Public Hearing on May 29, 2009, at 08:47AM – #1

ZA 95-0830(CUB)(PA3)

Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 10:00 A.M.

City Hall Room 1020

Application: Versus Nightlife (612 & 618 S. Spring St.)

Approval of Plans

The approved hours of operation for the nightclub use is 7 p.m. to 2 a.m. Sunday-Thursday and 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. Friday-Saturday with dancing and music to cease at 2:45 a.m. The applicant is proposing to continue the hours of operation with the exception of closing at 3 a.m. on Friday and Saturday in lieu of a 6 a.m. closing.

Related Case at 10:30 a.m. Case No. Dir 2005-0174(RV)(PA1)

"Note: The property owner in this subject Plan Approval application attests that as no complaints have been made to any governmental agency regarding any aspect of the new operation or ownership of the existing nightclub...the owner/application request the deletion of all conditions and the dismissal of nuisance abatement action (DIR 2005-0174(RV)) as applicable to the operation of a nightclub use."

"Previous allegations include activities on the site which have adversely impacted nearby residential and commercial uses jeopardizing and/or endangering the public health and safety or persons residing or working on the premises or in the surrounding area, thereby constituting a public nuisance. Complaints allege that there had been numerous criminal acts including assault with deadly weapon, misdemeanor battery, sex offenses, sexual battery, drug induced rape, possession of narcotic controlled substance, burglary and grand theft. These activities have contributed to the physical deterioration of the adjacent community and impacted the quality of life for those residing in the area."

All In the Details on May 29, 2009, at 11:56AM – #2

It's really important to note that "previous allegations" and "complaints" were specific to not just a different building owner, but a different business plan and completely separate business owners themselves.
The new owners of Versus were at the "open house" last night and hung out for a while answering everyone's questions. It'll be a great boon if they get to re-open this place and bring in a whole new audience to the area, as well as give locals a new option.

Fine Print on May 29, 2009, at 02:08PM – #3

It's really important to note that this is a completely different RESIDENTIAL block than it was just three years ago.

It's really important to note too that this decision impacts RESIDENTS in both CD 9 & CD 14.

New Downtown on May 29, 2009, at 02:32PM – #4

There is no such thing as a "residential" area in downtown.

The whole point and beauty of downtown is that its a hugely mixed use district, especially based on commercial development but now rejuvenated by residential-like (live work/ lofts/ artists in residence etc) investment.

The stock exchange space is huge! There are few other uses that could light up that area other than a nightlife venue. Otherwise the building goes dark (as the owner apparently is letting the upper floors remain).

A fair, open process allows the city and lapd to apply reasonable conditions that can facilitate the club, residents and businesses.

Residential Downtown on May 29, 2009, at 08:37PM – #5

The Noise Ordinance is triggered by the presence of sleeping quarters, not land use zoning, thanks to Adaptive Reuse.

You have to question the business acumen of someone who bought this property without checking the permit status in advance while having the ambition to open a nightclub that will always be sandwiched around nothing but legally protected sleeping quarters.

Opening a nightclub without permits, like this operator did last fall, is arrogant and indicative of a lack of respect for the process they now must accept. That does not impress anyone as someone who wants to mesh with the community.

A hotel, sports club or creative office space are among many of the alternatives to putting a nightclub in a space where no nightclub has succeeded in recent memory.

Just as a medical marijuana dispensary nearby this residential area is a bad fit, so are any plans to redevelop the Stock Exchange as a nightclub.

Positive Idea on May 31, 2009, at 10:16PM – #7

Why not a nice gym? Seems like that is something the area could use.

Hmmm on June 01, 2009, at 05:07PM – #8

Re: Residential Downtown's comment From what I've heard, Eric's point is right that the people who opened it in 2008 were completely different, so judging the new investors by the previous owner's actions is a little unfair.

Also, don't forget: there are no plans proposed to "redevelop" the stock exchange as a nightclub.

It is a nightclub. It has been for more than 20 years. BEFORE residents came in and, combined with new commercial uses (such as all the companies that have day-only offices in those lofts), revived the area. So who's to argue that a nightclub is in error as opposed to a noise-sensitive resident who signs a contract for space that abutts a club? The previous businesses did succeed there, the Stock Exchange thrived (unfortunately under people who didn't care how it did so), and before the irresponsible operators came in, Stock Exchange had thrived as a suitable nightlife operation.

The noise ordinance is used to fit these diverse uses into a neighborhood, and so are the conditions to any alcohol related business' CUP. It's the responsibility of every operator to comply with the law, code and ordinances: not the burden to be pre-sumed guilty based on the law or ordinance's presence in the first place.

Benjamin Pezzillo on June 01, 2009, at 09:20PM – #10

Call me "noise-sensitive" if you want, I just do not think that a large-scale nightclub, where the capacity is measured by the hundreds, is good for this neighborhood and will be making comment to that end at next week's public hearing.

Hmmm on June 02, 2009, at 10:57AM – #11

Let me just follow up to clarify what seems to be a misinterpretation from Rich's comments: I was NOT arguing that residents shouldn't voice their concerns. I was NOT arguing that the club's activity of the 90s was relevant to its activity today. I was NOT even intending to argue, rather than raise points which previous comments had overlooked.

I WAS trying to point out that BECAUSE OF Versus' application, conditions will be created to let the business operate in a healthy fashion and facilitate its neighbors to coexist peacefully. So your point that the CUP process exists to allow the public to comment and voice concerns/support is duplicate to what I was already saying- but thanks for repeating the sentiment.

Also- Since the club was still the bad stock exchange and awful Margarita Jones afterwards, its had a long and continuing history of business. And its exactly because those two must have had awful operators (thus criminal activity) that they didnt continue operations. Prior operators in the same space were able to survive (who also shared walls with City Lofts).

I just say- someone wants to come in and put a lot of money in the neighborhood and feet on the ground at night, and then they open their doors to talk to the neighbors, then let's hear them out. Cuz past experience has shown a lot of nightlife business operators, and many who come downtown (but not all), don't take such a proactive approach.

Benjamin Pezzillo on June 03, 2009, at 09:12AM – #12

Neither the Stock Exchange, Margarita Jones, El Nitro or Versus (v. 1.0) ever existed in harmony with the residents of City Lofts.

In fact, in 2007 Councilmember Jan Perry's office gave me assurances this space would not be reopened as a nightclub after an incident this blog reported on then. I strongly encourage the applicants to bring her to next week's public hearing so she can explain her change in position to residents of her district.

The arrogance of Hmmm (who I suspect is Bartolo or someone else close to the project) to presume that spending money alleviates the rights of people under the law is obnoxious and symptomatic of more disrespect to come. It smells of the same attitude this neighborhood rebels against with respect to film crews -- "we're spending all this money so we can do what we want!" Wrong part of town for that argument.

This permit is far from approved and both sides have appeal rights if they are unhappy with the outcome of the hearing.

What the applicants are failing to realize or acknowledge is that the composition of this neighborhood has changed radically in the last few years to where the thousands of voters in CD 9 and CD 14 understand their rights and how to exercise them.

All we can go by is the failures that past incarnations of the nightclub have been with respect to finding harmony with the residential nature of this block and that was when there were less residents. Now there are 14 residential buildings within the 500 foot radius of this site.

There are things far worse than an empty building. A plan that intends to draws hundreds of party goers here four nights a week means excessive litter, stolen cars, vandalism, theft from cars, increased narcotics activity and sleepless nights for residents on this block (not just City Lofts) is one of them. If you doubt this is what happens when a large-scale nightclub operates, take a look at every other large-scale nightclub operation in Downtown (are any left?). The pattern is well known to those in law enforcement.

Progress is not measured by how many dollars are dumped into a project, progress is measured by outcomes beneficial to all. I fail to see how allowing a large-scale nightclub operation at this location is beneficial to the thousands of people who have moved into this area and who through establishing residences here have impacted the community around them for the better by bringing attention to an area long neglected by civic leaders.

We know how to organize, we know how to complain when our rights are violated and most importantly, we know how to tell politicians to seek support elsewhere when they seek another office.

Why go through the process of opening, having the neighborhood organize in protest when the operations sour residents and closing because of issues or economic failure when we have already seen that four times in three years? Skip ahead and develop the site as something other than a large-scale nightclub.

Whoever said open a gym understands this neighborhood and its future, listen to them.

Benjamin Pezzillo on June 07, 2009, at 07:17PM – #13

According to ZIMAS, the last ownership change in 612/618 S. Spring St. was 01/22/2008.

So, exactly how is it that the current applicants are removed from the same persons who opened in the fall without the proper permits?

Benjamin Pezzillo on June 08, 2009, at 10:56PM – #15

Yes Eric, I am very aware of what information ZIMAS contains.

The applicants (through their agent Kate Bartolo) have represented that there has been a change in BOTH the ownership of the building and the business since the un-permitted operations in the fall of 2008.

How can that be possible if the last change in ownership of the property was in January 2008?