HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/01/2005, BUS 4 - ORDINANCE AMENDING PROVISIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFLECT SUBSTANTIVE LEGAL CHANGES, CLARIFICA council. �ii , 05
agcnaa REpoRt �N S
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney
Prepared By: J. Christine Dietrick, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE AMENDING PROVISIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO
REFLECT SUBSTANTIVE LEGAL CHANGES, CLARIFICATIONS
RELATING TO CITY COD_ E ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES AND MINOR
LANGUAGE REVISIONS
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Introduce an ordinance amending specified Municipal Code provisions to reflect changes in the
law and City enforcement procedures and to incorporate minor grammatical and gender language
revisions.
REPORT IN BRIEF
The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the Municipal Code and is recommending some limited
amendments. The changes recommended do not reflect an exhaustive analysis of the internal and
legal consistency of the Municipal Code, which is generally undertaken utilizing the services of a
legal publishing contractor. However, the recommended changes are intended to reflect recent
changes in substantive law and City code enforcement procedures that implicate the need for
clarification. Additionally, the present amendment recommendations incorporate limited
revisions requested by other City departments and minor grammatical changes and revisions to
numerous sections for the purpose of making gender references inclusive of the masculine and
feminine gender. The specific changes recommended and the reasons for the changes are set
forth in greater detail below,following the format of the attached amending ordinance.
DISCUSSION
Section 1. The revisions reflected in Section 1 of the amending Ordinance are all changes to add
reference to the feminine gender where the ordinance provisions, as currently drafted, refer only
to the masculine gender. Such changes are consistent with City policy and legal requirements
regarding .gender non-discrimination. The amending Ordinance additionally clarifies that any
subsequently discovered gender inconsistencies will be deemed clerical or typographical errors,
the correction of which expressly does not constitute an ordinance amendment pursuant to
Section 602(A) of the City Charter_. Thus, subsequently discovered inconsistencies may be
corrected by the City Clerk.
Section 2. The recommended amendments to Municipal Code section 1.12.050 are to reflect
amendments to the statutory sections referenced therein. Specifically, the Code section, as
currently drafted, refers to provisions of state law, the violation of which are specifically
designated as constituting infractions pursuant to Penal Code §§ 19c and 19d.. However, sections
y-/
Municipal Code Update Page 2
19c to 19e were renumbered to Penal Code §§ 19.6 to 19.8 and amended by Stats.1989, c. 897,
§§ 8 to 10. PC §19.8 is now the provision specifying those state statutory violations that are
deemed infractions and should be the provision to which the Code section refers. Similarly,
Vehicle Code, section 40000 to which the current Code section refers was repealed by Stats.1971,
c. 1178, p. 2245, § 2, operative May 3, 1972. The reference to section 40000 was probably a
typographical error unintentionally incorporated into the originally adopted Code or a subsequent
revision. The current, operative Vehicle. Code provision designating certain violations of that
statute as infractions is §40000.1.
Section 3. Changes to the noise control provisions of the Municipal Code are recommended as a
result of the shift in focus in City enforcement procedures from a criminal to an administrative
approach, as well as the associated increase in administrative penalties recently approved by
Council for noise violations. Additionally, there are certain state statutory provisions, discussed
below, that could result in challenges to the City's authority to implement the recently approved
fine increases for noise violations. While this office is confident that any such challenge could
be successfully opposed, staff believes the best advised course of action is to revise the ordinance
for clarity and consistency and eliminate the potential for challenges arising out of unnecessary
ambiguities.
Government Code, section 53069.4 provides that "The legislative body of a local agency...may
by ordinance make any violation of any ordinance enacted by the local agency subject to an
administrative fine or penalty...Where the violation would otherwise be an infraction, the
administrative fine or penalty shall not exceed the maximum fine or penalty amounts for
infractions set forth in...subdivision (b) of Section 36900." That section provides "Every
violation determined to be an infraction is punishable by (1) a fine not exceeding one hundred
dollars ($100) for a first violation; ... ($200) for a second violation ... and ($500) for each
additional violation ... within one year."
Under the current noise control provisions of the Municipal Code, noise violations are designated
as infractions. However, section 1.12.050 of the Code provides that
Any provision or requirement of this code designated as an infraction shall be
prosecutable as a misdemeanor upon a third violation and each violation thereafter of the
same provision by the same individual. In addition,any such provision or requirement
may be prosecuted originally as a misdemeanor in the discretion of the city attorney
upon a showing by the enforcing agency of the seriousness of the particular alleged
violation. (Prior code § 1204)"
There are two potential legal issues that could arise from the interaction between the City's
recent amendment of its administrative fine schedule for noise violations and the above-cited
provisions. Through the recommended amendment to the City's noise ordinance, staff seeks to
bring those issues to Council's attention and preemptively to address any challenge to the City's
administrative fining authority that could be raised in response to implementation of the revised
fine schedule.
y
Municipal Code Update _ Page 3.
The first legal issue is whether the penalty provisions of Government Code, sections 53069.4 and
36900 may validly limit a Charter City's ability to determine the appropriate penalty necessary to
address the uniquely local impacts of violations of its properly enacted ordinances. While, on its
face, the provisions of section 53069.4 could be argued to restrict the imposition of an
administrative fine at the level enacted by Council, it is well-established that the provisions of the
California Constitution, article Xl, Section 5 vest charter cities with broad authority over their
municipal affairs, free from any constraint imposed by the general laws of the state and subject
only to constitutional limitations. With respect to the imposition of penalties, it has been held
that a City has the authority to impose criminal or civil penalties to insure obedience to its
regulations, so long as those penalties are not "oppressive" or "unreasonable." Hale v. Morgan,
22 Cal.3d 388, 398-399 (1978). Moreover, California courts consistently have held that"[w]hen
in conflict with general laws, and relating to municipal affairs, the provisions of[a city's] charter
and ordinances adopted pursuant thereto must prevail." County of Los Angeles v. City of Los
Angeles, 219 Cal..App.2d 838, 844 (1963).
The foregoing principles have led some municipal law authorities to conclude, notwithstanding
section 53069.4, that "[a] charter city could enact an ordinance which provides for different
penalties as long as such penalties do not exceed any maximum limits set by its charter." (The
California Municipal Law Handbook, League of California Cities (2005)). The only penalty
limitation set by the San Luis Obispo City Charter is contained in section 109, which provides
that the penalty for violation of a provision of the Charter is not to exceed $1000. Nonetheless,
the apparent conflict between the legal precedents that would seem clearly to support the City's
authority to impose administrative fines consistent with its amended schedule and the language
of Government. Code section 53069.4 does present a potential for challenge.
The secondary legal question is as follows: assuming that Government Code section 53069.4
does restrict the implementation of the increased fine schedule for infraction violations, does the
City Attorney's discretionary authority to charge any designated infraction as a misdemeanor,
nonetheless, permit the imposition of the increased fines for noise violations? The authority of
the City Attorney to "upcharge" first offense infractions to misdemeanor violations pursuant to
SLOMC § 1.12.050 was recently challenged in court, on due process and other grounds, by the
attorney for a defendant charged with a misdemeanor as a result of an ongoing neighborhood dog
noise issue. The Court upheld the City Attorney's authority under that provision and the
misdemeanor charges stand.
Based upon the City Attorney's discretionary authority to charge designated infractions as
misdemeanors and in light of the record of adverse neighborhood impacts, increasing instances
of violations, and ineffectual results of infraction citations of noise violations, staff would argue
that the discretionary charging of such designated infractions as misdemeanors in the first
instance is justified Under those circumstances, there is little question that the City would be
within its authority, whether statutory or charter, to impose fines for noise violations consistent
with the recently amended fine schedule. However, if challenged, there is an argument to be
made that every noise citation issued should then be subject to review and recommendation by
the City Attorney for misdemeanor level prosecution before it could be properly processed
through the administrative citation procedure and become subject to the recently enacted fine
schedule. Due to the obvious impracticalities if such a procedure became necessary, staff would
/-/ -3
I
Municipal Code Update Page 4
not recommend reliance on the City Attorney's upcharging authority in response to any challenge
to a noise citation fine.
An additional consideration is the impact that the change in the designation of noise violations
would have on individuals cited for violations of the noise ordinance. Given the intention of the
Police Department to pursue the vast majority of noise violations administratively rather than
criminally, the designation of the violation as a misdemeanor would have little if any substantive
impact on the person cited. On the other hand, the proposed amendment sets up a system under
which the most serious or serial offenders can be addressed through misdemeanor citations,
which avoids the additional step of the City Attorney's office having to file a misdemeanor
complaint in the unusual circumstance where a noise violation will be handled criminally. Of
course, once a misdemeanor charge is filed with the court, it requires review and an appearance
by the City Attorney's office. Thus, each criminally filed misdemeanor noise violation will be
reviewed by the City Attorney and may be downcharged to an infraction as circumstances may
warrant.
In light of the foregoing and for purposes of removing any ambiguity that could be raised with
regard to the City's authority to impose.fines consistent with the amended fine schedule for noise
violations, staff recommends amending the specified noise ordinance provisions to designate
noise violations as misdemeanors in the first instance. Such action does not effect a change in
how the administrative citation procedure will be implemented with regard to noise violations,
but does eliminate a potential avenue for challenge of fines imposed for noise violations and
make the procedure for criminal handling of more serious offenders more efficient.
Section 4. The recommended change to SLOMC section 5.20.210 is simply a language
clarification to reflect in a gender neutral manner that permits must be obtained from the Chief of
Police or the Chiefs designee.
Section 5. The revision to section 5.20.270.A is intended to clarify the aggregate insurance
coverage requirements for taxis operating in the City. The revision was prompted by a contract
compliance review undertaken by the Office of the City Clerk, which revealed an inconsistency
in the current ordinance language that appears to require taxi cab operators to maintain insurance
policies providing $1.1 million aggregate coverage. The City Clerk's compliance review
disclosed that local taxi cab operators were not meeting and, in fact, are unable to meet that
requirement. One million dollars in aggregate coverage is standard and local operators do provide
that amount of coverage. The City's Risk Manager contacted California JPIA to verify the
adequacy of the $1,000,000.00 aggregate requirement and the City's insurance pool supports
coverage at this level.
Section 6. The proposed amendments to chapter 9.16 would expand the list of dangerous or
deadly weapons that are not permitted to be carried or possessed in public places to include
certain knives, dirks, daggers and other stabbing devices. While state law presently prohibits the
possession of switch blade type knives and the concealed possession of a variety of stabbing
instruments, state law does not address the open possession of a knife (other than switch blade
types) or other stabbing instrument. These amendments are consistent with possession and carry
restrictions implemented in other jurisdictions and the validity of such provisions has been
�-y
Municipal_Code Update Page 5
upheld against Second Amendment and state law preemption challenges. Exemptions to the
prohibitions of the section are provided for persons permitted to possess such devices under any
state or federal law. Individuals who possess prohibited weapons in public in good faith or for
use in their lawful professions or for lawful recreation are also exempted under the proposed
revisions. The provisions of the section expressly are not intended to regulate conduct already
prohibited under state law, and thus, avoid preemption considerations.
The provisions are intended to respond to obvious concerns relating to the health, safety and
welfare of City residents and visitors that are presented by the public possession and display of
knives and stabbing weapons, as well as instances noted by the City's police officers in which
altercations, often between transient individuals, could be escalated into violent or potentially
deadly situations because of the introduction of a knife or blade into an otherwise minor dispute.
The amended language would establish that such instruments carried in violation of the
ordinance constitute a nuisance and would'permit police officers to confiscate such weapons and,
upon the owner's conviction of the alleged violation, to destroy or otherwise dispose of the
weapons in accordance with statutory procedures established for the disposition of confiscated
firearms.
Section 7. On December 14, 2004, Council adopted an ordinance adding Chapter 9.22 to Title 9
of the Municipal Code that enabled the designation of Safety Enhancement Zones in the City to
temporarily increase fines and penalties for certain Municipal Code violations for a designated
time period. In the same action, Council established a city-wide Safety Enhancement Zone
during the period of Mardi Gras each year.
The Safety Enhancement Zone designation increases fines for five Municipal Code Violations:
noise disturbance; urinating in public, possession of open containers or consumption of alcohol
in publics hosting a gathering where underage persons consume alcohols and dangerous and
deadly weapons. During the time period the Safety Enhancement Zone designation is in effect,
violations of these sections are subject to increased fines of$300 for the first violation, $600 for
a second violation within one year, and $1000 for third and subsequent violations within one
year.
On May 3, 2005, Council adopted a resolution amending the administrative fine schedule for two
Municipal Code sections: noise disturbance and urinating in public. Fines for violations of these
sections were increased to $350 for the first violation, $700 for a second violation within one
year, and $1000 for third and subsequent violations within one year. These fines are in effect
year-round.
The increase in fines for these sections has created an administrative conflict with the Safety
Enhancement Zone ordinance in that the fine amounts differ by a small amount for violations of
the noise and public urination ordinances. In fact, the fines during the Safety Enhancement.Zone
period are less for these offenses than the remainder of the year and this is not consistent with
Council's intent when they enacted the Safety Enhancement Zone Ordinance. In addition, having
two different administrative fine schedules for the same violation is confusing, at best, for staff
when processing violations.
7 ��
Municipal Code_Update _ Page 6
In order to reconcile the two ordinances and in keeping with Council intention during each of
their pervious actions, Staff recommends minor amendments to the fine structure in effect for the
Safety Enhancement Zone designation for the purpose of achieving consistency between the two
relevant code provisions. The recommended amendments would increase the penalty structure
$50 for the first violation (from $300 to $350) and $100 for the second violation (from $600 to
$700). The maximum fine of $1000 for third and subsequent violations would remain
unchanged. Currently, the Safety Enhancement Zone designation is only in effect during the
designated Mardi Gras period each year.
Section 8. The amendments to section 10.04.070 are recommended for purposes of eliminating
reference to outdated holidays and updating the municipal code for consistency with currently
designated state and .federal holidays and holidays as set forth in City memoranda of
understanding with the various City bargaining units. Council should note that the prior
language of the section provides that Lincoln's Birthday, Washington's Birthday, La Fiesta
Saturday, Memorial Day, Veterans' Day and Christmas Eve "...are holidays and are observed on
days established by the state or city..." Obviously, the reference to Lincoln's and Washington's
birthdays is outdated and has been replaced with Presidents' Day. Likewise, it is recommended
to remove La Fiesta.Saturday from the specified list of holidays, as the Fiesta event has been
somewhat transient in recent years and can be adequately accommodated as a special event under
existing language. Finally,.it should be noted that under the proposed language (consistent with
prior language, but specifying a date certain, rather than a date to be prescribed) the entirety of
the day of Christmas Eve is specified as a holiday. Under current.MOU provisions, the City
holiday is only a half day.
Section 9. Staff recommends that SLOMC section 10.36.060 be repealed in its entirety because
the provision constitutes an unconstitutional, content-based prior restraint on speech, without any
reasonable time, place or manner limitations. The City already has extensive parking regulations
that address the time, place and manner in which vehicles may park on City streets for any
purpose. Further regulation of otherwise legal street parking.for the purpose of restricting sales
advertising clearly would be a content-basad regulation of commercial speech. Such regulation
would be difficult, if not impossible, to defend if challenged.
This office has discussed the issue with the City's Parking Manager; who confirmed that the City
has not been enforcing this provision because of legal concerns over the validity of the section.
Council could direct staff to return with alternative language; but it appears that it would be
extremely difficult to craft language that would survive scrutiny given the constraints established
by recent case law relating to this issue. Assuming sufficient language could be drafted, the onus
of implementation consistent with current legal standards (extensive notice posting requirements,
etc.)may outweigh the potential benefits of maintaining such an ordinance.
Section 10. The recommended change to SLOMC section 12.04.020 eliminates the reference to
activities regulated by SLOMC section 5.76, which was repealed, and replaces it with reference
to SLOMC section 5.80, the currently operative section governing parades and assemblies within
the City.
y-4
Municipal Code Update_ _ Pagel
Section 11. The proposed amendment to section 13.04.300 is at the request of the Utilities
Department for the purpose of clarifying that it constitutesa violation for any person other than
authorized water distribution staff to operate or attempt to open or close any water system valve
and establishes liability for any damages resulting_ from such unauthorized activity. Any request
to file a misdemeanor complaint would be subject to review by the City Attorney's office.
Section 12. A minor revision of section 15.04.020:2, Appendix section 3309.11, is
recommended to reflect the 2003 adoption of the City's "Creek Waterway Management Project"
documents, which supercede the prior "Policies and Standards for Flood Plain Management,"
pursuant to which grading in specified area is to be completed.
Section 13. The amendment to section 15.40.1000 adds a definition of the term "street right of
way" for the purposes of providing greater clarity with regard to the locations in which the
placement of signs is prohibited under Section 15.40.300. The suggested language makes it clear
that the placement of signs is prohibited in all public rights of way and other public areas. The
change stems from input provided by both City Code Enforcement and the Campaign Finance
Committee, who concur in this recommedation.
Section 14. The recommended change to section 17.16.015 is simply a clarification to make
explicit that it is unlawful to live in a vehicle, including an automobile, outside of specified areas
within the City.
CONCURRENCES
As noted above, several of the recommended amendments were prompted by requests or
feedback from the respective departments, including Code Enforcement, Public Works, Parking
and Police, which have reviewed the amendments relevant.to their respective departments and
concurred with the recommended changes. Additionally, staff has worked closely with the Police
Department with regard to the recommended changes discussed in section 3 (noise control
provisions); section 6 (weapons); section 7 (safety enhancement zones) and the Police
Department concurs with the recommended changes.
At the time of this report, the Chief of Police had discussed the. proposed changes to the safety
enhancement zone fine schedule with the Cal Poly ASI President, Tyler Middlestat, who
expressed his understanding that the purpose of the amendment is merely to achieve consistency
between the Safety Enhancement Zone Ordinance and the recently revised.fine-schedule for noise
and public urination violations. The City Administrative Officer also provided Cal Poly officials
with these proposed amendments and an explanation of the rationale behind them. The topic was
scheduled to be discussed at an SCLC meeting prior to presentation of this matter to Council, but
the SCLC meeting has now been rescheduled and will not occur until after the November 1
Council meeting. However, given the response from the ASI President and a Cal Poly Vice
President, this isn't expected to pose a problem..
y-�
7
Municipal Code Update Page 8
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff anticipates that there will be minimal expenses related to future reprinting of the Municipal
Code, but would expect.that any recommended revisions that are adopted would be incorporated
into a regularly scheduled reprinting and, therefore, would not resultIn substantial increased cost.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Council may decline to adopt any or all of the recommended revisions. However, for the
reasons set forth in this report, staff does not recommend this option..
2. Council may direct staff to redraft proposed amendment_ language for any or all of the
recommended revisions to address any Council concerns.
ATTACHMENT
Attachment 1 —Legislative Draft Ordinance
G:\Agenda-Ordinances-Resol\Agenda Report.Muni Code Update.05.10.20.DOC
y�
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. (2005 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ELIMINATE
INCONSISTENCIES, OUT OF DATE REFERENCES AND OTHER MINOR
REVISIONS
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in
the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on ,
2005, for the purpose of considering changes proposed to update the Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. That the following sections of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code ace
hereby amended expressly to add reference to the feminine gender where present references are
to the masculine gender only:
Sections 1.04.080; 1.08.100; 1.16.010.C; 1.16.020; 1.16.030; 1.16.040; 1.16.050; 2.24.040;
2.24.060.A.6.c; 2.24.060.A.6.e;; 2.24.060.B; 2.24.100.A; 2.36.340.C; 2.44.040.C.1; 2.48.070.B;
3.04.020.C; 3.04.060; 3.04.070; 3.03.090; 3.04.100; 3.04.110; 3.04.120.D; 3.12.060.B; 3.16.120;
3.16.160; 3.16.170; 3.16.180; 3.16.200.B; 3.16.200.13; 3.16.210.B; 3.24.030; 3.24.160; 3.36.010;
5.20.050; 5.20.080; 5.20.110; 5.20.190.B; 5.20.200.A; 5.20.200.D; 5.20.200.G; 5.20.210.D;
5.20.210.E.2; 5.20.230; 5.20.230.C; 5.20.250; 5.20.300; 5.20.310; 5.24.050.A; 5.24.050.C;
5.32.100.A; 5.44.0701; 5.44.090.A.2; 5.44.090.A.3; 5.44.100.B; 5.48.030.G; 5.48.040.E;
5.48.070.A; 5.56.110; 5.56.210; 5.56.220; 6.08.020; 6.08.030; 6.08.040; 6.12.040; 6.12.100;
6.12.120; 6.12.120.A; 6.12.120.13; 6.12.140; 6.16.030; 6.16.100.G; 6.16.130; 6.20.020; 6.20.040;
6.20.050.A; 6.20.060.B; 6.24.0103; 8.04.120.D; 8.04.170; 8.04.210.A; 8.04.210.C; 8.04.210.D;
8.04.210.E; 8.04.2101; 8.08.030; 8.08.040; 8.08.050; 8.08.080; 8.12.030; 8.12.040; 8.12.050.A.
8.12.050.B. 8.12.060; 8.12.070.B; 8.12.080; 8.16.060; 8.16.060.D; 8.20.020; 8.24.060.B;
8.24.070; 8.24.110; 8.24.120; 8.24.160; 9.12.100.A.2; 9.12.100.A.6; 9.16.020; 9.20.030.A;
10.08.010; 10.08.020; 10.12.070.B; 10.12.080.C; 10.14.010.C; 10.14.040.B; 10.14.040.C;
10.14.070; 10.16.040.B; 10:24.010; 10.36.010.C; 10.36.090; 10.60.040; 10.68.050; 10.68.060;
10.68.070; 10.68.090.13; 10.68.090.E; 10.80.050.13; 11.04.010.M.5; 12.04.130; 12.04.132.F.9;
12.12.020.E; 12.12.020.F; 12.16.010.A.4; 12.16.030.B.3; 12.16.030.B.6; 12.16.030.B.7;
12.20.020.B; 12.20.040.C; 12.20.040.E.4; 12.20.050.C.2; 12.20.050.C.3; 12.22.050.F.1;
12.24.040.A; 12.24.100.B; 12.40.050.A; 13.04.170.A.2.a; 13.04.170.A.2.d; 13.04.1801;
13.04.190.A; 13.04.190.B; 13.04.260.C; 13.04.300; 12.07.040; 13.08.120.H; 13.08.160;
13.08.180; 13.08.210.A; 13.08.220.B; 13.12.140.A; 13.12.1703; 15.04.020.P, section114.8.1;
15.04.050.G, section A115.2.1; 15.08.020.G, section 902.2.4.3; 15.12.020.N; 15.32.250.A;
16.04.070; 16.08.040; 16.16.150; 16.16:210.D; 16.36.250.F; 16.44.120.D; 17.08.010.C.2.a;
17.21.020.B; 17.62.060.A; 17.62.060.C; 17.74.230.D; 17.76.020.H; 17.76.060; 17.82.020.A;
17.82:080.C; 17.84.030.W; 17.90.020.C; 17.90.040.A; 17.91.020.J; 17.91.060.A; 17.94.200.B;
17.94.200.C; 17.94.200.13; 17.94.210.B;.17.100.040.D; and
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance.No. (2005 Series)
Page 2
that said amendments are to be included in the next scheduled reprinting of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code following the effective date of this Ordinance and that any subsequently
discovered gender inconsistencies shall be deemed clerical errors subject to correction without
the need for further amendment to any Ordinance containing such an error pursuant to San Luis
Obispo Charter, Section 602.
SECTION 2. That section 1.12.050 (Nature of violations) of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Any person who violates or fails to comply with any provision or requirement of this
code, any ordinance adopted by the city, or any code adopted by reference by this code, shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor, unless such provision is specifically designated as constituting an
infraction as provided in Sections 16, 17,.19_Q7. of the Penal Code of the state,
Section 36900 of the Government Code of the state, or Section 40000.1 of the Vehicle Code of
the state, and as expressly specified in Section 1.12.060 of this chapter.
Any provision or requirement of this code designated as an infraction shall be
prosecutable as a misdemeanor upon a third violation and each violation thereafter of the same
provision by the same individual In addition, any such provision or requirement may be
prosecuted originally as a misdemeanor in the discretion of the city attorney upon a showing by
the enforcing agency of the seriousness of the particular alleged violation."
SECTION 3. That subsection B of section 1.12.060 (Designation of infractions) and
section 9.12.110 (Enforcement) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code are hereby amended to
read as follows:
"B. In addition, a violation of any of the following provisions shall constitute an
infraction, and nota misdemeanor-
Chapters
isdemeanorChapters 3.04 and 3.08 —Tax Procedure;
Chapters 10.04 to 10.76 and 10.84—Traffic Regulations;.
Title 6—Animal Regulations;
Chapter 12.24—Tree Regulations;
Chapter 3.01 —Business Tax;
Chapter 3.12—Uniform Sales and Use Tax;
Chapters 12.04 to 12.16—Street Excavations;
Chapter 13.04—Public Utilities and Rates;
;
Chapter 12.20—Park Regulations;
Chapter 12.22—Open Space Regulations."
"9.12.110 Enforcement.
A. Prima Facie Violation. Any noise exceeding the noise level limits for a designated
noise zone as provided in Table 1 of Section 9.12.060 and Table 1 of Section 9.12.070 of this
chapter or the prohibited actions as provided in Section 9.12.050 of this chapter, shall be deemed
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. (2005 Series)
Page 3
to be prima facie evidence of a violation of the provisions of this chapter.
B. Violations- aeaees Misdemeanors. Any person violating any of the
provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of an ififnaetion misdemeanor. Each hour such
violation is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense and shall be
punishable as such.
C. Abatement Orders.
1. In lieu of issuing a notice of violation as provided for in subsection B of this
chapter; the noise control office(r) or police department responsible for enforcement of any
provision of this chapter may issue an order requiring abatement of a sound source alleged to be
in violation, within a reasonable time period and according to guidelines which the noise control
office(r)may prescribe.
2. No compliaint or further action shall be taken in the event that the cause of the
violation has been removed, the condition abated or fully corrected within the time period
specified in the written notice."
SECTION 4. That subsection A of section 5.20.210 (Taxicabs - Driver's permit
required—Application) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"A. No person shall drive or operate any of the vehicles mentioned in Section
5.20.010 without first obtaining a permit in writing to do so from the chief of police, or any
person designated by *__the chief. Permit issued will entitle the driver to work for only those
employers whose name appears on the permit. A new permit will be required for each subsequent
employment; provided, however-, that no application shall be necessary other than a ratification
of change of employment and proof of a negative test as specified in subsection (C)(4)below."
SECTION 5. That subsection A of section 5.20.270 ('Taxicabs - Liability insurance) of
the San Luis Obispo Municipal code is hereby amended to read as follows:
5.20.270 Liability insurance..
A. The motor vehicle liability policy required by this section shall insure the owner
and any other person using or responsible for the use of any such vehicle, with the consent,
express or implied, of the owner against loss from the liability imposed upon such owner by law
for injury to, or death of, any person, or damage to property, growing out of the maintenance,
operation or ownership of any public motor vehicle to the amount or limit of five hundred
thousand dollars, exclusive of interest and costs on account of injury to, or death of any one
person; of one million dollars, exclusive of interest and costs; on account of any one accident
resulting in damage to property_of; an injury to, or death of, more than one persona f em
SECTION 6. That.Chapter 9.16 (Weapons) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
- ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. ____ (2005 Series)
Page 4
9.16.010 Dangerous and deadly weapons—Defined.
9.16.020 Dangerous and deadly weapons—Discharge or carrying prohibited.
9.16.030 Dangerous and deadly weapons—Use-in violation of Section 9.16.020
declared a nuisance—Disposition of weapon.
9.16.010 Dangerous and deadly weapons—Defined.
A. . The term "dangerous and deadly weapon" as used in this chapter includes, but is
not limited to, any revolver, pistol, shotgun,rifle or firearm which may be used for the explosion
of cartridges, and any air gun, `B-B" gun, gas operated gun, spring gun, slingshot, hunting bow
and arrow, blow gun, and any weapon or device capable of catapulting, dispelling or discharging
any projectile, missile or object of any type.
B _ The term "dangerous and deadly weapon' as used in this chapter shall also
include,but-not-be limited to:
I.-Any-knife having a blade of three inches or more in length.
2. Any-ice pick or similar sharp stabbingtool-,
ool-,
3._Any straight edge razor or any-razor blade fitted to a handle;
4.- Any cuttin¢ stabbing or bludgeoning weapon or device capable of inflicting
grievous bodily harm other-than a knife as permitted herein;
5. Any dirk, dagger or bludgeon.
9.16.020 Dangerous and deadly weapons—Discharge or carrying prohibited.
A. it is unlawful for any person to fire, discharge or cause to be emitted any
projectile, missile or object from any dangerous or deadly weapon in the city, unless the person
has first obtained permission in writing from the chief of police, and then only in compliance
with all the conditions contained in the permit. This section does not apply to any peace officer or
member of the Armed Forces of the United States in the discharge of his duty or to the discharge
of a dangerous or deadly weapon at any rifle, pistol, sports or testing range approved by the chief
of police.
B.. Except as expressly permitted by state or federal law, it is unlawful to for any
person to carry upon his person or to have in his possession or under his control in any public
place within the City any dangerous weapon specified in section 9.16.010 B; provided, that it
shall be a defense to any prosection for a violation of this section if, at the time of the alleged
violation the instrument ordevicealleged to be a dangerous weapon was in good faith carried
upon the person of the accused or was in good faith in his possession or control for use in.his
lawful occupation or employment or for the purpose of lawful recreation; and provided further
that the prohibitions of this section shall not apply to the commission of any act which is made a
public offense by any law of this state including but not limited to Penal Code sections 653k ,
12020 and 12025.
9.16.030 Dangerous and deadly weapons—Use in violation of Section 9.16.020 declared a
nuisance—Disposition of weapon.
'e/—/�
ATTACHMENT i
Ordinance No. (2005 Series)
Page 5
Any dangerous or deadly weapon used in violation of Section 9.16.020 is declared to be a
nuisance and the same shall be taken from the person violating said section, and surrendered to
the chief of police, and shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of, as provided by the provisions
of Section 12028 of the Penal Code of the state.
SECTION 7. That section 9.22.020 (Safety enhancement zone penalties and violations)
is hereby amended as follows:
A. Any violation of designated sections of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code that.
is committed within an area that has been designated by the city council as a safety enhancement
zone, and during the time that designation is effective, shall be subject to the following:
1. A fine not exceeding three hundred fifty dollars for a first violation;
2. A fine not exceeding si-x-_seven hundred dollars for a second violation of the same section
within one year;
3. A fine not exceeding one thousand dollars .for each additional violation of the same
section within one year.
SECTION 8. That section 10.04.070 (Holidays) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
is hereby amended as follows:
10.04.070 Holidays.
Within the meaning of this title, "holidays" are the first day of January(New Year's Day),.
the third Monday in January (Martin Luther King, Jr. Dav), the third Mondav-_in_February
(President's Day), the last Monday in May (Memorial Day), the fourth day of July fIndependence
Day), the first Monday of September (Labor Days the eleventh day of November (Veteran's
Day_), the fourth Thursday in November (Thanksgiving Dayl,.the.F_riday after-Thanks Thanksgiving Day;
the twenty-fourth day of December (Christmas Eve), and-the twenty-fifth day-of December
(Christmas Dav). If any of the aforementioned days falls on a-Saturday, the preceding Friday
shall be observed; if on a Sunday, the Monday following is a holiday.
1ekda)0 ad a ebsen.ea on ,,.ys established by—the: state er-_ei - _ '
The city administrative officer is also authorized.to declare a (meter/parking) holiday under
special circumstances or for special events.
SECTION 9. That section 10.36.060 (Parking for demonstration prohibited) of the San
Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety as follows:
lJ
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. (2005 Series)
Page 6
seufls}l ''
SECTION 10. That subsection B of section 12.04.020 (Encroachments restricted) of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"B. For purposes of this chapter, encroachments shall not include activities regulated as
parades or special events pursuant to Chapter 5: 80."
SECTION 11. That section 13.04.300 (Violations deemed misdemeanor), of the San
Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Other than authorized Water Distribution staff, any-person-who operates or attempts to
open or close any water system valve shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,_and shall also be held
liable for any d-amage.that may...result."
SECTION 12.. That subsection Z of section 15.04.020 (Amendments—California
Building Code), Appendix Section 3309.11, of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"All grading shall be in accordance with the " FleedmPlaia
.
Manageme$W' Waterway Management Plan for-San Luis Obispo Creek l?reiegt documents;dated
October 2003, ' ', 4#4 nd-T`n 9, 1983, adopted by Resolution No. 949.4 (2003
Series #&1W&('90 �) and such amen191,
ments thereto as may be adopted by resolution of the
Council from time to time. Current copies of said _ Plan_shall be
maintained on file in the offices of the City Clerk,,City Engineer.and Community Development
Department as public records."
SECTION 13. That section 1$.40.1000 (Definitions) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Storefront" is a distinct architectural feature that is immediately accessible from a public
sidewalk and consisting of window displays and entry doors to one or more uses.
"-Street right of way" asused in this chapter is any road or other publicylace,_including
but not limited to a highway, alley street avenue,.place, sidewalk, parkway (i.e., planted.or
landscaped area between a curb andthe ed® of a sidewalk) .path, walk, park, plaza,.bouievard,
right of way or any other public place in the city whether or not currently improved.
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No... (2005 Series)
P4ge 7
"Temporary sign" is a sign that.is temporary in nature and. that is displayed layed for no more
than forty-five days in a row, or no more than ninety days within any three-hupdred-sixty-five-
day period..
SECTION 14. That section 17.16.015 (Recreational vehicle as dwelling unit) of the San
Luis Obispo Municipal is hereby-amended to read as follows;
"No recreational vehicle, camper shell,-automobile or similar device shall be- used for
living or sleeping quarters except in a lawfully operated mobile home park, travel trailer park, or
campground,except as provided in Section 17.08.010(0)(4) et seq."
SECTION 15. That the City Clerkshall attest to the adoption of this ordinance and shall
publish the same in the time and manner provided by law.
INTRODUCED on the day of 2005
AND FINALLY ADOPTED D by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the------day
of 2005, on the following roll call vote:
AYES'.
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper
City Clekk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
j&ai�f. Lowell, City Attorney
G:Wgenda-0O Muni Code Ordinance-Chgs Ldoc