alex standing there. i am sure he will testify is true that the task force was a very diverse task force, and a group of individuals that in a lot of cases would not normally be on the same team. i think the puc certainly should be able to take some credit for that. but i think looking at it, the task force -- i think the digester task force has created a way to also make us closer in that community. i think those are some of the things, just shortly, i wanted to share with you, which i have not shared before. i think those are the things that create good neighbors and create -- once i think people need to understand quickly. we are part of the family of bayview hunters point. everybody fleshes there. everybody is a part of it. we are a part of a view.

my office is in bayview. the of theory that -- the theory that we are different things -- we're the same thing. i wanted to share that. chairperson maxwell: why don't we open this up to public comment? francisco? >> i find this meeting despicable, and i will explain to you why. you were the representative from district 10. do you notice in this meeting the first two agenda items were about the redevelopment agency, and now three items on very important things. you get the opportunity to ask puc to present. that presentation was not forthcoming. that is putting in very diplomatically. what i am seeing is this. i am having a meeting tomorrow with the chief financial officer of sfpuc, and i am going to be

writing an article. this article that i write will be what i really have in my mind. what we have here is a lot of corruption. i have sent another article from the old days to ed harrington and to the chief financial officer. i will put the link in the article so that you know what is happening here. what we want to know is from the $4.60 billion that was spent for clean water, how much of it was community benefits. not the little stuff, but how much of it was? we just want to know. 2%? 3%? 4%? 5%? now, the bond measure will come again about $1.40 billion or $1.60 billion. we want to know what percentage. we do not want stories about my

office in the community and that crap. that does not fly. too many people all over the southeast sector -- bayview, hunters point, are suffering. they want to know what kind of benefits they will get. i have been participating over here. somebody who represents us is not doing her job. i am glad she is getting termed out. thank you very much. >> i will try to be brief. specifically, i want to touch on one thing karen mentioned in terms of some of the siting decisions going on on the digester. alex twinsburg, chair of the cac, but here is myself. there was a picture showing the original shoreline. karen said something really important that i think jumps to your level more than it does

theirs. that is that they need to consider it seismographs, flooding risks. the puc focuses on puc facilities. the land use facilities to think of the entire city. when we look at the port docklands, when we see these maps -- these things are going to be under water or under high tide probably within a generation. the land use committee released to ask itself how we are going to arm our this land. are we going to write it off right now to the tides? moving the digesters -- moving the entire treatment plant to the back plans creates a tremendous opportunity protect port infrastructure. it creates an opportunity to open up what one of my neighbors has called the industrial force field around bayview hunters point that so divides our communities -- the northwest

portion from the rest of the city. it creates a tremendous opportunity to redevelop the land, about 12 acres, a to 10-- 10 yo 12to 12 acres, right nexta prospective caltrans stopped coming into something that will help the neighborhood. as you watch this develop over the next few years, please think about this in the broader context, not simply focused on puc infrastructure, as they do. chairperson maxwell: if we look at it in the broader sense, both of us sit on bcdc. and it is coming up with regulations on how you build. nobody in their right mind would build a sewage plant on the back plans that could be, as you mentioned, underwater. that does not make sense. what we are doing at is looking at zones where you do not build things, where you do not put

yourself in a position where you are going to have to do all kinds of things. it does not make a lot of sense. that is what we are looking at. we should be coming out, i think, probably next year, with some guidelines for municipalities. i am almost sure that those guidelines would not suggest to anybody that you build a sewage plant where you know that there is going to be problems with flooding and with tied issues. it just does not make a lot of sense. i understand what you're saying, but i think the port and all of us will come up -- all of the port and all of us will come up with a plan that you will see and understand that we are looking toward the future for 50 years down the line. >> if i may say something, i think that is a really important consideration. in most cases, i think that is exactly the way to go. the key point with this is that we have a sanitary landfill that is going to be underneath the

water within 20 years. that is what exists at pier 9094. it has total interaction with the bay. it is surrounded by industrial infrastructure, meaning the port facilities. right now, the plan is basically parking lots. some of the vision that i have heard from folks is that they want to build economic generating uses over there. the problem with that was the could not do that with the biggest real-estate bubble in the history of mankind. we're not good to have any other chance to clean up that land fill. chairperson maxwell: i disagree with you. i think we will have more opportunities than you imagined. i think there will be opportunities -- much better opportunities than putting a sewage plant over there that will last year for the next 50 to 100 years. i think there will be plans. i just hope that you will look into -- a little bit more into the port.

bcdc will be coming out with this online and you'll see it and have a better understanding. thank you very much. mr. pilpao? >> i had separate comments on the community benefits and the digester. i may need a little time to extend. with respect to community benefits, i wanted to reinforce some of what the staff said. puc has done local hiring since before it was popular, before city built, before work force development as a concept. a local hiring ordinance is now being talked about. some of this goes back decades. more specifically, i think art and claude had a hand in it when the plant was expanded in the '80s. that part of it i do not think is about giving money away to the community by way of grants for other programs. it is about creating meaningful

jobs and career paths that the staff talk about. in terms of the broad sense of community benefits, i think this requires some conversation about what it is. i know the consultant is here and should speak to it at a future meeting. there are both hard and soft costs and benefits, both individual benefits and to the public generally. i hope that would get talked about as your resolution moves through. with respect to the task force, the waste water cac that alex and i also sit on is an ongoing body that advises the puc. that is not referenced here. as someone who has sat on that for several years, i have been frustrated by the ambiguous process on digester replacement, or seeming inability to see whether we are doing a food waste digester to support our larger environmental goals, and where we are going with the sewer improvement

master plan. alex talked-about site selection. i think that should consider both the southeast planned and pier 94 sites, and we should have a broader conversation about all of the land both east and west that is controlled by the puc and public works. i hope to see expedited implementation of this project and that you will have regular reports back to the board, whoever is sitting on the committee. chairperson maxwell: again, i want to thank the puc for all the work they have done. i think we will see the benefits have been many. i just want them to blow their horns a little bit. they do not really do that a lot. i think the legislation that we have, the resolution, really speaks to the benefits. they would get a package together. that is important. the digester task force and their work -- i want to thank

them. no good deed should go unnoticed. that is why we are doing the resolution. colleagues, any questions or comments? no. thank you very much. we will see you monday. we're going to continue this. and on the resolutions, without objection, some moved. >> you want the hearing continued? chairperson maxwell: continued until monday. i know. thank you. the proceeding is adjourned. thank you.

>> [roll call] we have three commissioners on the way. >> please of the item 12 is

going to be moved ahead of vital 11 because we have a larger crowd on item 12 and i don't want to have to put them -- in the interest of fairness, they won't have to sit through the last item in order to get to theirs. it will be moved in front of item 11. >> [inaudible] >> we will try to give everybody an opportunity to speak. let me make a couple of other announcements. electronic devices are prohibited at this point. the chair may order the removal of any persons responsible for the use of cellphone, pagers, or

other electronic devices. in order to facilitate an orderly meeting, each person -- or we will start with two minutes. if this goes into the late night, on the one item, we can change it. we will start with two minutes. we can change it item by item and you will get a chance to say your peace. margaret? >> we need everyone to take a seat. if there are not seats available, we have an overflow room. we have to have you go down there. as we cannot have anyone standing.

one more announcement. as a reminder, address your comments to the commission. in order to allow equal time, neither the commission or staff will respond to any questions during public comment. the commission may ask questions of staff after public comment is closed. again ha -- [inaudible] president buell: apparently we need one more seat for a woman that is going to be here on item four. is there a seat in here? there is one available.

>> shall we get started? we are now on item number two, the president does he report -- and the president's report. president buell: welcome to the commission. i hope this will not be indicative of all the meetings to attend. i want to make an announcement for those of you who attend these meetings on a regular basis. starting in january, we will go to a committee system where we will have the full commission meeting and three committee meetings per month because we are trying to get more participation and testimony before things come for final action in front of the commission. bear with us as we transition to the full commission meeting in january.

i am hopeful, and it has been done before by those that have participated when it was the practice that seems to improve the participation element. and let me close by saying that i spent the morning -- i was enormously impressed by the collaborative effort between the public utilities commission, the trust for public land, and a number of philanthropies in putting together a five-block pathway. i also to word -- toured with fran martin. while i was impressed with the pathway, i found us wanting in the way that people access it from visitation valley. i am looking forward to talking

with staff about that issue. let us move on with the agenda. >> is there any public comment on the president's report? item #3 is the general manager's report. >> i have a few short announcements. happy hanukkah to those that celebrate and those who don't. join us next thursday in golden gate park for the eighty first annual holiday tree lighting. it celebrates the beginning of the holiday season and features fun for the entire family. and there is a rumored a visit from santa. i have mentioned this out prior

commission meetings, but i have had a great pleasure [unintelligible] d is one of this country's renowned classical pianists. he performed a spectacular concert benefiting children on the autism spectrum. he went bach and forth, playing bach, charlie parker, bach, several international compilations. we raised over $10,000. more good news. on the heels of our recent announcement that we received

the $4 million state grant for renovations, we have some more good news. we were notified by the storage shed council that we had received another $200,000 for the renovation of that park. it is in one of the city's densest areas with the highest concentration of children. the project as a result of the trust for public land. we work closely with community members to develop the city- approved plan to make it a vibrant, a welcoming resources for a neighborhood that has an estimated 6000 kids. the new park will have a basketball court, the perimeter path, and a brand new clubhouse. a want to say great thanks to the youth storage should council, and i want to extend

my appreciation for those that worked on the grant. it provides $30 million in funding over a 10-year period. it provides outdoor opportunities for youth. we're very excited. from good news to the less good. or maybe not so bad. the mayor's office is projecting the city's general fund deficit for the 11-12 budget at $379 million. and to submit an additional 10% reduction plan. as always, the department will have to cover any non-salary cost increases in addition to the general fund reduction target. as soon as we have crunched the

numbers, we will come back to the commission and update you. as we continue to work through revenue solutions, home here we go again. that concludes the general manager's report. >> is there any public comment? general public comment, up to 15 minutes. members of the public may address the commission with r -- which could not appear on the agenda. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity will be afforded when the item has reached its point. i have three cards. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the sfpuc is planning to build

something in golden gate park. i attended meetings on alternative sites to the factory. it remains the selected location for this factory. you requested that the department pursue finding an alternative location. at that meeting, the department's representatives did not question the location of golden gate park. she strongly defended its and said that the master plan supports the recycling plant because the golden gate park master plan supports recycled water. this is such a gross misstatement of the master plan that those of us in the audience that actually read the plan and gas in astonishment. we have faith that this area must be used for recreational

purposes. please direct the department advocate for an alternate site for this factory outside of golden gate park. i encourage the public to attend the next meeting on december 9. save golden gate park from this industrial development. more information is on the web site. thank you very much. president buell: thank you. let me ask the audience not to applaud or indicate your sentiments on either side. we're going to try to get through to dave's meeting as fast as we can. >> i would like to address a similar issue, but i am on the other side of it. i am in favor of the project.

the aforementioned meeting, the advisory board, there wasn't a very good type of pilot project. they had wanted to have cost the economy. i understand that golfers and fissures want to be supportive -- [unintelligible] considering that there is also the complication of the zoo that is using ground water that should not be used, it is contaminated as well as synthetic fertilizer and other things that accumulate over the years. they might try to have another water tank underground on the

left side. it would come from the west end of the park. i thought if you are not going to come recycle water to the zoo, you would have to bring in tap water. i will be going to the other tuesday meeting. thank you. president buell: thank you. >> linda cutner, please. >> ladies and gentlemen of the

commission and everyone else concerned, expect to call me sunshine, it's true. that is what most people do. i bring the best of what i'd do to the city of san francisco. i am here to address a different item. having to do with first amendment rights in the parks, town squares of san francisco. i wanted to give you a little taste of what i do for everybody. i was stopped this weekend from performing. i have performed there at the holiday season for many, many years. there is a child that came up to me that was seven and remembered every bowler and i made for her since she was too and recited all of them.

i am a first amendment freedom of speech performer. i never asked for a penny from anyone. people give it willingly. i performed in san francisco, los angeles, and many countries overseas. this same exact issue was tried before the ninth circuit court of appeals in san francisco. it was a joint management situation between the adult city center and the city of seattle parks and recreation department. the gentlemen who also, ironically, was a blow in twister -- balloon twister was stopped. h'm he was told he needed permits. it took seven years to the ninth

circuit -- [chime] the ruling was handed down, saying that they needed to oppose his first amendment rights. i am being harassed by the police and by mjm management. i intend to perform there. president buell: thank you. >> i'm not getting too far. i need your assistance. president buell: thank you. thank you for your testimony. >> is there anyone else that would like to make general public comment? public comment is closed.