HomeMy WebLinkAbout0225.092"
•
~'."".".~ .. '
, 0
.... -
8
HONO~~LE CITY COL~CIL
Palo Alto, California
summary .qf Options Ayai lable and RecomJ!tendat.:i._~
Shoreline Amphitheatre Nois~
Members of the Council:
In your packet this week is a full and comprehensive report on the
options presently available to deal with the Shoreline noise issue.
Included is substantial background material for those members of
the public and/or council, who may not have been directly involved
in this issue since its o4iqins in 1986. While it is not necessary
to review all this material in order to deal 'With the present
problems# it may prove help~ul to those _no wish a more thorough
understanding of the events to date.
SUMMARY OF OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO COUNCIL
There are 11 options currently available to Council. Each is
treatQQ fully in the April 15, 1992 report from the City
Attorney/City Manaqer. (Page numbers belo~ refer to that report.)
The options are:
1. Legal Options
A. Engage in litigation on the basis of a public nuisance
arqumel".t (pg ~ 4)
B. Engage in litigation on the basis of a private
nuisance/inverse condemnation argument (pg.7)
C. Attempt tc ~~force Palo Alto's existing or revised noise
ordinance (pq.9)
D. Challenqe the propcsed expansion of the amphitheatre
(pg.ll)
E. Explore poSSible Palo Alto rights under the Mountain
View/sill Graham Presents lease (pq.ll)
CHR:225:92
;~ij~· .,
-.
~,
2. Administrative Options
F. Make a formal cemand tnat nois~ stop by a date certain
(pqo !'3j
G4 Engage in a study of possi~le physical changes to the
amphitheatre (pq.1J)
H. Engage in aediation (pq.14)
I. Enqaqe in further noise monit,orinq/data ccllectio!1
(pg.14,1.5)
3. other
J. Request of and coordinate with the District Attorney to
bring an action in court (pg.14)
X. Seek a state legislative solution (pq.15)
ReqoMendni2n
l~ Staff believes that current discussions with Mountain View
and Bill Graham Presents should be allowed to proceed. While
litigation is possible, and might well be successful, it
...,ould :no doubt be costly and divisive. We ""o'.lld recommend.
however, that the Council direct the Mayer to notify Mountain
View and Bill Graham Pr6sents of the city's ongoing serious
interest in seeinq positive action taken to resolve the
Shoreline noise problem this concert season.
2. Should the Council wish to take additional action at this
time, we would recommend pursuing amendments to Palo Alto's
noise ordinance, which ~ould allo~ prosecution by the City
Attorney's office of nuisance violations caused by
responsible parties at Shoreline ~phitheatre.
3. Of the remedies presented in this report, d~veloping a
refined noise ordinance which is capable of adequately
addressing Shoreline noise seems to be the most prudent first
step. If litigation must occur, staff believes it should be
undertaken in conjunction with the District Attorney, if at
all possible.
CXR: 225: 92
.