Club Sugar Hits Sour Note With Council

By Teresa Rochester

It was a sweet victory for nearby residents and a bitter defeat for Club Sugar's owners Tuesday night when the City Council turned down the dance club's request for a broader alcohol license following an appeal of a Planning Commission decision.

The appeal, filed by Planning Commission Chair Kelly Olsen, made several arguments against the commission's 5 to 1 decision (Olsen cast the dissenting vote). Olsen argued that granting the liquor license intensified the use - a breech of the City Code for a non-conforming legal use such as Club Sugar.

His appeal - a highly unusual procedure for a board member -- marked the third time in less than a year that the former councilman challenges a 5 to 1 decision by his own commission. In each case Olsen cast the lone dissenting vote.

For the first time Council members agreed with Olsen and unanimously voted to uphold his appeal after hearing from a dozen residents who complained that the club and its patrons kept them awake at night and littered their neighborhood with trash.

"I do believe that granting this is a violation of the code," Mayor Ken Genser said, adding that he drove past the club at 814 Broadway one night and could hear the music and feel the bass in his car from the opposite side of the street. "That's a change in mode or character.

"They have to apply for a new C.U.P. (Conditional Use Permit)," Genser said. "I think the right thing is to tell the club to clean-up their act then apply to become a conforming use."

"Booze and neighbors don't typically mix," said Councilman Richard Bloom. "None of the neighbors who came here tonight felt the proposal would be a meaningful resolution."

Club representatives said they would implement more security around the club, but neighbors said they had made those promises in the past and had failed to keep them. The club's attorney also pointed out that despite all of the calls the club had never been cited by police.

Neighbors, however, described a litany of problems with the club, including being woken up by the sound of a pulsating bass, patrons shouting in an adjacent alley and car alarms going off.

"Over the last two years I have not slept through the night," said Martine Brousse, who lives next to Club Sugar. "I don't remember what it means to sleep for eight hours straight… I do more security screaming out my window for people to leave. I believe I should get a salary."

"In a residential neighborhood the neighbors had no say when this became a nightclub," said Chuck Allord, head of the neighborhood group Neighbors for a Safer Santa Monica. "The residents didn't have a problem when it was a small bar. There wasn't a problem until it became a full fledged night club."

Olsen told the council that Santa Monica Police had responded to more than 100 calls for service at Club Sugar from neighbors - more than any other business in the City.

"If that's not a public nuisance and intensification then I don't know what is," Olsen said.

Owners of Club Sugar also filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a request to extend the club's hours of operation. The Commission had ordered the club to shut down at midnight - instead of 2 a.m. Sunday through Thursday, but allowed it to continue to operate until 2 a.m. on weekends.

The club's attorney, Jonathin Horn, told the council that the club would be willing to implement a number of sound mitigation and security measures to appease neighbors if the council upheld the club's appeal. Horn argued that the club needed the extended hours and alcohol license to attract a more mature crowd and expand the club's services to private parties.

"We know we can't afford to conduct our business with the limited hours," Horn said. "What we have asked for is six additional hours of business with a prohibition on Monday and Tuesday. We think it's a right-headed approach.

"It's a proactive answer," Horn said. "We have not had a problem with criminal activity. We are a neat, clean, responsible business. We will do everything that we can do because that's what we are. We will do all the mitigation the City asks, but we need those extra hours."

Several council members questioned why Sugar would need an expansion in hours before implementing any of its mitigation measures. In the end the council shot down the club's appeal. In overturning the Planning Commission's decision, which called for limited hours during the week, the council made it possible for the club to operate seven days a week until 2 a.m.

"It's a residential neighborhood. The club is still in the wrong place for the type of club it is," said Councilman Paul Rosenstein. "A club operating till 2 a.m. doesn't belong operating in a residential neighborhood."

After the council's decision Horn said he wasn't sure what direction the club will take.

"We certainly heard what the council said," he said. "We'll make a responsible business decision."

In other action the City Council unanimously approved the expansion of Preferential Parking Zone W in Sunset Park to include additional blocks on 28th and Pearl streets.