Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout58-Planning .' c~ OF SAN _R&RiHMo · R8QUIIST 90.. COUNCIL ACTION R. Ann Siracusa From: Director of Planning Dept: Planning D~: June 9, 1988 Subject: Appeal ~f Conditional Use Permit No. 88-21 Mayor and Council Meeting June 20, 1988, 2:00 p.m. Synopsis of Previous Council ection: No Previous Council Action. Previous Planning Commission Action: On May 17, 1988, the Planning Commission, after conducting a properly noticed public hearin~denied Conditional Use Permit No. 88-21. This vote was 4-4 with 1 absent. This Commission action is being appealed to the Mayor and Common Council. The applicants are requesting a. Conditional Use Permit to operate a bar selling beer and wine. Recommended motion: That the appeal be denied and Conditional Use Permit No. 88-21 be denied. ~.C),>.i\}('-- ~J'..B-~ . :\) <'\J ~. Signature R. Ann Siracusa Contact person: R. Ann Siracusa 385-5057 Phone: Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 7 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: IAcct, No.) (Acct. DescriDtion) Finance: Council Notes: .___~_ 'h_ .._ ....5 55: , , C) CITY OF SAN _RaRDING - Rt:QUBST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Subject: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-21 Mayor and Council Meeting of June 20, 1988 REOUEST The applicants request approval of a Conditional Use Permit under authority of San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.26.020(B), (C), 10 and (C) 16, to operate a bar selling beer and wine, in which there is a pool table and dance floor. BACKGROUND On May 17, 1988, the Planning Commission, after conducting a properly noticed public hearing, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 88-21. The permit would have allowed the appli- cants to reopen a bar known as the -Knothole- to sell beer and wine. The business was closed by the probate attorney after the death of the owner last year. However, the property has not had a business license since 1985. There were eight Commissioners present, and the vote was a four-four split. Attorney Dennis Barlow, from the City Attorney's Office, explained to the Commission that a split vote results in denial of the proposal. During the meeting seven people spoke against the proposal. In addition, two letters and a petition with 26 names of residents living behind the bar, were submitted voicing opposition to the application. The primary concern was the lack of parking. The owner of the property adjacent to the site, Mr. Peter KOluncich, told of ten years of trying to deal with the parking problems of the bar. He said that he has had to ask people to move their cars and threaten to have them towed away, again and again. He said that a reciprocal parking agreement was a can of worms that he would not like to deal with, and he had not been contacted about such an agreement. In addition to the parking problems was the strain of the bar's patrons being unruly, littering and urinat~ng in the parking lot, leaving the mess for the property owners to clean up. The owner of Butch's Grinders, Mr. John Swiggum, told of having windows broken when he complained of the nuisances. Mr. and Mrs. Dominic Tudor spoke to the problems the owners of Butch's Grinders have had over the years and to their personal fear of the type of people that ended up loitering in the parking lot. The neighbors to the east of the property along Stoddard 75-0264 o o Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-21 Mayor and Council Meeting of June 20, 1988 Page 3 Avenue signed a petition against the bar. Mr. Thomas C. Long brought the document in and said he had gathered the names himself. He and his neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Taylor, were concerned that the present peace and quiet of their residen- tial neighborhood would be destroyed if this use was allowed to reopen. They were concerned that property values would be lowered. Mr. Ronald Cocking studio. The studio picked up just up the expressed concern regarding his dance presently has children dropped off and street from the bar. Mr. John R. Burrell, owner of the Red Fox, a bar located a block south of this application, told of trying to purchase this site about a year ago. He discussed the problems with the property with the Building and Safety Department and the Planning Department. The business had been closed for about a year at that time, and he was told that the building would have to be brought up to current Code and that on-site, off- street parking would have to be provided. He asked that the Commission continue to apply those same rules. After some discussion, Commissioner Brown stated that the question was not the sale of alcohol, but that the site did not meet City requirements for parking and that the entrance driveway was too narrow. Commissioner Brown asked the City Attorney's representative, Dennis Barlow, if the City would be liable if accidents occurred in the driveway. Mr. Barlow replied that if he were the attorney he would file against the City that allowed the narrow driveway against its ordi- nances. Commissioner Cole questioned the possible "taking of property" issue. He further questioned how the Planning Commission could impose the requirements of parking on these applicants when the business had been operating for twenty years. Commissioners Sharp and Stone asked if the property could be used for any other purpose. It was explained that the parking requirements are higher for a bar or restaurant than they would be for any other commercial use. The tran- sitional property to the rear could be used for parking. Commissioner Corona expressed concern that the only reason the applicants were before the Commission was because of the probate forced closing. The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Haga, the owner, Mrs. Rita Niblick, and the plan preparer, Mr. Rick Zyber, spoke for the application. In addition, Mr. James Leonard, who at one time lived above the bar spoke in support of the application. The applicants stated that they are willing to cooperate with the . o o Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-21 Mayor and Council Meeting of June 20, 1988 Page 4 City in any way possible to facilitate the bar. They expressed their willingness to necessary and within their power to bring current Code requirements. opening of the do whatever was the bar up to ANALYSIS In granting a Conditional Use Permit for alcoholic beverage sales, the Planning Commission must make the finding that the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses. The staff report could not make that finding and the public testimony concerning the application supports the denial. The residents and surrounding business owners do not want the patrons for this use parking on their street or on their property. In addition, the Commission must make the finding that the size and shape of the parcel are adequate for the proposed use. In this case, there is not enough space for the needed parking on site. A third necessary finding is that the use would not be detrimental to the peace and general welfare of the neighborhood. Twenty-six residents of the area signed the petition stating their opposition to the proposal. The residents' concerns included cars parked in their driveways, problems with noise, and concerns for their children being exposed to the patrons of the bar. The attached staff report outlines the requirements for eighteen off-street parking spaces for the bar. The City requires more parking for bars and restaurants than it does for other commercial uses allowed in the same zone. If this site was used for an office building, only nine spaces would be required, but at present no off-street parking is pro- vided. Experience has shown that additional spaces are needed for bar patrons. In this particular case, the resi- dents of the area reinforce the need for adequate parking. A twenty-four foot wide driveway is the minimum required. A single parking stall is required to be nine feet wide in the City. An existing side driveway is only eight feet wide and can barely accommodate one car. The applicants stated that they are making efforts to obtain property adjacent to the bar for parking. To date, they have not been successful. CONCLUSIQH There are no exceptional approve this application. in the neighborhood. The or extraordinary circumstances The residents do not want the surrounding businesses do not to use want o o Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-21 Mayor and Council Meeting of June' 20, .1988 Page 5 the bar's patrons parking on their property. adequate parking available on the site nor located nearby. COUNCIL OPTIONS The Council may deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-21 or the Council may uphold the appeal and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 88-21. If the Council chooses to uphold the appeal, they may apply conditions of approval. Purther, if the Council chooses to uphold the appeal and approve the Conditional Use Permit, positive Pindings of Pact must be articulated to support the approval. There is not conveniently RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and deny Conditional Use Permit No. 88-21. Prepared by: Vivian Stevens, Planner II for R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning B C D E Statement of Official Planning Commission Action Letter of Appeal Planning Commission Staff Report Letter of Opposition Petition of Opposition Attachments: A mkf/6/8/88 M&CCAGENDA:CUP882l . o o ATTACHMENT A City of San Bernardino STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION PROJECT Number: Conditional Ose Permit No. 88-21 Applicant: Thomas and Elizabeth Hoga ACTION Meeting Date: May 17, 1988 Approved Adoption of Negative Declaration and Adoption of Request Subject to the following Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval (Attachment A) . x Denied. Withdrawn by Applicant. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The proposed Conditional Ose Permit is consistent with the letters dated June 11, 1987, July 3, 1987, August 18, 1987, January 20, 1988, February 5, 1988 and March 16, 1988 from the State Office of Planning and Research to the City of San Bernardino which stipulate that -. .. land uses proposed during the period of the extension will be consistent with the purpose of the updated general plan provisions . . .- 2. The p~oposed use will adve~sely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located in that no on-site parking is available and patrons will park in required parking of adjacent businesses or on the street because the proposed parking for this establishment is not convenient for use. 3. The size and shape of the site proposed for the use is not adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety and general welfare in that the commercial site does not meet the City's requirements for landscaping, parking and circulation. 4. The traffic generated by the proposed project will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways .. . . o o City of San Bernardino STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Conditional O.e Permit Ho. 88-21 l'age 2 designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area in that the sale of alcohol for on-site consumption will not intensify traffic generation. 5. The granting of this Conditional Ose Permit would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of San Bernardino in that it is less than 100 feet from single-family homes. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES - REQOIRED FINDINGS 1. The introduction' of alcoholic beverage sales at the proposed location will pose significant i.pacts to the surrounding land uses as the site is less than 100 feet from a residential structure. 2. The introduction of alcoholic beverage sales at the proposed location will create an adverse impact on the surrounding traffic patterns and will create parking congestion as the facility has no on-site parking. 3. The proposed sales of. alcoholic beverages in a bar with a dance floor and pool table are within a development which is consistent with the letters dated June 11, 1987, July 3, 1987, August 18, 1987, January 20, 1988, February 5, 1988 and March 16, 1988 from the State Office of Planning and Research to the City of San Bernardino which stipulate that ....land uses proposed during the period of the extension will be consistent with the purpose of the updated general plan provisions..... 4. The proposed use will not contribute to an undue concentration of alcohol outlets in the area in that 12 outlets are allowed for on-sale and eight exist in this census tract. 5. There will be detrimental effects on nearby residentially-zoned neighborhoods considering the distance of alcohol outlets to residential buildings, churches, schools, hospitals, playgrounds, parks, or other existing alcohol outlets as the existing commercial center is less than 100 feet from the TransitionalOistrict in which residences are allowed. The site is within .3 mile of schools, churches. En Ayes: Nays: Brown, Gomez, Lopez, Nierman Cole, Corona, Sharp, Stone _ J;i . r o o City of San Bernardino STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Conditional Use Permit No. 88-21 Page 3 Abstain: NOne Absent: Lindseth I, hereby, certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final determination of the Planning Co_i..'on ~::: ..,..d'DO. S',. '1116 Signature ~ R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning Print or Type Name and Title RAS/mkf DOCOMENTS:PCAGENDA PCACTION . o MARx L. BRADBURY * '1~.4. ATTACHMENT B o . t. ..".. CA'IAUIM AvaNUE .....DO a&ACH. 0.. ..". ....,..a:l7. QeD IIIOIn'M "1- aTIIlKT IMH _...DDlCLC...... 17... ........ May 25, 1988 PI.EASE AIlOIlES8 IlEPI. y TO: San Bernardino CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Attn: City Clerk Re: Conditional Use Permit Application #88-21 Dear Madam: This is to serve as notice of Thomas and Elizabeth Haga's intention to appeal the four-four vote and subsequent denial rendered by the Planning Commis- sion panel on May 17. 1988 in the matter of their Conditional Use Permit Application #88-21. If I may supply any additional information please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, cc: Vivian Stevens, Planning Dept. Thomas & Elizabeth Haga Rita Niblick \I ~ ~ l\) t'", , ,- - ..~ :! Co ..9. oj '- ~ ~I ')~ .. I" 'j<::J ~.- ~ \(I (\J ~...f c.. - () MLB/je ~~~... io' ,. .... -- j ". '.. ' t ~ '.._~ ',J :~': . . --J . . ~ o o ATTACHMENT C ,. CiTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~ SUMMARY .. l&J ~ t; III 5 III a: .... cr l&J a: cr AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE WARo 2 '5/17/88 7 ~ Conditional Use Permit 88-21 APPl.ICANT: Thomas & Elizabeth Haga P.O. Box 933 Highland, CA 92346 OWNER: Rita Niblick 470 W. 17th Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 The applicants request approval of a conditinal use permit under authority of San Bernardino Municipal code Section 19.26.020(8) and (C) 10 and 16, to operate a bar selling beer and wine and housing a pool table and a dance floor. The 7,179 square foot parcel is located on the east side of North "E" Street, 150 feet north of Marshall Boulevard at 3227-3231 North "E" Street. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION Subject Vacant C-3A N/A North Commercial/Apartment C-3A N/A South Residence C-3A N/A East Residence T N/A West Commercial Strip C-3A N/A GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC ,.." FLOOO HAZARD Dvt;S OZONE A C DYES ) _,YES SEwaRS HAZARO ZONE atlNO ZONE mNO OZONE 1 ONO HIGH FIRE DyES AIRPORT NOISE I DYES REDEVELOPMENT o vis HAZARO ZONE IlINo CRASH ZONE lCXINO PROJECT MEA aHO ..J o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z 0 APPROVAL ~ APPLICABLE EFFECTS 0 WITH MITlGATING - 0 Z(I) MEASURES NO E,I,R. Iii CONDITIONS IIIC!) !ikExEMPT o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO ...Q a 2z ...t5 DENIAL Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS oQ WITH MITIGATING ~2 0 CONTINUANCE TO a:Z MEASURES (1)2 >~ 0 Z ONO o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ~ III SIGNIFICANT SEE ATTACHEO E.R C, EFFE CTS MINUTES a: NOV. ...1 RIVlacD ~u..y "" IKY o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT . CASE CUP 88-Z~ OBSERVATIONS o AGENDA ITEM Z HEARING DATE 5/1;/88 PA E ? 1 . REQUEST The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit under authority of Code Section 19.26.020(B)7 to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages for on site consumption and, under authority of Code Section 19.28.020(C) 10 and 16, to provide a pool table and a dance floor. The 2,100 square foot bar, formerly the .Knothole., is located in the C-3A, Limited General Commercial Zone. 2. SITE LOCATION The 7,179 square foot site is located on of .E. Street, 150 feet north of Marshall address is 3227-3231 North .E. Street. .B., Location Map. the east side Avenue. The See Attachment 3. MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed use is permitted in the C-3A zone, subject to a Conditional Use Permit. It is consistent with the letters dated June 11, 1987, July 3, 1987, August 18, 1987, January 14, 1988, February 5, 1988 and March 16, 1988, from the State Office of Planning and Research to the City of San Bernardino which stipulate that ....land uses proposed during the period of the extension will be consistent with the purpose of the updated general plan provisions....., and with the City of San Bernardino Housing and Scenic Highways elements. The proposed project is not in conformance with the San Bernardino Municipal Code. See Attachment .A., Municipal Code land General Plan conformance. 4. CEQA STATUS The application is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15301. o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE r.tTP R8-21 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM 2 HEARING'DATE 5/17188 H.l s. BACKGROUND The existing building was constructed for commercial use in 1948. It has been used as a bar since 1968. The City Clerk's records show that the Knothole ceased as a business, based on expiration of valid business license in 1980. However, it operated without a license until the death of one of the owners in January, 1988. At that time, the business was forced into probate and closed. The new owners have applied to reopen the Knothole. There is not an existing Conditional Ose Permit for the bar as the business existed prior to the effective date of the Ordinance establishing the requirement. In order to reopen, the business must meet current code requirements. 6. ANALYSIS The Conditional Use Permit would allow the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption in a neighborhood bar that offers pool, darts, foos ball and dancing to a jukebox. The proposed hours of operation are Monday through Thursday, 11:00 a.m. until 12:00 Midnight, Fridays and Saturday, 10:00 a.m. until 2:00 a.m., and Sunday 10:00 a.m. until 12:00 Midnigbt. The bar would employ four people, two would be part-time. In the past the patrons have parked on the street and in the KCKC Radio Station yard. The applicant's drawings show that the building sits on the property line on -E- Street, with only an eight foot wide driveway to the rear. The plans show an existing non-conforming apartment on the second floor. No parking or landscaping is depicted for the property. Municipal Code requirements for parking for this land use are one space for every thirty-five square feet of seating area and one space per two hundred square feet for the remaining area. For this bar, eighteen spaces would be required. Nine spaces are needed for the seating area and nine are needed for the remaining area. 1 o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE r.tT1' RA_" OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM 2 HEARING DATE ~/17/88 The applicant has suggested that the rear yard could be used for parking. However, the driveway is too narrow to permit even one-way traffic. The Municipal Code requirement for one-way traffic is a 15 foot driveway. There is only eight feet between the building and the property line. It should be noted that the applicant submitted a letter stating reciprocal parking arrangements with SBRECO at 3200 North RER Street. See Attachment RDR, Parking Agreement. The Planning Commission has accepted such agreements in the past where on-site parking is not available. However, the reciprocal parking is usually within 200 feet of the proposal. The parking lot covered under this agreement is behind a building across wER Street from this proposal, approximately 400 feet from the bar. The parking lot has no access from RER Street. Access is from Marshall Boulevard. In this instance, there is no vacant property available for parking in the block. The applicant is making inquiries into purchasing adjacent property to construct a parking lot. In considering a Conditional Use Permit, compatibility with the surrounding land use must be evaluated. North wER Street has a mix of commercial and residential uses. A fast-food restaurant and the former KCKC Radio Station are just south of this site. North of Marshall and across WER from the proposal is the large, predominately vacant, office building with which the applicant has the parking agreement. There are several residences on RER Street north of this proposal. However, the zoning is C-3A, Limited General Commercial. The houses are existing non-conforming uses. Stoddard Street parallels wEw Street to the east. The property on Marshall is zoned C-3A but the property adjacent to this site is zoned T, Transitional, and is occupied by single-family homes. The proposed location is .3 mile from a church and a school. It is only twenty feet from the residence to the north. The residence is a non-conforming use. It is approx~mately 100 feet from a residence to the east In the Transitional Zone. the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control's (ABC) regulations require that the site be at least 100 feet from a residence for a new license. However, because this license existed previously, ABC cannot enforce this rule. 'lo.. o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT . CASE CUP 88- 21 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM , HEARING DATE ~/17/RR PM ~ In addition to the lack of parking and residences within 100 feet, the application has several other problem areas which could be corrected. The floor plans for the proposal reveal that the restrooms do not meet handicap standards. The City Building and Safety Pepartmentwould require that the building meet current Building Code Standards. Although not depicted on the plans, there is an existing roof mounted sign which would have to be removed. It could be replaced with one that meets current code. The building contains an apartment on the second floor. This mixed use is not allowed in this Limited General Commercial District. However, the present owner states that the use has existed continuously since 1968. It was occupied by the owner at that time. The present . owner, who inherited the property, states that she lived in the apartment. She submitted a letter stating that to her knowledge, the unit has been vacant for only three days. This non-conforming use would be allowed to continue if there has not been a break in use of 180 days. See Attachment .E., Owner's Letter. In addition to the request for on-site sales of alcoholic beverages, the plans show a dance floor and pool table. Both of these uses require Conditional Use Permits. City Ordinances require that the applicant apply to the Chief of Police for a license for a permit for the dance floor. A permit must be obtained from the City Clerk for the Common Council for the pool table. The applicant would need to comply with these requirements. Other Planning Department concerns for these uses have been addressed. 7. COMMENTS RECEIVED The Police Department surveyed the site and does not plan to protest the application. The bar has existed for many years and is not located in a high crime area. The Police pr i v ileges interviewed opposition Report. Department did be removed residents in to the bar. recommend that if approved. the area and See Attachment the off-sale The police found no .e., Police .... ~ , ';' o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE r.tTP RR_' 1 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM 2 HEARING DATE 5/17/88 P The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control was contacted. They report that this application will not be denied. The ABC has received a protest from a neighbor. The ABC has imposed strict conditions on the approval of the liquor license. The hours of operation would be limited to 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on week nights and until 12:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. The doors would be closed at all times during operating hours and no one would be allowed to drink outside the building. There can be no live entertainment and the jukebox must not be audible outside the building. also, the applicant must keep the area free of litter. These conditions would be added if the City approves the application. 8. CONCLUSION Although the proposal for on-site sale of alcohol, a pool table and dance floor is compatible with the surrounding commercial zoning. The site does not meet the City requirements for circulation, parking or landscaping. The driveway is too narrow to permit access to the rear of the property. Eighteen parking spaces are required for the use. The twenty spaces that are provided with the off-site parking agreement are not conveniently located. The San Bernardino Police Department has voiced no objections to the proposal. The proposal is not in a high crime area. The proposed site is twenty feet from a residence to the north and this violates current ABC regulations. This Conditional Use Permit is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA. 9. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Conditional Use Permit following Findings of Alcoholic Beverage Sales RB_1R .) the Planning Commission deny No. 88-21 subject to the Fact (Attachment RBR) and Required Findings (Attachment , t o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT . CASE CUP 88-21 OBSERVATIONS r Respectfully submitted, R. ANN SIRACUSA Director of Planning ~J~ Vivian Stevens Planner I VS:cms AGENDA ITEM ~ HEARING DATE JiJ.l/S8 p. -:; Attachment A Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance Attachment B Findings of Fact Attachment B-1 Findings of Fact for Alcohol Attachment C Police Comments Attachment D Parking Agreement Attachment E Owner's Letter Attachment F Site Map Attachment G Location Map pcaSenda cup882l0 5/12/88 ~. .' . . o o Attachment "A" Municipal Code & General Plan Conformance Category Proposal Permitted Use On-site sale of alcohol Parking o spaces 18 across street Landscaping None Signs Existing roof sign prohibited Pool Hall 1 table Dance Floor Small floor Municipal Code C.U.P. required 18 spaces (1/35 sq.ft.1 .eating; 1/200 sq.ft.1 remainder) 5% parking area None shown - 2 wall signs allowed at 150 sq.ft.. I 25 ft. high pole sign. 75 sq.ft. face City Clerk Permit from Common Council Police permit .-, -~ General Plan N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -''''''''.,-~-- o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 88-21 FINDINGS of FACT AGENDA ITEM 2 HEARING OATE5/17/88 PAGE 9 1. The proposed .Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the letters dated June 11, 1987, July 3, 1987, August 18, 1987, January 20, 1988, February 5, 1988 and March 16, 1988 from the State Office of Planning and Research to the City of San Bernardino which stipulate that ....land uses proposed during the period of the extension will be consistent with the purpose of the updated general plan provisions..... 2. The proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of theatea in which it is proposed to be located in that no on-site parking is available and patrons will park in required parking of adjacent businesses or on the street because the proposed parking for this establishment is not convenient for use. 3. The size and shape of the site proposed for the use is not adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety and general welfare in that the commercial site does not meet the City's requirements for landscaping, parking and circulation. 4. The traffic generated by the proposed project will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area in that the sale of alcohol for on-site consumption will not intensify traffic generation. 5. The granting of this Conditional Use Permit would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of San Bernardino in that it is less than 100 feet from single-family homes. ~_....--' , o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 88-21 FINDINGS of FACT AGENDA ITEM 2 HEARING DATE 5/17/88 P r ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES - REQUIRED FINDINGS 1. The introduction of alcoholic beverage sales at the proposed location will pose significant impacts to the surrounding land uses as the site is less than 100 feet from a residential structure. 2. The introduction of alcoholic beverage sales at the proposed location will create an adverse impact on the surrounding traffic patterns and will create parking congestion as the facility has no on-site parking. 3. The proposed sales of alcoholic beverages in a bar with a dance floor and pool table are within a development which is consistent with the letters dated June 11, 1987, July 3, 1987, August 18, 1987, January 20, 1988, February 5, 1988 and March 16, 1988 from the State Office of Planning and Research to the City of San Bernardino which stipulate that ....land uses proposed during the period of the extension will be consistent with the purpose of the updated general plan provisions..... 4. The proposed use will not contribute to an undue concentration of alcohol outlets in the area in that 12 outlets are allowed for on-sale and eight exist in this census tract. 5. There will be detrimental effects on nearby residentially-zoned neighborhoods considering the distance of alcohol outlets to residential buildings, churches, schOOlS, hospitals, playgrounds, parks, or other existing alcohol outlets as the existing commercial center is less than 100 feet from the Transitional District in which residences are allowed. The site is within .3 mile of schools, churches. VS:cms pcagenda cup8821F 5/12/88 ,. o Attachment "c" o POLICE CONCERNS APPLICATION tOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR ALCOHOL BEVERAGE LICENSES :"OCATIOH: 3227 - 3231 North 'E' Street Cond:.tional Use Permit Return to Planning by. No. 88-21 5-3 I. Reporting District 760 Previous Year Crime 90 . RID Average - 46% ?art I Crim~s 75 Part II Arrests 15 ?erson 16 Property 59 Alcohol Related 4 27% (% ) ?revious 90 days Part I Crimes 24 Pc:rt II Arrests 1 ?erson 2 Property 22 Alcohol Related 1/100% (% ) II. Census Track 51 Census Count Boundaries Marshall to 40th St. , 'E' Street to Kendall to Harrison On-Sale licenses 12 allowed 8 existing l2 pending 0 Location ~ City Off-Sale Privileges 3227-3231 N. 'E' 42 yes 169 E. 40th St. H yes 255 E. 40th St. 48 yes 265 E. 40th St. 41 yes 271 E. 40th St. 41 yes 127 W. 40th St. 47 yes 666 Kendall 47 yes 800 Kendall 48 yes 842 Kendall 41 yes 974 Kendall 41 yes 3..33 Parks ide 51 yes 3993 Sierra Way 48 yes 0 0 Off-Sale Licenses 12 allowed 7 existing 10 pending 0 Location ~ City 3201 N 'E' St. 20 yes 132 East 40th St. 20 yes 1"0:; F. 40Th ~t 7' y.A.t=t 175 Eo 40th ~t " y'es 247 E. 40th St. 20 yes 277 E. 40th St. 21 yes 295 E. 40th St. 20 yes 974 Kendall 21 yes 977 Kendall 21 yes 3981 Sierra Way 20 yes -0''''-'' . , . III. General Vicinity Distance to nearest: School Temple Emanuel Distance . 3 mile Church Temple Emanuel . 3 mile Parks 40th and Mt. View On-Sale License Red Fox 1. 4 mile . 2 mile Off-Sale License 3201 North 'E' St. 100' Residential Uses. Distance of parking lot to residence Distance no parking lot Distance of building to residence 3239 North 'E' 20' IV. Comments from residents: Mr. RICKER, 3255 North 'E' Street has no problem with the bar opening. he spoke to other neighbors8nd they did not want to protest the bar opening. V. Comments from Police Department. After completing the investigation the Police Department has no reason to protest the license. VI. Police Department recommendation. Remove off-sale privileqes. ~HJ^.I"\ ~m:~1& A.J,lJ Signat e YY -",.)..~ Date signed ./if .. o Attachment liD" o ~IE~ 3200 North MEM Street Post om... Box 126 San Bemardlno, California 92402 (114) 1186-4119 ~\oly 6, 1988 ,-.., " I ;.; , " -, UU MiW e- 1986 City of San Bernardino Planning Oe~art~ent 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 CITY I ~" tAN E::,.....~, """I "'.'0' ;'.. .. Attn: Vivian Stevens Re: Knothole ParKing Dear Ms. Stevens: This is to inform you that SBRECQ, a California corpor- ation has granted the right of useage of twenty (20) of the ~arking spaces located behind its corporate offices, located at 3200 ~orth "E" Street, San Bernardino, CA, to Thomas and Elizabeth Haga for a period of ten (10) years. The parking spaces we have granted to Thomas and Elizabeth Haga olre those .e hold in excess of the small number re- ~uired by our o:fices. We certainly anticipate no problems with this arrangement dS the majority stockholder of SBRECQ, T.J. Haga, is Thomas Ha.;;a's brother. If fOU have an; questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, //~L~~ ~arK L. Bradbury, Esquire President )o\LB/1d ec: Thomas Haga -4 ,...- .f o o . Attachment "E" ,1??~ /d/I'Y8 q 1 S'''-~.-.~.~ ~~""~'-J L)~,. 300 71riU ~J-I ~ S'~ ~ ".A~..w.J a- . ~I"H> ....?~ A .1 _-- '_.~ ~&,.~ a'.r.::rAtt1" ~J ~ --rI ~-~ _'~c.,- ~.(.(.....~.....JtX..~ J- J;Ul'1-.J~J/ 71tMZL, ':E'#~"""";,, U. ~ ,?,S&.- ~~''''4~'w...) ~ T.G. ~d.c.G.. ~~~k,~~ -In ~ ~ 7:l-~ ~ t(-~-. ~. J'~ rw- lj...c ~ ~ "y/C/'~.,,;; ~~.nf~ ~&4111 ~ ~ h.4LQ~ z;:... ~.c"/ ~ J ~ ~ /1t.U."t-.e~: (1/"-/7rr-II//'" ~~ I'f~ Jtc;Ud , . l o ~ 0-,1 > n ! r'l Z 0-,1 .. .. '" !~ ," i~ I! I.} I I J il:1 till I I "1' i I I II fbll t'l t I" Ii ; I (t ! ii I i nmnl :Th.. KNOTHOLE -I 10]]1 . o Attachment "G" o LOCATION CASE CUP 88- 21 AGENDA ITEM#: 2 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PlANNING DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE 5/17/88 ;' .. ~ ~\:: a-I "-I .. .... ,., ~iBf] ~ R-I T, ~ fJl[~} a.t a-t BO 0 ,., DB IT. a-t a.1 88B 8BB ...., a.t a-, a.t a-t B8B~'" lIU_L a.1 a-t a-, DBIS ., a., 100 ROUTE ~ CROSSTOWN FitWV. ~ a,1 R'I R'I R'I R-I R-I ffi r:\Q R.I I.WH r=lr:l R'I R-I ,., I a, R-I R'I R-' R-I , . ,. o BEFORE THE 0 DEPARTMENT F ALCOHOUC BEVL_lACE CONTROL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA . ,... INna: MATI'&B OF 'DIE APPLICATION OF: RAGA, Elizabeth A. , Thomas A. dba: Knothole 3227-31 North "EO St. San Bernardino (IN) 92406 San Bernardino County FILE 42- REc. For issuance of an On-Sale Beer , Wine, Public Premises ~ under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. PETITION FOR CONOITIONAL LICENSE , WHEREAS, petitioners has filed an application for the issuance of the above- referred-to license for the above-mentioned premises; and, WHEREAS, the proposed premises is located within the immediate vicinity of residences; and, WHEREAS, issuance of a license without conditions could interfere with the peace and quiet enjoyment of their property by the nearby residents; NOW, THEREFORE. the undersigned petitioners do hereby petition for a conditional license as follows, to-wit: 1. Sales of alc~olic beverages shall be permitted only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 11.00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., Friday and Saturday. 2. No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the licensee. 3. The petitioners shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the area adjacent to the premises over which he has control. 4. There shall be no live entertainment permitted on the preoises at any time, 5. Entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the licensee. 6. All doors shall be closed at all times during the operation of the premises. "....", ,..ft. . ,. -, P"'T;TION FOR CONDITIONAL LQNSE ELIZABETH A. , THOMAS A:' 'A o PAGE 2 SAN BERNARDINO This petition fOr conditional licnese is made pursuant to the prOV1S10ns of __ Sections 23800 through 23805 of the Business and Professions Code and will be carried forward in any transfer at the applicant premises. Petitioner agrees to retain a copy of this petition on the premises at all times and will be prepared to produce it immediately upon the request of any peace officer. ,_ The petitioner understands that any violation of the foregOing condition shall be grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license. Dated this 6t day of ~/,j , 1988. Appl' HAGA, . SH:nz o ATTACHMENT D o 3206 Rorth "0" Street San 3ernardino, CA 92405 )lay 17, 1988 City Plannin~ Department 3UO ~orth "n" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 RE: CO~JlITI01iAL l;SE PE,{;lIT NO. :311-21 Dear Conmission Mernbers: I wis~ to oppose the approval of Conditior.al Use Pernit # ~R-21. Said applicant is seekin2 permission to opernte a bar which will also offer recreational dnncin3 and social billiards or pool. ~hile I realize that the facility has been operated previously ~s the "Knot ~ole" bar without formal ~rotest hy the residents of the con~unity, forhearance is aot to he construed as hein~ n welcome by the community but nerely toler~nce by residents too apathetic to seek its closure. The facility can hest be descri~e~ as an "attractive nuiscancc'f Wllich has ~een n "w3terin3 hole" for itenerants and transients from outside the iMnediate zonin~ area. The property is on the perimeter of a con~ercial zone surrounded by a high quality residential zone. The enterprise applied for will provide no needed or destreahle service to residents of the ~rea. To be a successful business, it must necessarily depend upon patrons who will drive there in Some type of vehicle. The premises provides no offstreet parkin2 whatsoever but alleges to have contractual parkinR available several hundred feet away with the only ent~ance being on ~arshall ~lvd. 150' west of ESt. With the ever increasing flow of traffic on "E" St., this type of enterprise would unreasonably increase the prohability of both pedestrian and vehicular interaect60n accidents. In reRnrds to the 3lle~edly pro~ised parking area, it is ~y understandin~ that the property in question is tn some type of litigation which ~uts clear title to the premises in jeopardy. Kesiding in this nrea for fifteen years, on nurner~us occasions, I have been awakened in the middle of the ni~ht by what 3ee~ed to be p,un fire or firewarks erninatin~ fron the i~nediate vicinity of the "Knot Hole." It is respectfully requested that the Planning Cornmission DE~Y this application. SinCerelY~ ~ ~;~;-f l'A~ ' . o 1\'.L"J:.t\\,,;t1l'1.I:..N'~' J::; o We the undersiqned oppose the proposed Conditional Use Permit no. 88-21. As residents in the immediate area we feel the increased traffic flow and increased noise pollution would qreatly affect the value of the surrondinq residential districts. NAME ftt-, }b ~'J.-,:~ , f...J). '-oli.~ dt~~, ~~~ .~t:Lcft:JUL (U~~ Q ~~~7- 7'(/~lCL"2t!?/ }?A-.. ~~~ f'~ J;1lt~iv2i:~k?) ~ku... ,h, /~" ~'7 '~~'- ., -', , ~,,{vvJJ W'=l;f /---2~/~ %4' &'ttJ' UD~ ~erl t )j,dZef\ (J~9~~ pW rr.'1f ,\'vl/~' ~? .~ ~lk,U-1Jd ~ ~ \MJhl) ADDRESS '8'.41. JTid-'-d 3/)v -st'vJ..d..r J 31 (PI, f,t,,j.JJ.+,L~ 3)S' SitoJ.d-J .g / J J ,JitHi-J ttW J/:J / ft ,.'.,14(,# ~I-S I ~+G~~C\..(~ $) ~ s' -i:t;~/:;;./ ..3 / f'7,def;';~~' ~/{,7 ~~d 3//7 ~~ 3/97 3/77 ]/17 ~lq t.. s.r~_tZp ! :::5-r;; dd .;R.r. 57t?'p-P/9M S T oJL&ll.Act. S~dd~V'd (~f-r;-J ~t:-~ 3)..3.;1 J;;h3 r j;;\Sl, )~~~ ' 3~t"};)..rn .~. ~nn~J DATE '0/.1' J' <g)., / ~'6 r/?/ r.r 5- <=t-W '-_ 1-YF ~-.. t::t-Fr )--'1 - '3~ 9-'f.g'€; A' S- f-d'i S-/J-zY f 7/Y? 5;- 17- ~!r ~--/ 7. 76" ..s--/7-.pp S - [1-- '6'8' ~ Il- ~o :)"'-n-yY lj- tl-~ ~ -- f? - cr <' "::>-- I 7 - '( ;j 6 6 .. ...... . .~-' J\J .q.,..., Ir .' . ' , ... I . .' " 'A-OPIt..-$ J ' - 3~9 8t;;dYa...# 'VM Sf<...' 3a!~ ~w.~ W)::~~~- :?~"r~ ~ ~ I?",i.__ ~ /;;.S-Y IV. t:J ~ 7ItG (pOlaN ;::;;;p S-1Vl:>/o Q f- D rl.Prfo."'" t 0 I't"'GE /I " $1.,3/ ,v.~ ,J~8 J ?7 . ' 32.3<1 D. ~i 7 {j .'.. o;;.r; 5-/7-eg- '., sf! 9-/W Sj; 7f! 5- '7- 'i~ 5//~8~ 117/ If .-, o o RECfivcr. , ..' :' ;,:!J::m City of San Bernardino City Clerk 300 N. "D" St. San Bernardino, CA '88 JJt.! 13 1\11 50 Attn. Common Council Re. Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit Application #88-21 To Whom It May Concern: I Pursuant to Attorney Mark Bradbury's letter of May 25, 1988 notifying you of our intention to appeal the plan- ning Commission's denial of the abOve-referenced CUP application - our basis for appeal is as follows: 1. The Planning commission's denial of tpe aforementioned CUP application renders the commercial building in question useless based on the "not to present code" 8 foot driveway. This action by the City of San Bernardino is essentially a constructive "taking" of the property without compensation to the owners of the property. 2. The business has been in continuous operation for 20 years and continuously licensed by the State of California. It is our contention that the City of San Bernardino should be estopp~d from enfOrceme,nt: of the rigorous requirements mandated by the current code standards by virtue of its allowing the busi- ness to remain operational for 8 years without a city business license. 3. The business has not been closed consecutively for 180 days and should therefore not be held to the new code standards. 4. The San Bernardino Municipal Code prqvides for pay- ment of delinquent Business License ~ees and pen- alties which applicants are prepared 'to pay. , ' I 5. The City of San Bernardino's attempt to enforce the new General Plan standards upon an existing business based upon the delinquent status of ~he city business license is contrary to public policy las outlined in section 5.04.645 of the San Bernardi~o Municipal Code; which states, "Any business license tax provided for in this article which is applicable ~o a person, firm or corporat~n licensed by the state i~for revenue and not regulatory purposes." At the appeal hearing we will ask that the business license be allowed to be reinstated upon payment of the applicable fees and penalties and that the Condi- tional Use Permit be waived or approved. If we may supply any additional informati~n, please notify us. Sincerely, fY/K"Pk,./~ 01/7' Thomas A. Haga Elizabeth Haga cc. Attorney Mark L. Bradbury ~ - . - - o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - DEPARTMENT OF BUI LDING AND SAFETY ia CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 300 North "0" Street, Sc:,n Bernardino. CA 92418 Tel. 383.5071 3??7 N F <;t ADDRESS OF BUILDING Rcpt../Perm.. ~n14e:;,f\ Group TVp. Const. Knothole ol.J121/88 FH 30.00 Bar Zone FIRM NAME USE OF BUIL..DING R Niblick same APPLICANT NAME Flammllble or Explosive Liquids no x 470 W. 17th 5t 5B S2405 886 5721/788 4110 Mailing Address Zip Phone R.".,k. INSP ANY TIME AFTER 11 :00 A.M. APPLICATION EXPIRES IN 180 DAYS FROM FILING DATE IF NOT VALIDATED. Validation Oate Approved by Whlte-Custome' Blue-Health Green-Plann!ng Canary-City Clerk Pink-Fir. Goldenrod.Englneerlng Revised 3/18/83 ;,'227 t1:;:" ST:t3~T 3/13/69 2/lB/70 2/l6/70 6/5/75 6/6/75 1()/~A/7h 2/2/78 1/22/79 1/2/80 (CARD #.2) -gRT~''-!S~T , TSRRY ,J. 3 <<:STAURANT DINE AND DAUCE BRUMETT, JERRY J. GILDEN, WALTER & BARBARA A. CEASED OPERATIONS BOYNE, JOHN J. & MUNSON, WM. L. ~NDOZA. RICHARD ~. MENDOZA. RICHARD F.; VETETO. ROBERT; RESTAURAlfI' &: REEVES. MICHAEL H. TUCKER. NORMA G. & JOHN T.; RESTAURANT & PATTON. THOMAS A. " " RESTAURANT '; :S.~.SED CPE?,NIT~~'TS S?