That doesnt include trees on private property. I realize that these are not all the urban forestrys 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 citys 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 dont 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. Thats basic economics. Conserve until you have the spending money and right now we dont. Theres the issue of public trust, with funding numbers like these its Little Wonder the public doesnt 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 its down to 27. I appreciate our city officials went back and took another look. From a laypersons perspective and someone who wants to trust our city officials it begs the question if 39 trees didnt need to come out why were they proposed in the first place . Decisions to remove trees need to be based on science and not politics. And science says we must save as many trees as possible. To the extent this removal revolves around ficass, other cities have the same problem. We are the only one that has taken this approach. This Climate Emergency hasnt factored at all into this decision process. Appellants attempted to discuss climaterelated Solutions Prior to this hearing and i wont go into the details. What i want to note is that the Community Asked about a lot more than just saving the trees. They are asked about phasing removal so its not such a huge removal all at once about evergreen trees so the air is max maximally filtered now that we live in routine wildfire smoke. Maximum therapy trees so that we can so our pedestrians and our homes can be shaded as our earth continues to warm. The time of removal to cause the least amount of harm to the ecology and about trees that may be planted that support as much our ecosystem as possible. They ask about Tree Planting across the neighborhood. We are living in extraordinary times. Instances like this we cannot do business as usual. If we are to preserve our future we need to start making decisions for that future today. There are a lot of tools at our disposal to make that happen, almost none of which have been utilized in this removal. This removal will reverberate through this city and neighborhood for decades. And i wonder, if ten years from now when Climate Change is reversible when we look back and say that we did everything that we could from where im standing the answer to that question right now is no. And i would humbly request the board to further this hearing until such time as our city officials go back and look at this particular removal from a Climate Change perspective and determine what mitigating tools and strategies to be implemented to maximize carbon sequestering during a Climate Emergency. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from ms. Cieutat. I apologize. I want to make sure i can use the overhead before i start. All right. Maybe come out a little. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. My name is susan cieutat. I am a 17year resident of hayes valley. And i hope you had time to read my appeal. There are basically two points that i want to make. One is that buff really hasnt provided us with the evidence that they are using to conclude that the trees are dangerous even though weve asked for it multiple times. And also that the conclusions of their ash resist are contrary to the professional recommendations of arbor pro which the city paid 500000 to do a census of our trees. And they made specific recommendations about the trees in hayes valley. So on the issue of the evidence, at the request of the community, they did a walkthrough twice in our neighborhood, and we reviewed the trees. And they told us the structural reasons why they believed they were dangerous. But we said okay weve lived here like 15 17, 20, 30 years, and we havent seen a problem. So we understand what you are saying about the tree structure but why does that make you conclude that theyre dangerous. Whats the evidence of that. And they had none. When we came to the hearing in april, the hearing officer also asked buff to provide some kind of data about ficus tree failures not even just in hayes valley but throughout the city. Nothing. We met with a representative of buff this past friday and were told that their conclusions about the risk is based on an he evidence from 311 calls. So weve put in a request to get Service Requests to 311 for hayes valley for the last five years. But we wont receive those for a couple weeks. So we are really puzzled as to why theyre saying that these ficus trees are dangerous. So im going to show you some photos. I dont have time to go through all of them. And what arbor pro said about them. So this is one. These are all trees that are going to be removed. Arbor pro recommended that they be routinely pruned. Arbor pro recommended it be routinely pruned. They recommended a large tree prune which i guess is different from a routine prune. This was recommended for routine pruning. Also recommended for routine pruning. Also routine pruning. These are others they did not recommend for removal. They didnt have any pruning recommendations. This was a large tree routine prune. Now, there were theres one tree that arbor pro recommended removing that i think we can all agree with. We dont have a problem with that one being removed. And then this is one that arbor pro didnt recommend for removal but we agreed that it should be removed, because its dying. Arbor pro completed their they took two years from january of 2016 to do their assessment. So its quite likely this tree wasnt dying when arbor pro did their census but it looks like it also needs to be removed. This is another one that we agree should be removed because we cant really tell from this photo, but the bark is rotten. And then there are a few others that we agree should be removeed. But it is extreme. And we feel that we need some time to look through this 311 data, if thats really what they are basing their Risk Assessment on, theyve shown us photos of the structure and theyve shown us what their arborist said in their response brief. But they havent explained why it differs completely from the professional recommendations that the city spent half a Million Dollars to obtain. I also want to speak briefly about issue of replacement. These trees are approximately 30 to 40 years old. When you replace a tree its a tiny little thing. And it doesnt really replace what is being lost in terms of shade, co2 sequestering, sound absorption pollution absorption oxygen production, et cetera by the time they are actual replacements ill be dead. Many of us wont be here for that. And the replacement what we were told by them is that in their budget, theres no funding for watering of the replacement trees. So when you plant a new tree, it has to be watered regularly for at least the first year or its going to die. Theyve actually already started replacing some trees in hayes valley. But theyre dying because they are not being watered. So the replacement plan really needs to be a workable one. What they are doing now is not working. And im not sure when in the format of this is the time for questions but im certainly happy to answer any questions. And i think i finished a little early, which is good because i know we are all tired. Thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from the bureau of urban forestry. Good evening. Chris urban forrester with San Francisco public works, bureau of urban forestry. We included as much information as we could in our brief, because we know this is a big issue, the community in hayes valley understandably, recommending removal of 39 reducing that number to 29, we understand is a big impact in a community. And ive actually used hayes valley as an example for particularly in the avenues where a lot of commercial corridors have been embracing treelined streets and they are topping trees below the level of their signage. Theres amazing reports called trees mean business. And it was conducted by trees new jersey and trees new york. Really showing that treelined streets attract business. You shop longer you reduce exposure to sun. Weve been using hayes valley as the example. And thats why im wearing this sticker that natalie handed out tonight. We love trees. But the part of tree managers who have to look really hard at structure of trees and how trees stand up but also how they fall down. So im not going to go into every detail but i want to go through a timeline of events. Proposition e passed. So over the last couple years we have been systematically evaluating trees across the city. The subject trees are within grid map 25, slated to be maintained this year. So in december, we are looking at our view ahead and we can see we are going right in the heart of hayes valley. Lets go ahead and get on the agenda the hayes valley neighborhood association. We got put on the Safety Committee meeting. To say to the community that this is coming up. We have yet to evaluate every tree but we also can see the writing is on the wall. We are going to be evaluating these trees. And we want to be in conversation. We are open to having additional meetings. We want to make sure that way before public works hearing weve met with community. So we did have a couple walks in the community. We looked at a lot of trees together. And i will say it was challenging. Everyone that attended that hearing was very very respectful. I really tip my hat to the community. The very first tree we were at before we could begin everyone in the community was saying you need to plant these empty basins before you do anything. You need some trust here. So it is something we did do. But also after reviewing the first tree together i remember it stood out. And i shared with a colleague, someone said, okay this tree tree is a wreck but certainly not every tree is going to have this many structural problems. I said hold that thought. We walked through and looked at front back side, looking at these trees explaining how codominant stems with included bark narrows the angles of attachment are prone to fail. It unfortunate but its happening and we are aware of that as a city Agency Responsible for maintaining street trees. The big myth years ago by public works and Property Owners most of these trees were maintained by Property Owners were in the same boat with the trees we maintained. We didnt do any better. We know so much more now about the importance of early structural pruning. Other cities and towns down the coast may not have the resources to actually address some of their issues or they couldnt structurally prune those trees decades ago and they may not are the structure we are dealing with. So we did have a Couple Community walks. Not easy but i want to thank everyone for attending and being respectful. We delayed a resulting decision until we planted basins. We planted 37 nearby missing trees because the community spoke loudly that that was important to them. We heard very loudly that the impact would be large to the community. We went back out to again just look at the trees and say what could we scale back . That is a question that everyone is saying. We are in an unprecedented move saying 11 of these trees, they are a little bit smaller, considered safe, for very poor unions, maybe two or three, we will prune 11 of the trees and retain them. Its experimental pruning meaning its heavier pruning than we typically recommend. But it would allow us to remove and replant other trees and allow there to be some sort of presence of canopy out there. One example is on hayes where we have three ficus in a row in a bus zone. None of those trees would be replantable. But we looked at would we as the community is saying cut these back. And allow there to be some transitional canopy present. So it is something we are committed to doing. As youve heard in other settings, we are also trying to do that as well. So we do know that we have a problem with ficus trees. Theres a lot of discussion about evidence. I did make sure in our exhibit, we are very clear that public works was concerned about ficus stem failures two years before the public voted for proposition e overwhelmingly. So i didnt expect every community to be aware that this was something that was a concern of public works. But for twoyears we were talking about our concerns aboutify the trees. We put a lot of information in exhibits c through f to show we are concerned about the structure of the trees. One of the trees at 666 octavia has failed since we initiated removal. So again theres a request from the public to ask for evidence. And the evidence its right there in front of us. So again, i want to draw your attention to that. Regarding the replacement plan, i spoke about it in a more narrative format but i want to i created a one sheet for this evening. The commissioners have asked for very specific information about a replanting plan. So i have a one sheet here this evening. But looking at the number of trees that would be removed also the number of trees that would be replanted. If trees meet our replacement guidelines then we replant them. Four of the trees cant be replanted in the immediate vicinity. So we have committed to finding four new locations as close to possible as the trees that are being removed. Regarding the timing, the trees would be removed and replaced within three months of initiating the tree removal for that site. Theres a number of things that occur within that works scope. We remove the trees we remove the stumps, some of these sites we need to repair the sidewalk or slightly shift the basin locations. Also well find the four locations for the four additional trees. The replacement size would be 24inch box size. For establishment the replacement and new tree locations will be watered for three years until established. Water will be performed by city staff unless we end up getting a contract for that. Protection and monitoring, threeinch diameter sticks will be used and all trees will have protective screens placed on the trees at the time of planting. Also sturdy cross braces will attach. Staff will monitor conditions of trees. We lid i did have unfortunately, six of the 37 trees were vandalized. We were in talks with our Community Partner to have screens attached literally the same week. Unfortunate situation. Those will be replaced screens will be placed on them immediately. We have gone out and placed screens on all the 37 trees that were planted. Socraticers willso citystaff will repair the sidewalk. Either city staff will plant the trees or contractor if we are able to get someone to bid on that. Regarding replacement tree species, we have been meeting with the hayes valley neighborhood association. So by mid to late april we worked out a replacement tree scheme with very specific species heavily involved from the community to establish that. Also we have a list of the trees, the 37 trees that we planted with our Community Partner friends of the urban forest. And we helped locate those to confirm if those empty basins are replantable. One other thing i wanted to point out its with Great Respect that we listen to both appellants. Cieutat and klipp. We understand where they are coming from. We wanted other city departments to recognize the importance of street trees for a really, really long time. Carl and i sometimes feel like we are marathoners and folks come in the last year and asking us why our pace isnt a sevenminute mile. We are really in this together. So with Great Respect i respect what theyve said this evening. With that i just want to throw out a few counterpoints. So the appellant klipp stated the removals were accelerated. And the removals are a result of deferred maintenance. Some of this maintenance theres never been a dedicated funding for. We are referring to the works first. We are going into neighborhoods that have the highest concentration of trees and we are addressing those needs. This year, thanks to awareness of the board and mayor and advocacy from neighbors, nonprofits in a lot of our Community Activists we have a significant increase in funding for tree placement as well as Tree Planting. Appellant klipp stated our effort to soften the blow by planting other basins failed. We did have 6 of the 37 trees get vandalized. That wasnt 100 percent. That was 6 trees that were vandalized. We regret that. We are taking steps to make sure that doesnt happen again. The appellant cieutat states theres no evidence of harm to persons or property. While theres significant Property Damage and two injuries to people the goal of the program is to prevent harm to persons or property. We dont want to wait for someone to be injured before we respond. We also dont want to be overreactive. And i dont believe that we are. Appellant cieutat notes theres been a change in condition from the arbor pro census. We talked about that at a previous hearing and again in our brief. The arbor pro assessment is a point in time assessment. Much can change in urban settings which is why we always do a reinspection. Arbor pro did not recommend the removal of the tree in front of 666 octavia. We did. The tree has failed. As noted in our brief we reached out to community. We did respond to their concerns by agreeing to make an exception to our normal pruning standards and agree to experimental aggressive pruning in an effort to mitigate hazard. Appellant cieutat requests a tailored approach to the hayes valley trees. Our Maintenance Program is citywide and requires equitable treatment of all neighborhoods. To bring trees to a baseline standard of care, areas in the census with concentrated pruning or removal needs layered in with high pedestrian sensitive populations are being addressed in the beginning using a strategy we call the worst first. A lot of this information is based on the census that the city did in fact undertake. The tree condition and recommendation for removal is one data point of many that are vital for us to have. We like to say that we are going to be here before you for a very long time. We already have been for years. A Third Party Contractor who is staying at a hotel lives in pasadena. I would say that we are here before on a more regular basis. We are more familiar with the trees we have in the city. We are not ignoring that data. But again just to sort of pick on that one data point can be misleading. In fact, we havent done a complete study, but we are seeing that actually more trees are being downgraded from trees they recommend for removal, we are recommending for pruning. Now, we are going to have this again and again and again if the public looks to say arbor recommended this, you are recommending that, i dont blame anyone for using that as an argument. But i will say we are turning towards not removing a lot of ficus that are being recommended for removal. So with that those are the key points that we wanted to make to really try to include as much information as possible in our brief. We really have been engaging the community. We understand this is a large number of trees. And hayes valley is a great neighborhood. Its commercial corridor treelined. Its part of the identity. But we are doing what we can to listen to the feedback and scale back while also addressing Public Safety. Thank you. I actually got a couple questions. Go ahead. Okay. I have a couple questions. Ill let you go first. I dont have a couple. Okay. Im confused about the use of a consultant. So you pay for arbor pro. It was a quote of half a Million Dollars. I dont know if thats accurate or not. They give you a set of recommendations. You go on to say in the brief we believe what is discussed and locally experienced experts on staff. So why the use of the arborists . So the San Francisco didnt have a complete tree census. So the urban forest plan, that was one of the key things the plan recommended. The council said before we can start attacking everyone for funding for planting and maintenance we need to know what we have. So there was a playful contest to see who could guess how many street trees we have in San Francisco. We thought we had 105,000. We found out we counted 20,000 short so we have 125,000 street trees. So the Planning Department hired the contractor to do a census. And theres usually 15 or so data points that you want in a complete census. And one of them is condition of tree. So thats how that came up. Did public works do that directly . Not literally. It was through planning. The main point was to do the inventory. Do the inventory. Not assessing the trees. Absolutely. We also said diameter of trees species and overall a recommendation for priorities for pruning and removal. So its still access to where we have the most trees the largest trees. We have 125,000 street trees and yet we still have the worst urban canopy in the United States for a metropolitan city. And i get the fact that theres been some incidents with the ficuses with specifically. But yet that is a tree that dominates a large part of the city. And when you dont have a budget to replace all we are doing is removing them. And as you know ive been on the board for a long time since carla was here. And shes beat into us to be tree stewards. She really has. And so when you see trees that, you know i can tell if they are 50 feet high and they are onesided and you see the poor root structure thats one thing. But when you are looking at these trees i remember 75 howard, they look like healthy trees and they were healthy when i was a kid and im an old man now. So the question is are we the only city thats being this proactive in ring these trees . Yes. Im sorry. Please. I cant answer that question. I dont know the staff for other cities. I think whats challenging for the public is that ficus trees the reason why they are so popular is they look amazing yearround. They are green, evergreen. And that can be difficult thing for people to understand. It would be great if we only removed trees just that were completely dead. Unfortunately, dead trees, depending on the species some dont have much weight to them and can stick around a while. Ficus trees will look very healthy and yet still fail as did the one in front of 666 octavia. It was not the biggest one out there. It split in half. If you think about it buses get in accidents all the time and people get hurt but for the common good of the city, we have buses. So i think trees are very similar to that. I mean i unfortunately, i live on the side of town and they planted palm trees all the way down the street. They look horrible. I mean, they look miserable. And they dont do anything as far as what they are taking out as far as carbon monoxide. Its kind of a weed. So it saddens me to see that we are taking this many trees out like wholesale. And what is the survival rate for a new tree . Theres typically a two to four percent mortality of replacement trees. Only four percent . You are saying 98 percent survive. Of trees that are planted yes. When proposition e was suggested, we absolutely wanted to see i did want to answer that. Because maintenance was a challenge. And the mayor initiated the planning of a lot of trees. Tree advocates say whoa, how about we get funding for maintaining the existing trees. We have that now. So actually the trees that we are planting we can guarantee longterm funding for. Okay. We are working hard on getting that funding. We have already made progress this year, the mayor had a press release about funding for urban forestry for Tree Planting. So its starting to happen. Were the fifth largest economy in the world. And we fund free needles but we cant get trees in our ground. I agree. And thats not your fault. Im not blaming you at all. So you are taking down 28 trees. And how many are you replacing . I know you put something on the overhead but i didnt see that. Correct. So there are its 27 trees now because one failed. So removal of 27 trees replacing with 27. Four of the trees onsite cant be replanted in the location where they are. We will find a close location to replant. So its a one for one replacement with 24inch box sized trees. Okay. My concern the last case directly prior to this is a good example. Theres a picture of an ally that overpruned, they were supposed to replace all those trees. There wasnt one tree out of the eight trees that were supposed to be there on that ally. Ill look at that. Because they removed two trees in front so they can broaden their entrance to create their big expanse of their school and they were supposed to take care of the trees in the back and they didnt. There was ten trees there and now theres no trees there. Protection is critical. Some of our advocates here are aware of that. And together we are trying to address that. Okay. That was it. Thank you. I would like you to rest your feet for a minute. I would like to take advantage of her being here tonight. Sure. Thank you. Hey carla. Commissioners, nice to see you all. Carla, San Francisco public works. Hi. I have a whole bunch of questions. And i would like to step away from this particular case, because sometimes we tend to be a little narrow in our view. And we are not looking at the macro. We are alluding to the macro but not getting to the macro. Quite frankly, i see very little problem with this project. Its been wellexplained. I know that ficus trees can be dangerous. Its not about that. I really wanted you to be here tonight to look at a more macro view and im not sure im going to support this initiative Going Forward when we get done. So first of all, i want to let you know, that i really appreciate your departments very hard work. Second of all, i would like to let you know that i understand that probably five decades of neglect, at least were present in the management of the tree canopy in San Francisco, because for a variety of reasons it deteriorated and people didnt take care of it. Thirdly, i want to acknowledge that funding is probably not enough for you to do your job therefore you dont have the resources satisfactory to complete your job in the way that the citizens would like to see it complete. So there are a lot of factors. And finally, as a result of all that, your department is way behind. You have a lot of holes in the ground where there needs to be trees. Theres a lot of ficus trees and others which are poorly maintained and require pruning at the very least. And furthermore you have a lot of projects that we have seen presented in front of us. So you are way behind, all right . And i appreciate that. Thats not and thats not a fault of yours. That starts with the 50 years of neglect. All right. So but all that being said, why are you starting yet another project . We have seen and im going to get to my questions. But thats the core question. Why are you starting another project when theres no funding . Why are you starting another project when the north beach there are four dozen empty tree basins, and supervisor peskin in legislation i think a year and a half ago provided funding for your department to fill those tree basins . Because hes wanted to support you and wanted to support, of course, north beach, so he would get elected again. And then we look at the budget. It doesnt take one year to have it survive. Its three years at a bare minimum. So theres no budget to water. So why is not the watering infrastructure being worked on in advance of planting a tree thats going to die because it cant get water for three years to let it survive . This makes no sense to me. Thats another question. We have seen in front of us Washington Square where there was a i dont know where that stands. Its supposed to come back to us. It might not. It might get settled if we are lucky. But we saw a plan presented and we challenged mr. Buck no fault of his. Hes made us all tree huggers. That was carla for me. We are all about him, but in Washington Square, there was a plan to remove trees and then put them back. Yet we all sat here and heard there really wasnt a plan to put them back because we didnt see he couldnt explain to us how he was going to set them in on the sidewalk. So it was lets cut the trees down, this is how it sounded to us. Lets cut the trees down but we dont know where we are going to put them back. So no planning. We saw a civic centre library. Thats still under discussion. Its been back to us twice. Once there was absolutely no plan and dialogue between your department and the library and the community. Now theres been six months later eight months later, more dialogue between the community the library and your department. Yet it wasnt quite ready yet so we sent it back again. Thats another project that needs to be thats completely in upheaval. I think its 16th street where muni has a big plan and its going to chop off a bunch of trees. And yeah, theres a plan. But its a big project. And how is that going to get done in a timely fashion . And this leads back to hayes valley. You all have huge problems catching up with 50 years of bad maintenance. Youll have huge problems filling those tree basins and doing those projects. Why are you even thinking when you can mitigate the problem not solve the problem, cure the problem through pruning, even though its not why are you even thinking at this time of starting yet another project in hayes valley which places that community at significant risk because you may not get it done in a timely fashion even though you committed to start it in two months and get it done 90 days later. This is what i wanted to have you come here today to explain to us to put our minds at ease because we are sitting here going, okay sounds good, its legal lets go. But we scratch our heads and we say how the hell is this Department Going to get it done . Not because of competency. Just because who the hell could do it. So could you address that, please . A lot of questions but ultimately, why are you starting this project and why are we considering it tonight for immediate passage to move forward . Sure. Thank you for those points and questions. I will do my quest to try to address them. Thank you for recognizing the challenges that we did face. I think its important to recognize that you are right we are starting behind the 8 ball, so to speak. There were years of deferred maintenance both on the part of the city and on the part of Property Owners. And we are now playing catchup, as you say. We were fortunate after years of effort to pass a Ballot Initiative that gives us dedicated funding for tree maintenance. It sounds like a lot of money. But when you spread it out over 125,000 trees, it means we have to be as efficient as possible with that money. So what that means is we are going in area by area. Weve broken the city into what are we are using a mapping unit called key maps. We have to go in and do everything that we can. Thats the only way to efficiently get the work done. We need to try to address the needs of that area. So what we are doing is we are using some of the information from the census but then our inspectors go in ahead of the contractor or city crews to reassess those trees and identify what work needs to happen. Weve got to do it systematically were well always be behind the 8 ball. Well never catch up. Well be playing catch up forever. And the passage of that Ballot Initiative will not succeed. So we are not starting another project. We are working our way through the city. Thats what we are doing. We are working our way through the city. These trees were identified as part of that key map that we were moving into. And we have to look at everything in that key map when we go in. I do want to correct a few theres been a lot of attention on the ficus trees. Ficus trees are not a huge proportion of our existing tree population. They are about seven percent of our existing tree population. And only seven percent of the ficus trees that weve worked on have been removed. So of the seven percent weve only worked on a fraction of them. But of the fraction that weve worked on only seven percent have been removed. This is not wholesale removal of trees. It sure feels dramatic when they happen to all be planted near each other in a neighborhood. I certainly appreciate that. But i think we need to keep in mind the scale that we are talking about. I want to correct a few other statements that have been made. We never plant a tree without the resources to water it. We understand better than anyone that you cant put a tree in the ground and not water it. I think the misunderstanding was that weve tried to clarify the dedicated funding for maintenance does not allow us to plant or water new trees. That dedicated funding has to be used for tree maintenance. So weve stated that publicly a number of times. I think people have misunderstood that to mean we can plant trees and not water them. We build the cost of watering into every tree we plant which is why its so expensive to plant a tree in San Francisco because we have to water for three years and we have to water 12 months out of three years when we are in a drought. Nine or ten months we are not in a drought. So its expensive but we build the cost into that planting. What i think we should have communicated was with regards to projects like hayes valley like you mentioned columbus, we are focusing those limited resources we did have on replanting where there are a lot of removals in one place. So if we have a lot of trees that are coming out as are proposed on hayes and octavia we want to make sure those trees do get replanted right away. Because thats where the biggest impact is. What that means is we may have some existing empty basins somewhere else that dont get replanted right away because again, we have limited resources. The good news as mr. Buck said earlier this year we actually have the greatest budget for Tree Planting weve had in 15 years that ive been on the job. And thats in large part because this deferred maintenance and the catchup weve been playing has resulted in more removals than we have done in a year. What is that actually . Its two percent of all our trees. Weve only removed two percent per year for the last two years. So again we are not wholesale removing urban forests. We are all here, we are all wearing our stickers too because we love trees. Thats why we are in this business. We have challenges. And we have to make tough decisions. It is not easy. I hate removing a tree that looks healthy. But we have to be taking Public Safety seriously. We have had two injuries on our watch both caused by ficus trees, and both that we dont want to lose sleep over another injury again. The idea is we protect Public Safety and we maintain trees. We preserve as many trees as we can. And we replace trees. And then we grow the urban forest. So our urban forest, everyone is fighting the canopy numbers. That came from our urban forest plan. They know that because we are out there advocating for better urban forest. Thats how we got our money for maintenance and thats how we are going to get our money for planting. And we are going to be behind the 8 ball on planting just as we started behind on maintenance but we are committed to making that happen. So this year we are able to commit and i want to give an example of everett middle school. This was a case where we said, okay a lot of trees coming out around the school. We are going to make a commitment, we are going to get the replacement trees done quickly. We put out our schedule, we had our crews lined up and we had the trees within three months. In fact it was faster than that. Why cant we do it the next day . Because we have to grind the stump. In many cases we have to repair the sidewalk. We have to shift basins. Its not as simple as pulling out a potted plant and putting in a plant. Theres a lot of factors that go into this. We are trying to rebuild the public trust. We know we dont have it. We hear that every day. But we are trying to rebuild it. Weve got to be realistic. I cant tell you im going to have them planted a week after they cut down. Talk about losing trust. Three months we think thats realistic. Its ambitious. Its going to be a challenge for us to coordinate the different pieces. But we are committed to trying to rebuild that trust and also rebuild the canopy for these communities. Unfortunately no tree will last forever and certainly in urban settings, four percent mortality is considered good, reasonable mortality level. Weve only removed two percent over the last two years. So i think we are not starting the project. We are trying to work our way systematically through the city. In terms of addressing Public Safety concerns and i hope you took the time to look through the brief a large ficus failure is terrifying. We have lost many, many im sorry, damage to property, we have paid for more vehicles. And im okay with that. If we have to pay for a vehicle thats great. I just dont want to be paying for peoples injuries. And so its real. We have to be systematic but we have to address the highest liability first. And thats why it feels like so much is happening right now. Because we are addressing a lot of deferred maintenance removals now. Its not accelerated. Its playing catchup. So we do plan to put them back. We are focusing the resources that we have on replacement trees. We do have some dedicated funding this year for new trees. But the board of supervisors said we know you need to replace trees but we want to make sure you are working on the goals to replace the urban forest. So some of our money is restricted. We have three different types of money. Some can be used for replacement or new some must be used for replacement and some must be used for new. But we are focusing on efforts on replacing, particularly when there are lots of trees coming out. We are focusing those replacements first. We will try to get to the other replacements as quickly as we can. And so we do have a plan to put them back. And then lastly i think you talked about more dialogue. We have tried to be very proactive with hayes valley. We approached them before we even completed our assessment of the trees. We thought this grid is coming up. We know those trees. We shop in hayes valley. We like that neighborhood. We also know some of those trees have structural problems so we reached out and said when can we talk to you about this we want to start talking. We had two different neighborhood walks. As chris said we stopped and spent almost 30 minutes at the very first tree. We are like we are never going to get through all the trees if we dont keep moving. So we kept moving. We are hearing you in terms of doing that outreach. We have done it with every project now where theres or every area where weve gone in and theres a large number of trees proposed for removal. We did a lot of outreach on 24th street and columbus avenue and a lot of outreach here in hayes valley. And how do we i think it was 16th street. What was the last one . 16th street was the muni thing . And i recall because i participated in that dialogue that we came to an agreement as part of our approval of that initiative that you would have the trees done, that project done started by in x number of days or months and finished in x numbers of days or months. I cant remember the details. The focus of the question is its nice that we sit here and we say okay do this in this period of time and mr. Buck accommodatingly says yes. And we have no idea that it ever gets done until we hear from the public that the project was started and never finished or you hear the rhetoric im sure on a daily basis. So if we tonight move forward with this and you establish in your own brief some parameters around that, and we agree to those parameters, how does the public, how do we, who offer that approval, and the public, hold you accountable if instead of three months from now when its supposed to be done its not or six months from now it isnt even done or nine months from now it isnt even done which unfortunately as part of your track record, not globally but unfortunately there have been several projects which kind of lag. So how does the public or ourselves hold you accountable or how can we have the trust that its actually going to get done when we move it forward . Yeah. And i think the only thing that i can say in response to that is we have to build that trust. So we have to be successful. And we recognize that. It is no fun for me or for chris buck no fun for me to be here. I like seeing you all but i dont have to come to these hearings anymore and i changed my plans tonight to accommodate this. We appreciate that. We dont want to be called to task for failing to do things. Its way more fun for us in our work to be able to say you can trust us because look, we are starting to prove that we are capable of doing this. So we are more motivated probably than anyone to hold ourselves accountable. It will make our jobs easier in the future if we can deliver on these things. It will help ensure we are not getting bombarded with nasty emails that we get constantly. We have every interest in being accountable because it will only make people trust us more, and then it will make our jobs easier. I cant i dont know of a way to say you know, well have this accountability watch us. We dont have that. But everyone sitting here tonight who is invested in these trees is going to be watching us very closely. So we are going to have to try to do it. Now, what we do have now is a Public Information officer. And she is available to the public to respond to questions if someone says, you know, i didnt see this happening, she can find out and respond back to that person. So we are ensuring that we have a level of responsiveness that we are able to deliver that we havent in the past. But the only other thing i can say is that we now as i said, when we are making these commitments, we are allocating the limited resources that we have to ensure that we can meet these commitments. Thank you. And thank you for coming tonight. Sorry for ruining your plans. Thats okay. But i think again, in a macro sense, we have had several tree hearings on major projects. And it kind of culminateds in your appearance tonight to give ourselves and the public this overview and also given a hearing that was supposed to happen tonight and is going to happen on january 8, this also sets the tone for future hearings. So i appreciate your appearance tonight. Thank you. Im happy to be here. Im happy to see you all. But i think i would much rather not i would much rather have that trust already built. Ill be inviting you wednesday. So i dont have to come back. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Yeah. After Public Comment. You know what i would like to do, looking at the hour and weve had discussions about the lateness of these hearings and i dont want to limit the publics ability to speak but weve heard a lot of dialogue. And i really would like to give the opportunity for the public, those who are right now who are in favor of this project to stand and then those who are not in favor of this project to stand so we as a board see a vote. And noting those people have communicated their position. Then if anybody has anything to add that isnt redundant to what weve already heard maybe they might want to edit their comments accordingly. I think we can get a poll of who is for and against but Everyone Needs to have an opportunity. It would be their choice. How many people in here are opposed to the project . Raise your hand. Okay. How many people here are in favor of the project . Okay. In the interest of your sleep ill put it to the public if you hear your point already made, and you feel that you dont have to have it heard three or four times, we would appreciate it that we already know that you are all against the project and the point has been made and you dont have to come up. The volume of the speakers, we will limit Public Comment to two minutes. But you are welcome. But everyone is entitled to speak. So please proceed, maam. Welcome. Thank you. Im susan. I worked for many years with friends of the urban forest as a Community Organizer for Tree Plantings throughout the city. According to a recent New York Times article a tree must live for ten to 20 years to build up enough foliage so it can have substantial impact on carbon. Thats the description of the hayes street trees. I remember growing up in the area when it was an africanamerican neighborhood when the city didnt come to prune the trees. And thank you president swig for pointing out theres been no pruning for 50 years. The trees can be pruned. They can be cared for. In consultation with my former colleague, San Francisco head forrester we respectfully request the recent planting not be repeated. Several hundred trees were planted. They are almost all dead or dying. They have virtually no care. While we support the replacement plan, we request that only 24inch boxes be used and that all trees be on streets that are dpw designated with special designation which will guarantee threeyear minimum watering with care and a better chance of survival. Thank you. Thank you. Can you get a speaker card . I did. Okay. Thank you. Welcome. My name is sam. I lived in hayes valley for 20 years. There is a tree at 568 hayes outside my window. I have an intimate relationship with that tree. When people talk about replacing them, it would be akin to someone saying we have determined your pet needs to be euthanized. Dont worry about it, we are going to give you a new one, here is a hamster instead of your cat. You cant replace a living creature you have a relationship with in the way its described. I would also mention that the trees specifically outside of my house is supposedly interacting with the street light and thats the reason that mr. Buck cited he could overlook all the other potential causes except for this one interaction with the street light yet its also planned for replacement so it seems someone determined its interaction with the street light is minimal or to be mitigated. This seems to be the case to me. Trimming would reduce its interaction with the street light. It would not remove more than probably five to ten percent of the canopy to make that trimming. And i think that every possible step needs to be taken to avoid removing any of the trees. Its relative. And obviously from the public outcry, i feel this is one or two peoples overzealousness. If you only have funding to remove trees every problem looks like something a saw can fix. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening. My name is natalie down. I lived in hayes valley for five years. Im a block away from the posted trees. I had bronchitis eight months. I have a respiratory condition which means im part of the population who is severely affected by wildfires. I had an attack so bad i couldnt get out of bed. If its this bad with the trees still here, what will it be like when the trees are gone or replaced with desid use other trees. The Climate Crisis and wild fairs this needs to change again. From the release of the initial ficus removal criteria, the city paid arbor pro to do the assessment. They have this criteria. And it was still a different decision. Earlier this year, 39 trees were posted for removal. We do appreciate the public works changing in direction to remove less of those trees. But since then the city of San Francisco declared a Climate Crisis. We dont feel the appropriate urgency is given attention to the trees being