vision plan, with improvements needed. i would like to commend shawn smith who is coming up next, for his tireless work on behalf of our community and we've been working with him closely. >> president buell: thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> good morning, commissioners. i'm sorry, i'm under the weather. i'm shawn smith, native of san francisco. i've lived in the valley communities since 1993. i got started through this program for the don king senior center when the seniors operated the garden. but when they were too old to participate in it, i decided to volunteer and keep the grass cut for them and but they had moved from the center that was across the way, up to raymond street.

as time went on, they aged on and they were unable to part pate in the gardens, so one of my main things was to find out who can help me and bring the community together and actually helping kids along with seniors to have an active community garden. since it has been neglected for so long and now they have more beautification and renovations coming up. this is something that we would like to see in our community garden, we would like to actually ask you for the funding for the community garden and we thank the program, when you're talking about the vision program, for bringing this up to par. i would like to thank everyone from alexis, jake, fran, everyone involved in it. we also would like to add that in the future, if you can see that most of our children will grow older and as our children

grow older, they can be taken care of because as we know, san francisco is turning into a large city that has very, very small condensed area, so if you please, just give a little consideration to the children and to the seniors that are here in our city. thank you very much, and take care. >> president buell: thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good morning, my name is rehn, i'm excelsior resident and daily park user. i support the plans except for the trails and path portion. i also want to be sure that the park is clean. we voted for 2012 bond called the clean and safe neighborhoods park bond, but no specific amount of money is set aside in the plan for keeping mclaren clean and there is no articulated plan to addresses trash and garbage in the park. i do want to give a shoutout to daniel choi, but the gardeners

should not be picking up trash. throughout the vision process, the community has been stone called and manipulated by a plan. the community does not want large areas of the park restored to arbitrary point in native plant history. we do not want pesticides, we do not want healthy trees cut down and trails closed and so-called natural areas closed off to the public. we want the money spent on repairing the asphalt path system. we want all, not some to be safe. when using a paved path, we expect it to be usable for the elderly, families with strollers and people with mobility issues. the trails in mclaren do need attention, but we don't want the bond money to go toward the

natural areas plan, it's not what we voted for and not what we discussed in the envision plan. 949 people have signed a change.org petition supporting this view. they can't all be here today, but they signed onto that, so please, the whole plan is great except for the $3.5 million. >> next speaker. >> ace, i'm here to speak on another matter, but i would be remiss if i didn't speak on something that i'm up here to talk about is the black african-american, however you want to call us in the city by the bay. fran has been diligently working for african-american community. i am appalled only one brother got up here to speak, and he use the community.

i'm here to say, there is a difference what this city calls community and black community. because the black community is down -- we're almost -- i'm just getting emotional. let me calm down. i'm appalled, you got a master plan for the park and rec up in sunnydale? well, all the while black folks been there for many years and you don't think about doing nothing in the years there. they've been killed and now they're replace. this place like you did in the fill more. public housing, all the parks there for years, you all didn't do a damn thing and now the blacks we almost gone and you do this urban renewal. you bring in all of the other things in here. and then you come in here and you put everything good. how many years has that park been there by sunnydale, but now communities going to be sad because they're going to lose their pads, but you're going to

make it beautiful now. you got a master plan like for the fillmore. i'm appalled. this is going to be one of my stops now, because you got all kinds of parks in the fillmore, you didn't do a damn thing until you got rid of us. i went there the other night, i didn't see anybody up there looking like me, everybody all there running around, after you all kicked us out. now you going to the public housing. this is so embarrassing to be part of this city and county by the bay. >> president buell: thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners, thank you general manager, my name is chris, i want to acknowledge our last speaker as well. i'm here on two accounts, biking and hiking. but i'm a native and i support

his view, we don't want to kick out, we want to include. so i tip my hat to you as caucasian. tree fox, we work with kids all over the city, 25,000 strong. our motto is to get out and get dirty. i'm a cyclist, biked across the united states as a college kid and worked for back roads for many years leading trips across alaska, tuscany, france and i support any way we can get out and get people connected to the outdoors. biking is one of the most significant ways to create freedom in a child's world. we want them to feel safe out there, biking and hiking on their own. if we widen the trails, which i sport the master plan, i think we'll do just that. i believe that the native restoration is key to connecting our children to the red tail hawks, great blue herrin, there

is nothing more miracle than watching a prey in action and blood and guts in front of you. the witch's water tower, kids can collect and hold them on their own. we want them to go anytime they want to and feel safe. it's starting to be reclaimed by more affluent people, but as chuck and i can tell you, we were scared to go to mclaren park, especially if we were white, because we didn't want to get our behinds kicked. we want to have a educational program. i've taught at the middle school and had to break up fights with girls bigger than me and avoid getting punched because they're engaged in other activities. nature is calm and focused. seek nature out. future forward. >> president buell: thank you. >> next speaker, again, if anyone wants to speak, please come up now. thank you.

>> hi, i'm matthew, part of urban riders, the mountain bike advocacy group, contributed hours in mclaren park, running volunteer events, bringing hundreds of people to the park who never heard of it and loved it. i'm here to talk about the trails part of the plan. someone made a comment, there is a survey, the number one response was more mountain biking trails and we're thrilled that the plan recognizes mountain bikers, that's great. i want to comment that the 8 miles is really only 3.6 miles, but we recognize why there is a compromise between the different user groups. so the main thing i want to talk about today, one of the goal is environmental, social and economic trail. i want to talk about the trail. you heard from many community members, they're concerned about widening trails in the park and we're also. it's news to me that the only

expected users of the park are beginners. we're not looking for giant jump lines, but different types of trail. that was recognized in the plan, which was a surprise, but the trail issue is unfortunate, because 5-foot trail versus 3-foot, if you cut into the hillside, it's 2.5 times material that and loses this feeling of nature. narrow trail gives you intimate feel. why it calms you. and only 30 seconds. i want to mention that it's not necessarily the best practice. narrow trails slow bicycles down. reduce conflict. they've moved to a contact sensitive, the latest trail was two feet wide, not five feet. we urge the commission to approve the plan, slo long as the 5-foot restriction is

removed which will satisfy all users of the park. >> president buell: thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm katy strange with the park alliance. i'm here to speak in support of the whole plan. we are aware this is a city gem and it's a well-loved park as we can tell from the people who have come to speak today. and like many well-loved places in the city, we see abundance of passionate individuals, park users, community members, trail users and while it's not easy to find consensus among passionate individuals, we are excited and glad to see the department and staff work and spend their time and resources to go out and listen to the community and hear what they have to say. and we believe that the plan is, as a result, is a quality and inclusive plan.

we look forward to this much needed plan and next steps and the opportunity to partner with the department and the community. thank you. >> president buell: thank you. >> come on up. >> i'm a neighbor of the park, i walk the park every day. my favorite places to walk are the narrow path of the philosopher trail and i encourage that they are kept that way. there are plenty of wide trails, i think the most important place to use the money are the asphalt paths. they're dangerous. even i trip on them. and i'm a pretty avid walker. so, i do support the plan, except the widen organize of the paths -- widening of the paths and this thing of not using money for the asphalt paths. thank you.

>> anyone else who would like to make public comment on this item? >> good morning, i'm sean, i live half a mile from the park, ride this park, 2-3 days a week, 150, mainly on my mountain bike. i love this park, i love the trails. the proximity of my house, i don't have to get in my car to get in the exercise i need due to, i'm highly involved in a mountain series called the california series and because of this year and this park and all the riding i get to do, this is my reward. this is my yellow jersey i earned this year, for riding the california series. we go to a lot of places, hard terrain. i look how this park offers me the opportunity to do different terrains and the technical features that are involved and help out in the training.

currently, you can see a lot of the red, it's going to be pointing to the trails that are going to be close down. i'm going to show to you, red at the top. blue i've ridden a couple of times. a lot of the red, is something i've ridden a lot. and a lot. so mainly this section, we can zoom in on, this is mclaren park. you can see i've ridden every trail in the park. i like the park the way it is. i am for paved paths improvement the all the other trails do not need be widened. i run into people all the time, kids, parents with kids, i help activate these kids in skill

sets. i'm here to help people. i love the training that i do in the park and i like the park the way it is, please don't change too many things in the park as they are. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else who would like to make public comment? being none, public comment is closed. >> president buell: thank you, commissioner anderson. >> commissioner anderson: with respect to how the money is spent on trail improvement, i believe that melinda from the rec and park department made it clear this was about approving expenditures, but that it would return to use in terms of what the trails are going to look like, whether some are going to be closed or not, widened or not, could we have a little more color commentary on that, melinda and dawn? sorry, didn't mean to pick one or the other.

>> commissioners, that is correct, so the trails improvement project will come back to the commission for concept design approval. and we have committed at a site walk that we did with about a dozen community stakeholders, many of whom are in the room today, as well as in a written fact sheet and e-mail, that we would have additional public notice community meeting before we finalize the concept design and likely a site walk. it turns out with the roads and topography it's easier to understand the site at the park than looking at the maps. >> commissioner anderson: it's not a foregone conclusion what is going on with the trails specifically, and you've been here listening to the public comment and you're going to take the consideration into mind and have more community input? >> that's correct. and i wanted to mention we had three focus group outreach event for the trail. we had a site walk with over 50

people attending. we had a first workshop in april with 40 people. and workshop in june with 30-40 people. and we did show the four priority project areas and similar item scope and they were well supported at that time. >> commissioner anderson: thank you. that was my first question. the other question i have is to confirm or dispel concerns about whether, not the bond money is being spent appropriately? i saw a photocopy of a column and i want to address concerns. >> absolutely, commissioner, i'm happy to do that. just a little bit of history is helpful. the 2008 bond program, so the one that precedes this, there was a trail program and at that time the trails program was restricted, exclusively to

natural areas. with the intent of promoting access and also helping to improve access and restore habitat. and it was explicitly focused on the natural area program. as we implemented the program and went into 2012, we got a lot of good feedback, how it was it would restrictive and proved to be divisive. what we did in 2012, we have a trails program, it is described as being for trails, paths and overall connectivity in golden gate park and mclaren, where the 2008 plan was at ma$2008 plan wd focus on the natural areas. it does not specify at the ordinance level what the split of the $4 million for trails should be, but only that the $4 million should be spent between golden gate park and mclaren park. i worked the city during the

write of the language. the section title is trails. it's not sidewalks, it's not about roads. it's to promote a cohesive coherent trails network and many of our trail sections do include a mix of earthen trails and then asphalt keckers. and -- connectors and maybe sending someone on a sidewalk or street. the peaks to creek trail through glen canyon works similarly. that's why we brought in the language. it is not limited to the natural areas program, but just to mclaren and golden gate park. now, the mclaren funding, the ordinance also says $10 million for mclaren park including all the kinds of normal improvements you might want to see at a park. but we do have a bond report that came to the commission as

well as the board of supervisors, was approved by all bodies and we used the bond support how to implement the ordinance. so nothing in the bond report is in conflict with the ordinance, but it provides more detail, including things likes allocating $1.5 million of the $10 million in mclaren for natural features. and that's really important. it's not natural areas. it's for natural features and habitat restoration. whether it's in the natural area program or not. the four priority areas we've identified today, kind of zig and zag through the area. there are some areas in the program, some outside of it. the focus is on increasing access to nature, not limiting the expenditure of funds to only improving the natural areas program. that bond report also specifies this process happened.

it outlines the entire process for the community opportunity fund. it set up the let'splaysf! playground task force. so the characterization that the bond report doesn't matter, is especially -- it's frustrating for me, because we've certainly spent a lot of time trying to follow it closely and i think we've relied on it as policy guidance, not just the commission, but the board of supervisors when we returned to the document on what to do next and how to move forward with improvements. the trail money allocated in the ordinance must be spent on trails. we don't have an option not to spend the money. you could make argument about whether or not you wanted to allocate evenly between golden gate park and mclaren. i don't know we want to do that. but that money is very clearly called out for trails. we don't have an option not to

spend it at all. we have to spend it eventually. and i think we've done the most work that we've ever done to date in trying work a workable framework that strikes compromises. in addition again, i would say that the feedback we have right now, i think a lot of the tensions are around the path width, but so far, we have received good feedback and consistent feedback that the four priority areas outlined as the focus for this first set of investments, has received widespread support. that those are the four areas that it will make the most difference to improve. and our hope is that as we go through a planning process, we can walk through with folks on a fairly specific way. what the improvements would be that would make the most difference. >> just to follow up with commissioner anderson's question, is the expenditure of the $3.5 million on the trail

restoration in compliance with the 2012 bond ordinance? >> yes, it's in compliance. >> thank you, ok. >> president buell: commissioner mick mcdonnell. >> commissioner mcdonnell: on the community voices and the conclusion there was general acceptance of the four priority areas, more specifically was there general acceptance of the trails portion and elements, whether that was width, number of closures. what was the quote, unquote, community sentiment around that. >> let me let melinda speak to that. she led the workshops. >> thank you, melinda stockman, project manager. we had three main outreach events. the final one was in june. we presented the four priority area projects to the community.

we presented the organizing framework. at that time we had not developed the trail width standards. we started talking about those in later in the summer. we received questions and concerns in e-mail and just found a lot of conversation on social media that we tapped into, that wasn't reaching out to us directly. and basically when we talked about the trail width, we had a site walk with a dozen mclaren collaborative and other stakeholders and then we put the fact sheet together. i think what you're hearing today is likely in combination with the letters we've received as part of the packet, is representative of the split. we have vocal folks who have a lot of resources to dedicate who are not in support of the trail width. >> one more question in regard to the trail width. on the point of closures, how

many, what is the net as a result of if that in fact happens, again, recognizing to commissioner anderson's point we're not there yet. >> this is a reasonable question. the map we're showing is proposed framework. we're not hiding behind anything. at the june community meeting, the last was asked, if a trail is not on here does that mean it's closed. since then we've made adjustments to the map. maybe overhead, quickly, just to show -- so at our june meeting we made several adjustments to the framework map based on feedback we got at the april community workshop. some of these were based on community input and some were based on our trails team getting more information. we took these slides and showed

them point by point to the community. in addition to that, i believe that some of the confusion around our trail network was caused by our own graphic errors. so i want to be up front about that. for example, in the area above the upper reservoir, between group picnic area and shelley live, we worked. the team didn't catch that. we went through and made additional adjustments. and we've shared with the community that our map is our best effort at this point and we're committed to continuing to hone in on the design and quantification. one of the reason it's hard to quantify numbers, some of the trails on maps were not designed or built by the park and we don't have good survey data. once we move forward into concept design, we'll get topography surveys for the areas

and look better at the slope and other conditions. >> commissioner mcdonnell: one last question. the statement, we thought it was a community process but it felt like a selling of a plan -- what is your response to that? >> i'm disheartened to hear that and surprised. i have been spending a lot of my time on this project, reaching out to provide additional information for people and make process commitments as well. and again, i've been trying really hard to think of mclaren as the city gem, as katy mentioned, and we have -- she mentioned passionate park users, it's difficult to come to consensus and it's difficult to find a balanced solution and we'll continue do that. >> commissioner mcdonnell: thank you very much. again, this is beyond store,

bold, circle, we are being consistent with bond ordinance by working to implement bond report and the resources therefore being used are appropriate. therefore, no bait and switch, yes? >> yes. yes. >> commissioner mcdonnell: very good. side bar, but related, i got some concerns expressed by some in community around the let'splaysf! initiative and the selling playground work that many of us worked hard to ensure it would happen. and that because it wasn't seen in the vision plan, some are concerned that work was lost. i don't believe that's the case. but again, because it's all in mclaren and you see the big grand plan around the park and

when you turn the pages you don't see, this let'splaysf! initiative body of work, can you confirm that both are still true. >> yes, both are still true and i think it does make sense going forward to demarcate where the let'splaysf! work is happening. the let'splaysf! project was on the consent calendar today. >> commissioner mcdonnell: i know that, i appreciate that, the question wasn't for me, but thank you. ok, very good. and then so, lastly, a couple of comments. i would go back to where staff began, which is from my perspective a moment of celebration because this is a park in our system that has long been neglected for a whole bunch of reasons. i would underscore some of mr. washington's comments, i am glad we're here, but at the same

time, it's unfortunate it has taken so long to get here and as a result, many who were in the community and who could have benefitted from this amazing opportunity aren't and can't and won't. that is unfortunate. i personally experienced the same thing in the fillmore. my park sat all my youth and now it's one of the best parks in the system. that is fantastic and sad at the same time. but we're making progress, so that part i do celebrate. also, our efforts around kind of renovation of the parks, every one of our parks, always had the same or similar dynamics, which is the incredible challenge of find the right balance of interest groups, you know, where mclaren is concerned, between wild and don't touch it, and programs so everybody loves it. there is the challenge between

neighborhood. there are some who still feel like the part of the mclaren that is nearest them is their neighborhood park, so thank you very much, don't touch it. which again has merit and a valid perspective. and so i do believe that this plan does a good job of both recognizing those competing interests, and the challenges and lands in a really good place. i often, when i am reviewing our packet and each of the items, tend the reports it says who opposes it and who supports it. i am most concerned when any one of those categories is empty. no one opposed this? really. did we do outreach? we're in san francisco. there is always someone who

opposes the plan. i want to ensure we're hearing all of the voices and that was a long way of saying thank you, for what i know is a lot of hard work and outreach, ensuring that while there may be a prevailing voice in the room, in the collective process, we've heard as many varied voices as possible and therefore, i feel like we've landed in a good place. thank you. >> president buell: thank you. commissioner bonilla. >> commissioner bonilla: i've lived near mclaren park. over 30 years i've been hearing comments about the park, the fact it's unsafe. there has not been investments,

it's inaccessible. so i'm really appreciative we finally have a plan to do some work there, because i really think it's long overdue. i think much of what will be accomplished will be greatly appreciated by most of my neighbors, by the people that live in that district. and so i'm totally, totally in support of these improvements. having said that, i think that, when i read my pact and i read all of the comments in the words of the participants that were noted, some of them were not as

legible, but i did take the time to read all of the individual comments. but it came across to me, in reading those comments, very loud and clear that people want to keep that area as natural and as undeveloped as possible. so i think we need to really take that very seriously. and we need to consider that every step of the way in planning this project. the other -- i had one question. that came up in terms of maintenance. you know, after we've made all these improvements, what will the maintenance plan consist of,

because often times what happens is that we do all these grandiose things, we make all the improvements, but we don't make sure that we have a plan and resources to maintain them, so i'd like to hear about that. >> i'll tackle this one, commissioner, i actually am proud of the department's park maintenance work. resources for parks, not just in san francisco, but across the country, urban park systems, we need the public, we fight over 5-foot trails versus 3-foot trail, but we're all together for parks. it provided stability for us. there has been talk about the current staffing rash i don't say in mclaren.

we've been able to increase them significantly. we have 13, 14, in mclaren, which is comparable. golden gate being four time the size, there are ratios, but they have different needs. there is less formal landscape in mclaren. but whether it's through proposition b, whether it's through the apprenticeship programs, work development programs, or project life cycle on preventing hard assets as opposed to landscape, there is a lot of progress and work happening on the maintenance side and i think the controllers' park maintenance scores reflect that. you'll see those in december. so, i'm pretty confident. we're never going to have as much we need. and they're -- we can always do

better, but i'm quite confident in the department's ability to steward the assets it has. >> president buell: thank you, commissioner anderson. >> commissioner anderson: i wanted to close by thanking all the people who came out from the community to speak on this. i know it's hard to take time out. i wanted to commend the work for sean and fran with the work you're doing with the young people in the community. it's amazing what you're doing. as mother of 22-year-old and 20-year-old, who raised my children in all of the parks and i also invest in mentorship programs, what you're doing is critical to our community. we would be lost without you and i personally thank you. >> president buell: thank you. we appreciate the enthusiasm in the audience, we try to minimize the expressions of support or

otherwise. i see no other commissioner comments. all those in favor? thank you very much. >> secretary: now item 8, 230 seventh street, shadow on howard and langton community garden.

ok thank you. good afternoon. i'm joined by kimberley, from the planning department, the item before you 230 seventh street shadow, mini park community garden. in 1989 they adopted a pulp --

the 1989 memo provides guidance that parks under two acres, already shaded 20% or more should not receive additional shadow. this is to perform evaluation of the significance of new shadow. the project site is located 230 seventh street. the neighborhood is characterized by a variety of commercial, office, residential, hotel and light industrial uses. existing structures are # opinion 3 -- 2-3 story tall. the current site is paid parking garage. this is an image of the north elevation of the proposed project on seventh street. the planning department will tell you about the proposed project, the public benefits and

environmental review. >> planning department staff. the site has approximately 75 feet of frontage on both seventh street and langton street. the subject parcel measures approximately 12,375 square feet, and is currently occupied by a two-story, 213,000 square foot building. the proposed project will demolish the parking structure and allow for new construction of the 65-foot tall, 44,722 square foot mixed use

residential building with 40 dwelling units and 2012 square feet of ground floor commercial space. there will be 20 off-street parking spaces and 40 class one bicycle parking, and 8 class 2 bicycle parking. the project provides approximately 4100 square feet of usable open space for the residents. on september 26, 2017, the planning department reviewed and issued a community plan exemption under ceqa, number 15183. and it is -- has been thoroughly evaluated under the eastern neighborhoods eir plan. further through that environmental review process and historic preservation review, the project has changed

significantly from when we first got it, the planning department. the original proposal had two buildings, one on langton street and one on seventh street and through the review process, the project now is as proposed with one -- and the shadow impact prior were greater than the currently proposed project which is just one building on seventh street with a rear yard setback, while retaining the historic facade of the existing garage building on langton. this item is scheduled for hearing on november 30th by the planning commission. we'll appreciate your recommendations. if you have any questions, i'm available.

>> howard and langton is a community garden on the corner of howard and lajton street. the entire area is 40-plot community garden. access to the park is reserved for community garden members, with the exception of open days and requires a key. rec park staff reports 80 people hold keys to the park. park includes pathways, seating areas, tool shed and chicken coop. new shadow will occur in the morning between 6:47 and 8:55, february through october. new shadows will be present for 130 minutes throughout the year, with average daily duration of 78 minutes. the size of the shadow ranges covers a maximum of 40% of the park area.

depending on the time of year, the new shadow will shade different parts of the park. it will reach half of the garden plots. the northern and eastern portions of the park will be shading during the fall. all new shadow will leave the park by 9:00 a.m. the proposed project will increase the shadow load by 1.53% to a total of 50.38%. here's an image of the maximum day of shading occurring on august 16. the size of the shadow on this day at 8 a.m. is 4042 square feet. the shadow study analyzed new shadows casts by other projects in the foreseeable future.

cumulative shadow analysis for the projects determined they will add an additional .09% of total available sunlight to a total of 1.62%. this image shows the proposed project shadow in purple and cumulative shadows in orange. overlapping shadows in are brown. -- are in brown. i'll skip the shadow animation. howard and langton is 23-acre community garden. existing shadow load is 48.86%. the proposed project will increase shadow load by 1.53%, to a total of 50.38%. all new shadow will leave the park by 9:00 a.m. this concludes my presentation on the 230 seventh street.

we are available for questions. thank you. >> secretary: we have public comment. just as reminder, the item in front of the commission on the shadow impact of the project. so i have one card and that's j.c. wallace. >> good afternoon, commissioners, thank you. so i wanted to give a -- can we show the slides -- i wanted to give highlights not mentioned in the staff report. thank you very much to both of you for your work on this. my name is juan carlos and we're the project sponsor. as you've seen, the site plan, the location of the project, the

howard langton community garden. a couple of highlights as mentioned, it's a six story building fronting seventh street. we significantly redesigned the project over the last three years, planning, park and rec to push the project toward seventh street, reducing the shadow significantly on the park. it is 40 residential units. this reduced from 44 to 40. we reduced the number of parking stalls from 29 to 20. from the park's perspective, the reduction was 22% in the shadow impact. and the latest shadow, is now before 9:00 a.m., where it was close to 9:40 a.m. with the previous massing of the project. this is a graphic showing the change with the illumination of the four story langton building and pushing back the project toward seventh street. this is a rendering of the new

pedestrian and cyclist on langton street where we're preserving the historic facade. it will be lit at night. and most importantly, it's significantly improving safety and cleanliness and eyes and ears on the streets. we've had many meets with the community, the garden who is supportive and endorsed the project, as you've seen in the letter in the packet. i wanted to highlight, the community garden has endorsed the project, we met with them over half a dozen times. we have committed to making -- park and rec, but to the community garden through the fiscal sponsor. and a couple of last points, they -- i think some people will speak today, have expressed how safety and cleanliness on the spreet is a big concern.

we think the project will improve the experience for the garden and the neighborhood by having more eyes and ears, cyclists activity on the street. >> president buell: i think you used up your minutes. >> is there anyone else -- come on up? thank you. good morning, commissioner, general manager. thank you for the opportunity to speak today. my name is brian licken heisser and i'm representing the committee to address shadow issues with the 230 seventh street building project. we've met a number of times with representatives of the building project and with the redesign with the taller portion of the building moved off of langton onto 7th addresses concerns of shadow during the early hours

during a portion of the year for the langton community garden members. additional foot traffic and lighting will help make this alley street safer for garden members and the community. thank you for working with us to consider issues that effect the community gardens and our growing vibrant city. >> president buell: thank you. >> secretary: anyone else who would like to speak? >> hello, my name is alex, i'm a resident on langton street. i'm here to support the new building put in. i've lived on langton street seven years and was a member of the community garden, not a current member. i think the plans now address the issue with the shadow, but i'm also very concerned about the safety and the cleanliness of the street. right now the community garden is a nexus for drug use, drug sales, people passed out all day

long and the city is not addressing cleaning up the needles, feces, all over the street. i think a new development that comes onto langton street will bring more eyes and ears, hopefully, have people report and have this area cleaned up, because really it's a blight on the community and not a great place. thank you. >> president buell: thank you. >> anyone else who would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> president buell: commissioner low. >> vice commissioner low: what is the amount of the financial contribution? what are the funds goc used for?

>> it's for the discretion of the community garden. we engaged whether we would do a project for them, and the conversations with the subcommittee that was formed was really that they should decide what it's used for. they control the funds, there is precedent for this. the trinity projects have made a contribution, i believe, a few years back, related to their shadow on the garden and it was done to the parks and rec. and the park alliance as well. >> this is a question for the general manager. is there a way to assure that the funds are used for the community garden? through parks alliance? >> >> president buell: i think -- >> the funds i might have missed that, they're not being donated. >> commissioner low: how do we assure that the funds are actually going into the community garden? >> often times donations are used for restricted purposes.

so the donations should be for the purpose of supporting the community garden on langston. >> commissioner low: you'll do that? >> president buell: can we make it part of the approval? >> i'm not sure i'd advise that. >> do we have a representative of the i attorney office here? -- city attorney office here? >> just to be clear, we've signed agreement with the committee of the garden people, including their treasurer, saying we would make this parks alliance on behalf of them. we're happy to provide, i -- i provided that to staff -- i legal mechanism. my understanding there is precedent. i'm not an attorney, but we have an agreement that both parties signed saying we would make this contribution through the alliance on the behalf of the community garden for their use. >> let me clarify a little bit. when these issues are before

you, we don't -- the support to the community garden group is something that happens outside the purview of your shadow nalcortice. >> i understand that. i just want to make sure the money is going into the garden. >> shah so that would be -- so that would be left to the developer, the parks alliance and community garden folks to reach an agreement on what the uses are for. and then within the community garden, there are capital uses, the only thing i would add, should there be physical change to the structure, capital type project, then like we would with all of the partnership projects, we would get involved. but if it's for programming or staff, or events or whatever, that is between the parks alliance, the community garden

members and the developer how that is defined. >> commissioner low: this letter came before the capital committee and my struggle with this one is that whether it's a shadow on a park that is less than two acres, that already had 47% shadow load, the 1989 memo tells us there should be no additional shadow. that's usually where i stop my analysis and would probably say that no shadow -- no further shadow should be allowed on this community garden. however, the nature of this park is really a community garden that is closed to 80 members. you can only get in there with a key that opens the lock. i tried to walk by there. i couldn't get in, because it's a closed garden. if by that nature, if the community garden folks don't mind the shadow, you know, can

we get into that qualitative analysis under the 1989 memo? under a normal park that is open to the public? don't worry -- you don't have to -- you know, if this park was open to the public, i would say no. but given the nature of the park, and i presume the chickens and chicken coop support the additional shadow, then i would allow this to move forward and make a determination that the additional shadow cast on the community garden will not have a significant impact. >> is that a motion? >> thank you, commissioner, is that a motion? >> second. >> president buell: seeing no other comments, all those in favor? so moved. thank you.

>> we're now on item 9, golden gate park conservatory of flowers. good afternoon, dane ketcham to place a temporary art installation of lighting from december 7 to june 1 on the conservatory of flowers. as many of you know, we had an incredible successful lighting of the conservatory of flowers with the summer of love theme, that you approved, it was an awesome opening event. it was incredibly popular with many people coming each night to enjoy the show. since the installation, daytime

visits are up 40% and membership increased 20%. the conservatory has been working again with obscure to develop a new theme based again on love and the seasons and flowers. i have -- overhead thank you. that gives you -- it's no not a great vision, but it gives you a bit of a glimpse of what we're proposing. the lighting will open on the same day as our tree lighting. and will end by june 1st. i'm seeking your approval on that. >> we do have public comment on this. katy? >> i'm back. so, we're here to speak in

support of this amazing art installation, hard to say no to something so beautiful. as a partner of the conservatory of flowers, we're excited for the sum -- winter version, i guess of the summer of love. and it was such a huge success, i don't know if you were able to make it, but as dana mentioned, the conservatory has benefitted from the installation itself, in terms of membership and attendance, bringing people to the park in the evening for a nice fun activity. we support this and hope to see you on december 7th. >> president buell: thank you very much. is that it? >> is there anyone else who wants to make public comment? public comment is closed. >> commissioner mcdonnell: general manager. >> i wanted to follow u o