to have interpretation and it's a 50 page document. some examples is one is, you know, the last rose said do the urban forest plan it's a separate plan and project it's where all the specification lies. another way the general plan is used is through the referrals. any project that's done on public property comes to a public or private project comes to the department and that's another way the general plan is used. like i said this is the constant struggle how do we keep the visionary and not getting real specific.

so why should we just want the elements. it's from 1986. a lot of it been done in 9 existing plan and a lot of the data is old it's not serving anyone else's purpose. we've tried to update that that i'll talk about provide some further clarity on how to preserve open space. we've added a whole objective an community engagement set out a new policy direction. a lot has happened in 20 years. the whole street system as the open space system and we've

talked about promoting the idea of nature in general. there was a little bit of emphasis on natural areas in the 1986 and now it's shifting to nature throughout the city. a quick overview of the proposed objectives. the first, i think we have a really good system right now and we're trying to make the motive of that system. if you compare it we have a good ratio of open space so it's trying to figure out the best use it means we make the most of our spaces. the next objective is about how to figure out acquisition in

high highs. this map is a strictly high density and high densities of use and seniors and low income with future growth areas and with places that don't have walking distance to open space now. we have highlighted some circles and we're working on presenting this data there's still questions. i think in general there's agreement as to the criteria but how can we make sure this is really clear for people to ice this. as i mentioned a big change in this element is the addition of the connections of the streets. there's a green connection network. so one thing it's taking billion

it was a perfectly great thing we started to talk about this in 2007. we got a grant and now it will be adapted as part of this rose. objective 4 talks about bio diversity and it's a board subject area around the city and coordinating the management of areas and promoting the design in our parks and open spaces. as i mentioned we have a whole community engagement. there was a lot of things it was laying it out and making sure that we were having an ability to participate for all program

decisions as well. final objective is about funding sources. one thing we've done is the need to maintain our parks it takes funding resources so there are newer ideas as well as adding criteria. one of the concerns is the privatization of places so we've added criteria to the draft to make sure it's clearer. just a at some point. including recreation more maintenance of our parks as mentioned and preserving our parks as open space there was a worry about the offer crowding.

we clarified the language the privatization and mar that private open space - private investment continues to provide open spaces as part of their requirements. those changes kind of reflect the changes from the 2013 draft. we've clarified some guidelines on how to preserve open space what happens if a building is expanding in an open space. we've focused on utilizing the spaces rather than activation. the high needs area on the data is updated since the 2010 census and community engagement and adding the programming piece to that not just community engagement an capital

improvements. the partnerships to clarify those and the addition of the green connection network. this is the schedule we're proposing to get to adaptation. we met with the rec and park advisory committee on january 7th. today we're hoping to initiate the amendments we're hoping all comments to be sent to us by january 15th. we're going to go back and now february 27th for possibly the environmental review of you when it's pled. let me end with if people want to submit comments i'm giving you my contact information we've received a few.

i'd like to turn it over to don for a minute from the rec and park department. thank you >> thank you. >> commissioners dawn planning and cpa capital director for the rec and park department. thanks i want to start by introducing the documents partners we've worked with a wide variety of commits sisters to balance the document that really does represent the core of what has been important to open space constituents across the city. i want to thank them for that work. we started almost four years ago in a year of meetings that

approached 80 but all said and done the core principles that continue from the old element as well as new ideas there's been new projects like the cross really to trail that come out of the early rose process that have legs now and we've reinforced them are in terms of the priorities. certainly it's helped us reflect on what's important. the city planning the rec and park advisory committee and the rose has been received well by them as well. we want to express our support for the goals that are set forth and in particular they need to

continue direct investment and maintenance to our highest needs neighborhoods in the city. we're moving forward in a number of acquisitions that address the city in 20 or 50 or one hundred years. are we're excited about those projects and happy to again be in partnership if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> thank you. we may have some. >> we wanted to introduce david from the port. >> commissions and president fong. i want to commend sue she did a great job even if coordinating with the city staff throughout the engagement process. the port thinks the draft rose

document is in great shape and recognize the importance of the neighborhoods prospective and it recognize how the port can help fascinate the new open spaces where we see growth in the city like the eastern neighborhoods. the draft recognize the recent achievements the project has had such as the planning open the green new way and the new open spaces we've delivered including a mile of air-conditioned 3 acres of parks in the last year's. lastly want to recognize that the rose recognize that the port does deliver recreation and open space amenities but our goals don't also align with the facilities and we deliver them

through 9 general obligation bonds as part of our projects and through grants and not all the policies that apply to rec and park apply to ail the ports and they do is great job. we'll awe like that with the ports open space policies and commend again, the staff for delivering a great draft. thank you >> thank you open this up for public comment. (calling names) >> hello good afternoon i'm chris schaffer. i've been working with the rose group it's a actually, the

planning department asked us to form to work with a variety of constituencies. i'm an advocate for recession and others are advocates for dogs and a places for them to play etc. so we're a board group that's working for consensus. i know that commissions with one of the things that's a balance between what's a policy and how to convert it going into action. i advocate that you pay attention to language. for example, if you talk about

different needs with regards to recreation. another t was very clear to say no buildings in our parks where in the current rose with regards to lose of private recreation it should be considered. there's a difference between the guidance of operations that are take place. i know you want to have this approved. it's been around this process for with quite a while. if you are going to take any public comment? eave submitted a letter to each one of you commissioners and john ram you don't acquit consider this to be final.

we've tried to be conservative in our concerns but we have concerns as we're almost there to the finish line. we're appreciative to all the changes from the last time you've saw the rose there's a few more things to consider. one of the things i want you to consider with regard to the recreation. one of the things that's not there is a definition even if recreation as an active so when i consider the open space yes you're doing great but recreation itself is the facilities and the fields by which people have active recreation and for the current if you use the national recreation and rec and park >> thank you your time is up.

>> thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm denying i submitted the 90 pages in 2011 and we submitted 13 page now. but we think the current draft needs to be clear as a visiony plan i'll point out to two areas. policy 2.1 the park definition to expand the available funding sources in areas with

distribution. harvey rose recent audit criticized it to allow the pd to give the highest needs in constrictions of the priorities in the city park code. 5 properties were acquired and none in high needs area and a sixth was called high needs by walkability but the only purchase fees were not acquisition funds. acquisition is within high needs and rose must retain the original park definition and adding more. we would define needs high needs one, two underserved but not

necessarily dense or protecting and future growth and your verdict u urge that the maps be added as described in our comments. map 76 labels them as high needs it's not full of seniors and children. in objective 6 and everywhere the 2013 draft urges the partnership of 3 p but fails to talk about insuring third party accountability and the third party is not subject to sunshine. so the 2013 does not encourage privatization. they have 3 p relationship and

have the public see what's going on. finally? policy 6.1 i ask you look at on page 7 the negative park improvement districts. thank you >> good afternoon, commissioners. carting republican howard grandparent. i want to thank the planning department. obviously one of the sections for example, 1.5 emphasize the frequent woirdz like quadriplegics point to an emphasis more buildings and crowd and more activities.

more commercialization. magnificent plays like ocean beach are used by san franciscans. the way to activate it is have the sub come out picture it encourages commercialization of our parks. the attitude that a park can't be enjoyed without the park initiatives. this e elevates the undue influence of how are parks are used. the rose still ignores the large-scale countryside event that can take over our parks for days at that time. i believe the golden gate park plan as with most of our plans the golden gate park needs

better maintenance. the peace plan will not do justice. the rose should emphasize the better need of protection and preservation of its character as mandated in the master plan and finally, one of the most serious that practicing probz in the rose it opens up building creeping creek. it has new recreation and cult buildings 134 should be 4r0ek9d outside of the playground. the draft 2013 rose offers a potential jifgsz for building in our parks for example, you can build cultural buildings. there are other reasons that are given to build if our parks she

who says no means it she who gives reasons wants to be convinced. we need to go back to the 1986 rose building. san francisco shouldn't have to fight and we hope you'll help provide the vision. thank you >> hi, good afternoon. i'm sally i'm the chair of the rose working group. the new draft is better than the earlier visions. i commend the staff. they're still some important provisions that we need. we need open space for open recreation not passive recreation. there should be nor protection for open spaces. second i'd like to talk about

the balance. the diversity is non-native plants but we remain concerned for native plants. we need a stronger statement in the rose that it gives native and non-native plants equal weigh and it roars the native habitat with the economic impacts to industry the eco like wind reduction etc., and also on the animals and reptiles that live there. it's mentioned in the policy yet the rest of the objective shows little balance in the actions it proposes. balance should be strengthened in the rose. we remain concerned that policy

4.2 that rec and park program it is highly controversial and increasing unpopularity they want to cut down 16 hundred trees because their notary republic native. and also seniors has a heavy use of heshdz. its nature programs it seems to be exploring this approach. it is saying there's no real bipartisan of non-native and native. yet the 2013 rose equates the two especially in the majority of objective 4. finally, i'd like to say that i hope this is not the final version of rose. i know you want to get it done but we ask you direct staff to

make additional changes we want to strengthen it and make it stronger so it can't be used by people that are not what we have in mind. we're happy to meet with you to discuss this in more detail thank you >> hello, i'm robin chair i speak for myself and the awe appliance the rose draft urges the - there are 1 hundred and 31 trees managed by the rp d according to the plan one hundred and 17 thousand 4 hundred and 33 or 90 percent of those trees are in the nature areas yet section 4 of the rose

that governors the nature areas are silent on the subject of trees. there's no mention of protecting, preserving or maintaining those are trees. the word tree is not uses. that's what makes those nature areas beautiful and green. instead section 4 is all about reorganizing natural plants. their regarded as invasive. our historic eucalyptus have are considered to be one hundred and 20 year-old giant weeds. the rose could be used to justify radical plans such as a 9 thin ramp to removal trees and apply heshdz. we have been fighting this

ill-considered plan for years. please make it absolutely clear that trees in our city need to be maintained and preserved. the rose should make clear that the trees in the nature ears are protected and shouldn't be removed. there are plenty of places where native plant can grow. the use of the word roar is ambiguous harassing at best and the - if i want to restore a tree i you - restoring the environment doesn't include kci terminal off our trees. thank you

>> sue hester. i represent a lot of people who are involved in active recreation. and have done so for the past 10 years. i ask you to not kit off comment on 15 which is 6 days from now. this i didn't want rose it came out the day the last day of our commission meeting. it wasn't in the file until last week. i went so there the file and i'm interested in this. we've had a lot of issues over the last 10 years about the demolition of the issues. i'm very well aware that private

wide type facilities need protection as much as recreation facilities because recreation didn't occur in rec and park facilities. i was listening for how the speakers from the city use terms basically as if they were speaking and things were not up on the power point ecology and open space and recreation. i honestly think the term came up well over foments from the planning department on open space. recreation 5 times. open space for the park the only references. no references to recognize. the same from the port. i ask all of us to go through this very careful and see how

much discussion is in here of recreation, and the recreation of j in general and the recreation that's provided on non-rec park facilities. so i reiterate that you should pay attention to the comments made and chris schaffer and dennis. people are trying to get this a rose and right now you have basically an organization s e. we have to deal with recreation this is a huge issue particularly along the waterfront. i've been dealing with it and we don't have policies to