HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/03/2005, BUS 4 - RESOLUTION AMENDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINE SCHEDULE FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC NUISANCE-RELATED MUNICIPAL council met*D� May 3,2005
j agenda Report
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Deborah E. Linden, Chief of Police is
Prepared by: Keith Storton, Police Sergeant
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINE SCHEDULE FOR
CERTAIN PUBLIC NUISANCE-RELATED MUNICIPAL CODE
VIOLATIONS
CAO RECONIlVIENDATION
Adopt a resolution to increase administrative fine amounts for violations of San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code sections 9.12.050(A) (Noise Disturbance) and 9.20.050 (Urinating in Public).
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Pursuant to Council direction, staff reviewed the existing fine structure and prosecution process
for four Municipal Codes that are generally associated with alcohol and party-related activity.
These codes included excessive noise, urinating in public, possession or consumption of alcohol
in public, and hosting a party where minors are consuming alcohol. Violations of these
ordinances negatively impact our City, especially our neighborhoods. The recent implementation
of the Safety Enhancement Zone ordinance, which increased fines for these violations, indicates
that higher fines and greater certainty of enforcement do serve to deter this behavior.
Violations of these ordinances are currently prosecuted in criminal court as infractions. This
process has limitations since the Court has wide discretion to reduce fines and add enforcement
conditions that are not required in our City ordinances. In order to increase fines for these
violations, the City can either prosecute them as misdemeanors in criminal court, or issue civil
administrative citations pursuant to the City's already-established process. There are several
advantages to utilizing the Administrative Citation process, including increased consistency of
fines, greater ability to pro-actively enforce violations, and not having convictions for the less
serious offenses on the violator's criminal record (this is especially important to students).
Staff is recommending that Council increase administrative fines for certain provisions of the
Municipal Code pertaining to two of the ordinances — noise violations and urinating in public —
using the City Administrative Citation process to enforce violations of these codes. The
recommended fines are consistent with the existing maximum fines in criminal court, and with
penalties being charged in other communities. Staff is not recommending any action at this time
for the remaining two ordinances - possession or consumption of alcohol in public, and hosting a
party where minors are consuming alcohol. Staff believes the alcohol-specific ordinances should
remain under the venue of the criminal court. In addition, the hosting ordinance is currently
under review pursuant to the Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws (EUDL) grant program in
which the City is participating.
,41- 1
Increasing Fines for Certain Alcohol-Related Offenses Page 2
There will be some increase in City staff time and costs associated with this action; however the
revenue received by the City from the administrative citations should more than off-set these
costs.
DISCUSSION
Background
In December 2004, Council adopted Chapter 9.22 of the Municipal Code which establishes a
Safety Enhancement Zone and increases fines for certain Municipal Code violations pertaining to
alcohol and party-related activity and offenses during specified periods of time. Increased fines
in Safety Enhancement Zones stem from offenses involving:
Section 9.12.050(A) - Noise Disturbance
Section 9.20.050 - Public Urination
Section 9.04.010 - Possession/Consumption of Alcohol in Public
Section 9.05.010 -Hosting a Party with Minors Drinking Alcohol.
Council activated the Safety Enhancement Zone during Mardi Gras weekend in February 2005.
As Council considered the Safety Enhancement Zone ordinance, it expressed interest in
reviewing the base fines associated with these violations in order to determine if they are
adequate in deterring violations year-round. In addition, feedback received by the Police
Department during and after Mardi Gras weekend 2005 indicated that the increased fines created
by the Safety Enhancement Zone ordinance helped deter violations, especially noise
disturbances.
During a February 10, 2005 Council meeting to consider extending the Safety Enhancement
Zone through the weekend following Mardi Gras, Council again expressed concern that the fines
associated with these violations may be too low, and staff was directed to return with information
and recommendations about this issue. Staff has since examined the fine structure for these
violations and the process by which violators are prosecuted. This report presents staff's findings
and recommendations.
Existing Situation=Noise Complaints
Noise and urinating in public violations take a significant toll on our police resources and present
quality of life challenges to residents in the neighborhoods of San Luis Obispo. The Police
Department receives over 3,000 noise complaints annually (about 3% of all calls for service).
Almost 75% of noise complaint calls are for"party" related activity. In order to deal with such a
large volume of noise related calls on weekend nights the Police Department utilizes the Student
Neighborhood Assistance Program (SNAP)to respond to initial complaints.
SNAP employs part-time students from Cal Poly and Cuesta Community College who issue
warnings and use peer-counseling techniques to deal with noise violations. SNAP will issue a
written warning to the offender(s) on a Disturbance Advisement Card (DAC). If SNAP is
y-z
0 •
Increasing Fines for Certain Alcohol-Related Offenses Page 3
unsuccessful in quieting down the party, police officers respond to enforce Municipal Code
violations.
SNAP is valuable to the community because the program allows us to respond to more noise
complaints than we would be able to with only officers. Officers are often unable to respond to
noise complaints due to other higher priority calls for service. SNAP has also become an
effective tool in educating the student community about noise related problems.
Unfortunately, even with the diligent effort of providing community education and written
warnings there is still a great deal of time and energy expended by patrol officers as they respond
to noise/party calls for service. Numerous residents are repeat violators or they fail to comply
with the warning issued by SNAP and officers must respond.
Since the year 2000, police officers have responded to an average of 156 calls for service a year
that are classified as a "2nd Response". In most instances, a citation will be issued for a violation
of the noise ordinance. Additionally, the offender receives an invoice from the City, charging
him/her for the police time and resources that were needed for the 2°d response, pursuant to
Municipal Code Chapter 9.21. In addition, locations which involve repeat responses within a
sixty day time period may be placed on a "premise" list for six months. During this time, officers
will respond to further complaints rather than SNAP, and citations are issued if a noise violation
is confirmed. Currently there are 114 locations that are active on the premise list.
Even with the implementation of SNAP, numerous public service announcements, website
information and a variety of community outreach programs, police responses to noise complaints
in general (and particularly premised and 2nd response locations) have not declined. The Police
Department receives numerous complaints from Neighborhood Associations about the situation
and some have resorted to fairly drastic measures, including suing the property owner of one
rental home that was the site of continuing problems and violations. The Police Department does
not have additional resources to dedicate to the problem.
Existing Situation—Public Urination Offenses
The San Luis Obispo Police Department issues, on average, 200 citations a year for violation of
Municipal Code 9.20.050 - Public Urination. This number reflects only those who are caught.
The magnitude of the problem is much more significant, especially in the downtown core where
"evidence" of the activity can be seen on sidewalks and walls of businesses, especially on
weekend nights.
Violations of this offense are "on sight," meaning the officer must witness the offense prior to
issuing the citation. Often the offenders are found urinating in the doorways to businesses or on
private property in residential neighborhoods. This activity is both unsavory and creates a public
health concern.
Public urination is usually related to alcohol consumption either near bars or in conjunction with
parties at residences. Neighborhood residents frequently complain about partygoers urinating on
their lawns and yards, however by the time an officer arrives, the offender is gone.
Increasing Fines for Certain Alcohol-Related Offenses Page 4
Current Penalties and Prosecution Process
Currently, a violation of Municipal Code section 9.12.050(A) — Noise Disturbance — is an
infraction (the lowest level of offense). A violation of section 9.20.050 — Urination in Public —
can be either a misdemeanor or an infraction; however, this offense is currently charged as an
infraction in criminal court. The maximum fine for infraction offenses is set by State law (see
table below).
When an officer issues a citation, the offense is prosecuted in criminal court. For an infraction,
the maximum penalty is a fine: there can be no jail sentence or probation. A bail schedule is
calculated based on the base fine delineated in the Municipal Code and additional court fees. If a
defendant is convicted, the court may assess up to the maximum fine plus court costs, up to the
maximum amount set forth in the bail schedule.
The following table shows the Municipal Code fines and the maximum possible court penalty for
a violation of either of these two offenses:.
Maximum Fine Bail Schedule Maximum
First Offense $100 $330
Second offense in 1 year $200 $660
Third or more offense in 1 year $500 $1,650
At first glance, it may appear that these fines are adequate and should act as a deterrent to this
behavior. However, this is not the case for several reasons. First, the judges who hear these
cases have wide discretion to reduce the fine amount and have done so on a regular basis. In
2004, the average fine amount for a noise violation (regardless of a first, second or third offense)
was $255.27. Second, there is not an adequate mechanism in place to determine and
communicate to the Court if the violator has previous convictions for the same offense in the
prior year, and to increase fines accordingly.
Third, likely to control the volume of cases that could severely congest the Court calendar, the
Court has routinely required that there be a citizen complainant for noise violations, and that the
officer (or SNAP) warn the offender prior to the issuance of a citation. These requirements are
not mandated by law or our Municipal Code. These additional requirements limit the ability of
the Police Department to pro-actively enforce noise violations without having to wait for a
neighbor to complain or issuing of a warning.
What are Other Communities Doing?
Staff contacted other communities, including several cities that host universities, to compare their
fine schedules to those in use in our City. The following table lists first offense fine amounts for
several of these communities:
�-L/
' i 1
Increasing Fines for Certain Alcohol-Related Offenses Page 5
Noise Complaints _ Urinating-in Public
City of Santa Barbara $259.00 $134.00
City of Santa Cruz $360.00 $195.00
City of Chico $184.00 68 hours of community service
Colle a Station,Texas $370.00 $370.00
Ft. Collins, Colorado $1,000.00 $100.00
Each of these communities has a.graduated bail schedule for offenders that violate more than
once over the course of a 12 month period.
In addition, other cities and counties charge violations of these sections as misdemeanors which
carry a maximum penalty of $1000 or one year in jail. The actual sentence is left up to the
discretion of the judge. Some cities use, or are considering using, an administrative citation
process for these offenses so they can better control the fines imposed and so that the revenue
returns to the City.
Should Fines be Increased?
Based on the feedback received when fines were increased during Mardi Gras, staff believes that
higher fines can act as a deterrent to offenses such as noise violations and urinating in public.
The survey of other cities, especially other university communities that tend to have significant
problems with these types of offenses, indicates that our Municipal Code fines are low. Officers
have even witnessed party-goers "passing the hat"to pay for the host's citation.
However, higher fines will not be effective without some level of certainty that they will actually
be imposed, and without the ability to pro-actively enforce these violations on a routine basis.
The current system of prosecuting these violations in criminal court does not adequately meet
these conditions.
How Can Fines be Increased?
There are basically two ways to increase penalties for these violations:
1. Charge all violations as misdemeanors in criminal court, subject to higher maximum fines
and potential jail time; or
2. Prosecute these violations as civil offenses using the City's Administrative Citation
process.
The first option, prosecuting all violations as misdemeanors in criminal court, would increase the
potential fines; however, this option is problematic for several reasons. It would significantly
increase the workload for the City Attorney's office since an attorney would have to actually
appear in court to prosecute each violation as a misdemeanor (a violation filed as an infraction
does not require the appearance of an attorney). A conviction would also appear as a
misdemeanor on a defendant's criminal record and would be more likely to impact future career
Increasing Fines for Certain Alcohol.-Related Offenses Page 6
options for students who receive these citations. Since many of the offenders are students, this
option would likely have significant opposition from our student leaders from both Cal Poly and
Cuesta. Finally, even if these offenses are prosecuted as misdemeanors, the additional
requirements imposed by the Court (a citizen complainant and a prior warning) would still be
present, and the Court would still have wide discretion regarding the fine imposed.
Staff believes the second option, prosecuting violations as civil offenses using the City's
administrative citation process, is more viable and would achieve our goals of higher fines to act
as a deterrent, more certain imposition of these fines, and the ability to pro-actively enforce these
laws without the additional Court-imposed restrictions.
Administrative Citation Process
The City has the legal ability to issue civil administrative citations for violations of the Municipal
Code, and to set fines that are not limited by State laws pertaining to criminal violations. Instead
of appearing in criminal court, violators are given an opportunity to appear before a hearing
officer (designated by the City Administrative Officer) to challenge the citation. Fines are paid
directly to the City and the collection process is administered by the Finance Department. Those
who fail to pay are referred to a collection agency pursuant to established City policies. The
Police Department's records management system would allow the tracking of citations, including
repeat offenders, so they would be billed appropriately and according to a tiered fine structure.
The fine for an administrative citation is typically $100, unless a different amount is set by
Council.
Prosecuting noise and public urination violations as civil administrative violations would offer
the following advantages over the current criminal court process:
1. Fines can be increased to a level at which they are likely to deter behavior, especially for
repeat offenders.
2. Staff can maintain better control of the process to ensure consistency in fines, while at the
same time providing an opportunity for a fair and impartial hearing.
3. Repeat offenders can be closely tracked so that subsequent fines can be increased
accordingly.
4. The Police Department would be able to pro-actively enforce noise violations without
depending on a citizen complainant and without having to issue a prior warning.
5. The revenue from the citations remits to the City to help offset the cost of responding to
the thousands of violations each year.
In addition to the advantages for the City listed above, there is also an advantage for violators.
Although the fines associated with an offense would likely be higher than they are paying now,
an administrative violation does not appear on a violator's criminal record. This would likely be
especially important to students who will be seeking future employment and career advancement.
The utilization of the administrative citation process for these offenses does not remove the
ability to issue criminal citations for noise and urination violations when appropriate. In
situations where the offender refuses to sign an administrative citation, or is a chronic offender,
Increasing Fines for Certain Alcohol-Related Offenses Page 7
an officer may choose to issue a criminal citation and request the case be prosecuted as a
misdemeanor by the City Attorney.
Recommendations
For the reasons articulated in this report, staff believes that by increasing fines for Municipal
Code noise and public urination offenses and prosecuting violations under the Administrative
Citation process, these laws will have a greater deterrent effect, especially for repeat offenders.
Reducing the number of violations will increase the quality of life for our neighborhood residents
and businesses. Increasing both the monetary fines and the certainty of enforcement and
prosecution will send a strong message that this behavior is not desirable.
Staff recommends increasing the fines associated with these offenses so they are consistent with
the current maximum penalties that could be levied for a misdemeanor offense in criminal court,
but are not so high that the penalties are unreasonable. The new recommended fine schedule is
as follows:
First offense $350
Second offense within a 12-month period $700
Third or more offense within a 12-month period $1000*
*$1000 is the maximum fine allowable under the Municipal Code and State law.
Alcohol in Public and Party Hosting Violations
In addition to the two violations previously discussed, staff reviewed Municipal Code sections
9.04.010, Possession/Consumption of Alcohol in Public, and 9.05.010, Hosting a Party with
Minors Drinking Alcohol.
On average the Police Department issues approximately 700 criminal citations per year for
possessing or consuming alcohol in public. The recipients of these citations vary
demographically, ranging from young people who commit these violations in conjunction with
parties, to homeless individuals with chronic drinking problems. Except during the
implementation of the "Safety Enhancement Zone," it is recommended that this section generally
continue to be enforced and prosecuted as a criminal violation and not be handled as a civil
citation for the following reasons:
1. In general, staff believes that violations of law that directly involve alcohol should
remain under the purview of the criminal Court so that offenders are subject to a
broader range of sanctions and court supervision when needed. These options can
include Court supervised treatment programs for repeat or habitual offenders.
Treating these violations as civil offenses removes these options, which is not a
desirable outcome.
�1- 7
f
Increasing Fines for Certain Alcohol-Related Offenses Page 8
2. The Municipal Code provides the City with the discretion to treat violations as
infractions or misdemeanors depending on the circumstances of each situation. This
is especially important for chronic offenders who continually violate this Municipal
Code and require a greater level of Court supervision, mandated treatment, and
sometimes physical arrest in order to stop the violations. Often, the criminal justice
system is the only mechanism available for chronic offenders to get help for their
addiction.
3. Citing this violation on a regular basis using the Administrative Citation process
Would significantly increase the workload for the Finance Department and City staff
designated to hear citation appeals.
The Police Department issues few citations for violations of section 9.05.010, Hosting a Party
with Minors Drinking Alcohol, not because the crime is not being committed, but because the
requirements for enforcement included in the law are very difficult to meet. The Police
Department has recently been awarded a grant under the Enforcing of Underage Drinking Laws
(EUDL) grant program. A community coalition has been formed pursuant to the grant in order to
consider underage drinking policy issues and prevention strategies. The EUDL Community
Coalition, led by staff from the County Alcohol and Drug program, has decided to study the
effectiveness of Municipal Code 9.05.010 and to make recommendations to City staff as to how
the law may be improved.
Staff does not believe that simply raising the fines for this section will improve the effectiveness
of this provision without also making changes to the language of Chapter 9.05 itself. Staff
recommends waiting for the EUDL Community Coalition's recommendation prior to considering
changes to this provision.
Impact on the Safety Enhancement Zone Ordinance
As discussed previously in this report, it was evident during Mardi Gras 2005 that the
establishment of a City-wide Safety Enhancement Zone that tripled fines for these violations was
very effective in preventing the behavior and as a clear messaging tool. Staff strongly believes
that the Safety Enhancement Zone provisions should remain in place for possible use in the
future; however, raising the regular fines for noise and public urination violations may trigger the
need to amend the Safety Enhancement Zone ordinance. Staff will return to Council later this
year with recommended modifications to the ordinance.
CONCURRENCES
Staff met with several representatives from Neighborhood Associations, including Residents for
Quality Neighborhoods, Neighborhoods North of Foothill, Lincoln Avenue Neighbors and
Laguna Neighbors; all were in support of the recommendations included in this report. Staff
discussed the recommendations with the Cal Poly Associated Students, Inc. (ASI) President and
sent a summary of this report to all members of the Student Community Liaison Committee
(SCLC) inviting feedback.
The City Attorney and Finance & Information Technology Departments concur with this report.
I
Increasing Fines for Certain Alcohol-Related Offenses Page 9
FISCAL IMPACT
The use of the City's Administrative Citation process requires different citations than those used
for criminal violations. The Police Department currently has an adequate supply of
administrative citation books and we will include the on-going cost in our regular budget.
Additional staff time will be required in the Police Department and Finance & Information
Technology Department to process and prosecute violations, and collect the appropriate fines.
Staff from these departments have met and concur that the additional workload would be
manageable with existing resources.
There would be an increase in revenue for the City resulting from the shifting of citations from
criminal court to the civil administrative process. Staff cannot estimate the revenue at this time
since it is not known to what extent violations will decrease as a result of the actions
recommended in this report. It is anticipated that fine revenues will exceed the costs associated
with utilizing the Administrative Citation process.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Maintain the status quo. Administrative fines as listed in the Municipal Code amounts
would remain the same, and all violations would continue to be prosecuted in Superior
Court. This alternative is not recommended, as it does not provide the enhanced deterrent
effect needed to reduce noise and public urination.
2. Increase or decrease the recommended fines. Council could consider increasing or
decreasing the fine amount recommended by staff. Staff believes the recommended
amounts are reasonable and will enhance the deterrent effect of these ordinances.
ATTACHMENT
Resolution
�- 9
ATTACHMENT ,
RESOLUTION NO. (2005 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE AMOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINES FOR SPECIFIED
VIOLATIONS PAYABLE IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1.24 OF THE SAN
LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE.
WHEREAS, on October 1, 2002 the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo adopted
Ordinance No. 1426, which added new Chapter 1.24 to Title One of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code, entitled "Administrative Code Enforcement Procedures,"pertaining to the issuance of
administrative citations for San Luis Obispo Municipal Code violations; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 53069.4 and San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code Chapter 1.24 enables the City, acting as a charter city pursuant to Article XI, Sections 5 and 7 of
the State Constitution, to impose and collect civil administrative fines in conjunction with the
abatement of Municipal Code violations; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 1.24 of the Municipal Code also establishes and provides that the City
will continue to employ the philosophy of obtaining voluntary compliance from property owners,
individuals and businesses who violate the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on September 17, 2002; the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9366, effective
October 1, 2002, establishing a Fine Schedule setting forth amounts of administrative fines to be
imposed pursuant to Chapter 1.24 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now finds that increased penalties for violations of the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code, Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control) and 9.20 (Urination in Public) will further
discourage such criminal activity and will enhance the ability of law enforcement to protect the public
health, safety and welfare within the City.
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Fine Schedule established by the City Council on September 17, 2002 by
Resolution No. 9366 for Administrative Citations issued pursuant to Chapter 1.24 of the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:
A. For a first violation of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Chapter 9.12 (Noise
control) or Chapter 9.20 (Urination in public) the administrative fine shall be the sum of Three
Hundred Fifty Dollars ($350.00)for each such violation.
B. For a second violation of either of the Code sections occurring within twelve (12)
months of the prior violation of the same Code section, the administrative fine shall be the sum of
Seven Hundred Dollars ($700.00).
C. For the third violation of either of the Code sections, or additional violations
thereafter, of the same Code section occurring within twelve (12)months of the first violation, the
administrative fine shall be the sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00).
SECTION 2. This Resolution shall go into effect immediately upon adoption by the City
Council.
y�o
Resolution No.
ATTACHMENT''
Page 2
Upon motion of seconded by and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of 2005.
Mayor David Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
t
At rney
CYDNEY HOLCOMB 805 594 0365 0.5/03/05 05:20pm P. 001
AAA 9991999-M- 11111
Q IML
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
P.O. Box.12604 . San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
RECEIVED
MAY 0 3 2005
DATE: May 3, 2005
TO: San Luis Obispo City Council SLO CITY CLERK
VIA: Fax to: 781-7109
RE: Meeting Date: May 3, 2005 - Item Number: BUS 4.
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINE SCHEDULE FOR
CERTAIN PUBLIC NUISANCE-RELATED MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS
Honorable Mayor and Members of the.City Council,
As you know, RQN has been very concerned about the number of noise/party complaints for
many years. Last year over 3,400 complaints were called in to the San Luis Obispo Police
Department and we know there are many more violations that routinely go unreported.
The current system of prosecuting these infractions through the criminal court system has
been problematic The local court requires that a prior warning be given and that there be a
citizen complainant before a noise citation can be issued. In effect this has limited the ability
of the Police Department to pro-actively enforce the City's noise ordinance. Judges also
have wide discretion with regard to the sentences they impose. In most cases this has
resulted in fines that are considerably less than the.maximum allowed under State law.
As the Chief has said in her report, "higher fines alone will not be effective without some
level of certainty that they will actually be imposed, and without the ability to pro-actively
enforce these violations on a routine basis."
By-passing the court system and prosecuting most noise and urinating in public violations
as civil infractions under the City's Administrative Citation process would give the City the
ability to: (1) issue citations without a prior warning and without having to depend on a
citizen complainant; (2) increase the fines to an amount that would, hopefully, deter
behavior; and (3) reap the benefit of the revenue from the citations. This would provide
direct and welcomed relief to the diminished quality of life currently being experienced
every weekend in many of our neighborhoods.
Therefore, we strongly urge you to adopt a resolution increasing the administrative fine
amounts, as proposed in your agenda report, for violations of San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code §§ 9 .12.050(A) (Noise Disturbance) and 9 .20.050 (Urinating in Public) .
Respectfully submitted, RED FILE .
/,',��e�,,, �j , m9 ING AGENDA
C dne Holcomb _"I""`� __ DATE ITEM # 7
Y Y
Chairperson, RQN %000N01L ' ` DD DIR
ICAO Z'FIN DIR
.E;�ACAO ?'FIRE CHIEF
' ATTORNEY 2--PW DIR
�CLERiVORIa -E-POLICE CHF
❑ DFPT HEADS ,EREC DIR
_ UTIL.DIR
— _ min DIR
Page 1 of.2
RECEIVED
Ken Hampian - Increase in Noise and Urination Fines a, ,
From: Sandra Rowley <macsar99@yahoo.com> SLO CITY CLERK
To: Dave Romero <dRomero@SLOcity.org>, Paul Brown <pbmwn@slocity.org>, John Ewan
<jEwan@SLOcity.org>, Christine Mulholland <cMulholland@SLOcity.org>, Alan Settle
<aSettle@SLOcity.org>
Date: 5/3/05 1:24PM
Subject: Increase in Noise and Urination Fines
CC: Ken Hampian <kHampian@SLOcity.org>, Cydney Holcomb <cHolcomb@Charter.net>
Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members,
I'm hopeful that all segments of our community can come together to
support fine increases for both Noise Disturbance and Urinating in Public.
The increases target the troublemakers, the ones who give college students
and other young people a bad name, and the infractions certainly impact our RED FILE
quality of life. MEWING AGEN��''D,,..A�� tL��And what a great idea it is to increase these fines. It's obvious the DATE ITEM AGENDA
—
current system isn't working since there were over 3,400 calls last year for
noise alone, the majority of which were repeat calls. I've been downtown and
smelled urine near some of the stores and bars, and I've seen and heard about
young folks urinating on lawns throughout the city—hardly the way we want
our city treated or remembered.
There are two"best'things about this proposal: 1) Punishment for the
infraction can be more immediate, and 2) It.specifically targets the
troublemakers. I think it's important for infractions to be dealt with as �^ �
soon after the occurrence as possible. Delay of punishment, such as waiting 9 WL!
for a court date, certainly limits the`cause and effect' lesson that should Lr3Cour;clL ADD DIP
be derived from a citation and fine, ICAO 'FIN DIR
ACAO T FIRE CHIEF
The increased fines add emphasis to the ordinances and clearly state that .ATTORNEY �pW plR
we really don'tlike or want these two behaviors. They demonstrate to 4 CLERK,ORIG 2IPOLICE CHF
law-abiding residents that their voices have been heard and their concerns P DE T HEAD .moi REC DIR
will 6e addressed. They demonstrate to troublemakers that the city is -t UTIL DIR
serious about ridding (ok, reducing) itself of these behaviors. I hope
�aR DIR
student leaders will back these changes, too. After all, it is the few
troublemakers who give students a bad name and cause permarient residents to
be apprehensive when students move into a neighborhood.
I request, and sincerely hope, that each of you will support the
recommendations in the staff report in their entirety.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sandra Rowley
SLO
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo!Mail has the best spam protection around
file://C;\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 5/3/2005
From Michael C.Sullivan to%;8y of San Luis Obispo-Council meeting ofb3 2F005E Page 1 of 1
MEETING AGENDA
02 May 2005 DATE-R O�--ITEM # 9
To: City Council of City of San Luis Obispo ,,_,V
From: Michael C. Sullivan, 1127 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
(805) 545-9614 mcsgday@yahoo.com
RE: Council meeting of 03 May 2005, Item Bus 4,Resolution amending the administrative fine
schedule for certain public nuisance-related municipal code violations
As a resident who must cope with long-standing noise problems caused by nearby neighbors in rental
units,I endorse the more severe.administrative fines recommended in the staff report for 03 May 2005,Item
Bus 4. If anything,this amendment does not go far enough to correct this serious noise nuisance problem in
the City of San Luis Obispo.
Although stiffer fines against tenants would be more effective than the current system,the only truly
effective solution will require much momaggressive legal action by the City against responsible landlords.
SLO Superior Court case CV 04-0737,Killian vs. Fitch,held that a landlord who does not control noise
nuisances at his property is liable for monetary damages. The court required the landlord to pay$3,890.. A
threat of a fine this large is certainly an effective method to get landlords to control the noise nuisances
occurring at their properties.
The City should follow the lead of various other cities which target the landlords as well as the tenants.
Any property which has had at least one verified noise complaint of any kind should be on notice from the
City Attorney that additional legal steps would be taken by the City, including but not limited to civil
lawsuits similar to Killian vs. Fitch. Both the citizens affected as well as the City itself should be filing such
lawsuits against offending landlords.
Another possible solution,in addition to lawsuits against landlords,would be an administrative fine
against landlords whose tenants cause noise nuisances. It could be a direct fine,or an indirect fine such as an
increase in the business license renewal fee.
Noise from parties is not the only serious type of noise problem in the city. In recent years,noise from
vehicles has increased substantially,caused primarily by very loud music systems with deep rumbling bass
frequencies which can penetrate through walls and windows.
Another very disturbing trend is the proliferation of illegally modified exhaust systems,especially on
pickup trucks but also on cars and motorcycles. Madonna Road,near my neighborhood,has sounded like the
roar and rumble of Ontario Motor Speedway for several years now. The sound is made even worse when
drivers accelerate very quickly,sometimes accompanied by the sound of squealing tires. Why can't the
police force control this type of noise nuisance? It grows worse and worse each month.
In considering noise nuisance fines,the City should closely examine possible solutions to not only the
party noise problem,but also the serious nuisances caused by mobile sound systems and modified exhausts
and reckless driving and speeding. .-,.b 4' -0'1 a I
COUNCIL 17 CDD DIR
Sincerely, CAO FIN DIR
ACAO FIRE CHIEF
I ATTORNEY RW DIR
CLERK'ORIG POLICE CHF
�/- DEPT HCADS REC DIR
Michael C.Sullivan IF r'bUTIL DIR
HR DIR
Please forward a copy of this letter to: Chief of Police,City Attorney,City Council;and°Chief— =
Administrative Officer.
RECEIVED
MAY n 2 ?901
1 Page 1 of 1
w
Allen Settle-Change in Procedures Re: Noise Complaints,etc
From: Michal J Gillman<mikigillman@sbcglobal.net>
To: <dromero@slocity.org>,<asettle@slocity.org>,<cmulholland@slocity.org>,<jewan@slocity.org>,
<pbrown@slocity.org>
Date: 5/1/2005 7:36 PM
Subject: Change in Procedures Re:Noise Complaints,etc
CC: Cydney Holcomb<cholcomb@charter.net>,Larry Batcheldor<lbatcheldor@sbcglobal.net>
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
I strongly favor our Police Chiefs proposal for changing how noise and urinating in public are handled.
I favor the proposed fine schedule of$350.00 for the 1st offense,$700.00 for the 2nd and$100.00 for the 3rd.
I favor eliminating a warning before giving a citation for these violations.
I favor having the fines go to the city rather than to the court.We can use this money to support Police Dept.efforts to keep our
neighborhoods peaceful.
Please feel free to contact me by email if I can be of further assistance in this matter.
Thank you for considering Police Chief Linden's proposal.
Sincerely,
Mild Gillman
miki,gil lman @ sbcglobal.net
1874 McCollum Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93405
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 5/2/2005
Page 1 of 1
Allen Settle-Fwd: Change in Procedures Re:Noise Complaints,etc
From: Michal J Gillman<mikigillman@sbcglobal.net>
To: <asettle@slocity.org>,Larry Batcheldor<Ibatcheldor@sbcglobal.net>,<cmulholland@slocity.org>,
<dromero@slocity.org>,Cydney Holcomb<cholcomb@charter.net>,<jewan@slocity.org>,<pbrown@slocity.org>
Date: 5/1/2005 9:35 PM
Subject: Fwd: Change in Procedures Re: Noise Complaints,etc
CC: Cydney Holcomb<cholcomb@charter.net>,Larry Batcheldor<Ibatcheldor@sbcglobal.net>
Dear Honarable Mayor&City Council Members:
Oops!That should be$1000.00 fine for the 3rd offense.
In other words:I fully support Chief Linden's proposal.
Sincerely,
Miki Gillman
Note:forwarded message attached.
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 5/2/2005
Page 1 of 1
Allen Settle - Please accept Chief Linden's Recommendations: Business Item #4
From: Jan Marx <janmarx@fix.net>
To: <dromero@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>, <pbrown@slocity.org>,
<cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>
Date: 5/1/2005 5:43 PM
Subject: Please accept Chief Linden's Recommendations: Business Item #4
Dear Council Members:
As a member of RQN, I am writing to urge you to endorse Police Chief Deb Linden's proposals to change the way that
violations for noise, urinating in public and their respective fines are handled and to increase the fines for these
offenses. As someone who lives in a neighborhood with many students, I know first hand how disturbing and
siruptive it is to have to deal with this kind of conduct. Anything that can be done within the limits of the law to
change anti-social behavior in the neighborhoods would be greatly appreciated. What about similar fines for breaking
bottles on the sidewalks and in the streets?
Thank you for considering my opinion on this important neighborhood issue.
All the Best,
Jan Howell Marx
265 Albert Drive
San Luis Obispo
CA 93405
tile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 5/2/2005
Page 1 of 1
Allen Settle- Resolution Amending the Administrative.Fine Schedule
From: Karen Adler<fudge805@charter.net>
To: <asettle@slodty.org>, <cmulholland@slodty.org>,John Ewan <jewan@slocity.org>, <pbrown@slocity.org>
Date: 5/1/2005 4:54 PM
Subject: Resolution Amending the Administrative Fine Schedule
Dear Council Members:
On Tues., May 3. you are going to be voting on a matter of great concern
to our neighborhoods. Since I live in one of the neighborhoods heavily
impacted with students,I feel Police Chief Deb Linden's proposal is
finally an approach that has some 'teeth" in it. The noise and party
complaints go on incessantly, not just on the weekends. The City's
noise ordinance needs to be enforced. Please support the changes
suggested by Chief Linden! The currentsysteni is problematic at best
and doesn't work!
Thank you, Karen Corda Adler
1676 Fredericks St.
SLO, 93405
file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 5/2/2005
Page 1 of 1
Allen Settle
From: <gkucer@charter.net>
To: <asettle@slocity.org>
Date: 5/1/2005 2:45 PM
I am in full support of D. Linden's noise proposal.
Thank you.
Garry Kucer
Laguna Neighbor President
file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 5/2/2005
Page 1 of 1
i
Allen Settle-May 3 meeting agenda
From: Terry Mohan<catsdad@sbcglobal.net>
To: <asettle@slocity.org>
Date: 5/1/2005 12:29 PM
Subject: May 3 meeting agenda
Mr. Mayor&Council Members,
I would like comment on two items on this weeks meeting agenda. First of all is the consent agenda item to place a traffic light at
Broad&Pacific. I am in that area almost daily and I can't remember ever seeing an accident there. I can't see spending upwards of
$260,000 because some drivers are incompetent. At a time when the city is in need of funds this is an unnecessary expenditure. If the
accident rate is that bad possibly allowing only right turns at the intersection,which would not inconvenience anyone,would solve the
problem.
I would also like to support the Police Chiefs measure to make the penalties for public nuisance stricter. The people who engage in
these acts deserve no leniency from the city or courts because of their immaturity or because most are guests to our community. As a
ten year resident of this city I have experience the rude and obnoxious behavior of many of these "party animals". If they don't know
how to behave let them party in the communities where their parents live or in the place they originally came from. To keep our city
safe and inviting to descent visitors the trouble makers should be made to pay for the extra police needed to supervise their activities
and the increase fine would also discourage those looking to party from choosing San Luis as there final destination.
Terry Mohan
2416 Santa Clara
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
547-9733
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 5/2/2005
- - Page 1 of 1
FILE
Allen Settle -Change in noise violation ordnance MEETING AGENDA
Plas
From: <Hjdende@aol.com>
To: <asettle@slocity.org>, <cmulholl@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>, <pbrown@slodty.org>
Date: 5/1/2005 7:13 PM
Subject: Change in noise violation ordnance
Please vote in favor of the change in the noise ordnance proposed by Police
Chief Linden. We have had to make several noise complaints to the police COUNCIL CDD DIR
CAO FIN DIR
department and even met with Rob Brynn to discuss our options. ACRO c
FIRE CHIEF
Harriet and John Clendenen ATTORNEY PW DIR
472 Corrida Drive CLERKJORIO POLICE CHF
D
DS REC DIR
V -- UTIL DIR
O HR DIR
file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 5/2/2005
............ I
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
LATE os'ITEM #
April 29,2005
Honorable Dave Romero, Mayor
Members of the City-Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor Romero and council Members:
The Board of Directors of the Neighborhoods North of Foothill (NNOF) community
organization agrees that the fines for violations of the City ordinances regarding Noise
Control and Urinating in Public are too low at the present time. We believe that an
increase in the fines;with appropriate publicity about the increases, would help to
discourage violations of the ordinances. At the April 18 Board meeting the following
resolution was adopted:
The Board of Directors of the neighborhoods North of Foothill supports
the proposal of the Police Department to increase the fines for violations
of ordinances regarding Noise Control and Urinating in Public.
The Board members expressed concern about the need to safeguard the rights of
individuals cited for violations of the proposed new ordinance. It is unclear to us how
this would be accomplished under the Administrative Citation Process.
Sincerely yours,
Ira Alpert, President
Neighborhoods North of Foothill
CC: City Council Members / -
Police Chief Linden
or L CiI CDD DIR
FIN DIR
ACAO FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY PW DIR
CLERKJORIG POLICE.CHF
D T FADS REC DIR
UTIL DIR
I i HR DIR
Page 1 of 1
Allen Settle-support for increased fines
From: "Diane Halsted" <dhalsted@sbcglobal.net>
To: <asettle@slodty.org>
Date: 5/2/2005 9:28 AM
Subject: support for increased fines
Dear Mr. Settle—
I heartily support the police department proposal to increase fines for
noise and public urination complaints.The on-going destruction of our
neighborhoods by students cannot be tolerated. Any attempt at teaching.
irresponsible young adults what it means to live in a community and show
consideration for everyone in that community must be supported.
Diane Halsted
258 Patricia Court
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308/ Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/2005
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 5/3/2005
Page 1 of 1
Allen Settle Chief Linden's proposal
From: "Dominic B. Perello" <dperello@caipoly.edu>
To: <asettle@slocity.org>
Date: 5/2/2005 4:26 PM
subject: Chief Linden's proposal
Though noise after 10 p.m. has not been serious in my IMMEDIATE neighborhood
in recent.months, I still like Chief Linden's tough fines for noise abuse in
neighborhoods. Dom
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW I00002.HTM 5/3/2005
Page 1 of 1
Allen Settle-Please approve Noise/Party proposal 5/3 by Chief Linden
From: "Jennifer"<jennifer070@earthlink.net>
To: <dromero@slocity.org>,<asettle@slocity.org>,<cmulholland@slocity.org>,<jewan@slocity.org>,
<pbrown @ slocity.org>
Date: 5/2/2005 4:59 PM
Subject: Please approve Noise/Party proposal 5/3 by Chief Linden
Dear Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council,
My name is Jennifer Robinson,and I am a member of Residents for Quality Neighborhoods here in SLO.I have had to move twice
because of noise and/or partying issues in the past five years,and am planning to move again in the next few months because of the
same problems getting worse where I am now.These problems are almost all because of students,who have continued and increased
their illegal and disruptive behavior because the penalties apparently have not been harsh enough to make them stop. (Or the police
officershave not been able to address them because of the way the violations have had to be handled.)
I therefore wholeheartedly support the proposal by Chief Linden to allow more effective methods to deal with these issues,(including
higher fines),that is going up for a vote tomorrow,and would like to strongly request that you please approve it.It will be an
enormous help to all the law-abiding and respectful residents of San Luis Obispo,who deserve to live in a peaceful and safe
environment where they can function and sleep undisturbed by noisy and trouble making law-breakers-as they have every right to.
Thank you very much,
Sincerely,
Jennifer Robinson
San Luis Obispo,CA
file://C:\Documents%20and%o20Settings\slouser\L.ocal%20Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 5/3/2005
-- Page 1 of 1
SLO Citycouncil -In support of Chief Linden's Noise complaint resolution...
From: Slosmurf<Slosmurf@charter.net>
To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org>
Date: 5/2/2005 3:13 PM
Subject: In support of Chief Linden's Noise complaint resolution...
My Husband and I fully support Chief Linden's proposal to amend the
existing Noise/Nuisance fines and procedures. We love this community
very much and have lived here for over 20 years.The nuisance created by
extremely loud parties has really had a significant effect on the
quality of life in our neighborhood, so much so that we finally got
organized and formed a neighborhood association (Laguna Neighbors). We
sincerely hope that you will support this resolution.
Thank you and a special thanks to Chief Linden for continuing to do a
great job!!!
Sincerely, Jim and Marie Foley
1502 Oceanaire Dr.
SLO
541-2715
file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 5/3/2005
Page 1 of 1
Allen Settle-Noise Disturbance Fines Proposal&Vote RED FILE
ME /
From: <AGczech@aol.com> DATE �3 0 ITEM # 1g7
To: <dromero@slocity.org>,<asettle@slocity.org>,<cmulholland@slocity.org>
Date: 5/3/2005 1:14 PM
Subject: Noise Disturbance Fines Proposal&Vote
CC: <jewan@slocity.org>,<pbrown@slocity.org>
Honorable City Councilors:
We live on a road that has seen increasing student residence and is likely to continue to do so,and we strongly support the proposals
of Police Chief Deb Linden in all respects.
Happily,we can say that the conduct of students on our road has been commendable,following some early incidents dealt with by
police presence,which was brought about by representations from residents. Naturally,we are aware that the present excellent
relations between students and other residents might change and incidents of noise disturbance might recur.Not every road is
fortunate enough to have among its residents a Cal Poly professor whose satisfaction or dissatisfaction with students'conduct off
campus could have important implications for their success on campus and beyond.
The proposals,if accepted,would have a very desirable deterrent effect,would greatly facilitate and speed up law enforcement and,at
the same time,would protect students from the implications of procedures in the criminal court system.
We urge you to vote in favor of the proposals.
Yours sincerely,
Adolf and Genevieve Czech
612 Stanford Drive
San Luis Obispo
�n COUNCIL �� CJD IR
CAC FIN DIR
ACAO FIRE CHIEF
El ATTORNEY PW DIR
CLERKIORIG POLICE CHF
El DEP Hc�tiDS RE DIR
f� UTIL DIR
C] HR DIR
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\L.ocal%20Settings\Temp\GW 100002.HTM 5/3/2005
_ Page 1 of 1
j
RED FILE
Allen Settle-Noise violations resolution NIEETInIr,
DATE 5✓0�i' ITEM # LOY
From: "Ruth Holden <Iv2av8@hotmail.com>
To: <dromero@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>,
<pbrown @ slocity.org>
Date: 5/3/2005 12:23 Phil
Subject: Noise violations resolution
Hail to the Chief
KUDOS, Thanks, Bravo to Police Chief Linden for a more pro-active proposal of stricter dealing with
noise violations.
I don't have to tell you that our quality of life is directly related to the peaceful enjoyment of our
homes.
For years that has been compromised in my neighborhood by a "party house".
The tenants have laughed at the 1 st warning approach by peers. They have posted a watch for the
second. In many instances they have pooled resources to pay a fine to party.
The owner collects the rent and sleeps peacefully, outside the city.
Tired and frustrated neighbors wonder at the serious intent to curb the physical and emotional
destruction.
We wonder why the police weren't ready with DUls at the 2am departure of the "bingers".
We lament the fact that the relaxed, friendly approach by SNAP sanctions the behavior.
If these "partiers" are old enough to drink and vote, they are old enough to be held responsible.
Why not 1 st offence fines? Do boozers get better the more they drink?
A party never gets quieter. Drunks get drunker.
The neighbors face constant frustration and often retribution.
Please support Chief Linden and SLO citizens.
Ruth Holden
i1 COUNCIL CDD DIR
CAO =1N DIR
! ACRO FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY PW DIR
CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF
f DEP;H�ADS REC DIR
UTIL DIR
HR DIR
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 5/3/2005
I Diane Reynolds-Contact Us Form _. Page 1
From: slo-city-website@slocity.org
To: <dlinden@slocity.org>
Date: 4/24/05 11:37AM
Subject: Contact Us Form RED FILE
xrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrxxrrrrrrrrrrrrrrxrrrxxxxrxxrxrrrrrrrrxrrrxrxrxxrrrrxrxxr MEETING AGENDA
Name: Ruth Holden DATEITEM #
Address: 674 Church St
City: San Luis Obispo
State: Ca
Zip: 93401
Phone: 8055431403
Fax:
email—from: ]v2av8@hotmail.com
Message:
To Police Chief Deb Linden---KUDOS,Thanks, Bravo to you for your consideration of a more pro-active
proposal of stricter dealing with noise violations. I don't have to tell you that our quality of life is directly
related to the peaceful enjoyment of our home. For 8 years that has been compromised by one "party
house".The tenents have laughed at the 1st warning approach by peers, posted a watch for the second
and in many instances pooled resourses to pay a fine to parry.
Tired and frustrated neighbors wondered at the serious intent to curb the physical and emotional
destruction. We've wondered why the police weren't ready with DUls at the 2am departure of the
"bingers".
We've lamented the fact that a relaxed, friendly approach sactions the behavior:
Why not 1 st offence fines? Do boozers get better the more they drink?
A party never gets quieter.The drunks get drunker and the neighbors face retribution.
Again, THANK YOU for your sane suggestions. All the good neighbors of SLO will support you.
Sincerely,
Ruth Holden
Ji L COUNCIL —
JL l CAO CDD-DIR
G7 ACAO -''N DIR
r�7 ATTORNEY oIRE CHIEF
fp C. w DIR
CLERK Opi
POLICE CHF
REC DIR
urlL Dir,