HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/15/2009, B4 - AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S SIDEWALK CAFE ORDINANCE (TA 52-08) councit M o
j agenba Repout
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Director
Prepared By: Philip Dunsmore,Associate Planner
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S SIDEWALK CAFE ORDINANCE
(TA 52-08)
RECOMMENDATION
As Recommended by the Planning Commission, introduce an ordinance that incorporates text
amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 5.50 relating to sidewalk cafes and approve a negative
declaration (Attachment 1) for the project.
DISCUSSION
Situation
The City is committed to enhancing pedestrian amenities, especially in the downtown. A primary
goal of the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center is to "give pedestrians priority in the
downtown; encourage walking by making downtown a varied and exciting place to be." One
means of achieving this goal is to create more opportunities for sidewalk cafes and allowing the
widening of sidewalks in appropriate locations as opportunities arise.
One of the Community Development Department's goals has been to evaluate and amend the
Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance in order to encourage more participation in the program and to
facilitate the physical improvements that make sidewalk dining feasible. To this end, the City
adopted a pilot program to enable sidewalk cafes in 2000. The ordinance allows for private
businesses to utilize the public right of way for limited dining, however, it does not regulate
outdoor dining on private property.
An assessment of the pilot program revealed that sidewalk cafes have been constrained by
excessive fees, limited sidewalk space, and limited options for providing parking. In conjunction
with other City departments, staff prepared revisions to the existing Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance for
review by the Planning Commission. The amendments have also been reviewed and supported by
the Downtown Association and the Chamber of Commerce. The Commission supported the
amendments and recommended the Council adopt the changes to the Municipal Code. At the
same time, staff proposed a resolution that establishes procedures for widening sidewalks in
selective downtown locations. The Commission endorsed the sidewalk widening procedures and
supported the overall efforts towards creating a more pedestrian friendly streetscape in the
downtown. The Public Works Department has prepared a separate staff report that examines
sidewalk widening and the potential of removing metered public parking spaces. Therefore, this
report only discusses the amendments to the Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance and not the public
improvements, such as sidewalk widening, that occasionally result as part of a sidewalk cafe
project. Public Works will be presenting a separate report on sidewalk widening and the potential
removal of metered parking spaces on the same evening as this report.
1 I
Council Agenda Report
TA 52-08 (Sidewalk Cafes)
Page 2
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission reviewed the amendments on May 13, 2009, recommending the City
Council approve both the sidewalk cafe amendments and the resolution that establishes
procedures for sidewalk widening (see Attachments 2 & 3). Commissioners felt the existing fee
structure was a factor in the lack of participation in the sidewalk cafe program over the past 10
years. Commissioners recommended waiving parking fees related to additional seating on the
public sidewalk to reduce the cost deterrent. Instead they favored increasing the rent that
applicants must pay to use the sidewalk- up from 66 cents per square foot per month to $1.00. It
was also suggested that these fees be placed into the parking fund rather than the general fund.
To help offset parking needs, the Commission suggested that sidewalk cafes be required to install
bicycle parking, especially when added seating triggers additional parking. Commissioners also
encouraged flexibility in the clear path of pedestrian travel that must be preserved on the
sidewalk and felt that a minimum of only 4 feet may be acceptable under certain circumstances.
In discussing the resolution to selectively widen sidewalks, the Commission supported the draft
procedural resolution and did not support the payment of in-lieu fees for the removal of metered
parking spaces.
Existing Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance and Proposed Amendments
The current Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance was adopted in 2000 (MC 5.50, Ordinance 1362). Since
adoption, there has been almost no participation in the program and there are currently no active
sidewalk cafes in the City with the exception of two small tables on the sidewalk at Peet's
Coffee. The tables that are outside at Louisa's or other locations in the downtown are not actually
within the public right of way, but are on private property, therefore although these locations
provide outdoor dining, they are not considered a "sidewalk cafe". Likely reasons for the lack of
participation in the City's Sidewalk Cafe Program include the cost and process of obtaining the
permit, physical constraints associated with limited sidewalk space and/or the cost of supplying
additional parking for additional restaurant seating and the potential cost of replacing on-street
parking when sidewalk widening is proposed.
The existing ordinance and the proposed amendments do not apply to bars or nightclubs, and by
definition, sidewalk cafes will only be allowed for restaurants, coffee shops and bakeries.
Furthermore, the allowed hours of operation (8 am to 10 pm) will further prohibit a sidewalk cafd
from becoming a potential concern for late night activities in the downtown. Amendments
proposed to the ordinance are not intended to broaden the hours of operation or allowed uses of a
sidewalk cafe.
In order to promote more participation, staff has identified amendments to address these
obstacles. The following paragraphs describe the existing and proposed ordinance requirements.
Cost and Process
Application Processing and Associated Fees
Applications for a sidewalk cafd permit are processed by the Community Development
Department and require an Administrative Use Permit with a fee of$781. Staff and the Planning
Commission recommended the application requirement and fee be reduced to an Administrative
Approval with a fee of$279.
8�- a
Council Agenda Report
TA 52-08 (Sidewalk Cafes)
Page 3
Architectural review might also be required at the discretion of the Community Development
Director if significant changes are proposed to a storefront to accommodate the outdoor dining.
Current fees for Minor Architectural Review are $1012 and fees for a more significant
development project are $2600. No changes are recommended to the architectural review
requirements or associated fees and not all sidewalk cafe's would be subject to architectural
review.
Sidewalk Use Fee
The City currently requires an annual sidewalk use fee of 66 cents per square foot per month. A
table with two chairs occupies roughly 12 to 16 square feet. A table of four occupies roughly 36
to 50 square feet. At 66 cents/foot a restaurant with 5 tables with four seats in a space of 180
square feet would pay an annual fee of approximately $1,425.00. A restaurant with 3 tables with
two seats each in 50 square feet of area would pay an annual fee of approximately $396.00. The
Planning Commission recommended the fee be increased to $1.00 per square foot. Based on the
proposed increase, a space of 180 square feet would result in an annual fee of$2,160.00, and a
use area of 50 square feet would increase up to $600 per year. The increase in the sidewalk use
fee combined with a decrease in the application fee would allow a participant in the sidewalk
caf6 to have reduced start-up costs, while the City will still be able to recoup the fees over the
long term.
Encroachment Permit
The Code currently requires all sidewalk cafes to obtain an Encroachment Permit. The minimum
fee for an Encroachment Permit is currently $381.00. The fee could be higher depending on the
extent of work proposed and the minimum.Encroachment Permit fee is scheduled to increase to
approximately $800. Since the Sidewalk Caf6 Permit already requires the applicant to record a
use agreement for the public right of way that duplicates an Encroachment Permit and the
Community Development Department will oversee all aspects of the caft permit use, additional
fees for an Encroachment Permit are not necessary. However, in the case of a sidewalk widening
or other significant public improvement project an Encroachment Permit and associated fees are
still necessary. The Planning Commission recommended that Encroachment Permit fees be
waived for Sidewalk Cafe Permits but not for a sidewalk widening project.
Parking In-lieu Fee
If a restaurant expands its dining area it may be subject to additional parking requirements. In the
Downtown Zone, restaurants are required to provide one parking space for every 350 square feet.
In determining the total number of required spaces, all fractions are rounded to the nearest whole
number, up or down. Therefore, adding outdoor dining in an area less than 175 square feet would
not require a parking space or payment of an in-lieu fee. Under the current ordinance, sidewalk
dining that occupies 175 square feet or more would be required to provide additional parking or
pay an in-lieu fee at a rate of$17,072 per each additional parking space required. The Planning
Commission recommended that restaurants be exempt from these requirements for dining areas
that are on the public sidewalk. Part of the reasoning for this is associated with the fact that a
business does not permanently own or control the public sidewalk, and the right to utilize the
public sidewalk could be taken away at the City's discretion. Furthermore, the added incentive of
removing potential parking fees for a sidewalk cafe relieves a significant financial burden from
the process.
Council Agenda Report -
TA 52-08 (Sidewalk Cafes)
Page 4
The Planning Commission's recommendation for not charging parking fees associated with
sidewalk use is not directly related to the potential loss of public metered parking spaces that
could result with sidewalk widening. This impact will be discussed separately in a report from
the Public Works Department.
Table and Chairs Permit
The current ordinance only contains provisions for a complete sidewalk cafe with a fixed barrier.
At the Planning Commission, a streamlined, simpler and more affordable process was
recommended for small installations such as a coffee shop that wishes to simply place a couple
of small tables and chairs on the sidewalk.This process would allow a business owner to apply
for an annual permit that allows the temporary placement of tables and chairs on the public right
of way that would allow seating for no more than six persons. Such installations would need to
be removed at the close of business and would not allow alcoholic beverages to be served. In
order to serve alcoholic beverages, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Bureau would require the
installation of fixed barriers, which would conflict with the intent of a simple "table and chairs
permit". Additionally, the use of the chairs and tables would not be restricted to restaurant
customers only. No barrier or other structures would be allowed on the sidewalk. The Table and.
Chairs Permit would not be subject to sidewalk use fees but would instead be subject to an
annual application fee.
Physical Constraints
Minimum Path of Travel
The current ordinance requires, that a sidewalk cafe installation maintain a minimum path of
travel of at least six feet in width. Sidewalk width along Monterey, Higuera, and Marsh Streets
(the City's most heavily traveled pedestrian streets) range in width from 10 to 12 feet. On the
side streets they are typically eight feet wide. Parking meters, street trees, benches, light and
utility poles, signals, trash receptacles and other street furniture occupy anywhere from one to six
feet of sidewalk width. In some areas, this leaves room for a modest public art installation or a
single row of tables and chairs along the front of a restaurant. In other cases, four feet of
unobstructed walkway is barely met. In consideration of the City's narrower sidewalks and
limited physical space, the Planning Commission recommended that the minimum path of travel
be reduced to four feet where trees, street furniture and other physical constraints may obstruct
the minimum path of travel on the sidewalk. It was not the intent that the entire span of the
sidewalk cafe create a four foot wide sidewalk, but instead that obstructions may encroach into a
path of travel that averages six-foot in width.
Sidewalk bulb-outs are a means to create additional sidewalk width for a sidewalk cafe as
discussed in the report prepared by the Public Works Department regarding sidewalk widening.
The City, as an applicant, may propose extending sidewalks out onto the parking lane to create
space for sidewalk dining_ . Use of the widened sidewalk would follow the provisions of the
Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance.
Summary of Changes Recommended to the Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance
■ Reduction of application fee and procedure change from Administrative Use Permit
to Administrative Approval (Director's Approval with no hearing).
Council Agenda Report
TA 52-08 (Sidewalk Cafes)
Page 5
■ Increase in sidewalk use fee from 66 cents to $1.00 per square foot per month
■ Waiving of Encroachment Permit Fee when no sidewalk widening is required
■ Waiving of parking in-lieu fees for use of public sidewalk
■ Adding flexibility for Public Works/Community Development director to determine
minimum path of travel down to 4 feet.
■ Addition of a Table and Chairs Permit for small, temporary installations.
■ Addition of language that links the Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance to a sidewalk widening
resolution.
CONCURRENCES
The amendments to the ordinance were prepared in concurrence with the Public Works
Department, Parking Services, the Downtown Association, and the Chamber of Commerce.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance has been in effect for more than 10 years and has had little to no
participation; therefore there have been negligible fiscal impacts. If the amendments to the
Ordinance result in attracting businesses to establish sidewalk cafes, then the City may benefit
from the collection of sidewalk lease fees. Although the ordinance amendments propose to
reduce application fees and encroachment permit fees which would result in an insignificant
fiscal impact, the ordinance amendments also propose to increase sidewalk use fees which will
result in a positive fiscal impact. There are no known significant City costs associated with the
ongoing review or operation of a sidewalk cafe. In summary, a sidewalk cafe is more likely to be
a fiscal benefit to area merchants and restaurants and in turn to City tax revenue. The fiscal
impacts associated with widening sidewalks are discussed separately in the report prepared by the
Public Works Department.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue review of the amendments with specific direction to staff.
2. Consider charging parking in-lieu fees for the expansion of dining within the public right of
way. Under this scenario, the expansion of a restaurant on the public right of way that
generates additional parking requirements would be subject to payment of parking in-lieu
fees.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Initial Study(ER 52-08)
2. Planning Commission resolution
3. Planning Commission meeting minutes
4. Draft ordinance modifying Municipal Code Chapter 5.50.
GACD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Sidewalk Cafes\TA 52-08 Council Report(cafe only).doc
Attachment
11Ac,ty o� san leu,s o�,s o
p
Public Works DeQartmTelnt is Palm - San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
TUD
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER 52-08
1. Project Title:
Municipal Code Text Amendments for Sidewalk Cafes City File# 52-08
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department ,
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo; CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Phil Dunmore, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7522
4. Project Location:
Citywide, City of San Luis Obispo
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
. 6. General Plan Designation:
N/A
7. Zoning:
N/A
TY OF SAN Luis OBispo 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHFcKU 09
& The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities.
V
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
811�
` = ` Attachment 1
8. Description of the Project:
Text amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 5.50 to update the 'City's Sidewalk Cafe
Ordinance. The intent of the amendments is to improve participation in the Sidewalk Cafe
program, clarify certain aspects of the regulations, and correct, update and in.some instances
modify language to better meet the intent of City goals and'policies. A copy of the recommended
text amendments are included as attachment 1.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Citywide
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
Text amendments to Municipal Code Section 5.50 Sidewalk Cafes
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
None..
CITY OF SAN LUIS Oaispo 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT 2009
Attachment 1
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous Recreation
Materials
Air Quality Hydrology/water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing
Resources
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
no effect determination from Fish and Game.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
i9 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
.aY_s
- Attachment 1 .
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT,have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment-,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant" impact(s) or"potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment,but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets:An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,nothing further is required.
__SL S lot
Signa Date
Doug Davidson,Deputy Director of Community Development For:John Mandeville,
Printed Naive Community Development Director
CRY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHE6ajsT 2009
j
Attachment 1
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impacf' answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone).. A"No Impact"answer.should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question..
3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17,"Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)of the California Code of
Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate,include:a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated;'
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISpo 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
Issues, Discussion and Supporth r1riformation Sources sources Potem- rotenu, 1
Significant Sipi an 1
ER 52-08 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1.AESTHEITCS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited X
to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings
within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would X
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Evaluation
a)b)c)d) The project involves amendments to Municipal Code text,updating,and in some cases modifying language to better
meet the intent of City goals and policies. No significant changes to the existing intent of the sidewalk cafii ordinance are
proposed,therefore,no impacts to aesthetics are anticipated.
Conclusion: No Impact.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of 1,2,10 X
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to X
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
Evaluation
a)b)c)No impacts to agricultural resources would occur with implementation of the text amendments, since this code section
applies only to use of existing City right of way and existing use of City sidewalks.
Conclusion: No Impact.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 1,9 X
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X
quality plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X
people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria X
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Evaluation
a)b)c)d)e)The project will not impact air quality as it does not involve any amendments to City policy on air pollution, nor
will it generate additional sources of air pollution.The changes only propose minor amendments to an existing ordinance that
regulates the placement and operation of sidewalk cafes.
CITY OF SAN Luis ftspo 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
A5q-l/
Issues, Discussion and Support Sources Sources Potefr-- ,J' Potentialp 1
Significant Signific t71ffimVpalct
lIa�t 1
ER # 52-08 Issues Mitigation
Incorporated
Conclusion:No Impact.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly or I X
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or X
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance(e g.Heritage Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
Evaluation
a)b)c)d)e)f)No biological impacts would occur as no specific site is under consideration.
Conclusion: No Impact
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,10 X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X
archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X
formal cemeteries?
Evaluation
a)b)c)d)No cultural impacts would occur as no specific site is under consideration.
Conclusion:No Impact.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1 X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
manner?
c Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBI8Fo 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
By- >a
AAAA
t1
Issues, Discussion and Supporthy Information Sources sources rotrnk_., Potential] an
Significant Significant 6
ER if 52-08 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco gated
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
State?
Evaluation
a)b)c)The project will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or promote the use of non-renewable resources in
an inefficient manner.
Conclusion:No impact.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 3,10
effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the X
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other
substantial evidence of known fault?
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? X
III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that X
would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially
result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction,or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the X
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
Evaluation
a)b)c)d) The project will not expose people to geologic hazards because it will not modify City policy on development in
areas with high geologic sensitivity.
Conclusion:No Impact.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 3,10, X
through the routine use, transport or disposal of hazardous 11
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within X
two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety
moi! CITY OF SAN LUIS OBispo 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
B3 ,13
f i
Issues, Discussion and Support'r,— Information Sources Soames Poteni_ , Potentiallk L No
Significant Signifn n i t
ER # 52-08 Issues UnI
Mitigation
Incorporated
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
per?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose, injury, X
or death, involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed
with wildlands?
Evaluation
a)b)c)d)e)f)g)h)No hazardous impacts would occur as no specific site is trader consideration.
Conclusion:No Impact.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1,4 X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(e.g.The production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters
(including, but not limited to, wetlands, riparian areas, ponds,
springs,creeks,streams,rivers,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays,
ocean,etc.)?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on X
a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into X
ground or surface waters?
i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, X
temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity?
Evaluation
a)b)c)d)e)og)h)i)No impacts to water resources will occur as the project does not involve modifications to the City's policies
on water and drainage and no specific site is under consideration.
Conclusion: No Impact
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 1-7 X
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
gA�-- /Y
Issues, Discussion and Supporti4—Z,/lnformation Sources Sources Potence -y Potentially �� J
Significant Significant f4it�
Issues Unless
ER # 52-08 Mitigation
Inc ted
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
community conservation tans?
Evaluation
a)b)c) The text amendments will ensure that the City's Sidewalk Cafe regulations are consistent with the General Plan. The
City's General Plan encourages pedestrian friendly environments and encourages the use of sidewalk dining, therefore the
proposed amendments will not result in impacts to land use and planning.
Conclusion: No Impact.
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable" noise 7 X
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise
Element, or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome X
vibration or groundbome noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within X
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Evaluation
a)b)c)d) Implementation of the text amendments will not conflict with the City's Noise Element and Noise Ordinance. The
hours of operation for sidewalk cafes and the noise limitations that apply to them are not proposed to be modified.
Conclusion: No Impact.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 2,6 X
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Evaluation
a)b) c)No impacts to population and housing will occur as the project does not involve modifications to the City's policies
on residential densities or housing.
Conclusion: No Impact.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision, or need, of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
CITY OF SAN LUIS OstspO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
B4rl<I
=- it
Issues, Discussion and Supporti�,& Information Sources Sources Ilotenr a [Sign
o"
SignificantifitER # 52-08 IssuesUnlessImpact
igationoWrated
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X
Other public facilities? X
Evaluation
a)b)c)d)e)f) The project will not impact public services as no specific site is under consideration
Conclusion: No Impact.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or 8 X
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Evaluation
a)b)No impacts to recreational facilities and programs will occur with implementation of the text amendments.
Conclusion: No Impact
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 2,5 X
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service X
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads and highways?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features (e.g. sharp X
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land X
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise,
or a change in air tragicpatterns?
Evaluation
a)b)c)d)e)f)g) This project is a text amendment, and therefore will not in itself create any effects on transportation or
circulation. However, increased participation in sidewalk cafes, and including the widening of sidewalks to accommodate
them does have the potential to modify parking availability and circulation. However, as with any new business or expansion
of a business parking must be reviewed on a case by case basis. Projects which trigger additional parking must either supply
the parking spaces on-site or if part of a parking district nest pay fees to offset the parking demand.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact.
16.UTILIMS AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the roject:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 4 X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X
treatment, wastewater treatment, water quality control, or storm
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
Bq— J(:zo
Issues, Discussion and Supporttr6°Information Sources sources PoterL Inc Potenti
Significant Signi i
ER # 52-08 Issues s
Mitigation
ted
drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, X
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitment?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations X
related to solid waste?
Evaluation
a)b)c)d)e)f)The project will not impact utility systems as no specific site is under consideration.
Conclusion: No Impact
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Implementation of the text amendments will not degrade the quality of the environment.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but X
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
firtureprojects)
No cumulative impacts are expected to occur from implementation of the text amendments.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause X
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Implementation of the text amendments will not create environmental effects that will have an adverse impact on human
beings.
18.EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
N/A
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
N/A
c Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitt ation Incorporated," describe the miti ation
CITY OF SAN Luis OBiSFO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
Issues, Discussion and Supportii.—Information Sources sources Poten,_� Po l 1
Significant Si 'i
ER # 52-08 Issues Unless ffact
Mitigation
Incorporated
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.
N/A
19. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element,May 2006
2. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,September 2004
3. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000
4. City of San Luis Obispo Water and Wastewater Management Element,June 2004
5. City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element,November 1994
6. City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element,May 2004
7. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element and Noise Guidebook,May 1996
8. City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Element,April 2001
9.
Cityof San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations,June 27 2008
10.
CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Air Pollution Control District,2003
11.
City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Inventory and Geographic Information System,current database
12.
County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan for SLO County ort,May 2005
Attachment:
Proposed Municipal Code text amendments,Chapter 5.50 Sidewalk Cafes
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISpo 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
Z?Z/^/?
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO. 5523-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 5.50 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SIDEWALK CAFES
TA 52-08
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
May 13, 2009, to consider amendments to Chapter 5.50 of the Municipal Code pertaining to
Sidewalk Cafes; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered
public testimony, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the draft Negative
Declaration of environmental impact prepared for the project.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The proposed amendments are necessary to implement the City's goal of encouraging and
expanding sidewalk dining.
2. The proposed amendments will implement the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's
Center is to "give pedestrians priority in the downtown; and encourage walking by making
downtown a varied and exciting place to be." .,
3. The proposed amendments are consistent with General Plan policies that encourage
walking, pedestrian amenities, and the expansion of tourist facilities. Land Use Element
policy 4.5 is one such policy that encourages the walking environment within the
downtown.
4. The proposed amendments will not significantly alter the character of the City retail areas
or cause significant health, safety, or welfare concerns, since the regulations do not alter the
density, character, or allowed uses within the City. Instead, the amended regulations
accommodate limited sidewalk caf6s within City property.
5. Increases to the fees for sidewalk use are appropriate in lieu of requiring payment for
impact fees for parking since the fees are based on the amount of area used.
6. The proposed amendments will not result in significant impacts to the environment;
therefore, the draft Negative Declaration is appropriate for the scope of the text
amendment.
B ��
Attachment 2
Resolution No. 5523-09
Page 2
SECTION 2. Action.
The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of
Municipal Code amendments as prescribed in legislative draft format in attaches?,Exhibit A and
recommends an increase in the annual sidewalk use fee from $.66 per square foot up to $1.00 per
square foot.
On motion by Vice-Chair Multari, seconded by Commissioner 1Vieycr, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Meyer, Singewald, Whittlesey, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commr. Draze
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 13`h day of May, 2009.
Doug avi on, Secretary
Attachment 2
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 5.50
SIDEWALK GA €g DINING
5.50.010 Intent
This chapter is intended to ^ewe provide opportunities for properly licensed and permitted restaurants,
coffee shops and bakeries to offer outdoor dining on public sidewalks, in a manner compatible with
pedestrian traffic and surrounding uses,,in commercialzoneswhere rastAwmRts such uses are allowed.
5.50.015 Permits required
A. A sidewalk cafe permit allows isFequired te epeFate an outdoor dining service in the public right-
of-way, including the placement of chairs, tables, awnings, and umbrellas. A removable barrier
between the path of travel and the outdoor dining area shall -be required. Applications for a
revocable permit for Sidewalk Cafes shall be made to the community development department.
B. A Table and Chairs permit allows for the temporary placement of chairs and tables on the
sidewalk in conjunction with-a restaurant or other food/beverage service where seating for no
more than six people are placed on the sidewalk. No barriers, or other fixed items are allowed on
the sidewalk. Alcoholic beverages shall not be allowed. All items must be removed at close of
business. Use of chairs and tables shall. not be restricted to customers of the business.
Applications for a revocable permit for a Table and Chairs permit shall be made to the Community
Development Department and shall be valid for one year from date of issuance.
C. An encroachment permit shall be required pursuant to Chapter 12.04 of this code. (Ord. 1362 §2
(part), 2000)
5.50.020 Architectural review
At the Community Development Director's discretion, architectural review may be required pursuant to
Chapter 2.48 of this code.
5.50.025 Application content
Applications shall be made jointly by the business operator requesting use of a sidewalk area for outdoor
dining and the property owner(s) of the building inwhich the business is located. Such application shall
be accompanied by:
A. Signed consent of business owner(s)and property owner(s);
C. Proof of liability insurance, meeting city standards, which names the city as additionally insured
for the term of the permit to the approval of the City Risk Manager;
D. A liability release agreement wherein the recipient(s) of the permit agrees to hold the City
harmless from liability arising from the operation of such sidewalk cafe;
E. A detailed site plan, drawn to scale, noting dimensions of the area proposed for outdoor dining;
the proposed number and location of tables, chairs and other furnishings to be included in the
dining area; the relationship of the outdoor dining area to the indoor dining area; and all sidewalk
obstructions in the vicinity;
F. A detailed description of the type, color, and material of all proposed outdoor furniture, such as
tables, chairs; barriers, planters, umbrellas, signs, and lighting;
G. An explanation of how any required additional parking will be provided;
H. A statement of proposed hours of operation; and any other information deemed necessary by the
Community Development or Public Works Directors.
8y -a1
Attachment L
5.50.030 Fees
A. Sidewalk Cafe: In addition to application fees for Administrative Approval, the applicant(s)shall pay an
annual sidewalk use fee. Encroachment permit fees shall be waived for the sidewalk cafe installation
unless public improvements are proposed. If the sidewalk dining installation includes physical changes to
an existing building, fees for architectural review may be required. If improvements are proposed to the
existing sidewalk, including widening, sidewalk repaving, or any demolition or relocation of public
property, an encroachment permit and associated public works inspection fees shall apply. Additional
parking spaces or in-lieu fees for parking may be required. Fees shall be as adopted by resolution of the
City Council.
B. Tables and Chairs permit: Permits are subject to application fees for Administrative Approval.
Permits shall only be valid for one year and must be renewed annually subiect to an additional
administrative application. Annual sidewalk use fees shall not apply. Encroachment permit fees shall be
waived unless public improvements, such as sidewalk widening or other public improvements are
proposed.
5.50.035 Review procedures
Public noticing and review procedures shall be the same as those required for an administrative approval.
5.50.040 Eligible sites
Outdoor dining or the placement of tables and chairs must be Within the frontage of an existing or
proposed restaurant, coffee shop, or bakery wit#approved for on-premises seating and incidental to the
operation of that restaurant.
5.50.045 Required operational standards
A. Alcoholic Beverage Restrictions. Establishments that serve alcohol must obtain any additional
permits required by the Alcohol Beverage Control Board of the state of California.
B. Hours of operation shall not begin prior to eight a.m. nor extend later than ten p. m.
C. Parking shall be provided as required for restaurants in the zoning regulations. Expansion of
dining areas within the public right of way frontage shall not normally trigger additional parking
however, the City reserves the right to require additional parking or in-lieu fees in instances
where_significant parking impacts to the public supply may occur. Onsite bicycle parking may be
required in lieu of vehicle parking spaces.
D. A path of travel for pedestrians , shall be maintained free and
clear of any existing obstacles (street furniture, utilities, etc.)
to the satisfaction of the Public Works and
Community Development director. Such clear pathway shall link with pathways on each side of
the property and shall generally allow a six-foot clear space, however widths of 4 feet may be
approved at single points along the sidewalk where street trees and necessary street furniture
limit available sidewalk width. For new sidewalk construction, the pathway should generally be
eight feet.
E. Moveable barriers are required to delineate outdoor dining areas except where only one row of
tables and chairs immediately abutting the business storefront is proposed.
F. Moveable barriers shall be designed and attached to the sidewalk in a manner approved by the
Public Works Director and may be subiect to additional criteria as prescribed by the State
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
G. Where umbrellas or awnings are used, a vertical clearance of at least seven feet must be
maintained. The placement, color, style, and types of outdoor furniture and barriers shall be
B�-�a
- Attachment 2
consistent with and complement the design and appearance of the affected building to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
H. Items used within the outdoor dining areas may not be left outdoors overnight or when not in use.
I. Outdoor dining facilities shall be confined to the area shown on an approved site plan exhibit and
shall not interfere with building egress to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official and the Fire
Marshal.
J. Outdoor dining areas shall be used for sit-down food and beverage service only. No stand-up or
take-out service is permitted in the outdoor dining area.
K. The outdoor dining area must be maintained in a clean and safe condition .at all times with
appropriate provision for trash disposal and recycling.
L. The operation must meet all required County Health Department standards, obtain any necessary
permits and service to the areas shall be conducted in a safe manner at all times.
M. The permit issued shall not be transferable in any manner.
N. The outdoor dining operation shall in no way interfere with access to utilities.
O. Smoking shall be prohibited in the outdoor dining area.
P. Table and Chairs permits are subiect to the following additional criteria:
1. No alcoholic beverages may be served or consumed.
2. No more than 3 tables with a maximum of two chairs per table may be placed on the
sidewalk. All items must.be removed from the sidewalk at close of business.
3. No barriers, fixed or movable, may be installed.
4. Annual sidewalk fees shall not apply.
5. Tables and chairs may not be restricted for use by customers only.
5.50.050 Terms and expiration
A. A sidewalk'cafe permit will be for an unlimited term, unless a limited or probationary term is
deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director. The permit shall automatically
expire upon expiration of the business tax certificate or upon failure to pay the required annual
sidewalk use fee. Operators wishing to renew an expired permit shall submit a new application
with appropriate fees. Permits may be transferred to new business owners subject to City
approval of a new application reflecting new ownership.
B. A Table and Chairs permit is valid for one year and may be renewed on an annual.basis subject
to Payment of fees for an administrative approval application..
5.50.055 Grounds for denial of permit
The Community Development Director shall deny the sidewalk cafe permit or Table and Chairs permit if
the operation will not meet provisions of this chapter.
5.50.060 Revocation or suspension of permit
A. The City retains the right to revoke or suspend the permit upon twenty-four hours written notice to
the sidewalk cafe operator for any cause, regardless of conformance with these provisions.
Situations that may merit suspension or revocation include, but are not limited to:
1. Emergencies, parades, necessary construction or maintenance, at the discretion of the
Public Works Director;
2. Suspension, revocation, or cancellation of any necessary health permit(s);
3. Incorrect or inadequate insurance coverage; or
4. Failure to comply with conditions of permit approval.
B. Within twenty-four hours of receipt of written notice of revocation or suspension, regardless of any
appeal of the action, the operation shall cease and the sidewalk cafe operator shall restore the
8 � ��3
Attachment 2
sidewalk to the condition existing prior to the placement of outdoor dining facilities or to some
other condition acceptable to the Public Works Director.
C. The city retains the right to immediately revoke, suspend or modify the permit if:
1. Under a state of emergency the sidewalk use may effect the health. safety or welfare of
the general public as determined by the Public Works Director, Police Chief or Fire Chief;
2. Failure to comply with certain conditions of the permit for sidewalk use is determined to
constitute a health, safety or welfare hazard to the general public as determined by the
Public Works Director, Police Chief or Fire Chief
D. If pursuant to the above requirements, sidewalks are not restored to order in the time specified by
the City, the City may remove any and all facilities installed within the right of way:
Reimbursement of City costs for said removal shall be the responsibility of the sidewalk permit
holder.
5.50.065 Appeals
Decisions of the Community Development Director to approve, deny, revoke or suspend a sidewalk cafe
permit ,or a Table and Chairs permit, may be appealed to the City Council subject to the provisions of
Chapter 1.20.
Attachment 3
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 13, 2009
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Michael Boswell, Eric Meyer, Airlin Singewald, Mary
Whittlesey, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson
Charles Stevenson
Absent: Commissioner Michael Draze
Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Associate
Planner Phil Dunsmore, Traffic Engineer Jake Hudson, Natural
Resources Manager Neil Havlik, and Recording Secretary Janet Miller
ACEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: Minutes of April 22, 2009, were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the nature of sidewalks, pedestrian
traffic, and small retail business survival. He noted that the Downtown is in a declining
state, giving Morro Street and Higuera Street as examples.
There were no further comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. City-Wide. TA 52-08: Update the Sidewalk Cafe ordinance to encourage
additional participation and consider adoption of a resolution regarding sidewalk
widening; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore)
Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the
following:
1. Adopt a resolution (Resolution "A") recommending the City Council approve text
amendments to Municipal Code chapter 5.50 relating to sidewalk caf6s and
approve a negative declaration for the project.
2. Adopt a resolution (Resolution "B") recommending the City Council adopt a
resolution regarding sidewalk widening in specific areas of the downtown.
Planning Commission Minutes Attacbment 3
May 13, 2009
Page 2
Commr. Singewald requested clarification on fees involved and staff explained the fees
associated with sidewalk dining.
Vice-Chair Multari requested clarification on how changes to the facade would trigger an
ARC review. Staff provided clarification on changes that would trigger such review.
Commr. Meyer requested clarification on the drainage issues concerned with widening
the sidewalk. Mr. Meyer noted the site on Higuera and Garden Streets as an example.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that a case-by-case basis would be considered with drainage
issues. Doug Davidson, Deputy Director, also addressed drainage issues and noted
the concern for the example Commr. Meyer provided.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project.
Joseph Abrahams, spoke in support of the project and requested the Commission
consider expanding the area to include an, area called the "Chinatown Promenade" to
connect the Mission.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Vice-Chair Multari noted his support for sidewalk dining. Mr. Multari requested
clarification on the required clear path of travel. Mr. Dunsmore noted that the
requirement could be considered on a site-per-site basis to allow some discretion of the
6-foot requirement for adequate pedestrian passage. Mr. Multari suggested direction be
written that the 6-foot requirement be reduced to 4 feet, if circumstances allow.
Vice-Chair Multari requested clarification and the waiving of both in-lieu fees and
requirements for parking. Phil Dunsmore replied that staff was open to direction from
the Commission.
Vice-Chair Multari suggested the following: (1) requiring greater flexibility and waiving
parking in-lieu fees along with requirement for parking; (2) expanding the district; and
(3) the sidewalk use fee of 66¢ per square foot should be increased to $1 per square
foot in consideration of waiving parking requirements and parking in-lieu fees.
Chairperson Stevenson supported reducing the path of travel width requirement from 6
to 4 feet when a wider path of travel is not available due to trees or other sidewalk
irregularities.
Commr. Boswell addressed clarification for the wording on page 3, section 3. He noted
concern for the provision for adequate passing for pedestrians.
,g (CV
. Planning Commission Minutes--.-, Attachment 3
May 13, 2009
Page 3
Commr. Meyer noted that a description of distance should be clarified regarding the
clear path of travel. Mr. Meyer noted that a bike rack could be installed instead of
parking fees.
Commr. Whittlesey requested clarification on Attachment 3, section 1, paragraph 3 of
Resolution A. Staff replied that the General Plan does include policies that relate to
pedestrian amenities in the downtown and that the finding needed to be completed to
include a policy reference.
Mr. Davidson reviewed the direction provided by the Commission thus far was to:
reduce the sidewalk width requirement to a minimum of 4 feet, waive the parking in-lieu
fees, encroachment permit fees, and parking requirements for sidewalk cafes, expand
the district, and raise the use fee from 66¢ to $1. In addition, Attachment # 3 should be
revised to include an option to purchase bicycle racks in lieu of parking space
requirements.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Vice-Chair Multari, seconded by Commr. Meyer to adopt the
recommendation with the following directions: (1) expand the area to include both sides
of the streets of Toro to Nipomo & Marsh to Palm; (2) Include a table and chairs permit
process with a lower fee; (3) eliminate parking in-lieu fees and encroachment permit
fees= (4.) allow bike racks in-lieu of parking requirements; (5) a 4-foot minimum clear
path of travel may be considered adeguate: and (6) the removal of "P" and "Q" in the
proposed ordinance.
AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Meyer, Singewald, Whittlesey, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Draze
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
On motion by Vice-Chair Multari, seconded by Commr. Meyer to recommend the
adoption of an increase to the use fee from 66� to $1 and to change the clear path of
travel requirement to a minimum of 4 to 7 feet.
AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Meyer, Singewald, Whittlesey, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr: Draze
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Boswell, seconded by Commr: Meyer to recommend approval of
the sidewalk widening resolution to the City Council.
a L+ -C �
Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 3
May 13, 2009
Page 4
AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Meyer, Singewald, Whittlesey, Multari, and.Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Draze
�`. The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
�{ -ak
ATTACHMENT i
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO. (2009 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 5.5 RELATING TO SIDEWALK CAFES
(TA 52-08)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on May 13, 2009 and recommended approval of Application TA 52-08, amending the
City's Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
November 3, 2009, for the purpose of considering Application TA 52-08; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and approved the negative declaration prepared
for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation
and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendments are consistent
with the General Plan, the purposes of the Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City
ordinances.
WHEREAS,the City Council makes the following findings:
1. The proposed amendments are necessary to implement the City's goal of encouraging and
expanding sidewalk dining.
2. The proposed amendments will implement the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's
Center is to "give pedestrians priority in the downtown; and encourage walking by making
downtown a varied and exciting place to be."
3. The proposed amendments are consistent with General Plan Policies that encourage
walking, pedestrian amenities and the expansion of tourist facilities. Land Use Element Policy
4.5 is one such policy that encourages the walking environment within the downtown.
4. The proposed amendments will not significantly alter the character of the City retail areas
or cause significant health, safety or welfare concerns, since the regulations do not alter the
0
Ordinance No. (2009 Series) ATTACHMENT
I ACHMENT
Page 2
density, character, or allowed uses within the City. Instead, the amended regulations
accommodate limited sidewalk cafes within City property.
5. Increases to the fees for sidewalk use are appropriate in lieu of requiring payment for
impact fees for parking since the fees are based on the amount of area used.
6. The proposed amendments will not result in significant impacts to the environment,
therefore the draft Negative Declaration is appropriate for the scope of the text amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Existing Chapter 5.50 (Sidewalk Cafes) of Title 5 (Licenses, Permits and
Regulations) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby repealed.
SECTION 2. New Chapter 5.50 (Sidewalk Cafes) of Title 5 (Licenses, Permits and
Regulations) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows:
5.50.010 Intent
This chapter is intended to provide opportunities for properly licensed and permitted restaurants,
coffee shops and bakeries to offer outdoor dining on public sidewalks, in a manner compatible
with pedestrian traffic and surrounding uses, in commercial zones where such uses are allowed.
5.50.015 Permits required
A. A sidewalk cafe permit allows outdoor dining service in the public right-of-way,
including the placement of chairs, tables, awnings, and umbrellas. A removable barrier
between the path of travel and the outdoor dining area shall be required. Applications for
a revocable permit for Sidewalk Cafes shall be made to the community development
department.
B. A Table and Chairs permit allows for the temporary placement of chairs and tables on
the sidewalk in conjunction with a restaurant or other food/beverage service where
seating for no more than six people are placed on the sidewalk. No barriers, or other fixed
items are allowed on the sidewalk. Alcoholic beverages shall not be allowed. All items
must be removed at close of business. Use of chairs and tables shall not be restricted to
customers of the business. Applications for a revocable permit for a Table and Chairs
permit shall be made to the Community Development Department and shall be valid for
one year from date of issuance.
C. An encroachment permit shall be required pursuant to Chapter 12.04 of this code.
5.50.020 Architectural review
At the Community Development Director's discretion, architectural review may be required
pursuant to Chapter 2.48 of this code.
Ordinance No. (2009Series) ATT AC MEET
Page 3
5.50.025 Application content
Applications shall be made jointly by the business operator requesting use of a sidewalk area for
outdoor dining and the property owner(s) of the building in which the business is located. Such
application shall be accompanied by:
A. Signed consent of business owner(s) and property owner(s);
B. Proof of liability insurance, meeting city standards, which names the city as additionally
insured for the term of the permit to the approval of the City Risk Manager;
C. A liability release agreement wherein the recipient(s) of the permit agrees to hold the City
harmless from liability arising from the operation of such sidewalk cafe;
D. A detailed site plan, drawn to scale, noting dimensions of the area proposed for outdoor
dining; the proposed number and location of tables, chairs and other furnishings to be
included in the dining area; the relationship of the outdoor dining area to the indoor
dining area; and all sidewalk obstructions in the vicinity;
E. A detailed description of the type, color, and material of all proposed outdoor furniture,
such as tables, chairs, barriers, planters, umbrellas, signs, and lighting;
F. An explanation of how any required additional parking will be provided;
G. A statement of proposed hours of operation; and any other information deemed necessary
by the Community Development or Public Works Directors.
5.50.030 Fees
A. Sidewalk Cafe. In addition to application fees for Administrative Approval, the
applicant(s) shall pay an annual sidewalk use fee. Encroachment permit fees shall be
waived for the sidewalk cafe installation unless public improvements are proposed. If the
sidewalk dining installation includes physical changes to an existing building, fees for
architectural review may be required. If improvements are proposed to the existing
sidewalk, including widening, sidewalk repaving, or any demolition or relocation of
public property, an encroachment permit and associated public works inspection fees
shall apply. Additional parking spaces or in-lieu fees for parking may be required. Fees
shall be as adopted by resolution of the City Council.
B. Tables and Chairs permit. Permits are subject to application fees for Administrative
Approval. Permits shall only be valid for one year and must be renewed annually subject
to an additional administrative application. Annual sidewalk use fees shall not apply.
Encroachment permit fees shall be waived unless public improvements, such as sidewalk
widening or other public improvements are proposed.
5.50.035 Review procedures
Public noticing and review procedures shall be the same as those required for an administrative
approval.
8 �'J �
Ordinance No. (2009 Series) ATTACHMENT
Page 4
5.50.040 Eligible sites
Outdoor dining or the placement of tables and chairs must be within the frontage of an existing
or proposed restaurant, coffee shop, or bakery approved for on-premises seating and incidental to
the operation of that restaurant.
5.50.045 Required operational standards
A. Alcoholic Beverage Restrictions. Establishments that serve alcohol must obtain any
additional permits required by the Alcohol Beverage Control Board of the state of
California.
B. Hours of operation shall not begin prior to eight a.m. nor extend later than ten p. m.
C. Parking shall be provided as required for restaurants in the zoning regulations. Expansion
of dining areas within the public right of way frontage shall not normally trigger
additional parking however, the City reserves the right to require additional parking or in-
lieu fees in instances where significant parking impacts to the public supply may occur.
Onsite bicycle parking may be required in lieu of vehicle parking spaces.
D. A path of travel for pedestrians, shall be maintained free and clear of any existing
obstacles (street furniture, utilities, etc.) to the satisfaction of the Public Works and
Community Development director. Such clear pathway shall link with pathways on each
side of the property and shall generally allow a six-foot clear space, however widths of 4
feet may be approved at single points along the sidewalk where street trees and necessary
street furniture limit available sidewalk width. For new sidewalk construction, the
pathway should generally be eight feet.
E. Moveable barriers are required to delineate outdoor dining areas except under the
approval of a"Tables and Chairs"permit where no alcoholic beverages are served.
F. Moveable barriers shall be designed and attached to the sidewalk in a manner approved
by the Public Works Director and may be subject to additional criteria as prescribed by
the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
G. Where umbrellas or awnings are used, a vertical clearance of at least seven feet must be
maintained. The placement, color, style, and types of outdoor furniture and barriers shall
be consistent with and complement the design and appearance of the affected building to
the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
H. Items used within the outdoor dining areas may not be left outdoors overnight or when
not in use.
I. Outdoor dining facilities shall be confined to the area shown on an approved site plan
exhibit and shall not interfere with building egress to the satisfaction of the Chief
Building Official.and the Fire Marshal.
J. Outdoor dining areas shall be used for sit-down food and beverage service only. No
stand-up or take-out service is permitted in the outdoor dining area.
K. The outdoor dining area must be maintained in a clean and safe condition at all times with
appropriate provision for trash disposal and recycling.
L. The operation must meet all required County Health Department standards, obtain any
necessary permits and service to the areas shall be conducted in a safe manner at all
times.
Ordinance No. (2009 Series) ATTACHMENT
Page 5
M. The permit issued shall not be transferable in any manner.
N. The outdoor dining operation shall in no way interfere with access to utilities.
O. Smoking shall be prohibited in the outdoor dining area.
P. Table and Chairs permits are subject to the following additional criteria:
1. No alcoholic beverages may be served or consumed.
2. No more than 3 tables, with a maximum of two chairs per table may be placed on the
sidewalk. All items must be removed from the sidewalk at close of business.
3. No barriers, fixed or movable, may be installed.
4. Annual sidewalk fees shall not apply.
5. Tables and chairs may not be restricted for use by customers only.
5.50.050 Terms and expiration
A. A sidewalk cafe permit will be for an unlimited term, unless a limited or probationary
term is deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director. The permit shall
automatically expire upon expiration of the business tax certificate or upon failure to pay
the required annual sidewalk use fee. Operators wishing to renew an expired permit shall
submit a new application with appropriate fees. Permits may be transferred to new
business owners subject to City approval of a new application reflecting new ownership.
B. A Table and Chairs permit is valid for one year and may be renewed on an annual basis
subject to payment of fees for an administrative approval application.
5.50.055 Grounds for denial of permit
The Community Development Director shall deny the sidewalk cafe permit or Table and Chairs
permit if the operation will not meet provisions of this chapter.
5.50.060 Revocation or suspension of permit
A. The City retains the right to revoke or suspend the permit upon twenty-four hours written
notice to the sidewalk cafe operator for any cause, regardless of conformance with these
provisions. Situations that may merit'suspension or revocation include, but are not limited
to:
1. Emergencies,parades, necessary construction or maintenance, at the discretion of
the Public Works Director;
2. Suspension, revocation, or cancellation of any necessary health permit(s);
3. Incorrect or inadequate insurance coverage; or
4. Failure to comply with conditions of permit approval.
B. Within twenty-four hours of receipt of written notice of revocation or suspension,
regardless of any appeal of the action, the operation shall cease and the sidewalk cafe
operator shall restore the sidewalk to the condition existing prior to the placement of
outdoor dining facilities or to some other condition acceptable to the Public Works
Director.
C. The city retains the right to immediately revoke, suspend or modify the permit if.
Ordinance No. (2009 Series) _ ATTACHMENT
Page 6
1. Under a state of emergency the sidewalk use may effect the health, safety or
welfare of the general public as determined by the Public Works Director, Police
Chief or Fire Chief,
2. Failure to comply with certain conditions of the permit for sidewalk use is
determined to constitute a health, safety or welfare hazard to the general public as
determined by the Public Works Director, Police Chief or Fire Chief.
D. If pursuant to the above requirements, sidewalks are not restored to order in the time
specified by the City, the City may remove any and all facilities installed within the right
of way: Reimbursement of City costs for said removal shall be the responsibility of the
sidewalk permit holder.
5.50.065 Appeals
Decisions of the Community Development Director to approve, deny, revoke or suspend a
sidewalk cafe permit, or a Table and Chairs permit, may be appealed to the City Council subject
to the provisions of Chapter 1.20.
SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council
members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage,
in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall
go into effect at the expiration of thirty(30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the 15st day of December, 2009, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by
the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the _ day of , 2010, on the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Elaina Cano
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Jonathan P. Lowell
• i
1336 Sweet Bay Lane
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
December 15, 2009
To: City Council — City of San Luis Obispo
Subject: Agenda items 134 and 135 Parking space removal and sidewalk
cafes
I oppose the proposed standards to allow only a four-foot travel width next
to a sidewalk cafe. I support a continued minimum free travel width of six
feet, and on new sidewalks, eight or ten feet. Reducing sidewalks widths
will create more bottlenecks just where you don't want them — in front of
people dining. Most people know that sidewalk widths are deficient in
downtown for adequate pedestrian travel. Greater volumes of pedestrians
should be encouraged by planning the sidewalks for maximum widths, and
not reducing them.
I oppose allowing sidewalk widening to accommodate sidewalk cafes by
eliminating parking spaces. The sidewalk environment is protected by
these spaces, and they provide vital access to businesses, particularly for
senior citizens. Rather than eliminate parking, widen sidewalks by
eliminating one traffic lane and widen sidewalks on each side by four feet,
keep parking spaces and relocate trees etc. over time. The over-arching
goal should be to result in more pedestrian traffic, with few or no
bottlenecks.
The City should engage in a planning effort with the downtown businesses
and community, to consider how to best locate sidewalk cafes. The Gas
Lamp district in San Diego may not be the best example, given its very
narrow sidewalks, but it is on one side of the street, out of the prevailing
wind, and protected by parking spaces.
Sincerely, COUNCIL L�-CDD DIR
0r6AGCrVA1&1e 0-FIN DIR
RED FILE B-AeAe- M-FIRE CHIEF
MEETING AGENDA a-ATTORNEY ZPW DIR
1 tLERWORIQ Ca-POLICE CHF
mes Lopes DA o ITEM # 6' M ❑ DEPT HEADS l7 REO DIA
TT_ Pre MTIL b1A
x_72 &triilG Q FfF4 DIA.
77M45 /L°pit A1�i L
Cr�i /►1ce