Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/06/23 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 23, 2010 Chairman Fletcher called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:04 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, Lou Munoz, Francisco Oaxaca, Ray Wimberly ABSENT: Frances Howdyshell STAFF PRESENT: Adam Collier, Planning Technician; Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney; Donald Granger, Associate Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; James Troyer, Planning Director ANNOUNCEMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Oaxaca, carried 3-0-1-1 (Munoz abstain, Howdyshell absent), to approve the minutes of June 9, 2010. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00336-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA- A request to amend the definition of "Church" in Subsection (C) of Chapter 17.02 (Administration) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies under Section 15061(b) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines because the text amendment will not have any significant impact on the environment. Donald Granger, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and gave a short PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). He noted the definition clarifies what is a church and what that looks like particularly in relation to private dwelling units; it is faith neutral and; it simplifies Code Enforcement issues and approach. Chairman Fletcher noted that a situation arose some time ago that was brought to the attention of the Council related to this issue. He said he thought the new definition is a good one. He asked how it would be handled if 20 or 30 individuals are meeting regularly in a residence and what would happen if the neighbors complain because of parking as another part of the hypothetical. Mr. Granger noted that if the residential unit is primarily occupied and used for residential purposes then this would not be considered a church and the use would not be subject to a Conditional Use Permit, however,they could be subject to nuisance abatement or other performance standards such as noise-he gave the example of a worship band that might be too loud during the meetings. Conversely, he said if the house was vacant and not occupied but being used for a church or meetings such as a regular bible study, then it would fall under land use regulations and a permit would be required. Chairman Fletcher opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no comment, he closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Munoz remarked that it was an excellent report. Commissioner Wimberly agreed and noted that the new definition clarifies some ambiguities. Commissioner Oaxaca said Mr. Granger did a good job. Chairman Fletcher remarked that it is a good definition and does offer clarification. Vice Chairman Munoz noted a typographical error on the draft ordinance on Page A-8 of the agenda packet, which was noted by the secretary for correction. Motion: Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Munoz, to adopt the Resolution Recommending Approval to the City Council for final action for Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00336. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: HOWDYSHELL - carried B. REVIEW OF NON-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP99-43R-THE BEER MUG - A review of 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. CONTINUED FROM MAY 26, 2010 AND JUNE 9, 2010 James Troyer, Planning Director, noted that a letter was received on June 21, 2010 from the applicant's legal counsel requesting a 4 week continuance. Mr. Troyer noted that the next meeting of the Commission is a full 3-weeks away (July 14) and suggested that amount of time would be sufficient for their attorney to obtain and review the materials he is requesting in the letter and prepare for the hearing. • Vice Chairman Munoz confirmed that this item has been continued at least twice before, Chairman Fletcher also noted the item has been brought forward at previous meetings, the public hearing remains open. He asked for the applicant to comment. Ryan Kroll,Attorney, Solomon, Saltsman &Jamieson,426 Culver Boulevard, Playa Del Rey, stated he represents the owner of The Beer Mug. He said his client is a small business owner who Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 23, 2010 invested his life savings in the business. He said his client came to City Hall and asked about what he could do at this location and about his CUP and Entertainment Permit and he was told his permits were valid and now the City has reversed its position. He said the City admitted its error. He said this caused confusion about their operational parameters. He maintained that he believes the original Entertainment Permit from 1997 is in force but that they are still willing to work with the City. He said the applicant wants to know what their boundaries are. He said he believed the alleged incident 2 weeks ago could be smoothed out, they don't think they did anything wrong and suggested it was only a misunderstanding. Chairman Fletcher asked if he received the report and supporting information for the July 14th meeting. Mr. Kroll said he did receive the same report as the Commission but that he wants non-redacted reports from the Police Department because he cannot understand them as presented. He said he also has not received the Police report regarding the alleged incident. He then summarized his client' s contentions and their beliefs about the case history. Steven Flower,Assistant City Attorney suggested the continuance be considered before any facts of the case are reviewed. Chairman Fletcher noted that the attorney received as much information as the Commission and that he should have been ready, but that he would not be opposed to a continuance. He remarked that the City gave a cease and desist letters regarding their entertainment activities and it is rumored that entertainment is continuing even when the attorney assured the Commission that they would not be having entertainment. He noted that this type of occurrence would not go far with him if the direction is ignored. He questioned why the applicant should need another continuance. He also noted that the applicant was told not to engage in entertainment while this was pending and reports have come back that there has been entertainment, specifically on June 9,2010;the same night the owner's legal counsel appeared before the Commission. Mr. Kroll maintained that the location is operating with no entertainment. Commissioner Wimberly expressed concerned about the information received particularly if there was a cease and desist order in force. He said that if entertainment occurs then there would be safety concerns. Mr. Kroll maintained that entertainment is not occurring that would require a permit. He said he would wait until the hearing to explain what happened and alluded to a misunderstanding about the City's definition of entertainment. He said for what they had, they did not believe an Entertainment Permit was required. He said they are not doing entertainment and will not be doing entertainment until after the hearing. Commissioner Wimberly remarked that it sounds like there is the definition problem and what is being related to the business owner as to what that is. Vice Chairman Munoz asked if Mr. Kroll could assure the Commission that no entertainment is occurring now and would not until after the new proposed hearing date of July 14. Mr. Kroll said yes, that is the case and that he is good until the hearing on the 14th. Chairman Fletcher noted that he is hearing an issue about the definition of entertainment and he expected that there would not be any entertainment whatsoever. He said there should not be a difference of opinion on how this is defined. Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 23, 2010 Mr. Flower pointed out that if any entertainment takes place then it would be a violation of the Municipal Code misdemeanor with penalties. He said there are separate avenues of recourse. Mr. Kroll again assured the Commission that there is no entertainment now and none will occur until ' the hearing on July 14. Kit Bopko, Staff Counsel, noted that one speaker has asked to comment on this item that can not attend the July 14 meeting. Mr. Flower suggested the Chairman allow testimony and that the public hearing remained open from the last meeting. He also suggested Mr. Kroll be allowed to rebut now or at the continued hearing. Chairman Fletcher invited any speakers for this item to come forward that may not be able to come the July 14, 2010 meeting. Shelly Scebbi stated that her 19 year old son was at the Beer Mug on May 8, 2010 and that there was a life threatening incident. She said she received at call at 1:51 a.m.with the news that her son was being transported to the hospital by ambulance and he was unconscious and not breathing. She said the bar served him 6-10"Snowshoes" (a combination of a 100 proof alcohol with a shot of Jack Daniels on top). She noted his blood alcohol level was .45, (the legal limit is .08), and he was unconscious and he had a bloody gash on his head. She said the owner made false statements to the police. She said the bouncer and bartender threw her unconscious son into the parking lot and did nothing for his welfare, that her son's friends called 911 for help. She said this bar is known for permitting service to persons underage. She said at the Beer Mug nothing is done like it is in other bars such as calling a taxi, refusing service, etc. She said his friends showed more responsibility than the employees and owner of the bar. She said this could have been prevented if they had asked for his I.D. when he entered the bar. She said she is outraged they are still open for business. Mr. Kroll said he was sorry to hear about what happened to her son but he wished to respond to the comments Ms. Scebbi made. He said he has a letter from the ABC that indicates they passed a decoy test in September 2009, and did not sell to a minor during an unannounced inspection of the ABC. He said the Beer Mug has six employees that roam the property and check I.D.s. He said they are finalizing a security plan,they do not sell to minors or intoxicated people and that they are a law abiding restaurant. Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Wimberly, (4-0-1, Howdyshell absent) to grant the requested continuance to the regular Planning Commission meeting on July 14, 2010. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: HOWDYSHELL - carried • C. NON-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2010-00188-CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES-A request to modify Conditional Use Permit CUP00-03 including modifications to the floor plan and hours of operation for an existing 4,368 square foot full service restaurant and bar including a 377 square foot outdoor patio located north of the 210 Freeway and south of Lemon Avenue within the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6321 Haven Avenue-APN 0201-272-06. Related Files: Entertainment Permit DRC2010-00189 and CUP00-03. This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 Exemption - Existing Facilities). Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 23, 2010 D. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT DRC2010-00189 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to include live entertainment such as dancing, bands,and karaoke in conjunction with a 4,368 square foot full service restaurant and bar located north of the 210 Freeway and south of Lemon Avenue within the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6321 Haven Avenue - APN 0201-272-06. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2010-00188 and CUP00-03. This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 Exemption - Existing Facilities). Adam Collier, Planning Technician presented the staff report and a brief PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). He said this application would be for a modification of hours, days and times of entertainment and special hours for special holidays. He noted that the bar area, dance floor and stage areas would remain the same size. Chairman Fletcher noted that the resolution contains some restrictions and includes the provision for video surveillance and an I.D. scanner. He asked how that came about. Mr. Collier replied that this was worked out with the Police to address security measures and to help with any future concerns at the location. He said the scanner checks and logs/records that a person was there on the specific date and checks the age of the person entering. Chairman Fletcher asked specifically what information is on the magnetic strip of the license. Mr. Collier noted that it records the name, date, and birth date, but no information that is not already shown on the identification. Chairman Fletcher invited the applicant to comment. Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, stated he represents McAlan's Pub and Grill-Stacy Wendler. He noted she purchased the business in 2008, the occupancy load was reviewed and they filed for the Conditional Use Permit and the Entertainment Permit. He said they had been operating until 2 a.m. every night. He reported that since the transfer of ownership,there has been a better record of management. He said they have reduced the hours to comply with existing approvals and they have met with staff, Building and Safety, and the Police task force. He said their occupancy has been corrected, and the ownership upgraded the menu and the security plan. He said they concur with the conditions of approval and part of their plan is to have quarterly inspections • and enhanced communications with the City to ensure responsible operation of the business. Commissioner Wimberly expressed concern about how the owner operated.outside of the permits after she purchased it. He asked how that occurred and why the Commission should grant a request to modify something the owners did not do in the first place. Mr. Buquet said part of it was because the new owner observed how the business was being run before she took over and she made the assumption that was being done in accordance with the existing approvals. He said that there were several changes of approvals over the years and initially some staff was looking at different sets of records. He said they discovered that they were operating outside of the approvals. He said the new owner has adjusted her operation to be consistent with these approvals. He said the requested approvals are more to allow for breakfast operations and for the entertainment. He said they have tried to deal with the sins of the past. • Commissioner Wimberly asked that once this action is complete, who would be there to review the permits. He asked what assurance the Commission has that there will be follow-through on those conditions because that was not done when the business was acquired. Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 23, 2010 Mr. Buquet said the owner is keeping his firm on board as advisors. He said he suggested the quarterly review to verify their compliance and that his firm would be available to help them get their approvals but also to ensure performance. He said she agreed to the next year. He said they want to be the example business for others to follow. Chairman Fletcher opened the public hearing. Ed Dietl said he is a 40-year resident and that he has a general problem with CUPs and Entertainment Permits and that none of these business owners have read their permits. He said that the only time we hear about these is when the owner comes to us asking for a change in their permits and then the City discovers they are not operating within the parameters of their permits and then we punish them for it. He said he does not like that. He asked if anyone looks at their permits beforehand. He remarked that it appears it takes an incident to get some action and then the business owners look at their permits. He asked how the City checks on their current permits and if they are in compliance and what the rules are if they are not in compliance. He asked for clarification on the difference between a nightclub, a restaurant and a place of entertainment. James Troyer, Planning Director, said the approval is for the restaurant to have live entertainment incidental to the restaurant use. He said in this case they would be open for breakfast, lunch and dinner and then have certain days/times for entertainment. He said this is not a night club; it is a restaurant with ancillary entertainment. He said staff has been working with this business for a long time and that with limited resources, investigating them 7 days a week would not be possible. He said for Entertainment Permits there is an annual renewal process that includes an investigation. He said he supports more explanation of the conditions to the business owners. Jose Sambolin of Loco Cantina said he believes these businesses are set up for failure because of the ambiguous language. He expressed support for McAlans application but pointed out that he believes there is an inconsistency with how this is being handled in comparison with Omaha Jacks. He implied that this is a case of"who you know". He said it should be fair that the reports on all of these businesses should be the same although the information filled in might not be the same. He said McAlans said their police calls are equal or greater than Loco Cantina. He also pointed out that Peppers lost their permits as well for this same thing. He said it was never established as to what"is too much" or "what is normal" for police calls. He said it was unfair as to how his business was represented. He said the staff report to the Commission did not include the same information regarding police calls as did the reports given on the previously reviewed businesses such that the Commission can not make an intelligent decision. Mike McCarthy of Omaha Jacks said he supports the application for McAlans and the owner, Stacy Wendler. He agreed with Mr. Sambolin and he said they have the right to do what they are asking to do and when alcohol is served, there are going to be situations where things happen. He said his business was first given a 90-day reprieve by this Commission, but then they were called back, the decision was overturned and they were called liars. He said he is barely hanging on to his business because of what happened and that they could not afford representation to help fight their case. He said the City should have a standard way to deal with these situations-it is not fair and they are not being treated the same. He said there are numerous places in Rancho Cucamonga that are operating as nightclubs and that is what Omaha Jacks was "beat down for." Mr. Buquet responded that Ms. Wendler has nothing to do with these other businesses or their circumstances, it is about McAlans. He noted that there is no definition for "nightclub" in the Development Code and that each permit individually goes through the process. He said they should be looking at the facts and circumstances with respect to this application for McAlans. He said he worked with staff and his firm assisted his client with the City's concerns along with the police for many months. He said that McAlans did not raise the level of concern as other businesses operating in the City. He said he agrees there should be a systematic evaluation of businesses;that Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 23, 2010 • there should be the same level of review but there can be different issues and items of greater concern with other businesses. He invited others to come in to this business so they can see how it is different. Commissioner Oaxaca asked if when a business transfers ownership with previous approvals if a renewal process is triggered regarding the transfer of ownership. Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney, reported that the City deals with these on two levels: both Conditional Use Permits and Entertainment Permits(EP) are regulated by the City. He said before Entertainment is allowed, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) must be obtained for the land use. He said that when a business is sold, the CUP"runs with the land"and no change is required, however, the new operator would need a new EP because those are specific to the person (applicant). He noted that staff did make errors in the past and incorrectly transferred the EP to the new owner without having them come in for a new permit and this is why the business owner is coming forward for new permits; the situation is being corrected. Mr. Troyer noted that this was a past department practice that had been going on for years and it is now being corrected in concert with the City attorney. Mr. Collier noted that this permit is beyond a transfer of the use, it includes modified hours and intensity of the entertainment permitted. Commissioner Oaxaca noted that this is a modification of hours from a previous approval. He asked if staff worked with the applicant on this to clarify the hours and if this is an administrative modification. Mr. Collier noted that these types of modifications typically would be brought before the Planning Director for review and approval but because the hours were unclear from the original CUP, the CUP and EP are being brought before the Commission for clarification. Chairman Fletcher asked why the Police report information was not included with the staff report and packet materials for this hearing tonight. He said he did note one Police call on March 18,2010 for strong arm robbery and battery. He asked if all the Police calls were included. Officer Clark noted that the report supplied refers to a robbery on St. Patrick's Day. He said on-site cameras came into play and McAlan's fully cooperated with the Police that lead to the identification of the suspect and eventual conviction. Chairman Fletcher asked if that was the only call for service in the last 6 months. Officer Clark said he did not have that information available but no previous reports were of the degree that would draw Police attention to have a heightened level of concern about the business operation. Chairman Fletcher asked the officer if he felt comfortable with the business being granted their request of what they want to do at the level they have requested. Officer Clark said that they have been given a warning as he did with the previous businesses and thus far, they have freely complied. He said they asked for advice, and they took heed to the warning. Chairman Fletcher asked about the Mission Statement and the reference to the late night disbursement program. Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 23, 2010 Officer Clark surmised that it is referring to how they disperse their patrons at closing time; whether they give rides home or call for taxis if there are patrons that may need that, etc. Chairman Fletcher said he was satisfied with the information given. Commissioner Wimberly said he did not have further comment, he was relatively satisfied. Commissioner Oaxaca said he had no further comment. Vice Chairman Munoz responded to the comments made about the Planning Commission and how they consider information and how staff and the Police treated the previously reviewed businesses. He said this has nothing to do with how the Daily Bulletin reported on a business or to define a nightclub. He noted that all the businesses referred to tonight were in good standing when they received their approvals. He said the Commission expects and looks to the business owners to understand their approvals and conditions and they are admonished to read the agreements and conditions, that this puts the onus on the business owner. He said it is no excuse to say that they did not read or understand those conditions and that kind of excuse would not hold up before this Commission. • Chairman Fletcher commented regarding the standards held for all businesses. He said that standard is found within each individual permit in that certain hours for certain types of entertainment may be permitted and under certain conditions. He said the standard is what those permits authorize them to do and just because other locations have other types of entertainment, it does not authorize other businesses to do the same. He said in relation to fairness and consistency, the merits of each application has to be looked at individually, we then see how the owners respond and if they make an effort to comply. He said if the business continues to violate the conditions then that is an indication that they will try to get away with what they can; much of what happens depends on the actions of the owners. He said in this case, we saw a lot of cooperation with the owners, staff and the Police and then they came up with pretty restrictive terms and conditions that are good and may be used with other locations. He cited the conditions for"last call" as an example. He said if there is a permit review the Commission wants to see them be successful but if they feel they are being harassed, that is their fault, they should know what is going on. He said when a cease and desist order is issued and then for the business to continue with that activity does not hold a lot of water with him (Chairman Fletcher). He said he hopes staff will work with the owners to bring businesses into compliance and bring them to the Commission for review if needed and much can be done at that point, but if after a couple of reviews they do not comply, they get revoked. He said in relation to misunderstandings on Entertainment Permits, and about when ownership changes;he thought a program for when the transfer of ownership occurs would be a good time for this. He said in this case, he liked that he saw a lot of work with the owner and there was a good effort on the owner's part to comply. Motion: Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Oaxaca, to adopt the Resolutions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit DRC2010-00188 and Entertainment Permit DRC2010-00189 as presented by staff. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY . NOES: NONE ABSENT: HOWDYSHELL - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS Ed Dietl displayed a picture of a neighbor with an award winning water conserving landscape. He said it does not go with the rest of the neighborhood. He mentioned a real estate sign in front of the Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 23, 2010 Virginia Dare winery that is huge and has been there for a long time. He said it and other signs are an eyesore on Historic Route 66. COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner Wimberly supported Chairman Fletcher's suggestion regarding the review process when transferring CUP's to help avoid confusion and to make businesses aware of the requirements. James Troyer, Planning Director, said staff already does that when we the City is made aware of the transfer of ownership and when the business comes in for a business license, there is a review of the CUP and they review the conditions with the owners at that time and they are also notified that a new Entertainment Permit is needed. Chairman Fletcher confirmed that when a business is transferred to a new owner, the business owner is notified of the conditions. He supported the idea of a program requiring the business owner to come in and sign that he understands the conditions when the business is transferred. Mr. Troyer said there will be more information at the next joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission as they plan to talk about Entertainment Permits. Vice Chairman Munoz thanked staff and counsel and law enforcement for their efforts; he said it is a demanding job as it is "tough out there." He gave kudos to all for their hard work. Chairman Fletcher remarked that sometimes with entertainment reviews there are long lists of police calls to specific locations and they are not always attributable to the owner of a business. He gave the example of the robbery at McAlans; in this case the owner had no control and it should not be taken as a negative reflection on the business. He added that the owner worked with the Sheriff on this. He also noted that in the case of bar fights and gang fights there is the opportunity to "catch the bad guys," and the owners should know that depending on their location, what they promote, they will attract. Commissioner Oaxaca said the public needs to take the information given and refer it to a specific business. He said it is neither realistic nor reasonable for the standard to be the same across the board, that businesses are different (for example some are very small and others are not) and that the information needs to be taken in context with respect to that business and handle it on a case by case basis, as it is only one piece of the puzzle. He said that although we would like to see no calls for service, those might occur but much is connected to what we see as the owner's willingness to handle that. • ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Wimberly, carried 4-0-1 (Howdyshell absent), to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:40 p.m. i Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 23, 2010 Respectfully submitt` � � James R. Troyer, AICP Secretary Approved: July 14, 2010 I I Planning Commission Minutes -10- June 23, 2010