Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/16/2025 Item 7b, McDonald, Tway, and Scott - Staff Agenda CorrespondenceCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum City of San Luis Obispo Council Agenda Correspondence DATE: September 16, 2025 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Whitney McDonald, City Manager Prepared By: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director Rick Scott, Police Chief VIA: Whitney McDonald, City Manager SUBJECT: ITEM 7b – RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT – ROUND AND ROUND WITH TOWN AND GOWN Staff received the following questions regarding the City’s response to the Grand Jury Report titled “Round and Round with Town and Gown.” The questions are listed below, with staff’s responses provided in italics. In addition, the presentation for the meeting is included as an attachment to this agenda correspondence. The presentation contains three maps (slides 11 –13) showing noise complaint data for the last three years. The Ad Hoc Council Committee reviewed this information during their discussions of the report findings and providing it in advance will allow the audience to reference it during the presentation if needed. 1. Since the changes implemented in 2010, how frequently have landlords been cited for repeated noise complaints? If an exact number is not readily available, a ballpark figure or general sense of how often this tool has been used would be helpful. All landlords receive a written warning after the first noise violation. Landlords are then eligible to receive a citation for noise if it occurs more than 14 days after the written warning was issued. Since the changes were implemented in 2010, there have been 1,542 citations issued to landlords as a result of tenants receiving a repeat violation for noise. This equates to an average of about 100 citations per year, or several per week. ITEM 7b – RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT – ROUND AND ROUND WITH TOWN AND GOWN Page 2 2. What does Cal Poly say in response to our formal requests regarding sanctioned event information? I.e. what is the formal justification for withholding that information now? When City staff requested registered event information, Cal Poly routed it through their formal records request process. A subsequent letter was provided to the City denying release of the addresses that stated that the records sought by the City were not public records and would not be provided. The University stated that "disclosure of such records does not contribute to the public's understanding of the University's business, and therefore they are not public records to be disclosed under the California Public Records Act." The University cited privacy and security issues as well as a desire to be more consistent with how other California State University (CSU) campuses provide the information to the public. They have stated that they were the only campus that published specific addresses and have made the decision to publish only the city in which a registered event is located, similar to other CSU campuses. 3. Can you clarify what a student overlay zone would achieve? Specifically, in other communities that use them, do these zones typically involve stricter regulations on activities such as noise levels or gathering size? I read the legal concerns regarding a student specific overlay as well as the Grand Jury's desire for one but how far do these go in regulating behavior in private residences. City staff has researched the idea of a student overlay zone. Several communities that have large student populations have zones or unique regulations for specific areas of town to address compatibility issues, however, they are all different. An overlay zone could create specific regulations in an area to address land uses, enforcement/fines, or noise regulations. Generally overlay zones are used when a jurisdiction would like to have unique regulations that apply to one area, and not citywide. Due to state law, changing things like parking regulations and density in the area near campus could be challenging. Some of the ove rlay zones that staff found during research restricted or regulated housing and/or rental housing in a specific area (for example, requiring that registered student housing rentals be a certain distance apart, or requiring registration and inspection of st udent rental housing in an established zone). Others had zones or rules specific to fraternity/sorority houses. Generally, these were zones where fraternity/sorority houses are allowed and encouraged, and regulated through a use permit (similar to the City’s Conditional Use Permit Requirement). One City established a specific area of town for specialized code enforcement, where enforcement is geared at the student population, proactive, and enforcement duties are shared between the City and the school police department. ITEM 7b – RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT – ROUND AND ROUND WITH TOWN AND GOWN Page 3 Establishment of an overlay zone would require resources to determine what the intent of the zone is, where it should be established, and what regulations would apply in the zone to achieve the intended outcome. 4. The City’s response to R4 states that the recommendation “will not be immediately implemented because it is not reasonable at this time.” How does this align with the four response options under Penal Code section 933.05? Specifically, does the City intend to further analyze this recommendation (Option 3), or has it determined not to implement it (Option 4)? The response references both legal constraints and upcoming work in the 2025–27 Financial Plan that could explore similar concepts. Can you clarify? The Grand Jury Ad Hoc Committee recommended this response because the item did not clearly fit within the “still analyzing” option (Option 3). Selecting Option 3 would obligate the City to complete the analysis and discuss it with Council within six months of the report’s publication (December 23, 2025), a timeline staff is not currently able to meet without reprioritizing other work. If Council wishes to direct staff to pursue this path, it can be done, but it would require reordering existing priorities. While the City’s formal response to R4 is Option 4 (“will not be implemented”), the Ad Hoc Committee wanted to emphasize that Council remains open to further analysis. Two related Major City Goal tasks have already been adopted in the 2025–27 work program, during which this recommendation can be considered. These efforts will provide an opportunity to explore overlay-related options, though not within the six-month timeframe set by Penal Code section 933.05. The Grand Jury specifically recommended “initiating a task force to explore the creation of a Student Overlay Zone.” Staff believe such a step would be premature ahead of the scheduled study session and required research. The reference to legal constraints was included to give context on why forming a task force is not recommended at this stage. As mentioned in the draft response, there are other options, beyond overlay zones, that can also be explored and may help achieve the same goal. Attachment A – Item 7b Staff Presentation 1 City Responses to Grand Jury Report “Round and Round with Town and Gown” Item 7b: September 16, 2025 2 Presentation 1.Background and Policy Context 2.Overview of responses 3.Consolidated review of findings and recommendations 4.Closer look at some data and maps 5.Next steps 6.Questions and discussion 3 Recommendation Approve the City Council, Planning Commission, and City Manager’s joint response (Attachment A) to the San Luis Obispo County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “Round and Round with Town and Gown.” 4 Background and Policy Context June 23, 2025: Report issued State law (Penal Code §933) requires responses within 90 days (9/19) July 15, 2025: Ad Hoc Committee (Stewart/Marx) appointed to help respond to findings and recommendations July 22, Aug 20, Sept 4: Ad Hoc Committee meetings August 27, 2025: Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 2025: Presentation to Council on joint responses 5 Background and Policy Context The Report includes six findings, and seven recommendations directed to three parties: •City Council (R1, R2, R4, R5) •City Manager (R3, R6, R7) •Planning Commission (R6) State law (Penal Code §933) Response Options: Findings: City must agree or disagree (with explanation) Recommendations: City will identify as implemented, not yet implemented, requires further analysis, or will not be implemented. (With explanations pursuant to §933.05) 6 Overview of City Responses •The City disagrees with all six finding with explanations included in report. •Recommendations numbered R1, R2, R3, R6 have been implemented with explanations in report. •Recommendations numbered R4, R5, R7 will not be implemented with explanations in report. Attachments included in agenda report: Response letter to Presiding Judge, June 2025 Grand Jury Report, June 2025 Staff Memo, Agency Response Form 7 Key Points of City Responses •Shared Responsibility •Complexity of Issue and Evolving Landscape •Legal Limitations •Limited City Resources •Recent Progress 8 Findings & Recommendations F1: Prior to 2025, City Failed to Respond to Large Unsanctioned Events City disagrees with the finding R1–R2: The City Council should implement a multi-year plan to eliminate “St. Fratty’s day” and proactive measures to prevent future street parties. City has implemented both recommendations Response Summary: •Robust annual plans, outreach, & Safety Zone ordinance updates •2025 success: strong City–University planning, 300+ officers, advanced tech, on- campus alternative •City follows best practices & responsible resource use •Proactive measures taken when feasible & appropriate •City Council encourages early reporting & collaboration with Cal Poly 9 Findings & Recommendations F2: The City has not effectively engaged with stakeholders to address neighborhood issues The City disagrees with the finding Response Summary •The City has ongoing and regular engagement with community •Recent and expanded discussion with Cal Poly regarding the issues •Ordinances, outreach, programs cut noise complaints 50% •Housing & Neighborhood Livability a 2025–27 Major Goal; two new tasks programmed to review code enforcement priorities and zoning regulation related to fraternity/sorority housing. 10 A closer look at noise complaint calls for service data 11 12 13 14 Findings & Recommendations F3: The City has failed to identify and enforce code violations related to fraternity and sorority activity The City disagrees with this finding R3: The City Manager should develop a process to identify illegal fraternities This recommendation has been implemented Response Summary: •Complaint-driven enforcement (40+ cases since 2023) •Legal and Equity Considerations •Education and outreach regarding city zoning and compliance •Required partnership with Cal Poly •Future tasks to set enforcement priorities and standard operating procedures 15 R4: Council should initiate a task force to explore “Student Overlay Zones” This recommendation will not be immediately implemented (not feasible within six-month timeframe) Findings & Recommendations Response Summary: •Two Major City Goal action items already planned on these concerns •State law and legal constraints •Establishing a task force at this stage is pre-mature •The City has existing tools: CUP requirements, noise regulations, Safety Enhancement Zones •Staff will continue research and explore options to review at future Study Session 16 Findings & Recommendations F4: The City has failed to consistently enforce CUPs The City disagrees with this finding R6: The City Manager and Planning Commission should move toward adopting more uniform conditions for CUPs and enforcement of existing requirements. This recommendation has been implemented Response Summary: •CUPs enforced when violations found •3 revocations since 2024; recent modernization of outdated conditions •Complaint-driven; fraternities = ~6.5% of 1,400 •Steps will be taken to explore more proactive enforcement 17 Findings & Recommendations F5: The current planning appeal fee structure disproportionately impacts citizens. The City disagrees with this finding R5: The Council should consider adopting a tiered planning appeal structure. This recommendation will not be implemented Response Summary: •Reporting zoning/CUP violations is free; fees only for formal appeals •Appeal fee structure designed to balance access with cost recovery – currently below cost •Fees adopted in 2024 after detailed study, public review, and Council deliberation •Council is open to exploring alternative ways to engage 18 Findings & Responses F6: The Grand Jury encountered lack of cooperation from SLOPD The City disagrees with this finding. R7: SLOCGJ recommends City Manager set formal response guidelines and training for requests This recommendation will not be implemented. Response Summary: •Grand Jury had full access: Police Chief, Public Affairs Manager, extensive interviews (including a 90-minute session), written responses, and thousands of data points. •City consistently responds promptly and cooperatively to Grand Jury inquiries with oversight from the City Manager •Grand Jury requests vary in scope and do not lend themselves to a uniform response process. 19 Next Steps •Submit response letter & attachments to Presiding Judge & Grand Jury •Continue collaboration with Cal Poly, County, and community stakeholders on neighborhood livability •Upcoming Major City Goal tasks: •Study session on Code Enforcement priorities related to safe/livable neighborhoods and receive feedback on priorities. Discuss potential updates to property maintenance standards. (est. FY 2026 Q4) •Create a project plan and SOPs for enforcement of zoning code regulations pertaining to Greek houses and consider potential updates to zoning code. (est. FY 2026 Q3) 20 Recommendation Approve the City Council, Planning Commission, and City Manager’s joint response (Attachment A) to the San Luis Obispo County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “Round and Round with Town and Gown.”