sam from buy-rite i'm sure has wonderful ideas on how to raise money for delores park and the other businesses that surround there are willing and wanting to get involved in helping to raise funds with the use of delores park for the community, by the community, not by blue bottle. and i wish you guys would just think about what that will do to delores park itself. thank you. president buell: thank you. >> is there any other public comment on this item? being none, public comment is closed. president buell: commissioners. commissioner lee. commissioner lee: i recall when this item came before us. i had asked about the cart. and i was told it was a coffee cart, but we never -- we haven't -- this is, i believe, the first time i've seen a drawing of it.

i guess my question is with this cart, is this something that's going to be there permanently? and is this -- some of the speakers have alleged there's going to be a power generator that's going to be operating at all hours. you know, when this came in front of us i asked that question about the cart and i was told that out's just for -- that they would bring the cart in at the inning of the day and take it out at the end of the day. so could you please tell us? >> i'm assistant director. commissioner, ure he correct. this is a trailer that would be brought in each day prior to the commencement of operation and then would leave the park at the end of the day. and to further reiterate the non-personalityness of this trailer, it's a fully revocable permit. the department can revoke the permit for any reason, not just for cause, with 30 days advance notice.

president buell: commissioner harrison. commissioner harrison: the idea that's been presented here for them coming in and making money for the park piques my interest, not just for this area, but citywide and i wonder what can be discussed in that arena, not just for delores, but maybe further in the city. >> we absolutely welcome the conversation, commissioner. this is a combination of sort of a larger need to find sustainable revenue sources for the department. we don't have the luxury of thinking about all of our 225 parks as individual enterprises. and as you recall, we solved a $12 million problem by pledging to raise over $8 million in revenue. with that said, we still have

3.5 million of hard cuts, which resulted in 60 to 70 layoffs and reduction in services that the very same people in this room have articulated concerns about swimming pools and rec centers and it's a difficult challenge. and we want the community to really come together. we think this is about and and not or and we're hopeful that we can work with all of our neighborhood groups on identifying sustainable revenue sources and more philanthropy for our parks. it ties into some of the vandalism conversations we've had earlier today and frankly, it ties into very much of a need for what i think something, at some point, on the ballot to provide this department with some sustainable funding. look, you know, i think i have a lot of respect for the people who have come to articulate their opinions and positions, and i'm very hopeful that these are folks that care very much

about their parks, we're not all going to agree on every issue and there's a whole lot of people that aren't here today. did we handle this one perfectly? no, i don't think we did. but nonetheless, in the last month or two we have actually gone to great lengths to try to continue to communicate and continue to listen and continue to hear both the pros. and we get letters and we have gotten people who are very supportive of us, too. but it's hard for me that if we're supportive of -- it's one thing to have concerns about concessions or amenities in our park for operations reasons. it's a little bit of a tougher conversation when we say, well, we like that one, but we don't like that one. at least for me. so those are some thoughts. president buell: commissioner levitan.

commissioner levitan: i don't want to put her on the spot because i know her, but i want to ask rachel to come up. i just want to ask you something and in the interest of full disclosure, rauchel and i know each other and we sit on a board together. but this would be helpful for you to answer. i've heard -- i'm hearing a couple of different arguments today and i think there's some muddying of what the real issue is. so what i'm hearing on the one hand in discussion of that petition, you know, contrary to what some of the other gentlemen said earlier, i don't think i agree that it is a national chain. and i think it's a little misleading to have that on a petition and to kind of get people into a lather about this when it is a san francisco-based, san francisco-grown business. but that's not what i'm trying to ask you. is this about blue bottle, or is this just fundamentally about not having something in the park?

so if this was delores parka fay putting a push cart in the park, would the community still be against it? good i think they would. i think that the community wants the park to be a public space. i think the community wants it to be a refuge from the urban grind of everyday life. there's a guy here today who practices tai chi in the park every morning. it's free to anybody who wants to come. he's done it for 20 years. they do it on the playground. to have lines of people waiting for coffee -- commissioner levitan: and a generator and, yeah. >> yeah, it's just going to change the flavor of the park. and i think people are upset, number one, because of the process. the community wasn't involved at all. and because, you know, you have chosen someone who's baseed in oakland, ok? that's where their business is based. they do have locations in san francisco, but they're a very,

very commercial company. commissioner levitan: ok, but if it was you, if it was your company in the park, would people still feel -- >> i think they would have a problem with it, because the fundamental issue is, do we want to sell our parks because we're desperate? this is a desperate measure by rec and park because we need money, you know? commissioner levitan: right, right. >> let's reach out to the businesses who are succeeding because of the park. i'm happy to help the park, if it's a tax for every receipt, you know, when people buy a cup of coffee from me, if i tack a couple of cents, do that across the city. that would generate millions of dollars for the parks. there are lots of ideas out there like that. the ideas have to be explored. this is a matter of putting the cart before the horse. commissioner levitan: so to speak, the coffee cart. >> yes. president buell: can i ask you a question, rachel?

>> yes. president buell: i've been told, and i haven't been there on a day to watch this, that there are fancy pot truffles sold there, whoopee pies, tamales, cotton candy, creme brulee. people selling all those things. i'm asking for an opinion. should we try and permit them, or should we enforce that they shouldn't exist or should we overlook those sorts of vendors? >> that's a really tough question. president buell: that's why i asked it. >> i think that you should put your heads together and try to come up with a way to generate revenue from what they do. because they're not going to stop. president buell: that's commercializing the parks, as you said. i would prefer to use the language we're providing services for people who use the parks. it's all a perspective. but i think we'd find as much disagreement around that issue generally as well. i don't have an answer for it either. but >> those people are not only in

the park, they're all over the city. they just happen to come through the park. they're not there seven days a week from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. with a semi-pertinentñ c1 president buell: i gather from the applause that people support those vendors. thank you. commissioner lee. commissioner lee: i agree with the comments that i've heard over and over again which is that the process has been flawed and it brought us to where we are today. at our meeting some months ago when we approved this issue, this permit, that not enough community outreach had been done prior to this, clearly, to this issue being brought before us to

this issue. now we find ourselves having been down this road, what's before us is the placing of the cart, the placing of where the cart is itself, not the permit, we approved the permit, approved the selection of these two vendors but we find ourselves now, having, because of the process, of this process, which we'll take up at a later agenda item on outreach, at this point, we're, you know, as a commissioner sitting here, listening to what the community has been saying, i find -- i find it difficult. one speaker, for instance, said that perhaps we could separate out and have one vendor over another. you know, i think that brings us

down a slippery road. once we start choosing one vendor over another, you know, where does it end? we as a commission, it's our responsibility to set the policies, the route that the staff and department needs to take. i would say that you know, regardless of what we do on this issue in a few minutes, that we look seriously at the outreach, the process, and make sure that this moving forward, we're talking about more and more of these permits, does not happen again. so outside of what we do on this particular permit, this is a lesson for us as a commission, moving forward, that we have to do the outreach before we get to where we find ourselves now. president buell: commissioner

bonilla. commissioner bonilla: i attended this meeting, there were some very consistent themes throughout the meeting. one was that -- and i agree with the community that there was not as much opportunity allowed for them to make input as should have been allowed, thus setting a more positive tone and setting the tone that we were there, the department was there, to get more input from the community on this project. the other -- i'll list a few of the consistent themes as quickly as i possibly can, the other is that the park is truly

overburdened with use. trash, inadequate restroom facilities, and that -- that adding these new revenue-generating solutions will generate more -- even more impacts that would create, perhaps, more problems than we know -- than we know of at this time. the other consistent theme is that there was definitely a preference for having a -- having la cocina there, be a --

you know, allow la koci in a project -- la cocina to go in over blue bottle, that was clear. the other -- in addition to that, there was a very, very clear sense that the community was being asked to make input about the project -- on a project after the fact, that they didn't -- they weren't -- that we -- that the department wasn't there at the onset in terms of stating to the community what the problem was and soliciting their input in terms of what some potential solutions could be for the

problem. in fact, i, myself, only heard at the meeting that our problems at do lohrs repark was a $70 -- at dolores park was a $70,000 problem. so we have a problem of $70,000, you know, why not go to the community and say, we've got this problem, what are your ideas for how to solve this problem? maybe that's what the community was hoping they would have gotten, and now, they were pretty much -- i mean, they didn't, and now they're pretty much stuck with an idea that was generated top down from the department down to the community. so it puts us in a very difficult -- it actually puts us

between a rock and a hard place because we are at the 11th hour having to deal with how do we meet the $70,000 deficit, how do we address it? and at the same time, we're in a situation where within the next month or two, we have to look at how do we address perhaps additional deficits with the -- within the next fiscal year, so it's -- it's a very difficult place for all of us to be in. and i think what we're going to have to do is for -- i think we're going to have to take a step back and we're going to have to explore together how we generate, how we meet this

deficit, current deficit of $70,000, and on top of that, how we explore -- i mean, we'll pratches be in the situation of exploring how we deal with a potential budget deficit that may be on us for next year. so these are comments from attending the meeting. i really wish i would have had more time to hear -- i mean, that there would have been more time to hear more from the community and get their input and perhaps for future meetings, we might look at first off hearing from the community and then framing our responses to what the community has to say. thank you.

president buell: maybe i'll make a comment before the general manager weighs in on this. for those of you who saw the agenda, this is discussion only, there's no action before us. for those disappointed we won't come to any conclusion, we approved the permits, and this has nothing to do with la cocina, it's really siting the vendor, it's trying to put it away from other businesses. we've heard about the size of it and that it would be on and offsite each day. we limited the lease to two years as an experiment to see how it works. having said that, that's what we have done. having heard you today that informs the staff. i think everybody would agree

including the staff that we haven't had the luxury of the kind of outreach we'd like to do on any of these things. we've had a gun to our head on finances, always behind the eight-ball, we have limited resources and so i think it's fair to say we haven't done the kind of job that would be perfect. but i don't think anybody should characterize any wrong intent or evil intent around here or any collaboration to get something done that shouldn't be done. everybody is working pretty hard at this, and everybody is voicing honest opinions. it would be hard to disagree with 90% of what was said here today by all parties. i think the best i can tell you at this point is that you've been heard and we'll continue this discussion at a staff level and it's@appropriate to bring it back for further discussion, i think there has to be more communication with the community about it, that's clear.

no one -- i said this last time. no one is trying to run honest business people out of business because that isn't the intent. but i assure you that around the country, some of the best practices in urban parks are to provide a variety of services, many of them including food services. the debate as to whether food should or shouldn't be in the park, i find less legitimate, even though it may be a big concern of coming in after the fact when there are no food services now, i can understand that concern, but it should be framed with where we are and what we're trying to accomplish. so i'm afraid there isn't a satisfactory answer to your concerns today because there's no action before us of up or down, yes or no. now i'm going to put the burden on the general manager to make any comments about where you see this going from here. excuse me, commissioner martin wanted to weigh in, i apologize.

commissioner martin: i was listening to everyone on this situation, it is really a situation in this city that we have a lot of concerns about and i hope that we get a chance to get our stuff together again to try to come up with a real answer to it and you know -- so we can try to come up with an answer because it's really a lot of concerns everybody is talking about, but so much of it sounds so real and so much stuff in it so it's a lot of things we need to do together to get this city rolling. >> thank you, commissioner. mr. ginsburg. >> thank you, commissioners. my thanks to -- there has been some healthy and passionate dialogue about the issue and that's a good thing. i think it's brought more intention to both the challenges and opportunities at dolores park, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we're on the verge

of $15 million in capital investment in this beautiful jewel. i think we try not to get too defensive about sort of process and outreach issues because, you know, i can assure you the staff is working as hard as we can and we're in the business of trying to provide clean, safe, fun parks for everyone. we're -- we value community input and want community input. if there were certain missteps, which it sounds like primarily, a couple of neighborhoods, a couple of communities around the park, that's a learning experience for us. i think since that initial outset, however, and one of the reasons we chose to calendar this as a separate agenda item and have an extensive discussion here was to continue the dialogue and out of respect for the people here. i think we, at a staff level, learned a lot about some on the ground concerns and frustrations around the neighborhood that i think will be valuable. my personal opinion is that the

worldy not come to an end here. and that we will, like what we're doing throughout our system, we're going to try new ideas. i want to emphasize, this is not all about just dollars. raising revenue is an important part of our overall economic strategy so we can provide clean, safe, fun parks, so that we continue to provide recreational opportunities, because during the budget process, i used to say, it was either a dollar raised or a dollar cut. we are beyond that and we as a community, a parks community chose to minimize the impact of service cuts on the public through -- you know, through increasing services and amenities in our park. that's what this is a strategy at the macro level. we do not budget parks on a park-by-park basis. and what i was trying to illuminate at that meeting,

commissioner, was a frame of our operational expenses that doesn't even reflect the true overall expense once you factor in, you know, overhead and h.r. and accounting and park patrol and some of the other tangential services that go into supporting a particular park. i was trying to kind of articulate, if you were to look at the cost of operating that park would be, what would have happened had this commission not pursued a strategy of raising revenue rather than cutting service? it would have been potentially another -- one less gardener in the park or one less custodian in the park. that was the point i was trying to make in that meeting. in a nutshell, this is always helpful, we're always looking to move the ball forward and we will continue our dialogue of -- i've actually invited someone to

help with our technology, to push out information more quickly, more promptly and we try not to repeat our mistakes. i am very proud of our staff and frankly, our strategy here, which is through increased services and, you know, we have some people here we don't have everybody who has had a kid at the playground at dolores park, they want to get a cup of coffee without walking 1,000 feet. respect is always -- in any event, we look forward to continuing to work with the dolores park organization, looking for strategies to continue to provide a sustainable park system. president buell: commissioners, other comments?

commissioner bonilla. commissioner bonilla: i wanted to add, i was in mexico city several years ago when all the -- when the government of mexico decided to put a stop to all the vendors, all the street vendors who were totally monopolizing all the open space because there was -- because, in fact, commercialization was running rampant and when i was there, the -- it was day one of the government eliminating all of that -- all of those individuals from setting up businesses, selling individually, without any permits and there was huge,

huge protest. every street in mexico city was blocked. and the reason i'm bringing up this point, and that is, i think there is a role that we should play a role, in -- if we are going to allow ventures of this type, that they be -- that they be licensed, that they be permitted. i think there's a greater role, at least from my perspective, in permitting vendors, rather than just allowing anyone who wants to sell in any place, especially in public places, so i think -- i think in our future, there should be some part of the work

that we do to make sure that there are -- that we -- there are opportunities to have vendors in different facilities, that we do so but that we do so with -- buy-in, certainly, from the community and that these operations be strategically placed. so i just want to be on record as saying that i'm not opposed to, you know, this project, per se. i just think that we just need to go about it in a different way. president buell: seeing no other commission questions, that concludes discussion on item six. we're going to move to item seven, thank you.

>> we are on item seven, civic center community benefit district. >> that's my daughter right there. >> hey, hey. president buell: item seven. >> good evening, commissioners, i'm the assistant director for strategic partners. i'm going to give a quick introduction and hand it off to lisa of the mayor's office. >> maybe wll