the bay to the north the playground district 11. the other one really shows how well the cap innovation is working for this city. parks have been renovated in the last couple of years. we have taken outmoded designs and replaced with features that are more appropriate to set who is actually using this park as a result which we have less high maintenance to do >> from the top to bottom, these are some major organizations.

paying attention to these sites and one of the strategies that we are bringing in more resources to the board, our recent new hiring of five mu can an can ustodians. now it's going to be all day long at the parks where these people are going. we are soon going to be having a manager vacancy. one of these parks is slated for renovation. finally two of these parks are unusual properties. they are the two park ways in our system. they have a typical use and typical needs in terms of maintenance. they take a new, the department brings to bear a new way of looking at them. we have completed finally the four 4 miles of

edging along lower grade highway to make that once more available to our users. so we are getting there and we are putting our eye on these properties. this shows the parks that are scoring very high in the dark and parks that are scoring less. there is a percent between all the parks on the top and low end. all parks service areas are scoring about that 85 percent threshold which represents good maintenance. this is a little bit more detail on it. you will see the most of the psa's have had a minor fluctuation which has gone

down a little bit. we have asked the controllers office to give us a little bit of guidance as to how much fluctuation represents the actual change that is subject -- substantial. the biggest drop is golden gate park and that biggest drop is changed since we changed the evaluation and we divided the sections that took many many hours into smaller sessions so the evaluators can get to every area and that was useful to the staff. of all of those areas, they drop. they were higher in prior years since we have been doing the evaluation. you can see that in the next slide. this slide, actually this is a great moment. we are at

a crossroads. we are moving from a system we developed in 2006 and started using and we are moving into a new era. since our start of our program, all of our areas have improved in scores. you see in the fiscal in 2006, only two areas received the 85 percent threshold, those in the far right of the screen. this year, all areas above the 85 percent threshold and for the second year in a row. and one thing that a park evaluation program has allowed us to do is we have characterized and categorized the kind of outcome that people need in our parks. we have been able to see that we have been able to increase attention to each and everyone of those areas. in fiscal year in 2006, only three

features, trees, and waste reseptember -- this reflects the department priorities that we want to bring those features that mostly directly impacts the users. even with this score, they are turning around. both open space and the only two features last year scored below 85 percent. both improved 25 percent in 2014. i hope it's appropriate. i wanted to take this moment to offer my personal thanks to the controllers office for the continued partnership and involvement in the san francisco parks

evaluation program. while the controller is always supportive and participated in this program their contribution has been particularly important this past year and particularly of help to me. i wanted to say thank you. as the commissioner knows for the past 2 years, we've been working really hard to revise the standards, to increase the values to the department to our staff and to in accrues the benefit to the san francisco systems and park users who we serve. this coming year is going to be a busy year. we are finally reaching implementation. we have a new park evaluation data base in the works, we have new reports we are building, we have reformatted forms for use in the parks and we have improved our training for all evaluators. we do expect there will be a shift in the price

scores that we'll see next year given the great extent. we'll face those bridges next year. speaking of the future, the controller always has recommendations to take on for us to do. the first is to really set up and rebuild a model on how park evaluation data is being used by the department. i want to say within the works we have two new seminars we are bringing to our own staff. one is to build a model for action planning. so when the parks supervisor or manager gets a park score, it can set up a response plan that would remedy any deficiencies it has found and the second, we have a front line staff at the gecko

to understand what the evaluation is going to be looking for and how to make sure a park meets those requirements. the controller asked to plan strategic improvement to consistently low performing parks. in addition to the changes i mentioned earlier, i want to say the great new soccer fields are going to be terrific. third, they want us to reach out more clearly to our evaluation staff. so far this year, we have had trainings that oriented every single evaluator, all 120 plus of them to new revised standards. we have new evaluators received classroom training and i have implemented a new program with field training with both new and continuing evaluator staff. we are working really hard in updating our maps and features. we

should finish the design of a new format for math. math designed especially for evaluation so we can do the work more easily. just completed this week, new features list for the parks and hope to update further by the end of the quarter and finally starting this week, two new interns have joined our staff and will be working with us to help move what has been moving to innovation in the recent years to a format that we can see on a map. with that i conclude our report. we are open to questions. >> thank you very much. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> mr. ginsberg? >> commissioner, i just want to thank the controllers office.

this is also the national best practice. we get asked by other major city big park systems about our park maintenance scores as it has come up at other national park board meetings and it's an incredible useful tool and you get a little competitive and you always want to keep pushing and doing better. really this is not about scoring, this is about information. what are we doing well, what parks need more attention, handout you do we allocate staff and it's a really important tool. i also want to really commend and thank danny kern and lydia for their assistance in this program. >> thank you again. >> that was discussion only. we are now on item 11. >> excuse me, commissioner bonilla? >> sorry, i just had a question. on

the lower performing parks, is this the intent of the staff to get together with the community and share those scores and engage them in helping to make the improvements so that we continue to up those scores in the lower performing parts? >> i will probably take that one and sarah may want to weigh in here, but steve did talk about how we use this internally and external one of the most important pieces of projects, this is where we steer resources. we get request to do work, we get companies that are not particularly associated with a particular neighborhood park but just want to get their hands dirty, and sarah and kim use this data to volunteer projects.

>> then in conjunction with the community? >> yes. >> thank you. city clerk: we are now on item 11. economic benefits of san francisco's parks and recreation system. >> sarah ballard. i wanted to thank the park alliance for this important study. matt is here and will present you the details of what we have learned about the economic impact in san francisco. before he does that, i want to thank the park alliance and staff as their work on the project and the public land for executing the study and our own staff who had to provide a lot of information, take time out of their everyday job to work with the statistician for

putting together this report. it's helps with the local economy and the values that we stuart and the information we provide. as you know, the city invest $90 million in these parks every year and as you see from the report, the economic value is measured at $959 million from the government. a pretty good multiplier. any tech start up would be very pleased with that. to show you the concept of this report and how we plan to disseminate this information is valuable for us throughout the study and the parks alliance. >> thank you, sarah. a

little over a year ago, at the urging, the parks alliance started to look into the economic impact of our parks and looking for a way to quantify that for the first time. we turned to the trust republic land which has developed a methodology they have applied at park systems in cities across the country and really about k the industry standard for measuring the economic impact. we commissioned the public land to conduct the study and i'm happy to invite becky back to the podium to go over the results. >> thank you, it's very exciting. this is the 12th study that the public lands has performed through our city parks. the analysis basically looks at the economic impact of the entire recreation and parks system

through trails, national parks and the plazas. the whole gamete and looks at seven factors, how parks contribute to property value, tourism, tourist do they visit because of the parks and what people are willing to pay in the marketplace, the service to get at public parks, the health, what are the health care cost saefrgs -- savings and volunteerism and clean water and clean air and how do trees improve air pollution. those are the different factors that the economist go through and get all the information from the city and basically calculate a dollar value for each of these revenue producing factors for the city government and cost saving factors for citizens. although economy

don't mix those revenues with saving and comprised public and private financial benefit we do the attributes to see the dollars. the parks then provides the city an annual revenue of $72 million municipal cost saving of $72 million. it's the same. resident savings $261 million and collective of $554 million. really impressive numbers and that was the conclusion that the report came to and while the results are consistent with other documents they produce, san francisco's park system plays a particularly out sized role in this economy. very impressive for one of the top three systems in the country. certainly makes a case for recognition

and investment. in terms of recollect nick's, -- recognition, i would like to thank all the people for looking at the report. it's a huge list of people. thank you very much. i encourage you to look at the details and feel free to contact us if you have any detailed questions. >> thank you. >> when we first started looking at this study, we projected impact in a few million dollar range. a billion dollars, that knocked our socks off. i want to thank peter harness and his staff and jen for your support and our thanks to danny and the staff at the recreation and parks department and department of public works and they have all contributed time. i know i'm preaching to the choir but i

want to take a moment to comment on the implications to this study. now we have another reason why we love our parks. we already know that the park are essential to making life livable in a densely populated city and we know it's e essential to our children and keeping it a family-friendly city and we know that parks are central and to our emotional health and we know to quantify that parks are essential to our economy too. this comments on our fundamental shift to these parks. they are not amenities, they are essential services. we also know that we the people of san francisco have been rather miserly in the park system and we have been doing that for years. we know no you that

this economic impact study let's you know why we should fix that. our parks are essential, adequately funding them is i mperative. the parks alliance has an adopted a big hairy and rather audacious goal, a b hag. it is our to be policy priority that within the next decade we intend to secure adequate and stainable funding and maintenance for the parks in san francisco. that's our goal. we welcome your support in achieving that goal. thank you. >> thank you. city clerk: is there any public comment on this item?

>> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner low. i think b hag would be to take your section on property values and given the proximity of parks should be given to the real estate community and some of the development committee to educate them on when there is an impact of a project on a park how their property values might go up and how they might contribute towards sustaining those parks that they impact and not only on physical improvements, but in program improvements. >> the same might be said for advocating for special assessment districts and demonstrating how it helps in light of self it's. the other comment i have is i wonder if it isn't possible to use the

same methodology to include the golden gate national recreation area and presidio per say as add-ons to the san francisco bay benefit. >> those are included in the city and county. >> they are, okay. when i saw san francisco recreation and parks, i wasn't sure. thank you. seeing no other questions. let's move on. cl eric clerk we are now on item 12. general public comment continued. if at this time the general public may address the commission or any items that are not on the calendar. if you did not speak on item 4. if there is anyone who would like to make general public comment. this is continued from item 4. seeing none, this item is closed. commissioners, matters, are there any commissioners matters? >> >> commissioner low? >> i just want to make one comment.

there's a reference to 500 pine street and asking us to tame -- take that by eminent domain. there is a project on that ground and it will result in the extension of the saint mary's playground. i saw the construction and design and artist work and it's going to be a fabulous addition to the saint mary's playground. >> the other thing is you get two appraisals and for a project downtown we are talking millions and it's better to let the developer add a piece of the park to it, but, anyway. commissioner macdonald? >> a little bit about the partnership with san francisco park alliance. i had an occasion to be a participant in

a movie night at the park. it was a fantastic illustration about how a park can be a wonderful convening opportunity to bring multiple constituents from one community together and one of which i would like to see our city replicate that as a model. >> is there any public comment on this item in seeing none, public comment is close. no. 14, new business agenda setting. >> commissioner bonilla? >> yeah, nothing new. something old. i look forward to the new year of having these items , these two items that have been agendaized for the last two 2 years put on the list

the lincoln golf course and the park stables. we need to have some discussion and resolution on how we go forward with those two items and at long last would like to see them off our calendar. they have been there for quite some time. >> thank you, commissioner. >> is there any public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. city clerk: item no. 15, communication. any public comment under item 15? >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> item 16 is adjournment. >> move for adjournment? >> move and second. >> all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? . we are closed. thank you very much.

[ meeting is adjourned ] >> >>

yeah. that's it. [off-key notes] announcer: you don't have to be perfect to be a perfect parent. when you adopt a child from foster care, just being there makes all the difference.

welcome to the meeting and if you would keep your cell phones on vibrate and if you are a speaker, we have the speaker cards up front and make sure to fill one out and please state your name, when you are called. >> we are going to start with a roll