The Port San Luis Harbor District Commission directed staff to explore the concept of having food trucks on or near Harford Pier at the Feb. 25 commission meeting, but one restaurant owner openly opposed the idea.
Barbara Powers and her husband, Butch Powers, owners of the Olde Port Fish & Seafood Company as of 2017, objected to the proposal during public comment, stating it would hurt their business.
Barbara said that her restaurant is open 365 days a year and she doesn’t believe that a food truck will do the same.
“A food truck is going to come in when the sun is shining and everybody is here. That is when our pier is impacted to the max, and bring a food truck, and it will suck off of what we could have been making, is insulting,” she said.
Since the closure of the Olde Port Inn restaurant—that was in business for 48 years—at the beginning of the year, Barbara said that she and her husband have gone into overdrive to expand their cooked food menu, which is going to cost them a lot of money.
“With the food trucks, I feel like it’s a slap in my face,” she said.
Jim Blecha, district commissioner and vice president, said the food trucks that he’s aware of popping up in the city of San Luis Obispo are what he describes as niche—not a steak-and-potatoes kind of restaurant but grilled cheese or Korean barbecue. He sees the trucks as an option that is generally not specialized in or offered at nearby restaurants.
“I’m not a business man, but I don’t think that any of our leases or license agreements say or there’s a clause in it that says you won’t have any competition,” Blecha said.
According to the staff report, one of the district’s current goals is to expand money-generating opportunities to support harbor operations that are consistent with affordability and accessibility for the public.
The idea of food trucks on or near Harford Pier could provide a replacement option of the loss of revenue and food options with the closure of Olde Port Inn. The current food options in Port San Luis include Olde Port Fish & Seafood Company, Mersea’s, and Fat Cat’s Café.
The commission voted 3-2 to direct staff to continue research on allowing food trucks at Harford Pier, the top ramp at Olde Port Beach, Avila Beach, Avila Pier, and Avila parking lot. The information will be brought back to the commission for further consideration at the March or April 2020 commission meeting. Δ
This article appears in Feb 27 – Mar 8, 2020.
I think having food trucks on the pier or even in the parking lot would be a GREAT idea! But I don’t quite understand how a food truck that perhaps offers a niche culinary experience could be a serious competition for Olde Port Fish. I don’t believe that’s even a restaurant, is it? I thought you could only buy fish there to take home. I could see where Merseas or Fat Cat’s would be concerned, but they seem okay with it. I say bring the food trucks and give the customers more options and we’ll keep coming back!
I’m not sure how it currently works but it’s my belief that mobile food vendors should pay a significant transit “tax”/toll/high percentage of sales receipts on any given day they affect real restaurants. The funds should then somehow be split between local B&M locations to offset any receipts they may have lost on any given day to any mobile food company that is within, say, a 1/4 mile of their restaurant. Unfortunately, the process to claim any such revenue would be incumbent on the B&M restaurant to file a claim with the city on-line or through a physical form. They simply need to identify the specific location of the mobile unit in relation to theirs and each self-reporting (beginning of each location and sales receipts at the end) mobile food unit must have an easily recognizable/viewable vendor number displayed for easy reference. The vendor number would be provided to them everytime they apply for or renew their permit with a city/county. If they do not settle report, fine them when a validated claim is made against them.
This would more than likely put an end to any mobile food business poaching.
I do not have a horse in this race but clearly I’m not a fan of inconsiderate mobile food vendors. Unless they are at a sanctioned street fair/food market, they are simply stealing $ from those in far more expensive to operate establishments.
P.s.
Its the same reasoning that MOST (think strip mall) commercial leases disallow similar vendors to occupy the same location. It’s a protection for the original lessor.
Amended full post:
I’m not sure how it currently works but it’s my belief that mobile food vendors should pay a significant transit “tax”/toll/high percentage of sales receipts on any given day they affect real restaurants. The funds should then somehow be split between local B&M locations to offset any receipts they may have lost on any given day to any mobile food company that is within, say, a 1/4 mile of their restaurant. Unfortunately, the process to claim any such revenue would be incumbent on the B&M restaurant to file a claim with the managing entity on-line or through a physical form. They simply need to identify the specific location of the mobile unit in relation to theirs and each self-reporting (beginning of each location and sales receipts at the end) mobile food unit must have an easily recognizable/viewable vendor number displayed for easy reference. The vendor number would be provided to them everytime they apply for or renew their permit with a city/county. If the mobile food vendor does not file a daily activity report (only necessary when they are operating), fine them in addition to gathering the “toll” when a validated claim is made against them. Those are what are called ‘checks and balances.’
This would more than likely put an end to any mobile food business poaching.
I do not have a horse in this race but clearly I’m not a fan of inconsiderate mobile food vendors. Unless they are at a sanctioned street fair/food market, they are simply stealing $ from those in far more expensive to operate establishments.
P.s.
Its the same reasoning that MOST (think strip mall) commercial leases disallow similar vendors to occupy the same location. It’s a protection for the original lessor.
*lessee