gear and the door mechanism on a regular basis so that this does not happen again, i am telling you also that there are two doors like this, one door, and enters into our area, where we store our boats. and the other door is in another area where there are children coming in on a daily basis to get their life jackets so that they can go kayak on the other lake. this needs to be taken care of. >> absolutely. >> i told tom that we need to have this inspected and maintained. >> you should tell him that. >> and on july ninth. >> of this year. >> of this year. >> and his response was? >> and he said that he would file a work order. >> and? >> i never heard anything. >> did he say anything about the work order that he filed? >> i don't know anything about

it. >> any way, i am just telling you that if park and rec can't do their job, they should be fired. >> that is all that i have to tell you. >> all right thank you so much. >> it seems to me that the rec and parks responsibility to maintain and inspect from the pec to do so? we want to make sure that you know, all of these kinds of situations are indeed covered, and perhaps the details might not be, and but something like the inspection of property and maintenance, you know, property. and under the responsibility, you know that the funding will be provided to maintain the public access facilities.

right? >> i don't know if that is the right section, it is c5. >> okay. >> i guess that my question is it anyone's responsibility but the parks and is it responsibility for the puc to pay for the ongoing maintenance and inspection of facilities. >> i think in this case, i think that mr. ginsberg can speak to it because the boat house is theirs. >> it is our responsibility to fix and it is that simple and i think that through the important i know that you are in a difficult position because you are not familiar with the day-to-day, and we have a

system and we have thousands of them throughout our system and we prioritize them based on the health and safety needs. >> and i am sure that you are. >> but in the end, i respect you very much, but at the end, is it mr. heart is not on top of this... >> and then we... >> and mr. heart, actually filed the claim of the structural maintenance staff. and our structural maintenance staff is responsible for the upkeep. >> why at the moment of the accident but it was to have a regular maintenance. and we don't know that that is not happening with all due respect. >> we were told that it wasn't. >> and he was told by mr. heart and he personally was not familiar with a particular issue. and they should have gotten back to her and so that they could respect to her friend and i could report to my friend who was injured in this accident.

>> so this just if i may with respect to just a general understanding because the commissioner raised an issue right? and so clearly if we moved this forward and because we represent the rec and maintenance and we could get through that to the other afternoons because i text bill after midnight. so you will have dominion and control of that land. >> right? >> the member of the city attorney's office. and under the charter, the recreation and parks department has jurisdiction over

recreational activities. >> we own a lot of infrastructure and we have certain limited funds and i think that as part of the annual report they are going to identify the needs, the capital assessment and also, the plan fixing these failing facilities. so, i think i understand that you may have thousands of needs based on your funding and limitation, and i just, i think that the communication was the issue of, you know, how do you communicate to you people who rent your facilities? >> commissioner? >> okay. >> and my question is that i actually see it elsewhere here and i think that it is clear, and it was just to make sure that it is in an mlu and we understand that who is responsible for what. >> yeah. >> and yeah. >> i understand it and i am

saying to you that i think that for the larger capitol issues i think that there is language in the mlu that the discussions of how we are partnering on the capitol investments in the boat house and we are the property manager and it is our responsibility. >> right. >> thank you. >> so, if in response to the issues that were raised by mr. allen do you want to respond? >> i think that i sort of covered it before, i think that it is time to sort of focus forward, and not focus on the past and we recognize the importance in the wake and we fully support the clubs interest in the desire and in the ex-expanded facility at some point and i think that this is really about the to quote it, the opportunity of and rather than the or. and meaning that if there does come a day where the clubs

alle n's recommendation are pretty slam dunk like six months behind. >> i can find out the date and

the department of fishing days and we will gladly promote them. >> and then, lastly, this water shed report, and that the community will be expanded to storage, you are working on that as well? >> commissioner, that is where the infrastructure and it goes to the boat house and it is the only space that exists and i think that what we are going to be able to do with the grant that we obtain from the department of building and water ways to improve north lake access, it is possible and i don't know exactly how that or those grant funds willing spent because there is more needs and there needs to be more dock work and more on the north lake and it is possible that if there is additional storage infrastructure and it is possible, that with some additional storage on the north lake we could fill up the storage on the boat house. but that is a problem, more related to the popularity of

rowing and you know, the building is what it is sir. and i think that you would have the community has our support and you would have to have our partnership in looking to expand opportunities to build a sport, having grown up in philadelphia that i know very well. >> what is the budget for that expanding that storage space? >> well, the budget for building the boat house is really the question. >> right. >> and you know, the infrastructure is in the bottom of the boat house, again, what it is, given the clubs that are there and really it requires, and unless there are other creative ideas that we could figure out how to fund, and it further requires a bigger boat house and one of the things that can be done is that we are looking at whether or not we can off load and book correctly and i think that the driving boat was used and it could have a little bit of access under the boat house and if we were

able to improve the space and that will free up a little bit of space. what will free up the space is our policy decision is to put all of the equipment upstairs and that was a policy decision that was made with the boater's best interest at heart and it could have given them more room because right now they have to pull out the equipment and work outside of the boat house and it is just too cramped space. and we understand that and we think that by putting all of the fitness equipment upstairs that will also help to make the down stairs space a little bit less cramped. >> any other questions? >> yes, comment? >> comment. >> i sense the problem here is that we have been talking about this for a long time and nothing seems to get done. and so if we could move forward and accomplish maybe each one thing, that would give encouragement to everyone, and that is what i am hearing.

that is why we are talking about it. >> commissioner this is a conversation that has gone on over ten years and i think that if we take a second and we look at the progress and the real progress that has been made, from at least one small and one new doc to the decision of the creative work to figure out how to fund the boat house and the decision to put it in the lake merced in the bond and our decision to apply for a grant from the department of water ways and our decision to apply for a recreation grant that has allowed us to purchase a lot of kayaks and paddle sports that are out at the lake now and so that i think and we see more that he feels like he hears the same thing over again, and i am hearing the same thing over again too. >> >> i am hearing the same thing and the past is the past is the past and i think that if you look at the two years of partnership and particularly the time that we have had to work together with kelley and i, and there have been more

strides in the last 24 months than in the prior decade and i would like us to see us to come together and i know that he will keep us on our toes and keep us honest, but i would like to and it is time for us to actually get to work and to stop talking about process and talking about the work. >> commissioner moran has a question. >> i would like to make some pretty significant progress and i think that is pretty much what we have in front of us, and at the various issues that we have been talking about for a very long time, the one issue that has if anything, obsured the issues that the puc should take over the recreation activities and i know that some of the advocates very much want us to do that. and the mlu that is in front of

us, are going in the other direction and it makes clear, that rec and park, is responsible for recreation decisions. and there are some other provisions as to how they should go about doing that but in general they say that is their job not ours. >> i think that is correct, if rec and park decides that you know, providing facility of north lake is a way of providing the relief at the boat house, god bless you and i think that is your decision and i don't want to get in the middle of that. and you are more in contact and in touch with the needs of the community than i am as respect to the recreation. and the mlu does make specific reference to the lake merced water shed report and that is incorporated specifically by reference. and i think that it makes it clear, that, the puc's

interest, are in terms of water level, water quality, and the maintenance of the water shed and also have a particular interest which i think it was a liability interest, but, if it were the case, that rec and park at some point failed to the facilities and allowed it to exist that were dangers that the puc because we own the land and that is having a physical problem and a risk problem or a liability problem, and the financial problem because we are the deep pockets and we have a political problem and so i think that we have an interest in avoiding that kind of circumstance, i think that the amendments that have been proposed today try to traes that and say that your planning process needs to be public and enlightened and involved in that

and annual report. and they will give us a very specific information and so that i think it gets us, very where we need to go and i don't expect, some of the boat house folks will be happy, with our saying that rec and park is responsible for recreation. but where we are going to disagree and i think that is an appropriate out come. and we have distributed with the package and we had the mlu and a resolution to put that in force. we have introduced some changes to the language of the mlu. and sitting next to our

counsel, i have been handed an amendment to the resolution. which will make the rest of it happen if i get this right. and that is >> your amendment is not in the resolution. >> it is not. >> but you are incorporating it if >> yeah. >> all right. >> so we are incorporating mr. ritchi's amendment and vice president courtney's amendments? >> yes. and the, just a minute... the word is... >> right here. okay. so, first of all, if i could move the item so that then i could move the amendment to it. >> do you want to add another amendment. >> i second the motion. >> right. >> but what i would like to do is move the basic on the ago agenda so that i could move the amendment which will make all

of the other changes. >> we will have to make two amendments. >> we can make one that will incorporate all of that. >> that is how you want to proceed? >> right. >> that is basically i will advice the counsel the way to make it happen. >> we will get the public comment once we get the item. >> second, the two motions on the table. >> the motion on the table. >> and i would like to move an amendment >> all right. >> to the resolve clause. >> all right. >> so that it all of it reads the same, that this commission her by authorizes them to execute a memo of understanding between the sfpdc and the san francisco rec and parks commission regarding management of the merced track with amendments to band e approved by the commission at the july

23, 2013 meet that is the addition. >> and the series of amendments. >> that is the motion. >> and comment. >> and that is it. >> second it. >> okay. >> eric brooks, san francisco green party and local grassroots association. first i want to tell commissioner courtney that we need to provide the pathways for this and to support that and we want to concur with commissioner caen that we need to have an amendment for the lake and unfortunately i am just going to have to reiterate what i said the last few times that i got up and spoke on this you and that is that, it is a purpose to that, i would have to say, that the issue is not just communication, the issue is that the gear should not have fallen in the first place because it should have been done properly so that no one would have been hurt in first

place and that is a microkas um for the real thing. in a rational word it is to think that rec and park should handle recreation because it is one of its names but in the real world we have situations where for example, a sharp park, rec and park, has much more respect for recreation than it has in being an endangered species. and as in the shot over the endangered species is the golf. and that is just an example. there are many other cases where rec and park has not held on the law and environmental community and a lot of other folks in the community, we are up and regularly up in arms about it. and etc.. >> and concentrating more on privatizing and making money than protecting habitat. >> with this lake it is a water

shed habitat and the sftuc is an entity that handles the water shed habitats all of the time and pretty excellent of working them out. and during the water system improvement program it is doing a good job as working out what to do with salmon and other species that need protection and what to do about how to protect the water sheds. and this lake should be seen as a habitat primarily. and yes, like i said in the rational world, we would expect that rec and park could have the recreation and that would be done in harmony. that is not what we see in the park and other instances and so. i would concur, with your local community folks that live around that lake, that even though it can get unusual, it is really the sfpuc who has the expertise and showing the kind of commitment on the lands like this to actually manage them

properly and so would i urge you to do everything and regardless of what you pass and i would urge you to do everything that he can to retain as much control over this situation as the sfpuc can get and that you put in rigid auditing power so that if smaoeg goes wrong you catch it fast and correct it fast and if necessary, pull back the responsibility of the commission of seeing this park to yourselves instead of rec and park that does not have a good record. >> i need five minutes to review the resolution. so we could break for about five minutes.

>> we can conclude that we have a quorum without calling the roll. we are on the resolution, amended by commissioner moran which i reviewed as well and we had a first and a second and we have any more public comment on this he resolution. >> really mr. allen not a word. >> more comments on this, all right, there being none, okay. thank you. >> and a lot in abdomening men toe and we got in a lot of trouble. >> call the roll e.

>> president torres? >> aye. >> courtney. >> aye. >> caen. >> aye. >> vietor. >> aye. >> moran. >> aye. >> item 14. >> thank you, commissioners who worked on this resolution. >>authorize the general manager to implement changes to gosolarsf, the city's solar incentive program. the gosolarsf program adjustments are prompted by changes in the solar market and the need for the solar incentive rate structure to be more effective and reach more customers. >> manager for power and i am here seeking changes to the practice and in quick summary, the changes are to reduce all of the (inaudible) levels so that the they do not exceed the average cost to provide the incentives that are paid by the system size range to encourage them based on the consumption. and to require a minimum design

of 68 percent to proside them for the projects that are installed to maximize the energy generation and this will avoid providing insensitives to customers with roof tops that are ill suited for solar. we have a lengthy presentation that you have in the packets and the copies of which have been on the table since 1:30. and the proposed changes were presented and discussed with the community at stake holders advisory committee and i can stop there and take questions and comments, or i can go to a full presentation at the pleasure of the president. >> or the members? >> any questions from the members? >> the amendment to the item, i don't need the presentation.

>> i one thing that i have talked to the staff that as we amend the solar program, perhaps it is an opportunity to start a discussion that moves us toward having the solar oriented or work towards the customers of the puc. and to do that, they is suggested two, and when i have the amendment and it would add a whereas and a resolved. and the whereas would be, whereas, the solar sf program currently accepts application from all private electric customers in san francisco, and just a statement of the fact and then the resolve that this commission directs the general manager and the further improvements to the program and for implementation for the fiscal year, 2014, through a

process ininclusive of all stake holders and the results in a robust program focused on our customers. >> that is to start a process of discussing the potential changes that would focus the benefits of the go solar program on the people who have elected to be customers of san francisco. >> are you okay with that in >> yes, thank you, working with commissioner moran and the general. >> how do you sperp the amendment? >> i think that it is clear on its face, but further improvements should be worked on over the course of this year. and together, with the stake holders in that as we have been. working with the stake holders community to improve the program and have a more robust and focused program on our

customers. >> all right. >> so, our customers who are our customers the municipal customers? >> or potential customer? s >> yes. >> both of those. and if there is a power assessment program, yes, and that is already envisioned in the enabling statute that this program would need to be integrated with the clean puf program and we have customers at hunter's point in the new community that is being developed there with lamar. and we have the prospect of additional customers at treasure island and it is rationalizing who we provide this benefit to and making sure that we are not just addressing private customer needs but also the customers that are our customer and that are governing agencies as well as private

customers. and so just, it would be to make sure that that is cleaner maybe in in way, clearer. and our customers, because it is just as you are saying to open up the conversation. >> i think that it is as clear as it can be. at the moment. >> and it is focused on the customers as the exact phrase that it uses and i think that is pretty clear. but it is not clear and needs to be unclear at this point is the discussions between ourselves and the various interest groups as to exactly what we end up meaning by that. >> we don't have a (inaudible) program yet and it might look different if we do than if we don't, and so it can't be clear with respect to that. what we are really saying is that our objective is if we are spending money that benefits electric customers, they should be our customers. and i think that is pretty clear. and how that actually works itself out, and within the

context of the solar program and that is something that the general manage and her staff needs to discuss with the various interest groups. >> yes. and just a couple of questions to clarify. in my own mind, were the conversations or can we require that the conversations include discussions surrounding the cca goal? solar and the non-cca goal of solar? right because we are moving forward with go solar but we have yet to move the cca. >> right? >> and so we will be able to have that conversation with that right? >> yes. >> and then with respect to the status of go solar, my understanding is that the status of it is that it is a pilot program. will we begin to analyze that and then no longer make those references and just call it a program and a budget item of the puc? >> well, it does not address that specifically, and my hope

is that as we move towards a customer, you know, a san francisco customer, based program, that, that that will have the effect of terminating it. and i don't know if we ever need to make a formal declaration i think that if we are starting with our own customer its changes character and i think that the decision to go there says that we have already conclude and there is a benefit of it. >> and at that point,. and if i could clarify, just, to make sure that we have the common understanding of the facts. that the go solar program is a program statute did include a section that is a pilot program. that pilot program was for the first year. so that portion of the program that was characterized under the statute