have robin come back up. when i read that i was confused, too. the math roughly works out, they are counting it all up it is like overall funds that would plant replacement trees. >> okay. will they be used to plant replacement? >> they will. they would go into an adopt a tree fund area it is a cutie withdrawn for tree planting and purchasing only. that funds the planting of replacement trees elsewhere in the city. when private construction, like you said, sometimes you want to build a driveway. when people want to remove trees for their own private benefit typically whatever this hundreds of public works? how many trees do you want them to plant and exchange? are there other factors? >> when it is a single tree that is imposed removal, using a

garage or driveway is a most common example. there is a big way, if the tree can be removed and replaced, we just do -- we can't do the appraised value because we are not losing a planting site. we are working on actually tightening up our code a little bit to beef it up in the phase of development. right now, one of the other triggers, when there is traction triggers that reek wire tree planting, linear frontage. one tree, or in lieu fee is required per 20 feet of frontage area typical 25 foot wide single-family home reek is the tree or in lieu fee. let's say there are no trees that require planting one tree. that is not triggered with this particular application. if it was we would be looking at

all frontages of the entire parcel and add up 20 linear feet and figure out if they are short trees are yet it is development impact fee. again, the average house requires one. that is a trigger that does not involve, or is in play here, but that is in play for driveways. i don't know if i've answered your actions typically. . >> commissioner honda: is very helpful. . >> commissioner honda: is a usually 1-1 trigger. large development reek wires tree planting at the end of it anyway. sometimes they're required required to plant a bunch of trees, as a result of construction. the appraised value is typically all we get. we've had one or two other cases where someone has come in, swinging big, and who are we to say no? again, it's about a policy that

was carefully considered by public works. we hear the concern. >> cases where in lieu fees have been paid, or acts number of trees are to be planted in lieu, do you have a rough idea of how many trees have been entered under those circumstances? i mean, it funds tree planting. we can be planting trees all over the city, we use those funds all the time. >> are those trees -- were they going to be planted anyway? were we going to be replacing trees that have been removed? >> some go to replacement trees, some go to nutri locations. on average -- my is it funds of both. i would have to double check.

that is a good question. is this just funding replacement trees or is it ending a nutri? i would have to charge if it specifies. >> i would be curious. >> the in lieu fee, it is is typically replacing trees and/or planting new trees. good question. try to have a question, it might be for the person from the department of environment. perhaps it was a miscalculation. the appellant pointed out, i think grossly undercounted the removal of the tree that is in place. i think it quoted, in the stafford worked that it was 2.6 kilograms, that seemed magnitude lower what was then quoted for the three trees. can you explain that, and feet to why your department feels this is a better way to reduce

hours co2 emissions, as opposed to replacing trees that will be here ten years from now, even though tesla is not. >> charles sheehan, san francisco department of environment. to your first question, the data input and the return that it gives you, i will.out to the appellant brief, where he also shows a similar response. essentially over 20 years, that same grass shows that is not sequestering any carbon. so, while my input was low, what he submitted it shows very low sequestration. we did do a secretary alternative analysis. >> before you move on, i'm looking out, there is a statement of appeal, there is a second case that says public works order 201448 on page two

of the document. summary findings of sf requirement. is it because the trees are younger, older. why is one 2.6 and then six of them are 10,000. i'm not understanding that area attorney correct. the model input that we used, and we use the same model. there is different adaptations for the model, but we were using the same model. it's all about the input. the tree that we are removing is a red flowering tree. for whatever reason you put this into the model and you asked the model to return how much carbon it is going to sequester, it returns a very low amount. you see that in my report. you also see that in his report under sequestration, it's

virtually zero. our models are showing the same thing when you put in the first box, after consulting with mr. but, that was a typical replacement tree. that's the standard that we use. the model performs better. so, we did an alternative analysis after these documents were submitted and said okay, what if it wasn't a red flowering tree. may be it was a birch box that you are removing. we put the birch box in their and the model shows that the birch box performs much better than the red flowering gum. these are nuances to a model. i don't want to do it important trees. i want to consider the other side of the equation and that is what happens when you fuel switch from gasoline powered cars to electric cars. the amount of co2 that you're going to reduce going into the air, it is exceptional.

you can look all you want at these models and put in different input. when you take less gasoline powered cars and replace them with electric cars, the greenhouse gas reduction benefits are tremendous. >> as your department is looking at this, i'm assuming tesla with some of the other sites, maybe their development from before you, does your department have a formal role in evaluating these? are you trying to further the adoption, what is your state -- or are you just trying to encourage this? >> it's all of the above actually. our department cochairs the environmental work group within the city here. we cochaired it with the city administrator's office, trying sfmta, we were the lead companychair. it has a number of recommendations in it. one of them is to use publicly accessible charging in the city. right now there is about 750

publicly accessible charging port. we have been out of there are a couple of years now. based on 2017 numbers there is 20 -- 20,000 registered e.v.'s in the city. there is a disparity there. >> in terms of publicly available. i'm not familiar with -- i am assuming that you had to pay, but they are publicly available. >> that is correct area this is publicly acceptable, have to pay for the publicly accessible parking garage. i've it would be when you are in a home, or when you're in a business and it's only for the people who work there that business. >> thank you very much. >> have a couple of questions come as well. there's 20,000 vehicles, but out of the 20,000 do you know how

many have their in-home charging unit? >> no, i do not. we look at other cities to benchmarks ourselves, especially san jose. san jose has a lot more single-family home in san francisco. one of the challenges here in our den urban network where we have large met -- multifamily buildings and how do you charge cars and those garages for the large multifamily units. i am an e.v. owner. i cannot charge in my garage. >> it is -- is it a misnomer, i believe the appellant brought it up that after the battery, the carbon footprint is the same as a f1 50? >> i would give her the representative from tesla what happened to that car, the

battery. >> not just a tesla, but a toyota, or whatever. i have seen this and heard this, the end of it lifespan that, you know, you have all of this how many miles for nothing, but once i better hit environment, the impact is the same as if you drove a ford pickup truck. >> the manufacturer and the consumption have environmental impacts whether it is a tesla, or whether it is a chevy. whether you are buying them, or they are done and they will be scrap? the difference is the actual operation. tesla doesn't have or e mitt omission, but chevy does the at the end of their life they have a carbon impact. during their life, what does that impact. >> don't have any numbers? >> no, i do not. >> may be the presenter of tesla

can answer that question area. >> in terms of the tesla proprietary charging. it is fair to say given the market share that tells the does have an e.v., every tesla charging port in the city is freeing up, for lack of a better word, universal charging point that someone else can use for their car? >> if we didn't allow tesla charges in the city, tesla's would just use other ones. >> they have an adapter that they can use other charging nation -- stations. >> she can answer that question, in rebuttal. >> i have one more session, is not the case that there was an ordinance passed, or hasn't passed, that rick myers commercial garages to have e.v. chargers? >> that is correct area there is currently an ordinance at the board of supervisors that will require publicly accessible

parking garage is to end goal e.v. charging stations and concurrent without ordinance, the mayor, with the city departments, announced a number of parking garage is that there opening up to e.v. developers to come in and and all charging stations. we are taking care of the public garages, and we are also taking care of the private garages as well. the private ones are still publicly accessible though. >> have a couple of questions for mr. buck. >> can i ask my questions first? >> i'm sorry. >> representative from tesla? >> land she waiting for rebutt rebuttal? we haven't done rebuttal yet. >> come on up. the question is, at the end of the day, the carbon footprint, a tesla 3 series, is that the same as a pickup truck? >> we have an impact report

which has much more information than i can give you right now. if you are looking at the two different cars, and you take out the battery, and metal upholstery, they are pretty similar. a car is a car. with the batteries that have not been that many cars on the road, for that long. i think the jury is still out, as far as what is going to happen area that being said -- happen. that being said, the battery does not become useful for an electric car, this is a number i'm making up, when it can't hold 8% of its charge. at that eye my you're holding 80% of the charge, it does become useful for utilities, storage and things like that. there will be life for these batteries, in the future, that is not just them sitting there. >> didn't really answer the question, but it is okay.

>> i can share our impact report with you that has detailed information. >> thank you. >> do you want me to answer the universal question? >> you might as well, you're going to have to do it later anyway. since you are up. >> as far as -- there is a question about tesla chargers pulling off other access will, and that sort of thing. one thing i think is important to understand is that there is a difference between level two charging, and level three charging. level one, as a point of reference, all outlets. level two, are the charging station that are down across the street here, you can charge a test on one of those, it would take about ten hours to get. a car with a smaller battery, it is a lot shorter amount of time. there is less electric going

into it. the level three, which is what we're talking about here, those are our supercharges. that takes about an hour to charge the full 300-mile range. give or take. it is an order of magnitude more power involved. for every supercharger we and all, over the course of ten hours, we can charge ten cars. over those 12 stations becomes 120. whereas if they were level two chargers, you would only have 12 cars charging over that same amount of time. if you want to enable car ownership for people that park on the street, i am one of those inferences go resident that rents an apartment, i don't have working on i park on the street. it is a pain to charge a an electric car. >> i guess you have a tesla? >> i do have a tesla. i have two drive to the city to

charge it, which is not practical. i think for people or just your average consumer looking to buy an electric car, if you have to drive 20 minutes in order to charge it, once a week, that is not practical. what we're doing here is trying to make it practical. >> thank you. >> any public comment? >> no. i know you want to get home, buu responsible for turning me into a tree hugger. [laughter] my first hearing, where you defended a tree on fulton tree, and then you won me over never to kill another tree, in my entire life. when i come off as this tree hugging radical, it is all your fault.

>> thank you. i really appreciate that. >> all right. who or what entity overruled staff recommendation to deny this permit? >> without a doubt we have regulatory person -- not regulatory, it is a policy person works for the director's office prayed without a doubt, amazingly, there are rushers on city bureaucracies. >> this permit came out of another department, or the mayor's office? >> also, our directors department to try to be firm with what is going on in these industries. like i said, trees are the original solar. now you want people wanting to end goal solar at the extent -- expense of an existing reit tree. >> needless to say i am bothered by this -- for what i said

before. you know, even if there are 5,000 tesla owners, in san francisco, it is a minuscule amount. we are asking a very important. listen, i love electric cars, i don't have one myself, i would love to own a tesla. i choose not to spend $100,000 or whatever the low-end car is, it's very expensive. it is very restrictive for most citizens, san francisco, to own the car. no bias against tesla. what i'm saying is a restrictive situation here. what i also look at is this; the beneficiaries of this will be the upper was a ownership. the beneficiary of this would be test the 412 and galatians that

will benefit tesla owners. it will be a sales opportunity for tesla to sell more cars because you don't have to drive to the city, you can just go to our proposal. that is why you should buy my car. the beneficiary of this is pg&e who is not going to send electricity into those charging patients for free. three companies, which are for-profit companies, will be the beneficiaries of this to serve less than 5%, may less than 1% of the total of san franciscan. that bothers me. why are we letting them off, if we do approve this, with three oars six street trees? i'm still living in last week's pained to be revisited.

i know 41 tree locations in north each that sit empty right now, if tesla and pg&e, and the owners of upper plaza want to self serve themselves or you i have 41 opportunities for them to plant trees if we want to move forward here, just to let you know, there is not a trend to deny necessarily. if we want to move forward, you have three entities that will benefit to serve less than 1% of the population. why don't we raise the ante. what is the opportunity to raise the ante here, and ask them to take care of those empty tree sites, just as an example? >> for an, we have been working, you know, with real advocate for urban forestry, looking at strengthening our ordinance. very often our ordinance will get amended, in very odd ways,

you can be caught flat footed you say, you know, what were those other bells and whistles i wanted to add to it? we do have a working troop to look at strengthening some of our measures when trees are move due to development. not really in place right now, but i hear what you're saying. because we are on this, you know, economic run that we are on, there is a lot of interest among our advocate to say, are we getting enough out of this? i hear you, and there are people who are actively looking at some of those impacts. it is difficult, because i just don't know right now. i don't, you know, we don't have

any in place to say this is our path forward in this case area. >> given the broad powers of this body, how far can we stretch if we were allow this to move forward, but we want three very different multibillion-dollar companies, but the tesla, and pg&e. if we wanted to approve this knowing this serve so few people, and benefit these wealthy constituents area and how how broad are our powers to move beyond three or six in lieu fees and require something more? >> the code requires there be 1-1 replacement. it would be to issue, it sounds

like tesla has voluntarily agreed to exceed the requirements of the code. i would give the advice that the board have the power to issue a permit that exceeds the requirements of the code. >> unless they voluntarily -- >> i don't like your answer. i wanted legal clarification. >> am understanding the impact fees that are identified in the code, they have to be based on some sort of analysis. >> i thought we were not allowed to touch that over the years you'd. >> of got another idea. >> appreciate it. we will take that feedback. >> is there any public comments on this item? trying to run it come on anyone else like to become a can you line up on the side so we can

get this moving along. >> good evening. i am taking on behalf of the tree campaign. i still am not clear which trees they keep on talking about this, there is a line of trees on golden gate avenue between van ness where the property is not. it keeps evolving, each time we have a hearing on this, i actually have a picture of one of the postings that was put on one of the trees in the neighborhood, for this removal. there were like three of them. i do not know which tree we are referring to. each time i come to the hearing, it's another tree they are looking at, or trees tesla has a

showroom on van ness. this is just a couple of blocks away. that is the real reason here. you go to the show room, get your car, move down a couple of blocks and charges. secondly, i brought up .-dot two blocks away is puc, they have a charging station outside their building. again, within a couple of blocks of parking lots under the building, you know, could use these to me how the building on the state building, the state building across the street. you know, they all have parking lots, you just heard about the ordinance that they have to put in these chargers area why pick on this one? you know, like the commissioners have said, you know, you have all of these other one. i'm really up that when i start

to hear 120 trees, i mean, 120 cars can be charged. who is going to be there to move these cars so they can have 120 per charged. they're going to be taking up more parking spaces if you have 120 cars being charged at different location. there is no more issues to be thought out about this permit on how it impacts the neighborhood and the community. enke. >> thank you. >> my name is michael nolte, i guess you can call me the tree guy, too. i did a site visit before this hearing today on van ness, i mean, on golden gate.

you know, just like my brother had said, we saw the postings initially, and we are kinda confused about which trees are going to be removed. it seems to be a moving target in san francisco. which trees will be removed, how does the public get to decide, when they come to a meeting, how prepared they can be, because they are not sure which trees are going to be removed until the last minute, if that is even brought up at the meeting. and, you know, i really don't like the idea that this is a social t station is only going to be for a certain type of car. and, we've already lost a lot of trees along the van ness corridor which is highway when, which is, you know, right next to it. you know, i don't know what else

to say, you know, there went to a places where more trees can be planted. we should find some ways to mitigate this in a baiter -- better way. you should use your broad powers, because this is not going to be the first, or the last time trees are being removed and severance disco for various reasons including development. there should maybe be some policies, maybe what you should do is differ this to policymaking working group to come up with a recommendation, if you can't figure out how to do this tonight, coming have all kinds of russians, just trying to figure this out for tonight. i think if you're always trying to make a quick decision, i don't see why you need to do that, can't you differ to a working group, and say let's

work this out with more input? come up with a more amenable something for the community as well as a neighborhood that will be impacted. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? we will now move on to rebuttal. >> just briefly, it seems like we are glossing over the rules. regarding the number of tesla's stations, in san francisco, there are a bunch of them throughout the city. again, it seems we are putting trees against electric vehicles without even answering the question if there's a way we can do both? i do not know what a birch box tree is rated regarding my numbers, it is literally a ton higher than what the department of the environment came up with.

there is on an essentially confirmed that this is a for-profit venture, which benefits a percentage of san franciscans. what i've heard and the presentation is that this was the easiest site for them from an engineering perspective. the trade-off for their convenience as we lose another tree. i would argue condoning tree removal because that is what is convenient for a private company so it sets a bad precedent. tesla essentially affirmed that the city is running the rules because they are going to do this for free. additionally this appraisal fee, while i have the efforts on that, to an outside observer, if you're just looking at this it looks like they are buying their way into this. i would like to point out that san francisco has the tallest urban canopy of any city in the united gates at 13.7%. which includes, by the way, the 44% within that 13.7% the civic center has the least amount of trees of any neighborhood in the

city. it's really hard to believe that there is no other location in civic center where a charging station could have been put did not require the removal of a healthy, productive tree. i would conclude by saying that i have asked at least twice, for the parties in this matter to come to the table and discuss a resolution and i was not met on the request area i'm still open to it. >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder. >> i think we have been over everything. i just want to emphasize that really what we are doing here is building fast charging that will be enabling broader ownership within san francisco for people who otherwise cannot afford their own personal charger in their own personal garage. this is absolutely an essential piece of infrastructure in order to allow a broader swath of the city to own electric cars viewed

we did agree to fund additional trees. this is not a negative impact to the city of san francisco. there will be additional trees after the infrastructure is installed. just to the point of there being other tesla chargers in the ci city. there is one other installation of fast chargers in the city, and that is in presidio. they are not any other fast charters area thank you. >> thank you. what is the pricing on the lowest and tesla vehicle? >> a model 3 is $35,000, i believe. >> the original sedan? >> i don't know the starting point. i believe it is $70,000. >> goes up $260,000.

>> not exactly what we would call affordable housing. >> the tesla model has been to start with the rose there, which was incredibly expensive, filled out the technology there, and then use that to find a cheaper model. >> it has held its value all these years. >> exactly. the ultimate goal is to make this technology accessible to everyone. we are on the crowded -- cutting edge of building out electric cars. the goal is to make it cheap. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. buck? >> chris buck, san francisco public works, bureau of urban forestry. i appreciate everyone's time this evening, this is new ground. generally, no one is expecting, or wants a line of folks

installing anything that requires removal of a street tree. the staff level decisions are sometimes overridden by the director, and a/or policymakers at public works area i'm a little refreshed to be here tonight, you know, battling it out over a single tree, it's a little refreshing. there are a lot of tree removals tech come related to garage insulation. i'm just going to kinda.out out and leave out there. regarding the vault place rules. again, i don't know what that issue. they've applied to get a vault. i don't know what the issue is with the vault that the appellant keeps bringing up. i can look into that. i don't know what that is. he keeps mentioning it. he's not tell me -- telling me.

i need additional guidance on that. i think we have covered most of the ground. without a doubt, there are benefits to e.v. vehicles, i'm not here to be an advocate for that. just to point out, there are various declarations by many city agent these, like the mayor's office, and san francisco environment about pushing the envelope on this technology. again, i am an arborist and i will keep my urban forster's hat on. again, just saying, these are considerations. i reached the act this decision that you guys have to make tonight. i continue to ask -- respect the role that you play. you know, we remain open to what happened. thank you. >> mr. buck? the appellant actually said he has reached out to both of you with no response. is that common? when the member of the public wants to participate --

>> it is not common at all. with all due respect to mr. mr. klipp, we are not the supreme work, i do not have staffing levels like that. >> really? >> i know, exactly. we get a lot of requests for information. i am not there is on it -- i am not the respondent. i would love to work with everyone i work out arrangements. again, we do that when we can. we have done that in a lot of different cases. >> i understand but -- >> we have all mutually continued the item together. we have reached out to san francisco environment. we have put a lot of effort into resulting decisions. >> not to interrupt you, this is not a one-off, he's not a member of the public that showed up for when hearing god it's pretty regular. i know his name now. >> true. i need to serve a broad constituency that includes

125,000 trees and many others it if you want to look at how we divvy up our fund for the public, right? sometimes there's going to be certain cases i don't have the time to devote to it. i appreciate the question. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioners is this matter submitted? >> so, let's not lose perspective of what it is. we have gone off track, it is for profit rate i get it. how many trees have come before us, from a developer that said, i knocked down four trees, i am sorry. or, the developer that has said, i am going to put 12 trees, then we find later on he cannot close his permit because he was only able to it in six trees. we have million-dollar people that do not read the things you you know, every tree is rushes, i agree. the percentage of our canopy really sucks.

it includes golden gate park. we are still at that level it is pretty tragic to me personally. at the same time -- you know, i remember when 601 van ness guarded, when the building was built. that was one of the first large developers to do least parking. it was a real novelty, at that time. i was like who is going to pay for parking? here we are. at the end of the day i am willing to support the tree removal. like i said, we cannot pick and choose who we are going to charge more to and who we are not owing to charge more to. that a slippery slope. if a homeowner takes out a tree for a garage, shall make him put in 40 trees? that is my opinion. i think the rule must fit universal. the only thing that i would like to see is, you know, it is nice

that tesla has offered to increase their in lieu. to be honest, it is not very large. i would like to condition the permit that a pacific nutri, or new trees being called as a replacement, and not to a piggy bank and we never see the end result of it. can i do that? mr. city attorney? ready please. >> we need to talk to that of having to see if there is locations in the area. >> can be anywhere. >> i mean,, that would put the 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.