i am very reasonable. i am very easy to get along with. my concerns are reasonable ones and they have been resolved by them in the past. vice-president hwang: but he did not take any opportunity to communicate directly with them? >> i do not know who these people are. they do not live directly in san francisco. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. president garcia: someone. commissioner fung: i will start. what is before us is a tradition request on the variance which is

granted spring of last year. the building for that all the variants -- that followed that variance. what is before us is not anything that relates to the discretionary review in process itself. the c.u. process for the wireless, which we have no heard you on, would have been better venues for the jurisdiction requester. the issue for me is in between -- between knowledge of the impending project at that time, there was an extremely long gap

to the point where it took notice of construction starting to bring forth a jurisdiction request. have -- the appeal of the variance and the permit itself has aged tremendously. i am not prepared to accept jurisdiction at this point. vice president hwang: i am also inclined not to grant jurisdiction. the information provided by the zoning and mr. was useful for me to understand the communication to occupants in the building. i appreciate the clarification of what was going on with the two different permits.

if the jurisdiction request your did learn of it in december and filed a jurisdiction request, i do not think that creates such a concern that my fellow commissioner had on timeliness of the request. that is not an issue for me. i think it -- i do not think it was sufficiently timely, given the notice. i also want to point out that i am happy to hear of alternatives for recourse on the d.r. concern that she raised here. it is not relevant. we are not going there. that is not what is before us. those are different thoughts. commissioner goh: i agree with what the vice president's said. i am also alarmed about the planning potential failure to

accommodate reasonable accommodations. hopefully that will be addressed. otherwise, i think that it is, given the jurisdiction request er's concerns about dust and noise, that the construction might affect you and your neighbors' lives, i wonder if speaking with dbi and attempting to control that might be a good avenue? mr. duffy is nodding. he is amenable to hearing from you about those issues. president garcia: is there a motion? commissioner fung: i'm going to move to deny it jurisdiction. president garcia: before we take a vote, mr. duffy, will you give your card to ms. bryson?

obviously someone who is involved in issues in that neighborhood. both of you would benefit from that communication. thank you. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to deny both jurisdiction requests. president garcia: aye. vice rpesident hwang: aye. commissioner goh: aye. >> we are now moving on to item no. 5. -- item #6. 1290 fell st. she will not be attending the

hearing and has asked that the board decide the case on the papers she has submitted. carla short this year and we can give her time to speak. >> thank you. karl a short, department of public works and bureau of urban forestry. i would like to take a moment to congratulate commissioner goh and wish her the best of luck. i do not know if the public realizes how much time the commissioners put into preparing for these hearings. as a staff person, it is satisfying to know that the efforts we make in preparing our briefs and attending the hearings are really being very awfully considers. you've always taken time to consider the briefs before the hearing and always the testimony presented so thank you very much for your service to the city. it's been a great service to the city and i hope people recognize that. commissioner goh: thank you.

>> in terms of this case, this is a tree that's currently the maintenance responsibility of the department of public works, and it was identified for removal by our staff after we have been monitoring it for several years. we did perform sidewalk repairs around this tree a few years ago. it's a species that is not highly tolerant of root pruning. we did not have to remove a substantial number of roots and repair the sidewalk but did have to remove some roots which 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