PURPOSE:

At the City Council meeting of April 29, 2003, several Council members requested that staff initiate a �one-step, two-step� process pursuant to City Council policy to agendize issues related to conditional use permit revocation and Gitana, the nightclub/restaurant/sports bar located at 260 E. Magnolia Boulevard.  This memo provides information for the Council�s consideration on the conditional use permit revocation process in general and the terms of Gitana�s conditional use permit.

DISCUSSION:

Background

Gitana operates pursuant to a conditional use permit (CUP) that was originally approved by the City Council on appeal in 1998 and modified by the Council at the applicant�s request in 2000 and 2001.  Generally, the conditions of approval (attached as Exhibit A) govern issues such as alcohol service and licensing, hours of operation, noise, the provision of security personnel, and the presence of minors in the establishment.  One condition of approval deals specifically with police calls for service and determinations about the demands placed upon the Police Department as a result of responding to calls at Gitana.

On April 29, some City Council members commented specifically on an April 26, 2003 article in the Burbank Leader that referenced the volume of police calls for service at Gitana and the Police Department�s ability to charge for such calls.  Police Department staff have indicated that the statistics provided in the newspaper article may be misleading and not a true reflection of the actual police activity at Gitana.  While the Police Department remains concerned about calls for service directly related to Gitana�s operation, Police Department staff noted that statistics regarding the number of calls for service at or near a particular business are not necessarily an accurate portrayal of the police activity related to that business.  Many of the calls for service at Gitana and the abutting parking structure, for example, may be for vehicle break-ins or other such incidents that are not related to Gitana or its business operations.  Each incident must be carefully examined to determine the nature of the call and the extent to which it is related to Gitana.  Police Department staff are currently reviewing the police calls for service to establish an accurate picture of the call history at Gitana.

Should the Council decide to place this item on a future agenda for further discussion, staff will provide a full report regarding the nature and number of incidents related to Gitana.  Staff will further provide an evaluation of the CUP conditions of approval in relation to the police activity and a recommendation of whether staff believes that Gitana is in violation of any conditions of approval.  Preliminarily, staff notes that the Gitana conditions of approval provide the Police Department with the authority to initiate a cost recovery system for police services beyond three calls per month.  As such, cost recovery does not in and of itself constitute a violation of the conditions of approval.  Again, however, staff will return with a more detailed analysis of this issue if it is agendized for further discussion.

Revocation Process

Burbank Municipal Code Section 31-1952 states that only the City Council, after holding a public hearing, has the authority to revoke a CUP.  Therefore, the Council also has the authority to formally initiate the revocation process and request that a hearing be scheduled.  However, the CUP for Gitana has a specific condition of approval that requires additional steps in the revocation process.

The condition of approval states that if the Police Chief �determines that a significant increase in police services has resulted due to the operations of this establishment, such that there is additional demand that adversely impacts the Police Department, the Police Chief may request a compliance hearing before the Planning Board for determination that the hours of operation are creating a substantial adverse impact on the City�s police services.�  The condition further states that if evidence is presented to the Planning Board showing that the police service calls required at Gitana during the hours of operation are �in a disproportionate amount of calls compared to other businesses,� the Planning Board and/or City Council may make a determination that Gitana has not complied with the condition of approval, and may set a revocation hearing.

Although the City Council maintains the authority to directly initiate revocation proceedings, staff would recommend that the above-described process be completed prior to holding a Council revocation hearing to ensure full compliance with the Gitana conditions of approval.  Once the report outlining the police calls for service is prepared, the Police Chief would determine whether the calls for service are creating a substantial adverse impact on police services.  If the Chief determines that an adverse impact has occurred, a compliance hearing would be scheduled before the Planning Board, followed by a revocation hearing before the City Council, if so requested by the Board and/or Council.

Revocation Hearing

As required by the Municipal Code, public notice of the City Council revocation hearing must be provided to the owner of the property on which the CUP is granted at least 20 days prior to the hearing.  However, should such a revocation hearing be scheduled, staff would recommend that in addition to the property owner, notice be provided to the CUP applicant/business owner and all residents and tenants within a 1,000 foot radius of the business, consistent with the typical CUP hearing notice requirements.  This would provide an opportunity for nearby property owners and residents to provide input regarding the operation of the business.  Staff would further recommend that notice be provided at an earlier time, perhaps 45 days in advance of the public hearing, to allow the applicant/business owner adequate time to prepare for the hearing.

After a public hearing, the City Council may revoke a CUP on any one or more of the following grounds:

1. The CUP was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation

2. The CUP has been exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of approval, or in violation of any statutes, ordinance, law, or regulation not excused by the CUP

3. The CUP is being or has been so exercised as to be detrimental to the public health or safety or so as to constitute a nuisance

To revoke a CUP, the Council must find that one or more of the above conditions has occurred.  As stated above, staff would provide additional information specifically in this regard related to Gitana if the Council elects to agendize this matter for further discussion.

CONCLUSION:

Should the Council wish to place this matter on a future agenda for further discussion, staff will provide a detailed report of the police service calls and related incidents at Gitana and an analysis of the resulting demands on police services.  Staff will analyze the incidents at Gitana and consider any other complaints or problems that have occurred in relation to the CUP conditions of approval.  Staff will determine whether Gitana appears to be in violation of any conditions of approval and/or is operating as a public nuisance, and will make the appropriate recommendation to the City Council regarding potential revocation.

RECOMMENDATION:

If the Council wishes to agendize this matter for further discussion, staff recommends that the Council direct staff to prepare the report on police service calls described above and schedule this item for the earliest possible date given the time that will be necessary to compile the necessary data and prepare a comprehensive report.

LIST OF EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A          City Council Resolution No. 26,022 adopted June 12, 2001

go to the top