lazarus' suggestion to move this thing forward a couple of weeks so you can do your research, so you can get a clean picture of what is going on, and then make a finding accordingly? >> you can do that. i can go out there and see what is going on. the permit that is under appea appeal -- we would need that work covered on a subsequent permit. >> on top of that, that permit that we are talking about, that work has been exceeded, on top of that there is stuff that has not been -- that has been -- there are other things that you have cited that stuff has been put up an proper inspections

have not been made. it has gotten hairy and dirty. why not blow the whole thing up and start all over again? or, why don't we give you some time to figure it all out, and come back with a suggestion on how to best either blow it up, or move forward with some conditions? >> that is fine by me. might not make the permit holder happy. >> the permit holder made the mistakes. >> i know. as i said, just reading this today reads bad. i did speak to some of this earlier in the year, i didn't even know there was a stop work order. that would not be unusual. i can certainly go out there and get a grasp of where they at. >> don't feel bad, the permit holder exceeded his balance, that is clear. the permit holder should be held accountable for exceeding the boundary while we are talking about accountability, let's get the whole project cleaned up so that the appellant can be happy.

which is the whole point of his ability to appeal in the first place. >> the one thing that i heard was from the tenant, he filed the appeal because 821 .-dot mention on the permit. there was another permit for 819, 823, 827, which that is out of the permit that got issued in january wary. that wasn't appealed. there was complaints filed. the reason he filed the appeal was because of 821 mentioned on it. >> that can also be cleaned up if this permit was denied and then reissued without 821 being in the overall permit. >> may that is the way to go with it. if they're happy to take 821 out until they resolve their issues. they can always come back into the kitchen and bath remodel permit for 821 later.

they can uphold that permit and take 821 out of it. let d.b.i. monitor the inspections and make sure that the notice of violation is adhered to. >> i would like to hear with the other commissioners think now that i have stirred the pot a little bit. >> i started as well by reading out the violations. the attorney said has nothing to do with it, and i think it does. i think it's on the road to getting there. i just don't know if it's there yet, that's all. >> do you know tonight the permit that is trying to address the nov, if that includes the five units, not 821, or the other five? we don't know the scope of that permit that is going to be issued. >> exactly. if we could encompass all of the work onto that one permit we could revoked out all over. >> thank you.

>> commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> i don't subscribe to blowing this permit up, because there was an nov and they have properly gone in and asked for a permit to correct. i think those need to be kept separate. there are other issues that are muddying this, as i suggest, i would prefer to continue this and allow inspector duffy to go out there and look at the various permits and figure out what is going on and then report back to us so we can take informed action. >> i agree. i would prefer to keep this permit within the pervy of this board. if it does go forward, we have the ability to condition it, so it at least makes the appellant feel more comfortable going forward rather than having a new process and then having to renegotiate this again. how long are you thinking madam vice president? >> also, to make it really cle clear, obviously none of us have

been out there to see work done, or not done, while this permit is suspended. if we move forward and continue this, and this permit stays suspended, mr. contractor, don't you dare lift a hammer. i mean, you've got to respect the law. >> the question would be to inspector duffy what a likely timeline be for him? two weeks? >> i mean, we would have to put it on october 16. i'm hoping some cases will move off because it's very busy, that calendar. hopefully the matter would be resolved at the beginning of the calendar. is that fine, october 16? >> i don't mind going until midnight, it's all good. >> for the parties does october 16 work? >> counselor. october 16? awesome. >> okay. we have a motion?

>> i move to continue the item to october 16 to allow the department of building inspection to visit the property and report on the various projects and permits area. >> we have a motion from vice president lazarus to continue this matter to october 16 so d.b.i. has an opportunity to visit the property and report back to the board on the situation out there. on that motion; [role call] that motion carries 5-0. >> we will take a break. how long do you want to take? five minutes. >> welcome back to the meeting of the board of appeals. we are now on items 7 a and b,

appeal no. 18-135. deetje boler vs. san francisco public works, bureau of urban forestry appealing the issuance on september 27, 2018, to the san francisco public library, of a public works order. approval of request to remove with replacement 19 ficus street trees along the grove street and hyde street frontages of the subject property; replacement trees shall be a minimum 24-inch box size and the species shall be red maple or a cultivar of that species; of the nine trees to be removed on hyde street, the tree spacing from the utilities and street furniture will reduce the number of replacement trees from nine to six. order no. no. 188456. on january 23, 2019, the board voted 5-0 to continue these appeals to give the parties opportunity to work together to develop a detailed plan that incorporates the following:

(1) an assessment of the options for planting the three additional trees (that could not be replaced on hyde street), (2) the feasibility of moving the bus shelter located on hyde street between fulton and grove streets, (3) an update on the plan for the civic center commons and how that design would impact the plan for the trees at issue, (4) a plan for phasing in the removal and replacement of the trees and the impact it will have on the environment and community, (5) an assessment of the options for the species of the replacement trees, and (6) the effect of the existing electric poles and underground vaults on the plan. as a preliminary matter, commissioner santicana, did you review the materials? >> yes, i have. >> thank you. so we will hear -- i understand, mr. buck, did you want to present the plan? each of the parties has three minutes. so are you going to speak for ms. bullar as well?

>> ms. bullar could not join us due to health issues. ms. trainer who has been with us all through the process is going to read her statement. if i may, i know this is a little bit of latitude from the normal process, but i would like to ask that you sent all of us back to work together. and i want to say we actually did that. so -- >> okay. wonderful. i just want to know in terms of the time requirements. so do you want to take six minutes or three minutes each? >> why don't we let betty read the statement first and then we'll -- >> okay. >> should we run the clock for six minutes, let her speak, and you come up? >> thank you very much. my name is betty trainer and i'm reading the statement of the appellant, deetje boler.

good evening. i am requesting that this board reject this application for the following reasons. 1. these trees are too valuable to be lost. they are important for the library's environment. their effects are irreplaceable. they are an asset to the neighborhood. the neighborhood is soon to be expanded with a residential tower kitty-corner from the trees. 2. it would be wasteful of this asset which would take years to replace. it's hard to consider how a city department would consider such a thing. 3. the consideration to space removals of nine trees leaves it too vague as to when and does not guarantee adequate time for new trees to grow before another

tree is removed. it would better meet the expectations of the committee to request permits for each tree separately. we are trying to retain as many trees as possible to increase the city's canopy, which is poor. 5. the public would be shocked, as it has been at other severe removals, should these trees be removed. the time would be better devoted to planting new trees, rather than removing them, particularly well-established and healthy ones, like these 30-year trees that provide air, wind break, and bird homes. 6 the 2017 every tree survey reports that these 19 trees are no danger and says they need routine pruning but not removal. 7. the trees need to be properly pruned.

presumably it is known how to do this, so let's do it. this wouldn't have been such a challenge had the library taken care of them. the residents voted to turn the responsibility for the trees over to the city. and suddenly there are all these trees to take care. whether there is adequate staffing and funding to plant as many trees as possible, as well as taking proper care of those already standing. the large number of protested tree removals that have resulted in this new arrangement signify a problem. as to the library's water wasteful way of cleaning the sidewalks, surely the

facility -- >> okay, ms. trainer, you're beyond three minutes. do you want to come up or for her to take your time? >> many people signed a petition. copies of their comments were provided to you. as the library is very sensitive to bad publicity, as it is not far-fetched to think that they might be willing to support withdrawal of this application in favor of gradually dealing with one or two trees at a time, if removal still seems necessary. there was a great removal of the old olive trees of each corner of city center plaza. the poor things have shallow roots. that was the end of them and the green groves. let us not add to the pile of dead trees. in conclusion, the simple fact is that we need all the trees possible for many reasons. we need to plant new trees.

we do not need to up root and throw away any trees. proper pruning is what is necessary. trees are living beings and we are human beings should recognize that fact and cherish them. they are too valuable to be disposed of. rachael gordon is quoted in 2018, the city never wants to remove a tree unless it is absolutely necessary for public safety. one has to ask whether d.p.w. always holds to this sense when people protest removals that are proposed. some of the removals turn out to be ruled unnecessary. perhaps the department needs to include the word absolutely in their proposals. last but least, keeping these trees will keep the birds in them.

>> from the demonstration gardens, we started from a similar perspective, and i wanted to read our recommendations that we started with before we entered into such detailed work with the library and the bureau of urban forestry. we wanted to remove no healthy trees due to the tree emergency -- >> you have 30 seconds. >> prune and improve drainage to keep -- this is not possible. i can't present our plan in -- >> why don't you tell us what your proposal is. you have time in rebuttal. >> there's no rebuttal. but i understand the library wants to cede their time. >> yes, we would do that if it's acceptable. >> since we're talking about this for 30 seconds, maybe we

can add 30 seconds. since there were two appeals, the library would have six minutes. >> that should give us enough time. so we -- we didn't want to remove any trees at all that are healthy. we wanted to improve drainage to keep as many as possible. we wanted to create an offset grove before removing any trees to demonstrate positive will in the right direction. we wanted to remove the bus shelter if the bus stop should stay. we wanted to modify lighting as needed to improve visibility, work with the petitioners, the 3500 people who signed the petition to keep the trees to create a stewardship program. and overall reduce trauma wherever possible by a gradual approach, no stumps, increase green wherever we can, and replace any lost trees with

evergreens, such as redwoods or lindens. so we did research that issue as requested, and found that those trees were meant to be evergreens. so we started from a position similar to ms. boler's and by working together we have addressed many of those problems. could i have the laptop. so we've come up with a working draft tree management plan together. this is a view of the ficus from the main entrance. we've got from looking at it as individual trees to a grove. we've gone from being adversaries to becoming a working group. we've gone from working with problems, lots of different

problems, to treating the situation as one of creative opportunities, problems such as perception of safety on the one side from the library and on the other that we should never remove any trees for any reason. we've moved into a different zone with this. we've moved from looking at 19 individual street trees to thinking of this as a grove, as a unified place, and as a place with an opportunity for people to work together. so that's what i'd like to report about our process. we are -- we have the steps we propose to move towards this are, first, demonstrate commitment from the library to ongoing green space. that means that we're going to

expand the planted areas before any removal is done and maintain work to maintain the existing trees. when we're going to work to engage a community of petitioners by building out a community steward program with internal library resources and community partnerships. we have the really significant problem that two of our three neighborhood parks are closed for renovation. so we've all agreed that until those parks are reopened, which is a matter of six or eight months we think, we won't remove any trees. we don't want to stop people. after they open and steps one and two are done, we will work to gradually remove no more than nine, instead of all of them, no

more than nine after careful assessment. tonight, mr. bucklet looked again at a tree that is troubled and he thought that it could be -- we could save that tree as well. also, in terms of the species replacement, we're going to replace any removed trees with -- we're going to go for an evergreen species that opens the canopy and allows for more visibility while maintaining the ficus trees and maintaining visibility. here is a diagram of how we expect to work. i hope it's readable. it maps out on hyde and grove street the maintenance area for taking care of the existing grove and the several areas that

the library is committed to start right away building new planting areas on fulton street and right over the entrance to brooks hall. then we want to explore together with public works and bars, there are triangles of land that we may be able to cultivate with sheet mulching. we also are showing areas where the trees will be replaced. the sixth-floor patio is a very good candidate for more greening as well. so in terms of demonstrating commitment by setting up the these -- okay. >> 30 seconds. >> 30 seconds.

okay. i further outline the steps in more detail, but basically what we're asking tonight is that we modify this permit to support the space, the approach that the working group that see developed. we want to permit no trees be removed until the park is open. we want to have the interim stewardship -- [ bell rings ]. >> thank you. mr. buck. >> can i just ask one question of the library -- representative from the library just for the record. you're in agreement with everything that was represented on behalf of the library? >> yes, members. thank you for having us. i'm the director of facilities for the library system.

i'm ready to answer your questions. >> i just want to confirm that everything that was presented, that you affirm and that you are on board with as presented by the previous speaker. >> yes, and thank you very much for your suggestion to work with the community. it has been very fruitful. >> thank you. it has been very informative. >> you go. >> good evening, commissioners. chris buck, bureau of urban forestry, san francisco public works. i want to thank the library for hosting the meetings that we've been having this year and both the appellants. so what does this all mean? we started out with the proposal. the library removed 19 ficus trees. we approved the removal of those

trees. we now reduced that to eight trees. so we would remove eight trees, keep 11, and prune the remaining trees that remain. i have a few slides. we wanted to be able to be specific. the parties tonight are going to ask for a recommendation this evening with a little bit of latitude, but showing that all parties are in agreement. so this is the hyde street frontage. tree 1 and 2 would remain and be removed. trees 4, 5 would be removed without replacement because they're too close to the bus shelter and the streetlight. the bus shelter and not going to be removed. the last diagram is on the far left, the ninth tree on hyde street frontage. it would be removal of four with we placement of one.

around the corner on grove, we'd be looking at the removal of four trees with replacement with six. so tree one on the far right would remain and be pruned. trees two, three, and four would be removed and replaced. tree five would be pruned. tree six is floating here between two basins that have been paved over. we've checked the utilities. both sites are replantable. so these two sites will be replanted. and our group is talking about replanting before removal is initiated. this tree in the middle or near the middle, second from the right, was not looking good many months ago. it looks much different today. i don't have the photo, but it's smaller with better structure. now that it's actually leafing out, we can live with this tree. we went from nine removals to

eight. we believe that this tree, now that it's filled out, can be worked with. the tree on the far left would be removed and replaced. what does that mean? so overall, we'd move the settlement would be not removal of 19 but removal of eight trees with replacement of seven. five would be replaced as is. two would be sites that are paved over and now would be replanted. the library is committed to planting 36-inch box replacement trees. public works can fund the removal of the ficus trees. there are a number of of other moving pieces, but at its core the commission is going to ask to make a decision on this permit itself. i think some of the other commitments, we would commit to not initiating removal until both the park and recs and the tender are completed. that may be six to eight months

out. we have an internal agreement with that. i don't know if that's something you need to condition. essentially this evening we're coming forward to say the compromise is substantial. the preference of the appellants is no tree removal. we hear that loud and clearly. in this particular case we have funding secured for replacement. we're scaling back the removals. even the removals that we do act on we would scale back until after those conditions are met as outlined by the appellants. so i think that's -- i just wanted to summarize where we are and figure out if there's a way we can get language towards a resolution. so i'm here to answer any questions. >> thank you. it's not perfect as we said. i would like to see a zero tree

removal as well, but thank goodness because i wasn't really happy with the first proposal, evidently, as i believe several other commissioners. thank you for all the time and effort spent with the public and with the department and with the library. very appreciated. >> thank you. i just want to thank the library and both appellants for working and creating this group. >> i have a question. again, i confirm what my fellow commissioners said. it does pretty remarkable that you were able to do this and detail and all, it's great. one thing i found curious, there was one tree that was supposed to be removed and as you said it recovered. are there any lessons about the trees or is this a one-off? >> yes and no. it's very difficult. we can't interview the trees to tell us. but the obvious thing that comes to mind is 24th street, there's a lot of ficus trees that went

the way of the doo-doo and didn't come back. so if this tree had deep bark inclusions, i would want to remove it. but in this case it's a smaller ficus and has wider unions comparatively. if we're phasing in all of these other removals, we have a facility manager and people on staff who are there, we're going to be monitoring the tree. but it is true. there are idiosyncrasies out there and we're looking at that. now, primarily our issue with ficus is not the decline. it's the structure. sometimes when you see that decline, it just adds. because again, before ten years ago, i never saw a dead or a declining ficus. >> that would be my question.

sorry to interrupt. that tree and fairly -- it's been there for quite a while. what would cause something like that. if you look at the other trees, it looks like someone poisoned this one. is that typical? >> it's hard to say. ten years ago there were no issues with ficus and in the last ten years we've been seeing a lot of decline. there's the city canker that's been identified in southern california. this showed symptoms of that, but not exactly. it's a little -- i wish i could put my finger on it. >> is it people from southern california coming up? >> we've been watching every month or two when we met, we were noting that it was leafing back out and it took so long that now we're like, let's keep it. >> thank you. >> i would echo the could you

t -- kudos to yourself and everyone involved. the effort to clear the library steps so there would be less water. i think safety issues were also a concern. i'm assuming you covered those in this plan, but if you could address those issues. >> one of the open-ended items we're asking your latitude with is replacement species. we haven't pinned down the exact species. red maple had been suggested earlier on because it's a species that can sit in ponds and it does fine. with the amount of water that's used to clean the library frontage, the public right of way daily, we are in the process of just double-checking these replacement species if it's in its native habitat, riparian.

so we're in the final process of th that. so there's a strong desire by the appellants and i remember it was pointed out that there are two libraries, the one that faces the civic center and the one that has evergreen species. both appellants feel strongly about that species. we're trying to find one that would have a little more upright architecture to sit. one technicality will be that they're planted slightly elevated, whereas these ficus, just to add to the troubles there, were planted a little bit too low in the basins. we've been engaging our landscape architects to also review the replacement basins and a commitment to do that to make sure that we're doing what we can to address some of that. so we are -- we're nearly done

with addressing all of that. there's been a lot of dialog among our group. >> thank you. >> i just want to echo everyone else's kudos on proving, yes, city and citizen constituencies can come together and reach a happy ending. my question is as a result of your presentation, when and with what. the when still has not been answered, even though you answered it but you didn't and the with what is not answered. i hate myself for suggesting this, but not that i don't trust the city departments, but the ambiguity of the when really gives me discomfort.

i understand the responsibility of your answer that you're going to wait for the other parks to get done, but that involves another city department which sometimes doesn't make its timelines. i don't want to approve this permit until we have clarity on that timeline, because that puts the citizens back in limbo. so what i would -- and i told you, i hated myself for suggesting this. but i would like to continue this potentially because you're not going to do it anyway. and i would like to continue it to a point that you can present us with clarity on with what and when. i don't see any harm because you're stating here you're not going to get started anyway. so when do you think we should continue this so that you can come back to us with the answers

to with what and when and do you find any fault in my thought process about why i want to do this, why am i suggesting this? >> so one suggestion would be if the completed park is estimated to be six months out, we could commit to a minimum of waiting six months before we initiate the removal or we could again meet some more and just work out a more specific timeline. >> i think i'm more comfortable with a timeline versus [ indiscernible ] -- >> so -- >> if we can -- sorry. >> if we continue this, because we won't know for six months. if we continued this to january and strictly for the purpose of coming up with two answers, with

what and when, i don't see a harm or a foul. all you've got to do is come back here and say we're reconvening. here's what we're going to replace. here's when we're going to get started. then we can go, great plan, thank you very much for doing this, all in favor say aye. does that make sense to you? >> it does. it also gives us an opportunity to continue to make progress on other items that are actionable before then. so i don't see -- public works is open to that suggestion. >> that's the direction i'd like to go. >> we still need public comment. >> i understand. i'm just showing my cards before we go into deliberation. thanks. >> thank you. >> thank you. is this any public comment on this item?

three minutes. >> this is the plan in brief that was given to you in your packet. none of that was just presented to the community before. so i have an issue with that and also an issue with this because it goes back to the same question. they weren't answered in here and they're still not answered in there. also seeing the map that they showed, there's three parcels that they want to plan in. so the balcony, is that open to the public? the one spot on felson street, number 3 or 2, that square right there is where mayor lee's tree is at that was plapted. so i don't feel comfortable with that. and then also you're moving to a

space across the street which is the main library's property and you want to plant on that. and then also -- there was also another space on the feltson side of the library, and that is where two trees were taken out and now there's no grass anymore on that side. so yeah, i want those trees back and that's a plus because i complained about them years ago and they made a complaint that they weren't going to put them back. so i see some positives and negatives, but there was still things in motion because of how it was presented. the other thing is -- well, with the website, overhead, please, this is the link that was put on their -- that was sent out with the packet. you can see if you go to the

link, it's not functional. that was put on friday on your websi website. so that was an issue i had not being able to look at their documents from the working group. then the next issue was this was the list of the six issues you outlined for the working dprowp to work on. i just saw this plan and i had issues with number one and one was the brief did not address exactly where the three trees would go to replace the removal of the bus stop and the lights. so again, those answers weren't answered to my satisfaction. and so, i had answers to each one, but i only have 10 seconds. so i'll leave you with that. we need to continue and we need

more input on this plan. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? okay. commissioners, this matter is misdemeano submitted. if anyone else is here for public comment, if you could move forward, i would appreciate it. >> oh, boy, where do i begin? my name is michael nolte. i think it's great that something was done, that there was a working group created. but on the other hand -- let's make this clear. it was not the community involved, it was just the litigants. so it was a working group of the litigants or the people having dispute, but it was not the community. there are not community members per se, it was service providers there, also going after the pots

of money that they could possibly receive from the library or other city entities to plant possibly more trees. why didn't you listen to what was originally said in january when it was discussed. it was me sending an e-mail, which the executive director gets us confused. i sent an e-mail to the commission staff saying that the link on the website was not right and you sent us the correct link so that some people, i saw the e-mail, could at least see the documents that were part of this possible idea. none of this discussed today at this hearing was there. so how can people really be prepared to discuss it now at this hearing when we were not made ware of it?

plus, during this meeting today, they're out in the hallway discussing it so they were fine-tuning. it's been mentioned, there's a lot of moving parts. but there needs to be -- their proposal needs to be put into the sunshine so people can actually see it and understand it and maybe comment on it, not just -- there's only a few members of the community here. again, it's another couple of hour meeting. i know the commissioners would rather be at home probably, but so does the public, they want to be at home too. again, access, we're not getting access to these ideas and issues. that was what was mentioned in the e-mail i sent who is has basically said that we need to

address the -- anyway, we need to address how decisions are being made. this is another example of how things are happening behind closed doors. we don't appreciate that. as part of the community, we want to be part of the process. thank you. there was a lot of people that signed a position. >> mr. nolte, for clarity, the documents that were at that linguistic -- link were the documents submitted on thursday. >> no, there's two different links. >> as per your inquiry and when they submitted the documents -- >> no, that's not what i -- >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is seraco. i have a question. you mentioned removing a tree by a bus stop. i was wondering -- well, is there -- i don't -- i guess

there is some clearance issues with bus stops and i wanted to understand why. also, in this day and age of severe climate change when we need every tree, i was wondering if b.u.f. was trying to clarify any issues. i understand the bus stop came after the tree was there. >> any other public comment? commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners. >> [ indiscernible ] -- >> i'd support the continuance ow proposed. >> the dates in january are the 8, 15, 29. >> it doesn't matter to me. 8 is fine. on the lightest calendar, we could put it on. i would suggest that i heard the members of the public. i always listen to the members of the public. it's a priority.

i would suggest that the members of the public who have those concerns, you see two members of the city family who are here today. you've known them from before. they are available for you tonight and they're also available through the city websites. so i would raise directly, through direct communication with them, any concerns that you have specifically so they can be incorporated in the new plan. i don't think you have a problem with that. and i would also recommend again that although we applaud the movement that you've done so far, that in advance of the meeting that we have a really clearly defined plan which anticipates all the questions that were raised by the public, as well as those which were raised by myself.

so with that a motion -- >> i'll support the continuance, but not necessarily for the reasons that you articulated. i would trust the department ultimately to determine what the best tree is for that spot, given the particular situation. were we a little bit closer, i would be inclined to support the -- grant the appeal today. also, i believe it was the community that wanted to tie the timing to the completion of the parks. so that was to -- i mean, clearly that does give them more time. so the fact that we don't know when that is going to be to me is not particularly relevant. but i will support a continuance. >> so the motion is to continue this item to january 8. is that what you want? january 8 for the purpose of -- you're no good on january 8?

>> [ indiscernible ] -- >> january 15. then we go to january 15. that's fine. thank you very much. so to enable the department to clarify final details with regard to species and timing for the project, as well as providing a clear and concise plan to the public for the overall project. >> okay. we have a motion from the president to continue this matter to january 15, 2020, to enavailable the department of urban forestry to clarify the final details of the plan regarding species and timing, so that the plan is clear and concise and understandable by the public. did you want me to add anything about the tree well? >> no.

[vote]. >> so that motion carries 5-0. we'll see you january 15. thank you. we are now on to item number 8 this is appeal no. 19-075. joshua klipp vs. san francisco public works, bureau of urban forestry. the subject is 601 van ness avenue on the golden gate avenue frontage of the property. appealing the issuance on july 1, 2019, to tesla, of a public works order. (approval of request to remove without replacement a red flowering gum street tree maintained by public works on the following conditions: (1) that the landscape appraisal of $7,300 be paid due to the removal without replacement; (2) that three inlieu fees of $2,031 each ($6,093) be paid to further mitigate the loss of a mature tree by funding the planting of three trees by public works; (3) that any other required permits are obtained prior to issuance of the tree removal permit to ensure that the project has full approval prior to the removal of the tree; and (4) that a tree

protection application and plan be submitted by the applicant, by a qualified arborist, and reviewed by urban forestry staff, to ensure that the two trees directly adjacent to the subject tree are adequately protected during excavation of the sidewalk. order no. no. 201448 we will hear from the appellant, mr. klipp, first. >> welcome. i haven't seen you in a bit. >> i feel like i'm always here in one form or another. it's too bad that the city didn't submit a brief in this matter, because it's really about the city's decision to approve this tree removal and tesla's reasons for wanting it gone. a private company's want to make a profit in this case is a tree removal. it was the city who was supposed

to apply the rules regarding replacement of a transformer vault under a public right of way, but they haven't explained why they chose not to apply those rules. it is up to the city to explain how they placed this transformer. and they have not explained that. it is up to the city to explain they why give preferential treatment to those driving a specific vehicle made by a specific company and they haven't done that. tesla is not doing the city or its residents a favor. it's just bailing them out. i asked public works for all documents regarding the removal and decision and there wasn't a single e-mail in writing how it was decided.

so that was the city's sui sponte decision. in light of the trees that have come down nearby and in a few block blocks of this city, it is up to the city to decide that. it is up to the city to give the environmental calculations of these decisions. this action is not only going to benefit tesla owners, but also those in the city who support

the company. tesla is a private corporation. they sell electric vehicles, and so make those vehicles more attractive, they are attempting to install infrastructure that makes those vehicles more convenient to own and use. for whatever reason they design their cars and charging station to be incompatible with other vehicles and chargers. that was their decision. if you want to use this charging station, you have to own a tesla, not any of the other electric car options. none of the other cars can use this charging station, but all of them are cheaper than even tesla's cheapest model. i get it, a tree is not as sexy as a tesla, but tesla doesn't

make air to breathe or clean the air so we don't have to wear masks. teslas are great for carbon mitigation, but nothing about sen stration. they haven't explained why they haven't come up with an answer to carbon sec -- sequestration. this private company will use the charging stations to increase the odds that people would buy teslas.

in ten years teslas might not be here, but that tree will be. this tree might not do much, but it won't be long before we have electric vehicles and no air to breathe. >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holders. >> welcome. >> thank you. >> hi, everyone. i am here on behalf of tesla. tesla's mission is to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy. in other words to do that, we of course make electric cars. in order to make those electric cars run, you need power. in a city like san francisco where there is a massive population of renters and other people who park on the street and otherwise don't have access to dedicated parking with dedicated charging for their

cars, having available d.c. fast charging is crucial in order to adapt these cars. so we are here in support of d.p.w.'s decision to allow the removal of the tree, condition as it was that we would pay additional funds for in lieu fees for additional trees. i think it's our position that we followed all of the procedures outlined by the city and our brief covers why the vault was necessary where it was. it's not our preference to prove trees, but unfortunately for this site there was no way to bring additional power to the building without necessitating removal of the tree. i'm happy to answer any other questions you guys might have

about either the vault or the process we went through. >> thank you. i was curious what process you went through to determine that there were no other locations suitable and evidence of alternate locations being evaluated and suitable being found. >> yes. we work closely with pg&e. we're one of their largest customers at the moment. we met on site with them to evaluate whether there were alternative locations. in order to have power for d.c. fast charging it has to be 480 volt power. even if those buildings do have that, there might not be sufficient capacity to put it in charging. what that means is a new service from pg&e to the building. in order to do that you need a

transformer. there aren't places above ground to place new transformers. pg&e requires i believe it's a 30-foot vertical clearance over their ground-mounted transformers because they have a boom and a crane to install those. so there's nowhere on site that would accommodate a ground-mowpted transformer like that, which means you have to put a vaulted transformer in order to bring additional power to the site and there also weren't places within the property lines that would allow for a volted transformer. there are similar requirements by pg&e. >> when they came to the site, they directed that this was the location or how -- >> we worked with them. ultimately, it's tesla's engineers that came up with the proposed location. >> so what other locations were evaluated that met their criteria?

>> there were no other locations that met their criteria that would not have necessitated removing a tree. >> so all the other locations required the tree removal? >> yes, because of the way the trees are placed around the property and driveways and other obstructions. >> i think just to clarify, you mean no other locations on this property? >> yes. can you help us understand how tesla arrived at this property for this charging station. was it already leasing space or what's the relationship there? >> so we've been working at the landlord and they've been interested in putting in charging and we're interested in providing charging there. it's a central location in the city, where you can get to most parts of the city from there. so it is convenient for local residents who otherwise can't charge to come there and fill up for an hour and fill up their car's battery. we have evaluated other

locations in the city. this placement issue is similar for many locations. so i would say that it doesn't necessarily obviate the issue if we were to go elsewhere, but this is an ideal location from a charging infrastructure for the city. >> if this permit is revoked, what is tesla's next step with respect to its desire to increase its super chargers in the city? is there a plan b? >> well, i believe this permit would be necessary for us to proceed with this location. we can try other locations, but i think it's a long process. we've submitted for permits about a year ago for this. so we've already committed substantial time.

>> [ indiscernible ] -- >> tesla charging stations are only for teslas? >> the tesla level 3 stations, which is what this is, only charges tesla vehicles right now. >> are there other tesla charging stations that other vehicles can use? >> there are other d.c. fast-charging stations on the market, but they don't -- they can't directly charge teslas and they're separate. >> so i don't get it. i see tesla wanting to enrich themself themselves by putting in 12 stations -- >> 12 charging stations. >> -- 12 charging stations that only benefit tesla to sell more cars. i kind