is why we have been keeping an eye on it. in my brief i submitted some photos that i think showed the lean of the tree. if i can have the overhead, i'll just point out two photos first. >> where do i sit? wow. commissioner fung: please continue. >> this is a photograph i don't know the contrast is sufficient but i wanted to show, you can see the area of new sidewalk, it's the lighter color in the photograph. and i think it -- commissioner goh: would you

please not disturb this meeting again. president garcia: it's not appropriate for you to be speaking when someone is speaking. thank you. >> the photo i have on the overhead is what i described as the gurdling -- girdling root and what we identified in the area around the root was some decay present. there is also some new cracking, it's not showing up well i don't think here in the sidewalk and our concern there is that that has occurred because the tree has shifted a little bit more. one of our arborists who is responsible for pruning the trees in this part of the city asked me to take another look at it as he thought the lean had become more pronounced. so -- thank you. is there any way to deal with the glare on this?

ok. so i'm trying to get a little bit at the degree of lean to just show you that when we see a tree that has grown into a lean, frequently we can see that there is a correction. they might be growing away from the building and then they may grow more upright. in this case it looks as though the entire tree is angled and that suggests less growing into a lean with some correction but perhaps shifting of the tree. and then lastly, i printed out a couple color photographs that we took in october to try to show the decline that we're seeing in the canopy of the tree. so i'll just try to point that out a little bit. when you see these small branches that don't have any leaves on them like you see here and back in this area really throughout the canopy of

this tree, that's an indication -- this might show it a little bit better. that's an indication of some decline in the canopy. this type of tree is a resilient species and more often we see a very healthy canopy and then the tree itself falls over. but when we have a decline in the canopy associated with some root pruning we had done, what seems as though a lean that may have increased over time, that's when we decided we should no longer monitor this tree and go ahead and post-it for removal. to address the email that ms. oakes submitted today, it's always a challenge for me when someone is attached to a tree, i certainly feel a lot of empathy in the case but i want to state for the record as i think you all are aware, we

don't take tree removal lightly, we generally have a very preservationist policy and try to preserve trees whenever we can. but we also have to take a tree decline and public safety into consideration. we did actually email her these photos even earlier before today to try to at least let her understand what we were seeing and the concerns. she just to address point number two, in my brief i indicated there's a lack of structural supporting roots opposite the lean and she questioned how we knew that and that's because of the records we have of repairing the sidewalk so we have a root pruning record when we repaired the sidewalk. i think that's all i have. commissioner goh: i have a question, ms. short. since i asked you this question many times over the last four years and this will be my last chance.

what is the expected life expectancy of a black witacashea and how old do you suspect this tree is? >> there are many factors that contribute to how long a tree can live so i am -- when i don't know the age of a tree, i'm often very reluctant to make a guess because there are so many factors, especially in urban conditions that can affect size and vigor of a tree. having said that, because this tree is located on fell and a portion of the haith where many of these types of trees were planted in the mid 1960's. i would -- and given its size, i would suspect that it probably was planted around that time. this type of tree, many people -- again, there are many examps of trees that live well beyond their life expectancy. so life expectancy in and of

itself would not cause us to post a tree for removal. but i think it is -- to estimate about 60 years for this type of tree is actually a pretty long life expectancy for this tree especially in an urban environment. commissioner goh: thank you. vice president hwang: with respect to the replacement tree, how is that process handled in terms of talking to people what are attached to the tree that's removed in this case the appellant or other people who might be affected by the selection of the tree? >> in terms of the replacement species? president garcia: how do you go about that? >> for trees we have a maintenance responsibility for we have a recommended replacement species and on fell we've been using the brisbane box. it is a very fast-growing species and does, i think, oftentimes is a good species to choose if people are concerned about the loss of the size of

the tree. however, we are always open to discussion with neighbors if people express a particular interest in a species and it has a similar maintenance need to the species we already have on the street, then we're often willing to substitute. vice president hwang: you wait for a member of the public or interested party or in this case the appellant to approach you? >> that's right. on our public notification, we don't do outreach other than the public notification. we do indicate on that notice whether the tree will be replaced and the replacement species if known and then we can contact information. so people -- it is incumbent upon them if they care to weigh in to contact us. commissioner fung: ms. short, it's kind of interesting to have a case here on fell street when we had one on fell last week. >> oak last week.

commissioner fung: reasonably in the same area. not necessarily exactly. but my question relates to, does the city have good information on when these trees were planted throughout the city? >> the quick answer is no. we have good information on some parts of the city, and we certainly have good information on trees that have been planted in the last 20 years or so. but prior to that, we have records, permit records if the trees were planted with a permit which does even occur on city maintained streets sometimes and in some cases when they were part of, for example, a redevelopment area then we have those records. commissioner fung: for the older stuff which i'm curious about is, i assume that most of

the city maintained trees were not planted at the same time as the other ones. >> that's true. there's a wide range of -- commissioner fung: as an area developed, perhaps that area got planted all at once to a certain extent? >> that's right. and as i understand it there have been different periods of time, for example, we know in the 1960's there was an effort to plant trees in the haith after khrushchev came to visit and commented there were no trees in that area. commissioner fung: you'll have to ask commissioner garcia about the hate in the 1960's. president garcia: i don't remember. commissioner fung: the reason i'm asking these questions is your department looking at trends throughout our city as to what may be happening and where your maintenance is going? >> we do. we track maintenance of all the trees for which we have maintenance responsibility now and we try to make notes about

different species. we also participate -- there is a program -- the creafl tree failure report program, and they analyze data throughout cities in california about failures, whether they are entire tree failures or limb failures and we participate by reporting to them and also take advantage of their reporting and search through their database so we look at trends for the trees we maintain, and we do work with friend of the urban forests who does a good job of trying to look at trends for trees that they have planted with property owners. president garcia: michelle, i was tracted when you were talking about the canopy. and in this email you reference, misoakes asks about the fact the canopy has been killing -- filling out again and do you know that for a fact and would it have a bearing on the decision you would make if that's true? >> i don't think it would.

i think my primary concern here is the lean with the new cracking in the sidewalk suggesting that there's forces at work pulling and there is -- we did find decay around the root crown. but i also -- i don't see that trend of filling back in. i didn't look at the tree today. i just got the email this evening, but i did look at it last week. and i've not seen substantial change in the canopy. president garcia: thank you, ms. short. commissioner goh: if this tree came down, what's your estimate about how much it would weigh? >> ton? >> yes. commissioner goh: th vice president hwang: is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, then, commissioners, the matter is submitted.

president garcia: i respect the appellant for her devotion to this tree. we made the comment last week that no matter how much someone loves a tree, a particular tree or the cities in the city, i don't think that their caring for a tree would ever be greater than that of ms. short's. i think it is unfortunate this tree has to come down but i don't think we've been given any information that would cause us to think that shouldn't come down, and barring any of the other comments, i would move that we uphold the department and deny the appeal. >> president garcia, is that on the basis of the d.p.w. order? president garcia: exactly. thank you. vice president hwang: i think when president garcia stated is consistent with how i would view it, and i agree. i would state for the record that i think the testimony of ms. short is sufficient and

compelling in terms of persuading me this is a tree that shouldn't -- that should be removed. commissioner goh: i agree as well. and also thank and spreesht the appellant for her care and concern about this tree and i feel similarly about the city's trees and also agree with ms. short take this appears to be at risk. >> you want to make a motion? need to call the motion, then. >> excuse me. you need to take a seat. >> where? >> any available seat in the audience. ok. thank you. >> we have a motion from president garcia to deny this appeal, uphold the permit on the basis listed in the d.p.w. order. on that motion, commissioner fung?

commissioner fung: >> aye. >> vice president hwang? >> aye. >> the vote is 4-0. the permit is upheld on that basis. >> thank you. >> then we'll half on to the next item which is item 7, appeal 11-138, says are ascarraunz at 2305 mission street appealing the denial on november 28, 2011 of mobile food facility permit, sell of hot dogs, related toppings and nonalcoholic beverages, mff 0085. you have seven minutes. >> good evening, commissioners. this is a very simple case which is -- even myself i don't get 50 cents for families who make a living with this beautiful car was featured in the "san francisco chronicle"

pink pages, i guess you have and is one of the best hot dogs in the city, in the state. i'm very proud of that. i got the permits and paid to the police department but somehow some person wants that location and i have a police permit, fire department, tax department, all fully paid and notified. today i went to pay, they assess me -- they put a lien on my property for $740 which i never knew and am going to pay for some secure property taxes and the assessor was very nice and he says to me it was sent to the wrong address, so even i saw the permit -- there's one person wants that location because it's now very popular. and it is a gentleman, if you have a picture, i have a picture of him, he's applying

and he has three locations, is selling illegally and he's here. i never met the person. it's right here selling hot dogs with no permits. i'm not against him but he wants that location because it's a beautiful location and i have a permit for bart, also, an asset, a tourist attraction. it's a beautiful site. it's a joy of the health department, best hot dog cart because it has three compartles but i suggest four families, they get all the money. i don't get 50 cents. i don't eat. god has given me enough and i always help people in need. i even donate my houses to benefits which house my living room and dining room, sitting capacities, hundred people for dinners. i've been doing that for a long

time. but the gentleman, maybe he wants the location. and i did have really problem with the 875 stevenson a few years ago when i was building two houses, four units up in the hills and when i applied for a permit one of the guys told me in six months come back we're going to look at your plans and i said, sir, you get $85 an hour and you're going to pay $85 for me, $170. can you just do your job properly? don't take me wrong, i run three times for mayor maybe to correct those problems we have in the city. and this mistake is with the tax collector, the police department, the fire department, or whoever the department, they didn't notify the department of public works about the department, legally permit. and so i would appreciate maybe mr. castillo wants to keep the auto cart in the same location he's selling every week without

permit. i'm not against him. he has other rights to do that. also he can apply for the same place. there's only one person wants that location. so it's up to you to look. somebody made a mistake, i did not. i paid the taxes. i have insurance, workman's compensation. i have health insurance and i can bring 50, 100 people for me to testify but i don't do that. it's just the fact it speaks by itself and i know mr. kwan very well. i deal with him. he held my permit in a year, it's supposed to be done in three weeks and i used to send a letter to the supervisors, the planning department and they told me if you kept sending the letters to the department we're going to make

you review the plans. you know the answer. why don't you give me my plans. i think from the public works department. you have all the permits. you cannot be denied a permit for the building. so in that department, i really don't know why but it's up to you commissioners to do the right thing because i'm not against anybody else. it's just that i have the permits and somebody in the city they didn't communicate, the department of public works that i have a permit. this is the whole thing. and i already applied even in november 3 and a few hours i did whatever i have to do because i'm very good in that. i became very successful in business which is i just even want to mention when i moved from north beach to the mission in the 1970's, it was the ghetto, and my business, put the light on the mission district, take a look what i

did. now at 19 and mission, this cart has beautiful lights for nighttime, lots of lights, beautiful things. it's not illegal. it's the joy of the health department. thank you very much. president garcia: sir, in your papers you submitted to us there's some mention of the fact that you reached out to your offices. i'm going to assume that's d.p.w.'s offices. >> yes. president garcia: that you were told that you had not been properly notified? >> yes. president garcia: who was it that told you that? >> ms. stacey, the assistant to mr. kwan. president garcia: thank you, sir. >> she showed me the whole book and i said no you have a permit, we cannot deny you, we will just apply immediately and we will activate your permit. suddenly mr. kwan sent me a denial. president garcia: maybe he can clear this up for us. thank you, sir. any questions?

next case. >> we'll hear from mr. kwan now. >> good evening, commissioners, john kwan from the department of public works. as an administrative note, the permit currently under appeal is 11 mff 018590085. specifically as a matter of correction. again, i have to go back and provide a little background related to the mobile food facilities program. the mobile food facilities program was a piece of legislation passed by the board of supervisors in december of 2010 which became effective january 2011, in the legislation it was very specific upon the passage of

legislation, all applicants with current permits from the police department must, within 90 days, come to the department of public works and acquire new permits because their permits then would cease to exist in those specific cases. the department worked in the next several months to complete the program and were able to roll out a mobile food facilities program sometime in mid march of 2011. at that point, based upon records that we received from the police department, we issue a courtesy notice to all permit holders informing them and reminding them of the 90-day requirement. this is not a requirement established under the law. the departments has this program was well vetted to members of the community through multiple public hearings. there were community town halls that the department provided, along in conjunction with the small business commission.

it was covered by not only the print media but also from the radio and television. at various times. during the initial rollout. so there is various forms of notification the department did provide a best faith effort to contact all current permit holders from the san francisco police department. moving forward, the department received a request from an individual who was looking at this site who contacted the department suggesting that there's currently a permit holder at this location, what can i or cannot do? the department informed him under the law, the permit applicant was required to come to the department and renew or require a new mobile food permit which would be free in this specific case within the 90 days, that at the end of the 90 days, their permit would be invalid. the new applicant, mr. castillo knew about this, waited for the

appropriate 90 days. at that point, he applied for a permit, permit number 11 -mff-0169 following the process . during this process the department provided mailing a notification to all businesses within 300 feet of this location, and i believe that was at that point that the current permit holder, leo's hot dogs, ceasar's, he was informed and came to the department asking for -- number one are, objecting to this application and also asking the department to issue him the permit based upon his current -- since it expired police department permit. at that point, the department was placed in a situation where he failed to come to the

department within 90 days and by law, he would not be able to renew his permit, number one. number two, we already have in essence a new application for this site that it will be inappropriate for us to provide a level of entitlement given that that entitlement period has lapsed specifically and therefore based upon a requirement under the code we had to deny that location to him specifically. the department did its best faith effort based on the information we were provided by the police department in trying to notify all current permit holders. again, this was a courtesy notification, not specifically required under legislation. we do not know what happened specifically. the department believed that the denial was proper and appropriate specifically in this case. and i'm here available to answer any questions you may have.

commissioner fung: mr. kwan, two questions. one, i'm not sure i heard you correctly. you said something about somebody coming in and asking about this site and you said something about 90 days. are you saying that the previous permit holder came in and asked about the site, or are you talking about a new -- >> a new applicant came to us. and made the request. he also at that point initially suggested that whoever the vendor was, sometimes on site, sometimes not. commissioner fung: whatever. the second question is your department handles all the database for this program. >> the department had to create a new database for this program once we were provided, you know, the direction from

members of the board through legislation to start managing this new program. commissioner fung: and your department tracks and monitors the application process? >> for new applications and for all police department permitees who came to us within 90 days, yes. commissioner fung: let me restate that a little bit. as an example, the building department has a permit process whereby they have the final approval and also goes out to a number of departments who sign off but they're responsible for tracking it? your process here also has multiple departmental, from department of health, police, etc., right, that have to sign off on the application? >> that would be correct. commissioner fung: and your department has the responsibility to track and monitor that those have been

signed off? >> that would be correct, sir. commissioner fung: ok. thank you. commissioner goh: i have a question. we heard the appellant say that the department said to him, and i wrote it down, quote, if he keeps sending the letters, we'll make your plans disappear. >> i have never heard of that allegation. and should any of my staff make that kind of statement, they would be reprimanded. this is not departmental policy. commissioner goh: thank you. president garcia: i know whatever letter people got was a courtesy letter and was not required by the legislation. but did you happen to check whether -- did you have a list of people who received the letter and did you happen to notice whether or not the appellant got the courtesy letter? >> the department in this specific case was given a printout from the police department specifically. we did our best faith effort to

extract that printout into a series of mailing addresses for this mailing. the courtesy notification. we do not believe the applicant in this case was necessarily on that list. based upon records provided by the applicant, he acquired a permit in approximate august or september of 2010 and is approximate two months prior to the change in legislation, so the public works did not know exactly what happened within the police department process. commissioner fung: how many other license holders we'll now call m.f.f.'s, failed to properly reapply and weren't wear of the new legislation and the requirements of that legislation? is that a common thing or is this extremely unusual? >> if memory serves, the pa