emphasis on making it happen and getting it done. following up from where you said come about it just going into a fund area i would like it to go to some new trees. i think that is fair for them to knocked down the tree. i believe it is okay using it's only proprietary to tesla's to get it as private building, it's not in the public. most of the things that come before us are for profit as well. >> anybody else? anybody else? >> i can support that. here's my issue. >> only one? >> it -- you have, and it goes to a fundamental -- if we were talking about housing, for me, it is a direct parallel to housing.

if you have an argument in the city where the elites, the rich people -- they have plenty of housing. there's no problem. it's the majority of people, the core worker in the city. the not underclass, middle who is not served by affordable housing, or work for affordable housing, or anything like this. when we do something like this this is what bothers me. you are taking an and elation of a dozen items that will serve a group of individuals who by this one type of car that is no less six pensive than $30,000, and extend to over $100,000.

which currently, inclusive of every person in the city is far less than 5%, and if anybody wants to come up with the metric to deny my less than 5%, i would love to hear it. in that, so, we are making a big compromise for an elitist group. if this was while charging stations that was going to charge electronic vehicles, from fiat 500 down to chevy volt, two teslas, i have a different opinion. i have a completely different opinion. then we are serving a broader can do truancy. we are encouraging the public to get into the electric car world. this is really tight you'd and then, what are we sacrificing?

we are sacrificing an item, which happens to be a tree that services 100% of the people in san francisco. that is what bugs me. we are just getting narrow. if tesla came back and said, okay, we are going to put these things in, were going to sell more cars, we acknowledge that, were going to make money off this parade were going to make it more convenient, because we have 12 more in relation, and now chevy volt, or fiat 500 and they said, but we will plant 25 trees, because we understand, this is a marketing sales ploy. i might have a slightly different opinion. it's not, it's 1-3 trees, up to six trees that is my problem. do i have a resolution other than to deny the permit that was improperly issued an interest of the city's upset -- residents of

san francisco? i can say that. we are also setting a precedent that it can happen again and again. i hate setting precedents. that is all. i do not have a resolution. >> i will probably say what i think and. >> that is why we are here. >> have a very different view, that i think has become clear. the question here was his permit for the issued? the homeowner wants to put a driveway in his poverty. he's rick byard to replace 1-1 whether he is mark zuckerberg, or your prototypical middle class worker does make a difference. that is how urban forestry does it, that is how public works does it, i did not hear anything tonight for mr. buck that says, there's all of these other factors and tesla's meeting them. electric vehicles are public good. the city has declared it. the state has declared it.

this morning the san francisco chronicle ran an article saying that in california there is a crisis of insufficient vehicle charging that is jeopardizing the plan for extending electric vehicles in the state. california wants be a leader and it can't be. it is not my opinion. it is the city's opinion, the states opinion and i think it is what is responsible. this is not about the elite versus the middle-class. this is an un- negated good reedit is is a win-win and i am not skeptical of this public and private.

>> good point area. >> 144 teslas that are in the station, in 12 hours, that is 144 teslas that are not lining up at the station at the chevy uses area. >> fair point. thank you. >> would use it my motion? >> sure, i mean, if mr. buck thinks there's a way? >> can we make that happen, mr. buck? >> good evening, chris buck area we -- a. we can plant six trees area there are a lot of underground utilities in the tenderloin. public works would be open to renting -- planting of six new

street trees that are not replaced once, we would on the tenderloin. we can commit to that. >> awesome. thank you very much. >> did you want to supply a timeframe that you will plant them? >> prior poverty owner has six months to plant. you know, there is a couple of options. we need to start canvassing for those sites. we need to mark utilities and clear sight. >> timeframe? >> 3-6 months, and/or i am

willing to go as far as the trees are planted prior to tree removal. >> perfect. that is what i would ideally like to get. >> trifecta tonight. >> okay. was that your motion? >> i think i need to understand something about that. you are saying he will commit to aunt the trees before tree removal, but you're not committing to any timeframe. if public works never gets around. >> inc. e. thank you. >> why don't we just do six months? >> it is consistent with code. >> can we clarify within six months of the decision tonight? >> correct. >> okay. we have a motion from --

>> that was my motion. i don't make them very often. don't feel my motion. >> motion from commissioner hondo to grant the appeal and uphold the order on the condition it be revised to read 24 -- the bureau of urban forestry plant six new street trees, within six knots of the final decision issued. >> is it implicit that the developer, that tesla has to fund the payment? >> right. these trees he by the permit holder. okay, so come on that motion -- [role call] that motion carries 5-0. thank you.

moving along. inc. you for your patience. >> welcome back to the board of appeals, september 18, 2019. we are now on items nine a and 9b. nineteen -- 080, and -- 081, joshua klipp and lance carnes versus san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry. subject property, 1150, 1500, 1616 & 2000 16th street. appealing the issuance on july 11, 2019, to san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry, of a public works order (approval of request to remove eleven street trees with replacement along 16th street in conjunction with phase 1 of the sfmta 16th street

improvement process: one pear tree at 1150 16th street; five ficus trees at 1500 16th street; four ficus trees at 1616 16th street and one ficus tree at 2000 16th street). order no. no. 201495. we will hear from the appellants first. mr. klipp. >> to the of the public that have waited the whole evening. thank you for hanging in. >> the night is young. i am here to talk about the city's concerted piece mail removal of travertine trees that constitutes a project. triggering the city's obligation to conduct an environmental impact report. i'm not here to talk about the city's 2014 urban forest land. they called for 50,000 new

street trees, added to the san francisco canopy by 2034. we are five years into that plan, if we are being honest the city has treated it like a joke. we've never come close to that many trees in the air. last year we had a grand total of one tree to our urban canopy and that's just on the streets. we never funded the urban forest plan. we did not hire the resources to make it happen. i made a plan and that is it. we did not think about the execution and we did not live up to it. as far as the 2014 urban forest plan was a nice idea. ironically, the city rests on this plan and its defense tonight. it explains the evaluation is the reason it doesn't have to take any action to evaluate the impact of its actions regarding tree removals is happening today. the fact is, the 2014 urban forest plan never anticipated with the city is doing now.

specifically, after the urban forest land was adopted after the determination was made, they made an orchestration against one particular type of tree, the travertine tree. [reading notes] the webpage note that there are 7,000 ficus trees in san francisco, 6% of our already stamped urban canopy. they have gone out of its way to use the civic this one type of tree. in the city's exemption determination, under the plan, dpw will continue to maintain street trees. first, there has been no determination that ficus are unhealthy and hazardous area second, the keywords are continue to. here after the ceqa determination was made, the city decided to make it even easier to remove ficus and dedicated an

entire mission to making this happen. [reading notes] there is no other tree that is subject to the same focus as these are a no other tree that has a special directors order dedicated to its eradication. in other words, this is not part of the urban forest plan. this is a subsequent effort by the city. no other tree is targeted, by the dozens, city wide in its own way, the city has admitted as much. neighborhood after neighborhood the city has held countless public meetings trying to negotiate plantings, soothing angry neighbors seen their entire neighborhood go from green to tiny saplings overnight. i know the bureau of urban forestry is trying to do the right thing. my point is that this underscores the fact that these large scale removals absolutely are not part of the urban forest plan. the city knows it, and it shows a by this shall treatment they giving this removal project get

this is a project is set forth that requires a ceqa evaluation for the city does not get to chop up the project, no pun intended, and little bit to skirt this conclusion. nor does it get to say it is part of the tree removal, when the city has clearly defined its initiative to the contrary. a couple of additional points i would like to make here. the exemption determination says the plan would address funding for the planting of new street trees to address their distribution throughout san francisco. it has not done that. according to the 2,000 urban forest plan -- 2014 urban forest plan, as you already know we have one of the worst urban canopies of any city in the united gates at 13.7%. the mission district, which will be coming up in future appeals as an average canopy of 7.5%. meeting after meeting the city has told neighbors that does not have the funds to plant to the of their neighborhoods. so much the urban forest plan creating equitable canopy.

the city determination would not result in significant impacts with respect to availability of water. how many times as public works that it cannot plant trees because it cannot water them. in short, the city is essentially reminded of this option that has not bothered to implement in every single way. the city cannot have it both ways. you can't say that the ceqa exemption for the urban forest plan, they never bother to find or execute that plan. subsequent to that exemption they went ahead and created an entirely new large you targeted initiative for us to civic type of tree that was never discussed in the plan. i respectfully request that the board asked the city to comply with urban forest plan's requirement. >> thank you. we will hear from mr. carnes, the appellant in 19 -- 081. >> welcome back.

>> good evening. my name is lance carnes, i'm in north each resident. the reason i am here of healing the 16th street phase one removal order. my north beach neighborhood, and several others in the city have been hit with orders on most trees order for removal are ficus.

this first side shows, sorry, the different neighborhoods that have been hit. we heard from the main library tonight you north beach you heard last week the tonight is 16th street phase one. i will come back to this side. the one i was researching, bureau of urban forestry in their handling of street trees come i found a database that said a 2017 tree survey which shows the 16th street phase, ficus needing routine pruned, certainly not a removal. the survey was done by a contract between the city of san francisco, at a cost of $500,000 one happy outcome was funding

20,000 more trees than previously thought. on the foot about the condition that san francisco urban forest management that lost 20,000 trees. on this slide, here's a comparison between what is called the bus staff survey. these are the folks that work in our public works bureau of record forestry office. they have targeted these neighborhood with removal of all of these ficus trees, hundred 14 total. when you compare the same trees to every tree sf survey. the number of removals recommended, for example, the main library zero, north each of zero, that one is kind of high at 24th street.

basically 19 trees out of 124. there is a big dirty here between what the bureau of urban forestry thinks is right and what the survey provided. the order status to phase one, the sfmta is committed to plant 53 new trees prior to the design phase of this project. architects identified trees which should be removed. so, we are walking around 16th street, looking at things making the street scape project more successful.

these are the 75 trees that are on the 16th street phase one. notice the road trees here are trip -- ficus. those are the ones a survey rated as being priority removal. in other words, dangerous to people and property. when they marched through and looked at these trees, the ones i picked removal for the healthy one, these eight or ten ficus trees, ignoring all the rest.

here again we have the district ten map of all of the trees, in the vicinity of six teams a phase one. the ones that are not green are also priority removal, and then these are the subject. going out a little bigger, this is all of district ten. the ones that are not green are also priority removal. kudos b.u.f. go after but the ten healthy trees. but we discovered is there is two databases associated with the 2017 survey. one is the tree data. the other one is the new planting rights.

i went through that and plotted it on this, this is the phase one area here. we discovered there is 56 new planting site, and -- that is enough to accommodate the 53 trees that sfmta wants to put in the phase one area. this plan, no ficus trees need to be removed. we have 53 new trees, we have the ten mature trees, not sure if it is ten or eight, that can survive. so we have or trees. down here is the fine print. i'm sure chris locke will be reading heavily for the rebuttal. that ends my presentation, i

want to thank you for listening. the trees think you, as well. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from mr. buck. you have 14 minute. -- 14 minute. [laughter] >> chris buck with san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry area -- forestry here. i will be respectful of everyone time. >> said that last time, and you did use it all. >> my wife criticizes me, double what you say, one estimate time. >> i think we can do more than criticize here. >> good evening commissioners, and thank you, i appreciate the work that you are doing last week, and this. chris buck, san francisco public

works bureau of urban forestry. this particular site, we will get into the specific details regarding ficus removal along 16th street. i didn't have time last week, and i should have started with this. you know, looking in the last couple of years, what we have been up to in urban forest the, you might think what is going on with a lot of empty basins. i know it is difficult to ask somebody to look at a 20 year arc of the urban forest. that is been my involvement. five years as an advocate with friends of the urban forest as an education coordinator. dreaming of the day that we would get funding to maintain all of our existing street trees. it has been a battle, literally, for decades. historically, san francisco public works only maintained at third of the street trees in san francisco. that means two thirds of property owners had the maintenance responsibility for those trees.

that was great. most new homeowners were excited to have a tree, and they put a tree out front. 10-20 years later, when that tree needed sidewalk repair, and we denied the removal request, they were not too happy. it took a few decades. people realized, i have a corner property and the tree on third is maintained by the city, the tree on blue is maintained by me. where's the sign that says -- how can you determine this? label of our list of trees. it was dysfunctional. it was not a good system. it took many, many years, or decades, we finally had a watershed moment. we have the urban forest plan which is a big deal. we have a lot of advocate working on that.

one of the key recommendations, of the urban forest plan was to secure funding for maintenance. during mayor newsom's run in the mid- 2,000, we were renting trees everywhere, and re- tree advocates said how about we maintain what we have first and then maybe we start like an expanding new trees? that was the feedback we got in the mid- 2000. we did not make that mistake 79% approval for property, which means that the responsibility of the city to maintain the street trees. mr. klipp with respect, says the urban forest plan is not worth it. we are getting $19 million as a result of proposition e. $19 million, now going to allow the city to maintain all of the street trees on a 3-5 year printing cycle. what notably was absent from probably was planning for tree

replacement. we knew heading in, all the leaders and advocates, we knew this a few years ago, we do have funding for maintenance. we are going to need to address this first read coming across a lot of trees that have not been maintained. we are not going to have funding to plant replace once in a timely manner. did we underestimate the blowback from that? >> up lately. we have an urban forest land, we are maintaining all of our trees on a 3-5 year printing cycle. many of those plots shown by appellant carnes, where i live come have been completed. we have pruned thousands of trees across the city. we've earned 23,000, we have removed several thousand. we are working on those authorities, across the city, including my own neighborhood. i understand, you know, with one of the appellant's brief, let's

back up one more moment. one of the other things the plan recommended, which public works has executed is to fund a complete tree census. so we know how many trees we have. it turns out we have 125,000 street trees, we were up by 20,000. the arbor pro census was critical, great information. $500,000 to do that report is great. there's a lot of accident rate worked. it is tremendous. that is what allowed us to get proposition e passed with a mandate. are you going to say that i should take a third parties assess of a ficus tree, someone who may be lives in southern california, best, i've been doing this for 20 years my five years of an advocate. if waterpipe are breaking across

the city, and in one month, 15 out of 20 pipe rates are at 101, does it take a lot of research to understand have a problem with the pipes? no. we have a problem a ficus. that is why we are being aggressive and moving them. we have a number of cases where arbor pro census has recommended removal, more than printing. pruning. we don't need to remove that tree right now, we're going to downgrade. i understand, i don't criticize how and why someone wants to advocate for keeping trees. you have to throw the kitchen sink out of us, i get it. you have to do the records request and redo the e-mails. i get it. you're not going to find the fars activity with our department. you are not. yes, we have an urban forest

plan. we are learning lessons at the library, removing all 19, not a good plan. we are starting to show flexibility. we will have other cases for you later this fall. i did want to address big picture. we are trending in the right direction. we do have increased funding this year, largely because of the advocacy i respect that. the advocacy of the people in this room. i respect that. that is funding that is new and exciting for us. we are working on a two year planting plan. i cannot go public with that, i have asked -- i was begging, let me bring this chart. let me show them that we know where these sites are. we are so close to having a plan. that is the backdrop of where we had this evening. we have key map inspections that we are doing in advance of when

we do maintain the trees. during that process we identify trees that we believe should be removed and replaced. coincidentally we have the sfmta working on 16th street. this is a dual process here. we have inspected these trees as out of this project. we have also inspected them at out of a key map inspection. both are true. what we have, in this situation, is the thunder in sfmta, who has committed funding to plant replacement trees for the ones we remove with 36-inch box sized replacement. they've also committed to planting any other clinical site between the current limits of the works, from basically seventh street, caltrans, and potrero avenue. in addition to removing or replacing these trees there will be an additional 53 trees planted that will be 36-inch box trees area when we talk about

litigation, this is actually a site where we are getting credible mitigation. we will have 53 additional trees that are 36-inch box in size this is a site where again, regrettable that we need to remove any street tree. is this a tree we need to remove? i want to go quickly to the laptop, that i will wrap up. one of the trees is very real, it is a pear tree. it is a multi- stem tree, it is shot. it is in terrible condition, that is the tree we want to remove and replace area there are a number of ficus trees area ten of the 11 trees before you are like us trees area when we talk about ceqa. if you're going to comply should be removing trees that are dead are hazardous. we would argue, of course, that these are unhealthy structurally.

the canopy health is one thing. but the canopy, vigorous and green does not hold itself up, right? the millennium tower looks okay to the layperson, shiny, tall, l. doesn't have a structural issue? these ficus trees are not healthy structurally. we are not trying to go above and beyond. ceqa anticipated early removal of a lot of the trees that have been neglected for years, and were not pruned to enhance structure. that is what we have with the ten out of the 11 trees for you this evening. ficus trees with a structure. the type of trees we are seeing fail across the city. we are not trying to go above and beyond what we need to do to address public safety. in this particular case we have amazing mitigation with the sfmta committed to planting 36-inch box trees for planting,

watering for three years which is the typical establishment. area in this particular case, i'm pretty excited to be able to come to you with this education plan. these trees have been lollipops for years. this is a good thing. we actually have funding. two plant placement trees. big picture, there have been some ficus removals we have not had the best planting plan before you. this evening we do have that. before i forget, i do have this eight page plan. this is created by landscape architects, bureau of construction management with public works that outlines all of the 53 site that will be planted. i will note two things you'd one is sfmta's contractors are already beginning to cut open these new basins. additionally, the site at the

corner of 16th and seventh i came on line a couple of years ago. they were hired to plant trees as part of construction. they already planted the trees in front of their property. i will say some of these trees, if any of them are planted by that entity. this plan dates a few years ago before those trees were planted. i want to clarify that. some of the 53 have technically been planted, but by the developer as required. we have walked the site, we have confirmed we have 53 plant of all sites. some of which are already planted. many of which are being cut. i have a colleague, with sfmta come to talk my backup the statement about the funding for planting the 36 inch box trees. she can speak more about the timing on the commitment for watering. thank you.

>> just to let you know you have 1:23. >> good evening, project manager with sfmta. yes, as chris said, this project has been funded, under construction, more than 50% done. the project is scheduled to have completion by the end of march 2020. in six months. the contractor is obligated to plant all of these trees and remove those 11 trees. it is funded, the project is fully funded as we are paying the contractor and it will be done as complete in six months. you have the time frame, the type of trees, the number of trees -- >> excuse me, let her give her presentation, please. >> will get an opportunity at public comment to say something.

>> the contractor is obligated to water these plants for three years contractually. we are now going to be able to close the contract and after three years, the completion. so the contractor can't continue to water. we have irrigation plans of the contractors building as well. >> can i ask what kind of trees are being planted? >> magnolia trees area -- trees. it very clearly says, of the 53 trees that were planted, what type each word. >> kenny wayne a little bit in terms of the scope of the project what necessitated them collaborating, as we are improving curb to curb over the sidewalks in this treat escapes

for the public. one of the plan necessitated looking. as was a good practice or something with overhead wires, needing to make sure trees are okay, why is sfmta interested in the removal of the trees? >> the project was approved without touching any trees or planting any trees. >> your timelines are nice. it was a sfmta that did the prt on van ness? >> it was. nta is lead on the project. >> when they came in front of us they gave us a timeline of when it will be done, i think that

was two years ago. what happens here? >> the project is 50% done and it is on schedule. >> is there a penalty system in place, if it is not done. like i said -- i remember the department, we have our contractors in place, we have deadlines in this and two years ago. what guarantees that this project will not have the same impact or results? >> guarantees? i cannot give you any guarante guarantees. >> when people come before us, you know, there is a penalty phase if you do not do it. what works for the public should actually work for its departments as well. no guarantees? >> i mean, i cannot give you guarantees.

it is construction. anything can happen. compared to van ness, it is a different project with completely different magnitude. van ness is still in the phase of utility work. when they hit a lot of unforeseen underground conditions. our project underground utility work is complete, and on schedule. we don't really expect major delays. 50% through the project being on schedule to, we don't really foresee any issues or delays at this. that being said, could things happen, yes -- happen? yes. we are under a lot of pressure from the mayor's office because of the proximity of our project to chase center to be complete on time. we are putting all of our efforts to make that happen. not to mention, as i said, we

have done it with a good job so far, to stay on schedule. most of the unforeseen conditions happen and we completed successfully. i don't, this point, expect any major delays. >> again, as a business person, when someone says they are going to build your house and they will be done by october 2020, and it is not, there is usually a penalty of what they get bac back -- the city is not doing it, you have independent contractors. is there anything set up with those independent contractors? >> we do. and each one of our contracts we have liquidated damages, associated especially with our projects affecting transit and operation. they are pretty hefty on this project, $20,000 per day for the contractor. van ness was significantly more.

>> they are getting danged for van ness? >> yes. that is one of the fights with the contractor and that is beside the point. millions and millions of dolla dollars. we do have significant liquidated damages. >> thank you. >> thank you. you can be seated. is there any public comment on this item? >> this is the reason i'm here tonight. i work out at world jim for many years, i was extremely disappointed to see the signs on the trees saying they were to come down. i don't know, you know, those are mature trees that have lived there for a long time, provide shade, to a pretty hot area.

there is so much vacant sidewalk that could use trees. i don't understand, why doesn't sfmta planted trees where there are no trees, leave the trees there until we actually get more trees, and then consider replacing what arty have. magnolia is a very slow going tree. i appreciate that they are an evergreen. unlike the trees planted across the street. i don't really understand that. you know, i am not a lawyer, i am not a scientist. although i understand what is happening with global warming, climate change and how important trees are. i just don't understand, bureau

of urban forestry, why you are not being more of an advocate for existing trees. until we get funding for new trees, and then consider replacing. i just don't understand. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> overhead, please. >> my name is john nolte. i am here to speak on the 16th street corridor. it's the same presentation i put in in front of d.p.w. this first picture here is may 2019 at 1,516th street.

you can see the trees are below the wires. that is so that, you can see the tops of the trees are fine. the next one shows that there is no damage, as he was saying. you can see there is no damage from the trucks or vans hitting the sides of the trees. as you can see, obviously d.p.w., or the contractor chopping limbs off the trees before they are even removed. those are fresh cuts. these trees that are in front of

1,516th street, this picture was taken june 2019. the contractor came out and removed the tree, before the permit was heard in front of d.p.w. i didn't hear that in anybody's presentation. i am asking the commission to penalize the contractor for taking out trees -- leave it there, taking out the trees that were part of this permit, and we are having it appealed right now. nobody seems to be talking about two trees that have been taken out prior to this appeal. also, before the permit was finalized in front of dpw. i like the mitigation commission to honda about trees being

removed. we had a working group on 16th street, with the community, and 100 people attended this working group on the phase, this is what the working group talked about for the trees promises were made with d.p.w., for the tree group, at that meeting. >> thank you. >> my name is michael nolte. the trees on 16th street, wanted to point out that there are currently a petition online,

4311 signatures to save the ficus, in san francisco. this is a growing petition, and obviously the issue seems to be growing because certain neighborhoods will be finding soon enough that ficus in their neighborhood and will also be targeted for removal. as we have heard in the past, people can recall, the ficus have been mentioned several times at meetings here that the ficus are contender -- considered, a lower threshold for removal saying they are for make reasons, when we remove them for reasons lower than other trees. that would mean that they are being prioritize for removal, and that seems to us to be disingenuous to the community, when the community has to find out those things.

most of the community doesn't go to these meetings, it's late at night. it's already after 10:00 p.m., for those watching at home, if they are. you know, it just makes it impossible for the community to understand that you cannot go to a community meeting and express your feelings, and then find out later there is an appeal. find out later there's another thing to do. and then you find out, that you know, up to 6% of the trees in san francisco are going to be removed because they are ficus. just want to remind you that ficus are among the many trees in san francisco. they are not the only trees, but the thing is they are percentage of the trees and they deserve as much consideration as any other tree. if you remember hearing a few minutes ago about 101 -- i mean,

the library they mentioned that after re- looking at the trees they were going to save some of them. seems like there seems to be back steps going on a lot of times when there is pushback from the community to re-examine what has already been said. maybe this needs to be done again, and again, and again. every time there is trees being asked to be removed. do they really need to be removed? thank you. >> we are now moving onto rebuttal. mr. buck? -- mr. klipp? >> thank you. as made apparent by the respondents comments here where they're coming out because sfmta has agreed to play -- pay for replacements.

they gave the city $0 to plant a water trees. i don't recall seeing anyone from the bureau of urban forestry where the rest of us waited hours to bake the board to set aside money to plant replacement trees. because of those efforts, we got enough money, barely, to plant replacement trees because of the rate the city is removing them. the superintendent at bureau of urban forestry stood up in this room come a few weeks ago, and reported that the urban forest counsel had enough money, barely, to keep up with the rate of removal. speaking of money, that was $500,000 of taxpayer money that went into the tree census. it was an open bidding process. the arborists have inspected ficus up and down the coast. they selected the team fully aware of the qualifications. now we are sitting here, expected to believe it accounts for nothing. if it counted for nothing and we have all of the experts we need

to evaluate the health of our trees, perhaps you could have put the $500,000 towards replanting. the city will quickly agree to take out trees when somebody else ponies up replacement money because the city does not have that money. that is a problem. the plan on which the cities ceqa exemption relies. the fight goes are structurally unhealthy, that is not what the arborist said and the 500,000-dollar census said. the city has made the determination that ficus, as a species, not viable and no part of the ceqa determination. taking out these trees by the dozens without wanting to replace them, this removal of this one particular species as a project and it requires a ceqa evaluation. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from mr. carnes.

>> batter up. >> that was appropriate at our last week's hearing.

>> i just wanted to go over the arithmetic again on what i came up with. there are currently 56 vacant new planting sites on trent eight. enough to accommodate 56 trees from sfmta. no 14 trees need to be removed. you can put those 56 trees in tomorrow morning. without removing any trees. also, mr. buck says we are relying on a third party assessment performed by arbor pro. it's not like i found the census on a park bench and took it home and made use of it. this was actually commissioned by the city of san francisco,

and half a million dollars. it's the only survey i know of that i can rely on. with the bureau of urban forestry. also, as josh mentioned the arbor pro staff, very accomplished group of people. let's see. arbor pro sent ten people to the city to do the evaluation. the survey manager is a world renowned expert on tree risk assessment. the recommendation for most of these things was to prune the trees. for them to come in and say, we will make the decisions on these things overwriting the arbor pro

survey means that the taxpayers did not get a good deal. that is not true, they got a very good deal. evaluating ficus. in his brief he said we may look at the arbor pro evaluation. once again, for example, arbor pro went through this entire area here, and evaluated these trees. they did not market these trees, these once over here, prior to removal. do you think these guys, with all of this experience, would mark these trees that leave these untouched? i don't think so. thank you.

>> thank you. okay, mr. buck, you have six minutes. >> it might not be enough. good evening, chris buck, san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry. rebuttal. public works did issue d.p.w. order tree removal criteria for ficus trees. the appellant, klipp, who spoke earlier, and words into my statement that we are suddenly having an app for an entire species. the director's that this is going to be a tree by tree evaluation. i start out by saying we initiated removal of these trees on 16th street because they

have poor structure. to go to commissioner tanner's question about how do related to this project? whenever the city is touching something, it is imperative that city agencies that have a stake on that site review their asse assets. at the end of two years, four years, or double the time it takes to do a project, we do not come out a year later and say, you know what, now is the time to look at the trees. whenever there is a large project we have to get out there and evaluate our assets. i disagree with appellant klipp. we did not say, as a species, all of these trees had to be removed. we are doing an individual tree by tree evaluation. on some, in fact more than we are recommending for removal, we are saying no, arbor pro, we are going to prune that tree.

we disagree. i'm not going to stand up here and say, this is not a credible asset. there is a lot to -- that i outlined earlier. we know we have a problem at ficus. it is established. i'm not going to say to be against ficus trees to be removed. it is just there. google ficus, san francisco, tree. you will get a litany of very visual reminders about what is happening with ficus trees. we do not want to remove a tree unnecessarily, absolutely not. we think we got a good deal with arbor pro also. we got a lot of information out of it. we have 20,000 more street trees than we thought we had. magnolia. we talked about that. i wish it was as easy as some