HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1979/10/09 item 04a (:;) re4re...924c.,/
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. 4a
For meeting of 10-9-79
ITEM TITLE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
SUBMITTED BY City Manager
ITEM EXPLANATION (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES NO )
a. Letter from Chamber of Commerce with recommendations for Spray Can Ordinance
City Manager Recommendation: Refer to staff
EXHIBITS
Agreement Resolution Ordinance Plat Notification List
Other ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on
J
FINANCIAL IMPACT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
COUNCIL ACTION
yet.
CHULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE EXIEBIT
September 24, 1979
•
Mayor Will T. Hyde and
City Council
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Gentlemen;
As you requested the Chamber analyzed the proposed Spray Paint
Ordinance and we have a few suggestions, as approved by our
Board of Directors, which we feel will make the ordinance more
effective.
Enclosed is a copy of the minutes of the Economic Development
Committee which set forth the recommendations adopted by our
Board.
We truly appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this
issue, and we respectfully encourage you to call on us when-
ever the need arises.
Sincerely,
G etta J. Arnold, President
Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
GJA/mia
Enclosure
-,nom ° Fri
rn
Ur f T IONS P _ y .� r'1 't}
re Os,
cD
1 r y
770 7?.t/�
230 GLOVER AVENUE • CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 • TELEPHONE: 420-66 02
0 al J CHULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM: Economic Development Committee
RE: SPRAY PAINT ORDINANCE -
At the meeting of September 5, 1979, the Economic Development
Committee made the following recommendations:
The request by the City for input from the Chamber of Commerce
regarding a proposed spray paint ordinance was discussed. The
consensus of the members present was that the enforcement of the
ordinance should be as follows: 1) the burden and fines should be
on the persons committing the crime. 2) if the ordinance is on the
book would the city be willing and able to enforce it and policing
it and assist the merchants in complying with the ordinance. 3) the
control point should be at the cash register like it is with alcohol
and cigarettes and not have the merchandise put under lock and key.
4) a suggested fine of $500 or 6 months in jail as done in Imperial
Beach was suggested and that the parents of juveniles should be
required to pay for the damages.
D
9-D.0 q
h(1 stn OF ;:}`1 Tr'
C:t ✓ ., y\rNA CIt;iii,SLIti LIi' 1�•,+F •lr:.
a .
2 3 r) t l L O V k. H A •✓ L t: t l k. • C H U L A V 1 S T A, C A L I r n R N I A 9 2, 0 1 I L ! t' ■-1 C' N L -1 2 ll- . o M L'
y F ^ Se rr R,■m 7747.7 te 7.7.W A1 .i - um ,77.• ..n .7.s s r '* •.� k - '•.
'c•t?. rfi'- 0'*'t,"
September 12, 1980
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Lane F. Cole, City Manager
Subject: Proposed Spray Can Ordinance
The City Council , in August 1979, deferred action on an ordinance specifically re-
lated to the defacing of private or public property generally through the use
of spray cans for producing graffiti . The City Council continued the matter
until the proposed ordinance was referred to the Chamber of Commerce for their
input. The Chamber responded with the following recommendations:
1 . They felt the burden for fines should be placed on the person
committing the crime.
2. The City should police and enforce the ordinance if adopted.
3. The control point on the sale should be at the cash register.
4. The ordinance should provide for a $500 fine or six months in
jail for the offending party, with the parents of juveniles
required to pay for all damages.
The attached proposed ordinance has incorporated the four concerns mentioned by
the Chamber. The ordinance would not require the merchandise to be placed under
lock and key - the control point would be at the cash register. The burden and
fine would not only be on the person committing the offense, but also would hold
the retailer responsible, as well as the parent of the juvenile. Contrary to the
Chamber's suggestion that the ordinance provide for a $500 fine or six months in
jail , the proposed ordinance would provide the infraction provision of our City
Code. This provision essentially provides for an increasing penalty for each
time a violation occurs.
We have contacted other agencies throughout the County that have adopted similar
ordinances and have learned that the effect of such an ordinance has not, at
least at this time, had any significant impact on the reduction of graffiti .
It should be noted, however, that most jurisdictions that have adopted similar
ordinances have done so in the recent past and sufficient time perhaps has not
gone by to accurately assess the value of such an ordinance.
The Director of Public Safety has supported the adoption of the proposed ordi-
nance. Also, he has clearly indicated that in his opinion it would be a mis-
take to believe that it will have a profound effect on the problem. He further
-2-
indicates that it will be very difficult for the Police Department to become in-
volved in any ongoing enforcement program at retail outlets and would anticipate
enforcement on a complaint basis if information is received that a particular
outlet is violating the ordinance. He also feels that on various occasions the
department may come across juveniles in the possession of spray cans, but he
believes that that will be rare.
The City Attorney also supports the adoption of the ordinance in the belief
that through publicity and whatever enforcement activity we can provide, some
reduction in the propensity of juveniles to use spray cans for graffiti will
occur. Further, because of the provision of the ordinance which holds the parent
responsible for the action of an offspring, there may be a tendency for parents
to attempt to exercise a greater degree of control over the actions of their
youngsters.
Based on the above, I believe it would be appropriate for the Council to adopt
the ordinance, recognizing its limitations. I would intend to docket the item
for the September 23rd Council meeting.
LFC:ac
Attachment
cc: City Attorney
Director of Public Safety