HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDvariousb2From : Karen Adler[SMTP :FUDGE805@CHARTER .NET ]
Sent : Sunday, January 17, 2010 8 :53 :33 PM
To : Council, SloCit y
Subject : Noise Ordinanc e
Auto forwarded by a Rul e
Dear City Council Members :
Excuse the joint email but I need to say the same thing to each on e
of you . Please help curb the neighborhood rowdiness that is a n
ongoing problem . The police procedures for dealing with nois e
violations & violators needs to improve . There are almost 3,00 0
noise calls made each year to complain of this problem which occur s
on a regular basis each Thurs ., Fri . & Sat . nights . Only 8% of thes e
calls result in a citation .
At the present time the noise ordinance favors the offendin g
violators with a "slap on the wrist" while the permanent tax payin g
citizens have to deal with the problem continuously . This is no t
right & very unfair to neighbors trying to deter this type o f
behavior . I fully support RQN's position that it is unnecessary t o
give more than one warning per year before being placed on th e
Premise list . This warning is a wake-up call to those who reall y
don't know that the noise they are making is very disturbing t o
neighbors .
I hope we can count on your support !
Karen Corda Adler
1676 Fredericks St .
SLO, CA 9340 5
543-7213
&eV
'COUNCIL 2'CDD DI R13-GAG-ettf ,4,e Er -IN DI R
D I h7 IRE CHIE F0-ATTORNEY O b W DI RatcLERK/ORIG Cfi OLICE CH FDE T HEADS L7 REC DI R
UTIL DI R
0HR DI R
C~cc~
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
DATE //I l /loITEM #
From :Edward W . Davidson[SMTP :RGREENZ@SBCGLOBAL .NET]
Sent :Monday, January 18, 2010 9 :15 :46 A M
To :Council, SloCity
Subject : Noise Ordinanc e
Auto forwarded by a Rul e
Ladies and Gentlemen ;
I read the article in this morning's paper regarding a potential noise ordinance change . Quit e
simply, it is long overdue . Let me explain . I have been a resident of SLO county for 25 years
and have owned a home for most of it . We have owned our home here in SLO for 11 years, th e
past 7 of which have been next to s student rental . We have become accustomed to calling th e
police late at night complaining about loud parties next door .
We have found pizza boxes and other trash in our back yard .
We find beer and other bottles in our front yard .
There are cups strewn along our street that we have to pick up (the students are too busy to clea n
up their mess .)
We find urine stains on the side of our house from those unable to find a bathroom available nex t
door .
Last summer, a student living next door tried to break into our house then passed out in our bac k
yard . He was arrested by the SLO police department .
I have spoken to the homeowner and property manager and all I get is a line of garbage abou t
"they have rights and we can only do so much, blab, blah, blab ."
I have rights . I am a homeowner, a taxpayer, a veteran and a voter . What about my rights ?
Since when do my rights get trumped by someone running a business for profit next to my home ?
It is past time that the homeowner be held accountable for their actions . This is not my problem ,
I am in fact the victim . And I don't think as a taxpayer, it is the problem of the polic e
department . They have enough to do without taking care of a bunch of noise making children .
If someone CHOOSES to own a student rental, they have that right . They should be held 100 %
accountable for everything associated with that choice . If that means significant fines for nois e
violations, then so be it . Then maybe, just maybe, they will ensure those type of problems don't
occur and allow the police department to do more important things .
Thank you for taking the time to read this .
Edward W. Davidson
1471 Southwood Driv e
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1
(805) 547-1313
From :betsy[SMTP:BETSYB@CHARTER .NET]
Sent :Monday, January 18, 2010 10 :55 :28 A M
To :Council, SloCity
Subject : Noise Ordinanc e
Auto forwarded by a Rul e
Mayor and Council Members ,
I will be unable to attend Tuesday's Council meeting. However, I would like to take thi s
occasion to express my opinion based on living in a San Luis Obispo residential area for ove r
forty years . During this period the neighborhood has been impacted by young adults who wer e
not accommodated with campus housing. Because of this, some of the single family homes hav e
been carved up to house a number of unrelated inhabitants . Small issues arise with the occasiona l
inebriated party goers wandering the streets . Serious noise violations exist with a few house s
where there does not seem to be the legal means to solve the problem . Usually a warning at th e
first loud party reminds the inhabitants that they are indeed a part of the community and th e
neighborhood and the situation is resolved for the school year . The real problem exists i n
repeated calls for assistance that offers no resolution . This can be a rental house although no t
always the case . For years we suffered because a home bought by an out-of-town parent for hi s
son held the neighborhood hostage (258 Ramona). Neighbors called and called but nothin g
changed until the student either graduated or left the area a few years later . Often the situatio n
was dangerous .
In general, I believe that the proposed Noise Ordinance will be helpful . The current ratio o f
almost 3,000 noise complaints resulting in a citation rate of 8% will not discourage the drunke n
and unruly behavior caused by only a few. The proposed community service option will not sto p
the problem either .
Please give this proposed Noise Ordinance your serious consideration and help save our family
neighborhoods .
Sincerely,
Betsy Bertrando
From :Nancy Watts[SMTP :BLACKPOODLE100@GMAIL .COM ]
Sent :Monday, January 18, 2010 11 :43 :30 A M
To :Council, SloCit y
Cc : turnkey@turn-keymgmt .com ; 'Darren Corpuz '
Auto forwarded by a Rul e
Dear Councilpersons,
Monday, January 18, 201 0
I thank you for all your work .
I have an issue with penalties on Home Owners being charged for Poly Parties .I
no longer handle my properties or my parents' properties ...maybe 12 in all .
Turnkey handles them :turnkey@turn-keymgmt .com or Darren Corpu z
[darren@turn-keymgmt.com] or (805) 239-0795 .
Please talk with Darren or Curtis Mortenson about the proposal . ..because I have
asked that young graduated men in 1310 Marsh be removed upon the first part y
they had w/ seats on the roof of my garage, and a keg . Turnkey has evidently no t
the ability to quickly get the students or young people out .The rental agreement
(used for others not just Nancy Watts and Dan and Judy Chase) needs to be Legal,
and changed so that one offense can kick out offenders. The tenants at 1310 ar e
good and are in a second year with me thru Turnkey. They are not students .
But over and over we have the problem with management that will not kick out a
tenant. It is not my fault that Turnkey (we have used Signature, Farrell Smyth ,
and REG) will not write their contract more strictly .
I live by "better an empty house than a bad tenant ."
It is true, that this is the hardest year yet to keep rentals full . And my parents an d
I are property rich and cash poor . If I had to live on the retirement from Cuesta o r
Dad had to live on the retirement from Cal Poly—we would be in poverty . W e
spend a lot keeping up our places and paying taxes .
My parents and I were college teachers . But laws keep me from addressing the
students personally . I cannot just go up to a house and try to stop something,
even though I may be passing the home .
Please find a way to make the Property Managers more careful of whom the y
rent to . ..if the law so permits .(What can they discriminate on?) And, no matte r
how well you know students, sometimes bad tenants fool the person renting th e
home .
Thank you again for your hard work ,
Nancy Watts, 543 7105, or Blackpoodlel00@gmail .com
From :Juventino Ortiz[SMTP:JAVAJUV@CHARTER .NET ]
Sent :Monday, January 18, 2010 8 :51 :14 P M
To :Romero, Dave ; Carter, Andrew ; jashbaugh@slocity.org; Settle, Allen ;
Marx, Jan ; Council, SloCity
Cc : rgnboard@yahoo .co m
Subject :Noise Ordinance Discussion at City Council Meeting-Citizen correspondenc e
Auto forwarded by a Rul e
City Council of San Luis Obisp o
Dear Council members :
I appreciate your serious efforts to challenge Police Chief Linden to investigate solutions to th e
on-going problem of college student behavior in residential neighborhoods because of a culture o f
excessive drinking of alcohol and lack of self control by predominantly college students living i n
the City of San Luis Obispo . Residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo have becom e
extensions of the college party experience without any concern of consequences of disruptiv e
behavior .
I first want to express my lack in confidence in the current city Noise ordinance . This ordinance i s
ineffective because of a lack of timely and consistent enforcement by the Police Department .
These types of complaints are not addressed in a manner that would motivate violators to chang e
boorish and inconsiderate behavior that disturbs residential neighborhoods, especially during lat e
night hours when working families are trying to sleep .
The ratio of actual citations to the number of generated complaints simply reaffirms this curren t
ordinance is not effective and contains too many warnings and opportunities for manipulation b y
repeat offending residences .
I do appreciate the efforts made by the police department, but they are totally out numbered give n
the demands placed upon them for service with all of the alcohol serving businesses in th e
downtown area and number of college student rentals in residential neighborhoods .
I don't have to list all of the ridiculous and sometimes tragic calls they receive because of colleg e
students and excessive use of alcohol . I am really dismayed at the culture of excessive drinkin g
among the college student populations from Cuesta College and Cal Poly .
This culture of excessive drinking is sparked by the increasing presence of fraternities an d
sororities that have grown in size and importance as part of the Cal Poly college experience . Thi s
increasing presence includes the use of fraternity and sorority "satellite" residential rental home s
for member gatherings and drinking parties .
I especially want to thank Councilmember Andrew Carter for his demonstrated leadership to voic e
his concerns and present solutions to deal with this growing issue that erodes the quality of life fo r
residents of San Luis Obispo. I would like to see each of you support his leadership as well as
take more assertive actions as a City Council to finally address this distressing situation i n
residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo .
I am asking all of you to support Chief Linden's recommendations to amend the City Nois e
Ordinance with some exceptions :
The length of time a residence is placed on a premise list should be for one year rathe r
than six months to ensure consistency of compliance and one warning should be sufficient fo r
college educated adults .
The use of community service in lieu of a fine is just another example of compensatin g
consequences which will result in more costs for the Police Department to supervise an d
coordinate completion of this non-monetary consequence . The funds generated from these fine s
should be used to fund outreach and education efforts as well as enforcement costs for this ver y
preventable violation .
I am disappointed the Police Chief did not adequately address the issue of responsibilit y
of the property owner with tenants that are responsible for a public nuisance with repeate d
violations . Landlord-property owner indifference to repeated disturbances needs to be specificall y
addressed to motivate responsible property owner action with their tenants to cease disruptiv e
behavior in residential neighborhoods . An administrative citation should also be included fo r
property owners with repeat offending tenants .
I am a victim of college student disruptive behavior in my neighborhood and would like to se e
more collective efforts on your part as the City Council of San Luis Obispo to address thes e
issues .
I understand many of the benefits to the City of San Luis Obispo include the presence of colleg e
students because of the free wheeling commerce from students with more disposal income tha n
most in other college environments . These benefits come with a heavy cost to the residents i n
neighborhoods and it is now time to put the responsibility for these costs on the university an d
college institutions, college students, and landlord home owners who go way beyond the intent o f
residential zoning and degrade acceptable living standards neighborhoods .
I am hoping that all of you as the City of Council of San Luis Obispo can honestly endorse thi s
city for anyone thinking about living here by exerting more leadership to address this city wid e
problem .
Sincerely ,
Juventino Orti z
2267 Santa Ynez Avenue, San Luis Obispo
From :Dennis Howland[SMTP :DLH@CRYOCOMP .COM ]
Sent :Monday, January 18, 2010 2 :00 :14 PM
To :Council, SloCity
Subject :Meeting on noise abatemen t
Auto forwarded by a Rul e
Dear council :
I recently read in the paper that you were going to have a meeting to discuss th e
noise abatement rules . Since I live in a neighborhood with many students, all of
which seem to have way to much testosterone in their bodies, I would like t o
voice my opinion on the issue of strengthening the rules . The article of
contention seems to be the issue of getting off the offender list after 6 month s
which means we will still have to deal with any specific house at least once a
year. I would like to see the rule go to the 12 months option to get off the list an d
maybe the landlord will get the clue and accept some responsibility for th e
tenants in his/ her rental .
I hope to be at the meeting but I am still employed and the time window is durin g
working hours so I may miss . Please accept this opinion as a vot e
for strengthening the rules .
Thank you for your time ,
Dennis Howlan d
Hillcrest P I
Dennis Howlan d
P .O .Box 56 2
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1
805 .781 .3565 ext #1 0
805 .781 .3566 fax
From : Diane Halsted[SMTP:DHALSTED@SBCGLOBAL .NET]
Sent : Monday,January 18, 2010 3:28:55 P M
To :Council, SloCity
Cc : dhalsted@sbcglobal .net; Camille Smal l
Subject : noise ordinanc e
Auto forwarded by a Rul e
Dear Councilmember ,
As you consider the noise ordinance for the city, I hope that you will pu t
the full-time residents before the transient student population . Th e
students would have you believe they deserve to violate the right of th e
rest of us to reasonable quiet. Noise ordinances are not meant to b e
punitive ; they are meant to be assertive . If students, and all others a s
well, act with consideration for neighbors, the ordinance will not b e
invoked against them. Yes, there are many good student residents . Good
student residents will be unaffected by the noise ordinance .
Students are visitors . They must behave with the same sense o f
responsibility to others that residents do . To allow them to disrupt life i n
our town is to do them a grave disservice as well as to do long-time adul t
residents a disservice . Everyone needs to act responsibly. We live close t o
each other . Students, and permanent residents as well, need to fin d
venues away from town for loud parties .
Inconsideration should not be met with consideration . Inconsideratio n
must be met with legal ordinance . Give the ordinance teeth and the n
educate the students to be responsible temporary members of thi s
community so the ordinance will not have to be imposed on them .
To allow students the freedom to behave as they choose withou t
consequences is to disregard our community's responsibility toward thei r
social education : they are part of a community, not separate from or
different from the rest of us . When I heard the student-speaker at the
last hearing proclaim himself an Eagle Scout and then lament the arres t
record he attributed to the city and not to himself, I saw San Luis Obisp o
has fallen far short of this responsibility to the young people who com e
here .
Diane Halste d
544-8995
From :roger steele[SMTP:SLOROGER@MSN .COM ]
Sent :Monday, January 18, 2010 6:37 :16 P M
To :Council, SloCity
Subject :neighborhood noise ordinanc e
Auto forwarded by a Rul e
I have mixed feelings re Chief Linden's proposed new noise ordinance . I agree wit h
placing a residence on the "premise list" after one warning, but a residence shoul d
stay on the list for one year, unless there is a significant change in the house's
occupants .
I do not believe any residents of this community should have to tolerate the nois e
and othe r
annoying behaviors connected with late night parties . The penalties for intoleranc e
of one's neighbors should be increased . Perhaps if landlords were held mor e
responsible, there would be less chance for these issues to exist .
Roger Steele
From : Michael Sullivan[SMTP :MCSGDAY@YAHOO .COM ]
Sent : Monday, January 18, 2010 10 :47 :26 P M
To : Council, SloCit y
Cc : Michael Sulliva n
Subject : Council hearing of 19 Jan 2010 - Noise nuisance ordinanc e
revision s
Auto forwarded by a Rul e
18 Jan 201 0
To : Members of City Council, City of San Luis Obispo, C A
From : Michael Sulliva n
RE : Council hearing of 19 Jan 2010 - Noise nuisance ordinanc e
revision s
Please read my attached letter concerning the above noise ordinanc e
issues . Thank you !
PS - In case your system does not let you open attachments, my comment s
are presented below as part of this message .
Michael Sullivan
To City Council, City of San Luis Obispo, CA from Michael Sullivan - RE council hearing of 19 Jan 2010 regardin g
City laws against noise disturbances
Page 1 of 3
18 Jan 201 0
To :
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo, CA
From :
Michael Sulliva n
1127 Seaward Stree t
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 5
805-545-961 4
mcsgday@yahoo .com
RE : Council hearing of 19 Jan 2010 - Consideration of noise nuisance law revision s
Dear members of Council :
I wish to address two issues, (1) stationary noise nuisances (which you are considering tonight)
and (2) mobile noise nuisances (from vehicles )
STATIONARY NOISE NUISANCES (e .g . parties )
Thank you for considering some tougher new laws related to stationary noise disturbances fro m
rowdy parties, etc . The existing city laws just do not adequately address or solve this problem ,
which only seems to be getting worse in recent years . The police are swamped with frequen t
complaints about such disturbances .
As an example, a student-occupied residence near me (at 1126 Seaward St ., San Luis Obispo )
was the source of numerous complaints from surrounding neighbors (including me) for a period o f
about four years, from 2005 through 2008 . This rental unit was occupied by various groups o f
young males who had extremely loud and disruptive parties with crowds of people several times a
week, often on weekends but also sometimes at two or three in the morning on weeknights . The
partiers also frequently left lots of trash in the street, and on at least two occasions the residents o r
their guests vandalized my car when they learned that I had complained of the noise to police .
(They did the same to one of my neighbors .) Despite numerous calls to police from variou s
neighbors and despite numerous police investigations and a few citations to the resident partiers, the
problem persisted and was never ameliorated . Once, when I tried to speak with a tenant about th e
noise problem, he huffily replied, "Hey, man, you're interfering with our lifestyle ." I replied tha t
my lifestyle requires that I get more than two hours of sleep a night, and I asked him to please kee p
the noise down . To that request he offered the rejoinder that I should "Get the 'f off of thi s
property ."
The only option left for me was to threaten civil litigation against the landlord for his failure to
rectify this chronic public nuisance . Before it came to that, though, the situation finally correcte d
itself when the offending parties moved away and the home was rented to some much quieter an d
much more respectful young tenants . The problem, however, may return someday when new
tenants move in .
To City Council, City of San Luis Obispo, CA from Michael Sullivan - RE council hearing of 19 Jan 2010 regardin g
City laws against noise disturbances
Page 2 of 3
The city should follow the recommendation of staff and select the strictest options . If a
particular address causes a noise disturbance, both the residents and the landlord should be on th e
"premises list" for one year minimum ; six months is way too lenient. In this modern age of cel l
phones, text messages, and social network sites on the internet, it is easy for a party to suddenly
attract many people and to become unruly . The police should be supported by strict and effectiv e
laws to help them abate these nuisances .
When new tenants move in, they should receive a letter from the City stating that this addres s
has caused noise disturbances in the past and that noise disturbances will not be tolerated by new
residents, and the City policies regarding abatement and penalties should be given in writing to th e
new tenants and to the landlord .
Property owners must be held accountable, otherwise this noise and party problem will never g o
away. There must be an escalating level of punishment for this to be effective . After the first
warning, the landlord should have a minimum $500 fine. On each subsequent offense, the fin e
should double or triple . If the fine is not paid on time, the City should immediately place a lien o n
the property and should also threaten to sue the landlord in civil complaint.
An additional means of enforcement would be to revoke (temporarily, say, for one year, o r
perhaps permanently) the landlord's business license to use the property for rentals after a certai n
history of continuing nuisance violations .
As for the residents and guests : First, following the first warning to any individual (resident o r
guest) at the premises where the noise disturbance originated, the next incident should make an y
person in attendance at the party liable to citation for minimum $300 fine on the first offense,
doubling or tripling for each subsequent offense. Some California cities have even toughe r
consequences (in addition to citations), such as impoundment of music equipment (amplifiers ,
electric guitars, etc .) from the offending parties . There should also be more consequences i f
residents refuse to answer the door when officers or student assistants hired by the police respond t o
a complaint . When that happens, for example, the landlord's business license to rent should b e
revoked and the landlord should be fined .
Please enact tough and effective laws to help the police control these frequent noise nuisances .
Thank you .
MOBILE NOISE NUISANCES (e .g . from vehicles )
I know that the subject of tonight's discussion does not include mobile sources of noise
disturbances, but this too is a continuing problem in the city. There are three main sources of nois e
from vehicles .
The first, and most common, is extremely loud amplified music, often from very powerfu l
speakers and subwoofers which produce a noise so loud it can be heard at great distances, lik e
thunder or a rumbling freight train. We have all heard the deafening thump-thump-thump of very
To City Council, City of San Luis Obispo, CA from Michael Sullivan - RE council hearing of 19 Jan 2010 regardin g
City laws against noise disturbances
Page 3 of 3
low bass sounds which easily transmit through nearly any surface, including thick walls and doubl e
pane windows . Various jurisdictions have laws to control such noise nuisances . San Luis Obisp o
should also address this problem .
The second is the sounds of the modified mufflers which allow the driver to show his "coolness "
by having an extremely loud and annoying exhaust sound . Many times, especially on trucks or "hot
rods," these custom or modified mufflers are specifically tuned and designed to produce a deep ,
low frequency rumbling sound, apparently to impress the world that the driver can make as muc h
noise as he wants, without any consequences . State law has limits on the sound level from vehicl e
exhaust systems, but these laws are seldom (or never) enforced . They should be .
The third way that vehicles create a public noise nuisance is through driver maneuvers intende d
to "burn rubber" in very quickly accelerated jack-rabbit starts, or by driving very fast in a tigh t
circle, or by popping into a lower gear suddenly while accelerating . The resulting howling screech
of wheels leaving rubber on pavement is apparently an announcement to the whole world that th e
moron driving the vehicle has finally attained manhood . Unfortunately, such maneuvers can also b e
dangerous . This kind of activity often can lead to contests in street racing, or exhibitions o f
"burning rubber" before a crowd of onlookers or to show off to other friends riding in the sam e
vehicle . Activities as described above leave unsightly burn marks on pavement, make horrible an d
loud squealing sounds at all hours of the day, and threaten public safety because sometimes thes e
vehicles in such maneuvers are out of control or traveling way too fast in places such as residentia l
neighborhoods . Beyond that, these stunts put more pollutants into the air (from engine exhaust an d
from burnt rubber). Some jurisdictions already ban such activities because they are often th e
precursors to street racing . But aside from that, the nuisance from the loud noise of squealing tire s
is also, or should be, of great concern to the police, because this is an uncontrolled, commonl y
occurring public noise nuisance .
Thank you for listening to the citizens who have to bear these frequent nuisances .
Michael Sullivan