HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-06-2016 Item 13, CooperCOUNCIL- MEETING: G Ot
ITEM NO.:
To: Gallagher, Carrie
Subject: RE: Review Scope of Work for 2016 Zoning Regulations U
REC01VE
From: "Allan Cooper" < SSP 6 2016
Date: Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 4:17 PM -0700 LSL-OCITY CLERK
Subject: Review Scope of Work for 2016 Zoning Regulations Update
To: "Marx, Jan" <jmarx(c,.,Icslocity.or >, "Carpenter, Dan" <dcarpenter(a),slocity.org>, "Rivoire, Dan"
<DRivoire(a)slocity.org>, "Christianson, Carlyn" <ccliristianson@slocity.org>, "Ashbaugh, John"
<jashbaugh@slocity.org>, "Codron, Michael" <incodron slocit .or >, "Lichtig, Katie"
<klichtig(@slocity.org>, "Johnson, Derek" <di_ohnsan _slocitx org>, "Davidson, Doug"
<ddav i dsonA Bloc ity. o rg>
Honorable Mayor & Council Members -
With regard to your Tuesday, September 6, 2016 meeting,
Save Our Downtown wishes to address the following
agenda item: "Review Scope of Work for 2016 Zoning
Regulations Update". Our comments were forwarded to the
Planning Commission at their August 10, 2016
meeting though, sadly, neither staff nor the
Commissioners took these comments under consideration.
However, we would appreciate your input on these
comments either at your upcoming meeting or via email.
Our comments are included in the attachment below.
Thank you!
Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown
To: SLO City Council
Re: Review Scope of Work for 2016 Zoning Regulations Update
Date: September 2, 2016
From: Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown
Honorable Mayor and Council Members -
On behalf of Save Our Downtown, James Lopes has already submitted to you a letter
recommending additional LUE Implementation Subtasks. These additional LUE Implementation
Subtasks include, and I'm paraphrasing: 1) more diligent interpretation of the zoning
regulations by staff and 2) incorporation of the Community Design Guidelines into the
Zoning Ordinance.
More diligent interpretation of the zoning regulations by staff
"A more diligent interpretation of the zoning regulations by staff" could be achieved, for example,
if Subsection h., "Other Policy Objectives" (see below), under 17.42.020 "Property Development
Standards" were a requirement for all Downtown -Commercial Zone projects rather than being
used as one of the two optionally required policy objectives for buildings exceeding 50 feet in
height.
Subsection h: "The project directly implements specific and identifiable City objectives as set
forth in the General Plan, the Conceptual Plan for the City's Center, the Downtown Strategic
Plan or other key policy document, to the approval of the Planning Commission. (Sub-
section h. may be used to meet requirements for one policy objective)"
Moreover, where the following is stated under "Intent", again under 17.42.020 Property
Development Standards...
"Regardless of the number of objectives proposed (for buildings taller than 50 feet), the
decision making body must determine that the overall project is consistent with the General
Plan, including goals and policies for view preservation, historical resource
preservation, solar access and architectural character."
...it is often the case that staff will ignore this caveat where it can be argued that "the public
benefits associated with the project significantly outweigh any detrimental impacts from the
additional height." Sadly, these "detrimental impacts" frequently include the loss of "view
preservation, historical resource preservation, solar access and architectural character" and we
(and hopefully you) do not find this acceptable.
Therefore, we are recommending that the paragraph under "Intent" be reworded to substitute
the word "shall" for "must".
Incorporation of the Community Design Guidelines into the Zoning Ordinance
Prior to the possible development of a form -based code for the downtown core, we are
recommending that the Community Design Guidelines be codified in such manner that they can
be included in the Zoning Ordinance. Again, like the Conceptual Plan for the City's Center, the
subsections under the Community Design Guidelines are frequently "cherry picked" or
dismissed by staff because they come under the rubric of "guidelines".
My contribution on behalf of Save Our Downtown is as follows: I am recommending to you, as I
did to the Planning Commission, inclusion of the following staff -omitted LUE Implementation
Subtasks: 1) the omitted LUE Implementation Subtask 4.29 "Coordination of Late Night
Environment" which would enact additional regulations to ensure that the late night environment
in and near Downtown is safe and pleasant; 2) expand the scope of LUE Implementation
Subtask 4.32 "Alcohol Use Permits" to include a work program implementing an alcohol outlet
"Public Convenience and Necessity" (PCN) policy as well as a reexamination of Ordinance No.
1578; 3) the omitted LUE Implementation Subtask 9.10 "Urban Forest" which would address the
need for an update to the master tree plan as well as a reexamination of Ordinance No. 1544;
and 4) the omitted LUE Implementation Subtask 2.14 "Neighborhood Wellness Action Plans"
that would help devise strategies to stabilize the rental/owner ratio, to maintain neighborhood
character, safety, and stability. The latter Subtask is important to us as we consider our
Downtown to be a "neighborhood" as well.
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.
In conclusion, please add LUE 4.29, LUE 9.10, LUE 2.14 to your list of priority tasks,
revisit Ordinance Numbers 1578 and 1544 and expand the scope of LUE 4.32 to include a
"Public Convenience and Necessity" (PCN) policy. See below for a more detailed
explanation of our requests and thank you for your time and consideration!
- Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown
Include LUE Implementation Subtask 4.29 "Coordination of Late Night Environment"
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.
Expand the Scope of LUE Implementation Subtask 4.32 "Alcohol Use Permits"
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.
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.
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".
"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, schuols (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
17.61.060 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.
LUE Implementation Subtask 9.10 "Urban Forest"
9.10. `Urban Forest' would address the need for an update to the master tree plan and develop
recommendations to renew and maintain the urban forest and plant more trees.
Particular attention should be given to Ordinance No. 1544 (2010 Series). Because of recent
questions raised regarding the proposed clear cut of 48 old growth trees at 71 Palomar, we
have uncovered the need for more clarity on the protocols regarding evaluation of trees and
evaluation of "cultural landscapes". These protocols could address the following policies:
1. The City Arborist's unilateral decision-making ability. Does he unnecessarily diminish the
role of the Tree Committee?
2. The Tree Committee's right to initiate a discussion on any issue.
3. The role that an arborist consultant plays in determining the final outcome. Also, discussion
could center on how these arborist consultants are selected.
4. The future of the Heritage Tree Program. Are we entirely dependent on the public to identify
trees suitable for this program or would it be better that the Tree Committee be more
proactive in this regard?
5. Can't it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to address how trees maintain
biodiversity, i.e., the role certain tree species play in providing refuge, nesting grounds and
pollination pastures for a wide range of insects and animals?
6. Can't it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to address the role trees play in
sequestering greenhouse gases? By the way, some species do this better than others.
7. Can't it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to address how various species of trees
are not only more drought tolerant but how older specimens use less water than newly
planted specimens?
8. Clarification is needed on existing, ambiguous and conflicting policies. For example look at
the following link "San Luis Obispo Heritage Tree Program Information Packet" available
online (see: http:llwww_siocity- rg home/showdocument?id=3373). This information packet
states the following: "The Tree Committee proposes the following plan to formalize this
Heritage Tree Program, so that citizens and groups may participate in this community
program."
"How To Apply For Designation
a. Submit Heritage Tree proposal and agreement forms to Urban Forest Services
b. Proposal will be reviewed by Urban Forest Services staff
c. Proposal will be reviewed by Tree Committee
d. Proposal will be reviewed by City Council — adopt resolution — designation as Heritage
Tree"
What is not clear is when did the Tree Committee propose this plan and when does it
become effective? It is also not clear who comprises the "Urban Forest Services staff"?
Moreover a "Heritage Tree Program of San Luis Obispo Information Packet and Form"
contains the following verbiage:
"There are three categories of Heritage Trees:
a. Public trees — parks, public buildings, playgrounds, etc.
b. Voluntary cooperation — privately owned trees.
c. Required cooperation — tree preservation in new developments, etc.
However there is serious ambiguity surrounding the term "required cooperation" for new
developments. Does this "required cooperation" override the owner's consent?