TO BE APPROVED
Planning Department has released their 2013 Draft Recreation and Open Space
vital document will set policy for the acquisition, use, development, and
protection of open space and parks in San Francisco for the next 25 years. As part of the community ROSE Working Group,
I have been submitting comments on the ROSE for the past 4 years. We appreciate that many of those comments
were accepted and revisions were made to the ROSE; however, the ROSE still
contains issues of concern to the public.
The ROSE Working Group has written up these remaining issues and posted
them on the Take Back Our Parks website -- www.takebackourparks.org.
of particular importance for park preservation involve potential loss of
parkland to new buildings and proposals regarding Golden Gate Park and the GGP Master Plan.
Firstly, the ROSE
opens up our parks to
use as building sites: The1986
ROSE clearly states in policy 2.2 .
"The City's policy should be made clear: where new
recreation and cultural buildings are needed they should be located outside of
existing parks and playgrounds. When new indoor facilities are needed, the City
should allocate funds for land acquisition as well as for construction. . . . San Franciscans . . . should not
be put in the position of
developing indoor facilities at the expense of valuable outdoor open space and
the amount of outdoor open space in parks and playgrounds should not have to be
reduced in order to avoid buying land for new indoor recreation or cultural
the Draft 2013 ROSE offers up justifications for building in our parks. Policy 1.3 encourages "cultural"
buildings and other built features in our parks. The term "cultural" is not defined
and, frankly, could apply to just about any building project put forth by an
enthusiastic special interest group. Once
one building went up, more would certainly follow. That is why we ask that the ROSE return to
the original 1986 ROSE restrictions against new buildings in our parks and
encouraging the City to plan now to purchase land for new buildings.
the ROSE has incorporated good language on preserving Golden Gate Park's value
for passive and active recreation within a naturalistic landscape. However, we are concerned that the ROSE's proposal
to open up the 1998 Golden Gate Park Master Plan to changes would lead to a
full-scale dismantling of the Master Plan and negative impacts on the historic
character of the Park.
is the current deadline for public comment on the ROSE. It would be helpful to have letters sent to
the Planning Department, the Planning Commission, and the Historic Preservation
Commission. You may use the letter template on the next page OR write your own comments, asking:
That the Historic Preservation
Commission review the ROSE and propose appropriate language for historic
• That the ROSE be
protect our parks from new building projects; the City must set aside or
purchase new lands for buildings and preserve our already-limited open space;
That the ROSE continue to
emphasize the importance of preserving Golden Gate Park as a landscape park, as
outlined in the Golden Gate Park Master Plan (Objective II, Policy A):
That the ROSE be revised to
protect the GGP Master Plan from piecemeal revisions;
That the deadline for public
comment on the ROSE be extended, so that the Planning Department has the time
to incorporate recent public and HPC comments and present a new Draft.
go to : Kimia.email@example.com (or Ms. Haddadan at Planning Dept, 1650
Mission Street, 4th floor, SF CA
94103.) Please also copy: Planning Commission and Staff and
Historic Preservation Commission and Staff. Their addresses can be found here: www.goldengateparkpreservation.org
send us a copy of your comment letter - firstname.lastname@example.org