Jurupa Valley staff propose weekend enforcement, confiscation to curb unpermitted food vendors

Jurupa Valley city staff on Thursday outlined a multi‑phase enforcement plan designed to reduce unpermitted mobile food vending, including night and weekend patrols, equipment confiscation and a public education phase.

The plan was presented by Erwin Salas, building and safety code manager, who said the city received more than 400 complaints about mobile vendors in 2024 and that current enforcement—citing and asking vendors to vacate—has been ineffective. "The purpose is to protect the health and safety of the public, to protect the public from foodborne illnesses, and to protect the community from nuisances," Salas said.

Nut graf: The draft program would add a two‑person code enforcement team, a dedicated sheriff's deputy for vendor detail, an incremental education/citation/enforcement sequence and equipment impoundment. Staff estimated roughly $700,000 for the first year and asked council for direction to prepare an ordinance that would include impound and recovery rules.

Key elements and budget: Salas described five components—weekend/evening enforcement, confiscation of equipment, phased implementation (education then citations then full enforcement), installation of targeted barriers or landscaping at problem locations, and a 6‑ and 12‑month post‑implementation review. The staff cost estimate: two full‑time code officers $223,000; two pickup trucks with lift gates $120,000; a dedicated vendor deputy $410,200; and $20,000 for preventative measures at three to four locations. "A total estimate for the first year cost is $700,073," Salas told the council (staff noted the figure is subject to change).

Process and limits: Staff said code officers cannot perform duties of the county health department (they are not health agents and cannot confiscate food), which is why the proposed enforcement focuses on impounding equipment rather than seizing food. Impoundment would be allowed up to 90 days and retrieval would require identification and payment of fees; staff cited Fontana's approach (not less than 30 days, not more than 60) as an example. Salas said the sheriff deputy’s role is safety and operational support when vendors resist enforcement.

Council and business response: Councilmembers asked for safeguards to avoid punishing local restaurants and residents, suggested prioritizing permits for in‑city operators, and urged creative, legally defensible ways to limit saturation without violating state law. Councilmember Armando Carmona and others pressed for mechanisms to prevent out‑of‑town operators from rotating personnel or vehicles to evade citations, suggesting vehicle tagging or stricter recovery rules. Several small business owners and restaurant operators spoke during public comment, citing trash, lost sales and repeated street‑side food service where customers eat in or around storefronts. Ronnie Romo, owner of Pizza Plug, said: "I pay a lot of fees for my restaurant…we do want everybody to have their hustle, but everybody should pay their fair share."

Legal constraints and next steps: Staff repeatedly noted state law restrictions (for example, state law prohibits requiring minimum distances from existing businesses). The proposal calls for staff to prepare a draft ordinance that would include authority to impound equipment and recovery rules; staff also proposed bilingual education (English and Spanish) in the initial phase. Council members asked staff to return with a draft ordinance, cost and implementation timeline and to explore enforcement logistics such as where impounded equipment would be stored and how private‑property incidents would be handled.

Ending: Council provided general support for a stronger enforcement approach but requested more detailed ordinance language, clarifications about who pays for specific off‑site costs and assurance the plan prioritizes local businesses and safety. Staff said it will return with draft ordinance language, implementation details and refined cost estimates.