City Council upholds conditions for Lacey Street Cabaret after police testimony and neighborhood protests
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
After extended testimony from neighbors and LAPD investigators, the Los Angeles City Council voted to uphold conditions on the Lacey Street Cabaret, citing police investigations, arrests and allegations of juvenile exposure; the decision follows prior hearings and a federal court order referenced in the record.
The Los Angeles City Council on April 14 upheld conditions placed on the Lacey Street Cabaret, following testimony from police investigators and dozens of neighborhood residents who described repeated public-safety problems around the club.
Captain Wozell of the Hollenbeck division told the council that his unit spent “600 hours of investigative time at the Lacey Street Cabaret” and that the investigation produced more than 21 arrests (the testimony referred to 21–22 arrests). Sergeant Ronald Shoop and investigator Andrew Barbosa described undercover operations, lewd-conduct arrests and an allegation that a juvenile performed at the club. Barbosa said he was “the assigned investigator for the Lacey Street Cabaret investigation” and described evidence developed during the probe.
Neighbors and business owners told the council the venue produced public urination, trash, graffiti and incidents that disrupted schools and the surrounding industrial corridor. Attorney for the club argued that prior council action rescinding a police commission permit was unconstitutional and warned that reversing the zoning administrator’s decision would cost taxpayers further legal fees.
Council members debated the evidentiary record and the history of hearings before the zoning administrator, the Board of Zoning Appeals and the council’s PLUM committee. Supporters of the zoning conditions, including Councilmember Hernandez and others, emphasized the nexus between police testimony and the conditions proposed by the zoning administrator. Opponents argued for due-process concerns raised by the club’s attorney.
Councilmember Alatorre moved the previous question to cut debate and the council then adopted the motion and approved the item; the roll call on the final action was recorded as 12 ayes, approving the conditions as recommended by the zoning administrator and PLUM committee. The council’s order requires the club to abide by the imposed conditions or face potential permit revocation.