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

we have dealt with like merced issues -- like merced issues, but have not -- lake merced issues, but do not have a management for us. commissioner courtney: i am concerned about making sure -- commissioner caen: i am concerned about making sure everything is clear cut with management responsibilities, and i am not sure if the current mou approaches that. commissioner vietor: i echo those concerns. that is where i was going a little bit with it. it does not seem all that clear on who is responsible for what. i think that may be part of the problem we have seen in the last number of years, with the dilapidation of the lake. i do not know what the clear delineation really is. it seems like what is being somewhat proposed is around the puc being a landowner, land manager, landlord, with rec and park being somewhat of a tenant, if you will, a subcontractor who deals with the recreational aspects of this. but it does not really seen that clearly reflected in the current mou, so i just wanted to echo those concerns. >> i had a couple of questions that are in the same vein. i think you may h

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 spen

none of it goes into lake merced anymore. on the san francisco side, we have cut off the san francisco drainage. and we wonder why the lake levels go down. even my 17-year-old can figure that out. one of the things we are working with is a project represented in large part by the blue line. it would take water from the watershed and run it through a treatment wetland area, and then through a structure of some kind, to be designed. it would discharge amounts of that into lake merced. really extreme flows would go through the ocean, but it would be moving water through the lake, and that we you have a better chance of maintaining the like levels, as opposed to hoping for the best. we will be working with daly ity to look at alternatives of how to move water there. with technical report been done in their eir, we will look at how to execute the technical work. you all, as part of the approval process for their project, will establish what we think is the proper level for lake merced, and how their project can be operated to main

here is a photograph of lake merced. three legs. south lake, the main body. northlake, which is kind of the park at the top. at the bottom is an area called in how -- impoound lake. it is separated off because of sewer facilities. it is our responsibility overall. this would update the puc resolution. it does not replace that revolution, but would define better our responsibilities, defining the rec and park responsibilities. the whole point is we defining the responsibilities so that expectations are clear for all to say. on the pc front, there is a laundry list of items about attracting collaboration with rec and park, really focusing on water levels, water quality. we monitor that to maintain and operate our structure. rec and park do a lot of day-to- day activities around the park, in terms of gardening and crash management, things of that nature. protecting water quality, one of the key things is if we find something that is not working out the way it should, we would direct, for example, rec and park to change that facility. we have that authority to do

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 shou

here is a photograph of lake merced. three legs. south lake, the main body. northlake, which is kind of the park at the top. at the bottom is an area called in how -- impoound lake. it is separated off because of sewer facilities. it is our responsibility

here is a photograph of lake merced. three legs.

. >> lake merced had a high water level. since we paid over much of the city, the water levels have dropped, but at one time, the late actually trade out into the ocean approximately where the dog diner is that now. somewhere in the 1870's, they saw the damage at the water in the late so it did not exit out uncontrolled, and for 10 years, people were drinking lake merced water as drinking water. it is much bigger, too. if you go to san francisco state, the practice will appeal this part of the lake. i do daily city, that was part of the lake. it was huge. >> the southern area [inaudible] but there is a different area. >> there was a creek that came down basically through west portal and said that particular lake. >> that was filled in when they develop west portal, and they had the brilliant idea when they dug but,, they needed a place to put it, so they build the creek in with the tunnel muck. >> you can see in 1910, we are talking about after the earthquake, but outer richmond is still pretty sparsely settled. >> or anyone

merced. i understand is the agenda item is for matters that are not under this agenda but are within the jurisdiction of the agency. it is within your jurisdiction to compliant with both the brown act and the u.s. such an ordinance. i would simply like to make a hypothetical case order. and given the agency in the city and county of san francisco has an agenda item which includes four things. one of which is approving a very controversial agreement. the second one is accepting a very controversial report that to four years to fair and over half a million dollars. the next item is to hear a report about a close to $1 million expenditure being made that is also very controversial. the fourth item is levels in some lakes, what have you. yet, the public only allowed three minutes per speaker to speak on that. i am not going to ask for more. i am going to point out that when i saw the agenda, the first word that came to my mind was bundling. bundling. not in the context of political contributions.

merced for our environment. i passed legislation to strengthen home ownership, provide bond oversight, reduce needless bureaucracy, and provide safe and clean streets. as your mayor, michael is to return san francisco to its rightful destiny as one of the greatest cities in the world, by facing these hard truths together, we can make this happen. thank you. >> the league of women voters and sfgovtv have collaborated to bring statements by 14 of the candidates for mayor of san and cisco, next up, dennis herrera and ed lee. >> this upcoming mayor's race will be one of the most important in our history. it is a single election that will have a profound impact on our city. not just for the next four or eight years, but for the next 50. as washington and sacramento push more and more public responsibilities off their balance sheets, those obligations will increasingly fall to local government, and the decisions we make in this election will determine whether or not san francisco rises to meet the challenges that we f