Murrieta City Council Rejects Code Enforcement Ordinance

The Murrieta City Council Tuesday night unanimously rejected an ordinance that would have declared city code violations as nuisances.

Deputy City Attorney Robert Mahlowitz presented the proposed ordinance before council members and explained it would create a tool the City Council could use “to protect the public from harm” when it deemed the conduct of citizens or businesses violated city code, and warnings or citations failed to cease the conduct. Currently, the city has to prove to the court that the conduct in question violates the code and then present evidence that it creates a nuisance to the public in order for the court to issue an injunction, Mahlowitz said.

“By declaring the code violation to be a public nuisance, as a matter of law, the city still has to prove the wrongful conduct that this person or business violates the code, but then the court presumes that it is a nuisance because you, as the City Council, said violations of our code are significant and are a nuisance,” Mahlowitz said. “Then we can get an order from the court at that point to stop the conduct.”

A number of community members urged council members to vote against the ordinance in fear it would hinder due process.

“This proposed ordinance paints a broad picture with the default being that everyone who violates the code and ends up in court is immediately found to have committed a health, safety and welfare violation,” said Murrieta resident Jackie  Fenaroli. “That’s a serious offense and would be difficult to defend against. The city has vast resources, far superior than any individual citizen.

“In the few instances that [the ordinance] would be helpful, those instances the city can easily convince the court of a real health, safety and welfare violation. We don’t need to paint this broad brush,” Fenaroli added.

Councilman Randon Lane said the proposed ordinance created a lot of confusion within the community.

“Understand everybody – even if we were to pass this – would have their due process in court and would have the right to go before a judge,” Lane said. “We wouldn’t be eliminating that.”

Councilman Alan Long and his colleagues agreed that the proposed ordinance was too broad.

“We do stand to risk significant amounts of liberty, intrusion or just government getting too big and abusing the power – not this council, but maybe down the road,” Long said.

Councilwoman Kelly Bennett said she would consider a more specific ordinance.

“I do think it’s been pretty well vetted out tonight that it’s overreaching because it could apply to anything under the municipal code,” she said. “It’s just too much.”

Mayor Rick Gibbs pointed out that 95 percent of code violation notices result in compliance. He added that in six years, the city has only pursued three code violations in court – once to stop a business from selling drug paraphernalia and twice to enforce the city’s medical marijuana dispensary regulations.

“If it’s not broke, don’t fix it,” he said.