Plan is the intent of the supervisors broad policy for different tops that is a transportation element and other documents and policies that the mta uses and follows in the implementation of their measures and things like that i think the reason that we are proposing to update the general plan previously no language and when we reviewed that an application we always referred the general plan the most important it acknowledges vision zero were doing tremendous work around the policy i think that you know this ordinance is not going to address everything related to vision zero and the corridor it is supposed to reference the broader policies the city has and other documents that and programs that the city can use to help to implement those ideas. As much as it is broad in thinking i still to me it is broad and narrow at the same time one percent document it is broad thinking and we dont say to focus on the other neighborhoods so it seems we need to have language thats one piece the other piece is mta has adapted having a lens on equalities and that should be included in vision zero piece of it and no mention of that at all any reason why we dont have that. So i think under 18 a new policy achieving Street Safety for all thats trying to hed the inclusiveness in terms of how we deliver and design our streets and then in regards to the timing of this what will happen if you have to bring it back if we vote it down and need to come back including those language i just if this is voted down it goes back to the Planning Commission and to the board. What impact does it have. It is just a timing delay i think weve been working on this to quite a few of the proactive thing the Planning Department and the mta took on other cities across the country have adapted this and the Planning Department thought that was appropriate to look at the general plan and make sure the draft larger city policy it is really a timing question the other thing ill note the Planning Department is updating the transportation element that is along the process but the idea there to reenvision how the transportation element looks at transportation and lavatories Community Engagement everything. Thank you as a chair of the Vision Zero Committee on the ta board i really appreciate then this is proactive i just wish maybe we had sat down with my office just so we could have had a discussion earlier. Thank you supervisor yee supervisor tang. I thank you very much to the Planning Department staff for their work one of the things i want to point out is policy 23. 10 starts on the bottom of page 7 it states well maintain a presumption against the use of signals i know that is supposed to be a broad document and general in nature one of the concerns is the fact there are some major arteries for example, for my own 19 avenue or great who highway we want to have cars slowing along those corridors and have act waited signals but when pedestrians are not 4r0u9d free flowing traffic that is important otherwise well have cars to the local streets and causing other issues i think that if for some reason the contradiction direction of the board to make amendments to the policy ill say this one i dont know if it is a way to amend it for the general presumption for the signals. And did you need clarity on that supervisor tang. Because my understanding that unfortunately and this is been a presumption. If i think of many members of this body we cant necessarily make any amendments to this plan on this level im there have been back and forth confident with the staff with my staff in particular about certain concerns i believe from the board had serious concerns you know that this is a general plan plan but general concerns in terms of getting to zero and make it safer for pedestrians if there is real concerns we should consider whether or not we want to move this general plan out of this body and make sure that the appropriate amendments are made to our satisfaction ultimately we have to deal you know with the impacts on the district because of our only experiences with what we know happens on the ground level so wanted to know if youre interested in getting any additional clarity as it relates to our concerns. Sure so perhaps if Planning Department staff will talk about how we would work with mta when we do install some of the Traffic Signals for their consideration that they make to decide whether their pedestrian signals that was written with the traffic engineers i am guessing. We the idea of goal of the vision zero to make the streets safer for everyone in many cases with the actuated signals they have priority so the idea were trying to emphasis around the notion of Street Safety and mta has standards in place they required concern engineering plans in practical ill be happy to provide that. I want to make sure we are case by case certain arteries that require things and others that dont i want to make sure that this blanket statement didnt impact us. Thank you commissioner tang. Supervisor kim. Thank you i scanned through the general plan amendment i was looking at to see if you included the new review protocol for the Pedestrian Safety within the general plan amendments. Thats not referenced here specifically but that procedure is now in place at the Planning Department and that was the updated general plan as well as our review the streets plans for the implementation action that came from the Planning Commission in response to the vision zero policy. So i know that supervisor peskin and i represent the two district for the pedestrian vehicular collisions and supervisor yee chairs our Vision Zero Committee im surprised that the Planning Department doesnt contact any of the offices before coming to the full board and seeing the number of questions that different supervisors have and ultimately you get support of members of the board i dont feel comfortable supporting this today im not sure why they didnt approach us this is one of the major photos in that a general plan amendment it not necessarily selfwe pass something and board pass something with all our input especially this board raise one of my concerns around the review we worked with the particular around the blind project where we knew we were putting in open space to not include that in the general plan amendment is a big gap we are increasing the development particularly in the districts that i represent along with the southeast corridor i would like to see some greater e in your possession in terms of how the Planning Department will approach that systematically so were not doing ad hoc this is what were doing around vision zero but in the district i represent and so i would feel itch more comfortable bringing this back to the Planning Department and having our staff brief our offices on this issue getting our feedback and bringing this back ill not be supporting this today. Thank you, supervisor kim can i get clarity on who i think i want to make sure from our deputy City Attorney mr. Gibner if we dont act on this i understand it goes into effect in terms of our ability to have input im not 100 percent certain well be able to address some of the issues that supervisor kim and myself and supervisor tang are mentioning here and supervisor yee are menls today and john gibner, deputy City Attorney. Youre right the board as supervisor peskin said at the outset has 90 no power to amend the general plan their initiated with the Planning Commission and come to the board for an up and down vote the board votes up and down within 90 days of the general plan amendment moindz that 90 period expires on january 25th the day after the next Board Meeting you have generally two options one is to voted it down today by 6 no votes in which case the Planning Commission could come back with a new proposed general plan amendment reflecting some of our concerns you can vote up and down the other option to pass it on fdr to giver yourselves for future general plan amendments and then decide on the 24 where you want to pass it on second reading or vote it down have the effect of being more or less a stuns give yourselves time to talk over the issues i dont know if it solves anything and okay. Thank you. Supervisor safai. Oh, im sorry supervisor kim were you done. He would clarify on that point in turning this down today, the Planning Department will come back to the board of supervisors after the feedback from the general plan amendment. Okay thanks. Supervisor safai. Sorry about that just wanted to add to some of the comments that were made i know in our district some pedestrian fatalities theres been a lot of conversation about the Mission Geneva and alameda corridor significant areas of our district where Pedestrian Safety is very important and have the time to weigh in and shape it in a positive manner along with echoing supervisor yee and supervisor peskin say with their input im, comfortable voting for this today. Supervisor peskin. Thank you madam president despite chair cohen and my attempts to accommodate the department i think im reversing myself from. Yes. Vote to i make a motion to send it to the full board with a positive recommendation. Theres no real times constraint for us and can get it done right. I think that is a larger issue between two institutions for law making body the board of supervisors and the Planning Department which has to be i think more i too am actually yesterday actually over the weekend when i read the document was a little bit taken auerbach there had been i see a member of the Land Use Committee no affirm outreach when 24 was initiated or when that was transmitted to the board the department comes in on specific projects in as far as that is a hostile button issue that were expressed by me and organization and chinatown i think we should send a message to the commission and staff that we can improve this process as it relates to all general plan amendments and that we take it seriously so ill be joining those of you in voting no and look forward to work in good faith with staff to iron out the details the crux is all were in agreement with but fine tuning it were having a collaborative relationship two the two bodies is important enough to send a message well vote it down today. Thank you supervisor peskin supervisor yee. So given the fact that is some questions before this augment and, yes clean up legislation my prefer lets get it right the first time and not worry about it. Given the fact that is not time sensitive and i appreciate that the Planning Commission has brought this up to once to vision zero to the general plan i prefer today and i wont be supporting this knowing that we can have a much better document that we all can support in the near future thank you. Thank you supervisor yee seeing no other names on the roster, on the item before us madam clerk call roll. Supervisor breed. No supervisor cowen supervisor farrell no supervisor fewer no. Supervisor kim no. Supervisor peskin no supervisor ronen no supervisor safai no. Supervisor sheehy no. Supervisor tang no. Supervisor yee no. There are one i and 10 nos with supervisor breed Public School supervisor farrell supervisor fewer accept supervisor peskin supervisor safai and supervisor sheehy and supervisor yee in the descent. The item fails madam clerk items. New bills madam president submit. Thank you supervisor cowen. Thank you very much happy new year everyone colleagues we have a couple he means it to share with you first, the roll call im making a i couldnt on the eastern neighborhoods plan monitoring report the ordinances that infected the eastern neighborhood area plans were approved by the board of supervisors required that the Planning Department produce a 5 year report monitoring residential and commercial development in the eastern neighborhoods in those neighborhoods as well as impact fees generated and private and Public Benefits and infrastructure the report tracks all Development Activities that has occurred to the planned area between 2011 and 2015 the pipeline in 2016 as ive discussed at previously here at the board of supervisors and my main focus is for the potrero hill and the portion of eastern neighborhoods and also understand the eastern neighborhoods cac has issued a report i like to hear from the cca about their feedback and progress and the plan on the report. The next item is a roll call for introduction im introducing a resolution urging the city and county of San Francisco to join the depreciate up initiative that has a simple role to reduce the number of people with mentally illness it is an issue that touches everyone, everyone has patients seeking Mental Health services intersecond across care that has a marketrate in the form of homelessness hospitals in the criminal Justice System just by way of antidote my Michelle Obama mother is a child consistency was conditioned to be sensitive to the Mental Health state of our citizens here in San Francisco and San Francisco approximately 10 percent of the department of health 25 thousand bafrlt Health Clients had a Health Contact in the jail 2, 3, 4 fiscal year so 20 percent of those clients before having history of criminal justice contact between 7 and 14 percent of our jail population that is 13 thousand plus in the year of 2015 of this population many of them have serious Mental Health this is schizophrenia it includes bipolar and includes manic depression and San Francisco is known for the generosity of our social services this led other cities to send their folks a oneway ticket to San Francisco this is not a substantial position in the countrys especially for a system of care is not as effective as it could be. So what are were going to do as weve discussed we cant solely focus on funding for more jails it Small Business our goal to give people in the humane jails are simply not substantial and no a place to treat people with mentally illness not only are they unproven to improve the health of individuals with mentally illness they also cost a Cost Effective expense on taxpayers that does not necessarily improve Public Safety so we cant simply lock people up and think their conditions will improve we noted compassion and appropriate care to accurately address those serious illnesses theyre experiencing that ultimately can lead to crime rather than exacerbating we should be helping three hundred counties have passed resolution simple to say one im asking for today that will id like to before traveling to miami day county to get a better understanding of the way this program is a unrolling out and on the ground and highway how it is working and how the county will significantly reduce their incarcerated population i hope youll join me and next board of supervisors meeting in approving this resolution i want to take a moment and thank commissioner borden and supervisor kim are supervisor sheehy supervisor farrell supervisor safai for their cosponsorship on this critical measure and finally a brief in memoriam i want to reduce mr. Todd louis passed away on december 31st he was born and raised in richmond, california and spent 3 years at the San FranciscoState University before we tried auto as a walk on San Francisco 49ers he had a Bright Future ahead of him became a independent consultant involved in mavsht Companies Across the United States helping them create a network in the United States as well as Canada Europe companies during that time his mother would recruit him for the electrical business and vufb he changed his mind he served as ceo and he dramatically changed the peoples told us on the importance of energy and the proposal of hazardous wastes now, throughout the bay area mr. Louis lights are shining bright and for those of you who dont know some of the projects is the light go installation around the city hall where the 49ers used to win. laughter okay. Well, he was the person responsible for the light installation he also was responsible for not only city hall but all the United Airlines plaza with the San FranciscoInternational Airport with the San Francisco sf light rail and the bridge mr. Louis strived to produce the most efficient products and during his time with the pacific the company was recognized by the sufficient company in the United States de