if we have to hold the appeal, is it because the permit was issued. the existing studio. the studio did not exist. >> i'm going in that direction. thank you. >> these people can do a lot better than this. that's what they need to do. the discussion i have with them today is that's the path they need to go. this is an older building. they want to remodel the units and bring them and modernize them and that's a good idea. we have a process for doing that. it's simple actually when you do it right, and you have respect for the people living in the building and people in the neighborhood. you get through your proper inspections and that's the indication i got from them today and it's the road and i will get on that road and other people in dbi ask as well. it's an older building. if they want to do it right, we're always there to help.

>> given that situation, at the last hearing, the confusion was, at least in my mind was rampant. given that, which you just described, and your recommendation, i would absolutely heed your recommendation to wipe the slate clean and start all over again. what was confusing, what is and give dbi to clarify exactly what so let's unit 2, let's make it

clear it was ambiguous and clearly there are flaws as you identified in other stuff and clearly a permit at some point, if they chose from that direction needs to be filed. a lot of stuff needs to be done and to quote you, thank you, very much. the property owners could have done a much better job, closed quote. with that, i will agree with you and i would recommend to my fellow commissioners that we find for the appeal anant on the grounds you stated it was improperly. can you stop hovering and sit down. can you sit down and please stop hovering, thank you, very much. we deny the -- we up hold the appeal on the grounds it was improperly issued. thank you. >> president fung: do you have a motion? >> so we have a motion from vice president swig to grant the

appeal and deny the permit on the basis, what i understand, the plans were flawed and the studio would require an a. d.u. >> v.p. swig: that the permit was improperly issued. i think it would suffice. >> on the basis the permit was improperly issued. >> president fung. >> president fung: aye. >> commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> the appeal is granted. permit is denied. we will now move on to appeal item number 6. this is appeal number 18-164 richard hall versus san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry. subject property is 2940 16th street. on december 7th, san francisco public works of a public works order approval of request to remove two street trees with replacement adjacent to the subject property. this is order number 200294 and

we will hear from mr. hall first. you have seven minutes, sir. >> thank you. basically, what i'm asking for you today as a minimum removal of the two trees in front of the historic red stone building these trees, we have offices in the building many, many other organizations and these trees shield us from the noise of the

street in the winter. they block the wind in the summer they help cool us and as notice wit, the building is four-storeys hall. they are huge trees that are of great benefit to this building and should not be removed willie nilly, ok. i'd also like to ask you to consider that these trees are just a small part, removal of these trees, are just a small part of sfmtas 22filmor project which they're now calling the 16th street improvement project. in order to improve our street, they're removing 61 mature trees along 16th street. i haven't gone and taken pictures of them or found them.

this should be reviewed in the full context of what sfmta is doing here and as far as i'm concerned, it's just a contractor and it isn't a and get sfmta into this room. they didn't even answer my sunshine request. basically i asked for your help. i don't know what flexibility you have but i do know that this is wrong and i also know that d.p.w. has a war on ficus trees

and recently i saw that the library residents were rallying to save the same kind of trees in front of the library. to takeaway such a valuable canopy of trees along 16th street needs to be well considered. not taking them out all at the same time. maybe five years take a few out, five years later take a few out. if many these trees can be trimmed, salvageable and safe. i just feel like i don't even understand the complete logic behind it. a, i think it's part of this

diluting of the dpw deforest station project but also, i want sfmta to answer why they want all these trees removed. i know they got buses. they got buses down there right now. is this to accommodate the two-storey google devices. why are they taking all these trees out? that is sort of it. i have three more minutes but i ask you to deny removal of these trees. and to consider what power you have to to get the full scope of these issues considered. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the department.

>> good evening, commissioners, chris san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry. regarding the two subject trees, they're very large and beautiful. they are absolutely large stature ficus trees. specifically, there's two reasons why we're out there evaluating these trees. both for the filmore22 street scape improvement project but also due to the implication of proposition e which we refer to as street tree sf. this is a grid map. 261 that brought our inspectors to the site to evaluate all the trees in this grid of blocks. so, it's both. it's both us doing routine

analysis of tree conditions but also about a year and a half ago, already, part of the -- when there's a street scape project, there's a number of them annually. there's ma sonic, public works, when there's going to be a lot of work in the public right-of-way, we node to evaluate the condition of the trees along that corridor so that all these work that is taking place doesn't occur in a vacuum where we don't actually look at the trees. we wouldn't want a project to come through and then say oh well, we didn't look at the trees. why are they falling down? what's happening? so that's one of the things that occurs when there's a project. whether it's a sewer replacement or with some other agencies leading an effort. but to go back to the trees themselves. street tree sf is the

implementation of proposition e. we're now staffing up and getting more equipment and our goal is to prune every street tree within a three to five year pruning cycle. part of that is to evaluate the condition of the trees. here say photo of the two subject trees. they're quite large. the larger the tree the greater the benefit and the more beautiful and inspiring and unfortunately both ficus trees have poor structure and they meet the tree removal criteria that the trees have competing co dominant leaders acute angles of attachment and they also have included bark. there is an sfmta. they have removed 10 or so trees

along 16th that we want to remove now. we don't want wait for the street scape project to occur. there are a number of trees we'll be posting for removal and there's more information about that. the estimate is that potentially 61 trees would be proposed for removal from church all the way east to mission bay on 16th. many of those are ficus trees. but specifically, tree number one is pictured here in the right. the backside of the tree has lost a large stem and this structure with these three stems join this way is prone to fail. here is the image taken from the street showing narrow points of attachment with included bark, areas within the tree that are prone to fail. the tree, years and years and years ago was topped by produced this poo poor structure. here is a close up.

this is the secondary structure. this is about 20 feet up. 25 feet up. each of these stems is almost a foot in diameter. they're really narrow point of attachment and it is a high-risk location within the tree that would fail. again, another example of weak attachment within the canopy. when we see the tree itself and its green and it's glossy and the health, the vigor of the foley age is fine but that's not what will hold the tree up. it's the structure. there are examples of previously failures within the trees. and then again the limb on the west side has had an injury over the road. the sidewalk is pretty wide. generally, sidewalk repair will just keep repairing the sidewalk. in this case it's not a problem for us. it's relatively routine for fake uficus to damage the sidewalk.

these are enormous trees. although they provide the greatest benefits, it pro sights us with thprovidesus with greatr safety. they have deep bark inclusions, when we see trees fail over and over again in the same locations we have a responsibility unfortunately to keep the public safe. here is a close up of that poor structure. this is a view of the front of the trunk from the street. again, looking up into the canopy as high as you can access visually there are other issues with the trees. they were topped many, many years ago and the branches that have regrown one of them failed. the image on the right shows these two essentially you had of a stub at one point and it sprouted back three branches. these branches are 30 feet tall. so the way we identify trees for

removal is we really go over the structure of the tree. when i see a big can pee, i have no idea that you have to get under the hood and look at how those individuals branches connect to each other. regarding replacement trees, tree number two closest to the corner is very close to a street light, just nine feet away from the street light. the species this large would require at least 21 feet. and it's wedged between the tree and the right and a tree out of view on the left. this is a site where we would remove this tree without replacement. we have a number of guidelines outlined in our director's order that regulates the planting and maintenance and removal of street trees so we have specific clearances we need from street lights. the only real concession, it's not a concession. i can offer this evening is instead of removing both trees in plant it with two trees,

there is room to plant an additional three trees. so removal of two with replacement of three as shown. again the tree close to the street light cannot be replanted. the other tree can be replanted and there's room for two additional trees. so we ask you to up hold the approval to remove both trees with replacement of a total of three trees. thank you. >> questions? >> what size tree are you talking about as a replacement and what species? >> the species is not set yet. so because of the street scape project, i've e-mailed our public works contact. so, i don't know the replacement species as of today and i apologize for that. we certainly would keep with the species that are settled upon by the community and that public outreach process. the size that we're planning to

replace would be 24-inch box. it's possible that street scape, sometimes they plant 36 box size trees for the project and that is something i will double check. at the moment, it would be 24-inch box size trees that would be a large size tree at maturity. >> i have a question, it looked, from the picture that you put up, that there were no trees on the other side of the street. >> correct. there are no trees across the street. there is a street scape plan to plan a lot more trees. it's not -- i'm not a project representative for that and i don't want to give you a big song and dance and glossy photos but there's going to be a lot of new trees planted. we have to check for underground basements and things like that. there's certainly a potential to get a lot more trees in the area. >> i have a question.

i mean, i don't envy your job because i know what a tree lover you are. in row sen recent cases we've hd appeals coming fourth regarding mass reduction of ficus trees. we just recently had one for 19 trees. it was mentioned at that hearing, had you been on the other side, we would ask why we don't want these trees to go away. but here, now, besides these three, you are mentioning that there's a potential of 61 trees being removed from our city. and i believe that last year our can pee is one of the lowest out of any metropolitan city. when you wholesale bulk remove that amount of foal age? >> we have a low canopy cover for sure. we didn't have a native forest. we're at a disadvantage. a lot of the cities in the west

don't have a native forest the way that chicago -- the trees just pop up out of the ground. there's native trees stock that naturally trees in those areas. we started from an urban environment. there's good and bad, right. these trees haven't been maintained regularly over the years. just like a lot of our trees and we the library they persuade the removal of the 19 trees. we didn't initiate that removal. but the street scape project is bringing us to the 16th street and we've got to look at the trees on that corridor.

just like van ness. if there's a lot of activity and a lot of work, are the trees in good enough condition to withstand all that. it gives us an opportunity to remove trees that are very poor structure and replace them. in this case, the street scape would fund the replacement trees and we currently don't have funding to plant replacement trees. so, in a roundabout away of trying to answer that, do we have an urban forest plan? we've identified ficus trees for removal over a number of years. it feels like lately we've had a bigger bump in that and octavia is one that will come up 24th street in the mission. it will be -- we'll be here a lot and it's going to be difficult. >> taking from your own book and to put you on the spot, if we're seeing a lot more of these trees removals, i want to have a little more information. taking one from your book, is that how long is it going to take our con owe pee to ge canoo

help our environment. >> absolutely. >> just one thing to add to that is that for sure, i mentioned at a previously hearing we have a full-time public information officer now and we are -- where we initiate a lot of ficus tree removals, we will schedule a public meeting. it's a common courtesy to start that process with as much information as possible. >> roughly how old are these and what would their expected life expectancy be? >> sure. you know how much i a i am challenged by age. these trees, they could be 35, 45-years-old. a lot of ficus were planted in the early '70s. it could be late '60s.

the urban environment say moving target. big cyprus tree in the middle of the park has a better chance. i would say life expectancy moving forward on these is -- we're impressed they haven't failed, right. that's our takeaway as well. we're evaluating these trees for the first time ever. and a look at the problems it's our takeaway. so i couldn't give you how much more they have left. we wouldn't want to risk that. >> i'm just -- i still remember 75 howard when we took out those ficus on that block. >> president fung: who is funding 16 street scape plan? i believe mta funds the street scape plan or they're the project lead. we have public works, landscape works and project managers that work with them so they know

those answers. but this is a project that's being led by the mta. again, in parallel with that is our implementation of street tree sf so we've been looking at these trees for a while as our own bureau with what are we going to do with these trees? so, i would say that both, we've been dealing with both projects simultaneously and there's internally been a little bit of, who wants to be the lead on this tree removal. >> president fung: so, if they're funding it then they would be responsible for the replacement? >> in this particular case, we're going to initiate the removal of these two trees separate from the project. the public works would cover the removal cost. and we're hoping to then ask them for the funds to plant replacement trees. >> but is your review part of a

regular review or based on a request from m.t.a.? >> so, both are occurring. we reviewed it as part of the project and after that we also had a routine inspection. we looked at these trees a year and a half ago. proposed to move along the entire corridor and we said ok, this is what is occurring out here we're looking at maybe 61 trees. that process takes a long time. things sit. there's a number of community meetings that occur on other parts of the project. but during all that time, it brought our team out for routine inspection so these two trees, there's a few trees on 16th where we're not waiting for the street scape project to move forward, we're just initiating the removal on our own because

we don't want to wait. >> since you are not certain about the source of funding for the replacement trees, does that jeopardize them being replaced as soon as possible? >> no. we would prioritize the replacement of the trees in the location. we have limited funding for planting. where we have funding from another course we would certainly tap into that. but 16th street trees of this size, we heard from the community. i wondered what goes in there. now i found out. it was a very loud and unanimous and about the loss of the con owe pee. we're going to make sure the trees are replanted. it's three trees adjacent to the building. >> rough timetable? if you were able to cult these

down next monday, how soon after would the replacement be? >> our urban forestry ordinance the code allows us six months. we would do that in a much shorter turn around time. i've been saying three months. i feel like it gives us a little bit of wiggle room. it's challenging any time you roll out big equipment on 16th street. >> thank you to commissioner lazarus for setting me up for a further question. you know, i hate to break it to you but dpw has a lousy reputation according to testimony at the very least we heard two weeks ago on replacing trees and there was testimony two weeks ago that i can't remember the location but the same and i'm not doubting your

intent. i'm not doubting your words that they would be replaced in six months. and, also, what is confusing for me is that you just double spoke on me. did you say your funding is coming from m.t.a.? >> funding to remove the trees would not come from the m.t.a. for these two trees? >> but you then said we have no money to replant trees? we have no funds to replant trees. i heard you say that. >> correct. so it is public record and we totally agree. it's a martha raddatz o public . it's amazing one positive thing that happened on that date two years ago.

it went threw with no money for new trees. i assumed it was going to include replacement trees and we wanted the public to know we're committed to maintaining existing trees. it's not a matter of will right now. we've put in a number of grants for a million dollars here and a million dollars there to get the money for planting. the planting will come. we don't have funding currently. >> did you hear that i was going to win the lottery next week? i heard a rumor. >> the feedback is, we're aware of the problem of the replacements and i have said to our team, we're implementing proposition a. we knew we were going to come across removals. it's not a good time to not have the funding to plant replacement trees. to me it feels like there's so many other issues to focus on than the replacement. that's should be the easy part. i take your feedback and that's

a big problem we're trying to workout. >> here it goes, so i have a question for you. so, we believe you. all right. and i'm not saying that i believe you, but we believe the structure of these trees is bad and we believe that these pose a danger and we believe that as professionals, your guidance is correct. we deny the appeal and we believe you that you are going to up holhold the law and replat the trees in six months. and then six months goes by and we drive by that street and it's as naked as the day is long. how do trust d.p.w.? how do we hold d.p.w. accountable because this is

judicial body, as you know. how do we hold d.p.w. accountable for keeping the truth? and replanting. without proof today, because you are telling me that you have no money. >> sure. it's a great question. so 16th street -- >> it's a concerning question. >> it's a major transit corridor. we're not going to allow site conditions to be out there where people will be tripping. we just can't do that. it's going to mean making decisions about other sites. there may be sites in other parts of the city that are quiet and they're not at the corner of 16th and mission. so we're going to prioritize replacements as necessary. and we are just being honest about the funding. i do want to clarify, it's not the will, it's just the money is not there. >> i understand. i totally understand.

>> the other question leading to that is, what seems to be a pattern of behavior is we're going to do this. we promise you that. we know you are upset constituency who is protesting. we understand the upset neighborhood about the deforestation but we promise we'll get these trees in in six months and it's just a well-intended bald face law. why should we approve -- i'm not doubting that what you are saying and i'm not calling you a liar, all right. why should we know a pattern of behavior that hasn't reached fruition of replanting and tied into that, is there a way which you can mitigate the situation.

that is to do a significant pruning or otherwise of the trees in the meantime and then when you have funding, pull the trees and know that you are going to replace them with 24 or 36-inch boxes? >> so, regarding the -- there have been recent cases. there was one 1801filmor removal of trees. there were two that weren't replanted yet. we committed to replanting those trees in a short-turned time. we are living up to the obligations. there's a lot of cases that don't make it to board of appeals. on church street, the middle school there, we avoided board of appeals because we committed to the community to plant replacements within three months

or less. we worked with the supervisors' office and we made that happen. there's a lot of success stories that, unfortunately, aren't brought up before you. we are planting replacement trees. are we doing all of them? no. and when we remove trees and it's high-profile, murphy's law, do we have some replacement tree issues out there? yep. public works would never lie. >> v.p. swig: i'm not saying that you are lying. you are unfortunate victims of bureaucracy and wishful thinking. >> we've never come at any of our hearings to say whether a public works hearing or board of appeals to say we're going to do this and not deliver on that. a lot of the trees that people are complaining about are trees that never part of a hearing and so i think going back, regarding

mitigation, it would certainly make things a lot easier if we can plant replacement trees. we do have funding. i mean i don't want to go into specifics. we have funding to plant some replacement trees. where we're getting hammered by the public is well, you haven't replanted all of them. certainly anything that comes to the board avenue peels will be a priority. the question is how do we really know? we don't want to hear back that these don't get replanted. we're going to prioritize cases that have come both at a public works hearing and board of appeals. so that's what we're going to do. >> v.p. swig: final question, i hate to do this to you, but there's a bun of of people in this room who are upset at the situation so i'm trying to figure out a way to send them off pissed off at least with some hope. if in deed we go in that direction. what surety, how can you return

to the people in the back of the room and what surety can you give them that if we find in favor of your recommendation, what surety can you give them that in fact that you are not blowing smoke, innocently. and they will have tree replacement this is a maximum of six months? >> sure. the first thing i will do is confirm with the street scape team if we can use funds for those planned replacements for these trees. if they say no, then we're going to find the money and do it. or ordinance requires replacement trees be planted within six months of removal. if we hold a property owner to that we need to up hold and follow it ourselves. i think the greatest reassurance

i can provide to the public and to you as a commission, is how much we really don't want to come back and have the lack of replacement be any part of the narrative. it really is that simple. i mean, it just would be self-sabotaging of the department if that's what it is. >> v.p. swig: do you think it would be a good idea for us to kick the can a little bit and postpone a finding on this to request that you come back here with paperwork that says, we got the money and we're going to do it? >> we can make -- we can plant, replace the trees on 16th street at this location. we absolutely can. we have the funding to do that. we'll do it within six months. we're fully committed to that. >> president fung: or is there another option. >> v.p. swig: you know where i'm going with this. >> we still have public comment. >> v.p. swig: yeah, i

understand. thank you, sir. i appreciate it. >> is there any public comment on this item? if you are here for public comment, i would appreciate it if you lineup against the wall or move forward so we can move the process along. please make sure, after you are done speaking, to give gary a speaker card. thank you. [ please stand by ]

>> -- and the functions that they serve, i think that we really need to either have you guys postpone this until they can come back and work with the

community and really give us with some guidelines of what they're actually going to do or to have you guys specify the size of tree and the method of which the -- they get planted. thank you. >> good evening. peter papadopolous with mission economic agency. and i also work with some spaces in this building as a volunteer including a small theater, and i have a tiny office in the building, as well. these are obviously critical trees to our building, and i think as acknowledged, there's been a loud and unanimous response to the idea of removing them. and maybe they do and don't have specific pressing health issues. i'm still unclear after the presentation, but certain things that we do know, this was flagged as part of the 16th

street project that's going forward -- or maybe it's going forward. it was done by any kind of out reach. it's another red lanes project as another main core of this project. the mission street core project was devastating to the community, and this project has mass objection for obvious reasons. the tree removal plan just sounds so far fetched. to remove 61 trees while you dig up this corridor and put in red lanes. the opposition is widespread from district ten through district nine is going to bring forward a lot of points about how this needs to go through a community process, everything from trees to do we really need red lanes here, if so, what is the function? how are we taking care of businesses this time around? what about the cultural change?

we saw an enormous cultural shift in terms of what happened when you turned mission street as someone called it a bus super highway from a family shopping corridor. these kind of trees, to go back to them specifically, are a huge part of the presence of this building. everyone acknowledged it. supervisor safai expressed concern when he saw they were being chopped down. and you all are having a little bit of concern is is there funding for this, and is there something to replace it? we'd like to maintain the shading, maintain the windbreaking that it does. so for all these reasons, you can send a message that in terms of process, if this can be brought back to some kind of clear process, that it's been funded, that the community's

been checked in with. this is no small thing. this is going to change this corridor a lot as part of this whole large-scale transit project that they have planned. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is lucia obregon. i'm not going to bore you with the benefits of having mature trees in the neighborhood, but each year, one tree produces enough oxygen for ten people, and trees also help reduce the stress of the residents around it. and you can imagine in the mission, a neighborhood constantly in threat of displacement, how beneficial this is, in terms of stress. to ask to cut down 61 trees is a threat to life. it's not a coincidence that all

61 trees that they want to be removed are all along the corridor, which where the red lanes are being planted -- being built. this is about an eco system that these trees are being part of, that the mission is constantly being disrupted without input from the community? and what i'm asking of you is to be an ally to this community and hold this process of cutting down these trees. and no, i'm not asking you to cut down these trees based on their condition, but i'm asking you to hold this process until the sfmta considers an equitiable process and the community can be taken into account, and they can decide what transit measures they can take for the community. thank you. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: next speaker,

please. >> good evening. kelly hill with united to save the mission. i just wanted to say thank you to mr. buck. he's always been very receptive when we've contacted him in the past. i think we need to look at this further. the socioeconomic exacts of this red line -- impacts of this red line coming down 16th street. they haven't engaged in community out reach to see what these impacts are going to be. mission street has suffered greatly. these types of improvement projects actually only exacerbate displacement, gentrification. these are issues that are hugely in the forefront of our

community. as great as prop e, for years, the city did not maintain the trees. it was up to property owners, and now, finally, we're going to get that. it's hard to look back and catch up on that, but now, it seems a little bit too late, and we don't want to see these trees prematurely taken down. i do appreciate commissioner swig's comments of maintenance or something coming back. i think a 36-inch tree is too small. something like a five-foot box, we have to be looking at issue of tree replacement, 61 trees, and what that's going to do to a neighborhood. recently, the m.t.a. was at a neighborhood committee meeting, and supervisor safai was concerned about the lack of

outreach that the removal of 61 trees in two different districts was going to have on the community. i think we need to delay this a little bit more come, and come up with an idea that's going to work. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. is there any other public comment? okay. seeing none, we'll move onto rebuttal. mr. hough? you have three minutes, sir. >> thank you. i think you've heard from the community, and mr. buck seems to be separating these projects from -- these two trees from the other 61 and prioritizing. maybe because you know -- he knows who's in that building and the push back, and wants to isolate it to these two trees, and that should not be allowed. these two trees are part of this project. it needs to be considered as a whole.

the idea of trimming -- and i saw a lot of pictures, branchs, etc., you know? and i'm sure there's a lot of branchs -- they could take some weight off the thing until they have a plan for the whole corridor. if you allow these trees to be removed, you must require at least four or five-foot box tree reason installed, not a 24 or a 36. it just is not enough to replace these trees. so you know, i ask you to do what you can, but i really think, you know, a full hearing with sfmta on this whole issue,

and don't allow these trees to be cut down on the real issue, which is the culture of 16th street and the outreach and what sfmta is doing. that's it. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. mr. buck? >> good evening, commissioners. chris buck, san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry. i heard the feedback loud and clear about replacement trees. covered a lot of groupnd on that. no one wants to remove the tree. like, i don't go to this site thinking that is going to be fun. well look at the trees as arborists themselves. we look at the trees themselves. they're ficus. how do they fail?

they split apart at the main stem. i've got so many different examples. sherman elementary, we've got four, i think we can keep three. one of them fails, and it injures a parent. we're not creating work for ourselves. that's not what this is about, and i jokingly say i used to believe in conspiracy theories until i started working for the city. there are two things going on here. for sure, there's this m.t.a. streetscape project. no one denies that. we also, as the bureau of urban forestry have the duty to maintain 135,000 street trees. i apologize, but there's going to be two things going on at the same time. now, will there be a community meeting? yes. we haven't posted these 61 trees for removal. i need to let the project people lead the project and do

that. we'll be in touch with them for sure. they'll be outreach to the community, and then, we'll put notices on the trees. and the moment we put notices on the trees, i personally had no idea. everything that i've heard this evening is sort of news to me, and the acrimony between the building and the project. i wasn't excited to hear that, but it is what it is. it's unfortunate, the timing, but i do want to assure everyone we have two things going on simultaneously. we're not going to serialize the removals out on 16th street. there's just no benefit to that. i will pretty on the project team to make sure they're doing their out reach and have a

community meeting, that notices go up on the trees just so there's more public information. that's all i have to say. >> commissioner honda: i have a question, mr. buck. out of the 61 trees, are these the three worst trees out of all 61? how did these particular trees get selected because being a long time san franciscan, 64th and 16th street are the pinnacle of that corridor --

and i can see what's coming, but we need to move forward on the removals. >> commissioner honda: no, so the question was are these the -- these the three worst or two worst trees out of the 61 proposed? >> for sure, these are some of the worst, and the others we posted, similarly, we didn't want to wait around for it. >> so did you apply for the others or just these two so far. >> we applied for the removal of ten to 12. etc. he on family leave right now, bonding with his kid, so i don't have the number in front of me, unfortunately, but there are a number that we need we're initiating the removal now. >> commissioner honda: is he -- but is this the first two out of these ten? that's what i'm trying to get to, why these two out of the 61 that were in that project?

>> the project itself, i don't control the pace of that project -- >> commissioner honda: you're not answering my question, mr. buck. >> well, i'm trying. so we walk the site. there's 61 potential removals. separate from that, i'm the urban forester. i manage the trees in san francisco. i've got ten to 12 ficus -- >> commissioner honda: so the question is are these the first two trees? >> these are about ten to 12 ficus that we've posted for removal. >> commissioner honda: is this the first two out of the ten trees. >> numerical, i don't understand how that plays into the listing. >> in the words of yogi berra,

this is deja vu all over again. two weeks ago, we were here. we introduced you to each other. we said we understand your point of view, but you have a lot of really open issues here that the public is owed a plan, the public is owed clarity, the public is owed every opportunity for you all to get to introduce each other, get together in a meeting room and come up with a more formal plan. what i'm seeing the deja vu piece is m.t.a.'s over here doing your streetscape. you're going i've got these trees over here that are going to go boom and fall down and kill somebody. i don't doubt that, and you want to move forward -- and i heard your pledge, you said

replace them in six months. but let's say you put redwood trees in there, right? and then, the m.t.a. in their wisdom said, you know, our designers say that japanese maple, another bad choice, is the right thing, but we just replaced these with redwood trees seven years ago when we were actually anticipating that next year, you were actually going to do this project -- i'm saying sarcastically. >> sure. >> so is there -- and this really bugs me because there is no plan, there is no coordination between yourselves and m.t.a. not your fault, it's m.t.a. who's lagging, and you are at risk of taking some action that's going to miss off some people. you are taking action to

replace some trees in six months by your pledge, but they may be the wrong trees, and they may be out of context with the original plan, which is going to open up another can of worms. so i'm going to go back to -- and this is what bugs me. this is dysfunction city, department dysfunction at its worst. and i'm not blaming you, but looking at m.t.a. about this, but worried because this is going to fall on your shoulders and cause you a big problem. may i ask you, regardless of your pledge that you were going to replace these trees in six months, but in consideration of my concern that you're going to replace them with something completely different, is there a way to mitigate the situation, mitigate the danger by surgically applying a measure to these trees to

postpone their demise, really, with the idea that it becomes part of the general plan and you're not redoing work. >> our department wants to address the public safety that these trees present. if the board or commission seeks to continue the item to get additional reassurances, i'd prefer to have that -- >> vice president swig: you're not answering my question. it's a yes or no question. is there a way to sustain these trees in their position until there is more clarity of the project and surgically adjust them so to mitigate some risk of health endangerment at this

point, yes or no? >> there is, but public works isn't going to be willing to do that. we'd prefer to continue the item and provide any additional information that the public will need to facilitate replacement. it's a huge undertaking. it's going to be double the cost. >> president fung: let me interrupt a little bit. >> vice president swig: sure. you can take it. >> president fung: and perhaps look at it from the point of view of a similar situation, different department. quite a while before there was a heavy rash of residential demolitions, but no excitement. so now, it's standard practice

for both building and planning, if you have a demolition permit, it's held in abeyance pending the full entitlement of a replacement. i mean, isn't that something could be done here, pending, whether it's the entitlement of an overall plan or whether it's funding? >> the condition of removing the trees would be absolutely committed to replacement if public works doesn't have the funding to replace the trees, don't remove them. it's additional language that could be expressed so the message is clear and strong. >> president fung: and hopefully, as you're saying,

the time could be relatively short. >> commissioner lazarus: i have a couple other questions. >> president fung: no, go ahead. i was just trying to see if there was another way of dealing with this. >> commissioner lazarus: so i just wanted to clarify. there was a hearing on this in late october, right? >> correct. >> commissioner lazarus: and what's the outreach in terms of notifying people of that hearing? >> so we -- our ordinance require that we post 30-day notices on proposed -- trees that are proposed for removal, so that's what we do. and i -- what's interesting is this is where i think sometimes i ask for people to be understanding. i don't keep track of every project in the city. 125,000 street trees, sometimes we go out and we walk into a hornet's nest, and i don't do that intentionally. i hear some confusion from the public, like, it's just too planned.