Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-10-03; City Council; 10289; GRAFFITI PREVENTION AND REMOVALc c-r "a \ \ 4 L) 2 - i P % 1- 12 Q zx E; 0 0 &; - -L w-3 0 cAJ -2 z 0 .. 5 a =i 0 z 3 0 0 CITWF CARLSBAD - AGENDTILL ( AB#+ TITLE DEPT MTG. 10/3/89 CITY, DEPT. USrM GRAFFITI PREVENTION & REMOVAL CITY RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Adopt Resolution No. fKd ax approving contrac. documents, special prov F sions and specifications accepting bid and awarding a contract in the amount o $47,900 to Graffiti Prevention Systems of Sepulveda California, for Seawall graffiti removal and control. 2. Select either Method I or Method I1 as the procedure tl remove graffiti, and direct staff to prepare thl appropriate ordinance for City Council consideration. 3. Direct staff to further investigate a reward system an( develop a 'Ireward" ordinance for further City Counci consideration. ITEM EXPLANATION: Graffiti has been present in the City for many years although it has not been a major problem. Graffiti was founc in small amounts in such areas as bridge abatments o buildings located away from populated areas. Over the pas' two (2) years, the graffiti painter has become more bold. Now every wall, sign or side of a building is a potentia canvas. Citizens, for the most part, view graffiti a obnoxious and a blighting factor, which depreciate neighboring property values and negatively impacts the imagi of the entire City. The removal of graffiti has become one of the fastes escalating maintenance costs for the Utilities an1 Maintenance Department. CURRENT GRAFFITI REMOVAL PRACTICES: The Utilities and Maintenance Department has th responsibility to administer the City's graffiti contro program (see Exhibit 3). The program is designed to remov all graffiti found in the City on public or private propert within 24-48 hours. A Removal of graffiti from City owned or controlle property. a 0 PAGE 2 OF AB# /( dff 1. Graffiti found on public property, buildings structures or public areas, is removed within 24 48 hours by City forces or City contractors. Excey: for the Seawall, City staff has been able to remov most graffiti within the 24-48 hour time frame. 2. Due to the significant amount of graffiti bein applied to the Carlsbad Seawall, City staff ha retained contractors to assist City staff in removing graffiti on the wall. The contractor USE a process known as hydroblasting, (high-pressur water) to remove the graffiti. This process remove the graffiti, but also erodes the finished surfac of the wall. The result is the next graffit painter has a more porous surface that becomes ver difficult to clean. To limit damage to wall finisk the contractor has been directed to us hydroblasting to remove only racial, ethnic ar sexually oriented graffiti. The remaining graffit is removed by other methods as staff time j available. B. Removal of graffiti from other public or privat property. 1. When advised of graffiti on properties controllc by other public agencies or private parties, tl Street Superintendent notifie sthe affected propert owner, in writing, of the presence of the graffit and requests the owner to take steps to remove tI graffiti. Notice is given within 24 to 48 hours ( becoming aware of the presence of graffiti. TI notice advises the property owner that City retain< contractors are available to remove the graffiti (2 property owners expense) and that the contract01 will perform the work at prices quoted to the Cit! Although most property owners ultimately comply wil staff 1s request, removal of graffiti from prival property is not generally accomplished in a time: manner. \e 0 PAGE 3 OF AB# /$JfT SUGGESTED NEW PRACTICES A: Graffiti Removal From the Seawall It has become apparent that the present practice o removing graffiti from the seawall through hydroblastin or City forces as time is available, does not provide fo timely removal of graffiti. Accordingly, staff ha investigated other methods to provide for removal o graffiti from the seawall. After reviewing a wid variety of processes and materials used for removin graffiti, staff concluded that a process involvin protection of the seawall through the application of wax base coating in conjunction with a regula maintenance contract would be the most successful. Accordingly on August 1, 1989 a request for bids t provide for a protective coating and graffiti remova services for the seawall, was distributed. Since th contract was estimated to be less than $50,000.0 informal bidding procedures were utilized by th Purchasing Officer. One sealed bid from Graffit Prevention Systems of Sepulveda, California was receive and opened on August 21, 1989. The bid was reviewed b the staff of the Purchasing and Utilities & Maintenanc Departments. The bidders registration and bonds are i order and references are satisfactory. The recommended service to be provided will initial1 call for total graffiti removal and application of protective clear wax coating on the Carlsbad Sea Wall ar associated structures. Thereafter, removal of graffit and re-coating with a new clear wax finish will k accomplished within 1-2 working days of notificatior The initial coating shall be a removable wax-li) protective barrier between the base surf ace and graf f it markings. Follow-up graffiti removal will I: accomplished by heated water on affected areas to rem01 the wax coating, then re-coating that area with a nc clear wax finish. At the present time, only tho5 portions of the seawall which have been subject t graffiti will be treated with the protective wax coatin{ It is staff Is recommendation that the City Council awal a contract to Graffiti Prevention Systems to rem07 graffiti from the seawall, apply a protective coating ai provide ongoing graffiti removal services. @ a PAGE 4 OF AB# /f 2 87 B. Graffiti Removal From Other Public and Private Property I 1. City Property Other than the Seawall No change is suggested in the present practice. City or contract forces will continue to respond and remove graffiti within 24-48 hours of notification of the existence of graffiti. The cost of removing graffiti from City property other than the seawall is in the range of $5,000 to $10,000, annually. 2. Other Public Agency Property No change is suggested in the present practice. City staff will continue to request other public agencies to remove graffiti within 24-48 hours 0: notification of the existence of graffiti. Cit] staff usually notifies other government agencies b] telephone, followed by a letter. C. Graffiti Removal From Private Property The Utilities and Maintenance staff has investigate1 methods being used by other cities in Southern Californii to prevent and remove graffiti. From thei: investigations, staff has concluded: 1. It is universally understood that immediate remova of graffiti is the best deterrent. 2. The procedures used to remove graffiti vary fro city to city. 3. The two most prevalent methods used by cities i Southern California are: Method I: This method requires that the City specificall define graffiti as a nuisance. Graffiti is removed from City owned or private property, viewable from the public right of-way or a public place, by City or contract forces. AI costs would be borne by the City. The City would require ! the case of private property, written consent of the ownei and an appropriate release prepared by the City Attornel This method is presently used in the City of Oceanside. Using Method I, the City could incur approximately $10,00( $15,000 per year in addition to the cost of removing graffil from other City property and from the seawall. This is conservative estimate, the cost could be less. This method might be the more costly of the two methods b would result in the most timely removal of graffiti. Shou a 0 PAGE 5 OF AB# //,&5'7 it be the Councils objective to ensure timely removal, staf recommends implementation of this method. Method I1 This method also requires that the Cit specifically define graffiti as a nuisance. As in th current practice, City or contract forces would remov graffiti from City owned property within 24-48 hours an private property owners would be requested, in writing, t remove graffiti from their property. Unlike the curren practice, if the private property owner failed to comply wit staff's request to remove the graffiti, staff would initiat the nuisance abatement process provided for in Municipal Cod Chapter 6.16. This method is presently used by the City c San Diego. This method would ultimately ensure the removal of a1 graffiti from private property with the cost of removal borr by the private property owner. Costs to remove graffiti frc City owned property would continue to be $5,000 to $lO,OC annually, in addition to the cost of removing graffiti frc the seawall. This method would not result in timely graffiti removal. I timely removal of graffiti is the City Councils desire, staf does not recommend implementation of this method. Both c the above graffiti removal methods are authorized k Government Code Section 53069.3. GRAFFITI PREVENTION As mentioned previously, the most effective prevention actic presently used by most agencies is timely removal c graffiti. Timely removal denies public viewing of t€ graffiti painters work and generally results in reduction c elimination of graffiti. This finding is based on the actuz experience of other agencies in the State. In addition to consideration of timely removal as prevention method, staff also considered a reward syster This system would encourage people in the City to watch fc those individuals who deface public or private property. AI person who witnesses a graffiti painter (or any person wl defaces public property) in action and reports the incidel to the authorities, and the individual is prosecuted ai convicted, would receive a reward. An ordinance would be required to implement the reward concept and relatc procedures. The ordinance could be structured to recove: from the offender, all costs related to the removal of a a PAGE 6 OF AB# graffiti and the payment of rewards. The reward system i: authorized by Government Code Section 53069.5. // $fy SUMMARY Both Method I and I1 are used in other jurisdictions. Methoc I would result in a more immediate response and timel: removal of graffiti, at City cost. Method I1 would resul- in removal of graffiti at the property owner's cost and thc nuisance abatement procedure required would delay removal fo: a period that could exceed several months. If timely remova of graffiti is the City Councilsls objective, staff woulc recommend implementation of Method I. In addition to timely removal as a means of graffit prevention, staff has reviewed implementation of a "reward system. The reward process is authorized by a state law However staff is unaware of its use by local agencies i Southern California. Staff has been advised that the rewar system has been successfully used in Hawaii to preven graffiti. Staff has not confirmed the success of the Hawai experiences at this time. Staff recommends that further research be conducted and that an ordinance implementing "reward system" be prepared for City Council consideration FISCAL IMPACT: There would be an impact to the City if either Method I, c I1 were enacted. In the case of Method I the annual cos could range from $50,000 - $75,000 including contractseawal graffiti removal and maintenance and graffiti removal frc other City property. These costs could be reduced in futur years if timely removal reduces the incidence of graffiti as experienced by other agencies. Method I1 would result j private property owners bearing the cost of graffiti removi from private property. Costs of $50,000 to $60,000 annuall would be incurred to remove graffiti from City ownt property, including the seawall. Should the reward system ultimately be implemented, COI would depend upon the number and amount of rewards ai whether the City would seek restitution through the courl e a PAGE 7 OF AB# /fd.f? EXHIBITS : 1. Resolution No. Ty’Jsf 2. Location Map 3. 4. 5. Government Code Sections Copy of Utilities &Maintenance Graffiti Control Program copy of notice to private property owner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 g 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 0 RESOLUTION NO. 89-35 1 A RESOLUTION OF TEE CITY COUNCIL OF TEE CITY OF SPECIAL PROVISIONSAND SPECIFICATI0NS:ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR GRAFFITI REMOVAL AND CONTROL, CONTRACT NO. U/M-27 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, WHEREAS, the contract documents, special provisions z specifications for the furnishing of all labor, materiz tools, equipment, transportation and other expenses necessz and incidental for the Graffiti Removal and Control, Contrz No. U/M-27, have been prepared, provided to potential biddt when bids were solicited, are on file in the City Clerl office of the City of Carlsbad and are incorporated reference herein; WHEREAS, only one (1) bid was received by the City Carlsbad and is on file in the City Clerk's office; WHEREAS, the bid for the work was submitted by Graffi Prevention Systems of Sepulveda, California, in the amount $47,900; and WHEREAS, there are sufficient funds in Account No. O( 820-5110-2489 for the work. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of t City of Carlsbad as follows: 1. The above recitations are true and correct. 2. The contract documents, special provisions E specifications as presented are hereby approved. /I/ /I/ I// EXHIBIT 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a m 3. The bid of $47,900 by Graffiti Prevention Systems Sepulveda, California, for the Graffiti Removal and Contro Contract No. U/M-27 , is hereby accepted and the Mayor and t City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute si contract therefore. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of 1 City Council held on day of , 1989, by 1 following vote, to wit: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk (SEAL) LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE EXHIBIT 2 L * (I) GRAFFITI CONTROL PROGRAM BACKGROUND With increasing frequency pub1 ic and private property has recently become subjec to the application of graffiti. This graffiti is often obnoxious, visual1 destructive and deteriorating and generally breeds disrespect for property. Th Citizens of Carlsbad have expressed their desire that graffiti be removed as so0 as possible to preserve the visual beauty of the City. OB3 ECT IVES 1. To remove graffiti from City controlled facilities within 24 to 48 hour of notice. To advise other public and private property owners within 24 to 48 houl of the presence of graffiti on their property and request that the proper' owners take steps to remove graffiti as soon as possible. 2. PROCEDURE 1. The Streets Division is responsible for administering the graffiti contrc program. 2. In admistering the program, the Division will maintain annual paintin! sandblasting and hydroblasting contracts to augment City staff accomplishing grafitti removal. The contracts should contain a provisi requiring the contractor to perform work for other public and priva owners at the same prices as those charged to the City. EXHIBIT 3 e 9 3. When advised that graffiti is present on City controlled property, thf Streets Superintendent will schedule the removal or obliteration of th( graffiti within 24 to 48 hours of notice. 4. When advised of graffiti on properties controlled by other public o private agencies, the Street Superintendent will notify the affecte property, in writing, of the presence of the graffiti and request the owne to take steps to remove the graffiti. Notice shall be given within 24 t 48 hours of becoming aware of the presence of graffiti. The notice shoul advise the property owner that City retained contractors are available t remove the graffiti (at property owners expense) and that the contractor will perform the work at prices quoted to the City. 0 m March 15, 1989 Res i dent 3113 Jefferson Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Resident/Property Owner: Graffiti has become a major problem in our City. It is visually destructive ar breeds disrespect for property. It is a method for gangs to mark their territor and unless removed quickly, it will get worse. The citizens of Carlsbad have expressed their desire that graffiti be rernovc as soon as possible to preserve the visual beauty of the City. Responding t the community’s desires, the City Council has directed the Utilities ar Maintenance Department to establish a graffiti control program. The program requires City forces to remove graffiti from City owned or controllc facilities within 24 to 48 hours of notice. The program also requires th; private property owners be advised of the presence of graffiti on their proper1 and requested to remove the graffiti as soon as possible. This letter is to advise you, as a property owner in the City of Carlsbad, ( the presence of graffiti on your property at 3113 Jefferson Street on the fenct We request your help in keeping Carlsbad beautiful and take steps to remove tt graffiti as soon as possible. If you have questions or need any information on methods and material to rem0 the graffiti, please contact Chuck Mitchell or Greg Clavier at 434-9276. Sincerely, RALPH W. ANDERSON Director RWA:CM:ew EXHIBIT 4 COMMON POWERS AND DUTIES Q 53069.5 8 53069.3, Use of public funds to remove graffiti A city or county may enact an ordinance to provide for the use of city or county funds to remove graffiti or other inscribed material from public or privately owned permanent structures located on public or privately owned real property within such city or county. Such ordinance shall only authorize the removal of the graffiti or other inscribed material itself, and not the painting or repair of a more extensive area. Such removal may be performed, only after a finding by the city or county that the graffiti or other inscribed material is obnoxious, and, in the case of a publicly owned structure, only after securing the consent of the public entity having jurisdiction over the structure, and in the case of a privately owned structure, only after securing the consent of the owner. Added Stab 1976 ch 330 8 1. 0 53069.5. Reward for information leading to apprehension of person damaging or destroying property A local agency, as defined in Section 54951, may offer and pay a reward, the amount thereof to be determined by the local agency, for - parent or guardian shall also be liable for the amount. Added Stats 1969 ch 1324 $1; Amended Stats 1971 ch 186 $ 1; Stats 1974 ch 1062 $2; Stats 1976 ch 326 $ 1. Amendments: 1971 Amendment: Added “or any property of any other local agency or state or federal agency located within the boundaries of the local agency” at the end of the first paragraph. 1974 Amendment: (1) Added “whose willful misconduct results in injury or death to any student or any person employed by or performing volunteer services for the local agency or” in the first paragraph; and (2) amended the second paragraph by (a) adding “whose willful misconduct has resulted in injury or death to any student or any person employed by or performing volunteer services for a local agency or”; (b) substituting “any property of a local agency or any property of any other local agency or state or federal agency located within the boundaries of the local agency” for “such property”; and (c) substituting “an unemancipated” for “a”. 333