• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Chaos befell the April 21st Pacific Beach Town Council meeting when 35-year Pacific Beach resident Scott Chipman raised the issue of the Shore Club alcohol license/deck expansion, an issue Chipman felt was a land use issue that should be addressed by the Pacific Beach Planning Board.

“Who’s running the meeting, the membership or the board? That’s what I want to know,” said Council President, Rose Galliher, in response to the 11 board members’ reactions to the topic and what appeared to be their frustration.

“It needs to be said that the 2009 board voted on this just a few months back and that board deemed that it was not in the best interest of the community, did not feel it was what the general membership was looking for, for us to go and back a bar, double their capacity enable them to serve more alcohol when we have a high crime area and we have more bars than we’re supposed to have, per ABC requirements anyway. Yet they keep issuing licenses and transferring licenses...” said Town Council Board Member, Rick Oldham.

I interviewed Chipman Friday, April 23. Chipman identified himself as a member of the PB Planning Board, but made it clear that he was not representing the board at the Town Council meeting.

“Can you please explain the issue pertaining to the Shore Club, as addressed at the Town Council meeting, and share your concerns,” I said.

“The issue was the expansion of the alcohol license at the Shore Club, a restaurant that operates as a bar after 10 pm. According to the Town Council president they were only reviewing the issue of deck expansion. There’s never been a case sending an applicant to a Town Council meeting for review and support for a development issue. The concern is that garnishing support for a deck may be construed by some to be implied as support for an alcohol license. Why would they need community support for deck expansion? If Town Council is reviewing building projects…that

seems inappropriate. If reviewing this for providing support for an alcohol license then that needs to be made clear, and it wasn’t. It would be controversial. Pacific Beach is one of the three worst census tracks for general crime and alcohol-related crime in San Diego.”

Per Chipman, Pacific Beach has a 1,900% city-wide average crime rate with 54 alcohol licenses in an area where ABC (Alcohol Beverage Control) recommends 5. “Pacific Beach has ten times more alcohol licenses than recommended by the ABC. This information comes from Joe Dalton, Crime Analyst with the SDPD,” said Chipman adding, “Board members asked for this to be on the agenda. That request was refused. The president was out of order. There was a motion on the floor. It was seconded. There was no vote taken. Then there was a new motion. In calling for a vote…it was unclear… what motion, the motion on the floor, or the Shore Club motion? People were trying to tell her (Galliher) there was still a motion on the floor.”

Per Chipman the Planning Board has twice reviewed the request by the Shore Club for the deck expansion and twice the request has been denied. “It’s a concern to the community that this board would reverse previous board decisions. Also, Town Council hasn’t studied alcohol licensing policies and they base their decisions on personal biases.”

The meeting adjourned without voting on the motion.

A response from Rose Galliher, PBTC President:

Your article published April 24, 2010, on The Shore Club’s Deck was interesting. Your writer, Carolyn Grace Matteo, never contacted me for an interview; however, I am quoted in your article. Additionally, Ms. Matteo’s article was void of many facts.

In summary, the Pacific Beach Town Council (PBTC) general meeting held on April 21 covered many important community items on the agenda. The city and community representatives who share their time and research to report on the betterment and beautification of our community – were inappropriately interrupted by a topic not on the agenda. In accordance with PBTC bylaws, the topic should have waited to the end of the meeting as “non-debatable” discussion and presented as an agenda item for a future meeting. The April 21 meeting was “out of order” – and I take responsibility for this.

We welcome all public media to the PBTC meetings. Community awareness is extremely important. It increases PBTC membership – getting people to participate in the betterment and beautification of our community. This includes controversial discussion. In the future, I would appreciate being interviewed to ensure your articles reporting PBTC community issues are objective and contain all facts.

Rose Galliher

PBTC President

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

More from SDReader

More from the web

Comments

Ridiculous April 25, 2010 @ 2:02 p.m.

PB has become the modern day Tijuana. Too bad PBTC doesn't care about the residents.

0

escortalex April 26, 2010 @ 3:50 p.m.

Ridiculous, you are wrong. PB is not the modern-day Tijuana. Tijuana's leaders are actually trying to move their city's tourist economy away from the fistfights and mayhem of the old Revolucion district..and make it a city more attractive to tourists. (Drug cartel violence notwithstanding.)
Conversely, the city of San Diego doesn't seem to care how many millions of dollars are spent "policing" PB's bar zone every year.
And the Town Council's board isn't helping. Some current board members have no problem supporting the expansion of bars in PB, even while claiming to support a better "business mix."
The Shore Club used to be a nice restaurant; anybody remember T.D. Hays? It was also "Sam's by the Sea," still licensed as a "restaurant," but in reality, a bar. It made some headlines when the bouncers threw a couple of guys out, and one of them ended up dead. The other guy got 16 years in prison for this "bar fight" that happened outside a "restaurant." (Google "Lefler-Panela" and see how many reporters call it a bar vs. a restaurant.) This isn't about the operators of the Shore Club; it's about how bars and restaurants have doubled and tripled in size over the years, until P.B. is nothing but a place to go and get drunk. Even the best operators have problems keeping a lid on the bozos who come to PB specifically to get drunk and punch someone.
Meanwhile, the ABC keeps on issuing licenses, cops keep mopping up the mess, city taxpayers foot the bill, and city "leaders" turn a blind eye, as long as the campaign contributions keep flowing from the restaurants and bars. It's not even a question of "does someone have to die before something changes?"...it's a question of HOW MANY people have to die?

0

escortalex April 26, 2010 @ 4:29 p.m.

So if I never go to PB, why should I care if it's wall-to-wall bars?
If you never set foot in a bar (restaurant) in P.B., the expansion of these businesses is costing YOU money. You're paying for police and emergency medical services that are spent in PB, instead of in your neighborhood. And when someone gets shot or stabbed or run over by a drunk driver, you pay for the prosecution, the jail, and often, even the defense attorney.
So when you ask where your tax dollars go, the answer is "underwriting the cost of doing business for "restaurants" in P.B."
But don't take my word for it. Google: "Reik Bub's Dive Bar" or "Lefler-Panela" or "Taylor Rempel the Tavern" or "Relos Biddle shooting" or "Fatoohi vehicular manslaughter" or "Dowdy Mabrey" or "Bonsu punch" or "Ochoa fights Garnet" or "Sung-Uk Park shooting taco shop" or "friendly drunken tussle Marines stabbed."

0

sherrykate May 21, 2010 @ 7:07 p.m.

Scott Chipman is a phoney. He wants to ban all alcohol use and all marijuana use because he is a Mormon. He is an angry, intolerant person who wants to cram his religion down everyone's throat. He and his wife even contributed to Prop 8 against gay marriage.

0

carolyngrace1111 June 16, 2010 @ 10:06 a.m.

Dear Rose,

Thank you for your response to my article. I'd gladly interview you anytime, regarding any matter. Please let me know when you have a topic you'd like to share.

A few points I'd like to comment on regarding your "Response":

1)You state, "Your writer, Carolyn Grace Matteo, never contacted me for an interview; however, I am quoted in your article."

It is true, Rose. I quoted you in my article, based on statements you made "during" the Town Council Meeting.

2)You state, "We welcome all public media to the PBTC meetings. Community awareness is extremely important. It increases PBTC membership – getting people to participate in the betterment and beautification of our community. This includes controversial discussion." However, at the very next meeting, upon seeing me you were not at all welcoming and growled, "Why are you videotaping at these meetings, why"? My response was, "to educate and inform the public." You rolled your eyes. Is that how you welcome all public media?

3) You published in the June 2010 issue of the Pacific Beach Town Council Newsletter, "Many of you have read or heard about the article published in the San Diego Reader regarding the Pacific Beach Shore Club and are wondering why I have not responded. I assure you the matter has been addressed but not published by the Reader or Beach and Bay Press. For that reason I am publishing my rebuttal to the article here (PB Town Council June Newsletter) for our readers."

4) You published in the June 2010 issue of the Pacific Beach Town Council Newsletter, "Miss Matteo's article is void of facts." Plenty of facts there Rose, I imagine you just don't like them...

Continued on next entry...

0

carolyngrace1111 June 16, 2010 @ 10:08 a.m.

Continued from previous entry...

The Reader DID publish your rebuttal, right here at the end of the article, Rose, at the end of April, and you were aware of this at the May meeting, long before this newsletter went into production. In fact, at the May Town Council meeting, you, who were referred to as, "Gatekeeper" by a community member, publicly attacked both myself and my article during that meeting.

The above article was writen VERBATUM per Scott Chipman. It is interesting that your focus is on me, the writer, and not Mr. Chipman, who provided the information you so dislike.

F.Y.I. Chipman requested that I make three changes to the article, AFTER he read the article and CHANGED his mind about what he had said during the interview. These changes do not accurately reflect Chipman's ORIGINAL statements. These are the 3 changes he requested, and I made:


Original: Pacific Beach is one of the 3 worst census tracts...

Chipman request to change to: THIS PART OF PACIFIC BEACH is one of the 3 worst census tracts...

Origianl: Per Chipman the Planning Board...

Chipman request to change: Per Chipman the Town Council Board...

Original Chipman statement: "Town Council hasn't studied alcohol licensing policies and base their decisions on personal biases."

Chipman request to change to: "Town Council BOARD hasn't studied alcohol licensing policies and the MAY base their decisions on personal biases."

I look forward to seeing you at tonight's Pacific Beach Town Council Meeting, Rose, and expect that you will welcome me the way you allege, to the San Diego Reader and your community, you welcome all public media...

Respectfully, Carolyn Grace Matteo

0

Sign in to comment