SR-308-001-02 (6)
\..
,
.
3 &J $-.00/- &>"2.
'i'-J;>
J UN 1982
~
CA:RMM:r
City Council Meetlng 6-1-82
Santa Monica, Cal~fornia
STAFF REPORT
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
City Attorney
SUBJECT:
Ordlnance Prohlting PosseSSlon of Glass
Contalners on Santa Monica Beach
At its meeting on January 12, 1982, the city Council
directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance prohibit-
lng the possession of glass containers on Santa Monica Beach.
In response to this direction, the accompanying ordlnance is
presented for consideration by the City Council. The ordi-
nance prohibits the possession or use of glass conta~ners on
the beach and adJacent areas. A violation of the ordinance
is an infractlon subject to a maximum $ 25.00 flne.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the accompanYlng
ordlnance be introduced for flrst reading.
PREPARED BY: Robert M. Myers, City Attorney
P-D
JlJN 1 1982
."
,
.
CA:RMM:LN:r
Clty Councll Meetlng 6-1-82
Santa Monlca, Callfornla
ORDINANCE NUMBER
(Clty Councl1 Serles)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADDING
SECTION 4204b TO TilE SANTA MONICA
MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING THE
POSSESSION OR USE OF GLASS CONTAINERS
IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE CITY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Sectlon 4204b lS added to the Santa Monlca
MunlClpal Code to read as follows:
Sectlon 4204b. Glass Contalners on
Beach.
No person shall possess or use
any glass contalner upon any publlC
beach, any public beach parklng lot, the
Promenade, the beach b~kepath, any plcnlc
area or playground area on or adJacent to
beach, and on any publlC area of the
MunlClpal pier.
Any person violatIng
thls
section shall be gUIlty of an
lnfraction.
Any person convicted of an
lnfraction under thIS sectlon shall be
punlshable by a flne of not more than
$25.00.
1
"
..
.
SECTION 2.
Any prOVISIon of the Santa MonIca MunICIpal
Code or appendIces thereto Incons1stent w~th the prOVISIons of
thIS ordInance, to the extent of such Inconsistencles and no
further, are hereby repealed or modIfIed to that extent necessary
to affect the proviSIons of this ordInance.
SECTION 3.
If any sectIon, subsect10n, sentence, clause,
or phrase of thIS ordInance IS for any reason held to be invalId
or unconstItutIonal by a deCISIon of any court of any competent
JuriSdIctIon, such deCIsion shall not affect the valid1ty of the
remaIning portIons of the ordInance. The City CounCIl hereby
declares that It would have passed thIS ordInance and each and
every
sectIon, subsectIon, sentence, clause or phrase not
declared InvalId or unconstItutIonal WIthout regard to whether
any port10n of the ordInance would be subsequently declared
InvalId or unconst1tutlonal.
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall SIgn and the CIty Clerk shall
attest to the passage of this ordInance. This CIty Clerk shall
cause the same to be publIshed once 1n the offICIal newspaper
WIthin 15 days after ltS adoptIon.
The ordinance shall become
effectIve after 30 days from ItS adoptIon.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~\M.~
Robert M. ~1yers '"
City Attorney
2
8-l
~
,
It
YG: The City Manager has indicated helll glve us a staff report on educational
activl tles concurrent wnh implementatlOn of this law. Is that acceptable?
I have a question for the City Clerk.
,
-
8-B
YG: I have a question for the Clty Clerk. We've done this several
tlmes, where we've asked the City Manager to glve us a staff report
and I don't believe that they've been written up in the mlnutes.
And lt seems to me that lt would be really useful if we started
doing that ln all these occasions where Staff Reports or some
admlnistrative direction 15 glven from the Councll. And I would
request that be included ln the mlnutes.
8-E
CO~X: I would like to move that we refer this to Staff for
an appropriate analysis.
Second
YG: The motlon lS refer this to Staff for approprlate reVlew
to conslder the posslblllty of 4th Street being included;to
provlde for adequate notlce to residents; and to inform Council-
members of the previous record on thlS item.
CONN: I think it should also be approprlate notification of
both resldents and the merchant communlty. It should include
notlficatlon to merchants.
YG: OK, notlfication to~esidents--~effect~ merchants
~a~n Street.
on
8-F
ZA~E: I would llke to move the ordlnance extend~ng with modlfications
the interim permlt procedures for adoption.
YG: Moved by CM Zane, seconded by CM Press. C~l Reed, you wish to make
a comment?
REED: Yes, CM Reed would like to ask Council to please recognize
that the usual practice of this body is being violated. Usually
we hear a first reading at a regularly scheduled agenda and then
we have an adoption on a second readlng at another regularly scheduled
agenda. In general that mean for the publlc they have two weeks
(over)
---------
.
~
..'
~n
between each hearing of the ordinance. Now, I'm perfectly wl1ling
to recognize that the City Attorney reads the charter more often
than I do, that we may well be legally within the charter requlre-
ments. However, I think that the regular procedure is not be1ng
honored here and that given the cornpla1nt that some people in the
commun1ty brought to this Counell only 7 days age, we really should
agendize this for our next regular meeting which J.S next Tuesday
night, rather than adding it as a late item to the continued agenda
of the same meeting wherein we adopted it at first reading. I don't
th1nk that meets the expectations of the community and I don't th1nk
I I 1 r
lt'S TalT.
T I ,
lL !lIay
...
De legal, but I "auld argue that '1 t 'lS not tair.
YG: C1ty Attorney
MYERS: Th1S practice is a practlce that has been done 1n the past
In fact ord1nance 1220, I believe, was adopted In the same fash10n
and that's been the subJect of substantial judicial review and the
concerns that CM Reed is raising have not been raIsed by our adver-
sar~es who have attempted to raise almost every other conce1vable
theory possible. In addltion, there have heen dozens of ordinances
that have been adopted WIth only a week between the adjournment of
one regular meeting and the commenc~ment of another regular meeting.
For example the ordinances that were introduced for first readlng
tongiht will be on the regular agenda next week, and since a number
of them were unanimously approved they w~ll be on the consent calendar.
Therefore, there WIll only be a week between ton1ght's meeting and
next week's meeting. That has happenned on numerous occaSIons in
the past, it's fully conSIstent with City Charter Section 615.
REED: It's Just that when you're doing someth~ng controversIal,
if you rush It through, people are very upset about it. And that's
the only pOInt I'm trying to get the Council to recognIze. Bannlng
glass bottles on the beach 1S not controversIal and nobody is going
m care lf we readopt it, but thlS is controversial, maybe X~E*~X they'll
sue us based on the argument that I'm the first person to ever ralse.
I mean I don't know, It only occured to me tonight. So that's why
I'm raising ~t. But bas1cally I don't think it's a legal lssue, it's
a fairness issue. It's just not fair to rush it through this qu~ckly.
This is a very important readoption of a controversial program In
the CIty.
ZA~E: I appreciate your remarks, I differ wlth you on the assessment
of fairness, I'd like to move for a vote.
Moved by Zane, second by Press. Roll Call: Yes:Conn,
~~~~y~~
<No: ..; Reed:
I vot~ and would the record tO~lect that l t is no L
appropriate or falr to rush this ordinance through in the manner in
whlch It has been.
,.
RP:DTA:Jat
"
Santa Mon1ca, callfOr~January 7, 1982
...
3o<[! - ot:J/_ O"Z-
/D-C.
J ANI 2 1982
TO: r1ayor and C1 ty Counc1l
FROM: C1ty Staff
SUBJECT: Proh1b1t1ng Glass Bottles on Santa Mon1ca State Beach
Introduction
ThlS report transmits the Recreatlon and Parks Commisslon's recommendat1on for the
adoption of an ord1nance prohlblt1ng glass conta1ners on Santa Mon1ca State Beach, and
staff's concurrence with that request
Backgr'ounQ.
On September 24,1981, the Recreation and Parks Commlssion requested that the Clty
Attorney's offlce prepare an adv?sory op?nion on the leaality of the Clty adopt?ng an
ordinance which would proh1blt glass bottles and materials on the Santa Monica State
Beach. The Commlsslon reviewed that advisory op1nion at the1r December 17, 1981
meetlng and made the following motlon.
Mr Durst moved that glass containers be prohlblted on beach sand and
beach parking lots. If a conceSS1on dispenses beverages 1n glass
conta1ners, the containers be restrlcted to that conceSSlon, and not
be removed from that locat1on unless placed ln a non-glass container.
Performance of any of the above restr1ct1ons would be an infraction.
It 1S also requested that the Clty Councll dlrect the Clty Attorney
to prepare an ordinance that would be referred back to the Recreation
and Parks Commlssion for reV1ew prior to belng presented to the City
Councll for actlon. The motlon was seconded by Mrs. Evans and
carrled unanimously.
Recommendatlon
Staff concurs wlth the request by the Recreatlon and Parks Commission that Council
d?rect the City Attorney to prepare a glass bottle ordlnance, but recommends that
the ordlnance prohlbit prlvate concessionalres at the beach from dlspenslng from
glass bottles, and recommends that conslderatlon be given to also ban the use of
styrofoam cups, limitlng dispensing containers to paper products.
Prepared by: Donald T. Arnett, Dlrector
Recreation and Parks
J()-C
0;;-' .<-" :!1,. . .;-o}~l'~'
DTA:Jat