Lancaster commission initiates revocation proceedings for King Bar after violent incident

The Lancaster Planning Commission on April 15 voted 6-0 (one member absent) to adopt Resolution 25‑03, initiating revocation proceedings for conditional use permit number 23005 and the deemed‑approved status of the alcohol beverage establishment at 2822 East Avenue I, known as King Bar.

City planning staff told commissioners the action is a procedural initiation only; the actual revocation hearing would be scheduled for a later date. Miss Brecky, presenting the staff report, said the initiation is based on public‑safety concerns and potential violations of conditions of approval. "Based upon the facts and these incidents, there are grounds to initiate revocation proceedings concerning conditional use permit number 23005 and the deemed approved status of the establishment located at 2822 East Avenue I," she said.

Staff described the site as legally nonconforming in a Commercial Plan Development (CPD) zone and said the CUP had authorized entertainment uses with conditions, including a requirement for routine compliance reviews. Brecky said the first review earlier this year found the applicant had begun the process to legalize unpermitted structures and to construct a required CMU wall and landscape buffer, but that building‑and‑safety resubmittals remained pending. She said law enforcement had documented multiple emergency calls related to the site between mid‑2024 and early 2025 and cited a March 1, 2025 incident involving an "assault with a deadly weapon involving at least 3 victims and the suspects now in custody." Staff recommended initiation of revocation proceedings for both the CUP for entertainment and the establishment's deemed‑approved alcohol status.

Representing the Lancaster Police Department, Officer Adam Mollinger summarized law‑enforcement contacts at the location, saying the dispatches the department has compiled "appear to include harassment, assaults, and vehicle theft," and noting other crime trends in the area. Mollinger said he did not have the full 911 call list in hand at the hearing but that the department was continuing to assemble records.

The business owner addressed the commission after the public hearing was briefly closed. The applicant, who identified himself in the record as Mr. Bridal, disputed parts of the staff portrayal and said many of the earlier calls were medical responses. "In the last 6 months, we spent more than $64,000, health and security at the bar to make this area better and safety," he told the commission. He acknowledged an altercation on March 1 involving customers that moved outside the business and said his security cameras and footage had been provided to police.

Commissioner Bearden moved adoption of Resolution 25‑03 to initiate revocation proceedings; Commissioner Moore seconded. The vote was 6 in favor, 0 opposed, with Chairman Vos absent. The commission’s action initiates a formal revocation process; the final revocation hearing and any decision on suspension or revocation of the CUP and alcohol status will be held at a later public meeting and was not decided on April 15.

The record presented at the hearing included staff reports citing the CUP’s conditions of approval, building‑and‑safety permit status, law‑enforcement summaries, and the owner’s statements about completed security measures. Staff said the revocation hearing would evaluate whether operation of the establishment violated performance standards or constituted a public nuisance or threat to public health, safety or welfare under the municipal code.

The commission’s initiation of proceedings does not itself alter the bar’s status pending the future hearing. The staff report, police summary, applicant comments and the adopted motion are part of the administrative record that will be considered at the revocation hearing.