this proposed project.

i'm also here representing the california native plant society, which has some interest in preserving park land, as you can imagine. let me tell you what i like about this proposal. i like that it proposes the use of recycled water. this is good. we should do that. the other thing i like about it is that whatever facility was proposed, by her the mention of using native grasses to landscape it -- excellent, very good. somewhere else not in golden gate park. now, let me get to what i do not like about this proposal, and that is the location. i spent part of earlier this year engage in a battle to save some acreage from the candlestick point state recreation area. we lost that battle. there is now going to be housing built on 23 acres of what used to be part of a state park. now, being confronted with a

proposal to build a water treatment plant on acreage that is part of golden gate park. as this is a slippery slope, the incline is getting steeper with every passing minute. please, i urge that every consideration be given to other locations for this project, not in golden gate park. it does not need to be there. thank you very much. >> i do not have a position yet on whether or not this recycling facility should go in the park. there are many reasons why it should not, and i respect very much my friends and colleagues who have strong reservations about it, but i do want to just tell you that i feel strongly that the city does need to pursue the production of recycled water somewhere. it is really an embarrassment that we are the last major city

in the state to even have any source of recycled water. it is the one piece richmond on our otherwise fantastic environmental record -- it is the one the smirch -- it is teh one besmirchment. i hope supervisor mar: -- i hope rec and park will continue to have a strong voice. one concern about the water is that the pharmaceuticals and various hormone them occurs and other things that can get into our water supply -- the good news is we are finally moving towards a pharmaceutical buyback program, and those things and public education will help. the cost of recycled water is enormous. there is no getting around that when you compare to what we pay now for hetch hetchy water, but if you consider the environmental cost of continuing to extract water, stealing the

water from the fish and the other creatures that depend on a healthy watershed, if you factor those costs in, i do not think we can any longer say that costs should be a determining factor not to do recycled water. i'm very glad that the puc is setting alternative sites and holding more meetings, and i'm hopeful that we can soon realize that our waste water should not be regarded as something that we just throw away, but that it can be a valuable resource, and we need to start treating it, along with our storm water and gray water. thank you. >> good afternoon. in the bay area program director for the ptolemy river trout. we were founded in 1981 with the purpose of protecting and restoring the tuolome river.

in 1984, we convinced congress to designate the upper part of the river. a few years ago, when the sfpuc proposed the water system improvement program, we were very supportive of the seismic upgrades, but we were concerned about a provision that would increase diversions by 25 million gallons per day by 2013 to meet future demand. already, 60% is diverted. what we have seen is a dramatic decline in fish. before there were any dams, there were 100,000 salmon spawning in the air every year. the situation is very dire. we were very pleased a couple of years ago when the sfpuc came forward with a compromise that the seismic upgrades would move forward, but we would cap water sales at current levels until at least 2018, and that would give

us a chance to look into demand, conservation, recycled water, understand climate change and how that is going to affect the water supply better, but to do that, the wholesale customers have to really ramp up their conversation -- conservation programs. puc committed to conserve and recycle 10 million gallons per day, and 4 million of that is going to come from recycled water, so we applaud that decision and that commitment. we're glad to see them moving forward with recycled water. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners. www.goldengateparkpreserva tion.org.

i believe this project demonstrates an unfortunate attitude. billings are 40,000 square feet, 30 feet high. they would take a lot more land, and what happens when you do have a homeland security scene? what is going to happen when the puc decides they have to expand? in 1998, golden gate park master plan, after 10 years of discussion among the community and all city departments, decided that the east end of golden gate park would be developed and the west and would be wild. there is no way that this project, which has very pretty pictures but is a building -- i just want to say it is a building -- is considered wild. the golden gate park master plan know about this possibility, and it agreed that it would not go into golden gate park, and if it did, it would be completely underground with landscaping on top. golden gate park has water. land is being taken, and is

being justified by the fact of the water in golden gate park. the construction yard could be cleaned up. if you do not need it, take the stuff out. nature will take over. let's have a vision for the area. the netherlands had two of stories that preserve the dna of tulips that are being lost. windmills' at a mill house right next door. let's envision that as park land that everyone can use. san francisco is going to become more and more dense. we need our park land. please, take golden gate park off the list of open land for development projects. we have done a scoping letter, which is available on our website. i believe it is available in your package, and we have copies today for anyone who is interested. >> is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners, this was an

information-only item. are there any questions at this stage? hearing none -- oh, commissioner harrison. commissioner harrison: if i could ask the folks from puc, you mentioned you're going to have some workshops in november, december, january. will they include potential alternative sites? >> yes, the main purpose of the workshop is to get interested members of the public together. we will have roundtable discussions, and as an outcome of those round tables, we are hoping the public can provide input as to what alternatives they would like to see carried forward. commissioner bonilla: because this is so down the road, i have not read all the information yet, and i hope to get some briefings on just what the whole

project would entail, but what i did want to ask was is it an absolute certainty, and it is it entirely unfeasible for us to continue to look at the oceanside and the facilities as opportunities for this treatment plant? could you explain to me what the negatives are? i hope i'm not putting you through this needlessly because there will be opportunity to discuss this a little bit more, by that is of major interest to me, why we would, at this point

in time, be saying that these areas are not, at least at this point, open for consideration and that we are really looking at this other alternative proposal. if you could just shed a little light there, that would be great. >> i invite you to attend our workshop if possible because that is going to be the focus of those workshops. if other areas come up, they will be considered, and we will have an engineering team that will help further develop the alternatives that come out of the workshop from the public input and will determine if they are still feasible. that is going to be part of that process, and if you are available, we would welcome your participation. >> so they are still on the table? these areas? it is not like an absolute rejection at this point in time, and we still have an opportunity to comment on those areas as

well as considering this other alternative? and then, entertaining other options that may come up through the hearings -- is that correct? >> that is correct. commissioner levitan: i know you're not the architect, but do you know what percentage of the overall square footage is designated for the visitor center? >> about 2500 square feet. buildings are 45,000 square feet. the buildings and the driveway in between the two buildings. >> are you aware that -- commissioner levitan: are you aware if they have considered putting all of it underground, if that is even a feasibility? >> it has been considered at a high level concept, but the installation starts to become an issue. right now, the building is ventilated from vents along the

two walls, so if the whole building were to be covered, those ventilation structures would go on the roof, and at that point, we have a bunch of structures on the roof that you would more than likely need to ensure the security of the site, and people we would fence off the facility. commissioner levitan: ok, thanks. >> do you know the square footage or footprint of the former plant that was taken down in 1996? >> it was about four and a half acres. >> that would be 160,000 square feet. wow. a little over that. probably 175,000 square feet. thank you very much. ok. >> would you like to go to the general manager? commissioner buell: i would like to. let's hear from the general manager. >> thank you, commissioners. a few short items.

obviously, this was and is a great week for us. your recreation and park department has had a small hand in. on monday night, i think, as you know, we broadcast game 5, and we had somewhere between 10,000 or 15,000 people, and we have many of our mobile food vendors out there. but it was a great event, a great atmosphere out there, and this was a follow-up to some of the work we did this summer with the world cup. again, another example of attending to activate civic center plaza for positive reasons. yesterday, obviously, we had a grand civic event. you should know that the capacity for civic center is around 25,000, so we tested the limits of that capacity yesterday. we had literally hundreds of

thousands of folks out there, and the reason i mention this is i want to thank our staff. it worked for several hours. this was all done on very short notice, as you know. they were part of a big, citywide team. we were not the only city agency or department involved in the planning of the event, but our staff work for several hours both setting up and now cleaning up nine truck loads of garbage and debris, plus an additional 100 bags of garbage hauled out yesterday and this morning. staff out there literally right now continuing to break down the event, clean the plaza. they will be a reading -- they will be aerating the lawn. we had a little bit of damage in a couple of different places, probably to be expected, given the size. the floral plaque on the south side of civic center plaza across from phil gramm experienced some damage from, i

think, folks traveling through it, but i really want to thank jimmy kern for his leadership and supporting a very ambitious undertaking. eric hill, jackie robinson, stephen yet, and marcus santiago and our park patrol unit for really what was some tireless work between monday and the parade on wednesday in supporting this great celebration at civic center plaza. president buell and commissioner harrison touched upon events yesterday out at harding that are going on all weekend, but just when you thought it was safe to take a breath, we actually happen to have the senior golf championship this weekend, which is a terrific event. we have some very famous golfers out there like tom watson and

fred couples, some early world- class champs out there competing for the senior cup championship, and it does coincide with the fruits of this commission's labor in having the pga tour take over the management and marketing of the golf course. you can already start to see the strength of the decision. during the world series, the pga did a marketing campaign that look at golf courses in arlington and san francisco that went all over the country. for all the baseball fanatics that were out there that wanted to play around a golf, the pga was already promoting our spectacular golf course. the reports we are getting about the condition of the course. commissioner buell noted, and he might be the best to speak on it because he played there yesterday.

the reports we are getting are that the greens are in a world class, terrific shape. i'm also very proud of steve and kevin and the entire staff out there. this is yet another example of the behind-the-scenes work. they are working very long days, the entire gardening and maintenance staff, to meet the world's very high expectations for the course. victoria mentioned the mtc park users survey. i think it will be a valuable tool in helping shape budget priorities and helping get some sense of community feedback on a variety of opportunities to preserve, protect, enhance, help our park system survive, so we are featuring the mtc survey on our own website and trying to communicate, and i want to thank them for conducting a town hall meeting last saturday and for their ongoing partnership and

support for our parts. on november 8, we have the second of two public meetings to brief the public on the contract negotiation for the boat house, and it comes back before the commission at the next meeting in november. the next meeting is on november 8 between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m., and there will be public discussion of contract terms and concession and an opportunity for the public to actually meet the ortega family. we have a ribbon-cutting ceremony on october 12 at 4:00 p.m., and this is a really exciting project, and it is the second part to the renovation of the lincoln park playgrounds, which happened probably eight months ago now. november 13, fall one day at the golden gate park tennis complex, celebrating the recent resurfacing improvements to the course between 2:00 and 5:00. if you have not been out there,

all but three of the courts out there have been resurfaced with a surface that even makes, you know, 45-year-old guys like me feel young out there. it is a great service and pretty bouncy. on november 27, very exciting event. pianist is going to give a program. he is a world-class pianist and the father of a child with autism, with home we are partnering closely in an opportunity to provide more summer opportunities and more programs for kids on the autism spectrum. he will be doing a benefit concert on november 27 from 8:00 to 11:00. tickets can be purchased online as cityboxoffice.com. and lastly, the annual holiday tree lighting festivities at