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