HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/15/1995, C-8 & 1 - 1995/96 CLAIM FOR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) SUBVENTIONS & APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO APPROVER USE PERMIT 76-95-ESTABLISH BAR NEXT TO MOTHERS TAVERN ��������i►�IIII��►�I ►���`� city of San Luis osispo ME G DATE:
T _ 17;s-
0--i-is
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBERee
FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Public Works Director
PREPARED BY: Harry Watson, Transit Manager
Reinie Gwin, Transportation Technician
SUBJECT: 1995/96 Claim for Transportation Development Act (TDA) Subventions
CAO RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) By resolution, approve the Annual Claim for Local Transportation Funds and State Transit
Assistance Funds
2) By motion, approve amendments which will bring the 1995/96 budget into conformance with
the 1995/96 claim for TDA subventions
DISCUSSION:
The Transportation Development Act (TDA) of 1972 annually allocates state money to local
agencies for their approved transportation programs and projects. These allocations are made
through two local funds, the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and the State Transit Assistance Fund
(STA), which are administered in this county by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
(SLOCOG). City policy (page B-8 of the 1995/97 Financial Plan) restricts use of all TDA revenue
to alternative transportation, such as transit or bike and pedestrian projects. TDA stipulates that
two percent of the LTF allocation(after deducting initial contributions for regional agencies)be used
for bicycle and pedestrian projects.
For various reasons TDA revenue for the City of San Luis Obispo has declined over the past five
years. The City's population as a percent of the county total has declined. The City's contribution
to Regional Transit has increased. The fund total is lower because it is tied to retail sales tax, which
has decreased. And finally, direct contributions to regional agencies have increased.
The TDA allocation available to the City in 1995/96 amounts to $878,721 ($822,908 from LTF and
$55,813 from the STA Fund) for the following purposes:
City share of Regional Transit Cost (from LTF) $328,810
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects (from LTF) $ 16,458
TDA Audit Cost Reimbursement (from LTF) 1,250
SLO Transit (from LTF) 476,390
SLO Transit (from STA) 55.813 549.911
Total $8789721
The City must file a claim with SLOCOG to receive this money.
FISCAL IMPACT:
After City share of Regional Transit Cost ($328,810) is deducted, there is a net $549,911 available
for 1995/96. Because this amount is less than the amount projected in the 1995/99�6 budget, an
��� ►�1111111��in�����U City of San LUIS OBISP0
COUNCIL AGENDA,.REPORT
amendment is needed to bring the budget into conformance with the actual revenues of the 1995/96
claim for TDA subventions: The proposed adjustments will: 1) decrease TDA revenue.budgeted for
bicycle and pedestrian projects from $18;200 to $16,500 and 2) decrease TDA.revenue budgeted for
the transit fund from $590,700 to $533,500. As noted in a previous agenda.item regarding transit
services,.the existing fund balance will be used to maintain service levels during FY'1995-96. During
that time staff will be examining options to increase revenue or decrease services and. return to
Council for guidance.
ATTACHMENT:
Resolution
Claim .bQciiments
.I:\tdacLWm .
n _ '7
RESOLUTION NO. (1995 SERIFS)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING THE ANNUAL CLAIM FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS
AND STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS
WHEREAS, The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) has allocated
$878,721 of Transportation Development Act subventions to the City of San Luis Obispo (the
City) for approved transportation programs and projects; and
WHEREAS, the City must file a claim with SLOCOG to receive this money;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo as follows:
1. to approve the Annual Claim for Local Transportation Funds and State Transit
Assistance Funds
2. to authorize the Transit Manager to execute the claim documents
3. to direct the City Clerk to forward one executed copy of the claim and one
certified copy of this resolution to:
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
1150 Osos Street, Suite 202
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Upon motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 1995.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Diane Gladwell, City Clerk
*0kyyAt1oWeY4wk
Q.
e u?-3
r
� �-
n
a V N N CA N 3 O b o
D a e a
c wn <a H b n mS.? Or -t o. N0a O o O m e' �nm � p m
3pD co ^?
'
R S
W V O O N A m
m N
7 7 7 7 7 7 W O V A W A. A Z
e C N d d d d d d d d m A V m W A N m 9 co
r Q m w m A m o m e = O
3 w m i O Z O N to '0 N W w N CCT �I
a � a
at
e o q r o m m m vi n K
fe C1 A V y Z
y 3e a am'�
q A +
m
g e 3 + A N N N m m N N m fW0 m 444 al m p a$ m
N p C m V + O O a V + N O A m A 00 01 Ig r
O + O O O G O A w N L 0 m w -+
ry n e. O O O O O N V d O w m O W T A co
w0 m a
N O g
n � m
al
v 0 w V �, a :o S Z
o m V bt + V
+ > > > > W NO m V m m O s
e 6 g m d d d d d d d d O m A m + A V A 6
O + s 0
n
0 F
n
C Iwo N N A N m V w m F Q Q c
N m 00 V m W W N m 7e . ~ C
u 9 + m W A G to fo fe -1 n a
9 o Z > > Z Z a + a V w m V + s e
a d d d d d d d d m O V A a m O V w
f
3 'v A o w v 3.3 'W .0 �
O Z Z N
�
�w m
e OUN Op. N A Ow O m O O O OO r
ie OO 0(v/�
d d d_ d d d d d m C
o eCA
� " m
w
n [e w + 7e qw a m m o N p ni w v r w N
+
o n G
o' qa a co
m > > > > > Z 2 2 loo 0 0 a a N N o•
9 �
O fJ, w m
n y
q O O O O O O V O S D
n a O O O
n �
fq 5 a +
W CI m + W' + N A N y
m N N a m m W 01 m r 0
N + N O A m A OI
w y y J
V A le N i. m W w
m
cc d m W m o W m m w m D
N p
e m N V A + V m w
w 7 7 7 7 2 7 m w w V m O m
+ N V A0 O V m O w O
E
a
O N A A + A N + N N
N V w m m W +
m + N N W 41 + O e Q
f' O W m d m L N O fmD W O m N O W O w
d
N tall + m tail 01 + m y 0 N
V m co r m + io a a s
W Z 7 7 7 7 7 V w N + + a a r D
+ b d d d d d V V W W O N W O m O
a N m N m m a m w tT + o ca m m " p
o a V m + m m o W o a m u ,•, o
V o 0 0 0 o it "fo iu if a a ei v + > o
w N O O O O m V w + N O A m m m m r
+ O O O O N V V V m O m to m a m F
� �y
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIM
FY 1995/96
FILING REQUIREMENTS
Please submit the following items as marked:
X 1. The signed TDA Claim Form (CCR § 6630).
X 2. A signed and completed Certifications Form (CCR § 6632).
X 3. A completed annual project and financial plan identifying all proposed LTF and STA
expenditures (CCR § 6632).
X 4. A certified copy of a resolution or minute order authorizing the claims and approving
basic purposes for which they are filed (CCR § 6632).
X 5. A budget or proposed budget for the fiscal year of the claim or portion thereof
pertaining to transportation (CRC § 6732).
X 6. A statement of projected or estimated revenues and expenditures for the prior fiscal
year pertaining to transportation (CCR § 6732).
X 7. A statement identifying and substantiating the reason or need for any increase in
transportation operating budget in excess of 15% above the preceding year, and
substantial increase or decrease in scope of operations, or any capital provisions for
major new fixed facilities (PUC § 99266) if applicable.
X 8. A certificate from the Department of Motor Vehicles per Section 1808.1 of the Vehicle
Code (PUC§99251; CAC § 6632 (c)) for jurisdictions operating transit systems i.e.
pull notice program, bus facility inspection (please enclose only one copy of a
certificate as proof).
-00- S
Item 1. ANNUAL CLAIM
FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS AND
STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS
CLAIM #SLO-956-1
FISCAL YEAR 1995/96
TO: San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
1150 Osos Street, Suite 202
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
FROM: CLAIMANT: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADDRESS: 955 Morro Street
CITY: SAN LUIS OBISPO ZIP CODE: 93401
CONTACT: HARRY WATSON, TRANSIT MGR PHONE: 781-7121
This claimant, qualified pursuant to Section 99203 of the Public Utilities Code, hereby requests, in
accordance with Chapter 1400, Statutes of 1971, as amended and applicable rules and regulations,
that an allocation be made for the purposes and in the respective amounts as described in the
attached Project and Financial Plan claim form.
a) Annual (LTF) Apportionment $ 822,908
b) Annual (STA) Funds $ 55,813
1) Operator Revenues $ 7,170
2) Apportionment $ 55,813
TOTAL FUNDS BEING CLAIMED ARE $ 878,721
Claimant Signature:
Title:
Date:
This claim was conditionally approved by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments at their June
7th, 1995 meeting, by Resolution No. 95-07
Ronald L. De Carli, Executive Director Date
C1wpwM60Uda956%dwm1.SL0
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIM
FY 1995/96
Item 2. CERTIFICATIONS
By signing below, the authorized transit official certifies compliance with all of the required TDA
Certifications (those marked by an X).
X 1. Verification the proposed expenditures are in conformity with the Regional
Transportation Plan (CCR § 6651).
X 2. Full use is being made of federal funds available under the Urban Mass
Transportation Act and Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act for
transportation purposes (CCR Section 6754).
X 3. Compliance will be maintained with the adopted transfer pass policy. (PUC § 99282).
X 4. Compliance will be maintained with the law that requires equivelant reduced transit
fares and identification cards for senior citizens and disabled persons.
X 5. The transit system operator does not routinely staff a transit vehicle designed to be
operated by one person with two or more persons (PUC§99264); or is not precluded
by contract from employing part time drivers or from contracting with common
carriers of persons operating under a franchise or license (CCR § 6754).
X 6. Existing and projected farebox ratios are as listed below, and meet the minimum fare
revenue requirements for both LTF and STA monies (20% applies to SLO Transit).
a. Fiscal Year 1994/95 Farebox Ratio 38%a
b. Projected Fiscal Year 1995/96 Farebox Ratio 35 7c
X 7. The SLO Transit system will not receive TDA funds in excess of operating costs
according to the following eligibility fund test (CCR § 6634, 6754).
Estimated 1995/96 Operating Cost L.084.527
Less depreciation, amortization
and vehicle lease costs 60.000
Net Operating Costs 1&2A 527
Less amount of fare revenues required
to meet your minimum farebox revenue 204.905
Maximum amount receivable
for transit system 819.622
c� �
X 8. The following conditions placed upon the claim by action of the San Luis Obispo Council
of Governments will be met in a timely fashion, including the following:
X a. Prior to disbursement of funds, monthly transit operating data will be submitted to the
Council of Governments.
X_ b. Improvements required in the Council of Governments bus stop policy will be
programmed or implemented if applicable.
X c. Program or implement services to meet all unmet transit needs per the adopted 1995
SLOCOG resolution if applicable.
X 9. Prior to disbursement of any TDA funds (after the 1 st quarter), the following documents will
be submitted:
a. A state controller's report of financial transactions (LGFA) will be submitted to the
State Controller's Office and to SLOCOG (by September 30th);
b. Three copies of a certified fiscal audit of all TDA funds received the prior fiscal year
will be submitted to SLOCOG (by December 31 st); and
C. This claim for funds will be submitted to SLOCOG.
Signature of Authorized Official Date
Certifying Compliance
Q '00
San Luis Obi"po Council of 3overnments
Arr° taRegional Transportation PlanningAgency AcrGrande
Grover Beach
Metropolitan Planning Organization- PasoRovics
Congestion Management Agency Pismo Beaph
San Luis Obis o
San Luis Obispo Counh
a�
June 29, 1995
Mr. Harry Watson, Transit Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
955 Morro St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. Watson,
Enclosed you will find the forms necessary for filing 1995/96 Transportation Development Act (TDA)
claims for your jurisdiction. Please note that signatures are required on two forms; 1) the Annual
Claim, and 2) the Certification form. The third attached form, the "Annual Project and Financial
Plan"has been completed for your convenience; if there are any changes, you can just modify the
one attached. Other required documents are specified in the checklist entitled "Filing Requirements".
You may notice that included in this claim for funds is the addition of funds to cover the cost of your
TDA audit. In the past, SLOCOG took these funds off-the-top and reimbursed each agency for the
agreed-upon amount. SLOCOG is no longer doing this, but rather is directly allocating these funds
to each jurisdiction.
The allocations described in Exhibit A were conditionally approved at the June 7th, 1995 meeting
of SLOCOG, adjusted to include an increased contribution to the CTSA as approved in separate
COG action. As you are aware, some of the funding categories are committed, i.e. Bikeways (2%
of the total allocation to each jurisdiction), SLORTA and SCAT. The contributions to SLORTA are
based on their approved (temporary) budget, but are expected to decrease once the funding
formulas are modified, and once their new operations contract has been negotiated. We will notify
you at that time.
We will be processing the first quarter's payment on schedule in October, and the second quarter's
payment in January for all jurisdictions with completed documents.
Please call Suzanne Winslow at 781-4255 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Ronald L. DeCarli
ecutive Direct r
Dan Herron
Senior Transportion Planner cAwpwin601tda956Waim1etaug
e- SV O
1150 Osos St. Suite 202, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 • Tel. (805) 781-4219 ♦ Fax. (805) 781-5703
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ANNUAL PROJECT AND FINANCIAL PLAN -1995/96
Proposed Use Authority Amount
SLORTA System-jurisdictional LTF Article 4, PUC 328,810
share of regional transit Section 99262
under authority of JPA
Total Transit JPA Contributions U8,810
2% BIKE/PEDESTRIAN ways projects LTF Article 3, PUC 16,458
and bicycle safety education Section 99234
SLO TRANSIT-a local fixed LTF Article 4, PUC 476,390
route system Section 99262
STREETS&ROADS PROGRAM -for LTF Article 8, PUC (0)
miscellaneous street(re)construction Section 99400 (a)
and maintenance projects
TDA Audit Cost LTF Article 3, PUC 1,250
Reimbursement Section 99245
Total LTF Received Directly 494,098
SLO TRANSIT-a local fixed STA Article 6.5, PUC 7,170
route system Section 99314-Op. Revenues
SLO TRANSIT-a local fixed STA Article 6.5, PUC 48,643
route system Section 99313 -Discretionary
Total STA Received Directly 55,813
Total LTF Funds 822,908
Total STA Funds 55,813
TOTAL TDA FUNDS
�Illlln�l�ll�l�l MEETING DATE:
cityof san lui s ogi sP o 8- 15-95
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: /
b
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director;
By: Pam Ricci, ssociate Planner
SUBJECT:
Appeal of Planning Commission's action to approve Use Permit A 76-95, a request to establish
a bar downtown next to Mother's Tavern on Higuera Street.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
A. Adopt Draft Resolution A, denying the appeal, and upholding the Planning Commission's
action to determine that there is sufficient evidence to support that public necessity or
convenience warrant an exception to the undue concentration of licensed facilities within
the City of San Luis Obispo per Section 23958.4 of the California Business and
Professions Code.
B. Adopt Draft Resolution B, denying the appeal, and upholding the Planning Commission's
action to approve the use permit, based on findings, and subject to conditions.
DISCUSSION
Situation
Bill Hales, president of The Frog & Peach Pub, Inc., wants to open a bar in the space last
occupied by Big Music. Since the latter part of 1987, approval of an administrative use permit
has been required in order to establish a bar in the C-C zone. At an administrative hearing held
on June 16, 1995, the use permit was referred to the Planning Commission for resolution due
to the need for additional input from the Police Department.
Planning Commission's Action
On July 12, 1995, the Planning Commission considered the appeal of the use permit. Extensive
public testimony was provided on both sides of the issue. Those in favor of the request focussed
on how the bar would help the economic climate downtown without adversely affecting
character. Speakers against the bar were primarily concerned with littering, loitering and
property damage.
On a 6-0-1 vote, the Commission approved the use permit, based on findings and subject to
conditions. A second motion, to determine that the bar provided a public convenience or
necessity and a license from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) should be
issued, was supported on a 5-1-1 vote (Cross voting no). The determination is needed for
certain types of licenses when the ABC determines that an area has an undue concentration of
licenses, consistent with the definition included in a recently-adopted State statute. The City's
responsibility under the statute was reported to the Council in April of this year. The
Commission's basis for both decisions focussed on Land Use Element Policy 4.3 which
stipulates that entertainment facilities, such as nightclubs,should be in the downtown.
�►�H�►�►���ulllll�pn�u►glUll� city of San L.6 OBISPO
gal
i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
"The Library" Appeal
Page 2
The Commission directed staff to contact the BIA regarding issues that were brought up with
bars and nightclubs in the downtown. Commissioner Kourakis pointed out that this was a
recommendation included in the 1988 study that the City prepared regarding drinking
establishments in the downtown. The Commission wanted the Council to be aware of the issues
discussed and the Commission's suggestion for more involvement from the BIA in terms of
creating a forum for discussion and resolution of concerns.
Community Development Department Staffs Recommendation
The attached report to the Planning Commission indicates that staff provided a recommendation
on the request that differs from the Commission's ultimate action. Staff had recommended that
the use permit be approved with conditions, consistent with past actions for similar requests, but
that the public convenience determination required by the ABC for issuance of a license be
denied. As explained in the report, staff acknowledged the apparent contradiction with its
recommendation. However, staff did not feel that it had Adequate evidence that public necessity
or convenience would be served with the establishment of the bar and recommended against
making the required finding.
The basis for this recommendation was that three alcohol-serving establishments would exist
within very close proximity to one another, with the possibility of a fourth reopening
(Brubeck's). Staff viewed this as a concentration of licensed establishments and could not
determine that a public "necessity" or "convenience" existed.
Part of the reason for staff's reluctance to support the finding is the notable absence from the
implementing State law of a definition regarding "public necessity or convenience". In addition,
since the law is new, a clear precedent has not been established in terms of past City actions on
similar requests. Another perspective on the issue is reflected in Attachment No. 9 which
provides an approach to supporting the finding. The letter from Ron Bressler, the local ABC
branch office supervisor, indicates that if the population of a particular census tract is increased
on a regular basis from tourists or others that use the services of an area, then that fact should
be taken into consideration prior to making a decision regarding public necessity or convenience.
Appeal Background
On July 20, 1995, Paul Brown of Mother's Tavern delivered an appeal of the Planning
Commission's action on behalf of Jim Kilbride of the Natural Selection (attached). On July 31,
1995, Mr. Kilbride submitted a letter withdrawing his appeal (attached). City staff contacted
Paul Brown because of his known interest in the matter to advise him of Mr. Kilbride's
withdrawal of his appeal.
Mr. Brown indicated that he and others would have submitted appeals, but were advised by the
City Clerk's office that it was not necessary for them to also file appeals for the matter to be
heard by the Council. Community Development staff met with the City Attorney to determine
jw-
-
I' l city Of San _ IoS OBI SPO
WMIm COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
"The Library" Appeal
Page 3
whether the matter was legally withdrawn or should be kept on the originally scheduled agenda
for consideration.
On July 1, 1995, Paul Brown submitted an appeal form, letter and petition indicating opposition
to the establishment of the new bar. Mr. Brown also submitted a letter and appeal form from
Debra Johnston of Rustic Romance and an appeal form from Don Woolley of Penelope's. The
City Attorney made the determination that the matter would be heard by the Council because
incomplete or misleading information may have been inadvertently provided by the City Clerk's
office regarding the appeal process to Paul Brown and others, and those persons had indicated
in written statements that they continued to want the matter to be considered by the Council.
The various appeals cite concerns with the following in regard to the establishment of a bar as
proposed:
■ it does not add to the cultural diversity of the block;
■ it creates an unappealing environment for shoppers;
■ it results in a over-concentration of bars in the nearby vicinity;
■ it does not provide for public convenience or necessity -- the determination that the State
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) requires when an undue concentration
of licenses exist.
Summary
The Council has two matters to consider in regard to the appeal:
1. the use permit -- the appropriateness of approving a bar at this location in terms of land
use issues; and
2. the required ABC finding that public convenience or necessity would be served by the
issuance of a license.
The facts are that the City has never turned down a use permit for a bar in the downtown before
and that the number of bars in the downtown area has stayed about the same between 1987 and
1995 although they are now dispersed over a somewhat greater area. The Council did deny a
use permit for a non-alcoholic nightclub at 817 Palm Street (the site of the current Palm Theater)
in 1987 because of concerns with adverse impacts to nearby surrounding residents.
The ABC public convenience determination is a new and somewhat unknown quantity. The
Planning Commission was persuaded that the convenience determination could be made.
However, based on the number of those in opposition to the bar, it appears that many feel that
an over-concentration of bars in the downtown exists and that one more will make a difference.
The City does not have any criteria in its zoning regulations regarding the concentration or
spacing of bars, nor was it a recommended that such criteria be added to the zoning regulations
�����►�i�lllllllllll�l� ����ll city of San 1..,s OBISPO
Hia; COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
"The Library" Appeal
Page 4
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt Draft Resolution C, upholding the appeal and denying the use permit, based on
findings, and adopt Draft Resolution D, upholding the appeal and determining that there
is insufficient evidence to support the fording that public necessity or convenience
warrant an exception to the undue concentration of licensed facilities within the City of
San Luis Obispo per Section 23958.4 of the California Business and Professions Code.
2. Continue with direction to the staff and appellant.
Attached:
Attachment 1: Draft Resolutions A & B (support bar; Planning Commission's
recommendation)
Attachment 2: Draft Resolutions C & D (oppose bar; uphold appeal)
Attachment 3: Original appeal to City Council received 7-20-95
Attachment 4: Letter from Jim Kilbride withdrawing appeal received 7-31-95
Attachment 5: Late appeals to City Council received 8-1-95 (Woolley, Johnston &
Brown)
Attachment 6: Planning Commission follow-up letter & Resolution Nos. 5154-95 &
5155-95
Attachment 7: Draft 7-12-95 Planning Commission minutes
Attachment 8: Fax from BIA received 7-12-95
Attachment 9: Letters in support of the bar
Attachment 10: Letters in opposition of the bar
Attachment 11: 7-12-95 Planning Commission report and attachments
LAUSMA7695.CC
.I
A. MCHMENT 1
Draft Resolution A
RESOLUTION NO. (1995 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION,
THEREBY APPROVING USE PERMIT A 76-95 TO ALLOW
A BAR AT 723 HIGUERA STREET
BE rr RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Finding . That this Council, after consideration of public testimony, the
appellant's request and statements, and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff
recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, denies the appeal, based on the
following findings:
1. The proposed use, as conditioned, will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare
of persons living at the site or in the vicinity, because live entertainment and dancing are
prohibited.
2. The use, as conditioned, is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible
with surrounding land uses.
3. The proposed use, conforms to the general plan, which stipulates that entertainment
facilities such as nightclubs should be located in the .downtown, and meets zoning
ordinance requirements with provision of parking to meet ordinance standards for a bar.
4. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review (CEQA Section 15301).
SECTION 2. Action. Use Permit A 76-95, to allow the establishment of a bar at 723
Higuera Street, is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions and code requirement.
1. The applicant shall provide two additional parldng spaces for the use as required for the
C-C zone in the zoning regulations prior to occupancy.
2. Use permit approval is for a bar only. The establishment of a dance floor or live
entertainment, including amplified bands, is prohibited.
3. The site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner.
City Council Resolution No. (1995 Series)
Page 2
4. The project shall include facilities for on-site trash containment, as well as for interior
and exterior recycling, to the approval of the City Engineer and the Community
Development Director. The applicant shall consult with local recyclers regarding the size
and locations of areas dedicated to on-site recycling storage.
5. A security plan, including a management training plan and provisions for overflow
customers, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and
approval by the Community Development Director and the Police Chief.
6. The use permit shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director in one year
from the date of approval. In addition, the Planning Commission may review the use
permit if reasonable written complaints from citizens or the Police Department are
received by the Community Development Department. At the time of use permit review,
the Planning Commission or the Director may add, delete or modify conditions of
approval, or may revoke the use permit.
Code Requirement
1. Building Occupancy shall be limited and enforced by the Fire Department.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of 1995.
Mayor
City Council Resolution No. (1995 Series)
Page 3
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
Cr v,dI4 6-
City Attorney
LUMA76-95NAM
Drift Resolution B
RESOLUTION NO. (1995 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION,
THEREBY SUPPORTING THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE DETERMINATION
REQUIRED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
CONTROL (ABC) TO ALLOW ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE TO
A PROPOSED BAR AT 723 HIGUERA STREET
(USE PERMIT A 76-95)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Action. That this Council, after consideration of public testimony, the
appellant's request and statements, and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff
recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, denies the appeal, and makes the
following determination in regard to the establishment of the proposed bar:
That there is sufficient evidence to support that public necessity or convenience
warrant an exception to the undue concentration of licensed facilities within the
City of San Luis Obispo per Section 23958.4 of the California Business and
Professions Code, given that Land Use Element Policy 4.3 stipulates that
entertainment facilities such as nightclubs should be located in the downtown.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
l- S
City Council Resolution No. (1995 Series)
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_ day of 1995.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City Attorney
L'UU!XA7695B.00N
1- �
*ATTACHMENT 2
Draft Resolution C
RESOLUTION NO. (1995 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION,
THEREBY DENYING USE PERMIT A 76-95 TO ALLOW
A BAR AT 723 HIGUERA STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Finding . That this Council, after consideration of public testimony, the
appellant's request and statements, and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff
recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, upholds the appeal, based on the
following findings:
1. The proposed use will adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living
at the site or in the vicinity, because of the cumulative impacts created by the
concentration of other alcohol-serving establishments in the near vicinity of the proposed
bar.
2. The use is inappropriate at the proposed location and will not be compatible with
surrounding land uses because of on-going problems with property damage and crime
associated with other alcohol-serving establishments in the near vicinity of the proposed
bar.
SECTION 2. Action. Use Permit A 76-95, to allow the establishment of a bar at 723
Higuera Street, is hereby denied.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
/,/0
City Council Resolution No. (1995 Series)
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of 1995.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City Attorney
L-XRFSW769SY.AM
Draft Resolution D
RESOLUTION NO. (1995 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION,
THEREBY DENYING THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE DETERMINATION
REQUIRED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
CONTROL (ABC) TO ALLOW ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE TO
A PROPOSED BAR AT 723 HIGUERA STREET
(USE PERMIT A 76-95)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Action. That this Council, after consideration of public testimony, the
appellant's request and statements, and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff
recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, upholds the appeal, and makes the
following determination in regard to the establishment of the proposed bar:
That there is insufficient evidence to support that public necessity or convenience
warrant an exception to the undue concentration of licensed facilities within the
City of San Luis Obispo per Section 23958.4 of the California Business and
Professions Code.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
City Council Resolution No. (1995 Series)
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of , 1995.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City At orney
41R W6-95D.CON
ATTACHMENT 3
Sanluls OBISPO
IIS' 11
CIt o
APPEAL-TO.THE CITY-.COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision dof.-
Tk� �ggairfy L.relhwl _ f fa lqs
Q
rendered on L
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.)
# ` ( )rcr d- �ei9rh Orcn r I X12 �l4rr9�.Y
KPAia/I J9m5r'' _»i C,on r'ern-mac( ice►�T 7' �5 pAd- of �.�cvn�"oy rj
KWl 3- r WA o 'd14/XO
W, !! Ae« ,
ss e
4 11e Lv��1 Bero:&l a more O� ' /9 1�1�1 � L10 J" // DL-
LA r,X
L.LAr,n e-rnFi1Z01j rh�1n �r r3 yr,os % rnGrY��Fy ► arroky�l Jti��i4y
morh In,qs, SIC,//I:vy c k ea/� e,�r 'io col/.9��e 5 i��eJr rs . can r
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
on
Name/Department / (Date)
'Appellant:
NamelTitie Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
46(o �/I(err 1`41- G75 J
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative:
NamelTitle Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
For Official Use Only:
Calendared for of-Ir-91 Date&Time Received:
c: City Attorney .
City Administrative Officer .
Copy to the fallowing department(s):
RECEIVED
JUL 2 C 1995
ey CnYCLERK
Original in City Clerk's Office �e.�
r •
Natural Selection .
APlace lb DiscoverNature&Science
che.)w W4D/4�}Y SN--e'h5 l,( n nesSR 5�9f a
1',LN7 s�rr� . jLre�� AYe aT r 6p7'i6nS .dor 1'71,1T- : Sp�9 i
i WOK �UIn 77 .
ho n9��.. d/�e5./ r h,4 .r/o/J . 'fi 4v451e co✓t �,�ul'-
a,� ron5 .4 n�� y�K. �T ,- . o��orTtiH Tji ro
A p-e R k
yaKYs
r
JIM
M
737 HICCERA STREET SaV LCIS OBISPO, CA 93401 805-541.6766 FAX 805-511-6774
. .- :.
7I . 1. ATTACHMENT 4
�1ie
9 }
r' - ' ' ` -VG ��/
1 . '.
Natural Selection
J
. J..1. �O
A_... �i Ihseo..., a, ure&Science ;: 8rs, . ►
r -
\ 1 .
J
-
_E \ I. :July 34, X995
:.,F �� 4
1.
i
S - 1 eel [
%
P11n11111g Commliiion
`City of San-Luis Obispo
-:San Luis Obispo, CA -
Y
- •.
r
-t.
y: - ,', _
• _� .1. _
To Wh .
..
. om It Ma*too a.
..
- ;- ..
_ -
-
Iwould like to withdrawiny appeal filed:agauist the-
. ,,: , .: .
Frog And Peach opening a now bar,."The Iabrary, at,723
,Higuera St I,will be out of town for the next two weeks and
don't feel that I can`properly:follow through this.process,,
While I still have reservations about this issue, I don't : _
. ..
f1.eel:thp .Lat l-can= be fair to'All parties'involved if I ani-gone.
.
Thank y-ou very much foryour consideration0.., \
'. , y -
-
- -
. - _
0% ..
':
•'..
l�:
.. i...• .. -....'.. - - ... .'.....
S111Cerely-you
, .- % �� -.....:-. . . .. _4 . . .. , .- , .. , :u
- anesD:,Kilbride '` -
�`� .t _— , , 1. _ , , ,
- - -
'> - �, - \
..^_ :...
. .a�,,,- y .cc Paul Browri' , _' r _
r
= ct Bill Hale
-
}
moi[ - �'' '~ �;. �T "'` . Y _
r ,�. r
• ..• ��.
-.1•� 1 �:L- 1..
t f ..," h` •... •Ii - 1, - _
1 _ t._ _ S
. ._ _i'.
+-
_ . . .
'ATTACHMENT 5
Mill 111111IA"'�Ljjjjl City Of SAnluls OBJERPe .
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL AUG 1 1"5
an'ocs^wuus�
In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1�O Yf t
San Luis
Obispo Municipal&ode; theundersigned hereby appeals from the decision of.
FYI h I k rendered on Z 'tel
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as neoded.)
CC(, '
V21 0
e undersigned disc ssed the decision ing appealed with:
� I on LIJ
Name/Department (Date)
Appellant:
Nam -We Mailing Address & Ap Co e)
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative:
Name/Tdle Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
For Official Use Only:
Calendar ed for Date&Time Received: .
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s):
Originpl in City Cleft Office
/-17
: �; _- .," �y�._ .a;= .,k.a --.7.r : a:c•:' .ems:•.? _ — ��
Y•/�MI.f.�K�� ,,1.LK.'..-. pp��7 h,. .'LAY 4
f BVI► < TT. '' nt: � 4
4 -5 i-�i..�. _ •ate J� ._ -tr ti �
_ — •^ L •.'/��11 l/I v , '��� 4 1.
OA
100,
_�. _ +: _ may_ .\• :J4ri:1-b.l. .' - _ _ %' ..L•yi':�_.�,i.� t
,`�-tet.� ._{:..,w..- :._:1.;rY - �_ _'.r•*i. '• [ yh.s.-_-...�- �' .._�:•'
•-`-ti ti: .---'. .•ate :�_•. _ _ +.__:(Y•l - - .`.`z-i1:-,�i}.. .. _c�-..r.~ {
j1 Y � ice•••:' ��X•. .. ,h -jR ^'+�• l i'i'• 4 �nT.
`4t •_ sw _ 'f.:' :t�Y � 1 rn5t a Y� 4..- `Tt t. '�
.L�. !y_- �' \\ ��,� c1•_nL C 1. 4 .. _� _ 4 y.
_ ..:�s?,: .,= :.,...ham_ i' �. `.k;r.:d:,:•.:.. .. ....-.T�:_i-•�
r=te`��'�-� �•K; �.:':..4Y,': •'��. .•.�-�i :s. .:�x: �irk,''_'+:�.'f>�
__ -?i.-�r-��.�+riu�oma- +"-.i. ' �y ��>r. � __ ::... � .'/�''%`•!""r-" V��..�"`�.:•i.}:i'... .5':.��b:'
��_J•.h-����'~,,:it...+�•�:..''":S'S1`.-�:ML$:.:r=�?�'�:n`.. �- '�:t.��+ii: ti �.a�•'*.��'•i J-..,::!�:� .i�•i
....aK::Y`'�c.'_..�r;;t ...-?:4t:.. .:Y_==�:::�1:-4�-.�.. � g,'a�'t Yz al�:?'.^'� .,✓::;t . -.r-.�..�.w..�,._'.
-r: .•_ '.t �f. .�: .:j 3tF'7�.,••C� �L�aS.--- �i=. f_.^-- ..:_ i``i:�._-•...
eL1r8 obii.iWn
'1229-b:garden eet -- v
•:,;'_ -:�;..; e�:-�+ :��_ sit.:1 po _93401-.12,;
=8443
'4r. 1l•Y •f� J '• �. � .T � - ',I••s• � J 'q 1 ..f? n
= ZL_•✓lY_._.�ry.'_e't�l--_ - �J< .:�'JVTY. ITF . :- c•
PAillllIII cityo san s OB§PIE _IyEp
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL AUG I 1995
In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapterc9°Y�' t"
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of.
UIJ rendered on
f
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
�/�
for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as neaded.) 6e-
WOOD
C"
The undersigned discussed the dedision being appealed with:
on
Name/Department 'I,, (Date) / /l
Appellant: I& KI�� nap)&m5r
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
3
*oP hone or Phone
Representative:
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
For Official Use Only:
Calendared for Date&Time Received:
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s):
Original in City Clerws Office / /
�_: : � k�= =C� �T�►z-�c- MtresrrA�rlb qpV, '71 RI)V-� WNUD
�
NbK�`
KA W
�j IV At fbcjE�
-1� �Lcv '( K- mol -Tb
4�h1UCPer
Wlt,l� � Gou�L 'P� �3r✓�r�S 'Pf'���fi-c� �Vw�<
-7 24°�720 ) -7i,3 ) -7 2S� � A(5UR
F- Tf To��( 6L5� OK6
AZ pz-�
+MCA
IlllI�
city of sAn luis oQW
D
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL AUG 1 1995
oariurrswnl LUIS celspo
In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 oihe° "R
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of.
�We- ta-+�► wgsse.. rendered on 7al y tz, t ate
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting the appeal.' Use additional Lsheets as needed.)Je�
72-39+.eJ �'� o
45LO Cemso3 - l 41Ify.
POG i c®'K,c>oi -npA b h-
The undersigns discussed the decision Wing appealed with:
�j►��•tS�vdt on (3,
Name/Deparbiment (Date)
Appellant: q?t.+!l 725
Namerrttie Mailing Addre (& Zip Code)
BS 3
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative:
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
For Official Use Only:
Calendared for Date &Time Received:
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s): ^
i
Original in City ClerWs Office �—
Ron Whisenand July 31, 1995
Pam Ricci RECEIVED
s .S
San sLus poPlanning t, California � �t AUG 1CITY OF 1995
Un CeSpo
Ron and Pam S""
It came to my attention that Jim Kilbride has respectfully withdrawn
his appeal against the decision to allow"The Library"to open at 723 Higuera
I believe the appeal process should continue for the following reasons.
1) When I asked about the hearing date (this conversation occurred
between myself and a city clerk before the 10-day appeal deadline) I also asked
if anything else was needed(I specifically mentioned more appeals)and she
responded"No, once an appeal is filed,that's all that is needed for it to come
before the City Council' At this point, I was under the impression no more
appeals needed to be filed and when others on the street asked me I told them
the same thing, Otherwise myself and others would have filed additional
appeals before the deadline-
2)
eadline2) Attached is a copy of a petition with over 60% of 700 Higuera
Block merchants protesting the determination of convenience and necessity
decision made by the Planning Commission These signatures were all
signed before the appeal deadline. This was not submitted earlier only
because I believe the.majority of the remaining store owners will sign and I
wanted to present a finished document to the Council.
3) Jim Kilbride who made the original appeal,is now on vacation
until the latter part of this month It cannot be determined if Jim is aware
that withdrawing his appeal would effectively end the appeal process. In his
own words he states 'While I still have reservations about this issue, I don't
feel that I can be fair to all parties involved if I am gone." It sounds like he
withdrew his appeal because he would not be here to state his concerns and to
hear the concerns of others involved. It does not however sound like his
concern has lessened from his original appeal.
Due to these factors, I ask you to maintain the appeals process and keep
this matter an agenda item to the City Council This hearing is the only fair
way to resolve this issue. The merchants and community members deserve
the right to speak to the Council Members on this issue. San Luis would be
best served by allowing the City Council to make a fully informed decision.
Signed,
Paul M. Brown
79'N:: Cr-... • .. bi. Cafif mi, 93401 ulegow:8051541-8,33
• i • 1 • to 0 Jill •1 • 11 : • • _
Illi rJ•JMT kl U_ 'L_�+f-
:_ ._ .1 � kms• �-.•L_ =+1=
AT
• - .•��_s.-� •" L• � '{_ ter- ._.,_._� ��. i/
t ._ 71_�f WWII F11111111111,
r L,
.a• 'l 9701 .•�_�i�j
•�.! °'-_ .t Lis • 1. .i'�a'Z�-
71z PT RTTTT�E�r�
17, _L1 •1 =IF
lo
•� i 7.
lz•�• 4a • Ili ��1. /�i .,i� "�:�' //'
�1.l�-11 -.11 _.•! Ili" �.�•JI ..IIS 31 ,off/l���s -i it _ � it.
r. • li •�l 1 A"WIT/W11
VI VIP1 - 0 717- ej1 7, - M�I
.!1" Ili■ __ li_ l \/1 1•1 V -_� I!�i:'���L���
y �.
I%.-fi�rr �i` _%
RECEIVED
The following business operators of the ii Block
g
San Luis Obispo believe public convendenceand
by the opening of a fiall-liquor bar at 723 Higuera Street- ..
Business Address Name SimUtdre
The Gold CDngM2 740 Higmera
Central Coast SAirflxmTds 738 jgwera
The Natural Selection 737 Higgera %70j of Ael lb r&G
.L __l_.�■ 3�• J •L" _L-.
-• �.yivr
: !Il.�r7!,Ill ■ :L 3C= I J• Ll �.a `a �. •�._•,��:._��
M 1 Tavern f MIM l._.
Andrews jewelers 720 HijMera
Michael's cal 719 MjWera Niche-&
t����NRS
:r �� 1 a,�_cl _ 'i_ ar_ - .i:.✓/i`S/ice
PlumsMY Suite 712 Lfigmera Y4 1 JQ-�A�
The Phone Center M5 Hijpjera
RbAbm Cafe 1040 Bined
Blazing Blenders 11M BroW
Big S!� 1121 Broad
. .;a► A
Boston•1f ,7 Broad
Hind 698 HipMem -TLx-krA^)NgAk
i
Pa
*ATTACHMENT 6
VIII LI of san l�uis OBISPO�c
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100
July 14, 1995
William P. Hales
Frog and Peach Pub, Inc.
726 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: A76-95: 723 Higuera Street
Request to establish a bar downtown next to Mother's Tavern on Higuera Street
Dear Mr. Hales:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of July 12, 1995,approved the use permit for the above
address,based on the findings,and subject to the conditions listed in the attached Resolution No.
5154-95. Through a separate motion, the Planning. Commission also made the public
convenience determination required by State law as outlined in the attached Resolution No. 5155-
95.
The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within ten days of
the action. An appeal may be filed with the City Clerk by any person aggrieved by a decision
of the Commission.
Due to City water allocation regulations, the Planning Commission's approval expires after three
years if construction has not started, unless the Commission designated a different time period.
On request, the Community Development Director may grant renewals for successive periods of
not more than one year each.
If you have any questions, please contact Pamela.Ricci at 781-7168.
Sincerely,
nal G. WNWVhisea�nd _
Development Review Manager
ATTACHMENT: Resolution No.5154-95 and No. 5155-95
cc: John and June Wessel
1'^f The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to Including the disabled in all of Its services,programs and activities.
naviro fnr tho C1ezf(805)781-7410.
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5154-95
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct a
public hearing in the City Council Chamber of the San Luis Obispo City Hall, San Luis Obispo,
California, on July 12, 1995, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application No. A 76-95,
Frog and Peach Pub, Inc., applicant.
ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT REVIEWED:
Request to establish a bar downtown next to Mother's Tavern on Higuera Street.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
723 Mguera Street.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT:
General Retail.
PRESENT ZONING:
C-C-H, Central Commercial with Historical Preservation overlay.
WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and studies
made by itself, and in behalf of testimonies offered at said hearing, has established existence of
the following circumstances:
1. The proposed use, as conditioned, will not adversely affect the health, safety and
welfare of persons living at the site or in the vicinity, because live entertainment
and dancing are prohibited.
2. The use, as conditioned, is appropriate at the proposed location and will be
compatible with surrounding land uses.
l ��
s
Resolution No. 5154-95
A 76-95
Page 2
3. The proposed use, conforms to the. general plan and meet zoning ordinance
requirements with provision of parking to meet ordinance standards for a bar.
4. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review (CEQA Section
15301).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application No. A 35-95 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide two additional parking spaces for the use as required
for the C-C zone in the zoning regulations prior to occupancy.
2. Use permit approval is for a bar only. The establishment of a dance floor or live
entertainment, including amplified bands, is prohibited.
3. The site shall be-maintained in a neat and orderly manner..
4. The project.shall include facilities for on-site trash containment, as well as for
interior and exterior recycling; to the approval of the City Engineer and the
Community Development Director. The applicant shall- consult with local
recyclers regarding the size and locations of areas dedicated to on-site recycling
storage.
5. A security plan,including a management training plan and provisions for overflow
customers, .sh 11 be submitted to the Community Development Department for
review and approval by the Community Development Director and the Police
Chief.
6. The use permit shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director in one
yearr from the date of approval:In addition,the Planning Commission may review
the use permit if reasonable written complaints from citizens or the Police
Department are received by the Community Development:Department. At the
time of use permit review, the Planning Commission or the Director may add,
delete or modify conditions of approval, or may:revoke the use permit
Code Requirement
.1. Building Occupancy shall be limited and enforced by the Fire Department
The foregoing resolution was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of San
S - ,
Resolution No. 5154-95
A 76-95
Page 3
Luis Obispo upon the motion of Commr. Senn, seconded by Commr. Hoffman, and upon'the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Senn, Hofffman, Cross, Karleskint, Kourakis, Ready
NOES: None
ABSENT: Whittlesey
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
DATED: July 12, 1995
L:5154.95
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5155-95
WFIEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct a
public hearing in the City Council Chamber of the San Luis Obispo City Hall, San Luis Obispo,
California, on July 12, 1995, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application No. A 76-951
Frog and Peach Pub, Inc., applicant
ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT REVIEWED:
Request to establish a bar downtown next to Mother's Tavem on Higuera Street
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
723 Higuera Street
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT:
General Retail .
PRESENT ZONING:
C-C H, Central. Commercial with the Historical Preservation overly.
WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and studies
made by itself, and in behalf of testimonies offered at said hearing, has made the,following
determination:
That there is sufficient evidence to support that public necessity or convenience warrant
an exception to the undue concentration of licensed facilities within the City of San Luis
Obispo, per Section 23958.4 of the California Business and Professions Code. ..
Resolution No. 5155-95
A 76-95
Page 2
The foregoing resolution was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of-San
Luis Obispo upon the motion of Commr. Senn, seconded by Commr. Hoffman and upon the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Senn, Hofffman, Karleskint, Kourakis, Ready
NOES:' Cross
ABSENT: Wbittlesey
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
DATED: July 12, 1995
/-36
BUSINESS IMPROV ASSOC TEI :805-781-2647 Jul - L
A . TTACHMENT 8
RECEIVED
JUL 121995
Downtown Business Improvement Association cffrOFsawwisOBM
Executive Committee CbAM YDeinoPmL*rT
Minutes
11 July 1995
BIA Office
:Postdt".brand fax transmittal memo 7671 s or pages P.
Members Present: P 1'Me+�h�k `10M--P R;cc-i
�. .
Peter Terhune, Chair = °o G' oF5LO .
Dept _ : Phone Y
Pam Copeland -781-7166
Terry Westrope Fax 7 J!_. Fax" -... ,
Steve Gilreath
Others
Eva Young
Deborah Holley (BIA staff)
Pete Eberle (BIA staff)
Terhune called the meeting to order at 7:35 AM.
Public Comment
Representatives from Mother's Tavern on Higuera Street Paul
Brown, Kevin Dyson, .Don Burns discussed their objections to an
establishment known as "The Library" which intonds to open next
door to Mother's in the old Big Music location. Their objections
included: Too many bars, decrease in day time foot traffic (as in the
case of State Street in Santa Barbara), whether another bar is "good"
for the community, fuzzy goals presented by new owners, have they
done their homework?, they would like our support regarding this
issue.
Committee, after the trio's departure, discussed that recommending
approval or disapproval of any type of business is not responsibility
of BIA, this is actually a City issue, there are other bars opening but
of a different genre and Charlie's recently closed. It was
recommended that Holley contact Pam Ricci re: EXACTLY what
information the City is soliciting from us in recent communication,
and we will respond that we can comment on the "issues" but cannot
offer "thumbs up or thumbs down" on its start-up or existence. Some
issues: bars create more clean up work for City and cost BIA more $;
type of clientele, affect on foot traffic during the day. Holley will
report back to Board on her conversation with Pam Ricci.
✓l
ATTACHMENT 9
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS.TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON,Gmww
DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC. BEVERAGE CONTROL
-
San Luis Obispo Branch Office'.:'
3220 South I3iguera Street, Suite 305.
San Luis.Obispo, CA 93401:.: -
(805) 543-7183
-July 11, 1995
Paul Metchilc
412 Higuera St. #A :-
San Luis.Obispo;CA 03401 _
Dear Mr. Metchik:
B & P Section 23958.4 became effective January 1, 1995. .
Since that time I have investigated a limited number(Approximately 10) applications
where the applicant had to show that Public Convenience or Necessity would be served
by the issuance of the license.
I have found that an influx of tourists into a resort/vacation area, such as the Central
Coast can be an important factor in making that decision.
If the population of a census tract is dramatically increased by tourist or others who
regularly use the services of the businesses within that census tract it would appear that
fact, should be taken into consideration prior to making a decision regarding Public
Convenience or Necessity.
Please contact me if you need any future information.
Wc
'Br er
0 ice Supervisor
RB/rgc
^'r
` 13
•- • • • �: ••. . I a .• • • . •• • • ••
4
As
ow
:•ji•�!i�I�F/�a! �!';�h��'/� ,!1'I/.1�;1•i')11+.•l:��l'�.✓4 ).�!..//J.:�i� •�-.�
'AM
)v I ' •
� . •
We, the undersigned, believe the proposed.establishment to be located at 723 Higuera Street
will be econoaucally and socially advantageous to.the.City of San Luis Obispo and support
approval of the related blic emise a lication.,
Pr
u
,. P; PP _
Name, Address
L01-
2. 12. % 5c1�G I`1t1�`STPt('. 13� ^t�I�IL� S•�•�-: -:
. H N uTrtJ.._. 'f3 Z
� ..
C .�•d AI►1%L/R,� i�'!�� -- �SS��O �2dao sr
r L s•L�O:
6:
9. Cz - --- /ah a '—<'et
10. zzf: ��r7
G,f 5
12.
13. (O 1 OrT� � ('Cj C,Q 9-
15. —
15. _ (L S — S k -
16. eta ►r T ! i tlG�-�
17. _c
18 — _
20. v �enr Caoc>KS. 14oz m►a2 fh -5 5Lv
21.
22
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
1
We-the-wgersig�n�d;believe.4he*.pr�o7Mdd.esUL . -ienf fip�. Iocateet (t 7 �#�#.. .....�'�Sptt 1.- *ri.
!••`.-� .. • 1�1Ly 8is61 :�4Ydp ,•hs15AV
,.i•""Y"`fi<K►i:rnS'r'!#� +:No
J••'fc.A:� . : ti:
:app�val 0f tt►e relayed public preapse'ap�tion. .
Name Address
1 _ _ 1HZi 05p S7 APT2.
l�
Oe
• 3 `��y�O���i fir/ .r •
4. 1Y �ra 8l/ o►�cu1l� Ad.
5.
6• S33 f3raae�- 's�
8. ex. '7�120�� ,��cs--�Z 3 Vol
9 6.71 v a. g
--A-VE, :S•.t..c. .
10.
.-7
• ftiT�,,X 3/�8/z/�,s 3 _
de 70
`• .J• i5. _,. .. •(C]7l
16. +�1J1�1 ��o�2�fY1�F} Cd ✓ILD, CSG •, .
17. ) 5 Vn:B �1�+/�� F318. v ~J�LO I�:d �C�Q/t ��Zy 6-7102/O(Gn_ J��i yr.L.Q.
19.
20. x/lrrzrw =,Zz c�J
21. ' r7 Z 9 LArpza
s2. � �� ' �/ ►� ®rr Y 1468 f 4`SOV V o
7.2
26.
27.
28.
29. -
30.
-3s
MOO".
2f0't•�Iot�IHlan San Lals Qb�j1a,.Calliprnfa -. 4- *it,(805�.543 504��is (805):54 .0S3d`
�
r:J tlla • : •. r:. .. . ... : •.'V •w• ..y .. i.. .- & •iYt • •1...:. '
% .-s.y..a'4 i+.! slr =F ,".� ; ,.Axa ...� �. :r 7.lr :'_ �. +:4.•. ate.!� ..• .. ... . .:r :�� :.Nr•: i,.-.••
�1• .ft•.• •y ♦. :.•Y. w• •.:'� ..7,,+. n .� • 7:1 �+..i. =1..l�.,.^� jM,• •.. .,K4'••.•.w•.�:•:� Y.Y-
July 11,i99s
Community Development Depar-tntNnt r '
• City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93440
I� Application A-7.6-95-Request to establish a newi tavern in the C-E zone
To Whom It May Concern t '
Lacer tbepmage.'u<aCthe; IntFal Coast Surf sYit►p;and\haye:b mautho izad oa behaii:
taspeak ;�,
of theo'wners We aie:in full support of the Frog&Peach Pubs prospect of opening a new--taveip'
4t 723 Fuguera.
Over the past year we have enjoyed a positive business relationship with the Frog & Peach
Pub. Their efforts to prevent problems such as vandalism and•tq pay attention to activities
6utside of their business have .been much appreciated. We have every reason-to believe that. '
,• , suds p6g cm will cQzuuuue at the new locatigrL. . . `
As a ietauler in the downtown area,we believe it is important that we support businesses that .
will get people into a pattern of coming downtown While some may argue that opening
another drinldng establishment"may create certain types of problems, the benefits of creating
the positive image that downtown is the place to find exciting shops, places to eat, and
entertainment far out weigh any potential problems.
Sincer y,
.:�4.yy�,.,y��tS~•h • .,•��-"��i�rr'•'\•'A_.. '• .r .• ,.:•r: •W .:M zw-
•...'... .r =t.ey •., w •, ::"' F. .w. .��u._
(•fin' �:\�.r •....••6.T/f+� •• •L .f.f{ r4` ..Y' '•per �•M .+: ^ •r•~' •• .•���:.!:••r.L•. ,r r„i, .•fir
LI ,`�'•
liGE de"Al
M
Recd ved @ 7-/E-95
P C . hear�r�
July 10 , 1995
city of San Luis Obispo Planning Department:
RE: Public Hearing of new alcohol establishment located in
the 700 block of Higuera
As a downtown business owner , patron of the Frog and Peach
Pub, .and business associate of the owners of the Frog and
Peach Pub I would like to express my view on the situation.
The 700 block of Higuera is in direct proximity to my
business located on Garden Street . I do not see any problem
with a new alcohol establishment in the area . There are
several food/alcohol businesses on the 700 block, but no
alcohol only establishments . The impact of this additional
business would not be negative. When the persons involved
opened the Frog_ and Peach Pub it was not just another bar,
they made it a unique place which added a new niche to
downtown. Having done business this them for over 3 years ,
I feel confident that that will open another unique
establishment that will fill a gap . These are successful
business people .and that is what helps make downtown San
Luis Obispo a place for people to frequent . A stable
business that will be around for awhile is of primary
importance. Let' s not stifle business , but encourage and
help the downtown be a success .
Sincerely,
Theresa Ulmer Mangis P
_ r
San Luis Obispo. CA 93401 (805) 541 -311 7
i t�O fir.i�l rn�S'f
J
July 5, 1995
�IEC��� E
Pam Ricci, Associate Planner Jul. 1 U 1995 ATTACHMENT 10
City of San Luis Obispo cctr F sa" aa�"T
990 Palm Street m
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Ms. Ricci:
Per our discussion this morning, I am writing you to express concerns about the
proposal to establish a tavem at 723 Higuera.
We discussed the history of the approval of a similar establishment , SLO Brewery.
The Hoffmans, at the time of their application, came to us (and others downtown) and
asked that we sign a petition favoring approval of their application. They described
their plan as an eating place with a sophisticated brewery to serve local business
persons and shoppers. They assured us that it would not be another "college-age
oriented bar." I signed.
On Friday, Saturday and Sunday mornings, after the SLO Brewery has bands
playing,we have extra work. We pick up trash, overturned containers; remove
expectorant on windows and remove urine and deification on the front and back of the
building we occupy.
Since "The Brewery" opened we had only a short break when DK's closed and
changed the traffic pattern. With the addition of Peach and Frog and Mother's Tavern,
the above problems have reached a new high. We have discussed the problem with
the local police.
We believe there is also an economic negative effect in yet another bar downtown.
Bars do not attract shoppers. The majority of their business takes place after most
other retailers are closed. By removing another potential retailer, less of a reason to
shop downtown exists.
I believe we have exceeded a rational level of bars downtown. I have no objection to
eating places that serve alcohol, but we now have four bars within a block of our
location with entertainment aimed at college-age drinkers. A weekend visit between
midnight and one in the morning will find a large number of seemingly legally drunk
college-aged patrons moving between the bars. Increasing this capacity, at a cost to
the rest of the business community, makes no sense.
Re tfully,
oolley
715 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805-543-2354
Irvine and Freda Smith 7
19ss Dallas Rd NW $1006 .i
Salem, OR 97304-4801 _rS
RECEIVED
Pam Ricci
Community Development Dept. JUL ] 1995
990 Pam St
San Luis Obispo, CA 93+01 cm OF SAN WIS081sao
COMMLO mr oEELoaW-W
Dear Pam
Concerning Application A 76-95 Tavern
As Executor of my late Mothers estate which is located on Garden
Street between the San Lyis Brewery and Marsh St I wish to protest
anymore Taverns near this location.
P+Iy reasons are;
1- Since San Luis Brewery has opened we have had 12 windows
broken in these buildings between the Brewery and Marsh St. ( nine
in the pedestrian way, one in Weston Book Storey and two in San Luis
Tradition. This is costly to us.
2-In addition there have been two. break in where to my knowledge
nothing was taken and we consider them just malicious break in but
still costly to repair the damage. (One was at Casa Blanca Travel •
and the other at Christian Science Readimg Room )
3- At times the crowds from the Brewery have become un manageable
at times from what I have been told.
4- 4- Several years ago the Tavern on Broad Street between Higuera
and Marsh St became a problem and has since closedg which was a
blessing to the area.
5- Enclosed is a letter from our Insurance Company whichtells
the stor$g and we should not have to continue paying the bills.
I sincerely hope you will turn this application down. This is 40
place .for a- Tavern, We have enough now in this location.
Sincerely,."
Irvine T. S th, executor. Lillian P. Smith estate
July _39 1995
1-3I
=,1II
INSURANCE, INC.
:ASI �✓
April 11, 1995
Irvine Smith
, I
Estate
1955Dallas1HwyaN.W. #1006
Salem OR 97304
Jim
All
Re: Oregon Mutual Businessowner
= e Policy #BSP304209
Dear Mr. Smith:
.JAM
We 'have just received notice from Oregon Mutual that they will
be increasing the above captioned policy deductible to $1,000
{ � due to the two recent vandalism losses.
:rI You should receive your renewal policy shortly. If you should
have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Al
Sincerely,
3 SII
' II
M-
' Donna Allaire
NEAT-TRUESDALE INSURANCE, INC.
Jim
jHIl
IMllonoa Road
bispo,CA 93405
? 430
a H549-7044
�� _
In ] [ 2 � [
/ -7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ATTACHMENT 11
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT min u t
BY: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: July 12, 1995
FILE NUMBER: A 76-95
PROJECT ADDRESS: 723 Higuera Street
SUBJECT: Use Permit A 7645 —request to establish a bar downtown next to Mother's Tavern
on Higuera Street.
SUND4ARY RECONEMMgDATION
A. Determine that there is insufficient evidence to support that public necessity and convenience
warrant an exception to the undue concentration of licensed facilities within the City of San
Luis Obispo per Section 23958.4 of the California Business and Professions Code.
B. Approve the use permit, based on findings, and subject to conditions.
BACKGROUND
Situation
Bill Hales, president of The Frog & Peach Pub, Inc., wants to open a bar in the space last
occupied by Big Music. Since later 1987, approval of an administrative use permit has been
required in order to establish a bar in the C-C zone. At an administrative hearing held on June
16, 1995, the use permit was referred to the Planning Commission for resolution.
Data Summary
Address: 723 Higuera Street
Applicant: The Frog & Peach Pub, Inc.
Representative: William P. (Bill) Hales
Property Owner. John & June Wessel
Zoning: C-C-H, Central Commercial with the Historical Preservation overlay
General Plan: General Retail
Environmental Status: Categorically exempt
Project Action Deadline: September 16, 1995
Site Description
The single-story rectangular building is located in the City's central business district and is
surrounded by other retail uses, restaurants, bars and offices. The submitted floor plan shows
that the overall floor area of the building is 1,590 square feet.
Use Permit A 76-95
Page 2
Project Description
The applicant wants to continue to operate the Frog & Peach Pub across the street, as well as
open the proposed bar. The new establishment would be called "The Library". The attached
letter dated June 2, 1995 from the representative indicates that the marketing strategy for the bar
is to attract a younger Cal Poly crowd. The letter mentions that the bar would feature an
interactive trivia game and would have strong ties to university activities.
EVALUATION
1. Land Use and Zoning Consistency:
The City's Land Use Element of the general plan says that:
"Entertainment facilities, such as nightclubs and private theaters should be in the
downtown, too.11
Location of the proposed bar in the downtown area is consistent with this policy. Bars are
allowed with approval of a use permit in order that conditions that address compatibility issues
such as noise and security can be included. The use will generate a parking requirement of two
spaces. The requirement is based on the difference in parking calculations between the previous
use and the proposed bar and would be met through payment of in-lieu fees, unless complying
off-site parking could be secured.
2. Irnpacts to Downtown:
In 1988 when the establishment of the microbrewery on Garden Street was being debated, the
City Council directed staff to prepare a study evaluating the impacts of more downtown drinking
and entertainment businesses in the downtown (see attached Downtown Drinking &
Entertainment Businesses: Trends. Img=. and City Ree%)onses, January 1988, hereinafter
referred to as the "1988 study".) Many of the same concerns with the establishment of another
bar in the downtown and its impacts on the character of the area that arose then have come up
again as issues with the submittal of the current use permit.
The question as to whether there was a particular threshold, in terms of numbers of drinking and
entertainment facilities concentrated in a geographical area, which triggers an increase in more
problems with noisy, violent or destructive behavior came up in the 1988 study. That appears
to be an issue again - the basic question being: how many bars is too many? The 1988 study
concluded that at some point more bars could change the character of an area, but did not
propose specific criteria to evaluate when that saturation point occurred or did not recommend
changes to the zoning regulations to establish such a threshold. The staff report.for the
microbrewery on Garden Street, prepared after completion of the 1988 study, concluded that the
��`T�
Use Permit A 76-95
Page 3
character of the downtown would not be detrimentally affected with implementation of use
permit conditions.
The 1988 study compared numbers of entertainment facilities in the downtown in 1987 with
those present in the year 1982 to evaluate whether there had been significant changes.
Comparing Figure 1 from the 1988 study with the map dated June 1995, the overall numbers
and patterns of drinking establishments are very similar. Staff counts a total of 31 drinking
establishments in 1987 (deducting two for the theaters on Monterey Street not included on the
more recent exhibit) and 30 for 1995. The 1987 map shows more of a concentration near the
comer of Monterey and Osos Streets and the 1995 map shows more drinking establishments in
the block of Higuera Street where the subject bar is proposed.
Despite the similarities in numbers and patterns of the locations of drinking establishments in
the downtown between 1987 and 1995, a public perception seems to exist that the addition of
another bar on Higuera Street will have detrimental impacts on the character of the downtown
and does create more security issues. This statement is based on phone calls that staff has
received from surrounding businesses since the notices for the hearing were mailed. The phone
calls questioned the need for another bar_ and related problems with vandalism and property
damage from current bar patrons. However, without specific criteria to evaluate whether
approval of another bar will have adverse impacts on the downtown, staff is relying on past
precedent which is to recommend conditional approval of the use permit. This recommendation
seems warranted since no dancing or live entertainment is proposed (City's definition of a
nightclub)as part of the application for this bar. Most of the detrimental impacts with noise and
security have been typically associated with drinking establishments that are also nightclubs.
The Police Department has not stated that an unmitigable service issue will be created with the
establishment of the new bar (see attached memo).
While economics are not the determining factor in reaching land use decisions, market forces
have had an impact on the number, mix and location of drinking establishments downtown over
the years. Comparing the maps showing the locations of drinking establishments at various
points in time, it can be noted that some bars have gone out of business and spaces converted
to other uses, including restaurants, and some new drinking establishments have been created.
In other words, some might argue that the concentration issue is not really something that the
City needs to get involved with and that other forces are already balancing out the mix. On the
other hand, if the Commission believes that the concentration of drinking establishments has
become a serious issue, then it may be that specific criteria should be added to the zoning
regulations to assist staff in evaluating requests and making recommendations (see Alternative
# 3).
3. New ABC Regulations:
The State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) regulates the issuance of licenses
for the sale of alcoholic beverages for both on-site and off-site consumption. As of January 1,
/- 7
Use Permit A 76-95
Page 4
1995, new legislation has been in effect which defines and regulates the over-concentration of
establishments that are regulated by the ABC (see attached ABC memo and copy of Assembly
Bill No. 2897). The ABC now has the authority to deny an application if it would result in or
add to an "undue concentration" of licenses, or if issuance would tend to create a law
enforcement problem. The law defines undue concentration based on a comparison of the ratio
of licenses issued to population in a census tract to the same county-wide ratio. With respect
to the ABC definition, an undue concentration of licenses exists in the downtown area of San
Luis Obispo.
The ABC has the authority to issue a non-retail license to a eating place when an undue
concentration exists, if the applicant shows that "public convenience or necessity" would be
served by license issuance. However, with on-sale licenses for bars, the ABC defers to the City.
for the public convenience determination. On April 4, 1995, the City Council approved
Resolution No. 8404 (attached) which delegates authority to make the public convenience
determination to the Community Development Director. Referral of this use permit application
to the Planning Commission for decision includes the authority to make the public convenience
determination in this specific case.
While the law defines undue concentration, it does not define public convenience or necessity.
The subject application is the first case where the City has been asked to make the public
convenience determination for a bar where on-site alcohol consumption is the primary focus of
the commercial operation. The applicant's addendum, date-stamped July 6, 1995, states that
they provide a service that benefits the university, tourists and locals, and that they are positively
contributing to the community and economy of San Luis Obispo. For this reason, they feel that
the public convenience determination can be made. The statement also mentions that they
believe that the intention of the law was to "impede further deterioration of area in the stats with
severe economic, social and crime-related problems" and is not necessarily applicable to a
license request in a quality community such as San Luis Obispo.
In staffs opinion, it is difficult to make the determination that public convenience and necessity
would be served by the establishment of the proposed bar. It might be the opinion of those
waiting in lines on a thursday, friday or saturday night to enter one of the downtown bars that
their convenience would be enhanced if there were more of a selection of drinking
establishments and the lines were shorter. Without more evidence of public need for the bar or
documentation that the bar provides a unique service, staff feels that it cannot support the
finding. While the impetus for the State law may have been to control alcohol sales in more
crime-ridden communities, it does nevertheless apply statewide and could be valuable for
avoiding deterioration in communities such as San Luis Obispo, in addition to helping correct
existing problem areas. However, the applicant may be able to persuade the Commission
through their presentation at the hearing that such evidence exists and the finding could be made.
Use Permit A 76-95
Page 5
Conclusion
Staff acknowledges that the recommendation to not make the public convenience determination,
but to approve the use permit seems contradictory. In effect, without the public convenience
determination, the ABC would not issue a license and the use permit would not be meaningful,
unless the ABC regulations were modified before the use permit expired (currently an authorized
use would need to be established within three years of approval). Staff purposely separated out
the two actions because they are based on separate pieces of implementing legislation and require
different findings. As stated before, it may be that the applicant can persuade the Commission
at the hearing that conditions warrant making the determination that public convenience and
necessity would be served by the establishment of the proposed bar.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Determine that there is sufficient evidence to support that public necessity and convenience
warrant an exception to the undue concentration of licensed facilities within the City of San
Luis Obispo, per Section 23958.4 of the California Business and Professions Code, and
approve the use permit, based on findings, and subject to conditions.
2. Determine that there is insufficient evidence to support an exception to the undue
concentration of licensed facilities within the City of San Luis Obispo, per Section 23958.4
of the California Business and Professions Code, and deny the use permit, based on findings
regarding conflicts with achieving other General Plan goals for downtown, such as
establishing additional residential uses.
3. Continue the request with direction to staff regarding further informational needs or analysis.
This may include a request for staff to propose changes to the zoning regulations that address
the concentration of bars and entertainment facilities in the downtown. However, the
changes to the regulations could not reasonably be accomplished within the timeframe for
approval of this application.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The Police Department notes that any approval of the use permit needs to include conditions that
address management, noise attenuation, crowd control and entertainment. A representative from
the Police Department will be present at the meeting to address questions about downtown crime
issues and service concerns with the request. Listings of calls for Police Department service at
Mother's, McLintock's, Brubeck's and the Frog & Peach are attached to provide the
Commission with information regarding the types of calls received for nearby drinking
establishments.
The Business Improvement Association sent a fax (copy attached) which states that the
administrator will transmit comments to staff verbally prior to the public hearing.
Use Permit A 76-95
Page 6
RECOIVEWENDATION
A. Determine that there is insufficient evidence to support that public necessity and convenience
warrant an exception to the undue concentration of licensed facilities within the City of San
Luis Obispo per Section 23958.4 of the California Business and Professions Code.
B. Approve the use permit, based on the following findings, and subject to the following
conditions:
Fndines
1. The proposed use, as conditioned, will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare
of persons living at the site or in the vicinity, because live entertainment and dancing are
prohibited.
2. The use, as conditioned, is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible
with surrounding land uses.
3. The proposed use, conforms to the general plan and meet zoning ordinance requirements
with provision of parldng to meet ordinance standards for a bar.
4. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review (CEQA Section 15301).
Conditions
1. The applicant shall provide two additional parldng spaces for the use as required for the
C-C zone in the zoning regulations prior to occupancy.
2. Use permit approval is for a bar only. The establishment of a dance floor or live
entertainment, including amplified bands, is prohibited.
3. The site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner.
4. The project shall include facilities for on-site trash containment, as well as for interior
and exterior recycling, to the approval of the City Engineer and the Community
Development Director. The applicant shall consult with local recyclers regarding the size
and locations of area dedicated to on-site recycling storage.
5. A security plan, including a management training plan and provisions for overflow
customers, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and
approval by the Community Development Director and the Police Chief.
7W
Use Permit A 76-95
Page 7
6. The use permit shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director in one year
from the date of approval. In addition, the Planning Commission may review the use
permit if reasonable written complaints from citizens or the Police Department are
received by the Community Development Department. At the time of use permit review,
the Planning Commission or the Director may add, delete or modify conditions of
approval, or may revoke the use permit.
Code Reauirement
1. Building Occupancy shall be limited and enforced by the Fire Department.
Attached:
Vicinity Map
Addendum from the applicant date-stamped 7-6-95
Map showing drinking establishments in the downtown
Reduction of Floor Plan
Letters from William P. Hales dated 6-2-95
Follow-up letter from 6-16-95 administrative hearing
Fax from BIA
Memo from Police Department
Police calls for service at nearby bars
Downtown Drinking & Entertainment Businesses Study (January 1988)
City Council Resolution No. 8404 (1995 Series)
Information regarding ABC legislation
LAUSSAMS.PC
/-117
s� �vo cs� p ty q10
F 'ii •rA ?� �! sc`�_ `�9� 1$1•
OP
a $• '" '� �� �1 P'P
�1
? 'y t9?
yc
! ,p'rc� cas dC'�a oySFP 10°
� 6j �S Pz ��•� a�`F� yo4 � � 11° �'fq �J- 'P s
_,��� a �at 9F o, � • °4F ,�s } �k � i�,� �a•X9 mac'*.
� v� kytPm�y �v a� �� ��� 4'►y� ��%,� @SOS O
t Fa �. e •'P ,�k s , 6S
0' 6 9�� ��'T 1�0 1Ry 4Rc�i' '°B c @l'S SPLA
ao Ott• �9 c` C6,`�°� � 1,�9 � 1"� ���,'t�'�; � ��P���( t<
600 may,�� gs �p �'�' 1� cn �% •as sf F °y �♦�'
9'F "%a ��'C�6♦s C y '1t° t,0 SZ' �� otl` =
S .��c� c'P�.c!y ,��� 19�c�� �(F`�4 Yf. y •oma � � ,� � `woo
✓yp*'�e�e� y� �• ,��� 1✓� �yF� c o syr. O
s
O `.yr.veil �� ♦ t 0'I1 VVL, S
4W orn
p , b `'G@; �F� es� �. 6c P`�c�0 C.n1_, L
�qo
ipt eti
�9eomoyc, �j °mac �4 °
o P a y Fr 1? 40 AP .r1 A,4 �q
fyoy !cco a"', t'i� Z 40%
0y B�1 s�t�;enc 4'3 � P� 0ON
1. 0o
lD q'V J y C �S pb J�t5 to
65
y�0
�e % P'.
'L.y+ t� bo ', 4PG o �o
y t' c ,� 6 we
} c3'
o �ti. �� O G�2 •F'� 'c a r
6'�; yy Vw Q 4♦ 7 B6,, p�{4�N0
P
� •-
•'
,tt . gree 1ti ��1
w�"Pl o bw y°b
4P4A
010 11 iJ 0 y
Pb��OhP;as v 0.'►y�
VICINITY MAP A 76-95 . NORTH
723 Higuera
NOTE: all land uses shown on this map may not be current -
/-1/9
vf'cnNG GENDA
COUNCIL7FIRE
IR G. 41 REM #
CrCAO FIN
t3'ACA0 HIEF RECEIVED
B'ATTORNEY ETCLERKK RtG CHF JUL 6❑ MGMTTEAMIR ADDENDUM
❑ C FILEIR Conditional Use Permit Application oWI Ot�P13r DIR The Library
The proposed opening of an establishment at 723 Eguera supports the enthusiasm of the
downtown area as it responds to the world around it and embraces the various changing lines of
businesses. Plans for the proposed business are intended to comply with the city's guidelines
regarding Use Permits, and address specific concerns that may arise for this particular type of
establishment Responsible management, noise, and crowd control. .These concerns are
addressed in this addendum.
Convenience and Necessity
A more ambiguous issue that must be addressed is the requirement to determine whether the
proposed establishment meets the most recent guidelines that attempt to define convenience
and necessity. Although time guidelines are not well defined,we believe that the goal of the
recently introduced legislation is an attempt to impede'further deterioration of areas in the
state with severe economic, social, and crime-related problems. We do not believe that this
situation exists in San Luis Obispo,however our plans include responsible policies to help guard
against similar problems.
We believe the convenience and necessity issue may be best addressed by an examination of the
industry and.culture that contribute to the stable economy and,high quality of life in San Luis .
Obispo — namely, tourism and the University. We support both the tourist industry and the
University,as well as our local residents,and hope to bring to the community an establishment
that will provide enjoyment for all.
Responsible Management:
As is the responsibility of every business owner, establishment and enforcement of strict
management policies and. programs are imperative to the success of both a•business and to
maintaining a reputation as a responsible member of a community. We shall insist that all
employees-be well versed in the following areas:
• How to recognize false I.D:s
• How to deal with intoxicated patrons
• How and when to exercise service refusal
• How to utilize Safe-ride-home programs
• How to administer crowd control
We plan to solicit and would welcome assistance from the SLO Police Department,The ABC,
and any other similar authorities which may provide extensive training programs pertinent
and beneficial to the type of business proposed. We have already recently..contacted the
County Alcohol Services and plan to adopt their formal policy development and continuing
education programs in-house.
We believe that management extends beyond the doors of the proposed establishment. Though
our foot traffic will be predominantly late.night (6:00 p.m. to midnight), and all but two
surrounding businesses will be dosed during this time period,we strongly encourage healthy
neighbor relations. Through regular contact with the immediate neighbors of the'proposed
establishment, we hope to successfully respond to any concerns and/or suggestions and to
cooperate with and become an active part of the business community in SLO.
Noise/Music/Live Entertainment.
Because we realize noise is a concern to many, we'd like to clearly state the fact that we have
no intention at this time to provide live music at the proposed establishment. Music shall be
limited to a juke box as to keep noise levels to a minimum.
Crowd Control:
We are well aware that the issue of crowd control is a serious concern and we again welcome
training assistance from the SLO Police Department, the ABC or other professional
organizations familiar with this issue. Our in-house training shall include an extensive
briefing and period updates of policies we will insist upon regarding occupancy levels and,as
necessary,control of any lines outside the establishment when maximum occupancy capacities
are reached. In the event that a line forms, we will ensure that it will be organized and well
supervised, employing at least two security persons on particularly busy nights so as to
maintain order throughout the line and in the area of the surrounding businesses. We shall also
refuse admittance of intoxicated persons who may pose a threat to others or themselves and
will assist such persons with safe rides home.
Z °
/-S"6
_ ■11 '.�i II. ■��r� ■ ■ ■
111 ■: °rte! � ■�)
Mill
� ee�
e ■
I
T
ply
mN
f ? Y M
, O
O
ee9g = � d n
g 3 p�sG 33 p O /�
N
z
o�
Z
a
r -
` r
21� o°
June 2,1995
To Whom it May Concern:
This letter is being written in response to my conversation with Development Review Manager,
Ron Whisenhand,on May 30th,regarding application for a Public Premises License. Though no
formal guidelines for application were available,Mr. Whisenhand informed me that a letter
should be submitted outlining our intentions,and that this in turn would be reviewed by him
and the San Luis Obispo'Police Department
II represent a group.that currently owns one drinking establishment in the downtown area. In
August of 1994 The Frog and Peach Pub,Inc opened what used to be the RD Maid IceCream
Factory at 728 Higuem,as The Frog&Peach Pub. Hoping to target the graduate students ,the
"thirty-something's,and the more polished beer connoisseur,we opened our doors with an Old
English theme and have been becoming more authentic with each passing day. By only
providing beer and wine, structuring the prices a little higher, and gearing the music to a
slightly older crowd,we hoped to create a more mature atmosphere. Though we feel our efforts
have been successful for the most part, the fact that San Luis Obispo is a college town and is
dependent upon its business to a certain degree,cannot beavoided
Since the opening of The Frog&Peach,others have followed suit in trying to woo the 25 to 45
age group through their doors. Mothers Tavern(November,1994),Mango's 1june,1995),and the
Firestone Bar and Grill(July,1995)are all in search of San Luis Obispo's growing middle income
dollar. Thus after much thought we have decided to undertake a new venture which
specifically targets the much looked over University crowd. With the closing of Brubecies in
January of this year went one of the few places that gave the college student an outlet for a
price they could afford. Bull's Tavern and Tortilla Flats are the only main stays,and both are
overcome with lines every Thursday through Saturday. Not only would a new establishment
relieve the lines at these venues, but would help places such as Mothers and Mango's by
creating more turnover amongst their older patrons. Yet probably the most important issue to be
discussed is Cal Poly itself. It is becoming more commonly known that Cal Poly is on the fast
track to more growth. Though enrollment is roughly 14,500 at present,many school officials
believe that it will grow beyond 18,000 by the year 2000. With this in mind,we hope to open a
business that can grow with the University as well as the town.
It is not our aim to create merely,another SLO town bar,but to be a downtown business which
actively supports University activities and tries to tighten the bond between the community
and Cal Poly. Working with the Cal Poly Art Department on the interior design of the
establishment,carrying Cal Poly products,and sponsoring bus trips to athletic events both at
home and away are just some of our plans for an active involvement With Cal Poly making the
exciting step to.Division I sports,we hope to be one of the first of many businesses to lend our
support. And on that other half of the coin, we intend tochallenge and encourage other
businesses downtown to get involved in supporting local University events.
The location of the establishment will be 723 Higuera,next door to Mothers Tavern. John and
June Wessel,the owners of the property have been very encouraging in their acceptance of the
project and will aid in any way possible. The name of the establishment will be The Library,in
association with a collegiate theme. Being that The Library will be inclose proximity to four
other drinking establishments, it will keep late night patrons in one general area as well as
generate positive turnover for the businesses included. One unique feature to The Library WWII
be an interactive trivia game. Patrons will be able to check out remote control key pads and
compete against others in the bar,as well as patrons linked up to the same system throughout
the United States, via screens located in the room. Additionally, during football season, an
1
armchair quarterback will be linked to the system during Monday Night games, providing
weekly entertainment. All in all, a positive attitude and University. Pride is what The
Library will set out to achieve.
From a civic point of view,we are well aware of the pitfalls that surround establishments in
which spirits are served. As owners of one such business, we know all too well the
responsibilities that go along with this undertaking. .Hence we are confident that our record
will stand second to none in terms of police cooperation and fire code compliance. Our employees
at The Frog cit Peach Pub are fully aware that they are responsible for the actions of our
...customers and.are active in supporting designated driver programs as wen as promoting the
Ride-On program which provides safe rides for intoxicated or stranded patrons. We intend to
intensify these strict policies at The Library as the clientele will be somewhat younger and
spirits will be provided in addition to beer and wine.
In dosing, I hope this brief summation has been helpful in outlining our intentions and we
sincerely hope to discuss our plan in more depth at your earliest convenience. Thank you so
much for your time and consideration
Sincerely.
William P. Hales, President
The Frog and Peach Pub,Inc.
� S�y
Cl O sart
l�l1S OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Otfioe Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100
June 19,.1995
.Bill Hales
1636 Morro Street ,
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: Use Permit Appl. A 76-95
723 Higuera Street
Dear Mr. Hales:
On Friday, June 16, 1995, 1 conducted a public hearing on your request to establish
a new tavern in the C-C zone, at the subject location.
After reviewing the- information presented, I referred :this item to the Planning.
Commission for resolution. The hearing is tentatively scheduled for July 12, 1995.
You.will be notified before the meeting; an agenda and staff report will be mailed to
you. .
If you have any questions, please call me at 781-7168.
Sincerely,
/Q/>w�LG/
Pam Ricci
Acting Hearing Officer
cc: . Frog and Peach Pub, Inc.
726 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Obi
The City of San Lula spo Is committed to hidudirs the disabled In all of Its services.programs and a&AOs. / .sr
I(ZI Teter ommunieations Device for the Deaf(805)781.7410.
PAM RICCI
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
cITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FAX #781-7173 REF: The Library 723 Higuera Street
Pam.
The request togive YOU input regarding this applicant will not be
possible in order to meet your deadline of.Tune 80, 1995. The BIA
Eaeeutive Committee will meet the morning of July 11, 1995 at
7:30 a.m. in the BIA office and will discuss this at that time.
You will receive this information before the July 12th hearing but
not in writing.
Also, as of July 10th, Deborah Solley has become BIA Administrator.
You met her at City Hall and she will be communicating with you
regarding this. Thanks Pam.
Kaye via Mickelson
Interim Administrator
Jt
MEMORANDUM
y
TO: RON WHISENHAND, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: Captain Bart. Tophaml�UN
DATE: June 26, 1995
SUBJECT: APP. FOR PUBLIC PREMISES LIC.@723 HIGUERA
The police department recommends that the planning commission
should ensure that the applicant addresses the following issues:
1) MANAGEMENT
THE STRUCTURE,PHILOSOPHY, AND ATTITUDE OF MGT.
ARE CRITICAL TO MAINTENANCE OF ORDER IN THESE
BUSINESSES. SECURITY MEASURES/TRAINING, SERVICE
POLICIES, AND CROWD CONTROL MEASURES SHOULD BE
ADDRESSED.
2) NOISE ATTENUATION
THE LOCATION OF SEVERAL OTHER POPULAR
ESTABLISHMENTS ADJACENT OR NEARBY MARE IT
CRITICAL THAT WE ENSURE NOISE ISSUES ARE
EFFECTIVELY ADDRESSED.
3) CROWD CONTROL -
SINCE WE PERIODICALLY HAVE SOME PROBLEMS
WITH CROWDS LINED UP ON THE SIDEWALK AND WITH
THE NUMBERS INSIDE, THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THIS
ESTABLISHMENT MAKES IT IMPERATIVE THAT WE MINIMIZE
THESE KINDS OF POTENTIAL ISSUES.
4) MUSIC -
THE EFFECTS OF LIVE MUSIC "COULD" BE SIGNIFICANT
AND SHOULD BE DISCUSSED BEFOREHAND. IS THIS A PART
OF THE CURRENT OR FUTURE PLANNING?
WE REQUEST THAT,IF APPROVED, THIS LICENSE-BE CONDITIONAL UPON A
REVIEW AT SIX MONTHS AND AT ONE YEAR WITH REGARD TO THE NUMBER OF
POLICE AND FIRE RESPONSES.
PEGS 1 _ 08:2' r27 J= 1995
I=. No. Date.... Deceived Lor JOR....... ............. ECIC as Variiied........ 'XSM=XCML
9446101 11-08-94 22:16 725 Zl=M ST (M MOM TMEUB) PUBLIC IBU=CST= OOa/OTL
9446465 11-11-94 20:37 725 EXQMMR ST .(MDT88 S UVERS) RaTZW (242 PC-XUD), COKPLEM
9446521 U-12-94 01339 725 EXOMM ST (MOMMS TSVEI) DIST M PEACE (NOXI$, PMnY)•O0 amzm
105 11-17-94 21:19 725 EXOMM& BT (IDI M18 'AVERS) D88/0lIDBS INP OP CORTB BUMT EEREST
10 i1-25-94 22:10 .725 BIOOERa 82 (MOTSEBS TOMM) DIET TNS PEACE (BOISE, PEIDZY) CMWLEMT
908R
..a565 12-01-94 21347 725 BIOa ST (M0i'B M 20MM) BURO'La=
9449413 12-08-94 22:07 725 EXOMML ST (MD'Mt8 MEI) PIKE DEPaBDEM RESPUBEE COMPLF D
9449602 12-10-94 02:03 '725 =GMMa BT (MDMEMS TaVENs1) DINT TES PSaCE (SOIBR, ninny) ERRRST
9449698 12-10-94 23:07 725 axomm ST (MOMMMS Mmmo) I= DEPMMMT.H88PO m CCNPLZM . .
9451233 12-24-94 21:35 .. 725 MWOUL ST (HOME= TLvMm) PUBLIC ISPl'O7C{CaTIOS ARM= . .
9510749 01-06-95 23:34 725 BIOUBA ST (NQS TLVEI) S MICIOU9 CIRCM48TINM
CMOLZM
9511656 01-14-95 OOs26 725 BIG=& ST (MDMMUS TBVEUB) a88ISMENCE REQUEST COKP�ZRM
9511831 01-15-95 02:03 725 BIOUM BT (MMURS TLVEI) MSXBZU E MQOBST .
9511920 01-16-95 01:11 725 SIOUMM ST (MO'1'O= TWENS) Dr= MM PEACE (80X88, FAMILY) UaKXMM
9512021 01-17-95 02:15 725 BIOMM 8'P (MOT88R8 'AVJW) BETTS (242 PC4asD) INaerm. .
9512729 01-23-95 00:55 725 RIOMM ST (MMUMS TEVEI) DXST MM PEACE (NOISE• PMOSY) CMVLE'M
9514320 02-04-95 .18:17 . .725 =GUM 8T (MSS 'MUM) � PIRA DEPEETd0M BESPOSBE OOMPLB'1'I -
9514887 02-09-95 22:33 PL H88Il07 MOMERt8 TRAFFIC VIQL=CNS C@@LE'1'Ea
9515903 02-18-95 01329, 725 NIOUEM ST (ID B &VMN) PIRG DEPATSN T NBSPMM cmalam
9516898 02-25-95 21:17 725 =GMMa ST (MOMIM IMMM) PUBLIC.XM=Ch=m COMPLE
9517168 02-28-95 03:00 725 BIOOM ST OIOMS8R8 'AVER) ETP' CM TE88'P AM IN8CCIIVE
9519238 03-17-95 22:08 725, MOUNRL ST (MOT88P8 TaV8R8) FMM XD TO PEACE OAC=
9519287 03-16-95 02:55 725 RIOUa ST OWnEM TaVEI) E88ISMCR INQUESTCOMPLEM
. .
9519344 03-18-95 18:46 . 725 SIGMA ST (HD29M TLVBRB) PC= CR can TO.DEFPA= Acm"
9520807 a"1-95 21:37 725 BSOUERL ST (MOMM 'AVERS) PAS DEPMMM NE.�UBBE CCMPLBTBD
9522381 04-16-95 00:59. 725 BIG=& ST MOMS TaVMM) DUX ==M/0'08 PERMIT ARMT
9522568 04-18-95 01:41 725 BIOOERa ST.(MMM TLVMtN) PIS@ DBPERTICOT RESPC88E. cmeLzmm
OOMPLSm
9522559 04-18-95 O1s41 725'BIO m 82 "amm ''Imms) ASSIBTaNCE AQUSST
9522570 04-18-95 01:45 725 RX9WMM ST (IDBEAS.'AVM) DIET TUB PEACE (NOISB, FAMILY) COMPLETED .
9523941 04-29-95 01:47 725 BX00ESa BT (MOM= DIET TRE PICS (NOISE, PM4XLY) CMWLRM .
9524067 04-30-95 00:30 725 EXOMM ST (HOMED B MAVENS) DUX ALCM=/0.08 PERMIT ARE=
9524080 04-30-95 01:46 725 82008th ST (1'OEM= 'AVERS) 88'1'1' V/88RXO08 B®ILY X&T ACE=
9524082 04-30-95 01:47 725 2IOO81ia 8T (M=M T"MM) PAR DIS FSA CMCFLBTI
9524585 05-04-95 20:50 725 SIMUM ST (MMM TRVERS) DXST THE PEACE (HOIEB, PEMMT) am/=
9525777 05-15-95 01:30 725 BIOCEBL ST (NO== TaVIB) PUBLIC XN'T=CLTIOE AM= .
9526221 05-19-95 02:06 725 BIOUM ST (MO MM TUMOi) PUBLIC X8'1C3QCLTIOS ERM=
9526225 05-19-95 02:25 725 =OUBRa ST (ummam8 TLVM[ff) 0182 am PBaCE (NOIRE, nKw) CO3@L8i'I .
7000 05-26-95 00:34 725 BIOUML BT (MOMW 'AVMW) BASE= (242 PC-KUD) Cm@LR'33M
98606-0-95 00:32 725 BIOOBAL 8T (M01' m T%VME) PUBLIC I8'=CHTSON cmaLRTBD
-48088 06-03-95 22:28 725 HIGMML ST (HOMEM 8 'AVMW) POSSESS HAM 26.5 OZUIMS OR LR a
IUMST
9528596 06-06-95 23:53 725 BIOUM 8T (MOTELS MEI) E88XBMCR BEQU88T CMWLTM
9528905 06-11-95 02:09 725 BIOUMM ST (!�S 'AVRM) MISC BUBPSCI �
OMPLZMD
9529694 06-18-95 01:33 725 51=MM ST (MOTS TUBI) mamtANTMESD .
43 P O=ds ProceSMW .
Includes responses reGeivej a� (o pr& invol vis
C .p
C.-ails Qr assisfan�e, disfvrbi Fk�_ eace f rr,edicaQ
t'blcdmd calls .
?AGE 1 08:27 y77 JOB 1995
Lnc. Ho. Date.... Received Location....... ............ ECIC as Veriliad........ ISPOBXTI0B.:
9418560 03-14-94 22:51 686 ]EXama 8T (IICL1810CE8) ALARM - BUR9LAffi (COIN) CALL CANCEL
9419166 03-20-94 00:10 686 SIOIIEtA 8T ()0CLXVVOC66) DIST THE PEACE (NOI68, FA=Y) COMPLETED
9420844 04-04-94 18:47 586 ffi90M ST (NCLXNTOMB) POBLIC XBTOSICATIOB ARREST
9422033 04-15-94 06:28 686 02008RA 8T (MCLXHT0CE8) MIBC PARI= 09PBBSES CmaLSm
9425563 05-14-94 22:32 IPO MC6I81omm IRA"= VICILASMOBS CITASZON .
9426377 05-21-94 23:10 686 B190MA ST CHMMMOCES) POSSESS MsBIJ 28.5 GRANS OR L8 ARRI=
9426379 05-21-94 23:19 686 BIS ST (XCL33EL!0003) POSMM MENU 28.5 GRAMS OR LE ARREST
9426385 05-21-94 23:41 "686 ffi9DE® BT (I0`LXn=n) COR l01K ACM ARREST
9426892 05-26-94 22639 686 BI90SEE BT (XCLXivCSS) POELIC MM=CL=CE A88EST
9427860 06-03-94 20zS9 IF0 MCLIBT0CE3 TRAFFIC VI0LATICBB C@SLSlso
9428791 06-11-94 00:17 686 BI90ERE ST (MCLXrI!OCEB) ASSXSmCE SEp088T COIO?LBTED
9430215 06-24-94 02:51 686 ExammE ST (mma3m0CSE) Alam - SORNAW.(COIN) COl0'LSm
9430415 06-25-94 21:45 686 SI90ERL BT (XCLI3R!OCSS) Pz= TBBpP COMPLEX .
9431313 07-03-94 01:04 686 0100811E BT (MCLIIm9C88) ASSISTANCE INVEST COMPLPTED
9431398 07-03-94 22642 686 91GMML BT (MCLXSTOCEB) BATTERY (242 PC-KUM) COMPLETED
9432669 07-14-24 23:11 686 930088E 8T (MCLXNZDM) BATTERY (242 PC-IABD) AB3= .
9433425 07-22-94 02:58 686 PO:amIRL ST (MQLINTOC68) B0SPICX008 80878CR COMPLS®
9435797 08-13-94 03:32 686 BI90SEE ST (MCLIlmmu) A88I87SECS REQUEST COMPLETED
9438214 09-03-94 23:20 X80 ID:LIIiTDCRB T8888XC VXCZkYZCZBCORS COMPLEM
SlOOSp
9438640 09-07-94 22:31 686 EXOMM BT (XCLICSB) SXCIC08 D!ffiTABC88 COID%R=
9439149 09-11-94 23:08 220 MCLINTOCE8 TBEPBXC VXCLA=CUB CMIFLETED
9439799 09.17-94 02:06 686 9IOOSEE 6T (MCLI810CNS) SOSPXCXW3'CffiDCEZRICES CmaLlm
9440296 09-21-94 01352 686 BI9DERE ST (MCLIBROCES) ®ASE T88PT PROPER'L'Y COIDLETBD
9442369 10-08-94 03x17 B9 101 i Z PROM MCLISIOCEB TBSPFXC VIOLATXCBS CITA=QS
9445189 10-31-94 23:22 686 EXOM E 8T (MCLZSl0C63) M/C L0OD/mmm PDIBR/PnzaLIC C0E/P1'L
9449727 12-11-94 02:24 686 ESODZRlk ST (MCLMn=Z3) IQSC SERVICES COZSLHTBfl
9514199 02-03-95 20:23 686 9I00ffitE ST (xmnu CES) IIISC SERVXCEB COIlBLERBa
9515714 02-16-95 21:59 586 SIG0ESA, 8T (MMUZI)CES) POBLXC XSm=CA=QS AMU=
9515900 02-18-95 01:22 686 SI90B118 8T (UMMM-OCES) A88XBTABC8 RS4088T COMPLETED.
9519764 03-23-95 22s46 686 9,IOUM 8T (MCLINTOCKS) xSLL/SPC LIQUOR TO IQECB C@D'LBTED
9521342.04-06-95 19:16 686 9I900RE 8T (MCLXwTOCES) Kmm POSSESS ALC09DL ARI=
9521823 04-10-95 23:34 '686 Exculm ST. (mmmmCE.4) ALARK - BUROLaBY (00197) PALSVEM E
32 Records Processed
I
/ V
sGs 3 08:21• ;7 JUN 1995
inc. Ho.•Date.:.. Received Location........ .............. ECIC as Verified......... •Isp08ITS09
9415774 02-19-94 02x04 726 RIGUM ST (SRUNICES1 DIST ZEC PEACE (HOUSE, PlIOSY) CD!@LRTBD
9418227 03-12-94 00:35 726 010IIR88 82 (HAOSHCdB) ffi2I VIM PROP DalAGE CMQLZ=
9421312 06-08-94 23:12 726 BIGDERA 8T (RR088CR8) Din TES PEACE (Nolan PAKmT) CONVERTED
9 '48 04-23-96 00:48 726 SIGMA. ST (BROHECEH) ELM= (242 PC-KEW) MWOUNDED
3'04-26-94 20:26 726 RIGIMMA. 82 (BRORECES) DOI ALCOBOL/0.08 PERCENT CMGTJ BD
9%--a53 04-28-94 18:10 726 RIGQBRA ST (RR088CE8) P08LIC ISTD M=CN AR888T
9423698 04-29-94 01241 726 BIGDRRa 8T (BNUESOCNS) DIET TBE PEACE (N10I88, rmny) COIpLBTBD
9426115 05-20-94 01:15 -726 BI MML ST (BBDO) Dom ALCmm/Dww ARREST .
9626605 05-24-94 06:59 726 BIG®A ST (NCNB) PZM S'ffiT 3RAC1'19S
9427717 06-02-94 22tiB 726 BXGU:A•82 (H8088C1C3) POHLIC INTMEXCATICN IRLCZrvz
9427744 06-03-94 00341 726 BI00ER7► 82 (RRDBBcas) FIRS DEPAHMMENT R8880m CALL CANCEL
9427745 06-03-94 00:42 726 BIGDEEA ST (BRZOB;CEB) .BIHC BEHVICES GOLAmm
9428664 06-10-94 01:44 700 EXG088A 8T, I80 BBDBECEB R/C GEIGER= ROZ88 REGOL8TION8 COIRLE'm
9429362 06-15-94 00:11 726 BIGOSRA S2 (REMERCEs) DIET THE PEACE (NOI88, FANCY) CMWLZM
9429363 06-15-94 D0sl4 726 EIGOERA 82 (Bi01B8CF8) FIRS DSPA8MGW H88P0888 COMPLETED
9432785 07-16-94 O1s07 726 BIGOERA 8T (BROSECES) BNlT1'M (242 PC-KEW) INACEM
9433010 0718-94 00302 726 BIGOSRA ST (RNMECCES) P08LIC >wwffTCATICN ARREST
9433931 07-27-94 01:37 726 BXOOEBA ST (RBDBRCEN) DIET THE PEACE (NOL58, F Kmy) COIVLmm
9437162 08-25-94 23:00 726 RIGOERA ST CERMM 8) ASSISTANCE RHQIMUM CMIPLMMED
9437980 09-02-94 00:33 726 ilIGfl88A 82 { ) PCHLIC 1RTC2ICATION ARREST .
9438611 09-05-94 20:22 726 BIW8RA ST (BRDBECE.9) Pffi DEPARIKESP RESPONSE comPLET80
9442513 10-09-94 04:19 726 BIGOERA ST (30=088) . PEW T88PT I88CPIVB
9445804 11-06-94 00:42 726 RI00ffi1A 8T ( ) Mac SERVICES C@0?LZmD
9446355 11-11-94 01:52 726 EXOOERA BT (BR088CE8) DIST TRE PEACE (BOISE• FAN>ZY) MWOMMED
9646518 1142-94 0102 726 EXGOSRS ST (R80e8C68) DIET TBE PEACE (NOH PAmnY) COUW=D
9448035 31-27-94 01:55 728 BIGOEtA 8T (BROHECES) DIET THE PBaCB (NOISE, FAMY) C@PLETBa
9450829 12-20-94 23s28 726 RIGDEOA ST (RNmaass) . sOSPImom ClRcmgsRHECEB GOLARL
9527388 05-29-95 01:46 725 SI908R . BT (BBDBECES) VARDMJ : - Cl®Btt 81,000 COMPLEM
18 Records Processed .
i
. 1 -�0
.JUM 1 _ 08:23 $7 JON 1995
:nc. No. Date.... Received Location......: ............. NCIC as verified........: XSPOBZZ'IOH
9636956 08-23-94 23:32 728 RIODRR& BT (FROG AHD PEACH(SEB FIR UWARDIENT RESPONSE CMELEMM
9437858 09-01-94 01:13 728 RIG088A BT (FROG AM PRACH(SEE PE1T! 'MM Incamn
9438226 09-04-94 00:20 728 HIGUER& 8T (FROG AND MOICK(SIM FIRS DEPARD'MT BBSP088E canamm
9512497 01-21-95 00:53 728 RIGOHRA ST (FROG_AND PRACH(SES 11-82 PROP DAl010E ONLY CALL CANCEL
9516941 02-25-95 23:10 728 RIGOStA BT (FROG AHD PEACH(SZH TRAFFIC VIOLATICHS C@BLESM
9519137 03-17-95 02:03 728 ExammA. ST (FRDG AM PEACH(= PMIC MR=CATION CDHPLETED
9519279 03-18-95 01:38 728 HIGOERA 8T (FROG AND PBACH(BER VA1®ALIBM - MMItR $1,000 -COMPLR,M
9523765 04-28-95 01:06 728 HIGOEiA BT (FROG AHD PEACN(SBB DIM MM PEACE (NOLal FALnY) Ami=
9529760 06-18-95 18:35 728 RIGMMA 8T (FROG AND PRaCB(8R8 8 MMMOLI'DS '.DOiDVMW .CALL CANCEL .
i Ra=Ldn Psooeaeed
DOWNTOWN DRINKING & ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESSES:
TRENDS, IMPACTS, AND CITY RESPONSES.
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
January 1989
,{
In response to the City Council's request, staff has investigated whether the growth of
downtown drinking and entertainment`businesses is the last few'years has:displaced i
residents or other businesses or caused more crime;noise;or traffic:` Staff=found that
on average over the last three to five years:.
1. The number of downtown drinking and entertainment businesses and the total-number of
downtown business each have increased about eight percent per year. _
2. Downtown nonvehicle calls for police response have increased at less than four
percent per year, while the total number of downtown calls has increased about nine.
percent per year:
:7 :t
3. The number of nonvehicle downtown crimes declined slightly,though total downtown
crimes increased about nine percent per year, due to significantly more traffic
violations. ::
4. Noise complaints and incidents involving property damage appear to have-increased,
while incidents involving other disorderly behavior and violence directed at people
seem to have declined.
S. Incident locations do not seem to closely follow locations of drinking and
entertainment businesses, except for noise complaints which occurred close to a few
businesses.
6. The total number of nightime, nonvehicle incidents has increased more slowly than
the number of daytime incidents. The number of nighttime noise and vandalism
incidents, however, increased faster than daytime noise or vandalism, or total
incidents.
7. A disproportionate number of incidents have occurred close to a few
drinking/entertainment businesses.
B. Evening traffic.on major streets leading downtown has increased about five percent
per year, though the changes for individual streets range from none to about 22
percent per year.
All these conclusions should be tempered by an awareness of the limited data which could
be used for comparisons over time. The perceptions of downtown residents, visitors, and
businesses people represent genuine concerns.
To avoid problems which may come with additional drinking and entertainment businesses,
staff recommends these actions:
1. Expand the recently adopted requirement for use permits for bars to include all
alcohol-serving businesses, to avoid interpretation problems concerning businesses
serving alcohol in other ways.
2. Maintain the requirement for use permits for entertainment businesses.
s
3. For both drinking and entertainment businesses, continue to impose the types of
conditions which have been developed over the last year (such as private security
plans coordinated with the Police Department, limits on hours of operation, and
special noise-reduction measures).
4. Require.actual demonstrations of proposed_amplified. music_to evaluate;requests,for-:.
use permits near houses, apartments, or•hote.ls.. _
5. Monitor changes of the factors discussed in`this report and report to the council
again in;two.years. -
_ _ _ .r.. . . .. . ...-' .L .gam:..... _
6. Ask .the BIA to sponsor regular`meetings between operators of drinking/entertainment
businesses and city staff.f 17
.
7. Maintain current approaches to, and levels of, law enforcement downtown, .with
resources devoted to downtown police service generally increasing in pace with city
budgets and downtown traffic and business activity.
Staff also considered restrictions on the number and location of drinking and'.•-:
entertainment businesses, additional restrictions on operations, and significantly
expanded law-enforcement, but decided.they are.not-warranted.at this time.
7 U:11
.. .• _. . . �''._.. r _..
.. .. . . _. . _. .'� .I:t:. ... .1 ... .._...__ .:'%.+ rL `ir 7��.:•.•"+'; •� err 1-.I� r_L . ...`C::'�'. r: .. ... ., r_. .
... ... . .. . . � ��1 �: .•�.�1is'd7u . . '.`ii.J..r i�.Sv .Jr -.x f V ,r,.�.. '_\ .. .... . _. _ _ �.d..l l• ••
i."?n Z-?ZJ;i�".. _ _ ..a:-C':J _. �(f j_:Lam... d�' �.:.�.: i_L., LF.":1".
-.INTRODUCTION'.. -
In spring 1987, the City Council. asked staff.Jo.prepare:a report on some7of the-
undesirable effects_possibly,caused by drinking and entertainment businesses in San"Luis
.-T
Obispo's downtown: he city had recently ;considered.several:controversial.applications
for nightclubs.. Also, citizens were concerned that.the apparent increase in bars and:.
nightclubs was responsible for.additional-noise, traffic,'littering,vandalism, and
disorderly behavior, and that such businesses were displacing traditional downtown stores
and restaurants. The council wanted to know_how,the types of downtown businesses and the
severity ofsuch problems had changed in thelast few years,:and.how.the problems might
be reduced.or avoided. : :_
This report responds to the City Council's request. First, the.report answers several
basic questions.on_these.issues. The second section includes recommended and alternative
ways to address problems. The-third section explains how staff:arrived at the
conclusions and presents more detailed information.
Additional-discussion of the;downtown economy.and:land-use trends and choices, which is
beyond.the scope of_this,study, will be presented in future reports as.part of-the .city's
general plan update.. :.
QUESTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Business Chances
1. Are there a lot more drinking and entertainment businesses downtown?
Yes, the number:has..increased substantially.-In 1982, there. were 24.• By'1987, there
were 33, an increased of 9.(37 percent).•Included in•these counts are r_
bars/nightclubs, restaurants serving alcohol that are open after 6:00 p.m"' and movie
theaters.
2. Do •drinking andentertainment businesses.make.up a bigger share of all.downtown
businesses?
No. Bars, nightclubs,:and theaters..are about.the same fraction_of'_all_downtown.
businesses.now as fiveyears.ago:;six percent. :.The:.total number of downtown!s_ ::
businesses increased from 385 in 1982 to 537 in 1987, a 40 percent'increase .(compared
to a 37 percent increase for drinking and entertainment businesses). All these
counts are from lists of'business. licenses in-the respective,ye"L",:� 2.J1.
3. Have;bars, nightclubs, and theaters:displaced more:traditional:downtown businesses?
'G:l •r-' __; G7
In terms of,specific',sites; the.answer.;is."yes.";However; drinking and-entertainment
businesses comprise a slightly smaller fraction of,all.:downtown.businesse.s now.than
in 1982. The drinking and entertainment businesses established since 1982 did take
the place of auto-parts, furniture, grocery,nand drug:stores, and government:
.offices. The trend from stores to drinking and entertainment uses, however, has.not
been universal. :Some restaurants have:been replaced;by stores. Stores selling
furniture and hardware have Also.been replaced by spec ialty,shops._Also,-new .:
business of several kinds have..been established in.new;buildings. . . ,._ !�_;;
3
The use changes appear to have happened because the eating, drinking, and
entertainment businesses (1) generally can afford higher rents than stores, and (2)
they are less sensitive to-peak�parking'demand since they do-most of their business
after stores and offices are-closed. Apparently, do*ntown'offers it greater '
:locational advantage.to specialty shops, restaurants, bars, and theaters than it does
to stores selling household*goods„.furniture,`or auto parts: (This point will be'...
investigated further as part of the general-plan update')
..--;._ ._ :r - . . _._ s.^:i;:.�c;' _^rte_ ,: _. __.. . :�. ,. . ..._ .._. _ .... . -•-- - _..
r The perception that drinking and entertainment uses are 'taking over” downtown may be
due to their high visibility,--the small size'of downtown, and increased levels of!.:
activity generally (due to Thursday night activities and some stores staying open
later).
4. . .Are drinking and entertainment businesses responsible fora larger share'of downtown
economic.and social activity, despite the counts of businesses?
There is no readily available information to answer this question. Before-and-after
measures of gross receipts in .various business categories;reasons for trips to
downtown;•or,theater and restaurant seating capacity vs..total floor area would be' '
needed to answer this question based on something more sound than personal
impressions. Upcoming general-plan studies will try to answer this question; also,
the recommended monitoring program should allow a better evaluation in future years.
Crime and Nuisances
5. Has crime increased in the downtown?..The number of police incidents has increased. :Incidents include all reque§ts for -
police service and officerAnitiated actions logged by the Police Department. The
number of police responses:to non:vehicle incidents in the downtown increased about
12 percent from 1984 to 1987, based on one-month samples from police logs during
March of those years. The number of nighttime incidents, which one would expect to
.be correlated with drinking and entertainment uses,'increased about six percent in -
that time. ,z
Nonvehicle 'crime reports for downtown decreased.slightly-from1l984 to I987, while
total annual downtown crime reports (including •traffic'violatioas) increased about 26-
.:- ,percent
6.._ ,percent from 1984 to 1987. . .c:-.=; r; 0,' r:
tnrz.1 at]!_tS:..
6. Has downtown crime'increased faster than citywide-crime?�
For:nonvehicle'crimes,-no:=Downtown aonvehicle crime repoits declined from 24
percent of citywide nonvehicle reports in 1984 to 23 percent in 1987. For traffic
violaiions;"yes.;Total crime reports; iriciuding traffic violations; silo* 65 percent"?
rlocated"downtown in '1984 and 73 'percent downtown in 1981.8 =-,mcg =
. _. i?._ C7�. �7'SZ '�:1 ..-.,.. �.�•'_..-;:�.•.Li_ 7 �i3;:._. .:i i., rt', �:'- 'i..;:{� .�.?:� .'- �i
7. Have the types of.downtowa incidents'•changed? • •'i'
Yes. Based on our one=month saitiples during-1984'and 19879 whole-dav reports'of
disorderly conduct (including possessing.or being under the influence'of alcohol or
other drugs) and violence*declined substantially,'while reports 'of theft,vandalism;
and suspicious people increased substantially. Noise complaints increased some.
4 �— 66
Nighttime incident trends generally followed whole-day trends. However, nighttime .
noise complaints more than doubled.:.Nighttime suspicious-people reports were
unchanged. _
S. Were the incidents related to drinking and entertainment uses?''
Yes, but .the incidents-appear to be'clustered hear certain:bars'of nightclubs, not
:drinking;and.entertainiient uses generally. ====' '•' - I, -
About two-thirds of-all downtown incidents took pIace'within 200'teet-(about one -half
block) of..a bar:or:alcohol-serving restaurant: -This'does=not indicate"an unusually
high concentration of incidents; since about two-thirds'of the'commercial'core is.
within 200 feet of a bar or,alcohol-serving restaurant. = -
Perhaps more important, higher-than-average numbeis :d incidents were reported at or
-close to a few-alcohol-serving businesses. In-1984.7 25 percent'of the-incidents=were
reported at or within 200 feet of 17 percent (four) of the bars%restaurants. 'Ia
1987, 34 percent of the incidents were reported at or within-200 feet of-12,percent
(four) of the bars/restaurants. In each year, the four businesses with the greatest
apparent 'attraction' for incidents were bars" or nightclubs,* 'as'opposed to theaters
or alcohol-serving restaurants. The particular night spots and the types of.
clientele they attract, rather than simply'the numbers'of businesses, contribute to
undesirable.behavior.
:Intuitively, more drinking and entertainment businesses wouId lead to more-problems
with noisy, violent, or destructive behavior. However; the overall numbers'ieporied
in the answers above do not indicate that such basinesses`as a category have led to
significantly more.crime and nuisances doovntown -.Problems appear to be' 'associated
with a few businesses, some of themlong=established
9. Is there aVthreshold number of drinking or entertainment businesses, in a small area
or within downtown generally' beyond:which'a"disproportionate- increase'in problems
-:might occur?.-.:-!
In broad terms, yes.' Downtown San-,Luis Obispo'is'known thioughout.the county4s; a
place to find restaurants, bars, and entertainment, as well as specialized stores and
services. Any concentration of activities is likely to cause a concentration of
problems. However, staff found no evidence that within the downtown"as an'eaample,
two bars in one block led to more problems than two bars, each in a separate block.
Likewise, there is no evidence that having a certain number of bars downtown creates
a public:impression that downtown is dominated by drinking-placei and is"therefore no
longer:a-suitable.place for family visits 6r'shopping.1 On''the'other'hand,`even small
increases in,:the number of such:businesses can'gradually`change'the character of-an .
area;'and at some.'point a fundamentat difference wouId'be'apparent: =It=seems that
changes in character_of ran area would-follow more from-an increase'in drinking and
entertainment•uses as a proportion-of all businesirA;Mthei•thin-a 'simple'increase'
:in numbers.
-:f.'r'Ci :� h-•..._.-:.,_':. '.: :'� 3� .•:_ i� f:i .. .TJ:`.il i�1 G�::y•;X: .} �J:li^'7i _.:�'':'^'�
'nit •.. ..., ....... ).^,3f^Qi�7'L7%.... O�i..i _'=:;� :1°.' _.. ':Q's CC..F;� �.:Ij ' u1:L::-_
* In 1984: Cigar Factory; McCarthy's, McLintock's, Sully's. =In'1987::'Morro Rock;•V'
Champion's, Bull's Tavern, McLintock's. �' c�• - ��':'r
Oji - .iaLJ T:. 1 'G 1::?
Traffic
10. Is'there more.nighttime traffic on streets leading to_downtown?.
Yes and no. Between 1983 and 1985 or 1986, nighttime traffic (7 p.m. to midnight)
stayed the same on Broad. Street,•declined.slightly,oa,Osos Street, increased _-:':'
substantially (at four to nine percent per year) on Chorro and Santa Rosa Streets,
and increased dramatically,.(7Z percent per year) on Monterey Street. ;With the,':
exception of Monterey Street, increases in•total daily traffic.(two toll percent per
year) were roughly comparable to changes in nighttime traffic. Total daily traffic
on Monterey-Street increased..about.three percent per year.?.The apparent nighttime
increase _on.Monterey Street maybe due i.n.par..t to:seasonal differences of traffic
counts used In the comparison.and additional. tourist development-on upper.Monterey
Street, rather than solely to.more attractions.downtown.: ,_•.
_..The overall-changes:in. nighttime traffic observed on the five major.streets are in
line .with increases that would be expected from..city_aad:county.population growth
(two to five;percent per year) and.traffic on,arterial streets outside.downtown-(two
to.nine percent per year
11. Has traffic,noise.increased along streets.leading to downtov
in 7
Yes. More traffic implies more noise, since the characteristics of:vehicles have.not
changed significantly in the last few years. The increases have not.beea
substantial, according to comparisons with the general plan Noise Element and
_. environmental studies of:noise:increases.due,;to the proposed widening and expected
traffic increases on Monterey Street.: For several years, residential areas .(mainly
yards along streets) have been,exposed;to,traffic noise levels considered.to be -
unacceptable under the.city's;general:plan.;;Downtow.n.drinking and entertainment
businesses probably have. contributed proportionately to overall higher levels of
traffic noise caused by more residents and businesses in the city and region.
-More detailed investigation was beyond:the;scope of this study- .Staff found no
strong evidence that traffic from downtown drinking and entertainment businesses has
increased noise problems for residents along streets leading to downtown out of
,,::proportion;to.increased traffic noise from overall downtown businesses growth. -:
10
Downtown Residents -,;
.:l:•.�.iri ^;S-,;Sz ZI n,•) : .t.'.i?`1 :•!!! _, ;!-; �m:.',7 rJ iQ .:... ^' bi'
10. How are downtown residents affected brpy� drinking and entertainment uses?
6
__.F•iQe� �.a•� 'I!Q✓ T•I Si'f I" ._ .. ° •. ')'�•• d fi'..d _' rJ Qs !.: .':ia �'JWaDii 1
;,While.having-both?entertainment businesses and residents in'downtown:has'advantages,
;;:the combination•.is.bound to lead to conflicts.i Downtown residents help provide
securityjn jhe area,by observing and reporting:incidents. Attached to_the a.::1
;,convenience of downtown_living;is,the'likelihood.of:nuisances from..commercial.=
activities. About 200. people,live Lin the downtown_commercial.area;•many;of.them
senior.pitizens and.•nearly:-all with modest incomes:- Many.more.live in:surrounding
residential neighborhoods. They live close to the businesses and are homcwhen.most
problems would be expected to occur. Many of the concerns expressed at public,
hearings on additional drinking and entertainment businesses have been voiced'by
downtown residents.'; Noise appears to.be.the primary concern, followed;by personal
and property security. There are no "before and:after" measurements available to
document the effects of additional drinking and entertainment uses on downtown
residents.
: :Dud to'both public and private projects,"the number'of-dwellings and residents in the
downtown commercial area is declining: i As property=values and demand for all types
of nonresidential space increase, residences in commercial zones are being replaced
with stores and offices.
RECOMMENDED &'ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
Staff has concluded that the problems associated with downtown drinking and entertainment
uses —both existing and expected— warrant some changes in city regulations, but no
major policy changes at this time. Listed below are recommended actions as well as other
actions that were considered but are not recommended.
Recommended Actions
1. Keep the Zoning Regulations' requirement for use permits for theaters, bars (whether
or.not in conjunction with a restaurant),and nightclubs (any restaurant with
entertainment). .. ... _ . .
2..- Also; to avoid problems of interpretation concerning bars and restaurants or other
uses serving alcohol,'amend the Zoning Regulations to clarify that 'a use permit will
be required for any alcohol-serving business downtown:
The use permits will allow case-by-case -evaluations of specific types of operations
in relation to sensitive uses and other drinking/entertainment businesses.
Evaluationof applications and enforcement of-conditions would continue to be
coordinated with the Police Department and State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
(ABC).
3. Continue to"impose conditions for those applications which are approved like those
developed in the last year requiring:
-A ; Notification of police before special events;
B. Special on-site crowd control and security measures'as recommended'by police;
C. Limited hours and days of operation;
D. Reconsideration of-the use permit upon eomplaint'or after:'a''probaiionary
period;
E. Special noise mitigation (see also item 4 below);
F. Limits'on hours or types of music or entertainment (such-as amplified vs:''"
acoustic mu$1C).'.".'.>!::i�;:7n'i . . 'Ll t:..-� _. .''^i:D:�F �.'•.^.?� .t:�a1Q�:: ?- 'f7:� ._ ..
:�'._.. . 0:;?: . . 6; -.1;:::. � '--t 5: . :,''it. ._.:13'.::0='�Il ^� 1: T��•-'-� is�� .. '(11C' S'_._:�
4. For'uses.proposing amplified music within 200 feet of resideats,:require-prior to
action.on the.tise permit an actual demonstration of the•volume-and character of-the
proposed.sound, with readings and field evaluation by'staff.: (With Planning-1-
,r.Commission or City Coundl Airectioa by minute.order'.-staff.will begin doing this.
No ordinance of policy.amendments'are needed.) - :_ra ': s .te�-= a = • ^'.
�J .9:.,•:.u!a.i i _�L,'�'.:fJ I�.l_� - .�'J'J! r_J......i.J'� .ai l: .J-1C �._.. i. .._.. . rte. ,
5. Direct staff to monitor changes in downtown drinking and entertainment businesses,
police incident reports, and traffic, and report to the City Council again in two
years (early in 1990).-`(New incident.iepoiting systems being implemented by-the"
Police Department will make future evaluations easier and more complete).
6. Ask the BIA to sponsor periodic meetings (perhaps twice a year) between the operators
of:downtown drinking and entertainment businesses,police, and community development
staff.to identify and resolve.problems in the continuing operation, growth, and
-regulation.of the businesses...The .council could refer specific current concerns and
would be informed of the results of the meetings
7. Maintain current approaches to, and levels of, law enforcement downtown, with
resources devoted to,downtown police service.generally increasing in pace with city
budgets and downtown traffic and business activity.
LJ .. ... . .. ._ _... .. .__..;_ u .,. . . ..
Alternatives ...
1. Encourage new drinking and entertainment businesses to locate in areas other than
downtown, or existing ones to relocate from downtown (possibly by.allowing,them in. .
other zones, such as nightclubs in service-commercial or manufacturing areas).
Not recommended for the following reasons;;Staff.does.not expect.a substantial.
increase in such businesses generally, or in 'those that are particularly
troublesome. There is no evidence that such businesses would cause fewer
law-enforcement problems in other locations, though some types of,complaints (noise).
might be reduced. Also, the general plan says downtown.is .the.preferred location for
such uses, if they are to be established in the. community. .Tm
his still sees a ..
desirable policy, both to avoid their dispersion to possibly more sensitive locations
and to provide feasible.uses for.downtown buildings..: _
a:. _.
2. Restrict the.number,of alcohol-serving or entertainment businesses downtown..
A. Allow no new such businesses.
B. .Set a_limit on the total number of:such businesses somewhat higher than
currently exist. -
C. Allow the number of such businesses to grow'no faster than .the total number of
all types of businesses downtown.or no faster than citypopulation. .
D. .:AAow_a certain.predetermined numerical or percentage.increase in the number of
such businesses each year. r
Not.recommended for-.the following reasons:zNo two businesses in this general
category are identical. Staff thought it unfair to categorically exclude *such uses,
when only a few appear to be troublesome. . Allowing use permits to be reconsidered
upon .complaint-or after a probationary-period assures that if:a particular
:.'application-is considered favorably,
;but the:use turns out to-be:troublesome,-it can
be changed or removed.:With-a requirement for.use:permits and with monitoring of
downtown use.trends -the.city.need not pre=establish':a'limit.'?As use-permit requests
are considered, a limit may in fact be set if�the community:perceives a,threshold'is
being reached and additional businesses would harm downtown character or public
-health and etya..:-- -.... t��,ck.-.?� s,,,ct�•�:�._ ... �;, _.... .:,,... ,�. : ;.... �.. . ._
lZ., a.. 3_'i��_ _ :iJ :i v, i.y�.1^ ...:�. •.r.^. .�_ . . i ....._ir. r ..n...
3. Restrict the location or,concentration of.such.businesses .within downtown.
A. Prohibit them within a certain distance of certain sensitive land uses
(churches, schools, apartments/hotels/houses).
g .
/—�O
I ^
B. Prohibit them within a certain distance'of each other.
Not recommended for the following reasons: The reasons for not categorically
excluding such businesses also argue against location limits above and beyond.those:—'
imposed by basic zoning provisions, or by individual use-permit decisions.
4. Impose, additional-standard.conditions of use-permit approval or adopt additional code
requirements concerning operation.of such businesses (days/hours of operation;
maximum:size/capacity; no`amplified music).
Not recommended for the following reasons: No uniformly desirable standard
conditions :were apparent. Once we have more experience with-the recommended types of
standard-conditions, we may:want to reconsider. this approach and adopt"additional
code requirements Also, reasoning similar to that in alternatives 4 and 5 above
applies.
5. :..Significantly expand law-enforcement activities downtown (by"such means as police
-foot patrols in addition to Thursday nights and special events/holidays, or routine
monitoring-of noise levels). Additional police service could be'paid for with BIA
funds or by.imposing business license surcharges for drinking/entertainment
.
businesses :...: . .. ....
Not recommended for the following reasons: It appears that having police services
increase in.proportion to overall city growth and budgets is adequate, considering
the recommended actions. Also, reallocation of police resources'..would best be'
considered in.light of citywide needs and activities'of that department
_._ .
a: i. :.a.-.�.7� :.t � .__ .. _ _ _ . :-../ 1J.:_.. it_. ;fe'._ ..'rJ i..,J.'�.p% �..] r.:1. .. _ _ .aL - _•___�
r
=.1
_: : .RESEARCH METHODS & RESULTS
: s :'.-
Introduction
The results of any study are the product of available information and how it is treated.
While.staff-used..quantified and repeatable evaluations whenever possible, categorizing
data points and_ stating observations inevitably requires-some judgment.'. Staff would
emphasize that conclusions as complicated as the relationship between business activities
and crime levels or the character of downtown do not lend themselves to clearcut
statistical tests. Also, _the validity:of conclusions concerning long-term trends .depends
on.adequate,.representative samples of data when whole.fields of data-cannot feasibly be
used, as in the:case of:the police incident reports ("Crime and Nuisances". section.)
:,Business Chanees
For land.uses, the study area was the Downtown Business Improvement Association (BIA)
area, which_coincides with the Central-Commercial (C-C) zone. Planning Division staff
compared lists of city-business licenses from 1982 and :1987. The year.1982.was.the
earliest forwhich a.complete listing was available. Staff:tallied the number of bars;
restaurants open after 6 p.m., and movie theaters and the total of all businesses.% Where
one location had accommodated more than one type of business within a year, only the most
recent was.counted.:-. Where several individuals had separate business licenses for the
same function.atone location (for example, physicians in a clinic or beauticians in a
salon), the location was considered as one business . :The results are shown in Table 1 -
below. The locations..of drinking and entertainment businesses are mapped in Figure 1.
Table 1
DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES
Total Businesses Drinking/entertain. Businesses Percent of total
I= 127 Change 12L J9$Z Change 1M 877 Chanee
385 537 152 (39.5%) 24 33 9 (37-5%) 6.2% 6.1% -1.6%
Since 1982, the following were developed downtown and were operating in December 1987:
Businesses that are primarily bars/pubs: 3
Business that are primarily restaurants, but which serve alcoholic beverages after
6:00 p.m.: 5
Movie theaters: 1 (3 screens)
(The Morro Rock nightclub --oriented primarily to high school and young college students,
and apparently responsible for a substantial share of the police incidents during the
1987 sample month— is now a restaurant.)
0
10
Rim
■IIx
rm
oll i
lip= ■�� :ililr ■1111
NOW� nll��l �� ■�11�
rn ra 2.
■1m
®11® ■1® •
Crime and Nuisances
With the help of Police Department staff, Planning Division staff-culfed the logs of-
police °incident reports" for March 1984 and March 1987. One mouth was chosen--to keep
practical the volume of data to be manually examined. .March was chosen because it is
during the school year-and does.not contain-celebrated holidays that mightskew the._._-_
results However, the use of March may have,reduced_tho apparent proportion of.-outdoor,
nighttime incidents due to cold or rainy weather:-Data selection was.limite-d by .the need
to know the day and time as well as the place-and type.of incident. The year 1984--was
the earliest which provided data comparable.to1987. _
Incidents;were tabulated-for address ranges_including the BIA (C-C zoned) area and about
300 feet beyond the..BIA boundaries.- Incidents include all responses/actions of officers .
in the-field, whether initiated by a telephone call through the dispatcher or by citizens.;
or officers in the field. In tabulating downtown :incidents staff did not distinguish
between those that resulted in arrests or convictions and those that did .not.,_Often a . ..
call concerning noise.or disturbance-does not.result:in as arrest, or-the disturbance may .
no longer be taking place when the officer arrives While incidentswere'tabulated by
day vs night, an offense committed--at one time might not be*xei ported until 'another (for
example, nighttime vandalism discovered during the day). Night was defined Eo•be 7:00
p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Table 2 shows' the results.. Categories-are,explained on the-following
page.
- ::...Table
...Table 2 .. ..-
-_.. .DOWNTOWN POLICE INCIDENTS
Incident Tyne March 1984 - March 1987Ratio 1987:1984
_.
P. Y .Nt Totat-- PAY.-Nicht Total PAY k!Day Total
- --.77 7,
Disorderly
_ ,.-
Disorderly _-16 _._ 20 -.36_...:_= 12__ 9 21 0.75 0.45 0.58
_..
Theft _ 11 --` 4 .15 - 22-�-8 - --30 2.00 2.00,. 2-00
_.._ _.. -
Violence _20: 19 _:39_ __, _6___.5_._ 11 030 ^026:, 0.28
Busineis checks 7 .7 ` ':14:.. : 19. 15. 34 2.71 2-14- 2.43
Noise . _ 10 11_, 21 24 25 0.10 2.18: 1.19
-+ _
Vandalism _.6 = 2 8=J 11 --10--- 21 ? 1.83 5.00' 2.62
Suspicious Subjects =8 _ _21 ---;29—__._.: 19 21 40 2.37 ' 1.06 138
Misc.'Assistance 25 _ 16 31 14_ i 45 124 '.0.88_ 1.10
Total Non-vehicle 103 100.:263 121 106 228 = 1:17 =1.06 =: 1.12
Vehicle na as '84 ..na na 134 F na V na' 1.59
Overall Total: na ~ na 287 na -na 362 na na 126
12 / �L�
The incidents were originally,reported in connection with many specific sections of the
state codes.- For analysis, staff categorized the.incidents: . ....
"Disorderly conduct" includes public intoxication and possessing drugs/alcohol,
begging/panhandling, and offensive phone calls
"Vandalism" includes all acts of destroying'property.
"Theft" includes petty and grand theft, and credit fraud. _
"Violence";includes assault and battery, burglary, and weapons and.sex offenses. -
"Suspicious people"-includes suspicious subjects or circumstances,prowling,
trespassing, unwanted subjects, and calls to check the welfare of persons.
Business checks' includes alarm and patrol checks,walk-throu_ghs, and checking
businesses.for wrongdoing.__
"Noise"^includes continuous and occasional, and indoor,and outdoor noise. -- -
"141iscellaneous" includes calls for medical—assistance, lost and .found property,-_and
warrants served.
The maps on following pages (figures 2-and. 3) show locations of incidents-in March 1984
and March 1987, in relation to alcohol-serving-businesses. . In evaluating the data, staff ----
tabulated
-tabulated numbers of-incidents_within 200 feet•of alcohol-serving businesses and._ -
identified clusters of such businesses. The numbers of.incidents per.establishment -�
inside and outside clusters,and between•clusteit, were about the same,-so further
statistical analysis of concentrations and clustering .was' not pursued.
In comparing downtown crime_to-citywide crime, staff tabulated only those incidents which
resulted in a report being prepared by the responding officer.-Therefore, the numerical
results differ from the evaluation of downtown'incidents presented. above. (Note that
neither incidents nor reports necessarily mean that a crime was committed or a,suspect
was prosecuted or convicted. As in all assessments.of criminal activity, there may be
false reports, unreported:crime,-and changes due to the -public's inclination to report
certain offenses or conditions.)-Tattle 3.compares downtown"and citywide crime reports.
•Table.3
DOWNTOWN YS.:CTfYWIDE CRIME REPORTS
Year r, ;Citywide . .. Downtown !' Downtown%Citywide (%)
Nonvehicle __Total ..:_Nonvehicle .Total Nonvehicle
— .
1984: �c '440'_ –_396 __ �287J 95 _ 65% 24%
y
1995'L -_ f 572 :.-._.__._:.: na -- .356' --- ,na na
1986 529 na 291 :1na 55% _ na
1987 - -' 496 413 362 93 73% , 23% i
7■=. ■ ® �-
arm
Elmo
mans
V= i■ ~ • =�' III ■1111
MN
No
�i
�'® ��: ®■ 111111
®IlS
®A COMM
_
�s j ■11■ Elm -
MEN= �® _
Mom
0010 10M Ts
milli
MIN
_
® � -E ®■ 111111
�� '""'=` � x=11■ — ■11�
M� �- ■
z
.% �'� Milo
Traffic counts taken by the city Engineering Division were compared as shown in the
following table. Evening was defined as 7:00 p.m. to-12:00 a.m.
:..: .
-._ TRAFFIC VOLUME CHANGES
Street/location Days/dates -' 24-hr or"48=hr Traffic -1 or"2 Everiins Traffic
Change/year Count Chane/vear
•
Broad/Buchon Th+Fr 10-83 __18,674 3,014
Th+Fr. 11-86 .-21;286.'::;-- ::4.696 3,036 - - - 0
Chorro/Palm ' Th 1-83.7....._ .._ _. :=__8620 . . . _ 1500
Th 5-86 11,265 _..__._.. 11% ._.. 1,933
8.895
Osos/Buchoa Th+Fr,10-83—.. .:. 19,585 - ... ._ 2,921..._.
— .
-Th+Fr 3-86 - - 20,66.0. 2196 2,834 . _ -1.2%
Monterey/Sta Rosa Th+Fr 9-83 27,047 : 4,175
Th+Fr 5-86 .. .. .
32,215 = ` : 7.0% 6,645 22%
Santa Rosa/Palm-
Monterey Th+Fr 9-83 . 40,109 -6,791 '
Th+Fr 9-85 44,048 ::- 4.9%. - 7,371 ' ' 4.3%
Downtown Residents - -+
The location of downtown-houses, apartments,-and residential -hotels was taken from
previous field surveys and personal knowledge bf changes since:the_surveys..-Locations
are shown on the following"map=(Figure 4).`_7he estimate of.downtown population was taken
from census results and the cumber and_type of residential uses remaining since the last
census:-The characterization 'of their ages and incomes comesfrom census data, evaluated
for the Community Development Block:Grant'applicatio'n•:to.preserve downtown residential
hotels... _�•.__
16 l���
� 111■ ■I®
111 :
OEM
:1■ 111 ■ i� ■E
■Ili �■�\ �►� �� D
�I� �.Q■ .►.l..� ' �.� �■ �`' 01111
rig
�� 1111,11
CEM
LmIul
�WAN
jor
:cam �■ ��_ � ..
PARTICIPATING STAFF
Community Develooment Deoartment
Rick Hocker, Planning_Aide _" _. __ ..... _ .... ...._.__ .
Judith Lautner, Associate::Planner
Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
Mike Multari, Director
Pam Ricci,:Associate Planner - - •- - - ----
Terry Sanville, Principal Planner -
Police Department
Jim Gaidiner, Chief
Steve Seybold,, Crime-Prevention Coordinator -
Bart Topham, Captain
_
-- 1
i
gm2/dtbais
1 _
RESOLUTION N0.8404 (1995 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
GRANTING AUTHORITY TO TBE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO
MAKE °PUBLIC CONVENIENCE° DETERMINATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION
23958.4 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
WHEREAS, the State has adopted Section 23958.4 of the California Business and
Professions Code that establishes additional. alcoholic beverage licensing criteria by the
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to this new legislation, the City may be asked to determine if
public convenience and necessity will warrant the issuance of a license notwithstanding a
determination that there is an undue concentration of licenses in the area, and
WHEREAS, as a local governing body, the Council may delegate the duties of
determining whether or not public convenience and' necessity are met to the Community
Development Director, and
WHEREAS, there would be no benefit to the Council to hear every request for a"public
convenience' determination.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE rr RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 23958.4 of the.
California Business and Professions Code, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does
hereby delegate the authority to determine when public convenience and necessity warrant an
exception to the over concentration of establishments subject to'alcoholic beverage licensing to
the Community Development Director who will consult with the Police Department.
BE rr FURTHER RESOLVED, that determinations of the Community Development .
Director may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Coda.
R-8404
z
City Council Resolution No.8404 (1995 Series)
Page 2
On motion Of Council Member Smith , Seconded by Council Member Williams
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:. : Council Members Smith, Williams, Roalman, Romero and-Mayor Settle.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 4 day of April. , 1995.
Mayor Allen R. Settle
ATTEST:
t
Ner Diane R.&Xadvell
APPROVED:
wt�-u
*e$y
�_ 0
%TE OFCALIFURNIA—SUSLNESSTRANSPORTAT .N�.,OUS1NGAGENCY PEMWRSON.Governor
EPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
I-1 ROSIN COURT. SUITE 150.SACRAMENTO.CA 95834
16)263-6900
March 8, 1995 �D
RECEIVED
VAR 1 .
To: County Board of Supervisors 3 1995
City Councils cmr COUNCIL'
Mayors SAN U IM 09IRPO.CA
During the 1994 Legislative Session amendments and additions were made to certain
provisions of the Business and Professions Code relating to alcoholic beverage licensing
which affect the local governing bodies of cities and counties.
Section 23958.4 was added to the Business and Professions Code to define "undue
concentration" of licenses and to establish the procedure for determining if public
convenience and necessity will warrant the issuance of a license notwithstanding a
determination that there is an undue concentration of licenses. A copy of the chaptered
Assembly bill creating Section 23958.4 is enclosed.
With respect to non-retail licenses, bona fide public eating place licenses, certain
hotel, motel, or specified lodging establishments and retail licenses issued in conjunction
with a beer manufacturing or winegrowees license, if the applicant shows that public
convenience or necessity would be served, a license may be issued by the Department.
In this situation the local governing body does not make a determination of public
convenience and necessity. However, nothing would preclude a city or county from
protesting the issuance of a license on these grounds or any other grounds.
With respect to all other retail licenses, most notably all off-sale beer and wine
Iicenses,off-sale general licenses, and all other on-sale licenses , the determination of
whether or not public convenience and necessity is met will be determined by the local
governing body of the appropriate city or county. In other words, if there is an undue
concentration of licenses in the area of a proposed licensed premises and the local
governing body determines that issuance of the license would meet public convenience
and necessity standards, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control will be bound by
that determination and the license could be issued, assuming other factors, such as the
personal qualification of the applicant, citizen protests and other non-public convenience
and necessity factors do not preclude the issuance of the license. On the other hand, if the
local governing body determines that public convenience and necessity would not be
served, that determination by itself would preclude the issuance of the license by the
Department.
The Department is asking that all determinations of satisfying public convenience
and necessity be in writing and-submitted to the local office of the Department.
As the local.governing body you may elect to delegate the duties of determining
whether or not public convenience and necessity are met to a subordinate agency such
as a zoning, planning, or law enforcement official if desired. If this is your decision please
submit a written notice of such delegation to the Department's Headquarters address
within 30 days of the date of this notice. If such a delegation is not made within that
period we wall assume that the local governing body itself will be making these
determinations
Please send all notifications of delegation of these duties to:
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
Office of the Director
3810 Rosin Court, Suite 150
Sacramento, CA 95834
We appreciate your cooperation in these matters and.we feel that the changes in the
law as outlined above will serve to give local officials the ability to better deal with
alcoholic beverage licensing issues.
Sincerely,
r
enton P. Byers
Chief Counsel
• M1
Assembly Bill No. 2897
CHAPTER 630
An act to amend Section 23958 of, and to add Section 23958.4 to,
the.Business and Professions Code, relating to.alcoholic beverages.
[Approved by Governor September 19, 199-4. Filed with
Secretary of State September 20, 1994.]
: LECISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2897, Caldera. Alcoholic beverages:. retail licenses: undue
concentration.
Existing lav provides that the Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control may deny an application for a license if the issuance would,
among other things, result in or add to an undue concentration,of
licenses, and the applicant fails to show that public convenience or
necessity would be served by the issuance. Existing regulatory law
defines "undue concentration" with regard to applications for
on-sale and off-sale retail licenses.
This bill would instead require the Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control to deny an application if issuance would tend to
create a law enforcement problem, or would result in or add to an'
undue concentration of licenses. The bill would change the
definition . of undue concentration, and would provide that,
notwithstanding the requirement .that the department deny an
application that would result in or add to an undue concentration of
licenses, a license may be issued with respect to a nonretail license,
a retail on-sale bona fide eating place license, a retail license issued
for a hotel,motel, or other lodging establishment,as defined,a retail
license issued in conjunction with a beer manufacturer's license, or
a winegrower's license, if the applicant shows that public
convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance, and with
respect to any other license, if the local governing body of the area
in which the applicant premises are located determines that public
convenience or•necessity would be served by the issuance.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code
is amended to read:
23958. Upon receipt of an application for a license or for a transfer .
of a license and the applicable fee, the department shall make a
thorough investigation to determine whether the applicant and the.
premises for which a license is applied qualify for a license and
whether the provisions of this division have been complied with,and
shall investigate all matters connected therewith which may affect
the public welfare and morals. The department shall deny an
94 110
Ch. 630 —2—
application
2—application for a license or for a transfer of a license if either the
applicant or the premises for which a license is applied do not qualify
for a license under this division.
The department further shall deny an application for a license if
issuance of that license would tend to create a law enforcement
problem, or if issuance would result in or add to. an undue
concentration of licenses, except as provided in Section 23958.4.
SEC. 2. Section 23958.4 is added to the Business and Professions
Code, to read:
. 23958.4. .(a) For purposes of. Section 23958, "undue
concentration', means the applicant premises for an original or
premises-to-premises transfer of any retail license are located in.an
area where any of the following conditions exist:
(1) The applicant premises are located in a crime reporting
district that has a'20 percent greater number of reported crimes, as
defined in subdivision (c), than the average number of reported
crimes as determined from all crime reporting districts within the.
jurisdiction of the local law enforcement agency.
(2) As to on-sale retail license applications, the ratio of on-sale
retail licenses.to population in the census tract or census.division in
which the applicant premises are located exceeds the ratio of on-sale
retail licenses to population in the county in which the applicant
premises are located.
.(3) As to off-We retail license applications, the ratio of off-sale
retail licenses to population in the census tract or,census division in
which the applicant premises are located exceeds the ratio of off-sale
retail licenses to population in the county in which the applicant
premises are located.
(b) Notwithstanding Section 23958, the department may issue a .
license as follows:
. (1) With respect to a nonretail license, a retail on-sale bona fide
eating place license,a retail license issued for a hotel,motel,or other .
lodging establishment, as ,defined in subdivision (b) of Section
25503.16, a retail license issued in conjunction with a beer
manufacturers license, or a winegrowerIslicense, if the applicant
shows that public convenience or necessity would be served by the
issuance.
(2) With respect to any other license,if the local governing body
of the area in which the applicant premises are located determines
that public convenience or necessity would be .served by the
issuance.
(c) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall
apply.
"Reporting districts". means geographical areas within the .
boundaries of a single governmental entity (city or the
unincorporated area of a county),that are identified by the local law
enforcement agency inthe compilation and maintenance of
statistical information on reported crimes and arrests.
94 140
-3— Ch. 630
(2) "Reported crimes"means the most recent yearly compilation
by the local law enforcement agency of reported offenses of criminal
homicide, .forcible rape, robbery, aggravated .assault, burglary,
larceny theft, and motor vehicle theft, combined with all arrests for
other crimes, both felonies and misdemeanors, except traffic
citations.
(3) Population within the census tract or census division"means
the population as determined by the most recent United States
decennial or special census. The population determination shall not
operate to prevent an applicant from establishing that an increase-.of
resident population has occurred within the census tract or census
division:
(4) "Population in the county"shall be determined by the annual
population estimate for California counties published by the
Population Research Unit of the Department of Finance.
(5) "Retail licenses" shall include the following:
(A). Off-sale retail licenses: Type 20 (off--sale beer and wine) and
Type 21 (off-sale general).
(B) On-sale retail licenses: All retail on-sale licenses, except Type
43 (on-sale beer and wine for train),Type 44 (on-sale beer and wine
for fishing party.boat), Type 45 (on-sale beer and wine for boat),
Type 46 (on-sale beer and wine for airplane), Type 53 (on-sale
general for train and sleeping car), Type 54 (on-sale general for
boat), Type 55 (on-sale general for airplane), Type 56 '(on-sale
general for vessels of more than 1,000 tons burden), and Type 62
(on-sale general bona fide public eating place intermittent dockside .
license for vessels of more than' 15,000 tonsdisplacement).
(6) A"premises to premises transfer"refers to each license being
separate and distinct and transferable upon .approval of the
department.
(d) For purposes of this section, the number of retail licenses in
the county shall be determined by the most recent yearly retail
license count published by the department in its Procedure Manual.
(e) The enactment of this section shall not affect any existing
rights of any holder of a retail license issued prior to-April 29, 1992,
whose premises were destroyed or rendered unusable as a result of
the civil disturbances occurring in Los Angeles from April 29 to May
2, 1992, to reopen and operate those licensed premises.
(f) This section shall not apply where the premises have been
licensed and operated with the same type license within 90 days of
the application.
. O
94 160 /"'U
Pc,EnNG4I GENOA
COUNCIL CDD DIR �u
p-CAO ❑a FIN DIR
Q'ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF RECEIVED
@'ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
ErCLERKPORIC B'I�OLICE CHF ADDENDUM JUL 6 IM
❑ NIGbtT TEAM ❑ REC DIR MY OF SAN LUDEVELO XP
❑ C FILE ❑ UTiL DIR Conditional Use Permit Application
p' ❑ PERS DIR The Library
The proposed opening of an establishment at 723 Higuera supports the enthusiasm of the
downtown area as it responds to the world around it and embraces the various changing lines of
businesses. Plans for the proposed business are intended to comply with the city's guidelines
regarding Use Permits, and address specific concerns that may arise for this particular type of
establishment: Responsible management, noise, and crowd control. .These concerns are
addressed in this addendum.
Convenience and NecessiW
A more ambiguous issue that must be addressed is the requirement to determine whether the
proposed establishment meets the most recent guidelines that attempt to define convenience
and necessity. Although these guidelines are not well defined,we believe that the goal of the
recently introduced legislation is an attempt to impede further deterioration of areas in the
state with severe economic, social, and crime-related problems. We do not believe that this
situation exists in San Luis Obispo,however our plans include responsible policies to help guard
against similar problems.
We believe the convenience and necessity issue may be best addressed by an examination of the
industry and.culture that contribute to the stable economy and.high quality of life in San Luis
Obispo — namely, tourism and the University. We support both the tourist industry and the
University,as well as our local residents,and hope to bring to the community an establishment
that will provide enjoyment for all.
Responsible Management
As is the responsibility of every business owner, establishment and enforcement of strict
management policies and.programs are imperative to the success of both a business and to
maintaining a reputation as a responsible member of a community. We shall insist that all
employees-be well versed in the following areas:
• How to recognize false I.D:s
• How to deal with intoxicated patrons
• How and when to exercise service refusal
• How to utilize Safe-ride-home programs
• How to administer crowd control
We plan to solicit and would welcome assistance from the SLO Police Department,The ABC,
and any other similar authorities which may provide extensive training programs pertinent
and beneficial to the type of business proposed. We have already recently contacted the
County Alcohol Services and plan to adopt their formal policy development and continuing
education programs in house.
We believe that management extends beyond the doors of the proposed establishment. Though
our foot traffic will be predominantly late night (6:00 p.m. to midnight), and all but two
this time period,we strongly encourage healthy
surrounding businesses will be closed during
neighbor relations. Through regular contact with the immediate neighbors of the proposed
�'`T
Draft
Minutes GNTTACHMENT 7
RECEIVED City of San Luis Obispo
AUG 19y5 Planning Commission Meeting MEETING AGENDA
July, 12, 1995 DATE Z:dL-9!C—ITEM #
CITv COUNCIL
111M inc nrncDn /:0
PRESENT: Commrs. Gilbert Hoffman, Brett Cross, Paul Ready, Charles Senn, Janet
Kourakis and Chairperson Barry Karleskint
ABSENT: Commr. Whittlesey
STAFF PRESENT: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner; Captain Bart Topham, Police Department;
Paul LeSage, San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Director; Cindy
Clemens, Assistant City Attorney; and Laura M
to COUNCIL CDD DIR
Secretary 2rCAO ❑ FIN DIR
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: The agenda was not modified. ) eATTOCA0 ❑ FIRE CHIEF
g : [ ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
�CLERW�ORIC� ❑ POLICE CHF
PUBLIC COMMENT: None + ❑ MCMr TEAM ❑ REC DIR
i7 C FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
PUBLIC HEARINGS: ❑ PERS DIR
1. 723 Himra Street: A 76-95: Review of the proposal to establish a new tavern; C-C
zone; Frog and Peach Pub, Inc., applicant.
Pam Ricci explained that Bill Hales, president of the Frog & Peach Pub, wanted to open a new
bar in the vacant space next to Mother's that was last occupied by Big Music, and that an
administrative use permit is required to establish a bar in the C-C zone. She noted that in
addition to the City's requirement for a use permit, there is also a requirement for the City to
make a determination that "public convenience or necessity would be served" with issuance of
a license by the Alcoholic Beverage Control, which comes from a new State law that took effect
on January 1, 1995. She clarified that referral of the use permit to the Planning Commission
includes giving the Commission the authority to make the public convenience determination.
Ms. Ricci summarized_ the staff report which recommended that the Planning Commission
determine that there was insufficient evidence to support that public necessity or convenience
warranted an exception to the undue concentration of licensed facilities within the City of San
Luis Obispo, but recommended approval of the use permit, based on findings, and subject to
conditions stated in the staff report. She explained that the staff recommendation was divided
into two parts to reflect the two separate actions that the Commission is required to take on the
project, noting that the two issues are based on separate pieces of implementing legislation and
require different findings. She introduced Captain Bart Topham and indicated that he would be
available to answer questions regarding Police service issues and associated concerns.
Captain Bart Topham, City Police Department, responded to questions by the Commissioners
saying that some of the associated issues were somewhat subjective and could not be explained
fully by statistics. He said that there was a relationship between a concentration of drinking
draft
Minutes
Planning Commission
July 12, 1995
Page 2
establishments and increased calls for service. He noted that the problem was defining what is
"too concentrated" since that determination is often subjective.
Commr. Kourakis asked what area of the City received the most calls for service, and whether
it was better to concentrate or disperse drinking establishments.
Captain Topham responded that, over the last several years, the busiest concentration of calls
for service were from the 600-800 block of Higuera Street. He said that there were more calls
related to drinking from that area than any other part of the city which had resulted in the Police
Department having officers patrol the area on foot, as well as in cars, particularly at peak
evening times. He stated that many of the calls were associated with the most popular spots
frequented by students, but that there were other reasons for calls downtown besides the
concentration of nightclubs.
Captain Topham noted that the calls for service downtown had increased disproportionately to
the calls received from other parts of the city. He offered that calls for service related to
assaultive behavior and noise downtown could be related to the increase in the number of
nightclubs, but that other factors, such as the increase in population and changes in values and
social activities, also contributed. He stated that the Police Department would be willing to go
along with staff's recommendation for a one year review of the use permit.
In response to questions by Commr. Senn about the current Frog and Peach operators, Captain
Topham said that they have been cooperative with the Police Department.
Commr. Karleskint opened the public hearing.
Paul Metchik, 412 Higuera Street, Suite A., attorney representing applicant Bill Hales,
distributed letters and signed petitions to the Commissioners. He said a significant number of
signatures were from business owners and operators in the 600-800 block of Higuera St. He
also distributed a letter from the ABC explaining the local ABC office's interpretation of the
"public convenience or necessity" determination, and the factors they take into consideration
when reviewing license applications. He noted that most cities in the county would have an
"undue concentration" based on the ABC criteria. He said the applicant was requesting use
permit approval and an affirmative determination of "public convenience or necessity" with
regard to the project, stressing that the establishment of the bar was consistent with Land Use
Element (LUE) policies.
Mr. Metchik said the bar would be called "The Library" and the decor would be consistent with
the name. He noted that a unique feature of the bar is that it would have a jukebox and
interactive.computer games, but that it would not have live music or dancing. He agreed with
the staff report recommendation to issue the use permit and accepted proposed conditions. He
disagreed with staff's conclusion regarding the determination that there was insufficient evidence
to support that public necessity or convenience warranted an exception to the undue
concentration of licensed facilities within the City of San Luis Obispo. He said that those
draft
Minutes
Planning Commission
July 12, 1995
Page 3
standing in lines on weekend nights would be convenienced by this establishment and that the
bar would have unique qualities, being somewhere between Charlie's and Bull's. He added that
the City Council, in adopting the LUE, had made an overriding determination of public
convenience or necessity to encourage these kinds of uses in the downtown area, and that these
policies have created a more vibrant downtown.
Theresa Ulmer Mangis, 1120 Garden Street, owner of SLO Maid Ice Cream, stated that she was
a patron of the Frog and Peach Pub and considers it to be a very unique establishment. She
expressed that she supported approval of the use permit and that she believed that the new bar
would also be unique. She said she did not think that the proposed project would have negative
impacts on other downtown businesses or cause any additional problems.
Todd Simms, 55 Los Palos Drive, said that the downtown area was more vibrant now than ten
years ago, but he questioned whether more drinking establishments would improve it. He
expressed concern with the number of bars located in a small geographical area. He mentioned
that he likes the Frog & Peach, but did not feel that it is necessarily tourist-oriented.
Carrie Simms, 55 Los Palos Drive, said she was concerned about the downtown area and the
concentration of bars. She stated that another bar would not beautify the downtown area and
suggested another type of use would be more desirable.
Dr. Michael Colvin, 216 Windward, Shell Beach, said he was in favor of the proposed project
primarily because it would generate more revenue in the downtown area. He endorsed the
concept of the interactive games, which was being used in other collegiate bars to bring the
Internet connection into the community.
Wade Johnson, 1137 Garden St, owner of two businesses on Garden Street, stated that in the
past year and a half, he had encountered about$6,000 worth of window damage to his buildings.
He noted other problems including damage to the sides of the buildings, car vandalism, large
amounts of garbage in the parking lot and the alley being used as a public restroom. He
commented that he thought another drinking establishment would contribute to the existing
problems and that it would compromise the character of the downtown. He said he was not
necessarily against the bar, but he was concerned about the concentration of bars in the
downtown core area and felt that bars do not epitomize culture.
Steve Boyle, 1311 Higuera, admonished the City for being. "non-business". He added that an
establishment should be allowed that served "adult" beverage without having to serve food which
raise the cost of overhead and makes business success difficult. He indicated that he was
supportive of the proposed project.
Fred Peterson, 777 Mill Street, spoke in favor of the project, requesting that the Commission
approve the use permit. He noted that offensive smells are not from alcohol, but from food
service waste. He commented that many bars have been long-term uses and that they promote
draft
Minutes
Planning Commission
July 12, 1995
Page 4
the economic strength and viability of the downtown. He concluded that he thought that Bill
Hales was one of the best bar operators in San Luis Obispo.
Aura Van Dyke, 1821 Morro Street, spoke in favor of the project, explaining that many visit
bars to socialize, rather than to get drunk. She said she would not be able to afford to live in
the area if she did not also have her bartender job to help put food on the table.
Barry Ebner, 1370 Los Olivos #E, spoke in favor of the project, and noting that he worked at
the Art Center. He explained that Bill Hales had assisted the Art Center by offering to store
furniture for them and felt that Mr. Hales has a respect for the community, and the downtown
area in particular. He expressed concern with empty storefronts downtown.
Jeff Mangus, 1120 Garden Street, co-owner of SLO Maid Ice Cream, stated that he was in favor
of the proposed project and did not feel that all the vandalism downtown was generated by bar
patrons. He mentioned that the Frog and Peach have demonstrated that they operate a competent
and reputable business and asked that the Commission approve the use permit without any
limitations and without having to serve food.
Robert Ogden, 673 Higuera Street, indicated that he was a downtown business owner and said
he was in favor of the proposed project since it would create a favorable business atmosphere
in the downtown area.
Mohammed El Said, said he felt that San Luis Obispo was a wonderful place to live and raise
his family, but that he and his family feel unsafe walking downtown near all the bars. He stated
that the bars create an unfriendly climate and impact the image of the city and its downtown.
Jim Miller, 718 Higuera, co-owner of Straight Down Clothing Co., located across the street
from the proposed project, spoke in favor of the project. He said that the bars and restaurants
help his business by bringing more people into the downtown.
Sean Martin, 771 Toro, indicated that he had been a bartender at Charlie's and that the high cost
of providing food contributed to its closing. He said he was supportive of the project and
thought that some of the clientele from Charlie's would frequent this new establishment because
it was not going to have loud music, which would allow for conversation.
Mr. Metchik, the applicant's representative, responded to some of the public comments. He said
the proposed project would contribute to a positive mix of uses in the downtown area and
explained that diversity is important. He sympathized with the concerns about noise and
vandalism, but pointed out that the applicant had an excellent track record managing his current
business. He pointed out that the City's involvement in making the ABC public necessity or
convenience determination was necessary because they were not serving food. He noted that
all of the restaurants that had applied for ABC licenses had been approved. He said if they
served food, the ABC would more than likely have approved the public necessity or convenience
aspect of the application.
draft
Minutes
Planning Commission
July 12, 1995
Page 5
Mr. Metchik continued by stating that downtown businesses should respect their neighbors,
provide a diverse mix of products and services, and continue to produce the synergy to keep the
area vibrant and thriving. He said the applicant believes that the proposed establishment would
contribute positively to the downtown area. He requested that the Commission approve the use
permit and make the required finding of public necessity or convenience.
Chairperson Karleskint closed the public hearing, called for a brief recess and then
reconvened the meeting.
Commr. Senn made a motion to approve the use permit, based on the findings and subject to
the conditions stated in the staff report. Commr. Hoffman seconded the motion.
Commr. Senn then made a second motion to make the required ABC public necessity or
convenience finding. Commr. Hoffman seconded the motion.
Commr. Hoffman clarified for the Commission that the matter before them was a land use issue,
not a personality contest or a commentary on the proposed decor. He indicated that he could
make the finding of public convenience by tying it to the LUE policy which encourages drinking
establishments in the downtown area.
Cindy Clemens, clarified that another bar could operate from the same location in the future
without applying for a new use permit as long as they were able to comply with approved
conditions. She noted that the ABC public necessity finding was not transferrable to a new bar
like the use permit was.
Commr. Kourakis said that she would be supporting approval of the use permit application, but
indicated that she would like to add wording to the public necessity or convenience finding
which ties it to the City LUE policy stipulating that entertainment facilities, such as nightclubs,
.should be located in the downtown. She noted that bars are not active in the daytime hours
normally and provide a different kind of street presence. She stated that she was also concerned
with the problems in the downtown area including safety, vandalism, garbage and public
urination. She suggested that the BIA become more proactive in coming up with solutions to
the problems in the area, consistent with Recommendation No. 6, located on page 8 of the
"Downtown Drinking and Entertainment Businesses: Trends, Impacts, and City Responses"
report, prepared in 1988 and included in the Planning Commission packet.
In response to a question from Commr. Ready, Pam Ricci clarified that if the Commission
proceeded to approve the use permit, but was not able to make the finding that the new bar
provided a public convenience or necessity, then the applicant could not obtain a license from
the ABC.
Commr. Ready said he agreed with Commr. Kourakis that the General Plan supports bars and
nightclubs locating in the downtown area, and that this should be the basis to support a finding
draft
Minutes
Planning Commission
July 12, 1995
Page 6
of public convenience. He noted that he recognized the problems downtown, but could not place
the blame specifically on businesses that sell adult beverages.
Commr. Cross said he was uncomfortable with the request and had a difficult time determining
that the public necessity or convenience finding could be made based on General Plan policies.
He noted that there were also issues of public safety and creation of an uninviting walking
environment. He said he was'concerned with the concentration of similar establishments in the
area.
Commr. Karleskint said he agreed with Commrs. Kourakis and Ready. He noted that his main
concerns were with the concentration of similar establishments in the area, lines on the sidewalks
and noise generation.
Commr. Cross asked for a clarification of the motion and the legality of combining the use
permit and finding of public necessity or convenience.
Cindy Clemens, responded that there were separate findings for each item so combining the
issues in one vote was possible, but that the Commission could separate the items.
Commr. Karleskint received confirmation by consensus from the Commission that the items
would be separated with the same motion maker and second.
The vote was called on the first motion to approve the use permit, based on findings and subject
to conditions stated in the staff report.
VOTING: AYES: Senn, Hoffman, Kourakis, Karleskint, Cross, Ready
NOES: None
ABSENT: Whittlesey
The motion passed 6-0-1.
The vote was then called on the second motion regarding the required ABC determination for
public necessity or convenience, with the addition of language referencing conformance with the
General Plan Land Use policy which stipulate that this type of business be located in the
downtown area.
VOTING: AYES: Commr. Senn, Hoffman, Kourakis, Karleskint, Ready
NOES: Commr. Cross
ABSENT: Commr. Whittlesey
draft.
Minutes
Planning,Commission
July 129 1995
Page 7 .
The motion passed 5=.1-1.
Commr. -Senn left the meeting;
r
r"