DLANC Board Votes No Position on New Bar in The Must Space
Ed Fuentes
Must co-owners Rachel Thomas and Coly Den Haan stand at 5th and Spring in July
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — The fate of the space that once housed The Must wine bar was anything but clear at a meeting of the Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council on Tuesday evening, as a majority of the council's board chose to abstain from voting on David McGrath's plans to open a new bar in the location.
That left board president Patti Berman unsure whether a second vote should be taken on a new motion.
McGrath, who was present at Tuesday's meeting but did not speak, plans to reopen the 5th and Spring wine bar as J.P. Lounge, a restaurant and bar that would offer French cuisine. He is asking that The Must's beer and wine license be converted to allow a full line of liquor, and that the bar's closing time be extended until 2am.
Approximately 20 members of the public turned up to oppose McGrath's plans, with most speakers citing the manner in which McGrath gained possession of the bar space as their primary objection.
Furniture, wine inventory and kitchen equipment was emptied from The Must shortly after the bar closed on the night of July 3rd, part of a complicated business deal that has left owners Rachel Thomas and Coly Den Haan spending much of their time with lawyers and paperwork. McGrath purchased the wine bar and the Weeneez space next door, which he has since reopened as the Stray Cat Cafe.
It is unclear whether Tuesday's DLANC indecision will mean anything to the Zoning Administrator handling McGrath's requests. A hearing on the case was already held, and the file was left open for input to be received from the Council office, LAPD and the neighborhood council.
Sara Jones on February 09, 2011, at 12:27AM – #1
I'm upset that I missed this meeting. I believe that if the Neighborhood Council can't agree to represent a business, then you might be in the wrong neighborhood.
Dixon on February 09, 2011, at 09:54AM – #2
This has to be the first time the DLANC has not jumped up and down in favor of a new bar.
Dixon on February 09, 2011, at 10:07AM – #3
BTW, everyone has achance to check out the Stray Cat Cafe on Thursday, February 10 from 7 to 11. It was host an opening reception for new workds by German digital artist Brummbaer. Come meet the artist and cafe owners David McGrath and Julie Rico! The currently private J.P. Lounge will be open to attendees just for this event.
Jamie DeFrisco on February 09, 2011, at 11:28AM – #4
It's amazing that such support was shown. I'm not surprised at the DLANC's decision. If they support the new bar, especially after the turn out for those who opposed it, then they are not listening to those who support the DLANC. On the other hand if they turn down the new bar then they are being unfair to the business.
Personally I hope that the opening is delayed. I think it would be fair to have it delayed 3 months for the amount time they should have given the The Must to vacate the premises. I don't think denying them all together is appropriate.
Jamie DeFrisco on February 09, 2011, at 11:28AM – #5
It's amazing that such support was shown. I'm not surprised at the DLANC's decision. If they support the new bar, especially after the turn out for those who opposed it, then they are not listening to those who support the DLANC. On the other hand if they turn down the new bar then they are being unfair to the business.
Personally I hope that the opening is delayed. I think it would be fair to have it delayed 3 months for the amount time they should have given the The Must to vacate the premises. I don't think denying them all together is appropriate.
Bert Green (@bgfa) on February 09, 2011, at 11:44AM – #6
RAMDX states "Come meet the artist and cafe owners David McGrath and Julie Rico!"
So Julie Rico still owns this business? No wonder this group of shady operators is opposed by most locals. More lies and deceit.
Dixon on February 09, 2011, at 12:59PM – #7
For clarification, I don't know who the owners are. I received an invitation to the big artist reception on Thursday and just made an assumption about the cafe's ownership.
Sara Jones on February 09, 2011, at 01:24PM – #8
Jaime, you ask some very good questions, which I like and fully support!
The DLANC board didn't vote to kick this business out of the neighborhood. What was being ask from the board is weather or not to support a business that is asking for a full liquor license. 11 members abstained from the vote. That means that they feel they can not vote yes or no on a particular subject due to personal or professional conflict of interest. Because there wasn't enough votes to be counted, the issue didn't pass.
Based on several documents that were made public about the whole Must issue that were passed out during the meeting, it would be hard for David McGrath to get any suport from DT residents.
Sara Jones on February 09, 2011, at 01:28PM – #9
I just reviewed my comment. Jaimie, please don't think that I was in anyway attacking you. You seem like a very intelligent person, I was just trying to clarify what was being said in the article.
TBerry on February 09, 2011, at 03:41PM – #10
Speaking of The Must... what's the word on when (and where exactly) they are re-opening?
Accessory Loft on February 09, 2011, at 09:28PM – #11
Jamie and Sara made some great points above. I belive in honesty, integrity, fairness, and the law. JP Lounge should not be allowed to open until AFTER all pending litigation with the Must's owners has been settled.
Casey on February 10, 2011, at 02:48AM – #12
Hey Y'all,
Alot of you know me. I used to be the manager of The Must. I was also one of the people who spoke up at the meeting yesterday.
So let me clear a few things up....
Most importantly, the reason for the meeting was whether or not to give David Mcgrath a letter of approval for a new liquor license. Because the liquor license from the space before was illegally transferred, he has been forced to try and get a new one. He asked them to write him a letter saying that the ABC should give him a new license. He was denied. He was then told that if he could maybe get a letter from the council saying he was a good guy and opening a good business they would take that into consideration.
The council was NOT willing to do that. In fact, they took a vote on whether or not to write a letter in "DIS-Approval." (the opposite of what he asked for) The actual vote went as follows:
5- To write a letter of DIS-Approval 1- Let Mr. Mcgrath do whatever he wants EVERYONE ELSE- No Position.
So basically, of the entire council, only one person thought that Captain "Steal some stuff in the middle of the night" should be allowed to sell alcohol at this location ( I will not mention this person's name). Everyone else either stood up firmly against it, or said they would NOT endorse it. The endorsement is what he was asking for.
Our council has many things to consider, and they have to try and do their best to be Un-Bias and honest with their decision making.
At the end of the day, the "No Position" stance taken by our council was a good thing. They would not endorse this person for a new license.
Jamie DeFrisco on February 10, 2011, at 10:41AM – #13
Sara - Oh no I didn't see your comment that way at all. You're right. It's not a matter of kicking them out, but if it prevents them from getting a liquor license it could impact the business and prevent them from opening.
on February 11, 2011, at 03:22PM – #14
"The Must wait"
Who cares anymore! The last thing we need in downtown, especially between 4th. and 7th. is another bar spewing out more drunks at 2:00 a.m.
Russell Brown on February 12, 2011, at 05:37PM – #15
FYI on DLANC protocol.
All new CUP, liquor license and major construction projects go through DLANC's planning committee. The full DLANC board reviews these decisions and votes for approval, disapproval or no position on each project.
In almost every case, the City of LA's planning notification notices (issued every 2 weeks) details each pending project. Almost always, these projects are noticed early in the process, as soon as any paperwork is initiated with the city.
For example, the new replacement Wilshire Grand Hotel is a few years from construction, but significant community meetings and DLANC presentations are almost complete.
Most new CUP and license appear a few months to almost a year before the hearings and construction even starts.
The situation with The Must and its replacement are not typical in its application process (and in almost everything else). The location held a beer and wine license for the premises that allowed sales until midnight.
The closure of The Must that was using that license and the sale of the business created the requirement for ABC to rule on an ownership transfer. These happen often and are usually minor incidents. The sale of a restaurant or transfer of ownership is not uncommon.
However, in this situation, due to its tangled complexity, the ABC ruled invalid the transfer of the beer and wine license to the new owner. This initiated an application for a new license, to a new owner who wanted expanded operating conditions.
For some reason, this didn't appear on the City of LA's early notification list. A 30 day notice was posted on the establishment windows and mailings were made to the neighbors. DLANC's planning committee had not had a presentation. Those presentations always include a plan that details layout, menu, hours of operations, security, parking, lighting, ownership, LAPD requirements, council office requirements and community concerns.
The city of LA zoning hearing occurred before any DLANC planning presentation. Almost no one from the community attended that hearing. LAPD, DLANC nor the council office (Jan Perry) had been consulted. The Zoning Administrator will not rule without LAPD and the council office being consulted. Council office and LAPD almost always give a statement of non-opposition and rarely give approval of liquor sales. Voluntary conditions of operating terms, hours, security, impacts are always required.
At the zoning hearing, it was asked that comments be held open until LAPD, the council office, DLANC and the community received a presentation and could discuss the application. This is standard procedure on EVERY application and every approval or disapproval.
Russell Brown on February 12, 2011, at 05:45PM – #16
The commenter is correct that the DLANC level for disapproval is high.
Most applications are good proposals or are changed over months to meet community concerns. Yes, DLANC approves most but many are projects that are vetted by business owners, good operators, consultants, LAPD and community stakeholders before they arrive to DLANC.
Some are redesigned (sometimes radically) before they are given approved. The Medallion project and LAPD headquarters were negotiated and redesigned for more than a year.
Disapproval usually only occurs after repeated nuisance abatement, very strong opposition from a broad group, an inappropriate adult use near residential neighborhoods or horrifically bad design (a proposed drive through McDonald's on Broadway near the Orpheum).
A bad neighborhood business with repeated failed attempts at clean up (7/11 on Broadway at 5th- no liquor) also has stopped any further action on requests for approval of a new location (9th & Broadway, with beer and wine/ 24 hours application, near 2 hostess clubs).
The issue before DLANC planning was not only a new application for full liquor, but also an expansion of hours. The difficult history of the closure of The Must and the involvement of the past and the new owners made this a tangled discussion.
At the DLANC planning hearing, there was no presentation of voluntary conditions, LAPD and the council office had not been involved. This after the zoning administrator told them to consult both offices.
Most on the planning committee felt it was too difficult to separate all the issues. There was still not the basic information on voluntary conditions with LAPD or the council office available.
The discussion was emotional and very personal for some. The discussions showed a large majority of the planning committee was in opposition to the incomplete application approval but not united in reason for the opposition. It was deferred to the full DLANC with a request to again talk with LAPD and the council office.
The full DLANC board reviewed the application. There was still no voluntary conditions, no involvement of the LAPD and limited involvement by the council office.
After passionate discussion including the history of the business, owner involvement, concentration of license near the location and other issues, the board voted on the application . The first vote was a motion to disapprove the application- 5 yes to disapprove,1 no to approve and about everyone else (about 14) voting to abstain.
A discussion ensued of what that vote meant since the majority had voted to abstain. The voted seemed to represent a vote of non-consensus.
A second vote was made on a straight NO Position. The vote was almost the same with 5 no (opposition to the application) and the majority (about 15) approving the no position vote.
Any community stakeholder can also right letters directly to the zoning administrator if they feel strongly on this application.