link electronics, inc. model number: pdr-885 software version: 2.0a

link electronics, inc. model number: pdr-885 software version: 2.0a

they had a real forester now.

we have made so much progress, and to go back would now would really be a shame. i would like to throw out a couple of ideas for revenue because that is what this is all about. there certainly could be a box on the city's property tax bill that is voluntary for those of us who would like to check it off to support the tree program in the city. i think lots of people would sign up to do that. but it is not that easy to get that little box without political support, and that is where you come in. the second thing is the transfer tax, the real estate transfer tax. we require property owners at the time of sale, that data all kinds of the things for energy and water and their buildings. as dan pointed out, trees are a community benefit, and we should be requiring it. at that time, it does not mean a thing to spend $100 or $200 and

put that into the tree fund. i think there are ways that you can secure web and it and -- secure revenue and keep the program going. we are also a tourist city and how our city looks is critical for those who come here as well as those of us who visit here, and we cannot diminish our city in this way. nothing says poor neighborhood like a neighborhood with no trees. that is exactly what will happen if we defund the city's program, and for people will not be able to afford the maintenance of these trees, and the neighborhoods will suffer, and our whole city will suffer, so i urge you to find the funds to keep the tree program going. thank you very much. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker please. >> thank you for the opportunity

to speak and thank you very much for calling this hearing. i have spent a lot of time studying and getting involved with street trees over the years. i am the author of a book about the street trees of san francisco, so it's something i did a lot of attention to over the years. i understand the need for shared sacrifice, but there's something unique about the tree situation that makes it different from other areas. there has been a plan to cut nutrias in each of your neighborhoods. looking at the streets 20 or 25 years ago, they would look very different from the with a look now. we had two trends happening going exactly in the wrong direction. we've had great success of putting trees in the ground that are now becoming richer trees appeared at the same time, the city has been retracting in terms of its responsibility. i remember a couple of other

situations with the city has relinquished streets where it takes responsibility, and we just cannot continue that. i also noticed in the presentation, the appearance -- i do not think this was intentional, but the appearance was we were doing this on a tree by tree basis. i think what dtw -- dpw is going to be doing is a street by street basis, so you ought to ask for a map where streets are going to be maintained. if it is ocean avenue or gary boulevard, it makes a difference. we do have to have shared sacrifice, but what we do not need is a permanent change to the way we maintain trees in the city. we need to cut back in the parks department, we did not say we

should privatize procter amazon or selloff vix the park. we say we will cut back on gardner's here. what we're doing is a permanent change to the way that we are maintaining trees, and we will never get these trees back. we will never see them back. we all understand the need for shared sacrifice, but i think we all understand need to do something a little bit different here. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >> good morning, supervisors. i have lived in san francisco for 59 years. my main concern with the tree situation is whether the city is going to continue to cut down dangerous trees. obviously, the city has paid out millions of dollars, so obviously, everybody does not want that to happen again. i would like to put on the record to warn the city not to

cut back on its efforts or cut back dangerous trees. obviously, the city should not cut back on items like that. in my daly drives around tampa and tesco, i have noticed areas like sunset boulevard -- around san francisco, i have noticed areas around sunset boulevard is not as nice as it used to pay. driving around, i was wondering, am i in san francisco that i am familiar with, or are we having too many cutbacks? in my opinion, a lot of the trees that have been recently planted, especially in more affluent neighborhoods, were planted for more politically

expedient says, rather than beauty. near my own home, i warned my neighbors, when they started planting trees in front of our houses, it would not be before long when they had to update them. a lot of them ignored my advice and now they are discussing how they are going to come out to protest the fact that they have to do their own tree maintenance. i told them this is resembling the financial situation where goldman sachs issued millions in mortgage-backed securities and were betting that those same securities would default. anyways, this is a similar situation. city leaders emphasized the goodness of planting trees but in a certain sense, refused to,

or ignored the necessary requirement to maintain the trees for the next 30, 40 years. it is kind of like a road maintenance in san francisco. and when you have road, you have to do the maintenance. anything like a bond issue to slot off that maintenance is an issue. supervisor avalos: next speaker please. >> i am with friends of the urban forest. i have been with friends of the urban forest for 11 years now and i have never seen better staffing with the city and working toward our shared goals for the city. this is a move backwards. i will not repeat what others

have said, but we will see a lot of the legal pruning practices. the larger more significant trees we are losing at a pretty good clip these days. also, the time it would take 42 -- dpw staff to transfer ownership back to the property owner, we believe that we could are better spend the money on education programs, simple, great management. there is a question that i have related to the concrete around existing trees that will be relinquished. if there is damage to that country in taking out the tree, is also related to the cost? that is something that i would like to ask dpw. i think we will hear a lot from other speakers. >> thank you.

next speaker please. >> thank you for holding this hearing. from what i gather, it sounds like you and most of the people in the room are concerned about this issue. i am a longtime resident of the richmond district. i moved there over 50 years ago. i am also the co-founder and coordinated to local neighborhood beautification organizations. one works on graffiti in the richmond and another one called the grain and the geary planted over 30 trees on the geary boulevard median. i am here to ask you to please reconsider this issue of ending on the maintenance of trees to individuals from dpw. my work with dpw -- [inaudible]

especially as president's initial anticipate they have to take care of. the present dpw president said they must monitor trees that are currently owned by home owners. now they are proposing to increase the responsibility another 50%. i suspect if he did a cost- benefit analysis, it might be more expensive for dpw to start monitoring another 50% of the trees in the city as opposed to maintaining them. this is also a protective trust. when dpw planted many of these city trees -- and i know that this was the agreement reached on the above. they asked property owners for their permission to plan on their property on the condition that dpw would maintain the streets. suddenly, people will be hearing that that is not the case. i think that is terribly unfiar

and -- unfair and not good politics. i also do not know if you have read the lead editorial in "the san francisco chronicle" but it talks to exactly what we are arguments against now. i have also spoken to some of my constituents. they were not able to be here, so i would like to represent them. these are random samples of a lot of comments i have heard. the college professor from san francisco state university, outrageous. a richmond neighbor. we are going to lose a lot more trees in the richmond if this happens. a retiree from the sunset. the city could afford to donate tax breaks to larry ellison and twitter but cannot take care of its trees? from a real-estate agent in pacific heights.

there go the property values in san francisco. from a member of the san francisco chamber of commerce. dead trees should not be part of our image. thank you for your consideration. supervisor avalos: thank you for your comments. maria delostino. scott plaken. >> good morning, supervisors. i just want to point out something that has not been brought up here today. these trees are actually critical pieces of infrastructure, not just a public good. the benefits they provide, especially for storm water, is a huge mitigation for something this city has also addressed willingness to look at, climate

change. we are born to see more severe weather with climate change. with the amount of the purpose of services and a high amount of impervious services we have in the city, these trees are not just providing beauty and realistic value, which are incredibly important, but they are also important for severe weather. also as part of as -- part of greenhouse gas negations, the streets provide a sink. about 2% of our carbon footprint is offset every year by these trees. so a healthy forest is important for climate change mitigation and adopting to the adverse effects we will see in the future. supervisor avalos: thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. steve career. i am here as a property owner, but i want to qualify one thing.

i brought this up to our members a couple of months ago, that he would be holding this hearing. there was a resounding no way we wanted this to happen. i have been in my home for 18 years. i have planted four trees in that time. because of my position working with the city, i understand dpw rules. there are two trees in front of our house that we did not plant and even want to remove it. i filled out the paperwork, paid a fee, but my appeal was turned down. the appeal was overturned by one tree because it could've been damaged. i appealed again to the board of appeals. of course, they overturned dpw's

decision and asked me if i would plant three trees after removing two. this cost me over $1,000. i could have removed these two and it would have cost me less in fines than what i have done. i jumped through all the hoops. in those 18 years, we have maintained our trees. we have maintained them. in my neighborhood, over a dozen property owners have taken down trees illegally. dpw will not report it. i have no idea if these people were fined, if the property owner has a lien on their property. i know around the corner there was a home that was sold. two years ago i mentioned to dpw that their palm tree was there.

it is still there. if dpw is telling me i have to maintain my own trees, if i want to remove a tree that i do not like and replaced it, i do not know why i have to jump through all of their troops and pay thousands of dollars to plant two trees. i increased the tree canopy in my neighborhood, is not only my property. i think dpw owes the residents of san francisco who have maintained their trees. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker please. "dm my name is alan grossman. i'm here for the san francisco urban forest coalition. i think what is missing from this discussion is a premise to this proposal, which is that if

these trees are transferred back to the property owners, they will do a better job of maintaining and replacing them and dpw does. -- than dpw does. anyone who knows the history of street trees in this city knows that is not the case. as the person before me said, trees disappear all the time. i have personally reported 50 missing trees to dpw, and the holes are still there. so the enforcement issue is equivalent. i do think, though, that you need to think about this in a more global sense. in 1992, the trade advisory board wrote a report after studying the problem. i will read a few parts. in national