Sidewalk vendors in Los Angeles are at the center of a hotly contested debate and pending lawsuit about whether the city can legally impose “no-vending areas,” which advocate groups and attorneys for the mobile business owners say violates Senate Bill 946– the first step to decriminalize sidewalk vending throughout the state, signed into law by former Governor Jerry Brown in 2018.
But the passage of SB 946 upheld cities' authority to criminally cite vendors for county health department violations under the California Retail Food Code. This prompted lawmakers to amend the code with Senate Bill 972, which went into effect on January 1, 2023, decriminalizing sidewalk food sales in California. While cities are still able to conduct routine inspections of vendors' stands, violations are punishable only by administrative citations.
This latest bill affords vendors more entrepreneurial rights than ever before, but their plight is far from over, according to Doug Smith, director of policy for Public Counsel, one of the law firms suing the city of Los Angeles for its alleged "unlawful and discriminatory" vending zone restrictions. Smith said that in tandem with street vendors, his agency has, for over a decade, attempted to work with the city on its prohibitive measures to no avail.
Doug Smith, Public Counsel’s director of policy and coalition building
| Public Counsel
“This lawsuit is a continuation of that work — we are helping vendors enforce their rights and secure economic opportunity by challenging a city policy that is in violation of state law, and which unjustly denies vendors the ability to build their business and serve their communities,” Smith told Southern California Record.
“For generations, street vending was completely illegal in Los Angeles. A categorical ban prohibited street vending everywhere, with violations punished by criminal prosecution,” Smith said. “The consequences were severe. Vendors were arrested, faced exorbitant fines and an unending cycle of poverty, had their property seized and destroyed, and lived with all the harmful collateral consequences of a criminal conviction — all for trying to provide for their family after being excluded from other opportunities in the formal economy.”
Smith said the majority of vendors in Los Angeles are immigrants, and the threat of criminal conviction resulted in widespread fear, detention, deportation, and the disruption of families and communities. After years of organizing and building a political strategy, street vendors led a campaign to adopt SB 946, which required cities to allow sidewalk vending on equal terms with other businesses.
“When the city of L.A. adopted a local ordinance regulating street vending, certain ‘no- vending zones’ were included, covering large swaths of important street vending areas like the Hollywood Walk of Fame, LA Live, and Universal Studios with little justification,” he said. “These bans target vendors who have been working in these areas for decades, and clearly violate the terms of SB 946. These zones continue the worst features of the city’s prior criminalization and exclusion of street vendors, and they are patently inconsistent with an inclusive and welcoming economy.”
There is a clear need for a change in the law, Smith said.
“Sidewalk vendors have received thousands of dollars in fines for simply doing their jobs because they have long-established businesses in no-vending zones. Public Counsel has represented individual vendors with dozens of citations each. These citations are debt traps, subjecting low-income entrepreneurs to a vicious cycle of poverty and economic exclusion,” he said. “Aside from tickets, the city also enforces discriminatory regulations through harassment, intimidation, and threats of confiscation. Vendors frequently speak of the trauma that comes from being constantly harassed and mistreated in connection with the enforcement of these unlawful no vending zones.”
State law, through SD 946, states that cities may not place restrictions on where vending can occur. Smith said under SB 946, the issue is whether a city’s regulations or restrictions are “directly related to objective health, safety, or welfare concerns.”
That is not the case in most incidents.
“California cities may not prohibit sidewalk vending in certain geographic areas unless the restrictions are ‘directly related to objective health, safety, or welfare concerns,’” he said. “On the other hand, California cities are expressly empowered to adopt requirements regulating the time, place, and manner of sidewalk vending if the requirements are directly related to objective health, safety, or welfare concerns.”
Smith said the city of Los Angeles has not provided any objective evidence of direct health, safety, or welfare concerns that justify the no vending zones or other regulations in its Sidewalk Vending Rules.
“For example, sidewalk vendors are banned from operating within 500 feet of the Hollywood Walk of Fame, while a different city regulation actually encourages brick-and-mortar restaurants to set up sidewalk dining operations — a much larger obstruction of space. Encouraging larger sidewalk dining operations by brick-and-mortar restaurants in the very same location that street vendors are banned obliterates any argument that the ban on street vending was related to objective health, safety, or welfare concerns.”
In December of last year, the City of Los Angeles asked the court to dismiss the pending sidewalk vendor class action lawsuit; however, in March, 2023, Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant denied that request, paving the way for street vendors to continue their pursuit of justice, according to a press release.
Vendors in cities throughout California are struggling to comply in the regulatory tug-of-war between local and state laws, like the San Diego business owners who arguably face more complex challenges than their L.A. counterparts when it comes to location restrictions, although a lawsuit has yet to be filed there.
Much like Los Angeles, San Diego's long list of restricted vending locations include some of the city's most popular regions and tourist attractions.
In May 2022, the San Diego City Council approved Ordinance O-21459, which established an updated set of regulations and requirements for sidewalk vending throughout the city. It became effective on in June of last year, and has been at the center of debate over street vendors' rights.
San Diego City Councilwoman Vivian Moreno cast the lone no vote against the sidewalk vending ordinance. Moreno explained why in a statement.
“Street vendors, in many cases, are mom-and-pop businesses, immigrants, new Americans and people of color,” she said. “I support the need to regulate high-traffic areas to ensure that they are enjoyable and accessible for people to use. But not all areas are high traffic. Many roaming street vendors that operate in the communities of District 8 are appreciated members of the community and are not a problem, such as the tamale vendors that visit our neighborhoods on a regular basis.”
Moreno said the restrictions were “overly broad” and unfairly targeted people of color.
“I am a proud resident of San Ysidro, and we host the world’s busiest land border crossing. Our sidewalks are some of the busiest in the city. But the ordinance does not consider it high traffic because there was no real methodology used to determine which sidewalks were in fact high-traffic.
The result, intentional or not, is that the city is responding to concerns about hostility to street vendors who are, in large part, people of color.”
The Logan Heights Community Development Corporation has been advocating on behalf of sidewalk vendors for more than a year.
Leonardo Ortiz, Logan Heights CDC’s small business advisor, said the organization is in communication with 200 or more vendors. The nonprofit provides ongoing workshops to help vendors understand the rules and regulations set forth by the city, while giving vendors an outlet to express their concerns.
Ortiz told Southern California Record that San Diego's latest ordinance is burdensome for vendors.
“They’re definitely being restricted on spaces,” he said. “It’s become a lot more difficult for them to vend.”
The Port of San Diego has also updated its rules to enforce SB 946. Port spokesperson Brianne Page explained that the Port is a special district that was created by the California State Legislature in 1962 to manage San Diego Bay, including the 22 parks in its five member cities.
“The Port works to maximize public access and public recreational opportunities at its parks, as well as promoting the conservation and preservation of sensitive, natural resources within and along the bay,” Page told Southern California Record. “Although the Port is not subject to the requirements of the Safe Sidewalk Vending Act because it is not a city or county, it oftentimes elects to update its regulations to comply with laws that affect its member cities.”
Page shared some of the reasons why the Port updated its vending policies, including that staff regularly observed unsanitary conditions by non-permitted food vendors, prompting concerns about potential food-borne illnesses. On Sept. 24, 2022, Port staff conducted a joint field investigation with staff from the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health and Quality in response to an anonymous complaint about non-permitted vendors selling food in the Tuna Harbor area.
“DEHQ staff provided informational handouts to several food vendors and explained that a county health permit is required to sell food,” she said. “DEHQ staff’s report noted that 16 out of 18 un-permitted food vendors had no hand washing stations, and it documented one instance of a fruit vendor employee, who was not wearing gloves, allowing a dog to lick his hand in between sales.”
Safety was also a concern, Page said.
“Port staff has regularly observed an excessive number of vendors at specific locations that obstruct ingress and egress along its public walkways, which poses hazardous conditions for pedestrian and public safety. An excessive number of vendors can inhibit the ability of individuals with disabilities and other pedestrians to follow a safe path of travel and can interfere with the duties of police, firefighters, and other emergency medical personnel serving the area,” she said.
The commissioners approved the updated Port Code Sect. 8.05 on Feb. 14, 2023, which allocated 41 spaces along the Embarcadero for “expressive activity,” as well as 36 spaces for “commercial vending.”
The Port of San Diego’s Vending & Expressive Activity website offers complete information about its lottery system and how to apply.
Aside from the Port's unique jurisdictional circumstances, the debate continues about whether cities are entitled to impose vending location restrictions with SB 972 in place.
Smith said Public Counsel is confident that the court will enforce state law in favor of the street vendors suing the City of Los Angeles and uphold that local restrictions must be directly related to objective health, safety, and welfare concerns.
“Any California city that follows the state law and adopts thoughtful and inclusive regulations will have nothing to fear, and in fact will enjoy a healthier and more inclusive economy,” he said. “Cities that are intent on perpetuating an unjust legacy of economic exclusion through arbitrary exclusions are vulnerable to legal challenges.”