Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mobile Food Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hometown Creamery mobile‑food permit opposed by Union Square BID; Board continues appeal to July 11 after votes split
Summary
The Union Square Business Improvement District and several retailers opposed a Public Works permit for a Hometown Creamery VW van to operate near Powell & Geary, citing pedestrian congestion and storefront visibility; Public Works approved a conditional permit but the Board of Appeals continued the appeal to July 11 after commissioners split on a proposed restriction limiting the permitted vehicle to the applicants' 1978 VW van.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals continued a contested appeal of a Public Works mobile food facility (MFF) permit for San Francisco Hometown Creamery on June 20, after a lengthy hearing that drew more than two dozen public commenters on both sides.
Karen Flood, executive director of the Union Square Business Improvement District (BID), told the board the Powell & Geary location is heavily served by brick‑and‑mortar restaurants and is congested. Flood argued the MFF ordinance’s legislative findings (the Wiener amendment) emphasize siting MFFs in underserved and less‑congested areas and cited the code’s clearance and pedestrian‑path provisions, saying the proposed location — near a cluster of street furniture and pedestrian flows — risks blocking a 6‑foot clear path and storefront visibility.
Stanley Roth, who operates a long‑standing hot‑dog cart at Macy’s, argued the MFF code’s clearance mandates apply and said the proposed location would violate mandatory minimum clearances near street furniture and be within 75 feet of an existing mobile food facility or brick‑and‑mortar operation in a way the BID found objectionable.
Adar and Saadi Halil, proprietors of San Francisco Hometown Creamery, described a restored 1978 VW van they intend to operate as a small, grab‑and‑go dessert van with a limited menu and said they modified plans after earlier public comment. Public Works staff explained the department’s site review, the 30‑day public notification and the DPW director’s decision to conditionally approve the permit (shift of location and narrowed hours) as consistent with Public Works Code sections for MFFs (transcript cites Public Works Code section 184.85 and related provisions).
Commissioners discussed congestion, sidewalk geometry, the code’s operative text versus interpretive legislative findings, and the risk that a transferable permit could be used later by a different operator with a larger vehicle. Some commissioners proposed a condition limiting the permitted vehicle’s footprint to the applicants’ 1978 VW van. The motion to grant the appeal with that size restriction produced three affirmative votes but fell short of the four votes the board required to adopt the conditional reversal; the board voted to continue the matter to the July 11 meeting so the absent commissioner could participate.
What happens next: the permit remains conditionally approved by DPW pending the Board of Appeals’ next session; the item is continued to July 11 for a final decision with all commissioners present.
