Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/13/2018 Item 3, Cooper To: SLO Planning Commission Re:Final Reviews of the Proposed Comprehensive Update to the CityÈs Zoning Regulations (Title 17) of the Municipal Code From:Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown Date: June 10, 2018 Honorable Chair Stevenson and Commissioners - Save Our Downtown has concerns regarding the adequacy of the alcohol outlet regulations, the proposed efficient development review process, the proposed parking regulations, the proposed incentives for housing projects, the abandonment of high occupancy administrative use permits and the proposed changes to accessory dwelling units. We would like to break down our concerns under each of the above headings. Our comments will be followed by relevant excerpts from your staff report. Adequacy of the Alcohol Outlet Regulations According to LUE 4.32 Use Permit Requirements, the City shall incorporate into its zoning regulations specific criteria for evaluating use permits for bars/taverns, night clubs and late night drinking establishments. StaffÈs response to this is that the City already has regulations in place with specific criteria for use permits. These include incorporating the late-night alcohol standard conditions of approval which were developed during the Alcohol Outlet Amendments process. These operational standards include noise control, hours of operation, employee training, security, and compliance with the proper ABC license. Save Our Downtown is convinced that given the high rate of alcohol-related crime in the Downtown Census District, these regulations are not sufficient. The only mechanism that can prevent increasing concentration of Type 41 and Type 47 alcohol licenses is the conditional use permit (CUP). But not San Luis ObispoÈs CUP that only regulates closing times and hours of food service operation.Nor a CUP based on the Ðnding that Åthe use will not result in adverse effects to the health, peace, or safety of persons residing or working in the surrounding areaÆ. 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 or enforced. Why do we want to prevent increasing the concentration of alcohol licenses in the Downtown Core? In a study of various California counties, a 10% increase in the number of liquor licenses correlated with a 1.67% and 2.06% increase in violence. Why donÈt we look at other best practices? For example the City of Orange Police Department will recommend denial of the applicantÈs request for a Type 47 license if the crime rate within that census district is increasing. Of course, this question devolves around what types of crimes. Even though alcohol-related offenses (383) and both aggravated & non-aggravated assaults (62) have gone down within the Downtown Core (a.k.a., Neighborhood 5) over the past year (June 2016 - June 2017 to June 2017 - June 2018), sexual assaults have gone up. And bear in mind that comparing the alcohol-related offenses (308) and assaults (25) for the twelve months of 2015 to 2016 with the alcohol related offenses (383) and assaults (62) for the twelve months between 2017 to 2018, the crime rate within this census district is on the rise. According to the National Institute of Health (NIH) on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, estimates of sexual assault prevalence suggest that 25 percent of American women have experienced sexual assault, including rape. Approximately one-half of those cases involve alcohol consumption by the perpetrator, victim, or both. Alcohol contributes to sexual assault through multiple pathways, often exacerbating existing risk factors. Beliefs about alcoholÈs effects on sexual and aggressive behavior, stereotypes about drinking women, and alcoholÈs effects on cognitive and motor skills contribute to alcohol-involved sexual assault. (see: https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh25-1/43-51.htm) 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. ___________________________________________________________________ To more fully implement Policy 4.32, Article 4 in the updated Zoning Regulations includes specific criteria for use permits by incorporating the late-night alcohol standard conditions of approval (developed during the Alcohol Outlet Amendments process). These operational standards include noise control, hours of operation, employee training, security, and compliance with the proper ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Control) license.C. Required Findings. In order to grant approval of a Minor Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit, the review authority shall make the following findings in addition to findings contained in Article 6 (Permit Procedures): The (Ord. 1578 ¤ 3 (part),use shall be consistent with the Zoning Regulations and the 2012) Alcohol Outlet Regulations to reduce public safety problems associated with alcoholic beverage sales and provide for properly maintained alcohol outlets so that negative impacts generated by these activities are not harmful to the surrounding environment. C. Required Findings. In order to grant approval of a Minor Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit, the review authority shall make the following findings in addition to findings contained in Article 6 (Permit Procedures): 1. The (Ord. 1578 ¤ 3 (part), use shall be consistent with the Zoning Regulations and the 2012) Alcohol Outlet Regulations to reduce public safety problems associated with alcoholic beverage sales and provide for properly maintained alcohol outlets so that negative impacts generated by these activities are not harmful to the surrounding environment. 2. Motor Fuel and The use will not result in adverse effects to the health, peace, or safety of persons residing or working in the surrounding area; 3. The use will not result in jeopardizing or endangering the public health or safety of persons residing or working in the surrounding area; 4. The use will not result in violations to any applicable provision of any other City, State, or Federal regulation, ordinance or statute; and 5. The use is compatible with and will not adversely affect the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood. More Efficient Development Review Processes Save Our Downtown is concerned that under Tier I no public hearing would be held for new single-unit residences or additions to existing single-unit residences where the scale and character of the proposed dwelling Åcontrasts significantly with adjacent or neighboring structuresÆ. We are concerned that all of the Architectural Review CommissionÈs recommendations will be advisory to the Director, that the Director shall not be bound by these recommendations in taking his final action on the application, that the Director can modify ARCÈs recommendations before they are forwarded to the Planning Commission and that the DirectorÈs final actions as they pertain to the ARC (or CHC for that matter) will not involve a public hearing. We are concerned that both the Tree Committee and CHC recommendations will not always (or ever?) be routed to the ARC as their meetings could be scheduled subsequent to when the ARC meets. We are however pleased that all new development (we assume this includes additions and remodels) in the C-D zone will come under the Tier III heading. ___________________________________________________________________________ Tier I Ã Administrative Review: An administrative (staff-level) process that includes a legal ad and posting of the property, but no public hearing unless the Director determines it is warranted currently referred to as several different terms (lot line adjustments, discretionary exceptions, minor or incidental projects). Development Review Minor a. Small residential development b. Minor additions or alterations to existing structures B. Minor. Minor Development Review is a staff-level review process with public notice provided, with no public hearing required. The following projects shall be subject to Minor Development Review, including but not limited to; 1.New single-unit residence and additions to an existing single-unit residence where: f. The scale and character of the proposed dwelling contrasts significantly with adjacent or neighboring structures. Tier II Ã DirectorÈs Action: Action at the Director level that includes a public notice and a hearing conducted by the applicable advisory body or review authority. This would include, for example, Development Review - Moderate, Minor Use Permits, Variances, and any development standard exceptions as requiring a DirectorÈs Hearing (parcel map, minor use permit, discretionary exceptions). Development Review Moderate a. Residential developments with fewer than 10 units b. Nonresidential development with less than 10,000 gross square feet of new construction c. Hillside development d. Projects involving a property included on the CityÈs Inventory of Historic Resources A.For each level of Development Review, an advisory body may provide a recommendation to the review authority as applicable or required. In particular, review of an application subject to the Architectural Review Commission as set forth in Section 2.48.090 (Architectural Review Procedures) shall occur: 1. For Moderate Development Review, the Architectural Review Commission shall conduct a public hearing and forward its recommendations to the Director. The Director shall consider the recommendations but shall not be bound by them in taking final action on the application. 2. For Major Development Review, the Architectural Review Commission shall conduct a public hearing and forward its recommendations to the Director. The Director shall have the authority to either: a. Incorporate the Architectural Review CommissionÈs recommendation into the staff report prepared for the public hearing by the Planning Commission; or b. Modify the Architectural Review CommissionÈs recommendation and forward that modified recommendation, together with the original recommendation, in the staff report prepared for the public hearing by the Planning Commission. Tier III Ã Planning : A permit or project review requiring Planning Commission action involving public notice and a hearing (tract maps, conditional use permits, discretionary exceptions) Development Review Major a. Residential developments with 10 units or more b. Nonresidential development with 10,000 gross square feet or more of new construction c. All new development in the C-D zone d. All projects requiring an EIR Parking Regulations Save Our Downtown is urging you to exempt the C-D Zone from these proposed parking reductions. It is unlikely that 50% of the tourists and commuters arriving daily in the Downtown Core will not be using some form of personalized transportation. Imposing this Åone size fits allÆ parking standard onto the C-D Zone will result in discouraging tourism and will force commuters to park in adjoining office or residential zones. We do, however, support project-specific parking studies as a requisite part of proposed parking reductions. Outside the Downtown Core, we maintain that the proposed city-wide parking reductions combined with staffÈs proposal to up-zone our R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods will adversely impact our quality of life. ___________________________________________________________________ Thus, efforts for this update have focused on the parking regulations and crafting standards that: 1) generally reduce the amount of parking required for new uses and development, 2) encourage shared parking arrangements, 3) require and promote increased parking for bicycles, and require facilities for electric vehicle parking/recharging. Rely on a project-specific parking study for a parking reduction. Downtown Density Save Our Downtown applauds staffÈs decision to undertake a more in-depth policy and CEQA investigation before moving forward with this approach to Downtown residential densities. However, staff should amend the following statement in their preamble as it no longer applies to this downtown density proposal: ÅBased on the analysis provided within the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, the City has concluded that adoption of the Draft Zoning Regulations Update would not result in new significant impacts on the environment that have not been previously examined or adequately addressed in the LUCE EIR.Æ _____________________________________________________________________ During the process of preparing the comprehensive update, staff investigated the option for implementing LUCE policy 4.28, which calls for allowing variable residential densities in Downtown as one means of encouraging housing production. Staff proposed an approach that would eliminate any density standards for units 600 square feet and smaller. The City Council expressed support of this approach for consideration during the public hearing process. However, because the General Plan EIR did not address the potential impacts associated with the possible level of housing production associated with this policy change, staff has determined that more in-depth policy and CEQA investigation are required before moving forward with this approach to Downtown residential densities. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15145 (Speculation) states that ÅIf after thorough investigation, a Lead Agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impactÆ. Based on the analysis provided within the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, the City has concluded that adoption of the Draft Zoning Regulations Update would not result in new significant impacts on the environment that have not been previously examined or adequately addressed in the LUCE EIR. No new mitigation measures would be required, and mitigation measures that were adopted for the LUCE EIR continue to remain applicable, as such measures were incorporated into the General Plan following City CouncilÈs adoption of the LUCE. Incentives for Housing Projects Save Our Downtown is concerned that the CouncilÈs responsibility to approve or deny density bonuses, concessions and incentives has been transferred from the City Council to the Director. This means that these very important decisions will no longer involve a public hearing nor will these decisions reÑect the sentiments of our duly elected representatives. We are also concerned that staffÈs proposed phraseology when granting an incentive to the developer involves the word ÅshallÆ in spite of the fact that the State Density Bonus law (Gov. Code section 65915) requires a public agency to relax its development standards to allow for the physical construction of the additional Ådensity unitsÆ only if the relaxation of such standards will not result in speciÐc adverse impacts. Moreover, placing all of these critical decisions under the purview of the Director is in violation of the following statement found under Chapter 17.90 in San Luis ObispoÈs Municipal Code (Affordable Housing Incentives): ÅNothing in this section shall be construed to require the council to approve any alternative incentive or concession. The council shall approve the requisite number of incentives or concessions afforded by this section. However, the details surrounding the incentives or concessions shall be at the discretion of the council.Æ We are also puzzled why the following passage under Alternative Incentive Proposals has been deleted: Åalternative incentive proposals shall include an estimate of the incentiveÈs Ðnancial value in comparison with the Ðnancial value of the density bonus allowed in Section 17.90.040, as well as the basis for the comparison estimateÆ. We believe that since the California Housing Accountability Act requires that ÅfeasibilityÆ be taken into consideration, the statement under ÅBurden of Proof and PrecedenceÆ should be amended to read: ÅThe burden of proof to establish the evidence in support of the required Ðnding(s) for any permit or approval in compliance with this Division, including proof of infeasibility and/or hardship, is the responsibility of the applicant.Æ _____________________________________________________________________________ 17.140.040 Ã Standard Incentives for Housing Projects 17.90.040 Standard incentives for housing projects. A. This sectionSection shall apply only to housing projects consisting of Ðve or more dwelling units. Per stateState law, projects that provide affordable housing are allowed up to a thirty-Ðve35 percent density bonus based on the tables outlined below for the respective affordability levels. In addition, the city council Director may approve a density bonus in excess of thirty-Ðve 35 percent at the request of the developer, as well as other concessions and incentives outlined in Section 17.90.060xxx.xx . B. Alternative incentive proposals shall include information set forth in Section 17.90.030(B)xxx.xx , as well as a description of the requested incentive, an estimate of the incentiveÈs Ðnancial value in comparison with the Ðnancial value of the density bonus allowed in Section 17.90.040, as well as the basis for the comparison estimate.. Alternative incentive proposals shall be considered by the council Planning Commission and may include but are not limited to one or more of the following: D. Ten Percent Low Income Dedication. When a developer agrees to construct tenat least 10 percent of the total units of a housing development for persons or families of lower income, the director Director shall grant the developer, upon the developerÈs request, a density bonus; the density bonus shall be calculated as follows: 3.4 Housing Accountability Act The Housing Accountability Act applies to Åhousing development projectsÆ which includes mixed- use developments consisting of residential and non-residential uses in which nonresidential uses are limited to neighborhood commercial uses and to the Ðrst Ñoor of the building. The project is a housing development project under the Act and as such, a local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income household or condition approval in a manner that renders the project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low-, or moderate- income household including through the use of design review standards unless Ðndings are made that the project will have a speciÐc, adverse impact upon public health or safety (Section 65589.5(d)(2)). High Occupancy Use Permits Save Our Downtown is concerned that the City has abandoned, without signiÐcant public input, the High Occupancy Administrative Use Permit. This opens the door to occupancies in R-1 neighborhoods to far exceed 6 unrelated adults without any oversight or periodic review. ______________________________________________________________________________ 17.148.030 Ã Performance standards.Standards A. Upon approval of an administrative use permit, as deÐned by Chapter 17.58, a A. A high-occupancy residential use may be established with occupancy of six or more adults. The purpose of the use permit is to ensure shall operate in compliance with the following performance standards described in this section, and to ensure the compatibility of the use at particular locations. The dwelling must contain a minimum three hundred square feet of gross Ñoor area, less garage area, per adult. 17.93.050 Administration. A. Permit Requirement. For high-occupancy residential uses with six or more adult occupants, the applicant shall apply for and obtain an administrative use permit as deÐned by zoning regulations. The applicant shall submit and certify the following information as part of the application for an administrative use permit: A. A. 1. Address of dwelling; 2. A site plan which shows: The entire boundary of the site as well as adjacent structures within twenty feet; b. The number and location of off-street parking spaces; c. The gross Ñoor area of the dwelling in square feet; d. The Ñoor plan for the dwelling with the rooms clearly labeled; 3. The number of proposed adult occupants; 4. OwnerÈs signature; 5. Any other information deemed necessary by the community development director. (Ord. 1154 ¤ 1 (part), 1990) 17.93.060 Periodic review, violations and enforcement. A. Period Review. High-occupancy residential uses shall be reviewed annually to ensure compliance with the provisions of this chapter. The use permit shall be reviewed annually for compliance with this chapter. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to initiate the review and pay applicable fees. B. Violations. Violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall be the basis for enforcement action by the city which may include revocation of a previously approved use permit. (Ord. 1154 ¤ 1 (part), 1990) Accessory Dwelling Units Save Our Downtown is pleased that staff has recommended that Åthe owner of the property shall occupy either the primary residence or the accessory dwelling unitÆ. However we are concerned that the Director may waive this requirement in one-year increments, not to exceed a total of Ðve consecutive years, based on a showing of a hardship. Inheritance of property was cited as one example of a valid ÅhardshipÆ, but this term is ambiguous to say the least and could be exploited unnecessarily. _______________________________________________________________________________ 1.a. Design Standards. Accessory dwelling unitsDwelling Units shall conform to all applicable development standards included inof the underlying zone such as, including but not limited to height, 4-2 yardssetback area, parking, and building coverage, etc. An accessory dwelling unitAccessory Dwelling Unit that conforms to this chapterChapter shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density a dwelling unit for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot.purpose of calculating density. F. 5. Owner-Occupancy. The owner of the property must shall occupy either the primary residence or the accessory dwelling unit. Accessory Dwelling Unit. The director Director may waive this requirement in one-year increments, not to exceed a total of Ðve consecutive years, based on a showing of a hardship. A hardship shall include, but not be limited to, inheritance of property with an accessory dwelling unitAccessory Dwelling Unit. Miscellaneous Concerns It is still concerning that there will be no public oversight on granting home occupation (or live-work) permits, nor revocations of use permits granted to alcohol outlets, determinations of unique hardship for exceptions to development standards and zoning variances. These are discretionary, not ministerial, decisions which would beneÐt from public oversight. We are also concerned that the quasi-judicial responsibility of the Planning Commission or Director to make adjustments to the C-D Zone development standards or to the SpeciÐc Focus Area zones could involve increased heights or building setbacks without any additional input from the Architectural Review Commission. There is no mechanism proposed where these changes to the building envelope could be referred back to the ARC. Thank you!