RES-8531 Revoking Conditional Use Permit No. 1998-92RESOLUTION NO. 8531
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ORANGE UPHOLDING THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ORANGE
AND REVOKING A CONDmONAL USE
PERMIT THAT ALLOWED THE OPERATION
OF A NON-ALCOHOLIC NIGHTCLUB AND
TO ALLOW THE SHARED USE OF A
PARKING FACILITY ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN
THE M-l (LIGHT
MANUFACTURING) DISTRICT,FOR A BUILDING ADDRESSED AT
612 N,
ECKHOFF STREET.REVOCATION OF
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 1998-92
THE FLIP SIDE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use
Permit 1998-92 on December 21, 1992, subject to conditions necessary to preserve public
health, safety
and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is authorized, by one
of those conditions of approval, to consider the demand for police services, after a report by
the Police Department; and WHEREAS, the Police Department presented detailed written and
oral reports before the Planning Commission on Monday, August 21, and Monday,
September 18. 1995; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the record of
the Planning Commission's consideration
of this matter; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 1995, the City Council conducted a
public hearing on the matter of proposed revocation of Conditional
Use Permit 1998-92; and WHEREAS, Orange Municipal Code Section 17.10.030 states
that, upon a public hearing by City Council, a conditional use permit may be revoked if the
permittee fails to comply with restrictions contained
within conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, any decision related to the revocation of
a conditional use permit is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),per
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15321; and WHEREAS, the property is described In Exhibit "
A" attached hereto
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby revokes
Conditional Use Permit 1998-92, for the following
reasons:1. Evidence suggests that nightclub operations lack management standards and
practices,Any business that would cater to so young an audience (between the ages of 15 and
18)has a special responsibility to provide good management. No written guidelines
were made available for security personnel, leaving those most responsible unable to
ensure public safety, By one of the operator's own admission, his security staff was found,
at times, to be missing from key positions on the premises and they lacked any
formal
training.2. Certain deficiencies about the property also contribute to security problems. Lighting
is not sufficient on the south side of the building, which includes overhead doors for
access to the industrial units and a long access driveway. Since this portion of the property
was not developed as a parking facility, lighting is provided only as wall-mounted
fixtures that illuminate those doors. Consequently, the property does not lend itself well to
a round-the-clock operation where there is consistent access but inadequate lighting
for public use.3, The club operators' proclivity to disregard occupancy limits and
sometimes restrict access to the industrial park's common parking facility are issues that contribute to
an inability to control or manage overflow parking. Public streets in the industrial area
do not have sidewalks and that puts pedestrian traffic into the street, creating a safety
issue that is much
of a concern.4. Complaints about noise also indicate that the nightclub's operations
have been extended into daytime use. Band rehearsals and testing for the sound system
is occurring outside the time frame that was authorized by conditional use permit, and is
creating a conflict with other
industrial park tenants.5. Continued operation of the nightclub places the public health, safety and welfare
at risk to both minors and adults. The club operators have demonstrated
poor management by failing to provide liability insurance and pay required TS.LP. fees in
a timely manner.Police testimony indicates that the premises have become a magnet
for crime, which affects not only patrons but other tenants' businesses, which have
been affected negatively by trash, property damage, and a pervasive
sense of intimidation.Additional reasons are listed in Exhibit "B" entitled "Planning
Commission Findings," attached hereto and hereby
incorporated by reference.ADOPTED this 10th day
of October 1995,yor of the City
of
ST:
I hereby certifY that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the ~ th of October,
1995, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: MURPHY, BARRERA, MAYOR COONTZ, SPURGEOO, SLATER
COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOOE
COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
City Clerk of the ity of Orange
j
SSH:dh ResoNo. 8531
3
DESCRIPTION EXHiBIT A
Page 1
Policy No.821735 8
THAT PORTION OF THE LAND ALLO'I"rED TO ALFRED B. CHAPMAN m DECREE OF PARTITION OF
THE RANCElO SANTIAGO DE SANTA ANA, IN THE CITY OF ORANGE, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, RENDERED IN CASE NO. 1192 AND ENTERED SEPTEMBER 12, 1868 m BOOK
B" PAGE 410 OF JUDGMENTS OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNmG AT A POINT NORTH 1,324.06 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE
ALLOT'lMENT OF LAND MADE TO MARY C. THOMAS, AS SET FORTH m A DECREE OF PARTITION
MADE ON JANUJlRY 24, 1881, BETWEEN ~ GARRISON AND MARY C. THOMAS AND OTHERS
BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, m AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES; THENCE NORTH 373.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 890 46' 00" WEST 1,166.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 373.60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 890 46' 00" EAST 1,166.00 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTmG THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WESTERLY ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND
DESCRIBED m THE DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED MARCEl 6, 1963 m BOOK
6455, PAGE 255 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ALSO EXCEPTmG THAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED m THE DEED TO THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, RECORDED J1lNtlARY 23, 1968 m BOOK 8499, PAGE 7 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ALSO EXCEPTmG THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND LYING WESTERLY OF THE
FOLLOWmG DESCRIBED LINE:
BEGINNING AT A POINT m THE CENTERLINE OF ORANGEWOOD AVENtlE, . DESCRIBED AS A
STRIP OF LAND, 60.00 FEET WIDE, IN PARCEL 105 OF DEED RECORDED m BOOK 7937,
PAGE 289 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS, DISTANT ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, NORTH 890 10'
53" WEST, 609.03 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF SAID CENTERLINE WITH THE
CENTERLINE OF ECKOFF STREET, AS SAID INTERSECTION IS DESCRIBED m SAID LAST
MENTIONED DEED; THENCE NORTH 000 49' 07" EAST, 50.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH
AND DISTANT NORTHERLY 50.00 FEET, HEASORED AT RIGHT JlJiGLES FROM SAID CENTERLINE
OF ORANGEWOOD AVENtlE; THENCE ALONG SAID PAR"u.,..,. LINE NORTH 890 10' 53" WEST,
50.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 670 36' 36" WEST, 113.45 FEET TO A nlNGENT CllRVE,
CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A R1lDIUS OF 225.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY
ALONG SAID CllRVE, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 550 14' 53", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 216.96
FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CllRVE, NORTH 120 21' 43" WEST, 370.13 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 020 19' 30" WEST, 413.39 FEET.
EXmu,. d
PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS
A THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1998-
92:Condition No.1: No alcoholic beverages will be consumed on
the
premises.While there was no eyewitness testimony thaI alcoholic beverages
are being sold or consumed inside applicant's facility, Orange police officers
testified that alcoholic beverages are being consumed in large quantities both
in applicant's parking lot and on surrounding streets, often by patrons under
the age of 21. Further. Orange police officers testified that they
witnessed applicant's security guards failing to take any action to prevent either alcohol
or drug consumption in the parking lot or on neighboring
streets,Condition No.2: The ctub operator shall provide a minimum of
eight security persons at all timesv.tlen the facility is opened for public
group
activities.Based on the testimony of Orange police officers, it does not appear
that applicant always complied with this condition, although applicant may have
had eight or more security officers present at some
events.Condition No.3: Weekday public group activities shall not begin
before 7 p.m. or extend beyond 2
am.Although there was no eyewitnesS evidence that the applicant's
facility was operated beyond 2 a.m., evidence was presented that applicant
was advertising private parties lasting until 5 a.
m.Condition N~. 4: The police department will monitor the facility
to ..detennine if calls for police service inaeases due to club activity. If
they detennine that the applicant is unable to control the need for police service
then the CUP shall be brought back for review and possible initiation of
revocation
proceedings.Statistics submitted by City staff show that for a comparable
period be~n January 1. 1995, and March 31, 1995, applicant's facility had at
least 50 percent more calls for police services (15) than three adult nightclubs (10,
8 and 3. respectively) v.tlich the police department has identified as trouble
spots andv.tlich also serve alcohol. During this same period, 15 businesses
located adjacent to or near the applicant's facility had a total of 19 calls, none more
than four calls. In contrast to calls to adjoining businesses. calls to applicant's
facility
involved several serious acts of violence, large brawls, gangs and drugs. The
Planning Commission also received evidence that the applicant has told security
personnel to not cooperate with Orange police officers.
During the pendency of the Planning Commission review, two other large
brawls occurred at applicant's facility, involving up to 100 people. In one. a
young man was beaten severely because of the color of his skin. That same
night numerous guns and illegal ammunition were found in one of the applicant's
security guard's unlocked vehicle. In another large fight in September,
eyewitnesses told police that one of applicant's security guards beat a young
man over the head with a large flashlight, causing lacerations and
hospitalization. The applicant has shown no ability to control the need for police
and in fact, the seriousness of the incidents at applicant's facility is escalating,
Condition No.5: The applicant shall demonstrate that the facility is in
compliance with all Unifonn Building and Fire Code requirements pertaining to
the proposed building use, prior to operation of the business,
The building occupancy limit is 299 and the applicant has been notified
orally and in writing of this limit. Orange police officers testified that the
applicant has violated this limit on more than one occasion. In one incident,
Orange police officers testified they counted at least 450 people leaving the
building.
Condition No 6: Prior to building occupancy, the applicant shall record a
hold hannl~ agreement with the City and obtain liability insurance naming the
City as additional insured.
By applicant's O\\fl admission neither of these items were taken care of
until May of 1995 at the earliest.
Condition No.7: Payment of a TSIP fee as required by City ordinance.
The City's ordinance requires payment of the TSIP fee prior to
occupancy, Although the applicant testified that he did not occupy the facility
until September of 1994, police records evidence calls from the applicant to the
facility as early as May of 1994. Although there was some initial discussions
and a request by the applicant to make monthly installments beginning in
October of 1994, the applicant has not paid any amount toward the TSIP fee.
The City has made written demand for payment in full, but the applicant has
refused.
The above conditions, other than use of the subject CUP, are all of the
conditions imposed by CUP 1998-92. Even in using the CUP, the applicant
has
been advertising sexually erotic perfonnances for adults only, which is not
pennitted under the subject CUP, The applicant has not complied with a
single condition of CUP 1998-
92.B. THE OPERATION OF APPLICANTS FACILITY CONSTITUTES
A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR THE FOllOWING
REASONS.1. Both the extent and severity of the crimes has significantly
increased in the area due to applicant's
operation.2. Litter and graffiti have significantly increased in the area due
to applicant's
operation.3, Because the applicant is unwilling or unable to make a good faith
effort to comply with present conditions of the CUP, imposing additional conditions
on the applicant's operation would be of no benefit and would only further
involve City involvement in applicant's operation. In addition. based on past history,
the applicant would violate those conditions. At the August 21, 1995,
Planning Commission hearing. the applicant told the Planning Commission he would
have no live bands in exchange for a lengthy continuance which the
applicant received, However, Orange police officers testified that the applicant did have
a live band during the
continuance.4. During applicant's operation there have been numerous
serious assaults. one by applicant's own security guard and continued operation poses
a threat to the health and safety of the patrons, employees of the facility,
members of the public ~ Orange police
officers.5. Joe applicant has shown no ability to control the ongoing
serious violence at the facility and the violence appears to be
escalating,6. The applicanfs nightclub has become a magnet for pervasive
illegal alcohol and drUg consumption and it appears that the applicant is
pennitting underage people to consume alcoholic beverages and use illegal drugs on
and around the outside of the premises, The operation of the nightclub
is contributing to the delinquency of
minors.7. Continued operation of the facility may cause adjoining tenants
to move, aeating vacancies in the
area.C.
RECOMMENDATION.Based on the above, the Planning Commission recommends
the revocation of CUP
1998-