HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/01/1997, COMM. 1 - COMMUNICATION ITEM FOR JULY 1, 1997 RE: DOWNTOWN STREET SWEEPING PHLETING AGENDA
DATE �''-9f ITEM #. 4V.
June 18, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: Council Colleagues
FROM: Dave Romero P% ,
SUBJECT: COMMUNICATION ITEM FOR JULY 1, 1997
RE: DOWNTOWN STREET SWEEPING
Several years ago, due to tight budget, the City reduced its downtown street sweeping schedule
from six days to five days—not sweeping Saturday or Sunday morning.
Downtown weekend activity has picked up in recent years, creating increased need for sweeping.
Under the current schedule downtown is poor shape all day Sunday.
If the Council concurs, I propose we direct staff to investigate and put into operation either a
revised or increased downtown sweeping schedule to address the problem.
DR--ss
c: John Dunn
CITY OF SAN JOSE - MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council FROM Councilmember David Pandori
SUBJECT: -Sidewalk Ordinance DATE: April 23, 1996
APPROVED: DATE: 23 1 1k
Recommendation
Direct the City Attorney, the Redevelopment Agency, and the Police Department to
draft a Sidewalk Ordinance that would prohibit sitting and lying down on city
sidewalks, patterned on the Seattle Sidewalk Ordinance. Staff should work with
business and property owners in the downtown and the neighborhood business
districts to determine the appropriate time and place restrictions and the exceptions
to the ordinance.
Background
In 1994, the City of Seattle enacted a sidewalk ordinance that prohibited persons
from sitting or lying on public sidewalks in certain commercial areas from 7:00 a.m.
to 9:00 p.m. The ordinance was enacted to protect sidewalks in both downtown and
neighborhood commercial zones.
Under the ordinance, the police must give a warning before citing a person.
Exceptions to the prohibition are allowed for: medical emergencies; physical
disabilities; operating or patronizing a business conducted on a public sidewalk
pursuant to a permit; sitting on a chair or bench supplied by a public agency or an
abutting property owner; and sitting or lying while waiting for transportation in a
bus stop zone.
In enacting the ordinance, Seattle sought to ensure safe and free movement on city
sidewalks, to minimize problems of public safety, and to prevent businesses from
losing customers who might otherwise be deterred from doing business in areas'
with people sitting and lying on the sidewalks.
A copy of the Seattle ordinance is attached.
Analysis
In the case of Roulette v. Citv of Seattle, the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
recently upheld the Seattle ordinance against claims that, on its face, the ordinance
was an unconstitutional infringement on First Amendment rights. The court did
leave open the possibility of challenges against the ordinance depending on its
Sidewalk Ordinance
April 23, 1996
Page 2
enforcement — for example if the ordinance were used to prohibit an individual
from sitting down on the sidewalk as part of a protect. However, the court did not
find the Seattle ordinance to be invalid on its face.
My understanding is that the plaintiffs have asked for the usual re-hearing. If
denied, the only recourse would be an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Given the pending resolution of these legal issues, it would be appropriate for San
Jose to begin work on a similar law for both the downtown area as well as
appropriate neighborhood business districts. In regard to the downtown, my office
has received on-going complaints of individuals sitting and lying on sidewalks.
As with Seattle, this conduct affects use of the sidewalks, increases concerns about
public safety, and deters customers from small businesses. There are other places for
individuals to rest. City sidewalks are not the appropriate place.
The appropriate geographic and time restrictions should be based on a review by city
and redevelopment agency staff, working with business owners and others in the
downtown and appropriate neighborhood business districts.
In San Jose, staff should consider a time restriction.beyond 9:00 p.m. because of the
busy, late evening night club activity in the downtown as well as the problems
created by cruising, congregation and gang activity on Santa Clara Street in the
evening. I am also concerned about public bus stops being misused as a "cover" for
individuals to stay on public sidewalks for the real purpose of intimidating others.
The Police Department should consider whether the ordinance should be expanded
to cover individuals who congregate at bus stops, but don't get on buses.
It should be noted that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on the Seattle
case may be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court and that the petitioners have also
requested a re-hearing by the 9th Circuit. If that should occur, then it would be
appropriate to defer action on the proposed ordinance until the court's decision. In
the interim, I would still recommend that the Citv Attorney, the Redevelopment
Agency, and the Police Department work on components of a potential ne,�v
ordinance so that the city can move quickly once a final decision has been rendered.
' 1
z
ORDINANC'c —LLZ/D 3
4 AN OP.DINANCE relating to sitting and lying down upon puLlic
sidewalks in downtown and neighborhood commercial zones
5 daring certain Hours; amending Ordinance No, 116885 by
adding a new section thereto and amending Seattle
6 Municipal Code Section 15.48.040.
WHEREAS, on March 10, 1994, the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington held that Ordinance 116665
was facially constitutional, and an appeal from that
2 decision is pending; and
9 n !ERZhS, the City Council wishes to reaffirm its legislative
findings and intention with respect to Ordinance 116865,
10 as made on the Council's behalf by its Public Safety
Committee in 1993; and
11 WAEREAS, the Council wishes to clarify its intent that notice
be provided by law en:orccment officers before citations
12 arc written for violating the prohibition in SMC
15.48.040;
13 WHE.�FAS, parts of the Pioneer Square and International
14 District zones were inadvertently omitted from the zones
within which S?1C 15.48.040 applies; and
15 WHr --EAS, the word "walker" was inadvertently omitted from the
list of exceptions to which the -prohibition in SSC
16 15.48.040 shall not apply; NOW THEREFORE,
17 EZ IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE AS FOLLOWS:
to Section I. A new se=tion is added to Ordinance No.
116885, as follows: ..cam
t5
Section 3. Statement of Legislative Intent. The Seattle
20
City CO1;lCil Finds and Declares as follows:
21 (a) Public sidewalks in business districts are created
22 and maintained for the prinary purposes of enabling pedes-
23 tr-;an= to safely and efficiently move about frc,n place to
24 place, facilitating deliveries o: goods and services, and
Z5 providing potential customers with convenient access to goods
and services.
26
27 (b) During normal business hours, the public sidowalY.s
in downtown and reighbcrcocd commercial areas are prone to
28
1
cs ...a
� l
I
congestion. and should be kept available to serve these
z primary purposes.
3 (c) Except in places provided therefor or where reasen-
4 ably necessary, sitting Or lying on the public sidewalks in
downtown and neighbcr.`.00d cormerc:al areas during the hours of
S
greatest congestion interferes with the primary purposes of i
6
7 the public sidewalks, threatens public safety, and damages the
public welfare.
8 i .
(d) Pedestrians, partic_larly the elderly, disabled, or
9 vision-i.pairad, are put at increased risk when they must see
10 and navigate around individuals sitting or lying upon the
11 public sidewalk.
12 (e) The public welfare is Promoted by economically
13 healt:y downtown and neighborhood commercial areas which
fa attract people to slop, werk and recreate. These areas
provide easily-accessible goods and services, employment
15
opportunities, the tax revenues necessary to support essential
16 public services, and the econoaic productivity necessary to
t% maintain and improve property within these areas. ,
16 (f) In some circumstances people sittinc or lying on the
18 sidewalks deter many members of the public from frequenting
20 `.hose areas, which contributes to undermining the essential
21 economic viability Of thc;e areas. Business failures and
relocations can cause vacant storefronts which contribute to a
22
spiral of deterioration and blight which, harms the public
Z3 health, safe_y and welfare. ;,r. important factor in
protecting
za public safety is attraetin= people to the streets and side-
Z5 walks of the City's business districts• because the presence
26 of many lav abiding eititcn; serves as a deterrent to crime
Z� and increases the public's sense of security and the safety of
all.
ze
- C. .0.8
(g) There are numerzus other places within the downtown
Z and neighborhood commercial areas where sitting or lying down
3 can be accommodated without unduly interfering with the safe
flow o: pedestrian traffic, impairing commercial activity,
threatening public safety or harming the public welfare.
5
These other places include city parks and plazas, alleyways,
6
private plazas, arcades, and common areas open to the public,
7
and generally on private property with the permission of the
e
property owner. In addition, public sidewalks outside the
9 designated business districts and all sidewalks outside the
IQ designated hours are available for sitting or lying down.
71 Therefore, the limited regulation of sitting or lying
12 down on sidewalks is both reasonably necessary and appro-
13 priately balances t.`:e public interest and individual rights.
14
Section 2. Section 15.49.040 of the Seattle Municipal
15
Cade (Ordinance 1166655, Section 2) is amended as follows:
t6 15.48, 040 Sitting
or lying dove an public sidewalks is
17
downtown and neigsborhood commercial zones.
.
A. Prohibition. No person( ( aft et
t2 nae4��
by a law ef-Fe ;atien 96
19 rile—�rirv!''aA-i��
. ) ) shall sit cr lie down upon
20 a public sidewalk, or upon a blanket, chair, stool, or any
21 other object placed upon a public sidewalk, during the hours
ZZ between 7:00 a.m. and 5:0C p.m. in the following zones:
23 1.. The Downtown Zone, defined as the area bounded
24 by the Puget Sound water:.-onz on the vest, South Jackson
25 Street on the south, Interstate 5 on the East, and Denny way
and Broad Street on the Hurt.`,.
25
2. Neighborhood Commercial Zones, defined as areas
27 zonod as Pionee- Scua-e mixed rPSN1 in[ernaLiona) n.
Sys
=S Nixed (7 Y.) . Commercial 1 (C1) , Commercial 2 (C2) , Neighbor-
3
CM ,..
i
I hood Commercial 1 (NCl) , Neighbcrhood Commercial 2 (NC2) , and
2 Neighborhood Commercial 3 (NC3) . �.
3 8. Exceptions. The prohibition in Subsection A shall
4 not apply to any person.:
5 1- sitting o: lying down on a public sidewalk due
to a medical energency;
6
7 2. who, as the result of a disability, utilizes a
wheelchair. wa -, or siailar device to move about the public
8 sidewalk;
9 3. operating or patronizing a commercial estab-
to lishment conducted or. the public sidewalk pursuant to a street
11 use permit; or a person participating in or attending a
12 Parade, festival, performance, rally, demonstration, meeting,
13 or similar event conducted on the public sidewalk pursuant to
14 a street use or other applicable permit;
15 4. sitting on a chair or bench located on the
Public sidewalk which is supplied by a public agency or by the
16 abuttir.- private s P property ernes, or
17 5. sitting on a public sidewalk within a =us stop
13 zone while waiting for public or private transportation.
19 Nothing in any of these exceptions shall be construed to
20 permit any conduct which is prohibited by SMC 12A.12.C15.
("Pedestrian Inte:fererca") .
21
No PSU2 shall be cited under this sec icn unless
22 the ne=n enCwcea i m C=ndvg- -,.h•►' ed bV this Sae for aft
23 ha ino henq no-aeaed h., - y e an rc o ice tra t1e
24 CQnduCtvielares L`115 see"ot-
25
26 Section 3. The prcvis:ens of this ordinance are declared
27 to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause,
29 sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this
ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any
4
e� na
i
1 '
Person c: circumstance shall net affect tho validity of the
2 remainder or this ordinance, or the validity of its
3 application to otter persor:s cr circumstances.
A
5 section a. This ordinance shall take effect and be in
6 force thirty days from and after its passage and approval, if
7 approved by the mayor; otherwise it shall take effect at the
PS time it shall beeeme a lav under the provisions of the City
Charter.
9
10 passed by the City Coshcil the day of
11 1994, and signed by me in open session in authentication of ,
12 its passage this 475 day of AL b , 1994.
13
1 d, ' e71t O-- theC:^ty Councl:
is
Approved by ne this d 7 day of JoAlij 1994.
16
17
8. Rsce, Mayor
18 /
19 01Q
Filed this & ) day of 1994.
2021
Deputy czar
22
23 .........
P_blishet � .
24 y.
26
27
IC�Dlm
s �
x�LC�t'nR37 �• �••
SAY
dJJ ill /f ;ur r
'
SAM:011
. 77r
C 1.1?rb �a
CC���� JE ODAr:, •qi :lar 7 !!4
TO: Mayor Susan Na.-nmer
San Jose CL Council Members
F p0M: Board of Directors
L.`"ER: A=irs 15, 1996
SUBJECT: Sidewalk Ora"-==
For yean, the San Jose Downtawr- Assceiation•s Dovrntaw:: Operat ens
ur�ratmittee has racvea «:rnglaint3 avcst pd1ee and loiters. Dovvaiowz
smess.o:vners haw been trated by thse lack of teeth in &.a law to dissuade
these ids of activities from negatively impae r,.g their right to earn a riving.
There is considerable support among SJDA members for some hind of-'Legal
'any fv� they are loeinna
constraint-3 to impgit-j2tion. 24
of people sitting and lyingyrove the on the sidewalas during buainess hour3.
mQrs becrusa
At its April 12 regular meeting, the Board of Directors dis=ssed the possi�it` of
a sidewalk ordinance for downtown San Jose. We are encouraged by the Cour: of
Appeal's determination regarding the Seattle Sidewalk Ordin=9• Even though
dir--&Jy address Panhandling or loitering, it des
such an ordinance does no.,t
prohibit sitting nsidavas during basize ac::. Tl-.s a , eq
t.,,:_.e_�es
police o�cere to warn and then cite individuals who are i.^-t`•8= b
u ting businesses
by these activities.
The SJDA Board of Direawr s unanimously apprwred a moiian to suppo=rt the
cance +t of a sidewaL4 use ordLn-ance for San Jose modeled after Seattle's. Whila
the ex-act Wording and speamC Lim" die ordinance wood be in effect are yet to he
d M�inec, it is cur h,ne that this issu r will be thcrocg'n?y examined by as?—�'s±-d
considered by the 0'tr; Co=ol in the near future.
cc: Frank Taylor
Regina Williams
Joan Gallo
PUBLIC ART MAILING LIST
San Luis County Arts Council Downtown Business Improv. Assoc.
P.O. Box 1710 P.O. Box 1402
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
San Luis Obispo Chamber of
Commerce
1039 Chorro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Housing Authority of the City
of SLO
P.O. Box 1289
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
PUBLIC ART AGENDA MAILING LIST
4/15/97 CITY COUNCEL HEARING
San Luis Obispo County Arts Council
P.O. Box 1710
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Downtown Business Improvement Association
P.O. Box 1402
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
1039 Chorro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 1289
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
jh/C:publicart.add