HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/03/09 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
March 9, 2005
Chairman Macias called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho
Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman
Macias then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Rich Macias, Cristine McPhail,Pam Stewart
Larry McNiel
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Michael Diaz,
Senior Planner, Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Dan James,Senior Civil
Engineer, Paul Morrison, Police Sergeant;Alison Rowlen,Code Enforcement
Officer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Lois Schrader,
Planning Department Secretary; Mike Smith, Assistant Planner
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, gave a brief overview of the meeting format and public hearing process
and welcomed the students of Rancho Cucamonga High School. Mr. Buller asked that Item E be
heard in conjunction with Items C and D because they are related to the same project.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Stewart, carried 3-0-1-1 (McNiel absent, McPhail abstain),
to approve the minutes of February 9, 2005.
Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Stewart, carried 4-0-1 (McNiel absent), to approve the
minutes of February 23, 2005.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00260 - PETE VOLBEDA, ARCHITECT - A
request to develop a 2-story single-family residence with a total floor area of about 3,684 square
feet on a 20,282 square foot parcel in the Very Low Residential District(.1-2 dwelling units per
acre), located at 8960 Laramie Drive -APN: 1061-801-30.
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail to adopt the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by
the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: McNIEL - carried
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16565-VERNON
MORRISON - A request to subdivide 1.25 gross acres of land into three lots in the Low
Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on Jonquil Drive (a private
egress/ingress access and drainage easement)west of Hermosa Avenue and north of Victoria
Avenue-APN: 1076-081-03. Related file: Pre-Application Review DRC2004-00635. Staff has
prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Mike Smith, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Macias opened the public hearing.
Vernon Morrison, 10090 Jonquil Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is the applicant. He said staff
was great to work with and he had no further comment.
Chairman Macias closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Stewart reported that this was a straightforward application. She mentioned that the
applicant came in for a Pre-Application Workshop to meet with the Planning Commission and noted
that none of the neighbors attended. She added that the workshop was a good setting at which
some of the concerns could be resolved, such as the common shared driveways and entrances from
Hermosa Avenue proposed by the applicant. •
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Fletcher to approve Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16565
as presented by staff with the adoption of the Resolution of Approval with conditions. Motion carried
by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: McNIEL - carried
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16776-VAN DAELE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -A request to subdivide 19 gross acres of land into 59 lots
within the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north
side of Base Line Road, approximately 1,200 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue-APN: 0227-131-
29, 34, 35, 36, 52, 53, and 55 thru 58. Related Files: Development Review DRC2004-00052,
Variance DRC2004-01002, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00701. Staff has prepared a
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. (Continued from February 9,
2005)
D. VARIANCE DRC2004-01002-VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-A request for an
increase in wall height related to 59 single-family homes on 19 acres of land within the Low-
Medium Residential District(4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Base Line
Road, approximately 1,200 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue-APN: 0227-131-29, 34, 35, 36, 52,
53, and 55 thru 58. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16776, Development Review
DRC2004-00052, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00701. (Continued from February 9,
2005)
Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 9, 2005
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00052 - VAN
DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-The review of site plan and elevations for59 single-
family homes on 19 acres of land within the Low-Medium Residential District(4-8 dwelling units
per acre), located on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 1,200 feet east of
Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 0227-131-29, 34, 35, 36, 52, 53, and 55 thru 58. Related files:
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16776, Variance DRC2004-01002, and Tree Removal Permit
DRC2004-00701. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for
consideration. (Continued from February 9, 2005)
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report with the request the items be continued
to the March 23, 2005 meeting. He said that the consultant assisting the property owners to the
west of the proposed project had called and reported that they are making progress in resolving their
issues and that the continuance would give them more time the finish that process.
Chairman Macias opened the public hearing to anyone that might not be able to attend the continued
hearing at the March 23rd meeting. There was no response. Chairman Macias closed the public
hearing.
Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Fletcher to continue Items C, D and E as requested.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: McNIEL - carried
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
F. REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-45 MODIFICATION AND ENTERTAINMENT
PERMIT 91-03—MARGARITA BEACH AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-01 —RAMONA
MARKET — A review of the business operations located at 9950 Foothill Boulevard —
APN: 1077-621-34.
Brad Buller, City Planner, reported that the request for the Evidentiary Hearing was brought to the
Commission as a result of the concerns presented to the City Council at their February 2, 2005
meeting by Mr. Edward Sanchez and 13 other residents in regard to the business operations of
Margarita Beach. Mr. Buller explained that two permits are held by this business, a Conditional Use
Permit and an Entertainment Permit. He added that the Conditional Use Permit for Ramona Market
is also being discussed. He commented that testimony and evidence is being received tonight only
for the purpose of determining if a public hearing is warranted and to consider and review the uses,
specifically Margarita Beach and Ramona Market. He explained that the reason a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) and Entertainment Permit (EP) were required for these businesses is because the
CUP allows them to serve alcohol in conjunction with their use; the EP(which only applies to the bar)
gives them the ability to have a level of entertainment as described in the permit. He noted that both
permits are subject to review that can occur whenever a resident, Councilmember or member of the
Commission feels it is appropriate. He said tonight they would only receive testimony to determine if
a hearing is warranted. He noted that notices were mailed to the neighbors that addressed the
Council, the owners of the center, Margarita Beach, Ramona Market, and also Alcoholic Beverage
Control (ABC). He invited the neighbors to speak, but that they not repeat each other. He added
that the owners of the businesses would also be invited to speak as well as anyone from the
audience. Mr. Buller reported that Sergeant Paul Morrison from Police and staff from Code
Enforcement were in attendance at the meeting and that they would be available if the
Commissioners had any questions. He explained that because of the many letters received from the
neighbors, he asked Police, Fire, and Code Enforcement to prepare a report of the calls made to this
Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 9, 2005
•
location over the last 3 years. He noted that their reports may not be all inclusive as evidence and
that the Commissioners may request at a future time a more detailed report if further investigation is
deemed necessary.
Chairman Macias opened the public hearing.
Ed Sanchez, 9869 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he has lived here for 20 years. He
reported that he spoke at the February 2, 2005 City Council meeting. He commented that although
the two members of the City Council directed the Planning Commission to include Ramona Market in
their investigation, he said that out of 13 neighbors that spoke, not one mentioned the market as
being a problem or concem. He added that he believes the market should not be included in this
investigation and he believes they did nothing wrong. He commented that in 1996, Skippers was
sold to Mr. Davidson and the business changed its name from Margaritaville to Margarita Beach at a
later time, but that problems began to occur even when the business was named Margaritaville. He
mentioned that problems with traffic, parking in the neighborhood, people bringing their own ice
chests of alcohol and drinking it in their neighborhood, urination in public and noise, as some of the
issues about which he spoke to Mayor Alexander in a telephone conversation. He reported that he
later met with Lt. Nelson and Mr. Davidson and two of the neighbors two years ago in hopes of
resolving these issues. He said at the time, Mr. Davidson was told he could not hold promotion
events and that if he could not confine his business operation to his property, that a review of his
CUP was possible. He said that they arrived at some solutions such as not allowing special
promotion nights, only allowing the cars to cross the streets at certain points, hiring a bouncer, and
trash pickup. He said he then contacted Captain Pete Ortiz(the new incoming Captain at the time)
to inform him of the problems and to re-emphasize the agreement. He said he had another meeting
that was attended by Captain Ortiz, several of his neighbors, Mr. Davidson, and two representatives
from the mobile home park located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard. He stated that Mr.
Davidson's compliance with the agreement was good for a while, but then reverted back to having a
promotional event in January. He said the result was an overflowing parking lot and graffiti. He
commented that this business has always been a bad neighbor. He added that examples of the
types of promotions held are included in the agenda packet. He noted that these promotions attract
the young party types. He remarked that the owner of Margarita Beach bragged that he had 1.7
million dollars in gross income with over$200,000 in taxes paid to the City. He said the real question
is, "Is maintaining a high quality of life a priority of City officials?"
Victoria Sanchez, 9869 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, identified herself as the daughter of Mr.
Sanchez, the prior speaker. She said a bouncer hired by Margarita Beach actually directed a patron
of the bar to her home. She said he had been told her father was a City Council member and he
was told there was an ordinance against parking in the street. She said another patron asked why
he was told he could not park on the street. She recalled that on one occasion a pickup truck
occupied by two drinking men was partially blocking her driveway. She said she asked them to move
and they did and they apologized, but she said this problem has gone on too long. She stated that
the noise was bad during the summer and they could not open their windows at home. She added
that now bouncers had been posted at the corner and that they added to the litter already created by
the patrons of the bar.
Marya Black, 8022 Pasito Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, said she has lived in the neighborhood for 5
years and she has two young children. She stated patrons of the bar were having sex in front of her
house. She said she has since installed double pane windows and an alarm system. She noted
trash, urination in public and cars doing"donuts"in the street and screaming and yelling as additional
concerns. She said she does not feel safe and she added that she does not believe it is the patrons
of the market causing the problems.
Vicky Seimone, 8016 Pasito Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, said she had submitted a letter of
complaint listing her concerns about Margarita Beach. She said that their street is very short and
from 11-1:30 a.m.,there is a lot of traffic on the street. She reported noise,vomit in her planters and
Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 9, 2005
problems with people urinating in public. She said one patron was so drunk, he tried to break into
her house because he did not know where he was. He then went into her backyard and tried to get
in again. She added that when he was unsuccessful, he went into her neighbor's backyard. She
I said when the police arrived, they drove him home. She added that she has 5 children and she
believes Mr. Davidson should move his business to another location.
Kim Weison, 8010 Pasito Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, said she has lived on the street for 27 years
and in Rancho for a total of 30 years. She reported that her eldest son, who is now 30 years old,
frequented Margarita Beach when he was younger. She commented that it was upsetting when he
would come home drunk, but at least he was not driving home. She asked why he no longer goes
there, and he said it is because it is such a young party crowd and that people that go there just want
to "score." She said she has concern for the safety of the other young people that frequent this
business. She added that there are many young children on her street. She commented that she
believes the Commissioners would not allow this business to continue operating next to their homes.
She said Mr. Davidson and Councilman Gutierrez have recently been examining the area and
nothing is really going on now. She said it is really bad during the summer, but that it has been a
problem for 9 years.
Sarah Moussani, 8032 Pasito Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, said she has had problems with safety,
trash, cars, bottles, and public urination. She said the parking has become a problem to the point
that there is no parking available to those visiting her home. She said she has concern for her 16
year old. She said she has lived there since 1982 and wants the business to be moved. She said
she has always had good neighbors and she would like to keep it that way.
Christine Read, 9999 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she lives in The Pines mobile
homes. She said she wakes up 4 out of 7 nights at 2:00 a. m. because of noise coming from the
parking lot. She said the noise often continues until 3:00 a.m. when all the cars have disbursed.
She said she often hears girls screaming and car alarms going off. She said she called the police
and at first they responded, but no longer do. She said the police said they have a license for
playing the music. She said she loses valuable sleep because of the noise and it is difficult because
she has to leave for work early in the morning. She said sometimes she thought young ladies were
in trouble because of the screaming. She said the loud music has been turned down some but she
believes this club is in the wrong location.
Chris Cameron, 8017 Pasito Court, Rancho Cucamonga, said female patrons of the bar park on her
street at around 9:00 p.m., apply their makeup, get dressed, and when they leave,they leave behind
bottles and cigarette butts for her to clean up. She said she is in the process of adopting 3 children.
She remarked that she is concerned about these activities being observed by the State workers
when they make their home visits. She said she wants these children not to be denied the possibility
of having a good life. She said these children should not see the things that go on with these
patrons. She added that headlights from the cars beam into her windows even through the blinds.
She said she hears tires screeching, dogs barking, and yelling and screaming every weekend. She
remarked that Councilman Gutierrez suggested they gate off their entire block. She indicated to him
that she did not want to pay for permits because of the bar operation. She said she thought Rancho
was a community where you could leave your windows open and not have to worry about it. She
added she now has security concerns particularly with not knowing what intoxicated people might do.
Rob Evans, 9823 Palo Alto, Rancho Cucamonga, said he has been a resident since 1989 and he
supports the Ramona Market. He gave kudos to the Mayor for a previous complaint he had
regarding head shops. He reported that following his call to the Mayor,the head shops disappeared.
He said that was good customer service. He said the owners of the market are like family and call
him by name. He mentioned that the market is convenient and they are a positive influence in the
neighborhood. He commented that he does not know what the best solution is for Margarita Beach,
but he feels the market should not be involved.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 9, 2005
Larry Liberatore, 9870 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he also favors the market. He
said the club has poor business practices. He said the owner claims he does not know about the
problems associated with his business. He reported that for the last 3 weeks, there have been
visible security guards employed by Margarita Beach. He said he had not seen any in the last year.
He said last weekend, the guards could be seen pacing up and down his street with flashlights. He
said the need for guards in front of homes is indicative that there is a problem. He said he should
not have to worry about activities taking place in his front yard every weekend. He said this business
does not belong this close to homes and they want their neighborhood back.
Adam Evans, 9823 Palo Alto, Rancho Cucamonga, said he is a student at Rancho Cucamonga High
School. He stated that the owners of Ramona Market have been falsely accused and is a grievous
mistake; that the problems are being caused by Margarita Beach. He reported that there are liquor
stores all over town and you never hear of debauchery like this and it is because they are located
next to an unruly bar. He said it is unfair that the Ramona Market is grouped in with the people of the
bar. He said at Ramona Market, like many local grocery stores, you get good service.
Jim Olson, 9805 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga,cited problems with patrons vomiting,urinating,
and having sex in his front yard. He said there are car chases on the street. He said on Saturday
and Sunday mornings, there are bottles and litter in the street. He said he had checked the police
calls for 2005, and thus far, 15 calls had already been received for Margarita Beach. He said at that
rate, more calls will be received than in previous years. He said for the last 20 years he has
observed Rancho Cucamonga change from a rural setting to a more upscale community. He noted
that this type of business would not be tolerated on the east side of town near Victoria Gardens and
he said he did not know why it is being tolerated in his neighborhood.
Emily LeQuay, 9999 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she has been a resident for 10
years. She reported noise, traffic and screaming coming from Margarita Beach. She said Rancho
Cucamonga is a nice community but this bar is out of place. She added that she has never had a
problem with the market.
Peggy Sanchez, 9869 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, said she appreciated Mr. Buller's
responsiveness to their concerns. She noted she believes the Ramona Market should not be
included in this review. She said the owners are a hardworking family, good neighbors, and are not
a problem. She said the club continues to disrupt the neighborhood and she finally installed an
alarm in her home. She noted that Rancho Cucamonga has grown into an excellent city but that to
the east of Haven Avenue it is very nice but to the west you have places like Twins and Margarita
Beach. She commented that if this business requires a high level of services from police and fire,
then the City really cannot afford to spend its resources on them and that if their demand is too high,
perhaps they do not belong in Rancho Cucamonga at all. She recommended a review of their
permits.
Betty Watkins, 9880 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that all the concems have been
previously mentioned and she is requesting the help of the Planning Commission.
Trish Stevens, 9999 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, said that the management of Margarita
Beach had previously been told their patrons could not park along the fence on Foothill Boulevard.
She mentioned speeding cars and loud music. She noted that she called the police and the police
did not respond. She reported that she also called the manager and he did not respond either. She
said she has learned to wear earplugs. She stated she collected 40 signatures on a petition in
opposition of Margarita Beach. She said she reviewed the 5-year report and was surprised that the
operation is within acceptable noise levels. She reported that her mobile home literally"rocks"from
the noise. She said she is 76 years old and should not have to put up with this. She said she
received 5 more signatures today to add to the petition and presented them to the secretary.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if the noise is from the parking lot or inside the club.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 9, 2005
Ms. Stevens stated the door to the club is often open; therefore it would be from the club.
Hilda Phillips, 11248 Terra Vista Parkway#85, Rancho Cucamonga, said she wanted to address an
issue related to Central Park and asked to whom should the letter be addressed.
Mr. Buller said she can direct her letter to the Chairman of the Planning Commission and all of them
will be given a copy of the letter.
Elian Backhous, 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he recently took ownership of
the Ramona Market from his parents. He said they have operated the market for 20 years and they
treat the business and their community like their home. He reported that they have never received a
complaint and have even been complimented and thanked by the Department of Health Services for
refusing alcohol and tobacco sales to minor decoys. He mentioned that they have never been
ticketed and they strictly enforce their carding rules ahead of any profits. He said their neighbors
have a right to live in peace.
•
Commissioner McPhail asked him for their hours of operation.
Mr. Backhous said they are open Monday through Thursday, 8-11 p.m.; Friday and Saturday, 8-12
p.m.; and Sundays, 8-10 p.m.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if patrons from Margarita Beach buy liquor at his store.
Mr. Backhous said once in awhile they do, but they usually buy tobacco.
Mark Davidson, 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 5, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is the owner of
Margarita Beach. He said he is shocked and embarrassed and claimed he did not know anything
about the charges until recently. He said he visits this neighborhood regularly and still did not know
about the problems but he said he would like to explain how he plans to correct the situation. He
said he canvassed the neighborhood and gave a letter to all of the neighbors,which he read into the
record. The copy of the letter was received and filed by the Planning Department Secretary. He
then read a 10-point list of suggested solutions for the neighborhood and an 8-point list of solutions
for calls for service, copies of each were received and filed by the secretary for the record. Mr.
Davidson then explained that 2 1/2 years ago he agreed to place a security guard at the market to
discourage his patrons from parking there. He said people continue to park there. He said he will
now place a guard on Estacia Court and that he was not aware his other measures were not
working. He said that Mr. Sanchez indicated the problems were solved at their last meeting and he
never heard anything different. He reported that he believes there are 2-3 vehicles that park in this
area from Margarita Beach and that the other 5-7 vehicles are overflow cars from the neighboring
apartment complex. He said Captain Ortiz indicated there was no need to further condition or revoke
his permits. He said that Captain Ortiz also recommended a review in 3-6 months. He said he has
been operating these kinds of businesses since he was 14 years old and his mother and grandfather
did it before him. He said he likes doing it; he's too old to learn anything else and too young to retire,
so he will do a better job and continue to run this kind of business.
James Reiss, Reiss & Johnson, Attorneys at Law, 10593 Foothill Boulevard, #410, Rancho
Cucamonga, stated he is legal counsel for Mr. Davidson. Mr. Reiss stated the staff report in the
agenda packet is filled with self-serving information with no real evidence to back it up. He said
there have not been any violations of the laws,ABC, code enforcement,fire or police codes against
Mr. Davidson's establishment. He did not feel the Planning Commission had the authority to ask for
a hearing when no regulations, rules or conditions were violated. He stated that he did not believe
there is enough evidence that would show this business operation is contrary to the peace, safety
and general welfare of the public. He commented that nothing has been submitted that
substantiates the neighbors' claims of vandalism or violence that can be directly attributed to
Margarita Beach. He said he understands why the report was requested from the City Council
Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 9, 2005
meeting and that he viewed the tape of that meeting. He said we should take a "common sense
approach." He reported that Mark Salazar of Code Enforcement did not indicate any problems with
Margarita Beach. He commented that he does not support the recommendation. He said that the
high number of calls to the police, when examined, could be simply a bar check, a lost phone,
occupancy check or vandalism that was reported somewhere near the bar and that none of these
could be directly attributed to Margarita Beach. He said that the statement made by Captain Ortiz
should have been requested by Mr. Buller and included in the agenda packet. He said detailed,
supportive evidence is missing and it makes it difficult to make a critical analysis. He encouraged
the Commission to dig deeper. He said Sergeant Morrison would give a favorable report and that
Mr. Davidson has an excellent relationship and communication with the Police Department. He
claimed that there have not been any problems since the concerns were reported to the City Council
at their February 2, 2005, meeting. He reported that half of the calls made to the Fire Department
were canceled before they arrived on the scene. He stated that there have been no violations of
overcrowding or excess services needed by the Fire Department. He said their memorandum
supports Mr. Davidson's position and not Mr. Buller's recommendation. He remarked that the letter
submitted by Mr. Sanchez states Margarita Beach is a sleaze business. He stated this is not a
moral issue. He said the claims that the bottles found in the neighborhood were from unrelated
activities and not from Margarita Beach. He stated he believes the City has never revoked a
Conditional Use Permit in the past,that the City only required a modification. He commented that he
believes shutting down the business is not the solution, but proper regulation and operation of the
facility is. He said Mr. Davidson has been very responsive and came"with his hat in one hand and
an olive branch in the other' and asked that he be given a chance to run his business better. Mr.
Reiss claimed there is no need for a public hearing,that the recommendation for the hearing should
be tabled and that if the City proceeded, it would be step 1 of a 3 or 4 step legal battle. He
suggested a meeting with the neighbors and Mr. Davidson to come up with solutions. He added that
the business has never violated any regulations and none of the official agencies have ever issued
any written citations for violations. He commented that the Twins bar has as many calls for service
as the Margarita Beach location and they only do 1/2 to 1/3 the amount of business. He said there
are other bars up the street. He claimed that Mr. Davidson is being singled out. He said to find a
solution rather than fight.
At 8:35 p.m.,the Planning Commission recessed for a break. They retumed at 8:40 p.m.to continue
the public hearing.
Chairman Macias announced that they would continue with the public testimony and if there was
anyone that had already spoken, but wanted to address the Commission again, could do so,
however, he would not entertain an ongoing debate between differing parties to take place.
James Colbreath, 7421 London Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is a student at Rancho
Cucamonga High School. He indicated that London Avenue is perpendicular to Palo Alto. He
reported that the Ramona Market is a great place to shop and he is a regular customer there. He
said parking is an issue. He suggested that the CUP could be modified, but that the bar patrons will
not change and they just want to have fun and that the bar may not be in the right place.
Vicki Seimone, 8016 Pasito Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, said she needed to clarify some things
from her previous remarks to the Commission. She noted there was a typographical error on her.
letter(street name) and she asked that it be corrected. She said only a few cars park on her street
but that many cars pull into the street and then turn around, creating a traffic problem. She said Mr.
Reiss' comment regarding no formal reports being filed is in error because when the patron from
Margarita Beach tried to break into her neighbor's home, the police were called and they drove him
home. She said he even admitted he had come from Margarita Beach and that is positive proof that
there is evidence the business directly affects the neighborhood.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 9, 2005
Barbara Olson, 9805 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, said she attended the meeting held 2
years ago and that she had dealt with the issues for the last 9 years. She said she is tired of all the
"uninvited" people on her street.
Cristina Cameron, 8017 Pasito Avenue, readdressed the Commission and stated she attended the
meeting 2 years ago, but that no one else knew about it. She said that when she observed patrons
of the bar parking on her street, she called the manager and the manager would re-direct traffic. She
said that made the patrons mad and then they would leave broken bottles behind.
Victoria Sanchez, 9869 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, returned to the podium to address the
Commission a second time. She reported that she is not comfortable with a security guard on her
street. She remarked that if the bar really is not a problem as the owner states, then there should
not be a need for a security guard. She added that the guard adds to the problem because he
flashes his lights into their windows and then leave their trash behind. She noted that the cars
associated with the apartment complex have window ID stickers on their cars and the neighbors are
all familiar with those cars and she knows the owners of those cars are not the drinkers from the bar.
She added that her car was vandalized. She commented that the cars belonging to the bar patrons
are like cockroaches;when the lights go on,they scatter. She remarked that she is 20 years old and
would never go into that kind of establishment and would never get drunk in a neighborhood because
in her opinion, it is trashy.
Christine Read, said there was an accident one night that involved one of the bar patrons. She said
the driver pulled out onto Foothill Boulevard, attempted a—U-turn, and drove into a block wall across
the street in front of the Pines mobile home park. She noted that there must have been a record of
that because the City had to pay for the repair of the wall. She also reported that a medical
helicopter had to be called in to airlift a patron that had slashed her wrists.
Chairman Macias remarked that he felt the Commission understands the community impacts but
asked that any additional remarks or testimony be limited to new information/issues that have not
been discussed.
Mark Davidson, 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 5, Rancho Cucamonga, said he had personally
reviewed the calls for service attributed to this location and that he felt they are not specifically
related to the bar activities. He claimed he did not know about the impacts on Pasito Avenue. He
said this should be solved in a meeting-in an office. He said if the neighbors don't like the security
guard, they can call him and that he wants to solve the problem. He suggested they meet with him
and come up with a solution and give the solution time to work and if that does not work then we
could try something else. He said after 3 or 4 times of trying solutions and if the solutions still don't
work, then the hearing process would be appropriate. He commented that at that time, the
Commission could place additional conditions on his Conditional Use Permit if he is unable to make
the changes himself. He said he would give it his best effort.
Commissioner McPhail asked Mr. Davidson if he serves food at Margarita Beach.
Mr. Davidson said they have a full menu such as steaks, fish, thicken etc. He said he used to
manage a Red Robin restaurant and that he substantially copied their menu.
Commissioner McPhail asked what hours they serve the food.
Mr. Davidson replied that they serve until 10:00 p.m.
Commissioner Fletcher asked what the legal capacity of the bar is.
Mr. Davidson said 233 persons.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 9, 2005
Peggy Sanchez, 9869 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, returned to the podium and asked if the
police representative would be answering questions or would address the issue.
Ed Sanchez, 9869 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, asked if the staff report is public because he
wanted to go over the police report in particular because of the level of staff that is needed to
respond to the calls at the business location. He mentioned that we have had problems staffing
during the hours that the problems most often occur.
Chairman Macias dosed the public hearing.
Commissioner Fletcher asked Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney,to clarify the action before them
this evening.
Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, said the action is to consider the Conditional Use Permit and
Entertainment Permit for Margarita Beach and the Conditional Use Permit for Ramona Market. He
said the question was raised as to the authority of the Commission to set a hearing for revocation.
He noted that when the original permit was approved, provisions were made specifically as listed
conditions, that if the operation of the facility had an adverse affect upon adjacent businesses or
operations,the CUP shall be brought before the Planning Commission for consideration and possible
termination of the use. He said the Entertainment Permit has similar language including considering
the adverse affects on adjacent businesses operations or residential uses. He said these are the
terms and conditions that give the opportunity and right to conduct the use or activities and the terms
under which they are subject to and give the right to be reviewed by the Commission if it is
determined there are adverse affects. He noted that"Municipal Code Section 17.04.030G gives the
Planning Commission authority to periodically review any conditional Use Permit"to ensure that it is
being operated in a manner consistent with 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.
If after review the Commission deems there is sufficient evidence to warrant a full investigation,then
a public hearing date shall be set." He reported that the provisions for review for Entertainment
Permits is also included in the staff report. He noted that per Municipal Code Section 5.12.100, the
Planning Commission has the authority to suspend or revoke an Entertainment Permit if,following a
notice and hearing, the Commission finds that the perrnittee "violated any rules, regulations or
conditions adopted by the Planning Commission...relating to the perrnittee's business or permit: or
conducted a permitted business in a manner contrary to the peace, health, safety and general
welfare of the public..." He said this is the legal test as to whether the Commission could move
forward to a public hearing. He added that there is no requirement for a formal notice or violation
issued by the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC), Police or Fire Department determination to show
there was a legal violation of a code. He said the decision can be based on testimony and that direct
eyewitness evidence presented by the speakers is sufficient on which to base the determination. He
stated that when and if the Commission decides there is enough evidence to set a hearing, and the
hearing occurs, then counsel will provide the Commission with advice at that time to determine if
there is enough to warrant revocation of the permits. He remarked that this is not the time or the
evidence upon which that decision will be made.
Commissioner Fletcher clarified that the hearing for revocation does not have to result in a'yes'or a
'no' but can result in additional conditions.
Mr. Ennis said that is correct. He said that the Municipal Code provides the Commission can make 3
determinations: 1)find the CUP is being conducted in an appropriate manner and that no action to
modify or revoke is necessary; 2)find the CUP is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and
that modifications to conditions are necessary; or 3) find that the CUP is not being conducted in an
appropriate manner and modifications are not available to mitigate the impacts and therefore revoke
the permit requiring the operation to cease and desist within the time allotted by the Planning
Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes -10- March 9, 2005
Chairman Macias asked for Sergeant Morrison to present his report and comments.
Sergeant Paul Morrison, from the San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department, stated he has been
atthe Rancho Cucamonga station since 1987. He said Captain Ortiz assigned him to reviewthe call
log for Margarita Beach and the center located at 9950 Foothill Boulevard. He explained that
sometimes,certain locations are used as landmarks by the responding officers in their reports,which
means that if an officer simply pulls over a car near that center, that centers address will be named
or Margarita Beach in this case, could be named as the specific location. He said he reviewed 700
calls in which the word 'Margarita' was used to see if the bar was specifically involved in the calls
listed, or if it was just used as a landmark and that he was personally responsible for making that
determination. He said 412 calls were directly related to Margarita Beach or Margaritaville in the last
3 years. He commented that of those 412 calls, some could have just been a "bar check," a call
related to driving under the influence, a car stop, vandalism in the parking lot or just checking
someone in the lot. If it was a call at 2:00 a.m. and the person was drunk, then there would be a
high probability that the call was related to the bar operation, but there is a factor of error.
Chairman Macias clarified that the bottom line what he did is subjective based upon assumptions
that he has made.
Commissioner Stewart asked if his department had a crime analysis unit so that a dissection of the
call log could be done.
Sergeant Morrison stated that they do. He said the system is much more difficult to determine
details after the calls logged are over 90 days old.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if he could recall how many calls came in after midnight.
Sergeant Morrison said he did not know.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if he could recall how many came in after 2:00 a.m.
Sergeant Morrison replied that he did not know. He said if he was working with a time factor of 10:00
p.m. to 3:00 a.m., unless it was indicated as Margarita Beach it might not have related to them.
Chairman Macias closed the public.hearing._ -
Commissioner Stewart asked if Code Enforcement had anything to add or give a response.
Alison Rowlen,-Code Enforcement-Officer, stated she-had-nothing to add. -
Mr. Buller commented that Code Enforcement and the other departments were asked to review the
entire center for calls for service. He noted that there are numerous code enforcement violations,
property maintenance violations and sign violations in the center. He noted that there was a
comment made that Margarita Beach and Ramona Market did not violate any codes. He added both
businesses have illegal signs and one of their conditions states they must follow the sign ordinance.
He remarked that Planning staff did not ask a listing of all violations for purposes of this review, but
only asked for calls for service.
Commissioner Stewart suggested that before they act on setting the Evidentiary Hearing, they
remove Ramona Market from the hearing. She added that there is nothing that would indicate
conflict with them or that they should be responsible for the problems they are experiencing there.
I She said she believes Mr. Davidson is being responsive to the problems that he was aware of, but
based upon the 412 calls received, she felt they should set a public hearing. She commented that
the peace and welfare of the public have been affected and that the business is materially injurious
to individuals and property. She noted that 12 people had been injured in altercations related to this
Planning Commission Minutes -11- March 9, 2005
business and judging from the call history thus far for this year, the number of calls for 2005 is likely
to be higher than in previous years. She said that of those 412 calls, 119 of them resulted in police
reports and that is a high volume for calls for service. She said she would like to set a public hearing
6-8 weeks out, and that would allow time to have the owner meet with the various departments and
neighbors. She added that she would like the call history to be dissected by the type of calls and the
time of the calls. She directed staff to do a community-policing project to include a mediator if
necessary to mediate between the business and the neighborhood. She stated that she would like
to see Code Enforcement, the neighbors, the Police, Engineering and those involved with the
streets, and any violations of signage noted to help this business remain successful where it is
currently located. She said she believes Mr. Davidson is making a good faith attempt and that it is
possible much of this could be resolved before the hearing takes place. She remarked that this
would require a lot of work and that she is asking for staff to step in and it will require a mutual effort.
Commissioner McPhail agreed that Ramona Market should be removed from the request for a public
hearing. She reported that on page F-30 of the agenda packet, Condition No. 1 of Planning
Commission Resolution No. 88-242A specifically states that alcohol may only be served when the full
menu is available and when the full menu is no longer available, alcohol may no longer be served.
She remarked that we heard tonight that the full menu is no longer available after 10:00 p.m. She
said she wants this addressed and recommended a public hearing be set.
Commissioner Fletcher commented that the public does not need to wait 2-3 years to complain and
that they can request a review at anytime. He stated he believes that the City Council asked for the
review of the market because of the beer bottles found in the neighborhood and on the streets. He
said it is unlikely that a bar would allow someone to walk out of the bar with beer bottles in hand. He
said there was concern that it may have been beer purchased at the market and not in the bar. He
said he did not believe that was the case. He added that there are numerous sign code violations
throughout the center and asked that be addressed and asked Code Enforcement to do a separate
review of the signs. He said that should be discussed specifically. He commented that there is a
concem regarding the parking, the capacity of the bar, and the cars that overflow into the
neighborhood. He stated that there is enough evidence to support a public hearing for examination.
Chairman Macias stated that the action being taken is only to determine the need to conduct a public
hearing to modify or revoke the Conditional Use Permit and Entertainment Permit for the bar and the
Conditional Use Permit for the Market. He concurred about the impact of the bar on the community
and that he believes a public hearing is in order. He said they should follow Mr. Davidson's
attomey's suggestion for a common sense approach. He cautioned staff to provide the proper
evidence and that it needs to be solid and detailed from Code Enforcement, the Police and staff,so it
is ready if the process ever reaches the point of revocation. He said if the public hearing addresses
issues that include a report from Code Enforcement, then the report could include the market. He
said a public hearing is just that, it could go either way. He remarked that he was encouraged by Mr.
Davidson's desire to rectify this and that he hopes much of this will be resolved prior to the public
hearing. He commented that he is encouraged that the owner posted security guards, but found it
interesting as to why they are even needed. He suggested that there is enough evidence here to
legally support their action to hold a public hearing. He said he supports the idea of precluding
Ramona Market from the action, but asked for a review of the code violations for the entire center.
He supported a hearing in 6-8 weeks to modify or revoke the CUP and EP for Margarita Beach and
to preclude action against the market.
Mr. Buller noted that setting the hearing for April 27th may allow for the necessary meetings but if
more time was needed, the item could be continued at that point.
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Fletcher to set an Evidentiary Public Hearing,slated for the
April 27th meeting as requested by staff. The Planning Commission agreed to remove Ramona
Market from the primary action of this hearing. Motion carried by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 9, 2005
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: McNIEL - carried
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No further comment was received from the public.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
None
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail, carried 4-0-1 (McNiel absent), to adjourn. The
Planning Commission adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Res. = ullys •i�
i
IF
d Buller
Secretary
Approved: March 23, 2005
1
Planning Commission Minutes -13- March 9, 2005