Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-19-2015 SS1 WhiteCOUNCIL MEETING: OS' l q - 20/5 ITEM NO.: -5,51 Lomeli, Monique Subject: FW: Civility Report MAY 19 2015 y 0 da. ' n `+ From: Linda White [rnailto: I indaleewh itel 5@g mail. com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 7:29 PM To: Jan Marx; Carpenter, Dan; Rivoire, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Ashbaugh, John; Mejia, Anthony Subject: Civility Report Linda White San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 ( May 18, 2015 I delayed my trip to Lake Tahoe in order to be present at the May 19, City Council meeting at which the long awaited, much touted Civility Report would be revealed to all. I am writing this letter because I am afraid of what I would say if I opened my mouth at the City Council meeting. I will bring an artificial campfire if you will provide Kumbaya background music as this "report" is presented. At the St. Fraty's Day Apology City Council Meeting, the City Manager stated three times in her response that when this Civility Report is presented we would see TANGIBLE solutions. During the presentation, please point out these tangible solutions because I have missed them in reading the 56 page report. At the May 5, City Council Meeting at least four community members asked that the Unruly Gathering Ordinance be placed on the agenda. Before the Mayor could even get the request out of her mouth, the City Manager was explaining that a police presence would not be needed at this meeting as the Civility Report would answer all. We all now know why the police presence would not be needed since the Police Chief was soon to be fired. Where in this Civility document is the answer to the Unruly Gathering lack of enforcement? Page 5 Objective One Recommendations third ❑ : ❑ Explore the option of creating a noise ordinance in public spaces on streets and sidewalks for gatherings of more than 50 people by issuing citations or other alternatives options. How does this strengthen or ENFORCE the Unruly Gathering Ordinance already on the books? Why is it now 50 people rather than the present 20 people? This appears to be a weakening rather than strengthening. What difference does it make if the Unruly Gathering is in the house disturbing neighbors or in the back yard disturbing neighbors or on the sidewalk or street disturbing neighbors? Isn't there already a law against partying in the street or do we need another ordinance for stupid behavior? You don't enforce the drunk in public when the students play beer pong in their front yards. You don't enforce drunk in public when students stagger on the streets. Why should we believe that you will enforce something new? Lack of enforcement of existing ordinances is the problem. If you would just police and treat drunken, stumbling, vomiting, urinating, defecating, noisy, rich, white kids as you treat the drunken, stumbling, vomiting, urinating, defecating, poor, homeless who detract from our "Happiest" downtown, the neighborhoods could again be happy. The majority of our problems are because CP has increased enrollment over the past 20 years without adequately and responsibly increasing on- campus housing. President Armstrong may not want to look back but it is time that he realized that past inaction has made the present City situation untenable. We can't wait 20 years to house 65% of the students on campus. It is time for the City of San Luis Obispo to grow a backbone and stop subsidizing the University. If we had a strong City government that would demand cooperation as did the City of Santa Cruz 20 years ago, we would not be listening to yet another feel good presentation. It took 22 individuals 19 months to come up with 56 pages of smoke and mirrors. I would be embarrassed presenting this fluff piece. Where have you been for the past 10 years that neighborhoods have been complaining? We could have come up with one page of "Desired Outcomes" and "Implementations" in 19 minutes. Why do we have 10 ordinances on the books but not enforced? How are you going to get students to register parties and kegs? Why would they register any more diligently than the Fraternities? How successful has Frat registration been? Stats need to be provided, not hopes and wishes, visions and goals. Where is the substance to this report? I want answers to the following questions: 1. What makes you think that this ephemeral document will enhance the quality of life for all residents? 2. Will off - campus living students be required to register their local, off - campus address? If not, how will any student be held accountable for off - campus behaviors? 3. Why "explore the option of creating a noise ordinance when we already have one that is not enforced? 4. Why "evaluate policies so that new development or redevelopment does not unduly impact neighborhoods "? Isn't that what our Community Guidelines Chapter 5 is supposed to be doing already? Why doesn't the CDD follow its own guidelines rather than assisting developers in making outrageous profits to neighborhood detriment by repeatedly approving mini -dorms masquerading as single family homes? 5. How much is CP contributing monetarily to the reduction in noise disruptions? 6. How much is CP contributing monetarily to the enforcement of the new Rental Housing Inspection Ordinance? 7. How much is CP contributing to the enforcement of the already -on- the - books - ordinance regulating trash can removal from streets. Have we given up on having students put cans behind screens? Is that too much to ask of these hard - working best of the best? 8. What is CP doing to reduce traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood? They think that they have "re- cultured" their students to ride public transportation and bikes because students don't use their parking structures. CP Administrators need to walk off campus and see all of their students parked on our City Streets and Retail Parking lots and biking or busing onto campus. 9. Will CP be financing more Neighborhoods Services Officers to enforce the 10 ordinances already on the books? 10. Will CP require all students to register their off - campus addresses to insure that student housing is safe and up to code with the new Rental Housing Ordinance? 11. Who is paying for the "Welcome" badges to be distributed by the residents to students? This better not be part of the "matching grants" ordinance that is being considered or perhaps already passed. 12. Why does anyone need a "Preferred Renter Certificate "? Has anyone looked at recent outrageous rental ads? All the student needs is 6 or more friends with money to be the "or best offer" winner in the rental auction. 13. What student wants a "Door Decal" or "Golden Arrow "? If anyone attended or listened to the St. Fratty's Day forum on campus, you would realize that students have not bought into their temporary housing community and care only about their own immediate satisfaction. "It was the fault of the University for placing Frats on probation ". "We study hard and need to blow off steam on the weekends and party ". "Sorority sisters like to dress up ". Put all of these students on campus and allow them to Party Hardy, Party Royal, Blow off steam, etc. but not next door to me. 14. Student Affairs Awards. Why is it that a house with no complaints is deserving of an award? This should be the rule. You have already admitted that you can't control or expect normal behavior. 15.Why would any student register a Party? Remember these are the Best of the Best. They are not stupid. They don't want you checking up on their Unruly Gathering or underage drinking? The unregistered Satellites have much more freedom and less oversight than the registered house. 16. Who is paying for these "Dialog Dinners "? Again it better not be City Matching Grant Funds. Monterey Heights Neighbors have started monthly potlucks and this is not cheap nor is it easy. 17. "Neighborhood Helping Hands" is a great idea but I have tried for over one year to find a student to care for our fruit trees for pay and get no response even after posting on the Horticulture and Crop Science Job Listing. 18. Utilize various on- campus departments and offices that support off - campus living to carry out five bullet points and five sub points. If this has not been done prior to this report this is just malpractice on the part of the administration. If it has been implemented what are the tangible, measurable, substantive results? 19. Review Enforcement best practices. This is another no- brainer. If this hasn't been done this is again a case of malpractice. If this is part of the reason that Chief Gesell was fired, why was lack of enforcement allowed to go on so long amid continued neighborhood complaints? We don't need quotas, we just want enforcement. 20. What are the results of several years of CP and City engagement in numerous programs to address quality of life? (Pg. 18) Is this report an example? 21. CP hired two additional police officers to expand proactive patrols within the neighborhoods directly adjacent to the campus. What are the tangible, measurable, substantive results, - -- statistics. How much time is spent in the neighborhoods? When they have no other on- campus needs? On a regular schedule? From 10 PM to 3AM Thursday- Saturday ? ?? Are their expectations the same as the police? Less or more stringent? 22. How often do City Fire /Paramedics respond to CP incidences? What is the average cost of these responses? What is the City paid for these services? Is this adequate or are City taxpayers subsidizing the University? 23. Same Questions for Police assistance. 24. Same Questions for water treatment. 25. Same Question for sewage treatment. 26. In dollars, how much is the City taxpayer subsidizing the University? 27. Conduct an internal assessment of the SLO Police staffing to prepare for growth within the city and on the CP campus to ensure staffing needs match the population. (Pg.21). Has anyone noticed that the only growth in the City of SLO is students? Is CP prepared to finally take responsibility and pay the cost of services that are provided? 28. Also on Pg. 21 ❑ Explore the possibility of CP police being able to issue City Municipal Administrative Citations. How long does it take to "explore "? 29. I must be tired because Objective Five (Pg. 23) makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Nothing of substance has been brought forward for the "stakeholders" to review. I am still not sure if I will attend the CC meeting tomorrow night. This is a very flimsy report and I don't think that I can take an evening of self - congratulatory, back - slapping for "job -well- done ". Disappointingly yours, Linda White