>> good afternoon one correction it is an open anyone else office i'm an eye surgeon practicing in the city for 16 years i've been going to the mission district one day of each and taking care of my patient i have my sickest patient who need the most eye care our on millions building was purchased by folks and it was taxi over i decided to take over this vacant land to put something there to serve the people so long as i'm no practice and hopefully have something for the neighborhood that last. >> thank you. >> good morning. i'm the architect for the project i'm here to answer any questions the

commissioners might have about the design. >> thank you. we'll take public comment first if we have questions we'll bring you back up any public comment on that item? seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner antonini. >> yeah. thank you. i was the one that brought it off consent i think it is a wonderful project i'm a health care person i'm very, very supportive but i'm trying to establish our policy is in regards to medical for office uses on upper floors of commercial districts we've been through a lot of discussions and items were there were conversions often from housing to that use or maybe sometimes, it was not a housing use it might not another use but there were situations we've been reticent to grant this situation

we're allowing under is a difference between new construction and conversion the results are the same you're having medical officers o offices on the upper floors it makes sense to be able to have enough space it have our entire operations on different floors that was a one reason i brought that up for the benefit of the public there was and then earlier approved project at the same location that included 4 locates on the third and fourth floor the sailing sale is dead it's not before us anymore by i just wanted to bring that up because i think we need to look at 0 global policy on what we want to do with the upper floors i think we center to be a little

bit more welcoming of the medical or office uses on upper floor where their conversions on the upper floor i'm perfectly supportive and happy to make a motion to approve. >> commissioner johnson. >> well, i was going to pull it off calendar is there a response to commissioner antonini's question first? >> commissioners, i think the commissioner hayon commissioner antonini was correct where there's been an issue with the existing unit on the upper floor the commissioner must be you review this it was a vacant lot and the medical offices are permitted on all floors of the building there's no removal it is just i believe that's itself

primary issue you've raised. >> my point was that we have certain things we desire in neighborhoods commercial i think the global policy should be do we want all upper floors to be residential or allow for other uses on upper floors that has to transcend the situation whether it's new construction or converted construction because in some instances we fight over one single unit and in other cases four or five units in it has nothing to do with to do with this particular thing i want to make sure we consider you know conversions and new constructions sort look at globally as to what we're doing we have a concern about having enough housing units there's nothing wrong with this but it seems like to be a desire for

existing housing but the new housing is the same thing. >> commissioner antonini i would respectfully disagree i don't know if you're referring to the case recently in the marina i think the executive director it driving our housing but for me, the nc t and d work well in some neighborhoods they allow upper floors and some don't they have been moving toward nc d advertising and t so listen to the needs of the community looking at a global one-size-fits-all may not be the right if i did commissioner moore. >> i would agree with our summary the subtractly lies in the zoning whether mixed use or

the upper story renal by it's distinctly different when i build an office building containing medical that building is significantly more comprehensive expensive and complicated than building a residential building and later on adapting to other uses it's different so this starts at the medical building and i think the medical quality that meets those requirements that come into play when you build such buildings. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much that was actual one of my questions i definitely agree that diversity in our zoning for makes sense works and frankly we have to remember that you know those types of authorizations are in some ways the public partnerships there's a reason

they're involved and didn't workout so what land they have for the purposes of this cd that works my question is a little bit tighter he i was reading through the sequa analysis no transportation impacts i want to ask staff how that assessment was made if it's a medical office even if the sizing size of it doesn't require 6 dedicated parking spaces there has to be a white loading zone or handicapped space we're talking about people are visible impaired or how the determination was made for the if you have no transportation impacts. >> commissioner johnson i think in this particular case it's a category use generally 10

thousand square feet or less categorically exempt the other thing the nc t were designated and parking and don't require the parking those two issues combined will result in the determinations that if the categorical use is not needed. >> it's based on the small size that those projects of those size don't have spitting impacts of sequa. >> i want to ask the project sponsor the architect do i have plan your allowances for off-loading white zone or handicap parking or nothing like that. >> can i please come to the podium. >> could come to the mike

please. we do but can't apply with the zoning with the puc until swi have the approvals the planning commission it's the second step we definitely plan to put a white patient off-loading area in front of the building. >> okay. on the transportation i notice i have bike parking as part the electrical closet how many bike spaces. >> two are required. >> okay. okay thank you okay. >> again that, please speak into the mike and i could be practicing in the mission in the eric building no as a physician that loves the neighborhood and wants to be present as people are taking overbuilding i do not want to deal with the landlord.

>> this has has nothing to do with your project. >> i was worried about loading and unloading. >> thank you and is that it. >> yes. thank you. >> commissioners there's a motion to approve with conditions it's been seconded commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore sxhifkz commissioner president wu smoement amazing 78 to zero that places ion the next item intention to initiate to allow the exemption for the medical equipment it is to initiate at a scheduled public hearing

good afternoon the item amend the planning code to allow the mechanical equipment for hospital that are non-compliant with regard to height we're asking you to have november 13th always the date it really begins to require the 20 day notice period after that the hearing will be up for action it is for the st. francis hospital we'll get into the specification but to give you a quick overview the height is for the district height exemptions are in the planning code 26 b and some are capped by the horizontal roof area while the other very

specific limitations some are non-compliant instructed prior to the height and bulk and this include the mechanic equipment the proposed amendment allows the necessary roof features to hospital that are non-compliant with regard to spifshgsz the project sponsor will present at the adaptation hearing and give you an overview of the project the department recommend the approval to schedule it to november 13th at which time it will be discussed public works i'm happy to answer questions. >> thank you, no project sponsor presentation correct? there is >> there is? okay. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm abby i'm the vice president for the

mission community health and st. francis hospital your predicament from if seeking this exemption to complete the burn center it is the other trauma center in san francisco and serves as at regional burn city for the entire area and part of the national centers we serve over 5 hundred patient we do run a captain on those days and are anxious to insure the needs of the communities are served thank you very much. >> we'll open this up for public comment i have cards i'm not sure if those are yourselves or not. >> i do not think so.

>> okay seeing none, public comment is closed. >> as we initiate the amendments of the code i want to ask we add a comment by which while we broadened the definition of what can be on hospital roofs we're making it conditional that obsolete equipment is removed there is no question that all of us support the necessary equipment for hospitals to be fully functioning but we want to also encourage that obsolete equipment is being removed awhile new equipment is being installed those hospitals roofs st. francis hazard to be my hospital it sits open a sloping street

where the - i wanted to mention that otherwise i'm in full support of what is being asked to initiate here. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i think this is sound like a wonderful proposal and i would move to initiate consideration. >> commissioner antonini we also need to establish a future date it is november 13th. >> i would say let's schedule

it for november 13th. >> second. >> thank you commissioner johnson on that motion to initiate aid schedule the adaptation hearing or potential adaptation hearing. >> i'm sorry commissioner richards. >> the equipment that is allowing a change in the code is not applying to other corporate structures this is just applying to the functioning of the hospital? >> that's correct it only applies to that it doesn't apply to cell 24 hours and then other than that, motion commissioners to initiate and schedule a public hearing on november 13th commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner fong and commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to

zero and places you on item 10. >> for case 17 m and e the urban forest master plan the presentation and initiation

hearing. >> dpmg commissioner commissioner i'm governor jerry brown with the planning staff i'm also the manager of the san francisco urban forest master plan joined by a colleague carla from the department of public works she's the departments urban forester and will be making remarks during this presentation. >> so eager to give you a quick he overview on san francisco urban forest and talk about the plan in details and at the end of the presentation we'll be requesting the commission to take requesting action san francisco uttering we have 7 thousand trees trees managed in the jurisdiction of the 71 one hundred and 5 thousand street

trees and one hundred thousand trees in our state parks those trees provide a wide range of benefits there are a tremendous you urban infrastructure there's no other capital in the city that provides a return on benefits they have stormwater run off they provide food and provide shade on hot days we're aware of many of those i want to celebrate the trees they've been show that to help violence and stress they clean the air they approve public health and create vibrant commercial district and in a density like san francisco they help us to connect with and a half in our hectic lives the capital value is one-hundred

$7 billion if we replaced auto trees tomorrow and the environmental benefits that the trees provide in terms of cleaner air and water is estimated $9.5 million and it is transcribed to trees so while san francisco originally makes the top 10 or one or two on the top cities it suffer from a lack of green this is a typical centralizing street on the outer suspect neighborhood we identify are with a lack of trees san francisco has one of the lowest tree canopy 13.7 if you were a bird flying owning over the city that's the portion of the city covered by trees portland and n

o a has a tree canopy learn san francisco our tree canopy is not described equally we have in the detector darker green presidio's and chinatown like the market value so this is why we're developing a plan for the city's trees the urban forest plan identifies strategies and policies so the city street population and the plan is to create a plan to help the urban forest in the city we've worked with the department of public works and we were in touch with also the rec and park department and another key partner iowa the friends of the urban forest we worked with the urban forest council throughout the process so the urban forest plan is a

vision in 3 phase for the consideration is the tree phase we expect to do a phase two on parks and a phase 3 on trees on private property such as the green roof policy divided into 3 phases it is unique issue for each in terms of the street tree plan a few minutes study to address some of the long-standing financial issues regarding street tree analysis we did a consensus of 27 thousand trees and the policy document. >> so the vision for the urban forest plan that was developed is that san francisco urban forest will be a healthy collection of trees and we did a

number of engagement activities as i mentioned public hearing over the course of two years we had working sections with the urban forest members and did a series of think tanks and a lakeshore urban forest plan for the boulevard we also had spur public formats on earth day in san francisco so why street tells me e trees i'd like to invite carla to remark on street trees. >> thank you good afternoon, commissioners carla short department of public works i'm here to talk about why we're starting phase one there's unique i i think needs for street trees that require this is the first time effort

so the current state of our urban forest street trees should be pruned every 3 to 5 years that's industry standard currently, the public works is on a 10 year pruning cycle this is a cycle of do pro-active maintenance and this limits our time if we take care of emergencies over the past 10 years the maintenance for trees has continued to decline and the lacks the concern we have limb and tree failures we have issues with roots bulking sidewalks we can't address that contribute to the public health concerns this is a chart showing how the maintenance declines we prune 3

to 5 or inform thousands trees we're responsible for we're down to at the low point currently, we have 11 tree arborists. >> this lack of maintenance funding has resulted in the department undertaking a recent program to transfer the responsibility of trees makes sense to adjacent property owners the department undertook this transfer this program very reluctantly and after presenting the dire lack of tree maintenance to the board of supervisors, however, if we were not granted additional maintenance resources we simply had to reline our assets with the resources we have unfortunately that is no a great policy for san francisco it results in uneven care so a quick overview of how the

maintenance transfer has occurred basically the public works code allows for this the authorization already existed in the code it makes sure there are no maintenance need at the time of transfer we have to prune it before we transfer to the property owner so nevertheless, to see with the lack of maintenance we have to do lieu of a lot of maintenance before we transfer the trees this takes a lot of time you mean the department is responsible for 9 thousand strez trees in the medium we can't assign them to property owner remembers departmentally owned parcels or state owned parcels where we can't controversy transfer the responsibility

some of the challenges that property owners are unable or unwillingly to care for trees the property owners are facing costs because prior the city take care of those the department of public works is concerned about the losses of trees we've had already world examples property owners had not had the transfer of maintenance but their fear ruled in xeefkly pruning the trees that can you tells us them to today 40-year-old trees we've lost the benefits that john mentioned earlier because basically panic reaction to care for the trees in the future the other concerns if the property owners don't care for the trees than again would we'll be facing some of the public safety concerns possible fufrz failures where

the department is not care of for the trees this is a higher cost per tree we lose the proficiency of trees if the city cared for the trees open a block by block basis one property owner might prune one on monday and another one pay to have their trees pruned on tuesday we're increasing potential impacts like carbon from the truck industries if we could do it all at once we'll be gaining those benefits as well we estimate about one hundred and 5 thousand trees in san francisco this is showing you what the breakdown was prior to our initiating this transfer of responsibility 60 percent of trees were the robld of property owner but 40 percent were the

responsibility of the department of public works after this program if it continues about 80 percent of the trees will be private school maintained and the rest publicly maintained we can go the details of the benefits of having a municipal run program but specifically in san francisco and trees maintained by the department is larger and better maintained because we have although we don't have the rows to do it frequently but we adhere to our city standards and have the equipment th equipment that does the work we keep the trees healthy so a municipal funded programs means the trees will be healthier and

i some of the case study finding for phase one urban forest plan the routine costs dollars dlrd block pruning it efficient if we have the sources to prune the trees we'll get out of the cycle to having to respond to emergencies so far trees we'll be more efficient when we go out and trim the trees we're recommending that while the city crews grow likely contractors will be needed to help to prune the trees and control costs the municipal programs provide a higher standard of care for trees and then again, the benefits there would be savings to property owners because of those inefficiencies we've outlined and