Logo courtesy of the City of Galt

GALT, CA (MPG) - The City Council here Oct. 6 unanimously approved sending a letter to the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors opposing the proposal to implement a countywide Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operations (MEHKO) program.

The first-of-its-kind program was established by state law in 2019 under the California Retail Food Code whereby individuals can apply for permits allowing them to sell freshly prepared meals directly to customers from their home kitchens. The program, which operates in 17 counties and the city of Berkeley, has some restrictions such as requiring permit applicants to pass an accredited food safety management course while others involved must possess an up-to-date accredited food handlers’ card.

According to the city staff report, Sacramento County originally declined to opt into the program. In recent months, the county Environmental Management Department (EMD) has conducted public outreach and research into creating a program, receiving feedback from individuals, food businesses and perhaps others.

Kristyn Bitz, Galt Community Development Department planner told the council that if the county enacted a MEHKO program all jurisdictions in the county would have no choice but to opt in.

“Which means the city of Galt, like all the other cities in the county, would have to allow these enterprise kitchens in residential zoning districts,” Bitz said.

Many of the city’s concerns revolve around potential impacts to local zoning requirements and infrastructure — impacts echoed by council members during a discussion. Allowing MEKHOs in single-family zones would mix commercial restaurant activity with residential uses — something zoning is designed to prevent.

MEKHOs could increase vehicle traffic in neighborhoods, create demand for parking and increase noise, odors and waste. The increased cooking might also produce more wastewater, oils, fats and grease than residential waste disposal systems are designed to handle.

“It does erode the characteristics of a residential zoning district,” Bitz said. “Houses weren’t built for this activity.”

Council members expressed concerns about increased traffic in neighborhoods. Councilman Mathew Pratton said he lives on a busy, long and straight road where speeding vehicles already create issues for residents. Vice Mayor Tim Reed said he lives on a cul-de-sac, which cannot handle potential increased parking demands.

“That’s not what people bought homes for,” Reed added.

According to a presentation from Sacramento County EMD, MEHKOs must be operated by the primary resident in their own home, with renters needing landlord permission. Meals must be prepared and served the same day and are limited to dine-in, takeout or delivery with the latter required to be made by someone associated with the MEHKO and not a delivery service such as Uber or DoorDash.

Restrictions on MEHKOs include prohibiting the storage of prepared foods, displaying signs or advertising onsite, off-site catering and serving alcohol without a license. MEHKOs are also limited to serving 30 meals per day and 60 meals a week or 80 meals per day and 200 per week if a permitted compact mobile food operator is used.

“Who polices that?” Councilman Shawn Farmer asked.

City Attorney Frank Splendorio said it would fall to county health inspectors, who would also be responsible for periodic health inspections.

“Are these the same county health inspectors who rarely show up at the businesses we have already?” Farmer replied.

Splendorio said they are.

Concerns, too, were raised about impacts of MEKHOs on Galt’s existing restaurants and other food businesses such as permitted food trucks. Both commercial interests require extensive financial investments and time to obtain permits and licenses and adhere to regulations governing their operations.

“It’s very difficult to get an approval for a food truck in Galt,” Bitz said. “Much more difficult than setting up a MEHKO would be.”

During public comment, Africa Cook, a member of the Sacramento County MEHKO Coalition, asked the council to hold off on sending a letter of opposition to the county until they learned more about the home kitchen business. She said MEHKO operators understand concerns over impacts to residential neighborhoods, health safety and fairness, and ask the council to look not at what might happen but what has happened with MEHKOs in other communities.

A report issued by the Cook Alliance, a home-based food business nonprofit, using public records from cities and law enforcement, indicate that more than 97% of MEHKOs had never received a complaint of any kind between 2019 and 2024. Thirty-two complaints were received about the 898 licensed MEHKOs compared to 606 complaints about unlicensed home food businesses during the same period. Only two of the complaints against MEHKOs pertained to food-borne illnesses.

“What that report has shown is the common fears around MEHKOs have not shown to be valid,” Cook said. “Regulating this activity makes the food economy more fair not less fair for the brick and mortar restaurants.”

The report also indicated 73% of MEHKOs have provided meaningful financial household income, something Cook said is key given the negative economic impacts now on families. Seventy-nine percent of operators are people of color and 70% are women. Additionally, 61% of MEHKO operators said they were profitable. Fifty-seven percent said it provided income when they were unable to find work. Fifty-three percent said it helped pay mortgages and rent and 32% said it helped them to “grow towards a larger food business.”

The report also shows takeout makes up 56% of MEHKOs’ business. Thirty-two percent is dine-in and 11% is delivery. It also shows 44% of MEHKO operators provide “dishes specific to my cultural community” and 35% use locally-sourced ingredients — attributes the report’s survey respondents said they found appealing.

In deciding to write the letter to the county, council members said they were not trying to stifle business opportunities.

“This is about trying to have a level playing field for people who want to operate businesses in this town,” Farmer said. “For me, it’s about the location, where it’s allowed, not about entrepreneurship.”

Besides sending the letter of opposition to the county, Reed volunteered to represent Galt at an Oct. 20 Board of Supervisors meeting and give public comment.