we are always trying to reduce whenever we can but we have we know there are some situations when we need these tools. there's no other alternative. i'm not sure i covered all your questions. >> thank you >> commissioner moore >> as a management plan and as a programmatically eir it is worth our while to get numbers. we have a lot of people talk about mount davidson, mcclaren park and 8032 areas which comprise about 2300 acres we need to look at the management area within the larger acreage of those 32 sites. we need to look at the existing trees and the numbers of trees which will be affected over a 20 year time frame. that's a very

[inaudible] approaches are most like doing structural engineering but not doing the whole structure in one day. so this is perhaps very simplistic and i.e. intentionally kept the one size which is a special discussion out of the thing.of which at the end of 20 years about 3450 would be removed. that means about all this linear mathematics. nothing else. in means about 174 four trees per year over the entire area of 32 areas. it's not going to be like picking 10 trees out of those 20 areas but if you break it down and unfortunately don't have any

flow charts or graphics with particularly layout of the zine over time. i think people would feel significantly more comfortable because the management areas of invasive trees within the larger park acreage of those parks where it occurs are far far [inaudible] smaller parks they're not affected at all. see you can read across on the summary charts and it does not look haphazard or finger in the wind at all. it looks like a very scientific-like a very deep we studied piece of work and the question is, there's a leap of faith and there is trust. since whenever you move into scientist doing these kinds of things, it gets quite difficult because i have to at least speak for myself, i am [inaudible] in listening but i'm inexperienced in fully getting to the depths of all findings.

it's the best and most honest way about to describe my expertise here. i'm quite quite capable of putting one to one together. i can use enough judgment to judge on an eir and i believe that what is in front of us has all the substance of what is necessary to support the plan and again i'm bracketing out one area which is too complex and particularly because it's not joining the larger city proper it's in san mateo, further away. in light of that, if you have to create a cover exhibition for all areas with an equal level of attention, i believe that is been achieved. if, over time or six-month updates could be developed if, over time there would be illustrations of where interventions would be, to what extent in what particular areas of the park you could put on a

screen would be able to see if that would be wonderful. >> commercial trademark water minus were focusing on the eir. >> i'm trying to figure out i do believe as i said and i preface my comment would also maybe it's a leap of faith and i think it's ultimately building trust. this type of an undertaking and we are plenty of added up evidence of people being concerned about what would happen. where they live or what is the history of their being in owns. all it means i think in order for this particular eir to really be as effective as it needs to be we need to at least be allowed to raise those kinds of questions because we need to bridge what we decide today the next 20 years when this is going to happen. so that are my comments on it. >> thank you. it appears there's no further comments. call the question >> no further comment commissioners this emotion that has been seconded to approve - excuse me - me environmental

impact report on a motion commissioner hillis aye johnson aye koppel aye mell other skype muscat richards aye fong got so moved that motion passes 6-1 with commissioner moore voting against. i leave it to the recreation department >> we could ask use the planning commission if they want to run. i don't know how long we have a lot of questions ? a lot of them have been asked. let me start with commissioner-should we proceed and with commissioner low. >> just a follow-up on commissioner moore's statement it staff can also confirm the calculation on the trees. were not clearing trees. how many-we've heard 18,000 days, 3400 trees. can staff comment on the forest management?

>> commissioner, i can start and if anybody else wants to kind of jump in. commissioner moore was corrected enough to look at this in different sides and i think mount davidson was the product of much discussion today. so let me just kind of flip up there if i can find it quickly. at mount davidson, the proposal calls for a total of 1600 trees over a 20 year period. 9400 of them would remain. that is-that is what the plan would also be allow. other specific sites that came up. i think glen canyon if i can find it. glen canyon, 5880 trees. the plan discusses the removal over a 20 year period

of 120. i do one or we emphasize the 121 the planting >> that was my next question. can i-we are not removing them >> correct. >> we are doing a one-to-one removal >> removing and replacing and doing a lot of other good habitat. removing mature trees and planting trees that need to grow but you've heard a lot a lot of land management agencies [inaudible] the presidio needs to be regional parks. just to name a few. there is aging and it he spoke from his expense [inaudible] there's not a land management agency that is an actively manage and maintain its urban forest. it's critical. >> weathers opportunity, would we be looking to 42-21 replacement? >> the urban speed forced to counsel recommended a more

aggressive approach but i think the plan says 121 which is the minimum we would do. it's also resource dependent and some of it is i think has some depends on the environmental conditions of a particular site but overall the departments-we operate with a-there's a stock called annette tree game which is looking at the trees removed versus the number of trees added in our system and i think over the last few years we are around 1.8 so we're averaging more trees planted then removed. i would like to tell you that we could get to three 21. i think more trees are better so we continue to plants. >> commissioners? do you have a question. go ahead. >>_to speak to [inaudible]. >>_to speak to [inaudible] >> i am just going to speak to >> i agree. the planning

commission asked the pertinent questions that you get down to it is the [inaudible] is not a golf course about when it's a habitat plan and we have looked at it as requiring greater focus sooner which is a better thing. so i think that is a positive move and i think the number of trees actually if i use the calculation on mount davidson over a 20 year period, keeping a mind that we don't even have funding for this at this point, it's less than 1% per year. so that is just a framework for it and i would go back to a comment made earlier. this document, which is had in a norma's amount of work and enormous amount of staff time, and now in the environment will impact report is the framework to get give guidance. this doesn't mean tomorrow there's going to be chainsaws out clearcutting don't davidson or any other part of the city. so with that i would entertain a motion. >> i like to move to have this approved based on the

resolution that materials. i do agree this was the very thoughtful document, conference of, well founded on scientific evidence. scientists and disrepute maybe like lawyers can disagree. it was a very thoughtful document and i would like to commend staff and staff before staff, and the hard work they did to put this together. >> is there a second >> second. >> moved and seconded. before i asked for a roll call about i do want to thank everybody that showed up today because i think it showed and a norma's amount of interest and i share the comment that how proud we are that san francisco takes this old sears. with that could you call roll call >> commissioner anderson fuck aye bonilla in favor, harrison aye low yes and