Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1978/11/14 Item 13CITY OF CHULA VISTA 13 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. _~~ ~~-~ 11/14 11/%78 For meeting of ~~~~_~~ ITEM TITLE Resolution 9365 -Approving Transfer of Cardroom License ~~~~, ,~ SUBMITTED BY Chief of Polic~~y ~~~~ ~ ITEM EXPLANATION (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES NO X ) The Cardroom License was approved for Paul Pilla in August of 1977. In April of 1978 the lease on the premises expired, however he kept his license in effect and in May arranged with Mike Haskell to be partners in the business. Haskell subsequently completed the application, paid the $300 fee, was investigated and approved for the license. Mr. Haskell reopened the business in partnership with Paul Pilla on Monday 10-16-78. It is his intention to buy Pilla's share in the future and become full owner.. This item is being presented to the City Council for ratification in compliance with CVCC 5.20.030 (Ordinance 1738 of 1977) to permit the transfer of the license in the future. tXN11~115 Agreement Resolution x Ordinance Plat Notification List Other ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on FINANCIAL IMPACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend Approval BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION COUNCIL ACTION - ,.- ~~f ;.~, - _..~o ~ a .~,,....,.z.._.s..~,-....._M.,~ n,~.~......a~..,..~.._..._..,.~... Form A-113 (Rev. 5/77) CITY OF CHULA VISTA 13 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. ~. 11/14 For meeting of lfi/7178 ITEM TITLE Report on Card Room Licensing Ordinance SUBMITTED BY City Manager ITEM EXPLANATION (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES. NO X ) The City Council continued a request for a transfer of a cardroom license at their 10/24/78 meeting for report from staff relating to various provisions of the current cardroom ordinance. The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1738 in 1977 which amended Code provisions as they relate to the regulation, licensing and continued operation of cardrooms in the City. The key provisions of the amending ordinance provided for the following changes: 1. Eliminated the seven year phase-out provision provided in Ordinance No. 1305, adopted 11/3/70. 2. Provided for the licensing of one cardroom for every 25,000 residents or any fraction thereof. 3. Provided for the transfer or assignment of licenses subject to ratification of the City Council. 4. Provided for a lottery system where new licenses, based upon the population criteria, would be issued in the month of May each year, if any. 5. Provided that licenses issued after the effective date of the amending ordinance, except those two already in existence, could not be transferred unless the licensee has been operating a cardroom for a full year at a fixed location within the City. In addition to Ordinance No. 1738, Council .adopted Ordinance No. 1757 which amended the Municipal Code by adding cardrooms to the list of conditional uses permitted in the C-C and C-T zones. continued on Supplemental Page 2 1"'\II 1 r T1 TT/Y Agreement Resolution CRt11151 I J Ordinance Plat Notification List, Other ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on FINANCIAL IMPACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION Accept Report BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION COUNCIL ACTION ~L/ ~" C ~ ". !:n ~ .J . , v ~ A_ ,~<v G'l Supplemental Page 2 Item No. =1~ 13 For meeting of ==1~~a~78 11/14 Under the provisions of Ordinance No. 1738, alottery was held, at which time two new licenses were issued under the population formula. Max Lercher and Joe Raso were the recipients of the two additional licenses. The Lercher license has been placed into operation but, as of this date, the Raso license is inactive. Of the two old licenses, one formerly held by Kay Erwin was sold to Paul Pilla in or about August 1977 and was operated at 771 Third Avenue from about December 1977 until April 3, 1978. Mr. Pilla lost his lease at that location in April 1978 but on October 16, 1978 he reopened the business, again under the name of "Four Aces", and took in a partner, one h1r. Haskell. Mr. Haskell, the intended purchaser of Mr. Pilla's interest in the license, made application to the Police Department under the terms of the ordinance to secure the City's approval for the transfer at some date in the future. Mr. Haskell has been investigated by the Police Department, as required under the ordinance, and has been recommended for approval by that department. While the application for the transfer meets all the requirements of the Code, it is unique only in the sense that no definite date has been established as to when the actual transfer will occur. It should be emphasized that nothing in the Code prohibits such transfer. After our review of the amended ordinance relating to cardrooms, we believe there is no good reason to treat the old licenses (that one held by Kay Erwin and the one currently held by the Village cardroom) any differently than the two new ones that were issued or any subsequent licenses that may be issued under the population formula. In addition, we believe the ordinance should be amended to require the licensee who draws a new license in the lottery to actually be in operation within some reasonable period after a license is issued. We believe a reasonable time might be a year, inasmuch as it can take that long to secure a location and open for business. We feel the provisions that now allow the transfer or assignment of a licensee's interest in a license should not be changed. We believe it would not be fair to require a licensee to turn in his license to the City if he no longer cared to operate a cardroom because he may have paid a sizable sum for the license when he purchased it, as is the case of Mr. Pilla. Also, the licensee would probably have invested considerable sums in building up a new cardroom business, which would have little or no value to a prospective purchaser if a license did not go along with it. It is therefore our conclusion that: 1. The rules and regulations as prescribed in Ordinance No. 1738 should remain substantially as they presently exist except that: (a) The ordinance should be revised to eliminate the grandfather provision distinguishing between the two old licenses and any new licenses that may be issued; and (b) A new licensee should be required to be in business within, say, one year of being issued a license. In relation to (b) above, some provision might have to be made to allow more than one year if a licensee is proceeding to build a new building for the business operation. Generally speaking, such a provision would require the licensee to be substantially under construction within, say, six months after the license is issued, and be open for business within a year from that time. ERA:mab ~3~5"