amber wolf >> amber wolf. okay. so there was a discussion it seems like to be the point about the priz but his unit was a larger unit significantly larger >> it's built out in some rights but there is a storage spaces 4i7bd it that allows for expansion that has square footage making it easily a two bedroom place so there's storage that the attorney was not taking into consideration there's also an additional storage unit in this building when only that unit has access to it none of the other unit have that and a two car garage and even parking spots in the city are getting expensive and again as owners we

were asked to come up with a selling price and having no insight into what the market was going to look like in 6 or 9 months it was very much the owners to make their best estimate and based on the comparable unit like 4 well, it's not there yet but will end up with more storage so the price is as fair as it can be considering we had no insight into the market. >> the owners would be 03 renter or 2 rerntsz i guess. >> it's 3 renter and 3 owners. >> the owners would then share the rents of the represents i assume. that's actually not true each owner of the unit is entitled to

their own >> they separately own the units okay. it's not they collectively own the 3 rental units. >> right technically we're all owners of the building in the tic format, however, the tic states our units belong to us. >> commissioners, if i might interrupt i want to remind the commission the cost is not under our. view you're only considering whether the subdivision itself is the issue >> this is more any edition so thank you for your information and i think that this discussion is properly been interesting but not anything we really have to consider. thank you >> thank you commissioner sugaya. >> i make to a motion to

approve. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to ask the city attorney as to whether or not this commission has the right guidance given the issues that are raised since we're putting a mcd scope on everything he dealing with entity and transparency and all those things for the paratransit this is the fit we've had a reasonable person in this particular case on page 2 also there's an issue we raised about easements for parking and confusion which have been clarified and not should be with us. i've not read through this but i'm confused and i've never had a precedent of the issues could

you advise >> it's correct under the subdivision code the planning commission role is limited you need to a look at the subdivision for conformance the general plan whether or not this condo conversion meets the general plan conditions under our. view. the subdivision code requires as part of the condo applications that the owners provide the information regarding the selling price that's part of the larger body of information that the applicants provide in their applications so the department of public works sees it meets the rules so this is to meet the conversion of the general plan >> i want to ask the staff is

there another venue under the pressure view of dbi or the other public form of that might hear this. >> that's a fantastic question i'm not entirely aware of at this point. >> building there's not a condition they don't don't have a commission body but for most decisions they can be appealed i'm not sure if this applies to condominiums. >> commissioner sugaya. >> so just a quick question mr. winn san francisco own this unit it's owned by someone else he's a renter. >> i do want to make one more comment i raised this before what is before us is the general plan on balance and there's a

lot of room within there i think the challenge is that that city has made a dlergs those meet the general plan because it exists if it didn't meet the plan despite the challenges with the condo conversions we find this. >> commissioners there's a moved and seconded to approve this item. commissioner antonini >> commissioner hillis. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong >> and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you on item 11. consideration of adaptation of amendments to 9 workshop the open space element and

recreation >> ongoing good afternoon, commissioners i'm susan with the planning department staff. can i load up my presentation. okay. so i'm excited to be here it's the adaptation of the open space element. i'm here are the staff from our department we've been warranted with other departments.

sue is here from the rec and park department and peter is here or coming from the department of the environment and david will be arriving shortly from the port >> so i think as everyone knows this is a document that's been the result of a 7 year effort with hundredss of stakeholders we're excited to be at the place to have the input for the final product it started in 2007 with a community process i'll go over that in 2009 we had our first draft and 2011 the second and 2013, the third draft and the fourth in march of 2014. a kayak highlight this started

in 2007 over 22 community meetings with the nonprofits we were working with and fiscal groups and most recently in january forgotten hearing with the rec and park department commission and in february of this year and the planning commission was in january. we met with the quo rec and park department in february and met with individuals industries work groups throughout the process continuing up until january and february and march of this year. a reminder you tubed the general plan it's a guiding documents it's a vision it guides decision makers not laying out all the decisions but sets the stage.

the park acquisition comes up how can we use this document to exactly know what to do this doesn't do that only pieces of the puzzles and where the fund comes from and the opportunity comes from those come up in a case by case basis this only helps make the decisions. that's one the challenges of the general plan overall to distinguish those levels. so after we released the draft in december of 2013 we received a number of comments and everyone in the bauktd u pathway we slefrdz the comments and included those on our website so if anyone needs an extra copy we've got extras i'm going to walk electro the highlights of

the comments and the changes. again, i wanted to say there's no prehectic preservation we worked with their staff and at two new policies and a bullet under a third policy. this is quickly to highlight the first policy is a new policy. and that talks about the overall value of the historic preservation and the second policy discussions the character features and removing those if at all possible not to remove the language we created a sustainable policies. and under that we put how historic predict e preservation is a sustainability policy.

we heard a lot more about the need for the recreation route the active and passive recreation and we added emphasis that's meant to be more language added throughout the document. this is a subject the area i'm going to take a few minutes to explain. so it's going to get technical stop me if there's questions i want to make sure to lay it out for everyone to see the map. some of the concerns we heard this prioritized future growths over existing population and the existing residents should come before the growth areas and concern about the data sources

we used. i'm u i'll walk through the responses. here's the map of population density so we switched the data sources we got the status is the better data so we switched that you can't tell the difference but there's subtle differences so this is a map of population density four categories on the left we layer on each layer so for each you get more points for each thing that happens in this case we another a layer of high incarnation of 4th of july you see more points you get if you're in one area a high concentration of seniors is here. this is a higher concentrations of people below the median we

using the median income as the one hundred percent people that are lower get higher so if you're low income you get points >> access to playground a quarter mile you walk. one thing we used based on comments was to remove some of the large planned areas such a treasure island from the accessibility maps to come when their population came so we took away one point from the system. here's a half mile walk within the pass spaces the left side is growing. finally another comment was about growth areas i mentioned

there was concern the need to plan for parks for growth. we changed the factor from plan areas to land use allocations that spreads out the growth over the city. the last one is just to clarifying exactly how we got to the 5 colors because it was hard to look at. it's harder to read this map and there's 22 shades of green you kind of get here so this was getting a little bit too much so we broke it down into 5 shades that's how we got to this. let me know if you have questions >> just quickly on partnerships and the concerns of partnerships and commercialization one thing we've heard is the maintenance

for funding and in the objective of one of the option is sayingtolysis those partnerships and vendors we added criteria and added the language that says this is the city's responsibility to make sure the parks are maintained. we also heard concerns about the golden gate master plan opening the doors to more buildings not one hundred percent clear how this was interpreted. the language is the golden gate master plan of 1998 everyone thinks this is a great plan the language says as this over the next 20 years the city and county should revisit this. it is not a requirement only a

suggestion >> a little bit about private owned open spaces they don't also function best so we put things in counterfeiting their fundamentalist. >> the bio - we want to state there's an entire plan in the master plan dedicated to nature areas run by the rec and park department. this rose talks about bio diversity and there's one mention of a natural area. where we talk about natural areas that are not within the jurisdiction of rec and park department and maybe having a more cooperated approach the

idea is to have areas like in twin peaks the fire department and agencies that don't have the staff so no one is maintaining those pieces and put them under a krofrptd maintenance approach. the commission has received a number of concerns about the nature plans taking over the plans so i think there is a miscommunication about that. again, we added sustainability policy. we heard we wanted to highlight the plan on the award winning program we kind of highlighted about pesticides being used. i want to say thank you to everybody that's been a long and exciting process. i think i feel like we hopefully have a balanced document here

today. thanks >> thank you. okay open this up for public comment if you call your name line up on the screen side of the room (calling names) >> if your name has been called feel free to step up 0 the appointed. anyone? >> good afternoon. i'm robin i'm speaking on the rose the rose policy is based on the trial group of 5 hundred like-minded san franciscans most of the population of 8 hundred

25 thousand is unaware of the threat to the san francisco effort the clean bond mention restoration of parks not the luxury of mature trees. the eucalyptus can be flammable characterized possibly nitroglycerine shrubs the achievement change require more and more trees to flexibility the air and fight erosion and if you're, you know, like washington had a big problem with the removal of trees that caused a mudslide and more importantly to create oxygen for us to breathe and the mature trees in mcclaren park and pining lake are the most efficient in kraj out oxygen.

in the for the tack over the public and private spaces do we want to give government an, an espouse to take ero more and more of our property and stop the rose this policy promotes the interests of a few but ignores the interests of 899.9 percent of san franciscan it is not for me or someone concerned about climate change. spur didn't know that this meant roving trees like spur we've autopsying all been duped this rose stinks. thank you >> >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners thank you for the opportunity to speak. i'm linda shaving i serve on the

committee called prozac but i'm speaking for myself. my comments are on objective 4 on the rose i have 3 points to make. first san francisco is a well-known global bio exist hot spot so i applaud the rerevised version this element contains an entire objective focusing on the importance of protecting and having bio that diversity and habitat in our system. second with objective 4 i'm delighted to see in the revised element the explicit recognition of the areas program and the important role that program plays to improve our parks and

open spaces and to ultimately achieve the goals of item 4 and finally i'll remind everyone that many people with diverse you opinions about issues work together to get to a compromise their hard work should be acknowledged and 4.2 should be accepted i ask you to adapt that as written. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please >> i'm speaking here for the san francisco first alliance we ask you not to adapt the rose at this hearing we have two

concerns the first is policy 4.1 in the name of bio diversity prioritize nature plants they can be defined as the plants that are presumably here before the europeans arrived this is an excuse to cut down thousands of trees because all of san francisco's tries are non-native and kit them down. it also prioritize plants that only a couple of plants are endangered we want a more scientific defines of bio diversity and the this is two long a topic to discuss but i'll be handing over a note from a uc davis ecologist and hand in a note with additional

conditioners from the alliance and the second is policy 4.2 that treats all open space requiring the same sort of management as the program. i think so that it may not be intended to be that way but the wortd saying says in this case this should be given to the governmental entity is controls the managed of those areas this sounds like it will be a tack over. the nature areas program is a program that plans are cutting down several trees and you're going pesticides those could impact the cities open space and from the citywide point of view and recreation. the trees provide important eco

system they slow the water run off and fight pollution and absorb sound and provides habitat for species the birds and animals. the birds don't care whether or not the trees are native or non-native. they don't allow for ancestor and pets to go off trails to pick a flower it is especially the ones that are left we think with the recreational element is too important and effects two many people to be pushed through an approval process >> thank you let me call a few more names as the folks come up

(calling names). >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm chris if i wong i'm the policy director at spur. spur is a policy think tank focused on go governmental planning. we've long activated for this as a great city. super a has participated in the rose and we helped to form the rose task force and we've hosted meetings the rose in its current form is the cities commitment would be beneficial. i'm not going to run through the briefs but want to focus on our appreciation for a long and inclusive process and the issues

been incorporated i want to echo a word balance it seems like this is a plan that incorporates balance and i think will be mrechltd in a spirit of moderation. this helps the economic so adapt it please. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm lee. i do a lot of work with buster implies in the city i want to lend my support to the general plan of the rose. i think anything we can do in this generation to secure those remaining jowls transcends anyone in this room. i think you're at the same place

that the folks who put the national parks together did that i hope you'll listen to the winded managing trees become the third rail of the generation there are more to that. it's the experience that is about to blink out it's not even the kraefrnz so i want to cross any fingers when we look back you'll do the right things. recently, i heard art talk about be the commonwealth and he said conservation is a choice to please when all is said or done let the commissions choice fall think the side of protecting diversity and not the hometion

of history >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm here representing the test for public lands that protects land for people. in san francisco we worked over the last 40 years to help with this and we appreciate the rose has been developed and we several applaud the cities effort we support the rose and is organization to fulfill our mission to create healthy parks and recreation for the local folks. thank you very much >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioners matt o'grady wisdom the san francisco parks alliances it's a been a long and a half