An Event is An Event – An Impact Is An

The existing temporary events ordinance is outdated (1980). The Planning Department is operating and making decisions based on decades-old guidelines that have not keep pace with the changing realties and technologies of commercial (for-profit) or non-profit outdoor events. Response: The Planning and Building Department agrees with this finding.

The current permit process needs to be streamlined. Response: The Planning and Building Department agrees with this finding (see below). It is assumed that this finding refers to the current permit process for Commercial events of greater than 3,000 people which require a hearing before the Board of Supervisors and are issued by the Tax Collector. The Board provided direction to the Tax Collector’s office and the Department of Planning and Building to simplify this process in August 2005. The Planning and Building Department has collaborated with the Treasurer Tax Collectors office, focusing its efforts on developing the proposed amendment to the current Temporary Events Ordinance which will ultimately streamline this process. In addition, the Department of Planning and Building has a continuous process improvement effort in place to evaluate permit streamlining options on an ongoing basis. Please see the department's response to Recommendation number 2 for additional information.

The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors have received input from public groups, individual, industry groups, and special interest groups about the Event Ordinance Amendments over the last eight years. Response: The Planning and Building Department agrees with this finding.

All events have the potential of adversely impacting the community and environment. Response: The Planning and Building Department partially disagrees with this finding. Each event and event site is different and evaluating whether it would adversely impact the community and environmental should be made on a case by case basis. Based on the location of the event site, the type of event, when the event will occur, the number of attendees at the event, and the access to the event site, a proposed event may have no impact on the community or environment. 5. Events are presently not equitably regulated. There are three types of events, (1) permitted (2) exempted or (3) those event where sponsors fail to apply for a permit. Response: The Planning and Building Department partially disagrees with this finding. Different types of events are regulated differently as noted in the Grand Jury’s report. Whether that is equitable is a judgment call. We agree there are three types of events that occur in the County as set forth in the finding.

Code enforcement pertains only to permitted events. Events that are exempt from the permit process or where sponsors fail to apply for a permit are not subject to code enforcement. Response: The Department of Planning and Building disagrees with this finding. The Department of Planning and Building’s Code Enforcement Section will investigate any event complaint regardless of whether the event is exempt, legally established with a permit, or occurring without a permit. If after investigation the complaint is determined to be correct, Code Enforcement will work with the violator to achieve compliance, including but not limited to applying for and receiving permits, or ceasing the use if it is unable to be approved.

There can be no code enforcement without specific event guidelines defined in the ordinance. Response: The Department of Planning and Building disagrees with this finding. The Department of Planning and Building’s Code Enforcement Section enforces all standards of the County’s Land Use Ordinance, including those that are not specifically established for a particular use (e.g. noise). If after investigation the complaint is determined to be correct, Code Enforcement will work with the violator to achieve compliance, including but not limited to applying for and receiving permits or ceasing the use if it is unable to be approved. Although having an event ordinance with standards that are specific to that use would be useful for Code Enforcement when investigating an event complaint, they are not necessary for Code Enforcement to investigate a complaint.

On the Planning Department’s website, the “Questions and Complaints” link fails to specify how the complaint will be handled, i.e., the response time and subsequent follow up contact information. Response: The Planning and Building Department agrees with this finding. Please see the response provided to Recommendation #10. 9. The Planning Department does not maintain a log of all code enforcement complaints received nor how and when they were resolved along with a description of actions taken. Response: The Department of Planning and Building disagrees with this finding. The Department’s Permit Tracking System contains records for each code enforcement case created, including how and when the case was resolved and a description (through notes attached to the case) of actions taken. Because these cases are confidential, only general information about the case including location (street address and Assessor Parcel Number), general nature of the violation and the status of the case (received, closed, billing, cancelled) are available to the public on the Department’s website.

The Planning Department does not have a policy as to how long it takes to initially respond to a complaint. Response: The Department of Planning and Building disagrees with this finding. The Department’s Budget Performance Measures includes a measure that reads “All complaints reviewed within 10 working days”. The set goal, which has been met in the past two years, is that 100% of all complaints received are reviewed within 10 working days. This performance measure is reported in June of each year during budget hearings. In the FY13-14 budget recently adopted by the Board, the following was provided as to how the Department was meeting this performance measure. Code Enforcement: To date there have been 184 enforcement cases initiated in FY 2012-13. All complaints are being reviewed within 10 days of receiving the complaint. For cases involving health and safety (e.g. substandard living conditions), a high priority is assigned to those cases and these are typically reviewed within two days.

During the day of permitted events, several County and State agencies, i.e., Public Works, Health Department and CAL FIRE, make on-site inspections. Event sponsors who do not go through the permit process (exempted events and those who fail to apply for a permit) have no required on-site safety inspections. Response: The Department of Planning and Building disagrees with this finding. Being exempt from a land use permit does not exempt individuals from other agencies requirements for permitting or inspection.

In the absence of specific guidelines, some event sponsors have taken on the responsibility to mitigate public concerns and public safety as a priority in their event planning. Response: The Department of Planning and Building agrees with this finding. The Department believes there are sites being used for events that are exempt from land use permits that are operated by professional event planners who address safety and potential neighborhood concerns as they plan and execute events.

Not all regulations can be applied equally to all venues. Response: The Department of Planning and Building disagrees with this finding. With the exception of the one venue specifically exempted from having to obtain an Outdoor Commercial Business License from the Tax Collector’s Office, all regulations that can be applied are applied equally. GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Planning Department should finalize an Events Ordinance Amendment and the County Board of Supervisors should adopt it in 2013. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The decision to amend the Land Use Ordinance is ultimately up to the Board of Supervisors. Modifying the County’s Land Use Ordinance is a legislative act of the Board of Supervisors. This occurs after a public hearing is held by the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission renders its decision in the form of a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The Board may approve, modify, or disapprove the Planning Commission’s recommendation. The Board determines if proposed ordinance amendments are acceptable. An amendment to the existing Temporary Events provisions of the Land Use Ordinance has been prepared. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission who rendered their decision in the form of a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors has held two public hearings on the proposed amendments and on November 8, 2011 continued the item off calendar and directed staff to forward the amendments to the Uniquely SLO Economic Cluster for review and comment. Staff made this referral and has met twice with the Uniquely SLO Economic Cluster. When the Cluster has completed its review and made comments on the proposed amendments, Planning and Building Department staff will schedule the item for a public hearing before the Board of Supervisors. It is unknown if this will occur in 2013.