SANGER – As staff work to fill the Sanger City Code’s food-truck-sized hole, discussion surrounding the strictness of the regulations continues.
On Aug. 21, the Sanger City Council heard an ordinance that would establish concrete regulations on mobile food vendors. The ordinance aims to define when, where and how mobile vendors can operate, but disagreement over how far the regulations should reach led to the discussion being continued until Sept. 18.
Councilmember Esmeralda Hurtado was the primary voice of opposition, arguing aspects of the ordinance are too “vague” and place too many obstacles on smaller vendors.
“I think we’re kind of on the right path, but I think that with this language it is hindering our small vendors, food vendors or any type of vendors from actually doing business with the city of Sanger,” Hurtado said during the discussion.
Crossing T’s and dotting I’s
In its current state the ordinance is 12 pages long, but during the discussion City Manager Nathan Olson highlighted four specific provisions which cover: restaurant and existing business spacing; off-street locations and time limits; on-street locations and time limits; and general conditions.
With regards to business spacing, mobile food vendors would generally be prohibited from operating within 300 feet of existing businesses selling similar products during normal business hours. This rule was created to prevent direct competition and reduce the potential for conflict, but allows exceptions for city-approved events, acquisition of written permission from the business owner or if the mobile vendor and business are owned by the same entity.
Looking at off-street locations, vendors in residential areas are only permitted on properties used for nonresidential purposes, such as schools or religious facilities. Private catering at homes is permitted when guests aren’t charged.
In nonresidential areas or city-owned property, vendors must acquire written permission from the property owner and may stay for up to eight hours before having to move at least 300 feet away. Operations cannot interfere with off-street traffic and must provide adequate lighting for customer safety.
Moving on to on-street locations, this section addresses operations within public right-of-way, and outlines distinctions between residential and nonresidential areas. To preserve neighborhood flow, mobile vendors may circulate in residential zones but cannot remain stationary for more than five minutes.
In nonresidential zones, vendors may stay up to one hour or for the duration of the posted stall limit (whichever is less) before moving at least 300 feet. Customer transactions must be positioned adjacent to the sidewalk, and vendors must serve on the side facing away from the street.
The final highlighted section outlines basic, general guidelines such as visibly displaying permits, following all relevant laws and keeping the area clean within a 200-foot radius. Vendors must also be aware to not block traffic or key access points in any way, and they cannot sell unapproved food items such as alcohol or tobacco.
A double-edged sword
Though ultimately intended to enhance public safety, Hurtado was worried that aspects of the ordinance will have unintended consequences.
She quoted a section of the ordinance which states, “It shall be unlawful to sell, offer for sale, or distribute any food or merchandise on any public sidewalk, pedestrian path, or park within the city without first obtaining an Annual Permit from the city pursuant to the provisions of this article.”
She expressed concern that even though the ordinance is pointed mostly at food trucks and pop-ups, the wording regarding sidewalks will make it more difficult for smaller vendors that utilize bicycles or fruit stands to acquire necessary permits.
In response, Olson explained that these types of vendors are protected under different regulations, but Hurtado remained unconvinced.
She later voiced that since the new ordinance would more clearly require vendors to provide toilet and handwashing stations, forcing them to relocate after a certain time limit is “excessive” due to the time it takes to set up and break down food preparation alone.
In their individual comments, Mayor Pro Tem Daniel Martinez and Councilmember Michael Montelongo both explained that the county already requires toilet and handwashing stations, so not much can be changed in that regard. However, no comment was made by any of the council members in regards to the requirement to relocate.
Another concern raised by Hurtado was about Section 18-199(e) of the ordinance, which would subject mobile ice cream vendors to state and federal criminal background checks. She suggested that the specific focus on ice cream vendors instead of all mobile vendors is “isolating,” and could open the city to litigation.
Olson responded to this by explaining that the intent is merely to ensure that vendors who primarily sell to children undergo extra vetting in the name of safety.
When asked about this later in the discussion, City Attorney Shannon Chaffin explained the potential for litigation depends on the ability to articulate intent. So long as the city could reasonably argue that mobile ice cream vendors require extra precautions, it should not be an issue.
“If ice cream trucks primarily attract youth or children, and we are concerned about excessive interaction with children by certain individuals, then you can make that finding,” Chaffin said. “However, if you just don’t like them because they sell ice cream, that’s not going to work.”
Toward the end of the discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Martinez and Mayor Frank Gonzalez expressed that they were receptive of Hurtado’s concerns and believed that some of them warranted closer looks, but Gonzalez in particular called on Hurtado to back her critiques of the ordinance more strongly in the next discussion.
“I’m all for tabling this so that Councilmember Hurtado can come back with specifics,” Gonzalez said. “Just saying it’s vague, I mean what is ‘vague,’ what exactly do you want to change?”
Hurtado agreed with Gonzalez, and also encouraged citizens to read through the ordinance themselves to provide feedback to the city.
The full ordinance can be found in the city council agenda, and the discussion will be brought back at the Sept. 18 meeting.
