service. they are the ones that go through the area to make sure that we have a core menu of items that are fairly priced for our markets. we like to tell you how to throw things away. think about what you are using. we do not sell bottled water for precisely that reason. we believe that some things of the right thing to do. supervisor chu: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is tonya ortega. i support ortega enterprises being upset stow lake. -- being at stow lake. i engage with the community for my family to see how we can work together.

i have been approached by people that knew it was there but did not feel it was a part of their community. as far as neighbors directly in the part, we have talked to the botanical society. more importantly, what we would like to open up is for smaller businesses and individuals to see how they would like to participate in what we're doing and that we are letting them be heard by s. my main goal was to make this the hard of golden gate. supervisor chu: thank you. >> my name is mark west. i am strongly in favor of stow lake. i am the founder of the happy company. i was bought out by the ortega family to bring meaningful projects to the community. i was so impressed with their

commitment and desire to create programs that would serve the community. we offered to do free workshops and work with them in many ways in support of that. thank you so much for your consideration there. supervisor chu: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is brian stokes. i support the measure. listening to many of the comments here, they do bring of many important details but overall we should support the measure. two items that i heard that i thought should be heard as part of this measure or in the future, the notion of parking. maybe one tour bus, maybe none

of them. but overall i feel much more likely to go there and use the facilities. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i was a park ranger for about 20 years. i am retired bell. i do not want to be against anything. what i am for is at least one part of the park that is left as a refuge that is natural. that is not commercialized and left open to a new development from elisse that has many loopholes. every night i would go into the lodge and look at a portrait hanging over me. i would talk to him in the portrait, praying that this

development of the park is a slab of real estate, this was initially a retreat from urban pressure. because this city is a worldwide destinations and has to accommodate a lot of people, because of changes inevitable, it is even more so that one small part of that vision is saved. i believe that the ortega's with their good intentions, this is not their words. this is a very special situation. a very fragile piece of nature left in the city. i would beg you, urge you to slow down. change is not bad, but in this case it should come more slowly. consider more. look at the least again. consider everything more slowly.

thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is robert [unintelligible] and i still go regularly to stow lake in search of exercise and some serenity in this very busy city. we have heard what fine folks the ortega's are. i have no doubt that they are. i understand there run a good operation. but that is not really the question. as legislators i ask you to look more broadly that the issue. what is the full context in which this issue was raised? of that a time when parks and

recreation is short of money, it would be naive to ignore that. on the other hand, it is being raised in a context in which the policy, with respect to the use of park assets, has not been clearly formulated. that formulation will only come after the historic preservation commission has the opportunity to examine it. i ask you, as legislators that have the breadth and wisdom and maturity, to ask yourselves, am i sure that i am right? because what happens to this boat house, it will become the least common denominator. what happens to the rest of those historic structures? for heaven's sake, put this on the shelf until the historic preservation commission has an

opportunity to advise you. you can read their opinions and accept them or reject them in your own good judgment. but you do not have enough operation right now. [tone] thank you. >> susan [unintelligible] pardon? supervisor chu: the microphone. >> by and against going ahead. repeating what the last two speakers said. i would like to read a list from the stow lake boat house coalition supporters. the audubon society, the san francisco coalition society, the son said action commission, the golden gate preservation

alliance, telegraph hill dwellers, take back our parks, keep the arboretum free, the stove family, hopkins, grandson of warren architect, david paul r.. north side san francisco, ashley wolff, author stello roy, the story of stellate -- stow lake post card club. my parents took me there. i have taken my children that are now adults. it is not somewhere the to go

for a restaurant. we have a million restaurants in san francisco. the important part is keeping the tranquillity and have the part not become another tourist attraction in a negative way. supervisor chu: thank you. >> my name is kristin neighborly. by m. forsaking the boat house. i was just in carlsbad caverns last year. everyone keeps talking about food. when i heard that there were five or six tables replace that this boat house, but i have heard is that they're going to be losing money on the food. not that the ortega's do not serve food. we do not need another caesar

salad. we need a historic but house. we need to save about house. we do not need to save grace. we need bicycles. we need something charming in golden gate park. we do not need another commercial teacher joint. i walked in there with a huge community of people every day. there is an entire community of people that love the bucolics ready. i believe in saving the boat house historically. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> my name is sandra we'll and i m proposed to this change of use. i have documents to be included

in the record. as you know, our local coalition is against this change. but we have provided you numerous solutions for this very bad lease, which must be included as you move forward. for example, page 24 we see that they shall not be required to make repairs or alterations, including improvements, in connection with seismic retrofit. since the least he does not pay, guess who will? please ask the city attorney if this was misinterpreted or if the city is going to be on the hook for this money because of the changes in use? it is fiscally irresponsible to expose the city to on known seismic costs.

rpd has said that the city has no funds for this facility. where is this money going to come from for the change of use? are you willing to gamble with our budget dollars pelops is it worth the risk tuesday -- to change a successful boating business model just to put in an unwanted internet cafe and get shot? in one of the documents it specifically says -- for the convenience of visitors we will provide internet wireless. sorry, i do not want another starbucks. if they say that they will not do that, put it in the lease. there are holes all over this lease. but the protections and

solutions we have provided to you in the lease. supervisor chu: thank you. >> my name is carmela [unintelligible] and i find it sad and arrogant that these people have gotten up and said they do not want to bring their children there because of the condition of the boat house. you can walk the lake without having to walk into the boat house. you can turn your face to the other direction so that you do not have to look at the boat house. i thought it was pathetic. very commendable but you have gone to meer woods i agree with the fact -- let's keep it for the folks that live in san francisco.

they go to the museum, many people these tourists, they do not walk there. i see families on the weekend. strollers, dogs, and children. yes, the boat house needs to be repaired. but we had a gentleman, there was a wonderful article in the sunday paper, he was a philanthropist. he put a lot of money in our campaign to win. why can he not fix the boat house? thank you. supervisor chu: next speaker. >> the city charter has given you the power to look at the

larger picture. when we first proposed to eliminate the current bender family the neighbors got together and obtained 800 signatures. this is quite extraordinary. this is the kind of support that our parks need. it should not be thrown away. i would like to address the larger picture. sadly, the department has panicked. one course of action might have been to appeal to the community to find ways to fund the parks. a clear but misguided policy to sell our parks and park facilities. public programs are being eliminated and privatization is coming in without considering the wishes of the neighbors. we have seen this with dolores "

-- park, clubhouses, and the factory. the department has offered no resistance to this project. is this perhaps because the department will receive payments in return for this land? is the department reduced to selling their facilities to maintain their management budget? a short-term management, it -- crisis will influence -- and flight long-term losses to private control and a widening gap between the people in our parts department. regarding the boat house, the elisse needs to be carefully reviewed and there needs to be input from the historic preservation commission. let the issue be reviewed again and be considered for the benefit of everyone. thank you. supervisor chu: next speaker,

please. [tone] supervisor chu: next speaker, please. please come forward. next speaker, please? next speaker, please. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is james toooadal. these people still believe in the system. it would be nice to show them that a little bit once. instead of losing all of the time. instead of like when they go up against gay marriages.

show the people this time, you know what i am saying, that the people get what they want. supervisor chu: next speaker, please. >> i would like to have your attention. we have been waiting a long time. my name is suzanne from the save the boat house coalition. we have the support of not only the stow family descendants, as well as the golden gate audubon society and the sierra club. why? they know that our position is the correct one for taking care of the park and preserving it for everyone.

the bid and selection process was completely unjust. the panel was handpicked by the staff and full of insiders. the community representative position that was promised never occurred. a sunshine ordinance violation with regards to the issue was issued last year. the lease ignored community will, revenue, committing the park to spending money it does not have on the boat shack, lighting, fire code upgrades, etc. the lease is full of holes and needs to be reviewed more carefully. the nomination is pending at the historic preservation commission.

if you vote to approve this lease, the boat house interior landmark -- the lease would be largely nullified based on the fact that the lease calls for the gutting of the entire top floor of the boat house. it was built in the 1940's and for nearly 25 years the designer produce tell-all list of notable structures in the area. a rare example of an intact both house and should remain so. please do not approve this lease. it is bad for san francisco. [tone] supervisor chu: thank you. >> hello, commissioners. i represent the third generation of my family as an sesthe curret

concessionaire at the lake. the information you have been given is not correct. the harvey roads office did not see a copy, and neither did the port commissioners. instead these decisions are being made based on a summary provided to you by the staff, which is not accurate. today when they talked about revenues being down since 2000, that makes it sound like we are not doing a good job. they failed to mention the academy of sciences and the museum was closed for renovations. the press, the public, everyone listening to this been going on right now believes i only offered $23,000 in capital improvements in my bid, as opposed to 10 times as much for the vote -- for the ortega bid. is just not true.

they include a contractor feet of $10,000. that was included in my bid. i have an alarm system. it did not go in my bid. their bid says 19. they were going to modify the entire interior. we offered to upgrade kitchen equipment, as the day. architectural fees are built into their bid, also included in mind. in the tenant improvements section, they did include the purchase of personal property. [tone] supervisor chu: thank you. the supervisor has a question for you. supervisor mirkarimi: i want to

try to understand. having listened closely to all sides and all comments, the prevailing opinion is that significant improvement needs to be in the area you have been an operator of. i am sure the to have an opinion about that here in the board of supervisors. and it sounds like through the audience. you have been the current operator. that seems to be a responsibility you have shouldered. in light of that, if there was an opportunity for you to jump to the standard of improving conditions and speaking to the needs of the city, what happened? we are getting very mixed messages as to why either your

bid was not received -- did it get lost in the mail, for lack of a better phrase? what happened in this regard? on the receiving end of the process, by the time has come to was, it is very model. i would like you to elaborate on that. keep in mind that in the back of my mind i am also thinking -- is this sour grapes that make you protest? we are also trying to figure out the reality of the motivation and, of course, our intent is to make sure that people -- and i want to go further, as i am hearing parts of what you're saying. >> that is a lot of things. but i get the gist.

i understand that it sounds like sour grapes. as the incumbent concessionaire, we would not be here. i do not know what happened on the bid. i would implore you, i would beg you, please go to the park and ask them for my original bid that i submitted. the budget analysts office was able to speak with nick and able to go through the summary as provided by the recreation and park department. i wish that they would look at my actual bid. i have a capital improvement section in there. if anyone reads that they will see it does not say $23,000 as my limit. as the incumbent, the position of the boat house was in bad shape. in the last least i was required to paint it three times, that

was over 15 years. we did it every two years. the boats are not all 60 years old. the only old boats are the motorboats. there is misinformation there as well. i have been purchasing new paddle boats. somehow between my beid being delivered and the right up going to be part commission, the commission voted and approve forwarding it on to you guys based on staff recommendation. they never saw my bid. and then it went to the office of harvey rose. there was a conversation with staff. that office had to rely on the information provided by the park. again, no one gets to see my

original bid. and i spent a lot of time on that. i went into quite a bit of detail. what becomes evidence is that -- for get the rent, i did a volunteer more rent than you are looking at now. even with these changes. supervisor chsupervisor mirkarik you, you can sit down. mr. rhodes, quickly on this question -- i want to be clear on the thought process here. is that true? did you not see the final bid? or did you see the rent proposed by the current operator portrait -- chosen operator? >> as in every case, within the department we deal with the

proposed case. they submit the documentation and represent how the competitive process went and what the bids were. he is correct, we relied upon what the department delivered to us. summarized on page 1-5 of our own report. to specifically answer your question, we absolutely did not look at any of the individual bids. we always advise on the process as represented by the department unless the board of supervisors specifically asked us to audit the process because they felt that was wrong, we would never look at anything underlying beyond what the department submitted to us. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. back to public comment.

supervisor chu: i believe that there was one final person? if there are members of the public that wish to speak on this item that have not had a chance, please step up. >> good afternoon. i would like to thank supervisor mar for the leadership on this issue. he is near and dear to myself and the ortega as. over the past several months we have been asked to speak on two issues. one was to give a presentation on how the ortega family constantly exceeds contractual obligations, exceeding but never boundaries are put out by the national parks service. and they never