HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/07/14 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
July 14, 2010
Chairman Fletcher called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho
Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Frances Howdyshell, Lou Munoz,
Francisco Oaxaca, Ray Wimberly
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney; Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner;
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Jennifer Nakamura,Associate Planner;
Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; James Troyer, Planning
Director
ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Oaxaca, carried 4-0-1 (Howdyshell abstain)to approve
the minutes of June 23, 2010.
•
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Vice Chairman Munoz announced he would recues himself from hearing the following item because
he is an employee of AT&T. He left the Chambers at approximately 7:10 PM
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- DRC2009-00253-VERIZON WIRELESS AND T-MOBILE-A
request to install a 61-foot tall multi-carrier wireless facility designed as a clock tower with an
equipment enclosure at an existing retail center in the Neighborhood Commercial District,
located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue -APN: 0227-182-17.
This action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, In-Fill Development Projects.
Steve Fowler,Assistant Planner presented the staff report. He noted changes in the resolution
which had been placed before the Commissioners on the dais, specifically Condition#6 which
added the words "by owner at the end of the last sentence and on Condition#13, the second
sentence was struck and it now reads, "No wireless communication facility shall interfere with
the public safety radio communications system, including, but not limited to, the eight hundred
MHz trunking system. If it is determined that the operation of the telecommunications facility
causes interference with the radio communications of the•City's public safety operation in
violation of FCC Rules and Regulations, the applicant shall work diligently in accordance with
the Best Practices Guidelines of the FCC to eliminate any interference."
Commissioner Howdyshell asked if the dock will be illuminated during evening hours.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked if the added language in Condition 13 is new and he asked why it had
been changed and if they should expect to see similar language in the future.
Mr. Fowler stated the clock will not be illuminated and the language was changed at the request of
the applicant and pertains to FCC rules.
Steven Flower said the City cannot regulate or enforce the FCC rules and the City would have to go
to them for the enforcement of that. He said the language it might not be consistent with what we
have had in the past and it could change in the future.
Chairman Fletcher asked if there are any problems with this type of shared wireless facility and he
wanted to know who the owner is.
Mr. Fowler said no. He said Anthem Telecom is the owner. He said they maintain the facility and
lease out to other carriers.
Mr. Flower said this is a common arrangement.
Chairman Fletcher asked the applicant if he desired to comment.
Paul Gerst stated he represents the applicant and that they have reviewed and accept all the
conditions of approval.
Chairman Fletcher opened the public hearing.
Linda Paul, 7353 Ellena West, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she is both a resident and an employee
of T-Mobile. She said she is eager for this to be approved as the service/voice/data support is
needed in the area.
Chairman Fletcher closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Howdyshell said it is straightforward and she expressed support of the aesthetics of
the clock tower design.
Commissioner Wimberly concurred and said the look is nicer than a faux palm.
Commissioner Oaxaca said the DRC and the applicant did a great job;the aesthetics blend with the
existing center and it is an attractive addition.
Chairman Fletcher agreed noting that more towers mean more service, better service, and
competition. He said he likes the idea of a clock tower and said it is an excellent design.
Motion: Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Howdyshell, to adopt the Resolution of Approval for
DRC2009-00253 as amended. Motion carried by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 14, 2010
AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, OAXACA, WIMBERLY
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: MUNOZ,
ABSENT: NONE - carried
Vice Chairman Munoz returned to the Chambers at approximately 7:20 PM.
B. REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP99-43R-THE BEER MUG -A public hearing
to examine the business operation to ensure that it is being operated in a manner consistent
with the conditions of approval or in a manner which is not detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. The Planning Commission
will consider revocation or modification of the approved Conditional Use Permit. Located within
the Regional Related Commercial District, Subarea 4,of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan,in .
the Foothill Marketplace at 12809 Foothill Boulevard, Suite C1-C4 - APN: 0229-031-33.
Related files: Conditional Use Permit CUP97-03 and Entertainment Permit EP97-30.
CONTINUED FROM MAY 26, JUNE 9, AND JUNE 23, 2010.
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report and a brief Powerpoint presentation
(copy on file). .
Chairman Fletcher asked for an explanation of Type 48 liquor licenses.
Mr. Henderson explained that the Type 48 license is needed for a nightclub use rather than a
restaurant use which requires a Type 47 license.
Deputy Wright presented a report from the Sheriffs Department and a Powerpoint presentation. .
I (copy on file). Deputy Wright indicated that he had talked with the owner, Mr. Roig, on several
occasions, offered him help and to also discuss the expectations. He noted that he and Deputy
Clark personally delivered the letter dated January 27, 2010 from the Planning Department stating
that Mr. Roig did not have a valid Entertainment Permit and that those activities should cease and
that Mr. Roig signed a receipt for the letter. He stated the flyers(issued by a promoter)and various
forms of entertainment continued including strip dancers. He noted that a compliance check
occurred on June 9, 2010 following the Planning Commission meeting and that during that check
they made contact with a DJ working there.
Deputy Clark summarized that the case involving the shooting of 5 people at the entrance of the
business is still ongoing.
Vice Chairman Munoz asked for clarification regarding the taser incident.
Deputy Clark summarized the incident in which an outside contract security company hired by the
Beer Mug tasered several people. Persons who struck the security guards were cited. He said it is
common that when a taser is used, charges are processed that have to be cleared because tasers
are to be used as a defense, Deputy Clark also noted the ongoing investigation regarding the
stabbing in the parking lot.
Deputy Wright noted that in the tasering incident,the business did not want to press charges nor did
they want to have any documentation. He noted the assault with a deadly weapon on March 26. He
summarized the incident regarding the incident involving a 19 year old. He said that there is an
i ongoing investigation for both criminal and administrative charges with the ABC. Deputy Wright said
the business has had a violent history for being open a short time.
Chairman Fletcher asked what contacts had been made to the business owner.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 14, 2010
He said he offered suggestions to Mr. Roig and left about 15 phone messages. He said Mr. Roig
later agreed to meet with his attorney with staff.
Deputy Clark said there was a fight earlier this month during which a firearm was brandished prior to
the arrival of the officers.
Deputy Wright said there have been 30 calls for service in about a year. He said this only includes
calls specific to this address and does not include DUI's that may be applicable.
Ryan Kroll of Solomon, Saltsman &Jamieson, stated he represents Mr. Roig. Mr. Kroll provided to
the Commission the following items (copies on file): photos of the patio area; a letter addressed to
the Planning Commission dated July 14, 2010; a copy of Resolution 98-07; a copy of an application
for an Entertainment Permit dated March 19, 2009; proposed Beer Mug Security Plan (undated); a
declaration of Aaron Cortes executed on July 13, 2010; photos of the interior of the Beer Mug
(dining area, kitchen, bathroom); and a letter dated June 7, 2010 addressed to James Troyer,
Planning Director. Mr. Kroll presented a brief history summarizing his understanding of the case
chronology. He said in 2009 Mr. Roig came to the Planning Counter, paid $75 for an Entertainment
Permit, invested $250,000 and opened in October 2009. He said there was confusion about the
CUP and in January, 2010, the City changed its mind. He said the permissions were reviewed for
several months. He said the City said he had a CUP but not a valid Entertainment Permit. He said
•
the CUP of 1999 is not correct because it only indicates a modification to build an outdoor patio and
was never vested because the patio was never built and the CUP of 1998 is the correct one and
does allow entertainment and service of alcoholic beverages. He referred to the floorplan (B-14 of
the agenda packet). Mr. Kroll provided photos of the area for the record. He said his client has filed
a government claim. He said it is a City error and that his client wants to operate in Rancho
Cucamonga, serve alcohol, and provide live entertainment. He said it is a full restaurant with a full
menu. He said people go there to eat dinner and it is not a nightclub. He said the ABC allows him
to have a Type 47 license because he has a bona-fide restaurant. He said the City has no
jurisdiction over ABC matters. He said his client has vested property rights and therefore due
process rights. He stated much said has been hearsay. He stated that Mr. Roig "inherited"
problems from prior clientele. He said the shooting therefore was not Mr. Roig's concern. He said
he was submitting a copy of their security plan (on file). He said some of the ideas in the plan were
proposed by Deputy Wright such as not allowing smoking near the door to minimize congestion of
persons there. He added that it includes a taxi program and ridesharing. He said this is an example
of how Mr. Roig is working with the City. He said they no longer employ the outside security
company involved in the taser incident. He said they trusted them because they said they were off-
duty Ontario Police officers. He said in reference to the alleged underage drinking incident that Mr.
Roig is being blamed for something he did not do and that Mr. Roig claims no one saw the 19 year
old enter and Mr. Roig did not serve him. He said the story told by the 19 year old is different than
the employees and security guard. He said the 19 year old told the security guard he was already
drunk before he got there and it is a credibility contest and it is easy to tell which is more truthful. He
noted the declaration of Aaron Cortes (copy on file). He said the advertisement for entertainment
went out from Mr. Cortes early in March on the internet. He cited Muni Code Section (5.12.030A)
noting an exception regarding entertainment and that no entertainment was being provided
according to this exception on June 9, 2010. He said Mr. Cortes was using the laptop as a playback
device only and no announcing/performing was going on. He said he promised there was no
entertainment and they kept that promise in good faith. He said they still believe they have a valid
Entertainment Permit. He said the revocation is occurring too quickly and the City is 'jumping the
gun'and they should be given the chance to prove what they are doing and there have not been any
violent incidents in the last 3 weeks. He said they are listening to the City and they would like 6
months. .
Jesus Roig, owner of the Beer Mug, said he has a 10,000 square foot restaurant space with tables
and TV and that entertainment is vital for this location. He said he spoke with Mr. Correa at the
Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 14, 2010
counter regarding his permit. He said he did not know the Beer Hunter was a bad place and that he
inherited a bad place and the shooting occurred soon after he took over the business. He said the
shooters argued because the bouncers turned some patrons away and then they opened fire and
there was nothing he could have done about that. He said he hired the armed (tasers) security
because he had problems with biker gangs and it worked for a while. He said that company did not
want to file a report and that was their thing, it was just what they wanted to do. He said it is not true
that the incident was inside his bar, it was outside. He said they moved the smoking area, put
security in red shirts, and remodeled the bathroom. He said he has only seen the 19 year old twice;
once at McAlan's and once in his bar. He said he told his security guard to escort him out. He said
he apparently fell in the lot and cracked his head; his security people brought him water and ice. He
said he never served him and he does not know him personally. He said he saved his money (to
buy this business for 15 years). He said he is asking for a chance to prove himself and turn this
place around. He said he is open to meetings and he wants to stay open; his entertainment is Wed-
Sat for 21 years and older but there are family times during the day as well and he emphasizes the
food. He said he has had numerous cooks because he has high expectations for,the food. He said
he continued to have entertainment until June 1 and that he asked his lawyer if he could.
Commissioner Howdyshell asked when the security plan was prepared. Commissioner Howdyshell
said it is not dated nor signed nor acknowledged and that she is uncomfortable with that.
Mr. Kroll said it was prepared for the submission of an Entertainment/CUP application to be
submitted in mid-June and then was later revised. He said they never filed the application because
the cost was 8,000-9,000 and because the CUP could be revoked the next week, they never filed
not wanting to waste the money. He said he prepared the security plan. Mr. Kroll said it was only
prepared for the City to review for feedback. He said that they want to hear back from the City on it.
James Troyer, Planning Director, said the main thing is that the City is still waiting for the
Entertainment Permit application to be filed. He said without a filed application; the conditions
suggested are a moot point.
Mr. Kroll said they are happy to file the application but they wanted to wait and see what the
Commission would do tonight because it did not make sense to make that expenditure until they
knew what the Commission would decide tonight. He said the security plan could be part of the
conditions of the CUP. He said they did not want to throw away $8-9,000.
Chairman Fletcher noted that there were several continuances granted and that it was in anticipation
that those permit applications would be filed. He asked what happened there.
Mr. Kroll said that on June 15 is when they heard that the hearing of June 23 would be a revocation
hearing. He said they had to wait for mailing labels from the County. He noted a letter from the
County on June 7 (copy on file) explaining the delay. He said it did not make sense to pay the fees
if it would be revoked.
Commissioner Wimberly asked when he was first asked to submit the Entertainment Permit
application.
Mr. Kroll said it was sometime earlier in the year; that there was a lot of back and forth as to what
rights and privileges his client had; there was flip flopping and it took time to figure out what the
City's position was and where his client was. He said he was also working with the landlord on rent
abatement in order to afford the fees. Mr. Kroll said his client has a valid Entertainment Permit
through March of 2010.
Chairman Fletcher noted that the client had received letters that the permit had been issued in error
and that he should cease and desist entertainment.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 14, 2010
Mr. Kroll said his client did receive letters along those lines and that he also received a letter that
said he did not have a CUP that allowed alcohol. He said it is not clear cut as to what was correct.
Chairman Fletcher said it is the way the business operation is being run is what is in question. He
said Mr. Roig said he owns a family restaurant. He said he would like to hear from Mr. Roig as to
how a dance pole and strippers fits into the operation of a family restaurant and what he intends to
operate. He asked if he had experience running a restaurant.
Mr. Roig said he was a bartender for 15 years and he has 5 or 6 years experience running
restaurants. He said on Halloween they had 5 bands and it was brought in for go-go dancers. He
said he has taken it down.
Mr. Kroll said in March of 2009 it was fine for him to have dancing and entertainment.
Commissioner Oaxaca confirmed the location was vacant for sometime when he took it over and it
was an empty shell.
Mr. Roig said it was vacant for 6 or 7 months and that the Entertainment Permit never lapsed.
Commissioner Howdyshell asked how much time Mr. Roig spends on site.
Mr. Roig said from around 4pm until 4 or 5 am everyday. He said he often helps with serving and/or
bar-tending except on weekends. He said he focuses more on management during those times.
Vice Chairman Munoz said he has difficulty with the characterization of a family restaurant
considering the state of undress of the dancers in the pictures, and the related ads, flyers and the
photos taken by the authorities. He asked how this nice family restaurant morphed into this
burlesque type establishment.
Mr. Kroll stated the flyers from the internet are not foundation for revocation of a permit. He said
they cannot be used to depict what accurately takes place at the location. The officers said they
took the photos from the internet and they are not due process.
Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney asked if Mr. Kroll is personally aware that no nude
performances have occurred at this establishment.
Mr. Kroll responded that he is aware from his client that they have not taken place.
Mr. Flower asked again if Mr. Kroll is personally aware of that. Mr. Kroll replied in the negative.
Commissioner Howdyshell said the photos indicate a perception but when combined with calls for
service and when put together,there is cause for health and safety and points to the advertising,the
clientele and how the business is being run such that there was something that caused that interest.
Mr. Kroll said his client does not have control over what is on the internet and does not affect his
client's rights.
Commissioner Howdyshell disagreed.
Vice Chairman Munoz asked about an advertisement that could not be pulled back from the internet.
He said someone is controlling those ads and that Mr. Kroll indicated that someone had been
retained to send these out.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 14, 2010
Mr. Kroll said the DJ promoted these and he is not an employee or hired and Mr. Roig cannot control
that.
Vice Chairman Munoz said he believes Mr. Roig is responsible for that and he has not taken
responsibility.
Chairman Fletcher said he would like to hear what kind of establishment he wants to run, his
business plan and how he plans to prevent these problems. He also asked why he did not respond
to the Police Department calls.
Mr. Roig said the 15 calls occurred in a 3-day time period in January. He said they informed him to
stop his entertainment. He said then they called and said he could not serve alcohol. He said they
continued calling but he(Mr. Roig)then got an attorney and it took several days to explain his case.
He said now it is a total sports bar, he brings in bands and DJ's. He said after 9pm it is for adults
only (21 and over) and he serves food until 1 am.
Mr. Roig said it is still a restaurant, they serve food, but then it changes for the entertainment.
Commissioner Wimberly commented that his definition of a family restaurant is a little different. He
said he is under scrutiny for his land use and safety issues. He said that Mr. Roig said if he can re-
define that at will, then there is something wrong.
Mr. Kroll reiterated that until March of this year, the City was fine with this. He said most cities allow
restaurants with entertainment to operate this way for safety issues and that sometimes it is an ABC
condition to not allow anyone under 21 after 9pm when entertainment is offered.
Chairman Fletcher asked what the percentage of food sales to alcohol sales is.
Mr. Roig responded, 50/50 or 60/40 depending on if there are sporting events.
Vice Chairman Munoz asked if he has $1 drink promotions.
Mr. Roig said no. He said he does have $2 drafts. He said when he first opened he did have $1
draft beers.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked for clarification regarding the applicable CUP and referred to B-18 of
the staff report and condition #13 and asked for clarification.
Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney stated that Mr. Bobko represents staff and he (Mr. Flower)
represents the Commission. He noted that condition #13 of CUP 99-43, regarding the automatic
termination of the permit upon the transfer or sale of the business, is not enforceable in that it is no
longer current policy to impose such a condition.
Chairman Fletcher confirmed that the business location was closed for 6-7 months before Mr. Roig
took it over. He asked if the 180-day rule applies.
Mr. Troyer noted that the CUP may have become invalid after the prior use ceased for 180 days. He
said the City may not have known that the prior business had even closed.
Mr. Flower noted that the City never said that there was no valid CUP and the City has honored the
CUP from 1999 all along.
Mr. Bobko, attorney appearing on behalf of staff, concurred with Mr. Flower.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 14, 2010
Commissioner Oaxaca asked if the vesting did actually occur in that the resolution specified more
than just physical improvements (proposed patio area). He noted it also covered the operation of
the business as a full service restaurant and sports bar and because the business did open and
operate, the CUP was vested.
Mr. Bobko fully concurred with Commissioner Oaxaca's interpretation. He added that the prior
owner gained the benefit of the CUP. He noted that the 2nd CUP issued (99-43) is applicable and
that this CUP did not contain provisions for live entertainment. He said the applicant was notified by
staff of this first on January 27, 2010, only 4 months after the business opened. He said the City
issued the entertainment permit in error in 1997;the City realized the mistake and the applicant was
made aware of this again on February 23, 2010. The letter, sent certified mail, was returned to the
City unclaimed. He noted that CUP99-43 superseded CUP 97-30 of 1997. He said the City has
tried to let the applicant know but the mail has been returned along with other notifications. He said
the City has done everything in his power to let the applicant know. The returned mail (copies on
file) is noted in the record as follows: correspondence dated 3-18-10 returned 4-4-10;
correspondence dated 2-23-10 returned 3-17-10; correspondence dated 3-25-10 returned 4-15-10;
correspondence dated 5-20-10 returned 5-26-10; correspondence dated 6-3-10 returned 6-26-10;
correspondence dated 6-10-10 returned 6-17-10; correspondence dated 7-8-10 returned 7-19-10.
Chairman Fletcher asked for clarification about the error regarding the issuance of the permit.
Mr. Bobko likened it to when the IRS sends you a check in error. He commented on due process
and noted that this is not a criminal trial and that due process refers to a meaningful opportunity to-
be heard. He said strict rules of evidence do not apply and that the argument of hearsay does not
apply. He said the Commission is bound and entitled to use common sense. He noted they do not
need to know all the legal rules about evidence and hearsay. He said the officers are competent to
speak about the incidents and noted that one of the officers was a percipient witness on two
occasions. He also noted the mom who testified about her 19 year old son and his experience; he
said there was no doubt in her mind that her son had been served so much alcohol that he almost
died and she was aware of where he was and therefore, she too is a percipient. He said the
Commission is to look for substantial evidence and think like a member of the community rather than
a lawyer.
Chairman Fletcher noted Section 5.12.030 (exclusions) and asked if Mr. Kroll made a valid
comment. He confirmed that a juke box would not require an Entertainment Permit. He noted that
Mr. Cortes' declaration does identify him as a DJ.
Mr. Flower said Mr. Kroll did cite the Code section correctly. He said the actual question is if the DJ
was actually performing in the sense of announcing song titles, artists, etc. He said there is
evidence on both sides and it is up to the Commission to decide which side to support. He pointed
out that this single night (June 9h) was the only time that Mr. Kroll contends that this exception
applies. Mr. Flower confirmed that Musak or a juke box does not require a permit.
Chairman Fletcher opened the public comment section.
James Good stated he is a patron of the business and is a bartender in the Los Angeles area. He
supports the business and takes his girlfriend there and said there is plenty of security, an
impressive menu, measured "jigger" drinks, no "rif-raf' and he gets carded there. He said he has
never seen any fights or violence.
Frank Rodriguez said he was a prior patron when the business was the Beer Hunter. He recalled
violence in the past. He said he came back and brings his daughters and never observed incidents
inside the business. He supported the business.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- July 14, 2010
•
Ronald Bennett stated he is an employee of the Beer Mug. He said he was there when the incident
with the 19 year old minor occurred. He said he worked the door and was instructed by Mr. Roig to
help out the minor,who was having problems. He said the minor got violent and then hit the ground.
He said he and another employee laid the minor down in the planter. He said friends of the minor
thought they had hit him. The minor's friends refused help and tried to walk the minor to the truck
but Mr. Bennett observed they were quite drunk and had difficulty doing that. He said they laid the
minor down next to the truck. He asked them if they were going to call for help. He said the driver
was drunk and when they opened the door,there were beer bottles in the truck. He said two weeks
ago he ran into the minor at McAlans'. He said the minor could not recall how he got into the bar
that night and that he told him he was drunk prior to going to the Beer Mug. He said he checks
everyone's I.D. at the door.
Chairman Fletcher asked about the level of cooperation with the Police by the staff at the business.
He asked if the Police were told to get out and they had to have a search warrant to enter.
Mr. Bennett said he never talked to the Police and never told them they could not come in. He said
he recalled that when additional Police arrived,they stayed outside in the parking lot because that is
where the 19 year old was.
Commissioner Howdyshell asked if someone relieved him when he took his break.
Mr. Bennett said he was relieved by someone. He stated that anyone leaving and coming back in
gets carded again before entering.
Mike Prep said he works security on weekends and started working in February. He said he has not
seen many incidents and he has never refused the officers entry and he has stepped out of the way
when they enter. He said he was there when the DJ was there on June 9t". He said the DJ was
only using a play list, no vinyl was on the record player and no one was dancing because all their
tables were set for the next day.
Vice Chairman Fletcher asked Mr. Prep if he recognized the pictures shown from the internet were
from the Beer Mug.
Mr. Prep said yes.
Clinton Knowle stated he is a former employee of the Beer Mug and he takes his kids there prior to
9pm. He said the Police were never denied entry but they were advised that if they are not doing an
ABC inspection and they are checking under the Municipal Code they should check with the owner
before doing it. He said he is a former code enforcement officer. He said one night he did ask for
the purpose of their inspection and they responded that it was an ABC inspection and they were
allowed entry. He said they went to the DJ booth and started taking pictures. He said the owner
was there at the time and Mr. Knowle asked the officers to wait for the owner but they walked in. He
said they had been there the night before and threatened to arrest the DJ. He said they came again
without permission. He said he was not there the night of the shooting but was there for the other
incidents. He said he was one of the employees who was assaulted, and it was because he denied
entry to a minor. He said they do their best to identify minors and not serve them. He said they
have had private parties there and the photos could have occurred during one of those private
parties. He said if they are uniformed or not he would ask them for I.D. He said he has seen fake
police officer credentials before. He said Wal-Mart has more police calls than them. He said most
of the calls for service happen in the parking lot with people that have been asked to leave or they
were not permitted in. He said he did see the 19 year old in the bar but never saw him with a drink
in his hand. He said if the officers are not there for an ABC inspection, they have to have
permission of the owner and that is constitutional law.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- July 14, 2010
Chairman Fletcher said it sounds like he was not very cooperative with the officers. He said the
officers came in because they thought there was a problem there.
Nadine Olvera stated her support of the business. She said it is a comfortable, homelike
environment. She said they would not go there if there were problems because they have a family
to go home to. She said they hope the business does not get closed.
Chairman Fletcher clarified that revocation of the permit would not close them down;they would still
be allowed to serve beer and wine. He invited the applicant to rebut.
Mr. Kroll said the customers came out in support of the business and revocation would essentially
be the death sentence of this business. He said the most important thing is that until June 8, the
City was still willing to work with Mr. Roig. He said the security plan could be implemented as
conditions and asked to bring them back in 4-6 months.
Chairman Fletcher closed the public hearing.
Mr. Troyer noted that the floor plan was modified and altered illegally and is not in compliance with
CUP 99-43 which is also part of the record and reason for revocation. He said the Entertainment
Permit was issued in error and the City already acknowledged that.
Mr. Flower clarified that the Entertainment Permit was actually transferred in error. He said
entertainment permits are issued separately from a Planning Commission approval of a CUP. He
said entertainment permits are personal permits and issued to a person. Staff incorrectly believed
the Entertainment Permit operated like a land use permit. He said when the subject permit came up
for renewal (not required for a land use permit), they allowed the next business owner to renew the
license even though he was not legally entitled to do so. He said Mr. Roig should have been
required to apply for his own Entertainment Permit in his own name.
Chairman Fletcher noted that staff also asked them to apply for a new CUP.
Mr. Flower stated that was because the current CUP in force specifically does not allow live
entertainment.
Mr. Troyer noted that it was also to modify the conditions of approval and the floor plan for that.
Mr. Flower said that it is also because the floor plan was altered without building permits and that
could be considered a safety issue.
Chairman Fletcher stated that if the permit is revoked tonight then they lose the right to serve
distilled alcohol. He asked what it all means for the owner.
Mr. Flower said the business reverts to a restaurant and they can serve beer and wine. He said they
would have to go to Building and Safety for permits and bring that to code if there are any issues
with that. He said the purpose of reviewing the floorplan is to ensure it is to code for entertainment
being offered there. He said if no entertainment is permitted, then there is no need to review the
plan. He said the alteration was done in violation of the CUP.
Chairman Fletcher asked about the owners rights and if they can reapply.
Mr. Flower said he can file an appeal and if they lose the appeal, they have to wait one year to
apply. He said the Commission could revoke or modify the CUP at this time.
Commissioner Howdyshell asked what has been done in terms of the floorplan;
Planning Commission Minutes -10- July 14, 2010
Mr. Troyer said the dance floor area was expanded, the DJ area was constructed/installed and the
dining area was reduced.
Commissioner Howdyshell said this is a serious matter. She noted health and safety concerns,the
privilege of doing business in Rancho, negligence, and calls for service. She said she believes this
business continues to be a magnet for public safety issues. She cited the incident with the 19 year
old. She asked why management did not act and demonstrate leadership for the health and welfare
for the patrons. She said this should be part of their business plan at the front end. She said there
is a perception with what we see on the internet and the management has the final say of how they
run their business and who they give the ok to for what is promoted for their business.
Commissioner Wimberly concurred and added that he has a concern about the management and
that they ignored the requests of the City to come forward with the appropriate documentation to get
compliant. He said he has concern about their understanding of the definitions of entertainment and
the health and safety problems, and the calls for service. He said he would support revocation.
Commissioner Oaxaca said he is now clear on the CUP and the entertainment permit record. He
said on the merit of those facts he is concerned about the status of the business. He acknowledged
the support of the public but the calls for service are of great concern. He said to an extent, the
problems there are symptomatic of the business operation. He said he was not comfortable with the
reports regarding the characterization of the deputies. He also cited the incident with the minor. He
said much had been said on both sides about this incident. He said it was a dangerous and
potentially tragic situation that might have been avoided with better management.
Vice Chairman Munoz said he concurs with his fellow Commissioners. He said regarding the
questions about the permits, the owner continued to operate as a'bar with entertainment and this is
a preview of how this business would be run if the Commission left things in place. He said the
owner admitted to being there all the time. He said employees generally do things sanctioned by
management. He said there are questionable advertisements and entertainment and it seems to be
run like a night club. He said management has to take responsibility for that. He said the alcohol
practices could endanger the community. He had concern about the adversarial stance the
business took with law enforcement. He said we should not be willing to tolerate that. He said in his
experience and career, problems with businesses is generally reflective of the leadership. He said
he supports the revocation of their permits.
Chairman Fletcher clarified that the Conditional Use Permit is the only valid permit being considered
for revocation. He asked staff if they have considered modification of the conditions that might solve
this problem such as an earlier closing time. He said he sees a communication problem with staff
and the owner up until the attorney got involved.
Mr. Troyer said there are several issues. He said they refused to apply for an Entertainment Permit
and then continued to provide entertainment. He said they have been aware of the modification of
the floor plan since January 27 and nothing has been done with that. He said there has only been
one meeting with the attorney and his applicant. Staff has tried along with law enforcement to
contact the applicant and no meetings have occurred. He said if there is a communication problem,
we believe it is with the applicant and not an issue with staffs willingness to remedy this situation.
He said that is why the only remedy is revocation, but if the Commission would like to direct staff to
work with the applicant and look at modifications, staff would do that.
Chairman Fletcher asked if the permit was revoked would it prevent them from coming forward with
an Entertainment Permit application.
Mr. Troyer said it would not.
Planning Commission Minutes -11- July 14, 2010
Mr. Flower clarified and said they need a CUP and an Entertainment Permit.
Commissioner Oaxaca clarified that the Entertainment Permit is not a stand alone.
Mr. Flower said that is correct. Mr. Flower stated that they can apply for the CUP and in this case,
the one year rule does not apply because no valid CUP for entertainment exists; therefore they
' could apply for that after the approval of the CUP and only could be granted at the discretion of the
Planning Commission. He clarified that if they want to come back for a CUP for serving distilled
spirits, there would be a one year waiting period.
Chairman Fletcher said when there are problems he would like staff or the police bring these to the
Commission earlier so that there can be conversations with the business owner about the problems
or the Commission can make modifications. He said when making his decisions on these reviews
he looks for a response from the business owner. He said that this is the case here. He said the
business owner needs to take responsibility for his employees particularly when serious injuries
have occurred and they are being questioned by law enforcement. He said he does not always fault
the business owner for things that occur in the parking lot later: he cited the shooting, the stabbing
and the fight following urination on someone's car. He said that their promotions cause problems for
the City with respect to health and safety. He said his preference is to make modifications but he
did not know what they can do if the owner is not cooperating the way he should be. He said it
appears that all the problems occur at closing time. He said as a Commission, they try to regulate
them, not put them out of business. He said this revocation would not put them out of business; it
only prevents them from serving distilled spirits. He said being on the border of Fontana is also a
problem and they will have to be careful about the type of promotions they put out there. He said he
believes the legal issues have been answered and modifications would be as detrimental to the
business as revocation. He said because of the non responsiveness of the owner, he supports
staffs recommendation to revoke.
Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Howdyshell,to adopt the resolution to revoke Conditional
Use Permit CUP99-43 as recommended by staff. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
The Chairman called for a break at 10:05 PM. The Commission returned at 10:15 PM.
NEW BUSINESS
Vice Chairman Munoz recused himself from the hearing for reasons of a possible conflict of interest
and left the Chambers at 10:15 PM.
C. USE DETERMINATION DRC2010-00393-NORTH AMERICAN WIRELESS INC-A request to
determine if a proposed Sprint wireless phone store should be permitted under the Specialty
Retail land use category within the Specialty Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan (Subarea 2). The Planning Department staff has determined that the activity is
statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and the City CEQA Guidelines. The activity qualifies under Section 15061(b)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines because a Use Determination will not have any specific impacts on the
environment.
Planning Commission Minutes -12- July 14, 2010
Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Fletcher asked if this qualifies in the specialty theme of the Thomas Winery Plaza.
Mr. Fowler said this designation would apply to the entire specialty district not just for theme of this
center.
Chairman Fletcher asked if is sufficient to approve a non-wine related business that does not
support the ambiance of the center.
James Troyer, Planning Director stated they are trying to be flexible.
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner said he was on staff when this plan was adopted. He said at the
time, the winery theme was the emphasis but that it was realized that if the entire center was theme
oriented they would be unable to function and therefore there was a shift to focus on the
architecture.
Steven Flower,Assistant City Attorney noted that if the cell phone store qualifies as a specialty store
or an electronics store. He clarified by saying is it more like the description found on Page C-2 of
the agenda packet or like a Best Buy. He said it is not an issue of'theme'.
Chairman Fletcher invited the applicant to comment. The applicant was present buy offered no
comment.
Commissioner Howdyshell said it is great that the business wants to occupy this space. She said
this center has had a major overhaul and it is good for competition and sales.
Commissioner Wimberly agreed that it is good for sales, competition, the empty space is filled and
more people will get hired.
Commissioner Oaxaca agreed. He said cell phones are unique and the stores are more like
boutique shops. He said it is a good fit.
Chairman Fletcher said he believes it qualifies and it is good to fill the space.
Motion: Moved by Oaxaca, seconded by Howdyshell, to adopt the Resolution of Use
Determination DRC2010-00393, Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, OAXACA, WIMBERLY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: MUNOZ, - carried
4 } 1 f
Vice Chairman Munoz returned to the Chambers at approximately 10:25 PM.
D. SELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS
Chairman Fletcher remarked that he would like to continue as Chairman.
Planning Commission Minutes -13- July 14, 2010
Steven Flower,Assistant City Attorney, suggested the Commissioners take the Chairman and Vice
Chairman nominations separately; a nomination would take place,a second and then a vote first for
the Chairman position and then follow the same procedure for Vice Chairman.
Commissioner Howdyshell said Chairman Fletcher has done a great job and thanked him for his
service. She nominated Commissioner Munoz to serve as Chairman.
Chairman Fletcher noted that in the past there were no limitations on the terms for the Chairman
and then it was changed to a limit of 3 years. He said he would like to serve a third year.
James Troyer, Planning Director said it is not mandatory to serve 3 years.
Mr. Flower read into the record the administrative regulations regarding the chairmanship position
and noted that it is a one year term.
Chairman Fletcher said because of the long continuous tenure of a previous Chairman,the Council
decided that was not in the best interest of the Commission and therefore suggested that the
Chairman should no longer serve more than 3 years.
Mr. Flower clarified that it is no more than 3 consecutive 1 year terms.
Commissioner Wimberly commented that this also impacted the Library Board and other
committees.
Motion: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Wimberly,to select Commissioner Munoz for a one
year term as Chairman. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY
NOES: FLETCHER
ABSENT: NONE - carried
Commissioner Wimberly nominated Commissioner Howdyshell to serve as Vice Chairman.
Motion: Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Oaxaca,to elect Commissioner Howdyshell for a one
year term as Vice Chairman. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
♦ ♦ R 1t
E. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
Vice Chairman Munoz said he is willing to stay on.
Commissioner Wimberly said he is willing to continue serving the DRC.
Commissioner Howdyshell said she said she is willing to continue as Alternate.
Commissioner Oaxaca said he saw no reason to change.
Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Oaxaca, to affirm the current DRC membership of
Commissioners Munoz, Wimberly and Howdyshell as Alternate. Motion carried by the following
vote:
Planning Commission Minutes -14- July 14, 2010
•
AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
F. DRC2010-00141 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-A PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION -
OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE
REGARDING ENTERTAINMENT
Jennifer Nakamura,Associate Planner, gave a Powerpoint presentation (copy on file)and asked the
Commission for feedback.
Commissioner Oaxaca pointed out that the term"acoustical"does not include singing and therefore
should be changed to "non-amplified."
Ms. Nakamura agreed and noted the comment.
Commissioner Howdyshell asked how many Entertainment Permits currently exist in the City.
Ms. Nakamura said about 13.
Chairman Fletcher noted the previous discussion regarding how ownership of businesses changes
hands. He suggested applicants come in and review their conditions following their approval and
that they sign an acknowledgement of this.
James Troyer, Planning Director, said staff considered the idea but he supports the idea of sending
a letter from the Director instead which includes language about reading and complying with the
conditions and an outline of the possible consequences. He said this is because staff may not be
notified of a business owner change for a year.
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, said some businesses are open for as long as 6 months before
it Is discovered that they do not have a business license. He said it could be part of the annual
license renewal process to discuss their conditions with staff.
Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney, said businesses only contact us when they apply for a
license and when they are renewed.
Vice Chairman Munoz noted that renewal time might be a good time to review their responsibilities
with them.
Mr. Henderson noted that a report could be brought to the Commission to let them know of any
concerns.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked how to identify the intermediate step so they can work with owners
before they get to the place like tonight (referring to the Beer Mug revocation.)
Mr. Henderson suggested they put in place one joint inspection before the renewal and then sit with
them to discuss the finding before the renewal is approved. He said for years renewal has been
considered automatic because staff was overloaded.
Vice Chairman Munoz said it might also mitigate the question "why me" among applicants.
Planning Commission Minutes -15- July 14, 2010
Commissioner Oaxaca said the perception is"why me"and a here or there approach. He said this
would be consistent.
Chairman Fletcher said personal contact is important because we had a person buy a bar and he
thought he could have everything the previous owner had.
Vice Chairman Munoz noted that staff can attempt to contact the owners but we can not make them
respond but we need to make the attempt.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked about the change in the notification standard.
Ms. Nakamura said this is only to be consistent with the current Code.
Mr. Flower clarified that notification is only needed for the initial hearing prior to an approval for a
use.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked if security guards in relation to dance floors is a provision in a security
plan.
Ms. Nakamura said it-is covered by the application requirements and can be a condition of approval.
She said staff normally gets input from other departments on these matters including law
enforcement.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked about the additional finding regarding space and the floorplan.
Ms. Nakamura said from a land use perspective is to ensure that the site has an appropriate set up
for entertainment and that may depend upon the type of entertainment provided. She said that
includes things such as space dedicated to restaurant use,walkways, safety, space for restrooms,
etc. She said they want to take a holistic approach.
Mr. Flower said this would be the legal requirement and the condition would state that it is either
according to the existing conditions or according to a changed plan as submitted.
Chairman Fletcher commented that he would like to see staff as part of their review of permits come
to the Commission sooner before they get to the point of an investigation or a revocation process.
He said he would like to see if the owners would be willing to work with the Commission to straighten
out their problems. He said we should be looking at modifications to their business. He said they
should be looking at modifications to their business.
James Troyer, Planning Director said that to the degree the owner cooperates, staff could do that.
Chairman Fletcher said even if they do not cooperate and they can still be brought to the
Commission and let them know that they are not cooperating.
Mr. Flower said this is what happened with Loco Cantina;they were brought in for review. He said it
was done before and can be done again.
Commissioner Oaxaca supported collaboration and that the Commission could be the bad guys but
he would prefer to get their attention before assuming an adversarial role.
The Commission comments were noted. Because it was 11:00 PM, the Commission verbally
agreed 5-0 to continue the meeting.
• Planning Commission Minutes -16- July 14, 2010
G. DRC2010-00331 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-A PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
Jennifer Nakamura, Associate Planner, presented a Powerpoint presentation (copy on file) and
asked the Commission for comment. She said the focus is on the residential area because there
are no real landscape standards for front yards.
Commissioner Howdyshell remarked that if a percentage is used to determine how much
landscaping is needed, the size of the lot should be considered.
Chairman Fletcher asked what is taken into account with respect to concrete and hardscape. He
said 3-car garages have a large driveway. He asked what the purpose was in excluding those.
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner said the effect could even be worse on a small lot development.
Chairman Fletcher said the Barrett homes have beautiful decorative driveways and walkways, and
excluding those could also be problematic.
•
Ms. Nakamura said that the exclusion was to help clearly define what tl#y consider to be
landscaping. She said originally thought they would only differentiate between-landscape and
hardscape, but now they might consider decorative hardscape in a different light. She noted the
newer tracts with smaller lots and setbacks and the great amount of hardscape used there. She
emphasized that they want front yards to be landscaped but they want it to be simple and easy to
enforce.
James Troyer, Planning Director, commented that the purpose in eliminating the driveway was to
simplify the formula in that if they remove that, then the remainder could be divided between
decorative hardscape and lawn.
Chairman Fletcher said that in some cases doing the 50/50 equation would eliminate the driveway.
Ms. Nakamura suggested that beyond required needed driveways and walkways, the remainder is
to be divided between decorative hardscape and landscape. -
Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney asked if there is a limitation on the size of driveways.
Mr. Henderson responded that there is; they are a maximum 12 feet wide at the street and it
transitions to a lesser width at the garage.
Mr. Troyer said the challenge is to make the transition from a City with lush landscaping to a
hardscape and to find a formula with what people want to see.
Mr. Henderson noted that impervious pavement an issue; we do not want water to just run off.
Chairman Fletcher commented that he believes they are going in the right direction but eliminating
walkways and driveways could be problematic.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked about the setback standards.
Mr. Henderson noted that they are determined by the Development Code and it is done per lot size.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked if a tiered system or ranges might work.
Planning Commission Minutes -17- July 14, 2010
•
Ms. Nakamura stated that some cities do it that way and it is related to the zoning and generally lot
size.
Mr. Henderson noted that Rancho Cucamonga does this in regard to building coverage in the
residential zones.
Commissioner Howdyshell said the Deer Creek area has no sidewalks but big setbacks and an
HOA. She said they probably have to go to their architectural committee before they can change
their landscaping.
Ms Nakamura noted that most people with larger lots re-landscape to a similar depth/intensity of
what they had before. She said they will take those things into consideration to see if it makes a
considerable difference. She noted they do not require permits for re-landscaping in residential
areas, so problems will likely be dealt with on the back side. She said owners have to consider the
size of their lot when they purchase. She said they are offering flexibility in that we are offering them
the opportunity to do less landscaping than what they have now. She said this is why some people
choose to buy a home on a smaller lot or one that already has less landscaping.
Mr. Troyer said that the yard with red-chips and gallon size plants would qualify as landscaping.
Vice Chairman Munoz asked if this is just one aspect of landscaping requirements that is being
looked at right now.
Ms. Nakamura said staff has scaled back from the original scope of their review and it was decided
that we would not address major design standards right now. We decided to start simple and work
with the property owners that have decided to pave over/rock over their entire landscape and give us
effective tools to deal with those situations.
Chairman Fletcher said as a Development Code Amendment, how would it affect those wanting to
re-landscape.
Mr. Troyer noted that no permit is required for that but if they choose to tear out driveways then a
building permit would be required. He said the end product would have to be in compliance.
Mr. Henderson noted that with our current Code definition, if someone wanted to pave their entire
front yard, they could, and when people call in and ask for our standards, we say there are none.
Commissioner Howdyshell said there is an educational component to this to get the word out. She
said we do not want to have a rude awakening when Code Enforcement goes out to visit people.
Mr. Troyer said there will most likely be community workshops, announcements on the website, etc.
to make sure the community knows.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked if staff had found lists of suggested plants and sample planting
guidelines.
Ms. Nakamura said we are working with the IEUA to develop them. She said they are getting easier
to find and identify them even in the mass retail market. She added that staff is working with the
Frontier Project as well. She said they are not looking to require certain plants, only suggestions.
Vice Chairman Munoz said we should live out the credo ourselves.
Planning Commission Minutes -18- July 14, 2010
•
Chairman Fletcher confirmed then it would be a Code Enforcement issue and asked if there will be a
time requirement for owners to landscape their front yards. He noted some other cities allow 6
months for this. He cited an example of a home built 25 years ago without front landscaping.
Mr. Henderson noted that we do not final a new construction home without landscaping. He said
there can be Code Enforcement actions if they let their front yard die as well.
Chairman Fletcher asked about bank owned homes.
Ms. Nakamura said they are covered under the Abandoned Properties Ordinance.
Mr. Troyer said the bank liens the home and maintains the property. He said even if a new owner
purchases a home they have to Maintain the lawn.
Mr. Henderson said Code Enforcement works with the owner on a time schedule to bring it up to
Code.
Commissioner Howdyshell said HOA's normally give about 2 months for their homeowners to bring
landscapes up to their standards.
Chairman Fletcher said he was previously told that nothing could be done about his neighbor except
to require weed abatement.
Mr. Troyer thanked the Commission for their comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
* * * * *
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Commissioner Wimberly asked for a dusty shoe tour of the San Sevaine Villas. •
Chairman Fletcher noted that both work force housing projects turned out to be very nice.
Commissioner Wimberly noted that no smoking is allowed inside and although that is a good thing,
but people now congregate outside along curbs,gates and other outside areas to smoke. He said it
looks bad.
Commissioner Howdyshell commented on the fabulous free programs and information offered at the
Frontier Project.
•
* * * * *
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Oaxaca, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning
Commission adjourned at 11:35 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes -19- July 14, 2010
Respectfully submitted,
James R. Troyer,, AIC� '
Secretary
Approved: July 28, 2010
1
I
Planning Commission Minutes -20- July 14, 2010