park. and when my children arrived they learned to reside their bikes and when they later went to the school they had been playing there on the weekends as little ones they knew the area well. about 10 years ago they started locking the school yards. at the meeting last night people were talking about they learned to skate there in the same school yard. this is a pretty recent practice to close off the areas that is the only flat area this is including, you know, the rec and park area is not flat national and didn't provide access for riding a bike or anything like that.

this is the only save place in the neighborhood where children can ride their bikes and meet and shoot hopes. i know this can be strengthened. it is suggested we pay the school district to do this. this is our land they should open it up. before they started locking it there was not a big problem. i understand they don't want to have people using it because they might have to clean up a little bit of trash. the custodians are out there scaping up anyway but they should open them up. but i'm glad to see you're thinking along those lines. thank you >> trudy

(calling names). >> take this recreation land. and good luck with all your plans. city plans because i can't help falling in city planning gov. with you. like the flows surely to the sea thanks mayor ed lee the best is about to be. take our city recreation land. and good luck with our all your city plans. because because we can't help falling in city gov. with you.

and i can't help falling in city land planning gov. with you. thank you >> thank you (clapping) >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. overwhelm to speak mine. (laughter) but i wish i could sing (laughter) >> i'm trudy and i'm here representing the trust for public land the trust for public land protects the places people care about and create close to home parks. we're based in san francisco we're worked to create parks through the bay area. i'm here to support the rose.

we focus on entity, access and quality of parks. and i think the rose at a high level addresses those hive points in a strong way. when i ask him down the list the table of xhonts contents i see quality and access and quality in the many oifbz. for example, in policy 2.3 i see equality in objective 3 when the city talks about green connections and looking at open spaces. and in objective one and 5 there are many mentioned of quality of parks with reference to the quality of art and engaging the

quality of parks. so i want to say that the process that the planning department it's been found to be delight and inclusive. we're excited to see the rose being adapted. thank you >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm rachel i'm the director of communications for the parks alliance. i want to first aggravated assault the planning department and the rec and park staff important this incredible effort our our organization was involved from the very beginning as the neighborhood paperwork council and now as the parks alliances in convening the groups. our input has been included in

the document. we have a few suggestions we'll be forwarding to you in writing before the deadline but we're looking forward to the process. in many ways this is a visiony document and it's long overdue. the city is different now than in 986. thank you. >> (calling names) i'm the director and i want to reiterate rachel's comments about the appreciation of the hard work that the commission and the planning department staff have put into this document over the years and also want to make a note there were a

significant array of suggestions and concerns that were raised at the previous draft. person he that we were happy to see those were incorporated and we applaud that process. i want to bring to our attention the process i want to make a note that the one month timeframe between the document of importance. it's been a scramble but we've pulled together our comments and we'll get you those before the deadline. we do want to make a note it was a bit of a rich to get this done covering the holidays. also one highlight i want to

direct your attention of the rose it will include in the comments and that has to do with the planning of the future of the parks and open space and a recreation system in san francisco. and particularly relative to the expected growth of the population of the city. there's a robust section in the plan focusing on addressing parks areas in the city which we applaud hover there's one specific addition we'll bring to your attention that will refer to the density growth we foresee for san francisco in the coming decades. as you know, it's been morning consistent but we think it would be prudent for the rose to specifically refer to the population growth possible even

specifically to plan bay area to make sure those population growther areas get proper attention as the city plans for the open space and recreation spaces to accommodate them. for all san franciscans have access to the facilities theo they need and deserve >> than >> thank you any additional sprngz. >> i very much would like the band on trees and he rose and using heshdz. currently, the rec and park department can cut any trees they want at will. they have to post a notice the

notice that often is inadequate and it's not been noticed as hazardous and people before talked like there's this wonderful report on urban forest and the importance of trees and i think the importance should be reemphasized now because of the global warming and we're witnessing extreme weather around the globe and each healthy tree should be preserved. i live next to mounting david son and it's actually a nature effort it was planted many years ago. but it is a forest. and you see forestry specialities came to the forest and said it's healthy and good

and didn't need anything there's no need to cut anything there. you can see the different points in the city. you don't have to cut trees. and once again about the heshdz. in rose they state health and safety principles open space should be a safe place to live and support the lands and animals and it's totally unhealthy to use chemicals in the city park. it did not qualify as environmental stewardship just a partial list of the facts associated with the chemical that are routine used in mounting david son. there are links to several

cancer and number one hoskins and breast cancer and more and more non-industrial scientists are president the chemicals have problems like miscarriages and low sperm will counts and destruction. i think the band is in order on those subjects. the tree cutting because their no non-native it just what small business thinks is growing in some place is one up to this point in time >> any other any public comment? okay seeing none, public comment is closed >> i think our singing commentator was getting better f

that was elvis best song. a few comments on the rose. there's a lot of comments on public-private but where it's done correctly it does a lot of good things. having a public-private agreement you can have better maintenance and done more cynicly and take the pressure off the taxpayers observing the city has to benefit but the private maintained areas are done well, and there's a lot to be gained. another thing that's not brought there's this discussion l about whether to charge admission to our parks. those parks need to be maintained and it's one of the few it ways to maintain our

parks. i don't see any problem so long as it's a modest fee. what's nature is a lot of sand and weeds basically and what we produce now what we call native plants are unnotifying and dry and not really usually. so i think that parks have to be someplace where someone wants to go and they have to be surfaced that are flat and green and appealing for people. so i would air to the side you know of whatever we've done as everyone knows this is an ininviting sandy often cold peninsula and if it were not for

the parks create in san francisco no one would want to be here. i think there's a lot to be said on this. on the elimination of the trees i strike a middle ground. we don't want to have is wholesale elimination of the trees because they were not originally here. their healthier if the light is in there are also it's cold and damp in areas so letting more the in will allow other trees to do better. we have to balance the open space with housing. we have a finite area we have to use our land judiciously and we need land for housing.

if we have existing parks around twin peaks i'm going saying you element that area but we could use it is important more housing. mcclaren park is the second largest park in san francisco but much of that is not inviting it's a little bit scary and i think we could use that in better ways. but much more of that land could be developed into activities that would attract people to it it and use it more often. as far as buildings and paperwork i think their fine. i think some of the finest parks

are museum 9 legion of honor they make did parks better because people are there. food services are welcome it's nice to get something to eat while you're in parks. i don't see anything wrong with that in our parks. and then the other thing we have to emphasize is do better maintenance of our parks. we don't have is an irrigation system in golden gate park we have an antiquated system the maintenance workers have to water manuel and better practices in turf martin luther king will help us to get better parks we'll use less water because it's better managed and that's the important thing in

all our parks. those are my main thoughts on the entire element. i know a lot of work has gone into it but we have to strike a middle ground and i've tried to bring that up >> commissioner wu. >> thanks i want to thank the staff for they're hard work. to best testimony today that on this conversation of high need. you know, clearly it's been defined there's high needs no low income neighborhood with seniors and there's a lot of concern around growth areas. i suggest it was elucidated to it should be represented with dissension. we have those red circles but some of them are growth in the future and some of them are

about existing needs. so i encourage staff to take a look at that. i'm encouraged about the focus on community engagement and the neighborhoods with regards to open space speaker the green project was mentioned that i want to say i think it's important to think about what the residents need and neighborhoods. i saw through the green connection process there's some connection to connect them but their should be an element around do neighbors need a a place to a exercise or rest and ground it in everyday neighborhood things. those are my comments so thanks

again >> commissioner moore. >> i'm very appreciative of a plan it's visionary and has strength loovd. because love is in the details when it comes to language we have sensitivities this is the policy document this is not the code. so i strongly encourage for the sake we're all different and we pay different attention to thing to give a little bit more time to some of the comments made by the rose people who spoke today. i would arrest that the uncertainty between the high need areas versus underserved t is somewhat unclear. when i see a circle around

treasure island i'm cognizant of a strong development agreement this is not a development area which has built in a large ambiguous plan for open space and recreation so as a high need or underserved whatever that didn't fall into n this discussion you with the development of that island should it go forward exams a comes a specific detailed plan not list here. however, some of the underserved areas we're aware of in the different neighborhoods we ail live that would be something i'll ail put on a larger blowup map. this is not this cuts across all social and income groups.

the one thing we're talking recreation we're cognizant that we'll continue to have changing demographics in the city. when i moved into knob hill hunter irregularly park was a place people sat and got a suntan. it was mostly people in the young and older ages that were people who frequent the park now come up from the tenderloin and the upper parts of knob hill because there's no open space near. there's a big change in democrat graphs that the gross of the chakt hill school they don't have places for themselves they

exercise around the park. to build in the interpretations for the open spaces in the future is more important for a policy statement than nailing down dedicated active or passive recreation and strike a balance between the two. something we haven't you touched on that goes hand to hand where are our larger investment and a open spaces that holds up the high per capita pr i hope we're near and i hope the comments that will be made in the next few weeks will be looked at it's in the detail. and i wanted to acknowledge the port, did port is doing a good

job in upholding the standards and why they might not meet all the dissension of the rose that partnership will have long, long lasting benefits for all of us with attention to the water edge the ports open spaces will be increasingly more important >> commissioner hillis. >> just to echo any fell commissioners it's a well-balanced document. people use open space for a many reasons and to balance it is a tough task. the issue of the recreation and some people say it's not mentioned enough or too much or passive park use. i think i side with the folks that think recognize that's my one companion on here that

recreation and field use is perhaps mentioned enough or = elevated enough. as we build and acquire more space we know that fields is not doable we have some of the spaces which is next to the basketball park but it would be a great practices for a field. that's my one comment. the comment that was made about using school yards and a potentially libraries is a good one it could address the recreational needs and i don't know whose on point i everything over the years we're going to fix this may be an update i'm sure it's right with the issues

but i had walk by with my kids to schools everyday and it could be used for activities theirs be available courts and what's the status of the program. i know you may not be the one working on this >> i'm not sure i, totally answer that. there's a pilot program in place i think 11 school that was opened before we've been working - talking off and on with the mayor's office there's been a lot of issues trying to expand it and trying to figure out if this makes sense. i can get a better update >> i would encourage that to be

part of the solution a fairly low-cost to buying open space my. >> it provides a lot of spaces. and a thanks >> commissioner sugaya. >> as long as i have a quick question on maps one and two which are map one is existing open space and map two i think it existing and a proposed. >> uh-huh. >> do the green dots on both maps which are the existing areas include fields. >> what do you mean by fields and a baseball and soccer fields. >> yes. >> in terms of recreation i think there is i'm in agreement with some of the comments with respect to the lack of recognize

treatment. i refer to those two maps because none of those maps point out where there's community facilities and community centers gymnasiums and that kind of thing owned by the city. seems if we're talking about a recreation element that there ethnicity to be places in the city. my biggest criticism is the lack of the spaces. i went through the document. there's only one time that prehistoric has been mentioned. the document says it's within the several historic districts including the being a historic

landmark and being a city larked itself but we do know there are rec and park owned buildings and other building owned by the city that are historic or have a historic status and some of them are open space originated and those are not treated at all which leads me to question whether or not you can really is on one of our findings that larked and historic buildings be preserved. i don't see how a statement with the element would not have a negative effect on the historic buildings you haven't identified any. there's needs to be a little bit more treatment of that within both the rose and especially in

the mitigated place. the civic center was mentioned. there are generalized statements like an a.m. that is right. if you're going to mention that i would imagine that the environmental review would have to take into consideration since it's within the document itself and it's proposed or a mentioned possibility that could have an impact on the historic district. i think the same is true with respect to golden gate park and any treatment that the words with respect to altering the master plan or other things need to be treated. and that extends to