that need some attention, these parks as far as the management but the main thing right now is to get the project done at the rec center >> thank you. >> ruth. grovanis. i have been a resident from glen park two blocks for 40 years. i support the plan and i urge you to deny the appeal before you and to grant the permit. to understand, community support for this project is important that you look at the minutes of much more recent meetings than the one that was just referred to recently. when i walk through the recreation center part of this park, he can see the very real need for better picnic and safer play and accessible rest rooms and a safe and welcoming park entrance, i also support the landscaping plan ta that is associated with this project. there is so much focus on the

tree removal and we have ignored the rich pallet that has been proposed. although it is not an ecological project, it still does offer an opportunity to increase the biological diversity of our park and neighborhood and to offer environmental education opportunities. not everyone agrees that no tree should ever be removed for any reason unless it poses an immediate hazard to life or property. trees stand very often need to be thinned for their own health and longevitity. we absolutely need trees, including the many non-native trees that will remain, there is no deforest station proposed, contrary to what many are saying. for a healthy and attractive we need a diversity of ages and species. this project is not going to harm owls or any other species

and it is sad that so many people have been given that impress. please deny the appeal. thank you. >> thank you. >> next, speaker, please. >> betsy any and i am speaking as the president of the diamond heights association. prior to the meeting we submitted a letter to your board requesting that you deny the appeal. our board feels that the community out reach and the community plan that met with the community and provided so much opportunity for input we feel that that long and thorough process came up with a really good thought out plan. now diamond heights our western border is right at glen park. and our residents would greatly

benefit from the renovations and the improvements. and so we do urge you as association to deny the appeal. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, next, speaker, please? >> good evening, my name is hugh (inaudible) i would like to say something that the project will except some of the park of the project. i mean the moving their tennis court and cut the trees. my point is to this project is substitution of the bad maintenance over this park. i can give you some samples. if you saw all of the chunks of wood, not by... but during the last five or ten years. actually it should be cleaned.

and let me show some pictures. this is maintenance of the main building. this is the windows. i think that my point is like the last window were installed in 1945. the same windows, and this and there is another picture, another picture, this is the wall. this is the top of this wall. >> this is the roof.

>> this is at least 25 years old. >> you can see this wood for this.. if we concentrate on the trees, that my point we need to save these trees, and save the money because my... the retaining wall for the new tennis court will be costing around $500,000 and up. this is a wall. >> thank you. your time is up. >> one second. >> and we have good space. to plant a lot of trees there. >> last picture. >> and off of there. >> the next five years we can cut these trees. >> thank you. >> you are welcome.

>> good evening, i think that it is clear by now, that the opponents of this project are not opposing renovating anything. i mean, the problem is with the trees. with the fact that they decided to move the tennis courts and cut down a lot of trees that do not need to be done to do any of this renovation. and the problem, part of the problem is that that was never disclosed to the community. yes, there was plenty of input about what would you like? how would you like? what are your values etc., etc.. but at these meetings the community was not told we are going to go into the natural areas, we are going to cut down dozens of trees in the natural areas.

that was not discussed. it was not even apparently disclosed to the environmental review officer. because the environmental review officer specifically said that the proposed project would not involve any work in the glen canyon park natural area. it wasn't... it was with that in mind, presumably and based on that information, that the planning commission, awarded the contract in august. and it is only after this appeal was filed, that the planning department realizes oops, in fact we are doing this in the natural areas. this is something that was completely under the radar, it was not disclosed to the public and it was not disclosed to anybody. and so to accuse these people of delaying when it was not really until october that somehow everybody came to the

realization that this was in the natural areas is really unfair to the opponents to this project and to suggest that the opponents of this project have to file another appeal, oh, no, you are not the ones who get to decide this, although i thing that the charter requires you to resolve these issues because it is not in the best interest of the public that this goes forward as planned. but to suggest that they have to go forward to the board of supervisors that would bring more delay and i think that what you need to do right now, is require the planning department to go back talk to the community, and find out if the community is okay with these trees being removed. >> thank you. >> do you care to state your name for the record? >> carlin johnson >> is there any other public comment >> okay, seeing none, we will move into the rebuttal and we will start with the appellant and you have three minutes. >> i just want to clarify, as

far as the area that is covered by the certificate of determination, it says specifically that it is only the flat programmed area and not the natural areas. so if you look at this diagram, which is b1 in your park packet that we provided. this area down here does not include where they are planning to move the tennis courts which will require construction and removing the hillside, put ng concrete and it is a construction project to remove those big grand trees and to move them up into the hillside. so that to me i am not an attorney that seems to be under the purview of this building permit, it should not be issued for something that does not have a certificate of determination or an environmental review. so the other question that you were asking is where things are located. so this red line on this diagram, that would be dot two and what i provided to was the

outline of where the natural areas are. so to me there are two issues, one is the grand issue, and the grand trees along the promenade and that is not the natural areas actually. to me actually it specifically says that it has to be programmed or the flat programmed area. that is removing the hillside. so that should be excluded from the contract specifically and then, so you can see here that they made the point that these teeny tiny dots that were on here in the middle of the tennis courts, this is the redesign and these are the grand trees that are these huge, massive trees and they are planning to put in and it is changed and they said that they were going to plant 163, if you look at the actual contract and it was actually 113 and most of them are bushes and who knows if they will survivor not. so the other thing that i wanted to say is that everyone keeps pointing to the downed trees that have been down for years. these are healthy trees as i

showed you their own arborist have evaluated these trees and said that they are low risk. this is what i imagine the project looking at at the end of the day it is going to dramatically change what glen canyon looks like if you remove those huge eucalypase. there is nothing stopping them from taking down the trees that need to be taken down that are hazardous. >> the other thing is if you look at the priorities from the project which is not what you guys are evaluating. if you look at the priorities from this project, the lowest priority was the hillside. and people did not get an option to go in and say i don't want this, they were not given the option to say what the highest priority and those were definitely the lowest priority for the community. >> thank you.

>> ma'am. i have a question. i don't know whether the appellant received the brief from the department? >> yes. >> so you are aware that there is a letter in there from the planning department following the initial determination? >> yes, basically, that e-mail came after i was contacting the department. >> i just want to make sure that you saw that. >> i did see that and my point is that that is not a certificate of determination. and did not go through all of the environmental review process that it should have gone through. >> thank you >> karin from the rec departments. and i wanted to mention a couple of things, thanks for allowing me to use the overhead. you know, contrary to some things that have been mentioned today. we did discuss the fact that the tennis court relocation could you put those on. it would result in the removal

of these significant trees that we discussed them both in the community meeting, this diagram was posted on the website and was also discussed in the community, the commission meetings. and i wanted to mention the appellant did as i discussed in the brief did have the opportunity at both meetings and also at the rec park and commission hearing when the project was awarded to the contractor and they did bring up the precise question. there were two hearings in addition to all of the community meetings. the tennis court relocation was discussed because it was desired to have both of those tennis courts and a playground and a ball field and ada access and all of these elements included in the project. contrary to the statements nine of those trees are hazardous and the others are in poor condition. as determined by our arborist. and i want to mention, i know that a lot of people do know about the challenges that the

recreation and parks department have with the operation budget these days. we estimate with the number of trees we are able to do the maintenance one every 50 years. that is not an ideal situation. but it does lead to some of these issues where we have trees that are the same age, all in declining health, some may not be immediately hazardous, but many of them will become so. so this is one of the reasons that we try and when we have an opportunity and we are working on a project and we are putting new users and i am going to show you quickly. we are putting these in new areas, if you look at these, new users are going to be put

in these areas, these were going to be putting in a new path in these areas for the public to access the park. so, well any way. there is more users are going to be in that area where those are located. thank you. >> >> are you finished with your presentation? >> yes, i have three minutes that is my understanding. >> quick question on, the tennis courts are not being relocated very far. i guess that you mentioned a fairly extensive program is it because and i am just guessing that the children's play area wanted to be a certain size and you wanted mostly the southern orientation. >> yes it is precisely that, we were trying to balance, a

series of factors to ex-expand the rec center and if you could show this overhead image here. as you can see, there is two gray bars that extend out from the rec center there. those are proposed future expansions right now the rec center has a gym and it has an auditor um it does not actually have multipurpose spaces which a lot of rec centers have. so we relocated the small play ground, made it the appropriate size, and today when you were play equipment and you have to make appropriate fall zones, there is additional safety zones required for play equipment. so we made the playground larger and we shifted the tennis court back, you know, slightly, it is not a radical relocation but we shifted them back for that reason, to ex-expand the playground and meet the current safety zones and provide adequate play.

>> thank you. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez planning department. just to reiterate, the exemption did include the full scope of work, there was an error in terms of stating that it was not within that portion. but, the appropriate scope was reviewed under that environmental review. it was clarified in an october e-mail that none of the findings had changed and not the certificate of exemption remained valid. so that would be appealable to the board of supervisors. those the board of asupervisors does regularly deal with the sequa appeals and i am available for any questions. >> commissioners?

the matter is submitted. >> i wanted to confirm one thing, and i am not sure who it should be addressed. >> but a permit is not required to take down a tree on rec and park property? >> that is correct, commissioner. >> i have a question, of rec and park. you know, it is clear that the principle issue here relates to the trees and the removal that rec and park feels was in jurisdiction to do as it wishes. to the extend that you have a plan for the planting of new bushes or whatever it is that you are proposing to do, has that been sort of laid out and also put before the public as part of that process?

>> yes. i included in both in the appendixes but we have posted that on-line. it is also has been submitted to various appellants have actually sunshined those documents. we have 163 trees and we have inceased the number of trees for a variety of reasons, we now have redwoods in the plan which were very large trees. >> are they mature trees? >> no. we find that when you plant trees, it is best to plant the smallest tree that will survive because it will grow strongest in that spot. they will vary in size. but over time they will be as magnificent as these today. again, you know, the park is 66 acres large. there is approximately we estimate 6,000 trees. we are talking about 58 tree removals and 163 planted but no they will not be... they will be small trees that are sh planted.

>> >> is there some sort of phasing on this landscape that right now it is 58 degrees. after that is done, you know, 6 months from now, you think that maybe we want to get rid of 500 trees? i mean, how does that work within your department? >> so, we have done an analysis of trees in glen canyon park generally and we do them for a variety of parks. we have identified that there are a lot of trees, particularly trees along the perimeter of glen canyon park that are in bad shape. the bond of a separate program called a forestry program has identified that some of those trees do pose safety risks. there will be a public process around those tree removals and you know in time that those projects are clearly identified. probably in the next few months. folks have sunshine draft of those plans and they have seen those plans and i think that is what is entering some of the concern. i know that you probably have

heard a few years ago we had a fatality in stern grove and a couple of weeks ago we had an incident where a limb fell on an handicapped individual in the panhandle. we take the tree care seriously with the limited resources that we have and that is part of the work that we do to achieve the goals. >> but the landscape plan is not addressing solely trees that are on the verge of failing, right? >> the plan addresses trees that are in poor condition and hazardous. >> but there are many trees that are part of the plan that are not in poor condition or hazardous, isn't that correct? >> the trees designated for removal have been designated for poor suitbility and that includes structural and poor condition ratings. and nine that are hazardous. >> poor suitbility is not necessarily on its way to

failing, is it? >> commissioners? >> i am the planning and capital director at the recreation and park, this is one of projects. the issues that you are seeing in this particular project are repeating themselves in many sites across our portfolio. these issues are close to people's heart. poor suitbility as she noted we only touch a park about once every 50 years. so when we have funding available, we have to make decisions about the long-term health of that forest at that particular site. so when we identify a tree is poor suitbility. that means that we are making a risk analysis that this tree has a high likelihood of failure and the site conditions are not supportive of that tree having the long healthy life as

establishing itself as a mature tree that will last the length of time that we would idealy like it to. what we are trying to do is make decisions that again ensure the over all health of that forest. if we wait until it becomes hazardous there is a high likelihood that we will not have funding at that point to deal with. poor suitbility means that the tree may not be an immediate failing health right now but we are projecting that treat is at risk and the high risk, based on establish arborist principles that it may really pose a risk five or ten years from now and we will not be at the site and have the funds to deal with these issues. >> what about the risk of the trees that are proposed to be removed that are currently where the tennis courts are? are those poor suitbility? >> those are six and i think that three, three of those are, there are six trees that are

removed for design impacts, and three of those have been rated and poor health and three would be removed because of design. i would have to... >> i am going to ask the people in the audience not to call out or speak out of turn. >> and i would have to check those exact tree numbers. >> there are 9 trees in that

row. four have been rated poor suitbility and the others the other six will be removed because of the design reasons of the grading. >> thank you. >> >> commissioners, it has been an interesting year for park and rec for this commission. this is the fourth case now in front of us and two rehearing requests. and it is interesting because

having served on this particular commission for a number of quite different tenures, even pre1996 charter change which took the park and rec's own permit issue anses from this particular board, i don't ever recall a park and rec permit being appealed. and so it is interesting that in the last several months we have had four. and probably more given the number of permits at lafayette park. the question is here, and i am acceptive of some of the arguments made by the department and what we can and cannot do in this particular board. i'm acceptive of the fact that

their argument that sequa is appealable to the board of supervisors. and i guess my discussion bored somebody. >> are we out of... >> do we need to move? >> do you want to take a break? >> let's take the hearing. sil

mobile devices that may sound off. if you would like to speak on an agenda item please fill out a card and speak into the microphone and state your name for the record. at this time i will like to take roll. commissioner president fong.

>> here. >> commission vice president with you. >> here. >> commissioner antonini. >> present. >> commissioner borden. >> here. >> commissioner hillis. >> here. >> commissioner moore. >> here. >> and commissioner avery. >> here. >> commissioner sugaya. >> here. >> first up is items for continuous and item one at harve street and proposed for continuous until december 13, 2012. further under the consent calendar item six at 2895 san browny avenue request for conditional use authorization. this project sponsor has requested a continuous to december 6. >> is there any public comment on >> we