Cities Index.
Item 5.1. Public Nuisance Ordinance Overview

Chico City Council
October 6, 2026

Document
Item 5.1. Public Nuisance Ordinance Overview
Meeting
October 6, 2026
Body
Chico City Council
Original file
3.9 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on chico-ca.granicus.com. That file is the official record.

City Council Agenda Report Meeting Date: October 6, 2026 TO: City Council
FROM: Ryan R. Jones, City Attorney
RE: Proposed Amendments to the Chico Municipal Code for Sections 9.20, 12.18, and 12R REPORT IN BRIEF:

Council gave direction that the City Attorney’s Office review and assess the City’s camping and other related ordinances relating to public nuisances for possible amendments in light of the Supreme Court ruling in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (2024) (“Grants Pass”) and the expiration of the terms of the settlement agreement reached in Warren v. City of Chico (“Warren”) (2021).

RECOMMENDATION:

Introduce attached Ordinance amending Title 9, Chapter 9.20 (“Camping”), and Title 12, Chapter 12.18 (“Park Rules and Regulations”) subsections 12.18.350 and 12.18.430, and Title 12R (“Rules and Regulations of Bidwell Park and Other Parks and Playgrounds”) subsection 12R.04.340.

FISCAL IMPACT: Budgeted: No Supplemental Required: No
It is anticipated the City will expend resources to enforce the City’s camping ordinances. However, the estimated cost and fiscal impact is unknown at this time.

BACKGROUND
In June of 2024, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in the Grants Pass that enforcement of general publiccamping restrictions, including certain penalties, did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual clause.

The Court’s decision in this case effective overturned the lower court’s ruling in Martin v. City of Boise (2018) (“Martin”)
Prior to Grants Pass, the City instituted certain actions to comply with the ruling in Martin and the terms of a settlement agreement in the civil lawsuit Bobby Warren v. City of Chico (“Warren”) (2021). The City’s actions included, in part, revisions to the City’s camping ordinances along with limiting enforcement of those ordinances against the unhoused.

The impact of Martin and the Warren Settlement caused significant intrusion and interference in local residents’ rights to use streets and public areas for their intended use. With the Court’s decision in Grants Pass, it is now necessary and appropriate to begin the process of reassessing the City’s ordinances to ensure that they are consistent with the High Court’s ruling. The proposed revisions to the City’s camping ordinances are now offered for consideration by the City Council in light of Grants Pass.

DISCUSSION
I. Chapter 9.20 “Camping” (Proposed Revisions)
The proposed revisions to 9.20 address major issues identified in recently published court cases surrounding preand post- removal of personal property, disposition of impounded property, storage of personal property, while also removing ambiguity in certain sections and expanding enforcement tools for code enforcement.

The major revision here was the addition of the noticing requirements in Sections 9.20.055 and 9.20.060. What the recent court cases make clear is that summarily removing or impounding personal property without any notice can expose the City to a Fourth Amendment and/or due process claim. To address this issue, courts look to see if an individual was provided prior notice before their property is seized and provided notice as to how to retrieve their property.

Additionally, and consistent with Civ. Code section 2080.10, the 90-day impound period was reduced to 60-days, which should result in a cost savings for the City. An option to extend that period for an additional 30-days was included as an additional layer of due process consistent with case law. The section regarding the disposition of impounded property was also modified for consistency with recent case law and to harmonize it with the other code revisions.

The revisions to Section 9.20.050 subs. (C)-(F) also adds a minimum of 24-hour notice requirement for clearing an area under certain specified circumstances. Again, this is consistent with recent case law and is intended to address the issues and legal exposure caused when cities summarily seize property.

The last major revision was to Section 9.20.070 (“Violations – Penalty). To provide code or law enforcement additional legal tools, we revised this section as follows:

A. Violation of this chapter shall be a misdemeanor or an infraction. In addition to the remedies set forth in Penal Code Section 370, the city attorney may institute civil actions to abate a public nuisance under this chapter, file criminal actions under the city municipal code, or issue an administrative citation in accordance with Chapter

1.15 of this code.

B. The remedies and penalties provided in this chapter and this code are cumulative, alternative and nonexclusive. The use of one does not prevent the use of any others. None of these penalties and remedies prevent the city from using any other remedy at law or in equity that may be available to enforce this chapter or to abate a public nuisance.

The City will have discretionary authority to seek civil penalties, criminal penalties, or both. This is consistent with most other jurisdictions in the state.

The remaining modifications removed enforcement restrictions which were previously added as a result of Martin and/or Warren, clarified certain language to remove ambiguity, and expanded certain definitions found to be a hinderance on enforcement.

I. CMC section 12.18.350 “Entering or using designated restoration areas” The major revision here was the removal of the term “fenced,” which created an obligation on the City in order for an area to be considered a “designated restoration area” within the meaning of the code. This will remove the requirement that the City fence off large areas that are under maintenance, restoration or construction. According to City staff, this created a loophole that was being exploited under Warren. The net result is that the City now has discretion whether to fence off an area or not, which should be a cost savings for the City.

III. CMC sections 12.18.430 and 12R.04.340 “Camping – Prohibited – Exception – Permit required.

The only revision here was the removal of language regarding unsheltered individuals which was likely added to address the ruling in Martin.

ATTACHMENTS:

Exhibit A – Ordinance Amending Titles 9, 12 and 12R
Exhibit A

← All documents from this meeting