HomeMy WebLinkAbout0379.094~ ~JIOI 1 ______ 6--,
July 14, 1994
Till! 1I0110RABLl! CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
Ivppl ... nt.~ R,port Rogn4fng Qrdinance -RtPga1ing "Be! R.enlating
~~~~. 2.10 Alto Hunioipal cod@ Relating to Juvenil.
~IL.M9llli\.U'2.n.l
Kenhora of the council:
On ,Juno. 21, 1994, staff recommended that the City council adopt an
orcUnan<:{l L"epealinq tho oxisting: curfaw regulations and reen2\otinq
~nepter 9~24 of tho Palo Alto Municipal Code.
At that tir.co, (!ouncil directed staff to meet with several community
qrouJ)9 {'or the purpOSE! of obtainihq their input and to return to
Couneil wJth that information. Addition~lly, as a result of some
concerna that have been expressed regarding t~e lanquage uaed jn
tho oriqinally proposed ordinance, the City Attorney made some
clarifyinq revis1cmu, This report sUmmarizes the input received
from -the couunity groups, discusses the. clarification chanqEltJ made
by the proposed Qrdinance, and recommends that Council adopt the
attached ordinance lIJrlending the Palo Alto Municipal Code dealing'
vlth curfew violations for minors.
COlliUlunity Igput
SincllII the council meeting of June 27, staff has met with. members of
the City/School Liaison committee and representatives of the Palo
Alto Counoil of PTAs. Discussion at that meeting centered around
the· need for a revised ordinance and concern about how it would
Qffeot la.w .. tlibiding minors who wore out in public durinq hours
re9u16tad by the curfew. Considerable mention was also made about
the need ,for educational outreach to parents and young people
concarning the issu€s of youth crime and violence. Questions were
raised reg'ardinq the dufinitions of ce~·tain langu.lqa, includinq the
curtew hours, and tho USQ of other laws and regulations in dealing
with. the problems. Opinions 'Were voiced that ranqed from the.
belief that the ordinance would hava a "chilling effect" on tho
right of peaceful assembly of minors, to the belief that the
ordinance would be a useful 'tool for parents to use to enhance
thoir responsibility. t-rhile differences of opinion still existed at
the end of the moatinq regarding support of the ordinance, the
CI!R:379:94
". :
;-1
I
I ;1 "' i
I I
consensus ~ao that the discussion did reBult in a better
underatondlng of the problo. and of tho other octlviti.. (besid ••
ehforCGllGnt-relat4Jd etfort&) that ha\'e boen undert~)(en 1n attupta
to curtail 9ang activity.
Staff will be aeoting with tho Hu~.n Relations Conrnlsslon and the
Palo IIlto Youth CouncU on July 14. 1\ bri"f sUlOmory of the .. eeting
will be rotlectod in a •• parate etaff report.
Reyisions to the P'9p9"4_~lntn2A
As ,the result ot th$ concernB .expressed at the Ccnmcil IUletinq of
June 27, the city A~torn8Y Dade aone cl~rltylnq revisions.
SpecificallY, private ruoidonc •• ore inclUded In the detlnitlon of
·publlc place" whon left open to tho publio without adult
Gupervision. Thts v~p,added to ~ddre&s the issue ~t att9ndance of
minors at "open" partieD at prlvato residences. A nov subsection
{j) vas also added thnt vould clertly that it 1s la~ful for ~lnora
to he in public .... h~n presont a.t, going to, or retl.ln11ng froll a
cOl!Ulerci~l estabIi8hnant ouch as a restal.lrant or )1;0 .... 18 theater.
(lurf!))! RoY.X.I
Due to the questio'1B that httV~ beon received, Z!i clarification of
tho curf<.:oY hours is in order. As proposed, minors .... ·ould be
prohibited ft.·o):!:! beIng in public places, unless their dctivltisB
were included in the. 1 ist 01 axccptiol)s, between the. hours ot
10:00 p.m. ~nd 6:00 d.a. Qn SUnd~y6 throu9h Thursdays; and between
the hours of 12;01 ~ ••. and 6100 a.~. on Saturdays nnd Sundays
(the later hours actually cover tho ea~)y norning wee~ond hours).
staff proposed theso: hours bae.cd upon th'O hours of 1:ho. current
ordinance, the ti~es of occurrencos Involv1n9 ju .... enile arroats, and
a roview of other cities' oI'dinanco&.
There are a fey altornativos that Council may want to consider l
including extendin9 the we.K~niqht hours ~o 11:00 p.R. and weekend
hours to 1:()0 a,m., or hav.1nq diftel'ent hours (or ainors under the
ago of 16 and 11-year-olde,
~ the froPOS80 or4inanp.
It is evident t;:hat the 9l'Oatest conc~rn about tha proposed curtav
ordinance is how it will be u.ed bV police offlcers. It Is cl.or
that the passage of the; ordinance in and of itself wl11 not Bolve
tho 9ang problem. AG Bention~d proviously, staff .... iGws tho
ordinance as one mOl'e tool to "ssiGt in the protection of young
pO-ople in this community front violent acts associatad with qanq
activity. As council heard frOB I!le~'bers of the Addison and Ventura
neiqhborhoods, thero Is 8 considerable amount of ~pprehenslon on
the part of residents to report crimlnnl activities in thoir
noighborhoods for fear of retaliation. Police officers h~ve made
numerous arrests and have taken enforceP1ent. action in those
incidents when the law allows. lIowever, in situations whore the
CKR:379:94 -2~
·~··"····L
('~"
A ITACIIMENT' B
Question HI: Has the <"new ordlnanccmade any djfferenc~ In your IIfe1
Yes: S6 (28%) No: 144 (12%)
!lues!lon N2: Have you been 'Iopp<d by Ih. police {or curfew ,'lolallons1
Yes: 39 (19%) No: 161 (81%)
Hye$, ~ow were you Ireated by Ihe »olice?
Respeclful/y: 1 (3%) Disrespectfully: 26 (67%) Neutral: 11 (28%)
Question #3: Do you thin~ the curfew ordinance should conl/nue 10 be ~nforccdZ
Yes: 48 (24%) No: 120 (59"1.)
'.
i
) , .,
I ,
'i
I
~
!
.j
....
offenses ara misdemoanors, without ~itnesses, it 18 difficult for
otfic:era t.o .Ift{\ke arrests, unless the offense is ccmmitted in their
presencQ. Under, the proposed ordinance, when called into
situations such as d~scrib~d by the residents l even it the oalla
Were anonymous, offlqers could take action if they determined that
there Were curf~w violations.
It is important to point out that the pi"C')posed ordinanc:e would ba
U8'ld judiciously' and only in those situations that warranted its
enforcement. Th.e-intent is not to harASS or infrinqa on the
constitutional rights >of law .. abiding minors.
staff has clearly heard and understands the concerns expressed by
minors and adults about the use of the proposed ordinance. A8 a
res~lt, staff recommen4a that, pending council approval, staff be
directed to return to the Council in six months with Eli report
reflectinq the actual use and effectiveness of the ordinance.
staff intends to continue. the educational process as recommendad by
the city/School Liaison Committee metnbers. This education will hs
in tho "form of discussiolls with community 9roups and neighborhood
associations. Additionally, when school is back 1n session~ staff
will 'Work with representatives of the Palo Alto Unified School
Distriot to pl"ovide fo):'u'lns for dialogue 'With students and their
parents.
Bft9.PAmumcJa ti 911 a
staff recommends that Council:
1) Adopt the accompany.lng orctinallca repealing and reenacting
Chapter 9.24 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code dealing with
juvenile curfew violations; and
2) Direct staff to return to council in Gix monthB with a roport
detailing how the ordinance has been enforced.
ubmitted,
Steve
CIIR:J79:94
/
~~,~,~~,~~,~\~~L~
CHRIS DURKIN
police Chief
Associations
-3-
II •• '."~""T'T:~-";"'·"'""'· ",
~',:~
<,:~,_. J'"~ "
:.:".~::-~~;~">:}~:.' -' ;;'~';"
~..~~'tCt
. ';'.'
-.~-' ..
.. .
\
.: ~ '.;-'
, ,,-, . ",-.:
.....• ~ ....•. "'.~;'.!;.:i];i
: ........... ),!,p';""~.'::'!. j
~'~'< l
•
1
-:
I.
i
i·
I
',',';
..
i