09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Livermore (sent 8 officers), Dublin (sent 6 officers), Alameda County (sent 3 officers), and the California Highway Patrol (sent 7 officers). Additionally, the Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department and an ambulance had to respond to the Club to care for the shooting victim. Given the melee that erupted and subsequent shooting, on January 20, the City issued a letter automatically suspending the club's conditional use permit. The Club's attorney filed a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in federal court to prevent the City from being able to suspend the Club's CUP absent a hearing. The federal court judge ruled in favor of the club, and set aside the City's suspension of the CUP absent a hearing. This ruling does not affect the City's ability to hold a hearing and consider modifying the Conditions of Approval or revoking the club's conditional use permit via a public hearing process. As stated in condition #9 of the original Conditions of Approval, the Director of Community Development may submit the CUP to the Planning Commission for review at a public hearing if the operation of the use results in conflicts pertaining to parking, interior or exterior noise, traffic/circulation, public disturbances, or other factors. Given the incidents detailed above, the Director submitted the CUP to the Planning Commission for consideration at its February 8, 2012 meeting. Planning Commission Hearing The Planning Commission report outlined options for the Commission's consideration: 1. Revoke the Use Permit, 2. Modify the Conditions of Approval, including limiting the patrons to 250. 3. Modify the Conditions of Approval, including limiting the patrons to 300. 4. Modify the Conditions of Approval, including limiting the patrons to 300, but if there are no incidents (i.e., significant incidents requiring police involvement) over the next 30 days and the club complies with the conditions of approval, planning staff will schedule a meeting for the Planning Commission to consider increasing the number of patrons. Please see Attachment 5, Planning Commission staff report, for details regarding the various options to modify the Conditions of Approval including limiting the occupancy and imposing other operating requirements related to improving security. During the Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners took public comment from George Mull (attorney for Club Neo) and Chief Spiller. With respect to the capacity, Chief Spiller stated that the incidents that occurred were directly related to the numbers of attendees at the club. Chief Spiller stated that an occupancy of around 300 patrons is manageable for the business and for the Pleasanton Police Department (PPD), and is a manageable number of patrons at the end of the evening when the club is cleared out, while also leaving the PPD with the capacity to address other calls in the community. As stated in the Planning Commission meeting minutes, Chief Spiller stated that "while nightclubs and businesses like this can impact law enforcement resources, which is not at all unusual, the incidents that occurred when they were in the 500/600/700 capacity Page 3 of 7