TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
Mark Danaj, City Manager
FROM:
Quinn M. Barrow, City Attorney
SUBJECT:Title
Consider Ordinance No. 16-0010 Prohibiting Targeted Residential Picketing (City Attorney Barrow).
CONSIDER ORDINANCE NO. 16-0010
Line
_________________________________________________________
Recommended Action
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council consider Ordinance No. 16-0010 prohibiting targeted residential picketing.
Body
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no fiscal implications associated with the recommended action.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Pursuant to City Council direction, staff drafted an ordinance prohibiting targeted residential picketing for Council consideration at its July 5, 2016 Council Meeting. At that meeting, the Council heard testimony from a resident who has experienced picketing in front of his residence. He stated that he and his neighbors felt threatened and harassed by the picketing. After public testimony was received, the City Council introduced the ordinance by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilmember Burton abstaining.
On July 19, 2016, the Council considered second reading of the ordinance. After considerable discussion, the Council directed the City Attorney to draft, for Council consideration, an alternate version of the ordinance that is more narrowly tailored to address the concerns of the federal Ninth Circuit expressed in the case of Klein v. County of San Diego. The Klein case, as well as the seminal United States Supreme Court case and a California state appellate decision, are attached and discussed below.
As previously stated in the prior staff reports on this subject, the United States Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit and a California court of appeal have held that narrowly drawn targeted residential picketing prohibitions are constitutional, and a number of California cities and counties have adopted such ordinances. That said, the threshold policy issue for the City Coun...
Click here for full text