Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Vending topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Street‑vendor permit revocation for vendor at Oracle Park continued to March 11 after probing of fines, notice and process
Summary
In an appeal over revocation of a street‑vendor permit near Oracle Park, Public Works said the vendor committed multiple violations within 12 months; the vendor said enforcement was inconsistent. The Board of Appeals continued the case to March 11 and requested a detailed chart of violations and legal clarification of fine‑setting. (3–0 continuance.)
The Board of Appeals on Jan. 28 continued an appeal filed by a street vendor listed in the agenda as Xavier Mikolev that challenges Public Works’ revocation of vendor permit no. 2500012.
Public Works commercial permit manager Gregory Slocum and Port security manager Kyle Thomas presented a supplemental brief and photographic evidence documenting multiple enforcement encounters dating to 2023 and asserted the vendor committed at least four violations within a 12‑month period — the threshold that can support revocation under Public Works code (cited in the hearing as section 5.9.11(c)(1)(d)). Slocum told the board that enforcement actions included unpermitted vending, failure to display proof of ownership for merchandise and an ABC citation for selling alcoholic beverages without a license; he said the department’s outreach and repeated warnings did not change the vendor’s conduct.
The vendor disputed aspects of that chronology in his hearing statement, saying he has vendored in the same places for decades, that the new lottery system around ballpark events was confusing, and that enforcement has been inconsistent across vendors. Commissioners focused questions on notice, the underlying invoices and whether verbal warnings and correction notices were being counted the same way as formal notices of violation. Port manager Kyle Thomas told the board his operations had recorded more than 500 vendor stops and 31 occasions where vendors received multiple formal notices or warnings; he said one vendor (identified in staff documents) accounted for the largest number of enforcement contacts.
Because the board said it needed more precise documentation, it directed Public Works to provide a detailed schedule enumerating each enforcement encounter (dates, underlying violation, whether the citation was assessed by DPW or another agency, amounts and whether fines were paid) and asked the city attorney/public works counsel for the legal basis for any departures from the fine schedule set out in the code. The board continued the matter to March 11 to allow staff to provide that information and to let the appellant respond to any supplemental material. The continuance motion was made by President John Trezvino and carried by a 3–0 voice vote.
Next steps: Departments will prepare the requested chart and legal analysis before the March 11 hearing; the appellant may file a responsive brief within the schedule the board sets.
