The ACLU is appealing the court's decision in the Sebastopol RV ban case
The appeal claims that the ordinance is both vague and discriminatory against a politically disfavored group, i.e. the homeless
On Wednesday, March 19, the ACLU of Northern California filed its opening brief in the Ninth Circuit as a part of its appeal of last November’s court ruling on Yesue et al v. The City of Sebastopol, a legal challenge to Sebastopol’s recreational vehicle parking ordinance.
According to a letter sent by the ACLU to the Sebastopol Times:
The ordinance permits officials to confiscate people’s shelter, without notice, for a single parking violation. We contend that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague because it does not inform people of ordinary intelligence about what vehicles are covered by the ordinance, or where those vehicles can lawfully park. We demonstrated this by showing that the city officials who drafted, enacted, and enforce the ordinance disagree about the meaning of its key terms.
We also contend that the court incorrectly disregarded evidence showing city officials specifically intended to target vehicle residents. Among other things, the court ignored the police chief’s admission that enforcement would only target people living in vehicles, people who were using the same vehicles as means of transportation.
From the brief:
Chief Kilgore [Sebastopol former police chief] expressly promised the City Council that the police would use their discretion (and the related vagueness about whether a vehicle has been “designed or altered for human habitation”) to enforce the Ordinance against only certain persons who parked their vehicles in town—namely, those who lived in them. He said: “Somebody who drives a vehicle such as a VW van that’s been modified for that purpose into downtown to eat dinner is probably not going to see a whole lot of us . . . but if we see that vehicle that is staying in the same spot over and over again for a long period of time, then common sense kicks in that somebody’s probably utilizing that vehicle to live in, and that would be a violation of the ordinance at that point.”This selective enforcement violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by discriminating against a politically disfavored group.
We asked Sebastopol City Manager Don Schwartz about the city’s response to the appeal, and he sent this response:
“The District Court previously rejected all of the arguments the ACLU is raising regarding the City’s ordinance. The District Court’s decision was correct, and we look forward to the Ninth Circuit upholding that decision,” Schwartz wrote. “The purpose of the RV Ordinance was to address the serious public health and safety issues that arise from RV encampments and to ensure adequate street parking for the general public.”
“Sebastopol has consistently done its part, and more, to tackle the homeless crisis in a compassionate manner,” Schwartz continued. “The City has issued seven citations and not towed any RVs for violation of the ordinance. We continue our efforts to connect RV residents to service providers.”
A bit of history
According to Sebastopol’s RV parking ordinance (which is printed in full at the end of this article), RV parking (and the parking of other vehicles “designed or altered for human habitation”) is prohibited at all times on residential streets in Sebastopol and is allowed in commercial or industrial zones only between 10 pm and 7 am. This provision allows homeless individuals to sleep in Sebastopol in their RVs but not set up permanent encampments.
Former Mayor Diana Rich, who was one of four councilmembers who voted for the RV ordinance in March 2022, called it a “compassionate compromise.”
Former Councilmember Una Glass, the sole vote against the ordinance back in 2022, predicted that the ordinance would ensnare the city in legal challenges that would last years and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Since then the city of Sebastopol has spent over $500,000 to defend itself against the lawsuit, which the ACLU and several other local groups filed in October 2022 on behalf of three homeless individuals and the nonprofit group, Sonoma County Acts of Kindness.
What happens now?
We asked Sebastopol’s City Attorney Alex Mog to explain the appeal process:
“The basic process is that the appellants (the parties represented by the ACLU) submit their opening brief, and the respondent (the City) then submits its response brief,” Mog wrote. “The appellants then have an option to submit a reply brief, responding to any issues raised by the City’s brief. The matter is then scheduled for a hearing before a three-judge panel of judges from the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit advises that hearings are usually scheduled around four months after the briefing is complete. The three judges are selected at random and won’t be announced until shortly before the hearing. The court will issue its decision at some point after the hearing (usually within 3 months).”
In the meantime, Mog said, “The ACLU’s decision to appeal the case does not prevent the City from continuing to enforce the ordinance in accordance with the District Court’s decision.”
What’s in Sebastopol’s recreational vehicle parking ordinance?
Here’s the full text of the ordinance:
10.76.010 - Title.
This chapter shall be known as the “recreational vehicle parking ordinance.” (Ord. 1136 § 3, 2022)
10.76.020 - Findings and purpose.
The regulations enacted by this chapter are intended to ensure there is adequate parking for residents of the City and to regulate the parking of vehicles actively used as sleeping accommodations. (Ord. 1136 § 3, 2022)
10.76.030 - Definitions.
Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the following definitions will govern the construction of the words and phrases used in this chapter:
“Homeowner” means any person who owns their home.
“Out-of-town visitor” means any natural person who does not reside in the City and who is temporarily visiting a resident of the City.
“Recreational vehicle” or “RV” means a motorhome, travel trailer, truck camper, camping trailer, or other vehicle or trailer, with or without motive power, designed or altered for human habitation for recreational, emergency, or other human occupancy. “Recreational vehicle” specifically includes, but is not limited to: a “recreational vehicle” as defined by Cal. Health & Safety Code § 18010; a “truck camper” as defined by Cal. Health & Safety Code § 18013.4; a “camp trailer” as defined in Cal. Veh. Code § 242; a “camper” as defined in Cal. Veh. Code § 243; a “fifth-wheel travel trailer” as defined in Cal. Veh. Code § 324; a “house car” as defined by Cal. Veh. Code § 362; a “trailer coach” as defined in Cal. Veh. Code § 635; a van camper; or a van conversion.
“Tenant” means any person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord. (Ord. 1136 § 3, 2022)
10.76.040 - Parking prohibitions.
A. It is unlawful for a person to park or leave standing any recreational vehicle on any public street in the City that is zoned residential at any time.
B. It is unlawful for a person to park or leave standing any recreational vehicle on any public street in the City that is zoned commercial, industrial, or community facility at any time between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
C. It is unlawful for a person to park or leave standing any recreational vehicle on any park, square, or alley at any time.
D. It is unlawful for a person to park or leave standing any recreational vehicle in any City-owned parking lot at any time unless that person is conducting City-related business during business hours. The City-owned parking lots for the Police, Fire, Public Works, and City Hall buildings may only be used when actively conducting business at those specific buildings.
E. It is unlawful for a person to park or leave standing any recreational vehicle less than 30 feet from the corner of any street so as not to impede site visibility for other motorists. (Ord. 1142, 2022; Ord. 1136 § 3, 2022)
10.76.050 - Exceptions.
The prohibitions of this section do not apply to:
A. Recreational vehicles parked or left standing as a result of a mechanical breakdown so as to allow the performance of emergency repairs on the vehicle for a period not to exceed 48 hours.
B. Recreational vehicles parked or left standing on any public street in the City that is zoned residential so as to allow the use of a homeowner, tenant, or out-of-town visitor to load/unload the vehicle for a period not to exceed 72 hours, which includes the loading/unloading of items and/or persons.
C. Nothing in this chapter is applicable to commercial vehicles providing services to businesses, such as the delivery or picking up of goods or vehicles otherwise approved by other City of Sebastopol departments through that department’s permitting process (e.g., construction vehicles). (Ord. 1142, 2022; Ord. 1136 § 3, 2022)
10.76.060 - Notice.
Signs giving reasonable notice of the prohibitions contained in this chapter will be erected within the City as required by the California Vehicle Code. (Ord. 1136 § 3, 2022)
10.76.070 - Prohibited activities.
No person shall:
A. Run electrical cords, extension cords, hoses, cables, or other items across, above, or on the parkway or sidewalk from any property to a recreational vehicle parked on a public street at any time;
B. Make a sewer connection with a recreational vehicle or dump wastes from a recreational vehicle onto public or private land other than a designated RV dump. Violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor. (Ord. 1136 § 3, 2022)
10.76.080 - Violations.
Unless otherwise specified, all violations of this chapter shall be an infraction and such persons shall be subject to citation, towing or both. Parking citations may be appealed under Cal. Veh. Code § 40215 et seq. (Ord. 1136 § 3, 2022)
I love the ACLU, but I wish they wouldn't try to fight every battle, especially when there's an obvious downside to having this tied up in court: namely, wasting a great deal of funds sorely needed by a cash-strapped city that largely aligns with their values, while in the meantime renegade billionaires are working hard to undermine democracy and dismantle the federal government.
Why did the "libs" lose the 2024 election? Because of moves like this. And $500,000 and counting to respond. (Posted by a lifelong Democrat).