previous concessionaire. when we came up with the plan, we decided to add a restroom. we want to create a fun and friendly approach, $3-a dollar food. -- $8 food. we want people to know where their food comes from and we want to give people an opportunity that it would expect when they come to san francisco as they see in other venues. thank you. isn't any other public comment on this item? -- >> is there any other public comment on this item? >> hali am writing in support of

the recreation and parks department -- i believe that this will be a much more attractive destination for families and tourists visiting golden gate park. i strongly urge you to prove the recreation and park department recommendation and proposed to invest a sizable amount of funding. a fleet of 50 new boats and to install a cafe serving locally sourced food. the boathouse has seen few changes since it was built. taurus, bikers, other visitors

will have access to a variety of local and organic food and vegetables while still being able to purchase other items. with this new items, the boat house will be able to attract a wider range of customers and is expected to increase concessions and revenue. this will grow the amount that goes back into our park system to maintain the open spaces. this is essential during the $12 million deficit. i hope that you will approve this proposal and insure that snow lake is an attractive destination. >> thank you. >> is anyone else who would like to make public comment on this?

>> i have been listening to both sides of this all day. i go to snow lake for mental health reasons, usually. there are pros and cons on both sides. what i think is extremely important is to respect the tradition of san francisco and the family that actually build the boat house. we are dealing with a boat house. upgrade the boats. the other thing is it is reasonable and important to include the bathroom. on that point, i would like to

see as people love wheelchairs' is instead of having all of the nice stuff in the boat house is to do something about the paging on the path because it is difficult for people who have mobility issues. that is all i have to contribute. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i have been listening on both sides today to try to find some understanding for myself. i don't see a distinct or clear vision of the direction of what the department's would like. they are separate things. ortega's is coming in with some money to develop capital and to improve things.

i have a question about what really needs to be improved. i did not really see the representation of that. it seems seeing subjective as to what we want. do you want to have it be something that is an enterprise situation versus seven years the people who have been running it? those are very distinct. one of the missing parts of this is the evaluation criteria which involves the length of the leases and what money is coming in. icy capital improvements that i don't see what is coming into the city. that is what you were all about, how do we balance these things. i am not seeing that.

we lived in a few city. all of those things can be put into play i think locally. i asked that you look at this again. i know that this has been in a process and people have devoted time but this does not fit, it is not seem like these things are being considered so i asked that you do look again at this. >> is anyone else don't like to make public comment on this item? seeing non, public comment is closed.

>> i got involved in the selection committee, i have been on this commission for at least a few of the previous iterations that we then had to withdraw. i effort frustration from the committee and i volunteered to be on the selection committee. selfishly, i want to be involved with this at snow lake. -- stow lake. we would like to know what this

will look like. in san francisco, we are very open-minded and progressive. if you try to change something, everyone says do not. one side says, it is find a way it is, don't change it, it has character. the other side says, we can do this. i don't see why this is utility exclusive. this is where i disagree with the opponents. i think that we can achieve maintaining this. i would not be sitting here, i would not be on this commission if i did not feel strongly about maintaining the integrity of the assets in this department. i am all about family friendly.

that is a very fair argument. people say that they don't want the magnets for tourists, i'm sorry for those who do not support the tourist industry. i want this to be an important destination or locals. i don't know that this is a fair thing to say. one of the charges of the commission is to bring people to the park. if the new and improved part does this, this is part of our commission.

i don't want this to be a f oodie destination. is it so wrong for it to offer some good food and a place to sit down. i went to muir woods to the other day to look at their cafe. this was a very understated, very simple. i found the menu which was wonderfully affordable. there were several things under the price of $8. i was pleased with the message in that cafe. this is about history.

the take away for me in that cafe was that this is a historical space, this is a space that is mindful of the environment that it serves. it did have a lot of souvenirs' and frankly moving forward from this process, we will be doing public meetings and i understand the process, that is a valid concern. i don't want to see their -- there a lot of -- in stow lake. there were three very good proposals. this is extraordinary. this hit on a lot of things that are important to the department and san francisco values. this is affordable, this is enjoyable, i think if we can

improve upon a treasured place, we can enhance the experience and they will preserve and respect the historical nature of that place, why wouldn't they do it? we don't have the money to restore the boathouse. we just do not. where's the money coming from, one of the most important numbers is the money upfront to restore that building. we don't have it. i think that that is incredibly important and i hope that people understand that. i think that that is all i want to say and i hope that this is a successful vote. >> for me, we have done at least three of these rfp's.

having listened and reviewed and looked at these, i find myself in the place of asking staff and doing better. i think the financial aspect of this, as i recall the rfq first played the capital improvements. now we're looking at these and we are not considering the channels of rent as a financial component.

we are trying to be consistent in how we approach this. this process has prevented that, maybe this is something that we should look at again. i would say in this particular area, i think that staff could do better and that we could get a better deal. >> i wanted to start off with a couple of questions about the rendering that we saw earlier today.

the before photos are photos that i actually took and when we go out there the renderings, they were there. >> i don't know if you have them handy. the before and after photos, this is the current concession. one of the things that the people are skeptical of is an attachment to a place that there parents visited. when i lived, my thought was that we could do a little bit better. that is my observation about that rendering. the rendering of the proposed

caf -- proposed cafe, that looked appealing. this was bars a dedicated it to the food consumption with a couple of retail places to buy souvenirs. i would like to make sure that we keep it that way and this does not become dominated by next and t-shirts. i know there are many people here who cannot approve and don't support the department's proposal. i want to say to them that you were really listening and i think the proposal that is before us today is quite different than it would have been without your input. i think the department has

listened to. this is the proposal that will be affordable, and not a fine dining option. i think the department has done its best to listen to the comments from people who really loved this place and want to be able to provide and have it to be affordable, an experience similar to one that the families have had. i don't feel good about hosting a family that has been associated with this space for 67 years. our job is to be stewards of this facilities. a long-term relationship with the department is not a guarantee. what really no one has spoken about is that we had a selection committee, five different people in different backgrounds, some within the family, some without

by all appearances, people who treated this and could face and every single one of the members of the selection committee came out supporting the ortega proposal. as someone who is coming to this and did not spend all the hours that those people did, i am informed by their opinions on this and i am supportive of this proposal. >> i just wanted to take a moment, that is to say that there is no joy to displace this. i want to say that we have great respect for you and for it your tradition in san francisco.

we were charged with a process and that was securing a long- term lease. there are rules and regulations for how you do this. one of the reasons that i assume that you went down the path is because of the need to invest in the building itself. this is one of the biggest challenges that the department faces, we have $1.7 billion worth of deferred maintenance fees. to understand what the different bidders were willing to invest. this is incredibly important. for me as a general manager who

was not involved in the selection process, one of the most attractive pieces of the proposal was the investment of up-front capital. they also set aside $20,000 a year in deferred maintenance. we don't get that too often. we talked about capital projects. how will this get done? these are really important concepts. i'm very proud of the work that was done. i have only been the general manager for a year and this process has gone on for four or five. i am trying to be as responsive

and as fair as possible. >> there is no question that we are greatly indebted to the stoli corporation. they have served this city well without question. it is difficult. as exciting as this new project may seem, it is difficult to basically say that we no longer have a need for this corporation, it has served its purpose.

this is the kind of feeling that we get about that. i have been here at this table since 2006 listening to the debate, part of the debate about how the rfp should be structured or what the rfq priorities should be. what do we want out of it? what passed should we take? we have been in this discussion since 2006 and i have no doubt in my mind that there are many citizens, many people who know

about this project. this has been on the discussion process for quite some time. ludicrous as it may seem, the discussion is as it begins. we have a proposal, this is a proposal that we can support, this is a proposal that we can work with, when we make that position, it is only then that we can began the real dialogue that is ahead of us. the real dialogue is to look at

all the different aspects, the different points of view that have been brought forth. to look at what the lease arrangements should be, to look at the sustainability issues, the concept plans. this discussion is just about to begin that it can not begin unless we take action. i have no doubt that once we vote on this, the staff will go back and begin the process of looking at the lease arrangements and the environmental issues, all of these concepts and so on and they will do that with the community input. we still have a way to go to

really finalize all of this. i shall confident with what i've heard and when all is said and done, the commission will not settle for anything less than an arrangement in terms of the payments that we have had, that we have grown accustomed to and that we need in order to maintain that facility i am confident about that and i also wanted to say that in terms sofa capital, we are getting a considerable cash payment.

i think that that is a major plus. i do see a commitment to their -- a commitment there. there are good intentions on the part of the bitter -- bidder. what we will seeing is a lot more discussion on this project. you will see it project that is more of a win-win for both the pros and cons here. i still confident that we will be getting the revenue that we need in order to continue to maintain our department.

i am very supportive of not only the project, i feel that we have taken a long time and we have given this a really hard for many years and we still have more work to be done and i think that we should decide now. >> one of the concerns i have is that this is not a retail operation but this is of the service that is to be maintained. that is where the focus comes so low want to let my voice be heard with staff and negotiated

the lease and we don't have a prominent place for the retail side. there might be fun a perfect place for if himself i also have a concern of my background working in national parks. this is a of a quality that respects the facility itself. we really sit in the position of public trust. anyone who has a lease, this goes for the board or other parts of the city, that the length of the lease amortizes the improvements that are made. the responsibility of this commission is to put those pieces out for a competitive bid. this is for the marketplace and it reflects the public good.

i met with the residence and i am in a position to say that i would like to see improvements here as well. they are a noble and honorable family. the fact is been meeting with the resonance that many of the things were put in there as a direct results and i think it kept to keeping the size and scope of the operations. no one can argue with this. i think that that is something that you have to have a working relationship with the operator on. recommended recommended vendor is one that won by a