HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1980/10/07 item 13 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 3r7' - 13
=40= 10/7/80
Meeting Date :1A
ITEM TITLE: Ordinance /942 '- - Adding a new Chapter 9 .19 to the Municipal Code
entitled "Offenses against Property" , relating to the prohibition
of defacement of public and private property
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION(4/5ths Vote: Yes No x )
SUBMITTED BY: City Attorney
The City Council in August of 1979 deferred action on an ordinance
specifically relating to the defacing of private or public pro-
perty generally through the use of spray cans for producing graf-
fiti. Council was concerned over the impact it might have over
the merchants in town handling the sale of spray cans. The
Chamber of Commerce reviewed the ordinance and recently made
recommendations concerning both the content and method of enforce-
ment.
RECOMMENDATION: The City Council adopt the ordinance as modified
including adherence to the penalty section as an
infraction for the reasons stated below.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
The City Attorney has reviewed the memo from Mr. Asmus dated
August 22, 1980, a copy of which is attached hereto, and duly
noted the comments made by the Chamber of Commerce. Very briefly,
the burden of paying fines has always been placed on the person
committing the offense, and the City would carry out the program
of enforcement. There is no requirement for segregation of the
stock of paint spray cans and the responsibility would fall upon
the salesperson.
In reviewing the ordinances adopted by the Cities of Imperial
Beach, La Mesa, National City, Lemon Grove, San Diego and the
County of San Diego, it should be noted that all are virtually
identical in substance and are also substantively the same as our
ordinance since all were conceived and enacted at the time we had
our ordinance initially under consideration in July and August of
1979.
Our ordinance does have three areas of distinction. There is a
statement of purpose and intent which we had hoped would serve as
a warning and deterrent to the continued defacement of property
with graffiti. Our ordinance does specifically impose a financial
responsibility on parents to repair damage caused by minors in
defacing property. Third, our ordinance, in conformity with the
other provisions of our Municipal Code, punishes such conduct as
an infraction, rather than a misdemeanor as suggested by the
Chamber of Commerce.
Continued
Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79)
•
•
Page Two, Item 13 10/7/80
Meeting Date: 9/ &Q
Although there is a relatively light fine under the infraction
system ($50 upon a first occurrence, $100 upon a second occurrence
and $250 upon a third and each subsequent occurrence) , we have
felt that the benefit, a speedier trial because of the elimination
of the right to trial by jury, and the handling of our offenses by
a judge rather than a jury, has a substantial advantage over the
declaration of offenses as misdemeanors, which carry a heavier
penalty. I believe this is especially the case in this type of
crime where, aside from the fine, we are very desirous of
requiring payment for the cost of repairing damage from either the
individual or the parents.
Although the experience of the other communities has certainly not
been dramatic in the reduction of the incidents of defacement of
property and, in fact, enforcement has been quite lax, I would
still recommend adoption of the ordinance and an attempt to carry
out a program of enforcement.
GDL:lgk
Council of by t112 City Council of
by the City Chula Vise California Chula Vista, California a, Caiiic
I �O
IJated Dated j. .. ktO----- ---
Dated /d 7- ore
-