HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-2015 SS1 RowleyGoodwin, Heather
From: Grimes, Maeve
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 8:08 AM
To: Goodwin, Heather
Subject: FW: Item SS1, Neighborhood Wellness Update
Attachments: SS1 - Neighborhood Wellness Update.doc
Heather, please distribute as Agenda Correspondence for S51,
Thank you,
maeve kenne6y gnime.s
City Clerk
city of sin Luis OBISPO
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
phone.: (805) 781 -7102
emaiL: mgrrimes@slocfty.or
From: Sandra Rowley [mailto:macsar99 @yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:14 AM
To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan
Cc: Lichtig, Katie; Grimes, Maeve
Subject: Item SS1, Neighborhood Wellness Update
Attached is RQN's letter regarding SS1, Neighborhood Wellness Update.
RECEIVED
MAY 2 0 2013
rilt0 (;ITY CLERK
AGENDA
CORRESPZleem NDENCE
Date 11 jo
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
P.O. Box 12604 . San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
May 20, 2013
RE: Item SS1, Neighborhood Wellness Update
Dear Mayor Marx and Members of the Council,
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods appreciates the dedication, time and energy that have been
applied to improving the overall quality of life in our residential neighborhoods. We thank each
City staff member who has contributed to the effort, singly and as a team, to bring us to where we
are today. Although we are not "there" yet, and some tweaking may be necessary, many RQN
members can see improvements where none existed before.
There are many positive aspects to the past year's code enforcement activities: a. Replacing SNAP
with Neighborhood Services Specialists has resulted in significantly more improvements in
property maintenance, to include properties belonging to out -of -town owners; b. The
adjudication of identified safety violations by Code Enforcement Officers has added a new
dimension to code enforcement's abilities; c. The addition of a weekend Parking Officer
dedicated to residential neighborhoods has provided a much needed presence, especially in
impacted neighborhoods where vehicles park wherever they can fit, regardless of propriety.
Overall, proactive code enforcement has proven beneficial. Prior to the implementation of
proactive enforcement, all enforcement was complaint- driven; in many instances this pitted
neighbor against neighbor as neighbor #1 tried to determine who had turned him in. With
proactive enforcement one's neighbors are not to blame. Although Board members have heard
some complaints regarding proactive enforcement, we have, also, heard that it relieves tensions
between neighbors. We think problems associated with proactive enforcement can be resolved,
and this method of enforcement should be retained.
In the last few years the Police Department has brought forward new ordinances and changes to
existing ordinances in order to improve their ability to respond to and curtail the abundance of
noise violations and improve neighborhood quality of life. On March 5, 2010 (about three months
before the end of the school year), fines for noise violations were more than tripled and landlord
citations were added. On May 20, 2010, the Unruly Gathering Ordinance was adopted to address
large parties that affected a substantial part of a neighborhood; fines were higher than for noise
violations and landlords were, again, subject to fines. The Safety Enhancement Zone, adopted for
Mardi Gras, was expanded to include other holidays and, hopefully, will be further expanded to
include Cal Poly's move -in and first weeks of school.
Noise complaints began to decrease in mid -2010, with noticeable decreases in 2011 (the first full
year of higher fines) and 2012. See chart on page SS1 -8. Also, in 2012 the citation rate increasec
to 14 %, four percentage points higher than the previous year and twice the citation rate of 2009.
RQN letter, Page 2
It seems that our fines are now high enough to make an impact and many landlords are engaged.
Therefore, it is our belief that in order to continue the decrease in noise complaints we must
increase the citation rate, i.e., if the pool of people receiving fines were larger, the number of
noise complaints would be smaller. Additionally, per Jeffrey Armstrong's letter of May 8, 2013, Re:
Neighborhood Wellness Initiative, in "implementing more proactive procedures to respond to off -
campus violations" Cal Poly is "particularly focused on responding to incidents where students
have been formally charged with violations." We understand this to mean 'no citation, no
intervention by Cal Poly.'
Unfortunately, this update on Neighborhood Wellness did not include a discussion of the items
listed in our RQN letter of January 6, 2013, that fall under Public Works. Some of these items
were, also, listed within the Measure Y ballot initiative. They include such things as repair of
potholes and sidewalks in residential neighborhoods on an as- needed basis, cleaning and
maintenance of culverts in residential neighborhoods, and a solution that would allow street
sweepers access to the gutters in those residential neighborhoods heavily impacted by on- street
parking.
We were disappointed that none of these items were addressed during the budget review, but at
the time we thought they were probably being covered with in -house resources. However, it now
appears that they were not mentioned because a plan to address them in the 2013 -15 budget
cycle is not currently in existence. Since Neighborhood Wellness was the #2 Major City Goal, this
seems to be an oversight.
Thank you for your time and attention and the opportunity to provide our comments.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley
Chairperson