Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds DPW permit for Slider Shack food truck at Spear Street; Rincon Center appeal denied 3-1
Summary
The Board of Appeals on July 11 upheld a DPW-issued mobile food facility permit for Slider Shack to operate at 60 Spear Street, rejecting a challenge from the Rincon Center Restaurant Group that the truck would illegally compete within a 300-foot radius of food-court vendors; vote was 3-1.
The Board of Appeals on July 11 denied an appeal from the Rincon Center Restaurant Group and upheld a Department of Public Works permit allowing Slider Shack to operate a mobile food facility at 60 Spear Street.
Pete Ryan, counsel for the Rincon Center Restaurant Group, argued the Slider Shack food truck would be too close to the Rincon Center’s food court (Rincon Grill at 101 Spear) and would undercut the food-court retail concept by selling similar menu items within the 300-foot distance protected by DPW rules. The appellant presented an exhibit and argued that measuring from the food court entrance, the truck would be within the prohibited radius.
John Cade, managing member of Slider Shack, said he had followed DPW’s notification and permitting process and that his truck’s menu had at most one similar item (a beef slider). DPW staff (John Kwong) explained the department’s notification procedure: for a mobile catering truck the notification point is defined as the midpoint of the block where the truck will occupy, with a 300-foot radius (or the block length, whichever is larger); DPW said the application complied with the code and that its GIS-based measurement placed the established businesses outside the 300-foot radius.
Property managers and nearby restaurateurs testified in public comment that they had not received notice and that mobile food vendors can poach customers and obstruct sidewalks; DPW responded that notifications are based on the code-defined midpoint and that the department followed its established process and relied on an affidavit from the notification contractor.
Commissioners debated whether notification should be measured from a building entrance or from the mid-block point. Applying the code as written, the majority concluded DPW followed correct procedure and that the like-food restriction did not apply here. The board voted 3-1 to deny the appeal and uphold DPW’s permit. Commissioner Fung was recorded as dissenting.
