Placentia council approves expanded graffiti ordinance adding retail and development requirements

The Placentia City Council on Feb. 4 voted unanimously to approve amendments to Chapter 10.56 of the municipal code that expand the city’s authority to prevent, abate and recover costs for graffiti removal.

Dan Pivaroff, Code Enforcement Supervisor, told the council the changes give code enforcement “additional tools and teeth” including a clarified definition of “minor,” expanded definitions of a “responsible party,” requirements for retailers to secure aerosol paint and marking pens, and measures for new construction and repeat graffiti locations. “Graffiti has been found to be associated with criminal activity and delinquency,” Pivaroff said, arguing the language will help deter repeat offenses and allow the city to require graffiti‑resistant coatings or other mitigation at repeat sites.

Council members debated how to balance property‑owner responsibility with support for victims of repeat tagging. Council member Ivanka said the proposals were not intended to apply to single‑family homes and emphasized options for mitigation; Council member Yamaguchi suggested retaining a strict removal time frame and supported enforcement measures to speed abatement. Several members asked staff to consider options to help elderly or absentee owners obtain timely removal.

Public speakers raised skepticism about some measures and suggested alternatives. John Beltran, a resident, urged prioritizing street repairs over other capital projects and suggested vines or incentives instead of costly coatings. Craig Green, speaking on a separate public‑comment item, later urged caution about casting aspersions in personnel matters and asked the council to consider the broader context of staff departures.

During the public hearing staff also discussed civil and criminal remedies where perpetrators are identified, potential treble damages for repeat judgments within a two‑year period, and the ability to place a lien or special assessment on property owned by a parent or guardian judged liable for a minor’s graffiti.

Council amended the draft to explicitly include “security deterrence measures” (for example, lighting and security cameras) alongside live landscaping and other techniques for mitigation in specified subsections, with city staff to refine legal language between first and second reading. Council member Yamaguchi moved to approve the ordinance with the amended sections; Council member Smith seconded. The motion passed by a vote of 5–0.

The ordinance was introduced at the public hearing and the council directed staff to return with the formal language for second reading incorporating the agreed mitigation options and clarifications on implementation. The council indicated it will also explore practical abatement assistance options for property owners unable to respond promptly to required removal notices.