Council weighs allowing permitted food trucks on private lots; staff recommends pilot or administrative permitting

Justin Gardner, the city’s code compliance manager, presented a study-session discussion of potential changes to Chapter 5.82 governing food trucks. “This ordinance came before council back in 2014,” Gardner said, and he described the city’s current stance that mobile food facilities may operate in the public right of way but are not authorized to operate on private property unless the city explicitly permits it.

Gardner summarized options for council consideration: maintain the status quo, amend the ordinance to allow permitted mobile food facilities on private improved lots with written property-owner consent and an administrative review, or run a time-limited pilot program to evaluate outcomes. “Code staff was recommending either options 2 or 3 to be considered,” he said.

Why this matters: Council members described competing concerns — economic opportunities for restaurants and entrepreneurs, complaints about unpermitted sidewalk vendors, public-safety and ADA concerns, and the potential impact on brick-and-mortar restaurants.

Key facts and data presented: Gardner said Cathedral City recorded five food-truck vendor complaints between 2022 and 2025; four of the five were found to be unfounded following investigation. Gardner also noted increasing demand from existing restaurants interested in operating food trucks and from event organizers.

Council members and staff discussed specific guardrails that would accompany any expansion: allow operations only on improved (paved or surfaced) private lots, prohibit operations in residential zones, require evidence of Riverside County Environmental Health approval and city business licenses, require trash management and access to hand-washing and restroom facilities for staff when events exceed a set duration, impose time-of-day and signage rules consistent with municipal sign code, and consider limiting the total number of administrative permits or tying activity to special events.

Liability and insurance were raised repeatedly. When asked who would be liable if a customer were injured on private property where a food truck operated, Gardner said the property owner would ultimately be responsible and that a written consent/contract should reflect risk allocation. Council members urged that both property owners and vendors show appropriate insurance. Gardner said he would seek examples and standard language from other jurisdictions.

Council members expressed interest in a cautious, limited approach rather than an open-ended authorization. Several members favored a pilot program or tightly defined administrative permit option restricted to improved lots, non-residential areas and event-driven uses. Council Member (name recorded in the transcript as Land) said a pilot and time-limited windows — for example during special events or targeted days — could be acceptable if the rules prevented negative impacts on nearby restaurants and preserved ADA access.

Council requested staff to return with comparative agreements and permit language from other Coachella Valley cities. Gardner said he would reach out to neighboring cities for their processes and added that Riverside County Environmental Health had told staff it can perform food-safety inspections regardless of whether a truck operates on public or private property.

Ending: No ordinance change or vote was taken at the study session. Staff was directed to compile example agreements, model administrative-permit language, and options for a limited pilot program and return to council for follow-up study and potential action.