• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

The Pacific Beach Planning Group is throwing a party on Monday, June 14, at the Pacific Beach Middle School Auditorium. The theme of the party is alcohol, and attendees are asked to bring their own concerns about booze. The bash will begin at 6:30 p.m. with a presentation that explores the policy of issuing alcohol licenses in Pacific Beach and the impact that alcohol has on the beachside community. Partygoers will be informed on the number of licenses in their community, land use policies, and establishing a role for the community in terms of alcohol licensing.

According to a draft summary report issued by the Alcohol License Review Committee, a planning group subcommittee, there are 17 bars, 76 restaurants, and 40 liquor stores in Pacific Beach. After adding up the additional 23 licenses that are given to businesses listed under the category "Other," the beachside community has 155 alcohol licenses. The report, which according to committee member Scott Chipman took six months to compile, reveals that according to the state's Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) guidelines, Pacific Beach has 89 more alcohol licenses than are allowed.

One of the issues in Pacific Beach is the number of bars that are licensed as restaurants. "P.B. has only 17 bars, but it has many more restaurants that function as bars, particularly after 10 p.m." This business practice is called 'morphing,' the report states. "The owners commonly call their restaurant a bar. Some applicants for restaurant licenses have indicated they want to open a 'bar' with a [full alcohol license]. Restaurants that close their kitchen at 10 but remain open until 2 a.m. are operating as bars for 4 hours each night. There are no ABC regulations that prohibits morphing."

The report also reveals data regarding alcohol-related crime in Pacific Beach.

"There were 591 DUIs in 2009 in the 92109 zip code - Pacific Beach and Mission Beach. This means that about 18 percent of the total San Diego DUIs (3714) are occurring in communities with about 4 percent of the city's population."

Planning group members will discuss the report and hear input from community members at the June 14 shindig.

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

More from SDReader

More from the web

Comments

PB92109 June 11, 2010 @ 4:02 p.m.

Lot's of straw men to knock down in a report like this. Statistics can be manipulated to suit the purposes of the author(s).

DUI per capita makes no sense when you have hundreds of hotel rooms, restaurants, the beach, the bay, boating, day tourists, camping, RV'ers, vacation rentals, etc. DUI's are inexcusable but how many of them are being incurred by visitors? who pay TOT and sales taxes to the city? this is a low density area with the 30 ft height limit. If we had big high rises everywhere this statistic would change. Play with numbers however you want but PB is a beach and tourist area, it is not Rancho Penasquitos.

0

David Dodd June 11, 2010 @ 4:28 p.m.

"There were 591 DUIs in 2009 in the 92109 zip code - Pacific Beach and Mission Beach. This means that about 18 percent of the total San Diego DUIs (3714) are occurring in communities with about 4 percent of the city's population."

This is a smokescreen to a different issue. Many residents of Pacific Beach do not want anyone there except for Pacific Beach residents. By banning alcohol and attemtping to close down all of the bars, they figure that non-Pacific Beach residents will go elsewhere. That way, their parks and beaches will pretty much be "for community only". Fine by me, but I don't want to hear them whine about lost revenue, either, although you know they will. When P.B. turns into Carlsbad, that's when it will come back around to bite them.

0

CuddleFish June 11, 2010 @ 4:51 p.m.

Thank you for this excellent report, Dorian. It is good to know there is a Stringer in Pacific Beach who is actually interested in presenting objective and factual stories which inform and educate the public.

0

Grasca June 12, 2010 @ 8:55 a.m.

If PB residents really want to restrict outsider access to their community, perhaps they need to explore the implimentation of border guards, PB resident identification cards, and use of ICE (immigration, customs, and enforcement) techniques to secure their land. Anyone without a suntan and not wearing shorts and tank tops would be immediately suspect. These people could be detained for search and seizure based on how they look. I think the PB FOR PB ONLY movement bears serious consideration. Brian Bilbray should also be contacted so he can offer workshops on alien identification.

0

a2zresource June 12, 2010 @ 10:17 a.m.

"... Brian Bilbray should also be contacted so he can offer workshops on alien identification."

LMAO/WMDFATR...

I predict any successful move by PB to limit alcohol licenses will have a substantial impact on student retention at nearby USD. God only knows how many sophomores move after their frosh year off campus into near-the-beach housing to get at beer and 'boards ASAP after lectures and well into the wee study hours of the morn...

Has anybody done a count on closed-kitchen PB restaurants that offer good or even any previously-prepared food items between 10 PM and 2 AM?

0

Grasca June 12, 2010 @ 11 a.m.

Got LMAO but cannot translate WMDFATR. It is not in the Slang Dictionary.

0

a2zresource June 12, 2010 @ 11:13 a.m.

RE #6:

I'm sorry... I made that up a while ago and have used it only rarely for "Watching My Dentures Fly Across The Room" from explosive laughter...

0

ubmisinformed2day June 12, 2010 @ 11:26 a.m.

No photo. No video. Misinformation via Scott Chipman. Now, that's a great story...quantity not quality, right Hargrove?

0

CuddleFish June 12, 2010 @ 12:33 p.m.

Grasca, Major League Baseball is taking a position on the Arizona situation, and Adrian has made his feelings known. It's my understanding that buying tickets to the Padres game today is a show of support by fans for Adrian.

http://thinkprogress.org/?p=94921

0

Founder June 12, 2010 @ 3:22 p.m.

North Park is right behind Pacific Beach; 2nd in of total alcohol Licenses and also 2nd in SD Crime stats. If you folks want to debate cause and effect, at least get informed, that is exactly what this meeting is all about, getting informed... Lots of volunteers have spent many hours to make this "the" meeting to attend about ABC issues, my hats off to them for their efforts!

Neighborhood friendly businesses that don't dump their business blight in nearby residential neighborhoods should be welcomed to all our Business Districts with open arms. But those that don't practice the Golden Rule (of treating others like they would like to be treated) and want only the Gold are making it really tough on our local neighborhoods.

Anybody reading this actually enjoy getting woken up after 2 A.M. by drunken strangers partying outside your front door? If that is not enough, how many of you like picking up bottles, cans and other folks trash every weekend morning?

I'm looking forward to learning about out how we can get these morphing Big Restaurants2Bars to SELF fund additional Police Vice/ABC Officers to make sure they operate properly, just like in other parts of California. What their guest speaker from Ventura County has to say is important to everyone frustrated with how the ABC laws are enforced here in San Diego, not because of some futuristic hopeful legislation but because he is that Vice/ABC officer!

Talk is cheap but Professional insight is worth listen to! This meeting will be a game changer for how San Diego deals with morphing Big Restaurants2Bars

0

Grasca June 12, 2010 @ 3:51 p.m.

Morphing sounds like something that the Strong Mayor will not touch with the proverbial ten foot pole despite his police background. The restaurant and bar owners probably have a lobby and contribute to various politicos and their campaigns. Getting anything reversed at the City is a major endeavor. I hope that something positive comes out of the meeting but am doubting if the City will do anything. The City is more willing to have extra SDPD at Kate Sessions Park (and waste our tax dollars) rather than enact a reasonable ban on drinking. It will take something like the famous July 4 Mission Beach Swat Team incident to force the City into change. For all of the whining about the SDPD being understaffed, the police can turn out in droves along with the Chief and Captains to watch the Memorial Day drinking activities at Kate Sessions. I am sure the City will set up a Command Post on July 4, 2010 to "control" what could easily be eliminated by a reasonable ban on alcohol at Kate Sessions.

0

LosAltos50 June 12, 2010 @ 4:31 p.m.

10-

Thank you for elucidating this. I fear that much of the problem is due to greedy landlords who charge whatever the market will bear in rents. Mom and pop stores cannot make it and the only businesses that can afford the high rents are places with outrageous margins on the products they sell.

Such as bars and tattoo parlors.

There used to be a good selection of local businesses along the Garnet Avenue downtown in PB. Most of these businesses were driven out by the huge rents that landlords demand on their properties. The big box stores don't help, I am sure. Most restaurants will tell you they break even on the food service and make all the profit that sustains them on the bar and wine service.

Unless the residents are willing to pay a subsidy to landlords to open the kinds of businesses they want or to zone out these businesses- which I would support but which I think would result in endless lawsuits- the almighty dollar prevails, like it always does in this city.

0

Founder June 12, 2010 @ 4:42 p.m.

11

I agree with you, by not providing Leadership, the past and present City Council has made things much harder for San Diego's citizens and much easier for themselves to seemingly please both Business/Bar Owners and residents alike! A perfect example is the Medical Marijuana Issue. Now that the Strong Mayor is "in"; things will be decided more by donations and influence than what is best for all San Diego's Residents. UNLESS that is, the public vocally opposes something in large enough numbers. A great example is MADD and another new one is all the folks of many different SD Neighborhoods working together in very large numbers in support of each other on "GLOBAL" issues like Community Planning Updates and these ABC related issues.

So the real question we need to ask is, "Are You In" for a better San Diego or are you just part of San Diego's problems?

As for me, I'm "All In"....

0

Founder June 12, 2010 @ 5:48 p.m.

12 You are right about the "almighty dollar", or as I like to say, "The Golden Rule" (those with the Gold get to make the Rules).

In North Park, we have seen many of our Artists driven out by rising rents only to be replaced by Big Box Bar Clubs. These businesses have added to North Parks Night Life scene BUT also multiplied our Late Night Enforcement problems and little else!

Nearby neighbors tired of being dumped on, have now mobilized. NP-RID (formed for exactly this reason) and others are now actively protesting (in huge numbers)! Instead of a hand full of protestors filling out the required legal paperwork we have had close to 100 protests entered on each of these new applications.

We will continue protest each and every liquor license application to insure that the current owner (+ anyone they sell out to in the future) agrees to "Neighborhood Friendly" restrictions being placed on their ABC license or we will delay them as long as possible, which is the one thing they do not want! Also because the CA ABC is "self" funded by these same liquor license application fees, having lots of qualified protests also cost them huge amounts of money in both manpower and legal fees if protestors hold out, demanding hearings before ABC's own Judges!

This process works! To date, it has empowered residents to:

  1. Actual reduce the number of ABC BAR license applications being sought.

  2. Increase the discussions with New Business desiring to open "Real" Neighborhood Friendly restaurants.

  3. Partner with SD Police and it's Vice Unit to work together to seek solutions to our existing ABC related problems!

0

Ridiculous June 13, 2010 @ 12:02 p.m.

As a PB native and a business owner, I have seen the steady decline of the business mix in Pacific Beach. Greedy landowners are certainly a part of the problem. But, I love the people who want to blame everyone else for the situation. DUI's would be limited if people did not get over-served. Period. Does not matter if they come in from outerspace or you live next door to the local watering-hole. Police, whether they are misdirected or not, are to 'protect and serve'. That does not mean that they need to take resources from other areas to handle the over-served or under-thinking.

What part of too-many of something does anyone not get?

0

Ridiculous June 13, 2010 @ 12:10 p.m.

Dear PB92109:

You might want to know that those places with the high-rises (like downtown) has a CUP (conditional use permit) in place.

Do the math on their DUIs and high crime and you will be enlightened.

And, you might want to know that the costs for DUI's and related crimes to the City are much higher than the taxes received by alcohol establishments. Get that statistic and you will need to have a drink yourself.

0

Ridiculous June 13, 2010 @ 12:49 p.m.

Dear refriedgringo:

It is ridiculous to think that anyone who lives in PB would not want people to come and enjoy PB, especially a business owner.

What is ridiculous is that PB would want to attract only people who want to get drunk and drive through neighborhoods and be destructive to the community. That is currently what the reputation is and it is only working for the ones making money off of the drunk and disorderly.

College kids come and go. With revolving-door residents there is no community. With no community there will be more need for these businesses to draw from outside. Don't know a community that doesn't need business and don't know a business that doesn't need a community.

0

David Dodd June 13, 2010 @ 1:12 p.m.

Ridiculous:

College kids come, leave plenty of cash, and go. While I agree with those who wish to hold the bar businesses responsible for the actions of their patrons on the way back to their cars, I disagree with those who simply want to toss the bars out. Without their revenue, other businesses in PB will be asked to pick up the monetary slack. PB is what it is, an attraction for kids who want to let off some steam. Rather than to demonize it, the community would be better off seeking a rational solution.

0

PB92109 June 13, 2010 @ 3:48 p.m.

16-

Ridiculous- you are showing your ridiculous tendencies---

You are an expert at mischaracterizing my posts. Please re-read where I said that DUI's are inexcusable. Repeat inexcusable.

I am not supporting DUI's, no matter who gets them, locals, tourists, natives, transplants, or anybody else. I agree that alcohol use needs to be monitored and controlled. My point was the DUI's per capita is not a valid statistical measurement in a zip code where the population grows by 50,000 people or more on one day- many, many days per year.

0

Founder June 13, 2010 @ 4:19 p.m.

PB92109 You do have a valid point!

Having large numbers of Bar patrons in your neighborhood BID, may be great for the Bar Owners but no fun at all for the Residents that live nearby. We have the same problems in North Park and even some of the same Bar/Club Owners that are also operating in PB...

Over serving and operating until 2 A.M. are really the major problematic items that are affecting us. The Restaurants that close at Midnight are usually not part of the problem as their Patrons are not "wasted" as they return to their cars and leave for home. The Big Clubs and Bars Patrons do more BLIGHT damage in the hours between Midnight and 2 A. M. that the total of the rest of their operating hours put together as many of their Patrons are way over the line at that time of the morning!

We are now asking all applicants for alcohol licenses to accept restrictions like limiting their consumption to Midnight, parking validation, no noise audible 50' outside their front door and no DJ's, live entertainment or Dancing. We have found this solves most ABC related problems and that is a Win for everyone!

0

Visduh June 13, 2010 @ 7:41 p.m.

There would be more sympathy for the anti-bar, anti-alcohol residents of PB if this were something new. That part of SD has been partyland since the 1950's, loaded with restaurant/bars, nightspots, neighborhood bars, hangouts, and all manner of businesses that cater to the party crowd. A good thing? I would never say that. But how many of these residents have been in that community since before it became what it is today? One in a hundred? One in a thousand?

For those of you who live in PB, have you ever considered that the city decided to treat your 'hood as an entertainment zone, and intentionally put all those booze-oriented businesses there so that they would stay out of the more sedate and family-oriented areas of the city? Think about that.

OK, Anon92107, why have your changed your ID to Founder? Your curious and distinctive manner of posting gave you away in the first reading.

0

escortalex June 13, 2010 @ 9:09 p.m.

PB92109, Tourists are not the issue. Fewer than 5 percent of the people arrested for DUI in PB have out-of-town addresses. You want alcohol "monitored and controlled?" That's exactly the point of Monday's meeting; as alcohol service is neither monitored nor controlled under the status quo. Yet PB bears the brunt of an invasion of drinkers from all over the rest of SD County..people who generate NOT ONE CENT in TOT money.
Gringo, no one wants to throw out any bars. We simply want them to obey the state laws regarding alcohol service. Period. And we want to keep the ABC from issuing additional alcohol licenses in the "bar zone" along Garnet. Even when SDPD and the local ABC office oppose new licenses, the licenses are still granted by the ABC in Sacramento. And we want control over the expansion of existing bars, unless local authorities have control over them. (The ABC continues to allow bars to expand, even over protests of the local police.) These are rational solutions. Also, no one wants to limit access to PB. We just want fewer drunks roaming the streets on foot, trashing the neighborhoods, then driving home to whereever they live. And it can be accomplished without losing one cent of revenue. BTW, Fullerton has 50 bars/restaurants packed into a few square blocks. Exactly fits your description of a place for college kids to blow off steam. Their city bean-counters estimated that they were losing nearly one million dollars per year for police and emergency services...even AFTER subtracting all revenues generated by those bars and restaurants. It's a complicated issue, and you have no understanding of it. Please come to the meeting Monday, and take careful notes. ubmisinformed, uh...please tell us what "misinformation" you see in the article, and why it's misinformation. Help us help you understand the issue, please.
LosAltos, cities have the power to control issues through land use regulation. Bars and restaurants can still make plenty of money without breaking the law regarding overservice of alcohol. But under the current system, there is no incentive for them to have a business model that's not based on anything but mass alcohol sales. Other cities have done it without hurting tax revenues, or tourism...and without being inudated with lawsuits. See you Monday night.

0

David Dodd June 14, 2010 @ 2:23 a.m.

"It's a complicated issue, and you have no understanding of it."

Obviously, I can't possibly be as brilliant as you are.

0

Grasca June 14, 2010 @ 6:09 a.m.

Some want to turn this blog into an intellectual jousting match or an easy way to make money as ersatz journalists. If anyone recalls the death of Emery Kauanui Jr which was a result of alcohol related violence, then the need to limit and control the citywide bar scene seems logical. Also, those who opine about meetings that they have never or will ever attend becomes merely recreational and not helpful in my opinion. You know who you are. It might be a good time to do more than fire shots across the bow from a safe perch and allow those on the front lines to try for a positive community change. It is not about being "brilliant" but about being responsible.

0

CuddleFish June 14, 2010 @ 6:55 a.m.

Excellent points, EscortAlex and Grasca, which get right to the heart of the matter.

And which will not be listened to, as they are factual, logical, sensible, and reasonable.

But thanks for trying! :)

0

Founder June 14, 2010 @ 9:53 a.m.

Great Comments = Great Discussions!

This ABC issue is one the biggest threats to all our Neighborhoods and "we" should be leading the way toward an equitable solutions for ALL of San Diego's residents, not just the Business Owners that are making it difficult and often downright dangerous due to over serving their Patrons...

This meeting will provide all the information you need to become informed and act intelligently to HELP SAN DIEGO SOLVE this City-Wide problem that affects all of US!

I really hope to see all of you there!

0

Grasca June 14, 2010 @ 10:12 a.m.

The Town Hall meeting is being noticed on local television. I hope that everyone who has an iron in the fire attends. I am sure there will be some legitimate journalists covering the event as well as the usual faux types and even those who report without being there.

0

Founder June 14, 2010 @ 10:21 a.m.

Grasca Thanks for the NEWS Update! Increased public awareness is the best News possible...

0

CuddleFish June 14, 2010 @ 10:42 a.m.

If it is being noticed on television, then surely there can be no basis later for anyone to say that there was "not enough public notice."

Earlier point about this issue being used as a debating point is a good one. This is a serious matter for the residents of PB and the people who live near the beaches. It is so unfair to characterize them as NIMBYs when they and SDPD have to deal with outrageous drunken conduct on a regular basis, which as was stated earlier is a huge drain on tax dollars.

I hope they find a good solution to the problem.

0

Grasca June 14, 2010 @ 10:49 a.m.

There were similar social issues involving drinking which plagued the residents around SDSU. Eventually the City enacted mini dorm rules in an effort to quell the problems. It took a long time to get action from the City and needed the support of the councilperson and SDPD. I am not sure if the mini dorm rules helped the situation. This Town Hall meeting is only a first step in a long process to solve the problems. There have also been rapes, hit and run accidents, and robberies which seem to stem from the drinking zone in PB. It used to be a nice beach community before things were allowed to get out of hand.

0

Founder June 14, 2010 @ 11:24 a.m.

Grasca - Again you have added to this Blog discussion!

I see this "ABC Summit Meeting", as the important first step for Residents from many different parts of San Diego (not just Pacific Beach) to meet, get informed and join together with their own City Councilmembers and our Mayor, to demand an end to the current "Business As Usual" attitude when it comes to all the Alcohol Related Problems facing "OUR" City of San Diego...

We can no longer afford to pay the bill for the high cost of Excess Alcohol, it's something that is no longer OK, unless you are making money from it...

0

Grasca June 14, 2010 @ 12:41 p.m.

In the old days before the cartel and 9/11 the young and young at heart went to TJ to "blow off steam." I know that this action has slowed down for many reasons. Some of those steam blowers may be seeking thrills in the various bar zones (PB, Mission Beach, North Park, La Jolla and the Gaslamp to name a few) and creating social issues. If you can get the council person or persons and SDPD on board as a result of this meeting, it will be well worth your efforts. It funny how much press and money is spent on seals and their welfare while the social issue like the one being addressed at the town hall is largely ignored. San Diego is a city of strange priorities when it can find money for a full time ranger(s) at the Childrens' Pool to guard marine mammals but cuts hours at public libraries and recreation centers. I am still scratching my head over these decisions.

0

Founder June 14, 2010 @ 1:13 p.m.

Grasca You again have hit this issue's "nail on it's head"...

Here's hoping that our newly elected Strong Mayor will reward all of San Diego residents with increased Public benefits (Including Library & Rec. Ctr./Pool hours) funded by reducing all the high priced consultant contracts that add little to "our" Quality of Life here in America's Finest City! All Council District Pet Projects should be put aside until the City is on FIRM financial footing... ---> No More $lip Ups...

0

David Dodd June 14, 2010 @ 2:11 p.m.

Look, there is nothing that would make me, and all of Tijuana happier to see the college kids come back to downtown Tijuana, but that isn't going to happen. While PB citizens have some legitimate gripes, a lot of their proposed solutions aren't going to be acceptable to the bar business. They paid a good deal of money for the license to sell alcohol, and proposing to take away their income by limiting hours isn't reasonable from a business perspective. I'm sure it sounds wonderful to people who don't own a bar or have no understanding of that business, but basically you're proposing to reduce their income by 1/3.

If you approach the problems in a way that doesn't hurt their business, then you are probably going to be more successful coming up with a solution. Also, if you roll back closing time to midnight, then you're going to see them drinking in your streets. There are ways to hold the bars responsible for the fallout from their business other than limiting their hours.

0

SurfPuppy619 June 14, 2010 @ 2:28 p.m.

San Diego State has always had the party problem, but is it a problem? Did the mini dorm laws help it??

I don't go to PB much anymore, but I guess I never saw the side everyone else is seeing today, it was always dense and lots of kids, but no worse than any other place with the same density and amount of young kids......Always like it there.

0

Grasca June 14, 2010 @ 3:02 p.m.

City employees are taking a 6% reduction in pay so I don't see why the pain cannot be shared with bar owners if the facts presented to a 1/30 cut due to reduced hours are accurate. I have seen no backup information that this figure is correct or simply a WAG.

There has been nothing in the papers that I can find about a post mini dorm study which would indicate one way or another if the situation has improved.

0

David Dodd June 14, 2010 @ 3:27 p.m.

Asking businesses to take a pay but because government overspends is not fair to businesses. And I have no idea where your 1/30 number came from, but if you check with bar owners/managers they will tell you that a substantial amount of their income is between midnight and 2AM on Friday and Saturday nights. There are plenty of other ways to make bar owners responsible for problems that occur after they close, none of which are being suggested here.

0

Founder June 14, 2010 @ 3:31 p.m.

Refried I for one would like to hear the "plenty of other ways to make bar owners responsible for problems"... Thanks in advance!

0

Grasca June 14, 2010 @ 4:01 p.m.

Who says life is fair ?

1/3 less profit for bar owners was figure proffered by a blogger if hours were cut.

I don't see that any of the other options seem be working to lessen crime and social problems that are a direct result of too many bar licenses and morphing in PB.

What are the other options which will work ?

0

David Dodd June 14, 2010 @ 4:03 p.m.

You start by making them responsible for where their patrons park. Businesses are supposed to be able to provide parking near their establishments - if this isn't happening then you need to find out why, make the establishments submit a corrective action plan with a deadline for completion.

Regarding drunken patrons driving, there are already laws on the books that hold them responsible for this, you need to find out who is not enforcing these laws. One part of the equation is the DUI, the other part is citing the establishment that served them.

0

David Dodd June 14, 2010 @ 4:41 p.m.

And regarding the issuance of too many licenses, your dog is chasing a squirrel while the fox roams free. The businesses with the licenses aren't at fault, it's the city who issued the licenses. However you want to fix the problem, make certain that you're addressing the true root cause. Businesses (unlike government) is supposed to be out to turn a profit, that's the point of investing money in them. Government isn't supposed to be in the business of revenue, but obviously, that's where the problems begin.

0

Founder June 14, 2010 @ 4:45 p.m.

  1. Most establishments do not provide their "own" parking using the City streets instead. These streets are most often located in nearby Residential Neighborhoods that are within walking distance to the Business District. If Bar/Club patrons used onsite parking all the Neighborhood Late Night BLIGHT (Noise, Trash, Crime, etc.) from these Patrons as they return to their cars would just not be happening in our Residential Neighborhoods!

  2. Police DUI's arrests numbers are for the most part lower than reality suggests, because until now, citing these offenders has not taken priority over more important situations that the SDPD must handle first; while doing so with less Officers than in the past. Less Police Officers results in more offenders not being citied and also in "unrealistic" LOWER crime stats. These same stats are also then used by the ABC when deciding to approve new alcohol licenses, so when enforcement is lacking (for whatever reason) it also has another negative effect on future decisions affecting how many additional venues can get Business licenses and the ABC licenses to go along with them in a particular Census Tract...

0

Founder June 14, 2010 @ 4:58 p.m.

Regarding Bar/Club parking, another reason that Neighborhoods are having BIG problems is that a Local Business can change hands and the new Owners can then operate it completely differently than in the past. Now, suddenly an entirely new group of patrons appears that never were seen before and in much greater numbers! Consider a quiet neighborhood bar that usually closed before midnight being sold to a new Owner that then operates it as a Bar/Club that closes at 2 A.M. Instead of the "normal" 10 to 20 local customers the New Business attracts many hundreds of Patrons nightly and they find parking anywhere they can. This "Parking Parade" continues until closing when they all wander back to their cars to drive home in the wee hours; we even have a name for them in North Park, we call them the "NorthParkers".

0

Grasca June 14, 2010 @ 5:52 p.m.

I would like to see the code/developmental services regulations that call out parking requirements and what those requirements are. No WAGs please.

0

David Dodd June 14, 2010 @ 5:56 p.m.

Yeah, but Founder, my point is that no one is holding the City responsible for not enforcing what they should enforce. It seems odd that they have plenty of staff to issue liquor licenses and permits but not enough to enforce their own ordinances. Failures to comply with provisions in the licenses and permits are enforcable and bring steep fines. Why isn't anyone attacking the issues from that angle? What you are proposing to do will hurt business owners that comply with the provisions.

0

Grasca June 14, 2010 @ 6:04 p.m.

SD Municipal Code Ch 14 Art 02 Division 05 addresses the parking ratios.

0

David Dodd June 14, 2010 @ 7:11 p.m.

And somewhere within that code is a provision that demands a certain number of parking places be provided in accordance to the capacity of the business. You are going to find that some comply and some don't. Rather than at first attempt to throw some blanket midnight closing time on all bars, perhaps your efforts would be better served in finding out which businesses are not in compliance. That's a good first step. Bars are not going to willingly go along with a midnight closing time; when they bought the liquor licenses (at great expense) they did so calculating serving alcohol in accordance with State regulations.

I think that a better approach to fixing the problems encountered by residents of PB and NP is to find the root of the problem. You will garner a greater amount of cooperation from establishments that wish to comply with Municipal Code.

0

SurfPuppy619 June 14, 2010 @ 10:45 p.m.

Police DUI's arrests numbers are for the most part lower than reality suggests, because until now, citing these offenders has not taken priority over more important situations that the SDPD must handle first; while doing so with less Officers than in the past. Less Police Officers results in more offenders not being citied

I don't know the SDPD policy, but if a SDPD cop pulls over a DUI suspect I highly doubt they are not cited and arrested on the spot. I know of NO LE agency in the state that has such a policy of releasing a DUI suspect. Nor have I ever heard of this in the past.

In addition, if a DUI suspect were released by the cop, and then went on to hurt someone while intoxicated, not even by a car (like in a fight) the cop and the muni that employees the cop would be liable, and not just to the ones injured by the DUI suspect, but liable to the DUI suspect too (yes, this is well established case law-even the drunk can sue the cop and win if the drunk injures themselves).

That is why I am alsmot 100% certain that this comment is not correct.

0

CuddleFish June 15, 2010 @ 6:16 a.m.

I think Founder didn't mean to imply that DUI suspects are not being cited or arrested, but that DUI arrests have not been an enforcement high priority due to manpower shortage.

Well, there was a lot of media coverage of the PB town hall meeting on alcohol last night. I was impressed by the residents who talked about how their quality of life has been impacted by the enormous number of establishments who have increasingly relied on alcohol sales to bolster their businesses. The crime stats were overwhelming, not just in terms of DUIs (something like 600 in the past year in a small area), but all crime from murder to rape appears to be higher than in the rest of the City.

I applaud those citizens who are trying to do something about this situation. I hope their City and County and State and Federal representatives will support their efforts to get things under some sort of control.

0

Founder June 15, 2010 @ 7:44 a.m.

CuddleFish It's true, I was trying to get the point across that LESS Officers are able to issue LESS citations (with a percentage of those citations being for DUI's)... I DID NOT MEAN that Officers are watching drunken drivers weave their way down our streets and are doing nothing about it. The number of Our Police Officers is now lower due to many factors, with the main one being City DEBT. I urge everyone to not only support them in their work, but offer assistance by joining Neighborhood Watch, so together we can make SD Safer for all of us!

0

Founder June 15, 2010 @ 9:36 a.m.

As expected, last night's ABC meeting was everything I expected and more! It was well attended and almost all of the TV stations had crews there doing interviews and or providing Local SD coverage!

For those of you that could not attend please click the link below and it will take you to PBSpirits.com where they have posted the info that was presented. Included is the talk given by the Ventura PD/ABC Officer, along with his graphics, whose position is totally funded by the ABC licensee's themselves! This talk was very well received and the large audience was very receptive to working with other SD folks, (outside of PB), to encourage the City Council and the Mayor to reduce all "OUR" alcohol related problems!

Note: a couple of the "Here" links on their website are in the process of being activated...

Thank You

Please add some your comments to this site, as it will benefit all of us.

http://www.pbspirits.com/?p=1662&cpage=1#comment-1096

+

Here is a piece by Channel 10 http://www.10news.com/video/23901083/index.html

Here is a piece by Channel 51 http://www.kusi.com/home/96343119.html (Click on "Video").

0

pbSpiritsdotcom June 15, 2010 @ 11:41 a.m.

Thanks founder for the head's up to the forum. I've read other's comments about stats etc. and their irrevelance as it relates to number of licenses per population levels. The truth is we have one alcohol license for every 85 residents in census tract 79.01 - the core of PB. Any way you look at it this is extremely high. Also, we have 19 times the citywide average of alcohol related crimes yet more licenses are being piled on.

What would you feel comfortable at capping the number of licenses at? One for every 50 residents? 25? 10? When does it stop.

In 1996 the ABC had 16 enforcement officers - now they have 4 that cover over 3500 licenses in the San Diego southern region. That's over 850 licenses per employee. A typical 40 hour work week - actually less now with the furloughs - and 280 work days a year yields about 2.5 working hours an ABC officer has to monitor and enforce these licenses - for the entire year. This includes fielding complaints, doing paperwork and any legal-court or other time.

The laws were in place to give the ABC the ability to remove problem establishments - in that if they had 3 violations in 3 years they would remove their license. Now they say 'could'. Even so, over a 5-year period the ABC gave out only 16 violations in PB, with only 4 to bars. None of these 16 fit into the 3-strikes laws. So, with no enforcement and no law to back them up the ABC must've realized they didn't need 16 officers so they gutted the staff. Real convenient. Does wonders for community-building.

So, save your 'stats are worthless' comments and come up with facts of your own and I'm all ears. Do let me know too so I can tell the families of the many, many people who got severely beat-up, stabbed, shot or killed by drunk drivers why it is they should just tough it out... I'm sure they'll understand.

0

Grasca June 15, 2010 @ 1:15 p.m.

There was a similar meeting about the same issues 3 years ago. You have to wonder if the proponents are merely being lip service by the powers that be.

0

Founder June 15, 2010 @ 3:02 p.m.

IMO- As the number of the "informed" concerned public grows, I believe that the ABC itself will come under "fire" as a "waste" of precious State tax dollars! Using their website as an example, the ABC makes almost impossible to locate timely information about local licensee's restrictions and or new applications.

Also as the number of voters that perceive the ABC as in-effective at best and as part of the Alcohol problem instead of part of the solution, grows, the ABC's own administrative & PR problems will grow. Soon, no amount of lobbying by the alcohol Industry will be able to stand up against the flood of pictures listing all the children and adults, injured, maimed and killed by DUI drivers and or alcohol related Crimes!

If the ABC is shown to be "unconcerned" and or "unresponsive" to Community Need by putting the issuance of new Liquor licenses before Public Safety then I think the voting public will call for the State Department of ABC to be closed, with the task of supervising these establishments, along with all the money generated by their fees, handled in the future by local law enforcement of each of our cash strapped Cities!

0

Ridiculous June 19, 2010 @ 11:27 a.m.

Grasca:

You may want to know that there currently are NO requirements for an alcohol licensee to increase parking as they increase their business size. Development services will confirm.

This means that a bar can double it's size or add a deck that doubles their capacity and not be required to add ANY additional parking for their patrons. This is one small example of how the current policies are inadequate and affect the residents.

0

Sign in to comment