process rather than a day to day i know we're going to be at 12 months tb the article 8 if he were to say december of next year saying what the impact is that's the only thing i agree. >> i might add on maybe we can have part of the case when we bring parts two and three some clarification to part one. >> that didn't make mr. star from making his formal comments there are things he if anticipate and i think an openness of dialog it doesn't need a presentation but in his updates he can say i would like to move with approval with modifications and second. >> second. >> to remove?

with the particular - a word change which mr. star read into the record >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i am supportive of the motion i thank everyone 40 who came to participate going back to the 1946 planning code that will be my first choice i'm supportive of the motion. >> commissioners, i think the people log anything you encounter mr. star that didn't occur right just you didn't want us on that would be a great idea for a formal report. >> commissioners a we have a motion and a second to adapt this resolution with - recommendation for approval it is amended and moved commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson

commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner fong commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 78 to zero and places you on item 13 for case the urban forest master plan on november 6, 2014, after hearing and close the public comment it is continued and commissioner hillis and commissioner fong against. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm john sawyer with the department staff at our hearing on the uttering plan street trees the commission directed the staff to return the first was a glossary of key terms in the urban forest plan and the second a motivation of property and non-property based mechanisms to fund a citywide

street tree program both were included in the memo in our packet this included did glossary for trees street trees and uttering and under story and vegetation and are greg greening and economical funding those suggestions were made from the uttering definition and others defines from the public works code and the better street plan the funding sections we included the property and non-property mechanisms we've identified on the property based the parcel tax and on the non property general funds and urban forest joint powers authority and based on the plan to make sure that the plan focused on street trees was clear so ya for the record in response to conversations at the last

hearing i want to highlight a couple of key points the street trees focuses on trees within the public right-of-way with an emphasis open chronic funds regarding the street tree maintenance tests not directed to open spaces and should not be considered the document to do so a fire chief plan phase will be done exclusively for parks also while the focus is on street trees it recognizes that our urban forest has an canopy layer the trees on 19th avenue and gesture restraining order street their carried out

i think we sufficiently addressed the concerns and ready today for moving the plan forward for street trees. >> open for. public comment (calling names) >> thank you planning commissioners i'm dee and also

to john sawyer for allowing two more weeks excuse me for changes to the urban forest matter of the plan i want to go on public record as the cannery in the coal mine that warned you thought matter of the plan at our direction planning now proposes some defines for a tree definition the existing document that you have contains an page 75 to 76 describes the tree canopy one of which the trees are a part 3 classes of vegetation were the tree layer represents the clarification and it derived vegetation layers with the tree polygon vegetation

layer to covered by the canopy trees leaves and stems and dividing the area of the tree layer by the total area of the city since it's covered with vegetation a tree is higher than 8 foot in contrast the management plan defines a tree as any plant having a vertical trunk over 15 feet at all and anything less is considered not this defensive in definition is going to wreak havoc when the part of the master plan occurs unless the depiction of trees is consistent that is - i ask we get this document as right as we c

can. thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm dan flanagan i am wearing two hats the head of urban forest and the executive director of friends of uttering 6 years i started as the director of the urban forest i participated in a meeting with the planning department putting together an uttering in 2008, it was that effort was cancelled because of budget cuts 7 dialysis san francisco woke up to a morning with a quarter inch of rain and 57 tree failures one person ended up in the hospital i believe and so do others 12 years of budget cuts has resulted in the fact we now have a huge deferred maintenance in san francisco so those two

issues summarize the history of san francisco urban forest it's delay and also budget cuts so i'm strongly you're going you as the head of the urban forest chronicle u would you be able to approve that plan there there's been an enormous amount of care we've glutton a long public process and had public comment and included a couple public comments so i think that san francisco owes really deserves urban forest plan there's no one this this room that times more trees in san francisco than myself and my staff our 4 hundred volunteers and our members of our 25 hundred moebz members we're committed to the next two phases of that plan to be working on a canopy of gold that's realistic and maybe a stretch goal but ear committed

to the community goal i'll repeat one thing that john said. >> thank you your time is up. >> thank you very much. >> is there any additional public comment on this item? >> hi my name is is or tenacious i want to mention that 2, 3, 4 the original reduction ever this plan there was indeed overall common place hole vegetation disappeared because somebody didn't want it there and, of course, this plan is a street plan and good 1 for street trees but no mistake there's park trees in this city and the goal of the south is to replace the forest area the natural area that's one fourth of the city parks by making

scrape and habitat because of that i think it's essential the first overall plan; right? so 0 can't this first plan have this hole for all trees it will make that less difficult i don't think so because they're cutting trees all the time instead of gaining what we have but it might make it more difficult to go ahead and precede if with this plan that come before you sometime next year i print a page and the second part was this yellow paper highlight it just has the actual page from the the forest

statement that says that my trees later than 15 feet tall is a saping and on the other hand, i was thinking about another side i was thinking about it but there are actual numbers from the d e f thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. frank mason i'd like to emphasis there should be all 3 phases to street trees plant and it's 50 thousand trees it will courage for tries i think this should be one document going forward the street trees are there's a

fiduciary responsibility to operate within our financial means to understand the impact of the 20-year cost depends upon whether is that hundred to $750 million the city allows delores park and the repaving street bond to lapse there's maintenance funding for a parcel tax this is the federal government's discretionary money i can say that most of goods for defense but at the bottom is the two or three percent that's available i will especially is the tree from the city and move to michigander and live on the property to pay for the tax and

let my neighborhood deteriorate as a result of this as a citizen i've seen nor citizens not been able to maintain their situations bauks the debris around the trees this is a serious concern in now neighborhood at least for the people i'm ready to move from mar ran and bailout. >> is there any additional public comment seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner hayon. >> i appreciate all the work it seems like a lee lo a lot better one question the depiction of tree in one of these things we had here under 15 feet they call

it a sapling and looking at the defines in the glossary it didn't mention height any tree with trunk branches and roots would that be possible to put in anybody to delineate a tree from a sap allowing that's what the public is interested in. >> the distinction if the public works code doesn't indicate a height for the tree that's something we can add to the definition if you feel that is helpful. >> there's an interest and i don't know where this awe about the accident people's exhibit no. a significant draft management plan is on this other page that was given to us those are as soon as possible listing or seeding are not in the a

calculation but they're removed to the soil that's not considered trees i'm afraid some of the trees will be taken out they're called saplings and they're not justified so i'll be in favor of going with 8 feet. >> commissioner that is a definition that's in the public works code we canned change it. >> it would have to go through a process i know there's concern about the nature areas plan but a complete different process i'll suggest that you really don't separate those two issues in you can i really think the urban forest plan we're talking about the the street trees is a separate issue if i could recommend you not mix those two things up. >> one of the issues with the

stredz some are very small under 8 feet and sometime at the take sometime to grow to mature. >> i'll be in favor of not having any dichgsz or definition they can be shorn 8 feet not worth getting into this but the glossary and other things that are provided seems like it answers the requests by the public so i'm flavor of moving forward taking action and forwarding to the supervisors see what the other commissioners have to say. >> okay commissioner hillis. >> i would agree i think this is a great plan i think it gets at the issues that kind of what we've been doing with the street trees hadn't been good eastbound

we're seeing benefits and supervisor wiener this week proposed legislation to look at some of the funding you know which i think t is key and we'll focus on the funding this is a grand canyon great job and i'll approve the resolution to profanity the urban forest master plan. >> commissioner johnson. >> just want to say thank you very much for adding the things that the commissioners and public commenters prepared he i'll say it really was helpful to separate out the facts and the mechanisms to oh, one thing the formal redevelopment agency commission a number of consultants that working on the medics of yerba buena gardens i

feel there are similar overlapping analysis to hear about the non warned ways of managing the programs so if there is more work to be done we'll look at the that report. >> commissioners there's a motion and second to adapt the amendment commissioner hillis e commissioner antonini commissioner hillis sxhobs commissioner moore commissioner johnck's commissioner fong commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you on item 14 for the next case the reasonable modification go legislation to person with disables seeking fair acts to housing this is a planning code amendment.

>> good afternoon, commissioners i'm mann can planning staff i'm here to recommend approval for adaptation of the reasonable modifications ordinance today i'll review the legislation and provide the answers to the hearing please note it has grammatical initiates but the ordinance remains the same i want to say that donna is here from the office of dablts as a reminder this legislation is to be completed to the final submission of the housing element the reasonable modification ordinances provide a process with folks with disables so to the residential

properties for barriers access their homes to modify the land use and building and planning code that didn't provide an undue or administration active burn to the zoning and planning program those administrations includes the changes that enable residents with dablts to access the homes and the modification must serve the sdanltdz it is addressed by the zoning administrator by a case by case basis through the standard surveillance process applicants are not to process this in developing those program the development staff met with the mayor's office of disability and recommended the notifications the most common included the access ramps and elevators and

additional habitual space those are the most requested moevengsz additionally those accommodations people can access their homes and don't provide a problem to enter the building this has an administration active reasonable modification we've included ramps and parking and elevators and parking spaces park can only be approved with no physical structure with a period of 5 years are less they allow the people to access their homes in a shorter distance those were discuses to see how people who don't have a disability from asking for this

mischievous. >> assess ramps are also in the administration active variance they should not block the structure of the property. >> elevators are useful for people who a physical disability the elevator may only be granted if the elevator structure is not visible from the property line and with the building code dimensions an additional bedroom on the ground floor can help with the liveability it will be loud given it does not result in an additional dwelling unit and hallway bath is being requested finally the second process will continue to be review for the procedure identified in the

planning code and if it didn't meet the guidelines will be considered to the caesarean list at the hearing the commissioners asked first how does it be defined it's the responsibility of the project sponsor to make the reasonable mischievous and the tenants in the building who are renting can't make changes to the property, however, the tenants with the 2k5ib89 are electricity under the disability and the landlord are to be providing that modifications there's a question who pays for the modification as a reminder this provides the path for people with disabilities the applicant it responsible to pay for the modification but we've

offered a program for that there's a question rewarding elevators do date we'll have requests for very few recently a side yard was requested to productive the accessibility and if the property was sold the new owner can keep or remove the elevators and hopefully, the presentation provided some clafts this ordinance meets the need of person with disabilities to access their homes and this legislation will make assessing he homes easier under the planning code remgsz regulations we ask you recommend approval and adapt this resolution staff is available for questions i'd like to introduce donna at&t

kings thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioner president wu and director bohe i'm the problematic analysis for the mayor's office of housing of disability and charla johnson is not here we have app a corridor to make sure it the activities and facilities are assessable as required about itself ada we work closely with the planning department to make sure their policies align with the access laws one fundamental obligation for city's we make reasonable modifications off our policies and procedures this helps to comply with the ada and the fair housing act our office worked closely with the planning department staff

while they were drafting and refinancing this legislation this legislation will make the process for requesting on accumulation more transparent for the public the legislation will also be a big help to the of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a giving them a better understanding of the specifics of the project i want to thank the planning staff our office is here to support us move forward i'm happy to stay for questions. >> thank you. >> thank you opening it up for public comment is there any additional public comment on this item? okay. seeing none commissioner antonini >> yeah. i have a couple of questions in terms of who would qualify is it anyone that says their disabled or do they have

to have a blue licensed. >> they have to show the modification they're requested meets the disability so that can be a note from a doctor but the law you basically have to show for a ramp is for the date. >> you showed the area that looked like the driveway they also paved part of their yard we don't allow people to pave their front yard but to allow moist moist to throwing would this have precedent over that policy if there was a situation because

it looked like in that example the driveway. >> the planning code requirements for that would apply if they checked with non-compliance with that requirement was required for the reasonable version process. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> thank you. i think this is a thoughtfully prepared ordinance the only thing i'll ask what type of training are we envisioning for planning staff and the administrator to deal with that this requires good judgment how do we prepare for this. >> i think - >> oh, i had go ahead. >> i had nothing i was working with mo director we've benefited

in the past and several years from the past we look forward to additional training and consultation with them. >> is it a physical side dbi architects, etc. helping to kind of indeed make all the reasonable accommodations rather than which raise all kinds of questions i'm just saying how do we prepare to do the best practice to achieve this. >> i think it's the closed consultation with the mo d. >> we've spoken with carrie la johnson how to implement this legislation we as a staff have biweekly that are training how to roll the legislation out of pick training and creating a forum so our planners are trained in cooperating with ca