the site is and i know that building is going to have to go down the permit is i saw in reason so the question is whether the two preliminary elements and their high standards for a rehearing

whether there's new information or manifest and justice i don't see that here. if no further comments i'm going to move - >> i think generally, the issues of progress that have been raced through the 3 hearing requests are interesting but don't think they compel me or persuade me to satisfy our standard on materiality. so there's some brief comments. okay >> move to deny the rehearing requests. >> thank you, mr. pa check. >> we have a motion from

commissioner fung to deny all 3 of the requests on that motion and commissioner fung president lazarus. commissioner honda. thank you. the vote is 5 to zero and the hearing requests are denied and notice shall be released. item 4 c it's another rehearing request between thomas more drive and lake merced boulevard we got a letter requesting a letter decided ton february 19, 2014, at that time the board voted to uphold the permit it was properly issued and to recalculate the permit the permit holder is a special

traffic permit authorizing the deparch for the tree removal between january 30th, 2014. you have to comments >> i did also watch the video on sfgovtv. >> good evening, commissioners thank you once again for allowing me julian and the coalition of park merced to bring more information to light when we believe are grounds for a rehearing requester. we've discovered that the park merced eir which was alexander agreed by the city

we're talking about that park merced wants to remove are supposed to retain on brotherhood way. you'll see existing trees to remain. all along boarding way. so this is our smokinggun.

so to speak commissioners. that's why we're here tonight and asking for a rehearing. we believe that this information is in our opinion devastating for the s t p permit to shut down the lane they don't need the permit to remove trees this is our smokinggun. we believe it's incommunity b upon you folks to hold another hearing and ask what's up. i was given this morning but one of my neighbors there's another report that was submitted to the planning commission or the planning department sometime in the last year dated june 11th that states they're only

supposed to remove 24 trees not the 93. i received that this morning and so we believe there's a lot of stuff here that needs to be rehashed out and you'll find park merced will not show up tonight they don't want to defend themselves no time so we believe there's grounds for a new hearing please accept our requests >> mr. largo goes. >> yes. >> the reference you made was to the eir which has a certain purpose and how it relates then to the entitlements of that development. if you find anything in the detriment agreement related >> yes. i found the provision i didn't bring the 91 page all

the time but it allows the planner to go back and they have to go so there a process. i didn't site that in my papers but i'll be happy to bring it up. they have to go back to the planning department and planning commission to get approval of any changes. they can make any changes he want but they need to go through the process they have not done that >> so thank you anyone representing the permit holder. would you care to step forward and speak you have 4 minutes

>> good evening commissioner i'm sam oakley. with neil couldn't make it he's sick. we - we've been down this road before. and we feel that our permit has been given to us justicely we've applied for the permit and followed the procedures to on the permit and we condominium ourselves to being safe and follow the rules of the permit. and, you know, there are procedures involved with obtaining those permits we go

through them. to address what mr. logging as has said many of the trees have been removed due to hazardous nature many are diseased and dying. we are not responsible arbor well, is not responsible for making a replanting plan there's another thing involved regarding that. that's it i have to say unless you have questions >> the appellant or sorry the rehearing requester has indicated in his brief r that

are trees within 10 feet of the public right-of-way are those among the trees that you will be cutting down this is. >> oh, yes there are a froou few trees that are diseased and dying within 10 feet of the right-of-way. we've been working with the bureau of urban forestry in obtaining permits to remove those trees. and if and when they issue those permits we will remove those trees >> so your practitioner then is basically for a two week period is that going to occur after you get the permits or before. >> no. there are a lot of trees on the

ground. and we will be cleaning up the site. during that two week period. >> so you'll need to come back again potentially. >> potentially yeah. i'm not sure if those permits the tree removal permits have been issued as of yet if they have then they're on garza street he'll need a separate permit >> it's a separate operation. >> yes. a separate operation. >> okay. thank you. okay. now sfmta gentlemen would you care to address the board

>> good evening norm wong social engineer is sfmta. the issuance of our special traffic permit is based on the request from the contractor to close 1 traffic lane for the purposes of their construction work in the removal of trees. as i mentioned at the previous hearing before you that the permit was prepared under the guidance and review of licensed engineers the traffic control environment to address the pedestrian and traffic through this area is consistent with the local and state standards that's a supplemental permit to any permit that's required by other city develops for the contractors to pull if you have

any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> thank you. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? >> kathy partner 25 years in horizontal. on october 23rd we wrote to the planning commission feeling that the eir had been violated we heard nothing. finally february 27th our supervisor at a meeting on saturday said we've heard from planning there's no violation nothing written just through our supervisor. i called planning and want to know the exact reason why it hadn't been violated.

nothing. so finally on march 5th i spoke to planning and they said we have a report dated june 2013 that explains why there's no violation in the eir. we didn't see this report why didn't they give it to us in november or december. that's now 5 months later nothing. i was only able to look at this one today were we want to request a rehearing or continuous to look at this information and see what the or bruised has reported and recommend it. we want to check there's one block of trees left 93 we want to see if they've followed the arresting before us report the arresting before us recommendations pruning of

trees. so we want an extension and time to review this. it requires going out and seeing what trees were taken and not taken we're asking for a written report from planning >> i'd like to see the report that you've received today. >> so i just got it and i have one copy. >> who issued the report and what's the date on it. >> i apologize. i upchucked the microphone it's called tree management experts. if you can copy it before tonight, you, have it >> i'm not going to copy it what's the date and 6, 11, 13. >> from tree experts. >> it's address to whom arrest

raymond from tree management experts. >> addressed to whom. >> raymond. >> so it's an internal item. who's the author >> put it on the overhead so everyone can see it. >> oh. looks like it's an extinct or before us >> can i see the letterhead. >> the gentleman is with the park merced he was in front of me. >> oh, i see. as i say we want to review this and see because the last 93 trees are going to be a huge

thing >> i don't understand the context of the report. do you? >> i think it's justification for taking the trees clear kci terminal the entire hillside because of this report that's what it is but we never saw the report we only saw the violation of the eir with no information to back up. this appears to be the informatio information. >> is the eir the 91 pages. where's the eir with your with you you're referring to >> the may 2010 park merced. >> where is it. >> at planning. >> was it any submission. >> our attorney last month made

reference to it. >> oh. >> it was in the hearing and he showed a map as well. >> oh, got it. thank you >> thank you. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i don't think any of us specifically because i drive past that ethnicly this particular permit stretching e stretching to other departments jurisdictions and other agreements jurisdictions that is a little bit of a stretch of my mind. you're talking about a two week

closure of 1 lane their avenue for an appropriate response really has to come from planning and possible the urban forestry >> i think that's difficult for us to where we're at in this proceedings and the permit at issue is not about tree removal but the street closure and my combine nation is similar to any colleague. >> i move to deny the rehearing request. >> thank you, mr. pa check. >> we have a motion from commissioner to deny. on that motion

>> commissioner fung. president fong. commissioner lazarus and commissioner honda. the vote is 5 to zero and this rehearing request is denied >> item 5 has been withdrawn there's no further business before the board. unless there's new business we're i'll call this meeting t

order of the atom for thursday, march 13, 2014. call the roll please madam secretary >> i'll note that director lee is sitting in and with that director lee. director metcalf director reiskin director harper director harper you have a quorum >> thank you very much and the first item on the agenda is communication none. >> none that i've with your of. >> and thank you new and old business directors. seeing none. executive di