action of the director of public works but had that agency not been taken this action would have been a temporary order. >> as has been stayed the tree is protected and give us another look at this whole thing to make a determination whether or not we're supportive or i'm supportive of recommending preservation in the landmark board or whatever board it goes before the preservation. >> urban forestry council forwards it to the board of supervisors so, now we no longer have any input on this tree i'll vote against this for a continuance. >> commissioner hillis. >> can i ask a request from the representative of the department of environment. >> i mean, i think you're

hearing our decision i think we want to protect the tree through the due process but it is a little bit odd we're nominating a tree we don't know a ton about are you familiar with the tree or the staff from the urban forestry the urban forestry looked at the and you know find whether upticks they think it could be eligible for nomination or eligible our landmark status. >> sure we don't say a mechanism for the nomination so we have no way to go out and look at the tree or create an opinion will be the tree until the nomination process so as is an impact none of the easter members have gone enough have i. >> you said most often those nomination could come from the board of supervisors but a

particular departments have been more involved my concern is about knowledge the planning commission didn't deal with trees often i want to make sure that the people with the most experience with trees are making the nominations. >> before the program was codified the department of public works were landmarking trees on their own properties through an internal mechanism we have some but half the trees are a landmarked before this current process outside of that with the current process we've had two nominations come from the department head one from dpw and sf environment both on public property trees yeah. >> thank you how many privately owned trees are landmark today. >> we have with the past set of trees some a bunch of trees in

groves currently we have 8 trees on private property that are protected under the program. >> how many of those are nominated by the property owner versus a city agency. >> okay. let's look i have the notes in front of me. >> 1, 2, 3 of those were nomad by the private property owner. >> okay. all right. thanks. >> commissioner moore. >> this unique ma must be recent a few years ago i don't know know 4 or 5 years ago this commission was a different group of people sitting in those seats tried to landmark a property open that it was a fabulous tree and couldn't identify any mechanism how to landmark a tree on private property we at that time asked for a

policy to do so but nothing was in the works by by way of background. >> i believe the process will be codified in 2006 and we were not able to identify and tried and tried and didn't work. >> commissioner richards. >> so i guess two things for first, we have a chicken and egg kind of situation we feel uncomfortable landmarking it yet we have no data by us nominating it to building considered for landmark that is what starts the knowledge gathering happening i didn't see the staff report until i came in if we continue this item we'll learner anything more i have here which is begun or done in 1967 the address thought this property the fact

that a gentleman planted a lot of trees from the san mateo family i have a picture on the back whether one or two or 3 lots with 3 trees that look the same another picture that is taken a day later in the same for ground with one tree gone if we continue this is news to me if we continue it we'll not do ourselves favor let's let the process begin and the experts determine it is a landmarkable tree let's the process take it's course i agree we're not experts i look at this and worried about the state of xooegs execution you can remove the tree with a permit he can apply for a permit and take the tree down i'd like

to protect the tree and vote yes and move on. >> commissioner hillis yeah. i understand the rational just one more question when someone nominates a tree it is going forward with the process but if we gave you a week and be coming back and tells us normally you'll nominate smoking gun something we know something being a building but i get the notion if we want to stay the process that is rockefeller recent so if we continued a week and get more information phenomenon the tree will you be willing to do that and dpw is putting it on hold. >> so the council asked for two weeks notification they're all volunteers i'm not positive we can get to the site before then we can ask the public works

urban forestry if they're able to get out and come back i'm not sure what their schedule i canned make those promises i'm sorry. >> it is good to have information before we nominate i'm okay santa monica. >> it can come back and not eligible. >> yeah. they determine whether it is eligible if it is not we're on our merry way and the tree left to the property owners fate. >> the property owner you had something to come to the. microphone. >> the tree has got a thing from the department of public works i i don't have any intentions to apply for a permit

i'm expecting the due process i went and fought for from the military to be able to present they presented i have nothing you have more information than i do. >> thank you. appreciate our comments yeah. i was going to bring up something similar giving a continuance the project sponsor presumablely maybe the city can come up with information the project sponsor can get an arborist to report on the status whether or not it is healthy or problems causing to structures in the area and it will give us a better idea of whether of the tree is eligible for landmarking sometimes, it is a lot of the things that the trees do detrimentally to the property that overshadow that maybe two weeks to hear the

facts as you i believe that part of the process when urban forestry council is reviewing this they hold a public hearing and all this information be presented there's a due process built into the nomination process. >> commissioner moore. >> you can only do what we can do without additional tools i'd like to ask the director beyond if we today today i'm in support of continuance we'll meet with the urban forestry department to meet and support the facilitation those are go spectacular trees with respect to the public and our own actions to assist in the process

but i'm in support of initially. >> commissioner richards. >> i guessed judging from the zoning administrator, what say you? his interpretation process i'm inclined to nominate this. >> i don't have a position on the nomination i want to make sure you have the full information about the process to make an informed decision. >> i like the idea the due process is coming. >> commissioner hillis. >> why not continue it for two weeks to get more information i'm a little bit uncomfortable i don't want the tree cut down it seems like we have the protection dpw asked for a permit to support it i put might have in the property owners process there will be a due process we're kind of doing this blind in nominating and tree we

don't have the staff report on it so it makes me somewhat you think comfortable waiting a week or two and getting additional information from upcoming we depends on if this is sick or you know logical things you would ask before you went ahead and nominated it it makes me uncomfortable if it is amenable we'll continue it for a week or two and get that information the zoning administrator to let us know by overwhelm from the permit is pulled a permit has days you have to be able to - and yes. the permit to remove the tree is standard process there's a directors hearing and that will be appealed to the board of appeals. >> can i ask secretary seeing

this is the first time this is now a standard packet for looking at whether or not to nominate i'm just (laughter). >> we're creating this as we do that is what makes me nerves i want the directors or dpw making this decision over the supervisors. >> thank you commissioner wu. >> we did sort of put this together quickly the request came last week, we didn't have a whole lochlt but the department time thank you very much forwarded the language on the draft resolution before you i coupled that simply with the application sxhimentd by the neighbors requesting the tree be nominated that's all the information we have that is - there was no time for a case report per say. >> or to continue would there

be a different case report or decided and that will accounted whatever. >> to be honest commissioners i don't know what we can do in the next two weeks of staff this is new we're not experts we rely the department of the environment is there a normal process i'm not sure you'll get a whole lot more information it didn't appear to me. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i think there wouldn't be anything forthcoming given it's tier based. >> it - >> and i'm saying if we put to out for two weeks there is anyone else. >> all you have to go on the possibility this tree is worthy of designation and what you're doing pie nominating you're letting that research happen

from the research doesn't happen until the tree is nominated it didn't designate it maybe the tree is not worthy of designation and the tree goes away but your action simply allows them to work with the pertaining to see if it is worthy of designation. >> no harm in doing that. >> that's i my recommendations no harm done at this point it- the only thing it prevents the owner from cutting it down in the next few muse commissioner richards if this were any other tree on any other lot no documents it convinces me we should look at this this is clearly an entry those trees were put on in eighteen hundred 70 i'm happy to let the process go it will not

hurt the property owner it will fall down immediately we can get an emergency order for life and safety i'm comfortable with letting it taking it's course i'll take the directors advise. >> commissioner antonini. >> the only argument the project sponsor should have the light for this particular forum to bring back argument whether or not the tree hazardous and because in dpw doesn't come back before us i think he deserves and period of time to prepare his argument to say us as we would any other item that comes before us so we have know whether or not we want to continue with the process because we involve the city expenditures time and resources on it i think there is it consider whether or not to

landmark it. >> thank you. please call the question as there is a motion and a second to then adopt the draft resolution for the subject tree. >> commissioner antonini. >> no commissioner hillis no. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner richards and commissioner wu. >> no that motion fails 2 to 3. >> commissioner antonini. >> move to continue, however, for two weeks. >> two weeks commission will put us on july 2nd which with 2000 brought in september is not two impacted. >> july 2nd. >> do i hear a second. >> second. >> thank you commissioner richards on that motion to continue this matter

commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner richards and commissioner wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero. >> commissioners that places you under on department matters directors announcements. >> commissioner good afternoon i don't have particular announcements but ask kate from the district attorney's office city attorney's office to talk about a state superior court. >> commissioners from the city attorney's office you've probably heard about it may be a a lot there was an important land use decision the california sfrikt held that the inclusionary housing are generally police power laws that maybe adapted as well as they have a reasonable relationship to the welfare the court

recognizes the its critical housing needs and no way a municipality can't have new development to set aside proposed units for sale as a at a price that's affordable some background fact the 90s adapt an ordinance 4 housing projects to set aside 15 percent as affordable housing and san jose excluded rental hours until the issue was not state law the city sued san jose and needed a enterex study to show that the housing has a need for affordable housing california supreme court include that affordable housing a like a price control not an action and

affordable housing requirement is san francisco land use & economic development committee constitutional as long as we have a reasonable relationship to the public welfare and not - the court ruled not an action no conveyance to the city in trust and in san jose the in lou fees were inform the developer to elect to pay rather than a it was onsite inclusionary and gave options to vendors to pay a fee or comply if other ways decision interesting didn't have an immediate effect on san francisco for 3 reasons one it is san francisco has conducted a enterex study for affordable housing and working on updating the enterex study and secondly san francisco is to operate within prop c which

limits the amount of affordable housing and how projects are subject and third san francisco's ordinances are structured differently from san jose we're generally a fee first requirement and provided that for sale and ruled and then to provide affordable housing on or objective it is not immediately going to change anything that san francisco does we already compiled with the court decision that characterized california and the california superior court mentions that decision and that decision is inconsistent with what they ruled they don't see inclusionary requirement as part of the action requiring the enterex study it is not an

unlimited power the requirements are are not deprooif a property owner of a reasonable use and return on their property so local governments need tool look at twhoos feasible for development it is important to note that the building association and the pacific legal foundation have been discussing the possibility of appealing this decision to the u.s. supreme court so there maybe further legal activity on this question but it is a really important decision it settles a long-standing debate over the status of inclusionary housing and a big win for local governments san francisco joined the brief in support of san jose and couple of allowing attorneys and other attorneys in the office working hard on the

briefs and two of the land use attorneys flew themselves to la so we see this as an important decision for local governments. >> commissioner richards. >> a question for the city attorney should it be billed to the supreme court can we put a stay on requirements. >> the u.s. supreme court. >> commissioner if the u.s. supreme court grant the assert it suspends the supreme court's decision until they decide the issue. >> it's important. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further we can move on to past events of the board of appeals and the historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners at&t park planning department staff speaking of trees as was land use hearing the ordinance introduced by

supervisor wiener that amends the shifting to require street trees in projects from the planning department to the department of public works was heard the planning commission heard the proposed ordinance on may after a grief of brief deliberation voted to remedy the proposed ordnance with the modification that the pg is the party responsible for planting and mom and pop a street tree two folks spoke and mentioned the process are very much needed and helps to mediated any goals in the urban forest plan land use voted for the proposed ordinance to the full board. >> next on the junked were interim zoning controls for the conditional use authorization for the merchants sponsored by

supervisor avalos the commission doesn't look at those controls the resolution that requires the equivocation including the mergers of the legal and illegal units the supervisor times to amend it only to legal units the supervisor said he will convene a meeting with the staff to look at the permanent controls and the merging of illegal units should trigger the hearing count i committee moved that that with a positive recommendations if those are adapted they will remain in use at 18 months first a resolution calling for a comprehensive analyze olsz on the housing and production distribution and repair in the mission supported by supervisor

campos and reintroduction of diego rivera even though street park that concludes my report. >> there's a question. >> sure to the zoning administrator or staff arrest some dwelling units were approved administratively i went through a 101 class if this passes that super he had sedates all that or all mergers have to come here. >> all dwelling units will require authorization by the planning department and no accepted processes. >> okay. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners tim frye here with a quick historic preservation commission commission hearing percentage the architecture review committee met first to

review the design and provided comments on a sky bridge kicking market street to stevenson overall the sky bridge was well received and the community members supported the design as is with general staff recommends for when it goes to the full commission under this later in the sum summer the following commission met and professional an capitalization and new design for the civic center playground the commission implemented not only the trust for public planned launders but the rec and park but a sympathetic design important the plazas for the altercation environment the commission unanimous approved a

rehabilitation program for the conservativey flowers put i didn't say severely did he can't take down since the reconstruction due to the salt air and fog the rec and park spent a year testing the applications to present the decay and has come up with a cap that will not change the exterior appearance the conservatory and allow for easier maintenance for the put i didn't joint that was unanimously approved in addition to security cameras around the flowers and this will moved finally the court gave the commission an informational update on the land use plan there was a number of questions and it was a lively discussion but the court was open to

engaging the commission and have them at that particular time open an advisory committee to talk about the finger piers the sea level and seismic preparing for seismic events and updating the plan in consideration of the historic preservation commission over the 50 or hundred years so it sounds like this is the beginning the process for the port they'll coming back come and engage the process that concludes any comments unless you have questions. >> thank you. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further we can move on to item 8 for case no. at harrison street per your request this was brought before you for design review. >> good afternoon. i'm joined with david one of our staff arithmetic the project is a designer for 525 harrison street

on may 28th the planning look at the planning code for the proposed project open harrison street at the hearing the commission asked for additional information on the project history and development the diverse within a code compliant and the project proposed the project unbelievable and massing and the relationship to the adjacent freeway the project sponsor has provides water a presentation that concludes my presentation. and i'll i am sorry to the project sponsor thank you. >> commissioners cameron thank you for inviting us back for this i'm going to i'm going to turn it over to our architect walk you through this and steve

at land use our lawyer will talk about the justice department of the amendment i want to mention there were questions or comments about the ac transit about the proposed c0 traffic flow lane weave have discussions with them and our belief with additional work and study we can figure out how to accommodate them likely the corner the podium and the design it may require the reduction of that corner above grade to the tune of a loss of 5 but the c0 traffic flow lane the tip of the project and property we can workout that so i want to make that mention and i'm going to turn it over to my