|
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
<br /> COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
<br /> a: .a
<br /> \• 'a 1810 E.HAZELTON AVE..STOCKTON,CA 952056232
<br /> PHONE.20914683121 Fax:209/468.3163
<br /> � FOR
<br /> April 8, 1996
<br /> Board of Supervisors
<br /> Courthouse
<br /> Stockton, CA 95202
<br /> Dear Board Members:
<br /> APPEAL OF MAIN STAGE ENTERTAINMENT, INC. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL
<br /> OF SITE APPROVAL APPLICATION NO. SA-95-42 OF JACK FETZER
<br /> (C/O MAIN STAGE ENTERTAINMENT) (FIRST SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT)
<br /> IT IS RECOMMENDED:
<br /> That the Board of Supervisors:
<br /> Deny the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Site Approval Application No. SA-95-42.
<br /> BACKGROUND:
<br /> This Site Approval application is for a cabaret-style night club in the southerly half of an existing 12,000
<br /> square foot commercial building. The night club will feature live entertainment, including nude dancing.
<br /> Non-alcoholic beverages will be served, with vending machines inside the building to provide foot and
<br /> cigarettes. Hours of operation are proposed to be seven days a week, from 4:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
<br /> The Planning Commission heard this matter at its meeting of January 18, 1996. At the meeting, attorney
<br /> Ron Stein representing Main Stage Entertainment, Jeff Jarvis, and Tracy spoke in favor of the proposal.
<br /> The following individuals spoke in opposition: Reverend Lewis Stallworth, Jr., Bill St. Claire, Jack Tone,
<br /> Valerie Shumann Younell, Bill Rose, Dolores Atherton, Martin Edwards, Julio Escovedo, Emily Emory, Tim
<br /> Pollack, Charles Huiland, Steven Bojorques, Dennis Phillips, Matthew Upton, Ruby Walker, Sherry Oneto,
<br /> Minister H.L Hyder, Sr., June Young, Gaylen Corden, Issac Rojas Natu, Leticia Orihuela, Curtis Riggins,
<br /> Fred Fitzgerald, Lewis Stallworth, Sr., David Hamlett, Manuel Barragan, Vicki Brand, Jim Allen, Hope Starr,
<br /> Becky Pott, Loyce Marie Barragan, Maria Moore, Kathryn Mecca, and Roxanne Grey. The opponents
<br /> raised the following issues: project is located too close to existing residences, concerned about impacts
<br /> on children, project will increase crime rate, project will threaten safety of children in area neighborhoods
<br /> and children attending nearby schools, project site is too close to existing bars and stores selling liquor,
<br /> project will increase traffic and the parking lot will be noisy at night. After considering all written and oral
<br /> testimony, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to deny the project based on the inability to make Findings
<br /> 4and 5.
<br /> Finding 4 states that issuance of the permit will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety,
<br /> or welfare, or be injurious to the property or improvement of adjacent properties. Finding 5 states that
<br /> the use is compatible with adjoining land uses. The Planning Commission determined that the site was
<br /> located too close to existing residential uses, and would likely create land use conflicts from late night
<br /> operations. They were particularly concerned about noise from the parking lot interfering with the
<br /> adjacent residences.
<br /> In their appeal, the appellants listed a number of bases for the appeal, which in summary are as follows:
<br />
|