Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alcohol Licenses topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Project Review Committee outlines process for Chevron's alcohol-license upgrade; overconcentration triggers public‑convenience review
Summary
The Porterville Project Review Committee on Nov. 6, 2024 reviewed an application to modify the conditional-use permit for alcohol sales at the Extra Mile Chevron, 1043 West Olive Avenue, including required hearings and fees to upgrade the license from type 20 to type 21.
The Porterville Project Review Committee on Nov. 6, 2024 considered an application to modify a conditional-use permit for alcohol sales at the Extra Mile Chevron service station, 1043 West Olive Avenue, to upgrade the site’s current alcohol license from a type 20 to a type 21.
Committee chair Oscar Cepeda said the existing service station has an approved conditional-use permit covering alcohol sales under a type 20 license and that the applicant has requested an upgrade to type 21. Planning staff explained that a modification to the conditional-use permit is required for the upgrade and that the modification process is a public hearing with associated fees.
Planning staff outlined fees and procedural requirements: a conditional-use-permit modification fee of $150; a $79 fee to prepare an environmental document (staff said they can make a preliminary CEQA exemption determination); and a $26.50 fee if the city prepares the noticing map for adjacent property owners (the applicant may instead prepare the notice). Staff also reported that the property is in Census Tract 36.02, which the city’s summary described as allowing six on-sale and seven off-sale alcohol licenses, and that the tract currently contains seven on-sale and 11 off-sale licenses.
Because current license counts exceed the stated allowed number in the tract, planning staff said the project will require a letter of public convenience or necessity as outlined in the Business and Professions Code. No departments raised technical objections at this stage: the fire department, building division, engineering and field services each reported no comments on the proposed modification during the committee review.
Cepeda said staff would compile all departments’ comments into a written letter to the applicant and mail it in about two weeks. The committee took no formal vote or action to approve or deny the requested conditional-use-permit modification; the discussion served to identify procedural steps, fees and the noticing and environmental-review work that must occur before a public hearing.
No members of the public spoke on the item during the committee meeting.
