Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/2004

Home

Page 2 -- April i0, 2004 Z.B. Conditional Use -- Permit revoked after ~,ano riot Owner complains it wasn't aware of permit's existence Citation: La Caja Del Tango v. City of La Mesa, Court of Appeal of California, 4th App. Dist., Div. I, No. D04]090 (2004,) CAL]2rOP, xNL4_ (02/24/04) --In 1993, Sphinx International was issued a busi- ness license for a restaurant, bar, and catering service on its premises subject to the condition it not offer bye entertainment or dancing without the prior approval of a conditional use permit. In 1994, Spln/mx received a conditional use permit for entertainment, sub- ject to conditions requiring a minimum number of parking spaces, cessation of performance at midnight, sound control, security, and lighting. The per- mit 'also stated a hearing could be held to review the permit at any time upon determining the business was creating a nuisance in the surrounding neigh- borhood. In 1995, La Caja Del Tango bought the premises. At a dance party the next summer, a riot erupted, involving a gang fight between hundreds of people. ,Shots were f'n-ed, and neighboring residents panicked. The riot was finally contained by dozens of police officers. In response, the city scheduled a hearing to review the conditional use permit. Ultimately, the city revoked the permit, finding the permit's condition aga/nst creating a public nuisance had been violated. La Caja sued, arguing it had no knowledge of the permit's conditions when it bought the property. The. court ruled in the city's favor. La Caja appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. La Caja had adequate notice of the conditional use permit when it bought the property, and accepted its conditions when it operated the premises under it. A subsequent owner of a property with a conditional use permit was charged with knowledge of the law bearing on revocation of the permit. There was no law requiring the city to record the permit or its revocation. Even so, there was substantial evidence La Caja knew the premises were subject to the conditional use permit. The 1993 license obtained by Sphinx was sig-ned by La Caja's principal owner, Agpaoa, who acknowledged the license was subject to certain conditions. 'Although Sphinx was listed as the applicant on the 1994 conditional use permit application, evidence showed La Caja's principal was involved in the process of acquiring the premises' busi- ness license, liquor hcense, and permit. In t995, La Caja officially bought the premises and began operating under the perrrfit ori~nall,,/issued to Sphinx. Importantly, once the benefits of a con- Taus, when difional use permit were accepted, the conditions ran with the land.' ' '. Agpaoa and La "-' ' ~ ~aja bought the premises and began operating under the per- z?2t. ~.he7 ~ctr~oted the pe:'n~i(s benefits :_md became .,;.ul_;ject to its conditions. E; '2CC,Z Cuin~an ::',2oiishing ,:~,'oup. ).ay ,eproouc'[ion is ;:.rohibited. ?or more information ;:leasa ,:ail {617) 542-0(148. 138 ~