Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mobile Food Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rejects mobile‑food permit appeal, finding no jurisdiction over incomplete application
Summary
The Board rejected Julio Castillo’s appeal of a denied mobile-food facility application for the 4111 18th Street location, finding the Department of Public Works properly deemed the application abandoned after months of inaction and required notices; the appeal was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and fees will be refunded.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Jan. 29 rejected the appeal of Julio Castillo, owner/operator of "Julio’s Hot Dogs," who sought to overturn the Department of Public Works’ determination that his mobile‑food facility application for 4111 18th Street had been abandoned.
John Kwan of DPW told the board the application was filed in March 2012 but the applicant did not complete required materials. After changes to the mobile-food permitting rules in July 2013, DPW sent a September 23, 2013 email and a certified letter (record shows certified letter dated Oct. 16, 2013) asking the applicant to move forward; when the applicant did not complete the package, DPW administratively denied the application so the location could be offered to other applicants. DPW staff said they sent both email and certified mail and recorded one certified-letter return as unclaimed.
Castillo told the board he had trouble receiving mail (he said mail was stolen at his address) and that he lacked funds earlier to finish the permit package; he said he could complete the application now. Business owners near the proposed site, including Adam Levin of Escape from New York Pizza, objected to permitting a food truck at that corner, citing competition and neighborhood impact. DPW said the department had given Castillo ample time and that another prospective applicant had expressed interest in the location.
Board members debated whether the board had jurisdiction because there was no completed permit before the department. Legal counsel and several commissioners noted the department’s administrative denial role and the absence of a completed permit application that would create an appealable final agency action. The board adopted a motion to reject the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and directed staff to assist the appellant with a refund of any fee; the motion passed 4–0.
The board advised Castillo that he may apply for other locations or submit a complete permit package in the future, but the board declined to reverse DPW’s administrative determination in this case.
