Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/07/2006, BUS 3 - AMENDMENT OF AGGRESSIVE SOLICITATION PROVISIONS OF MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDITION OF REGULATIONS GOVER !i I councit M`ok`D� v 7 d(e ac En as Repoat 13 as 3 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Deborah Linden, Police Chief Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney A— Prepared By; Christine Dietrick, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: AMENDMENT OF AGGRESSIVE SOLICITATION PROVISIONS OF MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDITION OF REGULATIONS GOVERNING PUBLIC BENCHES. CAO RECOMMENDATION Introduce an ordinance to: 1) Amend the existing aggressive solicitation provisions of Chapter 9.06 of the Municipal Code to restrict solicitation within specified distances of retail, commercial and financial establishments and vehicular and pedestrian pathways; and 2) Add Chapter 9.40, establishing a two hour time limitation upon the continuous occupation of public benches and a three hour limitation on occupation in any one day by one individual or group of individuals. REPORT IN BRIEF For some time now, City staff members have been receiving ongoing complaints from residents, visitors and members of the business community regarding the increased frequency and severity of unwelcome, intimidating and aggressive interactions with individuals soliciting money from members of the public and creating a negative atmosphere for residents of and visitors to the City. There have been several letters to the Tribune editor and complaints to the City, the Downtown Association and the Chamber of Commerce from individuals recounting negative experiences with panhandlers and commenting that the experiences will deter them from returning to the City to shop or visit (see Attachment 1). In addition, downtown police officers have reported obvious increases over the last year in the number of solicitors in the downtown area, consisting largely of transient youth, whose behaviors have become increasingly aggressive and disruptive, both in their interactions with each other and with City residents and visitors. This increase in aggressive and anti-social behavior is being addressed in a variety of ways by the City's transient task force, essentially an internal City staff working group consisting of representatives from City Administration, the Police Department, Parks and Recreation, Public Works, the City Attorney's office, the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Association. The task force has met monthly since January 2004 to discuss strategies for connecting the transient population with community services, addressing the public, anti-social behavior being demonstrated by certain individuals and groups in connection with soliciting activities and protecting the atmosphere of safety and civility that has characterized the City historically. In addition to the work of the transient task force, the Police Department has increased the enforcement of aggressive solicitation violations and other related offenses in the downtown Amendment of Aggressive Solicitation Provisions of Municipal Code and Addition of Regulations Governing Public Benches Page 2 area. Officers have also actively partnered with mental health professionals to connect individuals with available services, such as the Prado Day Center and the Homeless Shelter. Unfortunately, these efforts have not substantially improved the situation. The Municipal Code changes recommended here resulted from the work of the transient task force and are intended to begin addressing this growing problem in the City in order to ensure the continued vitality of local commercial, retail and tourist activity and to ensure a safe public environment for tourists and residents. The suggested language seeks to establish clear parameters of conduct intended to encourage civility in public interactions and balance the rights of all persons seeking to make use of the City's public areas, while providing law enforcement with a greater array of tools to deter and address misconduct. DISCUSSION Leeal Constraints to Regulation City regulation of certain public property implicates First Amendment and California Liberty of Speech Clause considerations. In particular, it has been established by the courts that solicitation is protected speech under both the California Constitution and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Under either analysis, the extent to which a City can regulate conduct on its property depends upon the nature of the forum. Public sidewalks and public parks, for example, are considered "traditional public fora," which are widely open to all members of the public for the free exchange of ideas. Thus, a City cannot regulate the content of speech in such fora unless it can demonstrate that the regulation is both necessary and narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. Thus, content based regulation of expressive activity in traditional public fora is suspect and should be avoided. However, a government is not without authority to regulate the use of its property. A government may regulate the time, place and manner in which its property may be used so long as the regulations are designed to serve a "substantial governmental interest" and do not unreasonably limit "alternative avenues of communication." Of particular relevance to the discussion here is the 2000 holding of the California Supreme Court that solicitation provisions,. similar to those at issue here, are to be considered"content neutral" regulations for purposes of analysis under the California Liberty of Speech Clause, which is generally considered more protective than the First Amendment. The solicitation regulations proposed here are crafted to protect and further the substantial government interests of economic vitality and public safety, while leaving open City wide fora for expressive activity. Likewise, the proposed public bench regulations establish time parameters on use without regard to the content of any speech or expressive conduct in which an individual may be engaging during such period of use. The provisions are tailored to serve the public interest in equity of use of public property, while maintaining the availability of all benches throughout the City for use by all members of the public for the full spectrum of legal activities, whether expressive or otherwise. Thus, because the regulations proposed here are not content based and are crafted to address growing problems with public conduct without unduly limiting alternative avenues of communication, the City � -z Amendment of Aggressive Solicitation Provisions of Municipal Code and Addition of Regulations Governing Public Benches Page 3 Attorney believes the provisions to be legally permissible under both state and federal free speech analyses. Recommended Municipal Code Modifications Aggressive Solicitation Regulations In 1993 the City enacted Chapter 9.06 of the Municipal Code, "Prohibition on Aggressive Solicitation" to prevent solicitation, in any location within the City, in a physically threatening or coercive manner. While those measures can be helpful in deterring the most clearly threatening forms of solicitation, there is an array of behavior that, while not overtly or physically threatening, is perceived by most reasonable people as coercive and intimidating. For example much of this type of solicitation in the City is concentrated in areas where pedestrians and patrons of City businesses are known or perceived by the solicitors to have cash available, such as near ATM machines, outside banks and outside retail establishments. Moreover, some solicitors place themselves in the direct path of pedestrian travel down the sidewalks in a manner such that the average pedestrian cannot reasonably avoid interaction and so as to disrupt the free flow of pedestrian traffic. Solicitation in this manner has been reported to result in a heightened sense of pressure or vulnerability, which makes many people feel obligated to make donations in order to avoid confrontation. The vast majority of this conduct does not occur in the direct presence or observation of a police officer and, therefore, requires an aggrieved citizen to fill out a complaint form before police can take enforcement action under the City's current law. Additionally, from a prosecution perspective,.it is difficult under a subjective standard to prove whether, and at what point, conduct crosses the line from permissible requests for assistance to aggressive solicitation, given differing perceptions of conduct by different individuals. Staff, most frequently the police officers attempting to enforce the law, have received input from visitors, residents and business people alike that, even when conduct does reach a threatening or physically obstructive level, the victims of such conduct are reluctant to pursue enforcement action against the offending parties for fear of more direct confrontation and/or retaliation. Thus, the goal in crafting the proposed revisions to the Municipal Code was to establish clear parameters of acceptable public conduct and to provide the police with more concrete boundaries of conduct and more objectively enforceable tools with which to address impermissible conduct. The proposed amendments are modeled upon provisions that have been successfully implemented in other jurisdictions, including Arroyo Grande, Berkeley, Santa Cruz, and Santa Barbara. The regulations utilized in those cities seek to strike a balance between the rights of members of the public to engage in expressive activity in public areas and the rights of other members of the public to utilize those same public areas free from unwelcome intrusions into their activities or coercive interactions with other individuals. Measures taken by other cities attempting to address this problem range from complete prohibitions on solicitation in entire geographic areas within a city (a measure implemented in Chicago), to prohibitions on solicitation between dusk and dawn, to prohibitions against soliciting from public benches or :_7:while sitting on or leaning against other public structures and prohibitions within specified r� 1 Amendment of Aggressive Solicitation Provisions of Municipal Code and Addition of Regulations Governing Public Benches Page 4 distances of certain structures or areas. Examples of ordinances from other California cities, mentioned above, have been included for reference as Attachment 4. The proposed provisions before Council have been tailored to account for the unique configuration of our downtown business area and the particular needs of the community, as explained below. Because of the geographic layout of San Luis Obispo and the relatively moderate level of activity in comparison to larger, highly urbanized cities that have taken the most drastic measures, staff is not recommending outright prohibitions of solicitation in any particular geographic areas within the City. Instead, staff recommends implementing limitations on the locations throughout the City where such activity is permissible relative to specified establishments where there is an increased perception of vulnerability to coercion associated with solicitation and in relation to locations where activity is likely to impede the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Again, such limitations are geared toward balancing interests in competing public uses of property and public activities and protecting the public health, safety and welfare, while not impinging on expressive rights. Public Bench Regulations Staff and downtown business people repeatedly report that certain individuals have, in effect, laid claim to certain benches throughout the City in order to solicit money donations from passers by. This conduct frequently involves not only the continuous physical occupation of the bench by one individual or group of individuals for many hours, but also the obstruction of access to benches to other members of the public by an individual who arranges his or her personal property on and around the bench area. There are apparently some bench locations that are more desirable than others due to their proximity to high traffic retail businesses that generate greater donations. As a result, downtown police officers have reported that competition has developed between regular solicitors claiming rights to particular public bench locations, which has escalated to the point of verbal confrontation between the competing parties and, on occasion, has required police intervention to prevent physical aggression. The more routine consequence of the activity is that the public benches are rendered unavailable for their intended use by business patrons, tourists and other members of the public by virtue of their monopolization by individuals or groups of solicitors. Similarly, benches in public parks and other public areas are frequently occupied by a single individual as a sleeping facility or storage area for his or her personal property for extended portions of the day, making rotating use by other members of the public impossible. As previously noted, some jurisdictions have prohibited entirely the solicitation of donations from public benches and certain other public property. However, the concerns sought to be addressed by the recommended amendments here are not related to particular use of a public bench, but rather the continuous use and/or appropriation of public benches by certain individuals or groups. Thus, staff is not recommending regulation of the type of use that may be made of benches, but rather regulation of the continuous and cumulative time periods during which a single individual or group may use the public benches for any purpose. Specifically, staff is presently recommending a limitation of two hours of continuous occupation and three hours of cumulative occupation within a twenty four hour period. �- y Amendment of Aggressive Solicitation Provisions of Municipal Code and Addition of Regulations Governing Public Benches Page 5 Public Input on Draft Revisions Prior to bringing the proposed ordinances to Council, members of the transient task force requested feedback from the Chamber of Commerce Board and the Downtown Association Board (minutes of both Board meetings are included as Attachment 3). Task force members also made a presentation at a publicly noticed meeting of the Human Relations Commission (HRC), during which staff sought feedback on potential areas of concern and suggestions for improvement of the provisions from the HRC and members of the public attending the meeting (minutes of the December 7, 2005 meeting are included as Attachment 2). While the feedback was generally very positive, a couple of common areas of discussion and disagreement emerged. Staff would like to highlight the two main areas of concern raised and request that Council give special consideration to those aspects of the current draft language. The original draft language presented to the Chamber and Downtown Association Board, as well as the HRC, proposed a one hour time limitation on bench occupation and an eight to ten foot distance restriction on solicitation near commercial and retail establishments. Those provisions were supported by both the Downtown Association Board and the Chamber Board, both of which favored the most restrictive provisions permissible. However, feedback from the Human Relations Commission reflected concern that the bench time limitations were unduly restrictive and should be extended and that the distance limitations could be perceived as effectively prohibiting soliciting activity on many, if not most, streets in San Luis Obispo. The latter concern raised by the HRC regarding distance limitations was borne out by information from the Public Works Department that the downtown (which is covered on grid sheet I-11, available for review at Public Works) generally consists of sidewalks of eight to twelve feet in width. The north and south streets, Morro, Osos, etc. are mostly eight feet in width. Higuera and Marsh are generally ten feet with some areas of twelve feet. Monterey in the downtown core has ten feet and twelve feet widths depending on the block and side of the street. In light of this feedback and information, staff recommends adoption of the more conservative six foot distance restriction in order to allow a permissible area for expressive activity on all City streets, while enforcing a comfortable distance between solicitors and business patrons and facilitating the orderly flow of pedestrian traffic. Regarding the bench regulations, while staff does not believe that there is a legal barrier to implementation of the more stringent one hour time limitation, staff has incorporated the more conservative two hour alternative suggested by the HRC. If Council wishes to adopt the more stringent one hour limit as originally envisioned, it may direct staff to make this modification to the proposed ordinance. CONCURRENCES The Public Works Director, Park Rangers, Downtown Association, Chamber of Commerce and Human Relations Commission concur with the recommended action. Amendment of Aggressive Solicitation Provisions of Municipal Code and Addition of Regulations Governing Public Benches Page 6 FISCAL IMPACT The HRC has recommended a public information campaign directed at raising awareness of the Municipal Code changes among City residents, the transient population and local business owners prior to initiating citations for violations of the amended/added provisions. If Council adopts the recommended ordinance, these education activities would be conducted during the 30- day period of time before the ordinance takes effect. There will likely be some minimal costs associated with producing written educational materials and some staff time expended in community education. The costs are not expected to be significant. The Police Department has indicated that there are funds available in its budget to support the initial public education efforts and staff will continue to work with the Downtown Association and the Chamber to explore options for private funding of any more costly information or community action campaigns that may be contemplated. ALTERNATIVES 1. Give staff direction to revise the proposed ordinance to address areas of concern, including alterations of distance and or time restrictions, and to return to Council with revised language. 2. Maintain current aggressive solicitation provisions as is and do not add public bench regulations. ATTACHMENTS 1. Examples of the types of complaints received by City staff and local business owners and organizations. 2. Human Relations Commission Minutes 3. Board Meeting Minutes of the Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Association 4. Similar Ordinances enacted by other jurisdictions 5. Public information brochure and citizen complaint form currently utilized by the Police Department in addressing aggressive solicitation activity. 6. Ordinance G:\Agenda-Ordinances-Resol�Agenda Report.Transient Task Force Ordinance Amendments.06.3.7.Revised.DOC r t ATTACHMENT I , J Q U O T E &Fi T Fi E jOA.Y `Some of gus.Shau4a{dye,moxe h air Little Red Riding),; ood Y, i'a investigate dust who.'s;preten ng lo bye Gran'aTIlar' Steve':Forst;;Nfponro THE TRIBUNE TUE S D A Y , J.A N U A R Y 3 i. 2"O'-,66 SANLM OMSP ccM Panhandlers over';the top' Sunday was my lasttnp to N do*htoWn'San`L9ns QbFspo I am appalled by ghanges " in the downtow, -eat I afn the' mother of a 4month`q,18 baby,'� and as I wanted past agroup of .young paiandlers while-shbp ping, I was fernfied as thea it, bull (grey and white)growled and lunged,upward'toward my ?' son.I was,J shaking and ver.'y," ' 1 upset by the,mciden't t1s Ihurriedfpast them,the youngpanh_andle s, ug'fi'e'd an or _�I:corihnued w'�alkufg•down � . Higuera Street and,"was asked for money"two mor-e'-` mg;a span of;three blocks The amty of SLO needs to address' the;problem of,aggressL�e haiidlers`Fn ttie downfgwn I wFll no longer,be shopping at my favorite store4 until Ij ers to take•a:stand.as well Susan.Small �� StisLui's;Otiispo ' TTACHMENT 1 0P N B4 THE TRIBUNE WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY1 , z o 'b 6 SANLLIISOBISPO.COM . LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Dodging SLO's dangers had a similar experience to Susan Small's in downtown San Luis Obispo this past Sun- day afternoon (Letters,Jan. 31).I managed to make my way through the panhandlers :and profane ranters,and even gave the pit bull a wide berth. Then I was nearly run over by. a skateboarding dude loudly. proclaiming"Amphetamines fuel my day!" There's nothing sold in down- town SLO that can't be had else- where.Downtown and its shop- ping may'indeed be in danger. But the immediate yoplem isn i — Costco and the Marketplace. John Miller Sar:Luis..Obispo 4�11 QUOTE of THE DAY `The Maxine Lewis Memorial Shelter and Prado Day Center provide services to the homeless and gratefull, --sept both financial and volunteers -,)ort.' — Evan Campbell, San Luis Obispo ATTACHMENT i OPIIN 64 THE TRIBUNE THURSDAY , . FEBRU A R Y 2 , 2 0 o 6 SANWiSOBISPO.00 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 'S,, Shelters accept support Havmg printed two letters in two days regarding home- less folks in the downtown area,please inquire with the Economic Opportunity Com- mission about whether there .has been a recent influx. I,too,had a recent scary en- counter,but rather than ask you to print my complaint,I would rather have an EOC rep- resentative remind&g commu- nity that the Maxine Lewis Memorial Shelter and Prado Day Center provide services to the homeless and gratefully ac- cept both financial and volun- teer support. If we want the homeless off the street,we have to give them somewhere to go. i':rel i.dlIl�JDeQ`- t �.��,.r�^"' San Luis Obispo .J L ATTACHMFNT URGENT City Council Agenda 2/7/06 City of San Luis Obispo Re: Public Comment Dear Council members, Ad I spoke in front of this council October 2004 in regards to the vandals,criminals, and the harassment by panhandlers [or whoever they might be], while shopping downtown in SLO. I asked at that time that the council of San Luis Obispo,protect our rights as the citizens to shop peacefully and without harassment while shopping downtown. However, since that time, it has only gotten worse. Just to give some examples, since my coming before the city council over two years ago, there have been thousands of complaints by merchants and citizens, there have been two murders, and one of them is still unsolved. I have solutions from both merchants and citizens that could rectify these problems immediately, unfortunately things have been getting worse. You will see from the groupings of articles and letters, and list of merchant's names that I am submitting today, that I am talking on behalf of 100 merchants downtown, many of which are here today; along with the citizens of San Luis Obispo and other cities. In my reference package, you will see that in the last five days it's ,gotten into a dangerous situation when visiting downtown SLO. One of the transients has been a four time convicted rapist, and psychopathetic deviant that now,roams the streets of SLO. Andrew Michael and Charles Clark were both arrested with a deadly weapon and charged with the beating of David Siebert with a skateboard and a chain on Higurea street. The assault occurred at 1:30 pm on Jan 26. Plus the incident of Susan SmallA who was shopping downtown Whil her 4 U 1101 Y�ui-16 lunged upwards towards her son.The young panhandlers laughed and even asked her for money as she passed by. To us, this.is not funny; it has come to the point where it's threatening the lives of our children, and us citizens. These issues are costing the people numerous amounts of money, C3 ATTACHMENT 1 and taking away revenues from our merchants.This letter appeared in the Tribune paper to the editor on January 31. What has to happen next, for the city of SLO,for it to take some drastic measures for its citizens and their children, for them to feel safe from the vagrants;the homeless,panhandlers, criminals, rapists, murderers and any other one person who threatens the safety and rights of the people visiting the streets and downtown of SLO. It's my pledge as a concerned citizen to help make this city the safest city of the United States of America.If I have to spend the rest of my life,coming to this city council writing to every Council member, State Senator;and the Governor of California,it is my pledge that this will happen; and that is what I will hold the City of San Luis Obispo to and also see to it that police have the power to protect us AWabiding people and tax payers. I hope the city will put in An Emergency Measures and Ordinance, so that when I come back to this council next meeting something will have been done.It is not my mission or intention to sue the City of San Luis Obispo and ACLU to protect my rights,but if I have to I will file a class action suit against the city and the ACLU to protect all the citizens and community members of this city. Thank you very much, —7 Dane / Dane Senser [805] 235-3726 (U Articles enclosed cc: Lt. Chris Staley-City of San Luis Obispo Police Department Deborah Cash-CMSM Governor Schwarzenegger Andrew Masuda- KSBY New Times Tribune ATTACHMENT 1 n ,y TA kAC Ted Frankel Looking roWard iA a Future - Store: (805)841.9338 TOMS'�+ yam. OtficeB 818)1 0108 . To".7 Fax:(818)368-31178 www.tOmstoysoniine.com S.L.O. Santa Barbara Montrose Beverly Hills ATTACHMENT HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES December 7, 2005 5:00 P.M. City Hall Council Hearing,Room 990 Palm Street CALL TO ORDER: PRESENT: Chairperson Janna Nichols, Vice Chairperson Stephan Lamb, Commissioners Maureen Forsberg (arrived at 5:12 p.m.), Bryan Gingg, Tom Sant (arrived at 5:12 p.m.), and Paul Wolff ABSENT: Commissioner Elise Wheeler STAFF PRESENT. John Callahan, Fire Chief; Rick Crocker; Police Sergeant; Doug Davidson, Housing Programs Manager; Christine Dietrick, Assistant City Attorney; Monica Irons, Director of Human Resources; Betsy Kiser, Principal Administrative Analyst; Deborah Linden, Police Chief; and Mary Kopecky, Human Resources Executive Assistant CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: This item taken after Item 4. ACTION: Moved by Lamb/Wolff to approve the minutes of November 30, 2005 as submitted; motion carried 50 (Gingg left prior to the vote on this item, Wheeler absent). PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments for items not on the agenda. BUSINESS ITEMS Item 1. QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE HOMELESS SHELTER. ATTACHMENT A Human Relations Commission Minutes December 7, 2005 Page 4 Adobe. If the drainage work were to be donated and therefore the funds not needed, the funds would be released back into the CDBG Fund; motion carried 7:0. 2006 CDBG HRC RECOMMENDATION Amount Recommended No. Applicant Activity Amount Requested 2006 Other Total CDBG Sources Public Services 1 EOC Homeless Shelter-Operation 138,000 100,200 37,8001 138,000 2 EOC Prado Dav Center-Operation 50,000 50,0001 50,000 3 Harvest Bag Food Distribution 4,000 4 Cuesta College Small Business Dev.Center 10,000 5 Big Brothers,Big Sisters Mentoring At-Risk Children 1 8,000 SUBTOTAL, Public Services- 15% 210,000 1 100,200 87,800 188,000 Public Facilities 6 City of SLO ADA Corrections City facilities 122,600 122,600 122,600 7 City of SLO HC Street Improvements 150,000 151,400 151,400 8 City of SLO Historic Adobe Rehabilitation 50,000 110,200 110,200 Prado Day Center- 9 EOC Improvements 35,000 50,000 50,000 SUBTOTAL, Public Facilities- 65% 357,600 434,200 434,200 Program Admin/Capacity 10 Citv of SLO Program Administration 125,000 125,000 125,000 11 Hotline of SLO County Counseling-Phone Call Center 2,000 8,600 8,600 SUBTOTAL,Program Admin/Capacity -20% 127,000 133,600 133,600 TOTAL 694,600 668,000 87,800 755,800 Estimated Funding for CDBG Program Year 2006:$668,000 1 Funded through the City General Fund BUSINESS ITEMS CONTINUED Item 3. UPDATE FROM THE TRANSIENT TASK FORCE. (KISER - 15 MINUTES) Principal Analyst Kiser gave a historical overview of the Transient Task Force and reviewed their current challenges. C:\DOCUME-I\slouser\LOCALS-I\Tcmp\DECEMB-I.DOC 3 �� O - ATTACHMEW Human Relations Commission Minutes December 7; 2005 Page 5 Assistant City Attorney Dietrick discussed proposed ordinance revisions which would place limitations on solicitation in front of retail and commercial establishments, would require solicitors to keep a certain distance when soliciting, would prohibit soliciting in medians, and would place time limitations on public benches in the downtown area. Police Officer Bianchi who works closely with County Mental Health and the mentally ill, reported the Police Department was sensitive to downtown issues. She asked the HRC to support the ordinance because police officers needed more strength in the current ordinance in order to effectively deal with challenges. Downtown Association Administrator Cash spoke in support of the ordinance revisions and reviewed the downtown business owners' perspectives. Lindsey Miller, Chamber of Commerce Director of Tourism, reported the Chamber received numerous complaints from tourists regarding aggressive panhandling in the downtown. Since tourism was the number one industry she asked the HRC to support revisions to the ordinance. Chairperson Nichols opened the discussion to the public. Elizabeth Geisen, downtown retailer, expressed frustration and asked the HRC to support the revisions to the ordinance. Lillian Judd, EOC, spoke in support of the Taskforce's work and the need for responsible civil behavior. Seeing no further speakers, Chairperson Nichols brought the discussion back to the HRC for comment. Vice Chairperson Lamb applauded the efforts of the Taskforce but expressed concern about the ordinance revisions because he felt it offered no clear path on this issue. He inquired where panhandling would be allowed if the revisions went into place. He believed the revisions could increase the workload on the court system. He asked if there would be a grace period to allow for educating the homeless population regarding the revisions. He questioned the rationale for having the ordinance pertain to all benches. He strongly felt there was a gap in the service delivery systems in the County.. Police Chief Linden responded the goal of the revisions was to educate people not to cite them. She was confident when the revised ordinance was adopted, a notification campaign would be launched. She stated Officers were knowledgeable on the local services available and frequently assisted those in need to use the services. She CADOCUME—I\SIouser\LOCALS-1\Temp\DECEM B-1.DOC ATTACHMENT Aw. Human Relations Commission Minutes December 7, 2005. Page 6 stated the ordinance would be applied evenly. She also noted many panhandlers were not homeless. Commissioner Wolff applauded the efforts of the Taskforce. He agreed the revisions were needed but had concerns regarding restrictions on bench time. He was also concerned there were no areas left in the City to legally panhandle. He was supportive of an educational grace period at the shelter and day center to instruct people as to what they could and could not do. He suggested reviewing the ordinance revisions again in the future to determine the effectiveness. Commissioner Sant felt this was a reasonable solution setting boundaries on what people could do in the downtown and was also in favor of reevaluating the effectiveness in the future. Commissioner Forsberg appreciated the work done by the Taskforce. Commissioner Gingg was supportive of the Taskforce because all the stakeholders were working on a solution. Commissioner Gingg left at 7:05 p.m. Chairperson Nichols spoke in support of educating the community regarding revisions to the ordinance. Since the City was dealing with multiple populations, abhorrent behavior, and the notion of civility in our community she suggested launching a respect campaign as part of an outreach program. Item 4. CONSIDERATION OF CODE PINK RESOLUTION CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 30 2 5 . (NICHOLS —25 MIN ES) Chair erson 'chola asked Fire Chief Calla n and Police Chief Lind to comment on the emergen services in the City of San L.' Obispo and the possibl i of calling in the National Gua in the event of a disaster: Fire Chief Callahan rep ed he only interacted with th National Guard on on occasion and that was duct the Los Angeles riots trigge by the Rodney King incident. He explained all Ca rnia cities participate in a m ter mutual aid care system that responds quickly thr ghout the state. In the past, e City of San Luis Obispo has effectively been protec from large fires by using thi system. San Luis Obispo has also successfully provide utual aid to other cities. He ated the County Emergency Preparedness Commission h never needed to call in the ' itary or National Guard. He acknowledged our equi ent and communications we CADOCUME—I WouscALOCALS—I\Temp\DECEM B—LDDC ATTACHMENT 3 SLO Downtown Association Board of Directors 10 January 2006 City Council Hearing Room Minutes Present Kathi Main Tom Copeland Alex Gough Brad Bilsten TomSwem Patty Carpenter Anna Wong Non voting Deborah Cash, staff Kristin Dennis, staff Christine Mulholland Betsy Kiser Patricia Wilmore Captain Dan Blanke Kim Walker Call to order 7:32 AM. Public Comment Christine Mulholland introduced herself as this year's council liaison. Motion to approve minutes by Gough, 2nd by Bilsten, PAIR Board Retreat Tentative Date: Friday, March 31 Mardi Gras Captain Dan Blanke Kim Walker, public information officer, Parks and Recreation Blanke outlined this year's police response plan to potential Mardi Gras celebration; will not have as many CHP, checkpoints will be established,feedback from last year taken into consideration; incident command center again at Ludwick Center; goal is to inconvenience members of community as little as possible. Feb 24, 25 and Feb 28: full operation will be up and running these nights, lesser on Feb 28 Walker reported that city is working with Barnett Cox to work on public information/messaging; a lot of awareness to community, geared toward students "The Party Is Still Over,"putting a little S —1 MI 1AUHMN 9 3 "thank you" in there to soften message; posters,fines, increased officers, door hangers for students—officers talk to students to get buy-in Leslie Griffy should be doing story on Tour of California being close to Mardi Gras time; may focus positive energy on entire weekend. Additional public comment Packets distributed by Neil Temple to board. Tour of California Dennis reviewed the schedule of events, route, coincides with Farmers Market, sponsors still needed. Transient Task Force Kiser reported ordinance language change goes to Council first of February. Bilsten remarked the area behind Rudolph's is now a congregating spot. Motion by Swem: bench sitting should be limited to one-hour, area for panhandling no closer than what law will permit(more restrictive),2"d by Copeland; PAIF. Mulholland spoke to Bilsten's concern: wonders if when Children's Museum re-opens, will still be a problem; Kiser said task force is aware, police are working to keep an eye on situation Prado Day Center Business community has supported Day Center for specific purposes, if diluted (combining all homeless services), could lose momentum .If do combine, bifurcate funds Copeland: combining Prado and other programs could seriously hurt fundraising from business community. Quarterly Breakfast Discuss changing quarter dates (to July, October,January, April) at Board retreat. President's Report Main: visited other community recently, people remarked about how great SLO Downtown is; we need to remember our uniqueness. Administrator's Report Cash reviewed budget; is hiring interns for Strategic Plan, consultants will be in SLO first week of February for meetings. Promotions Dennis reported Concerts in Plaza and Fiesta de SLO planning are underway; showed example of possible CD product. Parking Swem said no feedback from letter to City yet; Kiser will follow up. Betsy Kiser-City of San Luis Obispo,Tr9nsient Ordinance Proposal ATTACHMENT 3 From: patricia_wilmore@yahoo.com Pi.E►45E ruc-TE To <BKiser@slocity.org> C�i�lu-r ES (�u nuY��ca46LE, Date: 2/27/06 12:04PM Subject: City of San Luis Obispo,Transient Ordinance Proposal Betsy Kiser Chief Administrative Analyst City of San Luis Obispo Dear Betsy, The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors met on February 16 and considered at that time the proposed transient ordinances. It is our recommendation that in order to be effective,the ordinances must be as restrictive as possible. For this reason, we support the shortest distance allowable for prohibition of solicitation from specified locations.We also believe that it essential to have a one (1) hour limit for use of the public benches. The disruption to shoppers and tourists that has occurred in our downtown as a result of agressive panhandling must be curtailed. In order for this to happen, we need ordinances that have adequate restrictions to realistically address the problem. A formal letter to the City Council will follow:Thank you for considering our input in this matter. Best Regards, Patricia Wilmore Vice President Governmental Affairs San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce patricia_wilmore@yahoo.com (805) 786-2761 Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments. CC: <KHAMPIAN@slocity.org> —� / Pa 1of3 Document ATTACHMENT q The Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 9.10 AGGRESSIVE SOLICITATION Sections:• 9.10.010 Definitions. 9.10.020 Time of solicitation. 9.10.030 Place of solicitation. 9.10.040 Manner of solicitation. 9.10.050 False or misleading solicitation. 9.10.060 Misdemeanor. 9.10.010 DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this chapter: (a) ".Solicitation" means any verbal request,or any non-verbal request made with a sign,by a person seeking an immediate donation of money,food,cigarettes or items of value.Purchase of an item for an amount far exceeding its value, under circumstances where a reasonable person would understand that the purchase is in substance a donation, is a donation for the purpose of this chapter. A person is not soliciting for purposes of this chapter when he or she passively displays a sign or places a collection container on the sidewalk pursuant to which he or she receives monetary offerings in appreciation for entertainment or a street performance he or she provides.This chapter does not apply to peddling and soliciting activity governed by Chapter 5.40 of this code. (b) 'Person' means and includes both individual persons and organizations. (Ord.2002-51 § 1,2002: Ord. 2002-39 § 1,2002: Ord.2002-32 § 1,2002: Ord. 94-10 § 1 (part), 1994). 9.10.020 TIME OF SOLICITATION. Any person who solicits after sunset or before sunrise is guilty of an infraction. (Ord.94-10 § I (part), 1994). 9.10.030 PLACE OF SOLICITATION. Any person who solicits in any of the following places,or any person who solicits when the person solicited is in any of the following places,is guilty of an infraction: (a) At any bus stop; (b) In any public transportation vehicle or facility; (c) In any vehicle on the street; (d) On private property,unless the solicitor has permission from the owner or tenant; (e) Within fourteen feet of any entranceway into or exit from any building open to the public other than those referenced in subsection(f)of this section.Where any such entranceway or exit is recessed from the public-sidewalk,the fourteen feet shall be measured from the point at which the building abuts the sidewalk; f) Within fifty feet of any bank,savings and loan,or other financial institution buildings, including their outdoor automatic teller machines; (g) In the parking lot of any bank,savings and loan,or other financial institution; http://nt2.scbbs.com/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?c lientID-953450&hi tsperheading=on&infobase... 2/22/2006 Document n ATTAC 3# (h) Within fifty feet of all cash disbursal machines,outdoor vending machines,outdoor money changing machines, or any other outdoor machine or device which disburses or accepts coins or paper currency,except parking meters and newspaper vending machines; (i) Within fourteen feet of the face of any building not otherwise specifically referenced in this section or within fourteen feet of any fence or other structure separating private property from the public right-of-way,other than cyclone fences between vacant lots and the public right of way, 0) While seated on or leaning against any public bench,planter,monument or other public property; (k) While seated on or leaning against privately owned property without the property owner's or tenant's permission; (1) Within fourteen feet of any crosswalk. (Ord. 2002-39 §2,2002: Ord. 2002-32§2,2002: Ord.949410 § I (part), 1994). 9.10.040 MANNER OF SOLICITATION. Any person who solicits in any of the following manners is guilty of an infraction:. (a) By coming within three feet of the person solicited,until that person has indicated that he or she wishes to make a donation; (b) By blocking the path of the person solicited,or other pedestrians,along a sidewalk or street; (c) By following a person who walks away from the solicitor; (d) By using profane or abusive language,either during the solicitation or following a refusal; (e) By soliciting in a group of two or more persons;or (f) While under the influence of alcohol or any illegal narcotic or controlled substance. (Ord.94-10 § 1 (part), 1994). 9.10.050 FALSE OR MISLEADING SOLICITATION. (a) Any person who knowingly makes any false or misleading representation in the course of soliciting a donation is guilty of an infraction.False or misleading representations include,but are not limited to,the following: (1) Stating that the donation is needed to meet a specific need,when the solicitor already has sufficient funds to meet that need and does not disclose that fact; (2) Stating that the donation is needed to meet a need which does not exist; (3) Stating that the solicitor is from out of town and stranded,when that isnot true; (4) Stating that the solicitor is homeless,when he or she is not; (5) Stating that the solicitor is soliciting on behalf of an organization which does not exist or which has not authorized the solicitor to seek donations on its behalf. (b) Any person who knowingly solicits a donation stating that the funds are needed for a specific purpose and then spends the funds received fora different purpose is guilty of an infraction. (Ord. 94-10§ I (part), 1994). 9.10.060 MISDEMEANOR. Any person who violates one or more of the sections of this chapter twice within a six-month period is guilty of a misdemeanor. http://nt2.scbbs.com/cgi-bin/om_i sapi.dll?c lientlD=953450&hitsperheadi n g=on&infobase... 2/22/2006 Chapter 13.37 LEVHTATION OF THE TIME, PLACE AND MANNER,OF SOLICIT... Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT I Title 13 PUBLIC PEACE, MORALS AND WELFARE" Chapter 13.37 LIMITATION OF THE TIME, PLACE AND MANNER OF SOLICITATION FOR THE IMMEDIATE PAYMENT OF MONEY OR GOODS IN PUBLIC PLACES Section 13.37.010 Definitions. Section 13.37.020 Prohibited acts. Section 13.37.030 Violation--Penalty. http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/bmc/berkeley—municipal_code/title_13/37/index.htm] 2/22/2006 Section 13.37.010 Definitions. - Page 1 of 1 Chapter 13.37 LIMITATION OF THE TIME PLACE AND MANNER OF SOLICITA ATTACHMENT FOR THE IMMEDIATE PAYMENT OF MONEY OR GOODS IN PUBLIC PLACES Section 13.37.010 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter the following terms shall be defined as set forth in this section. A. "Coerces, threatens, hounds or intimidates the person solicited" means soliciting another in any of the following manners: 1. The solicitor acts in a manner which would cause a reasonable person who was solicited to fear for his or her own safety. Factors to be weighed in determining whether the behavior would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her own safety include but are not limited to, the making of threatening gestures, the proximity of the solicitor to the person solicited, the duration of the solicitation, making physical contact with the person solicited. 2. The person who solicits persists in following the person solicited closely, after the person being solicited has informed the solicitor by words or conduct that such person does not want to be solicited. B. "Public place" means a publicly owned building and premises appurtenant thereto, any public park, sidewalk, or other right of way open to the general public and includes alleys, bridges, buildings, driveways, parking lots, parks, plazas, and streets. This chapter does not regulate solicitation on private property. C. "Solicit' means to ask for the immediate payment of money or goods, whether or not in exchange for goods, services or other consideration, by words, bodily gestures, signs or other means. D. "Solicitor" means one who solicits as defined herein. (Ord. 6371-NS § 1 (part), 1997: Ord. 6282-NS § 3 (part), 1995: Ord. 6266 § 1 (part), 1994) http://www.ei.berkeley.ca.uslbmc/berkeley_municipal_code/title_13/37/010.htm] 2/22/2006 Section 13.37.020 Prohibited acts. ri0 9jiunivmN i P7e 1 of 1 Chapter 13_37 LIMITATION OF THE TIME, PLACE AND MANNER OF.SOLICITATION FOR THE IMMEDIATE PAYMENT OF MONEY OR GOODS IN PUBLIC PLACES Section 13.37.020 Prohibited acts. A. It is unlawful for any person to solicit another in any public place at the times, locations and in the manner specified below: 1. In any manner which coerces, threatens, hounds, or intimidates the person solicited; 2. Within ten feet of any automatic teller machine in the City. B. Nonexclusivity. Nothing in this chapter shall limit or preclude the enforcement of other applicable laws. (Ord. 6371-NS § 1 (part), 1997: Ord. 6266 § 1 (part), 1994) http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.uslbme/berkeley_municipal_code/ti tle_13/37/020.httnl 2/22/2006 Section 13.37.030 Violation--Penalty. Al IALHMENT l Page 1 of 1 Chapter 13.37 LIMITATION OF THE TIME, PLACE AND MANNER OF SOLICITATION FOR THE IMMEDIATE PAYMENT OF MONEY OR GOODS IN PUBLIC PLACES Section 13.37.030 Violation--Penalty. Any person who shall be convicted of a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of an infraction and shall be punishable as set forth in Chapter 1.20 of this code. (Ord. 6371-NS § 1 (part), 1997: Ord. 6266 § 1 (part), 1994) http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.usibmc/berkeley_municipal_code/title_13/37/030.htm] 2/22/2006 ATTACHMENT I SANTA BARBARA MUNICIPAL CODE A Codification of the Ordinances of the City of Santa Barbara, California Last Updated February 11, 2006 ATTACHMENT D. SIDEWALK MERCHANDISING REGULATIONS AND PERMITS.The City Administrator,acting by and through the Director of Public Works,is hereby directed to prepare an appropriate administrative process(along with related administrative regulations)for the City's acceptance,review,and processing of applications for the issuance of sidewalk merchandising permits,as such permits are allowed by and consistent with the requirements of this Section. (Ord. 5350,2005;Ord. 5236,2002;Ord.4843, 1993;Ord.4751, 1992; Ord.3880, 1976; Ord. 3852, 1976;prior Code.§32.23.) Chapter 9.50 PROHIBITION OF AGGRESSIVE SOLICITING Sections: 9.50.010 Definitions. 9.50.030 Demand for Services. 9.50.020 Prohibition of Aggressive Soliciting. 9.50.040 Free Speech. 9.50.010 Definitions. A. GENERAL DEFINITION. For the purpose of this ordinance,an individual (solicitor_)coerces,threatens, hounds,or intimidates another(solicitee)when: 1. The solicitor's conduct would cause a reasonable person in the position of the solicitee to fear for his or her safety;or 2. The solicitor intentionally blocks the path of the solicitee;or 3. The solicitor persists in following the solicitee closely,while the solicitor continues to demand money or other thing of value,after the solicitee has informed the solicitor by words or conduct that the solicitee does not want to give money or other thing of value to the solicitor to which the person demanding payment is not entitled under law. B. SOLICIT-DEFINED. For purposes of this ordinance, "solicit"means to ask for money or goods as a charity,whether by words,bodily gestures, signs,or other means. C. SOLICITOR-DEFINED. For purposes of this ordinance, "solicitor" is one who solicits as defined in section 9.50.010(B). D. FEAR FOR SAFETY-DEFINED. The following facts,among others, may be considered in deciding whether a reasonable person would be caused to fear for his or her safety: 1. The occurrence of threatening gestures or other threatening conduct of the solicitor,including following the solicitee. 2. The proximity of the solicitor to the solicitee and the duration of the solicitation. 3. The making of physical contact with the solicitee. E. INTENTIONALLY BLOCK-DEFINED. For the purposes of this ordinance, "intentionally block"means to walk,stand, sit, lie,or place an object in such a manner as to block passage by another person or a vehicle,onto require another person or driver of a vehicle to take evasive.action to avoid physical contact. (Ord.4767, 1992.) 9.50.020 Prohibition of Aggressive Soliciting. It shall be unlawful for any person on the streets,sidewalks,or other places open to the public,whether publicly or privately owned,to intentionally coerce,threaten,hound, or intimidate another person for the purpose of soliciting alms. (Ord. 4767, 1992.) 9.50.030 Demand for Services. This ordinance is not intended to proscribe any demand for payment for services rendered or goods delivered. (Ord.4767, 1992.) 9.50.040 Free Speech. This ordinance is not intended to restrict the exercise of protected free speech. (Ord.4767, 1992.) 214-4 rev.6/30/05 City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code H'JAUHIMENT L?age 1 of 1. City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Preface Title 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS Title 2 ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL Title 3 REVENUE AND FINANCE Title 4(Reserved) Title 5 BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS Title 6 ANIMALS Title 7(Reserved) Title 8 HEALTH AND SAFETY Title 9 PUBLIC PEACE.AND WELFARE Title 10 VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC Title 11 (Reserved) Title 12 STREETS SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC PLACES Title 13 PUBLIC WORKS Title 14(Reserved) Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION Title 16 DEVELOPMENT CODE Files listed below require Adobe Acrobat Reader 4.0. Add. -Reader Statutory References Prior Code Table Ordinance List and Disposition Table http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/arroyo/maintoc.htm 2/22/2006 Chapter 10.08 TRAFFIC ADMINISTRATION AND REGULAT CHM� I Page 1 of 1 9G N 10.08.060 Prohibition of solicitation at entrances to commercial parking areas and upon public right-of-way areas. A. In order to promote the safe and orderly flow of traffic, no person may solicit or beg for any monies, goods or services, including offering any services in exchange for monies, goods or services, while located: 1. Within one hundred fifty (150)feet of any entrance to or driveway within any commercial establishment or shopping center; or 2. Within one hundred fifty (150)feet of any intersection of city streets, including intersections of city streets and state highways or state highway on or off ramps; or 3. On any median in any city street; or 4. On the roadway of any city street, including approaching and/or attempting to interfere with the movement of any occupied vehicle while such vehicle is being operated on.any city street. B. This section shall not apply to a non-profit organization conducting a fundraising activity within a commercial parking area with the permission of the owner, provided such activity does not interfere with the safe and orderly flow of traffic entering or exiting the parking area onto city streets and said organization has obtained a public safety and welfare permit from the chief of police. (Ord. 559 §2, 2004) �-z 9 http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/arroyo/_DATA/TITLE 10/Chapter_l0_08_TR... 2/22/2006 -_ ATTACHMENT O o rn a, f7 -� �+ m �D O �O n N O N n V V A Iv V CY O � � n m o p 'b . O p� ¢ C n Z CN n O G oc�o o `0 c- CD Z a `� Cn 0 0 ... " O � v p O Or`D Ai ��• OCnn m vcn O O rt o 5CDeb ' cr o p ° 5 0 r) o �° ,fir O r1 I G. UQ a. a (or rt N �• � 7 O' O O C: .O O V 00 0rJ CD OIQ (n ro y v cn CD O fp Oq a N O_ 7r C a' w tf 0(D O0 O `O * rpo O M C a7 O "CS ? n m �s n rt O 21 r r O m p rD I [17 m tD O -- p Om cn n ^ w �. a• "� y p m p O O n T m C ro d 00 Ul O O � O o �, w o 0 0 ,�, a x rt O C7 a✓ n r cY va O" o fl- O y n n D) v C o' :°, > OCC 000 L3 rt r9 00 m O yU O p? O. rt O m OQ .O+ G. OG �• G. -1 n 0G W O ''* �' � O N � UQ UG � rD p `C rD 'C3 �' 7 n p O ,.,r '•r n o LO n ro p g �: w a ro Y Z Z 5 (DCD a' ren m O O ¢• G. '.* p `t to O O _ .•n O O y y C, - all O O O ter, 23 a ¢> rq A rt y "�• v r-•• O. ro ch �q fD o C'' p rD �y n fD m m a 10,co Cp O fD m y O p O (�D Sl rD rD C a fD• C�� OQ• rD rD '•O 0'Q ¢+ �m ` �O• .G ¢• O ^' fu N rtFD OQ mi 9L p O O O rD v rt �(q .s G 'l7 0Q O m � rt V) Oil rp LnrD o ., V C U�nQ c0°4 C Oti a. rD rD °O Ort FW+ .n-• rp'i O O O y < O .0, a' O. p m � O. w CJ K O V •< yC rt O rt .O fD ry `r ACl O O rD cn O rt 7 rD rt rt Q rD rD �. ►+. O � "i � •v ID IID C O m p W CCi 0W QQ O �7 cn' v rD 0 d �. O ` ° o Oo rC . rD v m• lD `Lj y rt = 0OrQrt `rt" y Ort O p C10 Q rt O w p LL j1 CDD X O m rt rD v A L7 A. p C GL T3 O O p O O Ort yCn rcnD m = OID „ m O LL 'rD Sv rD aQ ►� O O p rt O r p 00 rD n n A .n.. rD 0pQ O n t N a Q Uq aQ �C .y rn Qn rt N D Q N •t 07 (D � � � m mrD O C rnp ry .`. n '�G (Dn7� O. v w Q. M p X M tpD n rD ID rD G d rD y C rn �, �. tt G C G. °, �+ mcn En cn `C3 O rD CD cnrJ n p m rt O rD C ^ rt N D rD n0 C rp p rD O Zi a C O n < rt n v sv O w x 00 O r� .�.r r6' r1•. (D O rt n.. rD C rt Q. O �-- O O in. o '* ow aQ � �• .rt' C ]' l^SD O "! rt rt �, r"" ,_, rt � G7 ... ,y, y � '1 rD rp Om p n UQ Q w p n cn LL �. C. m QQ O rD .� N C F �L rt (n N rt mo y w rD M rD rD �••' fD ;D � O � frtD .�-1 O r•t O : - Ai IAV.HEENT: 5 San Luis Obispo Police Department Arrest by Private Perswi Case It . y . . A AfCr. I, the undersigned, under the authority of the California Penal Code§837,have placed the below . named person under arrest for: _ -I k violation of § of the(circle one) Penal Code vehicle Code. The persen placed under arrest is known to me as: The arrest was fade on 20___, at (circle one) am pm in the City of San Luis Obispo, California In making this arrest, I understand that I must comply with the provisions of Penal Code§847 and in so doing I turn custody of the defendant over to. , ID# who I understand to be a sworn officer of the San Luis Obispo Police Department. When notified, I agree to appear and testify in all court activities associated with this case. Signed: Address: Phones: i ATTACHMENT 6 ORDINANCE NO. (2006 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE AGGRESSIVE SOLICITATION PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 9.06 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING CHAPTER 9.40 REGULATING THE USE OF PUBLIC BENCHES BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. That Chapter 9.06 (Prohibition on Aggressive Solicitation ) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of new Section 9.06.025 (Prohibition of solicitation from specified locations) to read as follows: 9.06.025 Prohibition of solicitation from specified locations. A. In order to promote the safe and orderly flow of traffic and to prevent the harassment and intimidation of citizens and visitors in the vicinity of cash dispensing institutions or facilities, and commercial and retail establishments no person may solicit or beg for any monies, goods or services, including offering any services in exchange for monies goods or services while located: 1. Within twenty five (25) feet of any ATM or similar cash machine bank or savings and loan: 2. Within six (6) feet of the entrance to or driveway within any commercial establishment or shopping center; or 3. Within ten (10) feet of any intersection of city streets including intersections of city streets and state highways or state highway on or off ramps; or 4. On any median in any city street;.or 5. On the roadway of any city street intended for the use of vehicular traffic including approaching and/or attempting to interfere with the movement of any occupied vehicle while.such vehicle is being operated on any city street. B. This section shall not apply to a registered non-profit organization conducting a fundraising activity within a commercial parking area with the permission of the owner, provided such activity does not interfere with the safe and orderly flow of traffic entering or exiting the parking area onto city streets and said organization has obtained all necessary permits. SECTION 2. That new Chapter 9.40 (Public Benches) is hereby added to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 9.40 PUBLIC BENCHES It shall be an infraction for any person to sit lav or remain upon any public bench for any continuous period of time in excess of two (2) hours or for any period of time in excess of three (3) hours in any twenty four(24) hour period or to arrange one's personal property on or in front ATTACHMENT 6 Ordinance No. (2006 Series) Page 2 of any portion of any public bench in a manner that obstructs or precludes_ the use of the bench by another person. SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the names of the Council members voting for and against it, shall be published at least five days prior to its final passage, in the Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance will go into effect at the expiration of thirty(30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the 7`h day of March 2006 AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of 2006, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: David F. Romero Mayor ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, C.M.C. City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jona . Lowell City Attorney RECEIVED kQraCoP� e .l RED FILE ® COUNCIL - MEETING AGENDA MAK 0 6 LUU6 ®CAO � FIDN oio!a DAT�� ITEM #193 IS ACAO®ATTORNEY FS FIRE CHIEF SLO CITY CLERK 19 CLERK/ORIG 'R PW DIR POL CE CHF 13 DEPT HEADS' REG DIR ' Sart Lu1S Obispo Chamber of Commerc pru;, UTIL DIR 'd IR HR DIR 1039 Chorro Street• San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 March 3, 2006 (805) 781-2777• FAX (805) 543-1255 •TDD (805) 541-8416 0 Cfto a C:{y CIcrIC David E. Garth, President/CEO Mayor Dave Romero and Members of the City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Item PH-3, Meeting of March 7,Amendment of Aggressive Solicitation Provisions of Municipal Code and Addition of Regulations Governing Public Benches Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members, Our Chamber supports a change in the municipal code that will effectively curtail aggressive panhandling. With our visitor's center and administrative offices in the heart of downtown, we are very well aware of the problems that are occurring. Currently, the health and safety of our citizens as well as of tourists is being threatened by individuals and groups who accost passers by with requests for a handout. We have received letters at the chamber from both residents and out of town guests who will no longer shop or eat in the downtown because of this problem. With the great pride that our city takes in its award winning downtown,we should take the strictest measures possible to curb the i problem. The proposed amendments to Chapter 9.06 of the Municipal Code to restrict solicitation within specified distances of retail,commercial and financial establishments and vehicular and pedestrian pathways, is sufficiently restrictive to have an effect on the problem We seriously question, however, the efficacy of a two hour time limit on the continuous occupation of public benches and a three hour limitation on occupation in any one day by one individual or group of individuals as recommended in the added Chapter 9.40. We strongly urge the Council to reduce the time limit to one hour in all cases. The purpose of the benches is to provide a short respite while shopping or to pause and enjoy the view or a snack. They are not intended as a location.from which individuals or groups can set up a panhandling business. The level of abuse that is occurring now calls for strong regulation. We understand the concern about limiting freedom, but we must equally respect the freedom of those who walk by the benches and that is now being infringed upon. In addition, the enjoyment of this public asset is not available to many because a few are there for hours at a time. This is a problem that you have heard about frequently from many diverse parts of the community. We hope that you will take the strongest measures possible to address the issue. Sincerely, ryd Chairperson of the Board email: slochamber@slochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitslo.com i rrejaATTO UNCIL � CDD DIR RECEIVED RED FILE O : FIN DIP MEETING AGENDA RNEY FIRE CHIEF IAK " LsPW DIR DATE ITEM # u g ERK/ORIG POLICE CHF SLO CITY CLERK ❑ DEPT HEADS FREC DIP UTIL DIP HR DIF .rte C�R ,fir C� March 7, 2006 Mayor Dave Romero and City Council Members City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor Romero and City Council Members:. The Economic Opportunity Commission of San Luis Obispo County has reviewed the draft language of the ordinance to amend Chapter 9.06 of the Municipal Code to restrict solicitation, and proposed language for Chapter 9.40, establishing a time limit for the continuous occupation of public benches. Our Chief Executive Officer Elizabeth "Biz" Steinberg is out of town but has asked me to express EOC's support of both the amended and proposed language. We do not find either recommendation to be discriminatory against the homeless. EOC appreciates the City's ongoing efforts to ensure community well-being for all San Luis Obispo residents. Sincerely, Mel Rosenblat Chief Administrative Officer/Deputy Director