case is the cottage is being screened by this very large tree. if we have them grown together, that would create another screen. it could take time before that happens. i don't think the competition would be so severe that you would see substantial impact to the health of the trees. but there would be some pruning to cut out small dead branches that might be competing. >> sorry, what timeframe are we looking at before they get to the canopy before they are competing? >> it depends on the tree. ironically the up right variety of the gingko is the fastest growing species. probably a number of years, easily 10 before you would see some competition possibly even longer, but it's a little bit hard to predict without knowing what species would go

in. >> given the home owners concerns, are you recommending two trees be planted or sfwhun -- just one? >> i think they are requesting one tree be on-site. we appreciate some of the solar and other ability features that he's interested in and have some improvements made to his property. the prevens would -- preference would be to see one tree remain. >> if that's not possible, one or two trees? >> that would be one or two trees. >> okay, mr. macmillan? >> thank you. that's a

picture of the cottage the tree is planted in. that's the tree today. this is a view of the street. the street has lots of trees, but it's not distinguished by a particular sort of trees. there is a variety of evergreens and low trees and tall trees. my tree is sort of the one at the very back. there were some

comments about the trees. this was a tree as a commemorative by my relative that owned the house. the tree was the identifiable. when i remodeled my house, my neighbors were concerned about what i was going to do with it. that's the previous years with the maximum sunlight. this is the tree today with an a little bit of sun at the very western side. so i think there are two competing sort of interest on the street. one is the lively fully blooming tree and the other one is the

tree. as a result, the sun does not encourage blooming. again, that's the photograph. the width of the property, i suspected was 30 feet, but it's less than 20 feet. the width of the property. it was mentioned. therefore two trees bring it close together. so my preference again would be to stay with the single tree, but i would go with two trees as a replacement, a deciduous tree of this variety as opposed to the solid canopy which i have now which totally blocks the sun to my property. but you

can see under the canopy there. >> okay. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners, the matter is yours. >> i think commissioner fung mentioned it when we heard the case initially. i personal have this tree in front of my business. they are very fast growing canopy trees. i believe someone trimmed it down to nothing demand eight 8 years it was back to 25-30 feet. i think one tree would be nice to replace it with one tree so that you can see the actual property. if that's a problem with my fellow commissioners, i'm willing to go to two trees. i would support the renewal of those

trees with two deciduous columnar type trees to be selected in consultation with the department. >> i agree, i would support ms. short's recommendations of two trees if we are going to allow the removal of the existing tree. i think it should be removed given the size and intrusion on the property owner. >> okay. i will move to grant the appeal and to grant the removal of the existing tree on the condition that two new trees be planted that are deciduous and columnar in nature to be selected in consultation with the dwp.

>> >> we have a motion then from commissioner fung to over rule the denial and issue this permit or condition that there would be two replacement trees be planted with the species to be decided in consultation with dpw. [roll call vote taken], the vote is 4-0. the denial is over ruled with that condition. thank you. >> item no. 6, 66 appeal no. 13-133 karen galves, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 1150-1152 geneva ave. protesting the issuance on october 10, 2013, to christ c. christ,

alteration permit install half-bath in existing light welll. application no. 2013/10/09/8899. public hearing held on dec. 11, 2013. for further consideration today. note: matter was continued to allow the permit holder to obtain the required consent from adjacent neighbors or for planning staff to perform >> item no. 6, sf 61234 this matter was heard on december 11, 2013, and it was continued to allow the permit holder to require consent from adjacent neighbors or perform staff to perform notification. if you would like we can hear from the permit holder first and ms. galvez can speak as well just to confirm that that's correct. my understanding from the departments is that these plans should be considered as supplemental to the existing plans and not as replacement to the plans. >> yes, the neighbors have agreed to the detailed drawings that i provided

regarding the changes of the project that we are talking about and that is the disposal of the rain water and i did provide more detail and cited the code indicating that in all respects we comply with the drainage of the water. and there is nothing else, i can talk about which i think we agreed. >> okay. all right. thank you. and we can hear from ms. galvez now. >> i have a revised plan and he's incorporated all the changes we discussed in december and it looks satisfactory. it looks as if it would be something that won't interfere with my property and he's meeting all the requirements.

>> thank you. i want to say thank you to both parties for working together and making this possible for both people to be happy here. >> and anything from the departments here, mr. sanchez, mr. duffy, anything to add? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners, it's in your court. >> madam director, these add drawings you say are supplemental so they would be conditioned on the incorporation of the supplemental drawings? >> that's right. >> okay. move to grant the appeal, approve the permit on the condition that the supplemental drawings be incorporated into record as part of the permit. >> great, to be clear these are the drawings submitted by

the permit holder. >> dated 1/16/14. >> yes. okay. >> the motion is from commissioner fung to grant the appeal, uphold this permit with adoption of these supplemental revised plans dated 1/16/2014. on that motion to uphold and adopt and revised plans, president is

absent, hurtado, lazarus, >>77 appeal no. 13-139 julio castillo dba "julie's hot dogs", appellanttss vs. dept. of public works bureau of street-use & mapping, respondent 4111 - 18th street. appealing the denial on october 16, 2013, of mobile food facility permit denial of permit application due to non-response by applicant; for sale of hot dogs, chips, sodas and energy drinkss. application no. 12mff-0030.>> sf 712341234 >> we'll start with the appellant. please step forward? you have 7 minutes to present your case. >> good evening. my name is

julio castillo. i'm here to appeal to the permit 4-1-11, 18th street. to continue the paperwork for 4-1-11 because we get the first permit on 2012 and we get the first permit and the 41 mission. and we won't continue on 4-1-11 on 18th street because we need more money to get the papers because we buy the trailer and i don't have enough money to continue the paperwork. that's why we don't continue with the paperwork. i did not receive the letters because they stole the mail from my house. when i went to the dpw, they said if

you want to continue this paper, you need to appear. that's why we appeared for the purpose because it was denied. >> i didn't understand, you didn't receive the mail? >> yes, because it was stolen. the gate, they don't have a lock. the owner, they don't change the lock. because they have stolen my check from unemployment. that's what happened. because we are not receiving sometimes the mail. >> okay. >> mr. castillo, the department's brief indicates that there was a period of time of about almost a year 1/2 between when you filed the application and then that october date when you went in there, you were saying that it took you that amount of time to raise enough money to be able to open the second location? is that correct? >> exactly.

>> but were you aware that you needed to pay for that permit? >> yes. we tried now to get the permit because i already paid my trailer. i already finished and we tried to continue to get another permit for 4-1-11, 18th street. and we can start the paperwork. >> you've already purchased a second trailer? >> not yet. but we start to pay the bills when we start the permit, we start again like the new permit. >> so, you went into office on october 4th, correct? >> no. i went in november or december. >> okay. the briefs that the department has provided said

that you came in on october 4th and they had requested payment in full and that you had spoken to somebody at that time and they said that you could comen the following week. >> yeah, i talked to stacy lee. >> is that, according to them it says that october 4th. >> i'm not sure. >> okay. when you went in october 4th, you spoke to stacy lee? >> i'm not sure what date that is? >> on that day you spoke to the lady and she told you to come in to make the payment? >> no. she said they denied the application and i applied in march 6, 2012. >> thank you.

>> good evening commissioners john quan with department of public works. it is correct, he did follow the process to acquire the permit. subsequent to that, he also had applied for another permit for 4111, 18th street. he submitted the initial application and not submitted anything subsequent to that. we were waiting for the applicant to complete his package so we can continue to move the process forward so they have all the associated requirements for this permit. approximately july of last year, new legislation was introduced and passed which changed the permitting process for the mobile foods. we

decided at that point, let's wait a little bit more for those people in the cue to make any revisions and lose the in inquire as to whether to continue to have interest in the mobile food facilities program. that was september 23rd after a couple months of waiting we sent a notice to the applicant stating we are waiting for you to make this decision and then we had another individual apply for a mobile foods facility at that location also. this is the case where the department determined that the current applicant must make a decision to either move forward with the application or we have to let a new applicant have the opportunity to apply for that site. we provided the

information to the applicant at the end of september. it was certified mail to him. it was returned and we e-mailed him with the exact information telling him what he can do to move forward. it was acknowledged by the applicant via e-mail. subsequent to that, at the mid-point of october, october 16th, we sent the applicant a certified letter again stating that because of inaction because of we requested for action, we have determined that you have abandoned the application and formally deny your permit and that was the trigger for the applicant to come in and appeal the decision. >> what date was that again? >> the date was october 16th was from the status history that shows that the certified letter was sent out. it was

subsequent to that that the applicant came to us to try to initialize it and at that point it was too late because we went to move that forward to allow another applicant to apply for that spot. that's not necessarily means that if this applicant choose to move forward and the permit cannot be approved, the current hot dogs could not apply for it at a later date if there are no permits approved or applied for or alternatively identify a location that they may want to apply for. this is one of those cases that we don't want applicants to identify a location that they believe is -- >> and sit on it? >> exactly and wait and we

stem -- sell the permit to somebody else. >> he's in cue until that, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> at the mail you say he acknowledged i don't see it anywhere in my packet. do you have a copy of that? >> i have a status history. i don't have a copy. i have e-mail. >> do you recall how he acknowledged or what he said? >> i'm not sure. any other that an -- e-mail was sent out and stating this is the final notice and you need to take action specifically. >> okay. the applicant claims he came to the office on october 4th. is there any record of an interaction at the office. he says at that point he was told if he can come back with the money the following week, it would be

accepted. >> when i heard about that i went back and checked the permit database to find out if there was any documentation of the visit and checked the task management law where staff track how much time was spent on the visit. there were no documentation that the applicant came in on that date. >> one point, you said the registered letter came back? >> yes. >> i believe the applicant stated his mail had been stolen.

>> i'm checking one last time. yes, there was a letter sent to mr. castillo and it was returned unclaimed in this case. that's how we determined that it did go through. >> how about the second certified letter? >> the second letter went to certified mail. i don't necessarily see in this specific case of the ticket that stated that it was delivered, however we did not receive a return, something that was returned as unclaimed. >> what was the date of the e-mail? >> the date was september 23rd, the same time we sent out the letter. >> it wasn't in response to lack of response with the certified letter? >> no, we tried to provide

both documentation by letter and e-mail so the applicant knows what's going on. >> can you brief us a little bit on how many of these applications are similar to this situation in terms of length of time? >> subsequent to july, we have sent out approximately 20 notices, i believe for people who are actually waiting because of how the initial legislation was set up. many applicants were waiting to figure out specifically what can potentially happen. the majority received objections resulted in directors hearings and approximately maybe half went to this board in appeal. they were kind of waiting to understand what their chances of having their permit approved and they heard about potential legislation and they were also waiting to see

changes in legislation, how that would impact their business plan. >> so you are indicating two groupings. how many were there out of that 20 something? >> with the permits issued along with the program, there were something between 80 permits for mobile food permits we issued from the new legislation. >> okay, but what i'm trying to find out is those that came here were obviously disapproved in one form or another. i'm trying to

ascertain out of those that have been, how many have been disapproved because of lack of sufficient documentation? >> i believe the 20 letters were all very similar to that. they did not respond. we told them we would be denying these because you did not take action. i believe this specifically because someone else is looking now at that spot. >> okay. >> one last question, how was this doing? >> it's doing well. >> he received this on the 15-day period of the october

16th letter. it's attached to the notice of appeal after the preliminary statement of appeals. the letter is the next document. >> this was sent out certified? >> correct. >> last minute question. what is the department's position on the status that he's held this for so long. would they be truly offended if the permit was renewed? >> this was more of a trigger that for the department to really clean out all of these old permits and also the secondary portion if someone has already requested this location. >> because of the legislation

that was passed in july? >> that is correct. >> so there is no huge push specifically on this one permit? >> no. as i stated, there is a change in legislation, so we are trying to clean up all the ones that have been sitting there that people are waiting to determine what the new legislation and how it would impact and secondly they are looking at this spot and want it to move forward. >> okay. thank you, john. >> is there any public comment? step forward, please. >> good evening. my name is adam lavan. i have a pizza place. i object to anyone having a mobile car on that

corner. that corner is surrounded by restaurants and one that has changed twice in the last 2 years. i would argue there was a change in the legislation as to how these permits got issued because there was a contentious issue. every permit should be looked at and scrutinized carefully. if it was not approved for any reason, i would argue that that location shouldn't be approved under the spirit of mobile food trucks parking in front of existing brick and mortar restaurants. there is harvey's is literally across the street from it, there is a pizza place in one corner. it's a mideastern place and taco place. all of these places are paying property taxes and payroll taxes and

the mobile food trucks they pull up during prime times and skim the profits and skim the customers and they are not paying taxes and not paying for anything. i would argue that any permit there should be denied and if it's just the letter of the law to do this, i think we need to protect businesses. >> have you filed objections with regard to this particular site? >> this particular site i wasn't aware of until the last meeting. my partners and i have been in action to discuss what these are as far as the plan of where they can be in front of light businesses and the permitting process. we have been working