and operate a plant. the city of san francisco would do the following -- irrigation, those kinds of things, but it is between us. rec and parks asked us to approve it. we did have a conversation. >> we will be returning to our commission. i think our goal is to come to the meeting in order to be able to go out in january and have construction starts in april. >> should there be a change in his use?

d you have any thoughts about how long it would take before in the same could occur? >> it would depend on the changes proposed, but i think one of the challenges is that it has been represented of every potential decision has collapsed in the same time frame, that they will all be worked out in one year. the most interesting issue is less about the golf course and more to do with the sea wall that separates and protect those assets from the ocean. that is going to take awhile to answer. we have put in our request for the army corps of engineers to assist us in making that

determination. we have put the grant in. we do not know when that is forthcoming, but that is going to take a few years to build consensus. it would affect a number of other regulatory authorities, who also have an interest in protecting the potential habitat. assuming we can go through the question of what is the right mechanism, they're going to after pursuing a fairly considerable regulatory process. -- going to have to pursue a fairly considerable regulatory process. it would be about 10 years before you would see any

dramatic changes if you wanted to see a different management method pursued. in terms of converting the golf course, the decision has been put before the commission. they have decided to continue to preserve and 18-hole golf course. again, there is no financing available for any of those options. we're looking at a golf course for the near-term future. >> my understanding was this was for the rec and parks

commission. it is not really our purview, because it is their land. >> mr. ritchie was up the commission -- at the commission. the discussion is not about whether to proceed with it. it is about whether we take the responsibility of taking care of the irrigation system. they did ask that we of consider its first, because the idea is

only whether we are giving the work. if we were not going to ask them, they were not going to take it. >> i think that is accurate. i would like to confirm the i have heard your feedback, and the commission has heard your feedback in multiple settings, and there was a firm resolution adopted to move forward with an 18-hole golf course. it is a support to that goal. >> there has been nothing at in a venue that could supersede cut. >> what is the payback time for recycled water facility.

>> there is no recycle water project we are considering. those things are all considerably cheaper than recycled water, which is why san francisco has never done recycled water, because it is expensive. never is a long time. it has never penciled out.

>> i still hear the comments on the floor that as we delay in the water would potentially continue, but i am as eager as most to bring the project online. >> the package portends there's about $2.3 million in may state and federal funds. we are offsetting the fees by a tremendous amount. we would be under serving our community for not moving it forward as quickly as we could. that is my only comment. >> item 12 would not have any

impact on whether the project moves forward. it only has an impact on who is responsible. >> item 11? >> that could make a difference. they are asking us to change our specific relationship to make it easier to get the state grant. you have to pick money up and pay a different amount. >> i would like to take some public comments if there are any. >> we do have a number of speakers cards. if the speakers would come forward.

>> i am richard harris, and i represent the public golf alliance. we have been involved over the last 18 months. we support use of recycled water at the golf course it is a good substitution for fresh water for the reasons you are discussing. the continued use of the golf course is supported unanimously

by the board of supervisors. by the park and wrecked apartment, who put on a six- month multi volume study, by a 14-1 vote, but the park and ride commission by a unanimous votes. the opposition has been environmental species grounds. i believe you have a copy of that report, and the biological

consultant was next door to the national park service property in, and the scientific argument on that is unanimous that from the experts that were hurt by the rec and parks consultants, and that is why it keeps getting approved. the opponents went through several months of hearings and have made arguments that it is endangering species. those arguments have failed after all these public hearings,

and most recently, the same people went to the board of supervisors and made the same arguments. the board of supervisors did not follow that. they won the golf course to exist and go forward. we are in support of moving forward. >> next speaker please. >> i am with the equities institute. the ultimate decision is up to the board of supervisors, and for restoration, san francisco has options to partner, and they

would pay for full restoration. they would pay for it if the money is there. the future is unknown. making a decision today is premature. it has been a matter of debate for several years. it may change in the future. sharp park is losing between $30,000.300000 dollars a year. -- $30,000 and $300,000 a year. san francisco has never done any environmental review on the park, so to argue the city has chosen a particular position is premature. the rec and parks department submitted a proposal to retain the golf course over the objections of constituents.

the decision could not legally be made until after environmental review was completed. it does not really been an issue yet. they have recently written that the operations -- the opportunities to redirect our limit. if they lay the pipes in a way to preclude restoration, the puc will bee pursuing an alternativ. this is why it is premature at this time. it is extremely important.

water will be required, because the amount and the replacement of the water remains unknown. the project may irreversibly committed dollars to preserve the park. such a decision would certainly be harmful to ongoing decision making processes and would ultimately set back recycled water projects. for all of these reasons, it is important that you delay any

approval of the specific water- recycling project. >> i am speaking on behalf of the green party. they could not be accessed on the web until monday. it is not in the spirit of a two of -- to vote on item 11 today, because it had never been seen by the public until monday. i want to get this back to the important issue, which is in danger of species.

the national parks service weighed in and said in no uncertain terms, plan was not consistent with the recovery. a recovery plan is legally mandated. the sea wall is dangerous as it prevents flooding. the $45 million would have been spent on the sea wall and could be used in restoration as well.

funding is not an issue. the other thing is when they voted on this last year or the end of 2008 -- i do not know which staff it was, but staff came forward and said, do not worry. you are not going to get a white elephant, because if you build this, the use could be switched around. the reality is you have to wipe off. if they can find a way to back out of this and put it on hold until we know, and that would be best for the endangered species.

there is an ongoing environmental impact process. it is absolutely premature to give a signal to rec and parks that it is ok for them to go ahead with this. they are making us make this decision first for a reason, because they want a checkered flag to say go, and we should not do this. we should make them make their decision. they are the only ones that support and 18-hole golf course. the herpetologist they are citing is so out of it was her work but she said it is preferable to have a larger golf course because it forces them to

migrate. i have studied this in depth, and that is not good science whatsoever, so that is the kind of science this is based on. no thanks. >> any public comment? >> we have no other speakers. >> it would be interesting to look at what you are being asked to vote on, so if you look at item 11, it is authorizing us to change our agreement that would allow us to own a portion of the capacity to the plant. that allows them to get the state revolving loan that it be lower interest, and we have to provide our money. >> it means what? >> it means we will pay for up

front the cost of creating 70% of what we will be using. if you vote no on it, it does not stop construction. it simply says we came up with the money as opposed to using the revolving fund. item 12, if you look at the attachment of what you're being asked to approve today -- if you look at it, five pages long, and what it says, the city will continue to own and maintain the water treatment facility. north coast will operate the project facility. the recreation and park department will be responsible for irrigation.

it goes on to talk about what your requirements. it talks about a lot of site access for construction. it talks about a project-related mitigation measures and who is responsible and takes that responsibility and gives it to recreation and parks department. it talks about the retrofits to the irrigation center to be able to use recycled water, and it makes a recreation and park responsibility. it makes recreation and parks responsible for training their staff, and it has the requirement there be a site supervisor who knows what they are doing and routine inspections. there is nothing in item 12 that approves or disapproves the project. it simply says if you have the project, recreation and park is responsible for spending the money and being responsible for

it. whether we like it or not, back in 2008, they approved the project operator -- the procter. we said if policy makers are making the decision, let's hold on. we are waiting for policy makers to make the decision recreation and parks made their decision. the board has not weighed in. the board has given multiple chances.

that is a strange way of doing business, and that is what we are being asked to do if you have other questions about the statements, he has a different point of view from what some of the speakers gave. >> everything you have said, i want to make sure i understand. you are delegating authority to the general manager to execute this amendment. negotiation haussmann been completed. if we are not able to come to terms on this particular issue, the deal would fall apart. that still has to happen, but you would be authorizing us to proceed on this basis so you could get the grant money, but we do not have approval yet.

>> for the grant? >> for the amendment that would allow us to get the grant. >> i want to make it clear. it is not done yet. in case you hear this, we did not get this. >> commissioners, comments? >> i think the general manager was for a helpful in helping us focus on what is in front of us -- was helpful in helping us focus on what is in front of us, and both of the things in front of us are appropriate. >> i will second those two items. >> i wish this were public utilities committee land, but i

feel this is out of our jurisdiction and this is a rec and parks decision. it is their land, and they are going to deal with some big issues, and perhaps there is some way this commission can weigh in. i am interested to make sure they do the right thing, and there is another opportunity around climate change and endangered species, and i am hoping they bring in the appropriate people to advise them on what to do about the endangered species issue. it does seem like one final question is this question, because i was surprised by the comments last time that in the eaves and the future of the park has changed in the 10-year term, it would then be incumbent

upon rec and parks or north county to say it is now going to be a wet land, so we are going to redirect and pay the cost. how would that work? >> i felt like my comments were misconstrued. the point i was trying to make about alternative uses. there are no existing alternative uses. if land use were changed or there was a restoration project that required the use of water, i think it would be incumbent on the recreation and parks department to actually make that happen. if it is the time. when we have ownership, they could make that happen, because it would not hopefully involved

extensive changes to the facilities. the plan could be developed. i do not want it to appear we are ruling out the possibility. >> the other thing i sink khamsin is whether there are other uses than the specific. >> we have that in the eventuality that they could use the water.

certainly we would be open to the possibility of curator -- possibility. >> if there is no objection, we understand the implications we would hope the facility could be redirected so it does not become a white elephant, and we do everything we can to redirect the use. all in favor of passing items 11 and 12? >> aye. >>