Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Vending topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board narrows mobile food permits: Drum Street denied; Market Street and 400 California allowed with conditions
Summary
After extensive public testimony about sanitation, competition with brick‑and‑mortar restaurants and notification, the Board of Appeals on July 18 denied a DPW permit for a Drum Street pushcart (finding the area not underserved) but approved two Market Street locations; later the board denied a separate Pine Street permit and approved a 400 California location for another applicant.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals adjudicated multiple mobile food facility (MFF) permit appeals on July 18, splitting decisions across several proposed locations after prolonged public comment and department presentations.
In the first contested set (DPW order 187536, permit 16MFF0094 for Golden Gate Halal Food), appellants complained that DPW had allowed a pushcart in a densely served commercial corridor (Drum Street / Market Street), raising concerns about public‑health safeguards, pigeon waste, street congestion, and unfair competition with brick‑and‑mortar restaurants. DPW acknowledged the city’s mobile‑food ordinance (Article 5.8, pursuant to Board of Supervisors ordinance) requires case‑by‑case director discretion to locate MFFs in underserved areas and described its notice and hearing process (300‑foot radius notices for carts). Several restaurants and property owners testified about heavy pedestrian flows, sanitation, and the proximity of existing restaurants.
After debate about how DPW determines "underserved" areas and whether the director’s discretion was well‑documented, Commissioner Anne Lazarus moved to grant the appeals and issue permits for the two Market Street locations while denying the Drum Street location on the basis that Drum Street is not an underserved area; that motion ultimately carried with a majority.
Separately, the board considered permit 17MFF0181 for Serendipity SF (locations at 400 California and 332 Pine). Appellant Evan Cadera, an existing permitted food truck operator, argued the 332 Pine location would place a second truck approximately 15 feet from his permitted space and create parking conflicts and pedestrian safety issues. After hearing from DPW and the permittee, the board denied the Pine Street location (citing proximity to an existing MFF and congestion concerns) and granted the 400 California location.
In both matters DPW staff explained enforcement mechanisms (health and fire inspections, requirement to provide bathroom verification, cleanup obligations in a "good neighbor" provision) and said permits are revocable for repeated violations. Several commissioners asked DPW to return with clearer criteria for how "underserved" is determined and stronger documentary support of notice mailings and enforcement practice.
