HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/20/2010, C 5 - FINAL ADOPTION OF UNRULY GATHERING ORDINANCE council
April 20,2010
j acEn6a wpoM 1w.N.6,, c�
CITYOF SAN LUIS O B I S P 0
FROM: Deborah Linden, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: FINAL ADOPTION OF UNRULY GATHERING ORDINANCE
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Ordinance No. 1546 (2010 Series) adding Chapter 9.13 to the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code prohibiting unruly gatherings on private property.
DISCUSSION
On April 6, 2010, the City Council received a presentation by staff proposing to add Chapter 9.13
to the San Luis Obispo Municipal. Code prohibiting unruly gatherings on private property. The
Council voted 5-0 to introduce Ordinance No. 1546 (2010 Series) adding Chapter 9.13 to the San
Luis Obispo Municipal Code, with a minor amendment to section 9.13.020E that added the
verbiage "littering on public property or private property not belonging to the host of the
gathering"to the list of unlawful conduct.
Ordinance No. 1546 (2010 Series) is now ready for adoption and will become effective thirty
days after the date of its final passage.
ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance No. 1546 (2010 Series)
T:\Council Agenda Reports\Police CAR\2010\Unruly Gathering Ordinance\Unruly Gathering Final Adoption 4-20-
10.130C
I
ATTACHMENT
ORDINANCE NO. 1546 (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 for a 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.
Ordinance No. 1546 (2010 Series) 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, vandalism, and littering on public property or private property not belonging to the host
of the gathering.
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
C,5 -3
2
Ordinance No. 1546 (2010 Series)
ATTACHMENT
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.
3
' �� ' ATTACHMEN e
Ordinance No. 1546 (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:
Stine Dietrick
City Attorney
4
72-CDD
COUNCIL ErGA&4rgA6L'AGAei+SSrcrrY„ EFL'fATTORNEYFrom: Alex Henry [SMTP:PRODRIVEO@GMAIL.COM] L�CLERWORIOSent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 9:58:25 AM � DEPTHEADSHFTo: Council, S1oCity; asipresident@asi.calpoly.edu Subject: Unruly Gathering Ordinance - f-1UTIL-DIR
Auto forwarded by a Rule „��#�OIA
� ��� � '(�LcIUC�L •
To Whom It May Concern, i�r2
I am a Cal Poly student, community member, and consumer to Sen Luis
Obispo and am outraged that the town would even consider passing this
sort of ordinance against the students and members of this community.
The students and other members of this student community, including
high schoolers who already face a curfew play an integral part to this
city's economic and tourist success. We work for local businesses, shop
at local businesses, promote local businesses, and through viral
marketing and other marketing means bring tourists to this city. If you
have not realized this, take a look at the economic data and tourist
data for the months school is in session and compare it to the summer
months when school is not in session. There is a clear divide in the
numbers and a benefit to this town from student contributions.
So I ask the city council to consider this, what benefit comes from
punishing us and coming down on us? In the business world when an
employee brings business to the company and works hard he or she is
rewarded, in our city the work of the .students is under appreciated and
taken advantage of and when the opportunity arises, the community is
quick to criticize the student body for anything.
The city council is essentially a group of managers for this town and
looking at the performance of this council in regards to the student
community it is not as effective as it could be in working with the
students. Dale Carnegie, a famous author, wrote the book "How to win
friends and influence people" which is a guide to help people become
better and more effective managers. He explains that criticizing, and
punishment is ineffective and only leads to further rebelling nature by
employees. Instead he says praise lavishly for the things done right
and reward as it leads to better relationships as well as more
effective relationships. As a city council it would seem wise to work
well with the large population of students to help make San Luis Obispo
a better community.
However, the current actions taken by the council send a different
message to the students, by passing this ordinance, it says to the
student population that you do not want to work with us, you do not
value what we bring to this city and that when you see us, you see
dollar signs that you can continue to take advantage of. The student
population is just as outraged about this as I am. And if the city
council is the managers of this "company" then the students are the
investors and employees. And with any sort of business there comes a
point when it is no longer smart to continue to operate if it is
running on a loss. This is the same for the student population, we will
only be able to continue to support San Luis Obispo for so long until
we say we need to come together and take our business and resources
elsewhere where it is appreciated.
RECEIVED RED FILE
APR 2 0 2010 MEETING AGENDA
DAT ITEM #-L�L
SLO CITY CLERK
1
In addition, another factor to consider before passing this ordinance
is what exactly does the city of San Luis Obispo offer to the students
as an alternative to partying? Most businesses close down early at
night. We have two small theaters that often lack a large variety of
movies for students to go see. There is no mall, the only open
businesses at night are bars, which is for people over the age of 21
and food services. San Luis Obispo is a small tucked away college
town/tourist town and the only option students find to relieve the
stresses of class and school is partying. Drinking is a mean to help
relax, be social, meet students in other majors and allow students to
grow and help themselves through a "learn by doing" attitude which Cal
Poly emphasizes. I know on the council there are a few members who were
in fraternities and sororities and others who went and had their own
same experiences in whatever college they attended. So I ask you to
contemplate your college career and take sometime to put yourself in
our shoes again.
I propose an alternative solution to this ordinance and that is table
it for a year and during that year it is tabled, work with the student
community, allow us to have an advisor on your council to provide our
voice. Provide the students with other outlets to relieve stress and
enjoy their weekends, for example have large concerts with current
popular artists which will entice students as well as people from other
areas which brings more business to SLO. If after that year the climate
does not change between the students and city council then bring the
ordinance back up to be instated. At that point their will be no one to
blame but the students and will help them grow and learn
responsibility. However passing this ordinance tonight will only lead
to a divide between the city of San Luis Obispo and its students which
hurts everyone.
Sincerely,
A student and community member
Sent from my BlackBerry
From: S B[SMTP:SBOISMENU@GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 1:19:13 PM RED FILE
To: Council, SloCity
Cc: RON of SLO -- MEETING AGENDA
Subject: Citizen Comment re: Council Meeting DAT`'`�`7'a' ITEM ## r 5'
Auto forwarded by a Rule
�`°
Dear Council Member,
My husband and I are homeowners and business owners in SLO. He is an attorney and I
am a Marriage & Family Therapist. We both have private practices. We are, I believe,
contributing members of our community. We live on Fixlini st above Johnson. We have
been lucky enough to live in a neighborhood that is minimally effected by student noise,
however, we have three rentals on our street and over the last year we have had to make
numerous calls because of parties, loud gatherings, and car races (to name a few). We
love our neighborhood and our neighbors, but every month or so we look at each other
and say, "Maybe we should move out of SLO."
Your recent attention to the problems that many(not all) students cause in our
neighborhoods has been greatly appreciated. For instance, your vote to increase fines for
noise violations has had an immediate impact. We just can't let this wonderful little town
lose its families and quieter residents due to the noise and safety issues. Therefore, I
humbly ask that you pass the Unruly Gathering Ordinance and the Safety Enforcement
Zone Ordinance tonight at meeting. I will be working until 8:30 and won't be able to
attend.
Thank you for your consideration.
Shelly Boismenu Hazeltine A%WD copy � �L
OUNCIL Ca'CDD DIR
'GA +rKC2 InIN DIR
Shelly Boismenu �� CHIEF
IRp
IA
805.439.0611 31CLERWORIf3 3150LICE CHF
sboismenua. mail.com -0 DEPT
EP BDS C7 REC DIR
— EMTIL DIR
DIR
ri ew -nm&5 ctu UC(L.
—C
RECEIVED
APR 2 0 2010
SLO CITY CLERK
From: Sloan Campi [SMTP:MALIBULIGHTHOUSE@GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 2:36:34 PM L
To: Council, S1oCity
Subject: Unruly Gathering Ordinance
Auto forwarded by a Rule /QST C'rT-Zl
Dear SLO City Council, A77DI2 �
Et,v-r,
In regards to the recent passing of the unruly gathering ordinance, I
would like to strongly advocate a repeal of it immediately. In an
issue of the Mustang Daily, it was cited that Mayor Romero stated he
" [doesn't] think [the ordinance] is against students. I just think it
is meant to keep peace and quiet in the area" (Mustang Daily April 21,
2010) . Council this absolutely is an attempt by the community to
target students. The reality that the members of this community face
is that they live in a defined college town. When I came to Cal Poly,
this was how San Luis Obispo was perceived by my tour guides,
professors, WOW leaders, and community members. This ordinance targets
students with an extremely excessive $700 fine for noise. Pardon me,
Council, but that is excessive, especially when considering cases that
a wedding ceremony or watching TV too loudly have been also been cited
during city council meetings as unruly gatherings. It is clear that
there are many in the community who feel that Cal Poly does no good
being here, attracting college students from all over to a world
renowned university. The members of the community have absolutely no
respect for what Cal Poly does and what it means to the students. I
say this after a community member targeted Cal Poly's Week of Welcome
as an excuse for students to party and be a nuisance to the community
before the first week of school, when the reality of WOW is so distant
from that fact that it is insulting to us as students who work so hard
to ensure that incoming classes are reassured in their choice of
higher education and to open them up to ALL the resources that both
Cal Poly and San Luis Obispo has to offer students. $700 is an absurd
amount for a fine for a noise violation, when Cal Poly students are .
already pressured by budget cuts and rising cost of tuition for higher
education. We as students should have the right to enjoy our time at
Cal Poly and in San Luis Obispo without having such nonsense
threatening to take some of liberties away from us. Rather than using
this ordinance as a political veneer to make the community happy, I
urge you to take the side of half the population of San Luis Obispo
that is College Students, realize that it is a college town that the
community members live in, repeal this ungrateful ordinance, and
recognize (in the words of our ASI President Kelly Griggs) Cal Poly is
not going anywhere, despite how much members of the community want it
to.
If any sort of compromise can be made as well, I would like to suggest
a separate student community to be developed close to Cal Poly,
similar to the community of Isla Vista for UCSB. The area around Cal
Poly and Foothill is in desperate need of revitalization anyway, so
why not put your planners to work and design something FOR the
students rather than AGAINST us.
Sincerely,
Sloan Campi
Cal Poly Student
ii
City and Regional Planning major
From: John Clawson[SMTP:JBVIBRATIONS@GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 3:10:03 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Upset About Unruly Gathering Ordinance
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Hi, I am a Cal Poly student currently living in Poly Canyon Village and hoping to move
off-campus in the near future. I am sincerely looking forward to finding a place to live
within the friendly community of San Luis Obispo.
Your 4:1 approval of the unruly gathering noise ordinance, and the passing of other
recent ordinances, have slowly been spoiling my excitement of living off-campus and
contributing to the community. I continually get the feeling that you,the city council, are
supporting laws that are directly targeting Cal Poly students and our college lives. Like it
our not, Slo is a college community, and in being so, the city needs to be
more accommodating to that fact. Sometimes I wish that our college was more politically
oriented, but because we are made up of engineers and science majors, we tend not to
protest and tell you what we want. Even so, I don't appreciate the city council taking
advantage of that fact.
Thank you for your time. Have a good day, and remember that you're representing the
ENTIRE city of San Luis Obispo. Thank you.
John Clawson