Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Vending topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants appeal, reverses Public Works revocation of vendor permit over notice issues
Summary
The Board of Appeals granted Ruzbel Malas Andrango’s appeal of a Public Works revocation, finding the department’s order did not adequately list the violations supporting revocation; the board granted the appeal 4–0 and directed Public Works to clarify its record and provide logs for future proceedings.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Nov. 5 granted an appeal by street vendor Ruzbel Malas Andrango and overturned Public Works’ revocation of his permit (24VDR149), finding the department’s revocation order lacked sufficient specificity about the violations that would support a revocation penalty.
Public Works staff (Gregory P. Slocum) and Port security manager Kyle Thomas presented the department’s enforcement history: they described a three‑year effort to transition vending on port property into a regulated program, said they had conducted numerous outreach and correction notices, and recorded 11 documented engagements with the vendor including four formal notices of violation (NOVs) within a 12‑month window. Those NOVs were described in the Public Works briefing as involving exceeding size/space limits, leaving equipment unattended and vending without being present; public‑safety and path‑of‑travel concerns were cited as the underlying justification for enforcement.
Mr. Malas Andrango acknowledged earlier citations and said some stemmed from immigration‑related delays in obtaining identifying paperwork, that he left the booth briefly for a medical appointment on Sept. 23, 2024 and that table sizes (six‑foot tables sold commercially) made strict compliance difficult. He also alleged selective enforcement and favoritism by other vendors; a fellow vendor in public comment echoed concerns about unequal treatment. Mr. Malas produced photos he called "before and after" evidence of attempts to comply and said he had tried to reduce his footprint.
During deliberations commissioners expressed procedural concerns: the department’s public order (order 212111) did not itemize the four violations or the hearing officer’s findings, and one commissioner noted an email in the record that referenced a single citation rather than a four‑count finding. Board members said that revocation with a one‑year reapplication bar is an especially severe penalty and that the vendor should receive clear, documented notice tying specific NOVs to the department’s revocation determination.
On a 4–0 vote the board granted the appeal, finding the revocation order insufficiently specific and therefore not providing adequate notice of the factual bases for revocation. The board instructed Public Works to clarify and document the record (inspection logs, citation identifiers, hearing officer recommendation) if it seeks revocation again; the department may reinitiate enforcement using a clearer administrative record. The court‑style de novo review standard for Board of Appeals matters means the department may refile a revocation request supported by the specified documentation.
The board also continued a related vendor appeal to Dec. 17, 2025 and directed Public Works to provide logs of contacts with permit holders, copies of hearing officer materials and legal clarity on whether the department may impose suspensions (as opposed to revocations) and how that interacts with renewal rules.
