The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About28-Planning & Building Services :::ITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION From: Michael E. Hays, Director Subject: DCA No. 96-06 and CUP No. 96-12 - To amend the Development Code to allow the transfer of an existing off-site ABC License to a new site located at the southeast corner of Highland and Valaria and within 75 feet of a currently licensed facility. Dept: Planning & Building Services ~(Q)~V Date: June 4, 1997 MCC Date: June 16, 1997 Synopsis of Previous Council Action: NtA JUN 04 1997 Recommended Motion: That the Mayor and Common Council close the public hearing; and, deny Development Code Amendment No. 9&<l6 "'" Cooditi..... U" Pennil No. 96-12, ""'" 00 die <?~ () Michael ys Contact person: Michael Hays Phone: 384-5357 Supporting data attached: Staff ReJlOrt Ward: Citywide FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Nt A Source: (Acet. No.) NtA (Acet. Description) Finance: Council Notes: Agenda Item No. ~<J v/I(p/'l7 Continued to 07~7/'l7 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUFSI' FOR COUNcn. ACTION SfAFF REPORT SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) NO. 96-06 & CONDmONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) NO. 96-12 MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 16, 1997 REOUESTIWCATION The applicant requests to amend Development Code ~19.06.030(2)(B) to allow the transference of an existing off-site ABC license to a new site within 75 feet of the currently licensed facility in a commercial designation regardless of the existence of a church, school, residential districts and/or uses and other restrictions in the Development Code. The applicant also requests a Conditional Use Permit to construct a two phase development consisting of a 2,500 square foot liquor store (phase I) and a 1,850 square foot lube & tune (phase D) on the site. The proposed 0.48 acre site is located on the southeast corner of Highland Avenue and Valaria Drive in the CG-l, Commercial Genera1land use designation. The existing site (Ken's liquor Store) is located on the southwest corner at 2601 East Highland Avenue. (See Exhibit 1, Site Vicinity Map) Detailed background information on this project is contained in the April 22, 1997 Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit 2). KEY POINTS . The proposed amendment is necessary in order to consider the CUP project because the site does not meet the locational criteria established in Development Code ~19.06.030(2)(B) for liquor stores. Off-site "ABC" establishments cannot be located within 100 feet of a residential district or use. The site is within 40 feet of a residential district and residential uses in the City of Highland. liquor stores and markets that are less than 5,000 square feet in size are considered to be convenience stores which cannot be located within 1,000 feet of one another. The site is located within 565 feet of another a convenience store of similar size. The purpose of these locational criteria is to avoid oversaturation of the neighborhood. . The proposed amendment would add language to Development Code ~19.06.030(2)(B) to allow the transference of an existing off-site ABC license to a new site within 75 feet Development Code Amendment No. 96-06 & Conditional Use Pennit No. 96-11 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of June 16, 1997 Page 2 of the currently licensed facility in a commercial designation regardless of the location of restrictive uses. . The Business And Professions Code [~23958.4(f)] provides for an exemption from the public convenience or necessity (pCN) requirement for premises that have been licensed and operated with the same type of ABC license within 90 days of the application. This means that the proposed amendment could result in side by side pairs of off-site facilities. . The proposed liquor store use is not consistent with General Plan Policy 1.6.2 because the City loses control for a 90 day period when a liquor store could be established at an inappropriate location (Le., in proximity to residences, schools, religious facilities, and parks) without City approval. The project site is located in close proximity to a residential district and uses and to the existing off-site facility which could be relicensed. . The proposed lube & tune is consistent with General Plan Policy 1.7.17 which encourages the development of auto-related uses in the CG-l with a CUP. . The proposed CUP complies with Development Code requirements in terms of site layout and design. . Based on the provisions in the Business and Professions Code, the Police Department changed their recommendation for the project to denial. The basis for this decision is summarized in Exhibit 2, Attachment C-2. COMMENTS RECEIVED Planning staff has received phone calls, counter enquiries and letters regarding this proposal. Copies of correspondence are included in Exhibit 2, Attachment D. Letters received subsequent to the publication of the Planning Commission Staff Report are contained in Exhibit 3. li'NVTRONMRNTAL Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act, environmental documentation is not required in situations where denial of the application is sought. Development Code Amendment No. 96-06 & Conditional Use Permit No. 96-12 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of June 16, 1997 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission reviewed the Development Code Amendment No. 96-06 and Conditional Use Permit No. 96-12 on April 22, 1997, and voted 5 to 1 to recommend to the Mayor and Common Council denial of the project, based upon the attached Findings of Fact (Exhibit 2, Attachment B). Planning Commission Vote: 5 ayes (Gonzalez, Hamilton, Reilly, Suarez and Thrasher); 1 Nay (Lockett); 1 Abstention (Quiel); and, 2 Absent (Enciso and Schuiling). MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS 1. The Mayor and Common Council may deny DCA No. 96-06 and CUP No. 96-12 based on the Finding of Fact; or, 2. The Mayor and Common Council may determine that the proposed ordinance does not conflict with General Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies and direct staff to complete environmental review and prepare the ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council deny Development Code Amendment No. 96-06 and Conditional Use Permit No. 96-12 based on the Findings of Fact (Exhibit 2, Attachment B). Prepared by: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner Prepared for: Michael E. Hays, Director of Planning and Building Services Development Code Amendment No. 96-06 & Conditional Use Permit No. 96-12 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of June 16, 1997 Page 4 EXHIBITS 1. Site Vicinity Map 2. April 22, 1997 Planning Commission Staff Report Attachments: A. Site Vicinity Map (See Exhibit I, above) B. Findings of Fact (DCA and CUP): C. Police Department Memorandums: C-l Community Services Officer M. Sota (09/10/96) C-2 lieutenant Mike Gile, Area 'C' Commander (03/27/97) O. Correspondence: 0-1 City of Highland, Community Development Oepartment Letter (08/14/96) 0-2 Planning Staff Responses (02/06/97) 0-3 Ms. Patricia M. Case Letters (02/07/97 and 02/10/97) 0-4 Mr. William B. Franks Letter (02/10/97) 0-5 Area Residents' Letters (08/21/96 and 02/10/97) 0-6 Mr. Bruce Suh Letter (02/27/97) E. Background Information 3. Correspondence (Additional) I cOYY. I SBOPPD:'G.., ' CENl'ER_.t' ~ EXIllBIT 1 DCA NO. 96-06 & CUP NO. 96-12 MINI STORAGE I, , , _L ~ ~ mGHLAND ~ I . , rEEN'S .... UQUoi..~ i kSTORE < It t ~ I' > ~l_~_:- ~ crrY OF SAN IlEllNARDINO > ,-- ,.-~r I~ SFR I~ , I ~ SFR Q , ~ ~ ~ = e .. = SFR ~ ... .. 0 ~ ~ a u ... .. I 8~~O ""~ '- . 4" nOJECf SlTE (CUP 96-12) .I'~ t:I '~ t7:l I hrst , ~-- I I ~ I~ ...." . " '4 \ SFR .II" . 4&.1 ST. ~-, ~L , { ,~., I I J' - SFR 1 r- , -< ~ 2 2 ~ . ~ g o R-l ZONING (CII'Y OF IIIllIII.\MD) ..'" . ."~"7~ ~ '" . ., I I ~ I ~t ...~~ ~.~ -- ..,= ~ e .. = ... ... o 0 a'a VACANr MINI STOll PFC VACANr SFR 18045 SUMMARy EXlUBIT "2" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DMSION ==c============================================ CASE: Development Code Amendment No. 96-06 and Conditional Use Permit No. 96-12 AGENDA ITEM: HEARING DATE: WARD: 2 4-22-97 7 APPLICANT: BRUCE SUR 2601 E. HigJtll.nd Avenue Highland, CA 92346 OWNER: BIU. AND DOROTHY REAMS 38 Horseshoe Lane Palos Verdes, CA 90274 =c===c==========-=====-=====-=====--=-==-==-=-= REQUEST I LOCATION - To amend Development Code Section 19.06.030(2)(8) to allow the transference of an existing off-site ABC license to a new site within 75 feet of the currently Jiceltserl facility in a commercial designation; and, a Conditional Use Permit request to construct a two-phase development consisting of a 2,500 square foot liquor store (phase I) and a 1,850 square foot lube & tune (phase ll). The 0.48 acre project site is located at the southeast comer of Highland Avenue and Valaria Drive. ==-=--====-=--==-===--=-===-==-====------===--= PROPERTY Elw>"liNG LAND USE LAND USE DESIGNATION SUBJECT NORm SOUTIi EAST WEST V-=ant Lot Comm. reWl & lYe. - Single-family res. - Bar, Comm. reWl & lYe. - Liquor 1Iore, Comm. reWl & lYe. - 00-1, Commercial Geaenl 00-1, Co.....-:ial Geaenl City of Higbland 00-1, Commercial Geaenl 00-1, Commercial Geaenl GBOLOGIC/SEISMIC YES C FLOOD HAZARD HAZARD ZONE: NO. ZONE: IDGH FIRll HAZARD YES C AIRPORT ZONE: NO. NOISBlCRASH ZONE: YES C SBWBRS: YES . NO. NOC YES C RBDBVBLOPMBNT YES C NO. PROJECT AREA: NO . ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: [] Not Applicable . Exempt CEQA Guidelines i15061(b)(3) [] No Significant Effects [] Potential Effects, Mitigating Measures, No E.l.R. Sl'AFF RECOMMENDATION: [] E.l.R. wI Significant Effects [] APPROVAL [] CONDmONS [] Significant Effects, See Attached E.R.C. Minutes . DENIAL [] CONTINUANCE TO: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. ~ AND CONDmONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-U HEARING DATE: April 22, 1997 Page 2 REQUEST AND LOCATION Under the authority of Development Code 119.42.020, the applicant requests to amend Development Code U9.06.030(2)(B) to allow the tranSference of an existing off-site ABC license to a new site within 75 feet of the currently licensed facility in a commercial designation regardless of the existence of a church, school, residential districts an1JIor uses and other restrictions in the Development Code. The applicant also requests a Conditional Use Permit to construct a two phase development consisting of a 2,500 square foot liquor store (phase I) and a 1,850 square foot lube &. tune (phase D) on the site. The 0.48 acre site is located at the southeast corner of Highland Avenue and Valaria Drive in the CO-I, Commercial Genera11and use designation. (See Attachment A, Site Vicinity Map) DF.V1U OPMRNT CODE LOCATlONAL REQUIREMENTS The proposed amendment is ~"""Y in order to consider the CUP project because the site does not meet the established locational criteria listed in Development Code 119.06.030(2)(B). This section stateS that establishments subject to an off-site" ABC" license shall not be located within 100 feet of a residential district or residential use. The project site is located within 40 feet of an R-l district and residences in the City of Highland. The Development Code also prohibits the establishment of an off-site facility in close proximity to another such facility. The purpose of the prohibition is to avoid oversaturation of the neighborhood. BecaJl!le the proposed liquor store is less than 5,000 square feet in area, it is also subject to the locational criteria of 1,000 feet for convenience stores. Development Code 119.06.030(2)(F) broadly defines convenience stores as commercial retail outlets that include the sale of ISluecries, staples, sundry items and/or alcoholic beverages where the gross floor area is less than 5,000 square feet. The proposed liquor store does not meet the criteria since it is located approximately 565 feet east of an approved gasoline service station and convenience store site 10C"tM at the southeast corner of Arden Street and the SR-30 Freeway. BACKGROUND A detailed background for the project is contained in Attachment E (Background Information). DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 9(Ml6 AND CONDmONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-U HEAlUNG DATE: April 21, 1997 Page 3 CAT.1F01lNlA 14WVTR.ONMENTAL OUALTTY ACT lCEOA) STATlJ'S Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act, environmental documentation is not required in situations where denial of the application is sought. ANALYSIS PROJECT SITE AND AREA CHARACTudSTlCS Site Charac:teristics The 0.48 acre site, located at the southeast comer ofHigh1and Avenue and Valaria Drive, is flat and generally rectangularly-shaped. The site contains one lot which is vacant and undeveloped with the exception of a 6.5 foot wide strip of asphalt on the east side. The asphalt strip is the front portion of 14 parking spaces for the adjacent restaurantlbar use that encroach onto the project site. Area Characteristics The project site is located on the south side of Highland Avenue. The SR-30 Freeway/Arden Avenue OnIOff Ramps are located just west of the site where the freeway crosses Highland Avenue at a westlnorthwest orientation. The San BemardinolHighland City limits are about 200 feet east of the site. North of the site is a commercial center that contains commercial retail and service uses and a religious facility in the CG-l designation. Multi-family and single-family residential uses are locatM north of the Higl'\lInd Avenue corridor in the RMH, Residential Medium High, RM, R~dential Medium and RS, Residential Suburban land use designations, respectively. An existing rcstaurantlbar is located east and adjacent to the site with other commercial uses located beyond. South and across a 20 foot alley is an R-l district with single-family residential uses in the City of Highland. West and across Valaria Drive is the existing Ken's Liquor Store and a partially developed commercial center located west and beyond. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) PROVISIONS The Business And Professions Code 123958.4(f) provides for an exemption from the public convenience or necellslty (PeN) requirement for premi2ll that have ~ licensed and operated with the same type of ABC lic:eII2 within 90 days of the application. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMEl'ff NO. 96-06 AND CONDmONAL USE ImRMlT NO. 96-12 BEARING DATE: April 22, 1997 Page 4 DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE Amendment Proposal The amendment proposes to add language to Development Code 119.06.03O(2)(B) to allow the transference of an existipg off-site ABC License to a new site within 75 feet of the currently licensed facility in a commercial designation regardless of the location of restrictive uses. Beeallv- the land use impacts from an existing facility already exist, the assumption is that the transference of an operation to a new facility in close proximity should not increase or create new impacts. While the scope of the amendment appears to be very narrow and only applicable in instances where a replacement facility is proposed within 75 feet of an existing liquor store in a commercial designation, it could result in side by side pairs of off-site facilities because of the Business And Professions Code exemption mentioned above. CUP Project The proposed site and buildings comply with the Development Code standards for the CG-l, Commercial General land use designation and all other applicable standards and requirements in terms of site layout and design. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY Amendment Proposal The amendment proposal is not consistent with provisions in the General Plan pertaining to the control of the development of land uses that may adversely impact the charac:ter of the City and quality of life of its residents [General Plan Goal IF, Objective 1.6 and Policies 1.6.2 and 1.6.3]. As previously noted, the amendment could result in two facilities existing side by side. CUP Project The ploposed liquor store use is not consistent with General Plan Policy 1.6.2 which requires that the location and number of alcohol sales and other community-sensitive uses be controlled based on proximity to residences, schools, religious facilities, and parks in accordance with legislative and legal requirements. The project site is 10000tM in close proximity to a residence and to the existing off-site facility which could be relicensed. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 96-06 AND CONDmONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-U HEARING DATE: April 22, 1997 Pale S The plUposed lube &. tune is con~ict""t with General Plan Policy 1.7.17 which encourages the development of auto-relaU:d uses in the CG-l with a CUP. The site layout and design and the lube &. tune use are consistent with the General Plan provisions specifically for the CG-l designation (Goal 1.19, Policies 1.19.10 through 1.19.35). COMPATIBILITY The proposed CUP project is not compatible with the nearby single-family residential uses or mmilllt' commercial retail uses. POLICE DEPARTMENT REVIEW General Plan Policy 1.6.3 stipulates that proposals for uses that involve the sales of alcohol be reviewed by the City's Police Department. A summary of the Police Department's initial review of the project is contained in Attachment C-l [police Department Memorandum (dated September 10, 1996)]. Based on the City's concerns regarding the provisions in the Business and Professions Code, the Police Department changed their recommendation for the project to denial. The basis for this decision is summarized in Attachment C-2 [Police Department Memorandum (dated March 27, 1997)]. COMMENTS RECFTVF.Il CITY OF mGHLAND, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Comments were received on this project from the City of Highland, Community Development Department. The letter expresses concerns about the potential for a second ABC off-sale outlet in the immediate vicinity of the existing Ken's Liquor Store. Other concerns were regarding area blight, crime and specific development standards that will be requinld for the project. A copy of the letter and Planning staff's responses are contained in Attachment D (Correspondence). MS. PATRICIA M. CASE, BRASS KEY RFSTAURANT AND PROPERTY OWNER Ms. Case submitted two letters in opposition to the project. The first letter is in response to the Official Notice of Public Hearing and outlines the reasons for her opposition. Ms. Case feels that a liquor store in such close proximity would be detrimental to her restaurant business and would devalue her 91opcHy. She questions the legality of "side by side" liquor sales. 1-- -- - DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 96-06 AND CONDmONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-12 HEARING DATE: April 22, 1997 Page 6 As indicated, the Police Department reviewed the proposed liquor store and did not appear to be concerned about the close proximity of an off-site alcohol outlet to an on-site alcohol outlet. The Development Code only restricts the location of like alcohol uses (i.e. two off-site alcohol outlets). Ms. Case also submitted a letter in response to a letter from pIlInnil1g staff apprising her of the encroachment of Brass Key Restaurant parking spaces on the CUP project site. Her response is that she feels there may be grounds for a prescriptive easement; however, this type of easement can only be established by a judicial decision. Both letters from Ms. Case are contained in Attachment D. MR.. WILLIAM G. FRANKS, PROPERTY OWNER, 2601 EAST mGHLAND AVENUE (KEN'S UQUOR STORE SITE) Mr. Franks is opposed to the project because his family has owned the liquor store and site for many years. In the past, the store was operated by his family but the business and license were sold in 1980 to another bum",!!ss owner. Mr. Franks is concerned that the transference of the liquor license to another facility will preclude further use of his plCJperty as an off-site alcohol outlet. His concern is valid in that it is unlikely that either the City or ABC will allow the establishment of 2 liquor stores in such close proximity to one another. A copy of Mr. Franks letter is contained in Attachment D. MR.. BRUCE SUB, PROJECT APPUCANT AND BUSINESS OWNER OF KEN'S UQUOR Mr. Sub submitted a letter to the City providing some bv1(g1ound information on why he is interested in constructing and operating his own site. A copy of Mr. Sub's letter is contained in Attachment D. AREA RESIDENTS Two letters in support of the project were submitted to the City of San Bernardino by area residents who live at 26334 21st. Street and 26350 21st. Street; both homes are located in the City of Highland. An anonymous letter in opposition to the project ~ also submitted. The letter indicates that the author resides in the residential neighborhood in the City of Highland. Copies of the letters are contained in Attachment D. OTtll!X COMMENTS Other comments received relate to standard requirements for the project. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 96-06 AND CONDmONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-12 HEARING DATE: Aprll 21, 1997 Page 7 CONCLUSIONS The amendment proposal is not consistent with theGenera1 Plan (Goal IF, Objective 1.6 and Policies 1.6.2 and 1.6.3) as it relates to the control of adversely impacting land uses. The proposed liquor store is not permitted based on the Development Code's 1ocational criteria for ABC off-site outlets. Under the proposed amendment, the new liquor store site would be permitted as a replacement structure for the currently licensed facility because it is located within 75 feet of the existing site. Based on provisions in the Business and Professions Code and the City's Development Code, the existing site could be exempt from the PCN requirement and relicen..... with the same type of ABE license within a 90 days following the transfer of the original ABC license to the proposed site. The amendment proposal and CUP project were found to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines fi15270 which states that environmental documentation is not required in situations where denial of the application is sought. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Planning Commkcion recommend to the Mayor and Common Council: The Denial of Development Code Amendment No. 96-06 and Conditional Use Permit No. 96-12 based on the Findings of Fact (Attachment B). Respectfully submitted, ~~ Planning and Building Services ~Jj,~ AssocilltP. Planner DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 96-06 AND CONDmONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-12 HEARING DATE: April 22, 1997 Page 8 A TI'Ar.HMENTS: A. Site Vicinity Map B. Findings of Fact (DCA and CUP): C. Police DepartmeIlt Memorandums: C-1 Community Services Officer M. SolO (09/10/96) C-2 Lieutenant Mike ~Ue, Area .C. Commander (03/27/97) D. Correspondence: 0-1 City of Higbland. Community Development Department Letter (08/14/96) 0-2 Planning Staff Responses (02106197) 0-3 Ms. Patricia M. Case Letters (02/07/97 and 02110/97) D-4 Mr. William B. Franks Letter (02110/97) D-S Area R~dents' Letters (08121/96 and 02110/97) D-6 Mr. Bruce Sub Letter (02127/97) E. Background Infonnation . ATrACHMENT RBR DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 96-06 & CONDmONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-12 HEARING DATE: April 22, 1997 Pale 2 FINDINGS OF FACT A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 96-06 1. The plOposed amendment is not consistent with the General Plan (Goal IF , Objective 1.6 and Policies 1.6.2 and 1.6.3) in that the control of the development of land uses that may adversely impact the cha.racter of the City and quality of life of its residents are not maintained in that the amendment would result in the establishment of a new off-site facility that is in close proximity to existing residences and an existing off-site outlet. 2. The proposed amendment would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in that it could result in two off-site outlets in close proximity to one another and oversaturation in the area and violates the locational criteria. B. CONDmONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-12 1. The proposed liquor store and lube & tune uses would impair the integrity and character of the CG-l, Commercial General land use designation and complies with all of the applicable provisions of this Development Code in that liquor store uses that do not meet the locational criteria in the Development Code are not permitted. 2. The proposed liquor store use is not consistent with the General Plan in that Policies 1.6.2 and 1.6.3 which require the development of adversely impacting uses be controlled in that the proposed off-site facility is in close proximity to a residence and an existing off-site facility. 3. The denial of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed liquor. store and lube & tune use is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and 119.20.030(6) of the Development Code in that the CEQA GuideHnes 115270 which states that environmental documentation is not required in situations where denial of the application is sought. 4. There will be no potential significant negative impacts upon environmental quality and natural resources, and any potential negative environmental impacts of the liquor store and lube & tune uses would be mitigated by the standards and requirements set forth in ATIACHMENT RBR DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 9(M)6 & CONDmONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-12 HEARING D~TE: April 22, 1997 Page 3 the Development Code and the Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements imposed on the project, if approved. S. The location, size, design, and operating clwacteristics of the proposed liquor store and lube & tune uses are compatible with the existing and future land uses within the general area in which the proposed project is to be located and will not create significant noise, traffic or other conditions or situations that may be objectionable or detrimental to other permitted uses in the vicinity or adverse to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City in that the existing commercial retail and service uses along the Highland Avenue corridor share similar characteristics relating to intensity of use. The nearby single-family and multi-family residential uses are buffered from the proposed uses by the interVening commercial uses or streets and the project is conditioned to construct a block wall on north pu)perty line of the nearest residence. 6. The site is physically suitable for the proposed liquor store and lube & tune uses in that the applicable Development Code standards are met pending approval of the proposed Development Code Amendment to allow the transference of an existing off-site ABC license to a new site within 7S feet of the currently licensed fatility in a commercial designation, and adherence with the Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements. 7. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the ploposed liquor store and lube & tune uses would not be detrimental to public health and safety in that the project has been reviewed by the affected City departments and public agencies. 1- - .rRj ~(i'!ll;r~~rrn ~;C '1 .' 1996 . .J_' .. '1 , ATIAClIMENT C-l l:l;; ...>F SAN BERNA.,.)lNC :J~F;"R7ME:'JT :IF ?LA ~."ING 6- B'Jll..~ii'..G S~R'IICES City of San Bernardino San Bernardino Police Department Interoffice Memorandum To: DEBORAH WOLDRUFF, ASSOCIATE PLANNER From: CSR II M. SOTO ~ Subject: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) NO. 96-12 - ABC REQUEST FOR A TYPE 21 OFF-SALE GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE Date: September 10, 1996 Copies: PROBLEM: On 8-5-96, Associate Planner, Memorandum regarding conditional of Highland and Valaria. Deborah Woldruff, sent me a Use Permit 96-12 for the location RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval for Conditional Use Permit 96-12 is recommended the applicant is subject to the listed conditions. attached conditions.) as long as (Refer to FINDINGS: The location is located within r~porting district SC 627. Stats for 1995 show 42 Part I Crimes and 19 Part II Arrests. This does not place the premise at a 20% greater number of reported crimes tha. the average number of reported crimes as determined from all crime reporting districts within the jurisdiction of the police department. The location; is located in Census Tract 74.05. There are six active off-sale licenses, no pending off-sale licenses and six authorized off-sale licenses. The proposed liquor store building is a replacement facility for the existing liquor store (Ken's Liquor) located west and across Valaria Drive at 2601 E. Highland Ave. This license would be transferred to the new facility. Because of the transfer, this would still put the Census Tract as six active off-sale licenses. ATTJ\.CBMENTS: 1. Conditions. THE SBPD IS COMMITTED TO PROVIDING: PROGRESSIVE QUALITY POLICE SERVICE; A SAFE ENVIRONMENT TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE; , ~,DUCTIDN J_ CRI", THROUGH PROBLEM RECOGNITION AND PROBLEM SOLVING CONDITIONS Highland/valaria 1. The licensee shall be responsible for posting of signs prohibiting litter and loitering, with management enforcing this and maintaining the area free of litter and graffiti. 2. Exterior lighting shall be sufficiently and properly maintained to illuminate all areas of the exterior of the building and property for easy detection of suspicious and criminal activity. 3. No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the licensee. 4. Beer, malt beverages and wine coolers in containers of 16oz. or less cannot be sold by single containers, but must be sold in manufacturer pre-packaged multi-unit quantities. 5. If public telephones are located on the premises, they shall be fixed for outgoing calls only. 6. If, in the opinion of the Chief of police, a security guard becomes necessary, it shall be the responsibility of the licensee to provide the security at the hours to be listed by the Chief of Police. fD)~.~~Q~~~\ ~J rlk;, ,,: \:;;,{ l!V San CITY OF S,"'" BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING &' BUILDING SERVICES ATTACHMENT C-2 Ci ty of San Bernardino Bernardino police Department Interoffice Memorandum Prom: Deborah Woldruff, Associate planner Lt. Mike Gile, Area "C" Commander l' To: Subject: Development Code Pmt #96-06 Conditional Use Pmt #96-12 Date: March 27, 1997 Copies: File On or about August 29, 1997, the police Department submitted comments reference the planned development at the intersection of Highland Avenue and Valaria Drive (Development Code Pmt #96-06, Conditional Use Pmt #96-12). At that time, the Police Department was not opposed to the plan and recommended several conditions. The plan, as was understood, involved the construction of a liquor store at the southeast corner, vacating the present one at the southwest corner. The holder of the license would transfer operation from the southwest site to the newly constructed southeast site. It was further understood that another liquor store, i.e., off-sale general liquor license holder, could not move in and conduct business in the building on the southwest corner. This was due to the "undue concentration" restrictions. The Police Department is now informed that after review of section 23958.4 of the Business and Professions Code by the City Attorney's office, another person could operate another business involving an off-sale general liquor license at the vacated building. This person would have 90 days from the time the present license ceased being used at the southwest site (Ken's Liquor) in which to obtain another license. With the possibility of having two Type 21, Off-Sale General Liquor License businesses operating at this intersection, one on the southwest corner (Present Ken's Liquor Store) and the proposed building on the southeast corner, the police Department now is OPPOSED to the approval of this application. In addition,located just east of the proposed site is the Brass Key Dinner House. If the application is approved, there would be three locations selling alcoholic beverages in the same vicinity. THE SBPO IS COIIIITTED TO PROVIDING: PROGRESSIVE _LITY POLICE SERVICE; A SAFE ENYIR_NT TO II.ROVE THE _LITY OF LIFE; A REDUCTION IN CRIME THROUGH PROBLEM RECOGNITION AND PROBLEM SOLVING ATTACHMENT D-l Q~. ~'i( , ~ Ine. 1987 ~ o'-'l!S'JP ~rEmJ;nWl];m' 'oJ J~UG 1 ; 1996 City of IDG .::,: -;; ..)F SAN SEP" ", JEPAii7~.~E~'IT ," ......:.,. B. -- '- - . -. ." 26985 Base Line -iighland. CA 92346 (909) 864-6861 ;:AA (909) 862.3180 City Council Dennis Johnson Mayor Ray Rucker Mayor Pro-Tern Jody Scott John R. Starbuck Timmer ..a_g., Sam J. Racadio ~C: ~ August 14, 1996 Ms. Deborah Wold ruff City of San Bernardino Planning Department 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Re: Preliminary Comments on Conditional Use Permit No. 96-12 Dear Deborah: The following are the City's preliminary comments regarding Conditional Use Permit No. 96-12 for a proposed liquor store and automotive repair facility at the southeast comer of Val aria Drive and Highland Avenue: 1. Currently there is an existing liquor store "Ken's liquor" at the southwest corner of Valaria Drive and Highland Avenue, the proposed liquor store would be at the southeast comer, this would present the possibility of two liquor stores on adjacent street comers. liquor stores can create negative secondary side effects such as an increase in crime. The Arden/Guthrie apartment complex, which over the past twelve years has experienced serious deterioration, blight and crime, lies to the west of the proposed liquor store. Because of the continuing blight and crime within that complex and the surrounding neighborhoods, does the City of San Bernardino have a concern about a concentration of ABC licenses that may lead to an increase in crime within the area. If this application proceeds, the City of Highland will file a letter of protest with the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board regarding the possibility of having two liquor stores on adjacent street corners. As well, given the City of San Bernardino's and other public agencies, expenditure of time and money to reverse the deteriorating conditions within the Arden/Guthrie area is there a concern the proposed liquor store may lead to additional blight. There is a possibility that Ken's liquor might become a vacant building if the second liquor store is permitted. There are already numerous vacant suites within the commercial strip center north of the proposed site along Highland Avenue. Would a second liquor store lead to a further negative perception of the neighborhood and affect both surrounding property values and the reuse of vacant commercial buildings in the vicinity? Would the City of San Bemardino control the liquor store's hours of operation or require additional security lighting or security cameras on the site? If security lighting was installed would it be screened and directed away from the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Would the roof tops be secured from graffiti vandals? 2. The proposed site is bounded by the City of Highland along its southem boundary. There are existing single family homes opposite the dedicated public alley south of the site. These homes are within an R-1 Zoning District. Does the City of San Bemardino have any regulations or restrictions about locating a liquor store or any commercial use adjacent to residential land uses or residential zoning? Would the applicant be required to provide some form of buffer between the proposed commercial use and the existing single family homes? If this application proceeds, will the City of San Bemardino notify the adjacent Highland homeowners and request their comments about the possibility of a second liquor store in their neighborhood and the proposed commercial use of the site. 3. A dedicated public alley way lies along the southem boundary of the proposed site. That alley provides secondary access to an existing restaurantlbar to the east of the proposed site and access to the backyards of three single family residences that front onto 21st Street. As shown on the proposed Site Plan, the building footprint for the automotive repair facility is proposed to be seven (7) feet from the southem property line and the dedicated public alley. The building is proposed to have service bay doors and a driveway approach fronting onto the alley. Given the standard length of a compact car is twelve to fourteen feet and a full sized car is sixteen to seventeen, is there a concem about vehicles undergoing repair extending into the public alley. These types of facilities typical .stack. vehicles waiting for repairs, at their service bay doors, this may lead to the public alley continually being blocked by vehicles waiting for repair or waiting for pick up. Would the Fire Department have a concern about the public alley being blocked with vehicles? As well, if the proposed secondary service bay doors were to be allowed, they will expose the homeowners south of the site to noise from inside the vehicle repair facility. Given the potential from the problems outlined above, the City asks that the service bay doors, fronting on the alley, be eliminated along with the driveway approach along the rear of the building. 4. Regarding the second proposed driveway approach onto the alley, if the project was approved with this driveway approach the City Engineer will request that the entire width of the alley be repaired and resurfaced with new asphalt. The repair and new asphalt would extend from the site's eastern boundary to Valerie Drive. 5. All run off (rain water, nuisance water, etc.) from within the building footprint of the vehicle repair facility should be routed through a pollution control device and then routed to the sewer. This is to eliminate the possibility of contaminated water or hazardous materials getting into storm drains. 6. As currently drawn on the Site Plan the sidewalk along Valerie Drive ends at the curb on the public alley. The sidewalk should be designed to continue around the corner and slope down to be flush with the pavement of the alley. This would provide accessibility to the sidewalk for the disabled. 7. Does the City of San Bernardino designate Highland Avenue as a major highway? If so, shouldn't the ultimate right-of-way width be fifty-two (52) feet with curb face at forty (40) feet, not the fifty (50) feet and thirty-eight (38) shown on the Site Plan. 8. As proposed on the building elevations, the buildings are to be concrete- block and have virtually no architectural treatments other than a minor amount of stucco trim and backlit awnings. The eastern wall of the proposed liquor store would be more than seventeen (17) feet high by seventy-eight (78) long creating a blank 1,326 square foot wall exposed to the patrons of the adjoining restaurantlbar and traffic along Highland Avenue. As well, the proposed vehicle repair building would present a wall nineteen (19) feet high by fifty-nine (59) feet in length, creating a 1,121 square foot wall. Is there any concern about screening these walls, possibly with landscaping, to present a more pleasant appearance and reduce the high probability of graffiti vandalism? Other buildings along this section of Highland Avenue are constant targets of graffiti vandalism. 9. Any roof mounted air<onditioning units or utility boxes should be screened from view on all four sides. 10. How many signs would be permitted on the site and how large can they be. Could a sign be painted on the eastern side of the liquor store? 11. Will the roof parapets be finished on all exposed sides? 12. The liquor store has virtually no landscaping adjacent to the building. Could space for landscaping be added between the sidewalk and building to soften the appearance of the building? 13. What type of landscaping would be installed along Valerie Drive and Highland Avenue? Would this consist of sod and ground cover or would the applicant also be required to install shrubs and trees? 14. Would the applicant be required to underground any existing overhead utility lines either on or adjacent to the property? 15. Would the existing billboard sign on the northern side of the proposed liquor store interfere with the design of the building? It seems the sign would be in the middle of the window and may extend into the awning. 16. Would the applicant/property owner be required to provide ongoing maintenance of the landscaping within the public right-of-way? The following are general comments and questions I have regarding the application. Is Mr. Suh the property owner? Our records show a Mr. & Mrs. Reams of Rolling Hills Estates as the property owners. Also, the Assessors' Parcel No. listed on the Site Plan is incorrect, it should be 286-031-30. If you have any questions about the City's comments please call me at (909) 864-8732, extension 209. Sincerely, ~~\\\~ Bruce Meikle Associate Planner cc: Rick C. Hartmann, Community Development Director Ernie Wong, City Engineer Steve Walker, City Planner Linda McKeough, Community Development Secretary ATIACHMENT D-2 CITY OF San Bernardino DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDINC SERVICES MICHAEL E HAYS o 1 R E C TOR February 6, 1997 Mr. Bruce Meikle, Associate Planner City of Highland Community Development Department 26985 Base Line Highland, California 92346 RE: Development Code Amendment (DCA) No. 96-06 & Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 96-12 - Response to Comments of August 14, 1996 Dear Mr. Meikle: Thank you for your comments on the above referenced CUP project. Shortly after we received your letter, the applicant requested that the project be placed on inactive status so that project constraints relating to the site location could be addressed. On November 22, 1997, the applicant submitted Development Code Amendment No. 96-06, a request to amend Development Code ~19.06.030(2)(B) to allow the transference of an existing off-site ABC License to a new site within 75 feet of the currently licensed facility in a commercial designation. Project processing was resumed in November and on December 19, 1996, the Development Review Committee cleared the project to the City's plannil1g Commission. The project is on the Planning Commission agenda for February 18, 1997. The meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. in the Economic Development Agency's Board Room which is located on the third floor of 201 North "E" Street, San Bernardino, California. The Staff Report will not be available until sometime next week; however, a copy will be available to you after it is signed by the Director. Staff has prepared the following responses to your comments: 1. The City is viewing the proposed liquor store as a replacement facility for the existing liquor store located at 2601 East Highland Avenue. The current ABC Type 21 General Liquor License would be transferred to the new facility. Regardless of the outcome for the proposed project, the City will only allow one off-site alcohol license in the area. 300 NORTH 'D' STREET, SAN BERNARDINO. C A L I FOR N I A g 2 . I . . 0 0 0 1 (10' J "" e 1.7 1 II . . 7 . FAX (10') ,... . I 0 . 0 1- Mr. Bruce Meikle Letter (Continued) RE: DCA No. 96-06 & CUP No. 96-12... February 6, 1997 Page 2 The liquor store use exists in the neighborhood and moving it to the new site across Valaria Drive will not create any new impacts related to the alcohol use. The project site and buildings have been reviewed by all affected City departments and agencies for compliance with the Development Code standards for the CG-1 district. The project will provide the area and store patrons with a new facility and a more attractive and secure site. The City's Police Department has reviewed the project and recommends approval subject to Conditions of Approval. Security on the site is addressed in the Police Department's Conditions. The hours of operation for the proposed liquor store are from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. If the project is approved and constrUcted, the existing facility will be vacant unless reoccupied by a new tenant with a commercial retail, office or service use in compliance with the CG-1 zoning. 2. The City's Development Code prohibits the establishment of off-site facilities within 100 feet of any property designated for residentia1 use or used for residentia1 purposes. The applicant has requested a Development Code Amendment (DCA No. 96-06) to allow the transference of an existing off-site ABC License to a new site within 75 feet of the currently licensed facility in a commercial designation lfil9.06.030(2)(B)). Replacement facilities that meet the locational criteria of 75 feet would be exempt from the residential and other locational criteria. The project site plan indicates that the lube & tune building is located near the south end of the site and not the liquor store. Project phasing is such that the liquor store and all site improvements would be constrUcted as Phase 1 with the lube & tune building being constrUcted later as Phase 2. It should be noted that the lube & tune use does not involve auto repair (engine or body work). The site has access from Highland Avenue and Valaria Drive and access from the alley will most likely be infrequent and limited to the lube & tune. The project applicant has agreed to construct a block wall along the southern right-of-way of the alley. Conditions of Approval require that a Building Permit for the wall be obtained from the City of Highland since the southern half of the alley is in the City of Highland. 3. As stated, the alley is bisected along the centerline by the City of San Bernardino/City of Highland jurisdictional boundaries. Stacking (queuing) for the service bays is included as part of the site design and a Condition of Approval prohibits vehicle stacking or parking in the alley. The CG-1 zoning does not allow outdoor uses and all activities associated with the lube & tune will be confmed to the building's service bays. The . Mr. Bruce Meikle Letter (Continued) RE: DCA No. 96-06 & CUP No. 96-12... February 6, 1997 Page 3 City's Fire Depanment has reviewed the project and submitted their Standard Requirements. 4. The Public Works Depanment has indicated that for the City of San Bernardino's portion of the alley, maintenance is the responsibility of the jurisdiction. As repairs are required, they should be completed by the respective jurisdiction. Traffic generated by the project will not adversely impact the alley to the extent that it will require new pavement or an improved structural section. 5. &6. These issues have been addressed through project review and included in the Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements for the project. 7. Hig/1land Avenue is designated as a major arterial on the City's Circulation Plan. Prior to the completion of SR-30 Freeway, the road was designated as SR-30. The ultimate right-of-way on Highland Avenue for this project has been determined to be adequate by the City's Public Works Depanment. 8. & 9. The project has been reviewed and found to be in compliance with the City's development standards and design guidelines. 10. Signage is processed through a separate permit process that generally occurs concurrent with the Building Permit process. The City's Sign Code allows up to a maximum of 2 wall signs per business in multi-tenant centers (one sign per street or parking lot frontage). One of the signs may be placed on the rear of the building when there is a rear public entrance onto a parking lot or street. Sign area is calculated by multiplying 1.5 square feet times the lineal dimension of the building face. The maximum allowable sign area allowed for wall signs is 75 square feet; wall signs on the rear face of buildings are limited to a maximum sign area of 50 square feet. Neither the retail center nor the individual businesses will be allowed monument signs because the site does not meet the minimum frontage requirement. 11. The roof parapets will be fmished on all exposed sides. 12. & 13. The site plan includes 25.8% landscaping which exceeds the City's minimum requirement of 15 %. Site design does not include landscaping adjacent to the liquor store. The purpose of this is preclude any hiding areas around the building for improved site security. The landscaping along Highland A venue will be required to meet the City's standard requirements in terms of tree and shrub size, species mix and placement. Mr. Bruce Meikle Letter (Continued) RE: DCA No. 96-06 & CUP No. 96-12... February 6, 1997 Page 4 14. The project site is less than an acre in size and therefore is exempt from the City's utility undergrounding requirement. 15. The existing billboard is not located on the project site and is not part of the project or subject to requirements of the project. 16. The applicant will be required to provide ongoing maintenance of the landscaping within the public right-of-way. Please feel free to contact me at (909) 384-5057 if you any questions about the project or the preceding responses to your comments. QSincere~y, .). ~fr-- 1~ R.-{:1;Y{ih [, l; t-'t'&'Nt I Deborah W oldruff Associate Planner cc: Mr. Bruce Sub Ken's Liquor 2601 East Highland Avenue Highland, California 92346 Elliott Shaw Integra Engineering, Inc. 621 East Carnegie Lane, #120 San Bernardino, CA 92408 Sandra Paulsen, Senior Planner I -~ , lO) [g@[gOWlsf[)' ln1 FES 1 0 1997 ~ ATIACHMENf D-3 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & BUILDING SERVICES 2649 E. Highland Ave. Highland, CA 92346 2/07/97 Planning & Building San Bernardino City 300 No. "D" St. San Bernardino, CA Services Dept. Hall 92418 Ref: DCA No. 96-06 & CUP No. 96-12 (DW) Gentlemen: I am in opposition to the above referenced proposal for the following reasons: 1. As the owner of the Brass Key at 2649 E. Highland Ave. which abuts this property I feel a Liquor Store in such close proximity would be a definite detriment to my business. 2. A Liquor Store located beside tne Brass Key in my estimation would decrease the value of my property. 3. My Restaurant serves alcohol as well as food. I question the legality as well as propriety of "side by side" liquor sales. 4. I have worked constantly to up-grade the Brass Key and be a credit to our Community since buying it three years ago. At this time I am enjoying a very good reputation at this location. I do not want to lose it. I will appreciate your review of the above and denial of this requested Amendment to permit construction of a Liquor Store beside my property. Thank you for your attention. very truly yours, P & W Inc. dba BRASS KE~ ~~~M. rl/ Patricia M. Case, President 2649 E. Highland Ave. Highland, CA 92346 2/10/97 Deborah Woldruff City of San Bernardino Dept. of planning & Building Services 300 No. "D" St. San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 Ref: Your letter of 2/6/97, CUP 96-12 Dear Ms WOldruff, I authorize Jey E. Younger III, Real Estate Appraiser and Consultant access to all background information in the above referenced letter. Mr. Younger is authorized to review the CUP, available building plans and any related data in possession of the Department of Planning & Building Services. Please be advised, it is my contention that a prescriptive easement exists for the approximate 6 1/2 feet encroachment on the adjacent parcel. This property has been openly and notoriously occupied for more than 20 years. The property has never been posted nor have we or previous owners been asked (until recently) to vacate the encroachment. Very truly yours, Q;~7c (1_ I patricia M. Case, Owner 1 0 !9~~ H'J / CITY OF BERNARDINO T OF PLANNING &. ING SERVICES rD)rn~rnow[g'D' ln1 FEB 10 1991 l!lj CITY OF SAN ~ DEPARTMBI1' OF PINlI_1G . Bll...&l'IG _'1leES ATIACHMENT D-4 William G. Franks 6538 Valaria Drive, Highland, CA 92346 909-425-0801 February 10, 1997 rD)~@~DW~~ lrU FEB 1 11997 \YJ Planning and Building Services Dept. San Bernardino City Hall 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING. IUILl)ING SERVICES SUBJECT: Development Code Amendment No. 96-06 and Conditiooal Use Pennit No. 96-12 In regards to the above request concerning transferring the ABC Liquor License from 2601 E. Highland Avenue, San Bernardino, CA to a proposed new facility to be located across the street at 2627 E. Highland Avenue, San Bernardino please consider this our protest letter. To give a little background regarding the Franks' family and the liquor store building located at 2601 E. Highland Avenue, San Bernardino and the reason for the protest please know that my father, the late Virgil Franks, owned the second oldest liquor license in San Bernardino. It was purchased in 1951 where it was located at Mission Liquors on Mt. V emon Avenue. The license was then transferred to Virg Franks Liquors which was located at the comer of Sepulveda and Highland Avenue until 1960 when he built a new building located at 2601 E. Highland Avenue, located then in the county and called Highland. The business was called V & E Liquors. The only other buildings out there, surrounded by orange groves, were Patton State Hospital and George Foster's INCa gasoline station located on the comer of what is now known as Arden and Highland Avenue. My mother, Evelyn M. Franks, and my father worked as partners in the business which had not only liquor. The store was also a market providing the neighborhoods and employees of Patton State Hospital with groceries, sodas, ice, beer and wine and very friendly service. We extended credit to neighbors who were struggling and to the Indians of San Manuel Reservation. They were lean years for the first four or five years. But it was the neighbors and the Indians that helped it to grow and prosper as did the area surrounding the store. My parents had been in the family owned and operated business for 41 years. They were very well known contributing members of the community. The license and inventory was sold in 1980 to gentlemen who renamed the store Ken's Liquor. They were there five years and resold the license and inventory to Bruce Sub. Mr. Sub signed a 10-year lease on the building with my mother and father which expires January 1, 1999. It has been very difficult having Mr. Sub as a tenant. He is an extremely unfriendly man, rude to the neighbors and customers, and does not contribute to the community. He does not maintain the Planning and Building Services Dept. Page 2 February 10, 1997 facility leased by him Le., washing windows and doors, pulling weeds, cleaning the sidewalks and has been in default of the terms of his lease several times. The signs he owns have fallen into disrepair. All supplemental papers i.e., Green Sheet and rental booklets that are put in front of the store blow away and allover the neighborhood. He does not make any attempt to clean any of it up. There have been two killings and one injury, all shootings, since Mr. Sub has been at this location. He did shoot and kill a young man stealing his cash register and shot up the car of the driver in the parking lot. There was the shooting of a young man at the phones located in front of the store which encouraged gang activity and graftitti. The phones have since been moved away from the store. There was a man found shot to death in a car behind the business three years ago. Case is unsolved, I believe. Before he took over the lease there was never any trouble like that. Pleae be advised that since the building was initially built to be a liquor store, and has been one for the last 37 years, my family has every intention of keeping it a liquor store. I plan on, when Mr. Sub's lease is up and ifhe does not wish to renegotiate a new lease, to lease the property to another liquor license or I have every intention of purchasing a liquor license myself and go back into the liquor store business. This is now my mother's only livelihood. It was intended as such when my family purchased the property and built on it. My father worked hard to have the the store property and the home he owned behind the store to be annexed into the City of San Bernardino. He felt it was important to be in the City of San Bernardino as he was a strong supporter of our Mayors and City Councils. I will not let our building become one of hundreds of empty buildings now plaguing our city. In talking with Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner, and after my family's research it has come to light that the information on the Official Notice of Public Hearing Report and the Site Plan and Preliminary Grading Plan for the Conditional Use Permit 96-12 seems to be in error. Mr. Sub is listed as owner/developer when in fact an offer has been made on the property which is in escrow with the sale of the property contingent upon him receiving the permit. The real developer, as I understand, is Elliott Shaw of San Bernardino. I thought it was iilega! until the sale clears escrow to list yourself as owner/developer and that if Mr. Sub listed himself as such would have had to post a bond. My mother and I thank you in advance for listening to our concerns regarding this matter. Sincerely, "'lli~OF44bV..:" ~ yJ::rMF;:"')( 1/ ~'/~ y I /JJ/~ f'"ddlfY ATIACHMENT D-5 rRi 11 , " 7 1CQE -~- r[)': ~ ~ ;; r' fir ~ .: SA~J 6E:: August 21, 1996 Planning Department City of San Bernardino 300 North -D- Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 We are aware of the proposed construction of a liquor store and a Lube'n Tune on the southeast corner of Highland Avenue and Valaria Drive. We understand Mr. Suh, the owner, will be moving his license from his present business on the southwest corner of Highland Avenue and Valaria Drive across the street to the new site. We have no objection to the project as presented. Sincerely, 9tJ71~d)) f Jft- (Signature) 1r d. ~3 SO ~l ~D...-J~J~Y c.. (Address) fQ) ~ I"l ~ - 0' ~ fm , ir!! ! 1996 , SAN BEo ._,'.", ," , c Auqust 21, 1996 Planning Department City of San Bernardino 300 Horth "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 We are aware of the proposed construction of a liquor store and a Lube'n TUne on the southeast corner of Highland Avenue and Valaria Drive. We understand Mr. Suh, the owner, will be moving his license from his present business on the south_st corner of Highland Avenue and Valaria Drive across the street to the new site. We have no objection to the project as presented. Sincerely, l)CAq'-or./~ "'-12- rD)rn@rno\Y7rn~ !J1) MAR 1 7 1997 l!V CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & . BUILDING SERVICES ,;t--/~ - p '7 A <<-1.... ~/74-za <<.-..- I ~~~.4P~~#tc~-&=~ ~ ~~~~~. . --- .----- ..)t- ~-o~~_d~__~~p ___P'_ ---- _.0 - ._.. -~ -- - ~oo_ -~--"7 - -~~_.tZ:.J_.~-= ~~~.-.-..- PH ~ --30''1~_'''-O~__~O''~_/~__/~-/''__'_' ~~~ ~ ~~~-Aa'--.. ~ .z;d..e- ~~. 7~~ ~~ ____:,_ ~ ~ ~ '7 ~ .:rl"....,.. ~ ~ ~ A-<-~ ~~..zk ~-.;te- . ~~~-d.-~~ _~--')e ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ..h~ ~ J2.:r j,Aa- ~~-.&-~ ' ~~~~~~~~ .~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ...4-~A:F~ ~ ~~ ~~~ . erL ~~~~ ~ t~ ~ th ~ ~ ~~o( 4<fle~~ ' ~ ~, ~ "~..& ~..A~~e.c..z -=/ ~...e~ ~~ . ) .)t-~~~4-t~~4--P ~ ~ .6j ~ hhLr1t'~~~~~~ " ~ ~-6-< 4~~...~.,,~...> -\ I ..~. - ..- -. - - --.... - ~~~~~~ ~ ~ /U'u .~ -7' /~ . ~. u-~ ~e;o ~~-a-.t~ ~.~~~ u~dt;;;~ .-Rd~~~~ ~... ... ~.~ . ..~.~_._.. ._.~.__..... ....--- ...-- h_h. . . . . '. _.~-:z:;~~~-.- ---.------ 'dd. ~~...d ....zz_ ...... ~~~4 /l-&C~ /dF.-a..~ . fi~~ ~A~, ~~k-~~~~ A-~~A~~~ ~~/~~~L~ n. ~7/~~~ ~~T ~.A'1&~ ~ ~ ~ ~-ol.~ ~~~. ~ t"J~~:_ ~ ~ ~ --~-.~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ tk ~~ ~a7~/ ~~ ~~ ~-4- .. ~ az.ee ~ iLa:.tt1 .de . ~ c::; ~ ~~ ~ - - ~~ ~ )~~/~ ~~~~~ r~~~~~. ..,'_ .._.... ..u. . - -- --- - I ---------- ~- -- '. ~r~~~~~ ~ /~ A(/tU~- -7 ~,/ o:d~ ~ ~- ~~./tl~~.~ ~~~.~-A-~~~ I~ ~~~~~~.~ I _ ._.._~-~~ ... ..._. .__ .1;- ~1-~ ~"'''''-~~ ~..~-,. '-c d~'z~~'rh~'-~-7~. ~~~~ ~ ~:/2~e~t1Z_~~_r ~~ ~~%~-'~ _......e~ ~~~~~~#-~ , ~ ~~~&(~ ~ vJ-~k-~ "/~ .~....~..;(. - -.. .....4-<./ -BL~, _ -n:~~r~ - t? (b,~ ~5~ ~ February 27, 1997 fD)~~rnowrn~ In) MAR C 3 1997 10 ATI'ACHMENT D-6 CITY OF SA,~ SERNAROINO OEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & 3UILOING SEwrCES Mr. Mike Hays, Director Planning, Building & Safety City of San Bernardino 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Dear Mr. Hays: My name is Bruce Suh. My business, Ken's Liquor, is located at 2601 East Highland Avenue, in the City of San Bernardino. I started this business in December, 1989. I filed for DCA 96-06 and CUP 96-12, in July 18, 1996, and would like to tell you why I made this application in spite of bad economic conditions in our area. 1. My current the first following: A. The opening of Freeway 30, which customers use going to Running Springs and Big Bear, has reduced the traffic flow by 90%t. sales volume is approximately 43% less than five years in business because of the B. The opening of Food 4 Less one-quarter mile east of my business. C. About three years ago, about one-quarter mile west, Texaco gas station was converted to a convenience store that sells beer, wine and groceries. D. There is a new Chevron gas station with a con- venience market under construction across from the Texaco station. E. In my business area, there are properties which may further compete business. many vacant with my 2. My landlord, Mr. Frank, is causing me problems because of the following: A. Mr. Frank wants to raise rent in spite of reduced sales and volume. Mr. Mike Hays February 27, 1997 Page 2 B. Mr. Frank apparently has no permanent job. Three years ago his father passed away, and he immediately moved to his father's house directly behind my business. Many days he walks around my business and will enter the store and bother me while I am trying to conduct my business. For example, he said I can't put my sales signs in the windows or other places. He also had my public outside telephone changed from my name to his without my knowledge. This resulted in a loss of $30.00t per month income. He has also installed a chain link fence in the southern portion of my lease area and added a 300 SFt building behind the liquor store within this fenced area without my permission. He took out an old compressor and installed a new com- pressor and said that I owe him $2,400.00. Be removed a neon sign for "Ken's Liquor" one year ago for sandblasting and painting, but he has only sandblasted the building, not repainted. I have no idea where the neon sign is. C. Normal cost for rental fee per month is 3% to 4% of the gross sales. My current fixed lease agreement calls for 7.2% because of my reduced gross sales. D. Mr. Frank has informed me that should I wish to re-lease this property after January, 1999, when my current lease expires, he wants 10% of my gross sales for rent. E. Approximately 1~ years ago I attempted to sell my liquor license, my inventory and the remaining time on my lease to a prospective buyer for one- third of the price I paid for it six years ago. Nobody would buy because of the temperament of Mr. Frank and the conditions of the lease. 3. Because of the situation as described above, I decided to purchase the adjacent property to build my own building for my business which would help me achieve the goals of my American dream since I became an American citizen in 1986. Mr. Mike Hays February 27, 1997 Page 3 In the sixteen years that I have lived in America, I have worked approximately 12 hours per day without one day off work. Once you approve my project, and I complete construction of my new building, it will be a state of the art liquor store which will provide more items and better service to my customers. The existing building is old and lacks landscaping, lighted and proper parking to achieve my goals. This is my first experience in processing a project through the City. I want to thank you and your staff for all of your assistance. Sincerely, Bruce Suh P.S. If my landlord thinks I am a bad person and a poor tenant, why is he writing a letter against this project? BS:ES/ts CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO .A~~:fWlAtltrlfJtAN~ Mev &II~ 1~1 '~- .._-~ fD) rn@rnowrnfj)\ ~. JUN 1 0 1997 l!!J RECEIVED-ell'! CLEP~ 65g'l VlllllIlllDrlvQ Highlllnd, Clllffotnl1l9Zg46 '97 JJN 10 All :23 June 5, 1997 Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner Planning & Building Services Dept 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, California 9241 g Dear Deborah: . I SUBJECT: Development Code Amendment No. 96-06 and Conditional Use Permit No. 96-12 Please find enclosed a copy of the letter I have sent to Norine Miller, Councilwoman. I appreciate all of your help and attention to this matter concerning our property located at 2601 E. Highland Avenue, San Bernardino, California. Enclosure . #~C! C//tPjcI1 I. \ . . . ~- WIlLIAM G. FRANKS 6538 Valaria Drive Highland, California 92346 June 5, 1997 Norine Miller, Councilwoman San Bernardino City Hall Council Chambers 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Dear Mrs. Miller: SUBJECT: Development Code Amendment No. 96-06 and Conditional Use Permit No. 96-12. I am writing to you in regards to the above mentioned matter that will be coming before the City Council on Monday, June 16, 1997. My family has owned the property more recently known as "Ken's Liquor" at 2601 E. Highland Avenue, San Bernardino since 1959. For an interesting history please read the attached letter. A liquor store was built and opened on the property in 1960 and has continued to operate as such. The current tenant, Mr. Sub, now wants to build a new liquor store across the street. Both buildings would be on the south side of the street just feet from each other. I cannot conceive that anyone in the City of San Bernardino wishes to see another empty building on a major thoroughfare. I have every intention of either releasing to another liquor license or to take the building back myself and putting in another liquor license when Mr. Sub leaves. I feel very strongly that a long family history of doing business in the City of San Bernardino should count for something. I feel very strongly that there be positives said about the City of San Bernardino and not the negatives that Mr. Sub insists on. He feels that everyone has been out to get him. CalTrans put in the new freeway taking all the traffic away from his business. He is upset that the city allowed the Texaco and Chevron gasoline stations to go in and put in convenience markets in direct competition with him. Yet, he is not business friendly at all. He never has any lights on inside the \ . . . Norine Miller, Councilwoman Page 2 June 5, 1997 building during the day. He never picks up trash on the property. He has let his signs fall into despicable disrepair. Now he wants to put in a new building to run exactly the same way. Please look closely into this matter for me. I thank you so much for your help. Sincerely, William G. Franks Evelyn M. Franks Enclosure June 12, 1997 Page Five well suited for the convenience market and auto lube facility which Mr. Suh proposes. The current site is old and not well-maintained by the party responsible for maintaining it. My client purchased this business and the lease for $300,000. When the father of Mr. Franks originally sold his business, his son apparently was not interested in operating the business. However, now he claims he is and he is attempting to run my client out of business. My client has worked at this business for 16 years without a vacation to earn a living, run a successful business and make payments on his purchase. The only persons who object to the business are the landlord, who has motives other than the community's interest, and competing buyers who need or want a parking lot. The likelihood that the current landlord will be able to purchase a liquor license within 90 days is slim, particularly if my client continues to be obligated under his lease to pay rent on the site after the new site is operating. Were it not for these empty threats of the landlord, we believe the Planning Commission would have approved the project and that both the Police Department and Planning Staff would have recommended approval as well. We urge the City Council not to allow the City to be cowed and threatened in this manner and to approve this project which will result in an attractive development on otherwise vacant land. Thank you for your curtesy and cooperation. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICE OF ~HIA LUDVIGSE CYN LUDVI CL/tr cc: Bruce Suh Elliott Shaw Henry Empeno Michael Hayes Deborah Woldruff Refer/Suhcoun.ltr ATI'ACHMENT wEw DCA NO. 96-06/CUP NO. 96-U HEARING DATE: April 21, 1997 Page 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION (DCA NO. 96-06/CUP NO. 96-U) During staffs teView of the application submittals, it was noted that the existing site (2601 East Highland Avenue) was established in 1960 in the County of San Bernardino and does not appear to have a CUP for a liquor store. (The area was annexed to the City in 1972.) As a point of reference, CUPs for alcohol outlets (and other types of conditional uses) run with the land and cannot be moved to a new location. Conversely, ABC alcohol licenses can be transferred from person to person and/or from site to site; On August 8, 1996, CUP No. 96-12 was teViewed by the DevelopmentlEnvironmental Review Committee (D/ERC). The DRC continued the project to the August 22, 1996 meeting so the applicant could resolve the project's conflict with the Development Code provisions for ABC off-site outlets. On August 22, 1996, the applicant requested that the project be continued to the October 3, 1996 meeting. At the October 3, 1996 meeting, the project was continued indefinitely. During that time, Planning staff and the applicant continued to work toWard a solution for the project's conflict with the Development Code provisions. Planning staff also contacted the California Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) to find out if the existing facility (Ken's Liquor, 2601 East Highland Avenue) could be re1icell-' following the proposed tranSfer of the ABC Type 21 Liquor License to the new facility. ABC's verbal response was that this could not happen because re1icensing the existing facility would require the City's approval of a determination of Public Convenience and/or Necessity (PeN) for a new license. The applicant submitted a Development Code Amendment (DCA No. 96-06) on November 22, 1996 and Planning staff resumed project ~.c;ng. All elements of the project and the amendment were teViewed by the DRC at their meeting of December 19, 1996. At that meeting, the DRC recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the Mayor and Common Council the approval of DCA No. 96-06 and CUP No. 96-12. The project was scheduled for Planning Commission teView on February 18, 1997. Prior to the hearing, the City Attorney's Office informed Planning staff of a provision in the Business And Professions Code li23958.4(f)] that would exempt the existing facility from the PCN requirement. The provision states that: -This section shall not apply if the prerni_ have been licensed and operated with the same type license within 90 days of the application. - Effectively, approval of the ploposed amendment and CUP project could result in two off-site sales facilities within 75 feet of each other. 1- ~ ATl'ACHMENT WEft DCA NO. 96-06/CUP NO. 96-12 HEARING DATE: April 12, 1997 Pale 1 In a telephone conversation of February 14, 1997, ABC staff confirmed that this scenario is possible given the provision cited and the nonconforming structure and use provisions in the Development Code. The Development Code allows the reestablishment of a nonconforming use within 12 calendar months following the discontinuance of the use. (Within the lint 3 calendar months of the 12 month period, the existing facility would be exempt from the PCN requirement. After that, a PCN determination would be required.) The existing site, 2601 East Higt.ll1nd Avenue, is legal nonconforming because it was established prior to the adoption of the Development Code in 1991 and without an approved Conditional Use Permit. ! I Cynthia ludvigsen I,! !i , ii I I, II Ii I I I I I - I I I ! i I I I' II I I \ I ,I II , La'" Office of EXlHBIT "3" HAND DELIVERED m\}.~\}.~~\}.~ \1\1 ~V9. 1 \ 'f1Jl ,.,,0*10 f s,,~ 1E~~,tlG .. C'~f,I41 Of ""ICES of.P 'IlI\.O\MG SE P.O. Box 409 398 W. Fourth Street, Suite #203 San Bernardino, CA 92402-0409 909-885-6820 FAX 909-885-6976 April 21, 1997 Planning Commission City of San Bernardino 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 Re: Development Code Amendment No. 96-06 Conditional Use Permit 96-12 Ladies & Gentlemen: I represent Bruce Suh, the applicant in the above matters, and the operator of Ken's Liquor Store, which is across the street from the site for which the above applications have been made. Both the Planning Staff and the City police Department originally recommended approval of these applications, but changed those recommendations based upon a concern that my client's current landlord could obtain an off-site license for his building without City approval, thus resulting in two liquor stores across the street from one another. According to planning staff, based upon discussions with representatives of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, the current landlord, William Franks, could, under current ABC rules and the City's nonconforming use rules, purchase a similar license and not be subject to the undue concentration restrictions for 90 days after Mr. Suh vacates the current site. However, such an application could be protested by the City (or area residents) on any other grounds and those protests will be considered and given weight by the ABC in making a determination whether to approve the application for a license. j, II While the current landlord has told the City he intends to apply for a license, we believe that this is a threat made to either force my client out of business (and perhaps force a sale of his license to Mr. Franks) or to force my client into onerous terms for renewal of his lease at the existing site when the lease expires in January, 1999. Ladies & Gentlemen April 21, 1997 Page Two Mr. Franks has already demanded not only a significantly increased rent, but a percentage of gross sales in order to renew the lease. We believe he is attempting to use the City's processes to secure an economic advantage for himself and that his comments and threats should be considered in that light. There are many advantages to my client's proposed project and we urge the Commission to overturn the staff recommendation. Under the current lease, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the exterior of the building and premises. A view of the site will show that he has done less than a stellar job and there is no on-site landscaping. On the other hand, the interior of the premises, for which my client has responsibility, is well maintained. My client proposes to invest a significant sum of money to build a new store, large, well-lighted, and well-maintained, both inside and out, which he believes will be much more attractive to customers and will better serve the neighborhood as a convenience store. The site of the proposed project is currently a vacant lot. It has been for sale for many years and is unlikely to attract another purchaser soon and is not well-suited for many types of commercial uses. However, it is well-suited for my client's purposes. In addition to the new store, my client will construct, in a second phase, an auto lube/tune shop on the site which is appropriate for the site. The proposal would require extensive landscaping which Mr. Buh will install. The new businesses which Mr. Buh will build and operate will be an asset to the City and an aesthetic improvement to the neighborhood. The proposed Development Code Amendment has been narrowly drawn so that it cannot be applicable to undue number of locations. It can be used only where an existing facility can move into a vacant property within 75 feet. While we have not attempted to study the number of situations to which this section could apply, we believe that there are few vacant (and suitable) sites to which an off-site sale license could be moved within 75 feet. The proposed amendment can be further limited by permitting only one such move per off-site license or per site or by limiting the number of such moves which can be approved by the City during any given year. My client would have no objection to such limitations. , Ladies & Gentlemen April 21, 1997 Page Three Please note that, were it not for concern that the City cannot protest based on undue concentration and the legal, nonconforming use status of the current site, we believe both the planning staff and the police department would have recommended approval of this application. My client has demonstrated not only his ability to operate this type of business free of loitering, crime and other problems often associated with convenience stores, but also has demonstrated over the years cooperation and a good working relationship with the police department. In fact, he has received at least one commendation from the Police Department for his assistance to them. We believe that Mr. Suh has demonstrated the ability to operate a convenience store with an off-site sale license in a manner that supports the City's law enforcement goals and provides a service to the community while not harming it. He is preparing to bring new construction to the City which will enhance a neighborhood which could well use such enhancement and which is not one in which developers are racing to build. In addition, the proposed site is not large enough for other potential commercial uses and is well-suited for the convenience store and lube/tune shop he proposes. As he has explained in his letter, the approval of a gas station/mini-mart at Arden and Highland has cut into his business and he can only compete with a modern and clean facility. The current site is old and not well-maintained. The only person objecting to this proposal is the landlord, who has motives other than the community good. The likelihood that he will be able to purchase a new liquor license with in the 90 day period is small. Were it not for this "90-day risk", we believe both the Planning Staff and the Police Department would have recommended approval. We urge the Commission to approve this project and believe that it will enhance the neighborhood and benefit the City. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA LUDVIGSEN A ~ . ~ \.~ ~Un SEN ~ CL/tr cc: Bruce Suh Elliot Shaw Henry Empeno Deborah Woldruff ReferlSuhltr. . , rD)~@~DW~~ lrU JUN 1 2 1997 10 fRlib/91 P.O. Box 409 255 North "[)" Street, Suite 406 San Bernardino, CA 92402-{)409 (909) 885-6820 FAX (909) llll%976 19 Cf~~ City Clerk/COC See, City of San Bernardino CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO OEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & BUILDING SERVICES June 12, 1997 City of San Bernardino Edward Negrete, Councilman 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 City of San Bernardino F.J. Curlin, Councilman 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 City of San Bernardino David Oberhelman, Councilman 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 City of San Bernardino Norine Miller, Councilwoman 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 City of San Bernardino Rita Arias, Councilwoman 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 City of San Bernardino Jerry Devlin, Councilman 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 City of San Bernardino Betty Anderson, Councilwoman 300 N. "D'" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 City of San Bernardino Tom Minor, Mayor 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 Re: Applicant: Bruce Suh Development Code Amendment No: 96-06 Conditional Use Permit No: 96-12 Ladies & Gentlemen: I represent Bruce Suh, the applicant in the above referenced matters, and the owner and operator of Ken's Liquor Store,which is located across the street from the site for which the above applications have been made. . . The staff and Planning Commission recommendation against the proj ect result chiefly, if not solely, from the threats of my client's current landlord, William Franks, to try to purchase a liquor license and open his own liquor store at the existing site if my client's applications are approved. Under Business and Professions Code ~23958.4, the City would have no ability to object to the issuance of an off-sale liquor license to Mr. Franks under the "undue concentration" rules for 90 days after the premises were licensed and operated with the same type of license. 4fJ.~ ,jl/P/Cf7 , June 12, 1997 Page Two However, the City could obj ect to the issuance of a. new license on the old site on other grounds, i.e., crime potential, conduct or character of the proposed licensee, financial stability of proposed licensee, and other grounds for consideration of issuance of a liquor license under the Business and Professions Code. My client has a 10-year lease on the site owned by Mr. Franks. His lease originally was with Mr. Franks's father, who has died, and the son apparently has taken over the property and moved into the premises behind the site. My client's lease expires on January 7, 1999. Under the standard conditions of a conditional use permit, the new project which my client proposes must be completed and ready for occupancy within one year of its approval. Thus, the new site will be ready and occupied before the lease terminates on the old site and, under the conditions of the lease, my client will be obligated to continue to pay rent. My client would have no objection to a condition in the conditional use permit which requires him to continue to retain possession of the former premises through the end of his lease teriU. Thus, the premises will be in the possession of my client, but not licensed, for the 90-day period. Any applicant for a new license at the old site must have possession and control of the premises before submitting an application for a license. Under the terms and conditions of a c.u.p., my client will have possession and control for a minimum of 90 days after he occupies the new site. After the expiration of the 90 days, the City can have input into the issuance of a new license on the premises on the grounds of "undue concentration," as well as other grounds. My client has been an exemplary operator of his current store and has received commendations from the San Bernardino Police Department for his assistance to that department fighting and preventing crime. Several customers testified at the planning commission hearing that they appreciated and approved the manner in which he operated and maintained his store and that they appreciated the convenience of the market to the nei~hborhood. , We believe that Mr. Franks is making his threats to obtain another license to either force my client out of business or to force onerous terms for the renewal of the existing lease. He already has advised my client that he will increase the rent substantially and add a new term requiring payment of a large percentage of the gross receipts as additional rent. Mr. Franks is attempting to use the City's processes to assist him in these efforts and his comments and threats should be considered in that light. In addition, Mr. Franks has undertaken r \ ,. June 1.2, 1.997 Page Three construction at the site without proper City permits and has fenced off and removed portions of the premises for which my client pays rent from my client's use or control. At the Planning Commission hearing, the sister of Mr. Franks accused my client of not maintaining the landscaping (of which there is very little) and of allowing trash to collect on the site. However, she apparently was not familiar with the provisions of the lease which require the landlord to maintain the exterior of the premises and may not have been aware that it was her brother who removed the sign from the property. There are many advantages to my client's project and we urge the City Council to overturn the Staff and Planning Commission recommendations. Under the current lease, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the exterior of the building and premises. A view of the site will show that he has done less than a stellar job and there is no on-site landscaping. On the other hand, the interior of the premises, for which my client has responsibility, is well maintained. My client proposes to invest a significant sum of money to build a new store, large, well-lighted, and well-maintained, both inside and out, which he believes will be much more attractive to customers and will better serve the neighborhood as a convenience store. The site of the proposed project is currently a vacant lot. It has been for sale for many years and is unlikely to attract another purchaser soon (except as indicated below) and is not well- suited for many types of commercial uses. However, it is well- suited for my client's purposes. In addition to the new store, my client will construct, ~n a second phase, an auto lube/tune shop on the site which is appropriate for the site. The proposal would require extensive landscaping which Mr. Suh will install. The new businesses which Mr. Suh will build and operate, a neighborhood market and liquor store and an auto lube and tune shop will be an asset to the City and an aesthetic improvement to the neighborhood. The proposed Development Code Amendment has been narrowly drawn so that it cannot be applicable to undue number of locations. It can be used only where an existing facility can move into a vacant property within 75 feet. While we have not attempted to study the number of situations to which this section could apply, we believe that there are few vacant {and suitable} sites to which an off-site sale license could be moved within 75 feet. June 12, 1997 Page Four The proposed amendment can be further limited by permitting only one such move per off-site license or per site or by limiting the number of such moves which can be approved by the City during any given year. My client would have no objection to such limitations. Please note that, were it not for concern that the City cannot protest based on undue concentration, we believe both the Planning Staff and the Police Department would have recommended approval of this application. In fact, both initially were set to recommend approval until Mr. Franks made his threats and the concern arose over the undue concentration issue. My client has demonstrated not only his ability to operate this type of business free of loitering, crime and other problems often associated with convenience stores, but also has demonstrated over the years cooperation and a good working relationship with the Police Department. The only other interest in the property has arisen since the Planning Commission hearing in late April of this year. The business next t.o the proposed site for this project is the Brass Key. The current owners of the site have demanded that the owners of the Brass Key remove their encroaching asphalt parking lot from the property. Please note that the Brass Key also objected to my client's project, but we believe this was based upon its desire to maintain its encroachment. Since the April 21, 1997, Planning Commission hearing, the owners of the Brass Key have submitted an offer to purchase the property for use as a parking lot. The property owner has told my client that if he cannot close escrow because his proposed project is not approved, they will sell the entire site to the Brass Key. Thus, the other potential use of this property is as a parking lot. My client believes that his proposed development will be of greater benefit to the City, both aesthetically and economically. Mr. Suh has demonstrated his ability to operate A convenience store with an off-site sale license in a manner that assists and supports the City's law-enforcement goals and provides a service to the surrounding community while not harming it. He is preparing to bring new construction to the City which will enhance a neighborhood much in need of such enhancement. The proposed site is not large enough for many other potential commercial uses and the owners has said that he will sell to a buyer who will use the site as a parking lot if Mr. Suh's development applications are not approved. However, the site is Oversized Map Attached to Original Backup