HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/02/10 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
February 10, 2010
Chairman Fletcher called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to order at 7:07 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; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner;
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission
Secretary; Mike Smith,Associate Planner; James Troyer, Planning Director
•
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairman Fletcher welcomed Commissioner Oaxaca.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Wimberly, carried 4-0-1 (Oaxaca abstain), to approve the
minutes of January 27, 2010.
Motion: Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Munoz, carried 4-0-1 (Oaxaca abstain),to approve the
adjourned meeting workshop minutes of January 27, 2010.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2009-00308 - INO CRUZ (FOR ARCO) - A proposal to
construct an automatic car wash, relocate an existing trash enclosure,and relocate a previously
approved Healy Tank at an existing ARCO gas service station and convenience store in the
Community Commercial (CC) District, Terra Vista Community Plan (TVCP), located at 11768
Foothill Boulevard -APN: 0227-151-41. Staff has determined that the project is categorically
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - as the
proposed structure is less than 2,500 square feet in floor area. Related file: Conditional Use
Permit CUP96-14.
Mike Smith,Associate Planner, gave the staff report. He indicated no letters or calls were received
regarding the project.
Chairman Fletcher asked for clarification as to the location of the Healy Tank.
Mr. Smith confirmed it will have a dedicated spot within the carwash building,therefore this carwash
building will be slightly wider than most.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked if it currently exists outside.
Mr. Smith said it is now outside and above ground so that moving it will be an improvement to the
development of the site. He confirmed that nothing will be exposed except a few pipes.
Chairman Fletcher opened the public hearing.
Ino Cruz, representing the owners, said he is available for questions.
Chairman Fletcher closed the public hearing after receiving no further comment.
Commissioner Howdyshell remarked that the DRC did a thorough job in addressing how the
carwash is incorporated into the site and that there is limited visibility of the cars that will be in the
carwash. She said it is a good use of space.
Commissioner Wimberly said he was pleased to work with the applicants at the DRC and that they
were willing to come to terms with the requests of the DRC to make the project happen.
Chairman Fletcher said this is a reasonable addition to the project and will bring a greater
opportunity for the applicant to generate income.
Vice Chairman Munoz concurred with all the previous comments. He said he also worked with the
applicants at the DRC and that they were good about accepting the changes. He said the Healy
Tank and related pipes would be fairly well hidden and that they also upgraded the trellis material to
a more durable vinyl product. He said he is very happy how the applicant worked with them.
Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Howdyshell, to adopt the Resolution of Approval for
Conditional Use Permit DRC2009-00308 as presented. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
B. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19225-ETIWANDA GARDENS-A proposal to subdivide
a parcel of about 428,000 square feet (9.8 acres) that is mostly developed with a
banquet/reception facility of about 30,000 square feet into two parcels of 2.07 and 7.8 acres in
the Office Professional (OP) District, Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at 7576 Etiwanda Avenue
- APN: 0227-171-10. Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA
Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 15 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15315 — Minor Land Divisions - as the proposal is to subdivide the property into four
parcels or less.
Mike Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He indicated no comments from the
public have been received on the application request.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 10, 2010
Chairman Fletcher opened the public hearing.
Richard Avan, representing Etiwanda Gardens, said he is available for questions.
Chairman Fletcher asked if there are plans to sell the property following the processing of the
subdivision map.
Mr. Avan said they are not planning to sell. He said originally they thought they would expand the
Etiwanda Gardens facility, but now they are thinking they will find another development use for the
property after the economy recovers.
Vice Chairman Munoz noted that the application is pretty routine and did not have any issues.
Chairman Fletcher agreed.
Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Howdyshell, to adopt the Resolution of Approval for
Tentative Parcel Map 19225 as presented. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
R ! f f f
C. REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2007-00283R-EL LOCO CANTINA&GRILL-
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 Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), in the Masi Plaza at 11815 Foothill
Boulevard - APN: 0229-011-38. Related file: Entertainment Permit DRC2007-00284.
Continued from January 13, 2010. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE
D. REVIEW OF ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT DRC2007-00284R-EL LOCO CANTINA&GRILL-
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 and Entertainment Permit.
Previously approved to allow live nightly entertainment and dancing within an existing
restaurant. Located within the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7),in the Masi Plaza at 11815
Foothill Boulevard -APN: 0229-011-38. Continued from January 13, 2010. REQUEST FOR
CONTINUANCE.
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, reported that per a letter, the applicant is requesting a
continuance to the February 24, 2010 meeting.
Chairman Fletcher noted the hearing has remained open from the January 13, 2010 meeting and he
asked if anyone wished to comment on the item. Hearing no response he called for a motion.
Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Wimberly, to continue Items C and D to the
February 24, 2010 meeting as requested by the applicant. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 10, 2010
w + x
E. REVIEW OF NON-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - DRC2004-00326R -
OMAHA JACKS-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 Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), in the Masi
Plaza at 11837 Foothill Boulevard, Suite A -APN: 0229-011-39. Related file: Entertainment
Permit DRC2004-00327. Continued from January 13, 2010.
F. REVIEW OF ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT REVIEW-DRC2004-00327R-OMAHA JACKS-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 Entertainment Permit.
Located within the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), in the Masi Plaza at 11837 Foothill
Boulevard, Suite A-APN: 0229-011-39. Continued from January 13, 2010.
Larry Henderson presented the staff report and noted that Deputy Clark and Deputy Wright will also
present a Power Point presentation. He said it is staffs recommendation to revoke the
Entertainment Permit. He noted that there is a modification to the draft resolution before the
Commissioners that removes the words "and bar uses" from Section 5 on the last page of the
resolution.
Deputy Wright presented a Power Point (copy on file) which highlighted the Police Department
reports, incidents, advertising, and related security concerns of the business and entertainment
operations. He mentioned that multiple violations of the CUP and Entertainment Permit as well as
reported incidences that occurred there. They explained that they have been part of a special
alcohol compliance team since October 2009 and that their function is to identify problems and
provide education for businesses to help them in this regard.
Commissioner Wimberly referred to the owner's letter and asked if the deputies noticed if any of the
incidents reported had partial involvement from the neighboring club patrons.
Deputy Wright reported in some cases he believes that has occurred because the parking lots are
connected, the businesses are closely related and that there is probably intermingling of patrons.
Vice Chairman Munoz also referred to the letter that pointed out that the owners believe there have
not been any problems in the last three months, but that the Police report indicates an assault with a
deadly weapon, drugs for sale, a hit and run which all happened in 2010.
Chairman Fletcher remarked that it appears all of the incidents are from 2009.
Deputy Wright said he would have to check but the hit and run happened in 2010,just 3 weeks ago.
He confirmed that the DUI and assault with a deadly weapon were in 2010.
Vice Chairman Munoz confirmed the assault with a deadly weapon happened on January 6, 2010.
He asked if during the meeting the deputies had with the owners if they gave evidence that they
hired their own security service or if they were using employees for that purpose.
Deputy Wright noted that they did not supply any evidence of any reputable security company
providing services to them; he said there was no proof of hiring an outside agency and it would be a
guess if they said they had employees doing that.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 10, 2010
Commissioner Howdyshell noted that there seems to be an ongoing series of incidents even with
the presence of law enforcement. She commented that she would have thought there would have
been some dialogue with the owners. She said a tremendous amount of things are occurring even
when you are there. She commented that perhaps they are not taking their presence seriously as
serious as the occurrences are.
Deputy Wright said that they did have a"sit down"with the owners regarding the seriousness of the
crimes that were occurring and that they would drive through the lot and also parked in various
locations in an unmarked Taurus but they were in "Raid" vests and that their presence was known
even to the patrons because they made contact with several of them. He said the officers did not
attempt to hide. He said the owners knew of these events because they were sent a letter following
the ABC impact inspection. He added that the owners came in and asked what they could do and
they were advised that if they abided by the conditions of their permits, they should be in good
standing.
Commissioner Oaxaca said he was doing the math of the incidents and that it appears the calls for
service go back to 2006. He asked if the listing provided is all inclusive for calls for service from
2006 to present.
Deputy Wright said the list is what they could find that they could directly attribute to Omaha Jacks.
He said there are probably far more because incident reports do not always specify an exact
address, so out of fairness to the applicants, that is only what was included.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked if it would be a fair conclusion that the number of calls for this
business has increased over time.
Deputy Wright responded affirmatively.
Chairman Fletcher asked where the 16 DUI's noted in the staff report occurred.
Deputy Clark responded that they were on nearby streets;these were specifically noted because the
suspects indicated they admitted they came from Omaha Jacks.
Chairman Fletcher asked about the assaults with a deadly weapon-were they vehicle related.
Deputy Wright indicated that one of these incidences occurred in the presence of a deputy. The
suspect hit two patrons and then attempted to strike an officer as well. He also commented on the
details of the assaults including a drinking and driving report that caused injuries.
Chairman Fletcher asked if these incidents mostly occurred late at night.
Deputy Clark said that would be safe to say; they occurred close to closing.
Chairman Fletcher asked what the owner can do to help prevent this.
Deputy Wright said there are many things such as training owners/bartenders, knowing the rules
about serving alcohol, limiting occupancy(he noted it is nearly 400 for the building), and education.
Chairman Fletcher asked what the occupancy limit is for the upper level.
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, said the limit is what the Building and Fire Codes allow. There
are no occupancy limits noted in the CUP or Entertainment Permit at this time.
Vice Chairman Munoz asked how they discovered the emergency exits were chained closed.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 10, 2010
Deputy Wright said they discovered it on an ABC impact inspection that was coordinated with
Planning and Building and Safety; large holes had been drilled for heavy bolts that supported a large
chain and lock. He said these inspections are routinely done twice a month with businesses(5 or 6
at a time)that serve alcohol; it is an educational inspection and that the owners are not cited at that
time by the Sheriffs' but the owners have 30 days to correct violations noted.
Vice Chairman Munoz asked if there was a fine or if they went back to check on this chaining
situation.
Deputy Wright noted that this business did have correctable tickets/violations for this from Building
and Safety and they would follow up on that.
Chairman Fletcher asked if the owner was notified prior to the inspection or if there was a meeting •
with the owner about the problems.
Deputy Wright said no, that there are 267 licensees in the City and they would have notified them if
they were going to go in and cite them or report them to the ABC, they would have given them a
heads up, but that the point is to educate them and to bring them into compliance,they are not there
to punish them.
Chairman Fletcher asked if prior to the sit down with Planning staff, owners and the Police if there
was formal notification of the problems/calls.
Deputy Clark noted that some of their deputies did speak with the owners following one of the
incidents; at that time they did talk to them about these concerns.
Deputy Wright noted that as a part of their investigation, they noted that only 22 percent of these
violent crimes were committed by residents of Rancho Cucamonga,that now Rancho Cucamonga is
named the "Party City of the Inland Empire."
Commissioner Oaxaca asked about incidents of sales of alcohol to minors.
Deputy Wright said there was one that he knew of that was arrested by one of their deputies. He
said it involved a 19-20 year old that purchased alcohol at Omaha Jack's with his own credit card.
Chairman Fletcher invited the applicants to comment.
Mike McCarthy and his partner Ron Vandenbroeke stepped forward.
Mr. McCarthy said this report is an embarrassment to them; they are not typical bar owners;they are
restaurant owners and they shared their plans with the City 6 years ago. He said he did not believe
the full story has been told and it was their goal to grow their restaurant concept and the
entertainment was not part of the plan. He said the building is large and costly; they are on
economic survival mode and their late-night business has been successful. He said their goal is to
eliminate the problems; they have tried to do the right thing, they eventually want to open a
restaurant without entertainment. He said they did not know of the DUI's on neighboring streets,
only of incidents in their parking lot. He said he was astounded by the numbers; he knew of a few
incidents and with people and alcohol, it will happen now and then and they would call the police if
something would happen. He said they try to be self policing. He said they are concerned and not
taking this lightly; it is their livelihood. He said their letter highlights measures they have put in place
such as a no hat policy. He elaborated on the incident of a case still pending regarding the DUI that
resulted in injuries. He indicated the suspect had been at Omaha Jack's during the day but it was
not conclusive he had that much to drink there. He said the X-103 ads are only for Sunday morning
football. He said they try to get down the banners that should not be up. He said X-103 folks are
Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 10, 2010
football fans but late night trouble so they only use them for football advertising. He said (re:
chained doors) the closing manager chains them at night and they are unlocked first thing in the
morning. He said it did not happen that day, the janitor forgot, sometimes things happen. He said
the occupancy load is shown as 383 on the doors and they asked the officers for help; "we are
restaurant guys." He noted the officers suggested limiting their occupancy. He said they have
stopped letting people in at 250-270(100 less than prior months)and they check it every half hour to
monitor this. He said the lower occupancy gives the bartenders/servers a better handle on who is
drinking and who is not. He said he never heard they served a minor. He said they have passed
the ABC tests for this. He said they have 12 employees signed up to attend the class offered on
Friday. He said they have not stretched out their dance area, but that does happen; people just
move around to the music around the building. He said they have multiple tables up there and it
does limit that dance area.
•
Ron Vandenbroeke stated that the complaint related to the issue of tables being moved was to
accommodate the set up for Football watching the next day.
Mr McCarthy said when they thought they had any problems they would try to address them, but
when alcohol is served,there will be problems but they try to keep them to a minimum. He said they
did not see a difference in the kind of entertainment that they would have. He said the Police are
around constantly but nobody ever told them they were out of line. He said with a D. J. they can
alter the music to change the mood of the crowd but that cannot be done with a live band. He said
they have always had a great relationship with the Police and they indicated that they have been
doing the right thing. He said their late night business has become very successful. He said since
the beginning they have been open to 2am everyday and it was not done maliciously or behind
anyone's back. He remarked that they want to build trust and the relationships again. He said he
wished they had interaction with the Police earlier on to help them solve the problems rather than
have them call the ABC, the Health Department and the Planning Commission. He said the
partnership has broken down and they want the communication to figure out the problems and figure
out how to operate the restaurant.
Mr.Vandenbroeke said one of them is always there. He said the Police often come around and they
greet them and chat. He said he called the police and he was hit in the head in the midst of an
argument. He said it was a weird instance. He said just recently they(the owners)were told to take
more of a role in the parking lot. He indicated the officers that spoke to them did not leave cards
and only asked questions regarding a specific incident. He said they do what is right and they want
to grow their restaurant concept. He said they are trying to figure out their concept and are looking
for the payoff down the road. He said they pay over$30,000.00 per month in rent and this late night
entertainment has paid the bills in this economy. He said the report was astonishing and no one
came to them to talk to them. He said Mr. Henderson told them that if they wanted a D. J., it would
be have to be reflected on their permits. He said the sign with their hours(open until 2am)has been
there since the day they opened.
Chairman Fletcher asked what the hours are on the door.
Mr. McCarthy said the hours on the front door shows they are open 11:00 a.m.-2:00 a.m. daily,
seven days a week. He added that it has been that way since the day they opened and that is what
they felt the hours were.
Vice Chairman Munoz asked what that means to them.
Chairman Fletcher interjected and asked if that is correct (re: the hours).
Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 10, 2010
James Troyer, Planning Director noted that they may be open from 10:00 a.m. until 2:00 a.m.
Thursday through Saturday, but Sunday through Wednesday they are to supposed to close at
Midnight.
Vice Chairman Munoz asked if their approval documents clearly stated the hours.
Mr. McCarthy said now that they have seen it, yes.
Mr.Vandenbroeke said they made their pitch, got their approval and they never read the paperwork
after that;they just knew they had an entertainment permit and a dance permit and went from there.
He admitted fault in that. He said they have told the D. J.that his last day is the end of February and
they will go back to bands and address the permit that will allow them to have a D. J. on weekends.
They said it is confusing to their guests to have different hours on different days. He said they did it
wrong.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked what their prior experience was in operating restaurants.
Mr. McCarthy said they have both done it all their lives and they both have held management
positions supervising numerous restaurants; about 60 plus years experience between them.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked if those positions included similar concepts dealing with food,alcohol
and entertainment.
Mr. McCarthy said they have with alcohol but not with the entertainment portion of the business. He
said he has been a corporate Vice President with 167 restaurants with 300 managers that reported
to him. He indicated he was a hands-on Vice President. He said they are moving forward and they
are pushing food and lunches with a new menu.
Vice Chairman Munoz asked how it could be that there could be so many calls (about 100 over the
last 4 years) and yet claim they are policing the parking lot. He noted that there have been fights
that they did not notice; they were totally unaware.
Mr.Vandenbroeke responded that they do notice the fights in the parking lot but they were unaware
of the other incidents.
Vice Chairman Munoz noted that there were 42 disturbances/fights and that did not tip them off that
they had a problem.
Mr. Vandenbroeke said that is about 1 per month. No, not acceptable but when people are drinking
it happens.
Vice Chairman Munoz asked if 1 per month is acceptable. He remarked that the owners say they
are aware of problems in the lot but what plan have they put into place.
Mr. Vandenbroeke replied one per month is not acceptable.
Vice Chairman Munoz noted that clearly the problem is growing.
Mr. McCarthy said it definitely is but they are not running from the problems as they put things in
place at the end of December, as soon as they were notified there was a problem. He questioned
the number of fights/disturbances shown in the report. He said some of those reports could be
arguments (not fights) that the Police were called to settle before they turned into a fight.
Vice Chairman Munoz asked what security firm they hired to correct the problem.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 10, 2010
Mr.McCarthy said the shopping center provides their own security in the parking lot.
Vice Chairman Munoz noted that their letter states they have their own security.
Mr. McCarthy said they hire their own guys (guard cards).
Mr. Vandenbroeke said they hired guys that have their guard cards; the guy at the door interviews
people, check I.D. at the door and then he hires others that also have guard cards. He said they are
not dual purpose employees. He said they did not hire their own security firm other than the guard
cards.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked if they are uniformed.
Mr. McCarthy stated they have black shirts with "Security" on the back.
Vice Chairman Munoz asked how they could possibly monitor it with it being so dark, packed with
people and with it being run as a nightclub, and not a restaurant.
Mr. McCarthy said when you are there, your eyes get used to it and it is not so dark. He said their
security people are stationed to watch people and diffuse arguments or sometimes the security folks
call on the owners to come and diffuse it. He said he and his partner walk the building all night long.
He said their goal in cutting the occupancy was to give them better control and being involved in
seeing what's going on. He said there has been a big difference since they have enforced a dress
code.
Mr. Vandenbroeke said that two of the police calls occurred when they caught counterfitters.
Chairman Fletcher said he did want to participate in this discussion and for disclosure purposes,he
let everyone know that he knows the applicants, they are Chamber members, he sees them at
Chamber events, he is not in business with them and they are not close personal friends. He added
that he knows that they have been active in the community and he believes they are sincere in
wanting to improve. He said he believes them when they say that they are surprised to learn of the
number of calls for service. He commented that we know from previous project reviews that Police
reports taken in the area may not be specifically related to their particular business. He said there\
may be patrons from one establishment going to another establishment. He said sometimes there
are situations that a business owner cannot control if someone shows up drunk at their
establishment and they try to deal with it. He said he has heard that might be the situation here. He
said for the incidents, he believes the applicants when they say they want to operate the way they
are supposed to operate. He asked the applicants if they realized they would have to make some
immediate sacrifices if they are to follow what their permits say and that the D.J. is not allowed at all
and not until the end of the February.
Mr. McCarthy said, "absolutely,"they would break the contract. He said they are apologizing for their
negligence and claimed"stupid"and that they understand they should take out their CUP and read it
perhaps once a month or year to see if they are on track. He said they would have to deal with their
D. J.'s contract.
Chairman Fletcher remarked that he believes they are sincere and honest about what they are
saying and that he knows sometimes things evolve and that the building is too large for what they
are doing and probably not the best location for them. He said the applicants took it over and
created a business out of it. He pointed out that when they are looking for ways to increase their
revenue and increase the bar bills, that will cause problems. He said with entertainment, crowds will
be attracted and you begin to operate like a club. He said most of the reviews he has seen on line
regarding their food is 50/50; some people enjoyed it. He saw that some liked the food but not the
Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 10, 2010
atmosphere and vice versa. He said the comments that he saw regarding dinner patrons was that it
turns into a club at 10:00 p.m. He said that is probably the reputation the owners tried to promote.
He said their business is a little different than other similar businesses in the City because they have
the huge upstairs area with a tiny dance floor; it is an odd situation, and it is like a club that is not
what their CUP allows. He said it needs to be toned down;they need to do something else. He said
they would need a license to do that. He said they need a larger dance floor; 10 feet by 10 feet is
not large and they would have to think about that and control. He said if they are having excessive
Police calls they would have to work with them. He said that when he first saw this he was surprised
because he was not aware of a problem at Omaha Jacks and that he believed the business owners
were surprised as well in hearing the extent of what they want to do there.
Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Vandenbroeke asserted their surprise.
Chairman Fletcher asked if there were any more questions.
Mr. McCarthy thanked them for their time and the respect they have been given.
Chairman Fletcher opened the public hearing and hearing no comment, closed the public hearing at
8:45 p.m..
Commissioner Howdyshell,thanked the applicants for presenting their case. She remarked that it
sounds like the applicants have extensive experience in the restaurant business and in 2004;that is
where their concentration should have been. She said that there were two resolutions in 2004; a
CUP for the restaurant and an Entertainment Permit. She said her concern is that there have been
a number of calls and to not be aware of the issues, the consequences are really bad. She pointed
out that the entertainment permit has specific language that says what the establishment is, it allows
for a restaurant and a bar; not a nightclub. She noted that in reviewing the conditions, they have a
lot of violations of their conditions particularly 3, 9, 11, and 12. She said there is language specific
to public safety and there is a lack of concern on the part of the owners about that. She said it looks
very clear and she was very concerned when she saw the reports because she was not aware of
these issues, but to see that restaurant owners were not aware, she had great concern about that.
She said their participation in the READ training is a step in the right direction.
Chairman Fletcher asked staff to confirm the hours of operation.
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, stated the hours are: Restaurant/bar hours are 10:00 a.m.-
12:00 a.m. Sunday through Wednesday and 10:00 a.m.-2:00 a.m.Thursday through Saturday. The
entertainment is allowed Thursday through Saturday 10:00 p.m.-2:00 a.m.
Mr. Troyer confirmed that is correct.
Commissioner Wimberly concurred with Commissioner Howdyshell regarding the violations of their
permits. He said his concern is that by the owners own admission, that when they saw they had a
declining restaurant business they decided to grow the entertainment portion of the business as a
"cash cow". He expressed concern about the viability of their business, that there would be
additional issues to address should they move forward with the recommendation to not allow them
to have entertainment.
Commissioner Oaxaca noted that in the original report staff presented in 2004, Section C denotes
that the business is to operate in a way that does not create a pattern of incompatible activities that
are somehow attached to the patrons of this business. He remarked that the original approvals
related to previous ownership and they indicated that at least the concept of running this type of
business as outlined in the previous approvals would work considering the uses in the center at that
time. He added that there are a number of conditions in the original permit that are fairly standard
Planning Commission Minutes -10- February 10, 2010
about following the rules and then there are those specifically related to the hours of operation and
signage. He noted the applicants did not, by their own admission, meet the hours or signage
requirements for the life of this operation. He added that he has considered that there is a trend of
increasing incidents not decreasing. He said the Planning Commission has to look forward based
upon what has been given to them by the Police and what evidence we have currently.
Vice Chairman Munoz commented on the amount of contradictory evidence given to them. He
remarked that the owners have expressed their vast business experience in running restaurants and
yet the owners claim "they did not know" what was going on. He added that they made an error
towards the bottom line as opposed to the public safety when they decided that they would do
whatever they needed to do to increase business revenues such as turning down the lights,
increasing the dance space, adding strobe lights, D. J. service with no provision, advertising as a
nightclub, running a nightclub, violating the hours of operations and then taking a vast number of
years to figure that out without regard to the public safety. He said they(the Commission)are here
to guard the public safety. He remarked that this all happened with very experienced restaurateurs.
He noted that the Police reports/videos validate what the reports are saying to the Commission. He
added that they want to support business here but also we support the Police Department and he
would be remiss to ignore the public safety because his family is sometimes on the road during the
hours that this business is sending people out on the road, intoxicated. He said there is an
overwhelming amount of evidence and he might entertain the recommendation of withdrawing the
Entertainment Permit because they have not demonstrated that they can run this establishment in
the way they would like to run it. He added that the entertainment component may have been their
undoing.
Chairman Fletcher noted that this is the first time a request for a review of this CUP has come
before this Commission. He said over a 4-year period it looks like a lot of events occurred in their
parking lot; it works out to about 10 per year. He said it is not unusual for that many instances
outside of an establishment that serves alcohol. He noted that they are a restaurant and have a
microbrewery, they manufacture beer there and they have a dance floor. He said you run into
problems when you advertise for late night entertainment; people show up for a club-type
atmosphere at 10:00 p.m., and they may have already been drinking before that. He commented
that he believes it is a situation where they tried to do something new with their restaurant and it got
out of hand. He said he felt the letter the owners submitted is honest and genuine and he did not
believe there was any deception on their part with the letter. He said this is a business being
operated in Rancho Cucamonga and it would severely affect it if they pull their permit. He said in
most situations, because it is the first time they have been brought before the Commission, the
owners should be given an opportunity to come in and address not the perceived problems, but the
problems that actually happened and take a more serious view of their CUP. He said in regard to
the Entertainment Permit, it might be too harsh to pull that and he would rather give them the
opportunity to correct that and see if they can operate within their permit as well and bring it back
with the CUP in 90 days for review. He said this is a different situation from the past because it is
not flagrant abuse of the permit, it is the first time around for review. He remarked that he believed
the owners were aware of many of the incidents shown in the Police reports but not the extent of
them. He said if we give them a 90-day review then it would take some sacrifices; they can not
continue doing what they are doing, it will have to be cut back. He said the area upstairs is not
designed for what is going on. He suggested an occupancy restriction for the upstairs area. He
said regarding health, safety, and welfare of the community, that would have to kept in mind, that
these events do not occur with a restaurant that it generally happens after closing in that it has to do
with people having too many drinks. He suggested as noted in the owners' letter for an earlier last
call for drinks and bringing up the lights as well as uniformed guards outside should help cut down
on that. He noted that if there are officers there with a patrol car and there is a crazy drunk slugging
people, that is something uniformed guards will not be able to help with. He said rather than severe
Planning Commission Minutes -11- February 10, 2010
restrictions on the first review, he would prefer another review in 90 days and give the owners the
opportunity to correct the situation.
Commissioner Howdyshell referred to page 4 of the staff report and asked for clarification of the
differences between suspension versus revocation of the permit.
Mr. Troyer clarified it is staffs and the Police Department recommendation to revoke the
Entertainment Permit.
Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney reported that suspension would cease the entertainment
activities for a period of time set by the Commission and may not necessarily require that they
reapply. A revocation however would mean that no entertainment would be allowed and that the
owners would have to reapply. He added they could not reapply for at least one year following
revocation.
Commissioner Wimberly commented that suspension would give them the opportunity to make
those changes and come into compliance.
Commissioner Howdyshell asked for the time period for a suspension.
Mr. Flower confirmed that it would be at the Commission's discretion.
Chairman Fletcher said the point is that the facility has an area designed for entertainment, large
parties and events on the upper level and that with a suspension of the Entertainment Permit, many
of those activities would not be allowed.
Mr. Flower replied that it would not preclude them from using that area for restaurant uses.
Chairman Fletcher responded that would mean no entertainment, bands, karaoke, etc.
Mr. Troyer confirmed that that could not have legal or illegal entertainment uses during that
suspension period.
Commissioner Howdyshell noted that businesses are struggling and she is not trying to put them out
of business. She said the Commission is very proactive when it comes to businesses. She said she
would like to see a remedy and we need to consider public safety. She said there are some
consequences that come with the success of this business operation and that the Commission
needs to be proactive rather than reactive in relation to the Police Department concerns. She said
she is not in support of revoking but she said she supports putting it on hold so they can learn to run
it cleanly and better.
Chairman Fletcher said he did not believe we would be hurt that much by giving them 90 days and if
it has not changed,when the Commission reviews it,then they will have to consider the seriousness
of it.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked is there is no suspension or revocation, if it would be appropriate to
specify certain conditions that relate to the specifics of what the Commission/staff would like to see
changed.
Mr. Troyer asked if he was referring to additional conditions beyond the conditions already in place.
He noted that during the 90-day period, staff would just try to get them to comply with all the
conditions already established by the existing permits.
Planning Commission Minutes -12- February 10, 2010
Commissioner Oaxaca expressed concern about the safety issues relevant to the current operation
of their business. He said the 2004 security plan currently is one paragraph. He said he would like
to see a more detailed security plan put into place.
Vice Chairman Munoz said he would like something better than the applicant promising to be good
for the next six months. He said there is a pattern of violating the existing agreement and he said he
does not see anything tonight that indicates that the applicant will follow the agreement. He noted
his concern about public safety and the safety of his family. He asked how they could put a plan
together that satisfies him and prevents them from going back to "business as usual" tomorrow
•
night.
Chairman Fletcher said he believes 90 days is a pretty short leash and if they went back to business
as usual after that then they would have to deal with that.
Vice Chairman Munoz asked how the Commission can monitor that because they are literally
depending upon the police to do the monitoring for us.
Mr. Troyer said to keep the Entertainment Permit active, all staff could do is monitor their activities
over the next 90 days and bring back their findings to the Commission after that.
Mr. Flower focused on the Entertainment Permit. He reviewed the Commission's options are to
revoke per staffs recommendation; they could choose to do nothing; the Commission could also
continue the item and work with the owner for 90 days to get them into compliance; they could also
suspend the permit for a time and use the suspension time to work on conditions of approval that
would give some assurances to the Commission and then reschedule it for another hearing; and
finally,he said they could also continue the matter and then consider modification of the conditions of
approval. He said with a continuance they could still operate within the terms of the current permit;
' with a suspension they would have to cease the entertainment.
Vice Chairman Munoz asked how that would address his concerns about the public safety and
monitoring mitigation. He said he supported a plan that includes suspension while the applicant is
brought into compliance. He said there should be some accountability for their violating every
aspect of this agreement.
Mr. Flower noted that with a suspension, those safety concerns would go away.
Commissioner Howdyshell noted that she also is concerned about safety and noted that the most
recent occurrence reported by the Police was less than 30 days ago.
Mr. Troyer noted that a motion would be needed on one of the options.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked about considering a shorter time period.
Chairman Fletcher said the recommendation is for 90 days and that is a shorter time period than
usual.
Mr. Troyer pointed out that staffs recommendation is to revoke the Entertainment Permit now and to
bring back the CUP for review in 90 days.
Chairman Fletcher said he would like to give the owners a chance to comply and that if they follow
their conditions then their operation will be restricted quite a bit. He said the problem is the nightclub
advertising and the small dance floor. He said it is appropriate to give them the opportunity and if
Police calls are received then it can be brought back immediately upon request.
Planning Commission Minutes -13- February 10, 2010
Commissioner Howdyshell asked when the READ class is.
Mr. McCarthy interjected and said it is Friday morning and it is free and Officer Clark would be in
attendance.
Vice Chairman Munoz suggested to continue this and bring it back in 90 days. He said he is
interested in the businesses that operate here and he said he wants the owners to commit to be
mindful of the agreements and all of the provisions in them; every single one. He suggested the
Commission revisit this recommendation to revoke the Entertainment Permit and review the CUP in
90 days.
Mr. Flower restated that both matters be continued for 90 days to the first meeting in May.
Mr. Henderson asked if the Commission is expecting during that time that the business will follow all
the conditions on both permits; they will provide a detailed security plan to be considered by staff
and for review and approval by the Commission; and, that if they want to change/modify their
conditions that they will apply and pay for the modification of both permits. He asked for
confirmation that this is the Commission's direction during this time.
There was general concurrence with Mr. Henderson's statement.
Vice Chairman Munoz asked that they stipulate that the entertainment permit can not be elevated
(modified/intensified) for six months.
Mr. Flower said he did not think they could stipulate that, we cannot forbid them from applying for
that, but it would have to be reviewed before an approval could be given.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked if they did not want to wait 90 days, could the Commission be given an
oral report in 30 or 60 days for a progress update.
Mr. Troyer said it could be done as a Director's report that did not require an action of the
Commission.
Chairman Fletcher said that staffs comments to the direction were well taken. He said he would like
a written list of deficiencies to the owner that currently exist.so there is no question as to their
infractions.
Mr. Troyer said they would also like the right to bring this back before the 90 days is up if there are
problems with the business operation.
Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Wimberly, (4-1)to continue the review of the Conditional
Use Permit and the Entertainment Permit as specified to the first meeting in May. Motion carried by
the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY
NOES: HOWDYSHELL
ABSENT: NONE - carried
w w w w w
COMMISSION BUSINESS/COMMENTS
Chairman Fletcher again welcomed Commissioner Oaxaca.
w w w w w
Planning Commission Minutes -14- February 10, 2010
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Howdyshell, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning
Commission adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
kbiAtre
Ja s R. Troyer, AICP
Secretary
Approved: February 24, 2010
Planning Commission Minutes -15- February 10, 2010