ley. >> [inaudible] >> but i take this very seriously and i am increasingly having greater concerns with developments impacts in terms of the population increased to certain neighborhoods without consideration for those impacts on our parks and recreation, and in my mind there is no such thing as an acceptable shadow on the playground. just go to one when it's cold and struggled with the shadows being cast so i appreciate the notion that you could have a formula of what is an acceptable amount of shadows but i am fundamentally of the mind they're not good for the parks but with that said everything that commissioner low said i concur with and appreciate the efforts that avalon bay made with this and as a result i can support this. thank you. >> thank you. seeing no other comments i would entertain --

was that a motion you made commissioner low? >> yes. >> and is there a second to that? >> second. >> moved and seconded. all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> so moved. thank you. >> we are item 8. failing playgrounds task force. >> commissioners. dawn kamalanathan with the recreation and park department. i am here to present on the results of the failing playgrounds task force which the commission appointed a number of months ago and i just wanted to start off by saying i have been working here for eight years. i have easily organized

facilitated or went to a hundred meetings and i have to say this is the best task force ever and i think that is really the result of efforts and attention of many people and i would like to thank some of those folks. first to really thank the committee members including commissioner mcdonnell. it was a thoughtful and reflective work and i hope they all become advocates for the playground and keep them involved in our discussions going forward. i would like to thank the public that attended our hearings. we are representatives from merced heights, graton playground and mclaren and golden gate that kaism to the meetings and participated in the exercises and thoughtful and constructive in the feedback they provided. i would like to thank all of our staff who brought tremendous creativity to our approach. we

tried a lot of new things in the way we structured this task force and the xdzs and the materials we prepared. steve our facilitator who is the facilitator for mission delores and brought that experience to his efforts with this task force and also in particular we had a unique approach in this task force and we co-hosted with it the san francisco parks alliance and i would like to thank the staff of the parks alliance. we spent months in planning to make sure this was a successful experience for the public and both the committee members and i think greg moore from the conservancy says sometimes you need to go slow to go fast, and we took the time we needed to prepare and be thoughtful and focused about the issues we wanted to put in front of the committee members and i think that has paid off so i'm going to take you through today a little bit of the context within which we did our work and the

process and then our ultimate recommendations and look forward to your feedback and questions. so a little bit of our context. as you are probably aware within the 2012 san francisco clean and safe neighborhoods park bond we allocated about 15.5 million dollars to focus specifically on playgrounds. now that doesn't mean the only playgrounds we're doing through the bond and as noted in the staff report a number of other projects that are part of larger renovations include playground projects and as you look at the map all of the red dots are the playgrounds in the san francisco park system. it's one of the our numerous assets and one of the park features that draws the most loyalty and interest and enthusiasm and feedback from the

many park users. of that entire universe of playgrounds we renovated 83 already and that goes back to work from the 2000 park bonds that was passed so we did a tremendous body of work over time but as you're aware resources are often not enough to meet the full universe of need, and so even with the 83 renovated playgrounds we still had 55 playgrounds that hadn't been renovated in the past decade so this was the universe that the task force looked at and thought of the plays how do we evaluate which ones need additional investment and which ones are okay? so we look the at data sources to look at that. in particular we looked at the playgrounds that contain cca treated wood and copper chromium -- cca treated wood and these are a common practice in

building playgrounds in the 80s and 70's and 90's to pressure treat the lim burr with a preservative that was found to have negative health effects so we looked at what playgrounds in the system had this substance. they don't pose a health risk today. i want to make it clear. they have been seeld but the sealant eventually wears off so when you go to the playground you want to replace them wholesale with new materials so this map shows the map of where we have cca treated word and in particular the playgrounds that are highlighted in red, panhandle playground, golden gate heights, richmond, washington square -- these sites have basically unaccept levels of cca within the wood that again made it a high priority

for the task force. we also looked at the evaluations that had been prepared by the san francisco parks alliance over the past few years. the parks alliance produces an annual -- i think biannual failing playgrounds report card and gone out with volunteers from the recreation and park department staff and volunteers from the community groups to evaluate playgrounds so when we look at that universe of 55 playgrounds not all of those are failing. in fact there are a number of "a" 's and b's and the task force looked at the feedback from the volunteer and the condition of the playgrounds. so that was the context. those are some of the major data sources. we looked at demographic data as well as part of the process and you will see that as we go through and in

that context the task force focused on the work looking at the 55 playgrounds and thinking how they would prioritize them for potential renovation through the failing playgrounds fund. excuse me. at our first meeting we looked at a lot of the data -- some of the data i just showed you. we reviewed our purpose and schedule and took feedback on that and started to talk about what criteria should we use and there were a common set of themes emerged and utilization and the demographics of the community which they're located, community engagement and i think stewardship was important. which playgrounds had those efforts in place in the proximity to other play spaces which were renovated recently

and other items and the second meeting we had a tour. we had a large van and we invited members of the public and members and we did a tour of various playgrounds. we wanted to show people what we thought was a great playground a pretty good playground and our guess of what was a below average playground and a playground in crisis so we looked a couple of ones. hayes playground and humboldt square and kimmel and the buchanan street mall and took the members and i think the members appreciated it was a activity. it was a chance to engage in information and questions and for people to really see when you look at the map of all the 130 red dots it's difficult. you know your own playground but you're not sure of what is out

there in the system so we tried to provide a sample her of playgrounds and we talked about the anatomy of a renovation and what are the major features we try to deliver besides the play structure itself. we provide seat areas to view their children at play. protective fencing sometimes. clear signage. we talked through these are the elements we consider core to a playground renovation. and the third meeting we continued to kind of try and narrow down the criteria that is most important. we had a huge exercise where we brainstormed all the different ideas and factors that you could think about and we decided to go with the tiered approach which is different than what we have done in other task forces where

we ranked precisely items 1-30 and shall not deviate from the list. we wanted to do something more flexible because we haven't had a chance to scope and budget the playgrounds considered. we couldn't spend the money to do a budgeting process for 55 playgrounds not knowing which know woes would be selected but on average the renovations range from $1 million to $2 million and we have 15.5 million dollars available. being conservative we could guarantee and deliver at least six and hopefully with other funding streams or scoping the projects carefully we could get up to around 13 so we created this tiered approach that allows us to the flexibility and we will will come back in march with staff to talk about a delivery program would look like and the precise number we could get to but we're committed to definitely do the six that would be identified as

tier one. meeting four we continue to do a lot more data analysis and we also engaged -- let all the task force members try to make their own list with the data we provided and i think everyone found that to be enlightening and challenging exercise, and people very quickly discovered it was difficult to get all your favorites in one list. actually it's impossible and welcome to planning. this is the nature of trade off making that as staff and the commission has to go through everyday and i think every felt clear about the trade offs were but two themes emerged around wanting to really address condition issues and address social equity issues and two broad themes that came through.

the computer is sinking. so then staff began to prepare a number of different lists based on the feedback we received from the task force members, and narrowed down the universe from 55 to about 28 playgrounds and showing how different application of the criteria resulted in different types of lists. and that eventually got to the place where after getting that feedback from the task force staff actually went out and also looked at a bunch of playgrounds we felt were on the boundary and where we weren't quite sure. there were mini-parks and we were trying to determine the bang for the buck investments and we went to a

bunch of parks and after talking to the task force there was a clear consensus of the removal of the cca treated plays was a top priority and we used using that main criteria we also looked at -- excuse me, density, median income and the score card to prioritize and flush out the list and that result the in these two tiers where the first tier included sergeant john john mccally park and the parks listed here and a second tier of playgrounds that includes those listed here. and so these two tiers would result in the removal of all cca treated wood

from the system, address populations that have a low median income and high use density. neighborhoods where those are demographic characteristics and focusing on playgrounds that are relatively low report card grades from the parks alliance report card. and this is just a map showing the distribution of those two tiers and just a few photos. i think as you look through the photos this is a compelling list of playgrounds. on the staff visits where we checked with some of these there were someone i never been to before and i was disheartened to see there was this much need at some of the playground sites and i think we have an opportunity to make a dramatic difference that we did at bo decker in terms of the

before and after for the park and do for the playgrounds at each one of these sites. we did in our analysis and with the task force decide to remove a few playgrounds that met the criteria technically but for other pragmatic reasons we decided it wouldn't merit the investment from the failing playgrounds bond. there were two parks [inaudible] and looking at those sites and given today's codes that the transformation process will result in a reinvention of the whole park which we didn't have funding for and just not an appropriate place for a play structure but we will remove the cca structures from the parks and there were two others where there are larger master planning processes going on where we think the play structure and

the siting of the play ground and renovation are included in the larger projects and learning from mission delores and start with the whole park and things go more smoothly and the task force agreed to take these as exemptions to the overall list. so again we hope with the funds that are available to us to really be able to do grade a playground renovations for each of the neighborhoods and more neighborhoods have a chance at a a plus park rather than a d or f renovated playground and this is a picture of lafayette park and great community partnership that resulted in enormously popular playground and increased utilization by park users. i think if adopted today our next

steps include we're going to have a design forum that would be hosted by the san francisco parks alliance that is going to focus on playgrounds and as part of that forum we're going to solicit feedback from the public what should be the design goals, philosophy with respect to playgrounds. one idea that came up repeatedly but we found hard to quantify was the idea around play value and i think that's something we discussed it and more of a guiding set of principles for the design effort rather than a criteria that could be used to select playgrounds, but we hope to really be able to solicit some clear good feedback about what people are enjoying about the recent renovations we have done. what are features they would like to see they haven't seen? what makes a successful family experience at a playground, et cetera and the parks alliance

will host the forum and february and if the staff can return to the commission in march with a more specific delivery plan so having the two tiers we wanted to look at are there economies to be gained by grouping some of the together and bid out as one contract? can we do preliminary scoping just to see how far down the budget we would be able to get? so in march we would like to come back with the plan okay with the 15.5 million dollars this is the number of playgrounds we think we could do in the first effort and the schedule for those. i think the other main piece of the feedback from the task force committee which was mostly at the last meeting that we rebrand this program and while failing playgrounds sells -- gets you votes for bonds it's not necessarily the inspiring title that you need to engender stewardship and commitment over the long-term. i was unable to

single-handedly able to come up with a rebrand between the task force meeting and today and i will work with the task force members and when we come back in march with the delivery plan we could have a compelling title and compelling and inspiring title for the program we could use going forward so with that i am happy to take any questions or feedback. >> commissioner mcdonnell. >> thank you mr. chairman. just a couple of comments. one, having served on the task force a few thank yous that i want to reiterate or under score that dawn did mention. first the staff. i would agree with dawn having participated in a number of these process and ones that had the passion and commitment to parks and open space that could potentially be therefore

very contentious and this was not for a number of reasons. the first of which in my mind was the incredible staff support and analysis that went into preparation that dawn referenced so again thank you to dawn and the entire team, and then secondly the masterful facilitation skills of steve -- his last name? >> cansian. >> was just phenomenal in guiding the process and ensuring that task force member as well as community members felt their voice was being heard and options and issues of importance were being considered so really, really fantastic, and then in addition to the members of the task task force each brought commitment and intelligent and passion around the issues i want to under score. >> >> how valuable it was to have community in the room and again who brought their passion and

were consistent, and there were a number of community members that came throughout the process and three in particular they want to call out because they're special who didn't come to a few meetings intermittently but every meeting early and often and engaged in the process and they were incredible in their participation as community members in and during meetings as well as the tour, et cetera, and so finally i think that the what we have before us in terms of a recommendation captures three things they think are important going through the process. one that the recommendations represent where both highest in need in terms of conditions but highest opportunity with regard to leverage of resources is represented here. also the geographic kind of distribution

across our city is also i think well represented, not the entire city, but i do think well represented and something that dawn said a few minutes ago around the bang for the buck. it was helpful to have a fuller picture with the capital plans across the city to utilize the small pool of dollars and two final things. one, the opportunity that we have to do the rebranding. i think we should do that. i am hopeful this is ensuring that the parks across the city are beautiful spaces for communities and families, so i am hopeful at some point we don't need a failing playgrounds task force or anything by any other name frankly because we made the investments to ensure we have great open spaces across the city and lastly in addition to delivering a great report and set of recommendations our

process also delivered a beautiful baby. [inaudible] had a baby so thank you very much. >> thank you commissioner. commissioner low. >> well, i want to first also thank commissioner mcdonnell. i find it hard to believe he attended all these task force meetings but thank you very much for putting that time and energy into this. dawn, i think mcdonnell mentioned it. are there opportunities to leverage -- for example taking the tier one playgrounds and leveraging opportunities with other funds, maybe thinking bigger beyond and renovating the mark and for example sergeant mccally park and think out of the box, expanding, taking over the street and expanding the box and the partnership from bo decker and expanding to there and doing something similar to that park

or any of the tier one parks? >> yeah let me take that one because it relates to some of the things i was going to say. we have the dollars that we have and the public funding that we have, and a playground -- i think dawn you would concur between $1 million and $2 million range for a basic playground renovation but we know some of the exceptional play play plays in the city are more expensive and not the budget at lafayette and had support from others. this will depend on leveraging the dollars with philanthropic sources or grant sources and we are working on that. lisa bransten from the team is very involved in that. this is something of passion ate interest of the parks alliance and will depend on timing and the additional funding that we

have. i think we should focus -- before we grab streets and acquire land and build new parks i think we should focus on delivering the public's expectation which is a beautifully renovated playground in the sites that we have, but we do have this pot of money we're hoping to leverage so the short answer is there is more to come on that. >> yeah, my only point being i don't like doing things twice so if we mobilize the resources for say any one of the tier one parks, whether we could maybe leverage that -- think bigger and use the opportunity that we have to expand parks, improve parks beyond the scope that we originally imagined. >> again commissioner and dawn if you have thoughts you could certainly dive in. we want to

do the most -- deliver the biggest bang for the bucks that we have but we do have a responsibility to try to focus on all of the playgrounds on this list at once -- over time before we talk about expanding scope at any one particular site. >> we do have -- i think that's correct and i also think in terms of leveraging more broadly there are a number of playgrounds that managed to attract additional funds already in terms of impact fees and add backs so that helps to spread the $15.5 million broader and hopefully we can get deep into the list as possible. for example -- impact fee conversations going on for jerry commons and maybe hertz playground. buchanan street

mall has been beneficial super supervisor london breed and for what you're talking about and doing envisions around those parcels because right now there are three dilapidated structures and supervisor breed provided $75,000 for a grant to allow us to do envisioning and planning to think about -- how about we have one play structure in the place that makes the most sense? what would that look like? what are the uses for that area in the future? so we're thinking about those efforts where funds have been made available to us. >> commissioner levitan. >> this is a far less technical question than anybody ems asked but with some of the criteria for tier one is capacity to find sources and fund raise for funds for these reasonerations. is that

necessarily tied to having a friends group associated with some of the playgrounds? because some of these look -- i'm not off hand aware they have support groups already existing so how important is that for the renovations to go forward? >> it isn't a requirement. we haven't made it a explicit criteria in the selection of the playgrounds and that was a good policy discussion that happened with the committee members in wanting to make sure there are neighborhoods that don't have the capacity to have a friends group or maybe a friends group will come out once the renovation gets started, right, so we didn't make that a criteria for selecting a playground to be renovated but we hope in the process and with the parks alliance and others that we can encourage stewardship and we saw in the task force new friends groups appeared in the task once they

saw the opportunity was available and we have a graton friends group coalesceesing and [inaudible] had one and golden gate heights -- the playground there didn't have a friends group until recently and actually part of this effort so i am hopeful as we move through the reason vaigdzs and engage the community and the design conversation that will spur the development of further stewardship efforts with the playgrounds that don't have a strong organization. >> [inaudible] >> absolutely. >> thank you for this. it's a tremendous document. >> mr. ginsburg did you have anything else to add? >> mostly thank yous. i want to thank dawn for her and her team for their very effective facility facilitation and all of the planning that went into coming up with the list. it's said