>> yeah. i have a few questions maybe for the property owner if you want to come up i have a question for you. >> it's a big tree presumably has extensive roots what are the roots doing are they damaging the house or property in any way. >> well, nothing grows underneath the tree and the branches fall off all the time it is severely hanging over into the next lot a messy tree i prefer to plant trees appropriate to the lot which are flowering or natural stuff as opposed to something that is totally just inappropriate and the roots and the sewer system and it's the wrong tree in the

wrong place that's you know, i planted hundred of trees my family was part of nature and i just wanted to get moved in. >> thank you. i appreciate our comments i certainly sthim intents having had large trees in front of any house they were put in and were fine but after 60 or 70 years the roots were taking over the sidewalk and the lawns and branches falling almost on the house fortunately i got them out of this and put in appropriate trees not to inappropriate heights that's part of the argument and the other question for staff they

dping said there were eight or ten landmarked trees on private property i forgot the number. >> yeah. from the department of investment 8 on private property and how many of those in the backyard. >> all 8 of them. >> they have in the back so this is in a persistent he setting. >> no there was one landmarked in the backyard. >> and i have i'd like to speak to the representative from the urban forestry council i have questions i understand there is one here i guess it is rose high on a hill it calls to me son i thought it was someone else. >> oh yeah tell you are sorry sorry. >> i'm from the department of the environment and the urban forestry council. >> if we were to forward this on to your council what sort of factors are going to be used to

evaluate whether or not this tree to be preserved. >> all the criteria which is on the packet in your report in the packet there are 5 overall crazy it is a r5ir9 and physical characteristics and historic association, culture association important to people for kids as a garden for example and physical environmental benefits that the tree provides. >> you also evaluated environmental disadvantages of trees that are invasive that's a reason not to approve i suspect. >> potential none of the trees have to exhibit all the criteria one of the trees f on roses street is the only surviving

species of specimen so her tree was landmarked because it is the only one left it may not have met other criteria it didn't require the tree to meet outline criteria. >> just looking at bodies both sides of the issue good and bad. >> of course >> thank you for the benefit of the public it is important you know i know they may discolor things we hadn't heard yet i'm not sure it is a rare tree and you know i'm not insuring sure whether or not that will be landmarked i'm concerned if we pass it is on to another group we allows our ability to say yes or no i'll make my decision today whether

or not the tree should stay i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i like the process i'm not an arborist and i'm not here to discuss that i will ask a quick question is this for the process for the citywide or the planning commission. >> this is the planning commission first nomination. >> other nominations from other - >> yeah. the department heads or other agencies. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> following up on commissioner johnson planning commission in the last six or eight years has strongly supported the process that would help with landmarking trees and it is feinstein come around with the institutional responsibility being for the department of the environment and the forest council it is open space as well

as streetscape and greening question i think protecting trees is very much in line with that policy for clarification to the owner in washgdz are rear yard there are no sewers that are impacted by the trees and the public right-of-way lateral lines come to the footprint of the house a that's number one and number 2 those types of trees are vertical tap roots that don't spread lateral and no impact on the foundation, etc. somewhat minimize not to say the forest department will determine the physical housing as one of the criteria in anyone's interest to have trees that topple in case of winds or earthquakes i'm in sponge support we're supporting it but

not responsible for making the final decision. >> commissioner hillis and so i'm okay moving on there is a process that is oneself much more detail on the tree and evaluating the tree it is a question for the department of environment has there been trees nominated where you recommended no landmarking. >> yes. overall since the process is codified we've had 43 nominates and 13 were ultimately landmarked. >> it is a fairly robust process. >> thresholds. >> that's good to know and in the future it would be great and this is not necessarily for you but anothers planning commission didn't have expertise on trees we need are more information we know it is a nice big tree and part of complex of historic buildings but if we're going to

nominate a tree kind of nominating a historic building to become a hyphenating process we normally know a lot more about the building we don't it necessarily but it would be nice to have a robust analysis of the tree i understand before we launch into the nomination i recognize there is more to come but a threshold information we don't quite have here i'm okay to move to the next step. >> commissioner richards. >> i think commissioner antonini's point there was no process we spelling your last name for the record with how those things should be 47b8 we have a process and we're not the experts clearly i have why'd whether there's a threshold i'm voting yes on this today not landmark but to determine whether or not it is a landmark

tree. >> so the follow-up question for ever tree that wants to be considered for landmarking why is this the first time. >> it's the first time commissioners because sxhvks requested it to be that was brought to the planning commission and the historic preservation commission and the planning directors attention through the applicant so a member of the public may file out the form and apply for ethics commission so the planning commission as one of the bodies that can initiate the nomination. >> so if we took no actions today, the applicant schizophrenia still go through the department of environment and apply for the nomination. >> to what have to be a body that nominates. >> there's on a few.

>> the nominations can only come through a property owner or from the agency or a commission agency or this board of supervisors so from the nomination didn't precede through the commission today not to my knowledge there's not another vehicle being considered. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. really compliant compliant the commission commissioner richards for bringing this up we don't ultimate have the authority, however you know i'm not necessarily believer that an older bigger tree is more better than a smaller tree i realize the standard is fairly high i've seen quite a few of the discussions we've had to alter projects to try to save trees rather than putting in smaller

trees in a dense environment like ours especially on stats students although this is a backyard often the trees that are smaller less invasive and everyone is concerned of sun we hear people protesting shadows the shadows from trees don't count we have to look at things from both sides of the question. >> commissioner richards. >> that makes to clarify from commissioner president fong this was basically a stay of execution in the 11th hour i didn't dream up the fact i realized we were allowed to do this until the neighborhood sent me the paperwork if we don't nominate this tree today it will be cutdown down we should give the tree a chance and the high threshold it a big tree there

was demons of a staff report that hundred some years ago the first house planned this tree and staff recommends approval give it a chance. >> thank you. i'll ask the project sponsor prrp /* property owner and it's not necessarily the case but just think that if there was your property and some neighbor says hey, i like this flower or whatever, whatever and gets somebody to nominate and goes through the process the government is supposed to protect our rights of private property first and foremost before the constitution so i guess vote, however this is your tree in our backyard and

openly up a can of worms there are hundred if not thousands of properties in the city and has to be a payment to the owners for taking up their property i don't know how many hundred and billiards. >> commissioner richards. >> if i took the property owner said i in my fancy schizophrenia buy the ferry building and blow is it up just because this a tree didn't make it different landmarks happy in buildings and trees informs various reason the city attorney said during the process he'll have his legal rights the city will let us know that we know that the city is not going to try - you'll have a

successful lawsuit. >> for me there there's a little bit of difficulty in at backyard if in the front yard of shared space i understand but a tree of significant history a gift if someone attached to a historic building i think so but i think this is in someone's backyard is there a motion and a second. >> on the motion to adapt a resolution. >> commissioner antonini no commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu no and commissioner president fong no that motion pass 4 to 3 with commissioner antonini commissioner wu and other voting against this is item 6 for the rules and regulations this is a consideration of the amendments

from potential adaptation if you recall some time go on february 5th commissioner president fong appointed commissioner johnson are commissioner moore and commissioner richards to went from a committee they've held committee hearings and come back with proposed amendments and commissioner moore hoa's as chair of the committee wants to present. >> commissioner moore. >> we had 5 successful meeting buses a number of issues we discussed and tabled now on the table are 6 recommends and one deferral for future discussion with the body that particular issue is submittal from the guidelines and in the wind and how we had a number of members from the public repeatedly join our meeting and spoke about that issue again and again we didn't

feel comfortable to make a recommendation and we request this be discussed with the commission added large we decided to bring forward the recommendations are item number 2 if you're following on your printout the order of speakers the current rules and regulations stipulate that the proponents be second the amendment will eliminate the 5 order of speakers for the case and subsection d recognizing the current factors the committee voted to forward it with the recommendation to adopt by a vote of 3 to zero the third item following on the list is actions items we were struggling that the action gets longer and longer, however as the length increases we losing

the ability to prioritize committee considered ways how items on the action list can be best addressed the action item list will be added on the agenda quarterly or as often as needed so we prioritization could occur based on the agenda items in the timeframes the commission will be able to prioritize and direct the departments on april if the subcommittee forwarded the proposal by a vote of 2 to zero commissioner johnson was a little bit but absent but in checking with her we believe that she is in support. >> item 4 election process the committee recognized the rules and regulations for the election

of commission offices in order to guide the process the city attorney good government guide and i quote first the presiding officer take public comment and the presiding officer requests nomination for the office from the member of the body no second is required under the robert rule of order and no additional nomination are offered the presiding officer closes the nomination and the commission votes on the nomination in the order they were received the first candidate is elected to the office this particular point was braigd brought forward from commissioners particular on those who were on the commission didn't feel there was enough clarity why when this particular item comes forwards is there

what it looks like is prepared slate of offices without further decision the commission may not vote by secret ballot they must be discussed pubically to have a note recognizing the alternating between the mayoral and appointees that's been an undocumented practice but agreed on practice but i think it clearly addresses the diversity and the proper order of switching the positions we voted on this item two to zero commissioner johnson at that particular meeting was absent the issue the directors swaegs evaluation we discussed the committee recognized that

only commission offices that currently has the performance in closed session was suggested to allow the commissioners all commissioners to be part of the evaluation process and their appropriately considered in closed session and this was again, a 2 to zero vote we voted on this at a day in which commissioner johnson was absent commissioner secretary position we envisioned the process of reviewing the potentially adding to the review and comment to commission secretary, however it become apparent this guess an issue of hms not in our jurisdiction we tabled this issue lastly we had questions about standing committees we discussed there were a need for standing committees

example the historic preservation commission has one and the arts commission does, etc. or whether the existing ad hoc method was appropriate the current rules and regulations under article 3 states that the president should precede at all meetings of the commission and shall appoint all committees and chairs and all the duties necessary to the office committee members agreed that is sufficient of our experience clearly day as to total openness to the committee and for those who want to take on the extra work we decided not to forward that item to all of you this may be a moment to thank the entire subcommittee and i will ask that both the commissioner richards and commissioner johnson weigh in on

what i summarized. >> commissioner johnson. >> all right. thank you very much thank you commissioner moore and commissioner richards for taking extra time we've spent a lot of time in the planning commission and commissioner moore thank you for chairing i appreciate that one i'll make a couple of quick comments we met 5 times so we discussed all of the issues added length at each meeting and took a vote office of the city administrator at one meeting i think i was late not absent but in any case the fact percentage a couple of votes 2 to zero doesn't mean i wasn't participating in the conversation in the hearing just a couple of things i definitely agree with the sentiments that was about the decisions of i'll put in my $0.02 on a couple of things the

nomination process is sufficient the fact we have an inner formal process but an informal history of having the chair and vice chair want and vice president switch places every year is to me if bother me it can change in people have angle issue i don't think we need to adjust our nomination process to fix that etch has an open vote for the point and vice chair process of people sort of stepping up and showing interest works quite frankly i support some of the sentiments around the direct evaluation something i've been here one year but i haven't seen that proposals play itself out but similar issues with not having a really clear process about being able to evaluate the executive

director and obviously supporting i think commissioner president fong has done a fantastic job in listening to the commission when we want an ad hoc committee this process works great i also support i know that commissioner moore said we passed along on the topic of commission meeting materials and hue their and i assembled how we're shift as things become electronic and timelines are faster how to make sure it is equal for everyone that is a larger discussions we're prepared to have at the subcommittee level. >> commissioner richards and i'm existing we're here it is 4 lesson months to get this to the commission 6 months it seems and couple of things regarding the nomination of officers i think that the note

that was going to be put in there was a practice not one way or the other i'm for changing the words it didn't have to be that way whoever is qualified a lot of this is pretty common sense and good government and lot for transparent to the public especially the nomination to have public comment takeoff not done in the past i like the ability to a participant in the directors evaluation there this is fantastic the standing committee seems like it is working and the point is open to creating a committee and hopefully, we've delivered something that the commission can support i imagination there's oath one. >> actually, one of the things we've heard over and over again, we feel constrained in having

discussion we have have a cross talk one the quarter on the action item whether or not the officers prioritize is at a 340e we can review that and make comments that's the appropriate place to start talking about what type of policy we want to set, if any, the first big step the commission go ahead and adapts the 5 recommendations and robustly talk about the recommendations we'll recommend 6 recommendations. >> commissioner hillis. >> i want to clarify recommendation number one we're voting on? no back to discussion okay. that's important and i think because all of us interpret the guidelines differently i know that they come up with the eir this is

good but we get the rules clear so people know what to submit that's great i'm in general agreement with the rest of the recommendations only thing that is odd is that note that you mentioned about kind of altering the memorial appointees since i've been on the commission we've had board appointees and mayoral commissioner president fong has served two terms so i think that is happened noted past ron miguel served as two terms boutiquely not the practice just noting it we should make is it the rule or take it out i would be for taking is it out i think we've done a good job of alternating and locating the president and vice president and

so it is a little bit wish i didn't wash i didn't we continue the best practices and hopefully, the future commission can do it also >> commissioner moore. >> on that particular item i could go either way i'd like to let the commission have that i'm in agreement amongst themselves it is we remembered ourselves we have a reasonable section that doesn't have to be in there it makes it more like a lay then something we all agree on and to the action item list i want the director and department to weigh in on that discussion when that it come forward we're creating the action items someone in the department will go into to work on something some things are shorter and we're starting to

manage the workflow we need to might have to have manpower allocation so it cuts both ways but we'd like our feedback on that. >> commissioner richards. >> on the rotation of officers it is an established practices i would take it out as well. >> commissioner wu. >> so i see some of the sentiments i think voting on the speakers and check on the action lists the roushts rules of order and the closed session for the directors performance i agree that we should probably omit the sentence about the cultural of the commission i want to clarify on the hearing

submittal guidelines are we voting today to say we're creating something called the guidelines is that distinct from the other guidelines you have to help me. >> the plan submittal guidelines. >> yes. >> it was as opposed to be a distinct and separate. >> i was told that. >> that's correct. >> there's a decision who to create the submittal guidelines and talk later what goes into that it was included if the packet of the proposed language. >> it was. >> it was a clarifying document. >> so then basically what was documented today is current practices if we choose to take an action to create the hearing guideline. >> that's correct. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah on the issue of whether or not to keep in the action th