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 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