Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Small Business topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears first reading of updated sidewalk-vendor rules; item continued for more stakeholder work
Summary
Staff introduced revisions to Richmond's sidewalk-vendor ordinance to clarify administrative procedures, waiver authority, enforcement tools, confidentiality under SB 635 and an ability-to-pay process; vendors asked to be grandfathered in longstanding sites and merchants urged infrastructure such as power/solar for vendor plazas. Council asked for more time and continued the item to the May 5 meeting for further refinement.
City staff presented proposed amendments to Richmond Municipal Code chapter 7.42 on sidewalk vending, describing updates to administrative procedures, a structured waiver process, an ability-to-pay provision for fines, SB 635'compliant confidentiality protections and clearer enforcement priorities.
What staff proposed: Deputy Public Works Director Robert Armijo and Senior Engineer Andy Cho described operational changes including an expanded mobile-vendor plaza, a formal waiver review and application process for nonstandard equipment or siting, and confidentiality safeguards to prevent release of vendor personal data to immigration authorities. Staff also said enforcement has matured from outreach toward a more systematic notice-and-violation workflow but that administrative fines remain the main enforcement tool available under state law.
Public testimony and merchant input: Vendors urged the council to recognize long-standing operations and to grandfather vendors who have operated the same curb locations for decades; one vendor asked the council to prioritize permitting of legacy locations. Merchants and community members raised concerns about generators and air-quality impacts; one commenter suggested adding electrical or solar infrastructure to the mobile plaza to reduce generator use.
Council direction: Several council members asked staff to clarify the definition of "solicitation," set clear limits on exceptions and to consider staffing needs to enforce the ordinance; others requested additional outreach and a careful review of setback and accessibility rules. Because more detailed amendments and stakeholder concerns remain outstanding, council members asked staff to bring a revised ordinance back on May 5 for second reading and fuller public review.
Status: The item was introduced for first reading and then continued to the May 5 meeting so staff can incorporate council direction and stakeholder feedback before second reading.
