Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Jose planning commission denies After Bar and Grill’s request to stay open until 2 a.m.
Summary
The Planning Commission unanimously accepted staff’s recommendation to deny a conditional use permit that would have extended After Bar and Grill’s hours to 2 a.m., citing repeated enforcement violations and the police department’s opposition. The motion to deny passed 9–0.
The San Jose Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny a Conditional Use Permit request from After Bar and Grill to extend its late-night operating hours to 2 a.m.
Chair Carlos Rosario said the commission would “accept the denial,” and commissioners cast a 9–0 recommendation to the City Council that the permit be denied after staff and police testimony raised public-safety concerns. Zachary Johnson, project manager in the Planning Division, told the commission staff "are unable to find consistency with these findings" in the municipal code and recommended denial, citing the establishment’s history of noncompliance with ABC license conditions and local law.
Sergeant Chau Pham of the San Jose Police Department told the commission SPD was opposed to the CUP and described three undercover visits between July and August 2024 that found alcohol served without food and other violations. Pham summarized recent calls for service around the Tropicana area, saying "there are about a total of 60 calls related in the area that could be surrounding After Bar, but not necessarily all those calls related here," and staff identified roughly four calls they believed might be tied to the business.
Applicant representatives and the owner, Elmer Orianna, acknowledged prior violations and asked the commission for a chance to demonstrate compliance. Jerry Strangis, representing the business, said the owner was willing to “do everything we can to ensure that it is a safe place,” and proposed returning for a six-month compliance review. The city attorney and planning staff advised the commission that the city does not have a formal "compliance hearing" process under the planning code and that deferral, not a compliance order, would be the applicable procedure if the commission wanted more time to assess changes.
Commissioners wrestled with competing goals: several members acknowledged the economic challenges facing small restaurants and said they were sympathetic to the owner’s request, while others pointed to the SPD record and the gravity of the documented violations. Commissioner Young, citing the SPD memo and undercover findings, moved to deny. Commissioner Cowell seconded, and the roll-call vote was unanimous.
The commission’s action was advisory; the recommendation will be transmitted to the City Council under the normal appeals and review process. Staff clarified that a denial of the extended-hours permit does not prohibit the establishment from continuing to operate as a restaurant under its existing midnight closing time.
The Planning Commission’s recommendation resolves the item for this hearing; the owner may reapply at any time.
