Residents who live around Dogz Bar and Grill are seeking City of Long Beach help over complaints that the restaurant-bar has been a magnet for fights and noise. They also claim an illegal use of a nearby rental house as a business annex and storage garage, which the resident denies.
A giant Corona beer and lifesize cutouts of two men in Cinco de Mayo garb fill the picture window of the house at 185 Glendora, which was formerly occupied by Bill Lorbeer, the property owner of that and the Dogz establishment (see accompanying). Lorbeer referred questions to the business.
But Dogz co-owner Norm Turley said Thursday night that he moved across the street from the bar to better manage any problems and that the fights involved patrons asked hours earlier to leave the bar. And the Corona beer window treatment?
"I just moved in May 1 and I haven't got curtains up. It's like living in a fish bowl. I figured the cut-outs would be better to look at than a 230-pound Norm Turley in a towel," he chuckled. "I will be living there Thursday through Sunday with my nephew to keep a close eye on things."
He added, "I would think people would think that makes me more of a good neighbor.
He also said that in more than a year open for business, "I've had only one person e-mail or text me of a problem, and I've given my number out for just that reason." (For those interested, the number is 562-310-6617, or e-mail: norm@dogsbarandgrill.com).
Long Beach Police Department East Division Commander Mike Goodman responded to two Glendora Avenue residents' queries about recent flights they allege are commonplace. Patch was sent the letter, which you can find at the end of this story.
Long Beach City Councilman Gary DeLong was also contacted, and told Patch his latest response could be used as his comment to some enduring complaints of the bar at Second Street and Glendora, and its predecessor, Club Evo. In suggesting the permits study, DeLong conceded that he waited years too long to take action on the neighborhood disturbances, but wanted to remedy that.
Of the fights reference below, another Dogz party said the business was also victimized by the fight. With three minutes left in the Lakers game inside, "It's not in the business interest to have that distraction going on."
The latest complaints were taken to the Belmont Shore Residents Association, and BSRA President Kurt Borsting has also sought to verify the allegiations. A study the Long Beach Council approved, led by DeLong, has not returned before the public and DeLong said he would check on its status. At least one liquor license was approved by the City Council (Symzy's) before the study has been completed.
The study was to determine, among other things, whether conditional use permits might help the city better mitigate any enforcement issues; it apparently has not been completed. For their part, bar owners have said that a system they created to communicate with each other about problem customers, fake IDs or drunk behavior has very much improved conditions in the neighborhood, and they continue to try to be good neighbors.
Dogz co-owner Norm Turley, who said he's a former cop, understands what he thinks are changes in atmosphere in Belmont Shore, and their impact, but attributes them to a decline in civil behavior. He said he has also seen a marked improvement in Long Beach Police Department patrol procedures since Commander Beckman arrived several months ago.
"The paddy wagon used to be just parked in the Jack-n-the-Box parking lot, and it now patrols the alleys, and officers are out talking to people," Hurley said.
The recent opening of Symzy's renewed recurring worries about the number of ABC (alcohol) licenses the city and the state ABC has endorsed in the popular commercial district. Owners of the newly opened restaurant vowed to be good neighbors - one lives in the Shore - and there appear to no complaints.
DeLong told residents reporting concerns about Dogz violence a few days ago the following:
"1. We'll follow up with Code Enforcement regarding the vacant home. 2. I've sent an email to the Director of Development Services requesting a status on the study. 3. I've made sure Police Chief McDonnell is aware of the 2nd Street issues."
From Commander Beckman in response to two resident queries:
"On May 19, 2012, at approximately 8:29 p.m., officers were dispatched to the 5300 block of E. 2nd Street regarding a fight involving several male adults. All combatants fled the scene prior to the arrival of the police. No crime victim(s) or suspect(s) were located.
"Later that evening at approximately 9:41 p.m., officers were dispatched to the same location regarding an assault. A male suspect fled the scene and escaped capture. Several associated arrests were made, however, including a female adult from Los Angeles for public drunkenness; a male adult from Agoura Hills for public drunkenness; and, a male adult for outstanding arrest warrants. A report for the assault was filed. To my knowledge, an arrest has yet to be made.
During one of those fights, a man was smacked in the head with a skateboard and a resident who passed by en route to take-out food told Patch he was laying on the sidewalk passed out, before authorities arrived. It was early enough that kids might still be out with the family, he said.
I can totally understand and agree with your sentiment during the daylight hours. Its' the after 9:00 pm crowd that ruins it for everyone and especially the nearby residents who have to put up with the many disturbances. Its those drunken, out of control patrons at midnight that nearby neighbors complain about when they get in fights, and piss and puke in your yard. At night there is a significantly different clientele than there is during daylight operations. And keep in mind, 90% of Dogz revenue is generated Thursday, Friday and Saturday night after 9:00 pm. Daylight operations is break even if that. Turning people into drunken idiots at night is Dogz's cash cow.
No one calls Norm because they call the police instead. If Norm is unaware of the problems occurring at his business that will be an issue the city or police will address with him. We all know this whole thing was another Lorbeer lie. Promote Dogz as family friendly, have someone in that stupid dog costume walking all over long beach and then Norm moves into the neighborhood so he can address problems? This is a bar, not a restaurant. It's family friendly maybe 10 hours a week. And the Lorbeers had Norm rent the house on the corner because no one in their right mind would pay rent to live in that house with Dogz and its unruly patrons 50 feet way.
http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?d=39505&n=06-55837&s=CA Also consider that Mr. Turley was sued by the California State Board of Equalization for tax evasion while serving as a Long Beach police officer. http://www.boe.ca.gov/meetings/pdf/hearingsummaries/Item_B_Turley_Norman_C_358653_sum.pdf Keep an eye on his nose when Turley starts making promises.
After the people spoke -some in favor, some opposed- DeLong said, commencing at time stamp 1:21:55, that he wanted Roth to be held accountable for his establishment going forward and that approval would impose conditions -all of which he agreed with but one- that would provide the PD with the tools needed to hold Roth accountable. In addition to the 14 conditions DeLong supported, he added additional conditions that would require BS to close, and/or end live entertainment *earlier* than the PD had proposed on certain nights, subject to exceptions for certain traditional holidays. It was the PD that suggested the original 15 conditions. DeLong suggested the remove of just one of them, but suggested additional conditions within his motion. DeLong's motion carried unanimously. DeLong did not approve the permit on his own and for anyone to imply that he did is simply misleading. http://longbeach.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=12&clip_id=1228&meta_id=121194
The "remove of just one of them" was the only relevant condition on the list. The PD said make the permit for only one year and DeLong gave EVO a PERMANENT permit (as in forever, never ending, limitless). Instead of simple process to remove the permit after one year the residents dealt with 4 years of nuisance and the city had to assign a city prosecutor to bring a court hearing to take the permit away. DeLong did that on his own pal.
Three years later, after Belmont Station had become Club Evo, the entertainment license was subsequently revoked. This occurred on 11/16/2010 and it was DeLong who made the motion to revoke the entertainment permit, Dr. Garcia who seconded the motion, and, once again, a unanimous Council that approved the revocation. http://longbeach.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=800688&GUID=E59440F4-1EFE-4DFA-8C7E-B67BD4513B1F&Options=ID|Text|&Search=Evo By the way, it is my understanding that no City permit, of any sort, is issued permanently. All permits, of all types, have renewal dates and even then, all permits are subject to review and, if necessary, suspension and revocation, at any time the Council deems it necessary. Can you refute those facts as well?
The one-year condition came directly from the Vice Detectives who thoroughly researched the nuisance issues taking place at the Belmont Station when Mr. Roth purchased the business. There was no reasonable basis given by Delong for removing that condition. So back to the issue at hand. Five years after the Belmont Station fiasco the Lorbeer family has brought in another bad operator.
Does he pay you?
So when someone here claims that "DeLong granted Belmont Station...its alcohol AND entertainment licenses...despite the recommendations of the police department to not grant the license..." and I offer provable facts that refute this, you dismiss these facts as somehow irrelevant. Interesting. I agree that the one-year condition that was removed is relevant but I sense that even if that had not been removed, you likely would have taken exception to something else where DeLong is concerned. DeLong, all by himself, did not (could not) remove anything from or add anything to the Belmont Station permit that the Council granted in 2007. Both required a majority vote of the Councilmembers present at the meeting and not one of them voted against the proposal. Not one. In your anxiousness to condemn DeLong, you no doubt deem those provable facts to be irrelevant as well. I understand that you feel the basis DeLong identified for removing the one-year condition was not reasonable. You are no less entitled to your opinion that it was not, than I am to my opinion that it was. See how easy it can be to have a mature, reasonable, intelligent, and fact-based dialog without resorting to petty offerings of insult? Perhaps you should consider trying it sometime.
**I agree that the one-year condition that was removed is relevant but I sense that even if that had not been removed, you likely would have taken exception to something else where DeLong is concerned.** What is the basis for your opinion that it is "reasonable" for a councilmember to disregard a recommendation by the LBPD vice detectives? A recommendation that was the result of an in-depth investigation.
Again, the entire Council (minus one vacancy) removed that single condition. DeLong neither did nor could legally remove that condition all by himself. DeLong proposed the removal, and Dr. Garcia seconded the motion, then every...other...Councilmember...present...agreed. If even four of the other members present wanted the condition to remain, guess what, DeLong's motion would not have passed. The PD has a specific focus and quite rightly so. Public safety, keeping the peace, and enforcing the laws is its mandate. The Council must necessarily have a considerably broader view...a larger focus. The Council must consider aspects of the laws that it passes that the PD need *not* concern itself with. The PD has that luxury. The Council, if it is being fair, does not. Perhaps the Council apparently felt that a one-year permit was unreasonably restrictive. Perhaps it felt that the business less likely to be successful under the constraint of a one-year permit. Perhaps the Council understood, as some here do not seem to, that all such permits are subject to review and, if warranted, suspension or revocation at any time.
I admit to having sunk to those levels on rare occasion, when some folks persist in dragging the dialogue in that direction. I am human, after all, and my patience has its limits. Folks like you, though, seem capable of debating with a person only so long as you can find a way to sneer at or denigrate them. This sort of rhetorical behavior is childish and beneath you, or should be.
http://belmontshore.patch.com/articles/congressional-fundraiser-abruptly-moved-from-legends
The definition of a CROOK is a dishonest person. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crook Considering Dogz's owner was found in a court of law in 2009 to have fabricated evidence resulting in an innocent man going to prison for 14 years..... http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?d=39505&n=06-55837&s=CA and considering Dogz's owner was sued by the California State Board of Equalization for tax evasion........ http://www.boe.ca.gov/meetings/pdf/hearingsummaries/Item_B_Turley_Norman_C_358653_sum.pdf In my opinion, someone (not me) calling Dogz owner a "CROOK" is indeed an accurate depiction and not worthy of being censored. But what do I know. I get censored when I state my opinion that someone is a "COWARD." Could it be because Dogz's owner was a Long Beach cop and John Greet is a recently retired Long Beach Cop and the Patch editor has family members that are cops? Or is it just a coincidence?