comment disclosed. we will go back to some questions from the committee. >> thank you. the wanted to thani wanted to te generations of running the concession stand. i also wanted to thank the ortega family and others that have spoke out in support of unimproved boathouse. the regal verma, but that the general manager laid out for the recreation and parks department, it panel has looked at all of the bids to make sure that there is a capital improvement that will be made to increase the ability of maintaining the building and the facility and

the sites for future generations as well as preserve this for everyone. also attracting a high quality concession which would insure that this was improved over the years and we want to bring in revenue. they chose the ortega family because they were superior. my understanding is that the historic preservation commission is considering this issue that a number of people raised and will be hopefully ensuring that the exterior and interior is are fully analyzed and protected.

and the recommendation was made that we look at airports. we should have not gone forward with more of the criteria. we should have included the minimum guarantees. can you explain why we did not do that? that is a very good recommendation from the future. >> traditionally, we include the other financial terms. the department does include percentage rents as part of their percentage. we had put this out to bid four times and had not see any entities.

this did not consider the financial terms. >> what do we have to guarantee that this is preserved or improved? >> and there are the schemes, the building footprints, and the windows, the doors, etc., will all be retained. there will be a modification of some of the interior walls. also the creation of an indoor seating area. simultaneously, they are considering a proposal that the

building of the landmarks in the proposal. there was all of the bidding documents. >> another concern was in the comments made. some raise concerns about lighting and the service of alcohol within the cafe and no night service as well. can you speak to those issues within the lease? >> we are not proposing to change the hours of operation. there is partly night lighting at the building. i would imagine in such a secluded location that there

will continue to be some kind of security lighting where we make sure that it fits well with the park location and it does not negatively impact wildlife. i don't think that there will be any significant change. >> i know that they have done incredible work educating young people and old about the wildlife and especially the blue herons. but there is concern that there is protection not just for the blue heron. what in the lease or outside of the lease is the recon park department doing to preserve the place? >> one of the main things we have done is it is illegal to

share food with the animals. we have signs out there. we would implement an aggressive campaign as part of any lease to try to address that measure. they are proposing to work with the audubon society to create a certified audubon sanctuary where the society would come forward and they would do an audit of their environmental practices and determine what the potential impacts there are and what steps can be taken. >> the quality was improved with

the capital improvements, this would improve with the more families to decide so this is traffic increased and visits to the site. can you talk about what the lease does to those concerns that people have raised. >> on the issue of tour buses, currently they are prohibited from driving. that will continue to rest and not move within the lease. the nieclease requires that may abide by all city regulations. one of the things we're interested in doing is working with the ortega family to find

ways to incentivize people coming out on a day like today were it is gorgeous and probably 65-70 degrees out there. people probably are not out there because it is a mid winter week and we would like to work with them on flexible pricing and bring people out to the boathouse. i think at peak demand, absolutely. this is a very crowded location. i don't think that we could significantly increase the number of people out there. that does not mean that there are not substantial times of the year when we could increase the amount of people out there without impeding the traffic flow or the wild life. >> i was going to ask harvey and ian, a number of people that spoke in public comments said that this is flawed because it

is full of holes, how to you compare the lease? howell would you respond to the comments that the lease is flawed? >> first of all, we emphasized and commented on the rentals as the official aspect of the budget analyst standpoint. this lease was negotiated. certainly we were not a part of the negotiation. there are various aspects of the least that were considered by the department. it is unusual to have such a negotiation. on i cannot comment specifically about holes and the lease but i would say that it would be

appropriate for the department to negotiate a various aspects of the lease. thank you. >> i know that supervisor mirkarimi has a number of questions. and people are taking different perspectives on it. i do understand the need from the recreation and park department perspective on how the ongoing revenue that is going into the department. there are three different goals that are outlined by the general manager. without the capital improvements and the strong maintenance parts of the lease that the family enterprises have committed to, without that, it is very difficult to see a positive future. with all of respect, i agree

with many of the residence of the quality of the boathouse has been run down. why do feel that the concession -- is a strong concession and i appreciate the programs. i think the process could be improved.

i hope that the wreck and parks department has a better process based on the recommendations by the budget analyst office. i will be supportive of the lease as amended and i appreciate the work of the recreation and park department. >> thank you for your leadership and for all stakeholders in this deliberation. i think as i mentioned earlier and to reiterate, i think you will find common opinions that their knees to be a change. i don't think that is where the debate will ensue. what i do feel is that there are a number of details that are unclear or that there is an absence of information.

first of all, i tried -- we have received data from the department and the budget analyst and of the network of advocates.

we are looking for better revenue while at the same time we are looking for making capital improvements. on the question of revenue, was there a -- sent out that was looking for -- >> there has been four -- >> the last one. >> the last one was denied. >> there was not. there is the absence of the annual rent requirement, what was the benefit of eliminating that? we are in the fourth year of a massive deficit in the city and i am trying to understand the financial advantage in that theory. that is what i'm trying to understand. >> the benefit is that we have put this out on four

supplications and we have a firm sense of what the market value is for the property. the problem in entering into a long-term lease with the vendor has not been that we have had no entities that were willing to pay rent, the problem is that we have entities that are willing to perform the capital improvements required to operate the boat house at acceptable conditions. with a database of 11 responses, the department strongly felt that an adequate rent could be negotiated with the successful operator by looking at that database. we got fortunate that the two entities that were not selected both submitted a proposed

financial terms. >> at which point it then and there be a response and what changed in order to increase that. we're not soliciting bids on the specific requirements. we did not solicit those but once our commission has

approved the selection of the family enterprises, the department negotiated with ortega. >> the chronology of that negotiated process would lead me to believe that if that was part of a benefit in the negotiation variable, shouldn't that have also been given to the benefit of at least the current operator or the other competitors? >> the approved rfq prioritized the commitments.

>> we know how hard parks and recreation is trying to -- on am trying to get a handle on the process. if this went out and then it's elected a offender and the terms inserted the azeri variable that was not included, that is what i'm trying to understand. that would have been provided for match for some response by the others turned down -- by the

others. >> that was not claim back to the other entities. city contract in not is very clear. once the bids are received, they can only negotiate. >> aside what was negotiated after the fact, one of those seven points that you expressed earlier was the improvements by the current operator. i think the current operator will to a solid job. my focus and my question is on process.

if it is on capitol prudence, let's go into that a little bit. -- if it is on capital improvements. >> this was done previously at the parks and recreation commission. this would be the fifth one that went out. that led to the oversight of your commission? >> absolutely. >> in terms of the drafting, the commission and the department had feedback about what the waiting would be for each of the different metrics that would be included. >> absolutely. >> when that was approved, that was put out for people to respond to. was there an opportunity for people to indicate that they did not support what was? >> we convened a series of

meetings and met with the community stakeholders in this project and presented the proposed -- and we had the feedback. additionally, once it was put on the street, so to speak, there is a protest of two weeks. any entity has up to two weeks to protest the terms of the rfq. >> in terms of the process, there is an opportunity. where did they come usually?

>> what is the hon process, 30 days? >> i don't recall. >> did a signal that they were filing a protest? >> no, we have not received any. >> after 30 days? >> no. >> back to the question of the capital improvements. on the capital improvements, it

is 88 or seismic included? >> -- ada or seismic included? >> in 2007, we conducted a report on the facility management. the lease contains a provision that should there be a substantial need for substantial projects, that we would reopen.

it would say that the department and the city, in the event that there are seismic -- that we would look at this jointly. this would have been in any lease with any entity. this is in excess of $50,000.

we wanted to create a lease for and a framework. and there is an additional section and a lease that says said if there are any upgrades or enhancements or changes to the law, that the city is responsible. that is in all of our leases. if any improvements are triggered by the work of the ortega, they would have to bear the cost of that work. >> please refrain from making

outbursts. but bad >> some good comments have come up from all sides. i would like to see how this is affirmed. it also said that the city has no funds for this facility.

is it possible but we'll have to step on ada? >> we're working to. we are working on projects that might come to fruition over the next 15 years. this is a standard provision in city contracts. this is something that is a

standard in city contracts. >> to the facility and anything to the surrounding area, i have heard some comments. >> do we have any kind of planned war assessment? -- for assessment. it calls into attention, how do

we know. >> when we have the proposed plan, we don't have actual designs or an actual plan. those the produced at the significant expense of the ortega's. those plans are developed after the lease is signed. we cannot expect them to spend $20,000 developing a plan when they don't have a contract in hand. i would