As we said, as many people have said, the communities growing. We have lots of residents. There is already a fenced off dog run across the street under the 20th street overpass. We really dont need another dog run. What we need is a park to remain as one single meadow. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Anna willis, dogpatch Community Tasks force. I also sit on supporting and following up on comments, i would like you, as a commission, to know that over 18 months of Community Outreach that was done , with s. F. Planning, to ensure that all voices were heard, all stakeholders were heard in the design for the park , park, which is the reason why to date, almost three years later, the design hasnt changed at all. I feel that we have the community saved recreation and parks 5 million because we made the Business Case for ucsf to give 5 million for three parks. From a policy perspective, what i would like to have is recreation and park to recognize that the policy that works for 12 acres for a hilltop park in Pacific Heights is not applicable to un to and under 2acre park in dogpatch, which if you are not familiar with it, it is in pollution alley. The pollution is so bad the city has a program. Where if you have an older car, they will give you 9,000 to buy a clean car and get your polluting car off the road. So i would just like support from the commission for recreation and park to recognize the realities that all policies do not fit on the situation. Thank you. Thank you. Tom . I need you to speak into the microphone. You got it. You can just leave it open the whole time i am talking. Okay. , we will take care of that. Thank you. Commissioners, i would like to speak about some improper trail changes that are planned for mclaren park. At the november 2017 commission hearing, you approved the mclaren park vision, however, due to public up application to the trail plan component, you asked the Natural Resources division and the capital team with them to reengage with the public, amend the trail plan, and return to the commission for approval of the trail system design. On behalf of the capital team, melinda agreed they would have more Community Input and come back to the conductors come back to the commission for Concept Design approval. At last weeks collaborative meeting, lisa announced her intention to bring volunteer people into the park to begin implementing portions of the vision trail plan. She insisted that the plans have been, and i quote, adopted, and later on in the conversation, approved, so it was perfectly legitimate to move the plan forward. Needless to say, the people who oppose the trail plan in 2017 are very displeased with this turn of events. Lisa wayne seems to ignore the november 2017 commitment and move forward with her trail plan without your approval. Will you allow this . The mclaren Park Community would like a clear answer from the commission. I need to point out that in a year and a half since the hearing, capital team has yet to hold any Public Meetings to work on the trail plan. Meanwhile, that the tension against the trail plan has grown to 1,315 signatories, up from 949 at the time of the hearing, and there have been 75 signatures since i started this. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to make general Public Comment . All right. Seeing none richard. Richard, come on up. [laughter] good morning, commissioners. I wanted to try and update some of you on this issue. We asked the board of supervisors and i did initial outreach to the people involved in the board of supervisors. They informed me that should park and recreations require additional surveillance cameras, they would be available. I spoke at the rules committee mostly about whether there was graffiti and that type of problem. I was thinking more of nighttime activity where there would be surveillance of all the parks and recreation facilities, and that way the city can look after the town and they can look after their own properties. I didnt yet to get into parks like in play areas where it is kind of interesting, where there would be surveillance, but i believe that is more departmental, and that would be the general manager and his executive staff. They probably would be coming back to you with different ideas one of them has to do with ceqa, and it is sorting and triaging of what is available. I have also known that there is always the privacy issue. I am just touching basis. I think it is an important issue i have already spoken with aaron peskin, and should there be the necessity of additional cameras, there would be. Thank you. Thank you. We have time for one more. Come on up. This is the last one under this item. Hello. My name is susan. About 20 years ago, my husband and i were able to purchase a home in dogpatch. At that time, it was a lowkey overlooked neighborhood. Things have changed. One of the things that was so special about that neighborhood was that it was a community and we would go to the park, park, hang out with our neighbors, and meet each other and find out whats going on and build that Community Even more. Talking and meeting with people who you would never expect to meet with. Hell his angels, gang members lots of people are coming to the park. If the renovation progresses in a manner where the type of surface is an artificial turf as opposed to natural turf, it is going to hinder people from going to the park and using it as a community, or building that community. As a senior in this city, it is getting harder and harder for me to get around and navigate the city. I am using my neighborhood more and more. I need that park, and other people like myself need that park, something local where we can communicate and hang out, and i just ask you to think about the citizens, the taxpayers who are in the city, who need a Natural Environment that they can go to and continue to build a community. Thank you. Thank you. Margaret, before you conclude that, did you want to make some comments on the jackson park . I wanted to make a comment and ask a question maybe for claritys sake, so one, i spend a lot of time in the dogpatch and bayview area, and it is amazing how much it has exploded it is actually quite affirming to see all the people who have moved to the area. Everybody in the room how priorities for the 2020 bond were made, and when can we expect some sort of action on jackson park . Usually we dont get into those things during Public Comment, so what i will ask is that the general manager if they would respond to the commissioner after the meeting, and if you want to have anything reported out at the next meeting , i would be happy to entertain that. I would love to have something reported out at the next meeting. Thank you. Okay. We are at time now for item number 4. We are closing item number 4 and going to item number 5 which is the consent calendar. I have two cards. Tom borden. You have i need you to come up if you want to speak on item five. Those are under item five. Okay. Sorry, i was confused. I just want to say regarding the trail and restroom project, i would hate to see you guys approve that plan without knowing what trail is going to be closed, and i will bet you have no idea that the plan is focusing on the asphalt path along the outside and there are a lot of trails. There is the peer down there that no one hardly goes to because the trail isnt maintained. Theres a lot of little treasures. And i ventured they will all be closed off under this plan, or it is in the making in this plan it be nice to know what will be closed. It doesnt show up in the plan. I just wanted to say, i support the restroom in mclaren park. It will be great. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to make Public Comment under the consent calendar . Okay. This item is closed. We do need a motion. So moved. Moved and seconded. All those in favor . Aye. I wanted to ask if we can pull these items out. I apologize. Okay, lets back up. Go ahead. Item c. And item e. C. And e. , those were the ones that mr. Borden just spoke on and they have been taken off of consent, and we will need to have a staff presentation on those. Commissioners, without we need a motion to approve the consent calendar without item five c. And five e. So moved. Seconded. Moved and seconded. All those in favor . Now we are going to go to item five c. , the lake merced trail and restroom project. Why do we need a staff presentation . We dont have to, but when we pull it off lets start with a question from the commissioner. The question i had, why did we decide to do a prefabricated restroom . The restroom is part of a Citywide Program and one was removed from st. Marys under the replacement of those. There is a new design that is being approved right now through that program, which is managed by public works, freeing up that one from st. Marys allowed the department to place that restroom at a new park, and problems with the existing portable chemical toilet at lake merced is a major 31 issue for that park, and so the decision was to place the restroom at lake merced, which is considerable savings to the department because they own and pay for that restroom. The project is only responsible for providing Utility Service to it. Right. Wait, i am confused. Are you moving one restroom . It would be bring new one. It would be a brandnew one. The choice of new know she no restroom, it is part of a citywide contract. This wasnt an independent decision to bring in a modular restroom in this case. And right now weve got a leaking port a party and that is our only option. That is all we can do. Why is that . Why cant you build your own restroom . Because the restroom is 2 million that we dont have budgeted, that the voters did not approve as part of the bond project. I also looked under item c. I did not see a subcontractor list for who would be hooking up utilities. Maybe i missed it. Could you possibly get that to us . Sure. This is just the concept. We have it uptodate. No. Okay. Thats all the questions i have. I will have to vote against item c. I just dont believe that a prefabricated anything is the way to go. It is not by the same code as the rest of the building in San Francisco, local hire doesnt apply, somebody else is doing it somewhere else for way less, 10 an hour maybe. Can we move onto item e. . Before we do that you need a motion and a second and then a vote. Okay. The chair would entertain a motion on item c. So moved. It has been moved. Is there a second . Second. Moved and seconded. All those in favor . Aye. A no recorded by commissioner mozilla. Okay. Item e. I just have a question because i dont see a sublists under that one. I was just wondering if that has gone out to bid yet. It has not gone out to bid yet. It hasnt . No. Will be know that before we approve it . This is the Concept Design approval for the restrooms, and when the project goes out to bid , in order to award the contract, we would be coming to the commission if the total value is over 600,000, and there can be a subcontractor listing as part of the document submitted to the commission. Great. Thanks. I am good. Can we have a motion on item e. . So moved. Moved and seconded. All those in favor . Thank you. We are now on item six, the San Francisco zoo. I might say before they start , that this item was heard by the Zoo Committee and unanimously approved by them until this morning, and just in recommending it to this commission the budget. That is next month. All right. [laughter] go ahead. We approve the budget. It will come next month. Thank you. [laughter]. Im sorry. Go ahead. Margaret, you have changed . [laughter] there we go. To celebrate the arrival of orangutans, we are offering a chance for you to come and hang out with us this summer. You can enter to win a perfect summer hang out for your child in a spot in one of our little learners, or at animal adventures classes. The yearround classes are filled with music, crafts, games , and education animal visitor. To enter, you can email us with your name and your childs age. Names will be compiled and winners drawn each week during the month of june. This july, this july we invite you to join us every weekend including the long july 4th weekend for live music and outdoor barbecue. There will be a special historical display in the pachyderm building, featuring early zoo photographs and fun facts about the zoo and popculture and the many decades since the zoos opening in 1929. We are also featuring selfguided and guided tours highlighting our information. More information is available on our websites. Zoo visitors will have the opportunity to see orangutans at the zoo. A. 14yearold female named judy , named after a long time zoo supporter, jodi judy marcus by her husband, george. She is exploring her new habitat and overhead passages. She was hand raised after being rejected by her mother, so she is very social and interactive with animal care staff and enjoys learning through in which enrichment sessions with their caretakers. Most recently, she learned to paint using a blush brush and canvas. She also we also have a 9 yearold male. He appears to need a bit more time to live up to his name. We expect to become more curious and interactive with judy as he becomes more accustomed to his habitat. June 8th, march the start of many summer programs at the zoo. Wildlife theatre shows return including a variety of ambassador animals from the Animal Resource Centre that will engage and educate visitors about animal adaptations and conservation, the show starts at 1 30 p. M. The nature trail now opens with more then a dozen animals up close. Youth volunteers staff each station to deliver fun facts and conservation stories from 1130 11 00 a. M. To 3 00 p. M. Daily the talk on the wild side, the wildlife theatre is open from thursday until sunday. Talk on the wild side returns. Volunteers utilized by a fax, cartes, and animal exhibits daily around this you. Life on the farm is a special talk in front of the insects to thursday through monday at 3 15 p. M. , with a chance to meet our farm animals. In honor of world giraffe day, june 21st, an annual event to celebrate the longest neck to animal on the longest day of the year, we celebrate our heard and raised awareness of the drafts face. This thread a through sunday, there will be draft feedings from 11 00 a. M. Until 1 00 p. M. Especial enrichment activity at 2 30 p. M. , and an opportunity to talk to a care team. The proceeds will go to the restricted giraffe project. And last, but certainly not least, margaret the meerkat. A newly arrived meerkat at San Francisco zoo exploration zone will be named margaret in honor of retiring long term s. F. Park employee Marcus Macarthur who is with us today. [applause]. [laughter] we think margaret for many years of services to the city and her longtime support of this do. You will certainly be missed and have big shoes to fill. Thank you and congratulations , margaret. Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to make Public Comment on this item . Okay. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. This was discussion only. We are now on item seven, 95 hawthorne, the shadow on the many park. Many park. Good afternoon, commissioners commissioners, general manager. I am a planner with the capital and Planning Division and im joined by Nicholas Foster from the Planning Department. The item before you today is the 95 hawthorne street shadow on guy plays many park. A review of the shadow cast by the project is at 1. 2 of the strategic plan. They strengthen the quality of existing parks and facilities. As you know, your review of the shadow on recreation and park land is codified by the planning code, section 295, and from the 1989 memo. The proposed project is located at 95 hawthorne street at full some street in the south of market neighborhood. The area surrounding the project includes a mix of high density, residential, and commercial uses with buildings varying in height from two stories, up to 24 stories within a block of the project. In addition, there are several popo and plan parks within a three block radius, including guy plays many park, and under ramp park. The proposed project would demolish the existing five Story Building and construct a new 42 Story Building with a groundfloor retail and it on the ground floor. These are images throughout the project at the corner of hawthorne and folsom on the left , as well as a few looking down folsom from second street. Nicholas foster from the Planning Department will now tell you about the proposed project. Its Public Benefits, public outreach, and the environmental review. Thank you. Good morning, commissioners. Good morning general manager ginsberg. That southeast trail will be coming back to planning next year. Your time is up. [laughter] i think we are five and 46 of my ten year, we are not very good. Brian touched on this project. This is 95 hawthorne street. This is the Northeast Corner of folsom and hawthorne. A fivestory existing Office Building will be demille demolished and placed with a 42 story 444foot tall for 62 if you include all the rooftops, including 392 dwelling units with groundfloor retail, approximating about 4,000 square feet, but this is a residential project in nature. Nineteen of the dwelling units would be provided onsite which equates to 55 dwelling units. The project is a state density bonus project which means that 35 of the development is being converted to the project by providing very specific a. M. I. Levels, which are 50 of the a. M. I. , so those are 11 , so the additional develop and capacity is being conferred to this project. [please stand by]. 80 and 110 respectively. This project has to achieve a greater ability and from the low income tier down to 50. It is even a deeper benchmark. Thank you for the question. Thanks. Guy place mini park, which is currently under construction is a 4,308 square foot site acquired in coordination with the Planning Department through the ren con hill plan. Due to the lack of open space in the area. With funding through the ren con Hill Community improvements fund, this vacant property was purchased by the city in march 2007 following a joint approval by the planning and recreation and park commissions. And subsequently by the board of supervisors in 2007. As i mentioned before, this is a growing, densifying area with a lot of new housing and few parks. The park is currently under construction and is expected to be opening in later in 2019. As such, there is not were not able to analyze activity there is and how people use it because it is a construction site. The park design includes a level site with three outdoor rooms that contain bench seating areas and is framed by a variety of plants and trees that have been selected to be adaptive to this much more shaded location. We are piloting a dog relief facility as well on the sidewalk in front of the park. This picture shows a birds eye view just looking over the park from another Vantage Point giving you a better sense of how it would be. New shadow from the hawthorne project would occur in the Late Afternoon hours, entering the park between 3 30 p. M. And 4 15 p. M. , depending on the day. The shadow would fall roughly on the center of the park. New shadow would be present for up to 16 minutes with an average daily duration of 11 minutes. Added shadow would fall in total 59 days early in the year, january and march, as well as in the fall. The largest new shadow would occur on february 16 at 3 56 p. M. And would cover about 12 of the park at that time. The current shadow load on the site is 72 of the total potential sunlight. And the project would increase the shadow load by roughly 1900 square feet and increasing the shadow load by. 01 . So going from 72. 34 to 72. 35 . This picture shows you only the moment of maximum shadow load, but it gives you a sense of where the project is on the left at hawthorne and fullsome and park on the upper right which is on guy place. And the dark shade is the existing shade and the blue is the added shade. So at that very moment it would be fully shaded. But there are other moments when its not fully shaded. And this would be on february 16 when 533 square feet of shade would be added. This gives you more close up version of it where on the day of maximum shadow impact on february 16. The gray area is the existing shade and the blue area is where the new shade would fall. Finally, the shadow study also analyzed cumulative new shadows cast by 18 other nearby projects in the development pipeline. Not all these projects will cast shade on guy place. Those that do add shade including 95 hawthorne will increase the shadow load on the park by. 18 , bringing the total annual shadow to 79. 70. Which specific project this will shade are unavailable because it was studied in aggregate for this area. The shadow analysis did look at a full buildout of all the projects. Since these projects are still being developed, they do not provide a per project analysis on guy place park. Any of these future projects that may shade the park in the future could come before this commission. This concludes my presentation. Ill leave you with the quantitative slide. Im available for questions as is nicholas foser from the Planning Department. Thank you. A is there any Public Comment on this item . Thank you, commissioners. John keppling on behalf of the project sponsor for the project. I wanted to go into the shadow analysis a bit more as this commission is well aware of, typically there is a balancing of the extent of new shadow on a park compared to the Public Benefit to the project. What the commission will find is the amount of new shadow is very, very minimal. And the Public Benefits are quite exceptional. If we can start here with the with the projector. Thank you. Here is the project again designed by s. O. M. And nice, elegant building with 302 Housing Units and 55 of which are below market rate and we have 42 levels. I want to provide this image to give you a sense of the sense of the buildout and with the awe thorn which the commission considered in 2012. There is a number of ways to look at how minimal the shadow is. 01 new shading but only 59 days is new shading during a twomonth period in the fall and winter, the largest shadow 534 square feet. Another way to look at it, theres 1900 square feet of new shadow hours. The park is just over 4,000 square feet, so the project is essentially only casting new shadow for one hour a year on less than half the park. I do want to get to the last slide. This is the mapping impact that would be necessary to avoid any new shadow. President f i could spend another 10 seconds on this. Finish. This is the amount of the building that would have to be removed in order to avoid any shadow on the park, so it is quite extensive. If you take a look at the final slide, the impact would be a loss of 164 units, 23 of those bmr units. Avoiding the shadow impact would be significant for this building, especially the bmr units. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to make Public Comment on this item . Richard. Good morning again. It was interesting about the median income. And it was lowered from 55 to 50. This particular project is a lot of what is going around the county, steel and glass. We havent had a major earthquake in a while. So if it happens, i looked at shanghai and how they built highrise. They put them everywhere. We are kind of like that right now with a different kind of place. See sandy, sand in the landfill. So a junk area. The taller you make a building, the easier it can topple. It hasnt been test bed i the earthquake yet. When i am looking at this, i see what they presented and the additional amount of shadow seems almost negligent, but look at the structure on the houses and i havent been satisfied that its going to hold. Because it hasnt yet been tested. I do agree with what is is not that significant. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to make Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Nick, when the existing building is demolished, the office is currently on the site, right . Correct. When the building is demolished, is that Office Space Allocation going back into the mix and helping Office Developers alleviate the prop m concerns in central soma . A commissioner, that is an excellent question. I do not know the answer to that question. If i am not mistaken, there is legislation that has been proposed by the former mayor and commissioner peskin with the information relink wished and in terms of applicability for this project, i couldnt speak to that, but that is a very, very big question. About 86,000 square feet which is not insignificant. All right. I wont push you out on a limb. And since this is taking the density, do we have jurisdiction and does the state density bonus from section 295 . Aawe 295, and john, back me up on this. Bear with me. State density bonus. This is layperson speak. There are incentives, concessions, and waivers and they have different meanings and i will spare you that. Available to projects to achieve a density bonus and dwelling park and applying for faif wooifrs. And there is limited vurs diction under the Housing Committee accountability act. And objective standards and are eligible for the waivers and that is the waiver bucket. Anything that is not a waiver, a concession, or incentive would fall under different tier which is more in the spirit of ceqa would be an impact to public safety. General Public Welfare and shadow, wind, and a significant, unavoidable impact and my understanding is the reason they were tiered out of state density bonus is they could have an impact on general public and safety. So no, it does not circumvent section 295 and further, it does not circumvent section 148 of the planning code which requires wind not exceed existing commissions and no additional hazards be created. So the Development Code relief sections is a minor exceedance which is existing and not being removed. The wind, the shadow, will go through whatever recommendation. If you could show the slide of what a no shadow project would be. And counsel for the project sponsor had limited time, but i think maybe this would help explain to this commission if we were to do a no shadow on guy place mini park, how many affordable units would we lose . That is providing 55 and we would lose 23 . Loss of 32 for a total fur going to speak, we need you to speak into the mic. A total of 32 units, 23 of which would be the b. M. R. S. So we would lose sorry. As proposed, there are 55 and with that, we would lose 23 b. M. R. S and would be at 32. And this was highlighted at the committee and lose how much . 7 million. Thank you for reminding me of that. And there was also a reference to a Spring Meeting with west bay and united players and i might be missing somebody. What was the result of that meeting . An i would defer to project sponsor. And planning staff doesnt generally attend the meetings. Thank you, commissioners. We are still at a point where we dont see any opposition or concerns from the groups and recently reached back out since ceqa has been completed and conversations are ongoing, but at this point we had that meeting and it was great and said lets touch in before the Planning Commission hearing and still not heard any Major Concerns to date. You might be the first project to achieve that. So commissioner, the Capital Committee t struggle, under the analysis of the 1989 memo is that this project would fail the quantitative test since its a part thats less than two acres. And in any existing shadow load that is more than 20 the recommendation is that no additional load should be permitted. So it would fail the quantitative test. Around qualitative test, though, were building this park into shadows. Were building it with an existing 72 load and so the additional load where im headed on this is rere building it into the shadows and the traditional load is relatively insignificant. While we didnt give recommendation from the Capital Committee, it was primarily because we didnt have the ceqa clearance. Now that we have the ceqa clearance, i would move to the Planning Commission that this additional shadow impact. Any questions or comments . I am prepared to vote. It is to register what continues to be my actually frustration with the ambiguity in the whole space. And we visited every single time, so i am going to say it every single time that on the one hand we say there is a quantitative measure, and it is what it is. Either it passes or fails. On the other hand, we see it as a qualitative set of measures and it gets really squishy. Today united players is not here. If they were here, we might have a different conversation. And that whole dynamic, so i will say it every time. I am prepared to vote. Thank you, commissioner. Seeing no other comments, a motion and favor. All those in favor . So moved. We are now on item 8, silver register ras and youngblood Silver Terrace and Youngblood ColemanSynthetic Turf project. Good morning, commissioner, general manager. Dan moyer with the Capital Improvement commission. The item i have before you today is an item for your consideration on an award of two Construction Contracts for renovating who of the athletic fields. One at Silver Terrace playground and one at Youngblood Cole mon and are Synthetic Turf arsenal and they have been used to death, and they are at a point now where we need to replace the Synthetic Turf and the amenities such as fencing and bleachers and trash cans and drinking fountains and such. This item has come before you in the last few month where is we actually project and received one bid proposal which was substantially over the engineers estimate for the project. I requested that the commission go out with the authority to negotiate a contract under the San Francisco administration code. So with that direction, i was working closely with the City Attorneys Office and determined that the best approach on this was to break the project into two bid packages. And so i negotiated two contracts with two different contractors to execute the projects at both locations. The first was to go back to the original bid. Contractors submitted the bid and broke the project into discrete elements, one being specific to the Synthetic Turf and the other would be the other amenities associated with the facility like fencing and concrete and a. D. A. Improvements and such. The first went back directly related to the turf who has done quite a bit of engineering and got a proposal to do all the other elements around the site. The two sites actually. And so with that, the original proposal that we received came in at 4. 7 million approximately. And the engineer east estimate was 3. 3 million at the time. So following let me read the exact figure. 2,952,531, which is for the green stuff and for 1,739,5003 following that bid process, we are able to amend the original proposal by reducing by 763,494. Essentially, in the report i identify we didnt reduce any scope on the project. This was a more careful hook at elements and trying to refine how they approach the project and to allow different subcontractors to enter the game and have competitive pricing. I am looking for your approval and i will read the agenda wording for the record is to award the following contracts for Silver Terrace and Youngblood ColemanSynthetic Turf replacement project in the amount not to exceed 2,952,531 to robert a. Bachman Construction Corporation and to a construction contract in the amount not to exceed 1,035,570 to engineering. And the goal of the project if approved today would be to move directly into the Silver Terrace renovation project in early july, completing that to the end of october. A breather in the month of november and move into the Youngblood Coleman from december 1 through about april. Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioners . So moved. Second. A moved and seconded. All those in favor . So moved. Thank you. Thank you. We are now on item 9, upper douglas dog park operational hours. Good morning, commissioners. Sarah madlin. Before you today is a Community Driven change to the hours of the upper douglas dog park. By way of reminder in 2013, the board of supervisors adopted an ordinance establishing park closing hours for all the parks. The hours are from midnight to 5 00 a. M. The ordinance also did two other things. It grandfathered in existing hours that were established by and your predecessors by resolution. It also allowed for this commission Going Forward to adopt by resolution hours that differ from that ordinance, which is the process that we are currently in. In order to provide some clarify to that process for members of Community Groups that are looking to initiate an hours change, staff issued a memo with guidelines about how to proceed with doing that. Those guidelines are intended to ensure that people are aware of the change, that all sides of that conversation are heard, and that there is robust conversation about the proposal. Additionally, it places the onus for that outreach on the community group. So the Community Driven change, proposal i should say, and Community Must run that Engagement Process and then it all comes to you and your responsibility as commissioners is to weigh in, to listen to and weigh in on both sides of the argument, but also to assess to thoroughness and robustness of the community process. That is what brought us here today. I should just note that over 224 parks, 67 of them have hours established by this very process. So this is not new. This is not unprecedented. But it can be a little messy sometimes while were in it. So to upper douglas dog park which is a fully fenced 3acre site at the corner of 27th and douglas streets in supervisor district 8. Interestingly, thest the site of a former quarry, for those who have been there, you know the rockery slopes that are nearby. We and supervisor middleman and supervisor shehei with the friends of upper douglas and the advocates for upper douglas have been in contact about the park including parking and how the dog park was established by this commission, the licensing of dog walkers, the possibility of changing park hour, changes to the physical site including fencing and what type of ground cover is used there. I have all this detailed for you if you are interested. But essentially in the beginning in april of 2018, excuse me, we met with the community on the various issues and that continued in august of 2018 and supervisor middleman was involved in the conversations. In november of 2018, we continued conversations and then resumed them again in 19 with meetings on march 7, march 8, and april 28. That brought us to a point where the staff on site and at the lodge were hearing very Different Things from the different sides of the conversation, and led us to engage in some surveying on site. The purpose of that was to provide both the community and the commissioners information in making this decision, and if you will indulge me, i want to provide highlights. Three months on site with 800 participants. 96 of the visitors to the park are individual pet owners. They are bringing the majority of them, 95 of them are bringing one to two of their own dogs to the site. 63 are immediate neighbors to the park in neighborhoods nearby. And the peak times for usage on the weekend are noon to 4 00 and on the weekday t most dogs from 10 00 to 1 00 in the park. The conversations continued in may with meetings and additional online surveys from the advocates and the petition as well. And so there were three additional meetings in may and obviously june 6 of this year, the Operations Committee took Public Comment and heard the proposal. So, now to the proposal which came from theed a voe t kas for up from the advocates for upper douglas which was to originally change the hours which are 6 00 a. M. To 10 00 p. M. The original proposal was from 9 00 a. M. To 6 00 p. M. At the time that they serviced that proposal, the Steering Committee of friends of upper douglas said to them, we understand that you are interested in some hours changed. We actually think 7 30 to dark is reasonable. Would you consider that . As you see in the staff report, there was back and forth about whether or not how enforceable a sunset end time is. I should note we have many parks where the hours are sunrise to sunset, but a back and forth conversation and attempt at a negotiated settlement at that point. That did not move forward and came to hear their views. At that point, the committee did not accept the advocates proposal. And instead they just suggested that the hours are the hours that you see on your agenda, 7 00 a. M. To 7 30 p. M. [please stand by