Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alcohol Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission stalls alcohol permit for 1437 23rd Ave pool hall, seeks stronger security, hours and community engagement
Summary
The commission voted to continue an application to permit on‑site alcohol sales at a pool hall on 23rd Avenue, asking staff and the applicants to return with findings for both approval and denial, a more robust security plan, proposed operating hours that separate youth and adult uses, and a community‑engagement plan; the straw vote passed unanimously among commissioners present.
The Oakland Planning Commission on Oct. 1 voted to continue and seek additional analysis on a proposal to allow on‑site alcohol sales at an existing pool hall at 1437 23rd Avenue, directing staff and the applicants to return with both findings for denial and findings for approval, plus detailed conditions aimed at reducing neighborhood impacts.
Mike Rivera, the project planner, told commissioners staff recommended denial of the major conditional use permit and the associated variance because the application could not meet required findings. Rivera cited two prior code‑violation letters (one in 2022 and another in 2025), the site’s location within 1,000 feet of three existing alcohol outlets and multiple schools and daycare facilities, and a police beat that saw more than 20% above the citywide average calls for service in the prior year.
Applicants and community supporters, including one applicant who identified himself as Oscar, framed the proposal as neighborhood recreation with local ties. "This is my neighborhood... we wanna do something positive for the community," Oscar told the commission, noting letters of support and after‑school programming plans. Applicants said they have operated the business for about three years and acknowledged earlier violations, some predating their ownership.
Commissioners raised multiple concerns: the police‑beat call volume around the site, the potential overlap between daytime youth programs and later alcohol service, and consistency with a prior variance granted for a wine‑bar on College Avenue. Several commissioners said they would welcome a more robust security plan, clearer operating hours to limit youth/adult overlap, and stronger community outreach and complaint‑response processes.
City Attorney Brian Mulry said the commission can and should craft reasonable conditions addressing perceived impacts, including hours of operation and security measures, and recommended a continuation so staff and the applicant could work together with commissioners to draft those conditions.
Vice Chair Natalie Sandoval moved a straw vote directing staff to return with: findings both for denial and approval (if possible), proposed conditions that include a robust security plan and specific hours for alcohol service, a community engagement plan addressing neighborhood complaints, and a staff check‑in about operations after roughly a year. The motion was seconded and passed on a roll call vote. Staff said the item must be re‑noticed and will return at a date when all materials and recommended findings can be provided.
The continuation preserves the applicant’s opportunity to revise the proposal or pursue an appeal to City Council; staff and commissioners emphasized that any future approval would need specific conditions to manage public‑safety and youth‑safety concerns.
