confusing. the idea under one of the policies to think about areas that are of the existing program. and evaluating them with psychiatric criteria to see if they should go into a coordinated program. it says let's take a look at those and an entire program will be developed but it definitely says how is it managed and what lands are in and out of there that's for determined through a separate program. this only starts to address this. independent of what peter's job is that's not mentioned i know that commenters commented on

that but let's focus on that >> it says it manages 5 hundred and thirty acres that's a significant amount. i understand they're trying to get jurisdiction over the effort areas such mount davidson and there are clearing of some trees for their height i'm in favor of that but clearing one thousand trees from mount david son i'm not sure who's running the train >> there's no mention of the rec and park department actually, i failed to mention this there's a and a half management plan that's under review that addresses what happens within the rec and park department area it's a permanent decision this doesn't it up on

the rec and park department program it says there are areas outside of the program we should consider but let's study that. >> that opens the door for management by that group of this type of effort management. i know it's not part of the rose but i objected to some of the 4.2 the under the influence on the bio diversity and it's a whole section in the rose. those are my concerns. i have a couple other comments our under the influence had been hydrahas to be taking care of things already, we've heard we don't have enough gardener and

we were told to have a better irrigation system other than people waters the lawn. that money got used for other things this is the kinds of things we should be, 2013 i'm not saying it should deal with expenditures of money but spending money to take care of what we have now ever or put in new parks. i'm not sure i ask support of rose although a lot of effort went into it >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah. i think for one thing the rose is only one element of the general plan. in and of itself has to have policies that address the open

space that's in the strong it language possible and the housing element is going to have elements that address elements in the strongest manner. there are other elements european design, etc. pr so when the decision makers of the board of supervisors the planning commission, others taking a look at other specific projects or tasks or things that come down the lineup as staff said the programs they need to look at all of the general plan and to see how those specific things are balanced. between housing and open space, between housing and european design, between all the elements that are in the plan and that's

the kind of analysis that we receive from staff on various issues we consider references are made to general elements relevant to the project or program so i don't feel that having strong language in this element saying when a particular program comes along it's overwhelmingly considered under one elements because other elements will have to be take into account. on page thirty in the final draft could you which i know historical to historic district. there's some confusion in california because the state uses under the california environment quality act the historical and it's used not

historical resources so, anyway i think here most the reference to the civic center use the word historic and not historical that's so let's change that. also i can't resist two shades i don't know why we can't get to 50. i'm going to ask that the open space element and making the vpdz of consistency with the priority section 10 one and finding under sequa >> thank you commissioner moore. >> i like to thank the planning department for the many changes and having stated fluid on a number of important issues. the exchanges we've heard today are by definition the high needs

and underserved is crucial to this discussion u discussion that's been addressed and continued to be monitored. i appreciate the public comments i share any concerns about policy 4.2 partially because terms of the bio diversity i think as pa planned policy is poorly documented in the plan, however, when it comes to specifically to the management and implementation i believe that that is not well enough understood by the commission there's indeed a shift in the land use jurisdiction to rec and park department or a further

lack of clarity in whose responsible for land use. if nothing else i would have liked that part of 4.2 clearly discussed including having a conversations with rec and park department to get into the shared responsibility would or wouldn't entail. that's also the big request are we making it easier or difficult. i do come away with an a.m. gut because in the plan itself that's discussed generally without us having the specification. the issue i'm concerned about is that when it comes to the public's concerns over commercialization and privatization of the parks and plazas we're can you tell the court in the middle of working

with the mayor's office on his suggested amendments 2 p public zoned districts. and i would have liked the particular management chambers to first seen and explained in more detail before i broadly support of what's applied her in the rose as currently presented to us. i don't want to draw the awe anyone else of the google park i would have liked to have the detail and the details are properly vested before i have a general policy embrace something which i would like to first examine in a pilot or more

definition of the legislation which we'll be hearing in early may. i need to add that comment and as far as the motion stand i would generally support of documents of what's in front of us but set aside item 4.2 and the issue on management of public plazas and open space as issued i want to explore those further and not approve in the document i'd like to basically voice my concerns about the way they're currently presented >> okay commissioner antonini. >> if that's an amendment i'll be in favor of that to see if we

can have further discussion on 4.2 i'm not concerned about the other issue but we have public-private partnerships an example we've gone through is the management of dpofkz and we're saying we don't have enough gardener but someone says if we can bring in private parties to do the job less 0 they don't want to do that either that's why the pg a said it has to be in the right condition 0 we're not maintained to what the other jurisdictions have. there's a happy median with public-private but i agree with

commissioner moore on the bio diversity area and the confusion. i wanted to ask staff or the director if there is a open space area and there's would be joint jurisdiction if a project was proposed for that i assume the planning commission will still have jurisdiction over that open space. >> commissioner. it depends on what's proposed i - we define as open space in the recreation and open space element is space that's available for the public to use in some capacity. if it's vacant lands that's a different thing. for example, the puc has vacant lands that hadn't been used and they're looking those for development that will come to the commission. if this land turns into a park but the planning commission will

look at that >> my concern is we'll still have jurisdiction over the lands in the future to consider various options. >> yes. your have jurisdiction if there's proposals for development. may i the commercial uses in the plaza program our goal was to get the general policy out there first so the actions and specific items that might come before you would be consistent with the policy that's why this plan should preseed some of the particular actions you'll see many more acts over the coming years in dealing with public space. the plazas program i reviewed was one of those so our goal was to a get the general policy

plans in front of of you first >> thank you. >> thank you commissioner hillis. >> so i'll agree with that comment it will be good to get this general policy adapted first. so, i mean i'm supportive of this i think people are passionate about their open space and paradoxes we've seen this is a great job of balancing that. i use the parks mostly to bring my kids to recreational activities and looking at the documents we are going to add recreational activities or decrease them or enhance them. that's particle the job of the come a time to strike that balance when we look at things. so i don't have a particular issue of 4.2 that works.

we're looking at a specific subset of specific areas so you can talk about the types of areas to me this is likes the effort and things of that nature not to broadly look at all the rec and park areas >> those it is under developed like on page 46 those are undrurptd and that contains rare species so that's a narrow scope. >> could you give me an example you twin peaks would fall into that and in the suzette electro effort. honestly the program isn't even

there yet the idea is let's develop it less do something about that >> the suzette electro effort is a great idea that was not uses by people now that the trails are there are people are using the trails and biking it's a great success. it's been done under this so i think 4.2 is wonderful so i'm in supportive. this is a great document >> commissioner moore. >> director ram i want to reflect formal a second on what you said i didn't want to interrupt the policy of the effected parties relative so how we move forward. particularly when the documents

came down and it was basically disclosed that the neighborhood groups had not been consulted there were groups that were consulted in time organization and those neighborhoods that form the larger voice weren't aware of that it's in that moment there has to be a simultaneous dialog i need to hear the larger public being informed and be able to support what we're doing. while i might be interested in supporting the stewardship to cover the deficit and focus on plazas and specific plazas i i cannot at the moment go driver's license because there's too many

people that don't know about that so where the rubber meets the road there is public comfort in saying the city is doing the responsible thing. so the general statements to the private management and activation are untimely in terms of us approving it today. so we're doing this ever seven years and notarizing it every month or two >> commissioner sugaya. >> oh, yes along those lines i think if this policy and objectives been in there for seven years people have had plenty of time to figure it out and every time we have a specific program that was

mentioned people also come out of the would do work and say i haven't heard will this and that, etc. etc. i'm comfortable in moving forward. i would like to specifically acknowledge the work that went into the historic preservation policies thank you for doing that and the participation of the historic preservation was critical and their corporation i want to thank them for their kwomgs >> commissioner antonini. >> i have a question for sue. we're talking about twin peaks in particular but i wonder if this element is to pass in its present form you talked about the open spaces and some of the

reasons they had to be under developed would is prohibit us to putting housing next to the twin peaks or the honeyed honey those are areas that could provide housing in the future would we be restricted from doing those because of this >> no. this would look at the areas and say do they or not i think we have a sentence here that says let's see where it says - about kind of making sure that all of the properties are evaluated. relative and important to the assessment there's no to the

assessed to preserve - oh, i think here - should be examined when - i don't know. sorry >> i think you're talking about privately owned lands but even if publicly owned lands around honda laguna lands are not doing thing motorcycle the little legacies land i hope we're leaving ourselves open and we're not creating a roadblock because of the open space element you can't consider any of the city owned properties vacant that's what i'm afraid of.

>> i think you're definitely right i'm not afraid of that there's a specific criteria but also needs to be all the public sites will be looked at comprehensively ordinance by ordinance we have to look at all sites for housing. >> or even market rating housing any kind of housing. >> that's what the ordinance says there's a lot of it goes into those sites the public sites more broadly but i don't know - >> it does answer my question and more than just what's in the section of the general plan is what i'm trying to say. >> nothing surprises me i see 20 or thirty years ago i so know

elements don't restrict but there are often guidelines that are used by opponents or proponents to dominate the conversation a that's happened in quite a bit of areas. >> commissioners there's had a moved and seconded to adapt the amendments to the general plan as proposed. >> there was no formal request. >> i want to make that clear - >> i thought contra made i didn't hear. >> commissioner antonini the moved and seconded was on the floor and second by commissioner hillis and oh, so i guess so i thought the whole commission considered an amendment but i

guess not. >> so commissioner antonini you should request if commissioner sugaya would consider the amendment and it's his choice. >> sxhaurpg you've heard that. >> no. >> thank you. >> all right. then there's a motion and second on the floor to adapt the amendments with the correction on page thirty to historic. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong and commissioner president wu >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes due to the city attorney opinion all

commissioners must be be present but we'll if you were a little bit from the beginning of the presentation and the majority of the public comment that was insinuated city attorney marla would you like to say are those brief absence are acceptable i know oftentimes the commissioners step to the back of the room. >> certainly any commissioner can saw they've been watching the monitor from another room and that will be fine and to participate in the voting. >> so that motion passes then 4 to 23 with commissioners commissioner moore and commissioner antonini voting

against. >> commissioners if i may add my thanks to everyone involved especially to ms. x line she had no children and now is ready to have her third and the rec and park department and the mta and the sfoofdz and all of staff that's been working on this thank you for your support. >> commissioner that places you on item 12 amendments to the planning code regarding the cannabis dispensaries in the ocean avenue transit district. >> good afternoon, commissioners aaron star department staff we have my colleague here to talk about the ordinance. >> thank you.

>> commissioner good afternoon legislation aid to supervisor yee. i'm here today after the supervisors office has heard about the clustering of the ocean corridor you've reviewed and ocean avenue is included for a small portion in the green zone and the current zone the mc d on ocean avenue eave looked at solution for custer and we've present to you an ordinance that creates a 5 hundred feet buffer to avoid clustering. i want to acknowledge the comments by commissioner hillis last week supporting the looking at clustering commissioner moore talking about more community involvement and

also commissioner wu and therefore we looked at what concrete steps we could take so in analyzing the conditional use application that would be required of a medical cannabis dispensaries located within 5 hundred feet of another existing kifrd we ask about the community benefits the cannabis dispensaries would bring and the mc d parking plan and they've demonstrated a public safety process by engaging the community. we acknowledge there is a much larger conversation b around clustering but the green zone and where the decision is citywide eave included language

in the legislation that vacancy the words of the ordinance if you adapt a more general policy that's more of a boarder conversation. i know there was an interesting conversation last week and many issues were brought up including capping the number of mc ds. we have community be support her to talk about this ordinance but i'm also variable for questions you may have >> thank you. >> thank you so this ordinance all the times the planning code to require the ocean district a cannabis dispensaries may be allowed provided that no other citywide proposal becomes allow

i'm sure you're aware of after last weeks review hearing is required, however, in the we are not portal it is needed to establish a mc d near another mc d within 5 hundred photo of an existing mc d. this ordinance repeal cats the provision that directs the removal of those controls. if you recall last week the commission recommended this type of but for be considered citywide. the department will prefer any changes to the mc d regulation until the report is received and any restrictions on the location of m