By Larry Judkins
Glenn County Observer
The Orland City Council wants to take a bite out of graffiti.
At the Tuesday, April 5, city council meeting, Orland City Manager Pete Carr pointed out that in 2012 and 2013, Orland had an overabundance of graffiti in its city limits. The City then began aggressively enforcing Orland Municipal Code Chapter 8.28 concerning graffiti abatement, and within about two years graffiti almost completely ceased to be a problem.
“If graffiti vandals … spray painted at night,” commented Carr, “by noon the next day it was gone.”
He continued, “In fact they’d wake up and go out in the light and they they’d see their art was gone. We made an aggressive campaign for keeping graffiti out of Orland.”
The anti-graffiti ordinance, passed in 1996, reads as follows:
Chapter 8.28 – GRAFFITI ABATEMENT
Sections:
8.28.010 – Graffiti defined.
“Graffiti” means any drawing, inscription, figure or mark which alters or defaces any real or personal property of another through the use of paint, spray paint, markers, or other objects, without the consent of such person, or the act of altering or defacing any real or personal property of another through the use of paint, spray paint, markers, or other objects capable of leaving a drawing, inscription, figure or mark on any surface, which is offensive to a reasonable person of normal sensitivities.
(Ord. 96-10 § 1 (part): prior code § 6800)
8.28.020 – Graffiti prohibited.
It is unlawful for any person:
A. To apply graffiti without the permission of the owner, lessee or person in legal possession of the real or personal property in question; or
B. To have graffiti on property which can be seen from the public right-of-way or adjacent or neighboring property; or
C. To have graffiti on property which causes a depreciation of property values or is detrimental to the health and welfare of neighborhoods.
(Ord. 96-10 § 1 (part): prior code 5 6801)
8.28.030 – Removal of graffiti.
A. Private property owners shall remove graffiti from their property within fifteen (15) calendar days after notification to the property owners by the city to remove such graffiti. Failure to remove graffiti within the time allowed shall automatically cause the building or property to be deemed a nuisance.
B. Notice to private property owners by the city shall be addressed to the name and address as it appears on the last tax assessment role or in other records maintained by the public agencies, by depositing a copy of the notice in the United States mail, certified with postage fully affixed, or personally delivering a copy of the notice to the owner of the property. The service is complete at the time of deposit in the mail or when personal service is effectuated. The failure of any person to receive such notice shall not affect the validity of any legal proceedings regarding removal of the graffiti.
C. In the event that the property owner fails to remove the graffiti after notice has been sent, the city may abate the graffiti as a nuisance as provided in this chapter.
D. The city may remove the graffiti of a property owner with the consent of the property owner and shall 098 charge the property owner for the cost of removal.
E. In the event that the city removes graffiti with the consent of the property owner and the property owner fails to reimburse the city for the cost of removal within thirty (30) calendar days of notice of the amount of the cost, such amount shall become a special assessment or lien against the property as provided in Section 8.24.120 of this code.
(Ord. 96-10 § 1 (part): prior code § 6802)
8.28.040 – Nuisance declared.
The existence of graffiti is declared to be obnoxious and a nuisance, and may be abated pursuant to Chapter 8.24 of this code, in addition to and not in lieu of any other available remedies.
(Ord. 96-10 § 1 (part): prior code § 6803)
8.28.050 – Reward.
The city may pay to any person who provides information which leads to the arrest and conviction of any person who applies graffiti a reward as established by council resolution. (Ord. 96-10 § 1 (part): prior code 5 6804)
8.28.060 – Authorization of entry and release of liability.
Prior to the entry onto private property by the city for the purpose of graffiti removal, written consent in a form acceptable to the city attorney shall be obtained from the property owner or designated agent for authorization of entry and release of liability. Notwithstanding the foregoing, consent of the property owner shall not be required if the city is authorized by court order to enter the property for the purpose of graffiti removal.
(Ord. 96-10 § 1 (part): prior code § 6806)
3.28.070 – Administrative fee.
A reasonable administrative fee may be imposed against any person found in violation of this chapter as a part of any abatement hereunder in addition to and not in lieu of any other fine, charge, fee, cost, assessment or payment imposed in connection with any violation of this chapter.
(Ord. 96-10 § 1 (part): prior code § 6807)
3.28.080 – Violation—Penalty.
A. The violation of any section of this chapter shall be a misdemeanor.
B. Community service in the city may be imposed in lieu of any penalties and punishments where there has been a conviction of guilty or nob o contendere plea to a misdemeanor.
“Just in the last couple of months, there’s been a surge [in graffiti] – it tends to go in waves,” Carr explained on Tuesday. “The biggest concern is not scribble or artwork, it’s vandalism to private property that is gang-related; it’s outdoor advertising for criminal gangs, they can read it and it’s a message that they threaten each other with; and [it can be] hate speech.”
So, with the current surge, it has been recommended that the anti-graffiti ordinance from last decade be beefed up. Suggested revisions and additions to the city code include:
1. The definition of graffiti should be expanded to include displays of gang insignia such as colored bandanas and gang-related art displays.
2. Graffiti indicating gang references or hate speech must be removed from private property within 24 hours, after which it is deemed a public nuisance presenting a real and present danger and thus subject to immediate removal or covering by the City at the property owner’s expense. Under the ordinance as it presently reads, property owners have up to 15 days to eliminate graffiti (section 8.28.030).
3. Graffiti on any fence or building facing and proximate to the public right-of-way to include alleys ways and streets may be removed or covered immediately by the City without prior notice to the property owner except that one attempt will be made to notify the property owner immediately in person.
4. Rewards may be paid at the discretion of the city manager/chief of police up to $1000 per occurrence and the informant may remain anonymous as to City disclosure of identity. Presently, the ordinance permits awards, but does not specify an amount (section 8.28.050).
The city council had a number of questions regarding the recommendations. It was asked if there was agreement about how much time a private property owner should have to abate graffiti.
Carr responded, “Let me know if you agree with 24 [hours]. I totally understand if you think it [should be] 48 or 72 … but I hope it’s a lot less than 15 days.”
Mayor Dennis Hoffman asked who takes care of the graffiti. Carr answered, “If it’s on public property, it’s [Orland] Public Works.”
He continued, “Most of it is identified by our police department when they are out on patrol at night. Public works [then] goes out in the morning to get it.
“But if it’s on private property, either the police or public works or our code enforcement officer will knock on the door or call people and tell them and ask them to get rid of it right away. Most of the time we get a good response but sometimes we have trouble finding, getting ahold of them.
“Sometimes they are not very responsible and quite frankly I can’t tell them, ‘You have to remove it in 24 hours,’ because they don’t. They have two weeks.”
A councilman asked if there is a way to change the code so the City of Orland can paint over the graffiti even if it is on private property, using any color of paint, “just to block it out.” It was recognized that this might violate private property rights, but no one seemed to consider that a quick fix might be no more aesthetically better than the graffiti was in the first place.
In the end, the council directed staff to come back to them at a future meeting with a variety of proposals from which they could pick and choose.
Stay tuned.
The Glenn County Observer 