legal partners that have operated carnival cruise line for the past 22 years and there is an on the fleet of boats including 30 paddle boats, 15 rowboats, more votes than was dictated. they would follow all applicable boating safety regulations and they would train all staff members in cpr basic or general first-aid and the use of operated -- and the use of external defibrillators. we would see the existing boats be upgraded so that they would

go from this to this. the proposed capital improvements were significant and substantial. they did propose to retain the snack bar as well as all external features of the boathouse. the traditional paint color scheme, they have proposed to keep those, the value of their improvements were a little bit over $230,000. they would require the approval of the recreation and park commission as well as the historic preservation commission. additionally, they would include the creation of the

indoor seating area including historic repair memorabilia and historic pictures of the lake and furniture made from reclaimed materials such as old peers and boats. they would propose to of great the existing kitchen necessary to operate a full commercial kitchen on site. they propose creating a lounge area with comfortable seating to provide patrons and a little bit of rest by from the weather that we have been joined. -- a little bit of respite from the weather we have been enjoying. this is an overview of what the proposed floor plan would look like. if you can take a look at it, you can see in joining the existing snack bar.

moving to the far right corner, you can see all looks aside as part, this is the lounge area where there would be comfortable seating and a proposed including a library on golden gate park so that part of visitors can know about the wildlife.

this was to the exterior of the building and the charm. the existing snack bar, if the capital improvements were implemented as proposed, it would go off from looking like this to looking like that. we have seen this dark elements still retained and frankly from the exterior, not much of a difference. where the dominant change would be is on the inside, on the top floor where it currently have the area used as a maintenance shed. veeco from this to this if the

proposed plans were approved by the commission. they would be performing the renovations standards.

the selection panel was particularly impressed with the food and beverage service operation that the ortega family enterprises before and this would be operated by a local business here in san francisco. the food-service would retain the snack bar atmosphere while also increasing the range and quality of the menu offerings so we would go what we currently have which is really a snack bar and limited meal options to a place where people could obtain sandwiches, salads, etc.. they would propose almost nearly exclusively the use of pliers to be able to source of -- suppliers that would be able to source within a hundred miles of

the cafe using organic produce and meats. some of those local suppliers would be a cowgirl premier a., heirloom organic, etc. none of the parties was to protect the site within the park space. this is a nesting site for the blue herons. the selection panel was very impressed with the proposed environment put forward by ortega family enterprises which included certifying the area has an audubon sanctuary.

which means that they would follow practices which are designed to limit the impact on nesting and migratory birds. the ira certified a system which is at best managed and practices designed designed to limit the effect of a business operating in a natural habitat. they would have a goal of 85% which exceeds the city's own goals. they would utilize recyclable or other food service products as well as development education programs which includes youth education and nature tours and all work would be done to these standards as well as their proposed to certify the concessions as a cream restaurant within one year of opening operation.

they proposed a number of community partnerships that would provide educational opportunities for the general public. these would include wildlife watching opportunities, opportunities for park agents to surround -- protect the surrounding area. to offer the naturalists and hotness demonstration space, for five lectures and workshops as well as to partner with the unified school district to provide educational awareness programs and to offer the reduce cost of field trips to students. also they will open up the lounge space and the main dining area for committee meetings.

the benefits to the city of the order taker proposal would be a capital contribution in the first year of over a quarter billion dollars to renovate the boathouse. additionally, there is a proposed annual maintenance budget that ortega would set aside for the boat house of $20,000 each year and that is significant. this will help to meet our deferred capital needs in the first year and also having a boat house but also your tan as well when i assume that we will be facing budgetary constraints and still have quite a significant deferred maintenance needs within the departments. they would purchase entirely new fleets of boats.

benefit would be rejuvenated boathouse experience for everyone to enjoy. i've spoken briefly about some of the other reach that has happened but i wanted to go through in detail the process. we have met with the existing concession mayor as well as his representative.

the place to the aforementioned at in the february edition of the "san francisco chronicle." we also posted this on the department's web site and on the trips city a ministration database, we have sent this to bidders as well as all identified interested parties, met with the leaders of the boat house coalition, met with the leader of the sf nature organization, so all of that was done prior to the issuance of the rfq. upon announcement of the recommendation, we undertook subsequent community outreach. that includes on july 22, notifying that ortega family

enterprises was selected as the respondent. that same day, we notify the office of president chiu, supervisor chu, supervisor mar, and supervisor mirkarimi. that same day, we notified susan dumans of the selection panel's recommendations. busy day. we did a lot. again, on july 22, we issued press releases to all major sfpd outlets and then posted said press release as well at the selection panel competition. on august 6, we notify nancy destafanis of the selection,

and on august 6, we posted a boathouse -- a poster at the boathouse. as well as staph's contact information, should anyone have any questions regarding this project and process. again, on august 12, the revised poster with renderings to the proposed improvements at the boathouse, and then, additionally, we e-mailed all parties and notified the department said their interest in the concession of today's meeting, and we also throughout this process have phone calls and/or first person conversations with over 70 individuals not identified in this. i thought i will spare you that. in addition to the staff- conducted outreach of this project, i'm sure you have seen

that it has received significant media coverage. it has been the subject of an august 17 column regarding the selection of family enterprises. there was a july 23 "san francisco chronicle" selection as well as a july 22 article in the "san francisco examiner." there was a column in december of last year. the "sunset begin" featured it and the rfq process in their february, july, and august issues. there was a march 2010 article in the "marina times." as well as there have been posting on the sf citizen blog. as well on sfgate on their -- i think it is a "inside scoop," their dining blog.

moving forward, staff is committed to continuing this community outreach process. we viewed today as an important but preliminary step in moving forward with securing a long- term contract with ortega family enterprises. should the commission a full selection, we would immediately convene community meetings to present the proposal, as well as to receive feedback from the community that could be incorporated during the lease negotiations process. we would meet individually with all interested community associations and stakeholders, including particularly the zero house coalition and sf nature, who have been the most watchful community organizations following this project. then, upon successful negotiation of a lease, they

would again convene community meetings and meet with the community leaders to discuss the proposed lease before taking said least to the recreation and parks commission for your approval. next steps -- should the commission approve this, staff would convene the aforementioned outreach process and then began the lease negotiations upon successful negotiation of the lease. we would bring that back to -- bring said lease to the recreation and park commission. should this commission approves said lease, it would then require a hearing before the board of supervisors, budget and finance committee, and then the full approval of the board of supervisors. between now and contract approval excluding today, we

have three more public hearings, and those will be opportunities for members of the public to attend a mandatory hearing to express their pleasure or concern with the proposed contract. additionally, any proposed improvements would require approval of this commission and the historic preservation commission and would go through a separate entitlement process that would be linked and have a number of mandatory meetings as well. -- that would be lengthy. lastly, i wanted to share some of the support and opposition we have for the project.

in opposition, we have the save salt lake boat house coalition, the san francisco chapter of the sierra club, the telegraph hill dwellers, the haight-ashbury neighborhood council, and the neighborhood coalition, and it should be noted those entities have showed concerns with the process, but they have not necessarily expressed formal opposition to ortega family enterprises. their concerns have been with staff, the process, and retaining the historic building and historic operator. >> thank you. commissioner lee, you had a question period commissioner lee: first of all, i want to thank you for your work. i know this was a difficult

process. we have announced four times now, and i should mention we should move forward and every time, we have been back here. as a look at the proposal, i do have one concern, and this is something i see as a potential flaw in the process, which is the rent. i see that you have laid out the capital improvements of each vendor and the qualifications and so forth, but has there -- in the past, -- you know, it is after all a lease. was there any consideration for the rental fee? what can this department expect on each of the bidders in terms of rent? i do recall looking back to the rfq, that we had been financial

projection, and what with the financial revenues before each bid? i just do not see this in the packet. i'm wondering, have you factor that into consideration? obviously, this department is -- has financial needs and ultimately, we want the concessions not only to be a service to the community, but also to generate revenues for this department. can you address that question? >> absolutely, commissioner. as you alluded to, the rfq is intentionally silent on meant to be paid to the city. that was a policy decision made by staff to prioritize the needs

at the building. you are right in saying that there were financial projections in the project, but the ortega family enterprises, for example, there has been 30% to 40% growth in revenue, gross revenue at the site, and we would anticipate that the ultimate growth in revenue to the department would be the subject of negotiation upon approval of this selection panel -- or of the commission, the selection panel finding. >> in the package before us, we do not see any description in terms of financial terms, of what are the financial benefits, aside from capital investment. you have clearly laid out the capital investment, but in terms of the growth, can you put a number on it? what are we expecting to see from each of the bidders? and with that factored into your selection -- >> you are right that it was a component of the rfq and people

were requested to submit that, but that was not a primary evaluation criteria for the selection panel, so respondents that submitted proposed rents to the department, the selection panel was unable to consider those, the thinking being that, again, that we are prioritizing the capital improvements to the building and that any rent structure would be brought back to the commission for your approval upon successful negotiation of a lease with any selection-granted, commission- approved respondent. >> i do recall when this came up in december last year, the capital. as i look at the rfq, it does stress the need for capital improvement, but i recall that the rent was also an important factor in this in a decision.

so, as i look at it, it seems like we are only getting half a picture. >> i think you are right if you are referring to the 2009 rfp -- >> rfq. >> no, rfp. the commission rejected all responses from a previous process and also authorized staff to issue the current rfq after meeting certain obligations. the previous rfp did have financial terms in it, and that was a primary evaluation criteria, and in this instance, while there was language that people responded to submit financial projections, it was not a primary evaluation criteria for the selection panel to consider. that has been legally binding to

only evaluate proposals on the proposed evaluation criteria other than if someone were to propose something unforeseen, the selection panel would not be able to say that we like that. we did not include criteria to consider that, but we like it anyway, so that all the bidders know what game they are playing, know what the rules of the game are, so we are actually fairly legally binding to only consider the proposals on those strict terms set forth in the rfq. >> we can go to public comment. >> [reading names] we can start with those please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here today to read a letter

on behalf of the program manager of audubon international, and i would like to submit it to the official record. "i recently learned of ortega family enterprises in procuring the concessions at still lake and golden gate park. i would like to take a moment to provide some insight regarding the environmental irresponsible management practices this organization has implemented through their commitment and involvement in the audubon as cooperative program. as both a formal and national park ranger, i have been impressed by the type of dedication to environmental stewardship shown by ortega family enterprises in the opposition of the band earlier trading company and bandoleer national monument in new mexico. as i stressed national and by mid being instilled in services at golden gate park. ortega family enterprises has undertaken a wide variety of environmentally friendly

management practices that have helped conserve energy and national resources while providing an exceptional model for kitchens and guests -- patrons and guests to follow in their lives. a strong focus on recycling and waste reduction has resulted in the designation of the ban earlier trading company as the first of on-cooperative sanctuary in the -- in new mexico. 95% recycled office products and 100% use of recycle food service material, water use reduction efforts and decreased energy consumption all speak to the conservation of resourcess. i would be happy to discuss the impressive track record at any time. it is also worth mentioning that our audubon-cooperative sanctuary program has been adopted by a variety of state and municipal park departments ranging from fort collins to los angeles county parks to south

carolina and tennessee. i would also be happy to discuss these programs and opportunities within the city of san francisco recreation and parks department at your convenience. thank you very much for your time. i sincerely feel ortega family enterprises would be a good fit at golden gate park." >> thank you. >> this is a letter i wrote to mr. buell. i'm a member of the stowe lake boat coalition. i was born and grew up in san francisco and and a current resident, and i'm here to express opposition to the commission's plan to offer the contract to operate the boat house to a new mexico company.

with the disaster changes the plan entails. by that, i mean turning this place into a corporate tourist trap and providing food from somewhere like how grow creamery, which is wonderful, but it also stilled the ferry building. stowe lake as it stands is one of the city's last remaining peaceful places, one that neighbors have treasured for years. it draws neighbors from all ethnic and socioeconomic groups from throughout the world. why destroy that serenity? the area not far already attracts tourists to its restaurant and sculpture garden. another site to see in proximity to the museum would be a disaster for the thousands who visit the lake annually for a touch of quiet beauty, let alone for the already mobbed park. and what about parking?