Examines the regulation of food trucks (mobile food vending) in 15 U.S. cities in order to better plan for regulation of the industry in the city of Greenville, SC. Considers potential benefits and concerns of food trucks from social and economic perspectives. Includes GIS analysis of the Greenville, SC area and statutory citations for case study cities. Research conducted as terminal project for Master of City and Regional Planning degree from Clemson University. Contact jtanenb (at) g.clemson.edu with any questions or comments.
97
REGULATING MOBILE FOOD VENDING IN GREENVILLE, SC A Terminal Project Presented to the Faculty of The School of Planning, Development, Preservation, and Landscape Architecture, College of Architecture, Arts and Humanities, Clemson University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of City and Regional Planning May 2012 Jason Tanenbaum Approved: ________________________________ Dr. Cliff Ellis Committee Chair ________________________________ Dr. Barry Nocks Committee Member
Transcript
REGULATING MOBILE FOOD VENDING IN GREENVILLE, SC
A Terminal Project Presented to the Faculty of
The School of Planning, Development, Preservation, and Landscape Architecture,
College of Architecture, Arts and Humanities,
Clemson University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Appendix – Case Study Summaries .................................................................................. 69
Works Cited ...................................................................................................................... 92
List of Tables
Table 1 - Population of case study cities .......................................................................... 23 Table 2 - Number of employees in focus areas ................................................................. 35
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Map of case study cities ................................................................................... 23 Figure 2 - Food Vendors in Greenville ............................................................................. 30 Figure 3 - Food Vendors and Employers in Greenville .................................................... 31 Figure 4 - Food Vendors and Employer Service Areas .................................................... 32 Figure 5 - Small area focus ............................................................................................... 33 Figure 6 - Small area focus ............................................................................................... 34
1
Introduction
This project addresses the question of how the city of Greenville, SC should
formulate and implement a policy encouraging the operation of food trucks, more
generically known as mobile food vending, in the city. The facilitation of food trucks is a
form of tactical urbanism that the city can encourage at relatively low cost and low risk.
No large scale infrastructure is required since the bulk of the monetary investment will
come from private entities, people who want to operate food trucks in the city. However,
if successful, the city can realize economic, social and environmental benefits that more
than justify any expenditure. Citizens, whether those who own and operate food trucks,
those who patronize them, or the general public at large can also derive economic, social
and environmental benefits from development of a vibrant food truck culture. This
project, therefore, is aimed at helping the city make decisions that encourage productive
and beneficial behavior while minimizing potential conflicts and harms.
Mobile food vending is by no means a new concept. The chuck wagons that became
popular in the 1860s were mobile kitchens that served the cattlemen driving herds
overland to support westward expansion (Thompson, 2011). Urban lunch wagons, ice
cream trucks, fruit vendors, and others including a 1940’s waffle truck in New Orleans
help fill in the subsequent history (Ottuski, 2011). However, mobile food vending has
recently started to experience an evolutionary change and period of growth. The new
“culinary trend” has been traced back to 2008 and the establishment of notable gourmet
food trucks such as Kogi Korean BBQ in Los Angeles and the Rickshaw Dumpling Bar
in New York (Buck, 2011; McCracken, 2011). In the following years, food trucks have
become an “anthropological phenomenon”, at least according to the increasing number of
2
Google searches (Hancock, 2011). It is this development that highlights the need for
Greenville to re-examine its regulatory policies, policies formulated during a time when
food trucks were not always viewed as potentially desirable.
This evolution in food truck industry is characterized by both quantitative and
qualitative changes. Quantitatively, the popularity of food trucks has been increasing
dramatically. A report by the National Restaurant Association shows that consumer
interest in visiting a food truck has “increased significantly,” with the percentage of
people surveyed who said they would visit a food truck run by their favorite restaurant
rising 12% from the prior year to a total of 59% percent (Stensson, 2011). Other research
by a private consultancy firm found that experiences of food truck customers were very
positive, with 91% of respondents indicating that they would continue to support food
trucks over the coming year (Technomic Consulting, 2011). Based on 2010 sales growth,
one financial information company ranked “Catering service or mobile food contracting”
as the top service business to open in 2011 (Bierman, 2011). Even established restaurant
chains are beginning to move into the mobile food business, despite the cultural
contradictions this raises (Daley, 2011).
The fact that chain restaurants might be an uneasy fit in the food truck world
highlights the reality that the modern food truck industry is qualitatively different from
the pre-existing model of mobile food vending. Whereas food trucks “used to be known
as ‘roach coaches’ with sub-par fare” they now increasingly serve high quality, gourmet
fare and are operated by entrepreneurs with culinary training (MacDonald, 2011). No
longer confined to traditional foods such as hot dogs or tacos, food truck customers can
find everything from gourmet ice cream to escargot. Also distinguishing the modern
3
food truck scene is the use of modern technology to support the businesses. To
effectively reach a broader customer base and overcome the uncertainties of not always
having a predictable location, food truck operators typically make use of social media
such as Twitter or Facebook to broadcast their location or menu to their customers and
the public, giving rise to the tendency to refer to these businesses as ‘Twitter Trucks”
(Sayers, 2011). Other innovative uses of technology include being able to take mobile
credit card payments, GPS tracking, dedicated mobile phone apps that allow customers to
pre-order and pre-pay, and digital menu screens that facilitate creativity (Drell, 2011).
The mainstream media has become aware of food trucks, as evidenced by at least two
national TV shows dedicated to the phenomenon. It is therefore not a stretch to suggest
that these developments make food trucks worthy of a fresh look by city planners and
policy makers.
This project focuses on formulating a plan for Greenville, South Carolina because of
the noticeable lack of a developed food truck community. The city of Greenville has a
thriving award-winning downtown that features a wide variety of non-chain restaurants.
The city hosts an annual food festival, Euphoria, which attracts top chefs from around the
country. One of the city’s most popular events, the annual Fall for Greenville festival,
centers on what are essentially temporary street food vendors. Yet, articles about food
truck cities do not include Greenville, since few trucks are operating in the area. The first
truck recognized as one of the new breeds of mobile food vendors has only recently
begun operation (Reynolds, 2011). Given the potential benefits of food trucks, discussed
herein, and the current undeveloped state of the industry in the city, Greenville represents
4
an opportunity to develop and implement a plan that anticipates potential conflicts and
facilitates productive business incubation.
This report is organized into five sections. The review of literature presents some
theoretical and empirical research relevant to the discussion of mobile food vending.
This section is offered as support for the underlying assumption that food trucks are
potentially beneficial for urban areas. That said, this report should not be seen as
advocating for food trucks in all situations. The discussion includes both potential
benefits and concerns that will structure the following analyses. The remainder of the
report will present an objective analysis of factors to consider should Greenville or any
other city choose to encourage mobile food vending. The section on research questions
and methods provides details on data collection and analysis. The following two sections
discuss the findings of the study, starting with the question of whether the potential
benefits of food trucks in Greenville can be demonstrated and progressing to the
discussion of regulatory concerns relevant to formulation of a food truck policy. The
final section synthesizes the findings and applies them to the existing conditions in
Greenville. The overarching goal is to help inform policy makers who may be
contemplating creation of new regulations or changes to an existing regime so that any
resulting mobile food vending policy will be more likely to achieve the city’s goals and
serve the needs of the various stakeholders.
5
Review of Literature
The increasing popularity and presence of food trucks in urban environments raises
practical questions of how cities can maximize the benefits of these businesses while
minimizing the potential negative factors. Notwithstanding the continuing debates about
the benefits of the food truck industry, discussed infra, this project treats the presence of
food trucks in a city as generally positive and desirable. Arguments supporting this
assumption, applied both to the broad notion of tactical urbanism or the more specific
phenomenon of food trucks, will be discussed. However, potentially problematic
concerns regarding urban food trucks will also be considered, particularly those related to
public health, safety and welfare. The potential benefits and shortcomings of
encouraging food trucks will be used to evaluate regulatory options when formulating a
plan for Greenville.
Tactical Urbanism
The use of food trucks as a tool for urban development is an example of a broader
approach that can be seen as a counterpoint to large scale, top down planning efforts.
Such approaches may be categorized as systems urbanism, in that they focus on the role
of individual actors operating in the context of a larger system, or alternatively as a form
of community urbanism, whereby decision making power is decentralized or explicitly
draws upon extensive public input (Barnett, 2011). The San Francisco Planning & Urban
Research Association (2010) refers to this phenomenon as D.I.Y or do-it-yourself
urbanism, focusing on “ways in which small or finite efforts can blossom into larger-
scale, ongoing transformations.” These types of actions extend the individualist notion of
self-sufficiency to the community level (Page, 2008). This has also been called tactical
6
urbanism. Tactical urbanism views “incremental, small-scale improvements … as a way
to stage more substantial investments” (Lydon, 2011, p. 1). Yet another commentator
prefers to use a more verbose description, “Provisional, Opportunistic, Ubiquitous, and
Odd Tactics in Guerilla and DIY Practice and Urbanism” (Zeiger, 2011). For
simplicity’s sake, the term tactical urbanism will be used here. Regardless of the exact
term used to describe these actions, several characteristics recur.
Lydon (2011) describes the approach as being deliberate and phased, locally based,
involving short-term commitments and realistic expectations. Actions involve taking
small risks that have a potential for high rewards and attempt to build social capital
between citizens and organizational capital between institutions and their constituents.
Better Block projects, for example, use low cost structures, temporary street alterations
and pop-up programming to illustrate “the potential to create a great walkable, vibrant
neighborhood center” in areas that are currently lacking vibrancy
(www.betterblock.com). These projects have resulted in the creation of permanent
improvements, new businesses, and commitments by municipal authorities to continue
improvement efforts (Lydon, 2011, p. 3). Page (2008) emphasizes the role of the public
in such processes; DIY urbanism aims at “empowering people to implement” projects
rather than simply “involving” them in consultations. (PARK)ing day celebrations, for
example, have been spreading globally wherein citizens temporarily transform parking
spaces into public parks by installing chairs and other amenities in the space after paying
into the parking meter (see http://parkingday.org). Guerrilla gardening is a movement
that sees citizens taking the initiative to improve plots of land that are vacant or
overgrown by illegally turning them into “urban gardens” (Scott, 2011). These initiatives
7
and others like them are likely to continue to be attractive following the economic
collapse in 2008. Although supporters of tactical urbanism do not seek to replace top
down, formalized planning efforts, but instead supplement and complement them,
declining municipal budgets and public opinion shifting away from public spending may
result in greater acceptance and reliance on these alternative means of promoting
urbanism.
Process Based Benefits of Tactical Urbanism
While the preceding discussion hinted at some of the benefits of a tactical urbanism
approach to urban improvement, various theoretical analyses of urban processes support
the notion that these approaches have much to offer. One recurring theme relates to the
notion that cities should be understood as a particular type of complex system. Weaver
(1948, p. 539), in analyzing the nature of questions in the life sciences, argued that such
questions were ones of organized complexity, “problems which involve dealing
simultaneously with a sizable number of factors which are interrelated into an organic
whole.” Jane Jacobs famously used this insight in describing “what kind of problems
cities pose” (Jacobs, 1961, p. 428). Jacobs argued that in order to formulate solutions to
urban problems, it is essential to understand what type of problems they are. Problems of
organized complexity are not amenable to narrow solutions that focus only on one
element. Instead, solutions must focus on the several processes at work in the cities and
consider the ways that they interact to generate the organic whole. Tactical urbanism,
then, can be a valuable approach to urban development because it engages the urban
processes that are at the root of various deficiencies.
8
Tactical urbanism processes, in contrast to traditional rational planning, can engage
these processes in various ways. For example, actions that occur at the local and
distributed level are more likely to put “eyes on the street”, one of Jacobs’ prescriptions
for safer urban spaces (Jacobs, 1961, p. 35). Similarly, increasing the number of grass
roots activities aimed at urban improvement can help build trust, something “formed over
time from many, many little public sidewalk contacts. (p. 56). Finally, again relating to
the notion of cities as comprised of processes contributing to organized complexity,
Jacobs highlights the importance of diversity, such as in the necessary “mixtures of uses
… sufficiently complex to sustain city safety, public contact and cross use” (p. 144). In
other words, the intermingling parts that contribute to a great city are the same types of
factors on which tactical urbanism focuses.
Jacobs was not the only theorist to discuss cities in this manner. As discussed by
Mehaffy (2008), Christopher Alexander’s New Theory of Urban Design also focused on
processes of collaboration that result in emergent functionality and wholeness. In
contrast to the top-down forms of urban design, such as master plans, Alexander sought
to encourage collaborative processes that create organized complexity and evaluated
proposed developments in terms of how well they contribute to the wholeness of a city.
These generative methods of development focused on local stakeholders who engage
existing conditions and avoid standardization and over planning (p.66-67). The focus on
complex processes stems from a recognition that urban systems are in fact organic
systems. Hamdi (2004) builds on this insight by highlighting the special nature of human
organic systems. Whereas organic systems are characterized by order emerging from the
interactions of multiple local forces, not imposed by a single centralized force, human
9
systems do need structure and rules to “provide continuity and stability” and promote
“shared sense of purpose and justice” (p. xvii). These rules and structures, however,
should emerge from the collective wisdom of people acting locally; this emergent order is
more likely to include social integration, equality, interdependence, and be “flexible,
durable, and … infinitely resourceful” (p.xxiv).
For Sennett (1992), embracing anarchistic disorder is necessary in order to counteract
individualistic psychological tendencies that are projected into urban development.
Sennett sees the human tendency toward puritanism as a psychological response to fears
of uncertainty. Just as people will avoid situations that challenge their sense of order,
people will also seek to build cities in ways that mitigate their fears, such as through
isolated and homogenous communities. Traditional planning supports these tendencies
by imposing order over urban areas. Sennett argues, however, that these fears are
counterproductive and that people need to be forced to confront each other, in part by
prohibiting "preplanned, functional space" that stifles neighborhood diversity (p. 142).
Planners thus have the obligation to impose some measure of disorder so as not to allow
stifling of the forces that contribute to vitality and flexibility. Viewed in this light, local
governments and organizations should use their authority to encourage forms of action
such as tactical urbanism in order to create the conditions for organized complexity.
McFarlane (2011) emphasizes the adaptive qualities of complex systems in his
discussion of cities, describing “the city as a machine for learning.” By bringing people
together in dense interconnected networks, cities enable problem solving and gains in
productivity. These gains play a key role in economic development, whether in
Schumpeter’s ‘knowledge economy’ or Florida’s ‘smart cities’ (p. 361). However,
10
"learning is a political and practical domain through which the city is assembled, lived
and contested, and which offers a critical opportunity to develop a progressive urbanism"
(p. 360). In other words, urban learning takes place throughout the city, in all contexts
and not simply among a particular sector of the economy or class of people. Tactical
urbanism, then, enables urban learning in the informal contexts by tapping into "diverse
modes of knowing the city" that come from "negotiating the always contingent gap
between 'marginal' and 'mainstream'" (p. 365). They can draw upon the otherwise
marginalized people who have gained their knowledge by being immersed in the city and
who often have an understanding of urban matters that are unknown to policy makers and
formal organizations (p. 366). Including these oft-excluded individuals and groups into
the act of urban planning may help foster “new, more socially just forms of urban
dwelling” (p. 373).
Harvey (2008) argues for the propriety of local, grassroots efforts from a democratic
perspective. Urbanization, for Harvey, has served the interests of capitalists by
stabilizing economies in light of capital surpluses. However, this has had adverse effects
on livability and quality of life through the encouragement of placelessness, hyper-
individualism, deterioration of collectivity, inequality, political and social fragmentation,
and the undermining of ideals of citizenship and belonging (p. 31-32). From Baron
Haussman to Robert Moses, he argues, there has been a tradition of dispossessing people
in the name of creative destruction in violation of what should be considered a human
right – the right to have democratic control of the way urban development proceeds
(p.33-37). While Harvey is likely calling for fundamental structural changes in the
political-economic framework, tactical urbanism fits within his call for more
11
democratization, for taking control of the way cities develop, and undermining the power
of established capital.
A final aspect of tactical urbanism that makes it a potentially valuable tool in urban
improvement is the fact that many of the actions occur in public spaces which are as
integral to cities as other elements of the built environment. Mehta (2007) summarizes a
number of commentators who all conclude “that it is the streets, plazas, squares, parks,
and other urban public spaces that have the ability to support, facilitate, and promote
public life, which is an essential counterpart to our private, home and work spaces.” He
goes further to argue that streets are in fact the primary urban public space, given the
sheer amount of public space dedicated to streets, but also the fact that people use streets
in so many aspects of their lives (p.165). Oldenburg (1999) has argued for the
importance of “third places,” gathering places outside of home and work that are essential
for social and political life. While Oldenburg refers mainly to destinations such as bars
or restaurants, studies by Mehta (2007) and Mehta and Bosson (2010) examined the role
that public spaces and streets can play as third places. Their findings highlight some of
the conditions necessary to transform a public street into a place for socialization and
vitality, such as the provision of seating, shelter and personalization. These are exactly
the types of amenities that tactical urbanism practitioners seek to provide.
Benefits of Food Trucks
Whereas the preceding discussion highlighted some of the common benefits of a
tactical urbanism approach to urban improvement, each specific tactic presents its own
particular benefits and drawbacks. The benefits (and critiques) of food trucks tend to fall
within two broad categories – social and economic. Examination of the contours of these
12
benefits provides guidance for localities who seek to encourage food trucks. Local
officials should be able to clearly state the desired outcomes from a well-regulated food
truck industry and have solid values underlying and guiding the policies. Crafting a new
policy in Greenville will involve questions of balancing these benefits and burdens,
ideally with the goal of imposing burdens only to the extent necessary to advance the
public interest.
Social Benefits
Food trucks may play an instrumental role in contributing to the social life of cities.
In his study of why some public spaces work better than others, Whyte (1980) identified
food as one significant contributor. “If you want to seed a place with activity, put out
food,” he writes, because "food attracts people who attract more people" (p. 50-52).
Food vendors often possess “a good nose for spaces that work”, the type of experiential
knowledge of cities that McFarlane discussed (p. 50). Alexander, Ishikawa, and
Silverstein (1977) agreed and included food stands as part of the pattern language for
desirable cities. Food stands are “natural public gathering places” that support various
social “habits and institutions” (p. 455). These benefits have been observed in areas with
successful food truck cultures such as Los Angeles, where social activity surrounds food
carts, helping to create more vibrant urban spaces (Hermosillo, 2010). In Portland,
Oregon, one of the more prominent cities for mobile food vending, the social life around
food truck pods features informal conversations among customers, people using the areas
as public meeting spaces, and ongoing social relationships between customers and
vendors (Kapell et al., 2008, p. 26). MacIver (2011) reports on how food trucks can alter
the social dynamics in a public space, potentially calming existing tensions. The City of
13
Seattle (2010) views street vendors as a way of improving public safety, by putting more
‘eyes on the street’. From a land use perspective, mobile food vending is one way of
activating public spaces and making efficient use of otherwise vacant lots. In contrast to
corporate franchises, often located on isolated lots or commercial corridors, food trucks
can integrate their services conveniently in the context of daily activities and offer the
personalized touch of owner-occupiers (Alexander et al., 1977, p. 456).
Food trucks offer the possibility of creating more walkable environments, with a
variety of associated benefits. As Glaeser (2010) notes, food trucks are particularly
fitting for walkable cities built at a human scale. They provide convenient and affordable
food options for pedestrians who might otherwise have limited options (Kapell et al.,
2008). People seeking food at times when restaurants are not open, such as late nights, or
people with dogs who are not always welcome inside restaurants are also particularly
likely to make use of food trucks if available (Chastain, 2010). Recently, several
universities in California have signed agreements with food trucks to allow them to
operate on campus (Fry & Luna, 2011). College students are merely one segment of the
population that values walkability and can make use of the convenient food options that
food trucks offer.
For other groups, having access to food trucks addresses more fundamental concerns
about the availability of food. Food trucks can help bring food into areas that lack
affordable restaurants or even markets (Cameron Hawkins & Associates, 2011). They
are also particularly useful to people who lack access to automobiles, a relatively
common conditions when dealing with children, the disabled, the poor, or people who are
transit dependent by choice or other circumstances (Hermosillo, 2010). Food trucks often
14
find success in areas with a high population of workers, people with limited time
available for lunch and who therefore value the convenience and speed of food trucks.
As Tinker (2003, p. 332) argues, modern economies have made street foods more
important since workers are less likely to work near their home and are frequently
prevented from travelling to get food because of urban sprawl and road congestion.
Increasing access to food is can also be coupled with efforts to encourage provision of
healthy and local food options, thereby advancing additional social goals (Cameron
Hawkins & Associates, 2011; Kapell et al., 2008).
Economic Benefits
While food is an important element of social and personal life, food trucks are
businesses with implications for local economies. One compelling argument for
encouraging food trucks is that they can be instrumental in creating employment. A key
reason for this is that food trucks require less startup capital than brick-and-mortar
restaurants, or even other small businesses, and therefore have lower barriers to entry
(Chastain, 2010; City of Seattle, 2010; Glaeser, 2010; Kapell et al., 2008). Removing
some of the financial barriers may be sufficient to encourage people to start new food
truck businesses. This is particularly true since food trucks provide particular kinds of
satisfaction for their owners and are therefore attractive to potential small business
owners. For example, food truck owners have a degree of flexibility in terms of setting
their own hours and goals and maintain high levels of independence, leading to an
improved quality of life (Chastain, 2010; Kapell et al., 2008). They also have high levels
of community interaction, as discussed in the previous section.
15
The economic activity associated with food trucks should be attractive to cities
because of their local nature. As small business owners, many food truck owners are
rooted in the community and therefore keep profits local (Chastain, 2010; City of Seattle,
2010). As Hermosillo (2010, p. 11) finds, not only profits but taxes, fees, and money
spent on supplies serve as a “grassroots solution to disinvestment and unemployment in
many communities”. The communities that receive these benefits are often among the
neediest. In Portland, food trucks demonstrate high ownership rates among immigrants
and ethnic minorities (Kapell et al., 2008). The City of Seattle (2010), sees food trucks as
a way of targeting underemployed groups such as immigrants, minorities and women as
well as supporting family run businesses. In fact, Tinker (2003) finds that street food
vending is an important means for women to help support their family in countries
throughout Africa and Asia. The popularity of food trucks among these groups is likely
related to the lower capital requirements of food trucks but may also be a reflection of the
lack of restaurants representing the culinary traditions of many immigrants and remaining
barriers to the participation of women in business.
Some of the economic benefits that flow from food trucks relates to the adaptable
nature of the industry, thanks in part to the lowered barriers to entry. Chefs can test out
new concepts or recipes somewhat easier than they could in traditional restaurant
settings, resulting in innovative offerings (Glaeser, 2010; Huus, 2011). The close contact
between operator and customer may lead to better and quicker feedback, enabling
vendors to improve their products; close proximity to other food trucks can also lead to
healthy competition resulting in more innovative products (Chastain, 2010). As such,
cities can use food trucks as a method of displaying the city’s culinary and cultural
16
diversity (Cameron Hawkins & Associates, 2011). As Portland indicates, a vibrant food
truck scene can be a source of neighborhood and city uniqueness, helping to draw
residents and tourists (Chastain, 2010; Kapell et al., 2008).
Arguments Against Food Trucks
As stated previously, this project assumes the overall desirability of food trucks in a
city. The preceding discussion of benefits indicates the reasoning behind this position.
That said, there are legitimate concerns of both public and private actors regarding the
implementation of food truck policies. They tend to fall in the same two categories as the
benefits of food trucks – social and economic. The plan for the city of Greenville will
take into account these factors in order to avoid or mitigate the undesirable conditions.
Social Concerns
Perhaps the most obvious concern with the operation of food trucks is the public
health aspect of the business. Attention from public health researchers and officials tend
to focus on issues of sanitation and vendor hygiene; given the potential for transmission
of food borne illness, this is not an unwarranted concern (Tester, Stevens, Yen, & Laraia,
2010). Yet, these concerns are common for all food vendors, mobile or not.
Increasingly, public health questions also focus on issues of nutrition and freshness of
food being served (Hermosillo, 2010; Tester et al., 2010). Whereas potential benefits of
food trucks includes increasing access to fresh, local and healthy food, there is a corollary
concern that food trucks will emulate corporate fast food restaurants and continue to
contribute to problems of obesity and associated diseases (Cameron Hawkins &
Associates, 2011). Given the connection between food trucks and underserved
17
communities, i.e. poor, immigrant, and minority, the benefits to these populations would
be somewhat undermined by delivery of unhealthy foods.
Quality of life issues are a frequent complaint of opponents to food trucks.
Hermosillo’s 2010 study of Los Angeles highlighted a number of concerns, most notably
the problem of trash. Studies in Toronto and Portland have indicated a similar worry
(Cameron Hawkins & Associates, 2011; Kapell et al., 2008). However, the same studies
indicate that food truck owners share this concern and would like more support from
local authorities in the form of more public trash bins in the areas around trucks. Related
issues involve food odors, particularly in residential areas, as well as general concerns
about blight and crime that might be attracted to areas of activity around food trucks
(Hermosillo, 2010; Kapell et al., 2008). Some of these issues could be solved through
provision of amenities such as seating, shelter, or landscaping; the issue of public safety,
as indicated by the discussion of food truck benefits, is debatable as well. The city of
Toronto raised question of air pollution from generators or idling trucks, also a potential
social or quality of life issue, as well as possible congestion in public spaces or streets
(Cameron Hawkins & Associates, 2011).
Economic Concerns
The most common critique of food trucks, economic in nature, relates to the question
of competition with brick-and-mortar restaurants. Essentially, traditional restaurants
claim that food trucks have unfair business advantages because they pay lower rents, do
not pay various land development charges, do not have to follow building codes, and do
not provide restrooms or seating to customers (Cameron Hawkins & Associates, 2011;
Chastain, 2010). Although it is true that food trucks do not generally pay rent, they do
18
incur various costs such as the purchase and maintenance of the truck and equipment,
plus potential commissary charges in areas where trucks are required to be stored in
designated locations (Kapell et al., 2008). In addition, studies have questioned whether
food trucks actually compete with sit-down restaurants or whether they serve a different
population or compete more with lunch counters, fast food and take out restaurants
(Chastain, 2010). Although Glaeser (2010) argues for market forces to sort out which
restaurants survive, a reasonable debate can be had as to whether some restrictions on
food truck locations is justified in order to protect establish restaurants or prevent
congestion.
Conclusion
The phenomenon of food trucks that is the subject of this project is a recent
development and as such does not have a great deal of scholarly literature attached to it.
That said, various urban theorists have written about issues related to food trucks in more
general terms. These authors highlight some of the topics that a responsible city plan
should consider. These include issues of participation, equity, efficiency and
adaptability. In addition, the limited literature specifically concerning food trucks
emphasizes other specific concerns such as the use of public space and streets,
availability of food to vulnerable populations, entrepreneurialism and local economic
development, and auto dependence. The specific research methodology to follow will
draw upon this literature in order to more accurately focus the inquiry on topics most
likely to be salient in discussions by policymakers and stakeholders.
19
Research Questions
The broad question to be answered is: How should the city of Greenville encourage the development of a thriving food truck industry? This question has two subsidiary questions:
1. Are food trucks appropriate for the city of Greenville?
2. If so, what laws, regulations, programs or policies should Greenville enact in order to encourage a thriving food truck industry?
Research Methods
Answers to the posited research questions will be derived through a mixed-methods
approach. The goal is to answer the broad research question by approaching the
subsidiary questions using different methods. These two research questions address key
concerns identified in the literature, i.e. the regulatory/policy framework pertaining to
food trucks and the issue of finding appropriate locations for food truck operations. Each
question, however, is amenable to different analytical techniques. The questions will
therefore be treated as analytically separate. This research strategy can be conceptualized
as methodological triangulation, “the use of multiple methods to study a single problem
or program” (Denzin, 1978). Although the questions will be analyzed separately, the
results of the analyses will relate back to the original, broader research question.
Data Collection
Data for this study fell into two categories, corresponding to the two actionable
research questions. All data consisted of archival material taken from public records or
proprietary subscription data services and data retrieval was conducted primarily via
electronic means. Telephone and email communications were used in some
circumstances to solicit data or to ask for clarification of unclear items. Specific data
collection questions pertaining to the separate analyses are as follows:
20
Appropriateness of Food Trucks
Data for the GIS analysis of food service in Greenville consisted of quantitative and
geospatial data obtained from both public and proprietary sources. The information on
current businesses in Greenville was downloaded from Reference USA, a proprietary
database to which Clemson University maintains a subscription. This data was used to
identify and categorize existing food service establishments in the city and also for
estimates of how many employees might be available to patronize food trucks. Only
employers reporting 5 or more employees were included in the analysis. The list of
businesses was examined in order to eliminate obvious errors such as double listing of
businesses both as individual locations and an aggregate total. Information provided by
the Greenville Area Development Corporation and by the City of Greenville Department
of Business Licenses was also used to verify that no food service establishments or large
employers were absent from the Reference USA database. GIS data layers used in the
analysis were obtained from the City of Greenville. Population data was downloaded
from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Laws, Regulations, Programs and Policies
The goal of the archival research was to identify and collect data that could be used
when formulating a plan, amending laws, and implementing policies relevant to food
trucks in Greenville. The data was collected by examining the regulations and policies
employed by other cities in order to present policy makers in Greenville with a menu of
options that illustrate common approaches. These options are not necessarily all
inclusive or appropriate for adoption; particular regulations may certainly be modified to
fit particular concerns in Greenville. However, by comparing the approaches from a
21
variety of cities, the path ultimately chosen in Greenville can be made in a more informed
manner.
Data was collected from fifteen cities in order to capture a variety of possible
approaches to regulation. Cities were chosen through purposeful sampling, “selecting
information-rich cases for study in depth” in order to “learn a great deal about issues of
central importance to the purpose of the study”, i.e. informing the city of Greenville’s
decision-making processes (Patton, 2002, p. 46). More specifically, theoretical sampling
was used whereby cities were chosen “on the basis of the emerging concepts, with the
aim being to explore the dimensional range” of the regulatory and policy options (Strauss
& Corbin, 1998, p. 73). The key consideration for selection was the presence of a
developed food truck scene. In such cities, it was assumed that the regulations and
policies are conducive, or at least not hostile, to the development of mobile food vending.
Portland, Oregon, for example, is frequently mentioned as being the vanguard of food
truck culture. Other cities, such as Asheville, North Carolina and Hoboken, New Jersey,
were included because of their recent examination of the issues surrounding food trucks;
an ordinance allowing food trucks in the downtown area was recently passed in both
cities (Burgess, 2011). Because they are so recent, policies in these cities might have
been formed in light of past developments, thereby increasing the likelihood of capturing
the full spectrum of possible regulatory schemes.
Although the geographic location or population of a city was not a primary criterion
for selecting comparables, some efforts were made to ensure that case study cities were
geographically diverse and represented a variety of scales. Table 1 lists the cities
examined and illustrates the sizes of those locations as compared to Greenville. The table
22
includes urbanized population in addition to municipal population. This is because
municipal populations do not necessarily accurately reflect the number of people who
might be in a city on a given day. Greenville in particular has a low municipal population
relative to its urbanized population, a fact that is relevant for the GIS analysis as well.
Figure 1 below illustrates the geographic spread of the case study cities.
23
Table 1 - Population of case study cities
City 2010
Population (SF1)
Urbanized Area Population (ACS 06-10)
Greenville 58,409 322,048 Asheville, NC 83,393 241,486 Austin, TX 790,390 1,031,104 Boston, MA 617,594 4,084,553 Denver, CO (incl. Aurora) 600,158 2,067,512 Durham, NC 228,330 310,789 Hoboken, NJ (incl. NY, Newark, NJ, CT) 50,005 18,083,721 Honolulu, HI 390,738 767,117 Los Angeles, CA (incl. Long Beach, Santa Ana)
3,792,621
12,009,536
Madison, WI 233,209 344,712 Miami, FL 399,457 5,278,094 Minneapolis, MN (incl. St. Paul) 382,578 2,437,965 Portland, OR (incl. Vancouver, WA) 583,776 1,774,292 St. Louis, MO 319,294 2,078,224 San Francisco, CA 805,235 3,254,650 Seattle, WA 608,660 2,935,248
Figure 1 - Map of case study cities
24
Collected data included laws, regulations and policies related to the following broad
topics:
Licensing and permitting of mobile food vendors Public health oversight of food truck operations The operation of food trucks in public right-of-ways The operation of food trucks on private property or publicly owned lots Policy statements pertaining to mobile food vending Protection of neighborhood quality of life and environmental integrity Quality and quantity of information related to mobile food vending available
through online sources Economic development programs applicable to food trucks, such as financial
incentives, social media/technology tools, or training Programs for encouraging/promoting innovation in food trucks, e.g.
competitions, showcases, and inclusion in local events
Sources of data included municipal websites, such as Planning and Economic
Development, and online legal codes, such as Municode and American Legal Publishing
Corporation. There was no uniform organization of the regulations pertaining to mobile
food vending. Applicable regulations were scattered throughout the following sections of
the various municipal, county, or state ordinances:
Business licensing and regulation Traffic Zoning and development Public health Taxation and finance Parks and recreation
Data collection was limited to regulations pertinent to full service food trucks, rather
than all forms of mobile food vending. While many regulations are relevant to different
types of food vendors, treatment of full-service food trucks does differ in some ways
from treatment of sidewalk vendors, non-motorized pushcarts, or vendors who sell pre-
packaged, pre-cooked, or pre-assembled foods. Public health regulations, for example,
are typically more stringent for vendors who are transporting and cooking raw foods than
25
for those who are merely reheating previously cooked items. Regulating the location of
sidewalk vending addresses questions and concerns similar, but not identical to,
regulations of food trucks operating on the street or on private lots.
Finally, not all details of the mobile food vending are discussed in this report.
Although all aspects of the regulations were examined, some elements were so common
or exhibited minimal variation such that they were not analyzed in detail. For example,
as a general rule, food trucks must obey all motor vehicle laws unless specifically
exempted. This includes obligations such as paying parking meters, not vending in
intersections, or not interfering with traffic flow. Public health regulations governing
food trucks are typically very detailed and include technical specifications such as
required water temperature for sanitation, methods of waste storage and disposal, or
proper food handling techniques. These commonly overlap regulations of brick and
mortar restaurants but may also include details specific to mobile food vendors.
Evaluation of these technical matters was beyond the scope of this project. This report,
therefore, does not attempt to present a complete list of applicable regulations that may
be appropriate for regulation of mobile food vending in a city.
Data Analysis
Appropriateness of Food Trucks
GIS analysis was used to interrogate the question of whether Greenville is an
appropriate location for food trucks to operate. The basic process is to compare the
location of food service restaurants to the concentration of potential customers,
employees at work in this case. The network analyst functions of ArcGIS were used to
construct service areas surrounding each food establishment based on spatial travel
26
distance to or from those locations. This map was then overlaid onto business data that
illustrates the spatial distribution of workers in the city. The end result highlights areas
where concentrations of people who can potentially make use of food trucks are most
distant from existing restaurants. It is in these areas that the presence of food trucks will
have a good chance of finding a customer base. These customers are also likely to
benefit from the reduced automotive dependency resulting from the creation of more
convenient food services.
Laws, Regulations, Programs and Policies
The goal of analyzing the data pertaining to food truck laws, regulations, programs
and policies was to investigate the approaches taken by other cities and thereby to inform
the planning process in the city of Greenville. As the modern food truck phenomenon is
a fairly recent development, this project is exploratory in nature. There is, as yet, no
explicit empirically based, theoretical framework of how municipal regulations and
policies affect the success of local food truck industries. There are, however, isolated
surveys and widespread anecdotal evidence, previously discussed in the literature review,
which suggest criteria upon which regulatory and policy decisions should be based.
These ideas were used to structure an inductive analysis of the archival data, whereby
conclusions “emerge[d] out of the data” (Patton, 2002, p. 453). Factors upon which
analyses were based included:
Regulatory clarity and accessibility Effect of regulations of vendor flexibility Effect of regulations on predictability and certainty Balancing public goods and private burdens Advancing social goals
27
Results of GIS Analysis
The GIS analysis of Greenville centers on the question of whether there is a
demonstrable potential demand for food trucks in the city that could be the justification
for regulatory changes designed to encourage development of the industry. Although
there are likely to be multiple potential customer bases for food trucks, this analysis
focuses on people at work, long a traditional target for mobile food vendors. These are
people who may spend seven or more hours per day in places where it is impossible or
impracticable to prepare their own food. Available time for meals is typically limited and
convenience in obtaining food is therefore desirable. While some workers will bring
food from home, others patronize local food establishments. Food trucks are simply a
form of food establishment, albeit one that is more mobile than most.
The location of current food establishments in the city can be seen in Figure 2. For
purposes of this analysis, food establishments include several different types of
businesses that typically offer food that could serve as a meal for someone at work. Full
service restaurants are those that involve on premises seating and fully prepared foods.
The category covers everything from high end restaurants such as American Grocery to
chain restaurants such as the Olive Garden and fast food businesses such as McDonalds.
Limited service restaurants are typified by sandwich shops that serve meals which are
typically assembled but not cooked to order. Snack and nonalcoholic beverage bars
include businesses such as Starbucks and Dunkin’ Donuts that focus on beverages but
also serve a limited food menu of sandwiches and snacks rather than full meals. Retail
bakeries are included because they frequently offer sandwiches and other foods that could
sustain a person at work. Supermarkets and grocery stores, while primarily aimed at
28
selling ingredients used for cooking, increasingly feature sections that sell ready-to-eat
food. This may be as limited as pre-made sandwiches and as extensive as stores like
Whole Foods that offer extensive options. Finally, convenience stores are included as
they too offer some ready-to-eat foods in addition to the more traditional convenience
items.
As the map illustrates, most food establishments are located along commercial
corridors, which is perhaps to be expected. The next step is to add places of employment
to the map as displayed in Figure 3. This dataset excludes food establishments since even
though they also qualify as employers, the employees clearly have access to food and
their inclusion on the map does not add to the analysis. Examining the locations of both
food establishments and employers shows some degree of overlap but also reveals some
separation, employers who are not directly adjacent to options for food purchase. To
provide better perspective on the magnitude of this separation, service areas around the
food vendors illustrate how much area is within a particular distance of the food
establishments. The use of service areas instead of buffers generates areas that follow the
contours of roads, more accurately representing the path that most customers would use
to get to or from the business. Two service areas are displayed, one-quarter mile and
one-half mile, which are commonly discussed as defining pedestrian scale development.
In other words, people are more likely to consider walking somewhere if it is no more
than a quarter mile (or half-mile) away.
Figure 4 suggests the areas where a person is likely to consider walking to a nearby
food establishment. There are a quite a few food vendors within a one-quarter mile walk
and several more within the additional one-quarter mile area. However, there are also
29
numerous places of business that are not within a walkable distance. These are people
that might be attracted to food trucks because they eliminate the need to drive to get food.
Figure 5 and Figure 6 provide a close up view of two of these areas where food trucks
could be particularly welcome. As the maps and Table 2 indicate, each relatively small
area has at least several hundred employees working in the vicinity. In addition, the
maps highlight the fact that these businesses typically have on-site parking which could
be utilized for mobile food vending.
This analysis is offered as a proof of concept to illustrate the premise that brick-and-
mortar food service establishments do not provide optimal access to ready-to-eat meals.
Food trucks could be a useful supplement, providing people with a convenient option and
expanding their dining choices. Similar analyses could be performed for residential
areas, potentially identifying food deserts where people do not have dining options within
easily walkable distances, or bars and other places where people gather later in the
evening. In addition, data layers showing vacant or undeveloped lots could highlight
possible locations for food truck vending, including food truck pods. These have the
potential to activate public space, thereby improving the neighborhoods in which they are
located. All of these uses, however, require municipal ordinances that permit or facilitate
these activities. This is the subject of the next section.
30
Figure 2 - Food Vendors in Greenville
31
Figure 3 - Food Vendors and Employers in Greenville
32
Figure 4 - Food Vendors and Employer Service Areas
33
Figure 5 - Small area focus
34
Figure 6 - Small area focus
35
Table 2 - Number of employees in focus areas
Area 1 Area 2 Company Employees Company Employees Berry Plastics 200 First Baptist Greenville 100 Southeastern Products Inc. 150 YMCA 85 League Academy 70 Orthodontic Associates PA 20 Cha Textiles
70
Cleveland Park Animal Hospital
18
Summit Drive Elementary School
54
City Kids Child Development
16
Meyer Center for Special Children
54
Piedmont Oral Surgery PA
11
Pendleton Manor
40
Adult Upstate Dental Care LLC
10
American Fire Protection 33 Greenville Family Practice 10 A Child's Haven Inc. 30 WCA Inc. 9 CASTLE Industries LLC 25 Signature Smiles 9 US Tool Inc. 20 Share 9 Emedia Group Inc. 20 Greenville Orthodontics 8 Miracle Hill Renewal Center 14 Greenville Associate Church 8 Crawford Family & Cosmetic 12 W Carter Brown Pa 7 Chapman Enterprises 11 Crowns Now Family Dentistry 7 Parkersway Foods 10 Palmetto Family Dentistry 7 Stone Lake Community Club 10 Gilbert & Gilbert Pa 6 Thomas Concrete 10 St Matthew United Methodist 6 Action Acrylic
10
Greenville Housing Authority
6
Compass Of Carolina 10 Crossroads Apartments 5 Northgate Baptist Church 9 Greenville Endodontic Assoc. 5 Hardwick Printing 7 Andover Park 5 Northside United Methodist Church
5
Total: 367
Gary A Hester Interiors 5 Wolf Mortgage & Processing 5 American Exterminating Co 5 Total: 889
36
Results of Regulatory Analysis
The variety of regulatory regimes featured in the case studies highlights some of the
possible approaches that the city of Greenville can take if it decides to enact a new
ordinance designed to encourage and facilitate mobile food vending in the city. In order
to capture the potential benefits of food trucks while mitigating the potential negative
effects of the industry, the choice of code provisions should be based on an analysis of
how well the different options advance the values fundamental to a successful food truck
program, values that encompass the interests of private parties and the public. This
section evaluates alternative code provisions in terms of how well they contribute to
regulatory clarity and accessibility, maximize the flexibility of food truck operators’
efforts to reach customers, regulate in an equitable manner that avoids unnecessary
burdens, and contribute to social goals and concerns of the city. Recommendations for
the city of Greenville follow, taking into account the specific needs and conditions of that
municipality. These recommendations recognize the necessity of balancing sometimes
competing interests between the interests of vendors and the need for the city to protect
the health, safety and general welfare of the community.
Regulatory Clarity and Accessibility
The organization, presentation, and availability of regulatory requirements for
operating food trucks varied considerably among the case cities. Municipal ordinances
and guidelines can be difficult to locate and to understand, particularly by people who are
less than proficient in conducting computer searches, are not trained in the law, or have
no prior experience operating a business in the jurisdiction. Eliminating unnecessary
37
burdens on information gathering should therefore be a consideration for cities looking to
encourage food trucks. Such consideration includes a number of factors.
Since the research for this project was conducted primarily via Internet, no
observations were made of how easy it is to get information on food truck regulations
through personal visits to relevant offices. Presumably, at least some municipal offices
would either have materials in printed format or could explain the processes to a
prospective vendor. Nevertheless, relying solely on in-person visits imposes unnecessary
costs on the vendors. Visits to multiple departments will likely be necessary, including
business licensing, health, planning, public works, and traffic. While these various
departments may be located in the same general area, this is not guaranteed. In addition,
visits to county and/or state offices will also be necessary and such offices are more
likely to be located in different buildings or parts of the city. Given the increasingly
widespread use of the Internet as a means of research and communication, a well-
designed, Internet based source of information can help reduce the burdens on vendors
and increase the likelihood of compliance.
The most basic aspect of creating a useful web presence is to maintain web pages
dedicated to mobile food vending. The cities of Boston, Denver, Madison, Minneapolis,
Portland, San Francisco, Seattle, and St. Louis each provide examples of what a positive
web presence can entail. Each of these cities makes available information that is useful
for prospective or current vendors. There are, however, variations on the type and
amount of information that is provided and the way such information is organized.
Boston,1 Denver,2 Portland,3 and Seattle4 are notable for hosting specific web pages that
1
http://www.cityofboston.gov/business/mobile/
38
offer an overview of the regulatory process. Seattle’s page, hosted by the Office of
Economic Development, is one of the most comprehensive. It addresses all aspects of
licensing and permitting pertaining to street food vending with links to each city
department responsible for overseeing that aspect of the process. The city of Boston’s
page was created to support the recently created food truck pilot program and is very
comprehensive as well.
In addition to providing a central online information page, some cities are better than
others at providing useful resources about vending for download. Austin, for example,
has created a detailed Frequently Asked Questions document5 that provides an overview
of the regulations and answers many questions that might arise. Denver’s downloadable
Food Truck Guide6 is a very comprehensive listing of regulations and contact
information. Checklists are a particularly useful tool, such as those available in Austin’s
application packet,7 from the city of St. Louis’ Food Trucks page,8 or Seattle’s economic
development site9. The city of San Francisco makes available a graphical flowchart10 that
guides vendors through the various regulatory pathways, depending on the desired
vending locations. For cities that limit the locations where vendors can do business,
making maps available is an effective supplement to text based guidelines. Austin11
San Francisco Ordinance No. 297-10. Effective January 2, 2011.
82
Boston Mobile Food Truck Ordinance. http://www.cityofboston.gov/business/mobile/ordinance.asp
83
Seattle Ordinance No. 123659, Adopted July 21, 2011
84
Preamble to Asheville Ordinance No. 4007.Adopted September 13, 2011.
60
city’s] character and quality of life.”85 City streets become safer, thanks in part to “eyes-
on-the street” and “pedestrian activity.”86 By highlighting these desirable qualities of
food trucks to activate public spaces, enhance public safety, an contribute to a vibrant
urban character, these policy statements become part of the dialogue about mobile food
vending, helping to create an optimistic attitude about the industry.
Statements of values and intents are a good start, but cities can adopt additional
policies to make these commitments more concrete. One concern about having an active
food truck scene is apparently the potential for trash to accumulate in areas where they
operate. One of the more common code provisions is to require food trucks to provide
trash receptacles for their patrons. Some progressively minded cities, such as Durham,
Hoboken, San Francisco, and Seattle also require food trucks to provide bins for
recycling and/or compost material. Several cities go further with their efforts to have
food trucks contribute to the cleanliness of the city. Hoboken requires vendors to pick up
litter within 5 feet of the vending area, apparently regardless of whether it is related to the
food truck itself.87 Miami88 and St. Louis89 extend this obligation to 15 feet while San
Francisco’s “Good Neighbor Policies” include picking up beverage containers and other
trash left by patrons within a 100 foot radius of the food truck within 30 minutes of
closing.90 Some of these policies include encouragements to use recyclable or
compostable utensils, with San Francisco’s Food Service Waste Reduction Ordinance
going the furthest in prohibiting polystyrene foam service ware and mandating
85
Seattle Ordinance No. 123659, Adopted July 21, 2011
86
Ibid
87
Hoboken City Code §147-2.4
88
Miami Code of Ordinances §39-38(5)
89
St. Louis Code of Ordinances §8.108A.150(H)
90
San Francisco Municipal Ordinance §184.94
61
biodegradable, compostable, or recyclable utensils unless there is no affordable
alternative to traditional materials.91 These policies, particularly San Francisco’s, raise
questions about what constitutes an unreasonable burden on vendors. It would be
interesting to see whether comparable policies could be imposed on other businesses such
as fast food restaurants or coffee shops that generate significant amounts of consumer
disposable materials. In any case, these policies serve as examples of the type of options
that cities have when crafting mobile food ordinances.
91
San Francisco Environment Code §1601 et seq.
62
Recommendations for the City of Greenville
The preceding discussions have set out the reasons why a supportive food truck
policy is desirable, demonstrated that demand for such trucks is likely to exist in
Greenville, and analyzed food truck policies in fifteen other cities in order to identify
important areas of regulation and possibilities for code provisions within those areas.
Currently, Greenville has a regime that was enacted prior to the evolution of the modern
food truck industry. It contains provisions that are overly restrictive and others that are
unnecessarily vague. Perhaps coincidentally, there is no substantial food truck industry
operating in the city. Accordingly, the following recommendations are presented for
policy makers and municipal staff in Greenville to help guide the policy making process
toward a more productive outcome.
Public Process
An important preliminary matter is that the citizens of Greenville should have the
opportunity to provide input on the subject of potential food truck legislation. Not only
can this help identify potential concerns that shape the eventual ordinance, but it may also
serve to generate interest in food trucks that will encourage people to support to even
start businesses. Of particular importance is the question of whether vending in
residential areas should be permitted and if so, under what limitations. It may be that
customer demand exists in certain neighborhoods and not others. This information can
be used to shape restrictions on permitted vending locations, possibly allowing for
individual neighborhoods to formulate their own restrictions on locations and/or hours.
Public input may also provide useful regarding questions of vending on public lots, such
as whether food truck ‘pods’ would be seen as welcome or invasive.
63
The city should employ multiple means of engaging the public. In addition to public
meetings and hearings, the city should engage social media or consider an online survey
such as the one employed by the city of Boston. Depending on the level of support or
opposition, a limited pilot program might be a useful technique for introducing food
trucks to people while reserving space for future changes. This is an increasingly popular
approach, utilized in Boston but also currently occurring in numerous other locations as
the food truck phenomena spreads.
Unified Ordinance
The basic objective should be to draft a unified ordinance that addresses all aspects of
mobile food vending in a consistent manner. This would begin with clear policy
statements that set forth the key values that the city desires to encourage, including
contributing to economic development, improving the food system in Greenville, and
improving the quality of life for residents and workers. The ordinance should update all
relevant sections of the municipal code, including but not limited to business licensing
(§8-261 et seq.) and land management (§19-1.1 et seq.), so as to avoid uncertainties for
prospective or actual food vendors.
Licensing
Current licensing regulations in Greenville require a peddler’s license for each
salesperson.92 This places burdens the food truck operator, who must obtain a license for
any potential employees, a process that includes fingerprinting, background investigation,
and payment of fees. The city, which must evaluate and approve these applications,
bears some burdens as well. This type of regulation, while possibly appropriate for more
traditional single-person vending operations, is less appropriate for modern, larger-scale 92
Greenville Code of Ordinances §8-301
64
businesses. A more moderate, but still restrictive, approach would allow a vendor to
apply for a license that allows for a certain amount of employees, as is the case in
Madison. More desirable still would be a single license for the vendor that does not
require individual employee licenses. These employees may still need food handler’s
certificates from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control,
which should address public health concerns of the city.
Street Vending
Current Greenville regulations prohibit mobile vehicle vending within the Central
Business District and within 300 feet of it.93 Given that street and sidewalk vending in
those areas is seen as “promot[ing] the public interest by contributing to an active and
attractive pedestrian environment,”94 the exclusion of vehicle vending from this area is
presumably related to concerns about traffic, parking, and congestion. Parking in
downtown Greenville can in fact be difficult to come by and large food trucks would
likely not fit well with the narrowness of Main Street. That said, the city should consider
allowing mobile food vending in the CBD during late night hours. This would entail
changing the very restrictive provision that vendors must cease operation a half hour
before sunset.95 This would enable vendors to serve people who are leaving the bars and
nightclubs. The streets would become livelier places, food would help ensure that people
do not drive while intoxicated, and vendors would have a source of customers. Even the
usual objections from brick-and-mortar restaurants could be avoided by requiring vendors
to wait until other restaurants have closed before moving into the area. Restricting trucks
to streets other than Main Street would likely still be justifiable. Should the city consider 93
Greenville Code of Ordinances §8-264
94
Greenville Code of Ordinances §8-261
95
Greenville Code of Ordinances §8-306
65
assigning vending locations, they should consider a method designed to avoid the
inequalities of seniority or pure lottery systems. A shift-system like that used in Boston
would be preferable in that it would allow multiple vendors to have the opportunity to
operate from the most desirable locations and would offer customers with variety in food
options.
Street vending outside the CBD is currently highly restricted by the rule that vendors
must remain mobile, not remaining in one location for more than 30 minutes.96 After this
time period, they must move at least one block or 500 feet and cannot return to the same
location for six hours. As discussed previously, it is not clear what public health, safety,
or welfare concerns this provision addresses. The city should discuss this matter during
public outreach efforts in order to find the level of regulation that maximizes vendor
flexibility and business options while addressing any legitimate public concerns. Limited
street vending in residential areas should also be considered.
Private Property Vending
Current zoning regulations appear to prohibit many food truck activities from
occurring on private property. The operation of a food truck on a vacant lot, singly or in
pods, would be prohibited by the provision that the “use of a motor vehicle … in which,
out of which, or from which any goods are sold, stored, services performed, or other
business conducted” is a prohibited use.97 Although this code section has an exception
for temporary use permits, the same activities are prohibited as temporary uses in most
circumstances.98 This leaves accessory uses, whereby a food truck might be able to vend
in the parking lot of an existing business. Although the zoning code utilizes the common 96
Greenville Code of Ordinances §8-307(b)(1)
97
Greenville Code of Ordinances §19-4.1.1(h)
98
Greenville Code of Ordinances §19-4.5.3(f)
66
and somewhat vague limitation that accessory uses must be “incidental;; customarily
associated with;; and subordinate to principal uses,” the code also expresses the city’s
intent to construe this provision broadly.99 In any case, further clarification would be
useful and would entail listing mobile food vending as a specific permitted use, even if
only as an accessory. The city should also consider relaxing the principal and temporary
use provisions to allow more vending possibilities for food truck operators.
Public Health and Social Goals
Greenville’s regulations on public health, as supplemented by the state of South
Carolina, are fairly common in their coverage. A daily visit to a commissary is
required,100 the vendor must maintain a trash receptacle for customer use,101 and there are
basic prohibitions against “offensive or loud noises.”102 None of these provisions are
overly burdensome and the more restrictive provisions of some other cities are not
present. Space does exist for additional efforts to advance social goals. Assuming the
city amends the laws to allow increased vending on private property, related amendments
could be proactive in crafting rules on how tables, chairs or other accessories can be used
in a safe and inoffensive manner. Regulations aimed at limiting environmental
degradation, such as the use of recyclable or compostable plates, cups and utensils, could
be part of a new comprehensive ordinance. Encouraging the use of healthy and/or locally
grown foods by vendors would not only be beneficial to consumers but also to other local
businesses.
99
Greenville Code of Ordinances §19-4.4.1
100
South Carolina DHEC Regulation 61-25, Ch. X(B)
101
Greenville Code of Ordinances §8-307(2)
102
Greenville Code of Ordinances §8-307(4)
67
Additional Efforts
Currently, the city maintains web pages dedicated to vending in the central business
district. The page offers relevant information, guidelines and maps of available vending
locations. Once a new ordinance is passed, this page can be expanded or subsumed
within a broader page that provides information on all of the aspects of vending within
the city. The goal should be to present applicable regulations in an easy-to-access format
along with supplementary materials such as maps, forms, checklists, or links to other
resources. This is a way for the city to actively engage the community so that people will
be more likely to want to start a food truck and be able to find out how to go about doing
it.
Finally, the city is encouraged to be open to other actions or innovative policies that
might further encourage development of the industry. Small business assistance
programs could be made available to prospective food truck entrepreneurs along with any
other resources geared toward helping people start their own businesses. The city’s
economic development department could offer assistance similar to the GIS analysis
offered in this report that would help food trucks identify underserved areas of the city.
If the industry does take root and begin to grow, the city can take an active role in helping
interested vendors make a transition to a brick-and-mortar restaurant. This might involve
identifying vacant properties or working with banks to secure financing for these
ventures. In many other cities, private individuals and groups have begun to take an
active role in organizing food truck vendors for events, providing consultancy or other
services, or advocating for legislative changes. The city should strive to maintain good
relations with these groups so that they contribute to the development of the industry
68
rather than hinder it. Given the dynamic and rapidly evolving nature of the food truck
industry and municipal responses to it, further study of other cities may reveal additional
innovative policies which Greenville could consider.
Concluding Thoughts
The modern food truck phenomenon is expanding rapidly across the country with
little sign of slowing. This growth is an indication that people desire high quality,
moderately priced, and innovatively prepared foods that are available at convenient
locations and times. Although Greenville does not currently have a developed food truck
industry, the creation of a regulatory architecture that supports and encourages such
businesses could be an important first step toward its creation. Food trucks have the
potential to activate public space, reduce auto-dependency, improve street vitality, feed
underserved populations, and generate economic activity. Greenville should take this
opportunity to formulate a new mobile food vending policy that maximizes these
potentials while addressing potential public health, safety and welfare concerns.
69
Appendix – Case Study Summaries
70
Greenville, SC
Policy statements: Vending on the public streets and sidewalks within the central business district and
within 300 feet of the central business district promotes the public interest by contributing to an active and attractive pedestrian environment.
Licensing: Peddlers license required for each salesperson No vending between half-hour before sunset and 9AM or on Sundays ("except by
specific appointment with or invitation from the prospective customer") No vending from vehicles within the central business district and within 300 feet of
the central business district [8-264] Fingerprinting & investigation required
Public Health, Safety, Environment, Quality of Life: Vendors must maintain a litter receptacle available for patrons' use No "offensive or loud noise" to attract customers, no PA system, bell or music for
up to 5 minutes to announce arrival at a location Single service articles only Must report to permitted base of operations at least daily
Street vending: (outside of CBD) must remain mobile and not violate the intent of the zoning regulations by
remaining for extended periods of time at one location or in one neighborhood Cannot remain stationary on a public street or right-of-way more than 30 minutes in
any one location conducting business, after which time such vendor must move at least one block or 500 feet, whichever is greater, and shall not return to the same block or location within the next six-hour period. No location shall be used more than twice in any one day.
Private property vending: The use of a motor vehicle, trailer, or shipping container in which, out of which, or
from which any goods are sold, stored, services performed, or other business conducted is prohibited
Temporary Use permits may be granted for the sale of food products at a city-approved event
Ease of acquiring information: Webpage for CBD vendors w/map (food trucks excluded)
71
Asheville, NC
Policy Statements: "The regulations for mobile food vending" are reasonable and in the public interest:
o Provide opportunity for new business activity o Offers food diversity and expanded options in commercial districts and
contributes to the vibrancy of these districts o Ordinance clarifies and expands regulations governing a use that is growing in
popularity Licensing: City business privilege license Development permit for private property vending (site specific)
o Site plan review (access, landscaping, setbacks, etc.) o Preference for permanent electric power infrastructure (outside of CBD)
Temporary vendor permit (site and vendor specific) Public Health, Safety, Environment, Quality of Life: Vendors encouraged to use recyclable and/or compostable containers, cups and
utensils Vendor must provide trash receptacle and is responsible for maintaining the
cleanliness of the vending site Noise limit on electric generators Must report to commissary at least daily
Street vending: No vending permitted in public street or right of way
Private property vending: Mobile Food Vending as a specified use in the zoning code Permitted by right in various office, business (including central business),
commercial, industrial, urban village, neighborhood corridor, urban place Hours:
o Downtown CBD - 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. o Outside of CBD - 6:00 AM to 3:00 a.m. or 6:00 a.m. to midnight if within 200
feet of a residential use Maximum of 10 permits in the downtown CBD Vendors must maintain a set schedule of locations and hours No tables, chairs, tents, shade structures, steps, etc. Food trucks must be at least 20 feet apart from each other
Ease of acquiring information/process: No information on web site Ordinance consolidates all regulations in a detailed manner
72
Austin, TX
Policy Statements: N/A
Licensing: General business license Health Department license
Public Health, Safety, Environment, Quality of Life: Must visit commissary once every 24 hours Written agreement to use business restrooms within 150 feet if at a location for
more than 2 hours Permit limited to approved menu Must provide trash receptacle
Street vending: Allowed in commercial and industrial zones, not office Cannot be located within 50 feet of a building with both commercial and residential
uses No vending between 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Cannot be within 20 feet of a restaurant (in a building) Neighborhood Associations can vote to allow vendors. Optional regulations:
o Must be 50 feet or more from SF zoned properties or from SF houses, duplexes or townhouses
o Can operate between 6:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. if between 50 and 300 feet from SF zoned properties, SF houses, duplexes or townhouses
o Can operate between 6:00 a.m. - 3:00 a.m. if more than 300 feet from SF zoned properties or locations of SF houses, duplexes, or townhouses
Private property vending: See street vending rules (not distinguished)
Ease of acquiring information/process: Planning Department webpage with links to supporting documents Clear FAQ describing the permitting process and regulations Map of neighborhoods that have adopted additional regulations
Other policies/initiatives: Farmers Market vending permits
73
Boston, MA
Policy Statements: The mobile food industry has the unique potential to create new employment
opportunities, small business growth and favorable conditions for culinary entrepreneurs in Boston and its neighborhoods
There is an increasing demand, particularly among people 18 to 44, for freshly prepared, restaurant quality food that can be had quick and cheap
Whereas vendors in the mobile industry have faced complex rules and regulations in other communities, [this ordinance] is being set forth to streamline administrative processes, effectively work with the industry and secure the highest quality of life for all Bostonians
Mobile Food Truck Committee seeks to "ensure mobile vending in Boston remains creative, flexible, and most importantly mobile."
Licensing: Department of Public Works coordinates permitting process Additional requirements depending on location Vendors must purchase and install GPS tracking devices so that their location can
be tracked Must have property lease or letter of agreement from landlord (private property
vending) Landowner must have Use of Premise Permit (from Inspectional Services
Department) (private property vending) Public Health, Safety, Environment, Quality of Life: Report to fixed licensed food establishment (commissary) two times a day Must be a certified food manager
Street vending: Establishment of site licenses for locations in the public right of way For 2012: 17 sites, categorized into City Hall Plaza, Prime, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 Each site further separated into breakfast, lunch and dinner shifts Site licenses will be issued according to a two tier process:
o Lottery system for City Hall Plaza, Prime, and Tier 1 locations for vendors who apply for them. Vendors separated into 3 groups based on good standing criteria. At public meeting, vendors are randomly selected (within each group, starting with 1) whereby they select a site and shift. Process continues until all shifts are filled.
o Schedule requests then submitted for Tier 2 and 3 locations (and any remaining Tier 1). Mobile Food Truck Committee issues site approvals.
o Committee can exercise discretion "to ensure that trucks are not in competition with each other or surrounding food retail."
o Vendors are limited to a maximum number of shifts at a given location (e.g. no more than 3 lunches/week at Prime sites)
74
Boston (continued)
Private property vending: Food trucks not specifically defined in zoning code Retail Catering: "Sale over the counter .. of on-premises prepared food or drink for
off-premises consumption or for on-premises consumption if, as so sold, such food or drink is ready for take-out." o Principal use: Conditional or Allowed in business and industrial districts,
Forbidden in residential districts o Accessory use: business uses forbidden in residential districts §10-2
Ease of acquiring information/process: Dedicated web page to food trucks Single, integrated application process for permits
Other policies/initiatives: Mayor's Food Truck Challenge - invited local entrepreneurs to present their food
truck menus and concepts for a chance to receive permits to operate on City Hall Plaza as well as financial support from the City of Boston
The City has also launched an online survey for food truck vendors and for the general public, asking them to let us know where they are interested in seeing food trucks in the city. The City is looking at locations where food trucks can thrive, with consideration toward factors such as existing 'bricks & mortar' restaurants, pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and emergency vehicle access. The BRA is also looking at the city landscape and coming up with a list of recommendations – places where food trucks would work well and help to activate an area.
City list/map of food trucks and schedules City Office of Food Initiatives, Food Truck Coordinator
75
Denver, CO
Policy Statements: N/A
Licensing: Retail Food Mobile License issued by Denver Business Licensing Center.
Requires: o Zone Use Permit for storage or operation of unit on private property o Environmental Health and Fire inspection certification o Commissary agreement
Public Health, Safety, Environment, Quality of Life: Must report to a commissary at least once daily Health Department review of proposed menu
Street vending: No vending within 20 feet of an intersection No vending within specified central business district Vending within 300 feet of a public park or parkway requires Parks Department
permit No chairs, tables, or exterior signs
Private property vending: Allowed in specified zoning districts (no residential districts, certain downtown
districts excluded) Use is regulated as Retail Food Establishment, Mobile Hours:
o Between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. only o Limited to 4 hours each day per zone lot
Location restrictions: o Prohibited in lots that are undeveloped, have uninhabited structures, or are
unpaved o Must be 200 feet from any eating and drinking establishment or other food
truck o Must be 50 feet from a residential zone district
1 vendor per lot (except for special event permit) Can vend without permit for less than 30 minutes at a location (temporary use, all
zone districts) No structures, tables or seating
Ease of acquiring information/process: City-County multi-departmental food truck guide Retail Food Mobile License page on Business Licensing web site Public Health Department web site for mobile retail food establishments with links
and detailed guide
76
Durham, NC
Policy Statements: N/A
Licensing: County health certification Fixed location vending (FLV) permit for street vending
Public Health, Safety, Environment, Quality of Life: Street vending
o Must provide trash receptacles o Must collect litter within 10 feet area at least once every hour
Street vending: Çity manager maintains a list of locations certified by chief of police as suitable for
vending Permits are site specific and contain permitted operating days/hours, determined by
the manager Tents, tables, chairs, etc. can only be present during the hours specified in the
permit Private property vending: Zoning code does not list mobile vending as a specific use Restaurants are permitted in several commercial, industrial and downtown design
districts Ease of acquiring information/process: Minimal information on city, county or state web pages Not all codes are available in public databases
Other policies/initiatives:
77
Hoboken, NJ Policy Statements: "[T]here is a need for codification of rules and regulations relating to mobile retail
food vendors within the City." "The City of Hoboken encourages the growth of Mobile Retail Food Vendors
within the City of Hoboken while regulating the side effects of this growing industry, such as parking, traffic and waste disposal."
The law "limits the proximity of Mobile Retail Food Trucks to brick and mortar restaurants to secure safe and adequately spaced sidewalks in case of a fire, flood, and other natural or manmade disaster."
"While serving similar purposes, selling food to residents, mobile food trucks and brick and mortar restaurants function separately and are not complimentary in nature."
"The City seeks to locate Mobile Food Trucks in areas to better serve mobile populations.
Licensing: Health inspection For vending on public property:
o City license o Health Certificate from Department of Health o Parking permit from Department of Transportation o Must have on-vehicle GPS unit for tracking of vehicle o Health Department may limit the number of total licenses issued or renewed o Maximum of 25 licenses for Mobile Retail Motorized Food Vendors issued
per year Public Health, Safety, Environment, Quality of Life: Public property vendors:
o Must provide trash and recycling receptacles o Responsible for litter within 5 feet of vehicle o Parking only in designated permit zones or metered parking spaces
Street vending: 35 foot maximum length for trucks Operating hours: Sunday-Thursday 6:00AM - 9:00PM, Friday and Saturday
6:00AM - 11:00PM No provision of dining area Permit must be used continuously (revoked after 14 days of non use) Vending at least 75 feet from the business entrance of any menu-serving restaurant No more than 4 continuous hours in a permit parking space or 2 hours in a metered
zone (up to 6 hours with extended parking endorsement) Must pay for first 2 hours of metered parking Maximum of 2 vendors on a block Cannot park for "longer than the time it takes to make a sale to a customer"
78
Hoboken (continued) Private property vending: No specific regulations for mobile food vendors Retail businesses
o Permitted in some residential areas if block currently has two other retail businesses (restaurants are conditional use)
o Accessory use in some industrial districts (restaurants are conditional) o Permitted in special Review districts
Ease of acquiring information/process: No specific web pages or information for food trucks
Other policies/initiatives:
79
Honolulu, HI Policy Statements: N/A
Licensing: City peddlers license State food establishment permit
Public Health, Safety, Environment, Quality of Life: Must provide trash receptacle Must visit commissary at the end of each day
Street vending: No peddling in a school zone while school is in session Limit of 15 minutes in any one location on a public street or highway. Must move
at least 300 feet away for at least 3 hours Private property vending: Zoning code does not mention mobile food vending specifically Retail establishments include "establishments where food or drink is sold on the
premises for immediate consumption, but which lack appropriate accommodations for on-premise eating or drinking."
Retail establishments permissible in resort/business districts only Ease of acquiring information/process: No dedicated web sites to vending (very sparse web presence overall) Relatively short and simple ordinances
Other policies/initiatives: New food truck bill (Bill 59) proposes to increase time limit for street vending to 2
hours
80
Los Angeles, CA Policy Statements: N/A
Licensing: City business tax registration L.A. County plan review and health certification
Public Health, Safety, Environment, Quality of Life: Must provide litter receptacle and dispose of any trash related to the vending
operation Must report to a commissary at least daily Must have access to a restroom within 200 feet if in one location for more than one
hour Street vending: "Catering trucks" prohibited from dispensing victuals:
o Within 100 feet from an intersection o Within 200 feet of designated parks or portions of parks o Within 500 feet of the nearest property line of any school
Private property vending: No specific provisions for mobile food facilities. Restaurants permitted in most
commercial districts. Ease of acquiring information/process: No web sites dedicated to mobile food vending
Other policies/initiatives:
81
Madison, WI Policy Statements: Restrictions on vending areas justified by "circumstances present within [this]
geographic location, including but not limited to the proximity of businesses, university, and residential uses, buildings situated primarily with zero setbacks, high volume of pedestrian traffic, varying sidewalk space, and the volume of vehicle traffic, making this area appropriate to limit street vending to assigned sites only with regulations in addition to the city-wide vending requirements."
Licensing: Basic street vending license from Planning Department
o Allows Up to 5 supplemental employees under single license o Special permits needed for:
State Street Mall/Capital Concourse Late night vending High density areas, e.g. SE Campus
Mall/Concourse or High Density vending license (if desired) Late Night Vending area license (if desired) Mobile Food Establishment license - Issued by Madison and Dane County Public
Health Department Peddler's license (for vending on private property)
Public Health, Safety, Environment, Quality of Life: Vendors are encouraged to use recyclable packaging Must operate out of a base Regulation of vending site cleanliness and safety
Street vending: Vending licenses are granted for specific locations for Mall/Concourse, high
density, and late night vending Need special approval from oversight committee for vending on "arterial" or
"collector" streets with speed limit greater than 25 MPH located directly adjacent to or across the street from a school property
Hours: o Vending permitted between 5:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m. in Mall/Concourse area o 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. in Late Night Vending areas o No vending between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. in any residentially zoned
district
82
Madison (continued) Private property vending: Mobile vending not specified in zoning code
o Zoning code requires business to be conducted in completely enclosed buildings
According to city web site, vending on private property only permitted: o On property zoned for commercial use o If direct connection between the products normally sold on the commercial
private property and the products sold by the vendor (must be accessory to existing business)
o No vending on private property zoned for residential use Ease of acquiring information/process: County Mobile Food Establishment web site with guidelines, checklists, forms Dedicated Street Vending web site with forms and maps Web site erroneously states that vending is only allowed at special events or in City
parks (contradicts code and later portion of the web site) Other policies/initiatives: Vending Oversight Committee made up of representatives from different parts of
the city, current vendors as non-voting technical advisors Office of Business Resources - provides "start-up, retention, expansion and
attraction information and guidance" including local, federal and state financial assistance programs
83
Miami, FL Policy Statements: N/A
Licensing: Business Tax Receipt for Vehicle Peddlers from Department of Finance Dade County Public Health license
Public Health, Safety, Environment, Quality of Life: Responsible for maintaining a 15 foot radius trash and refuse clear area County health plan review
Street vending: Prohibited vending locations:
o Public parking spaces (metered or otherwise) o Within 500 feet of schools between 7:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on school days o Within 20 feet of a licensed sidewalk café
Prohibited in specified special vending districts Cannot remain in any one location longer than necessary to make a sale
Private property vending: Mobile food vendors are not specifically listed in zoning code. Food service
establishments are allowed by right, warrant, or special exception in various T4, T5, T6, Civic, and special districts
Temporary Use/Special Event permit o Can be issued two times per year per property, for maximum of two weeks
each Temporary Use of Vacant Land permit
o Parking lots and abandoned properties are not considered vacant land o Available for 6 months, renewable up to 2 years
Temporary Use permits require informal notice be given to: o Adjacent property owners o Registered neighborhood and/or homeowner associations
Ease of acquiring information/process: No specific web sites about mobile food vending 2011 Media Advisory, "Information on Food Truck City Zoning Ordinance,"
provides a brief overview of relevant codes Other policies/initiatives:
84
Minneapolis, MN Policy Statements: Licensing: Mobile Food Vendor license from Department of Public Works State Department of Health plan review
Public Health, Safety, Environment, Quality of Life: Commissary within city required No seating allowed No broadcasts of sound or visuals Self-contained generator Must pick up all trash
Street vending: Allowed only in designated locations. Maps highlight specific streets,
neighborhoods, or corners Must be at least 100 feet from a restaurant, food manufacturer, coffee shop, or
public market unless written waiver Spots are not assigned or reserved Hours - 6:00AM to midnight or 6:00AM to 10:00PM if within 300 feet of a
residential building Specific requirements for certain sites
o Vending times less than general provision o One vendor per block
Private property vending: Only allowed at approved parking lot locations Must be at least 100 feet from a restaurant, food manufacturer, coffee shop, or
public market unless written consent granted Hours - 6:00AM to midnight or 6:00AM to 10:00PM if within 300 feet of a
residential building Only one vendor per lot Zoning code does not list mobile food vending as a use. Restaurants are permitted
or conditional use in most districts. Cafeteria and similar food services can be accessory to nonresidential uses if "primarily for the convenience of the employers, clients, or visitors of the principle use."
Ease of acquiring information/process: Business Licenses department web page with links to Business License Information
Program brochure, regulations, maps, site specific guidelines, application forms Detailed application checklist
Other policies/initiatives: State guide - "Starting a Food Business in Minnesota"
85
Portland, OR Policy Statements: Food carts offer a unique and flexible opportunity for the micro-entrepreneur
looking to test their family recipes, incubate their business idea, or just to provide for the needs of their family.
Licensing: No permit requirements for vending on private property or street, only sidewalk
(not food trucks). Public Health, Safety, Environment, Quality of Life: County health: plan review and inspection Must notify of menu, location or route changes Food handler cards Commissary not required if unit has all appropriate water and sewer capabilities
Street vending: Cannot "conduct business in a roadway adjacent to or directly across from
residential property for a period longer than 10 minutes within any block face. Such vendor must vacate said block face for a period of 2 hours upon expiration of the 10-minute limit."
Private property vending: Restrictions for vehicles over 16' No specific coverage for mobile food vendors Retail Sales and Service includes food sales - allowed in commercial,
employment/industrial, and some multi-dwelling zones Parking lot sales allowed as temporary use in certain commercial, employment,
industrial and central residential districts Ease of acquiring information/process: Minimal regulations/applications Central web site with links to publications, other department webpages, private
sources of information Clear & concise instructions
Other policies/initiatives: Food Policy Council - Established to study and advise the city on "local food issues
including hunger relief; nutrition; food business and industrial practices; local farming; community education and institutional food purchasing and practices."
86
San Francisco, CA Policy Statements: "The wide range of fare provided by Mobile Food Facilities is typically offered at
low or moderate prices and in many cases represents novel or innovative cuisine. When located appropriately, Mobile Food Facilities add vitality to the street, contribute to the richness of San Francisco's culinary and cultural offerings, and provide economic opportunities especially for small business persons.
Recognize that mobile food facilities have become an increasingly significant feature of the streetscape in the city, like in many major cities
Address the growing trend by streamlining rules and regulations, making it easier and cheaper to become a legal street-food vendor
Licensing: Department of Public Health issues Mobile Food Franchise permit. Completed
application includes: o Department of Health approval certificate o Planning Department approval (when required for Temporary Use or
Conditional Use permit) o Fire Department certification
Permits are site/route specific Public Health, Safety, Environment, Quality of Life: Unit must return to commissary at end of the day Must have permission to use restroom facilities within 200 feet of unit if parked for
more than 1 hour Review of menu and operational procedures, vehicle and cooking/food storage
facilities Good neighbor policies
o Maintain quiet, safety and cleanliness of premises o Provide storage of trash o Contain noise and odors o Display notice urging patrons to leave the area in a quiet and orderly manner
and to not litter o Vendor responsible for picking up trash in a 100 foot radius within 30 minutes
of closing Must provide containers for source separation of recyclables, compostables, and
trash [recycling] Food Service Waste Reduction Ordinance
o No use of polystyrene foam in disposable service ware o Must use biodegradable, compostable, or recyclable food service ware unless
no affordable alternative
87
San Francisco (continued) Street vending: No vending between 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Permits can allow more than one vendor at a particular location Public review of new applications, location changes, hours after 8:00 p.m.
o Notice of Intent mailed to all businesses within 300 feet of proposed location o For vendors operating after 8:00 p.m., Notice of Intent also sent to all property
owners and residential tenants within the 300 feet area Permits limited to map designated zones (not purely residential zones) Cannot operate within 1500 feet of a public school (M-F 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.)
Private property vending: Permanent use
o Mobile Food Facility treated the same as a brick and mortar restaurant for zoning purposes
o Must complete Neighborhood Notification process in specified residential and commercial districts (30 day period within which a discretionary review hearing can be requested)
Restaurant retail allowed in commercial, some special districts, select residential districts
Temporary Use Authorization (TUA) o Does not require building permit o Does not require building permit o Not applicable for residential districts o Vendor presence on property limited to 3 days/week or 6 days/week with
maximum of 12 hours per day Ease of acquiring information/process: Department of Public Works dedicated web page with links to ordinance, permit
application packet, frequently asked questions, permit maps, guidelines for new applicants, sample drawings, forms, public records pertaining to food trucks
Flowchart of licensing process Department of Health forms and checklists available online Department of Planning dedicated web page with links to forms, guidelines, maps,
etc. Interdepartmental links Private web sites for consumers and prospective vendors
Other policies/initiatives: Small Business Assistance center Executive Directive on Healthy and Sustainable Food (2010)
88
Seattle, WA Policy Statements: Food vending can help: Improve public safety Enhance quality of life Attract foot traffic to commercial districts, create more vibrant retail business
climate (Low-cost, culturally-diverse food options) Promote community health (access to fresh produce) Be a low-cost, entry-level business opportunity to help entrepreneurs develop a
business track record and build a loyal clientele; valuable economic point of entry for immigrant and refugee communities
Goals: Well-managed street-food vending with appropriate oversight and enforcement Ensure compatibility with existing businesses Attract and preserve businesses in the Historic District
Licensing: State business license City business license SDOT vending permit for street vending
Public Health, Safety, Environment, Quality of Life: Seattle and King County Public Health Department plan review:
o design of mobile food unit o commissary agreement o Details of menu and food preparation processes o restroom agreement o site or route information
Street vendors must provide trash, recycling and composting receptacles Street vending: Vending is allowed only in specifically designated Food-Vehicle Zones Zones are designated based on vendor application
o Only in non-residential zoned areas o Must have clear pedestrian zone area o Setbacks: 50 feet from food-service business, 15 feet from any business
entrance or exit, 1000 feet from any school with a 9th-12th grade class o Only one Food-Vehicle Zone per block face - can accommodate up to 2
vehicles Permit assigns 4 hour blocks of time, tied to that assigned zone. Can apply for
multiple zones.
89
Seattle (continued) Private property vending: Vending in legal commercially zoned parking lots is permitted with the approval of
the property owner Intermittent temporary use permits - allow vending for two days a week. Can allow
multiple vendors. Permanent use permits - requires trailer to meet building code standards Vacant and Underused Lot Pilot Program - designates up to 20 vacant/underused
lots which can be used for vending, subject to temporary use permitting. Ease of acquiring information/process: Econ Development webpage on Street-Food Vending Street-Food Vending checklist SDOT webpage and (Street use Vending Permits) and Client Assistance Memos
(CAMs) Planning and Development web page (private prop) Seattle and King County Health Department dedicated page with associated forms
Other policies/initiatives:
90
St. Louis, MO Policy Statements: N/A
Licensing: City business license for establishment Health Department permit Identification certificate for each employee Special permit for Downtown Vending District
o Maximum two permits per vendor o Permit review can consider vendor's contribution to diversity of products and
appearance of facilities in the district o Partnership for Downtown St. Louis must be included in the permit review
process o Maximum of 10 vendor permits for City Parks Area of Downtown district
Public Health, Safety, Environment, Quality of Life: Must provide trash containers and not use public trash bins Vendors are responsible for collecting and disposing of all trash within 15 feet Only single-service or single-use articles Must report to a licensed commissary at least daily Must submit trash disposal plan (Downtown district)
Street vending: Only permitted in designated vending districts Vending from 6AM to 11PM No vending within 150 feet of another licensed vendor or existing business that
sells comparable goods No vending within 300 feet of a fair or festival Vehicles must have flashing signals indicating that sales are being conducted Downtown district:
o Can only vend from map designated locations (not within 200 feet of a restaurant, assigned vendor space, or other identified areas)
o No outdoor seating allowed Private property vending: No specific mention of Food trucks. Possibly considered a carry-out restaurant - "A
restaurant where food, frozen dessert, or beverages are primarily sold in a packaged, ready-to-consume state, intended for ready consumption by the customer on or off the premises."
Prohibited in Central Business District Ease of acquiring information/process: Department of Streets web site with checklist, regulations, forms, maps
91
St. Louis (continued) Other policies/initiatives: Downtown Motorized Food Truck Vending District Pilot 2011 program Downtown Vending District Parks Fund to be used for improvement of parks in the
Downtown Vending District
92
Works Cited
Alexander, Christopher, Ishikawa, Sara, & Silverstein, Murray. (1977). A pattern language : towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Barnett, Jonathan. (2011). A Short Guide to 60 of the Newest Urbanisms. Planning, 77(4), 19-21.
Bierman, Libby. (2011). Top 5 Businesses to Start in 2011. Forbes. Retrieved from
McFarlane, Colin. (2011). The city as a machine for learning. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 36(3), 360-376.
Mehaffy, Michael. (2008). Generative methods in urban design: a progress assessment. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 1(1), 57-
75.
Mehta, Vikas. (2007). Lively Streets: Determining Environmental Characteristics to Support
Social Behavior. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27(2), 165-187.
Mehta, Vikas, & Bosson, Jennifer K. (2010). Third Places and the Social Life of Streets.
Environment and Behavior, 42(6), 779-805.
Oldenburg, Ray. (1999). The great good place : cafés, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. New York, Berkeley: Marlowe.
Ottuski, Romy. (2011). The Food Truck: A Photographic Retrospective. Flavorwire. Retrieved
from http://flavorwire.com/213637/the-food-truck-a-photographic-retrospective
Page, Scott. (2008). DIY Urbanism. Retrieved from http://www.planetizen.com/node/30577
Patton, Michael Quinn. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3 ed.). Thousand
Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Reynolds, Lark. (2011). First Look: Sexy Taco. GreenvilleOnline. Retrieved from
San Francisco Planning & Urban Research Association. (2010). DIY Urbanism. Urbanist, (September 2010). Retrieved from http://www.spur.org/publications/library/article/diy-
urbanism
Sayers, Megan. (2011). Following Food Trucks with Social Media Drive (blog). The Next Web.
Retrieved from http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2011/04/14/following-food-trucks-
with-social-media-drive/
Scott, Izabella. (2011). Gardeners in crime. Financial Times. Retrieved from
Strauss, Anselm L., & Corbin, Juliet M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Technomic Consulting. (2011). Food Trucks Have Staying Power [Press Release]. Retrieved from
