Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEBRUARY 28,1967 I ROLL ,CALL: HEARING (Bowling Square) Ft71 I 17:6969 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA ADJOURNED,REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 28, 1967 Pursuant to the order of adjournment of the regular meeting of the City Council of February 21, 1967, the City Council of the City of Arcadia met in adjourned regular session in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 7 p.m., February 28, 1967. PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmen Arth, Butterworth, Considine, Hage, Forman None At the adjourned regular meeting of February 21, 1967, the owners and operators of Bowling Square, Inc., had been ordered to appear and show just cause why its permit to conduct a bowling alley at 1020 S. Baldwin Avenue should not be revoked, suspended or modified for failing to comply with city regulations concerning the sale, serving and consumption of intoxicating beverages, other than beer, on the,' concourse of the bowling alley At the re9uest of counsel for the bowling alley the matter had been continued until this date and time. Jerome Stevenspn, attorney for the bowling square, waived any defense testimony stating in substance that there was no rebllttal to the facts as presented and no question that the conditions of the permit were violated. He set forth in detail the legal position of Bowling Square, Inc., questioned the City's legal right to impose the conditions concerning alcoholic beverages, questioned the consistency of permitting beer but prohibiting other intoxicating beverages, and' suggested that the youth of the community would be adequately protected if no intoxicating beverages were served at the bowling alley prior to 6 p.m., and if minors were excluded therefrom after such time. He suggested a number of other administrative procedures for seeking the imposition of such regulations. He referred to the financial situation of the bowling alley, stating that his client may ultimately fa~e bankruptcy; that unfortunately he is not presently in a position to argue the case or to compromise it in some way; that he had hoped the matter could have been conr.iliated but that he could not make a fact~al defense and declined cross examination of the police officers who had testified previously that they were served alcoholic beverages on the concourse. Councilman Butterworth stated in substance that this and prior legislative bodies have determined that it is in the interest of the welfare of the community that bowling be kept a family sport and that it be conducted without the sale of distilled spirits, and observed that possibly beer should not be served either. He continued that in the face of an open dehace,oe of a statute of the city on the part of the owners and operators of the bowling alley and upon the evidence as presented, that action should now be ta~en. (See full transcript in City Clerk's office~~) The City Council concurred and Councilman Considine, se~onded unanimously. the hearing, was CLOSED on MOTION by by Councilman Butterworth and carried 1. 2-28-67 17:6970 The City Attorney outlined the various alternatives of revocation, suspension and modification of the business license, and noted that only the permit for operating the bowling alley and not the cocktail lounge and restaurant would be affected; that following this final action he would discuss the civil litigation in conjunction with special coul,sel, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, retained therefor. Sincere regret was expressed that the bowling alley is being confronted with financial problems; that under the right situation the City Council would like to have bowling continue in the city, but that to represent the residents action must now be taken on the evidence which has been presented. 'I MOtION Prior to making his motion Councilman Butterworth stated in part that if the owners and operators would at this time or within a short period of time indicate that they would comply with the regulation he would be willing to suspend the action entirely and would take no further steps if they would dismiss the civil suit 'and take whatever steps are reasonable to the City Attorney to bring them into com- ' p1iance with the regulation; however, that under the circumstances the proper course of action would be the revocation of the bowling business permit, whereupon he MOVED that the said business permit be revoked, to become effective upon the adoption' of a formal resolutipn; that if the owners and operators of the bowling alley will dismiss ~he civil action and file the necessary affidavits required by statute to the effect that distilled spirits will not be sold on the concourse of the bowling alley and will otherwise comply with reasonable re- quirements to be asserted by the City Attorney, then this action itself be suspended. Motion seconded by Councilman Considine and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Arth, Butterworth, Considine, Hage, Forman None None Mr. Stevenson was advised that the subject resolution will be presented to the City Council on March 7, 1967. LIBRARY FUNDS The City Manager explained various methods of meeting the financial needs of the City Library. Councilman Considine stated in part that in seeking ways in which to function within the budgeted figure for the current year certain services have had to be curtailed; that the Board is now of a mind to present the matter before the electorate at , an early date in order to ascertain whether or not an amendment to Section 1106 (c) of the City Charter would be approved. It is I proposed at this time to seek an increase in the special levy limit of 20~ to approximately 30~ although a definite figure has not been determined. It was noted that general funds may be used to supp1e-, , ment the special library levy, also that the Charter Revision Committee does not anticipate, assuming approval of the City Council, to place a revised charter before the people before fall of 1968 and the Library could not tolerate that much of a delay unless seve~e cutbacks in service were exercised. Reference was made to other sources of r~venue and the City Manage~ will submit a projection of possible revenue from additional sources at the next regular City Council meeting of March 7, 1967. 2. 2-28-67 WA8&PA 1 (art show) COMMENDATIONS RESIDENT PROTECTION 1 17:6971 Mayor Forman adjourned the meeting to the conference room and it reconvened immediately therein. Discussion continued on the library situation. Dates and costs of an election were explored with May 23 a possibility. The entire matter will be before the City Council on March 7, 1967. On MOTION by Councilman Butterworth, seconded by Councilman Considine and carried unanimously the West Arcadia Business and Professional Association was granted permission to hold its Clothesline Art Show, The City Manager submitted to the City Council copies of letters commending various city departments. At the request of Councilman Considine, the City Manager will review provisions of the city chari::able business permits in an endeavor to confine the hours a solicitor may go door to door in the community. A case in point was noted - where local residents of a given area became alarmed when a solicitor collecting for a charitable organi- zation came to the door during after-dark hours, At 8:25 p.m., Mayor Forman adjourned the meeting. - ATTEST: C?d;kC~ dr ~~~/ City Clerk 3. 2-28-67 1 1 T RAN S C RIP T ION (insofar as decipherable) OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE HEARING ON BOWLING SQUARE, INC. (ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 28, 1967) Mr. Nicklin, City Attorney: Mr. Stevenson: (Counsel for Bowling Square) The matter was continued at the request of Council for Bowling Square so that they might prepare such defense as they cared to present this evening. I would suggest that they proceed at this time. If we have any further testimony it will be from the same officers along the same line probably cumulative and possibly rebuttal. Mr. Stevenson, would you care to proceed. When we appeared last week we asked for this continuance in order to give us an opportunity to prepare. Quite frankly I had hoped in the meantime that the matter could have been conciliated in some way. This was my hope originally at the time I first became involved in this case when my clients came to me and advised that a conciliation was out of the question. We are not in a position to defend a factual situation tonight. The facts in the case are quite obvious I am sure to each and every member of the Council, as they are to the,respondents. We would like an opportunity to make a brief statement before any action is taken by the Council to show what our position is and to perfect whatever record is being made here tonight on the legal issue involved. I am sure that all of you are aware of the action that was filed requesting some kind of relief in the matter from the courts and concerning itself solely with the legal issue involved in the Council's action of placing a restriction - at least our contention is that the Council's action places a restriction and an unlawful one on the otherwise lawful sale of alcoholic beverages. When Mr. Vander Meu1en and his associates first came to me I advised them that it was my best judgment, spending many years in the practice of law for the State and out of the State and dealing primarily with this particular industry, that the State had reserved to itself all controls over the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. I told them at that time that I felt that perhaps some of the requests that have been made by the City were reasonable; that the concern of the Council was primarily for the welfare of the children in the community; that I thought at that time that some compromise, some reasonable workable solution to whatever problem exists that is of a peculiar nature here, could be resolved. They advised me that they had made appearances before the Council to stress their financial plight in this particular business and that no compromise could be reached. For that reason the matter was filed with the hope that the court would give us some immediate relief and perhaps ultimately a determination favorable to the licensee. That matter, of course, is still pending. I have talked to Mr. Vander Meulen and his associates and the financial situation of the business is just this: The bowling , industry as such is in very serious financial trouble as is this bowling alley. The bowling alleys that have been built in the last few years have been developed in such a manner that they take advantage of all aspects of the business) not only down on the lanes but sale of bowling equipment, insttuctions, service of food, service of alcoholic beverages. Each and everyone of these is a vital component to the successful operation of the business which in this day and age is marginal at best. In this 1. 1 1 Bowling Square, Inc. February 28, 1967 - Continued Mr. Stevenson: Continued (insofar as decipherable) particular bowling alley two extremely important sources of revenue have been denied 1) the restrictions on the original building at the time Mr. Shumaker made his application here prohibited the installation of pool tables in this particular bowling alley. This is one item that has a fixed expense and is perpetuating a type of recovery one can make from it? 2) Also the greatest margin of profit in any item is the sale of alcoholic beverages, is quite obvious. With these two items being denied in this particular bowling center, it is apparent to my clients and has been for quite some time, that the business virtually is not going to succeed and they face the very real possibility of bankruptcy in the fairly near future, especially in view of the fact that they have for a period of approximately six months desisted from the sale of alcoholic beverages on the concourse and as I said last week, at my request. Our position is basically and simply this: we recognize that the Council is represented by extremely adequate counsel and you are being advised properly I hope. Our position, our legal position which we have put forth, is that Article 20, Section 22 of the State Constitution reserves to the State itself all power over the sale, manufacture, consumption, transportation of alcoholic beverages in this State. But no local governmental agency has the right to infringe on the authority of the State in that regard. There are built-in safeguards in the State Law, in the Business and Professions Code section dealing with the sale and service of alcohol, and in the Administrative Procedure Act that provide to a local governmental agency the right to bring its action before the proper power which is the agency itself. I just concluded an 8-day trial in the Council Chamber in Lynwood involving this very situation where the Chief of Police filed an administrative accusation against a premises charging it with operating in a manner contrary to public welfare and morals. You have that same power before the department. You could initiate an administrative accusation charging the operation of this premises as being ultimately contrary and the continuance of the license as being contrary to public welfare and morals. But 'it is our contention that if anything in the day-to-day operation of this bowling center is in fact being done in a way that does affect the public welfare, that the proper form for the Council would be to bring its administrative action before the agency which issues its liquor license to begin with under Section 24203 of the Business and Professions Code. If you were to do so then request an immediate setting. The law also provides that this Council would be entitled to that administrative trial within 20 days within the date of filing with this complaint. As I say, I have just completed one of those cases and I am fairly well familiar with that particular aspect of it. It is our contention that in legislating in the area of public we1fares in its application to the liquor industry that you must go there and that the Council has no power to take extraordinary action on its own part. I realize that I am speaking up to this Council and I do so respectfully, but I would like for you to understand that we consider ourselves in this particular issue not as a permittee and a higher authority but in the realm of the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages rather as adversary. We feel that this is the proper adversary proceeding for the Council to take. I do not anticipate in any extent that you gentlemen are 2. 1 1 Bowling Square, Inc. February 28, 1967 - Continued Mr. Stevenson: Continued (insofar as decipherable) going to buy my statements here tonight. I am quite obviously not representing you and you are going to follow the advice of quite competent counsel. Furthermore, there are additional safeguards built in to the law, the State Law, and these are done I submit for the express purpose of taking care of isolated situations, in particular problems that arise in a local community that might not be of statewide concern; and this is the right to request that a condition be placed on a license. As you know, generally speaking, liquor licenses are issued unconditional on their face. The Business and Professions Code under Section.23800 provides that an applicant or a licensee or perhaps even a Council such as this ,feeling that certain restrictions or limit placed on a particular license and for a particular reason7has every right to petition the department to so condition that license. In my many years with the Department I can recall instances where licenses have been conditioned with regard to exterior advertising if there was a church edifice across the street, where because the nature of the business might interfere with the quiet enjoyment of residences nearby, that the Department has placed a time limitation requiring a premise to close down at 10 p.m. rather than at 2 a.m. and so on. These are conditions that can be placed on a liquor license. They are there for the benefit of individuals and Councils such as this who might find a particular or peculiar problem in their community that needed this attention. We submit from a pure and simple legal point of view that the proper form for that type of action is available to you on a statewide level, you are entitled to an administrative hearing and that you should proceed in that regard. As I said at the beginning, I had hoped that some compromise could be reached, but our problem is hasica11y and simply this: From six o'clock in the evening until midnight this bowling alley is full of people. There are 40 bowling lanes and there are 5 people on each team. This gives us a packed house of 200. People come in and start to bowl at roughly 6:30 and they conclude at 9 to 9:30. They exit from the premises and a new bowling league, the second league of the evening comes in, and it bowls from approximately 9 or 9:30 until somewhere around midnight. My experience in representing clients of this type, indicates that bowling alleys and whatever cocktail bars you find in them, are not gathering places for drinkers. If people are going to go to a bar to drink, they won't go to the bar in the local bowling alley. I went into the bowling alley last week- end before I cameup here to the meeting and was there approxi- mately a half hour before I was here. The bowling center was full with 200 people bowling down on the lanes. I walked in and counted heads and there were 5 people exclusive of the bartender in the cocktail bar. It is a very lovely cocktail bar as they go. So, the revenue that can be produced to the house from the operation of the cocktail bar in restricting the sale of distilled spirits and wine to that particular portion of the premises is totally inadequate ever to afford these gentlemen an opportunity to recoop what they have lost already, let alone to maintain their business as it exists now. Whatever action is taken by the Council tonight I hope that you 3. 1 1 Bowling Square, Inc. February 28, 1967 - Continued Mr. Stevenson: Continued (insofar as decipherable) will recognize that the men I represent are decent human beings, they are fathers, they are local residents, thay have business interests in the community and they too are concerned with the welfare of the children of this community and the growth of the community just as normal citizens residing here would be. They have not proposed to bring something evil into the community. They have offered what they felt at the time was reasonable compromises of the situation to prohibit the possibility that sales would be conducted in the presence of children. These things were not unreasonable in their minds, but apparently if there is no basis for compromise in this situation their hands are tied. If they cannot use the 200 people that come in twice a night as a source of revenue for the sale of distilled spirits, these people will go elsewhere. They have lost leagues to nearby communities and the league officers would call and ask for an opportunity to bowl and be advised of this situation - their leagues have gone elsewhere. It has only been through consistent effort on their part that this bowling alley this winter has operated to full capacity during these five nights a week that the bowling leagues are there. There isn't a bowling alley in the valley up here that is doing that. This is peculiar because of the hard work of these men. They know that coming into the summer leagues when revenue in the bowling centers always falls off - people have better things to do than to go bowling - but the number of leagues that have not renewed with them have indicated that they will not renew, indicates to them they, in all probability, will not be able to survive this summer with the limitation that is presently on the license. So we come here tonight respectfully recognizing your interest, your concern for the community but with the feeling that the condition is at least unreasonable to the extent that it would not permit the survival of this rather substantial business if this condition is going to be imposed by the Council forthwith. I am sure that you are aware - and I have the Council's letter, the letter I believe from your City Manager - that this problem came to a head I suppose last August when Mr. Vander Meu1en was here requesting some kind of an additional permit from this City. At that time some member of the Council was reminded of this old condition. I have discussed this matter with Mr. Vander Meu1en and he represents to me and, as I say, I believe he is an honorable man; that when he bought the interest in this business from Mr. Shumaker distilled spirits, wine, beer, all types of alcoholic beverages were being sold on the concourse. He had no reason to believe that there was any kind of a restriction on the license. This is of course one of the issues that will be ultimately litigated in court, I suppose, but he had no reason to believe that such a condition existed. It does not exist to my knowledge in any other bowling center in Southern California and I spent five years on the legal staff in the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and traveled extensively throughout Southern California. I cannot recall of a similar restriction anywhere. He indicated to me that when he bought from Mr. Schumaker no representations of this kind were made. It was only after he got into this business that he found it to exist. When he came to me, I said there must be a showing of good faith on your part. At some considerable financial loss, something like $30,000 to date, these men ceased six months ago from the sale of distilled spirits on the concourse of the bowling alley. Frankly, I cannot for the life of me understand 4. I 1 Bowling Square, Inc. February 28, 1967 - Continued Mr. Stevenson: Continued (insofar as decipherable) why there is any great difference between selling an adult bowler a highball or selling him a glass of beer. If children are going to be in the area, if children are going to see a person consuming a beer - and it is much more readily recognized than any other type of beverage - if a man drinks a coke high or 7-high he could well be drinking a glass of 7-up, so the mere presence of alcohol in the presence of the children does not seem to me to be a logical extension of concern. Naturally, if a person could drink beer and not become intoxicated, the obvious answer would be, we donlt want our children confronted by people who might be intoxicated, but by the same token yo~ permit the sale of beer. People can become just as intoxicated on two glasses of beer as they can on two highballs, and it is a much more obvious beverage if it were sold in the presence of children. So I cannot see the reasonableness of the restriction based upon my own experience, although I appreciate and understand your concern for the welfare of the children. And in that regard let me point out this one thing to you. These gentlemen who are experts in the business advise me that the American Bowling Congress which apparently licenses bowling leagues requires these people to be adults if they participate in bowling leagues and some kind of special dispensation is required if a person under the age of 21 is to participate in a bowling league. I asked Mr. Vander Meulen if on a typical evening if we were to come in and check the 200 people who are bowling in the bowling center, how many people in the leagues bowling would we find under the age of 21~ He said perhaps a half dozen. At one time he was willing to eliminate even that possibility but since no compromise could be reached they have reached the financial situation where it is a case of either do or die. I regret that nothing could have been done and nothing has been done and we may be a long time resolving the issue of the power of the Council to so condition a bowling permit that it indirectly limits and controls the sale of alcoholic beverages. There are cases on both sides of the fence and I am sure Mr. Nicklin as your City Attorney is well aware of cases which permit zoning or I submit that the zoning ordinance must be valid. To be valid it cannot enter into and legislate in an area which is preempted by state law and under this doctrine of preemption I know of no more clear cut rule than that which is found in Article 20, Section 22 of the Constitution which states in essence that the State of California, subject to the laws of the United States, reserves to itself the right to control the sale of alcohol. When you place any kind of a business restriction on this business which inhibits the sale of alcoholic beverages on the concourse of the bowling alley, then I say you are invading the province of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control in that regard. It is a regretable situation and I realize that there is a substantial business standing on a line and I wish I were in a much better position to argue this case oc to compromise it in some way with you this evening. Unfortunately we are not. As I said, it is just a case of do or die. We have to live with an industry that is sick at best and in an area where competition because of the overextension of these bowling centers has made profit almost out of the question and survival much that is as desirable as anything could be at this point. I regret it, but thank you very much, gentlemen. 5. 1 1 Bowling Square, Inc. February 28, 1967 - Continued Councilman Butterworth: Mr. Stevenson: Councilman Butterworth: Mr. Stevenson: Councilman Butterworth: City Attorney: Councilman Butterworth: (insofar as decipherable) Mr. Mayor, do I understand Mr. Stevenson to say that he will not offer a defense at this time. We will not offer a defense on the facts offered last time, nor will we request any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses who were called back at our request. Your client is present tonight, is he not. Mr. Vander Meu1en is here. For whatever benefit it might have there was a question about a letter being sent to me. I have discussed it with Mr. 'Nicklin on the phone and he has made a physical presentation of the letter tonight so there is no question about notice or anything in that regard. Thank you. May the officers then be excused this evening. Mr. Mayor, I have an observation at this time. First of all, may I say that in my judgment Mr. Vander Meu1en is represented by very able counsel and certainly Mr. Stevenson is to be commended for speaking well and ably on behalf of his client, however there comes a time when decisions have to be made and hearings must come to an end. Mr. Stevenson spoke ably in the matter of the reasonableness of the statute but we have had hearings on that matter. This legislative body as well as prior legislative bodies have determined that it is in the interest of the welfare of this community that bowling be kept a family sport and that we conduct that sport in this community without the sale of distilled spirits. I think Mr. Stevenson has made a very excellent case for perhaps the next step which is the prohibition of beer. I think he has made a good case of that. Maybe we should go one way or the other, but I can certainly see very good reason why we should prohibit the sale of beer in the bowling alleys. Now, this is not the forum to decide the question of the doctrine of State preemption. We have had very able counsel ourselves, not only Mr. Nicklin, but in the firm of 0'Me1veny and Myers and Mr. Nicklin has advised us on the various forum that were available to us. I think we 'have been told about that in detail. Mr. Nicklin has advised us of what the various remedies of this Council are. I think we have concluded that the interests of the City are best served in the Superior Court of the State of California rather than before any administrative body and I can certainly see no reason to change procedure at this time. I might also add that this forum was picked by the defendants themselves, by the Bowling Alley when they investigated their suit to enjoin the enforcement of this statute and while the matter may be clear to Mr. Stevenson, I think it was probably not as clear to a Superior Court judge who had denied both the restraining order and a preliminary injunction. I for one am perfectly content to leave this matter in the courts and not to change our remedy or to change our forum. I might also add that as I recollect, when this action was first filed by Mr. Stevenson on bahalf of Mr. Vander Meulen, he proceeded with what I think is a very proper remedy in the superior court; that is a suit to enjoin the enforcement of this statute on the grounds that this area was preempted by other authorities. 6. 1 1 Bowling Square, Inc. February 28, 1967 - Continued Councilman Butterworth: Continued Mayor Forman: Councilman Considine: Mayor 'Forman: Councilman lIage: (insofar' as decipherable) This is the way to challenge a statute. During the course of this litigation which I might say was conducted at some substantial expense to the City, there were some overtures made about trying to work out some solution, and if my memory serves me right, in the middle of this situation Mr. Vander Meulen, and as I understand it, contrary to the wishes of this Council, contrary to the advice of this Council simply officiously and defies the legislative statutes of this City and engages in a course of conduct which could be described as a form of civil disobedience. He simply knowing full well what the statute was, and in the face of proceeding himself in the Superior Court seeking a solution, and against the advice of this Council, begins the sale of distilled spirits and whether this, legislative body or the people of this City like it or not was apparently of no concern to Mr. Vander Meu1en. Now, in the face of an open defiance of a statute of this City we took the only course of action that is open to us if we are going to have respect for law and order. I am sorry that Mr. Vander Meu1en's business is not doing well. I mean it. I am sorry that it isn't doing well. Under the right situation we would like to have bowling continue in this City, but if Mr. Shumaker sold this bowling alley to him under any misrep- resentation about the sale of liquor, why he may have a remedy against Mr. Shumaker. Certainly any inquiry to the City of Arcadia, to the City Attorney or to the City Manager would have disclosed the presence on the books or the statutes of this City of an absolute prohibition against the sale of distilled spirits. In any event, in my judgment, I think this Council now must act and while again I sympathize up to a point with Mr. Vander Meu1en's business problems, I think to represent the people of Arcadia we now must act upon the evidence that has been presented and continue a course of action which really was instigated by 'Mr. Vander Meu1en. I for one am willing and am now ready to proceed to make a decision based on the evidence that has been placed before this legislative body Thank you, Ed. Bob, do you have a comment. Mr. Mayor, I would have to agree with Councilman Butterworth. The legality in the pre-emption phases of this conflict are subject to ... of an analysis in the form of a suit of the Bowling Alley against the City of Arcadia. We are well aware that Mr. Vander Meu1en knew of all of the restrictions at least from last August on because at that point we were very careful to bring them to his attention. I regret that he has chosen to take this route but I think taking the phase of flagrant disregard of a City ordinance until such ordinance has proven unconstitutional or pre-empted, has to be termed as a violation and a disobedience and should be treated as such and I think we are going to have to approach it in that manner. I think we should come to our decision based, not on the legality of the ordinance, but rather the action of the defendant. I see no other way to analyze this at this point. Don. I have nothing further to add. 7. 1 1 Bowling Square, Inc. February 28, 1967 - Continued Mayor Forman: Councilman Arth: Mayor Forman: City Attorney: Considine: Butterworth: City Attorney: Councilman Considine: City Attorney: (insofar as decipherable) Bob I agree basically with both Mr. Considine and Mr. Butterworth. As much as I personally feel... am very reticent about closing a business down, if we are going to have government of law that the law must be respected. There are always avenues of appeal. These must be followed. As I see it it is a clear cut case of flagrant and knowing disobedience of the law in the books of the City of Arcadia. I will have to concur with all of my colleagues. I think the term I had used and was quoted at one time was the flaunting of the law, the law in this particular case is not necessarily the State pre-emption part but actually the regulations we have governing the sale of hard liquor on the concourse. We certainly at this point have ample evidence to indicate this has been done. The thing that concerns me most is that if this can be done in this particular establishment, maybe we have a potential of other establishments doing a similar type of thing, so I would concur with my colleagues - and the chair is now ready for a motion for the termination of this matter. The first motion would be to close the hearing. MOVE the public hearing be closed. Second. The notice to the Bowling Square was that you would hold a hearing for the purpose of receiving testimony considering making a determination concerning a revocation, suspension or modification of the permit heretofore issued by the City Council to conduct a bowling alley at 1020 S. Baldwin Avenue in the City of Arcadia, so that accordingly you will have theoretically four courses of action before you, 1) to close the hearing and allow them to continue as they have been, 2) to revoke the permit, 3) to modify their permit or 4) to suspend it. Now, judgment enters into the picture at this atage of the game as to whether you are going to revoke, suspend or modify. If you are concerned about closing a business, period, you may want to think about supending it for a period of time. If, on the other hand you feel that the public welfare requires that this business be closed, then you will revoke their license, set an effective date of such revocation and then if they continue to operate after that then you would take appropriate criminal or civil action to prevent that course of action. I would insist that your final action be evidenced by a formal resolution setting forth the procedural events leading up to your decision, a summary of the evidence at least, a statement of your findings and lastly, your conclusion and the directions that are to be given ... that it be... and completely revoked. With respect to what happened thereafter, I will consult with you at an executive session in conjunction with special counsel because I do not think you can divorce action in this field entirely from civil litigation.,. and I would want Mr. Skinner of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher to be in on those discussions with you. Would you repeat that part. Are you saying you would want Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in on our deliberations. No, not on the deliberations with respect to this particular hearing, but with respect to the next question, that after you 8. 1 1 Bowling Square, Inc. February 28, 1967 - Continued (insofar as decipherable) City Attorney: Continued make your decision I would want you to have the advice of not only myself but of special counsel because what we do in this respect must go hand in hand with the civil litigation also, but that is not before you tonight. Councilman Considine: Two questions: 1) It is my understand~ that the defendant is now operating under three licenses: one for bowling, one for the serving of alcoholic beverages and one for special amusement devices. Are we considering, and I assume we are, only that one which pertains to bowling. City Attorney: The letter I gave to Mr. Stevenson is a declaration that I made at the last meeting and the notice itself are restricted solely to the permit to conduct a bowling alley. With reference to a permit to operate a cocktail lounge, we do not purport to regulate a cocktail lounge except by way of zoning. The zoning is not an issue so the only thing before you was the permit to conduct a bowling alley. Councilman Considine: you said we had the possibility of allowing him to continue as he now is, suspension of his bowling license to a time certain, or a modification of that license. Could you expand for me on the modification. I am not sure I understand the potentials of that area. City Attorney: The permit not only specifies particularly the condition permitting the sale and consumption of beer, but prohibiting the sale, serving or consumption of any other type of alcoholic beverage on the concourse. You have it in your power to modify these conditions. Ordinarily you think of adding additional conditions rather than retreating from them, but that is the scope of modification - either to relax or to further implement the conditions. Councilman Considine: The modification of the permit to serve beer was a relief granted some years back at the time when the sale of all alcoholic beverages was prohibited, the thought being that we were at that point being concerned with minors obtaining alcoholic beverages. We felt beer would be pretty evident in the hands of a minor and not a serious intoxicant in the hands of an adult as compared to the alcoholic beverages. Am I correct in this reasoning. Councilman Butterworth: That certainly was part of it, yes, Mr. Considine ... could easily determine that and it would be enforceable and less of a problem. I think there were other reasons but certainly that is part of it. City Attorney: Part of the reason was the one alleged decision ... financial hardship. Councilman Butterworth: I would like to make this observation, Mr. Mayor. If Mr. Vander Meu1en at this time or within a short period of time would indicate to this body that he would comply with this ordinance, I for one would be willing to suspend this action entirely and would take no further steps if he will dismiss his civil action and take whatever steps are reasonable to our City Attorney to bring himself into compliance with the ordinance in question, again,I for one, would be willing to drop this entire proceeding right now and let bygones be bygones and let Mr. Vander Meulen conduct his business within the scope of our ordinance. However, 9. 1 1 Bowling Square, Inc. February 28, 1967 - Continued (insofar as decipherable) Councilman Butterworth: Continued in lieu of any such course of action by Mr. Vander Meulen I have this feeling on the action we should take. I don't think this is a case of modification. No modification makes sense to us right now. The next step would be suspension. Suppose we suspended his permit to conduct bowling for three months. That doesn't make very much sense. If shop is shut up for three months, it is gone, and then what happens at the end of 90 day s. It seems to me that under the circumstances the proper course of action to make would be a revocation of the bowling permit; that being my conclusion on it as I think that is the only reasonable course of action that we have open to us at this time. I would MOVE that this Council revoke the Bowling permit at 1020 Baldwin Avenue and that the same is to become effective upon the adoption of a formal resolution making the proper findings of fact and whatnot to be prepared by the City Attorney. MOTION Councilman Considine: May I ask a question. Was it my understanding, Mr. Butterworth, that you were thinking in terms of if Mr. Vander Meu1en would take appropriate action to indicate he would operate within the scope of the ordinance and within the scope of the law without civil suit, without further violation that we would be willing to drop this. Councilman Butterworth: I would be willing to. Councilmen Considine: If that were the case would you then include in your motion the statement that if between now and perhaps at the time the first resolution would be prepared that he may make such a presentation and the resolution then could become void. We simply would not vote on the resolution, but I think it should be stated somewhere that it would be the intent of the Council because I don't think it is our intent to drive people out of business. It is our intent to uphold the ordinance and regulations of the City for the betterment of the community and we are not anxious to put people out of business. We would rather see them in business and functioning. Councilman Butterworth: I want the record to be perfectly clear on that matter and if it would not come from the resolution that Mr. Nicklin is to prepare, I would certainly make as part of that motion - I want to hear Mr. Nicklin on it - but anyway, I would make as part of that motion the additional motion that if Mr. Vander Meu1en and his associates who operate at the bowling alley at 1020 S. Baldwin Avenue will dismiss the civil action and will file the necessary affidavits required by our statute to the effect that distilled spirits may not be sold on the concourse of the bowling alley and will otherwise comply with reasonable requirements to be asserted by the City Attorney, then that this action itself be suspended. Additional motion Councilman Considine: I would second that motion. City Attorney: I would point out that your action tonight is somewhat like a memorandum ... it is an indication of what your action is going to be upon the signing of the formal documents that will incorporate that decision, so that is all such action would be 10. I 1 Bowling Square, Inc. February 28, 1967 - Continued. City Attorney: Continued City Clerk calls ROLL CALL: Mr. Stevenson: City Attorney: Mr. Stevenson: (insofar as decipherable) tonight is an indication of your things occur during the interim, adopted the resolution, you have permit and so on. course of action and if these then of course you have not not actually revoked the / /' AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Arth, Butterworth, Considine, Hage, Forman None None Could the City Attorney advise me as to approximately when this written resolution would be adopted. Our next regular meeting is a week from tonight at 8 o'clock. I would hope to have it prepared in advance of that meeting. Not later than Monday. Thank you very much. 11.