HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 - PH-1 - Amendments to Graffiti Ordinance - 3/16/2010CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: MARCH 16, 2010 ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO THE GRAFFITI ORDINANCE
DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 2010
FROM: CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
PRESENTATION BY: THOMAS R. HATCH, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: TOM HATCH - (714) 754-5328 or
CAROL PROCTOR — (714) 754-5688
RECOMMENDATION:
Introduce and give first reading to the attached Ordinance amending Title 11 relating to graffiti and
tagging.
BACKGROUND:
The City's Graffiti Ordinance was last amended by City Council on May 15, 2007. The amendment
included updated and additional definitions of graffiti implements; stricter requirements for retailers to
maintain those implements in a secure manner; and additional penalties for those individuals
convicted of anti -graffiti law violations.
The City is continuing to find ways to proactively address graffiti, institute safeguards to further
prevent opportunities for graffiti vandals and taggers, and discourage them through penalties and
restitution. As mentioned in the staff report in 2007, the graffiti vandals continue to find different
ways to mark and deface both public and private property.
In 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed two bills into law: AB 1767 (Ma), and AB 2609 (Davis).
These bills are now in effect. AB 1767 mandates community service for individual(s) committing a
criminal act of graffiti vandalism. AB 2609 requires defendants convicted of graffiti to clean up or
repair defaced or damaged property and to keep such property or another specified property in the
community free of graffiti for up to one year. Last year, AB 576 (Torres) was signed into law and
became effective January 1, 2010. AB 576 adds government entities to the definitions of victim
when the court imposes an order upon the defendant or the juvenile offender to make restitution to
the victim or victims.
In 2009, the City learned that several cities in Southern California had revised their graffiti
ordinances to further strengthen the language concerning definitions, sale and possession, public
access and penalties. Two cities, West Covina and Santa Ana, included sections in their ordinances
on parental civil liability for minors who violate their graffiti ordinance; restitution to the victim; and
community service requirements. These sections address accountability and discourage recidivism.
As graffiti vandals/taggers have found more ways to deface property, local agencies are now turning
to the stronger use of parental civil liability and restitution to combat problems, to pay for damages to
victims and to educate the vandals and their parents or guardians.
A Graffiti Ordinance Committee consisting of staff from the Police, Public Services, and
Development Services Departments, and the City Attorney's and City Manager's Offices met several
times to review the best provisions in the West Covina and Santa Ana ordinances and prepare the
attached proposed ordinance for Costa Mesa (Attachment 1).
ANALYSIS:
Graffiti negatively impacts the quality of life in a community. As noted in the Background section, the
proposed ordinance amendment further addresses current trends by graffiti vandals and
incorporates the new strategies some cities are now taking. These include:
a comprehensive list of definitions and of graffiti implements;
further restrictions on accessibility of graffiti implements and signage requirements;
new sections pertaining to:
o parental civil liability;
o restitution to the victim(s), including the authority for the City to place a lien on
property if necessary;
o expanded authority for the chief of police to reward a person who provides credible
information regarding graffiti violations;
o a 48-hour removal time frame for utility companies to remove graffiti on utility fixtures
and equipment upon being reported to the utility;
o cost recovery procedures; and
o community service requirements and penalties.
While graffiti can be attributed to both criminal gang activity and tagger activity, the Costa Mesa
Police Department has indicated that the graffiti most often seen in the City is the work of taggers.
The majority of these are minors. By involving the parent, guardian or legal guardian, the
educational and financial responsibility components have been found to be a deterrent to minors
becoming repeat offenders. The proposed changes will also assist the Police Department in its
efforts to educate parents and the community, while increasing its ability to arrest graffiti vandals.
The City of Santa Ana has reported that they have been enforcing their new graffiti ordinance since
mid-October. Both public works (graffiti removal) and police have stated that they have noticed
no significant or subjective difference yet. They are working with their school police officers as
well as primarily enforcing California Penal Code Section 594 and 594.2 (vandalism; graffiti;
persons possessing graffiti implements; punishment; community service as a condition of
probation; and descriptions of graffiti implements). Since October, the Santa Ana Police
Department has made 11 arrests; 6 which are related to the new code that will involve the
parents. These cases are in process now. After gathering more objective data and statistics,
Santa Ana may be conducting some sort of interview -format evaluation, following up with
offenders and their parents to find out the possible deterrent effects. Santa Ana PD has also
been meeting with the County's Probation Department regarding second time offenders and with
their City Attorney regarding some sections of their ordinance, such as forfeiture and restitution.
The City of West Covina's graffiti ordinance was amended in 1994 and again in February 2009. It
is somewhat less restrictive than Santa Ana's ordinance. West Covina PD advised that they have
experienced a 70% reduction in graffiti after their ordinance was implemented and with the use of
"graffiti tracker" software. Police Department School Resource Officers interact with school
officials, students and parents to further educate and reduce graffiti.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
Do not adopt the proposed revision.
E
FISCAL REVIEW:
None required.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney's Office has been involved in the preparation of the proposed amendments to the
Graffiti Ordinance and has reviewed and approved the attached ordinance "as to form."
CONCLUSION:
The proposed amendment to the Costa Mesa Municipal Code is intended to further deter graffiti in
Costa Mesa. City Council is requested to give first reading to the Ordinance.
CAROL C. PROCTOR
MANAGEMENT ANALYST
KIMBERLY HALL BARLOW
City Attorney (legal review only)
THOMAS R. HATCH
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
DISTRIBUTION: Police Chief Chris Shawkey Sergeant Keith Davis
Acting Development Services Director Kim Officer Jason Chamness
Brandt City Engineer Ernesto Munoz
Director of Public Services Peter Naghavi Chief of Code Enforcement Willa
Maintenance Svcs Manager Bruce Hartley Bouwens-Killeen
ATTACHMENTS: 1 Proposed Ordinance No. 10-
2 Redlined Ordinance
Graffiti Ord Rpt 3-9-10
9 am
3