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