No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/12/13 - Agenda PacketWEDNESDAY CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DECEMBER 13, 1995 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Chairman Barker Vice Chairman McNiel ,Commissioner Lumpp III. Announcements Commissioner Melcher Commissioner Tolstoy IV. Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the relatedproject. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shah be limited to S minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in a~er speaking. C, LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE 95-04 - BAYARDO/KARUPPIAH - A request to establish a large family day care facility (up to 12 children) in the Low Residential designation (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 7503 Alta Cuesta Drive - APN: 207-044-19. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-26 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to serve hard liquor in conjunction with an existing restaurant and billiard hall, located at 6620 Carnelian Street in the Neighborhood Commercial District - APN: 201- 811-56, 59, 60, & 61. ENTERTAiNMENT PERMIT 95-01 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to offer entertainment consisting of a disc jockey and live band in conjunction with an existing restaurant and billiard hall, located at 6620 Carnelian Street in the Neighborhood Commercial District - APN: 201-811-56, 59, 60, & 61. VI. VII. Director's Reports D. CONSIDERATION OF A REOUEST TO FENCE OFF SERENA PLACE, A CUL-DE-SAC STREET. AT ITS CONNECTION TO LEMON AVENUE (Continued from November 8, 1995.) Public Comments This is the time andplace 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 E. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS VIII. Adjournment The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an I1:00 P.M. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shah be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I, Shelley PetrellL Planning Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certij52 that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on December 7, 1995, -at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. VICINITY MAP -~ 'k' CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA D. LARRYTHORNE DAVID C. THORNE LAW OFFICES OF D. LARRY THORNE 9637 Arrow Route, Suite A Rancho Cucamonga, CA 917304553 (909) 944-6739 RECEIVED December 12, 1995 DEC 1 B 1995 City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Cily of Rar, cho Cucarnonga Planning Division Re: Family Care Facility Located at 7503 Alta Cuesta Dr. Gentlemen: I object to the situating of a large family care facility , caring for up to twelve children, at the address of 7503 Alta Cuesta Dr., Rancho Cucamonga, California. I am a co-owner of the real property at 7502 Val Vista which is within one hundred feet of the subject property. The reasons for my objections are as follows: (1) Alta Cuesta is a narrow street, and is traveled by frequently passing automobiles, at relatively high rates of speed. (2) There are no sidewalks in that area. The situating of. up to twelve children in a residence at that address, would create a safety problem for the children and for the motorists passing by. (3) The residence within one hundred feet, are all senior citizens, who have lived in the area for upwards of thirty five years. (4) The noise created by a family care facility in that area, would greatly disturb the neighboring inhabitants and would greatly diminish their enjoyment of their own'real property. (5) If numerous cars parked at or near the large family care facility, it could cause traffic problems blocking emergency vehicles, including fire and police vehicles. For all of these reasons, we object to the placing of the family care facility at 7503 Alta Cuesta Dr., Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. lsd/cc: Fretta Thorne RECEIVED DE0 ~- ~ 1995 City ol Rancho Cucamonga planning Division CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF RF, PORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: December 13, 1995 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Scott Murphy, AICP, Associate Planner LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE 95-04 - BAYARDO/KARUPPIAH - A request to establish a large family day care facility (up to 12 children) in the Low residential designation (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 7503 AIta Cuesta Drive - APN: 207-044-19. ANALYSIS General: The applicant has filed an application to establish a large family day care facility at their residence on Alta Cuesta Drive. As defined by State law, large family day care provides service for up to 12 children. Regulations for large family day care facilities are contained in the State of California Health and Safety Code, Sections 1596.70 through 1597.47. State law preempts cities from prohibiting large family day care facilities in single family residential neighborhoods. However, State law requires notification of all properly owners within 100 feet Of a proposed facility to allow input on a request. The City must approve a large family day care facility when it complies with local ordinances prescribing reasonable standards, restrictions, and requirements concerning the spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control relating to such homes. Staff is not aware of any other day care facilities in the Red Hill area. Issues: The primary neighborhood capability issues with this specific site is traffic/parking and noise. All property owners within 100 feet of the subject site were notified of the proposed day care facility request. Staff received three letters from adjacent property owners voicing concern about the proposed use (see Exhibit 'D"). 1. Traffic and Parkina - The pavement width for Alta Cuesta Drive in front of the proposed site, is substandard and narrows to roughly 30 feet compared to the 36 feet of pavement required for new development. In addition, parking is currently allowed on both sides ofAIta Cuesta Drive. This substandard width combined with the number of vehicle trips currently using Alta Cuesta, raises a concern with the flow of traffic in and out of the subject site. It should also be noted that Alta Cuesta Drive has historically been used as a shodcut between Base Line Road and Foothill Boulevard and, therefore. receives more traffic than other local streets. The residents also believe that current traffic speeds are excessive on Alta Cuesta Drive, especially during the morning and evening peaks. The applicant proposes that customers of the day care facility would either pull into the driveway to drop the children off or park along the street. Given the existing ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT LFD 95-04 - BAYARDO/KARUPPIAH December 13, 1995 Page 2 traffic pattern of Alta Cuesta Drive, drop-offs and pick-ups will coincide with the peak usage of the street. Traffic movements generated by the day care facility will pose additional traffic problems for the area, especially with vehicles backing out of the driveway. To address this concern, staff believes a circular driveway may be appropriate to minimize the conflicts. This would allow day care customers to pull into the driveway, drop off their children, and enter the street without having to back out. In pulling into the driveway, the vehicles would be parked off the street and eliminate the bottleneck that might be created if vehicles were parked on the street. A circular drive seems appropriate given the traffic concerns. Also, the circular drive is consistent with the neighborhood when many of the houses fronting Alta Cuesta have circular drives. Noise: The adjoining residents have also voiced concern about potential noise level from a day care facility. Some of the neighbors are senior citizens and believe the noise from children playing will effect their daily sleep patterns. Some residents have health problems that often require daytime sleep. The City does have noise regulations in place to regulate noise levels within residential zones. The maximum exterior noise level in a residential zone, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., shall not exceed 60 dBA. A condition of approval is included in the Resolution requiring the applicant to comply with this noise criteria. To provide a greater level of sensitivity to the neighborhood, staff has also added a condition of approval requiring the children to remain inside the residence before 8:00 a.m. RECOMMENDATION: While staff believes that the location of the large family day care facility is inappropriate and unsafe given the existing traffic problems, staff finds that State law preempts the City from denying the application. The conditions contained in the Resolution will help minimize the concerns with the application to the greatest degree possible. Therefore, staff has no alternative but to recommend that the Planning Commission approve Large Family Day Care No. 95-04 through adoption of the attached Resolution. In that the Department of Social Service has jurisdiction over approval of the Large Family Day Care permits, staff recommends a letter be sent to the Department expressing the City's concerns with the safety of a facility at this location and recommending the Department's denial of the permit. ~n r s~ Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Floor Plan Exhibit "D" - Correspondence Resolution of Approval FACILITY 5 KETCH (Floor Plan) Applicants are required to provide a skelch of the ticor plan of the hcme or faciihy and cuTslde yard. The Fbor Sketch must '.abel mores such as the kkGhen, bath, living ream, etc. Circ!e ;ha names of ~he roams that will be used by dients,'childre.~. Dccr window exits from the rocms must be shown in casa of an emergenq/(see Emergent/Disaster' Plan). Show room sizes (e,g 12). Keeo c!ese to scale. Usa the soace below. See back lot yard Sketch. S 'DAY CARE 5 ALTA CUESTA DR, RANCHO CUCAMONGA JUDY V ~(_~S ~) City of Rancho Cucamonga Location Map Exhibit "C" ¢7503 Alta Cuesta Drive N parcels Strcct Centlines 300 6,00 Feet RECEIVED OCT 1 ? 1995 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE NO. 95-04, A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE FACILITY (UP TO 12 CHILDREN) IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT 7503 ALTA CUESTA DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-04449. A. Recitals. 1. Judith Bayardo and Sathi Karuppiah have filed an application for the approval of Large Family Day Care No. 95-04. as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafier in this Resolution, the subject Large Family Day Care request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 13th day of December 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. 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 follows: 1. This Commission 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 meeting on December 13, 1995, including written and oral staff reports. this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at 7503 Alta Cuesta Drive with a street frontage of 80 feet and lot depth of 130 feet and is presently improved with a single family residence; and, · b. The properties to the north, south, east and west of the subject site are designated for residential uses and are improved with single family residences; and c. The application complies with the development standards of the Low Residential designation; and d. The application is consistent with the Low Residential designation of the General Plan. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. LFD 95-04 - BAYARDOIKARUPPIAH December 13, 1995 Page 2 a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and C. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. 4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 1) A circular driveway shall be constructed prior to establishment of the large family day care. The final design of the driveway shaft be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer prior to construction. 2) Outdoor play shall not be permitted before 8:00 a.m. All activities shall be conducted within the building. 3) The proposed use shall not commence until all permits and approvals have been obtained from: The Department of Social Services in compliance with State of California Health and Safety Code Sections 1596.70 through 1597.47; and The City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Division in compliance with Uniform Building Code requirements; and The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District in compliance with the Uniform Fire Code requirements. 4) Noise levels shall comply with Section 17.08.080(D) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. 5) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Low Residential District, State Fire Marshall's regulations, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances. 6) The use of the residence as a day care facility shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. LFD 95-04 - BAYARDO/KARUPPIAH December 13, 1995 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1995. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller. Secretary I, Brad Buller, 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 Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of December 1995, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: December 6, 1995 Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91729 Attention City Planner RECEIVED DEC 11 1995 City ol Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division The purpose of this letter is to reaffirm your opposition to the conditional use permits, 95-26, for hard liquor, and 95-01, entertainment ~~ Sam's Place. Our first question is, how many times do we have to fight for our right to have the peace and quiet that can be expected of a residential neighborhood? The second question is, why is it that the city requires the parks to close at 10:30pm each evening because they adjoin residential areas, and still consider a bar and dance hall activity to operate in the same residential neighborhood? This owner has not proved that he could be a good neighbor and comply with any of the regulations in the past. His lack of compliance led to many confrontations with the city, including a physical confrontation with coed enforcement personnel. Over the years the continual uncontrolled noise and disturbances caused by the patron activity assodated with this business has been very annoying to us property owners that live adjacent to this business center. Those of us that have to get up early in the morning to start our commute to work every day would like to be able to get a good night's sleep. This means going to bed early and being able to sleep through the night without the disturba~ices 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 was not possible because of the activities going on in the parking lot during the hours of operation of Sam's Place. The noise abatement techniques that were suggested provided only minimal relief. This is not the type of business that caters to a quite clientele. The city has made a significant effort in its attempts to integrate this business into the neighborhood and it simply did not working out very well. December 6, 1995 made a significant effort in its attempts to integrate this business into the neighborhood and it simply did not working out very well. As home owners we have made significant investments in our homes, and we would like to be able to enjoy the full benefits of those investments. Also, we do not wish to suffer any further loss of resale value because of the activities of this business. As home owners we feel that the city has been very generous in trying to help this business succeed. Now it's the home owners turn to receive city support to protect our investments. For the above reasons, we adamantly oppose the grating of both the liquor and entertainment permits. Lets' keep residential areas residential, and keep commercial business areas for businesses. Thank you all once again for dealing with this very sensitive matter. /Joe Fabi~ 6611 Topaz Alta Loma, Ca 91701 2 / 'x CITY OF RANCHO CUCA]VIONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: December 13, 1995 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-26 ~ SAM'S PLACE - A request to serve hard liquor in conjunction with an existing restaurant and billiard hall, located at 6620 Carnelian Street in the Neighborhood Commercial District - APN: 201-811-56, 59, 60, & 61. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 95-01 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to offer entertainment consisting of a disc jockey and a live band in conjunction with an existing restaurarit and billiard hall, located at 6620 Carnelian Street in the Neighborhood Commercial District - APN: 201~811-56, 59, 60, & 61. BACKGROUND: Sam's Place previously had a Conditional Use Permit (Conditional Use Permit 78-03) for a full bar and an Entertainment Permit (Entertainment Permit 91-02) for a duet consisting of a singer and,a guitarist. Because of nuisance problems and noncompliance with conditions of approval, those two permits were brought before Planning Commission and City Council for review between November of1993 and October of1994. At the conclusion ofthe public hearing process on October 5, 1994, the applicant, Mr. Sam Pellegrino, relinquished his Conditional Use Permit and Entertainment Permit. Since that time, the applicant has continued his restaurant business including the serving of beer and wine, which is permitted by right. On April 25, 1995, the applicant expanded his business by taking over the vacant unit next to his restaurant and obtained a Conditional Use Permit (Conditional Use Permit 95-07) to operate a billiard hall. A total of 6 coin-operated games and 10 pool tables were approved for Sam's Place. y ITEMS B & C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-26 & EP 95-01 - SAM'S PLACE December 13, 1995 Page 2 ANALYSIS: Proposed Uses: The applicant proposes to have a full bar service and offer entertainment for his patrons. The proposed entertainment consists of a 3- to 4-piece live band on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, and a disc jockey Monday through Saturday. The hours for entertainment are between 9 p.m. and 1 a.m. The hours of operation for the full bar are between 11 a.m. and 2 a.m. The stage for the disc jockey and the band is located to the far east side of the unit as shown in Exhibit "C." Attached for the Commission's review is the applicant's letter requesting the full bar and the entertainment. B. Response to Applicant's Letter: Applicant stated his business has been subjected to limitations on their growth potential because of a previous owner's negligence. The review of a Conditional Use Permit or an Entertainment Permit application is based on the General Plan, the zoning, the site's location, the compatibility of the proposed use with the surrounding land use, and any other identified issues. Each application stands alone and is on its own merits. Through the permit process, mitigation or limitations are imposed to ensure a proposed use will operate in a manner compatible with surrounding uses. The mitigation imposed on Sam's Place previously was to address the specific problems identified for the site and the business so that it could be a good neighbor. Applicant stated other comparable businesses have not faced the opposition nor have been denied the potential opportunities. As mentioned above, each Conditional Use Permit or Entertainment Permit application is subjected to the same review process. The issue of whether other businesses have more or fewer restrictions are directly in response to the severity of the problems or issues identified for each case. Applicant stated he was informed that his applications would be denied by the Planning Commission. In reviewing any application, staff will inform an applicant of any identified issues prior to the hearing. Staff did inform Mr. Pellegrino that the compatibility issue is still a serious concern. Applicant questioned whether it is customary for staff to canvass the neighborhood. Staff does not and has not canvassed the neighborhood. Surrounding property owners were mailed the required public hearing notice. Staff has received letters and/or phone calls from residents who have responded to public hearing notices. Applicant questioned why the City allows Jack's (formerly Bob's Big Boy) to serve beer and wine if alcohol suggests "negatives." Jack's is a restaurant similar to Sam's Place. The incidental serving of beer and wine in conjunction with a restaurant is a permitted rise. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-26 & EP 95-01 - SAM'S PLACE December 13, 1995 Page 3 Compatibili.ty of use: The Commercial Section of the Development Code states that the intent of a Neighborhood Commercial District is to have uses that are compatible to, and harmonious with, the character of the surrounding residential area. This intent is to implement one of the goals of the General Plan which is to avoid creating nuisances among adjacent land uses. The main concern staff has in reviewing the proposal to add a full bar and entertainment is the compatibility of the use to the surrounding land uses. The business premise is within a neighborhood shopping center, which is immediately adjacent to single family homes to the west. The tenants within the center consist of a mixture of retail shops, a karate school, a restaurant, a bank, a takeout food user, and office use. The addition of the full bar and the entertainment should not adversely affect the surrounding businesses in the center, but may, or has in the past adversely affected the adjacent residential neighborhood. Since Sam's Place stopped serving hard liquor and offering entertainment, from October of 1994 to the present, staffhas not received complaints from the adjacent residents. Because of the nature of the proposed use, the potential for nuisance problems, such as loud music from the entertainment, noise and loitering activities in the parking lot, etc., exist. Limitations, restrictions, or mitigation can be placed on the business to reduce and alleviate any nuisance problems. The City has experienced the ineffectiveness of specific mitigations placed on Sam's Place under p/'evious permits for this same site. Therefore, staff questions the appropriateness of allowing the full bar and entertainment for Sam's Place because of the close proximity of the use to the existing single family homes. D. Public Safetv Issues: A concern with the full bar and entertainment use is the potential for an increased need for police service. According to a representative from the Police Department, they responded a total of eight times to this address between October of 1994 and the present. He stated that considering the type of existing business, a restaurant with the serving of beer and wine, the number of calls is not excessive. However, he stated that the addition of a full bar and entertainment will generate a greater number of police service calls. E. Environmental Assessment: The proposed use is categorically exempt per Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. FACTS FOR FINDING: A. Before approving a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must make the following findings: The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or ~velfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (17Z) ~-C_, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-26 & EP 95-01 - SAM'S PLACE December 13, 1995 Page 4 The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. Based on concems listed in the analysis section of this report, staff finds that the proposed use will not be compatible with the adjacent single family residential use. It would not be in accord with the goals and objectives of the General Plan because of creating nuisances for the adjacent single family residences. To consider the Entertainment Permit, the Commission must hear and determine all the facts and evidence relevant to the applicant and the supervisory employees, as well as the entertainment proposed, including the nature and location of the proposed entertainment. The Commission may approve the permit if it finds and determines the following, or may deny the permit if it finds any of the following: 1. The conduct of the establishment or the granting of the application would not be contrary to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. 2. The premise or establishment is not likely to be operated in an illegal, improper, or · disorderly manner. The applicant or any other person associated with him as principal or partner, or in a · position or capacity involving partial or total control over the conduct of the business for which such permit is sought to be issued, has been convicted in any court of competent jurisdiction of any offense involving the presentation, exhibition or performance of any obscene show of any kind, or of a felony or of any crime involving moral turpitude, or has had any approval, permit or license issued in conjunction with the sale of alcohol or the provision of entertainment revoked within the preceding five years. 4. The granting of the application would create a public nuisance. 5. The normal operation of the premises would interfere with the peace and quite of any surrounding residential neighborhood. 6. The applicant has made a false, misleading or fraudulent statement of material fact in the required application. Based on the above identified concerns, staff finds that the granting of the proposed entertainment will interfere with the peace and quite of the westerly adjacent residential neighborhood, and will be contrary to the public health, safety, and welfare PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-26 & EP 95-01 - SAM'S PLACE December 13, 1995 Page 5 CORRESPONDENCE: Both items were advertised as public hearings in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the site and the surrotmding properties were posted, and notices were sent to the adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the project site and the tenants in the shopping center. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission deny Conditional Use Permit 95- 26 and Entertainment Permit 95-01 through the adoption of the attached resolutions. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:NF:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Letter dated November 22, 1995 Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Floor Plan Exhibit "D" - Police Report dated October 1994 Resolution of Denial for Conditional Use Permit 95-26 Resolution of Denial for Entertainment Permit 95-01 RECEIVED Sam's Place 6620 Carnelian Street Alta Loma, CA 91701 November 22, 1995 NOV :3 1995 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Civic Centre Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attn: Nancy Fong re: CUP entertainment/liquor MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF: As you are aware, we are applying for the reinstatement of full liquor privileges, and an entertainment license. Ms. Fong has requested that I submit in writing a re- cap of the reason(s) I am requestinb the entertainment permit, We are a respected, well established business located in the Rancho Plaza for the past six (6) years. We. have been subjected to limitations on our growth potential because of concerns r~gardin9 a previow~__o~o~_F_p n~glPLg~nce - that particular business owneO__bas..not._been-im-~x4-s-t-ence-f-oE_ten ( 10)_.v~C~_,__bo~ev e~ ,._L~_~-_su~eELOg _!c~m_ .b!~._m i s- managemen~E.P> We have honored all city by-laws, and take pride in our business ethics. I feel strongly that you "give back" to the community that supports you; and am very active in numerous charitable organizations, women and childtens' need'groups, and sponsor several ball teams in our city. The point I am making is that we are not a "fly by night" callous bus~ness, but one that chooses to remain in a good community and participate in its' growth. The limits that have been imposed on me have caused great financial hardship; and that hardship began with press re- leases after meetings with the City for licensing issues. We have had to continually re-assure our customers that our doors are NOT closing, that we have not reiDrated, and that our employees have job security. We previously em- ployed twenty-seven (27) people, and have been forced to reduce our working staff to twelve (12) members. 'I!do not believe any other comparable business (ie: Final Score, Shelley's, Skippers, Coffee Clutch, Zendela's or Peppers) have faced the opposition, or have been denied the potential opportunities that SAM's has experienced. early October, I was" informed" from within the City that RECEIVED SAM'S Place NOV g :g 1995 Page 2 ~i~ypfRancho Cucamonga my application(s) would be denied by the'planning commzssz~arming Division and our meeting isn't even scheauled until December i3th. Any negatives that are in place certainly are not there as a result of the vast culture of residents that are Sam's customers - the regulars include police personnel, fire- fighters, attorneys, doctors, clerical and blue collar workers, I would also like to address the residents of Topaz Street- there have been no complaints from these residents (we have routinely followed up on this) and the two former complaints were received after your department "walked" the neighbor- hood asking if any problems were caused by Sam's. Is it customary to_c~nvass neiqhborho_EcLs_on each permit request - from each business owner? If the "negatives" are sug9ested because of alcohol, and you believe we are located in a residential locale, why would your accept the fees for an application from Jack's (formally Bob's Big Boy) ~EELE beer and~nme~I am NOT opposed to the application process, but I find irony in the logic of the explanations I have re- ceived from your department. In direct response to the entertainment permit, I would like to address my concerns as this: I do not approve of hard rock/heavy metal or reggaee bands; and that style of music will never be performed at Sam's Place; however, need the opportunity of allowing musicians to perform at SAM's on a limited basis. I am more interested in the performance of a "OJ" five (5) evenings per week. This allows me to join the other comparable businesses in our area, and does not restrict my services to our customers or cause an undue hardship on my business. I want the flexibility of the live music as needed to ensure satisfaction to our loyal customers. In closing, I would ask that you not have pre-conceived opinions 'on the issuance of permits to our establishment, that you allow pro-growth in our City to respectable businesses; and that all related businesses are treated with equality. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, ~ ~ : am~N:~pe~ S ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT APPLICATION ~ S'~/. O cD Applicants for entertainment permits shall complete the foliowing questionaire: PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE A. The name and permanent address of applicant: Permanent Address B. The name, proposed and current, if any, and business address of the applicant: Name (Current and Proposed) Business Address C. A detailed description of the proposed entertainment, including type of entertainment, and number of persons engaged in the entertainment (may attach D. The date or day-of-week, hours and location of entertainment (attach floorplan), and the admission fee, if any, to be charged: EXISTING . BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING T ,L CARNELIAN AVENpE] BUILDING l'it' ~ / C~= o Calls for service 04/06/94 WED 4155 04/14/94 T~U3 04/15/94 119404671 FRI 04/17/94 119404711 SI/N 05/05/94 119405570 05/17/94 119406023 TUE 05/20/94 119406162 FRI 05/24/94 TUE 05/27/94 FRI 05/29/94 SUN 06/04/94 SAT 06/04/94 SAT 06/06/94 MON 06/08/94 ~rED 06/10/94 FRI 06/13/94 MON 06/14/94 TUE 06/19/94 SUN 06/21/94 119407426 TUE 06/23/94 119407529 THU 06/26/94 SUN 07/04/94 MON 07/04/94 MON 07/10/94 SLTN 07/11/94 MON 07/30/94 119409053 BAT 08/06/94 SAT 08/11/94 THU 08/22/94 MON 08/31/94 119410353 WED 09/02/94 FRI 09/05/94 MON 09/05/94 MON 09/10/94 SAT 09/12/94 119410793 MON 09/14/94 WED 09/23/94 FRI 10/09/94 SUN 10/11/94 119411993 TUE ~710/14/94 FRI 11/12/94 119413336 SAT 12/02/94 FRI ~Z 12/11/94 SUN 01/05/9~ THU 01/10/95 THU TUE 01/12/95 119500532 THU 01/18/95 WED 01/23/95 MON 01/24/95 119501122 TUE 02/09/95 THU 03/07/95 119503070 TUE 03/14/94 119403280 MON 03/16/95 119503442 THU 03/19/95 119503575 SUN 03/20/94 119403,509 SUN 03/21/95 TUE 03/25/95 SAT 03/29/95 WED 04/03/95 159504246 MON 04/28/95 FRI 05/11/95 119505765 THU 05/22/95 MON 05/27/95 119506369 SAT 05/29/95 MON 06/19/95 MON 06/28/95 WED 07/07/95 119507918 FRI 08/01/95 TUE 08/16/95 WED 09/21/95 119510824 TPIU =09/30/95 SAT 10/14/95 SAT 10/16/95 MON 6600 6670 Carnelian St. 4/1/94 thru 11/79/g~ SUBJECT DISTURBANCE 940960246 GOA 6620 CARNELIAN ST 242R 242 242R 488 10853R 459A' PKGVIO SUSPER 459A kLARM 459A PUBSER 470 415F PUBSER 459A 148R 470R 459A 459A 459A 459A 459A 459 459A 245R COUNTR 459 INC 459A 653MR 242R 242R 415F 459A 488 459A 487R 415 SUSCIR 459CR INFO 166.4R WELCH 242R 459A 459CR 459A 488R 488R 459CR 242R INC 1179 VEHCK 459A 484E 459A 594R UNKPRO 459C 4155 459A 459A 459 4155 INFO 10851R 459A 459A WARPJLNT ARREST 941040281 ASSAULT REPORT 941050346 ASSAULT 941070012 ASSAULT REPORT 941250315 PETTY THEFT 941370113 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF TO VEHICLE 941400341 AUDIBLE ALARM 941440092 PA/~KING VIOLATION/PROBLEM 941470255 SUSPICIOUS PERSON 941490115 AUDIBLE AIa~RM 941550095 OTHER THAN 459 & 211 & AUDIBLE941550231 AUDIBLE ALARM 941570016 PUBLIC SERVICE 941590007 FORGERY 941610195 FIGHT 941640245 PUBLIC SERVICE 941650129 AUDIBLE AL~ 941700094 RESISTING PEACE OFFICER REPORT941720008 FORGERY REPORT 941740107 AUDIBLE ALARM AUDIBLE ALARM AUDIBLE ALARM AUDIBLE ALARM AUDIBLE ALA2M BURGLARY - INPROGRESS 941770068 941850148 941850203 941910238 941920026 942110044 AUDIBLE ALARM 942180204 ASSAULT W/DEADLY WEAPON REPORT942230097 COUNTER REPORT 942340143 BURGLARY - INPROGRESS 942430265 INCIDENT/MISC.' LAW ENF CALL 942450156 AUDIBLE ALARM 942480138 OBSCENE PHONE CALL REPT 942480089 ASSAULT REPORT 942530091 ASSAULT REPORT 942550114 FIGHT 942570220 SILENT ROBBERY ALARM 942660141 AUDIBLE AI~RM 942820135 PETTY THEFT 942840226 AUDIBLE ALARM 942870067 GR3~ND THEFT REPORT 943160157 DISTURBANCE 943360109 SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES 943450036 COMMERICAL BURGLARY REPORT 943620031 INFORMATION R~PORT q4~017 VIOLATION COURT ORDER REPORT 950050136 CHECK THE WELFARE 950100171 ASSAITLT REPORT 950120094 AUDIBLE ALARM 950180074 SILENT ROBBERY ALARM 950230078 COMMERICAL BURGI~RY REPORT 950240186 AUDIBLE AI~RM 950400007 PETTY THEFT REPORT 950660139 PETTY TBEFT REPORT 940730146 COMMERICAL BURGLARY REPORT 950750045 ASSAULT REPORT 950780013 INCIDE~Tr/MISC. LAW EbTF C_ALL 940790007 TC WITH MED AID RESPONDING 950800137 VEHICLE CHECK 950840004 AUDIBLE ALARM 950880246 FRAUDULENT CREDIT APPLICATION 950930103 AUDIBLE ALARM 951180050 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF REPORT DlqK~OWN TYPE PROBLEM COMMERICAL BURGLARY SUBJECT DISTI/RBI~NCE AUDIBLE ALARM AUDIBLE ALARM BURGLARY - INPROGRESS SUBJECT DISTURBANCE INFORMATION REPORT GRAND THEFT AUTO REPORT MAN WITH A GUN INPROGRESS AUDIBLE ALARM AUDIBLE ALARM 951310181 951420148 951470049 951490198 951700119 951790032 951880037 952130238 952280143 952640016 952730255 952870135 952890117 ARR 6620 CAR/qELIAN ST RTF 6620 CA/~NELIAN ST RTF 6620 CAPaELIAN RTF 6612 CARNELIAN ST CAN 6642 CARNELIAN ST FAL 6658 CARNELIAN ST FAL 6620 CAR/qELIAN ST FAL 6612 CARNELIAN ST FAL 6612 CARNELIAN ST UNF 6644 CARNELIAN ST NAT 6612 C/~RNELIAN ST ARR 6620 CARNELIAN ST FAL 6620 C2~LIAN ST FAL 6658 CARNELIAN ST FAL 6612 CARNELIAN ST RTF 6612 CARNELIAN ST FAL 6638 CARNELIAN ST NAT 6652 CARNELIAN ST ARR 6670 C]~RNELIAN ST CAN 6644 CARNELIAN ST FAL 6644 CARNELIAN ST NAT 6638 CARNELIAN ST NAT 6620 C]~a/qELIAN ST RTF 6620 CJQ~'rELIAN ST FAL 6644 CARNELIAN ST FAL 6622 CARNELIAN ST RTF 6612 CARNELIAN ST FAL 6626 CARNELIAN ST RTF 6812 CAP~NELI/~N ST NAT 6612 CARNELIAN (NV) RTF 6612 CARNELIAN ST NAT 6660 CARNELIAN ST CAN 6626 CA/{NELIAN ST FAL 6638 CARNELIAN ST FAL 6644 CARNELIAN ST RTF 6612 CARNELIAN ST FAL 6660 CARNELIAN ST RTF 6652 CARigELIAN ST RTF 6612 CARNELIAN ST RTF 6620 CARNELIAN RTF 6620 CAR/~ELI/LN ST/ NAT 6612 CAR~ELIA/q ST CIT 6630 CARN (NV) RTF 6644 CARNELIAN ST RTF 6612 CARNELIAN ST FAL 6660 CARNELIAN ST RTF 6612 CARNELIAN ST CAN 6622 CARNELIAN RTF 6612 CAPagELIAN ST NAT 6638 CARNELIAN ST SER 6660 C~LRNELIAN ST RTF 6620 CAPaqELIAN FArF 6620 C/~/qELIAN ST/ F~_L 6644 CARNELIAN ST FAL 6622 CARNELIAN ST zo/is/9s 11/19/95 25 calls OJP gb=36 MON 647F DRUNK IN PUBLIC 952890248 C/~N SLTN 415 DISI~/RBANCE 953230029 NAT for service out of 77 calls are for Sam's Place. T /D , - fo ce ;eee ,ep 6612 CARNELIAN ST 6620 CAP~NELIAN ST/ 32.4% of calls. Sam's Pl'ace 6600 -6670 Carnelian St. 100 80 .......................................................................................... 76' -7-7- - 66 68 69 71 73 60 62 40 ........................,~,--- 4o .~ ~p__p! ..................................... 20 .........2~ .........,~ ....,., ....,7 ....,., ....,7 ....,, ....,~ ....~ .....................~ ....... Calls for Service - - Cumulative 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 94 ~ 95 --All --Sam's RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95-26 FOR THE REQUEST TO SERVE HARD LIQUOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AND BILLlARD HALL LOCATED AT 6620 CARNELIAN STREET, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-811-56, 59, 60, & 61. A. Recitals. 1. Mr. Sam Pellegrino has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 95-26, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution. the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." · 2. On the 13th day of December 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. 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 follows: 1. This Commission 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 December 13, 1995, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at 6620 Carnelian Street and is presently improved with a shopping center. b. -' The property to the north is vacant and planned for a future freeway, the propedies to the south and east are shopping centers, and the properties to the west are single family homes. c. The proposed use is for the serving of hard liquor within an existing restaurant and billlard hall with a leased space of 4,200 square feet. A related proposed use under separate application is the proposal to offer entertainment, consisting of a disc jockey and a 3 to 4-piece live band. The hours of operation for the full bar are 11 a.m. to 2 a.m. The hours for entertainment are 9 p.m. to 1 a.m.. daily. d. West of the shopping center are single family residences. They have been adversely impacted by nuisance problems such as, loitering activities and loud noise within the parking lot in the late evening and early morning hours before by the same business that previously had a full bar service. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-26 - SAM PELLEGRINO December 13, 1995 Page 2 e. Because of the nuisance problems and non-compliance with conditions of approval, the City conducted revocation hearings in 1991 and 1994. On October 5, 1994, the applicant relinquished his Conditional Use Permit for the full bar. f. The City did not receive complaints from the adjacent residents after Sam's Place stopped serving hard liquor. g. The nature of the business will have the potential for nuisance problems such as loud noise and loitering activities within the parking lot in the late evening and early morning hours. These types of nuisance problems will adversely impact the adjacent single family residences. h. The Commercial Section of the Development Code states that the intent of a Neighborhood Commercial District is to have uses that are compatible to and harmonious with the character of surrounding residential area. Also, one of the goals of the General Plan is to avoid creating nuisances among adjacent land uses. Because of the potential for nuisance problems, the proposed use will not be compatible with the adjacent single family residential use. 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 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is not in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the application identified above in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2.3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby denies the application. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1995. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-26 - SAM PELLEGRINO December 13, 1995 Page 3 ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, 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 Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of December 1995, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT NO. 95-O1 FOR THE REQUEST TO HAVE ENTERTAINMENT CONSISTING OF A DISC JOCKEY AND A 3-TO 4-PIECE LIVE BAND IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AND BILLlARD HALL LOCATED AT 6620 CARNELIAN STREET, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-811-56, 59, 60, & 61. A, Recitals. 1. Mr. Sam Pellegrino has filed an application for the issuance of Entedainment Permit No. 95-01, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 13th day of December 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. 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 follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set fodh 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 December 13, 1995, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at 6620 Carnelian Street and is presently improved with a shopping center. b. The property to the north is vacant and planned for a future freeway, the properties to the south and east are shopping centers, and the properlies to the west are single family homes. c. The proposed use is to offer entertainment consisting of a disc jockey and a 3- to 4-piece live band within an existing restaurant and billlard hall with a leased space of 4,200 square feet. A related proposed use under separate application is to serve hard liquor. The hours of operation for the full bar are 11 a.m. to 2 a.m. The hours for entertainment are 9 p.m. to 1 a.m., daily. d. West of the shopping center are single family residences. They have been adversely impacted by nuisance problems such as, loud music from entertainment, loitering activities and loud noise within the parking lot in the late evening and early morning hours before by the same business that previously had a full bar service and entertainment. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EP 95-01 - SAM PELLEGRINO December 13, 1995 Page 2 e. Because of the nuisance problems and non-compliance with conditions of approval, the City conducted a revocation hearing in 1991 and 1994. On October 5, 1994, the applicant relinquished his Entertainment Permit. f. The City did not receive complaints from adjacent residents after Sam's Place stopped having entertainment as of October 5, 1994. g. The nature of the business will have the potential for nuisance problems such as loud music from the entertainment, loud noise and loitering activities within the parking lot in the late evening and early morning hours. These types of nuisance problems will adversely impact the adjacent single family residences. Therefore, the granting of the Entertainment Permit would be inconsistent with Ordinance No. 290 because the nuisance problems would interfere with the peace and quiet in the residential neighborhood and would be contrary to the public health, safety and welfare. 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 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The Conduct of the establishment and the granting of the application would be contrary to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. b. The granting of the application would create a public nuisance. c. The normal operation of the premises would interfere with the normal peace and quiet of any surrounding residential neighborhood. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby denies the application. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1995. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buffer, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EP 95-01 - SAM PELLEGRINO December 13, 1995' Page 3 I, Brad Buller, 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 Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of December 1995, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: December 13, 1995 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Scott Murphy, AICP, Associate Planner CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO FENCE OFF SERENA PLACE. A CUL-DE-SAC STREET. AT ITS CONNECTION TO LEMON AVENUE On November 8, 1995. the Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the application. After concluding the public testimony, the Commission was deadlocked in a two-two vote. Rather than allowing the request to fail on the two-two vote, the Commission continued the item to allow all five members of the Planning Commission to be present to consider the request and break the tie. City Planner BB:SM:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" ~ Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 8, 1995 ITEM D CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIViONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: November 8, 1995 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Scott Murphy, AICP. Associate Planner CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO FENCE OFF SERENA PLACE, A CUL-DE-SAC STREET. AT ITS CONNECTION TO LEMON AVENUE. REQUEST: Staff has received a petition from a neighborhood requesting the installation of fencing at the end of a cul-de-sac siding onto a collector street. The location is at the south end of Serena Place, siding .onto Lemon Avenue (see Exhibit "C"). It is at this location where Lemon Avenue turns south to connect to Highland Avenue. The residents are concerned about the safety of children playing in the area and protection from vehicles unable to negotiate the Lemon Avenue curve (see attached letter - Exhibit "A"). BACKGROUND: In 1987, the City of Rancho Cucamonga received a similar request from Lewis Homes at the urging of homeowners within Terra Vista. The residents were concerned about the privacy of their streets and the safety of children playing in the streets. Lewis Homes proposed continuous fencing (wrought iron) with no pedestrian access along the perimeter streets and Milliken Avenue. On interior streets, a controlled pedestrian access was proposed. The offset fencing would allow pedestrian access through the area, minimize the likelihood of children chasing a ball onto the adjoining street, and preclude motorcycles and recreational vehicles from jumping the curb as a short cut. The homeowners, however, felt that all access to the cul-de-sacs should be eliminated. In considering the request, the Commission noted the strong pedestrian emphasis encouraged throughout Terra Vista. The Commission felt that side-on cul-de-sacs provided convenient access to the paseo and trail system within the Planned Community. This allowed pedestrian access to parks, schools, and shopping opportunities. Closure of the cul-de-sacs would eliminate those opportunities, create a closed appearance, and force pedestrians into taking circuitous routes. The Commission opted for a controlled access design solution. The homeowners of Terra Vista appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council, requesting the cul-de-sacs be closed completely. The City Council approved the closure of the cul-de-sac accesses. Even though the cul-de-sacs have been fenced. access is still being maintained despite the efforts of the City and the neighborhood. Vandais have cut openings in these fences to allow access. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUL-DE-SAC FENCING- SERENA PL. & LEMON AVE. November 8, 1995 Page 2 ANALYSIS: In their letter to the City Engineer, the residents of Serena Place voice two main reasons for fencing the cul-de-sac. First, the residents are concerned about the safety of children playing in and around the cul-de-sac area. With the previous request in 1987, the Planning Commission voiced their concerns about considering the cul-de-sac streets as play · areas for children. These cul-de-sacs are not designed as parks and should not be viewed as such. Fencing off the cui-de-sac would provide a false sense of security for the neighborhood. The Police DeparLment has not identified any unusual crime problems in this neighborhood to warrant such an action. The second concern of the neighborhood relates to the possibility of vehicles traveling Lemon Avenue, overshooting the curve, and ending up in the cul-de-sac. Lemon Avenue is designed as a collector street. As such, consideration is given to the volume of traffic potentially using the street and the speeds at which traffic will flow. The pavement section is 44 feet in width and the street is posted for "No Parking." By comparison, most local streets are 35 feet in width and allow parking on both sides. The street is designed and posted for a speed of 35 miles per hour. The street radius is used in anticipation of these speeds. Staff believes the street has been designed to provide the greatest degree of safety possible. If a vehicle were to speed on Lemon Avenue and be unable to negotiate the turn, a wrought iron fence would be insufficient to stop the vehicle. Lemon Avenue in this neighborhood is not unique. Collector streets of curvilinear design with side-on cul-de-sacs are very common throughout ~he City. particularly in the three planned communities. Staff is not aware of any instances of a vehicle jumping a curb into a side-on cul-de-sac. As an alternative to fencing, the City could install reflector signs to atert motorists of the curve. Any decision regarding this request may establish a precedent for future requests. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the request to fence off the Serena Place side-on cul-de-sac through minute action. Resp sub ' , BB:SM/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Petition from Serena Place Residents Exhibit "B" - Serena Place Location Map Exhibit "C" - Serena Place/Lemon Avenue Street Plans TO: FROM: MEMORANDUM Mr. Joe O'Neil, City Enqineer cc: Mr. Brad Buller, City Planner Residents of Serena Place Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737 DATE: June 29, 1~'9~'/ c. JUL J i S U BJ E CT: Construction of Fencing/Gate; Lemon and Serena Place boundaries. As new residents, we are excited and eager in becoming apart of the family-oriented environment that the Rancho Cucamonga Community provides. The homes of Ivy Terrace seem to offer a warm. safe haven for our families. However, Lemon Avenue is a thoroughfare that divides our neighborhood and jeopardizes that comfort. We the residents who live on Serena Place in the development of Ivy Terrace, in the city of Rancho Cucamonga would like the city to provide funds, to construct a fence/with gate which would enclose the culdesac facing Lemon Avenue near the corner of Terracina Avenue. (see map) We have already started a Neighborhood Watch Program with the Police Department. We did this as a preventative measure against crime. We can provide a safe play environment for the children by having the Serena Place culdesac closed at one end, and protect them from any cars that may miss the curve on Lemon Avenue; which could furthermore run over the open culdesac onto Serena Place. We believe a fenceANith gate will give us more security for our chi!dren as well as our homes. The det'~ils of the type of fencing, (wrought iron preferred) in addition to dimensions, can be discussed at a later time. However, we the residents of Serena Place are submitting this memorandum to get approval from the City Engineer/City Planner as soon as possible. Thanking you in advance, your consideration to our request is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, The Residents of Serena Place: C-- H ©FF "A ,r P-H Serena Place Residents Name: Address: ,Z' b/,' ~1~ Dd Residents continue /a,--°78' -,.G ~9,_,'~,t. 'P,,'(', Please send future correspondence c/o: Mrs. Karen E. Harrell 6259 Serena PI. AIta Loma, CA 91737 Tel. (909) 989-6983 Chaffey College BAN:Y-AI'J R fi] R] Ell HIGHLAND 1000 0 Semna Place Location Map 1000 2000 3000 Feet S Portion Tract No. 1589( 51 · "= @ ~ 29 ~3 33 MAYI990 Portion Tract No. DY 13890-2, ~. S. 233/24-26 ~' 27 o 26 ~S.oo I1~. oo ~/1t~.oo 'Zs~ .oo L IOq.lr~ IO~.~q %. bo C