San Bernardino council upholds denial of alcohol sales at ARCO on Highland Avenue

The San Bernardino City Council on the evening it met upheld the planning commission’s denial of a conditional use permit for alcohol sales at the Arco convenience store located at 189 West Highland Avenue, rejecting an appeal by the store owner to allow a Type 20 (beer and wine) license.

Planning staff presented the appeal as a choice between two resolutions: one to deny the appeal and sustain the planning commission’s denial of Conditional Use Permit 23-01, and a second to reverse that decision and allow a Type 20 license at the existing approximately 1,400-square-foot store. Staff summarized the planning history and neighborhood context and reported crime statistics provided by the San Bernardino Police Department: “En los últimos 12 meses hubo 140 delitos reportados,” a figure staff said factored into the commission’s finding (Mendoza, planning staff).

The applicant, Kevin Vivian, owner of the Arco property, told the council he has operated the site for five years and offered several mitigation measures if the license were granted, including limiting alcohol sales to 10 p.m. (below the state maximum of 2 a.m.), installing additional security cameras, routinely enforcing ID checks and ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Control) training, and allowing inspections by ABC and local police. “Nosotros lo al pararíamos a las 10 instalar cámaras de seguridad y absolutamente ninguna clase de promoción de ventas de alcohol en afuera de la tienda,” Vivian said during his presentation.

During the hearing council members asked staff and the applicant about the local license “saturation” and applicable standards. Staff noted proximity to other outlets and to sensitive uses as factors in the planning commission’s decision and described 500-foot proximity rules and exceptions that the commission considered. Staff and council also discussed whether the State’s ABC license-count guidance (sometimes cited as a “recommended” number) is mandatory or only advisory; staff told council the census-based guidance is not mandatory but is used as one input in discretionary convenience/public-necessity findings.

Members of the public both opposed and supported the appeal. Nearby business owners and residents described neighborhood problems — robbery, visible homelessness and loitering — and said adding another alcohol outlet would worsen conditions. One nearby business owner told the council the block already has multiple liquor outlets and asked the council to maintain the denial. Other community members and several younger residents said the Arco property is a long-standing family-owned business and urged the council to allow the license if the owner agreed to enforce conditions and work with police.

After the public comments and questions, Councilmember Ortiz moved and Councilmember Ibarra seconded a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the planning commission’s denial of Conditional Use Permit 23-01, thereby preventing issuance of the Type 20 alcohol control license for the Arco location. The motion carried; the council directed that the denial stand under the resolutions introduced that evening.

What council decided and why: The record presented to the council included the planning commission’s analysis of convenience and public-necessity factors, police-provided crime numbers for the reporting district, and evidence of multiple existing alcohol outlets within close walking distance. Council members emphasized those record facts in explaining their votes. The council also acknowledged the applicant’s mitigation proposals but found the discretionary findings required for approval were not met in this case.

Next steps: The council’s action upheld the planning commission’s denial and was filed on the council record as the final local decision for this application. The owner retains the ability to pursue other administrative remedies available under state law (for example, an ABC licensing application independent of the local use permit process), but the council’s vote means the city’s land-use permit for on-site beer-and-wine sales at this address remains denied.

Quotes (selected): • Mendoza (planning staff): “En los últimos 12 meses hubo 140 delitos reportados.” • Kevin Vivian (applicant): “Nosotros lo al pararíamos a las 10 instalar cámaras de seguridad y absolutamente ninguna clase de promoción de ventas de alcohol en afuera de la tienda.” • Member of the public (nearby business): “No necesitamos otra licencia de alcohol.”

Clarifying details: The planning action at issue related to Conditional Use Permit 23-01 (convenience/public necessity), and the applicant sought a Type 20 ABC classification (beer and wine). Staff said nine arrests were reported at the location during the period reviewed. The council discussed but did not change the ABC guidance numbers; staff stated those counts are advisory, not mandatory.

Ending: The council’s vote preserves the planning commission’s determination that the applicant did not meet the city’s discretionary standards for convenience and public necessity at this location. The city clerk’s record will reflect the council’s resolution denying the appeal.