this is a project that involves the entire city august 6th gives the project sponsor times for modification i'll move to continue until august 6th. >> commissioner hillis. >> director. >> i think i want to confirm that we have a full commission in the august meeting. >> august 6th we expect a few commission we do yeah. >> i wanted to you will miss the two first two meetings in august obviously i'm not a voting person on the commission. >> if the commission votes to continue to august 6th i'll ask that staff revolved in mission 2020 be present i don't know if those speakers. >> commissioner richards. >> i'd like the director to be

present i really would. >> jonas the september 2nd is full. >> the september we'll close that hearing yeah. >> it is what. >> on september 3rd 5 m is heard. >> the joint. >> they're both on the same calendar. >> the tenth. >> that's correct. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'd like to have the director here if we do august 6th for today, we can continue it later if we feel there is not enough input and a lot of those things can be resolved by outlooks not necessarily here in staff and everyone works on the challenges i'm city in favor of the 6 weight see where we go from there. >> there is a motion and a

second august 6th commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner moore. >> commissioner richards. >> no and commissioner wu. >> no. >> okay. that motion actually passes under a procedural matter. >> 3 to 2 this matter will be calendar for august 6th. >> commissioners just for the benefit of the public in our selves item 12 a on grand view discretionary review that matter has been withdrawn zoning administrator will hear the variance matter once you adjourn our hearing if those people departing the chambers can do so quietly we have other matters to take care of.

>> commissioner our consent calendar. >> i would actually like to resend my vote in support of august 3rd and vote against the island to actually vote no. >> call the question again. >> that's happened before i have the same rights. >> we have to through the chair reopen the item and then take a new vote. >> okay. >> let's do that. >> through the chair. >> commissioners we'll return to the consideration of item proposed for continuance items ab for the case and cu a at brooirnt street which is proposed until july 2nd

we had a there is a motion and a second commissioner moore wants to resend her vote. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, you know i'm fine we're going to vote first on this again and see if we have enough votes. >> so - on that motion to continue to suggest r august 6th commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore no. >> commissioner richards marry no arrest commissioner wu. >> that fails 3 to 2. >> commissioner antonini. >> the best to continue to september 10th for this item, item one ab second. >> commissioner richards. >> second. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further on that motion to september 10th commissioner antonini.

>> commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner richards and commissioner wu. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes the new date is september 10th. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further on items one ab we can move on to the consent calendar consent calendar and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. you have one item under consent cu a at rhode island street conditional use authorization i have no speaker cards. >> is there any public comment

on item 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini. >> move to approve. >> second. >> on that motion to approve commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner richards and commissioner wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and we'll place you under consideration of draft minutes for june 4th. >> any public comment on draft minutes. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini. >> move to approve the draft minutes of thursday june 4th. >> second. >> on that motion commissioners to adopt the minutes from june 4th. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner hillis and

commissioner wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and places you on item four commissioner questions or comments. >> commissioner richards i don't know if folks have seen the news that our beloved brian was a bought by staushz is out of business it is a shame i think that here we had a 18 thousand chain location when they boy scout bought it how are they going to run 18 locates i guess my worse fears were realized also hershey buying a company and smith i know in my catalyst confirmation hearing the board mentioned the accusation by good faith hershey

bought it to put it out of business and the same for stashing it upsets me. >> commissioner antonini. >> a great article in the chronicle i think the opinion we get what we deserve if we have violence and fidget and graffiti it is because we binge it on ourselves this is a good article only one man's opinion he basically feels that nike talked about a tagger costing the city over 5 thousand dollars a year and it should be considered a felony he racked it is possible that the justice can diminish the penalty and dismiss the accused you know if this is the

case is makes no sense i'm not saying that is accurate, however, we need to have our laws comborsdz and have everyone involved in the process to follow those laws so i think that you know when you see the garbage around our city much of which is graffiti the costs everybody a lot of money, money that could be used for housing and everybody comes up here and tells us the things we need this is miss spent on vandal lynching a good article in today's chronicle. >> commissioner hillis. >> just a question for the zoning administrator the director on the issue that commissioner richards 3wr5ub9d up in starbuck's wants to convert those retail can we do that without coming back here for a cu. >> in all cases they'll need a

land use authorization where many locations were approved while it was not a formula retail use so also secondly starbuck's has more locates than lobby launch. >> so if they went through the cu process. >> it is seen - >> that's what i thought i remember debating that when we have the formula retail use. >> commissioner moore. >> i hope that the mayor's office is going to carefully track what is happening with the small business with a lot of benefits throughout the neighboring neighborhood to let them hang high and dry is devastating for everybody in the neighborhood but this is actually, only as commissioner richards i want to

briefly mentioned i'm returning from an international conference that was held no europe on the postindustrial region i felt i was the speaker and spoke about the restructuring the san francisco was respect to all the things including the eastern neighborhoods rezoning and we've done since the thinking acceptance of mission bay that preceded that without going into the details of what was discussed the things respect inform affordable housing and pdr displacement and threat to small businesses in europe as large as they are here and where it might surprise i say protection and techniques being used are quite different from ours but the lively discussion about the common ground with the problems how to find solutions

that are overarching the broader issues of national boundary what is interesting to follow the worldwide discussions on the abuse of uber's as they are basically being deemed illegal in france and germany they continue despite the law didn't allow them they created a task force to track them down with people in plain clothing i think the challenge to figure out how to deal with that and what we do and shouldn't do but i'll fwuf more updates. >> thank you. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further we can move on to to item 5 this is as request from commissioner richards to

agendize consideration for the landmark invitation of a tree a new item before the planning commission we've not done this before, however, the public works code identifies one the commissions that can nominate there's a draft resolution before you that would nominate this tree for landmarking personnel from the department of the environment is hear for questions essential go to the urban foresty council to follow up on the tree itself and also enclosed is a letter from the director of public works mohammed nuru identifying this action to the property owner the

property owner was notified by e-mail as the requesters on monday, i building there's a representative from that representing the property owner who is interested in requesting a continuance based on a short notice of that action so - >> okay seeing this is a new item would it make sense to hear a presentation from the sf environment first. >> this was calendar by commissioner richards so sort of championing this. >> this was a stay of execution we got a urgent communication from the community and they looked like they've approached supervisor farrell's office and directed to me personally i don't quite understand the process to be honest but looked the documentation a member can

calendar this i was trying to stay the execution of the tree an additional tree that was cutdown down similar size so the tree is in danger waiting for the process to catch up i want to understand the process and the request for continuance and you know i'm not sure you know, i feel comfortable as a planning commissioners to deal with trees but i'll - my switzerland was for the stay of the execution of the tree. >> maybe we'll hear about the process. >> we'll do that and take public comment. >> good afternoon thanks for hearing this item i'm not urban forest corridor the lark tree seeks to identify and preserve the trees in the city trees are evaluated on a set of

5 criteria it include physical tribute and environmental benefits and historic association and the cultural association the process is that we get a nomination from one out of 5 paid attention this commission is one of the sources we've not gotten a nomination from to source before the historic preservation commission has not given us a nomination it comes from the board of supervisors or the property owners that own the subject tree we got a couple of nomination from the departments trees are protected at different stages in the process depending on who nominates the tree so commissioner richards concern if the planning commission board of supervisors or historic

preservation commission passed the resolution nominating the tree for the starting of the process it should be protected and can't be removed until either the urban forestry finds the tree not worthy or a clock of 2 hundred and 15 days from the tree is nominated by the property owner the tree has no protection it takes a minimum 2 to 3 months to evaluate the tree for the urban forestry process and so if the trees nominated by the department head the tree might not be there throughout the process put on the table for a concern so the way the process is going the urban forestry members go to the site onsite evaluation and hold a series of public hearing and the university council makes a determination on whether or

not the tree meets enough of the criteria well enough for a landmark status if the tree is not worthy it can't be nominated again for 3 years the tree is no longer protected from the council finds the tree is worthy of landmark they'll send a packet to the board of supervisors along with the resolution urging the board of supervisors to pass an ordinance landmarking the tree ultimate all trees are landmarked through the board of supervisors. >> >> thank you. >> so let's take public comment now. >> good morning if i'm nerves bear with me, i'm dale rogers

i'm a homeowner and family living in the san francisco veteran stoeth i pay taxed one of my neighbors have landmarked a tree on my property for landmark status my request it is on a fluke i'm here because small business called supervisor mark farrell's office from the planning commission i believe and wanted to know the status and basically, it is like does the landowner know what's going on the answer is no by a fluke i'm checking my guacamole - i would have an e-mail and the public works sent

an e-mail got sent on saturday i don't know who in public works works on saturday so it seems like something is ram rotated through i would ask this is private property so i have 3 requests one dismiss the process even though it is a broad scope of things two at minimum grant a contingency so i can get documents or whatever it going on if nothing that is a shock to me and so second would be if they don't dismiss a continuance third a continuance then no matter what i need copies of whatever the nomination so on and so forth so thank you.

>> is there any additional public comment. >> public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, i agree with the property owner that in flagrance it is sort of you know came up all of a sudden and the paperwork here that i read through briefly i don't think tells me howled the tree is it is possible that trees can grow quickly my own property had a colorado blue spruce planted thirty years ago it is at all in the last few years so got to be careful with you plant in any case a lot of the landmarking the age may have a banners on wherever h what we need to know what the plans of the property owners are for the backyard and the kind of damage from the

trees roots those are important things we need to know and nobody is prepared to answer the questions today i'll support a continuance of this item for a few weeks and get those answers we'll see what commissioner hillis has to say. >> i support a continuance we to want to put the property owner at a disadvantageous i'm looking at the packet there is an entry for this address the george smith that they've planned any trees in 1870 i'm not sure how old the tree is unless it's a safety hazy don't want to dismiss it but get the process to fought for the best answer to see whether or not in the landmark tree. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm comfortable with a

continuance i hope the landowner is proud of that historic tree, however something that was not aware of it is not appropriate see i don't understand who nominated the tree whether or not that person is here how their seams to building a question of how it can be nominated first place. >> just to be clear what we'll do a nominating it has not been nominated at this point the power of the commission to nominate and the power of the urban forestry council so decide on this. >> if i may i think the woman from the council can speak to this your action would protect the tree in the interim nominating it today protects it in the interim until the research is done not dissimilar

from r from what we do so it self-nominating a tree didn't say speaking out designate is it. >> i don't see any reason why we wouldn't do that and the outcome is not determined by reaching out and initiating a research i'll be prepared to do that that is not disrespect to the owner itself but basically a process that runs alongside not interference with property informational and i'm prepared to do that. >> if i may just so you know there's a letter in our packet from the director of the department of public works that actually already put in an emergency order the tree can't be removed without a permit that tree stays it is effective. >> well, we had that once before on other project you all

remember which one i'm talking about it does and doesn't. >> commissioner richards. >> i guess the question to the prove or disprove can you come up please. so in the packet i see there needs used to be two trees and now just one isn't that correct. >> did you cut one down or strip one. >> oh a page tree i took down. >> was this tree that causes you concerns for life safety issues. >> the wrong tree in the wrong place i've been thinking about this for a while this is not you know i've been struggling with this myself in those this is not like i'm trying to ploy down

whatever. >> so would you object to us having the experts looked at the tree to see whether or not this is eligible. >> i don't know what the experts. >> the intent arborists. >> this i prefer this is way out of the normal process and even i'm sorry so - >> this is. >> okay. >> so anyways those are the 3 things and i'll be happy with whatever you guys you all have a job to do i have a job to do. >> okay. >> take off time from work and all kinds of things you're all professionals it is pretty clear. >> the interesting thing i look at the two pictures this one picture has two pine trees this one so two. >> i have nothing you have more

information. >> did you cut one of the trees down. >> i can't see the trees i'll take into account. >> those materials are available on the website as a link in the agenda for in item. >> there were forwarded, sir with the e-mail. >> and the reason why i did what i did the person that asked me to put this on the agenda i see the picture there is one tree. >> this lot had a tree. >> sir you'll have to speak into the microphone. >> in this lot i had a tree cut which was a palm tree their showing. >> two different pine trees. >> two different lots.

>> do you own all 3 lots. >> i own them. >> did i remove them. >> i'm going to go ahead and nominate the tree for landmark status and let the stay of execution stay. >> you're making a nomination. >> i have nothing apparently i would like a continuance. >> then you can i have nothing. >> sir, i building your request for continuance was heard by the commissions there is a motion and a second to nominate the tree today. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. probably not going to be supportive because by nominating it today it plies says we as a commission we are recommending looishg landmarking this is not up to us i haven't

heard the age of the tree or dangle that may come from the tree on the property i mean, i need for information before i'm going to vote for landmarking a tree or send it. >> nominating it plies we're supportive of the preservation of the tree i don't think milestone my questions have been answered of what value the tree has we need more time for those answers. >> i believe from this action then the urban forestry council has approximately hundred and 20 days to make a determination if this is something that can be landmarked they'll forward on to the full board and the full board will ultimately make a decision whether or not this is a landmark tree. >> within that hundred and 20 days the tree is not protected. >> so right now the tree is already protected because of the

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