HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-08-25 - AGENDA REPORTS - LEGAL BRIEF LOCAL AUTHORITY (2)R
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presentedy:
CONSENT CALENDAR
DATE: August 25, 1992
SUBJECT: Legal Brief: Local Authority
DEPARTMENT: City Attorney
BACKGROUND
Carl K. Newton
In December, 1990, an ordinance of the Los Angeles City Council became effective
requiring the placement of aerosol spray paint containers and marker pens sold
in retail stores in a location which is visible by but not accessible to the
public without store employee assistance. This ordinance was enacted after
exhaustive study which concluded that much of the graffiti in Los Angeles is
accomplished through the use .of aerosol paints stolen, rather than purchased,
from retail establishments. The purpose of the ordinance is to reduce the
graffiti paint supply source by preventing theft.
Two paint manufacturers have challenged the validity of the ordinance. A lower
court issued preliminary injunction, affirmed at the appellate court level, has
permanently enjoined the City of Los Angeles from enforcing the ordinance. The
California Supreme Court was petitioned and has agreed to review the matter.
The League of California Cities participated in the petition to the Supreme
Court. The League has further appointed an attorney to prepare. an amicus brief
and is urging California cities to participate in the brief. The. Supreme Court
will be addressing whether or not .state law preempts local governments from
enacting certain regulations relative to the sale of aerosol spray paint
containers.
On March 24, 1992, the Santa Clarita City Council approved Ordinance 92-4 which
requires that establishments which sell aerosol paint containers to the public
keep those containers in a locked or secured location. This ordinance appears
to model the City of Los Angeles ordinance.
The City of Los Angeles has requested that all cities in California consider
joining in the amicus brief as an affirmation of cities' authority to utilize
certain tools in the war against. graffiti. There would be no direct cost to the
City for participating in an amicus brief through the League.
A major concern associated with locally enacted aerosol paint container access
restrictions is the lack of continuity between jurisdictions. Aerosol paint
obtained in one jurisdiction can be easily transported to another. Therefore,
as graffiti is a problem of statewide concern, it may be appropriate for the
Legislature to enact a statewide measure modeled after the Los Angeles and Santa
Clarita ordinances. - - --- - - - - — --
APP, ED
Ag an wagda;?
RECOMMENDATION
Direct the City Attorney to.take appropriate action for joining in the League of
California Cities amicus brief. Direct the City Manager to explore the
feasibility of State Legislation regulating the display.and accessibility of
aerosol paint containers to the public in retail establishments.
MPM:tm3:167