and the far right shows the cumulative shadows on esprit park so for all three projects the total increase in shadow load on the park would be 0.2 six 9%. the existing conditions plus the new shadow from all three projects would bring the total shadow load to 10.85% and looking more qualitatively at all three projects there would be new shadow both in the morning and in the evening hours. there would be new shadow all year around sept for the month of september and the new shadow would be located on both the northern and southern sections of the park so i think it's fair to say there would be small amounts of new shadow dispersed throughout the day and year and across the park. and the capital committee heard this item on december 3 and forwarded it without recommendation

because the environmental review for the proposed project, 800 indiana, was not complete at that time. on december 4 the commission certified the environmental report for 800 indiana street so the environmental review is complete and you're able to act on the shadow analysis and i will hand it over to avalon bay communities for a few words. >> okay. so i actually have rob pool first and then have the two of you come up so rob go ahead. >> okay. good afternoon commissioners. thank you for the opportunity to speak today. i am rob poole with the san francisco housing action coalition speaking on behalf of our 150 members. avalon bay and [inaudible] architects presented this project to the project

review committee in early 2014 and our stance is all of the community benefits that the project deliver out weigh the shadow impact on the park. this will bring a lot of housing to the city's job centers and along the transit line. it's very well designed. incorporates significant amount of publicly accessible open space, enhances the pedestrian experience providing landscaping along the sidewalk and widening the sidewalk. these are all the features you want to see in good urban development and promote those principles. the dog park is a fantastic addition as well so i hope you let the project move forward as it is and thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >> then we have joe kirshaugher and peter waller. are you going to do it together? are you each going to do three minutes or doing it together?

>> if we could each do three minutes. thank you. we have i powerpoint on the screen. thank you very much. peter waller with [inaudible] architects. i will give a brief overview of the project. you have introduction of the site and you see the view of the warehouse and that tall over pass between the warehouse and -- thank you joe, and the park, and then the view from the other end, the south end with esprit park in the foreground you see the tall stand of evergreens and softens the impact of the over pass and in while you see what we're proposing to do in dog park and paid by avalon in the unused space by the over pass and a view from indiana the overpass is on the right so three distinct buildings, distinct architects and to reclaim the

fabric of the neighborhood and the open space plan miller and company took advantage of that right-of-way there to expand. the pedestrian realm, make it lush landscape and three open spaces including a wide central plaza and then the dog park on the right hand side. the streetscape was coordinated as overall plan from 22nd to 18th and reviewed as part of the project. you see the expansion of the plaza. calms traffic midblock. next slide is the dog park about 9,000 square feet. new lighting, seating, landscaping. i think a great complement to the existing useds at esprit park and briefly just looking at the experience from the park roughly in the middle of the park on a november afternoon you see the overpass,

that stand of trees and before the project. when the project is add you see a little in fill by the overpass and that area there -- next slide, thank you joe -- and again before the project and with the project essentially the view is of that project is just below the overpass modest impact as experienced from the park. thank you very much and i am here for questions and i will turn it over to joe. >> thank you commissioners. i am joe with avalon bay the project sponsor and the owner and manager of this building when it's complete. so you heard from peter. peter showed photos of the project. what it's going to look like. you heard from staff about the the shadow impact. i want to talk about the benefits this project is going to bring to the dog patch community so to begin one of the most important benefits

we will provide 326 apartments, new places to live and in fill and part of the neighborhood plan and exactly where new housing should be built in san francisco. the city needs this housing and i don't want that over looked but more than of that benefit -- secondly as peter described we going to transform the streetscape here and important connection between the ed nodes and we have the shopping district and esprit park. right now it's uninviting strip of sidewalk. we're going to increase this down the street to 15 feets and generous bulb outs in addition to the 15 at the three 34r -- plazas and it's a generous public gathering space and as mentioned not only are we going to improve the area immediately in front of our site we worked with neighbors and

another developer down the street to gain environmental approval for the improvements and coordinated way and four block stretch here so another major benefit is the dog park. this is going to be built on public space and unimproved dead end street by the overpass and we're going to pay to build it and maintain it in perpetuity and it will be open to the public and i want to clarify it's not a standard thing for new developments to. do we feel it's above and beyond but we feel it's an absolutely ideal thing for us to be doing. we saw an opportunity to create something in the space and listened to the community and the concern for more dog facilities so we're happy to commit to make this happen. we have been major supporters of other neighborhood improvements. this is wood yard park. on the bottom is a renting and a photo of the finished project. this is an open space on a parcel on

22nd street and owned by sfmta and adopted by community members who lead the effort over 18 months to create the play area. we are thrilled to be part of it. we supported it and helped to make it a reality and if you have been down to 22nd street it's filled with neighborhood kids and we're thrilled about. because we worked so hard to make a difference and responsive to the neighborhood concerns i am proud to see we got an unanimous endorsement from the dog patch neighborhood. a few other benefits -- we are paying $4 million in impact fees and further impact the neighborhood and we are paying about $21 million in inclusionary housing payments to meet the affordable housing and this is the equivalent of 75 new apartments. in conclusion we designed this to be a great place to live but more than that

a great enhancement to the neighborhood and we are proud to be presenting it to you asking for your support. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else who would like to make public comment on this item? seeing no one public comment is now closed. >> commissioner low. >> again we discussed this at the capital committee and part of the problem with the analysis i think -- with the 1989 memo that parks that are less than 2 acres that has less than 20% of shadow impact load there is no guideline as to what that allowable cumulative limit should be. plus this is a recurring discussion, particularly with esprit park, where we have the cumulative analysis with projects that are in the pipeline but not the benefit what the shadow impact is or could add to the existing shadow that is being cast by

other projects, so we struggled with this idea of the cumulative impact of whether we should take a look at all projects in the pipeline and compare them similar to what we do for prop m or do we adopt the policy of first in first out. the first developer into the queue is the first one out, so it's a struggle, and i don't agree with the staff report that there is a significant shadow impact. however, i do think is there is a difference between this project and the two prior projects that came before us. i think avalon bay has done a great job in providing a community benefit program to off set any potential shadow impact on esprit park. they're providing open space, additional open space on site at their expense. they're providing a

dog park fortunately they will maintain and police -- it's an inside joke for us, which it was responsive to the community, and they are making a contribution to the childrens' playground so i think that shows a significant community program in addition to the affordable housing fees and impact fees they're paying that i would support this project to move forward. >> thank you. commissioner levitan. >> i could not state it anymore eloquently than my commissioner low has done -- no, i couldn't even though he went to berkeley. >> [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