is expired. enkspired december 31, 2010. commissioner fung: say that date again? >> december 31, 2010. [speaking in spanish] >> and the other her mitt he has is for 2800 mission street. which is for the bart station at 24th and mission.

[speaking in spanish] >> in the photos that he's given that the woman selling at the cart is illegal. and he believes that the food should not be mixed together raw and cooked. as you see in the photos, it's not good sanitation. it's all together, the cooked and the raw and the oil.

and that's part of the sanitation rules and he certainly wouldn't eat a hot dog from this cart. >> this lady uses some aluminum utensils that are used in restaurants. oh, to cook. and every time that this woman cooks on the aluminum, part of the aluminum pan comes off in the cooking process. and that goes of course directly into the food that is served. and that again is sanitation rules that should not be so.

and as you can see in the photos of how they operate, that is not how he operates. [speaking in spanish] >> and that when ms. stacey told him to stop selling when he had no permit, he did so. commissioner goh: i have a question. your permit, you have a -- first question is did you understand what was stated earlier before you came to the podium with respect to this appeal?

>> some things, yes. commissioner goh: did you request a translator? >> he was going to -- he thought a relative was going to come. the relative could not. commissioner goh: so you did not request a translator from this board? >> no. commissioner goh: the next question i have is you currently have a pushcart permit, correct? >> no p. >> no. he has an application and the papers that he's paid for, i believe he means the radius maps. vice president hwang: and your application is to have a permit at the exact same site at 2305 mission street? right? >> 2301 mission.

right on the corner. and he says that when he applied ms. stacey told him no one sold there. commissioner fung: does he have a location i.d. number on his application? >> location i.d. number? as issued by d.p.w.? [speaking in spanish] >> he's given me a payment receipt on d.p.w. letterhead that says project location 2301 mission street, permit number 11-msf-0169. commissioner fung: and no i.d. number, location i.d. number? >> i don't, maybe mr. kwan can

help me? commissioner fung: i'll ask that question. no. you see this? no. it also shows up -- only that one? no, this is -- ok. i'll ask that question of the department later. >> next speaker, then. next speaker. no, not yet, sir. is there anybody else who would like to speak under public comment? i thought we had another speaker. no? >> it does not appear there's any further public comment so we can move to rebuttal. mr. ascarrunz, you have three

minutes of rebuttal. >> the 2301 doesn't exist. it's a fire hydrant. it starts with 2305, 2315. it's a fire hydrant. so the gentleman -- i don't think it's wrong -- i hate to even accuse anybody else. he has three carts, the gentleman, selling illegal things, unsafe, you know. and this cart is featured in the chronicle examiner checked by the health department to the minimum. and it's just -- he doesn't even know he wants that location. it's only between 17 and 18 for he sells every week. he's selling, tomorrow, today. the health works from 5:00 to midnight until 1:00 or 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning and in the morning is at the bart station. four families, they make a living. i don't get 50 cents

commission. the only thing, his is the only one now wants to make illegal his operation, he's been doing a long time. the police department knows everything. this permit, ms. stacey showed me the papers. somebody in the department or tax department, i went to the police department and talked to the department, they says no, it's the extension office fault and also somebody in the system they didn't tell the d.p.w. or mr. kwan or the department you have a permit. nothing is -- let me put -- is overdue. everything is paid today, all the taxes, insurance, everything is paid, whenever they send me the bill, i pay. it's not against mr. castillo, he has all the rights to apply but then he also has to comply with the law. he's been selling hot dogs illegally for years. i'm not against him. the address, he has to check the address, you know, the

department of public works, doesn't exist, 2301 is a fire hydrant, you know. he doesn't apply for the location, the same location he's selling every weekend. that's very simple. and he will sell his hot dogs and this hot dogs, it cost me $25,000, commissioners, it's paid and done and i donate all the proceeds, all the profits for four families. i don't getted 50 cents. i have enough. thank you very much and the public works has to do sometimes its job. the commissioners, mr. president and also mr. kwan. he asked if they did their home work to check all the permits. they knew he has been selling hot dog as year and a half there. how is the police department not going to know someone is selling illegal on that corner. there has to be something is wrong there. thank you very much.

i'm sorry about that. commissioner fung: mr. ascarrunz, do you hold multiple pushcart permits? >> i have one for bart station which is complied with the federal laws, and also with the city and san francisco, all with insurance. commissioner fung: and the address of the other one? >> the other one is 24 and mission, the bart station 2800. commissioner fung: that's the 2500 -- >> 2800 in bart. i have the permits. you want to see it? commissioner fung: no. i was just curious due to the location. >> that's one location. and the other location is 2305, 2315 mission. is all legal, according to your rules, somebody in the system then punch the button and we have so much technique now it bothers me. mr. kwan is a very great guy --

vice president hwang: i have a follow-up question to commissioner fung. the permit you have at 2800 mission street, when was that issued? yes, you. you have a permit for a cart at 2800 mission street, correct? >> 19 and mission, yes, we have. vice president hwang: i thought you said 24th and mission. >> that's another permit, bart station. it has nothing to do with this one. vice president hwang: when was that permit issued? >> it was in 2009 something. i have here. vice president hwang: and did you renew that within the 90-day period? >> no, the department -- it's standing, it's bart station. vice president hwang: there's no city related requirement? >> the city don't have no authorization but the police does. vice president hwang: and you have one on 19th street is what you said? >> it's a special license which is one i'll tell briefly it says while it would be great to sell hot dogs, he says get a

permit. and i applied. the permit to me, one in a million, i suspect that. vice president hwang: you have one on 19th street and mission street? 19th and mission street? >> mission an 19th street. vice president hwang: when was that permit issued? 's >> 2010. vice president hwang: did you renew it within the 90-day period? >> no, i never receive any notice from the d.p.w.? >> vice president hwang, it's the permit at issue now. vice president hwang: ok. thank you. i thought that was 23rd and mission. the next question i have relates to the various compliance that you had to -- that you were subjected to like the workers' comp. is that a monthly payment you made or did you make it for the full, like, when was that -- when was the coverage period? >> the permit never expired. vice president hwang: the workers' comp and other types of compliance related requirement. >> the permit has --

vice president hwang: huh workers' comp, i think you said workers' comp. there were others. insurance? >> insurance i have. vice president hwang: what is the coverage period for the insurance? >> the insurance come from the city of san francisco. vice president hwang: time period? >> it's every year. vice president hwang: you paid as of the -- >> every year. vice president hwang: what period does it color, calendar year 2011? >> from 2011-2012. vice president hwang: you prepaid it? >> yes. i have copies of it. vice president hwang: i wanted to hear what it was. i don't need it. >> workers compensation. i have everything. vice president hwang: ok. thank you. >> thank you. mr. kwan, you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> thank you, commissioners, john kwan from public works once again. well, the department recognizes the difficulty that mr. ascarrunz has in this specific case.

again, the department received information from him for a renewal on november 4, 2011. ok. on our letter when we -- on the courtesy letter we provided at the various applicants we have on record from the san francisco police department stating clearly after june 7, 2011, all permits expire and you have to renew or reapply under the current public works code. this was to try to provide a certain level of fairness to future applicants and also current applicants. there is nothing currently that would prevent this applicant who had a s.f.p. permit denied by the department to apply for a new location through the new process. again, recognizing that this was one of those odd situations where according to our records the police department permit

was issued september 8, 2010, it was a very short time frame and could very well be the police department wasn't able to place this information within their database or their records. i don't know specifically what happened. i'm not sure in this specific case whether -- at what level the department can provide a reasonable accommodation given that the -- that mr. castillo, the new applicant did all the things that is required and appropriate -- that is required under the public works code, currently mr. castillo's permit, we received objection and is currently on hold pending public hearing. so again, neither applicant have a valid permit for this location at this point. again, as stated previously, we believe our action is correct, and i'm here to answer any additional questions you may have. commissioner fung: mr. kwan,

here's the problem i'm having with this case. it doesn't really matter the address whether it's 2301 or 2305 because that's usually only a couple doorways, in any event, in the city, and your radius in terms of how you locate carts and everything is much broader than that. but what is troubling, i'm asking you for a response to that is that leo's hot dogs has a permit granted september of 2010. for 2305. your renewal process and courtesy notice went out in spring of 2011. that's only six months apart. and yet somehow when the

gentleman brought up -- i would have assumed that a lifetime of that first permit would have been in excess of six months. >> in this specific case, it's a fairly unique situation, it appears the applicant acquired this police peddlers permit for a hot dog stand in september of 2010. legislation was passed in the interim in december, and then it became effective january of 2011. within the legislation, it was very clear that all current police department permit holders for the first year, they're allowed to -- the department is required to provide them the permit for free. there was one year grace period based upon this information.

the unfortunate part specifically is that the department did not have mr. ascarrunz's information when we received the package of records from the police department and why he was not notified. commissioner fung: ok. i understand all that. i understand the processes that the transition required to implement. but when the appellant brought this issue up to your department, at that point in time, a glitch had happened of some type. >> that is correct. commissioner fung: and i'm just wondering what did the department then do to try to resolve the situation? >> the challenge is such that once we knew about it, had

there not been another application for this specific site, the department would have had a finding that, you know what, this was an error, that as part of the correction, we would have issued a permit if this specific case to the appellant specifically in order for him to retain his rights under the peddler's permit. however, in this case, legally the permit expired and we have a new application and we have to try to figure out in terms of being fair who would need to take precedence. commissioner fung: ok. all right. commissioner goh: i have a question that brought to mind, ok, if mr. castillo is applying for a permit for the same location, is there any weight given to -- i don't know if it's true or not but we heard there's allegations he's been running that cart without a permit for some time. >> this is the first time the department of public works has

been informed. we've been informed previously and once it was brought to our attention, we directed mr. castillo to cease and desist and at such time he acquire as permit under public works to operate. my understanding is right now we hav other objections except from mr. as -- ascarrunz and once the information was provided to us we sent inspectors out to validate and there was no one up there to inspect it. commissioner goh: he was given a cease and desist and he did cease? >> that's correct. president garcia: i don't understand, this gentleman, the appellant, mr. ascarrunz has two permit with, one for 28 and one for 2300 block of mission. so one at 24th and mission and one at 19th and mission. is he in the same -- first of all, is that correct? >> my understanding based upon

the description, this peddler's permit was authorized to be on the sidewalk. president garcia: i understand. but does he have two locations, it's a simple question. >> yes. president garcia: one is at 24th and one is at 19th? >> the department has no knowledge of that. let me try to explain this. president garcia: don't do that. what i'm trying to determine is might be in trouble, also, with his -- if he does indeed have a permit at 24th and mission, it's not before us. >> he had a police department permit for 19th and mission which is the 2300 block. that permit under the law doesn't exist anymore. president garcia: i understand that. >> that's the denial before you now. president garcia: i understand that. but what i'm asking is, it's come up tonight he might have a second location at 24th and mission. >> from the bart authorities. president garcia: ah. so therefore it's a totally different -- so he might or might not be in trouble with that because this legislation does not apply to that location.

>> correct. that is on private property and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the department. president garcia: ok. good. i was just hoping it wasn't more complex than it seems to be already. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. president garcia: i guess i'll go for the general thing first. this legislation seems very troubling. and i think it was done with all the best intentions, you know, we heard it stated over and over it had to do with revitalization of the street escape and all that. it's a very vital area to begin with and we're not going to go to that, when you get around those parts of 9 i am not opposo having food there.

one simply hopes that we can go through the proper procedure to maintain a permanenit. and we have different families dependent on this herman -- permit, and the hope of the individual will do what is profitable. go it seems like some greater care should have been taken to determine that each and every individual was properly notified of this. i do not think it is relevant whether he is operating illegally. the aluminum foil, that is not before us.

every time you say i do not want to cast aspersions on this gentleman, that is exactly what you are doing. this situation has to do with who should be at this location. according to the rules, assuming everything is proper, but i am troubled by about, and i look forward to hearing from my fellow commissioners and their point of view. >> i would concur with that direction. however, i am not exactly sure what action i would take. it would have been reasonable for someone who was granted a

permit on september 8, 2010 to have an opportunity to have been able to say yes or no to renew permanencits. we do not know whether the person would have renewed, but they should have been given the opportunity. he was not on the list and did not received courtesy notice. i am leaning toward at minimum we need to let him have the option to let him be able to respond. >> my inclinations are similarly weighing in favor of equities.

i think the fact he had a permit to months prior to the law changing and he has incurred costs as a result of the permits, and while there is an applicant, the permit has 19 been issued, so it is not replacing an existing permit. i agree with what president garcia's stated about the irrelevance of the negative comments with respect to the businesses, and i think they have no place here, but i think generally my inclination is to overrule and grant the appeal. >> i agree with that for the reasons stated.

good >> i will make the motion, but i do have one comment, and that would be, assuming the will of the board is to allow the gentleman to go through the proper procedure, he might not end up with that location, but is the does happen to please work vigorously to get him a good spot. >> the permit is before you. the permit is granted to the individual at that location. >> i would move we overturned based upon the facts that this board or i am making the motion that the procedure was on

reasonable to this appellant region would be unreasonable to the appellant and would constitute failure. >> you could say that because of the 90-day period. as soon as he got notice, he promptly applied. >> thank you. >> we can call the roll now. >> let me recite that once again curio -- and once again. >> the move is to issue this permit with a finding that the apollyon's failure -- of the appellants failure upheld the permit. on the motion to overrule and

issued this permit with that finding. [calling votes] the vote is 4-0. the deep two -- the dpw is overruled. price we are going to take a short break. >> welcome back to the january 18 meeting of the board of appeals. we are ready to move on to item