project are substantial. we'll be providing over 100 units to both families, and transitional aged youth and 100% of the project will be affordable and in addition, to the housing it will also be providing high-quality community programs, both to residents of the project, as well as community members. and thereby creating a truly active community hub in the mission. it's also very much in the public interest, of course, here, where we're introducing 100 plus new affordable housing to a neighborhood that has seen significant displacement of lower one another residents in recent years. finally as has been mentioned 2060 folsom and 17th and folsom park have truly been contemplated as existing in conjunction with one another. for example, the new development provides restrooms for users of the park. so given both the

qualitative factors and quantitative factors and significant public benefits, as well as the unified nature of the park and the development, we respectfully ask this commission make a finding that the shadow cast will not have a significant adverse impact on the use of the park. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> hi. my name is alejandra and to move forward with this park. i'm a transitionally youth and also a mother. so i will be applying to this housing and would love to have a park in which my child could play in. to me, the mission is always hot and there is always no shadows in the park. so i feel like having a little shadow would be really much appreciated. because you know, living in san francisco, we have different intense micro climates. and the mission and bay view

getting the most sun, i feel it would be good to have a little shadow. that is all i have to say. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> >> buenos dias.

(speaking spanish) >> so just in english that was we came to san francisco a number of the years ago to look for a new future and shortly after arriving we were evicted and started living in a garage with limited access to kitchen and bathroom. my daughter became sick and currently to avoid living in the streets we're living in a shelter, and there are many families in the same situation, who are in desperate need of affordable housing. and she is looking forward to enjoying the park once the building opens with our daughter. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please.

>> good morning commissioners, mission resident for almost 15 years and i was lucky or in the process of the area plan, and this project has been a struggle for more than a decade. and from the beginning, the community identified to have the park and affordable housing. i know this issue is about the shadows, but i think the issue in san francisco about the lack of affordable housing is more critical. and and all the community meetings that we have done and engaged the community in this process has been having those things together. and this is not a separate issue, but the need is great, and we need affordable housing now. i really encourage commissioners to approve and move this project forward.

this is a struggle for affordable housing and the struggle for the right to live in this city. we came here for a better future and we cannot spend more than our salary just to pay rent. it's just crazy here and we encourage you to move this project forward and support more affordable housing for families in san francisco. gracias. >> thank you. >> anyone else who would like to make public comment? no other public comment? okay. with that, public comment is closed. commissioners. >> commissioner mcdonnell. >> thank you, president buell. this is indirectly about this project, but frankly not. as we regularly have these kind of items come before us, what makes it really challenging around consideration is the juxtaposition the gentleman just made, which is it's a really good thing, then the

shadows are less important. if it's sort of a bad thing, the shadows are bad; right? and i don't know if there is a mechanism by which this process of consideration can become a little more precise, frankly, and less subjective? because we have in in circumstances again where either the community didn't like the very much and the shadows are bad and we have been in circumstances where the developer has done some really cool things and ignore we have a micro climate and let's welcome the shadows. and i feel put in this precarious position around consideration, because the stipulations around the shadow and shadow load is supposed to be the only presenting issue or question and it quickly becomes larger than that. again i support the project and feel we should move forward with, but to share those concerns that i have. because these kind of issues -- excuse me, regularly come before us.

>> thank you, commissioner. i see no other comments. commissioner bonilla. >> yes. i don't really see the impact this that shadow has on the park. what i do see, which is fantastic, is 100 units of affordable housing. i mean, that is -- that would be a tremendous accomplishment. and i see some potential partners in the project that will be engaged in this project from the mission district, and i think it's just a win-win all the way around. i would love to see 100 more of the these projects and

when it comes time to make the motion to approve this project, i will gladly make it. >> thank you. commissioner anderson? >> good morning everybody. i agree with commissioner eric that there are some precise items that we're supposed to study and i don't see any negative impacts in terms of going forward with this project. pardon me if i'm talking out of school, phil. but i see an opportunity here also to have maybe some staff on-hand to work with the families. to have projects going on, and things like that, i don't know if there is a community center that could go in or whatever, but let's talk later. i just could not help myself here about the idea of paving a parking lot and putting in

some paradise. >> i might say as a fan of mission bowl, i'm going to have find a new place to park. anyway. >> so for commissioner anderson, there has been a park that is being developed. that is actually under construction right now. and it went through a terrific community planning process with supervisor campos' office and many, many community people and the park has some wonderful features. the building itself is going to be -- i think it's metaand ccdc. i think it might be helpful because it's important to treat the shadow review projects similarly. as i said earlier, there is no question in this particular case the shadow is actually part of the deal; right? we acquired this parcel from the puc, knowing that half of the parcel was

going to be desperately needed affordable housing. so we are not concerned about it, but so that the conversation and review is consistent, stacy bradley who runs our planning unit has had the sort of experience of looking at shadows on a variety of projects. and i wonder where stacy might opine whether there would be something that we would view as significant or insignificant? because that is the narrow focus of the commissioner's and for the public, our commission does not weigh-in on planning projects. that is not their function. their function is to analyze whether a development project has -- whether the shadow caused on a park by a development project is both qualitatively and quantitatively significant or insignificant? even if it's significant, it doesn't mean that the project doesn't go forward because the planning department may view the project through a

different lens. >> right. thank you. >> thank you. the percentage of the -- the percentage shadow this project will cast on the park is larger than what we typically see. we see -- they have been generally less than .1% new shadow on the park. this is, you know, an order of magnitude difference, 1%. but it's because i think the shadow on the park is so minimal, that this project being adjacent has a larger than typical percent increase. but the total shadow is still an incredibly low amount of shadow than we typically see on parks. almost all of our parks i think have more than this, which is less than 3% shadow throughout the year. so in looking at numbers and just very qualitatively --

sorry quantitatively versus qualitatively, it is a very, very minor shadow. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> commissioner bonilla. >> phil talked about wrap-around services. i didn't see a list here. i looked for it, but couldn't find it of the partners that will be engaged or involved in this project? so that is partners from within the community. so if the project sponsor could provide that list, i would really appreciate it. >> okay. do you want them to do that now or later? >> later. >> okay. >> thank you. i don't see any other comments. bo of do you want to close public comment? >> we did close public comment. >> great. this is now in the hands of the commission. commissioner bonilla expressed an interest making the motion regarding the findings of significance in

recommendations to the planning department. >> yes, your motion -- >> seconded. >> moved and seconded. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> it is unanimous. thank you. >> thank you. >> let me get commissioner mcdonnell.

we're on item 9, cabrillo playground change in operational park hours. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is ryan kimura from the public affairs division and the item i bring toward to you today is the discussion and possible action to adopt resolution approving hours of operation for cabrillo playground. this does fall in line with our strategic plan. strategy no. 1 inspiring place and keeping today's parks safe, clean and fun. specifically objective 1.3 stewarding and promoting good park behavior. just a little background n.2013 the board of supervisors passed legislation amending park code to establish hours of the operation for all city parks from 5:00 a.m. to midnight and new park code second, 1.21. subsection b of enacted park code section 3.21 authorizes the rec and parks commission to set different hours of operation for any park or

part thereof based on operational requirements or neighborhood impacts via commission resolution. the cabrillo community expressed concerns and proposed for new park operational hours from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. during pacific standard time and 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. during pacific daylight time. the proposal was discussed in detail amongst over 50 community members at two public community meetings on september 17th and october 1st, 2015. meeting notices were deliver ed to all residences within the playground and contacts of the friends of cabrillo playground. in addition, the notice was posted on the friends of the cabrillo playground website and social media pages.

since the community meetings. the leaders of friend of cabrillo playground has been gathering letters of support from neighboring businesses, and organizations. based on the support from community members, organizations, supervisor mar's staff, supervisor mar's office and staff it was determined that the hours of park should be changed. so staff recommendation is to set the operational hours of the park to 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. seven days during pacific standard time and 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. during daytime time and this is supported by the district 1 supervisor eric mar, friends of cabrillo playground and the schools lafayette and st. paul schools.

i'm open to answer any questions that you have. >> thank you very much. >> commissioner mcdonnell. >> just one question. under "supporters," other than the friends of cabrillo, the others are organizations. so my curiosity is around neighbors, residents, where is that voice kind of represented here? >> neighbors -- so actually the friends of the cabrillo are the ones that noticed all of the neighbors around 300' surrounding the park playground. >> we do have public comment. debby, and betty. >> my name is betty matz mucka and live two houses from cabrillo playground.

pretty much ryan said everything that i was going to say. one of the things that i wanted you to know is that most of the people who attended the october meeting were neighbors in the immediate area between 37th and 40th avenue between fulton and cabrillo and when we did take the vote, we allowed people to vote in the 94121 area code that came to our meeting. the result was approximately 60 votes that was 64% in favor to implement the hours 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. pacific standard time and 7-9 p.m. daylight savings. so i cames an advocate in supported of these proposed times. i wanted to say before the major renovation, the playground was delipidated and dirty and filled with garage due to the vandals and outsiders, who unwelcomed night activity was

heightened by sporadic locking of the playground gates which were easy to climb because they were so low to get into the space. since the renovation, cabrillo playground has been an asset to the outer richmond neighborhood and attracted families throughout the city to enjoy the facilities and playground features in had a clean and safe environment. part of the success is due to the surrounding neighbors who are vigilant and insistant that the gates are locked at dark at evening and report activity and noise at night when no one is supposed to be there. the neighbors voted for the hours and many long-term residents have firsthand knowledge of past playground destruction, but like me, would like to focus on what the playground is today. a beautiful spot for the public to enjoy. and we know that there is no logical reason to keep the facility open before or after these hours. please accept our recommendation to you, and finally this recommendation

has been endorsed by st. thomas school and lafayette grammar school, as well as the office of supervisor eric mar. thank you. >> thank you. >> debby. >> debby joseph. and i'm the founder of friends of cabrillo playground and to take this opportunity no. 1 to thank you for this opportunity to speak with you. no. 2, and most importantly, thank you for cabrillo playground. we have the most gorgeous playground in the city. it's even been voted on. we're coming up to our third anniversary and with we have a wonderful playground that we want to keep safe and clean. as betty said, some of us old time residents remember what happened before the renovation, where the playground was constantly vandalized, almost every

night. i have police numbers to show there and there is no reason for the playground to be open at night. there is no lighting and what will do you in the dark? we have very many people who don't want to see broken glass and drug paraphernalia and don't want to see graffiti. we even found used condoms in the old playground. people do not wanted their children around this sort of thing. if you leave a playground open late at night, that is what you are going to get. human nature doesn't change that much. if we leave the play grounds open late, it's going to start happening again. so we urge you to adopt this resolution. these hours are in agreement with everybody in the community that appeared at meetings, that came to the meetings. we went through the entire process and took the ballot s around and had choices and these were agreed upon at the first meeting.

the sect meeting we count on the other hand votes and this is what the community wants. we have a lovely playground and want to keep it that way. >> is there anyone else? come on up? >> i'm one of the two prosac members who represent district 1 and happen to live across from cabrillo playground and my sister and i always went there growing up. i strongly support the residents. i went to both meetings, and you know, we talked about the issue and we had votes. i wanted to thank ryan and zack taylor for helping organize the meetings and helping us get the fliers out. and while i support this, i also, as a prosac member for

district 1, am concerned there are other playgrounds in our district and maybe we're unique for the rest of the city. but we have these closed-in/fenced-in playgrounds and according to recreation and park, the custodyial staff come s around 8-9 to close the bathrooms, but even if someone is playing in the dark at night, they cannot ask them to leave under the legislation that i guess was sponsored by scott wiener. and it seems it's just not right that they still open with the bathrooms closed. i think you are just asking for trouble. i checked with the supervisor's office and while the intent was for the large

golden gate park and mclaren park or the other open parks, i'm not sure he actually intended it be the playgrounds. but that is the way the law was written. so i hope we can work with with staff and come up with a solution without having to change the law. so that playgrounds won't be unsafe at night. i don't think the playgrounds should be open at night if there are no lights there. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else who would like to make public comment? being none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner low? >> i just have one question to our celebrity professional athlete general manager ginsburg. [laughter ] are there lights at cabrillo? >> no. i don't think there are lights at cabrillo. >> so even if we set the new hours we're not impacting

any night-time activities. >> let me give a little context, so the legislation passed in '13 and no park operating hours prior to '13, zero, none of the our parks had official closing hours. there was a history of very informal policy that your predecessors on this commission would create hours very rammed park-by-park basis, which was very difficult forever to us enforce, quite frankly and very difficult for to us administer and had no legal authority. so there was a default measure, the legislation says that the default park operating hours shall be parks shall be closed from midnight to 5:00 a.m. unless there was an existing commission resolution onfile calling for different park operating hours. if there was, those were incorporated as law under the ordinance. so we do have many parks that close earlier than midnight and many neighborhood play grounds and probably some the richmond. this particular park did not have a resolution, which is

why it was open until midnight. the ordinance also allows the community and the department after some outreach to come back to this commission, and amend operating hours. so if there are other parks and this has come up, i think west portal play grandstrand you a few other locations where there is a desire to actually officially close the park earlier; that is great. i'm not going to try to change anything, but talking to ryan on a side bar, i do have some concerns in terms of enforcement of creating different closing hours at different times of the year. it becomes just a little bit frankly, even though our restrooms operate that way, it's difficult for our park rangers to enforce and so moving forward i will suggest a uniform closing time whether it's 8:00 p.m. or 9:00 p.m., just regardless of when the sun sets. it's just too hard to enforce and meaning that we have to change a lot of signage and things like that.

i don't gre that parks without lights, without programs could close earlier for public safety reasons, but it's a balance. people like to be in their parks and we want to encourage people to be in safe places and to play. we also want to be respectful of the neighbors and this a treasure and went through the right process. that is how we ended up where we are. >> thank you,. so we have no further public comment. it is now in the hands of the commission. >> move approval. >> second >> moved and seconded. all in flavor? >> aye. >> so move, thank you very much. >> we're on item 10 general public comment and this item is continued from item 4. is there anyone who did not speak under item 4 that would like to speak under item 10 "general public comment." >> richard, would you like to speak? he had some good news at the zoo committee meeting that

you might want to share with people. here i am doing public comment. it's great. >> i have some good news about the mother's building. >> oh, yes. >> first, well two things that concerned us was finding original photos of the building before the water damage. and apparently there is some photos that the art commission got a hold of from the san francisco museum of the modern art. which i'm looking forward to seeing and second, supervisor katy tang put money in the city budget, $400,000. $200,000 for this year and $200,000 for next year to keep the project going. so this should take us through the immediate and short-term needs of the building. but we're still going need about $4 million to finish

the building. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else who would like to make public comment? being none, public comment is closed. we're on item 11, new business agenda-setting. commissioners? public comment? being none, this item is closed. 12 communications. public comment? being none, this item is closed and 13 is adjournment. >> so moved. >> second. >> moved and seconded. so moved. [ gavel ] thank you one and all and again, congratulations both new commissioners and renewed commissioners.