HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11051996 - C68 C . �g
To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS F&HS-01SE_.L
1 Contra
FROM: FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Q s Costa
. � ..__� :£-= County
DATE: October 28, 1996
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON THE WORK OF THE JUVENILE SYSTEMS
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. ACCEPT the attached report from the Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory
Committee (JSPAC) on the Juvenile Electronic Monitoring Program (JEM) and
the evaluation made of the JEM by JSPAC.
2. REFER the recommendations made by JSPAC regarding the JEM to the
County Probation Officer for a report to the 1997 Family and Human Services
Committee in July 1997 with the next JEM evaluation, specifically including
the feasibility of combining the administration of the Sheriff's Electronic
Monitoring Program and the Probation Department's Electronic Monitoring
Program.
3. ACCEPT the attached status reports on JSPAC, SafeFutures, the Continuum
of Care, and the East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership.
4. REQUEST JSPAC to make a further status report to the 1997 Family and
Human Services Committee on these and any other subjects JSPAC wishes
to bring to the attention of the Committee, specifically to include the status of
funding for juvenile hall if Proposition 205 passes, and for this purpose
REFER oversight of the work of JSPAC to the 1997 Family and Human
Services Committee.
5. REMOVE this item as a referral to the 1996 Family and Human Services
Committee.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD OM ITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): eARK np.-c�
ACTION OF BOARD ONNovember 5, i 996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X_ OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
-X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ------------ ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
County Administrator ATTESTED November 5r; 1996
Contact: The Honorable Lois Haight PHIL BAT LO CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: Juvenile Court Judge, Department 10 SU VIS ND COUNTY ADMINIST OR
Sheriff-Coroner
County Probation Officer
JSPAC (Via Carol Kizziah) BY
F&HS-01
STATUS REPORT ON THE WORK OF THE JUVENILE
SYSTEMS PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
BACKGROUND:
On May 7, 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved a report from our Committee
which included the following recommendation, among others:
3. REQUEST JSPAC to report back to the Family and Human Services Committee on October 28,
1996 at 9:00 A.M.on the following subjects:
Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee
SafeFutures
Continuum of Care
East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership
Electronic Monitoring Program
On October 28, 1996, our Committee met with Chris Adams, Chair of JSPAC; Mark
Morris and Carol Kizziah, staff from the County Administrator's Office; Vic Westman,
County Counsel; and members of the 1996-97 Grand Jury.
Ms. Adams, Mr. Morris and Ms. Kizziah review each of the attached reports with our
Committee in some detail.
In regard to the JEM Program, it is important to remember that this is only one
component of the continuum of care for juveniles. It is not an overall solution and will
not work effectively with all juveniles, as the data already shows.
While SafeFutures is moving more slowly than staff would have liked, the Summit
Center (the locked juvenile mental health unit at Juvenile Hall), will open the week
of November 4, 1996. All staff are hired and are now in training.
In response to a question from Supervisor DeSaulnier regarding what we would be
likely to receive if Proposition 205 passes, Mark Morris indicated that he hopes that
the County will receive between $25 million and $35 million. This will allow major
progress to be made in the construction of a new juvenile hall.
We are pleased with the progress that has been made in the area of juvenile justice
and want to take this opportunity to thank the Juvenile Court, the County Probation
Officer and his staff, and JSPAC for their leadership in this area. We look forward
to having another status report provided to the 1997 Family and Human Services
Committee in July 1997.
-2-
Contra
TO: FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE
of
Costa
FROM: JUVENILE SYSTEMS PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE �� :�`4�
County
0
STA CpU1'1'�
DATE: October 28, 1996
SUBJECT: JUVENILE ELECTRONIC MONITORING EVALUATION
Specific Request(s) or Recommendation(s) & Background & Justification
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Accept Juvenile Electronic Monitoring (JEM) Evaluation from the Juvenile
Systems Planning Advisory Committee (JSPAC) .
2 . Refer JSPAC recommendations to the Probation Department for report to
the Family and Human Services Committee in July 1997 with next JEM
evaluation.
3 . Accept status reports on JSPAC, SafeFutures, Continuum of Care and East
Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND:
On January 16, 1995, the Board of Supervisors approved funding for the
Juvenile Electronic Monitoring program (JEM) , adding one additional
Institutional Supervisor I position to coordinate the program and purchasing
20 electronic monitoring devices . JEM is one component of the Continuum of
Care for juveniles previously approved by the Board (October 10, 1994 ) . The
Board asked the Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee (JSPAC) in
collaboration with the Probation Department to develop criteria for
evaluation of JEM. The Board further requested JSPAC to provide regular
reporting on the Juvenile Electronic Monitoring program to the Family and
Human Services Committee. As requested, JSPAC, working with the Probation
Department, has completed an evaluation of JEM.
The Juvenile Electronic Monitoring program is an option for minors who have
an authorization for a Home Supervision release but are in need of a higher
level of supervision. Youth are monitored electronically 24 hours a day and
in-person contact with supervision staff occurs on a daily basis at home or
at the juvenile' s school . Electronic Monitoring targets youth who would
otherwise be detained in a juvenile facility. Youth eligible for a JEM
referral can be pre trial, awaiting placement in the Orin Allen Youth
Rehabilitation Facility, placement failures, recipients of an early release
from Juvenile Hall or an OAYRF commitment, or serving a commitment on JEM.
Continued on Attachment: X YES Signature:
Recommendation of County Administrator
Recommendation of Board Committee
Approve Other
Signature(s) :
1996
Action of Board on: November 5, Approved as Recommended Other
Vote of Supervisors : I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X ________ AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
Unanimous (Absent ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
Ayes : Noes : ) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Carol Kizziah (335-1055) Attested: November 5, 1996
cc : CAO-Justice System Programs Phil Batchelor,-,Clerk of
Probation Officer the Board of Wt" m,�ini
ervisors
JSPAC a d for
TY
Juvenile Electronic Monitoring Evaluation
10/28/96-Page 2
From October 1994 through June 30, 1996, a total of 96 clients have been
placed on JEM. Ninety percent are male: The average length of participation
on JEM for this period was 29 .4 days : Sixty-eight percent of all youth
placed on JEM completed the program successfully; 32 percent were violated
from the program. For those youth violated from the program, 90 percent did
not complete due to a technical violation such as being out of range of the
monitor. The three new law violations were for a battery, possession of
stolen credit cards, and joy riding.
Data was gathered for this evaluation to determine if any cost savings were
achieved and whether they could be attributed to JEM. (For a discussion on
the methodology for calculating cost savings, see the full JEM report. ) In
short, JEM produces very significant cost savings if the program prevents the
need for opening an additional housing unit in Juvenile Hall . Based on the
method used for this evaluation, for the period January through June 1996,
JEM had a cost savings of $175,516 .
JSPAC Recommendations
The Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee has approved the Juvenile
Electronic Monitoring Evaluation. JSPAC endorses the increase in JEM
staffing and expansion of the program from 20 youths to 40 youths approved by
the Board of Supervisors in August 1996 . If feasible, JSPAC encourages an
even larger expansion. The Police Chiefs ' Association reported that they
believe the program is working well . JSPAC also recommends that the option
of combining the Sheriff ' s Department Electronic Monitoring program and JEM
be explored; centralizing of program administration might be beneficial .
JSPAC also wishes to commend the Board of Supervisors for their continued
support of the Juvenile Electronic Monitoring program. Specific program
recommendations include:
1 . The capacity of the Juvenile Electronic Monitoring program has been
increased to 40 youth. The number of referrals will need to increase to
maintain a daily population of close to 40 . In November 1996, the
Summit Unit ( locked mental health program) will open, reducing the
existing number of general housing beds in Juvenile Hall and most
likely, creating an additional need for Electronic Monitoring. The
Probation Department should continue to track referral sources to ensure
that all staff are fully utilizing the program.
2 . Changes in the referral criteria have resulted in some inconsistencies
in the types of youth placed in JEM. The Probation Department and the
Juvenile Court should review together current policies and procedures so
referrals are uniform.
3 . Youth placed on JEM should be linked to other treatment or community
services . Coordination with other community treatment services, such as
day treatment and the Employment Aftercare program should be explored
and used when appropriate. Many youth returning from placement or the
OAYRF need additional treatment interventions to prevent a continuing
delinquent lifestyle. In some cases, when a youth commits a technical
violation, it may be appropriate to require additional treatment
interventions rather than returning the youth to Juvenile Hall . The
added level of supervision provided by JEM can help strengthen the
effectiveness of these other services .
4 . To effectively use JEM, it should be applied in a system of graduated
sanctions . Electronic Monitoring can be used as an intermediate
sanction prior to returning a youth to the Juvenile Hall or OAYRF. For
example, in some cases youth leaving custody should not be placed on the
highest level of supervision, which would include JEM, but instead
Electronic Monitoring can be used to increase the level of supervision
if the youth does not comply with the conditions of Probation.
Juvenile Electronic Monitoring Evaluation
10/28/96 - Page 3
5 . For this evaluation, the County Administrator' s Office has developed a
database of all youth placed on JEM and a format for future evaluations .
This evaluation database will be provided to the JEM program staff who
should keep up to date statistics in this format. One specific data
element that will need to be collected for ongoing evaluation is the
average daily population for just the youth on JEM. Future evaluations
should include a follow-up study to check if youth have re-offended in
the six-month period after completing JEM. The JEM program is too new
to have gathered this data for this report. At the end of the current
year, the responsibility for completing future evaluations will be
turned over to the Probation Department.
Juvenile Electronic Monitoring
Program Evaluation
Background
On January 16, 1995,the Board of Supervisors approved funding for the Juvenile Electronic
Monitoring program(JEM), adding one additional Institutional Supervisor I position to
coordinate the program and purchase of 20 electronic monitoring devices. JEM is one
component in the Continuum of Care for juveniles previously approved by the Board(October
10, 1994). In addition,the Board asked the Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee
(JSPAC) in collaboration with the Probation Department to develop evaluation criteria for JEM.
The Board further requested JSPAC to provide regular reporting on the Juvenile Electronic
Monitoring program to the Family and Human Services Committee. As requested,JSPAC,
working with the Probation Department,has completed the following JEM evaluation.
Process Evaluation
Program Description
The Juvenile Electronic Monitoring Program (JEM) is an option for minors who have an
authorization for a Home Supervision release but are in need of a higher level of supervision.
While on Electronic Monitoring a juvenile attends school and if appropriate may attend
counseling, and other support services. Youth are monitored electronically 24 hours a day and
in-person contact with supervision staff occurs on a daily basis at home and at the juvenile's
school. With the exception of the authorized activities mentioned above,the juvenile is not
permitted to go further than 30 yards from his or her monitor. Each youth is fitted with an
electronic anklet and in home monitor is connected to the phone in the youth's home. At certain
time during the day the in-home monitor scans for the anklet's signal and sends a report back to
the JEM office over the phone lines. JEM staff can also drive to a school or other site and use a
hand held scanner to check if a youth is at that location. The monitoring system allows the
Probation Department to know if a juvenile arrives and leaves pre-approved destinations at
appropriate times.
Number/Type of Youth Served
The Juvenile Electronic Monitoring Program has been in operation since October 1995. The
maximum number of clients that the program can serve currently is 20. Typically,there is no
waiting list for participation on JEM,with the exception of times when monitors are not
available due to malfunction. (Currently JEM is experiencing a 15%breakdown rate). Due to the
significant malfunction rate and the time it takes to have equipment repaired the Probation
Department is currently looking into other companies that provide the Electronic Monitoring
equipment.
From October, 1995 through June 30, 1996 a total of 96 clients have been placed on Electronic
Monitoring. Ninety percent are male. Forty-one percent are pre trial cases released from
Juvenile Hall. (See Table 1: Adjudication Status). The average length of participation on
Electronic Monitoring for this period was 29.4 days,though actual length of participation spans
Juvenile Electronic Monitoring Evaluation Page 1
from 2 to 108 days. The average daily population(from January 1996 through June 1996 only)
was 13.5 youth.
Table 1 • Adjudication Status
Adjudication Status Girls Boys Total Percent
Pre trial 2 37 39 41%
Commit 5 23 28 29%
Await OAYRF 0 - 18 18 19%
Early Release fr JH 1 3 4 4%
Commit/in lieu of OAYRF 0 3 3 3%
Placement Failure 2 0 2 2%
Early Release OAYRF 0 2 2 2%
Total 10(10%) 86(90%) 96 100%
Eligibility
JEM is open to all juvenile offenders except those with a pending 707(b)offense(felony rape,
armed robbery,,possession/sale of drugs, predatory sexual offense, arson,use of a firearm in the
commission of a crime, felony assault charges, murder; or attempted murder). A juvenile may be
placed on Electronic Monitoring if requested by the intake probation officer prior to or after the
detention hearing. Participation may also be ordered by the sentencing judge. Parents of the
offender may also request JEM in court, and the decision to place the juvenile on Electronic
Monitoring will again be at the discretion of the judge.
Electronic Monitoring targets youth who would otherwise be detained in a juvenile facility.
Youth eligible for a JEM referral can be pre trial, awaiting placement in the Orin Allen Youth
Rehabilitation Facility(sentence must be over 60 days), placement failures, recipients of an early
release from Juvenile Hall or an OAYRF commitment, or serving a commitment on Electronic
Monitoring.
In March 1996,the eligibility criteria were modified to expand the client base for Electronic
Monitoring. Frequently, up to one-third of the Juvenile Hall beds(40-60 youth)are filled with
youth awaiting transfer to the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility. Youth with an OAYRF
commitment remain in the Juvenile Hall for 60 to 80 while waiting for an opening at the
OAYRF. The Probation Department now reviews the cases of all youth with an OAYRF
commitment who are in Juvenile Hall awaiting transfer for possible release on JEM. Referral
procedures are in place that provide JEM staff an immediate notification when a youth is
sentenced to the OAYRF. Staff then review the file and contact the Probation Officer to
determine if youth is eligible for release.
Further efforts to`expand the client base include giving youth awaiting placement in the OAYRF
credit for.time served while they are on Electronic Monitoring. It has been the experience of
Probation staff that many youth would rather remain in custody in Juvenile Hall and receive
Juvenile Electronic Monitoring Evaluation Page 2
credit towards their OAYRF commitment,than be released home on JEM and not receive credit
for time served. Youth now receive a one day credit for every three days served successfully on
JEM.
Another change was to eliminate prior violent off&ises as an absolute exclusionary criterion for
JEM participation. Pre trial youth charged with a current violent offense are not eligible for
JEM. However, once committed to the OAYRF they may be eligible for JEM depending on the
Probation Officer's case review assessment.
Supervision
During a juvenile's participation in JEM,program staff are required to report to the youth's
assigned Probation Officer if the juvenile violates the conditions of monitoring. JEM staff also
report at the end of the successful monitoring period. JEM staff communicate with the Court,
and reports incidents of violation. If it is found that a juvenile is not at the authorized location at
any point in the day, a Probation Counselor will locate the youth. The Probation Counselor has
two options depending on the type of violation. For a minor violation the youth will be
reprimanded which could include imposing additional restrictions. For a serious violation,
Probation staff or the local Police Department will bring youth into custody at the Juvenile Hall.
A youth who drops out of JEM will be terminated from the program and the judge will remand
the youth to Juvenile Hall or will resentence the individual to another program. Criteria for
program failure include intentional damage of the monitor; being out of range of the monitor;
problems in the home, especially information from the parents that the juvenile is not following
the contract, or a refusal to follow the rules of the contract. Commission of a crime will cause
automatic removal from the program.
Using Electronic Monitoring in Conjunction with Other Services
Electronic Monitoring is a supervision mechanism that can be applied to youth at different stages
in the justice system. Moreover,JEM is a critical element of the Continuum of Care model
adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Using Electronic Monitoring in conjunction with other
services has the potential to strengthen the impact of other services. Currently,Probation uses
JEM in conjunction with other services only when other court conditions exist, such as attending
NA/AA, drug testing, or school attendance.Currently,JEM staff provide youth who have a court
order for counseling with a referral to agencies in their communities. Youth placed at La Chiem
School have also been placed on JEM.
In August 1996, Electronic Monitoring staff met with representatives from the Social Service
Department in West County to review linking youth on JEM to Social Service programs. It was
decided that JEM staff will assess each youth to determine additional treatment needs and will
contact the Social Service Department directly to make a referral.
Many youth on JEM require additional treatment interventions. One concern is that youth are
serving significant portions of their OAYRF commitment on JEM,thus lessening the
effectiveness of the OAYRF program. However,youth placed on JEM with an OAYRF
commitment will lose less of their commitment time than if they had remained in custody in the
Juvenile Hall awaiting placement,where they receive one day credit for each day served
(compared with one day credit for every three served on JEM). Again,JEM used in conjunction
Juvenile Electronic Monitoring Evaluation Page 3
with treatment may address some of these treatment issues. With the JEM expansion,there will
be an even greater potential for the use of JEM in conjunction with other services.
A further result of Electronic Monitoring is the positive impact on the family as a whole.
Anecdotal reports by parents have shown how the additional control and stability provided by
JEM has given families an opportunity to address long-term, interpersonal issues. Parents report
that while on the program youth attend school,are at home during the evening hours,are able to
maintain employment, show academic improvement at school,and begin to communicate in a
positive manner with other family members. In short,for some youth,JEM provides the added
structure and accountability necessary to change their delinquent behavior while in the
community and, for some parents,JEM provides the additional level of supervision necessary to
maintain a stable home environment. In these cases,JEM becomes an effective intermediate
sanction.Again, for JEM to continue to have this type of impact for more youth the program
needs to be linked with a range of associated services.
Expansion '
In August 1996,the Board of Supervisors approved adding two Probation staff to the Juvenile
Electronic Monitoring unit and doubling the program capacity to 40 youth. Probation staff have
been unsatisfied with the reliability of the equipment and service provided by the existing vendor
(Digital). The Probation Department is in the process of contacting a new vendor to provide the
equipment and service for the required program capacity of forty.
Outcome Evaluation
Sixty-eight percent of all youth placed on JEM completed the program successfully; 32 percent
were violated from the program(see Table 2: Program Outcomes). For those youth violated
from the program, 90 percent did not complete JEM due to a technical program violation such as
being out of the range of the monitor,problems at home, schedule violation, or unauthorized
visitor at home(see Table 3: Reason for Violation). The three new law violations were for a
battery,possession of stolen credit cards, and joy riding.
Table 2: Program Outcomes
Program Status Girls Boys Total Percent
Completed 7 58 65 68%
Violated 3 28 31 32%
Total 10(10%) 86(90%) 96 100%
Table 3: Reason for Violation
Reason Girls Boys Total Percent
New Law Violation 0 .3 3 10%
Technical Violation 3 24 27 90%
Total 3 27 30` 100%-
' In two cases information on the reason for the technical violation is not available.
Juvenile Electronic Monitoring Evaluation Page 4
Cost Benefit Evaluation
One of the benefits often attributed to Electronic Monitoring is cost savings. The hypothesis is
that youth on JEM would otherwise be in more expensive secure beds. Data was gathered for
this evaluation to determine if any cost savings were achieved and whether they could be
attributed to JEM.
The following methodology and cost figures were used to calculate the savings if any from the
use of Electronic Monitoring. The average daily population for the Juvenile Hall and JEM were
compiled for the period January-June 1996. The cost of Juvenile Hall beds varies depending on
the population. The capitated rate for the 160 bed Juvenile Hall operating at or near capacity is
$145 per youth per day(this includes all administrative costs). However,capitated rates are
average costs;the marginal costs for adding one youth are actually much lower, since,the overall
operating costs would not be significantly affected.
The marginal cost per day to house one additional youth at Juvenile Hall is estimated at$10.00
per day per youth. (This cost includes only meals, laundry and medical services and assumes no
new staff have to be added to supervise additional youth.) The savings offered by using JEM
when the Juvenile Hall is not at capacity is marginal. However, significant costs savings are
achieved if Electronic Monitoring prevents the need for opening an additional housing unit. The
estimated cost of opening an additional 20 bed unit when the Juvenile Hall is at capacity is
$53,583 per month(including Probation staff and operating costs).'
The actual average monthly cost for JEM for the period January through June 1996 was around
$6,200,plus the cost of the monitoring equipment.(The cost of the 20 electronic monitors units
and other equipment was$57,000. This was a one time cost.)
In short, JEM supervision is more expensive than the marginal costs at the Juvenile Hall
($15 at current JEM ADP vs. $10). However,when a threshold is reached, at which opening a
new housing unit is required,JEM yields very significant cost savings.
To estimate whether JEM saved money,we assume that a new 20 bed housing unit would have
to be opened whenever the population climbed to more than 10 over existing capacity. (We also
assumed that until that threshold,additional youth could be crowded into existing housing, at the
"marginal"cost rate.) Using this method, for the period January through June 1996,JEM had a
cost savings of$175,516(see Table 4: Cost Comparison).
'Tim Ward,Administrative Services Officer,Contra Costa County Probation Department
Juvenile Electronic Monitoring Evaluation Page 5
Table 4: Cost Comparison: January -June 1996'
Required Monthly Hall
Juvenile Hall JEM Additional JEM Costs
Month ADP ADP Unit Cost Saved
January 144.6 5.7 No $3,084 $1,767
February 161.4 13.3 Yes $6,200 $53,583
March 164.4 14.5 Yes $6,324 $53,583
April 168.8 18.3 Yes $8,224 $53,583
May 176.2 17.1 Yes $7,477 $53,583
June 180.8 12.2 Yes $5,857 $53,583
Subtotals $37,166 $269,682
Equipment $57,000
Total $94,166 $269,682
Net Savings JEM $175,516
3 The budget for JEM is included in the Home Supervision budget. For the period of this study,around 20
percent of the average daily population for the combined Home Supervision/JEM caseload were JEM
cases.There is almost no difference in staff time required in supervising a JEM case versus a Home
Supervision case. The monthly JEM cost was calculated by taking the percentage of the total monthly
budget for Home Supervision and Electronic Monitoring equivalent to the percent of cases each month that
were on JEM only(see table below). When the JEM capacity is increased to 40 cases,the time required for
a JEM case may be greater than for a Home Supervision case due to an increased number of violations
which require additional staff time.
Monthly
Average ADP Average ADP %ADP Total % Cost
Month JEM/HS JEM JEM JEM/HS Cost JEM
January 57.6 5.7 9.9% $31,153 $3,084
February 66.7 13.3 19.9% $31,153 $6,200
March 71.4 14.5 20.3% $31,153 $6,324
April 69.4 18.3 26.6% $31,153 $8,224
May 71.1 17.1 24.0% $31,153 $7,477
June 65.0 12.2 18.8% $31,153 .$5,857
Total 66.9 13.5 19.9% $186,920 $37,166
Juvenile Electronic Monitoring Evaluation Page 6
Recommendations
I. The capacity of the Juvenile Electronic Monitoring program has been increased to 40 youth.
The number of referrals will need to increase to maintain a daily papulation of close to 40.In
November 1996,the Summit Unit(locked mental health program)will open,reducing the
existing number of general housing beds in Juvenile Hall and most likely,creating an
additional need for Electronic Monitoring. The Probation Department should continue to
track referral sources to ensure that all staff are fully utilizing the program.
2. Changes in the referral criteria have resulted in some inconsistencies in the types of youth
placed in JEM. The Probation Department and the Juvenile Court should review together
current policies and procedures so referrals are uniform.
3. Youth placed on JEM should be linked to other treatment or community services.
Coordination with other community treatment services, such as day treatment and the
Employment Aftercare program should be explored and used when appropriate. Many youth
returning from placement or the OAYRF need additional treatment interventions to prevent a
continuing delinquent lifestyle. In some cases,when a youth commits a technical violation, it
may be appropriate to require additional treatment interventions rather than returning the
youth to Juvenile Hall. The added level of supervision provided by JEM can help strengthen
the effectiveness of these other services.
4. To effectively use JEM it should be applied in a system of graduated sanctions. Electronic
Monitoring can be used as an intermediate sanction prior to returning a youth to the Juvenile
Hall or OAYRF. For example, in some cases youth leaving custody should not be placed on
the highest level of supervision,which would include JEM, but instead Electronic
Monitoring can be used to increase the level of supervision if the youth does not comply
with the conditions of Probation.
5. For this evaluation,the County Administrator's Office has developed a database of all youth
placed on JEM and a format for future evaluations. This evaluation database will be
provided to the JEM program staff who should keep up to date statistics in this format. One
specific data element that will need to be collected for ongoing evaluation is the average
daily population for just the youth on JEM. Future evaluations should include a follow-up
study to check if youth have re-offended in the six month period after completing JEM. The
JEM program is too new to have gathered this data for this report. At the end of the current
year,the responsibility for completing future evaluations will be turned over to the Probation
Department.
Juvenile Electronic Monitoring Evaluation Page 7
TO: FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE
FROM: JUVENILE SYSTEMS PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DATE: October 28, 1996
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT OF THE JUVENILE SYSTEMS PLANNING
ADVISORY COMMITTEE(JSPAC)
The Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee is pleased to report that we have
reviewed the Community Based Punishment Options Report. The Alternatives to
Detention Committee of JSPAC made specific observations and recommendations with
regard to the report. A comparison of the data collected in 1993 for the Continuum of
Care Plan and data collected in 1996 for the Community Based Punishment Options
Report, yielded the following observations:
• An increasing number of juveniles are committing an increasing number of serious
crimes.
• Since 1993, the average age of youth housed in the Juvenile Hall has gone higher.
• The number of youth awaiting transfer to the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility
has increased dramatically, from 6% in 1993 to nearly 50% in 1996.
• Person offenses and drug/alcohol offenses both increased from 1993 to 1996. Only
1% of youth in 1993 data were charged with a drug/alcohol offense compared to over
20% in 1996. (This is probably due more to a change in data collection procedures
between the two studies than an actual shift in offenses.)
• In the "simulation study", which attempted to determine the `ideal placement' for
youth in custody, there were marked diffences in 1996 from the findings of three
years earlier. In 1996, 38% of the youth were recommended to remain in Juvenile
Hall. This represents a 10% increase over the 1993 recommendation that 28% remain
there. Similarly, there was a decrease in the number of youth recommended for
community alternatives (13% in 1996, compared with 21% in 1993). This might be
attributed to the increased use of alternatives in the last three years including Juvenile
Electronic Monitoring.
• The number of youth placed in a transition center dropped significantly in the three
years since initial collection of the data. (Part of this difference may also be attributed
to the different method of counting between 1993 and 1996.)
JSPAC has the reviewing committee for the Community Based Punishment Options Plan
and in this capacity JSPAC has asked Chief Probation Officer Terry Starr and Director of
Probation Field Services Gemma Pasto to attend the next meeting of the committee so
that they may respond to the following questions:
1) What changes are occurring in daily population numbers?
2) What becomes of juveniles who commit lesser offenses?
3) With regard to a Youthful Offender Facility, how.would it be able to legally combine
juveniles and adults, and should JSPAC consider recommending a Youthful Offender
Facility for the County?
As a result of the Community Based Punishment Options Plan, the Probation Department
is currently drafting a proposal for the Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Accountability
Challenge Grant Program. This grant will provide a total of$50 million statewide to
reduce the threat of juvenile crimes and delinquency, with up to $2 million in funding
available for planning purposes. The purpose of the planning grants is to assist in the
development of plans which address at risk juveniles through projects representing a
continuum of care, ranging from prevention to incapacitation, in programs of treatment,
rehabilitation, punishment, and incarceration. The planning grants will assist counties in
the identification, design, and development of programs to impact"at risk" youth. These
plans will then be used to develop requests for program implementation grants, available
in the spring of 1997. Over$45 million will be available for these implementation grants.
JSPAC will continue to work with the Probation Department throughout their application
process for Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Accountability Challenge Grant Program
funds. These efforts are all part of the implementation of the Continuum of Care that the
Board of Supervisors adopted in October, 1994.
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Administration Building
651 Pine Street, 10`h Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
TO: Fa ily and Human Services Committee
FROM: /Mark Morris, Project Director
DATE: October 28, 1996
SUBJECT: SafeFutures Status Report
Attached is the most recent status report for the SafeFutures grant.
County AdministratorContra Board of Supervisors
Jim Rogers
County Administration Building Costa
o s t a 1st District
651 Pine Street,11th Floor J C.i Jeff Smith
Martinez,Cllifomia 94553-1229 County �Dish
(510)646-4080
Gayle Bishop
FAX: (510)646-4098 3rd District
Phil Batchelor •a_== °f
_ - - •. Mark DeSaulnter .
County Administrator - '; 4th District
Tom Torlakson
5th District
tip•;•_ --�.-�i�
Sr'9T
October 22, 1996 COUN
Mr. Jim Burch
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention
633 Indiana Avenue, NW
Washington D.C. 20531
Subject: "Informal" SafeFutures Progress Report
Dear Mr. Burch:
I have sent "formal' progress reports for the period through June 1996, on the
Contra Costa SafeFutures project, separately. And since you have been on site
a couple of times, to discuss technical assistance and the cross-site evaluation,
you already have a fair sense of what we have been doing.
As we discussed, the purpose of this memo is to let you know in general terms
what our progress has been, and to note areas in which the SafeFutures
components are evolving in somewhat different ways that we had indicated in
the proposal. These have not been major changes, but if they appear to you to
create any grant monitoring issues, please let me know.
Overview of activities. The primary focus of work during the Summer has been
to hire staff needed for the various components.
• The Youth Services Bureau hired six community workers for the
Family/School/Community programs with Richmond elementary schools
("Neighborhood Resource Specialists") and for the Gang Intervention
component with Richmond PD and three middle or high schools in
Richmond and EI Cerrito ("School-Community Resource Specialists").
(As noted in the formal progress report, we met extensively with these
schools and the Richmond PD and, 1 believe, established a strong
working relationship with these agencies.) The resource specialists have
been on the job for several weeks, and have already provided
interventions with several families (they note that going to the home of a
particular child has invariably involved them with other children in the
• family) and initiated several programs in the schools. At Kennedy High
School, for example, the community worker has organized a major
assembly for girls, in which accomplished women from the community will,
discuss their experiences and careers. At El Cerrito Midr1le School, the
resource specialist is meeting with a group of girls identified by school
officials as needing special attention, in part because of affiliations with
gangs.
• All staff--clinical and custody--have been hired for the Mental Health
Program at the Juvenile Hall site; they-are currently in training, and the
first children will enter the program on November 4. Although some
budget issues have come up (primarily about the cost of installing a
modular unit at the site to house the education program and about
MediCal certification to match State mental health moneys going into the
program), all parties are agreed that the unit will open as scheduled.
The unit has been named the "Summit Center." (Other units at the Hall
have the names of California mountains; the "Summit Center" name
reflects our belief that these minors have the highest peak of all to climb.)
• Our component to provide mentoring for girls in proceeding. There has
been one training session completed for CASR volunteers and mentors.
We anticipate fielding four mentors from that group. In addition, there is
considerable other activity in the County regarding mentoring. The CAO
and Mark DeSaulnier, a member of the Board of Supervisors, established
a "Business Leaders Alliance" to work with the County. That group has
chosen to concentrate on juvenile justice issues; initial efforts are to
establish corporate mentoring and Neighborhood Youth Corps programs
with several of the major corporations in the County. Through the
Business Leaders Alliance, the Contra Costa Times (the county's main
newspaper) will run a series of articles in November on youth and
families and juvenile justice. The articles will include a number to call for
citizens wishing to volunteer for juvenile justice roles--whether as
mentors or in some other capacity. The calls will go to CA8R, which is
providing organizational support for our mentoring component, and will
be fielded by the Volunteer Coordinator to be hired under SafeFutures
(interviews for this position will be conducted this week). In addition,
Taalia Hasan reports receiving a number of inquiries from women in
West County who want to take partin the mentoring program there.
• Finally, other activities are well underway, and a preliminary evaluation
commentary and proposed full evaluation plan have been submitted by
Troy Duster and David Minkus of the Institute for the Study of Social
Change.
In summary, we have all of the components under subcontract and are very
nearly finished hiring all staff. Through September, we have spent
approximately $195,000—about one seventh of the total budget. The grant year
was one fourth completed during this Period; startup exoenditures have not
been proportional due to the time it has taken to get the various staff hired.
Around the beginning of 1997, we will need to discuss how to handle these
salary savings—whether we should plan for a no cost extension for the current
grant year or reallocate the funds to various other program augmentations.
Project modifications. Following are modifications to the original proposal.
Please let me know if any are of concern to you or require further explanation.
• Integration of the Family/School Community and Gang Intervention
components. In our proposal, these two components were largely
separate and distinct, even though both served the same area of
Richmond. The elementary school programs were to be coordinated
through YSB, the gang intervention programs through Opportunity West.
On further consideration, we combined the staffing for the two programs
under YSB. (YSB will coordinate programs in both components;
Opportunity West will now have the subcontracting with various other
service providers to be brought into the program.) The goal is to
maximize the impact of the resource specialist positions—treating them as
a team, rather than parceling them out among programs and schools in
the service area. Although each specialist will be the "point" person for
a particular school, our thought is that the team, combining a variety of
talents and interests, could be a resource for all schools. I also hope that
the resource specialists will achieve greater visibility in the Richmond
community as a SafeFutures team—and as a resource to which youth will
be drawn and around which community activities will be developed.
• "Summit Center Expansion. The Summit Center concept has changed
somewhat. As noted in an earlier progress report, the line staff are
drawn from Probation, not mental health backgrounds. Cross training is
occurring now. In addition, the total scope of the project has changed.
With probation and mental health fiscal contributions, the total budget for
this unit is-over $1 million. The augmented budget will allow us to assign
two aftercare case managers (from Probation) to minors in the unit prior
to their graduation. We believe that this will increase the effectiveness of
the intervention dramatically. As we discussed briefly when you were
last on-site, the current program does not involve "Multisystemic
therapy-" there is, however, interest in looking more closely at this and
perhaps restructuring the treatment program in the future.
• Case Management. The original proposal identified a "case
management coordinator' position, to develop policies and procedures
for case management--particular aftercare case management for youth
leaving institutions and/or special programs. After lengthy discussions
with the Probation Department, the approach has changed somewhat.
Tv..,o probation officer- (at half time each) will "case manage" small
caseloads (primarily youth leaving the Ranch)--to develop case
management policies and concepts in practice. They will then met
regularly with an ad hoc group (including the Chief Probation Officer, the
director of CASK, and me) to discuss the obstacles they have
encountered and their proposals for what policies are needed, what
linkages with other agencies should be established, etc. This same ad
hoc group will also meet with the aftercare case managers for the Summit
Center (mentioned above) and the Volunteer Coordinator, to discuss
similar issues. The goal is to test policies and linkages as they evolve in
an integrated way.
• Technical Assistance. For your information, I want to note here that we
have charged several things to our local technical assistance budget.
These include attendance at the Gang Conference in Dallas (for Taalia
Hasan, Chuck Stephenson, and me); attendance at the Cross site
evaluation meeting at the Urban Institute; and my participation in the
Comprehensive Communities meeting in Denver. None of these trips
were budgeted in our proposal. Therefore, our local technical
assistance fund seemed the most appropriate source. We will also
charge some of the costs for cross-training the Summit Center staff to the
County's budgeted share for technical assistance under SafeFutures,.
Finally, for your information:
* Tom English and I will discuss our formal technical assistance plan in the
next few days; I expect that we will submit requests for several technical
assistance projects in the next couple of weeks.
0 The Comprehensive Strategies meeting with NCCD and DRP has been
tentatively scheduled for November 26.
* Dominic Herbst will make,a presentation to the SafeFutures Advisory
Committee regarding the Bethesda Day Treatment approach on
November 21.
0 1 will also forward to you the final local evaluation design from the
Institute for the Study of Social Change within the next week.
S1rely,
/7
Mark Morris
Contra Costa County
SafeFutures Project Director
� j:7-
OFFICE
OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Administration Building
Martinez,. California
DATE: October 28, 1996
TO: FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE
FROM: CAROL KI2 Z AH
SUBJECT: CONTINUUM OF CARE PROGRESS REPORT
Attached is the most recent Continuum of Care Progress Report. In
an effort to save paper, the attachments mentioned in the Progress
Report are not included in this mailing. The attachments are
available upon request, however.
CK/jw
Attachment
OJARS Office of the Comptroller
633 Indiana Ave., N.W. Room 942
Washington, D.C. 20531
Categorical Grant Progress Report #3
Contra Costa County Juvenile Justice Continuum of Care
The progress report narrative follows the Contra Costa County Juvenile
Justice Continuum of Care Program Implementation Plan which is included
as Attachment 1 to this report.(Program, Implementation Plan). This third
progress report covers the months of February 1996 -July 31, 1996 and updates
material discussed in Progress Reports # 1 and 2.
A. Coordination
The goal of this aspect of the grant is to provide resources to create the
organizational mechanisms in Contra Costa County for the juvenile justice
programs to be a truly integrated continuum, not a fragmented collection of
programs.
1. Develop Key Continuum Elements
Contra Costa County recently completed a planning study for the State
Board of Corrections to assess the County's capacity to divert non-violent
adult and juvenile offenders from both County and State in-custody facilities
(June 30, 1996). Continuum of Care staff took this opportunity to update the
1993 Juvenile Profile and Needs Assessment Study undertaken while
developing the Continuum of Care model for Contra Costa County. A
placement simulation was conducted on 115 youth in the updated profile
sample. The purpose of the study was to determine the "ideal" in-custody or
community-based placement for each youth on the day of the sample.
Modified versions of the Colorado Security Placement Instrument and the
Indiana juvenile Corrections Placement Matrix, recommended by the Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in the Guide for Implementing
the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders,
were used to place youth in the appropriate level of supervision. (See
Attachment #2: Juvenile Placement Instrument and Placement Matrix.) The
instruments were modified to eliminate scoring of data that was not collected
in our sample (mental health out-patient care). Specific questions addressed
in our questionnaire were substituted (substance abuse, education issues,
mental health history). The Juvenile Hall Profile Coding Sheet was submitted
in Progress Report #2 as Attachment #4. The results of this current study are
presented in a summary report, Contra Costa County, Juvenile Profile and
Comparison Study (August 1996). (See Attachment 3.) The report was
provided to Mr. Jim Burch on August 19, 1996 in Martinez, CA. As part of the
study, a guide on Juvenile Justice Resources was developed for existing
programs serving juvenile justice clients (see Attachment # 4: juvenile
justice Resources). The findings from this update are serving as the basis for a
Contra Costa County Juvenile Justice Continuum of Care Page 1
Categorical Grant Progress Report#3
review of the Continuum of Care model adopted by the Juvenile Systems
Planning Advisory Committee (JSPAC) and the Board of Supervisors.
Key findings related to the Continuum of Care model include the
following:
• The 1996 simulation study recommended that 38% of the youth need to
remain in Juvenile Hall. This was a 10% increase over the 1993 results (28%).
Similarly, there was a decrease in the number of youth recommended for
community alternatives, such as electronic monitoring or home supervision
(13% in 1996 as compared with 21% in 1993). This could be the result of the
existence of a juvenile electronic monitoring program in 1996. (These youth
would no longer be in Juvenile Hall.) There was no juvenile electronic
monitoring program in 1993.
• The number of youth placed in a transition center also dropped significantly
in 1996. Some of this change is due to how youth awaiting placement in the
Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility ( OAYRF) were counted. In the 1993
study, this type of youth was placed in a transition center. However, in the
1996 study these youth were recommended for the OAYRF, since the purpose
of the 1996 study was to determine the total need for bed space at the facility. If
adequate space did exist at the OAYRF then the need for a transition center is
greatly reduced.
• In both studies, a nearly equal need was determined for a locked mental
health facility.
The above described work and the Probation Department's work on a
detention screening instrument will serve as the basis of technical assistance
to be provided to Contra Costa County by Dr. Barry Krisberg of the National
Council on Crime and Delinquency on developing risk assessment and
offender needs assessment instruments, and case management procedures.
The development of case management procedures will come out of our
planning and experience in the Summit Center (locked mental health
treatment unit with aftercare), the Employment Aftercare programs in East
and West County and the hiring of a Probation Department case manager for
juveniles.
2. Develop Evaluation Strategies
The Continuum of Care Project Director provided technical assistance .
to the East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership by developing an
evaluation design for two of the Comprehensive Communities initiatives
implemented by the Partnership: the Comprehensive Gang Initiative (Urban
Action Corps) and the Community Prosecution and Diversion Initiative: The
Project Director will oversee the evaluation for the Partnership to gain
information regarding the effectiveness of various juvenile justice program
strategies.
Contra Costa County Juvenile Justice Continuum of Care Page 2
Categorical Grant Progress Report#3
3. Coordinate Planning Groups
Continuum of Care staff have been meeting regularly with the
Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee, the East Bay Public Safety
Corridor Partnership and other juvenile justice planning groi:.ps. Staff report
quarterly to the Family and Human Services Committee of the Board of
Supervisors. (See Attachment # 5: Juvenile Justice Continuum of Care
Meetings.)
Continuum staff have attended the East Bay Public Safety Corridor
Partnership Juvenile Justice Committee meetings and assisted in
development of a juvenile justice work plan for the partnership (see
Attachment # 6: East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership Juvenile Justice
Work Plan).
A Juvenile Justice Newsletter has been published summarizing the
activities of various groups working in juvenile justice in the region and
showing areas of overlap and mutual involvement. The newsletter is being
mailed to over 2,000 individuals and agencies. (See Attachment # 7: Juvenile
Justice Newsletter.)
4. Development Capital/Operations Plans
The President of the Desert Facilities Corporation provided a workshop
to representatives of public and private agencies and organizations working
on identifying funding to replace the County's Juvenile Hall. This workshop
was funded through the Continuum of Care grant. (See Attachment # 8:
Workshop Materials and Minutes.) Staff also continuously research
successful examples of public/private partnerships funding of facilities
serving youth. (See Attachment # 9: Orangewood.)
JSPAC also assisted in raising outside funds for needed facility items for
the proposed locked mental health treatment unit at Juvenile Hall (Summit
Unit). (See newsletter article in Attachment #7.)
In May 1996, JSPAC wrote a series of letters to Governor Pete Wilson
and other California State legislators urging an increase in a proposed
November 1996 bond issue for construction of juvenile facilities. The amount
in the bond measure was increased from $150 million to $350 for juvenile
facilities. (See Attachment 10: Letter to Senator Daniel E. Boatright.)
A third Children and Family Services Budget was developed by the
County Administrator's Office for 1996-97. Improvements is this budget
include specification of goals for each program as well as outcome indicators
and outcome data. The intent is to assist County departments in developing
an outcome orientation to program development and evaluation and to
determine what information is necessary in determining if the program is
accomplishing the stated outcomes. (Attachment # 11: Children and Family
Services Budget 1996-97 County of Contra Costa.)
Contra Costa County Juvenile Justice Continuum of Care Page 3
Categorical Grant Progress Report#3
5. Liaison in Multi-Agency Initiatives
The County, in cooperation with other public and private non-profit
agencies, has applied for an OJJDP program initiative-- the Juvenile
Mentoring Program (JUMP). (See Attachment 12: JUMP Abstract.)
Planning is continuing with the West Contra Costa Unified School
District and Probation and the Juvenile Court related to improving school
attendance of at-risk youth. (See Attachment # 13: Improving School
Attendance of At-Risk Youth.)
6. Implement Public Education
A video was produced with Contra Costa County Cable Television (CC-
TV) to educate the community and build support for the Continuum of Care.
The video was shown and provided to Mr. Jim Burch and Ms. Kristen
Kracke of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention at the
April, 1996 meeting of the Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee.
CC-TV has shown the video on the public access channel twice in June, 1996
and will run it several more times in October, 1996. (See Attachment # 14: CC-
TV Programming Guide, June 1996.) JSPAC members use the video as an
aide in their community presentations to organizations such as the League of
Women Voters regarding the Continuum of Care (see Attachment # 5).
B. Continuum of Care Program Implementation
The goals for the work under this component include assisting with
implementation of continuum programs, designing other programs and
maintaining linkages with East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership
programs.
Four programs were identified for initiation: Contra Costa Youth.
Corps program (CCYC), Electronic Monitoring, Sherman House Reunification
Center and Transition Center.
1. Implement California Conservation Corps program
Grant staff continue to meet with the California Conservation Corps
staff regarding siting issues for the CCYC.
2. Implement Electronic Monitoring
The Juvenile Electronic Monitoring program has been operational
since October 1995. Continuum of Care staff and JSPAC completed an
evaluation of the Juvenile Electronic Monitoring Program for the period
October, 1995 through June 30, 1996. (See Attachment # 15: Juvenile
Electronic Monitoring Program Evaluation.) Based on the cost effectiveness of
the program the Board of Supervisors agreed to provide two additional
Contra Costa County Juvenile Justice Continuum of Care Page 4
Categorical Grant Progress Report#3
C C4
Probation staff positions to double the existing program from 20 minors to 40.
The two new staff members will start work on October 15, 1996.
3. Implement Expansion of Sherman House
On July 25, 1996 Sherman House had an open house and provided
tours of the newly renovated and refurbished assessment/transition program
facility. Given current referral patterns and County budget constraints, the
program will continue to house only up to six youth per day. (See
Attachment 16: Sherman House Assessment/Transition Program.)
4. Convert Children's Shelter to Transition Center
The data gathered in the Community-Based Punishment Options
Study indicated that the County might be better served by increasing the beds
at the OAYRF rather than constructing/renovating a Transition Center. A
value engineering workshop has been scheduled to review the entire
Juvenile Hall Design Program and data from the study and the workshop will
be presented to JSPAC for a further recommendation.
5. Complete Program Design Activities for Five Programs
Nine programs were identified for design activities, with up to five
programs to be on line within a two year period: Boot Camp, Mentoring,
Family Diversion, Day Treatment, Youth Service Center, Urban Action Corps,
Flexible Intervention Teams, Youth Outreach and Regional Assessment
Centers.
Alameda County recently opened a Boot Camp Program with 15 youth
at a previously closed Probation Camp. Contra Costa County is able to place
appropriate youth in this Boot Camp through a fee for service. To date no
youth have been referred to the program. Several counties in the Bay Area
including Contra Costa County are studying the feasibility of a regional girls
commitment facility.
Several mentoring programs are in the process of being implemented.
SafeFutures has been recruiting and training volunteers for girls mentoring
programs at Juvenile Hall and elementary schools in West County. The
Probation Volunteer Coordinator position has been advertised. The Business
Leaders' Alliance has submitted a JUMP proposal to OJJDP to provide
mentoring in a largely immigrant neighborhood in Central County (see
Attachments # 12 and 17: Business Leaders' Alliance Program Summary).
The Youth Service Center concept is being pursued with the West
Contra Costa Unified School District. The most current concept paper is
Attachment # 13.
The Bethesda Day Treatment Program staff will make a presentation to
the Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee in November, 1996
Contra Costa County Juvenile Justice Continuum of Care Page 5
Categorical Grant Progress Report#3
regarding providing technical assistance is establishing a day treatment
program.
One of the programs funded by the East Bay Public Safety Corridor
Partnership,under the Urban Actioi: Corps is a program sponsored by the City
of Richmond Firefighters to involve youth from the Richmond Youth
Academy in producing a TV video on safety. The Richmond Youth Academy
is a youth development program that builds self-esteem, promotes academic
achievement of at-risk youth between the ages of 12 and 17. (See Attachment
#18: Firefighters and cadets help make safety video.)
Programs listed under linkage and coordination include: Oakgrove
Program, Family Preservation/Support and Service Integration and Juvenile
Hall/Treatment Facilities.
The Summit Unit (locked Mental Health Treatment Unit) at Juvenile
Hall will open at the beginning of November, 1996. All other programs are
operating as described in the last progress report.
6. Provide Coordination for East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership
Projects
OJJDP grant staff work with Corridor staff in designing programs
consistent with the Continuum of Care in the West County cities that are part
of the Corridor Partnership. The Partnership has submitted grant applications
for funding the following programs: Safe Passage Home, Crime analysis
Expansion, Truancy Programs, Beacon Schools, Reducing Gun Violence,
Community Assessment and Safe Streets. (See Attachment # 19: East Bay
Public Safety Corridor Partnership.)
The Corridor Partnership also funded Youth Academies to strengthen
relations between peace officers and young persons. Academies were funded
in several Contra Costa jurisdictions: the Contra Costa County Sheriff's
Department; the Richmond Police Department with El Cerrito and San Pablo
Police Departments, Hercules Police Department with Pinole Police
Department. The Academy sponsored by the Sheriff's Department was a one
week course held July 29 through August 2, 1996 for girls and boys ages 14 to
18 at the West County Justice Center (see Attachment # 20: Teens view cops at
work, August 4, 1996 and the Juvenile Justice Newsletter (Attachment #7,
Police Youth Academies, p. 3).
C. Employment Aftercare
The goals of the Employment Aftercare project include development of
a strategy for aftercare for youth in Alameda and Contra Costa County,
leveraging funds to offer an aftercare program for youth leaving Contra Costa
institutions and returning to West County, development of an environment
at County institutions which supports future youth employment,
development of a sense of corporate and business responsibility for juvenile
Contra Costa County Juvenile Justice Continuum of Care Page 6
Categorical Grant Progress Report#3
•. �• lid
• justice youth, development of job placements and evaluation of community
case management.
1. Develop Implementation Process
All components of Employment Aftercare in Contra Costa County are
operational:. case management, in-custody work/training, and out-of-custody
job training placement. The various components and how they are funded
are described in Attachment # 21: Employment Aftercare/YouthFirst
Executive Summary, October 1996).
2. Develop Case Management Plans for 25 youth/Families
From October 1, 1996 to June 30, 1996, 21 youth had been referred to the
OJJDP funded case manager and received case management services. Three
youth who have received transition services have been returned to custody
for new law violations or violations of probation. (See Attachment # 22:
Continuum of Care Progress Report, July 31, 1996.)
3. Provide Wraparound Services to 25 Youth/Families
Wraparound services are being provided to youth and families in need
who participate in case management services through the Youth Service
Bureau. From October 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996, 13 youth had received
wraparound services. Funds were expended for school/job clothing, bus
transportation and the Department of Motor Vehicles.
4. Develop Links with Community Institutions
The job training/placement component has provided job training and
placement opportunities in the following agencies or programs: YouthBuild
Richmond, City of Richmond Public Works, Richmond Neighborhood
Housing Services, the YMCA, CAMP at Contra Costa College and two private
sector companies.
5. Mentor Institution/School Staff
Corridor Partnership funds have used for development of three new
work training programs at the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility:
bicycle repair, landscaping and painting. Youth work under the supervision
of skilled trades persons and receive a certificate of competency when they
successfully complete the training course. There have been 18 youths
complete the painting course; 24 youths complete the landscaping course;
and, 32 youths complete the bicycle course.
All persons involved in the Employment Aftercare program, e.g., case
managers, school teachers, OAYRF staff, will.be invited to attend a retreat
sponsored by OJJDP with Dr. Troy Armstrong on model intensive
supervision programs on September 11, 1996.
Contra Costa County Juvenile Justice Continuum of Care Page 7
Categorical Grant Progress Report#3
6. Develop Ties with Regional Employers
See discussion under C-4 above and Attachment #16.
7. Provide Alameda County Continuum Material
No change from Progress Report # 2.
D. Evaluation and Dissemination .
Evaluation goals include a process evaluation of the OJJDP grant
implementation, along with an outcome evaluation of Employment
Aftercare, to be accomplished by the National Council on Crime and
Delinquency and dissemination of the results of the evaluation and project
more generally through reports to OJJDP.
1. Design Evaluation Approach
The NCCD evaluation of the Employment Aftercare Program partially
funded under the Continuum of Care grant is proceeding. The Steering
Committee met August 1, 1996 to revise evaluation referral procedures to
assure meeting contractual caseload obligations (see ISSUES TO BE
RESOLVED).
2. Share Evaluation Results
To be accomplished.
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
1. On August 29, 1996 Contra Costa County requested a no cost extension in
reference to Grant Number 95-JS-FX-0014 from October 31, 1996 to April 30,
1997. This request is still pending. (See Attachment # 23: August 29, 1996
Extension Request.)
2. A minimum of 25 youth are required to receive transition case
management services from the Youth Service Bureau as part of the
Employment Aftercare Program (YouthFirst) over the grant period. In
August, 1996, in order to ensure that the required number of youth are
served, referral and evaluation procedures were modified (see Attachment #
24: Employment Aftercare Evaluation Program Agreements as of August 1,
1996).
Contra Costa County Juvenile Justice Continuum of Care Page 8
Categorical Grant Progress Report#3
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Constituent
Assembly East Bay Public Safety
East Bay ______ ____4C4ouncll
Corridor Partnership
Community Foundation -
Executive
Committee
Education Law Juvenile Economic Community Youth
Enforcement Justice L
evelopment Outreach Personnel Council
-------------------------- Executive Connected
Director to all Committees
EDAB
L(VACANT)
Director
LAdministrative Community Mobilization Resource Center CCP Corridor
Assistant Coordinator (VACANT Director VACANT Assistant (VACANT)
PUBLIC SAFETY CORRIDOR PARTNERS
City of Alameda County of Alameda Contra Costa County Office of Education
City of Albany County of Contra Costa California State University, Hayward
City of Berkeley Alameda County Office of Education Contra Costa College District
City of El Cerrito Alameda County Unified School District Peralta Community College District
City of Emeryville Albany Unified School District University of California, Berkeley
City of Fremont Berkeley Unified School District College Police Officers
City of Hayward Emeryville Unified School District County Chiefs
City of Hercules Fremont Unified School District Independent Police Officers
City of Newark Oakland Unified School District Police Chiefs and Sheriffs
City of Oakland Hayward Unified School District School District Police Officers
City of Piedmont John,Swett Unified School District Special District Police Officers
City of Richmond New Haven School District University Police Officers
City of San Pablo San Leandro Unified School District East Bay Community Foundation
City of San Leandro San Lorenzo Unified School District N.F.C. / Tides Foundation
City of Union City West Contra Costa County School District Telesis Foundation
CURRENT GRANT APPLICATIONS
Target Program Necessary Funds Program Description
Safe Passage Home $300,000 Reduce battery and assault against young people after
school.
Crime Analysis $1.7 Million Add 13 additional cities to the crime analysis network to
Expansion expand information sharing system and crime tracking
programs.
Truancy Programs $1.5 Million A comprehensive truancy protocol involving 16 K-12
school districts and police agencies. Will integrate
juvenile court program, social service agencies targeting
families with chronic truancy problems.
Beacon Schools $2.1 Million Establish extended day and Beacon School programs by
integrating school districts to form local community
service centers.
Reducing Gun Violence N/A Develop a standard for local control and regulation of
the manufacture and sale of"junk guns" in the 21 cities
comprisingthe East Bay Corridor.
Community Assessment $250,000 Database to track and map housing, employment, social
Library services and community resources throughout the East
Bay Corridor.
Safe Streets $500,000 Identify regions of violent crime against children and
target high-profile community policing and social
services in those areas.
CURRENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS
Program Grant Recipients Program Outline
Alternatives to • Alameda County Probation Prepares juvenile offenders to re-enter the community by
Incarceration 0 Contra Costa County Probation teaching job skills and providing job placement counseling.
Includes mentoring program designed to avoid recidivism.
Gang Initiatives/ • Youth Court Inc. Sponsors mentorship, informational programming, and Youth
Urban Action Corps. • KDOL TV-13,Fremont High Court to keep kids from joining gangs,and to work with
• Girls Inc. of Alameda Countv young people who have committed minor offenses in an effort
• City of Berkeley to help them avoid involvement with the traditional criminal
• Richmond Black Professional justice system.
Firefighters Association.
City of Fremont
Drug Courts • Alameda County Superior Court Taking the small-time drug addicts out of the traditional
• Oakland Municipal Court criminal justice system by managing those cases through
• Bay Municipal Court mandatory placement in mental health and rehabilitation
centers.Enables court systems to direct more resources toward
organized and violent drug offenders.
Dispute Resolution • RFP Process Underway Developed to initiate conflict resolution programs in schools
and neighborhoods to teach conflict and anger management,
and inter-cultural relations.
Community • Alameda County Office of Organizing efforts to educate children about violence. Also
Mobilization Education includes programs designed to protect children to and from
• Anti-Violence Mini-Grants school,and youth directed efforts to reduce violence in the
• Youth Council community.
Diversion • Juvenile Justice Committee Mentorship programs that link recently incarcerated young
• UCB/Cal State Hayward people with university graduate students for guidance and
• Alameda County Probation social services support.
Technical Assistance • Law Enforcement Groups Community Crime Prevention Resource Center to provide
technical assistance to cities,counties, schools and
neighborhood groups developing crime prevention programs.
Domestic Violence • RFP Process Underway A Domestic Violence Protocol for police officers;a regional
(Protocol Participation Required) consortium of domestic violence advocates; and an
informational network linking a variety of agencies serving
women and families.
Crime Analysis • City of Richmond Intrajurisdictional network to transfer and share crime and
• City of Oakland arrest data. Will also be used to chart and analyze regional
i • City of Berkeley crime patterns.
• City of Union City
Police-Citizen • All cities in Corridor Police agency youth outreach program providing public safety
Academies programs, law enforcement career information, self-defense
training and community activities.
Telesis Grant • Five sites funded Electronically links several schools and community youth
agencies with need-specific social service data in Contra
Costa and Alameda Counties.
THE PARTNERSHIP
"The mission of the East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership is to
reduce crime and violence in the Corridor in order to create a safer,
healthier and more economically viable environment. "
is clear that criminal activity does not respect city or county lines, and that the overwhelming impact of
crime and violence demands a multi jurisdictional response. Thus, the East Bay Public Safety Corridor
Partnership was born.
The programs and strategies which have been developed as part of the initial planning phase are designed to
address the root causes of crime, such as unemployment, drug abuse, youth truancy and the proliferation of
gangs. Domestic violence and violence prevention strategies are also key action areas of the Partnership, as well
as support for local law enforcement.
A collaboration of 21 cities within two counties; 19 school districts; and 23 law enforcement agencies, the East
Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership is now creating practical solutions to the problems of crime, drug
dependence and violence within the communities which make up the Partnership. This multi jurisdictional
approach focuses the talents of governmental, human services and law enforcement jurisdictions throughout the
region.
The Partnership communities are located in a corridor on the eastern side of the San Francisco Bay, and have a
combined population of 1.3 million people. The leadership of the East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership .
includes state legislators, mayors, county supervisors, top city and county administrators, school superintendents,
law enforcement leaders and community members.
Far from a stand-alone project, the Partnership is a series of complementary programs which have been
integrated into a single strategy. The various programs are being funded by federal, state and local government
grants along with contributions from non-profit agencies such as the East Bay Community Foundation and
corporations within the corridor.
However, the goal of the Partnership is not to rely solely on grant funding for its efforts. The Partnership is
strategically coordinating the human and fiscal resources within the corridor to maintain those efforts proven
effective to curb the devastating impacts of crime and drug dependence within the region and lay a new
foundation upon which to rebuild healthy communities.
EAST BAY PUBLIC SAFETY CORRIDOR PARTNERSHIP
3923 Grand Avenue
Oakland, CA 94610
Telephone: (510)428-2551
Fax: (510)428-1599
Gun Violence Ordinances for Review & Discussion
°California Superior Court decision on City and County of San Francisco gross sales tax
°City of Oakland's ordinance on the sale of"Junk Guns"
°Contra Costa Countv's ordinance regulating unlicensed firearm dealers
°City of Oakland's ordinance regulating unlicensed firearm dealers
°Contra Costa Count}-'s ordinance prohibiting the sale of firearms from a private home
<>City of Lafayette's firearm ordinances
"The mission of the East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership is to reduce crime and violence in the
Corridor in order to create a safer, healthier, and more economically viable environment.°
1N7F,00UCE0 BY COUNCILMEMBER
ORDINANCE No. C. M . S.
'LAND RELATING TO THE SALE OF
AN ORDI31;ANCE OF THE 0717Y OF OAk
"SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIALS," ALSO KNOWN AS "JUNK GUNS"
WYEREAS, Saturday Night Specials, also known as"junk- guns," are poorly
constructed, and not suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes; and,
WHEREAS, Saturday Night Specials are small and light making them easy to
conceal, and present a threat to the public welfare and law enforcement officers; and,
1ATEREAS, according to the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, eight of
the ten firearms most frequently traced nationally to crime scenes in 1995 were Saturday
Night Specials; and
14HEREAS, according to a University of California Davis Violence Prevention
Research Program, Saturday Night Specials are 14 times more likely to be involved in
crimes as are other firearms; and,
WHEREAS, gunshot fatalities and care of gunshot, victims in California cost 5703
million in direct medical costs in 1993 alone, and,
WHEREAS, there are more than twice as many gun dealers as public schools in
California; and,
WHEREAS, more Californians now die from guns than from car accidents; and,
WHEREAS, 153 people were murdered in Oakland in 1995, and 95 of them were
killed 1*14th handguns; and,
WHEREAS, the Federal Government has already prohibited the importation of
foreign manufactured Saturday Night Specials; and,
WHEREAS, numerous public leaders and law enforcement officials have
supported a ban on Saturday Night Specials; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that, in recent years, firearms manufacturers
have made token modifications to those handguns commonly known as "Saturday Night
Specials," including: carbon steel breechface inserts; solid steel barrel tubes; a greater
number of steel linings incorporated in soft castings. These modifications have resulted in
no advancement, or only marginal advancement, in the durability of the handguns; and,
600.245-005(7'691
2
WHEREAS, The City Council finds that, in recent years, firearms manufacturers
have grafted improvised safety devices onto the core design of those handguns commonly
known as Saturday Night Specials. These devices include: fragile half-cock hammer
notches in derringers and single-action revolvers; manual pistol slide locks; rudimentary
hammer or trigger locks that act by simple interference; and crude grip safety levers; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that such cosmetic remodeling by firearms
manufacturers does not ameliorate the core design deficiencies of Saturday Night Special
handguns. The City Council further finds that Saturday Might Special handguns continue
to be dangerous products due to their low quality of manufacture and metallurgy, so as to
be unacceptable in commerce; and,
WHEREAS, ' the City Council finds that a firearm's frame, barrel, breechblock,
cylinder and slide must be completely fabficated of heat treated carbon steel, forged alloy
or other material of equal or higher tensile strength in order to reliably contain the
weapon's ballistic power. The City Council further finds that any firearm in which all of
these components do not meet this standard is an inherently unsafe product; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that firearms manufacturers have increased
the ballistic power of many semi-automatic pistols by chambering them to fire high
pressure ammunition, yet have not changed the materials used in the firing chamber, slide
or breechface so as to contain the peak pressures generated by such ballistic power and to
prevent parts breakage from overstress which can result in injury to the user; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the action mechanism contained in many
currently produced derringers and single-action revolvers is based upon century-old
designs, so that chambering such weapons for high pressure ammunition results in a
ballistic pressure which exceeds the pressure levels the design is originally intended to
withstand; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Legislature has not, expressly or
impliedly, preempted the areas of firearm sales. The City Council therefore finds that the
subject is within the scope of the municipal police power of the City of Oakland and the
Ordinance i's designed to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to promulgate regulations which will be
applied to all existing and future handguns intended to be sold in the City of Oakland to
determine whether such handguns are Saturday Night Specials/Junk Guns, the sale of
which would be prohibited
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKL,'-ND DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1:
The Oakland Municipal Code shall be amended to add Chapter 2, Article 12, to read as
follows:
"ARTICLE 12
PROHIBITION ON THE SALE OF SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIALS,
ALSO KNOWN AS JUNK GUNS
SECTION 2-12.01 TITLE. This Article shall be known as the"City of Oakland
Saturday Night Special/ Junk Gun Sales Prohibition" and may be so cited.
SECTION 2-12.02 PURPOSE AINID INTENT. The purpose of this Article is to ensure
the health, safety, and general welfare of City of Oakland citizens by eliminating the sale of
cheaply made, inadequately designed and poorly manufactured handguns in the City of
Oakland.
SECTION, 2-12.03 DEFINFITIONS, Except as provided in Section 2-12.04 herein, the
term "Saturday Night Special," as used in this section shall mean any of the following:
A. A pistol, revolver, or firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person, as those terms are defined lfi the California Penal Code Section
12001(a), which contains a frame, barrel, breechblock, cylinder or slide that
is not completely fabricated of heat treated carbon steel, forged alloy or
other material of equal or higher tensile strength.
B. A semi-automatic pistol which:
(1) Is not originally equipped by the manufacturer with a locked-
breech action; and
(2) is chambered for cartridges developing maximum permissible
breech pressures above 24,100 Copper Units of Pressure as
standardized by the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers
Institute.
4
(3) For purpose of this subsection (2), "semi-automatic pistol"
shall mean.a firearm, as defined in California Penal Code Section
12001(b), which is designed to be held and fired with one hand, and
which does the following upon discharge: (i) fires the cartridge in
the chamber; (ii) ejects the fired cartridge case; and (iii) loads a
cartridge from the magazine into the chamber. "Semi-automatic
pistol." sha3l not include any assault weapons designated in
California Penal Code Section 12276.
C. A pistol, revolver, or firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person, as those terms are defined in California Penal Code Section
12001(a), which:
(1) uses an action mechanism which is substantially identical in
design to any action mechanism manufactured in or before 1898
that was originally chambered for rimfire ammunition developing
maximum safe permissible breech pressures below 19,000 Copper
Units of Pressure as standardized by the Sporting Arms and
Ammunition Manufacturers institute; and
(2) is chambered to fire either center-fire ammunition or rimfire
ammunition developing maximum permissible breech pressures
above 19,000 Copper Units of Pressure as standardized by the
Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute; and
(3) is not originally equipped by the manufacturer with a
nondetachable trigger guard; or
(4) if rimfire, is equipped with a barrel of less"than 20 bore
diameters in overall length protruding from the frame.
(5) For purposes of this subsection (C), "action mechanism" shall
mean the mechanism of a firearm by which it is loaded, locked, fired
and unloaded commonly known as the cycle of operation.
SECTION 2-12.04 EXCLUSIONS. The term"Saturday Night Special" does not include
any of the following;
A. Any pistol which is an antique or relic firearm or other weapon failing
within the specifications of paragraphs (5), (7) and (8) of subsection (b) of
California Penal Code Section 12020, or
B. Any pistol for which the propelling force is classified as pneumatic, that is,
of, or related to, compressed air or any other gases not directly produced by
combustion.; or
C. Children's pop guns or toys; or
D. An "unconventional pistol" as defined iniCalifornia Penal Code Section
12020 (c) (12); or
E. Any pistol which has been modified to either: render It permanently
inoperable, or permanently to make it a device no longer classified as a Saturday
Night Special.
SECTION 2-12.05 ROSTER OF SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIALS. On or before
January 1, 1997, the Chief of Police or his/her designee shall compile, publish, and
thereafter maintain a Roster of Saturday Night Specials. The Roster shall list those
firearms, by manufacturer and model number, which the Chief of Police or his/her
designee determines fit the definition of Saturday Night Special set forth in Section 2-
12.033.
SECTION 2-12.06 NOTIFICATION. Upon completion of a list of firearms to be placed
on the Roster for the first time, the Police Chief or his/her designee shall endeavor to send
written notification to: (1) the manufacturer of every firearm on said list; and (2) every
dealer within the City who is licensed to sell and transfer firearms pursuant to Section
12071 of the Penal Code of the State of California and Chapter 2 Article 10 of the
Municipal Code. Such notification shall do the following:
A. Identify the model number of the firearm which has been classified
as a Saturday Night Special within the meaning of Section 2-12.03 of the
Municipal Code; and
B. Advise the recipient that the recipient may apply for reconsideration of the
classification of the firearm as a Saturday Night Special; and
C. Advise the recipient that the burden of proving a firearm does not
constitute a Saturday Night Special within the meaning of Section 2-12,03
of the Municipal Code shall be on the recipient.
SECTION 2-12.07 RECONSIDERATION BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE.
A. The Chief of Police, or his/her designee, shall, prior to the effective date of
this ordinance establish standards and procedures for the form and content of an
application, conducting an administrative hearing and evaluating evidentiary
testimony relating to the decision of the Chief of Police or his/her designee to
classify the firearm in question as a Saturday Night Special as defined in Municipal
Code Section 2-12.03.
B. Upon timely filing of one or more complete applications for
reconsideration, the Chief of Police or his/her designee shall evaluate the evidence
submitted by the applicant(s). The applicant(s) shall have the burden of
demonstrating that the firearm does not constitute a Saturday Night Special within
the meaning of Section 2-12.03 of the Municipal Code,
6
SECTION 2-12.08 APPEAL. OF CLASSIFICATION,
A. If the Chief of Police or his/her designee determines that the firearm under
reconsideration has been properly•classified as a Saturday Night Special, then the
applicant(s) shall have the right to appeal such decisions to the City Manager,
and the applicant(s) shall have the right to a hearing before the City Manager or
his/her designee prior to inclusion of the firearm in question on the Roster,
B. The City Manager, or his/her designee, is authorized to establish standards
and procedures for the form and content of an-appeal, conducting an
administrative hearing and evaluating evidentiary testimony relating to the decision
of the Chief of Police or his/her designee to classify the firearm in question as a
Saturday Night Special as defined in Municipal Code Section 2-12.03.
C. The burden of proof shall be on the appellants):to demonstrate that the,
firearm does not constitute a Saturday Night Special within the meaning of Section
2-12.03 of the Municipal Code.
D. All parties involved shall have the right to offer testimonial, documentary
and tangible evidence bearing on the issues and to be represented by counsel.
E.4 The City Manager or his/her designee shallhear and consider all relevant
evidence. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the City Manager or his/her
designee shall, based on the evidence presented, 'determine whether the firearm
constitutes a Saturday Night Special within the meaning of Section 2-12.03 of the
Municipal Code.
F. Irl all instances, the decision of the City Manager or his/her designee
whethe'r to classify the firearm in question as a Saturday Night Special as defined
in the Municipal Code Section 212.03 and to place said firearm on the Roster is
final.
SECTION 2-12.09 PUBLICATION OF THE ROSTER. The Chief of Police or his/her
designee shall place on the Roster those firearms which have been determined to
constitute a Saturday Night Special within the meaning of Section 2-12.03 of the,
Municipal Code. The Chief of Police or his/her designee shall cause the Roster to be
published in the following manner:
A. Notification of the Roster's completion shall be published.at least
once in the official newspaper as designated by the City and circulated in
the City within fifteen (15) days after its completion; and
B. A copy of the Roster, certified as a true and correct copy thereof,
shall be filed in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Oakland, and.
7
C. A copy of the Roster, certified as a true and correct copy thereof,
shall be distributed to every dealer within the City who is licensed to sell
and transfer firearms pursuant to Section 12071 of the Penal Code of the
State of California and Chapter 2, Article 10 of the Municipal Code.
SECTION 2-12.10 EFFECTIVE DATE OF ROSTER. The Roster shall become effective
on the fifteenth day after its publication.
SECTION 2-12.11 ADDITIONS TO THE ROSTER. Additions to the Roster shall be
made in accordance with the following :
A. Semi-Annual Determination. On a semi-annual basis, the Chief of Police
or his/her designee shall determine the need to place firearms on the Roster.
Upon identifying one or more firearms as a Saturday Night Special, the City
17
Manager or his/her designee shall prepare a draft list of the additions to the Roster.
B. Notification of Additions to Roster. In the event that a draft list
of firearms to be added to the Roster is prepared, the Chief of Police or
his/her designee shall endeavor to send written notification in accordance
with the aforementioned provisions of Section 2-12.06.
C_ Reconsideration by the Chief of Police. Any person who the Chief of
Police or his/her designee notifies pursuant to subsection (B) above may apply for
reconsideration of the classification of that firearm as a Saturday Night Special in
accordance with the provisions of Section 2-12.07.
D. Appeal of Classification. Whenever a firearm has been determined to be
properly classified as a Saturday Night Special after reconsideration, the applicant
may file an appeal to the City Manager and the City Manager or his/her designee
shall hold a hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 2-12.08.
E. AdditionsofFirearms to Roster. After all appeals have been
exhausted, the Chief of Police or his/her designee shall place on the Roster
those additional firearms which have been determined to constitute a
Saturday Night Special within the meaning of Section 2-12.03). The Chief of
Police or his/her designee shall cause the Roster, as amended to include
these additional firearms, to be published in accordance with Section 2-12.09.
F. Effective Date of Additions to the Roster. The addition of new
firearms to the Roster shall not operate to preclude the enforcement of the
Roster with respect to firearms previously listed thereon. The publication
of the Roster, as amended to include new firearms, shall be effective as to
those newly added firearms on the fifteenth day after its publication as set
forth in Section 2-12.10.
8
SECTION 2-12.12 SALE PROHIBITED.
Afler January 1, 1997, no wholesale or retail firearms deal& as licensed by the City of
Oakland in Chapter 2 'Article 10 of the 114unicipal Code shall sell, offer or display for sale,
give, lend or transfer ownership of,.any firearm listed on-the Roster of Saturday Night
Specials. This section shall not preclude a wholesale or retail gun dealer from processing
firearm transactions between unlicensed parties pursuant to Section 12072 (d) of the Penal
Code of the State of California.
SECTION 2-12.13 EXEMPTIONS.
Nothing in this Article relative to the sale of Saturday Night Specials shall prohibit the
disposition of any firearm by sheriffs, constables, marshals, police officers, or other duly'
appointed peace officers in the performance of their official duties, nor to.persons who are
authorized by the United States Federal Government for use in the performance of their
official duties; nor shall anything in this Article prohibit the use of any firearm by the
above mentioned persons in the performance of their official duties.
SECTION 2-12.14 PENALTY.
Any person violating any of the provisions of this Article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Any person convicted of a misdemeanor under the provisions of this Article shall be
punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand (51000) dollars or by imprisonment
for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each
such person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion
of which any violation of any provision of this Article is committed, continued or
permitted by such person and shall be punishable accordingly. In addition, any person
found to be in violation of this Article shall be considered in non-ccirtipliante with the
requirements of the Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 2, Article 10, and subject to the
suspension and or revocation of a Firearms Dealer Permit.
SECTION 2-12.15 SEVERABILITY AND VALIDITY
This Article shall be enforced to the full extent of the authority of the City of Oakland. If
any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence or word of this Article is deemed to be
invalid or beyond the authority of the City of Oakland, either on its face or as applied, the
invalidity of such provision shall not,affect the other sections, subsections, paragraphs,
sentences or words of this Article, and the applications thereof-, and to that end the
section, subsections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this Article shall be deemed
severable."
9
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall become effective January 1, 1997,
SECTION 3. The City Council finds and determines that:
A- This Ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare-,
and
B. The findings set forth in support of this Ordinance are true and correct and
provide a further basis for this Ordinance; and
C. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are an integral pan of this
Ordinance.
IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, 19
PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES- BAYTON, CHANG, DE LA FUENTE,JORDAN, MILEY, RUSSO, SPEES, WOODS-JONES, and PRESIDENT
HARRIS
NOES-
ABSENT-
ABSTENTION-
ATTEST-.
CEDA FLOYD
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council
600-242(1f95) of the City of Oakland, California
ARTICLE 10
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FIREARMS DEALERS
SEC. 2-10.01 TITLE. This Article shall be known as the Firearms Dealer Permi;
Ordinance. (As added by Ordinance No. 11424 C.M.S., passed March 24, 1992)
SEC. 2-10.02 FINDINGS. ,The City Council of the City of Oakland hereby finds
that:
A. The number of unlicensed firearms dealers within the City of Oakland far
exceeds the number of legitimate licensed dealers; and
B. Firearms used in violent crimes have been traced by the police
department to firearms dealers operating without permits within the City;
and
C. Firearms are used in nearly 80% of the homicides committed in the City;
and
D. A considerable proportion of the firearms used in violent crimes were
obtained illegally from unlicensed firearms dealers; and
E. Since June of 1990, Highland Hospital in Oakland has treated an average
of thirty two Oakland residents a month for gunshot wounds, an average
of one a day; and
F. The average cost for treatment of a gunshot wound is $33,000.00, most
of the cost borne by taxpayers. Nearly four hundred gunshot wounds
were treated at Highland Hospital in 1991 .
G. The widespread availability of illegally obtained firearms has resulted in
a rise in the number of shooting incidents involving minors; and
H. Because of the range and effectiveness of firearms, the use of firearms
in violent crimes is more likely to lead to the death or injury of
bystanders.
(As added by Ordinance No. 11424 C.M.S., passed March 24, 1992)
March 24, 1992
2-66
SEC. 2-10.03 [DEFINITIONS. The following words and phrases, whenever used
in this Article, shall be construed as defined in this Section:
A. "Firearms" means any device, designed to be used as a weapon or
modified to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel
a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion.
B. "Firearms dealers" means a person engaged in the business of selling,
transferring, or leasing, or advertising for sale, transfer, or lease, or
offering or exoosing for sale, transfer, or lease, any firearm.
C. "Engaged in tine business" means the conduct of a business by the
selling, transferring, or leasing of any firearm; or the preparation for such
conduct of business as evidenced by the securing of applicable federal
or state licenses; or the holding of one's self out as engaged in the
business of selling, transferring, or leasing of any firearm, or the selling,
transferring, or leasing of firearms in quantity, in series, or in individual
transactions, or in any other manner indicative of trade.
D. "Person" means natural person, association, partnership, firm, or
corporation.
(As added by Ordinance No. 11424 C.M.S., passed March 24, 1992)
SEC. 2-10.44 PERMIT REQUIRED. It shall be unlawful for any person,
partnership, cooperative, corporation, firm, or association to engage in the business
of operating or managing any business which sells, transfers, leases, or offers or
advertises for sale, transfer, or lease, any firearm without first obtaining a firearms
dealer permit from the Chief of Police of the Oakland Police Department. (As added
by Ordinance No. 11424 C.M.S., passed March 24, 1992)
SEC 2-10,05 APPLICATION-FORMS: FEES. An applicant for a Permit under
this Article shall file with the Chief of Police a sworn application in writing, on a form
to be furnished by the City. The applicant shall provide all information requested,
including proof of compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws when
required by the Chief of Police, or the application will not be deemed complete. The
application shall be accompanied by a non- refundable fee as set forth in the City of
Oakland 'Municipal license/permit fee schedule. To the extent practicable, the fee
amount shall reflect the cost of enforcing the requirements of this Article. (As added
by Ordinance No. 11424 C.M.S., passed March 24, 1992)
March 24, 1992
2-67
SEC. 2-10,06 APPLICATIQN-INVESTICA]]ON. The Chief of Police shall
conduct an appropriate investigation to determine for the protection of the public
safety whether the permit may be issued. The Chief of Police may require additional
information of an applicant deemed necessary to complete the investigation. (As
added by Ordinance No. 11424 C.M.S., passed March 24, 1992)
EQ, 2-10.07 APPLICATION DENIAL. The Chief of Police shall deny the
issuance of a permit when any of the following conditions exist:
A. The applicant, or an officer, employee, or agent thereof, is under the age
of twenty-one years.
B. The applicant is not licensed as required by all applicable Federal, State
and local laws.
C. The applicant, or an officer, employee, or agentthereof, has had a similar
type permit previously revoked or denied for good cause within The
immediately preceding two (2) years.
D The applicant, or an officer, employee, or agent thereof, has made a false
or misleading statement of a ,material fact or omission of a material fac-,
in the application for a permit.
E. The applicant, or an officer, employee, or agent thereof, has been
convicted of:
(1 ) Any offense so as to disqualify the applicant, or an officer,
employee, or agent thereof, from owing or-possessing a firearm
under applicable Federal, State, and local laws.
(2) Any offense relating to the manufacturing, sale, possession, use,
or registration of any firearm or dangerous or deadly weapon.
(3) Any offense involving the use of force or violence upon the person
of another.
(4) Any offense involving theft, fraud, dishonesty, or deceit.
(5) Any offense involving the manufacture, sale, possession, or use
of any controlled substance as defined by the California Health &
Safety Code as said definition now reads or may hereafter be
amended to read.
March 24, 1992
2-68
F. The applicant, or an officer, employee, or agent thereof, is an unlawful
user of any controlled substance as defined by the California Health &
Safety Code as said definition now reads or may hereafter be amended
to read, or is an excessive user of alcohol to the extent that such use
would impair his or her fitness to be a dealer in firearms.
G. The applicant, or an officer, employee, or agent thereof, has been
adjudicated as a mental defective, or has been committed to a mental
institution, or suffers from any psvchological disturbance which would
impair his or her fitness to be a dealer in concealable firearms.
H. The operation of the business as proposed will not comply with all
applicable Federal, State, or local laws.
1. The applicant, or an officer, employee, or agent thereof, proposes to
operate in the following locations:
(1 ) Within a zoning district in which general retail sales commercial
activities are not a permitted or conditional use.
(2) Within a zoning district in which residential use is the principal
permitted or maintained use, or within one thousand feet of the
exterior limits of any such district.
(3) Within one thousand feet of a public or private day care center or
day care home, or within one thousand feet of any elementary,
junior high, or high school whether public or private.
(4) On or within one thousand five hundred feet of the exterior limits
of any other premises occupied by a dealer in firearms, an adult
entertainment establishment or a hot tub/sauna establishment.
J. The applicant, or an officer, employee, or agent thereof does not have,
and or cannot provide evidence of a possessory interest in the property
at which the proposed business will be conducted.
K. Any ground for denial exists as specified in the Oakland Municipal Code.
(As added by Ordinance No. 11424 C.M.S., passed,March 24, 1992)
March 24, 1992
2-69
SFC_ 2-10,08 SECURITY. In order to discourage the theft of firearms stored
on the premises of a firearms dealers, any business licensed under this Article must
adhere to security measures as required by the Chief of Police. Security measures shall
include but not be limited to:
A. The provision of secure locks, windows and doors, adequate lighting,
and alarms as specified by the Chief of Police..
B. Storing of all firearms on the premises out of the reach of customers in
secure, locked facilities, so that access to firearms shall be controlled by
the dealer or employees of the dealer, to the exclusion of all others. (As
added by Ordinance No. 11424 C.M.S., passed March 24, 1992)
SEC. 2-10.09 PERMIT FORM. All permits issued pursuant to this Article shall
be in the form prescribed by the Attorney General of the State of California. (As
added by Ordinance No. 11424 C.M.S., passed March 24, 1992)
SFr 2-10.10 PERMIT-0URAT1ON: RENEWAL. All permits issued pursuant to
this Article shall expire one year after the date of issuance; provided, however, that
such permits may be renewed by the Chief of Police for additional periods of one year
upon the approval of an application for renewal by the Chief of Police and payment
of the renewal fee. Such renewal application must be received by the Chief of Police,
in completed form, no later than forty-five days prior to the expiration of the current
permit. (As added by Ordinance No. 11424 C.M.S., passed March 24, 1992)
,$EC 2-1Q 11 PERMIT-AS,91GNMENT. The assignment or attempt to assign
any permit issued pursuant to this Article is unlawful and any such assignment or
attempt to assign a permit shall render the permit null and void. (As added by
Ordinance No. 11424 C.M.S., passed March 24, 1992)
5Er 2-1Q.12 PERMIT-CONDITIONS. Any permit issued pursuant to 'this
Article shall be subject to all of the following conditions, the breach of any of which
shall be sufficient cause for revocation of the permit by the Chief of Police:
A. The business shall be carried on only in the building located at the street
address shown on the license.
March 24, 1992
2-70
B. The Permittee shall comply with Sections 12073, 12074, 12076, 1 207 7
and 12082 and subdivision (b) of Section 12072 of the California Penal
Code, to the extent that the provisions remain in effect. Any permi-,
pursuant to this Article shall be-subject to such additional conditions as
the Chief of Police finds are reasonably related to -the purpose of this
Article.
(As added by Ordinance No. 11424 C.M.S., passed March 24, 1992)
SEC, 2-10.13 F1ERr1i!17-C-R:DUNDS FOR REVQCATIQ
.N. In addition to any
provisions constituting grounds for denial shall also constitute grounds for revocation.
(As added by Ordinance No. 11424 C.M.S., passed March 24, 1992)
SEC, 2-10.14 PERMIT-HEARING.
A. Any person whose application for a permit under this Article has been
denied, or *ei.,ose permit has been revoked pursuant to the provisions of
this Article, shall have 'he right to a hearing before-the Chief of Police c.,
a designed prior to final denial or prior to revocation.
B. The Chief of Police shall give the applicant or permittee written notice cf
the intent to deny the application or to revoke the permit. The not-ice
shall set forth the ground or grounds for the Chief of Police's in-tent to
deny the aPpiiCaTion or to revoke the permit, and shall inform the
applicant or permittee that he or she has ten days from the date of
receipt of the notice to file a written request for a hearing. The
application may be denied or the permit revoked if a written hearing
V
request is not received within the ten-day period.
C. If the applicant or permittee files a timely hearing request, the Chief c-,'
Police shall set a Time and place for the hearing. All parties involved shal;
have the right to offer testimonial, documentary and tangible.
evidence
bearing on the issues, to be represented by counsel, and to confront and
cross examine any witnesses against them. The decision of the Chief ol'
Police whether to deny the application or revoke the permit is final and
nonappealable. (As added by Ordinance No. 11424 C.M.S., passes
March 24, 1992)
March 24, 1992
2-71
5EQ. 2-10.15 PERMIT-LIABILITY INSURANCE. No permit shall be is-sued or
continued pursuant to this Article unless there 1-s in full force and effect a policy of
insurance in such form as the City Attorney deems proper, executed by an insurance
company approved by the City Attorney whereby the applicant or permittee is insured
against liability for damage to property and for injury to or death of any person as a
result of The sale, transfer or lease, or advertising for sale, transfer, or lease, or
offering or exposing for sale, transfer, or lease, any firearm. The minimum liability
limits shall not be less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) for damage to or
destruction of property in any one incident, and one million dollars ($1,000,000) for
the death or injury to any one person; provided, however, that additional amounts may
be required by the City AtTorney,if deemed necessary.
Such policy of insurance shall contain an endorsement providing that the policy
will not be canceled until notice in writing has been given to the City, addressed in
care of the Chief of Police, 455 - 7th Street, Oakland, California, 94607, at least thirty
days immediately prior to the time such cancellation becomes effective. Further, such
policy of insurance shall name the City, its officers, agents, and employees as
additional insurers. Additionally, applicants and permit-tees shall indemnity, defend,
and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees, from claims arising
from the negligence of the applicant or permittee. (As added by Ordinance No. 11424
C.M.S., passed March 24, 1992)
SEC. 2-10.16 PERMIT-AUTHORITY TO INSPECT. Any and all investigating
officials of the City shall have the right to enter the building designated in the permit
from Time to time during regular business hours to make reasonable inspections to
observe and enforce compliance with building, mechanical, fire, electrical, plumbing,
or health regulations, and provisions of this Article. A police investigator may conduct
compliance inspections to insure conformance to all Federal, State, and local law, and
all provisions of this Article. (As added by Ordinance No. 11424 C.M.S., passed
March 24, 1992)
SEC. 2-10.'17 COMPLIANCE. Any person engaging in the business of selling,
transferring, or. leasing, or advertising for sale, transfer, or lease, or offering or
exposing for sale, transfer, or lease, any firearm on the effective date of this Ar-ticle
shall have a period of 60 days after such effective date to comply with the provisions
ions
of this Article. (As added by Ordinance No. 11424 C.M.S., passed March 24, 1992)
March 24, 1992
2-72
SEC 2-10.18 TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF PERMIT TO SELL FIREARMS.
:,. If the dealer violates any Federal, State and local county or city law, the
Chief of Police may immediately suspend the right of the dealer to sell
firearms. This temporary suspension will not exceed 3 days, if the
violation results in a criminal charge filed in court by a Federal, State, or
County District Attorney such permit to sell firearm may be suspended
until the case is adjudicated in a court of law.
B. Notice of suspension shall be mailed to the,, person(s) who made
application for the cermit and shall be delivered to the address listed on
the permit.
(As added by Ordinance No. 11424 C.M.S., passed March 24, 1992)
SFC` 2-10,12 SEVERABILITY. This Article shall be enforced to the full extent
of the authority of the City of Oakland. If any section, subsection, paragraph,
sentence or word of this ArZic'e is deemed to be invalid.or beyond the authority of the
City of Oakland, either on its face or as applied, the invalidity of such provision shall
not affect the other sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, or words of this
Article, and the applications thereof; and to that end the section, subsections,
paragraphs, sentences and words of this Article shall be deemed severable.' (As
added by Ordinance No. 11424 C.M.S., passed March 24, 1992)
March 24, 1992
2-73
ARTICLE 11
FIREARMS AND WEAPONS VIOLENCE EREVE"ON
,5EC. 2-11 .01 TITLE, This Article shall be known as the Firearms and Weapons
Violence Prevention Ordinance. (As added by Ordinance No. 11435 C.M.S., passed
April 7, 1992)
SEC. 2-11 .02 FINDINGS. The City Council of the City of Oakland hereby finds
That:
A. Firearms are used in nearly 80% of the homicides committed in the City;
and
B. Since June of 1990, Highland Hospital in Oakland has treated an average
of thirty two Oakland residents a month for gunshot wounds, an
average of one a day; and
C. The average cost for treatment of a gunshot wound in the United States
is $33,000.00, most of the cost borne by taxpayers. Nearly four
hundred gunshot wounds were treated at Highland Hospital in 1991 ;
and
D. Because of the range and effectiveness of firearms, the use of firearms
in violent crimes is more likely to lead to . the death of injury of
bystanders; and
E. Serious injury has resulted from the use of devices and projectiles other
than 'firearms within the City of Oakland; and
F. Certain varieties of air guns which fire BBs or pellets can fire projectiles
at a velocity of over 700 feet per second, well above the velocity
required to cause injury to persons or property; and
G. Airguns alone account for an estimated 15,000 childhood injuries
nationally per year. -
H. One recen*, national study of injuries resulting from the use of nonpowder
guns (air rifles, bb guns, etc.) found that two thirds of the victims were
less than sixteen years old.
April 7, .1992
2-74
I. Close to half of the firearms used in unintentional ('accidental")
shootings of children nationally were acquired by children from their
parents who-left-the firearms loaded and unsecured in a place accessible
to children.
J. The State of California has not sufficiently addressed the problems
resulting from the increased availability and use of firearms in urban
areas of the State, forcing cities to enact, within the limits of state law,
local measures.
(As added by Ordinance No. 11435 C.M.S., passed Apri; 7, 1992)
SEC. 2-1 1 ,03 DEFINITIONS. The following words and phrases, wherever used
in this Article, shall be construed as defined in this section:
A. "Firearms" means any device, designed to be used as a weapon or
modified to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel
a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion.
B. "Projectile weapon" means any device or instrument used as a weapon
which launches or propels a projectile by means other than the force of
an explosion or other form of combustion with sufficient force to cause
injury to persons or property., A projectile weapon shall include, but not
be limited to, air gun, air pistol, air rifle, gas operated gun, BB gun, pellet
gun, flare gun, dart gun, bow, cross-bow, slingshot, wrist rocket, blow
gun, paint gun, or other similar device or instrument.
(As added by Ordinance No. 11435 C.M.S., passed April 7, 1992)
SEC2-11 .Q4 FIRING OF PRQJECTILE WEAPONS AND DISCHARGE OF
FIREARMS. It shall be unlawful for any person to at any time fire ar discharge, or
cause to be fired or discharged, any firearm or any projectile weapon as defined
herein, within the limits of the City of Oakland. (As added by Ordinance No. 1 1435
C.M.S., passed April 7, 1992)
SEC 2-11 .05 ENFORCEMENT. Violations of this Article shall result in arrest
as a misdemeanor. The District Attorney shall review the circumstances surrounding
the violation and shall charge the violation either as an infraction.or as a misdemeanor,
except that:
April 7, 1992
2-75
A. Violation of this Article for a second or subsequent offense shall be
chargeable as a misdemeanor only, and the penalty for conviction of the
same shall be punishment by a fine of not more than $1000.00 or by
imprisonment in the County Jail for a period of not more that one year,
or by both.
B: Violation of this Article occurring within 1,500 feet of a day care center,
school or school yard, whether public or private, shall be a misdemeanor,
and the penalty for conviction of the same shall be punishment by a fine
of not more than $1 ,000.00 or by imprisonment in the County Jail for
period of not more than one year, or by both.
C. A person shall be*guilty of a separate offense for each and every firing
of a projectile weapon or discharge of a firearm, and shall be punished
accordingly.
D. Juveniles arrested pursuant to this Section shall be subject to Section
602 of the Welfare"and Institutions Code.
(As added by Ordinance No. 11435 C.M.S., passed April 7, 1992)
SEC 2-11 .06 PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR MINORS. Any parent or legal
guardian, of a person over the age of eighteen, is also guilty of an offense punishable
in accordance with Section 2-11 .05 if he or she knows or reasonably should know
that a minor is likely to gain access to a firearm or a projectile weapon kept within any
premise or vehicle which is under his or her custody or control, and a minor obtains
and fires or discharge the firearm or projectile weapon within the City of Oakland, in
violation of Section 2-11 .04. (As added by Ordinance No. 11435 C.M.S., passed
April 7, 1992)
,SEC 2-11 .07 FIREARMS AND WEAPONS CONFISCATION AND DISPOSAL
OF. Any firearm or projectile weapon discharged within the boundaries of the City of
Oakland in violation-of the provisions of Section 2-11 .04 of this Articie-is hereby
declared to be a nuisance, and shall be surrendered to the Police Department of the
City of Oakland. The Chief of Police, except upon the certificate of a judge of a court
of record, or of the District Attorney of Alameda Countythat the preservation thereof
is necessary or proper to the ends of justice, shall destroy or cause to be destroyed
such firearms and'projectile weapons, provided however, that in the event any such
firearm or projectile weapon is determined to have been stolen, the same shall not be
destroyed but shall be returned to the lawful owner as soon as its use as evidence has
been served, upon identification of the firearm or projectile weapon and proof of
ownership thereof. (As added by Ordinance No. 11435 C.M.S., passed April 7, 1992)
April 7, 1992
t
2-76
SEG 2-11 .08 FIREARMS AND PRO JEGTILE WEAPONS, EXCEPT10NS
A. The provisions of Section 2-10.04 of this Article relative to the use of
firearms and projectile weapons shall not apply to or affect sheriffs,
constables, marshals, police officers, or other duly appointed peace
officers in the performance of their official duties, nor to any person
summoned by such officer to assist in making arrests or preserving the
peace while said person so summoned is actually engaged in assisting
such officer; nor to persons who are by the United States Federal
Government authorized to use such firearms and projectile weapons, nor
to persons using said firearms and projectile weapons in necessary self
defense.
B. Use of firearms and projectile weapons within the City of Oakland shall
be unlawful pursuant to Section 2-11.04, except that use of firearms and
projectile weapons may be permissible when integral to the pursuit of
specific competitive and sporting events, including but not limited to
events such as take place at shooting ranges, archery ranges and skeet
shooting, upon issuance of a permit from the Chief of Police to persons
conducting the event or engaged in the business of providing the location
upon which such activities are to take place. The Chief of Police shall
formulate criteria for the application, issuance, and renewal of such
permits, and may require as a condition of approval the posting of any
bond, or proof of adequate liability insurance.
C. The City of Oakland, through the Department of Parks and Recreation or
other City departments, may sponsor specific competitive and sporting
events, including but not limited to events such as take place at shooting
ranges, archery ranges, and skeet shooting, and is exempt from
provisions of Section 2-11 .088 for these purposes. Any person who
seeks to conduct such an event on property under the jurisdiction of the
City, such an event on property under the jurisdiction of the City, shall
obtain approval from both the Chief of Police and the City Manager or a
designed, prior to the issuance of a permit for engaging in such activities.
(As added by Ordinance No. 11435 C.M.S., passed April 7, 1992)
SEC 2-11 .09 PROJECTILE WEAPONS, POSSESSION OF 8Y MINORS.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person under the age of eighteen to have in
his or her possession within the City limits of Oakland any projectile
weapon, as defined in Section 2-11 .03 herein. Violation of this provision
shall be punishable in the manner provided in Section 2-11 .05D.
April 7, 1992
2-77
B. It shall be unlawful for any parent or legal guardian, or any person over
The age of eighteen years, to sell, give or loan to any minor in the City
of Oakland under the age of eighteen years, or to allow such minor ,o
possess, any device or instrument capable of launching a projectile,
and/or the projectiles specifically intended to be launched by said device
or instrument, as defined hereinabove. Violation of this provision shall
be punishable in the manner provided in Section 2-11.05
C. Any device or instrument capable of launching a projectile, and/or the
projectiles specifically intended to be launched. by said device or
instrument, which is in possession of a minor in violation of this Article,
is hereby declared to be a nuisance, and shall be surrendered to the
Police Department of the City of Oakland. The Police Department,
except upon the certificate of a judge of a court of record or of the
District Attorney of Alameda County that the preservation thereof is
necessary or proper to the ends of justice, shall destroy any such device
or instrument.
(As added by Ordinance No. 11435 C.M.S., passed April 7, 1992)
SEC. 2-1 1 .10- SEVERABILITY. This Article shall be enforced to the full extent
of the authority of the City of Oakland. If any section, subsection, paragraph,
sentence or word of this Article is deemed to be invalid or beyond the authority of the
City of Oakland, either on its face or as applied, the invalidity of such provision shail
not affect the other sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, or words of this
Article, and the applications thereof; and to that end the section, subsections,
paragraphs, sentences and words of this Article shall be deemed severable. (As addec
by Ordinance .No. 11435 C.M.S., passed April 7, 1992)
April 7, 1992
l
2-78
ORDINANCE NO. 95- 59
(Sale of Firearms*)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as
follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official
text from the enacted provisions of the. County Ordinance Code. )
SECTION I . Chapter 82-36 is added to the Contra Costa County
Ordinance Code to read as follows.
CHAPTER 82-36 SALE OF FIREARMS
Article 82-36 . 2 General
82-36 . 202 Purpose. This chapter requires and provides
criteria for the consideration and approval of land use permits and
firearms dealer licenses before the sale of firearms will be
permitted in any nonresidential land use zoning district of this
county. The county finds it necessary to establish land use permit
and firearms dealer license requirements and criteria in the
interest of the public health, safety and welfare to regulate the
sale of firearms in the unincorporated area,. This chapter alone
does not allow or permit sales of firearms, but only applies to
sales of firearms where otherwise allowed or permitted within an
involved applicable nonresidential land use zoning district.
ict. This
chapter does notauthorize the sale of firearms in any
nonresidential land use district where they are not otherwise
allowed or permitted by the applicable involved zoning district's
ORDINANCE NO. 95 - 59
1
regulations . (Ord . 95- 59
82-36 - 204 Non Conforming Use Upon the effective date
(December 281 1995 ) of this chapter, any person who claims or
believes that he or she has established a legal non-conforming use
to conduct firearms sales,. including sales of ammunition, shall,
within ninety days of the effective date of this chapter, provide
written evidence describing the extent and scope of such use to the
Director of the Growth Management and Economic Development
Department ( "GMEDA" ) and obtain a firearms dealer license as
provided in article 82-36 . 8 . To the extent such legal non-
conforming use has been established in accordance with this section
and continued after the effective date of this chapter, all
applicable state and federal permits and licenses must be obtained
and maintained in full force and effect and the use may not be
increased, enlarged or expanded without a land use permit as
provided in this chapter. (Ord. 95- 59
82-36 . 206 . Firearm. "Firearm- means any device, designed to '
be used as a weapon or modified to be used as a weapon, from which
is expelled through a barrel a projectile by the force of explosion
or other means of combustion. (Ord. 95-59 5 1 . )
82-36 . 208 . Ammunition . The term "ammunition' , as used in
this chapter, shall include any ammunition for use in -any pistol or
ORDINANCE NO. 95 - 59
2
-----------------------
revolver from which is expelled a projectile by the force of
explosion or other form of combustion. (Ord. 95-59 S 1 . )
82-36 . 210. Firearm Dealer. The term firearms dealer, as used
in this chapter, shall mean any person who is engaged in the retail
sale of firearms and/or ammunition. (Ord. 95-59
Article 82-36.4 Applications .
82-36 .402 Application Contents . In addition to the
applicable
able requirements of chapters 26-2 and 82-6 and the involved
nonresidential zoning district, an application for a land use
permit to sell firearms, including ammunition, shall contain the
following information:
(1 ) A description of where the proposed firearm sales is to be
located on the subject property, including a description of the
building or structure within which the sale of firearms is to take
place;
The true name and complete addresis, of each owner and
tenant of the building or structure within which the sale of
firearms is to take place;
(3) A description of all the firearms, including ammunition,
proposed to be sold; and
(4 ) A description of the security measures planned at the
premises to provide for the protection of the premises and the
ORDINANCE NO. 95 - 59
3
e" ,
------------
goods to be sold thereon;
(5 ) The identification of any existing firearm dealer sales
sites located within 500 feet of the applicant' s proposed sales
site. (Ord. 95-59 § 1 . )
Article 82-36 . 6 Land. Use Permits
82-36 . 602 Requirement No sale of firearms , including
ammunition, shall be allowed unless. -and until a land use permit is
first obtained pursuant to this chapter and maintained in full
force and effect . (Ord. 95 - 59 § 1 . )
82-36 . 609 Additional Findings . In addition to the findings
established in article 26-2 . 20, and section 82-6 . 002 , no land use
permit to allow the sale of firearms, including ammunition, shall
be issued unless the following findings are made:
( 1 ) The district in which the firearm sales is to take' place
is not a residentially zoned area; and the proposed site is not
located within 500 feet of a residentially zoned area;
(2) The firearm sales will not take place in a location which
is within 500 feet of a school, daycare, park, establishments that
have on-site or off-site alcohol sales, places of worship or an
existing firearm dealer's sales site;
( 3 ) The applicant has demonstrated that the location in which
the firearm sales are to take place will have adequate safe
ORDINANCE NO. 95 - 59
storage, security and a lighting system. (Ord . 95 59 § 1 . )
82-36 . 606 Compliance . In order for a land use permit issued
under the provisions of this chapter to become effective and remain
operable and in full force, the applicant at all times shall :
(1 ) Within 30 days of. obtaining a land use permit and prior to
any sales , first obtain a local firearms dealer license from the
Director of Growth Management and Economic Development ( "GMEDA" ) ,
which will not be issued except upon proof of a land use permit
obtained in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. . Such a
license will be considered for issuance pursuant to guidelines to
be established by GMEDA and in accord with criteria set forth in
article 82-36 . 8 and maintained in full force and effect;
(2) Maintain a record of ammunition purchases- as provided in
article 82-36 . 10 .
(3) Comply with all state and federal statutory requirements
for the sale of firearms and ammunition and reporting of firearm
sales (Pen. Code 5 12076 ) , including the provisions of California
Penal Code sections 12070 and 12071, includifig but not limited to
the statutory requirement that all thefts of firearms be reported
within 46 hours of discovery to the Sheriff (Pen. Code 5
12071(b) (13 ) ) , and within thirty days of a written request by
GMEDA, provide proof of such compliance. (Ord. 95 - 59 S 1 . )
82-36 . 608 Granting . Land use permits for the sale of
ORDINANCE NO. 95 - 59
5
firearms as allowed in this - chapter and variance permit's to modify
the provisions of this article may be granted as provided and
required by this chapter and in accordance with chapters 26-2 and
82-6 . ('Ord. 95 5-9 § 1 . )
Article 82-36 . 8 . Firearms Dealer Licenses .
82-36 - 802 Licensing Authority• The Director of Growth
Management and Economic Development Agency ( "GMEDA" ) is designated
as the local licensing agent for purposes of Penal Code section
12071, relating to firearm sales . As the local licensing agent,
GMEDA will, as he or she deems necessary, administer applicable
provisions relating to firearm sales (Pen. Code SS 12070, 12071 )
and establish guidelines for the issuance of local firearms dealer
licenses in accordance with criteria est,ablished., by Penal Code and
as provided in section 82-36 . 804 . The applicant shall pay
compensatory fees and costs for such permit as established by the
Board of Supervisors pursuant to recommendation of GMEDA. (Ord. 95
- 59
82-36 . 804 Local Firearms Dealer Licenses . In accordance with
the provisions of Penal Code section 12071, GMEDA, as the local
'licensing authority, shall accept applications for and may grant
licenses valid for one year (Pen . Code § 12071 (a ) ( 6 ) ) permitting
the retail sale of firearms and ammunition in the unincorporated
area of the county where otherwise allowed by the involved zoning
ORDINANCE NO. 95 - 59
6
district, provided that a written application containing the
following is submitted to and approved by -GMEDA:
( 1 ) The name, age, and address of the applicant;
( 2) The address of the proposed location for which the license
is required, together with the business name, if any;
(3 ) Proof of a possessory interest in the property at which
the proposed business will be conducted in the form of ownership,
lease, license or other entitlement to operate at such location and
the written consent of the owner of record of the real property;
(4 ) Proof of compliance with all federal and state licensing
laws, including but not limited to the provisions of California
Penal Code section 12071 requiring reporting of thefts (Pen. Code 9
12071 (b) ( 13 ) ) , and security storage *requirements for each firearm
(Pen. Code SS 12071 (b) ( 14 ) , 15, (c) ( 3 ) ) ;
(5) Proof of the issuance of a land use permit at the proposed
location, or in the alternative, proof of compliance with the
provisions of section 82-36 . 204 for the establishment. of a legal
non-conforming use;
(6) Information relating to licenses -or permits relating to
other weapons sought by the applicant from other jurisdictions,
including, but not limited to date of application and whether each
application resulted in issuance of a license;
(7 ) Information relating to every revocation. of a license or
permit relating to firear7ns , including but not limited to date and
circumstances of the revocation;
ORDINANCE NO. 95 - 59
7
( 8 ) Applicant ' s agreement to indemnify, defend, release and
hold harmless the county, its officers, agents, and employees, from
and against all claims, losses costs, damages and liabilities of
any kind, including attorney fees , arising in any manner out of the
applicant' s negligence or intentional or willful misconduct and
(9 ) Payment of nonrefundable compensatory fees for
administering this chapter in amounts to be 'established by
resolution of the Board of Supervisors . (Ord. 95 - 59
82-36 . 806 . Conditions of Approval . In addition to other
requirements and conditions of this chapter, a firearms dealer
license is subject to the following conditions, the breach of any
of which is sufficient cause for revocation of the license by
GMEDA:
( 1 ) The business shall, be carried on only in the building
located at the street address shown on the license.
(2) Compliance with all requirements of applicable state and
federal law relating te.firearm sales, including provisions
relating to manner of delivery of firearms, age and identity
requirements for purchasers, storage of firearms, recording and
reporting of firearms sales transactions, and posting of required
notices on the premises . (Pen. Code SS 12071 , 12076 ),
(3 ) The licensee shall not sell, lease or otherwise transfer a
firearm without also selling or otherwise providing with each
firearm a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to
ORDINANCE NO. 95 - 59
prevent the unintentional discharge of the firearm , and
(4 ) The licensee shall maintain a record of all ammunition
sales as provided in article 82-36 . 10; and
(5 ) The licensee shall obtain and maintain any necessary
local licenses, including a business license. (Ord. 95
5 -59 5 1 . )
82-36 . 808 . Grounds for License Denial . GMEDA may deny the
issuance or renewal of a firearm dealer's license when one or more
of the following conditions exist:
(1 ) The applicant is under 21 years of age;
(2) The applicant is not licensed as required by federal,
state and local law;
(3 ) The applicant: has had a firearms permit or license
previously revoked or denied for goodcause within the immediately
preceding two years;
(4 ) The applicant has made a false or misleading statement of
a material fact or omission .of a material fact in the application
for a firearm dealer's license; or.
5) The operation of the business as-proposed would not comply
with -federal, state and county ordinances, including but not
limited to the California Penal Code and applicable building and
fire safety regulations. (Ord. 95 - 59
82-36 . 810. Renewability of Firearms Dealer license. A
firearms dealer license expires one year after -the day of issuance.
ORDINANCE NO. 95 59
9
A license may be renewed for additional one year periods upon the
payment of the application fee and. licens.ee' s submission of a new
written application for renewal which includes the information
required by 8 1 2-36 - 804 Upon receipt of the fee and new
application, GMEDA will review the application and render a
decision pursuant to the provisions of this article for initial
license application. Such application for renewal must be received
by GMEDA no later than 45 days before the expiration of the current
license. (Ord. 95 - 59 5 1 . )
Article 82-36 . 10 Records of Ammunition Sales .
82-36 . 1002 . Record of Ammunition Sales . No firearm dealer
shall sell or otherwise transfer ownership of any ammunition
without at the time of purchase recording the following information
on a form to be prescribed by GMEDA: the date of the transaction,
the name, address and date of birth of the transferee, the
transferee's driver' s 'License or other identification number and
the state in which it was issued, the brand, type and amount of
ammunition transferred and the transferee's signature. (Ord, , 95
59 1 . )
82-36 . 1004 . Inspection of Records. The records required by
this section shall be maintained on the firearm dealer' s premises
for a period of not less than two ( 2 ) years from the date of the
recorded transfer . Said records shall be subject to inspection at
ORDINANCE NO. 95 - 59
10
any time during normal business hours by GMEDA or his or her
designee. (Ord. 95 - 59 § 1 . )
82-36 . 1006 . Maintenance of Records . No person shall
knowingly make a false entry in, or fail to make a required entry
in, or fail to maintain in the required manner records prepared in
accordance herewith . (Ord. 95 - 59 § 1 . )
Article 82-36 . 12 . NonassicTnability and Severability.
82-36 . 1202 . Nonassignability. A firearms dealer license
issued under this chapter is not assignable. An attempt to assign
a firearms dealer license renders the license void. (Ord. 95 -59
82-36 . 1204 . Severability. If 'a part of this chapter is held
to be invalid, the remaining portions of this chapter are not
affected. (Ord. 95 - 59 S 1 . )
SECTION II . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30
days after passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be
published once with the names of supervisors, voting for and
against it in the CONTRA COSTA TIMES a newspaper published in
this County. (Gov. Code §§ 25123 & 25124 . )
ORDINANCE NO. 95 - 59
PASSED ON November 28, 1995 b- the following vote :
AYES: Supervisors Rogers , Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Bishop
NOES: None -
ABSENT:,None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of
the Board and County Administrator
e'
Al�
By: "
puty Boarcr Chair
(SEAL)
djs-S\A:\firearms.crd
ORDINANCE NO. 95 - 59
12
County Administrator Contra Board of Supervisors
Jim Rogers
County Administration Buitding Costa I st District
65I Pine Street lith Roor Jeff Smith
Martinez,California 94553-12292nd District
(510)646-40W County Gayle Bishop
FAX (510)646-4098 se 3rd District
Phil Batchelor
Mark DeSaulnler
County Administrate
4th District
Tom Tortakson
5th District
December 18, 1995
Vikki Renneckar, District Director
Department of the Treasury
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
221 Main Street - 11 th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-1906
Dear Ms. Renneckar:
Thank you for your letter dated November 13, 1995 setting forth the position of the Bureau
regarding enforcing local regulations regarding the sale of firearms. You indicated in that
letter that if we would provide ATF with documentation that current county ordinances
prohibit the sale of firearms from-a private home,- .you-would-not approve and issue any
firearms licenses located in private residences in Contra Costa County.
Enclosed for your review is County Ordinance Code Section 82-4.240 which defines a
home occupation and. prohibits the 'sale of any merchandise or services except that
produced from or made on the premises. Also enclosed is County Ordinance Code Article
84-4.4 on single-family residential districts which outlines the,uses which are permitted in
such a district, including a home occupation. Since the sale of any merchandise not
manufactured on the premises is precluded from being a home occupation, we believe that
the sale of any.firearms or ammunition is precluded in a single-family residential district
in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County.
Also enclosed is a copy of Or'dinance 95-59, adopted by the Board of Supervisors on
November 28, 1995. This Ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage and will,
therefore, become effective December 28, 1995. This Ordinance regulates existing and
new gun dealers in any nonresidential land use zoning district in the unincorporated area
of the County.
We would appreciate your taking these Ordinance provisions into consideration when
acting on any application for a firearms license where the address is in the unincorporated
area of Contra Costa County. If you need clarification regarding whether an address is in
the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County or whether an address is in a single-
family residential district, please contact our Community Development Department at (510)
646-2031.
-2-
We appreciate your cooperation in this regard. We would like to be able to check back
with you periodically to get updated counts of the number of licensed firearms dealers in
the County so we can provide periodic reports to the Board of Supervisors on this subject.
Very truly yours,
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
PB:amb
Phill234-95
Attachment
cc: Supervisor Gayle Bishop
Supervisor Jim Rogers
Supervisor Jeff Smith
Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
Supervisor Tom Torlakson
Val Alexeeff, Director, GMEDA
Dennis Barry, Deputy Community Development Director
Victor J. Wbstman, County Counsel
William B. Walker, M.D., Health Services Director- Designate
Wendel Brunner, M.D., Public Health Director
Nancy Baer, Director, Prevention Project
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
221 Main Street- I I th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-1906
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
RECEIVED
NOV 1 3 1&
RE:WA:DEA
NOV 1 4. 1995
5400
OFFICE OF
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, 11th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553-1229
Dear Mr. Batchelor.
I have received your letter of November 6, 1995 concerning your recent meeting with
our Public Information Officer, Dennis Anderson, and the issue of firearms dealers
operating from private homes in Contra Costa County.
I am pleased that Mr. Anderson was able to assist you in your debate on this issue. I
believe that we both share the desire for a sound and safer America and by working
together as partners we can make a difference.
With the passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
(Crime Bill) ,ATF shall continue to approve applications for federal firearms licenses
if the applicant is, or will be,in compliance with State and local laws applicable to
the conduct of a firearms business within 30 days of approval of the application. If
Contra Cotta County provides ATF with documentation that current county
ordinances prohibit the sale of firearms from a private home,we will not approve and
issue any firearms dealers licenses located in private residences in Contra Costa
County.
I hope that this has been responsive to your request. Please feel free to contact either
myself or Dennis Anderson if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
U k9-��
Vikki Renneckar
District Director( Regulatory Enforcement)
�d
------------
82-4.240 Home occupation. "Home
occupation" is an activity customarily
conducted entirely within a residential dwelling,
by a person residing in the dwelling unit, which
is clearly a secondary and incidental use of such
dwelling as a residence. The use must not.change
thc residential character of the dwelling or arca
and shall meet the following conditions:
(1) 'llierc shall be no merchandise or services 4i
for sale except that produced from or made on'7`•
the premises.
(2) The use shall not generate vehicular
traffic'in excess of that normally associated with
single family residential use.
— (3) Not more than one room or twenty-five
percent of the habitable floor area of the
principal structure. whichever is greater,shall be
used for the home.occupation.Garage areas and
areas within accessory buildings shall not be
considered as being habitable floor arca.
(4) "ilicrc shall be.no exterior indication of
the home occupation.
(5). No exterior.signs shall be used.
(6) No noise. odor. dust, fumes. vibration,
smoke. electrical- interference: or other'
interference with the residential use of adjacent
properties shall be created.
(7) No persons shall be employed,except the
applicant, in the conduct of the home
occupation. (Ord. 1781: Ord. 1760: Ord. 1759:
Ord. 1569: Ord. 1469: prior code § SIOam):
Ord. 1269: Ord. 1264: Ord.' 1224: Ord. 939: ;.
Ord. 933: Ord. 382). -
r,-6 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1,.-TRICT 84-2-004-84-4.4-04
84-2.0cts established..The e of all Article 84-4.2
Ian in the nidcorporate ry of this General
county, within t nets shown on the maps
describe s chapter, is subject to, the 84-4.202 General provisions. All land within
pro ns of this Division 84 1 'fled an R-6 single-family residential district may, be
r the regal' use as set forth this used for any of the following uses,- under the
e`-T9Kd (a61jdlsrffffdft in this f6flowini'.'rdJ66fibrff""t for_'t'W1n*this chapter.
se
division are establish this territory,-and (Ord. 1569: prior code § 8142 (part): Ords.
the land• us ricftdesigfiated on the maps 1269, 1179).
adop y Section 84-2.002 are established and
deed 93: prior Article 84-4.4
Ord. 382). Uses
84-4.40 ",thes -''M-milted. The following
a
'ChitdT 84-4 uses are allowed in the R-6 district:
(1) A detached single-family dwelling.on each
R-6-'SINGLE-FAMILY lot and the accessory structures and - uses
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT normally auxiliary to it;
'L"I't -` V.,-,*
(2) Crop and tree farming, except raising or
Article 84-4,2 General keeping any animals other than ordinary house-
Sections: - hold pets;
84-4.202 . General provisions. (3) Publicly owned parks and playgrouh&:
Article 84-4.4 Uses (4).A residential care facility for the elderly,
Sections: operated by a person with all required state and
84-4.402 Uses-Permitted. local agency approvals or licenses, where not
84-4.404. Uses-Requiring land use more than six persons reside or receive care.
permit. not including the licensee or members of the
Article 84-4.6 Lots licensee's family or persons employed as fa&Mry
Sections: staff.
84-4.602 Lot-Area. (5) A family day care home where care,
84-4.604 Lot-Width. protection and. supervision of twelve or fewer
84-4.606 . ,,Lot,-Qepth. children in the provider's own home are
Article 84-4.8 BiiildingHeight provided for periods of less than twenty-four
Sections: hours per day, while the parents or guardians
84-4.802 - Building height-Maximum. are away;
Article 84-4.LO Yards - (6) Aviaries, which shall not be over twelve
Sections:, feet hi,-Ji nor exceeding one square foot (not
84-4.1002 Yard-Side. over 1.600) in area for each fifty square feet
84-4.1004 Yard-Setback. of net land area per lot. -and unless otherwise
84-4.1006 Yard-Rear. provided herein, shall be set back at least
Article 84-4.1-2,-Off-Street Parking twenty-five feet from the front property line
Sections: and any street line and at least ten feet from any
84-4.1202- *Off-street parking— side or rear property line, and shall be main-
Requirements. tained in a sanitary manner as determined by the
Article 84-4.14 Land Use and Variance Permits county health department. (Otds. 86-43 § 2.
Sections: 78-83 § 1. 77-51 § 2. 68-25 § 2: prior code
84-4.1402 Land use and variance permit- § 8142(a): Orris. 1269 § 1. 1179 § 3. 1039.
Granting. 1028. 382 § 4A).
AD
.4-4.404 Uses - Requiring land use permit.
The followin2 uses are allowable on the issuance
of a land use permit:
r-mv
84-4.602--84-4.802 t-UNING
7 (1) A home occupation; (12) Commercial radio an'd television
(2) Hospitals, eleemosynary and receiving and transmitting facilities other than
philanthropic- institutions, and convalescent broadcasting studios and business'Offices;
homes; (13).The installation of exterior lighting at
(3) Churches and religious institutions and a height of seven feet or more above the finished
parochial and private schools including nursery grade of the parcel except exterior light placed
schools; upon the single-family residence. (Ords. 87-67
(4) Community buildings, clubs, and § 4, 86-43, 83-70,76-75 § 1, 76-36 § 2,73-51
activities of a quasi-public, social, fraternal or 3, 67-38, 1762, 1569 § 1, I549: prior code
recreational character, such as golf, tennis, and 8142(b):Ords. 1405, 1179 § 3, 392 4A).
swimming clubs, and veterans' and fraternal
organizations; Article 84-4.6
(5) Greenhouses, over three hundred square Lots
feet;
(6) ,More than one detached dwelling unit on 84-4.602 Lot — Area. No sirrgle-family
a lot or parcel, if the density is not greater than dwelling or other structure perTnitted in the R-6
the following: district shall be erected or placed on a lot
(A) R-6 district — six thousand square feet smaller than six thousand square feet in area.
per dwelling unit, (Ord. 1569: prior code § 8142(c): Ords. 1269,
(B) R-7 district — seven thousand square feet 1179).
per dwelling unit,
(C) R.10 district — ten thousand square feet 84-4.604 Lot — Width. No single-family
per dwelling unit, dwelling or other structure permitted in the R-6
(D) RAS district — fifteen thousand square district shall be erected or placed on a lot less
feet per dwelling un'it, than sixty feet in average width. (Ord-. 1569:
(E) R-20 district — twenty thousand square prior code § 8142(d): Ords. 1269, 1179).
feet per dwelling unit,
(F) R-40 district forty thousand square 84-4.606 Lot — Depth. No single-family
feet per dwelling unit, dwelling or other structure permitted in the R-6
(G) R-65 district sixty-five thousand district shall be erected or placed on a lot less
square feet per dwelling unit, than ninety feet in depth. (Ord. 1569: prior
(H) R-100 district — one hundred thousand code § 8142(e): Ords. 1269. 1179).
square feet per dwelling unit,
(1) D-I district — no density restriction, Article 84-4.8
(J) F-I district — no density restriction; Building Height
(7) Commercial nurseries; an application shall
include a site plan indicating planting and land- 8414.802 Building height — Maximum. No
scaping areas, existing and proposed structures, single-family dwelling or other structure
and plans and elevations to indicate architectural permitted in the R-6 district shall exceed two
type:
(8) Medical and dental offices and medical
clinics;
.(9) Publicly owned buildings and structures
except as provided in Division 82;
(10) Residential second units complying with
the provisions of Chapter 82-24. -
(1 1)
(11) A family care home where care,
protection and super-vision of thirteen or more
children in the provider's own home are
provided for periods of less than twenty-four
hours per day. while the parents or guardians
are away:
` SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL D.'� RICT 84-4.1002-84-4.1?02
and one-half stories or thirty-five feet in height.
C `;Ord. 1569: prior code §.8142(f): Ords. 1269,
. 1179).
p..rticle 84-4.10
Yards
84-4.1002 Yard — Side. There shall be an
aggregate side yard width of at least fifteen feet.
No side yard shall be less than five feet.wide.
These minima may be reduced to-three feet for
an accessory building or structure if it is set back
at least fifty feet from the front property line.
(Ord: 1569: prior code § 8142(g): Ords. 1269,
1179).
84-4.1004 Yard — Setback.There shall be a
setback (front yard) of at least twenty feet for
any structure in the'R-6 district: On corner lots
the principal' frontage'shall have a setback of at
least twenty feet and the other setback shall be
at least fifteen feet. (Ord. 1569: prior code §
81.42(h): Ords. 1269, 1179).
844-4.1006 Yard — Rear. There shall be a
rear yard for any principal structure of at least
frfteen feet. There shall be a rear yard for
accessory structures of at least three feet. (Ord.
C 1569: prior code § 8142(i): Ords. 1269, 1179).
Article 84-4.12
Off-street Parking
84-4.1202 Off-street parking requirements.
.(a) In R-6 districts every dwelling unit shall have
at least two off-street automobile storage spaces
on the same lot: except that there shall be at
least one such space where the lot was legally
dreated before September 9, 1971, or was part
of a tentative or parcel map filed before
September 9, 1971, and upon which a final
subdivision or parcel map was subsequently
approved and recorded. .
(b) Such spaces shall have a covered or open
surfaced area of at least nine by nineteen feet, =
1
310-1 (Contra Costa County l i.86)
R-7 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIJ DISTRICT 84-4.1402-84-6-802
and shall*be entirely outside the setback or side Article 84-6-2
yard areas of the principal structure. (Ords.
77-107, 71-59 §§ 4 and 5: prior code § 8142(0:
Ords. 1179 § 3, 1039, 1028,928). 84-6.202 General provisionswithin
le-famil' ntia
an R-7 sing,�7 eI district may be
I
Article 84-4.14 used for an the following.uses under the
Land Use and Variance Permits following o s chapter.
(Ord. 1569: prior -1 8143 (part): Ord.
84-4.1402 Land use and variance permit - 1269: Ord. LL7-9.1----
Granting. Land use permits for,the special uses —
enumerated in Section 84-4.404, and variance Article 84-6.4
permits to modify the provisions in Sections UseA__P'
,
84-4.402(5) and 84-4.602 through 84-4.1202,
may be granted in accordance with Chapters 84-6. [0 ses
Permitted. Uses permitted
t4e b,-. Mi
26-2 and 82-6. (Ord. 77-51 § 3: prior code § in 4?7 bu. tu uses
8142(k): Ords. 1179 § 3, 1039, 1028, 382 § desi or the R-6 distn
c�
ction
4(A)) 84-4.402. (Ord. 68-25 §.x, 68- Ord. 1569-
prior code § 81 rd. 1269: Ord- 1179).
er 8 84 ses - Requiring I permit.
In the R-7 district ths-46 owing uses are
R-7 S AMILY permitted on ths cc of a land use permit:
R NTIAL DISTRICT All the or esignated for
e R-6 district in
Sect Ord. 1569: p, r code
9_ Or
e 84-6.2 Gene 81433(b): Ord. I26�9: Ord. 117
cti -
84-6.202 General isions. T'icle 84-6.6
Article 84-6.4 U Lo is
Sections:
02 84 .602 Lott
Area. No si amily
�f
7 or
Uses-Requiringuse dwelling other structure p)ermni in the R-7
permit. district shall be SEed"or placed on a lot
Article 84-6.6 Lo smaller than WATTf-thousand square feet in area-
Sectio (Ord. 156 (c): Or 1269:
-Area. Ord. 1179).
6.604 Lot-Width
84-6.606 Lot- th. 84-6.604 L Width. No single'family
Article 84-6.8 ing Height dwelling er struc the R-7
S 'ti
ec district sh e erected or placed on a I less
g el t- um. than seventy feet in average width. . 569:
.10 Yards prior code § 8143(d): Ord-. 126 1179).
Sections:
84-6.1002 -Side. 84-6.60 pth
8¢ 4 Yard-Setback. pro - - or e istrict e the same
4-6.1 as those for the R-6 Section 84-4.606).
Article 84-6.12 Off-Street Parking (Ord. 1569- c.ode 9143(e): Ord. 1269:
co"',
Sections: Ord. 1179
84-6.1202 street parking-Space
requirements. -Afri_c'1e84-6.8
Artic 84-6.14 Land Use and Variance Permits
Sec I
84-6.1401 Land use and variance 84-6.802 Budding_., height Maximum.
permit-Granti Building istncz'
shall be the 157_�Iieas those for Oie-R-5--6-1stric'
8-601
Chapter
FIREARMS
Sections:
Article 1. Use of Firearms
8-601 Definition of firearm.
8-602 Unlawful to discharge firearm within the city.
8-603 Exceptions to prohibition of Section 8-602.
8-604 Reserved.
Article 2. Sale of Firearms and Munitions
8-605 Police permit required. -
8-606 Application.
8-607 Investigation by chief of police.
8-608 Conditions of approval.
8-609 Requirement of secured facility.
8-610 Liability insurance. -
8-611 Issuance of police permit—Duration.
8-612 Grounds for permit denial.
8-613 Grounds for permit revocation.
8-614 Hearing for permit denial or revocation.
8-615 Nonassignability. - -
8-616 Compliance by existing dealers.
Article 1. Use of Firearms
8-601 Definition of firearm.
In this Article 1, `Tirearrn" means a gun, pistol, rifle,revolver, air rifle or air gun,b-b gun
and bow and arrow or crossbow,or any other instrument of any kind,character or description which
throws or projects a bullet or missile or substance by means of elastic force,air or ixplosive substance
likely to cause bodily harm. (Ord. 439 § 2 (part), 1995: Ord.-433 9 (part), 1994:Ord. 23 § 1
(part), 1968)
8-602 Unlawful to discharge firearm within the city. ,
No person may fire or discharge a firearm,as defined by Section 8-601,within the city,nor
may a parent,guardian or person having the care,custody'or co $in
ntrol of inor.permit the minor
to fire or discharge a firearm within the city.•(Ord.439§2(part),-1995:•Ord.433$9(part), 1994:
Ord. 23 § I (part), 1968) _ ..
8-603 Exceptions to prohibition of Section &602.
Section 8-602 does not apply to the use of a firearm by:
399 (La[ayetm 5-95)
4
8-603
(a) A peace officer or person in the military service in the discharge of his duties;
(b) A person using a firearm in the defense of their person or the life of another person
or in defense of his livestock or domestic animal or his property,to the extent authorized
by law.
(Ord. 433 § 9 (part), 1994: Ord. 23 § 1 (part), 1968)
8-604 Reserved.
Article 2.Sale of Firearms and Munitions
8-605 Police permit required.
(a) Except as provided in Penal Code§ 12070(b),as it may be amended from time to tirpe,
it is unlawful for a person to engage in the activity of."firearm sales"as that term is
defined under Section 6-421 without a police permit as required by this chapter.
(b) The requirement for a police permit is in addition to the requirement under Section 6-533
for a land use permit for firearm sales activity.No person may engage in firearm sales
activity without both a land use permit from the planning commission or city council
on appeal and a police permit.
(Ord. 433 § 9 (part), 1994)
8-606 Application. '
(a) An applicant for a permit or.renewal of a permit under this chapter shall file with the
chief of police an application in writing, signed under penalty of perjury,;on a form
prescribed by the city. The applicant shall provide all relevant information requested
to demonstrate compliance with this chapter including:
(1) The name, age and address of the applicant;
(2) The address of the proposed location for which the permit is required, together
with the business name, if any;
(3) Proof of a possessory interest in the property at which the proposed business will
be conducted,in the form of ownership,lease,license or other entitlement to operate
at such location and the,written consent of the owner of record of the real property;
(4) A floor plan of the proposed.business which illustrates the applicant's compliance
with security provisions of Section 8-609;
(5) Proof of the issuance of a land use permit at the proposed location required under
Section 6-533;
(6) Proof of compliance with,all federal and state licensing laws;
(7) : Information relating to licenses or penznts relating to other weapons sought,by
the applicant from other jurisdictions,including,but not limited to,date of application
and whether each application resulted in issuance of a license;
(8) Information relating to every revocation of a license or permit relating to firearms,
including, but not limited to, date and circumstances of the revocation;
(Wayene 5-95) 400
8-606
. :(9) Applicant's agreement to indemnify,defend and hold harmless the city,its officers,
agents and employees from and agaiast.all claims, losses, costs, damages and
liabilities of any kind, including attorney fees,arising in any manner out of the
applicant's negligence or intentional or wilful misconduct;
(10)Certification of satisfaction of insurance requirements under Section 8-610;
(11)All convictions of the applicant for any of the offenses listed in Section 8-612(5).
(b) The application shall be accompanied by a nonr eftmdable fee for administering this chapter
established by city council resolution.
(Ord. 433 $ 9 (part), 1994) .
8-607 Investigation by chief of police.
The police chief shall conduct an appropriate investigation,of the applicant to determine for
the protection of the public safetywhether the permit may be issued The police chief may require
an applicant,or any officer,agent or employee thereof,to provide fingerprints,a recent photograph,
a signed authorization for the release of pertinent records, a complete personal history set forth
on a questionnaire provided by the police chief, and any other additional information which the
police chief considers necessary to complete the investigation.
(Ord. 433 § 9 (part), 1994)
8-608 Conditions of approval.
In addition to other requirements and conditions of this chapter, a police permit is subject
to the following conditions, the breach of any of which is sufficient cause for revocation of the
permit by the chief of police: .
(1) The business shall be carried on only in the building located at the street address shown
on the permit.This requirement,however,does not prohibit the permittee from participating
in a gun show or event which is authorized by federal and state law upon compliance
with federal and state law;
(2) The police permit,or a certified copy of it, shall be displayed on the premises and at
gun shows where it can be easily seen; .:
(3) The applicant shall not permit any person under 18 years of age to enter or remain within
the premises without being accompanied by the parent or other adult legally responsible
for the minor child where the firearms sales activity is the primary business performed
at the site;
(4) The permittee shall not deliver a firearm to a purchaser earlier than is allowed by applicable
state and federal law;
(5) The permittee shall not deliver a firearm to another purchaser,lessee or other transferee
unless the firearm is unloaded and securely,wrapped or unloaded in a locked container,
(6) The permittee shall not deliver.a firearm to a purchaser,lessee or other transferee under
the age of 18 years,or a firearm capable of being concealed upon the person to another
person under the age of 21 years.Clear evidence of the identity and age of the purchaser
shall be required before delivery of a firearm to a purchaser,lessee or other transferee.
Evidence of identity may include,but is not limited to,a motor vehicle operator's license,
400-1 (Ltayeme 3-93)
�i'• !O d
8-608 -
a state identification card,an armed forces identification card,an employee identification
card containing the bearees'signature and photograph,or similar documentation which
provides the permittee'or.seller reasonable assurance of the identity and age of the
purchaser,
(7) The permittee shall not sell,lease or otherwise transfer a firearm to a person whom the
_ permittee or seller has reason to believe is within any of the classes prohibited by Penal
Code sections 12021 or 12021.1,or Welfare and Institutions Code sections 8100 or 8103;
(8) No firearm or imitation of one or placard advertising its sale or other transfer shall be
displayed in any part of the premises where it can readily be seen from the outside;
(9) The permittee shall not sell, lease or otherwise transfer a firearm without also selling
or otherwise providing with each such frrearra a trigger lock or similar device that is
designed to prevent the unintentional discharge of the firearm;
(10) The permittee shall properly and promptly process firearms transactions as required by
Penal Code section 12082;
(11) The permittee shall keep a register of sales as required by Penal Code sections 12073
and 12077;
(12) The permittee shall post conspicuously within the licensed premises all charges and
fees required by Penal Code section 12071(b)(11)and the following warning in block
letters not less than one inch in height:
"IF YOU LEAVE A LOADED FIREARM WIRE
A CHILD OBTAINS AND IMPROPERLY USES IT,
YOU MAY BE FINED OR SENT TO PRISON."
(13) No firearm capable of being concealed on the person shall be delivered.to a purchaser
or transferee,unless that person presents to the permittee or seller acurrent basic firearm
safety certificate, unless otherwise exempted by state law;
(14) The permittee shall offer to provide to the purchaser or transferee of a firearm a copy
of the pamphlet described in Penal Code section 12080 and may add the cost of the
pamphlet, if any, to the sales price of the firearm;
(15) The permittee shall report the loss or theft of a firearm that is merchandise of the permittee,
a firearm that the permittee takes possession of pursdant to Penal Code section 12082,
or a firearm kept at the permittee's place of business within 48 hours of discovery to
the police department:
(Ord. 439 § 3, 1995: Ord. 433 § 9 (part), 1994)
8-609. Requirement of secured facility.
•(a) In addition to the conditions of approval stated in Section 8-608,the business location
as shown on the police permit shall be a secured facility meeting all of the following
specifications:
(1) Every perimeter doorway shall include one of the following:
(Waym 5-95) 400-2
8-609
(A) A windowless steel security door-equipped with both a dead bolt and a
doorknob lock.or
(8) A windowed metal door that is equipped with both a dead bolt and a domimob
lock.If the window has an opening of five inches or more measured in any
direction, the window shall be covered with steel bars of at least one-half
inch diameter or metal grating of at least nine gauge affixed to the exterior
or interior of the door,
(2) Every perimeter doorway shall also be provided with an exterior metal grate that
is padlocked and affixed to the permittee's premises independent of the door and
the door frame;
(3) Every window covered with steel bars;
(4) Heating,ventilating,air-conditioning and service openings are secured with steel
bars, metal grading and an alarm system; ;
(5) Any metal grate may not have a space larger than six inches wide measured in
any direction;
(6) Each metal screen may not have a space larger than three inches wide measured
in any direction;
(7) All steel bars shall be no further than six inches apart.
(b) Upon written request by the permittee,the police chief may approve alternative security
measures which he or she considers will provide equivalent or superior security to the
premises as the measures required under subsection (a) of this section.
(c) Every firearm that is kept in the permitted place of business shall be stored using one
of the following methods:
(1) The firearm shall be secured with a hardened steel rod or cable of at least one-eighth
inch in diameter through the trigger guard of the firearm.The steel rod or cable
shall be secured with a hardened steel lock that has a shackle.The lock and shackle
shall be protected or shielded from the use of a bolt cutter and the rod or cable
shall be anchored in a manner that prevents the removal of the firearm from the
premises;
(2) The firearm shall be stored in a locked fireproof safe or vault in the per iittee's
business premises; or -
(3) All firearms shall be stored on the premises ont�of the reach of customers in secure,
locked facilities approved by the chief of police by which access to firearms is
controlled by the permittee or seller to the exclusion of all others..
(Ord. 433 § 9 (part). 1994)
8-610 Liability insurance.
(a) No police permit shall be issued or reissued unless there is in effect a policy of insurance
in a form approved by the city and executed by an insurance-company approved by
the city, whereby the applicant is insured against liability for damage to property and
for injury to or death of any person as a result of the sale,lease or transfer or offering
for sale, lease or transfer of a firearm. The minimum liability limits shall not be less
400-3 (isr rm 5.95)
8-610 -
than$1,000,000 for each incident of damage to property or incident of injury or death
to a person.
(b) The policy of insurance shall contain an endorsement providing that the policy shall
not be canceled until notice in writing has been given to the city manager at least 30
days prior to the time the cancellation becomes effective.
(c) Upon expiration of a policy of insurance and if no additional insurance is obtained,the
permit is considered canceled without further notice.
(Ord. 433 § 9 (part), 1994)
8-611 Issuance of police permit—Duration.
(a) The police department may grant a police permit to the applicant if it finds that the
applicant complies with all applicable federal,:state and local laws including,but not
limited to,the state Penal Code,city building code,fire code and zoning and planning
codes.
(b) A police permit expires one year after the date of issuance.A permit may be renewed
for additional one-year periods upon the permittee's submission of an application for
renewal,accompanied by a nonrefundable renewal fee established by city council msolution.
The renewal application and the renewal fee must he received by the police.department
tment
no later than 45 days before the expiration of the current permit:
(c) A decision regarding issuance or renewal may be appealed in the manner provided for
in Section.8-614.
(Ord.433 § 9 (part), 1994)
8-612 Grounds for permit denial.
The police chief shall deny the issuance or renewal of a police permit when one or more of
the following conditions exist:
(1) The applicant is under 21 years of age;
(2) The applicant is not licensed as required by federal, state and local law;
(3) The applicant has had a firearms permit or license previously revoked or denied for
good cause within the immediately preceding two years;
(4) The applicant has made a false or misleading statement of a material fact or omission
of a material fact in the application for a police plow If a pennit is denied on this
ground, the applicant is prohibited from reapplying for a permit for a period of two
years; ..
(5) The applicant has been convicted of.
(A) An offense which disqualifies the applicant from owning or possessing a firearm
under federal,state and local law,including,but not limited to,the offenses listed
in Penal Code section 12021,
(B) An offense relating to the manufacture, sale,possession,use or registration of a
firearm or dangerous or deadly weapon,
(C) An offense involving the use of force or violence upon the person of another,
(D) An offense involving theft, fraud, dishonesty or deceit,
aAfayeae 5-95) 400.4
8-612
(E) An offense involving the manufacture, sale, possession or use of a controlled
substance as defined by the state Health and Safety Code,as it now reads or may
hereafter be amended to read;
(6) The applicant is within a class of persons defused in the Welfare and Institutions Code
sections 8100 or 8103;
(7) The applicant is currently,or has been within the past two years, an unlawful user of
a controlled substance as defined by the Health and Safety Code as that definition now
reads or may hereafter be amended to read;
(8) The operation of the business as proposed would not comply with federal, state and
local law.
(Ord. 433 § 9 (part), 1994)
8-613 Grounds for permit revocation.
In addition to the violation of any other provisions contained in this chapter,circumstances
constituting grounds for denial of a police permit also constitute grounds for revocation.(Ord.433
§ 9 (part), 1994)
8-614 Hearing for permit denial or revocation.
(a) A person whose application for a permit is denied or revoked by the-chief of police
has the right to a hearing before the chief of poLre before final denial or revocation.
(b) Within ten days of mailing written notice of intent to deny the application or revoke
the permit, the applicant may appeal by requesting a hearing before the police chief.
The request must be made in writing, setting forth the specific grounds for appeal. If
the applicant submits a timely request for an appeal,the chief of police shall set a time
and place for the hearing within'30 days.
(c) The decision of the chief of police shall be in writing within ten days of the hearing.
An applicant may appeal the decision of the chief of police to the city council in the
manner provided in Section 1-215.
(Ord. 433 § 9 (part), 1994)
8.615 Nonassignability.
A police permit issued under this chapter is not assignabre:An attempt to assign a police permit
makes the permit void. (Ord.433 § 9 (part), 1994)
8-616 Compliance by existing dealers.
A person engaging in firearm sales activity on the effective date of this chapter or any amendment
to it shall, within 60 days after the effective date,comply with this chapter and any amendment
to it,except for the requirement for a land use permit under Section 8-605(b).(Ord.433§9(part),
1994)
400-5 (r&.YCM 5-95)
6-417
6.417 Convenience market activity.
"Convenience market activity"means the retail sale of food, beverages and small personal
convenience items,primarily for off-premises consumption and typically found in establishments
with long or late hours of operation and a relatively small building; but excludes delicatessens,
other specialty food shops and establishments which have a sizable assortment of fresh fruits and
vegetables and fresh-cut meat. (Ord. 221 § 5 (part), 1980)
6-418 Day-care and educational services activity.
"Day-care and educational services activity" means the following:
(a) Child-care services for seven or more children,provided,however,that care for four or
more children be provided only in facilities licensed by a state or county agency;
(b) Nursery schools and kindergartens.
(Ord. 221 § 5 (part), 1980)
6-419 Fast-food restaurant activity.
"Fast-food restaurant activity"means the retail sale of ready-to-eat cooked foods and beverages,
for on-premises or off-premises consumption,wherever the foods and beverages are available upon
a short waiting time and primarily served in or on disposable wrappers,containers or plates.(Ord.
221 § 5 (part), 1980)
6-420 Financial service activity.
"Financial service activity„means the provision of financial advice,receiving,deposit,lending
or changing of money, such as banks, savings and loans, and finance companies. (Ord. 221 § 5
(part), 1980)
6-421 Firearm sales.
"Futarm sales"means the sale,transfer,lease,offer or advertising for sale or lease of a fimarm,
which includes a gun,pistol, revolver, rifle or any device designed to be used as a weapon from
which is expelled through a barrel a projectile by the force of any explosion or other form of
combustion. (Ord.443.§ 1, 1945: Ord 433 § 2, 1944)
6-422- Health care activity. ".
"Health care activity"means and consists of the activities typically performed by the following
institutions:
(a) Health clinics;
(b) Hospitals and convalescent hospitals:
(c) Nursing homes, rest homes and homes for the aged, with seven or more patients.
(Ord. 245 § 2, 1981)
(Waym s gs> 142
6-532
6.532.. .: . •.Criteria for retail dry deaaem
.A retail dry cleaners shall comply with all of the following. -
(a) The dry cleaning system shall be a self-contained enclosed system, nonvented to the
atmosphere;
(b) Evidence of approval of the proposed system by the Bay Area air quality management
district shall be submitted prior to commencement of use; and
(c) Maximum square footage of the facility shall be 2,000 square feet total.
(Ord. 359 § 1(B), 1987)
6-533 Firearm sales.
A. Purpose.It is the purpose of this section to provide for the appropriate location of firearm
sales activity and regulate such activity through the permitting process.
B. Permit Requirement.The sale of firearms is permitted on the issuance of a land use permit,
and a police permit as provided under Chapter 8-6,Article 2,in the Retail Business District
(RB),General Commercial District(C),Special Retail Business District(SRB)and General
Commercial District 1 (C-1). Firearm sales are prohibited in all other land use districts.
C. Procedure.An applicant for a land use permit for sale of firearms shall apply to the planning
commission by application prescribed by the city in the manner provided by Section 6-201
et seq.
D. Criteria.In addition to the findings required under Section 6-215,the planning commission —
shall review an application for a land use permit for the sale of firearms for satisfaction
of the following criteria:
1. Locational compatibility of the proposed use with other existing uses in close
proximity,in particular elementary, middle or high school,pre-school or day-care
center,other firearms sales business.liquor stores and bar,and residentially zoned
area;
2. Architectural compatibility of the proposed use with other existing uses in the vicinity,
due to the requirements of Chapter 8-6, Article 2 regarding a"secure facility."
E. Conditions.An approved land use permit is not valid until the applicant satisfies the following
terms and conditions:
1. Possession of a valid police permit as required under Sections 8-605 et seq.;
2. Possession of all licenses and permits required by-federal and state law; and
3. Compliance with the requirements of the city's building code, fire code and other
technical code and regulation which governs the use, occupancy, maintenance,
construction or design of the building or structure.The use permit shall also contain
a condition that the applicant must obtain a final inspection from the city building
official demonstrating code compliance before the applicant may begin business
at the premises at issue.
F.. Nonconforming Use. An operator of a firearm sales activity in a residential zone who
is the holder of a valid seller's permit issued by the State Board of Equalization and a
valid certificate of eligibility issued by the California Department of Justice,all of which
wereissued prior to October 24, 1994,may continue his/her firearms sales activity provided
(Way-=5-95) 158
6-533
a police permit and business registration are obtained from the city within 60 days of the
effective date of the ordinance codified in this section,and provided the operator remain
fully licensed by all agencies listed above. (Ord.433 $$ 3, 4, 1994)
Article 2. Nonconforming Uses
6-550 General.
(a) Unless otherwise stated in the regulations for a specific zoning district, the regulations
in this article shall apply to all nonconforming uses.
(b) The use of land, or the use of a building, structure or improvement,existing on May 1,
1980, which does not conform to the land use regulations in this title, may continue as
provided in this article, so long as the use does not violate any other ordinance or law.
(c) "Land, building, structure or improvement," as used in this section. refers only to that
portion which is actually utilized for the nonconforming but preexisting use.The term
does not include an improvement which is not a part of the existing use; and any land,
building,structure or improvement which is not a part of the existing use shall be disregarded
in the application of the provisions of this article.
(Ord. 221 § 7 (part), 1980)
6-551 Regulations.
The following regulations apply to each nonconforming use:
(a) No physical change in the use is permitted other than ordinary maintenance and repair,
except as provided by Section 6-553.
(b) No increase or enlargement of the area,space or volume occupied and used is permitted.
(c) No change in the nature or character of the nonconforming use is permitted.
(d) If the nonconforming use is replaced by a conforming use, the right to continue the
nonconforming use is automatically terminated.
(e) If the nonconforming use discontinues active operation, except for reasons defined by
Section 6-554 for a continuous period of 124 days, the nonconforming use terminates
and the facilities accommodating or serving such activity shall thereafter be utilized only
for uses permitted or conditionally permitted by the regulations of the applicable zoning
district.
(Ord. 221 § 7 (part), 1984)
6-552 - Cerif"icate_&
(a) The planning director shall compile a list.of all nonconforming uses which exist within
158-1 (Latayme 5-45)
ENDORSEDD
L E
S�sn Fria o Ccvnry Supenor
MAR 14 W6
ALALN CARLSON. Clerk
BY: GAIL PEERLESS
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT NUMBER EIGHT
SAN FRANCISCO GUN EXCHANGE, NO. 975036
INC.,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIE7's
Plaintiff, MOTION FOR AN ORDER
GRANTING A PRELIMINARY
vs. INJUNCTION
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO; TAX COLLECTOR OF THE
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO,
Defendants .
This matter came before the court for hearing on March 1,
1996. The Honorable William Cahill, presiding, ordered this
matter submitted. After further consideration of- ,all papers and
arguments, the court orders as follows:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Plaintiff' s Motion for an Order
Sranting a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.
:ALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT NUMBER EIGHT
SAN FRANCISCO GUN EXCHANGE, INC. , NO. 975036
Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY
MAIL (CCP 1013a(4) )
VS.
-ITY 'AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO;
W COLLECTOR OF THE CITY AND
.OUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ,
Defendants .
1,
ad. a deputy clerk of the Superior
ourt for the City and County of San Francisco, certify that:
1) 1 am not a party to this action;
2) On I served the attached:
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION MR AN ORDER GRANTING A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
y placing a copy in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows :
iil Y. Norton Burk E. Delventhal
)PERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY Arthur R. Greenberg
70 Howard St . Deputy City Attorneys
in Francisco, CA 94105 1390 Market St. , 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-5408
�hn R. Heisse, II
HELEN MARRIN, JOHNSON &- BRIDGES
4o Embarcadero Ctr. , Ste . 2200
in Francisco, CA 94111
id,
SY I then placed the sealed envelope in the outgoing mail at 633
)Isom Street, San Francisco, CA, 94107 on the date indicated above
)r collection, attachment of required prepaid postage, and mailing on
iat date following the standard court practices.
,TED: ALAN CARLSON, Clerk
A
By: ?��_, eputy
I legal remedy because plaintiff can pay its taxes under protest
Z and sue for a recovery. 92,g mar-Kist Foods, Inc_ v. ouinn
t (1960) 54 Cal. 2d 507, 511 . San Francisco Municipal Code, Part
t III, Article 12-8, § 1017, provides a specific procedure for a
taxpayer to request a refund of a tax that has been "erroneously
or illegally collected or received by the City and County under
this ordinance. "
IV. !Conclusion
The voter approval requirement of Proposition 62 is not
applicable in this case• under Article XI, § 5 (a) of the
California Constitution. Neither the state nor the federal law
preempts the business tax amendments and the amendments
i
themselves do not violate the United States Constitution. For
these reasons, there is little chance that plaintiffs will
prevail on the merits . Since that is the case and monetary
damages are adequate, Plaintiff' s Motion for an Order Granting a
Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.
DATED: March , 1996 i
-judge Will Cahill
San Francisco Superior Court
Ftreating firearms injuries . There is also a rational basis for
the business tax amendments ' exemption for auction companies .
Firearms retailers like plaintiff sell predominately newly
manufactured modern firearms for purchase directly by the
consumer and for that consumer's use. By contrast, auctioneers,
like Butterfield and Butterfield, sell predominately antique and
collector firearms purchased for investment value, and therefore
less likely to be used by the consumer. The distinction between
plaintiff's business and that of Butterfield and Butterfield also
extends to the costs of the merchandise and the manner of sale.
Therefore, under the deferential rational-basis test, the
business tax amendments do not violate the equal protection
clause.
3 . First AmendZent
Finally, the business tax amendments do not violate the
First Amendment. "Governments can impose taxes on businesses
engaged in protected activities as part of a general taxation
scheme without reaping constitutional problems." ZgAJIy&J
Entgrprisgs,_ -Inc, V. City of Pleasant Hill (1986) 182 Cal. App.
3d 960, 963. S-ee- AISO Times Mirror Co__v. City of Los Mzgd=
(1987) 192 Cal. App. 3d 170, 183. Furthei Plaintiff remains free
to engage in the protected activity of selling publications.
111 , IrreDarahlp Harm
This court also finds that Plaintiff will not suffer
irreparable harm should a preliminary injunction not issue and
that monetary damages are adequate. Plaintiff has an adequate
I amendments do not tax interstate sales and are not violative of
2 the commerce clause under the internal inconsistency doctrine.
3
4 2 . ' Emial Prorpction Clause
5 The business tax amendments do not violate the equal
6 protection clause. The United States Supreme Court applies a
7 rational-basis test to tax classifications challenged under the
equal protection clause. Under the rational-basis test, "a
classification must be upheld against equal protection challenge
if there is any reasonable conceivable state of facts could
provide a rational basis for the classification. " Hpllgr v. Doe
(1993) 509* U.S. 312, 125 L.Ed. 2d 257, 270 (citations omitted) .
i California courts have applied the same deferential standard to
tax classifications. 5_ae City of BeXkelgy kierman (1993) 14
Cal. App. 4th 1331, 1342.
San Francisco has asserted several rational bases for the
businesstax amendments concerning retail firearms dealers, and
for the exemption for auction companies (such as Butterfield and
Butterfield) . First, the tax generates revenue for San
Francisco. " [Tlhe power to license for purposes of generating
revenue involves therightto make distinctions between different
trades and between essentially different-methods of conducting
the same general character of business alone. " Times Mirror Co.
y. City of Los-Angeles (1987) 192 Cal . App. 3d 170, 183. Second,
San Francisco pays substantial costs associated with firearms
injuries. The business tax amendments, which tax retail firearms
Sealers at a higher rate than other retailers, pro*vide San
.rancisco with partial compensation for the costs incurred in
-clause. The distinction between retailer firearm dealers, (such
as Plaintiff) , and auction company and wholesale firearms
dealers, (such as Butterfield and Butterfield) , even if
discriminatory, is not violative of the commerce clause. The
commerce clause prohibits a state or local jurisdiction from
Madvanc[ing] their own commercial interests by curtailing the
movement of articles of commerce, either into or out of the
state. " Fort Grati,ot Landfill_ Tncv M.ichigan DeRt- of Natural
gcsourceg (1992) 504 U.S. 353, 359 (citations omitted) . The
commerce clause requires "an alertness to evil of 'economic
isolation' and protectionism, " but recognizes that "incidental
burdens on interstate commerce may be unavoidable when a. state
legislates to safeguard the health and safety of its. people. "
City of Philadelpbia v. New Jersey (1978) 437 U.S. 617, 623 . The
business tax amendments cannot be construed as "protectionist"
measures. The amendments tax the gross receipts of retail
firearms dealers in San Francisco, and make no distinction
between local and non-local buyers or manufactures . The tax
imposes at most an incidental and insubstantial burden on
commerce.
In addition, the business tax amendments do not violate the
internal consistency doctrine adopted by the United States
Supreme Court and applied in General MQtors Corp. Y. City of Los
Angeleg (1995) 35 Cal. App- 4th 1736, 1749-52. "A failure of
internal consistency shows as a matter of law that a State is
attempting to take more than its fair share of taxes from the
interstate transaction Gpneral Motors, ZlUzza, 35 Cal.
App. 4th at 171-52 (citations omitted) The business tax
Cal . App. 3d 509, 516.
In its complaint, Plaintiff alleges that San Francisco' s
business tax amendments are "void as both expressly and impliedly
preempted by general law. " Complaint, para. 42 (b) . Plaintiff
further alleges that these laws (1) relate to "registration or
licensing" of guns, (2) legislate in areas of such statewide
concern as firearm "control, " "sales" and "licensing of firearms
dealers' which are "fully occupied by general law, " and (3)
"contradict" and "interfere" with such general law.
This court finds that the business tax amendments do not
relate to, legislate in, or interfere with the general laws
regarding firearms and firearm dealers . The amendments are a
business tax, which simply impose a tax rate on a particular
small businesses which sell guns . The state regulations
regarding control, sales and licensing of dealers remain
unaffected .by this tax. As plaintiff points out, there may be
other adverse impacts to local businesses subject to the business
tax amendments, but the possible adverse impacts are not a result
of any interference with areas preempted by state law.
C. Constitl3tignality of I the Amen dMents
Plaintiff also argues that the business tax amendments are
unconstitutional because they violate the commerce clause, ' the
equal protection. clause and the First Amendment of the United
States Constitution.
1, Commerce Clause
The business tax amendments do not violate the commerce
not have statewide effect .
So, although Plaintiff is correct that the plain language of
Proposition 62 would require the business tax ordinances at issue
in this case to be approved by the voters, the plain language of
the California Constitution and case law interpreting the
constitution require this court to conclude that the voter
approval requirements of Proposition 62 cannot be applied to
charter cities such as San Francisco under these facts. (This
ruling is consistent with what the voters were told when they
adopted Proposition 62 . Ze& 5jjaj_dj=, _Up a, 11 Cal .. 4th at
260. )
R. Breemntion
Next, plaintiff argues that this, tax is simply San
Francisco' s attempt at "gun control, " an area in which state law
preempts the entire field.
The state has expressly preempted local regulation of
firearms in two narrow ways . First, the state has expressed its
intention to "occupy the whole field of regulation of
aistration or licensing of commercially manufactured firearms."
:al. Gov' t Code § 53071 (emphasis added) Second; the state has
-orbidden local laws that prohibit most persons over the age of
.8 "'from owning, possessing, keeping, or carrying (on one' s
)rivate property] . . . any pistol, revolver, or other firearm
.apable of being concealed upon the person-" Cal. Penal Code
2026. The state has not prevented local governmental bodies
ram regulating all aspects of firearms or passing business taxes
n firearms dealers. Ij= -Doe y. City of San franciaCo (1982) 136
! In this case, plaintiff argues that the "supramunicipal"
effect of the imposition of the business tax amendments are a
i matter of statewide concern in that they amount to "gun control, "
an area occupied entirely by the state, and therefore the
business tax amendments are a matter of statewide concern subject
to the requirements of Proposition 62. Plaintiff has failed to
make this showing.
In Ca], Fed. , the court held that a local business license
tax on a savings and loan association was a matter of statewide
concern and therefore barred by a state statute imposing an f
income tax on financial corporations in lieu of all other taxes {
and licenses. The court noted that tax equality among financial
institutions has "been a theme of California corporate tax law
for over 60 years, " 54 Cal . 3d at 18-19, and, in light of adverse
economic condition, the aggregate tax burden on savings
banks has assumed a new and more worrisome dimension.
Centralized command over the intrastate tax burden on savings h
banks thus provides an additional and increasingly important
regulatory lever. . . . And because the comprehensive 'regulation !
of savings banks takes place almost entirely at state and federal
levels, these regulatory aspects of taxation necessarily
transceAd local interest; they become, in other words, a subject
of statewide concern. " Ca1 . Fed. , ZIU=, 54 Cal.3d at 22-23.
Here, there is no similar state or federal taxing scheme of
retail gun dealers. The stated purpose of the business tax
amendments is revenue raising. In addition, these ordinances are
lot "gun control, " an area of law preempted by state law. (5=
II. B., infra. ) These are local taxes with local purpose and do
0 un t Y ocal tran-sp) rtation Authority V.
!nts at
al. 4th 220, the California Supreme Court
i a matter
onality of Proposition 62 and held that "the
:he
ement . . . is a precondition to [the) tion 62.
< statute to which it applies. Iji, at 240.
ire a
the measure will not take effect -- in
-eme Court
become law. " Plaintiff argues that
of power
ge of section 53721 of Proposition 62 and
s
a, sunra, the business tax amendments must
anciscols electorate before they can be
in GuardinQ, however, makes it clear that
power of
ich the issue of whether the California
ssess is
,,. ie application of Proposition 62 ' s
141
cities. � auazAj=, 5upra, 11 Cal .*
ken line
purposes
of the California Constitution
Ith at
-es to "Male and enforce all ordinances and
Lifornia
to municipal affairs" (emphasis added) .
iat so
he Legislature, gives charter cities the
are
municipal affairs. Fisher v.- County of
App. 4th 120, 125 (citing Ex Par araUn
long line
9) . "The-Legislature may preempt such
L. red-
y legislation (regarding municipal
s for the
matter addressed is one of statewide
a tax
he Legislature' s action. " Fielder v. City
-srise
4 Cal . App. 4th 137, 143 (citing
canting
and Loan AssIn v. City of Los Anq2"s
7 (cite
"Cal . Fed.") ) . Therefore, because San
Oh July 29, 1994, San Francisco Board of Supervisors ("San
Francisco") passed Ordinances 195-94 and 267-94, amending the
payroll expense and business taxes effective January 1, 1995.
(San Francisco Municipal Code Part III Articles 12-A and 12-B,
hereinafter collectively referred to as "business tax
amendments". ) Among other provisions, the business tax
amendments raise the tax rate on gross receipts of businesses
"engaged in the business of selling firearms or firearms
ammunition, " (z-= Article 12-B, § 1004 - 18) , and make these
businesses ineligible for the Small Business Tax Exemption,- (Z-=
Article 12-A, § 905-A) Plaintiff is a retailer engaged in the
business of selling firearms as defined in the business tax
amendments. Plaintiff challenges the business tax amendments on
five grounds and seeks an order enjoining the imposition of the
tax pending a final determination on the merits .
11. Likelihood Qf Pzevailipg on the Merits
A. Proposit-Lon 62
Under California Government Code § 53720 et seq. ,
("Proposition 62") , local governments are required to submit new
taxes to the 'local electorate for approval. Und'e'r Proposition
62, charter cities, such as San Francisco, are "local
governments." Cal. Gov't Code § 53721. San Francisco did not
submit the amendments to the San Francisco voters for approval;
?laintiff argues that San Francisco's failure to submit the
business tax amendments to the voters renders the amendments
anenacted.
BARBARA BOXER 1700 MONTGOMERY STREET
CALIFORNIA SUITE 240
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94111
AND PUSCIC WORKS
U 15)403-0100
/�y�1 y_��] L_ L� � � 2250 EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
COMMITTEE ON BANKING. "i.�Lj/,j�T}ji Q �("„((]j L SUITE 5a5
MOUSING.AND URBAN AFFAIRS EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING (310).414-5700
SUITE 112 $25 B STREE
SUITE 990
WASHINGTON,DC 20510-0505 SAN DIEGO,CA 9210,
(202)224-3553 MIS)239-3884
2300 TULARE STREET
SUITE 130
FRESNO,CA 93721
(209)497-5109
What are Junk Guns and
Why Should We Be Concerned About Them?
What are junk guns?
Junk Guns--also called Saturday Night Specials-describe handguns that are inexpensive,
easily concealable and made of inferior materials. Because of their low accuracy and high
failure rates, junk guns are unsuitable for hunting and self-protection purposes.
Are junk guns used disproportionately in crimes?
Yes. According to a recent study conducted by the U.C. Davis Violence Prevention Research
Program, junk guns are 3.4 times as likely to be involved in a crime as are other firearms.
According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, eight of the ten firearms most
frequently traced at crimes scenes in 1995 were junk guns.
Has Congress ever tried to stem the proliferation of junk guns?
Yes. In 1968, Congress passed the Gun Control Act, which prohibited the importation of
junk guns. At the time, the vast majority of junk guns were made overseas, so it was
considered unnecessary to restrict their domestic manufacture. By eliminating all foreign
competition, the Gun Control Act unintentionally created a vast domestic junk gun industry.
In fact, of the junk guns most frequently used in crimes, all are manufactured by companies
founded after passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Has Congress ever tried to restrict the domestic manufacture of junk guns?
Yes. In 1972, the Senate passed a bill to apply the import standards to domestically produced
firearm by a vote of 68-25. Among those supporting the bill were Senators Dole, Thurmond,
Byrd, Inouye, Kennedy, Hollings, and Hatfield. Senator Boxer`s proposed legislation is
modeled after this bill.
How many firearms would be affected by Senator Boxer's proposal?
Firearms manufacturers are not required to submit production data to the government, so an
exact figure is not available. More than 100 handgun models would be banned and it is
estimated that 50% of domestically produced handguns would be affected. A significant
number of those firearms would require only minor alternations, such as lengthening the
barrel.
BARBARA BOXER 1700 MONTGOMERY STREET
SUITE 240
CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO.CA 94111
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT (415)403-0100
AND PUBLIC WORKS
2250 EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
COMMITTEE ON BANKING. SUITE 545
HOUSING.AND URBAN AFFAIRS EL SEG 90245
HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING 131001)441414 57oo
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET SUITE 112 525 B STREET
SUITE 990
WASHINGTON, DC '0510-0505 SAN DIEGO.CA 92101
(202)224-3553 16191239-3684
2300 TULARE STREET
SUITE 130
Section by Section Summary FR12091497-510ESNO97-510CA 2t
9
of the Junk Gun Violence Protection Act
Section 1—Short Title
This section authorizes the use of the short title, "Junk Gun Violence Protection Act."
Section 2—Findings
This section lists a series of Congressional findings. The sources of this information are the
Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research
Program, and the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
Section 3—Restriction on Certain Handguns
This section prohibits the manufacture, transfer, and possession of junk guns. It provides
blanket exemptions for police officers and for firearms legally owned prior to the date of
enactment.
Subsection 33(A) defines the term junk gun. The definition is divided into four parts.
First, the bill names several handgun models and bans them or copycat models [Section
33(A)(i)]. These models include the junk guns most frequentiv used in crimes. All of the
firearms listed here would fail the features test established in the following sections. They
are listed in this section by name to ensure that these most destructive guns are banned.
Second, the bill establishes a test for pistols [Section 33(A)(ii)]. To avoid being labelled a
junk gun, a pistol must have a safety device, meet a minimum size requirement, and achieve
a minimum score on a features test in which points awarded for size, weight, construction
materials, and other, safety features.
Third, the bill establishes a test for revolvers [Section 33(B)(iii). To avoid being labelled a
junk gun, a pistol must pass a safety test, meet a minimum size requirement, and pass a
features test similar to the pistol test.
Both the pistol and revolver features test are identical to the test currently used by the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to evaluate imported handguns. This test, developed to
implement the Gun Control Act of 1968, has been used successfully for more than 25 years.
Fourth, the:bill applies the same restrictions to unassembled junk gun parts as it does to
assembled junk guns, closing a potential loophole in the legislation.
O:\FLA\FLA96.262 S.L.c.
104,rH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
so
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Bradley, and
Mi-s. BOXER (for Herself, Mr. Chafee ) introduced the follpinQ bill;
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on
A BILL
To apply equal standards to certain- foreign made and
domestically produced handguns.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the "Junk Gun Violence
5 Protection Act".
6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
7 The Congress finds that-
8 (1) the prohibition on the importation of hand-
9 alms that are not generally recognized as particu-
10 larly suitable for or readily adaptable to sportiiit
11 purposes, often described as junk go-mis or• Satur(lay
0:\FLA\FLA96.262 S.L.C.
3
1 the date of the enactment of the Junk Gun Violence
2 Protection Act;
3 "(B) any firearm or replica of a firearm that
4 has been rendered permanently inoperative;
5 "(C) the manufacture for, transfer to, or pos-
6 session by the United States or a State or a depart-
7 meat or agency of the United States, or a State or
8 a department, agency, or political subdivision of a
.9 State, or a transfer to or possession by a law en-
10 forcement officer employed by such an entity for law
11 enforcement purposes (whether on or off duty); or
12 "(D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession
13 of a junk gun by a licensed manufacturer or licensed
14 importer for the purposes of _testing or et-perimen-
15 tation authorized by the Secretary.".
16 (b) DEFINITION OF JUNx GUN.—Section 921(x) of
17 title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
18 end the following new paragraph:
19 "(33)(A) The term junk gun' means any firearm
20 that is not described in section 925(d)(3), and any regula-
21 tions issued under such section.".
O:\FLA\FLA96.262 S.L.C.
2
1 night specials, has led to the creation of a high-vol-
2 ume market for these weapons that are domestically
3 manufactured;
4 (2) traffic in junk guris constitutes a serious
5 threat to public welfare and to law enforcement offi-
6 vers, and the use of such firearms is increasing;
7 (3) junk guns are used disproportionately in the
8 commission of crimes;
9 (4) of the firearms traced in 1995, the 3 fire-
10 arms most commonly traced to crinies were Junk
11 guns; and
12 (5) the domestic manufacture, transfer, and
13 possession of junk guns should be restricted.
14 SEC. 3. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND
15 POSSESSION OF CERTAIN HANDGUNS.
16 (a) RESTRICTION.—Section 922 of title 18, United
17 States Code, is amended by addling at the end the follow-
18 ing new subsection:
19 "(y)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufac-
20 tore, transfer, or possess a junk glen that has been shipped
21 or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
22 "(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to-
23 "(A) the possession or transfer of any junk gtin
24 othenVise lawfully possessed under Federal la«l- on
News From
U.S. Senator
&Barbara B, oxer
112 Han Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510- Communicatim Office 202-22"120
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: David Sandretti
April 2, 1996 202/224-8120
BOXER AUTHORS BILL TO EXTEND "SUNK GUN"
IMPORT BAN TO DOMESTIC MARKET
CaCfomia's Top Police Officials join Boxer In Fight to Ban Criminals' Favorite Guns
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA -- Chiefs of Police and other law enforcement officials have
Joined U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) In announcing the introduction of her bill to
extend the import ban of weapons known as "Junk guns" to domestic production. The
cheap, easily concealable and often unsafe guns to be banned under Boxer's bili have been
prohibited for import to the United States since 1968.
"These junk guns are so cheaply made, so easy to buy, and such a threat to public
safety, that they are already banned for import," Boxer said. 'There is no reason to
continue to allow them the be produced here in the united States.`
According to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), eight of
the ten firearms most frequently traced at crime scenes are Junk guns. And California's
law enforcement community has given Boxer widespread support for her initiative. "I am
proud that my legislation has been endorsed by the Callfomla Police Chiefs Association
and the chiefs of some of California's largest cities including Willie Williams of Los
Angeles, Fred Lau of San Francisco, Art Venegas of Sacramento, and Louis Cobanvviaz
of San Jose," Boxer said. "They understand the real need to get these guns off the
streets." In all, 27 Caiifomia police chiefs and sheriffs have endorsed Boxer's legislation.
It has also been endorsed by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, a leading national anti-
violence organization.
Boxers bill, which has been co-sponsored by Democrat Bill Bradley of New Jersey
and Republican John Chafee of Rhode Island, would apply the same regulations to
domestically produced firearms as are currently applied to imported handguns. The junk
gun import ban has been in effect since the enactment of the Gun Control Act of 1968,
which was passed in the wake of the tragic assassination of Robert F. Kennedy by an
assailant wielding a Junk gun.
-- more --
µ
News from Senator Boxer page 2
April 2, 1996
Shortly after the passage of the Gun Control Act, unintended consequences began
to emerge. Many new companies were formed In the United States to manufacture junk
guns and production of junk guns has skyrocketed. "in 1972 Congress tried to end the
double standard that allows the domestic manufacture of junk guns," Boxer noted.
"Sixty-eight Senators — Including Bob Dole and Strom Thurmond -- voted to dose the
loophole permanently. Unfortunately, despite its more than 2-to-1 support in the Senate,
that bill was killed in a House committee. I plan to fight hard for this bm, and i am
confident that with the strong support of law enforcement and citizens" groups around the
country, we will prevail."
Boxer's bill calls for using the same test set forth by the BATF as is used to
determine whether a weapon can be prohibited for Importation under the Gun Control
Act. This "sporting test" grades guns for features Including: safety features, construction
materials, size and weight.
"Junk guns are not sporting weapons because they have low accuracy and high
failure rates," Boxer said. "And because they are inaccurate, poorly constructed and
lacking in safety features, junk guns are Ill-suited for home and self protection. Keeping a
junk gun in the house is an invitation to disaster." Boxer noted a case where a man was
killed when his gun fell from its holster as he bent over to get a drink of water from a
fountain. In another case, a man was critically injured when a junk gun he kept in his car
fired when the car hit a bump in the road. "These tragedies could have been prevented If
these junk guns had better safety features," Boxer said.
Boxer noted and praised the efforts of California State legislators who have been
working for a bill to prohibit the manufacture and sale of Junk guns In California. "1
applaud Senator Whard Polanco and Assemblyman Louis Caldera for their efforts to
enact this common sense reform," Boxer said. "This Is a problem that the U.S. Congress
created, and it is one that the Congress should flx," Boxer said. "Clearly a nationwide
ban would be the most effective way to keep these fireamis out of the hands of
criminals." The bill passed the state Senate last year, but was blocked in an Assembly
Committee in January.
Boxer's bill would apply to guns produced after the legislation is enacted. No gun
In clrculatlon at that time the law is enacted would be affected by ban.
µ,J
m�G1
Co
00 to•b 'a 2 O O t 'CJ d O d
..
4m4C O 0 u s.0 3 � 0 T O E 0 E
�1 1 :� O o 2 ca
O M•C u V v•� cc
E 7 m T Q
Z c M o r a c w C G
0 caa 0 > CGvi a s c. t7
a> y m ..—
C/1 Cs o 3"Go'
fa 67c o Nc co
� � TN .� � a« mod o � � v �; y � yT
�® u 'coo « m d O0 to
L. ,c�
C3.2 as
d aoi� � ne°i oM mo5 a oo�
oM ffi o �aa°, � � � ° °° a, '°� w01
o6 `0 tt � o.�du ta3a�
r/ r+ VO yj Cc V b �d+90RI.7 yy G .�,. d
O .�. U N W L10 > e0 d ~ dn
�
v �� o0o a,d �; C w e'E a 4
�.d� n� d 3 �=• y o u
r Q V ri U�.+ V �.+ 0
C.0 o y'd c y C E' pW a. d'o 3 w o o
• 00 Sm U h U E cc n E t0 > e4
CmcV
3 _ E
$ o
Jo
um
�s sC ca
C
C P
N
_ O
a
� a
C�
ac
• � M
� C
SO
O
O
E y
O
Q
V
C v
1 ` O
Sv C
O
V
to
� c
o
0
From Pagel Mechanisms of injury deaths in
woman of the East Bay Public Alameda County, '91-'93
Safety Corridor Partnership. She Other
itermed it the nation's largest anti- 7.4% Auto
gun effort. gtrcff;c�
The group is a collaborative ef- :17.6 Firearms
fort of cities,Alameda and Contra '=fir, 32.6%
7.
Costa counties,school districts and
law enforcement agencies with
the mutual goal of eradicating the
violence that spills from one city
into the next.
The group's announcement
came as President Clinton detailed Falls 7.4 a
a national computer database — Poisonings 15.0%
.the centerpiece of a $2 million pi- Suffocation 6.7%
lot program to help track down Drowning 3.6%
people who sell guns to youths. fine/florne 3.7 S
Speaking in Washington, D.C., Cutting/piercing 4.5%
Clinton said information from all struck by/ogoinst 1.5%
crimes involving guns in 17 cities
around the country — including S..Ak..de ca.,r,.n,ek,
Salinas and Inglewood in Califor- srfw
aia—will be fed into the database. CHSOW.9 G,,M c
Dean said she hopes the federal west,said the mayors are exceed-
program will expand to include ing their jurisdiction because fire-
the 15 East Bay cities that have be- arms are regulated by state and
come allies in the campaign federal governments.
ag The junk
group joins San Cucchiara said the definition of
Francisco, which banned junk a junk gun is ambiguous and could
guns last month, and San Jose, apply to some of the firearms he
which is considering outlawing sells to police officers.In addition,
the weapons.Oakland banned We he said the ban would injure the
of the weapons in May,and similar very people it seeps to protect,be-
measures will be introduced to the cause most Saturday night specials
other East Bay cities this month. are stolen from legal owners try.
Besides Oakland,the cities rep- ing to defend themselves.
resented at the news conference "You know that these people
were Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, (who commit crimes with
El Cerrito, Emeryville, Fremont, can'tleven own'guns,so what good
Hayward, Newark, Piedmont, PI- will a law do other than whitewash
nole,Richmond,San Leandro,San the public and prevent a citizen's
Pablo and Union City. right to buy?"he asked.
Guns are the leading cause of Several of the mayors said they
death for young people in Califor- had been approached by the Na-
nia.In 1994,34 children died in Ala- tional Rifle Association wanting to
meda County as the result of gun- discuss the matter, and they ex-
shot wounds. In the past four pest organized and strenuous op-
years, Children's Hospital tis Oak- position. Dean said she received a
land,which serves much of North- letter from a pro-gun lobby threat-
ern California,has seen a 200 per- ening to investigate her.
cent increase in the number of But officials said yesterday
children 14 and younger with gun- they will not be deterred,because
shot injuries, according to Dr. the problems they are seeing are
James Betts,the hospital's chief of so severe.
trauma services. Junk guns are the preference
Three-year-olds have access to of gangs and are viewed as status
guns now and"children are shoot- symbols, "like wearing a pair of
ing each other without any under- Nikes,"said Hayward Mayor Rob-
standing of life and death," Betts erta Cooper.She said she favors a
said. ban on the sale of the guns as well
In addition to banning junk as a requirement for trigger locks
guns,some mayors in the partner- on other handguns"that provide a
ship are proposing dealer permit moment to think before taking ac-
restrictions, requiring trigger tion."
locks to make guns safer and an Said Cooper."We have to begin
additional gross receipts tax on as a society to say that we really
gun retailers. mean it that our children are our
Tony Cucchiara, president of future."
Trader Sports Inc.of San Leandro, Chronkie 1eea„,erg,oon&4buted
Vlayors
unmite
for 'tioghtei
gun
control
NRA says junk .gun ban illegal
V mian Catff W 1 r,�0 every eight homicides in Alameda
rAMWWW County involved a Hrearm,
OAKLAND—Nine East Bay mayors �o to the Alameda
rding Co ndy , • :
tonday announced.a joint effort to Injury Prevention Program. '
egulate local gun sales and Firearm homicide rates wereght
'ff any legal lenges. highest for those between 20 and
During a press conference at; Child-
24 years old,the stacty found.
en's Hospital Oakland,Oakland mayor Sherman Spears said be knows
2ihu Harris said that by actLng to- first hand that cheap,easily acnes-
;etber cities,can send a message to the -sible,weapons are hrtvolved in "S
um lobby and state and federal offs- many of these snood igs..':
ials that new gum laws are needed �•
"Politicians at Life state and federal Sperm, 26, is theAtrector'of
evel, quite frankly are afraid of the Oakland-based Teem.on Target,
;um �,'Harris Maid. which teaches -to-vio-
:; ,
fence. He was permanently. did-
Tlie yrs are biackin8 mous new abject in 1989 atter he was shot in
oval regulations they say will reduce the head,.neck and chest by two 4 :
;um violence. The proposed laws hr 18-year-olds. They.had purchased ; 2
dude a baa an riles of junk gums and agun just.hours alter a dispute -
,nms in residential was, a tax on rv- with a friend of Spears,he said%Td '
,n om amt the that
fsale He said the shooting was aper- �'
or trigger.locks sonal conflict that went too far."If :
it was not possible to hx* a gun
Steve Helsiey, state liaison for the so -readil9 available maybe they
lational Rifle Assocdation,said banning could _ have - cooled off,!' aid
he sale of junk guns, also known as .Spears, who uses a wheelchair. t�•
Whaday N>gtut Specials, is illegal, and "Tb be 18 and to be able to put
he other proposed restrictions will not your:Iiaruuds on a gtn, I think that :v
educe crime. "I think.this whole drill is an issue we need to address.."
to fight crime, it is all feelg ood In San -F rand.9oo, the federal• < '' ° o a
tuff," ban-on handgun possession by ju- e, e°A 0
The NRA is challenging a West Hol- vin les was iupheld Monday in the ° gg w z
en- �� 3 � g 'c °';
mood baa on the sale o junk guru first federal appellate court ruling ;�
tied in Februzaty. on the Law. r n �' �•
CM
But Alameda, $akeley, Emeryville, The '9th US. Ckca t Court of
rakdand,Union City,El Cerrito,Pinole, the s a m
an Pablo and Richmond are going Appeals rejected argument
head with plana to ban sales of Sat- that the law is unconstitutional be- us °
rdaycause Congress doesn't have the
,oun Night Specials The Oakland City authorityto• regulate. what is
ouncil unanimously passed a baa purely a local xxhvit`y.
artier this year,and San Francisco has The�,1 of the 1994 clime
similar ban.
..Berkeley Mayor Shirley Dean said at bill, . prohibits juveniles from
*ast nine East Bary.dries are working. knowingly ping handguns or
n an agreement to contribute up to' handgun ammunition, and also
5,000 each to defend the ban on sales , buns, the -sale'.or- transfer• of
f junk guru if it Is challenged in Court handgun aina` nrWori to juveniles.
Between 1991 and 1993, six ourt of It exempts*h>ntfng, 4"et pran-.
lice, use in farm employtinent and
self-defense against i*Viers.
>
'E'
>
a E
=0 so
St Ig to
c4,e — 0
>
C; �,-,:e-cc gVj
a — >,0 ;�"r a>
C c co
W E
F. to W) 0.2
r >
>
co .3 Oro
C: rZ co
to.—
OAIO w
G to
ca
rZ 06
03 Z,'v-a— 4E' c
LGLq= OG
41
= 2
V rz
ucc� coes
0
cG ..ac°i >a Lm
C U):t!0bo ca
6 r- . = 6 0
LL
m 0
r- E 's Cis
Xoa
2 ,0- Z 5 ,v�o 40" Gsm
as
w Cc
co
> Cd u 0
G =
v c3i c CO
cc
Z L.o 061.. =° = 0E- cm
v 0,
4,
, M-0
0 0 (n >b
>
%
-o; 4)-0v cn aiC.A.X CC
o 4)
0 -0 cc
30
cc S.,41 cc C I_
-M,C, 00-0 0
e4� gcc p., V S_ C3
.4 m 12
as W_ toW
cc-] c
cd co 12.t 0:E
cc
E Cc oG' OW
'sa
SI
0 E ed
E 0 EE
tzc I =E '._
tow .0 co =.o Cd
0
c* E
a
cc cn—
t4 1w
0
- 4,_�
C -0
wk..'o-i.�n- " 0 0 C C Z,
cf- coo -=
z
C CO
East Bay gun plan focases
on teen accessibility, safety
■ GUNS East Bay mayors and
................._......................................................
..
fram.Page IB council members
said he expects the city council to ....-.....-:_.:.........................................................
pass the junk-gun ban when it announced a regional plan
meetsin September. ...........................................................................
"Today, there are four of -us to make handguns less
fighting for the honor to have our ......................._........._..._............_..-...._.....
name on it, and there are only accessible to teens and to
five of us, so it will pass," said .............._._ . ._............................................
Morrison. Fremont already has install safety devices on
banned home gun dealers. ..............._....___..._........._..........._._..............
Nationwide,. gun violence ac- all handguns..
counts for the deaths of 15 chil-
dren — or enough to make up a
Little League baseball team — man for the youth anti-violence
every day, said San Leandro Po- group Teens On Target and a
lice Chief Robert Maginnis. In member of the partnership's
California, more people under age youth council,the measures are a
24 died from gunshots in 1993 start in preventing teens from be-
than from car accidents, AIDS,' ing shot as he was.
heart disease and strokes com-
bined, according to the California "The people that were respon-
Department of Health Services. sible for my shooting were able to
Alameda County teens between get access to a gun within three
15 and 19 years old are four hours," said Spears. "Why can I
times more likely than the gener- go anywhere in my neighborhood
al population to be injured by and get a gun, when I have to
gunfire. take a bus to another neighbor-
For Spears,26,who is a spokes- hood to buy school supplies?"
. :.�nbewt�C,�ii��F:�:�Y'.:b�SiQti:i.lil'c:aNt)tio�+:4itiW!t�:;:iw:cc�.r: :•�iiy:,d: ,.r�. - - .
1
E
' J
-so
§.141=1111i, E
0)
to
cu
CD U
tj
aj
UR
it
465
-I sto
a: cc
03
cz co
15 6 w:5
—Z Z,i-=- cc to Id c
cd J4
7t to to C
C- cd
-t r4l
uv
g z
C-C Cd
z qd
COO
C7 z;— z C-5
4ev
=6
iM
a =Now
cu
=a
E ZZ
4' 1p e to
to ZI) A
OX
go 'M
x
41 v C'
ci E 0 rt
_0 o
tc
Zv�
00is
to
cd
to a .
d �
� � yEd
.r. i O- A
"• N O�C>
w
♦ R
fr s r si;w' •• ji T�
C �
. L y
ul
/"��
� ie O•� y.A G O
�o `a �•u�w.�oaf � � N d
i,. N v'O � yi'✓� �, v � AG'. V N V �� ��C��� .
_._. ..N 7 Ne� G!� .' u O✓i,u G u '` ..RO �eiq. : Y ac�,? �• �✓ �u
C.�W r�% ee ��G v ✓ODE O v � v v� �'vi � u�
A G O•au v � °D � G � � `� T y � � A ✓G ,G b
..i 'O.r y, G, G O••+ Y N A Q V A {� O" v '� !3
ea
..
J A u u R G y G w G saD -a o 0,
w
fl' GAOiG4A v u A
soo'AA '� N•N J J1•„ {r �xN �' 1 T� 0 N
✓m WO
u
^:t,^„ •� i u G A.•' �2
7.•yu u � � G•�'� G �•� 3, .p �p �A DSO✓ +S•O G
�y",�'fl ti� O A '✓ .Ir a'� 1:a V �, y G,•7 N M, A
� o� �?�O��p3 ✓ >o c � �% � i+'�'� GQ�'A7 '+
u
Sy o $ X30
co
,c
'L> ✓ y A G O A OO
yII 11J � �.- u � ✓L 'n O A N. G.G ''� � to
�r Y„" ,� 4 C �✓ � A A p .�W V A N V G G y �G 3 ✓A
/Y'� �A.ADAG �Ou�'C ✓� i CAW
a'ey�vtNp �e.
0 p✓D v 1 O O R.O �!7� O� A ? V y toeA v
(J` � F v O A O i•J V " 'f� ✓A Q� v N• V r' � �}'pG �+ V� J
'� A � � Au � 0 � V •u73yi ✓ v 4y '
y G N T A oo A s O
A'AO�?'Rs `' -o G O^9003 G
ol
LLL���`�'� � o ✓
N 3aw-oG � f Ate ✓ Caatn
p m�
Oi
Y ♦h
n
}
Gj�n.S cause of death among youths is
uns J guns.
"(The Corridor)is sending a mes-
FROM FRONT PAGE sage to youth that,yeah,we can do
tum that will assist me in convinc- something about gun violence,"said
ing my colleagues in Congress that Sherman Spears,coordinator of a
we need a national ban," Senator youth-advocacy violence prevention
Barbara Boxer said in a statement- program.
Spears himself was the victim of
Officials said they announced the a`Saturday Night Special"shooting.
gun control measures at Children's Hayward Mayor Roberta Cooper
Hospital to remind observers that said her city will introduce an anti-
young people are often the victims of junk gun ordinance next week-
fatal
eekfatal shootings.According to Dean's "One child dead on our streets is
office,the gun-related death rate is enough,"Cooper said."We need to
increasing the fastest among I4-17 begin to say to society that(we rec-
year olds.In California,the leading ognize]our children are our future."
I
..�.-
i. ;:L.....,...i;c-
d <p N m
a
G
O•' � � V f0 Zd
E d
c
Aisl
r
o Jm d tN 5L
to
to
tn
v
����yyµ►a� ��'. r .SraG� O'a� ,'tea ,�,
41.
.�';rte►''"::�� � "O p.� T � d> .
.h.?«�a;:: 'y"E1�!av+!' �, � ►� rte. m m �•� �• a
�' � m � 3 �: 'dS �•a
.s V � � V i
i�
Std
co s
V ,t�.. Q Q � v" g+�.p w�0 3'�<.,'�i °?y,,"�, o v �"L ��� 3 os 3�•� '2 Q
tn .-'" t"" •S� ';� 3 °' ,r, � m � .5 °° voc�m7, � vmo. c" �� d
t
° ti
z � p �
p" �„ :� y r .a-`'-• ��• •cb, �a� p w��p O fir+
'•'° �- ✓.- � Gt. y d " � Y � �QS ��Ism � � �yq���,.
G
tn
00
G rGj
op, E
mQyo
,.p�ay��
'aot en c d '
Al
''p S oo $ G S � �o'4 � � v•� m .Gy,° m`-' � o
Vo
r
•4'w u O •• as eD d S
y�
V�Is
°%s�' �, . ' 03�`f' �° fps
•Y d v d ���J � ' .: ° " m mG
Q' v p � � 'i'• �. g ay � O �j � o� 8 �''a� 7y N s d' as s O o v .. oc y,� o
wfl' v .r �0°c : i v m GO.v
12 EG �II& a.55w - a° y ��y G.�� w s � o °' ��csmy ,; s 0 - oas
�t, p w 8 p.. T. 1 .p p r0 a •fl v.O v, G.r y r' 0 P. y 9 3
G v G m m . m+,t, G •� ` ofl •� eS d S G G p T ac os ., �^ 7-
ss
6 :.
's G• w Gp y p '' d , w �0y G G ` G G o:. 5 •�
G y . Gw � 9 ►• d sD'm . Sr-
8
dG m oy � �6a oG $ as
S a5 G v v ..
s,U $•'iw G �d .0 %'-1 G° r�� ,Q pSu� 3E, y.y rm dam m p G ♦ Fr � 'iu Gs
GT G � GG �O �'a q d '' fi'md yvd ~ 3 := dw5, yy ea�Gy °wtli � 9
oc, ,,,,, m 6+ 3. .. ..�
° 3 '•g 6S Tc m G Q 3"as n%-, s 7,3 G'cs m .p'G.$G GQ ,°. LY v o
-o oo r�' G� of oc cls m vp a,'as w'y G G s �m as °' o 60 o as en
m NGG� 1p
G m �6 E o�L 3 P a
ad
��•O .o � ~ $Sy"ag "v w •• m
c1% 7 m CS ° tsla G��+ m G 3 '6c.•� y u '° •.OQ
li
'�' G o "C S m d *• a' 'u m ... u s . oo m m G y �•� G l y'�.�'
vrC �tmJ1 m c �bo � s m �S'ArGm'Gr''� Gbc�� � oy�° a�
G > 3
G= ~
a, ► wG� T
y
4c� ey+ `a� ° a� v vti v
w yco''a 5 °C 45
®� � o L; o;d
Day �� �`2�y�� ,
d
°v�
(� � ✓ydC � 4� r�� r � J w y
e v EDO
^l
^� O✓ v V'W r N i taj n
ctn
r.- � 3 GVvI Z v o o' vJ ��
Z �.+ o.Vt J ° 5 � 4i� d7 .r
, . is � o�Gg� v'`,f, �c
o
J
JS ° y
y °3
As
O� T
.1 d oS % o�+
V Vs
ton
�.�
� � xoo t -
r
N
J
v U0 p
r
t6 03
{,,v s��C � „�. ° c!py'.r ltd °"?�Iy'' � C' 'd V� �► J�� ,.ti'•. ✓
Ira
NI
'fie, 03 J °° d
.,.may s�'° sJy, G� s o� �� �n% 3 d y ��; �� �� '%•��,� d
Sol
d
to
i� y �'r. • wClG �,� o UP '.n � vv. � �� �y Gy d
.�j1 JC5 t+ S'UO y'r y ."' c
Ss1 G� o ca
O �°'rn � � o J�y a o �� 3 0 � acs� � ♦ 0.1C O
oIS ,.
v r
d w � J G v •O :n 5'N�' UU �r d � tb "' �C
O{f J -P.;/,
rw 77n5 �C�N ' O '' Lp '` Oi dv N•
va 056
ra
ee''i "�, �„ �.N � 'ifi sa
O 4/ G C5a
TMJ ♦ r J dw i yI � 'd
tri4w-actcls
GIMS ca -
use of death among youths is
gun-
FRom FRONT PAGE "Mhe Corridor)is sending a mes-
sage to youth that,yeah,we can do
tum that will assist me in convinc- something about gun violence,*said
ing my colleagues in Congress that Sherman Spears, coordinator of a
we need a national ban," Senator youth-advocacy violence prevention
Barbara Bo=said in a St&CCM=L program
Spears himself was the victim of
Officiaissaid they announced the a-Saturday Night Special"shooting.
gun coctroi measures at Children's Hayward Mayor Roberta Cooper
Hospital to remind observers that said her city will introduce an anti-
young peopic are often the victims of Junk gun ordinance next weeL
fatal shootings.According to Dean's 'One child dead on our streets is
office,the gun-related death rate is enough,'Cooper said.'We need to
increasing the fastest among 14-17 begin to say to society that[we rec-
year olds-In California,the leading ognizel our children am our future."
Zao
y g, g =,,-—-F :ID 3 = C-
m CD
cy-
0 cr rp (D
tr
c=a 2 m
m 0 Z m ro= cn 'D
et 0 a " ,v , , —
I OD —q A
LD ro rb
CIO
ml cp
IID OD En m m
-
Z ODwM m c.x 0 - g-8
==.m cn a 0
m F,- m Cj rn tv m
o M 0 CD CD
N CD CL M m -00
OD
caro°''
-4 8 "GD m a :r
- a E.;; CD m
e`dto
0 C- 90,
C .OD
co aq =--- F97
:: m `CLC =
go cli mica
CL
QQ tz pD� tz
*food
cc
CL
m. cr cr
4 m
cr
ID 5
o cl.
;z
0
3 ol
CL
CD
CD
coo F
ID
omm
Cl
Zr f Ct
r- <
CL n *9 mg, m
M :r(t
oma
CD 03
,a =,Qq CL CL&C
m
(, :L tz
a ="s � A
too' m CO CO
Qq
c :E rr a-UF m ID ca.CD M r-
'a (z O^'O^'M m 0-4
M CD et m
ED
M et r
,< T
to
0 aq cr
CD r C,> cr I
0 - 0 cr
=
cm
00 --ft F g.E.
Tl CL O. 7c'c9
CD <
M CD cD m CD
m m 0 CD 0 0 m
0 0 el 11 In's ml
cr cr CL m z m m -0
cr
:I OQ
SD or 04 0
So M ' m
S* -
ON-at L -:m 0
..4
CD 0. P-= e
cr e-— o.
0 ZX OD 0
M 0 * M (b —
:r
0
c0 0 m cr
0 0
C,
pr ID
m pr
—9
t•� QM-
uau� S aq'i o S° nos Sava OV, Pztlo{
asaucuq��� ,ao s aq,
lcuccu. -
ul aaetd. '
-4201 sa
1,9 asSu'At
us axagl*stat a{
as}° ;o .alb '""' ea ?"°'stay Aucsc s. ,ass ' * i METRO/REGIONAL
xaq, JoGuns: Plan says dealers nmIus5t
et seen ermit from olive
g.:. ? r_
Continued from page B1 foot buffer zone would be able to stay in business.
So Cohn began listing what he needed Ortiz and Those dealerships also may remain in busines
�o the Police Department to change in the ordinance in through any ownership changes, as long as the ne
order to win his vote. She agreed, winning the fifth owners qualify federally and locally for gun seller li
vote and the council's support in principle of her censes and•perwits, police official Lynne Ohlso
plan.The reworded ordinance will be brought to the said-
a8 Aosq council for approval Wednesday nig}st ►aof a few months ago,there�rere.j -9 peoppl�e wi
gg Meanwhile,Cohn says he hassince concluded that fZral firearms dealers licensee in tlxe city,_ hlso
pia a local ordinance could be useful if it gKvs.'pore local buT'not i f sell weapons,-Ind some sellout o
•i- a io government control over who sells gins but does�r't tl�zr.homes.Theowaership-change clause wcir"ttld ap-
.uocem unfairly burden legitimate businesses. So, he's con
uea�S A#tonl those*ho do business.in retail stores.
g1aq 1;8Y1 tinued to help mold the proposal_ ., oft3le plan remains the same. It would
nor sob "I thought the (original? ordinsftC'� wa l',ai. neat - San ilkers to appfj+r for a seller's permit
iaq' n cleaver approach,"Cohn said."It seemed like a cum- . from the Police Department. Currently, to be a
luau aa{ bersome bureaucracy and an empty statement that dealer,a person must receive a federal license and e
act uoo we don't want guns in our community." registered with the state.
. a j Fg o a 'Originally, the ordinance banned any new gun Ortiz and Police Chief Arturo Venegas Jr. say fed-
.ocua } dealers from setting up shop within 1,000 feet of resi-
le `o s dential areas, schools, churches, public parks, liquor eral and state officials do not do adequate prei.icens-
stoves,day care places or other gun dealers.
ing checks and don't communicate well with local as-
• Such a buffer zone would limit new businesses to thorities,
oc dols just a few sections of the city,mainly the Arco arena The plan also would require background checks on
}o lgouarea,around part of Power Inn Road,and at the west employees of gun dealers. And it would allow local
eve it police to inspect to make sure security measures are
p end of Exposition Boulevard near Interstate 80.
nlq� Cohn,however,has gotten Ortiz and the Police De-
partment to agree to allow special-use permits with. Ortiz, who is running for an Assembly seat, this
in those 1,000-foot buffer zones to people who can week said that the changes in the ordinance are mi-
S persuade the city Planning Commission that their nor and that it is time for the council to stop fiddling
business will not have a negative effect onr public and vote.
safety and neighborhood quality. The council meeting begins,at 7 p.m.Wednesday.
-Cohn also said he wants to change wording in the Whether the public m- M be allowed to join the dis-
ordinance about what kind of insurance is required cussion is up to the mayor, according to City Attor-
,:} of gun dealers to make sure they are not held respon- ney Sam Jackson. Since the council heard several
sible for injuries or deaths those guns might cause. hours of publicAestimnny for and against the ordi-
-Under a "grandfathering" clause in the proposed nance in May,it does not have to reopen the public
St •ordinance, current gun dealers who fall in a 1,000- hearing for technical changes,Jackson said.
'► OBITUARIES
Jacqueline Pierman helped afro
By Emily Otani ally were centece an charity -, nand animals.". d
Be*Suff Writar wort She acne f the Or
She got boo dancing 25' Club an(
Jacqueline Piermaa,was knawa�;:yeare.-ago at a a thoa fund- els bac:
' among her admirers as the Danc saw.= , 16 to Pierman
Gig C.rsa�admotl�r of Sacramenfl�, � re
t. .. B J�+ ll. } orgaruz
sit the Guinneea world r�l� ��aiun�a�t''oaa tbrougfi'`wit ~th�oclt Paren" �ation,
r ' a. a';na aeat 6"t an Shirley's lif Neighbor
thon. "She did i
Aaelatod `
$159 billion from the Medicare pro-
gram and$72 billion from Medicaid {,
between 1997 and 2002, according
-Pino-' I& OKs
iifi •.i
Isto .
ordmance&i7_
By TONY H1CKSo A C{St i gR10
Sssft wrtw �+ `.
PIINOLE: The City Council has i
_ ci o k�nownasyas 'junk-guns,"
_witI t the`cit f limits:--. --- . - ---
An ordinance banning them was
passed by a 3=2 council vote Tues-
day.
Council members Phil Bradshaw
and Mary Boyie dissented. _r
Bradshaw expressed concern over
potential lawsuits stemming from the
ban.VVesf Hollywood,Lafayette and
Santa Clara Coun have been sued _
over similst o�rdt'.osaces.-;
"What good=is this'going to
�radshia; ske 'everyone.t
kaows�'ai f+ai
suns,no this I'm; , • • -
not one way or anotiAr mggek- I.
waiting for the West Hollywood suit f � `^ �� � f�� • •
to be settled to set the prec*edentY' . : •
eIu�Nyo `' r A ,
r send
Ing'.'
A
sap
have cruads,',she said
r%have a seric nia problean�maybe``
not id Pfndrd in tills ooaittry,"
Behire&W-Vote, aiembeis of lo-
cat advocacy gMps spoke in favor
of the bati:7htls a handful of resi-
dents told�e council it was nothing
more thati'a feel-good ordinance.'
"Why do we have to compare our- `
selves to other cities?"asked Curtis 4
Page."I say we follow the Constitu-
tion and do our own thinking.
Pinole is part of the Feast Bay Pub-
lic Safety Corridor Partnership, a
coalition of cities jointly t-eklirtg gun
violence.Several East Bay cities be- S
longing to the group have passed 99.99 BEFORE$20 REBATE SALE 249.99
similar ordinances, including Oak- Mun*a 13-plow cookware eatKitehenAld U1tta Power 434-qt.mb(or B
land, Richmond, and San Pablo. Includes:three covered saucepans, trypan, includes: flat beater,dough took, wire whip, A
After the vote, the council com- casserole, stockpot,ssut4 and utensil set. pouring shield and stainless steel bowl. s'
miffed$5,000 to a joint defense fund Reg. 119.99,sale 99.99, aRor r*ba*79.99 300-wat,motor. Reg. %300 S4
with the other cities in the partner-
Ship.
artnership.
Pinole has three gun dealers Two
work out of shops and one works
from his home.None sells Saturday
night specials.
El Cerrito resident Dan Orcech
told the council a ban would affect
more people than just the residents
of Pinole.
158 billion fmm the Medicare pro-
_ -
gram and$72 billion from Medicaid
between 1997 and 2002, according..
Pinole OKs
iWak PLSWI
ordinance&tr
.Sy TONY HICKS q$, d Sales of cheap ,,.
Ste>r
PrNOLE—The City Council has guns banned
outlawed se Saturda _
- cials, also known as "junk-guns,' In San Pablo �VV'
within the City limits.
An ordinance banning them was cm"staff
passed by a 3-2 council vote Tues-
day SAN PABLO — The city has
Council members Phil Bradshaw joined a Bay Area movement out-
and Mary Boyle dissented Cawing the sale of cheaply manufac-
Bradshaw reseed concern over tired handguns known as Saturday
potential lawsuits stemming from the night specials.
baa West Hollywood,Lafayette and The council on Monday passed a
resolution against their sale,and in-
Santa Clara County have been sued. cluded a $5,000 discretionary fund
over similar ordinances. for the city attorney to defend against
"What good is this going to do,:""' anticipated litigation.The ordinance
us?' Bradshaw asked ry
"Eveone will take effect Jan. 1.
knows rm for guns,but on this I'm - Saturday night specials are a cat-
not one way or another I suggestegory of weapon that could include
waiting for the West Hollywood suit a number of gun brands that gener-
to be settledto set the% precedent." h ally retail for$200 or less.They have
Mayorbdarir Al.gn read a het s �,- '� been deemed hazardous by law en-
ter sept`L4 the-council from Le gak r, forcement officials because they are
ri:;y Aga`=volence;'offer--' >_ -, :_.�, cheap,readily accessible and poorly
f"Guns
�ty he K'vitt feesia case of�- constructed.
tke council San Pablo has two licensed gun
sirppoii e. considering dealers, City Attorney Brian Libow
larger pictuie said.
have no bounds,"she said
_. have a seri(;4 jiroblem.maybe TODAY'S MEETINGS
of in Pinow butin�country.' 21
Before thi' Amb ma of lo- WEST CONTRA Costa Unified School
cal advocaiy graues;spoke is favor District board
sof the.banzvvhil�-ahaadfu6 =ist-r" When:Staff Development Center,
dents told die council if was snot m�— 2625 Barnard Road, Richmond
,more than-a feel'-good oramace.''- When:7 p.m.
"Why do we have to'oomim* air-- Phone:234-3825, Ext. 2205
selves to other cities?'asked Curtii, ■The board is to consider approv-
.Page. "I say we follow the Constitu ing a$250,000 contribution to the West
tion and do our own thinking'= . = County Education Fund's after-school
Pinole is part of the East Bay Pub- `'. programs at the district's junior highs
lic Safety Corridor Partnership, a., and middle schools.
coalition of cities jointly tackling gun JOHN SWETT Unified School District
violence. Several East Bay cities be- board
longing to the group have passed 99.99BEM$20. - When:341 B St., Crockett
similar ordinances, including Oak- Allumins 13-0600 000 a When:7:30 p.m.
land, Richmond, and San Pablo. includes:three covered Phone: 787-2272
After tht.vote, the council com- casserole, stockpot eatrtri ■The board will vote on whether to
miffed$5,000 to a joint defense fund Reg 119.99, sale 99M make Sept. 5 the first day of school
with the other cities in the partner- .;1 and will approve the district's 1996-97
ship. academic calendar.
Pinole has three gun dealers.Two
work out of shops and one works
from his horne.None sells Saturday
night specials.
El Cerrito resident Dan Orzech
told the council a ban would affect
--to than iimt the rP,6HPntc
r �ceG
• , c'!. '� � cam° �aC 3 �,L90 3 g o�� �
CO
is,
• 1 �'�-�e o o �•�D► ^ rf o'�
-45
A t4 On 4 ••z
• � i� .� � a �Ah.Q m � �� eco � .....
, 0 � o�io c. �'� �, '� �3• o, h
m G
r ; r. �Q ��i•� i^ �� � 7'7;G� 4 G �O
oo
t -
loft-
po
r• � N Cy � t0 ^ fD �• k '� fD � H
•►.oc
�� s O O 2 r�✓
• p. � � SYR ,,,, n ^. S.t r q1
Ir
�, EoD
R '
�s.G H � U `•� coo �� O �N�
O Sy np H n
R w
� � �, .. ,tom-".. `� m �a �; �• G
i
m+i. � p rG' o�o �o
!fi- ? On (�h•
y co o Ir-ot ,Soo
C~
jpK
14 Cr oVs
3.4
' -�w��.�,.� -+'i I R n �1^t�i+ i`�y' �a Sr•C y ".� i O
tA
Sr S
_ � y. h-.'"s ',_ JeL� ` V, '4 t4 `. t9 QpI,� t9 �'r!�,•tT�O t�•
� .�, ��" .��,�. , '_.�."; �.,L{+ • new.` ~'
` •ern
"s