is that correct? >> in one of the -- a lot of the infrastructure is roads, paths, or water facilities. we think it is prudent to put some money into the boat house, and not just keep pouring money into that. that is to make it functional while we collectively decide if and how we constitute the buildings. >> for the irrigation facilities, with the golf courses, is that something we maintain? >> i do not think there are any irrigation facilities. at and around the boathouse, there is a small amount of irrigation. the rest of the area is not irrigated. president moran: and the roads? >> we would be working with dpw on that. we probably have some responsibility for the roadways in the park. it is a short stretch. >> the money for rec and park is generally for gardeners working in the natural area. >> gardeners, and then the overall area. they tend to stay away from the natural area. >> but the area around the lake. president moran: who is paying for that currently? commissioner vietor: 4 the road maintenance? >> we give that to rec and park. it is for trash pickup. commissioner vietor: and the road maintenance is currently were ordered to dpw? >> again, the primary road is harding road itself. i am not familiar with how anything has been done there. it may have been done as part of the golf course improvements. president moran: it would certainly be more comfortable if it was clearer who is responsible for funding what kind of activities. it bothers me somewhat that we are funding the boathouse improvements, but have no responsibility for it in general. if things were to get better, we would have no access to the money is produced. it would seem at a minimum the mou would be stronger if it made it clear for any new facilities that are recreationally oriented, or the maintenance of facilities, that it is the responsibility of rec and park. other watershed activities are us. to make it clear, i do not want a false expectation by transferring some responsibilities to us that we suddenly become the funding source for recreational activities. repairs should not be responsible for them. -- rate payers should not be responsible for them. >> any other questions or comments? president moran: i know we have public comment. let's proceed to public comment. thank you, mr. ritchie. >> we have a number of speakers. i would ask him to line up, beginning with mr. allen, mr. morton, mr. murphy, and mr. addigan. >> my name is lerees. i do volunteer work for california child care in san francisco. in 2002, they hired me to be the program manager for lakers said. the reason they did is in 2001 the had brought an administrative complaint through the water board against the city of san francisco and around the lake, with regard to beneficial uses around the lake, linked to lower in water levels. this is an ongoing complaint. i am involved with it as a volunteer. as the program manager for lake merced, i joined an organization that started around 1999 the consisted of more than 30 stakeholder organizations, including this agency and other representatives of rec and park, for example. the city council supervisor member -- it was quite a large group of stockholders. we monthly had meetings and work on issues related to lake merced. we raise the money to improve lake merced. in the year 2006, we discussed with these agencies the potential of a puc taking over the management responsibility. we have also been engaged in a master plan for lake merced, which ultimately became the watershed report you are going to talk about today. we decided that if this could happen, if the management responsibility were taken over by the puc, that perhaps there would not be a need for the task force to continue. in 2009, with that assurance, through a resolution we made, we decided to sunset. in i believe january, possibly later -- actually, in july of 2009. we had a meeting where the resolution was approved unanimously by all the representatives. we had members of rec and park and i believe sean elsbernd himself. sean had requested through the city supervisors that this mou you are talking about today be approved. there could be written something to the effect that you would take over. we were looking forward to that taking place, and it's called for a long time. it should have been done in 2007. i know i am running out of time, so i want to close by saying please do not approve the mou as it is written. you seem to be savvy, but it is not detailed enough. >> i also recommend that you cannot accept the mou as written. good afternoon, commissioners. i have served on the task force as co-chair of the water committee and chair of the recreation committee. my wife and i and our children go to lake merced. i would like to show you a chart. let me make sure i do not get it upside down. it reflects over a decade of team work by our group of volunteers, working with the san francisco puc. the chart shows about a 70% increase in the water level, and symbolizes over a thousand volunteer hours by each of us in order to help save like mars said. we continue our commitment to lake merced because we believe in improving quality of life activities in san francisco, especially recreational activities. i want to thank the staff for working with us for over a decade on many complex issues facing lake merced. however, our work is not over yet. you will learn that during this hearing. the board of supervisors recognized that there was support to consolidate management at lake merced in one place in order to achieve accountability. the puc made a commitment to manage the watershed, and also made a commitment to allocate the necessary resources to do so. the resolution urged the puc and rec and park to work together to modify the old 1950 resolution that delegated vague recreational responsibilities to rec and park. it was the vague language in the 1950 resolution that set the stage for creating lake merced as a city origin. the puc started acting as though it was fully in charge by embarking on an ambitious watershed planning process that ultimately resulted in the lake merced watershed report. the watershed report dealt extensively with recreational activities. the lake merced taskforce justifiably assumed that the two agencies would eventually follow the suggestion of the board of supervisors, and put san francisco puc fully in charge. it was partially based on that assumption that the lake merced task force and voted to disband on july 2009, believing our work was done. when the water should report -- when the wathershed -- watershed report was done, the board of supervisors resolution was to transfer per responsibility for management back to the puc. >> good afternoon. i am the founding member of the lake merced taskforce, and a former chair. i am 13 years of the advocacy board. i got interested as a geologist. i want to command staff for the great work in getting us here. they are a credit to your agency. the mou is a long-held goal of ours that we are finally seeing. it is late, but we are glad we see it here. if it has one flaw, i think we would prefer seeing unambiguous management authority residing in puc. before anything else, like merced is a water asset. it is an emergency water supply. it is a drinking water supply. before it is a recreational facility, it is an important water resource. and frustration for us has been a confused decision making process over the years as policy issues come up. "they are responsible -- no, they are responsible." you already pay for the gardening work by rec and park. you are funding everything there, with a couple of narrow exceptions. it is not clear to me what productive role rec and park has out there now. they have no visible presence out there in a long time. they are stretched too thin. this is more in sorrow than in anger. they are stretched too thin to do anything out there except collect rent at some facilities. i strongly want to support what steve ritchie said about creating a position -- call it a manager or an ombudsman or a liaison -- that could be a point where the information is received and decisions can be made. that is a great idea. so many of these water issues fall under your jurisdictions. there is storm runoff, recycle water, ground water, wastewater. these are all factors that properly should be under your control. finally, on the question of expenditures for the boat house, i know it is controversial sometimes, but i want to strongly support the expenditures for fixing it up. as a west sideer, that has been an embarrassment and eyesore for way too long. you should go ahead with it. but that should not be the last word in a long-term vision for the like. this is an interim step, and there are better solutions. there is land that at some point we would like to see made available that is across the lake. fix it up, but for a narrow purpose. but please take control of the like again. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is dick martin. i have been on the lakers said task force as long as these other guys. -- the lake merced taskforce as long as these other guys. my wife says, "why don't you get paid for that work?" i am appreciative of the commons by the commission. i think you should reject the mou and take responsibility for the lake, its management, and programs. i encourage you to stop work on the boat house. it is a waste of repair money at this moment. and i concur with the appointment of the land manager. why do i recommend changing the mou accountability? you still have the dual responsibility. do you know that rec and park had a lease with the gun club for four acres, and the gun club is built on that land without any approvals? is that good stewardship of their lease? accountability means limiting the divide in management. rec and park lacks the resources to do that. you are paying for everything out there. why not take it under your control so you have accountability for the gardeners? who knows? we recommend that the mou only allow harding park as the rec and park responsibility. you do all the work. you do it's to concessionaires. -- it through coces -- concessionaires. you do all the work, and you should get the money to plow back into the water should. -- watershed. i oppose putting lipstick on the pay got there, the boathouse. it is a waste of money. we could have a stand-alone ada restroom out there and do minor cosmetic things. concurrently, we can start the long term process of a plan for a new boathouse, concurrently with the action on the gun club site. we do not have to do them sequentially. we can do it concurrently. i suggest we stop work on the boat house. it is a waste of money at this stage. >> commissioners, my name is dan murphy. i represent golden gate audubon and its 10,000 members. i have been active at lake merced, back into the 1970's. the golden gate audubon society agrees there is an urgent need for a new mou between the prc and rec and park. however, the mou before you does not meet your needs. it is far too vague. it leads to specifically identify the puc. the that should be the agency in charge of stewardship and management. the recreation and park department should continue to manage harding golf course and provide habitat restoration work done to the natural areas program. there seems little else, in terms of recreation abatements, that is in need of day to day management, or that the puc could not do. in the future, recreation activities that may require expertise could be identified, planned between the agencies and the public, and delegated as appropriate. otherwise, there is nothing that warrants and mou between the agencies. the puc should assume responsibility for all infrastructure, including docs, restrooms, and future buildings. it is your responsibility to assure the lake is not used as a dump, that erosion is controlled, that the wetlands are protected, and that wildlife is protected. as an agency that has developed master plans for other elements of the water system, you have an excellent track record in planning. golden gate audubon urges you to do the same for lake merced. the job was left have done with the report you are being presented today. as it is, the report represents the thinking of over 30 stakeholder groups, including the general public. it is an excellent working document, but needs to be brought to the next level, as a master plan with eir. the draft before you indicates a need for several capital improvements. we understand these improvements cannot be considered for bond funding unless an eir is in place. we urge you to undertake a comprehensive general master plan so we can plan for and find necessary capital projects at the lake. responsible management simply means the puc needs to take control of lake merced. here is what you need to do, step by step, to be responsible and accountable. the puc needs to be the active management fort like merced, as it is for the water supply -- for lake merced, as it is for the water supply system. that needs to be reflected in the mou. >> my name is gery caddigan. i founded the committee to save lake merced. i am the old timer. i have been at this for 18 years. my daughter was a sophomore at the time. she is now 32 years old and has two wonderful children. i believe my colleagues made a persuasive case as to why this mou should not go through. as the nice lady at the chronicle said, it is time to and the two headed monster. it does not work. one matter my colleagues did not cover was the argument which i call a strong an argument that rec and park has this expertise in recreation and you do not. with the exception of the need for a fishing concession out there, there is no need for a recreational expert. dragon boaters, rowers, and bird watchers take care of themselves. they do not need a guy with a ph.d. from san francisco state. they need accountability at lake merced. page 43 of the watershed report -- i swear i am the only person who carries a hard copy around. this is to cited, 187 pages -- two sided, 187 pages. page 43 says there is a need for a fishing concession out there. the prior concessionaire pulled out in april 1999 with some very harsh words i would be glad to send you by e-mail. they said, "we are out of here. we are tired of meetings and nonsense." i hope you will not approve the mou. should you decide to go forward, i am a former lawyer, a recovering lawyer. there are some drafting problems with the mou. one sentence in paragraph f says $4,000 the rod and gun club pays close to you folks. the next line says it goes to rec and park. it is just sloppy. in conclusion, the reversal, when puc said in 2007 they would take this on -- i have had a feeling it would fail ever since. i have a feeling we were betrayed. do not adopt the mou. carved out, maybe in february, two hours. let us have a lake merced workshop with you folks. actually spend two hours and really delve into these issues. the $940,000 can wait. it is time lake merced not be treated as an orphan. thank you, and i apologize for running over. >> jennifer claridge. the gentleman who spoke before me have expertise. all i can say is, reading this, it looks to me like rec and park makes out well. you pay rec and park for their work, and any money they make they get to keep. maybe i am wrong, but that is the way i read it. for instance, the water committee is becoming more interested in the enterprise being used as a bank account for a general fund that is short of money. i totally understand why it happens, but i don't think that this -- i do not think this mou offers you in the protection. i concede -- item c5, page 3, says the funding will be agreed subject to review and approval by both parties and commissions, subject to related budget and appropriations by the mayor and the board of supervisors, concern to -- pursuant to the charter. once you have a relationship with rec and park, it is going to keep coming out. if we could make more specific the scope of services you are going to pay for, and what money you keep and what money they keep, i think it would be a better document. president moran: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. eric brooks, representing san francisco green party and the grass-roots organization our city. i want to concur with all the speakers, and add a little more to that. i am involved with various grass-roots organizations in the city. everyone of them i know of, and every grassroots and neighborhood organization involved in parks that i know of, is utterly outraged with the behavior of rec and park right now. rec and park has spent many years privatizing, raising funds, bringing in restaurant chains, and turning -- aiming at turning our public spaces that are free and open to the public for general use without cost into a virtual -- into a proto disneyland. that is not what the people of san francisco want to happen to our public spaces. we want to reverse privatization and defend the public use of spices. because the sfpuc has a long history with had ceci -- hetch hetchy, you understand the importance of watersheds and habitats at a place like lake merced. these places are primarily watershed have the parents that not places where rec and park makes money off of. whatever agreement you come up with. -- whatever grimsson you come up with, please make sure rec and park does not take money out of this situation. we need to defend the natural habitat, not turning into a times. for example, the lake house which rec and park is in charge of has been given over to a concessionaire that is a national chain with more than 200 restaurants. whatever happens with the boat house, it needs to be local. the workers need to be local. hopefully a nonprofit set up and something -- and not something that is geared towards profit. please make sure that you say the stewards of this area. i do not think that our city and tim have agreed on anything ever. when he and i are both coming up and raising strong concerns that the sfpuc needs to stay this land, this is a powerful statement. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am the superintendent of recreation and community services with the rec and park department. one year ago, our apartment entirely restructure the way that we deliver recreation services. prior to that, we were limited in scope of programs we could actually offer. you have a recreation director at the center. if that recreation director like tennis and soccer, that is what you got. he did not have much of a choice. we cannot be responsive to what community needs work. our new model allows us to be responsive not only to community needs but the different properties and communities around the city. our competencies that we are now engaged with our cultural arts, sports and athletics, community services, and the one i am here to speak to about -- leisure services. that has outdoor education programs, waterfront, aquatics and alternative extreme sports. we see the property