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 department sent notifications to approximate 220 applicants, of that number, approximate 70

or so has since came to the department within that 90-day period. president garcia: there were 130 people out there who weren't wear of the new legislation and needed to reapply? >> the one thing the department nodes to know pennsylvania once the department issues an applicant to -- application to the applicant, and if they choose not to operate, it was given the previous system -- it was almost no cost for renewal so the tracking was from the police department and others was more in the beginning of the process to ensure they satisfied the requirements but there was a lack of coordination with health department, fire department, the tax certificates were tracked less so by the police department. there, -- therefore, based on this and the cumbersome confusion by not only the

applicant but within the city agencies that was provided, it was determined the department of public works would be a better agency to manage and oversee this program. so in these kind of specific cases, permit holders could very well stop -- cease operations so their facilities no longer operate in san francisco, we would continue to issue them based on the police department records stating that you need to come in and renew your permit, as a d.p.w. permit for you to continue to operate. they may no longer be in operation so we can't speak to that specifically. president garcia: let me rephrase, how many people have shown up similar to the appellant tonight thinking they had a secured spot because they thought they had all the permits necessary to continue to operate in a given location and have come to find out that they had some refresh my memories that they didn't fulfill? is that common or uncommon for people to come back to the department thinking they already have a permit to only find out that they don't? >> it is very uncommon.

he is the second individual. president garcia: ok. thank you. commissioner goh: going back to a question -- you are finished? president garcia: yes. commissioner goh: that president garcia asked you. with respect to the notification, the courtesy letters, did you -- i think you stated that mr. ascarrunz wasn't necessarily on the list provided by the police department. i'm wondering if you actually, your department went back to look to see if a mailing went out to him and that maybe he did receive it or did not receive it? i just want to know what records you have. >> we didn't go back to confirm our list, he was not on that list. commissioner goh: ok. thank you. president garcia: let me go beyond this. i'm sorry. hypothetically, we decide that the department certainly did

everything it was supposed to do, it's an unfortunate situation, this individual is not going to get that spot, will there be a new charge for him to try to get his cart at a different spot, a new spot? >> the department may be able to accommodate. i cannot speak. we'll have to evaluate in the specific case. and to follow up. i mean, obviously there are all -- based upon -- most likelyly this situation, the department in the future most likely will continue to receive people who had a permit that either didn't know or failed to come to us on time and the department usually tried to accommodate if possible. there's obviously certain notification requirements but it also is the department's position not to put businesses out of business, obviously. president garcia: so everything would be done to help this individual to stay in business just possibly at a different location?

>> that's correct. vice president hwang: before you sit down, i did recall another question that came to mind when i looked at the actual permit that was issued and that is at issue today. dated 9/8/ packet. and i'm looking for an expiration date on it. is there an expiration date? >> the police department does not have an expiration date. that also is one of the reasons why it was -- that is why the legislation was changed and given to the department of public works which is used to provide annual permits and additional inspections to require to better manage this program. vice president hwang: as far as a grantee, they would have that permit indefinitely at the time of issuance? >> for the police department, yes. vice president hwang: thank you. >> we can take public comment now. is there any member of the public who wants to speak? please step forward. president garcia: does anyone

else intend to speak besides mr. castillo? just two? you may have two minutes, sir. >> mr. castillo was unable to bring a family relative so would like me to translate. president garcia: which gives you four minutes. [speaking in spanish] >> i asked him to speak in one to two sentences at a time. >> good evening, my name is julio castillo. >> i've come here concerning the permit i've applied for. [speaking in spanish] >> concerning this permit that i applied for, that i applied

to the city directly. and in the papers that he has, the permit that mr. ascarrunz has seems to be for 24th and mission. and the other one that he has is expired. enkspired december 31, 2010. commissioner fung: say that date again? >> december 31, 2010. [speaking in spanish] >> and the other her mitt he hasi