HomeMy WebLinkAbout0613.093•
December 9, 1993
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
Anti-Graffiti Program
Members of the Council:
Rpoport in Brief
26
This report is supplemen~al to the original staff report of
Novembe:l:" 4, 1993 (Attachment B) and responds to additional anti
graffiti issues raised by mernbo2'rs of the Policy ar,d Services
Committee at their November 10. 1993 meeting. The Com.mittee
recommended eliminating Element 3, wh~ch consists of ~a abatement
and incentive program for graffiti removal on private property, and
Element 4. which involves a standby contract for City graffiti
removal on private property. The Committee requested that staff
reduce the cost of Element 6 concerning a City hot line and develop
other options for addressing graffiti re~oval on private property.
Following is a discussion of the cost and service level
implications of so:aling back the proposed elements deal ing with the
City hot line and graffiti removal on private property.
C.ity Hot Line
It would be possible to implement an anti -graffiti program~
utilizing a half time rathe:r than full time temporary position
for responding to reports of graffiti, albeit at a lower level
of service and ~esponsiveness tc public inquiries. This would
result in a reduction of $11,000 for this program element. As
more reliance is placed on the use of an answering machine,
there, at least~ would be an additional one half ..... orking day
delay in following up on telephone messages. Tile delay could
increase, depending upon the volume of calls. In addition,
there would be insufficient t.ime available for the hot line
coordinator to return phone messages and advise callers of the
followup action taken by the City.
It would not be effective
responsibilities of the 3/4
(discussed in ~lement 5).
CMR: 6~3:.93
to add hot line fun.:-tions to the
time volunteer coordinator position
The hot line requires an on site
-1-
person available to r~sPo.nd to telephone calls anc schedule City
graffiti removal that would be perforrne::i primarily curing
regular business hours. On the other ha!"'.d, the volunteer
coord:'nator would work mainly out of the office supenrising
volunteer group clean-'Jp acci vi ties, as 'Jell as visi ting
neighborhood associations and soe:cvic.; organizations dux-ing
weekends and eveninga.
Removal on Private property
In lieu of the abate:nent and incent i ve program, tbe Ci ty could
prov-ide assistance to private property o.....ners by making
recycled paine available at the Water Q"..lality Control Plant,
when available from the Household Hazardous Waste recycl ing
program, ar,d distributing removal kits and prov-iding informaticm
'on sealants and removal techniques. Information ",;o:Jld emphasize
the need to respond quickly in remov-i,.ng graffiti.
!t would be posS'.ible to expand the us~ of the City graffiti
removal unit (discussed in Element 1) to private property as a
second priority activity, in some instances, when the owners are
unwilling to perform the work voluntarily. In these case::;, a
signed waiv~r would be required from the owner allowing City
forces to remove th"!'! graffiti. The owner would be given the
opti':m of supplying his or her own paint or having the City use
one of four neutral colors of recycled paint. Over the next
year~ staff would evaluate whether the graffiti removal unit
could effectively respond within ten days to incidents on City
and ot-her governmental property, aa: well as on private property.
Staff also recommends examining the possibility of expanding the
volunteer program (discussed in Element S} to include graffiti
removal on private property. Liability and access issues would
need to be addressed before proceeding ~th this option.
Attached is a revised cost summary (Attachm-ent A) for the anti
graffiti program based en the changes discussed above. The total
annual cost is reduced by $51,000 from $165,000 to $114,000. Fo~
the remainder of FY 93-94 it is projected that the City would spend
$57,000 to implenent the program. rt should be noted that this
lower f~~ding level will result in reduced responsiveness to public
inquiries and to. private property abatement requests.
During the Policy and services Committee meeting. a question was
raised regarding the possibility of withholding minors' driving
privileges or revoking minors' licenses if arrested for inciderlts
of graffiti. The California Vehicle Code allo~s the cou:r-t to
suspend Dr delay minors~ driving privileges for one year, if
conv~cted of graffiti vandalism. The law also allows the driving
privilege suspension to be reduced at the rate of one day for each
hour of graffiti cleanup on publiC property. Existing law requires
-2 -
a. conviction in order to suspend (.'r delay driving privileges.
Because there is no conviction or c'ourt action invclved in a
Juvenile Dive1-sior. P.r-ogram process, it i~ not possible to ~uspend
or delay driving privileges in these situat:ions.
As a re'3ult of public feedback at the mE"eting. staff has sent a
copy of this report and the November 4. 1993 _repcrt to all ('i ty
homeowners associations' and th~ Midtown Merchants Association.
Respectfully submitted.
G~G~
Assistant Dire·:::tor of Public Works
/::L4.~
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Wcrks
A,W0\.1W~
~ FLEMING
City Manager
Attachments: A -Revised Cost Summary
B CM.~:S7S:93
cc: various Homeowner Associations
Will Beckett, President Barron Park Association
Susan Prank, Director Chamber of Commerce
Jane Alhouse Gee~ President Palo ~to Board of Realtors
Dorma Devencenzi, California Avenuoe Area Development Assoc~
Susan Shields, President Midtown Merchants Association
John Russo
Micki Scn."'1eider, Downtown Marketing Committee
Richard Spotswood
ThaN_s Barry
Kevin Oskinski
Joan Sullivan
Bob Moss
,John Joynt
John Benza
Robert Marinaro
Jack Goldberg
CMR!61.3~93 -3-
, .. IlEVISED ATTACHMlDlT A
1.
El_ent
IncreAsed gr~ffiti
rem:>val for City parks
and b ... ildins .
2. Interagency
coo erative effort.
3. 81:111:1 .. I sa te ;r-et'fU
!!Jra#.Eiti: f'eme 'al Btl
p~i Q~e ~~apeft}.
6. Ci ty hotline
,. Graffiti removal
te~~ique brochu~es.
8. Removal kits
9. RecyclE.-d Paint
10. Sealants information
1"1.. Community
OUtreach 'Educar.:j,o!l
12. Restitution
ordinan..::e for
raffiti removal.
13. ~uvenile Diversion
Pr ram e ansion,
'1'0 tal Pr .lor.i ty 1
Tot&l Pr1cr!ty 2
TCTAl. COST
Annual Coats Using
r rar Per~oncel
Publie works: SS5.~OO fo~
hourly personnel, equipment
& supplie~. $!O,DOO for
~ilct sea1ant/anti-g~affiti
paint (possible
rei~ursement from other
a eocies i.
PUblie WorkB~ Include~ in
"1" .
BdleUIl!1 $M,-eS9 fe~ 1.'2
~~rar) eese
eflfe!l"ZeMel'lt e::~
$19, 91:11, {e~ p:tlet IflC_Bti' e I
P ~lie Worksl $19,992 fB~
esft~!'aet.el"" r zoe i~ tl:f'fI 8~.eht
HUman S.rvice.: $23,DOO for
[.empc:-ary 3/4 time
coorc._nator.
Public Work8: $2:.999
$11, DOD fo~ ~ half time
hourI" clerk._
PUblic Work.: $10,000 for
printing and dis~ributing
bt'ocbl.lres.
park.: $3,000 for kits at
30.0u a ""iece
Public Works: Iccluded with
"7".
PUblic work.: Included wit.h
"7"
Police ~ C~1ty
Serv1.:::es: Lf,inor
Attorney _ P~liee: minor
Police: $2,000 in officer
o .... ertime.
{' o;e
illi! ga9
•
$ 76.000
38,QOO
5114.090
Priority
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
I
Attacb.ent B
~ -!reI +ort ______ --.
I November 4, 1993
THE HONORAB~E CITY CO~~CIL
Palo Alto, Calif':.rnia
Attention: Policy & Services Committee
~~ti-Graffi~i proqra~
Members of the Council:
Fe'Oort in Brief
This report provides the Policy and Services Cor.tmittee informati'::m
on the scope, cost/resource impact and timing of ant i-g.r-affit i
program elements. The information is based on guidance given by
the Committee at its August 3, 1993, ~eeting. It is difficul~ to
accurately forecast the effectiveness of each element or
coro.bination of elements> Therefore, staff recommer..ds a moderate
cost, one and one half year trial period anti-graffiti program
iltilizing temporary personnel. This ..,i11 allew sufficient time for
staff to evaluate the efficiency and cost effectiveness cf the
trial program. The findings will guide staff H'. recoTTU"!lencang a
permanent program for possible incl't;.sion in the FY 19.95-96 budget.
The trial program implementation costs for the rerr.ainder of FY
1993-94 would be approxil'r.a.tely $82,500. The FY 19.94-95 annual cost
would be 5165,000.
Please note that the elements contained in the July 29, 1933, staff
report. to the Policy and Services Comrni ttee have been rearranged
and grouped <;nder three general categories~ removal, public
s:upr;..'Ort!outreach and enforcement measures.
The proposed trial prograrr. addresses graffiti removal on City,
other agency and private property for a total ann.ual cost of
$128~OOO as follows: Staff re=:o:mnends establishing a dedicated
graffiti removal unit utilizing temporary help for $55,000 which
would increase removal on City property and on other agency
property~ Over the next year, an evaluation would be made of
convertirlg to permanent staffing or to contracting fer this
service. Staff also recommends a $10.000 pilot program to apply
seal~~ts and anti-graffiti paint at chronic graffiti City sites in
-1-
an effcrt to reduce !'emcval CQsts. For p.r-::'<~·ate property, staff
recommends adopting an ordi!",.3.!".ce req'.1iring ~j mel y graf fit i x2'r.oval,
together with a pilct $Hl, COO inco:-ntive progJ:3!':'!, w:-~ich woul.:;
reimburse $50 :'0 c'C)'n"pliant property o\.,.'r:ers. AjT".i.nis:l:atir.g t.he
gr3ffit:' abatement ordinance would require a. temp(",:-ary enforce:11ent
offic€r for 520,000. A $10,000 standby City co:-:.~!"act i_s also
recoL'nT;J.ende:d for City graffiti remo',"al ~:l !10:1-co:-r.pliar-,t property.
Finally, staff reccr:~mend.s hiring a ::.e:mpor2:ry coord:'':1atcr to IT'.ar~age
volunteErs pe-rfcrming graff~ti removal on p'..lb!i,": and p!"l.V3te
property for $2'3,OOC.
The proposed program addresses public 6upport/outreach ~~ graffiti
issues for a total annual cost of $35.000 as f'Jl~0· ... ·s: Staff
recommends establishing a City hot.line u!::iliz.ir.g ter::po:ca:-y staff
for $22,000; creating gr~ffiti removal kits f~r $3,000 and
pI"E:paring removal technique brochtlres for S 10,0 C c. The b-::-cchures
would provide i::::.forQation on :!"ecycled pai!1t and Sea:::'ants; a;1d WG~ld
be distributed throu.gh the hotl ir.e ana the Po:'. ice Departmer:t':3
Crime Preventio~ Division. Also, 'the Youth Cc,uncil w0uld be used
to educa~e students on the consequences of performing acts of
graffiti.
The proposed progra~ addresses enforcemenc measures for a total
annual cost of $;,000 as follow·s: Staff recommends ::dopt ing a
restitution ordinance which holds pa:cents civilly liab1e for
propertlt defacement by minors and expanding the City's Juvenile
Diversicn program to require gra.ffiti removal by youth offenders on
private property. The overtime cost co administer the expanded
program would be $2~OOO.
Detailed Piscussion of RecoTl'.mended Elements
Following i3 a more detailed explanat.ion of t.he thirteen an'ti
graffiti pI-ogram elements recommended for the next onE: and one half
years at an ann"Ual estimated cost of $HiS, coe. The program would
be financed by the Gen~ral Fund and Utility Funds, depending on the
location of the graffiti, and by reimbursements from other agencies
and private property owners as discussed later. A table
summarizing the cost of program eJements is included in Attachment
A. The table also includes a priority designation of "I" or "2"
for each element. The "1" elerr:ents are interrelated and fit
together as a package. They have the common attribute of
addressing graffiti removal quickly~ a characteristic which the
Policy and Se~vices Committee indicated as a high priority. The
12· elements, while generally having a longer term impact, are most
important in promot.ing corr.munity a .... areness and involvement.. This
information may be usetul to the Committee if it 'W"ishes to phase in
program implementation over the n~xt one ar~ one half years.
REMOVAL
-2-
1. Inc:ea •• d graffiti remQv&l for City parks and buildings.
Staff recommend5 that all Cit.y graffiti ret:1'?val bo:
centralized under the Publ~,c -.-lorks Depa-:-t.fTIer'~'C, includi:lg
buildings, parks cmd utilities, to i~p:-ove efficienq.' and
r~duce overlapping responsibilities be'CIA.'een depart~ents. {An
interfund transfer betwe.en th-= Utility F1..:nd and Gene:::-al P\,;.nd
..... ould be made where appropr.ia~e _} It is not possible to
accurately establish 3 leve] of service and ccs~ th~t ~ill
ensure all graffiti remcval within a specified tima fra.me,
as it is depenjent on many factcrs beyond staff's control.
One complicating factor is that :'n-:::reased graffiti remo'Jal
frequencies provide even mare .. ~ppcrtunities for
reoccurrp.nCES. Over the last six mor:.ths, the City has
experienced approximately ~lO incidents of graffiti per rnor.th
on Cicy propercy, including parks, scr-eets, 'J.tilities and
bUildings. Depending on the locatio~, the re~oval took from
one-half :'our to four hours to somplete.
In order to minimize graffiti remov-al costs, staff recommeT.as
a program with particular emphasis on q'.1ick complaint
response. The program wot.:l d have a goal of removing r~on
profanity graffiti witn.in five working days, based on a rate
of four to six locations per day. If the program includes
substantial work on sC'hocl sites, S·9.nta Clara Valley Water
District property and train stations, as discussed in Element
2, the response time could increase to ten calendar days.
The ten day limit is consistent with the requirements of a
proposed private property graffiti removal ordinancl!!
discussed in Element 3 _ Profanity-type graffiti 'Would be
removed within two days.
Staff reco~mends establishing a dedicated graffiti removal
unit. The total annual cost ..... ould be apPl:-cximately $55, oeo,
inclu.ding $25,00'0 for an hourly laborer, $18,000 for supplies
and $12~OOO for equipment. ~~ existing City truck would be
utilized. The City's cost would be reduced, depend~l"!t upon
the extent of reimbursement received from ether governmental
agencies participating in a j~int program, as discussed in
Element 3. Implementation of this element would take three
months. OVer the next year staff ...... ould evaluate the
program's effectiveness based on actual experience, examining
su.::h options as utilizing permanent stafL leasing/purchasing
new equipment or entirely contracting OUI: this service.
Absorbing this anti-graffiti element into the eXisting
workload with no additioniil funding ..... ould restJ.lt in a $55, 000
reduction in the str~et signing and striping progra$.
Staff also recommends implementing a $10~OOO pilot program
to apply sealants and/or anti-graffiti paint on various City
facilities prone to graffiti abuse, such as restrooms. bridge
-3-
abutr.1ents; etc. The application of the sea] ant mate::-ial
..... ould be performed by the laborer frem tbe City's graffiti
remo·,tal '~mit at a cost of approximately $10'J per site. This
pilot program would be revie'wed over t.tle next year to
determine wheth~!:" sealants and Cl.:-J.ti-9:z:-affiti pair."t tt"uly make
a difference in the overall cost of rem:;,':al.
2. In~erageney eoope~4tive effort.
Staff has contacted repres,elltat.ives frDm the Palo Alto
Unified School iJistrict~ Santa Cla::-a Valley Ha.ter District.,
u.s. Postal Service, Santa Clara Co~nty 7ransportation
Agency, San Mateo Transit Dis<:.r-ict, Joint Po ..... ers Bc,ard
[CaltrainJ and Ca] Trans to deter:::ir.e inte~est ina
coope:;ative graffiti removal effort. All agencies have
existing prog!."ams to remove offensive gyaffi ti ... ithin a week.
The School District, Santa Cla.!"a Valley Water District -snd
Joint Powers Board are very ir'~t~rested in pursuing
cooperative agreeme!'lts with the Cit;{ due to the increase and
amount of graffiti. Th~ agreement wo;;ld address such isst.!es
as cooperative funding, liability insurance requirements and
accesS' arrangeme:r~ts~ e~c. Staff woul d purs'.1e full cost
recovery for Cit.y work p~rformed within other agencies'
property.
The impacts of this element are extremely difficult t.o
estimate due to lack of graffiti records. Depending on the
number. t}"Pe and size of gra.ffiti incidents reported, thi.s
added responsibility would reduce staff's availability for
responding to graffiti calls on City prope:=ty. Staff does
not recommend absorbing the cost of this element in the
existing budget. as the work is beyond the scope of sen~L:es
normally provided by t.he City. However, staff does recommend
inch1.ding this effort as part of the graffiti remcval from
City parks and buildings discussed in Element 1.
Implementation of this element would take six months.
3. OrdLnan~e to require graffiti removal on private property.
Based on a review of 35 existing abatement ordinances. and
feedback from the Palo Alto Board of Realtors ~~d Chamber of
Commerce. staff recommends a::icpting an ordinance that is
simple to admi~ister and encourages compliance through an
incentive feature. The incentive provision is intended to
avoid the "double penalty" that marly property owners, once
victimized by gr~ffiti vandals, may feel when ord~red by the
City to remove the damage. Also, the ordinance would
incorporate a reactive approach, that is, requiring abatement
only on a complaint basis.
The incentive program rewards owners with $50 if graffiti
abatement is performed within five days of receiving a notice
from t.he City. Alternatively, the owner may permit the City
-4 -
to remove the graffiti a~ an a~~eed price through a standby
cont.ract which is discussed in Eler.1.e:'l.t 4.. If the Qwn'3r takes
no action ",,·it.hir. ten days to remove 'Che g~affiti, the City
would proceed · .• d.th ar~ abatem-=n.~ F::ocess, ..... hi_ch ult.ir.ta:.:.ely
results in liens being placed on the propel-ty, if other
collect-ion met.hods are unsuccessful. Property o""'<le-r-s CGuld
appeal the amO-:..lnt of ti"le lien through a:1 anm.:.al ~ublic
hearing. si.:-nilar to tbe .,:e;;!d abateT:".en:::: process. The
administrative seeps recr..:ired t.o abate graffiti and cost
analysis are included in Attach~en~ B. The analysis
indicates that the City's adminis:.rative cost for the
inc:entive program is approximately $lS0 per case. This
compares favorably ... ·ith the $180 admi!:'-istrati~"~e cost for Ciq"
graffiti removal on private pr~perty, or a minimum S400
administrative cost for pursuing -che full abatement process
on non-corr'pliant properties"
In order to control incentive program costs, staff recommends
an an.-r{l ... al ca~ be established of $10,000. This would provide
a $50 reimbursement to approximately 15 propoerties per month.
Due to the uncertainties of whether the incentive program
will successfully promote graffiti removal by property
owners, staff recommends including a '"sunset clausell in the
ordinance which terminates the pr:-::::-am in one and O:1e half
years unless specifically extended by Council. Staff also
recommends hiring a half-time temporary enforcement officer
at an aJL~ual cost of $20.000. The enforcc~ent officer would
respond to graffiti complaints on private property and folIo,*,
up with site visits to ei1.:,:lUre compliance, as part of the
abatement process. The recommendation is based on an
estimat.e ranging from 20 to 40 cases per month"
Implementation of Chis anti-graffiti element would take
approximately three months. Staff would eva 1 uate the
effectiveness of both the enforcement officar and the
incentive p~ogram over the next year+
Absorbing the enforcement. officer responsibilities into the
existing workload, with no addit.ional funding, 'Would result
in a SO percent reduction in available resou~ces to respond
to all other code compliance issues.
4. Standby cont~act
Staff reco~~ends that the Public works Department e3tablish
a prearranged agreement wi~h a contractor (a standby
contract) for graffiti removal on private property. The
contract wo~ld be used to abate graffiti i~ the event that
an owner did not comply with the graffiti removal ordinance.
It would also be used if the owner entered into a~ agreement
with the City for graffiti removal.
CMR:S75: 93 -5-
As it is extremely di!!icult to establish a cast ~or this
program el.am€:lt, sta:f recom",e!'"~ds a rnojest initial fundi:1g
of $10,000 ann~a!ly, which would cover ~he =os: o~
approximately 3-':) l'::;'C'ac.i:ms at. 5330 a~ie;::e (th!"ee t.o fot:~
h:l\Jrs per location) Minor a::i:::li ticr:;al cOStS would be
incurred to prepar!:! the ~ecess:a:;-y liability ",'aivers to al':cw
a City contractor access to priva:e property and for City
staff t.o superv':se the co::.t:::-ac:or· 5 war:":. T.~-=-2i ty we,u:'.:)
recei ve reirr.bursement for graffi ti remcva.l froT:1 ~hF; pr:jperty
owners. !mplemer:t.lng thj.s anti-graffiti element wou~d raf.:e
approximately tw':J mc::n.hs.
St.aff does r:.c':. reccrr.:'Tle.nd absorbing th~ cost of a standby
contract in tne exlst.ing budget, as th;: ' .... ork is· beyond the
scope of services now being peI=orrned by the City.
s~ Volunteers
Staff r·ecornn".ends that the Community S-ervices Departme!'lt
expand the exisci:1g Adopt-A-?a.rk program to include the use
of volunteer groups and individuals, corporate entities and
the business corr.mu~ity to remove graffiti. Current.ly, there
is no coordinato:::' ::or the Adopt-A.-park program. In order !".Q
assume the added responsibility of graffiti removal, staff
reccll".mends hiz'ing a 3/4 time temporary volunteer coordinator
at an annual cost of $23. ODD. The position would be
responsible for public outreach for t.he program, volunteer
group coordination, as well as, volunteer training r
scheduling and recognition. Graffiti removal wculd focus on
public property a:ld be cocrdinated closely with the P'..lblic
Works and Police Departments. It would take six mont.hs to
establish an effective volunteer program. During the next
yearJ staff will evaluate the ~ffectiveness of using
temporary personn~l.
If this responsibility was absorbed i~to the existing
workload~ · .... ith no additional funding, it would se.t'lously
affect staff's ability to adequat.ely monitor Human Servic.es
contracts, assist East Palo Alto in grar~t writing. and
provide support to the Human Relati':ms Commission, the
Disability Awareness Task Force and t.he Youth Council.
PUBLl:C SUP PORT I Ot1TR.EACR
6 • City boU!ne
Staff re~ornmends that the Public Works Department be
established as the City point of contact for repcl.·ting
incidents of graffiti on public or private property,
responding to inquiries. disseminating graffiti information
and receiving anonymous tips. Staff wDuld follow up by
contacting the rasponsible agency or City department for
cleanup and by tracking the graffiti removal through a work
-6-
order syst.em. The hotline services and phone numbe:t' ..... o!.lld
be advertised in araffiti brochures, utilit.y bill inserts and
in the newspaper;. The hotline \\.'ol,;,ld be in service 24 hour;;:;
pe:.· day througb tr.e use of ar, answeri~g maC':"'!.ine or answering
s~ rvice.
Staff l.·ecorr.I1';::;:lds that a temp:Jr9ry C'~er:': ini':ially be used as
the hotline cocrdinator at a cost oe $22,000 and a workload
evaluation based on aCJ:,ual experience, be rr:ade ever the .next
year. The hot line coord:..nator wC'u:d he responsible for
respo~ding to telephone calls, routing \\Iork orders,
dispatching and follow-up. The position would als~ provide
support for the interagency cooperat-ive effort discussed in
Elerrl~nt :2. Implementation of 'Chis ar::~i-g::.-affiti element
would take tw,::;, months.
The Public Works Depart.~enJ:, co'.:ld nc,: absorb this fun-ctio:r.
without seriously compromising current. day to day operations,
including responding to trees, streets and storm. drain calls.
7. Gr~ffiti removal technique brochures.
Staff reco~~ends that the Public Works Department administer
the design, printing and distribution of brochures which
describe the method.s:, products and prec"lutions for removing
graffiti fro.."tI various type$' of surfaC~6. The :'rochure ..... ould
include the City hotline telephone number and additional
information on such items as recycled paint and sealants,
which are discussed in Elements 9 and 10. Al so, the
brochures would be distributed by the Police Department's
Crime Prevention Division as indicated in Element 11.
The design of the brochure is estimated to cost $1 1 000.
Printing and distribution costs would be 179,000. Staff would
review the most cost effective means of disseminating !:he
information to residents, including Utility Bill inserts and
Palo Alto Weekly inserts. The brochures ..... ould be available
for mailing or distribut':on within two months.
If the brochure costs were absorbed in the existing budget.
there would be a $10,000 reduction in ~he tree maintenance.
street maintenance or sidewalk repair budget.
8 ~ Removal ki t.s
Staff recommends that the Community Services Department
create graffiti removal kits, 'Which .,,, .. ould include such i terns
as non-toxic chemical cleaner, paints, clo'Chs, brushes, paper
towels. safety gloves, disposable bags and "Graffiti 3us~er"
vests. Brochures would be created explaining the use and
safety requirements for the materials. Volunteers using the
kits would be required to receive training on proper graffiti
removal techniques and materials disposal, as well as, sign
CMR:57S:93 -7-
liability z.-elease forms -provided by the volunteer
coordinator. The cost would be approximat.ely $3,000 annually
based on 100 Kits a::. S30 ar,.l.ece. The kits wC-\.lld bo: available
~ithin one month.
Absorbing the cost of the kits ir~ the exis:ing bu:l::;e':. ""Quid
result in a 5 pe:rce::" .. t rec'.1ction in s·.;pplie:s and !T.aterials
available for park ~ai!1tenar.ce.
S. Recycled paint
P-.J."clic Works staff ..... ould provide info!:"rt'.a".:icn to private
businesses and volun':"eers on how to obtain inexpensive
recrcled paint from local supplier-so Tris would be done as
part. of the hotline and graffit.i r-emoval t.echnique broch",..lres
discussed in Elemen-.:::; 6 and 7. In addit.ion. scaff is looking
into obtaining recycled paint ~hrough the City' s Household
Hdzardous Waste contractor and :naking it available to the
p·.ililic at the Wate!:" Quality Con~rol Plant.
10. Sealants
Staff recommends that the Public Works Depal.-tment prepare
information for distribution t·:, businesses on sealant
coatings. Altho·.lgh coatings can [l',ake graffi.ti removal
easier, lesE e>.-pensive sealants come off -IAI!l.en cleaned with
hot pressurized wat.er and, as a resu~t, :nust be reapplied.
Therefore, information would be included on application
techniq~es, product availability~ cost and safety
precautions. The information would be developed as part of
the graffiti removal technique brochures di scussed in Element
7 and would be ayaila_ble with:Ln two months.
1~. Community Outreech/Edueation
Staff recommends that the Crime Prevention Division of the
Police Department distribute brochures ..... hich include graffiti
in foI"D'la t. ion regarding preventior1, incident report il"J.g, removal
techniques, 6eillar...ts r recycled paint and applicable laws,
etc. The brochures ","ould be distributed and ttle informatio:1
discussed at neighborhood watch meetings r schools and local
business and neigtillorhood association meetings. The
information would be created as part of other anti-graffiti
elements discussed in this report. As there would be minor
additional staff time necessary to distribute the
informa!.ion. this anti-graffiti element could be absorbed
int.o the existing workload. The timing of distrib\.!tion would
be dependent upon the schedule,s of other anti -graffiti
program elements. Also. the Police Depar'cment would provide
information and special training to Adopt-A-Park volunteers
(discussed in Element 5) regarding the social impacts of
gangs, the meaning of tagging and public safety precautions_
CMR: 575 :93 -e-
Staff recommends utilizing t~e youth CO'J.ncil to educa.':.e
st:.udents on the consequences and im~act.s of perfcz-rr.ing acts
of graffiti. The Cou~~il celieves that ~tuden~s incli~ed to
perform acts of graff it i would be diss!.1a.ded i i they wer,= rr.ade
awa!'e of t.he punishrr,r:nt. The Council ... ;ould :r:ake its peers
a ..... are of the City's aggressive anti-graffiti prograT:1.,
emphasiz.ing t~e City'S co!!'.mitment to abating this protJem,
The program would be created and cccrd'::1.ate·-j by staff wi':hcut
addi tional cos':: through a shift: in exis::ing ""'c1rklQad
prio:'l":ities. Implementati~n of the prQgri.7.m .... ould be handled
by the Youth Council. ?artic'.!lar empnasi s would be placed
on the Greer Park area, wrdch has been tr.e subjec~ cf
repeated graffiti incidents.
BNl'ORCEMEN'l' MEASURES
12. Restitution ordinanee for graffiti removal
Based on a revi~w of other municipalicies. staff recommends
a l"estitutioll ordinance which reinfcz-ces California Civil
Code. The code provides =.hat parents or legal gu.arcUans can
be held civilly liable for up to $10,000 for damages caused
by a minor's defacement of prcperty. The Folice Department
wOllld work with the City Attorney's Office to craft a
restitution crdinance which reinforces state code, requiring
adults to cleanup or pay for gr-affiti removal upon convict-ion
of the minor.
The absorbed CQst for drafting the ordinance would be
approximately $2,000. Enforcement cost could range fl."om SlOe
to $1,000 per case depending on the complexity of the
situation. The crdinance would be drafted and implemented
within two to six months.
13. Juveoi16 Oiversion Program expansio~
Currently, youth offenders eligible for participatio~ in the
Police Department's Juvenile Diversion program remove
graffiti on public property. Pending the out.come of a legal
rev-iew on potential liability issues, staff recommends
extending graffiti removal to private property in instances
where youth offenders are arrested for vandalizing private
p~operty" The Police Department staff would arrange for the
removal with the cooperation of the property owner.
The cost impact for this anti-graffiti program element
includes an officer's time needed for the supervision of the
removal. Most of the removals are done on .... eekends and,
because other workload precludes providing supervision during
standard work schedules, the officer would be compensated on
an over~ime basis with costs approaching $2,000 annually.
Staff recommends that i~ those instances w~ere the offender
is also the perpetrator of the vandalism, costs associated
-9-
wi't-h paint and -equipment. ce the responsibility of the
offender and/or paren':s of the ofi.ender. The legal issues
would be handled ..... ·i thin t'Wo months. Dr: i1 i z:a~ion of the
expanded program would be d~?enden:. kpon tbe apprehE:~sio", of
o~fenders fOIJnd to be l-esPQr-sible for private property
graff:iti vandalis~.
Absorbing the overtime cost in the existing budget \.,Iould
significantly affect. staff's ability to inves:::'ga::e eUler
j'.Jvenile and child abu~e cases.
Discussion of Non-r,e,::oml!!ende:i Elements;
1'. Ordinance to regulate the storage and display of ppray paint
and marker pens.
Sta.ff believe:s that an ordinance res,"',.;,lat.ing graffiti
ins-t:r:urnents '-lock up ordina:1ce") ,,",ould be ineffective,
because of Pale Alto's rel~:ively small geographic siz~ and
the availability of spray paint and ~arker pens ir. nearby
cities. Cities. with such ordinances report that they have had
a minimum impact on reducing graffiti + Other cities have
considered similar ordinances, but have decided a'gainst thet1
due to the problemE they present for retailers. Based on
this and feedback from the Policy and Services Committee and
the Chamber of Commerce's Governmental Action Council, staff
does not recommend a -lock up~ ordinance. This element would
be considered again. if the Legislative Task Force of the
Santa Clara COU,'lty Cities Association is successful in
lobbying all cities to implement such an ordinance.
If this element were included in the anti-graffiti program,
the absorbed cost for the A~torney's Office to develop the
-:lrdinance would be approximately $500+ The initial cost for
the Police Department Code Enforcement Officer would be
approximately $1,000 and follow-up on complaints would range
from $Hl{] to $200 per incider.t. The ordinance would be
drafted and implemented within two to three mcnt,hs.
While it is possible to absorb this additional workload,
delays in other duties assign~d to the Code Enforcement
Officer would OCCur such as street closure and other oermits,
taxicabs inspections .. follow-up c.n complaints related to the
smoking ordi~ance, etc.
15~ Murals at chronic grAffiti leeationa.
Staff reviewed two options of creating murals at chronic
gzaffiti loc~tions such as in Rinconada. Hoover and Mitchell
Parks and at City underpasses. Firat r volunteer groups such
as neighborhood associations ..... ·ould be solicited to paint
murals that capture the uniqueness of the neighborhood. The
Public ~xts Commission would revie~ the design and a local
0<1>,575,93 -10-
; .
artist. wO'uld oversee t:.h~ painting. A second option woul"'" be
to commission loc31 artists to paint the murals. Staff does
not recom<':":..:1d this eleiTIent beC3U!;e recer,':: suz'veys with other
cities show that their murals still become ta=gets for
g~affiti .:buse. Cities are left ""'i'Cb the uDe!lviable t.ask 0-:
dealing with graff::i removal .... ·itho'.lt damaging the underlJ.-'ing
rr:'Jro.l. The COSt of t.he removal wC:.lld make tr.e program
couIlte!'"'!'rod·.2:;ti ve.
If this element were included in the anti-graffiti program,
t.he cost of the first option 'I'-'ould be app::-::lximat.ely $4,0,)0
per rr.ural :i.r..clw.::l.ing $2, DOC fo~-the services of an artist to
oversee t.h-e painting and up to $2, 000 fo.r-a sealant coating,
There WOL:ld be minor staff administrat ion time involved. The
cost of the second optloI'! would be $5,00 Q to $7, DDO poer m~ral
including the artist painting, sealant coating a:1d st:~.ff
administration. This -ele'r.1ent of the anti-graffi t i program
would take approximately one year to. implemp.nt..
Recen; ~~ti-Grefti~i Activities
The Legislative T-ask Force of the Santa Clara Count.y Cities
Association is addressing the subject of graffiti,. including ..... ays
in which Santa Clara County cities and other goyernment.al agencies
can work cooperatively to co~bat the prob:em. At th~i~ Septembe~
23; 1993 meeting. the task force identified anti-graff~ti program
ele-ments which cDuld be implemented on a countywide basis. These
included standardizing abatement and graffiti instru.ment storage
r·::gi.llation ordinances, sha.ring educat ional materials, ne_tworking,
encouraging cooperative access and funding a.greements, and
strengthening state laws regarding consequences to offenders~
Staff sent copies of tne July 29~ 199) Anti-Graffiti Program staff
report to members of the City/School Liaison Committee, alerting
them to the City's activities. A presentat.ion was made to the
committee at their October 13, lS93~ meeting. The Committee
responded fa ..... orably to the program, especially pursuing coope::.-ative
graffiti remcval approaches and use of the Youth Council te'. educate
students.
Staff met with representatives of the Barron Park Association. The
Association has an aggressive graffiti removal program which ca:l be
considered as a model foy other neighborhood organizations.
Prcgr-am elements include providing cash rewards .. holding regular
rr.eetings with the Palo Alto Police Department and distributing
graffiti removal kits.
Fu tUre Act ions
Attached is a summary of the steps and timing for anti-~raffiti
program actions (Attachment C). After Council's conceptual
-11-
•
approval, E'taff would ret' .. .::rn to Council for adop~ ion of the
appropri~t:e ordinances to ir.rplelT!en:' t:le trial p.rog"!"am fer the
remainder of FY 1.993-94. C.~ntif':ua".:io!1 of the tria3-prog.cam fu::ding
for FY 1935-~6 would be cQ~3idered as part of th~ budget proces~ in
spring !.994.
Staff would ret'..lrn to Council in late 193';, with an evaluation of
the trial program ele:ner:ts and a :n~cammenchtion .on a perrr.ar:.en:.
progra::o for possible inclusion in the FY 1995-96 operating bud::;et.
This would be basE'd en inforrr,acion collected over approximately one
y~ar jncluding the following:
• number of monthly rew3rds gi ve:1 und-er thE: in:::enti ve prograT'l
• number. cont:er:t and distribution of brochures and removal kits
• !'lu1l'\ber of offenders apprehended and da.mages collected -.J.nder
the resti tutic-n ordinance
• number and location of graffi ti rerr.~val s performed u.nder the
Juvenile Diversion program
• monthly volume and C05L of graffiti removal on City, other
agency and private property
• a comparison of graffiti removal costs at similar sites with
and without 3ealan~s
• monthly volume <l:nd cost of abat_ement cases on private property
• monthly volume and cost of g~affiti removal by volunteers
• monthly number and type of calls: received en the hotline
• description. of anti-graffiti meetings and training performed
by the Police Departrnent~ and educational meecings performed
by the Youth Council
Recommendations
Staff recommends that Council:
~. Approve recommended trial anti-graffiti program elements 1 to
1.3 •
2 _ Direct sta:tf to return to Council for at=:proval of anti
graffiti ordinances and Budget Amendment Ordinances necessary
to fund trial program implemen~ation for the remainder of FY
1993-94.
-12·
3.
4.
Direct that trial anti-graffiti pr<:>g!.-am ,:u:lcling be cons:dered
for inclusion in the FY 1994-95 Op€rati~g Budget.
Direct staff to rCDOrt back to Council ~fter twelve ~onths,
~ith an evaluation· of the trial anti-graffiti p~ogram and a
recommendatio:'l or:. a pE::r'manent p--::ogra.rn !Clr i_ncl·.1sio~ i:1 the FY
1.9095-96 Operating Budget,
RespeC'tfully submitted,
/, 12 ~,(."4 ~MK. __ (/ fr'
GEORGE BAGDON GLENN S .. ROBERTS
Assjstant Public Works Director Directo= of public Works
City Manager
cc: Will Beckett, President Barron Park Association
Susan F~ankr Director Cha~~er of Commerce
Jane Alhouse ~~, -resident Palo Alto Board of Realtors
Donna Devencenzi. Caljfornia J>..venue Area Development Assoc.
John Russo
Micki Scrilleider, Downtown Marketing committee
Richard Spotswood
Thomas Barry
Kevin Oskinski
Joan S-•. 1l1ivan
Bob Moss
John Joynt
John Benza
P,obert Marinaro
Jack Goldb~rg
At tacrur,ent: : Cost S'.Jmmar'/ ...
B
C
Abatement Process/C·;:}sts
~~ture Actions Timing
-13-
COST SUMMARY POR RECOMMENDED N~J-GRA?FITI ELEMENTS
Eleme-nt Annual Coats 't1sir.g
TelI\oorarv Personnel --,
l. Incr!:!ased grafflt:::. Public: worics: $55,0(]D fc:r-j
removal for C,ty parkS/ hourl}' personnel, eqc',.",.nt
and bu~ldlngs_ & suppl~es. $:a, oo~ for
2 , Interagency
coooerat.ive effort.
3. ordinance to !:'eguire
graffiti rer:-.oval on
private property_
4-Standby contract
5. volu..-n::ee;X's
6. City hotline
7. Graffiti removal
technique brochures.
8. Removal kits
S. Recycled Paint
10. sealants information
11-COl'Tll'm.lnit.y
OUtreachiEducation
12. Restitution
ot:'dinance for
crraffiti removal.
13. Juvenile Di ...... ersion
Proqram exPansion.
Total priority 1
Total priority 2
TOTAL COST
p~lot sealant/antl-g:r-affltl
r 'Da~nt iposslble
rel~~~rse~er.t fro~ other
aqenrl""sl.
Fclllic Works: Included in
"1" .
Building: $20, COQ fc:=-1/2
time temp-:::orar>' code
er.forcer::ect offi .. :er.
$10, DeC for pilot. Incen'Cive I
Proqram.
Public Works! .$10,000 for
contractor (-reimbursement
f:=-om nrocertv OioJI1ers)_
Human Services: $23,000 :':or
temporary 3/4 t.ime
coordinator.
Public Wcr)!:.~ $22. 000 for
full tirn.e hourlY clerk.
puDl1c Worka: $10,000 fo<
printing and distributing
brochures.
Parka: .$),000 for kit.s at
~~30.00 a J2..iece
Public Work.: Included .... ith
"7'".
Public 1I'orka~ Included with
"7·
Policl!I • Community
Services I minor
Attorney • Police: Tr.inor
Police:
overtime.
$'2,000 in officer
$117.000
+8.000
$165.000
=
Priority
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Step 1.
Step 2.
Step 3.
Step 4.
Step S~
step 6.
Step 7.
Step B.
Attachmen~ B -Page 1
Complaint received from hotline coordinator (HC~
regarding graffiti Oil priyate property initiating a
field inspection.
Enforcement officer (EO) researches property
ownership prior to perforTl1.ing inspect ion and checks
log for p~ior incidents at site.
EO performs field inspection, posts no~ice of
viol at i on, photographs nul sance, 9i ve 6
tenant/c<ccupant packet of materials which includes:
Notice to Abate Graffiti ·..,ithin 10 days~ flyer on
incentive program. and an agreement with City for
removal Cif cwner exercises this option) .
EO sends registered letter to owner along with
information described above.
If owner elects to participate in incentive program,
EO inspects to verify removal within 5 days.
If owner elects to utilize the City contractor. EO
sends agreement to He for acticn.
If the 10 day notice is not complied with~ a hearing
is held by the Chief Building Official. Following
the hearing. a Notice of the Hearing Officers;
decision is sent by certified mail to the owner with
a copy for the He. He proceeds with the abatement of
the nuisance utilizing standby contractor if so
deemed necessary by the Hearing Officer.
He prepares bill
contractor.
implemented by
delinquent.
for work performed by City's standby
Follow ~p collection procedure
Finance Department if bill is
Scer.ar i 0 1 ~
Scenario 2:
Scenario 3:
Att~chment a -fS?E 2
o....'11e::-abates g:::-affiti
•
•
•
•
He re-::eiv~s cOl':'tplai:"t, l:;;s call.
refe:.':; ~o ED
EO pe:r:o:rrr.s research. inspects,
posts notice, follo~ ... s up
Financ~ issues check
In(;enti'.re check
City abates g:.t.'affit.i for o\O,:ne.r
•
•
HC receives complaint, log~
re:ers c-o EO
.11,
EO performE research, inspecLs,
po~ts notice, follows up
• EO coordi~ates p~operty o~~e~
= 1reement
• . .: administers :-:!moval contract
• Finance bl.lls 0, .;r
.$ 10
60
10
--2Q
$150
$ 10
80
30
50
City proceeds with full abatemel',t process on
ncn-compliant owners
•
•
•
•
•
He receives complaint, logs call,
refers to EO
EO performs research, in~pects,
posts notice, follows up
EO administers nuisance abatemen.t
procedure/hearing/appeal
HC administers removal contract
Finance pu.rsues collection of
delinquent bill, (Additional costs
if proceeds to court case or lien.)
$ 10
so
150
so
1-00
$400
-""""--~~~-
ATTACIIMEN'£ C
FUTURE Jl~TION: 'rIMING
199] 199/. 1995
Action
1
4th Qtr 1st Qtr -~ Qt I 3rd Qtr ~~~ 18~~nd Qtr
II--------f.--~--··L -~1.~ __
Council conceptual
approval of trial
Dec
program !
Council appr.oval of .. ,-""""", .... ,, ...... "'''' ..... ····;~·~"·"" .. ·····1· .. "' .. "'··· -.' .. ,." ... ".,., ..... ~ ..... "' .....
related ordinances I
for remainder of FY I
199] -94
[Hldget process
conalde;cation of
trial prClgratl\ for FY
1994-95
Council evaluation
of tri.al progr(lfT1
Rudget process
Consideration of
permanent program
for FY 1995-96
..................... ..................................... ."' ............... . I ! May/June
I I .J. ' 'i' I I
i
i
I
I
i ,
·1···············
!
I
I
I
~'"
, ................... ,.
,., . . .... ~
Dec
.. ...'. . ....... !
Mayl
JUne
•