HomeMy WebLinkAbout091895 PC AgendaCALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
September 18, 1995, 6:00 PM
Rancho California Water Distriet's
Board Room
42135 Winchester Road
Temecuin, CA 92390
Chairman Ford
Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Webster and Ford
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that
are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. ff you desire to speak to
the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink *Request to Speak* form should be
fdled out and fried with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak* form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before
Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Approval of Agenda
Director's Heating Update
Attorney Discussion of Beer and Wine License Approval Process
Approval of Beer and Wine Liceuse for UNOCAL
Approval of Beer and Wine Liceuse for Shakespeare's
Approval of Beer and Wine License for Chevron
Approval of Beer and Wine Liceuse for Ralphs
Approval of Beer and Wine License for Sunshine Market
Approval of the Conceptual Grading Plan for the Westside Specific Plan
BREAK - C Insed Session ::of; the :PlanningCommlssion ;pursUant
with ;legal= counsel: regarding :existing litigatiOn:or !Old'Vail ~Partners?V~::CoUnty;
and:City of TemecUla;] RiVerside!:County!Superi0r ::C0urt;i=Case!Nb;!!:253~598
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
C~,se No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. 94-0128 (Conditional Use PermlO
UNOCAL Petroleum Products Company
Southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Front Street
To demolish an existing service s~inn and rebuild a 2,500 square foot
station with a convenience store and concurrent sale of beer and wine.
Categorical Exemption
Matthew Fagan
Continue to September 18, 1995
11. Case No.:
Applicant:
** Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Development Code
City of Temecula
Northerly of the terminus of Ynez Road, East of Interstate 15
To change the General Plan Land Use Designation from Business Park
(BP) to Service Commercial (SC)
Negative Declaration
John Meyer
Location:
Proposal:
Southerly side of Highway 79 South, approximately 2000 feet East of
Pala Road
To change the General Plan Land Use Designation from Professional
Office (O) to Community Commercial (CC)
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Cancellation of Workshop on Annexation previously scheduled for September 19, 1995
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
Next meeting: October 2, 1995 - Regular Planning Commission meeting
ADJOURNMENT
ITEM #2
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director
September 18, 1995
Director's Hearing Case Update
The following cases were heard and approvext at the Planning Director's Hearing in August
1995:
PA95-0052, One Lot Subdivision, Medical Design Concepts
PA95-0054, Minor Conditional Use Permit, Sunridge Community Church
PA95-0069, Minor Conditional Use Permit, Shakespeare's Pub and Grille
Attachment:
1. Action Agendas for August 1995 - Blue Page 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDAS
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S FIF. ARING
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 31, 1995 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY H. ATff~ ~ CONFERENCE ROOM
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
John Meyer, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior
Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. ff you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on
the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be f~led out and fded with the
Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be fried with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
PUBLIC wRARI~G
Case No.
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA95-0069 (Minor Conditional Use
Permit)
Shakespeare' s Pub and Grille
27645 Jefferson Avenue, #116 (Old Adobe Plaza)
To convert an existing restaurant in an existing building into a
nightclub/restaurant with live entertainment and dancing
Categorical Exemption
Matthew Fagan
Approval
ACTION:
APPROVE/)
ADJOLrRNMY_2~
RADIRHEAR'~AGENDA\8-31-95.AGN 8/31/95 klb
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MF~ETING
AUGUST 10, 1995 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL - MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER:
PUBLIC COMMF-NTS
Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If
you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item no.~ listed on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner
before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Phnning Application No. 95-0054 (Minor Conditional Use
Permit)
Sunridge Community Church
27690 Commerce Center Drive
A request to approve a church facility in an existing budding
Class 1 Categorical Exemption per Section 15301 of the
California Environmental Quality Act
Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
Approval
APPROVED
R:\DIRHEARXAGENDA~R-10-95,AGN g/16/95 lab
ACTION AGENDA
TEIVIECULA DIRECTOR'S FFF~ARING
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 7, 1995 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL - MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER:
Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COlVI3~NTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If
you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner.
When you are ca/led to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be fried with the Senior Planner
before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
PA95-0052
Medical Design Concepts
Northwest corner of Winchester Road and Diaz Road
A request for approval of a one lot subdivision to combine 12
existing lots
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section of CEQA
Saied Naaseh
Approval
ACTION:
APPROVED
R:\DIRHBARx~s. GHNDA\8-7-95.AGN 8116/95 Ub
ITEM #3
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
DATE:
September 18, 1995
SUBJECT: Beer and Wine License Approval
Please find attached the staff report for the Beer and Wine License appwval process that
went to the City Council on August 22, 1995. This staff report answers the questions the
Council asked of staff when this item was brought to the Council for the first time at their
meeting on July 25, 1995. This staff report should provide the necessary background that
you will need to make the necessary finding of "public convenience and necessity" prior to
approving any future beer and wine licenses.
Please feel free to contact me prior to the meeting of September 18, 1995 should you have
any questions regarding this staff report.
Attachment
1. City Council Staff Report dated August 22, 1995 - blue page 2
R:\FORMS~MO 9/13/95 cc
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATED AUGUST 22, 1995
R:~FORIVIS'~fE,MO 9/13/95 cc
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director
August 22, 1995
Beer and Wine Licenses - Approval Authority
Prepared By: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction to staff as to the Approval Authority for Beer
and Wine Licenses.
BACKGROUND
This item was first heard by the City Council at their meeting of July 25, 1995. At that
meeting, staff discussed recent changes in State legislation which created a moratorium for
new beer and wine licenses and defined undue concentration for existing licenses.
Council requested that staff respond to a number of questions regarding this issue. Following
are the Council's questions which were raised at the meeting:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
Prior to enactment of the new legislation, what was the approval process?
Under the new legislation, what is the new authority of the City to regulate the
licensing of beer and wine?
How does the City make the finding of "public convenience or necessity?"
Does the legislation apply to the transfer of a license?
How do the moratorium and undue concentration issues relate to each other?
How do the regulations affect the concui'rent sale of beer and wine with
gasoline?
Does the new legislation require cities to perform background checks?
Do cities have the authority to revoke "badly licensed facilities?"
ExistinQ Process
The City's existing process is to simply determine what the existing zoning requires for
individual uses. As an example, Ordinance 95-02 requires a Conditional Use Permit for uses
such as bars and nightclubs, teen clubs, and billlard halls. Should a use such as this come
into the City, a Conditional Use Permit would be required. If the use proposed is under
10,000 square feet, the application would be heard at a Planning Director's Hearing. If the
use proposed exceeds 10,000 square feet, the application would be heard by the Planning
Commission. The Council would only hear a Conditional Use Permit application on appeal,
R:~TAFFRIrI'~BEERWINB.CC 9/13/95 vgw
New Authority to ReQulate the LicensinQ of Beer and Wine
Under the new legislation, the City must first determine if the license applied for is a new
license or a transfer license. If the license is new, it falls under the moratorium provisions of
the legislation which are in effect until January 1, 1996. New licenses must be denied by the
Council prior to January 1, 1996. After January 1, 1996, the City may make a finding of
"public convenience or necessity" and approve a new license in spite of the moratorium.
If the license is a transfer, it falls under the undue concentration issue. In this situation, the
City Council must also make a finding of "public convenience or necessity."
Findin~ of "Public Convenience or Necessity"
Public convenience or necessity is not defined in either the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC)
Act provisions of the Business and Professions Code or in the Department of ABC"s
implementing regulations. Further, there is little case law interpreting the provisions relating
to public convenience or necessity. It is clear from existing case law that public convenience
or necessity is something other than the number and location of beer and wine sales. Public
convenience or necessity may be found in 8 number of factors such as:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
The character of the premises;
The aesthetics and ambiance of the business;
The attractiveness of the business;
The manner in which the business is to be conducted (i.e. type of games, food,
or other service provided);
The types of guests who are likely patrons;
The predicted mode of operation;
The ability of the business to serve a nitch in the population not filled by other
licensees in the same area; or
Convenience of purchasing alcoholic beverages in conjunction with specialty
food sales or services.
Legislation as it relates to New Licenses and Transferred Licenses
Reference information contained under Section titled "New Authority to Regulate the Licensing
of Beer and Wine."
Moratorium and Undue Concentration Relationshio
The moratorium and undue concentration provisions are designed to interact with each other.
For off-sale beer and wine, new licenses fall under the moratorium. Transferred licenses need
to be reviewed under the undue concentration factors. On-sale licenses also need to be
reviewed under the undue concentration factors. Should the Council or their delegated
authority choose to approve the application, findings of public convenience or necessity must
be made. The concurrent sale of gasoline with beer and wine, if a new license, falls under the
moratorium provisions discussed above. The concurrent sale of gasoline with beer and wine,
where the license is a transfer, falls under the undue concentration provision of the legislation.
R:~TAFFRlvfM~EERWIN~.CC 9113195 vgw 2
Background Checks\Revocation of Existino Permits
The new legislation only applies to the initial establishment of a use selling beer and wine and
not to the ongoing operational aspects. Reviewing background of an individual selling alcohol
remains the responsibility of the ABC.
The City can deal with the revocation of existing licenses through existing City Ordinances
such as public nuisance or the Penal Code.
Aoolication StreamlininQ
It is the desire of the Planning Department to process applications in a timely manner. If it is
the Council's desire to hear all applications proposing to sell beer and wine, this will add
significant time and additional costs to applications. As an example, a gas station proposing
the concurrent sale of beer and wine currently is heard by the Planning Commission. Should
the Council wish to be the approval authority in this instance, an additional 30-60 days could
be added to the approval process. In addition, the applicant might need to provide more
property owner labels for an additional public notice.
The City is making every effort to streamline the develol~ment review process. The added
time needed for Council approval on all applications for beer and wine could impact this
process.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
Attachments:
Letter to Planning Commission dated May 16, 1995 - Page 4
Letter to City Council dated August 11, 1995 - Page 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
LETTER TO PLANNING COMMISSION
Hay 3.6, 1995
Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Tmcula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Re:
Approaches and Potential Findings for
Processing Applications Which Include
Alcoholic Beverage Control L~cermes
Deer Chairman Ford and Nam~ers of' the Commission:
In recant months, the Planning Commission has bean faced
with several applications in which the sale or service of
alcoholic beverages has been a concern of the public and/or the
Planning Commission. I have provided you with legal advice which
indicates caution in denying alcchol uses bese~ on the alcohol
issue because of the ex~ensive preemption of the regulation of
alcohol sales and services by the State of California. However,
this letter will provide some insights to you and City staff on
areas the City can address whan an alcohol use is proposed. The
following ere some suggestions from recant statutory changes and
case law regerding findings which may support City decisions on
applications which also involve Alcoholic Beverage Control
("ABC") licenses.
BACKGROUND:
The California State Constitution, Article 20, Section 22,
preempts local regulation of alcoholic beverages. That Section
provides in relevant par~:
"The State of California . shall have the
exclusive right and power to license and
regulate the manufacture, sale, purchase,
possession and transportation of alcoholic
beverages within the State
Honorable' Steve Ford, Chairman, and
Nerobars of ~he Planning Commission
City of Tamsouls
May 16, 1995
Page 2
The Legisla~ure may au~horize, subject to
reasonable rea~rictions, ~he sale in retail
s~orss of alcoholic beverages contained in
· he original packages, where such alcoholic
beverages are n~c to be consumed on the
premises whirs Sold; and Ray provide for the
issuance of all types of licenses necessary
to carry on the activit~es referred to in the
f4rst paragraph of ~ section, including,
but not 34-41ed to, licenses necessary for
the manufacture,' production, process4ng,
impor~aticn, exportation, transpor~at4on,
wholessling, distribution, and sale of any
end all kinds of alcoholic beyerases .
(Cal. Coast. Ar~. XX, S' 22 (emphasis added),)
While the State has preempted the field in terms of
regulating alcohol sales, the City is able to ban such sales in
zones where it is inappropriate to have' alcohol-'sales. Business
and Professions Cede Section 23790t provides that:
wNo retail license shall be issued for
any premises which ere located in any
territory where the exercise of the rights
and privileges conferred by the license is
contrary to a valid zoning ordinance of any
county or city. Premises which had been used
in ~he exercise of those rights and
privileges at a time prior to the effeotive
date of the zoning ordinance Ray continue
operation under the following conditions:
(a) The premises retain the same type
of retail liguor license within a licanse
classification. -'--
(b) The licensed premises ere operated
continuously without substantial change in
sAIl subsequent references to the Business and Professions Cede
shall be referred to as "B&P Code Section . w
Honorable Steve Ford, ChaJmn, and
Xm~hers of ~,he Planning Cozndss4on
Cit~ of Tmcula
May 16, 1995
Page 3
mode or character of operation.-'
Finally, B&P Code Se~cion 23791 e~tms ~hat:
mNothing in th~s d~v~sion interferes
with the powers of cities conferred upon them
by 8ec~cionE 65850 ~0 65861, inclus4vei of the
Government Code. e
~ a result of B&P C~e Secti~ 23790 ~ 23791, the tit7 is
entirely able ~ deny ABC liceDee requests, for e~le, in a
residential zone.
In reviewing applications, please be aware of the special
requiremenU impseed k./B&P C~e Sec~cion 23790.5 relating to the
co~ined sale of alc~ol end gasoline. ~ese requiraents ere
set fol~ch later in this letter.
p~rrI~T. ~PROAC~ES:
B&P cc~e Section 23958 was nsended in Selxtn~r 1994 to-
require the denial of a license application on 9~oua~ that the
"issuance of that licue would tend to oreate a law enforcement
problem, or if issuance would result in or add to an thedue
concentration of licuea, except as provided in Sec~cion
23958.4.2" The requirement that the applicant fail to show that
2B&P Cc~e Sec~cion 23958.4, subdivision (b), allcr~s the
Depal-~ment to issue a license, no~wit~tending the prohibition in
Section 23958, to the following:
"(1) with respec~ to a nonre~il license, a retail on-
sale bona fide eating place license, a retail license
issued for a hotel, motel, or c~cher l~ging
establishment, a re~ail license issued in conJt~c~ion
with a beer menufac~curer's license, or a winegrower,s
license, if the applicant showB ~hat Public convenience
or necessity would be served bv the issuance.
(2) With respec~ to any other licks, if the local
goveing ~dy of the area in which the applicant
Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page 4
public convenience or necessity would be served' by the issuance
was deleted from Section 2J958.
The Le~islature has also changed the definition of -undue
concentration.a Newly-enac~ced B&P Code Section 23958.4 states:
s(a) For purpose of Sec~zLon 23958, ,undue
concentration, means the applicant premises
for an original or premises-to-premises
transfer of any retail license ere l~cated in
an erea where any of the following conditions
exist:
(1) The applicant premises ere l~cated in a
crime reporting d~s~rict that has a 20
percent greater ~,m~er of reported crimes,
districta within the jurisdiction of the
local law enforcement agency.
(3) As to off-sale retail license
applications, the ratio of off-sale retail
licenses to population in the census tract or
census division in which the applicant
premises are located exceeds the ratio of
off-sale retail licenses to population in the
county in which the applicant premises ere
located. ,3
premises ere located determines that public convenience
or necessity would be served by the issuance." (Emphasis
added. )
~3ntil this amendment, sundue concentration' was defined by the
California Depar%ment of Alcoholic Beverage Control (~Depar~ment~)
in its regulations. Those regulations required that both the
D-tuber of reported crimes be 20 percent higher end the ratio of
Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, end
M~m~ers of ~he Planning Commission
City of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page 5
In line with its expansion of the undue conce~tration
concept, the Legislature has added Section 23817.5 to the B&P
Code which further limits .alcohol sales in ureas of over-
concentration. That Section now reads as follows:
'No application for an original retail off-
sale beer end wine license may be made- nor
any original retsil off-sale beer and ~wine
license issued until ~anuary 1, 1998, fer any
premises where eny of the following
conditions exist at the time ~his section
takes effect:
(a) The applicant premises ere located in en
incorporated city where the number of retail
off-sale beer end wine licenses issued
exceeds one license for each 2,500, or
fraction thereof, inhabitants of the
incorporated city.
(b) The applicant premises' ere located in a
county where the number of retell o~f-sals
beer end wine licenses issued exceeds one
license for each 2,500, or fraction thereof,
inhabitants of the county.
(c) The applicant premises ere located in a
city and county where the total n,m~_r of
retail off-sale beer and wine licenses end
off-sale general licenses issued exceeds one
license for each 1,250, or fraction thereof,
inhabitents of the city end county." (B&P
Code S 23817.5.)
In s,,nary, there are five different "undue'concentration-
tests which the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal can
off-sale retail licenses to population be higher before a finding
of "undue concentration" could be established. (4 CCR S 61.3(a).)
2444.6
Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and
N~m~ers of the Planning Commiss4on
City of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page 6
use to deny an application4:
(1) the "20 percent greater number of ~ crimes"
test;
(2)
{3)
the 'ratio of off-sale retall llcenses to populations
test; a
the "one license for each 2,500 inhabitants of a city"
test;
(4)
the "one license for each 2,500 inhabitants of the
county- test; and
(5) the "one license for each 1,250 inhabitants of the city
and county- test.
B&P Code Section 23958 also permits the denial of a license
if ~he issuance of the license would tend to create a law
enforcement problem. Such ground for dental is "quite separate
and distinct from =hat relating to 'undue concentration of
licenses.' [Citation. ] That is to say, if a showing were made
that the individual licensee would create a law enforcement
problem, the plenitude or paucity of neighboring licenses would
be irrelevant. - (Department of Alcoholic Bey. Control v.
Alcoholic Bev. etc. APPeals Bd. (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 814, 820,
184 Cal.Rptr. 367.) Recant rioting by college students in the
area of the proposed applicant premises supported the
Deparcment's denial of a license based on the finding that the
issuance of the license would aggravate police problems due to
the relationship between crime and intoxication. (Kirby v.
Alcoholic Bey. etc. APPeals Bd. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 433.)
Interesting comments were provided by an appellate court
when it noted that:
~fhe draft of the new Development Code requires that any
alcohol use also requires a Conditional Use Permit ("CUPs). As
such the reference to sapplications here is to a CUP application
with a denial based upon the inability to qualify under statute or
regulation for an ABC license.
OR,~ZGF;2444.6
Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and
N~m~ers of ~he Planning Commission
City of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page 7
e[W]hen in addition [to a concentration
of licenses in a given area] it :~a
establiahed ~t ~he area in ~ues~ico is one
wherein there is an anusdally high number of
crimes, and that the affected law enforcement
agencies obJec~ on this ~und, it is net
-ecess~y in every instance to in~reduce
specific evAdance rees~ablishing the Very
fact that presumably led to the adoption of
[CCR] Section 61.3s in the first J~ance,
i.e., that there ms a symbictic relationship
betwean crime and the increased consumption
of alcohol in a given locale that results
from an excessive n~m~er of competing sources
of distribution. ~ (Department of Alcoholic
Bey. Control, 133 Cal.App.3d at 820, Emphasis
in Original. )
The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control also provides
another option when memorializing reasons for rejection of an
application. This oldion is proximit7 to residences. CCR
Section 61.4 provides that:
"No original issuance of a retail
license or premises-~o-premises transfer of a
retail license shall be approved for premises
at which either of the following conditions
exist:
(a) The promises are located within 100
feet of a residence.
sCCR Section 61.3 is the regulation that defined undue
concentration before the enactment of B&P Code Section 23958.4.
While the definition has been changed to require a lesser showing
to meet the test, the substance of the w20percent higher n,-~erof
reported crimes" requirement to which the court is referring has
not been changed.
Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and
Members of the Planning Cc~mlssion
Cit7 of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page 8
(b) The parking lot or parking area
which is maintained for the benefit of
patrons 'of the premises, or operated in
conjunction with the premises is located
within 100 feet of a residence. Where the
park/rig lot is maintained for the benefit of
patrons of multiple businesses in the .
vicinity of the premises, the parking "area-
considered for 'the purpose of ~his rule shall
be determined by the ares necessary to comply
with the off-street parking requirements as
mandated by ~he local ordinance . .e . (4
CCR S 61.4.)
A complete copy of RuIe 61.4 is enclosed for your reference.
B&P Cede Section 23789 provides 9rounds upon which a denial
of a license may be based when considered in light of the antire
record, This Section -- which allows denial of'a license when in
close proximity to churches, hospitals, schools, and other
non-profit youth facilities -- is best viewed in the context of a
"protection of the public welfare and morals° argument. In
relevant part, this B&P Code Section provides:
'(a) The department is specifically
authorized to refuse the issuance, other than
renewal or ownership transfer, of any retail
license for premises located within the
immediate vicinity of churches and hospitals.
(b) The department is sp~cifically
authorized to refuse the issuance, other than
renewal or ownership transfer, of any retail
license for premises located within at least
600 feet of schools and public playgrounds or
nonprofit youth facilities, including, but
not limited to, facilities serving Girl
Scouts, Boy Scouts, or Campfire Girls . .
The denial of an off-sale license located in close proximity
to a school was upheld in Donia v. Alcoholic Beyerase AuDeals
Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and
P.~m~ars o~ the Planning Commission
City of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page 9
Board (1985) 167 Cal. App.3d 588,
the Cou~c reviewed Wo cases previously decided ~o assire in
determining when issuing a license would be c~ntrary to the
public welfare and morals. In that first case, l[trbv v.
Alcoholic Beveraoe AsDeals Board (1968) 261 Cal. App.2d 119, 67
Cal. Rptr. 628, the Donia Court noted as sufficiently based the
decision that:
213 Cal.Rptr. 447. In Doni8,.
'. .[O]v~'~ledtheboard's reversal
of the department's denial of an off-sale
license on the basis of the following
factors:
(1) the large enrollment of
students at a nearby school;
(2) the age of the students;
(3) that the surrounding area was
more residential than
commercial;
(4) the substantial ~-m'a-~..r of
students walking past the
proposed promises;
(5) the extended use of the school
beyond normal school hours;
(6) the closeness of the proposed
promises to the school;
(7) the students' abilit~ to view
the proposed promises readily
from the school;
(8) the ability to see inside the
proposed promises readily from
the outside;
(9) the sale of it~m~ attrac~ive
to children near the en~ranca
to the proposed premises;
(10) the intent to have ex'cerior
advertising of alcoholic
beverages;
(11) the n~m~er of students
patronizing the proposed
promises; and
(12) the presence of takeout food
Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and
H~m~ers of the Planning Commission
cit~ of Tamecula
May 16, 1995
Page 10
service close at hand.e
(Donna, at 595, citing Kirby-,
at 127-129.)
f
The Donta Court further noted that:
wlnbothcases, there was a history of
the littering of the school premises with
alcoholic beverage containers; both campuses
were closed, but that didnot eliminate all
prohl~mm of control; and there were numerous
extant off-sale outlets relatively close to
the school (here, 20 withins general one-
half mile radius; tnKirbv, 11 vtthina
general one mile radius). In our view, these
facecots also favor denial of · license.
Fur~er, there is evidence hera of specific
alcohol-related problems on the school
9Tounds other than extensive littering.
Finally, there is considerable expert
evidence of the recognized effects of off-
sale outlets on public drinking, the
associated police problems and the
psychological effect of public drinking on
children.' (Donia, at 596.)
In that second case, Reimel v, Alcoholic Beyerase AnDeels
Boa=d (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 673, 58 Cal.Rpt. r. 788, the Donia
Cou_--'~ noted that it had:
"[A]lso overruled the board's reversal
of a departmental denial, holding the
following to be substantial evidence in
suppo~c thereof:
(1) the presence of takeout food
on the premises;
(2) the presence of itmme very
attractive to children;
(3) 20 child patrons per day;
(4) after-school recreation on the
school grounds;
Honorable b~ceve Ford, Chairman, and
N~mherS Of ~he Planning Commission
tit7 of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page 11
(5) approximataly 200 airline feet
distance from ~he proposed
premises to the school;
(6) students in grade K-S; and
(7) the residential character of
the surrounding ares, , . a
(Donna, at p. 597.)
Finally, the Court in Donia concluded that:
sit appears the board [ in reversing the
department,s denial of ~he license] gave
undue weight to the fact none of the school
children in the instant matter could pass as
old enough to purchase liquor. Th4s assumes
the possible availability of liquor to
children is the only evil attending the
issuance of a license to an off-sale outlet.
Reason does not dictate that result; as
empirical evidence demonstrates, the
legitinization of public drinking in childish
eyes is i~self an evil." (Id.)
An approach taken by the City and County of Los Angeles to
the "proliferation" issue is to diligently enforce the conditions
assigned to a Conditional Use Permit. "The [C]ity and [C]ounty
have determined that the liquor store environment, if left
uncontrolled, produces:
- littering
- loitering,
- drunken driving,
- interference with children on the way to school,
- discouragement of legitimate businesses,
- encouragement of vice, and
- defacement of buildings.
Thus, the [C]ity and [C]ounty, by ordinance nowregulate liquor
stores through monitoring such store's conformance to Conditional
Use Permits rather than older methods of fixed or exclusionary
zoning." (J. Longtin, land Use S 3.35, p. 298 (1987).)
Honorable Steve Ford, Chaj_~m~n, and
Nameera of the Plann4ng Commission
City of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page 12
Used ~n catb~uation with the other ffi~tngs referenced above
and when appropr4ate ~o the circumstance8 and facts before you,
an off-sale 14cense could be denied for a s~ora ~n a center ~MLch
also has a take-out food restaurant. (See Doni'a, 167 Cal.App.3d
at 596; Reimel v. Alcoholic Bev. etc. APPeal Bd. (1967) 250
Cal,Xpp,2d 673,. 677-678,) The "find~nge ~n th~s ~?,ance would
be that the comb~nation of take-out food and the off-site sale ~f
alcoholic beverages would encourage and promote! the publ4c
consumption of alcohol, the consumption of alcohol ~n motor
vehicles, end the proliferation of open-conta4ntr violations --
all violations of the law and agaJ_~st the "public welfare and
morals." Evidence of instances of such violations would greatly
aid in supporting this finding.
The use of uo~'s to regulate off-site alcohol sales,
including applying the CUP requiresent to exis~aLng businesses if
the business was destroyed and there was a substantial amount of
time before the business reopened, was recently upheld as valid
in Korean American Leaal Advocacy Foundation v.' City of Los
Anueles (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 376. A CaP ordinance for off-site
alcohol sales was also upheld in Boccato v. City of Nereosa Beach
(1994) 29 Cal. App.4~h 1797, except in its application to existing
businesses. As a result of the above, I believe the requiramenta
in the City's draft Development Code which require a CUP for off-
site alcohol sales is a valid regulation.
The ABC Board staff stated that many cities routinely file
objections to licenses in their cities. This method would
provide an avenue for achieving the objective of reducing liquor
stores in cer%ain locations, without the legal exposure of having
the City deny a permit. In fac~, the Legislature has revised the
application procedure to make it more amenable to protests filed
by local agencies. Assembly Bill No. 2742 (Ch. 629 rcata. of
1993) amends various B&P Code Sections, including the following:
(1) Section 23987, which:
(a) requires the Department to
notify the city planning director,
in addition to the usual local
agencies, upon receipt of an
original application for any
Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and
Nnm~ers of the Planning Com~ssion
Cit7 of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page 13
llcense; and
(b) allows the Department to ex~end
the 30-day waiting period for an
additional 20 days upon the writ~cen
request of any local law
enforcement agency.
(2) SeCtiOn 24013, which requites the
Departmant to notify ~he ;:xrotesr. ing public
agency or official of its determination to
recommend the issuance of a license and the
reasons therefor, and to provide a notice of
hearing to the protestant.
Such favorable changes to the protest procedure may appeal to the
Planning Commission as an alternative to flat-out denials.
Finally, another tact to take isto find neutral or non-
alcohol-related reasons to deny an application. Such reasons
could include health or safety issues, traffic flow or
congestion, parking, etc. As noted on page 6, one option is to
greatly increase off-street parking requirements.
The Combined Sale of Alcohol and Gasoline:
Finally, the special requirements of Section 23790.5 .of the
B&P Cede relating to the combined sale of alcohol and gasoline
should be noted. Essentially, this Section prohibits local
government from placing an all-out ben on the combined sale of
gasoline and alcohol. For purposes of B&P Code Section 23790.5,
"alcohol" is defined as the sale of beer and wine for off-
premises consumption.
This B&P Code Section prohibits local goverxmants from
banning combined sales on or after January 1, 1988. Pot those
jurisdictions which adopted before August 1, 1985 prohibitions on
the sale of gasoline and other broad categories of ttnm, which
might include alcohol, the Section allows for a cozr~inuation of
Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and
M~mhers of the Planning Commission
City of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page 14
this bane. Finally, the B&P Code Section sere forth a mechanism
by which local governments can regulate these sales -- by usin~
~he Conditional Use Pertit process and making certain findings.
The tit7 to regulate such sales through the Conditional Use
Permit process must .enact or have an Ordinance that contains th~
following elsmants: ~
(1) A requirsmant for written findings.
(2)' A provision for an administrative appeal
if the governing bodyhas delegated its
power to issue or deny a conditional use
permit.
(3) Procedures for notice of a hearing,
conduct of a hearing, end an opportunity
for all parties to present testimony.
(4) A requirement that the findings be based
on substantial evidence in view of the
whole record to justify the ult.i~ate
decision.
As noted above, the City may not merely ban the combined sale of
alcohol and gasoline.
~qiththe consideration of the new Development Code, a separate
analysis on the impact of the Code's adoption on the authority to
recodifyRiverside County's efforts in this respectwill need to ba
made.
Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and
N-~ers of the Planning Commission
City of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page 15
I hope 'this information is usefttl ~.o you. Please feel free
to contact me should you have any further questions in this
regard.
Sincerely,
~~ZAt~corney
city of Temecula
GGD / apk
Enclosures
cc: Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
Peter M. Thorson, Esq., City Attorney
§6L4
§ ~, Ucee~e UmJ~tJonL
Nou~_~,,k, ky,.k,d-L--,z----Z~2Demd2~7$O, Buimm--.dPmkmdam
r'.,~4, Rffea,t,~JelJimm~ll~J3111md.23~l, kmd Pnaitmiml
l. Ammzbmeadm(diss-d12-6-68;dmipmdeffgdvel.4-49
2. Remkr~m(b) maf2-l-t~imipmd~balvel-10-~(iqb-
erT2, No. 7).
4, ~ki'~ '~ _'k .ffeaietinimh dtyebawbr(Rflbmr~l, Na.
t81,1. IModtyDmwings,
Nou~J, sk,~7,,k-4*t-,.~--2383)md2S?S0, u--,~---endpeiemlamCmb
2. Ca~'~med'r,/' F * l1422.LGov. Cadl, fid&..I,I..l~01fl.
ima'e, No. 161.
3. ,~,lbd;: 71; effeaive/k~/dsyltaubr(Rqimr~l, No.
14).
i'h,ms'r
961,3, Undue Cone A, ddion.
(t) Fort~lNqx~oJNai~2395So(d,-AkahoSclk. vaaFCoe-
set ~ort~ below:
'rne~p~ntp~m~sufor~nm~ina]erl,,~s-u:~mis~ram-
fcrofanymailfic~.~m~loca2dinaaimm,~'~dimicswhkhbm
a20~r,,~;~numbcrofn:ponmicrim~u4kfi~dbdow,lbmm,k-a,~-
qcnumb~roft~-por~immcsu4kk,,~medh~naUc~mel~ning
~ ~ ~hc.jurUdiaion ofd2c local hw cu~,,,,~.,,.,~,ucy if d2
following condi~om~
(l)Aslocfi-salcr~.aillicau~applkmicl~,dlcrMiocJMnuil
applicsmpt~3~Lsesm~loca2dexccedslherafioofm~mdenu~liamscs
(2) As moff--ulc mail lk~c applicmiom. brmio ofd-mk rmil
"c~mmmpopu~io~mlcccmmumc~orc~umsdi,,iien~nwlildle
applkantpmnimm~lcce2de-,--~4.~lb~mioofoff-eakmm'llicemu
Nmwitmmt~Ic~mov~bd~pefummtmtyim2aliam~ifb
~plicanuhowstha~publk~,,~,cnie~.-,,~ywouldbcscr,edby
(b) Dcfinhicuo~Tcrmmdl~taSmm~.TncfoRowb~dd2nifi~ms
(1)"RcixaingDis~"mnpo~nplficml,mswidfintbebound-
mofamnglcgovez,',-,mqdeutity(cityorOleunb~,~js,~../~wl..,~.of
m~ononrqx3rtedcrimcstndanem.
(2) 'ReJx~,d ~rimcs' t~c the mos: rcc~t .vurly canpilmim by
local law c~fc~ccmcm qe~cy ofrclxn~,d offeoses ofcrimiml homicide,
forcible npc. robl~7 . a~nva2d assaulL bur~hry, lmzzny tbcf~ moor
v,.,,w.q,pr,~f, mambiddmgd~,mimm,sahmdds~
ksoa:mnmiwiddndtsammmmctwmmm~.-'--'--
(4)'F-7='----'---imdzCemsty'dmDt~dm~bytb=mmmi._.~._
mmi Unk. Sm~Depmmmn dF_~.
(5)'RmilLimms'dunindak.bfono~V *
(A) GG-mkRguflLklmsm:Types20(off-mkbecrsndwine)md
21 (ctr-aak pmad).
mmetm!.~,0G0mm," ,' }
(6)2'h~mmberdnmu~r--,.,---bd--amm~d-nk. dmmz~d by
k.
No~:.,~da~T cbd:Smslnu25750, Balmm md P~Jemims Cod2md Sa~-
dm22dAnk~XX, CaTim~I Pa~
3~.F~rit~lffamare midlima'61,No. 21).
,2. A "' '4-4-?MlmmemmpmL~bqusf~q(Rfeimr~9.
No. 14).
4. Amadmmfbd6-39-~.~tahe~d~ebambr(P.L~mr~.~
S.C:lm~widmamplmmyeaea.----r-~_---~-pammsw--.~--!00.
dkl. Califomia r',d*c(lequimlam f6ad2-2Z-91(leflimer91. No. 13).
lel.4. I~'oidmllytoRa~idemleL
No~,i_-h,~lt---'"'"'--ofanuLilli~m~a' ' ' mns-
f~ofamm]ikem~zimllbeal~,,,edfmp~isutlwbicbeid~lbe
(a)Tb~p.,.~m e~kx:a2d v,;~:,;n 100 faxa~amidm~
Co)~b~pmt~bxwpm~-_*muwbid2b,,,-b,,-~for,k-bme~
ofpaumoflcp,-,,,i~wopammiinamjuncwimwith~helmnim,
isl~-M~ wid6n IOOf~tofap.~,t,.~ ~mn~d--p~iotismain,
ubx~dfw'k,'lx~o~petmm~f-,-h~.kb.ineamln.k-,i,:inbyof
b~d~mmim~ibyttgn~mmmpiywilhboff4mmpmii~g
m]u~--,~mumamigdbyd~lo~loulimm~orifdmm~gmokml
ThisnzledoamtmMs~ymdw, pmmim hve bem li~md
Not,~lms~,i~th~pmvis~om~eismk, th~d~munmtma.v iuug
wbcnlhcappiju~,m*-klisbesdw, theopcrudouoflhcbus~neowo,
N~Auds0r~,,k-4-~.-,,;,,-2~7~0, Business md pmr._.~_s Coclc Sec,d.8
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL
R:'~I'A~BF. ER~¥1N~.CC 9113195 vF 5
I!I.ECDflE~ (714) ~
AUguSt 11, 1995
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
and Members of ~he City Council
city of Temecula
43174 Business Perk D~ive
Temecula, California 92590
Additional Information Regerding Local Regulation of
Alcohol Beverage Licensing and Establishments Selling
or Serving Alcoholic Beverages
Dear Mayor Stone and Members of the City Council:
When the City Council considered whether or not to delegate
the authority for making the "public convenience or necessity"
determination for alcohol licensing under Business and
Professions Code Section 2395S.4m, the City Council requested
additional information regarding ~he licensing process and the
new legislation in order to adequately make the delegation
determination. This letter is designed to provide that
information to you.
In making a request for additional information, the City
Council asked the following questions:
Prior to the enactment of the new legislation on
alcoholic beverage licensing, what was the approval
process?
;Unless otherwise noted, all further "Section" references
will be to the California Business and Professions Code.
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
end M-m~ers of the City Council
City of Temecula
August 11, 1995
Page 2
Under the new legislation, what is the new authority of
City to regulate the licensing of establishments
selling or serving alcoholic beverages?
Since some of the new authority granted to cities
is based upon the finding of 'public convenience
or necessity,a how does the City make that finding
or determination?
Does the new authority apply to transfer of a license
as opposed to the establishment or the.issuance of a
new license?
How does the new legislation, one which imposes a
moratorium and the other which makes an
overconcentration determination, interact with each
other end with other laws such as the concurrent sale
of gasoline with beer end wine?
Does this new authority for the cities mean that the
cities now have the responsibility for background
checks of license applicants or the authority to revoke
or punish "bad licensed facilities" such as a poorly
run bar?
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS
Prior to the new legislation, the City's role in
alcoholic beverage licensing was limited to determining
zoning compliance and filing protests to the issuance
of specific licenses·
Under the moratorium provisions, the City's role is to
determine if it applies· If so, the City could use the
moratorium as the basis to deny a Conditional Use
Permit. After January 1, 1996, the City Council could
override the moratorium by making a finding of "public
convenience or necessity" being served by the license.
Under the ~undue concentration" provisions, the City's
role is to determine if it applies end if so to
determine if despite such "undue concentration," the
Honorable Jeffrey v.. Stone, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Temecula
Xugust ll, 1995
Page 3
"public convenience or necessity" vould be served by
the issuance of the license.
The phrase npublic convenience or necessitym is not
defined by statute, regulation, -or court decisions.
Only a few factors set forth in this letter have been
analyzed by the courts to provide some insight and
guidance in this respect.
The moratorium provisions only apply to soriginal'
or new l~censes.
The undue concentration provisions apply to both
new or soriginals licenses and to premises to
premises transfers.
The City should review applications to determine first
if the moratorium applies to it end then if it does
not to see if the undue concentration provisions apply
to it. If either t.he moratorium or the undue
concentration provisions apply, the City could deny an
application for the concurrent sale of gasoline with
beer and wine.
The new legislation analyzed her.in does not allow the ..'
City to look at the applicant's background or fitness
to be licensed· These issues are within the purview of
the ABC. The City retains its existing authority to
prosecute problem alcoholic beverage outlets and their
owners or patrons.
alOT.YBIg OFIGSUEB
Prior to the new legislation being adopted, the City's
authority to regulate the issuance of licenses to operate
establishments which sell or serve alcoholic beverages was
extremely limited· This is reflectted first in ~h.e zoning
compliance stage and secondly in the protest stage. Under the
old law, which still applies in many instances, ~he Department of
Honorable =offroy E. Stone, Mayor
end M~mhers of the City Council
City of Tomecola .
AUgUSt 11, 1995
Page 4
AlcOholic Beverage Control or eABCo requires as part of the
license issuance or ~ransfer, a form~ to be executed by the City
for each license indicating compliance with locel zoning.
Section 23790 prohibits the ABC from issuing a re~ail license for
the sale or service of alcoholic beverages:
e.. . for any premises which ere located in
eny territory where the exercise of :their
rights end privileges conferred by the
license is contrary to the valid zoning
ordinance of eny county or city. ."
Sec~cion 23791 also indicates ~h~tthe authority of the State to
license alcoholic beverage sales and service outlets does not
interfere with the power of cities to plan end zone under the
appropriate provisions of the Government Code. Consequently, the
City would retain full power to prohibit the sale or service of
alcoholic beverages in, for example, a residential zone. The
"zoning affidavit" completed by the City.for each applicant for
any ABC license would indicate if the sale or service of
alcoholic beverages was permitted at the particular site in which
it was proposed to operate, or in the instence where it maybe
conditionally permitted if a Conditional Use Permit is obtained.
The only other area previously where cities.were involved in."
the licensing or regulation of outlets selling or serving
alcoholic beverages was during the "protest" stage. In this
instance, if the City, City Council, Police Chief, or other
departments determine that the site wasa potential problem
relative to the service of alcoholic beverages, the City could
protest =he issuance of the license, state the grounds for the
protest, provide suppor~cing evidence to that effect, end a
hearing would be held by the ABC to determine if, despite these
protests, the "public convenience or necessity" would be served
by the issuance of the license. Once a protest determination is
made, if it was favorable to the applicent, the City's only
remaining remedy at that point was to institute litigation.
~l~is form is called a "Zoning Affidavit."
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
and N~m~ers of ~he City Council
City of Temecula
August 11, 1995
Page 5
Under bo~hthe older statutes and the new ones, the City
retains the authority to regulate the land use or probl~--tic'
issues ~ining to establishments eelling or serving alcoholic
beverages. By this, I mean specifically that if the operation of
~he enterprise was such that it constitutedadisturbance to the
neighbors or public nuisance, the City is able to use its public
nuisance ordinance or to crininally cite violators for such
things as service to minors, public drinking, noise disturbances,
or other violations of the State Penal Code or the City's
Municipal Code. This has not been changed in any way by the new
legislation-
In 1994, the State Legislature enacted two different billsr
which granted cities in certain cir~m-tances additional
authority relative to outlets selling or serving alcoholic
beverages. These two bills enacted Section 23817.5, the
"moratorium" provision and Section 23985.4, the "undue
concentration" provision. Each provision will be discussed
separately below. In addition, this year, the State Legislature
enacted Section 23817.7 to allow additional flexibility to the
moratorium provision. However, this provision was not enacted as
an urgency measure, so it will not become effective until Jenuary.
1, 1996. .-
The Moratori-m Pr~vision
Section 23817.5 inposesa moratorium on the issuance of
oriainal~ retail off-sale beer and wine licenses until January 1,
1998 if any of the following circumstances apply:
"(a) The applicant premises are located
in an incorporated city where the
number of retail off-sale beer and
wine licenses issued exceeds one
~he term 'original" license means a new license and
excludes a premises to premises ~ransfer of a license.
Consequently, the moratorium does not apply to license transfers.
Honorable ~e~frey E. Stone, Mayor
and M-~ers of ~he City Council
City of Temecula
AUgUSt 11, 1995
Page 6
license for each 2,500, or fraction
thereof, inhabi~ants of the
incorporated City.
(h)
The applicant premises ere located
in a countywhere the number of
retail off-sale beer end wine
licenses issued exceeds one license
for each 2,500, or fraction
thereof, inhabitants of the county.
(c).
The applicent premises ere located
in a city and countywhere the
total n-m~er of retail off-sale
beer end wine licenses end off-sale
general licenses issued exceeds one
license for each 1,250 or fraction
thereof, inhabitan~s of the city
and county.m
Under Section 23871.5, the moratorium prohibits ABC from
accepting or issuing a new or original license for off-sale beer
and wine if the moratorium's ~hresholds ere met. There is
limited City involvement in the moratorium process other than to
determine if the moratorium applies when acting on the land use
application for a project. For example, a project proposing to
sell beer and wine in conjunction with motor vehicle fuel would
require a Conditional Use Permit. If the applicant will need a
new ABC license and the moratorium applies, the moratorium could
be the basis for denying the CUP. However, if the applicant has
an ABC license transferred, the moratorium would not apply end
the City would act on the CUP application as it would any other
CUP application.
After January 1, 1996, the provisions of Section 23817.7
become effective and allow the City Council to make a
determination of "public convenience or necessity" which when
Honorable Jeffrey E. S~one, Mayor
and M~mhers of ~he City Council
City of Temecula
August 11, 1995
Page 7
combined with several other factors~ would allow ABC to issue a
license despite the moratorium imposed by Section 23871.5. The
basis of the 'public convenience or necessity" finding is
discussed in Analysis 2a below. Until January. 1, 1996, the City
Council cannot override the moratorium provisions.
The Undue Conoentration Provision
The "undue concentrations provision is found in Section
23958.4. If undue concentration of establishments selling or
serving alcoholic beverages is found, Section 23958 requires the
ABC to deny a license. Undue concentration applies to all types
of alcohol licenses, i.e., both on-site end off-site and includes
all alcoholic beverages and not Just beer and wine. Undue ..
concentration occurs under Section 23958.4, when:
The applicant premises ere located
in a crime reporting district that
has a 20 percent greater number of
reported crimess . than the
~rhese other factors include:
(1)
The applicant premises are located in an area that.=
falls below the concentration level provided in
Section 23958.4(a)(1); and,
(2)
The applicant premises ere located in an area that
falls below the concentration level provided in
Section 23958.4(a)(3).
Both factors (1) and (2) must occur as well as the City's
finding public convenience or necessity in order for the
moratorium not to apply to a particular license application.
s"Reported Crimes" include: Criminal homicide, forcible
rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny theft and
motor vehicle theft combined with all arrests for other crimes
(felony end misdemeanor), except traffic citations. "Reporting
Districts" is locally defined as that used for keeping
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
and N~m~ers of ~he City Council
City of Teme~ula
Aug~lst 11, 1995
Page 8
average D,mher of reported crimes
as determined from all crime
reporting districts within the
Jurisdi~cion of the lo~al law
enforcement agency.
(2)
As to on-sale retail license
applications, the ratio of on-sale
retail licenses to population in
the census tract or census division
in which the applicant premises ere
located exceeds the ratio of on-
sale retail licenses to pupulation
in the county in which the
applicant premises ere located.
(3)
As to off-sale retail license
applications, the ratio of off-sale
retail licenses to population ~n
the census trac~ or census division
in which the applicant premises are
located exceeds the ratio of off-
sale retail licenses to population
in the county in which the
applicant premises are located.
In determining the ratio of licenses to population, Section
23958.4 uses the most recent decennial census or special census
to obtain ~he "census tract" population and the annual State
Depament of Finance estimate to obtain the County population.
In using the decennial census, Section 23958.4 does allow an
applicant to establish" . . . than an increase of resident
population has occurred within the census tract or census
division .' to rebut an "undue concantratione determination.
statistical records.
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
and N-m~ers of the City Council
City of Temecula
August 11, 1995
Page 9
Section 23958.4(b)(2) allows the ABC to issue a license
despite the nundue concentration" determination when the City'
Council, or the body to whom the tit7 Council delegates that
decision, finds that the "public convenience or necessity" would
be served by issuance of a license. How the finding of "public
convenience or necessity" is made is addressed in the next
Section.
Issue 2 (a~ s
While Section 23958.4 generally allows the City Council to
override the presumption of undue concentration created by the
application of the various formulas, i.e. population to alcohol
licenses or crimes per license in specific ere.s, this
determination is based on a finding of "public convenience or
necessity" being served by the issuance of a license. However,
the phrase "public convenience or necessity" is not defined in
either the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act provisions of the
Business and Professions Code or in the ABC's.inplementing
Regulations. There is scant case law interpreting the provisions
pertaining to "public convenience or necessity" to provide real
guidance in this respect. Contact with the ABC has further
indicated that they have few, if any, guidelines themselves which
they utilize in making determinations of public convenience or
necessity at the State level. In this respect, guidance can be .'
found only from the limited case law available.
One point that is instructive from the two cases discussing
public convenience or necessity in an alcoholic beverage
licensing contex~ is that the State Legislature's use of this
phrase, separate and apart from the criteria applicable to the
determination of undue concentration allows an assumption that
the Legislature intended ". . to invoke criteria different [in
finding public convenience or necessity] from those utilized in
determining 'undue concentration.'em Therefore, "public
convenience or necessity" means something other then the n~m~er
and location of the licensed alcohol premises which is already
6Sepatis v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board, (1980)
110 Cal.App.3d 93 at 101.
~G~-,U2Sa
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
and H~mx~rs of the CitTCouncil
City of Temecula
August 11, 1995
Page 10
covered by the factors used to determine undue concentration.
Public convenience or necessity therefore may be found in a
number of factors, although the list is not all inclusive based
on the failure by the Legislature, the ABe, erthe courts to
delineate these factors more clearly. Such factors may include:
1. The character of the particoler pre=tses.
2. The aesthetics end ambiance of the proposed business.
3, The attractiveness of the proposed business,
The manner in which the business is to be conducted,
i.e., special or unique features, such as the type of'
games, food, or other service provided.
5. The type of quests who ere likely to be patrons.
The predicted mode of operation.
The ability of the proposed business to serve a niche
in the population not filled by other licensees in the
same area, such as, catering to a par~iculer clientele,.
economic or social grouping, or similar category under~.'
served or under-represented in the vicinity's existing
licensees and their pa~rous.
Convenience of purchasing alcoholic beverages in
conjunction with specialty food sales, or services,7
7Although this may not always be successful as the court
noted in ~he Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v.
Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board, (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d
814 at 819 that:
"[a]lthough applicant-premises sell a unique
variety and assoment of Cuban grocery
items, it was not established that public
convenience and necessity require the
issuance of a license to the applicant-
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
end Me-~ers of ~he City Council
City of Temecula
August 11, 1995
Page 11
Because ~he S~ate legislation and ~he implementing regulations
provide virtually no guidence upon which the City is to base its
determination of public convanienca or necessity, I believe that
a reviewing court would likely hold the City to the same type of
standard to which the cour~ holds the State ABC in making this
same public convenience or necessity determination.
In this respect, the legal standard of review that a cour~
would apply this decision is likely to be 'abuse of discretion.m
The standard looks to determine if there is subs~antial evidence
in the record to support the findings end conclusions of the
hearing body.. It does not review the evidence or the facts to
determine if the mrightm conclusion was reached, but looks to see
if there was sufficient evidence upon which the findings made by
the hearing body could be made. If, end only if, the decision is
not supported by evidence in the record, will the decision likely
be overturned. It does not matter that there is conflicting
evidence in the record or that a reasonable parson could reach
the opposite conclusion of the hearing officer so long as there
is sufficient evidence in the record to support the decision
reached by the hearing officer.
Issue No, 32
The moratorium found in Section 23817.5 applies only to
"original" or new licenses and only to "off-sale beer and wine
licenses." Section 23817.5 provides in relevant part that:
"No application for an original retail off-
sale beer and wine license may be made-nor
premises, in that customers at the applicant-
premises may easily avail themselves of
alcoholic beverages from licensees in close
proximity to the applicant-premises."
The court in this case based their determination on the fact that
there were eight licensed premises within a 1,000 feet of the
applicant-premises including as close as within 300 feet where
there were two other small grocery establishments.
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Nayor
and N~m~ers of the City Council
City of Temecula
August ll, 1995
Page 12
any original re~ail off-sale beer and wine
license issued . . e
As such, the moratorium only applies to 'original' or new
licenses.
The "undue concentration' provision found.in Section 23958.4
applies to bo~h 'original' or new licenses and:to 'premises-to-
premises ~ransfer" of licenses. Section 23958.4 applies to
instances by defining "undue concentration' as including both
situations.
Issue NO, 42
The moratorium end undue concentration provisions are ~
designed to intarac~ with each o~her. In reviewing an
application, if it involves off-sale of bear end wine, then it
should be determined if the application is for a new license or a
transfer. If it is a new license, the moratorium applies. If it
is for a transfer, the moratorium does not apply and the factors
defining "undue concentration" of licenses should be reviewed.
If the license application is for something other than off-
sale beer and wine or if the applicant has a transferred license,.
then the undue concentration factors need to be reviewed. If :
undue concentration is not found, the application is processed by
the City as it would be without an alcohol issue. If undue
concentration is found, then the City Council or the body to whom
the City Council delegates the authority needs to make a
determination on "public convenience or necessity" as outlined in
Section 2a. of this letter.
One area likely to arise is how the moratorium or the undue
concentration provisions relate to the provisions of State law
authorizing the concurrent sale of gasoline with beer and wine.
Section 23790.5 regulates the concurrent sale of gasoline with
beer and wine end contains no specific exemption.or exception
from the moratorium provisions found in Section 23817.5. As a
result, it is my conclusion that the moratorium provisions
operate to preclude the issuance of an original retail off-sale
beer and wine license when the moratorium applies until January
~OE:4525,2
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
and N-m~ers of the City Council
City of Temecula
August 11, 1995
Page 13
1, 1998-s Further support for this conclusion is found in the
language of the concurrent sale of gasoline with bear and wine
provisions in Sec~cion 23790.5 i~self. · In particular, Subsection
(a) provides in relevant part tha~=
m. · . It is the intent of the Legislature to
prevent the legislative prohibition of the
concurrent re~ailing of bear end wine for
off-premises consumption and motor vehicle
fuel vhere the reta///ag of each/s o~bervise
aTlowah/e . o ." [Emphasis added. ]
When the moratorium applies under Section 23817.5, the retailing
of beer and wine is not "otherwise allowable" until January 1,
1998. Therefore, if the retailing of bear and wine for off-
premises consumption is not otherwise allowable, then Section
23790.5 would not operate to defeat ~he moratorium.
Even if the moratorium under Section 23817.5 does not apply,
an application could be from an area having an undue
concentration of liquor establishments under Section 23958.4. If
this is the case, the same conclusion reached above will also
generally apply. The only caveat hare is that the City Council
could find the "public convenience or necessity" would be served
by the issuance of the license. Therefore, if the City Council
does not find "public convenience cr necessity," then retailing
of beer and wine for off-premises consumption is not "otherwise
authorized."
Issue No, S:
The new legislation outlined in this analysis only applies
to the initial set-up of an establishment selling or serving
alcoholic beverages, and not to the ongoing operational aspects.
In addition, reviewing the background and ability of individual
license applicants is a responsibility of the ABC.
sSubject to the potential to override the moratorium after
January 1, 1996 provided by SB403.
Nos:4J~J.2
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
and Members of ~he City Council
City of Temecula
Augl/st 11, 1995
Page 14
As noted earlier, the City can deal with problem license-
holders or their patrons ~h~ough existing City ordinances such as
public nuisance or ~hrough the Penal Code. Additional background
information on the City's authority relative to establishmen~s
selling or serving alcohol is con~ained in my May 16, 1995 letter
to the Planning Commission which is attached for .your reference.
I hope the foregoing information is helpful to you. Should
you have any questions regarding this matter or wish to discuss
it fur=her, please feel free to contact City Attorney Peter
Thorson or myself.
Sincarely,
' ttcrXey
CITY OF TEMECULA
Enclosure
CO:
Ronald Bradley, City Manager
June Greek, City Clerk
Gary Thornhill, Director of Community Development
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
Peter M. Thorson, Esq., City Attorney
ITEM #4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
:Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
September 18, 1995
Approval of Beer and Wine License for Unocal
Planning Application No. 94-0128 CUnocal) is on the Commission's Agenda this evening.
The zoning for the site is C-I\C-P (General Commercial) and the General Plan is HTC
(Highway Tourist Commercial). The project is consistent with the City's zoning and General
Plan.
The project is located at the southeast corner of Raneho California Road and Front Street.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission make a determination of "public
convenience and necessity" based upon input received from the applicant.
ITEM #5
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
September 18, 1995
Approval of Beer and Wine License for Shakespeare's
Planning Application No. 95-0069 (Shakespeare's) was approved at.the August 31, 1995
Planning Director's Hearing. The zoning for the site is M-SC (Manufacturing Service
Commercial) and the General Plan is CC (Community Commercial). The project is
consistent with the City's zoning and General Plan.
The project is located at 27645 Jefferson Avenue, #116 (Old Adobe Pl~Ta).
It is recommended that the Planning Commission make a determination of "public
convenience and necessity" based upon input received from the applicant.
R:~STAFFRFr~I'IAKE~PE.BEE 9/13/95 du
ITEM #6
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning COmmission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
September 18, 1995
Approval of Beer and Wine License for Chevron
Planning Application No. 94-0095 (Landgrant Shopping Center) was approved by the
Planning Commission on March 6, 1995. The zoning for the site is C-P-S (Scenic Highway
Commercial) and the General Plan is CC (Community Commercial). The project is
consistent with the City's zoning and General Plan.
The project is located at the southwest comer of Redhawk Parkway.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission make a determination of 'public
convenience and necessity" based upon input received from the applicant.
ITEM #7
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
September 18, 1995
Approval of Beer and Wine License for Ralphs
Planning Application No. 94-0095 (Landgrant Shopping Center) was approved by the
Planning Commission on March 6, 1995. The zoning for the site is C-P-S (Scenic Highway
Commercial) and the General Plan is CC (Community Commercial). The project is
consistent with the City's zoning and General Plan.
The project is located at the southwest comer of Redhawk Parkway.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission make a determination of "public
convenience and necessity" based upon input received from the applicant.
R:X~TAFFRPT'~ALPHS.BEE 9113195 du
ITEM #8
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
September 18, 1995
Approval of Beer and Wine License for Sunshine Market
Sunshine Market is an existing use in Temecula. The zoning for the site is C-I\C-P (General
Commercial) and the General Plan is SC (Service Commercial). The project is consistent
with the City's zoning and General Plan.
The project is located at 28950 Front Street,//101-103.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission make a determination of "public
convenience and necessity" based upon input from the applicant.
R:k~TAFFRPT~UNSHINE.BEE 9/13/95 du
ITEM #9
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director
September 18, 1995
Conceptual Grading Plan for Westside Specific Plan (Planning Application No.
PA95-0003)
Prepared by:
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends the Plannin Commission:
APPROVE the Conceptual Grading Plan for the Westside Specific
Plan.
BACKGROUND
Condition of Approval No. 7 of the Westside Specific Plan stipulates: "Within 30 days from
the second reading of the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Temecula, a
preliminary grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval by the
Planning Commission." The applicant submitted a preliminary copy of the conceptual grading
plan to Staff within the deadline prescribed in the condition of approval.
Staff had several meetings with the applicant regarding the conceptual grading plan and has
conducted an in-house review of the preliminary conceptual grading plan. The plan v~hich is
before the Commission is the result of these meetings and reviews.
ANALYSIS
Conceptual Gradina Plan Contents
The conceptual grading plan includes grading from the Old Town Redevelopment Project
(primarily Area A}, grading for Planning Areas B, C and D of the Westside Specific Plan and
grading from the First Street Extension, the Western Bypass Corridor and the Vincent Moraga
Street extension.
Sheet 1 of the Conceptual Grading Plan is Planning Areas A and D of the Westside Specific
Plan. Originally, Area D was High Density Residential in the Westside Specific Plan, and was
deleted by the City Council. Area E (Mixed Use) was renamed Area D in the Westside Specific
Plan. Sheet 2 encompasses Planning Areas B, C and portions of Area F (Open Space). Sheet
3 contains profiles of the Conceptual Grading Plan, from the Western Bypass to the west and
to the slope behind the residences on Pujol Street. Six profiles have been included. A
conceptual site plan has also been provided for reference.
Constraints on DeveloDine the Conceptual Gradina Plan
The engineers for the Conceptual Grading Plan had several constraints which dictated the
grading for the overall project. Alignments for both the Western Bypass Corridor and the First
Street Extension provided a framework for the design. In addition, language in the Westside
Specific Plan and mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR for the Old Town
Redevelopment Project called for a sensitive interface with the residences along Pujol Street.
The alignment of Vincent Moraga Road and the future development on Planning Areas B and
C also influenced the design of the plan.
Earthwork Quantities
Earthwork quantities from each of the projects have been included on Sheet I of the
conceptual grading plan. According to the engineers for the plan: "Although the total
excavation and embankment quantities for Planning Areas A, B, C and D are not equal,
allowing for a shrinkage factor of approximately ten percent (10%), the earthwork quantities
are balanced. Using the same parameters for the streets, the street earthwork quantities are
in excess of approximately 47,000 cubic yards of cut which can be placed in areas adjacent
to the Western Bypass Corridor. The excess cut on Planning Areas A and D will be placed on
required fill areas in Planning Areas B and C."
Buildincls Across Parcel Lines
Sheet 1 of the conceptual grading plan shows several buildings crossing parcel lines. It is
likely that the parcels will receive minor modifications at the final map stage which will
alleviate this situation. If the situation still exists after the recordation of the final map(s) for
the Westside Specific Plan, then lot line adjustments may be required prior to the issuance of
a building permit(s).
CLOSED SESSION
BREAK
ITEM #10
~ORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director
September 18, 1995
planning Application No. 94-0128 CLlnocal - Conditional Us~ Permit) - A
proposal to demolish and rebuild a 1,863 square foot gas station with a
convenience store and concurrent sale of beer and wine located at the southeast
comer of Rancho California Road and Front Street
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate planner
RECONIMENDATION: The planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Rgsolution No. 95- approving PA94-0128,
Amendment No. 1 based upon the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report; and
APPROVE Planning Application No. PA94-0128,
Amendment No. 1 subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
BACKGROUND
This item was continued by the Planning Commission at their meeting on July 17, 1995.
Staff was directed to work with the applicant and address the concerns of the Planning
Commission. The applicant could not meet the August deadline for re-submittal and
requested that the project be continued at the August 21, 1995 Planning Commission
meeting. The Planning Commission continued this item to their September 18, 1995
meeting.
R:\STAFFRFfiI28PA95.1N~ 9/13/95 mf I
ANALYSIS
The concerns and/or comments raised by the planning Commission at the July 17, 1995
meeting arc discussed below:
Reduce the Square Footage of the Building
The Commission recommended that the applicant either reduce the size of the building or
reduce the number of gasoline dispensers. The original square footage of the proposed
building was 2,500 square feet. The applicant has re-submitted a plan which proposes an
1,863 square foot building. The re-submittal reflects nine (9) gasoline dispensers, which is
the same number of dispensers as proposed on the original submittal.
Relocate the Trash Enclosure
The location of the trash enclosure on the original submittal was in view of Rancho
California Road. The Commission recommended that the wash enclosure be moved next to
the vapor extract enclosure (on the south side of the building). The trash enclosure has been
moved to the south side of the site. Both the trash enclosure and the vapor extract enclosure
will consist of concrete block.
Retain as Much of the Existing Landscaping as Possible
The Commission recommended that the applicant retain as much of the existing landscaping
as possible. The applicant re-submitted a landscape plan which indicates that some existing
trees and tuff area wffi remain.
The Commission also recommended that the applicant expand the amount of landscaping on
the site to provide for ultimate right-of-way development on Front Street and Rancho
California Road. The landscaping on the northwest comer of the site has been expanded to
allow an avenge width of eight (8) feet upon the ultimate right-of-way development on Front
Street and Rancho California Road. The planter at the northeast portion of the site has not
been expanded and will be removed upon the ultimate fight-of-way development on Rancho
California Road.
Revise the Plant Palette
The Commission recommended the applicant revise the plant palette for the new landscaping,
omitting Dwarf Oleander (shrub) and California Sycamore (tree) from the palette and
including both evergreen and deciduous trees. Dwarf Oleander (shrub) and California
Sycamore (tree) have been removed from the revised landscape plan palette. Tree choices
are Olive and Italian Stone Pine.
The Commission also requested that tree sizes include minimum tree trunk widths (callper
should be specified) and height. The applicant has chosen not to provide this information.
R:\STAFFRPT~I28PA95.PC3 9113/95 mf 2
Elevations
The Commission recommended that the applicant provide color elevations and ~mples of the
roof tile that will be used for the project..Full size exhibits have provided and will be
available for the Commission to view at the September 18, 1995 hearing. The base color of
the building will be tan, with light brown used as an accent color for the base and doors.
The roof tile will be "Spnnigh Style" Straight Barnil Mission Clay Roof Tile. Staff has
concerns regarding the east facing elevation of the project (the rear of the building). This
elevation has no articulation to break up the massing of the elevation.
Additional Conditions of Approval
Staff recommends that the project be conditioned to be consistent with the CUP
handbook which was prepared by the applicant. The Planning Commission may also
opt to further restxict the hours for beer and wine sales which are contained in the
CUP handbook.
Staff recommends the Commission condition the project for the trash enclosure and
vapor recovery enclosure to be consistent with the building in terms of colors and
materials.
Staff recommends that the applicant provide additional articuhtlon of this east facing
elevation. Possible options include, but are not limimcl to: continuation of the tile
roof to this elevation, adding horizontal and vertical score lines, painting the base of
the building to match the other elevations, and/or other items' deemed appropriate by
the Planning Manager.
The Deparanent of Public Works recommends revise Condition of Approval 66.b. to
read as follows: "The applicant shall record a written agreement with the City of
Temecula to participate in its proportionate cost of the smut widening improvements
along Rancho California Road and Front Street to include but not be limited to
pavement widening, street lighting, sidewalks, parkway landscaping, and utility
relocations. The agreement shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and
City Attorney."
Attachments:
Resolution No. 95- - Blue Page 4
Exhibits - Blue Page 20
R:~fTAFFKFI'XI28PAg$.I~:t 9113195
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO.
R:~STAF~Klrr~I2SPA93.PC3 9113195 mf 4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
~ CII'I/ OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 94-0128 (CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT), TO PERMIT TIIR. OPERATION OF A GAS
STATION AND CONVENIENCE STORE WITH Tnle~
CONCURRENT SAt,I~, OF B~,k'IR AND WINE LOCATED
ON THY~ SOUTnY-AST CORNER OF RANClIO
CJkI.IPORNIA ROAD AND FRONT STREET AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEl, NO. 921-070-001
WitERF_AS, UNOCAL Petroleum Products Company ~ed planning Application No.
94.0128, in accordance with the City of Temecuh General Plan and Riverside County Land
Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WtIP. REAS, Planning Application No. 9443128 was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WI~.REAS, the Planning Commission considered planning Application No. 94.0128,
on July 17, 1995, at a duly noticed public heating as prescribed by law, at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WltF. REAS, at the Planning Commission continued Planning Application No. 94-
0128 on July 17, 1995 and on August 21, 1995;
WIW. REAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 94-0128,
on September 13, 1995;
WItEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission approved
Planning Application No. 94-0128;
NOW, TI~I~.REFORE, THY. PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIF. CITY OF
TIe~VIECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOI~OWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings, to wit:
I. The proposed use conforms to all General Plan requirements and with
all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. The project is a permitted use
within the General Plan Land Use designation of Highway Tourist Commercial (ttTC). In
addition, the project is permitted under the existing General Commercial (C-I/C-P) zoning.
R:\STAFFRIr/~I28PAg$.l~C~ 9/13/95 mf 5
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of
the public health, safety and general weftare; conforms to the logical development of the land
and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding
property.
3. The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of
state hw and local ordinances. The proposed use complies with C~lifornia Governmental
Code Section 65360, Section 18.29 (Conditional Use Permit) of Ordinance No. 348.
4. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or
general weftare of the community. In addition, the proposed projea will not have a
significant impact on the environment. The pwject is Categorically Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) par Section 15302 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Conditions of Appwval wffi ensure that the project is not detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of the community.
5. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of
the size and shape of the lot cenfignration, access, and intensity of use, because the proposed
planning application (Conditional Use Permit), as conditioned, complies with the standards
contained within the City's General Plan and Ordinance No. 348.
6. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project is
located in an area of existing and proposed commercial development.
7. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated fight-of-way which is
open to, and useable by, vehicular waffic. Access to the project site is fwm publicly
maintained roads (Fwnt Street and Rancho California Road).
8. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that
they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the
proposed project.
9. Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental
documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
10. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planing Application No. 94-0128
as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and weftare of the community.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The proposed project wffi not have a
significant impact on the environment. The project is Categorically Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15302 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
approves Planning Application No. 94-0128 to demolish an existing service station and
rebuild a 1,863 square foot station with a convenience store and concurrent sale of beer and
wine located at 28903 Rancho California Road and known as Assessor's Paxeel No. 921-070-
001, and subject to the following conditions:
R:'~fAFFRPT~128PA9S.laC3 9113/95 mf 6
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made
a part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of September,
1995.
STEVEN I. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I [W. RERy CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the
Planning Commission of the Cit~ of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th
day of September, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COI~VIISSIONER$:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNt~L
SECRETARY
R:\STAFF!m-F~128PA95.PC39/13/95mf 7
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~STAFFRF~I28PA95.PC3 9113195 mf 8
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. 94-0128, Amendment No. I (Conditional Use Permit)
Project Description: The demolition of an existing service station to be rebuilt with a
2,500 square foot station with a convenience store and concurrent sale of beer and
wine
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-070-001
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
Planning Application No. 94-0128 shall not be effective or vest until the City
Council finds in accordance with Business and Professions Code Section 23958.4
that despite a presumption of undue concentration, the public convenience or
necessity would be served by the issuance of a liquor license at this location. In the
event that the City Council delegates the authority to determine public convenience
or necessity under Business and Professions Code Section 23958.4, this condition
shall be satisfied if the party or body to whom authority is delegated makes the
finding of public convenience or necessity.
The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. 94-0128 is
for the demolition of an existing service station to be rebuilt with a 2,500 square
foot station with a convenience store and concurrent sale of beer and wine.
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the
City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees
and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any
agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to
attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval
of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board
or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning
Planning Application No. 94-0128 (Conditional Use Permit), Amendment No. 1
which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and
Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including
but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly
notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within
this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action.
Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant
shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless
the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or
agents.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it
shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is
thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization
contemplated by this approval.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D and
approved with Planning Application No. 94-0128, Amendment No. 1, or as
amended by these conditions.
A. A minimum of twelve (12) parking spaces shall be provided.
A minimum of one (1) van accessible handicapped parldng space shall be
provided.
C. Two (2) Class II bicycle spaces shall be provided.
Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by
these conditions.
Canopy elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit F, or as amended by
these conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit G, or as amended
by these conditions (color and material board).
Material
Clay Tile (roof tile)
Stucco (building)
Metal (doors & window frames, trim)
Tile (building accents, base)
Grout (between tiles)
Color
Terra Cotta
Benjamin Moore #1156
Benjamin Moore #1205
Summitville Pueblo Stones (R-60)
Brown/rust
Landscape plans shall conform substantially with Exhibit H, or as amended by these
conditions.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
10.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the
appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be
superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of
the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by
the Habitat Conservation plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
11.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be
submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from
School Mitigation Fees.
R:\STAF'~RPT~128PA95.PC3 9/13/95 n~ ]0
12.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted
to the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the
appropriate filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of
the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient
Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped
area for the site,
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
13.
An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Director.
14.
All roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground
view.
15.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans.
16.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and
free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly
constructed and in good working order.
17.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a
permanently affixed refiectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text
or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be
smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered' at the interior end of the
parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the
parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from
the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted
in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less
than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards
or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons
may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may
be reclaimed at ~ or by telephone
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at
least 3 square feet in size.
18.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to
guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the
approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Planning.
19.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
R:~STA~R~t~'F~128PA95,PC3 9/13/95 n~f
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
20.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative
Code Title 24 Energy and Disabled access regulations and the Temecula Municipal
Code. (1994 editions due for adoption by September, 1995).
21.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance
with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
22.
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any
construction work.
23.
All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
(California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994).
24.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior
lighting and fire alarm systems.
25.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of
the 1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
26.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on
plans submitted for plan review.
27.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project,
and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the
true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the
Department of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing
and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses,
and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and
revision.
General Requirements
28.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all onsite flat work and
improvements) grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction outside of the City*maintained road right-
of*way.
29.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works
prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City
right-of-way.
30.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements
contiguous to the site.
31. All plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mytars.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
32.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources
Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI)
has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt.
33.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall
receive written clearance from the following agencies:
State Water Resources Control Board
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
34.
A Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the
Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code,
Chapter 70, City Standards, and as additionally required in these Conditions of
Approval.
35.
A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
36.
An Erosion Control Plan in accordance with City Standards shall be designed by a
registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works.
37.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the
grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City
Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
38.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Department and the Department of Public Works for review.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall
be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control
measures as approved by the Department of Public Works.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to
issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has
been already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for
offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of
Public Works.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone AE and is
subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this
project shall comply with Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula and with the
rules and regulations of FEMA for development within a Flood Zone "AE" which
may include obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA.
A Flood Plain Development Permit and drainage study shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works for review and approval. The drainage study shall
include, but not be limited to, the following criteria;
Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by
diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities as directed
by the Department of Public Works.
Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood
hazard map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site.
d. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway.
The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and
floodway shall be shown on the precise grading plan.
Concentrated onsite runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters or
underground storm drain facilities to an adequate outlet as determined by the
Department of Public Works.
Letter of approval or a drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected
property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the
adjacent property. A copy of the drainage easement shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works for review prior to recordation. The location of the
recorded easement shall be delineated on the precise grading plan.
R:\STAFFRItr'~I28PA95.PC3 9/13/95 ml'
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto
or through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of
streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460
will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be
prohibited for drainage purposes, the Developer shall provide adequate facilities as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by
alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow.
Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including
enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which maybe shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to
the subject property.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be
recorded by separate instrument as directed by the Department of Public Works.
The adequacy of the capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities shall be
verified. Any upgrading or upsizing of those facilities, as required, shall be provided
as part of development of this project.
Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared by a
registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works shall be
required for all public streets prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit. Final
plans and profiles shall show the location of exiting utility facilities within the right-
of-way as directed by the Department of Public Works.
The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans
and/or precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum
over A.C. paving.
be
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard Nos.
207A and 401 (curb and sidewalk).
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown on the improvement
plans as directed by the Department of Public Works,
Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street
frontages in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401,
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
R:\STAFFP, FI'/128PA95.PC3 9113/95 mf 15
g. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be
conveyed through undersidewalk drains.
53. A Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, and approved
by the Department of Public Works. Where construction on existing City streets is
required, traffic shall remain open at all times and the traffic control plan shall
provide for adequate detour during construction.
54. The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following public and private improvements in
conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the
Department of Public Works.
a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, and
relocation of all public facilities and/or utilities as appropriate
b. Storm drain facilities
c. Landscaping (slopes and parkways)
d. Sewer and domestic water systems
e. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines
f. Erosion control and slope protection
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
55. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall
receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Planning Department
· Department of Public Works
· Riverside County Fire Department
· Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
56. All necessary grading permit, construction or encroachment permits requirements
have been accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
57. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public
Works.
58. All building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and
elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
59. The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as
established per acre/unit as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
R:\STAFFRPTXI28PA~.PC3 9/13/95 mf 16
60,
The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent
property.
61.
The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the intent to develop.
Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy.
62.
The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility
mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to
be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an
interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which the Developer requests its building permit for the
project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for
payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to the Developer.
Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to
secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be 92.00
per square foot, not to exceed 910,000. The Developer understands that said
Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated
(assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this
Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this
Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the
process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this
project; orovided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
63.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in,'and wave all rights to
object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District,
or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed
Western By Pass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the
offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
64.
The Developer shall vacate and dedicate the abutters rights of access along Rancho
California Road pursuant to the new location of the driveway.
Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy
65.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall
receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
66.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards, including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement,
sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees, street lights, and relocation of all public
facilities and/or utilities as directed by the Department of Public Works.
R:~TAFFRPT~128PAg.q.I~(~ 9/13/95 nt~ ]7
67.
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these
conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the Developer; or, in the event the
City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the
Subdivision Map Act, the Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for
the acquisition of such easement at the Developer's cost pursuant to Government
Code Section 66462.5, which shall be at no cost to the City.
68°
Adjacent to the site, Rancho California Road is classified as a Urban Arterial
Highway with an 134 foot full width right-of-way, per the Circulation Plan of the
General Plan. There is an existing 55 foot of half width right-of-way and an
additional 12 foot of dedication is required. Therefore, an additional 12 foot of
right-of-way shall be offered for dedication to the City of Temecula on Rancho
California Road along the project frontage.
69.
An additional 4 feet of right-of-way shall be offered for dedication to the City of
Temecula on Front Street along the project frontage to accommodate for a right turn
lane.
70.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
71.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public
Works.
72.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and
replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
73.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and
public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
74.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside
County Fire Department's transmittal dated July 5, 1995, a copy of which is
attached.
75.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho
California Water District's transmittal dated June 21, 1995, a copy of which is
attached.
76.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City of
Temecula Police Department's transmittal dated June 19, 1995, a copy of which is
attached.
77.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated June 22, 1995, a
copy of which is attached.
R:~STAFFILI~12SPA95.PC3 9113/95 mf ]g
78.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern
Municipal Water District's transmittal dated December 6, 1994, a copy of which is
attached,
R:\gTAFFRPT~I21~PAgLPC~ 9/13/95 mf
~JMHA.R_RI$
~CHi'EF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210WliSTSANJACINTOAVENUE · PERRIS, CALIFORa'qlA92570 · (909) 657-3183
jULY 5, 1995
TO:
ATrEN:
PLANNING DEPARTM]~xlT
MATTI-IKW FAGAN
PA94-0128
Witit respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the Fixe
Department recommends the following fire protection meisures be provided in accordance with
City of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fixe protection mndards:
The fire Departlent is required to set a minimum tim flow for tile remodel or
construction of all commercial building using the procedures established in Ordinance
546. A fire flow of 2500 GPM for a 2 hour duration ai 20 PSI residual operating
pressure must be available before any combustible mate/al is placed on the job site.
The requixed fire flow shall be available from a super (6"x4"x2-2 1/2") fire hydra.at,
located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet fi~m any portion of the building as
measured along. vehicular travelways.
The applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the
water company noting location of the existing fire hydrant and the exBting water system
is capable of delivering 2500 GPM fire flow for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual
operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the applicant/developer
shall be responsible to provide written certification that fmaneial axrangements have been
made to provide them.
Prior to the iss-ance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to
submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecula.
TBiE FOLLOWING CONDr/'IONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
5. All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort.
~ RIVERSIDE OFFICE
3760 12th Street. Riverside. CA 92501
(9091 275-4777 · FAX ~909,269-7451
HRE PREVENTION DIVISION
PLANN1NG SECTION
79-733 Country Club Dave. Suite F. lndio, CA 92201
Install portable fLre extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a ceztified
extin~tisher company for proper placement.
Prior to find inspection of any buRcling, the applicant sh.n pmpaze and submit to the
Fire Depa~t~aent for approval, a site plan designating x~zluimd fu~ lanes with appropriate
lane psiruing and or signs.
Street address sh~ll be posted, in a visible location, minlm~llll 12 inches in height, on the
street side of the building with a contrasting background.
Applicant/developer shall be xesponsible to provide Or show them exists conedtions set
forth by the Fire Depaxtment.
10.
Final conditioms will be addressed when building ph.~ axe submitted to building and
All questions regarding the me-an~-g of these conditions shall be refened to the Fire IDepaxkaent
Planning and enginecrag section.(909)694-6439.
RAYMOND 1~. REGIS
b~hi~.~D~,~a~ner
hum Cabral
Fire Safety Spea.li~:
Water
June 21, 1995
RECEIVE,3
Mr. Matthew Fagan
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SUBJECT:
Water Ava~ability
Conditional Use Permit
PA94-0128 UNOCAL Service Station
Dear Mr. Fagan:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD/District). Water
service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement which assigns water managemen. t rights, if any, to RCWD.
RCWD manages the underground water basins within the District boundaries
and any accidental spills of hazardous material could poss~ly contaminate
these basins. To protect these basins the District requests that the developer
follow all Environmental Protection Agency guidelines. RCWD would
appreciate the opportunity to review a detailed plan of the area of concern. '
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
.i~'
St B
eve rannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
SB:SD:eb055/FlB6
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
City of Temecula
Temecula Police Department
June 19, 1995
Unocal Station
Conditions of Approval
The applicant must install security lighting on the exterior of the building,
sufficient enough as to eliminate any dark alleyways and/or blind spots in between
and around the building.
The applicant must landscape the surrounding area with low shrubbery type
plants, if any, and especially around the building's windows.
The applicant must post "No Drinking in Parking Lot" signs in the stations
parking area.
Additionally, it is recommended that the applicant install a security alarm or
closed circuit T.V. monitoring system of some type, that is constantly monitored.
If there are any questions regarding these conditions, please feel free
to contact me at the police station.
Sincerely,
Richard W. San~ez
Police Officer
Temecula Police Department
(909) 696-3000
Eastern Municipal ater District
· ~o~
December 6, 1994
Matthew Fagan, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: PA 94-0128 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
Dear Mr. Fagan:
RECEIVSD
0EC 0 7 ISS
We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which
describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below:
General
It is our understanding the subject project is a proposed
conversion of an existing service station (Unocal), located at the
southeast corner of the intersection of Rancho California Road and
Front Street, to a foodmart eliminating three existing service
bays while retaining gasoline sales.
The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer
service area. However, it must be understood the available service
capabilities of the District's systems are continually changing due
to the occurrence of development within the District and programs
of systems improvement. As such, the provision of service will be
based on the detailed plan of sereice requirements, the timing of
the subject project, .the status of the District's permit to
operate, and the service agreement between the District and the
developer of the subject project.
SanitarV Sewer
The subject project is considered tributary to the District's
Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF).
The nearest existing TVRWRF system sanitary sewer facilities to the
subject project are as follows:
8-inch diameter gravity-flow sewer pipeline aligned along
Moreno Road, fronting the subject project on the south.
Mail To: Post Office Box 8500 · San Jacinto, California 92581-8300 · Telephone (909) 925-7676 · Fax (909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San .iacinro Avenue, San Jadrno · Customer Servke/Engineering Annex:. 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hernet, C.2t
Matthew Fagan
PA 94-0128
December 6, !994
Page 2
8-inch diameter sewage forcemain aligned along Front Street,
fronting the subject project on the west.
Other Issues
The Representative for the subject project must contact the
District's Customer Service Department to arrange for the
following:
determination and payment of appropriate fees
plan check and field inspection of onsite plumbing
Should you have anyquestions regardin9 these comments, please feel
free to contact this office at (909) 925-7676, ext. 468.
Very truly yours,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
David G.
Senior Engineer
Customer Service
DGC/cz
AB 94-0941
(',vp-nrwk-pAg~0128.ch)
TO:
FROM:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DATE:
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Matthew Fagan
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, PA94-0128
The Depaxtment of Environmental Health has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit No.
PA94-0128 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in
this area,
PPdOR TO ANY PlAN CttECK SUBMITTAL, for health clearance, the following
items are required:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water agency.
b)
Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted,
including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order
to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For
specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022.
c)
A clearance letter from the HaTerdons Services Materials Management Branch
(909) 358-5055 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
i) Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4.
ii) HaTardolls Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3.
iii) Emergency Response Plans Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance #
,_ 651.2.).
iv) Waste reduction managemere.
ML:dr
(909) 275-8980
NOTE:
Any currein additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of
Building Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance.
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRPT~128PA95.PC3 9/13/95 nff 20
CITY OF TEMECULA
STA'nCN 65e
CASE NO. 94-0128 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
EXHIBIT - A
LANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
VICINITY MAP
R:\STAF'FRJrP, 12~PA95.PC3 9/13195 mf
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - C-1 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL)
BP
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - HTC HIGHWAY TOURIST COMMERCIAL
CASE NO. 94-0128 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
')it oMo'
/
LM ,~ L
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. 94-0128 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
EXHIBIT- D
'LANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
SITE PLAN
R:\STAFF'RF~128PA95.FC3 9/13/95 mf
CITY OF TEMECULA
_,,, , rdlltlttlllllllltll!l!llllr
CASE NO. 94-0128 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
EXHIBIT - E BUILDING ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
R:\STAFFRPT~128PA95.PC3 9/13/95 n~
CITY OF TEMECULA
. I III1AIAIIIIIIIliI IIIIIIIAIAIAI
CANOPY - ~ ELEVATf0N
CASE NO. 94-0128 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
E~XHIBIT - F CANOPY ELEVATIONS
,LANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
R:~I'AFFRPT~128PA95.PC3 9/13/95 mf
ITEM #11
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director
September 18, 1995
Draft Development Code
Prepared by:
John Meyer, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the draft
Development Code, take public testimony, and direct staff to
make any modifications in order to make a recommendation of
approval to the City Council.
INTRODUCTION
On March 20, 1995, the Planning Commission began the Public Hearing Process for the
Temecula Development Code. The Development Code is the primary instrument for
implementing the General Plan. Temecula's General Plan is a 20-year plan, while the
Development Code and the Zoning Map respond to shorter-term needs and conditions. Each
of the residential, commercial, business park, and other land use designations are detailed by
land use zones which specify permitted uses, conditional uses, and development standards
for each zone.
BACKGROUND
At the July 17, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed and
commented on the Consistency Zoning and City sponsored General Plan Amendment which
were then continued to the August 21,1995 meeting. At the August 21,1995 meeting, the
Combustion provided direction on 15 general plan amendments, and three modifications to the
Zoning Map. The Commission then directed staff to notice two additional properties to be
considered as General Plan amendments. Upon finishing the review of the map and
amendments, the Commission will review the Revisions Addendum.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT AND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
The Old Vail Partners have requested to have the land use designation on their property
amended from Professional Office to Highway Tourist Commercial. The subject property is
located along the south side of HWY 79 S. generally between Pala and Margarita Roads. The
39.8 acre site contains the Rancho Produce Stand. This property received alot of attention
during the General Plan meetings and staff believes the Office Professional with the Specific
Plan Overlay remains the best designation for the property. The Overlay allows for mixed use
including commercial but requires the site to be master planned, This will ensure the site's
development is consistent with the General Plan and compatible with the adjacent single
family development.
The Steven A. Bieri Company has requested to have the land use designation on its property
amended from Business Park to Service Commercial. The subject property is located along
the east side of FWY 15, north of Ynez Road. The 120 acre site is located within the area
commonly known as the Winchester Hills Specific Plan. The applicant is also requesting to
be removed from the Specific Plan Overlay exhibit within the General Plan. The amount of
Business Park designated property within the City, along with the site's freeway exposure
make the Service Commercial designation reasonable.
The removal of the property from the specific plan will allow the developer to proceed with
plans to develop a major retail user. However, the proposed Service Commercial designation
would also allow for a multi-tenant strip commercial center. To discourage the development
of a strip center, staff is proposing the creation of a new overlay designation. The overlay will
require the developer to receive City Council approval for the development of a major retail
center. However, if the developer chooses to develop a multi-tenant strip commercial center,
the applicant will be required to process a specific plan to ensure that the property is
developed in a comprehensive integrated fashion. The specific plan will also ensure that the
development is consistent with the Winchester Hills Specific Plan.
REVISIONS ADDENDUM
Because of budgetary considerations, staff will not be able to provide the Commission a
complete updated draft of the Code. The attached Revisions Addendum consists of changes
requested by the Commission during its review of the Draft Development Code dated March
9, 1995. The additions/revisions to the section are shown in R~!~ and the deletions are
shown with a str5kc c'--'t. Page numbers reference where the modified text is located in each
section.
Staff has not been able to address all the issues previously identified. Those issues staff is
still researching include:
Vehicle related issues as they relate to Home Occupations, Residential and
Parking Standards
Consistency of CUP findings
Acacia Properties
Definition of Terms
These items will be brought back at Commission's next Development Code hearing.
CITY ATFORNEY COMMENTS
In addition to the Revisions Addendure, staff has attached the City Attorney Comment Letter,
which also responds to questions previously raised by the Planning Commission.
Attachments:
1. GPA Parcel Specific Land Use Request Matrix - Blue Page 3
2. Revisions Addendum - Blue Page 4
3. City Attorney Comment Letter - Blue Page 5
R:'tDEVCODE~DRAFTDC.I~"g 9114195 v~w 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
GPA PARCEL SPECIFIC LAND USE REQUEST MATRIX
(J
/
II
II
!1
//
II
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
REVISIONS ADDENDUM
R:~DEVCODE\DRAFTDC.PC8 9114195 vF 4
REVISIONS ADDENDUM
August 21, 1995
The following Revisions Addendure consists of changes requested by the Commission during
its review of the Draft Development Code dated March 9, 1995. The additions/revisions to
the section are shown in ~ and the deletions are shown with a
R:~DEVCODE'~,EVADD18/17/95
Chapter 9.03 Administration of Zoning
9.03.040
(c)
Public Hearing and Noa~cation (see page
Posting of Property
See graphic at end of addendure
Chapter 9.04 Permits
9.04.030 Home Occupation Permits (starts on page 9)
(d)
(1)
Requirements for Approval, Conditional Approval, or Denial of a Home
Occupation Permit
The home occupation shall be conducted entirely within in a dwelling or
attached enclosed building and must be clearly subordinate to the use of the
dwelling for residential purposes. Further, not more than twenty (20) percent
of the gross floor area not to exceed 300 square feet, shall be used exclusively
for a home ~:cul,,on. includir. g art~ used for stornge. Horticultural activities
only may be cor-ducted oui&~rs, hill shall lie w ,hin the rear one-half of the
parcel.
(3) There shall be no ~ sales of goods or displays of goods on the prcmiscs.
If the Home Occupation is to be conducted on rental property, the prolaeny
owner's written authorization for ~ proposed use shall be obtained prior
the submittal for a Home Occupation Permit.
Chapter 9.05 Development Plans
9.50.010 Development Plans
(2)
~; '2, .m. crc Required (see page 1)
Development of an 'individual residential project (i~t custom home or
speculative house) is exempt from the Development Plan Process. Residential
Development projecti (merchant built subdivisions}' on'preViously for which a
tentative tract or parcel map is or was requimt. are not exemp~ from
submitting a Development Plan.
R:~DEVCODBRBVADDI 8117/95 Ires 2
An individual Single family home on u previously subdivided lot is exempt
from the Development Plan roquirem~nts. Residenl~tl Dcvalopment projects,
for which a tentative or parcel map is or was required are not exempt from
submitting a Development Plan.
(d)
(1)
· Hearing Procedures for Approval of a Development Plan (see page 2)
Approval by Director of Planning: When a proposed project is less than
10,000 square feet of new building area
~, and requires a negative declaration, EAR, or other action under
CEQA, the Dh'e~tor of Planning shall have the authority to approve, approve
conditionally, or deny the project. The Director of Planning will
'~c~^,~',:lc a noticed public hearing prior to making a determination.
9.05.020
Administrative Approval of Development Plan
When Required (see page 3)
Administrative review is permitted for applications for minor exceptions,
temporaxy uses, and substantial oonforman~c to upproved plans, and for
development proj~ts pl;:,7: less than 10,000 sq. ft. that are exempt from the
CEQA process, and for modifications to previously approved plans r~x~ewed
by the approval body.
Chapter 9.06 Residential Districts
9.060.020 Description of Residential Districts
(d) Low Medium Density Residential (LM) (see page 2)
The Low Medium Residential zoning district is intended to provide for the
development of single family homes on lots of ~ 7,2L~ to 10,000 sq. ft. of
net lot ~ea. Typical density for the Low medium Density Residential
Development is from 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre,
Table
9.06(a)
Schedule of Permitted Uses (starts on page 3)
Permit Congregate Care Residential Facilities for the Elderly in the L-2 Zone
R:~DEVCODE~,~VADDI 8/17/95 Im~ 3
9.06.050
(a)
Condltionally Permit Bed and Br~kfast F..stabli.~.ts~in. ~he. all the
Residential Districts (subject to special use standards and regulations as
discussed below).'
Add footnote to Family Day Care Homes - Large (7-12 children) as follows:
A CUP processed for Large Family Day Care Homes i.~ subject to lieal'.h and
Saf,'ty Code Section 1597.46 (a)(3). In aecordanee therewith, notit'- of the
application being filed shall be nailed to surrounding property owners within
100 feet only and the notice s'hall indicate .that unless a P='quest for a hearing is
made by such surrounding property owner or other 'affected person' the CUP
will issue within twenty' (20) days of the notiz. if a h~ring is rcque.~t~d, ate
Planning D~par~ment shall schedule such hearing w~thin thirty {30) days of
tt'quest and the hearing shall be held within thirty {30) days of being
sch~*.uled.
Special Use Standards and Regulations
Residential Density Incentives (see page 6}
Inc.reaag in the ~tl, m~ Ressdentqll Density. This section is exclusive of
density bonu.,,cs as established under the Sta,- Government Code Sec*.icm
~i~:~.~:.~.:~. A', a parl of the process...
(2/
Privacy Standards (see page 8)
Visual Screening. All windows of adjacent residential units shall be offset ~,~
~..i~i~.$S::.~~.~ from windows of the adjacent units, Screening is
to be achieved by appropriate placement of windows in adjaoent units and
through discretionary placement of landscaping, Windows shall be offset at
least three feet or angled to prevent dire~t view into an adjacent residential
unit.
(e)
Swimming Pools (see page 11)
Swimming Pools and g~ which are capable of holding water to a depth of 18
inches or deeper shall be located only in the side or rear yards or allowable
buildable area, with a setback of five feet from any property line. ----':~ ~
shall be enclosed by walls or fences no less than [ 6 feet in height on exterior
property lines. Pool ~{~ equipment ~';d :F~ may be located in side and
rear yards with a sethack of at least three feet from any property line ~;
R:~,DEVCODE',REVADDI 8117/95 hats 4
Senior Citizen/Congregate Care Facilities/Affordable Housing (see page 12)
Senior citizen/congregate care facilities/affordable housing developments are
permitted in the (L2, LM, M, and H) zoning districts subject to the approval
of a Development Plan by thc Director of Planning
Manufactured Housing (see page
The exterior siding shall ~ conaiat of either wood or
stucco as dc, terminod by the Director of Planning. In determining the material
to be used, the Director shall consider the types of construction materials used
on existing houses in the immediate neighborhood.
(j) Family Day Care Home Design Standards (see page 14½
(2) ~ Large day care facilities (~even (7) or More children) shall
not be located within 300 feet of another large ~ facility.
(o) Property Maintenance (see page 2D
(2)(g) "Vehicles as used in this section shall include but not limited to, commercial
vehicles, automobiles, trucks, ~~ trailers, motor trucks, semi-trailers
motorcycles, toopeals, campers camper shells boats or other large portable recreational
and commercial equipment; and,
(3) Reereaaonal Vehicle SWrage Yard'
Religious insfitl~tions are conditionally permitted in all residential zoning
districts. Religious institutions shall be developed in the following manner:
(1) The facility shall comply with all land use regulations and site development
standards of the zoning district in which it is located.
(3) All buildings r, hall hav~ a minimum 10 ft. setback from property lines
adjoining residential uses.
(4) Recreational facilities other than open fields shall have a minimum 25 ft.
setback from property lines adjoining residential uses.
R:x, DEVCODEXREVADD18/17/95 Ires 5
The buildings and .parking shaft .be locat~ to minimize impact on adjacent
reaidcntia] uses.
Be4i a~td Breakfast -E~ab]ishmc~Ls 01&.B's)' &r~ conditi0nally permitted in all
~sidcnt"ud zoning dislric~. B&a's ~ha]l I~ dcv~ol~d in th,' fol]owi.g
manner:
(l) The facility shall comply with all land use r~ulations and sit~ devclopm~t
standards of the zoning district ia which il i.~, located.
ensure compatibility ;wih~ '~sdj~nt 'residenfhl ~L
(4) The e~ct~rior appearance of the structure shsJ! hav.e.~.~sid.~nt~/.single.-.f.a~n!!y
character.
........... .......
(9) In addition to the residential parking requirements, 1 off;~tre~'ps~l~ing'~
shall be prov~dcd for P. ach ~ucst room. T-,mdcm ps~king sh~ bc pcnnitt~}~.
( 11 ) B&Bs shall meet all of the roqulrements of thb City Fire Dbpartment and
County Health ~me. nt.
(13) No Receptions, pri%~a~ panics or simihr st..tivilics,' f6r whic~ a tTee is pa~d
shah be permitted
R:~DEVCODE'~REVADDI 8117/95 hns 6
9.06.060 Landscape Standards
(b)
(3)
.Plant Material (see page 23,)
Street trees shall be planted at a minimum of one tree per 45 linear feet of
su~et frontage. Interior ttecs shall bc a minimum 14 gallon sizc at time of
(d) Landscape Design Standards (see page 24)
~'~r~ *''~~~;~ ~~ '~~ au setback axeas :shun be landscaped, ...
Chapter 9.08 Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts
9.08.030 Use regulations
Table 9.08(a) (starts on page 4)
Alcohol and Drug Treatment (outpatient) - prohibit in NC
Alcohol Beverage Sales and Ser~dce - no change
Adult businesses - Subject to Chapter 5.08 of the Temeegla Municipal Code
Cutlery - Permitted in CC, HTC and SC
Delicatessen - Conditionally Permit in NC
General Merchandise/Retail Store < 10k sq. ~. - Conditionally Permit in NC
Guns and Firearm Sales - Permitted in CC and SC
Mas~ge
Restaurants and Other Eating Establishments - conditionally permit in NC
Chapter 9.16 Specific Plan Overlay District
9. 16. 020 Procedures
(e) Findings (see page 2)
(1) The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan
R:~DEVCODEXREVADDI 8117195 k~a 7
9.16.060 Amendments to Approved Plans (seepage 4)
Amendments to approved Specific Plans shall be made ~ the same procedure as ~
followed when the plan was adopted. Any adopted Specific Plan may also be repealed by the
same procedure as ~~ the plan was originally adopted. Prior to the adoption
of an ordinance to repeal and discontinue a Specific Plan, the City Council, with a
recommendation from the Planning Commission, shall find that the plan is no longer
necessary for the orderly and systematic implementation of the General Plan. The repealing
ordinance Shall include provisions for the immediate application of appropriate zoning to the
area covered by the repealed plan.
Chapter 9.18 Village Center Overlay District
9.18.020 Procedures rsee page
(a)
Pre-submittal and Preparation of Village Center Plans
A preliminary application and fee are required prior to filing a formal Village
Center Plan application. A pre-application conference with the Planning
Department representatives is required prior to filing of the formal specific
plan application. This is intended to provide direction to the applicant and to
provide information prior to preparation of detailed plans.
(2)
Prior to the preparation of a Specific Plan th~ applicant shall hold a public
scoping meeting to identify potential community com:erna about the projoeL
Public notice of the ~oping meeting is required. Noticing procedures shall be
defined by the Planning Department at the pre-application conference.
(e)
(1)
Findings (see page 2)
The proposed Village Center Plan is consistent with the General Plan
9.18. 060 Amendments to Approved Plan (see page 4)
Amendments to approved Village Center Plans shall be made ~ the same procedure as
~S followed when the plan was adopted. Any adopted Village Center Plan may also be
repealed by the same procedure as ~~ the plan was originally adopted. Prior
to the adoption of an ordinance to repeal and discontinue a Village Center Plan, the City
Council, with a recommendation from the Planning Commission, shall find that the plan is
R:~DEVCODL~xEVADDI 8/17/95 hns 8
no longer necessary for the orderly and systematic implementation of the General Plan. The
repealing ordinance shall include provisions for the immediate application of appropriate
zoning to the area covered by the repealed plan.
Chapter 9.24 Off-street Parking and Loading
9.24,020 General Provisions
(d)
(3)
Location of Parking and Loading Facilities '(see page 4)
Vehicles and Equipment Repair Storage
The following provisions shall apply to any vehicle, motor vehicles,
motorhome, camper, camper trailer, trailers, unmounted camper, trailer coach,
motorcycle, boat or similar conveyance in all residential district, and to all
sites in any other district used for residential occupancy:
Table 9.24 (a)
Parking Spaces Required (see page 8)
Furniture Stores, Bulk Goods
R:XDEVCODI~!I~VADD1 8117195
, NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
Planning Application No. PA95-0123
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF 123
SINGLE FAlvlILY HOlvLES
APPLICANT:
Acme Inc.
PUBLIC FrF~ARING:
June 1, 1995
For Information Contact:
City of Temscula PLANNING DEPARTMENT
43174 Business Park Drive (909) 694-6400
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENT L~- I I ER
B~ COSTh RES~
FAX NO. 7147555648
Law' OffiCes
BU~.KE~, sa.x~LiEAMB & BOR.~NBEN
3200 PAR~ C,P_.NTE~ DP/"V*E
SUITE 750
COSTA MESA~ CALIFOENIA 92626
(714) 545-5559
P. OI
7108 North Fresno Street
Suite 401
Fresno, California 93720-2938
2310 Ponderosa Drive
Suite 1
Camarlllo, California 93010
611 West Sixth Street
Suite 2500
Los Angeles, Callfornla 90017
Lighton Plaza
7300 College Boulevard
Sulte 220
Overland Park, Kansas 66210
TEL=COPY
TO: John Meyer
cc= Gary Thornhill
DATE: 08/14/95
FROM: Greg Dia~
ACCOUNT #: 02351-006
SUBJECT:
Development Code
"AX #: (909) 694-6477
_OTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS PAGE):
E0R ASSISTANCE PLEASE C~T;.: (714) 545--5559
OUR T~T~COpIER NUMBER IS: (714) 755-5648
The information contained in this facstantle message is intended only for the
CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addresses named above. The information
~ransmitted is subject to ~he attorney-client privilege and/or represents
conftdentlal attorney work product. If YOU are not the designated addresses
named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the
designated addresses you received this document through inadvertent error and
any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communica-
tion by you Or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS
COMMUNICATION IN El%ROR~ PLEASE NOTIFY US TMMRq'~T__ATELY BY TELEPHONZNG THE SENDER
US BY H~IL aT TFa ~OVE-aDDUSS. Thank you.
MESSAGE:
Enclosed is my letter dated August 14, 1995 regarding the
remaining Development Code issues.
" .....~'dG"'i4'S95 ~ON'~'2! B~ls OOSTA ltF_.SA F~ NO. 7147555648 P. 02
LAW OFFICES
W~,L~ &SOP, E~j~
August 14, 1995
John Meyer
,~eniOr plnnne. r
City of Tcmecula
43174 Business Park Dfiv~
Tomecola, California 92590
R~: Realninlng Development Code lssucs
Dear John:
As requested, the following rcfiects my research into the outstanding Development
Code issues. The information you or the Planning Commission mque~__~_ will be provided in
a question and answer format to assist you in working through each of them.
Q.1. Is the CRy preempted by Federal or State law from regulating in which
zones firearms dealers and gun sales may occur?
Pursuant to thc F~eral Gun ConWol Act, 18 U.S.C. 927, them is no expressed
Congressional intent m occupy the field of firearms licensing. Any state or local regulation
would be perreliable unless it conflicted with Federal hw. Further evidence d this t,,¢k of
Federal preemption can be found h the requirements of the 1994 Federal Violent Crime Bill
which contains a prove'on that requires to be eligible for a Federal F'u-earms License, the
applicant must fust certify that Ms or her business complies with local and state licensing
regulations, (18 U.S.C. 923(d)(1)(F)). Consequently, if the local zoning prohibited tl~
of firearms in cer~in zones, such as a ~?.sklential zone or a neighborhood-com~nerelal zone,
th~n the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, And FLnmrms wouM deny the license if the
applicant indicated the same on the license certilication.
A aimil~r a~lalysis of State law indicates that them is no express preemption d local
regulations providing where firearms could be ~old and where they are p~oh'bited ID be sold
so long as the regulations pertain to ~e location of sales and not who is liceased.
..... ~,~-'i4-'~5 MON"~22 B~ OOST~ I'IF_.S~ F~ NO. 7i47555648 F. 03
John ldeycr
Se~or Planner
City of Temecula
August 14, 1995
Page 2
Govenuncnt C. txte Section 53071 provides that:
'Iris the intent d the Legishtnre to ocoupythewhole~eld d
v~ula~on of the rcgisWafion or licen.~ng of commercially manufzctured
firearms as encompassed by the provisions of the Penal Code, and such
provisions shall be aclusive Of all local regulations, r~-ln!ing to
X~gis~rafion or ficensing of comm~--hlly manufactured firearms by any
pollticzl subdivision as defined in Section 1721 d the t ~hor Code.'
Zoning regnd~fions are neither a 'registration" or "ficpn~Ing" mechanism for flinttins
or any other sales or m-vices. Zoning reg-l~fions are regulations of the uses to which land
can be put. AS such, if a zoning o~inanco ~oes aot allow far the sales of fire, arms in cemin
zones, such as a residential zone or a neighborhood-commercial zone, it will be pcrmis~'ble
under Star~ law even in light of Government Code Section 53071.
Can the City require a noticed public he~ring pridr to the consideration by
the City Council d Memorand~ of Understanding which start the process
of development n2reements between the CRy and !and developas?
The Memorandum of Underrending proems ud_i~4 by the Qty d Temecuh in
which certain understartdings are rc~ched between the City and land developers prior to
engaging in the formal development agrcement process unde. r Cvovernment Code Section
65864 et s~l. is a local creation. It is not provided for under the Government COd~
Therefore, the City has the option to utility. wh~tz-.;6 process ir chooses which comports with
due process. As a result, there is no legzl zu.?,on why a noticed public hearing could not be
held pdor to cons~daztion of a Memorandum of Understanding at the City Council level.
As noted at the Planning Commission session where this issue vras raised, holding a
noticed public hearing at the Memamndum d Understanding stage may, in many
circumstances, be px'~x~rc, With the MOU, developen are merdy asking the City Coancil
for an early 'r~____d" if the City Council would entertain a projea of a specific xlze and scope.
Many of the details which are most likely to be of interest to the public have not been
defined. When the particular project's enti~ement or the actual development agrecments arc
subS, the public will be provided notice of thc public hearings on thcse items at both the
Planning Commhsion and City Council levels, At that point, much more information will be
.... ~,~d2i45~lS'rlON '1~23 "B~ ObSTfi HESR FaX NO. 7147555648 F. 04
lohn Meyer
Senior Planner
Ci~ of Temecula
August 14, 1995
Pa~c 3
available for public consldcration.
Section 9.03.030(c), on the nedi,-,- to property owners, what options does
the City Council have to be able to oblain an updated surrounding
propmy owners list when a project hne been in the phxmlug process for a
considerable length of tlme and a substa~l ¢h_nqge in surrounding
propmy owners may have ~n,,~cl?
The City of Temecula cun~fiy vxvvides double the mount of public notice requited
for land use public hearings than is zequired by S~h- law. Slate hw only requites notice to a
300 foot radius, while the City has opted for a 600 foot radius and a minimmn number of
pmpe~ies to be noticed. In addition, the C,~ Council has expanded thc "posting" of public
hearing notices t~quired under State hw for "big' or 'significant' projects by requL~g a
large sign to indicate that a project is propo__~d for a specific property. State hw compliance
would be achieved by merely posting on the subject properties the same letter-size public
hearing notice generally mailed to prvpeny owners.
With the above a~ a background, pwviding updated property owner lists at some
subsequent dat~ raises some legal and practical di~icultiea. The legal diffwulties am that on
a certain dat~, generally thirty days from application submittal, th~ City is requited to
determine if the filing is complete. The "complete' ~ ,anation is based on having the
surrounding pwperty owner list included. Furthermore, vAth cet~in limited exceptions, once
the "complete' determination is made, the City is piohmiled from requiring additional
information, submitta/s, or processing fees to be paid.
As a practical matter, the City would have to determine at the outset what the
threshoM far requLring a new sarroundlng property owner Hst submittal would be. Are the
threshold projects that have been in processing for one year, two years, or those that have
had significant development ocaff on ptzvlously uudevelolx:d surrounding property7 Perhaps
the easiest way to both legally and practically implement such an additional notice
requirement would be to inczcasc the deposit required when applicants file to cover the
preparation of the surtoundlng property owners after that of initial subrn~t~l A xgfund of
th~s additional deposit could then be made if the supplemental smxounding property owner
list was not rgquired.
aUG-14-95 ~ON ~5:24 B A rEsa FaX NO. 7147555648 ~, 06
John Meyer
Senior Planner
City of Temecuta
August 14, 1995
Page 5
Very S~rnilnr requirements to those n~ ~ ~ jm~ on ~e ~ ~ mobile
homs nd mobH~ome ~. ~e ~ my n~ ~b~ mob~ hom~
~ido~ ~y ~d~ ~.
~e C~ d~ ~ ~e op~ ~ d~e ~ ~
mobile home h mm~ble for mobile home u~
~mc s~s ~ ~e ~on ~ ~e m~ home on ~ ~i~ ~e-~mHy
~d~ loU ~at it would ~ly m su~ ~ ~ity s~mre. ~e ~ty
Hmi~on h~ ~uld ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~m~t ~e
S~on ~5~2.3. Fu~o~, ~ ~HIhm~t Of a m~e ho~ ~k ~ d~m~ a
~i~ ~d ~ ~ong ~ ~ds ~ ~ p~ f~
~ ~ Gen~ P~. ~ ~ may ~u~ a Condi~ U~ ~ ~ ~t su~ a
u~ und~ G~m~t C~ S~on ~2.7.
~ty ma ~t ~e ~la~ of a mobile ho~ on a
lot.
Q.5. Section 9,06.030, May the City l, equL,-e a Conditional Use Permit for !ar2e
family day care homes and under what Fatalrations/circumstances?
The City may require Conditional Use Permits for larg~ fmnily day care homes in
accordance with the C~llfornia Child Day Care Facilifie~ Act, Health and Safety Code
Section 1596.70 et se~. The City may also eg~li_~h them a~ a l~,,atted use or may
establish certain performance standards as authorized by statu|z such as waffle, parking.
~pacing and concentration, and noise and allow all those who meet those standards to
operate. State law allows family day care homes of six or less to operate in a rcsidea~al
zone as a ma~mr of fight. Only when a home would have between sevea and twelve children
would it be classified as "large' and allow the City to reg,_d~t~- the use as a non-residential
u~c.
If the City selects the Conditional Use Permit option, please be advised that HP21th
and Safety Code Section/597.46(a)(3) moditi~s the CUP process as we have become
accustomed to it, To begin wiih, public notice is only provided 'to property owners withir~
~ of the proposed use and a public heating is held only if a surrounding propcn'y
"~1i4f8~ MON'i~:25 B~FOOSTAIiESa Fb, X NU. 714ib~64~ r. u,
John l~ycr
City of Tcmecala
Augus~ 14, 1995
hgc 6
owner or ottu:r "affect! l~erson" speci~ca/ly requests one. If no hearing is requested, the
Conditional Use Permit automatically issues. Because d the fight language d thh statute, it
does not seem to me that th~ City ~ the option to modify the standards such as increasing
the notic~ x~luisuiient as the City has done in other areas.
In IP. nns d implementing the Conditional Use Permit requixement, I suggest that the
draft D~velopment Code be modified to ~lect a footnote for Table 9,06(a)'s reference for
'Family Day Care - Large" to indicate the special pxp~___m'al tequixt~eats of Health and
Safety Code Section 1597.46(a)C3), This footnote could read as follows:
"A CUP proceased for Large Family Day Care Homes is subject
to ~t~_hh and Safety Code Section 1~97.46(a)(3). h a~ordanc~
therewith, notice d the applicalion being filed shall be mailed to
suHounding propea-ty ownas within 100 feet oaly and ~ notice
shall indicate that unh"'~ it request for a hearing is made by such
surrounding property owner or other 'affected penon' the CUP
will issue within twenty (20) days of the notice. If a headng is
n:quested, tlz Planning Department sha]l schedule such hearing
within thirty (30) days of the request and the headng shall be
held within thirty (30) days of being scheduled.'
I b. ave attached a more cOmprehensiv~ ordinance addressing l~rge Family Day Can: Homes
adopted by the City of Los Alamitos for your referenc~ in the event the City decides a more
comprehensive approach is desired.
Q.6. Section 9.06,050(n0, Second Units, Can the City mandate a minimum size
/or the second units?
Yes, the City is specifically authorized by Government Code S~tion 65852.2(d) to:
"... establish minimum and maximum unit size ~ents for both attached and detached
__~c_ond units, No minimum size for a second unit, or size based upon a percentage of the
existing dwefilng, shall be established by ordinanc~ for either atlached or detached dwellings
which does not pennit at-least an efficiency unit to be constructed in compliance with local
development slandards ...' As a result of lhe above., the City may establish minimum and
maximum unit size for second units, but must permit them to be at least as large as an
6 BUS COSlA HESA FAX NO. 7147555648 P. 09
John Meyer
Senior Plnnner
City of Temecuh
Aught 14, 1995
Pnge ~
The d~-'i~ion be based on wrimm
findings.
A denial of an application for a
CUP be raxbject to aptx:al to thc
City Council in sccordan~ with
Section 9.03.100 of this Code.
The same lnuxw:zdur~ for norlcing,
and conductin~ the CUP hearing
that is umi-~d by the City for all
other CUP's be used and ixovidc
for all partin to bc present and to
present evidence.
The derision and findings bc based
on subslantiat evidence in view of
th~ whole record to justify the
ultimate decision,
Th~ above businegse~ ,~hnli not bc located within
five hundred feet (500') of any reliffious
institution, school, or public park, The License
application shall be x~iew~ by the City's Police
Services prior to City's
Section 9.06.050(D, Does the State regulate outdoor play areas for faroIll
day care centers or does the City have the option of imposing a spw, i~c
standard?
In accordance with the California Child Day Care Facilities Act, Health and Safety
Code Section 1596.70 et ~., the City may establish certain performance smmtards such as
traffic, parking, spacing and ooncentnfion, and noise. As outdoor phy areas do not appear
an this lift, the Ci~y's authority in l~is regard is limited. Some jurisdictions have required
that the outdoor play annis be securely located and app'opx:m~y landscaped. This appears to
7 B~S OOST~ MHS~ F~X NO. 7147555848 P. lO
Senior Planner
City of Tcmecula
August 14, 1995
be the txteat to which lhe City can regulato the outdoor play areas.
Q.9. section 9.06.050(o)(2)(d), Does the U~fnrm Fire Code regulate 0arklug in
sideyard mbacks, Le., 3' from, structure?
The Unifor~ F'tre Code adotga the Uniform Building Code's, ("UBC'), rcxlulremcnta
for separa~oa or clear areas arouad "escape or rescu~ windows." UBC Section 1204
provides in relev-aat pan that:
"...[~]AII cacape or rescue windows shall have a minimum net
clear openable area of 5.7 square feet. The minimum net dear
openable height dimem.~on .shall be 24 inches. The minimum
net clear openable width dimension shall be 20 inches ...'
As a result of the above, parldag ira the sideyard setback is permissible ff the clear opaabl~
area is maint~ned. Cr.r~iu additional requiremeats may also apply such as fire wails,
building separation, or emergency access.
Q.IO. Table 9.08(a), On what bn~s can the City dk~fln_~uiSh between outdoor
swap meets and outdoor farmers ramfRets?
There is no legal ratuirement for the City to allow or prohibit either outdoor swap
meels or cuRioor Panner's marPets. Consequently, a cotui reviewing the distinctions or
classiticallons prepared by the City would look to the reaso-_~.bleness of the
and the different treatmeat resultlag therefrom. One basis for such a distinction could be
Geaeral Plan policies which seek to promote the ntral lifestyle of which a farmer's market
could be an integral part On the other hand, an outtlonr ~ngap meet would not fit those same
policies. Consequenfiy, a reasonable and rational basis can be found for distinguishing
between the two uses.
Q.11. Section 9.08.0~0(g), ls the requirement in ,hk S_~__!on for a 500'
separation from churches and schools and alcohol uses valid.'/
Business and Professions Code Section 23789 geaeraIly regulates the localion of ban
and liquor stores in P!n6on to churches and ~hool~. As to churches, Business and
AUG-14-95 lION 15:27 B~S GOSTA liF_.SA F~ NO. 7147555648 P. 11
John M~yer
-~eniar Planner
City of Temecuh
August 14, 1~c)5
hge lo
Professions Code Section 23789 permits the Depawn~t of Alcoholic Beverage Control,
('ABC'), to x~fuse to issue a license "within the immediate vicinity d church= and
hospit~h · As to schools, the ABC is autb~'~ to l~fur~ to issue a licens~ within 600' of a
school. The City's zoning anthority does allow the Ci~ some tiexibillty to set up additional
eriltn~a which do not conflict with Stn~ law. As the City's s~andard is mor~ restrictive, it
would likdy be valid.
Q.12. Section 9.2A.O20(h), Is the reference to =spechlhed work-related vehicles
specific enough to allow the City to differ~tbte between vehicle types for
on-street parking purposes and for purposes of prohibiting parking in the
driveway or fron~ yards in redde~tl~! zones?
As to parking on publio streets, it is Illrely that the City would only be able to
differentiate between vehicle ~ which are ddined in the California Vehicb Cede which
does not contain a listing for "specialized work-x~-3nted vehicle.* Even if the City can find a
classification which is defined in the Vehicle Code for on-sheet parking, the CiV/will need
to provide adequate no(ice of the local provision to avoid due process violations.
In 75 Ops. Cs.!.Atty. Gen. 239, the California Attorney General issued an opinion
which addr~-x~.~-t the issue of whether a City could prohibit the l~king of particular
categories of vehlcl~ on private pwl~,,rty, such as driveways and private commercial pa,rking
lots. TI~ Attorney GeneraL concluded that because the r'~lifomia Vehicle Code does not
mgul:u~ such par. king the authority to xegulate such parking would stein from the dty's
Constitulional polic~ power, 'rnus a city can ~gn,lnta parking on pdvat,, property to the
extent that it can xegula~ any other land use. The major issue therefore is whether or not
the ordinance provides sufficient notice d what types of vehicles are prohibited and how thi=
information is Wansmit~l to the public.
As drafted, Development Cede Section 9.24,020(h) does not se~m m provide enough
notice of exactly which vehicles are encompassed within the ~'m 'specisllzed work-related
vehicle," Thus, enforcement of this Section would pwlnbty vinhte due process because
people are not fflven enough notice of exacfiy which vehicles will violate the ordinance, ff
the City wishes to prohibit the pa~king of lhese types of ~ehicles on private property, the
City should either clarify the definition or list exacfiy which v~ic1¢s will viohle the
ordinance. Simply offering one or two examples in lieu of a definition wil! likely not satisfy
'~°~"~' ~' 8 B~]S COSTA ltESA FAX HO. 7147555848 P. 12
lohn Mcycr
Senior Planner
City of Tunecula
August 14, 1995
Page 11
due Ixoc¢~, thus tradering the ordinance unconstitotional.
Q.13. s,.efi_on 9.TA.040(d), Does the City have the authority to impose higher or
more strict requirements for the provision of hnndlcapped parking --
esp~a-ny wlth certain types of uses such as doctors offices, medical
buDdln~s,'physlc_a! therapy centers, etc.:
Am a matter of development staudard~, lit City ¢xmld impos~ nddifional or higher
standaxds in tea"s,~a of the number of handicappcd parking stalls xequired as a condition of
devulopmeut approval Such standards, if ~_,__t. xl_, should b~ established as a part of the
pcrformauce atandards for any zone in which lhe City de. sixes them to apply. The City cotdd
raHonally and legally distinguish b~n~en the types of u~em to which the higher number of
haadi,.~ped parking s~alh apply by focusing the City's efforts on doctors offices, mcdleal
buildings, and physical therapy centezs. Such additional standards, if used, should be
enumerated as additional performance slandards for the specified uses. The City does not
have the option to lower the standards for disabled parking or access provided for in Federal
or State law or regulation.
Q.14. Section 9.24.040(e), what, if any, authority exists for the City to enforce
the "Couapact Cars Only' de~igua~on on 'compact car" parking spaces?
Labeling a parking space "compact car only' may not satisfy due process if the inlr, nt
is to enforce this resui~tion. Neither the phra~ 'compact car' nor the phrase 'large car' or
'full-size car' are duffned in the California Vehicle Code. Thus someone cited for parking a
'large car' in a 'compact car' ~pace would llt~.ly viol_am_ the notice requirements of due
process because a ddver c~nnot tell from reading the ordinn~ce or the marking on ~e
parking space whcther Ms or her car qualifies a~ "compact" or "large" car.
ff the City wishes m enforce this type of restriction, the City will likely have to
incorporale definitions, with dimensions of "compact car" and 'large car" into ~c City's
Co~es= Additionally, the City may want to x=quire the words 'compact cars only' or
possibly sam type of signage be used in private parking lots to further ensure that the notice
requirements of due process are met.
ORANO~4549.1
John Meyer
Senior Planner
City of Temecula
August 14, 1995
Page x~
Q.15. Section 9.24,040(e), Is there any rslalrement thai tlme City keep compact
parking stalls as an option for developers to assist in meet'ang off-street
parking requirementS? Are there any legal problems associated with
· T~nliuetlslg coDapact parkhiE stalls a~ applied to future development?
I was unable to locate any geueral legal tequi~e,~ent that the City continue to permit
the use of compact parking ~ll~ To the extent that some areas of the City are covered by
Development Ageements ot vesting tract nmps, these vested en6~ameats my allow
develolx:rs covered by thos~ specific en~tlemen~s to continue to v~ existing parking
standards which may include the use of compact parking stalls. A brief contact with the
Southern California Air Quality Management District indicates that they have no mnndaW fur
cities to allow compact car parking stalls and there is no ~tiv~ fur cities to main~in them
from the SCAQMD.
Q,16. Section 9.26.025, Coveirene of Essesneait, Does the City have the authority
to sunend or release the Covenant if the land use entltlemimt by which it
was Imposed expires or termlnntes?
Coveaants of F~ments were created by Government Code Section 65870 et seq. to
allow cities to ensure access, parking, or s~mi|nr i~lP.~ could be addressed when one
property owner holds two adjo'ming properties and traditional real pmpe~ law would
provide that any easemeat in that a~tualion (from the owner to the ~ms. owner) would merge
into the underlying f~t: ownership and thus dissolve, The practical impact of this traditional
real property rule was to prevent the City from ensuring acc~s, paricing, ~ in this situat~n
which it could ensure by others not under common ownership.
The City does not have the option to amend the covenant ur to provide for the
automatic release uf the covenant of ea.zment when the underlying entitlement expires or
terminates. However, Government Code Section 65974 does speci/ically require the City to
esl2blish a release procedure for the covenant of easement which requires a public l~ring.
Such a procedure could also be used to amend the covenant if an amendment was necP-t~ry.
Th~ City Council may in the enabling ordinance designate itself or some other body of the
City, such am the planning Commission, as the hearing body. As a result, the covenant of
easement can be released, but a public hearing wR1 be required.
' ' 29 B~ OOST~ HESR F~X NO. 7147555848 P. 14
John Meyer
Senior Planner
City of Temecula
August 14, 1995
I hope the foregoing information is helpful to you. If you have any questions
regarding this malter, pleas~ feel free contact
Sincerely,
mey
crrY OF~
Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director
Peter M. Thonon, Esq., City Attorney
ORDINANCE NO, 589
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CllY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 107-95 AMENDING
SEL"I'ION 22r37.U, OF THE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES IN THE CITY.
The City Coun~ ot't~ Ci~_.ofLas Alamkos do~s find and ~ as fallows:
SECHON ONE.
WHEREAS, a vex~ied applicstion has be~x filed fix a c~rtain property., to wit: all properties within th~
corp~ra~ botw,h,ics ofth~ City of Los Alnmitos; and,
WttEREAS, saht v~dfied application constitutes a request ns provided by. Section 22-71 of the Zoning
Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Phmning Commission did on rite 6th day of Februm-y, 1995, hold a duly noticed public
h~tting as prescribed by law to cem,idet said mquea~ and.
WIIERF_.~, th= City Council did on th~ 271h chy of. Febmm'y, 1995, hold duly noticat public hearings as
pnsctibed by hw to consider said requ~g ~
WHEREAS, at said public hearlap, upon heating and co~idefing all testira. ony and axgumaxts, if a~t, of
all persons desiring to I~ heard, said Couacil considen:d all factors telaxing to Zoffmg Ordinance
Amendm=~ (ZOA} 107-95.
WHEP. FAS, pumaant Xo the pmvislona of tlu: C~lmm~a F. nvimnn~,~l Q,,~llty Act (CEQA). an
onvlronrneatal checklist .-rod Negative Declaxadon were prepaxed for the pruj~ a~ documonted in City
Counga P.~ohfion 1565, and available for public mvi~t b~xing lanuar~ 13, 1995; and.
Vatlc. KEAS, Zonini Ordinauc~ Amendment 107-95 is consistent with and implements the goals and
objectives ofth~ Clty's Gex~'al Pitre; and,
~, Ze~in,,' Ordimm~ ~ 107-95 j~ ia the ~ long range intorests of th~ camrmmity
r~inH.~ to ~ n~ br ~ ~l;~t ofr~ for ~ ~ u ~ ~ay ~y ~ h~ d~ W
Zoning Ordinance Ammlm~t 107-95 is consisteat v, ith th= land use d~velopmont goals and
of the c~ii-ammity.
SECTION TWO:
The City Council of the CiW of Loa Alamitos does ocdni. as foIlo,ss:
S,,~ion 2247.U. of the Los Ahmims Zoning Codes is ha=by amended by tepeaIing the words lined thnmgh
and adding the words uaderlined:
UG BWS OOS'I'A liESa F~X NO. ?14~555848 P. ~
Day C~c Centers and Lar~-Fami~ Day Cr.,c llsme~ ~ ~ m ~ ~apter ~c~ ~o ~
~ of a ~ u~ ~l ~d ~e followu~g p~io~:
Vtrc Deganmcnt approvs~ gad, · lis~ from the Orange Coup_ Social gcrdcos
Depnr~...es si~ll bc ob~i-ed prior m occupnng.' of the Day Corc ConWr or Lar~ Fn.-r. ily
Day Cm~ Hom~.
3. Off ~ parldng :hall bc pmvlded in ac~ordtm~ with ,~s:. 22 15.
Fa:rjly Day Care-Ho,,,m 3hall not be nubjcct to the provioion~ of $ection 1597.46. (a) (6)
ofthe Health and gafct3_' Code,
Day Care Centers and La~c Family Day Car~ Homes as defined in this Chaot~. subject to the
follcsidnn provisions:
1. Day Car= Clmters.
Off-street varkin~ shall be provided in accordan~ with Section
The vrovider shall secure the avvrooriat= child cax~ license, as requ{red by the
Or~r~e County Social Services De~art~mt. vrior to a Celtificate of Ocawancy
beln~ issued to lhe day care c~nter.
Lar~ Family Day Car6 Homes shall be a permitted acf~sorv use for &ve, llings loc~t~l in
a residcmial zone, subi~'~ to first obtaining a modified conditional use vomit as
Anplicatlons for modified conditio. nl use permits shall be ~bmitted to the
Community Development De~arUnent,
FOllowing d~e m:eipt of a compl~ application. the Community Develoomeat
Dq~mraent shall s~n,e notice oftl~ provosed use by mail to_ all un~erty owners
shownonthehleste~nmlizs~iassessmenLrollasownin~rr~iprover~wilhilxa
!O0-foot radius of the c~t~or boundari~ of the ptolx~.s. ed Large Farm'Iv Davf-~a~
H~me's property lines, Followin~ the Ion (101 &y noticing ~eriod. ~c Ceranmnity
1X-veloom~ Dinector shall make a decision on the a~plication within l=n f 1 O)
A public bearin~ shall not I~. held on tl~ am~lication unless a public hearing is
re~ueslcd, in writir~, by either th~ applicant or other aff~'cted l~:rson. '1~ public
hearin~ shall b~ held in a manner as pr~cribcd i~t Sections 22-69 and 22-77 of the
Los Alamhos Zonin~ C~de.
589 - 2
~UG-14-85 MON ]5:32 B~ 'OOS~R ME8~~ FAX NO. 7]47555848 P. 17
The Plannin~ Commission. in the ease of a public he~rin~: or the Community
D~,~lopm~nt Director shall avl~rqv~ th~ application u~on ~ndlnet that the Dro~os~l
use complies with all the followin~
Th~ ]La~ Family Day Care Home Is the etov~der's own t~sidenee, ~he use
is cleadv incidemtal and secondary To the use of the oreDeny for
residemial ourposes. and the facilin' may be oerminexl licensed child
suoervisor assisla~ts only s,~ t~iuired by the State.
The everation ofthefraeilitv shall comply with noise standards ex~nmined
in Article XI ofthe Los Alamiws Zonin~ Code and the Noise Element of
the Los Alamitos General Plan,
Chef-street parking shall be provided in aceorclance with Section 22-45.
The Dmpos~ use mu~ comply with all State Fire Marshal requirements
for building a~d safety xx~ich aPplY to Large F-rally Day Care Homes,
and xx~th all local bulldiner and fire codes ~hich anplv to single-f~milv
The Dmvlder m.~st secure a Large Family Dav Care ~ome license from
the eranee Co~nW Social Services Deoanment prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Use and Occupancy forthe Larle Family Day Care Home.
Play eguioment shall be Iocat,:d in a secu.r~d ar~_ and all Outdoor Play
areas shall be Im'dscapcd.
Thc La~ Family Day Ca~e Home sb~ll not be located within a radius of
300 feet. measured from the property lines of the subject Dronetry, of an
existine Large Femih, Day Car~ Home,
f8/
~ facility shall be otR, rated in a mariner so as not to aptRat as a
cu.u.¢nfial ~eration_ and the utoucnv shall be maintained to prtsem
tl~ t,~¢ral atq~arane~ and character of hh~ mid~ntial neighborhood.
If the at~vticant is dissatisfied with the decision of the Communltv Development
Director. the aPpliCant may appeal in writing to the Planning Cu, m,,ission ~
ten (10~ ctavs of the Direaor'S decision.
Tlg Community Develoument De~arm~ent shall be authoriz~-'d to coilcot a fce
n~-__~--ev to DrOCeSS the Mo~J_i~ed Conditional Use Permit for a Large Family Day
Cam Home.
Th~ City Council ,hall cer~ to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance by the City. Council and within
fi.fiz~m day~ shall ,nn~ tim _,~n,~_ to b¢ published in tl~ manner pwvided by law. Snid Ordmam:c shall take
589 - 3
.... ~UG-14-95 ~0~ i~:32 BUS~.,~TRII~.Sa F~ NO. 714~4~ r. ,o
PASSED. APPROVED. AND ADOPTED at a n:gulat n'me.~nE of the CiLv Cotmeal of the CiLy of Los
,~-,,~ims, CalLfomia held on this 13th day of March. 199~.
Mayor, Ci~'efLos Alnsm~os
City Clerk of the City. of L~s Alamitos
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY' OF ORANGE )
CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS )
SS
k Donna S. Velin, City. Clerk of rig Cit~ of Los Alanuros. do hereby c~'tfi~,' that the foregoing Ordinnn~
was introduced on tl~ 27th day of Febronty, 1995, and ,vms adopted on the l_~ day of Marck 1995, by
the following roll call voZ:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
CO~CILME~BERS:
CO~C~ERS:
CO~CILMEMBERS:
CO~CILMEMBEKS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk of the City of Los Alansims
589 - 4