preferred food of local wildlife, but i have seen a lot of feral pigeons. it is an issue. >> is there any other public comment on this item? please come forward. if anybody else would like to speak, please come forward. >> thank you. i am and occupant resident of andmarina. -- of the marina. i just want to emphasize that care be taken for trash cleanup. we have a huge skunk and rat problem in that area. it is a great concept. i am just not convinced of the location of the particular vendor. it is already a dangerous

traffic intersection. there are other food locations close by on chestnut. i would vote for an alternative destination location on this. >> is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> and do we have any raw data or information available to indicate the need for a certain amount of vendors out there, have we done some research on what the economy will bear in

terms of these businesses? we are considering expanding our business opportunities out there. could you comment on what we kow today in terms of what we need to do out there? >> we know a number of things. when it came to the community meeting on the 28, with food carts or trucks, a which promised that we, add another without going back to them and talking to all of the concern's stake holders to make sure that one more was necessary or not necessary. we do not have any immediate plans right now.

we think that is more than enough right now. we are just having one out there right now. we are very interested in doing surveying of our park users. it is costly. there are thousands of folks down there on the weekend playing of -- weekends playing micro soccer. they are all interested in having a relatively sweet treat near by. there have been surveys done nationwide about best of class park systems in portland and seattle. park users indicated that food

and beverage amenities close by are on top of the list. >> can i suggest that before we do any more, that we do some surveys out there and get some input from that community in terms of what other opportunities or amenities you are making available to the public there. >> i will second that. it is a great idea to ask the users what they would like to see. i think we would be pleasantly surprised. >> a couple of things. i wanted to follow up on the answer about why the funds have to stay in the marina. this is state law. it is not a recent development.

that is a good question. i appreciate that the vendors are in charge of keeping a 100- foot radius clean. somebody keeps walking past 100 feet. i want to be attentive to the conditions after it has been there for a while. we want to make sure that we are addressing increased garbage. >> the community would be acutely aware of the garbage condition. they will continue to give us be back because they are down there every day. we would work with them to continually in sure that. -- ensure that.

>> i just want to augment the conversation. you have heard them present in the commission meeting about their beliefs and their study that scarcity is not actually necessarily the economic strategy choice. we should have more alternatives and amenities. we do have data on that particular point. we could think of ways that are affordable within our particular budget. it is noted that the neighborhood parks council asked about certain kinds of amenities. you will engage the public on certain desired amenities. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> call a question. is there a motion? moved and seconded. all those in favor? opposed? it is unanimous. >> we are now on a recycled water project. >> before they present this item, i will announce to the audience that this is discussion only. there is no action required. this is the first time that this item has been presented before the commission. we will be learning along with you about what is being proposed. >> i am project manager with the san francisco public utilities commission. i am here to brief you on a project that is a critical part

of the effort to make sure that the city has a safe and reliable water supply in the future. this project initially route -- began the environmental review of process. today's presentation, i will give you a brief background on the water supply settings. i will provide a summary of the project, touch on what we have been doing to reach out to the public and what we have heard from them. this will commit -- continue with the community outreach and feedback. this is the department of -- of the city and council of san francisco. we use approximately 65 million gallons of drinking water a day. this includes all of san francisco end of the wholesale

agencies. they operate the regional water systems and a complex network of pipelines, tunnels, reservoirs, water treatment plants in the bay area. in 2002, we embarked on a $4.6 billion improvement program working on the water system improvement program to repair a complex water delivery systems. this will help us meet water requirements, improve the system's ability to deliver water after earthquakes. part of this capital program says that developers are required to develop 10 million gallons a day of water supply to maintain or cap regional water deliveries at 265 million per day.

to meet the water supply objective, we must diversify the local water sources with the implementation of these programs including our commitment to conservation, the development of ground water for this use, and the development of recycled water for non potable used such as irrigation. recycled water is highly treated waste water. the recycled water treatment system will not be treating raw sewage, but will be further treating or polishing secondary products of the oceanside treatment plant. this includes biological treatment to break down remaining organic matter. this will go to the proposed to recycle water treatment facility, where it will be further treated with reverse

osmosis before being disinfected with ultraviolet light. it will produce water that will be used for irrigation. the proposed treatment scheme for this project is reverse osmosis. the filtration process that uses high-pressure to force water through a semi permeable membrane that would it pass water molecules through. this is considered the best available technology to reduce the level of salts and ammonia in the water. this high quality of recycled water would surpass current recycled water requirements. water supply challenges and drought have been major drivers for the implementation of

recycled water drivers in the state. the state is committed to recycled water. this is supported by california state laws and policies. in 2009, the state implemented the recycled water policy of implementing recycled water use by 1 million acres per year by the year 2020. the city of san francisco is committed to recycled water and its role in water supply goals. it began in 1991 with the recycled water ordinance that would begin planning of a recycled water system for the city of san francisco. this was further endorsed with the 2009 amendment to the san francisco park code which called for maximizing water efficiency. recycled water is a drought per

free source of non potable water and is a -- drought profoof free source of non potable water. this was later transition to ground water. the park was an early leader in what reduce through the use of secondary water from the mcqueen plant. recycled water represents the future of park sustainability and will keep the park green even during drought conditions. this will be our ability to supply water for irrigation. our project began in 1996.

many sites have been considered for a recycled water facility. the project has undergone many changes in scope. this is including the bathhouse and boathouse and the oceanside plant. engineering studies between 2006-2008, this was developed for facilities in this location. in late 2008, failure to provide a higher level of treatment as well as recommendations for the facility closer to the end-users but the project to focus on another location. this systematic provides an overview of the project. this would be at the west end of golden gate park.

the facility would produce and deliver an average of 2 million gallons per day of the water. the facility would include treatment, storage, and distribution. recycled water would be used primarily for the -- primarily for golden gate part. -- park. this table summarizes the recycled water plant project. the irrigation in golden gate park is the highest demand with the total current recycled water demand. the facility is proposed to be located at the west end of golden gate park, an area currently used for construction staging.

these images show a street level view of the current conditions. the top image of martin luther king drive that showed that the spot is hidden behind trees. this is the existing ground water location that currently it is providing irrigation water to the park. this is used for oil stagin, storage, and other maintenance activities. the recycled water facility is two semi-circle structures. once constructed, the structures would approximately occupy 1 acre of the site.

we are proposing landscape improvements to the area surrounding the facility. this is the landscapers goal 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