CCMIN040312 - Laserfiche WebLink

managing other nightclubs. The expanded use was also supported by Hacienda Business Park management. Two incidents in recent months resulted in several public safety and general welfare issues that caused staff to question whether the findings made to approve the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) were appropriate. In responding to the incidents, staff also uncovered several violations of the CUP's conditions of approval. Mr. Dolan described the incidents of December 17 &18' 2011 and January 14 2012, both of which required police assistance from neighboring communities and the latter of which resulted in the shooting of a club patron. Mayor Hosterman asked whether it would be a fair assessment that the terms and conditions of this particular use have led to more incidents requiring police presence than anything Pleasanton has experienced in the past. Police Chief Spiller confirmed. He said that not only is this uncommon for establishments in the Pleasanton community, the calls for service are inordinate in terms of managing public safety at this establishment under prior names and operators. Mr. Dolan reviewed the points of noncompliance, based on the following conditions of approval: Good Neighbor Policy; Training for Intervention Procedures (TIPS) — some individuals were not currently, or had never been, certified; Security Plan — despite multiple requests, the operator failed to submit an amended security plan for review by the police department until after the reported incidents; and that the operator monitor adjacent areas for peace and cleanliness He reviewed a timeline of key events, beginning with approval of the application in mid-2010 before the facility opened under the new operator in September 2010. Immediately following the January 2012 incident, staff issued a letter suspending the club's CUP as was authorized in the original approval. The operator challenged the suspension in federal court and the judge ruled in favor of the club based on the City's failure to hold a public hearing to evaluate the situation. The Planning Commission subsequently heard the issue at a public hearing on February 8, 2012 and ultimately voted to change certain conditions of approval. After much discussion between staff and the Police Department, it was determined that the City is unable to provide the resources for any more than 300 patrons at this particular facility. The maximum occupancy was subsequently reduced to 300 with the caveat that the club could request an increase if it complied with all conditions of approval, obtained positive recommendations from the Chief of Police and Director of Community Development, and operated without incident for 30 days. The Commission also added conditions requiring utilization of an ID scanner at the club entrance, visible exterior posting of the club's dress code, and restrictions and protocols for closing the establishments. The Commission considered staffs recommendation as well as revocation of the permit at its hearing and ultimately voted unanimously on what is before the Council tonight. The club has implemented many of the conditions of approval and maintained an ongoing dialogue with the Police Department since the Planning Commission hearing. Staff believes the outcome of the public hearing to be reasonable and recommends that the Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to revise the conditions of approval. Councilmember Cook-Kallio reported visiting the club with Lt. Knox the previous Saturday evening. She noted a number of patrons were turned away at the door because of their dress, some of whom walked away frustrated. She wondered how many patrons might be turned away, who have no means of leaving the premises and subsequently loiter. Chief Spiller could not say but noted that the club's security staff is responsible for addressing loitering, whatever the reason. City Council Minutes Page 3 of 6 April 3,2012