Oak Park is very interested in exploring a velodrome and skate park in and around McClatchy Park. You should check in with neighborhood leaders as well as SHRA about funding options and neighbor progress. Start with Tom Sumpter at the Oak Park Neighborhood Association as well as the OPNA Land Use Committee. OPNA meets 1st Thursday of the month at the Food Bank.

Hi Jennifer, That's a fair personal experience. I have had great experiences consistently at Old Soul Co in all of its locations, but especially Oak Park. And as a resident of Oak Park, I very much appreciate that the place isn't an empty, blighted storefront the way that Starbucks left it intentionally and then proceeded to try to prevent a similar business from occupying the space. Only a local company endeavored to accept the risk. More than that though, the staff in Oak Park has been rather remarkable, really participating and facilitating community needs, whereas Starbucks made it difficult for us to use the establishment to have community meetings, promote exchange, and advertise local events, like the Farmer's Market. As a contrast, Old Soul and staff have actually sought to participate and fuel our walkable nutrition initiatives and set up first at the Urban Farmstand before they were even physically located in the neighborhood and then at the Oak Park Farmer's Market on Saturdays when it evolved across the street on Broadway. I appreciate the design differences and investment Old Soul Co made after Starbucks left, hiring a local architect that the neighborhood already trusted and opening the space to make it more social for neighbors and students to spend more time there. They also outreach to neighborhood landscape architects and residents. Nonetheless, I frequently patronize most of our Central City's coffee houses depending on the business of the day and cravings: both Midtown Old Souls, both Temple locations, Butch N Nellie's, Coffee Works in East Sac, and when I get down there, Chocolate Fish on 4th & Q. I seek out local options in every city I travel to and want people to have that option starting from the moment that they get off the plane. Years ago in its original location, one of the owners, created a coffee tasting with a wheel very similar to wine tasting and spent a lot of time teaching people coming through about the characteristics of coffee from cherry to cupping. A whole world of coffee tasting opened up to me and I have continued to explore it ever since. I think that Old Soul Co. will do an excellent job at the airport and much more engagingly than either Starbucks or Peets which they will be competing with, but I hope you come try out the Old Soul Co at 40 Acres again sometime soon. You might find that it continues to evolve. My whole family and many of my friends and neighbors congregate at the Oak Park location quite often for the free music and other activities that it supports. We enjoy the coffee, local beer on tap (Rubicon), and primarily healthful, but affordable food. In our neighborhood, such options are very limited. Plus, we can actually see them making our food and they've started hiring more people from the neighborhood as well as shifting employees who already live here. Either way, I appreciate your honest and sincere feedback about your actual coffee experiences. What's your favorite coffee space? What would you like to see at the airport?

I have no problem with the whole story. Tell it, but be specific and inclusive of all facts and ask don't assume what people's intentions were. I have a problem with exaggeration, hyperbole, and exasperation rather than cogent, specific descriptions of problems. As I mentioned to you in person when facilitating the 4th Wednesday Design Dialogue the other week, I think you may have very valid points to improve the future process, something I'd like to hear. Instead of general and quite personal attacks, you need to list them out 1 by 1 for the sake of improving both your situation and preventing future disagreements not only between a potential business and a resident, but also between residents and residents. When you make inflammatory statements, such as implying that Old Soul "burn[ed] through every possible regulation under every possible jurisdiction," you employ unfortunate exaggeration and hyperbole and lose the audience that you seek to influence rather than rally the people who already agree with you. Change my mind by reaching out to it openly and not argumentatively. Remember that almost none of us out here actually know anything about your personal experience or situation with Old Soul on the Alley, but if your approach in disagreement with them at origin was similar to how you handled yourself at the Dialogue in public and in these comments, it makes it difficult to find common ground or even hear what's wrong. How can anyone seek to help or mediate or prevent new problems when they can't identify what actually happened? Good will is a two-way street about how individuals approach one another in terms of tone, content, and objective. I cannot speak to the tactics or intentions of the founders of Old Soul when they started up the wholesale operation in the alley and I certainly think it's fair and necessary to exact standards of operation. I only remember that they weren't sure if something retail would even succeed on an alley, as in would there be enough demand to support such an endeavor, therefore the "honesty jar" was actually more like taking a poll rather than some intentional avoidance of obligations. I also recognize the inherent differences between legal and ethical. Many things are legal, but not ethical. Many things are illegal, but ethical. In most city and county codes and processes (as well as other levels of government), most citizens find laws left on the books that are archaic, confusing, unhelpful, and counterproductive. Many new businesses violate city or county codes unknowingly but seek to correct or to comply with them in common sense ways once they do understand both their obligations as well as the reasoning underpinning an ordinance's objective. On the other hand, many businesses and residents who experience unfair or archaic leftovers from a bygone era seek to change them for the next business or person. Rightly so.

I thought that the point of this space was to foster community discussion, but simply because Zen presented a difference of opinion, one which I actually don't fully conform to without more information, shouldn't open the door to an unfortunate and unethical personal attack. Again, it seems that argument for the sake of argument is at hand, which is not necessary nor productive at a community level. When you say "one of the invested," are you trying to imply ownership or payment? Or are you implying invested in having a local option at our own airport? If you are implying the second option, what is wrong with being invested in having a local option? Please lay out the logic here.

You and your friends have put a thumbs down on this particular comment which generally asks about what government's role is in the development of a locally driven economy among small or micro-businesses. It also pointed to cities that can be used to inspire us. I fail to understand where this comment specifically referred to Old Soul rather than the process. You seem to fail to distinguish between ideas and your specific beef with the company at stake. That does not seem wise or conscious, but simply attacking for the sake of attacking. Are you suggesting that every business that applied to be an airport concession and was rejected was established illegally? No one is asking for Old Soul to be favored over another coffeehouse. No other locally owned roasters applied to serve coffee, which as I have pointed out numerous times in my comments, seems to point to a systemic failure in outreach, process, and objective. However, since this decision will be made likely on Tuesday, the one local roaster that did apply should be included among a Starbucks and a Peets. If you wish for the process to be delayed to include more applicants, then argue for that (which many of us would have no problem with) instead of simply against a specific business of which you have problems stemming from one location.

Part II: It still comes down to this question: Why did only 20 companies apply to become an airport concessionaire where 5 million passengers are expected to pass through on an annual basis? Doesn't it sound strange that massive companies like Starbucks and Peets (which was the original roaster for Starbucks many years ago) are dominating other region's local investments and benefiting from true inside connections with the companies that control the group applications at a time when our economy is effectively in the toilet and our governments from Sacramento City, County, and State have flirted with disaster? Where's the real competition? A 10-year contract is too important and when a company not only roasts its coffee, but also bakes its breads and muffins, prints its stickers for its cups, and spends its dollars regionally in a dozen other b2b ways, that should count for all of us. Moreover, in terms of quality, it should mean something to our region that the owners of the coffee or dining concession could be called to the airport within 10-20 minutes whereas Howard Schultz just isn't going to make it out to Sac International to answer my question as to why his coffee is always burned for the past 5+ years at any location, including when it was in Oak Park. (Of course, in the early 1990's, Starbucks actually served decent coffee, so what happened?) Again, for me at this late date, it's not only about Old Soul who happened to apply and score high marks through the process but not earn even one of 3 spots, but also about why a pizza company with no roots anywhere has won a concession stand at our airport versus collaborating with one of 10 pizza makers across our region, including Luigi's Slice that applied. What happened with Old Soul points to the emblematic symptoms, but I'm interested in the systemic failure of this process and the lack of belief by locals from the citizens to the civic leaders that our small businesses cannot--or should not-- compete. Let's start believing in Sacramento and its people who imagine and work at these businesses everyday, every week. If we wish for change within the practices of one of those businesses, which seems to be Marion and others' desires, I have no problem with the conversation. Vote with your dollar and encourage your friends, family, and neighbors to do the same. That's democratic capitalism. If one truly believes that Starbucks has some magic, competitive business ingredient, why did it have to close 600 stores nationally in the past 2 years, including the one in Oak Park that was earning $50,000/month and that Old Soul seems to be doing incredibly well in the same location? Why did Peets just close its first store? Perhaps because size isn't everything...especially quality control. Places like airports should absolutely be a gateway introduction to the places (the regions) that they represent economically. I cannot accept that Austin and other cities can achieve this, but Sacramento cannot. It's a fallacy that should end in these pages. We should spend our time collaborating and imagining what strategies,structures, and processes would help our locally owned small businesses compete more effectively in order to generate more pride, more jobs, more taxes, and more transactions with all of the other small businesses that a local company prioritizes in its decision-making process right down to the stickers printed on its cups. If one wishes to perry with me on the margins, explore the merits of an improved outreach, training, and marketing for our region out of a $1.2 billion Big Build and 10 years worth of coffee & food transactions: the early introduction to local brands and place making right out of the airport gate; the additional economic multiplier effect that would produce taxes to be reinvested in other local initiatives; the pride in a job truly well done and a region alive with collaborative thinking and win-win situations. Onward.

Hi Ben, I'm interested in the answers to your questions as well, so I'm hoping that a true blood reporter from Sac Press, like the one who wrote this article, calls up the airport to dig a little deeper. As far as I know from the Business Journal article about the process: http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2010/09/27/daily13.html, Old Soul was among the businesses that qualified by airport standards to become a concessionaire. I only became engaged in this process on Wednesday evening when I found out about this chapter of the process. The RFP requested "locally owned" to be a factor in the decision-making process; however, it was not a weighted factor. The selection committee included airport executives from Oakland and SF for whom Peet's would be thought of as a local brand, but who would have no experience with Sacramento proprietors. As a matter of language, regarding Marion's idea of "the" local option, it's important not to twist language. Old Soul would be "the" local option among Starbucks (Seattle), Peets (Bay Area), & Old Soul (Sacramento). In large part, it's about where one roasts. It was not a sentiment and would never be a sentiment out of Old Soul's mouth to declare itself the only coffee company in town and it's wholeheartedly inappropriate to suggest so anywhere. After all, Old Soul bakes for other roasters in town and wholesales coffee and breads to many area restaurants, ie. it is a collaborative business-to-business model that generally celebrates the region's slow food trends and achievements. To paraphrase Thomas Friedman in his Thursday remarks about "green" and "placemaking", when one comes out of the airport gates, one should never see a Starbucks, but instead experience local purveyors in order to establish a sense of place. It's really that simple. For me personally, I simply want to see the process change for the future, so that the next time we spend serious regional dollars on building out anything, local businesses are informed and trained to compete. When we spend $1.2 Billion building anything, it takes years to come to fruition. Part of that time and a very small portion of any money spent, could have been used to do outreach to hundreds of local businesses across our region from Grass Valley to Davis for whom the airport is a singular regional mechanism to a larger world. I was facilitating discussions on the airport Big Build over 3 years ago on behalf of the Asian Chamber at Vizcaya Hotel in its series of green conversations. I can't for the life of me understand why in 3 years someone couldn't have organized a seminar inviting and training local businesses on how to apply, qualify, and compete for concessionaire status. Most of the time, it's simply about being "in the know," a very passive and poor channel of communication. For example, the airport staff could have partnered with business chambers, Sacramento Press/SLOAN, CapRadio, Sac Bee, KVIE, and the Business Journal to get the word out to the region online, in print, on radio, on television, and at events. Out of 3 coffee concessions, I would be thrilled to have had Old Soul Co., Temple Fine Coffee & Tea, Bloom in Roseville, Coffeeworks, Naked Lounge, and anyone else serving locally roasted coffee to represent our region at the gateway for visitors and tourists. As for the beans, I've visited many airports and I've sampled much coffee at those airports. Starbucks tastes like Starbucks and Peets taste like Peets. The regionally inspired cups in other airports seem to be using their own roasts, but I'd like to know for sure, so if Sac Press could research and answer that for us, I would appreciate a good conclusion.

I think that's well expressed Rhys02. The cities I use as a barometer to help us understand Sacramento's possibilities more clearly include Austin, Portland, Vancouver, Raleigh-Durham, New Orleans, Chicago (for its green initiatives and sense of place) and...Seattle among others. Let's ask ourselves why we're only dreaming in the margins. While a locally owned business may need facilitation to grow, shouldn't part of the role of local government (city, county, state) include resources, outreach, and training to help the backbone of a small business community flourish? Shouldn't we seek out opportunities to mentor local/regional growth rather than hope for it? Why are we condoning passivity or mediocrity and confusing it with proactive advocacy and imagination to reach the goals we seek as a community and economy?

It's true Ben that running an airport outlet is not like running a typical retail outlet, but that's no reason not to stretch to accommodate a local coffee roaster & baker that represents 1 of the authentic, emerging flavors of Sacramento. You ask some good, hard questions that should be answered, but the multiplier effect in these hard times is too important. The community that pays for the $1.2 billion expansion should be able to vote with its private dollars for a simple cup of locally owned joe, or with Peet's & Starbuck's right around the concourse corner, vote otherwise. It's simply providing a viable option. Coffee is one of the most sought after commodities in an airport. Since I've flown in and out of Sac Int'l at least 10x in the past year or so, I'd like a chance to vote with my dollar. I have often forgone the infusion because I don't wish to donate my dollar for a cup of poorly brewed, burned beans at yet another Starbucks concession at 6 a.m.. Amidst my travels this year, I took notes on all the airports I ducked in & out of from Salt Lake City, Tucson, Phoenix, Chicago, Portland, Eugene, Las Vegas, LAX, San Diego, and more. The airports that nourished my senses the most had taken the time to showcase & highlight businesses of their region. It didn't seem accidental; those efforts seemed very purposeful. Why shouldn't this pivotal point for a 10-year contract maximize Sacramento's evolving palate and introduce as many local flavors at this time as the new airport wing can accommodate? We're talking about a proven, locally owned success story that has paid attention to its community roots multiple times to make tough investments: 1. igniting an alleyway that has stimulated a re-imagination of what our 500 alleys might become one day after being ignored & overlooked as social space in a tight urban environment that requires more room for healthy density and new uses---witness Julie Young & Alley Activation Alliance with the Midtown Pilot Alley; 2. restoring one of the first coffee houses in Sacramento at Weatherstone & preserving its use in a historic property after another purveyor couldn't sustain it; 3. not only covering for Starbucks after it stripped its 40 Acres location down to the nubs, but also reigniting a location when Starbucks officially abandoned the revitalization efforts of our mayor and Oak Park citizens: Old Soul worked with a top local architect in Ron Vrilakas to invest considerable flair & infuse locally inspired food into an under-served market that now demonstrates renewed muscle as a community center & thriving business. Shouldn't that story be told at our own airport? It's not about hating on Starbuck's or Peet's. I admire the success of both businesses and I celebrate Peet's when I'm closer to its origins. I'm not shy about being disappointed in the quality of Starbucks as a consumer. I'm also not shy about its paradigm: Starbucks was generating $50,000/month in its Oak Park location and that wasn't enough for it according to Mayor Johnson & Councilwoman Lauren Hammond. But the truth is that Old Soul Co has earned its seat at the concourse's table and as active citizens we should support its bid and help to change the process ever so slightly for the next deserving regionally inspired business, whether Temple Fine Coffee & Tea, Bloom Coffee, L Wine Lounge, Hot Italian, Mulvaney's, OneSpeed, or something not yet created. This process can & should be improved by Tuesday where Sacramentans have the right to press their elected leaders and civic staff for the best economic, political, and social outcome.

That's a fascinating question that demands its own creative workshop perhaps at the Green Living Center? What is an indigenous architectural form to Sacramento? What could be? Throughout facilitating, different pieces of the puzzle aggregated in my mind. Where is the Building Clothing industry? It can respond efficiently to fashion on the fly (ie. new decorating and design trends) and geographic need (temporary adaptations to meet the needs of seasonal weather patterns). Since Sacramento's Central City is becoming more designer-centric, what better adaptation from the human condition and biomimicry building trends that Piner addressed could burgeon in a dull Sacramento economy? Lastly, we need the convergence of Sacramento's special place to be organized and led by UCD Business School's dean who views its educational and economic obligations to be the leadership thought and entrepreneurial mechanism to green building in the Valley as Stanford was to Silicon Valley. That means UCD should convene a conference and ongoing experimental forum with Sacramento and SACOG's urban and suburban planners and politicians to manage an experiment in "code" that would allow architects, landscape architects, designers, developers, property managers and owners to experiment with roof use and design as well as living walls and other adaptations for sun orientation. If California and Sacramento intend on being green, they need a playground in which to experiment that cannot be waiting for future development; we must capitalize on what Dustin Littrell and Ed Chandler commented was the opportunity for greening the existing building inventory quickly, efficiently, and creatively.

I'm just glad he was found. Good luck to him in recovery.