HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-10-2012 b1 emergency ordinancecounci l
aQ .en Oa .RepoRt
Meeting bate
July 10, 201 2
Item Number
B 1
•
C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O
FROM:
Christine Dietrick, City Attorne y
Derek Johnson, Community Development Directo r
Steve Gesell, Police Chie f
SUBJECT :EMERGENCY ORDINANCE
RECOMMENDATIO N
1.Waive reading of the Emergency ordinance and adopt by title only;and
2.Adopt Ordinance No . (2012 Series), an Emergency Ordinance to becom e
effective immediately declaring and reaffirming the scope and Council 's intended
enforcement of the City's Ordinance prohibiting the use of vehicles as living and sleepin g
quarters (San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Section 17 .16 .015), correcting a judicia l
misinterpretation of the City Council's intent, and adopting a parallel prohibition to b e
added as Chapter 9 .18 (vehicle as dwelling unit) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code .
DISCUSSION
On July 3, 2012, Superior Court Judge Charles S . Crandall issued a preliminary injunctio n
against the City's enforcement of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLMC)Section 17 .16 .01 5
which prohibits the use of vehicles as living and sleeping quarters on local streets (Attachmen t
1). The ruling was surprising because it represented a nearly complete reversal of course fro m
the Court's tentative ruling that had been issued by the court prior to oral argument on the City's
demurrer and the plaintiffs' application for preliminary injunction, which was heard by the Cour t
on May 31, 2012 (Attachment 2). The Court's ruling is based on two primary conclusions by th e
Court, which on their face appear to stem from some misapprehension of City policies, motives ,
and historical enforcement practices, In ordering the preliminary injunction, the Court conclude d
that: 1) the City Council, in adopting Section 17 .16 .015 into the City's Zoning Code, did not
intend the Ordinance to apply to public streets, but instead intended to prohibit conduct only o n
private properties within the City ; and 2) that the City only recently began enforcement of th e
Ordinance and has undertaken enforcement in a manner that the Court feels may be arbitrary o r
disproportionate .
The purpose of this report is to provide Council and the community with an overview of th e
adoption and historical application of the Ordinance and to provide Council with an opportunit y
to correct any misunderstanding of its intent regarding the scope and application of its ordinance .
It is staffs intent to provide accurate information and historical enforcement data, rather tha n
permitting conclusions to rest on unsupported accusations in the plaintiffs pleadings, and t o
request that Council reaffirm that historic enforcement of the Ordinance is consistent with it s
intent to prohibit vehicular residencies within the City .San Luis Obispo City Charter Sectio n
605 (Emergency Legislation) provides that "Any ordinance declared by the Council to be l
necessary as an emergency measure,for preserving the public peace, health or safety, an d
B1-1'
Emergency Ordinance Re SLMC Section 17 .16 .015 Page2
containing a statement of the reasons for its Emergency, may be introduced and adopted at onc e
at the same meeting if passed by at least four (4) affirmative votes ."
The proposed Emergency Ordinance contains findings that declares and reaffirms the Council's
intent of the passage of Ordinance Number 1277 (1995 Series), adopted by the City Council o n
March 21, 1995 to explicitly prohibit the use of vehicles for living or sleeping quarters in all
locations throughout the City, including public streets . Additionally, the Emergency Ordinance
provides findings that the City has consistently applied Section 17 .16 .015 and that the curren t
and previous Community Development Directors have acted reasonably and practically i n
requesting enforcement assistance and intervention of the Police Department in enforcin g
Section 17 .16 .015 (See enforcement history, Attachment 3).
The Emergency Ordinance adds and adopts Chapter 9 .18 to prohibit the use of a vehicle fo r
living and sleeping quarters as found in Section 17 .16 .015 . The purpose of this addition is t o
address the Court's concern that Chapter 17 doesn't reasonably convey the prohibition of usin g
vehicles for living or sleeping quarters because the purpose of Chapter 17 is to guid e
development of the City in an orderly manner . This narrow construction of the ordinance i s
inconsistent with City interpretation and historical application, San Luis Obispo Municipal Cod e
and case law .Nonetheless, Chapter 9 .18 is proposed for the purposes of providing additiona l
notice that the prohibition of the use of vehicles for living and sleeping extends to public streets .
CONCURRENCE S
The Community Development Director and Police Chief concur with the recommendation t o
adopt an Emergency Ordinance .
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with this action . Staff's conclusion is that adoption of the
Emergency Ordinance will help address the deleterious effects of using vehicles as living o r
sleeping quarters .
ALTERNATIVE S
1.Take no action . Staff does not recommend this alternative as the Court has issued a n
injunction against the enforcement of Section 17 .16 .015 on public streets. Until the
Court renders a final decision on the legal merits of the case, the City cannot enforce th e
prohibition of using vehicles as living or sleeping quarters .
2.Modify the proposed Emergency Ordinance . Staff does not recommend this option .
Careful consideration has been given in crafting an Emergency Ordinance that addresse s
the immediate health and safety issues facing the City and its residents .
ATTACHMENT S
1.July 3, 2012 Ruling and Order of San Luis Obispo Superior Court.
2.Tentative Ruling issued May 30, 2012
B1-2
;Emergency Ordinance Re SLMC Section 1 .746 :01 .5 Page 3
Computer aided dispatch records for Section 17 .16 .015 of the San Luis Obispo Municipa l
Code and summary report of enforcement since January 2012 .
4 . Emergency Ordinance
B1-3
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNI A
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O
SLO HOMELESS ALLIANCE ; PHILLIP
DYKEMAN ; DAVID DOUGLA S
MOORS,
Plaintiffs ,
v .
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ; STEPHE N
GESELL, in his capacity as Chief of Police '
for the City of San Luis Obispo ,
Defendants .
.Introductio n
Plaintiffs challenge the validity of section 17 .16 .015 of the City of San Luis Obispo's
Zoning Regulations . Located within Chapter 17 (entitled "Zoning Regulations"), Subchapter
16 (entitled "Property Development Standards"), section 17 .16 .015 (hereinafter "Propert y
Development Standard 015") prohibits the use of recreational vehicles, camper shells ,
automobiles or similar devices for living or sleeping quarters except in a lawfully operate d
mobile home park, travel trailer park, or campground .
Several Plaintiffs have been cited for criminal violations of the Property Developmen t
Standard 015, and proceedings against them are pending .
Case No .: CV 12-020 4
RULING AND ORDER
OVERRULING,IN PART ,
DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER,AND
GRANTING PLANTIFFS'MOTIO N
FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
9
1 0
'1 .1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
2 7
28
B1-4
The Complaint alleges four separate causes of action . Plaintiffs move for a
preliminary injunction that would restrain the City from continuing to enforce suppose d
violations of Property Development Standard 015 . Defendant City of San Luis Obisp o
("City")demurs to the entire complaint and opposes the motion for preliminary injunction .
As will be explained more fully below, the Court concludes that Propert y
Development Standard 015 was never intended to, and does not, apply to vehicles that ar e
parked on public streets. Further, because the Court has significant concerns about the City's
methods and manner of enforcing this inapplicable Property Development Standard, th e
Court is issuing a preliminary injunction restraining the City from further enforcement unti l
such time as a full evidentiary hearing can be held on the merits of this case .
II. Statement of Fact s
Plaintiffs consist of a group of individuals of very modest means who have bee n
living out of their vehicles for the past several years near the Prado Day Center . Plaintiffs
claim that they have been told in the past by various City agencies to locate their vehicle s
near that location, where numerous City and County services are available for homeless an d
needy people .
Located within the City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, Propert y
Development Standard 16 .015, entitled Recreational Vehicle as dwelling unit,provides as
follows :
No recreational vehicle, camper shell or similar device shall be used for livin g
or sleeping quarters except in a lawfully operated mobile home park, trave l
trailer park, or campground, except as provided in [Municipal Code] sectio n
17 .08 .C .4 .
In turn, Property Maintenance Standard 17 .08 .C,4, entitled Recreational vehicle as
temporary dwelling,clarifies Property Development Standard 015 in the following manner :
A recreational vehicle may be parked in a residential parking space o r
driveway for periods not to exceed seven days, for the purpose of housin g
guests of on-site residents only . Such recreational vehicles shall not be parke d
so as to prevent residents of any other dwellings on the site from using thei r
3
l 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
t 5
1 6
1 7
7 .9
i s
2 0
21.
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
2 7
28
assigned parking spaces, nor shall it discharge waste or sewage into the city's
sewage system . No hose, electrical cord, pipe, wire, or other device extendin g
from the vehicle may be permitted to encroach on any access easement o r
sidewalk.
Although the City apparently never (or rarely) previously attempted to enforce th e
P visions of Property Development Standard 015 as against these "campers,"in th e
beginning of 2012, the City suddenly changed course, embarking on a pattern of polic e
enforcement in a concerted effort to force Plaintiffs to move somewhere else .
Plaintiffs have filed multiple declarations claiming that organized police units hav e
been arriving with sirens and flashing lights blaring, late at night, to harass Plaintiffs into
moving out of town . Plaintiffs also claim that they have been unfairly targeted by the police ,
who have turned a blind eye toward similar violations of Property Development Standard
015 by property owners who also use their recreational vehicles as living quarters within Cit y
limits .
In brief, Plaintiffs allege that they are part of a loose community of people, includin g
children,who have no room available for them at the local overnight shelters . They claim to
have lived peaceably for years near the Prado Day Center . They also state that, until ver y
recently, the police have been protective, helpful and supportive .
In early 2012, following a loud, prolonged altercation near the Prado Day Cente r
during which the police were called, police officers abruptly changed their tone and thei r
tactics . After that incident (which did not involve people living on Prado Road), the polic e
became very confrontational. Plaintiffs were thereafter awakened in the early morning hour s
by groups of officers banging on the vehicles and shouting at the people inside, telling the m
that Plaintiffs had better move out of town and that the officers had orders from the Cit y
Council to drive them out of town .
Although these police tactics were utilized against the Prado Road homeles s
community, Plaintiffs claim that the police have completely ignored offending behavior fro m
other City residents who routinely park their recreational vehicles on the street.
3
1 0
1 2
7.3
a I
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
2 7
28
B1-6
a
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1.3
14
Aside from being terrified of repeated police actions, Plaintiffs claim that they hav e
no other means of living, that their vehicles are in danger of being towed and forfeited, an d
that criminal prosecutions will cripple them economically .
Several Plaintiffs have already been subjected to criminal prosecution under Propert y
Development Standard 015, including fines and subsequent imprisonment, whereas other s
currently face criminal prosecution, through arraignments scheduled before the Honorabl e
Stephen Sefton on July 12, 2012 .
III . Discussion
Rather than challenging Plaintiffs' factual assertions, the City has filed a demurrer to
the entire complaint claiming that Property Development Standard 015 is a valid exercise o f
municipal powers, and that the complaint is defective in its entirety as a matter of law . The
Court will first address the Fourth Cause of Action because the end result critically pivot s
around this claim .
A .Demurrer to the Fourth Cause ofAction
The Fourth Cause of Action, styled as an "as applied challenge,"contends tha t
enforcement of Property Development Standard 015 violates due process of law, an d
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, violates equal protection, and impinges upon th e
right to travel and the right to possess shelter .
An "as applied" challenge requires Plaintiffs to demonstrate that Propert y
Development Standard 015 has been enforced in a constitutionally impermissible manner .
(lobe v. City ofSanta Ana (1995) 9 Cal .4th 1069, 1089 .) Necessarily, an "as-applied
challenge" therefore depends significantly on the facts :
An as applied challenge may seek (1) relief from a specific application of a
facially valid statute or ordinance to an individual or class of individuals who
are under allegedly impermissible present restraint or disability as a result o f
the manner or circumstances in which the statute or ordinance has bee n
applied, or (2) an injunction against future application of the statute o r
ordinance in the allegedly impermissible manner it is shown to have bee n
applied in the past. It contemplates analysis of the facts of a particular case or
cases to determine the circumstances in which the statute or ordinance ha s
been applied and to consider whether in those particular circumstances th e
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
2 7
26
B1-7
2 4
1 2
2 5
2 6
1 7
2 7
2 2
2 3
2 8
1 6
1 4
1 5
to
2
application deprived the individual to whom it was applied of a protecte d
right ...(Tobe,9 Cal .4th at 1084-85 .)
Stated somewhat differently, an "as applied" challenge contemplates an examinatio n
of the facts to determine how the statute or ordinance has been applied, and to conside r
whether, in those particular circumstances, the application deprived the individuals to who m
it was applied of a protected right .(In Re Lewis (2009) 172 Cal .App .4th 13, 28 .) In such a
challenge, the ordinance is presumed to be valid and the Court examines its manner o f
enforcement .(People v . Vigil (2001) 94 Cal .App .4th 485, 504-05 .)
Plaintiffs' claim that the City's enforcement of Property Development Standard 01 5
violates due process of law in that this section of the Zoning Regulations was never intende d
to apply (and, in fact, does not apply as a matter of law) to vehicles parked on public streets .
Further, Plaintiffs claim that the City is using arbitrary and irrational criminal enforcemen t
mechanisms and police methods going well beyond what is appropriate and necessary unde r
the circumstances .
The due process analysis begins with the presumption that a municipality has broad
power to enact ordinances in accord with the public health, safety, and welfare, so long a s
they do not conflict with general laws .(Suter v. City of Lafayette (1997)57 Cal .App .4th
1109, 1128-29 ; Cal . Const ., Art . Xl, § 7 .) As a general rule, such ordinances will be upheld
against constitutional challenge if they are reasonably related to promoting the health, safety ,
comfort and welfare of the public, and if the means adopted to accomplish that promotion ar e
reasonably appropriate to the purpose .(Suter,57 Cal .App .4th at 1128-29 ;Sunset Amusemen t
Co . v .Board of Police Commissioners (1972) 7 Cal .3d 64, 72 .)
On the other hand, a decision to single out individuals for discriminatory treatmen t
under an ordinance, or enforcement that is shown to be arbitrary or irrational,may result in a
violation of due process of law .(See, e .g., Echevarrieta v.City of Raneho Palos Verdes
(2001) 86 Cal .App .4th 472, 482 ;Samson v.City of Bainbridge Island (9th Cir ., June 15 ,
2012, 10-35352) 2012 WL 2161371 ;Lockary v. Kayfetz (9th Cir . 1990) 917 F .2d 1150,
1155-56 ;Bateson v . Geisse (9th Cir . 1988) 857 F .2d 1300, 1303 .) In all cases, a clear factua l
5
B1-8
7
9
1 0
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
2 7
28
03)0showingmust be made .(Echevarrieta, 86 Cal.App .4th at 482;Kawctoka v.City of A r
Grande (9th Cir.1994) 17 F.3d 1227, 1237-38 ;Kuster v.Foley (9th Cir . 2011) 43 8
Fed .Appx . 543, 545 .)
Plaintiffs' multifaceted attack alleges that : (1) section 17 .16 .015 of the Zoning
Regulations is intended to regulate people living out of vehicles on private property (suc h
yards, driveways or vacant land), rather than on public streets ; (2) the City's enforcement
efforts are more strident than necessary (infraction ticketing and prosecution by police rather
than notifications by a Code Enforcement Officer, with an opportunity to correct); (3) no one
from the City Attorney's Office exercises prosecutorial discretion over police conduct (i .e .,
direct citations are issued without review by City Attorney); and, (4) sanctions are wholly ou t
of proportion to the proscribed conduct, including criminal fines, warrants, and the threat o f
jail .
Plaintiffs also allege that actual enforcement of the Property Development Standar d
015 has been both arbitrary and irrational . They allege that, for many years, Plaintiffs hav e
been told by various City agencies, including the police, specifically to move their vehicle s
to, and live in, the industrial areas of the City near the Prado Day Center for the homeless . In
February. 2012, however, the City suddenly changed course and embarked on a pattern o f
threats and intimidation in order to force Plaintiffs to move somewhere else .
Most often, Plaintiffs allege that organized police units would show up with sirens,
flashing lights and bullhorns, between 10 p .m . and 3 a .m ., on Prado Road, and begi n
pounding on the walls and doors of Plaintiffs' vehicles in an effort to frighten the occupant s
(some of which include small children) into coming out . Once out of their vehicles ,
Plaintiffs claim that they were ticketed and told to "get out of town ."
Whereas, other (more expensive appearing) recreational vehicles have been allowe d
to remain on Prado Road, Plaintiffs allege that poor people have been threatened, harassed ,
and followed to other locations in the City (including shops and markets) where they wer e
subsequently threatened with additional citations . Again, they would be cited under th e
Property Development Standard 015 and told to get out of town.
6
B1-9
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
1 2
1 3
1 4
10
Plaintiffs also allege that they are often subjected to notices setting bail at $229 for a
first offense and arraignments in Superior Court . Further, if they admit to sleeping or livin g
in their vehicle, fines approach $500, which is more than most Plaintiffs receive in a month .
These allegations regarding the Fourth Cause of Action, if proved, are sufficient t o
state a claim for a violation of substantive due process rights .(Compare Bateson v:Geisse ,
857 F .2d at 1303 (finding arbitrary administration of the local building permit regulations);
Kavfetz,917 F .2d at 1155-56 (involving arbitrary or malicious administration of buildin g
moratorium based upon misuse of water availability information).) Although courts must b e
careful not to second-guess the judgment of local municipalities in carrying out their publi c
mandate, the Court cannot ignore conduct that, if proved, demonstrates irrationality, paten t
unfairness, or arbitrariness .(Echevarrieta, 86 Cal .App .4th at 482 (alleging that City acted
with improper•motivation and failed to adhere to procedures required by law);Kuster v.
Foley 438 Fed .Appx . at 545 (alleging that permit application had been delayed due t o
arbitrary and capricious conduct of the Planning Director).)
The demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action is overruled )
13 .Motion for Preliminary Injunctio n
Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction prohibiting the City from issuing any furthe r
citations that allege violations of Property Development Standard 015 . The City opposes thi s
request, arguing that Plaintiffs are unlikely to have any success on the merits, and that the
City will suffer greater harm because of the multiple problems associated with the use o f
Prado Road as a de facto campground by numerable people .
Although the Court has yet to hear all of the evidence, the declarations and exhibit s
that have been submitted to date raise serious issues in the Court's mind about th e
2 4
2 5
2.6
2 7
28
MI causes of action are essentially different theories posed to invalidate Property Development Standar d
015 . Since Plaintiffs have stated a valid basis for challenge, the Court does not address the demurrer to th e
other constitutional challenges .(In re LA .(2011) 201 Cal .App .4th 1484, 1490 .) However, the Cour t
observes that Defendants have not established that Plaintiffs are unable to state a cause of action as a matte r
of law . Accordingly, the demurrer to the first three causes of action is overruled .
7
B1-10
s
6
9
1 0
1 2
1 6
1 7
1 H
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
2 7
28
applicability of the Property Development Standard 015 to public streets,a
reasonableness of the City's ongoing enforcement efforts.
The Court's first concern has to do with the application of Property Developmen t
Standard 015 of the Zoning Regulations to public streets . Chapter 17 comprises the San Lui s
Obispo Zoning Regulations . It recites that "land or buildings may be used and structure s
may be erected or altered only in accordance with these regulations ." Sub-chapter 16 ,
entitled "Property Development Standards,"and in which Standard 015 appears, is designe d
to address yard setbacks, fences, walls, hedges, parking space requirements, driveways ,
screening, satellite dishes and wireless communication devices, all on private property .None
of these regulations pertains to events that take place on public streets adjacent to privat e
property .
Moreover, Property Maintenance Standard 17 .08,C .4, to which Propert y
Development Standard 015 is tethered, is an exception that specifically applies to someone's
driveway or parking space . Viewed in context, and asplainly stated in the text of the Zonin g
Regulations, these guidelines clearly pertain to how individuals develop and maintain thei r
private property -- the underlying rationale being that vehicles used as living quarters i n
driveways or vacant lots will adversely affect local neighborhoods .
Moreover, the City's legislative intent supports the conclusion that Propert y
Development Standard 015 was adopted to address an entirely different problem from the
one now facing the Court, i .e ., the problem of individuals living out of their vehicles o r
attempting to establish mobile homes on private property such as yards, driveways or vacan t
land .
"When construing a statute, we may consider its legislative history, includin g
committee and bill reports, and other legislative records . These rules also apply whe n
interpreting local ordinances ."(Valley Vista Services, Inc . v. City of Monterey Park (2004 )
118 Cal .App .4th 881, 889 ; See also County of Madera v.Superior Court (1974) 3 9
Cal .App .3d 665, 668 (The rules applying to the construction of statutes apply equally to
ordinances .).)
t o
1 1
1 2
1 3
1.4
7 6
1 8
1 9
2 0
2.1
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
2 7
28
As set forth in one 1995 City Council Agenda Report :
The City Council directed staff to draft property maintenance regulations,as
part of the neighborhood enhancement program ....
The project is the expansion of existing regulations and streamlining o f
processing to make it easier for the City to require maintenance of bot h
commercial and residential property .... Primary elements of the regulatio n
are :...Visiting RV limits .A time limit on how long a recreational vehicl e
may "camp" in a driveway, while the campers are visiting the residents of th e
7
home ...Prohibition of RV as dwelling.A clarification that the use o f
recreational vehicles or campers as permanent dwellings is prohibited, excep t
in campgrounds and mobile home parks .
The City receives numerous complaints yearly about conditions that ar e
visible from the street (storage of furniture in yards, broken fences, boats and
driveways) and it may pose health or safety problems (RVs camping i n
driveways, people living in campers). The intent is to get the most for th e
least . This means that enforcement officer can 1) determine quickly of a
violation exists, 2) explain the situation to the violator easily ; and 3) later
determine quickly if the problem has been corrected .See Exhibit 2-2 throug h
2-4 .
In addition to the wording and location of Property Development Standard 015 withi n
the Zoning Regulations, and the City's stated intent when adopting it, the Court's secon d
major concern has to do with whether reasonable notice is provided to local and stat e
residents about the "street camping" prohibition .
Due process requires that individuals receive either actual or inquiry notice about
prohibited conduct, especially where criminal violations are possible .(People v. Hodges
(1999) 70 CaLApp .4th 1348, 1354 ("Due process requires fair notice of what conduct i s
prohibited .).)
Given Standard 015's location within the Property Development Standard section o f
the Zoning Regulations, and given that the lone regulatory exception is located within th e
Property Maintenance Standards in Subchapter 17, the Court cannot conceive of ho w
someone would reasonably be able to understand that the prohibition on "vehicles as livin g
quarters" extends to the public streets as well as private property . Certainly, this patent
ambiguity undermines the purpose, if not the letter, of the Vehicle Code, which is to preven t
B1-12
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 s
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
26
local regulations on public streets from becoming a "classic trap for the unwary ..
(Homes on Wheels v. City of Santa Barbara (2004) 119 Cai .App .4th 1173, 1179)2
On top of the wording and location of Standard 015, its stated purpose, and the lac k
of reasonable notice regarding its applicability, the Court's third concern has to do with the
manner in which Standard 015 has actually been enforced .
Typically, the City does not utilize the police to enforce the Zoning Regulations, an d
it does not immediately resort to the issuance of criminal citations . Instead, Zonin g
Regulation violations are ordinarily investigated by Code Enforcement Officers who conduc t
site visits, issue notices of violation, and prepare reports for further action . If voluntary
compliance is not achieved, criminal complaints are an enforcement choice of last resort, an d
they are ordinarily reviewed by the City Attorney's Office before they are filed .See, e .g.,
Exhibit 2-48 through 2-51 .)
The evidence currently before the Court shows that an entirely different enforcemen t
approach has been utilized . Prior to February 2012, or thereabouts (and for reasons yet to b e
fully developed), City representatives (ranging from police to social workers) have bee n
specifically directing poor people living out of their vehicles to congregate and/or set up
residence in the vicinity of the Prado Day Center, where social services are readily available .
In and around February 2012, the City abruptly changed course . Rather than having
Code Enforcement Officers attempt to achieve voluntary compliance through site visits ,
notices of violation, or City Attorney involvement, the evidence before the Court is that th e
City directed the police to immediately cite alleged offenders with criminal process .
In addition to using an enforcement strategy that appears to be singling out poor an d
homeless people for harsher treatment, the Court is very uneasy with the specific manner i n
which the police have apparently been enforcing Standard 015 and issuing criminal citations .
As stated, Plaintiffs have submitted multiple declarations that call into question the
appropriateness of the police enforcement tactics and that also raise questions as to whethe r
2 7
28 Perhaps this is why, when initially confronted with local residents' complaints about vehicles camped o n
the streets, the City chose to post the Elks Lane area with warning signage in compliance with the notic e
requirement of Vehicle Code section 22507 .
7
l c
1 2
i s
1 9
1 5
1 7
1 9
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
2 7
2B
specific groups of people are being arbitrarily singled out for enforcement . These method s
include, but are not limited to, the use of late-night police forays needlessly utilizing flashing
lights, blaring horns, intimidation, threats and other scare tactics . These methods are
apparently designed not only to force legal compliance, but also to intimidate Plaintiffs int o
leaving the City altogether .
The City's overall enforcement choices and methods cause this Court grav e
disquietude . In particular, the Court cannot imagine that similar enforcement methods hav e
been, or ever would be, utilized against homeowners who had recreational vehicles hooke d
up as "living quarters" in their private driveways or on vacant lots . Likewise, query whether
persons sleeping in more prestigious recreational vehicles on public streets would receive th e
same harsh method of enforcement .
Would the police even be utilized or would Code Enforcement Officers instead mak e
initial warning visits? Would the police arrive in the middle of the night with flashing light s
and bullhorns? Would individuals be told to move out of the City or else? Would criminal
citations be issued prior to explaining the problem to them and affording them an opportunit y
to correct the problem? The Court seriously doubts that the City would even consider suc h
an approach under the proposed scenarios . Why, then, would a strategy like this be utilize d
here?
Although the City must be given great latitude in the way it chooses to enforce loca l
regulations, there are limits as to what can be considered reasonable and appropriate . Base d
upon the evidence received so far, appropriate bounds appear to have been exceeded .
Weighing the evidence and balancing the harm to the Plaintiffs in the event an
injunction were not issued, against the harm to the City if an injunction were issued, th e
Court concludes that a preliminary injunction is appropriate to enjoin enforcement of th e
Property Development Standard 015 until a full evidentiary hearing takes place .
Plaintiffs have carried their burden of showing a likelihood of success on the du e
process claims .Moreover, the financial, psychological and other harms to the Plaintiffs fro m
the actual prosecution and threat of criminal prosecution under a Property Developmen t
11
B1-14
7
8
9
t o
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
23
Standard that does not apply as a matter of law far outweigh the harm to the City resultin g
from the grant of an injunction .
An injunction means that the status quo existing as of early January 2012 will be
preserved . On the other hand,an injunction will not prevent the City from enforcing all o f
its other healthand safety regulations vis-a-vis Plaintiffs . In other words, living out of a
vehicle near the Prado Day Center pendente lite will not give Plaintiffs the right to litter ,
disturb the peace, become publicly intoxicated, trespass, vandalize, illegally discharge septi c
waste, threaten pedestrians, deal drugs, or commit assaults or batteries . The City retains th e
ability to enforce the full panoply of public welfare statutes ?
Although the City strenuously contends that the Court lacks authority to grant a
preliminary injunction under the circumstances, for two reasons, the Court disagrees .
First, although the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 526, and Civil Code
section 3423, disallow an injunction that would prevent enforcement of a public statute b y
officers of the law, these sections do not apply "when the activity sought to be enjoined is a n
attempt to apply a statute or ordinance to conduct not within its terms ."(Thomsen v . City of
Escondido (1996) 49 Cal .App.4th 884, 890 (citations omitted);MacLeod v . City of Los Altos
(1960) 182 Cal .App .2d 364, 369 (same).) That is exactly what is going on here .
Second, Plaintiffs have carried their burden of showing that the Propert y
Development Standard 015 "has been applied in a constitutionally impermissible manner i n
the past" through a "pattern of impermissible enforcement ." (See Tobe v. City of Santa An a
9 Cal .4th at 1085 ;Bueneman v. City of Santa Barbara, 8 Cal .2d 405, 407-408 .) Evidence o f
this sort permits an injunction to minimize harm from unconstitutional activities .
Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction is grante e
2 4
2 5
2 6
2 7
28
Although an associational relationship may exist between increasedcrime and the use of vehicles as living
quarters in the vicinity of Elks Lane or the Prado Day Center, there has been no causal connection ye t
established between increased crime and presence of mobile campers . If campers break the law, they ca n
certainly be prosecuted for the underlying crimes .
Because the Court has concluded that Property Development Standard 015 does not apply to public street s
and has been impermissibly enforced, it need not reach the issues raised by the City's demurrer wit h
respect to the Plaintiffs' First, Second, or Third Causes of Action for declaratory and injunctive relief . Nor
12
B1-15
1 0
1 1
1 3
14
IV. Conclusion.
The Court is certainly not oblivious to the efforts that the City Council is making wit h
respect to providing temporary shelter for the homeless in connection with its pilot program .
Such a program is vitally important if we, as a society,are to take significant steps in th e
direction of reducing homelessness and poverty .
Further, the Court's decision is necessarily preliminary in that no opposin g
declarations have been submitted and no live testimony has yet been considered .
Nevertheless, for the reasons stated, the state of the evidence currently before the Court full y
supports the issuance of a preliminary injunction and it is so ORDERED .
Counsel should confer about any appropriate language, if any, that may be needed t o
clarity the scope of the injunction .
The Court intends to allow discovery so that both sides can fully develop their factua l
positions . Accordingly, the case management conference set on August 14, 2012 is advance d
to Tuesday, July 24, 2012 at 9 :30 a .m ., in Department 9, to discuss all management issues .
1 5
1 6
17
Dated : July3, 2012
CH ES S . CRANDAL L
Judge of the Superior Court
CSC :j n
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
2 7
28
need the Court reach the issue of preemption . For purposes of ruling on the request for preliminary
injunction, these issues are moot and remain for decision at a later date ,
'A judicial tribunal ordinarily may consider and determine only an existing controversy, and not a
moot question or abstract proposition .... [As] a general rule it is not within the function of the court t o
act upon or decide a moot question or speculative, theoretical or abstract question or proposition, or a
purely academic question, or to give an advisory opinion on such a question or proposition ....' " (Id. a t
pp . 452-453, 246 P .2d 688 .) An important requirement for justiciability is the availability o f
"effective" relief--that is, the prospect of a remedy that can have a practical, tangible impact on th e
parties' conduct or legal status, " ` " `it is this court's duty " `to decide actual controversies by a
judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstrac t
propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the cas e
before it .(!n re /.A,(201 1) 201 Ca1 .App.4th 1484, 1490 .)
13
B1-16
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O
Civil Divisio n
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
Rizzo . Saro G .
Attorney for Plaintiff
1457 Marsh Street,Suite 10 0
San Luis Obispo CA 9040 1
Jenkins, Stewart D .
Attorney for Plaintif f
Post Office Box 51 1
San Luis Obispo CA 93406 051 1
Dietrick, Christine J .
Attorney for Defendan t
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street, Room 1 0
San Luis Obispo CA 93401 324 9
Albuquerque, Manuel a
Attorney for Defendan t
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LL P
1901 Harrison Street, Suite 90 0
Oakland CA 94612 350 1
*
Attached Pleading :
Ruling and Order, 7/3/1 2
Under penalty of perjury, I hereby certify that I deposited in the Unite d
States mail, at San Luis Obispo, California,first class postage prepaid, i nasealed envelope,a copy of the foregoing addressed to each of the abov e
OR
If counsel has a pickup box in the Courthouse that a copy was placed i n
said pickup box this date .
SUSAN MATHERLY, Court Executive Office r
by J `~.-,j ,,Deputy Dated :(~31 !L
SLO HOMELESS ALLIANC E
VS .
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CV 020 4
B1-17
SLO Homeless Alliance v City of San Luis Obispo, CV 12-020 4
Plaintiffs challenge the validity of San Luis Obispo City Ordinance §17 .16 .01 5
("Ordinance"), which prohibits the use of a recreational vehicle, camper shell, automobil e
or similar device for living or sleeping quarters except in a lawfully operated mobil e
home park, travel trailer park, or campground . Several plaintiffs have been cited fo r
infraction violations of the Ordinance and criminal proceedings against them are pending .
The complaint alleges four separate causes of action . Plaintiffs move for a preliminar y
injunction that would restrain the City from continuing to issue citations for violations o f
the Ordinance . Defendant City of San Luis Obispo ("City") demurs to the complaint an d
opposes the motion for preliminary injunction .
Demurrer
First Cause ofActio n
The first cause of action for declaratory and injunctive relief contends that the Ordinanc e
is a de facto parking ordinance on public streets . As a parking ordinance, it is claimed t o
be in violation of Vehicle Code §22507,which requires the posting of signs to give notic e
of the restrictions .
'Winless `expressly provided' by the Legislature, a city has no authorit y
over vehicular traffic control . [Citations .]"(Rumford v . City of Berkeley
(1982) 31 Cal .3d 545,550, 183, Cal .Rptr . 73, 645 P .2d 124 .) But "th e
Legislature has delegated to local governments the authority to regulat e
vehicular parking within their jurisdictions ."(People v. Garth (1991)23 4
Cal .App .3d 1797, 1799, 286 Cal .Rptr. 451 .) It did this by enacting section
22507 . (Garth, 234 Cal .App .3d at 1800 .) It states, in relevant part : "Local
authorities may, by ordinance or resolution, prohibit or restrict th e
stopping, parking, or standing of vehicles, including, but not limited to,
vehicles that are six feet or more in height (including any load thereon )
within 100 feet of any intersection, on certain streets or highways, or
portions thereof, during all or certain hours of the day ...." (§22507,subd .
(a))
The City contends that the ordinance is not subject to Vehicle Code §22507 because i t
does not regulate parking . Rather, the City claims that the Ordinance is part of the
Zoning Code, which prohibits the use of vehicles for living or sleeping quarters .
In response, Plaintiffs rely on the decision in Homes on Wheels .However, that opinion i s
of limited utility in addressing Plaintiff's contention that the City's enforcement of th e
ordinance against Plaintiffs results in a defacto parking ordinance,The ordinance a t
issue in Homes on Wheels admittedly involved parking restrictions . Here, the critical
B1-1 8
In Homes on Wheels v. City ofSanta Barbara (2004)119 Cal .App .4th 1173, 1177-78, th e
court of appeal discussed the limitations on a city's ability to enact parking regulations :
question is whether the Ordinance comes within the purview of section 22507 . In any
event, the Court has significant concerns about the use of a subsection of the Zonin g
Ordinance to address conduct occurring on public streets .
Chapter 17 is the San Luis Obispo Zoning Code,It recites that "land or buildings may be
used and structures may be erected or altered only in accordance with these regulations ."
Indeed, the wording of section 17 .02,040 strongly suggests that the regulations within th e
Zoning Code do not apply to the public streets ,
The sub-chapter in which the Ordinance appears is entitled "Property Development
Standards," It seems plainly designed to address yard setbacks, fences, walls, hedges ,
parking space requirements, driveways, screening, satellite dishes and wireles s
communication devices on private property . None of this pertains to what occurs on th e
public streets adjacent to private property .
Further, the enforcement mechanisms for dealing with Zoning Code violations do no t
typically involve the filing of criminal citations . Ordinarily, Zoning Code violations arct
reviewed by a Code Enforcement Officer who conducts a site visit, issues a notice o f
violation and prepares a report for further action . Criminal complaints are ordinaril y
reviewed by the City Attorney's Office before they are filed .See Exhibit 2-48 through 2-,
51 ,
Moreover, from a review of the agenda reports and other materials provided, it appear s
that the Ordinance was adopted to address an entirely different pro blem from the one no w
facing the Court, i .e., the problem of individuals living out of their vehicles or attemptin g
to establish mobile homes on private property such as yards, driveways or vacant lam .
As set forth in one 1995 Council Agenda Report :
The City Council directed staff to draft property maintenance regulations ,
as part of the neighborhood enhancement program ...
The project is the expansion of existing regulations and streamlining o f
processing to make it easier for the City to require maintenance of bot h
commercial and residential property .... Primary elements of th e
regulation are :...Visiting RV limits .A time limit on how long a
recreational vehicle may "camp" in a driveway, while the campers ar e
visiting the residents of the home ...Prohibition of RV as dwelling .A
clarification that the use of recreational vehicles or campers as permanen t
dwellings is prohibited, except in campgrounds-arc mobile home parks .
The City receives numerous complaints yearly about conditions that ar e
visible from the street (storage of furniture in yards, broken fences, boat s
and driveways) and it may pose health or safety problems (RVs camping
in driveways, people living in campers).
B1 =19
The intent is to get the most for the least . This means that enforcemen t
officer. can 1) determine quickly of a violation exists, 2) explain th e
situation to the violator easily ; and 3) later determine quickly if the
problem has been corrected .See Exhibit 2-2 through 2-4 ,
Although Plaintiffs' complaint generally alleges that enforcement of section 17 .16.015 is ,
in reality, a parking enforcement measure in violation of Vehicle Code §22507,fe w
details are provided . Most of the concerns identified by the Court in this tentative rulin g
resulted from a review of the materials submitted by the parties rather than by the partie s
themselves . Surely both sides should have an opportunity to address these concern s
when the pleadings are amended .
The demurrer to the first cause of action for declaratory relief related to a violation of
Vehicle Code §22507 is sustained with leave to amend within 60 days .
Second and Third Causes ofActio n
The second cause of action, for declaratory relief and injunctive relief, alleges that th e
ordinance is facially vague and allows for arbitrary enforcement . The third cause o f
action, for declaratory relief and injunctive relief, alleges that the ordinance i s
impermissibly overbroad .
The California Supreme Court decision in Tolle v. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9 Cal .4th
1069 revolved around a challenge to an ordinance that banned camping and storage o f
property in public areas .The Supreme Court's analysis of a facial challenge based upo n
vagueness grounds is instructive :
A facial challenge to the constitutional validity of a statute or ordinanc e
considers only the text of the measure itself, not its application to th e
particular circumstances of an individual .(Dillon v. Municipal Cour t
(1971) 4 Cal .3d 860, 865 [94 Cal .Rptr . 777, 484 P .2d 945].) " To suppor t
a determination of facial unconstitutionality, voiding the statute as a
whole, petitioners cannot prevail by suggesting that in some futur e
hypothetical situation constitutional problems may possibly arise as to th e
particular application of the statute .... Rather, petitioners mus t
demonstrate that the act's provisions inevitably pose a present total an d
fatal conflict with applicable constitutional prohibitions .' "(Tobe,9
Cal .4th at 1069, 1084 .)
robe provides an analytical framework for determining whether the ordinance is vague :
A penal statute must define the offense with sufficient precision tha t
"ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a
manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminator y
enforcement ."(Kolender v. Lawson, supra,461 U .S . 352, 357 [75 L .Ed .2d
903, 909j ; see also,Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (1972) 405 U .S .
B1-20
156, 162 [31 L.Ed .2d 110, 115-1 .16, 92 S .Ct . 839];United States v .
Harriss (1954) 347 U .S . 612, 617 [98 L .Bd, 989, 996, 74 S,Ct . 808];
Thornhill v . Alabama (1940) 310 U .S . 88, 97-98 [84 L.Ed . 1093, 1099 -
1100, 60 S .Ct . 736].) "The constitutional interest implicated in question s
of statutory vagueness is that no person be deprived of 'life, liberty, o r
property without due process of law,' as assured by both the federa l
Constitution (US, Const ., Amends. V, XIV) and the Californi a
Constitution (Cal . Const ., Art.I,§ 7)."(Williams v.Garcetti (1993)5
Cal .4th 561, 567 [20 Cal.Rptr.2d 341, 853 P .2d 507].)
To satisfy the constitutional command, a statute must meet two basi c
requirements : (1) The statute must be sufficiently definite to provide
adequate notice of the conduct proscribed ; and (2) the statute must provid e
sufficiently definite guidelines for the police in order to prevent arbitrar y
and discriminatory enforcement .(Williams,5 Cal .4th at 561, 567 ;Walke r
v.Superior Court (1988) 47 Cal.3d 112, 141 [253 Cal .Rptr. 1, 763 P .2 d
852];People v. Superior Court (Caswell)(1988) 46 Cal.3d 381, 389-39 0
[250 Cal .Rptr. 515, 758 P .2d 1046].) Only a reasonable degree of certaint y
is required, however . (46 Cal .3d at p . 391 .) The analysis begins with "th e
strong presumption that legislative enactments 'must be upheld unless thei r
unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears .
[Citations .] A statute should be sufficiently certain so that a person ma y
know what is prohibited thereby and what may be done without violatin g
its provisions, but it cannot be held void for uncertainty if any reasonable
and practical construction can be given to its language .' "(Walker,4 7
Cal .3d at 143 ;Tobe,9 Cal .4th at 1069, 1106-07 .)
Read as a whole, the language of the Ordinance is sufficiently precise to withstand a
challenge based upon vagueness . Whether the statute is being applied appropriately is a
separate question that is addressed above .
The Ordinance also passes muster with respect to Plaintiffs' contention of overbreadth :
[A] facial challenge to a law on grounds that it is overbroad and vagu e
is an assertion that the law is invalid in all respects and cannot have any
valid application (Hoffman Estates v.Flipside, Hoffman Estates (1982)
455 U .S . 489, 494, fn . 5 [71 L .Ed .2d 362, 369, 102 S .Ct . 1186]), or a
claim that the law sweeps in a substantial amount of constitutionall y
protected conduct . The concepts of vagueness and overbreadth are related ,
in the sense that if a law threatens the exercise of a constitutionall y
protected right a more stringent vagueness test applies .(Tobe, 9 Cal .4th at
1109 .)
Read as a whole, the language of the Ordinance is sufficiently precise to withstand a
challenge based upon overbreadth . As stated, whether the statute is being applied
appropriately is a separate question that is discussed above .
B1-21
The equal protection challenge is easily disposed of. The Ordinance simply does no t
discriminate against a particular class of persons .See Vehicular Residents v. Agnos 222
Cal .App .3d 1001 (upholding, against equal protection challenge, validity of cit y
ordinance banning use of a motor home for human, ruling that the ordinance did not
discriminate because it prohibits everyone from inhabiting a motor home during th e
specified hours).
The demurrer to the second and third causes of action is sustained without leave t o
amend .
Fourth Cause ofActio n
The fourth cause of action is styled as an "as applied challenge" based upon th e
contention that the Ordinance constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, violates equa l
protection, the right to travel and the right to possess shelter. For the most part, the Cour t
concludes that Plaintiffs' contentions must fail .
The ruling in Tobe recognizes that courts have found violations of a right to travel onl y
when a direct restriction of that right has occurred .(Tobe v. City ofSanta Ana (1995)9
Cal .4th 1069, 1101 .) In Tobe,the Supreme Court concluded that the ordinance at issu e
was a nondiscriminatory ordinance forbidding the use of public streets and property b y
residents and nonresidents for purposes for which the property was designed . An
incidental impact on some person's right to interstate or intrastate travel did not rende r
the ordinance constitutionally invalid . (Id.) Similarly, the 8 t h Amendment argument for'.
cruel and unusuapdrushrrtettt fails because the Ordinance proscribes certain conduct . It
does not punish the status of a person .(Id.at 1104-1105 .) None of these constitutiona l
protections are implicated by the Ordinance and leave to amend on these grounds will no t
be granted .
However, an "as-applied challenge" to the Ordinance could possibly be pled i n
connection with the allegedly unlawful manner in which the Ordinance is being enforced ,
as set forth in the discussion regarding the first cause of action . As discussed in robe,9
Cal .4th at 1084-85 :
An as applied challenge may seek (1) relief from a specific application of
a facially valid statute or ordinance to an individual or class of individual s
who are under allegedly impermissible present restraint or disability as a
result of the manner or circumstances in which the statute or ordinance ha s
been applied, or (2) an injunction against future application of the statut e
or ordinance in the allegedly impermissible manner it is shown to hav e
been applied in the past. It contemplates analysis of the facts of a
particular case or cases to determine the circumstances in which the statut e
The application of Vehicle Code §22507 was not discussed in Vehicular Residents, which arose on a
motion for judgment on the pleadings . The appeals court affirmed the trial court's dismissal base d
upon a finding that the ordinance did not violate equal protection and due process .
5
B1-22
or ordinance has been applied and to consider whether in those particula r
circumstances the application deprived the individual to whom it wa s
applied of a protected right .
An "as applied"challenge requires that Plaintiffs to demonstrate that the Ordinance ha s
been enforced in a constitutionally impermissible manner .(Tobe,9 Cal.4th at 1089 .)
Whether plaintiffs can plead and prove a sort of constitutional deprivation different fro m
the current allegations is reserved for a later day .
The demurrer to the fourth cause of action is sustained With leave to amend within 6 0
days .
Motion for Preliminary Injunction :
Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction enjoining the City from issuing any furthe r
citations for alleged violations of Municipal Code §17 .06 .015 based upon the contentio n
that the provision violates Vehicle Code §22507, and because it is facially invalid o n
constitutional grounds .
The opposition by the City maintains that the Plaintiffs are unlikely to have any succes s
on the merits and that the City, and its populace, will suffer greater harm because of th e
problems associated with the use of Prado Road, described by the City as a de facto
campground .
Although the Court is granting Plaintiffs leave to amend their pleadings, their prospect s
for ultimate success are open to question . Both Tobe and Vehicular Residents involve d
ordinances that proscribed conduct such as camping and the use of a motor home fo r
human habitation . On the other hand, the Court has serious concerns about whether th e
Ordinance is truly designed to apply to parking on public streets, whether it is in fact a
parking ordinance improperly dressed up as part of the Zoning Code, and whether th e
City is using appropriate and reasonable enforcement mechanisms .
Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction is denied without prejudice pendin g
amendment of the pleadings and the submission of further evidence . The Court i s
inclined to order the parties to attend mediation before the pleadings are amended an d
further briefing takes place, and it strongly suggests the City and Plaintiffs to reach som e
sort of agreement or "standstill" mechanism on the City's use of the citation proces s
pending mediation and further legal argument .
B1-23
city of san tuts osispo
Police Departmen t
Date :
To :
From :
Re :
7/5/1 2
Chief Gesel l
Lieutenant Storto n
SLMC 17 .16 .015 — Camping in a Vehicl e
The table below represents the total number of citations/warnings issued from th e
beginning of January 2012 to the end of June 2012 for violations of SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
Camping in a Vehicle :
Month Citations Warnings
January 2012 2 5
February 2012 36 1 2
March 2012 13 1 6
April 2012 1 1 4
May 2012 17 2 7
June 2012 29 1 9
TOTAL 98 93
Over the course of the last six months (Jan — June) several violators of the ordinanc e
have been contacted multiple times and were provided warnings as well as citations .
Some of the violators have also been provided with warnings and/or issued citation s
prior to January of 2012 .
The number of warnings documented in Spillman is generated by the use of fiel d
interview (Fl) cards completed by officers . However, the figures provided are no t
completely accurate because officers will often make contact and advise violators of th e
ordinance, however, an Fl is not always generated . These informal contacts are no t
captured in the warning figures above.
Additionally, Spillman entries do not always indicate the total number of peopl e
contacted on any one incident or self-initiated contact . One person may have bee n
documented on an Fl as being warned or issued a citation, however, there may hav e
been more people present at the time of the warning or when a citation was issued .
At random I selected 25 frequent violators that have been contacted more than onc e
and were issued a citation and/or warning . Fifteen of the twenty-five violators (60%) ha d
been provided with at least one warning prior to receiving their first citation .
Of the 25 violators a total of 48 warnings were given and a total of 74 citations wer e
issued (not specific to the last 6 months).
B1-2 4
07/09/1 2
11 :22
San Luis Obispo Police Departmen t
Master Citation fable
13 11
•
Page :
•
CITATIONS BY LOCATION :
Date of Citation Offense Code Street addres s
20 :47 :00 08/28/2002 SLMC 17 .16 .015 1359 FREDERICK S
21 :45 :00 10/22/2002 SLMC 17 .16 .015 899 GRAND & PAL M
10 :45 :00 12/01/2002 SLMC 17 .16 .015 PRADO ; 200 BL K
11 :45 :00 12/06/2002 SLMC 17 .16 .015 MONTALBAN ; 1000 BL K
09 :00 :00 12/07/2002 SLMC 17 .16 .015 189 HIND & LON G
12 :20 :00 12/12/2002 SLMC 17 .16 .015 BRIDGE ; 100 BLK
16 :45 :00 12/15/2002 SLMC 17 .16 .015 LONG 3800 BL K
11 :10 :00 12/17/2002 SLMC 17 .16 .015 100 BRIDG E
21 :00 :00 02/21/2003 SLMC 17 .16 .015 ELKS ; 300 BL K
18 :19 :00 02/26/2003 SLMC 17 .16 .015 1700 MONTERE Y
23 :35 :00 03/21/2003 . SLMC 17 .16 .015 175 TANK FARM & LON G
23 :47 :00 03/21/2003 SLMC 17 .16 .015 175 TANK FARM & LON G
00 :26 :00 03/22/2003 SLMC 17 .16 .015 LONG ; 3000 BL K
00 :46 :00 03/22/2003 SLMC 17 .16 .015 LONG ; 3800 BL K
16 :48 :00 04/05/2003 SLMC 17 .16 .015 799 RAMONA & BROA D
08 :05 :00 04/06/2003 SLMC 17 .16 .015 1010 CHURC H
15 :30 :00 04/11/2003 SLMC 17 .16 .015 RICARDO ; 800 BL K
03 :04 :00 06/03/2003 SLMC 17 .16 .015 McMILLAN ; 0 TO 100 BL K
17 :37 :00 07/25/2003 SLMC 1 .7 .16 .015 PEPPER ; N OF MARS H
10 :00 :00 12/12/2003 SLMC 17 .16 .015 100 HIND & HIGUERA S
16 :25 :00 01/08/2004 SLMC 17 .16 .015 189 HIND & LON G
21 :05 :00 02/07/2004 SLMC 17 .16 .015 OAK ; W OF SANTA ROS A
21 :18 :00 .02/13/2004 SLMC 17 .16 .015 394 LEMON & OLIV E
09 :13 :00 02/14/2004 SLMC 17 .16 .015 394 LEMON & OLIV E
23 :35 :00 04/17/2004 SLMC 17 .16 .015 McMILLAN ; 2800 BL K
10 :48 :00 07/04/2004 SLMC 17 .16 .015 521 PRINCETO N
11 :10 :00 07/16/2004 SLMC 17 .16 .015 3600 SACRAMENT O
09 :55 :00 07/23/2004 SLMC 17 .16 .015 219 BONETTI & EMPRES A
10:50 :00 07/23/2004 SLMC 17 .16 .015 219 BONETTI & EMPRES A
11 :45:00 09/10/2004 SLMC 17 .16 .015 1012 DEL RIO & PREFUMO CANYO N
21 :25 :00 .12/09/2004 SLMC 17 .16 .015 2191 PARKER & SOUT H
22 :38 :00 01/12/2005 SLMC 17 .16 .015 1957 SANTA BARBAR A
08 :48 :00 01/20/2005 SLMC 17 .16 .015 BONETTI ; 10 0
07 :55 :00 02/04/2005 SLMC 17 .16 .015 25 PRADO & ELK S
17 :45 :00 02/06/2005 SLMC 17 .16 .015 14 HIGUERA & ELK S
11 :45 :00 02/26/2005 SLMC 17 .16 .015 25 PRADO & ELK S
14 :45 :00 03/03/2005 SLMC 17 .16 .015 150 TANK FARM & LON G
07 :40 :00 03/04/2005 SLMC 17 .16 .015 150 TANK FARM & LON G
08 :30 :00 03/17/2005 SLMC 17 .16.015 544 PACIFI C
18 :10 :00 04/09/2005 SLMC 17 .16 .015 71 ZAC A
03 :22 :00 08/07/2005 SLMC 17 .16 .015 1600 MADONNA & ET O
11 :40 :00 09/01/2005 SLMC 17 .16 .015 300 ELK S
22 :20 :00 02/10/2006 SLMC 17 .16 .015 HIG H
23 :30 :00 02/24/2006 SLMC 17 .16 .015 3977 HIGUERA S
11 :50 :00 03/20/2006 SLMC 17 .16 .015 1319 BEAC H
01 :37 :00 04/11/2006 SLMC 17 .16 .015 2191 PARKER & SOUT H
07 :51 :00 05/13/2006 SLMC 17 .16 .015 2201 LAWTON & SOUT H
23 :00 :00 11/05/2006 SLMC 17 .16 .015 3260 ROCKVIEW ; X FRO M
22 :30 :00 11/11/2006 SLMC 17 .16 .015 1440 CHORRO & BUCHO N
20 :30 :00 03/18/2007 SLMC 17 .16 .015 3950 BROAD ; MARIGOLD CENTE R
21 :10 :00 05/19/2007 SLMC 17 .16 .015 890 PEACH & MORR O
15 :10 :00 09/13/2007 SLMC 17 .16 .015 196 SUBURBAN
B1-25
07/09/12 San Luis Obispo Police Department 13•
11 :22 Master Citation Table Page :2
CITATIONS BY LOCATION :
Date of Citation Offense Code Street addres s--------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 :00 :00 09/15/2007 SLMC 17 .16 .015 700 INDUSTRIAL ;BLK F O
21 :00 :00 09/23/2007 SLMC 17 .16 .015 3985 HIGUERA S ;FOOD 4 LESS P L
21 :10 :00 10/02/2007 SLMC 17 .16 .015 43 PRADO ;BLK O F
02 :01 :00 01/15/2008 SLMC 17 .16 .015 1255 ORCUT T
09 :20 :00 02/10/2008 SLMC 17 .16 .015 LONG ;3800 BLK O F
01 :00 :00 07/13/2008 SLMC 17 .16 .015 1319 BEACH ; ACROSS FRO M
02 :45 :00 10/26/2008 SLMC 17 .16 .015 729 PISM O
09 :30 :00 11/10/2008 SLMC 17 .16 .015 774 ISLA Y
09 :10 :00 11/12/2008 SLMC 17 .16 .015 HIND ;100 BL K
09 :10 :00 11/12/2008 SLMC 17 .16 .015 3877 LONG ;S/F
09 :20 :00 11/12/2008 SLMC 17 .16 .015 HIND ;100 BLK O F
09 :42 :00 11/12/2008 SLMC 17 .16 .015 100 HIND & HIGUERA S
15 :10 :00 11/15/2008 SLMC 17 .16 .015 131 HIND & LON G
08 :10 :00 02/20/2009 SLMC 17 .16 .015 255 ELK S
08 :10 :00 02/20/2009 SLMC 17 .16 .015 225 ELK S
08 :15 :00 02/20/2009 SLMC 17 .16 .015 255 ELK S
23 :40 :00 05/02/2009 SLMC 17 .16 .015 750 CAPITOLIO & BROA D
23 :40 :00 05/10/2009 SLMC 17 .16 .015 4199 HIGUERA S & LOS OSOS VALLE Y
04 :30 :00 06/22/2009 SLMC 17 .16 .015 3870 LONG &HIN D
04 :30 :00 06/22/2009 SLMC 17 .16 .015 3870 LONG &HIN D
04 :45 :00 06/22/2009 SLMC 17 .16 .015 3800 LON G
04 :55 :00 06/22/2009 SLMC 17.16 .015 3800 LON G
05 :15 :00 06/22/2009 SLMC 17 .16 .015 110 HIN D
05 :30 :00 06/22/2009 SLMC 17 .16 .015 200 HIN D
04 :45 :00 08/08/2009 SLMC 17 .16 .015 159 GRANADA
04 :50 :00 08/08/2009 SLMC 17 .16 .015 100 GRANADA
05 :10:00 08/08/2009 SLMC 17 .16 .015 '3500 SURLD O
05 :30 :00 08/08/2009 SLMC 17 .16 .015 100 BONETT I
05 :44 :00 08/08/2009 SLMC 17 .16 .015 100 BONETT I
05 :50 :00 08/08/2009 SLMC 17 .16 .015 100 BONETT I
03 :30 :00 08/10/2009 SLMC 17 .16 .015 100 BONETT I
05 :00 :00 08/14/2009 SLMC 17 .16 .015 3560 SUELDO & BONETT I
03 :00 :00 08/16/2009 SLMC 17 .16 .015 100 GRANAD A
03 :06 :00 08/16/2009 SLMC 17 .16 .015 100 GRANAD A
23 :30 :00 08/16/2009 SLMC 17 .16 .015 1170 PACIFI C
05 :45 :00 08/17/2009 SLMC 17 .16 .015 100 SUBURBA N
04 :45 :00 09/21/2009 SLMC 17 .16 .015 100 HIN D
09 :15 :00 10/23/2009 SLMC 17 .16 .015 1600 PREFUMO CANYO N
11 :45 :00 01/01/2010 SLMC 17 .16 .015 801 GRAN D
05 :16 :00 02/13/2010 SLMC 17 .16 .015 814 SACRAMENT O
23 :20:00 02/13/2010 SLMC 17 .16 .015 2699 McMILLA N
23 :25:00 02/13/2010 SLMC 17 .16 .015 2699 McMILLA N
09 :30 :00 09/24/2010 SLMC 17 .16 .015 310 CERRO ROMAULD O
08 :20 :00 10/15/2010 SLMC 17 .16 .015 209 BONETT I
08 :25 :00 10/15/2010 SLMC 17 .16 .015 209 BONETTI ;PARKING LO T
07 :55 :00 12/21/2010 SLMC 17 .16 .015 2650 VICTORI A
00 :13 :00 02/03/2011 SLMC 17 .16 .015 919 PAL M
15 :00 :00 03/14/2011 SLMC 17 .16 .015 3100 McMILLAN
18 :04 :00 03/15/2011 SLMC 17 .16 .015 2741 McMILLAN
08 :05 :00 04/06/2011 SLMC 17.16 .015 3500 BULLOC K
08 :05 :00 04/06/2011 SLMC 17 .16 .015 3500 BULLOC K
09 :07 :00 04/22/2011 SLMC 17 .16 .015 BRIDGE ;33 0
B1-2 6
San Luis Obispo Police Department 13 1
Master Citation Table Page :3
CITATIONS BY LOCATION :
Offense Cod e
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17.16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17.16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
VC 4000(A )
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
SLMC 17 .16 .015
Street addres s
700 MOUNTAIN VIE W
3900 SHORT ; BLK O F
164 BONETTI & EMPLE O
250 BONETTI & SUELD O
515 DAN A
ELKS ; CEMETER Y
BONE .TTI ; 10 0
BONETTI ; 10 0
75 PRAD O
75 PRAD O
75 PRAD O
75 PRAD O
3485 EMPRESA & BONETT I
100 BONETTI & EMPLE O
43 PRAD O
195 BRIDG E
43 PRAD O
158 BRIDG E
RICHARD ; 80 0
100 HIN D
43 PRAD O
25 PRADO
25 PRAD O
25 PRAD O
100 PRADO
100 PRAD O
25 PRADO & ELK S
100 PRAD O
43 PRAD O
43 .PRAD O
43 PRAD O
144 HIND ; ACROSS FRO M
3765 HIGUERA S
100 CROS S
137 SUBURBAN & SHOR T
SHOR T
131 HIND & LON G
1433 CALLE JOAQUI N
1400 CALLE JOAQUI N
1400 CALLE JOAQUI N
200 BONETT I
100 HIND & HIGUERA S
43 PRADO ; ACROSS FRO M
25 PRAD O
43 PRAD O
3982 SHORT ; ACROSS FRO M
50 PRAD O
144 HIN D
56 PRAD O
45 PRAD O
56 PRAD O
50 PRADO
B1-2 7
Date of Citatio n
23 :40 :00 05/04/201 1
22 :30 :0 0
22 :25 :0 0
23 :30 :0 0
23 :55 :0 0
09 :15 ;00
23 :00 :0 0
23 :10 :0 0
10 :22 :0 0
22 :25 :0 0
22 :35 :0 0
22 :45 :0 0
21 :15 :0 0
21 :30 :0 0
21 :15 :0 0
00 :15 :0 0
10 :30 :0 0
02 :20 :0 0
08 :50 :0 0
10 :30 :0 0
02 :45 :0 0
02 :45 :0 0
02 :50 :0 0
02 :50 :0 0
02 :51 :0 0
02:58 :0 0
03 :00 :0 0
03 :05 :0 0
03 :10 :0 0
03 :12 :0 0
03 :15 :0 0
08 :50 :0 0
09 :15 :0 0
04 :15 :0 0
04 :40 :0 0
04 :45 :0 0
05 :00 :0 0
05 :30 :0 0
05 :30 :0 0
05 :31 :0 0
05 :10 :0 0
05 :19 :0 0
05 :35 :0 0
05 :50 :0 0
17 :20 :0 0
08 :30 :0 0
20 :15 :0 0
21 :15 :0 0
21 :30 :0 0
21 :45 :0 0
21 :45 :0 0
22 :00 :00
05/09/201 1
05/22/201 1
05/22/201 1
06/04/201 1
06/07/201 1
06/10/201 1
06/10/201 1
08/12/201 1
08/12/201 1
08/12/201 1
08/12/201 1
08/14/201 1
08/14/201 1
09/12/201 1
11/18/201 1
01/07/201 2
01/19/201 2
02/09/201 2
02/15/201 2
02/16/201 2
02/16/201 2
02/16/201 2
02/16/201 2
02/16/201 2
02/16/201 2
02/16/201 2
02/16/201 2
02/16/201 2
02/16/201 2
02/16/201 2
02/16/201 2
02/16/201 2
02/17/201 2
02/17/201 2
02/17/201 2
02/17/201 2
02/17/201 2
02/17/201 2
02/17/201 2
02/18/201 2
02/18/201 2
02/18/201 2
02/18/201 2
02/18/201 2
02/23/201 2
02/27/201 2
02/27/201 2
02/27/201 2
02/27/201 2
02/27/201 2
02/27/201 2
•
r
07/09/12 San Luis Obispo Police Departmen t
11:22 Master Citation Table
130
Page :4
CITATIONS BY LOCATION :
Date of Citation Offense Cod e
------------------- ---------------
22 :15 :00 02/27/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
02 :04 :00 02/29/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
01 :30 :00 03/03/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
01 :37 :00 03/03/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
01 :41 :00 03/03/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
23 :45 :00 03/05/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
23 :30 :00 03/06/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
21 :14 :00 03/14/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
01 :00 :00 03/15/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
01 :01 :00 03/15/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
01 :10 :00 03/15/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
01 :22 :00 03/15/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
01 :25 :00 03/15/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
18 :40 :00 03/15/2012 SLMC 17,16 .01 5
09 :15 :00 03/27/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
12 :55 :00 04/30/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
22 :10 :00 05/23/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
22 :15 :00 05/23/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
23:55 :00 05/23/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
05 :30 :00 05/24/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
05 :30 :00 05/24/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
05 :30 :00 05/24/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
05 :25 :00 05/31/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
05 :45 :00 05/31/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
05 :50 :00 05/31/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
05 :50 :00 05/31/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
05 :57 :00 05/31/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
06 :00 :00 05/31/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
06 :05 :00 05/31/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
06 :10 :00 05/31/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
06 :15 :00 05/31/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
06 :20 :00 05/31/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
06 :25 :00 05/31/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
01 :30 :00 06/04/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
01 :30 :00 06/04/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
23 :55 :00 06/04/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
00 :10 :00 06/06/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
05 :45 :00 06/10/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
08 :05 :00 06/11/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
03 :13 :00 06/14/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
05 :00 :00 06/15/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
05 :10 :00 06/15/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .01 5
05 :28 :00 06/16/2012 SLMC 17 .16 .015
Street addres s
PRAD O
190 BRIDG E
77 ZACA & HIGUERA S
77 ZACA & HIGUERA S
77 ZACA & HIGUERA S
2800 ROCKVIE W
226 SUBURBA N
100 HIND & HIGUERA S
BROAD & FROOM RANC H
43 PRAD O
43 PRAD O
43 PRAD O
25 PRAD O
1500 ARCHE R
370 WOODBRIDG E
1040 FULLER ; FRENCH PAR K
100 PRAD O
100 PRAD O
322 ELK S
322 ELK S
322 ELK S
300 ELKS ; BLK O F
PRADO ; ACCES S
PRADO ; ACCES S
100 PRAD O
100 PRAD O
PRADO ; ACCES S
100 PRAD O
PRADO ; ACCES S
100 PRAD O
PRADO ; ACCES S
PRADO ; ACCES S
25 PRADO & ELK S
25 PRADO & ELK S
3799 HIGUERA S & HIND ; ACROSS FRO M
1400 CALLE JOAQUIN ; BLK O F
1433 CALLE JOAQUI N
823 VIA ESTEBAN
1435 CALLE JOAQUI N
1400 CALLE JOAQUIN ; BLK O F
1400 CALLE JOAQUIN ; BLK O F
1400 CALLE JOAQUIN ; BLK OF
B1-2 8
ORDINANCE NO .(2012 Series)
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O
DECLARING AND REAFFIRMING THE SCOPE AND INTENDED ENFORCEMEN T
OF THE CITY'S ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE USE OF VEHICLES AS LIVIN G
AND SLEEPING QUARTERS THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AN D
ADOPTING PARALLEL PROHIBITION TO BE ADDED AS CHAPTER 9 .1 8
(VEHICLE AS DWELLING UNIT)OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL COD E
WHEREAS,on July 3, 2012, Superior Court Judge Charles S . Crandall issued a
preliminary injunction against the City's enforcement of San Luis Obispo Municipal Cod e
(SLMC) Section 17 .16 .015 to prohibit the use of vehicles as living and sleeping quarters on loca l
streets; and
WHEREAS,the Court's ruling is based on the Court 's misinterpretation of the Cit y
Council's intent, despite the plain language of the Ordinance, and the erroneous assumption tha t
it historically has not been enforced on the public streets ; and
WHEREAS,the plaintiffs in this case did not submit any admissible evidence that th e
City had not enforced the Ordinance on the public streets ; and
WHEREAS,it is the intent of the Council in adopting this Ordinance to declare an d
reaffirm its intent regarding the meaning, application, and proper interpretation of its Ordinance ,
to overrule any ruling to the contrary, and to enact a parallel provision in Title 9 of the Municipa l
Code to avoid the fruitless expenditure of public resources debating the propriety of the
measure's inclusion in the City's Zoning Code;
WHEREAS,it is the intent of the Council to adopt this Ordinance as an emergenc y
measure pursuant to San Luis Obispo Charter Section 605 in order to prevent the establishmen t
and proliferation of unsafe and unsanitary residential uses within the City limits and to preserv e
the City's immediate authority to regulate public conduct in the best interests of its citizenry .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Lui s
Obispo as follows :
SECTION 1 .The City Council makes the following findings :
A.Article 11 section 7 of the California Constitution grants California cities broad power s
to enact laws to promote public welfare within their geographical boundaries except to
the extent the local law conflicts with state law .
B.The constitutional power of cities is as broad as that of the state itself .
C.As a charter city, the City of San Luis Obispo has even broader powers under Article 11 ,
section 5 of the California Constitution ;
O
B1-29
Ordinance No . (2012 Series )
Page 2
D.The classification of ordinances enacted by a city council in any given city, into differen t
titles or chapters of its municipal code is left to the discretion of the individual city and i s
not subject to any legally mandatory organizatio n
E.Both public and private land may be regulated in a variety of different ways unde r
different titles and chapters of any given cit y 's Municipal Code, and these practices var y
from one city to another .
F.Section 65803 of the California Government Code provides that Title 7 . Division 1 and
Chapter 4 shall not apply to a charter city, except to the extent that the same may b e
adopted by charter, or ordinance of the City .
G.The stated purpose of Title 17 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code as codified i n
Section 17 .02 .020 is that the regulations are intended to guide the development of the cit y
in an orderly manner based on the adopted general plan, to protect and enhance th e
quality of the natural and built environment, and to promote the public health, safety an d
general welfare by regulating the use of land and buildings and the location and basi c
form of structures .
H.Section 17 .02 .040 provides that in the Community Development Director shall interpre t
any ambiguity of Title 17 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code .
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17 .16 .015 (Recreational vehicle as dwellin g
unit) was added to the City's Municipal Code in 1995 by Ordinance Number 1277 (199 5
Series), adopted by the City Council on March 21, 1995 .
J The plain language of Municipal Code Section 17 .16 .015 clearly and explicitly prohibit s
the use of vehicles for living or sleeping quarters in all locations throughout the City ,
except in narrowly specified areas expressly set forth in the Ordinance and in sectio n
17 .08 .010, which section 17 .16 .015 expressly references .
K.Section 17 .16 .015 was amended by Ordinance Number 1484 (2005 Series) to clarify tha t
the use of all vehicles as living and sleeping quarters within the City is prohibited, excep t
as expressly exempted .
L.The Ordinance does not contain any exemption in its plain language that establishes th e
public streets are a location where individuals lawfully may utilize vehicles as living or
sleeping quarters .
M.City records establish that for at least the past ten years, Section 17 .16 .015 has been
enforced on both public and private properties throughout the City, including on publi c
streets .
N.The codification of the Ordinance in the City's Zoning Code was and is reasonable an d
logical because : 1) individuals seeking information about the City's regulation o f
residential occupancies in the City reasonably could be expected to look for suc h
B1-30
Ordinance No . (2012 Series)
Page 3
information in the Zoning Code ; 2) the Ordinance's broadly worded ban of residentia l
occupancies of vehicles includes onlytwo exemptions that are related to permissible use s
of properly zoned areas to accommodate such uses ; references and information related t o
those two narrowly exempted areas (designated trailer parks and private residences) ar e
found in the Zoning Code .
0 . The codification of the Ordinance in the Zoning Code is a choice of practicality, commo n
sense, and ease of reference, similar to a library Dewey decimal system ; the choice o f
where an Ordinance is codified is not intended to impact or modify its content and, in thi s
case, shall not be interpreted to limit the application or enforcement of the Ordinance to
any particular location or property type, nor shall it be interpreted to exempt from th e
Ordinance's prohibition any land, area, or location throughout the City, except a s
expressly provided by the plain language of the Ordinance .
P . The Council, by the placement of Section 17 .16 .015 in the City's Zoning Code, does no t
intend to create and did not create any limitation on or exemptions to the application o f
Section 17 .16 .015 for any location in the City limits, other than those specifically se t
forth in Section 17 .16 .015 .
Q• To the extent that the ruling of the San Luis Obispo Superior Court, filed July 3, 2012 i n
the case of SLO Homeless Alliance, et al v . City of San Luis Obispo, et al, CV 12-0204 ,
preliminarily interprets Section 17 .16 .015 to be other than or contrary to the inten t
expressed herein or on the face of the Ordinance, the Council fmds that the Court ha s
misinterpreted this section and that Section 17 .16 .015 is intended to apply to all zones ,
areas, locations, and lands throughout the City, whether public or private, including, bu t
not limited to public streets, except where Sections 17 .16 .015 and 17 .08 .010 expressly
provide otherwise, and the Court 's preliminary ruling to the contrary is hereby expressl y
overruled. This finding is declarative of existing law and longstanding administrativ e
construction of this Section in the City and is not intended to alter or amend the existin g
application or enforcement of Section 17 .16 .015, as it existed prior to the issuance of th e
Court's preliminary ruling in case Number CV 12-0204 . The findings in Section 1 of thi s
ordinance are intended to have retroactive effect .
R.Section 1 .12 .020 (Violations as misdemeanors or infractions) of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code provides :
The violation of any provision of this code, of any ordinance of the city, or of any code
adopted by reference in this code, by any person, is unlawful, and is punishable either b y
fine as an infraction, or by fine or imprisonment, or both,as a misdemeanor . (Prior code §
1201).
S.The City's Community Development Director has primary responsibility for enforcemen t
of the City's Zoning Regulations and is the Department Head for the City's Building
Division, which includes the City's Code Enforcement Officers.
B1-31
Ordinance No .(2012 Series)
Page 4
T.Code Enforcement Officers regularly work during traditional daytime business hours an d
respond to the majority of property related code violation complaints, as resources allow ;
Code Enforcement Officers are not regularly on duty during the hours between dusk an d
dawn.
U.Most violations of Section 17 .16 .015 are likely to and do occur, and are most frequentl y
and objectively observable by a public officer during the hours between dusk and daw n
and during which no Code Enforcement Officers are regularly on duty in the City.
V.Public officers are authorized to enforce any portion of the City's municipal code .
W.By their nature, violations of Section 17 .16 .015 are not well suited to traditional Cod e
Enforcement protocols and practices for reasons that include, but are not limited to : the
inherent mobility of vehicles ; the dusk to dawn hours during which most violations ar e
likely to occur; the number of violations and the capacity for quick proliferation ;
dispersion of violators throughout the City ; the ability quickly to relocate vehicles after
initial notice of violation and to continue the prohibited use of a vehicle for living an d
sleeping in another location following notice ; limited resources to track violators and
conduct follow-up compliance inspections ; and the frequent lack of a fixed addres s
against which to pursue traditional code enforcement remedies .
X.The most obvious indicia of violations of Section 17 .16 .015 (including sleeping in, o r
otherwise occupying vehicles as living quarters, as indicated by the observation of a n
individual engaging in activities of daily living, including dining, bathing, dressing ,
tending to personal hygiene needs, or continuously occupying a vehicle for prolonge d
periods) most frequently occur during the late night and early morning hours, which ar e
traditional sleeping hours and hours during which individuals commonly occupy livin g
quarters and engage in related activities . Nothing herein is to be construed to prohibit the
enforcement of the Ordinance during daytime hours where conduct violating th e
Ordinance 's prohibitions has been observed .
Y.For the reasons stated herein, most violations of Section 17 .16 .015 are better suited t o
immediate criminal enforcement by police officers on 24/7 shifts, than to more traditiona l
code enforcement ; enforcement activities during the dusk to dawn hours is reasonable .
Z.The Community Development Director has acted reasonably, practically, and i n
accordance with City ordinances in requesting the assistance and intervention of th e
Police Department in enforcing Section 17 .16 .015 .
AA . The coordination of resources between the Community Development Departmen t
and the Police Department represents the most efficient use of public resources in thi s
context and is the most effective and expeditious manner in which to respond to publi c
complaints and mitigate adverse health and safety impacts associated with illega l
vehicular occupancies in a timely manner .
B 1-32
Ordinance No . (2012 Series)
Page 5
BB . Consistent with Section 1 .12 .020 and the authority of the Communit y
Development Director as found in the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code SLMC Sectio n
17 .16 .015 historically has been enforced,inter alia,primarily by means of crimina l
infraction citations issued by the San Luis Obispo Police Department regularly since it s
adoption; criminal infraction citations are similar to parking or minor traffic tickets an d
penalties for such citations do notinclude jail time .
CC . In the City, criminal infraction citations are issued by the Police Department an d
filed directly with the San Luis Obispo Superior Court ; cited individuals are provide d
with a date of "Notice to Appear" before a Court Commissioner and may choose to pay
an uncontested citation prior to the appearance date or to appear before the Cour t
Commissioner to contest the citation and request a dismissal of the citation, or a
reduction or other payment alternative of the associated fine amount .
DD . Historically, enforcement of Section 17 .16.015 has been initiated primarily i n
response to public complaints about, and/or officer observation of, conspicuous incident s
of individuals living and sleeping in their vehicles within the City and/or the advers e
related impacts on public health, safety, and welfare that are often associated with suc h
occupancies, especially where illegal occupancies proliferate or concentrate in a
particular geographic location within the City .
EE . Some of the adverse impacts in areas where vehicular occupancies hav e
proliferated or concentrated within the City, which have been reported to the City b y
third parties or observed by City staff, include : littering, public urination, publi c
defecation, and/or intoxication, obstruction of vehicular or pedestrian passage on bot h
public and private property ; theft of water and electricity, verbal and physical assaults ,
trespass onto adjacent public and private properties ; vandalism; and harassment o r
intimidation of occupants, employees, and/or customers of adjacent properties .
FF . Due to restrictions on entry onto private property and limitations on the ability o f
public officials to enter upon private property to conduct inspections and/or observe use s
of vehicles, alleged violations occurring on public property, including on public streets ,
are the most conspicuous and susceptible to direct, immediate, and ongoing observatio n
and enforcement by public officials .
GG . The Police Chief has provided and Council has reviewed data from the records o f
the San Luis Obispo Police Department going back ten years, to 2002, whic h
demonstrates that criminal citations have been issued to individuals living and sleeping in
vehicles on local streets, including along Prado Road and other roadways in commercial ,
industrial, and residential neighborhoods, throughout the City . Prior to 2002, there is
little or no record of complaints regarding such violations or enforcement of th e
Ordinance by citation.
HH. The Police Chief has provided and Council has reviewed data summarizin g
enforcement of the City's Ordinance from January through June 2012 . The Council find s
that the data provided by the Police Department reflects that Field Interview card s
B1-33
Ordinance No . (2012 Series )
Page 6
(warning notices issued by police officers) were issued, in many cases, prior to th e
issuance of citations in connection with recent enforcement efforts .
II . The Council expects that its police officers do and will continue to treat all
residents of San Luis Obispo fairly and professionally ; this includes enforcing all Cit y
laws to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the community and utilizing bes t
professional judgment ensure officer and resident safety when working in the uncertai n
environments with which officers are often confronted, including making approaches t o
obscured vehicular dwellings, with unknown occupants, in the late night hours .
JJ .The Council finds that the City's streets and other areas within the City no t
expressly specified by Section 17 .16 .015 are ill-suited to support vehicular residential
occupancies,not only for the residents establishing such illegal uses, but also for th e
public forced to bear the impacts because : the streets and other non-exempted area s
within the City do not have facilities or services to support residential uses ; the mobil e
nature of such vehicular uses make them difficult to regulate and patrol ; establishment o f
residential uses in zones, areas, locations, or properties not designed or equipped t o
support such uses is unsafe and unsanitary; the proliferation of such unregulated uses i n
areas not designed to support them encourages misconduct such as illegal garbag e
disposal, illegal septic disposal, illegal discharges into the City's sewer and stormwate r
conveyance systems in-violation of the City's state permitting requirements ; public
urination and defecation . Moreover, establishment of residential uses in areas no t
equipped to serve them creates conflicts between the improper residential use an d
adjacent approved and supported uses and developments ; establishment of residentia l
uses in areas not zoned and equipped for such uses is inconsistent with the City 's Genera l
Plan and goals and objectives for orderly development .
KK . Twenty-one policies in the City's General Plan are devoted to ensurin g
compatible land uses and the enactment of Section 17 .16 .015 to prohibit living an d
sleeping in vehicles provides an implementing measure to enforce illegal uses that ar e
incompatible with lawful and permitted uses .
LL . The City has embraced and supported the "10-Year Plan to End Homelessness i n
San Luis Obispo County "which includes policies, programs, and actions to assist th e
transition of homeless persons into housing .
MM . Prior to the initiation of the legal action that resulted in the Court's July 3, 201 2
ruling granting the preliminary injunction, City staff had undertaken consideration of a
proposal by the Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo (CAPSLO) t o
establish a "safe parking" pilot program, whereby a limited number of homeless resident s
would be permitted to utilize their vehicles as overnight living and sleeping quarters i n
the parking lot of the Prado Day Center, subject to agreement to participate in cas e
management services designed to transition those individuals and/or families int o
permanent housing and self-sufficiency . That program includes accesses to sanitatio n
facilities not otherwise available . The program proposal was subsequently recommende d
for approval and approved by the Council .
B1-34
Ordinance No .(2012 Series )
Page 7
NN . The "safe parking "pilot program is being evaluated and if successful, staff is to
recommend the continuance of the pilot program and municipal code changes to
authorize the expansion of the program to other compatible areas throughout the City at a
future date .
00 .The Court's conclusion that the City's enforcement efforts represent "...a
concerted effort to force Plaintiffs to move somewhere else", to "drive them out of town",
or "...to intimidate Plaintiffs into leaving town all together", is erroneous an d
misapprehends the City's objectives to : respond to facially valid complaints of adverse
impacts related to illegal residential occupancies ; hold all residents to facially valid ,
nondiscriminatory standards of conduct, irrespective of class or status ; and, concurrently,
to explore productive alternatives, through the considered and community-inclusiv e
process, to support homeless services and the transition of individuals and families in
need into permanent housing .
PP . The City's inability to enforce its prohibition against the use of vehicles as living
and sleeping quarters on public streets throughout the City undermines the foundations o f
the pilot program undertaken by the City and CAPSLO and diminishes the efforts o f
CAPSLO and the City to direct such uses to locations where such uses can be adequatel y
supported, to provide incentives to homeless services program participation, to conside r
the expansion of the pilot program to other designated locations within the City, and t o
consider resident and professional input as to other possible avenues by which to address
community needs .
QQ . The Council finds that, while the Court was mistaken when it preliminarily
attributed the placement of section 17 .16 .015 into Title 17 of the Municipal Code as
indicative of the City's Council's intent not to apply it to the public streets, despite th e
plain language of the section's citywide prohibition, the Council finds it is necessary t o
remove any possible confusion on the Court's part by enacting an identical and parallel
provision in Title 9 of the City's Code, which the Council has enacted solely to ensur e
that the placement of the original prohibition in Title 17 would not be used as an obstacl e
to the City's continued enforcement of residential occupancy regulations throughout th e
City, including on public property and the public streets and not to create any ne w
substantive regulation .
SECTION 2. For the reasons set forth herein and in order to ensure clarity o f
enforcement and the continued ability of the City to prohibit unsafe and unsanitary occupancie s
contrary to the City's plans for orderly development, environmental protection, and huma n
health, safety and welfare, and to support and secure the positive progress of the "safe parking "
pilot program and subsequent consideration of the expansion of such programs for the support o f
the homeless community in San Luis Obispo, Chapter 9 .18 is hereby added to the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code to read as follows :
9.18 VEHICLE AS DWELLING UNIT
B1-35
Ordinance No . (2012 Series )
Page 8
Sections :
9 .18 .010 Vehicles as dwellings prohibited .
9 .18 .020 Violation — Penalty.
9.18 .010 Vehicles as dwellings prohibited .
No recreational vehicle, camper shell, automobile or similar device shall be used for living o r
sleeping quarters except in a lawfully operated mobile home park, travel trailer park, o r
campground, except as provided in Section 17 .08 .010(C)(4)et seq .
9 .18 .020 Violation - Penalty .
Any person who violates any provision of this chapter is guilty of an infraction and is subject t o
punishment as provided for in Chapter 1 .12 of this code.
SECTION 3 . Pursuant to San Luis Obispo Charter Section 605, based on the finding s
set forth herein, and for the following additional reasons, the Council of the City of San Lui s
Obispo hereby finds and declares that this Ordinance is necessary as an emergency measure, fo r
preserving the public peace, health and safety, and, as an emergency measure, shall b e
introduced and adopted at once at the same meeting if passed by at least four (4) affirmativ e
votes :
A.On July 3, 2012, San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Charles Crandall issued a rulin g
granting a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the City's prohibition of th e
use of vehicles as living and sleeping quarters on local public streets .
B.The Council finds that the Court's ruling is based upon a fundamental misapprehensio n
of the Council's intent as to the application and enforcement of its Ordinance .
C.The Council finds that the establishment of residential uses in vehicles on the publi c
streets with no mechanism for enforcement constitutes an imminent and immediate threa t
to the public peace, health and safety because public streets are not equipped to support
residential occupancies for the reasons set forth in this Ordinance .
D.Jurisdictions throughout California have passed and enforced prohibitions against suc h
occupancies on public streets and the absence of an ordinance will likely encourage th e
establishment of such occupancies on City streets .
E.The establishment of such occupancies on the public streets invites, facilitates an d
encourages the maintenance of unsafe and unsanitary residential conditions within th e
City.
F.The Council finds that the lack of reasonable enforcement mechanisms to prevent an d
prohibit such unsafe and unsanitary occupancies is contrary to the public peace, health ,
and safety and leaves the City, its residents, businesses and property owners withou t
B 1-36
SECTION 4 .This ordinance shall go into effect immediately upon its introduction an d
adoption .
INTRODUCED AND ADOPTED on the 10th day of July 2012,by the Council of th e
City of San Luis Obispo, on the following vote :
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
Mayor Jan Mar x
ATTEST :
Sheryll Schroeder
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM :
J . Christine Dietrick
City Attorne y
Ordinance No .(2012 Series)
Page 9
recourse to address valid complaints about the adverse impacts of such occupancies in a n
effective and expedient manner .
Page intentionally lef t
blank .