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. the trees have many habitat -- have been a habitat for migratory birds including the black and white heron who has been there for the last few years. one year, he had a female in the tree with him. the trees serve as a habitat not only for the night heron, but

for the robins and other songbirds. here is another shot. it is not such a great photo. and then one more. the reason i have this one up is because you can kind of see where the trees stop, and you really do get the effect of what it is going to look like when they take out that whole row of trees moving down the block their. -- there. we really think this is a needlessly aggressive proposal. it is not consistent with the san francisco tree ordinance. it indicates that trees should be preserved wherever possible. if trees are being removed for hazard, they should be removed for imminent hazard. we have put in a report from an arborist indicating that the

number of these trees have good structure and are not in any imminent danger of coming down. in fact, the canker they have is slow-growing. it is not like seven of death where it comes in and the trees die within months. -- it is not like seven iaoak te death, where it comes in and the trees die within months. we are not just looking for mitigating the impact of the removal. i understand some of the trees need to come out. a couple really are in bad shape. what we really would like to see is a phased removal so they are not all taken out at once, and one that can mitigate some of the impacts of the removal. one of the things i have seen all over the city is the green streets program that has been going on. we would really like to see not

just coming in and removing all the trees at once, but mitigating it with a phased removal in combination with some more green sidewalk streetscape in. the sidewalks are very wide, so there is room to do -- a well. -- oh well. this is not beautiful, but these are some of the pictures i got off the streets of san francisco where they have done green scaping. there is a lot of runoff going down the street because we are on a hill. i think that would also help with storm water pollution medication. -- mitigation. i want to point out that mitigating these impacts and trying to reduce the effect on

the neighborhood is consistent with the california environmental quality act. there has not been any compliance with ceqa in this case. i understand this is not the biggest issue facing the city environmentally. to say it has no impact on the neighborhood on this block or on the environment is not accurate, because we can see that these trees have been used. they do not just have aesthetic value, but they have also been used by migratory birds and do serve a habitat function. in view of that, we really -- we just want to see a more thoughtful plan for phasing and mitigation. thank you. commissioner hwang: is there a proposal from the department, a specific one?

>> we asked for phasing in our initial appeal to the hearing officer. i did a couple of things. when i called the department at the beginning, i was told by the barbara's to spoke to -- the arborist i spoke to said his initial recommendation had been for phased removal and he had been overruled. that was the basis of our appeal before. after that, i send an e-mail to the arborist to have done the work in front of the hearing officer. i wanted to meet and talk because i thought i wanted something reasonable. i never heard back from him. commissioner hwang: did you submit a specific -- did you put it in writing that phase one would be this time and these trees, etc.? >> i submitted the arborist report saying these trees could be retained for a greater period of time. commissioner hwang: what you described is the extent of your

engagement with the department? >> yes. commissioner hwang: thank you. president peterson: >> men's short? -- ms. short? >> department of urban forestry. i would like to give you a copy of the categorical exemptions you received. i have a copy for the appellant. i did e-mail her earlier in the day, but i recognize it was late. just a little bit of background, if i may. the department was initially contacted by two people regarding the condition of the elms. iraq asked to evaluate the trees because there was concern about their condition. one had failed at the top of the

block. we evaluated all the trees on the block. we identified that 14 chinese elm trees should be removed due to significant interaction with tanker, which kills the tissue of the trees. there is very poor structural form and canopy deployment as well. the tanker is still growing, but it is advanced in these trees are ready. it has been growing for a long time. two certified arborist did the initial evaluation. to address the notion, we looked at whether we thought phasing was possible. the indication that was recommended may have been a misunderstanding. we wanted to look at whether we thought phasing made sense in this case. we always do. i will emphasize that we always consider whether pruning and other actions can mitigate before removal. we never jump to removal under

any circumstances. our policy and our ordinance is very preservationist of mature trees. we take that very seriously. i just want to emphasize that. a third of certified arborist evaluated the trees before the hour hearing, and then after the hearing at the request of the hearing officer because the report submitted by the appellant identified eight trees that they thought could remain for three to five years. our arborist looked at those and other trees to determine whether we thought it made sense to keep these trees for another three or five years. could they possibly remain without failure? anything is possible. trees are amazing living things that often react in things. -- in ways we do not expect.

however, if a tree were to fail, it would be clear the city had failed to act on a known possible hazard. frankly, i am not here to disparage my colleagues, but i am not clear at all what criteria the appellant arborist was using to determine the tree's he identified could remain. if i could have the overhead, i will so -- i will show some trees. this is one of the trees he identified that had good structure. this is the same tree, showing the tanker -- canker. it is generally recommended that if a tanker -- canker has affected more than a third of the trunk, removal is recommended. i think you can see this is

very invasive. this is the same tree. those first ones were the same tree. we are moving on to another tree that was identified as having good structure according to the arborist. unique in some ways, although not to the chinese alma. --elm. president peterson: the photograph on the right -- what is that? >> that is a close-up of the canker on the same tree. president peterson: could you push it up? there is just a bit of glare. is it dark? is it burned? >> it is the process of the tissue. it is brown and weathered looking. president peterson: is that what -- is that exceed a third of the circumference? >> yes. it exceeds a third of the

circumference. i only printed photos that were based on the trees he was recommending to keep. i fully appreciate there will be an impact on the street and i appreciate that. we went out to look at whether it made sense to try to keep these trees a few more years. i think we have been living on borrowed time with these trees. the extent of the damage in all the trees we identified for removal is quite significant. this is another one that was again considered a potential tree to preserve by the arborist. i wish that phasing made sense. it really does not, based on the condition of these trees. we would be very happy to work with property owners if they are interested in doing sidewalk landscaping. where that happens in the city, it is a median situation. it is the adjacent property

owner's maine and responsibility and cost burden to install. we would be happy to work with them if they are interested and do additional out reach on the block for a species selection as well. but the department feels it does not make sense to try to retain these trees in position. commissioner garcia: ms. short, is this contagious to other trees? >> you are at no risk. [laughter] anthrax is pervasive in san francisco. trees that are susceptible to it -- it is already out there. removing these trees will not prevent it, from the tracking -- will not prevent it from attacking a tree nearby. commissioner garcia: about half the trees will go. will the birds occupy the remaining trees? will they find a new habitat? >> i think oftentimes there are

other errands around. certainly, if that is their preferred species, birds often will identify other trees nearby. there are an additional 13 trees that would remain on the block. i think only one is an elm. the birds may well adapt. it depends on the species of bird. commissioner garcia: have you decided how many replacement trees there would be? >> we always try to do a one- for-one replacement at a minimum. it looks like there might be a sight that would prevent the placing because of utilities. we would change the spacing to try to get a 14th replacement tree in. because there is a bus stop at one end, it makes it difficult to replace this everywhere, but we would do our best. commisssioner fung: there is

also a number being raised that there are 15 trees. >> no. only 14 trees. i did not see that. commisssioner fung: if you count the ones on the street map, the ones that are circled, there are 15. some of the documentation -- i do not know whether it came from the appellant or your own documentation. >> ok. not that it matters that much -- commisssioner fung: not that it matters that much. >> i believe that was a mistake presented by the appellant arborist, unless he identified a stumpers. he may be calling that 15. we are looking at 14 trees. commisssioner fung: that same map provided by the barbaras -- is there an issue also with

spacing of those trees? one appears to be closely spaced. >> they are in some cases closely spaced. that is part of why we are not sure about 13 or 14 due to space and. i do not think that we could not replant in those areas. we feel confident we could get at least 13 replacement trees, probably 14. commisssioner fung: it is a fairly fast-growing species. >> it is. commisssioner fung: the canopy looks quite weak, contrary to what the arborist -- >> yes. our findings were that most trees had fairly significant canopy dieback. that is consistent with the way the tankers -- cankers attack in the vascular system of the tree so that water is not getting to

the canopy. president peterson: you mentioned another failure. was that on the same block? >> it was sometime ago. it was the reference i heard from the constituents who were asking about the other tree. commissioner hwang: what did that entail? >> it was a large stem failure. it was not a whole tree failure. but it compromised integrity of that elm. commissioner hwang: the stem of a branch? >> this essentially has the main trunk and then to main stems. it was one of the larger -- "we often called dominant trunk or main stem. president peterson: do you know if that resulted in any harm to the public? >> i could look back. president peterson: but off the top you do not know. vice president goh: i am looking

at the ceqa cadex. that was provided to the appellant? >> just today. we received it from planning last night. vice president goh: isn't this to be appealed to the board of supervisors? i see mr. sanchez nodding his head. >> i am not a ceqa expert, but probably. vice president goh: thanks. president peterson: and want to follow up on the heron. did your department look at which trees that had the impact of habitat loss? >> we did not look specifically at habitat loss. president peterson: is that not within your purview? is that some and you do not consider it? >> it is something we try to consider. i think in this case because of the condition of the trees, and there are still other trees on

the block and other elements in the neighborhood, it is a little bit different than if you are looking at an impact habitat or when we do removals in areas that are more naturalistic areas. commisssioner fung: ms. short, is it the department intend to issue one contract for the replacement of all for trees? -- four trees? >> the replacement would be in house, but we would make all efforts to minimize any delays and have it ready to go. commisssioner fung: what time frame is the department looking at? >> probably if the board decision is to uphold the removal, we would try to coordinate for january to remove the trees and to the front garden and replanting within two

to three weeks of that. commisssioner fung: a relatively short time. >> for us, quite short. our order indicated a 24 inch removal tree, which is generally the size we usually installed. vice president goh: a 24 inch blocks -- 24 inch box tends to be 5 feet or so? >> depending on the species, i would say more like 8 feet tall. the trunk dynameter in an l. might be as much as -- in an elm might be as much as 2 inches in a 24 inch box. i have 25, 30, 24. president peterson: the timetable you said for your department is really quick -- is department is really quick -- is that because of the condition of