at our meeting, we requested an update on the parklets. there is controversy. there are also communities that would like to see them. we would like to hear where they are, how many. >> that is a controversy in our neighborhood right now. i talked to supervisor weiner over the weekend and they are trying to streamline it. there are already certain rules that are already being broken by restaurants. in my neighborhood, parking is sacred. it is taking away parking for restaurant expansions. i can forward it on to -- i do not know how this works. supervisor weiner has some legislation he is trying to pass to regulate the whole parklet phenomenon. >> on lower 24th street, we have carnival and cesar chavez parade. to have our streets taken up by these parklets, you are losing parking but you are also losing this public space. we are an urban environment. there are issues about deurbanization that have been brought before this commission. commissioner o'conner: i am a person who presented on this issue on many or all of these points before this rolled out. this is rid

the other idea is exploring the possibility of parklets in the downtown glen park area. this is a great, vibrant area but very narrow sidewalks there so not a lot of opportunities but parklets present potentially exciting opportunity to create more space for people. the other idea is what we're calling the glen park greenway. the city owns a number of parcells on bosworth street and these are used as an informal trail for people to walk dogs, a trail worn down there, but there are barriers, it doesn't go completely through, you can climb over a little fence to keep going but we think it could be designed as a nice greenway for the neighborhood to connect the downtown with glen park, glen canyon park. the other interesting islais creek flows below that. there may be an opportunity to bring part of the creek to the surface, and a lighting, as it is called, to create a recreational amenities for the neighborhood. we do not know if that is feasible. we have been talking to puc about the idea. the people that live there have a number of concerns, so there needs to be work don

it because the city would have to approve that, but you could require them make applications for a parklet. i would consider that part of the motion. that could work. >> if i may, i think it is important that the condition on the monitoring read something to the effect that the commission could impose additional conditions in the future, or modify your conditions of approval if the conditions warrant it. commissioner borden: that is a question i wanted to ask and did not ask. maybe we should be a little more explicit. my only other concern then is how do deal with the reality that people in the neighborhood are going to be -- hopefully, everybody would be honest and say if they were a nuisance or were not a nuisance. that is, i guess the only concern i have is how do we make sure we measure that. >> monitoring at intervals -- i think the planning department could impose monitoring fees so we could actually do this. with respect to your question, you do raise an interesting point. potentially, the study could take actual data points at various times during the week over an extended time or