Board of Appeals upholds denial of Perucci food‑truck permit at 536 Mission Street

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on March 9, 2016 upheld a Public Works decision to deny a mobile food‑facility permit for Perucci at 536 Mission Street, rejecting an appeal by owner Daniel Prudhomme.

Prudhomme told the board the Perucci truck is a family operation and that a permit at the Mission Street location is essential to make the business financially viable. He said the truck met health‑code requirements, had strong inspection scores, and that notification and permitting procedures were followed. Prudhomme argued the denial was discretionary and unfairly applied, noting some nearby trucks operate on other days and that surrounding restaurants would not be directly competed with by his midday operations.

Public Works staff, represented in the hearing by Raul Shah, said the application initially met the technical siting requirements in article 5.8 of the Public Works Code but that the city engineer exercised discretion under ordinance 119‑13 (cited in the department brief) because the proposed site is surrounded by brick‑and‑mortar restaurants and additional mobile food facilities on the block would increase traffic and congestion. Shah told the board the department identified at least 20 restaurants within approximately two blocks and five permitted mobile food facilities on the 500 block of Mission Street, and that the code allows the director to consider the cumulative number of permanent mobile food facilities when making discretionary decisions.

Commissioners questioned how discretionary calls are made and whether earlier permits were grandfathered in a way that creates inconsistent outcomes. Several commissioners expressed sympathy for new vendors but also emphasized the department’s responsibility to limit concentrations of mobile food facilities in certain commercial corridors. Commissioner Anne Lazarus moved to grant the appeal and issue the permit, but that motion failed on a 3–2 vote and the departmental denial was upheld.

The board recorded a mixed set of views about the balance between supporting small business entrants and enforcing an ordinance intended to promote mobile food facilities in underserved, less congested areas. The formal outcome leaves Public Works’ denial in place; there was no directive for further action on this permit at the March 9 meeting.

Outcome and next steps: The Board of Appeals upheld the department’s denial; the appellant may pursue any rehearing or administrative remedies available under board rules.