Land Use Committee
Memorandum
TO: LAND USE COMMITTEE MEMBERS DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2026 FROM: COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WARDS: ALL
DEPARMENT
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT REGULATIONS
ISSUE:
Review existing regulations pertaining to Entertainment Permits and provide staff with policy direction on a proposed amendment and potential changes to the appeals process.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Land Use Committee provide staff with direction on a proposed amendment to RMC Chapter 5.80 and potential changes to the appeals process for Entertainment Permits.
BACKGROUND:
City Council adopted Ordinance No. 7488 on November 5, 2019, to add Chapter 5.80 within Title 5 (Businesses) of the Riverside Municipal Code (RMC). Chapter 5.80 regulates the operation of entertainment or entertainment establishments by implementing minimum standards related to public health, safety and welfare. All permittees are held responsible for controlling patron conduct in and around entertainment establishments, making adequate provisions for security and crowd control, protecting the City's youth from criminal activity, and minimizing disturbances as a result of the operation of entertainment. It also provides discretion to the Chief of Police in regulating the variety of businesses and events that provide entertainment.
On March 25, 2025, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 7708 to remove the individual appeal language from ten RMC sections and add one new section 1.17.121 — Appeal procedure for Riverside Police Department (RPD) review of business permits. This section provides a uniform appeal procedure for the various types of businesses and their permits when they are subject to an RPD review. Appeals of the Chief of Police's decision to deny, revoke, or suspend an Entertainment Permit are subject to the appeal procedures set forth in § 1.17.121.
At the July 28, 2026 City Council meeting, Staff proposed an amendment to Riverside Municipal Code Chapter 5.80.070 regarding the issuance of an Entertainment Permit. The proposed amendment would provide an alternative path for existing entertainment uses that have a history of code violations and are legally operating under a Minor Conditional Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit to be able to obtain an Entertainment Permit by allowing the Chief of Police to issue an Entertainment Permit if the permittee demonstrates they have abated the issues and agree to additional terms and conditions. Ward 2 councilmember requested to pull the proposed amendment from the consent calendar and directed staff to take the proposed amendment to the Land Use Committee for further discussion, including a discussion on the Entertainment Permit appeals process. Additionally, Ward 2 councilmember directed staff to research the entertainment permit appeals processes from other jurisdictions.
DISCUSSION:
An Entertainment Permit (EP) is required for entertainment that is open to the public. EP applications are reviewed and issued by the Chief of Police. If issued, an EP is valid for a 2-year term and must be renewed thereafter. In addition to complying with all applicable laws, regulations, and ordinances, EP holders must comply with 39 Tier 1 conditions which are focused on operating entertainment in a way that minimizes nuisances and protects life and safety. If Tier 1 conditions are violated, the Chief of Police may require a meeting with the permittee and affected departments to address the issues. The Chief of Police may impose Tier 2 Conditions, which are in addition to the Tier 1 conditions and supersede any similar Tier 1 conditions. If three or more noise complaints are received within a 30-day period, Tier 2 noise conditions go into effect. If there are three or more complaints or occurrences that require a Police or Fire Marshal response to the permittee's premises within a 30-day period, or if a single incident involving violence occurs, Tier 2 safety conditions go into effect. After 30 days of successfully operating under Tier 2 conditions, a permittee may request to return to Tier 1 conditions. However, if issues are unresolved within 30 days of operating under Tier 2 conditions, or if a major incident occurs, Tier 3 conditions may be imposed, or the EP could be suspended. Tier 3 conditions include more restrictive noise and safety requirements. If an EP holder continues to violate Tier 3 conditions, the Chief of Police may begin revocation proceedings.
The denial, revocation or suspension of an Entertainment Permit may be appealed in accordance with the Administrative Code Enforcement Remedies of RMC § 1.17.121. This is a uniform appeals process that applies to all business permits reviewed by the Riverside Police Department, including massage, pawn shops, tobacco retailers, adult oriented businesses, and more. Appeal of a decision to deny, revoke or suspend a permit must be filed in writing within ten (10) calendar days of the decision. The appeal requires a hearing before an Administrative Hearing Officer, whose review is limited to the issues raised in the written appeal. The Entertainment Permit denial, revocation, or suspension is stayed pending a determination on the appeal by the Administrative Hearing Officer. The date of the hearing before the Administrative Hearing Officer is given to the appellant in writing and is scheduled no sooner than ten (10) days after the date when the notice is served. The Administrative Hearing Officer reviews evidence and hears testimony that can include, but is not limited to, police reports, criminal citations, photographs, videos, and audio recordings. The City bears the burden of proof to establish the existence of a violation, and the Administrative Hearing Officer uses a preponderance of the evidence as the standard of proof. Each party is given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence in support of their case. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Administrative Hearing Officer determines whether the appellant violated the terms of the Entertainment Permit or any other relevant law, statute, or code. If the Administrative Hearing Officer concludes the appellant was in violation of the law, the Administrative Hearing Officer will uphold the denial of the application, revoke the permit, or suspend the permit. The decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer is final but can be appealed via judicial review governed by California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6.
Staff conducted a survey of 30 California jurisdictions to analyze their processes for issuing and appealing entertainment permits (Attachment 1). Entertainment Permit decisions in half (15) of the jurisdictions require an appeal to a Hearing Officer, nine appeal to the City Council, three cannot be appealed because EPs are issued by the City Council itself, one requires a two-step appeals process before the City Manager and then before the City Council, and two jurisdictions have a partial appeals process (permit issuance denial by City Council cannot be appealed but revocation by Director can be appealed to City Council; Level 1 permit appealed to City Manager and Level 2 permit cannot be appealed since it is approved by City Council).
Staff is looking for guidance from the Land Use Committee on the following questions:
Should staff proceed with scheduling the proposed code amendment to RMC 5.80, originally on the 7/28/26 consent calendar (Attachment 2)? Are there any specific concerns with the current appeals process? Should staff analyze other possible appeals processes to determine whether they offer improvements, or should the City maintain its existing process as is? FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
Prepared by: Laurel Reimer, City Planner
Approved by: Miranda Evans, Community & Economic Development Director Certified as to
availability of funds: Julie Nemes, Finance Director Approved by: Thomas Hatch, Interim City Manager Approved as to form: James Johnson, City Attorney
Concurs with: Larry Gonzalez, Police Chief
Attachments:
California Entertainment Permit Survey
Proposed Code Amendment to RMC 5.80 – Ordinance Redlined Entertainment Permit Process Review ● Page 2