Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission backs staff to deny After Bar and Grill late-night permit
Summary
The San José Planning Commission voted 9-0 to accept staff’s recommendation to deny a conditional-use permit to extend After Bar and Grill’s hours to 2 a.m., citing prior ABC violations, undercover police findings and concerns about impacts on nearby residences.
President Carlos Rosario opened the meeting and the Planning Commission considered CP24-036, a request to allow After Bar and Grill (1692 Story Road) to operate until 2 a.m. on Friday through Sunday. Planning staff told the Commission the project was incompatible with city policy and municipal code because of a history of licensing and noise violations and an explicit opposition from the San José Police Department. "El bar y restaurante After Bar and Grill violó su licencia ABC..." staff told the Commission, summarizing undercover inspections that found alcohol served without food and other violations.
Applicant representatives, including Jerry Estrangis and Javier Campos, urged the Commission to give the business a chance, proposed additional security (including armed private security and attempts to use off-duty officers) and asked for a six-month compliance hearing so the business could demonstrate improvements. Owner Elmer Orellana said he had worked to correct problems and promised to serve food until closing to meet ABC requirements.
Sgt. Chau Pam of the San José Police Department described undercover operations in 2023 and early 2024 that found repeated violations. "...la última vez que mi equipo o un grupo de agentes estuvo allí para realizar algunas de estas inspecciones fue en agosto del año pasado," Pam said, and explained the department would need a larger sample of compliant months before moving to a neutral position.
Commissioner Young moved to accept the staff recommendation to deny the conditional-use permit, citing the operator’s enforcement history and the public-safety record. Commissioners debated whether a formal "compliance hearing" existed in the code; staff and the city attorney said the code does not provide an explicit compliance-hearing mechanism and that a postponement or a new application were the available procedural options.
On the roll call, the Commission recorded a 9 to 0 vote in favor of accepting the staff recommendation to deny CP24-036. The Commission’s action was advisory to the City Council where applicable; the record shows the applicant may reapply at any time.
