Restoration of Permits Ordered for Nightspot

A Superior Court judge restored two permits Tuesday to owners of a nightclub that doesn’t serve alcohol in the latest chapter of a dispute between the owners and the City of Solana Beach.

In a decision described as “extremely fair” by the club’s attorney, Vista Superior Court Judge David B. Moon ordered that the club’s public entertainment and dance permits, revoked last month by Sheriffs’ Department inspectors, be reinstated. Moon also imposed several restrictions on club operations.

“We couldn’t have found a fairer judge anywhere,” said Morris Sankary, attorney for Charles and Martha Vander, owners of the Distillery West nightclub, and their son, Richard, who has served as the club’s general manager. At issue was an April 15 action by San Diego County Sheriff’s Department licensing inspectors, who pulled the nightspot’s permits for alleged violations of several county ordinances, including the unauthorized presence of alcohol and minors. The Vanders appealed and on April 24, Moon temporarily reinstated the permits, allowing the club’s official grand opening to take place the weekend of May 1.

Ongoing Battle

The Vanders and Solana Beach officials have been at odds since January, when the city Planning Department approved the Vanders’ plans to reopen the Distillery as a non-alcoholic club. It had operated for years with a liquor license.

Within four days, city Planning Director Steven Apple reversed the approval, saying he had since discovered the Vanders’ remodeling had increased the club’s capacity, requiring the City Council to review the plans.

The city then required the Vanders, who say they have spent $160,000 to purchase and renovate the club, to spend an additional $8,000 for an environmental impact study. The Vanders have failed to comply with the requirements, saying they “do not recognize” the city ordinance.

Solana Beach City Attorney Daniel Hentschke, however, said it is “the City Council that makes a decision as to whether (a nightclub) is an appropriate use” for the building. “In our opinion they are operating unlawfully.”

Evidence Hit

On Tuesday, Sankary called the permit revocations “arbitrary and capricious . . . and totally wrong.” He claimed that because of the dispute, the city had urged the sheriff’s inspectors to revoke the previously issued permits. Sankary contended there was no evidence to warrant such an “urgent” action.

Sankary claimed the liquor allegedly found in the club was insignificant, including two mildew-covered bottles in a cooler and empty cans the club’s guards had confiscated from youths in the parking lot.

Moon found in favor of the club owners, saying the Sheriff’s Department lacked “sufficient evidence . . . of a clear and immediate threat to public safety,” which would have required revocation of the licenses.

Moon also said the city “probably got the Sheriff’s Department moving” on the matter but did not think deputies had abused their discretion.

Guardian Plan

As a condition of his ruling, Moon quashed a plan by the Vanders in which Richard Vander could serve as guardian of patrons under the age of 18 if their parents signed a release appointing him guardian for a night. Moon emphasized the county law requires minors attending such a nightclub--even when alcohol is not served--must be accompanied by a parent, guardian or spouse.

The hearing did not resolve the matter of the environmental impact report or address the possibility that Solana Beach may close the club in the future. Attorneys for the city and the club owners said they hoped to reach an agreement soon.