Council voted 4-1 to approve the staff report that establishes a moratorium on the establishment, creation or expansion of any and all bars, nightclubs, restaurants serving distilled spirits and restaurants exceeding 2500 square feet. The moratorium will extend through November 13, but council is offering the one current applicant, Blondie’s Pizza which is proposing to move into the spot formerly occupied by Little Prague, to seek a hardship exception at the next meeting on October 13.
Councilmember Brett Lee noted the change in the atmosphere at the bars. “As a longtime person living in Davis, the bar scene has changed and it has changed very noticeably over the past five years,” he said. He said that, rather than addressing the issue “haphazardly” we need a “comprehensive approach which is not reactionary but actually lays out a plan of what we would like it to be and what we would like it to be in the future so the downtown is vibrant and it’s also an attractive and enjoyable place for people.”
Community Development Director Mike Webb explained that the intent of the moratorium “is to provide an opportunity for the community, for the council, for staff to engage in further dialogue around the issue at hand which is alcohol service establishment and the calls for the service and the incidents that can occur at these facilities if not properly managed and regulated.”
Assistant Chief Darren Pytel explained that, so far, the bar owners have been reluctant to be “that first place that does anything different from the rest – so somehow their business suffers from ways that the others aren’t.” They are looking for uniform ways to deal with the security issues.
He explained, “What’s happening downtown is we have restaurants and they morph into nightclubs at nighttime – so the business model significantly changes. Other cities have regulated how businesses morph – everything from whether music is permitted or whether people have to have seats, types of bottles or cups that are allowed, to hours of service.”
City Attorney Harriet Steiner explained some options for the city council, for cases where an establishment is otherwise running a legal business, saying that “if a business is operating as a nuisance so it could be operating not in compliance with existing law both state and local law, it could be what we call a disorderly house, in other words it’s not maintaining decorum with people that come to that business and there’s a history of that, those types of issues are not so much that the use is illegal but the way its operating is not proper those usually get abated through a nuisance process.”
At this time, this moratorium would impact one current applicant – Blondie’s Pizza, which is seeking to come into the space that used to house Little Prague. It would operate as a family-style restaurant until 9:30, at which point it would become a bar.
Bill Kopper, a local attorney and former Mayor of Davis, represented the applicant. He explained to council that they have already leased the site and want to construct a restaurant and sports bar. “Blondie’s is getting a permit to construct improvements and they would have had it weeks ago if not for delays in permit review at the fire department. This is a ministerial act, they have all of the zoning necessary to construct the restaurant.”
He said that Little Prague was a restaurant/bar, and this will be a restaurant/sports bar, so he called it “the exact same business.”
He expressed condolences for the death of Peter Gonzales, but added that “it should not have any bearing on holding up Blondie’s building permit.”
He noted, “Blondie’s is the only business affected from getting a building permit.” Mr. Kopper continued that his client would enter into a contract with the city to implement any new regulations on the day the business opens. “You don’t have to worry about the amortization issue as to his business,” he said. This “defeats the claim for this particular interim zoning ordinance.”
This issue, he pointed out, came up relatively recently when then City Councilmember Don Saylor attempted to propose an interim ordinance to keep the hookah store at Fifth and G from opening in the city. He stated, “The city council wisely rejected it because it was an illegal spot zone and in fact this is essentially a taking of my client’s property.”
The spot has been vacant for over a year, Mr. Kopper pointed out, and owners have had difficulty leasing it. “The Little Prague space has become a blight frankly,” he said. “It’s only days now before there are going to be boards in the windows – it’s in terrible terrible shape.”
He said they have the zoning and they will agree to any new regulations that are passed.
Jason Ojeda, their marking director, explained to council that this will be a full restaurant that is family style and will be open late on the weekends. He explained that, at their Vacaville place, “there are kids there all the time. Sometimes it feels like Chuck E. Cheese. It’s really good New York Style Pizza and it draws a large family crowd.”
They have all-you-can-eat specials where kids eat free. “Any time before ten o’clock of course, you see kids,” he stated.
However, Mayor Dan Wolk took issue with that assertion. “I get that, but what happens after ten o’clock?” he said.
Mr. Ojeda responded, “Yeah, we do deejays…”
“How late do you stay open?” the mayor asked.
“We stay open till 1:30 in the morning.”
“That doesn’t sound very family friendly,” the mayor retorted.
Mr. Ojeda responded that it was family friendly until ten.
Councilmember Lee didn’t want to single anyone out, but said there are a number of restaurants downtown that “past a certain point they become nightclubs.” He argued this was a much bigger issue that needed to be addressed comprehensively.
He said he was impressed that the applicant would be willing to adhere to the regulations right away, and he asked the city attorney if there was a way they could “allow people to move forward during this period if they could agree to sign onto” any new regulations.
Harriet Steiner noted that the applicant could apply for a hardship situation which would allow people with pending permits to petition the city to recognize that the moratorium constitutes a hardship and the council, after a ten-day notice and hearing, could grant an exception to the moratorium. She believes the council could condition that exception to go forward in a binding manner.
The staff recommendation was moved by Mayor Dan Wolk and seconded by Lucas Frerichs. They agreed to a friendly amendment that would allow the pending applicants to have a hardship hearing on October 13 for an up or down vote by the council.
Robb Davis expressed frustration at the limitations of the discussion under time constraints, as well as discomfort with the moratorium itself.
“I’ve been really uncomfortable with the moratorium partly because whatever we do it does feel like we’re singling out certain applicants,” he said. He argued that this would be a largely symbolic act. “I’m not going to support the motion because I think that we are moving forward and that there are other ways that we can achieve this without creating difficulty for one single applicant who we would hope and would expect would fully participate in what we as a city decide to do going forward in this area.”
Later he would add that he is opposed since we are already going in the right direction, “I’m not in serious opposition to the direction.” He added that “there’s a fairness [issue] to this that bothers me a bit.”
Mayor Wolk explained that, before the city entitles another use, “we strategize at some of these issues that we’ve been having, we need to have that conversation.”
Rochelle Swanson stated, “This moratorium… is about a pause.” She added that it is not the intent of council to make actions that will harm the downtown, rather this is about “recognizing this tragedy that we had in our community and being responsible.”
Brett Lee added that “the good actors will come forth on October 13 and will agree, in principle, to support whatever changes we make. Bad actors, on the other hand, will get their permit and it could be up to a year before the changes actually are required.”
Council approved the action 4-1, with Robb Davis dissenting.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
the exchange by mayor wolk was hilarious. it’s a sham to call it a family friendly establishment. that said, i agree with robb davis and see this as a ploy by the mayor to foster his family friendly image. why do we need this ordinance when there is only one applicant and they are willing do whatever the council needs them to do?
It makes perfect sense to pause, and have the necessary discussions, before approving anymore restaurants turned nightclubs. You must have heard City Atty Harriet Steiner explain that it is much harder to get existing businesses to comply with new city regulations than new businesses. The fact that this new business said they would comply was murky at best from a legal perspective, as noted by Councilmember Lee.
One thing the Vanguard did not mention (forgive me if I missed it in quickly scanning this article) was the mention of the type of licenses – 46, 47 or 48 (I think those are the correct numbers). The restaurants like KetMoRee that are operating under a restaurant/bar license (47) can permit underage individuals in the nightclubs. To me, this sounds like a slick maneuver that needs to be addressed. I got the impression some on the City Council thought so too. When KetMoRee is turned into a nightclub, it is primarily acting as a business that would have to have a specific type of liquor license (48) that would prohibit minors from entering. Clearly that is only one of many issues in play, but an interesting one.
All restaurants have ABC license type 47 otherwise they would not be able to serve food to people under age 21. I don’t know if the business is required to have two licenses… for example a type 48 for when they turn into a night club.
The Graduate used to have an 18-and-over night. Patrons would get an arm band of a different color for over and under 21, and only those 21 and older could buy and drink alcohol from the bar. I’m not sure if the Graduate still does this. But police that I talked to lamented the attraction of the out of town element preying on young naive Davis girls that would have something to drink before coming to the venue… often too much.
Yes, this is an interesting issue – it was just not clear to me exactly how the law works in such situations, and to what extent the city has any control over regulating this – or even ABC for that matter.
Bravo Robb Davis for demonstrated consideration for the business impacts.
Note, businesses in our community are part of our community and deserving of support and consideration. I will not support any candidate exploiting tragedies and grandstanding at the expense of our community businesses.
Second, there needs to be consideration for the college students who are also members of our community. College students have always been attracted to places where they can buy a drink, socialize and dance. “Night club” is not a phrase that should be demonized by us grumpy old folk that cannot seem to remember what it was like being 20-something. If Davis does not provide it, then the students will drive to places far less safe and also risk driving under the influence of alcohol. This then undermines our very interest to help keep our community members safe from harm. Would be be more comfortable seeing one of our own murdered at a Sacramento nightclub just to prevent another statistic in our city? I certainly hope not.
Lastly, it isn’t fair to punish certain restaurants and it isn’t fair to punish the students because someone from outside the community came into the community and committed murder. If someone was killed at a local bank branch ATM by an outsider, I don’t think we would not put a moratorium on banks.
Assuming KetMoRee followed all the rules, the business is another victim of this crime. Let’s not heap on more damage on the businesses and damage to our community of college students by over-reacting and turning this tragedy into a political circus.
Frankly: “Bravo Robb Davis for demonstrated consideration for the business impacts.”
I applaud the other four City Council members for standing their ground and voting for the 45 day moratorium.
Frankly: “Second, there needs to be consideration for the college students who are also members of our community.”
Yes, the city needs to be concerned about the safety of all those college students in these restaurants turned nightclubs that may have lax oversight or may contribute to the problem of an increase in violence in Davis.
Frankly: “Lastly, it isn’t fair to punish certain restaurants and it isn’t fair to punish the students because someone from outside the community came into the community and committed murder.”
How many deaths will it take, in your opinion, before you are willing to concede this city has a problem that needs to be addressed with some sort of additional regulations/zoning changes/liquor license review?
Frankly: “Assuming KetMoRee followed all the rules…”
That is a huge assumption, founded on what? At least I showed you anecdotal evidence that KetMoRee may not be following the rules. Apparently ABC and the Davis PD even believe there needs to be a review. You seem to be about the only one that wants to give KetMoRee a free pass without any investigation… or am I reading your comments incorrectly?
You are all over the place ignoring everything written except what is convenient to your position. For example, you failed to acknowledge that closing down bars or restricting their hours will result in students driving to other communities far less safe than Davis.
Of course I want there to be an investigation. And if KetMoRee is guilty of breaking rules, then they should be held responsible.
I’m just not supportive of your lynch mob approach here.
I too am a conservative and constantly find myself longing for a more moral society where young people drink soda and tea and steer clear of risky behavior and violence… but I am also a realist.
No comment.
One of your better comments lately! 😉
So have we tripled, or quadrupled the number of nightclubs downtown the past 2 decades? As I recall, there was one we could drink and dance at, and it was generally well managed and frequented chiefly by locals.
My guess is that a large chunk of the club goers are out of towners. UCD hasn’t tripled in size. In fact, I wonder if there is a growing segment of the campus student body that doesn’t drink. I went into the noodle shop on Russell which was formerly Giant Hamburger late one weekend, and it was packed with Asian American students who appeared stone sober.
Along with bathroom requirements (see my below post), maybe we should also look at an officer ratio per drinking capacity. If we add 200 or 400 to the nightclub capacity, we may need to add 1 or 2 additional officers to the core area.
Outside of policing the downtown, what happens when there is a break in or police call in North or East Davis on a weekend night?
If Frankly or Robb Davis want to provide the night life for Woodland, Vacaville, West Sac, and Sacramento residents, great, just staff for it and accept the negative externalities.
I just want to provide the venues that the members of our community want and will will support.
Alan Miller than says “what about strip clubs?”
First I would say that the members of our community do not want strip clubs and likely would not support them…. unlike nightclubs that the students (members of our community) want and support.
And by the way Allan Miller and others so appalled over Davis nightclubs, do you remember the West Lane drive-in movie theater?
Davis has not been so historical pristine as some would romanticize.
I’m with you, Frankly, let’s find a place next to Sudwerk’s or Plainfield Station to add a wine bar and bocce ball.
I also don’t think students, parents, or citizens want knives, guns, gang bangers, or violence. There has to be a way to mellow out the craziness.
“Alan Miller says . . . ”
Frank Lee, and I’m serious about this, stop using my name to quote me from a few days ago, completely out of context to change the meaning of what I said. Even in the same thread you often misquote me. I often am being sarcastic or metaphoric, and quoting me literally and out of context is irrational. Especially as you are supposedly anonymous, even though I know who you are, using my real name in vain is not cool.
And yes, I remember Westlane. Was not in Davis as such, was a county venue. What a class act that was.
Assuming this is true, then all businesses should be affected by this “moratorium” and shut them all down for a month? It should affect them all or none.
In another comment the different licenses were discussed, and I think if a Restaurant/bar changes its character so much it becomes something else, then maybe another license is in order?
And Alan Miller, if you comment sarcastically or otherwise, please signal to Frankly with a Smiley or other symbol so he doesn’t take it seriously. I comment seriously, and then get ridiculed for not knowing I am replaying to sarcasm.
Robb seems to be the voice of reason on this one. I worry that this is a reactionary decision by the council to give the appearance that they are being responsive, when in reality this decision does little to address the underlying issues.
The problem is that it is much more difficult to impose new regulations on existing businesses than new ones. The fact that a developer with a new business proposal promises to follow any new regulations is murky from a legal perspective at best. The City Council will allow this developer to come back in the middle of October to argue their “hardship” case, while the City Council has had at least a modicum of time to discuss the issue with ABC, the Davis PD and representatives of the downtown bars. That seemed to me to be a very responsible position by the 4 City Council members who voted to impose the 45 day moratorium.
The problem I have is that it smacks of political grand standing. It’s a way to give the appearance that our council is responding to a problem, when in reality it doesn’t solve anything, and it throws a business that was in no way responsible for the tragedy that occurred under the bus in the process. This does not reflect strong leadership on our councils part.
My hope is that now the council will appoint a subcommittee to meet privately and quietly with the owners, other downtown business reps, and police, and maybe a representative from ASUCD, to work out some actual workable policies and practices that make downtown safer late at night.
Ha, like banning plastic bags and default beverage in kid’s meals? Our council excels at grandstanding.
Agree, but if Anon participates on that one, I am going to have to do the same to balance it out.
I wouldn’t worry to much about it Frankly, from my experiences sub-committees form, spend a year discussing how to solve a problem, then have their recommendations ignored.
If they actually want to get something accomplished I’d leave the city out of it. I think restaurants should meet with the groups Don recommended, come up with some solutions and let then let the council know how the are going to move forward.
This, in a nutshell, is exactly right.
This moratorium is reactionary, entirely political, and will do absolutely nothing to make the downtown safer. Posturing is what this Council does best, so why should anyone expect anything different from them?
Kudos to Robb for being the lone rational voice in the discussion.
What Don said.
i guess i just do not see what new regulations they are going to impose in the next 45 days that are going to make a huge difference. We have no idea what any of the stuff is. this is political posturing
Yes.
When is a moratorium not a moratorium?
When it has more holes that a piece of Swiss cheese.
I’m glad to see that after multiple stabbings and now one death, the council members can now admit that the downtown has changed the last 5 years, and they can implement their moratorium, which isn’t a moratorium. That’s very bold of them, and gives them cover in case there is another homicide.
They’re spineless on the budget, spineless on the roads, and now spineless when it comes to safety.
you act as though you hold the monopoly on the correct procedure when in fact we can’t even agree on these pages whether we should act and what to do. the council is forced to thread a pretty fine needle. multiple stabbings? there are places not that far away that’s a good month rather than over a five year period.
I’d prefer we not become one of those places.
i don’t think we’re in any danger
I agree with DP. One tragedy like this does not change the fact that Davis is still the safest place compared to the regional alternatives.
If someone had told you two years ago that there would be a stabbing gang murder inside a restaurant in Davis, an attempt to run someone over in downtown Davis, another stabbing in downtown, a couple fornicating by the railroad tracks that ended up as a quasi-maybe-rape, and another couple from the nightclubs fornicating behind Alan Miller’s side-yard at 1:45am, would you have thought we were in any danger?
MM, thank you. I have spent much time in big cities. I like them all for different reasons.
I like the fact that Davis is a college town, and even with this death we’re safer-than-the-norm. I don’t want us to become Chico, San Luis Obispo, or San Jose. I don’t want 1, or 3, or 5 murders to become “the norm”. Mr. Lee seems to admit that the city has let this problem fester without being properly addressed, so now we may have had a tipping point to focus our attention.
I’ve recently signed up for a central coast online news outlet … and I am quite surprised by the frequency of violent crime in their area, which includes SLO.
Its not the one tragedy, its the overall trend. I don’t like that police are more frequently removing guns and knives off of drunk people looking for fights downtown.
Throwing one business under the bus in order to give the appearance of taking action, while accusing them of not being a “family friendly” restaurant because they convert to a 21 and over at night, when most kids are home in bed, does not seem the most effective way to address this.
alan: i’d say if that’s all pretty tame. i thought the double homicide was far more shocking. the lack of community concern for that talamantes girl compared to the bar stabbing is disturbing.
fornicating? does anyone use that term anymore?
Alan Miller: I would say that today we are 20x more likely to have a gang member put a cap in multiple college students / citizens than we were 20 years ago.
There are common-sense measures that can help diminish these odds, and still keep the downtown vibrant.
You’ll note that the new Blondie’s isn’t a wine bar, tapas restaurant, or bocce ball place. Its a sports pub / night club masquerading as a “family style” Chuck E Cheese restaurant.
Frankly has been arguing that the core is too cramped, and here we go possibly adding another large venue right in the same area!
” I would say that today we are 20x more likely to have a gang member put a cap in multiple college students / citizens than we were 20 years ago.”
why do you write such nonsense, the murder rate today is less than half what it was in 1990.
I found the double homicide far more disturbing, and also completely outside of anyone’s control. A caused death between people that know each other, in their own apartment, is quite different than a public assault that results in death at a publicly accessible private venue that requires a series of licenses to operate, within close geographic locale to other similar businesses, resulting in a “scene”. The atmosphere of a “scene” can be altered and tamed via public policy, the nu-diagnosed terminal mental illness of a single individual cannot.
I’m sorry, I meant “f******”. The couple in the alley were definitely f******.
[moderator] edited for language. Believe it or not, we actually have language standards here.
How many square feet is this new sports pub / nightclub?
What is the maximum capacity for the nightclub, and how does this compare to KetMo or the Grad?
Does it provide adequate parking and restrooms? I’ve seen these places shoehorned in without proper ‘facilities’, which leads to more people than normal relieving themselves outside. my guess is that the average nightclub needs a lot more urinals and toilets than the average “family restaurant”.
why don’t you pull the application and let us know
Would boarded eyesores of abandoned buildings be better?
They won’t shank a member of your wedding party.
Nailed it BP.
The problem with people in this city trying to control what types of businesses go in or don’t go in is that they don’t understand or consider the consequences.
Frankly, have you considered the risks if we become the night life for Sacramento, Woodland, and Vacaville?
Have you considered the consequences if we have multiple homicides? or increased rapes?
You probably know these figures better than I. What are the direct costs associated to Blondies if we have to add one full time police officer to cover the added troubles?
The city council also sounds naive on their moratorium that isn’t, when they’ll approve smaller venues. Have they heard of “pre-loading”? Have they thought of the overall capacity downtown? Let’s say they also add a taqueria and small brew pub near Blondies. So the kids and outsiders can “pre-load” on booze at these places before they go to KetMo or Blondies, and now we’ve added capacity of 400-500 to the nightlife?
There are lots of consequences to their decisions, and I’m not sure they’ve even thought most of them through. Bathrooms, parking, officers, trash cans, vomit. Walnut Creek had a similar scenario 4-5 years ago, and one night it “hit the fan” when multiple fights broke out simultaneously at different bars downtown, and they didn’t have the police power to cover what was unfolding, as well as being unable to police law-abiding citizens who were home safe in their beds.
Multiple fights in Walnut Creek — that’s hitting the fan.
Murder in Davis, not so much.
I would like a poll of people that think Davis needs more affordable housing.
Because if we add more affordable housing, we will have more crime.
Part of what keeps Davis safer than other communities, is that home prices and rents are high and are not accessible for people in lower income status.
But all around us are a growing population of low income people. There are several reasons for this. One is the crappy enforcement of immigration laws. Another is the housing price escalation in the Bay Area that has driven more low income people east where housing is cheaper. Three is the Obama jobless recovery where there are record numbers of discouraged and under-employed people.
Davis has more crime and will have event more crime from this growing regional demographic of low income people.
So let’s not punish our local business for this. It is not their fault.
Instead let’s accept that we need to hire more cops.
And by the way… don’t try to make the point that students are low income. They are but only temporarily until the graduate and get a good paying job.
“Instead let’s accept that we need to hire more cops”
How would hiring more police have prevented the KetMoRee stabbing? It wasn’t the result of enforcement failure.
This is a key point in my opinion. I just don’t think we know enough about what happened. It may be that this just wasn’t something we were going to be able to stop. I do in general favor more police as I’ve sat down with the Chief and Assistant Chief and gone over the numbers.
Let me guess. Young men were drunk, horny, and filled with testosterone and bravado, some were gang members. Someone bumped into someone, or someone stared at someone, or argued over a girl, fists started flying, the gang members outnumbered the wedding party members, the gentle giant (victim) came to the rescue, and at least one coward gang member used a knife to save face from an a@@ whopping.
Sure, there is no way to know if having more patrol officers on the streets downtown would have prevented this murder. However, I’m sure that outside thugs thinking about coming to Davis would be dissuaded from coming and/or bringing a weapon to town knowing that Davis has a high concentration of police keeping tabs on things.
The bad guys from these outside areas know that Davis is a soft target because we have a relatively small number of police officers per capita.
One thing though… I’m sure if the police had caught one of these guys and cracked a head or two in apprehending them, David would have written a different article about the unjustified use of force on a person of color.
i’ve mainly heard that davis is a soft target for residential burglaries – well to do, a lot of people don’t lock doors and windows, easy on and off from the highway. and guess what it shows it in the above average property crime rate.
extrapolating it to the bar scene is a bit tortured. even if there is a climb, davis has a far lower violent crime rate and far fewer even bar incidents than woodland, west sac, or sacramento. so are outsiders going to skip going to davis if we hire more cops? do they skip woodland, west sac, or sac? no. there is a level of analysis missing here frankly. if davis had a higher rate of bar incidents you might have a point, but they don’t
Well publicized DUI checkpoints might get through their thick skulls. That means plates will be checked, and weapons may be seen (if they pack). Those things don’t hapen when they’re in the club.
Actual affordable housing, yes, as in stop tearing it out to put in what the government calls “affordable housing”, which isn’t.
Hiring more cops to control the downtown bar scene, that supposedly was economic development. Too bad hiring more cops will more than suck up the delta of additional taxes from the nightclub scene, just as was found in Fullerton. Frank Lee, I thought you wanted to see Davis get more money, not subsidize the private night-club security with public police. That is subsidy of a private business. But then again, you are also in favor of redevelopment funds, also public subsidy of private business. So you are consistent in not being a real conservative. It strikes me as strange that I am more conservative than you in this arena.
“My hope is that now the council will appoint a subcommittee to meet privately and quietly with the owners, other downtown business reps, and police, and maybe a representative from ASUCD, to work out some actual workable policies and practices that make downtown safer late at night.
I want to offer my thanks and kudos to all of the council members. I disagree that this is merely political grandstanding. I believe that this is a difficult and multifactorial issue and that buying some time for further evaluation of all of the issues is warranted. I also appreciate Robb’s concerns regarding possible negative impacts on aspiring businesses and the importance of an objective rather than reactionary approach. What is important in my mind is not the moratorium itself, but the recognition that there is a significant problem, that this particular murder is not just a one off but rather may represent an escalation of a pattern of violence including the use of progressively more lethal weapons in our community and that additional time may be necessary to sort out the issues. What will be the most telling is how the city council, staff and legal advisors as well as the downtown business community and other affected groups utilize this time.
I share you concerns, to often I see leaders respond in reactionary ways to appease the masses in the short term, but fail to follow through with long term solutions once the issue is no longer in the spotlight.
Have we done anything to address the parking issues downtown once the idea to kill a parking garage passed council? I believe the parking task force came up with a comprehensive list of solutions. Have any of them been implemented?
What about the fluoride issue? When council killed the idea of adding fluoride to the water they recommended other ways to meet the dental needs of our lower income kids. Has anything happened?
We got rid of the MRAP? Have we taken any action to ensure the safety of our officers when the enter into situation where they are engaging with perpetrators who are in position of high power rifles?
I just worry that this is one more decision in long line of reactive short term solutions that solve nothing, except make it appear that our council cares about an issue.