$20-$21 million. >> i would put that testimony in the category of "support." and we would agree with you. thank you very much. >> thank you. [ reading speakers' names ]. >> hello commissioners. i am here -- linda lighthowser and the mother and stepmother of children of native san franciscans who grew up in the city and used the parks and now the grandmother of 13 grandchildren, but not one of them lives in san francisco and this is a big part due to the economic conditions of our city, which drive our families out of town. so i am here to talk about how we have to prioritize our city parks. i echo what dennis has just reported on, but the quality of life issues in san francisco and our parks and their healthy maintenance and vitality is

what is a true quality of life issue for san franciscans. we need a bigger part of the general fund budget. we need to make sure that even though we have scholarships and ways for poor children, that is not good enough. we need to roll back the fees and we need the kind of environment that children grew up in san francisco, that free access to public parks and that amazing system that we all came to know. there is no reason that we can't do that again, but it takes commitment and other funding options and may require reprioritizing our city's needs and parks are things that do help with public safety, mental illness and all kinds of other woes that end up in the city budget that we have to address. so i want to support that all

our citizens have free access to our parks, and as many opportunities as we can possibly give them. i'm going to send these comments to the mayor and lobbying the board of supervisors to get a bigger piece of the city budget for our parks. thank you. >> thank you. >> >> don. >> good afternoon commissioners, don frank rec and park chapter services employees international union, and it's nice to hear good news for a change. i have been in the department since 1983. i have seen my share of pain. i'm second-generation and i remember my father, when prop 13 got passed, and what we went through back then. and now my generation has had to deal with the pain and it's nice to see that for a change, we have recreational positions coming. i have one of the curious

things in our department is when we do actually hire, the rumor-mill starts and the rumor-mill is better than any twitter account you could possibly hear right now, but it's a good thing. because they are looking at people gaining positions, so that we can continue to do the rock climbing wall, and make caverns better and as along as we continue on this path, san francisco as always will be no. 1 when it comes to the recreation and park department. and i would like to share with you recently i was in mobile, alabama for the mardi gras celebration and one of the friends of my family happens to be the head of the mobile-area recreation and park and during the summer, i believe phil spoke in new york at a conference where she was there and she approached me and said that general manager of yours, he is working kind of hard and i said he is all right. [ laughter ] no, mind you, this is between a

bowl of gumbo and vodka -- cran, but she went on to talk about how you are bringing it back. i said we're working hard and continuing to work hard and sieu will be there to continue the work that we have done, so that the citizens of san francisco will continue to reap the benefit of pretty much the best department that we have in the country. so thank you. >> thank you very much. >> linda? >> linda da viro from citizen' standpoint. every year i come here and we go through the same thing about the budget and i'm glad to hear again from katie it's only 3.3% and yet, it still strikes me when is she says we're covering these costs and restoring some things. we just passed our second major

bond and what concerns me as other speakers said that we don't get the money in the general fund. we're anticipating huge growth, we're going to lose candlestick and all we're getting is a pittance, instead of them sharing a fee for abandoning us. i don't think the property owners who are the minoritis in this city need to be burdened with anticipated discussions with parcel taxes or park improvement districts or another bond. we all have is to share the wealth of the city and i think i want to support you in any way i can, which includes talking to my supervisor and the mayor to get more money in the general fund for parks. it's absolutely ridiculous that we are living with what is it? less than 2% of a multi-billion dollar budget. and i hope you too put that forward in your requests that

we need more funding from the general fund. i am really concerned about '14-15 because i have a feeling it's going to be a heck of a lot more than 3.3%. thank you. >> thank you. >> katherine. >> good afternoon commissioners, kather howard sf ocean edge. sfoceanedge.org and i have comments, unlike dennis, i don't think you will like them, but what the heck. we understand that funding is a continuing problem for the department and the department is now invashon island in two legal actions the appeal to the california coastal commission and the ceqa lawsuit in superior court over the beach chalet fields. if the department would consider the hybrid alternative for the fields it would save a great deal of money for the

department. i don't know how much you paying the city attorney, but i think we can all agree this would be money better spent on trees, not on paper for legal briefs. that having been said, i do support increased general funding for the rec and park department and have i signed a letter to the mayor to that regard and i hope we can all work together for this. thank you. x thank you. >> anyone else wishing to make public comment? being none, public comment is closed of the commissioners. >> we need a mosto approve the budget to send it on to the mayor for katie and phil to negotiate a great deal. >> is moved. >> seconded. >> moved and second, all those in favor? >> aye. >> so moved >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we are now on item 12, which is general public comment continued. at this time members of the public may address the

commission on items that are within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the recreation and park commission and that do not appear on the agenda. as a reminder if you spoke on item 4, this is a continuation. >> i'm back. i would like to bring to your attention the mclaren corridor project which you may or may not have heard. dawn mentioned at the last prosac meeting that members had a day during our philosopher's walk to enjoy corridor. i know commissioner low joined us one afternoon and experienced parts of the park as well. two things, we're in the competition for the one bay area grant, which is needed to

fund what looks to be about $6.6 million to fix mansell, a 45 miles per hour zone through the park and it connects to the excelsior district to san bruno. we're very pleased and i also mentioned this to dawn that her staff has been terrific. we have been working with karen and tony moran and they have bent over backwards to get information from us, what we want and they have been listening with all ears of of course we're working with a couple of other departments. but it's refreshing to work with groups who want to know how to transform these areas

into the wonderful areas of san francisco. we really appreciate being listened to. and we hope to invite you at a -- hopefully a grand opening, not too soon -- i mean not too far in the future -- not too soon, that is probably the truth. but anyway not too far in the future, so you can see transform mclaren park. thank you for your support. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else who wishes to make general public comment? being none, this item is closed, item 13, commissioners' matters. commissioners, do you have anything? >> commissioner low? >> perhaps i'm getting sentimental, because my junior high school track coach testified. [ laughter ] it shows my age, i still call it junior high school.

and if calvin welch is watching this, i would like to see the march meeting for what he can doo for kezar. is there funds for the track replacement? what can we do as an informational hearing for kezar stadium? it's a great facility. even old guys like me still run and do time-trials on that track, so i would like to see an informational hearing on that matter. the second item would be sometime in april or mayor, perhaps having an informational hearing on what we could do for high-needs districts. what was pretty telling on the controller's report was the southeast portion needs some love. so i think we should have an informational hearing. i know karen has done quite a bit of work on d-6, but we

should broaden that discussion for what we do on high-needs issue. >> thank you, commissioner. i would sec that on the kezar issue and i think that it's going to cost more to wait longer and we ought to think about driving that home pretty soon. with that -- yes. >> is there any public comment on this item? you can comment. >> hi dennis moskovin, district 5 representative and native san francisco and i was one of those people who helped not only build the commons across from kezar, but helped to take down the old walls and build the new stadium and insist that the department keep them open not for corporate events, but for the public. i live near there. i know this has been an issue and i heard it for a number of years and i'm glad what you

said, commissioner low and i'm glad to hear from the coaches and folks from the kezar advisory committee, but i know i have heard it for 7, 8 years, and it's very important and it's a world-class field and you are able to run championships on that turf. i knew and people talked about it in the community, if they let it go, it will no longer be able to be used for that purpose and then it will cost us a fortune and now here it's seven, eight years past the point and i'm very appreciative hearing what the two of you just said. i want to say one more thing. i know we just kicked out -- the department just kicked out hank and spent a quarter million dollars so far or going to in taking down the recycling center. >> just as a reminder it has to be on items that they have discussed. >> oh, okay, thank you. >> so i would encourage you to do something about this and i

know that district 5 people will support you in that effort. because we're the ones who live most closely to that site. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else who wants to comment under "commissioners' matters?" being none, that item is closed. and we are now on item 14, "new business agenda setting." commissioners, is there anything? any public comment? being none, public comment is closed. 15 was "communications." public comment? being none, that item is closed and we are on item 16, adjournment. >> so moved. >> second. >> thank you.

i went to the chamber in his years he would actually still come in. it was always such a delightful person to have around. people don't know what the bay area sports all of fame is,

when you're in the united terminal at san francisco international airport, it has the plaques of the athletes. it's a great idea and a way to make our airport terminal very local and interesting. the other thing i wanted to announce is the red cross has moved into their new offices at 1663 market at goff and this friday they're having an opening blessing. so, if you're around at the building [speaker not understood], will be going in at some point. you can come see a great adaptive reuse project of a great old building that is being inhabited and what they will have at some point in the future is the disaster operations center for san francisco for when there is a major seismic event and they're going build a state-of-the-art operation center because we actually don't have one. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> commissioner borden, could you send out a quick e-mail to us so that we kind of know the

time and date and repeating the location one more time. thank you. >> any additional commissioner comments, questions? >> commissioners, that will place you under director's report, item 6, director's announcements. >> thank you. good afternoon, commission. just a couple of quick announcements. we have had the green connections plan that we've been working on with a number of city and nonprofit agencies including the parks alliance, lock san francisco and nature in the city. there has been a survey that has been online for a number of weeks that closes at the end of the month. so, just to offer -- want to get their last thoughts in on that. that survey will close. it's on the planning department website. that survey does close on february 28th. i wanted to let you know that the japantown plan, which the community has now changed the name of to the japantown cultural economic and sustainability strategy is now

available online * on the department's website. or through the japantown task force as well. that community has completed its work on that plan and the draft is out for public comment. and there is a public meeting on that plan on next tuesday, the 26th, from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the japanese cultural and community center at 1840 sutter street. so, that is to talk about the draft of the whole plan that the community has completed. finally, i just wanted to let you know that we are on track with the academy of arts and the violations, the conditions of the notices of violations. they have met their first two rounds of deadlines. so, they have met the requirements that we asked them to meet to date, and we are working with them on a series of -- we are scheduling a series of meetings to go over the details of our long-term plans. and also, of course, on any of the conditions in the enforcement actions, but we are on track as of right now with the academy.

that concludes my report. the zoning administrator tells me that there was a board of appeals hearing last night, but there wasn't anything on commission action. he will be here next week to give you a full report on the board of appeals as well. >> commissioners, there is no report from the board of supervisors either. so, item 7 will be a review of last week's events or yesterday's events at the historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners. tim frye, department staff here to report to you on yesterday's historic preservation commission hearing. it was a very short hearing, so, there's only a couple item to share with you. the commission continued its decision on who to appoint to the historic preservation fund committee. as you know, this is a committee that was made up of variety of stakeholders from the preservation community and various city agencies as a result of the emporium

settlement a number of years ago. the historic preservation commission has one appointment to that committee and has decided to postpone that decision until all members of the commission are appointed. the commission also received a update from commissioner haase on 900 innes. this is the ship right cottage down at 900 innes in the bayview neighborhood. there are some outstanding dbi violations on the landmark property. commissioner haase was appointed to work with the community and randy shaw, the property owner, in finding ways to raise the money for a new roof on the structure and to secure the structure and to address the outstanding violations. and he gave a report on the estimates that are currently being procured via several contractors and will report back to you once the community and the property owner have a better idea of what direction

they're going to take to address the violations. commissioner haase will also be present at the dbi hearing in early march to represent the historic preservation commission along with the planning department and the property owner. that concludes my report unless you have any questions. thank you. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, mr. frye. was there -- on this advance notice there's 206th street, there was some 106 issue. >> 206th street was on their agenda. it wasn't an issue per se. it's a standard practice for certain size projects that require section 106 review by our historic preservation commission. they provided review and comment on the m.o.a. that has been prepared between the mayor's office, hud, and the property owner. they had a few comments about the public display, interpretive display on the site. but other than that, just a couple clarifications.

>> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> moving forward, commissioners, that will place you under general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any general public comment on items that are not on today's agenda? seeing none, general comment -- public comment is closed. >> commissioners, that will take you to your regular calendar. and i just received a request from supervisor wiener's office to move item 8 to the end of the calendar in order to afford persons who would like to speak an opportunity to arrive. >> okay. >> if that's agreeable, then we will take items 9 and 10 out of order. item 9, case no. 2012.0077t, amendments to the planning code, modifying controls for

medical service uses in the sacramento neighborhood commercial district [board file no. 13-0042]. * case no. 2012.0077t, amendments to the planning code, modifying controls for medical service uses in the sacramento neighborhood commercial district [board file no. 13-0042]. >> good afternoon, commissioners. amy rodgers, planning department staff. i've just been contacted by supervisor farrell that [speaker not understood] is in route. in fact, there she is. so, i will allow her to make some opening remarks to the commission and then i will run through our department's recommendation on this proposed ordinance. >> thank you. >> i'd like to think i'm not out of breath, but i am. good afternoon, commissioners. kathrin stephanie, legislative aid appearing on behalf of supervisor mark farrell. just wanted to take a brief moment to describe the genesis of the legislation you have before you. several months ago our office received a call from the owner of 32 39-32 41 sacramento street. mr. steve mitchell, who is expected to be here today, i

think is going to be here around 1:00, though. i apologize he's not here now. at that time he described the unique nature of his property and how the controls of sacramento street and ncd were making it extremely difficult to utilize the ground level space of the old victorian. the victorian built in 1883 is designated as a potential historic resources -- resource and the ground level space is not visible from the street. i have a picture here for your reference. so, you can see here, i don't know, i've never done this before, so, is it on there? it's face up. that's the property in question. so, this is designated a potential historic resources he. the ground space is not visible from the street as the entrance is setback down the walkway

along multiple levels of stairs. the hidden nature of this base is problematic for most businesses. the company that occupied the space before this property was listed on craig's list for at least 11 mos with no takers. it is difficult for a business or professional service use to locate there given the lack of visibility from the street. * the second floor of the property consists of [speaker not understood] offices of mental health providers. given that any use on the first floor would have to be compatible with the existing use, it seemed a good use for the ground floor would be additional offices for medical health providers. our office contacted the planning department and confirmed that the only way to remedy the situation, one that we felt worthy of remedying was through legislation. legislation was obviously needed in this case due to the fact that new medical service uses are prohibited in the sacramento street ncd which runs from lion's street to spruce street on sacramento. when drafting legislation we wanted to make sure that we respected the concerns that created the prohibition in the first place. in 1987 when these controls

were in place there were concerns that medical service uses were displacing neighborhood service -- neighborhood serving businesses and residential units. i really should not have ran up those stairs. excuse me. obviously community outreach is very important when doing legislation like this. mr. mitchell reached out to the merchants on this street and to sam, with the presidio [speaker not understood] to explain the challenges she was s.p.r.tion with her property. our office did the same and included san in the drafting of the legislation to make sure everyone was comfortable, that the controls in the ncd would still preserve the existing neighborhood serving retail uses and residential units. i also met mr. mitchell at the property and then walked the entire ncd with him looking at every single property to make certain that the legislation will not have any unintended consequences and result in the proliferation of medical services somehow in the ncd. mr. mitchell and i also met with staff at the planning department with a draft of the

ordinance and floor plans to again make certain that the legislation would satisfy our intent to address the unique situation presented by his property while preserving existing controls. at that meeting we were assured that it would tayloring it in the way we did, and allowing the change from business or professional service use to medical service use on the first floor provided no residential use or active street frontage use is loss lofted. we do have support for the legislation. charlie ferguson, member of the san board announced they approved it on february 11th. the small business commission voted 7 to 0 recommending it. and lastly, would just really like to thank planning staff, [speaker not understood] for all their help and attention to this issue. i'm available for questions. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. stephanie gave a thorough explanation about the history of this legislation. so, i have a few remarks. basically, this legislation is

very simple. it would be amending the planning code for this particular neighborhood commercial district to allow a use under certain circumstances, which is currently prohibited. as you've heard, the intent of the controls when this neighborhood commercial district was originally set up was in part to deal with a concern about expanding office-type uses and including medical service office type uses. what we think has been drafted here is a very narrowly defined exception that would allow this sort of use in certain circumstances where you already have the existing use, which is on this floor of the building in particular, a publishing type use to transition into this medical service office use. this change would allow the existing occupants to stay in the neighborhood. it would also meet the intent of the district in that this would only be allowed in this particular instance and only when no residential uses are

displaced and no active street frontage is lost. and since what we have here is one office type use transitioning to another office type use in the same building, we think that this is an appropriate method to proceed and we're recommending approval of the proposed ordinance with a few technical modifications to make sure it's exactly clear what the intent is. if there are any questions, i'd be happy to address those at this time or after public comment. >> thank you. commissioner borden. i'm sorry, public comment on this item. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner borden. >> i'm very supportive. i think this makes a lot of sense. i was just wondering if we thought also, larger i know in the past the issue around medical use both related to ucsf and cpmc and now it looks like both are leaving that immediate neighborhood. there might be a re