vice president goh: well, in regards to whether there was work done before, i have found that we have heard credible evidence tonight as well as in the submissions that we received in preparation for today. i am not sure if it makes sense to go ahead and suggest changes to the findings now or if we should hear from the other commissioners as to whether others would like a revoke or not -- a revote or not. and i think that the project sponsors admission that there was removal of fixtures, and i know from other cases that i have worked on that these kinds of plumbing fixtures do require a permit, that that is a concession. i think that is probably enough,

but even setting that aside, we have heard credible evidence here tonight. commissioner hwang: i think we are supposed to hear from everybody first, and then we will address. president peterson: i just want to say that i think this is unusual that we are taking in additional evidence, and this was at the request of the permit holder. anybody have other comments? commissioner fung: i have some general comments. the decision made by this board was predicated on a wide range of issues, not just the issue of when construction started. in fact, not all of the findings are equal or pertinent in the

decision that i made, and i find that the decision should be made on the entire issues that we had discussed and not on that one specific technicality. and therefore, the question of whether these findings reflect the decision making process occurred, i find that it does. i find that it does.

commissioner garcia: in paragraph 5, it seems there is a case being billed for work done without a permit, and then somehow, it becomes therefore the permit was issued. error -- was issued in error, and it is not a valid permit, and i do not follow that logic. if someone does work before a permit, then they should be cited and fined, but i do not know what bearing that would have on a permit that is issued and decide retrospectively that it was illegal because some work had been done. i do not get that connection. i do not see where that is valid. they should be required to get a permit, which a permit ultimately does to legalize the work that they had done.

i'm not trying to build a case before them -- a case for them, but i am point about problems with that language, and i also a lot of problems with number four. i do not know the affected had on anyone's decision, and i certainly would not be the person to suggest that. and if someone is interested, i will raise the points that i have before, in the event that it might have some effect on what they ultimately do, and the sentence that starts off that dbi was not aware, they have refrained in issuing it, well, we know from the question that was passed a of mr.kornfield

that that is not the case. it would have had no effect whatsoever on sfc -- cfc. it would not have prevented them from getting it, so i am uncomfortable with that language. commissioner hwang: i am convinced that i will change my vote. one of the issues which the permit holder is that i found some credibility issues, and even in the papers set forth, cancel -- council's recollection does not go with mine. i found a listing of complaints,

all of them after the date, and all of that leads me to believe there was good faith, and i would be willing to change my vote. i do not know how that impacts the ultimate decision, but on balance, i think the weight of the evidence does speak in favor of the permit holder. sorry to interrupt. >> what was the prior vote? commissioner fung: initially, -- 4-1. commissioner garcia: initially, it was 3-1, the tissue were absent, and then you voted. -- and you were absent.

commissioner fung: if that is the case, then i think somebody should make a motion. commissioner hwang: i do not believe that the evidence is appear sufficient base the we saw. commissioner fung: we have no re-hearing request. vice president goh: we could continue yet again and ask evidence. for example, the public speake''

s photographs, and if we're going to do that, i want the date on the other photographs, as well. that is the possibility. commissioner hwang: furthermore, i take issue. there is no opportunity to cross, no opportunity to understand fully what was stated in the declaration, when we have an opportunity here to do this, so i think a re-hearing is what i would vote for. >> i think the real term would- be "re-opening." commissioner garcia: there are the objections i raised having to deal with paragraph four.

even if they had done work before, they actually got the permit, i do not see the that is ever been a standard for denying or overturning a permit. they should then be required to either pay a fine and/or try to legalize it and come forward with some case in which they applied for a permit to legalize. they did not apply for a permit to legalize. the permit that is before us was to object to a project for which a cfc had been granted, so even if we had ample evidence in my opinion that they had done work before, i do not see, as was said by commissioner fung, if there are other standards for denying this, having to do with community standards, then we

should base it on that. i would move for a we votere- vote -- i would move for a re- vote. i will leave that alone before we take a vote, and maybe i will make those comments. commissioner hwang: i just wanted to follow-up on what you were saying, commissioner garcia, on item four. and i could be misunderstanding what you're saying here, but it seems that the critical issue here is number five, and i think that is where the interplay is. the issuance of the csc. the underlying permit is evidence that is sufficient, and

i find the prior evidence sufficient. at the same time, i heard no testimony today that additional evidence is out there that could counter some of the declarations in the appellants evidence, -- appellants' evidence, so i think this was an improper issuance -- improper work done without a permit, and this is where number four comes into play. mrs. tavis can be reconciled. -- maybe that can be reconciled. commissioner garcia: the permit

does not ask to legalize what is done, and therefore, cfc could not have -- that is more reasonable to me, as the question was asked by vice president goh about the moving of the sink and toilet, i think it has been stipulated that they did that, prior to getting the permit. you do not have 30 seconds or one second unless the president wants you to comment on it. i am onboard for changing the

findings or on board for whatever. if i am the one he made the motion to reopen, i mean to vote, because i would withdraw that. i thought maybe you had done that. commissioner fung: can you restate that? commissioner hwang: if we can narrow the issue, that be more efficient. my focus is whether or not there was a valid permit. and this goes to work being done prior.

vice president goh: if we went ahead and voted and went ahead and voted tonight, i am not sure if that means that commissioner garcia would change his vote in vote to overturn or not, because now we have in different than the last time we voted with president peterson, so i think there are concessions that they remove the fixtures. we probably have enough if we change some of the language in

the findings. >> my order of preference would be -- commissioner garcia: my order of preference would-be -- would be, at this point, i am not really ready to change my vote, and i think the appellate or the permit holder still has a right to ask for a rehearing, and my only change would be the sentence would start that dbi was not aware, through to the point where i will read what i think should be stricken. dbi was not aware at the time is issued thecfc, and they have well refrained from issuing it. had dbi been aware that this was

subject to a jurisdictional requests before the board, i would also want to strike the language about unique circumstances under which it was issued in error. this does not deprive the board of jurisdiction over the permit, and the memory of our hearing had much more to do with six rather than whether or not work had taken place ahead of time, but it does lead to the logic that this was an improperly granted a permit and therefore an improperly granted cfc, which i imagine has some bearing. vice president goh: i did not break down your changes. commissioner garcia: it starts about four or five lines down,

on every war that dbi was not aware, and mostly that is i want to what i was stricken, that one sentence. >> commissioners? commissioner fung: i am ebel perturbed in the low bothered by the approach we are taking. a vote had been taken and reviewed twice. we have allowed no introduction of new evidence. the decision making appears to be mixed. therefore, if you are intending to look of these things in light

of acceptance of both new evidence in changes to the findings as to what created those decisions, then i think we need to continue this case. commissioner garcia: to what end? commissioner fung: to the submission of whatever you feel is required to be changed. it can be voted up or down next week. >> and if the commissioners are inclined to change their actual vote on the decision, it might be recommended to continue its so the we can agendize the item clearly -- to continue it. so that another vote is taken and that these findings are not adopted. commissioner garcia: is this just for the be a reconsideration of what is before us?

>> it could be either one. you can take no additional evidence, or if you want to accept additional evidence on particular topics, you could do that at your discretion. commissioner hwang: i think additional evidence would help me, and that is why i made the motion to reopen, to allow evidence to be submitted to the board. president peterson: i think that is fair. i think a full record in this case is warranted. commissioner garcia: one thing i would be interested in, assuming that we and a continuing and we get new evidence, all would be very interested in that part of the code that addresses removing fixtures, and also, the permit holder stipulated that they

removed that, and i do not clearly remember that they did that. i want to be able to find where they actually did that, some evidence that they did or did not do that. commissioner fung: commissioners, then i think we need to reopen the process. and if we are going to do that, similar things, in the construction contract, it talks of the demolition of concrete. so i think the building department needs to look into that. commissioner garcia: we are asking the building department to look into what we have already been briefed on to determine based on their statements whether or not that was in violation of any coach. is that a reasonable interpretation?

commissioner fung: yes. so, commissioners, if that is the direction we are going, then i would like to move to continue this, madam director. you want to vote on that first? commissioner hwang: i did make a motion. are we on a different page here? >> the idea is to continue the matter. commissioner hwang: i want is to use the right terminology. commissioner fung: when? >> commissioners, the next time we will have a full board is january 19. the calendar is already full, but if you want to add to it,

you can, and then the next meeting after that we will have a full board is february 9. commissioner garcia: i would rather stay here late on the 19th then further prejudice the permit holder, and i think mr. kornfield wants to. >> we have elections. >> could i look at the ritz in submittals rather than going to the oral testimony to consider whether permits would be required, or did you actually want me to go through the testimony? commissioner fung: i think kirsten submittals is fine. >> ok. -- whitson submittals is fine. -- written submittals is fine. >> ok. vice president goh: whether or not they were replaced, whether

or not that is in the record. commissioner fung: it was in the contractor is a declaration. vice president goh: thanks. vice president goh: i have a question about the 19th. we have other items to be heard, as well. how many? 6, 7, 8? >> yes, there will be election of officers. commissioner garcia: that usually takes five minutes. >> oh this is to continue it until january 19 with some briefing and some exhibits allowed. i think we should specify how many pages you are interested in seeing and exactly what topics

you want to see it on, and my recommendation is that both parties to submit the thursday prior, as opposed to having rebuttal. commissioner fung: commissioners, since i personally feel that all information has already been submitted, i would like the briefing to be 3 pages. vice president goh: i was going to suggest one page with unlimited exhibits. commissioner fung: 3 pages total. commissioner garcia: you cannot limit that. commissioner hwang: i like the one page. just summarize it. >> one page a briefing, and limited exhibits, but all parties submit the thursday prior to the hearing on january 19. and the subject matter of the briefing?

the subject would be whether there was on permited work done prior to the issuance of the may 24 permit. >> and we will make the agenda item for this meeting clear that you make -- you may take another vote on the merits of the appeal. president peterson: on the scheduling issue, you may ask. >> will there be oral testimony taken on january 19? i heard there would be cross- examination. president peterson: yes. three minutes. i believe we have a fully articulated emotion. call the roll, please. >> the question on scheduling --

is the oral testimony three minutes for each witness or three minutes total for each side? president peterson: the letter. if witnesses are questioned by board members, they will extend the time. >> the motion is from commissioner hwang to continue this matter to january 19, 2011. additional briefing is allowed at one page per party and additional testimony will be allowed at 3 minutes per party. commisssioner fung: aye. vice president goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. president peterson: aye. >> the boat is 5-0. this matter is continued to january 19. president peterson: thank you. when you are ready, colorado

item 5, please. -- call item five, please. >> item 5, appeal no. 10-113, alison faulkner -- eillison folk versus the department of public works bureau of urban forestry. it is a protest of an issuance to the department of public works of a tree removal permits for 14 trees, order # 178,902. president peterson: thank you. we will begin with the appellant. you have seven minutes. >> good evening. i am here today along with a number of people who live on the 1300 block of mcallister street

because the department of public works is planning to remove 14 of the street trees that are on the street right now. that is about half of the trees on the street. these are all mature chinese elm trees that are really critical to forming the character of the street. the trees are, as i said, mature. they have been there a long time. it is not typical in san francisco to have a block where you have such a nice canopy of trees. and they have been really important to the aesthetic quality of the street. they also -- it is a fairly noisy block because we are on a hill above the square. we have a lot of tour bus traffic. the trees to help with noise abatement and also some of the trapping of the diesel pollution. removing this many trees is really a big deal for the people who live on the block.

i have a few photos of would like to show today. the first is -- i will set a couple of things. i am not a photographer or a technical person. so this is the best i can do. these are the trees on the north side of mcallister between pearson and steiner. unfortunately, i do not know how to give you the full view at once, but they are really quite tall. on this part of this block of mcallister street, between the bus stop at the top and the corner at pearce, there are countries. the proposal is to remove seven of them. it really will have a dramatic effect.