Divisive idea may not win support of councilman

After a fiery forum drawing sharp emotions on both sides of the issue, the Pacific Beach Planning Board (PBPB) voted 11-5 with one abstention Aug. 31 to recommend that the City Council adopt a conditional-use permit (CUP) policy for new restaurants and bars seeking alcohol licenses in Pacific Beach. “What we have now is not working,” said Pacific Beach Planning Board member Scott Chipman. “Crime rates in our central business district are extremely high, especially alcohol-related crime.” Chipman was among those voting in favor of recommending CUPs to City Council. It is not clear when the matter will formally come before the council, and it appears Kevin Faulconer, the councilman who represents Pacific Beach, may not entirely be on board with the PBPB’s recommendation. The planning board’s vote came on the heels of a 58-page report released by the planning board’s Alcohol Review Committee, which found a substantial increase in alcohol-related crimes in Pacific Beach in recent years. However, some believe the committee did not take into account all of possible negative economic impacts a CUP could potentially have for local businesses. “In the report they put together, they used statistics from 2008,” said Eric Lingenfelder, who owns Tavern At The Beach and Brewley’s Pint. “The report is false. It is not true. They put it together knowing they wanted a CUP as a result. They didn’t take any input from business owners.” The planning board cannot formally require CUPs because it is only an advisory body to the City Council. Faulconer, who represents District 2, said he does not necessarily agree with the proposed changes by the planning board, however. “The vast majority of Pacific Beach restaurants and bars act responsibly and are good neighbors,” he said in a written statement. “I’m committed to working with neighbors and the police department to crack down on establishments that are causing noise and safety problems. Requiring conditional-use permits from all establishments does not incentivize good behavior, but rather adds more red tape and creates greater uncertainty for businesses in an already tough economy.” In the PBPB proposal, all existing businesses would be grandfathered into their current licenses. However, any remodeling or selling of the business could trigger a possible CUP. “A lot of places that have a CUP policy have old run-down buildings because a lot of business owners don’t want to go through and do a remodel because it can trigger a CUP and add restrictions to your business,” Lingenfelder said. “Lets say I’m 70 years old and I want to get out of the bar business. That sale triggers a possible CUP and now I can’t sell what I have. It devalues the business.” Others, however, see CUPs as a way to curb the excessive drinking and all of the problems and damage that come with over-consumption — particularly in Pacific Beach. “The way alcohol licenses are so easily modified and changed into bar-like restaurants has many in the community concerned about allowing more alcohol licenses to come into Pacific Beach. Some of the licenses we have right now are out of control,” said Chipman, who pointed out that there were 51 arrests at DUI checkpoints in Pacific Beach over the recent Labor Day weekend. Another contentious issue in the CUP proposal is to have a full-time or part-time police officer dedicated to enforcing CUPs, as well as keeping a close eye on compliance for all alcohol licenses in Pacific Beach. Supporters said the potentially costly fees associated with obtaining a CUP would go to funding that officers salary. The CUP proposal was originally voted on and passed by the Pacific Beach Planning Board in February but the action was later rescinded because it was not officially on the board’s agenda.