That placed out there, i thought it would be more in trails, roadways when i brought in the ada accessible to the south lake and the ada accessible to the north lake. Where now theyre doing work on the landing dock. Supportive lines that dont get in the way of boats. So equities, i dont know what the total cost would be, but if there is a total cost for seniors and people who are of such age that the park is going to try to give up equity and noted that you have seniors you dont have, maybe you have kane of wheelchair. So cane or wheelchair. If we have more accessible places, i thought we should get the funding where its needed, a different source. So like where you have a different parks, like its about 25th avenue and the Golden Gate Bridge side of the park, over there you have a lot of russians and all the different other places, chinatown and the mission, there are equity places. If you use the access to a facility as total amount of funding, it wouldnt be very much to develop programs, so i just looking out for a few of us seniors and hope we can rectify that through mr. Phillip ginzberg. Is there anybody else who would like to make Public Comment on the Operational Plan . Yes, whenever i get a chance to speak anywhere at city hall, im going to take the opportunity and try to tell you all, because i done seen it all. I seen operations, stick to the script, ace. Im going to be here when there is Public Comment and ive been informed, i say the right things, maybe at the wrong time, and it takes all the energy out of you going against the grain. You may Say Something that is real good, but i mess up the whole script. Ive been doing that for years. And its hard because i got passion. You know, im 62, im just like all the rest of you, i look a little younger, but i seen it and been through it. I had to go through it to get to it. People of color, i got to go through more than most of you all. Im no preacher, no teacher, but i know god wouldnt lead me, id be gone. I aint got no money, no home. All i got is morale, i got a moral obligation. My family is across the bay. My daughters, theyre probably feeling good, they have kids and they have kids. But papa still here in the city by the bay, trying to get these people to hear what i got to say. When i learn to do that, i got people queen bee, route 200, we know where we grew up, thats history. Although i dont agree, im going to stand by her side until the time comes when i might have to split, because im not going to do that because shes a girl i know her. There is another woman coming with a better name than her and willie brown. I was her bodyguard. Personal bodyguard when she ran. I told her the election was being sabotaged. She had to go to the green party. I didnt know him. I know alley oto, what they did for the family and the blacks. Go back to what im talking about now. Yes, sir. Im going to be talking about all the parks in my community. When i grew up, there was us. Now you got people running around looking good in the parks, shooting all that, because you talking about big money youre spending in the park. But we is black, were still in the dark. See, i dont cuss that much, sometimes it comes out as rhymes, im not trying to be no jesse jackson. God dont like unclean but i dont cuss, never did. But i can rhyme and tell you what im talking about. Read between the lines. I could be rhyming and cussing at you at the same time, and you wouldnt know it. Read between the lines. When i get up here, where we at with Justin Herman, i want the truth. Nobody pay me but god. I get my just reward when i gone. Rest in peace, lee, because im still talking about the fillmore street. Clerk anyone else who would like to make Public Comment . Being none, Public Comment is closed. President buell seeing no further questions, chair would entertain a motion. Moved and seconded. All those in favor . So moved. Thank you very much. Clerk item 11, Controllers Office report on Park Maintenance standards for 201617. Im going to set up the power point, just a moment, please. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners lydia zaverukha, manager for operations in the department. Im here to introduce to you the Park Maintenance standards report which you have seen for 12 years. Im proud to be associated with the whole Park Maintenance standards for the last 12 careers from intepgs to what 12 years, from inception to what youre looking at now. We have a new format, interesting report, presented with the kind of detail you have not seen before. This is the 12th year as i mentioned. This is actually the third year of the new data. If you recall, about three years ago, we revised the standards, thats what was referred to with the shifting in the scores. This is the first full year of the data from the new mobile app, that is built on a sales force platform. I love to say that, even though i dont know anything about sales force. What were benefitting from is data at a detailed level weve never had before. When you look at the report, i need to thank the Controllers Office, they did the hard work, but you have detail and information sliced and diced in way we have not looked at before, with charts and information. What we havent had before is the kind of data where we can look at statistically significant changes. A lot of times weve had changes, but not the benefit to analyze to that level. The other thing about the report, is that it does not take a deep dive backwards again, because its three years of new data. We went back just the three years. So i will take you forward. Basically, these are the three major content areas of the report, so park scores are the whole property. Overall, what are the scores for the park property . The next is features. Looking at cpa, trees, the different features within the park property and then within each of the levels are the elements. We look at details within, lets say, a tree well, does it have weeds. What is the cleanliness rating in the restroom . Thats how its organized. Well take questions at the end. Ill give you the overall introduction that was briefly discussed today, what has been the trend . Were proud, up to 88 this year. Not quite 89, but almost there. Always round up lydia. I like that, too. What was established at the inception of the program was 85 was the good maintenance threshold and weve been hovering above that for the last three years. What is significant about the three year data points, 86, 88. This is three years of the much more stringent standards. We tried very, very hard to help a human being and guide them to precise information we were looking for. When we started, it was a bit more free form and now youre getting information in a deep and detailed way. Im going to turn it over to the controller office, to alison, emily and joe is here somewhere. These individuals, again, ive talked about it before, im very proud to work with the controllers you woffice. The level of the detail is amazing and ill let the people who did the hard work give you the information. Thank you. Thank you so much to lydia, for all your support and that intro. As mentioned, we saw the citywide average score increase over the last two years, over the comparable years using the revised standards. You can see that we looked beyond that mean, because we had a distribution of parks scores where each park score can be seen as a dot and the figure shown, like a his tree gram. And we saw not only was the distribution moving to the right, but the distribution was changing. Because we only have three years of data, were going to continue to watch this, but its interesting trend that goes beyond just increasing standards, but what this could mean for how all parks are clustered around the city wide average mean. We saw obviously, this citywide increase is driven by park improvements. 61 of parks had increased score over the past year, so fiscal year 15 to 17. Which is exciting large portion of the parks. Most of those dramatic increases were often tied to renovations funded by the 2012 clean and safe Neighborhood Parks bond. So some else of those renovated with the funds, dolman playground, joe dimaggio, those were the most dramatic. We saw increases were subtle. Volunteers from habitat for humanity, making big increases as well. I like to note those as well as the renovations made. In addition to these increases there are also some parks, lesser so, but some parks that decreased dramatically in score. The most dramatic decreases are listed on the slide and these are individual changes in the park or the area around the park. We go into a really deeper dive in the report about the parks that were decreasing over the years. I wont go over that right now, but one of the features that decreased consistently across the parks were the on mental beds, so thats interesting commonality among the parks. We have that deeper information in the report and have already received a request from our staff about those details for these parks in order to inform operational decisions. Its a tie between the decisions were making and the data we have. Beyond the changes, we can look at this most recent Year Snapshot to see right now, where are the highest scoring and lowest scoring parks. That map is in front of you. In that report, we have that feature. This is the highest, 10 highest scoring and 10 lowest. The highest, Fulton Playground and ca borriello playground were renovated with under from the 2008 fund. You can see that 60 of the bottom parks are in the southern half of the city. You can almost draw a line across the map and thats in contrast to the top 10 scoring parks which are almost all in the northern part of the city. Looking at the park scores aggregated to the supervisor district level, we see trends to the top and bottom parks, being a southern and northern distinction. We have districts number 1 with the highest average park score of 92 . Followed by the districts 2 and 3, so northern crest of the city. And the bottom 2, district 11 with 83 and district 10 with 85 . Just a note in that range. If youre living in district 1, your average park may be 92. 10 Percentage Points is the average park you would experience in district 11. So quite a big percentage point distinction there and i think that introduces a question about equity among parks which many people have mentioned today. We were able to look at specifically those parks labelled as parks serving equity zones. As rpd established following the june 2016 Charter Amendment from opposition b establishing the zones and the park serving equity zones, we were able for the first time to look at the Park Maintenance scores in order to this will be the first year of benchmark of what is the distinction of park scores among these parks. On this slide, this is the park distribution of scores for the equity zone parks and the nonequity zones. Youll see the nonequity zone parks have average score of 89 which is above the average 88. And the equity zone parks have 2 percentage parks lower, 87, which i below the citywide average. This is an important difference to consider as rpd manages the distribution of resources to pursue equity. And its a good benchmark. We havent had this data before, so we can look forward to studying this in future years and watching the gap to ensure were moving in the right direction. Heres alice with more details. Thank you, emily, lydia, joe, and everyone who works on this fantastic program. I want to take a moment and give a shoutout to those who participate, even phil does park evaluation. Thank you to everyone in the crowd. When we go deeper from overarching park score, we look atrophiture scores. Those are contained area of a park with commonality. Youre seeing list of the features that we evaluate. You can see common one, lawns, Children Play areas, dog lay areas are tightly laid out in the map. And then there are overarching features such as buildings and amenities, which are looked at in the end. So this is a map here sorry not a map a chart of the changes in feature scores over time and you can see that the last bar is trees. Overall in the past three years, the trees have been the highest rated feature, which is in contrast to childrens play area. That third category which has consistently been among the lowest. And so because theyre among the lowest for the past three years, were going to do a little spotlight in the presentation on Children Play areas. As i mentioned, theyre the lowest scoring feature this fiscal year, 15 and 16, however, all of the top six all of the top six cpas have been renovated recently, so a great result from the bonds in the past. Commonality between some of the lowest scoring is rubber surfacing. Four ever the lowest scoring cpas, every evaluation they failed on rubber surfacing. Its something to take into account. We hope the staff look at rubber surfacing when looking at renovations or resource allocation. This is a list of planned cpa renovations due to the failing Playgrounds Initiative youve heard spoken about earlier. Those highlighted in orange are on the top sorry, our bottom 10 list of the cpa. In fact, most of those you see on the list are below the city average, so were happy to see a lot of tie between the plans of Capital Improvement and cpas that dont score about high. You heard about west portal earlier and it actually got 65 on that distribution. Just missed the cutoff of being in the bottom 10 . Its exciting to see movement on renovations moving forward. Were just excited to see, as phil mentioned, were in the era of data, citywide and rpd. So we hope this information on scores at a feature level and park level can be used in operational decisions moving forward. We can go even deeper than features. Lydia mentioned within the features there are elements. She mentioned cleanliness. Thats one. We also evaluate graffiti, signage, structures, seating, a whole variety of elements of a feature that can be evaluated. So again, due to time, well just look at two. Were going to look at graffiti and cleanliness, those are generally hot topics in the public. You can see, weve done a spatial cluster analysis to determine what areas of the city are experiencing high rates of graffiti and low rates of graffiti n. The southern part of thesy, there are cluster. Something pointed out operation ply, internally, staff knows that Mission Delores park receives high rates of graffiti. Talking about how can we apply policies to combat graffiti in areas such as this hot spot in the southerning area of the city . How can we take the data and make it operational . We often see high levels of graffiti in skate parks. Youll see the same distribution list and you can identify the lowest scoring on graffiti are in fact skate parks. Due to time, ill touch on cleanliness. Its one of the widest spreads of distribution. There is a big range from 33 up to 100 . We wanted to highlight some of the troubles that for example, our lowest scoring park, embarcadero plaza, deals with not just high volume tourists and then also workers during lunch time, high homeless population. Using the data to look forward how to improve cleanliness, focussing on those three areas would be a good choice. Great, so i know you want more information. So youre in luck. There is an annual report, which was recently released, that has all the data, map for each feature. Highest and lowest. We have a case study of the lowest scoring park. A lot of rich information there. And quarterly we updated website which is the sf parks score wiebely account and that will show up to date information at the park and feature level. A lot of information out there. We are open for questions. If you have any. President buell lets do commission questions first. Commissioner low. Commissioner low i think what this data, it does give us feedback as to a sense of where we can guide and invest our resources. Certainly the northern part of the city, with the exceptings of port smith square, embarcadero plaza, the turk hyde mini park, the Southeast Quadrant is really the opportunity for us to really invest our resources. It bears out from what weve sensed and this data really supports that. It does show, though, that year over year there was a 1 increase from 20152016. But 2016 to 2017, there was 2 jump and i was wonni wondering you had comments of why we had the 2 jump as opposed to the annual 1 . Ill trying to tackle that. There is a couple of factors in my mind. First of all, these are measurements that are taken in points in time. And there are mix of Data Collected about park futures, deferred maintenance that doesnt move very much. And things like cleanliness that moves a lot. And can vary on the day that the evaluation occurs, which is why we do it four times. But still. So youre going to see movement there. I was interested to see the drop in restroom scores from 15 to 16 and im trying to think what that may be, although it was a drop of pun point. I think prop b is working. I think the planning were doing, the focus on equity and while we still have work to do, if you go back to taylors presentation, youll see that 5 of Capital Investment for every one dollar is invested in the equity zone parks. Were making those investments. We see Alice Chalmers on the list, we just completed tennis court and Basketball Court renovations and its on the playground list. So were using all of the data to make investments and we have a year or so under our belt. Resurfacing, attacking some of the deferred maintenance issues that were capable of attacking. And thats helping. The other thing we did was we made a staffing decision at some of the parks in the southern part of the city where we created extra gardener complex, which covers parks in the southeast. We made staffing decisions as well. We dont have the resources to pull everything from one part of the city to put it to the other. We measure carefully acreage, the challenges associated with different property. When they make the staffing allocation decisions, we did have the ability to create this extra complex, so we were able to give some of our more challenging parks, our staff in some of our more challenging park areas, fewer parks to m