Walking conditions are less than ideal because you get bicyclists on the sidewalk. Its narrow, close proximity to traffic and oak street doesnt have any bike lane. So those who do ride on oak street, and i think you will remember presented last month she talked about the spectrum of cyclists and theres this 1 of people who are really brave and theyll ride rain, sleet or snow, theyll ride in traffic, and then theres the 7 of folks who are happy riding on bike lanes. And then theres the 60 of folks that studies have shown that want to ride a bicycle, that are interested in riding a bicycle, whose commute trips are short enough and trips to the store short enough that they could ride a bicycle but theres this sense of fear, sense of discomfort with riding. So what were trying to do with this project is to create conditions that are more comfortable for walking, more comfortable for cycling, more attractive to get those folks towards those modes. And as you can see from the photos right no
Objectives, i respectfully submit that i think that this is yet another example of how some of these agencies that were talking about are disconnected from the reality of whats 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 doesnt 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 dont 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
Being of it, the large majority of it, has not even been subject of much controversy. We havent 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 noncity lands or whether its 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 citys 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 me
What impact does that what legal effect does that have other than that you just happen to be listed on this inventory . It wouldnt 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 wouldnt have the force of law saying, this is what you must do or not do with your property. Thats 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] youre listed on the inventory. So, this is a problem. Whether its under ceqa or Something Else . It will not change whether its 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 happen with the development on private property. But it would not we could not and are not intendling to, captain under this documentary strict
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 thats a natural area . Again, if its something thats otherwise permitted in the planning code, i cant imagine i cant 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. Thats clearly not the intent and its not what this document can do. In the Management Plan youre referring to, visavis 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 int