Laserfiche WebLink
alt <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />6- 3-99 ; 2:23PM ; BEST BEST & NRIEGM 9099705154;# 6/11 <br />grill. <br />b. Rocks Club and other Clubs owned by the Applicants show a propettsity, <br />of creating disturbances and nuisances. <br />C. Since the Rocks Chub began operating without all of the necessary <br />permits, it is difficult to establish their opening date of operation. This factor <br />is what contributed to the confirsion regarding the date that payment of <br />administrative fees were due. <br />d. Although it was unfortunate that the owner was shot, the incident could <br />have been worse because four individuals were nearby and the District Attorney <br />has filed four counts of attempted murder against the disgruntled patron. <br />e. Does not believe the owner signed the agreements regarding the <br />conditions of approval under duress, as stated by Mr. Thanoupolos' attorney, <br />because the owner was represented by counsel during the consideration and <br />review ofthe dance permit and three separate meetings were held. In fact, one <br />of the letter agreements is on his attorney's letterhead. <br />f. Feels that sufficient evidence was presented and findings can be <br />developed to support the revocation of the Dance Permit. The findings include <br />and establish the following: <br />1. That there was a public disturbance on April 25, 1998. <br />2. That an altercation with a disgruntled patron occurred on May 13, <br />1999. <br />3. That a guard list was not provided to the Chief as required by the <br />agreement until after revocation proceedings were begun. <br />4. A recordable agreement was now provided. <br />g. Finally, although the permit was granted in good faith by the City <br />5 <br />