Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXXX <br />AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY <br />OF SANTA ANA AMENDING CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE 1, <br />SECTION 10-110 AND ADDING SECTIONS 10-111 AND 10- <br />112 OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE TO <br />ESTABLISH DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR <br />TARGETED RESIDENTIAL PICKETING <br />WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana, California (“City”) is a municipal corporation, duly <br />organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and <br />WHEREAS, Section VII of Article XI of the California Constitution provides that a city may <br />make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations <br />not in conflict with general laws; and <br />WHEREAS, demonstrators and protestors have a right, protected by the First Amendment of the <br />United States Constitution to express their views and to convey their message to both a general <br />audience and a particularly targeted audience; and <br />WHEREAS, persons and/or groups have a right to engage in picketing on public streets and <br />sidewalks within residential areas; and <br />WHEREAS, recently, an increasing number of picketers in the City of Santa Ana and <br />surrounding areas have targeted specific residences (and, at times, on private property of the <br />targeted residence), expressing their views at the targeted residence and captive audience therein; <br />and <br />WHEREAS, the City acknowledges that the act of picketing at, near, on or about a particular <br />residence whose occupants do not welcome such activity is an invasion of residential privacy for <br />its occupants and if picketers are positioned at, near, on or about a targeted residence, it becomes <br />impossible for the occupants to access or leave their homes without having to confront picketers; <br />and <br />WHEREAS, the City acknowledges that the act of picketing at, near, on or about a particular <br />residence whose occupants do not welcome such activity instills feelings of captivity, fear and <br />intimidation to the target occupants; and <br />WHEREAS, in developing this ordinance, the City has been mindful of legal principles relating <br />to the regulations of targeted residential picketing and considered decisions in Carey v. Brown <br />(1980) 447 US 455, the United States Supreme Court confirmed that the government’s protection <br />of the “well-being, tranquility, and privacy of the home is certainly of the highest order in a free <br />and civilized society” and that preserving “the sanctity of the home, the one retreat to which men <br />and women can repair to escape from the tribulations of their daily pursuits, is surely an <br />important value.”; and Frisby v. Schultz (1988) 487 US 474, the United States Supreme Court <br />concluded that “There simply is no right to force speech into the home of an unwilling listener” <br />and that the “devastating effect of targeted picketing on the quiet enjoyment of the home is