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,