Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-20-2017 Item 5 - Cooper To: SLO Planning Commission, Doug Davidson and Kyle Bell Re: Alcohol Outlet Regulations Effectiveness Update (to inform implementation of Land Use Element 4.32) From: Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown Date: December 18, 2017 In your staff report you will be informed that there have been no violations of the Deemed Approved Ordinance from its effective date on June 19, 2012, through June 30, 2017. This report states that a strong partnership with the Downtown Association has prevented alcohol related incidents. This report further states that ÅOver the past four years the Police Department has seen a decrease in the number of arrests for some of the above-mentioned calls.Æ All of this information appears reassuring until one visits San Luis Obispo Police DepartmentÈs ÅDashboardÆ (see http://comstat.slocity.org/dashboard/Incidents/). Once youÈve opened this website scroll down to ÅNeighborhood 5Æ in the upper right hand corner after ÅLocationÆ. You will find that comparing Period 1 (December 19, 2015 to December 17, 2016) with Period 2 (December 18, 2016 to December 17, 2017) alcohol offenses have increased from 390 to 508, misdemeanor assaults have declined slightly from 47 to 46 and aggravated assaults have increased from 13 to 17. If one were to combine Ådrunk in publicÆ, Åurinating in publicÆ and Åopen containerÈ within the category of Åalcohol offensesÆ, then your staff report shows a fiscal year (July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017) total of 278 alcohol offenses. Compare this with SLOPDÈs statistic of 508 alcohol offenses for the past 12 months. And compare staffÈs 40 misdemeanor assaults with SLOPDÈs 46 and staffÈs 3 aggravated assaults with SLOPDÈs 17. It is hard to understand where the statistics in Table 4 ÅDowntown Incidents 2010 - 2017Æ are coming from if not from the San Luis Obispo Police Department. Back in April 22, 2017, I informed both Doug Davidson and Kyle Bell of similar disturbing SLOPD statistics. ÅWithin our Downtown Core (a.k.a., Neighborhood 5) and comparing the two years (April 2015 - April 2016 and April 2016 - April 2017) there had been an 80% increase in alcohol offenses, a 215% increase in property thefts and a 235% increase in both non-aggravated and aggravated assaults.Æ The over-concentration of alcohol outlets downtown breeds crime, places economic hardships on existing retail businesses, is a public health and sanitation hazard, presents a livability problem for downtown residents and hotel patrons and reduces economic diversity by displacing existing retail stores and offices. The only mechanism that can prevent increasing concentration of Type 41 and Type 47 alcohol licenses is the conditional use permit (CUP)¼but not SLOÈs CUP that only regulates closing times and hours of food service operation. Nor a CUP that relies on a Downtown AssociationÈs Safe Night Life Subcommittee to mitigate increasing alcohol related crime rates. Nor a CUP that relies on Performance Standards and Deemed Approved Activities that are never monitored. 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 Åcause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located.Æ Moreover, in the City of Orange, the Police Department will recommend denial of the applicantÈs request for a Type 47 license if the crime rate within that census district is increasing (as ours is increasing). The City of La Palma also monitors the number of restaurants serving alcohol (Type 41 or 47) within census tracts to avoid Åover-concentrationÆ and/or Åhigh crimeÆ rates. Like San Luis Obispo, La PalmaÈs 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. Finally, in the mid-1990Ès the City of Vallejo, in Northern California, determined there were significant alcohol outlet-related health and safety issues occurring in the community. Adoption of new land use and nuisance abatement policies produced two significant outcomes: ¥ Between 1994 and 2004 the total number of alcohol outlets declined from 205 to 170 Ã an 18% decline. ¥ From March through December of 1998 there were 2373 alcohol outlet related nuisance police calls for service. From January to October of 1999, the number fell to 1139 Ã a 53% reduction. (Unpublished data from Vallejo Fighting Back Partnership.) If these three communities can use CUPÈs to deny licenses to Type 41 or 47 alcohol outlets located in over-concentrated and high crime census tracts why canÈt we? We are therefore urging you to either limit the number of bars and bars with restaurants having more than 10 seats and/or entertainment/dance areas, so that no more than one or two bars/ restaurants/clubs are located on any one block or, through the enactment of an Åover- concentration lawÆ, prohibit the approval of any more alcohol outlets within the downtown census tract. This can be accomplished by expanding the scope of LUE Implementation Subtask 4.32 ÅAlcohol Use PermitsÆ to include a work program implementing an alcohol outlet "Public Convenience and Necessity" (PCN) policy as well as a reexamination of Ordinance No. 1578. Additionally, we are urging you to revisit Ordinance No. 17.11.040: Å alcohol outlet public safety strategies and deemed approved alcoholic beverage sale regulationsÆ... Ordinance No. 1578 states that Åupon 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 OfficerÆ and you have been informed that 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: MarstonÈs Bar & Grill, Black Sheep Bar & Grill, McCarthyÈs Irish Pub, SLO Brew and most recently the Taqueria and Ciopinot Restaurant. It should be noted that "the noise ordinance for the City of San Luis Obispo is a 24/7 regulation. It is a violation to make or allow noise between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm that can be heard 50 feet from your property line; between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am, it is a violation to make or allow noise that can be heard across your property line. Noise is not limited to music; it could be a TV turned up loud, voices, power tools, and so forth.Æ See the full City of SLO document at: http://www.slocity.org/home/ showdocument?id=15164 . The most current data from ÅDashboardÆ would indicate that McClintockÈs, Luna Red, BullÈs and the Blast are also the source of numerous alcohol offenses and property thefts. This in spite of the fact that sexual assaults and simple assaults have risen dramatically within the City over the past 3 years and that San Luis Obispo falls in the lowest decile of safe cities in America. 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.