Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mobile Food Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Francisco Public Works and Health review mobile food permitting; board asks for written responses
Summary
City staff outlined San Francisco’s mobile food facility permitting flow, public‑notice rules and congestion/saturation criteria; Public Works said it will review yellow‑zone policy, notification practice and possible ordinance changes and the Board asked departments to provide written responses and return with updates.
San Francisco Public Works and the Department of Public Health presented the city’s mobile food facility (MFF) permitting and enforcement procedures to the Board of Appeals on Nov. 14, 2018.
Bernie Seay, Permit Manager for Public Works, walked the board through the application flow, location criteria and public‑notice steps for mobile food vendors. Seay described standard site requirements — a minimum 10‑foot sidewalk for trucks (4‑foot queue plus 6‑foot pedestrian path), 7 feet clearance around hydrants, curbside parking, and special push‑cart rules (15‑foot sidewalk requirement and a 300‑foot notice radius). He said the department currently limits saturation to three mobile food facilities per block at any hour and that Public Works is reviewing criteria for yellow curb zones, downtown time limits and whether brick‑and‑mortar restaurants should factor into saturation calculations.
Kenny Wong, principal inspector for the Department of Public Health food safety program, gave inspection and enforcement figures and explained health requirements. Wong said DPH has performed routine inspections and began charging re‑inspection fees in May for imminent public‑health risks such as unsafe food temperatures. He told commissioners DPH requires annual restroom verification from operators and will call to confirm the promised restroom is available to staff, though he acknowledged some verification practices will be strengthened.
Commissioners pressed departments for more precision on how an “underserved” area is identified, how enforcement records are shared across agencies, and how restroom and commissary claims are verified. Seay conceded some statutory language — such as the removal of the “like foods” clause in 2013 — has left gaps in how saturation and competition are measured. "It may be time to reconsider that," he said, referring to the old ‘like foods’ restriction.
The board directed staff to collect the questions raised during the hearing and asked the departments to return with written responses and an update on any proposed legislative changes; commissioners suggested a follow‑up in roughly six months. The board also made clear any proposed amendments to the public‑works code would be vetted with stakeholders, including vendors, neighborhood groups and restaurant owners.
Next steps: departments will provide written answers to the board’s questions, and Public Works said it will pursue stakeholder engagement on proposed criteria updates and consult with the city attorney on any compliance issues with state law.
