>> rec and park commission, would the secretary please call the roll? [roll call] >> this is recreation and park commission meeting of february 16, 2023. the san francisco recreation and park commission acknowledges we acknowledge that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors and relatives of the ramaytush community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples.acknowledges

we acknowledge that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors and relatives of the ramaytush community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. good morning and welcome to the rec and park commission. this is held with in person in city hall room 416 with options to join and provide public comment remotely. we ask you please turn off electronic devices and take secondary conversations outside. we ask listeners to turn down the television while on the phone. we ask for patience if experiencing technical issue. public comment will be taken in person and remotely. public comment is available for each item on the agenda. unless otherwise announced by the president, each person will have two minutes for public comment on each item. comments or opportunities to speak during public comment period are available in person in

city hall room 416 and phone. the public comment will be taken first from those in person and enthe remotely. for those who like to join remotely you can view the meeting live on sfgovtv or using the link at the top of today's agenda. you may provide public comment by calling 415-655-0001 using today's access code, which is webinar 24814350362. the webinar password is 0216. when you hear the agenda genda iletm you like to comment, dial star 3 to be added to the queue. you will be in the system in the order dial star 3. the system will notify when you are in line and waiting. all callers remain on mute until the line is openism everyone must account for time

delays and speaking discrepancy between live coverage and streaming. please address your comments to the commission. neither the commission nor staff will respond to questions during public comment. the commission may ask questions of staff as public comment is closed. if there is item of interest not on the agenda and under the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission you may speak under general public comment. you may submit public comment e-mails recparkcommission@sfgov .org. written comments may be sent to san francisco recreation and park commission 501 stanyan street san francisco california, 94117. the following are short announcement frz those joining in in person today. if the fire alarm activates evacuate the building in a orderly fashion yizeing any exit. elevators will return to the first floor and not

available for use. if you need assistance out of the building please make your way across the hall in the men's restroom. inside the restroom is a speaker box, prez it and city hall security will answer. let them know your location and they will assist you. the commission meeting is recorded and will be available for lighter viewing on sfgovtv.org. we are item 2, continuation of remote meetings. >> continuation of remote meetings. i understand that in the milestone in the battle with covid that here for the committee meetings will be in person so make a note of that and we'll expect to see you in person. if you want to congratulate us or complain about the recreation and park department. >> need a motion and second to allow for the next couple weeks in case we need another remote meeting. >> so moved. >> second. >> movaled and seconded. all in favor? >> aye.

>> so moved. >> okay. we are on item 3 president's report. >> thank you. first, i like to welcome our very hip or new hip general manager, who recently replaced the second hip and out early. nice to see you. i want to make two comments. i received a number of complementary e-mails about the successful negotiation and implementation of the first t agreement for golden gate park and to that end i like to congratulate dana kathem over seeing that and a number comments on a extraordinary job she did. the next commission meeting will be off-site. it is a effort to bring rec and park more to the community and so we will be at the joe lee rec center, 1598 oakdale avenue in district 10 for our

march meeting. with that, that concludes my report. >> if there is public comment on the president's report in room 416, you can come up to the speaker. seeing none, i will move over to our public line. is there anyone with their hand raised? no hands raised. seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. we are on item 4, the general manager's report. >> good morning. welcome back mr. president. been a few days discovering my innerhipster but i'm here. >> no problem with hipaa, i guess? >> i probably shouldn't have said anything. hip hip hurray, we got that out of the way. [laughter] it is february and black history month. it is time to celebrate and honor the extraordinary contributions

african americans made to the country and specifically san francisco. i was and maybe commissioner louie you were there as well for the warriors black history month celebration where they gave t shirts that said beyond 28 which stuck with me. it shouldn't be just a month, we should honor all the amazing contributions of our black community year round. as part of the celebrations, the black history month parade kicks off february 18 at the bayview opera house 3 street 11 a.m. and ends at the new stunningly gorgeous southeast community center on evans a stone throw away from india basin creating all kinds of wonderful programming potential between those two facilities and facility in the park. the community center will host a celebration featuring food entertainment activities for

kids and at the celebration rec and park and our partners india basin partners will have a outreach table set up with a mc, a recorder, and video and audio crew to collect stories for our india basin park project under the hash tag, share your black experience. these personal stories sever as a important resource for future generations to learn about the hopes and dreams ofprint day residents. they will be featured in a way tbd at india basin. we will also gather feedback from residents on the proposed public art design for india basin, phase 3 of india basin which includes shoreline park. this is a-there are four final proposals that are being considered by the arts commission. they are all extraordinary. they are all done by bayview artists. this is a opportunity for community

members to take a active role in shaping the future of the neighborhood. parade and festival organizers are still looking for volunteers so anyone interested can contact apra@apra@sf.org. this month the controller office released the 2022 park maintenance scores and happy to announce this year we reached our target goal average 91 percent average in park maintenance scores. between 2015-2019 the program was on a hiatus during the pandemic. the highest scoring parks are in the northern part of the city. this year and most proud about, it is the most equitable distribution of high scoring parks ever since this thing has-this tool developed. this means we are continuing to improve keeping the rec center bathrooms and parks clean and

pristine not just in the northwest part of the city but also in the southeast part of the city which is something i'm super proud of and want to thank all of the rec and park staff from gadners maintenance staff, rangers so many more who work so hard every day to keep our green spaces healthy and clean. tuesday was valentine's day, as i guess we all know, and i got something marvelous for you. we held a goat fashion show in union square. the 5th anian goat my valentine fashion show featured a runway with goats tasked with man curing the beautiful city. the event featured several goats, greatest of all time of san francisco including the actor jimmy sales who wrote and

(inaudible) featured at the india basin shoreline park, senator wiener, cathy and peter fang, raper (inaudible) from sister of perperchual indulgence and so many more. the star studded event was put on value culture, a adam swig creation quhoo sits on the india basin campaign cabner and others including (inaudible) union square alliance, (inaudible) some say farm animals are not fashionable but i say meh. thank you. my goat impersonation isn't up what it should be. these highlight the importance of public spaces and value celebrating culture in downtown parks and plaza and also critical part of mayor breeds roadmap to downtown.

the roadmap insure downtown remain a place for people to grow and thrive. very hard work and talented staff is really focused on insuring visitors and residents can exercise, enjoy a fun event or relax in historic places like union square (inaudible) you will hear a lot more from us over the course of the year about there effort in the downtown corridor. past saturday with rec and park along with children youth and families, held our summer resource fair at the county fair building. the event featured over 100 different summer opportunities for kids k-8 including #1u78er camps, classes programs and services. resource fairs like this are really important tool for families giving them a early start on planning summer insuring kids remain challenged through sports and arts and education when classes are not in session, and also

really helps families navigate the variety of options all around the city not just the ones that we host, but that so many other non profits cbo and other city agencies cultivate for kids during the summer so it was a one stop shop affair for families. it was a really successful event. related to that we are gearing up for summer camp programming with priority registration starting march 17. that means we give families and public housing and families in the scholarship program a little leg up to try to register their kids. priority registration starting march 13 fallowed by general registration march 18. registration can be done online or over the phone. this year we are bringing back our traditional time favorites like silver tree camp and pine lake camp but got new stuff

planned too under the amazing leadership of nick williams. the rope course experience at mclaren park. camp mania and the eco land wet land explorers out at india basin. we also offer a plethora of sports camp from swimming to archery and soccer. all girls sport said camp and so much more. art camp dancing acting singing, you name it. this is our rec staff at its very very very very very best. to the public and to the commission, yes, these camps are very popular, and yes, not everybody gets into the exact camp on the exact week that you want. we do our very best. just like signing up for anything or trying to purchase

ticket, it does n't work out the way you want each and every time so thank you for your patience and understanding but we have i think around 10 thousand camp slots so there is a lot of opportunities to accommodate our young people. doesn't feel like it today but spring is in the air, the super bowl is over, pitchers and catchers report so very pleased to report the san francisco youth baseball league opening day is saturday february 25 at kimble playground. opening day festivities include a all teams parade and first pitch of the season. it includes activities like speed pitch batting cages, a home run derby jump house and more. proceeds benefiting scholarships. for the 2023 season we got 200

teams. again, to those in the public and to the commissioners, there are some limits on our capacity, but we have 200 teams with over 3 thousand players. ranging in age from 4-14. and we got more then 700 committed and mostly volunteer coaches, many of whom are parents. this is just really terrific. as commissioner jupiter jones knows we are all in on girls baseball so we'll have a number of san francisco teams and hopefully participating in the parade. this event is very near and dear to rec and park. it is a big part of our institutional history. it is the largest and oldest youth baseball league in the city and remained a tradition over 30 year jz happy to keep

the tradition going. i am really proud and only got two more, but this one also deserves a mention. very proud to announce our tennis and learning center which if you recall is at i think 4 or 5 different rec centers with tennis courts that partner with elementary schools and our hub is at the new golden gate park tennis courts. it is a after-school tennis and learning program. it was recently recognized for excellence by the united states tennis association of northern california. sftlc won the 2022 award for national tennis learning chapter of the year so this is a big deal. this were a provide programming to use from cities most in need communities focused on academic achievement and health and wellness through tennis introduces kids to

tennis for the first time. since it was first created by the rec and park department in 2014 the program expanded to 6 sites and serves 124 san francisco kids for neighborhoods like the western addition, china town, bayview hunter point and excelsior. this program is important, it provides kids access to a sport they may have never played before, opening new opportunities so please join me in congratulating the tlc program and special shout out to the staff especially chaning hail, the program coordinator who has done a remarkable remarkable job at growing this program. it is really exciting. lastly and in honor of valentine's day, who doesn't like flowers? tulips in golden gate park

are blooming and not just any tulips, we have 4,000 official london breed tulips blooming for the first tifem. the tulips were a gift from queen maxima of the netherland. the pink and white petals are inspired by the colors her majesty and madam mayor wore when they met. stop by union square march 4 to see 80 thousand tulips in bloom at the scare. part of a tulip flower show. american tulip day will honor international womens day giving free tulips to take home or to give to a woman who inspires you. president buell. the opening ceremony starts at noon and you can pick tulips from 1 to 4:30 p.m. if you are not the tulip type but prefer

magnolias one flowery shout-out to the san francisco botanical garden and golden gate park, we are in the midst right now of peak magnolia bloom at the botanical garden. if you have not seen this it is worth a visit. the magnolias are extraordinary. san francisco and botanical gardens host one of the most impressive mag nole ais in the world and they are blooming now. that concludes the report. >> thank you. >> any public comment on the general manager report? seeing none, do we have hands raise d on the line? no hands raised. public comment is

closed. we are on item 5 general public comment. members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public within the subject jurisdiction matter of the xhilgz and do not appear on the commission. with respect to agenda items you will have a opportunity to address the comment when the item is reached on the agenda. seeing none, any hands raised on the line? no hands raised. public comment is closed. >> have any public comment in the audience? >> i didn't see any. okay. we are on item 6, the consent calendar. before we go to public comment commissioners, do you want to remove anything from consent? >> i like. >> okay. >> f. >> so, we will about

item 6f after we take public comment on the rest of the consent calendar. we need a motion to remove. >> so moved. >> moved and seconded. all in favor? so moved. >> on the consent calendar, 6a through e and 6g, do we have any pub lic comment on the consent calendar in room 416? seeing none, any hands raised on the line? seeing no public comment public comment is closed. we'll need a motion to vote on everything besides 6f. >> so moved. >> second. >> moved and seconded. all in favor. >> aye. >> so moved. >> thank you. we are now on item 6f and i believe we have dan mower here if you

like to-and stacey. do you want to come up? >> who wants to try this? >> good morning, general manager. >> hi. >> ashley. forgive me, i was typing away on my computer over there. if you can reiterate the question. >> item f is pulled off the agenda. perhaps we can ask commissioner do you want to raise a issue about it or? >> yeah, i have a issue about f. the middle lakes rehab scope of work that we are trying to give more money to, landscape includes plumbing. landscape employs no plumbers. the labors to do this type of work so continue to provide the (inaudible) i want to pull this

to make the comments known, and to say that i cannot support this today. those are the reasons why i wanted to pull this item. >> thank you. >> if i can respond. chatting with mike bowman bowman landscape president they are a union shop and committed to hiring a plumbing supervisor and his only request it be a working supervisor that is actually doing the work hands on as well, so he committed to that. we haven't gotten to plumbing work now but happy to check in on that to make sure that is still the case from his perspective. prevailing wage. >> he committed hiring a plumbing supervisor? >> i believer that is what the specification called for. [multiple speakers] for your acceptance of the contract. >> where is he hiring

the plumbing supervisor? >> that was a question discussing the issue with him, he indicated it was a difficult task to hire plumbers from the union shop because no onep wanted to take smaller short term job because his impression is someone take a short term job and there is a list that happens as part of the hiring process, so the top person on the list gets a job but would ntd to do a 3 or 4 week job, they want a year long program and if they take the job they are put to the bottom of the list so he indicated it is difficult to find plumbers to do irrigation work like in the park system? >> can i answer that? he has not contacted me. second off, that is false. local 38 had over 300 plum bers on the out of work book. now

health insurance. they are out of unemployment. they are dying for one day worth of work so that is a misnomer. >> i like to recommend if-i like to reach back to bowman and find out the situation and happy to report back. >> appreciate it. >> thank you very much. on the note the chair would entertain a motion to approve item f. >> i have to take public comment first. anyone like to comment on 6f? seeing none do we have anyone with their hand raised online? no hands raised. public comment is closed. >> chair entertain a motion. >> so moved. >> is there a second? is there not a second? do you want-can this wait a month for the next meeting? >> no, can can't

unfortunately because they are working now. >> commissioner mazzola will work with you to get a plumber from the union on that spot. i don't know you can guarantee but that is the preference of this commission. >> mr. president if i may, commissioner mazzola and i had a couple conversations about this and the jurisdictional issues between the labor union and plumbers- >> it isn't a jurisdictional issue. >> if i use the wrong terminology-beyond our purview but what we did do at your request commissioner mazzola is to draft the specks oso there was plumber supervisor involved. the work is phased-not all the work is plumbing work so i feel like we

heard you, we have our own hands tied and what contractor gets selected because of the city bidding processes and all that sort of thing, and bowman does do a lot of work throughout the city not just rec and park but elsewhere in park projects so we are trying to very much honor the spirit of your concern so i wanted to note that for the record. >> the chair would still entertain a seblgd second to move this forward if the work is being done now with the hope you can work this out. >> may i suggest we have a second because i like to state something that involves the bid process from october? >> i don't see a second. >> i make a motion we deny this until they hire a plumber. >> let's get staff to weigh in on that.

>> the difficulty of hire- >> i can weigh in. we have another item coming today where the cost of doing business for our department and the difficulty of completing construction projects is well documented and unfortunately well discussed throughout the country, and we have a active construction project on site and i as general manager do not recommend delaying this project. >> through the chair- >> go ahead. >> the problem is that and not just this contractor, but many contractors are cheating the system by not paying the prevailing wage of the craft that should be doing the work so what is happening they pay labor rates for somebody to do plumbing work. they should be doing-they should have a plumber doing the plumbing work. we are not trying to do the planting, anything else moving rocks that is

labor rock but plumbing is a separate union which happens to be mine. >> i understand as a commission and your profession and unbelievable reexpect and appreciation for all the great work that our own plumbers do and the union does for plumbers but the city has office of labor standard enforcement who's job is to make sure that contractors are paying prevailing wage. we support that effort, but there is a regulatory agency a separate agency in the city that has responsibility for that. i think when this has come up over time to time and i will renew my efforts to try to see if we can't get commissioner you and bowman in the room together so you can talk to them directly, but we did specifically put the plumbing speck in the bid in

response to and in honor of this concern, and so the idea here that we would not approve this item for a construction project that is actively moving actually does quite a bit of harm and will have cost impacts and will create delays. >> okay. commissioner mazzola, did you want to make another comment before commissioner griffin? >> sure. if you are promising this commission that you are going to have me and bowman sit in a room together then we can pass this today but outside of that i don't feel comfortable because i heard the same stuff from bowman and others and work it out and sit with you and no one ever follows through ever. the fact we have office of labor standards they do 15 different things not just prevailing wages.

they don't have enough employees to look into this. the body can determine why does it have to get to this level. the body should decide the plumber should do that type of work and should go with everybody that does work on the commission. there are others that don't hire from the right craft and trying to make the commission understand that and will continue to bring this up whether it is bowman or someone else. >> i totally understand this commissioner mazzola. i really do. but just one point that might help--with the caveat that we specifically include a plumber in the specks, this commission is already approved this project. what we are doing here is adding a very lovely element that frankly i

was insistent get done, which is that from the fly casting pools there is a-when this was designed by john mclaren there is a stream from the fly casting pool into middle lake and that thing has been dry and broken and busted for 50 years, and so since we were doing the lake rehab, we were able to prioritize and find the money to add this element to return this historic feature to the park. this is just really basically an add-on more then anything else. that is just a little more context. >> commissioner are you satisfied- >> let the others speak. >> commissioner griffin.

>> yes. i'm recently retired two years ago prior to being appointed to the commission from the office of labor standards and commissioner mazzola is right, the staffing levels are not what they should be. the city is real big, the board of supervisors have big hearts and come up with all these great labor laws but don't give us people to enforce them, so olse catching something like this would be probably not great. that's all. >> commissioner anderson. >> i have some concerns. one is, this commission already approved this project in october of 2022, and now they are just coming to us to add some money to the contract to basically work on-dont know what to call it. a trough. stream.

>> historic rock cascade. >> i would like to see us come up with a solution where we can come to agreement on this today commissioner larry mazzola. i do believe that we should respect the labor laws and living wage and local hire and all the great things we have to protect workers here in the city which i fully support and glad you are bird-dogging this. i'm not fully convinced thats this is just a plumbing issueism i are like to see the work go forward and would be satisfied to know there is a local 38 supervising plumber, is that right, larry? >> yeah. (inaudible) >> and also that our own rec and park employees that are skilled in plumbing might be

around too, right? so, just thinking outloud. is there some way we can come had to agreement now so that this can be approved today? could we put this item to the end of today's agenda? could someone be called in the interim so we can make a decision today? i just dont know- >>b i don't know who you call to get resolution. let me ask commissioner hallisy to weigh in and then commissioner against ginsburg. >> this stream project was added to the project after we approved it? >> the process is the commission accepted the cascade work along with lake rehab as part of the conceptacle plan and bid the project with a number of tack-on elements with the understanding we

were not sure in the bid climate we are able to capture everything so what you do on construction documents is put in bid alternates and contractors provide a price for the add-on you can accept or deny depending how much money we have. the base bid was under the engineer estimate so we had flexibility in the budget to accommodate some of the bid elements,ing the alternate bid elements, and so given the general manager and others myself too felt the cascade was a important aspect to this particular project we decided to fund that bid alternate through this process here. >> understood dan, so the answer is yes, this was added after we approved in october? >> no, you approved the project with this in it as a bid alternate, which is very standard practice. >> clarify add-ons for me? >> as dan said, we can try again and dan correct if i'm wrong or stacey you can jump in, but this happens on every

project where when we scope the project-particularly in this bid climate which has been remarkably challenging when we take a desired concept plan which you approve d which included the rock garden. when we put out to bid with a cost estimate and there is a range we take certain features, the core of the project is the lake rehab, we take certain features that are considered-it is a technical term, add-ons, meaning if we have the money you will also do this, so what you approved included this as one of the bid alts. we are coming back to you to say we are funding it. >> right. i understand. >> you authorized the expenditure for the base contract, now we are asking for approval to award the bid alternate dollar value to add to the base contract you previously approved.

>> okay. i understand that-we did approve this in october, okay. but-alright. i'm learning. i am being educated as well. however, the bottom line is, these add-ons did come after we approved it, that seems like a fact to me, and also there was funds available to finance these add-ons, correct? >> that is what we identified between when we were able to award the base bid to when we are now able to award this add altthat we identified funding to go towards this particular part of the project. in between that time which is why we were not able to do it originally. it did take time to identify the funds and make those decisions, which is why it is delayed from the original action. we do try to

do it at once- >> i understand. i understand. i'm still seeing the bottom line i believe. okay. fair enough. >> mr. gins burg. >> i think it has been said. >> commissioner griffin. >> in order to try to get this thing moved today can we move it on the agenda towards the end and maybe we can figure out how we hire a local 38 plumber? >> with all do respect commissioner, i think we need to resolve this issue and might say it seems to me it a bigger issue and one that commissioner mazzola raises. that is, what is the ability to specify which union assigns what responsibilities in these contracts and that he thinks the system is being gamed. whether that is true or not is not for me to say but it is the issue he raises and it seems to

me it will continue to be raised in future contracts unless there is some resolution to that issue. >> to that end, i think and commissioner mazzola, you and i had a chance to discuss this a couple times and totally understand where you sit and your professional capacity as a commissioner we have the responsibility of balancing a lot of different considerations to deliver projects for the public, but i can commit to you because we did follow up on this, that bowman will sit down with you and talk through the issues, if that helps. >> commissioner louie. >> so, topic like this and item like this will continue to come up and i think what we see here going on is-isn't easy solved but the problem is dan, when

you said you have a problem with some plumbers taking smaller jobs and prefer the longer jobs, but then we hear commissioner mazzola saying that there is a waiting line of people that would take these smaller jobs because-so i think is maybe a communication thing that is going on here, so i think we can move forward because the work needs to be done, and if the parties can off the meeting just line people up, line this local 38 plumbers up. it is an easy solution. >> i appreciate that. i do think some is miscommunication and lot of here say we stuck thin cross fire so to speak as city staff. i think phil mentioned we are happy to meet with the commissioner and mike bowman on the project and think it is wise to olse as

well. i had multiple discussions with them without a lot of true clarity from their division on the differences and the requirements under the union contract codes between different union groups but having them at the table is helpful as well. an icdotally i have one into projects where olse stepped to the plate and fined or tracked down contracts who gamed the system at projects have managed so we have recalculated fees so they were paid the appropriate prevailing wage. they are doing their jobs. all city staff are over-burdened at the moment but it is important this isn't a one-off, this is every project we touch has irrigation in it, so i think coming to resolution on this that everyone is happy with and we have olse on board to help support the lead agency tracking that will be key.

>> thank you dan. commissioner mazzola. >> thank you. i want to thank dan for your comments and phil and board members. i'm not trying to derail this but i want to get this issue out there so everybody understands it and where i'm coming from. if you decide to pass through this today that is fine. until i'm comfortable that they will hire a plumber-we cant knowingly fund a project that is breaking the law by not paying prevailing wage. i love to see factual sheets that says this company ever paid the correct prevailing wage to a plumber on any jobt nojust this one because they can probably come up with that easily but all the prior jobs i guarantee they have not paid plumber prevailing wage. there should be somebody with the right skillset from the

right craft doing that work, more importantly then just paying prevailing wage is not good enough for me. i think the right craft should be doing that type of work. if is (inaudible) there should be a plumber supervisor. i have 300 on my out of work book and any would take that job now. i appreciate the dialogue more then anything. i appreciate the understanding of where i'm coming from and i look forward to continuing this conversation with you guys and being up front and hopefully come to resolution. >> thank you commissioner. on that note, i would add that there isn't any ill intent on the part of the department or employees or anybody involved, it is simply a question of what kind of language we use and what do we commit to and do it. i think that if commissioner mazzola would meet with bowman and we could get a report back i'm curious about this because it isn't going to go

away, and particularly the issue-if he has 300 plumbers who would take the job tomorrow and you are hearing they won't, let's sort that out and let's try and move this as far as we can toward permanent resolution today. with that, we have a motion, the chair would entertain a second on the motion. >> second. >> it is moved and seconded. could you call the roll, please? >> yes. [roll call] >> thank you all. so moved. >> we are now on item 7, the san francisco zoo. i believe we have tonia calling in from the san francisco zoo and i will be moving over to

the lap top to put her presentation up. top to put her presentation up. janette, can you unmute the caller? i believe it is tonia. tonia can you raise your hand by pressing star 3? and then janette you can unmute that caller. tainia, are you there? tania, you are unmuted. go ahead and try talking. you might need to unmute

your own phone. >> can you hear me now? >> yeah, we can hear you. >> okay, thank you. sorry about that. we are doing improvements to our it and security cameras in light of recent theft s throughout the zoo word. (inaudible) copy cat cases of theft. we endureed that ourselves, so we are installing as many cameras behind the scenes as we can to insure the safety of our animals but it is throwing everything off. i'll start my powerpoint, and you should be an adorable photo of a

long eared rabbit. happy lunar year. it is year of the rabbit and hare. there are difference between rabbits and hares. we teach children about the difference between rabbits and hares as well as showcase special breeds like the one you see here. i'll move to the next slide and it is with great pleasure and relief that with easing pandemic regulations we were able to reopen the winter camp to near capacity during the holiday season. we also were able to offer scholarships through the children of refugees and plan to do scholarships for our spring and summer camps. my next slide is a big thanks to our partners, state agency first 5 of california. this is a agency

that supports children health and wellness, and our dragon exhibit we (inaudible) which teaches kids to stop, take a breath when stressed and anxious. first 5 will return to the zoo tomorrow and saturday and set up shop at the playground. here is a example, and they will actually work with parents, family members and the kids themselves so we can all take a breath when feeling anxious or stressed. my next slide is a screen-shot of the website on ground hogs day trying to encourage change and not the same old same old on ground hogs day we challenges our visitors to range one way for one day to help wildlife. if they made the pledge online or the zoo they received free emission. it was so popular a

thousand online (inaudible) we extended it through the birthday anniversary of mrs. rosa parks who exlempifyed the power of change. we thank all that participated in this and hope we make some change. my next slide is the valentine's day gift the arrival of giraff. she is park of the giraffe breeding program. this is the only specious of giraffe considered threatened. we moved her from another zoo to insure genetic diversity of this specious as mest of our females have bred more then once already. and then just lastly it was not just

for humans as part of the animal wellness enrichment program. we used treats and behavioral methods to alleviate stress when animals receive medical procedures. of course their idea of treats might be different then ours. the wolverines received kale pop s (inaudible) that completes my report. >> thank you. >> any public comment in room 416 on item 7? seeing none, do we have hands raised? okay. seeing no public comment public comment is closed. thank you tania. we are on item 8 the rpd budget overview

fy23-24 and 24-25. commissioners i e-mailed you a copy of the resolution that antonio will mention at some point so please take a look at that. >> good morning. an tow guerra director of administration and finance and with me today is budget manager tiffany wong who is loading up the powerpoint. we are here to talk about the two year proposed budget. let's go to the next slide. i want to walk through the agenda very quickly. it is a lengthy presentation. i'll try to get through it as entertainingly and briefly as possible. starting on the budget strategy principle and outreach, proposed revenue and expend budget, capital budget and budget investments. next slide. first our strategies principle and outreach. next slide. we have four

key documents plus equity metric we use when we develop the budget. so, today is part of the resolution we are asking to adopt revised se budget principles and the key provisions and decided to strike and underline. we are making budget choices and taking out language regarding the pandemic, but which most directly align with department strategic plan and equity. principle 5 we are upholding the responsibility of environmental stewereds and supportic the city climate adaptation policy. item 6, pursue new ideas and partnership and continue to

replace earned revenues impacted by the pandemic. next slide. regarding our budget outreach, we had many meetings. we met with memberoffs the public, staff and other community stakeholders to insure diverse input received and incorporated into there development of the budget. we had two town hall budget meetings one virtual. we come to full commission twice. we aults come to the operation committee with update on february 2. we had a all staff brown bag presentation with pizza on february 1, and there wasn't a quorum at this meeting in february so we will be headed there march 7. under the proposed revenue budget, the recreation and parks earned programmed revenue budget has been in the state of flux since

march 2020 when the pandemic started. i mentioned before but if you look at the last full year prior to the pandemic when everything was open and we were running full recreation programming we had $51.8 million in revenue. two years later in fiscal year 2021 program revenue is $29.6 million. that is $22 million hit to our actual revenue. in this budget we are projecting $62.1 million in fiscal year 23-24, 4 $4.2 million higher then the year we are in and $23-24, $4.2 million higher then the year we are in and following year $64.7 million. this is a trend of our earned and program revenues just going over what i discussed over the text. the one thing i point out, if you look at the two somewhat neon green lines we have 22-23 budget,

$57.9 million earned program revenue. we had in the base $58.7 million for fy23-24 and upped to $62.1 million in this proposed budget. where did we end up bumping up the revenue? in a few spots. so, the first row garages and paid parking, we are proposing a projection of $8.2 million and this is based somewhat on current trends we received from the sfmta over the last month. additionally, special events that third row from $8.51 million to 7.691 million $7.691 million. fiscal 21-22 we had 6.61 and think we are right sizing the line. one big jump

is admission budget. we are bumping up that to over a $11 million due to the success of there gardens of golden gate park program. we are doing very well in terms of collecting revenue there. program fees go up a little bit. for the most part everything else is relatively the same but those are big changes. next slide, tiffany. the proposed open space fund this is a long-term trend when you look at the revenue overall. it is steady growth. if you look at the blue bars it is matching up nicely. we did assume as part of fy23-24 we receive $79.6 million and as mentioned the city controller office before we open the budget system knocked down to $77.7 million so that is $1.9 million reduction which doesn't look that much when it is like a shaving of a bar chart but

1.9 $1.9 million buys us quite a lot. so, on to the proposed expenditure budget. so, our budget in fiscal year 23-24 of $367.8 million is 52 percent more then the fiscal year 22-23 budget of $241.3 million. wow, that is lot. where is that all coming from? i'll get to that in a second with the capital projects because it isn't out of the operating revenue. i want to mention the general fund support of $91.2 million and that is baseline and what we receive from the mayor's office for things like additional park rangers, is $3.72 million or 4 percent more then the $87.5 million we receive in the current year. the reason you often hear us talk about getting additional $3 million each year, we have

what are known as add-backs where the board of supervisors uses funds from our budget to add certain things as part of their process, so we had a large reduction to our park ranger staffing salary and fringe in year one. $3.72 million increase in 23-24. and in 24-25 it is essentially a baseline adjustment for the new cost related to annualization of new positions, cola, healthcare, retirement. basically anything that we project will increase. so, if you look at this budget by program, you might notice usually when we present this the pie chart is relatively the same, but this time it is different because we budget $105 million for the sf marina improvement project in fiscal year 23-24. so, when you look at the let bar chart

that is 33 percent of the 23-24 budget. our operating side is probably more fairly reflected on the 24-25 proposed. parks and open space, 47 percent, rec, 17 percent and structural maintenance and capital planning and we do have to budget the remaining allocation for this marina project in the upcoming fiscal year. next slide. if you look at the budget by account, year 1 because of that $105 million for the marina the capital outlay is massive, $143.6 million, 39 percent, which-fiscal year 24-25 the more realistic and annual projections we have salaries is about 43 percent, fringe, 16 percent. the other thing i point out here on this

budget by account is we have a large piece of our pie chart in both years that goes to what are known as work orders between departments. interdepartmental igruments and where twee get sfpuc charges, city attorney charges, various charges that don't necessarily come from us operated by charged by other departments. next slide. so, speaking of work orders, i think it was commissioner louie at the operation commission said, what should we be worried about and what could happen? one thing we just recently found out is the sfpuc is proposing a new storm water charge as many know we have a combined sewer system that streets both the wastewater and storm water. the sfpuc is proposing the storm water charge that was essentially not be charged by how much water volume we use as a

department but the area of our land and so as you imagage if we are 19 percent of the land in the city that is a significant amount and the charge is split between permeable land, which the lawn in the parks, versus impurmiable land like a rec center or tennis court or pickleball court. those two separate charges they are working with on this now. the current wastewater budget is $1.77 million. we have been told specifically within that wastewater budget and with by the way these are-still finding out and working with partners at the sfpuc, could be 50 percent to 90 percent increase next year and 30 to (inaudible) and also lead to believe these increases will continue over the next few years. the other thing i point out and not just talking about the water reduction measures that the operations team has been so

diligent on, but just average growth of the water budget which includes the volume of water reduction it has gone up on a cumulative average of 8.9 percent since fiscal year 12-13. $2.86 million to $6.7 million. this is something that i wont say keeps me up at night, i will say that i'm very very very concerned but we are working with the sfpuc and continue to work with them and that is also part of the resolution i believe ashley sent out to ask you to direct us to come back with more information on storm water charge. so, to the proposed capital budget, we are proposing to spend $15 million of general fund capital and facility maintenance project over the next 2 years. that was our baseline amount and fell below i think one

point below $12 million and slowly building it back up after our revenue recovered after the pandemic. some highlights include $640 thousand for concession maintenance. this is bump up of about $240 thousand and i think we would be planning to use this at beach chalet. fencing of 6 $650 thousand. (inaudible) increase of mather. ada compliance for $800 thousand. we also have a $9 million request to the city capital planning committee for a new roof at the palace of fine arts. next slide. so, the picture on your screen is a look from the east marina out to the golden gate bridge and this is the project

that i mentioned previously. the marina project. this is a-we are proposing to allocate $105 million to fully fund this project. the reason why we need all the funding in fiscal year 23-24 is because we are looking to enter a cmgc contract process where we would need all the funding up front. previous years we have been allocating millions on a annual basis based on how much we were expected to get reimbursed from pg&e for the work. on to the proposed budget investments. so, i have broken into mayoral priorities and first is recoorfby of local economy with focus on downtown. increasing funding in both years, $500 thousand in 23-4 and

$1 million in 24-25. i will have more recreation investments in a moment. for financial planning and accounting we propose a substitution of the finance and accounting manager to a finance director manager 4. we are also upgrading the bujs lt grants manager from a analyst principle administrative analyst to analyst 2. additionally, we are developing a new pathway involving the controller's office for a new accountant to join our team. it's what they call a fast-team. we work with the controller's office on the hiring, they bring somebody and help train them and find a spot for them within our department. we are also making investment in the partnerships division. substitute 11823 senior administrative analyst to principle administrative analyst, suxitute a 33 of 2 to

senior analyst and (inaudible) and providing funding for a new 1820 junior administrative analyst specializing in community outreach. so, for improving public safety and street conditions, we are proposing investment in our capital and planning accounting and procurement team. the way project positions work, they get charged general obigation bond project so technically we don't necessarily see the full extent of the cost in the annual budget but what we do expect is not hundred percent of the time it is charged there is a little that goes into the capital program management budget of hundred thousand dollar we propose to add 4 finance positions (inaudible) senior administrative analyst and one, 1822 administrative

analyst and these positions support capital and planning delivery of the 2020 health and recovery bond. we are also on july 1 and you will be seeing more information about this soon, the transfer of selected parks within the mission bay park system to rec and park. in last year's budget we added 11 positions that we will start may 2023. 7 gardeners park section supervisor, 2 custodians and one custodial supervisor. we are also requesting a new service area manager that would be charged 50 percent to mission bay system and 50 percent of the time spent on other parks. additional gardener, 2 park rangers and funding for utility and structural maintenance as mission bay and we are assuming the staff will be reimbursed. the work will be

reimbursed by ocii quhoo has the final budget decision on how we will be receiving but we are in a current mou process with them. next slide. so, for improving public safety and street conditions, we have a couple positions in structural maintenance, a painter to painter supervisor 1 and general labor to a ornamental iron worker. and then additionally we had a previous change in hiring that we are budgeting through this process. a 7344 carpenter that used to be a 7342 locksmith. we are going to be requesting to the mayor's office additional park rangers so it the $2.1 million in 23-24 and $1.79 million in 24-25 is a estimate what 15 raimp ranger s would get. it is one dispatcher and

rangers plus vehicles and equipment that goes into that assumption. next slide. speaking of the rangers, one of the priorities for mayor breed is reduce homelessness and transform (inaudible) the one thing in that area this department does is work with homeless outreach team and that will continue. next slide. so, for accountability and equity and programming services and suspeneding. we are upgrading disability access coordinator and program manager from 1823 to 6335 and the reason is because this revised classification and skillset will give that program manager the authority to make project design decisions and that is really important for the capital team. we are also adding proposing to add $60 thousand for accounting technologies so who is coming to the sites and i think our general manager said

on more then one occasion, if you don't count you don't count, so this will provide greater accountability process and improvement and enhance decision making for leadership and all us. we will be adding new positions for human resources. roughly $99 thousand in position substitutions. one will be a analyst for employee and labor relations and one will be analyst in exam and talent administration and there is a substitution for a 1246 principle human resource analyst to manager 4. next slide. so, continuing with the accountability and equity. we continue with the rec uity program funding through the shugry drink tax dollars. we will use some of the funding for the bayview safety swim and splash program which

is the waterfront park initiative. also fund a recreation coordinator and another for margeral hayword club house and expand the junior warrior team to 40. we added new positions for the rec center, 2 custodians one gardener and one supervisor to support the work at those sites. next slide. so, staff recommendation and next steps, with this proposal and the resolution provided, we are requesting that the commission approve the rec and park budget principles and approve-direct staff to present any new storm water charge the san francisco rec and park commission for review prior to their approval. and

with that, happy to take any questions. >> thank you very much. commissioner anderson. >> do you want to go to pub lic comment first? >> sure. >> item 8 the budget overview, any comment in room 416? come on up, richard. if there is anyone on the line who would like to comment, dial star 3 to be added to the queue. >> good morning commissioners rchlt richard harris, public golf alliance. i missed general public comment. would like to give a very brief thank you to the department to the commission, and staff, particularly to dana katchem who worked hard on the lease management agreement at golden gate park 9 which

successfully came to board of supervisors tuesday. congratulations and thanks all around from the golf community. now, on to the budget. i submitted very late yesterday a two page letter. i dont know whether you have it. i submitted one three page letter on item 9, one two page letter on item 8. because of the lateness, we had no time to go through very extensive document of the budget. we have several issues having to do with different golf funds and maybe recharacterized or moved or where they will be moved and we can't answer that now and mr. guerra and

tiffany wong-i don't expect them to answer that right now. we put them on paper, and we recommend that the golf budget-the golf fund which by statute needs to have a separate hearing on income and expenses annually before your commission that that would be a good device to that department and commission should institute going forward. we would like to cooperate with department and commission in seeing that in the future. >> richard thank you. you used up too much of your time complementing the staff on the work at golden gate park. i did get a copy of your material and i saw that you copied staff, so i will ask them to respond to the specific questions you asked to

you so you get them and if there is remaining issues let us know. >> yes. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> any other public comment in room 416? is there anyone with hand raised on the line? no hands raised. public comment is closed. commissioners. >> i had one question antonio and it is--it is a small one, but you mentioned $3 million increase in the park patrol staff as i recall. if that's new money, does that imply we will be hiring up to fill positions with that money and if that is the case, given the uncertainties of the budgets and where we go, is there any assurance once someone is hired that there will be a continued position for them? >> yeah, i think the plan at this moment is to

discuss and looking globally there was a previous analysis the general manager and director of operations danny kern talk about that based on system of our size we needed additional 40 rangers. last year from mayor breed we received 10. this year the general manager has asked to present a 15 ranger proposal, and in essence we are asking for additional general fund. outside what we previously received in the baseline. we have a fantastic relationship with the mayor's office. we town to work with them and the assumption is that funding would continue. i don't imagine why it wouldn't. i don't see why it wouldn't. >> thank you. i understand

there is no guarantees in this world. >> (inaudible) would support an ongoing budget request with one time sources. i think they look at our budget investments and requests as one time or ongoing and obviously this would be an ongoing. i think the combination of taking on new space, the mayor's commitment to revitalizing downtown, which does require-the rangers have been really successful and kudos to chief murphy and assistants chief santiago and entire team. uniformed trained, do not carry guns mix of ambassadors but they have been very successful allowing people to feel safe in spaces,

and it is a 24/7 shop, 365 days a year. it is also a shop where rangers do occasionally get injured. we really need more bodies to meet the level of service that i think our park users expect and frankly that our elected officials want. the number of requests we get for ranger staffing, which is a little more cost efficient then other forms of public protection. >> i'm well aware of the need and think we need many more and think they are doing a excellent job. i was curious on the prospect makes sure it was permanent funding so we are not letting someone go after a year because the budget is cut. commissioner anderson. >> thank you. i just wanted to throw a few iideas and take note. it could be i'm speaking from complete ignorance and appreciate a follow-up

on this. you raise a number of things or number of thinshs things in the budget. on may 16, 2019 we agreed to dynamic pricing in the gardens, and at that time it was suggested there be a one year follow-up. of course we had the pandemic but i would like that follow-up. i would like to see how that has been going and i also believe we should consider time entry and increasing fees because every time i go to those gardens they are absolutely thronged with people,ic which which is great so think we should capture opportunity there. also, as a forchler labor employment continue i'm curious about vacation liability and want to make sure we are on top of that and make sure people take vacation. they need it and shouldn't carry so much liability on the books. also there may be an issue around leave pay. i think there isn't

a full understanding among employees on how leave pay works and whether or not it applies to volunteers which i personally think should not. but i think there needs to be clarification. what does the mou mean about leave pay? on new hires, particularly in gardens, i think we should consider placing-move further towards hiring and placing workers with specialized experience and skills commensurate with the unique qualities of the sections in the departments, such as botanical gardens, japanese tea garden and conservancy of flowers. i like to point out for the purpose of the public that i believe that the marina project which will be over 120million a lot of the money is coming from a settlement we have with pg&e so

people should understand that money is coming from a outside source, correct kblrks that is correct. >> okay, good. now, i am very feeling very indignant about these storm water surcharges from the puc. i think of that as a husband charging a wife for services in the home. >> this is a family show, be careful. >> i didn't say what kind of service it . it could be putting up a curtain rod. i'm probably showing my ignorance. identify you might-how this works. as a voter who always supported our park bonds and i think $15 million is coming from park bonds, right? >> that is is from the general fund. >> okay, sorry. many

millions are coming, that money comes from the taxpayers for parks, and when we have to turn around and pay it to the puc which is another entity within our government, it just feels false. help me here. help me understand this. am i wrong about this or-help me move my instincts in the right direction please. >> i want to be-because we are work ing with there sfpuc on options i do want to be as diplomatic as possible. >> i don't, but go ahead. >> does it feel unfair-? for the rec fees we are capped. (inaudible) we need 9 percent a year for the next 10 years and we have a cost of service and when we need to charge that amount. it is a different type of relationship then the one we

have. in the other issue that we have is that we are a general fund baseline department now. we used to receive what was known as a target reduction from the mayor's budget office that said okay, we know about all these costs coming and i need you to reduce your cost and if you want to add anything let us know we'll think about it. now we are as a baseline department, these increased costs we have to find a way to pay them, so it a little more challenging even though we have much more control and ability to strategically prioritize investmentss right now in front of the commission, we also have greater responsibility when these increased cost come. now, is it personally do i think is fair for these large increases to happen? personally, no and that's why we are work ing with the sfpuc on a potential solution. we met with them last

week, met with them yesterday and we will continue to meet with them. >> i know that you will be diplomatic and sublime so thank you. but i very much like the addendum to the staff recommendation that we not consider any further increases in water or wastewater surcharges without it coming back to the commission and we have a chance to consider it whether or not there will be an approval to pay more money for that. i think that is it. >> thank you very much. commissioner hallisy. >> antonio, this is the third time i heard your presentation, and- >> i'm sorry. >> no, no, please don't apologize. i'm about to complement you. i

heard it at the all staff meeting and (inaudible) and know there are challenges coming but you paint it in a way that is very hopeful and i appreciate that. and a little walk down memory lane for general manager ginsburg recollect not sure if the commission is aware or people thin room for years and years and years, kids did not pay for facilities within the rec and park department. baseball diamonds, baseball-basketball gymnasiums for tournaments leagues et cetera. there was a terrific man named doug lee, (inaudible) and others you ghoe to the office, you book your time and there was never any charge and it turned out though that i'm a big youth advocate and i ran leagues and tournaments for years and the first time i got a bill i was very upset and i

was very fortunate to get a general audience with general manager ginsburg. we met on a breakfast place and we sat down, he heard me out, and then i listened and he said, if we dont start charging these groups, i will have to lay people off. i want to say that the best part of this presentation is that this is not going to cost anybody their job within this department. that was phil montra in 2011, it still and commend him for that. at the all staff meeting you had 300 plus people in there, and it was like a celebration, a party. it wasn't like we are going to have to go through

this drudgery of talking about crunching a budget, and i think the comrodry in the department is tremendous and it was due to the presentation you gave that day and more then anything due to the employees of rpd knowing phil has their back. so i know we have challenges coming forward, but the bottom line and the best part about your report and what i know is to come in this department is no one is going to lose their jobs. thank you very much for your presentation again and that's a complement, a very good one and phil thank you for your commitment to all your people. >> thank you commissioner hallisy. one addendum for the public and know you understand this nuance, but while we do charge for some limited reasons

for leagues there is no charge for youth athletic fieldss as long as it serves residents and league offers scholarships. there are some for profit sports leagues and we don't-there are no fees to schools at all for events during the week. >> i do understand some have to be charged and there is a reason because we expanded facilities and staff. we are offering more programs and the bottom line you are saving jobs. >> we are very not for profit organization. [laughter] >> thank you very much. commissioner griffin. >> thank you so much for the presentation. i just-i'm blown away by the marina build or budgets and the wastewater budgets. can you explain why they are so high? >> with the marina it is one time issue. $20

million--within the marina itself for next year, and i think that is what you are referring to, the size of the marina project 120million project, we need $105 million appropriated to set up the entire contract for the work. we will not get it all done by next fiscal year and that is reimbursed as part of the settlement agreement. >> let me add context. so, our budget that antonio presents is both the annual operating cost and capital budget. as antonio often says and i'll highlight, capital budgets are lumpy. funds get budgeted when they need to be appropriated or when they come in, so for example, if we got a large philanthropic gift you would have a lump of x million dollars. here we have the settlement with p

g&e showing up in the budget this year what could be a 10 year capital projects. the construction model is called a cm crrksgc agreement and does require funding in place and appropriated now even though it won't all be spent. next year you could be shocked by the fact it will look like we cut our $10 year capital projects. the construction model is called a cgc agreement and does require funding in place and appropriated now even though it won't all be spent. next year you could be shocked by the fact it will look like we cut our budget by 120million and we will have done so hopefully without any layoffs. it is just a way that large capital expenditures show up in our budget and not for dredging and we have our amazing harbor master here so glad he is here to give him a little bit of props. i believe we have one of the best harbor managers thin country who manages the marina well. we have challenges with

ongoing dredging. one thing you voted on last year is small assessment to the boaters to subsidize the cost to dredging which is very very very important. we are still subsidizing it a wee bit but hoping over time we get out of the business of subsidizing the cost. this is not that. this is the much larger east harbor renovation which also includes exciting pieces on had west harbor where we may potentially move the fuel dock. there is additional recreation opportunities for non boater jz a lot of habitat restoration and sea level rise adaptation strategy built into the project. >> i might add because i was at least peripherally part of this, the negotiation with pg&e was very much to the city's advantage and rec and park and a great effort over a long period of time.

>> in the wastewater-- >> yes, it is quite large. what we have been told is they have been contemplating this charge for years. it is combined sewer system through all most the entire city, and the original charge-what departments currently pay is based on volume of water used so if you have a parking lot you pay zero, and now what they saying they added a charge for a situation like that, but the idea is during a storm like the one we had in early january, and if you have this water that is not collected, and it is entering the system that is dual sewage and storm water, then we are not-in their eyes they are not calculating accurately the true cost of the

storm water perproperty so that is the analysis that we received from them and their interpretation. we are 19 percent of the city i have been told. it is very large, and it's a bigf-there is more to come. we are work wg them on what this charge will look like in our budget and so those discussions are ongoing. they are going to bring a rate consultant analysis to the rate fairness board where the rates are set and then we should know more. >> thank you so much. >> before i call on commissioner louie, it might be interesting to know if there are other cities with combined wastewater and storm water and how they reconcile public use, because we are all part of a family and it is all part of taxpayer dollars one way or

another so seems to me there is a lot of room to negotiate on this. commissioner louie, did you want to-- >> no. >> commissioner mazzola can you repeat what you said? >> the answer is we are the only city in california that does that. >> california-has combined system? >> yes. >> got it. thank you. >> really? >> thank you antonio- >> is that because we are both city and county commissioner? >> we ought to research that but any rate it seems we may learn from other people do it because i believe it is a inter-family dispute. you got the same budget to run the operation and who will pay for what. commissioner louie. >> president buell. >> yes. >> the surcharge percentages of 50 percent to 90 percent increase for next year

and then following year the big figures of 30 percent-that is a lot, and despite all the water savings initiatives that is disturbing, and so president buell, is there way we can bring back the topic of the- >>b there certainly is. >> water increase back to our commission? >> i pleev there -believe there is a modified resolution that asks in the last paragraph the storm water-increase in storm water fees be brought back to this commission for approval before we put that in the budget. >> sfgovtv can you please put the screen up? >> i think that issue is addressed in it so i see commissioner anderson, was that your request? >> i want to request it go up because it was e-mailed to us and also language in the packet.

>> good. general manager ginsburg, you had something short to add? >> i sure. one reflection and just a thank you. the reflection is, it is interesting-this is not the only example of departments passing costs on to other departments. this one is particularly surprising and painful and it does raise some legitimate city wide policy questions about how the city budgets, and what is happening is it is all most like a little bit of a wee bit of arms race in which everybody is looking to pass their cost to other agencies. it is very challenging. this one is--the amount of money we are talking here is really closes rec centers. it does lay

off gardeners, it is significant. >> we shall flush it all out. >> yes. to that end and well done by the way, bravo-i wanted to just take a second to thank antonio and tiffany and dana who is very involved in the budget. diana from our new fabulous director of people and culture and all of the leadership team. the budget is a collaborative effort that is captained very very gracefully and successfully by antonio and tiffany who is very sort of quitely managing the slides, but she might be the brains behind the operation. it is fantastic team so we are actually-this was not a simple budget. last year's budget was much easier. this is a challenging one and i'm proud of the way or team has come together toprint -present this to you.

>> couldn't agree more and it is challenging time. >> i like to move approval as reflected on that piece of paper up there. >> as modified. yes. second. moved and seconded. any other comments or questions? seeing none-all in favor? >> aye. >> so moved. thank you antonio and staff. >> unanimous. >> we are on item 9, park evaluation report. >> hello commissioners. hello phil. my name is ben, with the recreation and parks department and here with my colleague craig from the controller's office and we are here to present the fiscal year 22 park maintenance standard annual report. i was at the

rec and park all staff meeting so i do know we have a couple new commissioners who may not have seen this report before, so what it essentially is is a voter pass prop c back in 2003 which says we as a department need to maintain our parks and then report on that maintenance. and as phil mentioned at the beginning of the program we have been on a 2 year hiatus because of the pandemic, so the last annual report that we released and presented was fiscal year 19. there was no report for fiscal year 20 or 21. since fiscal year 19 there has been a little of a change internally. we developed a brand new park evaluation tool in the house with the help of consultants. it is on a very powerful platform calls esre to

evaluate the parks. i will go over the agenda and craig will do the bulk of the presentation. we will talk about that covid-19 impact. we will share all the previous scores. we did have some scores for fiscal year 20 even though we diden vt a full annual report so we want today take a look and analyze the data. didn't want to waste it. then we will share our park maintenance dashbord which is amazing dashboard open to the public. anyone can go on, look at their favorite park and data and trends. it is very awesome tool. and finally look ahead to see what is next for next fiscal year. with that, i will pass the baton over the craig who essentially put this whole thing together by himself.

very amazing. >> good afternoon. san francisco mobilization and response to the covid-19 pandemic in march 2020 lead to a pause of park evaluations. as consequence fiscal year 2020 only saw 3 of 4 quarters of evaluations, and fiscal year 2021 no evaluations at all. despite fiscal year 2020 having partial data due to the interruption the results are still statistically representative and valid. evaluations recommenced in fiscal year 2022. next slide. this line chart shows the city wide average park maintenance score from fiscal year 15 to fiscal year 22. the city wide average score is the average of

all park maintenance scores across 166 parks evaluated as part of the program. each park maintenance score can range from 0 percent to hundred percent based off how many maintenance standards are met. the city wide average score is a important indicator used in many reports including rpd strategic plan, the mayor's budget book, the controller's office annual performance report and public facing city score cards. the score was 91 percent in fiscal year 2022 down one percentage point from fiscal year 2020. since fiscal year 19 met or exceeded the city wide average score goal in the annual performance results report. the target goal has since been raised from 90 percent to 91 percent as of fiscal year 22. rpd

is also interested in tracking the proportion of parks which receive a score of 85 percent or higher. a score of 85 percent generally indicates a park is well maintained and features are in good condition. fiscal year 22, 89 percent of parks exceeded that threshold. these maps show the locations of the highest and lowest scoring parks across the city based off the top and bottom 10 percent of park scores each year. high scoring parks are shown in teal while low scoring parks are shown in yellow. the left map shows high and low scores parks from fiscal year 15 to 19. fiscal year 2019 standard report stated

that "there are still persistent geographic disparities, the lowest scoring parks tend to be in the southern half of the city while the high est scoring parks tend to be in the northern part of the city". the map on the right shows high and low scoring parks for fiscal year 20and 22. it shows the geographic disparities of the past have been moderately reversed with a more equitable distribution of high and low scoring parks across the city then in the past. equity zones are neighborhoods disproportionately effected by environmental health risks. high quality parks in equity zones can help mitigate these environmental health risks. after analysis of best

practices rpd developed a new standard for mapping equity zones based off the environmental justice community tool developed by there san francisco planning department. the teal bubbles on the map represent park in equity zones. the line chart on the right track the average park maintenance scores for equity zones verses parks in non equity zones. fiscal year 22, equity zone parks averaged 89 percent while non equity zone parks averaged 92 percent. these compared to city wide average of 91 percent. this map shows each of the city supervisor district maintenance scores calculated as the average of each district park scores. darker colors

indicate higher scores. the table besides the map shows each district score in fiscal year 22. the highest district score was 93 percent while the lowest was 87 percent. district scored similarly in fiscal year 22 with 10 of 11 supervisor districts scoring within 2 percentage points of the city wide average. this compared favorly to fiscal year 15, when only 7 of 11 districts scored within 2 points of the city wide average. six parks received perfect scores of 100 percent in fiscal year 2022. the highest number of perfect scoring parks in a single year. there were 5 perfectly scoring parks in fiscal year 20, none in fiscal year 19 and one in fiscal year 18. the table on the left shows the names and

neighborhoods of the parks and the right shows where the parks are located across the city. this line chart shows the average scores for passive versus active recreation features. passive recreation features are those experienced indirectly like green scape hard scape or trees. active recreation by contrast are those features experienced directly like fields children play areas or restrooms. fiscal year 22, passive recreation features averaged 93 percent while active recreation features trailed at 88 percent. historically, active recreation scores trailed passive recreation scores because they require more frequent maintenance, especially when park

attendance surges. the fiscal year 2022 annual report was streamlined to showcase the most notable maintenance trends and data highlights while the online interactive dashboard was over-hauled and expanded. i will give a brief walk-through of the updated dashboard. residents can learn more about the park eval waishz process here on the about page. the city wide scores tab lets readers examine different measures of park maintenance across the entire city and supervisor districts. readers are click on buttons, use

drop-down filters, and hover over data visualizations to reveal additional information. the equity zone tab provides readers with a detailed understanding of environmental health risks and allows the direct comparison of equity zone versus non equity zone park scores and evaluation data. the park features tab allows readers to find the best parks suited to their interests like a well maintained tennis court, dog play area or community garden. rpd also uses these feature scores to better plan maintenance needs by identifying the features with the most maintenance needs. lastly, the park look up tool helps readers

zero in on a specific park to learn more about its main levels. >> so that is essentially our preezentation for the fiscal year 22 park maintenance standards so looking ahead we will be looking to add additional data tools to the dashboard both externally and internally, so we are essentially want to improve the user experience both end user and internal staff overall. that is it. i will open the floor to any questions. >> this is discussion only but we can go to public comment first. >> please do. >> any public comment on the item in room 416? come up richard. if anyone is online dial star 3 to be added to the

queue. >> richard harris again with the public golf alliance. our comment we gave in a three page letter which notes the absence of the golf courses from the accountability tool. the golf courses are 24 percent of the earned revenue of this department. they are important. this tool is useful both for the public and the department. when the mayor's budget analyst gave the department a management review in 2006, they noted that the golf courses were omitted and said they should be omitted and should not be omitted and we agree with that. we

have given the citations in our three page letter. we have made this point before, and are making it again. it is a simple request and i thank you. >> thank you richard. >> anyone else in room 416 who would like to comment on item 9? seeing none, do we have anyone with their hand raised on the line? no hands raised. commissioners you may have discussion. >> i dont see comments other then our general manager and also commissioner griffin. go ahead mr. general manager. >> i want to offer a quick thank you andic acknowledgment of the controller office for terrific partnership and thank (inaudible) and ben wong for management of this program which actually involves our own staff going and doing inspections. it is a

really good tool objective tool and if anybody wanted to do a park inspection it is fun and interesting. and the way that data is sliced and diced this year is really exciting. if you are a data geek you can drill down and look at package of parks youp want and geographic area and focus on any feature which is exciting so just a big thank you to the team that does this. >> thank you. commissioner griffin. >> yes. the gentleman's question about the golf courses, is there a answer to that? as to why it is not part of the- >> it may be part of a broader question of that all our golf courses are run by operators or independent entities as opposed to rec and park employees. >> dont we have rec employee park doing the maintenance?

>> gardeners for sure. >> we maintain the golf courses, they just run the rounds. concession. >> i'm lidia, i manage the program and thank ben and graig and sherman. >> great presentation. >> very detailed and new threshold. i hate to admit i'm one of the people long in the tooth in the dp apartment along with deni and both here when this was voted and implemented so that was 2003. we had a draft evaluation standards not inspections. key evaluations. they are not inspections. in 2005 we initiated at 2006 which the audit came out and the general manager agreements operation environment changes, we had a few general managers in the department so that was at that time and that was noted, but what we did is we developed these standards with the controller office and also conducted best practice research throughout the united states. one of the

staff even was spoiled and got to go to new york city because they had one of the first evaluation tools so that is one thing we did and together with the controller office we had to interpret the words in the legislation so what was done in reading the legislation basically interpret parks as a free public facility. equal access to all. so we do not evaluate specialized facilities even if they are free. might need special knowledge and we especially don't evaluate paid facilities. a narrow specialized focus, so that explains why that decision was made and why it continue s. >> thank you. >> the harbor probably doesn't fall under this either? >> which one? >> (inaudible) >> we don't do anything past the gates where the docks are. >> thank you for the

explanation. >> no problem. thank you. >> commissioner louie. >> i would be quick. thank you ben and craig. that was awesome. i can't wait to go home. it is very interactive map. you continue to make the department and our parks look beautiful and i will try the dog interactive button when i get home. thank you. >> commissioner griffin. >> can we just get this on sfgov? does the public have access? >> yep. >> to this tool? >> okay. on the sfgov website and controller and we have a link on our own website. >> i will do the same thing commissioner louie is doing, i will go home and play on this thing. >> on that note, i will add it is stating the obvious but the scores keep going up and that is a craedt credit to everybody in the department so they all should take a pat on

the back for-i hear it all the time everywhere that everybody loves the parks and they think they have never been in better shape, so it is a real tribute to a dedicated staff and i guess we ought to tip our hat to the leadership of the staff too. onward and upward. >> that was discussion only. we are on item 10 and call item 11 along with item 10. noe valley town square restroom grant acceptance and donor recognition and specified grant acceptance expend. >> good morning commissioners. is it still morning? no, good afternoon. my name is

dahlia curry with the partnership division. the item before you is to recommend that the board of supervisors authorize rpd to accept from volumetric building companies and public restroom company an inkind grant of prefabicated modular restroom and instillation at noe valley town square valued at approximately $425 thousand and to approve a donor recognition sign. noe valley town square is located 3861 24th street between sanchez and-the site is quarter acre surrounded by retail shops and service. the property purchased by

rpd in june of 2013 and concept design plan for a public open space was approved by this commission in april of 2014. the proposal to establish a public open space at the site was 4 years of collaboration between rpd, community group, residents for noe valley town square, then supervisor scott wiener office and san francisco parks alliance. the square opened to the public on october 27, 2016. during the park design process there was broad consensus that a restroom will be a valuable addition to the site and approved 2014 concept plan contemplated a public restroom in the northeast corridor of the plaza, which is just behind it bulletin board. the addition of restroom

is approvered by the planning department. fisial year 21-22 budget allocated funds for project planning including evaluating the viability of modular restroom and prepare cost estimates for project funding: before the work began the noe valley community successfully advocated fl state funds for the project based on high level estimate for custom built custom design restroom at the site. in november of 2022, rpd was approached by volumetric building company and public restroom company who expressed interest in a modular restroom. the restroom manufactured off-site and served as their

demonstration model at trade shows throughout the country for approximately a year. public restroom company specializes in manufacturing modular restroom facilities and volumetric building companies designs manufactures and builds housing and hospitality buildings around the world. the value of the grant is estimated to be approximately $425 thousand. this includes the modular prefab restroom facility itself. instullsation and site improvement including design and engineering service to create permit drawings, relocation of drinking fountain, and electrical water and plumbing hookups. they agreed to utilize union contractors for site work. rpd portion of the project will include landscape design, permits, environmental review and some architecture

engineering totaling approximately $300 thousand. to recognize dones generous contribution rpd propose to install a plaque on are est arem that will be a maximum of 2 feet by 2 feet in accordance with the gift policy. the final sign and wording would be subject to the mutual agreement of the parties. this is the preliminary schedule. we are currentsly in the planning phase now through march. drawings for permits and construction will be developed april through may with bid award in june through july and construction taking place in late summer early fall. that concludes my presentation for this item. should i go right into the next? >> i think so. that would be helpful. >> okay. i am here

for tony who would couldn't be here today but believe she is online. this item is discussion and possible action to adopt a resolution to approve application to the california department of parks and recreation specified grant program in the amount of $1.7 million for prefabicated public restrooms starting with noe valley town square and other spaces if funding is to recommend the board of supervisors authorize the recreation and park department to accept and expend the grant funds and finally to recommend the board of supervisors authorize the general manager to enter into a grant agreement. i just provided background on the history of the project. this preezentation focuses on the $1.7 million specified grant the department received as part of the fiscal year

22-23 budget. the grant is administered by the california department of rec and park. it requires a resolution to apply for the grant funding. once received this is fallowed by executing a grant and then applying for projects to expend the grant funding. the grant award in the amount of $1.7 million awarded to construct a bathroom at noe valley town square. we sense received inkind grant and found ways to reduce project cost and now allocate $300 thousand of that funding to this bathroom project. the department is coordinating with the state expanding the grant contract to allow to use the remaining $1.4 million to fund the instillation of modular restroom at (inaudible) other parks and open spaces if funding is available. thank you. >> thank you. should

we gee to public comment? >> we also have tony muran on webex. would you like me to take public comment separately? >> let's try to take it together since it was presented together. >> item 10 and 11, anyone in room 416 who would like to comment? okay. seeing none, is there anyone with their hand raised? no hands raised. seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. >> thank you. commissioner mazzola. >> thank you. so, this item is big issue for me and there are two reasons why it is big issue. the first issue is that i think it is illegal to be here. by way of the board of supervisors and by charter by 12x it prohibits contracting, shall not enter into

any contract with a entity from 30 different states. one being nevada where this thing was made. it doesn't say unless it is free. doesn't say that anywhere in there. so, i think it is is illegal we are contemplating doing this today and it is on the agenda and i have board members at the board of supervisors that agree with me. you have a ban, it is a ban. there isn't a end around or loop hole because it is free. when we talk about it being free. first off, the founders of noe valley town square are against it by way of letter in our packets. a donor recognition sign. we will brag about the fact that we got this from nevada, a state by city charter we are not aloud to have a agreement with.

doesn't say monetary agreement, any agreement. if we approve that is agreement with the city if they are able to install this. that is an agreement. all this developer cares about is free advertising. the puplicity stunt for them. nothing is free. don't be fooled. they are looking to profit. you heard this isn't the only one. rec and park wants to stall more. this just opens the door to more of that. it should stop there because i feel this is illegal, but i'm going to talk about the other reservation with this in case you deem it is legal and should vote on this today which i don't think we should by way of what 12x said. if you read 12x it says we can't be doing this and if anybody says otherwise i

disagree and love to hear it. anyway, let's move to the off-site construction issue. one small bathroom, then a big one, then it is kitchen, then it is big structure. where does it stop? you know we are doing ? shipping out local jobs. who worked on these units? how much did the workers get paid? were the workers exploited? i guarantee they were not getting prevailing wages. there was no codes. there was no local hire. there was no inspection of the units. why does the city want to do business with a company that exploit workers and take jobs from the local economy. where are there values? how do we know it isn't a sweat shop? is saving money more important then protecting workers?

we need to keep jobs in san francisco. another worry is the city tries to by-pass the labor agreement we just negotiated by grabbing something that is free and says falls under the threshold. big worry. good job and good apprenticeship opportunities are shipped out of town. also shipped out of town are economic sustainable with local hire living waijss healthcare pensions and other economic benefits of properly spent public dollars. how are unions supposed to take in under privileged san franciscans in the apprenticeship program when the work is shipped out of town down off site? the next time someone complains about the wages of gardener or plumber, remember we are told the landscape design alone will be excess of $300 thousand to add plants. does anybody have a idea how long the free toilet has to be replaced because it is built bay non

skilled workers and sink on the outside that will be used a a sink, toilet, shower and probably ripped off the side wall. if you want to take $1.7 million go ahead but figure a way to normalize the construction cost. it isn't the workers that are the problem. thank you. >> thank you commissioner. commissioner griffin. >> i also have concerns about this modular thing. i didn't know until today that there are more in the pipeline, so i also have a real concern about it. i just wanted to register that. >> thank you. commissioner jupiter jones. we heard this capital at committee and it was explained to us that the ban

12x specifically donations are not included in that, so that was the question is is that accurate and my second question, the second modular-accepting the grant to do more-are we buying those from the same company that is donating this one for noe valley? >> director of policy and public affairs we are advice ed 12x does not apply to gifts. 12x is a section of the code that prohibits us from purchasing or contracting with companies that exist and believe it is 30 states that have restricted abortion or lgbtq ai plus laws. that provision does not apply to acceptance of gifts. mono is here if we want furkter clarification on that. in regards to the second question about the $1.7 million that the

state allocated to give to us, as dahlia said we are planning to use $300 thousand of the 1.7 for soft cost associated with thris project and the remainder for our top priority site for new restroom which is presita park and purchase and some of the cost of the instillation restroom. >> are we buying from the company donating the one? >> no because we are prohibited from buying so we would purchase through the normal purchasing process. >> we don't know wlaut what that would be? >> we dont know. there is a procurement process that people can bid on essentially. >> thank you. >> commissioner anderson. >> how common is it for us to

purchase modular bathrooms like what is mentioned? have we done that before and if when and where? >> we have oo customized modular restroom at in mclaren park, so we have purchased them before, and then made adjustments to them to fit the site. dan, do you know how many in the system? >> i dont know--(inaudible) >> commissioners i just-i note for context that every (inaudible) you walk by on every street corner in san francisco is a modular restroom. >> i say not common. we have a few in the system. >> right. commissioner mazzola, i am quite sympathetic to the things you were saying, and also acutely aware

of press we have gotten and opinions from taxpayers, residents of the city who also are sympathetic and grateful to the advocacy of the unions but who also want to make sure that their dollar s are stretched and valued and that we get the biggest bang for the buck. and also want us to consider there is a number of dog play areas and playgrounds where there are not facilities for using the restroom like upper douglas dog park and it is really hard on people to look around for a bathroom, and we cant really afford to build 1.7 and $2 million bathrooms all over the system. i would love to in the

future figure out how local 38 and other unions can wrestle with this conundrum. theoretically could a bathroom for this space be completely built by rpd workers? i understand it is already been pre-piped for a instillation, right? >> it was pre-piped during the noe valley construction process and don't know who the particular contractor was but all of our prevailing wage laws would apply. while we had some success--our in-house structural maintenance staff is fabulous and we had folks who worked on the bugota and many

years before worked on the kezar and ask the (inaudible) time to time, but remember there is a difference between construction maintenance and the day to day maintenance of fixing things that are broken including plumbing and irrigation. the way we typically work with some small exceptionals is that we are resourced to take care of our-yard does an amazing job responding to emergencies and fixing what is broke and we do use the city contracting processes to do construction. >> thank you. >> commissioner mazzola. >> so, i looked up 12x on my phone and i have there contracting part. no where in here sarah i love you but no where in here does it

say you can accept a gift. the word gift isn't in here so i disagree with that. it just boggles my mind that we care about women's rights and lgbtq rights but if it is free we don't care anymore. makes no sense to me. as far as the cost of this thing , i think kat is on bord, we can do this in house. dpw and puc want to inflate their prices that isn't our fault. the city is inept in managing projects. that's not the workers fault. there is no cost effective energy green build design, it is just race to the bottom, who can get to the cheap est. why don't go to bang ladesh or china to get it cheaper and turn our backs on every working in san francisco and spending money in the community here. this is big problem and big

issue. >> thank you. seeing no other comment, i guess i don't want to force you to the podium to tell us, but i'm going to assume what we are doing is legal. now i'll force you to the podium and force you to answer. >> good afternoon commissioners. i think one question we heard overall that maybe i can help is does 12x prohibit the acceptance of gift from a state for a company based in a state on the 12x list? does admin code 12x prothibt city accepting a gift from a company based in a state on the 12x list thin case nevada. commissioner mazzola you are right that 12x does not use the word gift.

our office has understood and interpreted to allow that because what it does say is that a contract covers contracts, means an agraument between a contracted department and person that is at expense of the city for public works to be purchased. if the city wanted to hire a contractor using city funds to do this work, it would not be able to use a contractor based in 12x state. because the purchase-the receipt oof gift is not at expense of the city, it is a gift, 12x doesn't apply. it is a policy decision certainly. the commission has the option to reject the gift if thatss is preference but 12x doesn't prohibit the commission from accepting it. >> thank you. so,

certainly this issue has gotten a lot of attention, and the cost have been challenge in many ways, and as a result some costs have been reduced by this donation and state money coming in. the fact that i think commissioner mazzola raises a legitimate issue in the broader sense of what the city should and shouldn't do, but i believe that unless the legislative body of the city wants to change the way we do business, we are presented with a opportunity to solve a problem at a less expensive price by donation and think we would be as much at fault to turn that down under those circumstances. i for one would recommend that we move forward on this, but note, i have been to the union headquarters. i have seen the train ing these fellows get. you get a superior product. you get an educated

dedicated workforce and so philosophically i'm hundred percent behind the idea we ought to have absolute rules around how things are done in the city but if we are legally in a position to approve this, i think it would be prudent and think irresponsible not to do it so with that i recommend a motion to approve. sorry, commissioner mazzolaism >> i like to make a motion to deny the gift. >> there is motion on the floor deny and seconded by commissioner griffin. can you call the roll? >> i want to double check that we are talking about just the item 10, correct? the gift of the restroom. >> they are together? >> we called them together- >> we can separate by

vote. we have a motion and second to deny. >> item 10. >> right. call the roll. >> on the motion to disapprove item 10 [roll call] >> the motion fails. i see other commissioners want to speak. you have more to say commissioner anderson? >> yeah, i wanted to say that again i appreciate larry's advocacy rfx it isn't just larry, it is local 38 and all the unions who work to serve us well and hope he will continue to push and press on things. but the media attention given to

this $1.7 million bathdroom, the embarrassment when haney decided not to show up and the micro scope that we went under-i actually appreciate it because some may recall a few years goy ago when we wereprinted with a $1.7 million bathroom in mclaren park. i questioned that, because that seems like a lot of money. you can buy homes for less then that. so, this is a one off larry, it is gift. because this is such a small space and because of the media attention on this and the fact that i'm cognisant of also taxpayer voices here, i'm going to support this, but i want to ask a question and i hope that we can actually work around this question and that is,

when next are we going to be confronted with plans for 1.7 to $2 million bathroom? that needs to stop. but it also-the building of the bathrooms needs to include our workers and we need to adhere to the policies set forth by our legislature. >> thank you. commissioner griffin. >> what is the-why is there company donating this modular bathroom? do they plan on donating more? >> i do believe the donation itself is a one off and i don't disagree with commissioner mazzola on the point that it is good marketing and public relations. they jumped on this when the national stories broke and reached out.

>> it was noted this was the model sent around the united states to trade shows showing what they could do. >> exactly. >> i think it is one time- >> exactly. >> it is possible we have the donor on the line. >> in that case, it is also important to offer a thank you to the donor. the donor didn't have to do this by the way and there are a lot of other cities and counties and states and jurisdictions that also would have taken a free modular functional modular restroom, and i think this is really a interesting one and challenging one for the parks department. we care about stewarding public money and our capital program is extraordinary success. the people that lead our capital program, stacey and dan and planning director, they work so hard to steward

taxpayer money and yet deliver and meet expectations of the public. we are guided bay the city attorney office has done analysis for us, we are guided by 27 different codes and statutes putting aside reasonable stakeholder debate about what's appropriate and what's not appropriate. 27 different local code sections- >> you were going to speak after me. >> it was my way of answering the question. >> keep going. >> that puts us in a-that's how you get $1.7 million restrooms. so, i think commissioner anderson, to your point, and to your comment which also partially responding to- >> commissioner griffin why don't you go ahead. >> okay. i know i

keep hearing about the $1.7 million bathroom, but this bathroom is valued at $425 thousand. that correct? >> that is correct. >> that's a reasonable price with the city willing to pay for something like that? if they had to purchase them? and if so, why can't we purchase them made by union labor here in the city? >> because they may or may not exist. there are modular restroom companies commissioner griffin and this one is a gift but there is a bunch of collateral costs that are-this is why i mention the 27 different codes and statutes and pursuant to the earlier conversation about the cost passed to this department is we try to deliver public amenities,s there is a

whole wake of collateral efficiencies that are achieved by using a modular restroom in design, in planning, in reviews, in regulations and all kinds of stuff. because these things for example are proved at the state level is one example. so, these are efficiency choices. we had modular restrooms thin past and have up most respect of mr. mazzola but i disagree on this point. i think that this is a city that does extraordinary amount of work to protect labor standards and to look out for workers. we also have to balance that with our responsibility to the public and this is a much more appropriate and efficient way of delivering this type of amenity.

>> thank you. seeing no other comments, the chair would entertain a motion to approve this item. both items 10 and 11. >> so moved. >> been moved. is there a second? >> second. >> been moved and second. could the secretary please call the roll? >> motion to approve item 10- [roll call] >> motion passes to approve item 10. we would now have a discussion or motion on item 11. >> entertain a motion on item 11. >> i thought you made the motion to have them together? we voted on them both. >> what is the secretary going to tell me? >> we called them together and took public comment

together but they are two separate item. >> so take two separate votes is what you are telling me? >> president buell i will entertain a motion for both 10 and 11 together. >> we have to take these separately. i will entertain a motion on item 11. >> so moved. >> been moved. >> second. >> moved and seconded. please call the roll. >> item 11, - [roll call] >> item 11 passes. >> thank you very much. moving on we have item 12. >> 1458 san bruno avenue shadow on potrero dell sol park and james rolph, jr. playground. >> thank you commissioners. give me a moment to

load the presentation. >> thank you. good afternoon commission. f my name is chris jones, planner with the recreation and park department, and i'm joined today by ela (inaudible) from the planning

department who is joining virtually. she is the project planner on the project. our presentation will provide a summary of the residential development at 1458 san buno avenue and two parks of rec and park department. tutrailo del sole and james rolph playground . this was previously heard by rec and park commission on august 18, 2022 hearing in which the rec and park commission recommended to the planning commission that the project would not have there significant adverse impact on the use of the shadow parks. however, since then the project sponsor in response to public input revised the project to include 56 off street parking spaces where the previous project had done. slightly increased the shadow

loads on the park requiring analysis and reconsideration by the commission. review of the shadow cast by the project supports objective 1.2 of the strategic plan to strengthen the existing parks and facilities. for shared policy and code context prop k the sunlight ordinance aimed protecting park properties from negative shadow impact approved by voters in 1984 which lead to the adoption of planning code section 295 in 1985 which prohibit the city issuing building permits for structures greater then 40 feet in height. that cast shadow upon a property owner jurisdiction of rec and park unless the planning commission after consultation with the rec and park commission finds the shadow would not have a significant adverse impact on the use of the park property. as implementation tool in 1989 the memo was dopted which identified

quantitative and qualitative criteria for determination of significant shadows. in addition established per the memo, qualitative criteria to include time of day, time of year, shadow location, shadow size, shadow duration and the public good served by the building casting the shadow. at this time, i like to pass to ela joining virtually. she is the project planner who will provide a overview of the project update, community input and project good served by the project. ella. >> can you unmute ella? >> hi. good afternoon commissioners rchlt this is ella(inaudible) planning department staff. the revised project that you are seeing today still would

propose demolition of three industrial buildings containing one (inaudible) new construction of 7 story approximately 73 foot tall residential building utilizing the state density bonus program. contain total 225 dwelling units 133 is studio, one (inaudible) 82, 2 berooms and 9, 3 bedrooms. this includes 56 parking spaces and (inaudible) basement level garage. also provides 134 bike parking spaces and 12 class 2 bike parking spaces. seeking density bonus of 38.75 percent and requesting wavers from development standards for height rear yard exposure and off-street loading. the changes of the project from the previous are in the addition of

56 parking spaces and 2 car share spaces. reduction in the total number of units from 232 to 225 units. modification to the massing while not increasing height did expand the 4th floor north and westward and also expanded the 6 and 7 floor of the southern building westward. it also added a roof deck on the 7 floor and expanded the roof deck on the 6 floor and made additional project revisions so that the project is no longer requesting concessions under the state density bonus law. it had been requested concessions to open space and (inaudible) to date the planning department received correspondence from approximately 25 members of the public in opposition and 83 in

support of the project. the main changes sense this project was last heard by this commission was that approximately 50 neighborhood residents that had submitted a signed letter of opposition due to lack of on-site parking has withdrawn the opposition and now support the project as designed with 56 spaces. the project sponsor has continued to be in communication with the latino cultural district and united states (inaudible) regarding options on increasing housing affordability. the project benefits to the project would be it utilize the state density bonus program to provide increased density, additional 84 dwelling units on the site, which in turn increases the city houses supply. it also would provide 20 percent of the

dwelling units of the base project as affordable so the on-site inclusionary rate is broken down into 3 income tiers. 12 percent low income, 4 percent moderate and 4 percent middle income. apply ied to the base project result in 28 dwelling units that would be permanently affordable and this would again increase the supply of affordable housing. the project will also pay all the applicable development impact fees including the affordable housing fee on the portion not accredited by on-site. provision of on-site units. and the project also includes 134 bike parks spaces and class 2 parking spaces which support the bike transit network. i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you ella.

for park-if i can get the power point back up. for park layout orientation, on the right is a 4.36 acre park who northern half consist of grassy expanses and children play area. the mid-section features a large skate park adjacent to a amphitheater and trellis feature and community garden with plots located at the far southwest corner of the park abuting the proposed project site. the site is somewhat rolling and areas are connected meandering path pways out. james rolph playground is (inaudible) covering the southern 2/3 of the park with top third consisting of clubhouse, children play area

and courts. here is a visual comparison of the project annual shadow between the previous august 18 version of the project versus the newly updated project on the right. with areas of shadow coverage increases circled in red. as you can see, areas of shadow increase are dispersed on (inaudible) over the southern baseball field along potrero avenue edge as well as inner outfield. the shadow behavior upon the parks remain largely the same with new project shadow present throughout the year during all times of day, however, peaking during morning hours and decreasing through the end of day and most prominent during the morning hours of the fall and

winter. this slide provides comparison of the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the shadow. there is 2.18 percent shadow. the previous project proposed 4.2 shadow increase for 6.20 shadow percent. the update project proposes 4.2 (inaudible) the image on the right depicts comparison of the previous projethverses updated project maximum net shadow day occurring december 20 at 8:19 a.m. the red circle

indicate shadow increase which are dispersed and occur over grassy expanses and park edge. qualitately shadow behavior throughout the year remains the same in terms of time of year and time of day project shadows occur year round during all times of day however peaking in the morning hours 8 to 10:30 a.m. and decrease throughout end of day most prominent in morning fall and winter. the duration of shadows is approximately 8 hours and 21 minutes with average shadow coverage of 4.98 percent instead of 4.78 percent. with regard to shadow location the shadow spans southern 2/3 of the park over the community garden skate park, grassy expanses-this slide provides comparison but

specific to james rolph, jr. playground. there is a existing 6.97 percent shadow load. both the previous project and updated project propose 0.01 percent shadow increase for total 6.90 percent no increase in percentage of shadow load. the image on the right depicts the previous versus proposed project. areas of change circled in red and as you can see the increased areas are along the potrero avenue edge and inner outfield. in terms of shadow behavior throughout the year, it is still occur in spring and summer and in the early morning hours before 8 a.m. in closing, i just like to highlight the 1989 memo provides quantitateative and qualitative criteria

determining whether a praiject shadow have significant adverse impact on the use of the park. quantitatively the memo establishes parks greater then 2 acres in size with less then or equal to 20 percent of existing shadow load as the case for both parks here. the memo guidance for up to 1 percent shadow increase. again, for reference, in the case of potrero it is 4.3 acre park. 2.81 percent shadow load and the project adds total 6.2. 0.18 increase from the previousversion. james rolph, jr., it is 3.9 aketer park, experiencing 6.97 percent shadow load and the project before and now propose 0.01 percent increase so no increase in percentage there. the updated project is

consistent with the previous project for parks in terms of time of day, time of the year, shadow size, shadow duration, shadow location and public good described. and that concludes my presentation. if you have any questions we are both available. thank you. >> is there any public comment in room 416 on item 12? come up to the speaker. sure. yep. i'll ask if there is anyone on line, if you like to speak dial star 3 to be added to the queue rchlt

>> is it on the screen? there you go, it is up now. >> good afternoon commissioners. nick roosevelt land use council. we were here in august with no off-street parking. since the summer the sponsor heard community feedback regarding parking and before you is a revised design that contains code compliant off-street parking with materially the same design. reduction in 7 dwelling units and massing modification which is why 80 are here before you today. we respectfully submit the record before you supports that the net new additional shadowing from the revised design and miner in nature and the project merit approval for the same reason the commission recommended approval back in august. a few key points to emphasize that we are true in august and remain true today, this project was carefully sculpted to cast a smaller shadow. the project

wouldn't be under the commission jurisdiction but would have casted more shadow then this project before you today cast. it is code compliant project on a site rezoned for housing the eastern neighborhood eir that was completed for the rezoning had ceqa findings the production of housing was over riding importance in comparison to significant impact of shadowing on park from the development. with regards to the community garden which you may regard or remember is a something that is a careful focus for the project-the project has already been sort of redesign to remove the portion in red shown resulting in reduction in 77 units that reduced the shadowing on the garden. we also submitted expert testimony the shadow will not interfere with the productive use of the garden, and would point to

examples of urban gardens in the city with tall buildings around them that cast shadows and yet they are thriving spaces. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> any other speakers in room 416? seeing none, any hands raised? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner griffin. >> yes, how did the neighbors respond to the increase in the shadow? >> ella, would you like to comment? >> planning department has not received a lot of new comments with shadow. the comments that were received were from the organized group of 50 neighbors in relation to the park. >> okay. >> just to confirm the

only public comment was from the planning department. none received from our department in the new format. >> i like to make a motion we approve this. >> thank you. before we second that let's-is there a second-and then hear from commissioner jupiter jones. >> i'll be brief since today is there day for hot topics, but just reiterate how i felt the first time this came before us, i do think it is too much shadow, i think it does have adverse effect on that park. especially last month we heard this is a park that has adjusted park hours that close early. this is adding to more time that the park is not at its best. it was pointed out to me that potrero del sol is a park that has a lot of sunshine, and while i think that point was made to convince me to not worry so much about this shadow when i was reflecting it made me

more resolute and like that is what makes the park great so quhie i want to protect that sunshine. i won't be voting to approve this. nothing new, but just it is important to say it. >> thank you. >> commissioner anderson, you are next up. >> i just want to say i was pleasantly surprised to hear about a project that added parking. about time. >> general manager ginsburg. >> i just want to remind everyone what we are voting on is not whether to approve or not approve a project, it is to review the analysis about how much shadow and decide whether this commission thinks it has a impact on the park and if it does or if the commission determines that it does, then we advice the planning commission that this

commission found that the shadow does have impact and it is planning commission job to make -sort out the issue. if we dont think it has a significant impact as those terms are defined both qualitatively and quantitatively then we just share with planning the commission did not find it had a significant impact. >> thank you. >> nobody is voting for or against anything. >> thank you for the clarification. commissioner mazzola. >> i would have to agree with commissioner jupter jones. normally these are not much of a shadow, it isn't a big issue but today seematize is more a issue, so i think i have to vote no on this also. i think it does create a impact. thank you. >> commissioner hallisy. >> we did in august vote 4-1 for this project and i feel if the increase in shadow from the

original project is minimal and great respect for commissioner jupter jones, this is her neighborhood but we are restricted what we can address here and i don't feel the second version of this project has added enough of a shadow for us to vote against it, so i would be voting for it today, but again, all due respect to commissioner jupiter jones and her neighborhood andheads her love for her area. >> the matter before is us is to frame the motion that-is there a motion to approve this recommending to the planning commission there is not a significant impact? >> my motion was out of order. my motion was to

approve it, and we don't do that. i guess my motion is to pass it along to the planning commission with a positive referral. >> please call the roll. >> the motion to send to the planning commission the shadow does not have a significant adverse impact. [roll call] >> motion passes. >> thank you very much. >> we are on item 13, general public comment. at this time members of the public who are not able to address the commission on item 5 may address the commission on items that are within the subject matter jurisdiction and do not appear on the agenda. anyone in room 416? seeing

none, do we have anyone with their hands raised on the line? no hands raised, public comment is closed. item 14, commissioner matters. commissioners. >> don't see anything. >> okay. commissioner matters. >> yes. >> commissioner griffin. >> last night i went to an event at the public library and auditorium and it was a very interesting event. it was the asian pacific islander chinese community new years event coupled with a black history component, and it was fascinating. there was a lot of poetry. commissioner anderson was also there. we had a filipino rapper and who was the-

>> korean rapper. >> she was amazing. the underlying message there was to start building better vibes for better term between the african american and asian pacific islander community, especially the chinese community. the nerves have been fairly raw. there have been unfortunately a lot of folks from the african american community that have-they killed a man not far from commissioner louie's house and not far from my house and it was all on film. it was horrible, but this was an event put on al williams from the african american cultural

society and connie chang-not connie chang-cladean chang. i have known the woman 30 years. cladean chang was the moving force behind it and it was really something that i hope the communities can build on, because it has been real-i have been try ing to figure what i can do to help and now i know what i can do to help. it was a very positive feeling last night. very positive. >> thank you, commissioner. >> anyone else? >> can we also recognize that our commissioner griffin is going to be receiving an award and recognition at rec and parks black history month celebration next week? >> congratulations. >> are you recognizing recognition? did i just ruin a surprise? >> surprise is over.

>> i didn't know about it. >> oh my god. i thought it was in the-i'm so sorry. >> wow! [multiple speakers] >> we just want to say you better show up. [laughter] >> let's bring the meeting back to order. >> anyone else want to ruin any surprise parties here? okay. seeing no other commissioner matters is there public cument on commissioner matters? just looking at our public line now. no hands raised. public comment is closed. we are on item 15, new business agenda setting commissioners do you have anything to add? >> don't see anything. >> do we have hands raised for public comment? seeing none. is it one hand raised

or just one person there? of course there is a hand raised now. please go ahead and are unmute the caller. this is just on item 15 but let us know if we missed you at another item. item 12-we already closed public comment for item 12. i will leave this up to the- >> if there is one person let's hear it. >> if you can please unmute the caller. you have two minutes to speak. the caller is

unmuted. >> my name is david keenen. my non profit (inaudible) is work wg owners around the development at 1458 san bruno and i wanted to say the expansion of the parking area to 0.18 increase is not something i think would concern the closest adjacent neighbors at 1462 san bruno, and that i just wanted to register that we had no--generally support the compromise there. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. seeing no further callers, public comment is closed. we are on item 16, communications. is there anyone with hand raised to comment on item 16? seeing none, public comment is closed. item 17, adjournment. >> been moved. is there a second? >> second.

>> moved and seconded. all in favor? >> aye. >> so moved unanimously. [meeting adjourned]

>> the annual celebration of hardly strictly bluegrass is always a hit now completing itself 12 year of music in the incredible golden gate park. >> this is just the best park to come to. it's safe. it's wonderful and such a fun time of the year. there is every kind of music you can imagine and can wander around and go from one stage to another and just have fun. >> 81 bands and six stages and no admission. this is hardly strictly bluegrass. >> i love music and peace. >> i think it represents what is great about the bay area. >> everyone is here for the music and the experience. this is why i live here. >> the culture out here is amazing. it's san francisco. >> this is a legacy of the old warren hel ment and receive necessary funding for ten years

after his death. >> there is a legacy that started and it's cool and he's done something wonderful for the city and we're all grateful. hopefully we will keep this thing going on for years and years to come.

>> good evening, this is the meeting on san francisco on the environment. the time is 5:03 p.m., please note that cell phone is prohibited. please know that you may be removed for using similar device. for participant, please know that the ringing of cell phones can happen virtually. public comment will be available for each item on the agenda. for comments not on the agenda, there will