mr. ritchie talked about are intended to. provide a degree of accountability and transparency that i know a lot of the community folks have been asking for we would like to when we get to the public comment, period, i would like the comments to address the item presented and also the amendments and if there is a procedural step we need to do and move the item and move the amendment then i will do that. if we can just do it by it, but i would like the comment to address the mlu and the potential amendments to improve the accountability. >> that is a very good point, in addition of the two other s and they prefer that vice president present his and so that we have all of the amendments in front of us before we go to a vote. >> okay. >> thank you very much, president torres. we have been talking about the lake for a long time and i actually grew up on the west side and so i am very familiar with that space and the boat house. and i think that one of the problems that we have is that there is we don't take credit when we should b

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 t

mr. ritchie mentioned the use for this year is 224 mgd and wouldn't it be great if we could keep it at that level? but you are facing reality and it's a population growth. the bay area is required to create more jobs and more housing and just something to think about, the global population, expected to reach 9 billion. >> we have until that year to leave the planet. >> increasing to 9 billion and so i would love to see some leadership talking about population and the demand side. >> we won't include the vatican in that discussion. [ laughter ] >> let me take it in a slightly different direction. and thank you for your comments; which makes we want to say that we think about san francisco's water demand as kind of capped over time. at least that is an allusion we have worked under and fact that infill is important and everything that we do in san francisco for development is basically infill that generated additional water demand and we'll deal with some of that, i guess at our next meeting. so i don't think we have complacent on that front. i want to make a request of staff and that is that

mr. ritchie, you will start? >> yes. steve ritchie earnings assistant general manager for water and bawsca on water supply on our system and if we could have the slides up, please? there we go. okay. first i want to review our water supply levels of service. these are obligations to our customers. on the goals and objectives front it's meet customer and water needs in non-drought and drought periods and there are various parts of that. meeting average demand of 265 million gallons per day from the sfpuc watersheds from non-drought water years and the second is meet delivery needs while limiting rationing to maximum of 20%, which translated to a significant number and most of the burden for that shortage under our current arrangement falls to the wholesale customers and that is a significant figure that we need to make sure our eyes are wide open on. the goals and objectives, diversify our water supply options and improve use of new water sources. the second piece was some of the specific details in the wsip approval in 2

mr. ritchie, if you can get me those answers later, that would be great. welcome. >> >> good afternoon. art jensen with [pwa-ufrpbgs/]. >> and here we thought you were retiring. >> pardon me? >> and we thought you were retiring. >> not yet. >> good. what do you mean "good? [ laughter ] >> okay. sorry, i couldn't resist that. >> for the sake of the decisions that our bode will are have to make we're adding the word "with certainty." businessstitions or policy decisions that the board is going to be forced to make investments of public money and they want to make those decisions with some certainty and that doesn't mean all certainty and doesn't mean we'll be able to predict hide rawling, but it means what you or anyone else would reasonably thin as i said to our board policy commit, i never got to quote linc, but the one i like, the best way to predict your future is to create it and we're in the process of create our future. second, it's certainly one of the least expensive supplies available to us, but no [s-erbt/] it will be there. in 2008 when the planning commission certified the pe

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 do have a couple of additional proposed changes to the mlu. one of those is to item b, which basically was say that the com