commission, does this now go to -- i assume you are going to modify the policy, and it will come back to the operations committee or one of the subcommittee's before it comes to the full commission? >> i am going to take it back to the original stakeholders and back to you guys either at a full commission meeting or whichever you prefer. >> can i suggest we have it at operations. >> there is an operations committee proposed in the organization of the commission. unless it is time-sensitive, we can adopt it when we get

improvements, so there are lots of options. >> it is your pleasure, and this depends on creating a committee structure. i think the public has been waiting for general guidelines so we can have mutual expectations about how we are going to proceed. our thought in bringing this forum was to provide an opportunity for comment, and we thought we would come back after reaching gauging stakeholders, at which point, you could decide to -- gauging stakeholders, at which point, you could decide. >> i think there is an expectation that we move on

this. some policy is better than no policy. let me from this as an observation. it is apparent to me we are going to continue to get budget cuts. do we lay people off? do we find ways to generate income. laying people off will generate public comment. it is incumbent upon us to have an outreach program in place, and we are all learning. i will weigh in and say, let's move this forward as fast as possible and have an easy way to modify or improve it who as we go forward. >> just one comment to echo your

thoughts, which is that we do live in a time of constrained budget resources, and that does include our outreach team. what we are trying to do is set up a system where we can best disseminate public information, and we are grateful to the parks trust. we are on a constant road tour of meetings. we were at the meeting two saturdays ago, and we do this a number of times a week. we just spent over a year developing a new tool in our website, and you will see the outreach policy on the front page of our website, and you

will also see a scrolling feature of the upcoming community meetings and announcements. our entire web site has been designed to enhance out of reach to the best we can, so one key aspect is making sure the public is aware of the tools and asking them to use it. >> thank you very much. >> we are on item number eight, which is understanding for the implementation of balboa park and jefferson square park water conservation projects.

>> good afternoon we have before you the approval of the park's water conservation process, and this is part of the mission of the parks and open space section in terms of being able to do management of natural resources within our parks system. this is a true collaborative initiatives which the utilities commission and also reflects implementation of strategies and recommendations from the 2009 plan, which was also with the parks and recreation department

and the san francisco public utilities commission. the projects we have primarily address three critical parks. the projects primarily in retrofit the system to capture savings of 7.4 million gallons of water. the project manager is here, and i would like to recommend the project manager, who wrote this for a particular grant. we also have representatives from the public utilities commission, and if you could allow an opportunity for the

program manager to come up and present a little bit about the programs they are doing throughout the city. >> good afternoon. i am julie, and i wanted to talk for a minute about the landscape program through which the rec and park department applied, and our program is part of of a broader effort to help diversify. to help protect the water througwe are taking steps to diversify. we are also trying to update our

drinking system. we propose saving 20 million gallons by 2018, and we have a, an -- a comprehensive program, and this effort is one part of our effort to reduce water use outdoors. in terms of the program again, there are a couple of key requirements open to retail customers that would reduce potable water use. they had to have over 2.5 acres.

they need to propose permanent improvements over 10 years, and they have to be able to start and be completed within two years. they have to meet a number of applicable local and state laws. we send out notifications to our retail customers that we identified. we received proposals from three different organizations for seven projects the totaled $7 million. we had rolled together are 2009 through 2011 funding, and pending availability of funding in the future, we hope to have future rounds of and and and and

and and land grant program. in terms of selection criteria, i touched on what the grant required. in particular, we look at costs in terms of water saved. rec and parks submitted proposals, and we collected 3. that totaled over $2 million in funding. that concludes my brief overview of the grant program, so i will open it up. >> the conservation water project i have to mention.

there was an amendment to the use, and i hope you received the amendment to a memorandum, and if you were to consider the use, it would be through the amendment. >> commissioner harrison? >> does this include the parts of water hens -- heads? >> this does not include recycled water to the parks. i will briefly walk you through the main pieces.

the leaks will be repaired. in the case of balboa park, we are proposing non-pressurized components of the navigation system and the inclusion of weather-based system. jefferson square park. we are looking at the total replacement of the system, including uniform coverage. also the installation of weather-based controller's. that is the largest project in terms of its scope and investment during a -- its scope

and investment. >> commissioner lee? >> if these are heavily used by the public, what level of construction? it sounds like a significant construction activity will be going on at these parks, and i was wondering if you have looked into the operations. i was wondering what they expect. >> i would like to refer that to a project manager.

>> if there is going to be a major disruption within the park, we should consider that as an option. >> i am speaking of highly dense areas. and their heavily used daily. where are people going to go. are you going to give them that? i would assume you are looking into existing programs. >> absolutely, we are working

together to make sure to provide notification. >> commissioner, i will take a stab us well. the areas are basically lawn areas. there are no recreation areas, so they know what to expect in terms of the project, scope, and duration. we will do similar system there. they know when to take the field off the permanent menu. the impact would be a fair not

available -- would be that they are not available. >> i know there is more efficiency in efficiency once we complete these projects. is it safe to assume there is improved irrigation in terms of maintenance of areas? we have seen worse days. we have great days, but there are still some areas that can improve courier -- can improve. will that be a natural result? >> yes. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed during the -- is closed.

>> we need a motion. >> you want to make a motion to amend? >> yes. >> and then that will take it? >> the amendment is non- substantive amendment. it is primarily in the language of the appendix d, and basically the language distinguishes the difference between the documentation needed, and it also lists the documentation needed to demonstrate the grant award. >> we would entertain a motion that includes that amendment? it has been moved and seconded it is unanimous. >> we are on item number 10,

which is the boat house request for proposal.

over 15,000 square feet. this includes an outdoor deck and an adjacent parking lot. this is very close to the san francisco zoo and to ocean beach.

it is close to two legs that offer a variety of activities. this is one of the most rapidly growing areas of the city and there are few food service opportunity is in the immediate vicinity. this is a rendering of the buildings. the upper level contains a bar, meeting areas, kitchens, and restrooms. the main entrance to the boat houses actually on the second- floor. this has a wraparound deck and a panoramic view of the lake. the first floor is accessible only around the back of the building. the first floor is not part of the proposed lease.

you have several objectives. the first is to offer an interesting menu that is quality and affordable. the second is to provide an aesthetically pleasing facility. we would like a design that takes a advantage of the views and also the synergies of the park and the lake. we also would like the signs to be sensitive to the panoramic setting. we would like antiestablishment and maintenance of this facility. we would like to avoid conflict with the natural environment especially with respect to sound

and lighting in the area that is amplified. we would like for there to be coordination with puc. our rent will be paid monthly. the minimum guarantee is $100,000. we've like to offer a 10-year term. we are requesting a minimum of five years. we would like a security deposit of two months' rent. the operator and is to abide by all standards.

we also posted a note that the facility. approximately 3500 people attended. we have support from the california dragon boat association, the public utilities commission. if you approve the issuance, the proposal that line would be fit your report. we would consider -- the proposal deadline would be february 4th. how

>> in that day when i worked out there, and we would go to lunch and then there was a bar. but would this be considered? >> there would be a bar. >> there is an existing license? >> i imagine that the operator would have to have a new license. >> have we had a lot of inquiries from potential users? >> i would say there are about five different groups that the stake holders meetings. >> is this safe to say that they

are all restaurant users? >> yes. >> we are encouraging respondents to think about the recreational activities. >> i noticed that you notice them and i actually went out there and rode with the team and look at all of the facilities, the next question i would have is that there might be some rehabilitation required. i have wondered about questions with the potential bidders. >> does that have anything to do with the applicant? >> absolutely. that is why there is quite a few extensions.

>> it occurred to me that there might be multiple uses and i don't want to get into specific ones but is this something that could be accommodated? >> that would be in the rfp itself. the previous boat house when it operated, the previous operator when it operator, it did not have a restaurant. have you done an analysis that there will be any impact at all in terms of having two restaurants in close proximity to each other. >> it is strong and the market

will support this. >> they did stock the lake for fishing. will that be part of this as well? >> i believe that they still do stock the lake. >> do people go there and fish? >> yes. >> it is possible as someone could propose and incorporate that. >> this is catch and release out there. >> yes. i did not have an opportunity to read all of the information but my question is in terms of

the recommendation of the winning bid, is there a panel? who will be your review committee and how will that process -- all have a selection committee includes stakeholders. >> are you taylor making this? >> they are different for each and we have the appropriate individuals involved in reading the proposals and to making

recommendations. >> is to any public comment? >> i am a native san franciscan and this is important to me. i've seen this go a few times. what i wanted to talk about is what we do about the east lake? but bodman is there included in the proposal, as -- is there included in the proposal, but boat rentals in the east lake?