[speaker not understood] or john ram could explain the rationale for the change with objective 2, policy 2.1. >> mr. ram? >> thank you, supervisors. john ram with the planning department. i think to clarify, supervisor mar, the median, the household income criteria has not changed. what has -- there has been other criteria added to identify the high needs areas such as areas of population growth and density and senior citizens and children's -- areas of population of young children. so, the idea is to overlay all of those factors created the high needs area map, but the actual income levels that are proposed in this version of the rose are the same as they were in the 1986 version. >> thank you so much. thank you. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. president. i do want to thank all the agencies that worked on this item. i will be voting against this proposal today. while i understand the

objectives, i respectfully submit that i think that this is yet another example of how some of these agencies that we're talking about are disconnected from the reality of what's out there in our communities and specifically i think this is yet another example of the rec and park department not really understanding what its priorities should be and, quite frankly, the fact that the comment that was made by supervisor breed -- and i appreciate the comment -- i think that the fact that there is no specific mandate or specific requirement doesn't leave a lot of confidence given how rec and park has approached a number of issues over the last couple of years. the idea that we would be spending so much time and energy trying to remove trees from san francisco is something that i have yet to understand. i don't understand how it is

that an agency decide that this is what its priorities should be, and there are a number of issues that should be rayed with respect to this document, including the equity issues that basically do not address the very important point to making sure there is an equitable distribution of resources. ~ raised i have received a number of comments, e-mails, calls, pretty significant from people not only in my district, but throughout the city all pointing to the fact that this is a poorly conceived document that really has failed to provide even the most basic adequate level of public involvement and community input. i think this is a mistake and i really hope that we as a board do not go down this path. i think should this pass, this

would be one of those decisions that in a few years we're going to look back and ask, you know, what were we thinking if that's where we end up. so, i strongly oppose this plan and i hope that other colleagues join me in sending a very clear message that this kind of public policy deserves, requires better community involvement. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you, mr. president. so, these general plan elements, i have a real issue with the way i guess it's in our charter, approaches general plan elements. you have unelected departments that formulate a document that is part of our general plan for the city, and it comes to the board and we have a -- we can

vote the whole thing up or the whole thing down, and we have no power or ability to say, we like this but we need to make a change here. and, so, i would say it's incredibly frustrating and this is -- the row has been very frustrating to me because the overwhelming majority of the this document i think is superb. i don't agree with the previous comments about rec and park. i think rec and park although i don't agree with everything the department does, i think overall does a phenomenal job managing our park system which is a very controversial thing. ~ rose we all have strong and conflicting opinions about our park system, but i think the department does a very good job. as i mentioned, the overwhelming majority of this document i completely support. and even within objective 4

about biodiversity, the butt being of it, the large majority of it, has not even been subject of much controversy. we haven't really even heard from anyone about that on some questions for staff about policy 4.2, which has been really at the heart of a lot of public consternation about the rose. policy 4.2, for the benefit of members of the public, takes the biodiverse city policy goals and basically talks about non-city lands or -- whether it's another government agency or a private property. and it says should, but should is a fairly strong term in terms of coming from our general plan. so, the city should ensure that a comprehensive inventory of all natural areas owned by city agencies other than rec and

park and by private land holders is developed in order to preserve the city's biodiversity and natural areas more holistickly. so, to do a comprehensive inventory of all natural areas including those owned by private land owners, that has caused quit a bit of anxiety in terms of people not understanding what that means. ~ quite a bit frankly, it's very vague and broad so i'm not sure i fully, even know what that means. and then a few paragraphs down, it talks about the city, for properties that are not in the jurisdiction of the rec and park department, so including private property, the consideration should be given to a joint management -- to joint management through a conservation district or a governmental entity that controls the management of these areas. so, i guess for -- i don't know if this is for planning or for rec and park, assuming it's for

planning, what do these -- what are these policy goals? can you just explain them? there are people who are concerned, you know, is my backyard somehow going to be classified as a natural area and then i'm not going to be able to do what i want with my backyard? what happens if this comprehensive inventory of all natural areas, quote-unquote, occurs and someone's private property is listed on there? and then also what does this joint management idea mean? i think people can understand when it's another government entity, if bart owns a piece of property and want to help them manage that natural area, but when you start talking about private property, it takes on a different meaning. so, can you -- could you comment on those questions? >> certainly, supervisor. thank you. the bottom line is what we are trying to do is determine which areas of the city are essentially left in their untouched state. an inventory is simply that. an inventory of properties,

just to understand the geography of what is a quote-unquote natural area. and it is -- and the rose is calling for a management plan. it doesn't specifically say what that management plan should say. it doesn't say we should cut down eucalyptus trees or create sand dunes. that's not what it says. there is an entirely separate process going on right now that is the creation of this management plan that will be much more specific about what, what the public -- publicly owned natural areas should -- what should be done with those airs az. and how, how -- what department and other agencies should treat those natural areas. the reason for the reference to private property is simply that is prioritizing potentially if those private properties are undeveloped and the rose -- in other sections of this policy, it is simply arguing those might be areas to acquire to add to natural areas if possible. it is not suggesting what we should control what people do

in their back yards. it is simply a reference to privately owned undeveloped parcels that might be part of a natural area's inventory. and suggesting that those might be prioritized for acquisition in the future. >> okay. it doesn't -- it's a little bit broader than that. again, i think parts of the concerns about section 4.2 is that it is very broad. there are some similarities to the old section 2.13 from the 1986 rose, but it goes beyond that, which i think is why it's causing some concern. the other question about section 4.2 is, unless i'm missing something, in the old section policy 2.13 from the 1986 rose, there is a sentence

that says -- this is talking about natural resource area management plans and it says, the plan should establish a consistent set of management policies and practices to protect and enhance the resources and should also identify policies governing access and appropriate recreational use and enjoyment of protected natural areas to ensure the natural resource values are not diminished or impacted by public use. that reference is not in the proposed 4.2. and one of the other concerns that we've heard about policy 4.2 is that -- that in an effort to protect biodiversity, which we all support, that there is going to be a reduction in certain kinds of recreational access. that area will be defined as a natural area and it's no longer

-- can be used for certain kinds of recreational uses. and, so, that language was in the old policy from 1986, appears it is a balancing recreational use and protecting biodiversity. it's not in section 4.2. just wonder if you can comment on that. >> i think one could argue that, that -- that specific direction was too specific and the reason itses was pulled out what so we could refer to those specific policies and actions in the natural areas and management plan rather than referring to it in the rose. in other words, i think i would argue that this language in the old version of the rose is actually more restrictive than the new version, and that's what -- the idea in the new proposed draft that's correct we take a step back and refer to the specific actions in the management plan rather than the specific actions that would be -- would be required in the actual rose document in the general plan element. the, the management plan will

determine what areas have access, how we will determine public access, that sort of thing, not this document. >> okay, thank you. >> mr. ram, if i could just follow-up with one question. there have been a number of members of the public who have raised again issues around policy 4.2 and suggesting that the rose doesn't adequately protect neighborhoods that are most desperate for open space and references have been made to, to supervisor kim's district as well as my district to ensure that they get the highest priority when our city uses the open space fund to acquire new open space. could you address that contention that has been articulated? >> surely. what we did in this version of the rose is actually take a more sophisticated cut at what we identify as high needs areas. and we looked at a number of factors that are series of maps in your document that show things like where children live, where seniors live, where

future development is happening, where people of low-incomes live and we overlaid those to create, to create the high needs map that you see in map 7 on page 24. it is a more fine grained map and definition of high needs areas and a kind of gradation, kind of five tiers showing where we are in most need of new open space and where we are in least need of new open space. and it's a little finer grain and also identifies things like play grounds and other types of open space as being deficient in some parts of the city. which is why some of the areas, for example, [speaker not understood] golden gate park are identified. again, compared to the old version of the rose, it's a more fine grained set of criteria that we have overlaid to create this final high needs map. >> thank you. supervisor kim. >> i'm just going to follow-up on that question from president chiu. i think, you know, what i had a lot of -- when i had the overall issue with the final map that came before us is at

land use committee is the dark green that dots along golden gate park. and it just makes no sense at all. and i understand that you put in the number of data points and then the map just got spit out. but if you see that they say the highest priority needs for acquisition and renovation are the blocks surrounding golden gate park and that's the map by which the board of supervisors is going to make policy decisions on where it acquires open space. i think then you have to redo the map. if that's what the data spits out -- i understand there are a number of different factors that you looked at, and i'm not advocating against more open space by golden gate park. it just doesn't make any sense. when you represent a district that has the fewest parks and the smallest parks, along with president chiu, you know, you get concerned that that's the policy document that's going to be guidelining not just this board, but future administrations and future board of supervisorses. ~ board of supervisors.

>> thank you, supervisor. i appreciate that and it looks strange to have high needs areas or relatively high needs areas near the park. ly say part of the reason for that is the very high concentration of children and seniors adjacent to the park. it's hard to see on the small map. if you look at the gradation of the colors, the darkest colors exist in district 6 and district 3 where the highest he needs are. it's a little hard to read on this map, but that is, that is kind of the intent of -- that's really the result of the analysis. >> right, and so i understand that you put in a number of different data points and the map that came out was the map that is before us, but i think it's just problematic that, that we didn't kind of further refine the map after that. and to see -- and i get that a lot of youth and seniors live around golden gate park, but i don't see as a policy maker that would mean we would then prioritize that area for acquisition. now, if we need to be building more play grounds in golden gate park or if we need to

build more trails for seniors and resources for seniors by the park, that completely makes sense. but it just felt like a lot more refinement needed to happen with the map because this is going to be the guiding document for the board and the administration. so, it would have been nice that -- it would have just been important i think to take an extra couple of steps to refine the data points. >> i'm sorry. i think we can continue -- you can look at these parks individually as they come before you. this map is identifying areas of both acquisition and renovation. so, to your point about, about building playgrounds within the park, that would certainly be covered as part of this prohe is is. and presumably if those play grounds were to happen within the park, some of the areas around the park would become lighter green in the next version of the map. ~ process >> any additional conversation? supervisor wiener.

>> just a couple more questions. for mr. ram or mr. ginsberg. if an inventory is done about natural areas that exist on, say, private property, i guess that inventory would be initiated by the planning department or perhaps by rec and park. so, how, how will that inventory -- how would that inventory be initiated and how would it be performed? >> my first -- first of all, we are doing a natural areas management plan for the properties that are under control -- >> i'm talking about private property. >> the inventory, if it moved forward, it would probably be initiated by the department of the environment. we haven't figured out the implementation of that stuff yet. >> and then what would be the -- what would be the -- what

would be -- once the inventory is done, whoever does it, whether it's environment or whoever performs t they would come up with -- produce -- it would be an a administrative act. they would produce an inventory saying here are all the private property natural areas. what happens if you own property and it's listed on there? what impact does that -- what legal effect does that have other than that you just happen to be listed on this inventory? >> it wouldn't have any direct legal effect. it would -- the management plan that is underway could provide some best practices for people who own natural areas, but it wouldn't have the force of law saying, this is what you must do or not do with your property. that's not the intent. >> what about if they want to make some change to their property, when it goes to the planning department [speaker not understood] you're listed on the inventory. so, this is a problem. whether it's under ceqa or

something else? >> it will not change whether it's allowed under the planning code to build on property. the only thing that might happen -- again, this might depend on future practice -- is it might suggest different types of landscaping treatment that might happ with the development on private property. but it would not -- we could not and are not intendling to, captain under this documentary strict what they could do, otherwise do in the planning code. >> how about in terms of ceqa? ~ does that have any bearing on ceqa? [speaker not understood], you try to put a shed in your backyard, you think that's a natural area? >> again, if it's something that's otherwise permitted in the planning code, i can't imagine -- i can't see how ceqa would come into play on that. it ultimately would depend on the management plan and what it says about private property versus public property. again -- again, it would make that distinction. the management plan would

clearly make that distinction. there is no intent here to restrict development on private property. that's clearly not the intent and it's not what this document can do. >> in the management plan you're referring to, vis-a-vis private property, what is that management -- i can understand again with another public agency. i get it, using the bart, for example, bart, you know, may not have the internal capacity to care for a natural area so maybe one of the city agencies, partners with them through a management agreement to help them take care of it. but with a private -- help me understand what that means in terms of a management plan. >> at this point in time, i don't know the specifics, but i would imagine that it would address things like the types of landscaping that we might suggest on private property if that property is changed and developed. in other words, if they came to us for permits to do something on that property, we would suggest -- we might suggest changes, what type of landscaping might be appropriate on that property. >> okay. i don't really understand that in terms of how that would come

into play and what that would mean, but i appreciate that explanation. i still don't -- i still don't really understand what that actually means on the ground when you say we would suggest that they would -- >> there are a number of places that are not -- there are a number of areas in the department where we have recommendations that are not codified in the code. here's best practices for these types of activities, and this would be one. we have a landscape palate, for example, we would suggest to residents with natural areas. it is not codified, but simply suggested as part of -- part of the process that we put forward, for example, like a director's or zoning administrator's bulletin that says here's suggestionses for the types of activities that might occur on this property if you choose to develop it and if you're within a natural area. it's not uncommon for us to have those kinds of recommendations to private

property owners. >> okay. >> colleagues, any additional discussion? supervisor wiener? >> mr. president, can we defer this till later in the meeting? i know we need to act on this today. given the ridiculous parameters under the charter for what we can do if general plans -- or general plan elements that we have to vote up or down, we can't even move a comma, can't do -- make any change to it whatsoever, and we have a limited number of days to act on it. if we don't, then it's deemed approved and it becomes part of our general plan. it's very frustrating, but the charter is what it is. so, i'd like to defer this till later in the meeting. >> colleagues, any objection to moving this till later in the meeting? without any objection, we will do that. [gavel] >> why don't we november to item 7, madam clerk. >> item 7 is a ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by contestimony promotions, llc, against the city and county of san francisco for $375,000; the lawsuit was filed on september 22, 2009, in the united states

district court for the northern district of california, case no. cv-09-4434 si (mej); entitled contest promotions, llc, v. city and county of san francisco, et al.; other material term of said settlement include resolution of notices of violation for unpermitted general advertising signs. ~ in united states district court for the northern district of california. >> supervisor wiener? >> thank you, mr. president. so this, we continued this at least once, actually twice, this settlement. i think for a lot of us, we are -- there's a lot of frustration with these, plainly what appear to be illegal bill boards that pop up under the guise of being a business sign, advertising raffles for products that are not even sold inside the store. the settlement i know has been of concern to a lot of people. but when you actually take a close look at what's happening here, the problem isn't with the settlement. the problem is with our planning code that has a lot of challenges, both as identified by the federal court, but also

in being, in my view, too permissive in term of allowing these kinds of disguised bill boards to occur in our neighborhoods. and, so, i've given this a lot of thought. i believe that we should approve the settlement, ~ but we should also -- and we are working on amendments to our planning code to try to tighten up this kind of situation so that people cannot put these what are in effect billboards masquerading as business signs in our neighborhoods. so, i'll be supporting this settlement. >> colleague, any additional discussion? single roll call vote on this item? >> on item 7, supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener?

wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. there are 11 ayes. >> this ordinance is passed on first reading. [gavel] >> colleagues, i'd like to go to our 2:30 special order. we have actually two items today. first will be offered by district 6 colleague, supervisor kim. >> thank you. today's commendation is for a member of our city family who has unfortunately been recruited to another city. i will not name that city in this -- in recognizing her. but a really incredible opportunity and challenge for this amazing individual. last month mayor eric gar set i nominated our very own [speaker not understood] for the los angeles department of transportation. [speaker not understood] has been with the city for only three years. she has dedicated the past 16 years of her life and career to

elevating the issue of public health issues related to peaed and bike safety and advocating for innovative and engineering solution. [speaker not understood] has been a valued member thev san francisco mta agency where she has led three teams in the livable streets subdivision responsible for innovation policy and coordination for complete streets projects city-wide. [speaker not understood] also served on the transportation research board pedestrian and bike committee and the walk score advisory committee ~. she is also, and i did not know this, past president of the association of pedestrian and bicycle professionalses. prior to joining mta [speaker not understood] managed the san francisco and seattle officers of [speaker not understood] working for the city of oakland public works agency. she has been described by her piersas a lifelong crusader for public safety and worked with our office in the livable streets division. from everything to [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood] said she is most proud of delivering a master list of the vision

zero project which we are proud of too,, which is designed to be implemented through a coordinated inter agency effort. [speaker not understood] utilize the resources each city department has and have a city-wide work plan to run clear communication. in august 2013 she helped launch bay area bike share which has been a tremendous success in our district and which we hope will continue to grow on to the rest of the city. she has also led [speaker not understood] bike streets safety project. [speaker not understood] from scott to baker have largely been perceived as a bike project. [speaker not understood] also championed projects including the neighborhood livability project. shes has consistently claimed ped and bike safety [speaker not understood]. and she has driven sfmta project on both of neighborhood scale and city-wide vision for efficient transit connection.

she is a driving force behind san francisco workforce initiative, our city's data driven approach to fix our most dangerous streets. she also helped us spearhead lobbying efforts for speed enforcement -- thank you -- in sacramento in order to help slow our traffic down. on our last walk to workday, she led a group of our residents in the tenderloin talking about how temporary build outs and daylighting could effectively save lives in our neighborhood, some of the most dangerous intersections and corridors ~. she was recently confirmed by the city council by unanimous 13-0 vote [speaker not understood] los angeles department of transportation, and i can't emphasize how important it is to have women lead intion policy and transportation. we will miss your leadership but mostly your passion advocating for residents here in san francisco and we want to honor you today for the incredible groundwork that you have done that we will continue to push on to effect cultural

change at the city level. so, thank you for putting us on the map for pedestrian and bike safety. i recognize that a number of the member of your team are here today to recognize you, too. and there will also be a special farewell happy hour for you at martuni's at 4 o'clock. i'm sure we'll join if we make it out on time on valencia and market street from 5:00 to 7:00. so, serita reynolds. (applause) >> thank you. would it be okay for me to say a couple words? >> yes. >> okay, great. so, i just want to thank the board for your leadership. in the time that i've been here, i've been working on safety for people walking for 16 years and it's really hard to compete with some of the very cool glamorous innovative things that we have in transportation, thing like bike share and cycle tracks and s.f.

power supervisor mar signals. but i'm so, so thankful that pedestrian is finally getting its day and i really, really hope that your leadership inspires the city of los angeles -- [laughter] >> -- when i get down there because i have made a pitch to every policy maker that i've met that the one thing that san francisco was able to really get on the same page about was safety, and that i hope that they are inspired by your leadership and we can bring that down south. and i really look forward to partnering with the city of san francisco on automated speed enforcement sometime in the next legislative session. but i just want to recognize my, my supervisor bridget smith, leadership of jerry robbins, ed reiskin, my fantastic team, you all, and really the ; is