Sidewalk Vendors 2: Vend-lectric Boogaloo
Indigenous People's Day is proclaimed in Hayward, The City Council supports street vendors, Zermeño has some concerns, and New bus benches are coming.
The Sidewalk Vending Ordinance came before the City Council again this Tuesday, October 10. And, wouldn’t you know it, I read the ordinance so you don’t have to. Enjoy the feast before you!
Indigenous Proclamation Cakes With Local Honey
Mayor Salinas read a Land Acknowledgement, presumably informed by the Muwekma Ohlone people, and read a declaration officially proclaiming the Second Monday of October as Indigenous People’s Day in Hayward. The representative of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, Monica V. Arellano, is the Vice Chariwoman of the Tribal Council. She and her son accepted the proclamation.
This is is a cool thing and a nice photo op. I’m kind of curious how the Muwekma Tribe is related to other indigenous movements in the Bay Area, but that’s a topic of research for another day.
Public Comment Mezclar
Alameda County Supervisor Elisa Marquez called in to invite folks to a community event at Hayward Public Library’s main branch to discuss a possible regional bond to provide affordable homes and preserve existing housing. You can find more information here.
A rep of Hayward Concerned Citizens called in to ask for a Council work session about re-instating red light cameras. They invoked Chris Pena’s death about it again and also asked the council to be “less concerned about the rights of lawbreakers”. Just in case you weren’t sure of their values.
A student from Hayward High encouraged any Councilmember Hayward High School aluma (Go Farmers) to attend Downtown Rally (DTR) parade and festivities or even to participate in some capacity. They also asked Council for a space for actors (young and established) to showcase their work and create a community. Which sounds amazing.
During his comments about how great DTR is, Mayor Mark Salinas mentioned three different dining establishments on B street that have good views of the parade. They also all happened to be establishments owned by Alejandro Gamarra, which felt like an interesting choice.
South Hayward Now/Ahora also called in about vague concerns over the St. Regis project and to support the Hayward Concerned Citizens comments about red light cameras and traffic lights taking too long.
Street Vendor Ordinance
This was the only real big item on the agenda, but is also a pretty hot-button issue, so I went into more depth on this than I might have otherwise.
Context Cocktail with Old Bitters
Back in 2018 (and going into effect on January 1, 2019), a bill called SB 946 The Safe Sidewalk Vending Act was signed into law and allowed for regulation of sidewalk vendors across the state. It prevents Cities from banning sidewalk vendors entirely, and lays some ground rules for their regulation at the City level, so long as they only address “objective health, safety, or welfare concerns”.
Staff did outreach that primarily included outreach to brick-and-mortar business owners (only 2 sidewalk vendors gave feedback, if memory serves) and a survey sent out via email. The survey skewed heavily older and whiter than our general population which speaks volumes about who the City reaches out to when left to their own devices.
There was a public hearing on this on June 6, and it was a bit contentious. Public comment was either: I don’t like sidewalk vendors at all, I don’t like them competing with my business, and sidewalk vendors are good and we should have some commonsense regulations. From council, there were some good takes and some bad takes. Councilmember Zermeño and Mayor Salinas used some pretty hostile (bordering on dehumanizing) language to describe street vendors. Zermeño continues to hold a grudge against all street vendors over one person who used to sell bootleg VHS tapes outside a video rental store he apparently used to run decades ago.
Generally, street vendors were used as a scapegoat for the larger economic issues facing restaurants: high inflation on food goods, rising minimum wage, and slow post-pandemic recovery. Other councilmembers were much more measured in their responses.
So staff took what feedback they could legally integrate and came back with an ordinance. Let’s take a look!
Dry Roasted Ordinace, With Summary Reduction
First, the definitions. A “sidewalk vendor” is someone who sells food or merchandise from either some kind of “non-motorized conveyance” or from their pocket on a public sidewalk or other footpath. And a sidewalk vendor can either be stationary (vending from a fixed location, like a pupusera or fruit vendor on the same corner every day) or roaming (moving around and only stopping to do business like a paletero or ice cream cart). They have slightly different rules for each.
Next, if you’re going to vend legally, you need a special vending permit. Luckily the City is proposing making the Sidewalk Vending Permit free for now, but even with that, expect to pay well over $1,000 just to get started. Why?
You’re also going to need a Seller’s Permit ($??) if selling anything that would have a sales tax, and/or a Mobile Food Facility (MFF) Permit from the county ($500-$700) if you operate “a truck, trailer, cart, push cart or other vehicle”, though folks at Farmer’s Markets with a table and EZ-Up need an MFF, too so that’s a bit tricky. Both of these also cost money to get. You also need liability insurance for an undisclosed amount, a Business License from the City ($137), and you need to be able to go to the Permit Center in person (Monday - Thursday 9 AM - 1 PM; Closed Fridays). Given the relatively low maximum fines allowed by state law, I might worry about compliance as that’s a good amount of start-up money.
Also, all of this needs to be renewed every year. So that’s a lot of paperwork and a decent amount of money.
Then there are other operating restrictions. Residential vending is only allowed between 9am and 7pm (don’t look for morning coffee vendors in your neighborhood), but if you operate in an industrial or commercial area, you can borrow the opening hours of other businesses in the area (except for those allowed to be open 24 hours).
The vendor needs a trash can of some kind and is not allowed to dump anything (including melted ice from a cooler).
For locations, you need 4 feet of space on the sidewalk for folks to walk past and can’t block any entrances. No public land that’s not a sidewalk, within 15 feet of a fire hydrant, within 20 feet of a mid-block storm drain or crosswalk, within 25 feet of a bus stop, street corner, or street intersection, within 100 feet of an emergency facility or school (on school days), stationary vendors also need to be 50 feet apart, and can’t vend within 100 feet of a public park unless they get some kind of contract.
That’s a lot of restrictions! I hope the City has a map of allowable locations to make it easy as sidewalks vary from as little as 4 feet wide to as many as 10, depending on the area, according to Public Works design documents. That also points to a de-facto exclusion of stationary vendors from residential areas as the 10 foot sidewalks are predominantly in commercial/industrial areas (mobile vendors can’t be excluded from residential areas).
Then comes enforcement if you break any of the rules. The first and second incidents are required to be warnings (first oral, then written). After that the fines start: $250, $500, $1000 each time you get caught without a vending permit and $100, $200, $500 each time you break any of the other rules. These are the maximum allowed by state law, by the way, so we could decrease them. On the plus side, it looks like the city can’t criminally prosecute street vendors for not having a license so… that’s something.
Also, there is apparently an “ability-to-pay determination” notice that is supposed to go with every fine, and the fines can, theoretically, be appealed, though I have a feeling that doesn’t happen very often at this price point.
Pan Simmered Comment and Sweet Mint
Mayor Mark Salinas took the opportunity to “set the tone” of the meeting before allowing anyone else to speak (which he can technically do, as Chair). He expressed that the entire council supports street vendors but also implied that street vendors and brick-and-mortar business owners are at odds with each other. He even expressed that the business owners “educated” them on the issue. One wonders how much of an education he received from the street vendors.
However, to his credit Mayor Salinas seemed to take pains to dial down the rhetoric from the last time this came up and tried to reframe it as a way to help street vendors skill up and become better businesses. This stands in stark contrast to his comments in June. Whether because his mind changed or it’s a course correction from his outburst at the last meeting, none but him can say. It’s refreshing regardless.
Zermeño still seems to hold a dim view of street vendors and seems to view them as a lesser class of business. He expressed concerns about hygiene (vendors need the same requirements as a food truck) and selling stolen property (already illegal).
The rest of council was generally much more measured. Generally the concerns centered around making sure that information was distributed equitably to vendors wherever they happen to be, as opposed to making them work to get it, as well as provide it in multiple languages.
Multiple Councilmembers expressed a desire to have a more hands-on approach to getting prospective vendors through the permitting process. Councilmember Andrews asked about what form the education is going to take. Staff said that the City is planning to take a dual approach of handing out information and also having a seminar kind of thing with representatives from the City, County, and a Community Organization to answer questions and help start the process.
City staff insisted that the permitting process was fairly simple at 6 steps, but Councilmember Bonilla Jr. was adamant that it’s likely harder than Staff believes. He asked specifically for “concierge level service” to help people with the process.
Interestingly, Councilmember Roche asked if someone selling out of their car and the ordinance would not apply to them as they aren’t on the sidewalk. Apparently the Peddler Ordinance would apply to them in that case. Roche also asked about why concessions at parks are protected, and Staff explained that it was likely because the cities/park districts likely already have a contractual exclusivity agreement that would need to be respected, whereas private businesses have no expectation of exclusivity.
City Staff clarified that Code Enforcement, not Hayward Police Department, would be dealing with issues with sidewalk vendors (so long as it’s not health/sanitation which is the County, same as any food business), which was honestly a big relief. They would also be providing the education to help fix any issues that may have arisen.
Councilmember Goldstein asked if there was a way to allow people to report violations in Access Hayward. If the City decides to do that, I hope that it can be used for reporting brick-and-mortar businesses, as well. They all have to follow the same rules, the only difference is that restaurants have a wall between you and them. You can watch a street vendor cook your food in front of your eyes, how often does that happen at the taqueria?
Mayor Salinas asked about putting in a sign requirement and limiting it in some way. Staff said they could, but they’d also have to look at the sign ordinance to make sure it’s consistent. He really doesn’t like the chicken on Hesperian.
Craclkin’ Comment with Supportive Gravy
One public commenter called about implementation and education. They wanted to make sure that the application and permitting processes was accessible to all and that all materials were available in multiple languages and that the City be proactive and work with community organizations to help out. They also asked for regular reports and updates on the effectiveness of the ordinance, like how many got the permits successfully completed, which sounds great.
South Hayward Now/Ahora called in to say that anyone with a California ID can get a MFF and that most Hayward parks don’t have a concession contract (I believe Kennedy Park is the only one that has one). They also expressed interest in having a policy that if a vendor is fined for not having a permit and then get one, the fine is dropped.
Another public commenter called in to remind folks that street vendors are just trying to make a living. They also worried about the cost of permits and language barriers and expressed the intimidation that people feel around technology. They also asked for application and monetary assistance for applicants who need it, as well as a robust plan for notifying vendors about the changes.
A public commenter in the room asked about whether or not people are allowed to just vend on private property without asking, which is obviously no as that’s already trespassing if it’s non-consensual.
Rehashed Council Comment with Poached Egg
Most of the comments at this point were restating what they’d said earlier. Councilmember Bonilla Jr. summed up the best reason for making this as easy as possible: “If we over regulate, this it’s just gonna happen on the underground anyway.”
Multiple Councilmembers had ideas about where to meet people and how best to reach them with educational material. Mayor Salinas said:
I think at the end of the day what we’re doing here this evening is we’re leveling up all businesses… what we’re really trying to do is level up some of the most new, innovative, entrepreneurs around food.
Council also generally supported making the process to get legal as cheap and easy as humanly possible, with Mayor Salinas saying “If it’s free, there’s absolutely no reason, no reason at all, not to participate.” Councilmember Syrop had an interesting idea of having a progressive Vendor Permit fee structure in the future so that those who are doing really well can pay a fair share, since their revenue will be available from State taxes.
The only one who disagreed with the idea of a free permit was Zermeño, saying:
…Every entrepreneur knows that they need to have some funds in order to start a business. That is automatic. And in my mind I’m not sure that we need to say that we’re going to give the permit for free. They expect to pay something, and in my mind it could be a nominal fee of $50.
Zermeño, Bonilla Jr., and Salinas echoed the public comment about having a report in 6 months or a year about how the process went and how much uptake there was. It’s refreshing to see Council push for iterative improvement, with Mayor Salinas saying:
There may be some unintended consequences… I think coming back in a year, I think that’s a great idea, and evaluating where we are at.
Councilmembers Roche, Zermeño, and Salinas all liked the idea of having a place where street vendors can congregate together. Zermeño’s comments seemed more dismissive than altruistic, but if, as he suggested, it was offered at low/no cost by the City, who am I to say no if it’s a good idea for the wrong reasons?
The ordinance was passed unanimously.
Referral: A bench for every bus stop (Syrop/Zermeño)
The referral is to look into how to install affordable and low-maintenance benches at bus stops across the City. Developed in partnership with AC Transit. Councilmember Syrop shared a story about how he had seen many people standing 20 or 30 minutes at a bus stop in his neighborhood. He mentioned that these folks taking public transit support our City in multiple ways: reducing traffic, helping meet climate goals, supporting transit so it gets the funding it needs to continue working.
The 10 pilot locations are designed not necessarily to increase ridership (though that would be great), but to keep people from stopping taking the bus. Making the experience pleasant means people will keep doing it.
Councilmember Zermeño talked about how he used to take the bus to Chabot when he lived in the Tennyson neighborhood. He, too, got tired of seeing older folks standing around or sitting on shopping carts. The ultimate goal is to have sheltered bus stops, but a bench for every stop is a start.
Councilmember Andrews asked about the possibility of planting trees near bus stops, which is a good synergy with the tree-planting goal from the City. She also asked about the coloring of the seats, in an attempt to promote City branding again. I, personally, find it interesting that she’s treating Hayward’s identity the same way you’d treat a fashion brand, when it’s not like New York gets by on it’s logo or because it says “New York” everywhere.
Councilmember Roche also liked the tree idea, but was concerned about the increased cost of the referral (which was initially 5 benches, but amended to 10). Syrop suggested the conversation about cost could be handled later. The bench will be City property, and they can explore options for maintenance going forward (whether the city covers it, sponsorships, or something else).
Multiple representatives of the AC Transit District spoke to express their support of the project, including AC Transit Directors Murphy McCalley and Diane Castleberry. A staffer from AC Transit also called in to support the referral. He mentioned that AC Transit had a design guidelines document that the City could use and that AC Transit would be happy to work with the City to identify the locations for the pilot.
A member of Hayward Concerned Citizens called in to check about the design of the stops. Councilmember Syrop assured them that either of the designs would not allow for folks to sleep on them (hostile architecture strikes again, unfortunately).
It was overall supported by Council and approved unanimously.