Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout40- Planning & Building CITY OF SAN BERT ,RDINO - REQUEST ?' )R COUNCIL ACTION From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Development Code Amendment No. 93-15 - To permit the upgrade of ABC license under Dept: Planning & Building Services certain conditions in the CN land use dis- trict, and reconsideration of CUP 93-01 Date: September 8, 1994 to permit the upgrade to liquor at an existing convenience store. MCC Meeting of September 19, 1994 Synopsis of Previous Council action: June 2, 1989 - General Plan adopted May, 1991 - Development Code adopted September, 1993 - Conditional Use Permit No. 93-01, denied December, 1993 - Planning staff directed to have applicant submit Development Code Amendment application Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed, that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Negative Declaration and that the first reading be waived and the ordinance be laid over for final adoption, and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 93-01 based on the Findings of Fact (Exhibit 2) and subject to Conditions of Approval . (KkS,4 0 410 ey i Contact person: Al Boughey, Director Phone: x5357 Supporting data attached: Staff Report, Ordinance Ward: Citywide FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (ACCT. NO.) (ACCT. DESCRIPTION) Finance: Council Notes: w )4 1 / CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Subject: Development Code Amendment No. 93-15; Conditional Use Permit No. 93-01 - Reconsideration. Mayor and Common Council Meeting of September 19, 1994 REQUEST AND LOCATION To amend Development Code Section No. 19.06. 030 (2) (B) , to permit a legally existing nonconforming convenience store in the CN, Commercial Neighborhood, land use district to be able to upgrade from beer and wine to liquor sales, provided certain conditions are met. This will potentially affect six CN locations in the City. Additionally, the Mayor and Common Council will reconsider the previous denial of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 93-01 which is to upgrade the ABC license to include liquor sales at an existing nonconforming convenience store located at 484 S. Rancho Ave. BACKGROUND The application for CUP 93-01 was submitted by Mr. Ali Yassin on January 14, 1993 , to upgrade the ABC license from off-site sales of beer and wine to liquor at an existing non-conforming convenience store at 484 S. Rancho Ave. CUP 93-01 was denied upon appeal by the Mayor and Common Council on September 9, 1993 . At the request of the Mayor and Common Council, the City Attorney's office met with the applicant and based on Mr. Henry Empeno's memo of December 2, 1993 (Exhibit 5) , the Mayor and Common Council directed planning staff to advise Mr. Yassin to submit a Development Code Amendment (DCA) application. The application, DCA 93-15, was submitted on December 23, 1993. The Development Review Committee, on May 5, 1994 , recommended approval and proposed a Negative Declaration. The project was heard by the Planning Commission on July 5, 1994. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission had considerable discussion on the project with the main concern being that it could open a door to allow uses to develop that are not permitted by the Development Code. Their decision was to recommend denial of the project. The vote was 6-2 (Affaitati, Melendez, Stone, Strimple, Trasher, Traver in favor, Cole, Gonzales against, and Romero absent) . There were two speakers from the public at the Planning Commission meeting Mr. Ali Yassin, the applicant, who spoke of the lack of crime problems at his location and that it was unfair that the use across the street in the City of Colton could sell liquor and he could not. A Mr. Curley spoke of the dangers of alcohol and that anything to reduce its availability should be considered. KEY POINTS Development Code Section 19. 06. 030 (2) (B) states that " . . .a business requiring issuance of an "ABC" license is subject to a Conditional Use Permit. . . ", that an establishment " . . .shall not be located within. . . 100 feet of any property designated for residential purposes. . ." and " . . .shall not be located in such close proximity to another similar use to cause oversaturation. . . ". CUP 93-01 was denied based on the above limitations. 0 The proposal is to amend the Development Code, Section 19.20.030 (2) (B) as follows; A legally existing, nonconforming, convenience store, possessing an ABC license for the sale of beer and wine, in the CN, Commercial Neighborhood, land use designation may upgrade to the sale of liquor, subject to an ABC license, and subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) , even if the site is within 100 feet of residential property, providing that the following conditions are met: • that the application is for the expansion of an existing legal nonconforming use, • that the site is within 100 feet of an existing business establishment with the same use which is located outside the City of San Bernardino, • and that the applicant submits a written statement of non-opposition to the application for the CUP which is signed by all property owners and tenants in the City of San Bernardino of parcels within a radius of 100 feet as measured from property line to property line (Exhibit 4) . 0 Upon approval of DCA 93-15, CUP 93-01 may be approved based upon the Findings of Fact (Exhibit 2) included with the project. ❑ A statement of non-opposition was submitted by the applicant (Exhibit 4) . ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study for the Development Code Amendment was prepared on March 28, 1994 (Exhibit 3) and reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on April 7, 1994 . The ERC recommended a Negative Declaration and the Initial Study was made available for public review and comment from May 26, 1994 to June 9, 1994 . Public comments were not received and on June 9, 1994 , the project was cleared to the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council: Adopt the Negative Declaration and adopt the ordinance that approves Development Code Amendment No. 93-15 based on the Findings of Fact (Exhibit 1) and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 93-01 based on the Findings of Fact (Exhibit 2) and subject to the conditions of approval (Exhibit 7) . Prepared by: John R. Burke, Assistant Planner Prepared for: Al Boughey, AICP, Director Department of Planning and Building Services Exhibit 1: Findings of Fact for DCA 93-15 Exhibit 2: Findings of Fact for CUP 93-01 Exhibit 3: Initial Study for DCA 93-15 Exhibit 4: Statement of Non-opposition of Property Owners/Tenants Exhibit 5: Henry Empeno Memo dated December 2 , 1993 Exhibit 6: Ordinance Exhibit 7: Conditions of Approval for CUP 93-01 EXHIBIT 1 I i FINDINGS OF FACT i Development Code Amendment No. 93-15 1. The amendment does not conflict with the General Plan in that the purpose of General Plan Objective 1.26 and General Plan Policy 1.26. 10 is to support existing CN uses so as to serve residential neighborhoods. 2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in that it would only apply to existing convenience stores in the CN zone and would only expand the service offered the patrons. EXHIBIT 2 FINDINGS OF FACT Conditional Use Permit No. 93-01 1. The proposed use is conditionally permitted within the CN, Commercial Neighborhood land use district, and would not impair the integrity and character of the subject zoning district and complies with all of the applicable provisions of the Development Code in that the upgrade of the ABC license to liquor sales meets the requirements of Development Code Section 19.06.030(2) (B) ; 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan in that alcohol sales is permitted in the CN, Commercial Neighborhood i land use designation as indicated in paragraph 1 above and does not cause a saturation of similar uses in the City of San Bernardino; 3. The approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed use is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 19.20. 030(6) of the Development Code in that the use is categorically exempt from the CEQA (Class 1) ; 4. There will be no potential significant negative impacts upon environmental quality and natural resources that could not be properly mitigated and monitored as there will be no expansion of the property on the site nor no significant increase in intensity of the use; 5. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses within the general area in which the proposed use is located and will not create significant noise, traffic or other conditions or situations that may be objectionable or detrimental to other permitted uses in the vicinity or adverse to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City as the proposal is to expand the sales of alcohol to include liquor only; 6. The subject site is physically suitable for the type of use being proposed as the liquor sales will utilize an existing j facility; and 7. There are adequate provisions already established at the convenience for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety. EXHIBIT 3 INITIAL STUDY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-15 Project Description/Location: To permit existing legal nonconforming convenience stores in the CN, Commercial Neighborhood land use district, possessing an off-site ABC license for beer and wine to upgrade to include hard liquor to be within 100 feet of any property designated for residential use or used for residential purposes when three circumstances are met. Date: March 28, 1994 Owner: Mr. Ali Yasin 22975 Orangewood Court Grand Terrace, CA 92324 Applicant: Same Prepared by: John R. Burke Assistant Planner City of San Bernardino Planning and Building Services 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 INITIAL STUDY FOR DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-15 INTRODUCTION This Initial Study is provided by the City of San Bernardino for Development Code Amendment No. 93-15. It contains an evaluation of potential adverse impacts that can occur if the Development Code is changed to permit existing legal nonconforming facilities in the CN, Commercial Neighborhood land use designation, possessing an off-site ABC license for beer and wine to upgrade to include hard liquor to be within 100 feet of any property designated for residential use or used for residential purposes when all of the following circumstances exist; 1. That the legal nonconforming use has an existing ABC license for beer and wine and 2. That the site is within 100 feet of an existing business with the same use located outside the City and 3 . That a written statement of non-opposition to the upgraded ABC license signed by all property owners and tenants of parcels within 100 feet radius from property line is submitted with the Conditional Use Permit application by the applicant. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the preparation of an Initial Study when a proposal must obtain discretionary approval from a governmental agency and is not exempt from CEQA. The purpose of the Initial Study is to determine whether or not a proposal, not exempt from CEQA, qualifies for a Negative Declaration or whether or not an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared. The following components constitute the Initial Study for Development Code Amendment No. 93-15: 1 1. Project Description 2. Site and Area Characteristics 3. Environmental Setting 4. Environmental Impact Checklist 5. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures 6. Conclusion/Environmental Determination Combined, these components constitute the complete Initial Study. 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Development Code Amendment No. 93-15 is a request to change the text of the Development Code so as to permit the upgrade of an existing facility in the CN, Commercial Neighborhood land use district, possessing an ABC license for beer and wine to include hard liquor to be within 100 feet of any property designated for or used for residential purposes providing the following conditions are met; 1. That the existing legal nonconforming use has an ABC license for beer and wine; and 2 . That the site is within 100 feet of an existing business with the same use located outside the City; and 3 . That a written statement of non-opposition to the upgraded ABC license signed by all property owners and tenants of parcels within 100 feet radius from property line is submitted with the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application by the applicant. 2. SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS This Development Code Amendment will apply to all properties that are within the San Bernardino City limits, that are within the CN, Commercial Neighborhood land use district, that are a legal nonconforming use, that have an ABC license for off-site sales of beer and wine, that are within 100 feet of a similar use which is outside the City limits and that have the written approval of all property owners and current tenants within 100 feet of the property in question. There are six CN locations that have the potential to meet these criteria. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project is limited to those legal nonconforming uses requesting an upgrade to their ABC license on properties that are within 100 feet of the City boundaries. The environmental setting is dependant on the individual location of any future Conditional Use Permit applications meeting the conditions established by this amendment and environmental issues are such that they will be addressed upon such CUP application review. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST See Next Page !> CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND Application Number. Z>4y� '/'i'?C�% Project Description: .JF4 Location: /.✓ 77V4 G✓. �/�lmF�ei s►L ���isfl�o�P.�,(PO,a �•✓,a L1sE Drsre��r ���� Environmental Constraints Areas: General Plan Designation: �/V �O/71/77i_QC/NL- ���yGQGiQ�yDDd Zoning Designation: �� L�����,E,QC/�9� /Si�•!f/.P�f/io� B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers,where appropriate,on a separate attached sheet. 1. Earth Resources Will the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe a. Earth movement(cut and/or fill)of 10,000 cubic yards or more? x_ b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 15%natural grade? x c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.0-Geologic &Seismic, Figure 47,of the City's General Plan? X d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? _K e. Development within areas defined for high potential for water or wind erosion as identified in Section 12.0- Geologic&Seismic,Figure 53,of the City's General Plan? f. Modification of a channel,creek or river? �_ g. Development within an area subject to landslides, Yes No Maybe mudslides,liquefaction or other similar hazards as identified in Section 12.0-Geologic&Seismic, Figures 48,52 and 53 of the City's General Plan? h. Other? 2. Air Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient air quality as defined by AOMD? _ b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Development within a high wind hazard area as identified in Section 15.0-Wind&Fire, Figure 59,of the City's General Plan? 3. Water Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or the rate and amount of surface runoff due to impermeable surfaces? b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? l_ c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration of surface water quality? X d. Change in the quantity of quality of ground water? �( e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards as identified in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map,Community Panel Number 060281 _,and Section 16.0- Flooding, Figure 62,of the City's General Plan? f. Other? 4. Biological Resources: Could the proposal result in: a. Development within the Biological Resources Management Overlay,as identified in Section 10.0 -Natural Resources,Figure 41,of the City's General Plan? x b. Change in the number of any unique,rare or endangered species of plants or their habitat including stands of trees? c. Change in the number of any unique,rare or endangered species of animals or their habitat? )( d. Removal of viable,mature trees?(6•or greater) �C e. Other? S. Noise: Could the proposal result in: a. Development of housing,health care facilities,s&icx*, ifbraries,religious facilities or other&noise*sensitive uses in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an Ldn of 65 dB(A exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB(A)Interior as identified in 14.0-Noise,Figures 57 and 58 of the City's General Plan? Aft b. Development of new or expansion of existing industrial, Yes No Maybe commercial or other uses which generate noise levels on areas containing housing,schools, health care facilities or other sensitive uses above an Ldn of 65 dB(A)exterior or an Ldn of 45 dB(A)interior? c. Other? 6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the land use as designated on the General Plan? 1( b. Development within an Airport District as identified in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone(AICUZ)Report and the Land Use Zoning District Map? c. Development within Foothill Fire Zones A 8 B,or C as identified on the Land Use Zoning District Map? _ d. Other? 7. Man-Made Hazards: Will the project: a. Use,store,transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materials(including but not limited to oil, pesticides,chemicals or radiation)? b. Involve the release of hazardous substances? c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? X d. Other? 8. Housing: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? _ b. Other? S. Transportation/Circulation: Could the proposal, in comparison with the Circulation Plan as identified in Section 6.0-Circulation of the City's General Plan,result in: a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land use designated on the General Plan? _y b. Use of existing,or demand for new,parking facilities/structures? c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? d. Alteration of present pattems of circulation? X a. Impact to rail or air traffic? I. Increased safety hazards to vehicles,bicyclists or pedestrians? _y g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? Y_ h. Significant increase in traffic volumes on the roadways or intersections? X L Other? W"o&M e.wavo 10. Public Services: Will the proposal impact the following Yes No Maybe . beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a. Fire protection? _ I b. Police protection? X c. Schools(i.e.,attendance,boundaries,overload,etc.)? _ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Medical aid? X f. Solid Waste? X g. Other? 11. L tllitles: Will the proposal: a. impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service or require the construction of new facilities? 1. Natural gas? 2. Electricity? Y 3. Water? 4. Sewer? X 5. Other? b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions? c. Require the construction of new facilities? X I 12 Aesthetics: a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic view? b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental to the surrounding area? _X c. Other? 13. Cultural Resources: Could the proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site by development within an archaeological sensitive area as identified in Section 3.0-Historical,Figure 8,of the City's General Plan? k b. Alteration or destruction of a historical site,structure or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey? c. Other? ! 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065) The California Environmental Quality Act states that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe,the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. Yes No Maybe a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? —� b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term,to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals?(A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief,definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) 1� c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?(A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small,but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the X environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.) !,M&e.*,t D 4Ya TS 5. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Earth Resources: a-f. The amendment is dependent on property locations having prior development therefore these Earth Resource issues do not apply. g. One of the six areas designated CN, Commercial Neighborhood, that could potentially meet the intent of this amendment is located within an area identified as having a high potential for liquefaction as identified in the General Plan, Section 12 . 0 Geologic and Seismic, Figure 48, page 12-9. A requirement to meet the intent of this amendment is prior development therefore its location is of little consequence as the only change to the development would be to upgrade the existing sale of alcoholic beverages to include the sale of liquor. 2. Air Resources: a-c. The Development Code Amendment is a text amendment and will not impact air emissions nor create odors. Some of the areas potentially impacted are within the high wind zone but as stated in paragraph l.g, above, the change , permitted by the amendment does not include any new development, and therefore will not affect Air Resources. 3. Water Resources: a-e. Since all potential sites are developed, they already contain impermeable surfaces. None of the potential areas are within a flood plain hazard area as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 4. Biological Resources: a. None of the areas potentially impacted by the amendment are within the boundaries of the Biological Resources Management Overlay, as identified in Section 10.0 - Natural Resources, Figure 41, of the City's General Plan. b,c. This amendment will not affect any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants or animals as the amendment only affects existing developed sites. d. Trees will not be impacted as the amendment can only affect developed properties. S. Noise: a,b. The amendment only involves existing uses by upgrading the sale of alcoholic beverages which does not impact noise levels. 0 6. Land Use: a. The proposed project will not change the CN, Commercial Neighborhood, land use designation as only permitted uses are affected. 7. Man-Made Hazards: a-c. The amendment allows for a change to the permitted uses by permitting the sale of liquor under certain conditions. This change does not affect the use, storage, transporting or disposal of hazardous, toxic and waste materials. S. Housing: a. The project is a change in permitted use only. The potential for removal of existing housing or the creation of a demand for new housing does not exist. 9. Transportation/Circulation: a-h. The amendment will not affect existing traffic or traffic patterns as the change is in the permitted uses only. 10. Public services: a-f.. The project will not have an impact on any public service as the amendment is for a change to permitted uses only. 11. Utilities: a. The project will not have a impact on any public utility, nor will create the need for new facilities as the amendment is to change permitted uses only. 12. Aesthetics: a-b. The project is to change the Development Code text only. The use permitted by the amendment has no impact on aesthetics. 13. Cultural Resources: a-b. The project affects permitted uses at developed sites only, therefore, the Urban Archaeological District as identified in the General Plan, Section 3.0, Historical, Figure 8, is not affected. D. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study, 0 The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA. TION will be prepared. The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,although there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO,CALIFORNIA Name and Title Signature Date: 14- ' EXHIBIT 4 SEP-06-94 TUE 11 :06 aik stop 91 381 9084 P. 01 Lc-� O� el Li " J/�j� �r?` Oc�hCrS _- w•�1,.•. � ��.Q�__.,.L�L��.._ �1.�_.__ ..._::.M�� 1- - Lit) kn A 1 ©_ • EXHIBIT 4 PETITIGN FOR LIQUOR jLjISCENCE For Quick Stop 484 S. Rancho Avenue San Bernardinio, California 92410 To be submitted to public hearing on May 18, 1993 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE SIGNATURE i t Cg�> 2 2410 o . r2 A7 0' 3 0aC6 ve. 95 z3s8' Fro D-41 6 7 csoA( o It° ,'�2 CCU fWl-714 Uol XCAA—C- 11 a 1�2 W G NEB W408Y � o2 — 0, ,2 jtoq a,,ne D 3�f-�17f - 13 - 4 c' lak5�110 15 016)J ,s 22 k, i f r PETITIOI , FOR LIQUOR Lk.-JCE NCE T For Quick Stop 484 S. Rancho Avenue San Bernardinio, California 92410 To be submitted to public hearing on May 18, 1993 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE SIGNATURE 1 �- 4 / ee I 8 1 pto ' ol 11 12 -cziS 13 00( A , PETITIGP4 FOR LIQUOR jISCENCE For Quick Stop 484 S. Rancho Avenue San Bemardinio, California 92410 To be submitted to public hearing on May 18, 1993 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE SIGNATURE 44 �-�t Jt•�,o•. 13 2 c - �a'S- 69 0 -nt> r"f//,,, 4 7 /�Y3� 17p?. � 8 2©S QC---JQ/Av ct,I- S-7 W?617 ALdie=� r 11 22GG + egg 7-14,74-73 12 � Q � Z J�s��.�e 14 /76 Qra. ��- XA2 1w, TELEPHONE ADDRESS � 1 � 7 • . TELEPHONE - its , aw INTO PF o-r -NJ ! r r l I � CE PETITION FOR OR LIQUOR L- ,CEN For Quick Stop 484 S. Rancho Avenue San Bemardinio, California Califoia To be submitted to public hearing on May 1s, 1993 ADDRESS TELEPHONE SIGNATURE NAME 2 �l p 40 " 3 Z- - 7CA CIA 4 ��I� 5 �}�'A o i 6 .r Jr t C 7 21 Z tLQ c� o dam C,c��"nu-� 3 �`i ll got, 11 10-q 3 SAN A N -,:o '0 12 13 S 4 427 e-6? ADDRESS TELEPHONE i / lipm MrAL- IVA MAME VX ' ® 'CENCE PETITIOT . FOR LIQUOR L For Quick Stop 484 S. Rancho Avenue San Bemardinio, California 92410 To be submitted to public hearing on May 18, 1993 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE SIGNATURE 3 SOM ,A=e q 4 ) z oe .�.. 7 G c) L1Mc l G 12 RFAW A 13 s 3�i•f �6 CIO PETITIG_ 1 FOR LIQUOR I SCENCE For Quick Stop 484 S. Rancho Avenue San Bernardinio, California 92410 To be submitted to public hearing on May IS, 1993 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE SIGNATURE 3 So. � 9 0 s /o$� �.�/ � 5.f q Zz- f/ 7(0 VA I� 7 t l 9 d14,2 22� 4a 11 r 1s 3S Lgik 13 )14 /C7 ���hd A 1 SCENCE PETITI4. 1 FOR LIQUOR For Quick Stop 484 S. Rancho Avenue San Bemardinio, California 92410 To be submitted to public hearing on May 18, 1993 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE SIGNATURE 2 y S �v 3 IAA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DD TELEPHONE t � . �1• 1 �� �.� ���� � :� . � � • 111 rr INN ADDRESS TELEPHONE SIGNATURE AN r+ OF PET ITIOI . FOR LIQUOR L_.�CENCE �- For Quick Stop 484 S. Rancho Avenue San Bemardinio, California 92410 To be submitted to public hearing on May 18, 1993 NAME_ ADDRESS TELEPHONE SIGNATURE 1 2 �� p µel c� 4 _ �-/a 6 �- i 7 c ku 1 .7 44" a-Z—Cl:�!-4jo�93 9 ` loy 3 s�� -ZiP 12 AV-e- 13 A?3o D s�LCiQ �� Gv Iwo—" ADDRESS TELEPHONE i �r � /��a�� ..'/ //♦• � � _ / /ice J/fp"i�!!r !r ! L � PETITIG I FOR LIQUOR I -SCENCE �. For Quick Stop - 484 S. Rancho Avenue San Bemardinio, California 92410 To be submitted to public hearing on May 18, 1993 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE SIGNATURE 3 4n,,�Amn yy� a 1 21� AM 6C)b 9 10 9 G 12 - -Z 9- A �,v /�f 2 . ff 13 3�i•f �6 CID 5 • �1 A i PETITIGN FOR LIQUOR ;,.r,ISCENCE For Quick Stop 484 S. Rancho Avenue San Bernardinio, California 92410 To be submitted to public hearing on May 18, 1993 - NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE SIGNATURE 24& " G lut, 4 1 a�S 3 3 m - So. J jo 5 `C 4L .4r oAj 7 4 ( 35/7 /' r d ,o �r k4-�.-11 0-32 (VIA qw-X&L-2!a;,5 12 4&2 -AA _ (-() ,3 a - Ahv- 14 ,s 2 C1 X93 L � , /07 Al 6 . PETITII.. Iv FOR LIQUOR �,ISCENCE For Quick Stop 484 S. Rancho Avenue San Bemardinio, California 92410 To be submitted to public hearing on May 18, 1993 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE SIGNATURE X39 sxv S i laT, L��U r Z tool 05:iF757 3 1465�, " -f- r.—I 4 , ' - l- 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 EXHIBIT 5 /C I T Y Y OF S A N B ERN - R D I N 0 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Councilmembers 1., L'cC ,�i , FROM: Henry Empet'io Jr. , Deputy City Attorney —3 . 0. 0, DATE: December 2, 1993 RE: December 6, 1993 Council Meeting Agenda Items No. 40 6 41 40. Reconsider Initiation of Development Code Amendment Regarding Off-Site ABC License Requirements 41. Reconsider Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 93-01, Convenience Market at 484 South Rancho Avenue. This memorandum is in response to issues raised at the October 4, 1993 Council Meeting regarding the above-referenced items which were later continued to the December 6, 1993 Council Meeting. On September 20, 1993, the Council voted to deny the appeal and deny Conditional Use Permit No. 93-01, which sought to upgrade an ABC license to sell liquor at an existing convenience market. The Council denied the CUP primarily because the application did not comply with the distance requirements in the Development Code at Section 19.06.030(2)(B), which, among other- conditions, prohibits businesses requiring issuance of an off-site ABC license from being ' located within 100 feet of any property designated for residential use or used for residential purposes. The subject market is located next door to an existing single family residence. Although the subject market currently sells beer and wine as an existing legal nonconforming use, any expansion of this use, i.e. adding the sale of liquor, must conform to the provisions of the Development Code, pursuant to Section 19.62.030(3). Thus the ordinance in the Development Code stating these distance requirements must be previously or concurrently amended in order for the subject CUP to be validly approved by the Council. As pointed out at the previous Council meetings, the "fairness" of this rule has been questioned given that just across the street from the subject market -is a similar use within the City of Colton which is permitted to sell liquor. After the October 4, 1993 Council Meeting, our office met with the property owner and the applicant of the subject CUP and have also held several meetings with Planning Department staff. We believe a Development Code Amendment may be initiated by the Council which would allow approval of the subject CUP and at the same time decrease the risk of a successful legal challenge to the amendment and to the approval of the CUP. Such a Development Code Amendment would amend Section 19.06.030(2)(B) by allowing approval of the CUP application although the site is within 100 feet of residential property HE/Js (12-6.hem) _ Ufa �► t To: Mayor and Councilmembers Re: December 6, 1993 Council Meeting Agenda Items No. 40 41 Page 2 providing that three additional conditions are met: 1. The application is for the expansion of an existing legal nonconforming use. 2. The site is within 100 feet of an existing business establishment with the same use which is located outside the City of San Bernardino. 3. The applicant submits a written statement of non- opposition to the application for the CUP which is signed by all property owners and tenants of parcels within a radius of 100 feet. The above conditions would minimize the opportunity for applying this Development Code Amendment to other areas of the City but would not be "spot zoning" because other similarly situated property would be affected in the same manner as the subject site. The written statement of non-opposition decreases the risk of challenges to the City's actions. And in this particular case, the property owner and the applicant, Ali .Yasin and Eddy Robbin, have informed us that they already have a petition signed by all of their neighbors supporting their application. i If the Mayor and Council choose this option, the following actions should be taken: 1 . Agenda Item No. 40: Adopt a motion to initiate a Development, Code Amendment regarding off-site ABC license requirements as outlined in this memorandum, with the necessary fees to be paid by the applicant (Mr. Robbin offered to pay the Development Code Amendment fees at the October 4, 1993 Council Meeting) . 2. Agenda Item No. 41: Adopt a motion to approve the reconsideration and to notice a public hearing for CUP No. 93-01 concurrently with the Council's hearing on the Development Code Amendment. r HENRY EMPEPO, JR. , Deputy City Attorney cc: James F. Penman, City Attorney Rachel Clark, City Clerk Shauna Clark, City Administrator QAl Boughey, Director of Planning R Building Services ' Ali Yasin Eddy Robbin RE/Js 112-6.Nml 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING CHAPTER 19.06, SECTION 19.06.030 (2) (B) , OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL 3 CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE) PERTAINING TO ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL 11ABC11 LICENSES. 4 THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 5 DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 6 SECTION I. Development Code Section 19.06.030(2) (B) 7 ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL "ABC' LICENSE, is hereby amended to 8 permit upgrading of ABC licenses in existing, nonconforming 9 convenience stores in the CN District (see Attachment A, 10 Development Code Page II-95, attached and incorporated herein by 11 reference) : 12 "B. ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL "ABC" LICENSE 13 An establishment wishing to upgrade to liquor sales 14 that is a legal, nonconforming convenience store, in 15 a CN district, with a current "ABC" license for beer 16 and wine, and is within 100 feet of property 17 designated for residential use, or used for 18 residential purposes, and is within 100 feet of a 19 similar use not in the City of San Bernardino and that 26 a statement of non-opposition signed by all property 21 owners and tenants in the City of San Bernardiono who 22 are within 100 feet of the subject property as 23 measured from property line to property line is 24 submitted with a Conditional Use Permit application. 25 26 27 28 1 I AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING CHAPTER 2 19.060 SECTION 19.06.030 (2) (B) , OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL 3 CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE) PERTAINING TO ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL 4 "ABC11 LICENSES. 5 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly 6 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San 7 Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on the 8 day of , 1994, by the following vote, to 9 wit: 10 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN BA SENT 11 NEGRETE 12 CURLIN 13 HERNANDEZ 14 OBERHELMAN 15 DEVLIN 16 POPE-LUDLAM 17 MILLER 18 19 City Clerk 20 The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this 21 day of , 1994. 22 23 24 Tom Minor, Mayor City of San Bernardino 25 Approved as to form and legal content: 26 JAMES F. PENMAN, 27 City Attorney 28 By: 2 EXHIBIT 7 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL for Conditional Use Permit No. 93-01 1. The effective for this Conditional Use Permit is November 3, 1994, which is the effective date of the Ordinance approving DCA 93-15. 2. In the event that this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the applicant of any claim or action and will cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of San Bernardino. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City of any costs and attorney's fees which the City may be required by the court to pay as a result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his obligation under this condition. 3. The review authority may, upon application being filed 30 days prior to the expiration date and for good cause, grant one time extension not to exceed 12 months. The review authority shall ensure that the project complies with all current Development Code provisions. 4. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the effective date, otherwise it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. Expiration Dates November 3, 1996