HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/15/1998, 2 - USE PERMIT A 75-97: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION REVOKING A HIGH OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL USE PERMIT FOR REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF THE CITY'S NOISE ORDINANCE AT 175 HATHWAY AVENUE, NEAR CAL POLY. council MaeiROY. _ 15-
j ac En ba REpoRt
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director �b
Prepared By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner f;'P,
SUBJECT: Use Permit A 75-97: Appeal of the Planning Commission's action revoking a
high occupancy residential use permit for repeated violations of the City's Noise Ordinance at
175 Hathway Avenue, near Cal Poly.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Draft Resolution A, denying the appeal, and upholding the Planning Commission's action
to revoke the use permit,based on findings.
DISCUSSION
Situation
The applicant purchased the property at 175 Hathway Avenue as a home for six adults to live in,
including her son. Such a use in the R-1 and R-2 zones is allowed subject to approval of a High
Occupancy Residential Use Permit.
On July 23, 1997, the use permit to allow six adults residents was approved by the Planning
Commission after neighbors appealed the Hearing Officer's decision to approve the use permit.
In approving the use permit, the Commission indicated concerns with concentrations of similar
uses in the neighborhood, but were persuaded to approve the use permit since the applicant was
able to meet all the required performance standards included in the zoning regulations.
City regulations require that an annual review of the use permit be conducted. Condition No. 4
also called for a review hearing to be held if there are reasonable written complaints received, or
if two convictions are issued for violations of the City's noise or property maintenance ordinance
within a 6-month period. A review hearing was scheduled before the Planning Commission on
August 12, 1998, because of the annual review requirement, as well as various violations of the
City's noise ordinance.
Summary of Noise Ordinance Violations
Police Department records indicate that there have been three citations and five disturbance
advisory cards (DACs) issued at the site since last October. The three citations, one issued on
January 10, 1998, and two issued on April 11, 1998, occurred about four months apart; therefore,
they meet the criterion of Condition No. 4 to have occurred within a 6-month period.
The Police Department has identified the house as one of its biggest problem locations for noise
Council Agenda Report- _.ghe Appeal (A 75-97)
Page 2
issues. As shown on the attached case information sheet for the property, five DACs have been
issued since 10-18-97. The three citations occurred on 1-10-98 and 4-11-98. On April 30, 1998,
Rajiv Dharnidharka was found guilty by the San Luis Obispo County Municipal Court of a
violation of the City's Noise Ordinance and fined $80 (Case No. M267196). On May 14, 1998,
Kevin O'Laughlin pleaded nolo contendere to the noise charges before the Municipal Court and
was fined $140 (Citation No. M270177). On May 14, 1998, Matthew John Davidson pleaded
nolo contendere to the noise charges before the Municipal Court and was fined $80 (Case No.
M270748).
Because of repeat violations of the Noise Ordinance, the Police Department has identified the
property as a zero tolerance property. This designation means that the Police Department issues
citations, rather than DACs, upon verifying a complaint. As evidenced by the numerous
correspondences attached,the Police Department has attempted to work with the property owners
to correct on-going problems. However, the owners have generally been unresponsive to the
Police Department's requests, and their attitude has been characterized by the Police Department
as disinterested. The City Attorney's office issued the property owners a warning letter
.informing them that the City may prosecute any new violations as a misdemeanor and may also
seek a civil injunction permanently enjoining the owners and tenants from violating the City's
Noise Ordinance in the future.
Planning Commission's Action-Review Hearing
On August 12, 1998, the Commission on a 6-0-1 vote, revoked the use permit based on findings
that cited the repeated violations of the Noise Ordinance by members of the household. The
owner of the property questioned the validity of the City's High Occupancy Residential Use
regulations and evaluating use permit compliance based on noise complaints. However, the
Commission was persuaded that the many noise infractions were evidence of an unwillingness
on the behalf of the household residents and the owner to be contributing and responsible
members of the neighborhood. Dan Fulmer & Doreen Case spoke as neighbors and suggested
that fines be increased with repeated noise violations.
Appeal Filed
On August 20, 1998, an appeal was filed by the applicant and property owner, Pat Tighe. In her
appeal statement, she contends that the City's High Occupancy Residential Use Regulations are
an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, and inconsistent with State law, since the City did not
receive a Health and Safety Code waiver to have more restrictive residential density limits than
State limits for residential use. She also states that the repeated violations of the Noise
Ordinance is not a valid reason to revoke the use permit and asks that the Council strike down the
City's High Occupancy Residential Use Regulations.
1-Z
Council Agenda Report- . . Ae Appeal (A 75-97)
Page 3
Response to Avpeal
It should be noted that the appellant did not contest and did not present any factual evidence to
dispute the Planning Commission findings that the tenants violated the noise ordinance on at
least two separate occasions. In fact, the appellant admitted during the public hearing that the
residents violated the ordinance Accordingly, the facts are not in dispute. It is undisputed that
the residents at 175 Hathaway violated the noise ordinance on three separate incidents which
resulted in three convictions. Appellant clearly violated Condition No. 4 of the Use Permit as
found by the Planning Commission.
Rather than address and accept responsibility for the ongoing noise problems, the appellant has
asserted in this appeal that the ordinance is unconstitutional and that the tenants are being
punished twice for the same offense. The appellant is apparently alleging that"double jeopardy"
somehow applies in this situation.
The appellant has cited to College Area Renters v. City of San Diego (1996) 50 Cal.Rptr. 515 in
support of her claim that the City's ordinance is unconstitutional. The San Diego ordinance is
factually distinguishable from the City of San Luis Obispo's ordinance. In addition,the basis for
the decision in the San Diego case was that the ordinance violated equal protection because it
irrationally discriminated between owner and tenant occupied residences. The City's ordinance
applies to adults rather than owners or tenants and therefore would not be subject to an equal
protection challenge. In short, the City's ordinance is legally defensible and is not clearly
unconstitutional under College Area Renters v. City of San Diego.
Furthermore, the appellant's use permit was not revoked for violating the occupancy condition of
the subject use permit. It was revoked for violating the noise conditions. The constitutionality of
the City's noise ordinance is not disputed by the appellant.
Finally, it should be noted that Municipal Code Section 1.04.060 contains a severability
provision which provides that"R]f any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of
this code is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
code. The council declares that it would have adopted this code and each section, subsection,
sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional." Assuming for the sake
of argument, that a court would strike down as unconstitutional that portion of the City's
ordinance establishing occupancy thresholds or limits for group housing, Section 1.04.060 may
allow the use permit requirement to remain in effect to address such conditions as parking and
noise which may have a significant effect on the neighborhood.
In response to the double jeopardy allegation, the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution provides that "no person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb." However, case law is clear that double jeopardy only applies in
1-3
Council Agenda Report- ..ghe Appeal (A 75-97)
Page 4
criminal settings. It does not apply in an administrative proceeding to revoke a use permit as a
matter of law.
In addition to, or in lieu of, revoking the permit, the City also has available as alterative
remedies the authority to prosecute any new noise ordinance violation as a misdemeanor. The
maximum penalty is a fine of$1,000 and/or one year imprisonment. A misdemeanor conviction
would allow the City to seek a term of probation for a period of up to three (3) years to deter any
future noise ordinance violations. Moreover, the City may also seek a civil injunction
permanently enjoining the owners and tenants from violating the City's noise ordinance in the
future. If the City obtains an injunction, any new noise ordinance violation would place the
owner and tenants in contempt of court. Each contempt of court finding carries a maximum
penalty of$1,000 and/or five(5)days imprisonment
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Uphold the appeal, allowing the use permit to continue, as originally approved, or with
modifications to the findings and conditions.
2. Continue with direction to the staff and appellant.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Draft Resolution A(deny appeal; uphold Planning Commission's action)
Attachment 2: Draft Resolution B (uphold appeal)
Attachment 3: Appeal to City Council received 8-20-98
Attachment 4: Planning Commission follow-up letter& Resolution No. 5231-98
Attachment 5: Letter from Doreen Case received at 8-12-98 PC meeting
Attachment 6: Draft 8-12-98 Planning Commission minutes
Attachment 7: 8-12-98 Planning Commission staff report& attachments
.2-4�
Draft Resolution A
RESOLUTION NO. . (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION,THEREBY REVOKING THE
HIGH OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL USE PERMIT
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 175 HATHWAY AVENUE(A 75-97)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 12, 19982
and revoked the High Occupancy Residential Use Permit, for property located at 175 Hathway
Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on
August 20, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on September 15, 1998, and
has considered testimony of the applicant/appellant, interested parties, the records of the
Planning Commission hearings and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project
(A 75-97), the appellant's statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the
following findings:
1. Five disturbance advisory cards (DACs) have been issued to residents of the house since
October of 1997.
2. On January 10, 1998, a citation was issued to Rajiv Dharnidharka. On April 30, 1998, Mr.
Dhamidharka was found guilty by the San Luis Obispo County Municipal Court of a
violation of the City's Noise Ordinance and fined $80 (Case No. M267196).
3. On April 11, 1998, a citation was issued to Kevin O'Laughlin. On May 14, 1998, Kevin
O'Laughlin pleaded nolo contendere to the noise charges before the Municipal Court and was
fined$140 (Case No. M270177).
4. On April 11, 1998, a citation was issued to Matthew John Davidson. On May 14, 1998,
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 2
Court and was fined $80 (Case No. M270748).
5. Given the repeated violations of the City's Noise Ordinance by the residents of the house, the
use is not appropriate at the subject location and is incompatible with the neighborhood.
6. Given the repeated violations of the City's Noise Ordinance by the residents of the house, the
use will adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of persons living or working at the site
or in the vicinity.
SECTION 2. AAvneal Denial. The appeal of the Planning Commission's action is hereby
denied, and therefore, the Commission's action to revoke the use permit, based on the above
findings citing the repeated violations of the City's Noise Ordinance, is upheld.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of . 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Kim Condon, Assistant City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
?(WjettotXey ffre Jorgensen
�"(ro
Draft Resolution B
RESOLUTION NO. . (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION,THEREBY ALLOWING CONTINUNACE OF THE
HIGH OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL USE PERMIT
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 175 HATHWAY AVENUE(A 75-97)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 12, 1998,
and revoked the High Occupancy Residential Use Permit, for property located at 175 Hathway
Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on
August 20, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on September 15, 1998, and
has considered testimony of the applicant/appellant, interested parties, the records of the
Planning Commission hearings and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project
(A 75-97), the appellant's statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the
following findings:
1. The use will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of persons living or
working at the site or in the vicinity with the provision of parking as developed which
allows vehicles to exit the site in a forward direction.
2. The use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding
land uses.
3. The use conforms to the General Plan and meets Zoning Ordinance requirements,because
it meets or exceeds all standards for high-occupancy residential uses.
4. The use is exempt from environmental review because it is the continuation of a
residential use.
�'7
Resolution No. (1995 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 2. Appeal Upheld. The appeal of the Planning Commission's action is
upheld, and therefore the use permit is allowed to continue, subject to the following conditions
and code requirements as originally approved:
Conditions
1. Five parking spaces, to City standards, must be available for parking on the site at all
times. The parking layout shall be consistent with the revised parking scheme shown on
the attached Exhibit A.
2. No more than six adults may live in the residence at any time.
3. The driveway shall not be used for parking at any time.
4. The use permit may be reviewed at any time that reasonable written complaints are
received by the Community Development Director, or if two convictions are received for
violations of the City's noise or property maintenance regulations within a six-month
period. At the review hearing,the Hearing Officer may modify, add, or delete conditions,
or revoke the use permit.
Code Mquirement
1. The use permit shall be reviewed in one year (July 1999). The property owner is
responsible for initiating the review and paying applicable fees.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Resolution No.. (1998 Series_)
Page-3
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of - _ , 1998.
-Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Kim Condon;Assistant City Clerk.
.APPROVED AS TO FORMv.
City Attorney Jefl=ey G. Jorgensen
0v sAn 1u15 OBISPO
A1
cit
embra APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
in accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1. Chapter 1.20 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of
t ar,nt ho 9Yvtv�SSi On rendered on
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
On August 12. 1998 the Administrative Use Permit—High
Occupancy Residential Use
Permit for 6 occupants for my house was revoked by the Planning Commission I can
appealing this decision to the City Council because this ordinance is an unconstitutional
invasion of privacy, and because the city has not obtained a health and Safety Code
waiver from the State of California to set more restrictive residential density limits than
state limits for residential use,so this ordinance is not in keeping with the state
regulations [43 Cal.App.41h 6771. I am also appealing this decision because by revoking
the permit for noise ordinance violations the tenants are being punished twice for the
same offense. I feel this ordinance is not appropriate forthese and other reasons. I am
asking the City Council to strike down the High Occupancy Residential Use San Luis
Obispo ordinance.
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
on
NamelDepartment (Date)
Appellant
2%ij_ MailingAddress (8� Zipode)e
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative:
Nameirdle Halling Address (& Zip Code)
For Official Use Only:
� �r �S �Gg 8 Time Ned:
Calendared for V ��
c: City Attorney RECEIVED
City Administrative officer /
Copy to the following department(s): ✓ AUG 7 l9gg
'4
/,/,
'4. Y� eu
SLO CITY CLERK
Original in ATTACHMENT 3 1 /1D
_ _ . o : 90 ee •oz •eo
III city SAn luis OBIS O
i � p
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
August 18, 1998
Patricia Tighe
2462 Providence Ct.
Walnut Creek,CA 94596
SUBJECT: A 75-97: 175 Hathway Avenue
Request for a one year review and possible revocation of an approved High
Occupancy Residential Use Permit allowing six residents.
Dear Ms.Tighe:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of August 12, 1998, revoked the use permit application
based on findings citing non-compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance as contained in the
attached resolution #5231-98.
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within ten
days of the action (unless that day falls on a weekend, then the appeal period ends at 5:00 p.m. on
the following Monday). The appeal period will expire at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, August 24, 1998.
An appeal may be filed with the City Clerk by any person aggrieved by a decision of the
Commission.
If you have any questions,please contact Pamela Ricci(805)781-7168.
Sincerely,
/KManagger
Ronald WhisenanDevelopment Re
RW:mk
Attachment: Resolution 5231-98
cc: Stephen Nelson
I.:pc\75-97 letter(d)
ATTACHMENT 4
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. �/
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5231-98
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
August 12, 1998 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application A 75-97, Patricia Tighe,
applicant.
ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT REVIEWED:
A 75-97: Review of an approved High Occupancy Residential Use Permit at 175
Hathway Avenue.
DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development Department, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
175 Hathway Avenue
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT:
Low-Density Residential.
PRESENT ZONING:
R-1, Low-Density Residential.
WHEREAS, said Commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and studies
made by itself, and in behalf of testimonies offered at said hearing has established existence of
the following circumstances:
1. Whereas, five disturbance advisory cards (DACs) have been issued to residents of the house
since October of 1997.
.2-f z
Resolution No. 5231-98
A 57-98
Page 2
2. Whereas, on January 10, 1998, a citation was issued to Rajiv Dharnidharka. On April 30,
1998, Mr. Dhamidharka was found guilty by the San Luis Obispo County Municipal Court of
a violation of the City's Noise Ordinance and fined$80(Case No. M267196).
3. Whereas, on April 11, 1998, a citation was issued to Kevin O'Laughlin. On May 14, 1998,
Kevin O'Laughlin pleaded nolo contendere to the noise charges before the Municipal Court
and was fined $140(Case No. M270177).
4. Whereas, on April 11, 1998, a citation was issued to Matthew John Davidson. On May 14,
1998, Matthew John Davidson pleaded nolo contendere to the noise charges before the
Municipal Court and was fined$80(Case No. M270748).
5. Therefore, the Commission finds that, given the repeated violations of the City's Noise
Ordinance by the residents of the house, the use is not appropriate at the subject location and
is incompatible with the neighborhood.
6. Therefore, the Commission finds that, given the repeated violations of the City's Noise
Ordinance by the residents of the house, the use will adversely affect the health, safety or
welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Administrative Use Permit 75-97 be
revoked.
The foregoing resolution was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis
Obispo upon the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Marx, Ready, Ewan,Jeffrey, Senn and Whittlesey
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Ashbaugh
Arnold B.Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
M K\PC\5231-98
2113
Rather then grouse about the length of time this problem
has been "watched" and the DAC's that should have been cites,
etc. , here are some suggestions for improving the system.
First, it is every neighborhood's nightmare to have a
rental affiliated with a fraternity in its midst, as with 175
Hathway. The parties are big, loud and wild.
The police department should have a complete membership
list of every Greek organization. This would enable Lt. Joe
Hazouri to track problem members associated with rentals and
deal with them faster. The fraternities involved could assume
some respd%ibility.
Second, there needs to be a tightening of city policy in
regard to abatement. Five certified letters and two phone
calls over several months is time consuming for the P.D.
Plus, notification cards are sent out by RQN members to
property owners after every DAC and Cite issued. The
abatement process should be spelled out more clearly with
time frames for correction.
Third, the citation fines are supposed to be $160. Lt.
Hazouri told me that he has to spend time educating the
visiting judges about the city's party problems so they won' t
reduce the citations. Parties of 50 to 100 persons selling
beer at $3 a head can afford the citation. Could not the
Planning Department and the Police Dept. write a joint letter
explaining the city's noisy party problem? A copy could then
automatically be placed in the portfolio of every noisy party
case where the judge would read it. This would pay for itself
in many ways .
Fourth, why not amend the noise ordinance to read, "a
third DAC and a citation" as well as "two citations"? At
times SNAP is sent to a premise call where they can only
issue a DAC. Or there may be a computer foul up on a busy
night.
Lambda Chi Alpha, now at the former hostel site, where
Mrs. Tighes son and roommates are members, racked up three
DACs in a couple of weeks after moving in. The third DAC
should have been a citation. Since DACs are issued for any
party even 50 to 150 subjects, the third DAC should carry as
much weight as a citation. The ordinance should reflect
this.
�/�d?.eriyv
(ru,,I, +a Ccmmiss i an rn .
J
RECEIVED
AUG 12 1998
CITY Of SAN LUIS OBISPO
ATTACHMENT 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Draft
Planning Commission Minutes
August 12, 1998
Page 5
amended conditions on Pans 6 and 7 of he staff report, with the modification to
Condition #3 to read: Prior to issuance bf a building ermit the applicant shall secure a
written a eement Rroviding 40 spaces k the Hind Building, or a comparable site for off-
site employee parking. For safety and c nvenience a shuttle service will be provided for
employees. The motion was seconded b Commissioner Ewan.
Commissioner Marx supports a larger numb of off-site parking spaces.
Commissioner Jeffrey is comfortable with the roposal.
Chairman Senn asked if the permit will beco effective only after P.I.C. provides the
prescribed parking.
Devel. Review Manager Whisenand stated a use permit will not be effective until all
conditions are met.
AYES: Commissioners Ready, Ewan, Je ey, Marx, and Chairman Senn
NOES: None
REFRAIN: Commissioner Whittlesey
The motion carried 5-0-1. Commissioner Ash gh was absent.
2. 175 Hathway Avenue: A 75-97: Request for a one-year review and possible
revocation of an approved High Occupancy Residential Use Permit allowing six
residents; R-1 Zone; Patricia Tighe, applicant.
Associate Planner Ricci presented the staff report and recommended revoking the use
permit based on findings citing non-compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance.
There were no questions/comments the public comment session was opened.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Pat Tighe, 175 Hathway property owner, stated her son and roommates have successfully
returned to noise control since their last violations due to the imposition of fines. The
ordinance discussed tonight does not have the effect that the Commission desired. By
applying for a six-person permit, her tenants were put under immediate unusual focus by
the neighbors. She feels neighbors have called the police without reason. Because of the
fines, the tenants have been in compliance for many months. She feels parking
mitigation for this house are way off scale. She described and distributed handouts
ATTACHMENT 6
- s
Draft
Planning Commission Minutes
August 12, 1998
Page 6
regarding a San Diego high-occupancy case and asked the Commission to draft a
recommendation to Council to strike down the city's illegal ordinance because it's
unconstitutional.
Dan Fulmer, 195 Hathway, complained about the high number of students and the
amount of noise generated at this high-density residence. Neighbors are concerned about
the intensity of noise. He feels noise violation fines should be increased with each
offense.
Doreen Case, Alta Vista Neighborhood Assn. and RQN member, feels the city's nuisance
ordinance should control situations. She suggested the system could be improved by
police having membership lists of Greek organization so problem members could be
tracked. She believes city policies need to be tightened with regards to abatement and the
abatement process should be spelled out more clearly with time frames for corrections.
Citation fines should not be reduced and judges should be made aware of city noise
problems. She suggested amending the noise ordinance so a third DAC would cant' as
much weight as a citation.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Marx moved to revoke the use permit based on the findings on Page 4 of
the staff reportThe motion was seconded by Commissioner Ready.
Commissioner Ewan supports use permit revocation because of the noise infractions.
Commissioner Marx concurred and feels students should show consideration for their
neighbors.
AYES: Commissioners Marx, Ready, Ewan, Whittlesey, Jeffrey, and
Chairman Senn
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Ashbaugh
The motion carried 6-0.
Attorney Trujillo noted the City Attorney's Office is aware of the case cited by Ms. Tighe
and other related cases. The city's ordinance is factually distinguishable from the San
Diego ordinance and is legally defensible. He described noise ordinance violation fines
and noted graduated fines can be studied.
1-/ L
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rrEM a i
BY: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner fK MEETING DATE: August 12, 1998
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Managgb
FILE NUMBER: A 75-97
PROJECT ADDRESS: 175 Hathway Avenue
SUBJECT: Use Permit A 75-97 - Review of an approved high occupancy residential
use permit at 175 Hathway Avenue,near Cal Poly.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Revoke the use permit, based on findings citing non-compliance with the City's Noise
Ordinance.
BACKGROUND
Situation/Previous Review
The applicant purchased the property at 175 Hathway Avenue as a home for six adults to
live in, including her son. Such a use in the R-1 and R-2 zones is allowed subject to
approval of a High Occupancy Residential Use Permit.
On June 6, 1997, the Hearing Officer continued action on the use permit to allow the
applicant additional time to address concerns with the parking layout at the site and
neighborhood compatibility issues raised during the hearing. On June 20, 1997, the
Hearing Officer approved the use permit, based on findings, and with conditions and a
code requirement
On June 30, 1997, an appeal of the decision to approve the use permit was filed by Paula
Juelke Carr and Josephine Malone, residents at 208 Hathway Avenue. The appeals were
considered by the Planning Commission on July 23, 1997. The Commission denied the
appeals,upholding the Hearing Officer's approval of the use,based on modified findings,
and subject to modified conditions.
SLO Municipal Code Section 17.93.060 A. requires that high occupancy residential uses
be reviewed annually to insure compliance with the provisions of the High Occupancy
Residential Use Regulations. In addition, Condition No. 4 of Planning Commission
Resolution No. 5201-97 approval called for a review hearing of the use permit to be held
at any time if "reasonable written complaints are received by the Community
Development Director, or if two convictions are received for violations of the City's noise
or property maintenance regulations within a six-month period. "
Police Department records indicate that there have been three citations and five
ATTACHMENT 7 �_��
A 75-97 (Tighe 6+high „,:cupancy residential use permit- review _.daring)
Page 2
disturbance advisory cards (DACs) issued at the site since last October. The three
citations, one issued on January 10, 1998, and two issued on April 11, 1998, occurred
about four months apart; therefore, they meet the criterion of Condition No. 4 to have
occurred within a 6-month period.
When brought to court,the three persons cited were found to be guilty of violations of the
Noise Ordinance and fined. These court actions constitute the two requisite convictions
included in Condition No. 4 which trigger use permit review. Therefore, for its required
annual review and the circumstances for a review outlined in Condition No. 4, this use
permit review hearing has been scheduled before the Planning Commission. At this
hearing, the Commission may either modify, add or delete conditions of approval, or
revoke the use permit.
Data Summary
Address: 175 Hathway Avenue
Applicant: Patricia Tighe
Zoning: Low-Density Residential (R-1)
General Plan: Low-Density Residential
Environmental status: Categorically exempt (continuation of existing residential use:
Class 1, CEQA Section 15301)
EVALUATION
The City's High Occupancy Residential Use Regulations were established to ensure that:
1.) adequate facilities are provided to support large households; and 2.)that the quality of
residential neighborhoods is maintained. With the review of the use permit, the
Commission was able to find that the project met performance standards for floor space,
parking, number of bathrooms and construction code compliance. These items address
Criterion No. 1 which is to provide adequate facilities for a larger household. However,
the second criterion,the neighborhood quality is the more difficult one to evaluate.
Neighborhood quality issues were the real focus of discussion with the review of the
original use permit at both the administrative hearing and Planning Commission hearing.
Neighbors who provided testimony at the hearings were especially concerned about
cumulative traffic, noise and parking issues brought on by what they perceived as an
over-concentration of high-occupancy residential uses in the vicinity. Two appeals and a
petition signed by 27 persons residing in the neighborhood near the project site were
received after the Hearing Officer's approval of the use permit.
In denying the appeals of the neighbors and upholding the Hearing Officer's approval of
the use permit, the Commission was concerned about the effects of large households on
the neighborhood and wanted to be sure that the use permit could be revoked if noise or
property maintenance regulations were violated. Staff pointed out to the Commission
that Condition No. 4 was specifically added for that very purpose. The Commission was
A 75-97 (Tighe 6+high -..cupancy residential use permit- review _,earing)
Page 3
ultimately persuaded that the use permit should be approved since the site met all
performance standards. However, they were very concerned that the approval might
further exacerbate neighborhood quality issues (parking, noise, traffic and the impacts of
student parties) because of the cumulative effects of more people and more cars in a
limited geographical area.
The Police Department has identified the house as one of its biggest problem locations
for noise issues. As shown on the attached case information sheet for the property, five
DACs have been issued since 10-18-97. The three citations occurred on 1-10-98 and 4-
11-98. On April 30, 1998, Rajiv Dharnidharka was found guilty by the San Luis Obispo
County Municipal Court of a violation of the City's Noise Ordinance and fined $80 (Case
No. M267196). On May 14, 1998, Kevin O'Laughlin pleaded nolo contendere to the
noise charges before the Municipal Court and was fined $140 (Citation No. M270177).
On May 14, 1998, Matthew John Davidson pleaded nolo contendere to the noise charges
before the Municipal Court and was fined $80 (Case No. M270748).
Because of repeat violations of the Noise Ordinance,the Police Department has identified
the property as a zero tolerance property. This designation means that the Police
Department issues citations, rather than DACs, upon verifying a complaint. As
evidenced by the numerous correspondences attached, the Police Department has
attempted to work with the property owners to correct on-going problems. However, the
owners have generally been unresponsive to the Police Department's requests, and their
attitude has been characterized by the Police Department as disinterested. The City
Attorney's office issued the property owners a warning letter informing them that the
City may prosecute any new violations as a misdemeanor and may also seek a civil
injunction permanently enjoining the owners and tenants from violating the City's Noise
Ordinance in the future.
In staff's opinion, the residents of the house, through their extensive violations of the
City's Noise Ordinance,have exhibited irresponsible behavior and an overt unwillingness
to be a compatible addition to the neighborhood. Staff feels that these violations
constitute valid grounds for use permit revocation, and also provide a way of gauging
non-compliance with neighborhood quality goals.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Commission may approve continuation of the use with modifications to the
recommended findings and conditions.
2. The Commission may continue action. Direction should be given to staff and the
applicants.
RECOMMENDATION
Revoke the use permit,based on the following findings:
1-1 y
A 75-97 (Tighe 6+high .,;cupancy residential use permit- reviev, .,earing)
Page 4
Findin s
1. Whereas, five disturbance advisory cards (DACs) have been issued to residents of the
house since October of 1997.
2. Whereas, on January 10, 1998, a citation was issued to Rajiv Dhamidharka. On April
30, 1998, Mr. Dharnidharka was found guilty by the San Luis Obispo County
Municipal Court of a violation of the City's Noise Ordinance and fined $80 (Case No.
M267196).
3. Whereas, on April 11, 1998, a citation was issued to Kevin O'Laughlin. On May 14,
1998, Kevin O'Laughlin pleaded nolo contendere to the noise charges before the
Municipal Court and was fined$140 (Case No. M270177).
4. Whereas, on April 11, 1998, a citation was issued to Matthew John Davidson. On
May 14, 1998, Matthew John Davidson pleaded nolo contendere to the noise charges
before the Municipal Court and was fined$80 (Case No. M270748).
5. Therefore, the Commission finds that, given the repeated violations of the City's
Noise Ordinance by the residents of the house, the use is not appropriate at the subject
location and is incompatible with the neighborhood.
6. Therefore, the Commission finds that, given the repeated violations of the City's
Noise Ordinance by the residents of the house,the use will adversely affect the health,
safety or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity.
Attached:
Vicinity map
Site plan
Copy of petition from neighbors
Memo from Police Department with attachments including enforcement case information
sheet for the property, copies of citations &correspondences
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5201-97
Minutes of the 7-23-97 Planning Commission meeting
use1A 75-97(Tighe 6+review)
1-zv
CAL PDLY PC
Wo
Gi°
�♦OO e� 3 �0 y O YI��� 00 \
�,� ,.♦
O 3
C'
�y
P o
0 0y
O e O O li4 +e Ca°fes V
6 If 4•, d, him
OS
yen '%,
+
6 w 'r'
foe*
` oe* . COQ O aa o, P
=f % r Irr';
11 Al.
V 0
I . A
S.
aY , ,•' e
o
T a0
OO 11b-e1
O
SQ R-1 o 0
�. w w
o R-1 o � Z � ° 0 zz
o Q
O �'+ AKW`la� N w
MCM-Il4 ^ y
o 'V7.31 ^I
O
p O y Q O O O O
•,, } ivy is+a azo i e7
'' y$1= " Q Bonin 5
III � 4\Y
VICINITY MAP A 75-97 NORTH
175 Hathway
1-1/
Ex VL,; 61 /
if
kg Ee2K4KB■!■
i
J.
. \ { ,
�
■ ��_ �� 3 .� - - - �� - :��- , I
. » e zz � � � ■ ! ��� �� /
/ .T
�_ �
_- .
2
v �
�
. i s..
■& . » t
Ala
A
fq � \
q
�■ � � " ®
_ .
� \�
� m
�� / � /� . �Z ° � � � �■
(� °c - y
� ' ��� � �� »• ��� » !
�.2 z
We, the undersigned residents of the Alta Vista neighborhood, demand that
the City of San Luis Obispo take action to have the residents of 175 Hathway
Avenue declared a public nuisance and to revoke their use permit. From the
moment the City Planning Department and City Council granted a high-
occupancy use permit for this address (in spite of strong objections from
neighbors who anticipated the very conditions we have been experiencing),
the occupants have continually violated the conditions imposed on them.
The house has been the scene of numerous raucous parties which often spill
over into the street. Neighbors are frequently wakened by shouts, profanity,
and other noise and are disturbed by the crowds and traffic generated by the
parties held at this residence. Police time is taken up with issuing many
Disturbance Advisory Citations and regular citations.
Complaints have been lodged not only by residents in the R-1 zone near the
intersection of Hathway Avenue and Orange Street but from the apartment
house complex to the rear of the property. Notification of these infractions
has been sent to the owner of the property after every DAC and citation, but
no action has been taken by the City to curb the disruptive behavior.
Beer bottles, aluminum cans, and other trash from their parties frequently
litter the sidewalks, gutters, and street outside the house.
We are submitting photographs and videotaped footage in support of our
claims, and we ask that you take immediate action sufficient to correct these
disturbances and to prevent their renewal in the future. We suggest that any
further violations of the use permit should result in mandatory community
service in the Alta Vista Neighborhood.
Sincerely,
RECEIVED
Names Addresses
_��, AUG 03 1998
�Pte.eo!/ C C/ '� ���''`" CITY Of SAN LUIS OBISPO
aw �a2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Copies ctF *\h s pe4i+ion wI'+ add',fional sI1 nafvre5 is
dva+�abl� Gr review in -lie. pl- jam+ Q-e.
��i����ll IIII IIIIIIIilllllll!I�������Iplll►i�►�II IIID of OBISPO
tuiscityn
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
May 12, 1998
Patricia Tighe
Warren Tighe
2462 Providence
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Re: 175 Hathway, San Luis Obispo, California
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Tighe:
This office has been requested to begin an enforcement action against you for
maintaining or allowing a reoccurring public nuisance on the above-identified property as
a result of numerous noise ordinance violations committed by your tenants.
Please be advised that a violation of the_San Luis Obispo Municipal Code may be
prosecuted in a civil and/or criminal complaint. If necessary and upon verification of a
new noise complaint, this office is prepared to seek a Superior Court Injunction
permanently enjoining you and your tenants from violating the City's noise ordinance in
the future. In addition, this office may also prosecute any further noise ordinance
violation as a misdemeanor. Any civil litigation commenced by the City will include you
as the landlord and owner of the property as well as the tenants.
In order to avoid litigation, we trust that you will cooperate with the Police
Department to ensure that your tenants do not violate the City's noise ordinance in the
future.
Please contact me immediately if I have failed to make the City's position in this
matter clear to you.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey G. Jorgensen
City Attorney
y.
Gilbert A. Trujillo
Assistant City Attorney
L_,ve' Lt. J. Hazouri, Police Department
nThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. < ��
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.
San Luis Obispo
Police •
Memorandum
To: Pam Ricci, Planning Department
From: Joe Hazouri, Lieutenant
Date. July 23, 1998
Re: 175 HATHWAY STREET
Attached is a printout of the FoxPro activity record for the residence at 175 Hathway
Street. Based on our conversation I am submitting this information for your
consideration while reviewing the conditional use permit for that location. The
attachments show the dates of responses,the enforcement actions taken (either
DACs or citations), and the persons taking responsibility for the violations. As you
can see, October, 1997,we have responded to seven complaints where violations of
the noise ordinance were verified. This does not count an almost equal number of
complaints where we responded but were unable to verify a violation. On two
occasions were issued. On January 10, 1998, a citation was issued to Rajiv
Dhamidharka. Mr. Khamidharka was found guilty by the court on April 30, 1998, and
fined $80.00. On April 11, 1998, a citation was issued to Kevin O'Laughlin. Mr.
O'Laughlin plead NOLO May 14, 1998, and was fined $140.00 (refer attachments).
I have sent five certified letters to the property owners, Patricia and Warren Tighe,
regarding the noise problem and I have personally spoken by phone with Patricia
Tighe twice in an attempt to solicit assistance in dealing with this problem. Their son
is one of the occupants of the residence. Mrs. Tighe's attitude can best be
described as disinterested. None of the letters or phone conversations have
resulted in a stoppage of these violations.
This is currently one of the biggest problem locations in the city. Normally, citations
would have been issued on the two responses dated February 20 and February 28,
1998, after the violations were verified. However, due to the switch to a new
computer-aided dispatch program in late January, responding units were not told of
the premis statues of this location prior to their response. As a result they issued
Disturbance Advisement Cards instead of issuing citations as should have been
done.
0 Page 1
If you need ariy.addfional information orwish to discuss this situation furthef; please
contact me at:yourconvenience.
0 Page 2
Case Information CDOAOOO0000O
ire 175 HATHWAY Owner Patricia & Warren Tighe
rce- .. 052-082-030 Inspector 2462 Providence
=upant Walnut Creek,CA 94596-
aing R-1
gal Desc. CY SLO CAL PK PTN LT 66 New owner on file
se #/Names(510)256-4117
mplaint NOISE VIOLATION District 1
Received 10/18/97
mments PARTY-CITE
Next Action Date
tablished 04/11/98 Next Action 10/11/98 PURGE
Activity
1/18/97 OPEN-DISTURBANCE ADVISEMENT CARD 9746808/PAUL GRYFAKIS
)/24/97 OPEN-DISTURBANCE ADVISEMENT CARD 9747876/ADRIAN TIGHE
)/27/97 OPEN-CERTIFIED LETTER SENT NOISE VIOLATION LETTER***
?10F ' OPEN-DISTURBANCE ADVISEMENT CARD 9753076/PAUL GRYFAKIS
L/10/98 OPEN-ARREST 9811095/RAJIV DHARNIDHARKA
L/12/98 OPEN-CERTIFIED LETTER SENT NOISE VIOLATION LETTER***
2/20/98 OPEN-DISTURBANCE ADVISEMENT CARD 097/ADRIAN TIGHE
2/23/98 OPEN-CERTIFIED LETTER SENT NOISE VIOLATION LETTER**
2/28/98 OPEN-DISTURBANCE ADVISEMENT CARD 003/PAUL GRYFAKIS
3/11/98 OPEN-CERTIFIED LETTER SENT NOISE VIOLATION LETTER**
3/11/98 OPEN-COMMUNICATION PACKET TO ACA FOR ABATEMENT
4/11/98 OPEN-ARREST 018/KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN,MATT DAVIDSON
4/25/98 OPEN-CERTIFIED LETTER SENT NOISE VIOLATION LETTER**
5/14/98 OPEN-COMMUNICATION COPY OF ACA LETTER TO PROP OWNER
a-�
. .IMINAL DOCKET — MISDEMEAN.
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SAN LUIS BRANCH DOCKET NO: M000267196
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CPLAINTIFF9 0010 SLMC9.12C050GE(S) PLEI NGPA/GCSPO
VS.
OHARNIDHARKAT RAJIV / 001
DEFENDANT.
-------------------
OA CASE NO= ID=0000266073/000
DOB=11/15/78 DR LIC=84748950 / CA
AGENCY: S S OBISPO POLICE DEPT
OEFE 09 Y- CT71 `
INTERPRETER REQUIRED: -->
REV=SLCR
DATE ACTION
01/10/980URT 01I20198
HOME 175 HATHWAY WORK: NONE ON FILE
DATE=U01/26/9809 CA 93401
DATE —PROCEEDINGS CLERK
01/20/98 ACTION FILED WITH THE MUNICIPAL COURT
01/20/98 ARR14 02/12/1998 1300 DEPT 11 SUPERIOR E MUNICIPAL COURTS 857
##### LETTER TO APPEAR #
P/F NCTICE MAILED S 160.
02/13/98 *# VACATED: ARRAIGNMENT v 02/12/19989 RESET 635
CASE SET FOR HOLIDAY IN ERROR. RESE.
ARRN 03/12/1998 1300 DEPT 11 SUPERIOR E MUNICI
##### LETTER TO APPEAR 9
03/10/98 PER DEFT
ARRAIGNMENTC9S03/O12/19981, CONTINUED 035
ARRN 03/19/1998 1300 DEPT 11 SUPERIOR E MUNICI
##### LETTER TO APPEAR #
03/19/98 DEFT FRES @ ARRN; JUDGE SEFTON ; CLK VANMEEL; 63`
FILED: OR9 SS #
03/20/98 CT TRIAL 04/30/1998 0900 DEPT 11 SUPERIOR 6 MUNICI
###;Y# COURT O/R #
04/30/98 RECEIVED 380.00 CK 7C5 REC# 199800127288 FR: DHARNIDHARKAs R 015
DEFT PRES COURT TRAIL HELD. DEFT FOUND GUILTY BY COURT 705
SENT 001 SCAN LUIS CBISPO BY JUDGE SEFTON
CT 001 I SLMC9.12.050 GC 04/30/1998
FINE: $80
05/07/98 NOTIFIED: SLPJ
LSL138—M009 705
.2- 28
POLICE DEPARTMENT—SAN LUIS OBEWO ❑MISDEM AMW
NOTICE TO APPEAR ❑Trdee O Non0olk- M5 3 5 Z 9
2
W Blrml.s.Addle..
Veh lx Na swe
❑C.V.IV.D.,li2,Ib)
f• _ ❑ H.M.(V.C.23)
or O Sam Al Drier
Addreee . ❑ Som As Drww
Cft
Stm
EfipbW for D'm=sW(V.C.40610) ❑Booldry Repwmd
Y" No vOWoeEU cod. Dwoipon
❑ ❑
o ❑ �
❑ a
❑ O
❑ Cw L Form hated
of
WEATHERSTREET
ETRAFFIC N
W E
SL6�PERY � S F
MIN VY
❑OFFENSE(S)NOT COMMRT®IN YY PRESENCE CERTIFIED INFORMATION AND BELIEF.
I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF T THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
EXECUTED ON T =ABOVE AT LUIS OBISPO,CALIF.
ISSUING OFFICE SERIAL
NO.
YFRNOUT ADYRTINO CULT 1 PA0WW TOO APPEAR AT THE,TMIE AND PLACE CHECKED MJM
—&=A
AAIDDE OR A—A FF TNE PUNK WALrURrM 3
MV OOVEiWYENTCENTER ROOK 710.IOe01CWOMY 8rFtEET.SAN LUIS 09010.CA
`T
O JVI LE OOURT W R OPARENT
.AUVf71LE SFAYIC®C@Il3rIEiL KKiNWAV ONE AT IUN.915 AVEWE 9AN LUIS 06P3P0.CA
Faw appwnd by to A4"Cama a CAWNSf\:
Rw.11-2M V.C.40500(b).40513feL 40r.2 PD.4Se U-1 11 (r'
SEE REVERSE SIDE
1 }
ENTRY OF GUILTY/NOLGONT 6 7SPLEAOUMYCAScINUMBER�OM000267196
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA* EVENT: �1
VS COURT: SLO BRANCH - DEPT 11
OHARNIDHARKAs RAJIV / 001 DATE: TIME:
ID NUMBER_ 0000266073 . _Y .. _DA CASE NO: `1�'_r__ --_
001 SLMC9.12.050
JUDGE: S. SEFTON CLERK:M.-6B
PROSECUTOR: _ 4 DEFENDANT PRE-.tffa
DEFENSE COUNSEL: < > DEFENDANT NOT PRESENT
ATTORNEY TYPE:
COURT> TIPULATION TO CammT�Ii$1TR7 FINDLEY ASI TEMPORARYUU ZE.NAME:
REV=SLCR SLPD CASE=9711045 .. CT=D1
DEFENDANT RELEASE STATUS: MUNICIPAL COURT OLR
D.A. MOVES AND COURT ORDERS COMPLAINT AMENDED TO ADO CCUNTS
DE��WART-RAIVES mCI%R� - F IT,t�" AMENDED
DEFENDANT MOVES TO W T t E L LE _;rG
NO CONTEST TO:'
COURT DISMISSES_Z T _� _ ��_ ON NOTIO Be i T-BA
GROUNDS OF
PRIOR ALLEGTS'Fr "E='MXTTES-- N-CRO ADS-__ _---•
_ DEFENDANT ADMITS VIOLAT1IA OF PROBATTdN AND WAIVES HEARINGS
STIPULATES TO PROBABLE CAU SE.
DEFENDANT ACVI SED RE VC SE CT. 23103.5 CONSEQUENCe'$. COURT FINDS VC23103
ALCOHOL RELATED. DISTRICT ATTORNEY FILES FORM TO SUBSTITUTE CHARGES.
FINDINGS AND PROBATION REFERRAL
"PLEA OF GUILTY AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS AND ORDERS" FORM FILED.
DEFENDANT ADVISED OF AND WAIVES RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL• CONFRONTATIONS
AND SELF INCRIMINATION AS MORE FULLY SET .FORTH ON PRE-SENTENCE VOIR
DIRE AND FINDINGS ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE.
DEFENDANT DOES NOT WANT CO UNSEL. AFTER INQUIRY: COURT FINDS DEFENDANT
KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVES RIGHT TO COUNSELS HAVING BEEN ADVISED
OF DANGERS PITFALLS AND DISADVANTAGES OF SELF REPRESENTATIONS AND
RIGHT TO APPOINTED CbUNSEL IF INDIGENT.
COURT FINDS FACTUAL BASIS FOR PLEAS GUILTY ON PLEA OF NO CONTEST.
_ COURT FINNS DEFENDANT IN VIOLATION 0 MOBAATION.
MATTER REFERRED TO PROBATION DEPARTMENT / REFERENCE ONLY
PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT DETERMINATION OF RESTITUTION.
LBURT FINDS DEFENDANT ABLE TO PAY COSTS�OF APPOINTED COUNSEL IN THE
CURRTTFINDS �LE BEFEN_0= T
OUO PAY JAIL FEES OF SPER DAY.
DEFENDANT/COUNSEL WAIVES STATUTORY TIME FOR PRONOUTVZ:EAE -b-FF JUDGMENT.
COURT READ AND CONSIDERED THE PROBATION REPORT. DEFENDANT STATES
HE//SHE HA READ REPORT.
DEPENDANT�GCUNSEL STATES THERE IS NO LEGAL CAUSE WHY JUDGMENT SHOULD
DEFENDANTEORDERcDNC Dp WAIVES FOR JUDGMENT.
FINE
S /T S GAYS W S50 DAY) SUSPENDED.
MNE C
S DUE BY —cif IF ACCOUNTING IEE S1137330
PANRENTS OF S PER MONTH
BEGINNING _ UNTIL PAI�A-FUEL:
FORTHWITH11NE-SUSPEND D FOR EACHFHOURAOF COMMUNITY SERVICE
DEFENDANT - 0 SERVE TIME IN LIEU OF FINES CONSECUTIVE/CONCURRENT
PAY OR REAPPEAR BY __ .
PROBATION GRANT / COMMITME NT
PROBATION REVOKED_ REINSTATED MODIFIED TERMINATED
E X TE14 D ED-TO
IMPOSITION OFSENTENCE SUS Pc 0 D FORYEA ,(LITHS
CONDITIONAL SENTENCE _ FORIUE 39PE VISED PROBATION.
DAYS IN CUSTODY SUSPEUE
SENTENCED TO _. DAYS COUNTY JAIL (C/T/S DAYS).
SERVE US WEEKENDS/DAYS IN CUSTODY-.
STAY OF-=UnON UNTIL ,JAT --_—M. FORTHWITH.
SENTENCES TO RUN CONSECUTZVLY.
#*** PAGE 1 OF 2 *#**
?-30
IMINAL DOCKET — I14FRACTIC
SAN L. A-S OBISPO COUNTY MUNICIPAL jURT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SAN LUIS BRANCH DOCKET IVO: M000270177=
THE PEOPLE OF 1HE STATE OF LAIWTIFF9) 001 SLMC9.12o05O(A)S) I NOL%NOL00
VS.
0 LAUGHLIN• KEVIN / 001 DEFENDANT.
DA CASE NO= w ID=0000 262702/000
DOB=02/02/78 OR LIC=134826466 [ CA
AGENCY: SAN LUIS OBISPO POLICE DEPT
CASE= 989411918 CT= M1
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: -->
INTERPRETER REQUIRED: -->
REV=SLCR
DAOLATE ED WITH 04/11/9d0UR7 04/13/98
HOME 175 HATHWAY WORK: NONE ON FILE
SAN LUIS OBI970, CA 93401
DAT--DATE ----------------------- PkOCEEOINGS -------02/ -----------------CLERK
______ ----------
04/13/98
__ _ ww w www r wr
04/13/98 ACTION FILED WITH THE MUNICIPAL COURT
04/13/98 ARRN 05/14/1998 1300 DEPT 11 SUPERIOR C. MUNICIPAL COURTS L31
44i fC SIGNED CITE
04/14/98 P/F NOTICE MAILED 3 160.00.
05/14/98 DEFT PRES O ARRN; TR AF REF SEFTON; CLK GUERRA. 635
FILED : RIGHTS
SENT 001 SAN LUIS 03ISPO BY JUDGE SEFTON
CT 001 I SLMC9wl2o05O(A) NOLO 05/14/1994
FINE: 3140
$140 DUE BY 07/09/1998
PAY OR REAPPEAR 07/09/1998 1300 D11
$10 OF FINE SUSP FOR EA Ha OF CWS SHOWN.
-121/98 NOTIFIED: SLPD _________w_
LSL138—M009 635
2 -3/
.,C�Mn:mu.• - - vefflc Irl
, R D rrdtic 'Han
a,mIM9AM Day a
P
sins Oat,
auunese Addram
E "
Sutra ° C.V.(V.C.1szioe) 0CL
y,„, ❑ H.M. V.C.3✓3` ) �.. ....
eh. Maim MfG LaMAik/N%.
° Same
As Drwer
duPL6 �lcEs
❑SeNe
As Driver
°sw"paaNB.a
,w a D'elrineel(V.C.Ali -
Ne 7iY p e CG31 °i` °��� }ul - !PE/t/T�R• , . - i
°
rEb
° e °Com.Forte Issued Lie U,QaG�t'ED
SL
-�fes _ E
amaieR d Tmvel
Ip
WEATHER STREET TRAFFIC N • („6/E / 0111 /lY� N�'a l - .
DRY LmHT 9 lMEAR
aJ� /l�A/� I�Daecf �/E//u/NC- �.tOM
:� SLIPPERY EDRJM S UA I�i.L/� r�� P) 3�
RM HEAVY
A
7 OFFENSE(S)NOT COMMITTED M MY PRESENCE CERTIFIED INFORMATION AND BELIEF.
iF Lbvr ��r r.�a-bl Aub
ICE urroE ABOVE AT saN LUIS oBLSPD,CALIF. r RFCT " 4AI�/% /Ido �Fit.E ly diZ•%VC, an!
R PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORO
Q ED ON THE DATE s SERIAL No. /�J/�f �Nrt f>lFrFJ1l' UIF /NG %u IpA -
JIMING OFFICER J'L.� c/r�T �E�K
a s�µ+� �- 7PE S•
THE
BELOW �is _(mac'K t f}dYlE� T c�cc
T TIYE AND PLACE ECKED QIf, I
VffTMOM ADMITTING GUILT I TO c=.A�1� a (1'l T�/.•r('n_A/bn/� � sl�uV i
r •/ Jbtl liT �T 11� !/�L M04 OF KN
>< . 7E✓• COAL Er7L /72
3 e'el•r 1, i
OAEA=WORA LflaoFt�w�: pEYsrnEET.SANLUsoeLaFO.0 �j •'•/�-�77�I'at GAfo.V I
couNrYoo+Ep" CENrM Cal
BWND PARENT AVENUF.SAN LUIS OBL9FO.G
p JUVENILE COURT MUST NpNWAY ONE AT KANSAS
CENTER
JUVENILE 9ERVvNEu A M
/ dam+. /,•/%ecn' FEL( 714
aMJim
Cav�
w,I�x vovo.4135 ).4m1aR).'0=P-C— Ol / O SEE REVERSE SIDE �LtdINCr I?t �TLIl2/SMV — .
Date ^D' ll Officer fit, copD
FIS u-s �S �TG�:e* afi. 'y'..`�re :.;'' ! {I�~, ♦ � ' r-ut`c s r� Y .C�w a:. �
<Y' � n' A�y :L S ttBB SP1 ' I, .+•' 'e'L+t.,. � ,):�''}'r�.�t. .
NT 0 ti�iL7 IN41"GO.NT S yF'>,y�yL
PFOPL• TtE STATC OF:
u.'LIlUGHLINEVIN
I
.NUMB ER.:+:OQOp262:ZQz : . :;4.:.,:.,�:;::rf
n !
si' 003:SLHG91 .0 A a" a,).
JUDGE:='r.
TRA FF.IC`R ER ;:S: ,
SE ETON :,1' CL MOM
•r l s4•U�)}:.
- PRO EOUTOR� '•'•. .. �+'�' ,
DEFENSE GOUNSEI` `� '`: its= .• 77,FF.` .' $ nab>.
ARESE T
ATTQRNEY,-TYPE- .;:; :-.. — v«1w.�"� ' sE r,'� •,'sw.;se-r � ,�>r=t „� .
COU.. T: REPORTER,•r.. ; TYPc4i6r- �NhME:
<•>%S TIPUL^^ATIOH'. 02rmIS3`TO FINO�EY C :REFER SEFTON.u�
aR P ASE=9p,_411._8 �_,�•�
�- EY=SLCR`:;SL Of,C 0_ tr ?7,scl.?�
DEF FE RELEASE ^STATUS�ROHISE ��� / �
O:.�PPET�R�' -.. IGNr..�.,' sr:::..,-.�:,,
D.A.: !MOVES .ANDS. OU.RT OROER.S
. ' G GOHP.L�A N.fin.AMEN D O': DD. CO
.Tq
- mss:. :KaLLT)..l.Fr�..��y�'•.i^"-�-i�,i'�r yp Y�,tl: ,rs�.•�.T.'�-�
Vi UVESFaaANG' R :}
YES kTOjW �. a E ..�:.:__
ND-CONTEST x; ;� A GUIL; • '
TY . .,; y:
.?�'. OUNOS OF=D
,..RIOR�AqLLEGP13713FFENSS-
E —.7iIIFfITTF 'iRZ
DEFENdANT ADMITS VIOLATI�:;`OF. PRO - N . Ol
TIPULATES - TO PROBABLE:-CAU SEL-,: :-s-,
EFENOANT`AOYISED::RE.-VC•�SE'CrV'' '
AI.GOHOL. RELATE 23103 5•:10 Q� CO RT.-•FX D VC231Q
_ Q .'OISTRICT'` 0 NEY f3 5 �+ y
..t SU8 T 6fS. ' ;
°i � `+� � R��,Y'�^n'3�r':'�'7Ft!'Kt�y3 rS ,.•r- dF:. ..
ra "?FINDINGS'''aND'PROBATION 'R�.ER
�. �E£C1 Z7F'i� -1L:Y0-AR404WlA
t # U U ' 0
AND .SEL �IL7E '
S'�Ttw N:
L, �1f.• E Fr- RE
a• = D N074AQ'DOE3� Cf�'�s.WAN aU S I' Y' IURT` F.INOS!�'DEF A T
NO. INGLY= ANO"VOLUdJTAR: HA`I RI6 S h.HAVLNG BEENtn
F';DANGERS• �'PIITFA ILS FANO-DI'SADVA Tpp EL PRES T. ION.�t:'
ARIGHT= IO A�POINTEO. G�UN.SEL' IF.:TNDGEN
T p g A L
;i;Ll UVRTIi'FINDSS- OEFENOANfAIN Y.TOLATIflNn�Os . .. L�, LF . Y�FrNO;
�' xMA`TTER..REFERRED, TOY PROBATI`ON. 10EP,ll'RTME
i 5 CPRE-SENTENCE'�110ESTIGAT,:IaN.,REP RTS. ; f ?TINNA ID. 0
EOURT.' FINDS'DEFE Nj..ABLE�;T "P Y COS a :N ' :C U
' �•r ♦ Y -8 e�;C
COURT_:FINDS ': FFR�Al01`�: IE—T nP l I ' :.
G
EFENDANT/COUNSgL .1iAIVES SZATU.TORY^'T R<'PR
^'COI�AT'`;REAb.�:'A'NQ',-CONSIDEREO.:`THE;; Pf�`D.8¢ ';:I�l�¢` ORT
I
,SHE SHE':HppS#�.:A'EAtY,: EPORT:"c.
�-•: n DE AN x COUNSEy.s,STATES F �•. IS ' "� f qC :
LIQ O 4RIMvI Jill
,
?tia 1;,,,. `.rA�Y -:c .:..it ly�f.,•�nF' rl..
TS. OFA
E6' N}I�..; ser+yi ,.w. •:cu-.:RA-s:or:., tt 1N;CTI P '.Z Y /
WI% i7t Si _.}.• Y 1' CV ufl�'1 �.�,�IV �l��jy�F'jl �t' �'•i-i ,0:�
ORE
t p;0Fy��FI SP
ENDED.FOR e.EACH UR ;fl L� HUN M":ISI='i�L ^i'r!r•
f•; :. 'DEF ENOANT�TO:nERVe;!.T ' U 0 `' Q E 1051,' +:-N! Y �jlmrc;
Y Cs REPEARirB
,}F. .N`ra•-.o3 .1:Q:��'�.'�.`-'f r �y2t'U;',: 1. . rz�ff.'1G MY r �. ��t� f:.'.il .',•�j� _ i _•
r*c ROBATIOR �yT"'✓COMMITMENT ( -.
PROBATION -f EVOKED'' . = REINSTITED j
? EXTENDED77T.0 . . ,I.r .i,
IMPOSITION 077SENTENCE: SUS-PF1�E it' 1»•. - .. �'-';4 Jy 3 :.`�
CONDIT1ONA07SENTENCEc ; 'a - rn FQ
ra _• 0AYSaN,"CUSTODYsSUSP.Et o
Y `SEN E ,s. ,. F. . j �.a
'x :� �} T NCED rfi::� PAYS COrUNTY jL -
t �` SERVE'�^�r. ' �_7 7S-li EiCENQ.SjD S�i:I ., S D
STAY.�-OFyEXFZI]TTOM�UNT:�L..,., _.
>._� .. Es .Ta!'RUN: :c�s curl .- ::.• ,, �,� �, ;, :,;.. �4..:�
;:, `i`y. ;}•;- s '.; . .?(c�.. ,'�,..• �"' !L'I'_-':`cam. h
t. 4J' m.. _ .'vr(S .:{.S�•5 « T'v. _o,t ;Jy. ,V (f C..L.-!. - /.
;x.. _ {'w+i`,"W K<.C,•...-'r 1..: .yam}'V':::r'.<j'f'ti •y'. '.
J�
POLICE DEPARTIIFM—SAN LUIS OBISPOO 1�S��B�A�� 5 6 8 8 3
NOTICE TO APPEAR ❑Troft
DRY
Cs f
�Z sura a z 24 78"
oulmon met
Voll,L'c No. C.V.(v.C.15211b)
r. o FLM.N.C.as)
IN ..❑Scare ABDr.w
Ad"= - ❑Sins As D 6w
Eipbis for t]i.R.al(V.C.40610) s R'0"and
0 0 f . 1 Z �/ Al'o
❑ :❑ • mix.� Osd'�
❑ ❑
ot) VF
❑ ❑
_ o Com Form twee
MAY�.
YYfAT1tER STREET
T.. .. W
'..� TF J e. - .
�' •; O OFFENSEl3) ITTi�BJ FSt710E CERTIFIED PIFORMATION AND OMER
. . ...: 1 CERTIFY UFIDE OF P THAT THE FOREOOMO IS TRUE AND CpRRECT.
. ON EDA AT SAN L IS 09�.CALF•
tSSUO)O � NO. ,.
WffH=ADwrnNajjLT 1 PMANGETO APPEAR AT THETM AND PLACE BEJ.Ow
r "
x
AM CLEWOPTNEwmaPALoouRr 3
OOUNrY OOVE1011ENr CEIRER RDON>70.logo 110NTEREY SrFtEET.BIiN LU6 OBISP0.G .
O JIr MILERr MUBT AMC MUVff1 ;.
UE
JUVENILE BAN LV19 OB19PO,u
co
19 M co
ftm4 by badN Cana of CAonY
Raa.11 VG.40NO).4m13(bL4o=PL.BSIAtoe
_ SEE REVERSE SDE
osr*111811tf6 is EI COrmat COPY Of VO,N)s CA
falOr10 nW on .
ary hand Clerk dSaWs Sen Uds�O �we.pgLSPp�
b urddpel Courts.taen L .
g * d
Rosalyn rsor�.ML:rliCipgl CourtCel
�i a ''e O(Ilcer SGS
aY �YjDq[COURS
�H
,2 _ 3q
_ENTRY OF GUILTY/ LNTES TSPLEAOUNTYCANUNINbPALRFUOT0270748
----_-_��_PSSEE NNBBEE AH U
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE. OF CALIFORNIAN EVENT:
DAVIDSON, MATTHEW JOHN / 001 COURT: SLO BRA -H DR - 11
ID NUMBER: 0000264365 DATE:
----- DA USE .NO: ��.
001 SLMC9.12.05O(A) �~ -
JUDGE: TRAFFIC REFEREE S. SEFTON CLERK:_ �rr~
PROSECUTOR: Ir"EFENDANT PRESENT
DEFENSE COUNSEL:
ATTORNEY TYPE: - < > DEFENDANT NOT PRESENT
COURT REPORTER: - > INT TYPE:
< > STIPULATION TG_00MT-0TMERF -rrNDLEY / - NAME: `
REV=SLCR SLPD CASE=56883 CT=Dl TRAFFIC REFEjjE€ S
DEFENDANT RELEASE STATUS PRD ISc TD APPEAR
D.A. MOVES AND COURT ORDE2S COMPLAINT AMENDED TOGADD COUNTS
FERMT-wim-FM �EpT- 2 �
EFENDANT MOVES TO WITH RIIF6-ET:
NO CONTEST T0: A P�E DS f-
GROUNDS IOF I SSES�t•=T
PRIOR ALLEG�"Z_ws_ --�T
STIPULATES TO PROBABLE CAUSES T
DEFENDANT ADMITS VIOLATIM OF. PR08AT28N A(�p WAIV EgRIN� G -
DEFENDANT ADVISED RE VC SECT. 23103.5 CONSEQUENCES. COURT FINDS YC2310
ALCOHOL RELATED. DISTRICT ATTORNEY FILES FORM TO TO CHARGES.
FINDINGS ANO PROBATION REFERRAL
�EFENDANTOF GUILTY ADVISED AND�WAIVEOF SIRIGHTATO JURYRTRIAL9CONFRONTA
AND SELF INCRIMINATION AS MORE FULLY SET FORTH ON PRE-SENTENCETVOIR
DIRE AND
NOT WANT INCORPORATED INQUIRY9 .COURTRFINDS DEFENDANT
KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVES RIGHT TO COUNSEL• HAVING BEEN ADVISED
OF DANGERS PITFALLS9 AND DISADVANTAGES OF SELF REPRESENTATIONS AND
RIGHT TO ARPOINTEO COUNSEL IF INDIGENT.
COURT FINDS FACTUAL BASIS FOR PLEA(S ) GUILTY ON PLEA OF NO CONTEST.
COURT FINDS DEFENDANT IN VIOLATION OF PROBATION,
MATTER REFERRED TO PROBATION DEPARTMENT //
REFERENCE MURTEFIIOS EDEFENDANTTABLE INVESTIGATION
REPORT DETERMINATION
AMOUNT OF S _
NDS
!O PAY
DEFENDANT/COUNSEL WAIVES=STAMORYJTIME FOR FEES OF
l �rRT• 70F JUDGMENT.
COURT READ AND CONSIDERED THE PROBATION REPORT. DEFENDANT STATESDAY.
HE/SHE HAS READ REPORT.
DEFDEFENDANT/COUNSEL STATES THERE IS NO LEGAL CAUSE WHY JUDGMENT SHOULD
ENDANTEOWEREDNTODhY BWKINGVFEESRRAIGtiMENT FOR JUDGMENT.
FINE vV�+ //
3 FINE (C fA' �OFLEACCOUNTINGYFEF3737S30
DUE BY _4IA SUSPENDED.
BEGINNING UNTIL PAIU-TR-FDC(: PER MONTH
FORTHWITH ---$R_�_EW_V€_UW'dAY FOR EACH $50 CONSECUTIVE/CONCURRENT
$10 OF FINESUSPENDEDFO EA
DEFENDANT TO SERVE TIM,0 O COFQ�UNITY SERVICE SHOWN.
PAY OR REAPPEAR BY 1L�I CONSECUTIVE/CONCURRENT
PROBATION GRANT / CDMMI MENT
PROBATION _ RE OKED REINSTATED
EXTENDED-Ta -- MODIFIED _ TERMINATED
IMPOSITION OF-SENTENCE SU5 PE]Wj5-FM
CONDITIONAL SENTENCEFORFGL-�$ �ISEO P RMTION.
DAYS IN CUSTODY SUSPEN6•Ej�
SENTENCED TO DAYS COUNTY JAIL (C T/S DAYS).
SERVE —US WEEKENDS/DAYS .IN CGSAT
SENTENNCCEESXTO RUN �CONSECUTfVELY;--
- H. FORTHWITH.
PAGE 1 OF 2 * -
1-35
October 27, 1997
Patricia & Warren Tighe
2462 Providence
Walnut Creek,CA 94596-
Officers of this department have responded to reported disturbances
at 175 HATHWAY on two occasion(s) October 18 and 24, 1997. These
disturbances resulted from assemblages hosted by the tenant(s) ,
Paul Gryfakis and Adrian Tighe, who were there or were issued a
citation or Disturbance Advisement Card for violating City
Municipal Code 9.12.050. This is the first time we have had to
send you a letter regarding this type of problem.
Effective May 15, 1992, San Luis Obispo City Municipal Code
Nuisance Abatement Ordinance was amended to include several
changes. In part, the following language was added to the existing
ordinance to broaden the definition of what constitutes a public
nuisance:
The occurrence of more than two loud or unruly assemblages
in any 60 day period that threatens the public peace,
health, safety, or general welfare and requires a police
response to control. . .
As applied to the ordinance, the determination of a
"response" will be the Police Department responds to a
location, observes a violation of applicable State or
Municipal violations, and the tenant is issued a
Disturbance Advisement Card, a citation, or is arrested
for the applicable violation.
The evidence supports that your property is potentially a public
nuisance and may become subject to an abatement hearing. As the
owner of the property, both civil and criminal actions may be filed
against you.
It is City policy to work constructively with property owners,
tenants, and concerned neighbors when a problem property is
identified. Actual abatement and any subsequent criminal
prosecution will be considered only when all other reasonable
efforts have not abated the problem. Please contact me at (805)
781-7313, Monday through Wednesday, 7:OOAM to 7:OOPM.
Sincerely,
Lieutenant Joe Hazouri
Noise Abatement Officer
�-3�v
10-29-97 Spoke by phone with Ron Whisenand from Planning. He said
the Planning Department is watching this location very carefully.
They were issued a conditinal Use Permit 2-3 months ago for higher
than normal occupancy with a nbad-boy clause". they are currently
in violation of this clause.
11-10-97 Spoke by phone with Patricia Tighe. She said that she had
spoken to her son as well as Walt Lambert at Cal Poly and had been
told that Paula Carr was the only person complaining about the
group. She said that her son was a stud and a fraternity member
and couldn't help himself about partying as this was his first time
in his own house. I explained that he and his roommates were going
to have to control themselves because they were in zero tolerance
with the PD and the planning department. She said she understood.
�-37
01-13-98 Called and talked with Patricia Tighe about the most
recent problems. She seem relatively unconcerned about the
possibiity of abatement. She said that the boys fraternity is
buying the youth hostel around the corner and that should take care
of most of the problems. She said that her son had been pressured
to have fraternity gatherings at the house since it is closer to
Cal Poly that the fraternity house is at 1716 Santa Rosa St. i
told her that the house was on zero tolerance and that a citation
would be issued every time we respond and find a violation.
?-38
February 23, 1998
Patricia & Warren Tighe
2462 Providence
Walnut Creek,CA 94596-
Officers of this department have responded to reported disturbances
at 175 HATHWAY on two occasion(s) January 10 and February 20,
1998. These disturbances resulted from assemblages hosted by the
tenant(s) , Rajiv Dharnidharka and Adrian Tighe, who were there or
were issued a citation or Disturbance Advisement Card for violating
City Municipal Code 9.12.050. This is the third time we have had
to send you a letter regarding this type of problem.
Effective May 15, 1992, San Luis Obispo City Municipal Code
Nuisance Abatement Ordinance was amended to include several
changes. In part, the following language was added to the existing
ordinance to broaden the definition of what constitutes a public
nuisance:
The occurrence of more than two loud or unruly assemblages
in any 60 day period that threatens the public peace,
health, safety, or general welfare and requires a police
response to control. . .
As applied to the ordinance, the determination of a
"response" will be the Police Department responds to a
location, observes a violation of applicable State or
Municipal violations, and the tenant is issued a
Disturbance Advisement Card, a citation, or is arrested
for the applicable violation.
The evidence supports that your property is potentially a public
nuisance and may become subject to an abatement hearing. As the
owner of the property, both civil and criminal actions may be filed
against you.
It is City policy to work constructively with property owners,
tenants, and concerned neighbors when a problem property is
identified. Actual abatement and any subsequent criminal
prosecution will be considered only when all other reasonable
efforts have not abated the problem. Please contact me at (805)
781-7313, Monday through Wednesday, 7:OOAM to 7:OOPM.
Sincerely,
Lieutenant Joe Hazouri
Noise Abatement Officer
a -39
March 11, 1998
Patricia & Warren Tighe
2462 Providence
Walnut Creek,CA 94596-
Officers of this department have responded to reported disturbances
at 175 HATHWAY on three occasion(s) January 10 and February 20 &
28, 1998. These disturbances resulted from assemblages hosted by
the tenant(s) , Rajiv Dharnidharka, Adrian Tighe and Paul Gryfakis,
who were there or were issued a citation or Disturbance Advisement
Card for violating City Municipal Code 9.12.050. This is the
FOURTH time we have had to send you a letter regarding this type of
problem.
The evidence supports the belief that your property is a public
nuisance and is subject to an abatement hearing. As the owner of
the property, both civil and criminal actions may be filed against
you. This matter has been referred by me to the city attorney for
a potential abatement filing.
It is City policy to work constructively with property owners,
tenants, and concerned neighbors when a problem property is
identified. However, despite six documented violations at this
location since October 1, 1997, three previous letters and a number
of phone conversations regarding this property, the problem
continues_ Please contact me at (805) 781-7313, Monday through
Wednesday, 7:OOPM to 7:OOAM.
Sincerely,
Lieutenant Joe Hazouri
Noise Abatement Officer
.2- yo
April 25, 1998
Patricia & Warren Tighe
2462 Providence
Walnut Creek,CA 94596-
Officers of this department have responded to reported disturbances
at 175 HATHWAY on three occasion(B) during the last 60 day period,
on February 20, 28 and April 11, 1998. These disturbances resulted
from assemblages hosted by the tenant(s) , Adrian Tighe, Paul
Gryfakis, Matt Davidson, Kevin McLaughlin, who were there or were
issued a citation or Disturbance Advisement Card for violating City
Municipal Code 9.12.050. This is the FIFTH time we have had to
send you a letter regarding this type of problem.
As I informed you in my March 11, 1998, letter, this matter has
been referred to the City Attorney for abatement action aginst you
as the property owner. This latest incident where Matthew Davidson
and Kevin McLaughlin were cited has been forwarded for inclusion in
this action.
As previously stated, the evidence supports that your property is a
public nuisance and subject to an abatement hearing. As the owner
of the property, both civil and criminal actions may be filed
against you.
it is City policy to work constructively with property owners and
tenants when a problem property is identified. Actual abatement
and any subsequent criminal prosecution will be considered only
when all other reasonable efforts have not abated the problem. It
is my opinion that reasonable efforts have clearly been made by the
City in this matter. If you have any questions contact me at (805)
781-7313, Thursday through Saturday, 7:OOAM to 7:OOPM.
Sincerely,
Lieutenant Joe Hazouri
Noise Abatement Officer
s►�►���������»�����►►��►IIIII@i��►����� iAll11 city of vu s OBISPO
Mom
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
July 25, 1997
Patricia Tighe .
2462 Providence Ct. .
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
SUBJECT: A 75-97: 175 Hathway Avenue
Appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision to allow a high occupancy residential use
permit to allow six adults.
Dear Ms.Tighe:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of July 23, 1997, upheld the Hearing Officer's approval
of the use, based on modified findings and subject to modified conditions listed on the attached
resolution Number 5201-97.
The decision of the Planning Commission of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to
the City Council within ten days of the action. An appeal may be filed with the City Clerk by any
person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission. The appeal period will expire at 5:00 p.m. on
August 4, 1997.
Due to City water allocation regulations, the Planning Commission's approval expires after three
years if construction has not started,unless the Commission designated a different time period. On
request, the.Community Development Director may grant renewals for successive periods of not
more than one year each.
If you have any questions,please contact Judith Lautner at(805)781-7166.
Sincerely,
Ronald G. errand
Development Review Manager
Attachment: Resolution No. 5201-97
cc: Allen Loenard
Paula Juelke Carr
Josephine Malone
Steven Nelson
/rCO, The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
vy Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. y Z
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5201-97
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct a
public hearing in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
on July 23, 1997,pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application , A 75-97, Patricia Tighe,
applicant and Paula Juelke Carr, appellant.
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION PERMIT REVIEWED:
Administrative Use Permit 75-97 - Appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision to allow a
high occupancy residential use permit to allow six adults.
DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development Department, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
175 Hathway Avenue
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT:
Low Density-Residential
PRESENT ZONING:
R-1
WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and studies
made by itself, and in behalf of testimonies offered at said hearing has established existence of
the modified following circumstances:
1. The use will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of persons living or working
at the site or in the vicinity because it meets the standards of the High-Occupancy
Residential Use Regulations.
Resolution No. 5201-97
A 75-97
Page 2
2. The use conforms to the General Plan and meets Zoning Ordinance requirements,because
it meets or exceeds all standards for high-occupancy residential uses.
3. The use is exempt from environmental review because it is the continuation of a
residential use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED that the appeal of the Hearing Officer's
decision be denied and the decision of the Hearing Officer to approve the Administrative Use
Permit A 75-97 be upheld subject to the following modified conditions and code requirement:
Conditions:
1. Five parking spaces, to City standards, must be available for parking on the site at all
times. The parking layout shall be consistent with the revised parking scheme shown on
the attached Exhibit A, and shall require no exceptions to City standards for minimum
driveway width or grade.
2. No more than six adults may live in the residence at any time.
3. The driveway shall not be used for parking at any time.
4. The use permit may be reviewed at any time that reasonable written complaints are
received by the Community Development Director, or if two convictions are received for
violations of the City's noise or property maintenance regulations within a six-month
period. At the review hearing,the Hearing Officer may modify, add, or delete conditions,
or revoke the use permit. A basis for revocation shall be failure to comply with the noise
or the property maintenance regulations.
Code requirement:
1. The use permit shall be reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the High-Occupancy
Residential Use Regulations. The property owner is responsible for initiating the review and
paying applicable fees.
The foregoing resolution was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis
Obispo upon the following roll call vote:
Resolution No..520.1-97
A 75-97
Page 3
AYES: Commrs. Jeffrey,,Ewan,.Kourakis;Ready, and'Senn
.NOES:- Commr. Ashbaugh
ABSENT: Commr.. Whittlesey -
AmoldB:.Jonas, Secretary.
Rlannmg.Commission
MK\PCN5201=97 .
f
2=�f�
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
WEDNESDAY,JULY 23, 1997
CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The regular meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at
7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 23, 1997 in Council Chambers, City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Janet Kourakis, Charles Senn, John Ewan, Paul Ready,
David Jeffrey,and John Ashbaugh
Absent: Commissioner Mary Whittlesey
Staff
Present: Development Review Mgr. Ron Whisenand, Associate Planner Judith
Lautner, and Assistant City Attorney Cindy Clemens.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no pubic comments made.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 175 Hathway Avenue: A 75-97: Appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision to
allow a high occupancy residential use permit to allow six adults; R-1 Zone;
Patricia Tighe, applicant; Paula Juelke Carr, appellant.
Associate Planner Lautner presented the staff report and recommended denying the
appeal, upholding the Hearing Officer's action approving the use permit.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked the standard width for driveways.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 1997
Page 2
Associate Planner Lautner replied 10' for residential lots. If there are six or more parking
spaces, then it needs to be wider. There are only five spaces required so the additional
width is not necessary.
Commissioner Ewan asked if the existence of the tree causes the driveway to be less than
10'.
Associate Planner Lautner stated it appears it would. In some places it would be 8' wide.
Commissioner Ewan asked the history of the City's six occupancy ordinance.
Associate Planner Lautner stated that the regulations grew out of concerns about the
number of students living together in homes by residents who wanted more control in
these situations. The current ordinance hasn't been challenged and the provisions are
equitably applied throughout the city.
Commissioner Kourakis received a call from Paula Carr who is concerned about
"reasonable written complaints" and enforcement of the noise ordinance.
Associate Planner Lautner suggested using language such as two convictions violating the
city's noise ordinance occurring at 175 Hathway within six months shall trigger Hearing
Officer review.
There were no further questions/comments and the public comment session was opened.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Paula Carr, 208 Hathway, displayed photos of the neighborhood. She is concerned about
parking and feels six students will further impact the neighborhood. Parking permits are
being given away to nonresidents. She cited a letter from the editor where the writer felt
residential areas are becoming student ghettos and people are moving away. Property for
sale is being advertised'for it's rental potential. She believes the Hearing Officer's finding
are mistaken. The health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood will be effected. Six
occupants would be out of character with the neighborhood. Liberal interpretation of the
guidelines should be applied. There are four rental properties in this neighborhood; two
with high-occupancy permits. This is a dangerous precedent for a family neighborhood.
The intent of the ordinance isn't to put a neighborhood at risk. Parking should not be
placed above people. Theses types of projects don't plant trees; they remove them.
Chairman Senn asked Ms. Carr to comment on parking passes being given away.
Ms. Carr stated students are parking their cars in driveways and non-residents are being
given the permits. It's turning into a student parking service.
a?-y 7
Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 1997
Page 3
Commissioner Ewan if Ms. Carr if she prefers 5 residents without the additional parking.
Ms. Carr would like to see this become the instance which revises this flawed ordinance
so that neighbors don't have to go to this extent.
Ms. Carr expressed a concern about paving and the loss of vegetation and trees. This
diminishes the quality of life.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked Ms. Carr if there's a zoning regulation or ordinance that
would support her opinion.
Ms. Carr believes this proposal will affect the quality of life. It's not a compatible use at
this location.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if adding one more individual will dramatically change the
neighborhood.
Ms. Carr believes it sets a precedent.
Commissioner Ashbaugh asked staff if Findings 1 and 2 are required 'by the Zoning
Ordinance.
Associate Planner Lautner stated they are standard findings but; usually just the first is
required.
Dan Fulmer, 195 Hathway, stated there will be parking modifications in the front as well
as the back, contrary to the staff report. A great deal of foliage will be taken out. The
foliage acts as a noise buffer from the house and street.
Mr. Fulmer feels one more person at this location will generate more vehicles and may set
a precedent for high-occupancy rentals. With high rent there's always a reason to add
more people. This neighborhood wants to remain a single-family neighborhood.
Changing this residence from 5 to 6 will not benefit the neighborhood. There's already a
major parking problem. He lives on the street and cannot get a parking permit because of
a red zone in front of his house. Parking permits are being given away to non-residents.
This shouldn't happen. We don't need six people in any one of these houses.
Pat Tighe, applicant, has purchased the home and the Realtor and the previous owner are
no longer involved. At the June 6, 1997 Administrative Hearing, staff had problems with
the parking configuration and neighbors expressed concern about removing some citrus
trees in the front yard. The redesign attempts to accommodate the citrus trees. Presently
the property can accommodate two cars and five students live there. She feels the anti-
student ordinance a half block from Poly isn't working. She purchased near Poly so her
son wouldn't require a car. The impact of higher density is cars. The redesign satisfies
Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 1997
Page 4
staffs concerns, meets the ordinance requirements, and retains most of the citrus trees.
The decking has a fungus and needs to be removed. She's taking out the carport and just
leaving a roof on the entry. She will be installing a driveway to the back. The ordinance
requires five parking spaces and this is a benefit to the neighborhood. This ordinance
tries to compensate impacts. She will work with the city to make sure requirements are
met. She has to rebuild a carport in the back because she's required to have one covered
spot. She cannot take the responsibility for previous behavior at this house.
Commissioner Ashbaugh asked if the driveway can meet slope standards. He feels the
driveway needs to be engineered.
Pat Tighe stated it can be done by starting further back. She's been told by city staff it's
doable.
Commissioner Ewan asked how parking zone/permits function in this area.
Mr. Fulmer stated each residence is allowed two parking permits at the cost of$5.00 per
year. A permit is required in order to park on the street from 2 a.m. to 10 p.m.
Commissioner Ewan asked Mr. Fulmer why he doesn't have a permit.
Mr. Fulmer didn't receive the original questionnaire and wasn't issued permits. He was
told he would have to make a request to Council to join the parking district.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Kourakis asked if trees are regulated in R-I neighborhoods.
Associate Planner Lautner replied yes. The Tree Committee has to approve the removal
of any tree above a specific size.
Commissioner Ashbaugh doesn't believe the driveway can be engineered.
Commissioner Ashbaugh moved to affirm the appeal of the neighbors and deny the high-
occupancy use permit based on the finding that it will adversely effect health, safety, and
welfare to persons living in the vicinity because of additional pressure on the street
parking as a result of cumulative approvals of this nature; the use of this condition is not
appropriate for this proposed location and would be incompatible with surrounding land
uses. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ready.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens feels the five spaces on site is increasing the parking on
site and decreasing the impact to the neighborhood.
. 2 1
Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 1997
Page 5
Commissioner Ready finds merit to the suggestion that adding another adult to the
premises have more of an impact on the surrounding neighborhood, the compatibility of
surrounding uses, and the quality of life with respect to residences in the neighborhood.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated the ordinance has already determined that six
individuals living at a residence in an R-1 District is compatible if the standards are met.
She feels the standards in this case have been met.
Commissioner Ashbaugh expressed doubts as to the workability of the driveway
arrangement to accommodate the.parking as proposed.
Commissioner Ashbaugh restated his motion to move to affirm the appeal and deny the
use permit based on the findings that, the use will adversely affect the health, safety, or
welfare of the neighborhood because approval would undermine the basic purposed stated
in Section 17.93 which is to promote the quality of life; and based upon the particular
neighborhood, the approval of the application would appear to be at odds with
compatibility of the proposed use at this particular location. Commissioner Ready
seconded the restated motion.
Commissioner Kourakis feels the ordinance has spelled out the requirements for approval
and this meets these requirements. She doesn't feel the ordinance is adequate for this
situation, but that's what the Commission has to work with. She cannot support the
motion. Long-term planning is needed because we're dealing with this on lot-by-lot basis.
Noise and Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinances protect neighborhoods.
Commissioner Ewan can't support a condition pending upon driveway engineering.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if the paved area will exceed 50%.
Associate Planner Lautner replied no. Exceptions could be granted through the Director.
Commissioner Jeffrey feels the ordinance criteria has been met.
Chairman Senn feels this is an emotional issue. The applicant has met all the standards.
He cannot support the motion.
Commissioner Ashbaugh feels the Commission has discretion for making these kinds of
decisions. It is the responsibility of the Commission to act on the basis of clear evidence
of a neighborhood being impacted.
AYES: Commissioners. Ashbaugh and Ready
NOES: Commissioners. Ewan, Kourakis, Jeffrey, and Chairman Senn
ABSTAIN: None
Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 1997
Page 6
ABSENT: Commissioner Whittlesey
The motion failed 2-4.
Commissioner Kourakis feels Finding 2 could be deleted. The proposal conforms to the
zoning ordinance and the use permit requirement for six-plus occupancy. The proposal
will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons living in or working at
the site because the requirements of Section 17.93.010 are satisfied.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked how often this permit would be reviewed.
Associate Planner Lautner replied annually.
Commissioner Ashbaugh stated it's very important for the parking layout to work to be
effective and mitigate impacts. He suggested adding the parking shall require no
exceptions to city standards for width and grade.
Commissioner Kourakis moved to deny the appeal based on amending Finding 1 stating
that the use will not effect the health, safety, or welfare of persons working or living on
the site as defined in.the High-Occupancy Residential Use Permit regulations; deleting
Finding 2; amending Condition 1 to add there will be no exception to the maximum
width and grade requirements; and amending Condition 4 to add that reasonable written
complaints, including two convictions for violating the city's Noise Ordinance or Property
Maintenance Ordinance occurring at 175 Hathway within a six-month period, shall
trigger a hearing office review of the use permit. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Ewan.
Commissioner Ewan feels it's great that someone has applied for this permit. Hearing
Officer review based on reasonable complaints puts a great deal power into the
community. He supports the motion.
Commissioner Ready suggested, under 17.58.050, amending the motion to include a
subsection stating a basis for the revocation of the permit shall be failure to comply with
the city's Noise Ordinance and the city's property maintenance standards.
Commissioners. Kourakis and Ewan accepted the amendment.
AYES: Commissioners. Kourakis, Ewan, Ready, Jeffrey,and Chairman Senn
NOES: Commissioner Ashbaugh
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Whittlesey
The motion carried 5-1.
a-5�
Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 1997
Page 7
Commissioner Kourakis recommended that Council be made aware the Commission feels
the six-plus ordinance is inadequate. We need to start moving towards neighborhood
planning and creating policy structure that looks towards preserving and enhancing
residential quality. There should an assessment of the cumulative affect. The Land Use
Ordinance and the Neighborhood Wellness Action Plan should be implemented.
The Commission concurred that there are incompatibilities in neighborhood which are
ongoing problems. Fixes seem to be isolated and incidental. The Commission supports
undertaking a program to make neighborhoods more cohesive.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens briefed the Commission on the recent San Diego high-
occupancy ordinance case.
2. 2211 Broad Street: A 76-97: peal of the Hearing Officer's conditions placed
on outdoor sales of novelty items; -N Zone; Sharon Ballesteros, appellant.
Associate Planner Lautner reported the applica t requested a continuance to August 13,
1997.
The Commission agreed to continue this ite to the August 13, 1997 meeting.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff:
A. Agenda Forecast:
Development Review Manager Whisenand pres nted the agenda forecasts for the
meetings of August 13 and August 27, 1997.
4. Commission:
The Commission agreed to convene the Au st 13, 1997 meeting at 6:30 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business before the Co ission, the meeting was adjourned at
9:15 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled f Aug. 13, 1997 at 6:30 p.m.
..2 r?_
� Alt
-
=''"'` b `E EI iNG AGENDA
DATE J —ITEM #_ _._:5e"c Al-
-2 ,
77
c�� ' , - - �, - .-
_ - .. _ _ ��► �;--- ; - _ _ - ,�-��.�- cls-c�P� - -
- .
=RECEVED
_C _NCIL � DD DIR . _CAO OFINDIR OFIRECH-RNEYO PW DIR CLERlvoRla ❑POIICE C::;
000 REC'DIR
p' O UTIL DIR
0 PERS DIR
- K
San Luis Obispo City Council Meeting September 15, 1998
Matter of 175 Hathway Ave. Appeal of Planning Commission revocation of High Occupancy
Residential use renmit.
1. The High Occupancy Residential Use ordinance is illegal. It violates the Califomia State
Health and Safety Code. The City of San Luis Obispo did not file express findings to obtain
a waiver from the State to enact this ordinance with stricter occupancy standards than the
State's Codes. The documents I have given you include the published appellate court cases
from San Diego and Santa Ana which detail the case law in this matter. I have also given you
a copy of two letters I received in response to my Freedom of Information requests to the
relevant State departments which prove that the City of San Luis Obispo did not file express
findings for a waiver from the State. For this reason, I am here tonight to ask that you revoke
the High Occupancy Residential Use ordinance.
2. This ordinance is also unconstitutional invasion of privacy. When the city inspectors go out
on a site visit to determine if more than 5 people are living in a house this ordinance requires
that the inspectors invade the privacy of the people living there by tromping through their
bedrooms,counting beds and sets of clothing. The appellate court judge in the San Diego
case states clearly that this is not done in this country without a very good reason. He goes
on to say that determining occupancy is not a good enough reason to trample our
constitutional right to privacy. For this second reason,I am also here tonight to ask that you
revoke the High Occupancy Residential Use ordinance.
In my experience the noise problems in the city are more effectively handled with the noise
ordinance. My tenants have been quiet since they paid fines in April. The State standard for
occupancy as applied to my house certainly allows 6 residents. I see no reason to try to retain
this illegal ordinance in San Luis Obispo. The appellate court judge in the San Diego case states
that noise and parking problems are better handled by noise and parking ordinances. The judge
makes it clear that the State standard paacy is the legal standard across the entire State
unless a climate,geological,or topolding justifies a waiver from the State and that a
city must follow the legal procedures with any such findings prior to unplementng an occupancy
ordinance with different standards. I have given you proof tonight that San Luis Obispo is not in
compliance with State law. Please revoke this illegal ordinance and rely instead on your effective
noise ordinance and other legal ordinances already in effect in San Luis Obispo.
Mayor Settle, Members of the Council, congratulations
Councilman Schwartz :
Doreen Case, Albert Drive, speaking for the Alta Vista
Neighborhood.
I have attended too many hearings and planning commission
meetings in regard to this use permit and the one nest door.
Bad behavior in this area has been a factor in the loss of
three fine families. This part of Hathway and Orange Drive
is very sensitive.
The Housing Element cites Hathway as a location for Greek
Row Housing. We want this changed.
The residents at 175 Hathway are members of Lambda Chi
fraternity which houses only 12 members of a 70 member
fraternity now located where the hostel was. The 175 Hathway
property has a large house and lot. Similarly, some of the
neighboring houses could qualify as frat houses if you put so
few people in them. This has residents concerned.
We would like to go on record that the neat time the Housing
element comes up for review, we would like Hathway Street
removed from the possibilities for Greek Housing.
We support all the remedies listed on page four and a tough
approach for people who don' t get the message.