HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/06/2010, B4 - INTRODUCTION OF UNRULY GATHERING ORDINANCE council Mme _ 2 .-
Apri1 6.. 20]0 j
j ac,Enaa Pepont
C ITY O F SAN L U I S O B I S P O
FROM: Deborah Linden, Chief of Police
Prepared By: Lieutenant Tom De Priest
SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF UNRULY GATHERING ORDINANCE
RECOMMENDATION
Introduce an ordinance adding Chapter 9.13 to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code prohibiting
unruly gatherings on private property.
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 regarding the proposed strategies. One of the strategies presented was the creation of a
new unruly gathering ordinance to address parties and gatherings that cause significant
disturbances in City neighborhoods. Unruly gathering ordinances are currently in use in several
college communities, including the cities of Rohnert Park (Sonoma State University), Berkeley
(U.C. Berkeley), and Tucson (University of Arizona). At the conclusion of the study session, the
Council directed staff to return with a new unruly gathering ordinance for its consideration. At
the same time, Council members also provided feedback regarding certain elements of the
ordinance, such as the minimum number of people attending a gathering in order to constitute a
violation.
Elements of the Recommended Ordinance
The proposed unruly gathering ordinance is not intended to replace the City's noise ordinance,
which is quite broad and addresses various kinds of noise violations, not just those associated
with loud music and parties. Rather, the proposed unruly gathering ordinance is intended to
address gatherings on private property that have a significant impact on the surrounding
neighborhood and tend to use excessive police resources to control. The proposed ordinance
would create sanctions for individuals who host gatherings involving at least twenty people and
which create a substantial disturbance in a neighborhood, as evidenced by various unlawful and
disruptive behaviors. The ordinance would also allow administrative action against property
owners if subsequent violations occur at their property after they have received adequate notice
of an unruly gathering violation.
Key elements of the proposed unruly gathering ordinance include:
1. Number of Attendees: Based on feedback from the Council at the September 29, 2009,
study session, staff is proposing twenty people as the minimum number of people present
at a gathering in order for it to possibly constitute an unruly gathering. Other ordinances
Sq- I
Introduction of Unruly Gathering Ordinance Page 2
reviewed by staff use either five or ten people as the minimum number; however staff
recommends a higher number of twenty in order to clearly differentiate between smaller
gatherings that may generate a noise violation and larger gatherings that lead to more
substantial disturbances.
2. Substantial Disturbance: In addition to the minimum number or people, in order for a
gathering to constitute a violation of the proposed ordinance, it must create a "substantial
disturbance of the quiet enjoyment of private or public property in a significant segment
of a neighborhood." Indicators that a gathering is causing a substantial disturbance may
include, but are not limited to: multiple complaints about the disturbance; crowds
overflowing into neighboring properties or the street; interference with traffic flow; noise
audible from a substantial distance; large, unruly crowds.
3. Nature of the Disturbance: In order for a gathering to be deemed a violation of the
proposed ordinance, the disturbance must result from unlawful conduct. Examples of
such conduct include:
• Excessive noise
• Obstruction of public streets or rights of way by people or vehicles
• Public drunkenness
• Unlawful possession of alcohol or drugs
• Service of alcohol to minors
• Social host violations
• Fights
• Urinating or defecating in public
• Vandalism
• Setting off fireworks
4. Property Owner Responsibility: Once a police officer has determined an unruly gathering
has occurred at a property, staff will send a certified letter to the property owner notifying
them of the violation and informing them that should subsequent violations occur at the
property, the owner may be subject to administrative action. Staff will provide the
property owner a reasonable period of time (at least two weeks) to communicate with
tenants and remedy their disruptive behavior before taking any action against the property
owner for subsequent unruly gathering violations. Property owners may be assessed a
penalty of$500 for each subsequent violation. The City may defer or delay administrative
action against any property owner who can demonstrate due diligence in preventing future
unruly gatherings, such as evicting those responsible for such gatherings.
Enforcement Procedures
Although both SNAP and police officers respond to noise complaints, only a police officer may
make a determination that a gathering meets the elements of an unruly gathering. When a police
officer makes this determination, officers will immediately abate the disturbance by disbanding
the unruly gathering and issuing citations or making arrests for law violations as appropriate. If
an officer determines the activity is not an unruly gathering, the officer will assess whether or not
Bq'C;�
Introduction of Unruly Gathering Ordinance Page 3
other laws have been violated (such as a noise violation) and take appropriate action as
warranted.
Staff proposes utilizing the City's civil administrative citation process to enforce violations of the
unruly gathering ordinance with a $700 fine for the first offense and a $1000 fine for second or
subsequent violations in a 12-month period (maximum allowable for municipal code violations).
This is the same process currently used for violations of the noise ordinance. The proposed
ordinance does allow the City Attorney to prosecute violations as a criminal misdemeanor (or
infraction), which may be desirable in particularly egregious situations or if an individual
repeatedly violates the ordinance.
Difference between Proposed Ordinance and Model presented at the Study Session
At the study session conducted with the Council on September 29, 2009, staff presented an
unruly gathering ordinance model in use in other communities, including Tucson and Rohnert
Park. The model included a provision that requires the posting of a notice on the property where
an unruly gathering had taken place. The notice, which remains in place for between 60 and 120
days, informs visitors that if they are present during any subsequent unruly gathering, they may
be issued citations for participating in the gathering. In Tucson, the notices are printed on red
paper and the unruly gathering ordinance is referred to as the"Red Tag"ordinance.
Since the study session, as staff further researched and discussed the proposed ordinance with
stakeholders, significant concerns emerged about. the posting of the notice on residences. The
President of Cal Poly Associated Students, Inc. (ASI) convened a committee of student
representatives to provide feedback and suggestions to staff about the proposed ordinance.
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, members of the student committee were
very concerned about the posting of notices on residences that have had unruly gathering
violations. The perception of students is that the notices "label" and "brand" students in a very
negative way, analogous to a scarlet letter. Students pointed out that other more serious offenders
do not have their homes posted with notices, including former violent criminals or sex offenders.
Student leaders were very concerned that this portion of the proposed ordinance would cause
large numbers of students to oppose the ordinance, including those who do not normally
participate in parties or gatherings that become unruly. Students were also concerned that that the
postings would more easily identify student residences, making them more vulnerable to crimes
such as burglary and sexual assault.
In addition to the concerns expressed by students, staff is concerned that the Police Department
will not have the resources to administer and monitor the posting requirement, or to issue
citations to large numbers of attendees in addition to party hosts. The recent modifications to the
noise ordinance are already causing an increase in workload for Police Department staff.
Implementing and enforcing the posting requirement would exacerbate this situation.
For these reasons, the proposed unruly gathering ordinance does not include a provision to post a
notice on properties found in violation of the ordinance. However, staff is recommending
significantly higher fines - $700 for the first violation, increasing to $1000 — which should deter
Bq--3
i
Introduction of Unruly Gathering Ordinance Page 4
residents from hosting unruly gatherings. Staff will monitor the effectiveness of the proposed
ordinance in preventing and reducing unruly gatherings. If the recommended ordinance does not
prove effective, staff will evaluate the need to return to the Council to recommend adding the
posting requirement or other provisions if resources permit.
Differences between a Noise Violation and an Unruly Gathering Violation
The following table illustrates the main differences between a violation of the City's Noise
ordinance and the proposed Unruly Gathering ordinance:
Noise Ordinance Unruly Gathering Ordinance
Violation based on type and level of noise, Violation based on number of people, level of
regardless of number of people involved disturbance, and unlawful activity occurring
Violators may receive one warning every nine No warnings
months
First offense fine: $350 First offense fine: $700
Second or subsequent fines: $700 and $1000 Second or subsequent fines: $1000
Option of community service in lieu of fine No community service
Property owner fine: $350 Property owner fine: $500
Outreach with Community Stakeholders
Staff held meetings with the following groups in order to discuss and receive feedback about the
proposed ordinance:
1. Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) Board
2. Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC)
3. Cal Poly Associated Students, Inc. (ASI) Board and student committee
4. San Luis Obispo Association of Realtors Property Managers Committee
5. Associated Students of Cuesta College open forum
CONCURRENCES
The stakeholder groups listed above expressed understanding of the need to enact an unruly
gathering ordinance to address gatherings that cause significant disturbances in neighborhoods.
The groups provided valuable feedback and suggestions to staff during the formulation of the
ordinance being proposed. The groups may differ on some details of the proposed ordinance,
such as staff's recommendation to exclude the posting of a notice on properties that have had
unruly gatherings.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this action. However, if the Council approves the
proposed ordinance, there will be an increase in workload for Police Department staff involved
with the processing of notification letters and overseeing the administrative citation process,
including appeals. Staff will monitor the impact on staff workloads to determine if additional
resources may be needed in the future. There will be some impact on staff in the Finance and
8q-�
Introduction of Unruly Gathering Ordinance Page 5
Information Technology Department stemming from the processing of additional administrative
citations; however, staff believes this added workload can be absorbed by existing employees as
part of their normal course of duties.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Should the Council desire significant modifications to the recommended ordinance
language, staff suggests the Council provide direction and direct staff to return with new
recommendations at a later date. For example, should the Council decide to include
provisions in the ordinance to allow for the posting of a notice on properties that have had
an unruly gathering, the Council should indicate that to staff and direct staff to return with
a modified ordinance for consideration.
2. Should the Council desire simple changes to ordinance language, the Council may direct
staff to make these changes immediately.
ATTACHMENT
Ordinance adding Chapter 9.13 to the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
T:\Council Agenda Reports\Police CAR\2010\Unruly Gathering Ordinance\lnroduction of Unruly Gathering
Ordinance 4-6-10.doc
�� J
ATTACHMEN'r
ORDINANCE NO. (2010 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADDING
CHAPTER 9.13 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT
UNRULY GATHERINGS
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 April 6, 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. New Chapter 9.13 (Unruly Gatherings) of Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals and
Welfare) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby adopted to read as follows:
Chapter 9.13
UNRULY GATHERINGS
Sections:.
9.13.010 Declaration of Policy
9.13.020 Definitions
9.13.030 Prohibition of Unruly Gatherings
9.13.040 Notice of Unruly Gathering—Mailing to Property Owner
9.13.050 Persons Liable fora Response to an Unruly Gathering
9.13.060 Enforcement
9.13.070 Collection of Delinquent Costs
9.13.010 Declaration of Policy
A. In order to control unnecessary disturbances caused by unruly gatherings in the city, it is
declared to be the policy of the city to prohibit unruly gatherings that create a substantial
disturbance of the quiet enjoyment of private or public property in a significant segment of a
neighborhood as specified in this chapter.
B. It is determined that unruly gatherings are detrimental to the public health, welfare and
safety, and are contrary to the public interest. Therefore, the council declares that creating,
maintaining, causing, or allowing to be created,maintained, or caused, any unruly gathering in a
manner prohibited by or not in conformity with the provisions of this chapter is a public nuisance
and shall be punishable as such in any manner provided by law, including but not necessarily
limited to the filing of a civil or criminal action.
9.13.020 Definitions
For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
A. "Gathering,"means a group of persons who have assembled or are assembling for a party
or social event, occasion or activity on private property.
aLI-6
Ordinance No. (201 0aeries)
ATTACHMENT
Page 2 of 4
B. "Responsible person"means and includes,but is not limited to: (1) the person who owns,
rents, leases, or otherwise has legal control of the property where the gathering takes place, or(2)
the person who caused the gathering to occur.
C. "Juvenile"means and includes any person under the age of eighteen (18).
D. "Minor"means and includes any person at least 18 years old but under the age of twenty-
one (21).
E. "Unruly gatherings" shall mean a gathering of twenty or more persons on private property
that results in conduct that causes a substantial disturbance of the quiet enjoyment of private or
public property in a significant segment of a neighborhood, including,but not limited to, conduct
that results in excessive noise as defined in Chapter 9.12, obstruction of public streets or rights of
way by people or vehicles,public drunkenness, unlawful possession of alcohol or drugs, serving
alcohol to minors, fights, disturbances of the peace, urinating or defecating in public, setting off
fireworks, and vandalism.
9.13.030 Unruly Gatherings Prohibited.
It shall be unlawful and constitute a public nuisance, as defined in Chapter 8.24, for any
responsible person(s) to cause or allow an unruly gathering to occur on any private property
within the city. An unruly gathering may be abated by the city by all reasonable means including,
but not limited to, an order requiring the unruly gathering to be disbanded, the issuance of
citations, and/or the arrests of any law violators under any applicable local laws and State statutes.
9.13.040 Notice of Unruly Gathering—Mailing to Property Owner
When a peace officer has determined that an unruly gathering has occurred, the police
department shall mail a notice to the owner of the property where the unruly gathering occurred.
The notice shall advise the property owner(s) that any subsequent violation of this chapter at the
same property may result in the property owner being subject to administrative action and
penalties as defined in this chapter.
9.13.050 Persons Liable for a Response to an Unruly Gathering
If the city is required to respond to an unruly gathering, the following persons shall be jointly
and severally liable for civil penalties as set forth in Section 9.13.060, in addition to liability for
any injuries to city personnel or damage to city property:
A. The person or persons who own the property where the unruly gathering took place,
provided that notice has been mailed to the owner of the property as set forth herein and a
subsequent unruly gathering occurs at least two weeks after the mailing of such notice.
B. The responsible person or persons, provided, however, that if the responsible person is a
juvenile, then the parents or guardians of the juvenile will be jointly and severally liable for
penalties and liabilities herein.
C. Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose liability on a property owner or
responsible person for the conduct of persons who are present without the express or implied
consent of the property owner/responsible person as long as the property owner/responsible
person has taken reasonable steps to exclude such uninvited participants from the property.
Where an invited person engages in conduct which the property owner/responsible person could
not reasonably foresee and the conduct is an isolated instance of a person at the gathering
violating the law which the property owner/responsible person is unable to reasonably control
without the intervention of the police, the unlawful conduct of that person shall not be attributable
Bq—q-
2
Ordinance No. (2010'aeries) - ATTACHME
Page 3 of 4
to the property owner/responsible person for the purposes of determining whether the gathering
constitutes an unruly gathering .
9.13.060 Enforcement
A. Any unruly gathering as defined in Section 9.13.020 E of this chapter shall be deemed to
be prima facie evidence of a violation of the provisions of this chapter.
B. Any violation of this chapter shall be a misdemeanor and is subject to criminal, civil or
administrative enforcement as provided in this Code. Each hour such violation is committed or is
permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense and may be punishable as such.
C. If administrative enforcement is initiated in accordance with chapter 1.24 of this code,
penalties shall be assessed against all responsible persons liable for the city's intervention to abate
an unruly gathering in the following amounts:
1. The initial violation of this chapter will result in a penalty in the sum of seven
hundred dollars ($700.00) against responsible persons, other than the owner(s) of the
property who was not present and responsible for the gathering.
2. Subsequent violations of this chapter in any 12-month period following the date of
the first violation will result in a penalty of one thousand dollars ($1000.00) against
responsible persons, other than the owner(s) of the property who was not present and
responsible for the gathering.
3. The person(s) who owns the property where the unruly gathering took place will be
assessed a penalty of five hundred dollars ($500.00) provided the owner(s) was not present
during the gathering, and proper notice of a prior violation at the property was provided to
the owner pursuant to section 9.13.040 of this chapter.
4. The administration citation penalties provided herein shall be in addition to any
other penalties imposed by law for particular violations of law committed during the
course of an unruly gathering.
D. Continued Violations. Once a peace officer has determined there has been a violation of
this chapter, the owner(s) of the property where the violation occurred may be subject to
administrative action for allowing a subsequent violation of this chapter to occur on the property
provided the property owner has received notice as required by section 9.13.040 of this chapter,
and at least 14 days have elapsed since the date the notice was mailed to the property owner(s).
The city may defer or delay administrative action against any property owner who can
demonstrate due diligence in preventing future unruly gatherings, such as evicting those
responsible for such gatherings.
9.13.070 Collection of Delinquent Costs
The penalties assessed as a result of a city response to an unruly gathering shall constitute a
debt of all persons liable for the penalties in favor of the city and may be collected in any manner
authorized by chapter 1.24 of this code.
SECTION 2. 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) 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.
By-8'
3
ATTACHMENT
Ordinance No. (2010 series)
Page 4 of 4
INTRODUCED on the 6th day of April 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 FORM:
Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
4
0 1
From: Timothy black[SMTP:TCBLACK@CALPOLY.EDU)
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 7:06:28 PM
To: Council, S1oCity G
Subject: Unruly Gathering Ordinance G2llrIC �L
CC .
Auto forwarded by a Rule
To whom it may concern: I
As a resident of San Luis Obispo, I would like to express my �'G�, �
dissatisfaction with -the proposal for the new Unruly Gathering �T�1ZNL�
Ordinance. I believe it is unnecessary on these grounds:
We have not been able to assess the impact of the change in the
Noise Ordinance. It was only recently passed, and we have yet to see
whether it affects our community as a whole in a more positive way.
The Unruly Gathering Ordinance seems to be an extension of the
"crackdown" logic embodied in the new Noise Ordinance.
I also feel it is an unwarranted extension into the private lives
of
residents. The noise ordinance should be a sufficient measure to
keep the community safe and quiet.
Thank you for your consideration,
Timothy Black
tcblack@calpoly.edu
RECEIVE®
APR 0 7 2010
SLO CITY CLERK
'DECEIVE®
APR 0 6 1010
From: "Sandra Rowley" <macsar99(a)Yahoo.com> SLO CITY CLERK
Date: April 6, 2010 12:24:19 AM PDT
To: "Romero, Dave" <dromero(a�slocity.org>, "Carter, Andrew" <acarter(@slocity.org>,
"Settle, Allen" <asettle(a,slocity.org>, "Jan Marx" <ianmarx(a slocitv.org>, "Ashbaugh,
John" <jashbaugr7a slocity.org>
Cc: "Lichtig, Katie" <klichtigt7a slocit}_org>
Subject: Unruly Gathering Ordinance
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I fully support the recommendations submitted by RQN. The proposed ordinance
addresses a problem which has, unfortunately, negatively affected the quality of life - and
ability to sleep - in many SLO neighborhoods for over a decade. Once your deliberations
are over I hope you will direct staff to chose a date certain to review the level of success
of the approved ordinance and determine if the ordinance has accomplished its purpose or
if changes are necessary.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandra Rowley
�i2j co �i��a�L
RED FILE COUNCIL !TCDD DIR
1NEETIN(3 AGENDA " n�2 SIN DIR
C117l m-CTIFIRECHIEF
FkqITEM #_ L3` q ATTORNEY 13-PW DIR
I'CLERK/ORIQ O-POLICE CHF
Fl DEPTEADS 'AEC DIA
?! r8ua'v e-LJPILDIA
5-HR DIO
Tim - 0-,u.Lrni L
Erse/ 1;IGiL
From: Erika F[SMTP:ERIKADFITZ@GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 11:32:18 AM RECEIVE
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Student Opinion on Unruly Gathering Ordinance
Auto forwarded by a Rule APR 0 6 2919
SLO CITY CLERK
To whom it may concern:
I am a 21 year old Cal Poly student and live in an apartment walking distance to campus,
on Crandall Way. That being said, I COMPLETELY support the Unruly Gathering
Ordinance for San Luis Obispo County. My apartment is just around the corner from
several fraternity houses, some of their satellite houses, and other residences that
frequently hold large, noisy gatherings. I have called in a noise complaint before,
however it is not unusual for there to be excessive and disrupting amounts of noise every
Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night... and even some weekday nights. I can not always
tell where the noise is coming from in order to call in a noise complaint, nor is it fair for
me to have to go through this inconvenience. Upon explaining to a friend my frustrating
experience with the amount of noise involved with living near campus, I was told that it
is my choice to live there and I should expect there to be noise and parties. My response
to this: when other students are taking away my right to peace, quiet, and the ability to
sleep without disruption, then they should no longer have the right to large, unruly
gatherings. It is simply a matter or respect. I do understand that there will be parties
associated with living near campus,but I should be able to live walking distance to
school and still live in peace. I think the Unruly Gathering Ordinance is a great solution
to keeping the amount of noise and partying in San Luis Obispo (especially near the Cal
Poly campus) under control for those students and residents who do not wish to be
disturbed by unnecessarily large levels of noise created by parties and large gatherings.
I am afraid I have class tonight and will not be able to make it to the Unruly Gathering
Ordinance hearing. Please feel free to contact me at 805-286-7047 with any questions.
Sincerely,
Erika Fitzgerald
RECEIVE®
From: larry leal [mailto:larryleal@hotmail.com] APR 0 6 2010
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 10:25 AM
To: Lichtig, Katie SLO CITY CLERK
Cc: Settle, Allen; Carter, Andrew; Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Romero, Dave
Subject: Unruly Gathering Ordinance
Dear City Manager,
I am in support of the proposed Unruly Gathering Ordinance proposed by the City
Council meeting tonight. I feel the new Noise Ordinance passed last City Council
meeting has improve my neighborhood noise problem. The Unruly Gathering
Ordinance would further improve the neighborhood quality of life. Once again you
have my support.
Thank You,
Larry Leal
171 Del Norte Way
San Luis Obispo
544-2629
RECEIVE®
APR 0 6 2010
From: Lyle Stubson [mailto:stubsontoo@charter.net]
Sent:Tuesday, April 06, 2010 11:36 AM SLO CITY CLERK
To: Ashbaugh, John
Subject: support
We ask that you please support the Unruly Gathering Ordinance this evening. we are unable to
attend and feel very strongly that it would help many of the problems in our particular
neighborhood for sure. Calling the police when they are busy doing other things is not the answer
to every party.
Thank you for your support.
Mendi Stubson, 167 Del Norte, SLO
{�'f191 CcP �i�7lY/[�
%COUNCIL L''�'CDD DIR
RED FILE i46f_ 2'f 1N DIR
- MEETING AGENDAl � Tury,iAce_pQ'FIRE CHIEF
o ITEM t3-q—
ATTORNEY PW DIR
DAT
I f7 6LERK/ORIG 13POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS 7-AEC DIR
Q"UTIL DIR
17?-LRu� allR DIR
'--60V A.cL
� \I
From: Lindsey Swan[SMTP:LASWAN11 @GMAIL.COM] RECEIVED
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 4:04:05 PM APR 0 5 201D
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Unruly Gathering Ordinance
Auto forwarded by a Rule SLO CITY CLERK
Dear City Council Members
I am writing to advocate against the new ordinance being heard Tuesday, April 6th at
7pm. The council has already taken away some of our most basic city.events, such as
Mardi Gras. A fun, family event that meant the world to my siblings and I as we paraded
down Marsh St throughout our childhood. This ordinance goes too far. An unruly
gathering could potentially be a Bar Mitzvah, a graduation party, a birthday party, a
wedding ceremony, or even a fundraising party for a charitable organization. There are
more than 20 members in a sorority or fraternity, so simply having a meeting at
someone's house could constitute an unruly gathering. Isn't this a college town? Where in
order to foster learning, and a healthy extracurricular life, we venture off Cal Poly's
campus and feel a part of a community?
Growing up in SLO myself, I know that there will always be unruly neighbors. Neighbors
who have had bad experiences with the students in the house before the current tenants
and find any reason possible to call the police. There are many older residents who are
intolerable of their college student neighbors, but I believe we students work very hard to
maintain a healthy relationship with the community.
We currently have noise ordinances that cover both bases--more than 20 people gathering
will likely create enough noise to violate that ordinance. This extra ordinance is just
going too far! I thought we were a community, San Luis Obispo. A land that used to hold
Native Americans, living in tribes, and living harmoniously with one another. Why are
we straying so far from our roots?
I sincerely hope you do not pass this ordinance, City Council Members.
Thank you for listening,
Lindsey Swan
NR9LD CdP ��l,4IL
RED FILE COUNCIL CDD DIR
IrQA44t P n1Cr2 C�FIN DIR
f�'A8fl9A '
— MEETING AGENDA �1ropN PEY �WED RHIEF
RATE,gG� ITEM #2, RT Ug f cpla gip. LIC CHF
�r��pTp' ���dlFi
��,,��--�IL DIS
- Ci13 DIR
A)W —rime_ — OZ AX it '
� Gi?y /FIGIZ
Ctc-2�
RECEIVED
` From: Karen Adler[SMTP:FUDGE805@CHARTER.NET] APR 0 5 2010
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 10:25:21 PM
To.: Council, Slocity SLO CITY CLERK
Subject: unruly gathering ordinance
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Mr. Mayor& City Council members:
I would hope that you will support the unruly gathering ordinance
that will be brought before you tomorrow night. Excessive_ noise &
the subsequent littering of neighborhoods that result from these
unruly gatherings have been tolerated long enough! Our neighborhoods
are being deprived of peaceful evenings & restful sleep because of
this rowdy behavior. Please help our neighborhoods get back the
quality of life we should' be entitled to. It would be a pleasure to
coexist with students as residents if there were some respect for the
neighborhoods they live in. This ordinance will hopefully get that
message across!
Thank you,
Karen Corda Adler
1676 Fredericks St.
SLO, CA 93405
543-7213
From: Dot[SMTP:6DGRAVES@SBCGLOBAL.NET]
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 11:04:23 PM
To: Council, S1oCity + p �- '':
Subject: Unruly Gathering Ordinance R EC C `=
Auto forwarded by a Rule APR 0 5 2010
San Luis Obispo Mayor and City Council Members
Mayor Dave Romero SLO CITY CLERK
Council Members
John Ashbaugh - Andrew Carter - Jan Marx - Allen Settle
Would you please think about some changes to the Unruly Gathering
Ordinance at your April 6,2010 meeting.
Page B 4-1 The number of people present be changed from 20 to 15
number of attendees.
Page B 4-2 Please think of adding Littering to Nature of the
Disturbance number 3 because of the litter that seems to happen to near
by louses and yards when you have a large party.
Page B 4-2 Number 4 It seems the property owners should have the same
assessed amount as the tenants. That would be a $700.00 penalty not
$500.00.
Page B 4-7 F.Gathering of 15 or more persons.
Page B 4-8 C'.3 Owner of property would have the same assessed penalty
as tenants.
Thank you for your time.
Dorothy Graves r
�CE
From: Grace Dempsey[SMTP:SLOHIKER@LIVE.COM] APR 0 5 2010
Sent: Monday, April 05,2010 8:59:22 PM SLO CITY CLERK
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: RQN Request
Auto forwarded by a Rule
DATE: April 5, 2010
TO: Mayor and City Council Members:
MEMO: In response from a request from the RQN to respond to the noise ordinance,
the following issues are present also in our neighborhood of LaEntrada and Hermosa
Area.
1. Our area has a corner house at LaEntrada & Hermosa. They host large, noisy
parties two to four times a week. Their guests arrive at approximately 1OPM and if
they leave, its about 2AM. After each party as many as 8-18 cars are parked in our
area overnight. Police have been called repeatedly. The Police have shown up
multiple times for some parties. At the other end of Hermosa (Hermosa and Luneta)
loud parties are held and can be easily heard a block away. At these parties a single
car has been seen making multiple trips bringing extra party goers. As a result the
number of cars in the street is not reflective of the number of people at the party. It
appears that underage drinking may also be occurring. In the aftermath of those
parties, broken glass, plastic cups, and other trash is noticed on the street.
Numerous long time residents of our neighborhood have medical problems and these
parties are disruptive to the much needed sleep of these residents.
2. Because of the multiple party guests staying overnight, we question the sanitation
and fire hazards that are incumbent in these situations. We have talked to the City
concerning multiple tenants in a four bedroom house. We were told seven tenants
are renting but, we notice multiple cars there overnight on numerous occasions. The
City's response is that we must file a complaint with our signatures before the City
will become involved to follow up on residential problems. We are concerned that if
we sign, our neighbors would learn who is submitting the complaint about them.
The following share these concerns:
Mr. & Mrs. Dempsey
Mr. & Mrs. Pate
Mr. & Mrs. Del Rio
From: Frank Kassak[SMTP:FKASSAK@SBCGLOBAL.NET]
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 3:38:53 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Unruly Gathering Ordinance
Auto forwarded by a Rule
I want to thank you all for moving the Noise abatement procedures along these past few
months. My wife and I are looking forward to seeing the UGO part of it pass Tuesday
night without a hitch. Would prefer to see the staff recommendation changed from 20
people to a lower amount such as 10 or at least 15.
Sincerely,
Frank and Roberta Kassak
Cerro Romauldo
Itkay CtiPy �m1
COUNCIL CDD DIR
13164&C-t-NAt&e Z'FIN DIR
0-AeAtM%rcmrnre 2 FIRE CHIEF RED FILE
IBIATTORNEY p'PW DIR
3'CLERKIORIG �a'PP�LICE CHF — MEETING AGENDA
❑ DEPT HEADS 3-REC DIR
r, P�6 M UTIL D11; DATEo ITEM # S
TR-(&4&Ae_- CI'HR DIR
Nr�nmc-� iCou�e,�
RECEIVE®
APR 0 5 2010
SLO CITY CLERK
From: Odile Ayral[SMTP:OAYRAL@CALPOLY.EDU] RECEIVED
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 11:31:06 AM
To: Council, Siocity APR 0 5 2010
Cc: Camille Small
Subject: Fwd: Unruly Gathering Ordinance SLO CITY CLERK
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
First, thank you for putting together an improved "unruly gathering ordinance". It is a
step in the right direction. However, I do support Camille Small's comments (see below)
and would like to see the City getting much more involved with all issues that bring
unnecessary disturbances to neighborhoods, instead of catering to Cal Poly, Cuesta
College and all the other schools. I never understood why Cuesta College was allowed to
accept students from outside the area without providing ANY housing at all. As you may
know, the majority of complaints target Cuesta students much more than Cal Poly
students. A great deal of work needs to be done if the city is to ever recover the type of
quality neighborhoods we used to enjoy in the seventies. I personnally saw five families
(yes, five!) move out of my neighborhood within six months of the arrival of a target
school (Pacheco) that has caused a great deal of unchecked disturbances, despite the
setting of so called"mitigations", whose very basic requirements have not been heeded
by the school. It is not right. In fact, it is outrageous. Families should not be forced to
leave their homes because of the bad behavior of outsiders who trash neighborhoods
where they don't belong, or to pay tens of thousands of dollars to hire lawyers to defend
their rights. We all depend on you to protect the quality of our neighborhoods and to
preserve the character of our city.
Sincerely,
Odile Ayral
300 Ferrini
San Luis Obispo
CA 93405
ff�2D l°oPY GMAvL
'COUNCIL a-CDD DIP
C1T7 0164 CT-FIN DIP
� ��3��imi�l6tCR!'FIRE CHIEF
[a-ATTORNEY 2-PW DIP
RED FILE 13rCLERK/ORIG 21I ODIP
L CE CHF
MEETING AGENDA 1 ❑ DEPT HEADS CI'REC DIR
-� 'a L-UTILDIP
DA 6 b ITEM #-B'f % T+2 u_ R DIP
b1-4 M62
From: Andrew McMinimee[SMTP;AMCMINIM@GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 1:26:36 PM RECEIVED To: Council, SloCity R
Subject: unruly gathering ordinance APR 0 5 2010
Auto forwarded by a Rule
SLO CITY CLERK
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a Cal Poly student living in the Tassajara area. I am concerned with the proposed
unruly gathering ordinance and the possible implications of such an ordinance on the
student population in this town. I believe the wording of the proposed ordinance to be too
subjective, leaving too much in the hands of a police force which already targets student
gatherings to begin with.1 am not opposed to an unruly gathering ordinance, or the
regulation of unruly behavior by students in this town. I only request that such regulation
be more succinctly written, thus limiting the ability of the police force to make subjective
judgment calls.
Additionally, in the interest of justice, I believe that an appeals process should by put in
place by which an unruly gathering citation can be contested. If the city is assessing a
$700 fine for the first violation of the ordinance, citizens should have the means by which
to plead their case to an unbiased authority. I believe an impartial appeals process will
also further offset the subjective nature of this ordinance.
Kindest Regards,
Andrew McMinimee
RED FILE6.e'
'COUNCIL DD DII
— MEETING AGENDA r' e ct ry mG2 FIN OIR
DA 6Iv ITEM # i [�-Af,Ae+ c, mt2 !FIpE CF'
P1TTORNEY �WOIR
LERK/OPi4 C?pCJ�IC€ =+`
to DEPT HEA:-3 ;-rho wo I
�i Pr�3
MUTIL Or.
C'tM nzG/c.
i
From: Traysm56@gmail.com[SMTP:TRAVSM56@GMAIL.COM] RECEIVED
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 1:08:40 PM APR O 5 2010
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Unruly Gathering Ordinance SLO CITY CLERK
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear City Council,
I find it very unfair that this bill is even proposed. I think that the student body should not
be blamed,punished or accused for what others have done in recent years. The wow
week this past year was mainly due to cuesta and kids from out of town. Please re-
consider.
Sincerly,
Travis
r7LD Coloy ff-
DIR
��RED FILE G-- 'CDD DIR- MEETING AGENDA � 3'PIN DIR�a' FIRE CHIEFDATE d IO ITEM # g1_2f -PW DIR'POLICE CHF REC DIRI�UTIL DIR
HR DIR
IVc-�J Tt�S
�'teU&)C;L
ttTy n/1Ge
c r