4A Public Hearing 2014 0602 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Exhibit C: Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2014 Page 7 of 10 Acting Chair Hernandez asked whether San Leandro requires mobile food vendors to obtain permits and pay taxes. Planner Barros said the Finance Department’s Business License Office issues permits to itinerant merchant, who are required to pay taxes. She added that the proposal for allowing mobile food vendors in some of the SA and DA Districts dovetails with an Office of Business Development’s efforts that the City Council is expected to review. The Office of Business Development has done extensive research and does not consider competition to be a problem; she further explained that the mobile food vendors are intended to attract people that would visit other restaurants in town, and those who want a table or booth in a sit-down restaurant aren’t likely to go to a food truck either. Planner Barros said she’s specifically asked the Office of Business Development about the issue of competition with brick-and-mortar restaurants, and said they’re confident the other uses would benefit them. In response to Commissioner Fitzsimons asking how the cost of an itinerant merchant permit differs from that of a restaurant, and how Alameda County Health Department oversight compares. Planner Barros said mobile food vendor fees are calculated on a different scale, but the cost is fairly substantial considering how little they operate in San Leandro, and they complain about it She said the Alameda County Environmental Health Department has oversight over food trucks, including inspections and licensing. She also noted that Office of Business Development staff have been meeting with the Health Department to review the definitions in the proposed amendments. Looking to San Francisco as a “best case” example of food trucks, Acting Chair Hernandez asked how the issue of competition with restaurants is playing out there. Planner Barros said different communities respond in different ways to the issue of competition. Because a broader range of dining options is seen as part of San Leandro’s efforts to transform its image, she said the City wants to attract both brick-and-mortar establishments and mobile food vendors. She said it’s a higher priority here than it may be in Berkeley, for example, which has an abundance of established restaurants. Secretary Liao said the Community Development Department hasn’t heard any complaints from established restaurants about mobile food vending. Commissioner Fitzsimons noted that being much denser in terms of population and restaurants, San Francisco is able to support a plethora of dining options. He said he’d liken the San Leandro situation more to that of Emeryville, where the arrival of food trucks had a definite impact on restaurants. He said he had restaurant tenants who were demonstrably hurt because food trucks were nearby, in many cases with no time limits. Although he said he appreciates what the Office of Business Development is attempting to do to bring people into San Leandro, he doesn’t believe the presence of San Leandro Street Eats across the street from Pelton Center resulted in a corresponding increase in dining out. If we don’t see an increase, he stated, the mobile food vendors attract people only temporarily, including people from San Leandro who choose to eat there instead of at a restaurant. Ultimately, Commissioner Fitzsimons said it’s harmful to the City for existing restaurants to lose business. He also questions whether San Leandro has achieved the density of the demographic that typically eats at food trucks, and until we do, it’s premature. Commissioner Fitzsimons said he doesn’t object to mobile food vending in the industrial districts, where they’re more likely to keep employees who live out of town in the City longer after work. Commissioner Collier said she appreciates receiving the large San Leandro Zoning Map, complete with Assembly Use (AU) overlay indications. However, she said the map seems to be lacking definitions for the AU, IL (Industrial Limited), IG (Industrial General) and IP (Industrial Park), which all should be included in amended Article 3. Planner Barros said Assembly Uses and Temporary Assembly Uses are both defined there, but said it should have been clear in the staff report as well.