Brentwood approves stronger ‘nuisance gathering’ ordinance

The Brentwood City Council unanimously approved a strengthened "nuisance gatherings" ordinance on May 26, imposing fines of $100 to $500 for repeated violations involving fireworks, public drunkenness, indecent exposure, or gunfire. The ordinance closes enforcement gaps in existing property-focused nuisance regulations, officials said, after debate over the term "unruly" raised concerns from Vice Mayor Pa’tanisha Pierson about potential impacts on marginalized groups.

Getting your Trinity Audio //trinityaudio.ai player ready...BRENTWOOD — Residents frustrated by large and noisy gatherings — which can include fireworks, public drunkenness, indecent exposure or gunfire— could soon find relief with the passing of a new nuisance gatherings ordinance. Under the new ordinance, a responsible party will first be given a warning, and any subsequent violation within a 12-month period will receive a fine. The first fine would be $100, the second within the one-year period would be $200, and each additional violation after that would be $500, according to a May 12 staff report. The ordinance was created to close enforcement gaps that existing nuisance regulations do not adequately address, said city officials. The existing Brentwood Municipal Code primarily focuses on nuisances linked to property maintenance and does not sufficiently address other “nuisance activities” that are “highly disruptive” and have a negative impact on public health and safety, the report noted. Among the more than 20 listed examples were indecent exposure, excessive noise or traffic, public drunkenness or unlawful drinking in public, firing of gunshots or brandishing of weapons, indecent exposure, public urination or defecation, harassment of passersby, and excessive littering. With a unanimous vote, the Brentwood City Council approved the new ordinance during its May 26 meeting, after deliberation over the use of “unruly” in the initial draft. Introduced on May 12 as the “unlawful loud or unruly gatherings” ordinance, the language received pushback from Vice Mayor Pa’tanisha Pierson, who argued that terms like “loud” and “unruly” were not properly defined. “When you don’t define when unruly is loud to whatever decibel or whatever … it doesn’t provide any distinction as to what loud and unruly is and leaves it overbroad and left up to interpretation of the enforcer of the ordinance,” said Pierson during the May 12 meeting. Following discussions, the City Council agreed to remove the word “loud” from the ordinance’s text and voted in favor of “unlawful or unruly gatherings,” with Pierson dissenting. During the May 26 meeting, Pierson raised the matter and questioned the use of “unruly” in the ordinance. She said she was not opposed to preventing unlawful behavior but was concerned about the language. “What I’m against is when we have language that is not clearly defined that can impact marginalized groups,” said Pierson. “Certain terms of art, like ‘unruly’ versus ‘a social nuisance,’ can be used to create circumstances that can be used against marginalized groups.” Councilmember Jovita Mendoza questioned whether Pierson opposed the definition of “unruly” in the ordinance. Pierson said she had no issues with the definition provided, but was just against the use of the word in that context. Mendoza said the ordinance provided definitions to guide the police department and staff in determining which activities are deemed unruly. “If it was just unruly with no other descriptors, I would get what you’re saying, but because it has it in there, I’m kind of okay with it,” said Mendoza. During the public comment period, resident Tracy Kasamoto said she supported the use of the word in the ordinance, adding she has witnessed “unruly behaviors” in her own neighborhood. “I don’t know what neighborhood you live in, but it must be nice, but there are some of us that don’t get the privilege of having a nice neighbor,” she said. Mayor Susannah Meyer then asked whether councilmembers were agreeable to changing the ordinance title to “unlawful or social nuisance,” as originally proposed, while keeping the definitions.