CITY OF CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AFFAIRS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION City Hall, Room 805 121 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60602-1288 (312) 744-6060 (phone) (312) 744-4789 (FAX) (312) 744-1944 (TTY) www.cityofechicago.org/bacp IN RE: LICENSE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS REGARDING THE CITY OF CHICAGO RETAIL LIQUOR LICENSE AND. ALL OTHER CITY OF CHICAGO LICENSES. Issued to: 17-LR-0018 BOTTLED BLONDE CHICAGO, LLC DIANE CORIERI (MANAGING MEMBER) Located at: 504 N. WELLS, CHICAGO, IL 60654 ORDER OF REVOCATION ‘These proceedings having been duly instituted by the City of Chicago, through the Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection/Local Liquor Control Commission, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Illinois Liquor Control Act and the Municipal Code of the City of Chicago and the Compiled Statutes of the State of Illinois to conduct license disciplinary proceedings regarding the City of Chicago Retail Liquor License and all other City licenses heretofore issued to: BOTTLED BLONDE CHICAGO, LLC, DIANE CORIERT (MANAGING MEMBER) for the premises located at 504 N. WELLS, written notice having been duly served upon the Licensee, and a public hearing having been duly held by a designated hearing officer in connection with said proceedings, and having duly considered the hearing officer's report of proceedings and having conferred with the hearing officer on the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence and having duly deliberated hereon, and being fully advised in the premises, FINDS: Charge # 22 is Not Sustained; Charges #1 through 3 and #7 through #21 are all sustained Revocation and Charges #23 through 25 are all sustained Revocation Charge #4 through #6 are sustained: Charge #4, $500 fine; Charge #5, $1000 fine; Charge #6, $1500 fine IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the City of Chicago retail liquor license and all city licenses issued to: BOTTLED BLONDE CHICAGO, LLC, DIANE CORIERI (MANAGING MEMBER) for the premises located at: 504 N. WELLS, and same are hereby REVOKED November 24, 2017 at 5:00 P.M. of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection/Local Liquor Control Commission ist day of November, 2017. ENTERED by the Dep Pehie Ciyy of Chicago ‘This isto certify that I have served the within Order of Revocation by leaving a Copy with This___day of at M _ Officers Name & Badge NumberLOCAL LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS. AFFAIRS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION CITY HALL - ROOM 805 121 N. LASALLE STREET CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 IN RE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS REGARDING +) THE CITY OF CHICAGO LIQUOR LICENSE ) 17LR18 AND ALL OTHER CITY LICENSES ) LICENSEE NAME: Bottled Blonde Chicago LICENSEE ADDRESS: 504 N Wells HEARING DATES: 9-5-17, 9-13-17 and 10-24-17 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. [find there was jurisdiction of the parties and jurisdiction of the subject matter 2. [find the testimony of Officer Declan Coen, Barbara Gressel, Michelle Schwartz, Nick Jordan, Joanne Angarone, David Shiba and Bryan Knipper to be credible and believable. 3. I find the testimony of Walter D. Shuberg III to not be credible. I find that the Licensee failed to present anything that evidenced prejudice in their not getting a written transcript of the morning proceedings of September 5, 2017, until 4 days before they had to present their case. 5. [find that the Licensee’s only evidence presented was an attempt to contradict evidence its own report presented at that hearing. 6. [find that the Licensee failed to name any witness they were unable to produce at trial or at least the subject matter about which such a witness, who could not be present, would have testified. 7. Lind that the Licensce’s motion for a mistrial and continuance should be denied. | find that the Licensee’s motion for a directed finding should be denied. 9. [find that on October 20, 2015, the Licensee and the City entered into a Plan of Operation. This Plan of Operation was an agreement between the City and the Licensee. The city agreed to issue a consumption on premises - incidental activity license, if the Licensee agreed to certain conduct in the operation of its business. On September 29, 2016, the parties agreed to a Revised Liquor License Plan of Operation (“Revised Plan of Operation”). 10, Prior to the testimony of any witnesses, the Licensee made a motion to dismiss counts that related to 4-60-040. The Licensee argued that 4-60-040 (h) allows for a denial of a licensee if the issuance of the license would have a deleterious impact on the health and safety of the ‘community. The ordinance further provides that there will be a “presumption of a deleterious impact if substantial number of arrests occurred within 500 feet of the premises”. The Licensee argued that since no arrests occurred around the licensed premises, there was no *authority to require a plan of operation, which is only used to overcome the presumption of deleterious impact. The Ordinance does not define that a deleterious impact only occurs when there are substantial arrests. Nor does the Ordinance limit the use of a plan of operation to instances where there are substantial arrests. The Licensee’s argument ignores the fact that the Licensee agreed to the plan of operation. The agreement to the plan of operation constitutes a contract between the city and the Licensee. ‘The Licensee could have refused to agree to a plan of operation and appealed a denial with the same argument. Instead the Licensee agreed to the plan of operation and the Revised Plan of Operation. I find that the motion to dismiss should be denied. 11.1 find that in response to the City’s request for books and records, the Licensee submitted City’s exhibit # 7, a document that showed for every month from March 2016 through February 2017 the sale of alcohol constituted over 60 % of the of gross sales, in comparison to food sales which was less than 40%. 12, find that the Licensee had admitted into evidence, Licensee’s exhibit # 2, whi to contradict the previously submitted City’s # 7. 13, I find Licensee’s exhibit # 2 not to be credible. 14, I find that the Licensee failed to explain with books and records how the calculation of the table fee was made, why, if itis a generally accepted figure, it was not provided on the first submission, and why the table fee was only deducted from the amount sale of alcohol. 15, [find that the Plan of Operation and the Revised Plan of Operation each provide: “For the purpose of this plan, the sale of alcoholic liquor shall be considered primary activity if, during any consecutive six (6)-month time period, the sale of alcoholic beverages exceeds 50% of gross sales.” 16. I find that from March 2016 through August 2016, the Licensee, by and through its agent, operated in violation of the plan of operation, 1, to wit, Licensee operated in a manner where the sale of alcoholic beverages was the primary business activity, in violation of Municipal Code of Chicago § 4-60-040 (h). 17.1 find that based upon the totality of circumstances, including the Licensee’s disregard for the agreed upon Revised Plan of Operation, the appropriate punishment for charge # 1 is revocation. 18. | find that from September 2016 through February 2017, the Licensee, by and through its agent, operated in violation of the Revised Plan of Operation, 1, to wit, Licensee operated in a manner where the sale of alcoholic beverages was the primary business activity, in violation of Municipal Code of Chicago § 4-60-040 (h). 19, I find that based upon the totality of circumstances, including the Licensee’s disregard for the agreed upon Revised Plan of Operation, the appropriate punishment for charge # 2 is revocation. 20. | find that the records prepared by licensee showed that for the year period from March 2016 through February 2017 the sale of food was only slightly over 33% of gross sales. attempted21.1 find that the Licensee charged over $ 500 to reserve a table, which is inconsistent with reserving a table for a restaurant, 22. The operation of the establishment was inconsistent with operation as a restaurant. 23. [find that a Chicago Police Officer investigating this establishment was on the premises three times. On each visit he noticed that fewer than 1/3 of the patrons were eating food, the wait staff was dressed in aitire not normally associated with food service, loud music was playing and the lights were dimmed. All of these are inconsistent with the operation of the establishment as a restaurant. 24, The Licensee offered no evidence as to the operation of the establishment that in any way showed that it was operated primarily as a restaurant. 25. 1 find that from March 2016 through February 2017, the Licensee, by and through its agent, sold alcoholic liquor as its primary activity and not as an activity incidental or secondary to the primary activity at the premises, at a time when the Licensee held a “consumption on the premises - incidental activity” license and did not hold a “tavern” license, in violation of Municipal Code of Chicago § 4-60-020 (a) and 4-60-010. 26. [find that the appropriate punishment for the violation in charge # 3 is revocation, 27. 1 find that on or about December 3, 2016, vomit and litter was found around the area adjacent to the licensed establishment. 28. find that the Licensee offered no evidence that it made any attempt to clean or sweep the area adjacent to the establishment on December 2, 2016. 29. I find that on or about December 2, 2016, the Licensee, by and through its agent, operated in violation of the Revised Liquor License Plan of Operation, € 3.4 and 8, to wit, Licensee failed to prevent the accumulation of litter, and failed to, after closing, sweep the sidewalks from comer to comer, which resulted in vomit being left in an adjacent doorway, in violation of Municipal Code of Chicago § 4-60-040 (h) 30. I find that the appropriate punishment for the violation in charge # 4 is a $ 500 fine 31. [find that on Friday night, December 30, 2016 at 11:30 p.m., the Licensee allowed a line of patrons waiting to enter the premises to exist outside of its establishment, which line was in excess of 25 persons, 32. [find that on or about December 30, 2016, the Licensee, by and through its agent, operated in violation of the Revised Liquor License Plan of Operation, § 10, to wit, the licensee failed to terminate use of a line to enter the premises after 11:00 p.m., in violation of Municipal Code of Chicago § 4-60-040 (h). 33. I find that based upon the totality of circumstances, including the Licensee’s disregard for the agreed upon Revised Plan of Operation, the appropriate punishment for the violation in charge # 5 is a fine of $ 1,000. 34. I find that on the evening of January 15, 2017, there was an accumulation of debris including cigarette butts in and around the area of the business establishment, 35. The Licensee presented no evidence as to any acts or plan to keep the area around its establishment free of an accumulation of debris on January 15, 2017.36. I find that on January 15, 2017, the Licensee, by and through its agent, operated in violation of its Revised Liquor License Plan of Operation, §f 3 and 4, to wit, Licensee failed to regularly monitor the exterior area around the premises during business hours in order to prevent littering and failed to prevent the accumulation of litter in violation of Municipal Code of Chicago § 4-60-040 (h). 37. [find that based upon the totality of circumstances, including the Licensee’s disregard for the agreed upon Revised Plan of Operation, the appropriate punishment for the violation in charge # 6 is a fine of $ 1,500. 38. [find that on January 16, 2017, there were loud noises caused by patrons leaving the establishment. 39, [find that on or about January 16, 2017, the Licensee, by and through its agent, operated in violation of the Revised Liquor License Plan of Operation, 34, to wit, License failed to ensure patrons departed in a quiet and orderly fashion, in violation of Municipal Code of Chicago § 4-60-040 (h).. 40. [find that based upon the totality of circumstances, including the Licensee’s disregard for the agreed upon Revised Plan of Operation, the appropriate punishment for the violation in charge # 7 is revocation. 41. 1 find that on January 16, 2017, the Licensee allowed a line of patrons waiting to enter the premise to exist outside of its establishment, which line was in excess of 25 persons. 42. I find that on or about January 16, 2017, the Licensee, by and through its agent, operated in violation of the Revised Liquor License Plan of Operation, § 10, to wit, the Licensee failed to maintain a single file only line of no more than 25 people on the exterior of the premises for persons awaiting entry to the premises, in violation of Municipal Code of Chicago § 4-60- 040 (a), ; 43. [ find that based upon the totality of circumstances, including the Licensee's total disregard for the agreed upon Revised Plan of Operation, the appropriate punishment for the violation in charge # 8 is revocation. 44. I find that on February 24, 2017, Officer Coen concluded that, based upon what he observed, the licensed establishment was being operated as a tavern and not as a restaurant where the sale of alcohol was an incidental activity. 45. [find that on February 24, 2017, there were over 200 patrons inside the establishment and only approximately 22 were eating, 46. 1 find that on February 24, 2017, the Licensee, by and through its agent, sold alcoholic liquor as its primary activity and not as an activity incidental or secondary to the primary activity at the premises, ata time when the Licensee held a “consumption on the premises- incidental activity” license and did not hold a “tavern” license, in violation of Municipal Code of Chicago § 4-60-020 (a) and 4-60-010. 47. 1 find that based upon the totality of circumstances, the appropriate punishment for the violation in charge # 9 is revocation,48. I find that on March 2, 2017, Officer Coen concluded that, based upon what he observed, the licensed establishment was being operated as a tavern and not as a restaurant where the sale of alcohol was an incidental activity. 49. [find that on March 2, 2017, there were over 40 patrons inside the establishment and only approximately 7 were eating. $0. [find that on March 2, 2017, the Licensee, by and through its agent, sold alcoholic liquor as, its primary activity and not as an activity incidental or secondary to the primary activity at the premises, at a time when the Licensee held a “consumption on the premises- incidental activity” license and did not hold a “tavern” license, in violation of Municipal Code of Chicago § 4-60-020 (a) and 4-60-010. 51, I find that based upon the totality of circumstances, the appropriate punishment for the violation in charge # 10 is revocation, 52. I find that on March 5, 2017, the sidewalk in front of the licensed establishment was so crowded with people that it was impossible to walk through and there was no security to regulate and move the congestion and the loud noise emanating from the crowd. 53. [find that on March 5, 2017, the Licensee, by and through its agent, operated in violation of the Revised Liquor License Plan of Operation, 3, to wit, the Licensee failed to monitor the exterior area around the premises during all of its business hours in order to address and abate noise and loitering by patrons, in violation of Municipal Code of Chicago § 4-60-040 hy. 54. [find that based upon the totality of cireumstanc violation in charge # 11 is revocation. 55.1 find that on March 7, 2017, Officer Coen concluded that, based upon what he observed, the licensed establishment was being operated as a tavern and not as a restaurant where the sale of alcohol was an incidental activity. 56, I find that on March 7, 2017, there were over 20 patrons inside the establishment and only approximately 6 were eating. 57. [find that on March 7, 2017, the Licensee, by and through its agent, sold alcoholic liquor as its primary activity and not as an activity incidental or secondary to the primary activity at the premises, at a time when the Licensee held a “consumption on the premises- incidental activity” license and did not hold a “tavern” license, in violati Chicago § 4-60-020 (a) and 4-60-010. 58. I find that based upon the totality of circumstances, the appropriate punishment for the violation in charge # 12 is revocation. 59. find that on March 11, 2017, the sidewalk in front of the licensed establishment was so crowded with people that it was impossible to walk through and there was no security to regulate and move the congestion and the loud noise emanating from the crowd, 60. I find that this crowd was loud and rowdy. 61. I find that on March 11, 2017, the Licensee, by and through its agent, operated in violation of the Revised Liquor License Plan of Operation, 4/3, to wit, the Licensee failed to monitor the s, the appropriate punishment for theexterior area around the premises during all of its business hours in order to address and abate noise, loitering by patrons and obstructive customer behavior, in violation of Municipal Code of Chicago § 4-60-040 (h). 62.1 find that based upon the totality of circumstances, the appropriate punishment for the violation in charge # 13 is revocation. 63. [find that on March 18, 2017, sold fifths of alcoholic liquor for consumption on the premises without placing bottle locks on the bottles as required by the revised liquor license plan of operation for “bottle service”. 64. [find that on March 18, 2017, the Licensee, by and through its agent, operated in violation of the Revised Liquor License Plan of Operation, § 20, to wit, Licensee failed to only offer “bottle service” using bottle locks, in violation of Municipal Code of Chicago § 4-60-040 (h) 65. [find that based upon the totality of circumstances, including the Licensee’s total disregard for the agreed upon Revised Plan of Operation, the appropriate punishment for the violation in charge # 14 is revocation, 66. I find that on March 18, 2017, there was a large crowd of person outside of the licensed premises. This crowd was loud and unruly to such an extent that walking through the crowd to leave the establishment was very difficult. 67. [find that on March 18, 2017, the Licensee, by and through its agent, operated in violation of the Revised Liquor License Plan of Operation, *§ 3 and 10, to wit, the Licensee failed to monitor the exterior area around the premises during all of its business hours in order to address and abate noise and loitering by patrons and obstructive customer behavior, in violation of Municipal Code of Chicago § 4-60-040 (h). 68. find that based upon the totality of circumstances, including the Licensee’s total disregard for the agreed upon Revised Plan of Operation, the appropriate punishment for the violation in charge #15 is revoc 69. I find that on March 19, 2017 at 11:23 a.m., on the wall of a building at or near the licensed premises, vomit was found. 70. [find that, based on the preponderance of the evidence, including the testimony of multiple witness that vomit did not appear near this area until the opening of the Bottled Blonde, and the Licensee having failed to present any evidence that any clean up occurred on the 18" or 19" of March, the vomit was not removed from the area by agents of the Bottled Blonde. 71. [find that on or about March 18, 2017, the Licensee, by and through its agent, operated in violation of the Revised Liquor License Plan of Operation, §9 3, 4 and 8, to wit, the Licensee failed to regularly monitor the exterior area around the premises and or failed, after closing, ‘to sweep the area from comer to comer, which resulted in vomit being left in an adjacent doorway, in violation of Muni 72. I find that based upon the totality of circumstances, including the Licensee’s total disregard for the agreed upon Revised Plan of Operation, the appropriate punishment for the violation in charge # 16 is revocation.73. [find that on March 24, 2017, at 6:59 a.m., at the Condominium Building’s Garage Door, which is adjacent to Bottled Blonde, vomit was found on the pavement. 74, [find that, based on the preponderance of the evidence, including the testimony of multiple witness that vomit did not appear near this area until the opening of the Bottled Blonde, and the Licensee having failed to present any evidence that any clean up occurred on the March 24 or 25, the vomit was not removed from the area by agents of the Bottled Blonde. 75.1 find that on or about March 24, 2017, the Licensee, by and through its agent, operated in violation of the Revised Liquor License Plan of Operation, §§ 3, 4 and 8, to wit, the Licensee failed to regularly monitor the exterior area around the premises and /or failed, after closing, to sweep the area from corner to corner, which resulted in vomit being left in an adjacent doorway, in violation of Municipal Code of Chicago § 4-60-040 (h). 76. I find that based upon the totality of circumstances, including the Licensee's total disregard for the agreed upon Revised Plan of Operation, the appropriate punishment for the violation in charge # 17 is revocation, 77. find that on March 26, 2017, at 6:54 a.m. at the Condominium Building’s Garage Door, which is adjacent to Bottled Blonde, vomit was found on the pavement. 78. I find that, based on the preponderance of the evidence, including the testimony of multiple witness that vomit did not appear near this area until the opening of the Bottled Blonde, and the Licensee having presented no evidence that any clean up occurred on the March 24 or 25 ‘or March 26, 2017, the vomit was not removed from the area by agents of the Bottled Blonde. 79. 1 find that on or about March 25, 2017, the Licensee, by and through its agent, operated in violation of the Revised Liquor License Plan of Operation, 4{]3, 4 and 8, to wit, the Licensee failed to regularly monitor the exterior area around the premises and /or failed, after closing, to sweep the area from comer to corner, which resulted in vomit being left in an adjacent doorway, in violation of Municipal Code of Chicago § 4-60-040 (h). 80. I find that based upon the totality of circumstances, including the Licensee’s total disregard for the agreed upon Revised Plan of Operation, the appropriate punishment for the violation in charge # 18 is revocation. 81. [ find that on April 9, 2017, there was a loud crowd of people out in front of the licensed premises. This crowd was patrons waiting to enter and there were more than 25 patrons waiting to enter. 82. I find that on April 9, 2017, the Licensee, by and through its agent, operated in violation of its Revised Liquor License Plan of Operation, #3 and 10, to wit, the Licensee failed to regularly monitor the exterior area around the premises during all of its business hours in order to address and abate noise and failed to maintain a single file only line of no more than 25 people on the exterior of the premises awaiting entry to the premises, in violation of Municipal Code of Chicago § 4-60-040 (h)..83. I find that based upon the totality of circumstances, including the Licensee's total disregard for the agreed upon Revised Plan of Operation, the appropriate punishment for the violation in charge # 19 is revocation. 84. [find that on the late evening of April 22, 2017 and the early morning hours of April 23, 2017, the video shows two different men using the door of the condominium building to urinate and a woman using the door of the condominium building to vomit. 85. [find that based upon the preponderance of the evidence, including the time of the event, the clothes worn by the persons, the actions of the individuals, and the failure of the Licensee to present any evidence as to the security personnel on duty at the time, these persons were coming from the Bottled Blonde. 86. I find that on April 22, 2017, and April 23, 2017, the Licensee, by and through its agent, operated in violation of its Revised Liquor License Plan of Operation 4 3 and 11, to wit: licensee failed to regularly monitor the exterior area around the premises during all of its business hours in order to address and abate obtrusive customer behavior, public intoxication, unruly behavior, which resulted in urination and vomiting in an adjacent doorway and garage entrance, in violation of Municipal Code of Chicago § 4-60-040 (h), 87. I find that based upon the totality of circumstances, including the Licensee’ total disregard for its agreed upon Revised Plan of Operation, the appropriate punishment for the violation charges in charges # 20 and 21 is revocation. 88. find that the City has failed to sustain its burden as to the allegations in charge # 22. 89. find that on the evening of May 6, 2017, there was a large crowd standing out front of the Bottled Blonde, including persons waiting to enter the Bottled Blonde. This crowd interfered with pedestrian traffic on the street. 90. I find that on May 6, 2017, the Licensee, by and through its agent, operated in violation of its Revised Liquor License Plan of Operation, $§[3 and 10 to wit; the Licensee failed to regularly monitor the exterior area around the premises during all of its business hours in order to address and abate noise, loitering and failed to maintain a single file only line of no more than 25 people on the exterior of the premises awaiting entry to the premises, in violation of Municipal Code of Chicago § 4-60-040 (h). 91. I find that based upon the totality of circumstances, including the Licensee’s total disregard for the agreed upon Revised Plan of Operation, the appropriate punishment for the violation in charge # 23 is revocation, 92, [find that on or about May 7, 2017, and again on May 8, 2017, vomiting occurred at or near the Bottled Blonde, which was not completely cleaned away. 93. I find that on or about May 7, 2017, and again on May 8, 2017, the Licensee, by and through its agent, operated in violation of its Revised Liquor License Plan of Operation, $f] 3, 4 and 8, to wit, the Licensee failed to regularly monitor the exterior area around the premises and /or failed, after closing, to sweep the area from comer to comer, which resulted in vomit being left in an adjacent doorway, in violation of Municipal Code of Chicago § 4-60-040 (h).94. I find that based upon the totality of circumstances, including the Licensee’s total disregard for its agreed upon Revised Plan of Operation, the appropriate punishment for the violation in charges # 24 and 25 is revocation, bebe Comet? IE Robert Emmett Nolan Hearing Commissioner