DATE: 07/01/2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: City Attorney’s Office, Legal & Risk Management Department Planning & Development Department
2026-260
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBJECT:
REQUEST BY VICE MAYOR SPEAKE TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO PEDDLERS
AND SOLICITORS REGULATIONS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Vice Mayor Speake’s future agenda item request asks the City Council to consider possible amendments to Corona Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 5.34 (Solicitors), as well as other administrative changes to “reduce negative interactions at resident doorsteps and restore/reset the relationship between solicitors and residents.” RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council review, discuss, and provide direction on possible future amendments to Corona Municipal Code Chapter 5.34 (Solicitors), as well as other possible future administrative changes to Staff’s management and enforcement of solicitors.
BACKGROUND & HISTORY:
Vice Mayor Speake’s Future Agenda Item Request Form, which is attached hereto, addresses the following potential issues:
1. Clarification of “Solicitation” Definition (Section 5.34.020(B))
2. Strengthening “No Soliciting” Protections
3. Graduated Administrative Penalty Structure
4. Transparency and Field Verification of Solicitors
5. Permit Enforcement and Revocation Triggers
6. Do Not Solicit Registry – Adopt on a future Ledge policy
7. Public Education and Compliance Awareness
Each issue is addressed separately below.
ANALYSIS:
1. Lead Generators - Clarification of “Solicitation” Definition (Section
5.34.020(B))
VICE MAYOR SPEAKE REQUEST: Vice Mayor Speake requested the following, in order to clarify that the actions of “lead generators” are included in the definition of solicitation:
“Clarify that individuals who collect information for the purpose of connecting residents with third-party service providers (“lead generation”) are explicitly included within the definition of solicitation, regardless of whether a transaction occurs at the time of contact.” STAFF RESPONSE: Arguably, the definition below already includes such “lead generators” who typically will eventually entice or offer to make connections to service or product providers.
However, to make it abundantly clear, Staff can revise Section 5.34.020(B) as indicated below:
“5.34.020 Definitions.
Unless the particular provision of the context otherwise requires, the definitions and provisions contained in this section shall govern the construction, meaning, and application of words and phrases used in this chapter. Unless the context otherwise clearly indicates, words used in the singular include the plural and words used in the plural includes the singular.
. . . .
(B) "Solicit", "soliciting", or "solicitation" shall mean and include any request, offer, enticement, or action, by any person who is traveling by foot, vehicle or other type of conveyance from place to place or from door to door or at any temporary, and stationary location on public property, which: (1) announces the availability of services or for employment,; (2) announces the sale or exchange of goods or merchandise of any kind, or; (3) makes a request for funds or other property; or (4) collects information for the purpose of connecting persons with providers of services, goods, or merchandise. As defined herein, a solicitation shall be deemed complete when made, whether or not services are provided, an actual employment relationship is created, a sales or exchange transaction is completed, or an exchange of money or other property takes place. The term solicit, soliciting, or solicitation shall not include "sidewalk vendor activities" as defined in § 5.35.020.”
2. Strengthening “No Soliciting” Protections
VICE MAYOR SPEAKE REQUEST: Vice Mayor Speake requested the following, in order to increase protections for those who clearly post their property with a sign with the following words or words of similar meaning : (1) "No Solicitors"; (2) "No Soliciting"; or (3) "No Trespassing":
“Evaluate whether approaching or attempting to solicit at a residence with a clearly posted “No Soliciting” notice should be defined as a distinct or enhanced violation under Chapter 5.34.”
STAFF RESPONSE: Section 5.34.160 (Aggressive soliciting) prohibits certain actions as “aggressive” solicitation, but approaching a “posted” location is not one of them. Council could consider including it as “aggressive” solicitation, and create a higher level of administrative fine for “aggressive” solicitation (see #3 below).
Accordingly, Council could consider revising Section 5.34.160 (Aggressive soliciting) as follows:
“5.34.160 Aggressive soliciting.
No solicitor shall engage in the following while soliciting or immediately thereafter:
(A) To ring the bell of, knock on the door of, attempt to gain admittance to, or otherwise call attention to his or her presence at any residence or business that has a sign posted pursuant to Section
5.34.110 (Sign posting).
(B) Coming closer than three feet to the person solicited, unless and until the person solicited indicates he or she consents or wishes to make a purchase or otherwise receive the solicitation. (C) Blocking or impeding the passage of the person solicited. (D) Repeating the solicitation after the person solicited has indicated his or her objection to the solicitation.
(E) Following the person solicited by proceeding behind, ahead, or alongside such person after the person has indicated his or her objection to the solicitation.
(F) Threatening the person solicited with physical harm by word, gesture, or other means.
(G) Abusing the person solicited with words which are offensive and inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction. (H) Touching the solicited person without the solicited person's consent.”
3. Graduated Administrative Penalty Structure
VICE MAYOR SPEAKE REQUEST: Vice Mayor Speake requested the following, for a more enhanced administrative fine structure for violations of Corona Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 5.34:
“Develop a clear, tiered administrative fine structure for violations of Chapter 5.34, including enhanced penalties for:
• Violations involving posted “No Soliciting” properties • Repeat offenses within a defined period
This would supplement existing misdemeanor authority and provide a more consistent enforcement tool.”
STAFF RESPONSE: For violations which are infractions, administrative fines are limited to $100 for the first offense, $200 for the second offense, and $500 for each offense thereafter in a 12-month period. Since violating Chapter 5.34 is a misdemeanor offense, the Council can consider higher administrative fines for violations of this Chapter.
Accordingly, Council could consider the following (as an example only – other amounts can be considered):
STANDARD VIOLATIONS OF CMC 5.34
(IN A 12-MONTH PERIOD)
1 st offense = $200
2 nd offense = $400
3 rd and after = $1,000
AGGRESSIVE SOLICITATION VIOLATIONS
(IN A 12-MONTH PERIOD)
1 st offense = $1,000
2 nd offense = $1,500
4. Transparency and Field Verification of Solicitors
VICE MAYOR SPEAKE REQUEST: Vice Mayor Speake requested the following, in order to more clearly identify properly permitted solicitors in the field:
“Evaluate options to improve visibility and disclosure requirements in the field, including:
• Clear identification of the solicitor and the business they represent
• Disclosure of applicable licensing status (e.g., contractor affiliation where required)
• Improved verification of existing permit and business license requirements
This builds on existing requirements but focuses on enforceability and resident awareness.”
STAFF RESPONSE: Staff is open to Council’s discussion and direction regarding this issue, including requiring permitted persons to wear a lanyard-style badge with noted information. For consistency, the badge or identification for all solicitors should look the same, with the same information, so it is clearly identifiable. This may require that the City issue this badge/identification to permitted solicitors. This would require staff time and materials costs to make the badge.
5. Permit Enforcement and Revocation Triggers
VICE MAYOR SPEAKE REQUEST: Vice Mayor Speake requested the following, in order to more clearly identify when permits can be revoked or suspended:
“Review and clarify enforcement triggers for suspension or revocation of solicitor permits, particularly in cases involving repeat violations or violations tied to posted “No Soliciting” properties.” STAFF RESPONSE: A permit can already be revoked for any violation of CMC 5.34.
However, to make it abundantly clear that an “aggressive” solicitor can have their permit revoked for just one violation, Staff can revise Section 5.34.090(A), as indicated below:
“5.34.090 Permit - Revocation, suspension.
(A) A solicitors permit issued under this chapter may be suspended or revoked by the Director for any of the following reasons:
(1) The permittee provided false, misleading or misrepresented information in the application for the solicitors permit. (2) The permittee fails at least three times in any twelve (12) month period to comply with the requirements, regulations, laws, and conditions of approval applicable to the solicitors permit, including, but not limited to, any provision of this chapter.
(3) Soliciting one or more times in violation of CMC 5.34.160 (Aggressive soliciting) in an unlawful manner or in such a manner as to constitute a breach of the peace or a menace to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public.”
(B) This section shall be self-executing, and the suspension or revocation of the solicitors permit shall be effective immediately. The Director shall give notice of the suspension or revocation of the solicitors permit at the permittee's last known address.
(C) When a permit has been revoked, no other permit shall be issued under the provisions of this chapter to the same permittee within one calendar year of the date of revocation.”
6. Do Not Solicit Registry – Adopt on a Future Legislative Policy VICE MAYOR SPEAKE REQUEST: Vice Mayor Speake requested the following, in order to establish a state-wide “Do Not Solicit Registry”:
“Recommend that the Council consider inclusion of a “Do Not Solicit” registry concept as part of its State Legislative Platform, and direct Staff to work with the City’s state legislative advocates and lobbying team to evaluate opportunities for enabling legislation, funding mechanisms, and a broader statewide framework.
Advocate through the City’s State Legislative Platform and local legislative representatives for enhanced education and outreach requirements for Home Improvement Salespersons (HIS) regarding local peddler and solicitor permitting requirements in City’s.
STAFF RESPONSE: This is a policy call for the City Council to consider.
7. Public Education and Compliance Awareness
VICE MAYOR SPEAKE REQUEST: Vice Mayor Speake requested the following, in order to increase public awareness and solicitor compliance:
“Develop a targeted public education and outreach strategy to:
Inform residents of their rights under Chapter 5.34
Reinforce solicitor obligations
Coordinate with the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) through a formal communication advising that the City of Corona maintains a local solicitor permitting process applicable to door-to-door activities include No Solicitors signage.
Improve compliance through resident awareness rather than enforcement.”
STAFF RESPONSE: This is a policy call for the City Council to consider. Public education and outreach may require advertised workshops and coordination with vendors and solicitors who have permits and those interested in soliciting in Corona. This would involve additional staff time to conduct public outreach and compliance awareness.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is minimal staff cost for CMC and admin fines revisions (#1, #2, #3, and #5).
Unknown costs for transparency/field verification, do not solicit registry, and public education campaigns (#4, #6, and #7).
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
This action is exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which states that a project is exempt from CEQA if the activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. This action involves minor clarifying revisions to the CMC and public education efforts, which will not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, no environmental analysis is required.
PREPARED BY: DEAN DERLETH, CITY ATTORNEY/LRM DIRECTOR
DANNY CASTRO, INTERIM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
REVIEWED BY: JACOB ELLIS, CITY MANAGER
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Exhibit 1 - Update to Solicitor Regulations PowerPoint Presentation
2. Exhibit 2 - Future Agenda Item Request from Vice Mayor Speake