replace them >> so to be clear the signage alone is the only step we're talking to make sure that the signage is universal. >> correct. >> and - and the board of supervisors has approved the legislation and you've waved this in this is a final measure to approve all the signage in all our one hundred 20 parks. >> so we are not role undertaking or projecting to undertake any new enforcement and new enforcement protocol. >> that's not before you today. >> that's not anticipated we are going to enforce the park rules over time and the reason i

bring this up what i'm hearing there are some expectations from the aspect from the community that's a responsibility we have but wanted to be clear that we're not at this point & heading in that direction. >> maybe i'm a little bit confused but there's a law on the boxes our parks are closed between midnight and 5:00 a.m. >> i think commissioner bonilla is trying to establish this the limited to funding the new signs and not holding and hopes that the implementation are scheduled with that authorization. >> i totally misunderstand the

question. >> this is for incredulously to enforce the programs as they develop. >> i'm sorry, i mondays this is just for the signs not for the staff. >> seeing no other comments entertain a motion. >> all in favor, say i. thank you. >> we're now on 12 the recreation of the open space of the general plan. >> let me make a comment there was some speculation we should hold this matter off but as i look at the process the effort was initialed in 2007 and under woo for 14 years and gone through collaborative efforts with stakeholders and is anticipated to be approved by the commission later in the

spring it seems important we be briefed on this final document at this point. >> thank you. i'm stacey with recreation and parks department i'm joined by other colleagues from the planning department. they will step you throw the lastly draft of the general plan. the planning commission has seen different parts the rose or role it's resolution in 2009 and 11. this has a really great project after an enormous amount of effort and i happy am i'm going to turn it over to kathleen >> good morning. i'm kim.

i'm from the planning department. and i'm here with other colleagues. i'm role excited to bring this back to you. this element is one of the 10 elements of the general plan and we've been going through a long process of updating this element. before i get into the content i want to walk you through the to my left history. so as was mentioned it started in 2007 and the first element was released in 2009 and we got comments in 2011 and released another draft and more comments and 2013 released the draft

that's new before you. i also want to talk about our outreach process and this whole effort started by the mayors task force in 2007. we had several committee meeting and i and updated the plans. many focus groups we went to the advisory committee and we presented several times here this commission the planning commission and we also had community working groups and individuals stakeholder meetings and participated in a lot of neighborhood loops. so i also want to talk about the

role of the general plan. we have 10 elements in the general plan and as well as area plans that also are incorporated into the general plan and this is one of the housing elements and the design elements and general plan elements have a visionary policy zero. so i wanted to distinguish that from 9 code the planning code and it is more liquor a law and the jeopardy plan policies, however, are policies that are giving directions in terms of our decisions and projects whether it's private or public their usual found in terms of the balance conformity of the

general plan this represents the open space element we found it champing to maintain the distinction between the policies and the detailed actions and programs and regulatory departments. that led us to make sure move forward conforms we wanted to move forward with this project. a lot of times in this process and but each time we clungd this brings love value to the general plan of the city and in particular in terms of our policies and vision around open space. so quickly why we should update this element. the last open space element was adapted in 1986 and there were a lot of plans and priority in

that document that is already implemented like preserving the presidio park or other plans or the national areas. a lot of those have been implement so it would creating a visionary forward-looking document policy document for us so we noted to update that. also to update the acquisition priority based on old data in that document. we also horde a lot about guidance and conserving our open space also the need for community engagement and participation. as well as including new prove that to open spaces supplemental

spaces living alleys and privately owned open spaces and also shifting our focus on local by diversity and a nature in general. so i want to go through briefly the proposed objectives and policies of this document. so the very first objective focuses on basically making the most of what we have. we heard a lot about our existing network of open spaces the fact we want to make the most out of them whether it's through programming or through preserving the existing resources and also maintaining it to modern standards the second objective focuses on acquiring for open spaces and

increasing our stocking of open spaces. as i mentioned we upgraded the priority acquisition areas basically, we included multiple criteria into this analysis starting with population density and density of protecting seniors and children and youth and adding areas that are not within walking distance of parks basically park does she areas and a future growth area so growth areas we're anticipating are going to get more growth so they'll need more parks we added all those layers of factors on top of each other and came up with this map and the darker areas show the higher needs.

since the last time we've released this document we've heard concerns about this revisions to address those concerns. this of the third objective is connectivity and access to open space and making sure the connection streets are connections to open space are supplemental open spates system we talk about the 3 connections living alleys and talk about shale connections and improvements to our crosstown corridor and the trail. the first objective is but diversity and local sustainability it focuses on

restoring our by diversity all sorts of habitats and talks about education of the public in terms of their awareness of the hat it's a and a ecology and talks about the sustainable design in our projects in the parks. the fifth objective is talking about community engagement and participation. we heard really from the community that by the president whole objectives to be dedicated to this theme it talks about engaging the community throughout the process and allowing and creating opportunity for local stewardship of open spaces and recognition facilities. and lastly our objective the

significant objective is about funding for parks. we acknowledge the fact that the city needs to provide funding for operation, maintenance and a acquisition of parks but also the challenge there's been funding challenges to do that so this objective basically atrocities some approaches innovative approaches to fund those efforts and some of them are already in practice like general obligation bond and public-private partnerships and other ideas laid out in this objective. so this slide quickly shows the themes of comments we've heard. on the 2009 draft we take into

account and made changes and it will be published in 2013, the drafts concerns about how we want to protect parks from being commercial listed and being them as a respite from ervin alive. we heard a lot about a need to for additional focus an recognition in this document as well as open space. we've heard a lot about preservation of open space and about nature and sustainability they want the need for highlighting and focus on design effort. and also maintenance the need for maintenance efforts or comfortably maintenance efforts for parks. we heard all those comments and made changes to the documents.

we from the 2013 draft we also have received a lot of comments and there's been progressing of the comments and i'll walk you through that our future timeline. so we went to the commission the planning commission january 9th and before that we went to the pro-exacts and the historic preservation twice at the question of a commissioner at a hearing a concern we need to also give attention to the conservation in our parks we

take a look at all the elements of the general plan and realized in most or all the general plans there's some cases of the preservation we'll are working with the staff to respond to concern around conservation. we're here before you and tomorrow we're hoping there being a deadline for comments we'll have time to incorporate changes to the document and we're hoping march 6th we'll publish a new draft with all the comments we've received since december and march 27 planning to go back to the planning commission for adaptation i'm here for questions thank you very much >> so we are going to go to any

public comment? i speakers >> hi, i'm sally stevens i'm hearing or here representing the rose group in 2011 they asked prozac to look at the rose in order to find consensus on as many points of view as possible they represented the accreditation representing most areas of the city including the coalition of san francisco neighborhood and sf tomorrow and other recreation groups and

advocates and individuals. the comment group met weekly and found a lot of consensus and ended up basically rewriting the rose we committing submitted to planning in 2011. the planning staff said there would be a meeting with our group to work out united states differences and never heard nothing for two years then we heard this is the final draft and were not interested in changes. however, we feel there are still some important concepts that came out of our consensus and we feel additional changed needs to be made particularly 4 areas the high needs doesn't not match the park code and addressing high

needs where we expect important people in the future at the expense of the people who don't have enough open space in recreational facilities and bio diversity willow the 2011 does say it includes both native and non-native we want to restore native habitat and the between the recreating native habitats and destroying the existing habitats it doesn't protect building corporate the existing rose wording is clear where the cultural buildings should be located outside of playgrounds and the amount of open space in playgrounds shouldn't be reduced to buy land for new facilities and we're concerned that's not

protected and also the idea of recognition it's more of a not a rose we need stronger protects. we're close to getting that right there's no deadline better to do it right so we encourage you to do the planning and get a real consensus thank you >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi, i'm ostentatious i have been with the rose and never participated in any groups i found out that you have to go toometers to impetus hard to say but it the herbicides not every herbs liquor the 3 which is the

least toxic but tore one and two should be ban it shouldn't be used in the city at all and the second thing the protection of the trees it would be very annoys to have it there, too because just exposed as a reduction of the area plan says the trees will be cut to roar gradually restore wasteland and habitat that is total urban acceptable i want the protection of the trees for health because nobody b will talk about the high priority it should be high

priority to take care of trees and its third thing i'm not happy about all those native things there's no definition of native no psychologist can know without prior knowledge. so you pick up the ones that are native and no matter and i role don't think this is a native term is to be used and i can talk about herbicides but i was asked in the previous item to loaf the comments open petition for our san francisco forest alliance and will continue to say because people don't have time to come here they work and have to support themselves they

can't take three or four hours out of their time. now we should not interfere with mother nature. i'm here to talk about the destruction of the forest in grand common i'm sorry >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon patient commissioners and thank you for the opportunity to make public comment i'm linda schaffer i

serve on the committee of prozac i've heard all the issues since 2008 and contrary to a previous speaker i found the current draft to be very badly i want to commend all the people who collaborated and spent hours and hours of time trying to find language that comes as close as possibly to make everyone happy i'm sorry people are having difficulties but i want to strongly state that i find the current version before you to be a very, very good product. i realize realize this is a discussion on business the real action will happen before the other committee. i wanted to provide my very,

very strong support >> thank you. >> peter. >> good afternoon commissions i'm peter. many of you may have remembered me when i wore a slightly different hat i work to the department of the assignment and want to offer our support for the open space and rose. we've been working closely with recreation and parks department and in this current form we've been working closely with the recreation and parks department and supporting the nap program and all the efforts to sport diversity in san francisco. just wanted to say in its current form i think we think it's a very badly attempt to protect open space in san

francisco. and overall a very important policy document that lazy the ground work to connect adults and children's with the nature and a open space in the city. particularly the different policies that exist in the current draft need to focus on funding and connection activity and including calling out the urban effort and master plan the green connection program also a great project for the planning department and to focus on stewardship >> so that is critical to have at the level of on objective and finally my role at the

department is a university coordinator so we're pleased the diversity has been raised to a level of the draft it was not in the previous recessing rose and the previous rose had a great policy 2.13 but this rose goes beyond the rose and talked about diversity throughout the city. to we manage 32 areas but there are other habitats that are not being managed so the rose calls out that as being important and bringing nature into the environment throughout our streetscapes and i'm happy to answer any questions been native

and non-native and i think that's it. oh, the goals about diversity objective tackle closely to the sustainability plan this is most important >> thank you. >> anyone else who wants to make public comment is closed seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners that was discussion only >> nevertheless to say, congratulations to all who have moved this forward arrest we're on item 13 conservation matters. >> commissioners director of operation. i have a concern about the drought situation this is a

presentation i made last week when i loaded it into the laptop it went someplace else. what we have the - phil issued a general managers disc to you'll staff which covered this and the governor issued the drought integer and we also got a staff modem to the garden staff on water conversation and phil followed that by the end of january and as you read in the newspapers the mayor issued a

distributive for everyone to follow and this addresses the drought. first a couple of puc slides are interesting. as you know everyone knows hetch hetchy is the proirm water resource in san francisco. a couple different lines the black line, of course, is what hetch hetchy looked in our reservoirs and the green line is the waterline last year. hetch hetchy in the reservoir and the blue line goes back to 2007 and the orange line for you who are