>> we will have 6 minutes for mr. lagos. >> and i want to state for the record that i was absent and i reviewed the material and read the materials. >> thank you, president hwang. >> good evening commissioners i am lagos with the safe commission of lake merced and one of the focuses as a community group to bring various injustices that we find in our community to the attention of government bodies like yourselves. and that is why we are here tonight and we were here on october 23rd, to bring to light, hopefully the fact that there was an injustice made in terms of a permit being issued to arborwell.

and the issues regarding the safety. and other work and we, and this board, denied our appeal at that time and we would like to request a rehearing because we believe that there were misstatements made by the respondents that we believe had been more straight forward, with the facts, regarding this appeal, they might have been a different out come. and that is why we are here tonight. and so, i like to bring to your attention, the fact that we believe that it was manifest injustice in this particular appeal by the very fact that we have two individuals from the respondents side who made the misleading statements about the permits that they claimed were issued. and the particular address. and also, the fact that they claimed that signs were being

posted when they do not, provide any evidence to this body. and that, the signs were posted or that they were torn down and we believe that it is the due process to the residents of park merced and the residents have the right to be notified in a timely manner. and when there will be tree removal work and they were denied that. we believe that is denial of due process. and one of the keys issue and points of this particular rehearing request is a misleading statement made by mr. qwang and he claimed that there, and there were permits issued for a block on 417 gonzalez drive and i am going to put the map up here so that you can take a look at that.

>> okay commissioners this is where the permits were supposedly issued for. and but the work was done on brotherhood way which was about 200 yards away. so, mr. qwang and mr. ruber cannot explain why they were issued for 417 gonzales drive which were over here and there were no signs posted and nobody recalls seeing the signs torn down. yet, the work was done about 150 yards away on brotherhood way and a number of trees were lost and we lost a number of significant trees during a two-week period until we had to go and i am going to go to this e-mail here. and we had to go through norman yee's office.

who is or district 7 supervisor and we had, and i don't know if you can see this here. we had to go through supervisor norman yee's office how in order to get the information on the permits because mr. john qwang from dpw would not give us that information. and we had, we were stalled for two weeks before we could get permit information and we believe that is manifest injustice. and we believe that we were denied due process to contest the work that we had already started. we had started work for two weeks, that we did not get a chance to contest these permits until september 9th, i believe. and so, also, i want to bring to your attention, the fact that there is late information given to me by the director of this board and saying that the issue of a mta special closure

permit for brotherhood way for this work could have been conceived by this board. and it was not and we would respectfully request that if there is any grounds for a rehearing it would be the fact that there is new information, and that, that special lane closure, permit, from mta, we believe is important because it involves safety for the public. and we believe that mta may have higher standards for when the simple permits which should have been considered that night in october when we originally brought this appeal to this body. so i want to thank you. and i hope that you consider rehearing, of this request. and i will leave it at that. thank you. >> mr. lagos. at the previous hearing, you

show pictures of the chipper, and the flag man, and those pictures were on gonzales or... >> well we show the pictures along garsis and brotherhood way, and i don't recall ever seeing the flag man, there was no flag man. >> in your testimony today you are indicating that the work was actually done on brotherhood way. >> and they got a head start. >> and they got a head start on august 28th. and a week and when we knew that they were doing work on brotherhood way and we could not track down the permits until two weeks later. and we had to go through norman ye's office in order to get the permit information because bsm was stone walling us and i have two people here from the community who will testify to that. >> and we were stone walled for two weeks. and i believe that it was a reason why we were stone walled.

it is called the denial of due process. >> okay. no. i actually have a request since you have raised the issue of our board's communication to you with respect to the special lane closure. >> yes. >> has it been explained to you that you could have fought to appeal that? >> yes. to... >> yes and, you fought not to. >> at this time. >> and why is that? >> what i at this time? >> because..., >> another time? >> i believe that this is something that should come up during the rehearing request. >> why? >> because, it was brought up during the october 23rd hearing. and it was sort of glossed over. and it was. >> and you are concerned and do you have a concern with that particular special lane closure? >> yes, because it was a higher

standard that is attached to mta permits. and... >> and you are not taking a jurisdiction request and you are not requesting a late filing on it? >> not at this time, no. >> and do you have any concern of the merits of that? >> i could not answer your question. >> do you know what i am asking sf >> question. >> if you don't have any problem with the merits that is what it sounds like to me if you are not bringing a request. >> at this time, no, yes. >> and solely for the purposes of the rehearing request, and you are bringing that argument forward. >> yes, because this issue came up. >> and it is hard for me to understand the logic, so... i am trying to get that out of you. >> and yeah. i am still not understanding it if you could help me that would be great. >> i think that i have answered. >> okay. >> if you could clarify, this is the opportunity, and if you don't have anything. >> we believe that the

jurisdictional issue should be considered tonight. >> the jurisdictional issue. >> no. i am not. i am asking why you didn't request an appeal for the special lane closure? >> well, we did not request the appeal of the special lane closure because we were told by miss golsty and by the clerk here that they could not be appealed. >> i think that i have already answered that. >> why are you raising that right now today as part of a rehearing request. >> i am missing your argument. >> my argument is miss president that it was raised shorter, and haphazardly. >> how are you harmed? >> how about that? >> we are harmed because we believe that the mta permit has a higher standard. >> but you are not taking or requesting a jurisdiction request on that?

>> no. not athis time. >> you are harmed in what way with respect to this? >> well, if these folks are allowed to proceed with the work along brotherhood way, we would hope that they would hold to a higher level of safety. >> okay. >> and that we don't believe that they are really committed to that from what we have observed in our community. >> i heard those arguments i am just trying to understand why the special lane closure permit itself is problematic for purposes of the rehearing request. >> okay. >> to the procedural issues for the board. >> no, it is not for the board issue i am trying to understand the merits of the argument for today. >> if you are finished that is fine. >> i think that you have questioneder. answered. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> is the permit holder here?

>> hello, i am with arbor well and i am the permit holder. and i am just here to request that i be allowed to fulfill the useful permit and fulfill the work. and i have nothing else to say other than what i said last time. >> thank you. >> good evening commissioners public works again. and i both reviewed the brief from the appellant and his statement currently, and not to say that there are misstatements by the appellant and the permit to the arbor well. and on september 6, 2013, and

the occupantcy permit, the allegation that we were stone wall and did not provide him information and he was able to appeal the permit on september 9th. and with a start date by all of the september 10, it does not appear that there was attempt to stone wall in this case or that we received a request from the appellant and we provided him with the copies of the information. and if i may, provide the overhead for me? >> and zoom a little bit to see the whole entire permit? >> as you can see, the appellant requested a location of 41704, gonzalez however, the permit itself, clearly states that the closure was on brotherhood way, this information was provided to the

appellant specifically. the information again was for the work from 9-10 to 9-20, six clock in the morning and 6:00 in the afternoon. the suggestion that brotherhood way was 150 yards away is correct, however you have to remember that lot fronts both gon sal les and the unimproved portion of the brotherhood way in this case and that is one of the reasons why when we have entered this information it need to be on the appropriate address and that

>> there was no brief and there was no yelp and it has 7 reviews and one and a half stars for arbor well. and i am curious what the basis for this permit is. if they are claiming that they are the trees that are not significant or part of an eir or a science report. and so you can say a google map of the vidal and garsis and this is where the trees were taken off and where the trees were taken down and these go to the safety concerns and these were two-man crew and nobody is flagging and this is low impact

and this is off, brotherhood way, and this is what, the permit presumably was for, i don't know, there was nothing posted, anywhere in the park merced. and warner says that he is an account manager for the company, and here he is vp business development for the entire san francisco area. this is a hayward company. and i would like to know where the san francisco office is. >> these are all flagging and are all pedestrians and not to be confused with the flaggers and the muni busers and the garbage caravan and they shut down a second street and i have codes in other relevant issues if you want... >> thank you, knee other public comment on this item?

>> hello? >> so i was out there and i saw no signs. and we called the department, 3113 days in a row, four of us 12 complaints and with all due respect to him, he said that he had never gotten any complaints and it did not go to his personal office. and it went to 311. and only, we tried mapping and you have to understand that it is a war zone when they come out and we start cutting all of of our trees down and so it is intense but he can testified that we called, four of us three days in a row, and we got no response. and so the inspeckers came

hours later. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> okay, seeing none, commissioners the matters are submitted. >> i don't see the evidence to base that. >> i move to deny the rehearing request. >> >> we have a motion then from commissioner hurtado to deny both hearing requests. on that motion, commissioner fung? >> aye.

>> president hwang? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda? >> aye. >> the vote is 5-0, both rehearing requests are denied and notices of decision and order shall be released. >> okay, thank you. >> so we will move on to item 5 a bc. these are three appeals filed by lagos, 13-130, 605 gonzalez drive. and 13-131 at 811 gonzalez

drive.protesting the issuance on september 18, 2013, to parkmerced llc, tree removal permit (removal of one (1) tree with replanting of three (3) trees of similar canopy and of largest size available). order no. 181658 >> you have three appeals filed and so have you 21 minutes. >> good evening again, commissioners on behalf of the coalition of safe park merced i just want to fill you in on the fact that i intent to share part of this presentation with another community activist, miss cathy lenz who has the expertise in the issue of tree preservation and she will be speaking tonight as a co-presenter on behalf of this appeal. the reason why we are appealing this particular, these tree removal permits, is because, we are rapidly losing our canopy in the park merced at one time when it was designed we had over 2,000 trees. and we are now down to 1500. and we believe the reason why we are starting to see a major

loss in trees is because of park merced's rush to get their new project under way. and there has been reference to that by a couple of people that submitted letters, to this board. and on behalf of this appeal and we believe that is the real reason why these trees truly are being removed and it is unfortunate that we have a particular department the bureau of urban forestry, and approving the rapid deforestation of our community and so that is why we are here today to preserve at least three more significant trees, these are trees that are called significant because of their size, their age, and their proximity to the street and they are in ten feet of a public right-of-way. and i would like to mention the

fact that thomas church is the landscape architect. that is or was responsible for the landscape design of the park merced and he is also responsible for the landscape design in the goalen gate park and stanford university and cal berkeley just to name a few places and well reknown architect. i mentioned the fact that there were 2,000 trees at one time. as a matter of fact it is one of the reasons or one of the main reasons we are trying to protect these trees and that they are habitats to while life in our community. we have 50 different species of birds that fly through the community and park merced is considered a major union site by the arbon saturday for bird watching and so that is something that needs to be considered, and when, you will listen to this appeal tonight.

and it is also habitat to a number of other species of animals and wild life. and we have raccoons that make these trees the habitat. and we are seeing squirrels, skunks, and occasional cat that might use a tree as a habitat. and so, that is something that we don't believe the bureau of urban forestry took into consideration when they came up with their evaluation of these trees and approved the permits for removal. one other thing that we want to mention is that there is a widespread use of pesticide on the property. and i was told that about ten days ago that round up was being used throughout the property and the round up is a very toxic chemical for the trees, plants, wild life, and we believe that they may be a

contributing factor to the death of these trees that they allege is happening. so, i would like to get on with the issue of the trees themselves and i am just going to briefly go through each one of them because miss lenzwill cover the issue of the trees themself and why they need to be preserved. and she will get into the science of it. and i would like to go to tree number one here which is at 603-605 gonzales drive here is a picture of it. >> and this tree is about 60 feet tall and has a 20 foot canopy. as you will see, that tree is very green. it does not look like it is dying, it is the only significant tree on this particular side of the block. and there has never been any kind of a complaint from the

residents or any reports of it being an accident or a street failure, or a tree failure with this tree. i might mention the fact that all three of these trees do not have a sprinkler system and so there is no means to maintain these trees, with water. the second tree, here is at 811 gonzales drive and it has a 40 foot canopy and it is very green and shows no sign of disease at least to my eye, i am not an arborist, but you will hear the testimony tonight that there really is no signs of health issues with this tree. this tree is also run of those trees that is one of the few

significant trees on this particular block. and finally, this is for the final tree here that we are appealing tonight, at 840 gonzales drive, it is 50 feet tall and 20 feet canopy and there is no sprinkler system for this tree either and so it is not being watered by the park merced and yet, they want to remove it and claim that it can't be saved and so, i just want to mention the fact also that about a week ago, in park merced and that i spoke with, told me that they had been directed not to water these trees. and so, they have been told not to water these trees and they claim that the only source of nourishment for these trees is rain. and that is what they have been told by the maintenance

department. and so, and i was wondering why aren't you watering the trees? she have been told not to water the trees, let the rain water the trees. and so i want to get on with the arguments for why we are here tonight. we believe that the duf has not made a strong case for these trees and showing any imminent possibility of catastrophic failure. and they did not do this at the hearing in august in front of the hearing also, and they showed and i asked, do you have any accident reports, of these trees, having failed and short not to come up with any accident reports. and also, i will mention the fact that duf has not shown any

die diligence comparing the reports that they are going to submit tonight, regarding their preparation or required by law, on the characteristics of these trees and i was given this and i am going to show this up and i will put it on the overhead there is no evidence that she or anybody in the department did the due diligence in preparing the report. on the characteristics of these trees and this is what is required by law. she was supposed to have done or one of her, subordinates was supposed to conduct the report and the characteristics of these trees and the benefits