HomeMy WebLinkAbout60-Planning
. CIT~ OF SAN_R~ARDINO - RI:QU.STb COUNCIL ACTION
R. Ann Siracusa
From: Director of Planning
Request for Reconsideration of
Su~~: Denial of Appeal of Conditional
Use Permit No. 88-4
Mayor and Council Meeting Of~
June 20, 1988, 2:00 p.m. ;t\'7~
Dept: Planning
Dau: June 14, 1988
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Previous Planning Commission Action:
On March 1, 1988, the Planning commission denied Conditional Use
Permit No. 88-4.
Previous Council Action.
On April 4, 1988, the Mayor and Common Council denied the Appeal
and denied Conditional Use Permit No. 88-4.
On May 16, 1988, the Mayor and Common Council approved the request
for reconsideration of the denial of appeal of Conditional Use
Permit No. 88-4 and it was placed on the June 20, 1988 Council agenda.
Recommended motion:
That the Mayor and Council deny the appeal and deny Conditional
Use Permit No. 88-4.
Signature R. Ann Siracusa
Contact person: R. Ann Siracusa
April 22, 1988 Request for
Supporting data attached:and Staff Report
Phone: 384-5057
Reconsideration Letter
Ward: 4
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source: (Acct. No.1
(Acct. DescriDtionl
Finance:
Council Notes:
,
/-/)
.
o
o
Lightburn
&A:ssociates
Mllyor llnd Common Council
City of Slln Bernllrdlno
RECEI~'!:'1 . ',~' 'v~L~R;
300 North .0. Street
'88 APR 22 Pl:1 Tlln Bernllrdlno, Cllllfornlll
92401
Po.. Office Box 1611
San Bernardino. California 92';'02
(7141381.2656
Subject: Reconsiderlltion of
Condltionlll Use Permit 66-4
Appllcllnt - Steve Hllll
26652 Fleming Street
Highlllnd, Cllllfornlll
92346
April 22, 1966
Mllyor llnd Common Council,
On behlllf of our clients, we lire requesting thllt Condltionlll Use Permit
Number 4-66 b8 plllced on the next councllllgendll for reconsldel1ltion
bllsed on the following:
1. Addtionlll .letters of protest. from concerned citizens
received by the city prior to the April 4,1966 hearing
were not mllde aVllilllble to us for our review and
eVlll ullti on. Nor did we hllve an opportunity to
discuss their concerns with their councilmlln.
2. We wish to hllve lln opportunity to discuss with the
residents llnd Councllmlln Mlludsley a proposal to provide
lldditionlll prlvllte security liS II condition of llpprovlll to
further mitigllte llny possible adverse impact on the
nei ghborhood.
3. In conjunction with item -2 above, we would like an
opportunity to discuss our private security proposal with
the businesses across the street and the adjacent
commercial corners.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.
Respectfully,
i ~ 1 ;. -
t '..: .
i Jt_:
'-, --
, ,
A"",' ~ " .' ..
." ,... .; ': I '. ' ~ ~ . .~
1.\ '-oJ :......:....
.......
'.': , .
.,.. .
~j.-~. - ~;h"" ," . ..' '... ~ ,-
CRTY OF SAN BERQ ~DINO - REQUESTQ R COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject.
Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-4
Mayor and Council Meeting of April 4, 1988
REOUEST
The applicant is appealing the Planning Commission denial of
Conditional Use Permit No. 88-4, to establish a liquor store
in a multi-tenant commercial center to be constructed near
the northeast corner of Palm Avenue and Highland Avenue.
BACKGROUND
On March 1, 1988, after a properly noticed public hearing,
the Planning Cmmission denied on a seven to zero vote (with
one abstention) Conditional Use Permit No. 88-4 based on the
findings that the facility would adversely affect the sur-
rounding neighbors adversely and was not compatible with
residential uses north of the proposed liquor store.
On March 15, 1988, John Lightburn appealed the Planning
Commission decision on behalf of Steve Hall, the applicant,
contending that the proposal would not adversely affect the
residents to the north and would not create a disturbance or
be detrimental to the commun~ty.
ANALYSIS
The Planning staff had recommended approval of the Condi-
tional Use Permit to the Planning Commission based on the
facility itself being 300 feet from the nearest residential
area and on the Police Department agency comment sheet which
indicates approval of the Conditional Use Permit but, con-
tained no further discussion. The site is located in a
Police Department reporting district that has a crime rate
below the City average.
At the Planning Commission hearing of March 1, 1988, Sergeant
Ernie Tull explained that the Police Department does not
recommend approval of Conditional Use Permits for alcohol
sales: it either recommends denial or does not oppose the
granting of a Conditional Use Permit. There was discussion
of the need for a revised and more detailed comment sheet for
the Police Department to use in responding to applications
for alcohol-related Conditional Use Permits. (A more detailed
comment sheet was subsequently developed and is now in use.)
Five residents of the vicinity of the proposed liquor store
spoke in opposition to the Conditional Use Permit. They also
spoke on behalf of eight other residents who were not present
75-0264
o
o
Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-4
Mayor and Council Meeting of April 4, 1988
Page 2
at the hearing. Planning staff read a letter of opposition
submitted by another resident.
The residents expressed concerns about the proximity of the
proposed liquor store to a single-family residential neigh-
borhood (approximately 300 feet to the nearest residence),
the proximity of a school roughly 1,000 feet away, possible
detrimental impacts on children in the neighborhood, a
possible increase in undesirable elements and crime in the
neighborhood, noise, carousing, and bottles thrown onto
curbs. A major concern was oversaturation: Stater Brothers
and Palm Liquors are located across Highland Avenue from the
site of the proposed liquor store, and there is one Conven-
ience store selling beer and wine on Palm Avenue south of
Highland Avenue and another convenience store at Highland
Avenue and Orange Street. One resident also cited the Pizza
Hut and three other establishments in the area which sell
alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption. The final
concern related to a possible incr"ease in drunken dr iv ing.
Sergeant Tull agreed that alcohol is a contributing factor to
highway accidents involving motorists en route to the
mountains, but could not specify to what extent alcohol is
involved in such accidents.
The applicant promised to do his best to prevent loitering
and avoid selling alcohol to minors, but said he could not
guarantee there would not be an increase in crime or loiter-
ing.
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
The Mayor and Counc 11 may deny the
tional Use Permit No. 88-4 or uphold
Conditional Use Permit No. 88-4.
appeal and deny Condi-
the appeal and approve
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Mayor and Council deny the appeal
and deny Conditional Use Permit No. 88-4.
Prepared by.
Scott Wright, Planner I
for R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
Attachments:
A - Statement of Official Planning Commission
Action
B - Appeal Letter
C - Planning Commission Staff Report
D - Letters of Opposition
mkf/3/22/88
M&CCAGENDA.
APPEALCUP884
o
o
ATTACHMENT A
City of San Bernardino
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
PROJECT
Number:
Conditional Use Permit No. 88-4
Applicant:
Steve ,Hall
ACTION
Meeting Oate: March 1, 1988
Approved Adoption of Negative Declaration and
Adoption of Request Subject to the following
Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval
(Attachment A) .
x
Oen ied .
Other.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The proposed used conforms to the City's General Plan
elements in that approval of the proposed Conditional
Use Permit is consistent with the letters dated June ll,
1987, July 3, 1987, August 18, 1987, January 14, 1988
and 'February 5, 1988, from the State Off ice of Planning
and Research to the City of San Bernardino which
stipulate that - . land uses proposed during the
period of the extension will be consistent with the
purpose of the updated general plan provisions. . .-
2. The proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining
land uses and development of the area in which it is
proposed to be located in that it is not compatible with
the existing residential uses to the north.
3. The size and shape of the site proposed ~or the use is
adequate to allow the full development of the proposed
use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area
nor to the peace, health, safety and general welfare in
that the commercial center as a whole has satisfied all
requirements for setbacks, landscaping, parking, access,
and internal circulation.
4. The traffic generated by the proposed project will not
impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways
designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area
in that adequate parking is provided and Highland Avenue
o 0
City of San Bernar~ ,,10
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ~CTION
Conditional Use Permit No. 88-4
Page 2
and Palm Avenue are both designated as Major Streets on
the General Plan.
5. The granting of this Conditional Use Permit will be
detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and general
welfare of the citizens of San Bernardino in that the
use is in close proximity to adjacent residences and the
traffic, noise, and general operation of the proposed
use will create disturbances to the occupants of those
adjacent residence..
~
Ayes:
Brown,
Stone
None
Sharp
Cole
Corona, Gomez, Lindseth, Lopez, Nierman,
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
I, hereby, certify that this Statement of Official Action
accurately reflects the final determination of the Planning
Commission of t~e 1ity of San Bernardino.
___ r,-,~~)~,;;..( i}~,- OJ Ic~( ~y
Signature . Date
R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
Print or Type Name and Title
RAS/mkf
DOCUMENTS:PCAGENDA
PCACTION
,
o
r I
ATTACHMENT B
o
. I. .
, "
I ~..J
Mayor ar.d Common Council
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, California
92401
I\'j (II) 1 'I 1(.lOn
Lightburn
&~ssociates
LillI:" ..,I.
~:.~j .:.....a..... "4:;' l"
PuM orfKC Bu.. 1622
~..n tkrn.lrdinu. t..:.lli(urni..lJ2402
1;14) ,IKI,!.16
Subject: Appeal of Denial Conditional Use Permit 66-4
Applicant - Steve Hall, 26652 fleming Street
Highland, California, 92346
March IS, 1966
Mayor and Members of the Common Council,
~
On behalf of Mr. Steve Hall we are appeallng the Planning Commission' fl;
March I, 198811ctlon to deny Conditional Use Permit B8-4 which woul _,
establish a conveniencelllquor store In an approved commercial center 0 Ul
be located llpproximately on the North-East comer of Palm and Hlghlcnd ~ ../:
cvenues. 0
I..J
Our cppealls based on the fact that the record and evidence does not
support the findings and/or the denlcl action tllken by the Plllnnlng
Commission.
Specifically we take exception to Commlslon's findings of fcct -2 cnd -5
cs follows:
Commission', flndlna of Feet '2. "The propo* IlR "Willldver3e11J effeet
IhudjolnilllJ lend _end deYelopmentofthe er.. ..."
We contend that the proposed project wtll not adversely
affect the cdjolning land uses and development of the llrell
llnd that the project is compatible with the residential
U8e8 to the north.
Commission', flndllllJ of Feet -5. "The QrenttlllJ of thb CondlttolllllllM
Permit "Will be detrimental to the peace, health, .fet\lend Qlnarelvelfere of
the clttzens of San BerllllrcJ1no In thet the use Is In close proxlmJt\lto adjacent
reaidenc.. end the traffic, nol.. end "lIIral operetlon . . .....m creile
cJIsturbencea to the occupanls of those edjacent miclencea."
We contend that the granting of this Conditional Use
Permit wm not be detrtmental to the peece, health,
saf8ty and generlll welfar8 of the cltlz8ns of San Bernardino
and the traffic, noise and generlll operlltlon of th8 proposed
use will not create dtsturbance to the occUpllnts of
those lldJllcent r8sldences.
o
o
-2-
Furthermore, there Is nothing In the stoff report or record
supporting this finding of foct. To be correct, the record,
the focts ond the stoff report support opproyol.
In support of our oppeol we wish to point out that:
I. The project
oppllcant.
with conditions Ilgreed upon by the
2. Stoff onolysls concluded thot tile use Is comootlbll with the existing
uses in the subject locotlon.
3. The police deportment recommends opprovol. Accordingly, recent
crime stotlstlcs In the subject loclltlon is "... considerobly below the
citY-Wide overoge:
4. The Plonning Department concluded thot "The proposed liquor store 11
consistent with the requirements of the Municipal Code DIld, " mIl.1121
be 0 t' , sof e\
Bernordino:
5. All other "findings of foct" ore in support of the proposed project.
Therefore. based on the foregoing, we respectfully request thot the Moyor
and Common Council overturn the Planning Commissions denial and grant
approval of Conditional Use Permit 66-4 In accordonce with the orlglnol
stoff report which recommended opprovol.
Thonk you for your conslderotlon in this motter.
Very Sincerely,
~.
( Jhn L1ghtburn
"
, ,
.
o
ATTACHMENT C
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
1
J/1/l:ll:l
4
IU
~ Conditional Use Permit 88-4
U
APPLICANT' Steve Ha 1
26652 Fleming Street
Highland, CA 92346
OWNER, JaDles R. Simpson
285 E. Mill Street, Ste.2l
San Bernardino, CA 92408
~ The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit
~ under the authority of Code Section 19.26.020(B)15 to establish
o a 2,240 square foot liquor store in a 42,520 square foot
~ commercial center located on a 3.11 acre site on the north side
~ of Highland Avenue 235 feet east of the center line of Palm
.... Avenue.
cr
IU
~
cr
PROPERTY
Subject
North
East:
South
West
EXISTING
LAND USE
ZONING
C-3A
R-1-7200
C-3A, PRO
C-3A
C-3A
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
General Commercial
Res. 15-36 dn/ac.
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
Vacant
Single FaDlily Res.
Vacant
Commercial
Vacant, Single and
Multi-FaDlily Res.
DYES DYES OZONE A ~
GEOLOGIC / SEISMIC FLOOD HAZARD SEWERS c.:!YES
HAZARD ZONE i1NO ZONE fiNO OZONE B DNO
HIGH FIRE DYES AIRPORT NOISE / DYES REDEVELOPMENT DYES
HAZARD ZONE 6tI NO CRASH ZONE Xi NO PROJECT AREA ~O
~ o NOT DpOTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z 6tI APPROVAL
APPLICABLE EFFECTS 0
-
WITH MITIGATING tc iii CONOITIONS .
zen MEASURES NO E.I.R.
WeD 6tI EXEMPT DEI R. REOU.RED BUT NO ...Q 0
2Z ...~ DENIAL
Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
00 WITH MITIGATING j!:I 0 CONTINUANCE TO
a:Z MEASURES en:l
s;i&: 0
Z DNo o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS U
l/J SIGNIFICANT SEE ATTACHED E.R. C. l/J
EFFECTS MINUTES a:
NOV 1'1' ItIVIIIO .Iu,"' "..
...
.
o 0'
,CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 88-4
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM 1
HEARING DATE31l/88
PAGE '
1. REQUEST
The applicant requests
Permit under the
19.26.020(B) (15) for a
multi-tenant commercial
will be located in the
corner of the site (see
approval of a Conditional Use
authority of Code Section
retail liquor store within a
building. The pr~posed store
space closest to the southeast
Site Plan, Attachment .E.).
2. SITE LOCATION
The site. of the commercial center consists of
parcels encompassing 3.11 acres and is located at
northeast corner of Palm Avenue and Highland Avenue
Location Map, Attachment .G.).
two
the
(see
,
3. MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed use is allowed in the C-3A District subject
to a Conditional Use Permit and is therefore in com-
pliance with Code Section 19.26.020IB) (15). Approval of
the proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with
letters dated June ll, 1987, July 3, 1987, August 18,
1987 and February 5, 1988 from the State Office of
Planning and Research to the City of San Bernardino
which stipulate that ....land uses proposed during the
period of the extension will be consistent with the
purpose of the updated general plan provisions.... The
proposed project is in conformance with the letters from
the Office of Planning and research and with the Muni-
cipal Code. (See Attachment "A".)
4. CEQA STATUS
The project is
ments of the
(Section lS30l).
categorically exempt from the require-
California Environmental Quality Act
5. BACKGROUND
The proposed liquor store is located within a commercial
project consisting of two multi-tenant commercial
buildings. This project, Review of Plans 86-l27, was
approved by the development Review Committee on June ll,
1987.
.
\0..
"
.
o
o
,CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT '"'
CASE CUP 88-4
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM 1
HEARING DATE 3/1/88
PAGt 3
.
r
6. ANALYSIS
Issues Previously Addressed
The Development Review Committee addressed the issues of
access, on-site circulation, parking, building height
and design and landscaping for the multi-tenant project
as a whole and found it to be in compliance with the
requirements of the Municipal Code.
ComDatibilitv with Surroungjno Land U~
The proposed liquor store is compatible with the exis-
ting and proposed commercial uses in the area. The
store will be located 300 feet from the closest re-
sidential structure. This location will be a condition
of approval. The closest school is approximately l,OOO
feet away, and the closest church is approximately l,250
feet away.
.
O~_Retail Al~QhQl_~~-1D_~~_Vicinitv
There is a convenience store on the west side of Palm
Avenue several hundred feet southwest of the site of the
proposed liquor store. There is also a liquor store in
the commercial center on the south side of Highland
Avenue directly south of the site of the proposed store.
Details of D~$j~~$$-2P~&At~D
In addition to a 480 square foot walk-in cooler and 48
square feet of floor space devoted to smaller cooler and
freezer units, 56 square feet of floor area will be
dedicated to liquor shelves, l44 square feet to video
tape shelves, and 192 square feet to grocery items. A
total of 14' of the floor space occupied by shelving
will be used for liquor (see Floor Layout, Attachment
RFR). Business hours will be Sunday through Thursday,
7:00 a.m. to ll.OO p.m. and Friday and Saturday, 7.00
a.m. to 1.00 p.m.
o 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPApRT8 MENT
CASE CU'S -4
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM 1
HEARING DATE 3/1/88
PAGE 4
Crime Statistics for ~h. Vicinity ~l-tb._~ooo.ed Liauor
Store
Recent crime statistics show that the crime rate ~n the
vicinity of the proposed liquor store is considerably
below the City-wide average.
7. COMMENTS RECEIVED
The Police Department recommends approval for Condi-
tional Use Permit 88-4.
8. CONCLUSION
The proposed liquor store is consistent with the
quirements of the Municipal Code and will not
detriment to the health, safety, or welfare
citizens of San Bernardino.
re-
be a
of the
9. RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
Conditional Use Permit 88-4 subject to the following
Findings of Fact (Attachment RBR, Conditions of Approval
(Attachment RCR), and Standard Requirements (Attachment
RDR) .
Respectfully submitted,
R. ANN SIRACUSA
Director of Planning
5 ~ (..J '\'''~''t/'- r-
SCOTT WRIGHT
Planner I
Attachment A - Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
Attachment B - Findings of Fact
Attachment C - Conditions of Approval
Attachment D - Conditions of Approval
Attachment E - Site Plan
Attachment F - Floor Layout
Attachment G - Location Map
pcagenaa
cup8840
1-19-83
o
o
, ,CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 88-'4
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM 1
HEARING DATE 3/1/88
PAGE 5
,
ATTACBMEN'r A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Ca~eaorv
Pro1:)osal
Municical Code
G.neral Plan
Permitted Use Off Site Sale C.U.P. Required N/A
of Alcohol
Par.king Required to be 9 spaces N/A
satisfied by
reciprocal
parking and
access agree-
ment with
commercial
center
:cms
PCAGENDA
CUP8840-A
2-19-88
j
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 88-4
FINDINGS of FACT
AGENDA ITEM 1
HEARING DATE 31l~88
PAGE
\..
,.
ATTACHMENT B
1. The Dro~osed used conforms ~o ~he Ci~v's General ilaD
el.m.nts in that approval of the proposed Conditional
Use Permit is consistent with the letters dated June 11,
1987, July 3, 1987, August 18, 1987 and February 5,
1988, from the State Office of Planning and Research to
the City of San Bernardino which stipulate that ... .land
uses proposed dur ing the per iod of the extension will be
consistent with the purpose of the updated general plan
provisions.....
2. The Dro~osed use will not adverselv affect the Ad-
ioinina land uses-AD~dev.looment of the area in ~hich
it is DroDoaed to b. located in that it is compatible
with the existing and proposed commercial uses in the
vicinity, and it will be located 300 feet from the
nearest residence, 1,000 feet from the nearest school
and 1,250 feet from the nearest church.
3. 1~-Al~_AD~haoe of the site DroDosed fOr the use is
adeauate to allow the full develooment of fheDroDosed
~~~ ~~ : :a~ner not d.trimental to the oarticular ar~a
___ __ _h_ _.ace. health. safety and canera! welfare 1ft
that the commercial center as a whole has satisfie~ all
requirements for setbacks, landscaping, parking, aCcess,
and internal circulation.
4. 1b~_~~j~ aenerated bv the orooosed oroiect will not
imDose an undue burden uoon the streets and hiahwavs
deaianed and imDroved to carr~ the t~ffj~_-1n the area
in that adequate parking is provided and Highland Avenue
and Palm Avenue are both designated as Major Streets on
the General Plan.
5. The arao.t.inSLQ!.-tl1jJ__~DltitjlW4l Use b~ under the
conditions imoosed will not be detrimental to the aeace.
health. safetv. and aeneral welfare of ~_ citi2ens of
San a.rnardino in that the crime rate in the vicinity of
the proposed store is well below the City-wide average,
and the Police Department recommends approval of the
Conditional Use Permit.
\.
o
o
RErTI' ~.
, r-.""
BB ,JIJ'J-J P2:42
~673 Orchid DrIve
Highland, Ca. 92346
June 1, 1988
Mayor &Common Council
City of San Bernardino
JOO North "0" Street
San Bernarino, Ca. 92346
<.' (.
(
Subject: Proposal for a conditional use permit to operate a liquor store on
the north side of Highland Ave. and east side of Palm Ave. in proposed
multi-tenant commercial center in the C-3A, Limited General Commercial
'Zone.
We are unable to attend the public hearing on this matter because of
previously arranged plans that take us out of town. We do, however, wish to
voice our objection to the issuance of such a permit. We were present at
the Planning Commission meeting on March 1, 1988, and at the City Council
meeting on April 4. 1988 where we expressed our opinions. Nothing has
changed and we see no reason for reconsidering this matter.
Our property is adjacent to this shopping complex on the north side. Any
liquor store located t.here could not be more than a little over 100' from
our homes. We know from experience that this type of estalishment attract5
revelers .:ind criminal elements that are not appropriate in a residential
neighbohood. The St.ater Bros. shopping center on the south side of Highland
Ave. is more than 200' away; yet it has been necessary for neighbors with
second floor bedrooms to call the Police to stop fights and noisy crowds
that interfer with their sleep from that location. Drug deals and other
illegal activities have been reported taking place in the parking over
there. If a liquor store is located on the north side of Highland it is
only logical to assume there will be a duplication of these conditions and
much closer to our homes. We object to our community becoming an outpost
where gangs hang out, therefore, we object to creating conditions that
loster this type of thing.
1here is no need for another liquor store in the community. From our back
window we can see three places that sell carry-out alcoholic beverages, in
or near the Stater Bros. shopping complex. West of there about a block is
another market that sells it. There are also a couple of eating places that
serve alcohol on the premises. Nobody would benefit from another liquor
store near- here except those making money from the operation.
On April 4th. you rejected this applicants appeal for a conditional use
per-mit. We believe you made a wise decision, and we ask you to once again
consider our interests.
Your9 Sincerely,
~I?, .. ),.
;: (;j; '-i L-t. /j) <.C<-z...
I' . /
& 1''< <,' 77l~~~
Elmor'e & Doris Miles
-
IJIIl
- -
-
o
o
Lightbum
&A:ssociates
Michael MaudsJey
Councllman - Fourth Ward
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, California
92401
RE: CUP 88-4, Reconsideration
Post Office Box 1622
San Bernardino, California 92402
(714) 381.2656
Dear Councllman Maudsley,
June IS, 1988
The fOllowing represents an outline of additional proposed conditions
agreeable to our cl1ent Mr. Steye Hall, applicant, Conditional Use Permit
88-4:
1. (lpenU0IIII HoIrs
3. AcUl MIterllls
MondIy tII'U Thrusdey - 7 AM to 11Pt1
FrldIy -7AM to 1Pt1
SItIrdey - SAM to lPt1
SlIldIy - SAM to 1 OPM
2. a.stlI SecIrlly (1 SICII'lly,..al
MondIy tII'U Jluosdev - 7PM to llPt1
FrIdIy end SItIrdey - 5PI1 to lAM
SlIldIy - 6PI1 to 10 Pt1
An lII'inlllllUrills will be clspleyed In IIlIppI GIll lite end 1lCllHIfr-.lw
1lWlIlII"; Illldu1l Yldeos will Mt bot dlspleyed. Ilul MlI.I. upon
request.
4. No vIdIo gemes. wndIng ~ crenv ou.-Ilems cr dMces Ihel become IIlIllrlcllw nuI_.
1'lI'. HIll wllllIOIl...lIIel /Il'OIIIlIIllollerlng IIld IlltInded Pll'ktng IIld will enrorce tIlIllW. No PlY
phanes 1ft till ilIlIlllr4lltl Yldnly or till stere.
5. AlIII UIIlIS the ...... win be GpII'IIed 1ft I IlWlIlII" which does not precb:e oIlnoxl_ nol..
YllnUon. odor, cMl. smokI, gin, cr otIlr .....tlllCt. The ownr end IIlPlIclnlIlrtllr ... to
~ In rOl'llllng III wkIlllry SICII'lly 1mB ._Il dlltrtcl wlUl ou.- bulL 1..uloaWd It
HlflIIIld end PIIm A........
Councllman Maudsley, our cl1ents are confident that these conditions are
workable, w1l1 benefit the general welfare of the community and will
promote viable commercial development In the City of San Bernardino.
On behalf of our cl1ents we request your support of our proposal.
Ve SlncereJy, n
"-4-', 0"
OL-~'v ~VVV
hn L1ghtbum
" .7\