Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-10-2016 PC Correspondence - Item 2 (Cooper)To: Re From Meeting: Item: z SLO Planning Commission ntC;tIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUG 08 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT August 10, 2016 Study Session #2. Review Scope of Work for 2016 Zoning Reg Update Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown ns Honorable Chair and Commissioners - 1) The City promised that staff would develop a "Public Convenience and Necessity" (PCN) policy. This never happened. 2) The City promised that staff and Council would look into implementing an over -concentration law. Under "assessing and renewing Downtown, staff included in its action plan the following: "Alcohol Concentration Evaluation and Adoption of Code Amendments." The completion time for this was November of 2014. This never happened. 3) The City promised that the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update Committee would address the long range management of alcohol outlets in the Downtown. This never happened. In your review of the "Scope of Work" you will see the following: 2.7.14 LUE Program 4.32 "Alcohol Use Permits". Staff time devoted to this topic is proposed to be a mere 12 hours and the costs of undertaking this task will be $1,400. What is missing in this proposed "Scope of Work" is LUE Program 4.29 "Coordination on Late Night Environment". "The City shall work with the Downtown businesses and residents, the BID, and Chamber of Commerce to manage impacts from downtown drinking establishments, and if necessary, enact additional regulations to ensure that the late night environment in and near Downtown is safe and pleasant." Has staff already determined that "additional regulations" will not be necessary even though there has been no such coordination among all the parties mentioned regarding managing impacts from the downtown drinking establishments? More specifically, Save Our Downtown is urging you to revisit Ordinance No. 1578 & 17.11.040: "alcohol outlet public safety strategies and deemed approved alcoholic beverage sale regulations"... Ordinance 1578 states that "upon receiving a complaint from the public, or the Police Department... of repeated nuisance activities within the premises or in close proximity of the premises... then a public hearing will be scheduled before the Administrative Hearing Officer To the best of our knowledge, such an administrative hearing has never taken place. This in spite of the fact that there have been frequent noise complaints for the following establishments: Marston's Bar & Grill, Black Sheep Bar & Grill, McCarthy's Irish Pub and SLO Brew. This in spite of the fact that sexual assaults (44 this last year) and simple assaults (148 this year) have risen dramatically over the past 3 years and this in spite of the fact that San Luis Obispo falls in the lowest decile of safe cities in America . So what we need now more than ever is a "Public Convenience and Necessity" (PCN) policy that can be followed when evaluating on -premises alcohol sales establishments proposed to be located in our over -concentrated Downtown Core. We could use the City of Montebello, CA as our model which we've included for your information below. With this in mind, we are urging you to expand the scope of 2.7.14 LUE Program 4.32 "Alcohol Use Permits" and to include back in LUE Program 4.29 "Coordination on Late Night Environment". In closing, we would like to note that in "Attachment 2" there is a list of "stakeholders", including mention of Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) but no mention of Save Our Downtown. We are requesting that Save Our Downtown (SOD) also be included in this list. Finally, we realize that there are many other worthy LUE Programs which cannot be incorporated into revisions to the Zoning Regulations. However, Save Our Downtown is concerned that these programs not "fall through the cracks". Save Our Downtown would like to place particular emphasis on 4.26. Visual Resource Study, 4.30. Master Plan for San Luis Obispo Creek, 4.31. Inventory of Downtown Uses, 4.33. Modify Community Design Guidelines to Address Safety and Crime Prevention, 4.34. Emergency Callboxes in Downtown, and 4.35. Enhanced Lighting in Downtown. Thank you! "Finding Of "Public Convenience Or Necessity" Local jurisdictions can participate in ABC's licensing process when a geographic area has a —high rate of crime and an —over concentration of alcohol outlets. When a new outlet is proposed in such an area, the applicant must obtain a formal finding of Public Convenience or Necessity. Without this finding, ABC will not grant a new license. Both high crime and over concentration are clearly defined by ABC. PCN, however, is ambiguously defined which leaves it up to each municipality to define for itself. It is important that individual cities or counties make this definition clear and consistent. The criteria for a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity should be clear to the decision makers, community and the applicant and uniformly applied. Montebello, CA That the proposed conditional use: A. Would not adversely affect the general welfare of the surrounding property owners; B. Would not result in an undesirable concentration of premises for the sale of alcoholic beverages, including beer and wine, in the area; C. Would not detrimentally affect the nearby surrounding area after giving special consideration to the proximity and nature of the proposed use with respect to other on -sale or off -sale alcoholic beverage establishments, residential districts and uses, schools (public or private), day care centers, public parks, playgrounds and other recreational facilities, churches and other places of religious worship, hospitals, clinics or other health care facilities; D. Would not aggravate existing problems created by the sale of alcohol (e.g. littering, loitering, noise, public drunkenness, calls for service, and sales to minors); E. Is in conformance with the goals, policies, and objectives of the general plan and the purpose and intent of this code and any applicable specific plan; and F. Serves the public convenience or necessity, based upon the factors outlined in Section ___: ______ 60 herein. This finding shall apply only to conditional use permit applications for bars, off -sale alcoholic beverage establishments, and any other applications that the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control determines are located in an area of undue concentration as defined by state law (California Business and Professions Code Section 23958.4.) Section 17.61.060: Conditional use permit—Factors regarding public convenience or necessity. In deciding whether to issue the conditional use permit, the planning commission, or the city council on appeal, shall consider whether the public convenience or necessity is being served and make the necessary findings, as required in Section 17.61.050. A determination of whether public convenience or necessity is being served shall be based upon review and consideration of relevant factors, which shall include, but not be limited to, the following: A. Whether the proposed use will result in a net employment gain in the city (especially of local residents); B. Whether the proposed use will result in a substantial increase in business taxes; C. Whether the proposed establishment is a unique business addition to the community; D. Whether the proposed use will contribute to the long-term economic development goals of the community; E. Whether the aesthetic character and ambiance of the proposed use will result in an overall positive upgrade in the area and community; F. The viability of the business to operate profitably without alcohol sales.