From: [email protected]
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Freedom to Access to Clinic Entrances Act Date: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 4:56:05 PM
Please accept this letter with a minor (but important) correction. My apologies for the repeat.
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to express my concern at the lack of enforcement by the Santa Rosa Police Department of the federal law--the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act), which protects patients' rights to unhindered access to reproductive services.
As you probably know, anti choice protestors are regularly congregating at 1140 Sonoma Ave, which is the sidewalk in front of the complex of Planned Parenthood. Although they have a right to free speech, did you know that they generally engage in activities that are in violation of the the FACE Act, along with other laws related to trespassing, loitering, etc? Protestors repeatedly march across the driveways into and out of the clinic, which creates hazards for cars going in and out, delays the traffic and hinders access. It is obstruction in that it interferes with the people who are trying to get into the clinic. That is against the law.
Anti-choice protestors try to conduct sidewalk "counseling" by holding signs right next to the driveway entrance and exits, disregarding the 15-foot buffer zone that is a minimum standard set by federal law.
Further, they also break Time, Place and Manner Restrictions by taping their signs on the city poll that is in front of the complex. They also park large signs directly on the signwalk, hindering pedestrians' right of way.
I have consulted the Santa Rosa Police and they have informed me that they "do not enforce federal law" (the FACE Act) but instead told me to identify a local city ordinance that they then 'may' enforce. That seems WRONG.
Today, they had to come to the protest because things got heated when the law was being broken. Unfortunately they did nothing to de-escalate the situation and did not warn the pro-life protestors to move back from the driveways. Instead they threatened the rights of pro- choice protestors who had been forced from the sidewalk into the streets because of social distancing. They told me that the pro-choice protestors should cross the street and picket on the opposite side or they were breaking the law. Pro-choice protesters should not have to do that if no city official is going to protect full and free access into the clinic.
In response, I ask that the council immediately compel the police to, at a bear minimum, enforce the following city code:
10-12.040
Obstructing churches, schools and places of business.
No person shall block, impede or obstruct any entrance, exit, or approach to any hall, church, school or other public place or to any place of business in such manner as to unreasonably prevent, hinder, delay, obstruct or interfere with the free passage of any other person who is entering, occupying or leaving any of the aforesaid places, or who is performing any service or labor, or who is seeking or obtaining employment, or who is purchasing, selling, delivering, transporting or receiving any goods, wares, merchandise, services, entertainment, accommodation or articles, or who is attempting or seeking to do any of the foregoing, provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply to lawful picketing. (Prior code §
16.18).
Moreover, I ask that you please inform the police that they do, indeed, need to enforce federal law, including the FACE Act. I believe that it is the duty of the Santa Rosa police to enforce all of the laws of the land, and in this case in particular, the FACE Act, because pro-life protestors are breaking the law by "intimidating" women from seeking legal abortions.
I see many women come into the clinic driveway on a daily basis. These (mostly younger) women have a legal right to privacy and a legal right to seek medical services just like anyone else, yet they are subjected to special harassment on their way to their doctor appointments.
That is illegal.
Why then won't the city police department come to the scene and issue fines? Why are they treating Planned Parenthood differently than any other business? I call on you to help de-escalate the tensions at the reproductive centers by having police simply enforce the law in our city and to do it NOW before things get worse. And make no mistake, things are going to get a lot worse for these poor women soon.
Please DO SOMETHING to protect their rights. They NEED and HAVE A RIGHT TO YOUR HELP.
Thank you,
Dr. Elizabeth Burch
Professor of Media Ethics & Law
Communications & Media Studies, SSU
http://coms.sonoma.edu/faculty-staff/elizabeth-burch
Black Lives Matter!
--
Dr. Liz Burch
Professor, Communications & Media Studies, SSU
http://coms.sonoma.edu/faculty-staff/elizabeth-burch
Co-chair QFaSA
https://diversity.sonoma.edu/affinity-faculty-staff-associations For Assistance contact: [email protected]
Join Zoom Meeting
https://SonomaState.zoom.us/j/3172130603
Advising By Last Name: Ko-M
Office Hours: Tuesdays 3:30-5:30 pm & Fridays 12:30-1:30 pm Black Lives Matter!
From: Dayle Ulbricht
To: CityCouncilListPublic
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Change to Mobile Home Rent Control Ordinance Date: Saturday, March 12, 2022 12:28:39 AM
Dear Council Members,
I am a senior resident living in a Santa Rosa Mobile Home Park. I am asking for your support for a much needed change to the Mobile Home Rent Control Ordinance. The current ordinance uses the full San Francisco CPI and is not a true reflection of the agricultural and rural community of Santa Rosa and Sonoma County. Forty three jurisdictions across California use only a percentage of the CPI. The City and County of San Francisco uses only 60% of their annual CPI.
Inflation has hit seniors very hard. We ask that you revise the current ordinance to at the most 50-60% of the San Francisco CPI as soon as possible. We seniors of Santa Rosa need your support for this revision.
Thank You,
Dayle Ulbricht
, Santa Rosa, CA 95409
Rincon Valley Mobile Home Estates
From: Christopher Kollerer
To: _CityCouncilListPublic
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Unheeded and Unenforced "No Vendors" in SR Parks Date: Monday, March 14, 2022 12:57:14 PM
Ref: https://nextdoor.com/p/wT7_-2QKBLdr?view=detail&is=notification_center There seems to be controversy over whether the "No Vendors" signs should be there if not enforced.
Please take this matter up in the next meeting.
Christopher Kollerer