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 say that only a few people are in favor of that new landscaping. secondly, there is elsewhere you will find the statement that the trees removed for this project will be replaced by a few saplings. >> we have heard a lot mentioned by the previous speakers that the 58 trees removed there are going to be a lot of trees replacing those. i think that i am out of time. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please? >> good evening, commissioners, my name is dennis leuy, i am a native to san francisco. my husband and i have lived on the edge of glen canyon for decades. and we have deep roots in our community.

i ask that you deny the appeal. and rely on the experts with recr, and parks, thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> my name is tony astrela and this is my daughter kristin, we moved directly across the street from the canyon we are where diamond heights boulevard and elk come together and when i walk out of my front door i look to the left and i see all of those trees. kristin our house was built around a huge tree that existed for 20-some odd years until a branch fell off and it was removed. if those trees are removed it will destroy the quality of life, i think. not just for the people in glen

park down by the playground, but all of the people surrounding all of glen canyon, if you have ever driven down oshanasy, you know that the canyon is huge and it needs its mature healthy trees. i am curious to know of those 58 in this initial plan that are to be removed, how many of those are hazardous? >> how many are mature healthy trees that have no need to be removed on the hillside? i don't think that anybody objects to the fact that the rec center needs all kinds of work. you know, kristin grew up there, all three of my kids were campers, she was a jr. counselor for silver tree and they grew up in that canyon and she learned what a possum was

and there is so much wild life now and i am not a grandmother, i am a great grandmother and i want to be able to take my kids and grandkids all the way back through the canyon under the trees. i also very quickly i feel that not enough out reach was done on the heights part of this project because i live in glen ridge and it is a cooperative and it is comprised of 275 units throughout diamond heights including berkeley way that overlooks the boulevard which overlooks the canyon and where i live on arbor street and i spoke with the president of the board of directors of glen ridge last week saying what is the board's stance on this. and he said he never heard anything about it. so i have to feel that the out reach and the public comment was inadequate and that more is

needed. especially the removal of the trees. >> thanks. >> i am sorry for taking up so much time. >> next speaker, please? >> i would like to submit some meeting minutes from the playground meetings of parents that were done by the trust for public lands, january 19, and january 21, of 2011. you could leave that as well. i will also put it up.

>> my mame is steven lobowsky and i am a resident of glen park and a user of the park with my dog for many years now. i am submitting to you today the playground minutes for parents that were done january 19th and january 21st, 2011. you know we have heard a lot about all of the public out reach, and all of the meetings that were done, this is, i believe, the only record that you have of ad least two of those meetings. and these are... i would like you to turn to page 2 and i am not going to be able to have time to go through all of the items. but this for parents who were telling hec and park what they

wanted and didn't want. they were addressing the playground. i am going to go through not in any particular order. there is an item that said that they liked the location away from the street and they liked the experience of coming along a path and discovering the playground which is what we have now. two, they said that people generally like that you have to walk a little ways into the park to get to plate ground. three, they say that the playground works well and they like it and is seems that it is safe enough and they like the slides and the rings and they love the slides and the stairs. four, it is not their stop priority, it was of course, the actual rec center and finally. they do not want another playground, they prefer the children play in nature. now, i think that the nature that they are referring to is

>> we call this tree a monkey tree because that is where the children go and they play. thank you. >> thank you, your time is up. >> >> my name is bob segal i do not live in glen park but i frequent that area, often, like most of the people in this room. i believe that everyone in this room is a lover of trees and nature. this is a i have attended a number of the meetings, i was very interested in the project and it was a wonderful project and there was a lot of out reach as has been explained. and i don't think that this appeal should be accepted. the project should go forth. i think as far as the trees go, it seems like the trees spoke a

few weeks ago saying that i am too old and i am leaving and fortunately, this plan will take care of some of the trees 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.,