HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-18-2015 Item 17 DurocherCnIJNCIL MEETING; /S
From: Jan Durocher [mailto janinslo@att.net] AUG 18 2015
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 4:09 PM
To: E-mail Council Website
Subject: Message regarding alcohol licenses and relateSWbQTYo aQLfiRXrom Allan Cooper of Save
Our Downtown
GREETINGS,
I am sending you a copy of text written by Allan Cooper for those of you who haven't read it.
Thanks for listening; I know from the prevalence of townhouses and dearth of flats being
permitted, and the abundance of noise producing activities allowed, that the City is not
promoting convenient housing for seniors, but we still want to live here!
Jan Durocher
From: Jan Durocher [maiIto: ianinslo Oatt.net]
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 4:32 PM
Subject: Fw: LONG message regarding alcohol licenses and related problems Downtown, from Allan Cooper of
Save Our Downtown
Thankfully there is a group attempting to thwart the Rowdies.
There was a time when the City was promoting mixed use and residences in -town. Now it is
becoming too unappealing to anyone over 30.
The researcher quoted below has found that 91% of all cities in the US are safer than SLO? -The
City of Orange may have the right idea, (listen to the cops)
Jan
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Nextdoor Mitchell Park <reep y cr,rs.ernail.nextdoor.com>
To:Janinslo i att.net
— — --
-f—
Sent: Friday, August 7, 2015 4:02 PM
Subject: LONG message regarding alcohol licenses and related problems Downtown, from Allan Cooper of Save
Our Downtown
FROM ALLAN COOPER:
Dear Cynthia -
Thank you for contacting me and for your interest in this very important subject. I would be delighted to
share with you how many alcohol licenses there are in the Downtown Core and whether the new
regulations put in place in 2012 have made a difference in the number of alcohol-related problems
Downtown. I am including below my response to these two questions. You are also welcome to call me at
(360) 386-5975. My problem is that I am currently in my summer home in Port Townsend, WA and won't
be able to meet with ybu in person. Let me know if+you'have any questions regarding the material that I'm
forwarding you.
- Allan
To address San Luis Obispo's high crime rates
Save Our Downtown Is Requesting that the City Limit - Through the Use Of A "Public Convenience and
Necessity" Policy - The Number of restaurants serving alcohol (Type 41 and 47) and limit the number of
bars and Taverns (Type 40, 42 and 48) located within census tract 111.01 (Otherwise Known As our
"Downtown Core") which currently has an undue concentration of alcohol outlets
As determined by Alcoholic Beverage Control, our Downtown Core - Census Tract 111.01 - has an
"undue concentration" of alcohol outlets (63 in all) and bars (11 in all). The Center for Disease Control
(CDC) has determined that there is a direct correlation between increasing crime and the increasing
concentration of alcohol outlets. Try googling "Neighborhood Scout" on your browser and you will
discover that 91 per cent of all cities in the U.S. are safer than San Luis Obispo. With a national median of
39.3 crimes per square mile per annum, San Luis Obispo has 173 crimes per square mile per annum. In a
study of various California counties, a 10% increase in numbers of liquor stores and bars correlated with
1.67% and 2.06% increases in violence rates. Every six outlets accounted for one additional assault that
resulted in at least one overnight hospital stay. Researchers estimated that, on average, eliminating one bar
per zip code in California would reduce the number of assaults requiring overnight hospitalization by 290
per year in the state.
Yet City staff was able to convince the Council in August 8, 2013 that a temporary moratorium on the
approval of new alcohol outlets was not necessary as there was no "immediate threat to the public health,
safety and welfare". This is because, staff claimed, bar -related crimes were going down though the
statistics indicated otherwise (see below for Save Our Downtown's rebuttal to staff s'presentation at this
August 2013 moratorium discussion). Most recently a June 6, 2015 'Tribune article titled "Reports of
Rape, Assaults in SLO for 2014 Were Highest In the Last Decade" reported the following: "Recently
released statistics (see below) reveal that San Luis Obispo city police received more reports of rape in
2014 than any year in a decade, and almost three times the rate for cities of similar size." In 2014, there
were 44 reported rapes and 168 aggravated assaults.
Read more here: http:// uvww.sari] uisobispo.corn/2015/06/06/...
Year Rapes Aggravated Assaults
200425 128
200523 110
200622 115
2007 27 99
2008 32 66
2009 30 71
2010 27 64
2011 24 74
2012 20 79
201334 101
201444 168
The importance of this issue to the citizens of San Luis Obispo is reconfirmed by the results of two recent
polls. A 2011 Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates public opinion poll found that 60% of
residents consider "alcohol-related crimes and problems "very serious" or "somewhat serious". In 2012, a
utility bill survey found that 59% of the 2,200 respondents sought fewer bars in Downtown SLO.
Regarding a November 13, 2014 meeting, where the SLO Council set the stage for the 2015-17 goal
setting and financial plan process, Save Our Downtown urged the Council to make a minor modification
to staffs 2015-17 Goals and Objectives Chart. Save Our Downtown asked the Council to commit an
additional .5 FTE or more in its staffing allocation to undertake the following: City staff would develop a
"Public Convenience and Necessity" (PCN) policy. Staff and Council would put in place an "Over
Concentration" law and the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update Committee would also
address the long range management of alcohol outlets in the downtown.
Unfortunately, these recommendations fell on "deaf ears".
Under "assessing and renewing the Downtown", staff included in its "action plan" the following: "Alcohol
Concentration Evaluation and Adoption of Code Amendments". The current "completion" time for this
was November of 2014. Save Our Downtown has yet to see any evidence of this "action plan". S.O.D.
requested that a revised "completion" date be assigned to this or that completion be "on-going". Again,
this recommendation fell on "deaf ears".
Save Our Downtown's concern was that, because there are no clear guidelines in addressing Downtown's
alcohol concentration, particularly with regards to defining "public convenience and necessity", there have
been contradictory decisions made by staff and by the Planning Commission over the past 18 months as
related to the approval and denial of multiple bar/tavern use permits. This has led to the continued
proliferation of alcohol outlets located Downtown. Let us explain.
When SLO City staff and the SLO Planning Commission denied, in January 8, 2014, a bar/tavern use
permit at 1060 Osos Street (formerly called "Eye Candy" and with a proposed maximum occupancy of
360), their rationale was as follows: "A new bar/tavern, the 64th license downtown compounds the state of
over concentration and thwarts the City's recent progress in controlling the downtown alcohol
environment." The Planning Commission based their findings on inconsistency with the General Plan,
Zoning Regulations and applicable City policy. During this review, Commissioners Multari, Draze,
Fowler and Stevenson worried about the number of alcohol licenses downtown. Moreover, Deputy
Director Davidson informed the Commission that the ABC had imposed a provision of a maximum of 2
nightclub events per month and Commissioner Multari supported this limitation. Commissioner Multari
incorporated an additional finding for denial in that there are already 11 bars and pubs located in the
Downtown.
In spite of this, in October 2014, planning staff granted a use permit to a similar (both serving alcoholic
beverages without food; both located in basements) bar/tavern located at 1033 Chorro Street. The pretext
for City staff s approval was 1) that the bar will close at 10:00 P.M.; 2) that bar -related crime Downtown
(mostly related to assaults and vandalism in the evening) is going down, and; 3) this bar is compatible with
the neighborhood. Save Our Downtown maintained that 1) this bar will clearly contribute to SLO's
already out -of -hand "pub crawl" which begins well before 10:00 P.M.; 2) bar -related assaults and
vandalism in the evening hours has not gone down over the past two years but rather gone up, and; 3) this
bar, even by Alcoholic Beverage Control's somewhat lax standards, is not compatible with its
neighborhood as it will be located a mere 200 feet from the entrance of the Old Mission Church.
When the Planning Commission approved a brew pub and wine tasting facility at 1234 Broad Street back
in January 14, 2015, they conditioned their approval by adding that "the lease spaces fronting Pacific
Street shall not include wine tasting or other alcohol uses or expansion of the brewery into the lease
spaces." This condition was predicated on Commissioner Malak's finding that 90% of the people
participating in a recent Ludwick Center workshop felt there there were too many bars in the downtown.
This finding was also predicated on Commissioner Multari's finding that this project was too "close to Old
Town", i.e., too close to residential uses. Finally, this finding was predicated on Commissioner Larson's
finding that this project afforded a "substantial number of alcohol places".
However on July 22, 2015 the Planning Commission approved a use permit for a restaurant, 5 bars, 6
drinking lounges, a 393 -person dance club/theater and a 13 -lane bowling alley at 1144 Chorro Street
(immediately adjacent to the Wineman Hotel residential block). Clearly, the three bars oriented to the
concert venue can be described as bars or taverns (bar licenses 40, 42 and 48) and not restaurants that
morph into bars (bar license 47). There were only four out of seven Planning Commissioners present at
this meeting and it would have taken only one more negative vote to kill the final motion. Clearly, had all
seven Commissioners been present, there would have been greater due diligence directed toward reflecting
on the Commission's previous motions and findings - findings that resulted in denying or significantly
modifying previous, similar projects.
The kernel of Save Our Downtown's concern in addressing the problem of too many alcohol outlets
located within the Downtown Core lies in the City's reluctance to limit the number of alcohol licenses in
an over concentrated census tract for bars and taverns (bar licenses 40, 42 and 48) and for Type 41 (on -
sale beer and wine eating place or restaurant) and Type 47 (on -sale general eating place or restaurant
serving beer/wine/spirits) outlets, the outlets that morph from restaurants to bars and nightclubs as the
evening progresses. The City's focus is instead on permitting these alcohol outlets with the condition that
closing times move from 2:00 A.M. to midnight and that food be served during their operating hours.
The City seems to feel that proof of "public convenience or necessity" (PCN) is the only useful tool for
limiting the number of alcohol licenses in over concentrated census tracts. However the City has yet to
develop a policy regarding the use of "public convenience or necessity". Because of this, City staff and the
Planning Commission were unable to assess the "public convenience or necessity", or lack thereof,
regarding their recent approval of multiple bars and taverns (bar licenses 40, 42 and 48) proposed to be
located at 1144 Chorro Street. On the other hand, the PCN cannot be taken into consideration when
licensing Type 41 and Type 47 alcohol outlets as the local governing body is not included in making a
PCN determination for these types of alcohol outlets. The only mechanism that can prevent increasing
concentration of Type 41 and Type 47 alcohol licenses is the conditional use permit (CUP) ... but not the
CUP that only regulates closing times and hours of food service operation.
For example, the City of Orange will not grant a Type 47 license through the CUP process if it is proven
that doing so would "cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in
which it is located." Moreover, in the City of Orange, the Police Department will recommend denial of the
applicant's request for a Type 47 license if the crime rate within that census district is increasing.
The City of La Palma also monitors the number of restaurants serving alcohol (Type 41 or 47) within
census tracts to avoid "over -concentration" and/or "high crime" rates. Like San Luis Obispo, La Palma's
City Code requires a CUP for any restaurant that wants to sell alcoholic beverages (i.e., any Type 41 or 47
alcohol outlet) but they use this CUP to exercise local control over where alcohol outlets may operate.
If these two communities can use CUP's to deny licenses to Type 41 or 47 alcohol outlets located in over
concentrated and high crime census tracts why can't we?
The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) will not issue a retail alcohol license
"contrary to a valid zoning ordinance of any city or county" (B&P S. 23790). This means the ABC District
Office will not complete processing of a license application until the City or county certifies that the
candidate outlet meets local planning and zoning requirements. The ABC thus sets the stage for the local
jurisdiction to set limits on locations, numbers and types of outlets that will receive use -permits, as well as
to establish safe operating conditions for outlets."
California cities may set limits on the density of alcohol outlets by geographic area and by proximity to
outlets of similar types. These limits can help avoid conflicts between competing land -uses for non -
alcohol businesses and housing; they can also reduce stresses on community services and groups due to
crowding, and can reduce crime and community disturbances."
Opponents of local control sometimes say "oversight of alcohol outlets is an ABC responsibility, not a
local obligation." The opposite is true. The ABC is solely responsible for the retail alcohol license, but the
local jurisdiction bears primary responsibility for oversight of the place where the license is located.
However, the law includes a loophole for restaurants (Type 41 - On -sale Beer and Wine Eating Place or
Restaurant and 42 - on- sale beer and wine for bar/tavern licenses) that allows the applicant, rather than the
city or county, to determine whether "public convenience or necessity would be served by issuance of the
license" for "retail on -sale bona fide eating place" in the impacted area, i.e., if the applicant shows that
public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance.
A more formal process includes formulating the required findings necessary to determine public
convenience or necessity. The Business & Professions Code does not establish such criteria, but leaves it
to local governments to better recognize traits of different communities. Findings for approval of a PCN
could include recognizing a unique site location and the economic development benefits, such as job
creation, cultural/entertainment value, area revitalization, or a desirable business model. Reasons to deny a
PCN could include the alcohol outlet's location in a high crime area, over concentrated tract, or proximate
to sensitive land uses (schools, residential & churches).
Save Our Downtown's rebuttal to staff s presentation at an August 8, 2013 Council STUDY SESSION
TO REVIEW EFFECTIVENESS OF 2012 ALCOHOL OUTLET AMENDMENTS AND CONSIDER A
MORATORIUM ON NEW ALCOHOL OUTLETS IN THE DOWNTOWN
ABC states that alcohol outlets in the Downtown Core are "over concentrated. Yet the recent alcohol
outlet amendments did not specifically address this question of overall concentration. Save Our
Downtown would like to know why?
Conditional use permits control anti -social behavior which may take place within the alcohol outlet
premises but there is little control over anti -social behavior once the inebriated bar patron leaves the bar
(or in most cases, "bars" as most patrons "bar hop").
Per SLO consultant "Fried" Wittman, Downtown San Luis Obispo needs to "encourage an active
restaurant / night life community". However, we already have one in spades!
Staff states that "use permit conditions of approval include limits on hours, noise control, manager on
premises, security plan, alcohol server training, food available at all times, and others to ensure that the
business is run in a manner intended to minimize adverse impacts of alcohol related behaviors." The
problem with these permit conditions of approval is that noise control is simply confined to the alcohol
outlet premises and that alcohol server training cannot detect the delayed effects of inebriation after the
patron has left the alcohol outlet.
Representatives from S.O.D. attended the Administrative Review hearings for Eatz By Design, Sidecar
Restaurant, Turncoat Wine Company and Creekside Brewery. Staff states that the recent amendments
provide a tool for limiting alcohol service for restaurants and can be used to strongly limit or outright
prohibit the establishment of additional bars and taverns. However, the four Administrative Hearings we
attended did not strongly limit or outright prohibit the establishment of additional bars. A deemed
approved ordinance states that new outlets must not result in repeated nuisance activities within the
premises or in close proximity of the premises. But what about nuisance activities that occur away from
the premises?
Staff states "as the statistics show, the numbers (of police reports Downtown) have increased in all areas.
The focused Police Department efforts and proactive stance on enforcement are the primary reasons for
the increases." This is simply not true ... the Police Department has been very proactive in the past (check
the historical crime logs). 1,600 Downtown incidents over the past year is 1,600 too many. Also, the City
should compile the dollar costs Downtown for mitigating vandalism over the past year.
Staff states that "over the last four years, the Police Department has "conditionally protested" 12 to 20
licenses annually". However, how many of these licenses where actually pulled?
Staff states that "there are no data or analysis currently available correlating additional licenses issued
downtown over the last year to increased emergency calls, property damage, criminal or nuisance behavior
in the proximity of a new alcohol establishment, or directly attributable to them."Because of this "lack" of
data, why are we to construe that the cause and effect correlation between additional alcohol licenses and
the increase in our Downtown Core of "incidences" does not exist? If staff wishes not to see this
correlation, all they need to do is not do their homework. On this point, staff states that "it is not known if
the City has a higher incident ratio than other comparable cites, since the ASIPS/GIS study did not include
such an analysis." Why wouldn't this be a very important finding?
Staff identifies only one goal for the Downtown Core: that "of maintaining the downtown as the social and
entertainment center for visitors and residents alike". What about all the other goals related to the
Downtown Core such as maintaining its status as a major employment center, shopping center and an
environment suitable for residential living?
We urge the Council to direct staff to develop a "Public Convenience and Necessity" (PCN) policy as staff
recommends. But more importantly we urge the Council to enact a temporary (45 day to 2 -year)
emergency ordinance that will achieve a moratorium on granting licenses to future alcohol outlets. While
this moratorium is in effect staff and Council will put in place an "Over Concentration" law and the Land
Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update Committee will be able to address the long range
management of alcohol outlets in the downtown. Finally, we urge Council to commit an additional .5 FTE
or more in its staffing allocation as this would clearly be needed to undertake this effort.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Lambert, Cynthia <clambert (r)thetribunenews.com> wrote:
Good afternoon Allan,
I hope all's well. I'm working on a story about the number of alcohol licenses downtown and I'd like to
meet with you and any other Save Our Downtown members who are interested.
The story is basically a look at how many alcohol outlets exist, how SLO is over -concentrated with
alcohol licenses and whether new regulations put in place in 2012 have made a difference in the number of
alcohol-related problems downtown.
Do you think you might have some time to meet next week? My schedule is pretty flexible and I'm
available most days except for Thursday morning.
Best,
Cynthia Lambert
781-7929
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Allan Cooper <acooper(q�calpoly.edu> wrote:
Dear Supporters of Save Our Downtown -
Our next meeting will be held tomorrow on Monday, August 3, 2015 @ 3:00 P.M. @ the Steynberg
Gallery (1531 Monterey St. SLO). As your Secretary, 1 confess that I "dropped the ball" by neglecting to
notify you of a July 27, 2015 C.H.C. review of a facade remodel at 733 Higuera Street. Staff made a
number of misleading statements regarding this remodel which I am including in the draft agenda for
possible discussion purposes. The applicant wanted to add a decorative cornice to a modern, nondescript
building located on Higuera Street and staff recommended against this. I am attaching below a revised
draft agenda for the August 3rd meeting and a list of upcoming City meetings.
- Allan
Reports of rape, assault in SLO for 2014 were highest in the...
Recently released statistics show that San Luis Obispo city police received more...
COW
7 in Crime Satciv to 13 ric:ighbor'hoods