Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-25-2012 ac carloni ph1~ii ui~llllllllllll ogiq RECEIVE D SEP 25 201 2 SLO CITY CLER Kcouncil memoRanOum AGEND A CORRESPON DENC E Date a-.57 12-Item#PW I SUBJECT : Public Hearing Item No . I ; Appeal of the SLO Brewing Company relocatio n project at 736/738 Higuera Street (A 57-12 ) This memo responds to several questions related to the SLO Brewing Company appeal . Is the rear access along proposed routes A &B ADA-compliant ? The rear access to the building along proposed routes A and B is not ADA compliant . The City is only obligated to address access compliance consistent with the 201 0 California Building Code (CBC) as it relates to the proposed property improvements . The CBC does not grant authority for the City to mandate work beyon d the confines of the property where work is proposed . The rear exit/entrance strategy proposed by the applicant is consistent with approvals for neighboring businesses exitin g to the creek-side pedestrian easement towards the Mission Plaza . The accessible path o f travel is through the buildings Higuera Street entrance/exit, as noted on page PHI-22 o f the Council Agenda Report (Attachment 3, project plans, callout #8). As reviewed b y Tim Girvin, Chief Building Official, the project will be in conformance with the 201 0 CBC . How long is the worst-case scenario patron queue? Where will it end ? The worst-case queue would be approximately 500 feet in length ; assuming a two person wide line with approximately 20 inches of length per person . The applicant proposes no - queue access to the second level auditorium and discounted concert tickets for patron s dining at the first level restaurant which is likely to shorten the length of the queue . However assuming the worst-case scenario, the 500 foot line utilizing route A would terminate at the Broad Street 90-degree dog-leg, adjacent to the Mission Plaza restroom s as shown on page PH1-27 of the Council Agenda Report (Attachment 4). A 500 foot lin e utilizing route B would terminate at the east corner of Monterey Street, at the intersectio n of Broad Street and Monterey Street adjacent to the San Luis Obispo Museum of Art . DATE : TO : VIA :Katie Lichtig, City Manage r FROM :Derek Johnson, Community Development Directo r BY :Marcus Carloni, Assistant Planner September 25, 201 2 City Council Council Memo — SLO Brew Appeal (PH-1 ) Page 2 of 3 Will the project go before the CHC to review the proposed changes to the rear -- from wood porch and stairway to steel stairway ? The proposed modifications are to a Master List building and staff is working with th e applicant to ensure these modifications are consistent with City policy and the Secretar y of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties . If the appeal is denie d and the Use Permit is approved, the project, including the proposed changes to the rear o f the building, will be reviewed by the CHC who will make a recommendation for fina l action to the ARC . The ARC's decision would be appealable to the City Council pursuan t to Chapter 2 .48 (Section 2 .48 .080 .D Appeals) of the City's Municipal Code . What happens if there is a 2-2 split on the appeal of the project ? A 2-2 split vote constitutes no action by the City Council . A 2-2 vote to deny or uphold the appeal would mean the Planning Commission's approval of the project will stand . Please briefly explain the impact of moving from deemed approved status at th e current SLO Brewing Company location to conditional use permit status at th e proposed SLO Brewing Company location . Zoning Regulations Chapter 17 .11 Deemed Approved Alcoholic Beverage Sale Regulations applies to uses which have been established without Use Permit approva l (Section 17 .11 .030 .B Applicability). SLO Brewing Company at the existing locatio n (1119 Garden Street) has an approved Use Permit ; therefore Chapter 17 .11 does no t apply . The existing Use Permit at the 1119 Garden Street location was approved in 200 1 and contains seven conditions . The relocation presents the opportunity to provide update d conditions of approval to adequately provide for the proposed use . The 36 recommende d conditions of approval provide consistency with adopted City policy to manage alcoho l outlets and reduce the number of alcohol-associated incidents/impacts on police resource s to promote a safer downtown environment . Please explain the projects categorical exception from the California Environmenta l Quality Act (CEQA). Reuse of existing buildings, particularly when the proposed use is a conditionall y permitted use, is exempt from CEQA under section 15301 et seq . (Existing Facilities), unless there are factors that give rise to this exemption consistent with section 15300 .2 Exceptions . Section 15301 et seq . is for projects wherein the proposed activity wil l involve negligible or no expansion of the use existing at the time the exemption i s granted. In this case, the project will comply with noise and parking replacement requirements fo r the change in use and other General Plan policies which designate the Downtown as th e appropriate and compatible location for this type of use (LUE 4 .3, 4 .16 .1, and LUE Goal #24). There were no individual or cumulative issues identified during the review tha t demonstrated that this project was an exception to the exemption . The test for applyin g section 15301 to the specific project is if the project does meets any adopted General Plan Council Memo – SLO Brew Appeal (PH-1 ) Page 3 of 3 policies or requirements of the adopted Zoning Ordinance or presents any othe r environmental issues . As stated in Section 15301, "The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use ." Bar/Tavern and Night Club are an allowed use subject to an Administrative Use Permi t per Chapter 17 .22 Use Regulation. Due to the scale of the proposed use it was elevate d to the Planning Commission who unanimously supported the CEQA findings and use o f section 15301 . Additionally, section 15332 (In-Fill Development) exempts projects tha t are in-fill in nature and comply with all applicable General Plan policies and Zonin g Regulations . The proposed alterations to the interior and exterior of the building must b e designed consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment o f Historic Properties to be exempt pursuant to section 15331 Historical Resourc e Restoration/Rehabilitation . Staff will be prepared to augment the CEQA findings if Council wants additiona l information to support the project . Continuing or denying the project with or withou t prejudice is exempt from CEQA . 1) How much police contact has taken place at the existing SLO Brewing Compan y location (1119 Garden Street) and the nearby vicinity in the past two years?2)Ho w much police contact had taken place when the City did the study of crimina l incidents in the vicinity of ban several years ago ? 1)The Police Department did an analysis of the calls for service at SLO Brew (111 9 Garden Street) for the last four years . The time periods were separated to distinguis h between the time that the business has been under new ownership which bega n October of 2010 and the previous ownership . Each two year period was reviewed i n depth to ensure that the business itself was responsible for the call for service . The reason for doing this is often times when officers build a call for service they will use a general landmark for the location which will have no connection to the busines s itself. In comparing the data from October 2008 through 2010 (preious ownership) compare d to the October 2010 through 2012 time period (under current ownership) it wa s discovered that there were almost twice as many calls for service during the 2008 - 2010 time period compared to the 2010-2012 time period . Between October 2008 an d October 2010 there were 91 calls for service associated with the then Downtow n Brew. During the same time period of October 2010 through September 2012 ther e were 55 calls for service associated with SLO Brew . The types of calls range fro m alcohol related events to theft and fraud reports . 2)In the ASIPS study that was conducted in 2008 they reported 83 calls for servic e during that calendar year . It is not clear whether these calls were screened to ensur e that the business was involved or if the data was taken directly from the record s management system without being fully researched . Please contact Derek Johnson at 781-7187 if you have any questions .