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 as a wonderful opportunity for children and families of the city had to engage in recreational activities at the lake. this past summer, we partnered with the dragon boat folks. it was our first reintroduction to the lake. things went very well. we were recently able to purchase kayaks and we are working on sailboats that are being donated to us as well. we have had a number of camps that we did this past 12 months. we have engaged in a stand up paddling, canoe trips, surf lessons, shark camp, fishing camps. there are a number of things we would like to do at the property. we are at the early stages of implementing those. i absolutely feel it is our

mission and responsibility to provide recreation program at that property, as a child who grew up in the exiles your district in san francisco. it played an in the outdoors. it is our responsibility to increase the reach of the folks to use the property who can attend a fishing camp or fishing program. i am looking color to it. i have our leisure services manager here. he can speak in more detail if you have any questions. president moran: are there any other public speakers? commissioners? >> i want to go on record as banking the public speakers for showing up today.

-- as thanking the public speakers for showing up today. i grew up by the lake. the water level situation was always a concern of mine. i think what the advocates have done is certainly commendable. i am torn because i have a strong relationship with the recreation advocates in the city and county. i see that the recreation and parts department has moved in a direction in -- i will give you an example, the pga golf tournament that we just completed. it is not a privatization move. it is a managing plan. that managing plan has been accepted by the workers. it has been accepted by the public golf community. it has addressed what i have heard calls talked about today,

that is a level of accountability that i think the citizens are entitled to. if you do have sat out there, you have to make sure that you manage them accordingly. i also spent a lot of time in the area when the boat house was, as mr. ritchie said, was going on. i grew up out there. it hits me right here. i would like to see us do something. i was glad that you were able to show up today. i was expecting that the recreation and parks department is getting kind of a raw deal as we sit here today. i also understand the motivation behind it. i want the record to reflect that i am torn because i think that there is a lot of

recreational activities that could be taking place for the families and the use in the city at lake mercd . there is ample parking out there. the weather is incredible. the sunset over the life from the boat house is just amazing. we have to have long-term vision for that location. i see illustrations in the record. i want to remind the group that he the purpose of the mou is to define a framework of cooperation is between the puc and recreations and parts apartment as it pertains to the beneficial uses of lake merced. i was under the impression, not only that with the rfp has a related to the boat house

project, we would be collaborating on that as well. i think that there are points taken had the proposed mou may be insufficient in terms of tying down the management. i also heard that the public utilities commission is not responsible, necessarily, for the recreational aspects of that land. i probably would be inclined to suggest that if we were not entertaining the appointment of an ombudsman or something like that, that the commission reestablished the lake merced task force and bring the attorney out of retirement and have this happen again. i do want to thank you for your work. i also want to tell you what i was thinking, because i had not

made a comment on it yet. i do have a familiarity with rec and park staff. i also want to defend them in terms of what i think they are capable of doing. also, the rec and park staff have welcomed management models that the shore all of us that there is greater accountability to staff. president moran: commissioner molokai and. -- commissioner moller caen. commissioner moller caen: perhaps we should continue this item and work on the mou. it does not use -- it does not seem to be in a completed state right now. perhaps that would be the best approach. >> i would concur. a couple of thoughts also. it did resonate with meet the

reminder that lake merced is part of our water supply. and is a -- and is an emergency source of water in san francisco. that is significant. from my environmental lines of climate change, which we know is approaching, and the water issue that we know we will face state wide and locally, i think that is a significant issue to remind ourselves and place it squarely under our responsibility as a water supply system. there was another piece in the comments that i heard that resonated with me. i think that the mou does need a greater clarification on accountability and who is responsible for what. the harding golf course falls --

feels like a piece that falls under rec and park jurisdiction. beyond that, there could be some subcontracting relationship, subcontracting relationship with the recreational aspects. i do not really know, but it feels like those pieces could be better thought out. for the record, i have similar feelings about the gun club that i do about the quarry. that is out of the puc core competency and is not something we should be involved in. from an environmental perspective, it is quite devastating, especially in a beautiful area that has already been somewhat compromised, like lake merced, to have begun shooting going on out there. i just want to put that on the

record as something that i have concerns with on an ongoing basis. those kind of tenancies. i feel like we are in the business for just economic reasons and not any social or environmental reasons. >> i would also support continuing the item. it seems to me that there are two distinct issues here. on one is whether we should take over recreation and anything else. the other is whenever we set out to do, is this mou appropriately specific and transparent with its financial impact? i think the answer to the second question is no it is not yet. i think it needs to be approved -- needs to be improved. as for the provisions for park and rec, that is less specific.

we do manage a golf course. recon park is not the only people who do that. our approach to that is not necessarily from the objective point to provide recreational opportunities writ it is from a land management standpoint. we have land assets and we want those assets either to protect our watershed and our water supply or to make sure that they are financially productive. we typically do not think about what are the best ways we can provide recreational opportunities to a community area that is not to say that we could not. it does beg the question, if we take that on, we need to be very clear to ourselves as to how that fits in with everything else we do. what is the protection that the

rate-payer has obverses us taking it on for a recreational purpose. if we take that on, what are the balance constraints for how we would position that within our mission. that is new territory. we have not spent a lot of time talking about that. i am hearing a consensus to continue. without objection, we will be able to do that. >> could i ask a question? one suggestion was to have a large for workshop discussion with the entire commission about this. is that of interest? or would you rather have us go back and try to work on this and bring back a better version. which way do you want to go with it? president moran: what would be your recommendation? i am not sure how this fits in

with someone else's schedule and how destructive this is to other things going on and whether or not we need to resolve these issues before the budget is adopted next year. >> from a budget perspective, unless something dramatically different islam to be happening , and even then, if you had a discussion in february or march, we would have plenty of time to fix that, unless you're planning on spending in billions of dollars next year. practically speaking, from a staff point of view, we can talk about making it clearer. right now, it says the sfpuc has ultimate authority, however, we are authorizing rec and park to be responsible for some portions. if the question is, does the puc believe it should be in charge of the boat house and the activities out of there, that is

a larger discussion that we can work on. but it is a policy decision that will not be done by staff. we can bring options and back to you in the morning and you can talk about it or you can do it in a workshop. we do rely on recreation and parks had to do recreation in the city. we do things like golf courses but we do not do things like rowing clubs and those kind of activities. that is a larger policy call that you have to make. president moran: and they are actively -- and there typically ancillary to what we are doing it. perhaps we can do a few things in terms of staff work. one is work on what it would like to tighten that up. the other is some discussion as to, if we were to take this on, what would it demand of us and what other policy questions would pose? how would we deal with a foreign

purpose within our structure and how would the rate-payers be protected? that could come back to us whenever it could come back to us and the commission could review it. it may be very clear from what you come up with what the answer is. >> we can do that. if i could clarify a few statements that the public brought up -- this does -- the mou, has written right now, says any funds earned at the lake merced golf club and would stay with him like merced. everyone agrees with that. so we would continue to a call of the chair. president moran: wut