CITY OF SAN MATEO
City Council Special Meeting
September 15, 2025
5:30 PM
City Hall Council Chamber
Entrance is on O’Farrell Street
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Robert Newsom Jr.
Adam Loraine
Nicole Fernandez
Danielle Cwirko-Godycki
Lisa Diaz Nash
AGENDA
THIS MEETING CAN BE ATTENDED IN PERSON OR REMOTE BY JOINING ZOOM – SEE CODES BELOW.
PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND REMOTELY .
SEE END OF AGENDA FOR OPTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING.
To join via Zoom – click here:
September 15, 2025
To join via telephone: (408) 638-0968
Webinar ID: 864 2204 7641 Passcode: 049945
CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
AB 2449 Requests and Consideration for Meeting Participation by Teleconference due to Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances
CLOSED SESSION
The public will have an opportunity to comment before the consideration of this item. Following the meeting a report of action from Closed Session will be provided if required.
1. Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation
(Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9)
Name of case: Neville v. City of San Mateo et al. (San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 25-CIV-05067)
STUDY SESSION
The public will have an opportunity to comment during the consideration of this item.
2. Street Vending: Current Regulations, Enforcement Challenges, and Policy Options – Presentation Receive a presentation and provide direction to staff on policy options for responding to complaints and enforcing regulations related to street vendors.
CEQA: This study session is not a project subject to CEQA, because it can be seen with certainty that it will not cause a physical change in the environment. (Public Resources Code Section 21065.)
ADJOURNMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AGENDAS:
Agendas and material are posted on the City’s website on the Friday preceding each Council Meeting and can be viewed on the City's website at
www.cityofsanmateo.org
. Any supplemental material distributed to the Council after the posting of the agenda will be made part of the official record.
1 of 65
WATCHING A MEETING ON TV:
City Council meetings are broadcast live on Comcast/channel 27, Wave/channel 26, or AT&T/channel 99.
For transmission problems during the broadcast, please call (650) 522-7099. For all other broadcast comments, call (650) 522-7040, Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.
WATCHING A MEETING ON A COMPUTER:
There are three ways to stream.
1) Public Meeting Portal
www.cityofsanmateo.org/publicmeetings
2) City YouTube channel and stream it on YouTube:
http://youtube.com/CityofSanMateo
3) Watch TV live stream:
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/193/Channel-San-Mateo-Live-Stream
PUBLIC COMMENTS/REQUEST TO SPEAK
Prior to the Meeting
Send comments to:
[email protected]
until 4 p.m. the day of the meeting.
During the meeting
By Zoom:
Click the link at the top of the agenda and you’ll be added to the meeting. All attendees are muted by default. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select the “Raise Your Hand” icon and you will be called on at the appropriate time.
By telephone:
Call (408) 638-0968 and enter the conference ID found at the top of the meeting agenda. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select *9 to raise your hand. When called upon, press *6 to unmute, state your name and provide your comments.
In Person:
At the meeting complete a “Request to Speak” form.
Organized Group and Presentations: Up to five (5) minutes for a group presentation, with as many speakers as can be accommodated within that time allowance. To qualify for a group presentation, all individuals associated with the presentation must be clearly identified and confirmed as in attendance at the meeting. Presentation materials must be submitted to [email protected] one (1) business day in advance of the meeting.
ACCESSIBILITY
: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and to ensure meaningful access for all participants, including those with limited English proficiency, individuals requiring special accommodations or language assistance to participate in this meeting may contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 522-7040 or [email protected] . Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
2 of 65
CITY OF SAN MATEO
5 9
6 2
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 2 Section Name: STUDY SESSION Account Number: 26-3134 File ID: 25-10315 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Community Development Department
MEETING DATE: September 15, 2025
SUBJECT:
Street Vending: Current Regulations, Enforcement Challenges, and Policy Options – Presentation RECOMMENDATION:
Receive a presentation and provide direction to staff on policy options for responding to complaints and enforcing regulations related to street vendors.
BACKGROUND:
Over the past year, the City has been receiving an uptick in complaints related to street food vendors driving trucks, pushing carts, setting up tents, opening home restaurants, operating on private properties, public sidewalks and streets, and in City parks. The complainants have reported vendors blocking sidewalks, staying in one location for many hours, generating trash, noise, and odors, competing with brick-and-mortar businesses, depositing grease into the storm drains, and operating without health or tax permits. This report describes current state and local regulations, the protocol for handling complaints, and the challenges faced by staff with regards to enforcement.
Local Regulations vs. State Law
The City receives complaints about all food vendors, without distinguishing between motorized or nonmotorized, or being on private or public property. For the purposes of regulation, however, these differences matter. Motorized food trucks are different from nonmotorized trailers; food tents on a private property are different from ones in a City park; and fruit carts on a residential sidewalk are different from ones on a commercial parking lot. A 2018 state law, known as SB 946, expressly protects nonmotorized vendors on public sidewalks and in parks, but it does not protect the same vendors on private properties, nor does it protect motorized trucks anywhere. Another state law, the 2018 Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operations Act (MEHKO), prohibits cities from enforcing their zoning regulations against home restaurants. When the enforceability of a municipal rule is considered, then, these differences among various activities taking place at different locations, as well as the limitations imposed on cities by state laws, must be factored in.
Sidewalk Vendors
Both the San Mateo Municipal Code (SMMC) and the County Health Department have provisions to regulate sidewalk vendors. The SMMC uses for this activity has various names—“street vendor,” “sidewalk vendor,” “peddler,” “open air vendor,” or “food vending vehicle”—depending on its character and location. While the SMMC does not have a unified ordinance addressing these activities, it has sections that set certain regulations for their certain aspects. For example, the SMMC requires that a vendor pay the City a $10 daily fee or $30 annual fee; that the vendor not stay in one place for more than 10 minutes; and that if the vendor is on private property, they obtain permission from the owner.
However, SB 946 and SB 972 place restrictions on local governments’ ability to enforce rules or limit sidewalk vending. SB 946 defines “sidewalk vendor” as “a person who sells food or merchandise from a pushcart, stand, display, pedal-driven cart, wagon, showcase, rack, or other nonmotorized conveyance, or from one’s person, upon a public sidewalk or other
3 of 65
CITY OF SAN MATEO
5 9
6 2
pedestrian path.” SB 946 prohibits cities from regulating the location of sidewalk vendors unless the regulations are related to “objective health, safety, or welfare concerns,” with certain limited exceptions. The state law says specifically that economic competition or community animus are not “objective concerns”; that cities cannot prohibit vending on residential streets or in public parks (although a stationary vendor could be prohibited from being in a park if the park has a permanent concessionaire); and that a vendor can be cited only with an administrative citation, never an infraction or misdemeanor. Finally, SB 946 makes the payment of an administrative citation subject to the vendor’s ability to pay. While SB 946 allows a local authority to adopt a regulatory program, it must be in compliance with SB 946.
Similar limitations on enforcement apply to the County Health Department. A 2023 state law (known as SB 972) further decriminalized sidewalk vending relating to the California Retail Food Code and created a new category (“compact mobile food operation”) allowing food vending from a pushcart, stand, display, pedal-driven cart, wagon, showcase, rack or other nonmotorized conveyance. Per its definition of “limited food preparation,” a vendor is allowed heating, frying, baking, roasting, shaving of ice, blending, steaming of hot dogs or assembly of non-prepackaged food. Although the County Health Department requires a Mobile Food Facility (MFF) permit for vendors selling unpackaged food (or packaged food with a display larger than 25 square feet), the County makes no proactive efforts to contact sidewalk vendors or check on their permits. The County does not issue administrative citations, and health inspectors have no enforcement power over this type of activity. They provide education only, leaving enforcement concerns to cities. Another limitation of the County protocol is the Health Department’s position that they do not issue permits to stationary vendor. To apply for an MFF permit, the vendor’s equipment must be on wheels. A temporary food stand (a table under a tent) would not qualify for an annual permit and could not be permitted outside of a community event even if the vendor wished to do so.
Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operations (MEHKO)
Similarly to sidewalk vending, MEHKOs are also protected by state law and permitted through a program by the County.
These home-run kitchens and micro-restaurants are commercial entities, yet for the purposes of zoning they are treated as residential properties. While the SMMC has provisions limiting home occupations, they cannot be applied to MEHKOs. For example, the SMMC requires that home occupations be done only by the occupants of the residence, it does not permit employees, and it limits the number of customers to five per day. But the MEHKO Act allows a home cook to have one employee (plus any number of family or household members) and serve 30 meals per day, or 90 meals per week.
California Health and Safety Code 114367.4. (a) (1) states explicitly:
“A city […] shall not prohibit the operation of, require a permit to operate, require a rezone of the property for, or levy any fees on, or impose any other restriction on, a microenterprise home kitchen operation in any residential dwelling for zoning purposes. A microenterprise home kitchen operation shall be a permitted use of residential property in any residential dwelling for zoning purposes if the microenterprise home kitchen operation […] abstain[s] from posting signage or other outdoor displays advertising the microenterprise home kitchen operation, [and is] in compliance with applicable local noise ordinances.” Whenever there is a conflict between local regulations and state law, state law preempts local regulations if it is a law of statewide concern, which these state laws were intended. As such, only a few regulations in the SMMC and the County Health Department can be enforced.
Food Trucks
The SMMC requires that food truck operators obtain a business tax certificate (BTC), and the County Health Department requires a health permit. No state law limits local regulation with respect to the operation of motorized food trucks; however, the City’s ability to regulate location and parking is limited by the California Vehicle Code. While the SMMC prohibits any vendor from staying in the same location for more than 10 minutes, this appears to be the only city regulation directly applicable to food truck operations.
How Other Cities Regulate Sidewalk Vending
Staff has done a preliminary review of other jurisdictions’ codes and interviewed some of their enforcement personnel.
The goal was to answer several key questions: Do they have an ordinance regulating sidewalk vending? If so, how does it articulate “objective health, safety, or welfare concerns” as required by SB 946? Does the ordinance require insurance?
4 of 65
CITY OF SAN MATEO
5 9
6 2
Does it restrict vending in city parks?
Those cities that have sidewalk vending ordinances have passed them since 2019, and those ordinances do align with SB 946. They articulate objective health, safety, and welfare concerns generally as follows.
Stationary vending food carts must be operated within 200 feet of a toilet and handwashing facility. Carts or equipment must leave no less than 4-foot path clearance and must not impede access to abutting properties. No vending cart can be placed within 5 feet of a fire hydrant or within 10 feet of a crosswalk, ADA access ramp, or a public transit stop. No vending is allowed within 300 feet of a city-sponsored event or farmers' market or within 25-200 feet of another sidewalk vendor at any city park. Some also prohibit the activity within 300 feet of a school.
In addition to the operational requirements above, cities require a seller’s permit from the State Department of Tax and Fee and a health permit from the County (if they sell food). Some cities require general liability insurance and workers’ compensation insurance meeting the requirements of the State of California. When no insurance is required, cities have applicants indemnify them from liability. A persistent theme voiced by those who administer the ordinances is that regardless of rules existing on paper, their effectiveness depends on the jurisdiction’s willingness to enforce them in the field. They also voiced that there also have been unintended consequences due to the buffer zones where it pushes the food vending directly into neighborhoods and parks.
Current Response Protocol
Currently, the Code Enforcement Division (CE) takes the lead in responding to all complaints related to sidewalk vendors and food trucks, with support provided by the Police Department, Parks and Recreation (Park Rangers), Fire Department, and County Health inspectors, as needed.
Food trucks are usually not delinquent on their health permits or BTCs; they renew them by mail regularly. And the complaints received about them usually are not about paperwork. They are about the trucks staying in one location for a long time and attracting lines of customers. They may be parked and selling food near brick-and-mortar restaurants or City parks, or on residential streets. Because food trucks are not protected by SB 946, CE can and does enforce the 10-minute rule. When this violation occurs during normal business hours, CE follows its usual procedure of issuing warnings and administrative citations. In one recent case, a food truck stayed in the same location on a residential street for several days in a row, operating as a stationary restaurant, with an electrical cord running over the sidewalk to get power from the house. Parking Enforcement cited the truck owner fourteen (14) times, with each of the citations having been paid by the owner, as he himself stated, as the cost of doing business. After CE warned the owner several more times, cited him with $100, $200, and $500 fines and promised to continue citing him with $500 per day, the truck finally moved out of the city.
As for sidewalk vendors who are protected by SB 946, when CE receives a complaint or encounters them in the field, staff encourage them to obtain a BTC and (if they sell food) a health permit. Although these requirements are not preempted by SB 946, their enforcement is challenging for other reasons described below.
Challenges of Enforcement
In addition to the limitations imposed on local jurisdictions by SB 946, MEHKO Act, and SB 972, City staff have encountered practical difficulties while regulating food vending.
One persistent challenge has been the refusal on the part of a sidewalk vendor to produce a valid identification. Even when CE issues an administrative citation (for example, for not having a BTC), it is not clear if the vendor’s name or address are accurate. CE relies on whatever information the vendor provides verbally. Four recent citations issued in this manner to the operators of a popular food stand near a major shopping center have not been paid, and no debt collection on them appears possible.
Another challenge is that the majority of food vending takes place at night and on weekends, when CE staff is not available. The outcome of the case described above where a food truck was finally sent on his way was possible only because CE staff investigated and gathered evidence late at night (also assisted by the Police Department). Under normal
5 of 65
CITY OF SAN MATEO
5 9
6 2
circumstances, this would require overtime or additional staff working at odd hours.
A third challenge has been to ensure that enforcement does not create more problems than it solves. As noted above, the City receives complaints about all types of vendors, without differentiating between motorized or nonmotorized or between private or public property. But state law and local regulations do differentiate between them, allowing enforcement against food trucks but only limited enforcement for pushcarts or tents, and on private property but limited enforcement on public property. Considering that these activities can easily morph from one to another, CE must consider the extent of its regulation. The officer could, in theory, force a food truck not to stay in one location for more than 10 minutes while vending out of its window. But if the same truck closes up and sets its grill on the sidewalk, the same operation would then be considered a stationary sidewalk vendor without a time restriction. Thus, strict enforcement of the 10-minute rule would only exacerbate the issue and generate more complaints.
The same quandary applies to food trailers. CE can cite a food truck staying in one location for more than 10 minutes because it is motorized. But a trailer, pulled in by a vehicle and then disconnected from it, could stay there all day—it is no longer motorized. Should CE insist that the food truck leave but allow the trailer to stay, any casual onlooker—and the food truck owner—would accuse the City of selective enforcement. For another example, there have been complaints about food tents and trucks set up on large parking lots near shopping centers. These are private properties, and food vendors generally require permission from the property owner. The SMMC has a requirement that an open-air vendor (defined as a vendor who sells prepared food, fresh cut flower or plants) receive permission from the owner and obtain a special permit from the Planning Commission. The former requirement can be easily complied with since many property owners would not mind attracting more customers to their parking lot. But as a practical matter, a pop-up tent is unlikely to have a letter of approval in hand. If, however, CE were to insist that the vendor leave the private property due to a lack of property owner permission (or a special permit, if applicable for open air vendors), the vendor may simply move the tent twenty feet away onto the public sidewalk and serve food from there without anyone’s permission. On public property the vendor is protected by SB 946.
As enforceable types of vending can easily transform into unenforceable ones, the challenge for CE has been to calibrate its approach when to enforce anything in order to not make things worse.
Finally, because most food vending activities happen after hours and on weekends, consistent enforcement would have to involve the Police Department, whose officers are on duty during these times, to monitor and track food truck activity across multiple neighborhoods. Aside from the perception of heavy-handed enforcement if police officers were to start issuing citations for administrative (not criminal) violations, current staffing levels make it impractical to provide consistent coverage without diverting officers from their public safety duties. To address this, two additional full-time Community Service Officers (CSOs) would be needed to allow focused enforcement without impacting sworn-officer deployment at night. Additional staff would also be necessary to provide coverage on weekends.
City Council Direction
Based on the information provided in this agenda report, staff is seeking Council direction on how to proceed with regards to regulation and enforcement of street vendors. The options outlined below will address different aspects of this issue, but there are no clear solutions available to the City to fully regulate these activities. Increasing enforcement and enhancing our protocols will also require additional staff resources and budgetary costs.
1.Option 1: Continue Current Protocol. Staff would continue to respond to complaints and, within the legal and practical limits outlined above, guide vendors towards obtaining business tax certificates and health permits.
2.Option 2: Modify Current Protocol. These are additional actions that staff could take utilizing existing rules and regulations, but would require additional resources to implement. Options to consider include:
a) Enhance enforcement of the 72-hour parking rule, which could be effective against trucks and trailers, but not stationary or roaming vendors.
b) Explore how to improve collection of sales taxes through enforcement where vendors fail to obtain a business tax certificate.
6 of 65
CITY OF SAN MATEO
5 9
6 2
c) Prohibit vendors from operating on private property without permission from the property owner, which may prompt them to move to the public right-of-way.
d) Engage with County Health to explore ways to strengthen communication and collaboration on permitting and enforcement of food vendors.
3.Option 3: Develop a New Protocol. These are additional actions that would require the development of new rules and regulations and/or would be the most resource intensive to implement. Options to consider include:
a) Develop a new ordinance, consistent with state law, that consolidates applicable regulations currently spread throughout the Code in one chapter and impose stricter requirements related to the time, place, and manner of food vending operations. However, it should be noted that these new rules may still not reduce the overall number of food vendors, prohibit mobile vendors from operating on streets or in parks, or restrict mobile vendors or home kitchens from operating in residential areas. It would also require night and weekend staff, with Police Department backup, to be enforced.
b) Enforce the 10-min limit of staying in one location against food trucks only, but not stationery or mobile vendors. This would require a city-wide effort to ensure equitable application to all food trucks. Such effort will likely produce pushback from both operators and customers because a truck serving lunch at a construction site or at an office building cannot be reasonably expected to do so within 10 minutes. c) To effectively enforce updated rules, staff working nights and weekends would be required. Creating two new community officer positions at the Police Department would annually cost an estimated $400,000 (personnel and vehicles included). Such an increase in enforcement, however, will likely not reduce the overall number of food vendors, prohibit mobile vendors from being on streets or in parks, or restrict mobile vendors or home kitchens from being in residential areas.
d) Explore the option of having a permanent concessionaire in parks, which could allow the City to prohibit stationary vendors in the park, but not mobile vendors or stationary vendors adjacent to parks.
4.Option 4: State Legislative Engagement. Explore additional language for the City Council to include in the upcoming development of the state legislative platform in support of greater ability for cities to enforce their own food vending ordinance.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff work to research and prepare this report was fully funded by the Community Development Department’s annual operating budget. Future impacts on the General Fund will depend on the direction the City Council provides in this study session. Code amendments and expanded enforcement activities would require additional staff time and resources. Hiring additional enforcement personnel (Community Service Officers) for night and weekend enforcement would cost an estimated $400,000 annually.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This study session is not a project subject to CEQA, because it can be seen with certainty that it will not cause a physical change in the environment. (Public Resources Code Section 21065.) NOTICE PROVIDED:
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
None
STAFF CONTACT
Eugene Alper, Code Enforcement Manager
[email protected]
(650) 522-7154
7 of 65
Street Vending:
Current Response,
Challenges, and
Policy
Options
Eugene Alper
Code Enforcement Manager
Kristen Aiu
Senior Code Enforcement Officer
8 of 65
Proliferation of street vendors & complaints
Current Response: State Law’s limitations on
cities, challenges of enforcement
Options:
(1) Continue current protocol
(2) Modify current protocol
(3) Develop a new protocol (Ordinance)
(4) Explore state legislative engagement
9 of 65
Complaints
Residents
10 of 65
Complaints
Residents
11 of 65
Complaints
Residents
12 of 65
Complaints
Residents
13 of 65
Complaints
Residents
Businesses
14 of 65
Complaints
Residents
Businesses
15 of 65
Complaints
Residents
Businesses
16 of 65
Complaints
Residents
Food Safety
17 of 65
Complaints
Residents
Food Safety
18 of 65
Complaints
Residents
Businesses
Parks and Recreation
19 of 65
Complaints
Residents
Businesses
Parks and Recreation
20 of 65
Complaints
Residents
Businesses
Parks and Recreation
Public Works
21 of 65
Code Enforcement
Parking Enforcement
Police Department
Complaints ~ 50 - 55 N/A ~ 86 - 90
(merchandise & food)
Vendors Contacted ~ 35-40 16 + ~ 86 - 90
Citations Issued 7 16 N/A
June 2024
–
August 2025
Response
22 of 65
State Law
2013 Cottage Food Act
2018 Sidewalk Vendors Act (SB 946)
2018 MicroEnterprise Home Kitchen Operations (MEHKO)
2022 Compact Mobile Food Operation (SB 972)
23 of 65
Municipal Code
Home occupation: no employees permitted and
no more than 5 visitors per day
2018 Microenterprise Home Kitchen Act
permits one employee (plus any number of
household members) and serving
30 meals per day
State Law Preempts Municipal Code
24 of 65
2018 Microenterprise Home Kitchen Act:
“A city shall not prohibit the operation of, require a permit to operate, require a rezone of the property for, or levy any fees on, or impose any other restriction on, a home kitchen operation in any residential dwelling for zoning purposes. A home kitchen shall be a permitted use of residential property in any residential dwelling for zoning purposes if the home kitchen abstains from posting signage advertising it and is in compliance with applicable local noise ordinances.”
State Law Preempts Municipal Code
25 of 65
2018 Microenterprise
Home Kitchen Act:
“A microenterprise home
kitchen operation may
operate an open-air
barbecue or outdoor wood-
burning oven.”
State Law Preempts Municipal Code
26 of 65
1937 Municipal Code:
“No person shall stand or park
any vehicle, wagon or
pushcart from which goods,
wares, merchandise, fruits,
vegetables or foodstuffs are
sold to exceed 10 minutes at
any one place.”
State Law Preempts Municipal Code
27 of 65
A local authority shall not:
• Restrict vendors to operate only in designated neighborhoods; • Prohibit vendors in parks (except stationary ones where there is an exclusive concessionaire or, by ordinance, to preventan undue concentration of commercial activity interfering with scenic or recreational character); • Prohibit stationary vendors in commercial zones;
• Adopt requirements regulating the time, place, and manner of sidewalk vending that are unduly restrictive. In commercial areas, limitations on the hours of operation for sidewalk vending shall not be more restrictive than any limitations on hours of operation for other businesses. 2018 Sidewalk Vendors Act (SB 946) Allows
Stationary Sidewalk Vending
28 of 65
State Law Preempts Municipal Code
29 of 65
Strict Enforcement Impractical
30 of 65
Strict Enforcement Impractical
31 of 65
Strict Enforcement Impractical
32 of 65
Strict Enforcement Impractical
33 of 65
Strict Enforcement Impractical
• State laws protect home kitchens, roaming pushcarts, and stationary tents on public ways and in parks;
• Boundaries between private property vs. public way and between motorized vs. nonmotorized are permeable;
• Violators have no ID;
• Code Enforcement has no night or weekend staff.
34 of 65
What Can We Enforce?
• Business tax certificate ($31 to comply)
• 10-minute limit (food trucks only)
• 72-hour parking (food trucks & trailers only)
• Owner’s permission on private property (special use permit) • Obstructions of public sidewalks (e.g., electrical cords) • County Health permits (education only)
35 of 65
Test Case
36 of 65
Test Case
37 of 65
City Have a sidewalk ordinance?
Belmont No
Redwood City No
Daly City No
Millbrae No
San Bruno Yes
Foster City Yes
San Carlos Yes
Burlingame Yes
Santa Cruz Yes
Pacifica Yes
Fresno Yes
What Do Other Cities Do?
38 of 65
• Within 200 feet of a toilet and handwashing facility; • 4-foot min sidewalk clearance/access to fire hydrant; • Access to properties; 10 ft from a crosswalk, ADA ramp, bus stop; • 300 feet away of a city-sponsored event, farmers' market, school; • 25-100-200 feet of another vendor at any city park;
• Seller’s permit, health permit, business license, tax certificate, insurance, workers’ comp, and indemnity for the City.
“An ordinance is only as good as its enforcement”
What Do Other Cities Do?
39 of 65
1. Continue current protocol
2. Modify current protocol
3. Develop a new protocol
4. State legislative engagement
Options:
40 of 65
Option 1. Continue current protocol:
Respond to complaints and, within the legal and
practical limits, guide vendors towards obtaining
business tax certificates and health permits.
41 of 65
Option 2. Modify current protocol:
a) Enforce 72-hour parking rule against trucks and trailers, not stationary or roaming vendors.
b) Improve collection of sales taxes through enforcement where vendors fail to obtain a BTC.
c) Prohibit vendors from operating on private property without permission from the property owner, which may prompt them to move to the public right-of-way.
d) Explore strengthening communication and collaboration with County Health on permitting and enforcement of food vendors.
42 of 65
Option 3. Develop a new protocol:
a) Develop a new ordinance regulating time, place, and manner of street vending; may not reduce the number of vendors, prohibit mobile ones in residential areas or parks; would require night and weekend staff.
b) Enforce the 10-min limit against food trucks only, not stationery or mobile vendors; would require a city-wide effort to ensure equitable application; may produce pushback from operators and customers as a truck serving lunch or dinner cannot do so within 10 minutes.
c) Staff working nights and weekends would be required; two new community officer positions would cost an estimated $400,000 (personnel and vehicles included); unlikely to reduce the overall number of food vendors, prohibit mobile vendors from being on streets or in parks, or restrict mobile vendors or home kitchens in residential areas. d) Explore having permanent concessionaires in parks; will prohibit stationary vendors, but not roaming ones in a park, or stationary near a park.
43 of 65
Option 4. State legislative engagement
Explore additional language to be included in the upcoming development of the state legislative platform in support of greater ability for cities to enforce their own food vending ordinance.
44 of 65
Option 1. Continue current protocol:
Respond to complaints, guide vendors
towards obtaining business tax certificates
and health permits
.
Option 2. Modify current protocol:
a) 72-hour parking rule (trucks & trailers, not
stationary or roaming vendors);
b) Improve collection of sales taxes through
enforcement where vendors fail to obtain a BTC;
c) Prohibit vendors on private property without
owner permission;
d) Strengthen collaboration with County Health.
Option 3. Develop a new protocol:
a) Ordinance regulating time, place, and
manner; may not reduce numbers or
prohibit mobile ones; would require
night and weekend staff;
b) 10-min limit (food trucks);
c) Staff nights and weekends would be
required;
d) Park concessionaire.
Option 4. State legislative engagement:
Add language to development of the state
legislative platform to support cities’
ability to regulate street vending.
Council Direction
45 of 65
Thank you!
46 of 65
THE FOLLOWING ARE
BACKUP/RESERVE SLIDES
47 of 65
Vendors in San Mateo
48 of 65
192
7 1
Food truck Cart
Trailer Food stand
Vendors in San Mateo: 29
49 of 65
3 5
21 Unknown Yes No
Vendors in San Mateo
with BTCs: 5
50 of 65
4 17
4 Unknown Yes No
V
endors
with County Health Permits: 17
51 of 65
•
Mobile Food Facility (MFF) permits are issued in the County in total:
435
•
MFF permits with a city of San Mateo address:
44 •
MEHKO permits issued in SM County in total:
47 •
MEHKO permits issued in the city of San Mateo:
5 •
Home kitchens without MEHKO permits in San Mateo:
2 •
Complaints about unlawful food vendors (July 2024
-
Present):
25 •
Complaints received about food poisoning (July 2024
-
Present):
44 County Health Department Data
•
Pushcart permit:
$383
•
MEHKO permit:
$1,273
•
Food truck or trailer permit:
$1,573
52 of 65
Can MEHKO Customers Dine Outside?
San Mateo County
No opinion; defers to the City
Alameda County
Does not allow in front yard, but allows in back yard
Santa Clara County
Allows for onsite dining; does not specify the areas
Fresno County
Has not opted
-
in yet (will decide early 2026);
Opinion: considering other jurisdictions’ “garage
operations” where a permitted MEHKO cooks and serves
in garage/front yard, outside dining area may be allowed, but food preparation, handling, and assembly to be in
the kitchen
53 of 65
2018 Sidewalk Vendors Act (SB 946):
•
“Sidewalk vending provides important entrepreneurship and economic development opportunities to low
-
income and immigrant communities.
•
Sidewalk vending increases access to desired goods, such as culturally significant food and merchandise.
•
Sidewalk vending contributes to a safe and dynamic public space. •
The safety and welfare of the general public is promoted by prohibiting criminal penalties for violations of sidewalk vending ordinances and regulations. •
It is the intent of the Legislature to promote entrepreneurship and support immigrant and low
-
income communities.
•
A local authority shall not require a sidewalk vendor to operate within specific parts of the public right
-
of
-
way, except when that restriction is directly related to objective health, safety, or welfare concerns.
•
Perceived community animus or economic competition does not constitute an objective health, safety, or welfare concern.
”
54 of 65
2018 MEHKO Act:
•
“Small
-
scale, home
-
cooking operations can create significant economic opportunities for Californians that need them most
—
often women, immigrants, and people of color.
•
Because the bar for entry to restaurant ownership is high, and the cost of renting a retail kitchen is so great, an informal economy of locally produced and prepared hot foods exists in the form of meal preparation services, food carts, and communally shared meals. •
However, due to a lack of appropriate regulations, many experienced cooks in California are unable to legally participate in the locally prepared food economy and to earn an income legally.
•
Many of these cooks are unable to enter the traditional food economy based on disability, family responsibilities, or lack of opportunity.
•
It is the intent of the Legislature that this act authorize the use of home kitchens for small -
scale, direct food sales by home cooks to consumers, providing appropriate flexibility in food types and appropriate health and sanitation standards.”
55 of 65
June 2024
–
August 2025
Parking Citations Issued
56 of 65
Tents on
CalTrans
Property
57 of 65
Trailers in
Streets
58 of 65
Pushcarts
in Streets
59 of 65
Trailers in
Streets
Tables on
Sidewalks
60 of 65
From
motorized
to
stationary
Strict Enforcement Impractical
61 of 65
Strict Enforcement Impractical
62 of 65
Complaints
63 of 65
Complaints
64 of 65
State Law Preempts Municipal Code
65 of 65