Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1994/03/23 - Agenda Packet
0 1977 CITY OF RANCHO CUCA~ PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY MARCH 23, 1994 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMON~A, CALIFORNIA III. IV. Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Barker Vice Chairman McNiel Commissioner Lumpp Commissioner Melcher Commissioner Tolstoy Announcements Approval of Minutes March 9, 1994 V. Director's Reports SPECIFIC PLAN 93-01 - GENERAL DYNAMICS - A plan for the development of 380 acres of land that would include recreational, commercial, and retail facilities surrounding an 18-hole golf course, bounded on the south by 4th Street, on the east by Milliken Avenue, on the north by the A. T. & S. F. (Metrolink) Railroad, and on the west by Cleveland Avenue and Utica Street. VI. Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. VII. VIII. IX. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE - A consideration to revoke the Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a bar in conjunction with a restaurant in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-02 - SAM'S PLACE - A consideration to revoke an Entertainment Permit for a bar and restaurant in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. Commission Business Adjournment The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 P.M. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. VICINITY MAP CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT March 23, 1994 Chairman and Members of the Planning Co~nission Rick Gomez, Comunity Development Director Dan Coleman, Principal Planner SPECIFIC PLAN 93-01 - GENERAL DYNAMICS - A plan for the development of 380 acres of land that would include recreational, commercial, and retail facilities surrounding an 18-hole golf course, bounded on the south by 4th Street, on the east by Milliken Avenue, on the north by the A. T. S. F. (Metrolink) Railroad, and on the west by Cleveland Avenue and Utica Street. SUMMARY: This is the second workshop concerning the proposed sub-Area 18 Specific Plan. This report focuses on design guidelines, development standards, and infrastructure phasing. The Commission's discussion will provide guidance on these issues which will enable staff to direct the applicant to revise the plan text prior to the next meeting. It is anticipated that the final Commission meeting will be held on April 27, 1994. ANALYSIS: The Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan document has been prepared in the same format as the current Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISP) wherever possible to simplify administration. Therefore, the basic organization of the documents, and its specific provisions, are based upon the ISP. This report will focus on those areas where the proposed Specific Plan differs in terms of policy standard and/or format. A. Design Guidelines (Section 5.3) - Topic No. ~ - Level of Detail - The proposed design guidelines offer the same level of detail and similar language as the current ISP for site planning, architecture, and landscape. The Draft Specific Plan does not propose an architectural theme for the project. Specific design elements are proposed to be established through master plans for each individual planning areas. Recomendation: In the absence of any unifying design theme, staff believes that a more definitive design theme is needed to create a distinguishing character for the project. These landscape and architectural elements should include a hierarchy of street furniture and landscape features. These missing elements should include, at a minimum, design concepts for entry statements, monumentation (project and directional) signs, and lighting standards. This can all be done through a design manual or Master Plan prior to the development of any planning area. ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN 93-01 - GENERAL DYNAMICS March 23, 1994 Page 2 Commission Action: Topic No. 2 - Golf Course (page 5-25) - The proposed guidelines establish the "edge" character of the golf course (i.e., where it meets the street or adjoins development parcels). A 6 to 8 foot high "golf theme view fence" within a minimum 10 foot wide perimeter "landscape transition buffer zone" is proposed wherever a planning area abuts the course. Along the street, such as 6th Street, the same treatment is proposed, except that pole-mounted, ball-barrier netting, not to exceed 70 feet in height, may be used. Said netting must be no closer than the minimum landscape setback line. Along the railroad track edges, a minimum 8 foot high chain link security fence, with a barbed wire topping, and/or bell-barrier netting, up to 50 feet in height, is proposed. The Draft EIR noise mitigation measures for the golf course identified the possible need for sound attenuation berriers (i.e., sound walls) along 4th Street, 6th $ureet, and the AT & SF railroad. The conflict between the open view fencing proposed in the Draft Specific Plan and the required sound barriers will require further study and evaluation. Recon~nendation: The Co-w%ssion should discuss the golf course edge treatment and, pending final analysis of the proposed design guidelines and noise analysis, establish adequate design guidelines in the Specific Plan. Commission Action: Topic No. 3. - Building Height (page 5-17) - Plan proposes maximum building height of eight stories or 90 feet for a hotel and maximum of six stories or 90 feet for offices in Planning Area VII. The current ISP regulation is four stories or 75 feet maximum building height, unless approved as a Conditional Use Permit. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN 93-01 - GENERAL DYNAMICS March 23, 1994 Page 3 Recommendation: Staff supports the encourage hotel and multi-story office course · Commission Action: additional development height proposed to surrounding the golf Be Development Standards (Section 5.4) - Like the design guidelines, the proposed development standards match those in the current ISP, with a few notable exceptions, as highlighted here. Staff believes that the standards for development of the General Dynamics property should meet or exceed the current standards of the ISP. Topic No. 1 -Floor Area Ratio (page 5-29) - The Plan introduces a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement which is the ratio of permitted floor area to available total land area. All planning areas would have a 0.35 FAR, except for Planning Area VI, which would allow up to a 0.70 FAR. The current ISP relies upon parking ratios and minimum landscape coverages to regulate building intensity. Recommendation: Staff supports the proposed FAR Standards which are in addition to the parking and landscape coverage requirements. However, a higher FAR is recommended for those Planning Areas that might include a hotel/conference center. Commission Action: Topic No. 2 - Minimum Landscape Coverage (page 5-36) - The'Plan proposes to reduce the landscape coverage from the current ISP Standards. Planning areas north of 6th Street are proposed at an 8 percent minimum landscape coverage, whereas the ISP currently requires l0 to ~2 percent. South of 6th street, the Plan proposes a ~0 percent minimum landscape coverage in contrast to the 15 percent currently required by the ISP. PLANNING CO~94ISSION STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN 93-01 - GENERAL DYNAMICS March 23, 1994 Page 4 Recommendation: Staff reco-~ends a 10 percent minimum landscape coverage north of 6th Street and a 15 percent minimum landscape coverage south of 6th Street for consistency with current standards. Commission Action: Topic No. 3 - Street Setback Requirements (page 5-35) - The 70 foot high ball-barrier netting (pole-mounted) is proposed to be exempt from the building setbecks. Therefore, these barrier fences could be located at the street right-of-way line along 6th Street (13 ~eet behind the curb line). The visual impact of these barrier fences along 6th Street would be significant. Reco,~endation: The barrier netting should be subject to the minimum parking setback along street frontages (e.g., 25 feet behind curb line on 6th Street). Commission Action: Topic No. 4 - Infrastructure Phasing (Section 6.4) - The first phase of development will be the golf course and related facilities (Planning Areas IA, IB, and III). Figures 6-1 and 6-2 indicate proposed infrastructure improvements (i.e., water, wastewater, reclaimed water, storm drains, electricity and telephone) and only includes a portion of the master planned storm drain system. The required street improvements with the development of the golf course will be addressed in the Development Agreement. However, the Specific Plan infers that public street improvements will be phased with each planning area. The level of infrastructure improvement and timing of those improvements are also likely to be addressed in the Development Agreement. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN 93-01 - GENERAL DYNAMICS March 23, 1994 Page 5 Reco~unendation: The infrastructure phasing is being negotiated as part of the Development Agreement and owner Participation Agreement. The Co~ission hearing on the Development Agreement is tentatively scheduled for May 1994. It is recommended that the Commission review and comment on the proposed infrastructure phasing. Conm~ission Action: C. Regulatory Procedures - (Section 6.0) - Topic No. 1 - Master Plans - At the last workshop, the Planning Co~nission reached a general consensus on the tiered master plan process. A simplified master plan would be required for subdivisions. This would indicate building locations, land use, access, and circulation. A detailed master plan would be required concurrent with the first development application. The detailed master plan would include more definitive site plans and comprehensive design guidelines. Both levels of master plans would be subject to Planning Co~ission approval. Once a detailed master plan is approved, individual buildings would be subject to City Planner approval. Reco~nendation: Since the last workshop and to address both the Co--,ission's concerns with the level of detail in a master plan for development and the applicant's interest in streamlining the process, staff suggests that the following language be inserted into the Specific Plan (Section 6). This would eliminate the tiered master plan process and require only one master plan prior to any subdivision or specific project proposal, whichever comes first. "The master plan shall indicate conceptual building locations, general land uses, overall circulation, points of ingress and egress to both public and private streets, parking lot layouts, conceptual grading and drainage, areas to be used for landscaping and plazas, and pedestrian circulation. Areas intended for co-~on use, such as shared access, reciprocal parking, or pedestrian plazas, shall also be identified. Design guidelines, including text and graphics, shall be included to indicate architectural concepts of form, bulk, height, orientation, and landscape concepts." PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN 93-01 - GENERAL DYNAMICS March 23, 1994 Page 6 Co-~ission Action: Ri~~~ed' ~ C~m~ ni~velopment Director P~:DC:sp ~ttachments: Exhibit "A" - Infrastructure Phasing Program PRELIMINARY SUB-AREA 15 SPECIFIC PLAN INFRASTRUCTURE PHASING PROGRAM PLANNING AliSA Golf Course, 1.8 Hole, Club House SIXTH STREET: o Tunnel/Bridge o Storm Drain Access o Landscapg Impr. & Sidewalk - So. Side _~g~v~. Cleveland to PA VIII 1/2 Median lmpr. - Cleveland to Mid-Block Street Lights, along Golf Frontage - So. Side of Sixth MILLIKEN: o Water 8" from Milliken o Sewer 8" from Milliken CLEVELAND AVE. o Storm Drain Tie o Sewer to Club House o Water Tie & Loop System o Dry Utilities to Club House MISC.: o Lake Water System - North to South o Reclaimed Main Line North of Sixth TIMING H UTICA STREET: SIXTH STREET: CLEVELAND: o Sidewalks - East Side o Overhead Utility Fee (Utica to Cleveland) · '--o-I/2~Landscape Median (Utica to Cleveland) (1/2 of Median City/Agency Assistance) o Vacation of ILO.W. o Demolition of Impr. Redevelopmint/ Rehab/Change of Use lt~developmmt/ Rehab/Change of Use Golf Course Development Golf Course Development Page Two PLANNING AREA V SIXTH STREET: o Parkway Landscape Impr. & Sidewalks (Cleveland to Mid-Block) o 1/2 Median Landscaping (Cleveland to Mid-Block) CLEVELAND: o Vacation of R.O.W. o Demolition of Impr. o Sewer to Service - 8" - 10" o Water Loop to Cleveland o Dry Utilities to Building UTICA: o Sidewalk Eastside CLEVELAND: o Vacation of ILO.W. o Demolition of Impr. UTICA: FOURTH: o Sidewalk Eastside ~-o Right Turn Lane & Bus Bay ._o Street Repairing if necessary (Utica to Cleveland) 1/2 Median (Utica to Cleveland) 1/2 Median Landscaping (Utica to Cleveland) Sidewalk (Utica to Cleveland) Underground of Utilities Fee Payment (Utica to Cleveland) Street Lights (Utica to Cleveland) Traffic Signal (Utica & Fourth) CLEVELAND: o Vacation of ILO.W. o Demolition of lmpr. T~gNG Start Fall Lq94 Golf Course Development Golf Course Development Change of U,. Development New Use Change of Use/ P4~levelopment Development New Use fi fi Upon Wanar~ Demand Golf Course Development Page Three PLANNING AREA TIMING CLEVELAND FOURTH LOOP STREET: FOURTH: MILLIKEN: o Vacation of 1LO.W. o Demolition of lmpr. Golf Course Development o Street Repair if Necessary, Parkway Landscaping, Sidewalks (Cleveland to Loop Street) o 1/2 Median Installation & landscaping (Cleveland to Loop) o Traffic Signal (Fourth & Loop) When Traffic o Abandon Sewer Water (Thomas/Vincent) o Underground of Utilities or Fee (Cleveland to Loop) o Stocm Drains & Catch Basins o Street Light Installation Warrants Upon Development Development Development Development o Full Construction (Fourth to Milliken) o Water, Sewer, Dry Utilities, Street Lights o Storm Drain (Fourth to Milliken) o Parkway Landscaping (North side of Street) Upon Development Street Repair if necessary, Parkway Landscaping, Sidewalks 1/2 Median Installation & Landscaping (Milliken to Loop) Traffic Signal (Milliken & Fourth) Underground of Utilities or Fee (Milliken to Loop) Dry Utility Installation Street Light Installation (Milliken to Loop) Development Development Metrolink Installment Development Development Development o Sidewalks (Loop to Fourth) "'d Strt~et Lights (Loop to Fourth) o Parkway Landscaping (Loop to Fourth) o Right Turn Lanes& Bus Bay (Fourth) o Dry Utilities o Traffic Signal (Milliken & Loop) o Median Landscape Reimbursement o Entry Monumentation (Milliken & Fourth) When Traffic Warrants Page Four PLMqNING ARF_~ LOOP STREET: SIXTH: MILLIKEN: SIXTH: MILLIKEN: o Full Construction (Milliken to Fourth) o Water, Sewer, Dry Utilities, Street Lights o Storm Drain o Parkway Landscaping (South Side of Street) TIbfiNG Upon Development o Sidewalk South Side (Milliken to Golf Course) o Street Lights (Milliken to Golf) o Landscape Parkway (Milliken to Golf) o 1/2 Median Landscape (Milliken to Median Break) o Intersection Realignment o Stub for Water o Underground of Utilities (Milliken to Golf) o Sidewalk (Sixth to Loop) o Street Light (Sixth to Loop) o Landscaping Parkway (Sixth to Loop) o Water Line Stub o Sewer Line Stub o Median Landscape Reimbursement o Widen Sixth North Side, Curb & Gutter (Milliken to Golf) o Sidewalks (Milliken to Golf) o Parkway Landscaping (Milliken to Golf) o 1/2 Median Landscaping (Milliken to Median Opening) o Traffic Signal (Milliken & Sixth) o Street Lights (Milliken to Golf) o Sewer & Water Stubs o Storm Drain Stub, Catch Basins Sidewalk (Seventh to Sixth) Parkway Landscaping (Seventh to Sixth) Median Landscape Reimbursement o Right Turn Lane & Bus Bay (Sixth Street) o Water & Sewer Stubs o Dry Utilities o Storm Drains, Catch Basins Upon Development Upon Development Metrolink Installation Development Upon Development # Page Five PLANNING AREA TIMING X MILLIKEN: SIXTH: CLEVELAND: o Sidewalk (South of existing) o Parkway Landscaping o Median Landscape Reimbursement o Sewer Stub o Dry Utilities o Traffic Signal (Seventh & Milliken) o Street Widening, Parkway Landscaping, Curb & Gutter (Cleveland to Golf) o Sidewalk (Cleveland to Golf) o Street Lights (Cleveland to Golf) o 1/2 Median Landscaping (Cleveland to Median Break) o Sewer & Water Stubs o 1/2 of Undergrounding Fee (Cleveland to Golf) o Dry Utilities o Sto~'Lu Drain Stub o Completion of Roadway, Pavement, Curb & Gutter Improvements - East Side of Street (Sixth to Seventh) o Sidewalk (Sixth to Seventh) o Street Lights East Side of Cleveland o Parkway Landscaping East Side of Cleveland o Water Stub o Dry Utilities o Storm Drain Improvements Development Metrolink Improvement Development Page Six Development of any portion of Planning Areas VIII, IX or XI will trigger the requirement for full roadway pavement with curb and gutter on north side of Sixth Street. l-~ndscaping and sidewalks will not be required until development of each planning area. Reconstruction of Fourth Street will occur based on Pavement Management Study Update as development occurs. 3. Traffic Signals will be installed when vehicle trips warrant installation. Undergrounding of Sixth Street overhead utility lines will occur upon development of any of Parcel VIII. Development of any portion of Parcel XI or IX will pay 1/2 of underground fee for frontage along Sixth Street. Golf Course and Driving Range development will not require undergrounding fee. Improvements to Planning Areas II, IV and V are only contemplated if new uses are developed or the site is redeveloped. If existing uses continue in buildings, no improvements are envisioned. MANNERINO BRIGUGLIO VIA ]FACSIMILE A/qD UNITED STATES MAIL March 23, 1994 -- R53?.IVED -- CITy OF r~ %,,~ ,n ,,, .... CUCAMONGA ,r"LA ?,iN ING DIVIS!Oi'~ MAR g 4 19.°. '. Iris. Brad Buller City Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Mr. ]David Barker Chairman of the Planning Co~t~ission 1050,0 Civic Center Drive Ranci~o Cucamonga, California 91729 Re: Sam's Place Gentlemen: Please be advised that we do hereby request that the agenda items for Sam's Place, on calendar for the Planning Commission meeting of March 23, 1994, be tabled until such time as all pending criminal prosecution against Mr. Pellegrino concerning the operation of Sam's Place are resolved. The purpose of this request is because the possibility of self- incrimination prevents the undersigned from allowingMr. Pellegrino to participate in the presentation at the Planning Commission in his own explanation and defense. Very truly yours, MANq~ERINO & BRIGUGLIO JOHN D JDM: kaw 9333 BASFLINE ROAD, SUITE 110 / RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 / TEL (909)980-1100 FAX (909)94~ ~.,' ~ Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91729 -- RECEIVED -- CiTY OF RANCHO CLICAMONGA ,r'-,-A N N I NG DIVISION March 18, 1994 All t' AR 2 1 199-". Attention Brad Bullet, City Planner The purpose of this letter is to confirm our support for the proposed action to rew)ke the conditional use pe/-iits, 78-03 - Sam's Place and 91-02 - Sam's Place. The Planning Commission is to be commended for taking this matter to its rational conclusion. The operation of this type of business adjacent to a residential area just doesn't match what the city says that it would like Rancho Cucamonga to be as a community. Over the years the uncontrolled noise and disturbances caused by the patron activity associated with this business has been very annoying. Those of us thai: have to get up early in the morning to start our commute to work every would like to be able to get a good night's sleep. This means starting early and being able to sleep through the nigh without the disturbances that are constantly going on in the parking lot. As home owners we would like to be able to enjoy the privacy and quiet that one ordinarily expects to have when they buy a home. Most evenings this not possible because of the activities goning on in the parking lot during the hours of operation of Sam's Place. Rancho Cucamonga is advertised as a "family values" type city and it is a good place to live. Although several ideas haven put fourth to mange the noise, and commotion in the parking lot, none have been implemented for any length of time. Most have not bccn implemented at all An apparent, if not obvious defiance of the cities attempts to integrate this business into the neighborhood. We have made significant investments in our homes and we would like to be able to enjoy the full benflits of those investments. Also, we do not wish to suffer a loss of resale value because of the activities of this business. Lets;' keep residential areas residential, and keep business areas for businesses. Thank you once again for dealing with this very sensitive matter. Sincerely Joe~ & June Fabis 6611 Topaz Alta Loma, Ca 91701 DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT March 23, 1994 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Bullet, City Planner Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE - A consideration to revoke the Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a bar in conjunction with a restaurant in the Neighborhood Comercial District, located at the northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-02 - SAM'S PLACE - A consideration to revoke an Entertainment Permit for a bar and restaurant in the Neighborhood Co~nercial District, located at the northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-81~-56 through 60. BACKGROUND: This revocation hearing is the result of the applicant's failure to comply with the conditions of approval for the above-described permits. Specifically, he failed to post the required permanent no parking signs as well as install physical barriers at the northwest parking area closest to the residences to prohibit his patrons from parking in this area. He also continued to display illegal signs and conduct entertainment outside the approved list of permitted entertainment uses. The Development Code (Section 17.04) and Entertainment Ordinance No. 290 allows the Planning Comission to revoke the Conditional Use Permit and Entertainment Permit if the permits are found to be conducted and operated in a manner not consistent with the conditions of approval or the permitted activity. ANALYSIS: This section of the report will examine the evidence to determine whether the applicant is operating his business in a manner consistent with the permitted activity and the conditions of approval and whether there is sufficient evidence to revoke the two permits. Section A will address the conditional Use Permit while Section B will address the Entertainment Permit. A. Conditional Use Permit 78-03: Code Compliance Issues: As early as June of 1993, the applicant illegally expanded the entertainment use to include live bands and disc jockeys with karaoke, added an arcade, and displayed illegal signs. Despite repeated contacts, the violations continued. In response to the City's citation process, the applicant submitted an application to modify the Entertainment Permit for legalizing the added entertainment and a new Conditional Use Permit application for adding the arcade with six amusement devices. At the hearings, the Comission received written and oral testimony from adjacent ITEMB & C PLANNING CO~4ISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 78-03 & EP 91-02 - SAM'S pLACE March 23, 1994 Page 2 residents who objected to the public nuisance such as loud music from Sam's Place and loud noise from the loitering activities in the parking area. The Commission determined that expanding the entertainment use would worsen the public nuisance problems and subsequently denied the modification to the Entertainment Permit, but approved the Conditional Use Permit for the arcade. At the appeal hearing of January 5, 1994, the City Council upheld the Commission's decision to deny the added entertainment uses with the exception of karaoke. Upon City Council action, staff gave notice to the applicant, his attorney, and the legal property owner, that it is the applicant's responsibility to comply with all the conditions of approval in City Council Resolutions No. 94-004 and 91-381 (Exhibits "F" and "G") and Planning Commission Resolution No. 82-98 (Exhibit "I"). Compliance inspections were conducted on January 24 and February 14, ~994. To date, the applicant has failed to comply with the following conditions of approval: installing permanent no parking signs and the placement of physical barriers at the northwest parking area to prohibit Sam's Place patrons from parking in this area. Outlined in Exhibit "B" is a detailed history and chronology of the Conditional Use Permit. Planning Commission Consideration: According to the Development Code, after investigating the evidence and upon conclusion of the hearing, the Commission must decide on. one of the following options: Find that the Conditional Use Permit is being conducted in an appropriate manner and that no action to modify or revoke is necessary; or Find that the Conditional Use Permit is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications to conditions are necessary; or Find that the Conditional Use Permit is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications are not available to mitigate the impacts and therefore revoke the permit. Based upon the above analysis, staff concluded that the business is not being operated in a manner consistent with the conditions of approval and these conditions are necessary mitigations to prevent any detrimental impact to the residential area. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission find that the Conditional Use Permit is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and revoke the permit. If the Conditional Use Permit is revoked, staff will inform the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the revoked permit for the bar. Sam's Place could continue to operate as a restaurant with the incidental serving of beer and wine which is permitted by right. PLANNING CO~dISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 78-03 & EP 91-02 - SAM'S PLACE March 23, 1994 Page 3 B. Entertainment Permit No. 91-02: Violations of the Entertainment Permit: At the appeal hearing of January 5, 1994, the City Council upheld the Planning Comission's decision in denying the modification to the Entertainment Permit for adding live bands and disc jockeys. As shown in the January 12, 1994, letter (Exhibit "C"), the applicant was notified that the approved entertainment is that of a duet and karaoke was added but without the use of disc jockeys. Staff has determined, through site inspections and illegal signs retrieved by Code Enforcement staff, that the applicant is in violation of his permit, in that he continues to have disc jockeys for entertainment. Planning Co~nission Consideration: According to Entertainment Ordinance No. 290, the Commission may revoke an Entertainment Permit if it is determined that the applicant: Made any false, misleading, or fraudulent statements in their application; or be Violated any provision of Entertainment Ordinance No. 209 or any other regulation or condition relating to his permitted activity; or Is convicted of a felony, or any crime involving moral turpitude; or Violated any regulations or conditions adopted by the Planning Comission or City Council relating to the permittee's business or permit; or e. Conducted business in a manner contrary to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the public; or f. Demonstrated that he is unfit to be trusted with the privileges of such permit. Based upon the fact that staff has observed the use of disc jockeys and has retrieved illegal signs advertising the use of disc jockeys, staff finds that there is sufficient evidence to indicate the applicant is in violation of the Entertainment Ordinance by offering entertainment beyond what is specifically permitted. In addition, the applicant has violated the Sign Ordinance by displaying illegal signs. Violation of the conditions of approval adopted by Planning Commission Resolution No. 82-98 and City Council Resolutions No. 94-004 and 91-381 is grounds for revocation based on the findings noted above. Therefore, staff reco~ends that the Entertainment Permit be revoked. PLANNING CO~4ISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 78-03 & EP 91-02 - SAM'S PLACE March 23, 1994 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and revoke Conditional Use Permit 78-03 and Entertainment Permit 91-02 through the adoption of the attached Resolutions. City Planner BB:NF/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - History and Chronology of CUP 78-03 Exhibit "C" - Letter to Applicant dated January 12, 1994 Exhibit "D" - Compliance Inspection Record Exhibit "E" - Letters to Applicant & Property Owner dated March 4 & 8, 1994 Exhibit "F" - City Council Resolution No. 94-004 Exhibit "G" - City Council Resolution No. 91-381 Exhibit "H" - City Council Resolution No. 91-382 Exhibit "I" - Planning Commission Resolution No. 82-98 Resolution of Revocation for CUP 78-03 Resolution of Revocation for EP 9~-02 EXHIBIT" B" CUP 78-03 AND EP 91-02 HISTORY AND CHRONOLOGY AT 6620 CARNELIAN STREET 1978 On December 2?, 1978, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the Boar's Head restaurant with bar and entertainment. Duc to consistent complaints of loud music and noise, fights and loitering activities, the Commission modified the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) by adding mitigations to alleviate these problems. Some of the mitigations added were limiting the hours of operation to 2 a.m., requiring structural changes to attenuate noise, installing speed bumps in the parking area, blocking access to the northwest parking area, etc. 1983 In 1983, the Commission reviewed the CUP again duc to complaints and modified the permit by requiring the implementation of a dinner menu, additional noise attenuation measures, and restricting the hours of operation to 11 p.m. for closing. 1985 In 1985, the Commission further modified the CUP by eliminating live entertainment. At the September 6, 1985 appeal hearing, the City Council upheld the Commission's decision to keep the operating hours of 11 p.m. and prohibiting live entertainment. 1988-1990 In April of 1988, Boar's Head closed due to fire damage. The business was re- opened as Strattons under different ownership. No complaints were received during the period that Strattons was opened. 1990 In March of 1990, the applicant, Sam and Luanne Pellegrino, took over the business of Strattons and renamed it Sam's Place. Subsequently, the applicant requested to extend the hours of operation to 2 a.m. At the August 22 and continued to September 12, 1990 hearings, the Commission approved the extension of hours from 11 p.m. to 12 midnight for Sunday through Thursday and from 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. for Friday and Saturday, after long deliberations on the issue of Compatibility of use. The approval was for a test period of six months subject to their review for extension. The decision of the Commission was timely appealed by two members of the City Council. At the November 7, 1990 hearing, the Council deliberated on the same compatibility issue and continued the hearing to the December 5th meeting due to a deadlocked 2 to 2 tie vote. At the December 5 and continued to December 19, 1990 hearings (at the request of the applicant), the Council concluded the hearing and determined that the extension of hours of operation would not provide compatibility to the adjacent residents. The Council overturned the Commission's decision and upheld the appeal. 1991 As early as May of 1991, City staff observed that the applicant has illegally extended the hours of operation to 1 or 2 a.m. on a regular basis and provided live entertainment from 9 p.m. to I a.m. without the proper permit. In response to City's notices of violations, the applicant submitted applications to modify CUP 78-03 for the extension of hours of operation and an Entertainment Permit (EP 91-02) for providing live entertainment. At the July 24, August 14 and continued to September 11, 1991 hearings, the Commission, after long deliberations on the compatibility of use issue, denied the requests and revoked the CUP for the bar. At the November 20 and continued to December 4 , 1991 appeal hearings, the Council overruled the Commission's decision, upheld the appeal and approved the extension of hours of operation from 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. from Monday through Saturday and approved Entertainment Permit 91-02 to allow live entertainment consisting of a duet. 1992 Bctwccn January and April of 1992, a total of 4 complaints from the adjaccnt residents and one complaint from a business owner in the City were received. The complaints were that of loud music from Sam's Place and loud noise from the loitering activities in the parking area. City staff contacted the applicant to remind him of complying with and adhering to all the conditions of approval as contained in City Council Resolution Nos. 91-381 and 91-382 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 82-98. There was no follow up action from staff when complaints subsided. 1993 As early as June of 1993, the applicant violated the CUP and £P by expanding the entertainment use to include live bands, disc jockeys with karaoke, displaying illegal signs and adding an arcade of 6 amusement devices. Despite repeated contacts, the violations continued. In response to the City's citation process, the applicant submitted an application to modify the Entertainment Permit for legalizing the added entertainment uses and a new Conditional Use Permit (CUP 93-47) application for the added arcade. At the November 10 and continued to November 23, 1993 hearings, the Commission received written and oral testimony from adjacent residents who objected to the public nuisance such as loud music and loud nois~ from the loitering activities in the parking area. The Commission found the applicant to have a poor track record of complying with City Codes and determined that the expansion of entertainment use would worsen the public nuisance problems. The Commission denied the modification to the Entertainment Permit but approved the CUP (CUP 93-47) for the arcade. At the January 5, 1994 appeal hearing, the Council upheld the Commissionrs decision to deny the request with the exception of karaoke. 1' H E C I T ~ © s C 15 CAF[ 0 hi C- January 12, 1994 Mr. Sam Pall.grinD 6620 Carnelian Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-02 - SAM'S PLACE Dear Mr. Pall.grinD: At the January 5, 1994 meeting, the City Council denied your appeal and upheld the Planning Commission's decision in denying your re~/est to expand the entertainment with the exception of karaoke. The approval of karaoke does not include the use of a disc jockey or competition among your patrons. A copy of the Resolution 94-004 is attached.' The conditions of approval contained in City Council Resolution No. 91-382 and Planning Co-~ssion Resolution No. 82-98 are still in effect and must be fully complied with. Copies of these two Resolutions are also attached. Please note the several conditions of approval that require your i~-ediate attention in order to bring your business into full compliance with all conditions of approval. Your patrons shall not park at the northwest parking area as marked on the attached site plan. Permanent signs shall be posted immediately. Staff will conduct a compliance inspection within 10 calendar days from the date of this letter. A minimum of two security guards shall be on the premises from 6 p.m. until two hours after the cessation of entertainment and the serving of alcohol. One of the security guards shall remain on duty outside the facility in the ~arking lot and shall conduct periodic monitoring of t.he parking lot as well as the adjacent areas to assist in averting nuisances and disturbances from the patrons. Compliance shall begin immediately. The front and beck doors of the business shall remain closed during evenins hours beginning at 6 p.m. exce~ in the event of an emergency. Compliance shall begin i~ae~iately. The northwest parking area as marked on the attached site plan shall be blocked off by placing large trees in containers along the edge of the ~rive aisle. Also, a chain or breakaway barrier shall be installed to block the access from the rear/service driveway into this northwest parking area during the evening hours beginning at 6 p.m. Staff will conduct a compliance inspection 30 days from the 4ate of this letter. Mayor Dennis L. Stout Mayor Pro-Tern Charles J. BuQuet II Jack Lam. AICP. City Manager CouncilmernOer William J. Alexarc.-. Councils.alDer Diane Williams Councils.ruDer Rex Gutierrez 10500 Civ~ Center Drive P O. Box 807 i~ancno Cc.,~comonga. CA 9172q · (90q) 989-1851 Mr. Sam Pellegrin EP 91-02 January 12, 1993 Page 2 In addition to the above, there are several outstanding code enforcement issues that need to be corrected. The barrel of cooking grease stored outside your back exit door, the flyers or other advertising materials posted on utility poles, and the excess window neon signs must be removed i~nediately. Your voluntary compliance with the above requirements and within the time period specified will be appreciated. Should you fail to do so, the City has no alternative but to proceed with the citation process immediately. If you have any questions regarding the conditions of approval, or need further clarification on complying with them, please do not hesitate to call me or Nancy Fong at (909) 989-1861. Sincerely, CO~UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANN DIVISION City Planner BB:NF:mlg Attachments: City Council Resolution No. 94-004 City Council Resolution No. 91-382 Planning Commission Resolution No. 82-98 Sits Plan CC: John Mannerino, Attorney Doug Gorgen, Property Owner Joe Fabis, Resident Luella ~lms, Resident Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor Nancy Fong, Senior Planner T H E RANCHO C I T r 0 F CUCAMONG A March 8, 1994 Mr. Sam Pellegrino Sam's Place 6620 Carnelian Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 SUBJECT: ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-02 Dear Mr. Pellegrino: On M-~ch 3, 1994, a letter was sent to you regarding your Conditional Use Permit and that an advertised revocation hearing has been set for March 23, 1994. The purpose of this letter is to notify you that we have also advertised a revocation hearing on your Enter~ainment Permit for March 23, 1994. Inspections conducted by our Code Enforcement staff have found that you have used a disc jockey in your entertainment venue since the City Council action on January 4, 1994. Use of a disc jockey was strictly prohibited. All entertainment shall be consistent with the approval granted by Planning Comission Resolution No. 82-98 and City Council Resolution Nos. 91-382 and 94-004. If you have any questions please contact me or Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, at (909) 989-1861. Sincerely, CO~3NITY DE~,-OPMENT DEPARTMENT BB:NF:sp cc: John Mannerino, Attorney Richard Alcorn Nancy Fong Mayor Der~n,s L Stout "Jovor Pro-'era C~',3',es ~ 8uouet II Jack L"J"~ ~,;C~ Ctv Mar~oger ~Oac~oCuccmongo CA 91729 Counc~lmemOef William J Ale~ar':e' Counc~lmemOer D~one wtma~. CounciJmemiDer r~ex ~uherfez T H E RANCHO C ~ T 0 F C UC AMONG A March 4, 1994 Mr. Sam Pellegrino Samts Place 6620 Carnelian Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 Dear Mr. Pellegrino= On January 12, 1994, ~he City sent you a notice requiring your £~mediate action for full compliance with the Conditions of Approval as contained in Planning Comm4ssion Resolution No. 82-98 and City Council ~solution No. 91-382. Copies of the letter and the ~wo resolutions are attached for your reference. Staff conducted compliance inspections on January 24, and February 14, 1994, and ~) date, you have not complied with the list of conditions as outlined in the January 12, 1994 letter. Therefore s~aff has scheduled an advertised revocation hearing for the Conditional Use Per~it at the March 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. I urge you to take ~m~ediate action to comply with the Conditions of Approval prior to the revocation hearing. If you have any questions about the Conditions of Approval, or if you need further clarification on complying with then, please con,act me or Nancy Fang, Senior Planner, at (909) 989-1861. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City P'lanne~ ~ BB:NF:sp At~achmen~sl January 12, 1994 let~r Planning Co~atslion Palolution No. 82-98 City Council Resolution No. 91-382 co: John Mannerino, Attorney Dour Hone and Douq Gotgert, Pancho Plaza Joe Fabil, resident Luella SiM, resident Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor · a~c~ F~Senior Planner Mayor Dennis L. Stout Mayor Pro-Tern Charles J. Bucluet II Jack Lorn, AICP. City Manage~ 105(X] CmvlC Cenl~ef Onve PO. Box 807 Rancho Cucamongo. CA 91729 ~..~. CouncilmemDe William J. Alexanae~ CounciimemDer Diane Williams CouncilmemlDer Rex Gutie.ez (-',,F~) 989-1851 : .z . ExhrW ' T H E C t T ¥- I-[0 C A M © F ONG March 4, 1994 Mr. Doug Hone and Mr. Doug Gorgen Rancho Plaza 6634 Carnelian Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9] 701 SUBJECT: SAM'S PLACE LOCATED ' AT 6620 CARNELIAN STREET PERMIT 78-03 CONDITIONAL USE Dear MX. Hone and Mr. Gorgen: On January 12, 1994, I sent you a copy of the letter that gave notice to Mr. Sam Pellegrino requesting his immediate action to comply with the Conditions of Approval listed in Planning Com-~ssion Resolution No. 82-98 and City Council Resolution No. 91-382. Copies of the January 12, 1994 letter and the two resolutions are attached for your reference. Because Sam's Place has not complied with the Conditions of Approval to date, staff has scheduled a revocation hearing for the Conditional Use Permit at the March 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. As you. are aware, two of the Conditions of Approval require the posting of permanent signs prohibiting the patrons of Sam's Place from parking at the northwest perking area and the blocking of access into this perking area with landscaping and a chain or breakaway barrier. These signs, chain barrier, and large trees were removed when Stratton's, the previous business, occupied the spece. I am requesting your cooperation to work with Mr. Pellegrino in installing the permanent signs and placing the chain and landscape barriers, to comply with the Conditions of Approval, prior to the revocation hearing. If you have any questions about the Conditions of ADproval or if you need further clarification on complying with them, please contact me or Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, at any time at (909) 989-1861. I thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNI/~ISIO~ Attachmenta~ January 12, 1994 letter to Sam Pellegrino Planning Commission Resolution No. 82-98 City Council Resolution No. 92-382 CC: John Mannerinc, Attorney Sam Pellegrino, Sam's Place Richard Alcorn, Coda Enforcement Supervisor Nancy Pang, Senior Planner Mayor Dennis L. Stout Mayor Pro-Tem Cidaries J. 8ucluet II Jack Lorn. AICP. City Manager 10500 C,v,c Centef D,,ve .~?._, ,~ CouncJlmernloer William J. AlexonCe, Councilmeml~er Diane Williams CouncilrnemOer Rex Gutierrez P O Box 807 r~oncno Cucomongo. CA 91729 (909} 989-1851 RESOLUTI(kN NO. 94-004 (i) Luanne Pelleqrino has filed an al~lica~ic~ fc~ ~he issuance of ~nte~ca/r~ Permit No. 91-02, as de~criJ~d in th~ ILitle of ~ ~ (ii) On Novesnber 10, 1993, t~e P]an~kng O ..... t~=icn of ~he Citny of Ranc~, ~ ~ a ~,]y noticed public hearinq c~ ~he al~lica~ic~ of De~l at the ~ c~ No~,.mb~_ ,- 23, 1993. (iii) The ~cision re~-esen~,~ by ~d Planning O'm.4--~ion resolution was timely a~pealed t~ t.b~ Council. (iv) O~ Jar,,.~wy 5, 1994, the City Ommcil of the City of Rarzho (v) All legal prere~i-~i~ pri= to t_he a,~on of this Resolution B. ~lution. 1. Tht. Council hereby s~ecifically finds that all of the facts set forth in ,/~ laeci~als, Part A, of this Resoltffcion ar~ ~ and ~Lect. 2. Based usam ~ evidm'x:m lx'mser~'~ to this Oamcil durir~ the atx~-referenoed public h~inq, includinq writ~ce~ s~*ef re~r~, the mir~-= of ~he Planninq ~ ..... iuion meetinq, and the ___~wfcents of P]anninq (la~J~sion lae~olu~ion No. 93-101, this Oremoil ~-~ s~eoifioally finds as follow: _]~lution No. 94-004 ~2 ! b. The property to the nc~th is vac~__nt and planr~ for a future ~c is a shoppin~ center; and the properties to the w~st are single family c. The original Ente_~cainment Permit was grant-d__ for a duet and allows! entertainment c~ Morley throu~ Saturday, between 8 p.m. to 2 a.m.; d. The applicant expanded the types of en~z~tm~mnt to include live bends, ~i-~c jockey with karaoke, and lingerie show~ and the days for ~ to ir~lude Sur~ay, i~ violatic[% of Oz~inar~e___ No. 290 arxt City Council ~P~luticn No. 91-382; and e. After _r~Tc~-_--_-e~ ccr~acts with City staff re~arding the violations, the applicant ccnt/nued the violatiorm, which ultimately led to the issuance of the City's Notice of Violation. Upon reoeivir~ the Notice of Violation, the applicant ~,k~/tt__~_ an application re~-t~ ing modification to the E~c~rtainment Permit to allow ent~Wcainment on Sunday and to add live f. The City received ~ frum adJacs~t r~sia-nts objectin~ loie~in~ activities in the parkin~ lot in the late evenir~ and early morn~ residential nei~xhocxi ~aus~ of ~ ed~rs~ impact of e~oessive noise 3. Bms~d u[x~ ~hm su~m~mrfcJal evi~no~ ~z~sented to tbt- C~m~il durin~ ~hm at~m-refe~m~md ~ubli¢ hearin~ a~t Wx~ ~ s~ecifi¢ fir~4? of facts set forth in ~z~--~o~hs I a~t 2 a~mm, ~ht. Co~=il ber~t~ finds and om~ludas as follows: No. 94-004 4. Based upon t. he fir~.~3s ar~ co~clusi(x~ set forth in par~ 1, 2, ar~ 3 above, this O0~m~cil he~ ~enies ~he applicati~x~ in part subject to ~be fo11~Wn~ a. ALl ccr.4;ticr~ of approval as az~-,;,tad in City CouncLl Reeolutzz~ No. 91-382 ard Planning ,- 4',,=icrt R.~ol~ No. 82- 98, a ~ of which has b~en at-tac~_ hereto, shall apply. b. Karaoke without Disc Jockey is allowed. 5. ~ Council hereby ~.~ovides notice to John Marm~erino that t~ t/me within which judicial revi~ of ~ 4ecisi~ r~xese~,~ k~ this Civil Proosdurm Section 1094.6. 6. ~be City Clr~k of the City of Rancho ~ is h~-~, 8{,~ce=,~ to: (a) certify to the adot~ic~ of this B~olution, and (b) fczX~rith transmit a certified co~y of this Rssoluti~, by _,~r~tfied ,~il, rm~urn- r~:.ipt z~.~"--Ce~, to J~n ~ino at th~ ~ i4.ntifi~ in City 7. The City Clerk shall certify ~o the adolf/on of this Besolution. PASSED, AP~ROg~D, ~ AD0~:T~D ~:b{~ 5th ~ay of Jar.,~,-y, 1994 __P~=~lutic~ No. 94-004 Pac3~4 City Clerk I, D~mA J. A~AMS, CITY ~.F~K of the City of Rancho Cucamo~ga, California, do her~ certify that the for~oin~ __~__~__~__~__~__~__~__~__~lution was duly ~m~ssed, ap~x~ved, and a~ by the City Council of the City of Rancho (~, California, at a z~ar ~ of said City Council held on the 5th day of January, 1994 _E~9~_~ced tb~ 6th day of Ja~m~y, 1994 at Rar~ho California. City Cle~J~ RESOI/3TION NO. 91-381 A P~)LUI"I(~ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~{E CITY OF RAN~D CUCAMONGA, C~TIm0~NIA, SUSTAINING T~E APPEAL OF ~ ~ ~~'S D~SI~ ~ D~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OF ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~n'~ OF DI~ ~ ~20 ~.v~ ~, ~ ~ OF ~ ~F - ~: 201-811-56 ~ ~ (i) John Mannerino, on behalf of Sam I~11ecjrino, has filed a petition to ~xtify the Co~/itio~s of A~ for CcF~{tio~al Use Permit 78-03 as described in the title of th/s Resolution. t~reir~Pter in th~ Resolution, the subject Om~tional Use Permit is referred to as the "application." (ii) O~ July 10, 1991, and ___~ to July 24, Au=3ust 14, ar~ Se~mh~-- 11, 1991, the Plar~i~ C~.ission of the City of Rancho ~ corzlucted a duly noticed public b-_=rir~ on the application and at the _~I_~c_ 1usion of said public b~in~, ~ Resolution No. 91-131, thereby ~nying said application. (iii) The decision represer~-a by said Plannir~ Resolution was timely appealed to tb~ Council. (iv) On October 16 and cc~L~r~ed to Nov~m~w 20, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucmm~F~a c~z~cted a duly noticed public (v) All 1~al prere~uisites ~rior to the ~T~. ion of this Resolution have oo~n~. NOW, ~%K~OR~, the City Council of the City of 1~m~nho ~--?~n~a does hereby :find, cl~cexmine, and resolve as follows: 1. ~ Courtoil h~f specifically finds that all of the facts set fcxT_h in the Becitals, Part #A," of th/s ~esoluti~ are true ar~ oxrmct. of Pisr~ o~L~si~ R~olution No. 91-131, this Oamcil hereby s~ecifically fin~s as follows: (a) ~h~ ~licatim applies to ~.ztf locae~ at the nox~h- corner of 19th ar~ Carr~lia~ S~xmets with a stree~ fr~fcage of 1,037 feet lot desfeb of 240 feet ar~ is ~xmmently improved with a sh~in~ _~. R~olution No. 91-381 Page2 (b) The Ufoperry to the north of the subject site is a future fr~-~way; the property to the south of that site is an existing shopping center; the property to the east is an existing shopping center; and the property to the west is existing single family residences. (c) The proposed amendment contemplates extending the hours of operation to coincide with t_hoee established by the applicant's alcob__olic beverage control license; that is, from the current clo~ing hours of 11:00 o'clock P.M. to a new closing hour of 2:00 o'clock A.M., Monday th~-ough Saturday; and el'nninating the conditions of ap$=oval prohibiting live (d) T~ applicant filed the same application to extend the hours of c~eratio~ o~ May 22, 1990, ar~ the application was denied on appeal by City Council on Ja~m~y 2, 1991, by adoption of their Resolution No. 91-007. (e) The Develc~ Code, Section 17.04.030H, states that followin~ the denial or revocation of a Conditional Use Permit application, no application for a COr~litic~al Use Permit for the same or subetantially the same use of the same or su~-tantially the same site shall be filed within one year from tb~ date of denial or revocation. (f) The applicant has bee~ c~erating the business beyor~ the 11:00 o"clock P.M. limitation ar~ offering live entertair~_nt in violation of the conditions of approval and in violation of OL 'ulnahoe No. 290 pertaining to (g) lh~ curre~ limitation on hours of o~ration to 11:00 o'clock P.M. was eseAhl{_ _~?_~_~ as a ~ result of a his~n~y of public safety and public m,~nce ~uble~s associat~ with tb~-~ location. (h) The City b~-~ not received evi__,~e~,~oe that tb~ former proble~s have ocxurred since the c~er's original request in May of 1990. (i) There are mitigation measures a~ailable to prevent any prc~le~s that may be crma~ by the extension of hours of operation and ~ovidin~ live entere~. re~Drts, th/s Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) ~hat the ~x~eed use, tc~ with the om~tions impteed as mitigation measurms, is in a~'d with the General PlAn, the obj~-tives of the Develc~ Co~e, and the pur~oees of the ~-~ict in which the site is R~solution No. 91-381 Page 3 (b) That the proposed use, together with the co~tio~s im~ as mitigation m~-~ures, will not ~e __~etrimental to the public b-~lth, safety, ~r welfare or materially injurious to pr~ies ~r i~ in the vicinity. 4. ~ City Oouncil of the City of Rancho the application with the foilRing l) All pertinent conditions of approval as c~,%~a'~zr~d~ in Plann/ng O~,~ission Resolution No. 82-98, a co~y of which has been attac~ed hereto, shall ap~ly. 2) Th~ api:xDval is %~anted for a restaurant with inci~fcal servin~ of alooi~lic beverages. A lunch and dinner menu shall be served to maintain the ~r~ma~y restau~'ant use. 3) The hours of c~:eration shall be between 11:00 o'clock A.M. until 2:00 o'clock A.M., M0~z~ay th~-.i~ ~3h Saturday. 4) ~ne front door of the k~siness shall r~main cl~ durir~ evenin~ h~urs (6:0O o'clock P.M.), ~ in th~ event of 5) ~n. norUhwest ~arkin~ ar.a ~11 not be fr~m Sam's Place and shall be appropriately 6) be requ~ed to be on the pretties f~ 6 o'clock P.M. until two (2) hours after the cessation of the se~ of alcohol and any live enter~fc. At l~-~t one of the guards ~djacen~ ar~ of tbe facility. 7) s) If the o~eration of the facility causes ~ effects upon the su~'~our~ rmsi~km~ts, adjacent ~usinesses and tm%m~m, in=ludin~ ~ut no~ limite~ to, nois~, loit~rir~, or before the Plannin~ O ..... i~=ion for the cc~skleration and p~esible t~xmination of use. Civil Prooedure Section 1094.6. R~soluticn No. 91-381 6. The City Clerk of tb~ City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby dlrec~4 to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified cc~y of this Resolution, by certified rail, return- receipt requese~, to John Mannerino at the ~ identified in City 7. The City Clerk shall c~rtify to the adcution of tblm Resolution. PASSF~, APPROV]~, ar~ ADOPlOD this 4th day of December, 1991. Alexander, Buquet, Willia~ AYES: NOES: Stout, Wright ABSENT: None Der~i~ L. Stout, Mayor I, D~H~A J. ADAMS, CITY ~( of the City of Pancho Cucamonga, california, ~o __b-r~ ~ that the fu~3oin~ ~uti~ ~s duly a~oved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Pancho Cucamo~3a, California, at a r~ meeting of said City Council held on the 4th day of _ _D~D~-~r, 1991. EXmcut~ this 5th day of Dec-mh~r, 1991 at Rancho California. A,~c, city Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 91-382 A RE~I/31'ION OF THE CITY OO(3NCIL OF ~ CITY OF O3CAM01~GA, CALIFORNIA, ~ ~ ~ OF ~ ~I~'S D~SI~ ~ D~ P~ 91-02 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~~ ~ DI~ ~ 6620 ~, ~ ~ OF 1~ ~ ~,T~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~F - ~: 201-811-56 ~ 60 A. Recitals. (i) Jch~ Mannerino, on behalf of Sam Pellegrino, bas filed an application for Entertainment Permit 91-02 as described i~ the title of R_~lution. Hereinafter in this P~lution, the subject Entertainment Pezmit is refezred to as the "application." (ii) On July 10, 1991, ar~ oo~fcir~ed to July 24, Augumt 14, September 11, 1991, the Planning C-_-~,~ssio~ of the City of Pancho Cucamon~ conduct~ a duly noticed public b,~-~¥'ing on the application and following _mnc_ lusi~n of said public hearings, ad~ k~_~_?lution No. 91-132, thereby denying said application. (iii) The de~ision r~x~se~ by said Planning C~:.~i,~ssion Resolution was timely a~ed to this~ Council. (iv) On ~ 16, ar~ co~cir~ed to No~m.k~r 20, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said b-~?in~ on that date. (v) All legal px~equisit~ ~rior to the a~:~ion of tb~-~ Resolution B. Resolution. NOW, T~E, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby' find, detez~ine, ar~ resolve as follows: 1. ~ Council hereby specifically fir~s that all of the facts set forth in the ~itals, Part "A," of this Resolution are true and minutes of the above-refereno~ Plannin~ C~.~t~sion m~ting, an~ th~ contents of Planning n.!..~dssion Resolution No. 91-132, this Council hereby specifically fir~s as follows: (a) The al~lication ap91ias to ~u~e~tf locat~ at the north- west corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets with a street f~ of 1,037 f~t and lot degth of 240 feet ar~ is [x--=~.ntly ~ with a sho~p~ center. P-~olution No. 91-382 (b) The property to the north of the subject site is a future fr~--~ay; the property to the south of that site is an existing shc~oing prc~_rty to the west is existing single family residenoes. (c) The applicant has been c~eratim~ the business beyond the 11:00 o'clock P.M. limitation and offering live entertainment in violation of tb~ oomdltic~s of ap~x~val as oc~tained in Resolution Nos. 83-117 and 91-007 for Con~tiomal Use Permit No. 78-03 and Oz.:inance No. 290 pertaining to (d) The City h~ received three written c~laints objectin~ to the lateness of the hours of c~ration and the live entertainment. (e) ~he current limitation on hours of operation to 11:00 o'clock P.M. and the elimination of live entertainment were es~ahl~%ed as a ~ect result of a history of public safety and public m~noe problems (f) The City M~ not received evidence that the form~r problems have ooo/rred $ir~e the ~ origir~] request in May of 1990. (g) The applicant has su~ait~ a petition of approximately 1,600 signatures in ~ of exter~ the hou~ of c~eration and provia~ng live entertainment for Sam's Place. 3. Based upon the su~-tantial evidence_~ ~-~ent~ to this Council durin~ the ak~ve-referenced public P~nrin~, includin~ writt-n ar~ oral staff re~orts, this Council hereby finds and cc~cl,~ as follows: (a) ~he cc~k~ct of the es~hlisk~t or the granting of the application wuuld not be o~,t~=ry to the public ~lth, safety, m~-als, or (c) ~ ~ranting the a~lication, tu~ether with the om~tio~s of approval, w~uld n~t crea~e a public m,~_-c?; an~ (d) That the ~ operation of the presses wuuld not inter- fer~ with the peaore ar~ quiet of the surroun~ residential neigh~onhood. 4. ~%e City Council of the City of Pan=ho Cuc~xw~a hereby approves the a~plication with the fo11~H_m~ 1) All pertin~m c~tio~ of a~x~val as ~ in Plann~ ~=ion Resolution No. 82-98, a oopy of which ~ been at~ hereto, shall apply. 2) ~he ~~ Permit is ~ant~ for a c~et only, _ ist/n of an aooustical guitari c a s n jer. ~olution No. 91-382 Page 3 3) Any live entertainment shall be provided between 8:00 o'clock P.M. and 2:00 o'clockA.M. Mo~daythrcu~Saturday. 4) The front and beck docks of the business shall re~ain closed during evenir~ hours (after 6:00 o'clock P.M.) except in the event of an e~gency. 5) The northwest parking area shall not be used by patrons frc~ Sam's Place and shall be ap~x~priately po~ted. 6) A 'm.~ of two regularly e~01oy~d sen=ity ~ds shall ~ ~,{~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f~ 6:00 o'cl~ P.M. ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ of ~ ~ of al~l ~ ~ li~ ~. At 1~ ~ of ~ ~ja~ ~ of ~ facili~. 7) A~xDval of this retort shall not waive c~liance with all sections of the Develo~ Code and all other applicable City Ordinances. 8) If the operation of the facility causes adverse effects u~(m the su~ur~n~ residents, adjacent businesses and disturbances, the Conditional Use Permit shall be k~t befo~-e the Planning (l~is~ion for the oo~si~ation and poesible t,rmination of use. 5. This Council here~ ~ovides notice to John Mannerino that the tim~ within which judicial review of the de~ision r~x~sm~ by this ~lution~ust be sou~ is governed by the~isio~s of California O~e of Civil Procedure Sectic~ 1094.6. 6. The City Clerk of the City of Pancho ~ is h~_~eby a~ec~ to: (a) certify to the adoption of tb~ ~lution, and (b) forthwith t_wansmit a certified co~y of this Resolution, by certified mail, return- receipt requested, to John Mannerino at t~he ~ identified in City 7. ~e City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ~olution. PASSe), ~, a~d ADOPlOD t.b{~ 4th day of Deoe~0er, 1991. Alexm~, Buquet, Williams Stout, Wright ~olution No. 91-382 I, D~RA J. ADAMS, CITY California, do h~n=~ ce~c~. ~ ...... 1991. -~-- .,~ u[ Exmcuted thi~ 5th day of ~, 1991 at Rancho Cucamc~ga, Calif~rn/a. RESOLUTION 82-g8 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAJ~ONGA PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 FOR BAR AND ENTERTAINMENT FACILITIES WITHIN THE BOAR'S HEAD ESTABLISHMENT LOCATED IN THE RANCHO PLAZA IN THE C-1 ZONE WHEREAS, on the 22rid day of September, 1982, the Planning Co,,m,,ission determined the need to suspend Conditional Use Permit 78-03 and to conduct a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, on the 27th day of October, 1982, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above item. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolves as follows: SECTION 1: Additional conditions and changes are found to be needed for Conditional Use Permit 78-03 in order to mitigate the past disturbances and bring the use in accord with the intent and purpose of the neighborhood shopping district. Therefore, the following conditions are added to those already in effect per Resolution 78-40: e Periodic policing of the parking lot by the management of the business should be done on a nightly basis to assist in averting disturbances from patrons. Block access to the northwest parking area from the main parking area by placing large trees and planters in the driveway. Additionally, a chain or breakaway barrier shall be used to block access to this area from the rear driveway during evening hours. e A sound attenuation wall shall be built on the three properties adjacent to the northwest parking area of the center. The precise height, location and construction materials shall be determind through the develol~nent of a precise development plan, which shall be prepared by the shopping center owner and reviewed and approved by the City Planner. Such i~rovements shall consider the use of sound attenuation material as well as some additional landscaping between the new wall and the existing wall. The plans should be prepared as soon as possible and installerlion, with the cooperation of all property owners and before the January 26, 1982 meeting scheduled by the Connission. 5. Speed bumps shall be placed throughout the center. Resolution No. 82-98 Page 2 An analysis of the building shall be conducted to determine the needs for sound insulation. Appropriate insulation shall be installed, if needed. e The rear door of the business shall remain closed during evening hours, except in the event of an emergency. Be The northwest parking area shall not be used by Boar's Head patrons or employees and shall be appropriately posted. This Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission on January 26, 1983, for a report on the performance of the establishment. 10. The business shall alter its operation to include restaurant usage and food service during the evening hours. This is required to meet the intent of the original approval and shall be accomplished within sixty (60) days of this action. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1982. PLANNING 7) _,_. : ATTpT: Sec~ret& i7NOF T..~_Y~OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 'yo~f t'h~' P a~nni~n~ Ce...ission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cuc~nga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Co,mnission held on the 27th day of October, 1982, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McNiel, King, Rempel NOES: CO~ISSIONERS: Barker, Stout ABSENT: CO~ISSIONERS: None RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REVOKING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 78-03 FOR THE OPERATION OF A BAR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT, SAM'S PLACE, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH AND CARNELIAN STREETS IN THE HEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN= 201-811-56 THROUGH 60. A. Recitals. 1. On December 27, 1978, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 78-40 conditionally approving a restaurant with a bar and entertainment at 6620 Carnelian Street, formerly known as the Boer's Head and presently Sam's Place. 2. On October 27, 1982, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 82-98 modifying the permit by adding conditions of approval to alleviate public nuisance problems as a result of consistent complaints from adjacent residents. Two conditions of approval required the applicant to install no parking signs at the northwest parking area to prohibit employees and patrons from parking in that area and to place large trees and chain barriers across the drive aisles to block access into this parking area. The applicant failed to comply with these two conditions. 3. On September 28, 1983, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 83-117 modifying the permit to require the implementation of a dinner menu, additional noise attenuation ~easures, and the hours of operation to close at 11 p.m. 4. On July 10, 1985, the Planning Convission adopted Resolution No. 83-117A ~odifying the permit by prohibiting entertainment uses. The conditions of approval in Planning Co~ission Resolution No. 82-98, as referenced in Section A.2, were to remain in effect. 5. On January 2, 1991, the Council adopted Resolution No. 91-007 denying the applicant's request to extend the hours of operation. The conditions of approval in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 78-40, 82-98, and 83-117A, as referenced in Sections &.l through A.4, were to remain in effect. 6. On December 4, 1991, the Council adopted Resolution No. 91-381 to modify the permit by approving the extension of the hours of operation from 11 p.m. to 2 a.m., ~nday through Saturday and eliminating the condition of approval prohibiting entez~cainment uses. The City Council ,also adopted Resolution No. 91-382 to approve the associated Ente~cai~u~ent Permit 91-02 to allo~ entez~ainment uses consisting of a duet. The conditions of approval in Plamling Co~mission Resolution No. 82-98, as referenced in Section A.2, were to rmmin in effect. 7. On January 12, 1994, the City of Rancho Cuc&monga gave notice to S&m's Plece for ½__~-~diete compliance with the conditions of approval as referenced above and attached hereto. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE March 23, 1994 Page 2 8. On January 24, and February 14, 1994, site inspections were conducted and the site was found to be in non-compliance with the conditions of approval. 9. On March 23, 1994, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing for the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit for non-compliance of conditions of approval, and concluded said hearing on that date. 10. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Co~mission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Cons~ission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on March 23, 1994, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this C~,ission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. This permit applies to property located at 6620 Carnelian Street and is presently improved with a shopping center; and b. The property to the north is vacant and planned for a future freeway, the properties to the south and east are existing shopping centers, and the proper~y to the west is single family residences; and c. As a result of receiving complaints, a letter dated May 7, 1992, was sent to the applicant reminding him to comply with, and adhere to, all the conditions of approval as contained in City Council Resolutions No. 91-381 and 91-382 and Planning Co~mission Resolution No. 82-98. Conditions of approval include posting permanent no parking signs at the northwest parking area, installing physical barriers with landscaping and chains to block access into the northwest parking area closest to the adjacent residences, keeping the front and back door closed during business hours except for emergencies, providing security personnel outside to monitor the parking area and to assist in averting public nuisance problems, etc.; and d. Based on the site inspection on January 6, 1991, City staff oblerVed that the conditions of approval as referenced in Section A.2, had not been complied with; and e. Site inspections on January 23, end February 14, 1994, indicated non-compliance with the conditions referenced in Section A.2. Notices of non-compliance were given to the applicant on these two inspection dates; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. =um 78-03 - SAM°S PLACE March 23, 1994 Page 3 f. A notice regarding the violations of the permit and a notice of the scheduling of the March 23, 1994, revocation hearing were sent to the applicant on March 4, 1994; and g. To date, the applicant has not installed the permanent no parking signs at the northwest parking area nor placed landscaping (trees} and a chain barrier across the drive aisle to block access into the parking area. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs i and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the Conditional use Permit is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications are not available to mitigate the impacts. Therefore, the permit should be revoked which requires the operation to cease and desist in the time allotted by the Commission. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2~, and 3 above, this Commission hereby revokes Conditional Use Permit 78-03 and the use shall cease and desist within 10 calendar days from the date of the adoption of this Resolution. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH 1994. PLANNING COMMISSION OF T~E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY .' E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad BuXler, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucmmonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, end adopted by the Planning Co~mission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Camm%salon held on the 23rd day of March 1994, by the following vote-to-wit= AYES: COM~ISSIONERS~ COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS| RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFOP.NIA, REVOKING ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT NO. 91-02 FOR A BAR AND RESTAURANT, SAY'S PLACE, LOCATED A THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CARNELIAN AND 19TH STREETS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN~ 201-811-56 THROUGH 60. A. Recitals. 1. On December 4, 1991, the City council adopted Resolution No. 91-382 approving Entertainment Permit 91-02, to allow entertainment uses consisting of · duet. 2. On March 8, 1994, the City of Rancho Cucamonga gave notice to the applicant that he viol·ted the Entertainment Permit with the use of a disc ~ock~y. 3. On March 23, 1994, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cuc~mong· conducted · duly noticed public he·ring for the revocation of the Entert·lruaent Permit, and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as 1. This Coastssion hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public he·ring on March 23, 1994, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this C< ..... Lesion hereby specifically finds as follows~ a. The application applies to property located ·t 6620 Carnelian Street and is presently improved with a shopping center; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant and planned for a future freeway, the properties to the south and east existing shopping centers, and the property to the west is ~ingle family residences; ·nd c. As a result of receiving complaints, · letter dated May 7, 1992, was sent to the applicant reminding him to comply with, and adhere to, all the conditions of approval ·s contained in City Council Resolution No. 91-382; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EP 91-02 - $AM'S PLACE March 23, 1994 Page 2 d. Newspaper advertisements En the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin indicated that entertainment such as live bands, disc jockeys with karaoke, and lingerie shows were offered at Sam's Place. On June 22, 1993, the applicant was notified to cease all illegal entertainment except for the approved duet. Despite repeated contacts, the violations continued as evidenced by the newspaper advertisement for entertainment such as live bands and disc jockeys dated August 25, 1993, and verified by site inspections on Septm~r 19 and 21, 1993; and e. In response to the City's citation process, the applicant submitted an application to modify the permit to legalize the added entertainment on Septe~ber 23, 1993; and f. On January 5, 1994, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 94-004 denying the applicant's request, except for karaoke. The approved entertainment consists of a duet and karaoke; and g. Site inspections on January 24, and 26, 1994, and illegal signs retrieved in the City on March 10, 1994, indicated that the applicant cont£nued to violate this permit with the use of disc jockeys; and h. A notice regarding the violations of the permit and a notice of the scheduled revocation hearing for March 23, 1994, were sent to the applicant on March 8, 1994; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts let forth in paragraphs i and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows= a. That the applicant violated provisions of the Chapter 5.12 RCMC and the permitted activity under Enter~ainment Permit 91-02; and b. That the applicant violated the Development Code by displaying illegal signs; and c. That the applicant violated the conditions of approval adol~ed by Council Resolutions No. 91-382 and 94-004. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 ~bove, thil Cc~mtssion hereby revokes Entertainment Permit 91-04 and the entertainment shall cease end deslit within 10 calendar days from the date of the adol~lon of this Resolution. S. The Secretary to thee Co-~isaion shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH 1994. PLANNING COMMISSION OF TH~ CITY OF ~NCBO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMHISSION RESOLUTION NO. EP 91-02 - SAY'S PLACE Hatch 23, 1994 Pege 3 BY~ E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST= Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Co~w~iesion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Co~mission held on the 23rd day of March 1994, by the following vote-to-wit= AYES= COMMISSIONERS: NOES= COMMISSIONERS: ABS~NT~ COMMISSIONERS: