to specify that the policies within rose at specific benefits to health and when they are underutilized, they can be repurchased for community benefits. all of these have been integrated into the current policies in the draft of rose and right now with the exception of air and noise pollution assessments. we are working on on that for air and noise pollution that could result in a reduction around parks. also, an assessment of noise and air pollution in the open spaces. to give a brief overview of the hdmt before i do the comparison, it is comprised of three components. the first is a community health indicator system that measures the existing conditions and the progress for help objectives. the second is a healthy development checklist, which

keeps track of plans and the project to see how they advance of objectives. the third part is policy and design strategy to propose actions that could help objectives. thus far, it has been applied to a number of projects within san francisco. it has been used as a model in other communities throughout the country. in their own evaluation of urban development. moving on to how the rose matches up, in reviewing rose a pretty lens of -- in reviewing rose through the lens of a hdmt, it specifically has a policy that will increase the consumption of natural resources. this is true use of environmentally sustainable building principles.

objective no. 4 in rose is the restoration and preservation of healthy habitats. looking at social cohesion objectives, the programming and assurance of safety within open spaces will promote socially cohesive neighborhoods free of crime and violence. and the increased strength of the language integrating residents and state orders into it the planned programming will help increase civic engagement. the rose also supports a transit's by supporting a green transit program that would help deliver residents to some of the large parts in the city. it will help create safe environments for walking and biking by reducing and eliminating automobile traffic in and around parks and establishing strict speed limits

around parks. it also supports the use of schools of community recreation resources. it will integrate public art into open space design. and it will increase access to park and open space and recreation facilities. and it will increase the accessibility and safety of public spaces for one of its measures, ensuring parks and open spaces are not exposed to undo a shadow -- to undue shadow. it will support food access and agriculture by supporting urban agriculture on open space land. in conclusion, the environmental health section is supportive of this version of rose. we are working to get some additional language in there on

air and noise. we appreciate the opportunity to be part of this process. thank you. president olague: i would like to open it up for public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i want to weigh in on a few things from your presentation, which i thought was very good. just some general concepts. i hope we are looking at a best practices of other cities, large and small, throughout the united states, with particular reference to those in the bay area. it is disappointing when we go around to our parks and open spaces and compare them with other cities, some of which are not necessarily wealthy cities, but they seem to be able to take care of their parks a lot better than we do. this is where this whole question of privatisation comes up. we are always told that we cannot afford to have enough gardeners.

i remember when golden gate park was a pristine, when i first came to san francisco 45 years ago. it was manicured. it is not quite that way now. it is still trying, but it does not look as good. there is a little park where remember my oldest child had their first soccer game 25 years ago and i went there the other day and there is no grass left. how do the kids play? i am not saying it is all like that, but if it is possible, if you're not losing any jobs, we do not have enough gardiner's anyway, we can give this to some privatized firms. we can still control it, but they can get the job done better. i think that makes a lot of sense to me. turf management, in particular, is really bad. the median strips and the long, parts are much better taken care of in other areas outside of san francisco.

we do not seem to be able to do it publicly, i am not sure why. a couple of other things -- developing the open space, i kind of feel that you do need to activate. some open space that is nothing is fine. but we also have to look at this and talk about safety. there are a number of -- there are a number of parks that i would not walk through alone. they are not pleasant and they do not seem to be safe. they are not usable. we have to strive -- if we're right to have these cases, we have got to make them safe. there is too much foliage that has to be trimmed away in some places great it is not healthy it -- if it is overgrown. no son gets in there. -- no sun gets in there. i am not sure if i am in favor of the green language, where every time you lose some open space or even the smallest

amount, you have to replace it in kind. i am not sure that there is a quality of open space as opposed to just open space in general. also, i am not sure if every single acre is protected that we have. there might be some opportunity sites where housing might be possible, particularly in the western and southern part of san francisco. there are not a lot of sites, but there might be some that makes sense that not every single inch of open space has to be maintained the way it is. especially if we could realize the revenue and the ability to improve what we have to a higher level. we do not have a lot of extra land in san francisco, as you are aware. if you go through manhattan, there are not a lot of spaces. most of what they have is open space is developed in one form or another. a little bit different, i know,

but i think that that is important to look at. those are my main feelings on the entire thing. as far as biodiversity, there is a movement that seems to return to its natural state, which i remember looking at the pictures of san francisco in the 1850's with sand and not much foliage and. i'm not sure what our natural species are, but i do not know if it is very pleasant britain was 150 is to get things under control. we do not want to go back and the other direction. those are my feelings on the whole rose thing. vice president miguel: i appreciate the work that has been done. the comments coming out of the health department statement interested me. your comments regarding schoolyards. traditionally, in san francisco, the school department can be

characterized as miserly and not cooperative in as far as their dealings with the recreation and parks department. a few years ago, there was a little bit of movement. there has not been any, in my mind or to my knowledge, any real cooperation in that regard. i do not need any comments on it, i just urge you to try to get that together for the long run. i have a question and i think commissioner antonini refer to it briefly. it is on your objective 1.1. i may be misinterpreting or misleading it, but having been involved in the reconstruction of a number of buildings in recreation and parks department facilities, expansion of

neighborhoods and facilities that did not conform to ada and other things, if you're going to expand them in order to accommodate ada and to make them fully usable in today's world, you're going to take part of that space. in was i reading it correctly that if you take a 1000-square- foot building and move it to a 1500-square-foot building, your one to have to find 500 square feet of open space somewhere else? >> with expansion, you have two options. you have the ability to find new space or pay into the acquisition fund. i want to note that there is a opportunity in their also for a

part to get rid of existing buildings. that is one idea. to say that there are some buildings that recreation and parks does not want any more. it would be an incentive for them to get rid of some of the buildings that they do not need any more on their space. that would be one way they could find it. when a park is built, that is a method of existing open space that they are doing. it might not correlate exactly. in 2015, i am one to expand this building career in 2015, i am also going to find these days. maybe i found the space in 2014 where i build a new park. and this quality of open space is similar. there is another option. i will mention that the maintenance facilities and restrooms are proposed to be exempted from that. we do not want to make it impossible. with what we are trying to do,

we want to make it harder for new buildings grid that is something we heard pretty clear the area of open space should be open space per it is hard to get open space that once you get rid of it. seeing as it is not the best quality right now, it could be made into a better quality open space. we want to maintain that for the future possibility. with expansions, it is a little bit harder. that provision, i like to think of a more as a, wait, stop and think about what you are building. is it really limited in size to the footprint where you can limit it as small as you can? i think what we sometimes see, and i know it is not prevalent, but there is sometimes the thought of, it is free. i will build however i want to build. i do not have to pay for the lead a. maybe it is easier for me to build a one-story building that is a little bit bigger. to me, that is another facility rather than expanding. we want to put the pot into

people's mind that it is not free land. there should be careful and thorough analysis to make sure that it is really necessary. >> is there anything in the way the policy would be drafted that would prevent a kind of banking for a period of time? could use an apartment that is built next year as new space for land that is taken a couple of years later for an expansion? >> there is nothing in the policy right now. one more thing -- the existing policy outright prohibits any new buildings, even buildings that are buildings that serve an open space and do that. there is pretty strong language in there right now. we are building off of that but trying to say, let's think about exactly what we want and how to make sure that there are no losses.

if all of these things are really documented and shown, then they can do it. it explains how we got from the original policy to this policy. commissioner antonini: i understand that. and i understand that more new buildings. my problem is that, in san francisco, because of use and whether, at times, recreation centers, buildings, are an absolute necessity. to make them fully usable for the general public, for recreation directors if we have any left, and for the necessary expansion here for ada and other purposes, every time that has been done, although i appreciate the fact that you're talking about exempting certain facilities, every time that is done, they have had to be

expanded. i have a little problem with that part of it. not new buildings. with that part of it i think you have to be very spell out. >> we have this work shopping route -- group going through things. specifically with 88. -- specifically with ada. vice president miguel: it has been for increased necessity of use and for a d a. those have been the main reasons for redoing recreation centers in neighborhood parks. i could start going through a list. everyone, there has been some kind of expansion.

certainly 80% or 90% of them. they are usually done very well. they have an impacted, usable space. some go back to a fence line, that sort of thing. they can be done quite well. i understand the possibilities of banking. i really think you should consider how that is written very carefully. >> i think you heard this, but to reiterate, there is the option to pay into the opposition. vice president miguel: that is the recreation and parks department paying from one fund into a different fund. that does not do anything for finances. you take it out of your right hand of input it into your left. >> you are probably right. but it is the acquisition. this is the spot specifically for acquisition. vice president miguel: you do

not have the money in the first place, so it does not make any sense. commissioner moore: in the land constrained city like san francisco, it is very hard to think about an acquisition fund when there is little to be acquired. one of the concerns which i have is what we're talking about rose. we do know in which parts of the city open space are severely lacking. we also rarely talk about moving forward and anticipating identification -- densification of the city. that would require a land banking for future populations, knowing that we are having a fight between land and open

space. that is a difficult discussion to have, because we are redeveloping for intense development, but not for the type of public open spaces we are talking about. you are transforming an industrial-sized lot as an immediate idea. that leaves the trans bay terminal and a lot of other things to discuss. i want to make sure we are not looking at the update of the rose only. but that we really include an idea about corporate land banking in the appropriate places in the city by some measure or standard by which we project population growth. commissioner antonini: along the same lines, we are constantly

hearing about these fights that develop between groups, particularly recreational fields that are artificial turf versus natural turf. in one of the reasons the artificial turf issue is brought up is that the maintenance is not there for the natural turf. it is claimed that they get too much activity. if you go to other communities in the same whether that we have and they have kids playing day and night on them and they seem to be made -- they seem to be able to maintain their natural turf. i'm not sure if we're doing something wrong with our practices or something along those lines. the same with weed control. much of our lawns are covered with weeds and. i have one that i take care of that is not that big, but it is not hard to keep the weeds out of it. i am not sure what we are not able to do that in some areas of our city. those are some press -- these

are some best practices. if we can see what cities are doing for open spaces, just for recreational purposes, for picnicking and general use, and the more demanding use of turf for athletic activities, which are in high demand. the story of the polo fields, as you know, was a bad situation. i do not know where it is now, i do not know if any grass is back or not. we spent a fortune twice to put that in. we sodded the whole place and now it is gone again. commissioner sugaya: i want to continue a little bit on commissioner miguel's point. you were saying that recreation and parks is looking to remove some buildings here and there. then they get credit for that?

>> yes. commissioner sugaya: the whole idea seems goofy to me. they are going to be on concrete paths, on foundation's a. so they get credit for their 1000-square feet? and then they get to build a building somewhere else with 1000 square feet? >> one thing i will say is that as a policy, it is probably not waterproof. the general plan policy can offer this guidance and then it is a lot on to rec park land. commissioner sugaya: commissioner miguel was mentioning rec centers.

in the marina, they added quite a bit of square footage to the center there. it was beautifully done. it is quite popular, i think. it seems like that kind of use, even though it intruded a bit on the open space, it was not really -- i guess it is the kind of open space and what not that somebody needs to take into consideration. >> maybe it is also the effect that it is public use. commissioner sugaya: my only other suggestion is that if you want to address the issue of continuing maintenance and continuing acquisition funds, you have to have a policy that will support proposition 13. [laughter] >> if only we had that much power in the rose. commissioner borden: thank you

for this presentation. we have been getting a lot of presentation -- a lot communication about the rose. you are clarifying what the intent is. i think that is great. when the issue around community centers and space, the other part of the problem is that rec and park is looking for ways to fund those being operational. it has created a kind of a chicken and egg situation here. if you have done a good job to try to craft a way to look at open space needs. and the economic realities and other realities. so thank you for your work on this. president olague: i want to thank you for having the patience today to. and want to thank you for meeting with the group's. there was a lot of pushback at the beginning. following through that and extending the time to february

is really great. i saw judy hear from the coalition of san francisco neighborhoods and groups. they all left early so i imagine there were here for this. maybe by then, we can work out something. i want to thank you for your work on this. i was glad to see that dph is here. and the application of the healthy development measurement tool. it is a great tool that the city has and i think it is underutilized. if we do not apply to as much -- to enough of our projects. i'm glad you guys are weighing in on this element. i really want to thank you for that and for being here. good work so far. thank you. >> commissioners, you are at general public comment. president olague: is there any general public comment? seeing none, general public

comment is closed and the meeting is adjourned.

oh, my! haa ha ha! ha hha ha! [snortg]

so are you going out tonight? i can't. my parents say i have to be home right after work. ugh. that's so gay. totally gay. ugh. that is so emma and julia. why are you saying, "that's so emma and julia"?