2 Justices Grill Anaheim’s Lawyer : Jurisprudence: State panel hears appeal of city ordinance that would ban street vending in residential neighborhoods.

An attorney for Anaheim was grilled Friday by an appellate court panel that seemed hostile to a city ordinance that would ban street vending in residential neighborhoods.

During a hearing before the 4th District Court of Appeal, Justices Edward J. Wallin and Thomas F. Crosby questioned Assistant City Atty. Max Slaughter for more than 30 minutes, asking him why they should not rule against the city of Anaheim and allow the street vendors to continue their operations.

The court was being asked by the vendors to keep in place an order the panel issued last November that forbids the city from enforcing its ordinance prohibiting residential sales by the vendors.

The city’s approximately 130 vendors, who are almost exclusively Latinos, sell a variety of products ranging from groceries to clothes to furniture from the back of trucks. Their opponents say the vendors bring crime, traffic congestion and litter to their neighborhoods and want the vendors limited to selling in commercial districts.

By his questions and statements, Wallin seemed to agree with the arguments of Birgit Seifert, the vendors’ attorney, that banning the sales would violate the vendors’ right to earn a living.

“Commercial trucks doing business in residential neighborhoods is common throughout the country and is part of our history,” Seifert, an attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, argued. She used the example of Anaheim resident Carl Karcher, the founder of the Carl’s Jr. restaurant chain, who began his career as a pushcart vendor selling hot dogs in downtown Los Angeles.

Replied Wallin: “I’m sure Mr. Karcher would be appalled at the city’s attempt to ban these entrepreneurs.”

Crosby said that the ordinance seemed vague and could be interpreted to ban pizza deliveries and ice cream and bread trucks, which does not appear to be the city’s intention. He also questioned whether the ordinance violates a state law that says cities may “regulate” vending but does not say a city may ban it.

When Slaughter argued that it is unlikely the city would use the ordinance to ban ice cream trucks, Crosby replied: “So, you are going to discriminate by enforcing the ordinance against the big (vendors), but not the little guys.”

After the hearing, Slaughter agreed that the justices seemed to favor the vendors. He said that if they rule against the city, it could take its case to the California Supreme Court.

The appellate panel is expected to issue a ruling within a few weeks.

Javier Barajas, president of the Southern California Street Vendors Assn. and the owner of a fleet of vending trucks that sell in Anaheim, said he felt “triumphant” after the hearing.

“From what little I heard, it appears that justice is going to be done for us,” Barajas said.