Back Off Ban on Vendors, City Advised

The Anaheim city attorney has determined that the city, as a result of a change in state law, has less authority than previously thought to ban street vendors. As a result, he said Tuesday, the city should “back off.”

Changes in the state vehicle code may prevent Anaheim from barring street vendors, City Atty. Jack White said--news that was greeted as “a great victory” by Salvador Sarmiento, an attorney for the vendors. Sarmiento cautioned, however, that a revised ordinance before the City Council still poses problems for the vendors.

White’s announcement caused dismay for representatives of the apartment dwellers whose complaints about litter, noise and traffic congestion led to some of the initial enforcement and regulation proposals affecting vendors. Residents of neighborhoods such as the predominantly Latino Chevy Chase area don’t want the vendors back in their neighborhoods, Frank Morales, a consultant with the Neighborhood Improvement Program of Anaheim, told the City Council Tuesday.

The council, which has been discussing stricter regulations of vendors for months, is scheduled to adopt a new ordinance next Tuesday.

The latest version before the council would change a 60-year-old local law barring street vendors from business districts, which the city interprets to include apartment neighborhoods. The proposed law will regulate vendors, but not ban them from apartment neighborhoods.

The law banning vendors from business districts became an issue last December when the city began a crackdown in apartment neighborhoods frequented by vendors, who in turn complained of discrimination.

On Sept. 24, a group of vendors filed a lawsuit and won a temporary restraining order that allows them to sell their goods in the apartment neighborhoods until the next court hearing.

Change in State Law

In doing research in response to the lawsuit, White said his staff discovered a recent change in state law which took out language from the vehicle code specifically allowing cities to ban street vendors. Because that wording was taken out effective Jan. 1 of this year, “a good argument can be made that the city cannot prohibit vending on streets,” White said.

Sarmiento said, “What they’re in essence saying is that my lawsuit is correct.”

Not quite, said White, who would not concede Tuesday that the city has acted against state law.

“It’s an omission in the statute--not a section that says ‘Thou shalt not ban vendors,’ ” White said. “If pressed, I would still make an argument that we have the right to prohibit them. (But it’s) a lot easier to back off that point.”

Allows Vending From Vehicles

The latest proposal before the council allows street vending in any area of the city from vehicles, but bans pushcarts or bicycle-powered carts commonly used to sell ice cream. The ordinance also deletes the prohibition on vending from “business districts,” sets insurance requirements to a maximum of $500,000, bans amplified music and sets higher permit application fees, among other regulations.

Sarmiento emphasized that the vendors are far from satisfied with some of the regulations the city still is considering. The latest proposal also does not make up for the lost business and lost dollars the vendors have suffered as a result of the law’s enforcement, Sarmiento said Tuesday afternoon.

“The real concern is, if they’re admitting that they were wrong, what is going to happen to all the people who were hurt by this?” Sarmiento said.

Businesses Hurt

Pedro Vasquez, the new president of the Union de Comerciantes Latinos del Sur de California (Union of Southern California Latin Merchants), told the council Tuesday that several of the proposed restrictions--such as banning amplified music--would hurt their businesses.

Vasquez and Sarmiento said each vendor has lost thousands of dollars for every month code enforcement officers have stopped them from selling in the apartment neighborhoods, their most lucrative selling spots. Some, such as Jose Luis Bucio--who organized the vendors association--have gone out of business. Many were cited by the city, pleaded guilty and paid fines, Sarmiento said.

John Poole, head of code enforcement, said his staff had issued more than 100 citations since last December, but many were for a combination of violations--such as lack of public health permits--and not solely for selling in apartment neighborhoods. Some of the cases are pending, Poole said.

White would not comment Tuesday on the citations already issued based on the current ordinance, other than to say, “What happened in the past is past. What I’m saying should not be interpreted as admitting there was anything wrong with those citations or guilty pleas. My point is that there is a reasonable argument which can be made (by the vendors) that we can’t prohibit them.”

Lawsuit Moot

If the council adopts the ordinance next Tuesday, the lawsuit by the vendors would become moot, White said. Sarmiento said Tuesday afternoon that he needed to confer with his clients before making any decision on the pending lawsuit.

Meanwhile, some of the residents who live in the Chevy Chase and Lynne-Jeffrey neighborhoods have complained that the litter and noise have returned to their areas since the court two weeks ago granted the vendors temporary approval to sell fresh produce, ice cream and other goods. Morales also complained that the added traffic creates an environment conducive to drug trafficking--an argument raised before and disputed vehemently by vendors such as Vasquez, who said the correlation of the two issues is offensive.

“One more time, we don’t deal in drugs,” the visibly upset Vasquez told the council. “All of us are just trying to make a decent living.”

The issue of regulating street vendors has been before the City Council several times this year as the council has considered various ordinances which have come under attack first by Latino street vendors and later by a larger catering company which sells at industrial sites.

The council has repeatedly postponed a decision on the stricter regulations at the request of the Anaheim-based Orange County Food Service and the city’s Chamber of Commerce, which became involved in the issue after the catering company objected to the proposals. Some vendors and Latino leaders have accused the city of discriminating against Anaheim’s Latino community because both the vendors and their clients are predominantly Latino.