09 - Laserfiche WebLink

actually significantly crippled the Police Department's ability to respond to other calls for service." He also restated that the City relied on mutual aid protocols to not only manage Pleasanton's calls for service, but to get appropriate resources to this establishment. Chief Spiller believes, based on his experience, and in having worked very closely with the management staff that has been responsible for this project, that 300 or less patrons is the appropriate number in terms of the City's ability to manage providing standard public safety services to the community and supporting this operation at the same time. After lengthy discussion regarding the appropriate occupancy to allow, the Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to limit the occupancy of the business to 300 patrons (not including nightclub staff), but with the possibility of returning to the Commission to increase the maximum number if: 1) there were no incidents requiring police involvement over the next 30 days; 2) the Club complies with all Conditions of Approval; and 3) a positive recommendation is provided by the Chief of Police and the Director of Community Development prior to scheduling a hearing before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission also modified the existing Conditions of Approval to strengthen the security aspects of the business. Such conditions include utilization of an ID scanner at the entry, restrictions and protocols for closing the establishment in a manner that transitions the patrons out of the establishment starting at 1:00a.m. with a cleared parking lot by 2:00 a.m., the use of an approved Security Force Plan, and a posting of the club's dress code so patrons could see the dress code prior to waiting in line. The Conditions of Approval also addressed what needed to be included in the club's Security Force Plan, such as the number of security personnel on-site, job assignments, uniform specifications, training/registration/certification requirements, patron screening and entry protocols (e.g. pat-downs, queue staging, and capacity management), specifications for handling patron-removal, requirements for a video surveillance system and communication devices, and expectations for communication of security-related issues between the Pleasanton Police Department and the establishment. The Planning Commission's meeting minutes can be found in Attachment 3 and the approved Resolution and modified conditions of approval can be found in Attachment 6. In response to the Planning Commission's action, Mr. Mull, the attorney for the nightclub, filed an appeal of the modified Conditions of Approval. In his appeal, Mull objects to a condition that would limit the patrons to 300 and argues that "there is not a connection between the number of patrons and any problems that occurred with the patrons at closing time." He further argues that the occupancy reduction to 300 patrons "imposes a severe hardship on the operator and causes it to be impractical to continue operating at the location." Page 4 of 7