that their analysis still stands based on the fact that some of the work would be and a portion of the natural areas, but the analysis still was complete and still stands. >> so some of the trees that are, you know, proposed to be removed under the permit are in the natural areas? >> yes. the edge of the hillside here is in the natural areas. >> could you put the illustration back up? >> sorry. >> could you point to the exhibits? >> i don't know if you can see. >> you can point to it with your hand >> and you can see it here? >> she actually has a powerpoint. >> i am sorry. >> i could try to... >> point it at the screen. >> so i will just mention that the department does implement capital projects in natural areas.

as we do capital improvements to projects city-wide. the natural areas, program is a management program, a 20-year management program for how we manage certain land scapes and so some of this work is in the edge of the natural areas, but it is separate as discussed in the environmental evaluation provided. >> i think something was put on the overhead for you. >> it does fall within the natural areas program. >> how many of the proposed tree removals are in that area of the 58? >> i could... i would have to make a quick count. but... that is where two of them fell recently, this is an image of that area.

i could try to do that and then come back up. >> so all of the green dots in that natural sort of area just directly it looks like the vast majority are coming out of that area? >> no. >> because they are new. >> the green ones are new, the red ones are removed. i would have to do a count. i would say, no just roughly looking at it, approximately, 15 or 20. >> okay. i would have to do a count. >> okay, thank you. >> >> thank you, scott sanchez the planning department. i will be brief, it deals with the accessible path and rest room and drinking fountain just the work that was revised to the planning department that

was subject to a exemption that was reviewed this year and there was an subsequent e-mail that clarified that the portion of it was within the ramp area but that did not change the department's evaluation. as the appellant has stated their concerns are not so much related to the rest rooms but the trees and the removal of the trees and have concerns related to the project on the california environmental quality act. the planning department determination is to the board of supervisors not this board. that is something that needs to be appealed to the board of supervisors. i think that the ramp is something that is a plan that is in development now, it is not a planning department plan, it is not something that we developed and implement and enforce. so when reviewing the applications we would not be reviewing it. it is something that the rec park is enforcing and we are

doing the review for that because we are the lead agency for the city and doing environmental review. but in terms of the ramp that is something that is a policy development that guides the management for rec park and i am available to answer any more questions that the board may have. >> what involvement does the planning department have with parks and rec in looking at their long range plans and master plans for various natural areas? >> it depends, there is a lot of overlap. so for the green connections is one program that the department is working close with rec park on and that is developing the actual paths. so making sure that there is, you know, various levels of you know either walking paths or bicycle paths. that is something that the department does work closely with rec park on. we will do the environmental review for the ramp and for

other projects. >> he indicated that he does not have any comment at this time. so we can move into public comment. could i see a show of hands on how many people plan to speak on this item? >> we ask that people fill out a speaker card. if you are willing to, we could include your name your accurately in the minutes, you can hand that in when you come up to speak. if you have not filled one out when you come up to speak you can fill one out afterwards and pass it up. we are going to give each person two minutes and i ask that you line up on the far side of the room to make the process move more quickly and you can do that now. the first person who wants to speak with come up to the microphone. >> just starting right, you don't need to go too far from the podium. just so we can form a line. and someone needs to start.

who would like to go first? >> please step forward. >> would you want them to hand them to you or just leave them? >> everyone can leave their cards and i will pick them up. perfect and i will pick them up as we go along. >> let me know what it is time to speak. >> my name is mike walcul and i leave on par dies avenue right across from glen canyon park where i have been living all of my life born and raised across from the park and about the subject of the trees, i have seen with some of those trees have come down and it was an act of god and no one has been hurt or killed. especially in these times when years when you have an el nino year where you can have the storms and the trees come down before anybody realizes what is going on, the next thing you are dead and something should be done. some of those trees are dangerous, it doesn't matter what anybody says, some of

those trees are dangerous and just a matter of time before somebody gets hurt or worse or yet killed. >> i just wanted to say, allow this work to be done over here in glen canyon park. a lot of that should have been done years ago and everything. that is why the place is in bad shape from years of neglect. because nobody at rec and park or city hall really cared about showing an interest in glen park when things are like deteriorating with the rec center building. and the thing about the rest rooms and anybody that? a wheelchair, or has any other type of disability can't use the rest rooms in the men's rest room over at glen park, and then the woman's room too you have to go down stairs and in the men's room they are in violation of a safety code

because there is no railing where the stairs are going down in the men's room, if anybody slips and gets hurt they get to sue the rec department for quite a bit of money and everything. and nobody seems to address those serious issues. it is just like it is a joke with the people here at city hall and rec and park department and the city and nobody really seems to care. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is dolan urgal i am a forester. and i have planted hundreds and hundreds of trees in sonoma county north and a few in san francisco itself. i am looking at this plan that we had here of the rec center. and some months ago, we were presented with a plan that

would be the rec center needed attention. we had a nice idea. somebody had a nice idea and took it up. but, somehow conflicted with this was the ideal of the removal of a whole bunch of trees and moving other parts of tennis courts and this sort of thing. this brings up the subject of trees. now, as my friend over here mentioned, trees have fallen. but the trees that have fallen should have been removed a long time ago, they were old pines that are come up with their end of their life. the trees if they want to take down are giant things, about this big around. big ucaliptis trees that are historic and to get rid of his trees is just absolutely insane. we have, we need these trees. but, the other thing that i would like to bring up is that

somebody has not got the right idea that a tree is a tree. somebody says, if one kind of tree is another kind of tree, not so. but, what happens was this conflation of the trees as opposed to the rec center, i am in favor of the center. leave the trees alone. except for the ones that need to come out. need to come out. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening. thank you, very much for your attention. i attended most of the community meetings and i am here to say once again, because i have stood up at many public meetings and spoke to the rec

and park commission meeting in 2011 in no*f. i have a series of my letters here. the options that we had ko compare all included the deleting of the entire row of trees. the pictures that she showed of the red dots and the great big green. i don't know if you want to show this again and i would like to point something out on this. this item here the parks and rec. actually, i brought what they handed out and if we could get this clear on here, shall i do that? >> okay. so this is the kind of this was one of the plans that was presented, the one that had

been voted on. and what i want to say here, i like those words that the previous appeal had which were manifest and justice and grossly misled. an untrained eye this is the way that they are sitting here, actually the city's green circles all of the people thought that this was exactly that the way that it was. it was never discussed. you can see on this, that actually these tennis courts are being moved and these giant trees are being pulled out. now what is this green? >> it is very misleading. you can see this in picture after picture here that they are still showing green presence and this entire row here they are all in the after plans. and it was extremely deceptive.

the public has not showed support for the plants. sorry am i over? >> your time is up. but i actually so what is currently in that space then if it is not trees? >> the trees are actually currently down a little ways and they want to knock them down and bring them up the hill and actually the current trees that they are going to cut out which are represented by tiny little red dots showing very insignificant. they should be showing the size of the tree if they are going to be removing it. and they are putting these huge red ones. any way this is the current path of all of the trees that they are going to cut out. now if they are removing these, why are these giant... this was not, this is what was put out... >> you are understanding that there is gray, you are saying that when you look at it, you thought that it was trees, and now you are saying that it is going to be bare? >> that is exactly the case.

>> thank you, i just wanted clarification. >> would you like to state your name? >> carolny turn burger. >> next speaker in >> do you want me to leave this here? >> rose cats and i am a resident of glen park and a frequent user of the park. i have already submitted my written comments. i would just like to you a, deny the appeal. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, my name is maria monodory, i am a city resident and thank you board members for hearing us, i have three remarks. the large old trees, have enormous crowns that slt leafy

portion where the photo synthesis occurs, on the surface of every leaf are pores to which carbon dioxide is pulled out of the atmosphere, they are like natural vacuums that move the pollution from the air. they plan to cut down 190 trees over all in the multiple projects for glen park. which will result in more pollution to the debt triment to all of us in the city. just think of how that will effect the children with asthma. park and rec say that these trees will be replaced by seedings. how many seedings would actually replace the function of one large tree? 50? 100? there is not enough land to substitute, 100 seedings for one tree. the roots of the tree burrow deep into the earth serving for protection against the erosion,

if they were cut the space for the tennis courts the roots will die and the hill will slide down right under the courts. what is the point of spending millions of dollars that the city doesn't have to move a set of perfectly functional tennis courts? the tree serve as habitat for many of the canyon lines wild life from spiders and bugs to owls and where will the animals go. they are part of the natural landscape that so many of us love. we have many developed parks in the city. but only one wild canyon. it is a treasure, so please leave it as it is. natural is not important 85 percent of us voted to keep hechy as it is which is not natural. thank you.

>> next speaker. >> my name is sophia dory and i want to glen canyon, and there are owls in the trees and the bird watchers watch them and get the facts about them and they go to the kids it is a cycle. park and rec wants to kill the cycle. the developer cares about the money not about the cycle. it is just about the money, i am here to speak for the owland trees, for they cannot speak because they cannot speak, they cannot say their feelings and their rights. thank you. >> thank you. next, speaker please. >> craig scott and i am a glen park resident and a parent and a visit or. i fully support the project moving forward, that gives ample time for the public to

participate and to comment on the project. for people who are trying to stop it any way that they can because it is a misguided tree fedish and there are 6,000 trees in glen park canyon and this will only reduce it by 58 trees, and not for that area and they are not in the best place. and i hope that you deny this appeal. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please? >> good afternoon, my name is lean o'brien and i illustrate park and rec and i try to make things better for butterfly populations. i would like to lend my support to reject this appeal. >> are you currently employed by rec parks? >> i am. >> we can't hear from you. because that is you know financial interest in the

appeal. >> okay. >> all right. >> thank you. >> next speaker. please? >> hi, i'm vince adams and a 7-year resident of glen park and 14 years of the city of san francisco. i am here to support continuing with the project to restore the park. one of the reasons that i moved to glen park was because of the canyon the fact that it was a beautiful area and a diamond in the rough and this project has the potential to change a lot of that. i am also a parent and i have a toddler and, my toddler spends every day in the park and the playground is in bad shape and thes not terribly safe for a child under three years old. and this project was unof the things that was going to improve that. we have to go to the other parks in order for him to play somewhere that is relatively safe. and i just would hopefully like you guys to really just basically deny this appeal and continue with the development as planned. thanks. >> thank you.

>> next speaker, please? >> marium moss. and i have lived for 39 years across the street from glen park and i served on the advisory board for eight years and i am familiar with tennis and i still play it and the courts and all of that. the tennis community from day one objected to moving the tennis courts. the problem is not only the trees have to be taken down that don't need to be taken down, but they are knowingly building the court directly east/west and anyone who knows about tennis knows you build it north/south, otherwise the sun is in your eyes the whole time. there are other problems. the tree roots, will come and grow even the ones that aren't

cut down and crack the courts when they redid the current courts in 94, they had to build a 20-foot deep trench and put in steel plates because every time they resurfaced the court within a year they were all cracked. there were drips from the tree and tree litter and the added expense up on alms road to make an ada ramping and also the loss of the lighting for the fields. we have said from the beginning, no trees would have to be touched if they would put the tennis courts north of the rec center where they now have the informal picnic area. put the picnic area up and you will not have to touch a single tree. i was at every single meeting and i was never able to say this because they did not allow the people from the audience to speak up. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please?

>> good evening. the board of appeals, my name is sally roth and i am a resident of glen park and i would like to speak about the significant areas natural management program and it is my understanding that this is not yet developed. however, the appeal states that this whole thing should be put on hold until this significant area of natural resources management plan is complete. that is just going to hold things up. the permit is for upgrading the building. it was build by the wpa in 1938. and it is in current public use. and it needs to be brought up

to ada compliance and meet other safety standards. the other thing that the permit includes is a new drop off point and a new pick up point for people that are coming to enjoy the park. it will create a safe place for this as opposed to the sidewalk drop off that is currently on elk street which frequently has a fair amount of traffic. the permit does not deal with snramp matters. the trees in the plantings as i understand it are not particularly subject to the permitting process unless there are street trees, i may be wrong on that but that is my understanding. the appeal states that the out reach process, done by tpl and rec and park was flawed and clarity was bad. after attending a majority of

the meetings, i can state that the project presentation was done unusually well both carefully and thoroughly, there are multiple opportunities for inquiry and input and the processes proceeded from meeting to meeting and the fliers had letters a quarter of an inch tall with a section affording information about who was in charge of these two agencies that were involved and how to reach them. and so, the... >> thank you, your time is up. >> i respectfully request you deny the appeal. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> good evening commissioners i am michael rice resident of glen park and i am speaking tonight for myself and as president of the glen park association along with the other gpa board members and members, i did closely observe

the ten-month long recreation park process for the adoptive plan. and i want to add to the comments that there were constant opportunities for the public input on goals and options. the plans evolved as different alternatives that were brought to the meetings for public review and refinement. and the process was documented both at the meetings and on the project website. it appears that the appellant wants the process to start over, rethinking the vaek access the tennis courts locations will push all of the pieces around including the enlarged play grupd or the athletic field and effects on the planted areas. the range of these options was looked at during the planning process, and in my observations at most of the meetings that i attended they were found to be undesirable or in faoesable.

i do want to reiterate as we also heard, 78 percent of the voters in the park precincts voted for proposition b, it was very clear knowledge that this would fund the next phase of the recreation center. it was much higher than the city-wide total. >> so, i just want to say that my wife and i have lived across from the canyon for 26 years. and two, now, growing sons spent many happy hours at the playground and the rec center and the canyon and the silver tree day camp. we now take our grand daughter to the park but we are really waiting for this park upgrade. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is nicholas deu and i am a resident of the park and i leave two and a half blocks from the glen canyon park near the rec center.

so the improvement of the center is important to me and invite you to up hold the permits. my business is the involvement of the public in this kind of a process. and stake holder, i wish and that kind of thing. so i went to almost all of the many meetings that were held for this. and i was watching very carefully to see what was done and i actually was quite impressed with the way that tpl and rec and park conducted the process it was an unusually thorough approach to planning with the community involvement. i think that this late stage to readdress the planning, the way that the plans were built, were proposed, will be extremely difficult. michael explained to you that if you start moving the elements around you have to go back to square one. you can't just sort of not move the tennis courts. i think that was really all that i needed to say, thank you

very much for your attention. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> >> good evening, commissioners, i hope that you don't mind that i rely on my electronic cheat sheet. my name is linda shaffer, i serve on the city's park and recreation advisory committee, however, i appear before you this evening speaking just for myself. i am here to ask you to deny, this appeal. i don't want to waste everyone's time by repeating all of the excellence points made in the response that was sent in to the appeal. it seems clear to me that the

appeal basically has no standing before this body and i hope that you agree. what i would like to do is take my time to address a couple of the statements that were made in the appeal. in the hopes of furthering more productive discourse in the future. and the two things that i would like to focus on is first of all, the appellant alleged that only a few people want the landscaping, that is planned at a more ada compliant park entrance and those who opposed this are somehow being marginalized. i would ask the question, what about all of the people who attended all of these hearings that you have been hearing about over a two-year process who agreed on the plan as currently constituted? and the members of the rec commission who approved the plan? i find it a little odd to