CC 2014-08-12_11.b. Alternatives - Late Evening Noise in the VillageMEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER ff'
STEVEN ANNIBALI, CHIEF OF POLICE
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO ADDRESS COMPLAINTS
REGARDING LATE EVENING NOISE AND DISRUPTIONS IN THE
VILLAGE
DATE: AUGUST 12, 2014
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council: 1) direct staff to prepare an ordinance that
prohibits outdoor amplified noise after 10:00 p.m. and amends nuisance abatement
procedures to provide the Police Department increased authority to address
complaints; and 2) appropriate $2,500 for costs related to research and preparation
of the' ordinance. ·
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
The recommendation will result in a projected cost of approximately $2,500 for the
City Attorney's Office to research and draft the changes, which is recommended to
be appropriated from the General Fund. There will also be some staff time involved
in preparing the final rec_ommendations.-This item was not previously identified in the_
City's Critical Needs Action Plan or goals for this fiscal year.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council recently received a complaint regarding late evening noise
disturbances in the Village, primarily related to one of the local drinking
establishments. The City has received complaints regarding different related
activities in the past. Complaints have primarily involved loud music. However, other
issues have included damage to City property outside the establishments, fights, and
-people yelling. The com-plaint was referred to staff for follow-up.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
The Police Department has responded to all complaints received. However, most
enforcement has involved attempts to obtain voluntary compliance. The City's
existing noise ordinance is based on decibel limits, which makes both determination
of violations and enforcement difficult. The City's public nuisance abatement
Item 11.b. - Page 1
CITY COUNCIL . .
CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO ADDRESS COMPLAINTS
REGARDING LATE EVENING NOISE AND DISRUPTIONS IN THE VILLAGE
AUGUST 12, 2014
PAGE 2of3
provisions also are limited in their capability to eliminate ongoing problems unless
they reach a severe level. ·
Meanwhile, the City's economic development efforts have been focused on
encouraging more nighttime activities and visitor serving busi.nesses to increase
activity and vitality of the City's commercial areas. Therefore, staff believes it is
important to avoid creating new regulations that could serve as a disincentive for new
food, beverage and hospitality related establishments. As a result, staff believes it is
important to identify new regulations to help address these issues in both a proactive
and reasonable manner. It is important to recognize that it is not possible to
eliminate all noise impacts from commercial areas if the City wants to promote
successful nighttime activity. However, staff's recommendations are designed to
restrict activities and noise to levels that are reasonable for neighbors tc;> experience
and businesses to achieve.
Staff has identified three recommended actions:
1. The current decibel based noise restrictions are largely designed to address
noise levels from miscellaneous sources. Staff believes it would be more
effective to add restrictions to specific noise generating activities that the City
can identify as a problem. As a result, it is recommended that an ordinance be
adopted that prohibits any outdoor amplified .noise later than 10:00 p.m.
2. It is recommended the nuisance abatement· provisions of the Municipal Code be
amended to· provide the Police Department with r110re tools to respond to
incidents when calls are received from multiple complainants. The City
Attorney's office has conducted preliminary research and has identified a
number of cities that have adopted ordinances designed to address nuisance
problems created by bars, nightclubs and similar establishments. Additional
research will be necessary to determine if such an approach would be desirable
and effective for the City. These are comprehensive ordinances modeled on an
approach from· the City of Oakland. that has been upheld in a court of appeals
case.
The ordinances address such businesses on the basis that even if they are
operating under a legal nonconforming status and are long established uses
with valid ABC licenses, they do not have a right to operate in such a manner
that they create a public nuisance. They include performance standards relating
to impacts on public health, peace and safety, and address such conduct as the
need for poli_ce interventions because of such things as disturbing the peace,
public drunkenness, drinking in public, public urination, excessive littering,
excessive loud noises, etc. The ordinances provide a notice and hearing
procedure for alleged violations, as well as penalties and a range of remedies
Item 11.b. - Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO ADDRESS COMPLAINTS
REGARDING LATE EVENING NOISE AND DISRUPTIONS IN THE. VILLAGE
AUGUST 12, 2014
PAGE.3 of3
that can be used to address problems that have been identified for a particular
business.
3. It is recommended the Police Department work with the Fire Depa'rtment to
improve enforcement of existing occupancy regulations.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are presented for consideration:
• Approve staff's recommendations;
• Direct staff to prepare more or less stringent recommended strategies;
• Direct staff to delay proceeding and to incorporate the effort into next year's
goals;
• Direct staff not to proceed aQd to continue to only enforce current provisions as
necessary; or
• Provide staff other direction.
ADVANTAGES:
The recommendations will provide the Police Department more capability to respond
to complaints regarding evening disturbances, particularly in the Village, but will also
limit changes to reasonable, focused regulations that will not impact the City's
economic development efforts.
DISADVANTAGES:
The changes will result in a financial cost and impact .to staff resources to proceed at
this time. ·
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Environmental review was accomplished through the subdivision process.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, August 7, 2014 and on the
City's website on Friday, August 8, 2014. No comments were received.
Item 11.b. - Page 3
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Item 11.b. - Page 4