Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR01-Redevelopment Agency II .. . C::Planning Commission Meeting ~tes of December<=>' 1984 - Page 3 01. Item No.5 appears in its proper numerical order for simplicity sake, however, for the record, the following motion is recorded: Commissioner Christie made a motion to suspend the rules to take Item No.5, Revocation of Conditional Use Permit No. 671, at the end of the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cutler and carried unanimously. A recess of the meeting was taken at 9:20 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:28 p.m. 't ITEM NO.5, Ward 4 Revocation of Conditional Use Permit No. 671 -- Subject property is a rectan- gularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6,000 square feet located at the southeast corner of 44th Street and Sierra Way and further described as 4397 North Sierra Way. The City of San Bernardino will hold a public hearing to reconsider the revocation of Conditional Use Permit No. 671, which permitted an existing beer bar to add a dance and live entertainment area. Robert J. Sullivan, owner. Sarah Knecht presented comments, noting that the item is before the Commission again due to complaints from surrounding property owners. Conditions are not and have not been implemented. Ms. Knecht noted the location of the night club and the Municipal Code Section provisions for revocation of a conditional use permit. A history of activity of the operations at the site was presented. Ms. Knecht noted that in August of 1983 the Mayor and Council most recently considered the permit and overruled the Commission's recommendation for revocation and attached additional conditions in an attempt to resolve concerns of residents and property owners. Ms. K~echt noted the Police report submitted and the specific calls received and specific problems experienced by residents. Ms. Knecht also noted eight letters of complaint received from the Arrowhead Home, immediately across the alley from the site. Alternatives for resolving the situation were suggested by the owner, Mr. Don Popovich. The City's Code Compliance Officer has made an inspection of the site and has determined that no attempt has been made to meet or satisfy conditions and no substantial compliance with the conditions had been achieved. The problems still remain. No attempt has been made by the property owner to improve rela- tions with the surrounding neighborhood or to upgrade the appearance or opera- tions at the club. Ms. Knecht stated that, in light of the number of problems created by the Rumours Night Club affecting the Police Department and surrounding property owners and noncompliance with conditions imposed by the Mayor and Council, the only solution is to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 671. Based upon observations and findings that numerous complaints from the surround- ing residents have been received, the amount of Police activity indicates that the operation at Rumours Night Club is creating a public nuisance. Full com- pliance with conditions of approval imposed by the Mayor and Council on December 5, 1983 has not been achieved and the permit is being exercised contrary to condi- tions. The permit is being and has been exercised so as to be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of San Bernardino. Staff recommends revocation of Conditional Use Permit No. 671 which permitted live entertainment and dancing in Rumours Night Club. -3- 1" . C Planning Comm;ssion Meeting Q,tes of DecemberQ 1984 - Page 4 o Ms. Knecht noted a memorandum submitted by Senior Planner, Edward Gundy, describing an investigation of the site mady by him on Sunday morning, at 1:32 a.m. to 2:30 a.m., December 2,1984. Mr. Don Popovich, owner and administrator of the Arrowhead Home, was present and stated that the Rumours Night Club has been an ongoing problem and has caused him many personal problems. Mr. Popovich noted his letter submitted to the Planning Department regarding an incident that had happened the previous night which left him very upset. Mr. Popovich stated that the Arrowhead Home is an intermediate care facility with 59 patients with an average age of 64 years. The facility has been in operation since 1973. By law they are required to provide access for emergency vehicles such as fire trucks or ambulances. Mr. Popovich also stated that they must be able to utilize an area for emergency treatment and triage. Mr. Popovich noted that, if the Panorama Fire had happened at night. they would not have been able to provide such an area because of the illegally parked cars in their parking lot. Mr. Popovich stated that he would request revocation of the permit on his own behalf as well as on behalf of the health, safety and welfare of his patients and for their best interest. Mr. Ed Patton. of 118 West 43rd Street, was present and stated that his back window faces the bar. He noted that the night club advertises on the radio to try to get as many people over there as possible and the bar cannot possibly accommodate the numbers of people that arrive there. Mr. Patton questioned whether fire regulations were followed. Mr. Patton noted problems he had experienced, noting the debris and abandoned vehicles outside his window, as well as persons running through his oleanders, urinating on the building outside where his children sleep, and walking on, tracking dirt on and urinating on his porch. Mr. Patton stated that the Rumours Night Club is the worst public monstrosity he had ever seen and felt that a "roadhouse" should not be located withi~ a residential area. Mr. Gary Fox, manager of the apartment complex west of the southwest corner of 44th Street and Sierra Way, was present and stated that he had been harrassed by people from the club and had seen rocks flying in the parking lot and had seen people throwing rocks and breaking windows. Mr. Fox stated he had called the Police for broken windows. Mr. Fox did not feel that the 21 parking spaces on the site were adequate to accommodate the number of people going to the club. Mr. Fox also noted that advertisements on the radio encouraged .people to come to the night club and get crazy and that is just what they do. Mr. Fox stated that he had seen guys punch out girls and police come to the site and observe but do nothing. He further stated that they cannot pack all the people who come to the night club in, so they tend to hang out in the parking lot. Mr. Fox stated that he represented 36 people and wanted to see something done about the situation. He also noted the concentration of people in the residential area from apartment complexes and elderly care homes. Attorney Toby Bowler, representing the owner of Rumours Night Club, was present and asked if and when he would be permitted to question witnesses. Deputy City Attorney John Wilson indicated that the Commission mayor may not allow examination of the witneses. Chairman Pro Tem Flores asked each of the witneses if they would object to questions from Attorney Bowler. There were no objections. It was the consensus of the Commission to allow questioning of the witnesses. -4- I' , c:> Planning Commission Meeting ~utes of December~ 1984 - Page S -:> Attorney Bowler asked questions of Mr. Popovich regarding problems of debris and glass found in the parking lot. He also questioned him about incidents that occurred at the care facility. Mr. Popovich indicated that no arrest was made of the young man who broke into the facility to sleep in the laundry room because the young man had agreed to fix the broken window. Attorney Bowler asked questions of Mr. Patton, inquiring as to how far his res- idence was from the Rumours Night Club. Mr. Patton replied that his residence was about 100 feet or one-half block from the club which faces his window. Mr. Patton indicated that the vacant lot between the club and his residence was where problems occurred such as cases of beer being dumped, fights, bottles being dumped. Mr. Patton responded to questions regarding location of abandoned cars and the Buzz .Inn. Attorney Bowler questioned Mr. Gary Fox about the incident he had witnessed where a man beat a woman. Mr. Fox indicated that the Police came out to show their faces, calm the people down and get them on their way and he had observed this practice. Mr. Fox indicated, in reply to questions, that he had called the Police many times for assistance as a result of conduct from Rumours Night Club, and arrests had been made. Code Compliance Officer, Bill Murray, was questioned by Attorney Bowler regarding his inspection of the site. Mr. Murray answered questions regarding requirements for security guards on the site. Mr. Murray indicated that no panic bar was installed on the rear door at the time of his observation. Attorney Bowler noted a memorandum dated October 6,1983 from Steven Locati, City Fire Prevention Specialist, stating that Fire Department requirements for number of emergency exits had been met. Mr. Murray answered questions regarding his inspection of the site relative to number of employees, length of his inspection and lighting in the parking lot. Mr. Murray indicated that he did not feel the parking lot was adequately lighted. Mr. Robert Sullivan, owner of the Rumours Night Club, was present and stated that he had four and usually five security guards on a busy night. He indicated that he had "No Loitering" signs on the north, south and east sides of the building. Mr. Sullivan stated that they have a dress code and attempt to attract as well dressed a clientele as they can. The rear entry is locked at night and is only used for deliveries during the day. Mr. Sullivan stated that he was not aware of the complaints. He stated that he had a man who was hired specifically to clean the parking lots and parking lot for the rest home on a daily basis. Mr. Sullivan stated that he had never been cited or warranted by the A.B.C. Mr. Sullivan commented that the landscaping had been trampled and he would be open to suggestions in regard to landscaping. He further commented that, in regard to capacity, the Fire Marshall checked the club out on their busiest night, New Year's Eve, and found them to be in compliance. Mr. Sullivan answered questions from Commission members. Mr. Sullivan indicated that they had called the Police numerous times when a problem arose in an effort to do the civic thing, however, all of the problems may not have originated from the Rumours Night Club. Further questions followed from Commission members regarding Mr. Sullivan's awareness or lack of awareness of the problems. -S- II C:>'Planning Commission Meeting ~tes of Decembe~, 1984 - Page 6 o Commissioner Potter asked Mr. Sullivan about patrons gathering in the parking lot and why the security guards did not ask the people to disperse or come back inside the club. Mr. Sullivan indicated that the patrons dance and get warm and step outside for a breath of air. He stated that he did not allow alcoholic beverages outside of the building. As long as there were no illegal activities or unusual noises, Mr. Sullivan stated that he had not instructed his security guards to disperse persons congregating in the parking lot. Commissioner Watson questioned Mr. Sullivan about his knowledge of the complaints received about the night club and the capacity of the club. Commissioners Lopez and Flores asked questions about drinking in the parking lot and the parking of patron's cars on adjacent lots. Mr. Sullivan stated that the security guards are instructed to stop any drinking of alcoholic beverages in the parking lot immediately, however, they do not run persons off the site. Mr. Sullivan also stated that guards are stationed in the parking lot near the property line and they do not allow parking in the adja- cent apartment parking area. Attorney Bowler called City Police Officer Grzonka for questioning. Officer Grzonka related the study conducted on a Thursday evening. He noted that the parking lot was full and there were cars parked on the east side of the street. He further noted that no enforcement action was needed, signs indicating "No Loitering" were posted and subjects knocking on the rear door were not allowed entry. The premises appeared to be orderly, clean and well lit. Officer Grzonka suggested, in his investigation, that an investigation should take place on a Friday or Saturday from 9:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. to more adequately observe the situation. '. Mr. Fred Garza, an employee of Rumours Night Club, was present and categorically denied that any threats were made such as the statement contained in the letter dated December '4, 1984 from Mr. Popovich. Mr. Garza related an incident in which he had had vehicles removed at Mr. Popovich's request. He also stated that they have three security guards who are there to empty the parking lot and property as quickly as possible after closing time. Attorney Bowler noted the petition of 19 signatures of residents of the area who had not experienced any difficulties with the night club. It was Attorney Bowler's opinion that, because the apartment dwellers were not present at the meeting, (as they had been at the previous meeting for revocation), they had not experienced any problems with the Rumours Night Club. He further stated that Code Enforcement Officer Murray had no basis to suggest that security at the club is not what was directed by the Chief of Police. Mr. Bowler noted that the mechanical panic device was shifted to another door and an employee was hired to clean up the parking lot. Attorney Bowler stated that landscaping was not a requirement, however, they did landscape the north and east sides of the building and provided sprinklers, but it is not an effective way of dealing with the problem. He stated that adequate lighting is provided. Attorney Bowler felt that the Police reports needed clarification and stated that he had talked with Joyce Johnson of the Police Department. She indicated that the total number of calls was a combined total for the area in the vicinity of Rumours Night Club. ' Attorney Bowler gave a breakdown of calls as noted in the memorandum -6- . .. . , c:> Planning Commission Meeting ~tes of DecembeA:), 1984 - Page 7 o from Officer Michael Potts dated October 23, 1984. Attorney Bowler further noted that the disturbance witnessed by City Planner, Edward Gundy, was resolved within seconds. He noted that the night club does not sell beer in cans. Discussion followed amongst Commission members regarding people in the parking lot. Commissioner Potter noted that as many as 40 people had been observed congregating in the parking lot, when four security guards were there. He noted that the owner allowed patrons to go out in the parking lot for a breath of air and did not ask them to leave the lot. He could see no reason for any- one having a beer can in their hand. Mr. Sullivan commented that he would not allow large numbers of people to congregate in the parking lot and security guards had been instructed to disperse people. Commissioner Lopez stated that when he had asked Mr. Sullivan if people in the parking lot who were drinking were run off, Mr. Sullivan had stated that he would not run them off the property. Commissioner Watson questioned Mr. Sullivan, asking him if he would admit that there is a problem in the area with people drinking and loitering. Mr. Sullivan stated that he was not aware of the extent of the complaints and that he had been working on the problem and making every effort to operate the club and have it blend in with the community and not cause problems in the community. Commissioner Watson asked Mr. Sullivan if he felt that he had a responsibility to his community as a businessman in the area. Mr. Sullivan replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Watson asked what action he had taken to prevent the types of problems mentioned. Mr. Sullivan replied that he assumed that security, as ,required by the Police Department, was the type of thing that could correct the situation. Commissioner Watson asked if it wasn't still the o~ner's responsibility if his security guards were not doing the job. Attorney Bowler went on to comment that the complaints raised by Mr. Popovich are not documented with photographs. He stated that, with Mr. Popovich's approval, they would be willing to station security guards at the property line to insure that no parking of patron's vehicles took place on his property. Attorney Bowler also stated that they would be willing to. clean up the parking lot. He felt that the situation was not as bad as expressed in the letters from Mr. Popovich and stated that there must be substantial evidence that the dancing activities in the club are a disturbance. He stated that the Rumours Night Club remains willing to cooperate with Mr. Popovich and any surrounding residents in resolving any problems. Mr. Popovich, in closing, stated that there was a difference between a neighbor- hood bar and a night club and with Conditional Use Permit No. 671, Rumours Night Club stopped being a neighborhood bar. He stated that the security guards looked like softball players and not security guards, when he had observed them the previous evening. He stated that people do not loiter on the night club property, they loiter on his property and he didn't care how well dressed the drunks were who are urinating on his property. Mr. Popovich indicated that the man who was in his laundry room told him he was from Rumours Night Club and that he was too drunk to go home. Persons drink on his property and then go into the club. Mr. Popovich stated that this kind of behavior is encouraged by the advertising done by the establishment. He stated that he did not know what time employees cleaned the parking lot, since the hospital is open twenty-four hours per day, they cleaned their parking lot in the morning rather than wait until 2:00 p.m. -7- II" ,<:) Planning Commission Meeting ~utes of Decembe(:), 1984 - Page 8 o for the night club employees, Mr. Popovich stated that the issue is not whether the bar can control patrons while inside the club, but whether the bar could or has the responsibility to control patrons after they leave the bar. He felt that it was bad public policy to allow such a bar to flourish. Mr. Popovich felt that not only should the Conditional Use Permit be revoked, but the bar should be closed as a public nuisance. Mr. Patton commented that he had lived in the area for ten years and the neighborhood bars are not a problem and have not been in the past. He noted that he and his wife had picked up bags and bags of trash from the vacant lot and no one is paying any attention to this lot which holds twice as many cars as the other parking lot used by the club. He noted that patrons were drinking in cars in this parking lot and throwing bottles and trash out as well as urinating in the bushes nearby. Mr. Mike Johnson, Manager of the Hillcrest Apartments of 145 East 44th Street, was present and stated that he had not spoken earlier because all of his com- plaints were noted in the staff's report. Mr. Johnson also noted that, as previously noted, the tenants of the apartment complex were not present because of the continuances on the item. Mr. Johnson related that problems he had had with the club involved parking problems, urinating on the walls and loud noise. Mr. Johnson also replied to questions from Commissioner Potter that he had had vacancies in his complex due to the Rumours Night Club. Mr. Fox also indicated that he had lost tenants because of the night club. Discussion followed. Commissioner Lopez felt that, after evaluating all of the information provided this evening and at previous hearings, he could not but find that the conditional use permit is causing the problems in the neighborhood and i~ detrimental to the neighborhood. Commissioner Lopez also noted that Officer Grzonka had made the observation that the site should be investigated after hours in order to observe any incidents involving patrons after hours using premises other than the Rumours Night Club. He stated that the officer really did not make a thorough investigation because he was not there when the problems occurred. Commissioner Lopez was in favor of revoking the permit. Commissioner Potter concurred. Commissioner Christie stated that he strongly agreed with revocation, since this was obviously an aggravated problem which has continued for years and there are no signs that things are getting better in any substantive manner. Commissioner Christie stated that he could see no way of abating what has become a substantial public nuisance other than revoking the permit. Commissioner Christie made a motion to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 671 based upon evidence presented and observations and findings of fact contained in the staff report dated December 4, 1984. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lopez and carried unanimously. Commissioner Christie related specific findings of fact as contained in the staff report. Attorney Bowler requested a transcript of the hearing and specific findings as to conditions not being implemented and what constitutes a public nuisance. -8-