Replace any removed trees with were going to go for an evergreen species that opens the canopy and allows for more visibility while maintaining the ficus trees and maintaining visibility. Here is a diagram of how we expect to work. I hope its readable. It maps out on hyde and grove street the Maintenance Area for taking care of the existing grove and the several areas that the library is committed to start right away building new planting areas on fulton street and right over the entrance to brooks hall. Then we want to explore together with public works and bars, there are triangles of land that we may be able to cultivate with sheet mulching. We also are showing areas where the trees will be replaced. The sixthfloor patio is a very good candidate for more greening as well. So in terms of demonstrating commitment by setting up the these okay. 30 seconds. 30 seconds. Okay. I further outline the steps in more detail, but basically what were asking tonight is that we modify this permit to support the space, the approach that the working group that see developed. We want to permit no trees be removed until the park is open. We want to have the interim stewardship [ bell rings ]. Thank you. Mr. Buck. Can i just ask one question of the Library Representative from the library just for the record. Youre in agreement with everything that was represented on behalf of the library . Yes, members. Thank you for having us. Im the director of facilities for the library system. Im ready to answer your questions. I just want to confirm that everything that was presented, that you affirm and that you are on board with as presented by the previous speaker. Yes, and thank you very much for your suggestion to work with the community. It has been very fruitful. Thank you. It has been very informative. You go. Good evening, commissioners. Chris buck, bureau of urban forestry, San Francisco public works. I want to thank the library for hosting the meetings that weve been having this year and both the appellants. So what does this all mean . We started out with the proposal. The library removed 19 ficus trees. We approved the removal of those trees. We now reduced that to eight trees. So we would remove eight trees, keep 11, and prune the remaining trees that remain. I have a few slides. We wanted to be able to be specific. The parties tonight are going to ask for a recommendation this evening with a little bit of latitude, but showing that all parties are in agreement. So this is the hyde street frontage. Tree 1 and 2 would remain and be removed. Trees 4, 5 would be removed without replacement because theyre too close to the bus shelter and the streetlight. The bus shelter and not going to be removed. The last diagram is on the far left, the ninth tree on hyde street frontage. It would be removal of four with we placement of one. Around the corner on grove, wed be looking at the removal of four trees with replacement with six. So tree one on the far right would remain and be pruned. Trees two, three, and four would be removed and replaced. Tree five would be pruned. Tree six is floating here between two basins that have been paved over. Weve checked the utilities. Both sites are replantable. So these two sites will be replanted. And our group is talking about replanting before removal is initiated. This tree in the middle or near the middle, second from the right, was not looking good many months ago. It looks much different today. I dont have the photo, but its smaller with better structure. Now that its actually leafing out, we can live with this tree. We went from nine removals to eight. We believe that this tree, now that its filled out, can be worked with. The tree on the far left would be removed and replaced. What does that mean . So overall, wed move the settlement would be not removal of 19 but removal of eight trees with replacement of seven. Five would be replaced as is. Two would be sites that are paved over and now would be replanted. The library is committed to planting 36inch box replacement trees. Public works can fund the removal of the ficus trees. There are a number of of other moving pieces, but at its core the commission is going to ask to make a decision on this permit itself. I think some of the other commitments, we would commit to not initiating removal until both the park and recs and the tender are completed. That may be six to eight months out. We have an internal agreement with that. I dont know if thats something you need to condition. Essentially this evening were coming forward to say the compromise is substantial. The preference of the appellants is no tree removal. We hear that loud and clearly. In this particular case we have funding secured for replacement. Were scaling back the removals. Even the removals that we do act on we would scale back until after those conditions are met as outlined by the appellants. So i think thats i just wanted to summarize where we are and figure out if theres a way we can get language towards a resolution. So im here to answer any questions. Thank you. Its not perfect as we said. I would like to see a zero tree removal as well, but thank goodness because i wasnt really happy with the first proposal, evidently, as i believe several other commissioners. Thank you for all the time and effort spent with the public and with the department and with the library. Very appreciated. Thank you. I just want to thank the library and both appellants for working and creating this group. I have a question. Again, i confirm what my fellow commissioners said. It does pretty remarkable that you were able to do this and detail and all, its great. One thing i found curious, there was one tree that was supposed to be removed and as you said it recovered. Are there any lessons about the trees or is this a oneoff . Yes and no. Its very difficult. We cant interview the trees to tell us. But the obvious thing that comes to mind is 24th street, theres a lot of ficus trees that went the way of the doodoo and didnt come back. So if this tree had deep bark inclusions, i would want to remove it. But in this case its a smaller ficus and has wider unions comparatively. If were phasing in all of these other removals, we have a facility manager and people on staff who are there, were going to be monitoring the tree. But it is true. There are idiosyncrasies out there and were looking at that. Now, primarily our issue with ficus is not the decline. Its the structure. Sometimes when you see that decline, it just adds. Because again, before ten years ago, i never saw a dead or a declining ficus. That would be my question. Sorry to interrupt. That tree and fairly its been there for quite a while. What would cause Something Like that. If you look at the other trees, it looks like someone poisoned this one. Is that typical . Its hard to say. Ten years ago there were no issues with ficus and in the last ten years weve been seeing a lot of decline. Theres the city canker thats been identified in Southern California. This showed symptoms of that, but not exactly. Its a little i wish i could put my finger on it. Is it people from Southern California coming up . Weve been watching every month or two when we met, we were noting that it was leafing back out and it took so long that now were like, lets keep it. Thank you. I would echo the could you t kudos to yourself and everyone involved. The effort to clear the Library Steps so there would be less water. I think safety issues were also a concern. Im assuming you covered those in this plan, but if you could address those issues. One of the openended items were asking your latitude with is replacement species. We havent pinned down the exact species. Red maple had been suggested earlier on because its a species that can sit in ponds and it does fine. With the amount of water thats used to clean the library frontage, the public right of way daily, we are in the process of just doublechecking these replacement species if its in its native habitat, riparian. So were in the final process of th that. So theres a strong desire by the appellants and i remember it was pointed out that there are two libraries, the one that faces the civic center and the one that has evergreen species. Both appellants feel strongly about that species. Were trying to find one that would have a little more upright architecture to sit. One technicality will be that theyre planted slightly elevated, whereas these ficus, just to add to the troubles there, were planted a little bit too low in the basins. Weve been engaging our Landscape Architects to also review the replacement basins and a commitment to do that to make sure that were doing what we can to address some of that. So we are were nearly done with addressing all of that. Theres been a lot of dialog among our group. Thank you. I just want to echo everyone elses kudos on proving, yes, city and citizen constituencies can come together and reach a happy ending. My question is as a result of your presentation, when and with what. The when still has not been answered, even though you answered it but you didnt and the with what is not answered. I hate myself for suggesting this, but not that i dont trust the City Departments, but the ambiguity of the when really gives me discomfort. I understand the responsibility of your answer that youre going to wait for the other parks to get done, but that involves another City Department which sometimes doesnt make its timelines. I dont want to approve this permit until we have clarity on that timeline, because that puts the citizens back in limbo. So what i would and i told you, i hated myself for suggesting this. But i would like to continue this potentially because youre not going to do it anyway. And i would like to continue it to a point that you can present us with clarity on with what and when. I dont see any harm because youre stating here youre not going to get started anyway. So when do you think we should continue this so that you can come back to us with the answers to with what and when and do you find any fault in my thought process about why i want to do this, why am i suggesting this . So one suggestion would be if the completed park is estimated to be six months out, we could commit to a minimum of waiting six months before we initiate the removal or we could again meet some more and just work out a more specific timeline. I think im more comfortable with a timeline versus [ indiscernible ] so if we can sorry. If we continue this, because we wont know for six months. If we continued this to january and strictly for the purpose of coming up with two answers, with what and when, i dont see a harm or a foul. All youve got to do is come back here and say were reconvening. Heres what were going to replace. Heres when were going to get started. Then we can go, great plan, thank you very much for doing this, all in favor say aye. Does that make sense to you . It does. It also gives us an opportunity to continue to make progress on other items that are actionable before then. So i dont see public works is open to that suggestion. Thats the direction id like to go. We still need Public Comment. I understand. Im just showing my cards before we go into deliberation. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Is this any Public Comment on this item . Three minutes. This is the plan in brief that was given to you in your packet. None of that was just presented to the community before. So i have an issue with that and also an issue with this because it goes back to the same question. They werent answered in here and theyre still not answered in there. Also seeing the map that they showed, theres three parcels that they want to plan in. So the balcony, is that open to the public . The one spot on felson street, number 3 or 2, that square right there is where mayor lees tree is at that was plapted. So i dont feel comfortable with that. And then also youre moving to a space across the street which is the main librarys property and you want to plant on that. And then also there was also another space on the feltson side of the library, and that is where two trees were taken out and now theres no grass anymore on that side. So yeah, i want those trees back and thats a plus because i complained about them years ago and they made a complaint that they werent going to put them back. So i see some positives and negatives, but there was still things in motion because of how it was presented. The other thing is well, with the website, overhead, please, this is the link that was put on their that was sent out with the packet. You can see if you go to the link, its not functional. That was put on friday on your websi website. So that was an issue i had not being able to look at their documents from the working group. Then the next issue was this was the list of the six issues you outlined for the working dprowp to work on. I just saw this plan and i had issues with number one and one was the brief did not address exactly where the three trees would go to replace the removal of the bus stop and the lights. So again, those answers werent answered to my satisfaction. And so, i had answers to each one, but i only have 10 seconds. So ill leave you with that. We need to continue and we need more input on this plan. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other Public Comment on this item . Okay. Commissioners, this matter is misdemeano submitted. If anyone else is here for Public Comment, if you could move forward, i would appreciate it. Oh, boy, where do i begin . My name is michael nolte. I think its great that something was done, that there was a working group created. But on the other hand lets make this clear. It was not the community involved, it was just the litigants. So it was a working group of the litigants or the people having dispute, but it was not the community. There are not Community Members per se, it was Service Providers there, also going after the pots of money that they could possibly receive from the library or other city entities to plant possibly more trees. Why didnt you listen to what was originally said in january when it was discussed. It was me sending an email, which the executive director gets us confused. I sent an email to the Commission Staff saying that the link on the website was not right and you sent us the correct link so that some people, i saw the email, could at least see the documents that were part of this possible idea. None of this discussed today at this hearing was there. So how can people really be prepared to discuss it now at this hearing when we were not made ware of it . Plus, during this meeting today, theyre out in the hallway discussing it so they were finetuning. Its been mentioned, theres a lot of moving parts. But there needs to be their proposal needs to be put into the sunshine so people can actually see it and understand it and maybe comment on it, not just theres only a few members of the community here. Again, its another couple of hour meeting. I know the commissioners would rather be at home probably, but so does the public, they want to be at home too. Again, access, were not getting access to these ideas and issues. That was what was mentioned in the email i sent who is has basically said that we need to address the anyway, we need to address how decisions are being made. This is another example of how things are happening behind closed doors. We dont appreciate that. As part of the community, we want to be part of the process. Thank you. There was a lot of people that signed a position. Mr. Nolte, for clarity, the documents that were at that linguistic link were the documents submitted on thursday. No, theres two different links. As per your inquiry and when they submitted the documents no, thats not what i thank you. Next speaker. My name is seraco. I have a question. You mentioned removing a tree by a bus stop. I was wondering well, is there i dont i guess there is some clearance issues with bus stops and i wanted to understand why. Also, in this day and age of severe Climate Change when we need every tree, i was wondering if b. U. F. Was trying to clarify any issues. I understand the bus stop came after the tree was there. Any other Public Comment . Commissioners, this matter is submitted. Commissioners. [ indiscernible ] id support the continuance ow proposed. The dates in january are the 8, 15, 29. It doesnt matter to me. 8 is fine. On the lightest calendar, we could put it on. I would suggest that i heard the members of the public. I always listen to the members of the public. Its a priority. I would suggest that the members of the public who have those concerns, you see two members of the city family who are here today. Youve known them from before. They are available for you tonight and theyre also available through the city websites. So i would raise directly, through direct communication with them, any concerns that you have specifically so they can be incorporated in the new plan. I dont think you have a problem with that. And i would also recommend again that although we applaud the movement that youve done so far, that in advance of the meeting that we have a really clearly defined plan which anticipates all the questions that were raised by the public, as well as those which were raised by myself. So with that a motion ill support the continuance, but not necessarily for the reasons that you articulated. I would trust the department ultimately to determine what the best tree is for that spot, given the particular situation. Were we a little bit closer, i would be inclined to support the grant the appeal today. Also, i believe it was the community that wanted to tie the timing to the completion of the parks. So that was to i mean, clearly that does give them more time. So the fact that we dont know when that is going to be to me is not particularly relevant. But i will support a continuance. So the motion is to continue this item to january 8. Is that what you want . January 8 for the purpose of youre no good on january 8 . [ indiscernible ] january 15. Then we go to january 15. Thats fine. Thank you very much. So to enable the department to clarify final details with regard to species and timing for the project, as well as providing a clear and concise plan to the public for the overall project. Okay. We have a motion from the president to continue this matter to january 15, 2020, to enavailable the department of urban forestry to clarify the final details of the plan regarding species and timing, so that the plan is clear and concise and understandable by the public. Did you want me to add anything about the tree well . No. [vote]. So that motion carries 50. Well see you january 15. Thank you. We are now on to item number 8 this is appeal no. 19075. Joshua klipp vs. San francisco public works, bureau of urban forestry. The subject is 601 van ness avenue on the golden gate avenue frontage of the property. Appealing the issuance on july 1, 2019, to tesla, of a public works order. approval of request to remove without replacement a red flowering gum street tree maintained by public works on the following conditions 1 that the landscape appraisal of 7,300 be paid due to the removal without replacement; 2 that three inlieu fees of 2,031 each 6,093 be paid to further mitigate the loss of a mature tree by funding the planting of three trees by public works; 3 that any other required permits are obtained prior to issuance of the tree removal permit to ensure that the project has full approval prior to the removal of the tree; and 4 that a tree protection application and plan be submitted by the applicant, by a qualified arborist, and reviewed by urban forestry staff, to ensure that the two trees directly adjacent to the subject tree are adequately protected during excavation of the sidewalk. Order no. No. 201448 we will hear from the appellant, mr. Klipp, first. Welcome. I havent seen you in a bit. I feel like im always here in one form or another. Its too bad that the city didnt submit a brief in this matter, because its really about the citys decision to approve this tree removal and teslas reasons for wanting it gone. A private companys want to make a profit in this case is a tree removal. It was the city who was supposed to apply the rules regarding replacement of a transformer vault under a public right of way, but they havent explained why they chose not to apply those rules. It is up to the city to explain how they placed this transformer. And they have not explained that. It is up to the city to explain they why give preferential treatment to those driving a specific vehicle made by a specific company and they havent done that. Tesla is not doing the city or its residents a favor. Its just bailing them out. I asked public works for all documents regarding the removal and decision and there wasnt a single email in writing how it was decided. So that was the citys sui sponte decision. In light of the trees that have come down nearby and in a few block blocks of this city, it is up to the city to decide that. It is up to the city to give the environmental calculations of these decisions. This action is not only going to benefit tesla owners, but also those in the city who support the company. Tesla is a private corporation. They sell electric vehicles, and so make those vehicles more attractive, they are attempting to install infrastructure that makes those vehicles more convenient to own and use. For whatever reason they design their cars and charging station to be incompatible with other vehicles and chargers. That was their decision. If you want to use this charging station, you have to own a tesla, not any of the other electric car options. None of the other cars can use this charging station, but all of them are cheaper than even teslas cheapest model. I get it, a tree is not as sexy as a tesla, but tesla doesnt make air to breathe or clean the air so we dont have to wear masks. Teslas are great for carbon mitigation, but nothing about sen stration. They havent explained why they havent come up with an answer to carbon sec sequestration. This private company will use the charging stations to increase the odds that people would buy teslas. In ten years teslas might not be here, but that tree will be. This tree might not do much, but it wont be long before we have electric vehicles and no air to breathe. Thank you. We will now hear from the permit holders. Welcome. Thank you. Hi, everyone. I am here on behalf of tesla. Teslas mission is to accelerate the worlds transition to sustainable energy. In other words to do that, we of course make electric cars. In order to make those electric cars run, you need power. In a city like San Francisco where there is a massive population of renters and other people who park on the street and otherwise dont have access to dedicated parking with dedicated charging for their cars, having available d. C. Fast charging is crucial in order to adapt these cars. So we are here in support of d. P. W. s decision to allow the removal of the tree, condition as it was that we would pay additional funds for in lieu fees for additional trees. I think its our position that we followed all of the procedures outlined by the city and our brief covers why the vault was necessary where it was. Its not our preference to prove trees, but unfortunately for this site there was no way to bring additional power to the building without necessitating removal of the tree. Im happy to answer any other questions you guys might have about either the vault or the process we went through. Thank you. I was curious what process you went through to determine that there were no other locations suitable and evidence of alternate locations being evaluated and suitable being found. Yes. We work closely with pg e. Were one of their largest customers at the moment. We met on site with them to evaluate whether there were alternative locations. In order to have power for d. C. Fast charging it has to be 480 volt power. Even if those buildings do have that, there might not be sufficient capacity to put it in charging. What that means is a new service from pg e to the building. In order to do that you need a transformer. There arent places above ground to place new transformers. Pg e requires i believe its a 30foot vertical clearance over their groundmounted transformers because they have a boom and a crane to install those. So theres nowhere on site that would accommodate a groundmowpted transformer like that, which means you have to put a vaulted transformer in order to bring additional power to the site and there also werent places within the property lines that would allow for a volted transformer. There are similar requirements by pg e. When they came to the site, they directed that this was the location or how we worked with them. Ultimately, its teslas engineers that came up with the proposed location. So what other locations were evaluated that met their criteria . There were no other locations that met their criteria that would not have necessitated removing a tree. So all the other locations required the tree removal . Yes, because of the way the trees are placed around the property and driveways and other obstructions. I think just to clarify, you mean no other locations on this property . Yes. Can you help us understand how tesla arrived at this property for this charging station. Was it already leasing space or whats the relationship there . So weve been working at the landlord and theyve been interested in putting in charging and were interested in providing charging there. Its a Central Location in the city, where you can get to most parts of the city from there. So it is convenient for local residents who otherwise cant charge to come there and fill up for an hour and fill up their cars battery. We have evaluated other locations in the city. This placement issue is similar for many locations. So i would say that it doesnt necessarily obviate the issue if we were to go elsewhere, but this is an ideal location from a charging infrastructure for the city. If this permit is revoked, what is teslas next step with respect to its desire to increase its super chargers in the city . Is there a plan b . Well, i believe this permit would be necessary for us to proceed with this location. We can try other locations, but i think its a long process. Weve submitted for permits about a year ago for this. So weve already committed substantial time. [ indiscernible ] tesla charging stations are only for teslas . The tesla level 3 stations, which is what this is, only charges tesla vehicles right now. Are there other tesla charging stations that other vehicles can use . There are other d. C. Fastcharging stations on the market, but they dont they cant directly charge teslas and theyre separate. So i dont get it. I see tesla wanting to enrich themself themselves by putting in 12 stations 12 charging stations. 12 charging stations that only benefit tesla to sell more cars. I kind of might get your presentation again. Its confusing. I read this and i was appalled. Because what i see, because i have a background a little bit in commercial real estate sure. I see upper plaza looking to enhance the value of their property selfishly, and i say that again, selfishly. This one has the value of the building because they can bring customers to upper plaza while people are charging their cars, they can sell more condos or rent more apartments or have more people come to the movies or retail or whatever. So i see that. And then i see tesla having a convenient location, im not doubting your points of view, to sell more cars. And then i see the citizens of the city of San Francisco compromised because they lose more trees in an already overly deforested canopy. I dont get it. I dont get it at all. And then you didnt answer the question or the question that i heard. Did you look at other sites in San Francisco that would not deforest San Francisco, that would not result in compromising the urban forest, and that would still let you put in maybe not 12, three, five, six, even one tesla highspeed charging location . Just to answer the last question first in terms of the number of chargers. Any amount of additional power that we would have needed would have required this new transformer, and therefore new volts. But once we put in the volts, we wanted to maximize the amount of powers that we were using given those volts. So basically we could thats a great business decision, by the way. As more if we put in the volt you would need to in the city. It makes it denser. Our goal basically is to build as few larger stations as possible. It just requires fewer volts and there are fewer intrusions on the public sidewalk. As far as evaluating other sites, yes, we have looked at other sites. This is the one thats farthest along in the Development Process right now and was the most viable for a host of reasons, most of which had more to do with engineering concerns than other financial issues. I think whether or not this is tesla or some other company, theres a broader question at play regarding ownership and adoption throughout the city. And my understanding is that that is one of the citys policy goals, is broader e. V. Adoption. Regardless of whether these are Tesla Chargers or any other compa chargers, the same issue around bringing more power to existing buildings would be there, whether its a tesla charger or other chargers. Tesla is a private company. We are, my understanding, is the only company that is privately funding our charging, as opposed to using public funds to fund the charging networks. The teslaspecific nature of this isnt i think as relevant regarding the specific tree involved issue. And what other locations in the area specifically did you look at to put in a comparable charging station or any other charging station which might not have deforested part of the urban forest . Weve had conversations within a different range of landowners in the city. I cant for confidentiality reasons disclose the names of those landlords, but there have been other conversations. And is there any public city land which doesnt which is available to put in tesla charging stations, which would not result in the deforestation of the urban forest . [ please stand by ] this doesnt involve that is why math. This has nothing to do with the chevy. Of the cars on the road, right now they are capable of fast charging area tesla is about two thirds of those, model 3. What is the market share, in San Francisco, or even california of those cars, what percentage of San Francisco and would benefit from an relation of even one tesla station . It would be two thirds of the drivers who own cars and are capable of fast charging. What is the percentage . Is that 1 , 50 . Hes asked how many tesla drivers are there in the city . In San Francisco, i dont have that number. That is i can earn. 100 of the citizens of San Francisco will be impacted, if we allow this. 100 of the people, the citizens of San Francisco will be impacted by this. It is a nonstarter. For what percentage of the citizens, of San Francisco, and there are a lot of tests was in San Francisco, more than the entire country. But, it certainly less than 5 . Believe it is in the thousands, but i dont have an exact number. Even if it was 1,000, that would be 1,000 out of 900,000 people who live in the city. That is the crux of my issue with this. Okay. Have a question. Once you get the volt, whether it tesla or another company that produces these vehicles are the kind of concern initially is that the infrastructure is why terry. It is only serving one particular type of vehicle. Does tesla have the capacity or the machine to service of vehicles, or is it just tesla only . It is just tesla only. We have seen what happens when municipalities allow infrastructure, you know, such as like chariot, where there was a lot of infrastructure done, and there is no chariot anymore. That would be my number one concern. Second concern would be that if test the falls this could turn into another tv station, because the power is already there. Exactly. This would not be a stranded outlet. Although it is a proprietary one. The volt is health is a pg e entered vault. The gear that it attaches to his Standard Equipment on it can be swapped out. And pretty sure youre not going to know the answer to this, would tesla consider making two of the 12 charging stations universal to other non tesla vehicles . There is no universal fast charging. You can tell i dont have a e. V. Vehicle. Sorry. So there is no universal . No. Thank you. I may be completely wrong, too. Isnt it the case that the one reason these superchargers are tesla only is that they are the only chargers that can charge at this feed . That is correct. Thank you for mentioning that. Chevy volt would not be able to take this amount of power. Exactly. Thank you. You are actually very informative. You had answers for all of the questions. Thank you. Mr. Buck . Do you have caused two e. V. Vehicle, mr. Buck . [laughter] i am the new proud owner of a new pickup truck. If that counts. I probably should pay them. Its in a lock box. Is that an historic element in San Francisco . It is in an undisclosed location, so dont track me at home. Nobody is watching the show anyway, can you just let us kn know . Very brief powerpoint, im going to try to go for the trifecta tonight. That was not as the other week . [laughter] , i did not do that. Well, i thought i had photos of the site, and i saved at the wrong way. No trifecta tonight. Chris buck, San Francisco public works, bureau of a couple of things urban forestry. A couple of things i wanted to address it looking at that block on couple of questions came up, are there trees on the block, other site that were considered. One of the things we did do, as we look at the other street trees along golden gate avenue to see if there is a dollar tree, or a tree that would be less impactful if it was removed, not replace. There is one site that would have been a consideration because the tree was much smaller. It was right at the entrance of the driveway. Its right by maxs. It has a ground floor windows, second floor windows. Basically, even though the tree is muller, to remove that tree without replacing it would be certainly more impactful than removing the subject tree where there is essentially dead face at the ground level. Dead space, second floor. That was, you know, okay, what other considerations have there been to move, or relocate the potential vault in another location in this immediate area . We did look at that. Of all the trees in the block, we believe this one would be least impactful. The staff level, we did deny the request for removal. Generally leaking, our goal at urban forestry is to answer the question, is the tree relatively healthy and sustainable . Would we remove this tree on our own if there was in a driveway proposed or any other issue . The tree is relatively healthy and sustainable. Someone said it was fair, one said it was good, my team. Its not a tree we would seek removal of. So, of course, public works is a very large agent the. I week for the, their other duration. The staff level decision was ultimately overturned and the recommendation was to approve the removal of the tree. When we lose trees due to construction, or development, the tree cannot be read race, our codes does the appraised value of the tree, or the greater of the two. We appraise the value of the tree, it based on the guide of landscape appraisers that came out to 7,300 part of the application, they suggest in early materials that they would be interested in planting additional street trees during our resulting decision we added three in blue fees. That is where public works came up with its ultimate decision and recommendation. Approval, without replacement, at that site. The paying of the raised value for the loss of the tree, and taking the applicant up on the offer to plant three additional trees are getting fees and planting trees elsewhere. Regarding vault place. I had intended to reach out to my colleague a bureau of reits and mapping of reits and mapping. They have stated they have secured what permanent they need pending approval. I had no reason to distrust my colleagues at bureau street and mapping. I do know even when you are placing it in property, not in the right away, you have to leave that is clear for future Maintenance Area even if this vault goes in the property, that race has to remain clear. So, understandably there is not a whole lot that public works is doing with that vault, other than street mapping and processing it. I did not see any red flags. Despite the appellants and worry about that. Those are the key points i really wanted to mention. Again, typically if the tree is healthy, our goal is to deny it a bit. There are times our decisions are overridden. There was an interest. There was interest expressed by the appellant to bring in the act for on those city policies. We did do that as part of our resulting decision. One reason there was a couple of month in file. We did try to take that feedback from the public and reach out to the x and talk to us about the value of e. V. Industry. Looking at what the comparisons are. I do think it would be help wi will, Charles Sheehan is here with us, perhaps hear from him, as well. I just wanted to ask wayne our process from math level denial, to departmental approval. You know, we feel like, of all of the trees in the block, its the most reasonable site for losing a tree. Ive also heard what you said, there has been a just passion about setting precedent. It is certainly a concern of the appellant. I hear you, too. We do not want to open a pathway. It would be wonderful if we can do solar, e. V. And all of these Amazing Things without losing trees i think sometimes its not going to be realistic to do that. Just to try to beef up our reasons for approval. There will be times there is conflict and difficult decision. I just want to point that out. Sometimes there is conflicts area i hear where the board is leaning on this area do you know we take that feedback seriously. I wouldnt say one commissioner views constitute a leaning. I do have a couple of questions. The permit says three trees will be planted as replace. There is on its brief says they will plant six. Are they now offering to fund more than what they had previously offered . I think it is our interpretation of the appraised value. The 7,300 goes in the same bond to plant additional street tre trees. That is my understanding of their interpretation of where they are getting six. No, it says there is 7,300 on the permit. And then it says, in edition, each paid to mitigate the loss by planting the trees by public works. In the brief they say, we will pay six fees area just wondering if there no, my reading of it, we can have robin come back up. When i read that i was confused, too. The math roughly works out, they are counting it all up it is like overall funds that would plant replacement trees. Okay. Will they be used to plant replacement . They will. They would go into an adopt a tree fund area it is a cutie withdrawn for Tree Planting and purchasing only. That funds the planting of replacement trees elsewhere in the city. When private construction, like you said, sometimes you want to build a driveway. When people want to remove trees for their own private benefit typically whatever this hundreds of public works . How many trees do you want them to plant and exchange . Are there other factors . When it is a single tree that is imposed