i am a fourth generation san franciscan who is the proud descendant of chinese immigrants. i am here to support the renaming of julius kahn playground. i've done some research on -- in looking at julius kahn's history, and i noted that jewish historians saw that he had a particular animus against asians. and, in fact, there were jewish representatives on the east coast that looked at the west coast legislators and saw -- and were horrified, actually, by the comments that he was making on the record and feared that there would be similar animus against the jewish community and other immigrants. indeed, that did happen. on a personal note, i grew up in san francisco, born and raised, and grew up playing in julius kahn playground. my high school graduation was in

julius kahn playground. and i was disappointed and angered and, frankly, ashamed to learn that this playground honoured a man who was so hateful, so discriminatory and exclusionary and if it was left up to him, he wouldn't have wanted me playing in that playground and wouldn't have wanted my family here. i implore you to follow suit with the board of supervisors and san francisco community and rename the playground. i don't personal have any opinions about what the name is, just not named after somebody who represented such racism and hate. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> clerk: is there any other public comment? >> commissioner anderson. >> thank you, vice president. i really want to thank everybody for coming out here. i, of course, will support the

removal of the name of julius kahn and the young lady who just spoke used a good wore, "horrified." when i found out about the history of julius kahn, i felt that sentiment as well. i've been a district 2 resident for over 25 years. that playground was on the rota for my children and i. we called it j.k. park. so i'm glad we didn't use that name. i don't want to slow down the process. i just want to put a thought balloon out there. presidio wall. regardless of your politics, there's been a lot of talk about walls out of the administration. this park is on federal land. i'm having sort of a a hard time choosing a name that has wall in it because of donald trump and his symbology around walls.

it is a lovely wall. it is an old wall. my favourite part of the wall is the fact there is a space in it with a bollard so you can get through without having to crawl over and hurting yourself. i'm sort of about removing barriers. so if it wouldn't slow down the process, and i will not be offended if you don't take my advice or suggestion, i kind of like the idea of presidio west playground. i just wanted to put that out there. >> thank you. so i just want to speak to something i heard earlier that kind of bothered me and just kind of get it out there. when they're talking about the board of supervisors resolution to this board, it said that the board of supervisors was directing rec and park commission to do this. i want to make it perfectly

clear that the board of supervisors are not directing me or anybody else up here to do anythi anything. they can recommend, and that's what they're doing. secondly, truthfully, on the whole i'm not for renaming things as a whole. when i read the naming policy, it says the only way you can rename something is in extraordinary circumstances. to me, this fits into that bill and it is an extraordinary circumstance. so i will be voting to rename this today, but on the whole i don't like renaming things because where do you stop? like i said, this particular item i agree with and i'll be voting for today. >> commissioner macdonald. >> thank you. i grew up -- i'm a native san franciscan. i grew up in the filmore. it will always be that for me. one of the things she said was, as you know better, you should do better. and so in my view, this

representatives that. i just wanted to commend all of the community stakeholders from chinese community, from the jewish community, from the organizations represented in both communities, just on the courage that i know it took to even have the conversation. and i know that these can be very difficult and challenging, but i would submit necessary conversations. i firmly believe personally that our path to kind of the ultimate inclusion and embracing of our collective diversity is found in our ability to talk about it. so again, i want to commend each of you for your willingness and, i would also submit, courage to have the conversation. lastly, with respect to the options, going along with commending the members of community and engaging in this process, i also trust that process. and i trust that you've landed where you feel comfortable

landing and it is yours to name. so i'll certainly be voting in support of it. thank you. >> general manager ginsburg. >> thank you, mr. vice president. so as the jewish head of the parks department, i kind of thought it important to just offer a reflection or two. and so i'm going to offer a personal reflection as a jew and then offer a reflection as a director of the parks department. julius kahn is -- does not -- is not who we are. he did not represent the values of the jewish community. there is a saying that is emblazoned on the wall of the j.c.c. in san francisco and is known to us all, repair the world. excluding people, excluding a race, demonizing people and stereotyping people is the antithesis of repairing the

world and our responsibility to do so, which is frankly why we're here. it hasn't been noted yet, but it's also horribly ironic, disturbingly eerily ironic that this gentleman was in congress saying what he was saying ten years -- just ten years before across the atlantic ocean the exact same thing was being done to the jewish people in germany. so i agree with commissioner mazzola that this is an extraordinary circumstance. as a parks director, i want to go back to where vice president low started the day a couple of hours ago, which is that this is a beautiful example of dogs and pa par parks fixing our broken democracy. a couple of people alluded to this but misha has had a good day today, so i'm going to give her credit.

no young person should have to play in a park named after someone who didn't want them to do so. it's that simple in my mind. it's that simple. and i did find the letter that i wrote to the "new york times" in response to that, commissioner. i'll read one sentence. it's not mine. it comes from an urbanist and park advocate, danny harris, also a jew. he wrote, as long as the human race exists, he will have an insatiable urge to live in public and experience the infinite beauty and possible of our public realm. as we do so, may we make civility contagious and democracy irresistible. >> well said, general manager. glad you found your letter to the editor. >> having been raised in a japanese, chinese,

mexican-american get ghetto in fresno, california, created by anti-americ americaamerica amea sentiments and isolated in terms of schools, businesses, and w t what -- whatever there was in terms of lifestyle in fresno, i have no doubt that we need to take this action. i'm really actually very emotional about this because it raises -- i mean, it creates -- i mean, it asks me to face all of that discrimination that my family was subjected to. so it's going to be a very

important statement for me to support this. the only question that i have is how -- i mean, what the process is going to consist of. because it creates a problem for two names to be put forward and for us to participate in this renaming process. commissioner anderson has brought forth another suggestion. so i would like some clarity as to how we go about this process, how we or whether we -- or are we to be involved in actually deciding which name is picked.

and if we do have the liberty or the opportunity to entertain any other recommendations, such as the one posed by commissioner anderson, so this is kind of a confusion that i'm experiencing at this time. how are we going to go about making -- putting forth this motion is a concern that i have. >> so as i mentioned, thank you, commissioner. completely heart-felt story that you provided in your background. again, the process that was put forward the rec and park department was the two names that went through a community process. they had voted. the top voter was presidio wall playground, and the second top tier voting was the pacific

west. so if the commission -- it's basically before the commissioners, those two suggested names. if the commission comes back and says you want to merge or reconsider, we're happy to go back to the community process again, but i don't know if that's something the commission wants to do at this point or if they want to consider moving forward with what was suggested. >> it was one of the reasons -- i just want to add. it is of concern to me because i too agree with commissioner anderson in terms of the law, because this is another part of history that i'm experiencing in terms of the donald trump wall. so i really want us to make sure that we get this right. this has to be right, at least for this time and this age.

>> yes, and with current events, unfortunately, it has that perception. so that's why there's two options presented to the commission. both options are not suggested -- >> i would like to -- charlie ferguson on whether there would be any objections to presidio west playground. >> i think the answer is no, but let me just tell you where the two names came from. again, we wanted a connection, whether it's a name of a person or a name of a location, we wanted a connection to the playground. west pacific comes from the west that it's west pacific avenue that the playground is on. there was a strong feeling that for geographical names it should be something that a newcomer to san francisco, a new family to san francisco could immediately figure out where it was, if it was named presidio wall, because the presidio wall is a finite

object, or west pacific avenue, they could google and see where that was. even if they were a little bit confused and just picked pacific avenue, that of course is immediately on the opposite side of the wall from the playground, pac avenue, the wall, and then west pacific avenue on the other side of the wall, and then the playground. so the answer is no. we did talk about things like west presidio or that sort of thing. we thought that that would mislead people locationally. because if you go -- >> thank you. >> they would think the far western -- >> that's all i needed to hear. i withdraw my suggestion. >> thank you. before i entertain a motion, i also just want to make a comment that the shadow cast by the chinese exclusion act was long and broad. it affected supervisor fewer's

family, hall of famer commissioner gordon chen, it affected my family. my grandfather was also a paper son, a wong, not a low. it was a long, dark shadow that cast across this city and across the nation and, in fact, affected many chinese americans. we now know that that was wrong then and it is wrong now. we have the opportunity today to make a statement that we are coming together to correct that wrong. i just want to say that this is a broad community support throughout the chinese community, all of chinatown was in support of this. that's a rare feature japan town, the filipino community, soma, jcrc, the inter-faith council, all the elected officials in san francisco, all

coming together to say let's fix this. i think this is a proud moment to show what we can do together and correct a wrong. i move to approve. all in favour? >> aye. >> motion carries. thank you. >> clerk: we are now on item 1 1 transbay parcel f howard street shadow on union square and willie woo woo wong playground. >> before we hear this matter, i have a conflict of interest. one of my partners requests heins. i entertain a motion for recusal. >> move. >> all in favour. >> aye. >> the gavel is yours,

commissioner macdonald.

>> as staff is setting up, if i could ask the gentlemen who are standing, if you need to stand, if you could stand on this side, as opposed to the side blocking the door. thanks. >> good morning, commissioners. >> good morning. >> i don't believe i have a powerpoint in my opinion, but the beginning point i think i

can cover verbally. good morning, general manager. i am brian stokkel, with the planning and capital group at the rec and park department. i'm joined by nick foster at the planning department who will speak later. the item before you today is the transbay parcel f project shadow on union square and willie woo woo wong playground. a review of the shadow cast by this project supports the objective 1.2, the strategic plan strengthened quality of existing parks and facilities. as you know, the review of shadow on rec and parkland is codified by planning section 215 and the 1985 memo. what i will be doing, because this park -- both of these parks are within the downtown area and under the transbay center -- transit center district plan,

i'm going to go over some of the background on the transit center district plan and then move on to information about both parks in the project. if i can get the powerpoint on now. the transit center district plan was adopted in 2012 by both the planning -- by the planning commission with the rec and park commission. they rezoned the area around the terminal raising the shadow budget and the -- what's called the absolute cumulative limit of

the shadow, also known as a.c.l., for nine parks to accommodate this rezoning and developments. at the time the massing and height of each building shadow was analyzed with the shadow budget adjusted. union square's budget was increased by 0.19% and willie woo woo wong's playground was increased as well. the projects designed would be reviewed and designed in detail and analyzed and reviewed by the commissions as the projects rolled forward. since 2012 and now the commission has reviewed and approved the sales force tower, 181 freemont and 51st street. we are now reviewing parcel f. just to note the remaining

budgets for those of the current two playgrounds in the plaza is 0.063 for union square and 0.3% for willie woo woo wong playground. that's what's allowable before the project i'm presenting. at the time of the adoption of the tcdp, the commissions reviewed shadow analysis and image images -- images such as these showing where all the projects were in the transbay district and where they fell on all the various rec and park properties and other open spaces. note that at the time of the tcpd plan it was found that plans from the buildings generally passed in early hours in the shorter months.

here is a map of the listed projects that account for potential shade on union square and willie woo wong playground. as mentioned earlier two of the projects have been built, that's the sales force in 181 freemont. one is under construction, that's 51st street and two of the projects have no plans for construction and the plan before you marked in orange. now on to the projects and the parks. transbay project f is located at 542-550 howard street in the soma neighborhood and is immediately adjacent to the sales force transit center and its roof-top park, which is not under rec and park jurisdiction. the area surrounding the project

includes a mix of high-density, residential, and commercial mixes with varying heights of two storeys and 10 storeys, as well as towers ranging from 33 to 61 storeys willie woo woo wong can be seen. the yellow shows where the project is and the green circle shows where the two parks are. the proposed project would construct a new tower, a mixed-use tower with housing, hotel, and office space. nicholas foster from the planning department will tell you about the proposed project, its public benefits, outreach process, and environmental review. nick. >> thank you, brian. good morning, commissioners. good morning, general manager ginsburg. i have a couple of sets of plans here for benefit of the commission for review, and unfortunately this is the only

hard copy i have. the color glossy copy with thick-bound paper, but it's the only copy. if i could get it back, that would be appreciated. i also have a copy of the community plan exemption which is the sekwa document. i'll keep these comments brief. so the project, as brian mentioned, is the address range is 542-550 howard street. we refer to it as the transbay parcel f project. it's totalling three-quarters of an acre. it's 750 feet to the finished roof height of the top habitable floor and then 800 feet to the top of the roof which is mostly screening for all the mechanical equipment, effectively three primary uses in this building. 29 floors of residential. that's about 434,000 square feet of residential area.

15 floors of office space, which is about 274,000 square feet. and lastly a hot, which would be about nine floors or about 239,000 gross square feet. there would be seven floors of shared amenity space for both the residential uses, so that actual tenants as well as hotel users on different floors. below grade we have 183 parking spaces, a parking ratio of 0.5 which is the ceiling for this district because this is a transit-centred district. open space on site for both benefit of the hotel users, as well as residents in the upper third of the tower. i think one of the most unique features of this building would be this would be one of only four projects fronting on to transbay district park that has

pedestrian bridges. so sales force plaza, tower, and on freemore are the only projects built that can have above-grade connections to the park which is of huge benefit. this project has an alphabet soup of entitlements before it. this is a highly, highly constrained site. the primary reason, there is a below-grade large train box that we hope collectively will welcome future high-speed rail to the center. as such, this project effectively in layperson speak has to step away from the northwest corner of the project site. so the three-quarters of the acre i mentioned is actually not the total footprint of this building. it is actually substantially

smaller than that. the tower had to pull away from that corner. i will keep it short and avail myself of questions you might have. thank you. >> thank you. >> thanks. onto the parks. here is a diagram of union square park. the square is an urban plaza with amenities, as many of you probably know, of a performance stage, a café, bike rental, an underground parking structure, and the future central subway entrance as you can see is in the lower southeast corner of the park. the 2012 analysis found from the tcdp that new shade fell in the southwestern and western portions of the park, as shown in the image here. since then, the building has

been designed and shadow analysis and software has become much more refined, as you see in the lower corner i've super imposed shadow analysis. you can see that the project shade generally falls in the same area on the western and southwestern corner. shade from the transbay parcel f would arrive in early morning, leaving by 815 at the latest and would fall for a total of six weeks of the year in the fall and spring. the average new shadow would last 18 minutes with a maximum shade lasting 26 minutes. here is the shadow on day of maximum shadow, september 6 and april 5, when it would cover 14% of the park at 7:44 a.m. you can see that the shade falls on the garage entrance and portions of the plaza and

seating areas in that southwestern corner. the second park affected is willie woo woo wong playground. the multi-level park has been redesigned, is currently closed and under construction. on the left you can see the original layout and on the right is the new, improved layout. i'll go into a little more detail on that. this shows you the former design and use of the playground and it has courts to the west, children's play areas in the center, and a basketball court over a clubhouse on the eastern half. the new design makes minor programming changes notwithstanding the major design changes. expands the playground along the street, replaces the tennis court with a basketball court, and adds a fitness area beside the basketball court.

the 2012 massing analysis showed that the shadow would fall on the edge of the area along sacramento street, although it's quite small in this image. thus, the new design of the building and the more refined shadow analysis shows that the new shade would fall on the northwest corner instead of the southern edge. thus, shade the basketball court and the fitness area and not the playground. this image shows the upper level in green and area in shade falling mostly on the basketball court and a little bit of the fitness area. the shade would arrive in early morning, leaving by 8:30 a.m. the shadow would fall for 11 weeks per year from november to january. the average new shadow would last 10 minutes with a maximum lasting 15 minutes.

here's the shadow the day of the maximum shade, november 29 and january 11, when it would cover 10% of the park at 8:15 a.m. at union stair, the 1998/89 memo qualitative memo allowed no additional shade, however, the tcdp amended this allowing for additional shade with the additional budget 0.63% as i mentioned at the opening. the project adds 0.03% of shade, less than the budget, and brings the new total of union square to 45%. at willie woo woo wong playground, the guidelines did not allow a shade increase, but the new shade was allowed at

0.09. the total shade of the park would come up to 58%. in order for the project to cast zero shade on either of these parks, 23 of the 62 floors would need to be eliminated, eliminating all 165 residential units, which are located in the upper portion of the tower. as mentioned before, six projects were analyzed by the tcd project that would affect this area. [ please stand by ]

-- under the 1989 analysis would not have allowed the extensive shadow that is allowed now, now that the transbay process has been completed. you know, let's talk about a little history here and i listened carefully to the previous item on the agenda about the gene friend center and a concern about shadows in the park. but let me remind this

commission -- and i know that most of you know this -- that the chinese playground was a context for this entire issue in san francisco when there was a development project proposed in 1981 and approved in 1983 right next to the chinese playground. that led to interest about shadows in the park and subsequently in 1984 our city passed the shadow ordinance. so the chinese playground was the catalyst to the issue of shadow in the parks. so i would hope that this commission would take that very seriously, not just for historical importance, but for the importance today, particularly on that basketball court. and i want to thank this department for doing a fantastic job working with the community on the new chinese playground

which is under construction as we speak. but half an hour shadow may not seem like a lot to some people, but i think that it's very important to the kids that are going to play in that playground. so, again, i'm not against the project, but i think that the developer and the city need to work together either to redesign, to minimize the shadow, or to do some serious mitigation of the shadow. thank you. >> thank you. >> cynthia? >> commissioners, good to see you again. i want to largely echo the spirit of gordon chin's comments in the sense that local two isn't asking for anything in particular today but has a lot of concerns about whether the particular way that chinatown parks and the role they play in the community have been taken into account and whether the

users of those parks and the community organizations that fight so hard to defend them have been brought on board with this particular project. and with any other projects that are going to impact chinatown parks. a visit to a chinatown park in the morning is going to reveal seniors doing tai chi and it's important for a community that lives in a very constrained space and where parks really are the backyard for so many vulnerable populations. and i actually didn't know the background of chinatown's role in the spirit of prop k, but it's pretty important. and i would also really -- i would hope that that would be in the minds of the commissioners at this time when these impacts are being discussed. in the future this project, as nicholas foster said, has a veritable alphabet soup of approvals before it. and we would ask all those times that deliberations are being

done that that is taken into account as well, the particular role of vulnerable people and the way they use this precious resource. and the spirit of proposition k is one of the things that makes san francisco unique and i would hope that supervisor peskin's office is being kept abreast of the efforts to bring everyone onboard and i would hope, again, that the local 2 members that use these parks as their valuable outlet can be kept in mind as well. thank you. >> thank you. >> eddie, lindsay and then sar sarah. >> hi, i'm here now speaking on behalf of brightline, a non-profit environmental justice organization located in soma. i wanted to encourage a joint commission hearing on -- to evaluate the impact of the new shadow by parcel f on willie woo woo wong playground in

particular. the 2012 shadow study that was done that was approved by the prior joint commission was -- did not take into account the redesign of willie woo woo wong playground. this new project cumulatively will put a shadow -- put a shadow on the southside of the park which is a place where seniors will be doing tai chi in the morning and where people will be doing a lot of their exercise. and in particular, that would be -- it would cast shadow where there would otherwise be sunlight in some of the coldest winter months of the year from thanksgiving all the way through to chinese new year. i'd like to say that -- it would be impossible to determine what the shadow impact will be until the project -- the redesign of willie woo woo wong playground

and the renovation is completed. and there's an actual physical buildout of the space. and because that could change. and it's impossible to know what the true impact of the shadow will be. to tourists and to casual passersby, this might just be, you know, not a big deal. but to those who live in the neighborhood in chinatown and exercise there daily, particularly in the morning, it is a living and breathing -- it's a place for them to live and breathe and it will really have an effect on them and it matters to them a lot. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> clerk: sarah, amy and then c.j. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissions and good afternoon, general manager. my name is sarah wong and i'm representing and also a member of the community for better parks and rec in chinatown. and i'm the executive director of the community youth center. so for cbprc, we have been around for 50 years to advocate

for many parks and recreation improvements and preservation in our history. and many of our members, including our member service organizations that serve mostly the most vulnerable population in the chinatown community and man community leaders. as many other speakers have mentioned chinatown is the most crowded neighborhoods and we see the playground as really our living room and our playground for our seniors and our residents. and also a gathering for many of our families. willie woo woo wong is the chinatown's most beloved playground, and also to the churches around and to the social service organizations, chinese school, and all of the families. and our community has worked really hard in 2012 for the park bond to make it possible with the late mayer lee and also along with rec and park departments. after that we have organized many of our residents, our participants and our constituents and each our

multilingual community to attend a meeting to finalize or to give opinion on the design of the park. at that time the shadow is not something that is in our discussion or considerations. so none of our members were really knowing about this shadow that could possibly impact the park back then when we designed the park. and we really look forward to this new park for us, which is ongoing and hopefully which will be on time, opening in 2020. we really look forward to it but we really hope that the commission hears the serious concern about the impact of this on the rest of us in chinatown. thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: amy and then c.j. >> good morning, committee. my name is amy. and i am the coordinator of the s.r.o. united collaborative. and in chinatown alone we have 400 families who live there and

have to (indiscernible) other people. many of these families are low-income immigrants. it is really difficult for them to move out since the rental units are too expensive and affordable housing supply is limited. and it requires a high income requirement. (indiscernible) is a small s.r.o. (indiscernible) that the parents can bring their children to play. like a living room that they don't have. we are looking forward to the new willie woo woo playground, that will be for our children to

play. but the park would be covered by a shadow, the park will become mean less to us. we have concerns about (indiscernible) so i urge the commissioners to hear our view of the parks that it not be covered by any shadow. thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: c.j. you have something up there? can you say it on the microphone? >> can i have the powerpoint. good afternoon, commissioners. i am c.j. higly and i'm the attorney, the counsel for hines

for the project. thanks to brian and nick for presenting an overview of the project and the shadow impacts. i'd like to just provide you with a little bit of additional information about the project and we have members of the team here who would be happy to answer other questions that you may have about the sort of the nuts and bolts of the project as we -- after our presentation here. so as you know, parcel f is located at 542 howard street. okay, well, i guess that's not working? in the heart of the transbay center district plan area. oh, perfect. parcel f is the last high-rise site in the redevelopment area and it will complete implementation of the division set out in the new neighborhood surrounding the new transit center. ieltstit is ideally located in e

core of the downtown. as i believe that nick mentioned the affordable units required in connection with the proposed residential portion of the project will be provided off-site within the transbay redevelopment plan. it's the project sponsor's hope and intent to proit provide thet jobs at transbay block four which is the site of the temporary bus terminal. the project sponsor, together with its affordable housing partner, mercy housing, is currently negotiating a d.d.a. with ocii to provide for the development of a mixed income residential project at block four that would contain approximately 680 additional residential units. although the total number of affordable units at block four hasn't been finalized with o.c.i. at this point, the most recent design submittal contains 336 b.m.r. units. and the project is intended to meet ocii's affordable housing

requirement. the affordable component of block four would be provided without cash subsidy from the city, i should add. it's really subsidized by the parcel f project. so in addition to the extraordinary amount of affordable housing, the combined projects would deliver, they also provide significant economic benefits to the city to the tune of over a billion dollars in new tax revenues and impact fees. the projects also have program attic benefits with 1,500 permanent jobs at parcel f, and the passageway that nick described and the glass elevator to the skybridge in connection to the park. and a number of other amenities that i'd be happy to tell you about. >> thank you. >> clerk: any other public comment? please come forward.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm pretty sure this will be my last time today. i'm here before you, we come before you all the time about shadow in our neighborhood and we intimately understand the impacts that shadow has on open space, especially for communities that do not have access to a lot of open space. and so there is no way that i could not support our colleagues in chinatown for the impacts that this shadow will have on their park. that being said, i also would not be standing here today if i didn't know and believe that they will do their best to mitigate that shadow. we have had a long pacific with hines and urban pacific and i truly believe they care about this impact and they'll do their best to mitigate this impact for the community. so i stand here in support of an agreement that i hope that the two sides will be able to reach because i believe that everyone is doing the right thing for the

people that they represent. thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners? comments or a motion? mr. masella. >> thank you. so the question before us is will this project have a significant adverse impact on the use of union square or willie woo woo wong playground. and everything that i have heard today i don't think that this rises to the level of a significant adverse impact. it has a plethora of other benefits that it's going to create that you just heard -- tax revenues and all of the other benefits that it provides. i'm sympathetic to shadows but on this one, i think that it's

not at the level of something that would -- would make me vote to postpone this or anything else. i think that -- i think that the developer has done its due diligence and then some, to help out and to make sure that they have mitigated the issue. and i think that it's mitigated down to a point that's realistic. so i will be voting to push this forward. >> thank you. any other comments? or entertaining a motion? so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> motion carries. thank you very much. we will take just a few minute recess while we get commissioner lowe and invite him back in to preside going forward.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, the item before you today is a discussion of possible action to allocate the open space for the reserve, and the installation of a new play structure as part of the improvements under our strategic plan and it aligns closely with strategy one, public -- inspire public space and strategy two. and just a quick background -- the project, this rec and park department acquired shoreview many years ago and due to budget constraints the project renovation was sort of planned to be delivered in two phases. it came before you in august which you have approved and this item before you today is for the new play structure.

this request is at the behest of commissioners macdonald and anderson. thank you very much for the use of the commissioners' fund reserve and the balance of that reserve is in your package that you have and we -- and the reachout for this effort was done in 2017 and 2018 and capital staff is elated to move forward with this project. staff is recommending to move forward. thank you. >> clerk: any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner anderson? >> thank you. i would like to ask that you correct page 2 of your memo you said that commissioners macdonald and henderson and that should be changed to anderson, because that's me. >> apologies the. >> and i want to thank everybody for this. i went out and visited the site and it's a beautiful site. it's going to be an amazing playground and i hope that people will figure out where it is because it's sort of

hidden -- it's a hidden gem. so i support this project and the use of those reserves. >> entertain a motion. >> so moved. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> motion carries. >> clerk: we're on item 9, golden great pathway naming. >> good afternoon, may i please have the screen on for our presentation. hi, good afternoon, abigail mayer with the recreation and park department partnerships team. good afternoon. i'm here to present the item to name the pathway in golden gate park that runs behind the mcclaren lodge barney baron way. and, two, to approve the placement of a boulder with a plaque along the pathway and, three, to authorize the general manager to approve the wording on the plaque. bernard "barney" barren was an

employee of the rec and park department for over 35 years. he star started his career as a gardener in 1956. he held various positions, including nursery man at balboa and golden gate nurseries and park supervisor for section 3 if golden gate park and area supervisor for the western quadrant of san francisco. and in 1978, he was appointed as superintendent of parks. he retired in 1991. both colleagues and then mayor diane finestein recognized mr. baron for many achievements, including the implementation of the comprehensive turf management program at candlestick park, and the reforestation program and identification of trees in golden gate park. these pictures on the screen before you are highlighting exciting moments in mr. barron's

career. picture one -- this is a picture from an article in "the examiner" of barney and mayor finestein. and number two, these are pictures taken from barney barron day at candlestick. and, number three, is an article highlighting mr. barron and his crews' dedication to protecting the field at candlestick. this article talked about how they worked creatively and tirelessly to make sure that candlestick was ready for a baseball game, followed by a visit from the pope, and then followed by another baseball game. no small feat. i'd like to share a little bit more about the photo of mr. barron and mayor finestein. in 1982, the mayor presented an engraved watch for outstanding civic service to mr. barron. he was the first recipient of this new award called "a nick of time award." a quote from the mayor, "in our selection of barney, we are paying a richly deserved tribute for the superb job he has

performed in supervising the renowned candlestick park. thanks to barney and the sod squad's excellent work, san francisco has had a quality fit for a championship football. they have made enormous improvements to the field within a very short period of time and we are delighted to show our appreciation for this proven ability to act in the nick of time." while working in the mcclaren lodge, mr. barron would often leave the office for walking along the pathway behind the lodge and he'd use the pathway as a chance to think through challenging decisions and to recharge. and i have learned firsthand from current staff who worked for mr. barron and are still working for the department today that he would pace back and forth between the lodge and the fork. i would also like to share that i have the pleasure and honor to work in the lodge and i can tell that you we also continue to use this path to kind of get outside and to get some fresh air.

>> i've heard enough. i'm supportive of this project. because i want to vote on everything before we lose our quorum. >> i'm sorry, i'm having problems with the screen but they're in your packet, the pictures of the pathway. thank you. great. >> thanks. >> let's just call for public comment. we had to call for a public comment. yeah. one minute. >> clerk: i'll call blue cards, commissioner low has asked that you keep your comments to one minute because we're going to lose a quorum so james, maureen and then mary. >> if i could just make a suggestion for a lot of people that took the time to be here to express support for mr. barron

and we certainly recognize that. so if we could have just one or two speakers that are most representative of the group's support, that would be terrific. >> okay. i'll keep it brief. my name is james dell vino and i was -- i'm a retired assistant superintendent for the parks department and put in 35 years there. when i worked under barney i was an area supervisor in charge of turf management at candlestick park. and, believe me, there was a lot of politics going on there. barney handled it well. the timeframes on the events were something to behold. many times we only had 24 hours to convert and barney made sure that this took place. i just want to say one thing and i want to thank the park commission fe for putting it one docket today and phil ginsburg and his staff, especially denny kearns and steve for the work

they did with me in helping this to become a reality. it's nice to know that after being retired for 20 years that you can come back to the department and be treated as family. and i would like to also point out commissioner harrison. tom and i go back a long time. and he was very helpful in this, especially putting it through the committee. but in any case, thank you very much, and i know that the department is still in good hands. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: maureen? michelle? >> good afternoon. i'm michelle barron, i'm the youngest of four children of barney barron, starting with my

sister, susan, maureen, and my brother joe and then they had me. and i would like to share some of the thoughts from the family with respect to my father and working for golden gate park. my father would easily tell you how much he loved the park. not only did he love them but he absolutely loved being in the parks and representing the parks for the city of san francisco. he knew how lucky he was that his office was golden gate park. but it wasn't his alone and he shared it with the city of san francisco. my father has instilled in the entire family that it's always about the people and he was never an "i" person and always a "we" and you can see that from the many people who are here to talk about getting this recognition for my father. (please stand by)