leverage over what the banks are doing, what they offer for us in term of relief from the predatory loans that many of us are under. so, colleagues, look forward to that discussion with you when it come forward to the full board. hopefully by the end of this month, i will have an ordinance for introduction and we can move forward. i want to thank members of the ace and member of the community who came out tonight. (applause) >> to discuss their concerns. the idea of people losing their homes, where they stay, where they bring generations to the city and it's very, very troubling. it's very, very disheartening. there are communities that i also feel a certain type of violence not being able to maintain their homes. that is a trauma that we have and many of us live with. we have a responsibility in the city to deal with. i hope to join with you, colleagues, in that effort later this year. so, i'll motion that this item 74 be moved to committee. (applause)

>> supervisor avalos has made a motion to send this to committee. is there a second by that? seconded by supervisor campos. colleagues, can we take that motion to send this committee without objection? without objection that should be the case. [gavel] >> and madam clerk, can you call item 76? >> item 76 is a resolution urging the newly elected government of the republic of el salvador to respect and uphold the rights and protectionses of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community of el salvador. ~ of el salvador. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. president. on the prior item, i do want to thank all the members of the public who came and especially homeowners who shared their stories. not an easy thing to do, so, thank you. i just want to note that this resolution on el salvador is actually very timely. and unfortunately, since i first introduced this resolution we've had a number of incidents against members of

the lgbt community in the last few days, we had transwomen, three transwomen in el salvador that were murdered for being transgender and one gay man that was murdered for being gay. at the same time, we had a young bisexual mother who i know is fighting against the state in that country who is trying to take her little girl away from her just for being bisexual. so, just wanted to note that. look forward to your support. >> colleagues, can we take this item same house same call? without objection, this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> item 77? >> item 77 is a resolution urging for a moratorium on redemption center closures in the city and county of san francisco; and for supermarkets in san francisco and the state agency calrecycle to meet their statutory obligations by convening with the department of the environment to find solutions for a more evenly distributed network of recycling centers and ensure that a recycling center is

located in their parking lots or redemption recycling is provided immediately nearby. ~ city and county of san francisco. >> supervisor mar? >> thank you, president chiu. on this epidemic of the evictions of recycling centers in the city, i'd like to move that we send this to committee. i'm still in the process of communicating with safeway executives as they have closed not only the market street safeway, but also the ocean beach safeway, and also with the head of our department of environment debby raphael and her staff on how we can create more of a city-wide plan. and i think going to committee would allow us to have a fuller discussion. so, i motion that we send this to committee. >> it just takes one supervisor to send it to committee. supervisor mar moved that we send it to committee, that is what we will do. we have one final item. we called item 6 related to the 2014 update of the recreation and open space element rose. [inaudible]. back to discussion. supervisor wiener. >> i thank you, mr. president. thank you for delaying this till the end of the meeting. so, this is as i mentioned at

the beginning, it's very challenging because we have to vote up or down and i know that department staff spends a lot of time putting these documents together and it goes through a lot of years of process and then it comes to us and we vote yes or no. and we can't make any amendment to it. and, so, i question that process. i understand, i imagine why it was implemented, but i don't like it very much at all. the vast majority -- i am a big fan of the vast majority of the rose. the overwhelming majority of the item in this document i think are relatively noncontroversial, are well thought out, are really excellent. i do have a very targeted concern about policy 4.2. i do think it is different than the 1986 version with the combination of the inventory

that apparently is everything in san francisco, at least until we've combined with the planning commission's power to place conditions on projects where something has been identified in an inventory. it's caused a lot of confusion and a lot of anxiety in the community. and, so, i will not be supporting the rose tonight. my concern is very focused on section 4.2, policy 4.2. i don't think that -- i'm not sure what's going to happen tonight if this goes back. i'm not sure the entire rose has to be reopened, every aspect of it, the vast majority of the rose in my view is perfectly okay just as it is. i do want to thank and appreciate staff. i know -- i have great respect for the planning department and for rec and park and i've voted with the department, both departments on many hard issues over the years. i think they're terrific departments, they do a terrific

job, but on this one particular issue for a very narrow focused reason i won't be able to vote with the department this time around. thank you. >> supervisor campos. >> i just want to note i appreciate supervisor wiener's comments. and i know that it is challenging when you have to vote a yes or no, but i do think that when there are concerns, with you i think a number of my colleagues have that the only thing we can do is to send this back. i think that the reality is that there is a reason why the rules work the way they work. we're not in the business of micro managing departments. and if there is a policy concern, as i know there are with a number of items here, i think that you send it back and you let the department do it right this time. thank you. >> i want to say a couple questions to the planning director. could you give us a sense of what might happen if this were sent back, what that process would look like, how long it would take, and what you might be able to do that might be

different? >> [speaker not understood]. the board's vote today is either yes or no. there is no formally sending it back. you either vote yes on the language or no on the language. it would then -- if the planning commission chose to ask us to change the language, then we would go through a process of -- like we have for several years. we would have to have some community discussion about t. i don't know how long that would take. the challenge that that creates for us is that it's very, very challenging in these kind of documents to only focus on one or two sentences. when you're talking a document that in and of itself had this type of discussion, this type of controversy over many, many, many of the policy issues. my suspicion is that it would take, if we did that it would take several months of time. and i don't know if the planning commission will want to do that at this point. i honestly just don't know, but it's up to them to make that decision. the board's decision today, as you all pointed out, is either yes or no. there is no formally sending it

back saying, please do this when it comes to an element of the general plan. >> could you have give us a sense, this has been in the works for years, give us a sense of what has gone into the outreach that i think many of us have had questions around and -- >> sure. there has been 7 years of discussion on this. take out my list of public process which began in november of '07, there was a draft release in may of '09. the outreach there, if you recall, the mayor had an open space task force back then in 2007. there were 22 neighborhood-based community meetings. there were open houses, there were focus groups all over the city. we went to the recreation and park commission five times -- excuse me, four times -- five times. been to the preservation commission twice, planning commission five times. there were many, many, many community discussions, focus groups, individual meetings in neighborhood -- with neighborhood organizations about this that dates back to

mid 2007. >> thank you. colleagues, any further questions or discussion? okay. madam clerk, why don't you call the roll. >> on item 6, supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener no. supervisor yee? yee no. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos no. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. there are 8 ayes and three no's. >> the ordinance is passed on the first reading. [gavel] >> and with that, madam clerk, could you read the in memoriamses? >> today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following beloved individuals. on behalf of supervisor cohen for the late ms. omega harden. on behalf of supervisor farrell, president chiu, and supervisor wiener for the late

reverend anthony turney. on behalf of supervisor wiener for the late young ayal [speaker not understood], frank el, [speaker not understood] mohammed [speaker not understood] and on behalf of supervisor yee for the late dr. james wilson, ms. layton dong. and on behalf of supervisor avalos for the late ms. edna eileen flores lagunte. >> take a meetv to thank sfgov-tv's crew tonight hal kremenak and jim smith. and with that, madam clerk do we have any more business in froth of the board? >> that concludes our business for today, mr. president. >> ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned. [gavel]

>> [gavel] >> like to call this meeting to order. [gavel] [gavel] [audience chanting] >> deputy sheriffs?

[gavel] [outbursts] [gavel] >> i'd like to call this meeting to order. deputy sheriffs, deputy sheriffs? i'd like to close this -- [gavel] >> i'd like to call this meeting to order. i would like to ask memorandum members of the public if you're going to be in this chamber if you could please sit down. otherwise if you could step out of the chamber so we could continue on with the business of the board today. we have a lot of business. [speaker not understood] >> if not, deputy sheriffs,

deputy sheriffs? [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood]. [gavel] >> i'd like to ask for order in the chamber. like to ask if anyone is not willing to abide by the rules of the chamber, which obviously calls for silence unless you have public comment, to please leave the chamber. thank you. with that, i'd like to open up this meeting. welcome to the san francisco

board of supervisors meeting of tuesday, july the eighth, 2014. madam clerk could you please call the roll? >> yes, mr. president. supervisor avalos? avalos present. supervisor breed? breed present. supervisor campos? scam poems present. president chiu? chiu present. supervisor cohen? cohen present. supervisor farrell? farrell present ~. supervisor kim? kim present. supervisor mar? mar present. supervisor tang? tang present. supervisor wiener? wiener present. supervisor yee? yee present. mr. president, all members are present. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, could you please join us in the pledge of allegiance? i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

>> colleague, we have our june 3rd, 2014 meeting minutes. can i have a motion to approve those minutes? motion by supervisor kim, seconded by supervisor campos. those meeting minutes are approved. [gavel] >> are there any communications? >> there are none today, mr. president. >> if you could read our consent agenda. >> items 1 through 5 comprise the consent calendar. these items are considered routine. if a member objects, an item may be removed and considered separately. >> kiloton, i want to sever item 4. with that, unless there are any item to be severed, supervisor tang. ~ colleagues >> items 12 and 13, please. >> i think we just called the consent agenda which is items 1 through 5. >> apologize. >> no worries. madam clerk, could you call the items 1 through 5 with the exception of item 4? >> 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. >> those ordinances are finally passed and motions approved. madam clerk, can you call item 4? >> item 4 is appointing r. geary [speaker not understood] to the [speaker not understood]. >> colleagues, can i have a motion to excuse -- recuse supervisor wiener from this vote? ~ motion by supervisor mar, seconded by supervisor tang. without objection, he shall be excused. [gavel] >> and with that, madam clerk, can you call the roll? >> on item 4, supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor yee? yee aye.

supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? exhaust aye. there are 10 aye a. >> motion is approved. [gavel] >> item 6. >> item 6 is ordinance amending the general plan by updating the recreational and open space element of the general plan; and making findings, including environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of the planning code, section 101.1 ~ an ordinance to amend the general plan [speaker not understood] making requisite findings ~. >> colleagues, any discussion? supervisor breed. >> erred this item was controversial, but i guess no one has anything to say about it. i just wanted to talk about my vote today for this particular item. i'm prepared to vote for it, vote in favor of it today, but i am doing so reluctantly. starting a few weeks ago i heard from supervisor farrell hans [speaker not understood], however i did not hear from the

san francisco planning commission, the recreation and parks department or department of environment about this particular issue. my staff and i reached out to them. and when we finally scheduled a briefing no one from the rec and park department bothered to show up. i'm very upset because if this is how the departments are interacting with the board of supervisors, [speaker not understood] i can only imagine how they are treating members of the public. it is very surprised to me so many residents and activists are upset and concerned about the [speaker not understood]. i take your concerns very seriously. my staff and i met with many of you on multiple occasions asking for more information and questions, studied the document and took your questions and took your questions directly to city staff [speaker not understood]. i understand your concerns are [speaker not understood], and i understand why you are a bit wary of the departments involved. but i do not see a clear basis for rejecting de rose.

the issues has been policy 4.2. so, let me briefly address that. we spent a lot of time reading the direction backwards and forwards and it does not do what opponents believe it does. it's not a mandate and not a blank check. 4.2 does not give any city agency the authority to do anything other than create an inventory and develop a management plan. any steps to change that management plan change a use type, acquire property, start a project, or make any other note worthy changes regarding public or private property would require its own extensive public process. that would involve technical research, community engagement, environmental review under ceqa, and approval from public bodies such as the planning commission, the rec and park department, and potentially the board of supervisors. and this new version of the rose actually strength entitles the community engagement process by adding a new objective that specifically

outlines engagement methods and goals. i have to make a decision based on the language in front of me, not based on others' distrust for a particular program or approach to land management, however warranted their distrust may be. putting aside the fact the word native never actually appears in policy 4.2 let's consider the verb, it says the site should be examined. relative importance should also be assessed. the planning commission may require. consideration should be given. this is a broad policy overview, not a specific mandate. we unfortunately do not have the authority to amend the rose, merely to accept or reject. given that constraint and the reasons i've mentioned i will reluctantly support it, but i want to be clear that i will look very carefully and very skeptical at any future nature area project that attempts to

override or ignore significant public concern. so, with that, colleague, i think it's important that we all move forward with this particular document. and i know that it's been ongoing for several years now and am looking forward to seeing its implementation. thank you. >> supervisor yee. >> thank you, president chiu. colleagues, first of all, i'm going to recognize all the work of the planning department staff and the community members, including rose common group. i have some significant concerns for this element. and i want to acknowledge that 90% of it i totally would accept and agree with. but as someone who for a long time has worked to ensure equity and access to open space, i am questioning the methodology that was used to determine high needs area, that

we would prioritize for open space acquisition fund. [speaker not understood] will see a significant amount of growth in the next few years and has no access to any open space. it is not included as a high needs area. at the same time, areas bordering [speaker not understood] park one of the largest urban parks on the west coast, will be considered high needs. in addition to that, i have heard a lot of concerns from my constituents in district 7 about policy 4.2, and its impact on property owners. i think that there is a value in recognizing and protecting biodiversity, but i don't believe that it should come at the expense of property owner's rights. colleague, i will be voting against this ordinance today and hope that in the upcoming weeks the communitition and my concerns can be addressed by any planning department through amendments. ~ communities >> supervisor mar. >> thank you, president chiu.

i wanted to thank the planning staff and other city leaders for spending so many years on this element. i think that updating the element to include biodiversity as a goal and other issues are really critical. i wanted to raise a concern about objective 2 policy 2.1 and ask john ram, our planning director to explain. it seems a reading this we're expanding the definition of high needs areas that would be prioritized for open space and it's expanding it with additional criteria that allows more middle income neighborhoods to be considered and it seems to be not prioritizing in an equitable way the lowest income communities like the committee for better parks in chinatown or in lower income neighborhoods. and i'd just like to ask if

[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 objecti