president olague: i wanted to mepgs and my questions -- i wanted to mention and my questions will probably be answered in the next couple of months that relate to access issues and you showed the map and wondering if that covers areas that are underserved and are areas that have a higher population of youth and seniors is the question. >> i am wondering if youth and seniors and if there are access issues or issues of under representation to public space and are there fewer parks where

fewer parks where seniors live and the map that showed the views but trying to get a sense of where the areas are. >> so i think i can say that there are density usually correlates to the densest use and the densest seniors are and those pretty much show up in the last if want the show the slide and correlate with the densest areas and per person they have the least amount because they are so dense and the bigger spaces are on the western side of the city. and so the idea is because this is the priority renovation and acquisition area, the idea is to

focus that money in the area and continue to look for areas to acquire and it's often a challenge in really dense neighborhoods and the thought is that make sure the areas are really renovated and if you do that every five years because they are used to auf ed td to o need to look at the school yards and it is not well publicized and not necessarily green and sometimes they may be open and you may not know and it is a hard program and acts like a great idea, but we want to expand that. and a lot of different ways to think about it than simply looking at something and we have to acquire with a new open space to create good open spaces there if we can't acquire new spaces. president olague: some of what

concerns me and selma and the sixth street corridor and victoria park and the rec center and there are a kinds of maintenance and fees and so many people lost access to that facility during the budget crises, but i guess it makes sense to me in some ways, have you talked about some of the ideas with some of the landlord rs and the nonprofit housing developers? i am wondering if that conversation is taking place to brainstorm with maybe some of the tenants or -- >> because they do manage a lot of properties in both the tenderloin obviously -- >> that is a good idea. i think we have a focus group, but it's been a while since we talked to any and we worked with cdc who does affordable housing as well. and still working with them on

other projects. see if i can connect with them again. president olague: and some of the master lease properties and are they thinking about how to green the space for tenants? and everyone mentions roof top gardens and i am not sure that is necessarily the solution or if people would necessarily utilize that space, but i am just saying i am wondering as you mention thinking outside the box as a way to go because what do you do, right? >> and with the nonprofit housing units and there are some groups that i have been working with on that. but i am happy to get in touch with them and see if they have any other thought. president olague: and wondering if the tenants or even the landlords would have thoughts on what they could even participate in in terms of the funding. which may or may not be something, i am not sure, but

pretty when you go out there, it is like concrete jungle literally. let's see. i guess the seniors and the youth and those questions are the ones that are on my mind. i guess also i know we have been in conversation and i have been in conversation with you and claudia over the years about some of the outreach, so i know that actually contrary to perception there has been outreach done in some of the communities. but i am glad now that the sierra club is engaging with the department and sort of that's always good. but i know that i didn't want to not recognize the work that you have been doing over the past few years. >> yes, thanks. i think we did a lot of outreach and i do think we want to do more and want to make sure that everything is up to date and i think that will be coming up and to get everybody's comments and

understanding everybody's comments and clarifying whether there is any misunderstanding. president olague: and the work that you have been doing and i know because i was engaged in conversations and members of the public may not be aware of. and then finally, let me see. i had another question. but i guess it can wait. see if i remember what it is. commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: maybe you'll think about it in the meantime here. i have a quick question. do we ever think about when we talk about looking at, i don't know, the right way to approach this, so, for example, i'll give you an example. the development that i live in has a small swimming pool and open space as a backyard. so people who live in this -- and it also has a gym. so are we ever able to take into

account that kind of private situation when we're analyzing open space and recreation needs? because a lot of it, for example, the condo developments have their own similar facilities, you might say, and that seems to me to contribute to alleviating, you might say, some of the necessity for public open space and recreation. >> i would say that it's something we want to -- to be increase by about threefold the requirement for open space perez denial unit and -- p per residential unit and that can happen in other areas to make sure that the private and the quantity of open space is up to the latest standards. and that is one thing we can do. we don't have any numbers on private open space.

but generally we kind of often think and you sort of gave an example and we often think in less dense areas there is more open space because of private backyards and in denser spaces there is less and generally that is probably true. that is why we use density as one of the key factors, but in your example, it sounds like you are in a dense place but still has the amenities. commissioner sugaya: thanks. president olague: commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i think this is really interesting and i look forward to more of the outreach. and it is interesting having lived in the northern part of the city next to presidio and where you have all the open space now being near delores park which is always packed because there isn't a lot of open space around there and it is pretty much that park and go to that park seven days a week and it is packed. and seven days a week it's busy and there is such a great need to deal with open space and those areas of the city and

those are the areas where young people especially need it the most and to the extent that we can acquire new space and make sure that we keep the spaces as whole as possible, i am glad that the renovation project is happening and i think it's a much-needed renovation project, but that you have a tall task you are looking at with the open space element and a lot of different things. i wouldn't want to see the counting of open private space toward public open space and unless you could make it accessible, right, which i don't think you can, and the private open spaces and i was just reading a tennis club that is $150 if you are not a member to rent a tennis court there. funny because everybody is talking about how it is an open space amenity for the neighborhood but it is $150 and recently promoted in some magazine i was reading as affordable for an afternoon on a tennis court which i think is very affordable. but i wanted to point that out. >> and remember, hdmt, i was

going to ask if you could include d.p.h. next time. >> megan is here, actually, a new megan. president olague: i can't recognize her. >> megan wall is taking over and will work to get relief with a new person. president olague: we worked a lot during the eastern neighborhoods process and to w the impact assessment and hdmt obviously is part of that. and so i wou next hear iing and it might lengthen the hearing to have you guys actually make a presentation about it. and i don't know if it should be as part of the open -- well, it should be as part of this. >> that is what i have proposed is she come and they are updating the hdmt this summer and so we're going to work over

that and see how that might, as i mentioned, jennifer, the previous person, was that staff person who submitted comments on the rose and those are all here and they have been involved but we want to reconnect. president olague: that could be great. >> that is next time. she will present on what we come up with over the next few weeks. president olague: good, great. and at some point we want to invite a status on the whole program. >> okay. >> i wanted to follow up because i think sometimes when we work in the rec park role and the planning role, we don't always look at how these elements affect and improve the work we do and i wanted to follow up on commissioner borden's comment and the region that mission delores park was included is the last se and the study and the map and that document told us and we were developing the last bond proposal that it was important to focus on the densest areas in

the city and the formulas that you established in the and the project of mission delores and the mission playground renovation and a couple of others use lafayette park also and those projects were in the densest parts of the city and these elements really make a big impact on our capital program that are helpful for us to do resighsly what you are talking about -- to do precisely what you are talking about. president olague: thank you and thanks for attending the meeting also. commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i would like to ask you a quick question. on this evaluation of 2.5 cents, i assume this is done on a yearly basis? and if so, how much revenue flows into the fund? >> in term of how the assessments are done, and probably the best person to

answer that question and i can tell you that currently that is approximately a total of 36.2 million and this is a minimum of 5% set azide of real property. that is the requirement. commissioner sugaya: has this been going -- i guess if it is assessed valuation, it usually goes up. okay. thank you. to staff, ms. exline, in terms of the hearing process, are we going to get feedback from rec park on this? >> we went there yesterday and i was going to present on august 18 and they asked me to wait, so

i think -- i'm sorry, we haven't spoken since that and i think they wanted to wait until september to go to the full commission. the commissioners didn't have any comments and may in september. >> i think the commission was very interested in the element and appreciated all the work that we have been doing to get it to the place that it is now and sue mentioned some of the additional work she was going to be doing so i think that we need to confirm this with the commission, but again, the capital committee heard it yesterday and that we come back when some of that additional work had been done. i think that is what they are planning on. commissioner sugaya: thank you. i guess it's strange to me that we're talking about a rec and open space element and i understand there is coordination between staff and all and that relationship is probably pretty

good but we have a whole commission that has the money to itch complement the kinds of thing -- to implement the kinds of things that we're going to adopt at some point and yet -- i don't think how to characterize it. there has to be some additional engagement. >> and sue has made while we have been developing this with the planning director and sue has made presentations to the rec park commission and gotten their feedback over time and are continuing to do that and parks and open space advisory which one of your commissioners have been very involved with and giving us feedback over time and this is definitely something that's occurred over time. in addition, i have some slides where i can talk because it's a conversation that has been going on for a few years, there are things that the department is already doing to try and implement some of the things that the rose, the draft rose,

talks about like activation of places that aren't fully activated and trying to find ways with high needs areas and a recreation model and it was inspired through the convictions and the neighborhood park council and other people has been working on with community councils and what they like to see and a lot of the work they do on a regular basis. and i don't know how much the detail of that and you like to hear and those are do i understand of things that they are looking for in this document and that a lot of the things in the implementation plan we are doing and with police and trails and wrote and submitted and there is a lot of the things that are happen iing.

commissioner sugaya: i like to have us all on the same page, so to speak, and input from your commission. otherwise, it's not useless, but kind of an intersize in a sense and all commissions should be following it. >> absolutely. it did help us a lot in the last bond in the terms of the privatization and in terms of revising the acquisition policy right now and these are really good because i can use these maps in our acquisition policy. >> one more thing that we're working closely with the port, too, who couldn't come today, but we have been working closely with them, too. they are another big piece of this. president olague: thank you. secretary avery: thank you. that concludes that item. and commissioners, you are ready

to move forward with item 18, amendments to your rule and regulations. >> commissioners, earlier this year you had a public hearing and you expressed a desire on what you wanted to change in your rule and regulations and we produced a draft document and got that to you a few weeks ago. and made it available to the public as we produced the calendar. so we are open the draft document is before you for your discussion and you can make -- you can consider the issues and make any suggestions for additional changes. if you would like me to go through each one, i will. president olague: well, maybe just highlight the ones you think. >> the up withes that you mentioned at your last hearing,

on page two, article four, section one t regular meeting, and you changed the start time from 1:30 to 12:00 noon and that is the only change you made to the actual ruleses. in your appendix a., it's page six of the total document and is under discretionary review and included environmental and historic language -- included environmental and historic resource documents be attached to submittals and that goes through the entire document. and then under standard cases, under 2c, the same language is added. and also under standard cases

you change d it and following through and on the language has changed to a presentation of opposition to the proposal by organized on position for a period not to exceed 10 minutes instead of 15 with a minimum of three speakers. president olague: and we have received a lot of comments from the public about that to keep it at 15, which i would support actually. commissioner miguel: i would also. president olague: is that something? commissioner borden: i forgot the note from peter cohen and specifically what we had said at one point is a project sponsor gets 15 minutes and organized option and fair to offer them that. secretary avery: we will change that back to 15. do you want to keep the language with the minimum? >> absolutely. and that will go back to 15 minutes instead of 10.

and that will be the same as -- that's it. for the rest of that category under standard cases, for d, you eliminated the language and will be given a period not to exceed five minutes if that organization or group is represented by one speaker. you have eliminated that language. president olague: yes. comfortable with that. secretary avery: you wered e you have eliminated -- under e. you have eliminated the same language with 15 minutes. and then you eliminated all of f. and g.. and rechanged the numbers according to the rest of it. president olague: yes. and in the other cases, 2d has the environmental and historic resources be attached to all submittals.

so under c, we are going back to 15 minutes instead of 10. we're keeping the language with the minimum of three -- >> go to 10 for the presentation and keep it at 10. president olague: most people don't even take 15 minute, i'll be honest with you. >> i am talking about the project sponsor. >> unfortunately, they always seem to run over time when you give them 15 minutes. i don't think we can cut it shorter. secretary avery: you guys tell me what you want. the project sponsor time or -- president olague: i change it to 15. i go with 15. commissioner borden: i think 15. honestly, granted, sometimes the project presentation is a little bit too much, but at the end of the day, if it is -- if the general public is watching gets more clarity about the project and obviously we have read it and have a different perspective, but people watching on tv, sometimes it is helpful if the architect goes through and that is usually what gets cut off. >> and they are leaving it 15

for both sides. >> as much as we appreciate that -- commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: this is a free for all, right? >> on complicated cases, 1b -- >> let me go back. on page two. >> on two of the appendix. and it says through the commission secretary at and then we have linda's email address. and if linda ever leaves, then we have to change that, right? and go to a hearing to change it? >> that is a good question. because rules and regulations can only be changed in a public hearing. however, if it -- commissioner borden: isn't there a generic, and a commissioner

secretary at whatever email? >> why do you have to put the email address? >> it doesn't exist currently as you are suggesting it. but i can't imagine that we can't create that. >> i think we should create an email that anybody can check so it doesn't -- it has to be checked and the whole thing doesn't have to be checked. commissioner moore: and for your reference, it is generic commission secretary at planning.org and they have to find the address. president olague: and remain the way it is and some language subject to change or something like that. commissioner miguel: and to create an email that's the commission secretary. president olague: i don't have any opposition. >> it's strong feelings here. commissioner miguel: if we have to go to a public hearing, to change the email. >> and deputy city attorney. there is no reason you have to include the email and i would recommend not including the

email and look up on the webpage who the commissioner secretary is and assigned staff. >> thank you. >> and a question to the point of order in a different way. so the question is, though, if somebody submits something to you and you are not here, does someone check your email? >> no. >> the emails are personal. >> right. so i guess what we do have to figure out in general is that -- and i don't know -- there's been instances where people claim they have submitted something to you but you weren't here and jonas was here and so i just think not for the purpose of the rules but as a purpose on the website to create a secondary or a dummy email that wouldn't be personal and submittals could be sent to that could be checked by anyone so we don't have that issue.

>> it makes sense to do that to have an address that is more generic. and we have an internal one at the department, i believe. but i don't know if they can -- president olague: i would like to discuss that more. i am not feeling completely comfortable with that. secretary avery: my only objection is that i get hundreds of emails every day. if i am going to be responsible for taking my personal and that the general public knows how to read and plus this new one, when will i have time to do the other work? commissioner borden: there is a way that, for example, at my work i have multiple email addresses, and it all comes to the same place. and there's a way that you can do it that it would come to you and also stay in that mail bobbi box and for someone reason, you are not there, someone can check the mailbox after 5:00 p.m. on wednesday, and for that purpose and have that information and it would normally still come to

your mailbox. secretary avery: commissioners, rather than make a change -- commissioner borden: i am not saying put it in here. secretary avery: and we need to discuss that. president olague: and it has to do with the responsibility of the secretary and if we have all the random emails to some info box, who is ultimately going to be responsible for checking that and responding and that is whey am concerned if there is no clear line of responsibility for receiving that, it can get lost. >> my point is to have it go to her, not to create this email would be general, but talking about submittals specifically that just to avoid the issue writ comes directly to your inbox but another inbox that could be checked. to create another place to have this go. >> i don't want to put this in year. president olague: i don't want to make the change in the rules. >> i am not suggesting that it be in the rules but something to

consider because of the issue brought up. secretary avery: i understand your point and there are literally thousands of emails that came in while i was gone and as i am going through, it's just to me and no one got it and you didn't get things forwarded to you and i didn't get a chance to respond to them because i want here, they came just to me. so that is what we should talk about and work out. >> for the purpose of the rules, we can get back on that subject -- president olague: thank you. i apologize for the free for all nature of the conversation. usually we push buttons and very orderly, but i think it's appropriate for this only. secretary avery: and we are agreed to eliminate my email

address in 1b. going back to the rules, we had gotten to 2d. to #c and we have gone back to 15 minutes on 3c and left the project sponsor and 3b at 15 minutes. this is the same as standard cases and eliminated the language and the same for 3e and eliminated 3f and g and numbered the rest of the items and those are the only changes i am aware of and you will cha