Summer 2008 the library began collecting a survey of Park patrons. In July 2008 the library administration held a meeting at Park to open the community planning process. Because of poor publicity, only 8 or so community members came. Four of them were HANC members, and two others were monthly users of the community meeting room. The library introduced their staff and consultant team, and then asked us what we wanted. We asked, what are you planning? They said, "We have nothing to tell or show at this time."

    We looked at the draft recommendations, and it appeared to be more cosmetic than crucial. And the time frame for closure was 12-18 months. Some of us starting discussing the proposal as we knew of it, and HANC held a general membership meeting on the Park plans and planning process in December 2008. [The architects were invited but declined.] Tes Welborn presented the draft recommendations and asked the community if they thought a closure was necessary. The Park Head Librarian, Cathy Delneo, made a brief presentation, and took some on a library tour after the meeting. We were informed that the library would have a public meeting in January and talk about plans.

     Two January meetings were announced. January 16, 2009, library administrators and their architects sponsored a daytime meeting at Park during toddler story time. They presented detailed plans and asked for feedback and questions, of which there were many. The meeting was well attended with about 15 community members in addition to the toddlers and their significant adults. Many comments were on specific features, while others thought that the public was being given little opportunity to make changes –plans seemed virtually complete as opposed to an open planning process were all ideas were considered. There were no handouts of the proposed floor plans and changes. And unlike most of their sponsored meetings, no formal note taking or recording of comments occurred.

     Around this time, a group of HANC members and friends began meeting and exchanging ideas about the proposed closure and remodeling. First thoughts were drafted in this document . We also began community outreach, handling out  flyers at bus stops,  the library, schools, delivering flyers door to door, posting notices about the meetings, sending out press releases, testifying to the Library Commission and the Board of Supervisors, meeting with our Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi and community leaders, visiting other libraries, etc. Over 200 signatures were obtained on a petition, including 10 from the San Francisco Labor Council. There was quite a learning curve about how the library operates. Over time, we refined a list of preliminary thoughts into several key demands and a list of questions for more information.

    January 22, 2009 was the library’s evening presentation. HANC’s publicity appeared to have brought in most of the 40+ person crowd. Again, there were many questions and critical comments.

    The HANC Board met and voted to demand a reopened planning process and to support no closure unless a full service alternative local site was opened. [January 30, 2009 letter to Jewelle Gomez .] PRO-SF also supported no closure at this time.

    The committee continued to work on refining issues and questions, and publicizing the remodeling and closure plans. The issues broken into the categories of process problems and content problems and were detailed shared with the HANC Board in this note .

     In early February, two members of the HANC Board met with the Library Commission President, Jewelle Gomez, and Head Librarian, Luis Herrera, to discuss HANC’s position. Ms. Gomez and Mr. Herrera agreed to serve on a panel at the March 12 HANC general membership meeting, and to have one additional community meeting. Peter Warfield, President of the Library Users Association, and Joey Cain, President, HANC, also were invited to serve on the panel. Joey Cain also proposed that HANC could lead a taskforce to identify an alternative site, and help fundraise for it.

     The HANC committee then proposed to Mr. Herrera that they meet to discuss detailed questions and ideas for the project, with a list of questions , March 2, 2009. Mr. Herrera declined.

    The committee handed out and posted flyers for the March 12 meeting, along with HANC Board members.

     Between 50-60 people attended HANC’s March 12 meeting, and there was considerable discussion of the proposals. Many things were liked, and others not at all. It was difficult to get a good understanding of the proposal from the display panels, with no handouts of the plans, no legend for the plans, and no written description of the planned work. Brian Bannon alluded to many questions, but did not volunteer any information, thus ignoring the detailed questions he had received two weeks prior. He took questions from the floor, and said he’d return March 16 with answers and some plan revisions based on the comments and questions. Some participants said that this was the first they’d heard of the closure for remodeling proposal.

    The library then held its third public meeting March 16, 2009. About 40-50 attended. On the plus side, Brian Bannon did show two alternative floor plans that tried to address concerns such as the walled staff work room. Option B looked to be in the right general direction. Again, he did not provide answers to the detailed questions.

     The committee again contacted Supervisor Mirkarimi, the Board of Supervisors, the Library Community Advisiory Committee, and the Library Commission. A couple of days later, we received some answers to the committee’s questions of March 2 detailed here.

     On due consideration, the HANC Board felt favorably about the improvements in the community input process, and reiterated the need for a full service alternative site to open before Park closed. They had a few additional issues, such as proposing the library close after its 100th year anniversary October 29, 2009, and reopen October 29, 2010.

    In addition, “some tweaking of the Option B floor plan shown March 16, such as the locations of the children’s area and of adult media, and a better use of floor space. We’d also like the Library’s commitment to 1) having the staff work area surrounded with movable shelving, 2) keeping at least four of the historic tables and the 1960’s era chairs that currently equip them, 3) to keep our well-rounded collection and amounts of shelf space for each library patron segment [adult, teen and children], and 4) retain the proposed kitchenette in the lower level meeting room” which they hoped could be quickly resolved. The above is detailed in this letter.

    At the March 16 meeting, Joey Cain asked for signups for the taskforce to identify an alternative site. Their first meeting was April 2.

   There is a strong likelihood of better outcomes due to greater community participation in the planning for Park, and a better library for our neighborhood. Having critical library and internet services be available to the community during the closure, for students, job seekers, and the some 80% adult library patrons of Park is true community service, too.