Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12/15/2003
B A K E R S F I E L D Sue Benham, Chair David Couch Jacquie Sullivan Staff: Trudy Slater REGULAR MEETING NOTICE LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMI'I-rEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, December 15, 2003 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor - City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT NOVEMBER 17, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. REVIEW, DISCUSSION AND COMMH'rEE RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO UNDERAGE DRINKING "KEG PARTIES" B. REVIEW, DISCUSSION AND COMMII'rEE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE EXCESSIVE VEHICLE NOISE ORDINANCE 5. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW, DISCUSSION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO CITY'S SPECIAL EVENT NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES B. · REVIEW, DISCUSSION AND COMMII'rEE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MOTOR HOMES PARKED ON PUBLIC STREETS C. REVIEW, DISCUSSION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR FOR 2004 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT DRAFT B A K E R S F I E L D Alan Tandy, City 1(4'anager Sue Benham, Chair Staff: Trudy Slater David Couch .. Jacquie Sullivan ..AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Regular Meeting Monday, November 17, 2003 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Called to order at 1:05 p.m. Members present: Councilmember Sue Benham, Chair Councilmember David Couch Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan 2, ADOPT OCTOBER 20, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None. 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS None. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW, DISCUSSION AND. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO UNDERAGE DRINKING "KEG PARTIES" City Attorney Ginny Gennaro identified that generally one incident of a keg party is not considered to be at the level of a nuisance. If drugs are involved, the City Attorney's Office can be involved. It has not been the City's practice to go after the host of such parties. Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee November 17, 2003 ' ' Page 2 Police Captain Bryan Lynn explained the Municipal Code allows the City to use cost recovery practice on DUI's and traffic accidents involving DUI's. It allows for cost recovery on the second police response to loud parties but it has never been utilized. Captain Lynn indicated that most hosts for these parties were not parents but someone else, an older friend or sibling, generally between the age of 18 and 21. Mr. William Solko indicated his biggest issue was concern over the kids, who were sent to their cars and sent on their way. He was concerned for their safety while driving under the influence of alcohol. He also mentioned this was a liability issue for the City. He wondered how things could be done differently and suggested grant funding which he had found. He 'also sUggested using a bus or holding facility where the kids could be held for their parents to pick them up. City Attorney Gennaro indiCated that if a Police Officer knows a person is underage and drinking and sends them to the car, then there is a liability issue. Captain Lynn indicated there are protocols which are followed on incident responses, including attempts to mediate, admonish and warn as first steps. Captain Lynn indicated that most calls are for a "come on over/bring your own" parties rather than "keg" parties. The "Life Interrupted" program is one proactive prevention program they use to discourage underage drinking. Committee Chair Benham indicated she would like staff to explore grant possibilities to bring in more resources. She is more interested in the kids rather than the host. She asked staff to "flesh out" issues connected with sobriety check points and probable cause. Committee Member David COuch suggested looking at the cost recovery issues. The City Attorney was asked to see if there was a line item in the cost recovery system or if the City's ordinance would need to be changed. Staff was directed to bring the issue back at the next meeting. 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS .. None. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 1:40 p.m. Staff Attendees: City Manager Alan Tandy, Administrative Analyst Trudy Slater; City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Police. Captain Bryan Lynn. Other Attendees: William Solko; television photographer BAKERSFIELD POLICE December 8, 2003 To: Sue Benham, Council Member, Ward 2 Chair- Legislative and Litigation Committee From: Bryan Lynn, Police Captain Subject: Police Response to Underage Drinking/Loud Parties In response to the issues and questions raised at the November 17, 2003 Legislation and Litigation Committee meeting, I have researched the following topics: availability of grant funding to address underage drinking (including drinking and driving), the feasibility/efficiency of using sobriety check points to address juvenile drinking/DUi, and the potential for the recovery of police costs associated with response to parties. Several federal agencies that provide grant funding to law enforcement identify underage drinking as a priority issue. These agencies include the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Both have grant-funded programs currently operating that address this issue, but at present, neither is offering opportunities for future funding. The Police Department has been the recent recipient of grant funds from DOJ and in the past has received grant funds from OJJDP. While I could not locate a state or private agency currently offering grant funding opportunities, we will continue in our efforts to locate such a grant. Using sobriety checkpoints to specifically address underage drinking or DUI is not the most efficient strategy. Targeting and saturating areas where there is a high concentration of juveniles with a directed DUI enforcement plan has proven to be successful. If an emphasis is placed on weekends, school vacations, around prom time, and in juvenile "hang out" areas, success rates will be even higher. This saturation patrol, combined with an aggressive education and media campaign, has been proven as an effective way to reduce underage drinking. As mentioned at the November committee meeting, the Police Department's "A Life Interrupted" program is directed at high school students 'and poignantly shows them the consequences of underage drinking and driving. It has been extremely well received and since the program has started (Summer 2002) there have been no local juvenile traffic deaths where alcohol has been a factor. The program was presented to a class at Highland High Scholl shortly after the last committee meeting and we invited Mr. Solko, the gentleman who spoke at the last committee meeting, to attend. As you are aware, the Municipal Code authorizes the city to pursue the collection of actual police personnel costs associated with a second police response to loud parties (M.C. 9.22.060 & 2003 Master Fee Schedule). This recovery action has never been practiced. The city of Chico has established a procedure in their code where they provide written warning on a first response to a loud party. If there is a second response within twelve hours, the person who was issued the written warning is held financially responsible for the costs associated with a second police response. (See attachment) If the police department responds to a party where alcohol is being served and minors are present, our goal is to take full enforcement action on the alcohol provider/host of the party. A concern expressed by Mr. Solko was that officers are allowing intoxicated juveniles to drive away from parties. As stated, most of the time it is simply impossible and impractical to detain all juveniles who may be intoxicated who are leaving a party. Our typical response to these parties is with two officers and these parties usually have dozens of attendees. The Police Department has and will take enforcement action if we see an obviously intoxicated juvenile getting behind the wheel of a vehicle. The Police Department will continue to pursue grant funding that targets underage drinking and as staffing levels allow, target juvenile "hang out" areas for underage drinking and DUI's. Chico Municipal Code ASSESSMENT OF SECOND RESPONSE COSTS DMSION X. ENFORCEMENT Chapter 9.70 ASSESSMENT OF SECOND RESPONSE COSTS Section: 9.70.010 Purpose. 9.70.020 Findings. 9.70.030 Loud or unruly events defined. 9.70.040 Persons responsible for a loud or unruly event. 9.70.050 Civil liability for the costs of a second response to a loud or unruly event. 9.70.060 Amount of second response costs. 9.70.070 Warning issued at time of initial response. 9.70.080 Assessment of second response fee. 9.70.090 Notice of assessment of second response fee. 9.70.100 Payment of second response fee. 9.70.110 Administrative review of determination to assess second response fee. 9.70.120 Appeal of decision following administrative review of second response fee. 9.70.010 Purpose. This chapter is adopted pursuant to the municipal affairs provisions of the City Charter in order to provide a means for recovering the costs incurred by the city for the city police and fire department personnel participating in a second response to a loud or unruly event fi~m the person or persons responsible for such event. (Ord. 2086) 9.70.020 Findings. The city council finds as follows: A. That personnel from the city police and fire departments spend a significant amount of their time responding to loud and unruly events as defined in this chapter, B. That fi~luenfly, police and fire department personnel are required to respond a second time to the same loud or unruly event after warning the person or persons responsible for such event that the event is being conducted in an unlawful manner and must be tema. imted by reason of the fact that such person or persons fail to take the steps necessary to terminate such unlawful con~ and C. That it would be appropriate to recover from the person or persons responsible for a loud or unruly event the costs incuned by the city for the police and fire department personnel participating in a second response to such event in those situations in which such person or 9.70-1 (7/1/03) Chico Municipal Code ASSESSMENT OF SECOND RESPONSE COSTS persom were duly warned that a second response fee would be assessed against them at the time of the initial response to the event. (Ord. 2086) . 9.70.030 Loud or unruly events defined. For purposes of this chapter, the terms loud event and unruly event are defined as follows: A. A loud event shall mean an event or incident which results in any loud or unusual noise which disturbs the peace and quiet of a neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivity residing in the neighborhood and is, therefore, unlawfi~ in accordance with the provisions of chapter 9.38 of this code. B. An unruly event is any event or incident which flweatem the public health, safety or welfare and is unlawfixl under the provisions of this code or the laws of the State of California. (Ord. 2086) 9.70.040 Person responsible for a loud or unruly event. For purposes of this chapter, a person shall be considered to be responsible for a loud or unruly event if.' A. Such person is entitled to possession of any private property on which the event occurs, either by reason of the fact that such person is an owner entitled to possession of such property or by reason of the fact that such person is a lessee or tenant entitled to possession of the property; B. Such person is entitled to the use of any public property on which the event occurs by reason of any permit or entitlement issued to such person by the city or any other governmental agency owning or otherwise controlling the property; or C. Such person accepts responsibility for the event. (Ord. 2086) 9.70.050 Civil liability for the costs of a second response to a loud or unruly event. Any person responsible for a loud or unruly event shall be civilly liable to the city for all costs incurred by the city arising out of a second response which is made by the city police or fire department to such event where: A. The city police or fire department initially responded to the event during the preceding 12 hour period; B. At the time of making such initial response, personnel from the city police or fire department warned such pemon, in writing, that the event was being conducted in an unlawfifl manner, and that if police or fire department personnel were required to respond a second time to the event, such person would be assessed a second response fee as and for the city's second response costs in the amount provided for by this chapter, and C. Following such initial response, the city police or fire department were required to respond a second time to the event by reason ofthe fact that the event continued to be conducted in an unlawfifl manner, notwithstanding such written warning. (Ord. 2086) 9.70.060 Amount of second response costs. The amount of the costs incurred by the city as a result of a second response to a loud or unruly event shall be determined by the chief of police based on the number ofpolice and fire 9.70-2 (7/1/03) Chico Municipal Code ASSESSMENT OF SECOND RESPONSE COSTS department personnel participating in the second response, the time spent in making such response, and a schedule of police and fire department personnel costs adopted by resolution of the city council (Ord. 2086) 9.70.070' Warning issued at time of initial response. Where personnel fxom the city police or fire department responding to a loud or unruly event determine that the unlawful conduct occurring at such event can be terminated or otherwise appropriately addressed without arresting or citing the person or persons responsible for the event, such police or fire department personnel may issue a warning to any person responsible for the event in lieu or arresting or issuing a citation to such person as a result of the event. Such warning shall set forth the date and lime of the initial response, a brief description of the unlawful activity complained of and/or observed at event, the address of the property on which the event occurred, and a statement that if city police or fire department personnel are required to respond a second time to the same or a similar event within a 12 hour period by reason of the fact that the event continues to be conducted in an unlawful manner, such person will be assessed a second response fee as and for the city's second response costs in the amount provided for by this chapter, which fee shall be in addition to any criminal fine or other sanction arising out of any arrest of such person or the issuance of a citation to such person as a result of such second response. Any person issued a written warning in the manner provided for by this section shall sign the warning acknowledging receipt thereof. (Ord. 2086) 9.70.080 Assessment of second response fee. Where the chief of police determines that a second response has been made to a loud or unruly event within a 12 hour period following the initial response to such event, the chief of police shall assess a second response fee against any person or persons responsible for the event who was issued a written wanting at the time of the initial response to the event in the manner provided by this chapter. Such fee shall be in an amount equal to the costs incurred by the city for all of the police and/or fire department personnel participating in the second response, as detenmed by the chief of police in the manner provided by this chapter, or the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000), whichever is less. Where two or more persons are assessed a second response fee for the same loud or unruly event, all such persons shall be jointly and severally liable to the city for the full amount of such fee. (Ord. 2086) 9.70.090 Notice of assessment of second response fee. Upon determining to assess a second response fee against a person responsible for a loud or unruly event, the chief of police shall cause notice of the assessment to be served on such person by depositing such notice in, first class postage prepaid, in the United States mail addressed to the person at the person's last known address. In addition to setting forth the amount of the second response fee, such notice shall set forth the right of the person so assessed to request administrative review of such assessment in the manner herehnal~er provided by this chapter. (Ord. 2086, Ord. 2286) 9.70-3 (7/1/03) Chico Municipal Code ASSESSMENT OF SECOND RESPONSE COSTS 9.70.100 Payment of second response fee. Every second response fee assessed upon a person responsible for a loud or unruly event in the manner provided by this chapter shall be due and payable on or before the last day of the month immediately following the month in which notice of the assessment of the fee was mailed to such person. In the event of the failure of a person assessed a second response fee to pay such fee when due, a delinquency penal~ of ten percent shall be added to the fee on the last day of each month affer the due date thereof; provided, however, that the total amount of such penalties shall not exceed fifty percent of the fee. In addition, in the event of the failure of a person assessed a second response fee to pay such fee when due, such person shall be assessed interest on the amount of the delinquent fee, exclusive of any penalties thereon, at the rate of one percent per month, or any fraction thereof, from the date the fee first became delinquent until the date the fee is paid. (Ord. 2086) 9.70.110 Administrative review of determination to assess second response fee. A. Right to Admires' tmfive Review. Any person assessed a second response fee in the manner provided by this chapter may apply to the chief of police for administrative review of the determination by the chief of police to assess such fee and/or the determination of the chief of police as to the amount of the fee. B. Application for Administrative Review. Application for administrative review ora determination of the chief of police to assess a second response fee or a determination of the chief of police as to the amount of the such fee shall be in writing and shall be filed with the Police department by the person against whom the fee was assessed no later than 15 days from the date the notice of assessment of the fee was mailed to such person. In addition to setting forth the request for administrative review of such determination, such application shall contain a brief statement of the reasons why the person against whom the fee was assessed believes that the determination does not comply with the provisions of this chapter as well as a statement of the relief being requested. C. Decision on Application for Administrative Review. Upon the filing of an application for administrative review of the determination of the chief of police to assess a second response fee or a determination as to the amount of such fee, the chief of police shall consider the application and render a decision either confirming such determination or reversing or modifying the determination. Prior to rendering a decision, the chief of police, with sole discretion, may convene a hearing for the purpose of reviewing evidence or hearing arguments beating on the determination. If such a hearing is convened, notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing shall be served by mail on the person having requested administrative review of the determination a reasonable time prior to such heating. Atter rendering a decision, the chief of police shall promptly cause written notice of the decision to be served by mail on the person having requested administrative review of the detetmmfion. D. Payment of a Second Response Fee Following Admires' tmtive Review. Where the chief of police renders a decision to affirm a determination to assess a second response fee and/or to affirm a detemaination as to the amount of the fee so assessed, either in whole or in part, following the filing of an application for administrative review of such determination, such fee or such part thereof found by the chief of police to have been validly assessed shall not 9.704 (7/1/03) Chico Municipal Code ASSESSMENT OF SECOND RESPONSE COSTS be due and payable until the last day of the month immedimely following the month in which notice of such decision was mailed to the person against whom the fee was assessed. (Ord. 2086, Ord. 2286) 9.70.120 Appeal of decision following administrative review of second response fee. Where the chief of police renders a decision affirming a determination to assess a second response fee in whole or in part afkn' administratively reviewing the determination in the manner provided by this chapter, the person against whom the fee was assessed and who requested administrative review of such determination may appeal the decision to the city council. Such appeal shall be filed within the time and in the manner provided by Chapter 2.80 of this code; provided, however, that no person shall be entitled to appeal such decision unless and until such person has deposited with the city clerk an amount equal to 50% of the amount of the fee in dispute. In the event the city council, alter considering an appeal fi'om a detennimfion of the chief of police to assess a second response fee, determines that the fee was improperly assessed or that. the amount of the fee exceeds that which should have been assessed, the city clerk shall cause any portion of the fee deposited with the city clerk found by the city council to be improperly assessed to be refunded to the person filing the appeal. (Ord. 2086) 9.70-5 (7/1/03) Center for Problem-Oriented Policing Page 1 of 3 Problems POP_Center: Prob!~ms: L~ud..Car~ Stereos Loud Car Stereos ;~ ~c',~ Nextp~, Michael S. Scot'!_ ;~ .... ~t~,~t~!i.' ",i;';;~' .:~ [-~ The Problem of Loud The Problem of Loud Car Stereos Car Stereos Understanding Your This guide addresses the problem of loud car stereos, one of the most common sources of Local Problem noise complaints in many jurisdictions., The guide begins by describing the problem and ~ Responses to the reviewing factors that cont~bute to it. It then identifies a series of questions that might Problem of Loud Car assist you in analyzing your local problem. Final]y, it reviews responses to the problem Stereos and what is tmow~ about these from evaluative research and po]ice practice. Throughout ~ Summary of Responses this guide, the term loud car stereos is used as a shorthand way of saying cat stereos that ate played loudly. The problem is attributable mainly to the use of special stereo equipment capable of producing extremely loud sound, rather than factory-instal]ed stereo equipment, f~; i * Sound, noise and annoyance are not the same thing. Sound is merely a physical ~ i property entailing sound waves. Noise is unwanted sound. Annoyance is the negative Additional Resources · feeling one gets from being exposed to noise. Sound can be measured in terms of its ~ pressure, frequency, variation, character, and quality. Annoyance is a subjective ~ i measure. Endnotes ~ References Most jurisdictions have some form of noise law that regulates loud car stereos. Police are ~ . concerned about loud car stereos for two main reasons: 1) they annoy some people, and ~ ........................... ~) 2) they inhibit drivers' ability to hear emergency signals on the road. This guide focuses on ~ Printer-friendly format' the annoyance aspect of loud car stereos, rather than the safety aspect, because there is not much published research and practice related to the latter.** ~ tt Police in Prince William County, Va., demonstrated through controlled tests that loud car stereos impair drivers' ability to : hear emergency vehicle sirens, and concluded this is a serious aspect of the problem (Smith 2000). Loud car stereos can also make another noise problem worse: they can activate some car alarms. In some jurisdictions, drug dealers advertise by cruising neighborhoods with the car stereo turned up loud. In most jurisdictions, the problem of loud ear stereos falls to the police to address, primarily because enforcement carries the risk of violent confrontation.*** ttt At least in the United States, noise control has become almost exclusively a matter for local authorities since the federal government drastically cut back funding for noise control in the early 1980s (Sickler-Hart 1997; Lief 1994; Schultz 1999; Sedgwick 1991). The problem of loud ear stereos is more widespread than a simple tally of complaints would reveal. Perhaps only 5 to :to percent of people bothered by any type of noise will file an official complaint, because other factors influence people, x Many citizens are not aware of their legal right to quiet and do not know where they can register a complaint. Consequently, the volume of official complaints about loud car stereos might indicate the existence of a problem, but not necessarily how intense or widespread it is. Factors Contributing to the Problem of Loud Car Stereos Understanding the factors that contribute to your problem will help you frame your own local analysis questions, determine good effectiveness measures, recognize key intervention points, and select appropriate responses. Highly amplified car stereos emit a lot of low-frequency sounds through the systems' woofer speakers. Low-frequency noise is usually found to be more http ://www.popcenter.org/Problems/problem. car. stereos.htm 12/11/2003 .~ C~nter for Problem-Oriented Policing Page 2 of 3 annoying than highfrequency noise at similar volume. 2 The vibrations mused by the low-frequency sound waves mn often be felt in addition to being heard. They cause glass and ceramics to rattle, compounding the annoyance.a Playing mr stereos loudly can be an act of social defiance by some, or merely inconsiderate behavior by others. For yet others, it is a passionate hobby, an important part of their cultural identity and lifestyle. Judging by the sales marketing of mr stereo manufacturers and dealers, the interest in car stereo competitions* and the sums of money spent on mr stereos, police are confronting a popular and lucrative phenomenon. It is not easy to change the behavior of those who see loud mr stereos as an important part of their lifestyle. t In car stereo competitions, usually sponsored by car stereo Boom car's trunk speakers manufacturers or distributors, participants receive prizes for the loudest car stereos. Overexposure to noise is now understood to have a number of negative health and behavioral effects.4 Loud car stereos most obviously affect the mr occupants' hearing. Noise from a variety of sources, including loud mr stereos, mn muse hearing loss, disturb sleep, increase stress, make people irritable, and make naturally aggressive people more aggressive. It mn make people less likely to help others, and less likely to sit outdoors or participate in social activities. It mn compel people to move out of neighborhoods they otherwise like, and thereby depress property values. Some people, such as schoolchildren, hospital patients and the mentally ill, are especially harmed by exposure to loud noise (although'loud car stereos may not be a major noise source for these subpopulations).s How annoyed people get about noise depends on a number of factors,6 including the following: ° The inherent unpleasantness of the sound. This varies widely among . individuals and groups. What is music to one is noise to another. · The persistence and recurrence of the noise. Most listeners mn tolerate oemsional loud noises more than persistent and recurrent loud noises. · The meaning listeners attribute to the sound. The information content of the noise influences annoyance, so if listeners do not like the message of the music being played, they are more likely to be annoyed by loud mr stereos. Some people perceive loud car stereos to be an expression of rudeness and selfishness, or even a form of aggression-a blatant defiance of social etiquette and norms. If listeners associate loud mr stereos with people they think are dangerous, the noise problem seems even more serious. · Whether the sound interferes with listeners' activities. For example, loud mr stereos are more likely to annoy people during nighttime hours than during daytime hours bemuse they disrupt sleep. ·Whether listeners feel they mn control the noise. The less control one feels, the more likely the noise will be annoying.7 · Whether listeners believe third parties, including police, mn control the noise. If people believe a third party mn control the noise but has failed to do Act of defiance SO, they are more likely to be annoyed by the noise. Applying these factors to loud car stereos, you mn see how the same sound can affect people quite differently: some will enjoy it,* while others will hate it. ~- Extremely loud music may actually increase adrenaline in some listeners or cause fluids in the ear to shift, either of which can create a pleasurable dizziness and euphoric feeling (Sedgwick 1991; Cooke and McCampbell 1992). Obviously, complainants experience no such pleasure. People respond to noise in various ways. Some people complain to authorities, some take steps to insulate themselves, some adapt to the noise, and some move away from the noise. Those who complain greatly appreciate effective responses from authorities; no response or ineffective responses are often harshly criticized.8 http ://www.popcenter.org/Problems/problem-car- stereos.htm 12/11/2003 C~nter for Problem-Oriented Policing Page 3 of 3 Related Problems Police are also ~requenfly called upon to address other sources of noise, each calling for its ow~ analysis mad responses. Among the related problems not covered in this guide are: · barking dogs; · loud vehicle mufflers; ° loud parties and loud stereos in residences; · loud "boom boxes" (portable radios and tape players); · loud music in bars and nightclubs; ° audible alarms from buildings and vehicles; ° loud power equipment (e.g., construction equipment, leaf blowers, lawn mowers) being operated at unreasonable hours (early morning, late night); and ° loud vehicles involved in street cruising and street racing. The traffic safety concerns created by playing ear stereos loudly are similar to those associated with other forms of inattentive driving, including the use of cellular phones while driving. Home [ Problems ] Responses [ Tools I Libra~' [ About POP Center [ Learning Center Privacy Policy [ Copyright © 2oo3 Center for Problem Oriented Policing http://www.popcenter.org/Problems/problem.car, stereos.htm 12/11/2003 ,~ C~nter for Problem-Oriented Policing Page 1 of 3 pOP Center: problems: LOud CaF Stereos: Page 2 Understanding Your Local Problem The information provided above is only a generalized description of loud car stereos. You must combine the basic facts with a more specific understanding of your local problem. ~ The Problem of Loud Analyzing the local problem carefully will help you design a more effective response ~ Car Stereos strategy. ['~ Understanding Your ·Local Problem Asking the Right Questions ~ Responses to the Problem of Loud Car Stereos The following are some critical questions you should ask in analyzing your particular ~ Summary of Responses problem of loud car stereos, even if the answers are not always readily available. Your answers to these and other questions will help you choose the most appropriate set of responses later on. Community surveys or meetings will likely be necessary to answer many of these questions because many complaints are not officially registered, and existing records may not capture all the information. Incidents i Additional Resources ° How many complaints have been registered about loud car stereos? With whom Endnotes have they been registered (police, environmental protection officials, elected officials)? ~ References ° Have complaints been substantiated through either decibel measurements or ..................... * .......... ' ...... officers' judgments? ° How frequent are complaints (daily, weekly, episodic)? What percentage of all noise complaints are about loud car stereos? · Typically, are complaints about loud car stereos in general, about individual cars or about a gathering of cars? Are offenders usually driving when playing car stereos loudly, or are they parked (e.g., at a street party, in a park, in a parking lot)? Victims · Who complains about loud car stereos? Residents? Merchants? School or hospital officials? Park users? Other motorists? · Are there persistent complainants? · Are there any noticeable demographic patterns among victims (age, gender, race, ethnicity, etc.)? How many people are annoyed by loud car stereos? How annoyed do they claim to be? · What are their specific complaints? That they are awakened? Cannot hear their televisions? Cannot hear conversations? Are offended by music lyrics? Are made physically uncomfortable by the noise? Are intimidated by the noise? · What activities are disrupted by loud car stereos (e.g., sleep, commerce, education, recreation}? · What percentage of people disturbed by loud car stereos file official complaints? Offenders · Are there any noticeable demographic patterns among offenders (age, gender, race, ethnicity, etc)? · Are there different types of offenders (e.g., car stereo enthusiasts, teenagers, street cruisers, drug dealers)? Do the http://www.popcenter.org/Problems/problem-car-stereos_p2.htm 12/11/2003 ~ c~nter for Problem-Oriented Policing Page 2 of 3 various types of offenders create problems at different times and in different places? ' Are offenders aware of legal restrictions? ° To whom are ear stereo owners trying to appeal when they play their stereos loudly? Other ear stereo owners? Friends? Members of the opposite sex? Judges in organized competitions? Potential customers for illegal drugs? Themselves? What do ear stereo owners say would discourage them from playing their stereos in violation of the law? ° Where do ear stereo owners buy and have special stereo equipment installed (e.g., local ear stereo dealers)? ° How much money have ear stereo owners spent on their equipment? (This will give you a better idea of how meaningful various sanctions might be to them.) Locations/Times · Where are complaints about loud car stereos concentrated? · From where do complainants hear loud ear stereos (e.g., homes, businesses, vehicles)? When are complainants most annoyed by loud car stereos (daytime, nighttime, weekends)? · Do complaints correspond with any particUlar events (e.g., closing time for bars, during street cruising events, when schools let out)? Current Responses · How are loud car stereo complaints currently handled? What existing legislation pertains to the problem? Does that legislation give police and other officials adequate authority to address it? · Are existing laws adequately enforced? ° Are enforcement actions adequately prosecuted and adjudicated? · How do other jurisdictions handle this problem? Measuring Your Effectiveness Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your efforts have succeeded, and suggests how you might modify your responses if they are not producing the intended results. You should take measures of your problem before you implement responses, to determine how serious the problem is, and after you implement them, to determine whether they have been effective. All measures should be taken in both the target area and the surrounding area. (For more detailed guidance on measuring effectiveness, see the companion guide to this series, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductor~ Guide for Police Problem-Solvers.) The following are potentially useful measures of the effectiveness of responses to loud car stereos: · the number of official complaints about loud car stereos filed with police and other agencies; · the level of annoyance or concern expressed in opinion surveys; · the percentage of survey respondents who are highly annoyed by loud car stereos; · the decibel levels at problem locations (it may, however, be difficult to separate the noise from loud car stereos from background noise); ° the number of problem locations (if the Problem is concentrated at certain locations); · the percentage of offenders who are repeat offenders; and · the sales revenues of and changes in consumer purchases reported by car stereo dealers.* t A survey of 20 Chicago car stereo dealers conducted by the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association reportedly revealed that their sales declined by 30 percent- and several dealers went out of business-in the period immediately following passage of a new city ordinance regulating loud car stereos (Colarossi 1998). These findings should be considered http://www.popcenter.org/Problems/problem.car_stereos_p2.htm 12/11/2003 ~ C~nter for Problem-Oriented Policing Page 3 of 3 with caution, as car stereo dealers used the study results to oppose new noise legislation. Home I Problems I Responses [ Tools I Librat3; I About POP Center I Learning Center Privacy Policy t Cop)~ght (9 2oo3 Center for Problem Oriented Policing http ://www .popcenter.org/Problems/problem-car-stereos_p2.htm 12/11/2003 2. C~nter for Problem-Oriented Policing Page 1 of 3 ' Problems POP.Center: problems: Loud .Car Stereos: Page..2: Page 3 Responses to the Problem of Loud Car Stereos Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better understanding of the factors contributing to it. Once you have analyzed your local problem and established a baseline ~ · The Problem of Loud for measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible responses to address the Car Stereos problem. ~: Understanding Your ~ Loca!..Prgblem. The following set of possible responses provides a foundation of ideas for addressing your ~ Responses to the ..... particular problem. These responses are drawn from the few existing research studies, Problem of Loud Car police reports and journalistic accounts of police practices regarding loud car stereos. In Stereos spite of the fact that loud car stereos are a common problem, there are no published studies that evaluate the effectiveness of various responses to the problem. With this ~ Summary of Responses caution in mind, you may apply several of these responses to your community's problem. It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing several different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom .............. effective in reducing or solving the problem. Do not limit yourself to considering what police can do: give careful consideration to who else in your community shares responsibility for the problem and can help police better respond to it. ~ Additional Resources Some response strategies that have been proposed may have merit, but because they do ~ i Endnotes not appear to have been adopted, they are not presented as currently viable options. These include proposals to ban the manufacture of car stereos that can produce very loud References sound,g and to hold car stereo manufacturers civilly liable for noise-related harm caused by their products. 10 These proposals would compel manufacturers to make quieter products. Other measures that can effectively reduce noise levels, such as sound barriers and noise-canceling technology (anti- sound waves that effectively cancel out sound waves), do not seem to hold much promise against mobile sound sources such as car stereos. Enforcement of Noise Laws A preliminary word of caution is due regarding enforcing noise laws to address loud car stereos: You should guard against unfairly targeting any racial or ethnic group, and be aware of public perceptions regarding biased enforcement.!! 1. Enforcing laws that prohibit plainltI audible ear stereos. Some statutes and ordinances prohibit any noise that is plainly audible from a specified distance.* Most laws of this sort do not require that the music lyrics or melody be intelligible; the bass vibrations alone can suffice. The specified distances vary across jurisdictions, ranging from 15 to ~oo feet, depending on how restrictive communities choose to be.12 The most restrictive of the plainly audible laws say that the sound cannot be audible to anyone other than the vehicle occupants. The specified distances can vary by time of day, typically with shorter distances set for nighttime hours. The advantage of such laws is that they do not require expensive monitoring equipment and the requisite training. Several courts have upheld the plainly audible standard for a noise ordinance in the face of legal challenges.t* A disadvantage to plainly audible standards is that enforcers must measure distances, something not easily done while a car is moving. But, with a little training, enforcers can learn to estimate distances. t Many statutes and ordinances regulating noise can be conveniently accessed through the website of the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse, a nonprofit organization headquartered in Vermont. See www.nonoise.org tt See the State v. Ewing, 914 P. 2d 549, Haw. 1996 finding that a plainly audible standard is not unconstitutionally vague. http://www.popcenter.org/Problems/problem, car_stereos_p3.htm 12/11/2003 '- C~nter for Problem-Oriented Policing Page 2 of 3 2. Enforcing laws that establish specific decibel limits for car stereos. Some statutes and ordinances set specific decibel limits, measured at specific distances from the source, for various noise sources, including car stereos. These laws are referred to as performance standard laws. The typical limit for car stereos is around 75 to 8o decibels, measured at various specified distances from the car. The advantage of this type of law is that it is specific and objective. Among the disadvantages is that it requires expensive monitoring equipment and the requisite training, and since cars with loud stereos are often moving, it is difficult to obtain a valid reading of the noise level, x3 Also, background noise can confound noise readings, and some decibel scales do not adequately record the low-frequency sounds common to loud car stereos. The technical requirements necessary to take readings and defend them against legal challenges necessarily limit the number of officials who can enforce performance standard laws. 3. Enhancing penalties or lowering tolerance levels for loud car stereo violations that occur in specified zones. Because loud noise is especially harmful to certain groups of people, such as schoolchildren, hospital patients and the mentally ill, and because complaints about loud car stereos often are concentrated in certain residential neighborhoods, it may make sense to enhance the penalties for violations in areas with vulnerable populations. 14 4. Enhancing penalties for repeat offenders. In many jurisdictions, laws give judges the discretion to apply harsher penalties for repeat offenders. Higher fines and seizure of car stereo equipment may be reserved for repeat offenders. 5. Impounding cars with loud stereos as evidence. Some jurisdictions, such as New York Cityls and Chicago,16 authorize police to impound cars with loud stereos and to hold the cars as evidence until the citation has been adjudicated. The impoundment gives the offender extra incentive to appear in court and/or pay the fine and, at a minimum, removes the car from the streets for a brief time. 6. Holding car owners liable for loud car stereo violations. In most jurisdictions, the driver is liable for loud car stereo violations. But because police are seldom present when loud car stereos are disturbing others, offenders often avoid being cited. Under what is known as the owner onus principle, the registered vehicle owner could be cited in the same way as with a parking citation. Vehicle owners could then transfer the liability for the citation if they showed proof that someone else was operating the vehicle at the time of the offense.l? The advantage of owner onus laws is that police would not have to conduct traffic stops to issue citations: citizen complaints could form the basis for citations, and agencies other than the police department could assume some responsibility for enforcing the law. 7. Obtaining nuisance abatement orders against loud car stereo owners. Many jurisdictions have detailed nuisance abatement laws and procedures that can potentially be applied to chronic offenders. You should consult with local legal counsel to determine whether and when nuisance abatement is appropriate. 8. Sentencing offenders to listen to music they do not like. This somewhat tongue-in-cheek penalty has actually been imposed by courts in a few jurisdictions.la Warnings and Education 9. Issuing written warnings. Written warnings or notices of violations, commonly used by health inspectors and by police for vehicle defects, can be applied to loud car stereo violations, as well. They put offenders on official notice that they are using their car stereos inappropriately, and give them an opportunity to modify the equipment, if necessary. An alternative is for police to mail warning letters to the registered vehicle owners. Some jurisdictions encourage complaining citizens to maintain logs that record the date, time, place, and vehicle identifiers associated with loud car stereo incidents. Police mail warning letters on the basis of these complaint logs.* This strategy serves two purposes: It can significantly increase the number of incidents that receive some sort of official response, and it can reduce complainants' level of annoyance by giving them a greater sense of control over the problem (recall from the earlier discussion that a low sense of control increases annoyance). If the offenders are teenagers, you might consider seeking their parents' help in getting their children to comply with the law. Official warnings might also be publicly broadcast on popular music radio stations or issued through other mass media formats. i * The Savannah, Ga., Police Department has adopted this strategy. lo. Requiring car stereo dealers to provide customers with warnings about the health and legal consequences of playing car stereos loudly. Car stereo dealers can either be required or merely requested to provide their customers with written information about the health hazards and legal consequences of playing their car stereos too loudly. Police can support such efforts by supplying dealers with printed information about local laws and police policies regarding loud car stereos.** http://www.popcenter, org/Problems/problem.car, stereos_p3.htm 12/11/2003 Center for Problem-Oriented Policing Page 3 of 3 tt The Savannah Police Department is one agency that supplies dealers with warning notices about local noise laws. 11. Posting warning signs in areas where loud car stereos are conunon. Warning signs, conspicuously posted in areas where complaints about loud car stereos are common, put potential offenders on notice of the possible consequences for violations. m. Holding public demonstrations regarding loud car stereo violations. Police can hold demonstrations for car stereo enthusiasts, possibly in conjunction with sponsored competitions or other events, to better communicate laws and policies.* Many car stereo enthusiasts participate in competitions and events sponsored by the car stereo industry. Some enthusiasts may not genuinely appreciate how their hobby disturbs others, or may not know the noise levels at which they are breaking the law. t The St. Petersburg, Fla., Police Department held public demonstrations as part of their "Operation Tone Down" (Gray 1999). Response With Limited Effectiveness 13. Enforcing laws that require police to make subjective judgments about noise. Statutes and ordinances that require officers to determine whether noise is "loud and raucous," "unreasonable," "excessive," or "disruptive" are vulnerable to legal challenges on the grounds that they are vague and overbroad.2o Noise laws should be neutral as to the information content of the noise, as well. For example, they should not prohibit music that is "offensive" or "obscene." Laws that do are vulnerable to legal challenges on free speech grounds. Nor should noise laws apply only to personal vehicles; they should apply equally to commercial vehicles that use sound-amplifying equipment, such as ice cream trucks.21 Home [ Problems ] Responses [ Tools I Library I About POP Center [ Learning Center Privacy Policy I Copyright © 2oo3 Center for Problem Oriented Policing http://www.popcenter.org/Problems/problem-car, stereos_p3.htm 12/11/2003 ~ C~nter for Problem-Oriented Policing Page 1 of 2 POP Cepter: problems: Loud. Car Stereos: Summary of Responses The table below summarizes the responses to loud car stereos, the mechanism by which ~ ~ p./~[~ they are intended to work, the conditions under which they ought to work best, and some ................. ~ factors you should consider before implementing a particular response. It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing several different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem. E~forcement of Noise Laws Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations Enforcing laws that Deters offenders through ...there is adequate May require some officer prohibitplainIv audible civil fines enforcement training to estimate distances car stereos Enforcing laws that Deters offenders through ...sound- monitoring Difficult to obtain valid establish specific decibel civil fines equipment is properly readings from moving sound limits for car stereos calibrated, and officers sources; requires expensive are properly trained sound-monitoring equipment and officer training; background noise can confound readings Enhancing penalties or Discourages potential ...potential offenders are Requires legislative lowering tolerance levels offenders from playing car adequately notified of authorization for loud car stereo stereos loudly in areas with special zones (through violations that occur in especially vulnerable people; signs, publicity and specified zones potentially displaces warnings), and there is offenders to areas where adequate enforcement noise is less likely to disturb others Enhancing penalties for Deters chronic offenders ...judges are willing to Some chronic offenders are repeat offenders through escalating sanctions impose increased deeply committed to loud car sanctions stereos as part of their lifestyle, and are not easily deterred Impounding ears with Temporarily removes ears ...there is an efficient Impoundment for evidence loud stereos as evidence from public places; deters system for towing and should be equally applied to offenders by temporarily impounding vehicles all vehicles, not used as extra depriving them of their punishment applied solely at enjoyment officers' discretion Holding ear owners Allows enforcement without ...the general public Requires legislative liable for loud car stereo stopping and identifying the perceives owner liability authorization violations driver;, encourages car for loud car stereo owners to ensure their violations as fair, and vehicles are used citations can be issued responsibly based on complainants' testimony Obtaining nuisance Deters offenders through a ...applied against chronic Must prove the nuisance is abatement orders range of civil remedies offenders, and there is an ongoing, rather than an against loud car stereo efficient system for filing isolated incident owners nuisance abatement actions Sentencing offenders to Deters offenders by ...judges are willing to Is more likely to generate listen to music they do exposing them to a similar impose this sanction publicity than to deter not like http://www.popcenter.org/Problems/problem-car-stereos_summary.htm 12/11/2003 ? Center for Problem-Oriented Policing Page 2 of 2 annoyance and requiting (and have a sense of offenders them to spend time humor) complying with the sentence W~rui~lg$ and Education # Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 9 Issuing written warnings PILLS offenders on official ...there is a system for Costs of creating and notice of legal restrictions, tracking official maintaining a warning record and that sound levels exceed warnings, so that repeat keeping system the limits; gives unwitting offenders are ultimately offenders the opportunity to subject to formal /:omply with the law sanctions lo Requiring ear stereo PuLS customers on official ...car stereo dealers Modest costs of printing and dealers to provide notice of legal restrictions willingly cooperate distributing information customers with warnings about the and encourages their health and legal voluntary compliance consequences of playing car stereos loudly 11 Posting warning signs in Warns offenders of legal ...signs are conspicuously Costs of manufacturing and areas where loud car restrictions and encourages posted in areas prone to posting signs stereos are common their voluntary compliance loud car stereos m Holding public Encourages compliance by ...demonstrations are Cooperating with the police demonstrations giving potential offenders a well attended-and held in may run counter to what regarding loud car better understanding of how conjunction with car some car stereo enthusiasts stereo violations the law applies to their car stereo competitions and see as the purpose of having stereos, and by allowing events high powered ear stereos them to interact with the police in a nonadversarial setting Response With Limited F~ffectiveness # Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 13 Enforcing laws that Police must judge not only ...local courts have Requires highly subjective require police to make the sound level, but also the upheld police police judgments; such laws subjective judgments content's quality or effect on enforcement of this type are vulnerable to legal about noise others of law challenges on grounds they are vague or overbroad Home I Problems I Responses [ Tools I Libra~, I About POP Center I Learning Center Privacy Policy [ Copyright ~) 2oo3 Center for Problem Oriented Policing http://www.popcenter.org/Problems/problem_car, stereos_summary.htm 12/11/2003 B A K E R S F I E L D OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER MEMORANDUM December 12, 2003 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst III ~ ~ SUBJECT: Meeting Requested by Mr. Art Carlock On December 3, 2003, a meeting was held at the request of Mr. Art Carlock to discuss a desire to expand the Highway 99 car show and cruise for 2004. Several people were in attendance, including Mayor Harvey Hall, and Councilmembers David Couch and Mike Maggard, Mr. Carlock, Mr. Joe Williams, Ms. Cathy Butler, you and I. Mr. Carlock indicated the car show was as large as they could get it given the constraints of the City's ordinance. Mr. Williams indicated that it was easier for vendors to attend a two-day event rather than a one-day event. It really isn't worthwhile for him to have "BigFoot" and race cars there for one day. He mentioned he has a business interest in the city. Mr. Williams asked for the closure of the streets from Friday at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Williams agreed with Mr. Tandy's statement that access to the Convention Center and Centennial Garden needed to remain open; they would not request the closure of Truxtun Avenue. Mr. Carlock indicated costs with the event are going up and enlarging it will allow him to pay for those increased costs. They need the revenue to cover their costs and to build the event. During 2003, they had 544 paid entries and around 600 cars total. Requests by Mr. Carlock and Mr. Williams included: closing down the streets for the events Friday and 6:00 p.m. through Sunday 6:00 p.m.; vendors to come in on Friday evening at 11:00 p.m.; an approved grid/layout of the event; and the ability to establish the event earlier than currently allowed in the current ordinance. The proposal is to be presented to the Legislative and Litigation Committee to whom the issue of the City's special event notification procedures has been referred. P:\L&L\M0312121-Carlock 10.69.010 Chapter 10.69 7. Prior permits held by any named organizalion and whether such permits were ever revoked or suspend. SPE .C!AL EVENTS* ed and the ma.sons therefor;, Sections: 8. The business tax certificate number of the appli- cant organization, or leuer granting ~ax-e. xempt s~ams to 10.59.010 Definitions. the applicant organization; 10.69.020 Permit required. 9. For races, flz names, assigned locations and 10.69.030 Appilcation--Issuance~Fee. duties of all officials required to be at the special event 10.69.040 Regulations. as set forth in Section 10.69.040(c), and a description by 10.69.0S0 Revocation. which such officials may be identified; 10.69,060 Appeal I0. Any rights-of-way which will need to be closed to the public. * Prior ordinance history: OvS-,~e_ 2725. B. The application shall be accompanied by thc foi- 10.69.010 Definitions. lowing documents: 1. Evidence, satisfactory to the city manager or his Whenever used in this chap~r, unless a different designee~ of (1) general 'liability insurance providing meaning clearly appears from the ~ontext, the wonfs set coverage on an occurrence basis for bodily injury, includ- out in this section shall have the following meanings: ing dealh of one or more peirsons, property damage and A. "Special event" means any commercial or busi- IXifsonal injurlf, with limits as required by the city; and ness promotion or afldetic event upon any public street, (2) workers' compensation, with statutory limits and public sidewalk, public alley or other public place which employers liability insurance with limits as required by does not comply with normal and usual traffic regulation the city. All policies required of'th~ applicant hereunder or controls. shall be primary insurance as to the city, its mayor, B. "Person" means any individual, partnership, council, officers, agents, employees and volunteers corporation or association of any nature whatsoever. (Ord. 3807 § 1 (pan), 1997) any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the city, its mayor, council, officers, ageflts, employees and volun. teers shall be_~nsidered excess insurance~ over and 10.69.0'20 Permit required, above th~ applicant's insurance and shall not conwibute It is unlawful for any person to conduct a special with R; event in the city in violation of this chap~, or without 2. An agreement, signed by applicants, to save, hold having a valid permit therefor in accordance with the harmless and indemnify the city, its officers, agents, provisions of this chapter. (Ord. $807 § 1 (l~n), 1997) employees and volun~ers from all claims, demands, damages, judgments, costs or expenses in law or equity 10.69.030 Applicatiou--Issuance-.Fee. that may at any .time arise from or is any way rclaIed to A. Applicalions for permits under this section .~l~!! any work performed by applicant, his agents or employ- be made on forms furnished by the city manager or his ees under the terms of any permit issued under this chap- designee, shall be submiued no less than ten days prior ter;, to the event nor more dmu ninety days prior to thc event, 3. Cash deposit in an amount acceptable to the city shall be signed under penalty of perjury by an authorized manager or his designee to insure payment of the costs representative of the applicant organization and shall of the city resulting from thc event and to insure cleanup require the following information: - and restoration of the subject site; I. The name, mailing address, and telephone num- 4. A copy of the wriuen instructions gut will be ber of the organization applying for and conducting the provided to thc required official el the special event special event and of the event chairman; C. The applicant shall notify all business owners 2. The name of the event, including names of each leo_ted adjacent to any right-of-way which will be closed sponsoring or sanctioning organization; for the event. Proof of wriv. en notice shall be submitled 3. The route, if for an athletic race; to the city manager or designee. 4. The proposed daIe and times; D. The city manager or designee may, in his or her $. Estima~ completion time, if for an athletic race; discretion, issue a permit if he finds: 6. Estimated number of entrants or attendees; 1. Tha the application is complete and mithful; 2. Tha thc applicant is adequately insured; 10.69.030 3. That the special event for which the application visible means of identification, lrtrst aid stations and/or is made will be maintained and conducted in accordance private ambulances shall be provided to administer basic with all federal, state and local laws; first aid to participants in the-race. 4. That operation of such event at such location will D. Within such'time prior to the starting time as di- not present any substantial hazard to vehicular or pedes- rected by the police chief, the permit holder shall obtain trian traffic, nor impede the movement of emergency barricades and/or cones and place Such devices in such vehicles; locations as are specified by the police chief. As soon as 5. That no permit issued to the same applicant practicable after conclusion of the special event, and in pursuant to this section has been revoked in the past three no event later than two hours after the conclusion of the years, unless the city manager or his designee finds that 'special event, the permit holder shall pick up and retm-n the reasons for such revocation are unrelated to this barricades and/or cones needed for the event and pay the application; city for any lOst or stolen barricades and/or cones. 6. That the applicant has not had a permit, issued E. No person shall, without the consent of the per- under, this section, revoked, unless the city manager or his mit holder, join or participate in a special eveht, or in any designee finds that the reasons for such revocation are manner .interfere with its orderly conduct. unrelated to this ..app.lication; F. -The city manager or designee may impose rea- 7. That the conduct of the event will not constitute sonable requirements concerning the time and place of an unreasonable burden on city employees or resources, the special event, accommodation of traffic and such nor create an un~.~sonable disturbauce to the neighboring other requirements as he or she finds to-be reasonably areas; necessary for the protection of persons .or property. (Ord. 8. That the event, if an athletic race, will move 3807 § 1 (part), 1997) from its starting point to its finish line expeditiously; 9. That such event will not interfere with, or con- 10,69,050 Revocation. flict with, another special event or parade for which a Any permit issu~ pursuant to this chapter shall be permit has been issued or for which no permit is re- imm_cdiately revoked by the city manager or his designee quired; and whenever he finds: D. All permits issued pursuant to this chapter shall A. ~hat misrepresentations where made on the appli- be valid only as to those dates, times and locations listed cation; or on the permit, unless earlier suspend, cd or revoked. B. That any of the terms or conditions of said per- E. At the time of filing an application for a permit, mit have been violated, or that the 'business has been thc applicant shall pay a fee not to exc_--~-~_ the reasonable operated in violation of local, state or federal law; cost of processing.any such application as authorized by C. That the safety of persons or property requires Chapter 3.70. The applicant shall also pay all the direct such revocation; costs of the city, including, but not limited to, traffic D. That the special event is interfering with the control and police services prior to issuance of the per- peace and quiet of the neighborhced. (Ord. 3807 § 1 mit. (pm), 1997) F. Permits may be issued with conditions to ensure that the event will be operated in a safe and legal man- 10.69.060 Appeal, her, will not disturb the peace and quiet of the neighbor- A. Should any applicant be dissatisfied with the hood and will not constitute an undue burden on city decision of the city manager or designee not to grant a resources. (Ord. 3807 § 1 (part), 1997) permit or revoking a permit, then said applicant may, no later than ten days after notice of such decision is depos- 10.69.040 Regulations. ired in the United States mail, addressed to the applicant A. · Except for races, no special event shall be held or permit holder at the address provided on the applica- in any residentially zoned area of the city. tion, make written objection to the city council setting B. One person, designated on the application, shah forth the grounds for dissatisfaction, whereupon the be in charge of, and responsible for, the special event, council shall hear said objections at a regular meeting no C. For races, a minimum of five officials shall be later than three weeks following thc filing of the objec- stationed within each mile of the route of thc special tion with the city clerk The applicant shall be given event to ensure order, and a minimum of six officials written notice no less than three days prior to said hear- shall be assigned to assure order at the finish line. Each lng. The council may, upon said hearing, sustain, suspend official shall be readily distinguishable through some 394 10.69.060 c°uncil sl~dl not be mn:~ctive but shell ,~ effect es of the data of tho cotmc~'s decision. (0~ 3807 § 1 (pazt), 395 SCHEDULED MEETINGS JANUARY 2004 THROUGH DECEMBER 2004 ~REGULAR MEETING BEGINS @ 5:15 @ BUDGET ~'~EET~NG & PRESENTATIONS CONTINUED AT 7:00 PM Monday's @ Noon, Wednesday's @ 5:15prn Hearing on 6/9, Adoption on 6/23 ~Legislative and Litigation Committee Meetings ('~ 1:00 p.m. Holidays- City Hall Closed ~ Joint City'/County Meeting ;H JUNE 3~ 4i 24i 25; JU AUGUST MBER DEC S:\TTS\2004LegLitCommittee\04LegLiiCalendar Proposed December' 15, 2003