Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and approve the hearing officer’s recommendation to deny the business license application submitted by Alsace Lorraine Fine Pastries, Inc., dba Alsace Lorraine Fine Pastries, located at 4334 Atlantic Avenue.  (District 8)
We're going to move that item up. And we're also item 14 has also been withdrawn. And there are also no presentations tonight. And so with that, we're going to go ahead and get right into the hearings. And Madam Clerk, if we can begin with hearing item number one. Report from financial management recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and approve the hearing officer's recommendation to deny the business license application submitted by all seats. Lorraine Fine Pastries located at 40 334 Atlantic Avenue. An oath is required. If we can do. The oath. Okay. Everyone is going to be speaking on this. Please raise your right hand. You and each of you do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the cause now in pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. Thank you. With that, we're going to go ahead and turn this over to city staff for the report. Mayor. City Council members giving the presentation today will be Bret Jacobs from the Finance Management. Good evening, our mayor and members of the city council. Tonight you have before you a recommendation to uphold the hearing officer's decision to deny the business license application for Alsace-Lorraine Fine Pastries Inc doing business as RC salary and find pastries located at 4334 Atlantic Avenue in Council District eight. The hearing was continued at the October 18th, 2016, council meeting. The direction provided at that time was for the city to conduct outreach to the attorney representing the property owner, Mr. No. As a last good faith effort to see if a reasonable settlement offer would be forthcoming prior to tonight's hearing. Outreach was conducted by the City Attorney's Office, and it is my understanding that there have been no reasonable settlement offers submitted to the city. They will conclude my staff report and I stand ready to answer any questions council may have. Thank you. Thank you. With that, let me go ahead and turn this over. Is there any public comment on the hearing before we get into council comments? Please come forward. Good evening. My name is Ten West and I'm actually the attorney from the bar, the law firm for also sorry fine pastries. I'm to update the city council on this issue. There actually has been a settlement offer communicated to the city attorney, Mr. Zinger, dated November 17th. And just so you know, if we can just stop the clock because it's a hearing, you're going to have a reasonable amount of time. So 10 minutes under 10 minutes, if you can give you. Share, it will be less than five, hopefully. Okay. But just show up to the city council. A sort of make communication has been has been delivered to the city attorney's office. I don't know if the council has received that information. Hopefully, the city council can take that into consideration. But mainly I just wanted to discuss. This matter only in the sense that the denial of the business license to assist Lorraine was was due purely to the failure, I'm quoting. Failure of the property owner to comply with the global laws and regulations. It wasn't anything that the bakery did. It was what the landlord did. And such a license was denied to the bakery. I also want to point out that there was an article recently in the press telegram that stated that. The city expected the issue to issue a final denial and that the decision cannot be appealed again. The statement is actually not true. The appeal will take its course in the Superior Court, where it is now pending and thereafter. The bakery is ready and willing to take the matter to the Second District Court of Appeal if necessary. So. So. The City is aware and the City Council is aware. The matter does not end tonight. If needed, we can take the matter to court. And with that, I just wanted to update the city council on that information. Great. Thank you. Any other public speakers on the hearing? Seeing none. I'm going to go ahead and close the public comment for the hearing and go back to the council. So, Councilmember Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And and I want to thank the council and the rest of city staff for indulging us over the last several weeks. We did continue this matter in an effort to get a reasonable settlement agreement, as I understand it, and I've read some some news reports, press reports about this particular matter that I think we need to really work to to clarify this matter in terms of what's really at stake and what we're really dealing with here. And as I understand it, this case really boils down to the property owner does not have a business license to lease a commercial property because it was revoked doing due to his leasing space to an illegal marijuana dispensary. Because the property owner does not have a business license, the city cannot issue a business license for a business to operate at that location. Is that correct, Mr. City Attorney. That is correct. So I'd like to go over a few questions over the regarding the timeframe. And as I recall, the City Council enacted a ban on medical marijuana dispensaries in February 2012 after a court ruling. And before that time when the city was allowing a limited number of permitted dispensaries to operate. Was the medical marijuana dispensary operating at this location prior to the ban going into effect affected the city? Was it was it operating prior to the ban going into effect? Does anybody have knowledge of that? Councilmember Austin Yes, it was operating. However, it was not one of the lottery winners or one of the approved applicants under 5.7. So it was operating illegally. So it was an illegal operation, correct. Okay. And it was not one of the lottery winners permitted to operate under our order? That's correct. So even when the city had an ordinance in place allowing certain dispensaries, the dispensary at this property location was operating illegally in violation of our ordinance. Is that correct? That's correct. And was the property owner owner ever notified that he was leasing his property to an illegal business prior to the revocation of his business license to lease the property? Correct. We gave several warnings and then there were also 424 citations issued to the property owner, letting him know that he had an illegal business operating on his property. Did you how many citations did you say? 424. 424 citations. And what period of time was that? We issued citations from March 13, 2012 to August nine, 2014. Okay. Thank you. And according to the information in this agenda, item, ALSACE-LORRAINE applied for a business license in June 2014 to operate as a bakery . However, the bakery was in operations before 2014. Was there a previous business license issued to Alsace-Lorraine? No. So Mr. No had the bakery license under his personal name, and that license was suspended on April 30th, 2014. We then received an application from All Syrian Fine Pastries Inc on June 19, 2014. So. So is the same Mr. No. Is it the same Mr.. No. Who had the business license under also is lowering the bakery the same property owner? So the property owner was also the bakery owner at one point in time. And so since April 30th, 2014, there has not been a valid business license for a bakery at that property. Okay. And so less than two months after his license was suspended, a new license application was received by a new owner from all states. Lauren, is that correct? That's correct. But Mr. No is still the property owner. That's correct. Okay. I'm just trying to get some clarification. I want to make sure that we're clear on this. So the bakery has been going has been operating without a business license in the city since 2014. Well, it goes to the appeal process. Is that correct? That's correct. So there has been, in my opinion, some some leniency in that regard, because do we normally allow businesses to operate without a business license knowingly? No. We knowingly do not allow businesses to operate well without a license. And what does the property owner currently owe the city? And fines and penalties. Can you work? Currently the amount that's owed is over $1,000,000 with penalties and interest. Okay. Last month, I made a motion to continue this hearing for 30 days to give the property owner an opportunity to reach a settlement with the city. Can the city attorney provide an update on what, if any, communications have taken place over the past 30 days to reach that objective? Councilman. Yes, our office did reach out to the business owner, the applicant, through his attorney, and indicated the motion that was made last month and gave them an opportunity to make what we would have considered to be a meaningful offer. We did not receive anything substantial compared to the outstanding debt of over $1,000,000. Okay. In terms of what we define as substantial. Ken, is is that is it possible for us to share the find the amount that they offered was $25,000. Okay. And as I recall, this appeal was referred to an independent hearing officer prior to it coming to the city council 30 days ago. That's correct. And what was the recommendation of the independent hearing officer? The recommendation was to uphold the decision to revoke the business license. Okay. In this matter, I think the city has has expended a tremendous amount of resources with a a property owner that has really shown no contrition, no remorse, and no regard for the the law for that established by the city. I don't think we have any other choices as a city at this point. And so I'd like to move to receive the supporting documentation into the record and conclude the hearing and approve the hearing officer's recommendation to deny the business license application submitted by Alsace-Lorraine Front Pastries, Inc. Thanks. Vice Mayor Richardson. I support the motion. Okay, there is a motion any second. Is there any any council comment on this? There's a motion and a second on the floor. There's been public comment for the hearing. So at this time, we'll go and call a vote on the motion for the hearing.