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 removal, using a garage or driveway is a most common example. There is a big way, if the tree can be removed and replaced, we just do we cant do the appraised value because we are not losing a planting site. We are working on actually tightening up our code a little bit to beef it up in the phase of development. Right now, one of the other triggers, when there is traction triggers that reek wire Tree Planting, linear frontage. One tree, or in lieu fee is required per 20 feet of frontage area typical 25 foot wide singlefamily home reek is the tree or in lieu fee. Lets say there are no trees that require planting one tree. That is not triggered with this particular application. If it was we would be looking at all frontages of the entire parcel and add up 20 linear feet and figure out if they are short trees are yet it is Development Impact fee. Again, the average house requires one. That is a trigger that does not involve, or is in play here, but that is in play for driveways. I dont know if ive answered your actions typically. Commissioner honda is very helpful. Commissioner honda is a usually 11 trigger. Large development reek wires Tree Planting at the end of it anyway. Sometimes theyre required required to plant a bunch of trees, as a result of construction. The appraised value is typically all we get. Weve had one or two other cases where someone has come in, swinging big, and who are we to say no . Again, its about a policy that was carefully considered by public works. We hear the concern. Cases where in lieu fees have been paid, or acts number of trees are to be planted in lieu, do you have a rough idea of how many trees have been entered under those circumstances . I mean, it funds Tree Planting. We can be planting trees all over the city, we use those funds all the time. Are those trees were they going to be planted anyway . Were we going to be replacing trees that have been removed . Some go to replacement trees, some go to nutri locations. On average my is it funds of both. I would have to double check. That is a good question. Is this just funding replacement trees or is it ending a nutri . I would have to charge if it specifies. I would be curious. The in lieu fee, it is is typically replacing trees and or planting new trees. Good question. Try to have a question, it might be for the person from the department of environment. Perhaps it was a miscalculation. The appellant pointed out, i think grossly undercounted the removal of the tree that is in place. I think it quoted, in the stafford worked that it was 2. 6 kilograms, that seemed magnitude lower what was then quoted for the three trees. Can you explain that, and feet to why your department feels this is a better way to reduce hours co2 emissions, as opposed to replacing trees that will be here ten years from now, even though tesla is not. Charles sheehan, San Francisco department of environment. To your first question, the data input and the return that it gives you, i will. Out to the appellant brief, where he also shows a similar response. Essentially over 20 years, that same grass shows that is not sequestering any carbon. So, while my input was low, what he submitted it shows very low sequestration. We did do a secretary alternative analysis. Before you move on, im looking out, there is a statement of appeal, there is a second case that says public works order 201448 on page two of the document. Summary findings of sf requirement. Is it because the trees are younger, older. Why is one 2. 6 and then six of them are 10,000. Im not understanding that area attorney correct. The model input that we used, and we use the same model. There is different adaptations for the model, but we were using the same model. Its all about the input. The tree that we are removing is a red flowering tree. For whatever reason you put this into the model and you asked the model to return how much carbon it is going to sequester, it returns a very low amount. You see that in my report. You also see that in his report under sequestration, its virtually zero. Our models are showing the same thing when you put in the first box, after consulting with mr. But, that was a typical replacement tree. Thats the standard that we use. The model performs better. So, we did an alternative analysis after these documents were submitted and said okay, what if it wasnt a red flowering tree. May be it was a birch box that you are removing. We put the birch box in their and the model shows that the birch box performs much better than the red flowering gum. These are nuances to a model. I dont want to do it important trees. I want to consider the other side of the equation and that is what happens when you fuel switch from gasoline powered cars to electric cars. The amount of co2 that youre going to reduce going into the air, it is exceptional. You can look all you want at these models and put in different input. When you take less gasoline powered cars and replace them with electric cars, the Greenhouse Gas reduction benefits are tremendous. As your department is looking at this, im assuming tesla with some of the other sites, maybe their development from before you, does your department have a formal role in evaluating these . Are you trying to further the adoption, what is your state or are you just trying to encourage this . Its all of the above actually. Our department cochairs the Environmental Work Group within the city here. We cochaired it with the city administrators office, trying sfmta, we were the lead companychair. It has a number of recommendations in it. One of them is to use publicly accessible charging in the city. Right now there is about 750 publicly accessible charging port. We have been out of there are a couple of years now. Based on 2017 numbers there is 20 20,000 registered e