Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Vending Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee delays vote on county street vending permit after safety and scope questions
Summary
The Policy Committee on Infrastructure and Assets postponed consideration of Bill 184, which would create a special activity permit for commercial vending on county streets and raise permit fees from $25 to $50, after members pressed for clearer safety, location and scale limits.
Council member Inaba on behalf of the bill’s authors summarized Bill 184 as a new permitting system to allow vending and selling on county rights-of-way — including sidewalks and shoulders — and to raise a permit fee from $25 to $50. The bill would create a special activity permit and a process for temporary commercial activity on county streets.
Deputy Chief Mahuna, appearing for Chief Moskowitz, told the committee he had reviewed the draft and said, “We have no issues with this bill.” He also offered to provide citation counts from the department’s records-management system if the committee wanted enforcement data.
Committee members pressed for clearer, explicit safety language and a defined approach to identifying where vending would be allowed. Council Chair Kimball said she was concerned about vehicle speeds, shoulder width and whether a location provides sufficient room for parking and pedestrian movement; she asked that police be able to weigh in on safety before permits are issued. Public Works Director Steve Houssey said engineering review and police input could be built into an application process and flagged additional review topics including parking adequacy, pedestrian risk, waste management and potential sound nuisance from generators.
Members debated two implementation paths: setting permitted locations in a schedule in the county code (which would require additional readings) or designating locations by resolution (which would allow faster changes). Inaba said the current draft intentionally leaves size limits flexible and relies on department discretion, and explained the bill’s intention that setups be removed daily — described in discussion as a ‘‘6 to 6’’ provision — to avoid overnight encampments.
Council members also raised economic and jurisdictional questions: Council member Kaguya Wada asked whether the permit could be used for full-time businesses and whether such activity would unfairly compete with brick-and-mortar merchants. Several members noted many roadside vendors operate on state highways, outside county jurisdiction, and Director Houssey said state enforcement efforts on state rights-of-way have been uneven.
After discussion, Council member Inaba moved to postpone Bill 184 to the committee’s September 16 meeting to allow makers and departments to return with more precise language on permitted locations, safety criteria and operational limits. The motion to postpone passed.
The committee did not take final action on the ordinance itself; the bill remains scheduled for further committee consideration on Sept. 16.
