Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-25-2012 ac PH1 Rowley, Schmidt, Cross, SherrittRECEIVE D Goodwin, Heather SEP252012 SLO CITY CLERK iFrom:Lichtig, Kati e Sent:Tuesday, September 25, 2012 8 :55 A M To:Grimes, Maeve; Goodwin, Heathe r Subject FW: Item PHI Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval ... SLO Bre w Attachments:SLO Brew Appeal .do c Please distribute for tonight's meeting . Katie E . Lichti g City Manager City of San Luis Obispo, C A 990 Palm Stree t San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 805-781-711 4 www .slocity .or g From :Sandra Rowley fmailto :macsar99©vahoo .coml Sent :Tuesday, September 25, 2012 6 :02 A M To : Marx, Jan ; Carpenter, Dan ; Carter, Andrew ; Ashbaugh, John ; Smith, Kathy Cc : Lichtig, Kati e Subject :Item PHI Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval ... SLO Brew Attached please find a letter from RQN . Sandy Rowley AGENDACORRESPONDENCEDate9sitem#4/-i t Residents for Quality Neighborhood s P.O .Box 12604 .San Luis Obispo .CA 93406 September 25, 201 2 SUBJECT : Item PHI, Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of a Nightclub (SLO Brewin g Company) Relocation in the Historic Downtown Commercial (C-D-H) Zon e Dear Mayor Marx and Council Members , Residents for Quality Neighborhoods is very concerned about impacts the proposed bar/nightclu b at 736/738 Higuera Street will have on both downtown residents and residents living in area s within walking distance, so we are supporting the appeal . Our concerns include : 1.The establishment of a large bar/tavern in an already over concentrated bar/tavern are a as identified by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control .The proposed project is substantially different from a simple relocation of the existing SLO Brewing Company . The floo r areas and occupancy limits are significantly greater than at the current location – a 65% increase i f 1119 Garden Street currently holds 741 patrons, but a 120% increase if the current occupancy i s 555 patrons, the equivalent of adding another bar . The increase in occupancy, along with th e proposed location, has led us to conclude there will be significant impacts to residents an d adjacent businesses, as well as to Mission Plaza . The number of conditions being required t o mitigate the impacts bears this out . Additionally, the presumed revocation of the current use permit because of a potential one-yea r lapse in use due to seismic retrofitting is speculative . If the retrofit is completed within the one - year time frame, the use permit will remain valid . Therefore, we recommend the use permit fo r Garden Street be revoked concomitant with approval of the use permit for Higuera Street . 2.Inconsistency with results of the recent Land Use Element Survey that indicates 59% o f respondents want fewer bars in the downtown area (31% are satisfied with the curren t situation). The Land Use Element includes wording that the City "serve as the County's hub fo r entertainment and cultural services ." However, it is implicit that these uses not be detrimental t o the overall health, safety, and welfare of those living or working in our community . The over- concentration of bars in the downtown area, the noise and parking impacts, and the necessar y policing of a large crowd of people are all negative impacts related to this project . 3.Ongoing use of a public park, Mission Plaza, for a private business use .The use o f Mission Plaza for a waiting line on a routine, if not daily, basis for the exclusive use of a privat e enterprise is inappropriate regardless whether or not an event is scheduled in the Mission . Th e enjoyment of public parks, especially Mission plaza, should be for everyone in the community no t one particular business, and the queuing of up to 600 people is detrimental to the enjoyment o f others . 4.Noise impacts to residents living near the proposed bar due to upwards of 600 peopl e queuing within Mission Plaza prior to any events . Despite condition number 22 which describe s "an orderly line of patrons awaiting entry that does not block public access on, or use of, th e sidewalk or street shall be maintained," it is inconceivable that the patrons will not generat e audible and distinguishable noise to residents residing near the Mission, especially in the evenin g hours when it would not be uncommon for a show to start at 9 :00 pm . 5.Noise impacts to residents living near the proposed auditorium from large numbers o f patrons leaving events at 1 :00 AM . It is likely that attendees will significantly impact nearb y residents as they return to their vehicles . Surrounding streets, including Monterey, Palm, Broad , Chorro, and Nipomo have significant residential components . It is equally likely that attendee s walking home will impact residents who live along their routes . 6.Lack of attenuation to low frequency noise impacts to residents in the downtown an d adjacent areas from the second story auditorium/concert space . Low frequency sound has a lon g wave length, can pass through and around a wide variety of materials and could easily trave l beyond the sound study area creating significant impacts on nearby residents . The noise report did not indicate that low bass sounds/vibrations would be contained within the building . Also, wil l opening doors or windows on the second floor release sound and vibrations from the auditoriu m into the surrounding area ? 7.Noise impacts to residents in the downtown and adjacent residential areas from th e proposed roof level patio and bar .Results of the noise studies to establish baseline sound level s were given as an average ; knowing the level and duration of the peaks would give a clearer pictur e of current noise impacts since it is often the peaks in noise that annoy . An A-weighted sound leve l was used for the study ; thus, as stated, the effects of low and high frequencies were reduced . A C- weighted or other form of measurement is needed to capture low bass sounds, and would hav e given you a more complete idea of current downtown noise impacts . Sounds, regardless of decibel levels, can be significant and unmitigated especially in the evening . While background noise at ground level can be similar to decibel levels from voices, voices comin g from a third story can be heard at a distance where the background noise is diminished, and ca n have a significant impact on residents . Per condition number 12, the roof level patio is to be closed to patrons after 11 pm . Will clean-u p be conducted quietly? Will staff use the roof patio as a break area? Who will periodically monito r for compliance ? 8.Potential parking impacts and associated noise in adjacent neighborhoods .The propose d new bar/nightclub/restaurant has an occupancy limit of 1221 people . Parking impacts should b e expected in nearby residential areas from employees and patrons of the project . No mitigatio n has been proposed . 9.Long-term parking impacts from underestimated parking-in-lieu fees . The project's parking requirements were calculated on one space per 350 square feet for a restaurant/bar / nightclub . In accordance with Table 6 (Parking Requirements by Use) of the Zoning Regulations, the calculation for bar/tavern, nightclub, and restaurant uses require one space per 60 square fee t of customer use plus one space per 100 square feet of food preparation area . Under-calculatio n of parking-in-lieu fees creates a lack of future funding for downtown parking projects . 10.Unresolved bus parking area that impacts residents . 11.Inclusion of specific language allowing special event hours of 6AM to 1AM .Allowin g another bar to open at 6am for St Patrick's Day, Cinco de Mayo and graduation is questionabl e given the impacts on downtown retail, residents, and tourists . Watching young adults stumbl e down the street beginning as early as 10am is not good advertisement for our city . Recommend you uphold the appeal . This project is not a good fit for the area for the reason s stated above . However, if it is your intent to deny the appeal, recommend you retain all conditions listed an d add conditions to 1) insure the noise and vibrations from the low bass are contained within th e auditorium, 2) revoke the Garden Street use permit concomitant with the approval of the Higuer a Street use permit, 3) have advanced ticket sales for events, 4) use a shuttle service from a n appropriate off-site location in lieu of a queue, 5) eliminate the third floor roof patio, and 6 ) require events to be alcohol free with no migration of patrons to/from the bar during an event . Thank you for your time and your attention to this matter . Sincerely, Sandra Rowle y Chair, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods Goodwin, Heather From : Sent: To: Subject: Richardson, Apri l Tuesday, September 25, 2012 11 :05 A M Goodwin, Heathe r FW: SLO Brew Appeal R ECEIVE D SEP25 7(112 SLO CITY C LER K AGENDA CORRESPONDENC E Date 2-r/12 1tem#f April Richardso n Administration Executive Assistan t 805-781-712 3 Visit our website at www .slocitv .org Original Message From : Council, SloCit y Sent : Tuesday, September 25, 2012 11 :04 A M To : Richardson, Apri l Subject: FW : SLO Brew Appea l From :rschmidt@rain .org Sent : Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10 :59 :53 AM (UTC-08 :00) Pacific Time (US & Canada ) To : Council, SloCit y Subject : SLO Brew Appea l Dear Council Members , I support the appeal on the SLO Brew expansion, and urge you to reject this relocation and expansion of this rowdy ba r scene . The only reason this "project" exists is because Council previously approved a hotel on a city parking lot, and the noise , bailing, pissing, and general nuisance from the existing SLO Brew would be incompatible with that genteel use . So the owners want to inflict it elsewhere, CLAIMING IT IS A RELOCATION WHEN IN FACT IT IS A VAST EXPANSION OF TH E DRUNKEN ROWDY VENUE THEY OPERATE . The idea of using Mission Plaza as a staging ground for this nonsense is so off the wall, one has to wonder if th e applicant stuck it in there as a loss leader, as something they know will not fly, so Mr . Ashbaugh can feel good about compromising it out and approving all the rest of their absurd application . The extended hours for getting drunk on the drunk days of the year is beyond belief . Maybe the police departmen t should face this reality with the same vigor it faces off against the homeless . But, of course, the drunks come from goo d families, the homeless don't, so I guess that's why the difference . 1 • Is this creaky old building fit for the proposed upper story auditorium use? Or the roof drinking venue (talk abou t broadcasting your noise far and wide!)? As one licensed by the state of California to recognize structural BS, I seriousl y doubt it . Of course, there's nothing stopping staff, who have no such state recognized qualification, from signing off on it as safe, which they surely will do . The planning staff report's dealing with CEQA and parking are beyond any effort at truth, decency, or fairness . The staff will do anything to save WestPac money and to speed this project through . Thus the 600 capacity "auditorium" will nee d to provide fewer parking spaces than could be fit in my yard . That's just jaw-dropping arrogance on the part of staff. But it sure saves WestPac a pile of money for in-lieu fees . Projects like this (featuring the city's favored client, WestPac) go a long way to illuminate the degree to which our cit y has become corrupted by the pro-business bias of our three most recent city managers . This one sails through, we'll al l know the Council is fully on board with the corrupt ones . Sincerely , Richard Schmid t PS . OK, here's an example of why I am so angry with your perversion of the public good for the benefit of outfits lik e WestPac and the Copelands . I sat on the Planning Commission when the original SLO Brew use permit came forth . W e were told this would be a quiet location for the appreciation of local craft beer in a cozy venue . There would be no liv e entertainment, only soft piano music in the background . The use permit prohibited live entertainment . It was brought to staffs attention some time later that there was indeed live entertainment, and that such was being advertised . This precipitated a full-on review-for-revocation of the establishment's use permit, and at that public hearing th e owners pled for the right to have only acoustic entertainment in return for not revoking their permit . We acquiesced . So what the hell has happened in the meanwhile? The city managers have directed staff not to revie w use permits for such trivial violations, and to give permit holders carte blanche to do what they want, even ignorin g council-set conditions of approval . At first that was a struggle, but it was overcome by firing the planners who believe d their first duty was serving the public good (Terry Sanville and Ken Bruce), and maneuvering out a good CDD who side d with them, and restocking the planning operation with people who know what side their bread is buttered and are quit e willing to facilitate the corruption . So everything's out of control . And you're supposed to be in charge . You wonder wh y the homeowner residency has declined from 60+%, when John Dunn came on board to about 36% today? Look in th e mirror – the city did it . 2 Goodwin, Heather RECEIVE D SEP25201 2 From : Sent: To : Subject : .Maeve Xennedy Grimes City Clerk City of San Luis Obisp o 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-324 9 (805) 781-710 2 From :Carter, Andrew Sent:Tuesday, September 25, 2012 11 :01 A M To : Grimes, Maeve Cc : Johnson, Derek; Lichtig, Katie ; Johnson, Dere k Subject :FW : Item PH 1 APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVA L Public correspondence, SLO Brew . Categorically exempt determination . Andrew Carte r Council Membe r City of San Luis Obisp o From :Brett Cross [brettcross@yahoo .com] Sent : Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7 :12 A M To : Marx, Jan ; Carpenter, Dan ; Carter, Andrew; Ashbaugh, John ; Smith, Kathy Subject:Fw : Item PH 1 APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVA L ---- Forwarded Message ---- From : Brett Cross <brettcrossavahoo .com > To :"slocitycouncilat7slocitv .orq"<slocitvcouncilaislocitv .ora > Sent : Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12 :22 A M Subject : Item PH 1 APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVA L Mayor and Council members ; RE : APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A NIGH T CLUB (SLO BREWING COMPANY) RELOCATION IN THE HISTORI C DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL (C-D-H) ZONE .(A 57-12). Among other issues in the staff report is staffs determination that the project is exempt unde r Section 2 .Environmental Review .Categorically exempt under Class 1,Existing Facilities,Sectio n t Grimes, Maeve SLO CITY CLER K Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12 :18 P M Goodwin, Heathe r FW : Item PH 1 APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVA L AGENDA CORR ESPONDENC EDate /T hem#±'µI 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines because the project proposes the relocation of a business into a n existing building with no overall increase in floor area. The actual wording of section 15301 and subsequent sections and subsections doesn't describe th e relocation of a business . Section 15301 specifically notes the key consideration is whether th e project involves negligible or no expansion of an EXISTING USE (emphasis added). And it appears to apply to an existing use in an existing building . Staff needs to clarify their determination . 15301 . Existing Facilitie s Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or privat e structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond tha t existing at the time of the lead agency's determination . The types of "existing facilities" itemized below are not intended to be all - inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1 . The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible o r no expansion of an existing use . The parking calculations and subsequently the park-in-lieu fees are based on 1 space per 350 squar e feet for a restaurant/bar/nightclub (1 parking space required per 350 square feet of gross floor area ) utilizing the gross floor area of each floor . Table 6 of the current Zoning Regulations indicates on e space per 60 square feet and one space per 100 square feet of food preparation area and that is fo r each of the uses listed- whether it be a bar, restaurant, or nightclub . Staff needs to clarify th e requirement. Beyond the current parking requirements it is painfully ridiculous that the secon d level auditorium space which has a total square footage of 5122 of which the auditorium portion i s 3000 sq . feet with an occupancy limit is 600 (1 occupancy load per 5 sq . ft .) would only require a minuscule 50 spaces if one were to use the 1 space per 60 calculation . Using 1 per 350 sq . ft . provides a laughable 8 .57 spaces . That doesn't even make sense . Looking at Table 6 it appears that entertainment facilities are subject to parking requirements as provided in approved Use Permit , thus allowing the City Council to determine an appropriate parking requirement . The impact to the City's Parking Fund and the ability to develop or maintain parking that satisfie s the demand requirements of new development projects within the parking in-lieu fee area i s severely jeopardized . The use of Mission Plaza as a staging area for hundreds of concert goers, potentially daily, i s astonishing . I cannot believe the use of a public space for the expressed "need" of a privat e business, especially as important Mission Plaza is to the community is even being considered . Thi s is truly outrageous, inappropriate, and should never be considered or allowed . The sound analysis, although very scientific doesn't address noise from patrons queuing in line , concert goers returning to their vehicles late at night in nearby residential areas, or the lo w frequency bass noise that travels right though walls to surrounding residential areas . The allowance of expanded hours for Special event hours of 6 am to 1 am for winter/sprin g graduation day, St .Patrick's Day, and Cinco de Mayo is beyond comprehension . Why would th e City encourage drinking and the accompanying issues that arise from these "Special" events?. It's ridiculous . The City is experiencing significant problems on the days already . To codify this problem is unbelievable . 2 Lastly it appears as though once the Use Permit at this location is approved it cannot be revoked. Condition 32 discusses Use Permit review, and on-going compatibility of the uses on the projec t site, wherein conditions of approval may be added, deleted, or modified . Why isn't revocation o f the Use Permit also included in the list of actions?. Sincerely, Brett Cros s 1217 Mariners Cov e San Luis Obispo, C A Information from ESET Endpoint Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7515 (20120925 ) The message was checked by ESET Endpoint Antivirus . http ://www .eset .com Information from ESET Endpoint Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7516 (20120925 ) The message was checked by ESET Endpoint Antivirus . http ://www .eset .com 3 Goodwin, Heather RECEIVE D SEP25201 2 From : Sent: To: Subject: Grimes, Maev e Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12 :27 P M Goodwin, Heathe r FW: SLO Brew relocation SLO CITY CLER K AGENDA CORRESPONDENC E Date 7/aSfi2ltem#PH I .Maeve 9Cennedy Grime s City Cler k City of San Luis Obisp o 990 Palm Stree t San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-324 9 (805) 781-7102 From :kirstin sherritt fmailto :secretgardenslo( kimail .com l Sent :Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12 :09 P M To : Grimes, Maeve Subject :SLO Brew relocatio n Honorable Council Members — Regarding the relocation of SLO Brew : I am concerned about the relocation of SLO Brew to the Carrissa Building on Higuera Street . As a five-year former clos e neighbor of SLO Brew on Garden Street and a prospective next door neighbor it is important for me to express thes e concerns . In reference to pages 54-59, Attachment 7 of the Council Agenda Report where the applicant conducted a `surve y of surrounding businesses' to determine the closing hours of most retail stores, my business, The Secret Garden was no t included despite the fact that it will be the very next door neighbor . Though it is true I rarely close later than six o'cloc k during the year, it has been at best overlooked and at worst completely disregarded that I am their closest neighbor an d that the front and only entrance to my shop faces the creek . That said I would like to note staff response number 5, pag e 11, which states that "queuing of preconcert patrons at the back entrance to the building provides compatibility wit h neighboring businesses by not obscuring a building's entrance with a patron line . As conditioned, the proposed use i s compatible with existing and potential uses in the vicinity ." This staff response is inaccurate . It fails to include the mos t proximal neighboring business ; furthermore, Page 3 of the conditional use permit application includes a graphic of a patron line that stems off across the front entrance of The Secret Garden. My business has been downtown for over 8 years, 3 of which have been at this creek side location . 1 I would also like to note that part of the success of my business is the serene ambiance that this section of th e creek path provides . This is part of why I chose to move to this location . This includes a thriving old-growth Black Walnut tree that has been misrepresented in Attachment 2, page 19 as a, "disfigured ... safety concern with it's low lyin g decayed branches ." This tree is in my d irect view as I look out of my shop everyday . A more realistic description is tha t this species is one of the most treasured trees in American history ; habitat for many native species including hawks an d food for the native woodpecker, which I have witnessed frequenting its branches . These branches are not a threat to safet y as they start more than six feet up the trunk in a planter at least a foot and a half off the ground, set approximately six feet from the main creek path . These branches are full of leaves and fruiting this fall season, not an indication of decay .A large portion of the growth on this tree reaches over to the Gold Concept property that I rent . I spoke informally to a cit y arborist who assured me that the tree would not pose a safety hazard to me or my customers for many years--possibl y ever--with minimal maintenance . I suggest that the Council and the Architectural Review Commission require that this black walnut tree be worked into the outside patio plan as the city has required other creek-side businesses to do in orde r to preserve the habitat, serenity and charm of this historical part of downtown . I have read the Planning Commission's Resolution and I support their conditions ; however, I think that there are othe r locations more appropriately suited for SLO Brew than the Mission area of the creek . I am asking that the presence of m y business not be overlooked in the final plan like it was in the original . Thank you for your consideration , Kirstin Sherrit t The Secret Garden 805-544-4372 740 Higuera Street, Creek Side San Luis Obispo, Ca 9340 1 Information from ESET Endpoint Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7516 (20120925 ) 2 The message was checked by ESET Endpoint Antivirus . http ://www .eset.com 3