-- i will weigh that into the calculus. it is a case that the project existed first. it will be a beautiful park. and they come with their own amounts of open space for the public and with this commitment to cultural achievement with valet and other things like that, i'm personally in favor of this project going forward and i will say that the impact is insignificant. >> moving to the 1989 memo, though, just to go back to the thought process of the capital committee, when you apply the quantitative criteria, it fails

that, correct? >> correct. >> because it's less than 2 acres with an existing shadow load of over 20%, so any additional new shadow is not recommended. so the quantitative analysis, it fails. i think on the qualatative analysis, i do think 86 duration of additional new shadow is significant, if there was a park there. so when we look at the qualatative criteria, if you fail the quantitative criteria, do you move to the qualatative? you do have to look at what is existing. sure, we could look at what's being planned, but there's no

plans in existence. so with the additional findings, even with the 86-day duration, while it might be significant, i do think that the qualatative criteria, we would have it move the project along. before we go to additional commissioner comments, i do have some changes to the resolution that was included in the board package. following that thought process that the 86-day duration is a significant impact, which i deleted from the resolution and follow the analysis, while it fails the quantitative criteria, it seas the qualitative criteria and to recommend that to the

planning commission, which before that is a motion, which i cannot make as chair. i want to recognize mrmr. mcdo mr. mcdonnell. >> commissioner mcdonnell: maybe this came up, but while considering other options, i understand the reduction of 114 or so units makes it financially infeasible, it seems very all or none. were there other options explored? >> normally in our staff report, we only look at the project that's presented to us with the shade that that project will cast. and then we request a -- the all-or-nothing version for comparison. >> commissioner mcdonnell: does that mean that other options were not explored? >> no. >> did we lose our planner? there we go. i don't think -- and for -- in terms of the shadow analysis, we don't -- it's not like ceqa where we look at preferred and

alternative designs. for purpose of shadow analysis, we look at the project as proposed, correct? >> correct. the shade below, this is the maximum envelope that would allow for no shading. in this area to the left. there were other projects explored, particularly for preservation alternatives, but for the shadow, it's basically the project that is proposed and then a project that -- a theoretical project that would cast no new shadow and those are the two represented here.

>> president buell: and this is to make the project financially feasible for it to be built, correct, or that was the testimony? >> correct. >> president buell: commissioner anderson? >> commissioner anderson: i wonder if one could rationalize for themselves, there is no park there, so prop k is not in effect. there's a building there, right? >> president buell: well, it's still property within the jurisdiction of recreation and park. >> commissioner anderson: i was reading that language, but the concern is about shadows on our open spaces. it's not an open space and it's not a park, so i would rationalize for itself that prop k at this moment does not apply. >> president buell: prop k applies, but that's the struggle that the capital committee was faced with, that it failed the quantitative test, but the

qualiatave -- well, there's discussions of building a park, but no current plans before this commission on plans for a new park. it's a different case if there was actually a concept plan approved and it was in process. in this case, where it's property within the jurisdiction of the recreation and park commission and department, prop k does apply and we just have to go through this analysis. >> commissioner anderson: i appreciate the difficulty the capital committee had on this. to me, it's a no-brainer. thanks. [laughter] >> president buell: we should have you on the capital committee then. [laughte [laughter] >> commissioner bonilla: i'm sure that this discussion took place at the capital committee and they did recommend to the full commission to approve this

project. is that not true? >> that is true. with the corrections that were made by brian contains in the shadow report and changes to the resolution. >> commissioner mcdonnell: forgive me for belaboring the point. i'm fine with supporting this coming out of capital committee, but my own footnote that i will probably say every time a shadow issue comes up two things. one, somehow we need to revisit this code and how it is defined and because it creates questionable and ambiguous context for making these considerations and i don't like being in that position. that's all. >> president buell: understood. and perhaps that's a legislative matter that we can -- that we have no control over.

general manager ginsburg? >> just to speak to commissioner mcdonnell's point. i agree with you, these are hard ones. and i think over time this commission has done some good work and good thinking on what the role is. as a matter, you are not, asked to decide if a project goes forward or not. you are being asked point blank at the time that you review it if shadow has an adverse impact using the quantitative and qualitative impact. it's the responsibility of the planning commission to do the policy tradeoffs with respect to the mission and purpose of the

project. >> president buell: that is correct. our role is to make the -- to correct the general manager to make the recommendations to the planning commission. mr. perry's commission may follow that recommendation or overrule it. and we'll take into account different things such as a home for the city ballet, other public amenities, which we cannot consider in our deliberations. >> if i may, almost. i don't think you're asking us to make a recommendation about whether the project goes forward. >> president buell: no. only on shadow. >> on whether we think that -- to say that the commission found, you know -- depending upon the commission's finding on a particular project to write the planning director and say that the shadow would or would not have a potential adverse

impact on the project. the commission, i don't think, makes any determination on the project. >> president buell: correct. it's only on shadow and it's only a recommendation from the commission -- recreation and park commission to the planning commission on whether the shadow created verse -- create adverse impact. the other benefits and need for housing and more policy tradeoffs, the more planning is for the colleagues on the planning commission. commissioner anderson? >> commissioner anderson: yeah, and i'm -- i may not be fully understanding this, but also in reading -- it's planning code 295 that we're talking about. i think everybody knows this, but it also looks like we sort of give our thoughts to the general manager and he brings comments to the planning commission. so technically, general manager ginsburg can do what he thinks

is best. >> president buell: but he's been well trained to follow the commission. [laughter] >> yes, i have. >> president buell: thank you, general manager. commissioner mcdonnell. >> commissioner mcdonnell: since you continued, i have to weigh in now. so if, in fact, the narrow role that we are to play in these instances is the consideration of the adverse or not impact of shadows, and we're not to take into consideration public benefits, the goodness of the projects, etc., why in every hearing do we hear 90% of the benefits of the project? the numbers speak for themselves. these should be 2-minute items. we have the numbers. we can make a determination whether they're adverse or not, whether or not there's 1,000, 10,000 feet of open space, if there's a ballet program. if we're not to consider them,

why do we hear them? >> president buell: perhaps at another commission meeting, you could walk us through the 1989 memo, but because in the 1989 memo, there's a quantitative cite ear yes and qualitative criteria. one of the elements of that is the public goodbye the -- good by the shadow-caster. that's why there's a discussion of the public benefits that are created by the project. i will note that providing the ballet school, the new public space, that goes into the good, the public good, created by the shad shadow-caster. payment of fees, something you are required to do and should not be considered as the public good created by the shadow-caster, but certainly a

home for city ballet and the additional public open space would also be considered. it's part of the deliberations and that's why you hear it. >> i would like to move this to vote. >> clerk: do you want to include the amendment? >> president buell: the amendment was to reflect -- the additional new shadow made by the project would fail the quantitative criteria, but would otherwise satisfy the qualitative criteria and authorize the g.m. to write a letter of recommendation to the planning commission indicating that our determination is that

the additional new shadow created by the project will not create a significant adverse impact. >> second. >> president buell: all in favor? any opposed? so moved. >> clerk: we're now on item 8, open space fund contingency reserve, golden gate park golf course. >> good morning, commissioners. dana ketcham, director property management. i'm here to present an item that was to authorize allocation of $200,000 from the open space fund undesignated funds for the repair -- to the repair of the golden gate park golf course clubhouse, including funding a building, toilets, security, and design services for replacement building. as i think you all know, sadly, on july 2, the golden gate park

clubhouse burned to the ground. we have instituted a three-step process for replacing it. step one was, get it reopened. and within 10 days, we brought in a small trailer, teeny, and got the course back open and running and it's been running since that time. but the space in that trailer is significantly less. the original clubhouse is 1,400 square feet. currently, that's 224 square feet. so we've been looking to find -- step one, get it open, little, teeny trailer. stage two, get a bigger trailer that ideally might have a bathroom in it. right now, there is nothing but portable toilets. more space to sell merchandise and offer merchandise to the public, offer food. so a bigger trailer space, while we go through the process of design and build of a new

replacement clubhouse, which we anticipate will take at least two years. so this particular funding is funding for what we call step two, the two-year, interim period of time. and that funding includes a larger office complex rental unit, a storage container, additional -- we still need some portable toilets. building out -- all the security cameras were burned in the fire. we need to replace those. the patio was destroyed by the trucks and vehicles coming in. so we need to do some work on that. we're looking to do something so they can continue to provide food. there is currently little over $1 million in the open space undesignated fund and we're asking for that funding. as for step three and the cost to do that, we will be coming back to the commission for that

as we develop it. we're looking to use some reserve refinancing money from lease revenue bonds that are being refinanced. we've worked with the mayor's office to identify that as a source of money to help us replace it, because the city is self-insured, meaning there is no insurance to replace it. so we needed to find a source to get it become. and we'll be coming to the commission with more details on that shortly. right now, we'd like to get them a better facility to operate out of. it's the first tee at golden gate. they have their own structure, but they use these facilities as well. we recommend approval. >> clerk: is there any public comment on this item? being none, public comment is closed. >> president buell: commissioner anderson?

>> commissioner anderson: i noticed in the memo that 32,000 rounds of golf were played at this course in 2017. is that good? >> that is great. our current tenant is wonderful. it's the first tee affiliate. and they've didn't an amazing job of making the golf course not just a place to play golf, but a little bit of a community center. they have a smoker. it's the only thing that survived the fire, except the wheels melted. that they're trying to get it back up and going, but without any running what water, it's a little bit hard. we were heartened. the numbers for august came in. and they were at 90% of what they were even with this teeny, little clubhouse in terms of rounds of golf. it's part of the community. the community loves it. we'd like to make it, especially when the weather gets more inclement. we'd like to make a better facility for them in this interim time. we do have someone in capital,

would has been assigned and we're working on design plans to get it up and going as fast as we can. when you rebuild anything, it has to be a.d.a.-accessible and everything needs to be up to code. so it's -- there's challenges, as always. >> commissioner anderson: how much is a round there? i'm wondering what the revenue is. >> oh, gosh. our revenue to us is -- i was just looking at it. it's around $300,000. >> that doesn't necessarily translate to dollars per round, because we have a tenant. and so we get a percentage of rent. >> that's the revenue to us. >> president buell: i highly recommend that course to you, commissioner anderson. for sure on that course, you will break 100. >> commissioner anderson: i'll take you on. [laughter] >> president buell: sorry. would like to entertain a motion. >> so moved. >> second.

>> president buell: all in favor? any opposed? motion carries. >> clerk: item 9, margaret hayward playground renovation, award of contract. >> good morning, commissioners. dan mauer with the capital commission. i'm stepping in for my colleague marien coss, who has been working on this for a long time, probably four years or so. i'm sad she's not here. there are milestones in a project manager's lifer and -- life and a construction project is one of them. the item before you today, which was presented at the capital committee as a discussion item only, because we didn't have at that time a general contract or recommendation or a budget or a contract amount to announce at that point. we do at this point. and so we'll bring it to the

full commission item, where we're asking that the commission award a construction contract to robert a.bothman not to exceed $19,329,000, for the margaret hayward playground renovation project. it's 3247v. so i just went through a long, exhaustive process. and during the bid phase of this, we received six competitive bids during that process. and those ranged in price from about $19 million to about $23 plus million, in that range. once we received those bids, we received several protests on the low bid contractor. and there was specifically about seven specific claims that were issued against the low bid contractor at that time. the information that margaret

passed out to you previously in the meeting here is an exhaustive letter that was generated by the city attorney's office. sorry about that. it's an 8-page document, which moves through all of the claims that were issued by other contractors during that process. i'm happy to walk through it if that's helpful, but the summary is that the city attorney's office and contract monitoring division of the city reviewed those claims and determined that they were not valid and recommended that the commission move forward with award of contract to robert a. bothman. in your packages as well, as margaret handed out, and i know it's been a request is a more detailed breakdown of the six bidders that submitted their

bids, their bid discount in this particular instance. normally we have a 10% local business preference when the project is over $10 million, it goes down to 2%. that's why you see that figure in there. at the bottom of that sheet, is an exhaustive list of the sub tier contractors that will work with robert a. bothman on the project. >> clerk: are you recommending approval? >> yes. yes, i do. staff recommends that this be approved to robert a. bothman in the amount not to exceed $19,329,000. and a little on schedule today, the goal is to start construction in the fall to early winter this year and the

construction duration to be 15 months. hopefully be up and running and have a ribbon cutting in the spring of 2020. >> clerk: is there any public comment on this item? being none, public comment is closed. >> president buell: commissioner anderson? >> commissioner anderson: general manager, i have two questions on this. does rec and park have previous experience with this contractor? >> yes, significant amount of experience. >> commissioner anderson: satisfactory? >> very. >> commissioner anderson: in a project of this side, what can we expect with change orders. >> no such thing. [laughter] >> commissioner anderson: in my own, limited experience with these sorts of things, it's never the final price. this is the first price. >> it's a big project. we do the best we can during the contract development and coming

up with specifications and cost estimating and preengineering in our design process. when you dig, you find stuff and you just don't know and sometimes you need to come up with and so, while it's -- the idea of a change order has a negative connotation and doesn't necessarily need to. we do plan for the unexpected through project contingencies and program contingencies. so i would be very surprised if there wasn't something unexpected. we hope to keep it minimum. we have had a history of pretty good communication with this contractor, who has worked on large projects and large, complex projects with us. and including, i believe, civic center playground. so we're quite optimistic about the working relationship, but until you start digging, you don't know what you will find.

>> president buell: i was waiting for mr. mauer's scientific response on how to avoid change orders. [laughter] no comment? >> partnerships. >> president buell: what is the contingency in this budget? >> 10%, a little under $2 million. >> president buell: so it's a healthy contingency. >> it's standard, regardless of size. but, yeah, 10% is for a project of disturb's park project. it's a new building and athletic fields and it's not like it's a unique structure that would require a higher contingency. until you put the shovel in the ground, our park system has a lot of history that's buried. and hopefully we don't find anything under the soil there, but there's always some hidden gems out there that we find. >> president buell: and that's part of the mitigation against

the unknown. >> commissioner anderson: some of the complaints came from other organizations that were bidding and i also notice there were no discounts, no l.b.e.s or whatever. i just wanted it let the public know that it's a good, reputable contractor. we have a good, satisfactory record with them. >> we do, but i think that the contractor -- i know they're aware of this, but the expectation, and while we deal with the unexpected, the expectation is that we need the specifications put into the bid and we do finish the project on time and on budget. >> president buell: and the lessons we learned from the 2008 bond, we're doing a little bit more site preparation, investigation, and, still, 90 matter how much preconstruction investigation you do, you will

run into change orders. >> and to remind everybody, that this site is unique because of its proximity to the department of emergency management and other structures that are literally on park property. so we'll need to be coordinating with d.e.m. and, you know, it's straightforward in some respects, but it's a significant construction project. >> commissioner mcdonnell: on that note, some have heard me talk about this before, but margaret hayward park was the first park of san francisco's parks that i was exposed to as a 3- ,,4-,5-year-old, across the street at laguna. to come full circle and see the

beautiful design, accommodating for department of emergency management and what i think will be a beautiful space for our children, our families, and the community, i think it's fantastic. so if there are not other comments, i would love to move approval. >> second. >> president buell: moved and seconded. commissioner mcdonnell may be part of that buried history. all in favor? any opposed? motion carries. thank you. >> clerk: we are now on item 10, recreation and park department equity analysis and metrics for fiscal year 2018.

>> good morning, commissioners. tailor emerson. it's my pleasure to be he for the third time to discuss the equity analysis and associated metrics and this year so much more. i always like to start with our charter and the language and direction that allows us to set metrics to establish a baseline of existing recreational and

park services compared to those available to the city as a whole. as you recall, we're using the cal open data source that has incredibly rich data about every census track in the state of california. we isolated just san francisco tracks and taken this data from the source. there are 10 characteristics that combine to define disadvantaged. you can see them here, some health characteristics, age, there is now since fy '17, a factor for nonwhite population and then linguistics, poverty, and new information that was added, the housing burden monthly income that goes to housing. when we take the factors and

accumulate them by census track in san francisco, the two darkest purple colors on this map, the 20% most disadvantaged census tracks are reel named equity zones by us and overlaid with a map of our parks here. in combination calls equity zone. it's the same on the map that we had in fy '17 and '19 and think it will be the same in the coming year as cal e.p.a. has not indicated that they're updating their data. here's the metrics. let me highlight a few. we have two new parks in our equity zones. two openings, two additional

properties. of the -- looking down at the categories, maintenance is an interesting one to point out. repair and requests completed. this is of all the work order requests that come in. how many of them were completed looking at equity zone parks compared to others. and we actually beat our citywide average this year and there is a lot of intention and effort and focus on that. we've used the phrase, elevating equity. we're not dismissing other criteria, of course. health and safety and we're guardians and stewards of all properties across the city, but we're elevating an equity consideration. capital investment, just below that, continues to grow. this is a three-year average.

and a good chunk of that are the development fees that go into neighborhood funds and we're able to access and support park projects to serve the new residents being brought in by new housing. recreation and park volunteers, our volunteer division continues to build stewards and support our system, year over year, breaking their own records. they added 10% of new, additional hours, going from 201,000 volunteer hours to 221,000 hours. last year, about 22% of that was allocated in our equity zones. and this year, 32%. so more hours and more surveying our disadvantaged residents. hours of recreation, we continue to push and develop more and

more courses and staffing and service there. so there is more being offered across the city and it's higher than the prior year. we have three years of data now. here's a list of the highlights that went the right way for us. there is so much more than equity metrics. we're doing a lot of work inside our organization. heard yesterday and today, the mayor talking about equitable workplaces and we have certainly been pursuing broader education of our staff with training and -- training on implicit bias and sexual harassment, gender. and we have made progress on developed establishing an

internal community, task force. it's called d.i.c.e., diversity and inclusion committee on equity. these are 25 people across the organization that are -- have volunteered to serve this issue, although they're on paid time, of course, and to help educate not only themselves, but our whole work force in a number of ways. one is established a bi-monthly equity workshop series. we call them workshops. it's thinking, working, interactive, and there's an active level there. we're also having what we call a policy pit stop this year, where we're looking at issues internally as part of our ration equity action plan that will be -- that will be publishing this

year and it is kind of a phase 1 and 2 and 3 in out years implementing the recommendations we find. oh, yeah, this is the training we've been doing. this is a national expert named mickey fern. about 100 of us got to be just really rocked by all the things that he shared with us and helped us see in ourselves and in our own world and the world around us that we serve. we also are doing some very targeted focus of trying to increase outreach in public housing for our scholarship program. here's an example of that. sunny dale went from 6 kids enrolled in fy '15 to 41 this year. and we're happy to have that

additional access for them. we're doing some more outward-facing implementation of our equity work. we have this partnership with the san francisco unified school district and startup called up-metrics and working to document improvements made in the after school program with support as well. we are elevating equity in our outreach and volunteers, as i mentioned. in our citywide, deferred maintenance pots, which is a long way of saying pots of money for erosion, lighting, court resurfaci resurfacing, and to have equity be a preference in the spending of those. so looking at it in the bond development. three of the top five sites are

in equity zones and we achieved this objective this year to develop an external engagement process by doing a person-on-the-street survey. i wanted to call it man on the street, but it was a woman. we got 745 responses from residents of equity zones. so this is amplifying the community voice. this is one-on-one, face to face, information-gathering about their parks, feelings about their parks, usage of their parks. and there were three powerful lessons for us. one we knew but to have it documented, it's hyper-local. if you live by a park, that's your park and it's your relationship with our department. public safety, the city's

challenge mirror park challenges. 70% of respondents said lack of park safety discourages their use of parks. what can we do about that? just really knowing that helped us ask and answer that question. the other one, relatively small updates can go a long way. because parks are hyperlocal, you go to the same park frequently. you notice when things have been painted or there's a seasonal planting. and these things make you feel like you count and that the department cares about your park experience there. so we're really taking this information, which was anecdotal before and now is documented and applying it to our future operations. real quick, it's not just us. equity is a conversation across the city. many departments are participating in the government

alliance and racial equity, which teaches us about an ecosystem, a systemic inequity, and how to recognize and root it out. the controller has done a big review of department and programs. the director's working group, which is the biggest departments in the city has committed to a value that it's shared in our work. the human rights commission is leading the way. department of human resources has approved a policy to deidentify applicant information. so names and the name of the college you went to will be removed starting october 1 in the resumes that we get. talking about ebbingite as an overarching goal. so this is citywide. and, of course, it's nationwide,

which is what our country is working on now. there's projects that take an equity look. it bridges two sides of the community and has an equitable plan. new york city has a framework for equitable parks. and city of seattle has an initiative, citywide and a department as well. we'll continue to elevate equity in our thinking, actions, work, planni planning. the city auditor will visit us for 400 hours to work with us. we have bi-monthly workshops and do our racial equity action plan. as part of that, really quick, we're assessing our current work force with a diversity project and here's just an example of how we're going to start looking at data to work toward our goals

of more fair and inclusive work force. this compares rec park employees in the green to the labor market as a whole. so, for example, the first one, the labor market -- we have 38% employees identified as white and the market itself is 48%. so this is a good just baseline assessment of where we are. and helps us frame future work. we're also going to continue to expand our offerings and workshops to support employees that want it do more and learn more and be more for hiring and promotive opportunities. with that, i've concluded my presentation and i'm here to answer questions. >> clerk: any public comment on this item? come on up.

>> i'm speaking as a park user, matthew bline. i want to comment on something in the presentation that struck me, small changes to parks matter. you will see, and you all well know this, and the didn't is doing a great job of doing this, nicer parks have constant operational maintenance. and the parks in the not-so-nice part of the city, not so much. so i encourage this to keep changing it and small things matter to local people. thank you. >> clerk: anyone else that would like to make public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> president buell: this was discussion only? >> clerk: no. it's a vote. >> president buell: general manager ginsburg? >> i just want to make a couple

of -- okay. so i just wanted to comment on a couple things. one, i'm very proud of our work. we've been really focused on this quite a bit. and taylor has done an amazing job of working on our data component. this is an issue, a policy issue, which is really sort of, you know, focused throughout our organization and particularly the internal equity work, where we've had a lot of support and enthusiasm and good, honest conversations about what we can be doing better. to that end -- >> and gender. >> the second thing i'm particularly pleased about, web we started this work, we did not use race as a vulnerable population. we should be. we should be talking about it, so i'm glad we made that change.

and this current round of data reflects that housing burden is definitely a challenge and that is a problem that affects people in many cities, but particularly ours. and then the lessons learned from -- and from speaking to the public, where we started with data and then we went -- we were doing internal work and now we're starting to have more external conversations. stake holders that we interviewed were not just in parks, but people not in parks. some of the questions we asked and place wes went, we didn't just talk to people in parks. we went to churches and libraries and community centers. we said, if you are not using a park, why? what are the barriers for you? and all of this has, you know, led to a lot of our strategic planning as an organization and executive staff planning.

we had our staff retreat on monday and spent a lot of time talking about this issue and talking about -- you know, that third finding, that parks are hyperlocal and small stuff matters, we're taking that very seriously. >> president buell: commissioner mcdonnell? >> commissioner mcdonnell: wanted to echo much of what the general manager just shared. in this space, it's challenging, period, and therefore, the commitment that g.m. and the team has demonstrated is commendable and i appreciate that. also wanted -- i'm certain there were also many internal champions that were continuing to help lift this heavy and important work and certainly one in the room, taylor, thank you for doing that. >> we have a big team. >> commissioner mcdonnell: yes, i'm certain there's a team.

and, lastly, the opportunity for what is being shaped inside here becomes a model for other departments. and i think that's really exciting. thank you. >> president buell: commissioner bonilla? >> commissioner bonilla: i wanted to say that -- i think what the department has been doing in terms of when they bring projects forward for commission approval, that they all -- that the department has a practice of putting front and center before us prior to making our decision what impact the -- what goal we are attempting to achieve in terms of meeting our

equity, in terms of working with our equity plan. and the impacts that it will have on the community in terms of furthering our goal of achieving a successful plan. and i think it's always very helpful to me when i see it in the staff write-ups, that the project being proposed will accomplish a, b and c, in terms of achieving our equity goals. and i think -- for myself, i think i want to continue to encourage the department to frame the discussion of meeting the -- you know, achieving our goals when bringing forth a project for our consideration. thank you. >> president buell: commissioner anderson? >> commissioner anderson: i was looking at the equity metrics

with the fiscal 2018 data. i was struck by at the bottom, the 18 and under percentage of youth in the equity zone was 24% versus 76% in nonequity zone and that dove tails with what general manager was saying about looking at reaching people on the street and what not. so i would be curious to know, what were some of the ideas that you discussed? obviously, the 711 children in the equity zones, they have smaller park acreage to go to. i get that. but i can imagine there are a lot of kids who haven't visited with us. >> let me try to tackle that one. this is probably worth a separate informational item on

our work connecting children to nature. we're one of seven cities in the country leading the effort to make sure every child has that opportunity for that experience. it's cross-sectional with board of education departure mendoza, and we need to find a replacement for her, but in partnership with ymca and presidio. there is so much thought about this national ly. and i think san francisco is doing this pretty well. lots of room for improvement. don't forget, when you see that 24%, only 20% of our population are in ebbing wquity zones. we're exceeding the baseline a little bit. there's more work to do. it's not necessarily in park acreage. we have a lot of acreage in the

southeast between mclaren park and some of our larger facilities in the southeast. tenderloin, not so much. but there are all kinds of barriers. transportation is a big barrier. general level of comfort. so some of the things that we've been working on, whether it's more natural materials in education centers that don't have access to nature. some of our pop-up, nature-based playgrounds to, farm camp, to teen outdoor experience for older kids at camp mather. we're working really hard to make sure that every child has the opportunity to experience nature every day and there's a lot of data now that, more so

than just fill activity, which is important as an anecdote to type ii diabetes, but also a remedy to trauma. so we'll continue to drive that one. >> president buell: i wanted to add that this is a great tool that is still developing. as your last slide did show, beginning of the race, right? seeing no further comment, would entertain a motion. >> so moved. >> second? >> i thought it was information. >> i will second. >> i missed that. >> president buell: all in favor? any opposed? motion carries. >> clerk: okay. item 11, off calendar. item 12, general public comment continued from item 4.

come on up. >> matthew blane, speaking hopefully not out of order, but hearing about approval when something is donating millions of dollars, i have never heard the discussion of the impact fees. some of them have done a good job of the project in well-off parts of the city and it would be amazing if future projects would consider a large donation to this park and something else to improve equity throughout the city. thank you. >> clerk: is there anyone else that would like to make general public comment? seeing none, this item is closed. item 13, commissioners' matters. commissioners? public comment? this item is closed. item 14, new business agenda-setting.

commissioners? public comment? seeing none, this item is closed. 15, communications. public comment? seeing none, this item is closed. and item 16 is adjournment. >> second. >> president buell: all in favor. so moved. thank you. women's network for sustainable future . >> san francisco streets and puffs make up 25 percent of cities e city's land area more than all the parks combined

they're far two wide and have large flight area the pavement to parks is to test the variants by ininexpensive changing did new open spaces the city made up of streets in you think about the potential of having this space for a purpose it is demands for the best for bikes and families to gather. >> through a collaborative effort with the department we the public works and the municipal transportation agency pavement to parks is bringing initiative ideas to our streets. >> so the face of the street is the core of our program we have in the public right-of-way meaning streets that can have areas perpetrated for something else. >> i'm here with john francis

pavement to parks manager and this parklet on van ness street first of all, what is a parklet and part of pavement to parks program basically an expense of the walk in a public realm for people to hang anti nor a urban acceptable space for people to use. >> parklets sponsors have to apply to be considered for the program but they come to us you know saying we want to do this and create a new space on our street it is a community driven program. >> the program goes beyond just parklets vacant lots and other spaces are converted we're here at playland on 43 this is place is cool with loots things to do and plenty of space to play so we came up with that idea to

revitalizations this underutilized yard by going to the community and what they said want to see here we saw that everybody wants to see everything to we want this to be a space for everyone. >> yeah. >> we partnered with the pavement to parks program and so we had the contract for building 236 blot community garden it start with a lot of jacuzzi hammers and bulldozer and now the point we're planting trees and flowers we have basketball courts there is so much to do here. >> there's a very full program that they simply joy that and meet the community and friends and about be about the lighter

side of city people are more engaged not just the customers. >> with the help of community pavement to parks is reimagining the potential of our student streets if you want more information visit them as the pavement to parks or contact pavement to parks at sfgovtv.org

>> good morning and welcome to the agency on aging. please call the roll. [roll call] we ask that you please silence all electronics and sound-producing devices. >> thank you. before asking for approval of the agenda, there is a modification, no closed session today. so with that change, a motion to approve the agenda. >> so moved. >> all in favor? items carries. item three, approval of the august 18th meeting minutes. do i have a motion to approve? >> so moved. >> second. >> any comments or questions from the public? hearing none, call the question, all in favor?