HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD Use Permit Revocation for Nightclub at 842 Fourth Street____________________________________________________________________________________
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting: May 1, 2023
Disposition: Resolution 15208
Agenda Item No: 5.a
Meeting Date: May 1, 2023
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Community Development
Prepared by: Alicia Giudice,
Community Development Director
Leslie Mendez, Planning Manager
City Manager Approval: ______________
TOPIC: USE PERMIT REVOCATION FOR NIGHTCLUB AT 842 FOURTH STREET
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL DENYING AN APPEAL (AP23-
001) AND AFFIRMINGTHE PLANNING COMMISSION’S MARCH 28, 2023 ACTION
TO REVOKE THE USE PERMIT (UP05-01) ALLOWING THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT
OF LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AND A COCKTAIL LOUNGE AS PART OF A NEW
RESTAURANT/SUPPER CLUB LOCATED AT 842 FOURTH STREET
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
George’s Nightclub is located at 842 Fourth Street. The business operates under Use Permit UP05-01,
which allows live entertainment and a cocktail lounge as part of a restaurant/supper club. The Use
Permit includes conditions of approvals (COAs) designed to address and monitor business operations,
site management and security, business license maintenance, hours of operation, and operation as a
bona fide eating place (i.e. full-service restaurant). Since re-opening after the pandemic quarantine in
April 2021, George’s Nightclub has been operating in direct violation of several fundamental conditions
of the Use Permit approval resulting in numerous and ongoing incidents of over-intoxication and
violence related to club operations. These incidents constitute a public nuisance which is both
detrimental to San Rafael Police Department (PD) resources and detrimental to the public health,
safety, and welfare of the surrounding community.
Due to the frequent and ongoing disturbances related to the nightclub’s operations, staff brought the
Use Permit up to the Planning Commission for revocation hearing at the March 28, 2023 Planning
Commission meeting. The owner of the business Evolution Nightclub & Restaurant, LCC attended the
hearing and responded to staff’s presentation. Based on evidence presented by staff and the business
owner at the hearing, and documentation presented in the staff report and attachments, the Planning
Commission found that the business was operating in non-compliance with Use Permit conditions and
represented a public nuisance, and unanimously voted to revoke Use Permit 05-01.
On April 5, 2023, the City received a timely appeal by the business owner of the Planning
Commission’s March 28, 2023 action (Attachment 2). The appeal asserts numerous arguments alleging
that the Planning Commission’s revocation was defective, including claims that the Planning
Commission was misinformed and that the City has discriminated against the appellant. Pursuant to
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.28.040.B, staff scheduled the appeal for the next available City
Council meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution denying the appeal (AP23-001)
and affirming the Planning Commission’s March 28, 2023 action to revoke Use Permit 05-01.
BACKGROUND:
On January 10, 2006, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-02 approving Use Permit
(UP05-01) to allow live entertainment and a cocktail lounge (i.e. nightclub) as part of a
restaurant/supper club at 842 Fourth Street. The Use Permit conditions stipulate, among other
provisions, that food service and on-site security be provided during all hours of operation of the
nightclub use. The Nightclub is owned by Evolution Nightclub & Restaurant, LCC and does business
under the name of George’s Nightclub.
Throughout the years, PD has received numerous calls to respond to incidents at George’s Nightclub.
Since the business re-opened in the spring of 2021, PD has received service calls related to incidents
at or related to the nightclub with increased frequency. Following the shooting and double homicide that
occurred in July 2021 involving people associated with a performance at the club, a Code Enforcement
Officer was assigned to conduct inspections to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions as
established as a part of the Use Permit. Numerous violations were noted, detailed, and conveyed to
Esly Figueroa, the business operator, in a letter dated September 8, 2021, with a request to correct and
comply.
Follow-up inspections since the September 2021 communication indicated that the business had made
no movement to correct the identified Use Permit violations and the PD continues to receive and
respond to frequent disturbance calls directly related to the club’s operations. Given that George’s
Nightclub continues to operate in non-compliance with fundamental conditions required of the Use
Permit and continues to cause frequent and ongoing disturbances requiring PD intervention, staff
brought Use Permit 05-01 up for a revocation hearing pursuant to the authority of San Rafael Municipal
Code (SRMC) Section 14.30.070 - Revocation of discretionary permits before the Planning
Commission at the March 28, 2023 meeting.
After considering the evidence presented before them, including testimony from Esly Figueroa, owner
of Evolution Nightclub & Restaurant LLC, the Planning Commission voted to revoke Use Permit 05-01
upon finding that the business was operating in non-compliance with Use Permit conditions and that it
represented a public nuisance. On April 5, 2023, Ms. Figueroa, Owner of Evolution Nightclub &
Restaurant LLC (“Appellant”) appealed the Planning Commission decision. Staff’s analysis presented
below demonstrates that the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke the use permit
has no merit.
ANALYSIS:
Summary of Appeal (AP23-001) and Staff Responses
The following is a list of appeal points submitted by appellant Esly Figueroa, followed by staff response.
The complete appeal letter is included as Attachment 3.
Appeal Point 1 – Inadequate Spanish Interpretation
The appellant alleges that the Spanish interpretation services provided during the hearing were
“inadequate, “improper and incomplete.”
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
Staff Response:
The interpretation was sufficient to have afforded the Appellant an adequate opportunity to
participate in the Planning Commission hearing.
The Appellant is a native Spanish speaker who understands and speaks English but is more
comfortable conversing in Spanish. As a courtesy to Ms. Figueroa, staff provided Spanish/English
language interpretation services for the March 28th Planning Commission hearing to ensure that
language would not serve as a barrier to the Appellant’s participation in the public process. Staff
publicly announced at the beginning of the hearing that interpretation was available on the
Spanish Interpretation Zoom channel.
During planning staff’s presentation to the Planning Commission and throughout the duration of
the hearing, the interpreter provided simultaneous translation from English to Spanish on the
Spanish Zoom channel. When the Appellant first addressed the Commission in response to the
staff report, she spoke in English, she did not ask for an interpreter or imply in any way that she
did not understand staff’s presentation. She also did not claim that the interpretation that had
been provided to her up to that point had been inadequate.
When the Appellant spoke again during public comment period, she requested interpretation
services and spoke in Spanish and the interpreter subsequently translated her comments into
English. Staff reviewed the video recording of the Planning Commission meeting to analyze the
quality of the Spanish to English interpretation. A comparison of a transcript of the Appellant’s
public comments (translated after the fact into English) with a transcript of the English
interpretation provided in real-time during the hearing demonstrates that while the interpretation
was not word-for-word, it adequately conveyed all of the points the Appellant made while
speaking in Spanish (see Attachment 5). This comparison contradicts the Appellant’s claim that
she was provided inadequate interpretation.
Appeal Point 2 – Missing Commissioners, Inadequate Review, & Discrepancies
The Appellant notes that some commissioners were absent at the hearing, asserts that those
present likely did not appropriately review the documents, and claims that “there are multiple
discrepancies between the documents and what was stated during the public meeting by city
staff.”
Staff Response:
Four Planning Commissioners attended the March 28th Planning Commission hearing. There
were two absences and one existing vacancy. Beyond making a cursory claim, the Appellant has
not explained how the number of Commissioners present affected the outcome or why a decision
by four commissioners would be improper. The Planning Commission Rules and Procedures of
the City of San Rafael adopted January 24, 2023, state that a quorum consists of four members
and that an affirmative vote of a majority of the quorum present (i.e. three Commissioners) is
necessary to act on a Use Permit revocation decision. In this case, the four present
Commissioners constituted a quorum, and the unanimous vote by all four present Commissioners
to revoke the permit exceeded the vote count required for revocation.
Although the Appellant asserts that the Commissioners did not review the hearing packet and that
multiple discrepancies existed between the packet documents and what was relayed orally during
the hearing, she provides no examples or evidence to support this claim. To the contrary, the
questions asked and comments made by the Commissioners during the hearing make it evident
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
that the Commissioners had read the agenda packet prior to the meeting. This appeal point has
no merit.
Appeal Point 3 – July 2021 Shooting Weaponized to Slander the Venue
The Appellant asserts that the George’s Nightclub has been wrongly associated with a shooting
and double homicide that occurred in July 2021 and that the shooting incident was repeatedly
referred to during the Planning Commission hearing. She alleges the City has weaponized the
event to slander the venue.
Staff Response:
The incident referred to by the Appellant represents only one of 24 incidents of violence and
disorderly conduct at or around George’s Nightclub involving nightclub patrons during the 19-
month period between June 2021 and January 2023. The Planning Commission’s decision to
revoke the nightclub permit and find it a public nuisance was based on the entirety of the evidence
presented and not on a single incident. The allegation in this appeal is unfounded.
Appeal Point 4 – Wrongful Accusation of Reselling Food
The Appellant states the venue was wrongfully accused of reselling food to a City staff member
who conducted an under-cover site visit, and that that staff member should be discredited
because she purchased and consumed food and alcohol during the visit.
Staff Response:
As relayed in the Planning Commission staff report, both the nightclub’s Use Permit and ABC
License require that the business operate a full-service restaurant and serve food during their
regular business hours. The nightclub is approved as a bona fide eating place, which is defined in
condition of approval #20:
“Bona fide public eating place” means a place which is regularly used and kept open for
the serving of meals to guests for compensation and which has: a) suitable kitchen
facilities for the cooking of an assortment of foods which may be required for meals; b) a
primary use of a sit down service to patrons; c) adequate seating arrangement for sit
down patrons provided on the premises; d) Take-out service that is only incidental to the
primary sit-down use; and e) alcoholic beverages all sold or dispensed for consideration
for consumption on the premises only, and only when, served at tables or sit down
counters by employees of the restaurant. A bona fide eating place does not include a
place where food service is incidental to the service of alcoholic beverages, constituting
less than 51% of sales.
Code Enforcement Officers conducted an undercover site visit to George’s Nightclub on June 4,
2022. The purpose of the visit was official city business to ascertain whether the venue was
operating as a full service/bona fide public eating place compliant with the Use Permit condition.
Senior Code Enforcement Officer Ana Santiago reported her experience at the club in a
memorandum included as Attachment 11 to the Planning Commission resolution and upon
questioning by the Commissioners during the revocation hearing. As reported, she was able to
order food with a drink, but there was no menu, food service was not offered before 9:45 p.m.,
chicken wings were the only food item available and cash payment was required (whereas drinks
could be paid for either in cash or with card). Ms. Santiago’s surreptitious visit to observe the
kitchen area confirmed inactivity. Ms. Santiago’s visit verified that the business was not operating
primarily as a full-service restaurant with incidental alcohol sales.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5
Neither Ms. Santiago nor planning staff stated or claimed that food was resold, and this was not a
basis for the Planning Commission’s revocation. The Appellant has not provided any information
which could discredit the Code Enforcement report. Regardless, the Code Enforcement report
was just one piece of evidence in an extensive record which the Planning Commission considered
in finding non-compliance with Use Permit conditions. This appeal point has no merit.
Appeal Point 5 – Wrongful Accusation of Inoperable Kitchen/No Menu/No Permit
The Appellant states the venue is wrongfully accused of not having an operating kitchen, menu, or
food preparation license.
Staff Response:
As stated above, George’s Nightclub is required to operate as a full-service restaurant/supper
club which is regularly used and kept open for the serving of meals to guests for compensation.
Evolution Nightclub (dba George’s Nightclub) possesses a Limited Food Preparation license from
the County of Marin. This license type, however, is restricted; it does not allow the preparation of
any food that must be refrigerated or washed and is not valid for the preparation of full-service
meals as required for a bona fide eating place as verified by the Senior Environmental Health
Specialist at Marin County Environmental Health Service Division (See Attachment 10 to Planning
Commission Resolution). Additionally, as documented in Attachment 9 of the Planning
Commission resolution, on its Facebook page, Yelp listing, and Do the Bay listing, George’s
advertises as a night club, and all references to the restaurant, including menus, have been
removed from the website and online ordering services. Site visits by both Code Enforcement
(see Appeal Point 4 above) and PD have documented that the venue’s kitchen cooking facilities
are not being used during business hours (see page 5 of Planning Commission staff report).
Staff has documented that the venue does not regularly operate the kitchen, advertise as a full-
service restaurant, provide a regular menu, prepare full-service meals, or even have a valid
license to prepare full-service meals as required by the approved Use Permit. The Appeal Point
has no merit.
Appeal Point 6 – Holding a Valid Business License
The Appellant states she operates with a valid business license and claims that at some point,
she was prevented from bringing it up to date.
Staff Response:
As relayed in the Planning Commission staff report (p.3), the business license for George’s
Nightclub expired on January 1, 2022, and has not been renewed since. City of San Rafael
Finance Department staff (Finance) have verified that the Appellant is able to renew her license at
any time. When Finance sends out business license renewal requests each December, any
unpaid accounts from the preceding 11 months are marked delinquent in the system. Once an
account is deemed delinquent, online renewal is no longer an option; the business owner is
required to contact Finance directly to renew the license, submit receipts and to pay delinquent
fees. Pursuant to these procedures, Finance marked the Appellant’s account as delinquent for
failure to renew the business license within 11 months of its expiration; the Appellant, therefore,
must contact Finance to renew the business license. This Appeal point has no merit.
Appeal Point 7 – No Communication to Modify the Use Permit
The Appellant states that the purpose of the Planning Commission hearing was to consider
revocation or modification of the use permit, but that the City went straight for “the nuclear option”
of revocation without considering modification of the Use Permit.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6
Staff Response:
Staff clearly relayed, both in the staff report and presentation, that the Planning Commission had
the option to:
1.Adopt the Resolution revoking the Use Permit
2.Continue the hearing (to a date certain or an undefined date) to allow staff to address any of
the Commission’s comments or concerns; or
3.Recommend the Use Permit remain in effect as is or with additional conditions.
To begin the hearing, both planning staff and the Appellant were given an opportunity to present
to the Planning Commission. Staff presented facts about George’s Nightclub and recommended
revocation of the Use Permit. When it was Appellant’s turn to present, she gave only a very brief
statement and made no request for the Planning Commission to modify, rather than revoke, her
Use Permit. With the information it had been presented, the Planning Commission then voted to
revoke the Use Permit.
The Planning Commission acted within its powers in deciding to revoke, rather than modify, the
Use Permit. The Planning Commission relied on the detailed staff report and related attachments,
and the presentations by staff and Appellant, in finding that revocation was the appropriate action.
George’s Nightclub has been operating in direct violation of several fundamental conditions of the
Use Permit and numerous incidents of over-intoxication and violence related to club operations
have been documented since the venue reopened in April of 2021. In a letter dated September 8,
2021, Use Permit violations were noted, detailed, and conveyed to Ms. Figueroa, the business
owner, with a request to correct and comply. Follow-up inspections since the September 2021
communication indicate that the business made no movement to correct the identified Use Permit
violations and the PD continues to receive and respond to frequent disturbance calls directly
related to the club’s operations. Given that George’s Nightclub continued to operate in non-
compliance with fundamental conditions required of the Use Permit and continued to cause
frequent and ongoing disturbances requiring PD intervention, staff brought Use Permit 05-01 up
for a revocation hearing. The severity of the incidents, ongoing impacts to patrons, passers-by,
and the surrounding neighborhood, and the club’s total failure to show correction and
improvement led the Planning Commission to concur with the staff recommendation to revoke the
Use Permit.
Appeal Point 8 – Biased Decision due to City Staff and Police Department Bias
The Appellant alleges that the Planning Commission decision was biased against Evolution
Nightclub due to City staff and Police Department with insinuation that the cause is due to one of
race, economic, and legal status. The Appellant further alleges harassment by the Police.
Staff Response:
The Appellant has provided no evidence of bias or harassment by City staff including PD. Police
Chief Spiller testified during the Planning Commission hearing that the number of PD responses
to incidents at George’s Nightclub have been three times greater than those for any other San
Rafael venue over an equal time period. Chief Spiller also explained that the police do not
selectively monitor certain venues more than others; rather, they respond to incidents as
members of the public report them. The high number of police contacts with George’s is thus
indicative not of bias, but of repeated threats to public safety so concerning that they are reported
to the police by third parties.
Likewise, there is no evidence of bias by the Planning Commissioners. In fact, the Commissioners
stated during the public hearing that they were reluctant to revoke the permit because George’s
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7
Nightclub provides vitality and contributes positively to the diversity of the City, and that they
would be saddened at the loss of the positive aspects the venue provides. Ultimately, the
Commissioners objectively weighed the positive community benefits with the extensive record of
detriments to the health, safety, and welfare of the community as a whole and determined
revocation was appropriate.
Appeal Point 9 – Business is not Detrimental to the Community
The Appellant alleges that the nightclub is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare
and that she has operated under the impression that she was operating in compliance with Use
Permit conditions.
Staff Response:
Staff specifically informed the Planning Commission during the March 28th hearing that a Use
Permit may be revoked based on (1) non-compliance with Use Permit conditions or (2) because
the Use Permit holder has operated its business in a way that constitutes a public nuisance,
meaning an activity that is detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious
to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the city. As documented,
City staff have informed the Appellant of non-compliance with Use Permit conditions on several
occasions with no action on her end to address or remediate. Even assuming the Appellant
believed she was operating her business in compliance with the Use Permit conditions, the
number and severity of incidents requiring PD intervention demonstrate that George’s Nightclub
operates as a public nuisance impacting the health, safety and welfare of the community.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
Notice of all public hearings on the project, including this City Council appeal hearing, has been
conducted in accordance with the public review period and noticing requirements contained in Chapter
29 of the Zoning Ordinance. All notices of public meeting or hearing on the project were mailed to all
property owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius of the site and the representing neighborhood
groups at least 15 days prior to each meeting or hearing. In addition, notice was sent via certified mail
to the business owner and operator, and property owner. Notice of the appeal hearing was published in
the Marin Independent Journal on April 21, 2023.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
OPTIONS:
The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter:
1.Adopt the Resolution denying the appeal and affirming Planning Commission March 28, 2023
decision to revoke the Use Permit
2.Do not adopt the Resolution and uphold the appeal
3.Modify the Planning Commission’s determination
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt the Resolution denying the appeal and affirming Planning Commission March 28, 2023 decision
to revoke the Use Permit
ATTACHMENTS:
1.City Council Resolution
2.Appeal of Planning Commission decision from Esly Figueroa, owner of Evolution Nightclub &
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8
Restaurant LLC, dated Received April 5, 2023
3.Planning Commission staff report PLAN23-018 Use Permit Revocation, dated March 28, 2023
4.Planning Commission Resolution 23-001
5.Excerpt of Spanish to English Interpretation from March 28, 2023, Planning Commission
meeting
6.Public Comments
RESOLUTION NO. 15208
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL DENYING AN APPEAL (AP23-001)
AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S MARCH 28, 2023 ACTION TO REVOKE
THE USE PERMIT (UP05-01) ALLOWING THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF LIVE
ENTERTAINMENT AND A COCKTAIL LOUNGE AS PART OF A NEW
RESTAURANT/SUPPER CLUB LOCATED AT 842 4TH STREET
(APN 011-224-14)
WHEREAS, on January 10, 2006, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly-
noticed public hearing and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 06-02 approving a
Use Permit (UP05-01) allowing the re-establishment of live entertainment and a cocktail lounge
as part of a new restaurant/supper club located 842 4th Street; and
WHEREAS, Evolution Nightclub & Restaurant, LLC (dba George’s Nightclub) took over
business operations in September of 2013; and
WHEREAS, the Use Permit includes several conditions of approval and requires that
George’s Nightclub continually comply with the conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, a Use Permit may be revoked for the permit holder’s failure to comply with
the conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, a Use Permit may also be revoked if the permit holder operates their
business in such a way as to constitute a public nuisance; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department became aware that George’s
Nightclub failed to comply with the conditions of its Use Permit and operated its business in
such a way that constituted a public nuisance; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2021 the City sent a notice of noncompliance via standard
mail to Ms. Esly Figueroa, the operator of George’s Nightclub, notifying her of the various
violations of the conditions of the Use Permit for George’s Nightclub and giving the opportunity
to correct such violations; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Figueroa did not correct the violations of the conditions of the Use
Permit and operated George’s Nightclub in a way that was detrimental to the public health,
safety, and welfare; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2023, the City sent a letter to both Ms. Figueroa and the
property owner via certified mail notifying them that a revocation hearing had been set for March
28, 2023; and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2023, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing on the proposed revocation of Use Permit 05-01, accepting all oral and
written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff;
and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2023, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 23-001
revoking the Use Permit (UP05-01); and
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2023, the City received a timely appeal of the Planning
Commission Action filed by Esly Figueroa; and
- 2 -
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2023, the City of San Rafael City Council held a duly noticed
public hearing to review and consider the appeal (AP23-001), accepting all oral and written
public testimony and the written report by the Community Development Department Planning
staff and closed said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which this decision is based is the Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the Appeal (AP23-001) cannot
be supported for the following reasons.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Rafael
hereby denies the Appeal (AP23-001) and affirms the Planning Commission’s action to revoke
the Use Permit (UP05-01) based on the following findings:
A. Findings for Denial of Appeal (AP23-001)
Appeal Point 1 – Inadequate Spanish Interpretation
Whether the Spanish interpretation services provided during the Planning Commission
hearing were “inadequate, “improper and incomplete.”
The City of San Rafael City Council has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff
response to this appeal point presented in the Agenda Report to the City Council dated May 1,
2023, that the interpretation provided during the Planning Commission hearing was adequate.
Appeal Point 2 – Missing Commissioners, Inadequate Review, & Discrepancies
Whether the Planning Commission appropriately reviewed the documents, whether there
were discrepancies between the documents and what was presented during the public
meeting by City staff, and whether there was quorum and a proper vote to revoke the Use
Permit.
The City of San Rafael City Council has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff
response to this appeal point presented in the Agenda Report to the City Council dated May 1,
2023, that the Planning Commission appropriately reviewed the documents, that there were not
discrepancies between the documents and what was presented during the public hearing, and
that there was a quorum and proper vote to revoke the Use Permit.
Appeal Point 3 – July 2021 Shooting Weaponized to Slander the Venue
Whether George’s Nightclub was wrongly associated with a shooting and double
homicide that occurred in July 2021 and whether the Planning Commission focused too
heavily on that event in making its decision to revoke the Use Permit.
The City of San Rafael City Council has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff
response to this appeal point presented in the Agenda Report to the City Council dated May 1,
2023, that George’s Nightclub was not wrongfully associated with a shooting and double
homicide in 2021, and that the Planning Commission gave appropriate weight to this event in
making its decision to revoke the Use Permit.
- 3 -
Appeal Point 4 – Wrongful Accusation of Reselling Food
Whether the Appellant’s venue was wrongfully accused of reselling food to a City staff
member who conducted an undercover site visit.
The City of San Rafael City Council has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff
response to this appeal point presented in the Agenda Report to the City Council dated May 1,
2023, that George’s Nightclub was not wrongfully accused of reselling food to a City staff
member who conducted an undercover site visit.
Appeal Point 5 – Wrongful Accusation of Inoperable Kitchen/No Menu/No Permit
Whether Appellant had an operating kitchen, a menu, and a food preparation license.
The City of San Rafael City Council has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff
response to this appeal point presented in the Agenda Report to the City Council dated May 1,
2023, that George’s Nightclub did not have an operating kitchen, a menu, or a valid food
preparation license.
Appeal Point 6 – Holding a Valid Business License
Whether Appellant had a valid business license and whether she was prevented from
renewing her business license.
The City of San Rafael City Council has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff
response to this appeal point presented in the Agenda Report to the City Council dated May 1,
2023, that George’s Nightclub did not have a valid business license and that its operator was
not prevented from renewing the business license.
Appeal Point 7 – No Communication to Modify the Use Permit
Whether the Planning Commission was informed that it had the option to modify, rather
than revoke the Use Permit.
The City of San Rafael City Council has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff
response to this appeal point presented in the Agenda Report to the City Council dated May 1,
2023, that the Planning Commission was informed that it had the option to modify, rather than
revoke the Use Permit, and that the Planning Commission exercised appropriate discretion in
choosing to revoke rather than modify the Use Permit.
Appeal Point 8 – City Staff and Police Department Bias
Whether the Police Department or the Planning Commission was biased against
George’s Nightclub.
The City of San Rafael City Council has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff
response to this appeal point presented in the Agenda Report to the City Council dated May 1,
2023, that neither the Police Department, its officers, or the Planning Commission was biased
against George’s Nightclub.
Appeal Point 9 – Business is not Detrimental to the Community
Whether George’s Nightclub is operated in such a way that it is detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare.
- 4 -
The City of San Rafael City Council has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff
response to this appeal point presented in the Agenda Report to the City Council dated May 1,
2023, that George’s Nightclub is operated in such a way that it is detrimental to the public
health, safety, and welfare of the community, and therefore a public nuisance.
B. Findings for Revocation of Use Permit (UP05-01)
1. George’s Nightclub has repeatedly violated the conditions of approval contained within its
Conditional Use Permit.
2. George’s Nightclub is a strain on police department resources, and has repeatedly conducted
its business in a way that is detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, and is materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city;
therefore, George’s Nightclub operates as a public nuisance in contravention of San Rafael
Municipal Code Section 14.22.080.B.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council makes the following findings of fact
related to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):
C. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings
The revocation of the Use Permit is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15321
of the CEQA Guidelines (“Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies”).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of San Rafael City Council does hereby
deny the Appeal (AP23-001) and affirms the Planning Commission’s March 28, 2023 action
revoking the Use Permit (UP05-01).
I, Lindsay Lara, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was
duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City
held on Monday, the 1st day of May, 2023, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bushey, Hill, Llorens Gulati & Mayor Kate
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Kertz
Lindsay Lara, City Clerk
Attachment 3:
Planning Commission staff report PLAN23-018 Use Permit Revocation, dated March 28, 2023
https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/uploads/2023/03/PC-Staff-Report-3-28-
23.pdf
Attachment 4:
Planning Commission Resolution 23-001
https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelcaemployees/uploads/2023/05/Attachment-
4_PC-Resolution-23-01_Use-Permit-Revocation_Georges-Nightclub.pdf
Hearing Transcript Excerpts – Translated
YouTube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzqXf5P0wiw
0:30-0:54 – Planning staff mentions that Spanish interpretation will be provided on a Spanish
Interpretation zoom channel
5:30 - 16:35 – Planning staff present their recommendation that the Planning Commission revoke
the use permit
- The recording does not include a record of what was occurring on the Spanish
Interpretation Zoom channel, so it is impossible to evaluate the adequacy of this
portion of the interpretation
16:55 – Planning staff says that it is Ms. Figueroa’s turn to present; asks Ms. Figueroa if she
wants to speak, present, or respond.
17:05 – Ms. Figueroa says, in English:
- “Hello, my name is Esly, um, I’m the owner of George’s nightclub almost for ten years,
and I can hear everything, I was listening to everything they were saying, most of them is
not… like, we talked with Leslie before, we had a meeting before this hearing, and some
of them are not true, some of them are false, and I believe why… the police is the ones
that came over to the club many times, several times, just without a call or anything, and
came over to tell me what I had to do. And, no, I’m not okay with this, with everything
you’re saying about me, about my club, it’s not true. It’s not what they’re saying. That’s
all I can say.”
18:00 – Ms. Figueroa finishes giving her statement, commissioners open up the hearing to
discussion among the commissioners, ask staff questions, etc.
38:35 – Commission finishes their questioning and opens up the floor to public comment.
38:38 – Ms. Figueroa speaks up, wants to make a public comment. Ms. Figueroa says, in
English:
- “Hello? Yeah, uh, well the only thing I was reading is about.. um.. you say you have
interpreter, right, in Spanish? So I think it’s better for me to speak Spanish, I’m Latina,
like Mrs. Santiago said”
38:57 – Planning staff says, in English:
- “Great, go ahead.”
38:58 – Chair Suade says, in English:
- “Yes, please proceed.”
39:00: Ms. Figueroa says, in English:
- “In Spanish?”
39:02: Chair Saude and planning staff both say, in English:
- “Yes.”
39:03: Ms. Figueroa begins, in Spanish:
- “So, estaba ley[endo]… estaba viendo uno de los puntos que ellos dijeron fue de la
licencia de la comida, que insisten que yo no la tengo y yo tengo la licencia de ah… venta
de comida en ah… Evolution Nightclub. No es George’s. George’s es conocido por años,
pero es Evolution el club and restaurant así es, entonces está la licencia vigente. El otro
punto que habló eh.. han hablado es de los seguridad.. los cuatro seguridad. Que no… que
no han tenido su … ah.. una…la señora Santiago que estaba allí dijo que vio alguien que
estaba fumando marijuana, y eso es algo que yo no puedo manejar porque estaba fuera de
la hora de trabajar. Entonces, esto no lo podía manejar yo. Son cuatro seguridad los que
he tenido todas las noches y tengo cómo probarlo. Ah.. el otro punto que ah.. estaba
diciendo la señora Santiago fue de que los chicken wings habían sido cocinados nada más
y que ya no vio. Tengo un cocinero a que le pago semanalmente y no solamente está eso.
Hay tacos de carne, hay tacos de pollo, eh… también ella.. estaba viendo yo que ella en
su reporte, y la tuve enfrente de mí, no pude hablar con ella, ella en el reporte estaba
diciendo que una bebida se la cobraron más y no fue así. Yo, um, quiero decir esto – tuve
un… tuve un ahm.. ah.. un, una… una fiesta de.. de negros, voy a decir así.. que tenía
antes. Desde entonces, han utilizado mi …”
o Translation: “So, I was read[ing]… I was seeing some of the points that they said,
about the food license, which they insist that I don’t have, and I have a license for
um… food sales in um… Evolution Nightclub. It’s not George’s. It’s been known
as George’s for years, but it’s Evolution, the club and restaurant, that’s how it is,
so the license is valid. The other point that they said um… they talked about the
security guards, the four security guards. That … that they didn’t have their.. um ..
a… Ms. Santiago, who was there, said that she saw someone who was smoking
marijuana, and this is something that I can’t control because it was outside of
work hours. So I couldn’t control that. They are four security guards who I have
had every night and I have proof of this. Um.. the other point that.. um.. was that
Ms. Santiago was saying that the chicken wings had been cooked, nothing else,
and that she didn’t see any more. I have a cook who I pay weekly and it’s not just
that. There are beef tacos, chicken tacos, um… also she… I was seeing that in her
report, she.. and I had it in front of me, I couldn’t talk to her, in her report she was
saying that they charged her more for a drink and that wasn’t the case. I, um… I
want to say this – I had a… I had a um… ah.. a… um.. a party… a Black party,
I’m going to call it that… that I had before. Since then, they have used my…”
41:03 – Eli (counsel for the Planning Commission) asks if there’s a way for some interpretation
to be provided to the commission.
41:16 – Interpreter says in English that she’s sorry, that she would begin to interpret
41:21 – Interpreter says, in Spanish:
- “Um, señora Figueroa, le voy a interpretar lo que ha dicho hasta el momento, ok?”
o Translation: “Um, Ms. Figueroa, I’m going to translate what you’ve said up to
this point, ok?”
41:25 – Ms. Figueroa says, in Spanish:
- “Sí”
o Translation: “Yes.”
41:27 – Interpreter says, in English:
- “So I’m gonna interpret what she said so far. She said that she wanted to address a couple
of the points. Yes, she does have a license for food, and with respect to the marijuana, it’s
something that she can’t control because that person was off shift. When the other lady
came, she said that there were only chicken wings, but she did have chicken tacos and
other items of food.”
42:00 – Intepreter says (to Ms. Figueroa), in Spanish:
- “Ok, señora Figueroa, entonces dijo que desde que tu… la fiesta para negros, desde
entonces?”
o Translation: “Ok, Ms. Figueroa, so you said that since you… the Black party,
since then?”
42:09 – Ms. Figueroa says, in Spanish:
- “Siempre tuve eventos de hip hop. Y de toda clase. Bodas, quinceañeras, de toda clase.
Porque tenemos la cocina allí. Entonces, esta es…fue un evento de hip hop, desde eso
entonces la policía me ha puesto como un target a mí, diciendo que yo traigo mal grupos
a San Rafael.”
o Translation: “I always had hip hop events. And [events] of every kind. Weddings,
quinceañeras, all kinds. Because we have a kitchen there. So, this is… it was a
hip hop event, since then, then the police have put, like, a target on me, saying
that I bring bad groups to San Rafael.”
42: 38 – Interpreter says (to Ms. Figueroa), in Spanish:
- “Permítame un segundito”
o Translation: “Give me a second”
42:40 – Interpreter says, in English:
- “Ok so she said that uh, she has parties, hip hop parties, all types of parties, weddings,
quinceañeras, and since she had a hip hop party one time, uh, she’s been targeted by the
police, who say that she brings bad groups to San Rafael.
43:02 – Ms. Figueroa says, in Spanish:
- “Sigo?”
o Translation: “Should I continue?”
43:03 – Interpreter says, in Spanish:
- “Si, por favor”
o Translation: “Yes, please.”
43:04 – Ms. Figueroa continues, in Spanish:
- “Entonces, hubo incidente tres blocks de George’s Nightclub esa noche. Sin embargo,
ellos vinieron a pelear conmigo, la policía, fue una mujer. Y todos. Y que fueron… que,
que, que había sido porque yo había hecho ese evento y un policía me dijo que por qué yo
no mejor hacía eventos latinos, y ya no eventos negros, porque ellos eran problemáticos.”
o Translation: “So, there was an incident three blocks from George’s Nightclub that
night. Nevertheless, they came to fight with me, the police, it was a woman. And
everyone. And they were… that, that, that it had been because I had had this event
and a police officer said [asked] me why I didn’t instead have Latino events, and
no more Black events, because they’re problematic.”
43:35: Interpreter says (to Ms. Figueroa), in Spanish:
- “Ok, permítame, perdón.”
o Translation: “Ok, allow me, sorry”
43:38: Interpreter says, in English:
- “Ah, so, ah, there was an incident three blocks from George’s that night, but the police
came to see me, actually it was a woman who came, and said that this had happened
because of the event that I had had there. And the police told me why don’t I do parties
for Latinos, not for black people, because these cause problems.”
44:00: Interpreter says (to Ms. Figueroa), in Spanish:
- “Ok, adelante.”
o Translation: “Ok, continue.”
44:03: Ms. Figueroa continues, in Spanish:
- “Entonces, este, ella me dijo que no tenía que hacer más de este tipo de eventos sin
embargo no hubo nada que comprometiera mi club. Porque hubo investigaciones de parte
de la policía, estuvieron hasta personas que venían el [incomprehensible], el, ah, los
bomberos, vinieron todos, todos a mi club, y yo las entregué las cámaras, yo las entregué
todo. después de la investigación, se dio conocer que mi club no tuvo nada que ver con
ese evento. Sin embargo, desde esa fecha, me he sentido como un target que es a mí, a
que buscan siempre problemas y yo sé que hay más bares alrededor, y no son solo los
míos, los clientes que vienen de mí que están borrachos como ellos, la policía, me han
dicho.”
o Translation: “So, ok, she told me I didn’t have to have any more of these types of
events. Nevertheless, there was nothing that compromised my club. Because there
were investigations by the police, there were so many people that came, the
[incomprehensible], the, um, the firefighters, everyone came, everyone to my
club, and I gave them the cameras, I gave them everything. After the
investigation, it became know that my club didn’t have anything to do with this
event. Nevertheless, since this date, I have felt like a target, which is, to me, that
they always look for problems and I know that there are more bars around, and
it’s not just my patrons who are drunk like they, the police, have told me.”
44:54: Interpreter says, in English:
- “Ok, uh, so the police said I shouldn’t do any more of those parties because it
compromises my club, but there was an investigation, I gave them all, everything that
they needed, the cameras, they were.. everybody came, the firefighters, everybody. I gave
them everything from my cameras and at the end of the day they saw that my club was
not involved in this, but I still feel like a target. They look at me when things happen.
And there are other clubs around my business that have drunk people as well.”
45:33: Interpreter says (to Ms. Figueroa), in Spanish:
- “Ok, adelante.”
o Translation: “Ok, continue.”
45:35: Ms. Figueroa continues, in Spanish:
- “Entonces, ah, desde el después del COVID, que ha sido muy difícil para mí, ah… del
COVID, es sin embargo en seguido, adelante. Voy a cumplir casi diez años de estar en
Evolution Nightclub, trabajando bien. Y hasta ahora vinieron ellos que me quieren
revocar el permiso. Y si yo he hecho las cosas… he tratado de hacer las cosas bien.”
o Translation: “So, um, since after COVID, which has been very difficult for me,
um… since COVID, it’s in any case onward, forward. I’m going on ten years of
being with Evolution Nightclub, working well. And just now they came, they
want to revoke my permit. And yes, I have done things – I have tried to do things
well.”
46:06: Interpreter says, in English:
- “Ok, um, so after COVID, because this has been hard for me, after COVID I’ve
continued, and I’ve been almost ten years with Evolution Nightclub and it’s going well,
now they want to revoke my license and all I’m doing is trying to do things correctly.”
46:25-46:30 – there is a pause in the conversation
46:30: Interpreter says (to Ms. Figueroa), in Spanish:
- “Algo más señora?”
o Translation: “Anything else, Ms.?”
46:33: Ms. Figueroa says, in Spanish:
- “Ah, sí, lo único que quiero decir es que me siento triste por todo lo que estoy pasando,
esto me está enfermando, y yo era la dueña del edificio y el ano pasado yo perdí mi
edificio de George’s Nightclub, ahora solamente soy la dueña de Evolution Nightclub y
Restaurant. Y yo quero que escuchen mi parte también porque soy una mamá soltera y lo
único que quiero es trabajar y hacer las cosas bien y ayudar a la comunidad. Es lo que he
hecho. Gracias.”
o Translation: “Um, yes, the only thing that I want to say is that I feel sad because
of everything I’m going through, it’s making me sick, and I was the owner of the
building and last year I lost my building where George’s Nightclub is, now I’m
only the owner of Evolution Nightclub and restaurant. And I want them to hear
my side too, because I’m a single mother and the only thing that I want is to work
and do things well and help the community. It’s what I have done. Thank you.”
47:13: Interpreter says, in English:
- “Ok, the last thing I want to say is that, um, I feel this makes me sad what I’m going
through, it’s making me sick, I was the owner of the building of George’s, but last year I
lost that and now I’m just the owner of Evolution Nightclub. I want to say, too, that I’m a
single mother, I’m just trying to work well and help the community. Thank you.”
48:00 – Chair Saude closes the public hearing.
From: Craig Thomas Yates
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2023 5:38:00 PM
To: Mayor Kate <kate.colin@cityofsanrafael.org>
Subject: New George’s
Hello Kate
Recognized him, he conducted last show at New George’s for private invite 250 audience inclusive of
myself. His beginning there at New George’s, New George’s historical landmark for City San Rafael and
County of Marin!
We need to restore virtues of New George’s as well allow for second story!
Huey Lewis
Sincerely
Craig Yates
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone