HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15-2015 Item 16 - Bell} Sana
MemorandumCouncil
September 14, 2015
TO: City Council
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Keith Storton, Acting Chief of Police
PREPARED
BY: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner
VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager
SUBJECT: City Council agenda item 16 (Discovery SLO appeal)
SLO CITY CLERK
COUNCIL MEETING 6D(I" IS
ITEM NO.; [r
Prior to the meeting on September 15, 2015 a Council Member asked the following questions;
1. The staff report refers only to an appeal of the Planning Commission action on July 22,
2015 by Save Our Downtown (as well as the corollary appeal by the applicants, for
obviously different reasons). Yet the appeal form from SOD clearly states that they are
also appealing the ARC action taken at about the same time. Please clarify, and if
necessary provide a corrected resolution for the Council.
Staff response: The appeal letter submitted by James Lopes and Sandra Lakeman
addresses both concerns regarding the Planning Commission approval and the
Architectural Review Commission approval, however, the appeal was submitted after the
10 day appeal period from the Architectural Review Commission decision, and cannot be
addressed in the appeal to City Council. The project design has been reviewed by the
Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) with a unanimous recommendation of approval to
the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The ARC unanimously approved the
project on July 20, 2015.
2. Please provide in the Council office a copy of the noise study by David Lord that was
considered by the Planning Commission.
Staff response: A copy of the noise study prepared by David Lord has been provided in
the Council Office.
3. Please provide a spreadsheet or narrative describing how the occupancy standards are
determined for the concert space. My basic question is this: What discretion does the City
have, if any, in establishing these occupancy limits through the use permit process? *
*Specifically, I'm concerned that the roughly 5,200 sf concert area is subject to an
occupancy limit of 453 — that seems high. It's less than 12 sf per person. I note, on the
other hand, that for SLO Brew, which we approved in 2012 for a 3, 000 sf concert space,
Item 16 — Correspondence Memorandum
K:
the occupancy limit was 600 — i.e., only 5 sf per occupant — however, they also had 3
exits available.
Staff response: Occupancy is determined by building code, Attachment 3 Page Al. 11 of
the project plans provides a breakdown of the occupancy loads for the concert venue
space. The concert venue is broken down by several uses; standing room, stage area,
vestibule, back of stage area, etc. 1,966 square feet is dedicated to standing space for a
music event, with a load factor of 1 person per 5 square feet, for a total of 393 persons
(whereas, SLO Brew dedicated approximately 3,000 square feet to standing room for a
total of 600 persons). Other portions of the concert venue are calculated separately. For
instance, the load factor for the stage area is calculated at 1 person per 15 square feet, for
a total of 42 persons. The entire concert venue space that adds to 5,209 square feet has a
total occupancy load of 453 persons, but again, concert goers would be limited to 393.
Please see Page Al. 11 of the project plans for further clarification on the occupancy
calculations.
4. Why are the hours of operation limited in the morning? We encountered this issue with
SLO Brew and determined that they could open as early as 7 am. Why set a 10 am lower
limit?
Staff response: The morning hours of the proposed use at 1144 Chorro Street were
determined by the project description, if requested staff could evaluate earlier hours for
the proposed use.
5. Condition #15 refers to exiting only to Chorro Street for the concert venue. Given the
roll -up door that divides this space from the restaurant, it might be desirable to have
these occupants exiting in roughly equal numbers both to Marsh Street as well as Chorro
Street. Please comment — should we ask them to manage the concert exit through the
restaurant, parallel to Chorro Street but within the building, toward sliding glass doors
onto Marsh Street? Is this feasible?
Staff response: Condition #15 does not limit exiting to only Chorro Street, Condition #15
addresses the proposed queueing line along Chorro Street and Marsh Street and ensures
that the queueing line will provide adequate widths for the public right-of-way, and that
the queueing line may be re-evaluated if identified as an issue upon operation of the
business. Condition #10 has been added to address the exiting of patrons onto Chorro
Street, but does not limit the exiting to only Chorro Street. Exiting may also be provided
into the alley, as well as the exiting corridor parallel to the alley inside the building
leading to Marsh Street. Page A1.11 of the project plans addresses the exiting
requirements for each space within 1144 Chorro Street.
The following questions were presented by a Council Member to Police Department
staff.
Item 16 — Correspondence Memorandum Paqe 3
6. Please provide a map of the area described as the "Downtown ".
Traditionally, Law Zone 3 defined the "Downtown" area for the Police Department's
statistical purposes. This area covers Santa Rosa to Carmel, and Palm to Pacific. Due to a
recent software change, and the PD's transition to Neighborhood Zones, its statistical
areas have changed.
Downtown statistical information is currently being pulled from a 1000 foot radius from
858 Higuera Street due to software challenges Law Zone 3 statistics are currently
unavailable. This area represents much of the downtown core. The PD is working with its
records management vendor to fix this problem in order to capture data in the Law Zone
3 format as well as Neighborhood Zones.
A map is attached showing both Law Zone 3 and the 1000 radius overlay.
7. The chart on the second page of Lt. Smith's memo represents the "number of incidents"
in each of the years 2010/11 through the most recent year for which there are records.
However, in the staf_f'Mort Lor the proposed SLO Brew project in 2012, a different set of
data was provided as seen in the screenshot at the bottom of this memo. One obvious
difference is that the table provided there shows the "Number of Violations " — which one
might assume to be a more accurate indicator of criminal activity. Please clarify.
The statistical data provided in the SLO Brew report only covers five months for each of
the years 09/01/2010 — 02/28/2011 and 09-01-2011 — 02-28-2012. This information was
used as a comparison for the adoption of the Safe Night Life policies that included
responsible service training for bar employees, installation of port -a -potties and other
efforts. This data was likely captured using the Law Zone 3 area.
The recent data provided in the memo by Lt. Smith was captured using the 1,000 foot
marker from 858 Higuera. To compare like information this standard was used for all of
the incidents represented in the graph on the memo written by Lt. Smith which represents
the fiscal years from 2010 to 2015.
8. It does appear that there is a trend in "Misdemeanor Assault" incidents over these five
years —particularly between years 2 and 3. Please elaborate on this issue: Is it plausible
to attribute the increase in Misdemeanor Assault incidents over this timeframe to the
increased focus of our patrol officers on the Downtown area?
The combination of increased enforcement efforts for alcohol related crimes and
increased communication with bar owners and employees are likely attributed to this
increased trend.
The Department has also made a better effort in trying to capture misdemeanor assault
data. In years past an assault not witnessed by an officer (where minor injuries occurred)
often did not get reported because the partied involved declined prosecution. The parties
would be sent on their way and the statistic was not captured. Assaults are a mandatory
reportable offense to the Department of Justice. Officers are doing a better job meeting
Item 16 — Correspondence Memorandum
this mandate. Additionally, officers are making concerted efforts to explain the process
for making a citizen's arrest or locating witnesses to do the same. These efforts can
influence the statistical data.
9. If possible please address this question: Do our records actually record whether
excessive alcohol consumption was or was not a factor in these Misdemeanor Assaults?
If so, can we disaggregate them using that data field?
Officers try to capture the presence of alcohol (objective observations or statements) as
part of the narrative in all of their reports; however, this information is not captured as a
specific data point.
10. As part of an email, a Council Member asked the Police Department to respond to the
increased incidents of rapes in the City or in the downtown.
4
Since 07/01/10 to 07/31/15 there have been 133 rapes reported Citywide. Of these
reported rapes four originated from the downtown area. Three of the reports indicate the
victim and suspect met downtown while at a bar, however, the crime took place at
another location in SLO, not downtown. One of the reported rapes occurred at a
downtown residence and was not associated with a specific alcohol establishment. PD
investigators have typically found that the victim and suspect are known to each other in
some form, frequently classified as a "date rape" scenario.
In recent years there has been a concerted effort to encourage and support victims of
sexual assault, impacting the capture of statistics. Many college campuses and private
organizations offer support to include counseling, advocates, medical attention and other
services. This infrastructure has been a valuable resource for victims empowering the
ability to heal, as well as report.
Additionally, in January of 2014 the California Department of Justice changed the
definition of rape. This change provided a more broad interpretation of the definition of
rape and captured actions that were not covered under the previous definition. This
language change also altered how rape data was classified and tracked attributing to an
increase in rape reporting.
Recent legislation has allowed for victims of rape to conduct a medical exam, in the form
of a sexual assault kit, to collect evidence of a rape. The victim may choose not to
involve police as part of the investigation. The medical entity completing the exam will
report to the Police Department that a sexual assault kit was collected. The sexual assault
kit will be held by the Police Department but an investigation will not be conducted. This
process encourages reporting should the victim decide at later time to follow-through
with an investigatioll.
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2015\2015-09-15\Council Memorandum 1144 Chorro Street.docx