lot of the cappy and they're forward stress because of the infill and this is the third rail of urban forestry because you come against bouncing -- community interest versus property rights, but it's something we have to pay attention to. actually, the urban forest council is doing a study of the best practises of how to protect backyard trees and we'll be hopefully having findings in the very near future. so i really believe we are on the cusp of taking the city, san francisco had the absolute worse tree policy possible before 2016 and we can become a leader of tree management in the united states. right now we have our first piece with prop e and i know public works, friends in the forest, we get countless calls of how did you do this? this is unique and we need to continue to work on this and now we need a dedicated funding source to do the planting, which is absolutely -- and we need to have equality in where we want. in conclusion, secure planting funds for the new trees to equalize our canopy and protect the trees we currently have. that has to be -- planning department has to be very di

to acquire an urban forestry database. this is important for us right now. everything we've been doing to this point, we're basically managing it on paper. and for the data requirements that we want, we need a better data basis to capture and manage what we're doing so that we can track is plan our tree maintenance cycle and track and plan and document our reforestation efforts and that type of thing. we have high hope for a positive outcome through this rfp to be able to identify and then acquire an you're been forestry management database system. largely our priorization process focuses on high use and adjacency to paths of travel and this is to make sure we are identifying and mitigating any hazards whether from limb failure, storm damage, tree failures and that type of thing and being able to manage from that perspective first and foremost. the tree seattle assessments i d contribute to that importantly because they help us to identify where the potential hazards may be. in this current fiscal year, rather than six tre

>> we will hear from bureau of urban forestry. mr. buck, you will have six minutes. >> you don't have to use all six. [laughter] >> good evening. chris buck, urban forestry. i want to thank everyone for their time this evening. just to go back to the survey again. a couple of data points that there's amazing benefits to having the census. so one of them is locations of trees that have caused sidewalk damage. that's how we are organizing our approach to repairing sidewalks. so that information is there. that valuable information we are using that to orchestrate and coordinate our approach to reprayering sidewalks that's been -- repairing sidewalks. the survey identified potential planting sites. so i know there's this desire to sort of question what we are doing with that material with the information which was stated repeatedly we understand the situation they have with the ficus greater than the consultant. at a lot of these hearings sometimes there's a parade of counterarguments where arborists. we don't have that this evening for w

i realize that these are not all the urban forestry's fault. it is the only group in the city dedicated to our urban canopy. better than anyone else, they understand just how bad our tree situation is. the recent urban forestry council noted at the city's current funding we have barely enough money to replant trees at the rate we are removing them. putting all these things together if the city is serious about slowing down climate change and making this a place we can live in ten years if we know we don't have the money to plant the trees we need to achieve our goals then we need to do everything in our power to save trees that we have. that's basic economics. conserve until you have the spending money and right now we don't. there's the issue of public trust, with funding numbers like these it's little wonder the public doesn't believe city officials believe or trust the city officials to keep the city sustainable and to do everything they can to protect us from disastrous climate future. initially this was for 39 trees now it's down to 27. i a

one on biodiversity and one on urban forestry. and what is so important about that is when we talk about our climate action strategy, 08100, this is a way to focus on roots explicitly and the board heard loud and clear if need for additional resources and the need for city agencies to work with them and the department was part of both -- central to those conversations. and finally, i would just like to say that on december 4, i'm going to be doing a field trip to look at what our school district is doing from 10 to 12:30, 10 a.m. so if any of you can join me -- anthony, did you send out the e-mail. >> i will tomorrow. >> he will send oute out an e-ml tomorrow to see what they are doing in their initiative but also in their school lunch program. we will be going to the high school to look at their new cafeteria and looking at how that promotes the roots part of things, local organic food and also zero waste. so if you can join me, that so if you can join me, that >> at work and i'm excited to help push along the environment's missi

the assessment is in, the recommendations on those assessments comprise the work plan from our urban forestry unit the following year. >> and the -- in terms of working with the fire department, have they gone out with you to look at in particular, i mean if not all, seeing as you have a consultant, but in regards to the innovations that you may have in the residential area, even 30 feet sounds like not much of a clearance. between you and i is about 30 feet, i believe. >> we consultant the fire department on a case-by-case basis. it's not an issue of regular meetings. as issues come up, we meet on site and see and discuss it and see what our analysis is. >> but if -- i guess my question is to be proactive, why wait for the issue. are there opportunities for rec and park to work with the fire department to actually go out and do -- look at some situations and see what recommendations they might come out with? >> we actually chartered one tree assessment which was to address specifically adjacent property lines, which is more universal throughout the city. so it wasn't specific to stern grove

section 16 article 808 and 810 of the urban forestry ordinance of san francisco state it's a crime to abuse, injury, tree within san francisco and during this september 19th, public works hearing, public works forestry expert stated that these trees on the chopping block were healthy, mature, significant all of them so that i would like to know how it's possible the developers of this project have never been asked if they have plans for preservation. in all the hearings, preservation has never been offered as an o when asked about removal they stated things like there will be a door where these two massive trees are or that retail space should go to the curb across the wide sidewalk. i would ask is it possible for you to move the doorway a couple feet to the left or right or possible to include the already existing trees. all we hear from the developers is these trees will be replaced by sam bellings, it's an afterthought. this should be about quality and not quantity. even 88 samplings cannot do the heavy listing that mature trees provide us. additionally, trees are teched beffectedb

bureau of urban forestry has not done their part in responding to the public. it took almost a year to get them to come into a.d.a. compliance with notification for these tree removals. it took almost three months to get a reply from them just over e-mail. chris buck and other people at that department simply reply to the public whenever they feel like it and they don't reply in a timely fashion. even after i involved the mayor's office on disability, i still couldn't get a reply from them. a lot of times they say these trees are being removed, but we'll plant new ones. it took five years to get four replacement trees for 3500 mission street. that's five years after i wrote numerous e-mails and spoke in person. the amount of work it takes to get these replacement trees is wild. i don't believe there's been a sufficient budget for replanting of new trees. also, according to the united states department of agriculture's report from 2016, over 17% of urban trees don't live past two years. a lot of the trees that are replanted get sick, they're not cared for. there

they are workhorses when it comes to urban forestry.e have begun to see our ficustrees are too big and dangerous in san francisco. we have a lot of tree failures with this species in particular. this is a perfect example of the challenges with the structure of the ficustrees. you can see four very large stems that are all coming from the same main truck. you can see the two branches attached to one another at a really sharp angle. in between you can't it is a lot of strong wood. they are attached so sharply together. this is a much weaker union of a branch than if you had a wide angel. this is what it looks like after the fi c.u. resolution s limb ic another was another limb fails. >> we see decline. you can see the patches where there aren't any leaves at all. that is a sign the tree is in decline. the other big challenge is the root system of the tree are aggressive and can impact nearby utilities and we can fix the sidewalk around the tree in many cases. we don't want to cuts the roots too severely because we can destabilize the tree

and 426 ivy street, appealing the issuance on august 28, 2019 the san francisco public works urban forestry works order to remove 28 street trees with replacement unless otherwise neated due to utility conflicts. the necessary sidewalk repairs shall be completed within three months after removal. this is order 2017-97. we will hear from mr. klipp first. >> welcome back. >> good to see you again. my name is josh klipp. this past year, san francisco declared it is in a climate emergency. the effect was to instruct our department of the environment to draft and revise climate action plan. we had a plan. but our situation is so dire that we needed a new one if we want our city to be livable. so the department environment made that plan. the only difference was this plan acknowledged our desperate need to sequester more carbon. we have a lot of initiatives around carbon mitigation as i know this board is aware. if we don't sequester carbon we will fail in our climate goals and climate change will reach the point of no return in ten years. so let's talk about ten years of carbon sequestering in r

the trees recommended by our own city department by the city's bureau of urban forestry due to grout tolerance, strong branch structure and low maintenance requirements. fruitless olive trees are very neat trees and they do not drop debris or fruit and they will be installed at a 24-inch box size meeting the borough of urban requirements. installed in front of laurel village improvement project, creating what i think will be a beautiful long tree canopy on the length of california street. i also want to address the 18 significant trees that were described. as defined -- i don't need to get into the definition. it's located within ten feet of the property edge of the situation and 25 feet in high with a canopy 15 in diameter or trunk diameter in 12-inches at breast height. of 18 significant trees, only one this good health and that one tree is located directly in the middle of the parcel where 186 affordable senior homes will be built and there will be childcare services. they propose replacing this with 49 new trees and the replacement tree list includes the species we heard about. s

i thinka remarkable fact about this casee any reason to grant the appeal.u of urban forestry is doing the i think they have established thaa threat. they are not any tree. d risk of any tree. sure any any l just like any bus could crash. s had a flat tire, you wouldn't le road. the bureau of urban forese trees have a flat tire and shou. and that's why i would not supp. >> i think that he makes very gi would be persuaded to not suppoo wonder about the unsettled natue replacement trees and just how f replacing in three months woulde replacement trees haven't been i don't want to protract that decs being made with community, whics not going to be fast to be madeg if there is a plan of not startl until that's decided or kind off operations goes. i would want te way that we can have a conditioe removal doesn't begin until thes have been identified and are pa. >> i would support that approac. >> i guess i think it's a no-wie that solution a lot. it forces . and for moving forward until evd every t is crossed or at least s to that, because until if you sg tomorrow, we approve it, you stg tom

urban forestry trails and sustainability. the next slide sort of shows our outreach for the next bond. we intend to use some online efforts. we intend to take advantage of our existing advisory group, direct park commission, and to go back into the community for extensive outreach, which in turn helps us develop the bond program and will be coming back to the rec park program in 2020 to show our findings. the last slide is an overview of the schedule before -- as we prepare for the 2020 bond. as i indicated earlier, we have convened a bond working group that will be working to prioritize our projects based on the criteria that i outlined earlier, so next we anticipate 20 to 30 meetings in the next couple of months. then the findings will be in early 2020 and turns over to the capital planning and the board of supervisors so they can get on the ballot in june 2020 for election on november 6, 2020. so that sort of ends my portion, the rec park portion of the presentation. >> i can take it. >> antonio, capital fitness minister f

we understand that there would be a major encroachment permit but the standards for the urban forestry ordinance are within that. >> and is miss short still here? in terms of the current trees at site, is it correct that we have 212 trees at the site? >> so we only assessed the trees under public work's jurisdiction, so i don't know total number of trees on the site. >> ok. >> is there anyone from the planning department? >> one moment, please. i will withdraw that question because i think it illustrates a point that this is part of the major encroachment permit that is the piece of legislation that would allow for us to actually address the trees under the actual jurisdiction of public works. so at this time, i'll wait for the ordinance that actually addresses how many trees are on the property and how many trees we will have in the end. >> supervisor mandleman? >> maybe just to follow on president yi's questions about the resource issues and the developments to consider that preservation. can you just talk a little bit about why the planning commission rejected those alternatives? th

but i would also just say that as we've worked together not only here but also in the urban forestry council, these volunteer boards often, it's the staff that has a longer tenure than the members of the commissions and councils. and we roll on and roll off and don't often know what we are doing and we might violate the brown act or forget public comment, and it's really the folks in your seat that are so important in these councils and commissions. and having seen a few people that sit in your seat, you are right at the top in terms of professionalism, and i totally agree, it's bakersfield's gain. and maybe you'll be back with us down the road at some point. i sure hope so. >> director raphael. >> i want to say, as i think about you, anthony, and i've shared some of these things with you and staff and i would like to say it in this public arena too, that we find ourselves in a time where public service is denigrated, and where democracy feels like it's only there if it's convenient, and that these rules, whether they are the brown act or any of the other rules of engagement, of tran

urban interface. they are two different things. we will look at two maps. these are developed and published by the cdf, california department of forestry, adopted by cell fire. -- california fire. these identify the different fire hazard severity zones. then i speak to the specific details regarding these codes. here is the code section. title 29, part nine, chapter 3. general requirements speak to any structure adjacent to wild grass, shrubs or not necessarily wild land urban interface. these are found in chapter 3 and title 19. what it says is you shall create a fire break of 30 feet up to the structure to limit the spread of fire to protect that structure. it is to remove any combustible vegetation. what is that? not green. we are talking about chapter three. it is dead vegetation. that is the requirements. that is the general rule of thumb. within chapter 3 it refers to chapter 49. that is where the wild land interface requirements come into play. >> if you want you can use that one microphone. they both work. >> sorry for the distraction. here is a map of california. cdf put this out. it is for the whole state of california. the fire hazard severity zo