Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-111 - ResolutionsRESOLUI~O~NO. 94-111 A RESOLUTION OF ~{E CITY ~ OF ~ CITY OF PAN(~O ~, C~/J3f~7/~, ~ O~DITIf~L USE ~ ~. 78-03 ~ ~ ~~ OF A ~ ~ ~~ ~ A ~, ~'S ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OF 1~ ~ ~.T~ ~ ~ M ~~ ~F - ~: 201-811-56 ~ 60. 1. On D~o=mb~r 27, 1978, the Plannir~,,,,,~K~io~ No. 78-40 conditionallyap~rovingarestaurantwithabarande~certa/r~ntat 6620 Carnelian Street, formerly known as the Boar's _~d____ and presently Sam's Place. 2. On October 27, 1982, the Planning fk,,,-{.~ic~ adopted Resolutic~ No. 82-98 modifying the permit by adding conditions of approval to alleviate public nuisance problems as a result of consistent complaints frc~ adjacent residents. TWo conditions of app~mral re~,~ed the applicant to install '~o 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 cc~ply with these two cor~litions. 3. On September 28, 1983, the Planning C~,,.~ssion adogted Resolution No. 83-117 modifying the permit to require the implementation of a dinner menu, additional noise attenuation measures, and the hours of operation to close at 11 p.m. 4. On July 10, 1985, the PlanningO~issionadoptedResolutionNo. 83-117A modifying the permit by ~iting entertainment uses. The conditions of approval in Planning C~.,,.~ion Resolution No. 82-98, as referenoed in Section A. 2, were toremain 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. conditions of approval in Planning C~m~dssion Resolutions No. 78-40, 82-98, and 83-117A, as referenced in Sections A. 1 through A.4, were to r~m%ain in effect. 6. On Deoember 4, 1991, the Council a___dopted Resolution No. 91-381 to modifytb~permitbyapprovingtheextensionofthehours of operation from 11 p.m. to 2 a.m., Monday through Saturday andeliminating the condition of approval ~iting entertainment uses. The City Council also adopted Resolution No. 91-382 to approve the associated Entertainment Permit 91-02 to allcw entertainmentusesconsistingof a duet. The conditions of approval in Planning O~,.,,~ion Resolution No. 82-98, as referenced in Section A.2, were 7. On Jar~a~y 12, 1994, the City of Rancho Cucamongagave noticeto Sam's Place for i~mnediate compliance with the conditions of approval as referenced above and attachedhereto. Resolutic~ No. 94-111 p e2 8. On Jammary 24, and Fe~ 14, 1994, site inspections w~re conducted and the site was found to be in non-cc~01ianoe with the conditions of ~1. 9. On Mard~ 23, 1994, the P~ C~Lmdssiu~ of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing for the revocation of the Oonditi~l Use Permit for non-compliance of oonditior~ of ~1, and following the conclusion of said hearing, adopted Resolution No. 94-21, thereby revoking said permit. The decision re~ by said Planning C~,,,,,~.~sion Resolution was timely appealed to this Council. 10. On May 4, 1994, the City <kaincil of the City of Rancho ~ conducted a duly noticed public hearing and continued it to September 21, 1994, with the condition that the applicant comply with all conditions of approval within one week frc~ the May 5, 1994 date, and that the hours of operation cease at midnight effective iam~diately. 11. On June 1, 1994, the City Oouncil of the City of Rancho Cuua~K3a reopened the public hearing and concluded said hearing on that date. 12. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this ~esolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, ~{EREFORE, it is bmreby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho C~ as follows: 1. This Council 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 Council during the above-referenced public hearing on June 1, 1994, including written staff re~, this Council hereby specifically finds as folly: a. ~ 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 and the ~rupe~ ty to the w~st is single family residences; and c. In ~ to complaints frc~ adjacent residents, the applicant was sent a notice by letter, dated May 7, 1992, r~m~{ng him to o~ply with and adhere to all the conditions of approval as oontained in City Council ~%esolutions No. 91-381 and 91-382, and Planning C~m-ission Resolution No. 82-98. Conditic~ of approval included: posting permanent '~o Parking" Resolution No. 94-111 Page3 signs at the ~ parking area; installir~ physical barriers with landsca9~ and chains to block acoess into the northw~ parking area closest business hours ~ f~r ~m~3encies; providir~ security persc~nel outside to monitor the parking area; and assisting in avertir~ public m,~noe probl~s, etc.;and d. Site inspections on January 6, January 23, and F~hvuary 14, 1994, ir~cated non-c~liance with the conditions referenced in Section A.2. The applicant was given notices of non-oc~pliance on these two e. On Marc~ 4, 1994, the applicant was sent a notice of the permit violations and a notice of the scheduled March 23, 1994 revocation f. Based on City Council action of May 4, 1994, inspections w~re conducted on May 12, May 18, and May 24, 1994, to check the site for compliance with all conditions of ~1. ~ne inspections indicated that the applicant has failed to post "No Parkir~' signs and put up the lockable chain across the drive aisle to prevent acoess and parking in the northwest g. On May 17, 1994, the applicant was given notice of the permit violations and the schedulir~of the June 1, 1994 revocation hearing. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing and includir~ written and oral staff reports, this Oouncil hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The Conditional Use Permit is not being co~ducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications are not available to mitigate the impacts. Therefore, the permit should be revoked which requ4res the operation to cease and desist in the time allotted by the Oouncil. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in p~ra~-~hs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Cc~i~ion's decision in revoking Oonditiu~al Use Permit 78-03 and tb~ use shall c~a_~.~e and desist within 10 calem4~r days frc~ the date of the adoption of this Resolution. 5. This Oouncil hereby provides notice to Jc~n Mannerino, attorney re~resenting the applicant, that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. ResolutionNo. 94-111 Page4 6. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) f~chwith transmit a certified c~py of this Resolution, by oertified rail, return-reoeipt requested, to John Mannerino at the address identified in City records. 7. ~ne City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.