Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.1 Bonniewood Indicent Report (2) 38 CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE: June 27 , 1983 SUBJECT Report from City Manager Re Bonniewood Incident EXHIBITS ATTACHED Memorandum from City Attorney dated April 22 , 1983; Memorandum from Chief Shores dated June 23 , 1983; . Memorandum from City Traffic Engineer dated June 22 , 1983; Chronology of Events - Bonniewood Disturbance RECOMMENDATION � See below FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Undetermined at this time DESCRIPTION At the City Council meeting of April 11 , 1983 , Elmer & Diane Hanus , 7701 Bonniewood Court requested City Council consideration of a juvenile curfew law in Dublin. , Mr. & Mrs . Hanus indicated that such an ordinance was needed to prevent a recurrence of incidents such as the one which occurred on their court on March 27 , 28 and 29 , 1983 . They also indicated that there was a serious speeding problem in their neighborhood and requested placement of stop signs at the intersections of Bonniewood and Ardmore and Bonniewood at Sharon. The City Council asked Staff to identify alternatives available to the City which might prevent such occurrences in the future , and investigate speed mitigation measures on the streets of Ardmore and Sharon. Curfew and Noise The City Attorney has prepared a memorandum ( see attached) , which includes a curfew ordinance from the City of Sacramento, which has been upheld in court ; and a noise ordinance from the City of Moraga , which has not been challenged. Chief Shores has indicated that these ordinances would be useful tools for the police in controlling loud parties and loitering by juveniles . Chief Shores has discussed both ordinances with the County District Attorney ' s office . The District Attorney ' s office has indicated that both ordinances would be easier to prosecute . Under the current Disturbing the Peace sections of the Penal Code , the police and the District Attorney ' s office would have to prove that an individual was maliciously and wilfully disturbing the peace of his neighbors , which is difficult to prove . The Moraga ordinance sets forth a standard of reasonableness which is easier to prosecute . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: Elmer & Diane Hanus ITEM NO. 6-- 1 AGENDA STATEMENT: Report from City Manager re Bonniewood Incident Page 2 Speeding Problem The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the problem of speeding in the Bonniewood neighborhood. The Police Department has verified that there has been complaints regarding speeding and reckless driving in this neighborhood. Due to the configuration of the streets , it is the Traffic Engineer ' s position that neither stop signs nor increased traffic enforcement in this area would be effective solutions to the problem. The Traffic Engineer has recommended that the Council consider closure of Ardmore Avenue between Wicklow and Bonniewood, if it meets with the approval of the neighborhood. Such closure could be done on a temporary trial basis , if so desired, at a cost of $2 ,000 - $5,000. As indicated in the Traffic Engineer ' s report , there could be some negative consequences resulting from street closure . These may include the creation of an attractive nuisance resulting in police problems other than speeding vehicles , the creation of a ` difficult area to sweep and maintain and reduction of interneighborhood circulation. In addition, the closing of Ardmore may transfer the speeding problem to another area , and set a precedent for similar requests . Recommendation If the City Council is interested in giving consideration to curfew and noise ordinances , it is Staff ' s recommendation that the Council direct the City Attorney to prepare such an ordinance and then conduct a well publicized public hearing, since these ordinances would have a community wide impact . With respect to the speeding problem, without additional manpower, enforcement can only be effective if residents are able to assist the police by identifying and reporting speed offenders . It is not recommended that the street closure be considered without a petition from a majority of all affected property owners . THE CITY OF DUBLIN P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94566 (415) 829-3543 April 22, 1983 TO: City Council, Rich Ambrose and Tom Shores FROM: Michael R. Nave RE: Regulation of Minors; Control of Nuisances As a result of the citizen complaints to the Council regarding the police response to a juvenile party, I have re- , viewed California law to ascertain the abailability of measures which can be used to control the type of disturbance described . At the April 11th Council meeting, I indicated some concern that a curfew ordinance may be unconstitutional. In fact, the California Supreme Court has determined that certain types of curfew ordinances are unconstitutional. The leading case of In re Nancy C . , (1972) , 28 C .A. 3d 747 , 755-756 , which upheld a Sacramento juvenile curfew ordinance, explains the distinction between the constitutional and unconstitutional curfew ordinances : "Curfew statutes. can be classified into two groups according to the conduct pro- scribed , i .e. , "presence" or "loitering" . (Citation. ) Those proscribing "presence" or "being in" particular places have been held unconstitutional . (Citations . ) Those interpreted as only proscribing- "loitering" or "remaining" have been held constitutional. (Citations . ) Even those ".ordinances pro- scribing "presence" may be reasonable if sufficient exceptions are included making it clear that mere" "presence" alone is not proscribed . (Citation. ) The rationale of those cases holding that ordinances proscribing "presence" are un- constitutional is that they are unnecessarily broad . As the court noted in Alves v. Justice Court, supra, 148 Cal .App. 2d 419 , 424-425 : 'True, the ordinance would preclude aimless loitering by minors in public places during the hours set forth, but it would also make unlawful many other activities by minors which otherwise would be entirely lawful. '" To: City Council , Rich Ambrose and Tom Shores Re: Regulation of Minors; Control of Nuisances April 22 , 1983 Page Two Observing that the Sacramento ordinance prohibits a minor from "loitering, idling, wandering, strolling, or playing, in or upon the public streets after 10 : 00 p.m. " , the court determined that the Sacramento -ordinance was a loitering rather than a presence type of ordinance because the words taken together and used ..in their ordinary sense prohibit tarrying and remaining in place and not merely being present. The court held that the Sacramento ordinance was con- stitutional: "Applying the constitutional standard set forth by the court in Thistlewood, supra, the ordinance is constitutional . The evil to be prevented is danger to children and the incidence of juvenile crime during nighttime hours. To forbid juveniles from loitering in the streets during nighttime hours has real and substantial relationship to the dual goal of protection .of children and the community, and the ordinance in question does no_t unduly restrict the rights of minors in view of these interests. " In re Nancy C. , supra, 28 C.A.3d 747 at 758 The Sacramento curfew ordinance -is attached hereto. Several Bay Area cities have enacted ordinances which prohibit the playing of radios and stereos in a loud manner. Such an ordinance could be especially effective in controlling . the type of party that was the subject of the complaint from the Bonniewood Lane residents . A copy of the Moraga ordinance is attached. Lastly, set forth below are some of the California statutes which may be used to control juveniles or any civil disobedience: A. Penal Code Sections : 415 Disturbing the peace 407 Unlawful assembly (amended) 408 Participation in rout or unlawful assembly To: City Council, Rich Ambrose and Tom Shores Re : Regulation of Minors; Control of Nuisances April 22 , 1983 Page Three 409 Remaining present at the scene of a rout, riot, or unlawful assembly 416 Assembly to disturb the peace and failure to disperse 404 . 6 Inciting a riot 403 Disturbance of Assembly 302 Disturbing a religious meeting 602 ( j) Criminal trespass 602 (0) Refusal to leave public agency building after closing . 602 . 10 Obstruction of students or instructors from classes at UC, JC, or State Colleges 594 Malicious mischief 242 Battery 370 Public Nuisance 148 Resisting arrest 555 Trespass upon posted property 587 (2) Interference with railroads 587 (b) Interference with railroads 415 . 5 Disorders and disturbances at Public Schools 626 Definitions used in School Disturbance sections 626 . 2 Suspended student entering school grounds without written consent 626 .4 Authorization to withdraw consent to remain on campus To: City Council , Rich Ambrose and Tom Shores Re : Regulation of Minors; Control of Nuisances April 22 , 1983 Page Four 626 . 6 Unauthorized persons on campus 626 . 8 Unauthorized persons on campus or adjacent areas 647 (i) Unauthorized lodging in public or private building 11460 "Paramilitary organizations"-- groups that engage rioting, violent disruptions or interfer- ence with school activities . B . Vehicle Code Sections: 23110 (a) (b) Throwing substances at . vehicles 22500 et seq. Prohibition of stopping, standing, or parking 10852 Breaking or removing vehicle parts 10853 Malicious mischief to vehicle 21100 et seq. Traffic regulations 21109 Underpasses, bridges and viaducts 21113 (a) Public grounds C. Education Code Sections: 16701 Disturbance at a public school 23501 Campus police 24651 Campus police as peace officers 10605 . 5 Duty of school officials 13558 . 5 Interference with school activities MRN/jm SACRAMENTO CURFEW ORDINANCE "It is unlawful for any minor under the age of eighteen years to loiter, idle, wander , stroll or play in or upon the public streets , highways , roads , alleys , parks , playgrounds , or other public grounds , public places and public buildings , places of amusement and eating places , vacant lots or any unsupervised place between the hours of ten p.m. and daylight immediately following; provided, how- ever , that the provisions of this section do not apply when the minor is accompanied by his or her parents , guardian or other adult person having the care and custody of the minor, or when the minor is upon an emergency errand directed by his or her parent or guardian or other adult person having the care and custody of the minor or when the minor is re- turning directly home from a meeting, entertainment, recrea- tional activity or dance. Each violation of the provisions of this section shall constitute a separate offense. " MORAGA ORDINANCE "It is unlawful for a person within a residential zone of the town to use or operate a radio receiving set, musical instrument, phonograph, television set, or other machine or device for. the producing or reproducing of sound (between the hours of 10 p.m. of one day and 8 a.m. of the following day) in such a manner as to disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of neighboring residents or of a reason- able person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area. " ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMEPNT JUNE 23, 1983 From: LT TOM SHORES 'ro: MR AMBROSE Subject: RECOMMENDATION FOR LOITERING AND NOISE ORDINANCES I recommend that the City adopt two new ordinances; a juvenile loitering ordinance and a disturbing noise ordinance, similiar to the Sacramento curfew and Moraga noise ordinances. Such ordinances can be used as a police tool in protecting neighborhoods from unruly and disturbing parties as they would restrict the conduct of individuals more than present law is capable of. Calif. Penal Code, 415 section states, "Any person who MALICIOUSLY and WILLFULLY disturbs another person by loud and unreasonable noise"--the District Attorney finds it is almost impossible to prove this charge because -of the twin requirements of malicious and willfull conduct. A city ordinance need not contain this restrictive language and therefore can be used more effectively than 415 PC to quell disturbing events. Presently, there is no code that restricts the movement of juveniles who are wandering or loitering at night without parental- or adult control. Without such a code, the police are hard put to deal with juveniles who are otherwise not breaking any observable law. The courts have held and commonsense dictates that both community and juvenile are better served when there are some perimeters placed on juvenile nighttime activities. An ordinance that precludes juveniles from wandering or loitering about at night,without parental or responsible adult supervision would be an effective police tool that could be applied to any number of situations including large and disturbing parties. I have consulted both adult and juvenile District Attorney offices and have been assured that both will prosecute ordinances that are similiar to the Sacramento and Moraga ordinances. ML 37 (Rev. 8/71) MEMORANDUM TO: Lee Thompson, City Engineer FROM: Chris Kinzel , TJKM SUBJECT: Wicklow-Ardmore-Bonniewood Neighborhood Speeding Problem DATE: June 22, 1983 I have investigated the matter of neighborhood speeding near the proximity of Wicklow Lane, Ardmore Avenue and Bonniewood Lane. Other streets in the immediate area include Sharon Street, Kilrush Lane and Davona Drive. In a letter dated April 21, 1982, to the acting City Manager of Dublin , the problem was described as reckless driving of automobiles and motorcycles in the neighborhood during late afternoon weekday periods and late night periods on weekends. The problem is also described as one of noisy and speeding vehicles driving through neighborhoods having short blocks resulting in noisy turns and skids and a feeling of vulnerability on the part of residents involving their own safety and that of their children and their parked or driven automobiles. I have discussed this with the Police Department and they have verified that there have been complaints. However, the nature of the problems and the layout of the streets ..do not lend themselves toward a long term or permanent solution through enforcement activities. For similar reasons , the installation of traffic signs or markings or the enactment of new regulations are also not likely to be either a deterrent or a cure for the type of problems being described. One solution requested in the 1982 letter was for the barricading of a street or streets in the area upon which the problems seem to be focused. For example , the closure of Ardmore between Wicklow and Bonniewood would eliminate that street and those nearby it from the route available to speeding drivers. Obviously, the problem has a potential to be' transferred to other streets . However, my feeling is that barricading this street would not present a traffic problem to the City but would certainly change traffic conditions in the neighborhood itself. Some of the changes would likely be positive, others could be negative. I have discussed this proposal with Chief Shores of the Police Department and Chief Phillips of the DSRSD Fire Department and neither were conceptually opposed to the closure of this street. It is my recommendation to the City Council that they consider such a closure if it meets with the approval of the neighborhood . Such approval could be determined either by a formal petition signed by a majority of the effected residents or comments received at a public hearing or both. In my opinion , those areas potentially affected by such a closure would include residents on portions of Davona Drive, Wicklow Lane, Ardmore Court, Ardmore Lane, Bonniewood Lane, Sharon Street, Kilrush Lane , and Lucania Street. t Lee Thompson -2- June 22, 1983 A street closure could be accomplished by a barricade at either end or in the middle of the short street, by the abandonment of the street, or through a variety of other means. The barricading of the street could . also be done on a temporary trial basis at a relatively low cost, if desired. I have made no detailed cost estimates but would estimate that a temporary closure would cost in the range of $2,000 to $5,000 and a permanent closure would cost in the range of $5,000 to $15,000. AGENDA ITEM--BONNIEWOOD DISTURBANCE OF MARCH 29, 1983 Chronological Events March 29, 1983 4:00 PM--Sgt. LaPerle advises swing watch commander, Sgt. Dealy, that a continuing juvenile party was in progress on Bonniewood Ct. , that all was quiet but he could expect noise complaints from neighborhood later in afternoon if party continued. 9:26 PM--Sgt. Dealy observed Bonniewood area, noticed several juveniles in area, no violation of laws, juveniles appeared to be residents of general area. 9:54 PM--Sgt. Dealy confiscated beer (unclaimed) from street area/ Bonniewood Lane, dispursed juveniles near where beer found. 9:58 PM--Citizen calls of disturbing noise at party, Sgt. Dealy contacts party giver Dill, gives Dill 5 minutes to closd down party. Advises Dill that complaints could be filed against him for contributing to delinquency of minors, disturbing the peace, , obstructing justice. 10:35 PM--Party breaks out into street, large group of juveniles in street drinking, fighting, disturbing peace. Sgt. Dealy and officers dispurse juveniles. Sgt. Dealy contacts neighbors and .is advised by Mr.Hanus that he, Hanus, will sign complaint. March 30, 1983 Instructed Sgt. LaPerle to canvass Bonniewood area and ascertain if other persons would sign complaint. Two other's (Mr.& Mrs. Danskin and Rabello) offered to do so. March 31, 1983 Case submitted to Livermore D. A. for evaluation and complaint, D. A. refused to issue complaint due to lack of prosecutable evidence and contested disturbing of the peace penal code section. A complaint had been sought charging Dill with disturbing the peace, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and obstructing justice. During the time frame of the party, 5 traffic citations and 1 criminal citation were issued to party goers. Lt. Tom Shores/'.�'