Loading...
CC - Item 4E - Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 1027 - Adding Chapter 9.36 to the Municipal Code to Prohibit Targeted Residential Picketing City-WideROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AN D CITY COUNCIL FROM: BEN KIM, CITY MANAGER DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 2025 SUBJECT: SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1027- ADDING CHAPTER 9.36 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT TARGETED RESIDENTIAL PICKETING CITY-WIDE SUMMARY On January 28, 2025, the City Council of the City of Rosemead introduced for first reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 1027, amending the Rosemead Municipal Code adding Chapter 9.36 — relating to targeted residential picketing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 1027 by title only, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TARGETED RESIDENTIAL PICKETING FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact with the approval and adoption of this ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Ordinance is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. This Ordinance would not result in any development or changes to the physical environment. AGENDA ITEM 4.E City Council Meeting February 11, 2025 Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Submitted by: 6;A- Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk Attachment A: Ordinance No. 1027 Attachment B: City Council Staff Report Only Dated January 28, 2025 Attachment A Ordinance No. 1027 ORDINANCE NO. 1027 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TARGETED RESIDENTIAL PICKETING WHEREAS, Section VII of Article XI of the California Constitution provides that a city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. WHEREAS, demonstrators and protestors have a right, protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, to express their views and to convey their message to both a general audience and a particularly targeted audience. WHEREAS, individuals and groups have a right to engage in demonstrations and protests on public streets and sidewalks within residential areas. WHEREAS, in recent years, an increasing number of demonstrations and protests in the City of Rosemead and surrounding areas have targeted specific residences. WHEREAS, those demonstrations and protests have involved individuals congregating on residential sidewalks and within streets and roadways immediately adjacent to a targeted residence (and, at times, on the private property of the targeted residence), and expressing their views by shouting and chanting at the targeted residence and captive audience therein. WHEREAS, this particular form of expression inherently and offensively intrudes on residential privacy, disturbs the tranquility of the community members living in the targeted residence, threatens their privacy, and can cause them to suffer significant emotional and even physical distress in their own homes. WHEREAS, the City Council must balance the rights of residents and demonstrators to ensure that both groups' rights are respected and fulfilled. WHEREAS, in Carey v. Brown (1980) 447 US 455, the United States Supreme Court confirmed that the government's protection of the "well-being, tranquility, and privacy of the home is certainly of the highest order in a free and civilized society" and that preserving "the sanctity of the home, the one retreat to which men and women can repair to escape from the tribulations of their daily pursuits, is surely an important value." WHEREAS, in Frisby v. Schultz (1988) 487 US 474, the United States Supreme Court concluded that "[t]here simply is no right to force speech into the home of an unwilling listener" and that the "devastating effect of targeted picketing on the quiet enjoyment of the home is beyond doubt." WHEREAS, in order to safeguard both groups' rights, the Council must ensure that targeted picketing may occur within the community but that such picketing does not force residents to become captive audiences to unwanted speech within their own homes. WHEREAS, establishing a distance which must be maintained between residential dwellings and demonstrators targeting those dwellings will serve both those ends. WHEREAS, in City of San Jose v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1995) 21 Cal.AppAth 330, the Court of Appeal, upheld an ordinance of the City of San Jose prohibiting targeted residential picketing within 300 feet of the targeted residential dwelling. WHEREAS, this ordinance is not intended to be applied, construed, or given effect in a manner that precludes or restricts the expression of views in a residential neighborhood through picketing or demonstrations which do not target particular residential residences or occupants therein. WHEREAS, the distance restriction for targeted picketing proposed within this Ordinance preserves ample alternative channels of communication for protestors and demonstrators to disseminate their message(s) and/or idea(s). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Environmental Review. The City Council exercises its independent judgment and finds that this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3: (1) Section 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment); (2) Section 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378), because the subject regulations have no potential for resulting in any significant physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly, and (3) Section 15321 (the ordinance addresses administrative procedures). SECTION 2. Amendment. Rosemead Municipal Code Chapter 9.36 is added to read as set forth in the attached "Exhibit A" which is incorporated by reference. SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase, or portion of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be unconstitutional or invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or invalid or ineffective. To this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. SECTION 4. Publication. The City Clerk is directed to certify to the adoption of this ordinance and publish in accordance with law. SECTION 5. Electronic Si ng atures. This Ordinance may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code § 16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature. SECTION 6. Execution. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is hereby authorized to affix his signature to this Ordinance signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Rosemead, and the City Clerk, or duly appointed deputy, is directed to attest thereto. SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance becomes effective on the 30th day following its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1 lt" day of February 2025. Margaret Clark, Mayor ATTEST: Erick Hernandez, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM Rachel H. Richman City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, State of California, hereby attest to the above signature and certify that Ordinance No. 1027 was first introduced at the regular meeting of January 28, 2025, by first reading. Said Ordinance was approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemead at a regular meeting held on the 1 lth day of February 2025, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk EXHIBIT A ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.36 "Chapter 9.36 TARGETED RESIDENTIAL PICKETING 9.36.010 - Purpose & Findings. This Chapter is a necessary time, place, and manner restriction, intended to reconcile and protect the needs and rights of protestors to peacefully and effectively communicate their views, and residents to enjoy privacy and respite in their homes. 9.36.020 - Definitions. Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the following definitions govern the construction of the words and phrases used in this Chapter. Undefined words and phrases and have the same meaning as set forth in this Code. "Residential dwelling" means any permanent building situated in the City of Rosemead that is being used by its occupants solely for non -transient residential purposes. "Targeted picketing" means picketing activity that is directed at a particular residential dwelling or one or more occupants of a particular residential dwelling, and that occurs at a particular location and/or which proceeds on a definite course or route in front of or around that particular dwelling. 9.36.030 - Distance Restriction for Targeted Residential Picketing. A. No person shall engage in targeted picketing within 300 feet of the residential dwelling that is the subject of the targeted picketing. 1. For purposes of this section, the distance is measured from the outer walls of the residential structure. An attached garage is considered part of the residential structure. B. This section does not and will not be interpreted to preclude picketing in a residential area that is not targeted at a particular residential dwelling or dwellings. 9.36.040 - Private Right of Action. A. Any person who is aggrieved by an act prohibited by this Chapter may bring an action for damages and/or declaratory relief, as appropriate, in a court of competent jurisdiction against any person who has conspired to violate, or proposes to violate, this chapter. B. Any aggrieved person who prevails in such action shall be entitled to recover from the violator those damages, costs, attorneys' fees and such other relief as determined by the Court. In addition to all other damages or relief, the Court may award to the aggrieved person a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars for each violation of this chapter. 9.36.040 - Public Nuisance and Penalties A. Any violation of this chapter is declared to be a public nuisance. B. Any violation of this chapter can be enforced through criminal or administrative penalties. Attachment B City Council Staff Report Dated January 28, 2025 ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BEN KIM, CITY MANAGER '54:�e DATE: JANUARY 28, 2025 SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1027 ADDING CHAPTER 9.36 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT TARGETED RESIDENTIAL PICKETING CITY-WIDE SUMMARY The proposed ordinance (Attachment A) would prohibit stationary targeted picketing within 200 feet of a residential structure or picketing that proceeds on a definite course or route in front of or around a targeted dwelling. DISCUSSION The attached ordinance creates a new chapter in the Rosemead Municipal Code ("RMC") which addresses concerns over picketing targeted at personal residences. It is well documented that picketing at residential homes causes the occupants and their immediate family members to feel harassed and intimated by the picketers. They have explained how the privacy that they would normally feel inside their homes has been shattered by picketers parading outside their homes often at hours on end and at times using loudspeakers, honking car horns, and hurling profanities at the people living in the home. People that have been targeted express feelings of captivity, fear, and intimidation, and it becomes difficult for the residents in the home and even neighbors to access or leave their homes without having to run a gauntlet and confront angry picketers. Numerous articles and stories in the press and media capture some of the concerns: • LA Times: Activists Bring Protests to Officials Homes https://www latimes com/california/story/2020-07-09/protests-la-officials-homes • CNS: City Council President Says Home Visited by Demonstrators Again https•//mynewsla com/hollywood/2021/09/01/los-anelg_es-city-council-president-says- home-visited-by-demonstrators-again/ AGENDA ITEM 6.A City Council Meeting January 28, 2025 Page 2 of 3 • LA Times: LAPD Investigating Vandalism at Home of City Council President httns•//www latimes conVcalifomia/story/2021-06-04/laLd-investiaatine-vandalism-at- home-of-city-council-president • LA Times: If You Don't Say What They Like, Protesters Show Up at Your Door httns://www latimes com/oRinion/stoa/2021-09-09/free-speech-intimidation-protest- private-property • LA Times: The Protest on My Street https•//www latimes com/opinion/story/2020-12-03/the-protest-on-my-street • Daily News: Garcetti Home Vandalized During Protest of Anti -Camping Law https•//www dailynews com/2021/07/30/la-mayor-eric-garcettis-home-vandalized-durina- protest-of-anti-camping-law/ • LA Times: BLM and Other Activist Protest Possible Garcetti Appointment by Biden h=s•//www latimes com/calitomia/story/2020-11-30/black-lives-matter-los-anp,eles- garcetti-biden-protests • LAist: LAPD Treatment of Protests at Getty House Criticized btt,Rs://Iaist.com/news/t)rotest-gM-house-garcetti-la 12d-arrest-batons • LA Times: LA Mayors Residence Vandalized Following Protest httl2s•//www latimes com/califogAa/story/2021-07-30/geM-house-toilet paper-after- housing_protest • NBC: Protesters Descend on Garcetti's House for Sixth Straight Day h=s•//www nbclosangeles com/news/Igggllgrotesters-descend-on-g�arcettis-house-for- sixth-consecutive-day/2472942/ The City of San Jose established a local ordinance that creates a 300-foot buffer zone around residences which has proven helpful at curbing the offensive intrusions of residential privacy caused by targeted residential picketing activities. Many other cities have followed suit and passed similar local ordinances, including the City of Los Angeles, establishing a 300-foot buffer zone. These other cities generally rely on the Sixth District Appellate Court's opinion in City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1995) which upheld an ordinance prohibiting picketing within 300 feet of a targeted residence. City Council Meeting January 28, 2025 Page 3 of 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the City Council approve the first reading and introduction of Ordinance No. 1027, authorizing the addition of Chapter 9.36 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, regulating targeted residential picketing. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact with the approval and adoption of this ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Ordinance is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. This Ordinance would not result in any development or changes to the physical environment. STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT 01 - PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Prepared and submitted by: "I") Rachel Richman, City Attorney Attachment A: Ordinance No. 1027