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 >> we are resuming the november 14th, meeting and we are on item number five. >> commissioner, i can't remember, it is a senior moment. i believe that i was talking about the purview that this board may have with respect to a couple of items. one is, sequa and the environmental review and i totally understand where the law is on that and that the basis for sequa determination

and subsequent appeals is not at this particular board. and at least it has not been since the charter has changed a couple of times with respect to the powers of this board. the second issue related to, it appears to be one of the major issues for many of those in opposition, tonight. and it deals with the over all management of the open space and with the combination of risk assessment and valuations of the existing trees. and that is also something that is not necessarily part of this particular board's issues. what is before us is a permit that relates to the building, to the tennis court, to the paths around it and perhaps, to the landscaping that that is impacted by this particular

permit. and then the question is and it has been brought up by a few of the speakers, some concern with the tree that are being removed to relocate the tennis courts. and it is interesting that the two play grounds that have had tennis courts, that came in front of this board, both have relocated functional tennis courts in light of a master plan. i will not dwell on that too much, because i think that the level of community outreach and participation here was much more extensive than the other instance. whether i am in disagreement on a personal note with the way that they developed that, i don't think really has much significance. the question is whether we feel that this permit then has

certain things about it that are in either error or represents a decision by the department that is truly not in the interest of the citizens. i believe that the issue of trees is one that is very significant in the city. we see it in, like most of you probably don't know, but we see it in a lot of instances where it deals with single trees from the trees. and we know how sensitive departmental staff from the bureau of forestry is with respect to that. in this particular instance, given the level of community participation and outreach,

given the fact that the program is very substantial and i understand the nature of how the kids' playground and it is a more numerous population would be with respect to the usage of the tennis courts, and the fact that the tennis court orientation was never perfect in the first place, even with the existing, i am acceptive of this permit and therefore, i would reject the appeal. >> i just wanted to comment on your observations about the number of appeals regarding recreation and park projects and in some ways that is the good news that both in 2008 and a week ago yesterday the voters approved some substantial fupds to be applied to the improvement of the parks and so for the many first in many, many years the department has the opportunity to go in and do some very major and significant reno vasings to many of the parks throughout the city and i would not be surprised because of the work that they are doing that there may be more in the

future of these appeals. i think that it is the result of the department being able to act whereas before it did not have the opportunity for lack of capital funds. >> well, i don't really have anything to add, apart from what has already been said and i am satisfied that there was a good amount of public process for this design work and i understand that there may be a difference of opinion about what is planned for this area, but i'm convinced or i am satisfied that the permit should be upheld and i would vote to up hold it. >> i reluctantly must agree that the sequa matter is not within our jurisdiction for review and i'm reluctant

because i think that that is problematic. that the tree removals were part of an area that was not previously noted for the public process. and i think that does create a flawed public process. i think that the e-mail or the follow up letter from planning is just insufficient and i think that the only, you know, place of comfort that i have is that there is an opportunity for people who are here opposing the permit to take that up with the board of supervisors. i do also have issues and it is troubling that we are speaking with the lack of ability to communicate around what they wanted with respect of these trees of the project and that is a deep flaw in our process and i think that needs to be readdressed. but at the same time, the

building permit that is at issue and i think that, i'm... i love to play tennis, i am a user of glen park and the canyon and i have small children and i love the wildness also. there are a lot of things that need to and have apparently gone into consideration but it has not in my opinion been sufficient. at the same time, i'm again, we are ham strung to address those issues here. so that is where i will end my comments. >> i am sorry. we are in deliberation, so this is if we have a motion? >> i move to deny the appeal and grant the permit. >> is there a basis upon which you would like to make that motion? i know that it has been stated that there was a sufficient public process.

>> i think that let's make it simple and just say that based on its co-compliance. >> okay, thank you. >> do we have a motion then from the vice president to up hold this permit on the basis that it is co-compliant. >> on that motion, president hwang? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> commissioner lazarus? >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 4-0. the permit is upheld on that basis. >> if you have a process question, you may address the staff, either at their office or after this meeting, okay? >> the staff has requested a

recess so they can switch the generator source or something like that? >> okay, we will >> thank you all for your patience. there was a fire in this building yesterday, that is why we had a delay. >> we will go to appeal 12-099 mohammad hourian. we will start with the appellant. >> please step forward. >> you have seven minutes to