CCMIN090302 - Laserfiche WebLink

In January there were five security officers and by May there were thirteen. By August there were a total of sixteen security officers, including two armed members from Pinkerton Security. This has been a nightclub since 1995 and he has not changed anything. He is only guilty of being successful. He has been the owner since May of 1999 till June of 2000. He is doing nothing different now than he did then. No complaints were received before. He opened back up in April 2001 and complaints started coming in. From 1995 till 2001 he did not think there was a noise complaint from any person or business. The club was very successful in May, June and July thanks to a promoter. Since then, the promoter has been dismissed and the music format has been changed. He felt the club has lost patronage. He would rather lose patronage and stay in business, than pack the house and lose his business. He believed there has been a turnaround since the change in format and there have been no police reports of violations. He has been at his business every day since receipt of the letter in May to make sure everything was running right. He asked why there were no noise complaints in 1999, when this was the Beach Nightclub, and the club was at capacity every Thursday, Friday and Saturday night. If the Planning Commission made a mistake by issuing a conditional use permit for a dance hall in that shopping center, that does not mean he should be blamed for it, or for him to lose his business or for him to lose $200,000. He bought the business because the conditional use permit allowed the club to be there. No one ever said it was too close to residents and there would be a noise problem. Since the Planning Commission hearing, he has had a 60% drop in business. Some of the blame for this situation should be with the Planning Commission. If he had known of the potential problems, he would not have made the investment. He said the original complaints were for noise from the nightclub and that has been disproved. He said he has never had violations or suspensions and has never been fined from any agency. He did not think he has broken any laws or violated any ordinances. He also did not think the Police Department was using too much of its resources on his club. He said most police presence is just drive-bys. He increased his security personnel based on police suggestions. He has worked with the Police Department. The only thing he said would not work is the slow music. He asked if the Planning Commission had done its own studies or was it going on the word of the neighbors. The City did not close Toby's or Masse's when they had problems. They were given time to fix problems and in fact had major problems that the Marque has never had. He asked for the same consideration as another business. He noted all his employees and other businesses that would be affected by closing his business. He believed the nightclub could continue its operation while he is planning to change the operation to reduce the occupancy and to install a restaurant. He suggested this at a neighborhood meeting and the neighbors objected because they don't want a bar of any kind at this location. He believed the proposed changes would solve the noise problem; by reducing occupancy, parking in the side and back; and the front part being shut down by 10:00 p.m. He noted there have been no complaints in the past month. He said he has been on communication with Sgt. Parker and he said no complaints have been filed. He wants to be treated fairly and did not feel he has been given enough time to solve the problems. He asked Council not to revoke the conditional use permit. Pleasanton City Council 10 09/03/02 Minutes