Residents Protest Expansion of Nude Nightclub : Zoning: 900 petitioners demand that city explain why project was approved. Hawthorne officials and attorneys say it is legal and there is little recourse.

Residents Protest Expansion of Nude Nightclub : Zoning: 900 petitioners demand that city explain why project was approved. Hawthorne officials and attorneys say it is legal and there is little recourse.

By CAROL CHASTANG

Oct. 17, 1993 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

Little fanfare accompanied the approval last January of the expansion of Bare Elegance nude club in Hawthorne.

But city officials are hearing about it now, especially since the building tripled in size.

More than 900 signatures have been collected on a petition demanding a formal investigation of how the club was allowed to expand, and the resignation of city officials responsible for approving it.

“This is gross negligence on the part of the city,” said Barbara Towers, a longtime resident who lives three blocks from the Imperial Highway club, the only adult cabaret or bar in the city. “The hookers had migrated eastward and now they’re back. Trysts take place in the cars near the club. Someone should be criminally prosecuted for this.”

Not likely, said City Atty. Michael Adamson. The expansion is complete and the approval was legal. The only recourse for the city, he said, would be to acquire the building and property through litigation, which he estimated could cost up to $20 million.

The permit to expand was issued by Planning Director Michael Goodson, who explained in a letter to Mayor Steve Andersen that when Hawthorne annexed property from Los Angeles in 1987 that included Bare Elegance, it could not stop the club from operating under a grandfather clause in state zoning laws.

As long as the expansion plans did not violate zoning regulations, city officials had to approve them. It could not be rejected simply because it was a nude club, Goodson said.

“The obligation is to honor the (expansion) permit,” Adamson said. “If the city activists want to pound some city official for issuing the building permit, then an investigation can be made. And if they just screwed up, and the building permit got issued, then it’s negligence--not a crime.”

John H. Weston, an attorney representing the club, said the permit is legal and any attempt to shut the club will be met with lawsuits.

It is hard to tell if residents are more upset that the club was there in the first place or that it was allowed to expand.

Residents complain that it has attracted prostitution, a charge denied by the club’s attorney, who maintained that it is a law-abiding business “dedicated to providing high-caliber cabaret entertainment.”

That the club sits across the street from a church further appalls residents.

City zoning law prohibits adult businesses within 500 feet of a church. Bare Elegance, however, was there before the church.

The club also is within 500 feet of a residential area, a violation of Hawthorne’s laws but not Los Angeles’.

“If the city wants to annex land from the city of Los Angeles, they can’t tear down anything in the newly annexed land,” Adamson said.

Bottom line: “The Bare Elegance got the permit and now we are stuck,” Adamson said.

Such explanations, however, have not mollified residents.

Francis Stiglich, organizer of the petition campaign, said the city official responsible for the expansion of the club should be flushed out.

“In my opinion, somebody is getting paid under the table,” she said. “The city officials should be investigated.”

Adamson said it is up to the City Council to decide whether an investigation will be conducted. Mayor Andersen vowed to “get to the bottom of this.”

Meanwhile, the club remains open, apparently doing brisk business.

On a recent evening the club attracted a mix of businessmen in suits and ties, fuzzy-cheeked college-age boys and retirees. The only women in sight were the dancers who strip to nothing but their shoes.

Club operators say they have enhanced Hawthorne, not harmed it.

Bare Elegance, Weston said, is an improvement on the string of “garish, unattractive, low-rent” cabarets that occupied the site before the club opened in 1986.

Towers and others disagree. All of the clubs have been hideous, they say.

“Aesthetically, it’s a terrible blow to the community,” Towers said. “Hawthorne is represented by families. That type of ‘entertainment’ is not conducive to a good family environment.”