all, but i'm particularly strongly against having it on the eastside. primarily two reasons as people mentioned the safety reason and cassandra explained crossing it, but it's a large parking lot and traffic is horrible. you have people waiting 20, 30, 40 minutes, waiting to park in coit tower. and road-rage right now is an issue and as people are crossing the parking lot in weird positions, there is going to be a confrontation or accident at some point. also, i have a window that looks directly at where the proposed kiosk is, 100 feet. there are some bushs in the way, but i would be look at that every day. it's a very seclude area and we had a problem with transients in past because it's quiet over there and setting up camp. i think at night, there is going to be issue -- there is

already tons of noise and people partying and talking and doing other things at night. i think people will be behind there doing god knows what. that could be helped a little bit with lights, but then i will have lights shining in my bedroom every night, which is not really a lot of fun. what else? also, i think having the location for a place for selling tickets so far away from the entrance to the tower doesn't make sense. as i said, those people are going to buy tickets and have to walk across the parking lot. whereas if it was closer on west side, it's sort of a natural -- you buy the ticket and you walk 100 feet down the sidewalk and then you are in the building rather than having to cross the parking lot itself. that is all i have to say. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker please. >> hello i'm joan barber.

>> can you pull it down? there you go. >> thank you for hearing us out on this. i, too, am a resident, but probably the newest resident. i have here three years now on the eastside. i look directly out at the greenwich steps and see all the people on the greenwich steps. first of all, i would rather have no kiosk, because i will look right up at the back of it it. so i will see it. since the last storm two trees have gone down. it will make it even more evident from some of the rooms in my condo. so my preferences are no kiosk on the outside, because telegraph hill has drawn me there because of its

beauty and the fabulous views that we have. so for me to look at back of a kiosk every day will not be to my advantage. there are other safety issues. i have a garage facility and i walk aways to get though that garage and i see the traffic and i see how people exasperated and they zoom up the hill. so there is a safety issue there, because they aren't even aware of the crosswalk there. they are just anxious to get there to park. they park illegally, not in spaces and everyone, but the driver jumps out of the car and runs around and they decide

usually not to go up to the tower because of the waiting list. if people are thirsty when they get up -- and i'm sure they are more often thirsty than hungry a solution is to put up a couple of drinking fountains. that would be far more desirable than the kiosk. thank you very much for hearing all of us. >> thank you. >> robert lewis and john. >> good morning commissioners. >> could you speak into the mic. >> sure. >> thank you. >> commissioner, commissioners, my name is lewis and i have lived on telegraph hill for over 28 years. as you have heard from many of our neighbors today and will hear from others, those of us who live closest to the parking

lot, even by cassandra's measurements have a real concern for our own quality of life. but the primary reason why we think, if there must be a kiosk and many of us don't really agree that there should be, but if there must be to support the park and coit tower and the museum quality that it has, then we really implore you to place it on the west side, where it is much safer from a pedestrian and vehicular point of view, as well as from the point of view of disturbing or diminishing view corridors. on the eastside location you have a very close, in-your-face, just three blocks way to the bay. there is ada access on the west side and it's closer to the entrance of the tower and the

sidewalk is broader on that side. so again, think of pedestrian safety when you thinking about the locations. we feel that it would be a tremendous impact on the quality of our lives and our right to quiet enjoyment of our properties. and we even feel, some of us, i strongly do. i'm in real estate that it could diminish our property values. so imagine if you lived across from alta plaza park or lafayette park, would you really want a commercial venue on the corner of the park across from your home? but really the biggest issue is public safety and this is a no-brainer in our opinion. so if there must be further commercialization of an historic site, then we really implore you to place it on the west side where it's much further away from other residents. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker.

>> hi. i'm john rit. i am a resident, one of the closest residents to the proposed eastside location. i live right on the greenwich steps and also want to take a moment to thank cassand ra and the vendor. i park at coit tower on a regular basis and the parking is contentious. i want us to consider night-time experiences like the time at midnight when i came home a couple of months ago a couple teens or 20s guys climbed on to our property for the view. that is a private residence and

a bold move and i don't know if you remember we climbed on everything. so i want to consider that, but we live anyway public place. i knew that what i moved there. it's a great monument. i can hear conversations when people take a flash photo it comes in my window all night long. it's getting worse as i have lived there over the last 14 years. while the tower has been there since 1933, it's important to consider there has never been a small restaurant up there and i think it might be for good reasons. there has been a lot of public votes for east and west and what i heard is people that are for the west really against the east is based on quality of life and real valid distinction than maybe a more subjective, casual opinion as to why someone would want it on the eastside. and i think the safety issue is

clear. there is so much aggression that happens up there. but with that said, i am still not concern that we need a free-standing beverage mini restaurant -- i don't know if that is the only form that beverage can take up there. because like i said, i have been going up there every day and i remember seeing alternatives to a free-standing space like that. i don't know, is it worth the expense? how many restaurants are in san francisco? does anyone know? i don't know, there are thousands ; right? there are a lot. i could walk to 200, 300 restaurants from any house. i don't know that we need a kiosk. thank you. >> robert. >> hi my name is robert bigelow and thank you to the commission for allowing me the opportunity to speak on this very important issue. i live 100 feet from what would be the back of the eastside kiosk and setting aside for a

moment my personal objections to the eastside location, i just want to express my astonishment that the safety issue isn't being more put in the forefront. the people ignore that sidewalk or that crosswalk. that crosswalk is way off to the lefts as you are facing away from the kiosk and people just trance across the parking lot wherever they want. really to dramatically increase the number of pedestrians interacting with vehicles deliberately and unnecessarily is a total disinterest in public safety. i have checked the records and people have gotten hurt and have been impacted by vehicle new york vehicles in that location. it would be just waiting for the next incident that would be dramatically increased.

on a couple of other housekeeping items, i don't want to repeat what others have said. i think the west side as proposed has a mistake. it should be over 8' and a sturdy wooden walk to extend over to pushing it over a little bit, would allow terry to have a straight wall to build it on. it would be less of an imposition on the steps themselves and if you do and i hope you do favor a west over east location, that you consider giving terry some freedom in how he does that. i also take exception to the idea that an eastside location is cheaper than a west side. no one has pointed out that eastside makes a pocket right behind it. i call it a "crime pocket." it's basically invisible from everywhere -- we already have doing unimaginable thing new es in visibility locations and

we're so offended by this eastside proposal and adamantly and collectly concerned that i hadn't wanted to mention it, but terry asked me to mention to the commission, we're going to be here to take every opportunity to appeal. if we lose our opportunities to appeal, the appeals don't go our way, you force us into litigation and if litigation doesn't go our way, you will force us to tally the number of crime incidents and the number of times there are injuris to people and close calls. and move for the removal of the kiosk. we feel very strongly about this and hope that there is either no kiosk or if there must be a kiosk, it would be on the west side. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. >> those are all the cards i have and so if anyone else would like to come forward, please do. >> good morning, commissioners, my name ison with protect coit tower a group that through years sponsored

the ballot measure, prop b that voters approved to prioritize the funds generated at coit tower for the maintenance, preservation and protection and to strictly limit commercial activities and private events there. there are three issues that i see. one is elevator tickets and mural protection. two is temporary food cart versus permanent building and there three is money. richard was one of the people three years ago, who sounded the alarm that the murals were in trouble and the building was falling apart and we had to do something and we did. why could you no -- i could not agree more that tickets need to be sold in a different the granddaughter has said to the commission, why don't you sell tickets online? she is 92 years old. i can't believe we haven't thought of that first. you could do that starting

tomorrow. obviously you have to figure out how to time people and make it structures, but there is no reason to at least start a pilot project tomorrow. terry has great people at tower coit and enthusiastic and energetic and why couldn't they stand outside with an ipad and sell tickets. all the person does when you walk across to the back, punch up on the ipad and sell it. why couldn't you do it with a person with no building to start and you could get that going without a year's worth of ceqa. that and the lines are not just busy in the summertime, but busy on a regular basis, weekends in particular, but at this moment there could be a line stretching across the murals. the art commission has rules, but they are not enforced that people bump into their with

backpacks and elevator tickets should be sold there of course. food cart versus building is what it comes down to. what has been done for years is a temporary cart that goes away at night, and not there 24/7, 365 days a year. building is now, this will be the biggest building ever built in front of coit tower. terry made clear in the meeting he is closing $10,000 a month because he is only getting 10% of the elevator stream which 90% leaves coit tower. i want to close what coit family said in their letter, they are not against food and beverage at coit tower, nor with are we. they are against puting a building when one is not necessary. we oppose the construction of a concession stand building in front of coit tower and urge you to prioritize the funds to keep coit tower so very special as the people of san francisco asked you to do. that is the coit family, seven

members who couldn't be here today and i read it for them. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else? richard, come on up. go ahead. >> this place coit tower is part of my childhood heiau. i played there from the time i was a little kid and i looked at that place what you want to do and commercialize this area, i don't like it. straightforward, i don't like that. when you talk about comparing inside/outside, i look at it and i see too much traffic. you are going to jam up the traffic on the eastside or west side and you have the stairwells on the eastside. it's a slow danger walk down. so you don't have a good

exit/access should it get all jammed up at the top. i don't think there would be needed much more than a vendor truck, even if you allow that through the management guidelines. the vendor truck would leave and be go and another important point is safety of children. that particular part of the hill, when you step over the concrete part, steep drops. so i don't necessarily see that, but if you would like to sell tickets, you could sell tickets anywhere. you could sell tickets, like what was spoken about already. the commercializing of that piece of property, the lilian coit tower and commemorating the great fire that happened

here. [speaker not understood] you have got to take a better look at that place up there. i don't like the kiosk. i know there is another trailer that goes around there on the west side. and the other part with the stairwells, you go way down, there is a very dangerous walk there leading to the bottom of the hill there. so my recommendation is if you going to have a vendor or anything like, that the worst-case scenario that would i see, even if you individual a vendor truck that would have to every day come in and leave.

one other point, i talked about the murals up there before, too. it's missing [speaker not understood] get some of the people to paint that back in. they took it out when they repaired it. thank you. >> thank you, richard. >> is there anyone else who would like to make public comment on this item? okay being none public comment is closed. >> let me make an observation before i ask commissioners to weigh in on this. when we had the contract with terry come before us, it was the community that came to us and said that they wanted a better solution than a temporary food cart. the introduction of serving food up there is not new at all. it's been there for at least 20 years. so the idea was to try and improve on the situation and through many meetings and i want to thank cassandra, because i probably create ed

more problems than i solved in this matter to let the community weigh in on the best solution. the preponderant number of comments that we got and people that we talked to wanted to see ticketing and limited foodservice away from the tower itself. and so we looked -- we didn't look, but it was proposed to us, east and west. i appreciate all of the neighbors showing up. i think that is very informative for us to come to conclusion, but the genesis of the debate before us, it would have been easy to approve the temporary food cart and see it hauled in and out and the related problems connected to it, but at the request of the community we didn't do that. so with that, commissioner levitan. >> when an item come before us

at the commission, it's our job to be objective and not have an opinion going into that item. and so really weigh the public's concerns, the demands of the department, what is best for the city? so with this, i really kept a completely open mind, a blank slate of opinion, and i won't speak for my colleagues, but i know us on the operations committee did individually go up to look at the story boards. and you know, at operations we decided to move this forward to today with no recommendation because again we wanted the community to weigh-in and our entire commission to hear the weight of those opinions. and it's very clear from today and a lot of other feedback i have gotten in previous week es how people feel and that is that the west side is preferred

and keep hearing about the public safety and the traffic issues and i have to be honest that was something that really resonated with me when i went up to look at the story poles. there are people far smarter than i who could tell you exactly what the likelihood of impacts will be and what the traffic patterns are up there. but you see our tourists in san francisco, they don't watch where they are going and i can't imagine what would be there to have somebody who draws people's attention to want to go over to the eastside, if there is a line of cars and they are not watching where they are going. that is just to say, that to me sort of tips it in the favor of prefering west side. obviously the public comments had been considerable today and i thank you for, that because that informs my opinion for today. so at the appropriate time i will be recommending that we support the west side. >> commissioner low. >> well, i will have to confess that i came into this

hearing as an eastsider after reading lizzy hirsch's memo, the persuading factor for me initially was the cost structure of building on west side versus eastside, but what resonates with me in switching to the west side is pedestrian safety. i think pedestrian safety is an important factor where i think if there was a sidewalk, where you didn't have to cross in front of cars is probably paramount in considering the west side. i understand lizzy hirsch's memo saying there could be better lighting and painting of a crosswalk. i crossed the crosswalk to city hall frequently and always do so at my own risk. so i think

pedestrian safety should be the overall factor in our decision. >> commissioner harrison. >> i did take the opportunity to go up and look at the story boards and luckily, i ran into cassandra up there, who gave me a very nice briefing of what was going on; i too, like my fellow commissioners, had no opinion one way or the other. the only two negatives was the traffic situation and the other side that concerned me was having to remove a piece of that old wall that was up there. other than that, it didn't matter which side to me, which side they were on. listening to public comment today, who had similar concerns of mine on the eastside with the public safety is sort of swaying my opinion here towards favoring the west side. thank you. >> commissioner bonilla. >> yes, for better or worse, we need to have a kiosk working

in conjunction with the mural project. and that being said, if we are going to have a kiosk, i think it needs to be accessible. it needs to be accessible to all visitors alike. one of the hallmarks of the recreation and park department is that all our venues are -- or to the extent that we can make them such -- all of our venues are accessible to everyone. meaning our parks and our rec centers. and so i would -- since we have to do this project i would not appreciate doing a project where it would not be accessible to some of the

visitors. the handicapped, the wheelchairs and so on and what really swayed me to the west side is the ada access. i mean it's very obvious, just looking at some of the pictures here; that it's much more amenable to accessibility to everyone and that is why i will be supporting the west side. >> commissioner mcdonnell. >> thank you, president buell. since the question before us is east or west, versus whether -- i think we're pass the whether to. i might have a different point of view if we are still in that space. that said for reasons of both the pedestrian safety, the adade as commissioner bonilla pointed out, but the also i'm candidly influenced by the fact that all we heard from

residents was west side. we did not hear west side residents opposing or proposing rather eastside. thank you. >> thank you. on that commissioner levitan you indicated you wanted to make a motion. >> endorse the west side location. >> second. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> unanimously. thank you. [ gavel ] thank you all for showing and taking the time to express your opinions. >> we're now on item 10, the recreation and park budget for fiscal years 2015, 2016 and 2016-2017.

>> good morning, commissions, katie petrucione. before i launch in my presentation, i do want to note that while today's presentation is focused on the general fund, you do have information about the open space fund in budget in your packets, as well as the charter-required general plan referral for the open space budget, which arrived at about 4:00 yesterday afternoon. so i am so pleased to be here today with good budget news for you and for the department. as i mentioned in my january presentation, the city's overall budget picture is remarkably positive, and the recreation and park department

is absolutely the beneficiary of that prosperity. i'm going start with an update on the numbers that we are balancing to. in next two years, the revenue corrections on this slide include some changes to golden gate park concessions, such as the carousel and tennis and gleneagles golf course and coit tower concession, as well as the elimination of the straw berry festival at camp mather. the numbers increase in fiscal 2016-2017 as we are assuming some loss at the palace of fine art as we work to find a new long-term tenant. the cost increases included increase to our garage rates and small increases to work orders to the department of public health and the department of environment, increases for costs of software licensing, as we are

implementing both a new website in the current fiscal year, as well as new lease management software that we'll need to start paying for next year. as well as some increases to the costs of running the harden park clubhouse, which are for the most part offset by increased concession revenue at harden. and then would i note in year 2 we also must meet a 1% base reduction target, equal to $473,000. while the budget news is very good for the next two years i do just want to remind folks that things may change. we are very fortunate to have some resources to invest in our operations in fiscal year 15-16 and 16-17. the challenges remain for the department. as you know, in 2011, spur reported that the recreation and park department needed