HomeMy WebLinkAbout46-Planning
CI1C OF SAN BERNARDI It:? -RE~UIIEC'. FOR COUNCIL Act.J>>h '"
David Anderson
From: Acting Planning Director
Appeal of Conditional Use
.1EC'O. -If&mi. OFFJrmit No. 87-6
!287 ~nR 26 nH JI: ~yC?r and Council Meeting of
~pr~l 6, 1987, 2:00 p.m.
Dept: Planning
D~: March 26, 1987
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
.
Previous Planning Commission action:
At the meeting of the Planning Commission on March 17, 1987, the
following action was taken:
The application for Condition~l Use Permit No. 87-6 was denied
based upon findings of fact contained in the staff report dated
March 17, 1987. The Negative Declaration for environmental
impact was also denied.
Vote: 6-1
Recommended motion:
That the hearing on the appeal be closed and the decision of the
Planning Commission be affirmed, modified or rejected.
~Jd/
Signature David Anderson
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
383-5057
5
Contact person:
David Anderson
Phone:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: --
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
Aaenda Item No ~
---0 -
o
_.. (1'IIrc/c. 41>6
<P' 'I'~ I T(J~
In appsal~ng the dec~sion of the City Planning commissio~ the
conditional use pe~mit is conditlonal on the ~equi~ements fo~ pa~klng
belng met. If. at any time. the pa~klng we~e to become insufficent
to SUr!lce. the Clty could Simply ~evoke ths pe~mit. We stlll feel
tha~ the rindings of the plannlng staff and the subsequent denlal
we~e based on e~~oneous info~mat~on.
C
Appeal C.W.P.
"67-60
The clt:zen's complalnts ~ead :ntc the ~eco~d afte~ the publ::
d:SCUSSlons we~e closed, should be add~essed ln thel~ p~ope~ llght.
M~. Sk:nne~ and hlS ~elatlves; i.e. mcthe~-ln-law. siste~-in-law.
etc.; a~e upset abou~ ~ed cu~bing done ~y the Clty to accomodate t~e
business communlty. We belleve M~. 5k:nne~ and hlS .elatlves would
p~otest any change ~.quested by the bUSlness communlty; good o~ bad.
Fo~ example. he still pa.ks his boat and fou~-wheel d~ivevehicle :n
the r~ont ya~d or his mothe~-in-law's In p~otest to the ~ed cu~bing.
Once again, we must ~eite~ate, that we a~e t~ying to imp~ove the
cocktail lounge ope~ation and the neighbo~hood as a whole. A
conditional use p.~mit issued to us wlth it's accompanying p~ovisions
to be adh.~ed to ro~ compliance, would be a plus ro~ the city, the
business community, and the citizens.
Oavid & Ca~ol Paddock and Ron G~ove
,;; 3~?/ ~/~/ TD /'P1tIAt:&7.4
~&,;.w/9 #/LI.S/ f!/h t:?~~S3
7/'1 "ys-p- 959'1
t(/~ /e5k'ed-"'/.'J~ .ff&:"eST //~ A.4" 'j'''-
"/ v' /7It. v, J rc.,,''''~f' ."ZJ
pl'Q~r he' ~+,ud ~'5e ft/n':"r #J>?-~
0/1<<.4 I #e a A4~kt!'ll' SJ;.e~-/-.s .1</.'// s.,4g#V"'f7.
..,
-,' p
00 rn@rnnwrn rm _. d
:%:.
::-, I
/'.) >
L:.I w c
-
MAR 25 1987 ....
""='
:x z
.
- 0
..
CITY FlAN"":r "C~'-";':'!'~lT (;) ..,
I ~I,.... .. _' "" . .,1..1. "II
SAN BERNARDiNO. CA to) .
o
o
o
()
, ~\' ~t.TI.~:;i!~n
". ":'~I'\""'~'"''''
,: '....." . 'v"
CI....:Jl0~(s:. f 'I
1\~:. ~" ~~. ;t:
:~ \'~' ;~:.~~ ..>:~. ~
\:, ;~~.'~:/~ ~a'
, '~j;ririi4)
--~~
ERN ARDINO 300 NORTH "0" STREET. SAN BeRNARDINO. CALIFORNIA e2418
EVLYN WILCOX
Mey.,
MerIt... of 'M Common Council
Est.... Ellr... . . . . . . . . . . . . "tnt Wara
Jack ...lIly. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Iecoftd WanII
Ralph HerfteftCIU . . . . . . . . . . . Ttflrd W.rd
St...M.rks............ . "ourthWarcl
GordonQulel . .. .... ...... P'lfthWarcl
Den ...rez.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .llx'" W"
....kStrlck......... .... ...........W..
March 20, 1987
City Lites
324 West Highland Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92405
Dear Sir or Madame:
At the meeting of the Planning Commission on March 17, 1987,
the following action was takenl
The application for Conditional Use Permit No. 87-6, to
permit the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consump-
tion in the C-3 General Commercial zone on an irregularly-
shaped parcel of land consisting of approxiaately 3,650
square feet located at 324 West Highland Avenue, .as denied
based upon findings of fact contained in the staff report
dated March 17, 1987.
According to the San
19.78.070., the following
tional use permit:
-The decision of the Commission shall be final unless appeal-
ed in writing to the Mayor and Common Council. The written
appeal shall be submitted to the office of the- City Clerk
within ten days from the date of the Commission's decision.
The Common Council, after receipt of the appeal, shall
conduct a public hearing and may either approve, modify or
reject the decision of the Planning Commission.-
Bernardino Municipal Code, Section
applies to the filing of a condi-
~
.,1.. f
..' "'!1 ., '.""'I""IF95
. .. 1." ".. ,..
"',;,- ~'
.~ 'Jl
-. .,.....~-4(
",1>1"'.
'0'
If
o
o
o
City Lites
March 20, 1987
Page 2
If no appeal is filed pursuant to the previously mentioned
provisions of the San Bernardino Muni~ipal Code, the action
of the Commission shall be final.
Sincerely,
4-/#
DAVID ANDERSON
Acting Planning Director
mkf
cc: Building and Safety Dept.
Engineering Division
David and Carol Paddock
23291 Camiteito Andreta
Laguna HillS, CA 92653
J
o
~~b-.~ ~~o.,~ o....~
o '.:>-,..v:~.-' ~a..c'
o
To:
San Bernardino Planning Department
Re: Conditional Use Permit No. 87-6
City Lites
The conditional use permit: is it a tool for progress in the
business community or is it a weapon to be used for the
destruction of the small businessman? Does the City of San
Bernardino really wish the north side to become a ghost
town, where right now at least every three storefronts are
empty; or is it their desire to convert it all into another
major shopping center? Does the small business owner have
a chance to make it in this town, or are we going to turn
everything over to the big developers and major corporations?
To address the questions posed by the summary sheet done by
the Planning Department, it is necessary to examine each point
raised.
1. The biggest problem raised by the planning department's
observations in paragraphs two through six is inadequate
parking. The solution to this issue as proposed by us is to
sign agreements for parking usage with our neighbors. The
planning department has seen fit to disqualify those agreements
as inadequate based on erronrous assumptions on their part.
First of all, if you look at the thirty two spaces to the rear
of the building, they claim these are being used by the adjacent
businesses. The fact of the matter is there is only one such
business open and operating; a beauty salon. All of the other
stores are vacant. The issue of the hours of operation is also
a fallacy, as the beauty salon's main hours of operation are
from 9:00 A.M. til 4:00 P.M. basically Thursday, Friday and
Saturday. Also, the parking to the north of the beauty salon,
which she has the use of constitute another thirty five spaces;
and those buildings are vacant.
Then we have the fact that there are twenty-eight on street
parking spaces west of Arrowhead on Highland, and eighteen
on street spaces east of Arrowhead on Highland which were
never taken into account by planning. There are also fifteen
on street spaces south of Highland on Arrowhead,' and four
on street spaces north of Highland on Arrowhead. Each of
these counts are for a one block radius of the subject
location.
The issue raised of the safety factor in the use of parking
facilities which would require patrons to cross the streets
is ludicrous. The corner of Highland and Arrowhead is a
protected cross walk with stop lights for both directions.
o
o
o
~
2.
o
The final issue of the three businesses directly west of our
location has no bearing on the parking facilities we have
provided through agreements. There has never been a problem
between this location and theirs in regards to parking for
the thirty some years it was a cocktail lounge in the past.
Why are we to assume that there will be problems now?
2. The planning departments' report has also capitalized on
the hours of operation for our location coinciding with other
businesses in the area. The facts in this matter are that
the two banks are open from 10:00 A.M. til 3:00 P.M.; the
beauty salon is open from 9:00 A.M. til 4:00 P.M.; the
Flowerloft and the Thrift Store are open from 9:00 A.M.
til 5:00 P.M. We believe it can be easily seen that the
major hours of operation for our business will be after
5:00 P.M. and not conflict with the daytime business of the
other merchants. The real truth of this whole matter is
that the north end of town becomes a ghost town after five
or so. What smarter business use could there be, in light
of the above, than a business which basically operates in
the evening?
3. Paragraphs seven and eight of the observations by the
planning department pertain to a polic~ department canvas
of the surrounding area. It is most interesting to note
that the polic~only contacted eleven people, and that
the questions asked pertained to the reopening of Your Place;
rather than the opening of a new cocktail lounge and
restaurant frequented by all adults. By the polices own
admission the protests of seven people were directed at the
teenage usage of the premises; not at an establishment
catering to adults. The other issue raised by the police
consists of the fact that there is a crime rate of over 22%
above average for this district. The first question one must
ask about this situation is are we, the property and business
owners to be penalized for the police departments' failure
to control crime. The second question which comes to mind
is whether the police department, by their comments, are
saying that all of the middle class customers who frequent
a nice restaurant and lounge are all criminals. Is that
why they are assuming the crime rate will increase, because
we are opening? In summary, the department feels that later
hours and the serving of alcohol will create other problems.
This location has been a cocktail lounge for the past 30 some
years. Can the police substantiate with hard facts and
statistics any problems that were created by this location
in the past; or is it only the hysteria generated by the
police department with no substantiated causes for complaint
against the continued use of the premises as a cocktail
lounge and restaurant for which it was designed.
.0'
, I
o
o
~
3.
o
4. The absurd idea of a retail use for this location is
totally inconsistent with the problems now encountered by
another nine-to-five operation. It would not alleviate in
the least the parking problems highlighted bY this depart-
ments reports.
Our request for a conditional use permit to establish a
cocktail lounge and restaurant at a pre-existing licensed
location should be approved because:
1. We are not creating a new parking problem as there
was adequate parking in the past for a primarily
night time operation.
2. We have, in fact, secured additional private
parking for our adult patrons.
3. The provisions for traffic circulation and
safety were adequate in the past and should
remain so.
4. With proper police protection, our operation
will certainly not add to the existing crime
rate problem; in fact it should alleviate some
of the prior complaints about the teenagers
congregating in the parking areas of alleyways.
5. The granting of the conditional use permit to
serve alcoholic beverages at this location would
not be detrimental to the community as a whole,
but would rather enhance and upgrade the
community by eliminating the teenagers and
catering to a more mature and affluent patron.
'0'
, CiTY OF SAN
o
BERNARDINO
o
DEPARTMENT "'ll
o
PLANNING
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
4
3/17/87
5 ...
III
~
APPLICANT:
Conditional Use Permit
i~o. 87-6
OWNER:
y ~ es
324 W. Highland
San Bdno., CA 92405
David & Carol Paddock
23291 Camiteito Andreta
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
a
!
a:
"
cr
III
~
The applicant requests approval under Section 19.26.020 (B.7)to
allow the sale of alcoholic beverages for on site consumption
and also requests, under Section 19.28.020 (C.10) to allow
dancing at an existing restaurant which is currently closed.
The subject site is located in the C-3, General Commercial zone
on the north side of Highland Avenue, between "D" Street and
Arrowhead Avenue.
PROPERTY
suoject
North
Soutn
East
West
EXISTING
LAND USE ZONING
~LOSeQ Keta~L ~
Prkg. & Multi-Fam.Res. liT"
Commercial' C-3
Retail C-3
Retail C-3
GENERAL PLAN
(,eneml~1tl!~
Res. 15-36 du/ac
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
GEOLOGIC / SEISMIC DYES FLOOO HAZARD DYES OZONE A ( SEWERS IXI YES )
HAZARD ZONE IX! NO ZONE ElNO OZONE B ONO
HIGH FIRE DyES AIRPORT NOISE / DYES REDEVELOPMENT mYES
HAZARD ZONE Ii NO CRASH ZONE flNO PROJECT AREA oNO
~ o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z 0 APPROVAL
APPLICABLE EFFECTS, 0
WITH MITIGATING - 0
ZU) MEASURES NO E.I.R, ti CONDITIONS
ilia> o EXEMPT o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO La IE
2Z LZ DENIAL
Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ~W
Oa
a:Z WITH MITIGATING 0 CONTINUANCE TO
-- MEASURES U):E
>L oNO o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 0
Z ~
11.1 SIGNIFICANT SEE ATTACHED E.R. C.
EFFECTS MINUTES a:
NOV. "'1 RIY,nD JULY""
IKY
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARD1NO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE ClIP NO R7-f>
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE'
4
~/17/R7
~
1. The applicant requests approval under authority of
San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.26.020 (B.7.) and
Section 19.28.020 (C.IO), to allow the sale of alcoholic
beverages for on-site consumption and to permit dancing at an
existing restaurant which is currently closed. The site is a .1
acre parcel located on the north side of Highland Avenue between
Arrowhead and -D- Street at 324 West Highland Avenue, in the C-
3, General Commercial zone.
2. The proposed site is an existing 3,650 square foot structure.
The lot is covered 100% by the structure and no on-site parking
is provided. Based on code requirements, 76 parking spaces must
be provided for the proposed use. Thirty two spaces are
proposed to the rear of the structure through written agreement,
which are utilized by adjacent business owners. However, said
spaces are required parking for those businesses and there is no
excess parking available. In addition, the hours of operation
proposed, 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., seven days per week, would
coincide with the daily operations of the other businesses and
the parking lot is of inadequate size to accommodate any
additional spaces.
3. Additional parking is proposed on the southeast corner of
Arrowhead and Highland (Taco Bell Restaurant). This would
require patrons to cross two streets to reach their cars. At
the southwest corner, Home Savings has agreed to allow use of
the parking lot for a trial period of three months. This
agreement is inadequate for City purposes due to the uncertainty
of the future availability of the parking lot arrangement and
the fact that patrons would be required to cross Highland Avenue
to reach cars parked there.
4. Based on code requirements, the adjacent businesses and those
further west offering reciprocal parking are existing with
inadequate spaces. Of the thirty two spaces offered, 36 are
required for the two retail shops and beauty salon which signed
agreements. Three businesses immediately west, a shoe shop, a
dance studio, and a cocktail lounge have not agreed to share
parking. The existing cocktail lounge requires 16 spaces alone,
and 13 are provided behind the buildings. The existing cocktail
lounge maintains business hours from 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.,
which coincides with the hours of this proposal.
\..
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE r.ITP NO R 7 -,;
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PA E
b
3jJ7/R7
5. During field inspection at approximately 3:30 p.m., on a Friday
afternoon, of the 48 parking spaces in the immediate area (which
include the 32 previously mentioned in the agreement discussion)
, 28 spaces were occupied. Of the 32 offered in the agreement, 20
were occupied.
6. Access to the proposed parking is off Highland Avenue through a
17 foot wide alley located to the west of the site. Additional
access could be provided through a one-way driveway off of
Arrowhead, however, no reciprocal access agreement is
documented. Additionally, for patrons to travel north or south
through the alley to the north of the site, would require
commercial use of a residential alley.
7. The Police Department indicated that a foot canvas of adjacent
property owners and business operators indicated approximately
70% were opposed to the reopening of the cocktail lounge. In
addition, the proposed cocktail lounge is located in a crime
reporting district with a crime rate of 22% above average. A
rate of 20% above average generates an automatic protest by the
Police Department to the Alcohol Beverage Control Agency. (See
attached memo.)
8. The site was most recently occupied as a teenage night club with
dancing. Many complaints were generated by the activity and
problems associated with the patrons according to the Police
Department. However, later hours and the serving of alcohol
could create other problems.
9. The existing structure, if used for a retail purpose, would
require 15 parking spaces. Although there are no parking spaces
available, consideration of a retail use would pose much less of
a negative impact on the existing inadequate parking situation.
.
~. 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT'
CASE CUP NO. 87-6
FINDINGS of FACT
AGENDA ITEM h.
HEARING DATE 'l, 11 7/R7
PAGE
1. The provisions for traffic circulation, parking, and safety as
required by the General Plan do not conform with the proposal
for a cocktail lounge at the proposed site.
2. The proposed use, a cocktail lounge with dancing, will adversely
affect the adjoining residential uses and adversely affect
adjacent retail uses due to the high crime rate in the district
and the unavailability of adequate parking.
3. The size and shape of the site is , inadequate to support the
proposed use.
4. The traffic generated will pose undue burden on the
residentially used alley to the north of the site.
5. The granting of the conditional use permit to serve alcohol at
this location would be detrimental to the peace, health,
safety and general welfare of the citizens in the City of
San Bernardino.
rinQjDgs of Fac~-1QI Reau~ed Waivers:
ALL APPLICATIONS FOR A VARIANCE MUST INCLUDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO
EACH OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS IN ORDER TO CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE ~
FOR THE VARIANCE.
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the
intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to
other property in the same zoning district and neighborhood.
Applicant's Response
The conditions which apply at the property are as follows:
1. The buildings take up 100% of the land.
2. There is substantial parking on adjacent premises.
3. This building has existed as a bar for more than 30 years
and has never had a problem with parking as it is a
nighttime business mainly.
Staff's Response
Variance from the terms of the zoning ordinance as stipulated by
state law and City ordinance can only be granted due to special
circumstances applicable to the property including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings.
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT'
CASE CUP NO. 87-6
FINDINGS of FACT
AGENDA ITEM '" .
HEARING DATE "'1/17 1P,7
PAGE
The structure in question occupies 100% of the site. Adjacent
businesses require more parking than is currently provided. The
proposed hours of operation coincide with the business hours of
adjacent uses, further impacting the available parking.
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.
Applicant's Response
without the granting of this variance for off site parking, the
entire building is unrentable for any type of business, not just
a bar and restaurant.
Staff's Response
Substantial property right refers to the right to u~e the
property in a manner which is on a par with uses allowed to
other property owners which are in the vicinity and have a like
zoning. The purpose of the variance is to restore parity where
the strict application of the zoning law deprives such property
owners of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity
and under identical zoning classification. '
The proposed use as a cocktail lounge impacts the inadequate
parking situation far more than a less intense use would impact
the area.
C. That the granting of the variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and
improvements in the zoning district and neighborhood in which
the property is located.
~licant's Response
Since this building has existed as it is now for over 30" years,
and parking has always been a cooperative arrangement.with no,
problems, it can certainly be assumed that it would remain that
way.
~tAff's Response
In determining the application for a variance, the best interest
of the entire community is the controlling factor rather than
the suitability or adaptability of the property in question for
a particular use.
o 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT'
CASE CUP NO. 87-6
FINDINGS of FACT :i:~~I::E 3/~7187
PAGE
The proposed
reports 22%
ment waivers
compound the
site
crime
and a
crime
is in a Police reporting district which
above average. To approve parking require-
cocktail lounge with the proposed hours would
rate in the neighborhood.
D. That the granting of such a variance will not be contrary 'to the
objectives of the Master Plan.
Applicant's Response
We are not asking for a ~aiver of parking completely; we are
merely requesting to be able to use off site parking which we
have submitted signatures of all the adjacent premises that we
have agreements with. So there is, in effect, no changes to be
made by granting us the right to do what has always been done in
the past.
~Ail~esponse
The Master
Commercial.
Plan, which
measures be
intense.
Plan designates the site and surrounding area as
However, contrary to the objectives of the General
requires adequate parking, circulation, and safety
taken into consideration, the proposed use is too
RECOMMENDATIOtJ
Based upon the observations and findings of fact contained in this
staff report, staff recommends denial of Conditional Use Permit No.
87-6.
Respectfully Submitted,
DAVID ANDERSON,
Acting tanning Director
SANDRA
Plan~
, ~ITY OF_ SAK-.~E~ARDINO ()~"'t:.MUHANUU~
To DONALD J. BURNETT, CHIEF OF POLICE
Subject ON SALE GENERAL ABC LICENSE
From R. RICE
Date
1-26-87
Approved Date
BUSINESS NAME: CITY LITES, a California LTD partnership
324 W. Highland Avenue, S.B 92405
OWNERS: RONNI J. GROVE, general partner
DAVID PADDOCK. limited partner
CARROL A. PADDOCK, limited partner
PADDOCK's address: 2391 Caminito Andreta. Laguna Hills.
92653
GROVE's address: 1236 South Spruce Avenue. Bloomington
92316
On or about the last week of December, 1986 I received an application
for alcoholic beverage license (form 211) in'the name of CITY LITES
(Your Place. dba CITY LITES).
A local record check of all three subjects was negative. A foot
canvas of the area. local businesses, and residents was conducted
by me to ascertain the feelings in the immediate area of Your Place
reopening. Out of the eleven contacts I made in the immediate area
there were seven protests for Your Place opening and four with no
opinion. The protests were directed towards trash, litter, defecation
and urination by the customers of Your Place on the adjoining premises.
About half the protests did say. however. if Your Place opened as
a restaurant catering to adults. it would possibly work out.
I also made a check of the crime rate in the reporting district where
324 W. Highland Avenue is located. The reporting district is #690
and the crime rate is 22% above the average crime rate ofr a reporting
district.
On 1-6-87 I made contact with the general partner Mr. GROVE on the
premises of the proposed on-sale general ABC license premises. CITY
LITES. I advised Mr. GROVE of the results of my foot survey of the
immediate businesses and residences. Mr. GROVE was upset. stating
that his new proposed business would not cater to the type of clientele
that went into Your Place. He planned to have a dinner house with
bar and entertainment directed towards clientele in their 30's, 40's,
and 50's. He said the existing business has been closed for approxi-
mately one month and the new business when and if opened would be
open from l130AM to 0200 hours seven nights a week.
He also desired that his restaurant would be opened Friday and Saturday
nights until 0400 hours so as to serve breakfast for those who might
h~ve 'too much alcohol to drink during the nighttime. I advised Mr.
, '
c
'-'
o
o -
o
MEMO I ON SALE GENERAL ABC LICENSE FOR CITY LITES
PAGE 2
GROVE that he had a problem with parking and he said he was working
on a deal with Home Savings across the street. He advised thatihe
would have security present when and if the business did open. ;
At the time of my meeting with Mr. GROVE I did not have the rep9rting
district crime statistics. but I did advise him if they were 20~
above the average for a reporting district it would be an automatic
protest by the police department.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend denial of this license.
Respec f lly submitted:
:
i
i
,
I
,
o
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO POBOX 1~59SAN BERNAROINO,C;ALIFORNIA82401 '~5S
POLICE DEPARTMENT
DOIIIAlD J, BURNETT
CHIEF OF POLICE
I'eoruary ~, 19:-l7
!1r. Tom Keasling
Alcoholic Reveragp. Control
~)3 W. Third, Roam 209
San Rernardino. C~ 92401
Dear Hr. ~easling:
We have reviewed the application for an Alcohol Beverage Control license to
be located at 324 W. Highland Avenue in San Bernardino, DBA City Lites. We
have a concern about park i ng avail abil i ty. When we made contact with
people who live in the immediate area, seven out of eleven were opposed to
the use of the location for the sales of alcoholic beverages.
Additionally, we find that the police reporting district in which the
prop~sed site is located has a crime rate which is 22 percent above the
average crime rate for all crime reporting districts.
Please consider the ahove when making your decision to issue the license
requested.
Yours~Y(,~. '
/ 'L ;~./rr-'\ ~
~..:.:J..~,-v,L:txr)
Donald J.: Rurliett
Chief of \Pol ice
. ,
~
cgr
cc: Mayor Uilcox
Councilman Qui el
Captain Lewis
TELEPHONE: 383.5011
o
o
o
o
March 9. 1981
Dear Sirs,
CIAf> '87~
1 protest the 18suance ot a ON SALE GENERAL LIQUOR LIC!JIlSE.
!lot 324 W. Highland. San Bdno. CA.. tor the tOllowing reasons,
1- Already a BAR 2 doors away
2- Not enough parking as it 18
3- Too close to Schools
4- Area 18 bad enough already wi th Drug Dealing
S- Tratfic On 23rd St. between Arrowhead and D St. already
very congested. e.en with No parking on north Bide ot
street.
6- High CRIME AREA
1- ADULT BOOK STORE NEXT DOOR
8-
9-
Sincerely.
f1\-1' ~~
3~t \J, d.-"3 ~
~ ~, ~ '1~'tl.S
ill liUU'!/liOO
MAR 10 1981
STAFF
ROlITlNG
F.A.s,~
D,A, '1J1IfCJ
V,B._
A.L._
D, _
G.G._
K.ll_
M,B._
M.F._
M,N._
R,R, _
s: W, '--
V,R
CITY ~ I,:':"'" - 7ARTMfIT
SAN B~I\liAROIKO. c:A
-
-
o
o
o
o
March 9. 1981
Dear Sire,
(..uP ~"7-c.
-"" '
!',"
,"
I pro teet the 18eUf,nce of a ON SALE GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE.
at 324 W. Highland. San Bc1no. CA.. for the followins reaeone,
1- Already a BAR 2 door. away
2- Not enough parkins ae it 18
3- Too clo.e to Schoole '
4- Area 18 bad enough already wi th Drug Dealins '
S- Traffic On 2)rd St. between Arrowhead and D St. already
r..~,:""..~o!,~.Wl $b Iloc, PU'k5:JlConnor~,:'" ,of
6- High CRIME AREA
1- ADlJI,T BOOKSTORE NEXT DOOR
8-
9-
..
Sinoerely.
".
.
CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA
STAFF
/l()(JTfN(;
F.AS.~
. D.A.~.
.'V.8.~'
A.L._,
D.. ;...--,
E.G,;'_
Go G. '--
K.M. !..-
M.O.'_
M.,.f-
, M.N._
'R.R~
1..._
V.R '_
,
oo~@rnnwmlID
MAR 111987
-
.
U:'_
:
.
.
.
7:'~r:"
o
o
o
March 9. 1987
CUP NO. 87-1
Dear Sir.,
o
I prote.t the 1e.uance of a ON SALE GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE.
at )24 W. Highland. San Bdno. CA.. for the following rea.one,
1- Alread7 a BAR 2 door. a.a7
2- Not enough parking a. it i.
)- Too clo.e to SChool. '
4- Area i. bad enough already .ith Drug D.aling
s- Tnttieen 2"",.'.,"tuen AfT_.lUt and D St. alread7
veil)'conge.ted. eYen' wi th No Parking on north .i4e of
.treet.
6- High CRIME ARIA
7- ADULT BOOK STORE NUT DOOR
8-
9-
~,
Sincere17.
. t;,
~ ).,). A~ .,.....
37.2... W, .;L3 """" sr.
S ~N ~ Dl\)<:l . cl\ ~~ 'f!;lS
J
. ,-.\"\
00 rnoornuwrnlID
MAR 121981
CITY PLANNING DEPARTMEIa
SAN 8ERNARDJND. CA
STAFF
ROUTING
F.AS,_,_
D,A.~
V,8,_
A,L,_
D.W_
E,6,_
6.6._
K,iIll._
101,8._
M.F._
M,N._
R,R,_
$,w._
V,R _
FILE _
'-0
"
)
"-
"
(
March 9. 1987
Dear Sirs,
o
o
o
I protest the issuance of a ON SALE GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE.
at 324 W. Highland. San Bdno. CAlI for the following re..ons,
, "'" ''t."'\_~.
"'. \' ~. \
,-v'
00 rn@rn~wrn [ID
MAR 16 1987
CITY PLANNING DePARTMENT
SAN BERNARDINO. CA
S7AFF
ROU71N6
F.AS.
D.A.
V.B._
A.l.,_
D.VI,_
E,G,_
G..G._
K,/,l._
M.~._
r.i.;:._
M,r.',__
P..il._
~ ".
001...._
V.R _
I I * 0
I . 'i I -..,'1;
,& I
I · i '.. Ii i I .
J~ s .
I n . I
I :1.. .! ~
-' ;.:1
, I .
~
i ~ ~
t
i
I --,
~
.
..
.. --,
I
~
..
I Ii ('), \ -
c:
:! J "0 I ___ ~ ~
i i .
C>> ! I ;~
i .... , I
, . i
:l ~ II!!!; ,
~ , ~ .
s
r i
~ OJ : I
If' liP' ·
... ~ ~
\ Ii' II f .
!
i \ i .
i
I . .......
ii~iI 5
" . ~
\
~Il ~
il~
I c_.__
-- :1 -....a;,...... .............m
, 'I
1 ' M.",._ "VI:, '""
----'- \
I
c
o
o
o
k' liC)l E IV
01 Yl'f\ \ n~ Roo tr)
DINNING Reo Y'Yl - "
-
ISED 1=loo
\
\
0 0 BAR.
DION ce FlOOR.. 0
D~
0 -
1
, - r
SWMbl u~nvs
, , Rex:> m OF.FIcE'
"
STO~A6t: . N\ENS \
Room .. .?oom
.
SToR
I
,
Jl
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
.., r- AGENDA
ITEM#:
o
o
r-
o
o
LOCATION
CASE CUP NO El7-F.
HEARING DATE ?'/17/El7
4
...
....
r- /~ ft-' 1 ft-I r1~I;,;;;1 '~I
,... I R'I II R-I R"U t' ,"" IN 11-1
~R'I R-I '-
'-
R-'
R'I
R-I
U,=,~IL...
R~ R'I R~lyll.:
1m;n:: ''':800,1 L
,., : GBt
x::""'-
1ft-I
ft.,
--
1m
.. III
R-I
........ .......
- ft-I
"0"
"0" "0"
ft-I
R-I ,:I
ft-,
I II-I 11JiI~~
. .... ~ It-I I~!P- R"I =
~ R.~' ~-3 8 11-' '11 II.' '~il R-I I -~ tl
~--b R-' ~~~= R.3 ;;:;;; R-3
~ o&~::-: ,-, .. ~~i~ ';.~ ;l~:f."
5~ .......,... 'MiF - - ~-
:::J C.IA I C.IA I-:::lC'J. J C'3 I C-3 C'3.E"3 C'3 ~ ~3 ~'3
--, I..... - I~'" L.:::.J~ ~ T'- T -
--' C'3 T .J- ~ 1-1-. cu
T ' T c-s
::J A-P R-3 R'3' R'3 T
::J1:l:-r II.J -u.r;:;ll~.~ ..~.... "" ~ ~~ID
::JO ... U~ liilAl't II-J I"~I :;: r-. R.' R"
~8 P3 T R1 AP EI 11-' IQ R-' IH~J' 1
J" R-3 [~; p~ II.. ., lR" R-I ~= ~al
38 .. ~,~ T II.. ~ 11-1 ~IIIIHI E3 ~ M.:J a I
Jr;;;] ...~ - R'3 , T ... A' ~_, ~ ~ '~88 r- 8
!!IU ~ ~ 1M ' II II ft-I R'I
R' R-3 E : · T II-I"~ .' I;~' " i :a: II
=11..."',:,. Ii ,., ;;; ,:::: ii11l: A~: 81 ~ II.' lJrJ ~11J :.:
~ I "' I -i!:=.T . II. R'I U~ ...,0 II" ~
~H::: =:.1;" IE [iJ 0 l~: :j ~F1R-3 R-3 0 R'3
l~~ 1:-lJr.._ ;;;J;~ COD ...P- fR3 R3 0.
"'1 R'I
R-I
R-'
R-'
R-I
III II-t
R"
1C
R-I ·
.s-