CITY OF EASTVALE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Rosa Parks Elementary School 13830 Whispering Hills Drive, Eastvale, CA 92880 Tuesday, March 27, 2018 6:00 P.M.
Public Safety Commissioners Christian DaCosta, Chair Richard Wall, Vice-Chair Christian Dinco, Commissioner Sean Parilla, Commissioner
Joe Ward, Commissioner
This Agenda contains a brief general description of each item to be considered. Except as otherwise provided by law, no action or direction shall be taken on any item not appearing on the following Agenda. Unless legally privileged, all supporting documents, including staff reports, and any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Public Safety Commission after the posting of this agenda are available for review at Eastvale City Hall, 12363 Limonite Avenue, Eastvale, CA 91752 or you may contact Jessica Cooper, Deputy City Clerk at (951) 361-0900 Monday through Thursday from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and available online at www.eastvaleca.gov.
If you wish to speak before the Public Safety Commission, please complete a Speaker Form identifying which item(s) you wish to address. Please return the completed form to the Deputy City Clerk prior to being heard before the Public Safety Commission. Speakers Forms are available at the front table of the entryway to the Multipurpose Room.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, you should contact the City Clerk’s Office at (951) 361-0900.
Regular meetings are recorded and made available on the City’s website at www.eastvaleca.gov. Meeting recordings are uploaded to the City’s website within 24 hours (unless otherwise noted) after the completion of the meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. PRESENTATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
3.1 Introduction of Senior Code Enforcement Officer
3.2 Code Enforcement Update
3.3 Monthly Police Department Update Agenda of the March 27, 2018, Eastvale Public Safety Commission Regular Meeting Page 2
3.4 Monthly Fire Department Update
3.5 Public Works Traffic Review Processes
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are normally enacted in one motion. The Chair or Commissioners may remove a Consent Calendar item for separate action. If a member of the public would like to speak on a Consent Calendar item, please complete a blue “Public Comment Form” and submit to the City Clerk prior to the item.
4.1 Public Safety Commission Minutes
Submitted by: Jessica Cooper, Deputy City Clerk
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on January 23, 2018.
4.2 Communications Monthly Summary
Submitted by: Olivia Applegate, Communications Specialist
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the Communications Monthly Summary.
4.3 Eastvale Connection
Submitted by: Olivia Applegate, Communications Specialist
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the Eastvale Connection.
4.4 Public Works Department Update
Submitted by: Craig Bradshaw, Supervising Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the Public Works Department Update.
4.5 Planning Department Update
Submitted by: Eric Norris, Planning Director
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the Planning Department Update.
4.6 Crime Statistics – January 2018
Submitted by: Alia Rodriguez, Senior Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the Crime Statistics for January 2018.
5. COMMISSION BUSINESS ITEMS
5.1 Aggressive Panhandling Submitted by: Alia Rodriguez, Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: Discuss and provide recommendations. 2
Agenda of the March 27, 2018, Eastvale Public Safety Commission Regular Meeting Page 3
6. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time when any member of the public may bring a matter to the attention of the Chair and the Commission that is within the jurisdiction of the Public Safety Commission. The Ralph M. Brown Act limits the Public Safety Commission’s and staff’s ability to respond to comments on non-agendized matters at the time such comments are made. Thus, your comments may be agendized for a future meeting or referred to staff. The Public Safety Commission may discuss or ask questions for clarification, if desired, at this time. We ask that you fill out a “Speaker Request Form”, available at the side table. The completed form is to be submitted to the Deputy City Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. Public comment is limited to three (3) minutes each speaker with a maximum of six (6) minutes (time may be donated by one speaker).
7. CITY STAFF REPORT
8. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
9. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT – The next regular meeting of the Public Safety Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, April 24, 2018, at 6:00 p.m. at Rosa Parks Elementary School, 13830 Whispering Hills Drive, Eastvale, CA 92880.
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing Agenda was posted at the following locations: City Hall, 12363 Limonite Avenue, Suite 910; Rosa Parks Elementary School, 13830 Whispering Hills Drive; Eastvale Library, 7447 Scholar Way; and website of the City of Eastvale (www.eastvaleca.gov,) not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 22nd day of March 2018.
______Jessica Cooper Deputy City Clerk
MINUTES CITY OF EASTVALE
Public Safety Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 23, 2018 6:00 P.M.
Rosa Parks Elementary School Multipurpose Room 13830 Whispering Hills Drive Eastvale, CA 92880
1. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Eastvale Public Safety Commission was called to order on January 23, 2018, at 6:03 p.m. by Chair DaCosta.
2. ROLL CALL/INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Present: Chair DaCosta Commissioner Dinco Commissioner Wall Commissioner Ward
Absent: Vice-Chair Parilla
Also present were: Sr. Management Analyst Alia Rodriguez City Engineer Joe Indrawan Deputy City Clerk Jessica Cooper Communications Specialist Olivia Applegate Lieutenant Tim Martin Sergeant Brian Gutierrez
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair DaCosta led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to our Flag.
3. COMMISSION REORGANIZATION
3.1 Public Safety Commission Reorganization
Commissioner Ward nominated Christian DaCosta to serve as Chair through December 2018.
On motion of Commissioner Ward and second by Commissioner Dinco, the Public Safety Commission voted to appoint Christian DaCosta as Chair through December 2018.
Return to Agenda
Commissioner Dinco nominated Richard Wall to serve as Vice-Chair through December 2018.
On motion of Commissioner Ward and second by Chair DaCosta, the Public Safety Commission voted unanimously by those present to appoint Richard Wall to serve as Vice-Chair through December 2018.
3.2 Sub-Committee Member Selection
Commissioner Ward and Vice-Chair Wall were appointed to serve on the Eastvale Schools Committee.
On motion of Commissioner Dinco and second by Chair DaCosta, the Public Safety Commission voted unanimously by those present to appoint Commissioner Ward and Vice-Chair Wall to the Eastvale Schools Committee and reaffirm all other existing appointments.
4. PRESENTATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
4.1 Code Enforcement Update
There was no update provided.
4.2 Introduction of Traffic Sergeant Brian Gutierrez
Lieutenant Martin introduced Sergeant Gutierrez and provided background information on his career.
4.3 Monthly Police Department Update
Sergeant Gutierrez provided a summary of calls for service and statistics since the last Commission meeting, and answered related questions.
4.4 Monthly Fire Department Update
Battalion Chief Scribner was not in attendance to provide the report.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5.1 Public Safety Commission Minutes
On motion of Vice-Chair Wall and second by Commissioner Dinco, the Commission voted unanimously by those present to approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on November 28, 2017.
5.2 Public Information Officer Monthly Summary
On motion of Vice-Chair Wall and second by Commissioner Dinco, the Commission voted unanimously by those present to receive and file the Public Information Officer Monthly Summary.
Minutes Eastvale Public Safety Commission Meeting January 23, 2018 Page - 2 5.3 Eastvale Connection
On motion of Vice-Chair Wall and second by Commissioner Dinco, the Commission voted unanimously by those present to receive and file the Eastvale Connection.
5.4 Public Works Department Update
On motion of Vice-Chair Wall and second by Commissioner Dinco, the Commission voted unanimously by those present to receive and file the Public Works Department Update.
5.5 Planning Department Update
On motion of Vice-Chair Wall and second by Commissioner Dinco, the Commission voted unanimously by those present to receive and file the Planning Department Update.
5.6 Crime Statistics – November2017
On motion of Vice-Chair Wall and second by Commissioner Dinco, the Commission voted unanimously by those present to receive and file the Crime Statistics for November 2017.
6. COMMISSION BUSINESS ITEMS
6.1 Acceptance of the Fiscal Year 2017 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG)
Senior Management Analyst Rodriguez provided the staff report and answered related questions
On motion of Commissioner Dinco and second by Commissioner Ward, the Commission voted unanimously by those present to approve staff’s recommended action.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chair DaCosta opened the public comments portion of the meeting. Hearing no response, Chair DaCosta closed the public comments.
8. CITY STAFF REPORT
City Engineer Indrawan provided an update on current and upcoming Public Works projects.
Senior Management Analyst Rodriguez noted that Costco is set to open on June 30, 2018 and noted upcoming City Council items.
Communications Specialist provided an update on upcoming community events in Eastvale.
9. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Minutes Eastvale Public Safety Commission Meeting January 23, 2018 Page - 3 Chair DaCosta read a letter received by a resident regarding traffic concerns. 10. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Senior Management Analyst Rodriguez noted upcoming items that will be presented to the Public Safety Commission.
11. ADJOURNMENT – Chair DaCosta adjourned the meeting at 6:49 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Eastvale Public Safety Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, February 27, 2018, at 6:00 p.m.
______Jessica Cooper Deputy City Clerk
Minutes Eastvale Public Safety Commission Meeting January 23, 2018 Page - 4
City of Eastvale AGENDA STAFF REPORT Public Safety Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 4.2 March 27, 2018
Communications Monthly Summary
Contact(s) for Further Information Olivia Applegate, Communications Specialist [email protected] 951.703.4415 City Manager’s Office
Summary The City of Eastvale’s Communications Team works to provide important and valuable information to the community to ensure constituents are kept up to date with City occurrences. This information is disseminated through various platforms including the City’s website, social media outlets, and coordinated press releases. A monthly summary is provided to capture the avenues of outreach that is taken to inform the residents of Eastvale.
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Receive and File
Prior City Council/Commission Action None
Strategic Plan Impact None
Fiscal Impact None
Background The City of Eastvale provides information to constituents through the City’s website, social media and press releases. The City’s website, www.EastvaleCA.gov, contains information pertaining to City Council and Commission agendas, minutes, community events, crime prevention, safety tips, frequently asked questions and more. By visiting the City’s website, residents can also subscribe to Eastvale’s e-notification system. E-notification is a free service provided by City Hall, where subscribers can select the types of notifications they would like to receive by email. Links are also available to the City’s Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and LinkedIn accounts. Additionally, the City collaborates with our partner agencies to coordinate press releases that are disseminated using the above networks.
Return to Agenda
The table below identifies the City’s outreach and follower trend:
PLATFORM FOLLOWERS AS INCREASE FROM OF March 21, 2018 February 22, 2018 Facebook 12,297 112 Instagram 3,653 58 LinkedIn 393 31 Twitter 2,368 41 E-Notifications 3,513 -43
The table below shows the aggregate number of posts per platform from February 22, 2018 to March 28, 2018:
PLATFORM NUMBER OF POSTS Facebook 55 Twitter 59 Instagram 50 LinkedIn 22 E-Notifications and Announcements 28
Although the City of Eastvale is proactive with providing up to date information, citizens are encouraged to enroll for the City’s e-notification service and follow the City’s official social media accounts.
Attachment(s) None
3/27/18 Public Safety Commission Meeting – Agenda Item No. 4.2 Page 2 March 22, 2018 EASTVALE CONNECTION Meeting Schedule Eastvale City Council Wed. April 11, 2018 @ 6:30 PM Eastvale Planning Commission
Wed. April 18, 2018 @ 6:00 PM Eastvale Public Safety Commission Tues. April 24, 2018 @ 6:00 PM Eastvale Parks Commission* Thur. April 19, 2018 @ 6:00 PM
Meetings are held at: Rosa Parks Elementary School *Parks Commission meetings are held at: Eastvale Community Center
City Hall Upcoming Events 12363 Limonite Ave. Ste. 910 March 29, 2018: Veterans Resource & Awareness Event from 5:00 p.m. - Eastvale, CA 91752 7:00 p.m. at the Bootsma Ranch located at 14560 Schleisman Road.
T: (951) 361-0900 March 31, 2018: Free Water-Wise Gardening Class from 10:00 a.m. - F: (951) 685-1225 12:00 p.m. at the Jurupa Community Services District in Jurupa Valley. E: [email protected] April 5, 2018: Eastvale Chamber of Commerce Business & Breakfast from 7:00 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. at New Day Christian Church.
For more information visit: April 13-15, 2018: CERT Training at the Jurupa Community Services District www.EastvaleCA.gov Board Room. Visit our website at www.eastvaleca.gov for more info.
Get Connected! SAVE THE DATE FOR STATE OF THE CITY 2018 Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. at ERHS
City of Eastvale AGENDA STAFF REPORT Planning Safety Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 4.4 March 27, 2018 Consent Calendar Public Works Department Update
Contact(s) for Further Information Craig Bradshaw, Supervising Engineer [email protected] 951.703.4472 Public Works Department
Dahi Kim, Associate Engineer [email protected] 951.703.4477 Public Works Department
Summary The Public Works Department provides monthly updates on development projects occurring City-wide. The list of updates includes residential and commercial projects, encroachment permits, and capital improvement projects.
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Receive and File the Public Works Department Update.
Prior City Council/Commission Action Not Applicable.
Strategic Plan Impact Not Applicable.
Fiscal Impact Not Applicable.
Background Not Applicable.
Attachment(s) Public Works Project Status List
Return to Agenda
Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Residential Development PROJECT NAME: DR Horton (Tract 36423) PROJECT NUMBER: PW11-0558 PROJECT LOCATION: Northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and 65th Street PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements includes 49.56 gross acres with 224 residential lots and 18 lettered lots. Widening of Archibald Avenue (west side) north of 65th Street to the project limits and the associated water, sewer, and drainage improvements, as well as the internal public streets and utilities. PROJECT STATUS: • Public Improvements 99% completed • Project near build-out, punch list items remaining PROJECT MAP:
ARCHIBALD AVE
65TH ST
March 27, 2018 Page 1 of 25 Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Residential Development PROJECT NAME: KB Home – The Lodge (Tract 32821) PROJECT NUMBER: PW10-0124 PROJECT LOCATION: Northwest corner of Limonite Avenue and Scholar Way PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements includes 24 gross acres with 16 residential condominium lots and 2 lettered lots. Improvements include the construction of Scholar Way (half street) across the eastern frontage of the tract map and the associated water, sewer, and drainage improvements. PROJECT STATUS: • Public Improvements on Phase I is 99% completed • Model Homes open • Construction of remaining homes and hardscape improvements completed • Minor removals and replacements then paving to complete project PROJECT MAP:
SCHOLAR WAY SCHOLAR
LIMONITE AVE
March 27, 2018 Page 2 of 25 Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Residential Development PROJECT NAME: Meritage Home (Tract 31406) PROJECT NUMBER: PW10-0140 PROJECT LOCATION: Southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and River Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements includes 32.7 gross acres. Widening of Archibald Avenue (west side) and the associated water, sewer, and drainage improvements, as well as the internal public streets and utilities. PROJECT STATUS: • Public Improvements on Phase I is 99% completed • Punch list has been issued, developer has scheduled repairs PROJECT MAP:
March 27, 2018 Page 3 of 25 Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Residential Development PROJECT NAME: Beazer Homes (Tract 31476) PROJECT NUMBER: PW12-0679 PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast corner of Hellman Avenue and Walters Street PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements includes 40.6 gross acres. Improvements include the construction of Hellman Avenue (half street) and the associated water, sewer, and drainage improvements. PROJECT STATUS: • Public Improvements on Phase I is 99% completed • Punch List has been issued PROJECT MAP:
HELLMAN AVE
WALTERS ST
March 27, 2018 Page 4 of 25 Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Residential Development PROJECT NAME: Lennar Homes – Mill Creek Crossing (Tract 29997) PROJECT NUMBER: PW12-0297 PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast corner of Hellman Avenue and Chandler Street PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements includes 39.78 gross acres with 122 residential lots, 1 future commercial lot and 11 letter lots. Improvements include the construction of Hellman Avenue (half street) and Chandler St (half street) and the associated water, sewer, and drainage improvements. PROJECT STATUS: • Public Improvements on Phase I is 99% completed • Punch List has been issued PROJECT MAP:
CHANDLER ST HELLMAN AVE
March 27, 2018 Page 5 of 25 Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Residential Development PROJECT NAME: William Lyons Homes – Nexus (Tract 36696) PROJECT NUMBER: PW14-0046 PROJECT LOCATION: Limonite Avenue behind 24 Hour Fitness PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements includes 9.95 gross acres with 1 residential condominium lot. Improvements include the construction of private streets and the associated water, sewer, and drainage improvements. PROJECT STATUS: • Production homes under construction PROJECT MAP:
LIMONITE AVE
HAMNER HAMNER AVE
March 27, 2018 Page 6 of 25 Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Residential Development PROJECT NAME: Stratham Homes (TTM 36775) PROJECT NUMBER: PW14-1398 PROJECT LOCATION: Northwest corner of Limonite Avenue and Harrison Avenue PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements includes 43.05 gross acres. Improvements include the construction of Limonite Avenue (half street) and Harrison Avenue (half street) and the associated water, sewer, and drainage improvements. PROJECT STATUS: • Rough grading ongoing • Installation of Storm Drain, Sewer and Water ongoing • Limonite Street Improvements ongoing PROJECT MAP:
HARRISON AVE ARCHIBALD AVE
LIMONITE AVE
March 27, 2018 Page 7 of 25 Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Commercial Development PROJECT NAME: Eastvale Marketplace at the Enclave PROJECT LOCATION: Southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Schleisman Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements includes 1.74 gross acres. PROJECT STATUS: • Public Improvements ongoing Fire line being installed Parking lot has been paved Curb and Gutter improvements completed PROJECT MAP:
SCHLEISMAN RD
ARCHIBALD AVE
March 27, 2018 Page 8 of 25 Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Commercial Development PROJECT NAME: The Campus Business Park PROJECT NUMBER: PW12-0750 PROJECT LOCATION: West side of Archibald Avenue south of Limonite Avenue PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements includes 53.37 gross acres with 11 development parcels and 6 letter lots. PROJECT STATUS: • Rough grading ongoing, additional soil import required • Paving and traffic signal on Archibald remaining in public right of way Paving work and striping work has been completed on Archibald • Hardscape improvements ongoing • Traffic signal energized at Providence and Archibald on temporary power, and is waiting on permanent power PROJECT MAP:
LIMONITE AVE
ARCHIBALD AVE
March 27, 2018 Page 9 of 25 Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Commercial Development PROJECT NAME: Chevron Gas Station PROJECT NUMBER: PW15-0913 PROJECT LOCATION: Southwest corner of Hamner Avenue and Riverside Drive PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements includes 1.67 gross acres. PROJECT STATUS: • Traffic signal at Hamner Ave and Riverside Dr is operational • Video dections have been installed on the traffic signals • Striping on Hamner Ave and Riverside Dr and trench paving repair on Riverside Dr are completed • Temporary Operation permit has been issued, and Chevron gas station is operating PROJECT MAP:
RIVERSIDE DR
HAMNER HAMNER AVE
March 27, 2018 Page 10 of 25 Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Commercial Development PROJECT NAME: Goodman Commerce Center PROJECT NUMBER: PW11-0271 PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast corner of Hamner Ave and Bellegrave Ave PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements includes 23 gross acres with 5 parcels for business park development, and 2 parcels for water quality basins. PROJECT STATUS: • East side of Hamner Avenue buildings are under construction • Hamner southbound lanes in City of Ontario sifted to outside and northbound lanes are substantially complete. • Striping work completed Goodman Commerce Center Retail Phase I – utility installation work on going Offsite improvements completed PROJECT MAP:
HAMNER HAMNER AVE
March 27, 2018 Page 11 of 25 Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Commercial Development PROJECT NAME: Amazon PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast quadrant of Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road and Goodman Way PROJECT STATUS: • New Amazon pad completed Building 1 and 2 completed • Offsite improvement on Goodman Way completed Pedestrian Bridge completed Amazon Parking Lot completed PROJECT MAP:
HAMNER HAMNER AVE
March 27, 2018 Page 12 of 25 Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Commercial Development PROJECT NAME: Costco Wholesale PROJECT NUMBER: PW17-11260, 17-11263 PROJECT LOCATION: East side of Hamner Avenue south of Cantu Galleano Ranch Road PROJECT STATUS: • Grading operation 99% completed • Underground utilities being installed Curb and gutter improvements ongoing PROJECT MAP:
HAMNER HAMNER AVE
March 27, 2018 Page 13 of 25 Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Commercial Development PROJECT NAME: Eastvale Marketplace PROJECT NUMBER: PW15-0958 PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast corner of Limonite Avenue and Sumner Avenue PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements includes 7.64 gross acres with 7 parcels including 7 commercial/retail lots. Eastvale Marketplace includes a grocery store, tire store, and various other retail uses. PROJECT STATUS: • Paving and striping improvements completed • Punch list has been issued PROJECT MAP:
AVE
SUMNER
LIMONITE AVE
March 27, 2018 Page 14 of 25 Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Commercial Development PROJECT NAME: The Ranch PROJECT NUMBER: PW16-00011 PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast corner of Kimball Avenue and Hellman Avenue PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements include 98 gross acres with 14 parcels including 4 business park lots, 5 commercial/retail lots and 1 parcel for detention basin for storm drain purposes. PROJECT STATUS: • Sewer lines, storm drain, water lines and utility lines installed • Curb and gutter improvements completed Street light being installed Traffic Signal at Kimball Ave and Hellman Ave is being installed • Offsite improvements nearing completion PROJECT MAP:
ARCHIBALD AVE
HELLMAN AVE
March 27, 2018 Page 15 of 25 Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Commercial Development PROJECT NAME: 99 Cent Store PROJECT NUMBER: PW13-1601 PROJECT LOCATION: Northwest corner of Hamner Avenue and Schleisman Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements include 2.67 gross acres. Improvements include all public improvements across the project frontage along Schleisman Road and Hamner Avenue PROJECT STATUS: • Project was approved by Planning Commission on June 17, 2015 • Street improvement and on-site plans have been approved • Block walls for building are complete • Public Improvements on Hamner ongoing Curb and Gutter has been installed on Hamner Ave PROJECT MAP:
HAMNER HAMNER AVE
March 27, 2018 Page 16 of 25 Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Commercial Development PROJECT NAME: Grainger Site PROJECT NUMBER: PW14-1077 PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast corner of Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road and Hamner Avenue PROJECT STATUS: • Base paving completed • Exterior walls installed Offsite Improvement ongoing PROJECT MAP:
HAMNER HAMNER AVE
Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd
March 27, 2018 Page 17 of 25 Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Commercial Development PROJECT NAME: Wal-Mart PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Limonite Avenue PROJECT STATUS: • Draft EIR being circulated • Planning Commission Public Hearing March 15, 2017 • City Council Approval April 26, 2017 PROJECT MAP:
ARCHIBALD AVE LIMONITE AVE
March 27, 2018 Page 18 of 25 Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Commercial Development PROJECT NAME: Vantage Point Church PROJECT NUMBER: PW15-1174 PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Prado Basin Park Road PROJECT STATUS: • Project is in its preliminary planning PROJECT MAP:
March 27, 2018 Page 19 of 25 Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Capital Improvements Project PROJECT NAME: Limonite/I-15 Interchange PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project recently received $48 million in funding. The project is being planned for project advertise in May 2018, with construction to start August 2018. The interchange will have significantly reduced traffic capacity during construction. This project is being managed by the County of Riverside. PROJECT MAP:
15 - I
LIMONITE AVE
March 27, 2018 Page 20 of 25 Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Capital Improvements Project PROJECT NAME: Hamner Avenue Widening Project PROJECT LOCATION: Hamner Avenue between Amberhill Ave and Limonite Ave PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The construction includes road widening, asphalt concrete overlay, traffic signal modifications, median improvements, and relocation of sidewalk, curb ramps and curb and gutter. PROJECT STATUS: • Bid Opening on March 15, 2018 • Award construction contract on March 28, 2018 PROJECT MAP:
March 27, 2018 Page 21 of 25 Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Capital Improvements Project PROJECT NAME: Hamner Avenue Resurfacing Project PROJECT LOCATION: Hamner Avenue between I-60 and Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road and between Limonite Avenue and Mississippi Street. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The construction includes asphalt overlay, microsurfacing and striping. PROJECT STATUS: • Project awarded to All American Asphalt • Paving operation completed • Miscellaneous striping operation remaining PROJECT MAP:
HAMNER HAMNER AVE
March 27, 2018 Page 22 of 25 Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Capital Improvements Project PROJECT NAME: Zone 2 Public Storm Drain Installation Project PROJECT LOCATION: Hall Avenue, Selby Avenue, Walters Street, Citrus Street and Hamner Avenue PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of approximately 1,700 lineal feet of mainline and lateral storm drain including manholes, catch basins and junction structures. PROJECT STATUS: • Project awarded to Apple Valley Construction • Project completed PROJECT MAP:
March 27, 2018 Page 23 of 25 Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Capital Improvements Project PROJECT NAME: 2017 Residential Slurry Seal Project PROJECT LOCATION: Various residential streets PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project to treat pavement on various residential street throughout the City with Slurry Seal. PROJECT STATUS: • Project awarded to Pavement Coatings Co. • Project Completed PROJECT MAP:
March 27, 2018 Page 24 of 25 Attachment EASTVALE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT UPDATES
PROJECT TYPE: Encroachment Permit PROJECT NAME: SCE Olympus Project PROJECT LOCATION: Hamner Ave PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of new ducks and vaults along Hamner Ave PROJECT STATUS: • Traffic control plans have been accepted and encroachment permits have been issued for all three phases Vaults and ducts are beinig installed on Hamner south of Bellegrave Ave PROJECT MAP:
HAMNER AVE HAMNER
March 27, 2018 Page 25 of 25
City of Eastvale AGENDA STAFF REPORT Public Safety Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 4.5 March 27, 2018 Consent Calendar
Planning Department Update
Contact(s) for Further Information Eric Norris, Planning Director [email protected] 530.574.4875 Planning Department
Summary Planning projects are provided in the attached Planning Project Status list. The list provides a brief summary and status of each project. New information are highlighted in yellow. A map identifying the location of each project is also included.
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Receive and file the Planning Department Update.
Prior City Council/Commission Action Not Applicable.
Strategic Plan Impact Not Applicable.
Fiscal Impact Not Applicable.
Background None.
Attachment(s) Planning Project Status List and Map
Return to Agenda
Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: March 28, 2018
MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 1 Project: The Lodge by KB Homes, Residential Development Project Map: Project No. 10-0124 Project Location: Northwest Corner of Limonite Avenue and Scholar Way Project Description: Master Home Plan 205 detached single-family homes on approximately 40 acres. Planner: Malinda Lim/Kanika Kith Notes: PC approval on March 18, 2015 to add tempered glass panels along Scholar Way. Approved Phase II Master Home Plan on December 3, 2015. HOA Landscape Maintained Areas for Phase 2 approved on March 17, 2016. Revised HOA Landscape Maintained Areas for Phase 2 approved on April 28, 2016.
Current Status: Approved Under construction
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 1 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 2 Project: Goodman Commerce Center (formally Lewis Eastvale Commerce Center) Project Map: Project No. 11-0271 **see related projects below. Project 190 acres +/- fronting on Hamner Ave. north of Bellegrave Ave. and south of Cantu- Location: Galleano Ranch Road Project General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, and Specific Plan to provide for a mix of Description: warehousing, light industrial, office, and retail uses. Major Development Review for the development of two industrial buildings of approximately 1,007,705 square feet and 1,033,192 square feet. CEQA: Environmental Impact Report (certified) Planner: Eric Norris/Kanika Kith Notes: Approved by City Council on November 12, 2014 Groundbreaking held May 20, 2015. Building permits issued for two industrial buildings. See the following projects for more recent activity at the Goodman Commerce Center: o Project No. 15-0551: Goodman Business Park at northeast corner of o Project No. PLN17-20012: Goodman Bellegrave and Hamner Industrial Building 3 north of Business o Project No. PLN16-00020: Costco Park o Project No. PLN16-00028: Goodman o Project No. PLN17-20033: Multi-Tenant Retail Center at southeast corner of Retail Building CR-3 Major Development Hamner and Cantu-Galleano Ranch Review and Conditional Use Permit Review o Project No. PLN16-00026: Specific Plan Amendment for Off Site Parking, Increase Building Height in Industrial Areas, and Pedestrian Bridge over Goodman Way Current Status: Approved. Under construction
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 2 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 3 Project: Walmart – Eastvale Crossings Project Map: Project No. 12-0051 Project Location: Southeast corner of Limonite and Archibald Avenues (APN 144-030-039) Project General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Major Development Review, five Description: Conditional Use Permits, Tentative Tract Map No. 35061, and Variance for the development of a 177,000 +/- sq. ft. retail store and several outparcels on 24.78 acres. CEQA: Environmental Impact Report (certified) Planner: Eric Norris/Kanika Kith Notes: City Council approval on April 26, 2017. Project was reviewed by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission and received a conditional finding of conformance with the Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Public review of DEIR available from September 27 to November 17, 2016. On March 15, 2017, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the project to City Council. City Council public hearing on April 12, 2017, with a staff recommendation to continue the hearing to April 26, 2017. City Council approval on April 26, 2017. Notice of Determination recorded on April 27, Current Status: 2017. Approved. Waiting for applicant to submit construction plans.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 3 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 4 Project: The Campus (former Providence Business Park) Project Map: Project No. 12-0750 * see related projects below Project West of Archibald Avenue and approximately 750 ft. south of Location: Limonite Avenue (APNs 144-010-002, -033, -037, & -038) Project Change of Zone, Major Development Review, and Tentative Parcel Description: Map for the development of a business park consisting of 11 new industrial buildings ranging from 12,850 square feet to 129,000 square feet (totaling approximately 694,770 square feet), one 2-story office building of 33,600 square feet, and two retail buildings totaling 10,600 square feet on 53.37 gross acres of vacant land (former Bircher’s site). CEQA: EIR Addendum Planner: Kanika Kith Notes: Approved by City Council on April 9, 2014 Project has been sold to new owners, who have met with staff to discuss implementing the approved development plans. Final Map approved by City Council on June 8, 2016. Pre-construction meeting was held with the applicant, contractor, monitors, and Public Works and Planning staffs on August 31, 2016. Approved construction plans for buildings 2 and 3 on December 21, 2016. Current Status: Buildings 1, 10-12 were approved on January 10, 2017, and Building 8 Approved. approved on November 20, 2017. Road improvements under construction on Archibald Avenue See the following projects for more recent activity at The Campus: Buildings 3, 7 and 12 are completed o Project No. 16-00035 The Campus Sign program Other buildings are under construction o Project No. 17-20027 The Campus Along Archibald Pre-Application o Project No. 17-20036 The Campus Zoning Code Amendment for I-P Zoning Planning Inspection for Certificate of Occupancy of Building 7 on March 15, 2018
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 4 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1
Map ID: 5 Project: 99 Cents Only Store Project Map: Project No. 13-1601 Project Location: Northwest corner of Hamner Avenue and “new” Schleisman Road Project Description: Major Development Review for a new 19,104-square foot retail building on 2.67 acres. CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration Planner: Siri Champion/Kanika Kith Notes: Planning Commission approved on June 17, 2015. Approved revised lighting plans on November 17, 2015. Project was purchased by a new owner, who intends to build the approved store. Planning has had initial discussions with the owner regarding plans for the northern portion of the property, but no application has been filed. City staff met with the new owners of the site. They intend to develop the northern half of the property with approximately 10,000 square feet of retail and food uses. Current Status: Building permit issued December 20, 2016. Approved. Grading permit issued on May 4, 2017. CUP for alcohol sales approved January 17, 2018. See the following related project: Fire water and grading issues halted construction. o Project No. PLN17-20041 99-Cent Only Store CUP for alcohol sales However, on February 7, 2018 99-Cent Store representatives confirmed that the water issue has been resolved and they anticipate pouring floors in February. They are working with Public Works to resolve the grading problem. See Project No. PLN17-20041 for details relating to alcohol sales at this location.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 5 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 6 Project: Nexus Townhomes by William Lyon Homes, Residential Development Project Map: Project No. 14-0046 Project Location: 10-acre site south of 24-hour Fitness Center in the Eastvale Gateway South retail center Project Description: Tentative Tract Map No. 36446 and Major Development Review for a residential development (Nexus) consisting of 220 townhomes and a recreation area on approximately 10 acres. Planner: Kanika Kith/Malinda Lim Notes: Approved by PC October 15, 2014. Model homes opened September 19, 2015.
Current Status: Approved. Final phase under construction.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 6 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 7 Project: LBA Realty Industrial Building Project Map: Project No. 14-10477 Project Location: North of Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road, 1,000 feet east of Hamner Avenue, and west of the I-15 freeway. (APN 160-020-033 and 156-050-025) Project Description: Major Development Review for a 446,173-sq. ft. industrial building on approximately 24 acres and overflow parking on APN 156-050-025. CEQA: Environmental Impact Report (certified) Planner: Kanika Kith Notes: Planning Commission approval and EIR certification received April 20, 2016. Issue had arisen re: COA #28 with respect to guard shack location. Staff worked with the applicant over the last couple of months to find an acceptable design that will accommodate adequate truck stacking. Received acceptable solution to allow five trucks to stack on-site, July 7, 2016. Current Status: Approved revised construction plans on December 22, 2016. Approved. Updated burrowing owl survey and mitigation bank contract received on February 6, 2017. Under construction. Grading permit issued on February 16, 2017. Pre-construction meeting was held February 28, 2017. Tenant Improvement plans for Keystone Auto Tenant Improvement plans received on November 9, 2017 and comments provided on November approved on January 3, 2018. 29, 2017. Signage plan approved on January 21, 2018. Signage plans approved on January 31, 2018.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 7 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 8 Project: Sendero Planned Residential Development by Stratham Homes Project Map: Project No. 14-1398 * See Project No. 15-06023 Project Northwest corner of Limonite and Harrison Avenues; APN 164-010-
Location: 017 Project General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Planned Residential Description: Development, and Tentative Tract Map No. 36775 for the subdivision of approximately 44 acres into 323 residential lots and 14 lots for open space and water basins CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Planner: Kanika Kith/Malinda Lim Notes: Planning Commission on May 20, 2015 voted to recommend approval of GPA, Change of Zone, and PRD, and denial of TTM due to too many units. City Council on June 10, 2015 voted 3-0 adopting the MND and approving the project subject to not using SCE easement or the City ROW to satisfy ALUC open space requirement. Revised site plan presented to City Council on 9/9/2015 and Council was supportive of the revised site layout. Applicant submitted first Master Home Plan on April 6, 2016. Current Status: See Project No. PLN 15-06023: Parcel map to subdivide the site into 4 Approved. parcels for financing purposes and revised TTM to allow development Planning approved grading plans. phasing. Modified timing for the development of public parks. Fences and walls plans approved on August 19, 2017. Pre-construction burrowing owl and nesting survey provided on July 7, Landscape comments provided to applicant on August 21, 2017. 2017. Survey approved on July 10, 207. Site clearing and grading is under way. Meetings with Lennar on July 12, 2017 and August 16, 2017 to discuss Revised Master Home Plan and Landscape Plans under review. changes to architectural elevations and layout. Discussion with Lennar on October 26, 2017 to discuss architectural changes to the 8-pack cluster homes. Received revised site plan and architectural elevations for 6-pack and 8- pack cluster homes from Lennar. See Project No. PLN17-20043 for details.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 8 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1
Received revised Architectural Elevations for front-load homes on December 18, 2017. Comment letter sent to applicant on January 18, 2018. See Project No. PLN18-2000 - Architectural Elevation Plan for 6- and 8-Pack Homes, Architectural Plan revisions which were recently purchased by Lennar.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 9 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 9 Project: Goodman Commerce Center Business Park Project Map: Project No. 15-0551 **see Project No. 11-0271 Project Location: Northeast corner of Bellegrave and Hamner Avenues. Project Description: Major Development Review for the development of a Business Park consisting of 7 buildings totaling approximately 191,356 square feet. The business park will accommodate professional offices, light industrial, and light assembly uses. CEQA: Former EIR Planner: Eric Norris/Kanika Kith Notes: Planning Commission approval on August 5, 2015. Approval letter sent on August 11, 2015 Construction drawings for all eight buildings approved by Planning on January 30, 2016. Received CDA well site construction and landscape plans. Planning approved revised elevation for Buildings 3 and 4 on April 24th. Construction of Goodman Business Park is complete. Confirmed tenants in the business park (per Goodman) are: o Platinum Collision (Auto-collision o American Electric Supply (Electrician) Repair) o World Financial Group (Financial and o VW / Audi / Porsche Insurance Services) o Provident Realty (Residential Real o Hong-Chau T Lee (Optometry)
Estate) o C-Quence (Jujitsu) o James Lin Motorsports (Off-road o Eastvale Athletics (CrossFit) Accessories) o Shred-It (Shredding Facility) o Eastvale Academy (Children’s Learning Center) Current Status: Approved. All tenant spaces are leased.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 10 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 10 Project: The Ranch Specific Plan Amendment, Major Development Project Map: Review, and Tentative Parcel Map Project No. 15-0783 **See Project No. PLN 16-00011 for The Ranch Industrial Portion Project Northeast and southeast corners of Hellman and future Location: Limonite (Kimball) Avenues, west of Cucamonga Creek Channel. Moons Site (APNs: 144-010-008-0, 144-101-013-4) and Rodriguez Site (APN: 144-010-009-1) Project • Specific Plan Amendment to modify existing Description: boundaries for The Ranch SP No. 358 for Planning Areas 1 through 6, land use designation for Planning Area 5, and revisions to allowable uses. No revisions to Planning Areas 7 through 9. • Major Development Review for six (6) industrial buildings totaling 985,000 square feet on six (6) parcels. • Tentative Parcel Map No. 36787 to subdivide approximately 97 gross acres into 14 legal parcels CEQA: EIR Addendum Planner: Siri Champion Notes: Approved by City Council on December 9, 2015. February 19, 2016, a new owner purchased the six (6) light industrial business park lots (see Project No. 16-00011). Meeting with applicant on October 18, 2017 to discuss status of commercial portion of The
Ranch, Planning Area 1 Current Status: For PA 2, the owner is considering flexible business park/light industrial uses for a large portion of PA 2 and a smaller retail Approved. component at the corner of Hellman Ave and Limonite Ave. Grading and construction has started for industrial portion, see Project No. PLN16- 00011. Continue discussing potential development for commercial portion. Monument Sign approved on February 1, 2018. 1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 11 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1
Received Major Development Review application for a warehouse in Planning Area 3 on February 14, 2018. See Project No. PLN18-20007 for details.
Map ID: 11 Project: Leal Master Plan Project Map: Project No. Special Project Project 160 acres + at the northwest corner of Hamner and Limonite Avenues, east of Scholar Way, Location: and south of 58th Street. Project This Master Plan describes the community’s vision for the project area, identifies appropriate Description: land uses, and includes the development standards that are necessary to achieve the vision, defines the character of the project’s development, lists the steps involved with the development process, and provides the project’s implementation plan. CEQA: EIR Planner: Eric Norris/Kanika Kith Notes: Public Review Draft of the Leal Master Plan distributed February 2015 and currently available online (www.LealSpecificPlan.com). On September 16, 2106, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval to City Council. May 2017 – City has been asked by property owner’s representative to postpone action on the project while issues related to the estate of Brad Leal are resolved. Current Status: August 30, 2017 – City met with Leal family and prospective developer to discuss processing and Adopted by City Council on December 13, 2017. timing. Continue discussing potential development with City Council Approved Master Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report on December 13, 2017 owners and proposed developer.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 12 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 12 Project: Eastvale Marketplace Project Map: Project No. 15-0958 Project Northeast corner of Limonite and Sumner Avenues (APNs 164-030-019) Location: Project Major Development Review for the development of a new neighborhood retail center with Description: multi-tenant and single tenant buildings totaling 72,779 sq. ft. on 7.64 acres, Conditional Use Permits for the operation of three drive-through facilities and a tire store, and Conditional Use Permit for the sales of alcohol in the grocery store. CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration Planner: Eric Norris/Kanika Kith Notes: Smart & Final construction plans approved on January 30, 2017. Building permit issued for Smart & Final on February 22, 2017. Applicant is working on a queuing study for one of the drive-through facilities. Received an application for Miguel’s Jr. (See Project No. PLN17-20022). Received an application for El Polllo Loco (See Project No. PLN17-20039)
Received an application for alcohol sales at Burgerim Gourmet Burgers (See Project No. PLN18- 20002). Current Status: Approved. Under construction Smart and Final opened on August 23, 2017. Miguel’s Jr. was approved by Planning Commission on November 15, 2017 (see Project PLN17-20022). El Pollo Loco approved by Planning Commission on February 21, 2018. (see Project PLN17-20039). All tenant spaces are leased.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 13 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 13 Project: VantagePoint Church Project Map: Project No. 15-1174 Project Location: 8500 Archibald Ave. (APN: 130-080-005 and -008) Project Description: Major Development Review for the development of an approximately 85,000 sq. ft. church which includes a sanctuary, classrooms, cafe, and a bookstore on 10.43 acres. CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration Planner: Siri Champion Notes: Major Development Review and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) received on May 1, 2015. (Staff later determined CUP was not needed). Incompleteness letter sent June 1, 2015. From March 2016 through August 2017 the applicant and the City worked on technical studies and revisions to plans. Revised plans routed for review on August 18, 2017 after receiving confirmation from applicant to proceed. Additional funds received on August 24, 2017. September 6, 2017 - City met with applicant to discuss comments. AB52 Consultation with Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation on October 11, 2017. Current Status: Revised plans received on October 12, 2017. Comments provided to applicant on November 14, 2017. Meeting on November 12, 2017 with applicant to discuss comments. Approved by Planning Commission on Internal meeting with Public Works and Fire on November 1, 2017 to discuss project phasing and design. March 21, 2018. Staff received phasing proposal from applicant on December 6, 2017. Staff distributed Administrative Draft IS-MND to application on December 1, 2017 and received comments back on December 12, 2017. Staff distributed revised Administrative Draft IS-MND to application on February 8, 2018. Draft IS-MND was released for public review on February 14. The review period ended on March 5.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 14 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1
Map ID: 14 Project: JCSD Community Park – Phase II Project Map: Project No. 15-1273 Project Southwest corner of Hamner Avenue and Citrus Street on 74 acres Location: Project Building permit review for development of Phase II. Description: CEQA: Former MND Planner: Eric Norris/Kanika Kith Notes:
Construction drawings set received for review on June 22, 2015. Landscape comments provided to applicant on July 17, 2015. Comments of missing items per COAs and MMRP provided to Building Department on July 28, 2015 Received construction landscape plans on March 9, 2016. Provided comments and redlines to applicant on March 25, 2016. Received grading plan and revised construction drawings on March 22, 2016 and comments provided on April 14, 2016. Planning and Public Works have been meeting with JCSD and the property owner across whose land a portion of the park’s entry road would be constructed to resolve issues related to an easement for the roadway. Provided comments for construction landscape plans on June 16, 2016. Applicant to provide documentation showing compliance with Mitigation Current Status: Measures. In building permit process. Waiting for documentation of compliance with Mitigation Measures and resolution of access road/Scholar Way issue.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 15 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 15
Project: Two Industrial Buildings on Hamner Avenue and Riverside Drive Project Map: Project No. 15-1508 Project Southeast corner of Hamner Avenue and Riverside Drive (APN 156-040-087 and -088) Location: Project Major Development Review for two new industrial buildings (40,000 sq. ft. and 115,000 Description: sq. ft.) to be located on two parcels (totaling approximately 12 acres) behind Chevron Site and Snapware. CEQA: MND Addendum Planner: Kanika Kith/Malinda Lim Notes: Planning Commission approved on March 16, 2106. Approval letter sent on March 31, 2016.
Revised landscape plan approved on July 26, 2016. Pre-Grading meeting with Applicant, Public Works, Planning, and Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation held October 3, 2016. Revised gate plan approved on August 17, 2017. Site visit on November 16, 2017 to sign-off on Planning Department inspection for certificate of occupancy.
Current Status: Approved.
Certificate of Occupancy issued for shell buildings on November 16, 2017. Certificate of Occupancy issued for interior occupancy on December 2, 2018.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 16 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 16 Project: The Ranch Industrial Portion Project Map: Project No. PLN16-00011 **See Project No. 15-0783 Project Northeast and southeast corners of Hellman and future Limonite Location: (Kimball) Avenues, west of Cucamonga Creek Channel. (APN: 144-010-008, 144-101-013, and 144-010-009) Project Major Development Review for six new industrial buildings at The Ranch Description: CEQA: Former EIR Addendum Planner: Siri Champion/Malinda Lim Notes: Submitted pre-application review and plans on March 31, 2016. Applicant submitted Phase 1 landscape plans for buildings 1-6 on July 5, 2016. Rough grading permit issued week of July 4, 2016. Pre-grading meeting on July 20, 2016. Received construction plans for buildings 1 to 6 on July 26, 2016; approved all building plans. Planning approved second grading plan submittal on March 14, 2017.
Current Status: Approved. Construction of all buildings are near completion. Waiting for interior improvements of each building.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 17 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 17 Project: Verizon at Chandler Fire Station Project Map: Project No. PLN16-00017 Project Northeast corner of Chandler Street and Selby Avenue Location: Project Minor Development Review for the construction of a new wireless telecommunications facility disguised as Description: an 85-foot high water tank and equipment shelter in an approximately 529 sq. ft. lease area behind the Chandler Fire Station CEQA: Categorical Exemption Planner: Yvette Noir/Kanika Kith Notes: Received application and submittal materials on July 7, 2016. No additional comments from Public Works and Landscaping were submitted. At this point, Staff is working with applicant to add the City logo to the tower. Planning Commission meeting on October 18, 2017; continued to November 15, 2017 meeting for the following reasons: applicant to consider a new location, increase the height of the proposed tower, provide better coverage maps, and conduct community outreach. Planning Commission approved the project on November 15, 2017 and an approval letter was sent to the applicant on November 20, 2017.
Current Status: Planning Commission approval on November 15, 2017. Waiting for submittal of construction plans.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 18 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 18 Project: Costco Major Development Review and Conditional Use Permit Project Map: Project No. PLN16-00020 Project SEC Cantu Galleano Ranch Road and Hamner Avenue, west of Goodman Way Location: Project Major Development Review for the construction of approximately 158,000 square-foot Description: Costco Warehouse building with a tire center and outdoor food court area at the commercial portion of the Goodman Commerce Center. Two Conditional Use Permits for the operation of the tire center and for the sale of alcohol. The tire center includes retail sales and installation area that will occupy approximately 5,200 square feet of building. A fueling station and car wash are included directly off Hamner Avenue. Kanika Kith/Siri Champion Planner: Notes: Applicant submitted plans on August 22, 2016. Approved by Planning Commission on Nov. 16, 2016. Construction drawings and grading plans for Costco store received on October 12, 2017. Construction plans approved by Planning on December 11, 2017 and landscape plan comments provided on December 14, 2017.
Current Status: Approved. Grading began January 10, 2018. Under construction (see photo, left). Letter of Public Conveyance & Necessity for alcohol sales approved January 28, 2018.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 19 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 19 Project: Goodman Off Ste Parking, Pedestrian Bridge, and Building Height Increase in Industrial Areas Project Map: Project No. PLN16-00026 Project SEC Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd. and Hamner Ave. Location: Project Major Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Specific Plan Amendment for Goodman Commerce Description: Center to allow Amazon off-site parking located west of Goodman Way in Planning Area 5 and pedestrian bridge. The SPA also included increasing building height in the industrial planning areas from 50 to 55 feet. CEQA: Former EIR Planner: Eric Norris Notes: City Council approved Specific Plan Amendment to allow off-site parking on November 9, 2016. City Council second reading of ordinance on December 14, 2016. Received 2nd submittal for off-site precise grading plans on February 23, 2017; approved. Easement for a pedestrian bridge that connects the Amazon Fulfillment Center with the off-site parking lot located across Goodman Way approved by City Council on March 8, 2017. Construction plans for pedestrian bridge submitted on April 10, 2017. Provided comments to applicant for 1st construction plan submittal on May 2, 2017. Approved construction plans for pedestrian bridge on June 7, 2017. Building permit was issued on June 12, 2017.
Current Status: Approved. Pedestrian bridge is near completion.
Map ID: 20 Project: Goodman Retail Center Project Map:
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 20 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Project No. PLN16-00028 Project Southeast corner of Cantu Galleano Ranch Road and Hamner Ave. Location: Project Major Development Review for the development of 2 multi-tenant retail buildings (CR- 4 and CR- Description: 5) totaling approximately 26,260 square feet in the retail area adjacent to Costco at the Goodman Commerce site. CEQA: Former EIR Planner: Eric Norris/Kanika Kith Notes: Application received on September 1, 2016. Planning Commission approval on March 7, 2017. Received on-site utility plans for the retail center on November 2, 2017 from Public Works. Planning has no comment. Applicant submitted construction drawings for the first two retail buildings (CR-4 and CR-5) on November 29, 2017. Comments provided to applicant on December 18, 2018. Applicant submitted Site Package for retail center on January 16, 2018. Comments provided to applicant on January 25, 2018. Planning approved construction drawings for CR-4 and CR-5 retail buildings and site improvements plan on March 8, 2018. See the following projects for more recent activity at the Goodman Commerce Center Retail Development: o Project No. PLN17-20033: CR-3 Building – multi-tenant and Starbucks building with drive-through o Project No. 18-20003: CR-7 Building – In-N-Out restaurant with drive-through Current Status:
Approved.
Planning approved construction plans for the first two retail buildings (CR-4 & CR-5), and site improvement plans for retail center on March 8, 2018.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 21 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 21 Project: The Campus Sign Program Project Map: Project No. PLN16-00035 (See Project No. 12-0750 and Project No. PLN16-00032) Project West of Archibald and approximately 750 ft. south of Limonite Ave (144-010- Location: 002, -033, -037, & -038) Project Sign Program for The Campus industrial park. Description: Planner: Kanika Kith Notes: Applicant submitted application on October 3, 2016. Incomplete letter sent to applicant December 20, 2016; waiting for applicant to resubmit. Staff reminded applicant of outstanding items needed on March 15, 2017. Comment letter provided to applicant on November 29, 2017. Revised sign plans received on February 19, 2018; comments provided to applicant on March 7, 2018.
Current Status: Awaiting Resubmittal
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 22 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 22 Project: Medical Office Building and Dialysis Center at The Marketplace at The Enclave Project Map: Project No. PLN16-00038 Project 14252/14260 Schleisman Rd; southwest corner of Archibald Ave. and Schleisman Rd. at The Location: Marketplace at The Enclave shopping center (144-860-018 and 114-860-020) Project Major Development Review for the construction of a 30,000-sq. ft. two story medical office building Description: and a 10,000-sq. ft. dialysis center on the empty area at the south end of the shopping center. CEQA: Former EIR Planner: Mayra Salas/Kanika Kith Notes: Construction and landscape plans for the Davita Dialysis Center building are currently under review for a building permit. Landscape Plans approved on August 1, 2017. Shell building permit for the Davita Dialysis Building issued on July 3, 2017. Current Status: Sign plans received on March 7, 2018; comments provided on March 15, 2018. Development Plan Review Approved.
Dialysis center under construction. 2-story medical building has not started. Awaiting resubmittal of sign plans.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 23 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 23 Project: Goodman Industrial Building 3 Project Map: Project No. PLN17-20012 Project 16 acres in the southern portion of Planning Area 5 of the Goodman Commerce Center. East Location: of Hamner Ave., north of Bellegrave Ave. and south of Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road Project Major Development Review for the construction of approximately 373,522 square-foot Description: industrial building in the southern portion of Planning Area 5 at the Goodman Commerce Center. CEQA: Former EIR Planner: Kanika Kith Notes: Received application on April 20, 2017; routed to reviewing departments for comments. Planning Commission approval on July 19, 2017. Grading Plan received on August 10, 2017and approved on August 31, 2017. Construction plan received on August 30, 2017 and comments provided on September 21, 2017. Revised construction plans received on November 9, 2017 and comments provided on November 16, 2017. Revised construction plans received on December 18, 2017 and comments provided on December 27, 2017.
Current Status: Approved. Construction under way (see photo, left). Awaiting resubmittal of construction plans.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 24 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 24 Project: South Milliken Distribution Center Project Map: Project No. PLN17-20013 Project East of Milliken Avenue, north of the SR-60, 0.2-mile west of the I-15/SR-60 interchange, and 0.4 Location: miles south of Mission Boulevard APNs: 156-030-001 & -002 Project Major Development Review, General Plan Amendment, and Change of Zone for the development of Description: a 273,636-square foot industrial warehouse building located on a 15.8-acre site. Building would include an 8,000-sq. ft., two-story office with 29 dock doors, 67 truck trailer parking stalls, and associated landscaping and parking. General Plan Amendment to the entire site from Commercial Retail to Light Industrial. Change of Zone for the northern 12.5-acre lot from "C-P-S" to "M-M"; no changes to the 3.3-acre lot with "M-M" zoning at southeastern portion of the site. CEQA: Not Determined Planner: Kanika Kith Notes: ▪ Received application on April 27, 2017. ▪ Incompleteness letter sent on May 16, 2017. Comment letter sent on June 12, 2017. ▪ On June 8, 2017, the applicant submitted an application to the Western Riverside County Regional Current Status: Conservation Authority (RCA) to start the Joint Project Review process (because the site is in criteria cell 35 for On February 7, 2018 Planning Commission Delhi Sands flower-loving fly). recommended approval to City Council. ▪ September 6, 2017 AB52 Consultation with Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians March 14, 2018 City Council continued ▪ September 21, 2017 meeting with RCA to discuss Delhi Sands flower-loving fly survey project to March 38, 2018 Public Hearing. ▪ September 28, 2017 AB52 Consultation with Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians City Council Consideration on March 28, ▪ October 18, 2017 AB52 Consultation with Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians 2018 ▪ Received RCA findings of consistency on December 18, 2017 and Wildlife Agencies concurrent on January 3, 2018. ▪ Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in public review period from January 19, 2018 to February 20, 2018. ▪ Applicant submitted revised development plans on January 10, 2018.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 25 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 25 Project: Lewis Retail at Polopolus Property Project Map: Project No. PLN17-20015 Project 7270 Hamner Avenue; North of Silver Lakes Sports Complex and east of Hamner Avenue. APNs: 152- Location: 060-002 and -003 Project • General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone to General Commercial (C-1/C-P), Tentative Description: Parcel Map to subdivide the 23-acre site into 8 lots CEQA: Environmental Impact Report Planner: Eric Norris/Siri Champion Notes: Application received on May 30, 2017 for a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone to General Commercial (C-1/C-P). Meeting with applicant on June 13, 2017 to discuss additional items required for complete application. Additional items include: Parcel map and Development Agreement. Request for Proposal for Environmental Impact Report (EIR) released on September 19, 2017. As of Oct 13, applicant is reviewing proposals received. Current Status: Initial Study and Notice of Preparation released on October 11, 2017 and Scoping period ends on November 8, 2017. Initial Study and Notice of Preparation Public Scoping meeting was held on October 18, 2017. released on October 11, 2017. Comment Draft environmental impact report is being prepared. period ended on November 8, 2017. March 8: Received applications for Major Development Review, Tentative Parcel Map, Conditional Use New Notice of Preparation for EIR released Permit for drive-through operations on Pads 2 and 3, and a Conditional Use Permit for on-site alcohol sales at on January 26, 2018. Comment period ends the restaurant on Pad 4. on February 26, 2018. Application for development received March 8, 2018.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 26 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1
Map ID: 26 Project: Miguel’s Jr. Major Development Plan Review Project Map: Project No. PLN17-20022 Project Eastvale Marketplace; 13382 Limonite Ave. Eastvale, CA Location: 91752 Project Major Development Review for a construction of Miguel’s Description: Jr., approximately 2,900 sq. ft. fast food restaurant with a drive through, at Eastvale Marketplace
CEQA: Former IS/MND Planner: Malinda Lim Notes: Application submitted on July 24, 2017ent completeness and comment letter to applicant on August 17, 2017. Received second submittal items on September 4, 2017. Provided comments to applicant on September 6, 2017. Planning Commission meeting October 18, 2017; continued. Planning Commission approved project on November 15, 2017 and approval letter was sent to applicant on November 22, 2017. Construction plans received on January 15, 2018 and comments provided to applicant on February 12, 2018.
Current Status: Planning Commission approval on November 15, 2017. Awaiting resubmittal of construction and landscape plans.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 27 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 27 Project: Revisions to the front parcel at The Campus Project Map: Project No. PLN17-20027 Project West of Archibald Avenue and approximately 750 ft. south Location: of Limonite Avenue (144-010-063) Pre-Application Review to replace an approved 2-story office Project Description: building (approximately 33,600 sq. ft.) and two retail buildings (totaling 10,600 sq. ft.) with a 4,450-sq. ft. restaurant with a drive through, a 4,200-sq. ft. car wash, and a gas station with a 5,000- sq. ft. convenience store on the 3.5-acre parcel fronting on Archibald Planner: Kanika Kith/Malinda Lim Notes: Received application on August 30, 2017; routed submitted items to reviewing departments for comments. September 6, 2017 – Informed applicant that gas station and car
wash are not permitted on the site due to its location in the Industrial Park (I-P) Zone. Comment letter sent to applicant on September 21, 2017. Current Status: o October 25, 2017 – Meeting with applicant and architect to Waiting for formal Major Development Review application. discuss revised site plan and process See Project No. PLN17-20036 - Zoning Code Amendment to change the permitted uses for I-P Zoning.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 28 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 28
Project: Al’s Corner General Plan Amendment Project Map: Project No. PLN17-20029 Project Southwest corner of Hamner Avenue and Riverboat Drive (152-350-010 and - Location: 011) Project • General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation to Description: General Commercial (C-1/C-P) on an approximately 1.38-acre City owned parcel of vacant land. CEQA: Included in EIR for PLN17-20015 Lewis Retail Planner: Eric Norris/Siri Champion Notes: Request for proposal for Environmental Impact Report released on September 19, 2017. As of October 13, applicant is reviewing proposals received. Initial Study and Notice of Preparation released on October 11, 2017 and scoping period ended on November 8, 2017. Public Scoping meeting held on October 18, 2017. Draft environmental impact report is being prepared.
Current Status: Under review Initial Study and Notice of Preparation released on October 11, 2017; comment period ended on November 8, 2017. New Notice of Preparation for EIR released on January 26, 2018. Comment period ends on February 26, 2018.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 29 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 29
Project: Lennar TR35751 (Bootsma Tract) Pre-Application Project Map: Project No. PLN17-20030 Project Southeast corner of Schleisman Road and Cucamonga Creek (144-060-041) Location: Project Pre-Application Review for the development of 243 units of single-family Description: attached and detached homes on approximately 19 acres, Tentative Tract Map No. 35751, located behind Bootsma’s house. Planner: Brianne Reyes Notes: Received application on September 19, 2017; routed submitted items to reviewing departments for comments. Comment letter sent to applicant on October 18, 2017. o October 23, 2017 – Meeting to discuss comments with applicant and Public Works o October 27, 2017 - Received revised conceptual site layout; informed the applicant that the conceptual site layout appears acceptable. Major Development Review received on February 22, 2018. See Project No. 18- 20008.
Current Status: Pre-application process completed. Major Development Review received on February 22, 2018. See Project No. 18-20008.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 30 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 30
Project: Si Como No Alcohol Sales Project Map: Project No. PLN17-20032 Project 14244 Schleisman Road #130, Eastvale, CA 92880 – The Marketplace at the Location: Enclave Project Conditional Use Permit for the on-site sale of beer and wine in a Mexican Description: restaurant, Si Como No, at The Marketplace at the Enclave (former location of the Great Harvest Bread bakery and store) Planner: Brianne Reyes Notes: Received application on October 4, 2017.
Planning Commission approved on November 15, 2017 and approval letter sent to applicant on November 21, 2017.
Current Status: Approved Restaurant is in operation, but alcohol sales have not started, pending approval of liquor license. Alcohol license currently under review by State of California ABC.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 31 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 31
Project: Goodman Retail Building CR-3 and Starbuck Drive-Through Project Map: Project No. PLN17-20033 Project Southeast corner of Hamner Avenue and Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road and Location: west of Goodman Way; Goodman Commerce Center Project Major Development Review for the development of CR-3, a 4,000 square-foot Description: multi-tenant located in the retail portion of the Goodman Commerce Center and Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through Planner: Malinda Lim/Kanika Kith Notes: Received application on October 4, 2017. Internal department meeting on October 19, 2017 to discuss stacking issues and WQMP.
Applicant submitted construction drawings for “at-risk” review on November 29, 2017. Construction plan comment letter sent to applicant on December 18, 2017.
Current Status: Approved by Planning Commission on March 21, 2018 Awaiting resubmittal of construction plan
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 32 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 32
Project: Santa Ana River Trail CUP Project Map: Project No. PLN17-20035 Project South of Archibald Avenue (easterly of Baron Drive) and north of Bluff Street Location: (westerly of River Road). Project Conditional Use Permit to allow Class I multi-use path and natural surface trail Description: improvements to Santa Ana River Trail – Phase 1 (red) and Phase 2B (yellow) Planner: Siri Champion Notes: Received application on October 25, 2017; routed submitted items to reviewing departments for comments. Incompleteness letter sent to applicant on November 22, 2017. Staff followed up with incompleteness items on December 21, 2017. Applicant provided response to Incompleteness letter on January 16, 2018. City staff discussed the application at an internal meeting on Marcy 14, 2018.
Current Status: Under Review
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 33 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 33
Project: El Pollo Loco Project Map: Project No. PLN17-20039 Project 13332 Limonite Avenue – Eastvale Marketplace retail Location: center Project Major Development Review for a 2,955-square-foot Description: freestanding El Pollo Loco fast food restaurant with a drive through in the Eastvale Marketplace retail center. Planner: Malinda Lim Notes: Received application on November 8, 2017 Incomplete and comment letter sent to applicant on November 22, 2017. Planning Commission approval on February 21, 2018.
Current Status: Approved by Planning Commission on February 21, 2018. Waiting for construction plans.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 34 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 34
Project: 99-Cent Only Store Alcohol Sales Project Map: Project No. PLN17-20041 Project 7115 Hamner Avenue Location: Project Conditional Use Permit for off-site sale of beer and wine in a retail store, Description: 99-Cent Only, located at the northwest corner of Hamner Avenue and Schleisman Road. Planner: Siri Champion Notes: Received application on November 29, 2017; routed submitted items to reviewing departments for comments. Incomplete letter sent to applicant on December 13, 2017. Scheduled for Planning Commission meeting on January 17, 2108.
Council voted to bring the item back to a City Council meeting for a new public hearing.
Current Status: Approved by Planning Commission on January 17, 2018. City Council voted to bring the item to the Council meeting for a new public hearing on March 14, 2018. City Council voted to continue the public hearing to March 28, 2018 and directed the applicant to modify/improve conditions of approval.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 35 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1
Map ID: 35
Project: Sendero Cluster Homes by Lennar Project Map: Project No. PLN17-20043 Project West portion of Sendero (Tracts 36775-2, 36775-3, and 36775) at Location: northwest corner of Limonite Avenue and Harrison Avenue. Project Minor Development Review for 6- and 8-Pack Master Home Plan at Description: Sendero. Planner: Malinda Lim/Kanika Kith Notes: Received application on December 19, 2017, plans provided on December 21, 2017. Comment letter to be provided to applicant by January 19, 2018. Planning met with Lennar on February 1, 2018, to discuss comments. Waiting for applicant to resubmit plans. Received revised architectural elevations and FSOD plans on March 5, 2018. Provided comments to applicant on March 20, 2018.
Current Status: Awaiting revised FSOD.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 36 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 36
Project: Burgerim Alcohol CUP Project Map: Project No. PLN18-20002 Project 13394 Limonite Avenue, Eastvale, CA 92880; Eastvale Location: Marketplace Project Conditional Use Permit to allow the sale of beer and wine Description: at a new restaurant, Burgerim Gourmet Burgers, in the Eastvale Marketplace Planner: Brianne Reyes Notes: Received application on January 25, 2018; routed submitted items to reviewing departments for comments. Incompleteness letter sent to applicant on February 16, 2018. Scheduled for Planning Commission meeting on March 21, 2018.
Current Status: Approved by Planning Commission on March 21, 2018
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 37 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1
Map ID: 37
Project: Goodman Retail Building CR-7 – In-N-Out Project Map: Project No. PLN18-20003 Project 4950 Hamner Avenue, Eastvale, CA; Goodman Commerce Center Location: Project Major Development and Conditional Use Permit for a proposed Description: 3,880-square foot In-N-Out restaurant with associated drive- through and outdoor seating area located in the Goodman Commerce Center. Planner: Kanika Kith Notes: Received application on January 25, 2018; routed submitted items to reviewing departments for comments. Scheduled for Planning Commission meeting on March 21, 2018.
Current Status: Approved by Planning Commission on March 21, 2018
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 38 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 38
Project: Pre-Application for 7-Eleven Gas Station & Generic Drive- Project Map: Through Restaurant Project No. PLN18-20006 Project North of 99 Cents Only Store and south of Fire Station #27 Location: on Hamner Avenue Pre-Application to develop a 3,062 square-foot 7-11 Project Description: convenience store with a gas station and a 5,000 square- foot restaurant (no tenant identified) with a drive-through on a 2.13 acre site. Planner: Malinda Lim/Kanika Kith Notes: Received application on February 14, 2018; routed submitted items to reviewing departments for comments. Comment letter sent to applicant on March 14, 2018.
Current Status: Completed.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 39 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 39
Project: The Ranch Planning Area 3 Warehouse/Industrial Building Project Map: Project No. PLN18-20007 Project Planning Area 3 of The Ranch at Eastvale Location: Project Major Development Review to construct an 88,000 Description: square-foot industrial building on 5 acres in Planning Area 3 of The Ranch at Eastvale. Planner: Siri Champion Notes: Received application on February 14, 2018; routed submitted items to reviewing departments for comments. Internal meeting on March 1, 2018 to discuss submittal. Application incompleteness letter sent to applicant on March 1, 2018 Comment letter sent to applicant on March 21, 2018.
Current Status: Under Review
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 40 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 40
Project: “Prado by Lennar” Major Development Review Project Map: Project No. PLN18-20008 Project Southeast corner of Cucamonga Creek Channel and Schleisman Location: Road Project Major Development Review to develop a gated community of 243 Description: attached and detached single-family homes on approximately 19 acres at Tract 35751 on Schleisman Road. Planner: Malinda Lim Notes: Received application on February 22, 2018; routed submitted items to reviewing departments for comments. Sent approval letter for construction trailers on March 19, 2018.
Current Status: Under Review
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 41 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 41
Project: Pre-Application for a Self-Storage Facility Project Map: Project No. PLN18-20009 Project Northeast corner of Hellman Avenue and Walters Street Location: Project Pre-Application review for a General Plan Amendment and Change Description: of Zone to support the development of a self-storage facility on a 3.22-acre site located at the northeast corner of Hellman Avenue and Walters Street. Planner: Brianne Reyes
Notes: Received application on February 21, 2018; routed submitted items to reviewing departments for comments. Staff completed review of submittal materials and provided a comment letter to the applicant on March 19, 2018.
Current Status: Review Complete.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 42 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 42
Project: Prado Construction Trailer TUP Project Map: Project No. PLN18-20010 Project Southeast corner of Cucamonga Creek Channel and Schleisman Location: Road Project Temporary Use Permit for an on-site construction trailer to support Description: the construction of 243 single family homes at the Prado residential community located at Tract 35751 on Schleisman Avenue. Planner: Malinda Lim Notes: Received application on March 1, 2018; routed submitted items to reviewing departments for comments. Approval letter sent to applicant on March 19, 2018.
Current Status: Approved.
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 43 of 44 Attachment EASTVALE PLANNING: MAJOR PROJECTS SUMMARY March 28, 2018 Highlighted Text = Updated Information1 Map ID: 43
Project: Major Development Review for Quick Quack Car Wash Project Map: Project No. PLN18-20014 Project CR-12 in the retail portion of Goodman Commerce Center Location: Project Major Development Review for a proposed self-serve car wash Description: with a 3,562-square foot car-wash tunnel, vacuum canopy structure, and associated parking. Planner: Malinda Lim Notes: Received application on March 21, 2018; routed submitted items to reviewing departments for comments.
Current Status: Under Review
1. New projects are added to the bottom of the list as they are submitted. Page 44 of 44 Attachment
(!24!(
(!15!(
(!!(7
2/18-20 23/31!( (!37/43 (!!(9
(!11!( 12/26 8/35!( !( !( (! (!33/36 (!1 !( (!!(3 (!6 !(4 (!21/27 10/16!( (!39
28/38!( !( 29/40!( 22/30 (! !( (!42 (! (!5/34 (!25!(
(!41!( (!14!(
(!17!(
(!13!(
!( San Bernardino County
Riverside County
Legend ´ !( Planning Project* 0.5 0 0.5 *See project status list for site 32 Miles
Current Projects Eastvale Planning March 2018
City of Eastvale AGENDA STAFF REPORT Public Safety Commission Agenda Item No. 4.6 March 27, 2018 Consent Calendar Crime Statistics
Contact(s) for Further Information Alia Rodriguez, Sr. Management Analyst [email protected] 951.703.4412 City Manager’s Office
Summary City Council requested staff to collaborate with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department to develop a crime statistics document that would reflect selected Part I and Part II crime data for the City of Eastvale. Intended to show month-to-month crime statistics, the statistics will assist in determining appropriate staffing levels for law enforcement services.
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Receive and file.
Prior City Council/Commission Action None.
Strategic Plan Impact None.
Fiscal Impact None.
Background
In May 2017, City Council directed staff to coordinate with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department to request and obtain monthly crime statistics for the City of Eastvale. The primary intent of the request was to determine appropriate staffing levels during the City’s contract negotiations with the Sheriff’s Department. Over several weeks, the City Manager and staff worked collaboratively with Riverside County Sheriff’s Department Administration and Management to obtain crime statistics that could be shared with the public and on a regular basis.
Upon receiving the data, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department advised staff that the data provided would be reflective of the previous month, or thirty days behind the current month; and that the report would need to include a disclaimer identifying the data as preliminary and raw.
At the July 26, 2017 meeting, City Council recommended that staff add columns reflective of felony and misdemeanor arrests. During the September 26, 2017 meeting, City Council recommended staff Return to Agenda
add traffic violations/citations data and the total calls for service broken down per month. All additions are reflected in the January 2018 Crime Statistics attached.
Attachment(s)
1. January 2018 Crime Statistics
03/27/17 Public Safety Commission – Agenda Item No. 4.6 Page 2 Attachment City of Eastvale Crime Statistics January 2018
VIOLENT CRIME STATISTICS VIOLENT CRIMES *ESTIMATED 2017 POPULATION = 64,613 YEAR YEAR CRIME CRIME CRIME CRIME CRIME END END JAN RATE JAN RATE DEC RATE NOV RATE OCT YTD RATE PER TOTAL TOTAL 2018 PER 2017 PER 2017 PER 2017 PER 2017 2018 1000 2017 2016 1000 1000 1000 1000
HOMICIDE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RAPE 1 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 ROBBERY 6 0.09 1 0.01 3 0.04 1 0.01 2 0.03 6 23 24 AGGRAVATED 11 0.17 2 0.03 13 0.20 13 0.20 16 0.25 11 80 42 ASSAULT ARSON 0 0 1 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7
TOTAL 18 N/A 4 N/A 16 N/A 14 N/A 18 N/A 18 105 78
NON VIOLENT CRIME STATISTICS PROPERTY CRIMES *ESTIMATED 2017 POPULATION = 64,613 CRIME CRIME CRIME CRIME YEAR CRIME JAN RATE JAN RATE DEC RATE NOV RATE OCT YTD YTD END RATE PER 2018 PER 2017 PER 2017 PER 2017 PER 2017 2018 2017 TOTAL 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 2016 BURGLARY 9 0.14 19 0.29 26 0.40 19 0.29 25 0.39 9 211 167 VEHICLE THEFT 5 0.08 20 0.31 16 0.25 13 0.20 13 0.20 5 171 167 LARCENY THEFT 57 0.88 87 1.35 64 0.99 64 0.99 65 1.00 57 939 935 MAIL THEFT 6 0.09 53 0.82 9 0.14 4 0.06 30 0.46 6 303 N/A INJURY TC’S 18 0.28 15 0.23 10 0.15 12 0.19 12 0.19 18 138 N/A FELONY 10 0.15 8 0.12 16 0.25 12 0.19 15 0.23 10 135 158 ARREST MISDEMEANOR 34 0.52 16 0.25 17 0.26 19 0.29 23 0.36 34 270 332 ARREST TRAFFIC 315 4.88 428 6.62 497 7.69 690 10.68 398 6.16 315 5,191 2,583 CITATIONS
TOTAL 454 N/A 646 N/A 655 N/A 833 N/A 581 N/A 454 7,358 4,342
TOTAL CALLS FOR SERVICE/FILE #’S GENERATED YEAR: 2018 POPULATION: 64,613 TOTAL YTD: 2,360 DEC NOV OCT SEPT AUG JUL JUN MAY APR MAR FEB JAN 2,360
YEAR POPULATION TOTAL LEGEND All data is preliminary, pending year end verification by CA-DOJ and FBI; These are raw statistics based 2017 64,613 32,295 on the information currently in the Records Management System (RMS). * Source of population data: State of California, Department of Finance 2016 63,214* 31,234 ** Total calls for service/file #’s generated encompasses ALL call types inclusive of the ones listed and not listed on this chart. 2015 60,881* 26,556 *** Year To Date (YTD) is calendar year
2014 59,421* 28,641 2013 57,478* 28,982 2012 55,885* 24,732
City of Eastvale AGENDA STAFF REPORT Public Safety Commission Agenda Item No. 5.1 March 27, 2018 Commission Business Aggressive Panhandling
Contact(s) for Further Information Alia Rodriguez, Sr. Management Analyst [email protected] 951.703.4412 City Manager’s Office
Summary There has noticibly been an increase in aggressive panhandling throughout the City of Eastvale which has started to become an area of concern to some residents and businesses. It can, if not attended to, contribute to the loss of enjoyment in public places, a heightened sense of fear, intimidation, and disorder for community members.
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Discuss and Provide Recommendations
Prior City Council/Commission Action Not Applicable.
Strategic Plan Impact Strategic goal #3 “Maintain an excellent level of public safety”
Fiscal Impact While the fisal impacts are not yet known, the City will continue to search for available grant funding.
Background In recent years, Riverside County has experienced a spike in aggressive panhandlers in various public and private locations including freeway off-ramps, business locations, gas stations, restaurants, medians and other areas. County wide, many have expressed concerns of experiencing a loss of enjoyment in public places, an obligation to donate monetarily and even a sense of fear, intimidation and disturbance. As a result, Western Riverside County has taken great measures to contend with aggressive panhandling through “Aggressive Panhandling” ordinances or amending current Municipal Code to clearly identify what is and what is not allowed in identified locations. Such ordinances that prohibit aggressive panhandling in specified areas are enforceable by both law and code enforcement; which are more likely to survive legal challenge than those that prohibit all panhandling in the aggregate. Some of the methods other cities have explored and implemented to address this matter include public education, outreach and providing alternatives to giving
Return to Agenda
money such as informational pamphlets or brochures as to where social services resources are available.
In late 2017, concerns were expressed at the Jurupa Community Services District Parks Commission meeting when discussing the approved plans to extend the Santa Ana River Trail— which begins at the Pacific Ocean at Huntington Beach and will end at Big Bear Lake in San Bernardino County—through the City of Eastvale. The focus of the concern was how the path of the trail could lead to an influx of homelessness migrating to northwest Riverside County from the Orange County area. Hearing the concerns, the City Manager and city staff promptly met to discuss a plan of action.
In early February 2018, the City led a collaborative key stakeholder meeting that included the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department and Jurupa Community Services District Parks and Recreation Department, to address the issues of panhandling, solicitation, homelessness, current and upcoming regional efforts, funding options, enforcement on private versus public property, and the specific needs for the Eastvale community. From that meeting, it was agreed that a presentation to the Public Safety Commission was necessary for discussion. Additionally, the consideration to address panhandling can be a lead-in to the efforts of reducing homelessness regionally and as a preventative strategy for Eastvale. While panhandling and homelessness are not deemed one in the same, they are often associated and can have parallel impacts.
The issue of aggressive panhandling has been especially noticed and experienced by Eastvale residents and businesses within the past year. Considering this, city staff researched and compiled information to present to the Public Safety Commission for discussion. Some of the key items to consider are: Private versus public property enforcement and tactics Regional approach for continuity of law enforcement Education and outreach strategy and message Collaborative efforts with key stakeholders
Staff is requesting that Public Safety Commission discuss and provide a recommendations for this topic. These suggestions and recommendations will be used to draft an ordinance, which will be brought back to the Public Safety Commission for review, and ultimately to City Council for consideration.
Attachment(s) 1. City of Eastvale Aggressive Panhandling Presentation 2. Department of Justice Report on Panhandling 3. League of California Cities Report on Panhandling and Homelessness 4. City of Norco Aggressive Panhandling Ordinance 5. City of Jurupa Valley Aggressive Solicitation/Panhandling Ordinance 6. City of Menifee Prohibiting Certain Forms of Solicitation Ordinance
03/27/18 Public Safety Commission Meeting – Agenda Item No. 5.1 Page 2 Attachment 1
Aggressive Panhandling
Eastvale Public Safety Commission March 27, 2018 | 6:00pm Attachment 1 Intent
• To receive input and guidance from the Public Safety Commissioners on the growing issue of “panhandling.”
• The recommendations will subsequently be taken to the City Council for action Attachment 1 Identifying the Problem
• Increase in panhandling, both aggressive and passive, in the city of Eastvale is negatively affecting the quality of life and economy • Poses multiple threats: Quality of life Security issues Fear and intimidation Attachment 1 The Differences
Passive Panhandling: soliciting without threat or menace, often without any words exchanged at all—just a cup or a hand held out.
Aggressive Panhandling: coercing or intimidating another individual for monetary gain by placing the individual in fear
Homelessness: the condition of people without a permanent dwelling, such as house or an apartment Attachment 1 Exemptions
• The right to exercise free speech • The lawful vending of goods and services • Solicitations related to business authorized by or conducted by the property owner, business owner, or employees thereof on the premises • Solicitation to the lawful towing of a vehicle; or • Solicitations related to emergency repairs requested by the operator or the occupant of the motor vehicle Attachment 1 Social Issues
• Sympathetic vs. unsympathetic • Individual liberty • Social responsibility • Economic factors • Perception and availability of resources Attachment 1 Legal Concerns
• Can enforce conduct/actions NOT status • Laws that prohibit aggressive panhandling or panhandling in specific areas are more likely to survive legal challenges than those that prohibit ALL panhandling Attachment 1 Regional Approach
• Norco • Elsinore • Menifee • Jurupa Valley • Wildomar • Temecula • Corona • Beaumont • Hemet • Riverside • County • San Jacinto Attachment 1 Collaborative Efforts
• What is the intended message? • Varying perspectives can exist: • Law enforcement • Business owners • Elected officials • Social services • Local government
Collaborative efforts and unified message works best! Attachment 1 Effective Ordinance Elements
• Prohibitions on “aggressive” panhandling • Clearly define “aggressive” panhandling • Prohibitions on specified locations with specified distances such as:
• Banks • Gas stations and fuel pumps • ATM’s • Restaurants • Public transportation facilities • Parking lots • Business entrances / exits • Parks and trails • Traffic locations (i.e. off-ramps, • Public benches medians, etc.) Attachment 1 Additional Elements to Consider
• Loitering • Lingering • Camping • Busking • Shopping Carts Attachment 1
Questions/Discussion U.S. Department of Justice Attachment 2 Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Problem-Specific Guides Series No. 13
Panhandling
by Michael S. Scott
www.cops.usdoj.gov Attachment 2
Center for Problem-Oriented Policing Got a Problem? We’ve got answers!
Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website at www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help you deal more effectively with crime and disorder in your www.PopCenter.org community, including: • Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides • Interactive training exercises • On-line access to research and police practices
Designed for police and those who work with them to address community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great resource in problem-oriented policing.
Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. Attachment 2
Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Problem-Specific Guides Series Guide No. 13 Panhandling
Michael S. Scott
This project was supported by cooperative agreement #99-CK-WX- K004 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. www.cops.usdoj.gov
ISBN: 1-932582-12-6 Attachment 2 Attachment 2
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series i
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series
The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about how police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention and to improving the overall response to incidents, not to investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. The guides are written for police–of whatever rank or assignment–who must address the specific problem the guides cover. The guides will be most useful to officers who
• Understand basic problem-oriented policing principles and methods. The guides are not primers in problem-oriented policing. They deal only briefly with the initial decision to focus on a particular problem, methods to analyze the problem, and means to assess the results of a problem-oriented policing project. They are designed to help police decide how best to analyze and address a problem they have already identified. (An assessment guide has been produced as a companion to this series and the COPS Office has also published an introductory guide to problem analysis. For those who want to learn more about the principles and methods of problem-oriented policing, the assessment and analysis guides, along with other recommended readings, are listed at the back of this guide.)
• Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to spend perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and responding to it. Carefully studying a problem before responding helps you design the right strategy, one that is most likely to work in your community. You should not blindly adopt the responses others have used; you must decide whether they are appropriate to your local Attachment 2
ii Panhandling
situation. What is true in one place may not be true elsewhere; what works in one place may not work everywhere.
• Are willing to consider new ways of doing police business. The guides describe responses that other police departments have used or that researchers have tested. While not all of these responses will be appropriate to your particular problem, they should help give a broader view of the kinds of things you could do. You may think you cannot implement some of these responses in your jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. In many places, when police have discovered a more effective response, they have succeeded in having laws and policies changed, improving the response to the problem.
• Understand the value and the limits of research knowledge. For some types of problems, a lot of useful research is available to the police; for other problems, little is available. Accordingly, some guides in this series summarize existing research whereas other guides illustrate the need for more research on that particular problem. Regardless, research has not provided definitive answers to all the questions you might have about the problem. The research may help get you started in designing your own responses, but it cannot tell you exactly what to do. This will depend greatly on the particular nature of your local problem. In the interest of keeping the guides readable, not every piece of relevant research has been cited, nor has every point been attributed to its sources. To have done so would have overwhelmed and distracted the reader. The references listed at the end of each guide are those drawn on most heavily; they are not a complete bibliography of research on the subject. Attachment 2
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series iii
• Are willing to work with other community agencies to find effective solutions to the problem. The police alone cannot implement many of the responses discussed in the guides. They must frequently implement them in partnership with other responsible private and public entities. An effective problem-solver must know how to forge genuine partnerships with others and be prepared to invest considerable effort in making these partnerships work.
These guides have drawn on research findings and police practices in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. Even though laws, customs and police practices vary from country to country, it is apparent that the police everywhere experience common problems. In a world that is becoming increasingly interconnected, it is important that police be aware of research and successful practices beyond the borders of their own countries.
The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to provide feedback on this guide and to report on your own agency's experiences dealing with a similar problem. Your agency may have effectively addressed a problem using responses not considered in these guides and your experiences and knowledge could benefit others. This information will be used to update the guides. If you wish to provide feedback and share your experiences it should be sent via e-mail to [email protected]. Attachment 2
iv Panhandling
For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at www.popcenter.org or via the COPS website at www.cops.usdoj.gov. This website offers free online access to:
• the Problem-Specific Guides series, • the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools series, • instructional information about problem-oriented policing and related topics, • an interactive training exercise, and • online access to important police research and practices. Attachment 2
Acknowledgments v
Acknowledgments
The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are very much a collaborative effort. While each guide has a primary author, other project team members, COPS Office staff and anonymous peer reviewers contributed to each guide by proposing text, recommending research and offering suggestions on matters of format and style.
The principal project team developing the guide series comprised Herman Goldstein, professor emeritus, University of Wisconsin Law School; Ronald V. Clarke, professor of criminal justice, Rutgers University; John E. Eck, associate professor of criminal justice, University of Cincinnati; Michael S. Scott, assistant clinical professor, University of Wisconsin Law School; Rana Sampson, police consultant, San Diego; and Deborah Lamm Weisel, director of police research, North Carolina State University.
Karin Schmerler, Rita Varano and Nancy Leach oversaw the project for the COPS Office. Megan Tate Murphy coordinated the peer reviews for the COPS Office. Suzanne Fregly edited the guides. Research for the guides was conducted at the Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers University under the direction of Phyllis Schultze by Gisela Bichler-Robertson, Rob Guerette and Laura Wyckoff.
The project team also wishes to acknowledge the members of the San Diego, National City and Savannah police departments who provided feedback on the guides' format and style in the early stages of the project, as well as the line police officers, police executives and researchers who peer reviewed each guide. Attachment 2 Attachment 2
Contents vii Contents
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series ...... i
Acknowledgments ...... v
The Problem of Panhandling ...... 1
Related Problems ...... 3 Factors Contributing to Panhandling ...... 4 Whether Panhandling Intimidates Passersby ...... 4 Who the Panhandlers Are ...... 5 Who Gets Panhandled and Who Gives Money to Panhandlers ...... 7 Where and When Panhandling Commonly Occurs ...... 8 Economics of Panhandling ...... 10 Economic, Social and Legal Factors That Influence Panhandling Levels . . . . 11
Understanding Your Local Problem ...... 13
Asking the Right Questions ...... 13 Complainants and Donors ...... 13 Panhandlers ...... 14 Location/Time ...... 14 Current Response ...... 15 Measuring Your Effectiveness ...... 15
Responses to the Problem of Panhandling ...... 17
General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy ...... 17 Enforcement Responses ...... 18 Public Education Responses ...... 24 Situational Responses ...... 26 Social Services/Treatment Response ...... 28 Response With Limited Effectiveness ...... 29 Attachment 2
viii Panhandling
Appendix A: Summary of Responses to Panhandling ...... 31
Appendix B: Selected Court Cases on Panhandling ...... 35
Endnotes ...... 37
References ...... 43
About the Author ...... 51
Recommended Readings ...... 53
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police ...... 57 Attachment 2
The Problem of Panhandling 1
The Problem of Panhandling
This guide addresses the problem of panhandling.† It also covers nearly equivalent conduct in which, in exchange for † "Panhandling," a common term in the United States, is more often donations, people perform nominal labor such as squeegeeing referred to as "begging" elsewhere, or (cleaning) the windshields of cars stopped in traffic, holding occasionally, as "cadging." car doors open, saving parking spaces, guarding parked cars, "Panhandlers" are variously referred to as "beggars," "vagrants," buying subway tokens, and carrying luggage or groceries. "vagabonds," "mendicants," or "cadgers." The term "panhandling" derives either from the impression The guide begins by describing the panhandling problem and created by someone holding out his reviewing factors that contribute to it. It then identifies a or her hand (as a pan's handle sticks series of questions that might help you in analyzing your local out from the pan) or from the image of someone using a pan to collect problem. Finally, it reviews responses to the problem, and money (as gold miners in the what is known about those responses from evaluative research American West used pans to sift for and police practice. gold).
Generally, there are two types of panhandling: passive and aggressive. Passive panhandling is soliciting without threat or menace, often without any words exchanged at all–just a cup or a hand held out. Aggressive panhandling is soliciting coercively, with actual or implied threats, or menacing actions. If a panhandler uses physical force or extremely aggressive actions, the panhandling may constitute robbery.
Isolated incidents of passive panhandling are usually a low police priority.1 In many jurisdictions, panhandling is not even illegal. Even where it is illegal, police usually tolerate passive panhandling, for both legal and practical reasons.2 Courts in some jurisdictions have ruled that passive panhandling is constitutionally protected activity. Police can reasonably conclude that, absent citizen complaints, their time is better spent addressing more serious problems. Whether panhandling and other forms of street disorder cause or contribute to more serious crime–the broken windows Attachment 2
2 Panhandling
thesis–is hotly debated, but the debate is as yet unsettled.3 Panhandling becomes a higher police priority when it becomes aggressive or so pervasive that its cumulative effect, † Business owners who work on site even when done passively, is to make passersby apprehensive.4 are most likely to call police. Employees, especially younger Panhandling is of greater concern to merchants who worry employees, are less likely to do so that their customers will be discouraged from patronizing because they have less at stake if their business. Merchants are most likely to call police when panhandling disrupts business 5,† (Goldstein 1993). panhandling disrupts their commerce.
†† In one study, 50 percent of Police must also be concerned with the welfare of panhandlers claimed to have been panhandlers who are vulnerable to physical and verbal assault mugged within the past year †† (Goldstein 1993). by other panhandlers, street robbers or passersby who react violently to being panhandled.6 Panhandlers often claim certain spots as their own territory, and disputes and fights over territory are not uncommon.7
Broadly speaking, public policy perspectives on panhandling are of two types–the sympathetic view and the unsympathetic view. The sympathetic view, commonly but not unanimously held by civil libertarians and homeless advocates, is that panhandling is essential to destitute people's survival, and should not be regulated by police.8 Some even view panhandling as a poignant expression of the plight of the needy, and an opportunity for the more fortunate to help.9 The unsympathetic view is that panhandling is a blight that contributes to further community disorder and crime, as well as to panhandlers' degradation and deterioration as their underlying problems go unaddressed.10 Those holding this view believe panhandling should be heavily regulated by police.
People's opinions about panhandling are rooted in deeply held beliefs about individual liberty, public order and social Attachment 2
The Problem of Panhandling 3 responsibility. Their opinions are also shaped by their actual exposure to panhandling–the more people are panhandled, the less sympathetic they are toward panhandlers.11 While begging is discouraged on most philosophical grounds and by most major religions, many people feel torn about whether to give money to panhandlers.12 Some people tolerate all sorts of street disorder, while others are genuinely frightened by it. This tension between opposing viewpoints will undoubtedly always exist. This guide takes a more neutral stance: without passing judgment on the degree of sympathy owed to panhandlers, it recognizes that police will always be under some pressure to control panhandling, and that there are effective and fair ways to do so.
Related Problems
Panhandling and its variants are only one form of disorderly street conduct and street crime about which police are concerned. Other forms–not directly addressed in this guide–include:
• disorderly conduct of day laborers; • disorderly conduct of public inebriates (e.g., public intoxication, public drinking, public urination and defecation, harassment, intimidation, and passing out in public places); • disorderly conduct of transients/homeless (e.g., public camping, public urination and defecation, and sleeping on sidewalks and benches, and in public libraries); • disorderly youth in public places; • harassment (usually sexual) of female pedestrians; • pickpocketing; • purse snatching; • robbery at automated teller machines (ATMs); • trash picking (for food or to salvage aluminum cans and bottles); Attachment 2
4 Panhandling
• unlicensed street entertainment;† and • unlicensed street vending (also referred to as illegal peddling). † In some instances, there is a fine distinction between panhandlers who Some of these other forms of disorderly street conduct may use brief entertainment as part of their solicitation and more- also be attributable to panhandlers, but this is not necessarily accomplished street musicians, so. These problems overlap in various ways, and a local jugglers, mimes, and other skilled analysis of them will be necessary to understand how they do. entertainers. Factors Contributing to Panhandling
Understanding the factors that contribute to your panhandling problem will help you frame your own local analysis questions, determine good effectiveness measures, recognize key intervention points, and select appropriate responses.
Whether Panhandling Intimidates Passersby
Panhandling intimidates some people, even causing some to avoid areas where they believe they will be panhandled.13 One- third of San Franciscans surveyed said they gave money to panhandlers because they felt pressured, and avoided certain areas because of panhandling; nearly 40 percent expressed concern for their safety around panhandlers.14 But most studies conclude that intentional aggressive panhandling is rare, largely because panhandlers realize that using aggression reduces their income, and is more likely to get them arrested or otherwise draw police attention to them.15
Whether panhandling intimidates passersby depends, of course, on how aggressive or menacing the panhandler is, but it also depends on the context in which panhandling occurs. In other words, an act of panhandling in one context might Attachment 2
The Problem of Panhandling 5 not be intimidating, but the same behavior in a different context might.16 Among the contextual factors that influence how intimidating panhandling is are:
• the time of day (nighttime panhandling is usually more intimidating than daytime panhandling); • the ease with which people can avoid panhandlers (panhandling is more likely to intimidate motorists stuck in traffic than it is those who can drive away); • the degree to which people feel especially vulnerable (for example, being panhandled near an ATM makes some people feel more vulnerable to being robbed); • the presence of other passersby (most people feel safer when there are other people around); • the physical appearance of the panhandler (panhandlers who appear to be mentally ill, intoxicated or otherwise disoriented are most likely to frighten passersby because their conduct seems particularly unpredictable); 17 • the reputation of the panhandler (panhandlers known to be aggressive or erratic are more intimidating than those not known to be so); • the characteristics of the person being solicited (the elderly tend to be more intimidated by panhandlers because they are less sure of their ability to defend themselves from attack); • the number of panhandlers (multiple panhandlers working together are more intimidating than a lone panhandler); and • the volume of panhandling (the more panhandlers present in an area, the more intimidating and bothersome panhandling will seem).
Who the Panhandlers Are
Typically, relatively few panhandlers account for most complaints to police about panhandling.18 The typical profile of a panhandler that emerges from a number of studies is that of an unemployed, unmarried male in his 30s or 40s, with substance abuse problems, few family ties, a high school Attachment 2
6 Panhandling
education, and laborer's skills.19 Some observers have noted that younger people–many of whom are runaways or otherwise transient–are turning to panhandling.20,† A high † In many less-developed countries, percentage of panhandlers in U.S. urban areas are African- children commonly beg to support 21 themselves and their families, a American. Some panhandlers suffer from mental illness, but phenomenon less common in the most do not.22 Many panhandlers have criminal records, but United States and other more highly developed countries. panhandlers are nearly as likely to have been crime victims as offenders.23 Some are transient, but most have been in their †† Definitions of homelessness vary, community for a long time.24 but at a minimum, most studies have found that few panhandlers routinely sleep outdoors at night. See, Contrary to common belief, panhandlers and homeless people however, Burke (1998) for evidence that a high percentage of the are not necessarily one and the same. Many studies have panhandlers in Leicester, England, found that only a small percentage of homeless people have been homeless. panhandle, and only a small percentage of panhandlers are homeless.26,††
Most studies conclude that panhandlers make rational economic choices–that is, they look to make money in the most efficient way possible.27 Panhandlers develop their "sales pitches," and sometimes compete with one another for the rights to a particular sales pitch.28 Their sales pitches are usually, though not always, fraudulent in some respect. Some panhandlers will admit to passersby that they want money to buy alcohol (hoping candor will win them favor), though few will admit they intend to buy illegal drugs.29 Many panhandlers make it a habit to always be polite and appreciative, even when they are refused. Given the frequent hostility they experience, maintaining their composure can be a remarkable psychological feat.30 Panhandlers usually give some consideration to their physical appearance: they must balance looking needy against looking too offensive or threatening.31 Attachment 2
The Problem of Panhandling 7
Kip Kellogg
† Ninety percent of San Franciscans surveyed reported having been panhandled within the past year (Kelling and Coles 1996).
Some panhandlers hope that candor will increase donations. Here, a panhandler's donation box reveals that the money will be spent on beer as well as on food. Most panhandlers are not interested in regular employment, particularly not minimum-wage labor, which many believe would scarcely be more profitable than panhandling.32 Some panhandlers' refusal to look for regular employment is better explained by their unwillingness or inability to commit to regular work hours, often because of substance abuse problems. Some panhandlers buy food with the money they receive, because they dislike the food served in shelters and soup kitchens.33
Who Gets Panhandled and Who Gives Money to Panhandlers
In some communities, nearly everyone who routinely uses public places has been panhandled.† Many who get panhandled are themselves people of modest means. Wealthy citizens can more readily avoid public places where panhandling occurs, whether consciously, to avoid the nuisances of the street, or Attachment 2
8 Panhandling
merely because their lifestyles do not expose them to public places. Estimates of the percentage of people who report that they give money to panhandlers range from 10 to 60 percent.34 The percentage of college students who do so (between 50 and 60 percent) tends to be higher than that of the general population. There is some evidence that women and minorities tend to give more freely to panhandlers.35 Male-female couples are attractive targets for panhandlers because the male is likely to want to appear compassionate in front of the female.36 Panhandlers more commonly target women than men,37 but some find that lone women are not suitable targets because they are more likely to fear having their purses snatched should they open them to get change.38 Conventioneers and tourists are good targets for panhandlers because they are already psychologically prepared to spend money.39 Diners and grocery shoppers are good targets because dining and grocery shopping remind them of the contrast between their relative wealth and panhandlers' apparent poverty. Regular panhandlers try to cultivate regular donors; some even become acquaintances, if not friends.
Where and When Panhandling Commonly Occurs
Panhandlers need to go where the money is. In other words, they need to panhandle in communities and specific locations where the opportunities to collect money are best–where there are a lot of pedestrians or motorists, especially those who are most likely to have money and to give it.40 Panhandling is more common in communities that provide a high level of social services to the needy, because the same citizens who support social services are also likely to give money directly to panhandlers; panhandlers are drawn to communities where both free social services and generous passersby are plentiful.41 With respect to specific locations, panhandlers prefer to panhandle where passersby cannot Attachment 2
The Problem of Panhandling 9 readily avoid them, although doing so can make passersby feel more intimidated.42
Among the more common, specific panhandling locations are the following:
• near ATMs, parking meters and telephone booths (because ATM users, motorists and callers are less likely to say they do not have any money to give); • near building entrances/exits and public restrooms with a lot of pedestrian traffic; • on or near college campuses (because students tend to be more sympathetic toward panhandlers); • near subway, train and bus station entrances/exits (because of high pedestrian traffic, and because public transportation users are likely to be carrying cash to buy tickets or tokens); • on buses and subway trains (because riders are a "captive audience"); • near places that provide panhandlers with shade and shelter from bad weather (such as doorways, alcoves and alleys in commercial districts); • in front of convenience stores, restaurants and grocery stores (because panhandlers' claims to be buying food or necessities for them or their children seem more plausible, and because shoppers and diners often feel especially fortunate and generous); • at gas stations (because panhandlers' claims that they need money for gas or to repair their vehicle seem more plausible); • at freeway exits/entrances (because motorists will be stopped or traveling slowly enough to be able to give money); • on crowded sidewalks (because it is easier for panhandlers to blend in with the crowd should the police appear); • at intersections with traffic signals (because motorists will be stopped); and • near liquor stores and drug markets (so the panhandlers do not have to travel far to buy alcohol or drugs).43 Attachment 2
10 Panhandling
There are typically daily, weekly, monthly, and seasonal patterns to panhandling; that is, panhandling levels often follow fairly predictable cycles, which vary from community to community. For example, panhandling may increase during winter months in warm-climate communities as transients migrate there from cold-weather regions. Panhandling levels often drop around the dates government benefits are distributed, because those panhandlers who receive benefits have the money they need. Once that money runs out, they resume panhandling.44 Panhandling on or near college campuses often follows the cycles of students' going to and coming from classes.45 There are usually daily lulls in panhandling when those panhandlers who are chronic inebriates or drug addicts go off to drink or take drugs. Regular panhandlers keep fairly routine schedules, typically panhandling for four to six hours a day.46
Economics of Panhandling
Most evidence confirms that panhandling is not lucrative, although some panhandlers clearly are able to subsist on a combination of panhandling money, government benefits, private charity, and money from odd jobs such as selling scavenged materials or plasma.47 How much money a panhandler can make varies depending on his or her skill and personal appeal, as well as on the area in which he or she solicits. Estimates vary from a couple of dollars (U.S.) a day on the low end, to $20 to $50 a day in the mid-range, to about $300 a day on the high end.48 Women–especially those who have children with them–and panhandlers who appear to be disabled tend to receive more money.49 For this reason, some panhandlers pretend to be disabled and/or war veterans. Others use pets as a means of evoking sympathy from passersby. Panhandlers' regular donors can account for up to half their receipts.50 Attachment 2
The Problem of Panhandling 11
Panhandlers spend much of their money on alcohol, drugs and tobacco, although some money does go toward food, transportation and toiletries.51 Panhandlers rarely save any money, partly because they risk having it stolen, and partly because their primary purpose is to immediately buy alcohol or drugs.52
Economic, Social and Legal Factors That Influence Panhandling Levels
Broad economic, social and legal factors influence the overall level of panhandling, as well as community tolerance of it.53 Tolerance levels appear to have declined significantly during the 1990s, at least in the United States, leading to increased pressure on police to control panhandling.
The state of the economy, at the local, regional and even national level, affects how much panhandling occurs. As the economy declines, panhandling increases. As government benefit programs become more restrictive, panhandling increases.54 At least as important as economic factors, if not more so, are social factors. The stronger the social bonds and social network on which indigent people can rely for emotional and financial support, the less likely they are to panhandle.55 Thus, the weakening of social bonds throughout society affects the indigent most negatively. As substance abuse levels rise in society, as, for example, during the crack epidemic, so too do panhandling levels. As the skid rows in urban centers are redeveloped, the indigent people who live there move to areas where their panhandling is less tolerated. As people with mental illnesses are increasingly released into the community, often without adequate follow-up care, panhandling also increases. Where there are inadequate detoxification and substance-abuse treatment facilities, panhandling is high.56 As courts strike down laws that Attachment 2
12 Panhandling
authorize police to regulate public disorder, and as police are less inclined to enforce such laws, panhandling flourishes.57 Arrest and incarceration rates may also affect panhandling levels: convicted offenders often have difficulty getting jobs after release, and some inevitably turn to panhandling.58 Attachment 2
Understanding Your Local Problem 13
Understanding Your Local Problem
The information provided above is only a generalized description of panhandling. You must combine the basic facts † Analyzing calls for service related to panhandling is important, but it with a more specific understanding of your local problem. can be time-consuming because, in Analyzing the local problem carefully will help you design a many police agencies, such calls are more effective response strategy. classified under broad categories such as "disturbance" or "suspicious person," categories that encompass a Asking the Right Questions wide range of behavior. It might be worthwhile to develop more-specific call categories, so future problem The following are some critical questions you should ask in analysis will be easier. analyzing your particular panhandling problem, even if the answers are not always readily available. Your answers to these and other questions will help you choose the most appropriate set of responses later on.
Complainants and Donors
(Surveys of citizens and beat police officers will likely be necessary to gather information about complaints and complainants, as well as about donors. Most complaints about panhandling are not formally registered with police.)
• To what extent does panhandling bother or intimidate others? How many complaints do police receive?† Do a few people account for many complaints, or do many people complain? Are complaints filed with other organizations (business/neighborhood associations)? • Who are the complainants? Merchants? Shoppers? Workers? Students? • Does panhandling alter people's behavior and routines (e.g., do people avoid certain areas or stores)? • What are the particular complaints? That panhandlers act aggressively, or that all panhandling is bothersome? • What do complainants suggest should be done to control panhandling? Attachment 2
14 Panhandling
• What percentage of passersby give money to panhandlers? • Why do people say they give money to panhandlers? What do they believe the panhandlers use the money for?
Panhandlers
(Surveys of suspected panhandlers, data from agencies that serve the needy, and discussions with beat police officers can help you answer the following questions. This information can help you determine whether there are clusters of panhandlers with similar characteristics. Different responses might be warranted for different types of panhandlers.)
• How many panhandlers are in the area? How many are regulars? How many are occasional? • What is known about the regular panhandlers? What is their age, race, gender, family status, employment status, and employment history? Are they substance abusers? Do they suffer from mental illness? Do they have criminal records or a history of criminal victimization? Where do they live (in shelters, private homes, on the streets)? • How many of the panhandlers are transient? How many are new to the area? How many are longtime residents? • Do the panhandlers know about and use social services in the area (e.g., shelters, soup kitchens, job training, substance abuse treatment)?
Location/Time
• Where does panhandling commonly occur? In parks, plazas and squares? On sidewalks? Near ATMs? Near public transportation stops and stations? • What, specifically, makes certain locations especially attractive or unattractive to panhandlers? • When is panhandling most prevalent? Are there daily, weekly, monthly, or seasonal cycles to it? Attachment 2
Understanding Your Local Problem 15
Current Response
• How has the panhandling problem previously been handled in your jurisdiction? How is it currently handled? Is the current response adequate and appropriate? • What laws currently regulate panhandling? Are those laws adequate and/or constitutional? • Do the police arrest panhandlers? If so, on what charges? How are the charges processed? Are panhandlers prosecuted? If so, what is the typical sentence? • How do other criminal justice officials (prosecutors, judges, probation officers) view the panhandling problem?
Measuring Your Effectiveness
Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your efforts have succeeded, and suggests how you might modify your responses if they are not producing the intended results. You should take measures of your problem before you implement responses, to determine how serious the problem is, and after you implement them, to determine whether they have been effective. All measures should be taken in both the target area and the surrounding area. (For more detailed guidance on measuring effectiveness, see the companion guide to this series, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers.)
The following are potentially useful measures of the effectiveness of responses to panhandling:
• number of complaints filed with police about panhandling; • number of complaints filed with other organizations or people (e.g., neighborhood/business associations, elected officials) about panhandling; • levels of concern expressed about panhandling (from surveys); Attachment 2
16 Panhandling
• number of known chronic panhandlers (based on complaints, contacts and arrests); • costs of police response to panhandling complaints; † Lankenau (1999) asserts that most • evidence that panhandling has been displaced to other areas, panhandlers will likely turn to other or is resulting in an increase in other forms of nuisance illegitimate ways to make money, behavior or crime (e.g., trash scavenging, shoplifting, theft rather than find regular employment † or enter treatment programs. Duneier from autos, purse snatching, prostitution, drug dealing); (1999) states that some panhandlers and see crime as one of the few viable • indicators of the economic health of the area beset with alternatives to panhandling. panhandling (e.g., property vacancy rates, shoppers' presence, commerce levels, tax receipts, private-security expenditures). Attachment 2
Responses to the Problem of Panhandling 17
Responses to the Problem of Panhandling
Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better understanding of the factors contributing to it. Once you have analyzed your local problem and established a baseline for measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible responses to address the problem.
The following response strategies provide a foundation of ideas for addressing your particular problem. These strategies are drawn from a variety of research studies and police reports. Several of these strategies may apply to your community's problem. It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing several different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem. Do not limit yourself to considering what police can do: give careful consideration to who else in your community shares responsibility for the problem and can help police better respond to it.
General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy
Most researchers and practitioners seem to agree that the enforcement of laws prohibiting panhandling plays only a part in controlling the problem.59 Public education to discourage people from giving money to panhandlers, informal social control and adequate social services (especially alcohol and drug treatment) for panhandlers are the other essential components of an effective and comprehensive response. Attachment 2
18 Panhandling
Panhandling, like many other forms of street disorder, is controlled more through informal means than through formal enforcement.† Panhandlers, merchants, passersby, social † Goldstein's (1993) study of workers, and police beat officers form an intricate social panhandling in New Haven, Conn., provides an excellent example of network of mutual support and regulation. They all have how panhandling is controlled something to gain by cooperating with one another (and, through informal means. Duneier's (1999) study of New York City street consequently, to lose by not cooperating with one another). vendors, scavengers and panhandlers Panhandlers obviously gain money, food and some social also provides an exceptional example interaction from their activity; they risk losing them if they act of informal social control on the street. too disorderly. Merchants will usually tolerate some panhandling, though seldom directly in front of their businesses. Some merchants even give panhandlers food or hire them to do odd jobs such as wash store windows. Passersby gain freedom from the harassment and intimidation of persistent and menacing panhandlers, along with the positive feelings they experience from truly voluntary charity. Social workers are more likely to be able to help those street people who are not frequently arrested for panhandling. Police beat officers can cultivate panhandlers as informants, helping the officers stay current with what is happening on the street.
Enforcement Responses
Whether or not you emphasize enforcement of laws that regulate panhandling, it is important that the laws be able to survive legal challenge. Police should have valid enforcement authority to bolster other responses they use, including issuing warnings to panhandlers.60 Laws that prohibit aggressive panhandling or panhandling in specified areas are more likely to survive legal challenge than those that prohibit all panhandling. If enforcement of panhandling laws will be a key component of your strategy, and if you think the Attachment 2
Responses to the Problem of Panhandling 19 panhandling laws you rely on are vulnerable to legal challenge (or if you want to draft a new panhandling law), you should consult legal counsel to help you draft and propose new legislation. There are a number of model panhandling † Goldstein (1993) estimated that 61 police made arrests for panhandling ordinances and legal commentaries on the constitutionality in only about 1 percent of all police- of panhandling laws62 in the literature. See Appendix B for a panhandler encounters. list and brief summary of some of the leading cases on the constitutionality of panhandling and laws that regulate it.
Warning panhandlers and ordering them to "move along" are perhaps the most common police responses to panhandling.63 Many police beat officers develop working relationships with regular panhandlers; they use a mix of formal and informal approaches to keeping panhandling under control.64 Most officers do not view panhandling as a serious matter, and are reluctant to devote the time necessary to arrest and book offenders.65 Moreover, even when they have the authority to issue citations and release the offenders, most officers realize that panhandlers are unlikely to either appear in court or pay a fine.66 Prosecutors are equally unlikely to prosecute panhandling cases, typically viewing them as an unwise use of scarce prosecutorial resources.67
Panhandler arrests are rare,68,† but when they occur, this is the typical scenario: An officer issues a panhandler a summons or citation that sets a court date or specifies a fine. The panhandler fails to appear in court or fails to pay the fine. A warrant is issued for the panhandler's arrest. The police later arrest the panhandler after running a warrant check during a subsequent encounter. The panhandler is incarcerated for no more than a couple of days, sentenced to time already served by the court, and released.69 Attachment 2
20 Panhandling
Because prosecutors and judges are unlikely to view isolated panhandling cases as serious matters, it is advisable to prepare and present to the court some background information on † British antisocial behavior orders panhandling's overall impact on the community. A problem- are similar in some respects to American restraining and nuisance impact statement can help prosecutors and judges understand abatement orders. the overall negative effect the seemingly minor offense of panhandling is having on the community.70 In the United †† Among the jurisdictions to have enacted aggressive-panhandling laws Kingdom, police can apply to the courts for an "antisocial are the states of Hawaii and behavior order" against individuals or groups as one means of California, and the cities of San controlling their persistent low-level offending.71 Violations of Francisco; Seattle; Minneapolis; Albuquerque, N.M.; Atlanta; the orders can result in relatively severe jail sentences.† It is Baltimore; Cincinnati; Dallas; Tulsa, unknown how effective the orders have been in controlling Okla.; and Washington, D.C. panhandling.
1. Prohibiting aggressive panhandling. Laws that prohibit aggressive panhandling are more likely to survive legal challenge than laws that prohibit all panhandling, and are therefore to be encouraged.72 A growing number of jurisdictions have enacted aggressive-panhandling laws, most within the past 10 years.†† Enforcing aggressive-panhandling laws can be difficult, partly because few panhandlers behave aggressively, and partly because many victims of aggressive panhandling do not report the offense to police or are unwilling to file a complaint. Police can use proactive enforcement methods such as having officers serve as decoys, giving panhandlers the opportunity to panhandle them aggressively.73 Some agencies have provided officers with special legal training before enforcing aggressive-panhandling laws.74 Enforcing other laws panhandlers commonly violate–those regarding drinking in public, trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc.–can help control some aspects of the panhandling problem. Attachment 2
Responses to the Problem of Panhandling 21
Police need not heavily enforce aggressive-panhandling laws in order to control panhandling; the informal norms among most panhandlers discourage aggressive panhandling anyway.75 Panhandlers exercise some influence over one another's behavior, to minimize complaints and keep police from intervening.76 Enforcing aggressive-panhandling laws can serve to reinforce the informal norms because aggressive panhandling by the few makes panhandling less profitable for others.77
Aggressive-panhandling laws typically include the following specific prohibitions:
• confronting someone in a way that would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily harm; • touching someone without his or her consent; • continuing to panhandle or follow someone after he or she has refused to give money; • intentionally blocking or interfering with the safe passage of a person or vehicle; • using obscene or abusive language toward someone while attempting to panhandle him or her; and • acting with intent to intimidate someone into giving money.78
2. Prohibiting panhandling in specified areas. Many courts have held that laws can restrict where panhandling occurs. Panhandlers are increasingly being prohibited from panhandling:
• near ATMs; • on public transportation vehicles and near stations and stops; Attachment 2
22 Panhandling
• near business entrances/exits; • on private property, if posted by the owner; and • on public beaches and boardwalks.79
One legal commentator has proposed a novel approach to regulating panhandling: zoning laws that would strictly prohibit panhandling in some areas, allow limited panhandling in other areas, and allow almost all panhandling in yet other areas.80 The literature does not report any jurisdiction that has adopted this approach as a matter of law, though clearly, police officers informally vary their enforcement depending on community tolerance levels in different parts of their jurisdiction. Kip Kellogg
Some communities prohibit panhandling in specified areas.
3. Prohibiting interference with pedestrians or vehicles. Some jurisdictions have enacted laws that specifically prohibit impeding pedestrians' ability to walk either by standing or by lying down in the way. Enforcement can be difficult where such laws require police to establish the panhandler's intent to Attachment 2
Responses to the Problem of Panhandling 23 obstruct others. The city of Seattle drafted a law that eliminated the need to establish intent, and that law survived a legal challenge.81 Where panhandling occurs on roads, as car † window-washing usually does, enforcing laws that prohibit Licensing schemes for beggars reportedly have existed in England as interfering with motor vehicle traffic can help control the far back as 1530 (Teir 1993). The problem.82 Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (1994) has published guidance on drafting laws enabling permit 4. Banning panhandlers from certain areas as a systems, though the language seems condition of probation. Because panhandling's viability designed to inhibit panhandling, rather than allow it. depends so heavily on good locations, banning troublesome panhandlers from those locations as a condition of probation, at least temporarily, might serve to discourage them from panhandling and, perhaps, compel them to consider legitimate employment or substance abuse treatment.83 Convicted panhandlers might also be temporarily banned from publicly funded shelters.84 Alternatively, courts could use civil injunctions and restraining orders to control chronic panhandlers' conduct, although actual use of this approach does not appear in the literature.85 Obviously, police will require prosecutors' endorsements and judicial approval to advance these sorts of responses.
5. Sentencing convicted panhandlers to appropriate community service. Some jurisdictions have made wide use of community service sentences tailored to the particular offender and offense.86 For example, officers in St. Louis asked courts to sentence chronic panhandlers to community service cleaning the streets, sidewalks and alleys in the area where they panhandled.87
6. Requiring panhandlers to obtain solicitation permits. Some cities, including Wilmington, Del., and New Orleans, have at some time required panhandlers and window washers to obtain solicitation permits, just as permits are required from street vendors and others who solicit money in public.88,† Attachment 2
24 Panhandling
Little is known about the effectiveness of such permit schemes.
Public Education Responses
7. Discouraging people from giving money to panhandlers, and encouraging them to give to charities that serve the needy. In all likelihood, if people stopped giving money to panhandlers, panhandling would cease.89 Public education campaigns are intended to discourage people from giving money to panhandlers. They typically offer three main arguments: 1) panhandlers usually use the money to buy alcohol and drugs, rather than goods and services that will improve their condition; 2) giving panhandlers small amounts of money is insufficient to address the underlying circumstances that cause them to panhandle; and 3) social services are available to meet panhandlers' food, clothing, shelter, health care, and employment needs. Some people do not understand the relationship between panhandling and substance abuse, or are unaware of available social services, however obvious these factors may seem to police.90 Public education messages have been conveyed via posters, pamphlets, movie trailers, and charity collection points.91 A poster campaign was an important element of the New York City Transit Authority's effort to control subway panhandling.92 In Nashville and Memphis, Tenn., special parking meters were used as collection points for charities that serve the needy.93 Some police officers have invested a lot of their own time making personal appeals to discourage people from giving money to panhandlers.94 Some cities, such as Evanston, Ill., have hired trained civilians to make such appeals.95 Not everyone will be persuaded by the appeals; some will undoubtedly perceive them as uncaring. Attachment 2
Responses to the Problem of Panhandling 25
Signs and flyers, such as this one from Madison, Wis., have been used effectively to discourage people from giving money to panhandlers.
8. Using civilian patrols to monitor and discourage panhandling. In Baltimore, a business improvement district group hired police-trained, uniformed, unarmed civilian public-safety guides to intervene in low-level disorder incidents, and to radio police if their warnings were not heeded.96 Portland, Ore., developed a similar program,97 as did Evanston.98 Attachment 2
26 Panhandling
9. Encouraging people to buy and give panhandlers vouchers, instead of money. Some communities have † The earliest reported program was instituted programs whereby people can buy and give in Los Angeles. Other cities where panhandlers vouchers redeemable for food, shelter, voucher programs have been transportation, or other necessities, but not for alcohol or instituted include Berkeley, Santa Cruz † and San Francisco, Calif.; Nashville; tobacco. Typically, a private nonprofit organization prints and Memphis; New Haven; Portland, Ore.; sells the vouchers and serves as the broker between buyers Chicago; Seattle; Boulder, Colo.; New York; and Edmonton, Alberta and merchants. Some vouchers are printed in a way that (Ellickson 1996; New York Times 1993; makes them difficult to counterfeit. Vouchers are often Wall Street Journal 1993). Some accompanied with printed information about where they can communities have considered and rejected voucher programs (Evanston be redeemed and what social services are available to the Police Department 1995). needy. Window signs and flyers are commonly used to advertise voucher programs. There is some risk, however, that panhandlers will exchange the vouchers for money through a black market,99 or that few people will buy the vouchers, as has been reported in some jurisdictions.100
Situational Responses
10. Modifying the physical environment to discourage panhandlers from congregating in the area. Among the environmental features conducive to or facilitating panhandling are the following: access to water (for drinking, bathing and filling buckets for window washing); restrooms; unsecured garbage dumpsters (for scavenging food and sellable materials); and places to sit or lie down, protected from the elements. These physical features can be modified to discourage panhandling.101 Police in Santa Ana, Calif., as part of a larger effort to control aggressive panhandling, persuaded business owners to modify many physical features of their property, to make it less attractive to panhandlers, without inconveniencing customers.102 A number of police efforts to address broader problems related to transient encampments–problems that included panhandling–entailed Attachment 2
Responses to the Problem of Panhandling 27 removing the transients from the encampments and referring them to social service agencies.103
11. Regulating alcohol sales to chronic inebriates who panhandle in the area. Because many panhandlers are chronic inebriates, and because they spend so much of their panhandling money on alcohol, enforcing laws that prohibit alcohol sales to intoxicated people or chronic inebriates is one means of discouraging panhandling in the area. Several police agencies have reported using this approach in their efforts to control panhandling and other problems related to chronic inebriates.104 Alternatively, merchants might be persuaded to change their sales practices to discourage panhandlers from shopping at their stores (e.g., by eliminating such products as fortified wine or not selling single containers of beer).
12. Controlling window-washing materials. Several police agencies have reported on ways to control how squeegee men/panhandlers acquire, store and use window-washing materials. Santa Ana police asked nearby businesses to remove an outdoor water fountain that squeegee men were using to fill their buckets.105 Vancouver, British Columbia, police discovered where squeegee men stored their buckets and squeegees, and had property owners secure the storage places. They also had gas station owners engrave their squeegee equipment with identifying marks to deter theft by panhandlers.106
13. Promoting legitimate uses of public places to displace panhandlers. Police in Staffordshire, England, encouraged the municipal authority to promote street musicians in public places where panhandlers abounded, as one means to discourage panhandlers from begging in the area.107 The underlying logic was that passersby would likely notice the distinction between those who solicit money in Attachment 2
28 Panhandling
exchange for something pleasant, and those who panhandle but offer nothing in return. Passersby would theoretically be less inclined to give money to panhandlers, thereby discouraging panhandling. Similarly, the New York/New Jersey Port Authority promoted new and attractive businesses in the Manhattan bus terminal as part of a larger strategy to reduce crime and disorder, including panhandling. Complaints about panhandling in the terminal declined by one-third over a four-year period.108
Social Services/Treatment Response
14. Providing adequate social services and substance abuse treatment to reduce panhandlers' need to panhandle. To address some of the underlying problems of many panhandlers (e.g., substance abuse, lack of marketable skills, mental illness, inadequate housing), police may need to advocate new social services, or help coordinate existing services.109 Police can be and have long been instrumental in advocating and coordinating social services for panhandlers, and in referring people to those services.110 Fontana, Calif., police coordinated a highly successful program that provided panhandlers and other transients with a wide range of health care, food, job training, and housing placement services. They offered treatment as an alternative to enforcement; they enforced laws regulating street disorder, including panhandling, and transported those willing to accept treatment to the social service center.111 New York/New Jersey Port Authority police did likewise in helping to control panhandling and other forms of crime and disorder in the Port Authority bus terminal in New York City.112
Short-term substance-abuse treatment programs, however, are not likely to be effective for most panhandlers–their addictions are too strong–and most who participate in short Attachment 2
Responses to the Problem of Panhandling 29 term programs quickly revert to their old habits.113 Unfortunately, long-term programs cost more than most communities are willing to spend. Police could advocate the † most chronic offenders' being given priority for long-term See Teir (1993) for a discussion of the long history of laws prohibiting treatment programs, or the courts could mandate such and regulating begging. programs.114 Some social service outreach efforts target those people identified as causing the most problems for the community.115 In Madison, Wis., detoxification workers even took to the streets to proactively monitor the conduct of their most difficult clients. Some panhandlers will, of course, refuse social service and treatment offers because they are unwilling to make the lifestyle changes usually required to stay in the programs.116
Response With Limited Effectiveness
15. Enforcing laws that prohibit all panhandling. Many laws that prohibit all panhandling were written long ago and are vaguely and broadly worded: consequently, they are unlikely to survive a legal challenge.† About half of the states and over a third of major cities in America have laws that prohibit all or some forms of panhandling.117 Attachment 2 Attachment 2
Appendix A: Summary of Responses to Panhandling 31
Appendix A: Summary of Responses to Panhandling
The table below summarizes the responses to panhandling, the mechanism by which they are intended to work, the conditions under which they ought to work best, and some factors you should consider before implementing a particular response. It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing several different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem.
Response Page No. Response How It Works Considerations No. Works Best If… Enforcement Responses 1. 20 Prohibiting Subjects the most …the law can Enforcement is aggressive offensive survive legal difficult because panhandling panhandlers to challenge, and few panhandlers criminal penalties; panhandlers are are intentionally reinforces clearly informed aggressive; informal rules of of what officers should be conduct among constitutes legal properly trained panhandlers vs. illegal conduct to make aggressive- panhandling charges 2. 21 Prohibiting Restricts …the law can Costs associated panhandling in panhandling in survive legal with properly specified areas areas where it is challenge, posting areas most likely to panhandlers are where disrupt commerce clearly informed panhandling is and be of where they prohibited intimidating cannot panhandle, and enforcement is consistent Attachment 2
32 Panhandling
Response Page No. Response How It Works Considerations No. Works Best If… 3. 22 Prohibiting Restricts conduct …the law can Proving intent to interference with that commonly survive legal interfere with pedestrians or disrupts challenge, and pedestrians can be vehicles commerce and enforcement is difficult intimidates consistent pedestrians; deals directly with window washing by denying window washers access to motorists
4. 23 Banning Denies …panhandlers are Requires the panhandlers from panhandlers clearly informed cooperation of certain areas as a access to areas of where they prosecutors, judges condition of where cannot go, and and probation probation panhandling is police officers are officials profitable informed of which panhandlers are banned from the area
5. 23 Sentencing Tailors the …the community Requires the convicted punishment to service is cooperation of panhandlers to the offense; meaningful and prosecutors, judges appropriate makes the properly and corrections community offender consider supervised officials service the impact panhandling has on the community
6. 23 Requiring Discourages …police officers May be viewed as panhandlers to panhandling are informed of unfair by the public; obtain solicitation through the permit little is known permits procedural requirement and about how effective requirements that consistently this approach is many panhandlers enforce it are unlikely to follow; allows for easier enforcement (no witnesses are required) Attachment 2
Appendix A: Summary of Responses to Panhandling 33
Response Page No. Response How It Works Considerations No. Works Best If… Public Education Responses 7. 24 Discouraging Decreases the …the message May require new people from supply of money that adequate investments in giving money to to panhandlers social services are social services to panhandlers, and and, consequently, available is make the message encouraging them lowers the level credible, and the credible; advertising to give to of panhandling message is heavily and promoting the charities that promoted message incurs serve the needy costs 8. 25 Using civilian Increases the level …civilian Salary, training and patrols to of official patrollers are equipment costs monitor and monitoring and properly trained discourage intervention and supported by panhandling police 9. 26 Encouraging Restricts …supported by Start-up and people to buy and panhandlers' merchants and administrative costs give panhandlers ability to buy the community for the program; a vouchers, instead alcohol and drugs black market may of money allow panhandlers to convert vouchers to cash, undermining the program; people may not buy vouchers Situational Responses
10. 26 Modifying the Discourages …private (and Requires property physical panhandlers from public) property owners' environment to soliciting in an owners cooperation; costs discourage area by making it understand how of making panhandlers from less comfortable the environment environmental congregating in to do so can contribute to changes; some risk the area panhandling that changes will also make the area less attractive for legitimate users
11. 27 Regulating Forces …liquor license Will not address alcohol sales to panhandlers to holders panhandlers who chronic inebriates travel farther to understand the are not chronic who panhandle in buy alcohol, rationale for inebriates, including the area thereby liquor law drug addicts potentially enforcement, and displacing them enforcement is from the area consistent Attachment 2
34 Panhandling
Response Page No. Response How It Works Considerations No. Works Best If… 12. 27 Controlling Makes window …property Costs (usually window-washing washing owners cooperate modest) of materials (squeegeeing) in efforts to modifying the more difficult control the use of environment or the materials securing the materials 13. 27 Promoting Discourages …passersby May attract more legitimate uses of people from approve of and people to an area, public places to giving money to support legitimate making it more displace panhandlers by street solicitors attractive to panhandlers encouraging them panhandlers to give to legitimate street solicitors Social Services/Treatment Response 14. 28 Providing Removes …there are May require adequate social panhandlers' outreach efforts substantial new services and excuses for to identify and investments in substance abuse panhandling; serve panhandlers social services if treatment to undermines the who will benefit the community is reduce rationale for from social lacking them panhandlers' need giving money to services, especially to panhandle panhandlers; the most chronic addresses the offenders; underlying substance-abuse problems that treatment cause some programs are people to sufficiently long- panhandle term to be effective; panhandling enforcement is consistent, to motivate panhandlers to seek legitimate aid; and social services and police efforts are coordinated Response With Limited Effectiveness 15. 29 Enforcing laws Unlikely to survive that prohibit all legal challenge panhandling Attachment 2
Appendix B: Selected Court Cases on Panhandling 35
Appendix B: Selected Court Cases on Panhandling
The following are some notable U.S. court cases addressing the constitutionality of panhandling and laws that regulate it. You should consult local legal counsel to determine the state of the law in your jurisdiction.
Berkeley Community Health Project v. Berkeley, 902 F. Supp. 1084 (N.D. Cal. 1995) and 966 F. Supp. 941 (N.D. Cal. 1997). Struck down an ordinance that, among other restrictions, banned begging at night. The city subsequently deleted that provision from the ordinance, leaving only an ATM restriction intact.
Blair v. Shanahan, 775 F. Supp. 1315 (N.D. Cal. 1991). Struck down a ban on accosting people to beg. The decision was subsequently vacated, 919 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1996).
C.C.B. v. State, 458 So. 2d 47 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984). Struck down a total ban on begging in public.
Carreras v. City of Anaheim, 768 F. 2d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir. 1985). Held that the California Constitution is broader than the U.S. Constitution in protecting speech; struck down begging ordinances.
Chad v. Fort Lauderdale, 861 F. Supp. 1057 (S.D. Fla. 1994). Upheld a ban on begging on the beach and boardwalk.
City of Seattle v. Webster, 802 P. 2d 1333 (Wash. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 1690 (1991). Upheld an ordinance banning sidewalk obstruction. Attachment 2
36 Panhandling
Doucette v. Santa Monica, 995 F. Supp. 1192 (C.D. Cal. 1996). Upheld time, place and manner restrictions on begging.
Greater Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless v. City of Cincinnati, 56 F. 3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 1995). Cites evidence that the enforcement of an anti-begging ordinance reduced the incidence of begging.
Loper v. New York City Police Department, 999 F. 2d 699 (2d Cir. 1993). Struck down a ban on loitering for the purposes of begging on city streets.
Los Angeles Alliance for Survival v. City of Los Angeles, 157 F. 3d 1162 (9th Cir. 1998). Struck down an aggressive-begging ordinance. The California Supreme Court subsequently overturned the lower court's ruling on the constitutionality of the ordinance, sending the case back to the federal district court.
State ex rel. Williams v. City Court of Tucson, 520 P. 2d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974). Upheld a loitering-for-the-purposes- of-begging ordinance.
Ulmer v. Municipal Court for Oakland-Piedmont Judicial District,55 Cal. App. 3d 263, 127 Cal. Rpt. 445 (1976). Upheld a ban on begging that was later struck down by the Blair court.
Young v. New York City Transit Authority, 903 F. 2d 146 (2d Cir. 1990). Upheld a ban on begging in the subway. Attachment 2
Endnotes 37
Endnotes
1 Cosgrove and Grant (1997). 2 Burke (2000). 3 Kelling and Coles (1996, 1994); Kozlowski (1999); Leoussis (1995); Harcourt (1998); Skogan (1990). 4 Kelling and Coles (1996, 1994); Ellickson (1996); Vancouver Police Department (1999); Fontana Police Department (1998). 5 Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993); Fontana Police Department (1998); Manning (2000). 6 Burke (1998); Goldstein (1993); Teir (1993); Lankenau (1999); St. Petersburg Police Department (1997); Manning (2000). 7 Goldstein (1993); Vancouver Police Department (1999). 8 See Ammann (2000); Barta (1999); Burns (1992); Hershkoff position in Hershkoff and Conner (1993); Lankenau (1999); Munzer (1997); Harcourt (1998). 9 Munzer (1997). 10 See Kelling and Coles (1996); Ellickson (1996); Burke (2000); Teir (1998, 1993); Conner position in Hershkoff and Conner (1993); Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (1994). 11 Wilson (1991). 12 Ellickson (1996). 13 Kelling and Coles (1996); Ellickson (1996). 14 Kelling and Coles (1996). 15 Burke (2000); Lankenau (1999). 16 Kelling and Coles (1996, 1994); Kelling (1999). 17 Goldstein (1993). 18 Ellickson (1996); Goldstein (1993); University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Police and Security (1997); St. Petersburg Police Department (1997); Alexandria Police Department (1995); Evanston Police Department (1995); Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort Pierce, Fla., case study); Higdon and Huber (1987) (Dundalk project); Manning (2000). 19 Burke (1998); Stark (1992); Lankenau (1999); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993); Evanston Police Department (1995, n.d.); Goldstein (1993); Santa Ana Police Department (1993); Chicago Tribune (1994); Manning (2000). 20 Burke (1998). 21 Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993); Evanston Police Department (1995); Duneier (1999). Attachment 2
38 Panhandling
22 Goldstein (1993); Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Ellickson (1996); Burke (1998); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993). 23 Goldstein (1993); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993); New York City Police Department (1994); St. Petersburg Police Department (1997); Chicago Tribune (1994); Evanston Police Department (n.d.); Higdon and Huber (1987) (Dundalk project); Manning (2000). 24 Goldstein (1993); St. Petersburg Police Department (1997); University of Wisconsin- Madison Department of Police and Security (1997). 25 Ellickson (1996); Stark (1992); Goldstein (1993). 26 Ellickson (1996); Teir (1998); Goldstein (1993); Fontana Police Department (1998); Chicago Tribune (1994); Manning (2000). 27 Stark (1992). 28 Burke (1998); Lankenau (1999). 29 Stark (1992). 30 Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993). 31 Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993). 32 Goldstein (1993); Ellickson (1996). 33 Goldstein (1993); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993). 34 Ellickson (1996); Kelling and Coles (1996); Butterfield (1988). 35 Burns (1992). 36 Stark (1992). 37 Wilson (1991). 38 Stark (1992). 39 Stark (1992); St. Petersburg Police Department (1997). 40 Ellickson (1996); Burke (1998); Stark (1992); Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993); Duneier (1999). 41 Ellickson (1996); Fontana Police Department (1998); University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Police and Security (1997); Santa Ana Police Department (1993). 42 Leoussis (1995). 43 Stark (1992); Seattle Police Department (2000); Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort Pierce case study). 44 Goldstein (1993). 45 University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Police and Security (1997). 46 Goldstein (1993). 47 Goldstein (1993); Burke (1998); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993); Evanston Police Department (n.d.); Ellickson (1996); Stark (1992); Duneier (1999). 48 Ellickson (1996); Mabry (1994); Goldstein (1993); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993); Manning (2000); Duneier (1999). Attachment 2
Endnotes 39
49 Burns (1992). 50 Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993). 51 Burke (1998); Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993). 52 Stark (1992); Goldstein (1993). 53 Burke (1998); Ellickson (1996). 54 Burke (1998). 55 Ellickson (1996). 56 Stark (1992). 57 Kelling and Coles (1996, 1994); Teir (1993). 58 Ellickson (1996). 59 Goldstein (1993); Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Ellickson (1996); Evanston Police Department (1995). 60 Ellickson (1996); Goldstein (1993). 61 Teir (1993); Center for the Community Interest (1996); Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (1994). 62 Kelling and Coles (1996); Barta (1999); Ellickson (1996); Delmonico (1996); Kozlowski (1999); Leoussis (1995); Mabry (1994); Mitchell (1994); Nichols (1997); Teir (1998, 1993); Walston (1999); Hershkoff and Conner (1993); Munzer (1997). 63 Leoussis (1995). 64 Kelling and Coles (1996); Ellickson (1996). 65 Goldstein (1993). 66 Santa Ana Police Department (1993); Little (1992). 67 Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Goldstein (1993). 68 New York City Police Department (1994); Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Ellickson (1996); Burke (1998); Leoussis (1995); Teir (1993); Goldstein (1993). 69 Ammann (2000). 70 St. Petersburg Police Department (1997); Vancouver Police Department (1999); Higdon and Huber (1987) (Dundalk project); Savannah Police Department (1995). 71 Bland and Read (2000). 72 Kelling and Coles (1996); Kelling (1999). 73 Savannah Police Department (1995). Attachment 2
40 Panhandling
74 Kelling and Coles (1996) (discussing Seattle's response to panhandling); Santa Ana Police Department (1993); Felson et al. (1996). 75 Ellickson (1996); Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993). 76 Goldstein (1993). 77 Burke (2000); Delmonico (1996). 78 Kelling and Coles (1996). 79 Kelling and Coles (1996); Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Ellickson (1996); Mabry (1994); Teir (1998); Kozlowski (1999) (citing a Fort Lauderdale law). 80 Ellickson (1996); see Munzer (1997) for a critique of Ellickson's zoning proposal. 81 Kelling and Coles (1996) (citing a Seattle law). 82 Vancouver Police Department (1999); New York City Police Department (1994). 83 University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Police and Security (1997). 84 Teir (1993). 85 Ellickson (1996). 86 Ammann (2000); Harcourt (1998). 87 Heimberger (1992). 88 Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Ellickson (1996); Mabry (1994); Ybarra (1996); Santa Ana Police Department (1993). 89 Ellickson (1996). 90 Manning (2000). 91 Ellickson (1996); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993); Santa Ana Police Department (1993); Vancouver Police Department (1999); Evanston Police Department (1995); Higdon and Huber (1987); Manning (2000); Cosgrove and Grant (1997). 92 Barta (1999); Harcourt (1998). 93 Ellickson (1996). 94 University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Police and Security (1997); Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort Pierce case study). 95 Evanston Police Department (1995). 96 Kelling and Coles (1996). 97 Nkrumah (1998); Egan (1993). Attachment 2
Endnotes 41
98 Evanston Police Department (1995). 99 Goldstein (1993). 100 Egan (1993). 101 Burns (1992); Green Bay Police Department (1999); Vancouver Police Department (1999); Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort Pierce case study); Felson et al. (1996); Duneier (1999). 102 Santa Ana Police Department (1993). 103 Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort Pierce and San Diego case studies); Santa Ana Police Department (1993); Kelling and Coles (1996) (discussion of San Francisco's Operation Matrix). 104 Seattle Police Department (2000); Alexandria Police Department (1995); Green Bay Police Department (1999); Higdon and Huber (1987) (Dundalk project). 105 Santa Ana Police Department (1993). 106 Vancouver Police Department (1999). 107 Manning (2000). 108 Felson et al. (1996). 109 Stark (1992). 110 Bittner (1967); Kelling and Coles (1994); Burke (1998); Goldstein (1993); Little (1992); Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort Pierce case study); Fontana Police Department (1998); Higdon and Huber (1987) (Dundalk project); Manning (2000); Felson et al. (1996). 111 Fontana Police Department (1998). 112 Felson et al. (1996). 113 Goldstein (1993). 114 Manning (2000). 115 University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Police and Security (1997); Manning (2000). 116 Manning (2000); Goldstein (1993); Stark (1992); Kelling and Coles (1994); Evanston Police Department (1995). 117 Leoussis (1995); Teir (1998, 1993). Attachment 2 Attachment 2
References 43
References
Alexandria (Va.) Police Department (1995). "Alexandria Alcohol Interdiction Program." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.
Ammann, J. (2000). "Addressing Quality-of-Life Crimes in Our Cities: Criminalization, Community Courts and Community Compassion." Saint Louis University Law Journal 44:811–820.
Barta, P. (1999). "Giuliani, Broken Windows and the Right To Beg." Georgetown Journal of Poverty Law & Policy 6:165–194.
Bittner, E. (1967). "The Police on Skid Row: A Study of Peace Keeping." American Sociological Review 32(5):699–715.
Bland, N., and T. Read (2000). Policing Anti-Social Behaviour. Police Research Series, Paper 123. London: Home Office.
Burke, R. (2000). "The Regulation of Begging and Vagrancy: A Critical Discussion." Crime Prevention and Community Safety 2(2):43–52.
(1998). "Begging, Vagrancy and Disorder." In R.H. Burke (ed.), Zero Tolerance Policing. Leicester, England: Perpetuity Press.
Burns, M. (1992). "Fearing the Mirror: Responding to Beggars In a 'Kinder and Gentler' America." Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 19(3):783–844.
Butterfield, F. (1988). "New Yorkers Growing Angry Over Aggressive Panhandlers." New York Times, July 28, p. A1. Attachment 2
44 Panhandling
Center for the Community Interest (1996). "Aggressive Panhandling (Model Ordinance)." Washington, D.C.: Center for the Community Interest. www.communityinterest.org/backgrounders /panhandling.htm.
Chicago Tribune (1994). "Evanston Fights Panhandlers–With a Smile." May 27, p. 1.
Cosgrove, C., and A. Grant (1997). National Survey of Municipal Police Departments on Urban Quality-of-Life Initiatives. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (1994). A Guide To Regulating Panhandling. Sacramento, Calif.: Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.
Delmonico, D. (1996). "Aggressive Panhandling Legislation and the Constitution: Evisceration of Fundamental Rights–Or Valid Restrictions Upon Offensive Conduct?" Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 23:557–590.
Duneier, M. (1999). Sidewalk. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Egan, T. (1993). "In 3 Progressive Cities, It's Law vs. Street People." New York Times, Dec. 12.
Ellickson, R. (1996). "Controlling Chronic Misconduct in City Spaces: Of Panhandlers, Skid Rows and Public-Space Zoning." Yale Law Journal 105(5):1165–1248. Attachment 2
References 45
Evanston Police Department (1995). "Anti-Panhandling Strategy." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. Cited in Sampson, R., and M. Scott (2000). Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Also published as Mulholland, J., J. Sowa and E. Steinhoff (1997). "Evanston Reduces Aggressive Panhandling by Influencing the Behavior of Givers." Problem-Solving Quarterly 10(1):9–12.
(n.d.). "Panhandling in Evanston: Preliminary Report." Evanston, Ill.: Evanston Police Department.
Felson, M., M. Belanger, G. Bichler, C. Bruzinski, G. Campbell, C. Fried, K. Grofik, I. Mazur, A. O'Regan, P. Sweeney, A. Ullman, and L. Williams (1996). "Redesigning Hell: Preventing Crime and Disorder at the Port Authority Bus Terminal." In R. Clarke (ed.), Preventing Mass Transit Crime. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 6. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press.
Fontana Police Department (1998). "Transient Enrichment Network." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.
Goldstein, B. (1993). "Panhandlers at Yale: A Case Study in the Limits of Law." Indiana Law Review 27(2):295–359.
Green Bay (Wis.) Police Department (1999). "Street Sweeping, Broadway Style." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. Published in Police Executive Research Forum, National Institute of Justice and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (2000). Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing: The 1999 Herman Goldstein Award Winners. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Attachment 2
46 Panhandling
Harcourt, B. (1998). "Reflecting on the Subject: A Critique of the Social Influence Conception of Deterrence, the Broken Windows Theory and Order-Maintenance Policing, New York Style." Michigan Law Review 97:291–389.
Heimberger, B. (1992). "Working the Nightshift." Problem- Solving Quarterly 5(4):1–2.
Hershkoff, H., and R. Conner (1993). "Aggressive Panhandling Laws." ABA Journal 79 (June):40–41.
Higdon, R. and P. Huber (1987). How To Fight Fear: The COPE Program Package. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.
Kelling, G. (1999). 'Broken Windows' and Police Discretion. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
Kelling, G., and C. Coles (1996). Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities. New York: Free Press.
(1994). "Disorder and the Court." Public Interest 116 (Summer):57–74.
Kozlowski, J. (1999). "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? Panhandling in Public Parks and Places." NRPA Law Review 34 (December):34–41.
Lankenau, S. (1999). "Stronger Than Dirt: Public Humiliation and Status Enhancement Among Panhandlers." Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 28(3):288–318.
Leoussis, F. (1995). "The New Constitutional Right To Beg–Is Begging Really Protected Speech?" Saint Louis University Public Law Review 14(2):529–550. Attachment 2
References 47
Little, J. (1992). "Moral Dilemma." St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 7, p. C1.
Luckenbach, R., and P. Acosta (1993). "The Street Beggar: Victim or Con Artist?" The Police Chief (October):126-128.
Mabry, C. (1994). "Brother, Can You Spare Some Change?–And Your Privacy, Too?: Avoiding a Fatal Collision Between Public Interests and Beggars' First Amendment Rights." University of San Francisco Law Review 28(2):310–341.
Manning, N. (2000). "The Make-It-Count Scheme: A Partnership Response to Begging in Stoke-on-Trent City Centre." Problem-Solving Quarterly 13(3):5–8.
Mitchell, C. (1994). "Aggressive Panhandling Legislation and Free Speech Claims: Begging for Trouble." New York Law School Law Review 39(4):697–717.
Munzer, S. (1997). "Ellickson on 'Chronic Misconduct' in Urban Spaces: Of Panhandlers, Bench Squatters and Day Laborers." Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Law Review 32:1–48.
New York City Police Department (1994). Police Strategy No. 5: Reclaiming the Public Spaces of New York. New York: New York City Police Department.
New York Times (1993). "Plan Helps Panhandlers With Vouchers, Not Quarters." Current Events Edition. Sept. 26, p. I42.
Nichols, P. (1997). "The Panhandler's First Amendment Right: A Critique of Loper v. New York City Police Department and Related Academic Commentary." South Carolina Law Review 48:267–291. Attachment 2
48 Panhandling
Nkrumah, W. (1998). "Shoppers Can Get Vouchers To Offer Panhandlers." The Oregonian, Nov. 25. www.oregonnve.com.
St. Petersburg (Fla.) Police Department (1997). "Repeat Alcoholic Offenders in Downtown St. Petersburg." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.
Sampson, R., and M. Scott (2000). Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
Santa Ana Police Department (1993). "Harbor Plaza/Riverbed Project." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. Cited in Sampson, R., and M. Scott (2000). Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Also published as Tegeler, B. (1993). "Shopping Center Blues." Problem-Solving Quarterly 6(4):4–5.
Savannah (Ga.) Police Department (1995). "Crime Suppression Unit P.O.P. Project." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem- Oriented Policing.
Seattle Police Department (2000). Problem-Solving: Nine Case Studies and Lessons Learned. Seattle: Seattle Police Department.
Skogan, W. (1990). Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Neighborhoods. New York: Free Press.
Stark, L. (1992). "From Lemons to Lemonade: An Ethnographic Sketch of Late 20th Century Panhandling." New England Journal of Public Policy 8(1):341–352. Attachment 2
References 49
Teir, R. (1998). "Restoring Order in Urban Public Spaces." Texas Review of Law & Politics 2:256–291.
(1993). "Maintaining Safety and Civility in Public Spaces: A Constitutional Approach to Panhandling." Louisiana Law Review 54(2):285–338.
University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Police and Security (1997). "UW Police Response to Alcoholic Vagrants." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.
Vancouver Police Department (1999). "Intersecting Solutions." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.
Wall Street Journal (1993). "Vouchers for Panhandlers." Aug. 26, p. A1.
Walston, G. (1999). "Examining the Constitutional Implications of Begging Prohibitions in California." Whittier Law Review 20:547-575.
Wilson, G. (1991). "Exposure to Panhandling and Beliefs About Poverty Causation." Sociology and Social Research 76(1):14–19.
Ybarra, M. (1996). "Don't Ask, Don't Beg, Don't Sit." New York Times, May 19. Attachment 2 Attachment 2
About the Author 51
About the Author
Michael S. Scott
Michael S. Scott is the director of the Center for Problem- Oriented Policing, Inc. and clinical assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School. He was formerly chief of police in Lauderhill, Fla.; served in various civilian administrative positions in the St. Louis Metropolitan, Ft. Pierce, Fla., and New York City police departments; and was a police officer in the Madison, Wis., Police Department. Scott developed training programs in problem-oriented policing at the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), and is a judge for PERF's Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. He was the 1996 recipient of the Gary P. Hayes Award for innovation and leadership in policing. Scott holds a law degree from Harvard Law School and a bachelor's degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Attachment 2 Attachment 2
Recommended Readings 53
Recommended Readings
• A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their Environments, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993. This guide offers a practical introduction for police practitioners to two types of surveys that police find useful: surveying public opinion and surveying the physical environment. It provides guidance on whether and how to conduct cost- effective surveys.
• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers, by John E. Eck (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). This guide is a companion to the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series. It provides basic guidance to measuring and assessing problem-oriented policing efforts.
• Conducting Community Surveys, by Deborah Weisel (Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 1999). This guide, along with accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The document is also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs.
• Crime Prevention Studies, edited by Ronald V. Clarke (Criminal Justice Press, 1993, et seq.). This is a series of volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems. Attachment 2
54 Panhandling
• Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing: The 1999 Herman Goldstein Award Winners. This document produced by the National Institute of Justice in collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum provides detailed reports of the best submissions to the annual award program that recognizes exemplary problem- oriented responses to various community problems. A similar publication is available for the award winners from subsequent years. The documents are also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.
• Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and describes the factors that make problem-solving effective or ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in England and Wales.
• Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory for Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V. Clarke (Home Office Police Research Series, Paper No. 98, 1998). Explains how crime theories such as routine activity theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory have practical implications for the police in their efforts to prevent crime.
• Problem Analysis in Policing, by Rachel Boba (Police Foundation, 2003). Introduces and defines problem analysis and provides guidance on how problem analysis can be integrated and institutionalized into modern policing practices. Attachment 2
Recommended Readings 55
• Problem-Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein (McGraw-Hill, 1990, and Temple University Press, 1990). Explains the principles and methods of problem-oriented policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses how a police agency can implement the concept.
• Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention, by Anthony A. Braga (Criminal Justice Press, 2003). Provides a through review of significant policing research about problem places, high-activity offenders, and repeat victims, with a focus on the applicability of those findings to problem-oriented policing. Explains how police departments can facilitate problem-oriented policing by improving crime analysis, measuring performance, and securing productive partnerships.
• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years, by Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000). Describes how the most critical elements of Herman Goldstein's problem-oriented policing model have developed in practice over its 20-year history, and proposes future directions for problem-oriented policing. The report is also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov.
• Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman (Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the rationale behind problem-oriented policing and the problem-solving process, and provides examples of effective problem-solving in one agency. Attachment 2
56 Panhandling
• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 1998) (also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov). Provides a brief introduction to problem-solving, basic information on the SARA model and detailed suggestions about the problem-solving process.
• Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies, Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke (Harrow and Heston, 1997). Explains the principles and methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over 20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives.
• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving, by Rana Sampson and Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000) (also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov). Presents case studies of effective police problem-solving on 18 types of crime and disorder problems.
• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement, by Timothy S. Bynum (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction for police to analyzing problems within the context of problem-oriented policing.
• Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement Managers, Second Edition, by John E. Eck and Nancy G. LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains many of the basics of research as it applies to police management and problem-solving. Attachment 2
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 57
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police
Problem-Specific Guides series:
1. Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2 2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0 3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-02-9 4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7 5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-04-5 6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-05-3 7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1 8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-07-X 9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8 10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6 11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X 12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8 13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6 14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4 15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-14-2 16. Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-15-0 17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-16-9 18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7 19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-18-5 20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3 Attachment 2
58 Panhandling
Problem-Solving Tools series:
• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-19-3
Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police (2003)
Problem-Specific Guides Check and Card Fraud Crimes Against Tourists Disorder at Budget Motels Domestic Violence Gun Violence Among Serious Youthful Offenders Mentally Ill Persons Prescription Fraud Robbery of Taxi Drivers Stalking Student Party Disturbances on College Campuses
Problem-Solving Tools Repeat Victimization Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem-Solving
Response Guides The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns Street Closures Attachment 2
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 59
Future Guide Topics (2004)
Identity Theft School Break-Ins Street Racing Bomb Threats Binge Drinking on College Campuses Open-air Drug Markets Sexual Activity in Public Places Drunk Driving Cruising Bank Robbery
Other Related COPS Office Publications
• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement. Timothy S. Bynum. • Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years. Michael S. Scott. 2001. • Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving. Rana Sampson and Michael S. Scott. 2000. • Community Policing, Community Justice, and Restorative Justice: Exploring the Links for the Delivery of a Balanced Approach to Public Safety. Caroline G. Nicholl. 1999. • Toolbox for Implementing Restorative Justice and Advancing Community Policing. Caroline G. Nicholl. 2000. • Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving Partnerships. Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. 1998. Attachment 2
60 Panhandling
• Bringing Victims into Community Policing. The National Center for Victims of Crime and the Police Foundation. 2002. • Call Management and Community Policing. Tom McEwen, Deborah Spence, Russell Wolff, Julie Wartell, Barbara Webster. 2003 • Crime Analysis in America. Keith Nicholls, PhD., Timothy C. O’Shea, PhD. 2003 • Problem Analysis in Policing. Rachel Boba, PhD. 2003 • Reducing Theft at Construction Sites: Lessons From a Problem-Oriented Project. Ronald V. Clarke, Herman Goldstein. 2003 • The COPS Collaboration Toolkit: How to Build, Fix, and Sustain Productive Partnerships. Gwen O. Briscoe, Ph.D., Anna T. Laszlo, Tammy A. Rinehart. 2001. • The Law Enforcement Tech Guide: How to plan, purchase and manage technology (successfully!). Kelly J. Harris, William H. Romesburg. 2002. • Theft From Cars in Center City Parking Facilities - A Case Study. Ronald V. Clarke, Herman Goldstein. 2003.
For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call the Department of Justice Response Center at 800.421.6770 or visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. Attachment 2
Appendix 61 Attachment 2
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530
To obtain details on COPS programs, call the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center at 800.421.6770
Visit COPS Online at the address listed below. e08032028 Created Date: September 08, 2003 ISBN: 1-932582-12-6
www.cops.usdoj.gov Attachment 3
Enforcement of Aggressive Panhandling and Local Camping and Sleeping Ordinances
Thursday, September 19, 2013; 9:30 – 11:30 a.m.
Marco A. Martinez, City Attorney, Azusa, Colton & Covina Christine Dietrick, City Attorney, San Luis Obispo
League of California Cities 2013 Annual Conference; City Attorneys’ Track Sacramento Convention Center
Attachment 3
ENFORCEMENT OF AGGRESSIVE PANHANDLING AND CAMPING AND SLEEPING ORDINANCES
I. Introduction
Homelessness and transiency are complex problem faced by many cities in California. Managing both the needs of homeless individuals and the secondary effects associated with homelessness and transiency can involve navigating a variety of legal issues. This paper aims to identify and evaluate some of the legal tools available to cities to address some of the nuisance conditions and conduct often associated with transient or homeless individuals.
A. Homeless Statistics
Federal law defines the term “homeless individual” to include:
1. An individual who lacks a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence; and
2. An individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is:
(A) a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);
(B) an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or
(C) a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.1
On any given night in the United States, approximately 633,782 persons are considered homeless individuals.2 One third of these are unsheltered and staying in places not meant for human habitation. Many of these are families.
The statistics below come from the 2012 update of the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness:
Just under half of all persons experiencing homelessness at a single point in time (46 percent) reside in four States: California, Florida, Texas, and New York (see Table 4). Together these four States
1 42 U.S.C. §11302(a).
2 Source: “The 2012 Point in Time Estimates of Homelessness,” U.S. Department of Housing & Community Development, Office of Community Planning & Development, 2012.
- 1 - Attachment 3
represent just 33 percent of the overall U.S. population.6 In three of these States (CA, FL, and TX), the percentage of home less persons who were unsheltered is significantly higher than the national average of 38 percent.
The Concentration of Homelessness in the United States (2012)
State Sheltered Unsheltered Total
California 45,890 (35%) 85,008 (65%) 130,898
Florida 19,832 (36%) 35,338 (64%) 55,170
New 65,482 (94%) 4,084 (6%) 69,566 York*
Texas 17,501 (51%) 16,551 (49%) 34,052
289,686
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2012 Point In Time Count, http://www.hudhre.info/index.cfm?do=viewHomelessRpts
Note: New York City accounts for 81 percent of the homeless population in the State of New York.
Unlike other States, New York’s Legal Right to Shelter (based on a 1979 class action lawsuit against New York City and State) ensures greater availability of local and State resources; consequently there is a low proportion of unsheltered versus sheltered persons
Recent trends have seen a decrease in the number of homeless individuals and families. Since 2007, homelessness on any given night has decreased 5.7%. The percentage of persons who are unsheltered has also declined by 13.1%. More importantly, the number of homeless families has declined by 8%, such that 6,778 family households are considered homeless on any given night.
Despite recent decreases in homeless individuals and families, cities continue to grapple with the secondary impacts, both real and perceived, of homelessness and transiency. Much of the literature regarding secondary effects cite to a U.S Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (2003) publication, which concludes that
“ Contrary to common belief, panhandlers and homeless people are not necessarily one and the same. Many studies have found that only a small percentage of homeless people panhandle, and only a small percentage of panhandlers are homeless.”
***
- 2 - Attachment 3
Most panhandlers are not interested in regular employment, particularly not minimum-wage labor, which many believe would scarcely be more profitable than panhandling. Some panhandlers' refusal to look for regular employment is better explained by their unwillingness or inability to commit to regular work hours, often because of substance abuse problems. Some panhandlers buy food with the money they receive, because they dislike the food served in shelters and soup kitchens.3
While the report cited is now a decade old, and the data on which it relies even more dated, the perception of accuracy and the sentiment reflected are often repeated, in literature on the issue , as a matter of public perception, and among law enforcement personnel called on to address secondary effects of transiency, such as aggressive panhandling, public intoxication and public urination and defecation and agrressive or assaultive behaviors. These concerns about health, sanitation, aesthetics and access to parks and other public property, and antisocial behavior have led many cities to adopt laws that criminalize typical homeless or transient activities such as panhandling and sleeping and storing personal belongings in public places. Those actions have, in turn, generated legal challenges to the regulatory approaches that require careful attention by cities attempting to navigate this difficult terrain.
B. Brief Discussion of the Homeless and Transiency Problem
Homelessness is a broad social problem, with myriad root causes, generating widely divergent perspectives on the best means by which to address the problems that cause individuals and families to experience homelessness, as well as the impacts of homelessness on communities and their residents, businesses and economies. Congress passed and the President signed legislation, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, which requires the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness to devise resources and a comprehensive strategic plan to end homelessness that can be used by cities around the country to begin to address homelessness and its impacts on individuals, families and communities in the most effective manner. In the meantime, it is clear that California cities are disproportionately impacted by homelessness and the needs and impacts of homeless residents and those cities are at an extreme resource
3 Scott, Michael S, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services: Problem-Oriented Guides for Police –Panhandling, Problem-Specific Guides Series No. 13 (2003), citing to: Ellickson, R. (1996). "Controlling Chronic Misconduct in City Spaces: Of Panhandlers, Skid Rows and Public-Space Zoning." Yale Law Journal 105(5):1165–1248; Teir, R. (1998). "Restoring Order in Urban Public Spaces." Texas Review of Law & Politics 2:256–291; Goldstein, B. (1993). "Panhandlers at Yale: A Case Study in the Limits of Law." Indiana Law Review 27(2):295–359; Manning, N. (2000). "The Make-It-Count Scheme: A Partnership Response to Begging in Stoke-on-Trent City Centre." Problem-Solving Quarterly 13(3):5–8.
- 3 - Attachment 3
disadvantage in addressing the problems in any comprehensive way.
C. Manifestation as Aggressive Panhandling & Camping
From the perspective of many local agency elected officials, and their city attorneys, the issues of panhandling and anti- camping, whether in vehicles on the public streets or outdoors in other public places, often present themselves in the form of complaints about adverse impacts and demands that the city “do something”. Because cities, especially smaller cities, generally are not social service providers and lack resources to provide broader services to address the root causes of homelessness, cities are often called upon to exercise their police power in the form of enforcement against adverse impacts associated with camping and panhandling. The list of complaints come from residents, business owners and tourists who complain of uncivil, aggressive and even assaultive and criminal behavior exhibited by some panhandlers and/or homeless individuals occupying public and private spaces.
D. Discussion of Paper
This paper does not attempt to summarize, compile or provide commentary on the desirability, implementation or effectiveness of multidisciplinary policy and social approaches to address homelessness, although links to useful resources that do are provided at the end of this paper. Rather, this paper focuses on the tools most often used to address the impacts often associated with transient or homeless individuals, including panhandling and camping in public spaces and the potential legal pitfalls that have been associated with such approaches. The effectiveness of those tools in isolation from other broader-ranging social and economic policy considerations is an expansive topic beyond the reach of this presentation.
II. Anti-Camping Ordinances
Anti-camping ordinances typically proscribe sitting, sleeping, lying or camping on public property. Some also prohibit the storage of personal property on public property. In California, such ordinances have been upheld as constitutional under both the United States and California Constitutions.
A. State of the Law
Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 9 Cal.4th 1069 (1995)
Perhaps the most recognized California case regarding the constitutionality of “anti-camping” ordinances is Tobe v. City of Santa Ana. In that case, various homeless persons and taxpayers sought to prohibit enforcement of a Santa Ana ordinance banning “camping” and storage of personal property in designated public areas (such as streets, public parking lots, parks, etc.) Plaintiffs presented evidence that the ordinance was the culmination of a four year “campaign” by the City to expel homeless
- 4 - Attachment 3
persons and contended that the ordinance was unconstitutional both facially and as applied to the specific plaintiffs. The California Supreme Court refused to entertain an “as applied” challenge to the ordinance because none of the plaintiffs showed an impermissible means of enforcement as against any of them. Therefore, the Court’s review was limited to the ordinance’s facial constitutionality.
The Court found that the ordinance did not violate Federal and State constitutional rights of interstate or intrastate travel because “[a]n ordinance that bans camping and storing personal possessions on public property does not directly impede the right to travel . . . . The right to travel does not. . . endow citizens with a ‘right to live or stay where one will.’” Tobe, at 1103.4
The Court further found the ordinance did not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment because the ordinance punished prescribed acts, not the status of being homeless. The Court analogized to Robinson v. California, a case decided by the United States Supreme Court which stated that while one cannot be punished for the status of being a drug addict, one can be punished for possessing or using drugs. The Tobe Court also held that the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague since the terms “camping” and “storage” had clearly understandable meanings. Finally, the Court held that the ordinance was not overbroad or discriminatory because: (1) adoption of the ordinance was within the City’s police power; (2) there is no fundamental right to camp on public property; (3) the ordinance was rationally related to the City’s stated purpose of maintaining clean streets and public property; (4) the homeless are not a “suspect class;” and (5) there was no evidence that the ordinance was invidiously discriminatory on its face.
In re Eichorn, 69 Cal.App.4th 382 (1998)
Subsequent to Tobe a California appellate court did review the Santa Ana ordinance in light of an “as applied” challenge. Recall that the Tobe Court refused to consider an “as applied” challenge to the Santa Ana “anti-camping” ordinance. In In re Eichorn, Mr. Eichorn was cited for violating the same Santa Ana ordinance addressed in Tobe. While acknowledging the ordinance’s facial constitutionality, the Court held that it may be unconstitutionally applied as to certain homeless persons if they are not allowed to assert a “necessity” defense to a criminal prosecution. The Court reasoned that if a homeless person truly has nowhere to go, it would violate constitutional rights
4 The Court further noted that an “as applied” challenge on the right to travel may not succeed either because “the creation or recognition of a constitutional right does not impose on a state or governmental subdivision the obligation to provide its citizens with the means to enjoy that right. Santa Ana has no constitutional obligation to make accommodations on or in public property available to the transient homeless to facilitate their exercise of the right to travel.” Id.
- 5 - Attachment 3
to punish that person for merely trying to sleep, eat and survive.5 Therefore, the Court ruled that the ordinance will only survive an “as applied” constitutional challenge if a homeless defendant is allowed to present a “necessity” defense. The end result of this case is that if a homeless person truly has nowhere to go, and is forced to sleep, camp, eat, or carry out other life functions outdoors in violation of ordinance, the City cannot convict that person of a violation. Either the homeless person will be found not guilty by necessity or, if a local court refuses to allow a necessity defense to be presented, the ordinance will be considered unconstitutional as applied to that homeless defendant. This is the only case of its kind in California and could have a significant impact on the ability of cities to enforce “anti-camping” and “anti-sleeping” ordinances where there is truly a shortage of available shelter space for homeless persons.
Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006)
A more recent example of an “as applied” challenge to an anti-camping ordinance is Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006), which, although vacated by Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 505 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2007), still offers significant guidance on the issue of necessity defenses. In Jones, the court held that "the Eighth Amendment prohibits [a city] from punishing involuntary sitting, lying, or sleeping on public sidewalks that is an unavoidable consequence of being human and homeless without shelter in [that city]." (Jones, supra, 505 F.3d at 1138.) Some courts have subsequently found Jones to be "highly persuasive", thereby ensuring its continuing relevance to the issue of anti-camping ordinances today. (See Lehr v. City of Sacramento, 624 F. Supp. 2d 1218, 1226 (E.D. Cal. 2009), Following the holding in Jones, and holding it would be improper for a city to punish an individual for camping in public where there is no local shelter available.)
More recently, the specter of Jones was raised again in a decision regarding an anti-camping ordinance in Boise, Idaho. In Bell v. City of Boise, the Ninth Circuit found that several homeless individuals had standing to sue the City of Boise and that their claims under the Eighth Amendment were not moot as a matter of law. (Bell v. City of Boise 709 F.3d 890, 897 (9th Cir. 2013) .) The trial court in that case had recognized that a legal basis existed for the claims of the homeless plaintiffs but dismissed their claims as moot as a result of the adoption of a “special order” by the Chief of Police. That “special order” was intended to guide officers in the enforcement of the ordinance and generally provided that no enforcement would take place when shelters were full. (Id. at 895.) The Ninth Circuit seemed to accept the reasoning of Jones by focusing on whether the homelessness was unavoidable. (Id.) It concluded that the claims of the homeless persons were not moot because a special order by the Chief of Police did not foreclose any reasonable expectations of recurrence of the allegedly unconstitutional
5 In Tobe, the Santa Ana City Attorney assured the Supreme Court that “a necessity defense might be available to ‘truly homeless’ persons and that prosecutorial discretion would be exercised.” Eichorn, at 388. The Eichorn Court appears to be holding the City Attorney to this promise.
- 6 - Attachment 3
enforcement of the Ordinances. (Id. at 901.) Bell also suggests that non-binding administrative orders may be insufficient to save an ordinance from an “as applied” challenge. . (Id. at 901.)
B. Summary of the Current State of Anti-Camping Ordinances
Taken together, these and other anti-camping cases provide a concise summary of the status of the law when it comes to enforcement of anti-camping ordinances.
1. Eighth Amendment Challenges
The United States Supreme Court has made it fairly clear that, under the Eighth Amendment, one may not be punished solely for status or a chronic condition. (Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 666 (1962).) As such, one may not be punished simply for being homeless. However, a city may impose a criminal sanction for public behavior which may create substantial health and safety hazards, both for the actor and for members of the general public, and which offends the moral and esthetic sensibilities of a large segment of the community. (Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 532 (1968).) Therefore, as noted in Tobe, public camping is subject to regulation.
However, some courts will consider "necessity" under the Eighth Amendment as a defense to an as-applied challenge. (In re Eichorn, 69 Cal.App.4th 382 (1998).) As noted above, the Jones decision continues to be "highly persuasive" and influential. (Lehr v. City of Sacramento, 624 F. Supp. 2d 1218, 1226 (E.D. Cal. 2009).) Thus, it may be prudent for cities that have anti-camping ordinances to understand their shelter inventory and enforce carefully based on those facts.
2. Equal Protection
Because homelessness and poverty are not suspect classifications and there is no fundamental right to camp on public property, anti-camping ordinances are subject to the rational basis test. (Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 470-71 (1977); Kreimer v. Bureau of Police, 958 F.2d 1242, 1269, n. 36 (3d. Cir. 1992); Tobe, supra, 9 Cal. 4th at 1108-09.) Under the rational basis test, any rational basis for the ordinance may be considered by the courts, and those attacking the rationality of the legislative classification have the burden to show otherwise. (Walgreen Co. v. City and County of San Francisco, 185 Cal. App. 4th 424, 435-436 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2010).) As a result of this low bar, almost all anti-camping ordinances will likely survive an Equal Protection challenge.
3. Vagueness
Anti-camping ordinances have been upheld against claims that they are unconstitutionally vague. (Tobe, supra, 9 Cal. 4th at 1108; Joyce, supra, 846 F. Supp. at 862-63.) To avoid being invalidated as vague, a statute must “be sufficiently definite to provide adequate notice of the conduct proscribed” and “provide sufficiently definite
- 7 - Attachment 3
guidelines for the police in order to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” (Tobe, supra, 9 Cal. 4th at 1106-07.) In Tobe, the court noted that the term ‘camp’ is not ambiguous where it is defined as “occupation of camp facilities, living temporarily in a camp facility or outdoors, or using camp paraphernalia.” (Id. at 1107.) Thus, so long as public agencies model their anti-camping ordinances on ones that have been upheld, such as the one in Tobe, they should be safe from a challenge on vagueness grounds.
4. Unattended Property
Many anti-camping ordinances include components that prohibit persons from storing unattended belongings on public property. Commonly, these types of ordinances are typically enforced through “sweeps” in which unattended homeless belongings are removed and taken in order to clear public property and improve access and appearance.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of nine homeless people living in Los Angeles were violated by City employees who seized and immediately destroyed their briefly unattended personal possessions. (Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 693 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. denied in City of Los Angeles v. Lavan, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4893 (U.S., June 24, 2013).) The City had seized and immediately destroyed the homeless persons’ personal possessions, temporarily left on public sidewalks while they attended to necessary tasks such as eating, showering, and using restrooms. (Id. at 1024.) Los Angeles had argued that its seizure and disposal of items were authorized pursuant to its enforcement of a municipal code provision that forbids any merchandise, baggage or article of personal property to be left unattended upon any parkway or sidewalk. (Id. at 1026.) The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument, concluding that “[b]ecause homeless persons' unabandoned possessions are ‘property’ within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, the City must comport with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause if it wishes to take and destroy them.” (Id. at 1032.)
Under Lavan, if a city believes that property left in a public place is merely unattended, steps should be taken prior to any seizure and before any destruction. At a minimum, a city must provide the homeless with notice and a reasonable period of time in which to retrieve the property. While there is no “bright-line” rule for how long persons should be given to retrieve their belongings, it should be noted that in cases where cities have entered into settlement agreements to change these practices, the time provided has ranged from 30 to 90 days. Public agencies may elect to be governed by the provisions of California Civil Code Section 2080 et seq., under which it must hold property for at least three months prior to selling the property at a public auction. (Civ. Code, §§ 2080.4, 2080.6.) However, these Civil Code provisions have no application to intentionally abandoned property. (Civ. Code, § 2080.7.) Nor do these provisions prohibit a city from determining a time at which property may be considered abandoned.
- 8 - Attachment 3
In a recent case from the District Court in Hawaii, a city’s removal of property was upheld where the ordinance provided twenty-four or seventy-two hours written notice before items are seized, provided post-seizure notice describing the items that have been taken and the location where they may be retrieved, and provided for the holding of seized items for at least thirty days before destruction. (De-Occupy Honolulu v. City & County of Honolulu 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71968, 16-17 (D. Haw. May 21, 2013).)
Where city staff has a good faith belief that the property has been intentionally abandoned, summary seizure and destruction is likely permissible. However, it is difficult for city staff to know whether property is truly abandoned or merely unattended. Notice periods of as little as 24-hours, after which it is reasonable to conclude that the property has been abandoned and may be destroyed, probably suffice under most circumstances. If a city wishes to utilize such an approach, it ought to establish a policy and provide adequate training to its staff. Where a city has existing procedures for dealing with found property, which typically involve storage for a period of 30 to 90 days, it may need to establish a rationale for using a shorter 24-hour period in certain cases. Such rationale may involve public health concerns where the unattended/abandoned property is unsanitary, for example.
III. Aggressive Panhandling
A. State of the law
As both panhandling and complaints about panhandling from cities’ residents, business owners, and tourists have increased, aggressive panhandling ordinances have become very common in cities across the country. Perhaps predictably, such ordinances have also been the subject of legal challenges at the state and federal court levels across the country. The ordinances have been challenged, both successfully and unsuccessfully, on constitutional grounds including due process, equal protection, vagueness and overbreadth, under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Liberty of Speech clause.
In response to lawsuits, several cities have adopted or amended ordinances, either as the direct result of rulings in cases brought against them, in response to the analyses of courts in suits against other cities, or consistent with settlements of cases with groups like the ACLU and various homeless and First Amendment advocacy groups. As a result, most ordinances currently enforced share several common features, which should continue to be defensible against facial constitutional challenges, including: 1) prohibitions on “aggressive solicitation,” which is generally defined to include an immediate request for funds accompanied by verbal or physical threats or coercion, or persisting in requests following a negative response from the individual being solicited; 2) regulation of activity on public property and/or privately owned
- 9 - Attachment 3
property open to the public or large groups of the public; and 3) prohibitions on solicitation of any kind in specified locations, most often including within specified distances of banks, check cashing businesses, automated teller machines, public transportation facilities, in traffic or locations that interfere with or impede traffic and, sometimes, within specified distances of business entrances.
It should be noted, however, that there are cases that have invalidated or called into question the viability of restrictions of solicitation premised on interference with vehicular traffic. In Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, (U.S. 2012) 132 S.Ct. 1566, the Ninth Circuit held that a city ordinance, prohibiting solicitation of business, employment, and contributions on streets and highways was not narrowly tailored to achieve city's interest in promoting traffic flow and safety, and thus violated free speech guarantees. The Court also found that the ordinance was overinclusive in that it would apply to such things as children selling lemonade on sidewalks, it was geographically overinclusive in that it applied citywide, despite small number of problem areas identified by city. Finally, the court concluded the city could have employed various less restrictive alternatives, such as enforcement of existing traffic laws and regulations. Thus, any restrictions based on traffic flow should be narrowly tailored and supported by findings that support the need for the regulation to address identified traffic and safety concerns in specified areas. Otherwise, the safest course is to utilize existing state law tools to address traffic interference issues that may be associated with panhandling.
Examples of representative ordinances that have been adopted or amended, which reflect the reasoning or compromises achieved via legal challenges are:
• Section 120-2 of the San Francisco Police Code
• Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.37 (See Berkeley Community Health Project v. City of Berkeley 966 F.Supp. 941(N.D. Cal. 1997))
• Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 41.59 (See Los Angeles Alliance For Survival v. City of Los Angeles, 22 Cal.4th 352 (2000))
1. Speech Considerations
Under both state and federal law, in person solicitation regulations are viewed as content neutral and subject to intermediate, rather than strict scrutiny, so long as the regulation is justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech and is viewpoint neutral.
Solicitation is protected speech under both the California Constitution and the
- 10 - Attachment 3
First Amendment of the United States Constitution. (International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness of California, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles 966 F.Supp. 956 at 962(C.D. Cal. 1997), citing People v. Fogelson, 21 Cal.3d 158, 165 (1978)); Hillman v. Britton, 111 Cal.App.3d 810, 816(1980 ); and International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 677 (1992).) Article I, section 2, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution (liberty of speech clause) is more protective of speech than the First Amendment. However, the California Supreme Court’s “…decisions dating back more than 80 years have recognized that requests for the immediate donation or payment of money — while often encompassed within and protected by the liberty of speech clause — may create distinct problems and risks that warrant different treatment and regulation. (Los Angeles Alliance For Survival, supra, 22 Cal.4th at pp. 356-57 (Alliance).)
The level of scrutiny under which courts review a restriction of free speech activity depends upon whether it is a content-neutral regulation of the time, place, or manner of speech or restricts speech based upon its content. A content-neutral regulation of the time, place, or manner of speech is subjected to intermediate scrutiny to determine if it is “(i) narrowly tailored, (ii) serves a significant government interest, and (iii) leaves open ample alternative avenues of communication. [Citation]” (Los Angeles Alliance for Survival, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 364.) A content-based restriction is subjected to strict scrutiny. “[D]ecisions applying the liberty of speech clause [of the California Constitution], like those applying the First Amendment, long have recognized that in order to qualify for intermediate scrutiny (i.e., time, place, and manner) review, a regulation must be ‘content neutral’ [citation], and that if a regulation is content based, it is subject to the more stringent strict scrutiny standard. [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 364–365, fn. omitted.) The government bears the burden of justifying the regulation of expressive activity in a public forum. (See Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 45(1983).)
In that context, both the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court have directly addressed a challenge to the City of Los Angeles’s aggressive panhandling ordinance under the liberty of speech clause. In Alliance, plaintiffs (including the ACLU) argued that LA’s ordinance was overbroad and violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the liberty of speech clause of the California Constitution. The federal district court issued a preliminary injunction, holding that plaintiff homeless organizations had standing to challenge the ordinance as overbroad and the ordinance was most likely invalid on its face under the liberty of speech clause because it discriminated on the basis of content between categories of speech (speech soliciting the donation of funds versus speech with no solicitation component). The City appealed, and the Ninth Circuit certified a question to the California Supreme Court of whether regulation of solicitation was content-based for purposes of the California Constitution, thus requiring such regulations to withstand strict scrutiny analysis by the courts.
Ultimately, the California Supreme Court concluded “…that an ordinance (such
- 11 - Attachment 3
as the Los Angeles ordinance at issue in the underlying action) that is directed at activity involving public solicitation for the immediate donation or payment of funds should not be considered content based or constitutionally suspect under the California Constitution, and should be evaluated under the intermediate scrutiny standard applicable to time, place, and manner regulations, rather than under the strict scrutiny standard.” Los Angeles Alliance For Survival, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 357.
The Ninth Circuit accepted the California Supreme court’s answer to the certified question, but nonetheless affirmed the District Court’s decision that granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the Los Angeles Ordinance. The Court ruled that even though, as the California Supreme Court certified, regulation of solicitation is content-neutral,
“…whether the ordinance in certain aspects and applications infringes upon the right to free speech raises other serious questions. Because the balance of hardships tips sharply in the appellees' favor and the appellees would be irreparably injured absent the preliminary injunction, we affirm the preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings.”
The case ultimately settled, resulting in the removal of ordinance language that had permitted persons to order panhandlers off property surrounding restaurants, bus stops and other places. The prohibition on aggressive solicitation and solicitation within a specified distance of an ATM remains in the ordinance.
While Alliance was decided under the state constitution, federal constitutional law similarly treats regulations of solicitation as content-neutral restraints of speech, subject to intermediate review. (See, e.g., United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720, 730 (1990) (Kokinda).), legislation will be upheld as a reasonable time, place, and manner regulation so long as it is (i) narrowly tailored, (ii) serves a significant government interest, and (iii) leaves open ample alternative avenues of communication. (Savage v. Trammell Crow Co., 223 Cal. App. 3d 1562, 1572–1574 (1990)). The burden is on the government to demonstrate that the regulation passes the test.
In Roulette v. City of Seattle, 97 F.3d 300 (9th Cir. 1996), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered a facial constitutional challenge on First Amendment grounds brought by homeless persons to a city ordinance prohibiting sitting or lying on sidewalks in commercial areas between 7:00 a.m. and 9 p.m. Petitioners claimed the ordinance violated their right to free speech pursuant to the First Amendment by preventing the expressive conduct of soliciting, and that the ordinance further violated their right to substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. In rejecting the First Amendment challenge, the Court held that “[b]y its terms, the ordinance here prohibits only sitting or lying on the sidewalk. As we explained above, [which] are not forms of conduct integral to, or commonly associated with, expression. (Id. at 305). The Court similarly rejected the facial due process challenge, rejecting petitioners claim that
- 12 - Attachment 3
the ordinance was a “thinly veiled attempt to drive [out] unsightly homeless…” and accepted the ordinance on its face as a neutral measure to protect and preserve sidewalks for their intended purpose.
Similarly, in Doucette v. City of Santa Monica, 955 F. Supp. 1192, 1209 (C.D. Cal. 1997), the Court upheld a Santa Monica ordinance prohibiting solicitation from: “a) Bus stops; (b) Public transportation vehicles or facilities; (c) A vehicle on public streets or alleyways; (d) Public parking lots or structures; (e) Outdoor dining areas of restaurants (f) Within fifty feet of an automated teller machine…” In rejecting the plaintiffs’ Section 1983 First Amendment claims, the Court found that the city’s interests in preventing harassment and intimidation in areas where people experience particular vulnerability justified the regulation imposed.
2. On Private Property
Cities are often called upon to enact ordinances extending aggressive solicitation provisions to private properties where large sections of the public gather or to enforce trespassing laws against individuals engaging in panhandling, solicitation or other expressive conduct on private property. Such enforcement on private properties presents an often difficult quandary for responding officers as to whether the nature of the particular property involved affords the solicitor speech protections that would not otherwise be at issue on private property.
The controlling case on solicitation or expressive conduct on private/quasi- public property is Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899, 902 aff'd sub nom. Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) 447 U.S. 74. Pruneyard analyzed the question of whether California's Constitution creates broader speech rights with respect to private property than does the federal Constitution. Id. After noting the importance of free speech and the right to petition the government, and observing that “central business districts apparently have continued to yield their functions more and more to suburban centers” Id. at 907, the court held that “sections 2 and 3 of article I of the California Constitution protect speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers even when the centers are privately owned.” Id. at 910. In particular, the Pruneyard holding is premised upon its finding that large retail shopping centers now serve as the functional equivalent of the traditional town center business district, where historically the public's free speech activity is exercised. Id. at pp. 907–910.
Subsequent cases have established that a location will be considered a quasi- public forum only when it is the functional equivalent of a traditional public forum with attributes that invite or encourage social gathering, rather than mere patronage for a specified purpose. Pruneyard, supra, 23 Cal.3d at 907; Trader Joe's Co. v. Progressive Campaigns, Inc. 73 Cal.App.4th 425, 434 (1999); Albertson's, Inc. v. Young 107 Cal.App.4th 106, 118 (2003). Appellate decisions applying Pruneyard focus on whether the property owner has so opened up his or her property for public use as to make it the functional
- 13 - Attachment 3
equivalent of a traditional public forum. Trader Joe's Co. v. Progressive Campaigns, Inc., supra 73 Cal.App.4th at 433–434; Planned Parenthood v. Wilson (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1662, 1671. Cases indicate that, in considering whether a particular business or business area is impressed with a public character for purposes of expressive activity, no single factor is determinative. Albertson's, Inc. v. Young 107 Cal.App.4th at 118-20. Taken as a whole, Pruneyard implies that smaller privately owned commercial establishments that do not assume the societal role of a town center may prohibit expressive activity unrelated to the business enterprise. Planned Parenthood v. Wilson 234 Cal.App.3d 1662, 1670 (1991). Moreover, it is clear that private property owners may enforce reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on solicitation on their properties, subject to the same requirements applicable to governmental regulation discussed above.
In general, aggressive panhandling ordinances that extend to private properties endowed with a public character should be enforceable to the same extent as provisions applicable to public property. However, due to the fact and location intensive nature of the analysis with regard to activities on private properties, it is generally advisable for City enforcement personnel to intervene only where necessary to prevent or stop imminent or actual harm to individuals involved. Many police departments will provide the alternative to an onsite business manager or operator to file a citizen’s arrest form, but will not other than to keep the peace.
IV. Conclusion
Although anti-camping ordinances have been upheld as constitutional, cities should be cautious when enforcing anti-camping ordinances where homelessness is unavoidable, especially in situations where there is a shortage of available shelter space for homeless persons in the jurisdiction. In addition, when cities are conducting sweeps to clear public property of the unattended personal belongings of homeless persons, cities must be careful to comply with due process requirements. At a minimum, cities should not summarily dispose of belongings that are not genuinely believed to have been abandoned.
Finally, aggressive panhandling ordinances are generally subject to intermediate scrutiny. Accordingly, such ordinances will be upheld if they are: (i) narrowly tailored, (ii) serve a significant government interest, and (iii) leave open ample alternative avenues of communication. Most literature on the subject concludes that enforcement of panhandling laws does not adequately or completely address the issues. Rather, Public education to discourage people from giving money to panhandlers and the availability of adequate social services (especially alcohol and drug treatment) for panhandlers are necessary components of any effective response likely to have a significant impact.
- 14 - Attachment 3
As always, we recommend that city staff consult with their city attorney’s office prior to enacting policies or ordinances regulating the activity of homeless persons.
V. Resources
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness 2012 Update http://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/Update2012_FINALweb.pdf
American Bar Association Commission on Homelessness and Poverty http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_services/homelessness_poverty/resources /homeless_courts.html http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/AOCLitReview-Mental_Health_Courts-- Web_Version.pdf
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Problem-Oriented Guides for Police -Panhandling By Michael S. Scott Problem-Specific Guides Series No. 13 http://cops.usdoj.gov/files/ric/CDROMs/POP1_60/Problem-Specific/Panhandling.pdf
National Alliance to End Homelessness http://www.endhomelessness.org/
Homes Not Handcuffs: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities A Report by The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty and The National Coalition for the Homeless http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/crimreport/CrimzReport_2009.pdf
U.S. Conference of Mayors, Hunger and Homelessness Survey: A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America’s Cities, A 25-City Survey, (December 2012) http://usmayors.org/pressreleases/uploads/2012/1219-report-HH.pdf
- 15 - Attachment 4
ORDINANCE NO. 1014
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NORCO, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 9.50, “AGGRESSIVE PANHANDLING” PROHIBITING AGAINST CERTAIN FORMS OF SOLICITATION, LINGERING AND LOITERING ON MEDIANS, TO THE NORCO MUNICIPLE CODE. CODE AMENDMENT 2017-02.
WHEREAS, the CITY OF NORCO initiated Code Amendment 2017-02, an amendment to Norco Municipal Code Title 9 adding prohibitions against certain forms of panhandling; and
WHEREAS, solicitations made in an aggressive manner are unsafe and disruptive to persons in the City of Norco and are a threat to public health, safety, and general welfare; and WHEREAS, aggressive solicitations typically include approaching or following pedestrians, the use of abusive language, unwanted physical contact, or the intentional blocking of pedestrian and vehicular traffic; and WHEREAS, an increase in aggressive solicitation throughout the City of Norco has become extremely disturbing and disruptive to residents and businesses; and
WHEREAS, the intent is to restore access to and enjoyment of public places; and
WHEREAS, the Code Amendment was scheduled and properly noticed for public hearing on February 1, 2017 on or about 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 2820 Clark Avenue, Norco, California 92860 and was heard by the City Council for the City of Norco; and
WHEREAS, at said time and place, said City Council heard and considered both oral and written evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORCO does hereby ordain and approve adding Chapter 9.50, Aggressive Panhndling, to the Norco Municipal Code as follows:
Attachment 4 Ordinance No. 1014, Chapter 9.50 Aggressive Panhandling February 15, 2017 Page 2
SECTION 1:
Chapter 9.50, Aggressive Panhandling
Sections: 9.50.010 Findings. 9.50.020 Authority and Purpose. 9.50.030 Applicability. 9.50.040 Definitions. 9.50.050 Aggressive Solicitations Prohibited. 9.50.060 All Solicitations Prohibited at Specified Locations; Lingering and Loitering Prohibited on Medians. 9.50.070 Exemptions. 9.50.080 Penalty
9.50.010 Findings.
The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that:
a) Solicitations made in an aggressive manner are unsafe and disruptive to persons in the City of Norco and are a threat to public health, safety, and general welfare. Aggressive solicitations typically include approaching or following pedestrians, the use of abusive language, unwanted physical contact, or the intentional blocking of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
b) An increase in aggressive solicitation throughout the City has become extremely disturbing and disruptive to residents and businesses, and has contributed not only to the loss of access to and enjoyment of public places, but also to an enhanced sense of fear, intimidation, and disorder.
c) Aggressive solicitation from people in places where they are a “captive audience” in which it is impossible or difficult for them to exercise their own right to decline to listen to or to avoid solicitation from others, is problematic, detracts from the rights of persons in the City to quietly enjoy public facilities, and presents a risk to the health, safety and welfare of the public. Such places include public transportation vehicles and their designated locations for stops, as well as gas stations.
Attachment 4 Ordinance No. 1014, Chapter 9.50 Aggressive Panhandling February 15, 2017 Page 3
d) The presence of individuals who solicit money from persons at or near banks or automated teller machines is especially threatening and dangerous. Such activity often carries with it an implicit threat to both person and property. Restricting solicitation in such places will provide balance between the rights of solicitors and the rights of persons who wish to decline or avoid such solicitations, and will help avoid or diminish the threat of violence in such unwarranted and unavoidable confrontations.
e) Aggressive solicitation on roadway median strips, at traffic intersections, and in the public roadway, and lingering and loitering on a median are unsafe and hazardous for solicitors, drivers, pedestrians, and the general public. Aggressive soliciting on roadway median strips, at traffic intersections, and in the public roadway increase the risk of drivers becoming distracted from their primary duty to safely operate their motor vehicle and watch traffic. This may result in traffic collisions, congestion and blockage of streets, and delay the free flow of travel, all of which constitute substantial traffic safety concerns.
f) The council’s intent in enacting this chapter is not to interfere with the exercise of first amendment rights of those engaged in solicitation on roadway median strips, at traffic intersections, and in the public roadway, and lingering and loitering on the medians. This is meant to minimize the safety hazards of those in such areas as well as the drivers and passengers in vehicles sharing the roadway.
g) The practice of aggressive solicitation near driveways accessing shopping centers, retail, and business establishments is unsafe and hazardous for solicitors, drivers, pedestrians, and the general public. The location of the solicitor near the driveway compromises the solicitor’s safety, impedes visibility, and impairs the driver’s ability to safely enter and exit. Driver’s also become distracted from their duty to operate their motor vehicle and watch traffic, which may result in traffic collisions, congestion and blockage of streets, and delay the free flow of travel, all of which constitute substantial traffic safety concerns.
h) The restrictions of this chapter are content neutral and are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, but still provide alternative avenues of communication.
i) The reasonable time, place, manner restrictions in this chapter avoid the negative effects of aggressive solicitation and solicitation in unsafe places and Attachment 4 Ordinance No. 1014, Chapter 9.50 Aggressive Panhandling February 15, 2017 Page 4
will not unreasonably restrict free speech of people engaged in solicitation.
9.50.20 Authority and Purpose.
a) This chapter is adopted pursuant to the authority granted to the City of Norco in Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution.
b) The purpose and intent of this chapter is to protect public health, safety, and the general welfare of people in the City of Norco and improve the quality of life and economic vitality of the City of Norco by imposing reasonable time, place, manner, restrictions on certain forms of solicitation while respecting the constitutional rights of free speech for all citizens as further described in the findings set forth in Section 9.50.070.
c) The California Supreme Court has held such regulation of solicitation does not violate the liberty of speech clause of the California Constitution in the case of Los Angeles Alliance for Survival v. City of Los Angeles.
9.50.30 Applicability.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply generally to all property throughout the City wherein any of the conditions specified in this chapter are found to exist; provided, however, that any condition that constitutes a violation of this chapter, but which is permitted or authorized under any local, state, or federal law, shall not be deemed to violate this chapter.
9.50.040 Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following words, terms and phrases shall have the following meanings, unless a different meaning is apparent from the context or is specified elsewhere in this chapter.
a) “After dark” means any time from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise.
b) “Aggressive manner” means any of the following:
Attachment 4 Ordinance No. 1014, Chapter 9.50 Aggressive Panhandling February 15, 2017 Page 5
1) Conduct intended or likely to cause a reasonable person to fear bodily harm to oneself or to another, damage to or loss of property, or otherwise be intimidated into giving money or other things of value;
2) Intentionally touching or causing physical contact with another person or an occupied vehicle without that person’s consent;
3) Intentionally blocking or interfering with the safe or free passage of a pedestrian or vehicle by any means, including unreasonably causing a pedestrian or motor vehicle operator to take evasive action to avoid physical contact;
4) Using violent or threatening gestures towards a pedestrian or motor vehicle;
5) Persisting in closely following or approaching a person or motor vehicle, the person has informed a solicitor that such person does not want to be solicited or does not want to give money or anything of value to the solicitor.
6) “Automated teller machine” or “ATM” means any electronic information processing device that accepts or dispenses cash in connection with a credit, deposit, or convenience account.
7) “Automated teller machine facility” means the area comprised of one or more automated teller machines, and any adjacent space that is made available to banking customers both during and after regular business hours.
8) “Bank” means any member bank of the Federal Reserve System, and any bank, banking association, trust company, savings bank, or other banking institution organized or operated under the laws of the United States, and any bank the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
9) “Check cashing business” means any person dully licensed as a check server, bill payer, or prorate pursuant to California Financial Code Section 1200 et seq., as may be amended.
Attachment 4 Ordinance No. 1014, Chapter 9.50 Aggressive Panhandling February 15, 2017 Page 6
10) “Credit union” means any federal credit union and any state-chartered credit union the accounts of which are insured by the Administrator of the National Credit Union Association.
11) “Donation” means a gift of money or other item of value.
12) “Financial institution” includes a bank, savings and loan association, credit unions, and check cashing businesses.
13) “Linger on a median” means remaining in a median longer than two traffic signal cycles, except in an emergency or except where the median is specifically designated for pedestrians or equestrians.
14) “Loiter on a median” means standing or lingering in a median for any purpose other than to safely and lawfully cross the street, except in an emergency or except where the median is specifically designated for pedestrians or equestrians.
15) “Median” means a paved or planted area of a public right-of-way that divides a street or highway according to the direction of travel.
16) “Motor vehicle” means any propelled vehicle or vehicle drawn by a power other than muscular power, other than a motorized wheelchair.
17) “Public place” means a place to which the public or a substantial group of persons has access, and includes, without limitation, any street, highway, sidewalk, median, parking lot, plaza, transportation facility, school, place of amusement, park, playground, and any doorway, entrance, hallway, lobby, or other portion of any business establishment, an apartment house or hotel not constituting a room or apartment designed for actual residence.
18) “Public transportation vehicle” means any vehicle, including a trailer bus, or train, designed, used, or maintained for carrying ten (10) or more persons, including the driver; or a passenger vehicle designed for carrying fewer than ten (10) persons, including the driver, and used to carry passengers for hire.
Attachment 4 Ordinance No. 1014, Chapter 9.50 Aggressive Panhandling February 15, 2017 Page 7
19) “Savings and loan associations” means any federal savings and loan association and any “insured institution” as defined in Section 401 of the National Housing Act, as amended, and any federal credit union as defined in Section 1752 of the Federal Credit Union Act, as amended.
20) “Solicit” means to ask, beg, request, or panhandle using spoken, written or printed word, or bodily gestures, sign language, signs or other means with the purpose of obtaining an immediate donation of money or other thing of value or soliciting the sale of goods or services.
21) “Solicitor” means one who solicits as defined in subsection (q) of this section.
9.50.050 Aggressive Solicitations Prohibited.
No person shall solicit in an aggressive manner in any public place.
9.50.060 All Solicitations Prohibited at Specified Locations; Lingering and loitering Prohibited on Medians.
a) Financial institutions and automated teller machines. No person shall solicit within twenty-five (25) feet of any entrance or exit of any financial institution during its business hours or within twenty-five (25) feet of any automated teller machine during the time it’s available for customers’ use. When an automated teller machine is located within an automated teller machine facility, such distance shall be measured from the entrance or exit of the automated teller machine facility. No person shall solicit within an automated teller machine facility where a reasonable person would or should know that he or she does not have permission to do so from the owner or person lawfully in possession of such facility.
b) Parking lots. No person shall solicit in any public parking lot or structure any time after dark.
c) Public transportation vehicle and stops. No person shall solicit in any public transportation vehicle or within fifty (50) feet of any designated or posted public transportation vehicle stop.
Attachment 4 Ordinance No. 1014, Chapter 9.50 Aggressive Panhandling February 15, 2017 Page 8
d) Gasoline stations and fuel pumps. No Person shall solicit from an operator or occupant of a motor vehicle while such vehicle is stopped in a gasoline station or a fuel pump.
e) Driveways accessing shopping center, retail and business establishments. No person shall solicit from an operator or occupant traveling in a motor vehicle while such vehicle is located within twenty-five (25) feet of a driveway providing vehicular access to a shopping center, retail or business establishment.
f) Medians.
1) No person shall linger on a median.
2) No person shall loiter on a median.
3) No person shall solicit upon any median or in any manner or location that is inconsistent with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code.
g) Dining establishments. No person shall solicit in any outdoor dining area of any restaurant or other dining establishment.
9.50.070 Exemptions.
The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit:
a) The right to exercise protected free speech.
b) The lawful vending of goods and services.
c) Solicitations related to business authorized or conducted by the property owner, business owner, or employees thereof of the premises.
d) Solicitations related to the lawful towing of a vehicle.
e) Solicitations related to emergency repairs requested by the operator or occupant of a motor vehicle.
Attachment 4 Ordinance No. 1014, Chapter 9.50 Aggressive Panhandling February 15, 2017 Page 9
9.50.080 Penalty.
a) Administrative citations. Any person who violates Section 9.50.050 and 9.50.060 of this chapter shall be guilty of violating the Norco Municipal Code and may be issued an administrative citation and be subject to applicable punishments pursuant to Chapter 1.05 of Title 1 of the Norco Municipal Code.
b) Misdemeanor. Any Person who violates Sections 9.50.050 and 9.50.060 of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor or infraction as provided in Section 1.04.010 of Title 1 of the Norco Municipal Code.
c) Non-exclusivity. Nothing in this chapter shall limit or preclude the enforcement of any other applicable laws or remedies available for violations of this chapter, including but not limited to, the enforcement of the provisions of Title 1 of the Norco Municipal Code.
SECTION 2: EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days after final passage thereof.
SECTION 3: SEVERABILITY: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase, hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more of the sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4: POSTING: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall attest thereto and shall cause the same within 15 days of its passage to be posted at no less than five public places within the City of Norco.
Attachment 4 Ordinance No. 1014, Chapter 9.50 Aggressive Panhandling February 15, 2017 Page 10
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Norco at a regular meeting held February 15, 2017.
______Greg Newton, Mayor City of Norco
ATTEST:
______Cheryl Link, CMC, City Clerk City of Norco, California
I, CHERYL LINK, City Clerk of the City of Norco, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Norco, California, duly held on February 1, 2017 and thereafter at a regular meeting of said City Council duly held on February 15, 2017, it was duly passed and adopted by the following vote of the City Council:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
______Cheryl Link, CMC, City Clerk City of Norco, California Attachment 5
ORDINANCE NO. 2014-10
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 11.15, PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN FORMS OF SOLICITATION, LINGERING AND LOITERING ON MEDIANS, TO THE JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Enactment of Chapter 11.15. Chapter 11.15, Prohibition against Certain Forms of Solicitation, Lingering and Loitering on Medians, is hereby added to Title 11, Peace, Morals and Safety, of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code to read as follows:
“Chapter 11.15 - PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN FORMS OF SOLICITATION, LINGERING AND LOITERING ON MEDIANS Sections:
11.15.010 – Findings. 11.15.020 – Authority and purpose. 11.15.030 – Applicability. 11.15.040 – Definitions. 11.15.050 – Aggressive Solicitations Prohibited. 11.15.060 – All Solicitations prohibited at Specified Locations; Lingering and Loitering Prohibited on Medians. 11.15.070 – Exemptions. 11.15.080 – Penalty. 11.15.010 – Findings. The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that:
(a) Solicitations made in an aggressive manner are unsafe and disruptive to persons in the City of Jurupa Valley and are a threat to public health, safety, and general welfare. Aggressive solicitations typically include approaching or following pedestrians, the use of abusive language, unwanted physical contact, or the intentional blocking of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
(b) An increase in aggressive solicitation throughout the City has become extremely disturbing and disruptive to residents and businesses, and has contributed not only to the loss of access to and enjoyment of public places, but also to an enhanced sense of fear, intimidation and disorder.
(c) Aggressive solicitation from people in places where they are a “captive audience” in which it is impossible or difficult for them to exercise their own right to decline to listen to or to avoid solicitation from others, is problematic, detracts from the rights of persons in the City to quietly enjoy public facilities and presents a risk to the health, safety and welfare of the public. Such places include public transportation vehicles and their designated locations for stops, as well as gasoline stations.
-1- 12774-0001\1732321v3.doc Attachment 5
(d) The presence of individuals who solicit money from persons at or near banks or automated teller machines is especially threatening and dangerous. Such activity often carries with it an implicit threat to both person and property. Restricting solicitation in such places will provide a balance between the rights of solicitors and the rights of persons who wish to decline or avoid such solicitations, and will help avoid or diminish the threat of violence in such unwarranted and unavoidable confrontations.
(e) Aggressive solicitation on roadway median strips, at traffic intersections, and in the public roadway and lingering and loitering on a median are unsafe and hazardous for solicitors, drivers, pedestrians, and the general public. Aggressive soliciting on roadway median strips, at traffic intersections, and in the public roadway increases the risk of drivers becoming distracted from their primary duty to watch traffic, which may result in automobile accidents, congestion and blockage of streets, and delay and obstruction of the free flow of travel, all of which constitute substantial traffic safety problems.
(f) The Council’s intent in enacting this Chapter is not to interfere with the exercise of First Amendment rights of those engaged in solicitation on roadway median strips, at traffic intersections, and in the public roadway and lingering and loitering on the medians, but only to minimize the safety hazards of those in such areas as well as the drivers and passengers in vehicles near these areas and in a manner to minimize those safety hazards.
(g) The practice of aggressive solicitation near driveways accessing shopping centers, retail, and business establishments is unsafe and hazardous for solicitors, drivers, pedestrians and the general public. The location of the solicitor near the driveway compromises the solicitor’s safety, impedes visibility, and impairs a driver’s ability to safely enter and exit. Drivers also become distracted from their duty to watch traffic, which may result in automobile accidents, congestion and blockage of streets, and delay and obstruction of the free flow of travel, all of which constitute substantial traffic safety problems.
(h) The restrictions of this Chapter are content neutral and are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, but still provide alternative avenues of communication.
(i) The reasonable time, place, manner restrictions in this Chapter avoid the negative effects of aggressive solicitation and solicitation in unsafe places and will not unreasonably restrict free speech of people engaged in solicitation.
11.15.020 – Authority and purpose.
(a) This chapter is adopted pursuant to the authority granted to the City of Jurupa Valley in Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution.
(b) The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to protect public health, safety and the general welfare of people in the City of Jurupa Valley and improve the quality of life and economic vitality of the City of Jurupa Valley by imposing reasonable time,
-2- 12774-0001\1732321v3.doc Attachment 5
place, manner, restrictions on certain forms of solicitation while respecting the constitutional rights of free speech for all citizens as further described in the findings set forth in Section 11.15.010.
(c) The California Supreme Court has held such regulation of solicitation does not violate the liberty of speech clause of the California Constitution in the case of Los Angeles Alliance For Survival v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 22 Cal.4th 352.
11.15.030 – Applicability.
The provisions of this Chapter shall apply generally to all property throughout the City wherein any of the conditions specified in this Chapter are found to exist; provided, however, that any condition that constitutes a violation of this Chapter, but which is permitted or authorized under any local, state or federal law, shall not be deemed to violate this Chapter.
11.15.040 – Definitions.
As used in this Chapter, the following words, terms and phrases shall have the following meanings, unless a different meaning is apparent from the context or is specified elsewhere in this Chapter:
(a) “After dark” means any time from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise.
(b) “Aggressive manner” means any of the following:
(1) Conduct intended or likely to cause a reasonable person to fear bodily harm to oneself or to another, damage to or loss of property, or otherwise be intimidated into giving money or other thing of value;
(2) Intentionally touching or causing physical contact with another person or an occupied vehicle without that person’s consent;
(3) Intentionally blocking or interfering with the safe or free passage of a pedestrian or vehicle by any means, including unreasonably causing a pedestrian or vehicle operator to take evasive action to avoid physical contact;
(4) Using violent or threatening gestures toward a person;
(5) Persisting in closely following or approaching a person, after the person has informed a solicitor that such person does not want to be solicited or does not want to give money or any other thing or value to the solicitor; or
(c) “Automated teller machine” or “ATM” means any electronic information processing device that accepts or dispenses cash in connection with a credit, deposit, or convenience account.
-3- 12774-0001\1732321v3.doc Attachment 5
(d) “Automated teller machine facility” means the area comprised of one or more automated teller machines, and any adjacent space that is made available to banking customers after regular banking hours.
(e) “Bank” means any member bank of the Federal Reserve System, and any bank, banking association, trust company, savings bank, or other banking institution organized or operated under the laws of the United States, and any bank the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
(f) “Check cashing business” means any person duly licensed as a check seller, bill payer, or prorater pursuant to California Financial Code Section 12000 et seq., as may be amended.
(g) “Credit union” means any federal credit union and any state-chartered credit union the accounts of which are insured by the Administrator of the National Credit Union Administration.
(h) “Donation” shall mean a gift of money or other item of value.
(i) “Financial institution” includes a bank, savings and loan association, credit unions and check cashing business.
(j) “Linger on a median” means remaining in a median longer than two traffic signals cycles, except in an emergency or except where the median is specifically designated for pedestrians or equestrians.
(k) “Loiter on a median” means standing or lingering in a median for any purpose other than to safely and lawfully cross the street, except in an emergency or except where the median is specifically designated for pedestrians or equestrians.
(l) “Median” shall mean a paved or planted area of public right-of-way that divides a street or highway according to the direction of travel.
(m) “Motor vehicle” means any propelled vehicle or vehicle drawn by a power other than muscular power, other than a motorized wheelchair.
(n) “Public place” means a place to which the public or a substantial group of persons has access, and includes, without limitation, any street, highway, sidewalk, median, parking lot, plaza, transportation facility, school, place of amusement, park, playground and any doorway, entrance, hallway, lobby and other portion of any business establishment, an apartment house or hotel not constituting a room or apartment designed for actual residence.
(o) “Public transportation vehicle” means any vehicle, including a trailer bus, or train, designed, used or maintained for carrying ten (10) or more persons, including the driver; or a passenger vehicle designed for carrying fewer than ten (10) persons, including the driver, and used to carry passengers for hire.
-4- 12774-0001\1732321v3.doc Attachment 5
(p) “Savings and loan association” means any federal savings and loan association and any “insured institution” as defined in Section 401 of the National Housing Act, as amended, and any federal credit union as defined in Section 1752 of the Federal Credit Union Act, as amended.
(q) “Solicit” shall mean to ask, beg, request or panhandle using spoken, written, or printed word, or bodily gestures, signs or other means with the purpose of obtaining an immediate donation of money or other thing of value or soliciting the sale of goods or services.
(r) “Solicitor” means one who solicits as defined in Subsection (q) of this Section.
11.15.050 – Aggressive Solicitations Prohibited.
No person shall solicit in an aggressive manner in any public place.
11.15.060 – All Solicitations Prohibited at Specified Locations; Lingering and Loitering Prohibited on Medians.
(a) Financial Institutions and Automated Teller Machines (ATMs). No person shall solicit within twenty-five (25) feet of any entrance or exit of any financial institution during its business hours or within twenty-five (25) feet of any automated teller machine during the time it is available for customers’ use. When an automated teller machine is located within an automated teller machine facility, such distance shall be measured from the entrance or exit of the automated teller machine facility. No person shall solicit within an automated teller machine facility where a reasonable person would or should know that he or she does not have the permission to do so from the owner or other person lawfully in possession of such facility.
(b) Parking Lots. No person shall solicit in any public parking lot or structure any time after dark.
(c) Public Transportation Vehicles and Stops. No person shall solicit in any public transportation vehicle or within fifty (50) feet of any designated or posted public transportation vehicle stop.
(d) Gasoline Stations and Fuel Pumps. No person shall solicit from an operator or occupant of a motor vehicle while such vehicle is stopped in a gasoline station or at a fuel pump.
(e) Driveways Accessing Shopping Center, Retail and Business Establishments. No person shall solicit from an operator or occupant traveling in a motor vehicle while such vehicle is located within twenty-five (25) feet of a driveway providing vehicular access to a shopping center, retail or business establishment.
(f) Medians.
-5- 12774-0001\1732321v3.doc Attachment 5
(1) No person shall linger on a median.
(2) No person shall loiter on a median.
(3) No person shall solicit upon any median or in any manner or location that is inconsistent with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code.
(g) Dining Establishments. No person shall solicit in any outdoor dining area of any restaurant or other dining establishment serving food for immediate consumption.
11.15.070 – Exemptions.
The provisions of Section 11.15.060 shall not be construed to prohibit:
(a) The right to exercise protected free speech;
(b) The lawful vending of goods and services;
(c) Solicitations related to business authorized by or conducted by the property owner, business owner, or employees thereof on the premises;
(d) Solicitations related to the lawful towing of a vehicle; or
(e) Solicitations related to emergency repairs requested by the operator or other occupant of a motor vehicle.
11.15.080 – Penalty.
(a) Administrative Citations. Any person who violates Sections 11.15.050 or 11.15.060 of this Chapter shall be guilty of violating the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code and may be issued an administrative citation and be subject to the applicable punishments pursuant to Chapter 1.20 of Title 1 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.
(b) Misdemeanor. Any person who violates Sections 11.15.050 and 11.15.060 of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor or infraction as provided Chapters 1.15 of Title 1 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.
(c) Non-exclusivity. Nothing in this Chapter shall limit or preclude the enforcement of any other applicable laws or remedies available for violations of this Chapter, including but not limited to, the enforcement provisions of Title 1 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.”
Section 2. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable.
-6- 12774-0001\1732321v3.doc Attachment 5 Attachment 5 Attachment 5 Attachment 5 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6