Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sidewalk Vending topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alameda County sets $273 annual fee, tightens posting rules for sidewalk vendors
Summary
The Board of Supervisors adopted amendments to the county sidewalk‑vending ordinance establishing a $273 annual permit fee and stepped‑up posting and notification requirements; supervisors discussed enforcement limits under state law and plans to coordinate code enforcement with environmental health and sheriff's deputies.
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors on Nov. 13 adopted amendments to the county's sidewalk‑vending ordinance that set an annual permit fee of $273 and require enhanced posting and notification of potential regulatory revisions.
Ed Labayog, code enforcement manager for the county's Community Development Agency, told the board the second reading fulfills statutory requirements and that regulations implementing the ordinance will be considered by the planning director at a public hearing scheduled for Nov. 18. The ordinance, codified in chapter 3.36 of the Alameda County Ordinance Code, will take effect 30 days after adoption if no other legal steps intervene.
Supervisors pressed staff on enforcement at high‑attendance events after reports of unpermitted vendors at a recent Castro Valley parade. Supervisor Meili said constituents had complained about vendors who obstructed sidewalks and that enforcement could appear insufficient. Labayog said the county plans outreach and education beginning in January and described an escalating fine schedule for repeat violators (warnings followed by fees of $100/$200/$500 for permitted vendors with violations and higher fines for unpermitted vendors, per staff examples). He said environmental health has authority under the Health and Safety Code to confiscate food and, when unsanitary conditions are observed, equipment.
Several public speakers urged stronger penalties, including confiscation of equipment, citing repeated noncompliance and public‑safety concerns. County counsel and staff noted state statutes (as cited in staff materials) constraining local enforcement to administrative penalties but confirmed environmental health retains authority to act on observed unsanitary conditions.
The board voted by roll call to adopt the ordinance (Ayes: Marquez, Tam, Meili, Halbert; Supervisor Fortunato Bass excused). The decision sends the package to the planning director and sets the county on a phased enforcement and outreach schedule. Staff said the county will coordinate enforcement with environmental health and sheriff's deputies and will return with implementation details as regulations are drafted.
Next steps: regulations at a Nov. 18 public hearing, outreach and training planned for early January, and staff follow‑up on enforcement coordination.
