Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1979/08/07 item 26 CITY OF CHULA VISTA COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No.26 For meeting of 8/7/79 ITEM TITLE Ordinance /yaL- Adding a New Chapter 9 . 19 to the Chula Vista Municipal Code entitled "Offenses Against Property" , all relating to the Prohibition of Defacement of Public and Private Property SUBMITTED BY City Attorney ITEM EXPLANATION (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES NO X ) As Council is aware, especially following the recent editorial in the Chula Vista Star News, the City of Imperial Beach has adopted an ordi- nance which seeks to attack the problem of defacement of public and private property primarily as a result of the use of spray paint cans in the application of graffiti . The Imperial Beach approach is essen- tially one of prohibiting the sale of spray cans to minors making it a crime for a minor to be in possession of spray paint cans on private property other than their own and requiring a certain degree of segre- gation of spray paint materials within stores . In addition, the ordi- nance would add to the standard penalty a requirement for reimbursement for the remedial or repair work that must be done as a result of the graffiti . Having reviewed this ordinance, I am convinced that it is desirable for the City of Chula Vista to adopt a similar ordinance which has been prepared for Council action. The City Council of Vista has also considered the adoption of a similar ordinance . The ordinance, as originally proposed, . was to a degree opposed by businessmen within the community. I would, there- fore, recommend that our ordinance be distributed to the Chamber of Commerce and to all businesses which deal in the sale and distribution GDL: lgk Continued EXHIBITS Agreement Resolution— Ordinance X Plat Notification List Other ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on FINANCIAL IMPACT N/A STAI r nr ra....rtInn . n.I Tl - n-- – • - - - BOAT Agenda Item No. 26 Page Two of spray paint cans . The City Attorney of Vista has been concerned over what she conceives as a possible overbroad approach to the problem without a substantial evidentiary base to support the adoption of such an ordinance . Therefore, Vista has scheduled the matter for a public hearing. Frankly, I tend to feel that there is no serious question as to the fact that the majority of the vandalism undertaken by those who use spray paint cans to write upon private and public walls is the work of minors . A public hearing would, I believe, tend to generate more heat than light and result in unnecessary and unwarranted clashes between the various elements of the community . Therefore, I would recommend that the ordinance be adopted without a public hearing, but that, of course, the Council, as is its usual custom entertain any testimony on the subject that might be offered. One other element that concerned the City Attorney of Vista was a prohibition within the ordinance against the defacement of private or public property which may very well be preempted by state law regulating mischievous activities and vandalism. However, I am convinced that the inclusion of such a prohibition would in no way interfere with the supremacy of the state in the regulation of such criminal activities . It would serve merely to sustain and augment the existing state law.