Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-081 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 10-081 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVOCATION OF ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT DRC2007-00284R FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AT AN EXISTING RESTAURANT WITHIN THE MASI PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT, SUBAREA 7, LOCATED AT 11815 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF —APN: 0229-011-38 A Recitals 1 On March 10, 2010, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga revoked Entertainment Permit DRC2007-00284R for EI Loco Cantina & Grill, an existing restaurant within the Masi Plaza Shopping Center at 11815 Foothill Boulevard ("the subject business") pursuant to Section 5 12 100 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, which authorizes the suspension or revocation of an entertainment permit if it is found that the permittee or any persons acting under the authority to the permit has violated any conditions of approval or conducted a permitted business in a manner contrary to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the public 2 On March 18, 2010, the owners of the business submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council 3 On May 19, 2010, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal and concluded the hearing on that date 4 All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have been met B Resolution The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds, determines, and resolves as follows 1 All facts stated in the Recitals of this Resolution are true and correct 2 Based on substantial evidence presented during the May 19, 2010 public hearing on the appeal, including written and oral staff reports and public testimony, the City Council finds as follows a On December 12, 2000, the City approved CUP 00-44 for the subject business to allow the sale of and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages (Type 47 liquor license) at a restaurant called Felipe's Mexican Restaurant occupying a lease space of approximately 2,800 square feet and an outdoor dining area of approximately 600 square feet b On July 25, 2007, the Planning Commission approved Entertainment Permit DRC2007-00284R to allow live entertainment and dancing at the subject business Among the conditions of approval was a requirement for an amendment to the entertainment permit prior to any modification to the approved floor plan, an expansion of the bar area, or reduction in the seating area Entertainment Permit DRC2007-00284R was approved in conjunction with approval of CUP DRC2007-00283R, which superseded CUP 00-44, amended the permitted business hours, allowed for nightly entertainment seven days per week from 11 00 a m to 2 00 a m , approved a new floor plan that limited the entertainment area to 150 square feet, required an amendment to the CUP approval prior to any modification to the approved floor plan, an expansion of the bar area, or reduction in the seating area c Subsequently, the restaurant was sold to a new owner and renamed EI Loco Cantina Bar & Grill, and the floor plan was altered by the replacement of dining tables with bar-style tables, an expansion of the dance floor beyond the permitted 150 square feet, and the installation of nightclub-style lighting These alterations occurred without prior City approval or modification of Entertainment Permit DRC2007-00284R or CUP DRC2007-00283R d On July 9, 2008, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to review the operation of CUP DRC2007-00283R and Entertainment Permit DRC2007- 00284R and determine whether the operation of the business was consistent with its conditions of approval, detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, or injurious to properties in the vicinity After the close of that hearing the Planning Commission voted to institute a 90-day review period to allow the business to bring the operation into compliance with its conditions of approval e On December 10, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted its 90-day review of the business at a duly noticed public hearing, and subsequently voted to modify the conditions of approval for Entertainment Permit DRC2007-00284R and CUP DRC2001-00283R and called for a another review of the business after 6 months Among the modified conditions was a requirement that the business provide uniformed, licensed private security during the approved evening hours of entertainment f On September 9, 2009, City staff presented a report to the Planning Commission regarding the operation of the business and informed the Commission that the business was in compliance with its conditions of approval at that time g On September 15, 2009, the subject business cancelled its private security service h On December 9, 2009, City staff presented the Planning Commission with a request from the Police Department for the Commission to initiate a review of the subject business due to the level of calls for police service at the subject business The Planning Commission granted the request and set the public hearing on the matter for January 13, 2010 1 On December 18, 2009, the subject business entered into a contract with Barry's Security, Inc to provide one security guard on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays between the hours of 10 00 p m and 2 00 a m This leaves several days and times during which the business has no security during entertainment hours On January 13, 2010, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to February 10, 2010 at the request of City staff k On February 10, 2010, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to February 24, 2010 at the request of the attorney for the subject business Resolution No 10-081 - Page 2 of 5 I On February 24, 2010, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing again at the request of the attorney for the subject business, who complained of inadequate time to review the staff report The Planning Commission continued the hearing until March 10, 2010 m On March 10, 2010, the Planning Commission reopened the continued public hearing and concluded it on that date During the hearing City staff and the members of the Police Department presented evidence that the business was not in compliance with its conditions of approval due to cancellation of the security guard contract for approximately 3 months following the September 9, 2009 Planning Commission review and the occurrence of large numbers of persons dancing outside the 150 square foot entertainment area Evidence was also presented that the conduct of the business was contrary to the peace, health, safety of the public due to the number and severity of police calls for service emanating from or connected to the business n At the March 10, 2010 Planning Commission public hearing, The subject business was represented by an attorney who complained that the business was given inadequate due process due to the presentation of hearsay evidence and the lack of an opportunity to cross-examine City staff and members of the Police Department The Chair of the Planning Commission offered the business's attorney the opportunity to address any questions he had of staff and the Police Department to the Chair, but the attorney declined o After the close of the March 10, 2010 public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to revoke Entertainment Permit DRC2007-00284R p At the May 19, 2010 public hearing before the City Council, City staff and the Police Department presented substantially the same evidence and arguments as they presented to the Planning Commission, as did the attorney for the subject business 3 The totality of evidence presented at the May 19, 2010 public hearing, including the facts set forth in Section 2 of this Resolution support the following conclusions and determinations a The subject business has been given adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard regarding the potential revocation of Entertainment Permit DRC2007- 00284R The Planning Commission held multiple hearings, granted several continuances to the subject business The business was represented by counsel the entire time before the Planning Commission and the City Council and the business was given repeated opportunities to offer evidence and rebut evidence presented against it Complaints regarding the introduction of hearsay evidence and the lack of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses are without merit because the formal rules of evidence do not apply during the City's administrative hearings and the attorney for the business declined the opportunity offered to present his questions of staff to the Planning Commission Chair and Mayor b The subject business has violated the conditions of approval for Entertainment Permit DRC2007-00284R through the cancellation of its security guard contract for a 3-month period, the inadequate security staffing since that time, expansion of entertainment outside the 150 square foot permitted area and because the entertainment is not being conducted as an accessory to a restaurant use Rather, the subject business is operating as a de facto nightclub without the proper City approvals or the required Type 48 liquor license Resolution No 10-081 - Page 3 of 5 c The subject business is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare due to violations of its conditions of approval and as evidenced by the number and severity of police calls for service emanating from or associated with the business 4 Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 2 and 3 of this Resolution, the City Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's action, and revokes Entertainment Permit DRC2007-00284R 5 Approval of Entertainment Permit DRC2007-00284R was previously found to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines (Class 1 Exemption) because it involved no expansion of an existing structure and facilities Revocation of Entertainment Permit DRC2007-00284R is also exempt under Section 15321 (Class 21 Exemption) as an enforcement action to revoke a permit 6 The action of the City Council regarding the revocation is effective upon adoption of this resolution 7 Notice is hereby given that the time within which to seek judicial review of the City Council's decision is governed by Section 1094 6 of the Government Code 8 The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of the Resolution and transmit a copy of the same via certified mail, return-receipt requested, to the business owners at the names and addresses found in City records Please see the following page for formal adoption,certification and signatures Resolution No 10-081 - Page 4 of 5 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of June 2010 AYES: Gutierrez, Kurth, Michael, Spagnolo, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None �i Donald J Kurth,`M , Mayor ATTEST: nice CReynolds, City Oerk I, JANICE C. REYNOLDS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held on the 2nd day of June 2010 Executed this 3`d day of June 2010, at Rancho Cucamonga, California iZL ice C Reynolds, City rk Resolution No 10-081 - Page 5 of 5