CCMIN111902 - Laserfiche WebLink

some adjustment to move an entrance from the front to the rear ora building. There were some complaints of noise on two or three occasions, but for the last seven or eight weeks there has been no complaint. The main problem was the noise and the use of a lot of police hours for disturbances that were alleged to have occurred. He believed the noise problem has been eliminated. In terms of the police hours, the number of reported complaints do not add up to the number of hours spent at this property. If they are there, it is by their own decision and not in response to complaints. The police do not want that club and he felt they were scrutinizing the club to find causes. He then referred to the report ora rape. That is an alleged rape and there is no suspect. The report came through a doctor, not the alleged victim. He said it seemed convenient that the headlines of a rape appeared just before this hearing. He felt it was inappropriate for Council to consider those unsubstantiated allegations. There was earlier discussion about the flag, patriotism and First Amendment rights. We should consider why that is important. There is such a thing as due process, which this Council acknowledged at the last hearing. Mr. Ratinho may not be operating a perfect operation, but he is operating under a magnifying glass held by staffand the police depathnent, which does not want this bar in that location. In terms of the lease, Mr. Cohen said he was not the attorney involved in the negotiations. Negotiations are under way and he acknowledged that the lease is due to expire on November 30. After that date, this may all be moot. It all depends what happens in the next month. He felt if the matter were put over to January, then most of this matter could be resolved without Council making any decisions. He felt December 17 could be too early to allow resolution. The staffreport is incorrect in saying that Mr. Ratinho has not pursued the restaurant option. That is part of the negotiations and before he spends tens of thousands of dollars on architects and engineers, he wants to make sure he has a property in which to operate. He said there was a lot he could say about the staffreport, but he would not do that at this time. He believed a lot of speculation has been presented to Council and he asked to put that in proper perspective from a practical and legal point of view. He urged Council to continue the matter to the first meeting in January. Ms. Michelotti asked if Mr. Ratinho could answer questions about the negotiations? Mr. Cohen did not think that would be prudent to discuss contract negotiations in public. The lease expires at the end of this month and the positions of the parties will be made clear over the next month. Ms. Michelotti asked if he had renewed the option. Mr. Cohen said the option has been exercised. That is part of these discussions among various parties. The next four weeks will reveal the situation. Ms. Michelotti referred to discussions at the first hearing on this and one of the appeals was the financial hardship to convert to a restaurant use. The issue at hand is the use of the property itself, so if the revocation hearing is set and Council decided to revoke the conditional use permit, then whoever is in negotiations will know that type of operation is no longer allowed and they would have to plan for another use. Pleasanton City Council 25 11 / 19/02 Minutes