HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/19/2010, B2 - ORDINANCE AMENDING RESIDENTIAL NOISE REGULATIONS council MwmD�Janumy19 2010
j acenaa nepont 6m N�
`
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Deborah Linden, Chief of Police
Prepared by: Captain Ian Parkinson
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE AMENDING RESIDENTIAL NOISE REGULATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
1. Introduce an ordinance amending section 9.12.110 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code to create sanctions for continued residential noise violations.
2. Approve modifications to procedures used to enforce and administer noise regulations.
3. Authorize the use of community service to off-set all or part of the administrative fine for
first-time violators of the City noise ordinance.
DISCUSSION
Background
On September 29, 2009, during a study session with the Council, staff presented several
strategies to reduce neighborhood noise and party disturbances and requested the Council provide
direction to staff regarding the proposed strategies. During the study session, staff suggested the
following modifications to the City noise regulations and enforcement procedures:
1. Generally allow violators only one formal warning (Disturbance Advisory Card or DAC) in
any 12-month period by extending the Police Department's "premises list" to one year from
the current six-month duration.
2. Create a process for early removal from the premises list upon turnover of tenants.
3. Create consequences if residents refuse to answer the door during a verified noise violation.
4. Create the ability to hold property owners accountable for repeat noise violations..
The Council supported all the suggested modifications. In addition, the Council directed staff to
explore the possibility of allowing violators to do community service in lieu of the noise
violation fine, and to require rental property owners to adopt model lease language as a condition
of early removal of a residence from the premises list.
Outreach Since the Study Session
Following the study session, staff made presentations and/or held meetings with the following
groups in order to discuss the proposed ordinancer and procedural changes:
1. Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) Board.
2. Student Community Liaison Committee(SCLC).
3. Cuesta College Associated Students open forum.
4. Cal Poly Associated Students (ASI)Board of Directors.
5. Joint meeting of Cal Poly fraternity and sorority leaders.
Ordinance Amending Residential Noise Regulations Page 2
6. San Luis Obispo Association of Realtors.
7. Committee of local realtors and property owners.
The Cal Poly ASI President also convened a committee of interested students to provide
feedback and suggestions to staff about the proposed ordinance modifications. Staff met with the
ASI President and ASI Executive Director in order to discuss the student committee
recommendations, some of which have been incorporated into staff's recommendations to the
Council. Student leaders understand and appreciate the need to reduce noise and party-related
violations in the neighborhoods and are committed to working collaboratively with City staff and
neighborhood groups to improve the situation. However, student leaders are concerned that some
of the recommendations staff made to the Council during the September 29, 2009, study session
will be perceived by many students as unfair and overly harsh, especially those who are not
responsible for repeat noise violations or who commit minor violations which then result in
expensive citations. Student leaders believe the primary focus of enforcement should be on
repeat violators and large gatherings that involve unsafe and illegal behavior. Staff has strived to
balance these concerns with those of long-term neighborhood residents while still following the
direction received from the Council during the September 29, 2009 study session. As such, some
of the recommendations originally made by staff during the study session have been modified to
balance the concerns voiced by the various stakeholders.
Summary of Existing Noise Ordinance and Related Procedures
Noise violations in residential neighborhoods are generally regulated by section 9.12.050 of the
City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, which prohibits:
1. Unreasonable noise disturbances which are plainly audible at a distance of fifty feet from the
noisemaker, unless the noise does not penetrate beyond the noisemaker's own premises.
2. Radios, television sets, musical instruments, amplified loudspeakers, or similar devices
between 10:00 PM and 7`00 AM that create noise disturbance audible across a residential
property line.
3. Radios, television sets, musical instruments, or similar devices that create a noise
disturbance at any time in excess of noise levels defined in section 9.12.060 (measured by
decibel levels and length of time of disturbance).
An initial report of a noise violation at a residence is normally handled by Student Neighborhood
Assistance Program (SNAP) employees who are authorized to issue written warnings called
Disturbance Advisory Cards (DACs). If a residence receives, two or more DACs and/or noise
citations in any 60-day period, the residence is placed on the Police Department "premises list"
for six months, during which a subsequent noise violation results in the response of a police
officer rather than a SNAP employee. Officers are authorized to issue a warning or a citation,
depending on the unique circumstances of the violation. All noise complaints must be verified by
either a SNAP employee or a police officer to ensure the activity is a violation of the noise
ordinance. This includes ensuring the noise fits the ordinance requirement that the sound "annoys
or disturbs reasonable persons of normal sensitivities." If a SNAP employee or officer determines
the activity is not in violation of the noise ordinance then no further action is taken.
� I
Ordinance Amending Residential Noise Regulations Page 3
Violations of the noise ordinance are generally enforced using administrative citations (a non-
criminal process). The current fine structure is $350 for a first violation, $700 for a second
violation within one year, and $1000 for third or subsequent violations within one year. Council
approved this fine structure and the use of the administrative citation process for noise violations
on May 3, 2005. Staff compared the current fine structure to those used in other college
communities and determined the current fines are comparable.
Recommended Modifications to Noise Regulations and Procedures
Current procedures allow a violator of the noise ordinance to receive a warning(DAC) every 60
days without being placed on the Police Department premises list. As such, violators may
actually have multiple noise violations each year without receiving a citation. Officers are also
encountering an increasing number of calls where the residents refuse to answer the door and the
officer is unable to abate the noise disturbance. In order to reduce the number of repeat violations
each year and ensure violators are held accountable for their actions, staff recommends the
following modifications to the noise ordinance and enforcement procedures:
1. Reduce number of allowable warnings to one every six months: Currently, a residence may
receive up to six warnings each year for noise violations, provided the residents do not
violate the noise ordinance more than once in any 60-day period. Staff recommends
eliminating the 60-day violation period and placing residences on the Police Department
premises list in conjunction with the issuance of the first DAC.
During the September 29, 2009, study session, staff initially recommended the premises list
be extended from the existing six month duration to twelve months. However, Cal Poly
student leaders have expressed significant concern over the premises list remaining in effect
for one year, especially since many student rental properties experience a complete turnover
in tenants each year. In considering these concerns, staff believes that maintaining the
premises list at six months, but only allowing one warning (DAC) during this period of time,
will still discourage repeat violations. Since this is a procedural change, staff can continue to
evaluate the effectiveness of the premises list and extend it to one year at a later date if it is
determined that the other modifications have not been effective in reducing noise violations.
In addition, staff will be recommending a new Unruly Gathering ordinance to the Council to
address larger gatherings that involve greater levels of unlawful activity..
2. Create a process for early removal from premises list: Currently, when a residence is on the
Police Department Premises list, there is no process to remove this designation early even if
new tenants move into the rental property. As such, new tenants are subject to citation for a
noise violation, rather than a warning, due to the behavior of previous tenants. Tenants,
especially students, perceive the situation to be unfair since they were not responsible for the
prior conduct that caused the residence to be placed on the premises list.
Pursuant to Council direction during the study session, staff is prepared to implement a new
process whereby a property owner, property manager, or group of tenants may petition the
Office of Neighborhood Services to lift the premises list designation early if there has been a
turnover in tenancy at the property. The petition would need to be signed by the property
owner or manager, or include proof of complete tenant turnover, and will contain the
f3�-3
i
Ordinance Amending Residential Noise Regulations Page 4
requirement that the property owner or manager utilize model lease language as
recommended on the Police Department website or some similar provision to discourage
recurring violations. The decision whether or not to grant early removal from the premises
list will be made by Police Department staff.
3. Modify the noise ordinance to hold residential property owners responsible for repeat
noise violations: Currently, rental property owners are notified by mail of noise violations at
their rental properties; however the noise ordinance does not incorporate specific authority to
hold property owners financially responsible when repeat noise violations occur at their
properties. Staff recommends modifying the noise ordinance to allow the issuance of
administrative citations to property owners (using the same fine amounts as a noise violation)
for repeat noise violations that occur within six months following a previous violation,
provided the property owner has received notification from the City of the previous violation
and has had an opportunity to take appropriate action. Should tenants refuse to answer the
door when a police officer is attempting to abate a verified noise violation, this violation will
trigger the same initial notification to the property owner, or administrative action if the
property owner has been previously notified of a violation within the past six months.
4. Modify the Police Department's notification process to property owners: Currently, Police
Department staff sends a postcard to the property owner of record when a resident at the
property receives a DAC. In order to provide more detailed information to property owners,
staff would eliminate the postcard notification and instead, send the property owner a letter
each time a tenant receives either a noise violation DAC or citation. The letter would contain
the following:
a. Information about the violation and placement of the residence on the premises list,
and the procedure for petitioning for early removal from the premises list.
b. Notification that the property owner may receive an administrative citation for
subsequent noise violations that occur within six months.
c. Links to information on the Police Department website regarding model lease
language and related ordinance information.
In addition, staff received feedback from local professional property managers that it is
important for managers to receive notification of law violations at the rental properties they
manage, especially when the property owner lives out of town. Many property managers
handle all aspects of the rentals, including enforcing lease language and dealing with problem
tenants. The database utilized by staff to determine the name and address of the property
owner does not contain contact information for property managers. Staff will continue to
work with local property managers to determine if a notification process can be developed. In
spring 2010, staff will be bringing recommendations to Council for a residential rental
property licensing program, which could incorporate property manager contact information.
Option for Community Service
Pursuant to Council direction, staff researched the possibility of allowing certain violators (first
offenders) to perform community service in lieu of all or part of the noise violation
administrative fine. The community service program would be modeled after that utilized by the
r�
Ordinance Amending Residential Noise Regulations Page 5
San Luis Obispo Superior Court, which directs eligible violators to pre-designated organizations
that monitor and verify completion of the community service. Currently, the City of San Luis
Obispo (Public Works Department) is a designated organization. Participants would receive $10
credit toward their fine for each hour of community service work performed during a certain time
period following the violation. Eligibility for community service would be limited to first time
violators of the noise ordinance who appeal their citation.
CONCURRENCES
During the research and preparation of this report, staff met with a subcommittee of Residents for
Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) to discuss the proposed modifications. The RQN representatives
were generally supportive of the proposed modifications; however they believe the duration of
the premises list should be extended to one year, rather than six months as proposed.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this action. However, if the Council approves the
modifications to the noise ordinance and associated procedures, there will likely be an increase in
workload for Police Department staff in processing notification letters, reviewing premises list
petitions, overseeing the community service program, and working with property owners to abate
noise-related problems. Staff will monitor the impact on staff workloads to determine if
additional resources may be needed in the future.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Should the Council desire significant modifications to the recommendations, staff
suggests the Council provide direction to staff and direct staff to return with new
recommendations at a later date.
2. Should the Council desire simple changes to ordinance language or related procedures,
the Council may direct staff to make these changes immediately. For example, if a
majority of the Council wants the premises list to be extended to 12 months from the date
of the first noise violation, rather than the recommended six months, the Council should
incorporate this change into their action.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Legislative draft of proposed amendments to Municipal Code Section 9.12.110
2. Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 9.12.110
T:\Council Agenda ReportsTolice CAR\2009\1mroduction of Noise Ordinance Amendments.DOC
Attachment 1
Legislative Draft of Amendments to Section 9.12.110 of Chapter 9.12 (Noise
Control) of Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare) of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code
9.12.110 Enforcement.
A. Prima Facie Violation. Any noise exceeding the noise level limits for a designated
noise zone as provided in Table 1 of Section 9.12.060 and Table 1 of Section 9.12.070 of
this chapter, or the prohibited actions as provided in Section 9.12.050 of this chapter,
shall be deemed to be prima facie evidence of a violation of the provisions of this
chapter.
B. Violations Misdemeaners. Any p violation of the provisions of
this chapter shall be deemed gttih5z 4a misdemeanor or be.subiect to administrative
citation. Each hour such violation is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a
separate offense and shall be punishable as such.
C. Abatement Orders.
1. In lieu of issuing a notice of violation as provided for in subsection B of this
section, the noise control office(r) or police department responsible for enforcement of
any provision of this chapter may issue an order requiring abatement of a sound source
alleged to be in violation, within a reasonable time period and according to guidelines
which the noise control office(r) may prescribe.
2.No complaint or further action shall be taken in the event that the cause of the
violation has been removed, the condition abated or fully corrected within the time period
specified in the written notice. (Ord. 1484 § 3 (part), 2005: Ord. 1032 § 2 (part), 1985)
D. Continued Violations. Once a violation of any provision of this chapter has been
verified by a noise control or police officer, the owner(s) of the property where the
violation occurred may be subject to administrative action or citation for allowing a
subsequent violation of this chanter to occur on the property within six months after the
date of a previous violation, provided the property owner has received notification from
the City of the previous violation and at least 14 days have passed since the date the
notification was mailed to the property owner(s).
ATTACHMENT
ORDINANCE NO. (2010 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 9.12 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE SANCTIONS FOR CONTINUED NOISE
VIOLATIONS
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo met in the Council Chamber of
City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 19, 2010, for the purpose of
considering changes proposed to the Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Section §.12.110 (Enforcement) of Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control) of Title 9
(Public Peace, Morals and Welfare) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby repealed.
SECTION 2. New Section 9.12.110 (Enforcement) of Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control) of
Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby
adopted to read as follows:
9.12.110 Enforcement.
A. Prima Facie Violation. Any noise exceeding the noise level limits for a designated noise
zone as provided in Table 1 of Section 9.12.060 and Table 1 of Section 9.12.070 of this chapter,
or the prohibited actions as provided in Section 9.12.050 of this chapter, shall be deemed to be
prima facie evidence of a violation of the provisions of this chapter.
B. Violations. Any violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be a misdemeanor or be
subject to administrative citation. Each hour such violation is committed or permitted to continue
shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such.
C. Abatement Orders.
1. In lieu of issuing a notice of violation as provided for in subsection B of this section,
the noise control office(r) or police department responsible for enforcement of any provision of
this chapter may issue an order requiring abatement of a sound source alleged to be in violation,
within a reasonable time period and according to guidelines which the noise control office(r)
may prescribe.
2. No complaint or further action shall be taken in the event that the cause of the violation
has been removed, the condition abated or fully corrected within the time period specified in the
written notice. (Ord. 1484 § 3 (part), 2005: Ord. 1032 § 2 (part), 1985)
D. Continued Violations. Once a violation of any provision of this chapter has been verified
by a noise control or police officer, the owner(s) of the property where the violation occurred
may be subject to administrative action or citation for allowing a subsequent violation of this
chapter to occur on the property within six months after the date of a previous violation,
provided the property owner has received notification from the City of the previous violation and
at least 14 days have passed since the date the notification was mailed to the property owner(s).
SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together
with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5)
0 j�,g,?-
_ ATTACHMENT
Ordinance No. (2010 Se it es)
Page 2
days prior to adoption in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This
ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. A copy
of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file in the City Clerk's Office on and after the date
following introduction and adoption and shall be made available to any interested member of the
public.
INTRODUCED on the 19th day of January 2010 AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of 2010, on the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Elaina Cano
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO F
hristine Dietrick
City Attorney
From: Genevieve Czech[SMTP:AGCZECH@GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 6:47:26 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Noise Ordinance Amendments
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Thank you for this opportunity to help ensure appropriate, neighborhood-friendly
changes to the noise ordinances. We are residents of a road once inhabited by CalPoly
staff and their families. Now there is only one family with young children and 40%of
the houses are student rentals. By repeated representations to RQN and attendance at
various meetings such as your Sept. meeting and one sponsored by Cal Poly itself in 2002
at the Laguna Middle School,we have been seeking to address the problem of noisy
neighborhoods. We rejoice that a concerted effort is now being made to be more
effective with representation of all parties concerned. We support your amendments,but
wish to endorse the RQN proposal of a 12 month premise list.
Since you have a procedure in place for early removal from the premise list in the event
of a tenant turnover, 12 months is reasonable, in spite of student perception. We have
witnessed that students take turns in hosting parties at various houses, and a 6 months
premise list designation can free up the resident hosts to undertake another party within
the academic term. We understand, in fact, that a fine of$350 for a first violation is not
so discouraging if the number of partygoers is sufficiently large to share the fine.
Therefore, the extended period of 12 months goes in the direction of putting
positive pressure on the student residents,not negative, and furthermore pressure on the
absentee landlords. We also endorse your compassionate option of community service to
first time violators,which demonstrates fairmindedness to students. Would the 70 hours
of community service be divided among the number of residents who were present at the
time of the violation? Is there a difficulty in establishing their identity? The property
managers should indeed be notified, and we fail to understand why this issue can only be
addressed at a later date. It has taken many years to arrive at this threshhold and the final
publication of these amendments will be a welcome occasion to reestablish the peaceful
quality neighborhoods of San Luis Obispo. Adolf and Genevieve Czech
612 Stanford Drive
San Luis Obispo
i) 6ppy
E--'COUNCIL fCCDD DIR
RED FILE r LU �e [-FIN DIR
G-AGA0 :Zi-crq/?&,&E FIRE CHIEF
MEETING AGENDA [3 ATTORNEY ta-sw DIR
152`LEMCRIG C-ROLICE CHF
DATE*'* ITEM #-3-2,_ : '� DEPT HEADS IrPEC DIR
2 GTIL DIR
ErH-R DIR
�CpUlVCt[.-
���f /lIG�
From: Meredith Boyd[SMTP:MEREDITHB7@AOL.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 8:54:53 AM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Today's meeting and the noise ordinance
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear City Council
My husband and I attended the last city council meeting regarding neighborhood noise
ordinances. We are unable to attend tonight and want to voice our opinion that the
proposed noise ordinances should not be watered down in any way. Please help protect
our neighborhoods.
We live on Ramona Drive and are trying to "hold on" to the type of neighborhood that
we've lived in for 40+ years and where we raised our children and now have
grandchildren living here.
Please support the permanent residents in preserving and improving quality
neighborhoods. Do not back down!
Meredith Boyd
163 Ramona Drive
San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Phone:805-544-0545
Fax: 805-543-5160
Email: MeredithB7(@aol.com
Meredith Boyd
meredithb70aol.corn
From: Pat Harkness[SMTP:PHOWARDHARK@YAHOO.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 10:09:16 AM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: noise regulations
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear City Council Members,
I am really going to try hard to make to today's meeting re noise regulations.
However, if I don't make it because of the weather, I wanted to let you know how
strongly I feel that the noise regulations need to be much stronger.
I live on the corner of Phillips and Grove;Thursday thru Sunday we have
students yelling and screaming up and down the street from about 10:00 until
3:00am. It was getting so bad that we had to move our bedroom to the other side
of the house. Our master bedroom is now a home office. I have been wanting for
the opportunity to tell someone about how bad it is and had been for a really long
time.
Thank you for making this an issue. I hope you all will vote to make some serious
changes.
Pat Howard Harkness(30 year resident of SLO)
1610 Phillips Lane
From: Kathy O'Brien[SMTP:OBRIEN@FIX.NET]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 10:43:06 AM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Noise ordinance amendments
Auto forwarded by a Rule
To all City Council members:
We are writing to offer you our strongest encouragement to adopt the amendments to the City of
SLO's Noise Regulation Regulations as written by staff, including a 12-month period during which
a residence would remain on the"premises list"
We are 33-year residents of San Luis Obispo County who returned to live in SLO in 2003 after 10
years living in Arroyo Grande. During those six years, we have been dismayed and greatly
annoyed by the escalation and proliferation of drinking and loud partying in San Luis Obispo
during those ten years, as well as by a sometimes indifferent attitude on the part.of the local
police. That is why we are so glad that Chief Linden is taking this seriously, and has made it such
a priority;we expect the council members to follow her lead and make it their priority too.
We will try our best to attend this afternoon's special session; however, since we both work,we
will probably miss the public comment section of the meeting.
Thank you for your time, and for your service.
Sincerely,
Ronald P. O'Brien, Pharm.D.
Kathleen O'Brien
1604 Hillcrest Place
From: Dot[SMTP:6DGRAVES@SBCGLOBAL.NETI
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 1:23:44 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Council Meeting January 19,2010
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Good Afternoon Council Members
My name is Dorothy Graves,
I am writing about the meeting you are having this afternoon about
changes to the Noise Ordinance and dealing with noise violations.
Over the years it is out of control on noise gatherings in many
neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo. After the first warning the house
address should have a citation that carries a $350.00 fine - the
second offense a $700.00 fine and $1, 000..00 for a third offense. We
have to get back the neighborhood noise control in our city and get
control of our town neighborhoods again.
A property owner should receive an administrative citation after the
first warning and a fine so they can get the renters to respect the
neighborhood they live in.
Please have the City Council adopt an Ordinance that a house remains
on a watch list for an entire year, not 6 months. It should be for
one year.
Thank you for your time serving on City Council.
Dorothy Graves
:COUNCIL TCDD DIR
RED FILE o Cry/� [f FIN DIR
MEETING AGENDA tel�'FIRE CHIEF
PJ ATTORNEY app DIR
DA l q ITEM # ! -CLERK/ORIG 21POLICE CHF
DEPT HEADS O-REC DIR
[Q`UTIL DIR
Q�HR DIR
IU�J(rty�Cs e-
�BuuJCtL
at V11)16.2
I
From: 0 C Davidson[SMTP:ODAVIDSONN@SBCGLOBAL.NET]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 2:53:39 PM
To: Council, S1oCity
Subject: Residential Noise Ordinance
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear City Council,
Please pass the Residential Noise Ordinance! We completely support the
changes suggested by "Residents for Quality Neighborhoods" . The
proposed ordinance is a good next step. Let's hope it will be
sufficient. Sadly, it may not be enough. It only addresses the
behavior of the party hosts, but not the guests.
One house down our street has hosted noisy parties for sometime. It is
an example of the blatantly inconsiderate behavior which needs to be
stopped. These parties have often disrupted our sleep. The city needs
a way to stop abuse by a rowdy few. It is sad that these self centered
people have caused so much discomfort to their neighbors.
We are in our 70's and may not be able to attend tonight's meeting. We
hope this note will convey our very strong concern. We wish for a city
who's neighborhoods are open, friendly and peaceful for all - all
ages, all races, all creeds.
Respectfully,
Sue D Davidson
Otto C Davidson
Alta Vista Neighborhood, S.L.O.
From: Camille Small [mailto:notetocamille@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tue 1/19/2010 2:05 PM
To: Romero, Dave; Marx, Jan; Carter, Andrew; jashaugh@slocity.org;
Settle, Allen
Subject: January 19 Meeting
Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members,
I urge you to do the right thing and vote to enhance the Noise
Ordinance per Chief Linden's recommendations except for the length of
time a house is on the "premise list" . That time should be one year in
length as previously discussed and recommended by RQN. Allowing a
shorter time means returning to the status of getting just another
warning.
* Warnings apparently do not work well or we wouldn't be
revisiting this
issue.
* Permanent residents in neighborhoods are apparently not getting
relief or we wouldn't be revisiting this issue.
Since I am out of town, I am unable to attend the meeting on the 19th.
I am submitting in writing what I would have presented in person:
o I don't believe we have to be apologetic to Cal Poly and
students
in general. Can't you simply state that this discussion is
about-and only about-
students who are depriving permanent residents peace of
mind they deserve
in their own homes. Everyone knows there are students who
don't fall into
that category.
o It is not a put down of Cal Poly and this issue has NOTHING to
do with Cal Poly benefiting San Luis Obispo businesses economically.
Please share the message with the Tribune. Any reasonable thinker
knows money has nothing to do with residents being able to live in
their homes without noisy activities ranging from bothersome to
disturbing. Please.
RQN was 12 years old when I met Cydney Holcomb and learned about the
issues. That organization is now "20" . The current action on the
noise ordinance is at least 10 years late and should be instituted with
little discussion.
I've heard there are still those of you who don't understand what life
is like in some of our neighborhoods. Apparently you haven't met the
people I have who finally gave up and moved from homes they owned for
many years (one woman for 45 years) .
Perhaps you don't know about a neighborhood group where 4 board members
gave up and made their exodus from San Luis Obispo within 6 months to a
year of each other. It is likely you haven't heard young parents (like
those at a Cal Poly "town hall" 8 years ago) relate with frustration
how they often have difficulty putting young children to bed at night
because of the noise.
Neighborhood organizations do not delve into politics. However, as an
individual I am pleased to vote for Andrew Carter and Jan Marx who do
understand the plight of many. I wonder if having huge areas where a
"normal" neighborhood doesn't even exist is what you want for this
otherwise special town. When will it get so bad that it is
irreversible? When San Luis gets an Isla Vista reputation, more
residents and tourists alike will choose neighboring towns.
Respectfully submitted,
Camille Small
From: Miki Gillman[SMTP:MIKIGILLMAN@SBCGLOBAL.NET]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 3:06:45 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc: mikigillman@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Noise in Neighborhoods: Meeting January 19, 2010
Auto forwarded by a Rule
January 19, 2010
Dear Honorable Mayor Romero and Honorable Council Members
Ashbaugh, Carter, Marx, and Settle:
Thank you very much for your prompt attention to the severe noise
and party problems our town experienced at the beginning of Cal
Poly's 2009 Fall Quarter! Thank you also very much for your prompt
decisive action! The steps taken have helped noticeably.
We appreciate the prompt and effective responses of law
enforcement to noise complaints.
I strongly support the recommendations put forth by Residents for
Quality Neighborhoods in order to keep noise problems to a
minimum. I would hope that all of our residents are conscientious and
law-abiding. If so, any noise violation would be unintentional and not
a planned event. Therefore, consequences of noise violations need to
be sufficient to curtail noise problems.
There is no need for neighbors to be disturbing one another. Let's all
work together for a harmonious community!
Sincerely,
Ms. Miki Gillman
1874 McCollum Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
93405-2042
mikigillman(a-)-sbcglobal.net
Home: 543-9621
From: Miki GillmaniSMTP:MIKIGILLMAN@SBCGLOBAL.NET]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 3:13:25 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc: mikigillman@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Correction Re: Noise in Neighborhoods: Meeting January 19, 2010
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
Correction to the earlier email, below:
I strongly support the recommendations put forth by Police Chief
Linden and supported by Residents for Quality Neighborhoods.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Miki Gillman
mikigillman(c,D-sbcglobal.net
V\
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
DAA ITEM # ��
rW
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods_ 49PY (emrr_
P.O.Box 12604-San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 12'000NCIL E-T'CDD DIR
1P�.'*19�Cfll7lG2 E-FIN DIP
January 18, 2010 �AGAQ"9'_Cft?/1AW42FIRE CHIEF
QATTORNEY 0TW DIP
13 CLERK/ORIGL POLICE CHF
San Luis Obispo City Council ° DI)EPT HEADS O'REC DIR
990 Palm Street Ply B3 OTIL DIP
San Luis Obispo, California 93401 m`ieu 2-HR DIP
Re: Business Item #2, Ordinance Amending Residential Noise Regulations __
�CCG�rL(�
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods welcomes the changes brought before you by
Chief Linden. A strengthening of the Noise Ordinance, and the policies/procedures that
support it, has been a long time in coming.
These changes will not affect the majority of Cal Poly or Cuesta students. They are
courteous and respectful, and already know how to act responsibly. Unfortunately, there are
others who make life in some of our neighborhoods unpleasant, even miserable.
Noise complaints have stayed around 3,000 calls per year for at least the past eight
years. Many of the City's residents are suffering. The raucous parties, continued hooting,
hollering, yelling and screaming, and sound systems so loud that windows rattle, routinely
disturb residents in several areas of the city and are detrimental to their health and well-
being. This behavior is, also, detrimental to the well-being of the City as a whole.
We support reducing the number of warnings from two to one. Although a warning
should not be needed, there was consensus that one should be provided. However, one -
and only one -warning per year should be sufficient. Violators must understand that the one
warning provided is a privilege given to them because of their youth and inexperience; it is
not a right. They need to understand that consequences to violating the noise ordinance
exist.
The Board opposes providing a community service option in lieu of paying a fine for the
first ($350) citation. The individual requesting this option has already received a warning
and failed to learn from it. We are, also, concerned that this option could result in more
appeals being filed in order to avoid paying the fine and that it would take time away from
other enforcement activities because of the additional administrative requirements.
Although over half of our board members own single-family rental property, the Board
unanimously supports the proposals to involve property owners in addressing and trying to
solve the City's noise problems. Including fines for property owners whose tenants are
repeat offenders should make even those who live outside the area experience some level of
concern about the effect their tenants have on the quality of life of San Luis Obispo
residents.
�1 y
We were disappointed to learn that while responding to verified noise
violations, some of our police officers encountered individuals who refused to
answer the door. With the assistance of the City's legal staff, Chief Linden has
found, and is proposing, a remedy to that situation. We support that remedy.
The Board, also, supports the process that allows property owners or their
representative to lift the "premise" designation early when there has been a
complete turnover of tenants. New tenants, unless they are still "premised" at
another location, should not have to bear the burden of the behavior of previous
tenants.
Respectfully submitted,
Brett Cross
Chair
`\ 1
l � _
From: Terry Jacobson[SMTP:TJACOBSON@SLCUSD.ORG]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 11:08:08 AM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Noise Ordinance Modifications
Auto forwarded by a Rule
My husband and I are in favor of the proposed noise ordinance modifications. We live in a
neighborhood that includes many students. Two to three nights a week we are woken up by
various groups and activities. (after 10 PM)
It should not take several warnings to inform the young adults living in our neighborhoods that
they need to be considerate of all the people living in the area. Landlords need to make the
expectations very clear if they are going to rent homes in established long-term residential
neighborhoods.
We also support the six month list renewal as there is a lot of turnover with the student
residents. It is a gesture of support for the courteous and mature students that may want to
move into the area.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Tod and Terry Jacobson
Wilson St.
San Luis Obispo
From: Kat[SMTP:BACKROADS@FIX.NET]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 11:39:48 AM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: noise laws
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear Council,
This is in regards to the meeting of increasing. noise laws for loud and
obnoxious parties.
We are long time homeowners being bothered almost every weekend when
Cal Poly is in session, by these gatherings in our residential
neighborhood. we live 2 blocks from Cal Poly and have had to call the
police dept. on numerous occasions for the same locations! we feel
the policing laws are too lenient and citations should be issued after
one warning—Cal Poly and Cuesta students plus owners of rentals having
parties should share the responsibilities and costs.
Thank you,
Mr. and Mrs. Chet Brunson
1692 Fredericks St.
San Luis Obispo
t j.
From: Karen Adler[SMTP:FUDGE805@CHARTER.NET]
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 8:53:33 PM
To: Council, S1oCity
Subject: Noise Ordinance
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear City Council Members:
Excuse the joint email but I need to say the same thing to each one
of you. Please help curb the neighborhood rowdiness that is an
ongoing problem. The police procedures for dealing with noise
violations & violators needs to improve. There are almost 3, 000
noise calls made each year to complain of this problem which occurs
on a regular basis each Thurs. , Fri. & Sat. nights. Only 8% of these
calls result in a citation.
At the present time the noise ordinance favors the offending
violators with a "slap on the wrist" while the permanent tax paying
citizens have to deal with the problem continuously. This is not
right & very unfair to neighbors trying to deter this type of
behavior. I fully support RQN's position that it is unnecessary to
give more than one warning per year before being placed on the
Premise list. This warning is a wake-up call to those who really
don't know that the noise they are making is very disturbing to
neighbors.
I hope we can count on your support!
Karen Corda Adler
1676 Fredericks St.
SLO, CA 93405
543-7213
RED FILE �-000NCI�
x_ �DD DIR
a kf/nye C FIN DIR
- MEETING AGENDA AWCO7fiZoP-�FIRE CHIEF
Q ATTORNEY C3 PW DIR
®A 1 o ITEM # BaL 0'6LEMORIG LOLICE CHF
DE?,T HEADS 0-REC DIR
Z-UTIL DIR
-.-- u 21 HR DIR
i "WS eeG[UC�L
0(Tit /K62
— r✓'LC�2(L
i
From: Edward W. Davidson[SMTP:RGREENZ@SBCGLOBAL.NET]
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 9:15:46 AM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Noise Ordinance
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Ladies and Gentlemen;
I read the article in this morning's paper regarding a potential noise ordinance change. Quite
simply,it is long overdue. Let me explain. I have been a resident of SLO county for 25 years
and have owned a home for most of it. We have owned our home here in SLO for I 1 years,the
past 7 of which have been next to s student rental. We have become accustomed to calling the
police late at night complaining about loud parties next door.
We have found pizza boxes and other trash in our back yard.
We find beer and other bottles in our front yard.
There are cups strewn along our street that we have to pick up (the students are too busy to clean
up their mess.)
We find urine stains on the side of our house from those unable to find a bathroom available next
door.
Last summer,a student living next door tried to break into our house then passed out in our back
yard. He was arrested by the SLO police department.
I have spoken to the homeowner and property manager and all I get is a line of garbage about
"they have rights and we can only do so much,blah,blah,blah."
I have rights. I am a homeowner, a taxpayer,a veteran and a voter. What about my rights?
Since when do my rights get trumped by someone running a business for profit next to my home?
It is past time that the homeowner be held accountable for their actions. This is not my problem,
I am in fact the victim. And I don't think as a taxpayer,it is the problem of the police
department. They have enough to do without taking care of a bunch of noise making children.
If someone CHOOSES to own a student rental,they have that right. They should be held 100%
accountable for everything associated with that choice. If that means significant fines for noise
violations,then so be it.Then maybe,just maybe,they will ensure those type of problems don't
occur and allow the police department to do more important things.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Edward W. Davidson
1471 Southwood Drive
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
(805) 547-1313
From: betsy[SMTP:BETSYB@CHARTER.NET]
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 10:55:28 AM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Noise Ordinance
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Mayor and Council Members,
I will be unable to attend Tuesday's Council meeting. However,I would like to take this
occasion to express my opinion based on living in a San Luis Obispo residential area for over
forty years. During this period the neighborhood has been impacted by young adults who were
not accommodated with campus housing. Because of this, some of the single family homes have
been carved up to house a number of unrelated inhabitants. Small issues arise with the occasional
inebriated party goers wandering the streets. Serious noise violations exist with a few houses
where there does not seem to be the legal means to solve the problem. Usually a warning at the
first loud party reminds the inhabitants that they are indeed a part of the community and the
neighborhood and the situation is resolved for the school year. The real problem exists in
repeated calls for assistance that offers no resolution. This can be a rental house although not
always the case. For years we suffered because a home bought by an out-of-town parent for his
son held the neighborhood hostage(258 Ramona). Neighbors called and called but nothing
changed until the student either graduated or left the area a few years later. Often the situation
was dangerous.
In general,I believe that the proposed Noise Ordinance will be helpful. The current ratio of
almost 3,000 noise complaints resulting in a citation rate of 8%will not discourage the drunken
and unruly behavior caused by only a few. The proposed community service option will not stop
the problem either.
Please give this proposed Noise Ordinance your serious consideration and help save our family
neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Betsy Bertrando
From: Nancy Watts[SMTP:BLACKPOODLE100@GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 11:43:30 AM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc: tumkey@turn-keymgmt.com; 'Darren Corpuz'
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear Councilpersons, Monday,January 18,2010
I thank you for all your work.
I have an issue with penalties on Home Owners being charged for Poly Parties. I
no longer handle my properties or my parents' properties...maybe 12 in all.
Turnkey handles them: tumkey(a,tum-kevmgmt.com or Darren Corpuz
[darren@turn-keymgmt.com] or (805) 239-0795.
Please talk with Darren or Curtis Mortenson about the proposal...because I have
asked that young graduated men in 1310 Marsh be removed upon the first party
they had w/seats on the roof of my garage, and a keg. Turnkey has evidently not
the ability to quickly get the students or young people out.The rental agreement
(used for others not just Nancy Watts and Dan and Judy Chase)needs to be Legal
and changed so that one offense can kick out offenders.The tenants at 1310 are
good and are in a second year with me thru Turnkey. They are not students.
But over and over we have the problem with management that will not kick out a
tenant. It is not my fault that Turnkey(we have used Signature,Farrell Smyth,
and REG)will not write their contract more strictly.
I live by"better an empty house than a bad tenant."
It is true,that this is the hardest year yet to keep rentals full. And my parents and
I are property rich and cash poor. If I had to live on the retirement from Cuesta or
Dad had to live on the retirement from Cal Poly—we would be in poverty. We
spend a lot keeping up our places and paying taxes.
My parents and I were college teachers. But laws keep me from addressing the
students personally. I cannot just go up to a house and try to stop something,
even though I may be passing the home.
Please find a way to make the Property Managers more careful of whom they
rent to...if the law so permits. (What can they discriminate on?)And,no matter
how well you know students, sometimes bad tenants fool the person renting the
home.
Thank you again for your hard work,
Nancy Watts,543 7105,or Blackpoodle100@gmail.com
From: Juventino Ortiz[SMTP:JAVAJ UV@CHARTER.NET]
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 8:51:14 PM
To: Romero, Dave; Carter, Andrew;jashbaugh@slocity.org; Settle, Allen;
Marx, Jan; Council, SloCity
Cc: rgnboard@yahoo.com
Subject: Noise Ordinance Discussion at City Council Meeting-Citizen correspondence
Auto forwarded by a Rule
City Council of San Luis Obispo
Dear Council members:
I appreciate your serious efforts to challenge Police Chief Linden to investigate solutions to the
on-going problem of college student behavior in residential neighborhoods because of a culture of
excessive drinking of alcohol and lack of self control by predominantly college students living in
the City of San Luis Obispo. Residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo have become
extensions of the college party experience without any concern of consequences of disruptive
behavior.
I first want to express my lack in confidence in the current city Noise ordinance.This ordinance is
ineffective because of a lack of timely and consistent enforcement by the Police Department.
These types of complaints are not addressed in a manner that would motivate violators to change
boorish and inconsiderate behavior that disturbs residential neighborhoods, especially during late
night hours when working families are trying to sleep.
The ratio of actual citations to the number of generated complaints simply reaffirms this current
ordinance is not effective and contains too many warnings and opportunities for manipulation by
repeat offending residences.
I do appreciate the efforts made by the police department, but they are totally out numbered given
the demands placed upon them for service with all of the alcohol serving businesses in the
downtown area and number of college student rentals in residential neighborhoods.
I don't have to list all of the ridiculous and sometimes tragic calls they receive because of college
students and excessive use of alcohol. I am really dismayed at the culture of excessive drinking
among the college student populations from Cuesta College and Cal Poly.
This culture of excessive drinking is sparked by the increasing presence of fraternities and
sororities that have grown in size and importance as part of the Cal Poly college experience. This
increasing presence includes the use of fraternity and sorority"satellite" residential rental homes
for member gatherings and drinking parties.
I especially want to thank Councilmember Andrew Carter for his demonstrated leadership to voice
his concerns and present solutions to deal with this growing issue that erodes the quality of life for
residents of San Luis Obispo. I would like to see each of you support his leadership as well as
take more assertive actions as a City Council to finally address this distressing situation in
residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo..
I am asking all of you to support Chief Linden's recommendations to amend the City Noise
Ordinance with some exceptions:
The length of time a residence is placed on a premise list should be for one year rather
than six months to ensure consistency of compliance and one warning should be sufficient for
college educated adults.
The use of community service in lieu of a fine is just another example of compensating
consequences which will result in more costs for the Police Department to supervise and
coordinate completion of this non-monetary consequence.The funds generated from these fines
should be used to fund outreach and education efforts as well as enforcement costs for this very
preventable violation.
I am disappointed the Police Chief did not adequately address the issue of responsibility
of the property owner with tenants that are responsible for a public nuisance with repeated
violations. Landlord-property owner indifference to repeated disturbances needs to be specifically
addressed to motivate responsible property owner action with their tenants to cease disruptive
behavior in residential neighborhoods. An administrative citation should also be included for
property owners with repeat offending tenants.
I am a victim of college student disruptive behavior in my neighborhood and would like to see
more collective efforts on your part as the.City Council of San Luis Obispo to address these
issues.
I understand many of the benefits to the City of San Luis Obispo include the presence of college
students because of the free wheeling commerce from students with more disposal income than
most in other college environments.These benefits come with a heavy cost to the residents in
neighborhoods and it is now time to put the responsibility for these costs on the university and
college institutions, college students, and landlord home owners who go way beyond the intent of
residential zoning and degrade acceptable living standards neighborhoods.
I am hoping that all of you as the City of Council of San Luis Obispo can honestly endorse this
city for anyone thinking about living here by exerting more leadership to address this city wide
problem.
Sincerely,
Juventino Ortiz
2267 Santa Ynez Avenue, San Luis Obispo
From: Dennis Howland[SMTP:DLH@CRYOCOMP.COM]
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 2:00:14 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Meeting on noise abatement
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear council:
I recently read in the paper that you were going to have a meeting to discuss the
noise abatement rules. Since I live in a neighborhood with many students, all of
which seem to have way to much testosterone in their bodies, I would like to
voice my opinion on the issue of strengthening the rules. The article of
contention seems to be the issue of getting off the offender list after 6 months
which means we will still have to deal with any specific house at least once a
year. I would like to see the rule go to the 12 months option to get off the list and
maybe the landlord will get the clue and accept some responsibility for the
tenants in his/ her rental.
I hope to be at the meeting but I am still employed and the time window is during
working hours so I may miss. Please accept this opinion as a vote
for strengthening the rules.
Thank you for your time,
Dennis Howland
Hillcrest PI
Dennis Howland
P.O. Box 562
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805.781.3565 ext#10
805.781.3566 fax
From: Diane Halsted[SMTP:DHALSTED@SBCGLOBAL.NET]
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 3:28:55 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc: dhalsted@sbcglobal.net; Camille Small
Subject: noise ordinance
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear Councilmember,
As you consider the noise ordinance for the city, I hope that you will put
the full-time residents before the transient student population. The
students would have you believe they deserve to violate the right of the
rest of us to reasonable quiet. Noise ordinances are not meant to be
punitive; they are meant to be assertive. If students, and all others as
well, act with consideration for neighbors, the ordinance will not be
invoked against them. Yes, there are many good student residents. Good
student residents will be unaffected by the noise ordinance.
Students are visitors. They must behave with the same sense of
responsibility to others that residents do. To allow them to disrupt life in
our town is to do them a grave disservice as well as to do long-time adult
residents a disservice. Everyone needs to act responsibly. We live close to
each other. Students, and permanent residents as well, need to find
venues away from town for loud parties.
Inconsideration should not be met with consideration. Inconsideration
must be met with legal ordinance. Give the ordinance teeth and then
educate the students to be responsible temporary members of this
community so the ordinance will not have to be imposed on them.
To allow students the freedom to behave as they choose without
consequences is to disregard our community's responsibility toward their
social education: they are part of a community, not separate from or
different from the rest of us. When I heard the student-speaker at the
last hearing proclaim himself an Eagle Scout and then lament the arrest
record he attributed to the city and not to himself, I saw San Luis Obispo
has fallen far short of this responsibility to the young people who come
here.
Diane Halsted
544-8995
From: roger steele[SMTP:SLOROGER@MSN.COM]
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 6:37:16 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: neighborhood noise ordinance
Auto forwarded by a Rule
I have mixed feelings re Chief Linden's proposed new noise ordinance. I agree with
placing a residence on the "premise list" after one warning, but a residence should
stay on the list for one year, unless there is a significant change in the house's
occupants.
I do not believe any residents of this community should have to tolerate the noise
and other
annoying behaviors connected with late night parties. The penalties for intolerance
of one's neighbors should be increased. Perhaps if landlords were held more
responsible, there would be less chance for these issues to exist.
Roger Steele
From: Michael Sullivan[SMTP:MCSGDAY@YAHOO.COM]
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 10:47:26 PM
To: Council, S1oCity
Cc: Michael Sullivan
Subject: Council hearing of 19 Jan 2010 - Noise nuisance ordinance
revisions
Auto forwarded by a Rule
18 Jan 2010
To: Members of City Council, City of San Luis Obispo, CA
From: Michael Sullivan
RE: Council hearing of 19 Jan 2010 - Noise nuisance ordinance
revisions
Please read my attached letter concerning the above noise ordinance
issues. Thank you!
PS - In case your system does not let you open attachments, my comments
are presented below as part of this message.
Michael Sullivan
To City Council,City of San Luib Obispo,CA from Michael Sullivan-RE counci,aearing of 19 Jan 2010 regarding
City laws against noise disturbances Page I of 3
18 Jan.2010
To:
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo, CA
From:
Michael Sullivan
1127 Seaward Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
805-545-9614
mcsgday@yahoo.com
RE: Council hearing of 19 Jan 2010 - Consideration of noise nuisance law revisions
Dear members of Council:
I wish to address two issues, (1) stationary noise nuisances (which you are considering tonight)
and (2) mobile noise nuisances(from vehicles)
STATIONARY NOISE NUISANCES (e.g. parties)
Thank you for considering some tougher new laws related to stationary noise disturbances from.
rowdy parties, etc. The existing city laws just do not adequately address or solve this problem,
which only seems to be getting worse in recent years. The police are swamped with frequent
complaints about such disturbances.
As an example, a student-occupied residence near me (at 1126 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo)
was the source of numerous complaints from surrounding neighbors (including me) for a period of
about four years, from 2005 through 2008. This rental unit was occupied by various groups of
young males who had extremely loud and disruptive parties with crowds of people several times a
week, often on weekends but also sometimes at two or three in the morning on weeknights. The
partiers also frequently left lots of trash in the street, and on at least two occasions the residents or
their guests vandalized my car when they learned that I had complained of the noise to police.
(They did the same to one of my neighbors.) Despite numerous calls to police from various
neighbors and despite numerous police investigations and a few citations to the resident partiers, the
problem persisted and was never ameliorated. Once, when I tried to speak with a tenant about the
noise problem,he huffily replied, "Hey,man, you're interfering with our lifestyle." I replied that
my lifestyle requires that I get more than two hours of sleep a night, and I asked him to please keep
the noise down. To that request he offered the rejoinder that I should "Get the T off of this
property."
The only option left for me was to threaten civil litigation against the landlord for his failure to
rectify this chronic public nuisance. Before it came to that, though, the situation finally corrected
itself when the offending parties moved away and the home was rented to some much quieter and
much more respectful young tenants. The problem,however,may return someday when new
tenants move in.
To City Council,City of San Luib Obispo,CA from Michael Sullivan-RE councu nearing of 19 Jan 2010 regarding
City laws against noise disturbances Page 2 of 3
The city should follow the recommendation of staff and select the strictest options. If a
particular address causes a noise disturbance,both the residents and the landlord should be on the
"premises list" for one year minimum; six months is way too lenient. In this modern age of cell
phones,text messages, and social network sites on the internet, it is easy for a party to suddenly
attract many people and to become unruly. The police should be supported by strict and effective
laws to help them abate these nuisances.
When new tenants move in, they should receive a letter from the City stating that this address
has caused noise disturbances in the past and that noise disturbances will not be tolerated by new
residents, and the City policies regarding abatement and penalties should be given in writing to the
new tenants and to the landlord.
Property owners must be held accountable, otherwise this noise and party problem will never go
away. There must be an escalating level of punishment for this to be effective. After the first
warning, the landlord should have a minimum $500 fine. On each subsequent offense, the fine
should double or triple. If the fine is not paid on time, the City should immediately place a lien on
the property and-should also threaten to sue the landlord in civil complaint.
An additional means of enforcement would be to revoke(temporarily, say, for one year, or
perhaps permanently) the landlord's business license to use the property for rentals after a certain
history of continuing nuisance violations.
As for the residents and guests: First, following the first warning to any individual (resident or
guest) at the premises where the noise disturbance originated, the next incident should make any
person in attendance at the party liable to citation for minimum $300 fine on the first offense,
doubling or tripling for each subsequent offense. Some California cities have even tougher
consequences (in addition to citations), such as impoundment of music equipment (amplifiers,
electric guitars, etc.) from the offending parties. There should also be more consequences if
residents refuse to answer the door when officers or student assistants hired by the police respond to
a complaint. When that happens, for example, the landlord's business license to rent should be
revoked and the landlord should be fined.
Please enact tough and effective laws to help the police control these frequent noise nuisances..
Thank you.
MOBILE NOISE NUISANCES (e.g. from vehicles)
I know that the subject of tonight's discussion does not include mobile sources of noise
disturbances,but this too is a continuing problem in the city. There are three main sources of noise
from vehicles.
The first, and most common, is extremely loud amplified music, often from very powerful
speakers and subwoofers which produce a noise so loud it can be heard at great distances, like
thunder or a rumbling freight train. We have all heard the deafening thump-thump-thump of very
'To City Council,City of San Luib Jbispo,CA from Michael Sullivan-RE counci,searing of 19 Jan 2010 regarding
City laws against noise disturbances Page 3 of 3
low bass sounds which easily transmit through nearly any surface, including thick walls and double
pane windows. Various jurisdictions have laws to control such noise nuisances. San Luis Obispo
should also address this problem.
The second is the sounds of the modified mufflers which allow the driver to show his "coolness"
by having an extremely loud and annoying exhaust sound. Many times, especially on trucks or "hot
rods," these custom or modified mufflers are specifically tuned and designed to produce a deep,
low frequency rumbling sound, apparently to impress the world that the driver can make as much
noise as he wants, without any consequences. State law has limits on the sound level from vehicle
exhaust systems,but these laws are seldom (or never) enforced. They should be.
The third way that vehicles create a public noise nuisance is through driver maneuvers intended
to "bum rubber" in very quickly accelerated jack-rabbit starts, or by driving very fast in a tight
circle,or by popping into a lower gear suddenly while accelerating. The resulting howling screech
of wheels leaving rubber on pavement is apparently an announcement to the whole world that the
moron driving the vehicle has finally attained manhood. Unfortunately, such maneuvers can also be
dangerous. This kind of activity often can lead to contests in street racing, or exhibitions of
"burning rubber" before a crowd of onlookers or to show off to other friends riding in the same
vehicle. Activities as described above leave unsightly burn marks on pavement,make horrible and
loud squealing sounds at all hours of the day, and threaten public safety because sometimes these
vehicles in such maneuvers are out of control or traveling way too fast in places such as residential
neighborhoods. Beyond that, these stunts put more pollutants into the air(from engine exhaust and
from burnt rubber). Some jurisdictions already ban such activities because they are often the
precursors to street racing. But aside from that, the nuisance from the loud noise of squealing tires
is also, or should be, of great concern to the police,because this is an uncontrolled, commonly
occurring public noise nuisance.
Thank you for listening to the citizens who have to bear these frequent nuisances.
Michael Sullivan
RECEIVED
JAN 1 .5 20?0
• MEM� IV IUM SLO CITY CLERK
RED FILE _BAR n Cagy L
DATE: January 14, 2010 MEETING AGENDA e COUNCIL ip CDD DIR
qR CAO J2 FIN DIR
DA ITEM #� �Z ACAO l$FIRE CHIEF
TO: City Council D E?ATTORNEY R PW DIR
Ea CLERK/ORIG P POLICE CHF
VIA: Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Manager ❑ DEPT HEADS 12 AEC DIR
Re-'s Z UTIL DIR I
.nT;...es e,!65 U HR DIR
FROM: Deborah Linden, Chief of Police l�Du; e.CC
CrryIv64-
SUBJECT: Input from Realtor and Property Manager Committee regarding Proposed v-elrY ece
Residential Noise Regulation Modifications
(January 19, 2010 City Council Agenda Item 132)
On January 14, 2010, staff from the Police Department met with a committee of local realtors
and residential property managers regarding the proposed modifications to the City noise
regulations being considered by the Council at the January 19, 2010, Council meeting. The
committee,which includes members of the San Luis Obispo Association of Realtors, was formed
to provide input and ideas to staff regarding the various strategies being developed to reduce
neighborhood disturbances. This was the second meeting with the committee, and both meetings
have been very productive and collaborative. Committee members present at the January 14
meeting were:
Steve Delmartini—San Luis Obispo Realty
Ellie Malykont—California-West, Inc. Real Estate Management
Dawna Davies—Davies Company Real Estate
David Singer—The Real Estate Group of San Luis Obispo
Tim Townley—Comet Realty
Kendra Miller—Century 21 Hometown Realty
Shari Bone— Landmark Company
Police Department staff present at the meeting were Chief Deborah Linden, Captains Ian
Parkinson and Chris Staley, and Neighborhood Services Manager Ardith Tregenza.
The committee provided feedback to staff regarding the proposed modifications to the noise
regulations, and requested staff transmit this feedback to the Council via a red file in preparation
for the January 19, 2010, Council meeting. The following is a summary of the feedback.
1. The committee is supportive of the recommendations presented in the Council agenda
report.
2. The committee supports the staff recommendation to maintain the premises list
duration at six months, rather than extending it to twelve months. The six month
timeline better fits with the natural turnover in tenants each year, especially student
tenants who often move after one year. A 12-month premises list would result in a
f
much higher number of early removal petitions, causing increased work for City staff
and property managers/owners.
3. The committee stressed the need for staff to send violation notification letters to
owners via certified mail, or at least utilizing proof of service, in order to prove that
the owner received the notification letter. Staff intends to do this.
4. The committee wants to continue working with staff to develop a process whereby
property managers can receive a copy of the notification letter sent to the owner of a
property under their management so they may deal with the situation promptly. Staff
discussed a process to accomplish this, and we will continue to flesh out this idea
with the committee if the Council approves the ordinance modifications.
5. Committee members supported the concept of community services for first time
offenders.
6. Committee members are most concerned about getting compliance from rental
property owners who do not utilize professional property management services, and
who are not holding problem tenants accountable. The committee agreed to continue
working with staff on this issue, especially as we further develop the concept of a
residential rental property licensing program to present to Council in the spring.
7. Property managers would like access to information regarding police responses to
their rental properties. Staff informed committee members about the crime mapping
information available on the Police Department website which will provide them the
desired information.
8. The committee believes the lack of adequate police officer staffing in the Police
Department is a significant problem since on busy weekend nights, there are often no
police officers available to respond to noise violations in a timely manner. The
committee would like additional police officer positions funded in the Police
Department. Staff explained the manner in which committee members could make
this desire known to Council during the budget goal setting process in early 2011.
2
From: Nancy Watts[SMTP:BLACKPOODLE100@GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 11:55:35 AM
To: Kiser, Betsy
Cc: Council, SloCity
Subject: Expensive art
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear Betsy Kiser,
Thank you for the work that you do. I appreciate art. I do feel that some art does not have enough
sidewalk space so that is has enough visual impact. Then there is the issue of vandalism.
I hope you can put cameras on the new art....at least. Something at S. Higuera and Prado seems a
little"out of the way."Tho' certainly upgrading the area would be nice. I find it interesting that a
cowboy was dismissed as not appropriate for the Dalideo?Property. But an Indian will be O.K. I
do not want to censure art so that is not important. What is important is protecting the expensive
art work...and maybe deterring crime if cameras are announced to those who surround the area.
Thank you,nancy watts 543 7105 or blackpoodlel00@gmail.com
RED FILE ,
9-COUNCIL ADD DIR
MEETING AGENDA °'�flry�� p FIN DIR
DA l0 ITEM # L p RZ4E Ot�IRE CHIEF
a L'I OLERK/ORIG �Pw DIR
t ❑ DE HEp pg CTPOLICE CHF
C'i�REC DIR
— O-UnL DIR
n2 15 HR DIA
AU(:ad nmE5 CO a Ax"L
ury X62
men C0P i�I ?AzL
Gam' iNCIL U CDD DIR
ffreACY4n eUe [SIN DIR
d �A A=-ur/A?,e1!rTIRE CHIEF
i rATTORNEY 0'PW DIR
From: Kiser, Betsy 211CLERKJORIG I POLICE CHF
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 8:56 AM ' DEPT HEADS If-R—EC DIA
To: 'Nancy Watts' Z�UTIL DIR
Cc: Council_ALL; Stanwyck, Shelly; Bates, Shannon __ -- _"_ 21H R DIR
Subject: RE: Expensive art k&d-7h98E5 Ceu&3e(t_
Hi Nancy, -�Ct
Thank you for your concern about the pubic art piece and vandalism. Over the years, we have
had a couple of our pieces tagged, but fortunately, it's been few and far between. With the case
of"Oh Great Spirit", we selected the site at Prado and S. Higuera because it has good exposure
and will eventually be(in the not too distant future) part of the Bob Jones Bike Trail, which will
add even more public exposure. Additionally, we've included lighting on the sculpture, which also
has a tendency to deter vandalism.
With regard to the installation of cameras at the site, the City has a policy which dictates when
and if video monitoring systems should be installed. Although it can be used to deter theft and
vandalism and assist in identifying individuals who damage City facilities or property, we are
careful to balance privacy concerns with personal safety and responsible stewardship of the
community's assets. If vandalism becomes an issue, we could suggest a video monitoring
system and the request would be reviewed in light of our policy.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Betsy Kiser, Parks and Recreation Director RED FILE
City of San Luis Obispo MEETING AGENDA
1341 Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 DATE 'l. 1 0 ITEM #—DL.
(805)781-7294
Creating Community Through Pcoplt,Parks and Programs
From: Nancy Watts [mailto:blackpoodle100@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 11:56 AM
To: Kiser, Betsy
Cc: Council, SloCity
Subject: Expensive art
Dear Betsy Kiser,
Thank you for the work that you do.I appreciate art. I do feel that some art does not have enough sidewalk
space so that is has enough visual impact. Then there is the issue of vandalism.
I hope you can put cameras on the new art...at least. Something at S.Higuera and Prado seems a little"out
of the way."Tho' certainly upgrading the area would be nice. I find it interesting that a cowboy was
dismissed as not appropriate for the Dalideo?Property.But an Indian will be O.K. I do not want to censure
art so that is not important. What is important is protecting the expensive art work...and maybe deterring
crime if cameras are announced to those who surround the area.
Thank you,nancy watts 543 7105 or blackpoodle100@gmail.com