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 trail

we're satisfied with the outcome with the final draft of the rose and we strongly support this. i want to point out this is not the end this is the end of the beginning we have a lot of work to do. and i'm here to advise you that the parks alliance did a study of the parks in san francisco and the results of that study will be coming up shortly i can't spill the beans but we believe those are numbers are going to be very xefg and help us to among the case that our open spaces are not amenities their essential to the quality of life in san francisco, their essential to our jobs and our environment. and that will attribute to one

of the key policies o policy planning initiative we think will be critical for the city to face in the coming years i'm sure you're aware of the planning area sets the growth by 200 though new residents over the next generation we need to make sure we use the rose as the starting point for planning for how do we provide for the parks facilities and the new residents that they will need in other words, to maintain the same level of the quality of life that we enjoy in san francisco. thank you >> thank you. i'll call a few more names (calling names). >> hello, i'm sally stevens i was part of the rose group the main concern i see is the policy

that directs the city to do an inventory including land under private control and identifies which areas are and a half rec and park department not only where native plants we're not only protecting the remedy amenity but where they can be planted in the future anywhere can be claimed as a and a half area it says they have to be managed like rec and park department airs program that means cutting down healthy trees using heshd. there is restrictions on private land that is a huge land grab please remove policy 4.2 it's a level of mick management of city

programs that doesn't belong in the plan so why what is it put in. it sets up a bio process and interesting the city tried to prohibited the development and land use but, however, at the meeting the entirely commissioners have discussed how to get around the decision. if you leave 4.2 in the rose they may claim a mandate to weigh in and you the planning commission will be one stop for the approval the land use instead of the only stop now. please take policy 4.2 thousandth out of the draft it's much too specific for the

general guidelines like the rose and please approve rose only if 4.2 is removed. it's not specifically proposed as mentioned by staff but we've seen how native plants have taken that as mandates to do restoration and cutting out the habitats that kind of thing please protect the city's open space from this huge land grab don't allow the 0 folks to say it needs to be turned into natural areas please remove 4 about the 2 from the rose and approve it only if the 4.2 is

removed >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm dennis. i serve on pro-disadvantage representing d 5 i'm here only as an individual. i want to thank the staff and commissioners who more accurately prioritized those for the open space and recreation, however, i was confused by the map that sue showed but i side see on the final version the maps that spell out clearly the criteria that went into that but this rose explicitly revokes the open space lack of maintenance you, however, only allows

public-private partnership for solutions and frankly those are forms of privatization and private interests unfortunately are just that private now private maintenance described as plazas or right of ways in the rose is clearly incorporated into this rose even though frankly this proposal has not been vested with the public it's wrong to incorporate it into the rose and the rose among other reaps should be continued. this rose contains resources and clinton buthsd is the backdrop to the public-private stewardship of the public open space while simultaneous the administration approved a one dollar deal with google there's no tax downtown for the

infrastructure and billionaire corporations get the large tax and we're on the hook for bob boat race and frankly, i voted for some of those things. there's thirty playgrounds and only 15 and a half millions for both of them the priorities of this city are wrong and rose shouldn't be concerning that kind of thing but more better spending important parks and open space. and the budget prioritize this maintenance so i suggest don't use the rose to let the administration off the hook it's undermined by the outsourcing of public responsibilities to

private entities >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon denise speaking in support of your adaptation of the rose including the how often for bio diversity and nature is that a. as a volunteer for the rec and park department i can tell you that conservation works in the sunset district for example, last year in the city it was successful in it's project to join two formerly separated populations of the butterfly. last year, i went back to an area i helped to restore we pulled out the weed and put in

there were all those green behalf butterflies that were restored so i want to urge you to jump over whatever hurdle you have to go ahead and approve this plan. and leave those hurdles behind you and moved in the conservation thank you >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello good afternoon. i'm chris shaufrt i've worked for the past 2 1/2 years with the rose group and the only person that was there was recreation. it's very good to see the word recreation butt put into the rose since the entitle of the program is the open space element. it's good to see we have a good

map map 2 has been added to the rose. i'd like to talking about e to take a look at that so e to show the rose is not fulfill developed. on the map the first question is accuracy. for example, we know that south of market is the eugene recreational center and there's other thing that's not marked. so i'm wondering whether or not that's the map of the city. the other thing we see our courts tennis correspondents and baseball courts but not elevation of whether or not those courts are 34r5ib8 and workable. we know in the rose there's a reference to the cities maintenance inspection of cleaning but not necessarily maintenance so you don't know whether or not there's a baseball net to make that

there's a 3 point shot so you've got a site but connected to that is two references in the rose policy 22 and 3 say that the rose recreations locates will be identified based on usage studies so if usage is determined if you have something unapplicable you can't tell whether or not that's saved. so in take a look at the map i guess to elevate how good recreation in the city is. i would ask myself those questions having is there enough courts and spaces are those in the right places and in a good condition. one suggestion i made with regards to the area is to use a

firm standard the national association of rec and park department standards they'll determine if there's enough courts and placed in the right location now whether or not $200 per person is being spent is that the $6,000 spent open the carmichael field. that's not a way of determining that i recommend you not adapt the rose without the elements of the elevation >> thank you. next speaker, please >> good morning, everyone. commissioners i'm ruth. and i want to acknowledge and applauded your staff for all the work for many, many years on

this amendment of this element of our master plan. is it perfect i don't think so i hope you'll forgive me for tightening up grammar and there's points that are very valued but overall it's an excellent continuums i'm pleased we r with other cities we're acknowledging our diversity that our city niece to embrace many, many cities have biological diversity. we hear a false dichotomy this is totally unfounded but we a

areers are real fans of the plants and we love the rose garden and the conservative of flowers this isn't about native plants vs. non-native but where the indigenous that nature put here hadn't been destroyed we need to make sure we're consistent with what nature gave us we we restore no time the elements of bio diversity bike the collection of baseball cards or something but provide for the processes that among ecology systems work it's more collected than counting the numbers of species there's no take over the properties if you read the language it talks about intint

the nature areas applies a narrow definition of and a half areas taken from what used to be policy 13 in the former rose before it was changed to 2.13. and a lot of commission of about the tree management the tree removal is the 39 of trees for the sake of our stock of trees tree management that allows for the long gift that increases their ability to allow sunlight for allowing sunlight to flow to our ground for more grounded cover and north birds and so and so, i urge you to support this.

thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, everyone. i'm susan floor. i'm here to speak in support of rose. i was a public school science teacher for thirty plus years i want to speak about the importance that children have the access for gardens for ruth commented on but the nature indigenous floor and in the nature areas there's scattered around so teachers can get their kids to those. it's important. our children are not grouping with the connection to nature that perhaps i had or some other people. as much of that as he can foster that's what we need to do. i wanted to say that the natural

habitats are important and the animals that don't think those plants are important for the children to know about growing up in san francisco >> is there any public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i wanted to give an you opportunity for sarah if you have comments from rec and park department. >> thank you commissioner president wu. i'm sarah i apologize. i have to leave shortly but i want to support our commissions support for the rose we've an opportunity to weigh in and work with staff to address our concerns and our staff has worked closely on the document i want to thank the staff and public for their comments.

ruth said it well, it's a big task to cover and not absolutely perfect to every period but we're pleased with the effort and map. >> thank you you i also want to thank the staff for their hard work that's been an inclusive process there's people that still have challenges or issues but overall i'll never seen this commitment for one document. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, thank you i have some concerns i'm not sure that e this is a rose by any other name. well, it's been appointed this is the recreation and doesn't guide our individual decisions but we have to make your decisions conform and if there

are steams not correct we get those throne in our faces that happens with the housing element easement like rental housing is more affordable than ownership we have to deal which is not correct but anyway, there's points betting on policy 1.3 preserve the ocean open space by recycling it's uses so encroachment insuring no loss of quantity or qualify of space. we have the presidio that's not governed by san francisco but part of san francisco we still have a lot of areas that are basically nothing and some people think those are valuable being nothing. but i think that it's important

we make individual decisions on those base depending on on the small amount of land that we have that has 92 nothing on it but some of it can be developed into higher recreation important larger portion of the population and some for housing. i think we have to look at those and not have a policy that says that open space has to stay open space no matter what happens. the other concern is policy 4.2 in the area of bio diversity i don't understand exactly. i think we have a lot of bio diversity is san francisco thanks to john mcclaren who brought plants from all over the world and started golden gate

park where money thought it didn't couldn't be done. looking at maps of san francisco before the supplement here in the 1800s there were very rare plants we could deal with those conditions. so i think that's important we don't approve the document that's rigid and i'm also a little bit concerned maybe i can ask the staff about the nature areas program. i don't understand what - i understand there's a directive for bio diversity in the city; is that correct and what are we paying for and is this correct i feel threatened by some of the

things going on >> well peter is here he's here. >> i don't need to ask him. >> i don't know if i can answer that i think i can address some the comments and skews you've heard and maybe have i am speak. >> i don't understand what bio diversity it is we have a lot of diversity like the plants that were brought in just because they were here initially they didn't have to be valued on behalf of everything. >> in the rose we mentioned guest we talk about the relationship to the nature program it's limited i think i

mentioned this i know it's 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