SR 01-11-2022 13C 13.C
January 11, 2022
Council Meeting: January 11, 2022 Santa Monica, California
1 of 1
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services
Department
Date: January 11, 2022
13.C Request of Councilmembers Brock and de la Torre and Mayor Himmelrich
that Council direct the City Manager to incorporate into the City’s 2022
state legislative agenda support for legislation or administrative action to
enact changes to the California Retail Food Code that would make it more
sensitive to the context of sidewalk vending while ensuring food safety,
including but not limited to: Streamlining approvals for code-compliant
carts, including by giving more discretion to local health authorities;
Revising regulations around the slicing of fruits and vegetables and the
hot-holding of prepared foods to establish clear and easy-to-follow safety
protocols that account for the types of foods commonly sold by sidewalk
vendors; Simplifying sink, power, water, and other equipment
requirements; and Expanding the definition of safe locations for food
preparation. These changes would facilitate increased access to Los
Angeles County Public Health permits and approved vending carts and
equipment, reinforcing the City’s existing commitment to advancing an
accessible, inclusive sidewalk vending permitting program that expands
opportunity and lowers barriers to entry for micro-entrepreneurs to vend
food, drinks, and merchandise in a safe, prosperous, and legally compliant
manner. This advocacy would be wholly consistent with—and in fact
complement—the City’s ongoing comprehensive efforts to address the
impacts of unpermitted vending on and around the Santa Monica Pier to
public safety, public health, and the environment, including advocacy for
potential changes to state law that would enable more effective
enforcement in this critical location.
13.C
Packet Pg. 3969
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Denise Anderson-Warren
Sent:Monday, January 10, 2022 11:51 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Add to 13.C. FW: Santa Monica Street Vendor Issues Yesterday Sunday, Jan. 9th
ADD TO FOR 13.C.
From: Cynthia Anderson‐Barker <cablaw@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 11:46 AM
Cc: Doug Smith <dsmith@publiccounsel.org>; Katie McKeon <kmckeon@publiccounsel.org>
Subject: Fw: Santa Monica Street Vendor Issues Yesterday Sunday, Jan. 9th
Yes. Please add my edited comment (I do not want to publicly name the involved officer) to the written
comments portion of the Council agenda. Just let me know when the Council meeting will be held. I will also
forward the report we wrote on the treatment of street vendors in Santa Monica. Please add that report to
the written comments also. I am very encouraged that you are pushing this support for legislation or
administrative action to enact changes to the California Retail Food Code.
From: Cynthia Anderson‐Barker <cablaw@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:38 AM
To: Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich
Subject: Santa Monica Street Vendor Issues Yesterday Sunday, Jan. 9th
Hi Oskar and Sue: I have reached out to the LA Times to see if they will do a story on these concerns. I would
like to be on the agenda at the next City Council meeting to discuss these issues.
In response to vendor requests for help, UCLA law student Cameron Chapman‐Pinto and I went to the Santa
Monica Pier yesterday to interview vendors about complaints of harassment of vendors by Santa Monica PD
officers. ALL the vendors had been cleared away from the Pier area by the parking lot next to the pier and
around the bike path. Many were decamped or hiding in their vehicles in the parking lot when we
arrived because of aggressive law enforcement harassment. A young 18 year old was arrested and taken into
custody on Saturday. A young female 15 year old was placed in handcuffs for over twenty minutes after being
chased across the parking lot by the new aggressive Santa Monica cop on the beat who is a former LAPD
deputy. Vendors were threatened with arrest for using their cell phones to record law enforcement
misconduct. Only one vendor was set up next to the pier selling merchandise. He had a permit but was
keeping his eye out for law enforcement. Usually about 30 vendors are set up around the pier selling hot dogs
wrapped with bacon and various "aguas". Some vendors ventured out to talk to Cameron and me about what
they were experiencing and the hardships they are now facing just trying to survive. Last week I spoke to the
Supervising officer of a Deputy who is the Santa Monica PD officer leading the charge against the vendors. She
explained that the Officer (who does not speak Spanish) was new and came from the LAPD. She explained
that the LAPD has a different culture than Santa Monica PD. She also requested some exact dates and times of
Item 13.C 01/11/21
1 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3970 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
2
the incidents involving the Officer so she could review the body camera evidence. I assume she spoke to him
about my complaints of his mistreatment of the vendors. We will meet with the Chief of the Santa Monica PD,
the City Manager and others on January 20th. This coming Saturday, January 15th, Cameron and I will return to
the Pier area again at 10:30 a.m. to interview the vendors. Hopefully, we will also have some bi‐lingual law
students to help with the interviews. We will meet on the north side of the Pier in the parking lot by the
walkway in front of Bubba Gumps.
This aggressive enforcement activity is not the solution to Santa Monica's concerns about vendors selling on
and around the Pier. One sympathetic Santa Monica PD lieutenant walked me around the parking lot last year
and showed me the area where he believes vendors should be allowed to sell i.e. where they were previously
selling around the pier. Off the record, he stated that there need to be solutions like allocating space for them
to sell from the parking lot area adjacent to the pier. This Lieutenant has not been involved in the recent
enforcement crackdown. It would be good if the Times would investigate this unfair and unjust treatment of
Santa Monica street vendors. Last year, two elderly vendors were chased two blocks by Santa Monica PD
officers, and they fell injuring themselves. An ambulance was called, and they were taken to a UCLA
emergency room. After I raised this issue with the City, the chasing of street vendors seemed to stop but now
this law enforcement tactic has started up again.. Please contact me if you need for information. My best,
Cynthia Anderson‐Barker, Attorney at Law 310‐963‐0924
Item 13.C 01/11/21
2 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3971 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Item 13.C 01/11/21
3 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3972 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Item 13.C 01/11/21
4 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3973 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Item 13.C 01/11/21
5 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3974 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Item 13.C 01/11/21
6 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3975 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Item 13.C 01/11/21
7 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3976 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Item 13.C 01/11/21
8 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3977 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Item 13.C 01/11/21
9 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3978 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Item 13.C 01/11/21
10 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3979 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Item 13.C 01/11/21
11 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3980 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Item 13.C 01/11/21
12 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3981 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Item 13.C 01/11/21
13 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3982 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Item 13.C 01/11/21
14 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3983 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Item 13.C 01/11/21
15 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3984 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Item 13.C 01/11/21
16 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3985 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Item 13.C 01/11/21
17 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3986 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Item 13.C 01/11/21
18 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3987 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Item 13.C 01/11/21
19 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3988 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
From:samo_wayne
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; oscardelatorre@santamonica.gov; Gleam Davis; Christine Parra;Kristin McCowan; lana.negrete@santamonica.com
Subject:13c
Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:32:10 AM
EXTERNAL
While being more responsive to those who want to sell on Santa Monica sidewalks is a
noble idea, I hope this is not a signal of a softening of enforcement at the pier. I, along with
other Santa Monicans, have watched with disgust the atrocious behavior some
unpermitted vendors have displayed. Their absolute disregard for authority, local laws and
basic sanitation is shameful. Watching our local law enforcement chase them around the
pier like the Keystone Kops has been an embarrassment. On the Santa Monica Close Up
youtube channel, I've witnessed racial epithets directed towards law enforcement, threats
of physical violence and law enforcement responding to licensed vendors who have been
threatened and assaulted. I've seen health department workers attempt to provide them
information on how to become a legal vendor and are rebuffed. If you read the comments
on these videos, the ratio of people who share my opinion is overwhelming, with many
wishing the City goes further by confiscating not only their items, but also their carts. It's
disgusting that the ringleaders use minors who bait and harass law enforcement. The
enforcement this past weekend was a breath of fresh air and a step in the right direction.
It's the first time in a long time the pier didn't look like a swap meet. In my opinion, any
vendor who has engaged in illegal behaviors has forfeited their chance to vend, even
legally,. They should be issued trespass orders from the pier itself. It's necessary yet
unfortunate that so many city resources have to be used to stop this lawless behavior. The
council is responsible to make sure the pier is a safe and entertaining place for locals and
guests. Not to provide an economic opportunity to someone who wants to sell tube socks
and salmonella-tainted food. Stop this insanity and continue to put Santa Monicans first.
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
Item 13.C 01/11/21
20 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3989 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:40 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Santa Monica Pier Corporation Support for Item 13.C on January 11, 2022 City Council Meeting
From: Jim Harris <jim@santamonicapier.org>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:25 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Cc: Christopher Foster <Christopher.Foster@santamonica.gov>; Jeff Jarow <jeff.jarow@smgov.net>; Randi Parent
<Randi.Parent@santamonica.gov>; Carter Rubin <Carter.Rubin@santamonica.gov>; Daniela Martin
<Daniela.Martin@santamonica.gov>; Misti Kerns <Misti.Kerns@santamonica.gov>; Nicholas Rolston
<Nicholas.Rolston@santamonica.gov>; Elana Buegoff <Elana.Buegoff@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Santa Monica Pier Corporation Support for Item 13.C on January 11, 2022 City Council Meeting
Honorable Santa Monica City Council Members;
At the January 10, 2022 meeting of the Santa Monica Pier Corporation Board of Directors, the Board unanimously
passed the following motion to express support for Item 13.C on the January 11, 2022 City Council Agenda:
With dedicated attention toward safety by keeping employees, residents and visitors to the Santa Monica Pier and
surrounding beaches safe and toward accessibility by keeping fire lanes, accessways, pathways and entrances to
businesses clear, as safety and accessibility are the priority and to be enforced by multi‐departmental safety task force,
the Santa Monica Pier Board supports the City of Santa Monica’s ongoing, comprehensive efforts to address the impacts
of unpermitted vending on and around the Santa Monica Pier to public safety, public health and the environment,
including advocacy for potential changes to state law that would enable more effective enforcement in this critical
location.
Respectfully,
Jim Harris | Executive Director (Interim)
Santa Monica Pier
200 Santa Monica Pier, Suite A
Santa Monica, CA 90401
p. 310-458-4939
www.santamonicapier.org
Item 13.C 01/11/21
21 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3990 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
From:Doug Smith
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda Item 13-C support for changes to the California Retail Food Code
Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:31:49 PM
Attachments:Unfinished-Business.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Honorable Councilmembers,
I write in support of Councilmembers Brock and de la Torre and Mayor Himmelrich’s request that
the City’s 2022 state legislative agenda include support for legislation to enact changes to the
California Retail Food Code to make it more sensitive to the context of sidewalk vending while
ensuring food safety.
I am a Supervising Senior Attorney at Public Counsel and I co-teach the Community Economic
Development Clinic at UCLA School of Law. In this capacity, I worked with a team of attorneys and
law students this past spring to research the California Retail Food Code (CRFC) and its impact on
low-income street vendors across California. We published a comprehensive report, titled
Unfinished Business (attached). This report demonstrates significant barriers embedded in the CRFC
that are unjustly preventing sidewalk vendors from accessing permits and formalizing their
businesses, thereby denying tens of thousands of entrepreneurs economic opportunity and
undermining public health. Our report also includes recommendations for commonsense
amendments that will open up opportunities for low-income entrepreneurs to formalize their
business while promoting food safety and public health.
Modernizing the CRFC to integrate street vendors into the economy will help Santa Monica vendors
access the permits they need to build their business and will help the City implement its local
regulations. Creating new opportunities will do far more to address any concerns or issues
concerning street vending than punitive enforcement or criminalization.
Thank you to Councilmembers Brock and de la Torre and Mayor Himmelrich for this
recommendation, and we strongly recommend the Council approve this item.
Sincerely,
Doug Smith (he, him, his)
Supervising Senior Staff Attorney | Community Development Project
Public Counsel
610 South Ardmore Avenue | Los Angeles, CA 90005
T 360-770-9987 | F 213.385.9089
dsmith@publiccounsel.org | www.publiccounsel.org
Item 13.C 01/11/21
22 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3991 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged.
Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you
may not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the
message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by
reply e-mail and delete any version, response or reference to it. Thank you.
Item 13.C 01/11/21
23 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3992 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 1
How Food Regulations Starve Sidewalk Vendors
of Opportunity and What Can Be Done to Finish
the Legalization of Street Food
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Item 13.C 01/11/21
24 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3993 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was produced by the UCLA School of
Law Community Economic Development Clinic and
Public Counsel, in partnership with Inclusive Action
for City, Community Power Collective, East LA
Community Corporation, and the LA Street Vendor
Campaign.
AUTHORS
Cassidy Bennett, UCLA Community Economic
Development Clinic
Joe Philipson, UCLA Community Economic
Development Clinic
Scott Cummings, UCLA Community Economic
Development Clinic
Doug Smith, Public Counsel and UCLA Community
Economic Development Clinic
Katie McKeon, Public Counsel
Brandon Payette, Public Counsel
Research was conducted under the supervision
of Scott L. Cummings, Robert Henigson Professor
of Legal Ethics at the UCLA School of Law, and
Doug Smith, Lecturer in Law at the UCLA School of
Law and Supervising Senior Staff Attorney for the
Community Development Project at Public Counsel.
Together, they co-teach the UCLA Community
Economic Development Clinic.
MANY THANKS TO
Adam Griffith, Alanna Kane, Ana Cruz Juarez, Carla
De Paz, Cole Waldhauser, David Cappoli, Diane
Hernandez, Elba Schildcrout, Fernando Abarca,
Ivette Vivanco, Jeanne Fontenot, Joseph Kim,
Josuel Vasquez, Karla Cativo, Laura Gonzalez,
¡Libérate! Language and Healing Justice Coopera-
tive, Lyric Kelkar, Machi Lluvia, Maya Hairston, Rosa
Miranda, Rudy Espinoza, Sergio Jimenez, Sofia
Arias, Trinh Bui, Victoria Freitag
SPECIAL THANKS TO
Merlin, Rosa and Pedro for graciously offering their
time and sharing their stories for this report.
Rosten Woo and Tiffanie Tran for graphic design.
ABOUT THE ORGANIZATIONS
UCLA School of Law Community Economic
Development Clinic
The Community Economic Development Clinic at
the UCLA School of Law provides transactional and
policy-oriented legal support to community-based
organizations throughout Los Angeles, working to
ensure affordable housing and living wage jobs for
all. For two decades, the Clinic has represented
groups that are building community-controlled
economic institutions and promoting empow-
erment through the meaningful participation of
communities in development and planning deci-
sions which fundamentally impact their lives.
Public Counsel
Public Counsel is the nation’s largest not-for-profit
law firm of its kind with a 50-year track record of
fighting for the rights of children and youth, perse-
cuted immigrants, military veterans, nonprofit
organizations, and small businesses. Its Commu-
nity Development Project builds foundations for
healthy, vibrant, economically stable communities
by providing legal and capacity building services to
community-based organizations and small busi-
nesses in the Los Angeles area. The firm supports
community-led advocacy groups and communi-
ty-based organizations in their efforts to advance
racial and economic justice and build power in
low-income communities and communities of
color on campaigns related to the creation and
preservation of affordable housing, tenant protec-
tions, quality employment opportunities, inclusive
entrepreneurship, childcare, access to open space,
and ending the criminalization of poverty. Public
Counsel has provided legal and policy support
to the LA Street Vendor Campaign, leading to the
legalization and decriminalization of sidewalk
vending across California.
Item 13.C 01/11/21
25 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3994 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 3
Inclusive Action for the City
Inclusive Action for the City (IAC) is a community
development organization that exists to bring
people together to build strong, local econo-
mies that lift-up low-income urban communities
through advocacy and transformative economic
development initiatives. IAC is a convener of the
Los Angeles Street Vendor Campaign (LASVC),
which has spent the last decade pushing to
legalize sidewalk vending in the state of California
and Los Angeles (city and county). Following the
successful passage of SB 946 (Lara) in 2018—a bill
that decriminalized sidewalk vending and required
local governments to create a framework for fair,
inclusive rules concerning the time, location, and
manner of sidewalk vending permitted in a commu-
nity—IAC and LASVC continue their advocacy
on behalf of sidewalk vending through efforts to
reform the California Retail Food Code (CRFC) and
related laws and regulations at the city and county
levels in Los Angeles.
Community Power Collective
Community Power Collective (CPC) is a grassroots
organization with the mission to build power with
low-income tenants and workers to win economic
justice, community control of land and housing,
and to propagate systems of cooperation in Los
Angeles. CPC is a steering committee member of
the Los Angeles Street Vendor Campaign (LASVC),
and leads the on the ground organizing and
membership development of the hundreds of street
vendors in the City and County of Los Angeles who
actively participate in the campaign. Through base
building, direct action, and its involvement in the
LASVC, CPC aims to continue fighting for vendor’s
right to work without criminalization, for the imple-
mentation of a fair legal vending program, and to
push back against anti-vending efforts like the
proposal for No-Vending Zones in the City of Los
Angeles and the use of criminal citations by the LA
County Department of Public Health.
East LA Community Corporation (ELACC)
East LA Community Corporation (ELACC) is a
Boyle Heights-based community development
corporation that uses an equitable development
model to engage residents traditionally left out of
decision-making processes. In addition to afford-
able housing, ELACC provides financial capa-
bility services through their Community Wealth
department, which supports street vendors with
free tax preparation, financial coaching, technical
assistance, and social loans through peer lending
circles. ELACC is co-founder of the LA Street
Vendor Campaign and has worked with micro-en-
trepreneurs for over a decade.
LA Street Vendor Campaign
The LA Street Vendor Campaign is a citywide coali-
tion of community-based organizations, labor
unions, and thousands of street vendors who have
been working for years to advance and protect
the rights of low-income vendors. The worker-led
movement to legalize and support street vending
in California has always been led by those most
impacted: low-income vendors.
Land Acknowledgment
As a land grant institution, UCLA School of Law
acknowledges our presence on the traditional,
ancestral, and unceded territory of Tovaangar (Los
Angeles Basin, So. Channel Islands) and recognizes
the Gabrielino and Tongva peoples as the region’s
traditional land caretakers.
Disclaimer: This document is not all-inclusive and
is not intended to provide any individual or entity
with specific legal advice. For more detailed infor-
mation, readers are encouraged to obtain legal
advice from their own legal counsel or contact
Public Counsel’s Community Development Project
intake line at (213) 385-2977 ext. 200.
Item 13.C 01/11/21
26 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3995 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Despite the landmark effort to legalize sidewalk
vending in California, little-known and poorly
designed food laws still make it functionally illegal
for most vendors to sell food. In 2018, Senate
Bill 946 ended decades of economic exclusion by
decriminalizing sidewalk vending and preventing
local jurisdictions, including the City and County of
Los Angeles, from enforcing sidewalk vending bans.
But the full promise of SB 946 is not yet realized.
While non-food merchandise vendors now have a
relatively clear path to legal vending, most sidewalk
food vendors are still denied access to the formal
economy by a potent combination of inaccessible
permitting procedures, exorbitant costs, incompat-
ible equipment and design standards, and punitive
enforcement measures. Together, these barriers—all
products of an antiquated state Retail Food Code
and county guidelines not drafted with vendors in
mind—make it impossible or prohibitively expensive
to obtain a permit to legally vend food. Of an esti-
mated 10,000 sidewalk food vendors working in the
City of Los Angeles, only 165 have received permits.
Sidewalk food vending is an integral part of the
cultural and civic fabric of Los Angeles. Across the
county, thousands of low-income entrepreneurs
help our neighborhoods come alive by providing
fresh fruit and paletas in the heat of summer,
offering tacos and birria after late nights, and
providing culturally significant food and goods
not available in brick-and-mortar restaurants
and retail stores. Sidewalk food vending provides
vital economic opportunities for low-income and
immigrant workers, while playing a critical role
promoting food access across the sprawling Los
Angeles metropolis.
Sidewalk food vending provides an opportunity
for entrepreneurial members of our community to
start from almost nothing and build businesses
to support themselves and their families. Many
sidewalk food vendors view sidewalk sales as
the first rung on an economic ladder, dreaming of
turning their cart-based business into a truck and
then eventually a brick-and-mortar restaurant.
For others, vending is a way to augment low wages
or respond to the problem of wage theft. Many
Angelenos work as vendors to allow flexibility in
their schedule to care for family members, from
small children not yet in school to elderly parents
or grandparents needing at-home care. For most,
sidewalk food vending is an economic lifeline—a
way to pay rent and medical bills, put food on the
table, and otherwise survive extreme poverty.
Beyond these individual benefits, sidewalk food
vendors play a crucial connective role in the broader
Los Angeles community and often provide access
to healthy food in areas with few other options. On
any given day, vendors are found selling tacos to
departing nightclub-goers late at night, offering
affordable lunches to custodians on their break,
and serving hearty breakfasts to domestic workers
at the start of their day. Many children who eat
Item 13.C 01/11/21
27 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3996 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 5
fresh cut fruit from vendors on a summer day face
difficulty obtaining an equally healthy and afford-
able snack from local convenience stores. Sidewalk
vendors provide a way to celebrate and express
culture in historically disinvested communities. In
these instances and many others, sidewalk food
vendors are far more than a cultural reference or a
tourist’s novelty in one of the nation’s largest and
most diverse cities: they are engines of economic
productivity and pillars of their communities.
Unfortunately, despite the “legalization” of side-
walk vending under SB 946, there are still signif-
icant legal barriers that make it virtually impos-
sible for sidewalk food vendors to formalize their
businesses. For the vast majority of sidewalk food
vendors who cannot overcome these barriers, the
promise of legal vending remains elusive. Instead,
most sidewalk food vendors remain exposed to the
daily threat of ticketing, harassment, and fines,
which perpetuate an unending cycle of criminaliza-
tion and poverty.
This cycle is the result of outdated and inapt
state and local laws governing the sale of food.
The California Retail Food Code (CRFC) imposes
requirements on all retail food sales, including
brick-and-mortar restaurants, farmers’ markets,
food trucks—and sidewalk carts. Violations of
these regulations can lead to criminal penalties
for sidewalk vendors, even though as this report
shows, they were not designed with these vendors
in mind. In Los Angeles County—excluding the
cities of Pasadena, Vernon, and Long Beach which
have their own health departments—retail food
requirements are implemented and enforced
through regulations and procedures adopted by the
Environmental Health Division of the Los Angeles
County Department of Public Health (DPH). Any
vendor who wishes to sell food must first obtain
a permit from DPH. In the City of Los Angeles, the
agency that regulates sidewalk vending locations
– StreetsLA – will not issue a city permit to side-
walk food vendors who are unable to obtain a DPH
permit. That same agency uses armed officers to
enforce a prohibition on vending without a permit.
For most types of food vending, the process for
securing a DPH permit erects a range of insuper-
able barriers that are not only impossible for side-
walk food vendors to overcome but unnecessary
to ensure food safety. This report groups these
barriers into the following categories:
Accessibility barriers that
prevent vendors from even
starting the process of applying
for a DPH permit, including a
history of harmful interactions
with enforcement agents, a lack
of easily understandable educa-
tional materials, and inaccessi-
ble program regulations that are
not translated into commonly
spoken languages.
Permit barriers that prevent
vendors from successfully
navigating the DPH permit
approval and inspection pro-
cess, such as a lack of standard-
ized cart design blueprints and
operating procedures, and
hard-to-reach offices.
Equipment barriers that make it
physically impossible or prohibi-
tively expensive to construct and
operate a sidewalk vending cart,
including arbitrary prohibitions
on slicing fruit and hot-holding
and reheating common sidewalk
vending food items, unreason-
ably large food storage require-
ments, and exceedingly cumber-
some sink requirements
rendering carts too heavy and
too big for sidewalks.
Logistical barriers that prevent
low-income sidewalk food
vendors from accessing spaces
to safely prepare food and store
and clean equipment, such as
unnecessary exclusion of side-
walk vendors from programs
that enable home kitchen food
preparation, and a severe short-
age of available commissary
space.
Enforcement barriers that make
it prohibitively difficult for
vendors to build their business-
es, such as unnecessarily ag-
gressive enforcement practices,
criminalization, harassment, and
unjust property seizures.
1. paperwork in english?
2. little permit document or
blueprint
3. really wide impractical
vending cart
4. A commissary (garage with
a pull down gate)
5. a police baton
Three levels: could be logos of
DPH, City, and State.
Sidewalk FoodVending Application
Name:Contact Address:Business Name:Email: Phone Number:
1. paperwork in english?
2. little permit document or
blueprint
3. really wide impractical
vending cart
4. A commissary (garage with
a pull down gate)
5. a police baton
Three levels: could be logos of
DPH, City, and State.
Sidewalk FoodVending Application
Name:Contact Address:Business Name:Email: Phone Number:
1. paperwork in english? 2. little permit document or blueprint
3. really wide impractical vending cart4. A commissary (garage with a pull down gate)5. a police baton
Three levels: could be logos of DPH, City, and State.
Sidewalk FoodVending Application
Name:Contact Address:Business Name:Email: Phone Number:
1. paperwork in english?
2. little permit document or
blueprint
3. really wide impractical
vending cart
4. A commissary (garage with
a pull down gate)
5. a police baton
Three levels: could be logos of
DPH, City, and State.
Sidewalk FoodVending Application
Name:Contact Address:Business Name:Email: Phone Number:
1. paperwork in english?
2. little permit document or
blueprint
3. really wide impractical
vending cart
4. A commissary (garage with
a pull down gate)
5. a police baton
Three levels: could be logos of
DPH, City, and State.
Sidewalk FoodVending Application
Name:Contact Address:Business Name:
Email: Phone Number:
Item 13.C 01/11/21
28 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3997 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 6
Together, these barriers prohibit a lot of side-
walk food vending as we know it. The CRFC ban
on slicing fruit or re-heating previously prepared
food prohibits the core functions of two of the
most iconic southern California street vending
operations—the fruit cart and the taco stand. And
where compliance with technical requirements is
theoretically possible, a dizzying array of design
requirements for integrated multiple-compartment
sinks, plumbing, ventilation, refrigeration and food
storage all combine to require a cart that, in many
cases, would be too large for most sidewalks and
too heavy to push. Any narrow path to obtaining a
viable, code-compliant cart and permit will likely
cost more than ten thousand dollars—an astro-
nomical price for a subsistence earning population.
Although all of these barriers predate the COVID-19
pandemic, the events of the pandemic have
exposed the depths of systemic inequality perme-
ating our entire legal system, including the systems
governing sidewalk vending. Sidewalk vendors
were among the first businesses to be shut down
by local governments when the pandemic struck,
and often the last to be included in economic
recovery efforts. Throughout the pandemic, offi-
cials promoted flexibility and created exceptions to
retail food laws for brick-and-mortar restaurants,
while rigidly enforcing rules and stepping up penal-
ties against vendors. Not only have local officials
not removed barriers to vendor permitting during
the pandemic, in some cases they have erected
new, literal barriers by erecting fences to displace
vendors from beloved community spaces like Echo
Park Lake and the Avenue 26 Night Market.
The barriers to sidewalk vending detailed in this
report deny tens of thousands of entrepreneurs
the ability to enter the formal economy, which
threatens public health by systematically excluding
nearly an entire sector of the food economy from
operating within a safe regulatory system. Need-
lessly complicating the system for sidewalk food
vending, some of these barriers are imposed by
DPH with no basis in state law, while others stem
from requirements found in the CRFC. Accordingly,
to make real the promise of legal sidewalk food
vending—actually bringing vendors into the formal
economy and promoting their economic security—
urgent changes must be made to both DPH regula-
tions and the CRFC.
Toward that end, this report proposes targeted
reforms at the local and state levels to reduce
regulatory barriers and promote safe sidewalk
food vending. Reforms at both levels are neces-
sary to eradicate the barriers outlined above. DPH
regulations that have no basis in the CRFC can be
changed directly by the county to provide imme-
diate benefits to sidewalk food vendors, while
barriers imposed by the CRFC must be changed
by state lawmakers to provide necessary relief. In
addition, this report proposes changes to City of
Los Angeles policies to create a fully integrated
regulatory framework that supports legal sidewalk
food vending.
Item 13.C 01/11/21
29 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3998 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 7
DPH Policy Reform
The following changes to DPH regulations are
consistent with existing state law, can be adopted
immediately by the county, and will greatly improve
access to permits and affordable vending equip-
ment.
• Provide authentic access to information. DPH
should create new materials and curriculum
summarizing application and operating require-
ments specific to sidewalk vendors, using visual
diagrams and accessible language. DPH should
translate and publish these new materials,
along with the Mobile Food Facility Plan Check
Guide, in at least the five most common
languages in LA County.
• Increase accessibility. DPH should establish
new locations for approval checks, encourage
on-site visits, incorporate resources for permit
prerequisites like Individual Taxpayer Identi-
fication Number (ITIN) applications and food
handler’s permits, and streamline permitting so
the entire process can occur in a single visit.
• Pre-approve cart design blueprints and tem-
plate Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).
DPH should work with manufacturers to
pre-approve cart design blueprints for a variety
of affordable cart types that meet health code
standards, along with corresponding template
SOPs for common sidewalk vending food items.
Vendors should then be allowed to purchase
carts manufactured according to these pre-ap-
proved blueprints and bypass the costly and
time-consuming plan check requirements.
• Reduce permit costs. DPH should significantly
decrease permit and plan check fees, including
permit and inspection fee waivers for low-in-
come vendors.
• Approve neighborhood-based auxiliary sinks
to service vending carts. DPH should work with
vendors to develop protocols to allow several
vendors to operate in close proximity to an aux-
iliary sink unit (strategically placed on city- or
county-owned properties in areas with a high
concentration of vending), eliminating the need
for large and expensive sinks to be located on
the primary food cart.
• Reduce on-site food storage requirements.
DPH should decrease the current dry and refrig-
erated food storage requirements to safe and
appropriate levels for sidewalk food vending in
order to reduce cart size and cost.
• Clarify overhead fire suppression system
requirements. DPH Guidelines unnecessari-
ly require unenclosed sidewalk food vending
carts to include a full overhead fire suppres-
sion system, in addition to a separate state law
requirement for a mechanical exhaust venti-
lation system. DPH should not require any fire
suppression standards beyond what is already
required by state law.
• Increase access to food preparation, equip-
ment cleaning, and storage space. DPH should
approve the use of underutilized kitchens in
restaurants, food businesses, schools, commu-
nity centers, and places of worship for sidewalk
vending food preparation, equipment cleaning,
and storage.
• Commit to an equitable and just framework for
compliance. DPH should immediately end the
practice of including the Sheriff’s Department
in DPH enforcement activities and discontinue
the seizure of vending carts and equipment.
Item 13.C 01/11/21
30 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 3999 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 8
State Legislation
The following amendments to the CRFC are neces-
sary in addition to the DPH reforms to meaningfully
reduce barriers to legal sidewalk food vending and
promote overall public health across California.
• Lessen the plan check burden. The CRFC should
be amended to provide a streamlined process
to inspect and approve manufactured carts
without an initial plan check requirement.
• Enhance safe on-site food preparation. The
CRFC should be amended to include reasonable
standards that enable slicing of fruit and veg-
etables and safe reheating and hot-holding of
common sidewalk vending food items.
• Reduce onerous sink requirements. The CRFC
should be amended to remove the requirement
for a three-compartment warewashing sink and
handwashing sink, and to reduce potable water
requirements for small-scale sidewalk vending
operations.
• Expand access to safe food preparation. The
CRFC should be amended to modify Microen-
terprise Home Kitchen Operation and Cottage
Food Operation standards to be more inclusive
of sidewalk vending, and to expand the use of
home kitchens, along with underutilized com-
munity kitchens, as safe food preparation and
equipment storage spaces.
• Decriminalize sidewalk food vending. Sidewalk
vendors have only recently been promised the
legal opportunity to enter the formal econo-
my after decades of exclusion. To make this
promise real, the CRFC should be amended to
replace criminal misdemeanor penalties with
non-criminal, education-based compliance
strategies for addressing unpermitted vending.
City of Los Angeles Policy Reform
The following changes to City of Los Angeles rules
and regulations are necessary to support and fully
integrate sidewalk food vending into the small
business economy.
• Maintain a moratorium on citations for un-
permitted vending until permit barriers are
removed. It is fundamentally unjust to cite a
vendor for failing to acquire a permit that is
impossible to obtain. Until these barriers are
effectively removed and sidewalk food vendors
are given a viable path to acquiring code-com-
pliant equipment and DPH permits, the city
should prohibit the issuance of a citation for
vending without a permit.
• Reorient StreetsLA enforcement practic-
es away from punitive law enforcement and
toward business facilitation. StreetsLA should
shift its role to prioritize culturally-fluent ed-
ucation to vendors regarding the process for
obtaining relevant permits, rather than employ-
ing a punitive response. StreetsLA should also
prioritize the education of brick-and-mortar
business owners, the general public, and its
own enforcement officers about the rights of
vendors to legally operate their businesses.
• Replace “no vending zones” with special vend-
ing districts. The city currently encourages
restaurant sidewalk dining in some of the
exact same locations that sidewalk vending is
banned, disproportionately harming low-in-
come and immigrant vendors. The city should
end the disparate treatment of sidewalk vend-
ing and eliminate “no-vending zones.” The city
should instead implement special vending dis-
tricts in areas with unique safety and accessi-
bility concerns, giving vendors an opportunity to
self-organize and work with area residents and
businesses to develop specialized regulations
that ensure safety and economic inclusion.
• Enhance small business support. The City
should investigate opportunities to better
support sidewalk food vendors with ongoing
business operations, training and resources re-
lating to banking, building credit, implementing
cashless and other alternate payment methods,
and fundamental business skills.
Item 13.C 01/11/21
31 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4000 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 9
These recommendations strengthen the sidewalk
vending economy while promoting public health
during this critical time. Adjusting retail food regu-
lations in the manner described will not diminish
food safety. Rather, these recommendations are
measured steps that open the door to tens of thou-
sands of food businesses coming into a system
of food safety regulations. Absent these changes,
sidewalk food vendors will continue to work outside
the formal economy without coordinated touch-
points with public health professionals in DPH. No
one benefits from this status quo: not the vendors
forced to work in the shadows; not the DPH profes-
sionals whose mission is to support public health;
and not the consumers who want to enjoy LA’s
iconic street food.
A return to the status quo is
indefensible. We need equitable
public health standards that
promote economic and racial
justice. That means prioritizing the
needs of low-income entrepreneurs
and finally finishing the work of
legalizing sidewalk food vending. To
join the movement for street vendor
justice, please get in touch with the
LA Street Vendor Campaign or reach
out to Public Counsel, Community
Power Collective, Inclusive Action
for the City, or East LA Community
Corporation.
Item 13.C 01/11/21
32 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4001 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 10
INTRODUCTION
This report identifies and analyzes specific legal
and regulatory barriers that prevent sidewalk food
vendors1 from obtaining a permit to sell food, and
proposes solutions to ensure that sidewalk food
vendors can access opportunities and safely join
the Los Angeles economy. Part I provides a quanti-
tative and qualitative overview of the current state
of vending in Los Angeles by providing original
data on sidewalk vending operations, describing
the existing legal framework for sidewalk vending,
and highlighting the stories of three sidewalk food
vendors whose personal experiences illuminate
and reinforce the barriers to vending described
throughout this report. Part II details the precise
legal and policy barriers at the state and local
levels that prevent vendors from obtaining permits.
Part III provides recommendations to remove these
barriers, including immediate changes to local
programs that will enable greater access to the
permitting process and reforms to the California
Retail Food Code (CRFC) that would require state
legislation.
The barriers identified in this report have existed
for many years and are part of a legacy of destruc-
tive systems of criminalization and exclusion.
These challenges predate the COVID-19 pandemic,
and yet the events of the pandemic have exposed
the depths of systemic inequality permeating
our entire legal system, including the systems
governing sidewalk vending. Sidewalk food vendors
were among the first businesses to be shut down
by local governments when the pandemic struck,
and often the last to be included in economic
recovery efforts. At the height of the public health
emergency, local governments found ways to be
flexible and creative to support brick-and-mortar
restaurants, while the same rigid rules were never
once adjusted or waived for struggling sidewalk
vendors.2 The state legislature is currently consid-
ering several changes to retail food permitting
requirements to ease the administrative burden on
brick-and-mortar restaurants as they recover,3 but
is not doing the same for sidewalk food vendors.
This report’s recommended actions to remove
barriers for sidewalk food vendors are important to
promote public health and an inclusive economy.
They are also necessary for a just and equitable
recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.
The recommendations contained in this report
are health promoting. Adjusting retail food regu-
lations in the manner described will not diminish
food safety. Rather, these recommendations are
measured steps that open the door to thousands
of food businesses coming into a system of food
safety standards, enhancing overall food safety and
public health. Absent these changes, sidewalk food
vendors will continue to work outside the formal
economy without sustained engagement with the
public health professionals in DPH. No one bene-
fits from this status quo: not the vendors forced to
work in the shadows; not the DPH professionals
whose mission is to support public health; and not
the consumers who want to enjoy Los Angeles’s
iconic street food.
Sidewalk food vending may not be fully legal yet,
but it could be. If policymakers take the time to
understand these barriers, truly listen to vendors
sharing their experiences and ideas, and commit to
meaningful changes, then we can finally finish the
work of legalizing sidewalk food vending.
Item 13.C 01/11/21
33 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4002 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 11
PART I:
SIDEWALK FOOD VENDING IN LOS ANGELES
Sidewalk food vending by the numbers
Tens of thousands of people across Los Angeles
County work as sidewalk vendors. In 2014, the City
of Los Angeles estimated that there are 50,000
vendors, including 10,000 food vendors, working
within the city limits. The total vendor population
of the entire county is unknown, but undoubt-
edly larger.4 There is no available comprehensive
demographic data on the vending population, but
limited surveys indicate that a majority of vendors
are women, often single heads of household, and
many are immigrants.5 Most vendors toil in the hot
sun for long hours, bringing home only $15,000 per
year.6
Sidewalk food vendors sell a wide variety of goods,
ranging from simple prepackaged chips and canned
soda to complex food preparation involving intri-
cate recipes. Inclusive Action for the City (IAC)
recently surveyed 2,653 vendors, including 1,384
sidewalk food vendors, who received support
through the Street Vendor Emergency Fund—an
emergency basic income program established
and implemented by IAC and the LA Street Vendor
Campaign to help vendors during the COVID-19
pandemic. Over 73% of surveyed sidewalk food
vendors would be categorized as a “High Risk
Mobile Food Facility” under county guidelines
because they serve food that is cooked-to-order,
food that requires refrigeration, or food that must
be hot-held to remain safe for consumption.7 This
category includes some of the most emblem-
atic and beloved forms of sidewalk vending like
bacon-wrapped hot dogs or cooked-to-order tacos.
Roughly 15% of surveyed sidewalk food vendors
sell only prepackaged foods (e.g. bagged chips,
canned soda, paletas, and other non-perishable
foods) that put them in the lowest risk level cate-
gory, and approximately 11% of surveyed sidewalk
food vendors sell food falling in the middle category
of “Low Risk Limited Unpackaged Food” including
churros, pretzels, and shaved ice snacks.8
Sidewalk food vendors have been devastated
by the pandemic. Of all vendors surveyed by
IAC—including both sidewalk food vendors and
merchandise vendors—60% were behind on rent
payments, 57% were behind on utility payments,
and nearly half (46%) had taken out a loan to
survive the economic impact of the pandemic.9
Item 13.C 01/11/21
34 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4003 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 12
Individual and community benefits
Sidewalk food vending is an economic lifeline.
Many people turn to vending after being excluded
from other opportunities in the formal economy for
a variety of reasons, including immigration status
or a history of unemployment. Other vendors turn to
the work because of the flexibility it provides single
parents and caretakers to work around familial or
other obligations. For others, vending presents an
important opportunity to create and build a busi-
ness.
The vending economy yields enormous community
benefits.10 For example, in many historically disin-
vested neighborhoods, fruit and vegetable vendors
are the only source of healthy food retail available.
Sidewalk vendors reliably buy local—purchasing
supplies from neighborhood merchants, circulating
capital in neighborhoods ignored by mainstream
investment, and helping to generate local tax
revenue. A 2015 study estimated that vending in
the City of Los Angeles generates over $500 million
in local economic stimulus, most of which stays
in the local economy, and sustains thousands of
local jobs.11 This study estimated that once fully
legalized, vendors could contribute even more—
including up to $33 million in taxes on their sales.12
Sidewalk vendors are a benefit, not a threat, to
other brick-and-mortar businesses. A 2016 study
analyzed and largely rejected the notion of direct
competition between sidewalk vendors and brick-
and-mortar businesses. In many cases, sidewalk
vendors have fewer goods, sparser amenities, and
less protection from the weather than their brick-
and-mortar counterparts.13 One business survey
in Portland, Oregon found that 69% of surveyed
restaurant owners and 94% of other business
owners ranked food carts as positive or very posi-
tive.14 In Los Angeles, a study found that businesses
located near sidewalk vendors are actually more
likely to experience job growth and maintain higher
levels of employment than businesses not located
near vending.15 Another case study in Chicago
showed that the closure of an open-air market
led to the closure of many surrounding brick-and-
mortar businesses, partly due to the lost foot
traffic.16
A long and unjust history of
criminalization
Despite these many benefits, California has a long
history of unjustly excluding sidewalk vendors
from economic opportunity, inflicting great harm
on a largely low-income and immigrant population.
Until 2019, the vast majority of California cities and
counties either completely prohibited all sidewalk
vending or imposed rules so restrictive that they
amounted to a de facto ban.17 In most jurisdictions,
these rules of exclusion were enforced with crim-
inal penalties, with devastating effect.18 Vendors
who were charged with misdemeanors faced
potential jail time and up to $1,000 in base fines,
with court fees and assessments further increasing
the financial penalties. Collateral consequences
of a misdemeanor charge erected new barriers to
housing, education and employment. These conse-
quences saddled low-income households with
enormous criminal justice debt, driving vulnerable
workers and their families deeper into poverty.
For immigrant vendors, criminalization has had
particularly severe consequences. Under a Trump
Administration executive order on immigration
enforcement, officials were instructed to priori-
tize for deportation those who “committed acts
that constitute a chargeable criminal offense.”19
As a result, the mere possibility of criminal pros-
ecution placed low-income immigrant workers
at risk.20 Many immigrant vendors charged with
vending citations were at heightened risk of being
transferred to, or picked up by federal immigra-
tion officials after being released from custody
and undocumented vendors were at heightened
risk for deportation even if they were not ulti-
mately charged or convicted. In one example, a San
Bernardino County single mother of five was cited
for vending in a park, detained by federal agents
upon her release, and held in a detention facility
away from her children for six months awaiting
deportation proceedings—all due to a sidewalk
vending citation.21
Item 13.C 01/11/21
35 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4004 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 13
The unfinished business of sidewalk
vending legalization
In 2018, Senate Bill (SB) 946 decriminalized and
legalized sidewalk vending throughout California.
SB 946 prohibits local jurisdictions from criminally
prosecuting sidewalk vendors and placing blanket
bans on sidewalk vending. Instead, the law requires
cities and counties to create systems to regulate
sidewalk vending in line with legitimate health and
safety rationales. This legislation provided relief
from widespread criminalization and was a ground-
breaking measure to better protect immigrants and
low-income workers. However, despite this formal
legalization, SB 946 did not make any changes to
California’s retail food laws, which separately apply
to vendors selling food.
As a result of SB 946, cities and counties are no
longer allowed to enforce categorical prohibi-
tions on sidewalk vending. And vendors who sell
non-food merchandise are generally able to work,
as long as their operations are consistent with
local time, place and manner restrictions adopted
pursuant to SB 946. However, a separate state
law—the California Retail Food Code (CRFC)—
requires that vendors intending to sell food obtain
a separate public health permit, usually from the
local Department of Public Health.22 In Los Angeles
County, sidewalk food vendors must first obtain
a public health permit from the Environmental
Health division of the Department of Public Health
before they are permitted to operate. This “DPH
permit” is issued only after DPH confirms that the
operation satisfies an extensive list of require-
ments that includes CRFC requirements and local
guidelines.23
As described in detail in Part II, the standards
imposed by the CRFC and DPH guidelines are
incompatible with small-scale sidewalk food
vending operations. Most sidewalk food vending
carts are considered mobile food facilities, defined
in the CRFC as “vehicle[s] . . . upon which food is
sold or distributed at retail.”24 However, the entire
CRFC legal framework for mobile food facilities has
naturally evolved around motorized food trucks and
large trailers operating on the street, since those
were the only facilities that were allowed by most
local jurisdictions before SB 946.25 As a result, the
CRFC’s requirements are incompatible with small-
scale food vending carts that must fit on the side-
walk. As described in this report, the application
and enforcement of these unfitting rules creates
insurmountable obstacles to legal operation for
small-scale sidewalk food vendors. To date, only
165 out of an estimated 10,000 sidewalk food
vendors in the City of Los Angeles have obtained
permits.
The effective ban on sidewalk food vending has
devastating consequences for the tens of thou-
sands of low-income people across California
who are trying to work as vendors. DPH and the
city enforcement agency—StreetsLA (also known
as the Bureau of Street Services)—enforce these
outdated public health laws against sidewalk food
vendors. DPH cites vendors for operating without
a DPH health permit, and StreetsLA cites them
for operating without a city vending permit (which
cannot be obtained without first producing a valid
DPH permit) or for operating in an L.A. City Coun-
cil-designated “no-vending zone.”26 StreetsLA
enforcement officers are commonly equipped with
guns and dressed similarly to police.27 Both DPH
and StreetsLA continue to partner with armed law
enforcement, and in some cases still issue criminal
misdemeanor citations. Beyond issuing citations,
city officials have created new, literal barriers to
vending, erecting chain link fences and locking
gates to displace vendors from beloved commu-
nity spaces like Echo Park Lake, Leimert Park, and
the Avenue 26 Night Market, with public officials
citing--in part--vendors’ lack of DPH permits as
justification.28
Item 13.C 01/11/21
36 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4005 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 14
Sidewalk food vending in Los Angeles:
stories from the front lines
Three sidewalk food vendors currently working
in Los Angeles County were interviewed for this
report.29 Their experiences are summarized below
and included throughout this report. The report
uses only the vendors’ first names and the neigh-
borhoods in which they vend, allowing for confiden-
tiality when requested or necessary. Together, the
interviews show that: (1) while sidewalk vending
is technically legal, it is so difficult to obtain a
permit that the work remains illegal as a matter
of practice; (2) many sidewalk vendors welcome
public health regulation—they simply want it to
be designed to facilitate rather than prevent side-
walk vending; and (3) even with the current system
of inapt and impossible-to-meet food regulation,
vendors find creative and functional ways to ensure
that the food they sell is safe.
1. paperwork in english? 2. little permit document or blueprint3. really wide impractical vending cart4. A commissary (garage with a pull down gate)5. a police batonThree levels: could be logos of DPH, City, and State. Sidewalk FoodVending ApplicationName:Contact Address:Business Name:Email: Phone Number:
Rosa began vending on her own because she
needed a job. She started by selling fruit from a
laundry cart in Hollywood, and eventually saved
enough money to purchase a hot dog cart. Vending
allowed her to leave her physically demanding job
as a full-time caregiver and gain more freedom
and control over her time. She began selling masks
out of her van during the COVID-19 pandemic. She
changes what she sells depending on the time and
day, accounting for what customers want to buy, as
well as whether StreetsLA officers are enforcing
vending permit regulations, which more commonly
occurs during nine-to-five business hours.
Item 13.C 01/11/21
37 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4006 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 15
Merlin started vending fifteen years ago out of
necessity. She could find no other job and began
working for another vendor for five years. After
twelve-hour shifts doing all the labor and being
paid only $50 per day, Merlin started her vending
business to be her own boss. As a mother to a child
with special needs, the flexible schedule afforded
by sidewalk vending allows her to take her child
to doctor and therapy appointments. Merlin still
works long days, leaving by seven in the morning
to purchase fruit and hot dog supplies downtown
before arriving on Hollywood Boulevard to start
selling by eleven in the morning. She sells until
around eleven at night. Working long days allows
her to take off Monday through Wednesday to be
with her child. Merlin operates both a hot dog cart
and a fruit cart, facing different challenges with
each. Merlin’s hot dog cart—built at home by her
cousin—is not permitted because neither CRFC
nor DPH guidelines allow permits for homebuilt
carts. The fruit cart is permitted, but Merlin had
to take out a $5,000 loan to purchase the cart and
cover the $900 commissary charge and additional
health permit fees. These fees, as further detailed
in Part II, are exorbitant, especially for low-income
individuals, and prevent many vendors from even
attempting to undergo the permitting process.
Merlin only paid off her loans because her whole
family came together to support her through the
permit process, and they collectively paid off the
loan over a two-year period. Most vendors do not
have this option or support, and many may not be
able to even obtain a loan, let alone pay it off within
just a few years.
Pedro just started vending two years ago. He runs
his business with his wife, who worked as a taco
vendor for several years before she and Pedro
started to operate a cart together. They regularly
worked in the San Fernando Valley neighborhoods
of Reseda and Northridge until the beginning of the
COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. Vending allowed
them to build a community of loyal customers in the
Valley, and they were just beginning to build up their
business when COVID-19 derailed their plans.
1. paperwork in english? 2. little permit document or blueprint3. really wide impractical vending cart4. A commissary (garage with a pull down gate)5. a police batonThree levels: could be logos of DPH, City, and State. Sidewalk FoodVending ApplicationName:Contact Address:Business Name:Email: Phone Number: 1. paperwork in english? 2. little permit document or blueprint3. really wide impractical vending cart4. A commissary (garage with a pull down gate)5. a police batonThree levels: could be logos of DPH, City, and State. Sidewalk FoodVending ApplicationName:Contact Address:Business Name:Email: Phone Number:
Item 13.C 01/11/21
38 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4007 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 16
Permitting and Enforcement: A Continuous Cycle
As each of the vendors’ stories illustrate, the flexi-
bility and independence of sidewalk vending attract
many vendors to this work, but the barriers they
encounter in pursuing legal vending and in their
daily operations can be insurmountable. Just like
other small businesses, sidewalk food vendors
strive to ensure that all their customers eat without
getting sick, enjoy their food, and recommend their
business to friends. Sidewalk food vendors seek
to create a community of customers whom they
care for, as all small business owners must do to be
successful. They deploy tried-and-true marketing
tools such as branded merchandise, business
cards, and even Instagram accounts. Even without
a formal DPH permit, vendors work diligently to
ensure their practices are clean and promote safety
for themselves and their customers. But all the care
and attention to food safety will not protect vendors
against punitive enforcement if they do not have a
DPH permit.
Rosa primarily operated an unpermitted hot dog
cart in the Hollywood neighborhood, although she
has maintained other vending operations (both
permitted and unpermitted) at various times. She
completely stopped vending in Hollywood after the
start of the COVID-19 pandemic, but even before the
pandemic, she had stopped vending in Hollywood
as frequently because of the intensity of StreetsLA
enforcement. Since the start of the pandemic, Rosa
has been selling facemasks and other merchan-
dise, first in the Adams-Normandie neighborhood
of Los Angeles, and currently in the neighboring
city of Pico Rivera. She sells merchandise during
the day and hot dogs after five in the evening.
Rosa has been ticketed frequently in the daytime.
These tickets have increased in cost each time: the
first was $150, the second was $550, and the third
was $1,050. If she does not pay them off soon, the
tickets will go to debt collection.30 Enforcement
agents never even speak to Rosa before issuing the
tickets: instead, they use her vehicle license plate
information to send the citation to Rosa by mail.
According to Rosa, this is customary practice for
StreetsLA agents in Hollywood—they rarely speak
to vendors before issuing tickets based on vehicle
tags.
Rosa knows she cannot meet the impractical side-
walk food vending equipment design standards
imposed by DPH—that, in fact, no one can meet
them. Her experience has shown her not only that
the process is difficult to navigate, but also that
a cart meeting all the requirements would be too
heavy and impossible to push. She has already
obtained several of the prerequisite documents
needed for a DPH permit and a city sidewalk
vending permit, but they are not sufficient to avoid
constant surveillance and ticketing.
As Merlin operates an unpermitted hot dog cart and
a permitted fruit cart, she has a view of both sides
of the DPH process and enforcement practices.
Just like Rosa, Merlin has faced extreme enforce-
ment actions by StreetsLA and DPH in Hollywood.
Often, when StreetsLA and DPH come to enforce in
Hollywood, sidewalk vendors can warn each other
and disperse before they are all cited. A few times,
though, DPH has checked her fruit cart permit and
confiscated her hot dog cart. Unable to recover her
property, she has had to purchase a new hot dog
cart after each confiscation.
Pedro, like Rosa, was operating without a permit but
is gathering materials to apply for the DPH permit
when it is feasible for him to do so. He spent eight
hours obtaining his Food Handler’s Management
Certificate, which is a prerequisite for obtaining a
DPH permit, and he obtained his Individual Taxpayer
Identification Number (ITIN) to apply for his state
seller’s license. Once in 2019, after DPH cited him at
his taco stand for failing to have a health permit, he
was asked to come to the DPH office. He lives in the
Valley and was required to drive to Baldwin Park—
an 80-mile roundtrip—to meet with DPH officials.
They showed him sample blueprints and carts, but
the only compliant cart options for selling tacos
cost over forty thousand dollars.
Although vendors generally operate safely even
without DPH permits, they report that both DPH
and StreetsLA regularly enforce permit require-
ments in partnership with the Los Angeles Police
Department (LAPD), the Los Angeles County Sher-
iff’s Department (LASD), private security forces,
and other armed (often unidentified) law enforce-
ment officers. This domineering use of criminal law
enforcement to address a potential health permit
violation—especially without first speaking with
a vendor to check for a permit—is not imposed on
brick-and-mortar businesses.
Item 13.C 01/11/21
39 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4008 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 17
DPH and city enforcement officers are not the only
threat. Unfortunately, some community members
see sidewalk food vendors as threats to their own
business and take matters into their own hands
by verbally confronting vendors or ejecting them
from spaces where they may be vending legally.
Rosa shared that a large department store near
her regular vending location repeatedly contacted
police and StreetsLA about her vending, for which
she did have a permit. Only after several visits did
one police officer finally inform the private secu-
rity officers that Rosa had a permit to sell in that
location and admonish the private security officers
not to contact law enforcement again. While Rosa,
Merlin, and Pedro all reported generally positive
relationships with brick-and-mortar business
employees at their vending locations, who often
grant them bathroom access as a sign of good-
will, they also shared that some brick-and-mortar
business owners make their lives much more diffi-
cult by calling enforcement agencies, being rude
and unwelcoming, physically harassing vendors, or
hiring private security to intimidate vendors oper-
ating nearby—all without ever knowing for certain
whether the sidewalk vendors they report are
breaking any laws.
Item 13.C 01/11/21
40 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4009 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 18
PART II:
LEGAL AND REGULATORY BARRIERS
As the experiences of Merlin, Rosa and Pedro illus-
trate, the promise of legal sidewalk food vending
has yet to be realized. This part provides a detailed
analysis of the regulatory barriers that work to
exclude thousands of vendors like Merlin, Rosa, and
Pedro from economic opportunity.
The CRFC governs most food sales across Cali-
fornia, and local health departments like DPH must
follow the CRFC as they enforce its requirements
and issue permits to local food establishments and
food entrepreneurs.31 The CRFC and DPH guidelines
are intended to promote public health—a goal that
is also important to the sidewalk vendor commu-
nity.32 Perversely, the onerous restrictions in these
laws actually operate to inhibit that goal by making
it prohibitively expensive or physically impossible
for sidewalk vendors with a small cart to success-
fully obtain a health permit, preventing nearly an
entire sector of the food economy from entering a
system of food safety guidance.
Appendix 1 outlines the process that a sidewalk
food vendor must navigate to obtain a permit from
DPH, demonstrating the shocking complexity of the
system and identifying a variety of points where
vendors may reach insurmountable barriers and
abandon their plans to legally vend.
The barriers preventing sidewalk food vendors from
obtaining a DPH permit are so numerous that this
report groups them into five broad categories: (1)
program accessibility; (2) permitting procedures;
(3) equipment requirements; (4) food preparation
and equipment storage; and (5) enforcement. The
following analysis is based on a thorough examina-
tion of the CRFC and the DPH Mobile Food Facility
Plan Check Guidelines, interviews with sidewalk
food vendors, input from community organizers and
allies of sidewalk food vendors, and data from a
recent survey of sidewalk food vendors conducted
by Inclusive Action for the City.33 For each barrier,
the relevant source of law creating it—state-level
CRFC or county DPH guideline—is identified. These
barriers are also listed in a table in Appendix 2.
Item 13.C 01/11/21
41 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4010 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 19
Barriers relating to program
accessibility
Overlapping jurisdictional authority,
a history of negative and harmful
interactions with government
agencies, exceedingly complicated
technical requirements, language access barriers,
and high startup costs all function to prevent many
vendors from even attempting to enter the permit-
ting process and formalize their business.
Accessibility barriers in state law
The CRFC dictates nearly every facet of a sidewalk
food vending business, including the type of cart
that a vendor needs to construct or purchase, the
ancillary infrastructure a vendor needs to rent to
support the cart, the additional permits a vendor is
required to obtain, and the ongoing operations of
the business once permitted. However, the statute
is full of industry jargon and complex terminology,
making it nearly impossible for sidewalk food
vendors—or anyone for that matter—to interpret
the dense technical language and determine which
provisions are relevant to sidewalk operations as
opposed to restaurants or motorized food trucks.
Further, the CRFC also appears to be available only
in English.34 This presents an overwhelming barrier
to entry for vendors whose primary language is not
English and who do not have the training required to
parse through complicated technical language.
Accessibility barriers in DPH guideliness
The only interactions that most sidewalk food
vendors have ever had with DPH involve punitive
enforcement and property confiscation. Accord-
ingly, many vendors are still understandably wary
of government institutions, like DPH, that have
historically played an enforcement role. Absent
meaningful outreach and a culture shift prioritizing
coaching and support, many sidewalk food vendors
will be deterred from even approaching the DPH
permitting process.
Those sidewalk food vendors who do seek to navi-
gate the DPH permitting process have found it diffi-
cult, if not impossible, to decipher exactly what they
must do to comply with all the relevant rules. Like
the CRFC, the DPH guidelines are full of industry
jargon and complex terminology. To make matters
worse, the guidelines and educational materials
provided to the public govern all mobile food facil-
ities—a technical term encompassing large-scale
catering trucks as well as small-scale sidewalk
operations. There is no targeted published guidance
isolating and explaining the provisions that apply
specifically to sidewalk food vending, leaving a
vendor to interpret and reconcile complicated tech-
nical terms and dense legislation in order to deci-
pher which rules might apply to sidewalk carts.35
DPH guidelines are also only available in English,
effectively barring many vendors from obtaining
critical information about the DPH permitting
process.36
Finally, DPH imposes substantial permitting and
inspection fees, which when combined with the
cost of the actual cart, will serve as a barrier to
most subsistence-earning vendors. Table 1 illus-
trates the fees and costs sidewalk food vendors
encounter when formalizing and operating their
businesses. A sidewalk food vendor selling unpack-
aged food must pay between $10,490.00 and
$14,194.00 in startup fees and costs (and poten-
tially much more depending on the type of food
sold), plus an additional $4,913.00–$8,513.00 in
recurring annual fees.
1. paperwork in english?
2. little permit document or
blueprint
3. really wide impractical
vending cart
4. A commissary (garage with
a pull down gate)
5. a police baton
Three levels: could be logos of
DPH, City, and State.
Sidewalk FoodVending Application
Name:Contact Address:Business Name:Email: Phone Number:
Item 13.C 01/11/21
42 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4011 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 20
Table 1: Aggregate Fee Chart
Fee Description Amount Paid To Frequency
Initial Plan Check
Application Fee
$746.00 County Once during application
Additional Plan
Checks
$167.00 County If initial plan is not ap-
proved, this fee is applied for every additional plan check
Mobile Food Facility Health Permit
Application37
Prepackaged Food Cart: $393.00
Unpackaged Food Cart: $772.00
County Annually
Business License $26.00 to register a Fictitious Business
Name (FBN)
L.A. City Once upon creation of the
business
Food Manager/
Handler Certification
Permit
$55.00* – $159.00 County Once every five years
StreetsLA Sidewalk Vending Permit $291.00 (will increase to $541.00 in 2022)L.A. City Annually
Cart Construction Depends on type of cart and manufac-turer, but a permitted cart now costs
$5,000.00 or more.
Third Party Once for construction, again if DPH confiscates
a cart
Commissary Fee38 Depends on which commissary:
$300.00 – $600.00 (Note: first payment
must typically include first month’s
rent, the last month’s rent, and a secu-rity deposit)
Third Party Monthly
Total Startup Fees to County Prepackaged: $1,194.00 – $1,298.00 (plus $167.00 for each additional plan check)
Unpackaged: $1,573.00 – $1,677.00 (plus $167.00 for each additional plan check)
Total Startup Fees to City $317.00 ($567.00 beginning in 2022)
Total Startup Payments to Third Parties
$8,600.00 – $12,200.00
GRAND TOTAL STARTUP COSTS $10,490.00 – $14,194.00 to sell unpackaged food (plus additional costs for a
more expensive cart or additional plan check fees or an even more expensive commissary)
Annual Fees to City $291.00 in 2021, $541.00 thereafter
Annual fees to County $393.00 or $772.00
Annual Payments to
Third Parties
$300.00 – $600.00 monthly ($3,600.00 – $7,200.00 annually)
GRAND TOTAL ANNUAL FEES $4,913.00 – $8,513.00 to sell unpackaged foods
GRAND TOTAL FIVE-YEAR OPERATING FEES
$30,142.00 – $48,246.00 minimum (additional costs for more expensive cart,
additional plan check fees, or more expensive commissary lease).
*$55.00 exam is only offered in English, with no study guide
Item 13.C 01/11/21
43 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4012 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 21
Barriers relating to
application procedures
For those vendors who are not
immediately excluded or deterred
from seeking a permit, the actual permit application
and approval process presents a dizzying array of
additional barriers.
Permitting barriers in state law
The CRFC requires sidewalk food vendors to obtain
a valid permit.39 In order to even apply for a permit
for a new or remodeled cart, the CRFC requires
applicants to first submit blueprints (to scale) of
the proposed cart, before beginning construction
of the cart.40 DPH implements this requirement
through complicated plan check procedures.41
Vendors rarely have access to the expensive and
technical digital software necessary to render blue-
prints, the time or specific drafting skills for this
process, or the funds to pay a professional to create
plans. As a result, most sidewalk food vendors must
purchase a brand new cart to have any hope of
successfully navigating the state-mandated proce-
dures.
Unfortunately, there is no broadly standardized
sidewalk food cart available for vendors to purchase
on the market. There are a few manufactured food
carts available for narrow categories of food, but
they cost a minimum of $5,000, and many cost
around $15,000.42 As a result, many vendors build
their own carts for three or four hundred dollars.
Even if a vendor can raise funds to purchase a
professionally manufactured cart, DPH approval is
not guaranteed because the vendor must provide
exact blueprints of the cart before the cart will be
approved. There does not appear to be any guidance
from DPH on how to purchase a manufactured food
cart, nor do the DPH guidelines make any mention
of such a possibility. Absent a formal pre-approval
program or endorsement from DPH, manufactured
carts remain a risky investment for vendors who
cannot be certain that a cart they purchase will be
code-compliant, and who might fear exploitation by
predatory cart manufacturers.
The cart manufacturing process itself presents yet
another barrier. Cart manufacturers must build the
cart to the exact specifications laid out in DPH-ap-
proved blueprints. Even a half-inch difference
between the blueprint and the completed cart will
result in a failed inspection.43 This requires vendors
to have a level of technical expertise far beyond
what is reasonable to safely operate food carts, and
far beyond what is required of individuals in other
permitting contexts.
In addition to submitting blueprints for cart design,
a sidewalk food vendor handling nonprepackaged
food must also develop and submit for approval
written operational procedures for food handling
and the cleaning and sanitizing of food-contact
surfaces and utensils.44
After securing approval of blueprints and oper-
ating procedures and completing the costly and
time-consuming cart manufacturing process, a
sidewalk food vendor must then submit the cart to
a rigorous inspection process before a permit will
be issued.45
Finally, the CRFC requires any cart that involves the
preparation, handling, or serving of nonprepack-
aged potentially hazardous food to have at least one
person involved in the business who has obtained
a Food Manager’s Certification.46 The course and
exam to acquire the certification can cost anywhere
from $55 to $159, and must be renewed every five
Merlin has used home-built carts and new carts—which both impose distinctive hardships. She
purchased her hot dog cart from a cousin for $300 and has had to replace it multiple times after DPH
has confiscated it. Each time she is forced to construct a new cart, she tries her best to build it to
operate safely; however, because she knows her carts cannot be constructed to meet the current
code, she has not tried to get them approved or go through the plan check. While Merlin’s original
unpermitted hot dog cart was purchased second-hand for a modest price, she was able to purchase a
manufactured fruit cart and successfully obtain a permit after taking out a loan to finance the $5,000
purchase price. Merlin required help from her entire family to pay off the loan over a two-year period.
Most vendors are unable to pay for the entire cost of the cart up-front and must work out a payment
plan with the manufacturer.
1. paperwork in english?
2. little permit document or
blueprint
3. really wide impractical
vending cart
4. A commissary (garage with
a pull down gate)
5. a police baton
Three levels: could be logos of
DPH, City, and State.
Sidewalk FoodVending Application
Name:Contact Address:Business Name:Email: Phone Number:
Item 13.C 01/11/21
44 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4013 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 22
years.47 In addition to being an added cost and time
commitment, it is difficult to find course materials
in languages other than English and examinations
are often conducted in person.
These requirements assume a code-compliant cart
that can be manufactured. As described below,
for some types of food, sidewalk carts are not
manufactured or available for purchase because
applicable equipment requirements would yield an
enormous product that cannot fit on the sidewalk.
Permitting barriers in DPH guidelines
DPH implements the onerous plan check, inspec-
tion and permit application procedures dictated by
the CRFC through its permitting power. However,
the DPH permitting procedures are opaque, there
is very little guidance concerning documents that
vendors must provide and the processes they must
complete before beginning a permit application,
and DPH permitting and inspection services are
geographically limited.
There is very little information available to vendors
seeking to begin the DPH permitting process.
DPH has published a “Mobile Food Facility Permit
Factsheet,”48 but this short brochure does not
differentiate requirements for large-scale trucks
and trailers from small-scale sidewalk carts. The
brochure directs vendors to a phone number, but
provides little information on the application
requirements and procedures, stating only that
“prior to receiving your Public Health Permit, your
vehicle/cart must be evaluated to ensure it meets
the mobile food facility requirements that apply,
per the California Retail Food Code.” The brochure
includes a link to a permit application, but at the
time of publication this link was broken and there
was no way to access the permit application online.
Most sidewalk food vendors are currently working
with unpermitted carts. Available DPH materials
do not outline the process or provide any guidance
on inspecting existing carts for compliance. Any
remodeling of an existing cart would trigger the plan
check process, requiring blueprints to be submitted
for approval prior to beginning any changes to the
cart.
Vendors and organizers have confirmed that appli-
cation consultations and plan check submission
occur only at a single location—the DPH Baldwin
Park office, which is a difficult journey for many
vendors working across the region. After plan
submission, if DPH determines that the blueprints
need further amendments, vendors may be redi-
rected to any one of eight local offices, spanning
from the Antelope Valley to Torrance. After the cart
is constructed, vendors must transport the final
cart back to Baldwin Park for inspection.
In addition to the plan check and inspection
processes dictated by state law, DPH also requires
applicants to provide a valid picture ID, a commis-
sary contract, and a Food Manager’s Certificate as
part of the application.49 Vendors must also obtain a
state Seller’s Permit, which requires either a social
security number or an Individual Taxpayer Iden-
tification Number (ITIN). None of the DPH offices
provide support for any of these complicated permit
prerequisites.
Instead of being able to secure these prerequisites
as part of the DPH application process, a vendor
must make additional office visits to one of eight
city Business Source Centers, adding time and
complexity. At the time of publication, there are only
two Business Source Centers (Central Los Angeles
and Mid City) that help a vendor obtain an ITIN if
they do not have a Social Security Number.50 The
sidewalk vendors interviewed for this report raised
no objection to the ITIN requirement; they simply
noted that the limited number of offices providing
assistance with filing for an ITIN makes it burden-
some to obtain. It strains credulity that the largest
county in the most populous state—a state that
legally recognizes undocumented immigrants—
offers so few locations to secure such a crucial
identity credential and key to participation in the
formal economy.
Even when vendors assemble the documents
necessary under applicable law to proceed through
the permitting process, they may be stymied by
DPH staff who are unaware of the sufficiency of
forms of identification that are common among
the vendor community. Vendors have reported DPH
officials who have declined to accept the California
AB 60 Driver’s License, leaving applicants confused
and without a clear understanding of what identity
documents are acceptable to DPH.51
Item 13.C 01/11/21
45 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4014 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 23
Barriers created by
impossible equipment
design requirements
DPH will not issue a permit until it approves blue-
prints for a proposed cart and inspects the final
product. Both the CRFC and DPH guidelines contain
unattainable equipment design requirements for
many small-scale sidewalk vending carts, which
has the effect of prohibiting a lot of sidewalk food
vending as we know it.
Equipment barriers in state law
The CRFC imposes equipment standards on side-
walk food vending operations that, when taken
together, are often impossible to meet. The combi-
nation of water and sink requirements, storage and
ventilation requirements, and prohibitions on the
use of certain equipment on the cart combine to
make many sidewalk vending carts either prohibi-
tively expensive or too large to function on a side-
walk.
The CRFC requires that all sidewalk vending carts
serving unpackaged food must have a 5-gallon
water tank exclusively for handwashing.52 Where
food is prepared on site, even more burdensome
requirements apply:53 they must carry at least
15 gallons of water for washing cooking utensils
and equipment, have a 3-compartment ware-
washing sink and a separate handwashing sink,
and include a water heater capable of heating at
least 4 gallons of water at a time or an instanta-
neous heater capable of heating water up to 120º
Fahrenheit.54 Based on these requirements, most
sidewalk food vending carts would need 4 separate
sink compartments, measuring over 50 inches (4
feet 2 inches) and weighing over 140 pounds.55 The
requirements for a 5-gallon water tank exclusively
for handwashing and a 15-gallon water tank for
warewashing add almost 170 pounds.56 The CRFC
includes a very limited exemption to the 3-compart-
ment warewashing sink requirements for carts
that sell steamed or boiled hot dogs and tamales
in the original inedible wrapper.57 Many other foods
commonly sold by sidewalk vendors involve very
similar preparation processes, but are not included
in the list of foods that qualify for a waiver of the
warewashing sink requirements.
These onerous sink requirements exceed the
requirements imposed by other jurisdictions with
robust street food cultures such New York City,58
which only requires a one-compartment sink for
carts preparing potentially hazardous foods, and
Portland, Oregon, which does not require ware-
washing facilities on the unit for many types of
vending, if adequate facilities exist at the commis-
sary.59 The CRFC also unfairly imposes more rigid
sink requirements on sidewalk food vendors
than it does on similar food facilities operated in
connection with a brick-and-mortar restaurant.
For example, “Satellite food service” operations,60
which amount to an outdoor food facility operated
by a fully enclosed restaurant, are allowed “the use
of alternative warewashing facilities.”61 Apart from
allowing an “auxiliary conveyance,” the CRFC does
not explicitly grant the same opportunity to side-
walk vending carts.
Many sidewalk food vending carts must also have
mechanical exhaust ventilation equipment over all
hot cooking equipment and store ice in a separate
area away from any food contact surface (e.g., uten-
sils and counters), further adding to cart size and
cost.62
As an unenclosed mobile food facility, a sidewalk
food vending cart can only accommodate “limited
food preparation.”63 The CRFC definition of limited
food preparation unnecessarily creates a de facto
ban on some of the most common and iconic side-
walk food vending operations. For example, the
CRFC does not permit slicing or chopping unless on
a heated cooking surface.64 This prevents the slicing
of whole fruits at the vending cart, prohibiting a
core operation of all fruit vendors.
1. paperwork in english?
2. little permit document or
blueprint
3. really wide impractical
vending cart
4. A commissary (garage with
a pull down gate)
5. a police baton
Three levels: could be logos of
DPH, City, and State.
Sidewalk Food
Vending Application
Name:
Contact Address:
Business Name:Email:
Phone Number:
1. paperwork in english? 2. little permit document or blueprint3. really wide impractical vending cart4. A commissary (garage with a pull down gate)5. a police batonThree levels: could be logos of DPH, City, and State. Sidewalk FoodVending ApplicationName:Contact Address:Business Name:Email: Phone Number:
“The CRFC definition of limited food preparation
unnecessarily creates a de facto ban on some of
the most common and iconic sidewalk food vending
operations.”
Item 13.C 01/11/21
46 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4015 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 24
The CRFC also prohibits reheating and hot-holding
of almost every common item sold by sidewalk
food vendors, even though cooking raw meat is
allowed.66 This provision precludes taco vendors
from preparing taco fillings at an approved commis-
sary, re-heating on a hot surface on their cart, and
holding in a hot-holder to allow for serving hot food
to order. There appears to be no basis for these
restrictions, as the CRFC provides exceptions for
a seemingly arbitrary and limited list of foods that
can be hot-held on-site, such as corn, hot dogs,
and tamales.67 Many other foods commonly sold by
sidewalk vendors involve very similar preparation
processes, but are not included in the list of foods
allowed to be reheated and hot-held.
To the limited extent that these equipment require-
ments have been studied by independent experts,
available studies exhibit a “bias in the research
focus” that neglect to study the health and safety
impact of vending as compared to other large-scale
food facilities.68 Our research found limited or no
peer-reviewed scientific research that shows that
these particularly burdensome requirements of the
CRFC are evidence-based measures developed to
protect public health.69 Instead, the CRFC creates
unrealistic and insurmountable barriers for vendors
that undermine food safety goals by keeping
vendors out of the formally regulated food safety
system.
Equipment barriers in DPH guidelines
There are three main areas where DPH require-
ments exceed the already-demanding CRFC equip-
ment design requirements: (1) on-site sink require-
ments; (2) fire suppression system requirements;
and (3) on-site food storage dimensions.
DPH’s current interpretation and enforcement of
the CRFC sink requirements acts as an indepen-
dent barrier to vendors’ ability to comply with those
requirements. The CRFC provides that
“[h]andwashing sinks and warewashing sinks
for unenclosed mobile food facilities shall be an
integral part of the primary unit or on an approved
auxiliary conveyance that is used in conjunction
with the mobile food facility.”70 While this language
is copied into the Plan Check Guidelines, DPH does
not appear to make low-income sidewalk food
vendors aware of the auxiliary sink option, nor
A de facto ban on taco carts
Equipment design requirements in the CRFC make it nearly impossible to legally operate a taco cart.
The CRFC requires a taco cart to include a 3-compartment warewashing sink, adding considerable size
and weight. The CRFC also prohibits reheating and hot-holding of most taco fillings, which means that
any approved taco cart must cook-to-order on the cart, further adding to the already significant equip-
ment design requirements. A cart that meets the relevant CRFC standards for cooking-to-order could
weigh between 1,200 to 1,800 pounds and be over 16 feet long—far too heavy and too large to actually
operate on the sidewalk.65
Item 13.C 01/11/21
47 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4016 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 25
has DPH explored any creative options to promote
shared access to auxiliary sink units.71 This narrow
interpretation removes opportunities for vendors to
creatively implement the safety standards required
under state law in a manner that would enable
the operation of a smaller and more affordable
CRFC-compliant cart on a sidewalk.
DPH Guidelines also include a requirement for a
fire suppression system that appears to have no
basis in state law. The CRFC requires only a fire
extinguisher.72 This fire suppression system rule
may in fact be an element of a separate require-
ment relating to mechanical exhaust ventilation
systems that are required for on-site cooking,
but by listing it as a unique requirement, the
DPH Guidelines create unnecessary confusion. A
full overhead fire suppression system is simply
not compatible with an unenclosed mobile food
facility,73 and presents another constraint on the
production of smaller, more affordable carts.
DPH food storage requirements place additional
barriers in the way of vendor success. The CRFC
imposes no specific cubic footage requirement for
storage on mobile food facilities. However, DPH lists
a minimum cubic footage requirement in its Mobile
Facility Checklist for both refrigerated space and
dry storage space.74 These requirements far exceed
the typical number of food items served during the
regular operating hours of a small-scale sidewalk
cart, unnecessarily adding to the size and cost of
a compliant cart. For example, the 12 cubic feet of
refrigerated storage space would store thousands
of hot dogs, many times more than a hot dog vendor
could possibly sell.
Barriers relating to
food preparation and
equipment storage
In addition to code compliant
carts, sidewalk food vendors
must also demonstrate access to a commis-
sary and, in many cases, a commercial kitchen
to prepare food and store and clean equipment.
Commissaries and commercial kitchens have
typically never catered to recently-legalized small-
scale sidewalk vending businesses. As a result,
there are a number of distinct obstacles affecting
the ability of low-income vendors to comply with
commissary and kitchen access requirements,
including: DPH’s lack of process for permitting
available community-based kitchens for use as
commissary and kitchen spaces, a lack of physical
infrastructure that fits vendor businesses’ unique
needs, and disparate burdens placed on vendors
who have limited mobility to travel daily to commis-
saries.
Commissary and kitchen access barriers in state law
The CRFC requires sidewalk food vending carts
to operate in connection with a commissary,
defined as “a food facility that services mobile
food facilities, mobile support units, or vending
machines where any of the following occur: (a)
Food, containers, or supplies are stored. (b) Food
is prepared or prepackaged for sale or service at
other locations. (c) Utensils are cleaned. (d) Liquid
and solid wastes are disposed, or potable water is
obtained.”75 Sidewalk food vending carts must be
Storage requirements render an otherwise code-compliant cart infeasible
DPH food storage requirements—not mandated by the CRFC—are entirely incompatible with small-
scale sidewalk food vending carts. A recent analysis by Kounkuey Design Initiative found that a
hot-holding pushcart that meets DPH guidelines would weigh more than 700 pounds76—an unwork-
able weight and footprint for sidewalk pushcarts. This estimate assumes an exemption from the
3-compartment sink requirements, which would further add to the overall weight and size of the cart
if applied. Mechanically refrigerated storage is a major contributor to the prohibitive size and weight
of a code-compliant pushcart, as DPH requires 12 cubic feet, or enough to fit approximately 5,000 hot
dogs. This is significantly more storage space than necessary for a small-scale sidewalk pushcart—a
vendor would need to sell nearly 7 hot dogs per minute in order to sell 5,000 hot dogs in a 12-hour shift.
Because the CRFC does not mandate this much food storage capacity, DPH can easily adjust this stan-
dard and help make hot-holding carts much more affordable to vendors and appropriately sized for the
sidewalk.
1. paperwork in english? 2. little permit document or blueprint3. really wide impractical vending cart4. A commissary (garage with a pull down gate)5. a police batonThree levels: could be logos of DPH, City, and State. Sidewalk FoodVending ApplicationName:Contact Address:Business Name:Email: Phone Number:
Item 13.C 01/11/21
48 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4017 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 26
stored and serviced at a commissary once daily
during an operating day,77 imposing significant
transportation and cost barriers on low-income
sidewalk food vendors, especially those without
access to a personal vehicle. While there are many
storage commissaries currently operating in the
county, only a few have approved kitchen space for
vendors to use,78 again reflecting the reality that
the current infrastructure is created to serve food
trucks and other large operations where cooking
occurs on site and not in the commissary space.
Even if a vendor sells food that does not require
cooking—such as prepackaged chips or snacks—
they still have to maintain a contract with a
commissary where they can store and sanitize their
cart daily.79 This may be an insignificant require-
ment for food truck operators who can easily drive
their trucks to the commissary daily, but it is a much
higher physical and economic cost for vendors who
do not have private transportation or affordable
access to a commissary in their neighborhood.
Commercial commissary contracts can cost a
vendor between $900 and $1,800 to start (first
month’s rent, last month’s rent, and security
deposit) and between $300 and $600 per month
thereafter.80 These costs can be prohibitively expen-
sive for sidewalk food vendors who could find
less expensive spaces in their communities with
relative ease, such as local restaurants, churches,
or other community spaces.81 Given the high cost
of accessing a formal commissary space, many
vendors use commercial and professional-grade
kitchens in restaurants and other local food busi-
nesses under informal agreements.
Certain food businesses can, instead of renting a
space with a commercial commissary or kitchen,
be permitted to operate out of residential kitchens.
There are two different regulatory frameworks
for small home food preparation businesses in
California—Cottage Food Operations (CFOs)82
and Micro-Enterprise Home Kitchen Operations
(MEHKOs).83 Both operations limit the types of
food and beverage items that can be produced and
sold,84 have a cap on annual gross profits,85 and
require the operators to obtain a health permit from
the local health department (though not all opera-
tions require an in-person inspection from a local
health inspector).86 These alternative, more afford-
able options are not viable for sidewalk vendors, as
neither CFOs nor MEKHOs clearly permit operators
to take meals or food products cooked within the
residential kitchens out to sell from the sidewalk.87
This is true even if a sidewalk vendor otherwise
has a code-compliant cart and meets local vending
regulations. A minor amendment to each of these
regulatory frameworks could significantly reduce
operating expenses for a subset of sidewalk food
vendors by enabling them to avoid the cost of
leasing space from a formal commissary kitchen.
Commissary and kitchen access barriers created by DPH guidelines and implementation
DPH has chosen a narrow approach to permit-
ting commissary and commercial kitchen spaces,
strictly circumscribing the availability of those
facilities to vendors.
The CRFC’s definition of “commissary” is suffi-
ciently broad that DPH could approve almost any
professional grade or commercial kitchen as a
commissary, including existing kitchens in schools,
community centers, churches, and other common
establishments located widely throughout the
county. The CRFC also gives DPH the authority to
approve the use of mobile food facilities in conjunc-
tion with any “other facility approved by the enforce-
ment agency.”88 Thus, DPH clearly has the authority
to establish standards and protocols to inspect and
approve a variety of existing underutilized commu-
nity kitchen spaces for sidewalk vendors to meet
state law requirements.
To date, DPH has not dedicated resources to
encourage kitchen owners and operators to seek
commissary kitchen certification, nor has DPH
demonstrated any plan to increase the number of
commissary kitchen spaces available to sidewalk
food vendors. This denies vendors an important
opportunity to invest their dollars in the communi-
ties where they live and work, and fails to recognize
and offer a potentially useful resource for vendors.
Item 13.C 01/11/21
49 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4018 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 27
Barriers relating to
enforcement
If a sidewalk food vendor is
miraculously able to obtain a DPH
permit for their food cart under
these conditions, the vendor is then faced with
significant barriers in everyday business operations.
Sidewalk food vendors must meet local spatial and
operational regulations, navigate relationships with
brick-and-mortar businesses—including restau-
rants that may see sidewalk vendors as a threat to
their bottom line—and safely transport their carts
to and from vending and commissary locations each
day in the face of increasing incidents of violent
attacks. During the pandemic, additional oper-
ational requirements have included extra hand-
washing, mask-wearing, and ensuring customers
follow masking and social distancing precautions.
The daily work of a sidewalk food vendor is difficult
enough, but a pattern of threatening enforcement
practices continues to make everyday business
operations nearly impossible. Despite recent
progressive changes to the law, government agen-
cies have maintained a culture of punitive enforce-
ment and hostile treatment of low-income sidewalk
food vendors. Until this culture is changed and
practices reoriented around equity and inclusion,
sidewalk food vendors will continue to be denied
the right to build their business, work with dignity,
and thrive in the manner they deserve.
The CRFC continues to classify violations, including
unpermitted vending, as criminal misdemean-
ors.89 This enables DPH inspectors to issue crim-
inal citations to sidewalk food vendors who are
working without a permit by no fault of their own.
DPH actively encourages the public to report
unpermitted sidewalk food vendors, devoting two
separate webpages to informing the public about
unpermitted street food, including how to spot
unpermitted vendors.90 The sites encourage the
public to report unpermitted street food by calling
the Public Health Mobile Food Vending Investi-
gation and Compliance Program or by filing an
online complaint. One of the two webpages, which
is specific to the Mobile Food Vending Investiga-
tion and Compliance Program, encourages callers
to identify the police division that covers the area
where unpermitted food vending is alleged to be
taking place.91
When DPH enforces health permitting require-
ments, vendors often face two consequences
simultaneously: they receive a criminal citation
and their carts or food products are confiscated.92
The consequences of DPH enforcement are not felt
equally among all members of the vendor popula-
tion. Merlin, who has had her hot dog cart confis-
cated on multiple occasions, reported that while
she received no follow-up information about how to
reclaim her property, another vendor who she iden-
tified as white was able to retrieve his confiscated
vending cart on the same day that it was taken and
resume vending immediately.
DPH Inspectors are commonly accompanied by
LASD deputies when carrying out enforcement
actions. This sends an intimidating message to
vendors and the community because the law is
enforced differently with vendors than with brick-
and-mortar restaurant owners, who would never
see a DPH Inspector accompanied by a Sheriff’s
deputy during an inspection.93 There is in fact no
need or requirement in state law to involve the
Sherriff’s Department. The CRFC defines a local
“enforcement agency” as “the local health agency
having jurisdiction over” a food facility (emphasis
added).94 State law further defines “enforcement
officers” as “all local health officers, directors of
environmental health, and their duly authorized
registered environmental health specialists and
environmental health specialist trainees.”95 Under
these definitions, the Sherriff’s Department is not
tasked with inspecting sidewalk food vending oper-
ations for compliance with CRFC or DPH guidelines.
DPH simply does not require the resources, training,
tools, or tactics of an armed law enforcement
officer such as a Sheriff’s deputy to issue fines that
may result from a failed food facility inspection.
Current enforcement practices by the City of
L.A. add an additional layer of harm. Sidewalk
food vendors continue to be subject to frequent
displacement and citation due to unjust no-vending
zones enforced by the city. The most egregious
example is the no-vending zone along the Holly-
wood Walk of Fame in Council District 13. The rule
prohibits all vending within 500 feet of Hollywood
Boulevard. Yet, in that same location, restaurant
sidewalk dining (which takes up even more space
on the sidewalk) is encouraged through the city’s
“Al Fresco” program.96 This blatantly discriminatory
local regulation disproportionately harms low-in-
1. paperwork in english? 2. little permit document or blueprint3. really wide impractical vending cart4. A commissary (garage with a pull down gate)5. a police batonThree levels: could be logos of DPH, City, and State. Sidewalk FoodVending ApplicationName:Contact Address:Business Name:Email: Phone Number:
Item 13.C 01/11/21
50 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4019 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 28
come and immigrant sidewalk food vendors, many
of whom have been working in the area for decades.
The enforcement of this discriminatory rule is
severe. StreetsLA arrives on Hollywood Boule-
vard daily to cite vendors.97 Vendors have also
reported that despite being told enforcement of
new no-vending zones would not be immediate,
StreetsLA arrived a day after new zone bound-
aries were announced. Merlin has also received
conflicting information about the boundaries of
Hollywood Boulevard’s no-vending zone from
different StreetsLA enforcement agents.98 Mone-
tary fines for unpermitted vending issued by
StreetsLA are weighty punishments for vendors,
and the confiscation of vendor property can func-
tionally add hundreds of dollars more to the initial
fine amount because the vendor is unable to earn
income while they seek the return of their property.
Even licensed and permitted vendors suffer from
the risks associated with aggressive enforce-
ment. Merlin, who operates a licensed fruit cart
in Hollywood, reported being on constant lookout
for enforcement agents who regularly approach
vendors during working hours on busy streets.99 It
is difficult to imagine a brick-and-mortar restau-
rant facing the same aggressive surveillance and
enforcement tactics employed against sidewalk
food vendors despite a lack of empirical evidence
showing sidewalk food operations pose any greater
risk to public health than restaurants do.100 Public
health inspectors do not arrive unannounced in
restaurant kitchens during peak business hours,
and restaurant operators have the right to deny
or delay inspector access to kitchens and other
non-public areas and instead schedule a “Compli-
ance Visit.”101
Aggressive enforcement of laws governing side-
walk food vending has not been shown to provide
significant protection from foodborne illness. In
fact, national studies of sidewalk food vending
enforcement have found that sidewalk food
vendors are more frequently cited for violations of
zoning ordinances or failures to possess permits
than they are for actual food safety infractions.102
According to scholars, the top-three rationales for
local enforcement of sidewalk vending regulations
are: (1) protection of property interests; (2) preven-
tion of traffic congestion; and (3) maintenance of
orderly sidewalks.103 The impetus to protect prop-
erty interests has no public health link, and there is
no evidence to suggest sidewalk vendors pose any
threat whatsoever to private or public property.104
It is the aggressive enforcement of sidewalk
vending laws that poses an actual threat to public
health and vendor safety. Onerous and expen-
sive permitting requirements do not prevent
unlicensed street vending; rather, in New York
and Los Angeles, the increase in regulatory costs
and requirements has produced a corresponding
increase in the number of unlicensed vendors,
expanding the preparation of food cooked in unreg-
ulated, uninspected facilities.105 The engagement
of armed criminal law enforcement officers in
sidewalk vending enforcement operations similarly
increases—rather than diminishes—the risks to
public health and vendor safety. Because armed
law enforcement officers are so intimidating, espe-
cially to vendors who are low-income (often undoc-
umented) immigrants and people of color, those
vendors have reported accidental burns resulting
from distraction while watching out for police.106
The county’s approach to public health enforce-
ment exploits and reinforces the public’s tendency
to perceive street food as dirty and sidewalk food
vendors as bad actors who spread disease and
personify poverty. It also encourages harassment
of sidewalk food vendors by members of the public
and the police. All three vendors interviewed for this
report had experienced police harassment resulting
from members of the public reporting their vending
activities, even when they were vending food or
merchandise legally. Merlin and Rosa were both
targeted by StreetsLA and Sheriff’s deputies after
those agencies were contacted by brick-and-
mortar business owners who did not want sidewalk
vendors to operate near their restaurants or stores.
Merlin also reported that customers often take
advantage of sidewalk vendors by ordering food,
receiving it, and beginning to eat it only to reveal
they do not have cash to pay—thereby committing
theft. All three vendors reported being verbally
harassed by members of the public who opposed
sidewalk vending.
Unfortunately, Merlin and Rosa’s experiences with
harassment are part of a growing trend.107 Rele-
gated to the informal economy, vendors have long
been vulnerable to harassment and violent attacks.
Experts suggest that the Covid-19 pandemic has
Item 13.C 01/11/21
51 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4020 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 29
made vendors even more vulnerable, leading
to a number of recent high-profile incidents of
violence, including a tragic murder of a vendor in
Fresno.108 While many of these attacks have been
documented,109 it is likely that such incidents are
underreported.110 Vendors’ vulnerability to harass-
ment and assault cannot be separated from their
treatment under law. A history of criminal bans and
the current web of impossible retail food restric-
tions serve to delegitimize sidewalk food vending
businesses, which only emboldens people to do the
same.
These stories reveal that the regulatory framework
for sidewalk vending and the enforcement approach
of governing agencies fan the flames of prejudice
toward immigrants, people of color, and people
earning low or subsistence wages. Los Angeles may
be a “sanctuary city” shielding immigrants from
federal immigration enforcement, but it remains
a site of longstanding racial prejudice and perse-
cution of the urban poor.111 Reforming sidewalk
vending laws in California and Los Angeles County
is an important opportunity to protect the public
health and take significant steps toward reducing
poverty and prejudice.
Item 13.C 01/11/21
52 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4021 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 30
PART III:
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
As described in Parts I and II, it is currently impos-
sible for most sidewalk food vendors to obtain a
DPH permit due to barriers found in the CRFC or
created by DPH guidelines that are not mandated
by state law. This Part recommends specific policy
changes at the state, county, and city levels to
reduce or eliminate these barriers to legal sidewalk
food vending.
The following recommendations are informed by
interviews with vendors, discussions with sidewalk
vendor allies and organizers, and legal and public
health research. Some of these recommendations
have multiple steps, requiring changes to the CRFC
that would then enable DPH to enact those changes
through an improved local regulatory framework.
Other recommendations are immediately actionable
by DPH and StreetsLA without any changes to state
law. This report’s recommendations are organized
according to the five broad categories analyzed in
Part II: (1) enhance overall program accessibility, (2)
adjust permitting requirements and procedures to
be more inclusive of vendor applicants; (3) modify
equipment requirements to be compatible with
sidewalk vending operations; (4) increase access to
food preparation and equipment storage space; and
(5) protect vendors from unjust enforcement.
Enhance overall program
accessibility
To even begin the process of
obtaining a DPH permit, vendors
must have access to assistance
and materials that explain how
to obtain permits and formalize their businesses.
And in order to bring sidewalk food vending into the
formal economy, the state and DPH must reduce
fees and costs associated with legal sidewalk food
vending and make regulations and startup proce-
dures clear by publishing easily understandable
documents in multiple languages. The following
policy changes will make the permitting process
more accessible to vendors and reorient the proce-
dures around the goals of inclusion and opportunity.
Immediate county actions
Popularize program requirements and curric-
ulum. In order to demystify the requirements,
DPH should expand existing materials and
develop new materials and training curriculum
summarizing application requirements specific
to sidewalk food vending, using popular educa-
tion and accessible language.
Translate program requirements and curric-
ulum. DPH should translate and publish new
sidewalk food vendor guidance, curriculum
materials, and the Mobile Food Facility Plan
Check Guidelines in at least the five most
common languages in Los Angeles County
(English, Spanish, Mandarin, Tagalog, Korean).112
Immediate state actions
Clarify sidewalk vending requirements. The
state should publish new guidelines specific to
sidewalk vending operations and clearly differ-
entiate requirements that apply uniquely to
unenclosed sidewalk vending carts from those
that apply to brick-and-mortar restaurants and
food trucks.
Translate the CRFC and new guidance in at least
the five most-commonly-spoken languages in
California.113 The state should translate new
sidewalk vending guidance along with the full
CRFC into the most commonly spoken languages.
Adjust permitting
procedures to be more
inclusive of sidewalk food
vendor applicants
As discussed in Part II, the inaccessibility of the
permitting process—its complexity, location, and
cost—is a serious constraint. The following recom-
mendations, if adopted by both DPH and the state,
would create a permitting process that enables
vendors to comply with important health and safety
measures, rather than forcing vendors to operate
outside of food regulations altogether.114
1. paperwork in english?
2. little permit document or
blueprint
3. really wide impractical
vending cart
4. A commissary (garage with
a pull down gate)
5. a police baton
Three levels: could be logos of
DPH, City, and State.
Sidewalk FoodVending Application
Name:Contact Address:Business Name:Email: Phone Number:
1. paperwork in english?
2. little permit document or
blueprint
3. really wide impractical
vending cart
4. A commissary (garage with
a pull down gate)
5. a police baton
Three levels: could be logos of
DPH, City, and State.
Sidewalk FoodVending Application
Name:Contact Address:Business Name:Email: Phone Number:
Item 13.C 01/11/21
53 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4022 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 31
Immediate county actions
Reduce permit costs. DPH fees are dispropor-
tionately high,115 and create an undue burden
for low-income micro-entrepreneurs working to
start businesses. DPH should implement a fee
structure that is actually tailored to the type of
vending and the size of proposed equipment,
with sliding scale reductions and full fee waivers
for low-income vendors.
Pre-approve cart design blueprints and template
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). DPH
should work with manufacturers to pre-approve
cart design blueprints for a variety of cart types
that meet health code standards, along with
corresponding template SOPs for common
sidewalk vending food items. Vendors should
then be allowed to purchase carts manufactured
according to these pre-approved blueprints,
allowing them to bypass the costly and time-con-
suming plan check process and proceed to
permitting with confidence. Under this model, a
manufacturer could provide a vendor with a
certificate stating the vendor bought a preap-
proved cart, and the vendor could submit the
certificate with the health permit application
instead of submitting customized blueprints as
part of DPH’s plan check. DPH could then issue a
sticker for the cart indicating to DPH inspectors
that it is part of a preapproved program. Pre-ap-
proving cart design blueprints will allow for the
manufacturing of carts at a scale that could
significantly reduce costs.
Assist vendors in the plan check and inspection
process. DPH should make translated design
tools, computers, and applicable programs avail-
able to vendors to craft and edit cart designs.
DPH should also offer scheduled office hours
with engineers and designers to support vendors
in designing code-compliant food carts. Further-
more, DPH should be more flexible in its final
approval of carts, allowing reasonable variance
between the dimensions of the final cart and
the initial plan. Any cart for which approval is
denied should be returned with diagrammed
corrections and explanations in plain language,
and resubmission of any updated cart blueprints
should be covered by the original application
fee. DPH personnel should be trained to explain
any needed corrections and provide advice on
bringing plans and carts into compliance.
Meet vendors where they are. DPH should signifi-
cantly increase physical access to the various
permitting and inspection procedures. Instead of
requiring vendors to transport equipment to the
Baldwin Park DPH office, on-site consultations
will allow for a safer check and better address
vendors’ accessibility issues. Where on-site
meetings are not possible, DPH should expand
the number of offices where they perform final
plan checks to include multiple locations across
Los Angeles County and invest in a mobile unit
that could travel to different neighborhoods
each week. Meeting vendors where they work
will promote a collaborative environment that
supports vendors in the approval process and
enhances public health priorities.
Streamline the permitting process with
“one-stop” centers. DPH currently requires that
vendor applicants provide proof of multiple
other licenses before a health permit will be
granted. These processes are already daunting,
and the need to navigate multiple offices and
jurisdictions across the entire region makes it
much more difficult. Instead of leaving vendor
applicants to navigate these complicated and
overlapping processes on their own, DPH should
partner with community-based organizations
and other county agencies to provide resources
and technical assistance to help vendors obtain
permit prerequisites, such as an ITIN, Sell-
er’s Permit, and a Food Handler’s Certification
(including any required training). DPH should
establish “one-stop” permit centers in neighbor-
hoods across the county where all the necessary
permit application steps can be completed with
the support of technical assistance and coaching
in a single location. The East L.A. Entrepreneur
As part of a pilot program, Kounkuey Design
Initiative (KDI) is currently working with
vendors, DPH, and community-based orga-
nizations to create a model cart design blue-
print. Once approved, it is anticipated that 300
carts will be manufactured and available for
purchase, enabling vendors to acquire new
carts at reduced costs with confidence that
they will pass inspections. DPH should continue
to pursue options to preapprove affordable cart
design blueprints for a variety of types of side-
walk food vending.
Item 13.C 01/11/21
54 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4023 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 32
Center, which currently offers most of these
services in a single location, is a great model
that could be replicated in more neighborhoods
throughout the county.
Necessary changes to state law
Amend the CRFC to lessen the plan check
burden. The CRFC should be amended to estab-
lish a clear process to inspect and approve
manufactured carts without a plan check, and
the plan check requirement should be removed
for equipment used for the sale of prepackaged
food, whole fruits, and whole vegetables. Certain
permanent food facility operations selling
pre-packaged nonhazardous foods are already
exempt from plan check requirements,116 so this
standard could easily and safely be extended to
mobile food facilities.
Amend the CRFC to give more discretion for local
review. The CRFC currently requires equipment
to meet certain national certification stan-
dards, limiting the options for manufacturers
and vendors to design safe carts. The CRFC
should instead empower local health agencies
to approve cart blueprints and plans based on
a finding of public health, enabling innovative
designs that achieve the dual goals of food safety
and affordability.
Modify equipment
requirements to be
compatible with sidewalk
vending operations
The CRFC and DPH equipment requirements are
generally designed for food trucks and other large
mobile food facilities, and are thus not appropri-
ately tailored to small-scale sidewalk carts. As a
result, the DPH equipment requirements for side-
walk food vending operations are considerably more
restrictive than those of corresponding agencies
in other jurisdictions.117 The incongruence between
current equipment requirements and sidewalk food
vending operations is deeply frustrating for vendors
who want to comply with reasonable food safety
protocols. As a general rule, sidewalk vendors
take pride in their food and take all precautions to
ensure their food is clean and safe—the survival
and success of their businesses depend on it.118
While sidewalk food vendors want to comply with
equipment regulations that will protect the health
of the public and of vendors,119 they cannot meet
requirements designed for a completely different
retail food situation from their own.120 Just as
bicycle manufacturers need not heed the same
safety regulations as motorcycle manufacturers,
sidewalk food vendors should not be held to the
same hefty regulations designed for food trucks and
brick-and-mortar businesses. The following recom-
mendations address the unique spatial and weight
constraints affecting small-scale sidewalk vending
operations without sacrificing public health and
food safety.
Immediate county actions
Approve the use of auxiliary sinks to service
multiple vending carts operating in proximity.
Although the CRFC requires a three-compart-
ment warewashing sink and a handwashing sink
for many sidewalk food vending operations, DPH
has important discretion in how this requirement
is implemented. As noted in Part II, the CRFC
provides that “[h]andwashing sinks and ware-
washing sinks for unenclosed mobile food facili-
ties shall be an integral part of the primary unit
or on an approved auxiliary conveyance that is
used in conjunction with the mobile food facili-
ty.”121 Using this auxiliary conveyance allowance,
DPH should work with vendors and stakeholders
to develop protocols for a “hub-and-spoke”
system that allows several vendors to operate in
close proximity to an auxiliary sink unit (strategi-
cally placed on a city- or county-owned parking
lot in an area with a high concentration of
vending) without requiring sinks to be integrated
in the primary unit. This would allow smaller,
more affordable cart designs without running
afoul of CRFC standards for sink access.
1. paperwork in english?
2. little permit document or blueprint3. really wide impractical vending cart4. A commissary (garage with
a pull down gate)5. a police batonThree levels: could be logos of DPH, City, and State.
Sidewalk FoodVending Application
Name:Contact Address:Business Name:Email: Phone Number:
1. paperwork in english?
2. little permit document or
blueprint
3. really wide impractical
vending cart
4. A commissary (garage with
a pull down gate)
5. a police baton
Three levels: could be logos of
DPH, City, and State.
Sidewalk Food
Vending Application
Name:Contact Address:Business Name:
Email:
Phone Number:
Item 13.C 01/11/21
55 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4024 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 33
Reduce on-site food storage requirements.
The CRFC imposes no specific cubic footage
requirement for storage on mobile food facilities.
However, DPH currently lists a minimum cubic
footage requirement in its Mobile Facility Check-
list for both refrigerated space and dry storage
space, each of which far exceed what is reason-
ably necessary for a small sidewalk vending cart.
DPH should decrease the current dry and refrig-
erated storage requirements to safe and appro-
priate levels, significantly reducing cart size,
weight, and cost.
Clarify fire suppression system requirements.
DPH Guidelines currently require that unen-
closed mobile food facilities provide a full fire
suppression system installed over all cooking
equipment, in addition to a separate requirement
for a mechanical exhaust ventilation system.122
To the extent that the fire suppression require-
ments are part of the mechanical exhaust venti-
lation requirements, the separate requirement
in the DPH Guidelines is confusing and should
be removed. Beyond the mechanical exhaust
requirements dictated by state law, DPH should
not require any additional overhead fire suppres-
sion equipment. Consistent with the CRFC, a
properly charged and maintained minimum 10
BC-rated fire extinguisher is sufficient.123
Necessary changes to state law
Amend the CRFC to enhance safe on-site food
preparation. The CRFC prohibition on slicing
produce and reheating and hot-holding on-site
creates a de facto ban on two of the most iconic
Southern California vending operations—the
fruit cart and the taco stand. There appears
to be no basis for this restriction. The CRFC
already provides a limited list of foods that may
be hot-held on-site, such as corn, hot dogs, and
tamales.124 Many other foods that are commonly
sold by sidewalk vendors involve very similar
preparation, but are not included in this list.
Instead of providing an arbitrary list of individual
foods that may be hot-held, the CRFC should
establish and regulate a safe process for slicing
of fruits and vegetables and safe reheating and
hot-holding of common sidewalk vending food
items.
Amend the CRFC to remove excessive sink and
water storage requirements. As detailed in Part
II, the CRFC requirements for sink space and
water storage add hundreds of pounds and
significant size to a sidewalk food vending cart,
rendering a theoretically compliant sidewalk
vending cart impossible to push, especially for
vendors with physical constraints. There is no
basis in public health research for these arduous
requirements, and the requirements imposed by
other jurisdictions seem to confirm that those in
the CRFC are excessive.125 The CRFC storage and
water requirements should be reduced to align
with the smaller footprint of a sidewalk food
vending cart. There are multiple options to
reduce these requirements and enable greater
participation by sidewalk food vendors without
sacrificing food safety.126 For instance, the CRFC
could be amended to permit sidewalk food
vendors to set aside dirty dishes throughout the
day and then wash them at a base kitchen or
storage space after the day is over. The CRFC
could also permit vendors to have multiple sets
of utensils and swap them throughout the day to
comply with use regulations. Merlin, Rosa, and
Pedro each successfully use this method, and it
is not difficult for them since they all spoke
about how few dishes they actually use on site
while vending. Alternatively, the CRFC could
permit vendors to use disposable utensils that
they then discard throughout the day after use.
Increase access to food
preparation and equip-
ment storage space
Sidewalk vending businesses
must operate in conjunction with
a commissary, with adequate kitchen facilities to
conduct food preparation in optimal conditions.127
Unfortunately, there are very few approved commis-
saries with adequate kitchen space currently
available to sidewalk food vendors in Los Angeles
County. Without an increase in commissary access,
vendors will either be unable to obtain a permit or
forced to transport their equipment across great
distances each day. The following recommendations
balance the need to increase safe and accessible
space for food preparation, equipment cleaning,
and storage, with the need to ensure food safety
and consumer health.
1. paperwork in english?
2. little permit document or
blueprint
3. really wide impractical
vending cart
4. A commissary (garage with
a pull down gate)
5. a police baton
Three levels: could be logos of
DPH, City, and State.
Sidewalk FoodVending Application
Name:Contact Address:Business Name:Email: Phone Number:
Item 13.C 01/11/21
56 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4025 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 34
Immediate county actions
Approve the use of underutilized community
kitchen spaces to meet commissary require-
ments. DPH should approve the use of underuti-
lized kitchens in restaurants, food businesses,
schools, community centers, and places of
worship as facilities for food preparation, equip-
ment cleaning, and storage. Many of these
underutilized community kitchen spaces likely fit
the CRFC definition of “commissary,”128 allowing
DPH to inspect and approve these facilities as
commissaries. The CRFC also gives DPH the
authority to approve the use of any “other facility
approved by the agency” to meet food preparation
and equipment cleaning and storage require-
ments.129 Thus, DPH clearly has the authority to
establish standards and protocols to inspect
and approve a variety of existing underutilized
community kitchen spaces for sidewalk vendors
to meet state law requirements.
Modify land use regulations to incentivize and
streamline the creation of new commissary
spaces for vendors. In partnership with the
Department of Regional Planning, and in coor-
dination with other jurisdictions, the county
should evaluate zoning codes for any barriers
to the creation of new commissaries in indus-
trial, commercial, and mixed-use zones. The
county should adjust standards as necessary to
permit supplemental use of existing underuti-
lized kitchen spaces in schools, restaurants, and
houses of worship by sidewalk vendors.
Adopt the Microenterprise Home Kitchen Oper-
ations program. The CRFC enables counties to
opt-in to the MEHKO program—a formal frame-
work for approving retail food facilities operated
out of a home kitchen or other nontraditional
space. Los Angeles County has not yet opted
into the program, and quickly doing so can help
address the need for commissary spaces that are
oriented around and accessible to sidewalk food
vendors as the county works to expand its regu-
latory approval framework to permit additional
kitchen spaces as commissaries. The county
should adopt the program now so that they can
begin to integrate the MEHKO permitting and
inspection processes while awaiting changes at
the state level that would make MEHKO facilities
a viable option for vendors.
Necessary changes to state law
Expand equipment storage standards. The CRFC
should encourage and expand the use of home
kitchens and underutilized community kitchens
as approved food preparation and equipment
storage spaces. The CRFC should explicitly allow
for cart storage at safe and clean locations
that are already approved for retail food use. At
minimum, the CRFC should allow basic carts,
such as ones used to sell whole fruits and vege-
tables or pre-packaged nonhazardous foods
which do not require sinks or complex equip-
ment, to be stored at home.
Expand access to safe food preparation. The
CRFC’s MEHKO program should be adjusted to
remove the meals per week cap (currently limited
to 60 meals per week), increase the sales limit
(currently capped at $50,000 in gross annual
sales), and explicitly allow for operators to make
meals on site and take them elsewhere to sell.
The CRFC Cottage Food standards should also be
adjusted to increase the sales limit (currently
capped at $50,000 in gross annual sales), expand
the list of foods allowed to include common,
shelf-stable food served by sidewalk vendors,
and explicitly allow for operators to make food
items on site and take them elsewhere to sell.
Protect vendors from
unjust enforcement and
hostility
State and local sidewalk food
vending programs should be
rooted in assistance and support, rather than in
intimidation and punishment. This starts with
changing the policy and culture of enforcement.
A safe sidewalk food vending economy requires
a reorientation away from ineffective and unjust
criminalization and towards a model of equity and
economic inclusion. The following recommen-
dations will ensure vendors are treated with the
dignity and respect they deserve both during and
after the permitting process.
Immediate county actions
End the practice of including the Sheriff’s
Department in DPH enforcement activities. As
described in Part II, LASD deputies are not appro-
1. paperwork in english?
2. little permit document or
blueprint
3. really wide impractical
vending cart
4. A commissary (garage with
a pull down gate)
5. a police baton
Three levels: could be logos of
DPH, City, and State.
Sidewalk FoodVending Application
Name:Contact Address:Business Name:Email: Phone Number:
Item 13.C 01/11/21
57 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4026 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 35
priate enforcement officers under the CRFC and
their imposing presence during DPH enforcement
activities makes vendors and members of the
community less safe. DPH conducts inspections
of brick-and-mortar businesses without utilizing
the LASD as an armed guard squad; it should
conduct itself similarly when interacting with
sidewalk vendors.
Discontinue the seizure of vending carts and
equipment. There is no need for DPH to confis-
cate vendor property on top of issuing a fine.
Assist vendors integrating into the broader
small business economy. DPH should affirma-
tively reach out to brick-and-mortar businesses
to educate their owners about laws regarding
sidewalk food vending, which would facilitate
improved community relations and mutually
beneficial partnerships with sidewalk food
vendors. This is especially important as more
businesses expand their outdoor food facilities
during the COVID-19 pandemic and the city and
county work together to approve these changes.
DPH should implement a program that incen-
tivizes food businesses to support sidewalk
vendors, such as distributing stickers of vending
carts that brick-and-mortar businesses can
put on their windows. Customers who see these
stickers would understand that they indicate
a business’s support of sidewalk food vendors
and can signal to vendors that the business will
support them if they need a restroom or help
with a customer.
Immediate L.A. City actions
Maintain a moratorium on issuing citations
for unpermitted vending until permit barriers
are removed. It is fundamentally unjust to cite
a vendor for failing to obtain a permit that is
impossible to obtain. Until these barriers are
effectively removed and sidewalk food vendors
are given a viable path to acquiring code-com-
pliant equipment and DPH permits, the city
should continue to prohibit the issuance of cita-
tions for vending without a permit.130
Do not include the Los Angeles Police Depart-
ment (LAPD) in enforcement actions. StreetsLA
is tasked with ensuring vendors operate with
proper city permits. City permit enforcement
does not require or merit LAPD support. Instead,
StreetsLA should train its agents to work with
vendors to ensure their safety and the safety of
the public. Checking for permits and ensuring
proper sidewalk operations (e.g., using an
appropriate amount of sidewalk space) are not
tasks that StreetsLA needs to carry out in an
adversarial manner. Enforcement agents are
more likely to promote legal vending practices
and reduce violations overall by building rela-
tionships with vendors that prioritize culturally
fluent education and collaboration over punitive
enforcement.
Replace “no-vending zones” with special
vending districts. The city is currently enforcing
blatantly discriminatory “no-vending zone(s).”131
For example, in City Council District 13, sidewalk
vendors are currently prohibited from working
within 500 feet of the Hollywood Walk of Fame.
Meanwhile, in the exact same location, restau-
rant sidewalk dining—which takes up more
space on the sidewalk—is encouraged.132 This
disparate treatment is unjust and disproportion-
ately harms low-income and immigrant vendors.
Instead of imposing a blanket ban on vending in
certain areas, the city should implement special
vending districts in areas with unique safety
and accessibility concerns, giving vendors an
opportunity to self-organize and work with area
residents and businesses to develop special-
ized regulations that ensure both safety and
economic inclusion.
Enhance small business support. The city should
investigate opportunities to better support side-
walk food vendors with ongoing business opera-
tions, training and resources relating to banking,
building credit, implementing cashless and other
alternative payment methods, and other funda-
mental business skills.
Necessary changes to state law
Decriminalize. Most sidewalk vendors are just
now entering the formal economy after decades
of exclusion. For effective onboarding, the CRFC
should be amended to replace criminal misde-
meanor penalties with non-criminal, educa-
tion-based compliance strategies for unper-
mitted sidewalk food vending. This would be
consistent with other state legal frameworks for
sidewalk vending.133
Item 13.C 01/11/21
58 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4027 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 36
CONCLUSION
For most sidewalk food vendors in Los Angeles
County, the promise of legal vending remains
elusive. Antiquated state food laws, county guide-
lines not drafted with vendors in mind, and unjust
enforcement practices combine to deny thousands
of entrepreneurs the ability to obtain a permit to
legally vend food. Many of the barriers described
in this report are technical in nature—seemingly
innocuous regulations concerning fee schedules,
equipment dimensions, and food preparation
standards. Far from neutral public health stan-
dards, these restrictions are the building blocks
of an exclusionary system that separates micro
food businesses from economic opportunity and
imposes unjust criminalization on low-income
people of color. SB 946 began to dismantle long-
standing systems of exclusion affecting sidewalk
vendors, but as this report demonstrates, the
promise of SB 946 cannot be achieved without addi-
tional changes to the California Retail Food Code
and the local DPH guidelines that implement it. By
spotlighting the many interconnected barriers in
state and local food regulations, highlighting the
impacts of these barriers on struggling sidewalk
vendors, and providing targeted policy recommen-
dations, this report presents a roadmap for action.
Changes to local restrictions that have no basis
in state law can occur immediately, and sensible
amendments to the CRFC can be introduced and
adopted in the next legislative session. This report
presents a blueprint to finish the work of legalizing
sidewalk food vending.
Item 13.C 01/11/21
59 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4028 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 37
Endnotes
1 Although commonly referred
to as “street vendors,” this report
uses the term “sidewalk food
vendors” to distinguish those entre-
preneurs operating smaller scale
food carts on the sidewalks and in
parks from large scale trailers and
trucks that operate on the street.
For purposes of this report, the term
“sidewalk food vendors” refers to
vendors selling food from an unen-
closed mobile food facility in the
public right of way, but off of the
street – on a sidewalk, alley, or in a
park.
2 After initially shutting down
restaurants operating without a
grocery permit, the county quickly
promulgated new guidelines allowing
restaurants to temporarily sell
groceries without permits, provided
they followed new guidelines,
which amounted to a bullet-point
list. Mona Holmes, Here’s What
Restaurants Can, and Can’t do, to
Sell Groceries in Los Angeles, Eater
L.A., (April 2, 2020). https://la.eater.
com/2020/4/2/21203572/los-an-
geles-county-restaurants-sell-gro-
ceries-takeout-health-depart-
ment-coronavirus. The author of the
initiative, Supervisor Janice Hahn,
stated: “Instead of just shutting
them down, I wanted to find a way
that we could find a compromise
that would work for everybody while
we keep people safe.” Coronavirus:
LA County moves to support restau-
rants converting into neighborhood
grocery stores, ABC Eyewitness
New (April 1, 2020)., https://abc7.
com/la-county-covid-corona-
virus-health/6068403/. Vendors
asked for nothing more. Instead,
county officials stepped up side-
walk vending enforcement during
the pandemic. See, Sahra Sulaiman,
“As Public Health Prepares for
Vending Crackdown, Street Vendors
Call for the Cancellation of Rents.”
Streetsblog LA (May 1, 2020), https://
la.streetsblog.org/2020/05/01/
as-public-health-prepares-for-vend-
ing-crackdown-street-vendors-call-
for-the-cancellation-of-rents/.
3 See, e.g., Senate Bill 314 and
Assembly Bill 61.
4 Sharon M. TSo, CiTy of LoS
angeLeS SidewaLk Vending STaTuS reporT
2 (2014), http://clkrep.lacity.org/
onlinedocs/2013/13-1493_rpt_
cla_11-26-14.pdf.
5 See LURN, Public Counsel,
ELACC, and Los Angeles Food Policy
Council, Recommendations on
Sidewalk Vending Regulations in Los
Angeles County, 6-7 (May 1, 2019).
6 The East LA Community
Organization (ELACC) surveyed more
than 275 sidewalk vendors partic-
ipating in the organization’s asset
and wealth building, and financial
coaching programs. Participating
vendors had an average income of
$15,875. See, October 22, 2019 letter
from LA Street Vendor Campaign
to Los Angeles City Council,
http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlined-
ocs/2013/13-1493-S5_PC_AB_10-
22-2019.pdf.
7 See generally Inclusive
Action for the City. Preliminary
Analysis of the Street Vendor Emer-
gency Fund Data. (June 29, 2021)
https://www.inclusiveaction.org/
blog/our-recovery-must-cen-
ter-street-vendors
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 See generally, Farley
Elliott, Los Angeles Street Food:
A History from Tamaleros to Taco
Trucks (2015); Jonathan Gold,
Jonathan Gold Reviews Anto-
jitos Carmen, L.A. Weekly (Jul. 14,
2011) https://www.laweekly.com/
jonathan-gold-reviews-antoji-
tos-carmen/; Farley Elliott, TikTok
is Fueling This Immense Night
Market in Lincoln Heights, Eater
L.A., (Apr. 16, 2021) https://la.eater.
com/2021/4/16/22380248/lincoln-
heights-avenue-26-market-street-
vendors-tiktok-los-angeles-news;
Garrett Snyder, A Guide to the Best
Street Food Vendors in Los Angeles,
L.A. Magazine, (Jul. 15, 2019) https://
www.lamag.com/digestblog/
best-street-food-los-angeles/; Bill
Esparza, An Open Letter to the City
of L.A. on Street Food, L.A. Magazine,
(Jun. 30, 2015) https://www.lamag.
com/digestblog/an-open-letter-to-
the-city-on-street-food-from-l-a-
s-biggest-fan-of-it/; Alissa Walker,
The Best Way to Honor Jonathan
Gold is to Make Street Vending Legal
Everywhere in L.A., Curbed L.A.,
(Aug. 24, 2018) https://la.curbed.
com/2018/8/6/17624050/jona-
than-gold-street-vending-legal;
Lucas Peterson, Packed Town Hall
Meeting in Boyle Heights Addresses
Street Food Legalization, Eater
L.A., (Feb, 20, 2015) https://la.eater.
com/2015/2/20/8078797/town-
hall-meeting-in-boyle-heights-le-
galization-street-vending; Farley
Elliott, The History and Politics of
Street Food in Los Angeles, Eater
L.A. (Jul. 22, 2015) https://la.eater.
com/2015/2/20/8078797/town-hall-
meeting-in-boyle-heights-legaliza-
tion-street-vending.
11 Yvonne Y. Liu et al., Sidewalk
Stimulus: Economic and Geographic
Impact of Los Angeles Street Vendors,
eConoMiC roundTabLe 1, 4–5 (2015),
https://economicrt.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/12/LA-Street-Vendor-
Report-final-12-16-2015.pdf.
12 Id. at 6.
13 Renia Ehrenfeucht,
Designing Fair and Effective Street
Vending Policy: It’s Time for a New
Approach, 18 CiTySCape: J. poL’y deV.
& rSCh 11, 17 (2016), https://www.
huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/city-
scpe/vol18num1/ch1.pdf.
14 Hannah Kapell et al., Food
Cartology: Rethinking Urban Spaces
as People Places, urb. ViTaLiTy grp. 1,
27 (2008), https://www.portland.gov/
sites/default/files/2020-03/port-
lands-food-cart-study.pdf.
Item 13.C 01/11/21
60 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4029 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 38
15 Liu et al., supra note 11, at 13.
16 Id. at 12.
17 Leadership for Urban
Renewal Network (LURN), “Where
is Sidewalk Vending Criminalized
in California?” http://lurnetwork.
org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/
SB946_Info_Final.pdf.
18 See SB 946 Senate Third
Reading Analysis (Aug 17, 2018)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/
faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_
id=201720180SB946#.
19 See Exec. Order No. 13768,
82 Fed. Reg. 8799 (Jan. 30, 2017).
20 See Brittany Mejia, Street
Vendors Scrape Together a Living,
Always Watching for Police, L.a. TiMeS
(Dec. 21, 2014), http://www.latimes.
com/local/crime/la-me-street-ven-
dors-20141222-story.html.
21 See Liset Marquez, Street
Vendor Facing Deportation After
Rancho Cucamonga Arrest, daiLy
buLLeTin (Oct. 23, 2017), https://
www.dailybulletin.com/2017/10/23/
street-vendor-facing-deporta-
tion-after-rancho-cucamonga-ar-
rest/; see also Gordon Tokumatsu,
New Front in the Immigration Fight:
Ice Cream Carts, nbC4 (Feb. 17,
2011), https://www.nbclosangeles.
com/news/local/New-Front-in-
the-Immigration-Fight-Ice-Cream-
Carts-116436884.html; see also
Jorge Luis Macias, Immigration Activ-
ists Call For End Of Secure Communi-
ties Program, huffingTon poST (Aug. 20,
2011), https://www.huffingtonpost.
com/2011/08/18/immigration-ac-
tivists-secure-communities-pro-
gram_n_930637.html.
22 CaL. heaLTh & SafeTy Code §§
114294(b); 113713.
23 See, generally, Los Angeles
County Department of Public Health,
“Food Trucks and Carts in Los
Angeles County,” http://www.publi-
chealth.lacounty.gov/eh/business/
food-trucks-carts.htm#info.
24 CaL. heaLTh & SafeTy Code §
113831(a).
25 Interview with Lyric Kelkar,
Laura Gonzalez, and Fernando
Abarca (Apr. 23, 2021) (on file with
authors).
26 On July 2, 2021, Los Angeles
City Council issued a directive to
the Bureau of Street Services “to
continue to only issue penalty-free
notices of violation for sidewalk
vending without a license or permit
until January 1, 2022.” As of the date
of publication, it is unclear how this
directive will be implemented and
whether sidewalk food vendors will
be protected against citations for
not having a DPH permit. See, Los
Angeles City Council File 20-0147-
S27, available at https://cityclerk.
lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.
cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnum-
ber=20-0147-S27.
27 See, e.g., City of Los Angeles,
Bureau of Street Services, Investiga-
tion & Enforcement Gallery, avail-
able at, https://streetsla.lacity.org/
image-gallery-ied
28 See, Janette Villafana, Over
100 Latino Street Vendors Left
in Uncertainty After NELA Coun-
cilmember Cedillo Shuts DOwn
Avenue 26 Night Market Without
Notice, L.A. Taco (August 6, 2021),
at https://www.lataco.com/ave-26-
street-vendor-nela-cedillo/; Gabe
Fuente, Fenced Out: Echo Park
Reopened, But Its Food Vendors
Remain Fenced Out, The LAnd (June
15, 2021), at https://thelandmag.
com/echo-park-lake-los-angeles-re-
opening-street-vendors/.
29 Because this report is
focused is on the County DPH
permit process, interview ques-
tions were focused on familiarity
with the process and current ability
of vendors to comply with the
requirements of the DPH Mobile
Food Facility Plan Check Guide-
lines. Community Power Collective
(CPC)—a local organizing coalition
and steering committee member
of the Los Angeles Street Vendor
Campaign (LASVC)— assisted with
the coordination of these inter-
views. CPC recommended Merlin,
Pedro and Rosa for interviews
because they each have distinct
experiences attempting to navi-
gate the DPH permitting process.
Each interview was conducted for
two hours via Zoom using Span-
ish-English translation provided
by CPC, as all three vendors speak
Spanish as their primary language.
With permission, each interview
was recorded, and the transcripts
were translated by student workers
from the UCLA School of Law Clin-
ical Program. Before each interview
began, the vendors were informed
that their stories would be shared
in a report to provide illustrations
of the current vending landscape
in Los Angeles County. Each vendor
was also provided the opportunity
to review and confirm the accuracy
of the summaries of their interviews
included in this report.
30 This would also be in viola-
tion of SB 946. See CaL. goV’T Code
§ 51039(c).
31 CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE §§ 113705, 113713(a),
114294(b).
32 Interviews with sidewalk
food vendors Merlin, Pedro, and Rosa
(on file with authors).
33 IAC survey, supra note 7.
34 In contrast, the Bureau of
Street Services (StreetsLA), which
issues the final vending permits
needed to formalize LA street
vending businesses, has published
basic educational materials in
thirteen languages for vendors
seeking to obtain a permit. The guide
details how sidewalk vendors can
apply for necessary City permits.
The StreetsLA guide has a flowchart
with the steps outlined for side-
walk vendors to get permits, but it
is a simplified version that omits
the complex and numerous steps
required to obtain a DPH permit. See
Vending Program Brochures, BUREAU
ST. SERVS., https://streetsla.lacity.
org/vending-program-brochures
(last visited June 16, 2021).
35 DPH has published a Mobile
Food Facility Permit Fact Sheet that
Item 13.C 01/11/21
61 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4030 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 39
summarizes requirements for selling
food “in a cart, truck or trailer,” but
does not isolate requirements and
standards that are unique to carts
placed on the sidewalk, as opposed
to much larger trucks and trailers
operating on the street. See Mobile
Food Facility Permits, L.A. CNTY.
DEP’T PUB. HEALTH, http://www.
publichealth.lacounty.gov/eh/docs/
sse_mff_PermitHandout.pdf (last
visited July 7, 2021).
36 See Vending Program
Brochures, supra note 34.
37 When it comes to the price
of permits for mobile food facili-
ties, DPH divides the facilities into
two categories based on the type of
product served—prepackaged food
and non-prepackaged food. However,
this simplistic binary obscures the
complex nuances vendors must
parse through depending on exactly
what food or beverages they intend
to sell and how they intend to
prepare those products for sale.
38 Estimate provided by
Community Power Collective, based
on price comparisons and conversa-
tions with cart manufacturers and
commissaries.
39 CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE § 114381(a).
40 Id. at § 114380(a).
41 See County of Los Angeles
Environmental Health Mobile Food
Facility Plan Check Guidelines, L.A.
CNTY. DEP’T PUB. HEALTH, http://
publichealth.lacounty.gov/eh/docs/
Plan_Check/MFFPlanCheckGuide.
pdf (last visited July 7, 2021).
42 Estimate provided by the LA
Street Vendor Campaign, based on
price comparisons and conversa-
tions with cart manufacturers. See,
LA Street Vendor Campaign, Letter to
Los Angeles City Council re: Sidewalk
Vending Program Implementation,
February 26, 2020.
43 CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE §114380(a); see also interview
with Merlin, 03/05/2021.
44 CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE § 114303(d).
45 CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE §114381(b).
46 Id. at § 113947.1(a). If the
vendor employs additional workers
that will handle food, each indi-
vidual worker must also obtain a
food handler’s certificate, which
also requires the individual to pass
an examination about safe food
handling practices. See CAL. HEALTH
& SAFETY CODE § 113948(a)(1).
47 CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE § 113947.1(h).
48 Mobile Food Facility Permits,
L.A. Cnty. Dep’t Pub. Health, http://
www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/eh/
docs/sse_mff_PermitHandout.pdf
(last visited July 7, 2021).
49 Id.
50 See City of Los Angeles Side-
walk & Park Vendor Permit Program,
BUREAU OF STREET SERVICES,
https://streetsla.lacity.org/sites/
default/files/Print-English.pdf (last
visited June 16, 2021).
51 Interview with Merlin,
03/15/2021.
52 See CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE § 114217(b).
53 See id. at § 113791 (defining
“food preparation” as “packaging,
processing, assembling, portioning,
or any operation that changes the
form, flavor, or consistency of food,
but does not include trimming of
produce”).
54 See id. at §§ 114217,
114313(a), 114325 (establishing
requirements for water tanks, sinks,
and water heating).
55 Compare Splash
HS-GF-SS-9-9-5 Wall Mount
Commercial Hand Sink, KATOM
REST. SUPPLY, INC., https://www.
katom.com/079-BKHSWSSSSPG.
html?gclid=CjwKCAjw07qDBhBxEi-
wA6pPbHpUWjgnvezWH_WqCWu1k-
dg2njyoWXR72TMaKl74Ns1qwOWD-
heb1rIxoCx2IQAvD_Bw (last visited
June 16, 2021), with BPFE Series
3 Compartment 18/304 Stainless
Steel Sink, REST. SUPPLY.COM,
https://www.restaurantsupply.com/
empura-bps-1854-3-18l-fe-74-1-2-
wide-bpfe-series-3-compartment-
18-304-stainless-steel-sink-with-
18-x-18-x-12-deep-bowls-and-one-
18-left-side-drainboard (last visited
June 16, 2021). Spatial dimensions
and weight are each dramatically
increased in a setup requiring
multiple sink compartments.
56 See CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE § 114217. A gallon of water
weighs approximately 8.34 pounds,
meaning the minimum 20 gallons of
water that a cart must carry trans-
lates to approximately 166.8 pounds
in water weight alone.
57 CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE § 114313(b).
58 See generally Rules of the
City of New York: Food Units. 34
(providing for many vendors to
operate without an integral sink
unit depending on the types of food
sold, and permitting vendors who
prepare potentially hazardous food
to operate with a single sink for food
and warewashing if food is washed in
a food-grade colander). Available at:
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/
downloads/pdf/rii/rules-regs-mfv.
pdf. See, also, City of New York,
“Mobile Vending Permit Inspection
Requirements,” https://www1.nyc.
gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/
permit/mfv_cart_truck_inspection.
pdf.
59 Oregon Food Sanitation Rule
4-301.12(G). See also, Lenore Lauri
Newman and Katherine Burnett,
Street Food and Vibrant Urban
Spaces: Lessons from Portland,
Oregon, 18 Loc. Env’t 233, 235 (2013).
60 CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE § 113899.
61 Id. at § 114067 (f)-(g).
62 Id. at §§ 114149.1(a), 114199
(establishing exhaust ventilation and
ice bin requirements).
63 Id. at § 113984(b)-(c).
64 Id. at § 113818(b)(1).
65 Analysis provided by
Kounkuey Design Initiative, July 12,
2021.
Item 13.C 01/11/21
62 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4031 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 40
66 CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE
§113818(b)(5)-(6).
67 See id. at § 113818(b)(6).
68 See Kaniyaa Francis & Cath-
erine Brinkley, Street Food Vending
as a Public Health Intervention, 18
CAL. J. HEALTH PROMOTION 1, 4
(June 2020).
69 Interview with Lyric Kelkar,
Laura Gonzalez, and Fernando
Abarca (Apr. 23, 2021) (on file with
authors).
70 CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE § 114314(a). (Emphasis added.)
71 Plan Check Guidelines for
Mobile Food Facilities and Mobile
Support Unit, L.A. CNTY. DEP’T PUB.
HEALTH, http://www.publichealth.
lacounty.gov/eh/docs/vip/plan_
check_guidelines_1.pdf (last visited
July 5, 2021).
72 See CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE § 114323(e).
73 Certain fire safety standards
may be imposed by the Department
of Housing and Community Develop-
ment (HCD) on a mobile food facility
that also meets the definition of a
“Commercial Modular,” or “Special
Purpose Commercial Modular,” but
since these definitions apply to units
“designed and equipped for human
occupancy,” they would not apply
to an unenclosed sidewalk vending
cart. See, CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE §§ 18001.8, 18012.5.
74 Plan Check Guidelines for
Mobile Food Facilities and Mobile
Support Unit, L.A. CNTY. DEP’T PUB.
HEALTH 5 , http://www.publichealth.
lacounty.gov/eh/docs/vip/plan_
check_guidelines_1.pdf (last visited
July 5, 2021).
75 CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE
§ 113751.
76 See, Janette Villafana and
Jack Ross, Fines and Confiscation:
Explaining L.A.’s Arbitrary Street
Food Cart Law the County Uses to
Criminalize Street Vendors, L.A.
Taco (March 15, 2021), https://www.
lataco.com/carts-street-food/.
77 CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE §§ 114295, 114297.
78 Interview with Lyric Kelkar,
Laura Gonzalez, and Fernando
Abarca (Apr. 23, 2021) (on file with
authors).
79 See CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE § 114297.
80 Supra, note 38.
81 Interview with Pedro (Mar.
17, 2021) (on file with authors).
82 CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE §§ 114365 et seq.
83 Id. at §§ 114367 et seq.
84 Id. at §§ 113825(a)(4)-(6)
(MEHKO limitations), 114365.5
(cottage food limitations).
85 Id. at §§ 113758(a),
113825(a)(8).
86 Id. at §§ 114365(a)(1)-(2),
114367.2(a).
87 Id. at § 113825.
88 Id. at §§ 114295, 114297.
89 Id. at § 114395.
90 Compare Unpermitted
Street Food in Los Angeles, L.A.
CNTY. DEP’T PUB. HEALTH, http://
www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/eh/
business/unpermitted-street-food.
htm (last visited June 16, 2021)
(showing images of unpermitted
street food vending and directing
readers to file a report), with Mobile
Food Vending Investigation and
Compliance Program, L.A. CNTY.
DEP’T PUB. HEALTH, http://publi-
chealth.lacounty.gov/eh/sse/MFVIC/
index.htm (last visited June 16,
2021) (listing potential violations,
instructing on how to identify and
report unpermitted carts, displaying
images of unpermitted street food
vending, and providing contact infor-
mation).
91 See Mobile Food Vending
Investigation and Compliance
Program, L.A. CNTY. DEP’T PUB.
HEALTH, http://publichealth.
lacounty.gov/eh/sse/MFVIC/index.
htm (last visited June 16, 2021).
92 When restaurants pause
operations to address problems
cited by DPH, restaurant owners
do not face a government take-
over of their property or business
for violating health infractions See
Tinhorn Flats: Myths and Facts, CITY
OF BURBANK PUB. INFO. OFF. (Apr.
22, 2021), https://www.burbankca.
gov/documents/20124/82332/
Tin+Horn+Flats+Myths+and+-
Facts+Clean+4.22.21+Final.
pdf/d685c2d8-c567-f6a7-fc45-
496dc51e9547?t=1619451179048.
Even after recent COVID-19 protocols
went into place, several businesses
openly defied the health regulations.
The City of Burbank and LA County
DPH went through a lengthy multi-
step process over several months
to delay the infractions and subse-
quently published this document to
justify their decisions.
93 Interview with IAC: Laura,
Lyric, and Fernando, Interviews with
Merlin, Rosa, and Pedro.
94 CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE § 113773 (defining “enforce-
ment agency” and “enforcement
officer,” respectively).
95 Id. at § 113774.
96 Compare Los Angeles
Municipal Code § 42.13.C.2(b)
with Los Angeles Bureau of Engi-
neering Sidewalk Dining Program
Rules and Guidelines, Rule 11,
https://engpermitmanual.lacity.
org/other-boe-permitsprocesses/
technical-procedures/00-la-al-fres-
co-sidewalk-dining-pro-
gram-rules-and.
97 Interview with Merlin (Mar.
15, 2021) (on file with authors).
98 Interview with Merlin (Mar.
15, 2021) (on file with authors).
99 Interview with Merlin (Mar.
15, 2021) (on file with authors).
100 See Francis & Brinkley,
supra note 68 at 4.
101 See Restaurant & Retail Food
Inspections in Los Angeles County,
L.A. CNTY. DEP’T PUB. HEALTH,
http://ph.lacounty.gov/eh/inspec-
tion/restaurant-retail-food-inspec-
tion.htm (last visited June 16, 2021).
Item 13.C 01/11/21
63 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4032 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 41
102 See Francis & Brinkley, supra
note 68 at 6-7.
103 See id. at 6.
104 See id.
105 See Bendegul Okumus &
Sevil Sonmez, An Analysis on Current
Food Regulations for and Inspection
Challenges of Street Food: Case of
Florida, 17 J. CULINARY SCI. & TECH.
209, 216 (2018); see also Francis &
Brinkley, supra note 68, at 4.
106 See Francis & Brinkley,
supra note 68, at 6.
107 See, e.g., Ethan Ward, “Street
Vendors Risk a Lot to Make a Living,”
Crosstown (October 8, 2020), https://
xtown.la/2020/10/08/street-ven-
dors-crime-los-angeles/.
108 Nadia Lopez, “Crimes against
Fresno street vendors go ‘under-
reported.’ Has COVID-19 pandemic
made it worse?” Fresno Bee (April 2,
2021), https://www.fresnobee.com/
news/local/article250339306.html.
109 Julie Carrie Wong, “Disrup-
tion’s double standard: tech firms
get rich but street vendors get
fined,” The Guardian (Sep. 19, 2017),
https://www.theguardian.com/
us-news/2017/sep/19/tech-indus-
try-street-vendors-disruption-cal-
ifornia; Doug Smith, “The City of
L.A. Can Protect Street Vendors by
Honoring its Commitment to Legalize
Street Vending,” Medium (July 26,
2017), https://medium.com/@Public-
Counsel/the-city-of-la-can-protect-
street-vendors-by-honoring-its-
commitment-8b6fbd56a364; Martin
Flores, video posted Sep. 9, 2017,
https://www.facebook.com/martin.
flores.1257/posts/102145457428
17741?pnref=story; Darwin Bond-
Graham, “Alameda Sheriff Deputy’s
Arrest of Street Fruit Vendor Goes
Viral and Draws Criticism,” East Bay
Express (May 12, 2017), https://www.
eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/
archives/2017/05/12/alameda-sher-
iff-deputys-arrest-of-street-fruit-
vendor-goes-viral-and-draws-criti-
cism; Sam Levin, “I’ll ‘make their life
miserable’: tech CEO bullies low-in-
come vendors by his home,” The
Guardian (May 2, 2016), https://www.
theguardian.com/technology/2016/
may/02/mark-woodward-facebook-
fruit-vendor-comments; “Caught
on Camera: Madera street vendor
attacked; police search for suspect,”
Your Central Valley (Mar 15, 2018),
http://www.yourcentralvalley.com/
news/caught-on-camera-made-
ra-street-vendor-attacked-police-
search-for-suspect/1049260057;
Sontaya Rose, “Vendor attacked and
robbed in Southeast Fresno,” ABC30.
com (Nov. 22, 2017), http://abc30.
com/vendor-attacked-and-robbed-
in-southeast-fresno/2681268/;
Gustavo Arellano, “Santa Ana Begins
War on Street Vendors before any
Ordinance is Heard,” OC Weekly (Feb.
14, 2017), https://www.ocweekly.
com/santa-ana-begins-war-on-
street-vendors-before-any-ordi-
nance-is-heard-7898879/.
110 Supra note 107.
111 Compare Dakota Smith &
Matthew Ormseth, It Took A While,
but L.A. Formally Declares Itself
a “City of Sanctuary,” L.A. TIMES
(Feb. 8, 2019), https://www.latimes.
com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-city-of-
sanctuary-cedillo-20190208-story.
html (reporting LA City Council’s
unanimous approval of a resolution
that reaffirmed policies barring Los
Angeles police officers from initi-
ating contact with people solely to
determine whether they are in the
country legally), with Lenore Lauri
Newman and Katherine Burnett,
Street Food and Vibrant Urban
Spaces: Lessons from Portland,
Oregon, 18 LOC. ENV’T 233, 235
(2013). (discussing how urban plan-
ning and the association of street
food vending with immigrant and
low-income communities has led to
intensely complex barriers to street
food vending in public spaces); see
generally JANE JACOBS, THE DEATH
AND LIFE OF GREAT AMERICAN
CITIES (Vintage Books 1961).
112 See LA Speaks: Language
Diversity and English Proficiency by
Los Angeles County Service Planning
Area, ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN
LEGAL CENTER 1, 5, https://advanc-
ingjustice-la.org/sites/default/files/
LASpeaksLanguageDiversity.pdf (last
visited June 16, 2021).
113 See id.; see also Amer-
ican Community Survey, Detailed
Household Language by Household
Limited English Speaking Status,
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU (2019),
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
table?q=California%20language&g
=0400000US06&tid=ACSDT1Y2019.
B16002&hidePreview=true (finding
that in California households where
limited English is spoken, the five
most-commonly spoken languages
are Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin and
Cantonese), Korean, Vietnamese, and
Tagalog).
114 See Francis & Brinkley,
supra, note 68, at 10-11. For example,
the vending economy in Port-
land, Oregon has been celebrated
precisely because it has a clear and
navigable permit approval process;
this has led to Portland’s crowded
and thriving street food industry,
where the vast majority of street
food vendors contribute to a safe
and beloved street food scene; see
also Newman & Burnett, supra note
59, at 245-46.
115 E.g., an inspection applica-
tion for a 500-square-foot restaurant
is only slightly more expensive. See
Environmental Health Plan Check
Program Fee Schedule, L.A. CNTY.
DEP’T PUB. HEALTH (July 23, 2018),
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/eh/
docs/Plan_Check/PlanCheckFees.
pdf.
116 See CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE § 114289(c)(2).
117 See Newman & Burnett,
supra note 59, at 238. In Portland,
Oregon, food vending licenses are
divided into four classes by process
and kinds of foods sold. The require-
ments for Classes I through III are
all considerably less-onerous than
analogous requirements for an LA
County DPH permit for even the
simplest food vending setup. The
requirements for Class III licenses,
for example, are achievable for most
taco vendors in LA, because Class
Item 13.C 01/11/21
64 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4033 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 42
III license holders are only required
to carry a minimum of five gallons
of water for handwashing and are
allowed to engage in most forms of
cooking, including reheating meat.
No dishwashing system or minimum
quantity of water for washing dishes
is required.
118 Interview with Rosa, (Mar. 17,
2021) (on file with authors).
119 Interview with Lyric Kelkar,
Laura Gonzalez, and Fernando
Abarca (Apr. 23, 2021) (on file with
authors).
120 Interview with Lyric Kelkar,
Laura Gonzalez, and Fernando
Abarca (Apr. 23, 2021) (on file with
authors).
121 CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE § 114314(a).
122 Id. at § 114323(e).
123 Id. See also, infra note 26.
124 Id. at § 113818(b)(6).
125 See, Rules of the City of New
York: Food Units. 34 (providing for
many vendors to operate without
an integral sink unit depending on
the types of food sold, and for even
vendors operating a pushcart who
prepare potentially hazardous food
to operate with a single sink for
food and ware washing if food is
washed in a food-grade colander).
Available at: https://www1.nyc.
gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/rii/
rules-regs-mfv.pdf, and Oregon Food
Sanitation Rule 4-301.12(G), allowing
access to a warewashing sink at
an approved commissary in lieu of
integrating the sink into the cart.
See also, Lenore Lauri Newman and
Katherine Burnett, Street Food and
Vibrant Urban Spaces: Lessons from
Portland, Oregon, 18 Loc. Env’t 233,
235 (2013).
126 Other jurisdictions impose
far less restrictive standards on
sidewalk vending operations. For
example, the North Central Health
District in Nebraska has a desig-
nated code section for two-wheeled
hot dog carts which explicitly
permits vendors using such a cart
to operate out of a kitchen with a
three-compartment sink—they do
not need to have one integrated
into the cart. Other jurisdictions
have significantly more achievable
requirements: New York City only
requires a one-compartment sink.
Supra, note 125.
127 See Newman & Burnett,
supra note 59, at 238. In Portland,
Oregon, Class II license holders only
need a five-gallon water system
for handwashing in order to sell
prepared, unpackaged foods. This
is allowed because Class II vendors
prepare their food in commissary
kitchens, where they pre-cook the
food so they do not have to cook it at
their carts.
128 CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE
§ 113751 (defining “commissary” as
“a food facility that services mobile
food facilities, mobile support
units, or vending machines where
any of the following occur: (a) Food,
containers, or supplies are stored. (b)
Food is prepared or prepackaged for
sale or service at other locations. (c)
Utensils are cleaned. (d) Liquid and
solid wastes are disposed, or potable
water is obtained”).
129 Id. at §§ 114295, 114297.
130 On July 2, 2021, Los Angeles
City Council issued a directive to
the Bureau of Street Services “to
continue to only issue penalty-free
notices of violation for sidewalk
vending without a license or permit
until January 1, 2022.” As of the date
of publication, it is unclear how
this directive will be implemented
and whether sidewalk food vendors
will be protected against citations
for not having a DPH permit. It is
also not guaranteed that these
permit barriers will be effectively
removed by January 1, 2022. See, Los
Angeles City Council File 20-0147-
S27, available at https://cityclerk.
lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.
cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnum-
ber=20-0147-S27.
131 See L.A., CAL., MUN. CODE §
42.13.C (2019).
132 Compare Los Angeles
Municipal Code Section 42.13.C.2(b)
with Los Angeles Bureau of Engi-
neering Sidewalk Dining Program
Rules and Guidelines, Rule 11,
https://engpermitmanual.lacity.
org/other-boe-permitsprocesses/
technical-procedures/00-la-al-fres-
co-sidewalk-dining-pro-
gram-rules-and.
133 See, e.g., Safe Sidewalk
Vending Act of 2018, No. 946, 2018
Cal. Stat. 93.
Item 13.C 01/11/21
65 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4034 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 43
APPENDIX 1: DPH PERMIT PROCESS & BARRIERS FOR SIDEWALK
FOOD VENDING
NO
NO
Barriers Causing Immediate Fail
Plan Check
Plan Check Guidelines only available in English
Unable to draw required Plan Check Diagram(s) to scale
Already noncompliant at time of Plan Check application
Fees
Outset Plan Fee: $746
Any Plan Check reviews beyond initial 2 reviews cost an additional $167
MFF Permit Fees:
– Prepackaged Cart: $393
– Unpackaged Cart: $772
– Prepackaged Truck/Trailer: $692
– Unpackaged Truck or Trailer: $905
General Accessibility
Other vendors are also not permitted so there are no peer resources to access
Don’t know where to start or how to access information
LA County DPH Definition of MFF is based on a commissary
No Access to a printer and a computer
Existing Cart or New Cart?
Existing & Discovered
FAIL FAIL
Existing and
Successfully Conceal
Continue to plan check application & review
Access to commissary or mobile support unit?
Access to non-home storage facility?
Food handler certification?
($89 for manager course + exam, $49 for exam only,
$7 for food handler)
Business permit?
American national standard institute (ANSI)
accredited equipment?
Access to toilet and handwashing within 200 feet
travel distance?
Meets all plan check
Format requirements?
- Drawn to scale
- Two copies
- $746 Fee
- Consists of top view, operator’s side view, and
plumbing page
Complete menu information with methods of display-
ing and dispensing food and samples of labeling and
packaging? (The menu will determine other require-
ments based on food preparation needs)
Building New Cart
Handwashing sink that is minimum 9” long, 9” wide
and 5” deep, placed in a minimum 15” space? With
paper towel and soap dispensers?
Are the handwashing and warewashing sinks for un-
enclosed mobile food facilities an integral part of the
primary unit or on an approved auxiliary conveyance
that is used in conjunction with the primary unit?
Are warewashing sinks for unenclosed mobile food
facilities equipped with overhead protection made
of wood, canvas, or other materials that protect the
sinks?
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
FAIL or Need to
Resubmit with
Corrections/
Additions
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
CONTINUES ON NEXT PAGE
Is there a complete finish schedule that details all the
materials used for all food contact surfaces?
COMPLIES WITH STRUCTURE & EQUIPMENT LAYOUT REQUIREMENTS
Is there separate storage for wiping clothes and
chemicals?
Are there outside overhead closure doors?
YES
Food operation counter space commensurate with food
operation? (No exact specifications included for general
operation) minimum 20” of counter space for every
piece of food equipment?
Minimum of 12 cubic feet of usable mechanical refrig-
eration space for limited food preparation? Sufficient in
capacity to ensure proper food temperature control?
Three compartment sink with two drainboards, each
Compartment and drainboard measuring minimum 10”
wide and 14” long or 12” wide and 12” long (minimum
50” in width)?
Minimum of 9 cubic feet of dry storage space for limited
food preparation? Minimum of 20 cubic feet of dry
storage space if full food preparation?
Is there an approved container with lid if generating
waste grease? Are there lids with secure latches to
prevent spillage of hot liquids during transport? Are gas
fired appliances insulated? Is there mechanical exhaust
ventilation equipment over all cooking equipment?
Is there a fire suppression system over all cooking
equipment?
Item 13.C 01/11/21
66 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4035 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 44
COMPLIES WITH WATER SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
WATER SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
Mff using water for hand washing only?
Can build cart with minimum 5-gal water tank exclu-
sively for hand washing + at least 15 gallons of water
for ware washing?
Mff has 1/2-gal or instantaneous water heater capa-
ble of heading water to ≥ 120f?
Can build cart with water heater capable of minimum
4-gallons or instantaneous heater capable of heating
water to 120f?
Can build cart with minimum 30-gal (hand & ware
washing) or 10-gal (hand washing only) wastewater
tank?
MFF uses ice?
Can build cart with separate
ice wastewater tank equal to
1/3 volume of ice cabinet?
Vendor uses water for food or
beverage prep?
Can build cart with additional
product water wastewater
tank ≥ 15% of total water
supply (minimum 3 gal)?
Water heater big enough to fill first compartment of 3-
Compartment utensil sink and wash hands for at least
10 Seconds and maintain 120f?
FAIL
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Is cart actually built to the specifications and ready
for final inspection?
Does the vendor have a commissary contract with a
DPH approved kitchen?
Does the vendor have a completed route slip?
Does the vendor have a completed health permit ap-
plication, supplemental application, sellers permit/
proof of ownership, and applicable mff permit fee?
– Prepackaged cart: $393
– Unpackaged cart: $772
– Prepackaged truck/trailer: $692
– Unpackaged truck or trailer: $905
Complies with all vending permit public health permit
requirements?
PUBLIC HEALTH PERMIT ISSUED
APPLY FOR THE CITY OF LA SIDEWALK AND PARKVENDING PERMIT
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE
FAIL
NO
Item 13.C 01/11/21
67 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4036 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 45
APPENDIX 2: LEGAL AND REGULATORY BARRIERS TO SIDEWALK
FOOD VENDING
DRAFT
1
APPENDIX 2: LEGAL AND REGULATORY BARRIERS TO SIDEWALK FOOD VENDING [source airtable]
Barrier Description Code Cite State Law or County Interpretation Notes
Program accessibility barriers
Statute is difficult to understand; no guidance on which provisions apply to small-scale sidewalk vending carts State Law
California Retail Food Code only available in English. State Law
Permit Application unavailable online County Interpretation/Guideline
Application is only in English County Interpretation/Guideline
Guidelines are difficult to understand; no guidance on which provisions apply to small-scale sidewalk vending carts.
County Interpretation/Guideline
Permit Requires Valid Photo ID
LACC 11.11.030; Ord. 2007-0089: Ord. 97-0071 § 9 (part), 1997.)
County Code Cited code is for obtaining a food handler's training certificate.
Expensive Application Fee
LACC 8.04.720 (fee schedule)
County Code
Cart: • Prepackaged - $393 • Unpackaged - $772 Truck or Trailer • Prepackaged - $692 • Unpackaged - $905
Item 13.C 01/11/21
68 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4037 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 46
DRAFT
2
Equipment design barriers
Warewashing Sink Size Requirements CRFC 114313(a) State Law
Under CRFC 114313(b) If all utensils and equipment of a mobile food facility are washed and sanitized on a daily basis at the approved commissary or other approved food facility, and the mobile food facility provides and maintains an adequate supply of spare preparation and serving utensils in the mobile food facility as needed to replace those that become soiled or contaminated, then the mobile food facility shall not be required to provide a warewashing sink to only handle any of the following: (1) Nonpotentially hazardous foods that do not require preparation other than heating, baking, popping, portioning, bulk dispensing, assembly, or shaving of ice. (2) Steamed or boiled hot dogs. (3) Tamales in the original, inedible wrapper.
Water Tank Requirements: 5-gallon water tank exclusively for handwashing AND 15-gallon water tank for warewashing
CRFC 114217 State Law Secondary category: Everyday Operations.
Water heater must be capable of ≥ 4-gallons or instantaneous heater capable of heating water to 120F
CRFC 114325 State Law
Wastewater Tank Capacity CRFC 114240 State Law
Equipment must be American National Standard Institute (ANSI) accredited
CRFC 114130 State Law
Both the CRFC and the MFF PCG mention that they can be evaluated by the local agency if ANSI certification is not available.
Ice Wastewater Tank Requirements CRFC 114240(d) State Law
Item 13.C 01/11/21
69 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4038 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 47
DRAFT
3
Access to a Toilet and Handwashing within 200 feet Travel Distances
RFC 114114(e) - Wood Burning Oven/Open Air BBQ, RFC 114315 (a)
State Law
"A food facility shall be operated within 200 feet travel distance of an approved and readily available toilet and handwashing facility, or as otherwise approved by the enforcement agency, to ensure that restroom facilities are available to facility employees whenever the mobile food facility is stopped to conduct business for more than a one-hour period." - possible for county to be more lenient? or only more strict? preemption question.
Handwashing Sink Size Requirements CRFC 114311(a) State Law
Counter Space Requirements CRFC 114305 State Law
Complete Finish Schedule
CRFC 114380 (authority); CRFC 114381.2(b) (detail of finish schedule)
State Law
Insulation of Gas Fired Appliances CRFC 114323(g) State Law
Mechanical exhaust ventilation equipment over all cooking equipment
CRFC 114149.1(a) State Law
approved ground or floor surfaces where cooking processes are conducted extend a minimum of five feet on all open sides of where cooking processes are conducted and are they an integral part of the mobile food facility
CRFC 114301(h-i) State Law
Approved ice dispensing equipment located within the food compartment CRFC 113784 State Law
Item 13.C 01/11/21
70 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4039 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 48
DRAFT
4
Compressor units that are not an Integral part of the food equipment, auxiliary engines, generators, and similar equipment installed in an area that is completely separated from the food preparation and food storage and accessible for proper cleaning and maintenance
CRFC 114322 State Law
Outside overhead closure doors CRFC 114349 State Law
Separate storage for wiping cloths and chemicals
Chemicals: CRFC 114319(b); Wiping Cloths: CRFC 114185.1
State Law
Ice bins located in an area that does not contaminate any food, equipment, or food contact surfaces and is it sloped to drain to the waste tank
CRFC 114199 (slope to drain),
State Law
Condiment containers fully protect the food against environmental conditions CRFC 114077 State Law
Pastry Case CRFC 114060 State Law
Definition of "limited food preparation" excludes slicing of whole fruits and reheating and hot-holding of most potentially hazardous foods - effectively prohibiting fruit vendors and taco vendors
CRFC 113818(b) State Law
Water heater must be large enough to fill first compartment of a 3-compartment warewashing sink and wash hands for at least 10 seconds and maintain 120F
MFF Plan Check Guide p. 13, Note b/t (f) and (g).
County Interpretation/Guideline
Dry Space Storage Space Requirement MFF PCG p. 10
County Interpretation/Guideline
Mechanical Refrigeration Space Requirement MFF PCG p. 10-11
County Interpretation/Guideline
Item 13.C 01/11/21
71 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4040 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 49
DRAFT
5
Approved Container with lid for waste grease MFF PCG p. 11
County Interpretation/Guideline
Fire Suppression System Over all Cooking Equipment MFFPC p. 27
County Interpretation/Guideline
Uses an approved power source
MFF Plan Check Guidelines, p. 12 n. 23.
County Interpretation/Guideline
Minimum of eight cubic feet provided for the storage of beverages, complete dimensions provided in the plan.
MFFPCG p. 11 #16
County Interpretation/Guideline
Sugar trays are easily cleanable with a positive closing lid that are an integral part of the mobile food facility inside of the food compartment
MFFPCG p. 11 #17
County Interpretation/Guideline
Syrup storage inside of the food compartment MFFPCG p. 11 #19
County Interpretation/Guideline
DPH does not appear to make low-income sidewalk food vendors aware of the auxiliary sink option, nor has DPH explored any creative options to promote shared access to auxiliary sink units
County Interpretation/Guideline
Permitting process barriers
Receive Plan Approval BEFORE Construction of Cart RFC 114380 State Law
MFF Plan Check Proposal must be drawn to scale RFC 114380 State Law
This says plans must be to scale - nothing about how many copies of the plans there should be or what the fee is or that they need to include a top view, an operator's side view and a plumbing page (MFF PCG p. 9)
Complete dimensions provided (length x width x depth)
RFC 114380(a),(b) State Law
Complete Menu Information with Display Methods and Samples of Labels and Packaging
MFF PCG p. 9
County Interpretation/Guideline
Very little guidance provided; permit application not available online County Interpretation/Guideline
Item 13.C 01/11/21
72 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4041 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 50
DRAFT
6
Vendors must travel to multiple offices and work with multiple jurisdictions to obtain permit prerequisites.
County Interpretation/Guideline
Permitting and inspection services are geographically limited, requiring vendors to travel to Baldwin Park County Interpretation/Guideline
Must provide Mobile Food Facility Route Sheet
LACC 8.04.403; Ord. 2010-0045 § 8, 2010
County Code
Food preparation and equipment storage barriers
All Mobile Food Facilities (MFFs) that are NOT serviced by a Mobile Support Unit (MSU) require a commissary relationship; MSUs must have a commissary relationship.
RFC 114297(b)-(d) State Law
Mobile Food Facility (MFF) - any vehicle used in conjunction with a commissary or other permanent food facility upon which food is sold or distributed at retail
Access to Commissary Kitchen Space to Return Cart to Every Night
RFC 113831(a), RFC 114295
State Law
Access to Non-Home Storage Facility MFF PCG p. 5 State Law
Under RFC 114297(c), Mobile food facilities that are serviced by a mobile support unit and that do not report to a commissary on a daily basis shall be stored in a manner that protects the mobile food facility from contamination.
Despite having the discretion to do so under state law, DPH does not devote resources to expanding access to commissary and kitchen space by approving underutilized community kitchens in schools, restaurants, community centers and places of worship.
County Interpretation/Guideline
Enforcement barriers
Violations, including unpermitted vending, classified as criminal misdemeanors.
CRFC 114395 State Law
Item 13.C 01/11/21
73 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4042 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 51
DRAFT
7
DPH Inspectors are commonly accompanied by L.A. County Sheriff deputies when carrying out enforcement actions.
County Interpretation/Guideline
Sidewalk food vendors subject to frequent displacement and citation due to unjust no-vending-zones enforced by the City.
City policy
Item 13.C 01/11/21
74 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4043 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 52
APPENDIX 3: DPH ACTIONS TO INCREASE ACCESS TO SAFE
SIDEWALK VENDING IN L.A.
It is impossible for most sidewalk food vendors to obtain a permit from the County Department
of Public Health (DPH). Barriers to DPH permits threaten public health by preventing most food
vendors from accessing food safety guidance and maintaining the criminalization and economic
exclusion of many low-income workers. While some of these barriers stem from requirements found
in the California Retail Food Code (CRFC), others are imposed by DPH with no state law require-
ment. Immediate action is needed to remove barriers at both levels. The following are concrete
actions that DPH can take right now promote safe sidewalk food vending in L.A.
Immediately modify DPH permitting and enforcement
procedures. The following changes to DPH guidelines
are consistent with existing state law and will enable
greater vendor participation:
1. Pre-approve cart design. Pre-approving standard-
ized cart design blueprints that meet CRFC stan-
dards will decrease costs to vendors and the county
by allowing vendors who purchase pre-approved
carts to invest with confidence and bypass the plan
check process. DPH should support the creation of
blueprints that reduce equipment size and cost.
2. Pre-approve Standard Operating Procedures (SOP).
DPH should work with vendors and community
based organizations to make publicly available
template SOPs for common sidewalk vending food
items, enabling vendors to secure the necessary
prerequisites to bypass plan check and proceed to
permitting with confidence. Pre-approving SOPs for
common food items will also give DPH confidence
that vendor applicants are adhering to all the proto-
cols and practices necessary to promote food safety
and consumer health.
3. Provide authentic access to information. DPH
should create new materials summarizing appli-
cation requirements that are specific to sidewalk
vending, using popular education and accessible
language. Translate and publish these new mate-
rials, along with the Mobile Food Facility Plan
Check Guidelines, in at least the five most common
languages in L.A. County.
4. Increase accessibility. DPH should provide new loca-
tions for approval checks, encourage on-site visits,
and streamline permitting so the entire process can
occur in a single visit.
5. Reduce permit costs. DPH should significantly
decrease permit and plan check fees, including fee
waivers for low-income vendors.
6. Approve auxiliary sinks to service vending carts. The
CRFC allows handwashing and warewashing sinks to
be located “on an approved auxiliary conveyance” in
lieu of being on the cart itself (§114314). DPH should
work with vendors and stakeholders to develop
protocols for a hub-and-spoke system that allows
several vendors to operate in close proximity to an
auxiliary sink unit (strategically placed on a city- or
county-owned parking lot in an area with a high
concentration of vending) without requiring sinks on
the primary unit. This will significantly reduce cart
weight, size, and cost.
7. Reduce on-site food storage requirements. State
law imposes no specific cubic footage requirement
for storage on mobile food facilities. DPH should
exercise its discretion to decrease the current dry
and refrigerated storage requirements to safe and
appropriate levels, which will reduce cart size and
cost.
8. Clarify overhead fire suppression standards. DPH
should not require any fire suppression system
requirements beyond what is required by state law.
9. Repurpose underutilized community kitchen to
help increase vendor access to food prep, equip-
ment cleaning and storage space. DPH should use
its discretion to approve the use of underutilized
kitchens at restaurants, food businesses, schools,
community centers, and places of worship as facili-
ties for vendors to conduct food preparation, equip-
ment cleaning, and storage.
10. Commit to a just framework for compliance. DPH
should stop including the Sheriff’s Department in
enforcement and discontinue the seizure of vending
carts and equipment.
Item 13.C 01/11/21
75 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4044 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)
Unfinished Business 53
Support health-promoting changes to state law. DPH
should coordinate with the City of L.A., community
based organizations, and street food vendors to craft
model legislation and actively advocate for the following
changes to the CRFC:
1. Lessen the plan check burden. The CRFC should
be amended to provide a streamlined process to
inspect and approve certain manufactured carts
without a plan check requirement, and grant discre-
tion to local health departments to approve cart
blueprints and plans based on a finding of public
health, enabling innovative designs that achieve the
dual goals of food safety and affordability.
2. Enhance safe on-site food preparation. The CRFC
should be amended to establish standards to enable
slicing of fruit and vegetables and safe reheating
and hot-holding of common sidewalk vending
food items. The CRFC currently provides a limited
and seemingly arbitrary list of foods that may be
hot-held within the definition of limited food prepa-
ration. Many other foods that are commonly sold by
sidewalk vendors involve very similar preparation
and process, but are not included in this defini-
tion and therefore may not be hot-held. Instead of
providing an arbitrary list of individual foods that
may be hot-held, the CRFC should regulate the
process for safe hot-holding of food.
3. Reduce onerous sink requirements. The CRFC
should be amended to remove the requirement for
a three-compartment warewashing sink and hand-
washing sink, and reduce potable water require-
ments. The CRFC already exempts certain foods, like
hot dogs and tamales, from the warewashing sink
requirements (CRFC § 114313(b)). This exemption
can be expanded to other foods, with accompa-
nying health standards and operating procedures to
ensure food safety.
4. Expand access to safe food preparation. Stan-
dards for Cottage Food and Microenterprise Home
Kitchen operations should be adjusted to be more
inclusive of sidewalk vending, and the CRFC should
be amended to expand the use of home kitchens
and underutilized community kitchens as safe food
preparation and equipment storage spaces.
5. Decriminalize sidewalk food vending. Most sidewalk
vendors are just now entering the formal economy
after decades of exclusion. For effective onboarding,
replace criminal misdemeanor penalties with
non-criminal, education-based compliance strate-
gies for unpermitted vending. This would bring CRFC
enforcement in line with SB 946.
Item 13.C 01/11/21
76 of 76 Item 13.C 01/11/21
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 4045 Attachment: Written Comments (4912 : Support changes to the CA Retail Food Code)