Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout120402 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Ameflcans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to padicipate in this meeting please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE December 4, 2002 - 6:00 P.M. Next in Order: Resolution: No. 2002-058 CALL TO ORDER Flag Salute: Commissioner. Olhasso Roll Call: Guerriero, tvlathewson, Olhasso, Telesio and Chiniaeff PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1 A.qenda RECOMMENDATION: 1,1 Approve the Agenda of December 4, 2002 R:~PLANCOMM~Agendas~2002\I 2-04-02.doc 1 2 Director's Hearin,q Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for November 2002 COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If .you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. Continued from November 6, 2002 3 Planninq Application No. PA02-0387 & PA02-0388 Application to construct, establish and operate a 30,000 square foot office buildin.q and to subdivide the site into two parcels of 1.41 acres and 4.28 acres respectively, located on the East side of County Center Drive, approximately 740 feet north of Ynez Road (APN 910-110-045), Matthew Harris, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Requesting a continuance to January 15, 2003 · Continued from November 20, 2002 4 Plannin.q Application No. PA02-0223 A request for a findin.q of Public Convenience or Necessity and a Minor Conditional Use Permit to upqrade the existinq Type-20 (Off Sale Beer and Wine) ABC license to a Type 21 (Off Sale General) license authorizinq the saleof beer1 wine and distilled spirits for consumption off the premises where sold located in the MoraRa Plaza Shoppinq Center at 29762 Rancho California Road on the north side of Rancho California Road, between Lvndie Lane and Moraqa Road known as Assessor's Pamel No. 921-310~022, Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0223 (Public Convenience or Necessity and Minor Conditional Use Permit) per the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15270 (projects Which Are Disapproved). R:~P LANcoMl~Agendas~002\l 2-04-02.doc 2 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING. COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING A REQUEST FOR A FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY TO UPGRADE *THE CURRENT ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) LICENSE FROM A TYPE 20 (OFF SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE) TO A TYPE 21 (OFF-SALE GENERAL LICENSE) LOCATED IN THE MORAGA PLAZA AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, BETWEEN LYNDIE LANE AND MORAGA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 921-310- 022. 4.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. · 02-0223 A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO UPGRADE THE CURRENT ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) LICENSE FROM A TYPE 20 (OFF SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE) TO A TYPE 21 (OFF-SALE GENERAL LICENSE) LOCATED IN THE MORAGA PLAZA AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RANCHO · CALIFORNIA ROAD, BETWEEN LYNDIE LANE AND MORAGA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 921-310- 022. New Items 5 Planninq Application No. PA02-0271, PA02-02721 PA02-0273, and PA02-0274 A General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan land use desi.qnation from Nei.qhborhood Commemial to Community Commercial, A Specific Plan Amendment for the Marqarita Villaqe Specific Plan to amend the land use desiqnation of Planninq Area t9 from Nei.qhborhood Commercial to Community Commercial and amendinq the text within the Specific Plan1 A Development Plan for the desiqnl construction and operation of a 481427 square foot qrocery store, a 161640 square foot dru.q stor~, a 111230 square foot shop buildinq, a 8,780 square foot shOp buildin.q, a 61220 square foot shop buildinq and a 4,670 square foot shop buildin.q, A Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive throuqh at a 16,640 square foot druq store, and to permit the sale of alcohol at a 48,427 square foot qrocery store and a 16,640 square foot dru.q store located on the south side of Rancho California Road and east of Meadows Parkway Rush, Associate Planner R:~PLANCOMM'~gendas~O002~12-04-02.doc 3 RECOMMENDATION: 5.jl Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0272, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. 5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING. APPLICATION NO. 02-0271, A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PLANNING AREA 19 FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND' AMENDING THE TEXT WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN, FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF ,MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. 5.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERy · STORE, A 16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,230 SQUARE .FOOT SHOP BUILDING, A 8,780 SQUARE FOOT 'SHOP BUILDING, A 6,220 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING AND A 4,670 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. R:~P LAN COMIvl~Agendas~2002\12-04*O2.doc 4 5.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY 'PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0274, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A DRIVE THROUGH AT A 16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, AND TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL AT A 48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND A 16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: December 18, 2002 - Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 R:\PLANCOMM~,gendas~2002~I 2-04-02.doc 5 ITEM #2 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM Planning Comm~i~p.~ Debbie Ubnoskd~, Director of Planning December 4, 2002 Director's Hearing Case Update Planning Director's Agenda items for November 2002 November 14, 2002 PA02-0145 A Development Plan to construct, operate Perry Davis, Approved and establish a 3,719 square foot dental Rancho office building on .49 acres. Dental November21,2002 PA02-0311 The fifth and final Extension of Time for Pacific Approved Tentative Tract Map 26941. Century November21,2002 PA02-0544 A Development Plan to design and Westem Approved ) construct a 3,293 square foot expansion to Financial the existing Old Town Temecula Salon & Services, Inc. Day Spa building Attachments: 1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2 P:~P LA NN IN G~DIR H EA R~vlEM OX2002~November 2002.memo.doc ATI'ACHMENT NO. 1 ACTION AGENDAS ~PLAN N IN G'XD IR H EAR'dvfEM O~2002XNo 2 ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING November 14, 2002 1:30 PM TEMECULA Cl'r~, HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 BusineSs Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A tota 0f,15 minutes is provid6d'so members Of the public can address the Principal Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Sp~akers'are imited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Prihcipal Plan.ncr about a,n itemnot lis~ed on the~Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Ptlncipal Planner. Wheh you are called t~ spe~k, pleaSe come fora/ard 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 it6m is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. Item No. 1: Case No: Applicant: Proposal: Lo~,tibn: Environmental Action: Case Planner: ACTION: PA02-0145 (DbVelopment Plan)" Pen7 F. Davi~, DDS, R~ncho Dental A Deve!gpment Plan to constrdct,, operate and establish a :J,719 sq,,are-foot'dental-office building pn ;49 ag[es. Located at~29746 Radch0 Califbmia Roadion the northwest comer of Rancho Ca!ifornib. Road apd Lyndie Lane (APN # 921-760-013),' parcel 3' of PM 27232;. su~m.i~ed by Bratene ConstructiOn & Engineedng Categorical Exemption per Sectioh 15332 (In-fill DeveloPment. Projects) Rolfe Preisendanz, Project Pladner " APPROVED P:~PLANNING~DIRHEAR~AgendasL2002\I 1-14-02 ACTION AGENDA.doc ! ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING November 21, 2002 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Tem~cula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of ! 5 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)imioutes each. If you dbsire to speak to the principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the_Principal Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state ¥ou.r 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 speak, ers. Item No. 1: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental 'Action: C~e 'Planner: ACTION: Planning Application No. 02-0544 (DeveloPment Plan) Western Financial Services, Inc. '~' 41925~Third Street, Temecula A Developme,nt Plan to design and construct a 3,293 square' foo{ expansion to the.existing Old Town Temecula Salon & Day Spa bu!ld~ing located at 41925 Third Street Notice of EXemPtion per 'California Environmental Quality Act Article 19 Categorical Exemptions Section 15332 Class 32 In-fill Development Projects. Rick Rush APPROVED Item No. 2: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: ACTION: Planning Application No. 02-0311, Extensions of Time No. 5 for VTT26941 Pacific Centun/Homes and KB Home Coastal, Inc. East of Butterfield Stage Road south of Pauba Road and north of Crowne Hill Drive along the City's eastern limits. The fifth and final one-year Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map 25941. Determination of Consistency with a project for which a Negative Declaration was previously adopted (Sec. 15162 - Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations). Thomas Thornsley APPROVED P:kPLANNINGkD[P, HEARLa, geudask20tY2~I 1-21-02 ACTION AGENDA.doe ITEM #3 ClTY OFTEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning commission Matthew Harris, Associate Planner December 4, 2002 Office Building/Tentative Parcel Map (PA 02-0387 & 0388) The above referenced applications propose the development of a 30,000 square foot office building and associated two-lot tentative pamel map. The project site is located on the east side of County Center Drive, approximately 740 feet north of Ynez Road. Ihe applications are being processed concurrently. Since being continued to the December 4t~ meeting, the applicant has again requested that the items be continued to the January 15t~ 2003 Planning Commission_ meeting. The additional time will allow for design of building modifications. R:~D P~?,002~02-0387 Highlands IE?.nd Continuance Memo, doc 1 li/19/2002 14:47 949-760-7812 OTS PAGE 01 GIAA ARCHITECTS VIA FAX&MAIE November 19, 2002 Mr. Matt Harris CITY OF TEMECULA Community Development 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula; CA 92589 , · ~Highlands II Office Complex Building 'A' GAA Project No. GG001.11 Application No. PA02-0387 NOV i u ZOOZ Dear Mr. Harris, Duo to program modifications the proposed building will be modified and will require a further continuance for the Planning Commission meeting. Sincerely, Roger Deitos, Al^ Associate Principal GAA ARCHITECTS, INC. RD/na cc: Kirk Wright - GG Kimberly Stevenson - GG Gilbert Aja - GAA JT Kashyap - GAA GAA ARCHITE(~TS, INC. 4 Pork Plozo. Suite 120, Irvl~e. CA 92614 T; 949 474 1775 F: 949 553 9133 ITEM #4 CITY OFTEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commis~.,.~ Debbie Ubnoske/.Director of Planning December 4, 2002 Planning Application No. 02-0223 On November 20, 2002, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application 02-0223 a request for a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity and a Minor Conditional Use Permit to upgrade the existing Type-20 (Off Sale Beer and Wine) ABC license to a Type 21 (Off Sale General) license for the Stop Quick Mini Mart located in the Moraga Plaza Shopping Center at 29762 Rancho California Road on the north side of Rancho California Road, between Lyndie Lane and Moraga Road known as Assessor's Pamel No. 921-310- 022. After hearing the staff report and public comments the Planning Commission continued this item to the December 4, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting due to a split vote. Draft minutes for that meeting are not available at the time of this writing, however Commissioner OIhasso was informed that she could listen to the tape in order to vote on this item. Attachments: Letter from the Temecula Valley Unified School District dated November 12, 2002 - Blue Page 2 Letter from the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control, November 6, 2002 - Blue Page 3 PC Hearing Staff Report November 20, 2002 - Blue Page 4 R:'~M C U P'~.002~02-0223 Stop Quick Mini Mart\Continuance Memo PC.doc 1 A'I-rACHMENT NO. 1 LE'I-rER FROM THE TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Quick Mini :'C.doc 2 November 12, 2002 BOARD OF EOUCATION Dear Jalal Zora, Please nsc this correspondence as my profound tKanks to you and thc staff of Stop Quick Mini Mart (Temecula) for your continued support of Tcmecula Elementary School PTA. Your donation for our PTA was most gracious and I would like to take.this.moment to thank you sincerely. I am grateful for caring community leaders, like yoUrSelves, that take thc time and effort to assist with community meetings/projects on such short notice. This is a remarkable demonstration of your commitment and generosity to the educators, staff, administrators, parents and students of Temecula Elementary School. Thank you once 'again for your untiring supPort of our past, present and future endeavors. Sincerely, Amy M. Jones / Sharon Reed Membership Chairpersons Temecula Elementary School PTA 31350 Rancho Vle~, Road I Ternecula. CA 92592 1 {9091 676.2681 ATI'ACHMENT NO. 2 LE'i-I'ER FROM DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD STATE OF CAUFORNIA -- BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS Gover/h3r DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL 37 Main Street, Suite 900 erside, CA 92501 91 782-4400 November 6, 2002 c/o Stop Quick Mini Mart 29762 Rancho California Rd. Temecula, CA 92592 Re: Stop Quick Mini Mart 29762 Rancho California Rd., Teme~uia, CA 92591 This letter is in response to your request that the following information concerning the pending application for the above-referenced address be documented. 1. This department has received no protests on this pending application for licensing. 2. The applicants have requested that their existing type 20 (beer & wine license) be canceled upon the issuance of the pending type 21 (full liquor license). If the pending upgrade license is approved, the existing license will be canceled concurrently with the issuance of the new type 21 upgrade license. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (909) 782-4397. yesugator A~-rACHMENT NO. 3 PC HEARING STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 20, 2002 R:~I C U P',2002~D2-0223 Stop Quick Mini Mart\Continuance Memo PC.doc STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 20, 2002 Planning Application No. 02-0223 (Finding of public Convenience or Necessity and Minor Conditional Use Permit) · Prepared By: Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner R~=COMMENDATION: The CommUnity Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02- 0223 (Public Convenience or Necessity and Minor Conditional Use~Permit) per the~California Environmental Quality ~.ct, Section 15270 {Projects Which Are Disapproved). 2. ADOPT a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO, 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION O.E THE CITY OF TEMECuLA DENYING A REQUEST FOR A FiNbiNG OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR~NEC~ESSITY TO UPGRADE THE CURRENT ALCOHOL= BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) LICENSE FROM A TYPE 20 (OFF SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE) TO A TYPE 21 (OFF-SALE GENERAL LICENSE) LOCATED IN THE MORAGA PLAZA AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD ON THE NORT.H.~SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, BETWEEN LYNDIE.LANE AND MORAGA ROAD KNOWN AS.ASSESS~OR,S PARCEL NO. APN 921-310- 022. 3. ADOPT a resolution entitled: A~RESOLUTION 0E THE PLANNING CO, MMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPMCATI,0N N(~. 02-0223 A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMI'[.TO UPGRADE THE CURRENT ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) LICENSE FROM A TYPE 20 (OFF SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE) TO A TYPE 21 (OFF-SALE GENERAL LICENSE) LOCATED· IN THE ~MORAGA PLAZA AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, BETWEEN LYNDIE LANE AND MORAGA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSOR,S PARCEL NO. APN 921-310- 022. R:~M C U P~002~02-0223 Stop Quick Mini Mart~Staff Report.doc t APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT JalaLZora Stop Quick Mini Mart 29762 Rancho California Road Temecula CA 92591 OWNER: PROPOSAL: Jalal Zora A request for a finding of Public Convenience br Necessity and a Minor Conditional Use Permit to upgrade the existing · Type-20 (Off Sale Beer and Wine) ABC license to a Type 21 (Off Sale General) license authorizing the sale of beer, wine and distilled *sPir!ts for consumption off the *Premises where sold. LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING :~NING: EXISTING LAND USE: I~0cated in the M0r~a Plaza Shopping Center at 29762 Rancho California ROad' 'on the north side of Rancho California Road, between Lyndie-Lane and Moraga Road known as AsSessor's Parcel' No.'921-310-022. (CC) Community Commercial (CC) CommUnity Commercial North: (H,)'High Density Residential 'Sou. ti~ (PO)_Professional Office . East:'..CC (Co~nmunity Commercial) West:~ CC (Corfimunity'C0mmercial) Retail commercial SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Kindercare. Day ~are Center South: Vacant land East: Automobile repair Sod/ldo ' West: Automobile service station BACKGROUND: On April 30, 2002 the applicant Jal~l ,Zora submitted ABC Fori:n per S~Ction.239.58.4 for Off Sale Beer and Public' Premises Lidenses to {he City~of'Teh~ecUla: .Police'Department. The Police Department signed th~ ~applicati°n pursuant tO their 0wr~ process; Su.b?equently, Planning Application PA02-~223,_a request for .a'finding of' Public Convenience Or N~c~*~sity and a Minor Conditional Use Permit was submitted to the Planning Department on May 2, 2002. On August 2, 2002' Staff notified the applicant that in order f~r.staff to ~nake ~ recommendation of approval or deniar'they would need to file an aPplication With ABC.' =On August 13, 2002 the applicant submitted an application to the Department of Alcohol Bever~_'geControl Board, San Diego District Office. PUrsuant to the requirements of ABC, the application was transferred to the Riverside District Office on August 16, 2002. On September 11, 2002, ABC notified staff that there is an over concentration of "off-sale" licenses in the subject Census Tract number R:',M C U F%2002',02-0223 Stop Quick Mini Mart~Staff Report.doc 2 0432.16. After numerous discussions with ABC, staff notified the applicant's representative, Dr. Jihad, on October 10, 2002 that staff could not make the findings to support a further worsening of the over concentration of "off-sale" alcohol licenses in this Census Tract and would be. recommending denial to the Planning Commission. Following, the applicant's representative, Dr Sami Jihad communicated to staff that he would like to meet with the Director of Planning prior to scheduling the project for hearing. On October 24, 2002, subsequen~ to that meeting, staff informed the applicant that Planning Application 02-0223 would be scheduled for Planning Commission on November 20, 2002. on October' 31, 2002, ABC notified staff that the applicant had requested that th.eir existing Type 20 beer and wine license be cancelled when the new Type 21 (Off Sale General licehse) was issued. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Planning'Application 02-0223 is a request for a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity and a Minor Conditional Use Permit to upgrade the existing Type-20 (Off Sale Beer and Wir~e) ABC I!cense to a Type 21 (Off Sale General) license authorizing the sale-of beer, wine and distilled spirits for consumption off the premises where sold. Stop Quick Mini Mart is an existing convenience store located in the Moraga Plaza Shopping Center. The business currently offers for sale food items, beer and wine typically found in a grocery store and convenience market. According to ABC-257 (Planned Operation) 10 per cent of the total sales will be alcoholic beverages. The hours of operation are as follows: 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM Monday through Thursday 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM Friday and Saturday 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM Sundays. ANALYSIS: Based on a determination made by the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) there is currently an over concentrat!on of "off-sale" licenses within the subject Census Tract No. 0432~16 in which the applicant's business, Stop Quick Mini-Mart tis located. ABC has determined that there are currently 12 "off sale" licenses in the subject census tract with only 5 licenses allowed. Considering this determination, staff cannot make a finding of. public convenience or necessity in regards to the request to upgrade the current Type~20 (Off-Sale Beer and Wine license). The Planning Commission has developed criteria, which must be met in order to justify a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity. These criteria and staff's responses are as follows: Criteria to Justify Makinq a Findinq of Public Convenience or Necessity Q: Does the proposed establishment have any unique features, which are not found in other similar uses in the community (i.e. types of games, types of food, other special services)? A: The application does not meet this criteria. Stop Quick Mini-Mart offers packaged, refrigerated and frozen foods and beer and wine typically found in most convenience stores throughout Southwest Riverside County. Therefore, their business does not fill a market niche not currently occupied by other license holders in the City. R:~/I C U 1~2.002~02-O223 Stop Quick Mini Mart~Staff Report.doc 3 Q; Q: A; A: Q: Q: Q: A: A: O. Does the proposed establishment cater to an under-served population (i.e. patrons of a different socio-economic class)? The application does not meet this criteria. Stop Quick Mini Mart is expected to serve all socio-economic classes. Products sold by Stop Quick Mini Mart offer no specialty type items such as are found in health food stores and specialty stores. Stop Quick Mini Mart offers food items typically found in grocery stores and other convenience markets. Would the proposed mode of operation of the proposed establishment (i.e. sales in conjunction ..with gasoline sales, tours, etc.) be unique or differ from that of other establishments in the area? The application does not meet this criteria. Sales are anticipated to be typical of market operations. Are there any geographical boundaries (i.e. rivers, hillsides) or traffic barriers (i.e. freev~ays, major roads, major intersections) separating the proposed establishment from other establishments? The al~pliCation does not meet this criteria. The shopping center, in which Stop Quick Mini Mart is located; is in an area, which is fully urbanized and is bordered by major roadways Such as Rancho California Road to the south and Lyndie Lane to the west. Is the proposed establishment Io~ated in an area~where there'is'a significant influx of population during certain seasonal periods? The application does not meet this criteria. Populat!on .in the area is expected to be seasonally stable, but increasing as the adjacent multi-family and single-family residential areas continue to attract development. Is there a proliferation of licensed establishments within the Census Tract of' tl~e proposed establishment? The application will worsen the proliferation. According to the Department of AIC~)hol Beverage Control there is currently an over concentratiOn of (7) off-sale libenses within the subject Census Tract (0432.16). Specifically ABC has' determined there are currently (12) off-sale licenses with only 5 allowed. ~ Are there any sensitive uses (i.e., schools, parks, hospitals, churches) in close proximity (500 feet) to the proposed establishment? The application does not comply with mandatory spacing requirement for sensitive uses, butis a pre-existing legal n6n-conforming use. Would the proposed establishment interfere with these sensitive uses? The application meets this criteria. The Department of Alcohol Beverage Control has concluded that the proposed use would not interfere with the Kindercare Day Care Center or the Church facility. Would the proposed esta, blishment interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their property by R:'~M C U P~2002~)2-0223 Stop Quick Mini Mart~Staff Report.doc 4 the residents of the area? A: The application meets this criteria. It is unlikely that the license upgrade proposed for Stop Quick Mini-market will interfere with residents east and north of the area. Residences are beyond 500 feet of the shopping center in which the licensee currently operates. Q: Will the proposed establishmeqt add to law enforcement problems in the area? A: The application can comply with this criteria. The City of Temecula Police Department . has reviewed the application for an, upgrade from a Type 20 to a Type 21 license and approved the ct-iange on April 30, 2,002. (See attached Exhibit) SUMMAR¥i ' ' In summary, out of ten (10) questions analyzed by staff seven (7) do not meet the criteria and three (3) do. Unless the findings for Public Convenience or Necessity can be made, the Planning Commission must also deny the associated Minor Conditional Use Permit. The following findings for a Minor Conditional Use Permit cannot not be made: Minor Conditional Use Permit (Chapter 17.04.010.E. 1 ) 1. The proposed conditional use is not consistent with the general development code. plan and the. The project has been reviewed for.consistency with these documents and staff has determined that the project is not consistent with the goals' ~nd poli~ies contained within the general plan and regulations, within the Development Code., The Department Alcoholic Beverage Control has determined that there is an over concentration of off-, sale licenses in the subject Census Tract Number 0432.16.~ There are 'burrently 12 off sale licenses in the Census Tract with only 5 allOwed. ' The proposed minor conditional use is not compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures' and the propoSed minor conditional use will not adverselyaffect the adjacen~ uses~buildings or structures. Although the existing mini market is consistent' with the: ddjacent .uses, it is not compatible in the sense that it is an over concentration of businesses with current off- sale licenses. The nature of the proposed minor conditional use is detrimental to the health, Safety and general welfare of the community. The project has been determined to be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community in that the project would aggravate an already over concentrated situation. The decision to deny the application for a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity and a minor conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. R:~M C U P~2002~02-0223 Stop Quick Mini Mart~Staff Report.doc 5 This application has been brought before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing where members of the public have had an opportunity to be heard on this m'~tter before the Commission renders her/his decision. RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Planning Application 02-0223 a request to make a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity and a Minor Conditional Use Permit based on the information provided by the Alcohol Beverage 'COntrol 'Board and the findings of staff. If the Planning Commission finds that there is a Public C(~nv~nience 0'~ Necessity, tl~en the Minor Conditional Use Permit must be approved as'well. In' this case, ~{aff requests that the application be continued to the December 4, 2002 Planning Commission in order to p~:e~pare the necessary findings, conditions and resolutions. ATrACHMENTS: - o 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. PC Resolution of Denial for the request of Public'Convenience or Necessity '-'BlUe 7 PC Resolution of Denial for a Minor Conditional Use Permit - Blue Page 12 Exhibits - Blue Page i 6 A. Vicinity Map Left, er from ABC License Action Request - Blue page 18 ., Letter from Applicant's Representative - Blue Page 19. DeClaration of Service ABC - Blue Page 20 Letter from ABC ~egarding over concentration - Blue Page 2,1 Application to ABC in San D!ego - Blue Page 22 ABC Form per Section 23958.4 -~ Blue Page 23 Letter'of ;JustificatiOn - Blue'Page 24 Letter requesting finding of Public Convenience or Necessity with attached signed petition - Blue Page 25 .,, Letter requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit - Blue Page 26 Letter requesting approval of Zoning Affidavit - Blue Page 27 Page R:'~M C U P~002~02-0223 Stop Quick Mini Mart~Staff Report.doc 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PLANNING.COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2002- FOR A FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY R%M C 7 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ~EMECULA DENYING A REQUEST FOR A FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY TO UPGRADE THE CURRENT ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC). LICENSE FROM A TYPE 20 (OFF SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE) TO A TYPE 2! (OFF-SALE GENERAL MCENSE)+ LOCATED .IN. THE MORAGA PLAZA AT 29762 R ~AN. CHO CALIFORNIA ROAD ON,THE NORTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, BETWEEN LYNDIE LANE AND MORAGA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 921-310- 022. WHEREAS, Jalal Zora, filed a req'uest for a Finding of. Public Convenie~nce and Necessity, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; and WHEREAS, 'the request for a-Finding of Public Convenience and. Necessity was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; and ~ .~. WHEREAS, the application was processed in accordance with t~e .California Environmental Quality Act; and · wHEREAS, the Planning'~ :Commission held a duly noticed public heariqg~on N,?ember 20 200.2 .to consider t. he applic tion; and ' WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the requ,est for a ~iDding of Public~ Convenience and Necessity at a duly noticed pUblic hearing a.s preSCribedby .Ib.~ ai'.which time' the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; and ~ .- ~. ~, WHEREAS, at the conclusion of'the Planning commissi0~ and after due c0nsideration of the staff report and public testimony, the Planning Commission denied the request for a Finding Public Convenience or Necessity; and - .~ NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION oF THE (.~ITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOEVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: . ~ Section 1. That the above recitations are true~ and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in denying the request for a Finding Public Convenience or Necessity hereby makes the following findings: Criteria to Justify Makinq a Findinq of Public Convenience or Necessity O.. Does the proposed establishment have any unique features, which are not found in other similar uses in the community (i.e. types of games, types of food, other special services)? R:',M C U 1:~200LA02-0223 Stop Quick Mini Mart~Staff Report. doc 8 A: The application does not meet this criteria. Stop Quick Mini-Mart offers packaged, refrigerated and frozen foods and beer and wine typically found in most convenience stores throughout Southwest Riverside County. Therefore, their business does not fill a market niche not currently occupied by other license holders in the City. Q: Does the proposed establishment cater to an under,-~erved pdpUlation (i.e. patrons of a different sOCio,ecobomic cldss) ? A: The appliCation does not m~et this criteria. ,Stop Quick Mini Mart is. expected to serve all socio-eC°,nomiq classes.. Products sold bY Stop Quick Mini Mart offer no specialty type items such as are found in health food Sto~'eS and specialty stores. Stop Quick Mini Mart offers food item~ typically.found in grocery stores and other convenience markets. Q: Would the proposed mode of operation of the proposed establishment (i.e. sales in · conjunction with gasoline sales, tours, etc.) be unique or differ f~om that of other establishments in the area? A: The application does not meet this criteria. Sales are anticipated to be typical of market operations. - Q: Are there any geographical boundaries (i.e. rivers, hillsides) or traffic barders (i.e. freeway, s, major roads, major intersections) separating the proposed establishment from other establishments? A: T~ application does not meet this criteria. The shopping center, in which Stop Quick '. "~ Mi'~i Mart is located, i~ in an. are~, Which is fbily .urbanized and is bo~:d~red 'by major roadways such as Rancho California Road to the south and Lyndie Lane to the wesf~ Is the proposed establishment lOCated m an area where there is a significant influx of populatioh during detrain seasonal periods? A: The application does not meet this criteria. Population in the area is expected to be. seasonally stable, but increasing as the adjacent multi-family and sing[e-family residential areas continue to attradt development. Q: Is there a proliferation of licensed establishments within the Census Tract ~of,the proposed establishment? A: The application will worsen the prolife'mtion.' Accbrding to th~· DePart~e'nt of AlCOhol Beverage Control there is currently an over concentration of (7) off-sale licenses within the subject Census Tract (0432.16). SPecifically ABC has determined there are currently (12) off-sale licenses with only 5 allowed. O-. A: Q: Are there any sensitive uses (i.e., schools, parks, hospitals, churches) in close proximity (500 feet) to the proposed establishment? " The application doe~ not comply with mandatory spacing requirement for sensitive uses, but is a pre-existing legal non-conforming use. Would the proposed establishment interfere with these sensitive uses? R:~,M C U 1:~2002~02-0223 Stop Quick Mini Mart~Staff Report.doc 9 A: The application meets this criteria. The Department of Alcohol. Bbverage Control has concluded that the proposed use would not interfere With the Kindercare Day Care Center or the Church facility. Q: Would the proposed establishment interfere with, the qui~t..enjoyment of their property by the residents of the area. A: ~he appli~a~ti0n mi~ts thi§ briteria. It is Unliki~iy that the ii~e~se upgr~d~iProposed f~i' Stop Quick Mini-market will interfere with residents east and north 'of the' area. Residences are beyond 500 feet of. the shopping center in which the licensee currently. operates, Q: Will the proposed establishment add id/aw en~°~ement i~roblems in the area? A: The application can comply with thi~ criteria. 'The City of T~mec~la Police Depa'rtment has reviewed the application for an.upgr~ade from a ~TyPe 20 to a Type 21 liCense and approved the change on April 30, 2002; (See attached Exhibit) Section3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0223 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved). This section applies when a public agency · rejects or d~sapproves the proposed project Section4. PASSED, APPROVED· AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 20th day of November 2002. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary {SEAL} R:',M C U P~2002~02-0223 Stop Quick Mini Mart~Staff Report,doc 10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RI~/ERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I,' Dbbbie Ubnosk(~. Secretary of the Temecula 'Plannin~ Commission, do h,ei'eby certify that PC Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held.on the 20~ day of November, 2002, by the following, vote: ..... AYES: pLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ' NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIn: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: · PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: · pLANNiNG ,COMMiSsiONERS:~ Debbie Ubnoske; S~ecretary" R:~VI C U P~?_002~02-0223 Stop Quick Mini Mart~Staff Report.doc 11 ATFACHMENT NO. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2002- FOR A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PC RESoLuTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA.DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0223 A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO UPGRADE THE CURRENT ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) LICENSE FROM A TYPE 20.(OFF SALE BEER AND WINE LICEN~SE) TO A TYPE 21 (OFF-SALE GENERAL LICENSE) LOCATED IN THE MORAGA PLAZA AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, BETWEEN LYNDIE LANE AND MORAGA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 921-310- 022. WHEREAS' Ja!gi' Z0ra, filed Plannir~g Application No~ 02-0223,. in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; and WHEREAS, Planning Application No.02-0223 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; and ~ WHEREAS, the ~pplication Was procesSed in ac~cordance with the California Envi'ronmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 20, 2002 to consider the application; and · '.. ,WHEREAS, the I~lanning Commission COnSidered Plapning Application d2-0~ at a duly Oo,ticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and inte, rest~d' persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to .this matter; and WHEREAS, at the conclu, sion.o~ the P!anning,Comm, ission and after due consideration of the staff report and public testimony, the Planning Commission denied the request for a Minor Conditional Use Permit; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in denying the request for a Finding Public Convenience and Necessity hereby makes the following findings: The proposed conditional use is not consistent with the general plan and the development code. The project has been reviewed for consistency with these documents and staff has determined that the project is not consistent with the goals and policies contained within the general plan and regulations within the Development Code. The Department Alcoholic Beverage Control has determined that there is an over concentration of off- R;~Vl C U P~002~02-0223 Stop Quick Mini Mart~Staff Report.doc 13 sale licenses in the subject Census Tract Number 0432.16. There are currently 12 off sale licenses in the Census Tract with only 5 allowed. The proposed minor c.onditional use is not comPatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, bu dings and structures' and the proposed minor conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or 'structures. Although the existing mini market is consistent with the adjacent uses, it is net compatible in the sense that ii is an over concentration .of businesses with current off- sale licenses. 3~ The nature of the proposed minor Conditional use is detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. ~ The project has been determined to be detrimental to the health, safe~y a. nd genera/ welfare of the community in that 'the project would aggravate an~ ~/ready over concentrated situation. ~ ~' ", The decision to deny the 'application for a finding of Public Conveniencb~0r Necessity and a minor conditional Use permit is based on substantial evidehce in view of the rec(~'d as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. This· application has been brought before the Planning Commission at a Public Hedring where members o,f the public have had an opportunity to be heard on this matter before the'Commission renders her/his decision. · ' ~ : ~ ,;' ~ ' ' Section3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for ~lanning ApPliCation No. 02-022'3 was made per the California En~ronmental Quahty Act Guidelines, Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved). This section applies when a public agenCY rejects or disapproves the proposed project Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City' of Temecula Planning CommissiOn this 20th daY of Novembe~ 2002. ' ' ~ A'I-I'EST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson {SEAL} R:',M C U P'~.002~02-0223 Stop Quick Mini Mart\Stalf Report.doc 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a r~gular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of November, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~M C U P~2002',02-0223 Stop Quick Mini Mart~Staff Report.doc 15 ATFACHMENT NO. 3 F.~(HIBITS R:~/I C U P~2002~070223 Stop Quick Mir~i MarflStaff Report.doc CITY OFTEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0223 (Public Convenience or Necessity and Minor Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -November 20, 2002 VICINITY MAP R:WI C t) P~2002~02-0223 Stop Quick Mini Mart~Staff Report.doc ATI'ACHMENT NO. 4 LETTER FROM ABC LICENSE ACTION REQUEST R:~VI C U FA2002~02-0223 Stop Quick.Mini Mart~Staff Report.dqc CCT-31-2002 16:0B Dapa~ment of Alcoholic Beyerage Control Riverside.Diet,ct.Office -. '3737 Main Street, Suite gOO Riverside, CA 925ql Phone: 909-782-44OO Fax: 909-781-0531 DBC R I UE~ I DE 909 ?BiB~31 P. 01 · . .S~ate o! California · ' GRAY OAVt$; Governor Business, Tranapoltalion & Housing Agehcy MARIA CONTRERAS-$WEET, Secretary FAX TRANS'MISSION Total Number of Pages 2 (Including this cover sheet) Original: ElTo follow by regular mail ['~_Will not follow To: From: no: Sublt~t: D,,ebble Ubno~k~, Date: 10/31102 Time: 1600 Temecula ~s~i~, g Fax: .., . 694-64?'/ Lama Cardbouse Phone: : 90%?82-4357 Pending application for alcoholic beverage license at Stop Quick b-ff.I Comments: Per our phone conversation of today, concerning the application for 29762 Rancho California R.d.~ I a~, sending with this cover a copy of our form ABC-231 (License Action Request). At, ',tim.e of aPPlicatkJn with this department, the Zora's signed this form requesting that their existing beer & w~ne liCense At the above,premises be cancelled when the new type 21 (full liquorlicense) issues. ~,, ,. So, if they did gain approvaJ for the upgrade license, and the existing license was cancelled, there would' be no new license added to the census ~tct as a result of the upgrade & cancellation. However, the above obviously has no effect on the current number of licenses in the census tinct which' have resulted in an over-concentration of licenses. If you need anything,fu~her, please give me a call. Th NOTICE ~ is communication Is intended only for the uae of the individual or entity to which it is OIaddressed, and may contain information that is pl~vileged, confidential and exempt from I disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is net the intended recipient, ' I you are hereby notified that any dissemination, dislrlbutton Or cc~oying of this communication ~ is strictly prohibited. II you have received this communication In error, please notify us I Immediately by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address. ABC-?S (NI='W 2/01) "Be Energy Efficient" · 0CT-31-21~2 16:89 RBC R IUERS IDE State of California LICENSE ACTION REQUEST l~ead instructions on re~,erse before completing. Depadment of Alcoholic Beverage Controi SECTION 1 ZORA, ._J_alal..Od£ ah Stop .quick Mini ~art. ~P"m~s~s2~2 Rancho California Rd, Temecula 92591 21 UCENS~ NU~ER 20_,3782167. /i, Oi~r~CTO~-~ ..... * ' ~a~~ ~z~egs~d, SECTION 2 . CANCELLATION l'voluntarily cancel my liERase because I am ao longer in busingS. I understand my license ~c~nnOt: _be reactivated or SECTION 3 ' SURRENDER - Rule 65 '" ~l ' I voluntarily s~Tend~ my license for a period of ~(~l mom than ofi~: year. I intend [o E_]Transfer [-] Reactivate ' nsc [unde~;sta~dlhat(a)the~iccns~mu~tb~re~ew~atthc~im¢ren~wa~f¢esaredue~rth¢~icens¢wi~bcau~ma~ic~c~cd; ~¢ rice ' · .... · ............. :t '"t ~-ansf~'~4 or m.~ct yardi a,d (c) I must ~¢~.~... any'6~a~eiii~ my m~iling address to thc Dcpmm~nt . '-~lmmeaiately [-]Upon issuance :ot I iSdrmnder by;' : ."-~ premises abandone · .2.. . ..-- " [{5~OMEPHONENUMB~ I15. DAI~IBU~NESSCLOSEO ~17. OA~TESI~NED SECTION 4 < :' SURRENDER OE PRIVILEGES I~OR A SPECIAL EVENT . ~ , . · ~ ..... [20. PERIODOFSURRENDER ~,a~T.~at~e~l'lllle~ ' , SECTION -; REQUEST FOR RETURN OF SURRENOERED LICENSE ! d~cla;e undcr penalty of perjury that [here has been no change in ownC~S~p of the licensed busings, =nd thc pn:m~scs possess the same qu~fica~ons requlrcd for [he orion=! issuance of[he license. ABC USE ONLY ,--~-'.Letter attached requesting surrender, cancellation er return i'~]Accusation Pending (Sendcopy°fABc°231 forcancellatlonstoHQH&Lffaccusationpendlng.) $~ctltm 2: Original to HQ Lic; copy to DJstrict~le Section 3: O~iginal to HQ l.~c: copy to Distrlct ~le; copy to Sec inn 4: Original to D~srrict~l¢ Section 5: Odglnal + I copy to HQ Lic; copy to DL~trictJ'de ABC -~ · ATTACHMENT NO. 5 LETTER FROM APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE EXPLAINING ,CHRONOLOGICAL EVENTS R:'~Vl C U P~002~02~)223 Stop Quick. Mini Ma~Staff Report.doc 19 '~ STOp QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 Tel. (909) 699-7968 · Oetobe~ 17, 2002 ~ Ms. Debbie Ubnoske .Director of Planning City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temeeula, CA 92589-9033 Dear. Ms. Ubnoske/ Re: Plannin~ Aoolieation PA02-02Tt I do sincerely appreciate you returning my phone call and leaving me a message on my answering machine. As reXlu~ested, I am writing th/s letter on behalf of Mr. Zora to put everyttfing m writing for your perusal, consideration and deeis~oa I look forWard to meeting with you ance you have gone over the material I am submitting to you_ BefOre providing you with the pertinent informatio~i' I:wouldiike- to stress that the upgrading of Stop Quick. Mini Mart present type 20 off-sale license tO type 2i' off-sale I/cerise will not increase the number of off-sale licenses in the ' ' .... ~.~ present ceusus, lxact. It is a form of trade off ~The total of 12 0ff-sale licenses according to ABC'rePOrt (cop~ attached) will remain the same. Al~o most of type 21 licenses totaling six have been awarded to major companies such as Vous, Costco, Albertsons, Matablnc.and Food 4 Less. Theie are no liquor stores in the Morago shopping center where Stop Quick Mini Martis lodated. Herewith is the infonnatioi~ pertaining tO the above c~pt/oned planning apPlication PA02-0223 and in the chronological order ofdate~. · ~y initial contact with the Planning Dept. was on April 16, 2002 when I requested ~Mi~__e ~___e~? to, s.~gn ABC form 2?5(copy attached). He advised mc,that this should tm appruvea ano signed by Mr. Don Hazen.- · .on ^phi lS, 2002, I met'with Mr. Hazen'and reques~ him to sign form 255, since it is a non-conforming use fOr a lack of CUP. He advised that Mr. Zora should go .... · ~,~y to c~aousn a uut' tor thc location of Stop Quick Mart. I followed, his advice and acted accordingly. · On April 26, 2002, the planning application was submitted together with five site plans, the ~'equired fees, and a letter dated April 26, 2002 (copy attached) addressed to you regarding the CUP, and cusomers', necessity and conveuience. I was told that s/ncc fids is a minor CUP, the Plalming Director could approve it. On April 30, 2002, I contacted Temeeula Police DepL to approve and sign the form per section 23958,4 (copy attached) for public convenience or necessity. Officer Jim Domenoe signed the feral A COpy of this signed form was duly submitted to the Planning Dept. for record. High crime areas are among the concerns of the Police. Momgo shopping center where Stop Qniek Mart is located is not a high crime area~ While awaiting the processing of the planning application for a CUP, Mr. Zora was searching for type 21 license within the Riverside County to have it transferred to Stop Quick ~ On July 10, 2002, the escrow was op~ned with ABC Escrow Compaay for a purchase and tnmsfer of type 21 license. Copy of the escrow was sent to the Planning Dept. Consequemly, we kept the pJwaning Dept infornled of our actions. · On August 2, 2002, Mr. Hazen wrote a otter (copy attached) which ~s self4xplmiatoE¢ . advising Mr. Zora that in essence ABC Riverside would need to make the ultimate' finding of concentration lcvels in the eeusus ~'aet/n which his business is located. Since April 26, 2002 to August 2, 2002 no action was taken by the Planning Dept. to process Mr. Zora'splannin§ application for a m/nor CUP despite repeated phone calls. · ~ Oil .August 26~ 2002, Mr. Zeta had an a'ppeintment with ABC.Riverside for the purpose of processing his ABC application for a ~ license. In order to save time, we were able to have an earlier appointment on August 13, 2002 with ABC San Diego. Since ABC is a Stal~ Agency, applications.can be processed through any- of its ~r~s. peeti;ce offices statewide~ Pfl3C San Diego accepted.the application and in ~um forwarded it to ABC Riverside for appr0priate, action and foltow-up:...Planning staffwere duly informed and were kept abrea~ of all actions taken · On October 10, 2002, Mr. Preisend~nz wrote a letter to Mr. Zorn (copy, aRaehed), which is seW-explanatory advising him in essence that staff will be reeommendino denial of his application to the Planning Commissio~ This was based on the repo~ (copy aaaehed) seat by Ms. GardhoUSe of ABC Ri~o~!.e to Mr. I-lazen. ' 1. Tbe'upgrading of the present ~/f20 off_sale lieeuseto type 21 0fi-sale liceuse will ~lot ,add ~.other l.ice,nse to tl3ffpresent 12 off, sale licenses in the census tract. The umver wm remain the sa~since this will be an upgrade. I spoke to ABC Riverside supervisor Ms. Barbara Hofithly"(teL (909) 7824400) who cOnfLtLrmed tO me that this will be an upgrade and not adding another license 'and that ,there ghould be no Problem with that. ABC.Riverside investigator~MS, Lfi~a Gardhouse also confirmed that she has no problem with this upgrade, Moreover, the type 21: license being purchased is being transferred within the jurisdiction of the Riverside County. I regretfully had to disagree with Mr. PreiSendanz second paragraph of his letter of October, 10, 2002, which states, "Staff Can not make the findings to support a further worsening of the over concentration of'alcohol outlets in the census tract, and will be recommending denial of the appliCation to the Planning Commission on November 6, 2002." A~ain this is not an addition but an upgrade. Mr. Zorn has already an off-sale type 20 licnese at Stop Quick Mini Mart...His applleation is for a minor CUP to ~ul~zrade and not for an addition of a new license 3. Logically but not criticizing it should not take almost seven months to process an appliCation for a minor CUP (April 26 thru Nov.6, 2002). As a former four year Planning Commissioner for the City ofEl Cajon, I do understand Procedure. Mr. Zorn and I have promptly complied with everything your staffhad requested. 4. Mr. Zorn has over 500-signed petition supporting his appliCation for an upgrade to type 21 off-sale license. Also loyal customers who have been urging him to apPly for this license will be more than willing to show their support in person The signed petitions are enclosed herewith. 5. About 160 letters were sent to neighboring residences per attached copy of declaration of service by mail. ABC posting was posted on the front window of Stop Quick Mini Mart for 40 days for public view to voice their protests. As of to-date; no 9ne had protested Mr: Zora's appliCation for an upgrade of his present license. -- 6. Mr. Zora had complied with all the of the ABC and Planning Dept. requirements. I · find it rather hard at this juncture that Mr. Zora's appliCation is being recommended ~for de,ti to the Planning Commi~ion. This is especially true when I was told that the approval for a mln.or CLIP should not take more than four t6 six weeks to process. Your intervention as well as your input in this matter will be greatly appreciated. I have taken the time and effort to submit to you in details all the relevant documents · pertaining to Mr. Zom's request for a minor CUP. I shall be more than happy and willing to avail myself to meet and discuss thig case with you at your convenience. I apologize for the length of this letter, yet I wanted to be thorough in my presentation_ I look forward to hearing from you and once 8~in thank you for your gooperati0n ill this endeavor. ' Sincerely. _Sami Ji~, Ph.D. For Jalal'~om ATTACHMENT NO. 6 ABC DECLARATION OF SERVICE R:'~I C U P~.002~02-0223 Stop Quick_Mini Mart\Staff Report.doc Department of Alcoholic Beverage C'u,m'ol DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL Statc or* Calil~ornia plcte this form. attach thc original Form ABC-2OYE aud rcturll to ABC office listed heh)w. Instructions. Form ABC-528. for more illformatJon. ABC District Office: Department of Alcoholic Beverage 3737 Main Street Suite 900 Riverside,., CA ~92501 ,(909)782-440:0 Applicant(s) Name(s): ZORA JALAL OD1SH Control ZORA SANA ISSA Premises Address: 29762 RANCItO CALIFORNIA RD TEMECULA, CA 92591 . '~1,~ · do he?eby declare that'on q-~.C.-09.. I served by mlail upo,n each ~ re~d_e.q[.:? real property . ~owner of rca propcry within a 500-foot radius ()t' thc above- de~ignat6~ pr~'~iscs, by depositing in the Un ted States Mail. with postage fully- prepaid, a sealed envelope'contammg a true copy of the Notice of lhtention to Engage in the Sale'of Alcoholic of~:the applicant(s,), the'. 'Bcvcr~ges (~BC-2OYE). a copy; of which is attached he/etd, giving the name(s) type(s) of liceuse(s) applied for. the address of the premises whelre the business;iS to be conducted. addressed to the resident/occupant for 'each of the following addresses (If more space is needed, use ~verse or attach a separate sheet): &DDRESS ff~ t~Lo~, CITY ~daL~ ZIP CODE ] Continued on rcver~e Executed at I declare uader the penalty of perjuPy that the foregoing is true attd correc V;aL y . Cam,',,ia th s day or A~I'ACHMENT NO. 7 ABC - 75 FORM REGARDING OVER CONCENTRATION R:~VI C U P~2002~02-0223 Stop Quick M~ ir)i.~_a~rt~-'tafl Report.doc SEP-11-2002 I4:42 ,~C RIUERSIDE 909 ?B105~1 P.O1 Departmen! of Alcoholic Beverage Control Rivemide Distdct Office 3737 Main Street. Suite 900 Rivemide, CA 92501 [Phone: 909-782-4400 Fax: 909-781-0531 State of California GRAY.DAVIS, Governor Business, Transportation & Housing Agency MARIA CONTRERAS-SWEET, Secretary FAX TRANSMISSION Pages ~5 (Including this cover sheet) Total Number of Original: DTo iollow by regular mail [~Will not follow To: DON ~ZEN ' ' Date: 9/11/02 Time: l~O0 Fi~/Office: TE~CU~ PLANN~G Fax: ~9-694~7 From: L. G~OUSE Phone: - 909-782.4357 cc: Subject: Comments: Hi Don, Pending application for licensing for Jalal ZORA (Stop Quick Mini Mart) Per our phone conversation today, I am sending y6u the following: 1. Copy of the ABC-211 (Application) for Salal Zora dbaQuiek Stop Mini Mart 2~ Copy of a 1btm from our San Diego OffiCe (where they applied.) indicating that there is an over concentration of licenses in the census tract. ****Please.note - this is not one of the Riverside Office forms - I have no idea why there is a signature 1¥om Jim Domenoe from the Sherifl's Dept. They are not the designated agency to make the finding -.y~t~nt is. Additionally this form will not satisfy the PC&N requirement (I'm not sure why. ou used this form) - 3 Pnnt out of all current licenses m the subject census {~'act. I ctrcled a 1 of the off-sa e hcenses whmh are the subject of the over concentration isgtie. As you can see, them ~u'e currently 12 off sale licen,ies in the CT with only 5 'allowed. As you know, [ have been contacted several times bya Dr. "Sammy" who is apparently overseeing the application process for Mr. Zorn. I have advised Dr. Sammy to make sure that Mr. Zorn applies for a finding of public convenience and necessity with your department. I have also advised him that'thc form signed by Jim Domenoe of the PD is~not sufficient PC&N and will not be accepted by this department. ifyou need any further info - give me a call~ Good luck with this one! NOTICE his communlcal~on ia intended only for the use ol tho individual or entity to which It is addressed, and may contain ial'orrnefion that is privilege~, conlidentlal and exempt Imm disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message IS not tho intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, and retum the original message to us at the above address. ABC-75 (NEW 2_/01) ..~ "Be Energy Efficient" S~P-11-2(~32 14: 44 Census Tract Types 0432_16 2~ 0432.16 ~ ACT (~--' ~Ul ..... 0432.16 0432.16 41 ACT 0432.16 41 ACT 0432.16 0432.16 0432.16 0432,16 0432.16 0432.16 0432.16 0432.16 0432.16 O432.16 0432,16 0432,16 0432.16 0432.16 0432,16 0432.16 0432.t6 Jc RIUER$1DE 909 78~05-31 P.04 41 ACT 41 ACT 47 ACT 41 ACT 41 ACT 47 ACT 41 ACT  ) ACT 41 ACT (~ ACT 41 ACT 47 ACT 41 ~,CT CENSUS TRACT INFOMATION BY CENSUS TRACT WITH ADDR~i~ PAGE= 1 WHERE COUNTY IS 33-RIVERSIDE AND CENSUS TRACT I~ License licensee O .4 ~) Status Nam Premises ~.~,~ ~ v~..-~-~-.~ ACT 344564 MATAB INC 41925 MOTORCAR PKWY STE A & B, TEMECULA CA 92591 375967 35'677~--- 382869 369319 239394 350602 267700 273126 273918 378382 332041 277098 277639 378126 386439 382205 327197 339362 301725 304749 47 ...... -AC? ''3T959~ ..... VONS COMPANIES INCTHE 29530 RANCHO CAUFORNIA RD, TEMECULA CA 9'2591 -N..BERTSONS INC 29610 RANCHO CAUFORNIA RD. TEMECULA CA 92591 KERR BOYD NICHOLAS 41925 MOTOR CAR PK~NY STE G, TEMECULA CA 92591 ROUND TABLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 27644 YNEZ RD M7, TEMECULA CA 92591 NIHON INCORPORA I I:D 27576 YNEZ RD H15, TEMECULA CA 92591 BNLY CHRISTOPHER J 27644 YNEZ RD STE Mll, TEME~ULA CA 92591 VONS COMPANIES INCTHE 27481 YNEZ RD, TEMECULA CA 92591 FOOD 4 LESS OF CAUFORNIA INC 26419 YNEZ RD, TEMECULA CA 92591 BRINKER RESTAURANT CORPORATION 27645 YNEZ RD, TEMECULA CA 92591 GILBERT ~lZZA LLC ~26479 YNEZ RD C, ..TEMECULA CA 92591 . NMIPINC · 29760 RANCHO CALIFOI~NIA RD STE 109, TEMECULA CA 92591 CLAIM JUMPI~ TEMECULA 29540 RANCHO CAUFORNL~ RD, TEMECULA CA 92591 m.cuE , mOOS CORmF 'nON 26495 YNEZ RD, TEMECULA CA 92591 ZORA JALAL ODISH 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD, TEMECULA CA92591 BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC 27691 YNEZ RD, TEMECULA CA 92591 HAN CHINESE RESTAURANT ~LC 27536 YNEZ RD F21-23, TEMECULA CA 92591 S&LOILINC 26680 YNEZ RD, TEMECULA CA 92591 RUBIOS RESTAURANTS INC 27480 YNEZ RD STE 02, TEMECULA CA 92591 ARG EN I bHPRISES INC 27735 YNEZ BLVD, TEMECULA CA 92591 ARTEAGA I~LANCA CERVANTES 27548 YNEZ RD 1-13, TEMECULA CA 92591 'B/~A LOBS rl:H GROUP OF TEMECULA INC 27511 YNEZ RD El, TEMECULA CA 92591 .SEP-11-200~ 14:44 .~C RIUERSIDE 909 ?@1~t5~31 p. EI5 09-11-02 01:45 PM CENSUS TRACT INFOMATION BY CENSUS TRACT WITH ADDRESS ~'HERE C~O~I'~?T~-~-~'IVER~II~E-/~ND CENSUS TRACT 15'0432,16 PAGE: 2 . Tract Types Status Num Premises 0432.16 ~ 0432.16 41 ACT 0432.16 47 ACT 0432.16 ~ ACT 0432.16 47 ACT 0432.16 41 ACT 0432.16 47 ACT 0432,16 ~. _~_.ACT 0432,16 41 r ACT 0432.16 (~ ACT 0432.16 41 ACT 0432.16 41 ACT 0432.16 47 ACT 0432.16 41 ACT 0432.16 47 PE~D 0432.16 47 PEdrO 0432.16 ACT 362174 330743 338601. 384647 347332 388953 358980 EQUILON ENTERPRISES U.C 29750 RANCHO CAUFORNIA RD, TEMECULA CA 92591 TEMECULA FISH HOUSE INC 26700 YNEZ RD. TEMECULA CA 92591 SCARCELLA JOSEPH A 27525 YNEZ RD, TEMECULA CA 92591 DALLO & CO INC 27473 YNEZ RD. TEMECULA CA 92590 FLYING MARLIN EN I ~'HPRISE$ LLC 27495-97 YNEZ RD Al-A2, TEMECULA CA 92691 PI=I I=RSEN JARIYA 27520 YNEZ RD C1, TEMECULA CA 92891 DISTINCTIVE DINING INC -- 26440 YNEZ RD, TEMECULA CA 92591 388166 88 SEAFOOD MARKET .............. ~41~15 b~0T~R CAR PKWY sTE A-C, TEMECULA CA 92591 365166 MCKEE RESTAURANTS INC 41915 MOTOR CAR pIG~/Y STE D & E, TEMECULA CA 92591 363550 COSTCO WHO LESALE CORPORATION 26610 YNEZ RD, TEMECULA CA 92591 378560 NOBLE ADAM ERNES'[O GO~ 29760 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD D115, TEMECULA CA 92591 374912 TRINACRIA INC 27498 YNEZ RD. TEMECULA CA 92591 375833 SOBRECK LLC 26478 YNEZ RD. TEMECULA CA 92591 383587 LOVE BOAT CORPORATION 26480 YNEZ RD STE 3, TEMECULA CA 92591 380712 BI:lINKER RESTAU~ CORPORATION MARGARITA RD & N GENERAL KEARNY RD SWC, TEMECULA CA 92591 380627 GMRI INC MARGARITA & N GENERAL KEARNEY RD SWC, TEMECULA CA 92591 47 ....... P~EN? .. 3~98_3_7 ....... ~EC?..L~,. 0GGIS PIZZA & B~EWING COMPANY 41301 MARGARITA RD STE 101, TEMECULA CA 92591 - ATTACHMENT NO. 8 APPLICATION TO ABC IN SAN DIEGO R:~M C U P~002~02-0223 Stop Quick ~ini Ma[t~Stafl Report do~ sEP-11-200~ 14:43 BC RIVERSIDE Depa~mem of Alcoholic Beverage Co' q APP[,ICATION FOR ALCOHOliC BEVERAGE LICENSE(S) 'v 909 7818~31 P. 8P State of California partment of Alcoholic Beverage Control 3737 Main Street Suite 900 Riverside, CA 92501 (909)782-4400 DISTRICT SERVING LOCATION: First Owner:. Name of Business: Lt)catimt of Business: Couuty: Is premise inside city limits? Mailing Address: (If different from prentises address) Type of license(s): 20, 21 Transfcror's license/name: RIVERSIDE ZORA JALAL ODISH STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD TEMECIULA, CA 92591 RIVERSIDE Yes File Number: 378126 RoJeipt Number: 1384798 Gcographical Code: 3322 8-13 klvsd Copies Mailcd Date: ~['~ ,~,~, ,,_O~.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.~ Issued Date: '41c°h°/ie £e gOO Census Tract 0432.16 360159 / RAMNARAIN NIZ Dropping Partner: Yes__ No __ Xx Licenqe Type Transaction Typ, e Fee Type Master Dup I OFF-SALEGENERAL PER$ON¥OP£R$ONTRANSF NA Y 0 .I OFF-$ALEGENERAL ANNUALFEI! NA y 0 21 OFF. SALEGENERAL PREMISETOPREMISETRANS NA Y 0 D ate Fee 08/I 3/02 $1,274.00 08113102 $473.00 08/13/02 $100.00 Total $1.847.00 Have you ever been convicted of a felony? No Have you ever violated any provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. or regulations of the Department pertaining to the Act? No Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in an on-sale licensed premise will have all the qualifications of a licensee, and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the prn'.'isions of the Alcoholic Beverage ]Control Act. . .............................. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of RIVERSIDE Date: August 13, 2002 Applicant Name(s) Applicant Signature(s) ZO P,~_ J..A_ .L_A_L_ ? D~I S_H_ .... See_21LSignature--Page ................ zoR^ SANA SS^ ATTACHMENT NO. 9 . ABC FORM PER SECTION 23958.4 R'~MC FORM PER SECTION 23958.4 for Off Sale, On Sale Beer and Public Premises Licenses e CRIME REPORTING DISTRICT a~ { (3C~ NUMBER OF LICENSES ALLOWED ,. PREMISE ADDRESS: ,,[qT~? .~,4~c~4o e,4ll~e~,q t?O. , LICENSE TYPE: ~.¥P£ ~1 oFF- ~LE L~d~ LIC~ TYPE OF BUSINGS (i.e. Bar, Store G~ S~tion, etc.): ~ER EX~STING I O DISTRICT AVERAGE X 120% = = ItIGH CRIME (20% average) CRIMES IN THIS REPORTING DISTRICT /~ [A BEAT MAP NO. If the above premises are ldcated in an area which has an over concentration of alcoholic beverage licenses and/or a higher than average crime rate as defined in.Section 23958.4 of the Business and Professions Code, contact City/County official for completion of this f~nn. ~ 9_o~ ~---~pte.., = & L'o../. (This section to be completed by City/County Official) 4. WILL PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY BE SERVED BY ISSUANCE OF THIS OCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE? ( / ) YES ( ) NO Name of City/County Official Phone Number .Si~ature of City/Council Official Dale ' Under the penalty of perjury, I declare the information in this affidayit is true to tho best of my knowledge. I acknowledge that any fale or misleading information will constitute grounds for denial of the appliction for the license or if the license is i~ued in reliance .on information in this affidavit which is false or misleading, then such information will constitute grounds for revocation of thc' license issued. . (~ APPLICANTS: SIGNATURE: _. ' ..-~ATE: (Please Print) APPLICANTS NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: ,:..°'3r2~ 2 A;',q/,/c~to ~'~OLI KoA'NIA K~. , '7-'£t4EcttfJt , 6'/I c~25'~1 ~FFICIALS: ' MAI1. COMPLETED FORM TO: 1350 Front St., Room #5056, San Diego, CA 92101. San Diego, CA 92101 ATTACHMENT NO. 10 LETTER OF JUSTIFICATION' R:'u'Vl C U STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 Tel. (909) 699-7968 April 26, 2002 Director, Community Development Dept. 43200 Business Park Dr. · Temeeula, CA 92589 Dear Director, Re: CUP For Liquor License Upgrade Although I reside in Rancho San Diego, I have chosen Temecula as my place of business. I have come to realize the beautiful growth of the city with its state of the art shopping c~ters, business offices and affordable housing. Based on all those factors3nd the strong supl~ort of the City Administration for the business, I was very encouraged to have my Stop Quick Mini Mart in the Moraga Plaza Shopping Center, Temecula. I am proud to say that my mini mart is beautifully designed and well stocked to meet the needs and the conveniences of my customers. Stop Quick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provide its customem with such convenience, necessity and satisfaction that they deserve. My main goal and p~ is to have the mini mart a one stop-shopping mart. In response to my customers' inquiries and requests to upgrade my present type 20 off-sale beer and wine license to type 21 off sale general liquor license, I have conducted a survey to this effort. The support has been overwhelming as evident by the 500 plus signed petitions from my customers. I strongly feel that there is a need for a liquor license at Stop Quick Mini Mart to satisfy, please and provide my customers with the shopping convenience that they definitely deserve. There are no other liquor licenses at this location nor there are any churches, schools, hospitals, public playgrounds, parks, and youth facilities within 600 feet of Stop Quick Mini Mart. It is also worth mentioning that this a low crime area. Based on the above, I would very much appreciate your approval of the Conditional Use Permit for an upgrade to type 21 on sale license and consideringsame a minor change, as · there will be no major physical change,at this location_ This will enable Stop Quick Mini Mart purchase the type 21 liquor license to serve the necessities and convenience of its respective customers. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this endeavor. Sincerely, Owner, Stop Quick Mini Mart A'rTACHMENT NO. 11 REQUESTING PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY WITH SIGNED PETITION Quick Mini Mart~Staff STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 Tel. (909) 699-7968 April 26, 2002 Chief of Police Police Department. Temecola, CA 92589 Dear Chief, Re: Necessity & Convenience Although I reside in San Diego, I have chosen Temecula as my place of business. I have come to realize the beautiful growth of the city with its state of the art shopping centers, business offices and affordable housing. Based on all those factors and the strong suPport of the City Administration for the business, I was very encouraged to have my Stop Quick Mini Mart in the Moraga Plaza Shopping Center, TemeCula. I .am proud to say that my Mini Mart is beautifully designed and well stocked to meet the n6.~Is and the conveniences of my customers. Stop Quick Mini Mart ownership is determined and dedicated to provide its customers with the convenience, necessity and satisfaction that they deserve. My main objective is to have the mini mart a one stop-shopping mart. · In response to my customers' inquiries and requests to upgrade my present type 20 off-sale beer and wine license to type 21 off sale general liquor license, I have conducted a survey to this effort. The support has been overwhelming as evident by the 500 plus signed petitions from my customers. I strongly feel that there is a need for a liquor license at Stop Quick Mini Mart to satisfy, please and provide my customers with the shopping convenience that they definitely deserve. There are no other liquor licenses at this location nor there are any churches, schools, hospitals, public playgrounds, parks, and youth facilities within 600 feet of Stop Quick Mini Mart. It is also worth mentioning that this location is a low crime arm Based on the above, I would very much appreciat~ your approval of my request for necessity and convenience to enable my Stop Quick Mini Mart purchase the.type 21 off-sale general liquor license to serve the necessities and convenience of its customers. This is a team effort between the City and its business c~mmunity, and I am confident that my request will meet your favorable approval. I do believe in the City of Temecula, its Administration, its Police and its respective community. I shall continue to contribute towards Temecula's economic renaissance and growth through my present business and other future businesses. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in fhis effort. Sincerely, Jalal Zora Owner, Stop Quick M/nj Mart 1 2--1 a--2i3191 ~: 2gPM FROM "WE THI~, UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." St~ov Ouick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provide its customers with the satisfaction and convenience they deserve. Signatme t_ ~ ~-~ Date: Name /~/. ~,~O9~ Address: ~-qOa ~'~*,,~.o-~o.~ D-& Phone No.:('qDq5 5'~'~. ~Tt'~ Oate: Address: .,~'7~'z-¢~' Pt' 4t't~ ,~-~t2~l~ - f / -7 ' Phone No.: ~q& O~ i~ V~e: '--~1~ O~ Phone No.:-_ ..?¢)t -26 ~¢ Dine:. Z/~ ~ / 7~, 2, ' Phone No.: 6 7 ~O q & ' Date: :" ~/~ 7/w& Ad.ss:' ~qx ~ (~. ~. / / 12-14-20~1 fl-:2~M FROM P. 1 "WE TI:~. UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART AT 29762 RANCI{O CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." Sto__v Quick Mini Mart is de~ermined and dedicated to provide its customers with the satisfaction and convenience they deserve, PhoneNo.:(_ CJoC[ ~ ~ 7 3 - Address:. Phone No.: c.~'-~') -- ~003 Address: 31 ~ 4o Co ~ ~ k~$)'t~ ~ D &. ~£ Date: Date: Signature ~ ~ Phone No.: (~,~7-~4--~-0 Date: .2-- ~, ?- 0% Name /Z?/-//Z C//5~ ('/ Signal/re. Address: ~'~ '2.ff~ ~ar/Y/C Phone No.: ~-~ ?d-- ~9/z~ ~ ' Date: / Address: Phone N~.: , ~e:' . , ,/ Ph°neN°''clb~". . [$&--';~-7~ 77 7- Dat~'. ~'/A~ ..... ' Phone No.. Dine: Phone No. 12--1 d~2001 FROM "WE Tlq~. UNDERSIGNED, SuPpORT STOP QUICK MINI MART AT 29762 RANCIfO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." St__ov Quick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provide its customers with the satisfaction and convenience they deserve 'Address: 7ol.5 ~t_c1 ~"~'<,~ ~-4 '~_a/~% ,, Phone No.: 9/~ ¢2W 3/~2 Date: Phone No.: ~ 7~ ~ 5~ Dine: Address: Phone Phone No.~ Address{ Name /~-2~,,.), Phone No.: 'Si~nar,~e · ~ - //, / Date: 7,- 2 ? - o z._ 12-1~-2001 ~:2gPM FROM "WE T[4~, UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART · AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR:/, S_Lo2Ouick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provide customers with the satisfaction and convenience ltaey deserve .,- Phone ND.:(qq) ~ ) G~} t/_:[~g,~ Date:,t~//7 7f~ Z Phone No.: {k°~.(:C5) '-t 6,4 -"ad=l Co~i~ Address: q,3300 Bhocq, ,~ ~d 4t3& C ' · · / .'/~"- 1/- ' , .' ,e':m, PhoneNo.: ~¢?. "q-z-5 Date: Name ]~/WI~ ~¼,a~m~ Signature Address: Phone No.: qo~ ~o1;~74t{ Date: Name c,]/-A-o ~.~'~ .q ~,/! ./9 / S~gnature Phone No.: ? y z)-. ~- 6- ~ ~ Date: 2./2. ?/o~.. 12--1fl--2~01 4:~PM FROM P. 1 - "WE THE UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART · AT 29762 RANCH'O CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." ~op Quick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provid~ it8 customers with the satisfactiOn and c0nvenienee ~ey deserve Address: M~,-..~ Phone No.: Name .-- 7-z; .~,,'./-~ ..4~?~.<..-~- Address:. Phone NO.: Date: Address: //(y-t/t/ Phone No.:' Signature'% / Date: Address: Phone No.: Name..LI&~._<,: 13 Address:~MI (0 0 Phone No.: Signature ~ Date: 12-1~-2001 ~:29~1 FROM "WE T[IE UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART · AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." St_!o90uick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provide customers with ~he satisfaction and convenience fiaevAleserve, · Address: *L~q/c ~ .(x'~¢'~'Ot,./~/ff .... PhonoNo.: ~0'lq~-b~_ 0 . Date: ,2qL?--7/ / O ~ ' Address:.~'~02~,o~ ,~dS"/.'--v7 r.4/~c/~...~--- ' L~-,,~ Phone No.: Date:/~-23 Name ~,4~'~r ~/~. ~,_-~/~.,0 Signatur¢~ Address: Z?~s-~./~., ~-~,.,,.~ ~.~ %°,_ ..... Phone No.: Phone No.: Signa~. Date: Phone No.: LOT 3 -,,~%/[0 9~ Dilte: Afl.ss: Ph~e No.: q-%q %% fl,,~ 4 Date: 12--14--2001 ~:2gPM FROM P. 1 "WE Tl~. UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART · AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEM-ECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BgER & WI~E LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." St~ov Quick Mini Mar~ is determined and dedicated to provide its Customers with lhe satisfaction and convenience they deserve: Ph°neN~'~0~'-lQZx ' - ~ [i1{0' ' ' Date: Address: [),Oo -~ oX %°'t ..-.'h............~k_' ' Phone No: 7(e0-.%2.~-~7-.-~-~g)" ("q \ ~ZDaie. 'Z. 1"~71o'2 Address: ,.ff l q~ z/ ~, ['~/vl/-/--~_ ~ ~ · . / :' PhoneNo.: (~G~-vZ2 -o5't<~ Date: ~ho.~ No.? t qq ~_~ZDate: ~-g%--O 12-1~I--20[~1 d-'2gg~M F'ROM P. ! 'i "WE T~ UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART -AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORN1A ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE .ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." Sto~Ouick Mini Man is determined and dedicated to provid~ il,~ / .cUstomers w/th the satisfaction and conveaience they descry, e. / · Addmss:,,.~//q~2 ~A ~'/za4/Cc~~ /JA.~ L-~ Phone No.: ~g~7' Address: Phone No.: Date: Name ?~.'~o-- Address: '~c~ Phone No.: ~ - ~ ~ -~f<~ Phone No.: ~d~. Phone No.:- Address:' Vh0.eNo.: Phone No.: Phone No.: Ad~ss: Ph~ No.: Date: qo~- ~5 ?r-2o~y 12-1~-2OO1 ,d:2~c)M F't:~C)M Po1 "WE TI~. UNDER SIGNED, sUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." S_.!ov Ouick M/nj Mart is detenn/ned and ded!¢ated to prov~d~ its e_ustomers with the satisfaction and convemenee,lfieyA~a~-ve~..._~ A _ Phone No.: ~/,90' f~'7.~J:~7~%'" / Date: ^ g ~'y ~ g ' Address:. Te:,n'x e c o I ~-._ F~cx~, [ F,','x% , 9..'-] l PhoneNo.: ' - Date: °.2./~ ¢)'. q .Address: Address: ~q G OX'- Phone No. Date: o~-_ ~3~)=- 0 ~ · Address: q_ ,)~., ...L.L~. ~ ~-0~0 ~3gl - PhoneNo.:{ ,cf '30 ok ~c]~_ Date: ~:,~- o1.~- oTLDO L_ Name ('~ r~ ~?.t. iA Signature ~ ~/,~--' Phone No~: Date: Ptaon¢ No..,/- _-P'~-~. C /~.~, Date: ~ c~'-')'--c--~7.~_ Address:4z ? 2~ 5 toot ~'ao PhoneNo.: 6- q¢ q4 5'~ Date:e,?. 2¢.o7 t2--14--20~1 4:29PM FROM "WE THE UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA' 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS 'BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." Sto~Quick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provide its customers wi~ the satisfaction and convenience lhe¥' de,rye. ~..5~ ~ .^~a~,~~,.s~-(.-~ ' I · · Phono No_: ~ 7~/~--, --~/~-'} ~ Date: f~. ~ ~-~ 7"-0 o,~.' Address: Phone No.:' Date:, Signalm'e~ Phone No.: ~77-,,ofq Date: Z- ZT- ow_ . Name Address: /! ?' "WE T~'E. UNDER SIGNED, SUI~PORT STOP QUICK MINI MART · AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LI:QUOR.' _Stov Quick Mini Mart is det_Rxmined and dedicated to provkl~ c~ustomers with l~e satisfacti.'on and convenience they de. serve. ..-~ · A~a=ss.: ,2~ ~'?.~_"~. -:,_ .-'~J'f,' c~ 4' ~"b_._. c- ,- ~ / - ~ - Address:. ~.--~:-. - ......... ~ ~. Phone No.: Address: .~a/g2 ~ 7--~.n,~ ~do~. Signatur 4d~s:. f ' , x. . ). . ! ' Phone So.:~//,%..~,/: Cb. ;~o;Zom~t~i'! .~/,_cA ~' . Address:~O.~' C~L~ -a_~ ,. -.f:---; ~ ~;, , ~ ~ ~t( -- Phone No.: q L~ ~-OqxR. Date: ~ - ~~. 12-14-2q31~1 ~:~M FROM P. 1 "WE Tlq~. UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART · AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE .iTS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." StopOuick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to vrovide its customers with the salisfacti.'0n and convenience ~e¥ deserve. PhoneNo.:, tC~-Q: f--Z, g77f(F/~ Date: . /~ Phone No.: (ff~6 Phone No.: ~'~ V, - q ~ '~ . Date: 2-2.7-o'? Date: q,,-a--'l.,--a '" ' Address:' ~4 0q'-h /,~Tf ( Phone No.: ~a ¢,.5 q ~ Date: 12--14--2~1 ~:2gP~ FRC~ "WE TglF. UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART . AT 29762 RANCltO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO . UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." St__o_v Quick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to vrov/de its c,~stom? wit~ the ~r~,U.'o,,'~d ~o,,v~i~noe they ae~,-~ ,,// Address: . .?/,203 2-',~ ~e:/-_J' " . . / , PhoneNo.: ~ YF-ol/2)'' Date:)J-~(-O { ' : .- :. . - , ~'~,~,J,~ r7~6,' . i' Ph°ne N °. :~_~..) ~t~ -,SJ'~/-~' Da~e:- Phone No.:,_ Date: I Signatu,b-~O'~dZ~ Date: 1 2-1 4-213~1 4 -- 2g~M FROW "~WE THE UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." P_I SIo_v Ouick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provide il~ customers with the satisfaction and convenience they deserve.' Phone Address: -g~.,.z-o ~.,u=~;/-~/~/_~ Phone No.: ~0 "WE Tlq~, UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART AT 29762 RA~CItO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & VqINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." St_oo .Quick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provide c~tomers with hhe satisfaction and convenience they deserve~ VhoneNo.~q) ~ge~ {ig?~ '' D~e:' __ Phone No2.9vq ~ ~6-% t[ I'/._ Dam: 12-14-20~1 4:29PM FROM "WE TH,z. UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART · AT 29762 RA1NClfO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEM'ECULA, CA 925911 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & W.INE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." P. 1 Stov Quick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to nrovide its customers with the satisfaction and convenience they deserve. Phone No.: .~,,9_ 6' :~",~- ~ ~.z- · Date: /-z-z-,~'.7 ,,/ Signature Date: Date: Signam ,e/A c.5/~_~..~.__~--~-~. Date: FROM "WE Till*. UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOl> QUICK MINI MART · AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." St_!9~ Quick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to proyid¢ its' ,/// ., cust°mers with the satisfacti°n and c°nvenience they d.~%m'e. /~...._ Address.:./~J{o~> .frf-OM,g.;txX~. qo-sO / ~ o' Ph0neNo.: ~oqq-olO7 Date: I~/~-o ] / Adaress:, ,-~ ~0~0-~ ~ ( ' _ Name / AddreSs: Phone No.:'_~ 7 t. Signature ~,~~ Date:. F 2 - Z 6 Phone No.:-. ~ 5~'~;'Xt(¥L__ - Date: Address: L~\olq~ ~'e,O~.ca~-;~ ~):'lN SO Phone No.: {,_Oir/~ (~4/~ X7 Date: Phone No.: q'~q 0~/-~ &~L) - fiate: 12-14-2D01 ~:2~M FROM "WE Tlql~ UNDER SIGNED, SLrI'PORT STOP QUICK MINI MART · AT 29762 RANCIlO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEM'ECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." P. 1 St._on Quick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provide it,s ,customers with the satisfaction and convenience they deserve. ' Name /3~cL~ A,O6--~ Address:. _z:~_/y~ ~,-L-Ta,~o~S ~ Address: ~'//ff'f ~/--/~,,,',s~f~ Phone No.: g 7g ~ ~-'7 -'3 ! PhoneNo.: G'-% ~.~:~ ,..7,,,,/;,,_ .. Address:,TZZ ~ Cr' C6~/~ ~. (~a'-FF67~- Phone No.: _~. ?7 - J'-~//' Date: ./Z - Phone No.:,~. (~c[--~ -1~, ,I;2~. i Date: Address: V,~ ~.~rc/// pA '~ /q ~-/A /(' ,ff )/(: .. ~ho~,¢ No.: ~ r__, z r~t' Date: /..z/'..=o/~, Adar~:/Z"4,~'~'e~,~o ca,-r_~c,,~ Ce, ~z~'ff Phone No.: 'JOt- Z'~, I ·Date: /Z-Z~ ~ o ~ ,_'. Date: Sigmtu:r~. 12--1~--20~1 4=2~PM FROg "WE TF4P. UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART · AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE .ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." St_qp Ouick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to vrovide its customers with the satisfaction and convenience lhe¥ deserve. Address: Signature~ ~'~o~e No.: (~¢) ~- ~- ~d' ' V~: /2:/~/al ' PhoneNo.::,¢~- r~gT.'bOg~ Dine. '- Phone No.: ~ -3Yg~ -- Dmc' /L/~ ac/o/ Phone No.:(qw%) ~3- 5'5'~%' ~. Date: '/~&a/-~ i ,, N~e ~ Ad~ess~ C ~ ~-~o~ ~ - ~ Si~amre ~~ ~ 12-1tl--2t~1 ,l:2gPM FROM P. I "WE TgI1E UNDER SIGNED, SuppORT STOP QUICK MINI MART · AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." S_Stov Ouick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provide its customers with the satisfaction and convenience lfiey deserve: -Address:"~l C_~e-'r~ ~ Pve.,u~ Phono No.: g~-'ff'o (o -g t t3 Address:.~'~o~ o_oa.n-~ ~ Phone No.: ~o'L- Address: Phone No.: Phone No.: Phone No.: Phone No. PhoneNo.: qO°t 3'lg, O~UI' Signature ~ ' Date: <'7 o/ Phone No.:/,.~Oc0~ -5~93~ · Date: N ame__/o~/p'-,/) Address: Phone No.: ,q'0A_ ..~_ _ ~e- . Dale:" 12-1d-2001 ~-= 2x3PM FRDM P. 1 "WE TI~. UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART · AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." S~to_p Ouick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provide it,S CUStomers with the satisfaction and convenience they deserve .: ,., ~ ' ~ . - c~ PhoneNo.: 005 %~.1.'t40o~ Date: I~Z-ZO -Ol Phone No.: ~'Z% .r~' ~.? Date: ./~---~9_b ~-~ ( Addros~.' 3'~)~ lo ('.b'7~c(. ~ ( '/OM/[,.. PhoneNo.! /0-7 (x'-~/0q~~'''' ' 12-1~-2~01 4:29P~ ~I:~OH P. 1 "WE Tiq~. UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." St__o~ Quick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provid~ it,s .customers with [he satisfaction and convenience they deserve. Phone No.: ' Address: Phone No.: Phone No.:'~ Date:./2- Z~-.-o/ Phone No.: ~ ~ '%e;~~- Date: "WE TwI?. UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART AT 29762 RANCItO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS 'BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." S_!o~Ouick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to orovid¢ its' ' customers with hhe satisfaction and convenience they deserve. -Address: ~3 t q' q / ~3.r4-~ral,,?t~ trlt, La/~ Phone No.: ~ ~ ~-/. ~ , Dine: Phone No-~ ~(~ ~' Dae: Phone No.: ' ~ ~ /-"'Date:- 12-1~-2901 ~: 2gPM FROM P. 1 "WE TFIE UNDER SIGNED, SUI~PORT ·STOP ·QUICK MINI MART AT'29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 'TO UPGRADE ITS 'BF, ER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." StopQuick Mini Mart is detc~ufined and dedicated to provide its customers with the satisfaction and convenience lhey deserve. Phone NO.: q~ z.~'3- ~.~1 x/-O Date: Name (~ e¥,a~-~ ~Oy--~c- · signaturo.~~~__ PhoneNo.:C~o% '~o>_ ~_~-_ Date: ,,,,. _ , ,.[ ~hone No.: ~F ?/z' ..z~.-7'. Date: /~../z6,/o,,. · . . . . ' "WE T~q~. UNDER SIGNED, sUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORzNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." Sto~Ouick Mini Mart is determined and dedicmed to provide i~5 customers with the satisfaction and convenience they deserve. PhoneNo.: ~%'D0 c'l~c~ Date: i~lAulnb/ · Phone No.: 9~7~ C/5/~'/Z.b./ Date: PhoneNo.: ~6q- q/oq-~.[/l[ Oa~ : -- I'M~,io I .'-- ' '-~. I ....--:-'-'~ ~/I ' ' Address: P'/Z"7-~'~ I A/'~FZ:e!-J¢ Date~. /-' ~;>~' ,, · Address: [,'~4~"~.(4c ('&r0b~\~,~ LT./ I k...~ Phone N o. ( ' ,d~fg, x)O-~,,~.~-J4.~_~_ Date: ~ ['Z.t'2~ ©{ Phone N0.{,,°loq) (o~lff '3<~_--~_ Date:/,~-o~..& Name: · 'Signa~ Address: ' ~,~ t'tO't~ F~S'F ' -. Phone No.: ~qtlq)(oqq-5~i. Dine: Address: { [~ -/~ -~hq'C'ql Phone No.: ~- 6q5 -qq'~O Date: Phone No.} '77 / -_C/fi/ Date: . / "WE TlqE~ UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART - AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFOR!qIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." St._op Quick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provide its customers with the satisfaction and convenience they deserve~ Address: ~qL¢~ C~I c m COe ~0.5 c ~ Phone No.: d~d'2- Z Jcl3 Date:. Phone No.: (~qct-o0/C' . Date: Phone No.: qtfi ~,t~%q .- 045-7 Date:"]i Address:oqq7q6 ~f0¢a,~m ClvV, o. ~-I ~ [ I C~4ecu, la ' Phone No.: S87- 6et/~ Date: {~'/'~27/0 J ,.. N Phone No.; ~oq } ~j-?g-oe- Date: /z/2--?/o i 12--1~1--2001 d:2gPM F'RC~ P. 1 "WE TI~. UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." ~$_[o_p_ 0uick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to vrovide its .customers with the satisfaction and convenience they deserve. ~ ~e_~-,,.,~ 7,t/. )~- Sil~ur~:~ Phone No.: ,Sd '- q'i '-/~: . ' v . =,,v _ Date: Address:. j':~LIh' f)OaJ [~ri'v¢ perr?t ('1~ PhoneNo.: (q0q) ~lff3 q~y Date: Address:~l~u: '.~/~ru,,t ,_[Jd"~ O' -f-~.~ ~,.,,/. ()~ .o ~,> ~[ 'I Phone No-:'-z:~'~7 =- ~([ ~-'Z-- Date: f~_ Adar~$s:. '=~.~79o C./~b/4OL.,~C~'E:~. Ph~eNo. 6e04) 6e~-~7~ Dine: /z -~ z-o I "WE T[tl~. UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART · AT 29762 RANCHO CALWOR.NIA ROAD, TEWIECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR.". St__o~ Quick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provide its custom~rs with the satisfaction and convenience they deserve. Ad&ss: o~'~_zZ_5' .<Td,~, oo;o~ rd .l/.~) 'C ' )q~_.2 Signature ~~~--- Name ~ o o~, Address:~22~a b~rac~= f~A 0 ~Z~ ' .Address: ~q7/,,,¢. i~/~r./~r¢.£.4 C,;,de to $. ' ' Phone No.: O~.J!gcg~ -- · ' Date: Name~ 0 ,t2o & .h o · Address: Phone Phone No. -. z)~: / 'b-,-9,g'-O/" 'Signature Dale: 12.- ~;8' 0 [ ,., , / 'Date: Name ~ Address: Phone No.: 12-1~-2001 ~:2gt:::M "WE Tlrll~. UN-DER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART . AT 29762 RANCHO CALWO~.NIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." S~to~Ouick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provide il,~ customers with ~he aatisfaction and convenience they deserve. Phone No.: ^ddress:. PhoneNo: Addre~: Phone N0.: Phone Phone No.: Phone No.:., Phone No.: ~'7~- JOo- ~-~,, Signature Date: Date: 'Signature Date: li~ oq.~- ol Signature~r.g vc~o Date: (5~' ~t~- O / 12--1d--2E~1 ,d.--2gPM FROM P. 1 "WE THE. UN-DER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR.'; St__o~ Quick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to l~rovide its ?stome, rs with the satisfaction and convenience they d~erv PhoneNo.: &_~e~ ~6'7' Date.. //~/60 Ad.ess: d170q ~ma~,~a. cd. "WE THE UNDER SIGNED, sUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART AT 29762 RANCItO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS 'BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." S_!ov Quick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provkl¢ it,s customers with the satisfaction and convenience the,{ deserve. Address: ~/~'0o Phone No.: Phone No.: Address: . 72'h;'~t9 L,:, L ...... AddreSs: '~.¢':~q3 g~ I Ob~ Pt ix ,~ t Phone N~i? ~(c{oq) Cfi ~ -~], 7. 5'1 Signature Date: Signature 'Date:, I - L-! %CRC' Name c~.U~-!'HI v4 Address:__Z/'{,.~4~;~? T,,4/ ,91Vi ff~[ t:~ p. 13 Phone. No.: ~?:~') Ad&ss:~Jqqj Phone ~o.:~ Phone No.: ~ /- 5-- o '2' "WE Tm*. UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART . AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." Stov Ouick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provide its !. PhoneNo.: ~c~.G' Agt/ 1~75/ / PhoneNo.: (qO~ z:o~-Iq5'[v Date: /:/g-oF Name dbLc ,P'-- ,~ o ,,),_~ Signature_~ ~D''~ 12-14-2r~lB1 4: 2gl)M "WE THE UNDER SIGNED, S~poRT STOP QUICK MINI MART AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORN~[A ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." St__qo Ouick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to orovide its ~ustomers with the satisfaction and convenience flaey deserye -Address: 4~i Phone No.: toq Phone NO./: .Phone No.: Phone No.: ~ame, '-'~WOoD Address:, 2~ 9 7 5"t~ Signature Date: -15ate: ~/w,/o~-' : ~ Phone No.: '~09 (093- O3~-'3 ' Date: 2/7/02_ Phone No.: . ~ c~ ¢qq ~ D~c: ~[ ~ - 0 'Z .... Date: Date: .9~. ~y_ ~. FROM P.t "WE TFIlV. UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART · AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEM'ECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." Stov Quick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to~pj2vid¢ PhoneNo.: (g~2t~_'~'g,o,'",%F>ZT-- Date: z~-l~/?-,,~ ~q. -' 'Address: U, ZZZO S-To~S tS~OC20o ' ~-/~ -- Afl~-esS:.,-h q i ~ Phone No:: ~O5~p-7_.gT_~ . ~ Uame PV/~f'6,o Io~ ~ oft Address: Signature Date: PhoneNo.: ~oq 6~--.go~P~ ~.~ ~:. ~ ....... ·., ~ .si~. PhoneNo.: ~qo~ b~ ~2g~ Date: "WE THE UNDER SIGNED, SuppORT STOP QUICK MINI MART · AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." S.~ov Ouick Mini Maa is detcrm/ned and dedicated to provide dustomcrs with the satisfact}on and Convenience theLqteserve PhoneNo.: - / ' Date: ~t .,~_,.~ Phone No.:~ Name Address: Phone No. Name Date: Phone No. 12--14-2~01 tl:2gPM FROM P'. 1 '~ "WE Tlqlr, UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART · AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." St~o_v_Ouick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provRle customers with the Satisfaction and convenience they deserve. C¢c¢). , PhoneNo.: ~ ~Sq,~.l ' ~ - Address: ~ 2'o ,'l, oor:.~ c~.l:/C~,n,'., ~hone~o.: .~zz~ -7',o~.~,~ co. ~,Va~e: ~/~z I'q~ Phone No.: Address: L~O~4,~ ~',1 Signature Phone No.':' 6~ Gq*"4:t-r-~ <l Date: ' ~ //,~ Address: '~-~k/O C~-[ ~ ~, ~'- ' '' ' ; . I~- " Ad~ess:'/~G ~td ~. ~ ?/~..z,/o"r7 : 12-1~--2001 ~:29PM FROM P. 1 "WE Tlq~. UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." Stov Quick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provilJ¢ its customers with the satisfaction and convenience t~e¥ ~teserve. / Name__al~lc~lca ~-- 6o-,~c~Np~ '. Signature ~ PhoneNo.: q'6c4 'Xo2_ ac/')'0 Date: i~Z- [to/62. ' Name "!-:~x-'-~ (~ '~ a.,a [{ ' Signature Phone No.: qo'i'- fi'g?- _ge/to Date: 47. -/O - iq 'a Phone No.:_O/O~-'-~'--/ ~L{~ ' ' Phone No.: ~ -~% ~vo · D~e: ~ ~-t ~.~ Date: ~qzT/:-:' -~? 9 0,, Signat u r e~/ff//~d/~~..~ Dale: ~--- ff..-o ~ "WE TI-FI?. UNDER SIGNED, ~UPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART - AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFO~ ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WIiVE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." Sto___~_Ouick Mini Man is de~_~.med and dedicated to provide customers wilh the ~sfacfion ~d c~v~imce ~eg des~e. Phone No.: q b ~gb- ~q~ "~ ' Dine: 'Z-/2- ~ ~. Phone No.:~o~ - ~ ~ ~c[~ Date: ~X~ - ~ N~e.~T~J5 ~,T& ~.'~S,~' Si~a~e~ PhoncNo.: ~a9 b~ ~'~tq~ D~c: ~ ehone NO { .... "WE T~m*. UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART · AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEM'ECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." St_~ov Quick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provide customers with the satisfaction and convenience they deserve Phone No.: c?ocl.~fD~,gJ2-{ .Date: Signature , Address:. ::2~q~o b~., (~ Phone NO.: o5.5- Date: Name ~a,¢~ ~YVs.,qc~ Signature -- ~ ~ Address: 3aq-~a m;v~ 1~,. Ad~:~/~O[ ~~.~-~~ d~ -" - Date: Name Address:' ~.(~ ~Z,~,~ fife PhoneNo.:. [f~/ 7'~,~'F' Date: · Name_~ .ff/<J--"'"'~ 'Signature'S" Address: g~9/ff] ,44~,{/// Z~'/,I/// /'77fTff~ ~' Phone No:: Phone No.: ~tS/~ ~- Address: Phone No.: "WE TIFF. UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART · AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEM'ECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." Stoo. Quick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated io pro~ Name3~'~..,~ k--,~,~ · . , sigharm* · Address: ~4t~k ~.~ok,~-~ Phone No.: .~. Date: PhoneNo.: ~'d~- ~:fi-/~. Date: · Name..,~°'~e: ~V-(Oc ~t/or~(~r2r SignatUre..., -' Addtess:zJ~O.~ ,~,~paen ~.O Phone No.:,4..~?-'3'.0'~0~ ' Date: Address: ~z~.>c /vomy,~ /Lt~ ~/PT-~/~ .' · Address:'"'.-.~(3-'7~_ ., , . ,£~2 ¢ ' Phone No.: PhoneNo.: 7o7 ~590--32-Z,~ Date: '-)~ c5~.057~ · PhoncNo.: '-]~YD/7Z_5- ~SV~, Date: Address: 7 2~ o C-/r'~.. ,C7! C ~. '2~.~ ._c .. ~.~ / PhoneNo.: ?o~ -C q }-- ~tOgc.. Date: z_ 12--14-2~01 4:2gPM FI~ P. I "WE TI-~. UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART AT 29762 RANCItO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." Stop Ouick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provkl~ customers with the sat/fraction and convenience ~vLd~serve. ~maress: .5:,~o ~.,~ s,t~ D~', ' CK:,~o VhoneNo.:O0~}~gc~ --0~'-I] D~e: ~L 3.'} ~c~.. ~-'~' Nam~ Phone No.: Name Phone No.: ame flOt-,qt?: 'si Phone No.: b¢%24~7 ' D~e: Phone No.:. ~lL}t ,~, 0 '" Date: Name ._?e_ [ r,3 S~ ~,X_~** ~'c, Signature 12--14--2~1 4:2°oPM FR[:N P. 1 "WE T~:r~. UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." Stov Quick Mini Mart is determ/ned and.dedicated to provide its customers with the satisfaction and convenience lfie¥ deserve. Name '3' q\',o cc~ ~ c~_ [~, Signature · Address: _~qO!O Phone No.-.:' Address:. Phone No.: ·Date: Name Name ~ I c,,6 Adc[ross: Address:' Phone No~:- ad&~s:: Phone No. Date:' z- ////i/- - Date: ~/~-~---'7-- O'2--. : Address:' Phone No.: Address: _.?,'3ct,,~qq3 tax t~,n, C.Ot,~, Phone No.: Address: Phone No.: Signature Date: Signature ~m oo~'/'r,' Date: "WE Tl:~. UNDER SIGNED, sUPPORT sTop QUICK MINI MART - AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEM'ECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." St__e_v Quick M/hi Mart is determiped and dedicated to provide iB customers w/th the satisfaction and convenience they deserve. Address: P hone No.: Phone No. Ad~s: ' Name K,~t~g2t/---'~:~-/~w-~. Signature-5/x/'~( ~ Address:4)~tg"4- ~_3~O.,? =r~r:2t rhone No.: ce~._~o~l., r,~,: _4-- v..e,-02 _ signature Date: Signature Signature L Address: ~ Phone No.: PhoneNo.: ~ ~ Date:. · ~~~.~ ~ . ~ Date: 1 2-1B.-2~1211 ,~.: ~°,~M FROM P. 1 "WE Tm*. UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART · AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." Stop Quick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provide its -~u~tomers with the satisfaction and convenient0 they deserve. / Address:. '/9'. fJ.,//)6-?<3 ..c~z~ oodb ' Phone No:: t~'--~ '-~ Z_[~. " Dae. Phone No.: Address: Phone No.: Address: Phone No,: Name Address:' Phone No. Date: Signa , (!. Date:, signature Name Address: Phone No.: c---- Name Phone No.: Nam( Phone No.: Date: .Signamre~ Date: "WE Tl~, UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD~ TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TOINCLUDE LIQUOR." S~ov Quick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provide its customers with the satisfaction and convenience they deserve PhonoNo.: ~I0~1- t, oq.°t- tD ct. Date: ,0. I~'~O~, Phone No.:{c~oq)6~5~'3~5~' ' Date: ~'1~~0~ ' : Phone No.:~O z ~ b7~,c--[377 Datc: ~.~ ~_2~aeZ ,., 12--14-2001 4:2gP:~H FROM "WE Tr4~. UNDER SIGNED, suPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." St_ ov Ouick M~ai M~r~/s determined and dedicated to provide .customersLt.,twith the satisfaction and convenience they/f/----~d~erve' ' -Address: ,,. . ' . f~..~ / , ~ho.e No.:(_~o7 ) ,"/~-/IS~' D~e: · O~,/or/o Add,-'e~.. ~'~ '- / i Phone No,: Phone No.: Ad&ess: 4 -' 291:~ F~M P. I "WE Tlq~. UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART . AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." Phone No.: /(;,r~g J _/~,?? (.'/~ '/d' - 'Date: ~ ,.Ttc;.d,./"d' - L/~Hr.,ot_'~' Address: t/~'5 .~/. -,/f-/{~'/~ ' '-""' ~-~-~--;"'" "' ' (__. ' · . . Phone No.:_ '~'dq~7~'c~Tf;-,,~,~,~/ Date: StopOuick Mini Mart is detqrmined and dedicated to provide its tx (Customers with tl/e satisfaction and convenience th~,a deserve. . ', · ^a~,,: .~.:.0-~,..~.~%_-//f~?~_ . ;vv -- PhoneNo.: ?07 ~/o?_,,,~,~ Date: ~..T9',[2 ~xf~ ') Signature Date: ° , D~t~: Name, ~' ~ tTM . Signature Phone ~o.: ~,~t5-o53 Date: ~ ~-~o~ 12-1z1-:20~1 d: :2c~M FI:L'OM P. 1 "WE TgfE, UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOl' QUICK MINI MART · AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." S. Sto!o Quick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provide its customers with llae satisfaction and convenience ltae¥ deserve. Address:- 3o¢o'-~ r-4//c~. Phone N0;. ~,qC~t.t%,x · Date: S i gnatur~ .~ Signature Date: Signature Date: t 12--14--:L~1~1 t~_-2gg~' "(.FROM "WE TI~. UNDER SIGNED, SUPPORT STOP QUICK MINI MART . AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 TO UPGRADE ITS BEER & WINE LICENSE TO INCLUDE LIQUOR." St__ov Quick Mini Mart is determLned and dedicated to vrovide its .enstomers with the satisfaction and convenience ~e¥ deserye. Phone No.: ¢'~-~'- ~/7/ a' Date: Phone No.: .3 eot - J ~'~,,9_ Name {.(_<.% ///I-,a.- ~'~/,~.~c.. Signature Phone No,: ~_ ff-'2 -{,-~)~_ $ o ,X-~ - '-Date. Phone Noi:. 57a~'-b"6d, - ;~4x7 b Date: .,Tb/,~ ,t-~ ~_ ~ · .. ~ ~~' a~e' PhoneNo.: ~. Cq~ *-~% ~ ~ Date: ~none ~o.~ ~ ~-- ~[ ~ Date: - / ~O ~ Signamr~ £ ATTACHMENT NO. 12 LETTER REQUESTING APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 Tel. (909) 699-7968 April 26, 2002 Director, Community Development Dept. 43200 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92589 Dear Director, Re: CUP For Liquor License Upgrade Although I reside in Rancho San Diego, I have chosen Temecula as my place of business. I have come to realiie thebeantiful growth of the city with its state of the art shopping centers, business offices and affordable housing. Based on all those factors and the strong suppo~ of the City Administration for the business, I was veryencouraged to.ttave my Stop Quick Mini Mart in the Moraga Pla?a Shopping Center, Temeeula. l.am proud to say that my mini mart is beautifully designed and well stocked to meet the needs and the conveniences of my customers. Stop Quick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provide its customers with such convenience, necessity and satisfaction that they deserve. My main goal and purpose is to have the mini mart a one stop-shopping mart. In response to my customers' inquiries and requests to upgrade my present type 20 off-sale" beer and wine license to type 21 6ffsale general liquor license, I hive conducted a survey to this effort. The support has been overwhelming as evident by the 500 plus signed petitions from my customers. I strongly feel that there is a need for a liquor license at Stop Quick Mini Mart to satisfy, please and provide my customers with the shopping convenience that they definitely deserve. There are no other liquor licenses at this location nor there are any churches, schools, hospitals, public playgrounds, parks, and youth facilities'within 600 feet of Stop Quick Mini Man. It is also worth mentioning that this a low crime area. · Based on the above, I would very much appreciate your approval of the Conditional Use Permit for an upgrade to type 21 on sale license and considering same a minor change, as there will be no major physical change at this location. This will enable Stop Quick Mini Mart purchase the type 21 liquor license to serve the necessities and convenience of its respective customers. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this endeavor. Sincerely, Owner, Stop Quick Mini Mart Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control ZONING AFFIDAVIT Instructions to the Applicant: Complete Items 1 - 14. Sign and date the form and submit it to ABC. For answers to Questions 9 - 14, contact your local city OR county planning department (if inside the city limits, contact ci_Lty, planning; if outside, contact county planning. ~ ~ ~ o~ P~a~NER CO~CrEO Ar ~.~N~G OEP~qTMEN~ I ~i' pL~N~ER'S PHO~E NU~B~ Under the penalty of peduw, I decl~e the info~ation in t~s affidavit is ~e to thc best of my ~owledge. FOR DEPARTMENT· USE ONLY ?~C.U.P. Approved I~C.U.P. Demed ' GENERALINFORMATION · Section 23790 of thc Business and Pmfessioas Code says ' that A~C may not issue a retail license contrary to a valid zoning ordinance. This form will help us determine whether your proposed business is properly zoned fqr alcoholic beverage sales. -A conditional usc permit (CLIP) (Item 11) is a special zoning · permit granted after an individual review of proposed land- .USe has been made. CLrFs are used in situations where the proposed use may create hardships or hazards to neighbors and other community member~ who are likely to be affected by the proposed use. The ABC district office will not make a final recommendation on your license application until after the local 'CUP review process has been completed. If the local government denies the CUP, ABC must deny your license application. 23790. Zoning ordinances. No retail license shall be issued for any premises which are 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. ABC-255 (9/01) Premises which had been used in the exercise of those · rights and privileges at a time prior to thc effective date of the zoning ordinance may continue operation under the following conditions: (a) The premises retain the same type of retail liquor license within a license classification. (b) The licensed premises are operated contlnuousl~. without substantial change in mode or character of 'operation. For pu~:~oses of this subdivisioh, a break in continuous operation does not include: (1) A closure for not more than 30 days for purposes of repair, if that repair does not change the nature of the licensed premises and does not increase the square footage of the business used for the sale of alcoholic beverages. (2) The closure for restoration of premises rendered totally or partially inaccessible by an act of God or a toxic accident, if the restoration does not increase the square footage of the business used for the sale of alcoholic beverages. ATFACHMENT NO. 13 LETTER REQUESTING APPROVAL OF ZONING AFFIDAVIT R:',M C,~ P~2002~02-0223 Stol: STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 Tel. (909)699-7968 April 20, 2002 Mr. Don Hazcn Senior Planner, Community Development Dept. 43200 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92589 Dear Mr. Hazen, Re: Necessity & Convenience Although I reside in Rancho San Diego, I have chosen Temecula as my place of business. I have come to realize the beautiful growth of the city with its state of the art shopping centers, business offices and affordable housing. Based on all those factors and the strong support of the City Administration for the business, I was very encouraged to have my Stop Quick IVlini Mart in the Momga Plaza Shopping Center, Temecula. I am proud to say that my mini mart is beautifully designed and well stocked to meet the needs and the conveniences of my customers. Stop Quick Mini Mart is determined and dedicated to provide its customers with such convenience, necessity and satisfaction that they deserve. My main goal and purpose is to have mini mart'a one stop-shopping mart. In response to my customers' inquiries and requests to upgrade my present type 20 off-sale beer and wine license to type 21 offsale liquor license, I have conducted a survey to this effort. The support has been overwhelming as exemplified by the 500 plus signed petitions from my customers. I strongly feel that there is a need for a liquor license at Stop Quick Mini Mart to satisfy, please and provide my customers with the shopping convenience that they definitely deserve. Also there are no Other liquor licenses at the Momga Shopping Plaza. Based on the above, I would very much appreciate your approval of the my zoning affidavit to enable Stop Quick Mini Mart purchase the type 21 liquor license to serve the necessities and convenience of its customers. This is a team effort between the City and its respective business community, and I am confident that my request will meet your favorable approval. I do believe in the City of Temecula and its Administration and I shall continue to contribute to its economic renaissance through my present business and other future businesses. Thank for your cooperation and assistance in this endeavor. Sincerely, Jalal Zorn Owner, Stop Quick Mini Mart ITEM #5 STAFF REPORT ' PLANNING cITY OF TEMECULA . PLANNING COMMISSION · · December 4, 2002 Pian ~ning AppliCation NO(s). 0~-02~71, 0272,.0273 & 0274 Prepared By: Ri~k Rush Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: ' ' ' ' ~ '. ~' .~ ~ ...... The Community Development Deparffnent ~ Planning D~wslon Staff recommends the. Planhitig Commis~ibn'forward these projects to the City Council with a re~omme..ndati0q for denial: 1. ADOPTa Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 20.0.2- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNIN(~ cOMM'Is$1ON oF THECITY ~OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDII~IG THE CI~ ~COUNClL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO.: 02;~b2~2, 'A 'GEN~ERAL PLAN AMEI~I~MEN? TO: AMEND ~E GENERAL-PL~,I~: LAND uSE ~ DESIGNATION FROM NEIGH'BORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO" COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL; GENER~ALLy LOCATED SOUTH 0~= RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF ME/~.DOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN 'AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030- 001. · · 2. ADOPT a ResolUtion entitled: PC:RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING-COMMisSION OF THE CITY OF' TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING ;APPLICA?iON NO.' 02-0271, :A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PLANNING AREA 19 FROM NEIGHBORHOOD 'COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL~?AND ~AMENDiNG THE 'TEXT WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN, 'FOR PROPERTY. GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA"ROAD 'AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001, 3. A OPT a Resolution entitled: R:~D P~2002X02-0273 Meadow VillagcXStaff Report PC.doc 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,230 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, A 8,780 SQUARE'FOOT SHOP BUlLDING,:A 6,220'SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING AND A 4,670 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, GEN'ERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO · CALIFORNIA ROAD AN~D EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. 4. ADOPT a Resolution entit e: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CrFY OF TEMECUI.~ RECOMMENDING THE C!TY..CQUNClL DENy PLA ~NNING -~APPLICATION. NO.~ 02-0274, A,~CO ~NDITIONAL'~USE PERMIT TO.OPERATE A DRIVETHROUGH AT A 16,640,SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE,'AND TO PERMITTHE SALE OF ALCOHOL AT A 48,427 SQUARE FOOT~. GROCE~RY,. ST. ORE .a~l~ .D A 16,640~ SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORs PARCEL NO. 954~030- 00;{. · ~' APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Venture Point, John Clement PROPOSAL: ., . ~ PA02~0272: A Gf~neral .Pla~ Amendment, to amend the ~ ,~.~ General Plan .land use designation-from Neighborhood : Commercial to Community Comme.rcial. · '.. PA-02~0271. ,A Sp,ecifiC Plah Amendment for the Margarita ~; ~ V age~ Specific Plan tO am~.nd~the lanai use designation of Planning Area 19; frOm Nei~hb°~h~od ..Commercial to .Commun ~Y C0mm~rcial~and amending {he text within· the · Specific plan .... {~A0~'-0273: 'A {Development Pla~ fOr th~'~esi~n, construction and operation of a 48,427 square fobt grocery store, a 16,640 square foot drag store, a 11,230 square foot shop building, a 8,780 square foot shop building, a'6,220 square foOt shop building ahd a 4,670 square foot shop building. R:~D P~2002\ff2~273 Meadow Village,Staff Report PC.doc 2 PA02-0274: A Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive through at a 16,640 square foot drug store, and to permit the sale of alcohol at a 48,427 .square foot grocery store and a 16,640 square foot drug store. LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING LAND USE: ' SURROUNDING LAND USES: South side of Rancho California Road and East of Meadows Parkway Neighborhood Commercial (NC) North: Low Medium Density Residential (LM) South: Medium Density Residential (M) East: Medium Density Residential (M)~ · West: Medium High Density Residential (MH) NeighborhOod C0mrd~rCial (NC) Vacant North: Single,Family Hbrnes South: Single,Family .Homes East: Single,FamilY Homes West: ~Single-Family Homes BACKGROUND May 23, 2002 August 8, 2002 September 20, 2002 October 16, 2002 October 28~ 2002 October 28, 2002 October 31,2002 November 12, 2002 Project submitted Development Review Committee (DRC) Meeting ~ Revised plans submitted b~, the applicant - . Staffcomments for revised plans sent to applicant Met with applicant to discuss ~taff comments for revised plans C(!mmunity Meeting ~ Met with applicant to discuss Community Meeting comments Notice of Intent circulated/Public Notice · ' ' ~" During the cOmmunity meeting that was held on October 28, 2002, aPproximately 30 residents were inattendance'. During the question and comment period two people spoke in favor of the project' and approXimately twenty people spoke in opposition to the project. Thefollowing concerns raised by the residents were related to compatibility, noise, delivery hours, traffic, size of grocery store, site design, property values, building heightS and urbanization of the wine country corridor. On October 31,2002, staff and theapplicant met to discuss the community meeting. During this meeting the applicant requested to have the project go forward to public hearing without any further plan revisions. Staff has also prepared an Initial Study to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, R:LD PL2002\024}273 Meadow VillagcXStaff Report PC.d~c 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION General Plan Amendment The applicant requests a General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from Neighborhood Commemial to Community Commemial. The currant Land Use Designation was adopted November 9, 1993. As defined in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the intent of the Neighborhood Commemial designation is to allow smaller-scale business activities, which generally provide retail, or convenience services for the local residents in the surrounding neighborhood. The purpose of the Community Commercial designation is to allow larger-scale retail, professional office,.and service-orient,ed business activities, which serve the entire community. Specific Plan Amendment* , The site is located within the Margarita Village Specific Plan area, wh!ch was approved by the County in 1986. The applicant requests a"SpecifiC* Plan Amendment to amend'the land use designation of Planning Area 19 from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commerc a and~ also amend the text within the specific p an. The proposed rewsed text changes have been ~ncluded as Attachment. Following is a summary of the key proposed text changes: · Addition of the Commercial Architectural Design Guidelines (Section c). · Addition of the Site Design Guidelines (Section d). · Modification of the acreage in Planning Area 19 from 6.2-acras as stated in the text of the, Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 5 to 9.7-acres as reflected on the recorded Parcel Map No. 22513 (recorded October 14, 1987). · Amendment of text references to the zoning standards for Planning Area 19 from the. Neighborhood Commercial District in Section 17.08.040 of the Development C6de to the Community COmmercial District. ~- · Arhendment 0f text references to the permitted uses for Planning Area 19 from the . Neighborhood Commercial District in Section 17,08~030 of the Development Code to the · Community Commercial DistriCt. · ~Repaginat!on due to the previouslY:mentioned additions to t'he Specific Plan. .' Development Plan .- ~ ' The app cant is requesting a Development Plan approval for the des gn construction and operation of a 48,427 square foot grocery store, a 16,640 square foot drug store, and four additional retail shops of 11,230 square feet, 8,780 square feet,.6,220 square feet and 4,.,670 square feet, :- The proposed access tothe site will be taken from two driveway entrances a cng Meadows parkway-, and two ddveway entrances off Rancho California Road. The majority of the parking for the site has been located n front of the grocery store..The remainder of the parking has been located in front of the proposed shop buildings. ~ . The grocery store has been sited at the rear of the site directly adjacent to the existing Single-famiiy residences. Shop E and Shop F have also been sited directly adjacent to the exiting residences. The proposed drug store has been sited nearest to the comer of Rancho California and Meadows Parkway, with the proposed ddve through oriented towards the intersection. R:~D 1u~2002~02~)273 Meadow ViUageXStaff Report PC.doc 4 Conditional Use Permit A Conditional Use Permit is required to operate a drive through at the proposed drag store, and to permit the sale of alcohol at grocery store and drug store. At this time, the applicant has not submitted an application with the State Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC),.s0 staff is unal~le to determine whether Findings of Public Conver{ience or Necessity Will be required. ANALYSIS General Plan Amendment The apPlicant's primary mason for requesting a General Plan Amendment is to facilita~ construction of a 48,427 square foot grocery stem, which would not be permitted under the current Neighborhood Commemial land use designation. Staff cannot support the amendment request, because it would rap.resent a fundamental shift in land use policy for the site, fmm~a neighborho6d: se~,ing retail village to a higher ihtensity commercial censer that targets a much broader r,e~gional. area. Public comments received at the neighborhood meeting and thr0~'ghout the review of this application indicate that the proposed project may create nuisance visual and noise impact~ to,tl~, nearby residents. Given the topography and proposed design of the sit~, neighbors~were c0n~0 .m,~ that the rooftop views and loading operatiOn Of the grocery store were an unnecessary and; unacceptable alternative to a neighbor, hood retail village. As was previously mentioned, the current land use designation for the site was adopted by the City Council November 9, 1993, as part of the General Plan. At the time of adoption, the goals and polices of the Land Use Element emphasized compatibility between future urban development and the existing single,family residences within the. community. It was further stated ~that residents desire adequate buffering from non-residential uses in terms of light, noise, traffic impacts and negative visual irflpacts. The'prop0sed land use designation of Community Commercial wil! result in a level of commercial activity that is net compatible with the surrounding residential uses: General Plan Land Use Goal 3 recommends the adoption of a land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed amendment does not protect er erthance tho existing single-famil~ homeS. The proposed General Plan Amendment is also inconsistent with the Community Design Element. The element is states that standards need to be carefullY deVeldped for the Development Code to achieve a sqa!e of developroent that is in balance with surrounding area. Goal 3 of this element states "preservation and enhancement of the positive qualities of individual districts or neighborhoOdS~, in the discussion portion of Goal 3, the preservation of the character of the single- family neighborhoods and their protection from intrusions from buildings that are "out of scale", is of particular importanCe. The Proposed land use change will permit future development that is "out of scale" in relation to the nearby homes~ Staff has concluded that the current Neighborhood Commercial designation and the typical activities, which provide retail or convenience services for the local residents in surrounding neighborhood is compatible with the existing neighborhoods in the area. The proposed land use designation of Community Commercial, which provides retail; professional office, and service- oriented business activities for the entire community is hot compatible with the existing single-family neighborhood to the south. R:',D PX2002\02-0273 Meadow Villagc~S~aff Report PC.doc 5 Specific Plan Amendment The proposed amendment of the Margarita Village Specific Plan to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial is not Consistent with the General Plan. As previously.stated, staff does' not support the request and is recommending denial of the proposed General Plan Amendment. Therefore, the Specific Pl~.n Amendment dannot be approved if the General Plan Amendment is denied. The original intent of Planning Area 19 was to provide a vadety of neighborhood retail commercial and service uses for Margarita Village residents. The proposal is a request to deviate from the odginal intent and provide services for the entire community. Staff does not support the proposed amendment because of its incompatibility with the General Plan and the ex. isting single-family residences. Development Plan ~. The proposed Development Plan is not consistent With the General~Plan nor is it consistent witl~ the Margarita Village Specific Plan. The proposed grocery store is not a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district (Development Code Section-17.08.030). Duri .n.g the review Process, staff expressed numerous concerns to the applicant about the proposed development plan (see attached DRC letter)~. The applicant resubmitted a revised-site plan on september 20, 2002, but did not address all of the concerns expressed during DRC.,The'following is a list of outstanding concerns that staff has with the proposed development plan: · The a'6cess point on Rancho Califomia nearest to the intersection creates int'ernal circulation conflicts · The proposed site plans lack pedestrian linkages to encourage non-vehi~e use. · The large parking field in front of the grocery store is unsightly ~r0m Rancho Caiiforni~ Roadl. · The location of the ddve thru is unsightly and'close to a major intersection. · The location of loading areas inhibits pedestrian experience and m'eates in0i. Se cbnflictS.' · The location of building E is segregated from site and backs onto Meadows Parkway. c fb gE ~ S g byp d~ ans.'. · The lo ation o uildin requires unsafe c o sin s e stri . * · Outside gathering spots a~e insufficient and requite unsafe pedestrian crbs~ings. · The location of trash enclosures will create unsightly appearance at main entities. Should the Planning Commission and/or City Council support the General PlanAmendment and Specific Plan Amendment, staff would request that the site plan be revised to address staffs concerns. Conditional Use Permit Staff has determined that the required findings riecessary to approve the Conditional Use Permit cannot be made at this time, because of insufficient information from ABC and unclear status of the prerequisite land use approvals. In addition, staff does not support the location of the drive thru, so it is premature to make conclusive findings for approval. R:XD PL2002X024Y273 Meadow ViRage~gtaff Report PC.doc 6 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Although CEQA does not require an environmental review for denied projects, staff has prepared an Initial Study, inthe event that the Planning Commission and City COuncil consider the applications for approval. Staff has determined that the project could potentially result in significant environmental impacts, unless mitigation measures are included in a Mitigation Monitoring program. Staff has circulated the Initial Study for public review, but has also requested additional acoustical information from the applicaht, which has not been submitted at the time of this writing. It is anticipated that the'a~)plicant will provide the minor additional informati0n prior to the end of the 20' day circulation period for the initial Study. Based on the recommendation of denial, staff recommends that no environmental action be taken on this project. CONCLUSION ! RECOMMENDATION Staff has determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment is not consistent with all of the goals and policies of the General Plan. Staff is recommending tha~' the Plannln'g~CommisSi6~'' recommend denial of the proposed General Plan Amendment. If the General Plan is denied, then th~ remainder of the applications Will not be consistent with the Geheral Plan and ~nu~t be denied as .. FINDINGS: In support of the recommendation of denial, the following findings must be made: General Plan Amendment The proposed amendment is not compatible with the adjacent single-family residences, because the land use change would permit future development that would be "out of scale" and not compatible with the surrounding homes. The intent of the proposed Community Commercial land use designation is to serve the entire community, which would not be compatible with the surrounding residential setting. The existing land use'designation of Neighborhood Commercial is compatible with the surrounding land uses and should not be amended. As stated in the Overview ~ection of the General Plan, "every general plan.amendment must :~be consistent with the res~of the general plan". The requested amendment to the General Plan Land Use designation from Ne ghborho0d Commerc a to community Commercial will not be consistent~ with th~ rest of the General Plan. The Pr°po~ed iand use Land Use · Element goal number 3, requires a land use pattem that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods be adopted. The current land use map is meeting this goal; a change of the land use to Community Commercial will be in conflict with this goal. Policy 3.1 states "Consider the compatibility of proposed projects on surrounding uses in terms of size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landsCaping, preservation of existing vegetation and landform, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions". The proposed amendment will permit uses that are not compatible with the existing single-family homes. Goal number 3 of the Community Design Element, states that the preservation of the character of the single-family neighborhoods and their protection from intrusions from buildings that are "out of scale", is of particular importance. The proposed amendment is not consistent with this goal by permitting future development that is "out of scale" in relation to the existing homes. Specific Plan Amendment 3. The proposed specific plan amendment is not consistent with the current land use designation for the General Plan, because the proposal requests Community Commercial, and the General Plan designates the site as Neighborhood Commercial. 4. The prop0~al will have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it is significant change to the planned land use of the site and is inconsistent w!th the ov,erall concept of the Margarita Village Specific Plan in that it introduces larger-scale commercial adjacent to single-family homes. 5. The proposal is not compatible with the sd~.mufidihg land uses. The amendment requests to intensify the proposed uses and scale of the site and this will .create conflicts with the surrounding single-family development. Deve OPment P~lan (Section 17 05 01OF) 6. The proposed grOCery store is not in conformance with the current General P an land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial. The use is also not a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. 7. The project as proposed is not compatible with the surrounding single-family residences. The proposed project has not taken into account.the general welfare of the surrounding property owners. The site plan has sited proposed buildings adjacent to the nearby residents. Loading areas and trash enclosures have also been located near the adjacent residences. The proposed site plan has access issues, as well*as site design issues that will need to be addressed in the form of a redesign~ Conditional Use, Permit (17.04.010E) 8. The proposed conditional use is not consistent with the General Plan and the,Development Code. The proposed grocery store is not a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commemial zoning district. The nature of the proposed conditional use may be detrimental to the general welfare of the community due to a potential 0v~r-concentration of' alcohol outlets in the Census tract. However, there are insufficient facts available to make an ~ffirrhative finding. That the decision,to deny the application for a conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the planning commission: ' R:~D 1~002~02~Y273 Meadow Village~Staff RepoR PC.do~ 8 Attachments: 1. PC Resolutions- Blue Page 10 2. Exhibits - Blue Page 19 A, Vicinity map B. General Plan map C. Zoning map D. Site plan E. Floor Plan F. Grading Plan G. Elevation (Al) H. Elevation (A2) I; Elevation (A3) J. ~' Elevation (A4) K, Elevation (A5) L. Landscape Plan M, Initial Study N. DRC Letter R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Repo~ PC.doc 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTIONS PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0272, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND ,USE DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. TO COMMUNrrY COMMERCIAL, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS .'PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO, 954-030- 001. .. WHEREAS, Venture Point, filed Planning Application No. 02-0272 General Plan Amendment, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and De~,elopment Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; ~' ' ' "', ' ~ WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on December 4, 2002, at a duly noticed public headng as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; . WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended City Council denial of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 1. by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated : Section 2. Findinqs, ..The Planning. Comm ssion, in ,recommending'i denial of the. Application hereby makes the follOwing findings: 1. The proposed amendment is not compatible with the adjacent single-family residences, because the land use change would permit future development that would be "out of. sCale" and not compatible with the surrounding homes. The intent of the proposed Community Commercial land use designation is to serve the entire community,, which would not be compatible ~ with the surrounding residential setting. The existing land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial is compatible with the surrounding land uses and should 'not be amended. 2. As stated in the Overview section of the General Plan, "every general plan amendment must be consistent with the rest of the general plan". The requested amendment to the General Plan Land Use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commemial will not be consistent with the rest of the General Plan. The proposed land use Land Use Element goal number 3 requires a land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods be R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.doc adopted. The current land use map is meeting this goal; a change of the land use to Community Commercial will be in conflict with this goal. Policy 3.1 states "Consider the compatibility of proposed projects on surrounding uses in terms of size and configuration of buildings use of materials and landscaping, pre~servation of existing vegetation and landform~ the Ibcation of access routes, ~oise'impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions". The proposed amendment will permit uses that ai'e not compatible with the existing single-family homes. ' Goal number 3 of the. Community DeSign Element, states that the pi'eservation of the character of the single-family neighborhoods and their protection from intrusions from buildings that are "out of scale", is of particular importance. The proposed amendment is not consistent..with this goal by permitting future development that is "out of scale" in relation to the existing homes. Section3. Environmental Compliance, Denied projects are exempt from environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 4th day of December 2002. - ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ss ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certifythat PC Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of. the City of Temecula at a regular-~eeting thereof held on tl~e 4th day of December, 2002, by thefollowing vote of the Commission: AYES: "- 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None None None NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTAIN: 0~ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:',D P~2002~02-O273 Meadow ViHage~Staff Repo~ PC.doc 12 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0271, A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PLANNING AREA 19 FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND AMENDING THE TEXT WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN, FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. WHEREAS, Venture Point, filed Planning Application No. 02-0271 Specific Plan Amendment, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a regular meeting, considered the Application on December 4, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; · WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the C~mmission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended C ty Council denial of the Application subject to and baaed upon the findings set forth hereunde, r; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in recommending denial of the Application hereby makes the following findings: 1. The proposed specific plan amendment is not consistent with the current land use designation for the General Plan, because the proposal requests Community Commercial, and the General Plan designates the site as Neighborhood Commercial. 2. The proposal will have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it is significant change to the planned land use of the site and is inconsistent with the overall concept of the Margarita Village Specific Plan in that it introduces larger-scale commercial adjacent to single- family homes. R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~S~aff Report PC.doc 13 3. The proposal is not compatible with the surrounding land uses. The amendment requests to intensify the proposed uses and scale of the site and this will create conflicts with the surrounding single-family development. Section3. Environmental Compliance. Denied projects are exempt from environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 4th da~j of December 2002. ATi'EST: Dennis'Chiniaeff, Chairpemon Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission ~ofth~'City' of Temecula at a regular~eeting thereof held on the 4th day of December, 2002, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:. None NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None . ' Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,230 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, A 8,780 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, A 6,220 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING' AND A 4,670 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. WHEREAS, Venture Point filed Planning Application No. 02-0273 Development-Plan, in a' manner in accord With the City of Temecula General Plan and DeveloPment Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time' and manner prescribed by State and local law; : · :~ WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the APplication on December 4, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the Citystaff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended City Council denial of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; : WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have Occurred. · NOW, THEREFORE, TH E PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE C rl'~ OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and ~°rrect and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Cor~mission, in recommending denial of the Application hereby makes the following findings: 1. The proposed grocery store is not in conformance with the current General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial. The use is also not a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. 2. The project as proposed is not compatible with the surrounding single-family residences. The proposed project has not taken into account the general welfare of the surrounding property ownem. The site plan has sited proposed buildings adjacent to the nearby residents. Loading areas and trash enclosures have also been located near the adjacent residences. The proposed site plan has access issues, as well as site design issues that will need to be addressed in the form of a redesign. RAD P~2002~02~)273 Meadow Village~Smff Report PC.doc 15 Section3. Environmental Compliance. Denied projects are exempt from environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4.. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this. 4th d~ay of December 2002. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairpemon Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA SS I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certifythat PC Resolution No. 2002-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of December, 2002, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 0 NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CFFY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0274,'A coNDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A DRIVE THROUGH AT A 16,640 SQUAREr FOOT DRUG STORE, AND TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL AT A 48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND A 16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030- 001. WHEREAS, Venture Point, filed Planning Application No. 02-0274 Conditional Use Permit, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; . ~ WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on December 4, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at w,hich time the Ci~ staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition tP this matter; WHEREAS, a~t the conclusipn of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the te,stjmony, the CommisSion recommended City CounCil denial of the Application subject to and based uPon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, TH EREFORE, TH E PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recita{ions are true and correct and are hereby incorporated' Section 2. Findin.qs. The Planning Commission, in recommending denial of the Application hereby makes the following findings: 1. The proposed c(~nditional use is not consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code, The proposed grocerY store is not a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. 2. The nature of the proposed conditional use may be detrimental to the general welfare of the community due to a potential over-concentration of alcohol outlets in the Census tract. However, there are insufficient facts available to make an affirmative finding. R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.doc 17 3. That the decision to deny the application for a conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the planning commission. Section3. Environmental Compliance. Denied projects are exempt from environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 4th day of December 2002. ATTEST: Dennis Chinia6ff, Chairperson · Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA SS I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC ResOlutiOn No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning CommiSsion of the City of Tem~cula at fi'regular~eeting thereof held on the 4~ day of Dec~mbe?; 2002, by the following vote of the Commission: ' AYES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 pLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary ATTACHMENT'NO. 2 EXHIBITS CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 4, 2002 VICINITY MAP R:~D P~002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.doc 20 CITY OFTEMECULA EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP DESIGNATION -(NC) Neighborhood Commercial EXHIBIT C - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - Specific Plan No. 3 CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 4, 2002 R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Sta~f Report PC.doc CITY OF TEMECULA CASE N0. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT- D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 4, 2002 SR'E,PLAN R:~D P~002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.doc 22 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT- E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 4, 2002 FLOOR PLAN R:~D P~,2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Stalf Report PC.doc 23 CITY OFTEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT - F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 4, 2002 GRADING PLAN R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Viilage~Stafl Report PC.doc 24 CITY OFTEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT - G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 4, 2002 ELEVATION (A1)t R:',,D P~2~2-O273 Meadow Village~Stafl Report PC.doc 25 CiTY OF TEMECULA SHOPS C CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT - H PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 4, 2002 ELEVATION (A2) R:~) P~n002~YZ-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.doc 26 ClTY OFTEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT- I PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 4, 2002 ELEVATION (A3) R:~D P~002~2-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.doc CITY OF TEMECULA .SHOPF CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT - J PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 4, 2002 ELEVATION R:~D PI2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.doc 28 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT - K PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 4, 2002 ELEVATION, R;'~D P~002~2-0273 Meadow Village'Staff Report PC.doc CiTY OF TEMECULA :~. ~.~-;~--~!~ ~ ~[.~ ~,-~,..: =__'_-~__:: :: ~ ~', .~> ^¥: ~-- :: : ,,, , , .... ..~._ ..~:~ . "", . ~ ..... CASE NO. - PA02'0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 I EXHIBIT- L LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 4, 2002 R:~D P~002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Repo[t PC.doc 30 CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT - M PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 4, 2002 CITY OF TEMECULA SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT INITIAL STUDY R:'~D P'~2.002~02-O273 Meadow Village'~Staff Reporl PC.dcc 31 City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 I Environmental Checklist Project Title Planning Application Nos. 02-0271 (Specific Plan Amendment), 02. 0272 (General Plan Amendment), 02-0273 (Development Plan) and 02-0274 (Conditional Use Permit) - Meadows Village Lead Agency Name and Address City of~Temecula P.O. B~)X 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Pemon and phone Number Rick Rush Associate Planner (909) 694-6400 Project Location Generally located at the southeast comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway (APN 954-030-001). Project Sponsor's Name and Address John Clement, Venture Point 3419 Via Udo~ Newport Beach, CA 92663 ~ General Plan Designation. Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zoning Margarita Village Specific Plan (SP-3) . Description of Project A General Plan Amendment to~'amend the General Plan Land Use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commemial. A Specific plan Amendment to amend the zoning in Planning Area 19 from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial. A Development Plan to construct a 48,427 square foot grocery stere, I 16,640 square foot drug store, 11,230 square foot shop building, 8,780 square foot shop building, a 6,220 square foot shop building and a 4,670 square foot shop building. A Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive thru pharmacy at the 16,640 square foot drug store, and permit the sale of alcohol at the 48,427 square foot market, and the16, 640 square foot drug store. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting North: Low Medium Density Residential (Single Family Homes) East: Low Medium Density Residential (Single Family Homes) South: Low Medium Density Residential (Single Family Homes) West: Low Medium Density Residential (Single Family Homes) Other public agencies whose approval None is required R:~) 1~2002~2-0273 Meadow Village~Jnitial Study.doc Vicinity Map R:~D F~002'~2-0273 Meadow Vitlage',Jnitial Study.doc 2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected he .environmen a factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics Mineral Resoumes Agricultural Resoumes Population and Housing X Noise X Air Quality Population and Housing · Biological Resources, Water Public Services Cultural Resoumes Recreation Geologic Problems Transportation/Traffic Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities and Service Systems Hydrology and Water Quality X Land Use Planning None Determination (To be completed by the lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant impact on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared '- X I findthat although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not ~ be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed.in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached'sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentiallY significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier. EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. November 12, 2002 Signature Date Rick Rush, Associate Planner Printed name City of Temecula For R:~D P~002~02-0273 Meadow Village~JnitiaJ Study.doc 3 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resoumes, including, but not X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?. c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: 1 .a. No Impact. The existing property has not been identified as a scenic vista in the City of Temecula's General Plan. 1.5. ,0. No Impact. Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway are not-~esignated as scenic resoumes nor is the site within the view of a state scenic highway. As a consequence, no significant impact~ to scenic resoumes will result from the proposed project or future development of the site. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed prOject will be.located adjacent to existing single-family units to the south and east of the project site.. The single-family homes grades vary from sixteen feet to thirty feet above the proposed site. The proposed parapet walls for the two buildings located nearest the single-family homes are approximately twenty-eight feet. Due to the grade differences and heights of the proposed buildings the project has the p,0tentia! to have roof top equipment visible from the adjacent residents. A so, the project h'as storage'~reas and oadng areas that have the potential to be visible from the adjacent residents. Therefore, the following mitigation measures will be implemented. REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES 1 .' The applicant shall be required to screen all roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residence, utilizing architectural elements. 2. All loading and storage areas shall be located in the least intrusive areas of the site. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will prod~ce'a new source of si~bstantial light and glare. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. Due to proximity to residential uses, the project also has a potential to create significant'light and glare impacts onsite or impacting the surrounding area and uses. The project will be conditioned to comply with the County's Ordinance 655 requirements. The project as conditioned will result in a less than significant impact. R:~D FA20OLA02-0273 Meadow Village~tnitiaJ Study.doc 4 2. Agricultural Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional ~odel to use in raSSessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland X of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant, to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resoumes Agency, to non-agricultural use? , b. Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract? c. Involve other Changes in the existing environment, which ~ X due to their location or nature, could result in conversion · of Farmland, to non,agricultural use? Comments: 2a,-c. No Impact. The Project site is not currently in agricultural production and in the historic past the site has not been used for agricultural.purposes. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract her"is it zoned for agricultural uses. This property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local importance as identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the project will not involve changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, there is no significant ssue. 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable · X air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially X I to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? 3.a, b. Less Than Significant Impact. According to an Air Quality study Submiffed by Tom Dods0n & Associates the proposed proiect will comply with ~tate and Federal air quality standards. As a part of . R:'~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 5 the study the URBEMIS 2001 model was used, which indicated that the Meadows Village project would fall below significance levels for construction and operational emissions as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. As a consequence, a less than significant is anticipated as a result of this project. Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in item 3. a,b above, the project is within acceptable standards as established by thresholds for impacts associated with construction of commemial development. The proposed site has been graded previously, which will eliminate the need for significant grading and excavation. As a consequence a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. Less Than Significant ImpacL As proposed the project wiil not expos~ sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrators. The proposed project will fall below the significance levels established by SCAQMD for construction and operational emissions. As a consequence a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project may create objectionable Odors during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be short in duration and are not considered significant over the long term. The project shall comply with the environmental standards as detailed · in the Development Code for commercial development. The proposed Project has sited a large-scale grocery store in close proximi~ to single-family residences to the south and east. A large-scale grocery store has the potential to generate objectionable odors tl~t may affect the single-family residences. The food waste generated and disposed of at the rear of the proposed store may create objectionable odors for the adjacent hom~s. Therefore, the following mitigation measures will,be implemented. REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES The project will be required to have daily trash pickups that will eliminate any potential objectionable odors. Trash enclosures shall be required to be located in areas that are the least intrusive areas of the site. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, 0[.by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b, Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat X or other sensitive natural community identified in lOCal or . regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected X wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrologiCal interruption, or other means? R.-'~O P~.002~02-0273 Meadow Vil~age',lnrdal Study.doc 6 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ' X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: ' 4.a-e No Impac£ The General Plan does not designate the project site _as a potentially sensitive.habitat site. The site is outside the habitat area identified for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and does not contain wetlands as defined by the Clean Water Act. The site has been rough g~'aded previously into a developable commercial pad. There is no anticipated biological impact associated with this project. No Impact. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat FeeArea. The project will be conditioned to comply with provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation), which requires payment of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat fee. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. £ 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: , l~sues and Supp~dih~i~'~ ~,.: a a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X a historical resoume as defined in Section 15064.57 b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.57 c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred . X outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: 5.a. No Impact. The subject site does not meet the criteria of a historical resoume as defined in Section 15064.5 of the California EnvironmentaIQuality Act. 5.b-d. Less Than Significant Impact..Construction of the proposed buildings will occur on land that has been previously graded. Due to previous land disturbance, it is unlikely that cultural resoumes remain on this site. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR # 202) was adopted as a part of the Margarita Village Specific Plan. In the comment-received portion of the EIR it was noted that that the subject parcel was part of a cultural resources inventory conducted by Amhaeological Systems Management R:~D 1~?.002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 7 Inc., in conjunction with the "Draft EIR for Rancho Villages Policy Plan GPA. It was further stated that no historic sites and only one amheological site was identified in the Margarita Vil!~ge Specific Plan area. Archeological site, Riv. 1726, is located on a knoll north of Rancho California Road, about one mile east of Margarita Rood. Additionally, neither the City of Temecula General Plan Environmental Impact Report nor the City's General Plan identifies this project site as an area of significant cultural resources. The project will be conditioned have a paleontologist/archaeologist or representative present that shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project? a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death · involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or oft-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?. e. Have 'soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater dispoSal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: 6.a.i, ii, iii. Less Than Significant Impact. The project may have a Significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction and subsidence of the land) and expansive soils, and will have a less than significant impact to erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. The project is located in Southern California, an area that is seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will be reduced to a less than significant impact and conditioned to conform to Uniform Building Code standards. Further, preliminary soil reports have been submitted and reviewed as part of the application submittal and recommendations contained in this report will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval. The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction and subsidence of the land), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils.. R:~,D P'~2002',02-0273 Meadow Ville. ge',l n~ Study.doc 8 6.a.iv, No Impact. The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Less Than Significant Impact. Potential impacts will be mitigated by conditions of approval to comply with State of California Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone development criteria and construction in accordance with the Uniform Building Code standards. A soils report shall be required as part of the development and shall contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from Seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. Erosion control techniques will be included'as a condition of approval for development projects at the site. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill Will be mitigated through the use of proper compaction of {he Soils and landscaping. Less Than Significant Impact. Any potential significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction, consistent with the Uniform Building Code standards. Further, the project will be conditioned to provide soil reports prior to grading and recommendations contained in this repo.rt ara complied with during construction; The soil reports will also dontain recommendations for the- compaction of the soil, which will Serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from'=seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, liquefa~ion~ subsidence and Expansive soils. ~. No Impact, Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The p~oject is · connected to the existing public sewer system in Rancho California Road; therefore, no imPacts are anticipated as a result of this project. I HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or X acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely · hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter~mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of X hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two I miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? R:~D P~2002~02-O273 Meadow Village~l nitial Study.doc 9 f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X - the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically intedere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: Less Than Significant Impact. The project will result in a less than significant impact in thee ·creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Leas Than Significant Impact. The projeci Will result in a less than significant impact due tO risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous Substances in the event of accident or upset conditions. The Fire Department reviewed this project ,according to the informatien provide by the applicant and found that there should be minimal hazards if designed, built, and used according to the submitted plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact. This project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed School. No impact is anticipated. No Impact. This project site is not, nor is it located near, a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. · 7.e.,f. No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private airstrip. The nearest airport is French Valley, whose~mnway is approximately, four (~,) ~ miles to the north and west. The proposed project falls outside'of the Traffic Pattern Zone as determined for the French Valley Airport. No impact upon airport uses w!!l result from this proposal. No Impac£ The project will take access from maintained public streets and will therefore not-impede emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable.brash, grass, or trees. The project is a commemial' village surrounded by single-family residences.~ In the development of the site the applicant will be eliminating existing potentially flammable brash. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No impacts are anticipated.. R:~ FA2002~2~)273 Meadow Village,Initial Study.doc 10 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a. ' Violaterequirements?any water quality standard~ or' 'waste discharge. b. Substantially deplete gi'bundwater supplies or interfere substantially with, groundwater recharge such th~it there would be a net deficit in aquifer vOlume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. SubstantiallY alter the existing drainage Pattern of the site or'area, including throUgh the alteration of the course of a S{ream or river, in a manner, which would result in sUbstantial erosion or Siltation~on- Or off-site? ~ d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course 0f a s{ream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of Surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create Or contribute runoff water, wh ch wou d exceed the capacity of eXisting or planned storm water drainage. ' sYStems Or provide substantial additional sources of ~- olluted runoff? ~_. Otherwise substantiall de radewater uali ? g-. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ' h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or Structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a leVee Or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Comments: 8.a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not violate any water quality Standards or waste diSCharge requirements. The project is required to 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 Ir~tent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts, can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. With mitigation, a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. Less Than Significant Impac[ The project will not substantially deplete groundwater Supplies or interfere substantially With groundwater recharge such that there would be 'a net'~leficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The project Will not have an affect on the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals or through R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Wlage~lnitia] Study.doc 11 interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters or aquifer volume. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.c.d. Less Tha~n Significant Impact. The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation and/or flooding on- or off-site. Some changes to absorption rates; drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff is expected whenever development occurs on previously permeable ground. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff Will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances are requ!red for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff that is created. As designed the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the existing facilities. ~. 8.e. Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not anticipated to create Or contribute mnoffwater, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage sYstems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project is conditioned .to accommodate the drainage created as a result of the development of the subjec[ site. In addition, the p~oject is conditioned so that the drainage will not impact surrounding pr°~ertieS..A less.~,han significant'impact is associated with this project. 8.g. No Impact. This project represents a development plan for a commercial user within an area Zoned for commercial uses. No residential property is affected; nO impact is associated with this proj ,ect.i 8.h. No ImPact. The project will have no impact on people or property to water related hazards sbch~as flooding because the project site is located outside of the 100-year floodway as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (Figure 7-3) and the Flood Insurance Rate Map Community-Panel Number 0607420005B. No potential for exposure tO Significant flOOd hazards will occur from developing the project site as proposed. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.i.j. No Impact. The project Site is not subject to inundation by sieche, tsunami, or mudflow, as these events are not known to happen in this'region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of thiS-project. 9. Land Use.and Planning. Would the project: , divide an established community?. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X Conflict with any. applicable habitat conservation plan or conservation X Comments: 9.a. No Impact. ,The project site is an infill cemmemial pamel surrounded, by single-family residences. In the Margarita Villages Specific Plan the intent of this pamel was to create a village concept with c0mmemial uses to service the surrounding residents. Therefore, no impacts as a result of this project are anticipated. R;~:) ~2~2-0273 Meadow Village~lnitial StUdy.doc 12 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project as pmp0sed is not consistent with the General Plan. nor s t cons stent w~th the Margar ta V age Spec~hc P an. The underly ng Genera Plan Land Use and the zoning designation! for the site are Neighborhood Commercial· The applicant has requested to amend the General Plan Land Use and zoning designation to Community Commercial, which will need to be appr(~ved in order for the proposed project to be consistent. Therefore, the following mitigation measurel must be implemented. REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES 5. The proposed General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment shall be approved prior to the approval of the Development Plan· I 9.c. Less Than significant Impact. The projeCt is located within the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Long-Term Habitat Conservatio,n Plan. All development within this fee area s ~equired to pay~a one-time mitigation fee. As a COnsequence, a less than significant impact is**anticipated. · 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the projec~i a. Result in the loss of availability of a knownlmineral ' resource that would be of value to the regimen and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally .important X mineral resourbe recovery site delineated On a local ~[[__ eneral lan,s ecific lan or other land use plan? Comments: 10.a.b. No Impact. The Project will not result in the loss of available, known mineral resources or in the loss of an available; locally important mineral r~soume recovery site. The state Geologist h, as classified the City'of Temecula a classification of MRZ-3a, COntaining areas of sedimentary dep0sit~ whicl~; have the potential for supplying sand and gravel.~or concrete and crUshed stone for aggregate. However, it has been determined that this area contains no deposits'of significant ~con°mic value based upon available data in a report entitled Mineral I.~and Classification ofthe Temescal Valley A~ea, Riverside ' County, California, Special. Report 165, prepared 'in accordance with the sUrfaCE Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975· No im ~cts are anticipated as a result of this project.. 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X excess of standards established in the local general plan ,, or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?, b. ,Exposure of persons to or generation of exbessive ' . X ~lroundborne v bration or ~roundbome noieO levels. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X in the project vicinity above levels existing ~ithout the project? R:~D P~2002~2-0273 Meadow Village~lnitial Study.doc 13 d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or WOrking in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: 11 .a.c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is located on a 9.77- ac~'e site directly adjacent to single-family residences. The City of TemeCula's General Plan has identified residents as sensitive receptors. A 65 CNEL has been adopted as the maximum exterior noise level acceptable for sensitive receptors. The CNEL is an average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of five decibels to sound levels in the~even~ing from.. 7:00 p.m. to 10~00 p.m. and after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. The proposed site and residences are separated by a fifty-foot landscape slope and grade elevations .varying from 16 feet to 30 feet. According to the-Noise Impact Analysis prepared for the Meadows Village project, by Urban Crossroads, dated May 31, 2001, the primary soume of noise on the project site is primarily from vehicles traveling on Rancho .Calif0mia and Meadows Village. The existing noise levels exceed the 65 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) that are acceptable for the existing residential homes as adopted in the Noise Element of the General ,Plan. The study indicates that the existing noise contours exceed the required 65 dBA CNEL as far- as 419 feet onto the site. The noise contours with the project indicate that the 65 dBA~ CNEL will be exceeded as far as 504 feet onto the site. A number of the adjacent residences fall within this distance, which will need to be mitigated. Therefore, the following mitigation measures will be implemented. REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES 6. All loading and storage areas shall, be located in the least intrusive areas of the site. 7. All loading areas adjac, ent to sensitive receptors shall be screened with sound walls to mitigate the noise generated by delivery trucks. 8, Provide a 9-foot high parapet wall that will block the line of site from the backyard of the nearby homes,to the exposed roof and ventilation systems of Building A and Building F. 9. Restrict the hOqrs of ~deliveries to not permit deliveries be ~t~,een the hours 10:00 p.m~ to 7:00 a.,mo 10. Reduce delivery truck noise by requiring engines'to be turned off during delivery operations. 11.b. Less Than Significant Impact~ The uses conducted by the~ project are not-activities that.~vould expose persons to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. Although there will be an increase in ground borne vibration and noise .during grading and construction, these will be of a temporary and short duration. Due to the limited nature of this exposure and by maintaining compliance with the City Noise Ordinance there will be a less than significant impacts. 11.d. Less Than Significant Impact. The prOject may result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels during construction. Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet, which is considered annoying. However, this soume of noise from const~ction of the project will be of short duration and therefore would not. be considered significant. Furthermore, construction activity will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity. A leSS than significant impact would be anticipated. R:',D t:~2002~2-0273 Meadow Village,Initial Study.doc 11.e.f. No Impact. This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, therefore, employees working in the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an · )ort. Consequently 3act is anticipated as a result of this 'ect. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? .' Comments: 12.a.b.c. No Impact. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project site is a commemial in-fill site surrounded by single-family residences· The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing, as the site is developed with commercial uses within a commemial zone. Additionally, the project site is located within an existing commercial area, which does not permit residential development· The project will neither displace housing nor people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered Government services in any of the following areas: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associates with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new Or physically- altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other pertormance objectives for any of the public services: )rotection? Schools? 'X X X X Parks? X X R:~,D P~.002~02-0273 Meadow Village~ln~ Study.doc 15 Comments: 13.a.b.c.e. Less Than Significant ImpacL The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The project will incrementally increase the need for some services. However, the project will contribute its fair share through City Development Impact Fees to the maintenance or provision of services from these entities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. 13.d. Less Than Significant Impac£ The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City. The cumulative effect from the project will be mitigated through the payment of applicable School Fees. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. 13.f. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for .new or altered public facilities. The Rancho California Water District and- the Riverside Department of Environmental Health have been made aware of this project. A condition of approval has been placed on this project that will require the proponent to obtain "Will Serve" letters from all of the public utilities agencies. Service is currently provided for the surrounding residential homes, so extending service to this site is probable, which would result in less than significant impacts as a result of the project. 14. RECREATION. Would the project: a. Would the project increase the use of existing X neighborhood and regional parks Or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require · X the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: 14.a.b. No Impact. The project is a Commemial project that is relatively small in scale. Theanticipated need to increase the neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result of this project is unlikely. The project may cause some employees to relocate from existing facilities elsewhere in Southern California to the City of Temecula and it is worth noti~ig:that the appl!cant shall be required to pay Development Impact Fees, which contribute tOWards the provision of recreational, facilities in the City. With the design of the project and the mitigation measures in place, impa~s are anticipated to be less than significant as a result of this project. .. ~ , R:',D P'~2002~2-0273 Meadow Vitlage',lnitial Study.doc 16 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. WOuld the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in X relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number cf vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of X service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either X an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d, Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature X (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) qr. incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? . e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?. - X g. - Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs . X suPporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: Less Than Significant ImpacL The project site is currently zoned Neighborhood Commemial, which is also the land use assumed in the City's Cimulation Element of the General Plan. According to the Traffic !mpact Analysis prepared by the traffic-engineering firm of Urban Crossroads, the proposed Community Commemial land uses within the proposed project will generate less daily and AM/PM peak hour traffic than the current zoning of Community Commercial. In addition the p[oject is consistent with General Plan goals and polices of maintaining a Le~,eL(~f Service "D" o~better at-all intemections within the City during peak hours. The proposed project'is not anticipated to cause significant impacts to the existing traffic system within the City of Temecula. Additionally, the City's Traffic Engineer reviewed the cumulative impacts during the approval process and has determined that the. project's traffic impacts warrant no further study or mitigations. 15.c:d. No Impact. T~ pr~)posed development of this property will not result in a chang~ in ai~ traffic pa{terns by increasing the traffic levels in the vicinity. The site is not within the French. ValleY Airport's flight · oveday district. The design of the project will not pose a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the people utiiizing the roads in the vicinity of the project because there are no sharp curves or dangerous intemections proposed. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 15.e. No Impact. The project will not result~in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project, as designed, complies with current City standards and has adequate emergency access. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. . . 15.f. No Impact. The proposed development complies with t'he Cib/s Development Code parking requirements for commercial uses. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:~,D F~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~lnitial Study.d~c 17 15.g. No Impact. The project site is located on a road that has access to public transportation. The project as proposed does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting altemative transportation. Because the project does net propose to significantly increase its employee base, alternative transportation programs specifically designed for this project are not necessary. The project will be required to provide bicycle racks at a rate of I rack per 20 required parking space per the Development Code. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ~ X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Com~ply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? Comments: 16.a.b.e. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, ~equire the construction of hew treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of ffeatn~ent providers. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. However, the Final Environmental . Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "implementation~ of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services." Since the project is Consistent With the City's General Plan, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.c. No Impact. The Drainage Study prepared for the underlying Tentative Parcel Map No. 22513 indicated that the amount of runoff from the project is not anticipated to be any greater than what was anticipated by construction of the site. Consequently, construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities is not anticipated. 16.d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final l Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have R:',D P,2002~2-0273 Meadow Village',initi~ Study.doc indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39).' The FEIR _ further states: 'implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in Soume Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ~ X of th.e environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant er animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal - or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually X limited, but cumulatively considerable? (uCumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project ara considerable when viewed in connection with J the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects? c. Does the project have environmental effects, which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: 17.a. No Impact. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment on site or in the vicinity of the project. The site lies within an existing residential area and has been zoned to accommodate commercial development. The project will not substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife because the site has been previously graded. No historic resources are anticipated to be impacted because grading has already occurred on the site. 17.b. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The cumulative effects from the project are significant but they are being mitigated to less than significant levels with the incorporated mitigation. All cumulative effects for the various land uses of the subject site as well as the surrounding developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. With the mitigation. measures in place, the project will be consistent with the General Plan and Development Code, the cumulative impacts related to the future development will not have a significant impact. 17.c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The commercial component will be designed and developed consistent with the Development Code, and the General Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:~) P~002~02-0273 Meadow Village~lnifial Study.doc 19 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should Identify the following on attached sheets. a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b. impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above, checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are 'Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,' describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Comments: 18.a~ There were no earlier analyses specifically related to this project site; The City's General Plan and Final Environment Impact Report and a number of special studies (listed under Sources) were used as a referenced source in preparing this Initial Study 18.b. There were no earlier impacts, which affected this project. 18.c. The mitigation measures are addressed in the Initial Study. · R:'~D ~2Q02~02-0273 Meadow Village~lnit~ Study.doc 2O SOURCES City of Temecula General Plan, adopted November 9, 1993. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, adopted July 2, 1993 The Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 dated October 10, 2000. Margarita Village Specific Plan Final Focused Environmental Impact Report ~202 dated Mamh 1986. Meadows Village Traffic Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads dated May 23, 2001. Meadows Village Traffic Analysis supplemental prepared by Urban Crossroads dated September 22, 2002. Meadows Village Noise Study prepared by Urban Crossroads dated May 31,2001. Meadows Village Air Quality prepared by Tom Dodson and Associates dated October 29, 2002. R:~D P~2.002~0~*0273 Meadow Village~lnitial Study.doc 21 CI'rYOFTEMECULA SEE An'ACHED DOCUMENT CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT - N PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 4, 2002 DRC LE'I-FER DATED 8-26-2002 R:',D P',2002~02-0273 Meadow Village'~Staff Report PC.doc 32 of Temecula 43200 Business ~-'~'ri~ee ~ Temecula California 92589-9033 (909) 694-6400 FAX (909) 694-6477 August 26, 2002 John Clement Venture Point 3419 Via Lido #196 Newport Beach, CA 92663 SUBJECT: DRC C'omments for Planning Application Case Nos. 02-0271 02-0272,02-0273, and 02-0274 for the Meadows Village project located at the comer of Meadows Parkway and Rancho Califomia Road Dear Mr. Clement: Thank you for the opportunity to meet with your representatives regarding the above-referenced project. As a result of the Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting held on August 8, 2002, the following.list of changes will need to be made and resubmitted for staff's review. PLANNING DEPARTMENT-Rick Rush, Project Planner 694-6400 General Comments Please amend the submitted traffic study to include a comparisOn of typical uses found in a neighborhopd co.mmer.cial center to the proposed uses for Meadows Village. As discussed in the DRC meeting additional aspects of the Specific Plan will need ,to be amended. The proposed architecture style is not consistent with the Architectural Guidelines in the Specific Plan (page Ill-22). The proposed landscaping is not consistent with the Specific Plan landscaping palette and conceptual plans (page 111-37). The applicant will be conditioned to provide a Sign prog.ram for the center. All signs for the center will need to be identified in the sign program. In order for staff to provide complete design comments the applicant will need to provide more details of the common areas, pedestrian areas, and gathering spots. As stated in the DRC meeting the submitted plans are to conceptual. The details of these areas are a crucial aspect of the project. Included provide staff details of the decorative paving, lighting, patio furniture, and any other amenities that are a part of the development. R:~D 1~2002~2-0273 Meadow Villagc~DRC la:act.doc I Site Plan o Staff has concems with the access point on Rancho Califomia nearest to Meadow's Parkway. The design of this access point will create stacking issues once vehicles enter the site. The two turning movements are located to close to the entrance. Also, the stacking problem will be further complicated by the location of the drive through for building B. Please revise the location of the drive through for building B. It is currently located in a very prominent location of the building. Staff will not support the drive through in its current location. Staff is recommending revising the site plan to create more of a village center as opposed to a stdp center. It is the concern of staff that the entire center has been designed around building A (Market). Staff has the following concerns with the building locatiOns: a. Ddve aisles separate building C and building E, b. Drive aisles also separate building C and Building B. c. A large parking area separates building B and building F. d. The majority of the parking for building F is located to the w~'st and separated bY a drive aisle. This will create a conflict with pedestrian and vehicles. Staff has concerns with the proposed locations of the loading areas for building A, building B and building C. All three of these loading areas are near an entry point, and it is staff's opinion that they would need to be relocated. 10. Staff has concerns with the location of Building E. The proposed location isolates the building from the entire center. The building is adjacent from the loading areas for building*A and building C. 'Staff is recommending relocating building E to the front of the Market, and tying it in with building F to created a courtyard betwe~,n the tw0bui!dings~. , The large parking field located in front of the Market creates a major concem for staff. It is the opinion of staff that by reorienting the buildings a village core could be created instead of a large parking field. 11. 12. Please provide details of the area in front of the building A, specifically the area called out as cart storage. Has the applicant looked into the possibility of locating this cart area inside the building? * Are there any intentions of having areas located within the parking field for patrons to return cads? It is the recommendation of staff that the applicant prOvide areas for patrons to return carts without having to return them to the front of the building. Staff would need to see details of these areasto include materials and landscaping. Elevations 13. As previously stated the proposed architecture is not consistent with the Architectural Guidelines in the Specific Plan. The proposed'architecture would need to b~ included in the Specific Plan. 14. Provide details of how the two materials indicated, as column base will be applied. The elevations and material board provided do not give staff an indication of application. Also, it is recommended to continue the column base up entire columns. This would create more interesting elevations. 15. Building elevations visible from Rancho Califomia and Meadows Parkway would need to have more articulation added. Staff stated during the DRC meeting that awnings, frosted glass, and other materials found on the front elevations could be used on these highly visible elevations. 16. Staff has concerns with the view from the south elevation on building C. Please incorporate similar roof elements from the north elevation and incorporate them to the south elevation. 17. The applicant has provided a line of site from the residences adjacent to the proposed project. Please revise these lines of site to provide the view from the second story windows. 18. Please provide details of the trash enclosures. Provide other materials as opposed to the stucco. Most of the proposed locations for trash enclosures are highly visible. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 19, Please find the attached comments and redline plans generated by the City's consultant. BUILDING DEPARTMENT- Mark Harold, Deputy Building Official, 694-6439 20. Please provide an analysis of the floor area for all occupancies proposed,, include ratio of differing areas, if applicable, as required in California Building Code section 504.3. 21. Show on the plans the fire resistive construction for exterior walls per California Building Code Table 5-A. 22. Show on the plans required exits from all spaces. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT- Annie Bostre- Le, Assistant Engineer, 694-6411 The following comments and requirements shall be complied with and submitted for review and approval prior to our setting the Conditions of Approval for the above project Please revise the Site Plan to show,the followingi, 23. Label surrounding parcel information 24. A deceleration lane to access the westerly driveway on Rancho California Road. 25. Rancho California Road a. Label proposed "Raised Landscaped Median" 26. Meadows Parkway a. Label proposed "Raised Landscaped Median" 27. Please explain: Building F is encroaching into the Slope and Landscape Maintenance Easement Revise the Conceptual Grading Plan to show the following: 28. Label surrounding parcel information 29. A deceleration lane to access the westerly driveway on Rancho California Road. 30. Cross sections: a. Section "A-A" · Please label existing versus proposed improvements · Raised landscaped median b. Section"B-B" · Please label existing vemus proposed improvements · Raised landscaped median 31. Plan view a. Rancho Califomia Road ,, Label propOsed "Raised Landscaped Median" b. Meadows Parkway · Label proposed "Raised Landscape.d Median" 32. Utility Purveyor a. Natural Gas shall read "Southern Califomia Gas Company" 33. Please explain: Building F is' encroaching into the Slope and LandScape Maintenance Easement This project may be conditioned for the following: 34. 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 the development of this project. 35. Improve Meadows Parkway (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) to include installation of sidewalk, streeffights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), raised landscaped median. 36. Improve Rancho California Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include installation of streetiights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), raised landscaped median. 37. Provide a deceleration lane to access the westerly driveway on Rancho C~alifornia Road. 38. The westerly driveway on Rancho California Road will be restricted to right-in/right-out movements . · 39. The easterly driveway on Rancho California Road will be restricted to right-in/right- out/left-n movements. -. .... 40. The northerly driveway on Meadows Parkway will be restricted to dght-iNright-out movements. 41. An encroachment permit w!ll be. required for any work. within City right-of-way. 42. Modify the existing signal (i.e., Rancho Califomia Road and Meadows ~arkway) per the. direction and approval of the Department of Public Works. 43. The Applicant shall pay all prevailing fees, ie. Developmept Impact Fee and Area Drainage Fee. FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU- Jim McBride, Deputy. Fire Marshall- 694-6405 SITE PLAN 44. Show the Thomas Brother's Map location on the vicinity map. 45. Show the locations and the types of all existing public fire hydrants on the public road. There shall be a minimum of one located within 250 ft. of the lot frontage. 46. FDC(s) shall be located within 50ff. of a public hydrant, on the right of way, and a minimum of 40ff. away from the building (and grouped if multiple appliances). 47. All medians shall be set back a minimum of 30 ft. from the face of the curb with a minimum of 16 ft. ddving width on each side, or the median can be flush if a 24 ft. minimum ddveway exists on both sides. 48. Onsite fire hydrants shall be required along Fire Department access routes. FLOOR PLANS 49. Appears to exceed allowable area, provide code analysis of applicable codes (Bldg A). 50. Short property line setbacks may require protected/rated walls and or openings. 51. All questions regarding this letter shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau staff. In summary, this letter serves to notify you of the results of the DRC meeting. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call me ant (909) 694-6400. Sincerely, Rick Rush Associate Planner CC: Larry Markham Markham Development Management Group 41635 Enterprise Circle North, Suite B Temecula, CA 92614 Enclosure: Red Line Landscape Plans R:~D 1~2002\02-0273 Meadow Viliage'~DRC Loiter,doc 5