HomeMy WebLinkAbout50-Planning
o
o
c
o
o
BERN ARDIN 0 POST OFFICE BOX 131B. SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA B2402
SHAUNA CLARK
CITY CLERK
City Lites
324 West Highland Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92405
Gentlemen:
April 7, 1987
At the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council held on April 6, 1987.
your appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use
Permit No. 87-6. to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site
consumption in the C-3 General Commercial Zone located on the north
side of Highland Avenue, between "D" Street and Arrowhead Avenue, was
continued.
The appeal hearing walL-continued to May 11.1987. at 2:00 P.m." in the
Council Chambers of City Hall. 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino,
California.
SC:dc
cc: Mayor Wilcox
Councilman Quiel
City Administrator
Planning
Police
David and Carol Paddock
Ron Grove
Q.J.>.';
~=QfDE iN P~..,c!PESS
Sincerely,
.. .. .",~
~UNA CLARK
City Clerk
300 NORTH "0" STREET. SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA B2418.o121
PHONE (714) 383.5002/383-5102
37),
, .
_^- . ~r..
CIT,-uF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEO FOR COUNCIL AC'FJNl,/.
David Anderson
From: Acting Planning Director
Appeal of Conditional Use
'~~:C'D.-~mN. OFF.~rmit No. 87-6
:::7 ~nR 26 tlH II: ~y<;>r and Council Meeting of
~r11 6, 1987, 2:00 p.m.
Dept: . Planning
Da~: 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.
cJ d/"
Signature David Anderson
Contact person:
David Anderson
Phone:
383-5057
Supporting tlata attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
5
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: --
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
Aoenda Item No._
~
o
o
o
ERN ARD IN 0 300 NORTH NO" STREET. SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 92418
EVLYN WILCOX
MIIyor
MemlMfl of the Common Council
Elt"" EsttHa. . . . . . . . . . . . . First Ward
Jack Aellly.. ...... ..... . SecorMI Ward
Ralph Hernandu . . . . . . . . . . . TtUrcl Wa"
St.".M.,ks....... . .... . FourU,Warcl
Gorclon Qu'" . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fltt" W.rd
Dan Frazier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sixth Ward
Jack St,lckl., . . . . . . . . . . . .5eftnttt Werd
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 taken:
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 approximately 3,650
square feet located at 324 West Highland Avenue, was denied
based upon findings of fact contained in the staff report
dated March 17, 1987.
According to the San Bernardino Municipal Code, Section
19.78.070., the following applies to the filing of a condi-
tional use permit:
WThe 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.-
.J
.,t ...
.., . ':1 ., '-'1."- ""'FSS
j" ., ' . .,..
. ~ '." ..
.. . ~ ."
. ., ....J...t-.rf
. . ',",tof" ['
o
il
o
City Lites
March 20, 1987
Page 2
o
o
If no appeal is filed pursuant to the previously mentioned
provisions of the San Bernardino Municipal Cqde, the action
of the Commission shall be final.
Sincerely,
~-/~
DAVID ANDERSON
Acting Planning Director
mkf
cc: Building and Safety Dept.
Engineering Division
David and Carol Paddock
23291 Camiteito Andreta
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
o
o
Appeal C.U.P.
1187-60
o
. 011 /iJa;f/;t '1J>~
In appealing the decision of the City Planning commissioh! the
conditional use permit is conditional on the requirements for parking
being met. If, at any time, the parking were to become insufficent
to suffice, the city could simply revoke the permit. We still feel
that the findings of the planning staff and the subsequent denial
were based on erroneous information.
The citizen's complaints read into the record afte~ the public
discussions were closed, should be addressed in their proper light.
Mr. Skinner and his relatives; i.e. mother-in-law, sister-in-law,
etc.; are upset about red curbing done by the city to accomodate the
business community. We believe Mr. Skinner and his relatives would
protest any change requested by the business community; good or bad.
For example, he still parks his boat and four-wheel drive vehicle in
the front yard of his mother-in-law's in protest to the red curbing.
Once again, we must reiterate, that we are trying to improve the
cocktail lounge operation and the neighborhood as a whole. A
conditional use permit issued to us with it's accompanying provisions
to be adhered to for compliance, would be a plus for the city, the
business community, and the citizens.
David & Carol Paddock and Ron Grove
tX 3~ Y/ ('~/.<I/ m /lA-.'74.=7R
~&'</".1/9 /,/LtS" e.4 <?d~~;3
7p/ '7'5"'5>- 959'1
\
~/e /esL'eC'/.J;/4 #c,,~s/. /_/", 4,' /"" '/ 4-
;or V i7 . rJ?t. L" ry ("C,t-/:"' ~I' / e-/
:J;0/?r- TIe &d.-1-N;;/ ~se /P//~'oL #.r?-&;
04<<.4/ -he a /-4t'ke/ Sh~c:',Js .1'(.../1// Sftt7U/4:r~.
7\" ')\ ('\
t:-
o
o
o
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 tive 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
o
2.
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 police 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 allot 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.
o
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.
~ CiTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
SUMMARY
,
o
...
11.1
B
o
o
DEPARTMENT ""
o
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
4
3/17/87
5 ~
APPLICANT:
y es
324 W. Highland
San Bdno., CA 92405
David & Carol Paddock
23291 Camiteito Andreta
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Conditional Use Permit
Ho. 87-6
OWNER:
~
:::)
CJ
..,
a:
.....
4
11.1
~
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
:subject
North
Sou tn
East
West
EXISTING
LAND USE ZONING
~losea Keca~l ~
Prkg. & Multi~Fam.Res. "T"
Commercial C-3
Retail C-3
Retail C-3
GENERAL PLAN
Gene~~G~~Ntclal
Res. 15-36 du/ac
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC DYES FLOOO HAZARO DyES OZONE A ( lXI YES )
HAZARO ZONE lXI NO ZONE 10 NO OZONE B SEWERS ONO
HIGH FIRE DYES AIRPORT NOISE I DYES REDEVELOPMENT lID YES
HAZARD ZONE '*' NO CRASH ZONE ElNO PRO~ECT AREA ONO
~ o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z 0 APPROVAL
APPL I CABLE EFFECTS 0
WITH MITIGATING - 0
zen MEASURES NO E.I.R. tc CONDITIONS
11.1(1) o EXEMPT o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO II.C l2!I
2Z II.~ DENIAL
Z- SIGN IFICANT EFFECTS
OC ~a
a:Z WITH MITIGATING 0 CONTINUANCE TO
MEASURES cna
:;ii: ONO 0
Z o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ()
1&.1 SIGNIFICANT SEE ATTACHEO E.R. C. 11.1
EFFECTS MINUTES a:
NOV. "" RIVIIIO ~ULY III.
IKY
,
o
,
000
CITY OF SAN BERNARD1NO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CliP NO !l7-F.
OBSERVATIONS
4
'l/17/!l7
?
\c
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
,
1. The applicant requests approval under authority of
San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.26.020 (B.7.) and
Section 19.28.020 <C.10), 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 RDR 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.
000 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE r.m> NO R7-F.
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM /,
HEARING DATE 3/17/87
PAGE '.,'
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.
,-'
r
000
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP NO. 87-6
.
o
FINDINGS of FACT
"-
'>.t17tH7
.J.
,
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
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 siteis inadequate to support the
proposed use.
4.
The traffic generated will pose undue burden
residentially used alley to the north of the site.
on the
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.
finQings of Fac~_fo~_~~sted Waivers:
ALL APPLICATIONS FOR A VARIANCE
EACH OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS IN
FOR THE VARIANCE.
MUST INCLUDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO
ORDER TO CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE ~
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'a-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 stipulatBd 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.
\..
iIE'7.'
r
000
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
CASE CUP NO. 87-6
o
FINDINGS of FACT
t.
'),,/17JP..7
r::
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
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.
~licant'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 use 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
detrimental to the public
improvements in the zoning
the property is located.
the variance will not be materially
welfare or injurious to property and
district and neighborhood in which
.
6EPlicant's R~sponse
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.
~~tf'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 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP NO. 87-6
o
FINDINGS of FACT
4
3/17/87
/1
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
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 waiver of parking completelYl 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.
Qt~ll~!i1sponse
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
RECOMMENDATIQI-!
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
-,~c-...
~TY OF_ SA~~ERt:;ARDINO 0- -...\1EMORANDUPj
To DONALD J. BURNETT, CHIEF OF POLICE
Subject ON SALE GENERAL ABC LICENSE
From R. RICE
Oete
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 1130AM 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
huve 'too much alcohol to drink during the nighttime. I advised Mr.
--~.--.--".""..
o
'-'
o
o
'-
o
MEMO. 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 that he
would have security present when and if the business did open.
i At the time of my meeting with Mr. GROVE I did not have the reporting
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:
~-" .~'.. ,
'".
o
o
o
()
:a...
CITY 0 F ~ AN BERN ARD IN 0 po. Bex 1558. SAN eERNARDINO~ CALIFORNIA 8~~O' ISSS
POLICE DEPARTMENT
DOlllAlO J~ BURNETT
CHIEF OF POLICE
I'eorua:-y Ii, 1l?fl7
Mr. To~ ~easling
Alcoholic Reverage Control
303 H. Thi:-d, Rocm 209
San Re:-na:-dino. C~ 92401
Dear Hr. ~easling:
We have reviewed the application for an Alcohol ~everage Cont:-ol license to
be located at 324 W. Highland Avenue in San Bernardino, DBA City Lites. We
have a concern about parking availability. 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(lsed site is located has a c:-ime rate which is 22 pe:-cent above the
average crime rate fo:- all c:-ime :-epo:-ting districts.
Please consider the ahove when ~aking your decision to issue the license
requested.
Yours,~~~
~~~
Donald J.; Illirnett
Chi ef of ~~1ice
-
cgr
cc: Mayor Uilcox
Council",an Qui el
Captai" Lewis
"~I ~D..nt.J1t "."Jlt'''.
" ~~O;r..-"','.'-
: M
.. 'I
I 'j
Ii
'll
lit 0
~n ....r:
\ii I
~ I < ~
~l ;\ ;; ~ J
. ., a! ~
'1 ...
~I ...
.
~
, . ~
; ,
.
l
.
i
I -_.
--,
I
I
I
.
r;
" J
"I ..
;.. i
I.i
5
~
i I' o. \
c
:! J "0
i i C>> !
;l ....
c:
.. I
::t 0
~ , ~
I.! ~a r
i \
I ;'!
nil! ..
dl"
.I~
I i
""-
, ~ .
,
~ ! l
--- ~~
- I
Iii ; .
i :.
\
:t.)II!it _ S
..... .. i
"; ~ =
p/l .
I i ~ ~ 'I . .
~ J
.
> i .
I "'" \ 1
I ,.,...........
I
. ~
\
--
C_.-"
-:1 -....a;,..- __......m
r ~ "'",""- AV.. '""
!
I
'52.'1- W.HIGHLNlbAVE. S. 8.. CAt.. 7-
~. ,,,., .oWTH '^'CUC' AY&. ",.,.. twfl.TII.,2.'
. &4tol'l'H4TOH,~. '.11" . (Wof),...O'1I.S
.. '.'.
,
o
o
o
o
klrUlEN
01'11\ \ Y't'1 Roo tr"\
DINNING Roo YY'\ - "
-
ISEt:) 1=loo ,
\
\
0 0 BAR.
D/QNcE FlOOR.. 0
D~
0 .
1
I - r
S1ZlM~ ~ LADYS
. Rcofl1
OF.flcr
"
5To~A6t: . N\~~S
Room ~ ..?-rom
..
$ToR
. .
."
I
"
Jl
.~
. ,
o
o
0"
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AGENDA
ITEM #
LOCATION
CASE CUP NO R7-f;
HEARING DATE l/17/R7
4
~ ...('"'"' ..-, , ..-, r,.I-1..J ~
./ . ----
/. l,Kl
It-! .1-1 .1-1. II-I J Hi ...... II-I
11-'
~I" :
"-'" L...-
II-I
II-I
11'1
II-I
.. ';::: ';='~: L... ~
11-1 II-I 11-1 yl~
'-'rJ II':: 1": 800' I L
,., : BB~
I
11'1 -
IU -.nr :E:;-
~ EtI: 1111 11-1 I 11.1
-fiE II-I
-
11-1 '10"
... -0" "0"
-
Itff]
II-I
,.
11-1 I. III II -I II-I'
. 11'1 :c
II-I 11'1 II-J Q 1M I II-I ,\iii II-I II-I.
It . "I =;t 11-1 \~~~ 11'1 :
~ . II- ;- . ~-J (!!I .-1 I I ... u~il II-I I - i T
I ~ II-I .~-' PI - 1131. 11-3 . ';.; ;; .... -11-3
. .-- II-I T 'T'"""'" !: C
d" ':":' o. I ,., /-:.' [illl';-M ~ ~ ,.
~ --"1lO~ __.;;.;.._
:::::J ~I C:-IA r;.;1. C-lt C-3' ~,23 C'3 I ~ ~3 ~'J
:::::J@I. ..... ~ C-J IT" :;:.I: T cv.
:JB T . T ~...' lIoJ 11-3 11'3 ..., T
:J 11-' l:l II" .;rc:;I ~ liT Ill-I /U' A-P C'3A if II-'a 11-3 11-3 I
:Jet 11'1 IP-b~1 ;:;~IIIII AP ~.. ., . ~-IDI' .
.:JD .. U l;;lAl'Ill'I IAPI . AlIII-I 11'1
.. i.:I IC II-I IH.. I
...J8 T CS Co3 T 1101 AI l::J II-I . o.
J II'J ( ;m;- ~~ 1M ., II-I II-I .:JiL = ~ 6\
3B 4 :C~T II." ~... _ BBE3~ ~IT!]I
~ ,.:'~- :=: ::: I :; B 8 BB~B ," :-
:-j :; I T ""'~ ~ I:~, 8 11-1 lB~:1]
.J :"'. ~~ ; 11'1 T 1:"1 I rl: 11-1 AP I ~:= I 114 II-I kd JD T-i"
~-J 8 II-I II EB ffiB ~1lI. lIt., ~ RR B
" .. II-J Tel
. II-I lit , A'P II-J 11.4 114J I"";';'" 11-3 II-J II-J 11-3
.... ;;l~~J .., .J;~ ;p...,JR31 113
II-I
II-I
II-I
)
II-I
II-I
~
o
o
o
o
March 9. 1987
Dear Slrs,
cV\f' ca7-;h
I prote.t the lssuance of a ON SALE GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE,
at )24 W. Hlghland. San Bdno. CA., for the followlng reasonsl
1- Already a BAR 2 doors away
2- Not enough parklng as 1 t 18
)- Too close to Schools
4- Area ls bad enough already wlth Drug Deallng
5- Trafflc On 2)rd St. between Arrowhead and D St. already
very congested, even wlthNo parklng on north slde of
street.
6- Hlgh CRIME AREA
7- ADULT BOOK STORE NEXT DOOR
8-
9-
Sincerely.
~-1' ~~
3~& vJ'd-5~
~ ~, ~ ~;J-'t~
\Mu~unm
MAR 10 1987
STAFF
ROIJTING
F. A.S. -AA-
D,A. lJ1lC!
V,B,_
A.L._
D. _
G.G._
K.M._
M.B._
M.F._
M,N._
1I.1l._
S;W._
V.R
CITY ~ iI.: ..... .. -} AR1MEllf
SAN BEI\liARillNO. CA
-..'
o
o
o
o
March 9. 1987
Dear Sir.,
Luf> ~ 7-C.
f'l~
I prote.t the i..uance ot a ON SALE GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE.
at )24 W. Highland. San Bdno. CA.. tor the tOllowing rea.on.,
1- Already a BAR 2 door. away
2- Not enough parking a. it i.
)- Too clo.e to School.
4- Area i. bad enough already with Drug Dealing
. S- Tratfic On 2)rd St. between Arrowhead and D St. already
9.. c:o_e.~.. .... wi'tb lIlo Parking on nortlt.;..w.. .of
.treU. . . .. ... .
6- High CRIME AREA
7- ADULT BOOK STORE NEXT DOOR
8-
9-
Sincerely.
CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SAN BERNARDINO. CA
STAFF
ROIITING
,
. F.AS.-#.-
. D.A.~,
'Y.B._:
A.L._'
0.. _
E.G.__
G.G._
K.Il_
1l0._
M.F._
. IlN._
. R.R._
5.W._
V.R_
00 ffi@ffinwrnlID
MAR 11 1987
LE_
..
o
o
March 9. 1987
Dear Sirs,
o
o
CUP NO. 87-11
I prot..t the issuance of a ON SALE GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE,
at )24 W. Highland. San Bdno. CA.. for the following reason.,
1- Already a BAR 2 door. away
2- Not enough parking as it is
3- Too clo.e to Schools
4- Area is bad enough already with Drug Dealing
s- T~~lo On 23Z'l11 8~.. ,lHttween AJT.ea4 and D St. already
very conseated. ...wlth No Par1tlng on north aide of
atreet.
6- High CRIME AREA
7- ADULT BOOK STORE NEXT DOOR
8-
9-
Sincerely.,
. ~
~ ).,). A~~.~
37.:2. W. .23 ~ sr.
S j!>..N \3 Dt>j<:l . cf\ 9'~ 'f~s
~
; ~
00 rn@rnuwrnlID
MAR 12 1987
CITY PlANNING DEPARTMENT
SAN BBlNARDJNO. CA
STAFF
HOI/TlNG
F.AS.__
D.A._
V.B._
A.L._
D.W_
E.6._
6.6._
K.iIt._
M.B._
M.F.__
M.N._
R.R._
s.w._
Y.R_
FILE_
-0
)
t
March 9. 1987
Dear Sirsl
o
o
.\ " ~.':":l\_ r...
'-....)., '0 \.:I
00 rn@rn~wrn [ID
MAR 16 1987
CITY PLANr,lmi iJ~?;l.i1TMENT
SAN BERNARDlrJO. CA
o
STAFF
HOI/TING
fA-S.
O,A,
V.B._
A,L._
O.W._
E,(l,_
(l,(l,_
!ut_
IM.J,_
M.-::._
M,:".__
RR._
$.'::.-
V.H _
- -
~ITY OF SAN BEIQARDINO Q.. MEMORANDUI6"?
'0
DONALD BURNETT, CHIEF OF POLICE (\ ~^JJ\~FrOm DET. R. RICE
ON SALE YLK' '" . Date 5 - 4 - 8 7
To
Subject
BUSINESS NAME. CITY
324 W. Highland Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92405
Date
Approved
APPLICANTS. PADDOCK, DAVID N.
PADDOCK, CAROL A.
23291 Caminto Andreta
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
On or about the last week of April, 1987 I received a copy of the
application for alcoholic beverage license, ABC form 211, in the applicant
name of DAVID and CAROL PADDOCK for a business called City Lites at
324 W. Highland Avenue, San Bernardino.
I recalled in the last week of December, 1986 I received an application
for an alcoholic beverage license in the name of City Lites (Your
Place dba City Lites) with the owners being DAVID and CAROL PADDOCK
along with a general partner RONNY J. GROVE. I investigated this
application in January, 1987 and recommended denial of the license
to the Chief of Police. The Chief dispatched a letter to Mr. KEASLING
of A.B.C. on February 5, 1987 asking Mr. KEASLING to consider the
potential police problems at 324 W. Highland. Those problems are.
crime stats, parking, and opposition by residents and other businesses
in the area.
On April 6, 1987 the Planning Commission denied the conditional use
permit #87-6 to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site
consumption at City Lites. An appeal hearing is to be on May 11,
1987 in front of the Mayor and Common Council_
At approximately 0945 hours, 5-4-87, I made phone contact with Mr.
PADDOCK at his place of business, "Mountain Lites" a bar and restaurant
in Crestline. I advised him that I had received a new ABC form 211
for his application for alcoholic beverage license in the name of
DAVID and CAROL PADDOCK with the elimination of RONNY GROVE who had
been on the previous ABC 211 application for beverage license. Mr.
PADDOCK said Mr. GROVE was eliminated from the corporation. Mr. PADDOCK
advised that he was in the process of starting up his restaurant,
Mountain Lites, in Crest line at this time, which was previously known
as Sam's Place.
pnEY f
<..: /.; PHOGRESS
......' ........;..
""1 -..,1 \.'--::--"' ,
......_l- t
'7"~ r ,
.c:rJ
o
o
o
o
ON SALE GENERAL ABC LICENSE - CITY LITES
PAGE 2
Furthermore, he advised he still had a City Countil meeting to contest
his C.U.P. denial in front of the Mayor and Common Council on
May 11, for his business, City Lites, in San Bernardino. Mr. PADDOCK
said he had secured more parking for his business at the First American
Bank at the northeast corner of Highland and Arrowhead and also further
parking at Home Savings at the southwest corner of Highland and
Arrowhead. He said he had a verbal agreement with both instructions
for parking at his place of business, City Lites, after those
institu~ions had closed after 3:00PM in the afternoon. He said he
made an agreement to patrol the lots and acquire public liability
insurance.
He indicated that he planned to open City Lites as a restaurant, bar,
and lounge offering two meals per day, lunch and dinner. It would
be open from noon until 2:00AM. Mr. PADDOCK indicated that his original
application was for a Type 48 license, but lost that license due to
the delays in the C.U.P. He has since acquired a conditional priority
license Type 47 which requires him to serve two meals per day and
would allow subjects under the age of 21 to enter the business.- He
further said that there will be D.J. music, 50's and 60's style Thursday
through Sunday that would cater to everyone 21 years of age and over.
Mr. PADDOCK further stated he and his wife would like to have a discussion
with the Chief of Police regarding their business, City Lites in San
Bernardino. I told him he could call and make an appointment with
the Chief's office.
I further advised Mr. PADDOCK that as policy per our department there
would be an automatic protest by San Bernardino Police Department
due to the crime rate in his reporting district. I described reporting
districts to Mr. PADDOCK. Mr_ PADDOCK further indicated that he was
very pleased with the work of the police department, that he wanted
to run;a good business and stated that the conditions laid down by
the city would be fine with him, whatever they would be, if he were
able to open with his Type 47 license.
It must be noted the proposed location is still in Reporting
District 690 with crime stats 22% higher than the average reporting
district for the City of San Bernardino. Furthermore, the proposed
location is in Census Track #53 which allows for five on sale licenses.
Presently there are seven on sale licenses with one pending which
constitutes ABC rule 61.3, undue concentration. I have further been
advised by ABC personnel that the PADDOCKS have already re-opened
City Lites as a "teen joint" as of two to three weeks ago.
. '0
o
o
o
ON SALE GENERAL ABC LICENSE - CITY LITES
PAGE 3
RECOMMENDATION.
I. once again, recommend to the Chief of Police of the city of San
to protest this ABC license in the name of DAVID and CAROL
y submitted: