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 sort of conspiracy that we have it out for ficus. we have it at the directors order, that talks about this being a tree by tree evaluation. it is not a death sentence. the ficus trees that we have identified for removal have poor structure. there are a lot of ficus tree that we are keeping in the city. we did have an unfortunate

situation, it is outlined in my brief, in the resulting decision. when i was out come on vacation, had a colleague who said i think the posting. for 16th street is completed. was this protested? was the 16th street phase one trees protested? this is a colic that has one more year experience than i do here, so she's been here for a little longer, by one year. they did not look at map zero, they looked at google, a place them on east side 280. she believed those protests do not apply to these trees. we gave a contractor a sort of verbal and written e-mail saying, no, those are not protested, those can be removed. the contractor technically should have waited for a permit. but, the reason we have not issued a find to them, is because terrible about that. it was a human error.

someone trying to fill them, tried to do their best. in an e-mail, said no protest, go ahead and remove it is unfortunate. we have disclosed that. we disclose in a public hearing. we were the ones to disclose that. we did not wait for the public to point that out. the moment that we heard about that, i reached out to sfmta when i return. it is unfortunate, but it is human error. we apologize for that. there is nothing i can say beyond that. we do not want to ruin public trust. it is something that happened. i will say, coincidentally, it happened to two out of five topiary trees. even that canopy can be a loss to folks that use the business there. fortunately, people realize the mistake, i reached out immediately to say those trees are not approved for removal,

stop all actions. they were literally halfway through that third tree when they stop. the moment it came to our attention, we called them immediately. i just wanted to provide that. it is in our brief. we acknowledge that. mitigations typically are planter a larger box sized tree. we were heavy laden with medication because when a particular case. thank you very much. >> mr. buck, regarding the statistics you mentioned several times that, you know, the half-million dollar report that the city played you guys -- page you guys, you're saving the trees that were supposed to be knocked down and vice versa. >> if i can go to overhead? because of some of the records request, it is clear what folks are looking for when they are doing records requests. an inspector with our staff, she has a masters degree and

certified arborist. she is into analysis, and she said, okay, let's look where we go to 100 trees. on these three key maps when we evaluate these hundred trees, what are we actually doing? what were the arbor pro recommendations and how do we handle those? not every ficus is a removal candidate. it is case-by-case absolutely. our comparison shows our urban forestry inspectors are upgrading a ficus tree for removal to prune only. we upgraded 32% in one grade, 21% and another grid, 50 it is not -- a 50% in another grid. i don't hold it against anyone to fight to protect trees. i have a deep respect for folks that are here.

there is also data that would counter that. we did a preliminary. >> thank you for having that information. the second question is, what happens to a member of the public, or a business, that accidentally cuts down a tree? >> we issue a fine. it is a standard fee, or loss of appraised value. it is typically, $2,031, this past fiscal year, perjury. that is typically something that would be issued. we have issued fines to other city agencies. one of the challenges, we are complicit, because they tried to check with us. we thought we did our due diligence, in my absence, and someone gave incorrect information. >> they should have a permit in hand? >> technically they should have a permit in hand.

it would have been great if the contractor said, thank you for the approval, i will sit and wait for that permit and i would not act until i get that permit. >> where they didn't have the permit in hand, basically we berated them because they did more work -- they went beyond the scope of their permit. in this particular case, there was not even a permit. >> it is true, maybe this is one way -- we have had plenty of people over the years, don't issue me a fine, issue me a warning. we will handle it the same way we always do. we could theoretically issue a fine, to the contractor. in their appeal which is an administered hearing, they can make their case. look, you know what, here's our e-mail saying we have approval. we could go through that process. we are not opposed to doing that. that is something we could do. >> last question, if we approve

the tree removal -- is there a dropdead date that these trees are supposed to be installed by? if not, do you have to reappear before this body? >> yes. fran can answer that better. the contractor is going to get paid when work is completed. there is, you know, i feel like we have a contract for them to do that work. >> i know that. they say fool me once, shame on you, fold me twice i remember members from the same department saying we are not closing the street all the way down, were going to get this done and we will be done in two years. >> exactly. i think the scope of the project here is different from van ness. try i am sorry keep on bringing this up.

>> it seems like it is moving up here. >> i have done it four times today. >> i think sfmta and their contractors want to get going sooner, not later. if people want to do business again in san francisco, that is part of the public record. >> thank you very much for all of your help. >> thank you both for your presentations. i appreciate how prepared you are. thank you for background as well. i just have to know the answer to this question. we are not arborists. this board is not a specialty body. i am perfectly comfortable deferring to b.u.f. on what is a healthy and what is not a healthy tree.

nineteen trees on the chopping block, and this board continued the case, and you went back and looked at them, 11 of them, all of a sudden, could stay. you change your mind. i'm just trying to understand what i am supposed to do with that? i mean, that is not idiosyncratic which i think is overdue use tonight. >> the challenges -- when there is tremendous public feedback, sometimes the city has to take risks that it might prefer not to take. to appear reasonable. so, i would say, and that's, you know, is a risky run. when i advocate -- sometimes you need to make a non- decision, you need to make it based on other situations, like other impacts going on in that immediate environment.

that is the challenge to defend. basically what we are saying is in an ideal world we would start over, we would we plant those trees. some are smaller at the library. the 19 trees are smaller. the library initiated the removal application for those trees. it is the city saying, these trees are little bit smaller, we are going to accept some liability here. because of the tremendous amount of pushback. what we really say, people say, you know what, i used to believe in conspiracy theories, till telework for the government and that's my big one-liner. no one has time to create a conspiracy. if public works never changed its decisions -- then where are we? i think it is tremendous,

tremendous public pushback. essentially, okay, go back ou out -- physically go back out and reevaluate. what can we live with? what level of liability and risk and we live with? that is ultimately how it is determined. >> that is a very helpful answ answer. i wasn't suggesting any conspiracy. i literally meant how can we trust the quality of your assessment? >> it's just having to say, you know what? it is enough to make us say we are going to accept more risk. we are basically on record as having found trees to be not in great condition. you know, there is that. we need to be able to defend that in a court of law. >> hope you never get deposed on that. [laughter] >> if i may add something to answer that question. >> don't go anywhere, chris. >> nine months ago i did ask chris to go back and look at these trees because we kept

getting comment from the public, and pressure, your project is removing trees we don't want it. don't touch our trees. i touched -- called chris and i went back and told him we were getting a lot of pressure. he has probably went back, and they all came back and said no, our recommendation stands and it needs to be removed. to his credit, i have asked him to do more work than he should have. his recommendation came back every time. >> thank you. >> anybody else? mr. buck, first of all, thank you very much for coming in with a plan that is detailed. thank you for coming in with a plan that answers the questions when and what, as i pointed out in an earlier hearing. i appreciate that you seem to be listening to us. if i look back to last january,

with the library, and last wee week -- i don't think there was a plan. i am glad to see that this happened and, you know, it's deeply appreciated. you've also made me start to look at every tree, in every town. last week i was in san molina i see a ficus, and a magnolia. i pointed out to my wife, this is what we talk about at see that ficus and has lousy structure. see those limbs they are going to fall down and go boom. you have gotten to me. really important question, it really responds to public comment. how many travertine accidents have there been, would you -- ficus accidents, would you estimate, less you know the fa fact, following down -- falling

down, widow makers, falling down on people, cars, trees, or just missus in san francisco in the last 12 months? >> i do not have the exact answer for you for that. anecdotally, a storm for a weekend, 20 trees come down. on average, 15 of the 20 our large ficus. we have a lot of information that we would dig down deeper to find, one of the challenges when a tree, there is a failure, you need to match up that exact tree in a database. it sounds easy. the tree crew comes back, the last thing they want to do is "turn around, don't drown." one the information. but -- when you have to explain to the head of the the sfmta, why a cable car is blocked for

the second time in a month on high street. columbus avenue, several years ago, we had a major hearing to remove a lot of trees, a lot of ficus, on lumbar. major committee meetings. individual tree by tree analysis. we kept a bunch of ficus. we did. columbus avenue, we had a lot of ficus removal. >> failure, limbs going down blowing on cars and people? >> correct. we have had a couple of serious injuries to pedestrians. the most notable is potrero avenue, several years ago. it was someone who is actually working on a street scape project for public works. a contractor. also, a parent entering sherman elementary last year, which i mentioned last week. there might have been a couple of other close calls. we have heard from the public.

you will hear this later this fall. what is the statistical, you know, it's probably greater to be struck by lightning, in san francisco. there is no lightning in san francisco. some people have a high risk. i get that. a city agency, we have to be responsible, when we know there's a problem. we are also responding to other agencies, that are saying your tree is on our lives again. i revenue line for sfmta means it is actually making money, not sinking in the home. >> i think it is very important not to use it as an excuse but to use it as a fact. for the record, have to ask you again, as i did last week, i know it was not a ficus. in washington square park, a tree fell on a woman, what

happened to that and what was her personal human cost, and then from a fiscal cost to the city would you please identify the number for the record? >> that was an injury three summers ago, washington square park area technically the tre tree -- the citizen was essentially partially paralyzed. we can now speak about it because it's in public record. the city settled $14.5 billion, that was approved by the board of supervisors. that was a canary island pine tree. there was a species that has a really good track record and that was $14 million. ficus do not have such a track record. >> wouldn't you say it is very important, when you're speaking on the subject -- and i've already identified myself as a

heavy tree protector tonight -- don't you think it is very important to identify the reality of what you are facing when you're making these tough decisions that there is a legal liability, personal liability that is a liability to people who are citizens in the context of their personal safety. of course, a fiscal responsibility? >> correct. without a doubt we are public works, and public safety is always in our key core objectives with everything that we do. a public is very important. i can't emphasize, thank you for a couple of questions. when tree advocates like myself may not realize this. when trees are failing come on a regular basis, we actually us use -- lose public support for a

lot of tree. they want to plant more trees? and they cannot maintain their ficus? i have to put that out there. from one phone call to the next i can go from working with appellants, to working with someone who is like you have done nothing to manage these trees. it is a delicate balance. we are trying to scale back. we have heard the public. i'm hoping this fall, we are really rounding the corner, and hopefully we will be focusing on replacement trees. we will have more information about a replacement plan citywide. >> commissioners is this matter submitted? >> commissioners? >> i want to thank the public