the request by the board of supervisors over six years ago for the revised lake merced between rec and park had been ignored by rec and park until just recently. listed are several active examples why the proposed third mlu that continues to support joint department management of the lake should be rejected. first, it was in a short period of time that the very simple, jointly managed boat house renovation project by rec and park and the puc, this $400,000 over the budget, and 6 months behind schedule. the taxpayers expense. second, fishing is a very popular form of recreational activity and lake merced is stocked with fish annually and to promote the fishing, in california, fish and game schedules two free fishing days annually. and however, for the past several years rec and park department has not announced or promoted the free fishing day schedule at the lake, why is this? >> and third and i am almost finished. >> the $566,000 water shed report paid for by the san francisco utility rate payers was released to the public, january 2011, this report strongly recommended that both stor

between the sfpuc and san francisco recreation and parks commission regarding management of the lake merced tract. >> and mr. ritchie >> general manager for water, this is an issue that was before the commission before and we also had as you recall a workshop in march out at lake merced to talk about the issues related to the lake and this item is as important to move forward now and really established the structure of the relationship between the puc and the recreation and parks department and relative to the mutual responsibilities out there but again, clarifies that the puc is ultimately responsible for the land out there as the owner of the property. and we made one minor change from last month, or last, july 9th we had to continue the item and added the clause that to clarified that in effect as almost a land relationship that you are sure that that rec and park would not allow the conditions to exist out there and that would be in part to make sure that we don't end up with a case of pollution or something that again the pec would have been ultimately have been responsible for and we

as noted, this is lake merced boulevard. this is winston drive, san francisco state has portions of this campus divided by winston boulevard. one of the issues is they want to interconnect these two portions of the campus on both sides. the distance from the intersection at lake merced boulevard to the approximate location is approximately 350 feet or so. so, what's been happening is obviously students and other people that use san francisco state would jay walk across winston drive with san francisco state being determined that is not the safest for its users. what san francisco state wanted to do in this case is to construct a proposed -- is they are proposing to construct approximately 120-foot pedestrian tunnel that crosses under winston drive to interconnect the two campuses. a plan view -- >> actually, i think should we be calling 4, 5 and 6 together? >> encroachment facilities with different [speaker not understood] and they all require different resolutions to the board. >> why don't we call items 5 and 6, and then,

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 f

. >> and lake merced and security fences in disrepair we've got leaks. and we're working with the controllers office to reduce fuel and maintenance costs. some of our vehicles are still in place and where it not for a vehicle inspection they wouldn't pass for the green laws. that's not okay so we're going to do what we can. one of the problems with going with a hybrid our vehicles have to be collision certified so we're working on that and trying to switch as many cars as they can and get more miles on the tank. and that concludes my report and i i'll up front to kate howard because i know that was more than 10 >> colleagues sorry any other questions for the chief at this time. >> i justice wanted to know if you were going to make any comments been the budget analysts report. >> yes, we got final recommendations yesterday and some concessions we were ready to make and other a longer conversation. >> okay. well speaking of mr. rose why don't we move to your report. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee on page 57 our recommend reductions total 2 mi

i'm here with a bunch of folks in a club we're border in our community by the zoo on the west and lake merced on the east. i'm here to voice my opinion about the captain and his staff. although captain and along with jim cunningham all worked for me on the old city prison about 25 or that 26 years ago. i'm not at least surprise about the comments that have been made about the captain. i've watched the captain and savings account roll up and mature and they've certainly earned our respect. the quality of work in san francisco as a whole the generation that's coming up now the whole group you saw in the demographics they're more focused and especially professional. like i appreciate the fact chief that professional development in rotating our officers around i've been in this boat, too, and i asked the capita where he wanted to go but i think the community prefers him staking where he's at and also the sergeant. their good day at what their doing and it makes your job as overseers of the public tries because that's what you do. you're over seeing our communities way of dealing with conflict and

grandstrand without storage and recovery project, which i talked about at the last meeting in relation to lake merced, the acqueer storage project we're doing conjunctively and shift to the groundwater in dried periods when the basin would have recovered. that is an important project making sure that we have dry-year water available. even with the projects there is a 20% shortage that i talked in the first slide. so if we did not akoch accomplishment these projects there is a shortage allocation plan among the customers and the 20% is systemwide. so that applies very little to some people. mr. jensen can talk about that. i'm not surprised there are. certainly in agricultural districts there is a much greater hit going on a regular basis it seems in the central valley. >> i don't want to move ahead of your presentation, but i will get to the conclusions. >> okay. the other things that i wanted to make sure that we were aware of in obligations are in the water supply agreement. where we agreed to deliver to the wholesale customers up to the amount of supply assurances, 184 million gallons per day. that