Ordinance 2642 and background infoCity of Alameda
Inter - department Memorandum
May 21, 1993
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Robert L. Warnick
Public Works Director
Re: Approval of Graffiti Abatement Program
Background
The City currently removes graffiti from public property by
using local contractors and City maintenance workers. The
Municipal Code requires that graffiti be removed from private
property by the owner within 15 days of receiving notification.
In recent months the graffiti problem has increased beyond the
City's resources to keep up with it. Areas such as the Park Street
and Webster Street business districts and the Main Street Ferry
Terminal are cleaned up one day and the graffiti is back the next
day.
Mayor Withrow and other members of the City Council, during
the May 4, 1993, City Council meeting, indicated that graffiti and
vandalism on Park Street and other areas of the City are a major
problem and that the police department should make every attempt to
apprehend these people and prosecute them to the fullest extent of
the law. The City Manager has directed staff to propose a Graffiti
Abatement Program which includes possible rewards for individuals
who provide information leading to the arrest and prosecution of
vandals.
Discussion
The proposed program focuses on reducing graffiti through
education, prohibiting the sale of "tools of the trade" such as
spray paint and large marking pens to people under the age of
eighteen (18), apprehension and prosecution of vandals via
enforcement of existing vandalism and anti - graffiti laws, a reward
program that encourages reporting of graffiti vandals and prompt
graffiti removal.
Reports #7 -E
6 -1 -93
Printed on recycled paper
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers May 21, 1993
The Alameda Police Department, through its existing resource
officers at the local high schools, will initiate a public
education program. They will explain the seriousness of the
problem and solicit assistance in the identification of the
vandals.
A recent California Court of Appeals decision affirms the
ability of cities to adopt graffiti prevention ordinances. City
staff is currently reviewing various sample ordinances including
one adopted by the City of Westminster and a model ordinance
proposed by the California Paint Council. These sample ordinances
propose a variety of regulations and penalties. Regulations
include prohibiting the sale of graffiti tools to minors, observing
rules for the display and storage of graffiti tools and licensing
sellers. Penalties include community service and loss of driving
privileges. These ordinances are intended to stop the theft of
graffiti products, stop the sale of graffiti tools to minors,
eliminate the sale of graffiti tools from uncontrolled outlets such
as flea markets and yard sales, create penalties for illegal
possession of potential graffiti tools, create penalties for
persons who aid minors in obtaining restricted products, strengthen
and provide alternative penalties for graffiti vandalism performed
by minors and create a program of cash rewards for aiding in the
detection and apprehension of graffiti vandals.
Vandals can be prosecuted under Sections 640.5 and 640.6 of
the Penal Code (infraction) which has a maximum fine of $250 and a
maximum community service requirement not to exceed 48 hours for
the first conviction. Vandals can also be prosecuted under Section
594 of the Penal Code. The punishment under this section varies
depending on the dollar amount of damage /defacement done.
Damage /defacement less than $1,000 is punishable by imprisonment in
the county jail for not more than six months or by a fine of not
more than $1,000, or both. Damage /defacement between $1,000 and
$5,000 is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not
exceeding one year or by fine of $5,000, or both.
Damage /defacement greater than $5,000 but less than $50,000 is
punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or in a county jail
not exceeding one year or by fine of not more than $10,000, or
both. The vandals can also be required to clean up and repair the
damaged property or pay to have it done.
The Alameda Police Department proposes to implement a
"diversion program" that will punish juveniles arrested for a
graffiti offense by putting them to work cleaning up graffiti
located throughout the City. A memo from the Acting Chief of
Police to the Public Works Director is attached.
Honorable Mayor and Page 3
Councilmembers May 21, 1993
It is proposed to establish a reward program for the
apprehension of graffiti vandals. A $250 reward will be offered
for the apprehension of graffiti vandals who do less than $500
worth of damage and $500 for those who do more than $500 worth of
damage. The Alameda Police Department will administer the program.
The proposed program will initially make a major effort to
remove graffiti from the entire city and then establish a graffiti
removal maintenance program that will remove all graffiti within
three days of being reported.
The initial clean -up will take three to four weeks using five
City maintenance workers, two Bureau of Electricity (B of E)
workers and two contractor's employees working full time, five days
per week. If it is determined that the proposed labor force will
not be able to successfully complete the initial City clean -up
within four weeks, additional B of E and City maintenance personnel
will be added. Volunteers will be utilized to assist in the clean-
up effort after being trained in the proper handling of paints and
solvents but only during times when supervision is available.
The B of E workers will clean and repaint all Bureau
facilities insuring that all identification numbers and "Danger
High Voltage" warning signs are replaced as necessary. The five
City maintenance workers and two contractor's employees will clean
the remaining graffiti from the public right -of -way including
street light poles, traffic signals and equipment, parking meters,
street directories, sidewalks, signs, park and other City
buildings, bus shelters, fire hydrants, telephone booths, newspaper
racks and mail boxes. Clean -up of non -City owned property such as
newspaper racks and private telephone booths will be billed to the
respective owners.
The graffiti removal maintenance program will begin by
establishing a "graffiti hot line" telephone number in the Central
Permits office. This number will be publicized in the local
newspapers. The calls reporting graffiti will be separated into
private property owner responsibility, B of E responsibility, and
Public Works responsibility. A daily list will be sent to the B of
E and the Maintenance Service Center. The graffiti from these
calls will be removed within three days. The Community Service
Officer will notify private property owners of graffiti on their
property and expedite its removal. The Alameda Police Department
will assist in this element of the program by completing "outside
agency referral reports" for graffiti discovered during their
patrols and turn them in to the Community Service Officer for
disposition.
Honorable Mayor and page 4
Councilmembers May 21, 1993
Budget Consideration /Financial Impact
The use of B of E and Maintenance Service Center personnel
will result in deferred maintenance of City facilities. If
emergencies occur during the graffiti removal effort, personnel
will temporarily be reassigned until the emergency is under
control. The use of two contractor's employees for four weeks is
estimated to cost $8,000. Staff recommends that $5,000 be
allocated for reward money. The total estimated cost of this
program, excluding City personnel and equipment, is $13,000.
Revenues generated by charging for clean -up of non -City owned
property will be used for the purchase of cleaning materials and
paint.
The Island City Landscape and Lighting District A.D. 84 -2,
Zones 2, 3 & 4 can contribute $1,000 each for a total of $3,000,
which leaves $10,000 unfunded.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Council:
1. Direct staff to proceed with the Graffiti Abatement Program
and to bill the owners of non -City owned property for graffiti
removal.
2. Direct staff to submit an anti - graffiti ordinance for City
Council approval.
3. Direct the Alameda Police Department to establish an anti -
graffiti education program at the local high schools and to
implement a reward program for the detection and apprehension
of graffiti vandals.
Honorable Mayor and Page 5
Councilmembers May 21, 1993
4. Appropriate $10,000 from the General Fund to help finance the
program.
5. Authorize the Mayor to write letters of support for graffiti
legislation currently pending in the State Legislature.
Respectfully submitted,
4.ie/rz4/i(/a72-/4-i-
Robert L. Warnick
Public Works Director
RLW:JS:sm
Attachment
xc: Jeff Eichenfield
Community Development
Bruce Edwards
Alameda Police Department
Forwarded:
z.x,;,_ e- -1=7-
City of Alameda
Inter - department Memorandum
TO: BOB WARNICK
Public Works Director
FROM:
May 20, 1993
WILLIAM T. SCHMITZ RECEIVED
Acting Chief of Police
SUBJECT: GRAFFITI ABATEMENT
MAY 2 4 1993
PUBLIC WORKS - MAINT. DIV.
CITY OF ALAMEDA
The police department is very much aware of the public nuisance
and property damage caused by people committing acts of vandalism
in the form of graffiti. This problem has been plaguing cities
for a number of years with a noticeable resurgence recently.
Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult . to apprehend the
perpetrators of this crime through random patrol efforts; not
impossible, but rare. Generally people committing a crime of this
nature will be apprehended as the result of an on -going
investigation or because a citizen /witness observes the act and
immediately reports it to the department. This was the case on
Wednesday, May 19 about midnight when we arrested three people for
vandalism at Washington School. We approach these crimes with a
"zero tolerance" mentality; anyone caught is arrested.
We believe the majority of these acts are committed by juveniles.
Since most juveniles arrested for crimes are not prosecuted, and
instead put through a diversion program by the Juvenile Probation
Department, we hope to implement our own form of a diversion
program. Any juvenile arrested for a graffiti offense will be
punished by being put to work cleaning up graffiti located
throughout the town. We will also seek the same disposition
through the courts for adult offenders.
In addition to apprehending those responsible for graffiti acts,
we are trying to heighten the awareness of our personnel regarding
the problem. Ultimately, when our officers observe graffiti on
private property, we are asking them to contact the owner and
officially inform them of the graffiti and their responsibility to
remove it per the Alameda Municipal Code. Having done that they
will then complete our Outside Agency Referral report and forward
a copy to the Public Works Department for the necessary follow-up
activity.
Printed on recycled paper
May 20, 1993
Page 2
Finally, the idea of using "stakeouts" to apprehend graffiti
suspects has been mentioned. Under the appropriate conditions
this alternative may be considered but it is but rarely used.
Stakeouts are labor intensive and generally successful only if
good reason exist to believe a specific act will occur at a
specific location and during a narrow time frame. This generally
is not the case with acts of random vandalism.
The only other idea which might aid our efforts to apprehend
graffiti vandals is a reward program similar to the one
implemented by the Police Department for parking meter thefts and
vandalism a few years ago.
If you have any ideas which you believe the Police Department
might be able to use to combat the graffiti problem in Alameda,
please let me know.
W 1 . SCHMITZ
Acting Chief of Police
aSY..'
BAE : j mt
APD #128
AGENCY
ROBERT M. SHIELLS
Chief of Police
ALAMEDA POLICE DEPARTMENT
OUTSIDE AGENCY REFERRAL REPORT
❑ Bureau of Electricity
❑ Public Works Department
❑ I Park and Recreation Department
❑ Planning Department
❑ Alameda County Health Department
❑ Oakland Scavengers
❑ Alameda County Vector Control
❑ Fire Department
❑ Animal Shelter
❑ Housing Authority
❑ Other
PROBLEM
❑ Street Light Out
❑ Signal Light Out
❑ Street/Sidewalk Defect
❑ Sign Down /Defaced
❑ Graffiti Problem
❑ Tree /Shrubbery Obstruction
❑ Building Code Violation
❑ Health Hazard
❑ Rodent Infestation
❑ Fire Hazard
❑ Garbage Problem
❑ Weed Abatement Problem
❑ Sewage Problem
❑ Other
Location
Description of Problem
As Part Of The Alameda Police Department's Community Oriented Policing Effort, Identification And
Correction Of Conditions Detrimental To The Community Is A Priority. Please Return This Form With A
Note Of Action Taken. The Assistance Of Your Agency In Alleviating The Neighborhood Problem
Indicated Is Greatly Appreciated.
Officer /Serial #
For Outside Agency Use:
Corrective Action Taken
Supervisor /Serial #
1555 Oak Street, Alameda, CA 94501
510/748 -4508 FAX 510/523 -5322
AGENCY COPY
21C
Councilmember Appezzato stated Council is looking at the financial
condition of the City, and whether $21,000 or $91,000 should be
appropriated; whether facilitator should be a volunteer or a paid
individual; the health and welfare of the Police Department;
whether facilitator should be a single person or a panel; the
workload; and the number of complaints. He believes the
facilitator should report to the City Manager.
Councilman Arnerich stated, as in businesses where people go to the
manager of a store or a company, if citizens are not happy with
answers received in City Departments, they can go to the City
Manager; he believes the City's Facilitator is the City Manager.
The motion was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Appezzato, Lucas, Roth and President Withrow - 4.
Nayes: Councilman Arnerich - 1. Absent: None.
93 -316 Report from Public Works Director recommending approval
of Graffiti Abatement Program.
Neil Patrick Sweeney, Alameda, stated he believes the City should
find a way to take care of the graffiti other than making the
businesses clean it up; some cities are making parents of graffiti
vandals, pay for the cleanup.
Brian Hatoff, Alameda, stated he fully suppt,rts the Abatement
Program; is alarmed at the increase of graffiti; sees nothing wrong
with emphasis on punishment and agrees parents should be held
equally responsible.
Don Roberts, Alameda, stated the Public Works Director has provided
excellent proposals; suggested a graffiti hotline telephone number
be publicized in newspapers and on cable television; does not agree
with having City staff paint over the graffiti and charge the
property owner as that could be a financial burden.
Gary Soulages, Alameda, stated graffiti lowers property value and
increases crime; the proposed Program is almost perfect; he would
like it to be more cost effective, and would like to see citizens
volunteer; and the City does not need to paint private property.
President Withrow noted the Police Department apprehended four
juveniles from Oakland; he has requested the District Attorney to
advise if he will prosecute, and the disposition of the case;
concern exists that if people are apprehended, they will not be
properly handled within the Court system; and that must be
addressed.
The Public Works Director clarified the Program does not propose to
paint over graffiti on private property; the ordinance requires the
owner do it; a notification will be done; staff will paint over
items in public right -of -way.
Councilman Arnerich stated a strong Ordinance will be considered by
June 1, 1993
217
Council and probably will include $500.00 rewards for the
apprehension of graffiti vandals, the suspension of vandals'
drivers licenses, and volunteer hours to be performed by vandals
and their parents.
Vice Mayor Roth stated he does not want the Ordinance to prohibit
the sale of graffiti supplies, e.g., spray paint and markers, nor
holding sellers of such items responsible.
Councilmember Lucas concurred with Vice Mayor Roth.
Councilman Arnerich stated the City could ask store owners to keep
graffiti materials out of reach of patrons; and the City may need
to hire prosecutors if the District Attorney does not prosecute.
City Manager stated cities in Alameda County are discussing the
joint adoption of a restriction on selling spray paint and marking
tools.
Councilmember Appezzato stated he supports the proposed Graffiti
Abatement Program; he would like the hot line included; and
requested the City Attorney to include in the ordinance: payments
by parents for rewards and damages, and participation of parents in
graffiti clean -up.
Councilmember Lucas moved approval of the recommendation; Vice
Mayor Roth seconded; Councilman Arnerich stated he will support the
motion with proviso that the City does not ban sale of graffiti
supplies until Alameda County cities have made a decision on the
matter. Councilmember Lucas so modified. The motion carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
93 -317 Report from Public Works Director on the Abolishment of
the Solid Waste Management Recycling Committee (SWMRC). (Vice Mayor
Roth)
Vice Mayor Roth stated he requested this report; James Kennedy,
SWMRC, has commented that the Committee would like an opportunity
to respond to it, and moved to continue the matter. Councilmember
Lucas seconded the motion.
Councilman Arnerich inquired if Vice Mayor Roth might possibly
rescind the recommendation to abolish the Committee.
Vice Mayor Roth replied he is not making a recommendation; however,
the report indicates staff could handle the recycling needs; and
the Committee should be given the opportunity to review the matter.
Councilman Arnerich stated he has no argument with that, however.
he believes the Committee has done its work and needs to be
abolished.
The motion to continue carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
June 1, 1993
JUN 11 '93 16:20
June 11,
Contact:
Phone:
1993
Marge McLean
748 -4651
File, 5 3b -(PQ
lehr
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ESTABLISHMENT OF GRAFFITI ROT LINE
As part of the City of Alameda's new Graffiti Abatement Program,
The Public Works Department has established a Graffiti "Hot Line"
of 748 -4534, and is requesting the public's assistance in
locating graffiti that may be on either public or private
property. The hot line will be staffed part time with existing
personnel, but will operate 24 hours a day with an answering
machine.
The Program's goal is to remove graffiti from public property
within three days and to work with private property owners to
expedite graffiti removal. The public utilities (.Pacific Bell,
PG &E and the Bureau of Electricity), which are popular targets
for graffiti, have all pledged their assistance to. the Program.
past -Ivm brand fax transmittal memo 7671
Rirtffi-ummaiWI
3-3n -
City of Alameda
Inter - department Memorandum
:August 26, 1993
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Robert L. Warnick
Public Works Director
Re: Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Section 4 -2 (Graffiti) of Article I
(Littering and Maintenance of Property) of Chapter IV
(Offenses and Public Safety) , Relating to the Prevention,
Prohibition and Removal of Graffiti and a Status Report
of the Graffiti Abatement Program and Amending Master Fee
Resolution No. 12191, Establishing Fees Related to
Graffiti Abatement
(A) GRAFFITI ORDINANCE
Background
At its June 1, 1993 meeting, the City Council directed staff
to prepare a graffiti ordinance.
Discussion /Analysis
The proposed ordinance is modeled after an ordinance adopted
by the City of Westminster. The proposed ordinance adds various
graffiti related provisions to the Alameda Municipal Code. The
Alameda Municipal Code currently requires a property owner to
remove graffiti on his or her property within 15 days of
notification. The proposed ordinance prohibits graffiti remaining
for an unreasonable time and if it remains more than 3 days, there
is a notification process to advise property owners when graffiti
must be removed and a due process hearing included to allow owners
to dispute the order to remove graffiti.
Possession of graffiti tools on public property is also
prohibited. Graffiti tools are defined to include such items as
felt tip pens, spray paint and stickers.
The proposed ordinance holds parents liable for costs
associated with graffiti committed by their minor children. Minors
who violate provisions of the proposed ordinance may be required to
perform community service. Provisions for the suspension of the
driver's license of a minor who commits graffiti are not included
in the proposed ordinance since State law currently allows for the
suspension of the driver's license of a minor who is convicted of
violating Penal Code 594 (committing graffiti).
Pr "MA nn rrcvclerl miner
Re: Introduction of
Ordinance and
Resolutions #6 -N
9 -7 -93
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers August 26, 1993
Reward provisions are included for information leading to the
arrest of people committing graffiti. It is proposed to offer
$250.00 if less than $500.00 worth of damage was done and $500.00
if $500.00 or more in damage was done.
A supplemental ordinance regulating the sales of graffiti
tools and possession of graffiti tools by minors will be presented
to the City Council when other Alameda County cities have
considered the matter.
Budget Consideration /Financial Impact
Financial impacts include the cost of a hearing officer (if
the appeal, or any portion is not granted), administrative hearing
costs and attorneys fees for the hearing and for any enforcement
action. Enforcement of the ordinance may require filing a lawsuit.
In addition to these costs and the staff time to enforce the
ordinance, financial impacts include providing for the reward. The
ordinance is drafted so that the person committing the offense is
liable for the reward. It may, however, be difficult to collect
the reward money from them.
(B) STATUS OF GRAFFITI ABATEMENT PROGRAM
Background
At its June 1, 1993 meeting, the City Council directed staff
to proceed with the proposed Graffiti Abatement Program. The
proposal included a major initial effort to remove graffiti from
the entire City on public property by utilizing City maintenance
workers, Bureau of Electricity workers and contractors. Removal of
graffiti on private property was to be expedited by the Community
Service Officer. After the initial cleanup, a graffiti removal
maintenance program was to be established.
Discussion /Analvsis
The initial cleanup of public property took three weeks using
five City Maintenance workers, two Bureau of Electricity
maintenance workers and two contractors. Graffiti from 160
locations was removed.
All graffiti complaints are referred to the Central Permits
Office which determines who is responsible for its removal. These
complaints come from a variety of sources including the graffiti
hot line, the Police Department and other City staff. All graffiti
complaints are acted upon within two working days. In most cases
action has been completed within one working day.
Honorable Mayor and Page 3
Councilmembers August 26, 1993
The Public Works Maintenance Division is notified of all
complaints regarding graffiti on public property so they can
arrange for its removal.
The owner of any private property where graffiti is identified
is notified by mail to arrange for its removal within 15 days. If
the graffiti is not removed within 15 days a second notice to
remove the graffiti is mailed and in addition an attempt is made to
personally contact the property owner to request removal.
Once each week all outstanding private property graffiti
complaint locations are inspected to determine the status of
removal effort. To date one hundred twenty -four (124) private
property graffiti complaints have been acted upon. Eighty -one (81)
property owners have removed the graffiti, eight (8) property
owners have not complied with the first notice and thirty -five (35)
property owners have not complied with the second notice.
Budget Consideration /Financial Impact
Implementation of the graffiti program has required
approximately one hundred fifty (150) Central Permits Division
staff hours to date. Continued maintenance of the program is
estimated to require approximately ten (10) staff hours per week.
Seven hundred twenty -five (725) maintenance worker hours have
been used to date. The ongoing graffiti removal effort requires
approximately 16 hours per week.
Two thousand eight hundred dollars ($2,800) has been spent on
painting contractors and $850 on graffiti removal supplies.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council introduce the
ordinance as proposed, adopt the resolution and direct staff to
continue the Graffiti Abatement Program in its current form.
Respectfully submitted,
adlei'd Qe0/01-ka-Pe4
Robert L. Warnick
RLW:jf Public Works Director
Forwa ed:
343
*93 -528 Report from Assistant City Manager recommending
acceptance of work for the Chuck Corica Golf Complex Entryway
Drainage and Widening, and Earl Fry Course 5th Fairway Lake
Renovation, Project No. P.W. 10- 91 -12. Accepted.
*93 -529 Report from Assistant City Attorney regarding weeds at
the old Signal Oil Property and at the corner of Auburn and
Mecartney. (Councilman Arnerich) Accepted.
*93 -530 Report from Acting Police Chief recommending Support for
President Clinton's Anti -Crime Proposal. (Mayor Withrow) Accepted.
*93 -531 Report from Public Works Director recommending adoption
of Plans and Specifications and calling for bids for Landscaping
Improvements, Parking Lots "A ", "C ", and Parking Lot "A" Courtyard,
No. P.W. 1 -91 -1. Accepted.
*93 -532 Report from Public Works Director recommending adoption
of Plans and Specifications and Calling for Bids for Traffic Signal
Installations at the Intersections of Fernside Boulevard /San Jose
Avenue and High Street /Central Avenue, No. P.W. 8- 93 -11. Accepted.
*93 -533 Report from Public Works Director recommending adoption
of Plans and Specifications and Calling for Bids for Repair and
Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 15, No. P.W. 8- 93 -12.
Accepted.
*93 -534 Report from Community Development Director Recommending
Execution of Participating Public Jurisdictions Agreement with
Alameda County Housing and Community Development for Rehabilitation
Assistance to Seneca Center. Accepted.
*93 -535 Report from Finance Director transmitting Investment
Portfolio as of July 31, 1993. Accepted.
*93 -536 Resolution No. 12447 "Amending the City Cooperation
Agreement between the City of Alameda and Marina Village."
Adopted.
*93 -537 Resolution No. 12448 "Establishing Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise Program Goals for Fiscal Year June 1, 1993
through June 30, 1994." Adopted.
*93 -538 Ordinance No , N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Section 4 -2 (Graffiti) of Article I (Littering and
Maintenance of Property) of Chapter IV (Offenses and Public Safety)
Thereof, Relating to the Prevention, Prohibition and Removal of
Graffiti." Introduced.
September 7, 1993
City of Alameda.
Inter - department Memorandum
September 21, 1993
To: Honorable Mayor
and Councilmembers
From: Robert L. Wonder
Assistant City Manager
Re: Item 7 -J Final Passa•e of Ordinance
September 21 1993
Two members of the Recreation Commission
questioned
the language in Section 4 -2.5 Possession of Graff ihImplements. intent of
Their concern was that a person could enter a
a marker legitimately used in connection with r their work and be
subject to citation.
The first phrase of this Section, "Except City," means that the City Manager will a evelouthoriz list of by
legitimate occupations and activities which may cause carrying
P a list of
graffiti tools such as indelible markers with a tip y g
inch at its broadest width on the P greater than ',
playground, etc. A city-sponsored remises of a public park,
playground,
activity, c. y- sponsod art class is an example of a
before work is an exa ple of architect a lawful 1 busginess dog
for the parn a
indelible marker might be carried.and used. z which an
This is for informational purposes only.
RLW:cb:264
xc: City Manager
City Attorney
Printed on recycled paper
Resnecr,,lly submitted,
/ (
Robert L. Wonder
Assistant City Manager
that:
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. 2642
New Series
AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION
4 -2 (GRAFFITI) OF ARTICLE I (LITTERING AND MAINTENANCE OF
PROPERTY), CHAPTER IV (OFFENSES AND PUBLIC SAFETY)
THEREOF, RELATING TO THE PREVENTION, PROHIBITION AND
REMOVAL OF GRAFFITI
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda
Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by
amending Section 4 -2 (Graffiti) of Article I (Littering and
Maintenance of Property) or Chapter IV (Offenses and Public Safety)
thereof, to read as follows:
4 -2 Graffiti
4 -2.1 Findings.
The City Council finds that graffiti on public and private
property creates a condition which reduces property values and
promotes blight and neighborhood deterioration. This deterioration
w invites further graffiti and other forms of crimes including
vandalism. It is the purpose and intent of the City Council to
Occ provide, through the adoption of graffiti prevention ordinances,
• additional enforcement tools to protect private and public property
• and public safety.
'6 }
>> U 4 -2.2 Definitions.
As used in this section:
"Aerosol paint container "'shall mean any aerosol container,
regardless of the material from which it is made, which is adapted
or made for the purpose of spraying paint or other substance
capable of defacing property.
"Felt tip marker" shall mean any indelible marker or similar
implement with a tip which, at its broadest width is greater than
one - eighth (1 /8th) inch, containing an ink that is not water
soluble.
"Graffiti" shall mean any writing, drawing, defacing, marring,
inscribing, scratching, painting or affixing of markings upon any
real or personal property , which is unauthorized by the property
owner or person in possession of the subject property or which can
be seen by any person using the public right -of -way or from
adjacent properties.
"Graffiti implement" shall mean an aerosol paint container,
felt tip marker, a paint stick, a scribe, or gummed label.
"Gummed label" shall mean any sticker, stamp, or item applied
with self- adhesive glue, gum, tape or any other type of adhesive
which is larger than one inch by one inch and which can be applied
to any surface, wall, window, or sign regardless of material.
"Paint stick" shall mean any device containing a solid form of
paint, chalk, wax, epoxy, or other similar substance capable of
being applied to a surface by pressure, and upon application,
leaving a mark at least one - eighth (1 /8th) inch in width, and not
water - soluble.
"Scribe" shall mean an implement which permanently etches
glass.
"Unreasonable period" shall mean a period of time exceeding
fifteen days from the day the owner, lessee, renter, or occupant
has been lawfully notified of the placement of graffiti.
4 -2.3 Unlawful property nuisance.
It shall be unlawful for any person owning, leasing, renting,
occupying or having charge or possession of any property in the
City to maintain or allow to be maintained graffiti on such
property for an unreasonable period. This section shall apply to
both public and private property in all zoning districts of the
City.
4 -2.4 Graffiti abatement procedure.
a. The existence of graffiti within the City limits is a
public and private nuisance and may be abated according to the
procedures contained herein or any other lawful means.
b. Upon the failure of a property owner to remove graffiti
from his /her real or personal property within three (3) days the
Public Works Director or his /her designee shall serve on the
property owner an Order to Remove Graffiti. The Order to Remove
Graffiti shall state:
1. A description and location of the real or personal
property on which the graffiti that must be removed;
2. A brief description of the graffiti that must be removed;
3. A specific date by which the graffiti must be removed,
along with a statement that if the property owner does not remove
the graffiti within this time, the City may cause the graffiti to
be removed and may make the costs incurred in this work a personal
debt of the property owner or a lien against the property.
4. A statement that the property owner may request a hearing
before the Public Works Director on Order to Remove Graffiti by
filing a written request for the hearing.
c. The written request for a hearing shall state the address
and /or a brief description of the property, the date of the Order
to Remove Graffiti, and the grounds on which the Order is
contested. The request for a hearing must be filed with the Public
Works Department within ten (10) days after service of the Order.
The Public Works Department shall then set the matter for a hearing
before the Public Works Director, or his or her designee, on a date
which is no less than ten (10) days and no more than (30) days
after receipt of the request for a hearing and shall give the
property owner or other person requesting the hearing written
notice of the date, time, and place of hearing. The notice shall
be served in the same manner as set forth below for the decision of
the Public Works Director.
At the hearing the Public Works Director shall consider all
relevant evidence. The decision of the Public Works Director shall
be served on the person requesting the hearing, either personally
or by certified mail, with a Notice of Intended Decision. This
notice shall state the intended decision on the hearing, the
reasons for the proposed decision, the effective date of the
decision if no appeal is filed, and the right of appeal to the City
Council.
Any person dissatisfied with the decision of the Public Works
Director may file an appeal to the City Council within the
specified time. The appeal shall be made in writing and filed with
the City Clerk not later than ten (10) days after service of the
Notice of Intended Decision. The appeal shall state in detail the
factual basis for the appeal.
An appeal fee shall be paid and shall consist of a processing
fee plus the actual cost to the City for retaining a hearing
officer if the appeal, or any portion thereof, is not granted. The
processing fee shall accompany the request for an appeal. The
appeal fee shall be set by resolution of the City Council.
The City Council or its designee may appoint a hearing officer
to conduct the hearing, to receive relevant evidence, and to submit
to the City Council findings and recommendations to be considered
by the City Council. The hearing officer shall hear the appeal and
submit his or her findings and recommendations to the City Council.
The City Council shall render its decision within forty -five (45)
days from the date of the hearing, or in the event that a hearing
officer has been appointed, within forty -five (45) days from the
date the City Council receives the findings and recommendations of
the hearing officer. The decision of the City Council shall be
final.
If the City Council finds that an appeal or any portion of an
appeal does not prevail, the graffiti shall be abated immediately
by the property owner. In lieu of abating the graffiti personally
the property may enter into an agreement with the City to allow the
City to abate the graffiti at the property owner's expense.
If the property owner does not timely comply with the above
procedures for a hearing and /or appeal, he or she shall be deemed
to have waived the right to an administrative hearing and /or any
appeal to the City Council.
4 -2.5 Possession of Graffiti Implements.
Except as may be authorized by the City, no person shall have
in his or her possession any graffiti implement while at or on the
premises of any public park, playground, swimming pool,
recreational facility, or while loitering in or near an underpass,
bridge abutment, storm drain, or other similar types or
infrastructure.
4 -2.6 Parental Civil Liability.
Any parent or other legal guardian who consents to, permits,
or otherwise knowingly allows his or her minor child to commit
graffiti shall be personally liable for any and all costs to any
person incurred in connection with the removal of graffiti caused
by said minor and for all attorney's fees and court costs incurred
in connection with the civil prosecution of any claim or damages.
The City is hereby empowered and authorized to use any lawful means
to bill and collect any and all sums owed under this Section of the
Code.
4 -2.7 Punishment Provisions.
a. Mandatory Juvenile Delinquent Community Service. Any
minor determined to be a ward of the court under Welfare and
Institutions Code Section 602 as a result of committing any
graffiti offense in the City shall be required, at City's option,
to perform community service, including graffiti removal service of
not less than six hours or more than eighty hours.
4 -2.8 Rewards.
a. Amount. Pursuant to Section 53069.5 of the Government
Code the City does hereby offer a reward of: $250 for information
leading to the arrest of any person maliciously injuring or
destroying another's property by the use of graffiti causing up to
$500 in damage or defacement or $500 for information leading to the
arrest of any person maliciously injuring or destroying another's
property by the use of graffiti causing $500 or more in damage or
defacement.
For the purposes of this section, diversion of the offending
violator to a community service program, or a plea bargain to a
lesser offence shall constitute a conviction.
No public employees or officials whose duty it is to
investigate or to enforce the law, or their spouses, children or
parents living in the same household, shall be entitled to a
reward.
b. Claims. Claims for the rewards under this section shall
be filed with the City Police Department. Each claim shall
specifically identify the date, location, kind of property damage,
and the name of the person who was convicted or arrested.
c. Multiple Witnesses. In the event of multiple contributors
of information, the reward amount shall be divided by the City in
the manner it deems appropriate.
d. Verification. No claim for a reward shall be allowed by
the City unless the Chief of Police or his /her designee
investigates and verifies the arrest or conviction and recommends
that it be allowed.
e. Liability for Reward. The person committing the graffiti
offense, and if an unemancipated minor, then the custodial parent
of said minor, shall be liable for any reward paid pursuant to this
section.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection,
sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining parts of this ordinance. The City
Council declares that it would have adopted each section,
subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, clauses, phrases or portions be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect
from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of
its final passage.
Attest:
C y Clerk
Presiding Officer of th= City Council
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was
duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of
Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 21st day of,
September , 1993 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Appezzato, Arnerich, Lucas, Roth
and President Withrow - 5.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said City this 22nd day of September , 1993.
Diane UB Felsch, City Clerk
City of Alameda
369
Councilmember Lucas stated the presentation by the PUB changed her
mind, and offered a compromise: Council raise the tax on electrical
bills by a half of a percent and require internal savings in the
Bureau to provide the remainder of the needed funds.
The City Attorney noted the PUB has the sole authority to set
rates.
Vice Mayor Roth stated he believes all utilities should be charged
the same tax.
Councilman Arnerich stated perhaps the other Enterprise Funds
should try to come up with savings in house.
Councilmember Appezzato stated he believes the PUB has some
legitimate concerns; he cannot support raising utility rates across
the board at this time; and he does not believe the economy is
going to turn around in the near future.
President Withrow stated this is not the time to be raising taxes
nor rates, and suggested an impact report be prepared showing which
Bureau services could be cut back.
The City Manager noted the Bureau did provide, in their letter,
information on various feasible options; and that this issue pales
to the problems the Bureau will face due to closure of the Naval
Air Station.
Vice Mayor Roth moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember Appezzato seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Appezzato, Lucas, Roth
and President Withrow - 4. Nayes: Councilman Arnerich - 1.
Absent: None.
93 -598 Ordinance No. 2642, N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Section 4 -2 (Graffiti) of Article I (Littering and
Maintenance of Property) of Chapter IV (Offenses and Public
Safety) Thereof, Relating to the Prevention, Prohibition and
Removal of Graffiti.
Councilmember Lucas moved final passage. Vice Mayor Roth seconded
the motion.
In response to Councilman Arnerich and President Withrow, the City
Manager explained that the wording in Section 4 -2.5, "except as may
be authorized by the City, no person shall have in his or her
possession any graffiti implement while...;" would allow the City
to define items which would be permissable.
The City Attorney stated if Council approves that authorization,
the language, as written is sufficient.
11
September 21, 1993
370
The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
93 -599 Written Communication from Michael A. Grappo, Alameda,
concerning Business License Fee imposed on renewal of Business
License for 2325 Santa Clara Avenue.
Mr. Grappo, Alameda, stated he is not requesting a refund on his
tax; he is asking the Council to correct discrimination in minimum
tax portion of the law; there is a large source of revenue which
has escaped taxation; and taxes are not paid on rental single units
nor single residential homes, although they receive the benefit of
City services. Mr. Grappo reviewed the City of Oakland's tax rates.
Vice Mayor Roth moved the Council Meeting be extended to 11:15
p.m.; Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
* * * * *
President Withrow expressed dissatisfaction with the minimum
business license fee.
Councilmember Appezzato moved the City Manager report back to
Council on: 1) changing the (Business License] Ordinance to a gross
receipts -fee structure, and 2) what it means in relation to how the
City does it now.
Mr. Grappo stated he would like the City Manager to come up with
figures showing the number of units available and what the revenue
would be, if implemented along the lines of his suggestions.
Vice Mayor Roth seconded the motion.
Following Council discussion, the City Manager clarified that the
Council wants a comparison of what a gross receipt tax basis would
provide in revenue for multiple units, information on single - family
dwellings, and a comparison to other cities' rates.
The motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
NEW BUSINESS AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
93 -600 Councilman Arnerich requested an update regarding parking
on Veterans Court; he stated it appears to be a used car lot; and
he would like to know how many citations have been issued.
93 -601 Councilmember Lucas requested a report on the Dragon
Disco on Webster Street be agendized for the second Council Meeting
in October.
93 -602 Councilman Arnerich stated the Littlejohn Park Dedication
on Saturday, September 18, was outstanding, and a letter of
appreciation should be sent to the Recreation Department.
12
September 21, 1993
City of Alameda
Inter - department Memorandum
Date: August 24, 1994
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Robert L. Warnick
Public Works Director
Re: Status Report on the Graffiti Abatement Program
Background
In June of 1993, the City Council directed staff to proceed with a
proposed Graffiti Abatement Program. The proposal included a major
initial effort to remove graffiti from all public property through-
out the City of Alameda utilizing City Public Works maintenance
workers, Bureau of Electricity workers, and private contractors.
In addition, in September of 1993 the City Council adopted a
graffiti ordinance, which became effective on October 21, 1993.
Discussion
After the initial clean up, in September of 1993 a graffiti removal
maintenance program was established, which included the following
components:
(1) All graffiti complaints are referred to the Central
Permits Office. Central Permits Office personnel
determines who is responsible for its removal.
(2) The Public Works Maintenance Division is notified of all
complaints regarding graffiti on public property so that
they can arrange for its removal
(3) The owner of any private property where graffiti is
identified is notified, by mail, to arrange for its
removal within 15 days. If the graffiti is not removed
within 15 days, a second notice is mailed and in
addition, attempts are made to personally contact the
property owner to request removal.
(4) The Webster and Posey tubes, are monitored on an ongoing
basis. Cal Trans has responded in a timely manner to all
notifications of graffiti within the tubes.
Reports #4 -E CC
9 -6 -94
Printed on recycled paper
Honorable Mayor and August 24, 1994
Councilmembers Page 2
In FY 1993 -94, the Central Permits Office received 125 private
property graffiti complaints. Maintenance Services received 260
public property graffiti complaints and responded within two days
to each complaint.
With school starting soon, the Graffiti Hotline will be given
increased emphasis /publicity, e.g., articles in the local
newspapers, and the Alameda Unified School District officials will
be asked to remind parents and students of the City's Graffiti
Abatement Program and ordinance.
Budget Consideration /Financial Impact
In FY 1993 -94 the following expenses were incurred to conduct the
City's Graffiti Abatement Program:
Labor
Central Permits Office $ 2,662.00
Maintenance Services $11,598.00
Labor Sub -Total $14,260.00
Graffiti Removal Supplies $ 3,483.00
Outside Contractor (Painting) $ 3,548.00
Total $21,291.00
Funds have been set aside in the FY 1994 -95 budget (CIP 94 -08) to
continue the Graffiti Abatement Program.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council direct staff to continue
the Graffiti Abatement Program in its current form.
Respectfully submitted,
RLW:sd
Forwarded
Robert L. Warnick
Public Works Director