No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD Mi Pueblo Foods AppealarroF�� Agenda Item No: $ Meeting Date: September 21, 2009 4 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: Community Development Prepared by: FA 1 ctw A- r City Manager Approval: Obert M. Brown SUBJECT: 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) — Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-014), Use Permit (UP09-015), Sign Permit (SR09-012) and Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN09- 001) to allow: a) exterior modifications to the existing commercial building, including an alteration to the building entry, new colors and materials on the building and new wooden trellises and columns along front of building; b) outdoor dining area on the private sidewalk area in front of the structure; c) new building signs; and d) alcohol sales in the new grocery store for consumption off-site. APN 009-280-06; General Commercial (GC) District; Ruth Donohugh and Bruce Livingston/Marin Institute, appellants, David Mena/Mena Architects, applicant; Simeon Commercial Properties, owner; File No. AP09-004. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council deny the two appeals (AP09-004) and uphold the Planning Commission's July 14, 2009 decision affirming the Zoning Administrator's approval of the project by adopting the attached resolution (Attachment 1). BACKGROUND: Site Conditions/Setting: The subject site is a flat lot that totals 3.96 acres in size and is located near the southeast corner of the Bellam and Kerner Boulevard intersection. The site is currently developed with an approximately 36,000 sq. ft. commercial building and 177 on-site parking spaces. Fifteen of the 177 parking spaces on this site are reserved by an easement for perpetual use of the adjacent property to the south, currently owned by County of Marin. The existing building is currently vacant and was last occupied by Circuit City. The site is surrounded by a variety of land uses with medium density residential townhomes to the north side across Bellam Blvd, a one story restaurant and vacant lots to the east (rear), a one story building hosting the County Wellness Center to the south side and a multi story structure for the County Wellness Clinic to the front (west). Project Description: The project proposes to re -tenant an existing commercial building formerly used by Circuit City with a new grocery store. As part of the re -tenanting of the building, the applicant has proposed certain modifications/improvements to the building and site that require discretionary planning permits, including: ➢ An Environmental and Design Review Permit is required to evaluate the exterior modifications to the structure, including new architectural features, new entry tower design, new colors and materials as well as changes to the site to replace landscaping on the site and changes to the parking lot design to accommodate required accessible spaces; FOR CITY CLERK ONLY File No.: Council Meeting: Disposition: SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2 ➢ An Administrative Use Permit is required to allow the outdoor seating/dining in conjunction with the food service establishment; ➢ A Sign Permit is required to allow the preliminary sign design for wall and site signage; and ➢ Finding Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) in order to allow off -sale liquor license. A letter from Jeff Aldez of Mi Pueblo Foods providing background of the company and responses to the appeal points at the Planning Commission hearing are attached (Attachment 6, pages 179 -182 of this report). Additionally, a letter from Mr. Aldez providing their justification for the PCN was presented to the Zoning Administrator and is also attached (Attachment 6, pages 183 -184 of this report). The complete project, including all the details, are provided in the project plans submitted for this project (distributed to Council under separate cover). A summary of the project description is provided below. Use: The project proposes to reuse the existing commercial building formerly used by Circuit City as a new grocery store. The proposed grocery store would be a full service grocery store, with a specialty of Hispanic food and products. The proposed grocery store offers the sale of produce, frozen goods, meats, groceries, household products, prepared food and alcohol. The proposed grocery store would also contain a bakery, deli, bbq area, tortilleria and cremeria. The store is not proposed to operate past 11 pm. The primary entrance to the store would remain at the center of the front of the building, with 9 checkout stands. The project would also include an indoor seating area (19 tables/76 chairs) and an outdoor dining area (6 tables/18 chairs). The floor area dedicated to indoor dining totals 1,040 sq. ft, or approximately 3% of the 36,361 sq. ft store. Architecture: The proposed project would incorporate the following changes to the exterior of the structure: a) fagade renovations to all four sides of the structure to incorporate new building material and colors; b) redesign of the building entry; c) incorporation of new building materials and colors; and d) addition of trellis, columns, and pergolas along the front of the structure. In addition, the project would remove 440 sq. ft of enclosed entry area under the current entry tower and move the doors to the main building wall. Lastly, the project proposes the addition of an enclosed, 440 sq. ft. barbeque area at the front of the building. Site Improvements/ Landscaping: Site improvements are proposed to include enhancement and replanting of existing landscaped areas, creation of new outdoor dining/seating area at the front of the store, and modifications to the parking lot to provide required accessible (ADA) spaces. Zoning Administrator Hearing: On May 19, 2009, the Zoning Administrator (ZA) conducted a public hearing on the applications. During the hearing, the applicant, business operators and property owners presented the proposed project. The ZA accepted comments from seven members of the public. Copies of all written public correspondence on the proposed project received prior to the ZA hearing are attached to this report (Attachment 6, pages 216 — 219 of this report). In addition, there were oral comments provided to the ZA during the public hearing. There were four comments in opposition to the project, two comments with questions about the project and one comment in favor of the project, These comments are contained as part of the attached ZA minutes (Attachment 6, pages 158 -178 of this report). In summary, the public comments during the hearing included the following: • Traffic intensification from the proposed change in use • Impacts of the new grocery store on other smaller grocery stores in the area • The proposed use being more of a restaurant/food service use than a grocery store • Lack of parking on the site to support the new use Existing lack of parking and traffic impacts on this site from the adjacent county health campus • Potential for delivery trucks to impede traffic for the county health center • Unacceptable condition of the existing Bellam Blvd roadway and medians. • Lack of pedestrian friendly features in the area Following closure of the public hearing, the ZA continued the project to May 20, 2009 to allow for the review and consideration of the numerous comments raised at the hearing. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3 On May 20, 2009, the ZA conducted the continued hearing. After review and consideration of the testimony presented at the May 19, 2009 hearing, the ZA approved the project with conditions. Notice of the decision, including transmittal of the meeting minutes and findings and conditions of approval were provided to the applicant and their team as well as the members of the public who requested such notice. A copy of the ZA meeting minutes, from May 19 and 20th are provided (Attachment 6, pages 158-178 of this report). The ZA also provided the appeal rights under which any aggrieved party could appeal the decision. The meeting minutes include the findings for the approval and the conditions of approval imposed on the project. Appeal of Zoning Administrator Action: Within the statutory appeal period following the ZA's decision, an appeal of the ZA action was filed along with the required filing fee. The appellant, Ruth Donohugh owner of the adjacent Picante Restaurant, submitted a letter dated May 25, 2009. The appeal letter cites numerous points of appeal. In addition, the appellant submitted a follow-up letter dated July 8, 2009. Copies of both letters are provided (Attachment 6, pages 185-208 of this report). Planning Commission Hearing on Appeal: On July 14, 2009, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the appeal and ultimately adopted Resolution No. 09-06, denying the appeal and upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval with modifications to the conditions of approval (4-0-3 with Commissioners Colin, Lang and Paul absent). The adopted resolution (Attachment 4, pages 99 -122 of this report) and draft meeting minutes (Attachment 5, pages 123-140 of this report) are provided. During the hearing, the Commission accepted public comments from the applicant, appellant and the public. The public comments supporting the project expressed the need for a full service grocery store, creation of jobs in the Canal neighborhood and support for the Mi Pueblo company and its operation. Of those opposing the project, the main concerns expressed were the impact of this large grocery store on the other small businesses in the Canal neighborhood, concern with the impact of liquor sales on the area's population and the traffic intensification to the already congested area from the new use. The Commission ultimately determined that, although the amount of dining area contained in the grocery store was more than that of other grocery stores, the food service portion of the use did not rise to be more than an ancillary use of the main use of the building, a grocery store. The Commission also determined that the new grocery store would be a beneficial use for the area and has been a long standing desire for the community. The Commission also found that the introduction of this use may actually result in traffic reductions or improvements since it would put a full service grocery store close to the large population area. As for the liquor sales, the Commission understood the concerns expressed by those present on the impacts of alcohol, but found that the proposed liquor sales out of this grocery store would not be a significant amount and was typical of most full service grocery stores. The Commission ultimately denied the appeal and upheld the ZA's approval subject to the following changes, including: • The addition of a condition of approval confirming that the use would not include drive-up/drive-thru service in the project. • The addition of a condition of approval confirming that the use would not utilize outdoor speakers or amplified sound outside the building. • Requiring that the outdoor seating area be reduced on the plans to not exceed 18 seats and not exceed 190.75 sq. ft. so as to meet the 25% limit and that this requirement be reflected as an additional condition in the administrative use permit. • Change the CEQA finding to clarify that the Categorical Exemption for existing facilities was an appropriate exemption. • To accept staffs recommended changes presented in the revised draft resolution at the start of the hearing to add findings to respond to the July 8, 2009 follow-up letter from the appellant and to revise PCN findings criteria #1 to clarify that the applicant does not have another facility in Marin County and that the proposed PCN would increase the number of off -sale licenses in this census tract by one. These additional conditions were incorporated into the conditions of approval in the draft City Council Resolution (Attachment 1). ANALYSIS: On July 21 2009, two separate appeals of the Planning Commission were filed citing 6 different appeal points. The two primary issues raised by the two separate appeals are: a) the food service component of the grocery SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Pale: 4 store is not an ancillary use and should be considered a fast food restaurant; thereby requiring a Use Permit and additional parking; and b) the granting of the PCN for off -sale of alcohol is not warranted given the overconcentration of alcohol licenses, high crime rates in the area and proximity of incompatible facilities. Appeal #1: Within the statutory appeal period, an appeal of the Planning Commission's action was filed along with the required filing fee. The appellant, Ruth Donohugh, is the same person who appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision to the Planning Commission. Ms. Donohugh has appealed the Planning Commission's denial by submitting a letter dated July 21, 2009, (Attachment 2, pages 35-50 of this report), which cites the same four points of appeal that were made to the Planning Commission. Below in bold are the appeal points followed by a response: Appeal Point la — The proposed Food Center contains a fast food restaurant. The appellant claims that the proposed use not only contains a grocery store, but also a fast food restaurant, and therefore, since the fast food restaurant is a conditionally permitted use, the applicant should be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. Response: The subject property is located in the General Commercial (GC) Zoning District. The GC district identifies numerous types of retail, office and other land uses that are permitted or conditionally permitted uses. In this District, grocery stores and restaurants are permitted land uses; these types of uses are allowed to be established and to operate in the District without the need to secure a Use Permit. In the GC District, fast food restaurants are conditionally permitted uses and are allowed to operate subject to applying for and obtaining approval of a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission. This issue was reviewed, considered and addressed by both the ZA and the Planning Commission and both found it to not have merit for two reasons. First, even if the food service component of the grocery store were to be considered a "fast food restaurant", it is not a separate or primary use of the building, but rather is an ancillary use. When reviewing proposed land uses to determine whether they are allowed or conditionally allowed, the City makes its land use decisions based on the primary use or multiple primary uses of a building. In this particular case, the food service portion of the use was not determined to be a separate use, but rather an ancillary use to the main use of the building, a grocery store. The Zoning Ordinance does not include a definition of ancillary, therefore, planning staff has historically used its professional judgment to evaluate whether a use contained as part of a business is ancillary or not. Through past practice, the general threshold to define whether a use is ancillary to a primary use has been determined through the following factors: ➢ Whether the floor area dedicated to the use is less than 25% of the total area; ➢ Whether the amount of business, revenue or activity generated by the use is less than 25% of the main use; ➢ Whether the hours of operation and intensity of operation are similar to the primary use; and ➢ Whether the uses are composed in separate and demised tenant spaces. As an example, most retail establishments include a sales floor or showroom, office space for store management, backroom storage and other ancillary uses within their tenant space. The City does not consider these various components as separate and primary uses, but, rather, considers them on the whole as a retail use with ancillary office and storage. Office and storage space in a retail business are common uses and as long as they are not stand alone offices for a different business, are not situated in a separate tenant space, or do not comprise more than 25% of the floor area or activity of the retail use, they are considered an ancillary use. In reviewing this proposed grocery store use, staff and the Planning Commission have determined that the food service component comprises less than 25% of the floor area of the grocery store use (approximately 3% of the total floor area). Furthermore, the retail sales of prepared foods, deli, bakery, etc., are common and integral components of nearly all large, full-service grocery stores. Being that the prepared food, deli, bakery, juicery, etc. are no different than the retail sales of groceries or other household products, that only leaves the dining area as an area that could even possibly be considered as a restaurant. Given the size of the dining area compared to the total floor area (approximately 3%) and the anticipated revenues from on site dining, staff concluded that the indoor seating/dining portion of the business is a minor, or ancillary, component of the business. The primary use of the structure is determined to be a grocery store based on: a) the proportion of the prepared food sales/food service is SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5 approximately 8% of the total sales from all other uses in the building, b) the amount of area dedicated to the food service is approximately 3% of the total floor area; c) the amount of revenue from the food service vs. total revenue; d) the lack of a demised and separate space for the food service; and e) the fact that most of the food service sales would occur in conjunction with the sales of groceries and other household products in the grocery store. Furthermore, the proposed Mi Pueblo grocery store is typical of most large, full-service grocery stores found in the City, County and other parts of the country. Many newer full-service grocery stores include a deli, coffee shop, bakery, prepared foods counter and kitchen and/or other food preparation areas. Although the intensity of the various components of food service contained in this proposed Mi Pueblo may be somewhat larger than that provided in other grocery stores in the community, such as Whole Foods (Third St), both Safeways (Downtown and Northgate One), Scotty's Market (Terra Linda), or Andy's Market (Loch Lomond), it is not atypical of the other grocery stores. Several of these markets include both indoor and outdoor seating. Given the size of the building and use, the amount of food preparation area contained in this use is typical of other full-service grocery stores in this community. Although the Planning Commission did acknowledge that the proposed food service component of the grocery store may be larger than the other grocery stores in the County, they did not find that it rose to a level to be more than an ancillary use, Therefore, the proposed Mi Pueblo use is considered a full-service grocery store with ancillary food service (as well as other ancillary uses, i.e. storage, alcohol sales, etc). Being that the primary use of the building is a grocery store, neither staff nor the Commission considered ancillary uses as separate uses in terms of calculating parking or other zoning -related requirements. The second reason the proposed food service component of the grocery store use would not be considered a "fast food restaurant" is that it does not meet the definition of "fast food restaurant" contained in Section 14.03.030 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance definition of fast food is: Fast food restaurant" means a facility which specializes in rapidly prepared foods and beverages, served with dispensable (such as paper or plastic) plates and utensils for on- or off-site consumption. Table service is generally limited to delivery of counter -ordered meals and busing. Service to persons in vehicles may be a function of fast food restaurants. Fast food restaurants have high customer volume and high traffic generation, plus one or more of the following elements: 1. Drive-through service; 2. Late%arly hours of operation (open after eleven p.m. (11:00 p.m.) or before six a.m. (6:00 a.m.)); 3. Potential litter problems; 4. Noise (for example, from drive-through intercoms); 5. Potential outdoor gathering places. The appellant is correct that the food service portion of the grocery store may meet the characteristics identified in the paragraph portion of the definition above. However, as identified in this definition, a use must also exhibit one or more of the elements listed in 1-5 to be considered a fast food restaurant. This proposed use does not include drive-thru service (including an outdoor speaker for drive-thru service) nor does it propose late (past 11 pm) or early hours (before 6am) of operation. Furthermore, the proposed use does not exhibit potential litter problems or outdoor gathering places more than that of a typical restaurant or grocery store given that: a) the food service portion of the use is limited and considered an ancillary use; b) the outdoor seating area is of a limited size; and c) the outdoor dining is consistent with the performance standards for outdoor dining and an Administrative Use Permit has been granted for the outdoor dining. The types of food service establishments that historically have been considered "fast food" in the City of San Rafael are limited to uses such as Burger King (Francisco Blvd), Jack in the Box (Second St), Kentucky Fried Chicken (Second St), McDonalds (Fourth St and Merrydale Rd), A&W (Redwood Highway) and Wendy's (Anderson Dr). Considering this type of ancillary food service within this grocery store a "fast food restaurant" would not be consistent with the historical application of the Ordinance for other food service establishments in the City and would render other uses that have been considered food service restaurant to be considered as fast food. If the City were to apply the rationale and definition SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6 of fast food in a manner suggested in the appeal, then a great number of other small restaurants, deli's, coffee shops, taqueria's, etc, including many of the existing food service establishments in the Canal, would have to be considered as fast food and thus necessitate use permits. Appeal Point #1b. - Proposed Food Center does not comply with parking requirements. Response: As stated in appeal point #1 a, the proposed use is considered a grocery store, with ancillary uses, including food service, office, storage, beer and liquor sales, check cashing, etc. The parking is based on the primary use of the building, not all the ancillary uses. The food service component of the grocery store is neither a separate nor a primary use of the building, therefore it is considered ancillary. As discussed above, the food service is an integral part of a full-service grocery store. The parking requirement for grocery stores is 1 space/250 gross sq ft. of building area. The project site provides 162 on-site parking spaces, 17 more than the 145 required by the zoning ordinance. In addition, the appeal states that for mixed-use projects that contain more than one use in a single building or on a single site, parking must be projected for the sum of the parking requirements for the various uses. In this case, this use is not considered a mixed-use project. The project is a grocery store with a variety ancillary uses. The method by which the mixed-use requirements have been historically applied within the City of San Rafael, as well as most other jurisdictions, is illustrated by the following examples: a) A single building that contains two separate tenants in separate demised tenant spaces, one a restaurant and one a retail store. The required parking for the building must be the sum of that required for the restaurant and that of the retail store. b) A site that has numerous building and numerous separate uses, i.e. a strip shopping mall. The required parking is the sum of the parking requirements for each of the separate uses in the separate tenant spaces. The mixed-use argument is not applicable in this case because the types of uses operated in this building are not considered separate uses or independent businesses. The use operates and functions as one business in one tenant space, is operated by the same entity, and serves as ancillary uses that are typical of the primary use of the building, a full-service grocery store. As discussed above, nearly all land uses host a variety of sub, or ancillary uses. Parking is not counted by dividing the store into the various functional areas and totaling the sum of the parking requirement of each of the ancillary uses. The other uses in this grocery store were all considered to be ancillary uses. Therefore, the use was considered to be a grocery store as the primary use and the parking required was that required for the primary use. Using the appellant's methodology would not be consistent with how the City applies its Ordinance throughout the City. Appeal Point #1c — The Mi Pueblo Fast food restaurant is also a high volume food service establishment. Response: The appellant has correctly identified the City's definition of "high volume food service" which states " A food service establishment over one thousand (1, 000) square feet in size which serves more than two hundred (200) lunches daily or equivalent volume at other mealtimes." The ZA determined and the Planning Commission confirmed that the food service component of the proposed use, whether it is high volume, fast food, or a restaurant, is a minor and ancillary component of the primary use of the building as a grocery store. Therefore, it is considered as an accessory or ancillary use. The land use table for the General Commercial Zoning District identifies that "Accessory structures and uses customarily incidental to a permitted use and contained on the same site" are permitted uses. The Planning Commission concurred with the ZA's application of the land use designation and found no merit in the appeal. Therefore, the use is considered a grocery store as the primary use with multiple accessory uses, including alcohol sales, office use, storage, etc. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7 Appeal Point #1d — The Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant requires a Conditional Use Permit and the high volume service establishment requires a Conditional Use Permit. Response: As stated in staff response to appeal points la and 1c, both the ZA and the Planning Commission determined that the food service uses are considered ancillary to the grocery store use and not a separate use. Therefore, no Use Permit is required. Appeal #2 Issues: Within the statutory appeal period, a second and separate appeal of the Planning Commission's action was filed, along with the required filing fee. The appellant, Bruce Livingston of Marin Institute, submitted a letter dated July 21, 2009, (Attachment 3, pages 51- 98 of this report) which cites two main points of appeal: a) the Planning Commission failed to follow the letter of the law in part due to facts that were ignored by the ZA; b) the Planning Commission inaccurately considered four of the PCN criteria., Below in bold are the appeal points followed by staffs response: Appeal Point #2a - The Planning Commission failed to follow the letter of the law in part due to facts that were ignored by the Zoning Administrator. The Planning Commission was under the erroneous impression that they were simply deciding whether or not to approve the alcohol license, when in fact it was decided to carve out an exception to state law that protects the public. Response: The Planning Commission was extremely clear on its scope of review for the PCN and the City's role in the review of the alcohol license based on the established Resolution for reviewing and considering PCNs. In terms of the City's scope and role in the review of liquor licenses, the State Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) is the sole agency that has the authority to issue alcohol (i.e. beverage/liquor) licenses. A local governmental agency, such as the City of San Rafael, does not have the authority to grant a license. In certain circumstances where there is an undue concentration of licenses, ABC will not issue a new off -sale license or certain on -sale licenses unless the local government body (city or county) first grants a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN). Nearly the entire City of San Rafael exhibits the undue concentration and therefore any new off -sale license in the City will not be granted by ABC unless the City first grants a PCN. The PCN process is established to allow a local jurisdiction to consider additional licenses in over -concentrated areas and if they determine that the additional license would serve a public convenience or necessity, then a PCN can be granted. The San Rafael City Council adopted Resolution No. 10299, which governs the procedures for the City's review and criteria for determination of whether such license would provide a public convenience or necessity. In summary, there are seven criteria that are to be considered by the City as part of its determination whether the public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance of an off - sale retail liquor license. A copy of the entire City Council Resolution No 10299, containing the review process and criteria is attached as part of the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 6, pages 212-215 of this report). The appellant has indicated the proposed off -sale license for the Mi Pueblo grocery store would not comply with four of the seven criteria. As indicated in the Section III (Attachment 6, pages 214-215 of this report) of the PCN Resolution: "...for purposes of determining whether public convenience or necessity will be served by issuance of an....off-sale retail liquorlicense subject to local determination, the following criteria shall be considered...'. This provision of the resolution means that the City is to consider the seven criteria as part of their review, but does not mean that all seven criteria are mandatory. The intent of the review criteria is to consider the specific request for a PCN, determine whether there would be a public convenience or necessity served by the addition of that specific license in the area, and consider the request in light of the review criteria. The following represents a staff response to each of the specific criteria which the appellant has appealed. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8 1. Will the issuance of a liquor license increase the total number of licenses in the city or census tract? The appellant cites that this new license would increase the number of alcohol licenses in the area and that Mi Pueblo had to go outside the City of San Rafael to get a license to transfer to this area. Response: The appellant is correct in this claim. However, as discussed above, the sole purpose of the PCN process is that when a new license is proposed in a community that has an over - concentration of existing licenses in one area, the local agency has the authority to review and consider the request and must first grant a PCN before ABC will issue another new license in the area. As discussed above, the ZA and the Planning Commission considered the type of license requested, the nature of the license and the review criteria contained in the PCN Resolution and determined that the public convenience would be served by the addition of this license. In summary, the granting of a license for this use would increase in the number of licenses by one, but given the nature of the license and operation of use, the Planning Commission, Planning Staff or Police Department did not identify any issues. 2. Will issuing the license serve a segment of the population not presently being served? The appellant cites that there are 29 other licenses in the census tract and that constitutes an over - concentration. Response: Again, the appellant is correct in that there are 29 other licenses in the area and this constitutes an overconcentration of licenses. In analyzing the 29 existing licenses, four (4) of the 29 licenses are for off -sale of beer, wine and hard alcohol (Type 21). The following is a breakdown of the 29 licenses in the census tract by the ABC license type, number of license in the area and the description of the license. Type # of Licenses Description of License Type 20 6 Off sale - Beer and wine only 21* 4 Off sales- beer, wine and alcohol 41 13 On sale beer and wine at a restaurant 47 4 On sale — Beer wine and alcohol at restaurant 51 1 Club 58 1 Caterer * License type that is requested by this application The Canal area currently has an overconcentration of licenses based on ABC's criteria, which is the reason ABC requires the local agency to process a PCN and review the application so as to determine whether the City finds a public convenience or necessity would be served by the addition of a new license. The ZA reviewed the request for a PCN and found that the request was consistent with the above criteria. The ZA findings granting the PCN are included as part of the findings contained in the ZA meeting minutes (Attachment 6, pages 158-178 of this report). As part of the public hearing process, the ZA found that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that issuance of a PCN to allow liquor sales at this grocery store would provide a convenience to the shoppers of this facility given that the opportunity to buy liquor would be in conjunction with typical shopping for purchase of groceries, household products produce, meats and other supplies typically found at other full service grocery stores. There are no other large, full-service grocery stores in the Canal neighborhood and adding this new license would serve that need. In its review and action on this project, the Planning Commission concluded that off -sale of beer, wine and hard alcohol is a common component of nearly all full-service grocery stores in this City, as well as in other communities throughout the state. There are 4 existing ABC licenses in the area that permit off -sale of beer, wine and hard alcohol and none of the 4 licenses are associated with a full- service grocery store. Additionally, given the operational plan and amount of area dedicated to liquor sales, the liquor sales are expected to make up less than 4% of the overall sales from the store, a minor portion of the merchandise sales. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 9 3. Is the location of the business applying for the liquor licenses within 1,000 feet of an incompatible facility such as day care centers, schools, churches, parks, homeless shelters, rehabilitation centers or places that are designed and operate to serve minors? The appellant cites that the proposed location is next to the Marin Health and Wellness Campus and that facility provides services to minors and families, including alcohol and drug treatment recovery services. The appeal also cites that the ZA ignored this issue during their review and thereby misled the Commission. Response: The ZA hearing was noticed to property owners, business owners, residents and occupants of all properties within 300 feet of the subject site, including the County Health and Wellness Center. There was no information or correspondence submitted by the County Health Center or any other person prior to the ZA hearing on the existence of health and wellness programs that serve minors in the vicinity nor expressing concern with the proximity of the proposed alcohol sales at the subject site to an incompatible facility. On the evening of the Planning Commission hearing, the County Department of Health and Human Services did submit a letter: a) providing information and data to help the City makes its decision citing the higher density of alcohol sales in this area of San Rafael as compared to the rest of Marin County; b) expressing concern with drinking and driving; c) expressing concern with placing alcohol sales close to the County facility; and d) suggesting conditions of approval that should be placed on the grocery store. (Attachment 11, pages 256-258 of this report). Both prior to the ZA hearing and after the Planning Commission appeal, staff consulted with the Police Department to solicit their input and experience with off -sale licenses in the Canal area as well as other parts of the City. A memo from the Police Department is included with this report (Attachment 8, pages 241-242 of this report) and is summarized below: • There are no issues or concerns with the nature of the proposed use given that alcohol sales is such small a part of the overall sales from this grocery store (less than 4%), no on-site consumption is proposed and the amount of display of alcohol is limited to two interior merchandise racks that are not visible from the outside of the store. • The majority of alcohol sales from full-service grocery stores are not typically stand alone sales of alcohol, but rather a part of a larger shopping trip. • Lastly, the Police Department has reviewed 5 other comparable grocery stores in the City; including Safeway in downtown and North San Rafael, Scotty's Market, Whole Foods, and Andy's Market on Pt. San Pedro Rd. All of these facilities are near potentially "incompatible facilities" as defined by this criterion, including schools and youth based programs. This review found that these full-service grocery stores with minor alcohol sales would not increase alcohol-related crimes in the area nor would it be incompatible with those uses. In regards to the City's ability to condition a PCN, ABC has indicated that conditions are not allowed on a PCN. A PCN must either be granted or denied. Therefore, the City does not have the ability to condition the PCN application and must either determine that the public convenience would be served or not. Staff does note that condition #13 has been included in the administrative Use Permit confirming the applicant's alcohol policies, including not selling single units of alcohol less than 20 ounces and not selling product with alcohol content greater than 7%. 4. Is the potential licensee located in a high crime area? The appeal cited that the ZA report failed to adequately report the applicable crime data and only cited 36 calls where there were 246 alcohol-related calls in the census tract. The appeal letter also includes a copy of the 246 calls for service Response This appeal point is incorrect. The PCN criteria related to the review of crime statistics states: Whether the location of the license will be in a crime data area which has 20% greater number of reported crimes than the average number of reported crimes for all crime data areas in the City over the previous year. For this purpose, reported crimes means reported offenses of criminal SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Pau: 10 homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny theft and motor vehicle theft, combined with all arrests for other misdemeanor crimes of felony crimes, except for traffic citations. The PCN resolution requires the city to look at Part 1 crimes (homicide, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, etc). Therefore, the crime stats were based on these types of crimes. The Police Department analyzed the crime statistics for the area for the previous year and found 36 Part 1 crimes that met the definition contained in the PCN resolution. The crime statistics that the appellant provided are from the City's Police Department web site and are not Part 1 crimes. The data they provided was from the "calls for service" section. The Police Department has indicated that these calls for service list what the original caller thinks is occurring and it is very common that an original call is entered as "drinkers in public" but when an officer arrives, they find that there is no alcohol activity occurring. The Police Department has analyzed part 1 crime rate in the Canal against other parts of San Rafael and found that there are 41.2 part 1 crimes per 1,000 residents in the Canal vs. 39.5 Part 1 crimes per 1,000 residents for the rest of the City. Therefore, the Canal area exceeds the remainder of the City by 4.3% and is well below the standard of 20% recommended for denial of an alcohol license. In conclusion, based on the type of business (Mi Pueblo), the surrounding uses, the part 1 crime data and the non -part 1 crime data pertaining to alcohol-related incidents, the Police Department recommends that the Mi Pueblo project will not have a negative impact on the area. Response to Appeals by Applicant: The applicant has submitted two letters responding to the appeal points and copies are attached to this report. The first letter (Attachment 10a, pages 248-251 of this report) is from Jeff Aldez, COO of Mi Pueblo, and Perla Rodriguez, VP of Public Affairs for Mi Pueblo. With respect to appeal #1, the letter states that they have met with the appellant to address concerns, but believe that the appellant's main issue is with potential competition with her restaurant and not the points listed in the appeal. The letter also refutes some of the claims made at the Planning Commission hearing about this use being a restaurant and provides their justification as to why the food service is a secondary use. This letter also addresses appeal #2 by stating: a) their requests to meet with the appellant #2 have been rejected; b) this is the first time the appellant has appealed a PCN for a grocery store; c) justification for why the alcohol sales would serve a public convenience; and d) identifying the operational measures they use to alcohol sales. Lastly, this letter identifies the benefits of the Mi Pueblo store, including plans to hire 175 employees 1,000 letter of support from Canal residents, provision of scholarships for Bay Area students and local partnerships with Canal Alliance, Canal Welcome Center, Encuerntro Latino, Marin Department of Health and Human Services, Bahia Vista School and other community groups. A letter of support from Nora Campos, a City of San Jose Councilmember, is also included as part of the applicants response (Attachment 10a, page 252) The second letter (Attachment 10b, pages 252-255 of this report) is from Neil Sorensen, an attorney representing property owner and Mi Pueblo. This letter provides refutes the appeal points raised in appeal #'s 1 and 2. Analysis of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency: The project is consistent with the applicable policies of the General Plan 2020 in regards to building heights, land use, new development in residential neighborhoods, parking, landscape improvement, and non residential design guidelines. Please refer to the draft resolution (Attachment 1, pages 21-26 of this report) for detailed findings of General Plan consistency. In addition, the project is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the land use regulations and development standards for General Commercial Zoning Districts in that the grocery store use is a permitted use in the District and the on-site parking exceeds that required for a grocery store. Furthermore, the project design is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 25 Design Review Criteria in regards to the design changes to the building and the site, including the creation of more prominent pedestrian entry, improvements to the landscaping and parking lot plan, creation of building interest and use of high quality materials. Please refer to the draft resolution (Attachment 1, pages 21-26 of this report) for detailed findings of Zoning Ordinance consistency. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 11 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Commission's approval of the project included a determination that the project was exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts additions to existing structures less than 10,000 square feet on sites where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and that are not environmentally sensitive. This exemption was found to be acceptable given that: a) the proposed project involves the retenanting of an existing commercial structure with a use that is permitted in the zoning District; b) the exterior modifications would not result in an increase in floor area, the project proposes minor exterior modifications to building materials and colors and site and landscaping improvements that do not change the mass or bulk of the existing building and the site is located on a completely developed and graded lot and there are no known sensitive environmental factors located on this site. NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE: In accordance with the City's public noticing requirements, public notice of the City Council hearing was published in the Marin Independent Journal and mailed to the property owners, residents, businesses and interested parties within 300 feet and surrounding neighborhood associations. A copy of the public hearing notice and the notification list are attached (Attachment 9, pages 243-247 of this report). All previous correspondence received on this project and subsequent appeal (through the Planning Commission hearing) is included as part of the attached Planning Commission report (Attachment 6, pages 216-231 of this report). Correspondence received after the distribution of the Planning Commission staff report until the night of the Council hearing is also included (Attachment 7, pages 236 - 240 of this report) and includes one letter of opposition citing concern that the new grocery store would create traffic and parking problems in the area. In addition, the applicant presented to the Planning Commission 1,020 letters of support. The applicant has indicated that they will be presenting these letters at the Council at the hearing. All new correspondence since the Planning Commission hearing is included (Attachment 12, pages 260 — 263) CONCLUSION: The two primary issues raised by the two separate appeals are: a) the food service component of the grocery store is not ancillary use and should be considered fast food restaurant; thereby requiring a Use Permit and additional parking; and 2) the granting of the PCN for off -sale of alcohol is not warranted given the overconcentration of alcohol licenses, high crime rates in the area and proximity of incompatible facilities. The issues raised by the appellants were adequately reviewed and analyzed as part of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission hearings. First, the proposed use is considered a full-service grocery store and is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance as a permitted use in the General Commercial (GC) District. The City has no authority to evaluate the establishment of this use at this location nor is a Use Permit required for a grocery store use. The food service component contained in the grocery store is a minor component (less than 25% of size, sales and intensity) and is therefore considered an ancillary use to the primary grocery store use. Furthermore, even if the food service component of the use were not to be considered ancillary, it would still not meet the definition of "fast food restaurant" and would therefore not need a Conditional Use Permit. Second, the ZA and Planning Commission have followed the proper review criteria in considering the issuance of a PCN. The applicant has demonstrated that the public convenience would be served by the issuance of this license since it would provide a convenience to the shoppers of this facility given that the opportunity to buy liquor would be in conjunction with typical shopping for purchase of groceries, household products produce, meats and other supplies typically found at other full service grocery stores. Furthermore, the alcohol sales in this grocery store would not pose an impact on the surrounding area given that alcohol sales are a minor portion of the overall use (less than 4%), are limited to a minor portion of the building and are not visible from the outside of the building. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 12 Stepping back from the appeal, staff recommends that this project would provide a beneficial use to the City and would further many of the City's goals and policies. A full-service grocery store in the Canal has been a long standing desire of the Canal neighborhood. Establishment of a full-service grocery store in the Canal area has been identified as a needed neighborhood use in the City's Project Selection Process rating criteria. The establishment of a grocery store in their location would place a use that provides a wide variety of groceries, household products in close proximity to a large population base and would be accessible for pedestrians. Although there is an understandable concern from other small business owners about competition, this is not an issue the City can regulate. Staff recommends that both appeals have no merit and should be denied. OPTIONS: The City Council has the following options: 1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval (staff recommendation). 2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval with further modifications, changes or additional conditions of approval. 3. Uphold the appeal and deny the project, reversing the decision of the Zoning Administrator. 4. Continue the appeal to allow the applicant, appellant(s) or staff to address any comments or concerns of the Council. FISCAL IMPACT: This project is a private development and does not have any new fiscal impact on the City budget given that the review and processing of these applications, including the appeal, are subject to cost recovery fees. No new traffic improvements or mitigation fees would be triggered given that the project is the reuse of an existing building. As a commercial property, the site generates property tax revenues as well as sales tax. According to the City's business tax consultant, HdL, it is estimated that the proposed grocery store would generate approximately $300,000 in annual sales tax (at 9.5% tax rate) of which the City of San Rafael would directly receive approximately $30,000 in annual sales tax. ACTION REQUIRED: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Open the public hearing and accept public testimony; 2. Close the public hearing; 3. Adopt a Resolution denying the Appeal (AP09-004) and upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-014), Use Permit (UP09-015), Sign Permit (SR09-012) and Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN09-001) for the Mi Pueblo market at 330 Bellam Blvd. (Attachment 1). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution Denying Appeal and Upholding Zoning Administrator's Condition Approval 2. Appeal #1 - Ruth Donohugh, July 21, 2009 3. Appeal #2 - Bruce Livingston of Marin Institute, July 21, 2009 4. Planning Commission Resolution (No. 09-06) denying the appeal and upholding the ZA approval of the project. 5. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, July 14, 2009 (Draft) 6. Staff Report to the Planning Commission with Selected Exhibits, July 14, 2009 Exhibit 1 Vicinity/Location Map Exhibit 3 Zoning Administrator Minutes, 5/19/09 & 5/20/09 Exhibit 4 Correspondence from Applicant 4a Letter from Jeff Aldaz of Mi Pueblo foods Re: Response to Appeal, 7/9/09 4b Letter from Jeff Aldaz of Mi Pueblo Foods, 4/16/09 Exhibit 5 Correspondence from Appellant 5a Letter of Appeal from Ruth Donohugh, Picante Restaurant, 5/25/09 Page No. 15 35 51 99 123 141 157 158 179 183 185 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 13 % size Project Plans (Distributed to the City Council only) 5b Follow-up Letter by Appellant, 7/8/09 201 Exhibit 6 Chapter 14.17.110 of Zoning Ordinance - Performance Standards for Outdoor Dining 209 Exhibit 7 Grant of Easement dated 3/16/05 211 Exhibit 8 City Council Resolution No 10299 - Procures and criteria for determination PCN 212 Exhibit 10 Public Correspondence Prior to Zoning Administrator hearing 216 Exhibit 11 Public Correspondence Prior to Planning Commission hearing 220 7. Addendum Staff Report to the Planning Commission, 7/14/09, with selected exhibits 232 8. Memo from Jeff Franzini, Police Captain, 9/2/09 241 9. Public Hearing Notice of Appeal and Notification List 243 10. Letters from applicants responding to appeal points 10a — Letter from Jeff Aldez and Perla Rodriguez, representatives of Mi Pueblo, 9/9/09 248 10b — Letter from Neil Sorensen, attorney for property owner and Mi Pueblo, 9/9/09 253 11. Correspondence received after distribution of the Planning Commission and before hearing 257 12. Correspondence after Planning Commission hearing and before City Council hearing 260 % size Project Plans (Distributed to the City Council only) This Page Left Intentionally Blank RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN RAFAEL DENYING TWO SEPARATE APPEALS (AP09-004) AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION AFFIRMING THE ZONING ADMINSTRATOR'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED09-014), ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT (UP09-015), SIGN PERMIT (SR09-012) AND GRANT OF A PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY (PCN09-001) TO ALLOW: A) EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING, INCLUDING AN ALTERATION TO THE BUILDING ENTRY, NEW COLORS AND MATERIALS ON THE BUILDING AND NEW WOODEN TRELLISES AND COLUMNS ALONG FRONT OF BUILDING; B) OUTDOOR DINING AREA ON THE PRIVATE SIDEWALK AREA IN FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE; C) NEW BUILDING SIGNS; AND D) ALCOHOL SALES IN THE NEW GROCERY STORE AT 330 BELLAM BLVD (APN 009-280-06). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESOLVES as follows: WHEREAS, on March 30, 2009 David Mena of Mena Architects, on behalf of Mi Pueblo Grocery Store, submitted applications to the City of San Rafael Community Development Department requesting an Administrative Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-014), Sign Permit (SR09-012) and Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN09-001) to allow: a) exterior modifications to the existing commercial building, including an alteration to the building entry, new colors and materials on the building and new wooden trellises and columns along front of building; b) new building signs; and c) alcohol sales for a new grocery store use located at 330 Bellam Blvd; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2009, the applications were deemed incomplete for processing due to the need for additional information on the project plans and the requirement that an application for an Administrative Use Permit be filed for the proposed outdoor dining. An incompleteness letter was sent to the applicant; and WHEREAS, on May 1, 2009, revised plans were submitted along with the application for an Administrative Use Permit (UP09-015) as required by the incompleteness letter and the applications were deemed complete for processing; and WHEREAS, the proposed Use Permit application was reviewed by the Land Development, Traffic Engineering, Fire Prevention and Building Divisions of the City of San Rafael and was recommended for approval subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on May 19, 2009, the City of San Rafael Zoning Administrator (ZA) held a duly -noticed public hearing on the proposed Administrative Environmental and Design Review Permit, Administrative Use Permit, Sign Permit and Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) applications, accepting all oral and written public testimony. Seven neighboring business owners, property owners, and residents were present at the hearing, raising a number of concerns and issues about the proposed new use; and WHEREAS, following closure of the public hearing on May 19, 2009, the ZA continued the matter to May 20, 2009 to allow for the review and consideration of the numerous comments raised at the hearing; and ATTACHMENT WHEREAS, on May 20, 2009, the ZA rendered a decision, approving the project with conditions. Notice of said decision, including transmittal of the meeting minutes and findings and conditions of approval were provided to the applicants and their team, as well as the members of the public who requested such notice; and WHEREAS, on May 25, 2009, Ruth Donohugh, a neighboring business owner (Picante Restaurant at 340 Bellam Blvd), filed an appeal (AP09-002) pursuant to the provisions of San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 14.28, citing 11 points of appeal and requesting that the Planning Commission reverse the May 20, 2009 decision of the ZA; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 2009, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing to consider the Appeal (AP09-002), accepted and considered all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Planning Division; and WHEREAS, upon review of the appeal and the scope of the project, the Planning Commission has confirmed that the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 09 -06 - by a vote of 4-0-3 (Commissioners Colin, Lang and Paul absent) denying the appeal (AP09-002) and upholding the Zoning Administrator's May 20, 2009 approval of the Administrative Environmental and Design Review Permit, Administrative Use Permit, Sign Permit and Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) for the new grocery store at 330 Bellam Blvd; and WHEREAS, on July 21, 2009, two separate appeals of the Planning Commission decision were filed pursuant to the provisions of San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 14.28. The first was an appeal by Ruth Donohugh of Picante Restaurant and the second was an appeal by Bruce Livingston of Marin Institute (AP09-004) (collectively, "the Appeal"), citing two separate reasons for the appeal and requesting that the Council reverse the May 20, 2009 decision of the ZA; and WHEREAS, on September 21, 2009, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Appeal (AP09-004), accepted and considered all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Planning Division. WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the City Council reaffirms that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which exempts reuse or additions to existing private structures that result in an increase of less than 10,000 square feet from the requirements of CEQA, if the project is located in an area that is served by all available public utilities to allow for maximum development permissible under the General Plan and if the project is located in an area that is not environmentally sensitive. A separate CEQA finding has been made below; and WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is the Community Development Department. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby denies the Appeal (AP09-004) by Ruth Donohugh and upholds the Planning Commission's July 14, 2009 decision affirming the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Administrative Environmental and Design Review Permit, Administrative Use Permit, Sign Permit and Public Convenience or ATTACHMENT Necessity (PCN) for the new grocery store at 330 Bellam Blvd. The City Council finds that the points of the appeal (identified in boldlitalics) cannot be supported for the following reasons: Appeal #1— Appeal by Ruth Donohugh Appeal Paint #I a -Proposed Food Center contains a fast food restaurant a) When reviewing proposed land uses to determine whether they are allowed or conditionally allowed, the City makes its land use decisions based on the primary use or multiple primary uses of a building. In this particular case, the food service portion of the use was not determined to be a separate use, but rather an ancillary use to the main use of the building, a grocery store. b) The food service component of the grocery store is neither a separate nor a primary use of the building, therefore it is considered an ancillary use to the primary use of the building, a grocery store. The primary use of the structure is found to be that of a grocery store based on the: 1) proportion of the prepared food sales/food service vs. the total sales from all other uses in the building is less than 25% of the total sales, 2) amount of area dedicated to the food service vs. the total floor area is less than 25% of total building area; 3) there is no demised or separate space for the food service and it is a part of the grocery store use; and 4) most of the food service sales would occur in conjunction with the sales of groceries and other household products in the grocery store. c) In addition, the proposed food service component of the grocery store use would not be considered a "fast food restaurant" since it does not meet the definition of "fast food restaurant" contained in Section 14.03.030 of the Zoning Ordinance given that the use does not include any of the five listed elements. Specifically, the proposed use does not include a drive-thru service, an outdoor speaker for drive-thru service, nor does it propose to include late (past 11 pm) or early hours (before 6am) of operation. Furthermore, the proposed use would not present potential litter problems or outdoor gathering places more than a typical food service establishment or grocery store. d) The retail sales of prepared foods for on or off-site consumption, including a bakery, deli, butchery and other similar uses are a common and integral component of nearly all large, full- service grocery stores. e) Considering this type of ancillary food service as a "fast food restaurant" would not be consistent with the historical application of the Zoning Ordinance for other food service establishments in the City and would render other uses that have been considered food service restaurant to be considered as fast food. If the City were to apply the rationale and definition of fast food in a manner suggested in the Appeal, then nearly all of the other small restaurants, deli's, coffee shops, taqueria's and similar food service establishments would have to be considered as fast food and thus necessitate Use Permits. Appeal Point #1b - Proposed Food Center does not comply with parking requirements. a) As discussed above, the use is considered a grocery store, with ancillary food service, office, storage, beer and liquor sales and a variety of other ancillary uses. The parking is based on the gross square footage of the primary use of the building, and not the individual calculation of parking of all ancillary uses. The food service component of the grocery store is neither a separate nor a primary use of the building, therefore it is considered an ancillary use. b) The parking requirement for grocery stores is 1 space/250 gross sq ft. of building area. The project site provides 162 on-site parking spaces, 17 more than the 145 required by the zoning ordinance. ATTACHMENT Appeal Point #1c — The Mi Pueblo Fastfood restaurant is also a high volume food service establishment a) It is determined that the food service component of the proposed use, whether it be high volume, fast food, or a restaurant, is a minor and ancillary component of the primary use of the building as a grocery store. Therefore, it is considered an accessory or ancillary use to the primary use of the building, a full-service grocery store. b) The land use table for the General Commercial Zoning District identifies that "Accessory structures and uses customarily incidental to a permitted use and contained on the same site" are permitted uses. Appeal Point #1d -The Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant requires a Conditional Use Permit and the high volume service establishment requires a Conditional Use Permit. a) As stated in appeal points 1 a and 1 c, it is determined that the food service use is considered ancillary to the grocery store use and not a separate use. Therefore, no Use Permit is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby denies the Appeal (AP09-004) by Bruce Livingston of Marin Institute and upholds the Planning Commission's July 14, 2009 decision affirming the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Administrative Environmental and Design Review Permit, Administrative Use Permit, Sign Permit and Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) for the new grocery store at 330 Bellam Blvd. The City Council finds that the points of the appeal (identified in boldlitalics) cannot be supported for the following reasons: Appeal #2 — Appeal by Bruce Livingston of Marin Institute. Appeal Point 92a -The Planning Commission failed to follow the letter of the law in part due to facts that were ignored by the Zoning Administrator. The Planning Commission was under the erroneous impression that they were simply deciding whether or not to approve the alcohol license, when in fact it was decided to carve out an exception to state law that protects the public. a) The State Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) is the agency that has the authority to issue alcohol licenses. A local governmental agency, such as the City of San Rafael, does not have the authority to grant a license. In certain circumstances where there is an undue concentration of licenses, ABC will not issue a new off -sale license or certain on -sale licenses unless the local government body (city or county) first grants a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN). The Planning Commission was clear in their roles and scope of the review and consideration of the PCN. b) San Rafael City Council Resolution No. 10299 governs the procedures for the City's review and criteria for determination of whether such license would provide a public convenience or necessity and identifies seven criteria that are to be considered by the City as part of its determination whether the public convenience or necessity would be served. c) The appeal point that the project does not meet all seven criteria and therefore cannot be approved is an incorrect application of the PCN resolution. The Resolution requires that "for purposes of determining whether public convenience or necessity will be served by issuance of an.... off -sale retail liquor license subject to local determination, the following criteria shall be considered." d) The City is required to consider the seven criteria as part of their review, but does not mean that all seven criteria are absolute. The intent of the review criteria is to consider the specific request ATTACHMENTI for a PCN, determine whether there would be a public convenience or necessity served by the addition of that specific license in the area, and consider the request in light of the review criteria. The ZA and the Planning Commission properly considered all seven criteria. e) The appellant's claims that the project did not meet the following four criteria are incorrect given that the City did consider these criteria, along with all other criteria, and determined that based on the type of license, operation location and surrounding conditions, the project would provide a public convenience as discussed below. 1. Will the issuance of a liquor license increase the total number of licenses in the city or census tract? a) The appeal is correct in that this license would increase the number of licenses in the area. However, the entire purpose of the PCN process is that when a new license is proposed in a community that has an over -concentration of existing licenses, the local agency has the authority to review and consider the request and must first grant a PCN before ABC will issue another new license in the area. b) The City of San Rafael has considered the type of license requested, the nature of the license and the review criteria contained in the PCN Resolution and determined that the public convenience would be served by the addition of this license. Z Will issuing the license serve a segment of the population not presently being served? a) The appeal is correct in that there are 29 other licenses in the area and this constitutes an overconcentration of licenses. Of the 29 existing licenses, four (4) are for off -sale of beer, wine and hard alcohol (Type 21), such as the license sought by the applicant here. b) The Canal area does have an overconcentration of licenses based on ABC's criteria, and that is the reason why, before issuing a new license, ABC requires the local agency to process a PCN and to review the application and determine whether it finds a public convenience or necessity would be served by the addition of a new license. c) The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that issuance of a PCN to allow liquor sales at this grocery store would provide a convenience to the shoppers of this facility given that the opportunity to buy liquor would be in conjunction with typical shopping for purchase of groceries, household products produce, meats and other supplies typically found at other full service grocery stores. There are no other large, full-service grocery stores in the Canal neighborhood and adding this new license would serve that need. d) Furthermore, off -sale of beer, wine and hard alcohol is a common component of nearly all full-service grocery stores in this City, as well as in other communities throughout the state. There are 4 existing ABC licenses in the area that permit off -sale of beer, wine and hard alcohol and none of the 4 licenses are associated with a full-service grocery store. Additionally, given the operational plan and amount of area dedicated to liquor sales, the liquor sales are expected to make up less than 4% of the overall sales from the store, a minor portion of the merchandise sales. 3. Is the location of the business applying for the liquor license within 1,000 feet of an incompatible facility such as day care centers, schools, churches, parks, homeless shelters, rehabilitation centers of places that are designed and operate to serve minors? a) Prior to the Zoning Administrator hearing, there was no oral or written comment from any person or group that the proposed license would be located near an incompatible facility. ATTACHMENT b) On the evening of the Planning Commission hearing, the County Department of Health and Human Services did submit a letter providing information and data to help the City make its decision, citing the higher density of alcohol sales in San Rafael than in the rest of Marin County, concern with drinking and driving, concern with placing alcohol sales close to the County facility and suggesting conditions of approval that should be placed on the grocery store. c) Prior to the ZA hearing and after the Planning Commission appeal, the Police Department was consulted to solicit their input and experience with off -sale licenses in the Canal area as well as other parts of the City and even though the site may be located near an incompatible facility, it was determined that it would not be an issue given that: • Alcohol sales are a small part of the overall sales from this grocery store (less than 4%), no on-site consumption is proposed and the amount of display of alcohol is limited to two interior merchandise racks that are not visible from the outside of the store. • The majority of alcohol sales from full-service grocery stores are not typically stand alone sales of alcohol, but rather a part of larger shopping trip. • A Police Department review of five other comparable grocery stores in the City, (Safeway in downtown and North San Rafael, Scotty's Market, Whole Foods, and Andy's Market on Pt. San Pedro Rd) revealed that all of these other stores are near potentially "incompatible facilities" as defined by this criterion, including schools and youth based programs and that these full-service grocery stores with minor alcohol sales did not increase alcohol-related crimes in the area nor were they found to be incompatible with those surrounding uses. 4. Is the potential licensee located in a high crime area? a) This appeal point is incorrect since the City Council Resolution 10299 identifies that the City is to consider "reported crimes means reported offenses of criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny theft and motor vehicle theft, combined with all arrests for other misdemeanor crimes of felony crimes, except for traffic citations" (known as Part 1 crimes). b) The crime statistics provided by the appellant are from the City's Police Department web site and are not Part 1 crimes. The data they provided was from the "calls for service" section. c) The Police Department analyzed the crime statistics for the area for the previous year and found 36 Part 1 crimes that met the definition contained in the PCN resolution. In addition, the Police Department has analyzed part 1 crime rate in the Canal against other parts of San Rafael and found that there are 41.2 part 1 crimes per 1,000 residents in the Canal vs. 39.5 Part 1 crimes per 1,000 residents for the rest of the City. Therefore, the Canal area exceeds the remainder of the City by 4.3% and is well below the standard of 20% recommended for denial of an alcohol license. d) Therefore, the addition of an alcohol license in this area would not pose an impact on the Canal neighborhood which is an over -concentrated (alcohol licenses) and high crime area given that the type of business (Mi Pueblo) that is proposed, the nature of the surrounding uses and the part 1 crime data and the non -part 1 crime data pertaining to alcohol-related incidents in the area. ATTACHMENT BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the time within which to seek judicial review of this decision is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Rafael upholds the Planning Commission action to deny the appeals and reaffirm the Zoning Administrator approval of an Administrative Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-014), Administrative Use Permit (UP09-015), Sign Permit (SR09-012) and Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN09-001), as modified by the Planning Commission through Resolution No 09-06, based on the following findings: Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-014) Finding 1) The project design to modify the exterior building materials and colors and revise the design of the building entry tower is in accord with the General Plan 2020, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of this Chapter in that the project would be consistent with the applicable General Plan 2020, including: a. Land Use Policy 15 (Convenience ShoppinzZThis policy states "encourage the retention and improvement of existing retail stores and services in residential neighborhoods that provide needed neighborhood services and reduce traffic." This project would place a full service grocery store adjacent to a high density residential area. Given that there are no large full service grocery stores within 2 miles of the Canal, this would place a needed service near residents. b. Land Use Policy 23 (Land Use Map and Categories). The site is designated GC, a general commercial district which allows general retail and service uses, restaurants, automotive sales/service and hotels/motels. c. Circulation Policy 5 (Traffic Level of Service Standards]. This policy establishes level of service standards for intersection in the City of San Rafael to evaluate new development. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the project and identified the change in use to a grocery store would result in the generation of between 83 and 108 new A.M. peak hour trips and 226 to 308 new P.M. peak hour trips. However, the proposed grocery store use is a permitted use in the GC District and as part of the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan 2020 (adopted in 2004), the traffic generation from the wide range of allowable uses permitted in the GC District were incorporated into the traffic analysis prepared for the General Plan 2020 EIR as existing baseline conditions and has been accounted in the traffic system. d. Element Neighborhood Element Policy 49 (Conflicting Uses). This policy states "prevent the encroachment of new residential development into the Light Industrial/ Office District to minimize conflicts. Businesses locating adjacent to residential areas shall be designed to minimize nuisance impacts." This new business would place a new grocery store across the street from residential uses. The subject site is a commercially zoned property that allows grocery stores by right, therefore through the development of the zoning ordinance it has been determined that grocery store uses would be appropriate for the area. Furthermore, the proposed use would not operate outside of typical hours of typical grocery stores. e. Neighborhood Element Policy 52 (New Business Development). This policy states "encourage and give priority to new business development that benefits the neighborhood through provision of needed services, low traffic impacts, or employment of a high percentage of neighborhood residents. Encourage opportunities for local residents to own and operate businesses." As previously discussed, the Canal neighborhood has expressed a ATTACHMENT long standing desire for a full service grocery store in the Canal. Although there are many smaller neighborhood or specialty markets in the area, there is no large full scale grocery store. Furthermore, through the public hearing process, staff has received over 50 calls from residents in the Canal seeking employment at this facility. The operator of the grocery store has stated that their other facilities include large portions of the employees that reside in the same neighborhood as their stores. Furthermore, the project design would: a) provide a comprehensive design scheme for the entire building; b) upgrade the appearance of the existing commercial building through the provision of accent features and visual interest to break up the large expanses of walls; c) address and upgrade all four sides of the existing building; d) incorporate the use of high quality materials for the construction of the exterior modifications; e) add visual relief and interest to the main entry and front fapade of the building through the addition of pergolas, tile wainscoting and columns; f) improve landscaping at the main entry to the building and reestablish areas of failed landscaping; g) provide defined walkways and pedestrian entryways to the site to create a pedestrian friendly design from Bellam Blvd and encourage more pedestrian activity to the site; h) incorporate the proposed ancillary outdoor seating/dining area into the existing site without reducing existing on-site parking area; and i) improve the sense of entry to the building through the redesign of the building entry and addition of design features to the front of the structure. 2) The project design to modify the exterior building materials, colors and design of the existing commercial structure is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the General Commercial (GC) District in which the site is located in that the project would: a) not propose any new development of structure; b) even though new development is not proposed, the existing structure complies with all current development standards for the GC District, including setbacks, lot coverage, building height, and landscaping requirements; c) provide 162 on-site parking spaces, in excess of the 145 spaces required for a grocery store use (at a rate of 1/250 sq ft); d) maintain all existing landscaped area and reestablish dead or dying landscaping in parking lot planter areas; and e) in addition to Environmental and Design Review Permit Finding #1 above, improve the overall site plan design, site circulation, landscaping and design of the building. The project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts in that the project: a) is a reuse of an existing developed site that hosts an existing commercial building; b) proposes exterior modifications to an existing structure; c) would not result in any new grading, development or tree removal; and d) is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA per section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines (Existing Facilities) since it is a reuse of an existing commercial building that entails minor alterations to the exterior and the site plan of the structure and interior tenant improvements. 4. The project design to modify the exterior building materials, colors and design of the existing commercial structure will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that: a) there is no new development proposed on the site, would be consistent with the development standards for the GC District; b) proposes a use that is permitted by the General Commercial Zoning District, c) has been reviewed by appropriate City Departments and appropriate conditions have been included to mitigate any potential impacts from the exterior redesign; and d) would be required to obtain a building permit and health department permit for the interior and exterior modifications to ensure that the use and structure complies with all current building, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, health and fire codes. ATTACHMENT ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT (UP09-015) FINDING The proposed outdoor dining/seating use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of the General Commercial (GC) District in which the site is located given that the proposed outdoor dining/seating area: a) is consistent with the applicable General Plan policies as discussed in Environmental and Design Review Permit Finding #1 above; b) complies with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance by proposing a design that is integrated with the building remodel and satisfies the design criteria in Chapter 25 as discussed in the Environmental and Design Review Permit findings above; c) is listed in the GC District as a permitted use subject to approval of an administrative Use Permit; d) complies with zoning setback, height, site distance and site design standards and does not have any significant effect on the existing site plan, and e) complies with the performance standards that apply to the outdoor seating use under Chapter 17 as discussed in Use Permit Finding # 2 below. 2. The proposed outdoor dining/seating use as conditioned conforms to the standards established in Chapter 17 (Performance Standards) given that: a) the proposed outdoor seating area will not have a permanent roof over the outdoor seating area, b) outdoor seating fixtures would be movable and not permanent, c) the area does not exceed 25 -percent of the indoor dining/seating area capacity; and d) the seating area would be available during the normal hours of the grocery store and food service area. 3. The physical placement of the use on the site is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the surrounding uses in the neighborhood given that the use has been: a) located in front and near the main entry to the grocery store use, a permitted use in the GC District; b) away from . adjacent residential uses, c) integrated into the site design with new architectural features, including an open, non permanently -covered wood pergola and potted landscaping; and d) designed in accordance with and subject to approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit pursuant to Chapter 25 with appropriate findings made to approve the design. 4. The outdoor diningiseating use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the City given that the use is a) integrated into the site plan on an existing walkway area, b) the redesign of the parking layout and landscaping do not reduce the available parking area on-site, and the site plan has been reviewed by all appropriate City departments, including the City Traffic Engineer, and has been conditioned accordingly to ensure that City standards are met as a part of the re -use of the building to the maximum extent feasible. The outdoor dining/seating use, as conditioned, will be compatible with surrounding uses in that the use is: a) located on a commercially developed site that will be occupied by a grocery store with ancillary food service and the outdoor seating is ancillary to the food service use; b) compatible with the other uses in the area, including the County medical clinic, restaurant, residential uses, office uses and other commercial, retail and light industrial uses in the area since food service is complementing to other commercial and residential uses in terms of type and intensity of use, c) consistent with the applicable performance standards as discussed in Use Permit Finding #2 above, d) located entirely on-site and would operate only during the normal business hours of the grocery store and ancillary food service within he grocery store; it should not have significant impacts on the nearby residential neighborhood, particularly in the evening hours. ATTACHMENT] SIGN PERMIT (SR09-012) FINDING 1. The proposed signs for the re -tenanting of the building are in general conformity with the sign ordnance and well integrated with the proposed design of the structure. A complete sign evaluation will be conducted at the time of Sign Permit submittal to ensure compliance with the Ordinance. This approval does not grant approval of specific signage, just the conceptual placement and design. PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSM (PCN09-001) FINDING The Planning Commission makes the following findings related to the criteria identified in City Council Resolution No. 10299 required for the determination of whether Public Convenience or Necessity will be served by the issuance of an on -sale or off -sale license where a finding of undue concentration has been made by the State Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control. Criteria 1• Whether the issuance involves an existing business license which is being transferred to a new location, and which will not result in an increase in the total number of off -sale retail liquor licenses or on -sale retail licenses in the City or in the census tract in which the business would be located. Finding: The applicant proposes a full-service retail grocery store use, with ancillary food service, within the General Commercial Zoning (GC) District. Off -sale alcohol sales are proposed to be an ancillary part of the grocery store use. The grocery store use, including the ancillary food service use, is permitted by right in the GC District given the fact that grocery stores that do not operate past 11:00 pm are permitted uses in this Zoning District. The application would increase the number of off -sale retail liquor licenses within the census tract by one. The off -sale liquor license would be transferred from another full-service grocery store in Marin County and would therefore increase the number of off -sale liquor licenses in the subject census tract. The San Rafael Police Department has reviewed the proposed project for an additional off -sale liquor license at this location and based on the type of use has recommended approval of the application. Criteria 2: Whether the business, by reason of its location, character, manner or method of operation, merchandise, or potential clientele, will serve a segment of the City's business or residents not presently being served. Finding: The proposed grocery store use, with off-site sales, is marketed as a full-service grocery store. The grocery store would not sell: • Items/containers with more than 7% alcohol content; • High alcohol malt liquor; • Single unit containers less than 20 ounces; • Hard alcohol containers under 9 fluid ounces; or • Half pints or airport size bottles. The proposed use would focus on grocery and food items, with alcohol sales estimated at representing less than 4% of total store sales. This particular store would service the demand for a large, full-service grocery store, including the sale of off -sale beer, wine and hard alcohol, a type of use and convenience not readily available in the entire Canal or East San Rafael area. In addition, there are only four other similar off -sale licenses in the Canal neighborhood (of the 29 total alcohol ATTACHMENT licenses) and the addition of this license for this grocery store would provide the only off -sale license associated with a full-service grocery store in the area. Criteria 3: Whether the business will be located within a 1,000- foot radius of incompatible facilities, such as public and private schools, day care centers, churches, parks, homeless shelters, and alcoholic rehabilitation centers, and facilities designed and operated to serve minors. Finding: The proposed liquor store at 330 Bellam Blvd is located on a major transportation corridor within the East San Rafael area and would not be within 1,000 feet of a church, public school day care center or homeless center. Although the proposed license would be located within 1,000 feet of the County Health and Wellness Center, a facility that provides services to youths, the granting of a PCN is not found to pose an issue on this facility given that: • Alcohol sales is such a small part of the overall sales from this grocery store (less than 4%), no on-site consumption is proposed and the amount of display of alcohol is limited to two interior merchandise racks that are not visible from the outside of the store. • The majority of alcohol sales from full-service grocery stores are not typically stand alone sales of alcohol, but rather a part of larger shopping trip. • Lastly, the Police Department has reviewed 5 other comparable grocery stores in the City, including Safeway in downtown and North San Rafael, Scotty's Market, Whole Foods, and Andy's Market on Pt. San Pedro Rd. All of these facilities are near potentially "incompatible facilities" as defined by this criterion, including schools and youth based programs. This review found that these full-service grocery stores with minor alcohol sales would not increase alcohol-related crimes in the area nor would it be incompatible with those uses. Furthermore, the Zoning and General Plan designations for the parcel allow grocery stores or supermarkets, uses that typically contain alcohol sales, by right and do not require a Use Permit. The proposed business with operational conditions would not be incompatible with surrounding uses and facilities in that there are other small retail establishments and liquor stores in the vicinity. Criteria 4• Whether the location of the license will be in a crime data area covered by Police Department statistics, which has a twenty percent (20%) greater number of reported crimes than the average number of "reported crimes" for all crime data areas in the City, over previous year. For this purpose, "reported crimes" means reported offenses of criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny theft, and motor vehicle theft, combined with all arrests for other misdemeanor or felony crimes, except for traffic citations. Finding: The property at 330 Bellam Blvd was formerly an electronic retail store and is located within a crime data area with high calls for police service; however, the subject site has only had 36 calls for service for calendar year 2008. Of these 36 calls, seven calls were for Part 1 crimes. There were 110 Part I crimes in the entire crime data area (Zone 2) in which this site is located. The 36 calls for service for this site over this period are considered to be low. As stated above, the Police Department has recommended approval of the project. In addition, the Police Department has analyzed part I crime rate in the Canal are against other parts of San Rafael and found that there are 41.2 part 1 crimes per 1,000 residents in the Canal vs. 39.5 ATTACHMENT Part 1 crimes per 1,000 residents for the rest of the City. Therefore, the Canal area exceeds the remainder of the City by 4.3% and is well below the standard of 20% recommended for denial of an alcohol license. In conclusion, based on the type of business (Mi Pueblo), the surrounding uses, the part 1 crime data and the non part 1 crime data pertaining to alcohol-related incidence, the Police Department recommends that the Mi Pueblo project will not have a negative impact on the area. Criteria 5: Whether the issuance of the license involves an existing business, which has been located at a site which has had three or more reported crimes defined in (4) above within the previous one-year period. Finding: This proposed grocery store, with ancillary off -sale liquor sales, is not an existing business within the City of San Rafael and this subject site. Therefore this is not applicable. Criteria 6: Whether the issuance of the license will promote the goals and policies of the City's adopted General Plan, any applicable specific plan, or any similar policies that have been formally adopted by the City Council. Finding: The proposed grocery store is a permitted use for the General Commercial district. Liquor sales contained in a full service grocery store are considered an ancillary use to the grocery store use and therefore considered within the scope of a typical grocery store. Establishment of a full service grocery store in the Canal area is a long standing goal of the City's General Plan to provide full service groceries sales to residents in the area. Currently, there is no full service grocery store within walking distance of the Canal neighborhood and residents would have to travel 1.9 miles to the Whole Foods on P St or 2.3 miles to the Safeway in downtown. The use would be compliant with all General Plan 2020 and Zoning Ordinance regulations. The General Plan designation for 330 Bellam Blvd is General Commercial and the Zoning is General Commercial (GC). As stated in item 1, a grocery store with ancillary liquor sales is a permitted use by right in the GC District. Criteria 7• Whether any other information supplied by the applicant, or other competent evidence shows that public convenience or necessity will be served by issuance of the license. Finding: The applicant has submitted a proposed letter and operational plan, dated April 16, 2009 from Mi Pueblo Foods that addresses various Planning and Police Department concerns. The proposed business would provide the convenience of having beer, wine and liquor available to customers when they purchase groceries at the new full service grocery store. There is no other large full service grocery store in the Canal (nor is there within 1.9 miles) with the proposed wide variety of food and household products, including off-site alcohol sales. The project was noticed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and although objections were voiced at the public hearing, no evidence was presented that the liquor sales would not serve a public convenience or necessity as described by the project proponent. In addition, the project was referred to the Canal Area Property and Business Owners Association, Canal Alliance, Rafael Bay Townhomes HOA, Spinnaker HOA and Baypoint Lagoon HOA. ATTACHMENT CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FINDING The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section This project qualifies for an exemption from the requirements of CEQA under Section 15301 (Existing facilities) which exempts additions to existing structures less than 10,000 square feet on sites where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and that are not environmentally sensitive. This exemption was found to be acceptable given that the: a. Proposed project involves the reuse of an existing commercial structure with a use that is permitted in the zoning District; b. Exterior modifications would not result in an increase in floor area, the project proposes minor exterior modifications to building materials and colors and site and landscaping improvements that do not change the mass or bulk of the existing building; c. The site is located on a completely developed and graded lot and there are no known sensitive environmental factors located on this site. d. The site is served by all necessary utilities e. The proposed use is a permitted use in the GC District and provides more parking that that required by the City's Zoning Ordinance for this type of use. Given that the grocery store use is a permitted use and there is no expansion of floor area, the traffic intensification or de - intensification associated with all use occupancies of existing building by permitted and conditionally permitted uses were incorporated; evaluated and analyzed as part of the environmental review conducted in conjunction with the adoption of the City's General Plan 2020. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Rafael in denying the both appeal, from Ruth Donohugh and Bruce Livingston of Marin Institute (AP09-004) and reaffirms the approval of the an Administrative Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-014), Administrative Use Permit (UP09-015), Sign Permit (SR09-012) and Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN09-001) subject to the following conditions of approval (as modified by the Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-06): ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED09-014) General and On -Going Conditions Community Development Department - Planning Division 1. The exterior modifications to the structure and the site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the building techniques, materials, elevations and appearance of the project, as presented for approval on plans prepared by Mena Architects, titled Mi Pueblo Food Center, date stamped Approved September 21, 2009 by the City Council and on file at the Community Development Department containing Sheets No. P001, P101, Ll, P102, P103, P104, P105 and P106 and colored elevation of Sheet P105 and shall be the same as required for issuance of a building permit, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. Minor modifications or revisions to the approved design of the exterior of the structure and site approved by this project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the ATTACHMENT] Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision making body, the Zoning Administrator, and the City's Design Review Board, if necessary. 3. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-014) shall be valid for the life of the project provided that a building permit is issued and construction begun within two (2) years of this approval or until September 21, 2011. Failure to obtain a building permit or a time extension by the specified date or a time extension may result in the expiration of this Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-014) approval. 4. Approved colors are as shown on the approved building elevations contained in the approved plans as on file with the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Any future modification to colors shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Division and major modifications may be referred to the Design Review Board. Applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities ("indemnities"), the purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application or the adoption of any environmental document which accompanies it. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted or incurred by any person or entity, including the applicant, third parties and the indemnifies, arising out of or in connection with the approval of this application, whether or not there is concurrent, passive or active negligence on the part of the indemnitees. 6. In the event that any claim, action or proceeding as described above is brought, the City shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and the City will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action, or proceeding. In the event the applicant is required to defend the City in connection with any said claim, action or proceeding, the City shall retain the right to: 1) approve the counsel to so defend the City; 2) approve all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted; and 3) approve any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action or proceeding, provided that if the City chooses to have counsel of its own to defend any claim, action or proceeding where applicant already has retained counsel to defend the City in such matters, the fees and the expenses of the counsel selected by the City shall be paid by the City. As a condition of this application, applicant agrees to be responsible for the payment of all City Attorney expenses and costs, both for City staff attorneys and outside attorney consultants retained by the City, associated with the reviewing, process and implementing of the land use approval and related conditions of such approval. City Attorney expenses shall be based on the rates established from time to time by the City Finance Director to cover staff attorney salaries, benefits, and overhead, plus the actual fees and expenses of any attorney consultants retained by the City. Applicant shall reimburse City for City Attorney expenses and costs within 30 days following billing or same by the City. 8. The City shall have the right of entry to inspect the premises to verify compliance with the conditions of approval and the San Rafael Municipal Code. 9. The property owner shall pay the costs of any code enforcement activities, including attorney fees resulting from the violation of any conditions of approval or any provision of the San Rafael Municipal Code. ATTACHMENT 10. All site improvements, including but not limited to, the site lighting, fencing, landscape islands, paving and striping shall be maintained in good, undamaged condition at all times. Any damaged improvements shall be replaced in a timely manner. 11. The site shall be kept free of litter and garbage. Any trash, junk or damaged materials that are accumulated on the site shall be removed and disposed of in a timely manner. The applicant shall institute a program to provide regular cleanup of the parking lot, landscaped areas and sidewalk in front of the store, as well as all other areas immediately around the new structure. 12. The operator shall remove all graffiti from the building or site in a timely manner. 13. All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free of weeds and debris. Any dying or dead landscaping shall be replaced in a timely fashion with new healthy stock of a size compatible with the remainder of the growth at the time of replacement. 14. All existing and new site landscaping shall be routinely maintained in good order and free of weeds, debris and overgrown vegetation. Plants and trees shall be irrigated and/or watered as necessary to ensure their growth and stability. 15. All new exterior lighting shall be shielded down to avoid spillover onto adjacent properties or public streets. 16. Drive through and drive up facilities are prohibited. 17. Amplified sound or music on the outside of the building shall be prohibited. Public Works Department—Land Development Division 18. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair of all damages to public improvements in the public right-of-way resulting from construction -related activities, including, but not limited to, the movement and/or delivery of equipment, materials, and soils to and/or from the site. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit Community Development Department — Planning Division 19. Construction plans submitted for building permit approval shall include a plan sheet, which incorporates these Conditions of Approval for ED09-014, UP09-015 and SR09-012. 20. The open, uncovered vending machine area at the front of the building shall be covered and designed with a cover/enclosure that places the equipment within an architectural screening. The purpose of this is to screen the sides and top of the equipment from view with an architectural feature. The architectural feature shall be designed as an integral part of the building design. This feature shall also include a grill/security barrier at the front to prevent theft and vandalism from the machines during off hours. 21. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit the design of this new screening feature (as required by #18 above) to the Planning Division for review and approval. 22. Once the final design of the architectural feature is approved by the Planning Division (as required in #19 above), the final design of the screening feature shall be incorporated into the plans submitted for building permits. ATTACHMENT 23. The outdoor dining/seating area and area on the sides of the seating area shall be illuminated with one -foot candle level of illumination. The method, light design and illumination levels shall be identified on building permit plans and shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Division. 24. All mechanical equipment (i.e., air conditioning units, meters and transformers) and appurtenances not entirely enclosed within the structure (on side of building or roof) shall be screened from public view. The method used to accomplish the screening shall be indicated on the building plans and approved by the Planning Division. 25. Prior to issuance of the building permit, any outstanding Planning Division application processing fees shall be paid. , 26. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the plans shall be revised to incorporate on site bicycle parking equal to that required by Chapter 14.18.090 which requires 4 bicycle parking spaces (bicycle parking equal to 3% of the 145 required parking spaces). 27. Prior to the building permit issuance, the outdoor seating area shall be reduced to not exceed 18 seats and 190.75 sq. It (25% of the 723 sq ft indoor seating area). Community Development Department—Building and Fire Prevention Division 28. A building permit is required for the proposed work. Applications shall be accompanied by four (4) complete sets of construction drawings 29. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2007 California Building Code, 2007 Plumbing Code, 2007 Electrical Code, 2007 California Mechanical Code, 2007 California Fire Code, and 2005 Title 24 California Energy Efficiency Standards, 30. Please note on the construction documents that fire sprinklers are required throughout the building. A licensed C-16 contractor shall submit fire sprinkler system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to making alterations to the existing system. 31. Please note on the construction documents that a commercial kitchen hood fire -extinguishing system is required in each Type I hood. A licensed contractor shall submit the kitchen hood fire -extinguishing system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation of the system. 32. Please note on the construction documents that a fire alarm system is required where the occupant load exceeds 499. If a fire system is required in this building, based on the occupant load, please note on the plans that fire alarm system plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation of the system. 33. A Knox Box is required at the primary point of first response to the building. 34. On site fire hydrants will be required. 35. Fire lanes must be designated; painted red with contrasting white lettering stating "No Parking Fire Lane" A sign shall be posted in accordance to City of San Rafael standard #204. 36. Hazardous Materials Placard shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 704. ATTACHMENT 37. Storage height in excess of 12 feet shall require a "High Pile Storage" permit. 38. The proposed facility shall be designed to provide access to the physically disabled in accordance with the requirements of Title -24, California Code of Regulations. For existing buildings and facilities when alterations, structural repairs or additions are made, accessibility improvements for persons with disabilities may be required. 39. In -ground grease separator(s) will be required outside the building perimeter to handle waste water from the restaurants and food court area. 40. Review and approval by the Marin County Health Department may be required prior to submittal for building permit plan review. Public Works Department- Land Development Division 41. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide details on the building permit plans showing how the new accessible sidewalk and other elements that connect to the existing City sidewalk interface. During Construction Community Development Department — Planning Division 42. Construction of the project shall comply with the City's noise ordinance. Public Works Department - Land Development Division 43. An encroachment permit shall be required for debris boxes or any construction or work in the City right-of-way. Prior to Final Occupancy Community Development Department - Planning Division 44. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to request a final inspection, prior to the issuance of the final building permit. The request for final inspection by the Planning Division shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. 45. All exterior lighting shall be subject to a 60 -day lighting level review by the Community Development Department, Planning Division staff to insure compliance. This lighting review period shall commence upon issuance of final inspection approval by the Community Development Department, Building Division. 46. Prior to final occupancy, the applicant shall have their landscape architect inspect the existing and new landscaping and irrigation to ensure the health of all species and operation of all irrigation. If any deficiencies are discovered, those shall be remedied. A letter from the landscape architect shall be submitted to the Planning Division as part of the final inspection. 47. The four required bicycle parking spaces shall be installed on site as approved on the building permit plans. ATTACHMENT ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT (UP09-015 1. Except as modified herein, the Administrative Use Permit (UP09-015) authorizes outdoor seating/dining on the subject site on the private sidewalk area in front of the existing building as shown on the approved plans. 2. This Administrative Use Permit (UP09-015) shall be valid for the life of the project provided that a building permit is obtained from the City's Community Development Department and the outdoor dining/seating use is initiated within two (2) years of this approval or until September 21, 2011. Failure to obtain a building permit and initiate the use, or apply for a time extension by the specified date, may result in expiration of this Use Permit. 3. The outdoor dining shall remain in conformance with the General Commercial District Zoning District and the performance standards for outdoor dining contained in Section 14.17.130 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The outdoor dining/seating area shall only be used during the hours of operation (public hours) for the grocery store. Outdoor dining area shall not be used outside of those hours. 5. Adequate number of trash and recycle bins shall be maintained outside the store at all times. These bins shall be serviced as frequently as required to prevent overflow. 6. The operator shall implement a regular trash clean up program to patrol and clean up trash and debris from this site. If any trash from this site is blown or deposited on the public right- of-way or sidewalk, it shall be cleaned up as well. 7. Prior to the issuance of a business license, the applicant shall receive approval of an Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) for off -sale of liquor. 8. An alarm system shall be installed and connected to a central station prior to the business operating. 9. The grocery store, including the ancillary alcohol sales and food service and all other ancillary functions of the grocery store, shall not operate past 11:00 pm, 7 days a week, unless a Conditional Use Permit is applied for and approved by the Planning Commission (as required for grocery stores in the General Commercial Zoning District identified in the land use table). 10. The outdoor dining/seating area shall be illuminated with adequate lighting levels to allow visibility of the area from the parking lot (one -foot candle level is the standard). The method, light design and illumination levels shall be identified on building permit plans and shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Division. 11. There shall be no solid walls, fencing or screening surrounding the outdoor dining/seating area. Visibility into the outdoor dining/seating area shall remain non -obscured from the parking lot area and shall be visible to persons in the parking lot. 12. There shall be no consumption of any alcoholic beverages allowed within the outdoor dining/seating area or on the site. The applicant and operator of the business shall be responsible to monitor this and to implement any appropriate security measures to remain consistent with this requirement. ATTACHMENT 13. The business operator shall comply with the alcohol policies and procedures as identified in the April 16, 2009 letter from Jeff Aldaz of Mi Pueblo Foods to the City of San Rafael, including: a. No items/containers with more than 7% alcohol content will be sold. No high alcohol malt liquor will be sold. No single unit containers less than 20 ounces will be sold). b. No items or containers under 9 fluid ounces shall be sold. No half pints or airport size bottles shall be sold. c. The following signage shall be posted and maintained at the entrance and exit of the store. i. State ABC license ii. No loitering iii. No open containers iv. No littering d. The operator shall employ an external security company that specializes in supermarkets and shall have the security personnel on site during all hours of store operations. 14. The applicant shall obtain a City of San Rafael business license. 15. The outdoor seating area shall be reduced to not exceed 18 seats and 190.75 sq. ft (25% of the 760 sq ft indoor seating area). SIGN PERMIT (SR09-012) 1. This Sign Permit approves only the conceptual sign plan and locations as presented in the architectural elevations. 2. Prior to the installation of any signage on the site, the applicant shall apply for and receive approval of a sign Permit. The application for a sign permit shall include all required submittal requirements for sign review. I, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on Monday, the 2151 day of September 21, 2009, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk ATTACHMENT This Page Left Intentionally Blank RUTH DONOHUGH 340 BELLAM BOULEVARD SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 94901 July 21, 2009 City Council City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 CTIOF° CITY .2009 JUL 21 AM 10: 56 Re: 330 Bellam Boulevard (Mi Pueblo Food Center), File Nos. ED09- 014/UP09-015/SR09-012/PCN09-001 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission erroneously approved this proposed project. I appeal those decisions because the proposed project fails to comply with the parking requirements dictated by Title 14 — Zoning — of the San Rafael Municipal Code (the "Zoning Ordinance") and requires a Conditional Use Permit under the Zoning Ordinance. My letter dated July 8, 2009, to the Planning Commission, a copy of which is attached, explained in detail the relevant facts and analysis. In view of the serious implications of this appeal, please review my July 8 letter carefully. Required City Council Decision Based on undisputed and clear facts and the mandates of the Zoning Ordinance that apply to those facts, the City Council has a legal duty to determine that: A. The proposed Food Center contains a fast food restaurant; B. The Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant does not comply with the parking requirements; C. The Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant is also a high volume food service establishment; and D. The Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant requires a Conditional Use Permit and the high volume food service establishment requires a Conditional Use Permit. Mi Pueblo Fast Food Restaurant The Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant occupies the northwest portion of the building at the entrance near Bellam Boulevard. It consists of 19 large tables with at least 76 ATTACHMENT 2 City Council July 21, 2009 Page 2 chairs inside and another six large tables with more chairs outside; a huge commercial kitchen with 34 steam table pans, nine food trays, a three-foot grill, two four -foot grills, seven stock pot, stoves, a ten -burner stove, a double fryer, a chicken rotisserie, a pastor rotisserie, and seven food preparation work tables; a large walk-in refrigerator unit; a 435 -square foot addition for two eight -foot charcoal barbecues open to the Bellam Boulevard entrance; an outside counter for drive-in service; and four cash registers (in addition to nine cash registers at the grocery store check-out counters). The area can comfortably accommodate greater seating capacity. The area occupied by the Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant is at least 5,266 square feet. Customers approach the Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant directly at a separate entrance, order food at the interior counter or the outside counter, and pay for their orders at the counter cash register. The customers are served rapidly at the counter with disposable plates, utensils and napkins. They take the food to the tables or carry it out "to go." There is no table service. In some locations, Mi Pueblo furnishes an attendant (a carhop) at the outside counter to assist customers in vehicles. The Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant customers never need to go through the grocery store or use its check- out counters. Section 14.03.030 of the Zoning Ordinance defines "fast food restaurant" as a [restaurant] facility which specializes in rapidly prepared foods and beverages, served with dispensable (such as paper or plastic) plates and utensils for on- or off-site consumption. Table service is generally limited to delivery of counter -ordered meals and busing. Service to persons in vehicles may be a function of fast food restaurants. Fast food restaurants have high customer volume and high traffic generation, plus one or more of the following elements: Drive-through service; 2. Late/early hours of operation (open after eleven p.m. (11:00 p.m.) or before six a.m. (6:00 a.m.)); Potential litter problems; 4. Noise (for example, from drive-through intercoms); 7016444660 City Council July 21, 2009 Page 3 5. Potential outdoor gathering places (emphasis added). The Zoning Administrator agrees that the proposed Food Center contains a fast food restaurant, subject only to any one of the additional elements. On page 2 of his July 14 memorandum to the Planning Commission, the Zoning Administrator states: "The appellant [Ruth Donohughl is correct that the food service portion of the grocery store may meet the characteristics identified in the paragraph portion of the definition [of fast food restaurant in Section 14.03.030] above" (emphasis added). The Planning Commission recognized that the proposed Food Center contains a restaurant. The Planning Commission rejected the sham that it is a "deli" and "ancillary" to a grocery store, which is a misleading fiction. Mi Pueblo admits that it includes a restaurant. Everyone agrees that a restaurant is present. The only question is whether the restaurant is a "fast food" restaurant. If any one of the five elements in Section 14.03.030 exists, then it must be a fast food restaurant. The Planning Commission recognized that elements 1, 2 and 4 likely are present because the Planning Commission expressed great concern about the existence of those elements. It is undeniable that elements 3 (litter) and 5 (outside gathering) will be present. Manifestly there will be potential litter problems and potential outdoor gathering 1p aces because the Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant is conducive to outdoor gathering and litter. It features "take-out fast food in disposable packaging to be consumed in the outdoor dining area or in the parking lot in or around vehicles (perhaps with friends and a 30 -pack of beer sold by Mi Pueblo). Mi Pueblo concedes that a significant amount of the food sold in the Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant will be carried out "to go." It is naive to think that outdoor gathering and litter will not occur in the crowded Canal neighborhood environment. It defies present day reality to deny those potential phenomena. Mi Pueblo admitted to the Planning Commission that full-time janitorial and security forces will be necessary to maintain order outside. There is no doubt that people will gather outside and create litter. Therefore, at least two of the elements are present and the City Council must determine that a fast food restaurant exists. The Zoning Administrator argues unconvincingly in his July 14 memorandum that Burger King, McDonald's, Jack in the Box and Wendy's are the "types of food 7016444660 City Council July 21, 2009 Page 4 service establishments that have been historically... considered `fast food' in the City of San Rafael." The Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant is much larger than Burger King, McDonald's, Jack in the Box and Wendy's. The negative impacts will be magnified. As the Planning Commission found, there is nothing like it anywhere in San Rafael (or Marin County). If Mi Pueblo sold hamburgers and French fries instead of burritos and tacos, the restaurant would immediately be characterized as a fast food restaurant. If Mi Pueblo installed a "Taco Bell" or "Pollo Loco" sign, everyone would call it a fast food restaurant. Instead, the sign will say "Cocina Mexicana" or "Taqueria." The inescapable conclusion is the same: It is a fast food restaurant because it fits perfectly the Section 14.03.040 definition. Required Parking The Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant is, in fact, part of a "mixed-use project" under the Zoning Ordinance. Section 14.03.030 defines "mixed-use project" as follows: "Mixed-use project" means a development in which more than one use is combined in a single building or on a single site (emphasis added). Section 14.18.070 of the Zoning Ordinance requires: Where there is more than one use in a single structure or on a site, or two (2) or more separate instances of the same use, off-street rparking] requirements shall be the sum of the !parking] requirements for the various uses (emphasis added). Sections 14.03.030 and 14.18.070 thus mandate that each of the Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant and the grocery store must satisfy the separate parking requirements applicable to each such use. Accordingly, the parking required by Section 14.18.040 of the Zoning Ordinance for the proposed Food Center, as demonstrated in my July 8 letter, is at least 191 spaces (67 for fast food restaurant + 124 for grocery store = 191 total). The site contains, at most, 162 parking spaces. Therefore, the site fails by at least 29 parking spaces to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Administrator ignores the clear definition and directive in Sections 14.03.030 and 14.18.070 by merely asserting in his July 14 memorandum that "the mixed use requirements have been historically applied" in cases involving separate tenants, or several buildings, or separation by walls or partitions. Sections 14.03.030 7016444660 City Council July 21, 2009 Page 5 and 14.18.070 explicitly refer to a "single building" and a "single structure" and focus on "use" because the overarching purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to address the use of land and its consequences. The Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant will, in and of itself, create a very high intensity use. The identity of the owner or tenant or the existence of walls or partitions are not criteria in the Zoning Ordinance and are irrelevant. The critical consideration is land use. The Zoning Administrator also ignores Sections 14.03.030 and 14.18.070 by inventing, in some abstract way, a "primary use" and an "ancillary use" without ever defining what those vague generalizations mean or why they should apply. The Zoning Ordinance does not define what is "primary" or "ancillary." The Zoning Administrator plays a "numbers game" by suggesting that the large Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant occupies less than 25% of the building, which makes no difference under the Zoning Ordinance. It is a dramatic intensification of use. Mi Pueblo represented to the Planning Commission that the sales from the Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant will account for approximately 14% or more of the total gross sales from the Food Center. That figure represents an enormous sum of money reflecting a tremendous volume of fast food sales from the Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant! The massive Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant cannot be ignored simply by placing it within a larger building or enterprise. It is a separate use in a mixed-use project that requires additional parking. Conditional Use Permit The Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant constitutes a "high volume food service establishment." Section 14.03.030 of the Zoning Ordinance defines it as follows: "High volume food service establishment" means a food service establishment over one thousand (1,000) square feet in size which serves more than two hundred (200) lunches daily or equivalent volume at other mealtimes. 7016444660 City Council July 21, 2009 Page 6 Based on the volume of sales forecast by Mi Pueblo as represented to the Planning Commission, as well as common experience with a fast food restaurant of its gross size, there is no doubt that the Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant is a high volume food service establishment because it will serve the volume of meals that exceeds the threshold. The Zoning Administrator fails to address this important point. Mi Pueblo does not deny it. Section 14.05.020 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit for a fast food restaurant. It also requires a Conditional Use for a high volume food service establishment. The Conditional Use Permit process is intended to address the significant issues raised by the Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant: traffic, parking, litter, loitering, safety and security. The proposed Food Center cannot be approved unless a Conditional Use Permit is issued for the fast food restaurant and for the high volume food service establishment. Conclusion In this case, the facts cannot be disputed. The definitions and requirements in the Zoning Ordinance are clear. The City Council is bound, legally and by its honor, to follow the principle articulated by the City Council in the introduction to the Zoning Ordinance: The purpose of this chapter is to promote consistency and precision in the application and interpretation of zoning regulations (Section 14.03.010). For all of the reasons described above, the City Council has a legal duty to determine that: A. The proposed Food Center contains a fast food restaurant; B. The Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant does not comply with the parking requirements; C. The Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant is also a high volume food service establishment; and 701644466v1 City Council July 21, 2009 Page 7 D. The Mi Pueblo fast food restaurant requires a Conditional Use Permit and the high volume food service establishment requires a Conditional Use Permit. Very truly yours, ti,Sr}��.vy L� uth Donohugh 0 cc: San Rafael City Attorney 7016444660 Cony of letter dated July 8, 2009, from Ruth Donohugh to San Rafael Planning Commission 701644466vl p' RUTH DONOHUGH 34o BELLAM BOULEVARD SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 94901 July 8, 2009 Planning Commission City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: 330 Bellam Boulevard (Mi Pueblo Food Center), File Nos. ED09- 014/UP09-015/SR09-012WN09-001 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Zoning Administrator approved this proposed project. I appealed the decision because the proposed project fails to comply in material respects with Title 14 — Zoning - of the San Rafael Municipal Code (the "Zoning Ordinance"). The applicant describes the proposed project simply as a "grocery store."' That is inaccurate and misleading. The proposed project is, in fact, an expansive kind of food mall featuring a variety of separate commercial uses relating to'food, from which the proposed project derives its name: "MI PUEBLO FOOD CENTER." The proposed Food Center contains a fast food restaurant. As shown in the plans, the proposed Food Center has many separate uses: a grocery store, a tortilleria, a panaderia (bakery), a shaved ice bar, a gelatine bar, a coffee bar, a juice bar, and a very substantial "fast food restaurant." The fast food restaurant occupies the northwest portion of the building at the entrance near Bellam Boulevard. It consists of 19 large tables with at least 76 chairs inside and another six large tables with more chairs outside; a huge commercial kitchens with 34 steam table pans, nine food trays, a three-foot grill, two four -foot grills, seven stock pot stoves, a ten -burner stove, a double flyer, a chicken rotisserie, a pastor rotisserie, and seven food preparation work tables; a large walk-in refrigerator unit; a 435 -square "Grocery store" is not defined in the Zoning Ordinance but the common definition is a store for the sale of staple foodstuffs, meats, produce, dairy products and household supplies (Webster's Dictionary). "Kitchen" is defined as "any portion of a structure equipped, used or intended to be used for the storage, preparation, and cooking of foods" (Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.03.030). 701623453vl Planning Commission July 8, 2009 Page 2 foot addition for two six-foot charcoal barbecues open to the Bellam Boulevard entrance; an outside counter for drive-in service; and four cash registers (which are in addition to nine more cash registers at the grocery store check-out counters). The area occupied by the fast food restaurant is at least 5,266 square feet.3 The fast food restaurant is designed for customers to order food at the interior counter or the outside counter and, upon ordering, to pay for their orders at the counter cash register. The customers are served at the counter with disposable plates, utensils and napkins. They take the food to the tables to eat or carry it out "to go." There is no table service. The fast food restaurant customers do not go through the grocery store or its check-out counters.a There can be no doubt that this use constitutes a fast food. restaurant. under the Zoning Ordinance because it perfectly fits the statutory definition. Section 14.03.030 of the Zoning Ordinance defines "fast food restaurant' as a facility which specializes in rapidly prepared foods and beverages, served with dispensable (such as paper or plastic) plates and utensils for on- or off- site consumption. Table service is generally limited to delivery of counter - ordered meals and busing. Service to persons in vehicles may be a function of fast food restaurants. Fast food restaurants have high customer volume and -high traffic generation, plus one or more of the following elements: 1.. Drive-through service; 3 This is the minimum area of the fast food restaurant, which includes the commercial kitchen, the interior seating area and the charcoal barbecue addition. It excludes -the exterior dining area. Areas used for the tortilleria and the panaderia and kitchen work spaces associated with them could appropriately be allocated to the fast food restaurant to increase its area to as much as 6,575 square feet. - 4 The model for the proposed Food Center is the existing Mi Pueblo Food Center in Pittsburg (2100 Railroad Avenue). A visit to the Pittsburg location will confirm beyond doubt the fact that the proposed Food Center contains a fast food restaurant. 701623453vl Planning Commission July 8, 2009 Page 3 2. 3. 4. 5. Late/early hours of operation (open after'eleven p.m. (11:00 p.m.) or before six a.m,. (6:00 a.m.)); Potential litter problems; Noise (for example, from drive-through intercoms); Potential outdoor gathering places. The proposed Food. Center does not comply with the parking requirements. The proposed Food Center clearly contains a fast food restaurant as well as a grocery store. These are multiple, separate uses in the building. It is, therefore, a "mixed-use project' under the Zoning Ordinance because it is "a development in which more than one use is combined in a single building or on a single site" (Section 14.03.030). Section 14.18.070 of the Zoning Ordinance provides: Where there is more than one use in a single structure or on.a site, or two (2) or more separate instances of the same use, off-street [parking] requirements shall be the'sum of the [parking] requirements for the various uses. Section 14.18.070 thus mandates that each of the fast food restaurant use and the grocery store use must satisfy.the separate parking requirements applicable to each such use. Parking requirements are set forth in Section. 14.18.040. The parking requirement for fast food restaurants is 1 space per 100 sq. ft. for 50 percent of the gross building sq. ft.; and one space per 65 sq. ft. for 50 percent of the gross building sq. ft. or one space per 2.5 interior seats, whichever is greater. 7016234530 Planning Commission July 8, 2009.. Page 4 Applying this requirement to the fast food restaurant in the proposed Food Center, the required parking is 67 spaces, calculated.as follows:5 [(5,266 x 50%) _ 100] + [(5,266 x 50%) _ 65] = 67 The remaining grocery store area in the building is 3 1, 100 square feet. The parking required by Section 14.18.040 for that use is "1 space per 250 gross building sq. ft.," which equals 124 parking spaces ([36,366.- 5,2661 _ 250 = 124). Accordingly, the parking required by the Zoning Ordinance for the proposed Food Center is at least 19 r spaces (67 + 124 = 191): The site excludes 8,583 square feet along the westerly boundary granted exclusively to the Marin Health and Wellness Campus for parking and vehicular and pedestrian access for the Marin Health and Wellness Campus.6 Excluding that area, the site contains, at most, 162 parking spaces. Therefore, the site fails by at least 29 parking spaces to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. _ A proponent of the proposed Food Center may argue that the separate fast food restaurant and the clear terms of the Zoning Ordinance applicable to the fast food restaurant should be ignored on the baseless theory that there is only a "deli" that is "ancillary" to the. grocery store. Such an argument dismisses the facts demonstrating the existence of a fast food restaurant and violates Sections 14.03.030 (fast food restaurant and mixed-use project), 14.18.070 (cumulative requirements for separate uses) and 14.18.040 (parking -for fast food restaurants). The Zoning Ordinance The fast food restaurant area shown in the applicant's plans could comfortably accommodate more large tables and many more chairs for greater seating capacity, which could increase the required parking under the formula based on interior seats. This is not merely an allocation of 15 parking spaces; it is a grant of the exclusive right to use the 8,583 -square foot area. The transfer to the Marin Health and Wellness Campus of the exclusive right to use this area effectively reduces the site from 172,465 square feet to 163,882 square feet and increases the FAR to 0.22 (36,366 _ [172,465 — 8,5831= 0.22). This exceeds the maximum FAR of 0.21 permitted for the site by Section 14.16.150 of the Zoning Ordinance. No increase in the size of the building should be allowed. 7016234530 Planning Commission July 8, 2009 Page 5 explicitly recognizes the significance of fast food restaurants and specifically responds to the impacts of them. It cannot be ignored. The Zoning Ordinance does not define what is "ancillary" so it is inappropriate to rely on such an undefined term in making important land use. decisions. Comparative sales or proportional areas are irrelevant in determining the separate existence of a fast food restaurant because Section 14.03.030 (fast food restaurant and mixed-use project) does not include those factors. The relevant statutory guide is Section 14.05.020 (land use regulations), which states that "uses customarily incidental to a permitted use and contained on the same site" are permitted. The test, therefore, is whether a different use is "customarily incidental" to a permitted use. The proposed Food Center is unique and unprecedented. There is nothing like it anywhere in San Rafael (or Marin County). The fast food restaurant, especially on the scale in the proposed Food Center, cannot under any circumstances be considered "customary" in a grocery store or "incidental' to a grocery store in any way whatsoever. The best comparison is the Whole Foods grocery store on Third Street. Whole Foods has a traditional. delicatessen counter for sandwiches and a standard refrigerated display case for sliced meats, salads and the like. As an amenity for the convenience of customers, Whole Foods has four small tables with only two seats each inside and four small tables to seat four people each outside. Whole Foods contains a true "deli" of the kind that is "customarily incidental' to a grocery store.7 By contrast, the fast food restaurant in the proposed Food Center grossly exceeds the norm. In this case, the plain terms of the Zoning­ oning Ordinance dictate the finding that a fast food restaurant exists and the determination that 67 parking spaces are required for it.8 Other examples of this common arrangement include United Market in San Rafael, Safeway in Strawberry, Mollie Stone in Greenbrae, Woodland Market in Kentfield, and Paradise Foods in Corte Madera. Many grocery stores, however, have nothing similar at all. This conclusion conforms to the mandate of Section 14.03.010 of the Zoning Ordinance: "The purpose of this chapter is to promote consistency and precision in the application and interpretation of zoning regulations." 7016234530 Planning Commission July 8, 2009 Page 6 The proposed Food Center requires a Conditional Use Permit. In view of its substantial magnitude, the fast food restaurant use within the proposed Food Center will constitute a_"high volume food service establishment," which is defined in Section 14.03.030 of the Zoning Ordinance to be a "food service establishment over one thousand (1,000) square feet in size which serves more than two hundred (200) lunches daily or equivalent volume at other meal times." Section 14.05.020 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit both for a fast food restaurant use and for a high volume food service establishment. The proposed Food Center cannot; therefore, be approved unless a Conditional Use Permit is issued for the fast food restaurant/high volume food service establishment. Strict compliance with the Zoning Ordinance is necessary. The area surrounding the intersection of Kerner Boulevard and Bellam Boulevard in general,, and the site of the proposed Food Center in particular, are already severely impacted by very high traffic volume, inadequate parking and congestion. All northbound traffic on East Francisco Boulevard exits on Kerner and travels to the KemerBellam intersection. That traffic must tum left and -go westbound on Bellam to reach Highway 101. At the Kerner/Bellam intersection, eastbound traffic on Bellam is reduced to one lane. The Kerner/Bellam intersection has already reached an unacceptable LOS. The site is burdened by easements for the benefit of the Marin Health and Wellness Campus. Access to the Marin Health and Wellness Campus is available from Bellam through the alley along the easterly boundary of the site behind the building where the loading dock is located. Traffic exits Bellam behind the building, travels south and then west through the parking lot to the Marin Health and Wellness Campus. Traffic flow through the parking lot will be unsafe. The presence of many large delivery trucks, which will frequent the site daily to serve the proposed Food Center, will block Bellam and the loading dock alley and back traffic up through the KernerBellam intersection and beyond it. Cars and trucks will cross the site through the easterly alley from Bellam, then continue westerly across the site's parking lot to Kerner, where the principal entrance and exit for the Marin Health and Wellness Campus is located. The Marin Health and Wellness Campus also has the exclusive right to use the 8,583 -square foot area along 701623453v1 Planning Commission July 8, 2009 Page 7 the westerly boundary of the site for parking and for access by vehicles and pedestrians. This will create an extremely hazardous condition at the very focal point for .visitors to the Marin Health and Wellness Campus. As it exists today, there is inadequate parking in the area. On -street parking along Kerner and Bellam is full. The site is inadequate for the necessary parking. These traffic and parking problems will be exacerbated as the Marin Health and Wellness Campus achieves its full capacity in the future. The resulting chaos and danger in the parking lot will create an unmanageable situation.9 In these circumstances, the area has an acute need for careful land use planning. The City of San Rafael has the legal obligation to ensure strict compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and, as expressed in Section 14.18.010, to carry out the "specific purposes of parking regulations ... to... [p]romote the safety and convenience of all land use and circulation systems,...more efficient street systems .... the continued health and vitality of all Iand uses,... [and] compatibility among adjacent land uses.i10 ' It is evident that the site of the proposed Food Center was planned for an earlier time prior to the establishment of the Marin Health and Wellness Campus when the use of the site was far less intense, The intensity of use in the area has increased dramatically. The proposed Food Center is a further gross intensification of the land use. 10 Section 14.18.010 declares: In addition to the general purposes listed in Section 14.01.030, the specific purposes of parking regulations are to: A. Promote the safety and convenience of all land use and circulation systems within the city by providing standards and policies for the creation and maintenance of vehicular off- street parking and loading; B. Promote more efficient street systems by reducing to a minimum the congestion which may be created by uncontrolled parking; C. Promote the continued health and vitality of all land uses by providing reasonable satisfaction for normal parking demands; D. Promote compatibility among adjacent land uses and enhance the appearance of the city through appropriate design and aesthetic standards related to parking; . (... continued) 7016234530 Planning Commission July 8, 2009 Page 8 The City of San Rafael must, on this important occasion, discharge its legal responsibility for strict compliance with all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance applicable to the proposed Food Center. I respectfully submit that the proposed Food Center does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance and cannot be approved. Vere 5 aly yours, Ruth Donohugh •c' Mr..Raffi Boloyan meon Commercial Properties Mena Architects E. Ensure that off-street parking and loading facilities are provided for new land uses and for major alterations and enlargements of existing uses in proportion to the need for such facilities created by each use; F. Establish parking standards for commercial and industrial uses consistent with need and with the feasibility of providing parking on specific commercial and industrial sites; G. Ensure that off-street parking and loading facilities are designed in a manner that will ensure efficiency, protect the public safety and, where appropriate, insulate surrounding land uses from adverse impacts; H. Establish parking standards which recognize the more urban character of parking downtown. 701623453vl RECEIVED CITY CLERK (Marin Institute CITY OF SAN RAFAEL alcohol in ustry watchdog 2009 JUL 21 PM 3: 26 July 21, 2009 San Rafael City Council 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA DELIVERED BY HAND RE: PROJECT: 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN09-001) Dear Honorable Members of the San Rafael City Council: Marin Institute is a nonprofit organization located at 24 Belvedere St, just blocks from the proposed project at 330 Bellam Blvd. (Mi Pueblo). Our mission is to protect communities from the harm caused by alcohol. We are writing to appeal the approval by the San Rafael Planning Commission on Tuesday, July 14 of a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity, essentially granting Mi Pueblo an alcohol license in the over -concentrated area of the Canal. We base our appeal on the grounds that the Planning Commission failed to follow the letter of the law, in part due to facts that were ignored by the Zoning Administrator. California law states that when an area is over -concentrated with alcohol outlets, or an area is designated as high -crime, the state department of Alcoholic Beverage Control may not issue an alcohol license unless the city grants an exception under the local public convenience or necessity criteria. The region in question, the Canal, is both over - concentrated and is a high -crime area. That is what has triggered this review. This point seemed to be lost on the Planning Commission, as they were under the erroneous impression that they were simply deciding whether or not to approve the alcohol license, when in fact it was deciding to carve out an exception to state law that protects the public. In making its determination, the Commission (according to San Rafael City Council Resolution 10299) must consider several criteria, all which go against granting of a public convenience or necessity exception. Here are the highlights from those criteria: 1) Will the issuance of a liquor license increase the total number of licenses in the city or census tract? Yes, there is no dispute here: the application for this license increases the number of alcohol licenses in the area, and this is what triggered this review. It's notable that Mi Pueblo had to go outside the city of San Rafael to get a license transfer, from Albertson's in Fairfax, an area with very different crime statistics than The Canal. ATTACHMENT3 2) Will issuing the license serve a segment of the population not presently being served? Given that The Canal already has an over -concentration of 29 locations licensed to sell alcohol in the census tract, the answer is clearly no. All one has to do to purchase alcohol is walk a few blocks, hardly an inconvenience. 3) Is the location of the business applying for the liquor license within 7000 feet of an incompatible facility such as day care centers, schools, churches, parks, homeless shelters, rehabilitation centers or places that are designed and operate to serve minors? In his report, the Zoning Administrator completely failed to note the Marin Health and Wellness Campus located across the parking lot. The Campus provides services to minors and families, including alcohol and drug treatment and recovery services. In addition, there is at least one day care center right across the street on Bellam. (See attachment with list of 4 health and wellness programs that serve minors, including WIC.) 4) Is the potential licensee located in a high -crime area? Once again, the Zoning Administrator's report failed to adequately report the applicable data. The Zoning Administrator reports only 36 calls were made in the area, but this only covers the building at 330 Bellam Blvd and the parking lot, the location where Mi Pueblo will be located. The law (Resolution 10299) requires considering the entire census tract data. This is what was left out of the report: In the last six months there have been 246 alcohol-related crimes reported related to alcohol in the census tract. In the near vicinity of the proposed location of Mi Pueblo, there have been 63 alcohol related crimes reported in the same period. In the last six months, 64 percent of total crimes in this census tract have been alcohol-related. (Please see attached documentation.) In addition, Marin Institute research has found that beer constitutes 80 percent of alcohol sales and in effect causes the majority of alcohol harms. Mi Pueblo specializes in selling large cases of beer. Marin Institute has estimated that Marin County incurs a cost of $250 million annually due to alcohol harms. Selling more alcohol in the Canal will only add to this cost, both in terms of economics and personal loss. The only entity "convenienced" by the granting of this license is the Mi Pueblo Corporation. Based on the inadequacy of the findings of the Zoning Administrator, which in turn resulted in the Planning Commission essentially ignoring the criteria required to be considered under both state and San Rafael law, we respectfully request the City Council to put the interests of health and safety first, and reject this alcohol license. Sincerely, .1 �6 1 Z�11 Bruce Livingston Executive Director Marin Institute 24 Belvedere St. San Rafael, CA 94901 County Of Marin: Health and Human Services - Marin Health... 1oft http://www.co.marin.ca.us/campus/programs.cfm COUNTY OF MARIN search ODr,Site , COUNTY HOME Health and Human Services - Marin Health and Wellness Campus } Home Contact Us SeMces OrpxabF.V n Farm. News Calendar Sobs Printable BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Admin I Aging and Adult Services I Alcohol, Drug and Tumoon I Public Health I Mental Health I Social Services CONTACTS DEPARTMENTS JOB POSTINGS N A R a N M3-MARIN HEALTH & SERVICESS INFORMAMON SE MAN MAR/N HEALTH & WELLNESS CAMPUS DOINGBUSINESS 1 GOVERNMENT WING HERE ONLINESERVICES VISITING Calendar County News Forms Full Text Search Subscribe Give Us Feedback PROGRAMS and SERVICES Home Buckefew Employment Services (BES) is a comprehensive program designed to assist people in securing and maintaining employment. Services include pre-ampioymenl counseling, vocational training, About job development, job placement, lob coaching, a Computer lab, and classes for support and skill development. On-the-job teaming opportunities are offered in the Community and on-site in the kitchen, Programs cath, and office. [Building 3270,(415) 466.9350, www.buckelew.orgl Events Buckelew's Marin Assisted Independent Living (MAIL) Program helps clients live independently in the Community, either individually or in households of 25 people. Staff provides a variety of supportive and Connection Center mental health Services to assist clients in maintaining their living Situation. [Building 3270, (415) 457-1925, wwwDuckelew.org] Directions Community Action Mann's Enterprise Resource Center, a peer -run, Self-help organization, operates a dmp4n center that features group activities, peer counseling and support, wee management, and referral. Contact [Building 3270, (415) 4574554, www asmarin org] Community Action Marin's Linda Reed Day Services (LRDS) Activities Club provides a lhreaday-a-week program for people who are interested in participating in structured activities. [Building 3270, (415) 4574554, www.wmarin.arg] The Connection Center is the head of the Campus. The reception area, hosted by bilingual, multiaultu2l staff members, Owens information about Campus programs and community resources, referrals, billing services, case management, health insurance enrollment, and assistance navigating and accessing services. [Building 3240, (415) 4734300] H&HS Adult Mental Health Clinic's STAR (Support and Treahnent After Release) Program is Mann's innovative program which provides mentally ill offenders with services focused on recovery and transition. [Building 3270, (415) 473-21001 H&HS Community Mental Health Youth and Family Services provides outpatient mental health services, including assessment, case management, family Counseling, education and child psychiatry for children, youth and families. [Building 3230, (415) 47357241 H&HS Health Clinics offer STD, TB, HIV, Immunintion, Women's Health Services, and Reproductive Health Services, including Family Planning and Maternity, all together in one building. [Building 3260, (415) 473-4400] H&HS Social Services Children & Family Services Program provides State mandated Services ranging from child abuse prevention to adoption. The goal is to provide assistance which will help families keep their children safe at home and prevent the need far foster Com placement. [Building 3250, (415) 473-2200] Marin Community Clinics (MCC) is a vital link for thousands of uninsured and low-income women, children, and families who Cannot afford insurance or private health Core. MCC has crated an extensive —'—� primary care delivery system that is Currently serving mare than 14,000 patients annually. The new San Rafael clinic features 18 exam rooms, six dental chairs, and classrooms for health education. [Building 3110, (415) 440-1500, www.riarinclinic.org] Woman, Imam & Children's (WIC) Program is a supplemental food and nutrition program for low-income pregnent, breastieer ing, and postpartum women and children under age five who have a nutritional risk The services provided by the program Include nutrition education, breastfeeding promotion, medical care referrals, and specific supplemental nutritious foods designed to meet the participants enhanced dietary needs for specific nutrients during brief but critics! periods of physiological development. (Building 3250, (415) 47358891 !=Rams Blvd,San RMNIa4.o1 I hnotrusol...emarrgNo.madn.c..w 1(416)4734300 The Contain for this page IS: kkln llgAco.madn.Ca,us COUNTY HOME I BOARD of SUPERVISORS I CONTACTS I DEPARTMENTS I JOB POSMNGs I MY MARIN I HELP SERVICES a INFORMATION I CAUNDAR I COUNTY NEWS I FORMS I FULL TE%T SEARCH I GIVE US FEEDBACK 9]0.'V CMM MMerin ITe,ma A Cerdltlana I PaMen I rile Leel UWated May 12, 2000 gp Search CrialeReports.com http://www.crimereports.com/map?search=%22san+Rafael+C... ,r CrimeReports LCGIN, JOIN L cel .rima Aieds - } e Crime Reports' Enter location law Enforcement Agencies "San Rafael CA" Examples: "C95 Coleman Avenue, San Jase CA", "San Jose. CA", "95110" Sort by: Crime I Date I Distance Period (days): 3 7 14 30 View: Crimes 1 Sex Offenders ,,,pp OTHER 10 Jul 2009 100 BLOCK SAW WAY Distance: 2.17 miles Identifier: 10OD710029 Tme(24H): 09:32 Description: Fallow uptsupplemenl Disposition: Handled This Is a Call For Service. sanamfne.N 1yi DISORDER 10 Jul 2W9 3500 BLOCK KERNER BLVD Distance: 2.2 miles Identifier. 1090710136 71me(24H): 21:32 Description: Unwanted subject Oliq osition: Warned This Is a Cell For Service. Sant Ic 4ce J el�r' DRUGS 10JUIM9 100 BLOCK SAW WAY Distance: 2.17 miles ealrsnau crime types Ulf A<xd W` Print Oeh p. id.d by: San Rafael Pan- neVnrlmenl, Sdn nandoco Pdim nepeea o.i Pdnl Fnuidly 44111n•Ranua Gum. L,ee, nide Mnp The Inbrme4oa on tMs sae is for mleresl only said Is subject la ema and cbaage based on data pmvl0ed by police agencies. How CrimeReports.com works Li d (901) 828-2700 Why we created this site Info@crimempoda.com What is a crime report? Where does the report data coma tram? How often is the data updated? About the privacy of crime victims WOO Public Engines, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy I Terms W Use I Disclaimer For law enforcement agencies About our company Learn more about CnmeReports Contact Learn more about Command Central Management See Participating Agencies News Coverage Schedule a webinar Press Releases Request mare information Create an Account loft 1 Census Tract 1122, Marin County, California - Reference Map ... Census Tract 1122, Marin County, California Boundaries a'''te S:a:C C0 Q :y 'oe ;c sus frac; ' Y�'00 81"', Gro_a '00 Block Pk Place //'N Platc '00 �rw Arca :' '00 oroa- Arca Features /✓eajor Bow S-rec: t:rew,Wa:ernocy Strcam!Watcrt ny lofI http://factfinder.census.gov/serv[eUMapltDrawServiet?context... Y Ian Rafael 8 �q NA. M',,"sar 1822 `- �9 3/80 r` 4 IT San rranci co S Rirbwaad { . r ' yyrr��orte'naueri. 121x RAY adb�0 le ', t 179912 , { Son Fraaritto Jr -. 1241 Tiburee 7 miles across r San Pablo B lN=, ..YS y Y' - - Richmond bnr:t at . 1r;'a as San Pablo Strt._- w ks t.!(12. 3650.02 y. ?.i 5iu Rafsel - Y Ian Rafael 8 �q NA. M',,"sar 1822 `- �9 3/80 r` 4 IT San rranci co S Rirbwaad { . r ' yyrr��orte'naueri. 121x RAY adb�0 le ', t 179912 , { Son Fraaritto Jr -. 1241 Tiburee 7 miles across r�'Ilfor'nia ABC - License Query System - Data Portal http://www.abe.ca.gov/datport/AHCountyRep.asp California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control For the County of MARIN - (Retail Licenses) and Census Tract = 1122 Report as of 7/12/2009 lof3 License License Orl Iss. —Ex pir Prima Owner and Mailin Geo umber Latus Type Date Date Premises ,.Add Business Name Address Code 14717 11-47-17 CT 47 /31/2009 FMZ CORPORATION ELIAS MEXICAN 108 ESTAURANT F Census Traci: 122.4901 0541 CT 51 131/2010 UB RAFAEL YACHT CLUB 108 DR CAA294901 SANsus [AN TAIL, 1213 CT 41 /16/1980 SHEN SHAD H U SHANG MANDRIN 180 BELLAM BLVD 108 80 BELLAM BLVD UISINE & SUSHI BARAN AN RAFAEL, CA 71S"en..sTmt: CA 4901 4901 �- 122.FAEL 135285 CT 20 /15!1983 ELICIOUS INC26 108 ME 71SI en RAFnsus AEL, CA 746702 CT 47 17/16/1983 128/2010 SAN RAFAEL RESTAURANT 2108 CORPORATION AN RAFAEL, CA 8 VIVIAN ST 4912 SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 Census Tract: 1122, 11/17/198 13109 NATHE FOOD SERVICE INC ES7 BROOKLYN PIZZA F108r7rr9UrensRATacL 11 294901 61278 CT 20 /1/1991 /31/2009 ALFREDO 'LOPEZ7SesusTract: 108 55 FRANCISCO BLVD F F 11294901E 75492 CT 41 /11(1992 28/2010 MEHTA HARIKRISHNA NDIAVILLAGE 108 55 FRANCISCO BLVD E ESTAURANT �� SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 ensus Tact: 1122. 79342 CT 41 11/811993 0131/2009 ONOHUGH RUTH 108 0 BELLAM BLVD F� � SANRAFAEL, Tract: 122.4901 087810/1995UNBYUNGOKMOKEYS DELI108ATE D901 rr_ � AN esus TactG 1CA 22 lof3 California ABC -License Query System - Data Portal http://www.abc.ca.gov/datpoNAHCountyRep.asp 51 CT 20 Ifi/1997 130/2009 K5NAPPP.ensus 108 rl'2-9041 ���PEL TAELMARIA 1LUBBRATIONSWINE ract: 1122. 2) 31391 CT 41 /21/1997 /30/2009 GARCIA OSCAR H NION CAFE 108 IS T EL 5 BE DE 175 FAEL, FAEL 122 4901 Census T act 3) 0839 CT 47 /2/1998 /28/2010EAFOOD PEDDLER OF SEAFOOD PEDDLER 108 SAN RAFAEL INC 100 YACHT CLUB DR SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 ensus Tract: 1122. 4) 40839 CT 58 /28/1998 28/2010 SEAFOOD PEDDLER OF SEAFOOD PEDDLER 108 SAN RAFAEL INC 100 YACHT CLUB DR AN RAFAEL, CA 94901 Census Tract: 1122. 5) 46024 CT 21 CONVENIENCE MORE FOR LESS 336 BRADSHAW RD 2108 ACQUISITION COMPANY PACRAMENTO, CA LLC 5827 77Ceosus 146 BELLAM BLVD SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 Tract: 1122. 6j 66 4 GT 20 7 ELEVEN INC ELEVEN 2231 14132 O BOX 2245 108 MEDWAYN o224901 REA, CA 92822-2245 �� 77slen5us RAFAEL, 7) 66931 CT 4i 10/4!2000 /30/2009 CARRANZA CARLOS RESTAURANT TAQUERIA 108 ROMEO ELSALVADOR 175 BELVEDERE ST SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 Census Tract: 1122. 74039 CT 41 INSELLAM AANN ECROISSANT ONF 8) ELLAM 77ICensus SAN Tract:�80294901 94271 CT 20 1123/2003 /30/2010 CIRCLE K STORES INC K 5784 95 E RINCON ST 108 FRANCISCO BLVD [COA r � 7 7 us [IRCLE 2879-N 85 Can Tract:122.4901E 0) 94288 CT 47 12119/2002LVD 113012008IROCHA N MANUEL AQUERIA MI FAMILIA 106 SELLAM ��� ensusTr Tract: 122.4901 FI-) 00 CT 20 /20/2003 VINEYARDS ALENTINEVINEYARDS 108 1A PELICAN STATES 71VALENTINE AN RAFAEL,, CA 94901 ensus Tract: 1122. 02959 FFERS INC LS FOOD & LIQUOR 1015 TAMALPAIS AVE 108 2) 6 MEDWAY RD AN RAFAEL, CA FF77PA SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 4901 Census Tract: 1122. 51 w California ABC - License Query System - Data Portal http://www.abc.ca.gov/datport/AHCountyRep.asp. ---End of Report --- For a definition of codes, view our glossary 03679 41 /20/2003 /31/2010 MAGANA ALFONSO LAYA AZUL RESTAURANT t I 108 r F � SA RAFAMBLVD4 SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 4) 26922 CT 41 /22/2005 130/2010 Census Tract: 1122. AISHING INC 1 SIMMS ST ALIFORNIA BAKERY 8 RESTAURANT SAN RAFAEL. CA 94901 F Census Tract: 1122. 2005 /31/2009 LVAREZREYES ELENA FELIPA AQUERIABAHIA 108 55 FRANCISCO BLVD E rFFF SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 fi) 43261 47 10/4/2006 130/2009 ensus Tract: 1122. ORSI ADRIANO JOHN 15 HARBOR ST ARBOR 15 108 �� F � SAN RAFAEL, 94901 71 43810 CT 21 /29/2006 /31/2009 12 Census Traci: 1122. SUPERMERCADO MI IERRALLC UPERMERCAD0 MI IERRA6 520 INTERNATIONAL LVD 108 175 BELVEDERE ST AKLAND, CA 94603 SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 56435 CT 21 /20/2008 130/2009 Census Tract: 1122. SMART &FINAL STORES LLC 935 ANDERSEN DR MART &FINAL 526 OS ANGELES?CA 0051.0377 108 IF SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 CT 41 12/10/20087 Census Tract: 1122. OVARRUBIAS VANESSA 3060 KERNER BLVD PO BOX 151414 SAN RAFAEL, CA 108 SAN RAFAEL, CA 4916-1414 [F72-658 4901-5418 Census Tract: 1122. ---End of Report --- For a definition of codes, view our glossary W Print I Close Window fI LIQUOR 28 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK BEUAM BLVD Distance: 0.47 miles Identifier: 1090626067 Tlme(24H): 2016 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This Is s Call For Service. Sena 1e r-dana i 4LIQUOR 27 Jun 2009 11 100 BLOCK BELLAM BLVD Distance: 0.47 miles Identifier: 1090627093 Time(2411):17;31 Description; Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. s^..M m Friona ;0.i LIQUOR 27 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK DOWITCHER WAY Distance: 0.11 mites Identifier. 1090627117 Time(24H): 20:31 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: No response per Supervisor This Is a Cell For Service. Seryl m Fnena LIQUOR 22 Jen 20W 900 BLOCK FRANCISCO BLVD E Distance: 0.43 miles Identifier: 1090622069 I Of l http://crimereports.com/map/print — 63 p1cDNDL 2¢L41€11 i.Q\V'AkS tool, FIA CL 27- ' Sfw 2A t A fr (, au l r UE. Flom ljo.,,l oDI - -IINI o9 - Spu2Ci: Sf"jLgFAU�L ?a ClcE IPl7P)Aq,'(MFN7 w V -W • (ItIM r XF902ZS. Cow\ �.t'tri://qririi'ereports.com/map/print �� ��� ��"Iriie •' 7/8/09 4:18 PM ' IIM;12009 07108/2009 246 1 431. Y' y lal� s 1 r.} 9 }��a 1 Y ! I 3 pp /Yb wI 3 � as <Gi)P yvt ; •' ZMb 0 i! 4. ..c •+ Map data le Atlas- renrr. YiI LIQUOR 07 Jul. 2009 100 BLOCK MEDWAYRD Distance: 0.13 miles Identifier: 1090707119 Time(24H): 18:58 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This Is a Call For Service. SenA in Faend 'A#1 LIQUOR 05 Jul 2009 200 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier. 1090705004 Time(24H): 00:22 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This Is a Call For Service. 5 LIQUOR 05 Jul 2009 100 BLOCK LARKSPUR ST Distance: 0.1 miles Identifier: 1090705005 Time(24H): 00:35 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This is a Call For Service. seen tc t': �r,w LIQUOR 04 Jul 2009 — 2 y C21MfcS 2�LR1&D T, MoM (prnm(7t%0 fabwl \ log 1200c1 To "1 boa 12101 ZoN- I Ll 20 21 AND ZZ -1 SRN IZAfArt, ?aLtcC Pep i Ihttp:1/crimeraports.com /map/print 500 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.18 miles Identifier: 1090704008 Time(24HL 00:49 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. `artl V• 1 nwd LIQUOR 03 Jui 2009 100 BLOCK WOODLAND AVE Distance: 0.79 miles Identifies 1090703088 Time(24H): 16:31 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Report Taken This Is a Call For Service. LIQUOR 02 Jut 2009 500 BLOCK BELLE AVE Distance: 0.84 miles Identifier: 1090702089 Time(24H): 14:47 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Report Taken This Is a Call For Service. sere m r deee LIQUOR 30Jun2009 100 BLOCK SIMMS ST Distance: 0.41 miles Identifier: 1090630081 Tlme(24H): 15:30 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: No response per Supervisor This Is a Cali For Service. Snne to I'rinnil sJ LIQUOR 30 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK CHARLOTTE DR Distance: 0.27 miles Identifier: 1090630134 Tlme(24H): 20:33 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. ;;.:. LIQUOR 29 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK BELVEDERE ST Distance: 0.08 miles Identifier: 1090629132 Time(24H): 21:15 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Abated This Is a Cali For Service. `y LIQUOR 28 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK BELLAM BLVD Distance: 0.28 miles Identifier: 1090628087 3 7/8/09 4:18 PM 7`ttp://crirHereports.com/map/print ` 7/8/09 4:18 PM Time(24H): 20:26 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This Is a Call For Service. I LIQUOR 27 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK MEDWAY RD Distance: 0.13 miles Identifier: 1090627005 Time(24H): 01:08 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. LIQUOR 27Jun2009 100 BLOCK BELLAM BLVD Distance: 0.28 miles Identifier: 1090627093 Time(24H): 17:31 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. .,end m r --neon '.i::k• LIQUOR 27 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK DOWITCHER WAY Distance: 0.61 miles Identifier: 1090627117 Time(24H): 20:31 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: No response per Supervisor This is a Call For Service. Send to Fnend _..—I.— .... ...... .._.._..._... .......... <l ± LIQUOR 26 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK NOVATO ST Distance: 0.16 miles Identifier: 1090626140 Time(24H): 22:25 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This Is a Call For Service. . A to r,eud >;,4 LIQUOR 26 Jun 2009 400 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.1 miles Identifier. 1090626143 Time(24H): 22:52 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. LIQUOR 22 Jun 2009 900 BLOCK FRANCISCO BLVD E Distance: 0.28 miles Identifier: 1090622069 Time(24H): 14:01 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. a 'll /crlrHe reports.com/map/print - 7/8/09 4:18 PM 1� ,.;. LIQUOR 21 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK WOODLAND AVE Distance: 0.79 miles Identifier: 1090621002 Time(24H): 00:05 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival - This is a Call For Service. 3anJ b, :.i n.nd LIQUOR 21 Jun2009 500 BLOCK FRANCISCO BLVD E Distance: 0.53 miles Identifier: 1090621080 Time(24H): 21:32 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Handled This Is a Call For Service. send ro Fricn,i LIQUOR 21 Jut -2009 KERNER BLVD 8 NOVATO ST Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090621082 Tlme(24HL 21:45 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. Send lu I'nonrl LIQUOR 20 Jun 2009 900 BLOCK FRANCISCO BLVD E Distance: 0.28 miles Identifier: 1090620051 Time(24H): 14:38 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking - Disposition: Handled This Is a Call For Service. - Sold to Friend LIQUOR 20 Jun 2009 200 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090620085 Time(24H): 20:30 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Cancelled This is a Call For Service. >!:3? LIQUOR 19 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK MEDWAYRD Distance: 0.13 miles Identifier: 1090619092 Time(24H): 15:25 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Cancelled This is a Call For SeNce. Sand In Pnuorl tJ LIQUOR 18 Jun 2009 22- 'http://crin'ereports.com/map/print 7/8/09 %1:18 PM 600 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.3 miles Identifier: 1090618132 Time(2411): 23:40 Description: Complaint of subjects) drinking Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. )3; p LIQUOR 16 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK BAHIA WAY Distance: 0.5 miles Identifier: 1090616106 Time(24H): 18:19 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. ...:nJ In rrienr! K-1, LIQUOR 16 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK NOVATO ST Distance: 0.16 miles Identifier: 1090616146 Time(24H): 23:03 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Report Taken This is a Call For Service. ..rsnd Ic Prirsna 14: LIQUOR 16 Jun 2000 200 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090616147 Time(24H): 23:10 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. "cd to R1end fU LIQUOR 15 Jun 2009 900 BLOCK FRANCISCO BLVD E Distance: 0.28 miles Identifier: 1090616059 Time(24H): 13:27 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Gone on Arrival This Is a Cali For Service. rn to I rlfan >' d LIQUOR 15 Jun 2009 3600 BLOCK KERNER BLVD Distance: 0.29 miles Identifier: 1090615125 - Time(24H): 19:09 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition:. Cancelled This is a Call For Service. caul LIQUOR 15 Jun 2009 500 BLOCK FRANCISCO BLVD E Distance: 0.63 miles Identifier: 1090615132 Z CA 'http://cri'Aiereports.com/map/print Time(24HT 19:37 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. LIQUOR 15 Jun 2000 500 BLOCK FRANCISCO BLVD E Distance: 0.53 miles Identifier: 1090615145 Time(24H): 21:35 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. .,=nd m tra„n (j4 LIQUOR 13 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK BELVEDERE ST Distance: 0.08 miles Identifier: 1090613004 Time(24H): 00:08 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This Is a Call For Service. sono m rdeI cif LIQUOR 13 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK MARIAN CT Distance: 0.35 miles Identifier: 1090613080 Time(2411): 15:58 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. send In F nv-,O. : ?b a.1yiLIQUOR 13 Jun 2009 3500 BLOCK KERNER BLVD Distance: 0.27 miles Identifier: 1090613119 Time(24H): 22:25 Description: Complaint of subjects) drinking Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. SIM I, r1n,"i LIQUOR 12 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK NOVATO ST Distance: 0.16 miles Identifier: 1090612124 Time(24H): 20:15 Description: Complaint of subjects) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. ..c.gb,, nzml a-$ $I LIQUOR 09 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK BELLAM BLVD Distance: 0.28 miles Identifler: 1090609042 Time(24H): 10:32 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Report Taken This is a Call For Service. 35 7/8/09 4:18 PM shttp:/Icr!4iereports.<om/map/print . LIQUOR 08 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK ANDERSEN DR Distance: 0.39 miles Identifier: 1090608060 Tlme(241-1): 12:53 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Report Taken This is a Call For Service. ,uea v. i ii�nni 'i.LIQUOR 07 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK MEDWAY RD Distance: 0.13 miles Identifier: 1090607006 Time(24H): 00:57 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This is a Call For Service. seA to I'rlenJ LIQUOR 07 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK BELVEDERE ST Distance: 0,08 miles Identifier: 1090607063 Tlme(24H): 14:39 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This Is a Call For Service. Se"U Is FHMM ,tjt- LIQUOR 07 Jun 2009 300 BLOCK THIRD ST Distance: 0.59 miles Identifier: 1090607067 Time(24H): 15:38 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. .- LIQUOR 07 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK LARKSPUR ST Distance: 0.08 miles Identifier. 1090607074 Tlme(24H):, 17:50 Description: Complaint of subject(s) conking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. LIQUOR 07 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK BELVEDERE ST Distance: 0.08 miles Identifier: 1090607097 Time(24H): 20:49 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. 11i'! LIQUOR 06 Jun 2009 Ll 1 7/8/09 4:18 PM ;http://crl'niereparts.com/map/print 200 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090606012 Time(24H): 01:45 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. 'iunrl la fnAsd ,.j#. LIQUOR O6Jun2009 200 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090606141 _ Time(24H): 23:50 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call Far Service. ..and L, I O nd K:j LIQUOR 06 Jun 2009 3400 BLOCK KERNER BLVD - Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090606143 Time(24H): 23:53 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. Sund to 'nord LIQUOR 05 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK SONOMA ST Distance: 0.29 miles Identifier: 1090605160 Tlme(24H): 20:59 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This is a Call For Service. Sand to Frixnd j LIQUOR 02 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK MISSION AVE Distance: 0.59 miles Identifier: 1090602076 Time(24H): 12:30 Description: Complaint of subjects) drinking Disposition: Handled This Is a Call For Service. and +c � oMnd :.% LIQUOR 01 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK MARIAN CT Distance: 0.35 miles Identifier: 1090601111 Time(24H): 19:04 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gane on Arrival This is a Call For Service. SIM I 611d ..p'f LIQUOR 01 Jun 2009 100 BLOCK WOODLAND AVE Distance: 0.79 miles Identifier: 1090601112 7/8/09 4:18 PM 4i 19 4http: /I crari ere ports. com/map/print 7/8/09 11:18 PM ' Time(24H): 19:09 Description: Dmnk subject Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. 4 LIQUOR 31 May2009 3700 BLOCK KERNER BLVD Distance: 0.33 miles Identifier: 1090531080 Time(24H): 21:44 Description: Complaint of subjects) drinking - Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. l-d"i'd 'jt - LIQUOR 30 May 2009 200 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090530011 Time(24H): 01:41 Description: Complaint of subjects) drinking Disposition: Warned This Is a Call For Service. rend In Ftiend LIQUOR 30 May 2009 700 BLOCK FOURTH ST Distance: 1.04 miles Identifier: 1090530071 Time(24Hk 14:55. Description: Drunk subject - Disposition: Report Taken This Is a Call For Service. beild la rrtxnd . LIQUOR 30 May 2009 100 BLOCK FRONT ST Distance: 0.27 miles Identifier: 1090530121 Time(24H): 23:18 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Report Taken This Is a Call For Service. ,rd to Frknd LIQUOR 29 May 2009 300 BLOCK BAHIA WAY Distance: 0.46 miles Identifier: 1090529092 Time(24H): 18:40 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled - This is a Call For Service. ',:I LIQUOR 28 May 2009 100 BLOCK SONOMA ST Distance: 0.29 miles Identifier: 1090528198 Time(24H): 21:34 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This is a Call For Service. lhttp://crifiereports.Ccm/map/print LIQUOR 26 May 2009 7/8/09 4:18 PM 400 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.1 miles Identifier: 1090526003 Time(24H): 02:39 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. . cq l:.imna LIQUOR 26 May 2009 SPINNAKER POINT DR & CANAL Distance: 0.61 miles Idenrif er: 1090526102 Time(24H): 16:59 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. sand In fdeai LIQUOR 25 May 2009 100 BLOCK BAHIA WAY Distance: 0.5 miles Identifier: 1090525041 Tima(24H): 14:13 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gane on Arrival This is a Call For Service. sand o Fri,111 . V,21,4! LIQUOR 25 May 2009 BELVEDERE Street, & MEDWAYRO Distance: 0.12 miles Identifier: 1090525085 Time(24H): 23:13 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This Is a Call For Service. Sana 10 Friend LIQUOR 24 May 2009 300 BLOCK BAHIA LN Distance: 0.46 miles - Identifier: 1090524078 Time(24H): 20:30 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This Is a Cali For Service. LIQUOR 24 May 2009 100 BLOCK HERON COURT Distance: 0.48 miles Identifier: 1090524089 Rme(24H): 21:57 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. &A LIQUOR 22 May 2009 M. 'http://criuMereports.com/map/print 0 BLOCK FRONT ST Distance: 0.27 miles Identifier: 1090522061 Time(24H): 14:08 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Unfounded This is a Call For Service. LIQUOR 22 May 2009 O BLOCK CHARLOTTE DR Distance: 0.27 miles Identifier: 1090522118 Tlmg24H): 20:03 Descriptlon: Complaint of subjects) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. =end 10 1 ri,i,d LIQUOR 22 May 2009 O BLOCK WINDWARD WAY Distance: 0.48 miles Identifier: 1090522125 Time(24H): 20:44 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. +end Ir. IIYanJ 9+: LIQUOR 22 May 2009 0 BLOCK CHARLOTTE DR Distance: 0.27 miles identifier: 1090522133 Time(24H): 22:07 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. e'I= LIQUOR 22 May 2009 OBLOCKMEDWAYRD Distance: 0.13 miles Identifier: 1090522143 Time(24H): 23:55 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. LIQUOR 21 May 2009 500 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.18 miles Identifier: 1090521130 Time(24H): 15:16 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Report Taken This is a Call For Service. ii::8 LIQUOR 21 May 2009 900 BLOCK FRANCISCO BLVD E Distance: 0.28 miles Identifier: 1090521136 b1 7/8/09 4:18 PM J *http:/Icrimereports.com/map/print Time(24H): 16:16 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This is a Cali For Service, 4 LIQUOR 21 May 2009 0 BLOCK MARIAN CT Distance: 0.36 miles Identifier: 1090521197 Time(24H): 22:44 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This Is a Call For Service. LIQUOR 20 May 2009 100 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.47 miles Identifier: 1090520143 Time(24H): 22:44 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Abated This Is a Call For Service. - Senrl In rdmd LIQUOR 19 May 2009 100 BLOCK LARKSPUR ST Distance: 0.08 miles Identifier: 1090519135 Time(2411): 19:43 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. omd to Friend ! I LIQUOR 18 May 2009 0 BLOCK BLOSSOM BR Distance: 0.54 miles Identifier: 1090518029 Time(24H): 09:33 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This Is a Call For Service. send to Fdend t')' LIQUOR 18 May 2009 CANAL Street, 8 BAHIA WAY Distance: 0.53 miles Identifier: 1090518084 Tlme(24H): 17:01 Description: Complaint of subjects) drinking Disposition: Unable to Locate This is'a Call For Service. &rend !o I'riead x LIQUOR 17 May2009 FAIRFAX Street, 8 ELAINE WAY Distance: 0.23 miles Identifier: 1090517004 Time(24H): 00:34 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This is a Call For Service. 7/8/09 4:18 PM -13 Payer._ -39 'http://crimereports.com/map/print ..,x:.11,.. n..,.., r' LIQUOR 17 May 2009 0 BLOCK FAIRFAX ST Distance: 0.21 miles Identifier: 1090517011 Time(24H): 01:14 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This is a Call For Service. ..aM m fneuc i' -J LIQUOR 17 May 2009 200 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090517015 Time(24H): 01:54 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Abated This Is a Call For Service. r'riend .%1,0 LIQUOR 17 May 2009 0 BLOCK MARIAN CT Distance: 0.36 miles Identifier: 1090517062 Time(24H): 12:15 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This is a Cali For Service. Send to Friend LIQUOR 17 May 2009 200 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090517111 Time(24H): 20:45 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. Sena to Friend LIQUOR 17 May 2009 300 BLOCK BAHIA WAY Distance: 0.46 miles Identifier: 1090517125 Time(24H): 23:08 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This is a Call For Service. I:ll :n 1 rind -'r LIQUOR 16 May 2009 400 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.1 miles Identifier: 1090516008 _ Time(24H): 01:55 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. .. ..,,t 4? rn..n_ ..,' LIQUOR M May 2009 -11 7/8/09 4:18 PM 'hap:/ Icrimereports.com/map/print CANAL Street, 8 BAHIA WAY Distance: 0.53 miles Identifier: 1090516051 Tlme(24Hp. 14:33 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Unable to Locale This is a Call For Service. .,,. it, i ::: n,: s` LIQUOR 16 May 2009 0 BLOCK MEDWAY RD Distance: 0.13 miles Identifier: 1090516068 Tlme(24H): 17:50 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This Is a Call For Service. sews m nwnd ",J LIQUOR 16 May 2009 SPINNAKER POINT DR 8 PORTSMOUTH CMN Distance: 0.61 miles Identifier: 1090516081 l ime(24H): 20:15 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Warned This is a Cali For Service. sone m rdand 7r)2. LIQUOR 16 May 2009 CANAL Street, 8 BAHIA WAY Distance: 0.53 miles identtilec 1090516082 Tlme(24N): 20:16 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gane on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. .,ane in Friand VrJi LIQUOR 16 May 20d9 0 BLOCK FAIRFAX ST Distance: 0.21 miles Identifier: 1090516097 Tlme(24H): 22:13 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This Is a Call For Service. '1', LIQUOR 13 May 2009 0 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.19 miles Identifier: 1090513103 Time(24H): 15:10 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Unable to Locate This is a Call For Service. .,rctl I^ Rs�ni Pp LIQUOR 13 May 2009 100 BLOCK BELLAM BLVD Distance: 0.28 miles 7/8/09 4: 18 IM fittp:I/crirnereports.com/map/print Identifier: 1090513158 Time(24H): 19:35 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Unable to Locate This is a Call For Service. t' LIQUOR 12 May 2009 OBLOCKMEDWAYRD Distance: 0.13 miles Identifier: 1090512171 Time(24H): 20:31 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This is a Call For Service. ..,od o-. rnona LIQUOR 11 May 2009 900 BLOCK FRANCISCO BLVD E Distance: 0.28 miles Identifier: 1090511024 Time(24H): 08:57 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Abated This is a Call For Service. fienel le Friend ,. LIQUOR 10 May 2009 400 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.1 miles Identifier: 1090510001 Time(24H): 00:19 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. send In F,kM ;yy' LIQUOR 10 May 2009 FRANCISCO BLVD E 8 HOAG ST Distance: 0.3 miles Identifier: 1090510065 Time(24H): 19:23 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service, nand to FnmM LIQUOR 10 May 2009 100 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.47 miles _ Identifier: 1090510071 Time(24H): 20:14 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Unable to Locate This is a Call For Service. �y LIQUOR 10 May 2009 300 BLOCK BAHIA WAY Distance: 0.46 miles Identifier: 1090510072 Time(24H): 20:31 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned 7/8/09 4:18 PM ' 'http://cri/mereports.com/map/print This is a Call For Service .,, oA tr � rn �• LIQUOR 10 May 2009 0 BLOCK MEDWAY RD Distance: 0.13 miles Identifier. 1090510085 Time(24H): 23:57 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. LIQUOR 08 May 2009 900 BLOCK FRANCISCO BLVD E Distance: 0.28 miles Identifies 1090508022 Time(24H): 09:53 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This Is a Call For Service. srnd In Pdend Iyui LIQUOR 08 May 2009 0 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.19 miles Identifier: 1090508057 Time(24H): 14:28 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Report Taken This is a Call For Service. Gond tc Fri rd wi LIQUOR 08 May 2009 200 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090608116 Time(24H): 21:05 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. Send Ie Find 0-.. LIQUOR 07 May 2009 0 BLOCK NOVATO ST Distance: 0.15 miles Identifier: 1090507176 Time(24H): 21:38 Description: Complaint of subjects) drinking Disposition: Handled This Is a Call For Service. £,;1 LIQUOR 07 May 2009 100 BLOCK NOVATO ST Distance: 0.16 miles Identifier: 1090507182 Time(24H): 22:37 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. .a' LIQUOR 07 May 2009 7/8/09 4:18 PM 'http://crimereports.com/map/print 200 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090507183 Time(24H): 22:41 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call Far Service. d;n e, i LIQUOR 07 May 2009 - 0 BLOCK SONOMA ST Distance: 0.29 miles Identifier: 1090507187 Time(24H): 23:56 Description: Complaint of subjects) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. LIQUOR 06 May 2009 200 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090506014 Time(24H): 02:32 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This Is a Call For Service. Send 10 Frfend LIQUOR 05 May 2009 THIRD Street, 8 NETHERTON ST Distance: 0.99 miles Identifier: 1090505116 Time(241-): 18:17 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Report Taken This is a Call For Service. Send b Friend LIQUOR 05 May 2009 300 BLOCK BELLAM BLVD Distance: 0.4 miles Identifier: 1090505123 Time(24H): 18:41 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This Is a Call For Service. Send to Friend LIQUOR 05 May 2009 500 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.18 miles Identifier. 1090505175 Time(24H): 22:32 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Abated This Is a Call For Service. Sent to Frtend LIQUOR 04 May 2009 ` 3400 BLOCK KERNER BLVD Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090504097 7/8/09 4:18 PM http://cri riiereports.com /map/print Time(24H): 21:47 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This is a Call For Service. .: LIQUOR 03 May 2009 BAYPOINT OR & CATALINA BLVD Distance: 0.52 miles Identifier: 1090503060 Time(24H): 11:53 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This is a Call For Service. Send la I ;icon jQ LIQUOR 03 May 2009 OBLOCKMEDWAYRD Distance: 0.13 miles Identifier: 1090503066 Time(24H): 12:40 Description: Complaint of subjects) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. Send to Friand _........... ._... .._,..._........ ....... 42Ai, LIQUOR 03 May 2009 CANAL Street, & BAHIA WAY Distance: 0.53 miles Identifier: 1090503072 Time(24H): 13:25 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This Is a Call For Service. Sand to Friend �. +. LIQUOR 03 May 2009 OBLOCKFRONTST Distance: 0.27 miles Identifier: 1090503073 Tims(24H): 13:29 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Handled This Is a Call For Service. Srtntl to Friund V+';3: LIQUOR 03 May 2009 400 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.1 miles Identifier: 1090503112 Time(24H): 22:04 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This is a Call For Service. ?i LIQUOR 02 May 2009 200 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090502079 Tlme(241-1): 19:48 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. 7/8/09 4:18 PM I http:/ /trim ere ports. cam/ map /print LIQUOR 02 May 2009 0 BLOCK NOVATO ST Distance: 0.15 miles Identifier: 1090502087 Time(24H): 21:26 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. LIQUOR of May 2009 O BLOCK FRONT ST Distance: 0.21 miles Identifier: 1090501063 Time(24H): 12:58 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. Sent !n f tlend 'z+di LIQUOR 01 May2009 100 BLOCKNOVATO ST Distance: 0.16 miles' Identifier. 1090501117 Time(24H): 22:18 Description: Complaint of subjects) drinking Disposition: Handled This Is a Call For Service. ..00d to mond LIQUOR 30 Apr 2009 100 BLOCK LARKSPUR ST Distance: 0.08 miles Identmer. 1090430149 Time(24H): 19:16 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This Is a Call For Service. send m r+pend fi LIQUOR 30 Apr 2009 100 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.47 miles Identifier: 1090430169 Time(24H): 21:56 Description' Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. Bei=Ito nnenn LIQUOR 30Apr2009 100 BLOCK CANAL ST _ Distance: 0.47 miles Identifier: 1090430178 Time(24H): 23:18 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gane on Arrival This is a Call For Service. Srv:d !o rend LIQUOR 27 Apr 2009 7/8/09 4:18 PM littp:/ /crimereports.com(map/print 500 BLOCK FRANCISCO BLVD E Distance: 0.53 miles Identifier: 1090427083 Time(241-1): 13:27 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service, a. na I., I unn._ 13;aF LIQUOR 27 Apr 2009 900 BLOCK FRANCISCO BLVD E Distance: 0.28 miles Identifier: 1090427108 Time(24H): 16:48 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Abated This Is a Call For Service. Fred }`.•{, LIQUOR 27 Apr 2009 OBLOCKMEDWAYRD Distance: 0.13 miles Identifier: 1090427118 Time(24H): 17:49 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Report Taken This is a Call For Service. send l0 1-11,11,1 %:YaV1 LIQUOR 26 Apr 2009 700 BLOCK FOURTH ST Distance: 1.04 miles Identifier: 1090426003 Time(24H): 00:14 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Gone on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. ^.,ond m Friend LIQUOR 26 Apr 2009 200 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090426087 Time(24H): 23:04 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This Is a Coil For Service. send to Fnend gjj LIQUOR 24 Apr 2009 3600 BLOCK KERNER BLVD Distance: 0.29 miles Identifier: 1090424002 Tlme(24H): 00:16 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. „rna m Rvind LIQUOR 23 Apr 2009 100 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.47 miles Identifier: 1090423143 )14 7/8/09 4:18 PM r http://crimereports.com/map/print Time(2411): 21:50 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrive[ This is a Call For Service. , .a, i::: �... LIQUOR 22 Apr 2009 f00 BLOCK SPINNAKER POINT DR Distance: 0.75 miles Identifier: 1090422089 Time(2411): 14:36 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. A'al LIQUOR 22 Apr 2009 100 BLOCK BELLAM BLVD Distance: 0.28 miles Identifier: 1090422203 Time(2411): 20:26 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. sPw m td�r:e LIQUOR 21 Apr 2009 100 BLOCK LARKSPUR 57 Distance: 0.08 miles Identifier: 1090421148 Tlme(24H): 16:57 Description: Complaint of subjects) drinking Disposition: Abated This Is a Call For Service. Sentl t. Frienn .._ ------ _„3_.. -- .. _._.............._.. ....., t1j' LIQUOR 19 Apr 2009 100 BLOCK BELLAM BLVD Distance: 0.28 miles Identifier: 1090419086 Tlme(24H): 19:39 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. „=mf Lo fr.^ra :'_U LIQUOR 19Apr2009 100 BLOCK BELVEDERE ST Distance: 0.08 miles Identifier: 1090419088 Time(24H): 20:17 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Unfounded This is a Call For Service. Alj LIQUOR 19 Apr 2009 _ 300 BLOCK BAHIA WAY Distance: 0.46 miles Identifier: 1090419099 Time(2411): 22:16 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Abated This Is a Call For Service. '3.0 7/8/09 4:18 I'M trint ht[p: / /ciimereports.com /map/p LIQUOR 19 Apr 2009 300 BLOCK BAHIA WAY Distance: 0.46 miles Identifier: 1090419108 Time(24H): 23:29 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gane on Arrival This is a Call For Service. t,.M to I'drtnd LIQUOR 19 Apr 2009 100 BLOCK BAHIA WAY Distance: 0.5 miles Identifier: 1090419110 Time(24H): 23:54 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. end to Friend p LIQUOR 18 Apr 2009 300 BLOCK THIRD ST Distance: 0.59 miles Identifier: 1090418041 Time(24H): 12:25 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Report Taken This is a Call For Service. send 1. Friend LIQUOR 17 Apr 2009 500 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.18 miles Identifier. 1090417116 Time(24H): 23:15 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Abated This Is a Call For Service. Snnd to Friend l LIQUOR 15 Apr 2009 0 BLOCK MEDWAY RD Distance: 0.13 miles Identifier: 1090415075 Time(24H): 14:05 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Report Taken This Is a Call For Service. s.vJ 1r. p.icnd WIT LIQUOR 14 Apr 2009 700 BLOCK GRAND AVE Distance: 0.77 miles Identifier: 1090414127 Time(24H): 17:40 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. fa+l m mend ,J LIQUOR 13 Apr 2009 I% 7/8/09 4:18 I'M littp://crirhereports.com/map/print 7/8/09 4:18 PM 900 BLOCKFRANCISCO BLVD E Distance: 0.28 miles Identifier: 1090413035 Time(24H): 10:53 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. LIQUOR 12 Apr 2009 - 200 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090412067 Time(24H): 18:05 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This is a Call For Service. s.l m toxon w9 LIQUOR 11 Apr 2009 700 BLOCK FRANCISCO BLVD E Distance: 0.28 miles Identifier. 1090411015 Time(24H): 02:39 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Handled This Is a Call For Service. �enJ In ITinpd S41 LIQUOR 11 Apr 2009 0 BLOCK VIVIAN WAY Distance: 0.12 miles Identifier: 1090411064 Time(2411): 14:36 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Report Taken - This Is a Call For Service. $.,nd 1:, f;i. nd 'd_ LIQUOR 11 Apr 2009 - 100 BLOCK LARKSPUR ST Distance: 0.08 miles Identifier. 1090411082 Time(24H): 16:30 - ,Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This Is a Call For Service. ' p LIQUOR 11 Apr 2009 300 BLOCK BAHIA WAY Distance: 0.46 miles Identifier: 1090411101 Time(24H): 19:33 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This is a Call For Service. .: yf LIQUOR 11 Apr2009 300 BLOCK BAHIA WAY Distance: 0.46 miles Identifier: 1090411103 143 http://trim ereport,.Com /map/print Time(24H): 20:05 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This Is a Call For Service, LIQUOR 1 i Apr 2009 200 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090411109 Time(24H): 21:10 Description: Complaint of subjects) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. snd m rnnn.l E(C LIQUOR 08 Apr 2009 900 BLOCK FRANCISCO BLVD E Distance: 0.28 miles Identifier. 1090408117 Time(24H): 18:23 Description: Complaint of subjects) drinking Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. ^,end b Illnnd LIQUOR DB Apr 2009 B BLOCK FRONT ST Distance: 0.21 miles Identifier: 1090408124 Tlme(24H): 19:24 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled - This Is a Call For Service. $P.nd IO "Ierd LIQUOR 06 Apr 2009 900 BLOCK FRANCISCO BLVD E Distance: 0.28 miles Identifier: 1090406061 Time(24H): 11:39 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Abated This Is a Call For Service. `frvnd 4i r need . ,7, LIQUOR 04 Apr 2009 400 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.1 miles Identifier: 1090404054 Time(24H): 12:11 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This is a Call For Service. Cnptl In PAr•J LIQUOR 04 Apr 2009 100 BLOCK BELLAM BL VB Distance: 0.28 miles Identifier: 1090404058 Time(24H): 13:48 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Unable to Locate This Is a Call For Service. 7/8/09 4:18 PM lfttp:/Icrimereports.com/map/print rat e. I n.:,•. -:,' LIQUOR 04 Apr 2009 0 BLOCK VIVIAN WAY Distance: 0.12 miles Identifier: 1090404103 Time(24H): 16:44 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. In I :icon 4 LIQUOR 04 Apr 2009 300 BLOCK BAHIA WAY Distance: 0.46 miles Identifier: 1090404176 Time(24H): 23:27 Description: Complaint of subject(s) ddnking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. .,ane m Pdnoa ani$ LIQUOR 02 Apr 2009 100 BLOCK LARKSPUR ST Distance: 0.08 miles Identifier: 1090402005 Time(24H): 00:22 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This Is a Call For -Service. s:,nn m f riend LIQUOR 02 Apr 2009 700 BLOCK GRAND AVE Distance: 0.77 miles IdeollAer: 1090402057 Time(24H): 12:37 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. Serol iu R'ienrl 4,'2ir LIQUOR 02 Apr 2009 400 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.1 miles Identifier: 1090402106 Time(24H): 18:30 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone an Arrival This Is a Call For Service. Po=nd Sl-�I LIQUOR 01 Apr 2009 900 BLOCK FRANCISCO BLVD E Distance: 0.28 miles Identifier: 1090401102 Time(24H): 18:06 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. a,7. LIQUOR 28 Mar2009 155 7/8/09 4:18 PM http://cr'imereports.com/map/print 0 BLOCK MARIAN CT Distance: 0.36 miles Identifies 1090328001 Time(24H): 00:03 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. wend n, I .u;nl I,` LIQUOR LIQUOR 26 Mar 2009 100 BLOCK NOVATO ST Distance: 0.16 miles Identifier: 1090328005 Time(24H): 00:40 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. Secd to i n".0 •s'i LIQUOR 28 Mar 2009 3700 BLOCK KERNER BLVD Distance: 0.33 miles Identifier: 1090328016 Time(24H): 02:31 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This is a Call For Service. Send to Friend LIQUOR 28 Mar 2009 100 BLOCK BELVEDERE ST Distance: 0.08 miles Identifier: 1090328067 Time(24H): 13:16 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Gane on Arrival This is a Cali For Service. Send to Friend ., LIQUOR 28 Mat2009 900 BLOCK FRANCISCO BLVD E Distance: 0.28 miles Identifier: 1090928126 Time(24H): 23:29 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Report Taken This is a Call For Service. Sind L: Friaod LIQUOR 27 Mar 2009 400 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.1 miles Identifier: 1090327104 Time(24H): 19:24 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. _ .aad In Nr•ntl LIQUOR 26Mar2009 OBLOCKMEDWAYRD Distance: 0.13 miles Identifier: 1090326154 7/8109 4:18 PM Hue: //cfimereports. cam/map/print Time(24H): 20:14 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Unfounded This is a Call For Service. LIQUOR 26 Mar 2009 300 BLOCK FOURTH ST Distance: 0.7 miles Identifier: 1090326159 Time(24H): 22:02 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. A LIQUOR 25 Mar 2009 400 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.1 miles Identifier: 1090325147 Time(2411): 16:48 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Unable to Locate This Is a Call For Service. Send In frieml ' 0 LIQUOR 25 Mar 2009 200 BLOCK BAHIA PL Distance: 0.42 miles Identifier: 1090325180 Time(24H): 21:26 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. Sena In Friend _.. _. ...._....... ..... ._.._....__._..............,._..._.._....._.. ems' LIQUOR 24 Mar 2009 200 BLOCK BAHIA PL Distance: 0.42 miles Identifier: 1090324202 Tlme(2411): 21:37 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This Is a Call For Service. Sera to Frn+nd .' LIQUOR 23 Ma12009 400 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.1 miles Identifier: 1090323110 Time(24H): 15:55 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. .olid in I ncnd LIQUOR 22 Mar 2009 200 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090322067 Time(24H): 15:01 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Cancelled This Is a Call For Service. �(A 7/8/09 4:18 PM http://crimereports.cOm/map/print 7/8/09 4:18 PM LIQUOR 21 Mar2009 CANAL Street, & LARKSPUR ST Distance: 0.1 miles Identifier: 1090321159 Time(24H): 23:57 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Unable to Locale This Is a Call For Service. .41.111 e. � "nee LIQUOR 20 Mar 2009 0 BLOCK MARIAN CT Distance: 0.36 miles Identifier: 1090320162 Time(24H): 21:59 Description: Complain( of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. 1 -rd tor dined ",:' LIQUOR 20 Mar 2009 0 BLOCK NOVATO ST Distance: 0.15 miles Identifier: 1090320164 Time(24H): 22:09 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. Sewl I:) Friend ;I LIQUOR 18 Mar 2009 400 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.1 miles Identifier: 1090318062 Time(24H): 14:47 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gane on Arrival This is a Call For Service. Ger".. to !'rxmtl LIQUOR 18 Mar 2009 BRET AVE & BILLOU ST Distance: 0.73 miles Identifier: 1090318139 Time(24H): 21:39 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. 4 LIQUOR 18Mar2009 100 BLOCK BELLAM BLVD Distance: 0.28 miles Identifier: 1090318155 Time(24H): 22:50 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Unable to Locate This Is a Call For Service. g LIQUOR 17 Mar 2009 11 � flttp://crirnereports.com/map/print 100 BLOCK MISSION AVE Distance: 0.59 miles Identifier: 1090317061 Time(24H): 13:32 Description: a&P violation Disposition: Report Taken This is a Call For Service. LIQUOR 15 Mar 2009 0 BLOCK FAIRFAX ST Distance: 0.21 miles Identifier: 1090315001 Time(24H): 00:37 Description: Complaint of sulalect(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. sums m Fiord LIQUOR 15 Mar2009 O BLOCK ELAINE WAY Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090315017 Time(241-1): 05:21 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. Serol le Rieml LIQUOR 15 Mar 2009 CANAL Street, & BAHIA WAY Distance: 0.53 miles - Identifier: 1090315066 Tlme(24H): 19:24 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Citation Written This is a Call For Service. uuntl m Friend LIQUOR 16 Mar 2009 400 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.1 miles Identifier 1090315084 Time(24H): 23:59 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This Is a Call For Service. .a:ai In ! rxnd .;( LIQUOR 12 Mar 2009 400 BLOCK Canal St Distance: 0.1 miles Identifier: 1090312108 Time(24H): 21:45 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. LIQUOR 12 Mar 2009 100 BLOCK Canal St Distance: 0.47 miles Identifier: 1090312114 7/8/09 4:18 PM http://crimereports.com/map/print 7/8/09 4:18 PM Time(24H): 22:44 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This is a Call For Service. LIQUOR 11 Mar 2009 Belvedere St 8 Louise St Distance: 0.01 miles Identifier: 1090311016 Time(24H): 07:33 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Handled This Is a Call For Service. ..mil to PrialM - LIQUOR 11 Mar 2009 100 BLOCK NOVATO ST Distance: 0.16 miles Identifier: 1090311150 - Time(24H): 19:54 Desprlptlon: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service, send to RienO N4. 1 LIQUOR 10 Mar2009 500 BLOCK Belle Ave Distance: 0.84 miles Identifier: 1090310078 Time(24H): 15:16 - Description: Drank subject Disposition: Report Taken This Is a Gall For Service. gena to friend ' 1 LIQUOR 09 Mar 2009 700 BLOCK Grand Ave Distance: 0.77 miles Identifier: 1090309108 Time(24H): 16:35 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. .pend to Friend '.: LIQUOR 07 Mar 2009 _ 900 BLOCK FRANCISCO BLVD E _ Distance: 0.28 miles Identifier: 1090307045 Time(24H): 12:52 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This Is a Call For Service. sa,,o b r) run ��igWji LIQUOR 07 Mar 2009 100 BLOCK NOVATO ST Distance: 0.16 miles Identifier: 1090307075 Time(24H): 17:50 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This Is a Call For Service. ls�1 ----- . http://Erimereports.com/map/print '., LIQUOR 07 Mar 2009 200 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090307107 Tlme(24H): 23:55 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. LIQUOR 06 Mar 2009 100 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.47 miles - Identifier: 1090306138 Time(24H): 23:46 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. ..enJln I'-riami ' LIQUOR 02 Mar 2009 100 BLOCK Canal St Distance: 0.47 miles Identifier: 1090302008 Time(24H): 00:38 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gane on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. Sunil to friend LIQUOR 01 Mar 2009 700 BLOCK Grand Ave Distance: 0.77 miles Identifier: 1090301047 Time(24H): 18:36 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Abated This Is a Call For Service. send to F-rmnd g9= LIQUOR 28 Feb 2009 0 BLOCK MARIAN CT Distance: 0.36 miles Identifier: 1090228065 Time(24H): 17:30 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Alarm -Cancelled by Alarm Cc This Is a Call For Service. <nd to F, LIQUOR 28 Feb 2009 0 BLOCK MARIAN CT Distance: 0.36 miles Identifier: 1090228073 Time(24H): 18:06 Description: Complaint of subjects) drinking Disposition: Information Only This Is a Call For Service. Send to Gicod LIQUOR 27Fe1,2009 7/8/09 4:18 PM http:/Ici('Mereports.com/map/prinI 700 BLOCK Fourth St Distance: 1.04 miles Identifier: 1090227012 Time(24H): 03:31 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Report Taken This Is a Call For Service. kl; LIQUOR 23 Feb 2009 Vivian Way & Betvedere St Distance: 0.06 miles Identifier: 1090223098 Time(2411): 15:47 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Report Taken This is a Call For Service. SSM m Frienn 2k LIQUOR 23 Feb 2009 Kerner Blvd & Larkspur St Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090223136 Time(24H): 20:59 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. Sentl to Friend LIQUOR 21 Feb 2009 900 BLOCK Francisco Blvd E Distance: 0.28 miles Identifier: 1090221052 Time(24H): 13:50 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Abated This is a Call For Service. SenU to Friend LIQUOR 20 Feb 2009 100 BLOCK NOVATO ST Distance: 0.16 miles Identifier: 1090220131 Time(24H): 21:41 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Abated This Is a Call For Service. sznd N Frlen3 &1i LIQUOR 20 Feb 2009- 900 BLOCK FRANCISCO BLVD E Distance: 0.28 miles Identifier: 1090220008 Time(24H): 02:15 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Report Taken This is a Call For Service. send In L!en.� LIQUOR 18 Fab 2009 400 BLOCK Third St Distance: 0.77 miles Identifier: 1090218106 I 7/8/09 4:18 PM Http://crimere parts. Com /map/print Time(241-): 15:43 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Report Taken This is a Call Far Service. LIQUOR 15 Feb 2009 300 BLOCK CATALINA BLVD Distance: 0.52 miles Identifier: 1090215005 Time(24H): 01:05 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gane on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. .< LIQUOR 12 Feb 2009 500 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.18 miles Identifier: 1090212003 Time(24H): 01:08 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Report Taken This Is a Call For Service. Seal Ia FrON i.ir, LIQUOR 08 Feb 2009 0 BLOCK NOVATO ST Distance: 0.15 miles Identifier: 1090208001 17me(241-1): 00:03 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. send m Fdoud n=fi LIQUOR 07 Feb 2009 500 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.18 miles Identifier: 1090207008 Time(24H): 00:51 Description: Complaint of subject(s)drinking Disposition: Warned This Is a Call For Service. LIQUOR 07 Feb 2009 0 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.19 miles Identifier: 1090207048 Time(24H): 12:41 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Unfounded This is a Call For Service. s., A r; l &"..0 LIQUOR 07 Fab 2009 300 BLOCK BAHIA WAY Distance: 0.46 miles Identifier: 1090207101 Time(24H): 22:09 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. • '• 7/8/09-4:18 PM itttp://crimerep.rts-com /map/print M '- LIQUOR O1 Feb 2009 0 BLOCK PORTSMOUTH CV Distance: 0.59 miles Identifier: 1090201056 Time(24H): 16:47 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. _ rd e.iuzn:: LIQUOR 31 Jan 2009 0 BLOCK NOVATO ST Distance: 0.15 miles Identifier: 1090131004 Time(24H): 00:18 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This is a Call For Service. Sm+d w Y'rlend ,'. LIQUOR 31 Jan 2009 0 BLOCK FAIRFAX ST Distance: 0.21 miles Identifier: 1090131007 Tlme(24H): 00:33 Description: Complaint of subjects) drinking Disposition: Warned This Is a Call For Service. Send to Friond LIQUOR 31 Jan 2009 100 BLOCK LARKSPUR ST Distance: 0.1 miles Identifier. 1090131008 Tlme(24H): 00:35 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. Send t, I Mra _.._..._.._.._......... . _......................... .t-Fy LIQUOR 31 Jan 2009 100 BL0CK LARKSPUR ST Distance: 0.1 miles Identifier. 1090131058 Time(24H): 13:46 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. .+nd to P'rinnd , di LIQUOR 31 Jan 2009 100 BLOCK BELLAM BLVD _ Distance: 0.28 miles Identifier. 1090131086 7ime(24H): 17:17 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Gone on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. Stn: b tiimd {f,jlj, LIQUOR 30 Jan 2009 A \� 7/8/09 4:18 PM Attp:/Icrim'ereports.com/map/print 7/8/09 4:18 PM 100 BLOCK BELVEDERE ST Distance: 0.08 miles Identifier: 1090130131 Time(24HT 22:30 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. LIQUOR 30 Jan 2009 0 BLOCK ELAINE WAY Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090130137 Time(24H): 23:35 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This Is a Call For Service. ::or L; rrl„ml >:*' LIQUOR 28 Jan 2009 700 BLOCK IRWIN ST Distance: 0.85 miles Identifier: 1090128156 Time(24H): 19:23 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. S,M to Friend LIQUOR 27 Jan 2009 900 BLOCK Francisco Blvd E Distance: 0.28 miles Identifier: 1090127057 Time(24H)1 11:20 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. ..and In Fiiand I LIQUOR 26 Jan 2009 300 BLOCK Canal St Distance: 0.13 miles Identifier: 1090126059 Time(24H): 12:22 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. ..nrvl fn criend t31;j LIQUOR 26 Jan 2009 0 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.19 miles Identifier: 1090126134 Time(24H): 22:48 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone an Arrival This Is a Call For Service. .m*nd le Fricne LIQUOR 25 Jan 2009 400 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.1 miles Identifier: 1090125088 ' http://primerep.rt,.com/map/print Time(24H): 2t59. Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. rs LIQUOR 25 Jan 2009 VIVIAN WAY & BELVEDERE ST Distance: 0.06 miles Identifier: 1090125070 Time(241-4): 16:41 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Unfounded This Is a Cali For Service. Scml «+�Yienn -Qi,,'. LIQUOR 24 Jan 2009 0 BLOCK FAIRFAX ST Distance: 0.21 miles Identifier: 1090124022 Time(24H): 02:10 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. Sond N Frmid LIQUOR 24 Jan 2009 200 BLOCK Canal St Distance: 0.25 miles Identifier: 1090124111 Time(24H): 18:12 Description: Complaint of subject(s) Making Disposition: Warned This is a Call For Service. S.M to FMod LIQUOR 24 Jan 2009 300 BLOCK Bahia Way Distance: 0.45 miles Identifier: 1090124098 Time(24H): 16:36 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival - This Is a Call For Service. 5§nd to frhNnA 4�j LIQUOR 23 Jan 2009 0 BLOCK FAIRFAX ST Distance: 0.21 miles Identifier: 1090123146 Tlme(241-k 23:49 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Warned This is a Call For Service. cord Ic Rim nil LIQUOR 23 Jan 2009 200 BLOCK BAHIA PL Distance: 0.42 miles Identifier: 1090123075 Time(24H): 15:57 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Unable to Locate This Is a Call For Service. 7/8/09 4:18 PM http://crimereports.com/map/print LIQUOR 22 Jan 2009 400 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.1 miles Identifier: 1090122110 Time(24H): 18:46 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. LIQUOR 18 Jan 2009 0 BLOCK Novato St Distance: 0.15 miles Identifier: 1090118013 Time(24H): 01:56 Description: Complaint of subjects) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. .u..rd In frleN LIQUOR 18 Jan 2009 100 BLOCK Belvedere SI Distance: 0.08 miles Identifier: 1090118035 Time(24H): 12:03 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This Is a Call For Service. ;'nnol In I ❑nnC LIQUOR 17 Jan2009 0 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.19 miles Identifier: 1090117118 Time(24H): 22:54 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Handled This is a Call For Service. Semi in I fiend LIQUOR 16Jan2009 0 BLOCK CHARLOTTE DR Distance: 0.27 miles Identifier: 1090116103 Time(24H): 21:15 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This Is a Call For Service. LIQUOR 16,..2009 100 BLOCK BELVEDERE ST Distance: 0.08 miles Identifier. 1090116115 Time(24H): 22:48 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Gone on Arrival This Is a Call For Service. wrd to :.,%. W. iLIQUOR 16 Jan 2009 7/8/09 4:18 PM i thttp://, r mereports.com/map/print 100 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.47 miles Identifier: 1090116122 Time(24H): 23:27 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposltion: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. LIQUOR 14 Jan 2009 0 BLOCK WOODLAND AVE Distance: 0.79 miles Identlfiec 1090114167 Tlme(24H): 21:32 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service. Send Li 111.116 3't. LIQUOR 14 Jan 2009 700 BLOCK IRWIN ST Distance: 0.85 miles Identifier: 1090114031 Time(241-1): 08:51 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Handled This Is a Call For Service. send to Friend LIQUOR 12 Jan 2009 CANAL Street, & BAHIA WAY Distance: 0.53 miles Identifies 1090112087 Time(24H): 20:00 Description: Complaint of subjects) drinking Disposition: Unable to Locate This is a Call For Service. Cama to Rionrl LIQUOR 11 Jan 2009 300 BLOCK THIRD ST Distance: 0.59 miles Identifier: 1090111054 Tlme(24H): 13:46 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Report Taken This is a Call For Service. Send to Friend ;J^.1 LIQUOR 11 Jan 2009 200 BLOCK Canal St Distance: 0.25 miles Identifier: 1090111097 Time(24H): 21:56 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Information Only This is a Call For Service. wcd in Fmm�d l LIQUOR 11 Jan 2009 300 BLOCK Third St Distance: 0.59 miles Identifier: 1090111043 7/8/09 4:18 PM 19 http://'crimereports.com/map/print Time(24H): 12:12 Description: Drunk subject Disposition: Gone on Arrival This is a Call For Service, LIQUOR 10 Jan 2009 200 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090110009 Time(24H): 01.36 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Unable to Locate This Is a Call For Service. . !: LIQUOR 10 Jan 2009 200 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090110012 Time(24H): 02:01 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Cancelled This Is a Call For Service. acnJ to rnunr: LIQUOR 09 Jan 2009 200 BLOCK CANAL ST Distance: 0.26 miles Identifier: 1090109141 Time(24H): 23:51 Description: Complaint of subject(s) drinking Disposition: Abated This Is a Cali For Service. Sentl N frieiA 7/8/09 4:18 PM RESOLUTION NO. 09-06 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL (AP09-002) AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINSTRATOR TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE AN ADMINSTRATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED09-014), ADMINSTRATIVE USE PERMIT (UP09-015), SIGN PERMIT (SR09-012) AND GRANT OF A PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OF NECESSITY (PCN09-001) TO ALLOW: A) EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING, INCLUDING AN ALTERATION TO THE BUILDING ENTRY, NEW COLORS AND MATERIALS ON THE BUILDING AND NEW WOODEN TRELLISES AND COLUMNS ALONG FRONT OF BUILDING; B) OUTDOOR DINING AREA ON THE PRIVATE SIDEWALK AREA IN FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE; C) NEW BUILDING SIGNS; AND D) ALCOHOL SALES IN THE NEW GROCERY STORE AT 330 BELLAM BLVD (APN 009-280-06). WHEREAS, on March 30, 2009 David Mena of Mena Architects, on behalf of Mi Pueblo Grocery Store, submitted applications to the City of San Rafael Community Development Department requesting an Administrative Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-014), Sign Permit (SR09-012) and Public Convenience of Necessity (PCN09-001) to allow: a) exterior modifications to the existing commercial building, including an alteration to the building entry, new colors and materials on the building and new wooden trellises and columns along front of building; b) new building signs; and c) alcohol sales in the new grocery store for a new grocery store use located at 330 Bellam Blvd; and WHEREAS, on April 28 , 2009, the applications were deemed incomplete for processing due to the need for additional information on the project plans and the requirement that an application for an Administrative Use Permit be filed for the proposed outdoor dining. An incompleteness letter was sent to the applicant; and WHEREAS, on May 1, 2009, revised plans were submitted along with the application for an Administrative Use Permit (UP09-015) as required by the incompleteness letter and the applications were deemed complete for processing; and WHEREAS, the proposed Use Permit application was reviewed by the Land Development, Traffic Engineering, Fire Prevention and Building Divisions of the City of San Rafael and was recommended for approval subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on May 19, 2009, the City of San Rafael Zoning Adminstator (ZA) held a duly -noticed public hearing on the proposed Adminstative Environmental and Design Review Permit, Adminsitative Use Permit, Sign Permit and Public Convenience of Necessity (PCN) applications, accepting all oral and written public testimony. Seven neighboring business owners, property owners, and residents were present at the hearing, raising a number of concerns and issues about the proposed new use; and WHEREAS, following closure of the public hearing on May 19, 2009, the ZA continued the matter to May 20, 2009 to allow for the review and consideration of the numerous comments raised at the hearing; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 2009, the ZA rendered a decision, approving the project with conditions. Notice of said decision, including transmittal of the meetina minutes and ATTACHMENT findings and conditions of approval were provided to the applicants and their team, as well as the members of the public who requested such notice; and WHEREAS, on May 25, 2009, Ruth Donohugh, a neighboring business owner (Picante Restaurant at 340 Bellam Blvd), filed an appeal (AP09-002) pursuant to the provisions of San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 14.28, citing 11 points of appeal and requesting that the Planning Commission reverse the May 20, 2009 decision of the ZA; and; WHEREAS, on July 14, 2009, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Appeal (AP09-002), accepted and considered all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Planning Division; and WHEREAS, upon review of the appeal and the scope of the project, the Planning Commission has confirmed that the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301; and WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is the Community Development Department, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of San Rafael Planning Commission hereby denies the Appeal (AP09-002) and reaffirms the May 20, 2009 decision of the Zoning Administrator approving the Administrative Environmental and Design Review Permit, Administrative Use Permit, Sign Permit and Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) for the new grocery store at 330 Bellam Blvd. The Commission affirms and incorporates herein the findings and action of the Zoning Administrator action approving the project (cited below) and makes the following findings related to the appeal points: 1) Appeal Point No. 1, states: "The overall restaurant portion of this grocery store is not ancillary. It is not a grocery store (per se) as it dedicates a substantial portion of it's square footage to a commercial restaurant kitchen, bakery/cafe, ice cream/shaved ice/juice bar and rotisserie chicken restaurant operation with an interior dining room of 19 tables and exterior dining area of 6 tables." a. The subject property is located in the General Commercial (GC) Zoning District. In the GC District, both grocery stores and restaurants are permitted land uses; these types of uses are allowed to be established and to operate in the GC District by right and without the need to secure a Use Permit. b. In this particular case, the food service portion of the use was not determined to be a separate use, but rather an ancillary use to the main use of the building, a grocery store given that: 1) the indoor dining area is less than 3% of the overall floor area of a store; 2) food preparation and sale of prepared foods are common and typical of other grocery store uses; and 3) the food preparation and dining portion of the use would operate within the intensity and scope of the grocery store, including hours of operation. c. Furthermore, the proposed Mi Pueblo grocery store is typical of most large, full- service grocery stores found in the City, County and other parts of the country. Many newer full-service grocery stores include a deli, coffee shop, bakery, prepared foods counter and kitchen and other food preparation areas. The intensity of the various components of food service contained in this proposed Mi Pueblo are not atypical to the food preparation and sales service offered by other grocery stores in the community, such as Whole Foods (Third St), both Safeway's (Downtown and Northgate One), United Markets (Downtown), Scotty's Market (Terra Linda), or Andy's Market (Loch Lomond). Furthermore, most of these markets include both indoor and outdoor seating. Given the size of the building and use, the amount of food preparation area contained in this use is typical of other grocery stores in this community and proportional to the size of this store. 2) Appeal Point No. 2, states: "The interior dining room measures 1,404 sq ft and the outdoor seating area of 600 sq. ft. DOES constitute more than 25% of the interior dining room which is not consistent with the requirements of an administrative use permit as stated by the ZA." a. Section 14.17.110 of the Zoning Ordinance prescribes the performance standards for outdoor dining areas. The particular section relating to the size limit of outdoor dining area is contained in subsection C.3 of this chapter and states "The proposed area for outdoor eating shall not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the indoor seating area." b. In applying this standard to this use, as well as other outdoor dining uses that have been processed and approved throughout the City, staff has appropriately used the number of chairs as the measurement of area for determining the size limit of the outdoor dining. c. In this particular case, the grocery store proposes 76 chairs inside and 18 chairs outside, resulting in outdoor seating that is 24% of the indoor capacity. 3) Appeal Point No. 3, states: "Review of all of the major grocery stores in Marin that have seating for dining on site was performed what is considered ancillary food service for grocery store and the proposed number of tables/seats at the proposed Mi Pueblo are grossly in excess of the norm." As identified in appeal points 1 and 2 above, it is determined that the proposed operation and activities, including the amount of indoor dining are consistent and typical of other grocery store uses that have prepared food service and associated dining. 4) Appeal Point No. 4, states: "Part of the parking that is proposed for use is under lease with the new Health and Wellness Clinic and the parking on the Circuit City site and the clinic site are not adequate for all the clinic and the proposed Mi Pueblo. " a. There are a total of 177 parking spaces on this subject property. Pursuant to a Grant of Easement dated March 16, 2005 between the subject site (330 Bellam) and the adjoining property (currently owned by the County of Marin), 15 of the 177 parking spaces on the subject site are granted in perpetuity to the adjoining property owner. Therefore, 162 spaces are provided on the subject site for use by the existing vacant commercial building. b. The property owner of the subject site has indicated that they have temporarily leased an additional three rows of parking from their site (in addition to the 15 granted through the easement) to the County during the time while the building is vacant (January 2009 until approximately August 2009). However, this temporary lease agreement is month-to-month and will be terminated prior to occupancy by the new tenant. c. In evaluating the adequacy of the on-site parking, the City is required to evaluate the parking demand of the proposed use and whether it provides on-site parking as required by the Chapter 18 of the Zoning Ordinance (Parking). The City is not able to apply arbitrary parking requirements based on assumed or anticipated use of a building. d. The parking rates are established by City Ordinance, which originate from the parking rates studied and published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE); these parking rates are based on nationwide averages of the parking demands of different uses. e. In this particular case, the primary use of the building is a grocery store and the Zoning Ordinance includes a parking requirement for grocery stores of 1 space for every 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area. F. The existing building is 36,371 sq. ft and in applying the parking rates established by the City's Zoning Ordinance, the 36,371 sq, ft. building requires the provision of 145 on-site parking spaces. Given that the proposed project provides 162 spaces (not including the 15 granted in perpetuity to the County through the grant of easement), it would result in 17 more spaces than that required by the City's Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the project is consistent with the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, 5) Appeal Point No. 5, states, "The ZA states that there are 162 parking spaces on site. The plan actually shows 160 dedicated to the project with 15 and a restriping to make 17 dedicated to the Clinic. Additionally, there are on file differing and conflicting square footage totals ascribed to the same building." a. Regarding the parking, see response to appeal point #4 above. b. As for differing floor area calculations, it is not uncommon for there to be differing floor area calculations in City files for a particular building due to many nuances in the calculation of floor area and over the years, they may have been calculated slightly differently, i.e. measuring from outside of walls vs. inside of walls. Furthermore, given the developments in technology and the now common application of computer aided drafting, floor area calculations have become more precise and accurate throughout the years. c. The applicant has demonstrated on the project plans both the existing and proposed floor area and a review of the planning files reveals that, at the time of the Design Review Permit for the renovation of the commercial building into Circuit City, the square footage of the building was identified as 35,700. The building permit issued for that project identified the floor area as 36,000 sq. ft. d. Although there may be a difference of square footage, the difference is negligible and is attributed to different methods of calculation. Regardless, there has not been any construction of floor area without the benefit of city permits and all the existing space is considered legal. e. Given that there are no illegal additions of floor area or expansions to the building and the building satisfies the City's parking and floor area ratio requirements, this point is moot. 6) Appeal Point No. 6 states; "The conditions created by the Loop configuration and the new clinics warrant an updated traffic study as the underlying conditions have changed under which Circuit City was originally permitted to operate under the City's Zoning Ordinance. The ZA's report did agree that traffic would intensify with Mi Pueblo." a. The appellant is correct in the statement that the reuse would generate more traffic than historical levels of Circuit City. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the project and identified the change in use to a grocery store would result in the generation of between 83 and 108 new A.M. peak hour trips and 226 to 308 new P.M. peak hour trips. b. The City's Zoning Ordinance prescribes uses that are permitted or conditionally permitted in the varying zoning districts within the City and grocery stores are considered to be permitted uses in the GC Zoning District. Therefore, no Use Permit is required. If this retenanting did not propose any exterior modifications, outdoor dining or liquor off -sale, then there would be no discretionary planning permits and no public notice. The project would only need to obtain a ministerial building permit and could begin its operation. c. In adopting the City's General Plan 2020, a technical traffic analysis with modeling was prepared for the entire City which considered and accounted for traffic generation from full occupancy of all existing buildings and their potential to be occupied or reoccupied by a wide range of permitted and conditionally permitted uses. Therefore, the traffic associated with the re -occupancy of existing buildings with permitted uses was considered, analyzed, evaluated and incorporated as part of the City's baseline traffic conditions. In effect, the proposed grocery store use being a permitted use in the GC District is consistent with and within the traffic projection assumed for property re -use and is therefore exempt from any further traffic review and has been accounted in the traffic system. 7) Appeal Point No. 7, states: "The loading dock in the back of Circuit City is not one of the principal entrances to the new clinics. With deliveries to the grocery store occurring in this loading docks, it is inconceivable all of the delivery trucks are proposed to exit via the main entrance to the clinics (onto Kerner Blvd) with two patient crosswalks and handicapped access. If the delivery trucks exit the site via Bellam Blvd it is a one lane street and then they would have to make a U-turn in front of all the residences and there is not room to do that. No provision has been made for delivery trucks for this project as the one lane street configuration abuts residential area." Grocery store uses are permitted uses, therefore, the City does not have the ability to regulate any component of the proposed use or operation. For uses that are conditionally permitted in a zone, a Use Permit would be required for that use before it could begin its operation and as part of the use permit, use -related issues such as loading and deliveries could be subject to review and conditions of approval could be required. b. Regardless, staff has still reviewed and considered this issue as part of the ZA hearing and concluded that there would be no conflict. Both the former Circuit City and previous hardware store conducted their loading and unloading at the rear of the building. That is the designated area on this property for loading/unloading to occur. c. Although the grocery store use may have more daily deliveries than the previous uses, there is a dedicated loading dock area at the rear of the building that does not impede with the wide vehicular pathway along the rear property line. Furthermore, many of the vehicles that deliver to grocery stores are small trucks or vans, rather than all large trucks, which is typical of grocery stores except for large chain stores such as Safeway. d. There is ample turning area on the site to allow delivery vehicles to adequately maneuver and exit from three different points from the site (two via Bellam Blvd and one via Kerner Blvd). Because the site and building was constructed to accommodate large, bulk retail merchandising it has better loading/unloading facilities and turning opportunities than many other existing retail grocery stores sites in San Rafael. e. The City is not in a position to monitor the driving habits of delivery drivers and assumes that those persons delivering to the site will use caution while entering or exiting the site. f. The City does not have Use Permit authority to evaluate or condition the loading operations of a permitted use. 8) Appeal Point No. 8, states: "How can the Fire Department station on Castro Street respond to emergencies when the only way in an out is on Bellam and big trucks block the clinic entrance." a. The Deputy Fire Marshall reviewed this issue and identified a similar concern since the rear driveway is signed and used by the County Health Clinic as a means to access their site (through a recorded easement) since this driveway also serves as one of the fire lanes on the site. b. Given that the City does not have Use Permit control, there are no changes to the location or design of the loading dock and this loading dock is part of the approved building, the City cannot condition or regulate the use. c. As presented, the plans illustrate a code compliant roadway design, which has ample room for loading trucks to perform their deliveries without impacting the fire access/lanes. d. It is the responsibility of the business operator to monitor the loading area and ensure that deliveries are performed without blocking access to the driveway. However, the City maintains enforcement power (through Code Enforcement) if the fire lane is blocked and the business owner can be cited and fined if proper fire access is not maintained, e. it is further confirmed that the rear driveway isnot the only means of access for the site or the adjacent County Wellness center. There are multiple entrance/exits to and from this site, two from Bellam Blvd. and one from Kerner Blvd. in addition, there are numerous secondary means of access into this site and the adjacent County wellness clinic site from the alleys and roadways behind the properties along Kerner Blvd. (Madera St). f. In conclusion, the plans as presented would not impact emergency vehicle access and provide numerous other primary or alternate means for access to the site. 9) Appeal Point No. 9, states: "There is no need for finding of public convenience or necessity to allow off sale liquor sales. A cursory review of Alcohol and Beverage Control records show disciplinary actions against other Mi Pueblo operations. This warrants an investigation by someone who understands the sections violated, disciplinary actions and suspensions/liquor license cancellation history of the Mi Pueblo chain of store. Furthermore, the PCN should be denied due to the high density of existing liquor sales, existing neighborhood crimes associated with alcohol and proximity of the adjacent residential area." a. The City has consulted with the State Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC). Based on state law, ABC is the agency charged with issuing liquor licenses. ABC regulations are related to licenses for alcohol sales at a specific address or site. ABC has indicated that violations are specific to particular location and they do not have the authority to deny an application for a license at one location based on violations issued for the same business operating at another location. The only exception is that that if one of the officers of an entity (corporation) applying for a license has certain types of felony offenses or is currently in prison, then ABC can deny a license for a new location since the officer of the corporation is in violation. b. ABC has concluded its review of the liquor license application for this location and a review of the officers of the corporation revealed that none of the officers of the Mi Pueblo entity have any felony convictions or are currently in jail and that the liquor license for the proposed Mi Pueblo is ready by ABC subject to City's approval of a PCN and the opening of the business. c. In terms of the City's scope and role in the review of liquor licenses, as noted above, ABC is the only agency that has the authority to issue such licenses. In certain circumstances, ABC will not issue a new license unless the local government body (city or county) first grants a finding of PCN. The PCN is required when ABC determines that there is an undue concentration of such licenses based upon countywide averages in the specific census tract where the liquor sales is being proposed. d. The City of San Rafael has adopted Resolution No.10299 which establishes the procedures and review criteria (Resolution # 10299) for considering applications for Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) and determining whether such license would provide a public convenience or necessity. The Commission finds that the project granting of a new license to this use would comply with the review criteria and would serve a public convenience or necessity based on the following: i. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that issuance of a PCN to allow liquor sales at this grocery store would provide a convenience to the shoppers of this facility given that the opportunity to buy liquor would in conjunction with shopping for purchase of groceries, household products produce, meats and other supplies typically found at other full-service grocery stores. r j ii. Off -sale of beer, wine and hard alcohol is a common component of nearly all full-service grocery stores in this City, as well as in other communities throughout the state. iii. Given the operational plan and amount of area dedicated to liquor sales, the liquor sales are expected to make up less than 4% of the overall sales from the store, a minor portion of the total sales. iv. The Police Department has reviewed the proposed application for a PCN, including the crime statistics in this area of the City and the business plan for the liquor and alcohol sales, and recommends that approval of the PCN is warranted and there are no issues with the addition of a new license for off - sale of alcohol such as unauthorized sale, crime or enforcement actions at other large, full-scale grocery stores. Police Department staff has reported that they do not have many issues with other, large full-scale grocery stores that provide off -sale of beer, wine or liquor. Most of their issues with liquor sales are a result of the liquor stores or smaller grocery stores in the City. 10) Appeal Point No. 10, states: "Although the neighborhood has asked for a market for many years, there have been 8 small to medium size markets that have opened up within a square mile, most of whom sell alcohol" a. The appellant is correct that there has been a long standing desire in the Canal neighborhood for a full-service grocery store. Many Canal residents have lobbied the City for a full service, large grocery store in the East San Rafael area given that the closest full-service grocery store is nearly 2 miles from this neighborhood (Safeway in Downtown, United Markets, Trader Joe's and Whole Foods Central San Rafael). Furthermore, a full service grocery store in the East San Rafael area was one of the needed neighborhood serving uses identified by the City Council for the City's Project Selection Process (PSP). b. The City is not dismissing or ignoring this potential impact of another grocery store on other smaller businesses in the area; however, competition is not an issue that the City has an ability to evaluate or regulate as part of it's process. The City does not regulate the free economic market or competition, but rather prescribes allowable and conditionally allowable land uses. c. The Zoning Ordinance allows grocery stores by right in this Zoning District. Further, there are no City regulatory limits or policies limiting the number of grocery stores in any one area. In this particular case, the scope of the City's review is that of the exterior design modifications, compliance of the outdoor dining with the city's performance standards, warrants of whether another liquor license in the area would serve a public convenience or necessity and preliminary sign design: d. The issue regarding whether another liquor license should be granted for this use is discussed in appeal point #9, above. 11) Appeal Point No. 4, states: "The proposed project should not be exempt from Environmental Review because the actual nature of their business model is not a true, traditional grocery store and constitutes a new use. The intensification of both parking and traffic are detrimental to the environment." a. The proposed use is not a new type of use and has been determined to be a grocery store, similar to other grocery stores in the City and County in terms of the types of products sold and intensity of use. b. Furthermore, even if this was a new use is not grounds or justification for warranting environmental review under the provisions of CEQA. This project qualifies for an exemption from the requirements of CEQA under Section 15301 (Existing facilities) which exempts additions to existing structures less than 10,000 square feet on sites where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and in that are not environmentally sensitive. This exemption was found to be acceptable given that the: i. Proposed project involves the reuse of an existing commercial structure with a use that is permitted in the zoning District; ii. Exterior modifications would not result in an increase in floor area, the project proposes minor exterior modifications to building materials and colors and site and landscaping improvements that do not change the mass or bulk of the existing building; iii. The site is located on a completely developed and graded lot and there are no known sensitive environmental factors located on this site. iv. The site is served by all necessary utilities c. The proposed use is a permitted use in the GC District and provides more parking that that required by the City's Zoning Ordinance for this type of use. Given that the grocery store use is a permitted use and there is no expansion of floor area, the traffic intensification or de -intensification associated with all use occupancies of existing building by permitted and conditionally permitted uses were incorporated, evaluated and analyzed as part of the environmental review conducted in conjunction with the adoption of the City's General Plan 2020. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the appellant submitted a follow-up letter, dated July 8, .2009, which expanded on the previously submitted appeal points. The letter identifies three new points that were not addressed above. The Commission affirms and incorporates herein the findings and action of the Zoning Administrator action approving the project (cited below) and makes the following findings related to the additional points submitted in the July 8, 2009 letter. 92. Proposed Food Center contains a fast food restaurant a. The food service component of the grocery store is neither a separate nor a primary use of the building, therefore it is considered an ancillary use to the primary use of the building, a grocery store. The primary use of the structure is found to be that of a grocery store based on the: 1) proportion of the prepared food sales/food service vs. the total sales from all other uses in the building, 2) amount of area dedicated to the food service vs. the total floor area; 3) lack of a demised and separate space for the food service; and 4) most of the food service sales would occur in conjunction with the sales of groceries and other household products in the grocery store, b. In addition, the proposed food service component of the grocery store use would not be considered a "fast food restaurant" since it does not meet the definition of "fast food restaurant" contained in Section 14.03.030 of the Zoning Ordinance given that the use does not include one of the five listed elements. i. The proposed use does not include a drive-thru service, an outdoor speaker for drive thru service, nor does it propose to include late (past 11 pm) or early hours (before 6am) of operation. ii. Furthermore, the proposed use would not exhibit potential litter problems or outdoor gathering places more than a typical food service establishment or grocery store. c. Considering this type of ancillary food service as a "fast food restaurant": would not be consistent with the historical application of the ordinance for other food service establishments in the City and would render other uses that have been considered food service restaurant to be considered as fast food. If the City were to apply the rationale and definition of fast food in a manner suggested in the appeal, then nearly all of the other small restaurants, deli's, coffee shops, taqueria's and similar food service establishments would have to be considered as fast food and thus necessitate Use Permits. 13) Proposed Food Center does not comply with parking requirements. a. As discussed above, the use is considered a grocery store, with ancillary food service, office, storage, beer and liquor sales and a variety of other ancillary uses. The parking is based on the gross square footage of the primary use of the building, and not the individual calculation of parking of all ancillary uses. The food service component of the grocery store is neither a separate nor a primary use of the building, therefore it is considered an ancillary. b. The parking requirement for grocery stores is 1 space/250 gross sq ft. of building area. The project site provides 162 on-site parking, 17 more than the 145 required by the zoning ordinance. 14) The proposed Food Center requires a conditional use permit. a. As discussed above, the use is considered a grocery store, with ancillary food service, office, storage, beer and liquor sales and a variety of other ancillary uses. The food service component is not considered a fast food restaurant, but ancillary food service that is part of a grocery store. Therefore, since the food service component of the use is not a separate or primary use and does not meet the definition of fast food, no Use Permit is required. b. In addition, the letter states that for mixed use projects that contain more than one use in a single building or on a single site, parking must be projected for the sum of the parking requirements for the various uses. In this case, this use is not considered a mixed use project. The project is a grocery store with a variety ancillary uses. The reason why the mixed use argument does not apply to this case is that the types of uses operated in this building are not considered separate uses or in dependant businesses. The use operates and functions as one business in one tenant space, is operated by the same entity, and serves as ancillary uses that are typical of the primary use of the building, a grocery store. Nearly all land uses host a variety of sub, or ancillary uses. Using the appellant's methodology would not be consistent with how the City applies its Ordinance throughout the City. 10 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the time within which to seek judicial review of this decision is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael reaffirms the approval of the an Administrative Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-014), Administrative Use Permit (UP09-015), Sign Permit (SR09-012) and Public Convenience of Necessity (PCN09-001) based on the following findings: Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-014) Finding 1) The project design to modify the exterior building materials and colors and revise the design of the building entry tower is in accord with the General Plan 2020, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of this Chapter in that the project would be consistent with the applicable General Plan 2020, including: a. Land Use Policy 15 (Convenience Shopping) This policy states "encourage the retention and improvement of existing retail stores and services in residential neighborhoods that provide needed neighborhood services and reduce traffic." This project would place a full service grocery store adjacent from a high density residential area. Given that there are no large full service grocery stores within 2 miles of the canal, this would place a needed service near residents. b. Land Use Policy 23 (Land Use Map and Categories) The site is designated a general commercial which allows general retail and service uses, restaurants, automotive sales/service and hotels/motels. c. Circulation Policy 5 (Traffic Level of Service Standards). This policy establishes level of service standards for intersection in the City of San Rafael to evaluate new development. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the project and identified the change in use to a grocery store would result in the generation of between 83 and 108 new A.M. peak hour trips and 226 to 308 new P.M. peak hour trips. However, the proposed grocery store use is a permitted use in the GC District and as part of the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan 2020 (adopted in 2004), the traffic generation from the wide range of allowable uses permitted in the GC District were incorporated into the traffic analysis prepared for the General Plan 2020 EIR as existing baseline conditions and has been accounted in the traffic system. d. Element Neighborhood Element Policy 49 (Conflicting Used. This policy states "prevent the encroachment of new residential development into the Light Industrial/Office District to minimize conflicts. Businesses locating adjacent to residential areas shall be designed to minimize nuisance impacts." This new business would place a new grocery store across the street from residential uses. The subject site is a commercially zones property that allows grocery stores by right, therefore through the development of the zoning ordinance it has been determined that grocery store uses would be appropriate for the area. Furthermore, the proposed use would not operate outside of typical hours of typical grocery stores. e. Neighborhood Element Policy 52 (New Business Development) This policy states "encourage and give priority to new business development that benefits the neighborhood through provision of needed services, low traffic impacts, or employment of a high percentage of neighborhood residents. Encourage opportunities for local residents to own and operate businesses." As previously discussed, the Canal neighborhood has expressed a long standing desire for a full service grocery store in the Canal. Although there are many smaller neighborhood or specialty markets in the area, there is no large full scale grocery store. Furthermore, through the public hearing process, staff has received over 50 calls from residents in the Canal seeking employment at this facility. The operator of the grocery store has stated that their other facilities include large portions of the employees that reside in the same neighborhood as their stores. Furthermore, the project design would: a) provide a comprehensive design scheme for the entire building; b) upgrade the appearance of the existing commercial building through the provision of accent features and visual interest to break up the large expanses of walls; c) address and upgrade all four sides of the existing building; d) incorporate the use of high quality materials for the construction of the exterior modifications; e) add visual relief and interest to the main entry and front fagade of the building through the addition of pergolas, tile wainscoting and columns; f) improve landscaping at the main entry to the building and reestablish areas of failed landscaping; g) provide defined walkways and pedestrian entryways to the site to create a pedestrian friendly design from Bellam Blvd and encourage more pedestrian activity to the site; h) incorporate the proposed ancillary outdoor seating/dining area into the existing site without reducing existing on-site parking area; and i) improve the sense of entry to the building through the redesign of the building entry and addition of design features to the front of the structure. 2) The project design to modify the exterior building materials, colors and design of the existing commercial structure is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the General Commercial (GC) District in which the site is located in that the project would: a) not propose any new development of structure; b) even though new development is not proposed, the existing structure complies with all current development standards for the GC District, including setbacks, lot coverage, building height, and landscaping requirements; c) provide 162 on-site parking spaces, in excess of the 145 spaces required for a grocery store use (at a rate of 1/250 sq ft); d) maintain all existing landscaped area and reestablish dead or dying landscaping in parking lot planter areas; and e) in addition to Environmental and Design Review Permit Finding #1 above, improve the overall site plan design, site circulation, landscaping and design of the building. 3. The project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts in that the project: a) is a reuse of an existing developed site that hosts an existing commercial building; b) proposes exterior modifications to an existing structure; c) would not result in any new grading, development or tree removal; and d) is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA per section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines (Existing Facilities) since it is a reuse of an existing commercial building that entails minor alterations to the exterior and the site plan of the structure and interior tenant improvements. 4. The project design to modify the exterior building materials, colors and design of the existing commercial structure will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that: a) there is not new development proposed on the site, would be consistent with the 12 development standards for the GC District; b) proposes a use that is permitted by the General Commercial Zoning District, c) has been reviewed by appropriate City Departments and appropriate conditions have been included to mitigate any potential impacts from the exterior redesign; and d) would be required to obtain a building permit and health department permit for the interior and exterior modifications to ensure that the use and structure complies with all current building, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, health and fire codes. ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT (UP09 015) FINDING 1. The proposed outdoor dining/seating use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of the General Commercial (GC) District in which the site is located given that the proposed outdoor dining/seating area: a) is consistent with the applicable General Plan policies as discussed in Environmental and Design Review Permit Finding #1 above; b) complies with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance by proposing a design that is integrated with the building remodel and satisfies the design criteria in Chapter 25 as discussed in the Environmental and Design Review Permit findings above; c) is listed in the GC District as a permitted use subject to approval of a administrative Use Permit; d) complies with zoning setback, height, site distance and site design standards and does not have any significant effect on the existing site plan, and e) complies with the performance standards that apply to the outdoor seating use under Chapter 17 as discussed in Use Permit Finding # 2 below. 2. The proposed outdoor dining/seating use as conditioned conforms to the standards established in Chapter 17 (Performance Standards) given that: a) the proposed outdoor seating area will not have a permanent roof over the outdoor seating area, b) outdoor seating fixtures would be movable and not permanent, c) the area does not exceed 25 -percent of the indoor dining/seating area capacity; and d) the seating area would be available during the normal hours of the grocery store and food service area. 3. The physical placement of the use on the site is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the surrounding uses in the neighborhood given that the use has been: a) located in front and near the main entry to the grocery store use, a permitted use in the GC District; b) away from adjacent residential uses, c) integrated into the site design with new architectural features, including an open, non permanently - covered wood pergola and potted landscaping; and d) designed in accordance with and subject to approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit pursuant to Chapter 25 with appropriate findings made to approve the design. 4. The outdoor dining/seating use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the City given that the use is a) integrated into the site plan on an existing walkway area, b) the redesign of the parking layout and landscaping do not reduce the available parking area on-site, and the site plan has been reviewed by all appropriate City departments, including the City Traffic Engineer, and has been conditioned accordingly to ensure that City standards are met as a part of the re -use of the building to the maximum extent feasible. IR 1 5. The outdoor dining/seating use, as conditioned, will be compatible with surrounding uses in that the use is: a) located on a commercially developed site that will be occupied by a grocery store with ancillary food service and the outdoor seating is ancillary to the food service use; b) compatible with the other uses in the area, including the County medical clinic, restaurant, residential uses, office uses and other commercial, retail and light industrial uses in the area since food service is complementing to other commercial and residential uses in terms of type and intensity of use, c) consistent with the applicable performance standards as discussed in Use Permit Finding #2 above, d) located entirely on-site would operate only during the normal business hours of the grocery store and ancillary food service within he grocery store; it should not have significant impacts on the nearby residential neighborhood, particularly in the evening hours. SIGN PERMIT (SR09-012) FINDING The proposed signs for the re -tenanting of the building are in general conformity with the sign ordnance and well integrated with the proposed design of the structure. A complete sign evaluation will be conducted at the time of Sign Permit submittal to ensure compliance with the Ordinance. This approval does not grant approval of specific signage, just the conceptual placement and design. PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (PCN09-001) FINDING The Planning Commission makes the following findings related to the criteria identified in City Council Resolution No. 10299 required for the determination of whether Public Convenience or Necessity will be served by the issuance of an on -sale or off -sale license where a finding of undue concentration has been made by the State Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control Criteria 1: Whether the issuance involves an existing business license which is being transferred to a new location, and which will not result in an increase in the total number of off -sale retail liquor licenses or on -sale retail licenses in the City or in the census tract in which the business would be located. Finding: The applicant proposes a full service retail grocery store use, with ancillary food service, within the General Commercial Zoning (GC) District. Off -sale alcohol sales are proposed to be an ancillary part of the grocery store use. The grocery store use, including the ancillary food service use, is permitted by right in the GC District given the fact that grocery stores that do not operate past 11:00 pm are permitted uses in this Zoning District. The application would increase the number of off -sale retail liquor licenses within the census tract by one. The off -sale liquor license would be transferred from another full service grocery store in Marin County and would therefore increase the number of off sale liquor licenses in the subject census tract. The San Rafael Police Department has reviewed the proposed project for an additional off -sale liquor license at this location and based on the type of use has recommended approval of the application. Criteria 2: E Whether the business, by reason of its location, character, manner or method of operation, merchandise, or potential clientele, will serve a segment of the City's business or residents not presently being served. Finding: The proposed grocery store use, with off site sales, is marketed as a full service grocery store. The grocery store would not sell: • Items/containers with more than 7% alcohol content; • High alcohol malt liquor; • Single unit containers less than 20 ounces; • Hard alcohol containers under 9 fluid ounces; or • Half pints or airport size bottles. The proposed use would focus on grocery and food items, with alcohol sales estimated at representing 1-2% of total store sales. This particular store would service the demand for a large, full service grocery store, including the sale of off -sale beer, wine and hard alcohol, a type of use and convenience not readily available in the entire Canal or East San Rafael area. Criteria 3: Whether the business will be located within a 1,000- foot radius of incompatible facilities, such as public and private schools, day care centers, churches, parks, homeless shelters, and alcoholic rehabilitation centers, and facilities designed and operated to serve minors. Finding: The proposed liquor store at 330 Bellam Blvd is located on a major transportation corridor within the East San Rafael area and would not be within 1,000 feet of a church; public school day care center or homeless center. Given the type of use and that the license is for off -sale only The San Rafael Police Department has reviewed and recommended approval of the project. The Zoning and General Plan designations for the parcel allow grocery stores or supermarkets, uses that typically contain alcohol sales, by right and do not require a Use Permit. The proposed business with operational conditions would not be incompatible with surrounding uses and facilities in that there are other small retail establishments and liquor stores in the vicinity. Criteria 4: Whether the location of the license will be in a crime data area covered by Police Department statistics, which has a twenty percent (20%) greater number of reported crimes than the average number of "reported crimes" for all crime data areas in the City, over previous year. For this purpose, "reported crimes" means reported offenses of criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny theft, and motor vehicle theft, combined with all arrests for other misdemeanor or felony crimes, except for traffic citations. Finding: The property at 330 Bellam Blvd was formerly an electronic retail store and is located within a crime data area with high calls for police service; however, the subject site has only had 36 calls for service for calendar year 2008. Of these 36 calls, seven calls were for Part 1 crimes. There were 110 Part 1 crimes in the entire crime data area (Zone IN, 2) in which this site is located. The 36 calls for service for this site over this period are considered to be low. As stated above, the Police Department has recommended approval of the project. Criteria 5: Whether the issuance of the license involves an existing business, which has been located at a site which has had three or more reported crimes defined in (4) above within the previous one-year period. Finding: This proposed grocery store, with ancillary off -sale liquor sales, is not an existing business within the City of San Rafael and this subject site. Therefore this is not applicable. Criteria 6: Whether the issuance of the license will promote the goals and policies of the City's adopted General Plan, any applicable specific plan, or any similar policies that have been formally adopted by the City Council. Finding: The proposed grocery store is a permitted use for the General Commercial district. Liquor sales contained in a full service grocery store are considered an ancillary use to the grocery store use and therefore considered within the scope of a typical grocery store. Establishment of a full service grocery store in the Canal area is a long standing goal of the City's General Plan to provide full service groceries sales to residents in the area. Currently, there is no full service grocery store within walking distance of the Canal neighborhood and residents would have to travel 1.9 miles to the Whole Foods on 3°' St or 2.3 miles to the Safeway in downtown. The use would be compliant with all General Plan 2000 and Zoning Ordinance regulations. The General Plan designation for 330 Bellam Blvd is General Commercial and the Zoning is General Commercial (GC). As stated in item 1, a grocery store with ancillary liquor sales is a permitted use by right in the GC District. Criteria 7: Whether any other information supplied by the applicant, or other competent evidence shows that public or necessity will be served by issuance of the license. Finding: The applicant has submitted a proposed letter and operational plan, dated April 16 2009 fro Mi Pueblo Foods that addresses various Planning and Police Department concerns. The proposed business would provide the convenience of having beer, wine and liquor available to customers when they purchase groceries at the new full service grocery store. There is no other large full service grocery store in the Canal (nor is there within 1.9 miles) with the wide variety of food and household products, including off-site alcohol sales. The project was noticed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and although objections were voiced at the public hearing, no evidence was presented that the liquor sales would not serve a public convenience or necessity as described by the project proponent. In addition, the project was referred to the Canal Area Property and Business Owners Association, Canal Alliance, Rafael Bay Townhomes HOA, Spinnaker HOA and Baypoint Lagoon HOA. 10 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FINDING The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section This project qualifies for an exemption from the requirements of CEQA under Section 15301 (Existing facilities) which exempts additions to existing structures less than 10,000 square feet on sites where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and in that are not environmentally sensitive. This exemption was found to be acceptable given that the: a. Proposed project involves the reuse of an existing commercial structure with a use that is permitted in the zoning District; b. Exterior modifications would not result in an increase in floor area, the project proposes minor exterior modifications to building materials and colors and site and landscaping improvements that do not change the mass or bulk of the existing building; c. The site is located on a completely developed and graded lot and there are no known sensitive environmental factors located on this site. d. The site is served by all necessary utilities e. The proposed use is a permitted use in the GC District and provides more parking that that required by the City's Zoning Ordinance for this type of use. Given that the grocery store use is a permitted use and there is no expansion of floor area, the traffic intensification or de -intensification associated with all use occupancies of existing building by permitted and conditionally permitted uses were incorporated, evaluated and analyzed as part of the environmental review conducted in conjunction with the adoption of the City's General Plan 2020. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael reaffirms the approval of the an Administrative Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-014), Administrative Use Permit (UP09-015), Sign Permit (SR09-012) and Public Convenience of Necessity (PCN09-001) subject to the following conditions of approval: ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT IED09 014) General and On -Going Conditions Community Development Department - Planning Division 1. The exterior modifications to the structure and the site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the building techniques, materials, elevations and appearance of the project, as presented for approval on plans prepared by Mena Architects, titled Mi Pueblo Food Center, date stamped Approved July 14, 2009 by the Planning Commission and on file at the Community Development Department containing Sheets No. P001, P101, L1, P102, P103, P104 and colored elevation of Sheet P105 and shall be the same as required for issuance of a building permit, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. Minor modifications or revisions to the approved design of the exterior of the structure and site approved by this project shall be subject to review and approval of the 17 Community Development Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision making body, the Zoning Administrator, and the City's Design Review Board, if necessary. 3. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-014) shall be valid for the life of the project provided that a building permit is issued and construction begun within two (2) years of this approval or until July 14, 2011. Failure to obtain a building permit or a time extension by the specified date or a time extension may result in the expiration of this Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-014) approval. Approved colors are as shown on the approved building elevations contained in the approved plans as on file with the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Any future modification to colors shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Division and major modifications may be referred to the Design Review Board. 5. Applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities ("indemnities"), the purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application or the adoption of any environmental document which accompanies it. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted or incurred by any person or entity, including the applicant, third parties and the indemnities, arising out of or in connection with the approval of this application, whether or not there is concurrent, passive or active negligence on the part of the indemnities. 6. In the event that any claim, action or proceeding as described above is brought, the City shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and the City will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action, or proceeding. In the event the applicant is required to defend the City in connection with any said claim, action or proceeding, the City shall retain the right to: 1) approve the counsel to so defend the City; 2) approve all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted; and 3) approve any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action or proceeding, provided that if the City chooses to have counsel of its own to defend any claim, action or proceeding where applicant already has retained counsel to defend the City in such matters, the fees and the expenses of the counsel selected by the City shall be paid by the City. 7. As a condition of this application, applicant agrees to be responsible for the payment of all City Attorney expenses and costs, both for City staff attorneys and outside attorney consultants retained by the City, associated with the reviewing, process and implementing of the land use approval and related conditions of such approval. City Attorney expenses shall be based on the rates established from time to time by the City Finance Director to cover staff attorney salaries, benefits, and overhead, plus the actual fees and expenses of any attorney consultants retained by the City. Applicant shall reimburse City for City Attorney expenses and costs within 30 days following billing or same by the City. 18 8. The City shall have the right of entry to inspect the premises to verify compliance with the conditions of approval and the San Rafael Municipal Code. 9. The property owner shall pay the costs of any code enforcement activities, including attorney fees resulting from the violation of any conditions of approval or any provision of the San Rafael Municipal Code. 10. All site improvements, including but not limited to, the site lighting, fencing, landscape islands, paving and striping shall be maintained in good, undamaged condition at all times. Any damaged improvements shall be replaced in a timely manner. 11. The site shall be kept free of litter and garbage. Any trash, junk or damaged materials that are accumulated on the site shall be removed and disposed of in a timely manner. The. applicant shall institute a program to provide regular cleanup of the parking lot, landscaped areas and sidewalk in front of the store, as well as all other areas immediately around the new structure. 12. The operator shall remove all graffiti from the building or site in a timely manner. 13. All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free of weeds and debris. Any dying or dead landscaping shall be replaced in a timely fashion with new healthy stock of a size compatible with the remainder of the growth at the time of replacement. 14. All existing and new site landscaping shall be routinely maintained in good order and free of weeds, debris and overgrown vegetation. Plants and trees shall be irrigated and/or watered as necessary to ensure their growth and stability. 15. All new exterior lighting shall be shielded down to avoid spillover onto adjacent properties or public streets. 16. Drive through and drive up facilities are prohibited. 17. Amplified sound or music on the outside of the building shall be prohibited. Public Works Department — Land Development Division 18. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair of all damages to public improvements in the public right-of-way resulting from construction -related activities, including, but not limited to, the movement and/or delivery of equipment, materials, and soils to and/or from the site. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit Community Development Department— Planning Division 19. Construction plans submitted for building permit approval shall include a plan sheet, which incorporates these Conditions of Approval for ED09-014, UP09-015 and SR09- 012. 20. The open, uncovered vending machine area at the front of the building shall be covered and designed with a cover/enclosure that places the equipment within an architectural screening. The purpose of this is to screen the sides and top of the E equipment from view with an architectural feature. The architectural feature shall be designed as an integral part of the building design. This feature shall also include a grill/security barrier at the front to prevent theft and vandalism from the machines during off hours. 21. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit the design of this new screening feature (as required by #18 above) to the Planning Division for review and approval. 22. Once the final design of the architectural feature is approved by the Planning Division (as required in #19 above), the final design of the screening feature shall be incorporated into the plans submitted for building permits. 23. The outdoor dining/seating area and area on the sides of the seating area shall be illuminated with one -foot candle level of illumination. The method, light design and illumination levels shall be identified on building permit plans and shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Division. 24. All mechanical equipment (i.e., air conditioning units, meters and transformers) and appurtenances not entirely enclosed within the structure (on side of building or roof) shall be screened from public view. The method used to accomplish the screening shall be indicated on the building plans and approved by the Planning Division. 25. Prior to issuance of the building permit, any outstanding Planning Division application processing fees shall be paid. 26. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the plans shall be revised to incorporate on site bicycle parking equal to that required by Chapter 14.18.090 which requires 4 bicycle parking spaces (bicycle parking equal to 3% of the 145 required parking spaces). 27. Prior to the building permit issuance, the outdoor seating area shall be reduced to not exceed 18 seats and 190.75 sq. ft (25% of the 723 sq ft indoor seating area). wiuiunnv vcvcwunicm vcuaiuncn�— ouuUlnG an0 1'IB YreVenilOn UIVISIOn 28. A building permit is required for the proposed work. Applications shall be accompanied by four (4) complete sets of construction drawings 29. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2007 California Building Code, 2007 Plumbing Code, 2007 Electrical Code, 2007 California Mechanical Code, 2007 California Fire Code, and 2005 Title 24 California Energy Efficiency Standards. 30. Please note on the construction documents that fire sprinklers are required throughout the building. A licensed C-16 contractor shall submit fire sprinkler system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to making alterations to the existing system. 31. Please note on the construction documents that a commercial kitchen hood fire - extinguishing system is required in each Type I hood. A licensed contractor shall submit the kitchen hood fire -extinguishing system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation of the system. 401 r � - 32. Please note on the construction documents that a fire alarm system is required where the occupant load exceeds 499. If a fire system is required in this building, based on the occupant load, please note on the plans that fire alarm system plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation of the system. 33. A Knox Box is required at the primary point of first response to the building. 34. On site fire hydrants will be required. 35. Fire lanes must be designated; painted red with contrasting white lettering stating "No Parking Fire Lane" A sign shall be posted in accordance to City of San Rafael standard #204. 36. Hazardous Materials Placard shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 704. 37. Storage height in excess of 12 feet shall require a "High Pile Storage" permit. 38. The proposed facility shall be designed to provide access to the physically disabled in accordance with the requirements of Title -24, California Code of Regulations. For existing buildings and facilities when alterations, structural repairs or additions are made, accessibility improvements for persons with disabilities may be required. 39. In -ground grease separator(s) will be required outside the building perimeter to handle waste water from the restaurants and food court area. 40. Review and approval by the Marin County Health Department may be required prior to submittal for building permit plan review. Public Works Department - Land Development Division 41. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide details on the building permit plans showing how the new accessible sidewalk and other elements that connect to the existing City sidewalk interface During Construction Community Development Department— Planning Division 42. Construction of the project shall comply with the City's noise ordinance. Public Works Department - Land Development Division 43. An encroachment permit shall be required for debris boxes or any construction or work in the City right-of-way. Prior to Final Occupancy Community Development Department - Planning Division 44. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to request a final inspection, prior to the issuance of the final building permit. The request for final inspection by the Planning Division shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. 21 45. All exterior lighting shall be subject to a 60 -day lighting level review by the Community Development Department, Planning Division staff to insure compliance. This lighting review period shall commence upon issuance of final inspection approval by the Community Development Department, Building Division. 46. Prior to final occupancy, the applicant shall have their landscape architect inspect the existing and new landscaping and irrigation to ensure the health of all species and operation of all irrigation. If any deficiencies are discovered, those shall be remedied. A letter from the landscape architect shall be submitted to the Planning Division as part of the final inspection. ' 47. The four required bicycle parking spaces shall be installed on site as approved on the building permit plans. ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT (UP09-015) 1. Except as modified herein, the Administrative Use Permit (UP09-015) authorizes outdoor seating/dining on the subject site on the private sidewalk area in front of the existing building as shown on the approved plans. 2. This Administrative, Use Permit (UP09-015) shall be valid for the life of the project provided that a building permit is obtained from the City's Community Development Department and the outdoor dining/seating use is initiated within two (2) years of this approval or until July 14, 2011. Failure to obtain a building permit and initiate the use, or apply for a time extension by the specified date, may result in expiration of this Use Permit. The outdoor dining shall remain in conformance with the General Commercial District Zoning District and the performance standards for outdoor dining contained in Section 14.17.130 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The outdoor dining/seating area shall only be used during the hours of operation (public hours) for the grocery store. Outdoor dining area shall not be. used outside of those hours. Adequate number of trash and recycle bins shall be maintained outside the store at all times. These bins shall be serviced as frequently as required to prevent overflow. 6. The operator shall implement a regular trash cleanup program to patrol and cleanup trash and debris from this site. If any trash from this site is blown or deposited on the public right-of-way or sidewalk, it shall be cleaned up as well. 7. Prior to the issuance of a business license, the applicant shall receive approval of an Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) for off -sale of liquor. An alarm system shall be installed and connected to a central station prior to the business operating. 9. The grocery store, including the ancillary alcohol sales and food service and all other ancillary functions of the grocery store, shall not operate past 11:00 pm, 7 day's a week, unless a Conditional Use Permit is applied for and approved by the Planning 22 Commission (as required for grocery stores in the General Commercial Zoning District identified in the land use table). 10. The outdoor dining/searing area shall be illuminated with adequate lighting levels to allow visibility of the area from the parking lot (one -foot candle level is the standard). The method, light design and illumination levels shall be identified on building permit plans and shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Division. 11. There shall be no solid walls, fencing or screening surrounding the outdoor dining/seating area. Visibility into the outdoor dining/seating area shall remain non - obscured from the parking lot area and shall be visible to persons in the parking lot. 12. There shall be no consumption of any alcoholic beverages allowed within the outdoor dining/seating area or on the site. The applicant and operator of the business shall be responsible to monitor this implement any appropriate security measures to remain consistent with this requirement. 13. The business operator shall comply with the alcohol policies and procedures as identified in the April 16, 2009 letter from Jeff Aldaz of Mi Pueblo Foods to the City of San Rafael, including: a. No items/containers with more than 7% alcohol content will be sold. No high alcohol malt liquor ill be sold. No single unit containers less than 20 ounces will be sold). b. No items or containers under 9 fluid ounces shall be sold. No half pints or airport size bottles shall be sold. c. The following signage shall be posted and maintained at the entrance and exit of the store. i. State ABC license ii. No loitering iii. No open containers iv. No littering d. The operator shall employ an external security company that specializes in supermarkets and shall have the security personnel on site during all hours of store operations. 14. The applicant shall obtain a City of San Rafael business license. 15. The outdoor seating area shall be reduced to not exceed 18 seats and 190.75 sq. ft (25% of the 760 sq ft indoor seating area). SIGN PERMIT (SR09-012) I. This Sign Permit approves only the conceptual sign plan and locations as presented in the architectural elevations. 2. Prior to the installation of any signage on the site, the applicant shall apply for and receive approval of a sign Permit. The application for a sign permit shall include all required submittal requirements for sign review. 23 The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular meeting of the City of San Rafael Planning Commission held on the 14th day of July 2009. Moved by Commissioner Kirchmann and seconded by Commissioner Wise as follows: AYES: COMMISSIONERS Kirchmann, Sonnet, Wise and Chair Pick NOES: COMMISSIONERS None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS Colin, Lang and Paul SAN RAFAEL PLAT SION ATTEST: BY: e . Brown, Secretary arles Pick, Chair 24 1 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 14, 2009 ROLL UNAPPROVED Commissioners Present: Chair Pick, Kirchmann, Sonnet, Wise Commissioners Absent: Vice Chair Lang, Colin, Paul Community Development: Raffi Boloyan, Principal Planner AGENDA CONSENT 1. Minutes, May 26, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING 2. 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) - Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-014), Use Permit, Sign Permit and Public Convenience of Necessity to allow: a) exterior modifications to the existing commercial building, including an alternation to the building entry, new colors and materials on the building and new wooden trellises and columns along front of building; b) outdoor dining area on the private sidewalk area in front of the structure; c) new building signs; and d) alcohol sales in the new grocery store; 009- 280-06: General Commercial (GC) District; Ruth Donohugh, appellant, David Mena/Mena Architects, applicant; Simeon Commercial Properties, owner; File No.: AP09-002. Project Planner: Raffi Boloyan Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. APPROVAL OR REVISION OF ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 7/14/09 ATTACHMENT 5 2 A Chair Pick followed. Commissioners: Chair Pick, Kirc/RES et, Wise Commissioners: None Commissioners: Vice Chair Lang TIFICATION OF MEETING PROCE plaint/ for the benefit of the audienX the Public Hearing procedures to be 1. Minutes, May 26, 2009 Chair Pick asked for a Commissioner Son)r6t offered some modific ions to the minutes. Commissioner Kirchmann mov and Wise seconded, to app ve the Minutes of May 26, 2009 as amended. Mo ' n carried unanimously. Vice C it Lang, Colin and Paul absent. AYES: Co mmissioners: Kirchmann, Wise, Chair Pick, Sonnet NOES: Commissioners: None ABS AIN: Commissioners: None A ENT: Commissioners: Vice Chair Lang, Colin, ul 2. 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) - Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-014), Use Permit, Sign Permit and Public Convenience of Necessity to allow: a) exterior modifications to the existing commercial building, including an alternation to the building entry, new colors and materials on the building and new wooden trellises and columns along front of building; b) outdoor dining area on the private sidewalk area in front of the structure; c) new building signs; and d) alcohol sales in the new grocery store; 009- 280-06: General Commercial (GC) District; Ruth Donohugh, appellant, David Mena/Mena Architects, applicant; Simeon Commercial Properties, owner; File No.: AP09-002. Project Planner: Raffi Boloyan Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt Principal Planner Boloyan summarized the staff report and recommended that the Commission adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval of the project subject to conditions. SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 7/14/09 Ruth Donohugh, appellant, has owned and operated the business next to the proposed Mi Pueblo for 17 years and she is pretty knowledgeable in terms of identifying a restaurant. She participated in numerous City and community events in the Canal area. She has done a lot of volunteer work and is an active participant in the neighborhood. She is not against any business that meets the zoning ordinance. She is not against a grocery store or a Mexican grocery store. The Commission cannot allow Mi Pueblo as currently proposed because it does not comply with the zoning ordinance. She submitted an extensive packet for the Commission's review and what the Commission must address is included in the summary letter dated July 81h. She is one of the few people in this room that reviewed the plans. It is a huge commercial kitchen with 1,400 sq. ft. of inside dining room space and 600 sq, ft. of outside space. There is potential seating for 200 individuals. She provided the Commission with detailed kitchen plans for their review. At the front door near the barbeque area, it has a separate entrance. It is a very intense part of the store. They have an outdoor service counter along with a drive -up window. The kitchen has a double deep fryer; seven stockpot stoves; three grills, in addition to the barbeque grills; 10 -burner stove; two rotisseries; 34 plus steam table pans for hot food service; seven plus tables; and a jumbo walk-in. In addition, they have a juice bar and four separate cash registers. All food is served on styrofoam plates. There is no table service. She identified the commercial kitchen, interior dining and barbeque area and she still comes up with 5266 sq. ft. Wendy's, Burger King and all other restaurants in the neighborhood are not that big in terms of the scale being proposed. She visited six of the 12 Mi Pueblo stores and 6 most are grocery stores, not all are food centers as planned for San Rafael. They are copying the Wal-Mart style of placing a fast-food restaurant inside of a store as large Wal -Mart's do with McDonalds. She met with Mi Pueblo representatives and explained"O the problems and they acknowledged that the in-house restaurant is their new business model and they are in the process of remodeling their older stores to include fast-food restaurants, where possible. In terms of the zoning ordinance, a grocery store is allowed one parking space per 250 sq. ft. A restaurant operation employs three times more employees and generates much more traffic. She included in her July 81h letter the definition of 'fast-food restaurant. " In the staff report, it acknowledges that the appellant is correct that the fast food service portion of the grocery store may meet the characteristics identified in the paragraph portion of the definition above. She submitted that it not only meets the definition in the paragraph, but it meets 1-5. It may not have drive-thru service anymore than In & Out in Strawberry, but it has more so because it has a drive -up window. The late and early hours of operation are a concern. She expressed concern for the potential litter problem in terms of styrofoam products. Noise is also an issue. The potential outdoor dining area is a concern as well in terms of noise pollution. The zoning ordinance states, "when there is more than one use in a single structure or on a site or two or more separate incidences of the same use, off street parking requirements shall be the sum of the parking requirements for the various uses. " It does not specify uses, walls or owners. She then provided photographs of Mi Pueblo stores that do not have the fast-food restaurant for the Commission's consideration. In her survey of grocery stores with large deli's, Safeway in Strawberry has three tables; Molly Stones has three tables; Paradise has three tables inside and four outside; and United has four tables. No one has seven tables inside any grocery store in Marin County. This must be determined as a fast-food restaurant. It will be a high volume, fast-food restaurant given SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 7/14/09 rd the unlimited hours of operation and square -footage. She based her estimates on 30 years of experience in the restaurant industry. The City cannot bend the rules because this site is heavily impacted by traffic, parking and clinics. The City of San Rafael must deny this application as proposed. She provided photographs of comparable stores. All her comments are summarized in her July 8th letter and asked the City Attorney to clearly review this matter to understand what is proposed. She further noted that the main problem is intensification of use. Perla Rodriquez, VP Mi Pueblo, provided the Commission with a powerpoint presentation explaining Mi Pueblo Foods background, which started in 1991. The first store was a small butcher shop that transferred into what is now Mi Pueblo Foods that has 13 grocery stores throughout Northern California without over 2000 employees. They offer all products of a typical grocery store, but what sets them apart is offering an environment that makes customer feel at home reminiscent of Latin American, where customers are treated with the greatest and honest care and respect, deeply rooted in family values very much like Latin values and Latina culture. Staff is bilingual and present excellent customer service. Many products are made freshly from scratch from their stores. Mi Pueblo has been reaching out to the community and presented 1091�� letters of support from members of this community. Overwhelmingly, the letters represent the voices very excited about Mi Pueblo Foods coming to this community. There is tremendous excitement of employment. Many are excited to have the ability to walk to a grocery store, to have much better prices and the availability of a wide -range of products not currently available. In addition to the employment opportunities where they offer benefits, they offer the highest quality foods for healthy meals. They generate over $400,000 in local sales tax revenue for this community. Also, many were excited about the free shuttle service ride home. They also donate thousands of dollars every year to support local organizations for scholarships and have local food drives. They are very involved with the local community. Jeff Aldez, Chief Financial Officer Mi Pueblo, explained that alcohol represents about 3.85% of their sales year to date through June. Of that 80 basis points is liquor and 315 basis points is beer and wine. Many customers come to purchase products whether it is meat, produce or deli items typically attend some sort of celebration and many take liquor or beer to their celebration. Their stores are focused on family perspective. Beer is part of celebration. Cigarettes are not sold in any stores, but they do offer beer, wine and liquor because it is part of that family celebration and an important part of the process and what their customers demand. They do not sell any high alcohol content malt liquor. They do not sell single serving containers under 24 ounces. They do not sell any airport bottles of liquor. They have a third party security company that focuses and specializes in supermarket security and at any given time they will have 1 to 3 security guards onsite. They deal with loitering, graffiti and trash. They will have 3 to 4 full-time janitors in the store due to the size. They have a third party janitorial company that cleans the store nicely as well as sweeps the parking lot nightly. They have stores in Oakland and Hayward and each city awarded conditional permits for alcohol sales, so they try to be very responsible in terms of selling alcohol to the community. In terms of the deli department, company wide deli sales represent about 8% of their total store sales. 92% of SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 7/14/09 their sales is not from prepared departments. About 70% of the products purchased from the stores are consumed off site. 75% of the products sold in the prepared foods area is sold by the pound. The deli represents about 3% of the total building footprint and they feel it is a secondary portion of their business. It is an area evolving, so they have focused on adding items like the barbeque, but they will work very closely with their architects to make sure they are responsible in that administration and noted that their architect will discuss that matter in more detail. He further noted that they do not have a drive -up counter. They have red painted curbs, so it is not allowed or part of their business model. Patrick Jacobs of Mena Architects, architect for Mi Pueblo, focused on the physical improvements to the site and building. The site is kept largely unmodified. The easements, both parking on the left hand side to the west and the access easement to the east, will not be modified. The access through the rear is historic and will continue to be the loading area and remain unobstructed. The loading by itself is a structured loading dock so it will not impact circulation. They have 28 feet of clearance in that rear circulation and this site continues to maintain all other accesses to the site. In terms footprint, the square -footage that was removed is proposed for the barbeque area. Theme' parapets are bringing a new image reflecting what Mi Pueblo brings both inside and outside of the building. He provided photographs of the outside dining area. He clarified the extent of the interior and exterior seating, the square -footage within those areas and the seating contained within them. The staff report included the circulation area between the physical production area and seating area, and they are not disputing that so they can call the interior dining area 1,040 sq. ft. The deli area is attached and the barbeque area is separate square -footage. The calculation of the sum use is 3,600 sq. ft. that differs from the proposed square -footage in the appeal. The seating area itself represents about 3% of the overall square -footage and if they include all uses associated being discussed it is just under 10% of the building itself. Russ Pitto, owner of property, explained that when he purchased property in 2006 they were very carful to review the uses. There was some question whether Circuit City would survive, so they made sure there were other uses for the site and a grocery store is certainly one of those uses. They are a retail and office development company, so they understand the retail business quite well. In fact when retail is next to retail and retail is next to food service, businesses benefit. Based on their 25 -years of experience, the appellant will have success and a much more robust business. They tried to keep it very simple. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. When looking at what is really going on, they have fruits and veggies, cheeses, meats, flowers, a pharmacy, ATM, beer, wine, liquor and barbeques. Only 3% of the total space is being used for seating. Only 2.8% of the total sales of business is for food taken and consumed onsite, which is a minuscule number that hardly classifies as fast food. Neil Sorensen, attorney representing Mi Pueblo, stated that staff did an excellent job analyzing all issues before the Commission. It is fairly clear that they are not dealing with a fast-food restaurant. It is a grocery store use. It is one tenant in one building. It is one unified use of a grocery store with an ancillary use that is common with every business in the City. The project does not meet the definition of fast food and does comply with all SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 7/14/09 M parking lot requirements. Before the Commission are arguments that the City should be restricting competition, and State law does not allow this Commission or any other body to restrict competition. It is not the Commission's job. The Commission is to analyze, review and apply the zoning ordinance and staff served the Commission well in that respect by laying out all the issues and analyzing. He then asked the Commission to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the ZA, which approved this application. He then reserved whatever time is left to the end of the public hearing. Chair Pick opened the public hearing on this item. Tom Wilson, Executive Director of Canal Alliance, fully supported Mi Pueblo. This community needs a top quality grocery store. Many of his clients have expressed that desire. When all said and done and Mi Pueblo is up and operating it will actually improve Ruth Donohugh's business who has a top quality restaurant that serves great food. Ms. Donohugh has a great reputation and he did not think competition from Mi Pueblo would hurt her business, if that is the issue. In regard to alcohol sales, there is a problem with alcohol in the community and alcohol use. That problem will not be exacerbated by alcohol sales in association with this grocery store. The problem with alcohol sales coni- from other sellers in the community. The Canal is a working neighborhood and typically both parents work and having affordable, healthy and prepared food will be greatly appreciated as well as will the shuttle service. It is a vibrant addition to the community. It will provide job opportunities, so this will really improve the quality of life in the community. The time is right and he welcomed Mi Pueblo for bringing a much-needed service to the community. Oscar Garcia, owner of Oscar's Taco, has been a member of the community for 20 years and is experiencing tough economic times and expressed concern for this big franchise putting the small business owners out of business. San Rafael already has grocery stores, small businesses and restaurants that provide such services that Mi Pueblo will provide. He came to the United States with a dream and feels Mi Pueblo will impact several small business owners in the area. Maria Peringa, small business owner, echoed the comments of Mr. Garcia. To allow another huge company in San Rafael will destroy the small business owners. Michael Lopez, is the son of an food market owner on East Francisco Blvd., and he expressed concern for ancillary versus primary use. That definition is not adequately addressed. One major concern is the size. With a business of 3,600 sq. ft. and 1,500 sq. ft. is reserved for potentially fast-food use, it is very troubling when a definition is so fluid. Staff recommendations are fine, but if the laws and rules are to be applied equally then they must be clear and certain. The staff has potentially placed too much emphasizes on the floor use. There is no guarantee that just because it is 3% of the use that it will not be 70% or 80% of the revenue. All is based on speculation that is not certain. Of the three criterion listed for what would constitute an ancillary use, the majority factor comes down to amount of revenue that the site generates and the second is hours of operation and intensity, which are unknown. In looking at this definition, it is a critical issue. There SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 7/14/09 7 is a quality of life. San Rafael and most of Marin is congested. The small businesses provide that invaluable lifestyle. He asked the Commission if Mi Pueblo really fits in with the General Plan. An American dream is what they all have shared and the Commission must examine the issue and at the end of the day they must ask, is it really worth the cost. Gildias Parsa, San Rafael resident, has been laid off twice and totally supports Mi Pueblo. They will provide employment as well as benefits. San Rafael deserves the best. This may push all small businesses to be up to standards and lower prices. She appreciated that no cigarette sales will be sold at Mi Pueblo. She asked the Commission to consider the business that will be generated in San Rafael. Michelle Simon, Marin Institute representative, explained that their mission is to prevent alcohol problems. They are not against this store in general, but they do want to focus in on alcohol license and firmly opposed to granting of an alcohol license to this store. The area is already over concentrated with alcohol licenses. There are two criteria that trigger this process from the State, one is that over concentration, the other is too much crime, and both criteria sit in this particular neighborhood. They are very concerned with the ?SSV findings presented by staff. A number of findings were wrong or missed. There are too many alcohol licenses. It was mentioned that beer is for celebration, and the Canal District has 29 locations where one can consume alcohol. In the findings it was stated that alcohol sales is 1 to 2% when Mi Pueblo indicated 4%, so there are inconsistencies with the findings. The location was left out of the findings. She is pleased to see the new development of Marin Clinics. There is a criteria that indicate that alcohol outlets should not be placed within a 1,000 feet of rehabilitation centers or a place that operate to serve minors. She provided a list of services and programs for Marin's Health and Wellness Center that included: mental health; youth and family services; social services; children and family services program; Marin Community Clinic; and WIC (women, infants and children). She wanted the full contents of the Marin County letter to be part of the record since only pages 1 and 3 were provided. This company's business model is to share beer by the case. She then provided a full report and asked that the license for alcohol be denied and allow more time to develop better findings in order for the Commission to make an adequate decision. Ericka Erickson, San Rafael resident/Grass Roots Leadership member, opposed Mi Pueblo locating in the Canal area. She stated that domestic violence is the number one crime in Marin County due to the consumption of alcohol. Another business in Marin County selling alcohol will only enhance this problem. She asked the Commission to deny the alcohol license. Dwight Steeves, Vista Del Mar resident, understands that the owner wants to rent out the property, but asked if this is the right tenant. This store will generate additional traffic. There are many fine food stores locally that serve the community well. There are several parking issues. There is no overflow parking. There is no capacity left in that area with Target and the wellness center. During early morning deliveries, he hoped trucks are restricted to certain hours. He believed 76 seats is a restaurant, not a grocery store. This is SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 7/14/09 bigger than any restaurant the City already has. He expressed concern for the litter, noise, parking and traffic in an area that is already saturated. The intersection of Kerner and Windward must be repaved. Also, the street lighting is completely inadequate. The median is in poor condition and must be addressed. There is only one legal crosswalk in that entire area, which is at Kerner and Bellam and expressed concern for pedestrian safety. He further believed this is an unneeded store in the neighborhood. Ernesto Culman, a San Rafael resident, wants to keep Marin clean and opposed this establishment in San Rafael. Mike Skipper, Marin County Advisory Board on Alcohol & Drug problems, reviews and monitor service providers that receive funding from the county who maintain and have programs of treatment and recovery. Marin County has an alcohol problem. Marin Institute has estimated that the damage done by alcohol in this county is about $250 million per year or 1,000 per person. Supply of product is key element. The more product the more consumption, especially for under age youth. More alcohol in the Canal District is not needed and that portion of the development is not supported due to the harm �f alcohol causes. Michael Gila, Spinnaker Point resident, opposed the sale of alcohol at Mi Pueblo. The grocery store is needed, but alcohol is not necessary. Louis Vanlassen, a Canal resident, opposed Mi Pueblo. He finds drunks on bicycles all the time during his walks. He recommended that the City Council visit the Canal area to understand the problems that occur with drugs, alcohol and prostitution. Miquel Montenegro, manager of a liquor store in the area, stated concern for traffic congestion and opposed the granting of the liquor license. Chair Pick desired clarification from staff on the 1,000 -foot issue raised by Marin Institute. Principal Planner Boloyan noted that some of the speakers were correct in the way the ABC licensing works. When there are areas of communities that have an over concentration of licenses and meet certain crime statistics based on the census tract they are located in, ABC (State Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control) will not issue another new license in that area until first the local government body grants a PCN (Public Convenience or Necessity.) The San Rafael City Council has established a resolution, which establishes the process for PCN review, and that resolution is contained in the Commission's staff report, which is Exhibit 8 in the staff report. The part of the PCN is the fact that there is an overt concentration of licenses, so all those facts are correct. The PCN gives the City the ability to review any application for a new license that comes to ABC to first determine whether a new license should be granted or not. To help the City in making that determination, the resolution establishes criteria for determination of public convenience. There are seven various criteria and the criteria must be considered. The one criteria mentioned is No. 3, whether the business will be located within a 1,000 -foot radius of incompatible facilities such as a public and private school, daycare center, park, church, homeless shelter, alcohol rehabilitation centers and SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 7/14/09 W facilities designed and operated to serve minors. Staff did an analysis and there were no schools, daycare centers, churches, homeless center or known alcohol rehabilitation centers in the 1,000 -foot radius. The County of Marin has a facility next door and a referral was sent to them and they did not identify an incompatible use or conflicting use. Staff did receive a new letter this evening by fax from the County, however not all pages came through, but the majority of the letter is present that spells out suggestions and conditions if a alcohol license is granted such as education that the operator must comply with. Also based on recent State law, the City does not have the ability to condition PCN's any longer. The City's past practice was to review PCN applications with the police department as done as well as crime statistics, and the City's PCN resolution has the police department look for crime stats of Part 1 Crimes, which are offences of criminal, homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, theft and motor vehicle theft combined with all other arrests for misdemeanor or felony kinds, except for traffic citations. In this particular case, they reviewed the crime statistics for this site. However, the crime statistics for this site are not that applicable since it was previously an electronic retail store. They did look at some of the other closest liquor stores and the crime statistics at those liquor stores and looked at this use and they found it to be a different type of use. Based on their experience, as police officers, they do not have a lot of issues with criminal activity resulting from full service grocery stores that have beer and wine sales. Most issues arise from the smaller liquor stores that sell 100% liquor or majority of liquor, so given that they did not, the police department did not have a lot of concern with the issuance of another license in this area. Planning staff looked at whether they found there was evidence submitted to show that this served some sort of public convenience or necessity and based on the information in the record, staff felt the provision of an alcohol license with a full service grocery store would provide a public convenience. Chair Pick asked staff if there has been any consideration of a crosswalk at this location. Principal Planner Boloyan responded that the City is currently undergoing an NTPPP project along various parts of East San Rafael, but one being the Bellam corridor. It is federal or state funding dedicated to make pedestrian and bicycle improvements in the area. The City's Public Works Department is currently working on a plan to implement a better pedestrian and bicycle connection along the Bellam Boulevard corridor to get from this area to the Marin Square area to provide better pedestrian and bicycle access. As part of the Health and Wellness Center occupying the adjacent property, the City was not a part to those decisions or review of that application. The County invoked preemption and exempted themselves from City review and processing of any sort of Zoning review. However, they have been working with the City's Public Works Department to make certain improvements to the right-of-way to help pedestrian mobility. At this time there are no plans for any sort of mid block crossing. The City's Traffic Engineer is generally not supportive of mid -block crossings. In his opinion, they are not a safe mode of crossing and rather have pedestrians cross at dedicated controlled intersection.. Chair Pick asked staff what is the Commission's discretion over the liquor license issue. Principal Planner Boloyan responded that the Commission is to consider the review criteria as listed in the resolution and make a determination of whether there would be a SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 7/14/09 to] public convenience or necessity served by the addition of another license in the area. Chair Pick asked staff if upholding the appeal or denying the appeal is an absolute, or does the Commission have an opportunity to discuss additional conditions. Principal Planner Boloyan responded that the City has certain discretion in the planning applications before the Commission. Using staffs recommendation on the use, staff believes a grocery store is a permitted use. Therefore, the City does not have a use permit ability to control or condition use related issues or functions with the proposed use. Such as limited hours of operation, restricting locations of delivery or hours of deliveries is not in the City's purview. The City has an administrative use permit for the outdoor dining. There is a design review permit for exterior modifications to the building and site, so any sort of design and physical improvement conditions such as further screening can be required. The PCN is something ABC indicated that must either be granted or not, they will not accept a conditional granting of a PCN. The City's zoning ordinance does not require a use permit for ancillary liquor sales. If this were a liquor store that primarily, sold liquor, beer and wine with small amounts of food or snacks, then the zoning ordinance does require a use permit in that case and the City would have the ability to modify the size, hours and so forth. With a PCN, it must be granted or not granted. The seven criteria for review must be considered in granting the PCN. Commissioner Sonnet clarified with staff that the Commission could not incorporate the suggestions from the County that were received by fax. Principal Planner Boloyan responded that under current rules and regulations, the City does not have a use permit ?" authority to regulate those sorts of mechanisms. Unless the Commission finds that this is x a liquor store; and therefore, requires a use permit. Commissioner Sonnet asked staff if the store has a drive -up capability or not, and is there a condition relative to whether that is allowable in future operations. Principal Planner Boloyan responded that in staffs review of the plans that was never raised as an issue. Staff did not foresee that as a drive -up or drive-thru operation. It is not an ideal drive -up situation, but if the Commission has concerns about that there is some mechanism within the design review permit based on site circulation and site planning, and if they want to confirm that it is not a drive -up operation, which the application indicated that it is not, they can confirm through a condition that does not allow that to be a drive -up operation without further City review based on concerns with site circulation and planning issues. With the design review permit, the applicant indicated that they are not planning on operating past I Ipm. The grocery store land use category in the GC zoning district is a permitted use with the caveat that if a grocery store operates past 11 pm, it needs a conditional use permit. In terms of outdoor noise, that could be conditioned through the design review process to not allow the generation of outdoor noise. The hours of operation is when people are being served, but there is no real threshold in the ordinance to prescribe a start time, just the end time of 1 Ipm. Commissioner Kirchmann asked staff what factors are involved in the PCN finding that would be different from the other liquor stores and alcohol sales outlets in the Canal area. Principal Planner Boloyan responded that currently there is an application for a PCN for a market on Belvedere Street. Aside from that, staff does not recall any recent PCN SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 7/14/09 it applications in this area. In theory, on the PCN's seen, a lot of consideration is given to the type of use, operation, size of store, specialty project, and bulk. In general, the larger stores such as Safeway in Terra Linda did not raise a lot of issues with the police department. The smaller stores were looked at more closely due to alcohol related concerns that result from those operations. Staff further noted that pretty much all of the City of San Rafael is in a PCN zone, given the crime rates and the number of licenses. Commissioner Kirchmann asked staff if the Commission were to find that the proposed outdoor sales area is greater than 25% of the inside sales area, does the Commission have any other alternative other than denying the outside sales area use. Principal Planner Boloyan responded that the Commission has the ability to require further reduction based on how the boundary is defined. Staff used their interpretation and came up with a figure of 3 feet behind chairs that created a rectangular box, but that could be conditioned to be different. Commissioner Kirchmann asked staff if there is any way to authorize outside seating in an area that is greater than 25% of the inside seating area. Principal Planner Boloyan explained that part of the issue is parking. If it did intensify above the 25%, then it is no longer considered ancillary and must be parked as if it were indoor seating or a permanently covered outdoor area. Commissioner Kirchmann asked what program is intended to be served in the area that shows the chicken char -broiler. Mr. Jacobs explained that it is a roll down door. There s° will be an open charcoal grill with hot trays on the other side of the partition. " Commissioner Kirchmann expressed concern for the exhaust fans being likely visible 'C',% above the parapet. Mr. Jacobs agreed to provide the Commission with a detailed section and they would fully screen if it were not a true parapet screen. Commissioner Kirchmann noted that there is a condition to screen the proposed vending machine location. Also, there is an indication of electrical switchgear at the back of the building near the south easterly corner and assumed that is not going into an underground vault. Mr. Jacobs indicated that it is not. Commissioner Kirchmann believed it has more public visibility than the backs of most stores, so he is concerned about the appearance. There is also a row of bollards proposed to protect the electrical switch. Mr. Jacobs responded that the easement is 40 feet from the closest intrusion, so the loading dock itself would most likely be at zero lot line and that would extend down and align with the landscape curb. The bollards are outside, but the dedicated access easement would be parallel to the loading dock and parallel to the landscape buffer. Commissioner Kirchmann discussed the front of the new barbeque area and was not clear whether the architectural features are planted on or a full architectural feature. Mr. Jacobs stated that it would be a pilaster. There are no freestanding columns, just a pilaster against the building face. Commissioner Wise wanted to know the actual store hours in terms of opening the store. Mr. Aldaz responded that hours of operation are from lam to l Opm including the barbeque and all components. Commissioner Wise desired clarification on the number of cash registers because they have two cash registers in the fresh bakery department that were incorporated into the prepared foods, so she believed there is total of four cash SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 7/14/09 12 registers. Commissioner Wise also desired an explanation on the amount of seating at this location versus what is provided at the other stores. Mr. Aldaz responded that the last store they opened has 134 seats at a 51,000 sq. ft. store with eight tables outsides, so it is consistent with the size of the store, but smaller than the last two stores that were opened under the similar format. Commissioner Sonnet asked the percentage of deli sales in those stores where it is extensive. Mr. Aldaz responded their Pittsburg store runs around 14%, which is the highest distribution. Commissioner Sonnet asked if there are plans to broadcast music outside the store. Mr. Aldaz indicated that there is no plans to broadcast music. Commissioner Sonnet asked if one could walk up to the barbeque window and purchase goods. Mr. Aldaz responded that the distance from the curb to the window is 15 feet, so there is no way for an employee to exit from that section of the store. One could park and walk up to that window to purchase the barbeque items that are prepared in that area, but they cannot purchase products from the rest of the store. There is a walk up window, but no exit for employees to come to the outside of the store through that section of the area. Chair Pick discussed the point of sale with regard to the barbeque area and deli, would there be any alcoholic beverages in that location. Mr. Aldaz responded that they are not requesting any onsite consumption of alcohol. Chair Pick desired clarification on the number of employees' onsite that would address the litter. Mr. Aldaz explained that for this size store they will have 3 to 4 full-time employees that are janitors as well as a janitorial company that comes in the evening to clean the inside of the store as well as a parking lot sweeping company that sweeps daily. Chair Pick asked the policy for groups of people or individuals that are not actively engaged in consuming any products, but are still onsite. Mr. Aldaz responded that they have a standard operating procedure that limits loitering up to 10 minutes and after that time individuals will be removed from the property by their third party security company. Commissioner Wise desired an explanation on the shuttle in terms of the frequency and radius. Mr. Aldaz explained that they have a 12 -seat passenger van in most stores that provide such shuttle service to their customers. Typically, they require a $25.00 minimum purchase, but they really do not adhere to that requirement. The van is available during the hours of operation, which is lam to l Opm. In terms of radius, they do not have a hard and fast rule, but they try to keep it within a 15 -minute driving radius from the store. Commissioner Wise further asked if items could be paid for at the deli or bakery. Mr. Aldaz responded in the affirmative. There being no further public testimony on this item, the Chair closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the Commission for discussion and action. Commissioner Wise appreciated the staff report, typically for the ancillary use in terms of historical calculations. She is concerned about the size and number of tables and chairs being proposed. It is not typical of what is seen at other stores, but this particular SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 7/14/09 13 configuration meets the criteria outlined in the staff report. She is uncomfortable in that regard and desired thoughts from the Commission. Commissioner Sonnet stated that the photo representation conforms to the drawing and it is hard to say that portion of the store is not a restaurant. If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. Even though it is a restaurant, is it still ancillary to the overall store, and if it is a restaurant, what is different in their conclusions. The main item is the amount of parking required if it is a restaurant. He is also concerned about alcoholic beverages being sold and having many residents in the area inebriated. It is important to have a full-scale grocery store serving the community, which makes a lot of sense. It may concentrate traffic to the area, but there is a building that will have some usage and that will overall help with traffic in the other areas. The store will serve an immediate community and require less long distant trips that adds to the traffic load throughout the City, so that is a good tradeoff. This really comes down to the two issues relative to the fact, does a restaurant in the grocery store change any of the conclusions they might have as well as the alcohol including the testimony heard tonight. Commissioner Kirchmann thanked everyone for the quality of their presentation and appreciated everyone staying on task and providing information to help form their decision. Materials from Mrs. Donohugh were well presented and easy to understand. The staff report was also helpful. The starting proposition is that a restaurant at this location is permitted. A grocery store at this location is permitted. If there was not an application for alcohol sales and the proposal was to leave the existing architecture instead of modifying the building architectural, it would simply be a building permit without any discretionary action by the City. In his view, the restaurant or food service use here is ancillary to the grocery store use. There is no question that it is much more significant than seen at other locations throughout the County. The primary impact for the Commission's consideration in some degree is traffic generation and parking demand. If they were looking at this being separate uses on the parking side, they would have a process available under parking standards to look at situations where they have synergistic uses. He is not sure how many patrons would visit the store as a dine -in facility as opposed to purchasing groceries, but believed most visitors will purchase groceries as well as prepared food and the parking demand and traffic generation will be much less than some of those separate numbers. He believed it would work. He did not think they would be seriously under parked. No more than Whole Foods or Trader Joe's. There might be a separate issue about whether City Council should consider re- examining parking requirements to accommodate the modern supermarket. It is probably prudent to include "no drive -up service" and the driveway should remain open at all times. He is not quite sure how a condition on speakers would fit in and felt the noise ordinance would address that issue. As long as noise is not disturbing those across the street or other neighboring enterprises, then he is not concerned. In terms of the size of the food service area, he has some concern since they have no comparison in this community, but believed it will work. In regard to the PCN, the potential negative impacts are likely to be less. He appreciated the testimony about the problems of consuming alcohol in the community, but has trouble finding a strong justification for SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 7/14/09 [C! permitting such use for Safeway in the Terra Linda area and not permitting it for Mi Pueblo in this neighborhood. Chair Pick stated that clearly this pushes the limits of what has been seen in San Rafael. The fundamental question is what difference does it make as long as it is within an ancillary definition. There is no technical definition of ancillary. It is based on custom and staff discretion and somewhat based on the Commission's discretion. To say that this space devoted to seating exceeds 10% does not appear to be correct. The barbeque area is located on the west side of the building and against a much taller wall and the wind in this area is quite strong. It is a very poor location for that function that will not work well in his view and hopes the applicant takes that under consideration. They received one addition from Commissioner Kirchmann, which is to prohibit any type of drive -up outdoor service, which he agreed. He also wanted to produce some sort of railing or barrier along the street in the driveway and storefront location to make it difficult or discourage pedestrian crossings in the mid block area. Commissioner Kirchmann discussed impacts on competition. The City's experience with Home Depot is a great example. There was a great deal of public anxiety and trepidation. A number of existing stores ended up not competing successfully and a number of stores did a great job adapting and distinguishing themselves and thriving with Home Depot down the road. Competition for food sales will face the same. If Mi Pueblo comes in and does it better, then the existing merchants must find a way to make their services more attractive. Also, his comment to the applicant and staff about screening equipment is to be very creative about the screening mechanisms so they do not have a band-aid solution. In terms of the outdoor seating area, in looking at the floor plan the presentation from the applicant shows the area of the exterior seating being 385 sq. ft. and the area of the interior seating being 763 sq. ft., so that outdoor seating area is greater than 25% of the indoor seating area. He tried to approximate and scale it off and had trouble finding the ratio of areas being correct. He hates to lose the outdoor seating area because he believed it would be nice, but he cannot find a way to authorize it. Chair Pick noted that staff s calculation included a certain amount of circulation area. Commissioner Kirchmann stated if they took the original areas in the staff report they were a few square feet off in the exterior area. They potentially set themselves up for a real enforcement problem and asked what do they do about sales displays of other merchandise in the seating area, which is a challenge in terms of controlling uses. He believed they potentially have a real problem if they define a larger interior seating area and find that other uses are encroaching in it, and then at that point have to revoke the administrative use permit for the outdoor seating area and remove the tables. Based on all the information before the Commission, he cannot find that the outdoor seating area is less than 25% of the indoor seating area and has not been able to figure out a way to authorize the outdoor seating. Chair Pick asked for the remedy. Commissioner Kirchmann suggested granting the appeal with respect to the administrative use permit for the outdoor seating area, but deny it in other respects. Commissioner Sonnet asked if it could be done based on conditioning a ratio of seats indoor and outdoor. Part of the problem is the area around the seats. If they had a condition that indicated that the SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 7/14/09 15 number of chairs outside could not exceed 25% of the chairs inside, and possibly have a cap on one or the other. Commissioner Kirchmann noted that the performance standards in the ordinance speak to 25% of the area. He appreciated staff s approach of considering chairs as well and explains that they are violating the intent of that provision if there is a higher concentration of chairs outside. The performance standard requires the physical area to be less than 25%. It is an operational and enforcement nightmare in terms of conditioning a ratio. Chair Pick stated that this community needs a full service grocery store. There are benefits in terms of employment opportunities. This owner clearly has standard operating procedures to address many of the potential negative points. They are dealing with the whole concept of changing the neighborhood. What was an electronic store will now be a site with much greater utilization. Now, traffic is a concern and it is counterbalanced somewhat by the environmental and neighborhood benefits by diminishing the longer trips as well as pedestrian access. In terms of loitering and crime, the more active a site is and higher utilization of that site, the less crime occurs. It is a question of benefit and cost. This neighborhood needs a grocery store. The Commission has full technical issues to address in the context of this appeal and asked staff for guidance. Principal Planner Boloyan suggested that the Commission hear from the applicant in regard to the outdoor seating. Staff agreed that demonstrated before the Commission tonight has been three different numbers for outdoor seating and indoor area. Staffs calculations are consistent with how staff reviewed in other instances. Staff agreed that the primary emphasis with outdoor seating has always been chairs because that is what drives intensity. The d:44 applicant could propose to reduce the outdoor seating area by square -footage or reduce or eliminate two tables to make it smaller and within the 25% of the indoor area as currently ` designed. The Commission has the ability to deny the appeal and approve the project with additional conditions. Some of the other issues are adding a condition about confirmation of no "drive up" or "drive-thru" service. Possibly adding a condition prohibiting noise being transmitted outside through speakers as well as looking at fencing along the Bellam frontage in the landscaped area up to the driveway. If the outdoor seating is a condition to be added to reduce the number then it must be made in both the design review permit conditions as well as the use permit conditions. Staff further noted that this may not be exactly the same as other grocery stores seen in the area, but generally it seems to flow as an ancillary use. Chair Pick discussed the screening and the screening of the rooftop mechanical equipment is required to the height of mechanical equipment by the primary parapet that is located at the perimeter of the building. Principal Planner Boloyan pointed out that Condition No. 22 addressed screening of the mechanical equipment. Commissioner Kirchmann believed it comes down to the amount of confidence they have that staff will pay attention to that screening. Commissioner Wise discussed the proposed railing and is not entirely clear how the railing will prevent individuals from crossing mid block. Chair Pick indicated that it is a clumsy idea, but he did not know another way to accomplish the goal. In an environment where pedestrian behavior is controlled it is common practice to erect a barrier along the SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 7/14/09 16 sidewalk, for example, First and. C Streets. It is a visual barrier and to some extent a physical barrier. He suggested running a railing along the street front. It is most important to have a barrier in the area of the storefront at Bellam. Public Works Traffic Engineer might not agree, so he believed they have a problem that needs some attention. Commissioner Wise agreed there is a pedestrian problem, but is hesitant to add a railing as a condition. Commissioner Kirchmann did not favor the railing. Across the entire length of Bellam is a residential complex, so he assumed there is not a lot of traffic that travels through the residential complex. Aside from those that live in the complex that would be tempted to cross mid block, most of everyone else is coming from one of the other intersections. He did not favor a fence and believed it is a matter of public education. Chair Pick believed a modest gesture such as a railing can have a great impact. Chair Pick stated that in the context of a large full service grocery store, the negative impact from alcohol sales is not the same as a small convenient store. From a planning perspective, it would seem rather difficult to prohibit any type of liquor sales at a full service grocery store. Commissioner Wise agreed. She understands the concerns of crime and domestic violence issues, but a PCN is not a problem for this project in her view. She also supported the noise condition as discussed by Commissioner Sonnet. She further understands the traffic issues and LOS, but when adding a neighborhood -serving use such as this, vehicle trips are reduced. Chair Pick noted that the Commission could add some conditions to what is presented. The other option is to uphold appeal point No. 2 with regard to the outdoor seating and denying the appeal on the other points while adding conditions. Chair Pick asked for a motion. Commissioner Kirchmann moved to deny the appeal, but add a condition prohibiting any "drive up" or "drive-thru" service to the Design Review Permit; add a condition to the Design Review Permit prohibiting any amplified sound outside; and add a condition that the outdoor eating area, both in the Design Review and Permit and Administrative Use Permit, the seating for the outdoor eating area not to exceed 18 seats and not occupy an area in excess of 25% of 763 sq. ft. Commissioner Wise noted that the CEQA finding is not correct and should be exempt under Section 15301, not Section 15332 in regard to page 215. Commissioner Kirchmann agreed to include in the motion. Principal Planner Boloyan desired clarification in that the Commission is suggesting that they use the applicant's graphical delineation of the area that is the indoor seating to then use the 25% standard for the outdoor seating. There graphical delineation shown tonight is slightly different than how staff calculated. Commissioner Kirchmann is open to some flexibility. He has no reason to doubt the area calculation performed by the architects. It does not strike him as being at all irrational to draw the area drawn. They could justify a little greater perimeter around the outside of the tables, but the area shown shaded for interior seating strikes him as being appropriate and justifiable. For the exterior seating SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 7/14/09 17 area, the graphic provided tonight is overstating the exterior seating area. Chair Pick looked at 385 sq, ft. and 18 seats and fitting within 25% of the 763 sq. ft. is about 180, so it is about half of the graphic area shown. He believed the trellis should be half as deep as presently shown to more naturally delineate the area. Commissioner Wise asked about the trellis on the other side. Chair Pick is not sure. Maybe just reduce the size of that semi -covered area. Commissioner Kirchmann believes it becomes a function in some degree of tables and seats. Chair Pick stated that the 25% is an enforcement nightmare. Commissioner Kirchmann agreed to have symmetry in those covered areas over cart storage and outdoor seating. Commissioner Sonnet stated, in reality, tables can be moved around, so it comes down to chairs in his view. A maximum on the number of chairs is more enforceable. Chair Pick agreed. Principal Planner Boloyan stated that they are trying to control and regulate outdoor seating. The measurement for that is a function of chairs because they do not change. Staff looks at chairs as well as area. Commissioner Kirchmann noted that the ordinance talks in terms of area, not chairs. They are talking about 190 sq, ft. for the outdoor seating area and he could accept more than one outdoor seating area, if it did not aggregate more than 190 sq. ft. Chair Pick stated that the concept of the appeal is that the grocery store use is being challenged and limiting the outdoor seating is a very important function. He suggested making the outdoor seating more restrictive and making it more of a convenience. Commissioner Kirchmann proposed that the outdoor seating area not contain more than 18 seats and not exceed 190.75 sq. ft. In terms of the parapet, with some trepidation, he is willing to leave to the applicant and staff to address.`` Commissioner Wise agreed to second the motion by Commissioner Kirchmann. Chair Pick noted for the record that he favored the absolute square -footage figure better than 25%. Principal Planner Boloyan calculated and announced that the total is 190.75 sq. ft. Commissioner Kirchmann modified the condition to state, "outdoor seating area to not exceed 18 seats and not exceed 190.75 sq. ft. " Principal Planner Boloyan read back the motion as follows: Commissioner Kirchmann moved and Commissioner Wise seconded, to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrative (ZA) approval with modifications to the conditions including adding conditions to the design review permit that: ])prohibit drive-up/drive- thru service anywhere; 2) prohibit amplified sound outside of the building; 3) outdoor seating area be reduced to not exceed 18 seats and not exceed 190.75 sq. ft., and that condition will also be reflected as an additional condition in the administrative use permit; 4) make change to clarify the CEQA finding; and 5) accept staffs recommended changes presented in the revised draft resolution at the start of the hearing. Motion carried unanimously. SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 7/14/09 m AYES: Commissioners: Kirchmann, Wise, Chair Pick, Sonnet NOES: Commissioners: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners Vice Chair Lang, Colin, Paul Priricip lanner Boloyan announced that the appeal oft Windward Way project will be heard by"City Council on Monday evening. Staff qx1her noted that as it stands, the July 28th and Ahg< l lth Planning Commission tings have tentatively been cancelled. Commissio/willll be unab attend the September 15thPlanning Commission meeting duence i ake oe. ADJOURBy order oe Planning Commissionm ingadjournedat10:15pm. RespectfullJessica Wo,ng Secretary . x'441 SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 7/14/09 Community Development Department— Planning Division P. 0. Box 151560, SjJ Rafael, CA 94915-1560 PHONE: (41.51,485/FAX: (415) 485-3184 Meeting Date: Agenda Item: Case Numbers: Project Planner: July 14, 2009 AP09-002 Raffi Boloyan (415) 485-3095 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJ T: 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) — Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-014), Use Permit (UP09-015), Sign Permit (SR09-012) and Public Convenience of Necessity (PCN09-001) to allow: a) exterior modifications to the existing commercial building, including an alteration to the building entry, new colors and materials on the building and new wooden trellises and columns along front of building; b) outdoor dining area on the private sidewalk area in front of the structure; c) new building signs; and d) alcohol sales in the new grocery store; 009-280-06; General Commercial (GC) District; Ruth Donohugh, appellant, David Mena/Mena Architects, applicant; Simeon Commercial Properties, owner; File No AP09- 002 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On May 20, 2009, the Zoning Administrator conditionally approved planning applications for a new Mi Pueblo grocery store at 330 Bellam Blvd. The store proposes to occupy an existing building formerly occupied by Circuit City and includes a) plans for exterior architectural modifications to the existing commercial building; b) outdoor dining at the front of the store; and c) approval of a Public Convenience or Necessity for off sale liquor sales. This decision was subsequently appealed by an adjacent property/business owner. The appeal cites numerous issues including the dining and food service component of the grocery store not being an ancillary use to the grocery store, impacts from traffic intensification, lack of parking on this site due to County Wellness Center operations on the adjacent property, non-compliance with the parking standards, operational issues with deliveries, and no public convenience being served through the granting of another liquor license. The issues raised by the appellant were adequately reviewed and analyzed as part of the Zoning Administrator hearing. The grocery store use is a permitted use in the General Commercial (GC) District and, therefore the City has no authority to evaluate the establishment of this use at this location. The proposed parking complies with and exceeds the City's parking standards. Although traffic at this site would intensify, the traffic associated with a change in building tenancy and land use was planned, analyzed and incorporated into the EIR and General Plan 2020. As discussed and explained in the following report, staff recommends that the appeal points have no merit. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval of the project subject to conditions. PROPERTY FACTS Address/Location: 330 Bellam Blvd Parcel Number(s): 009-280-06 Property Size: 1 172,465 sq ft 3.96 acres Nei ATTACHMENT REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP09-002 Page 2 Site Characteristics General Plan Designation Zoning Desi nation Existing Land -Use Project Site: General Commercial (GC) General Commercial (GC) Vacant retail building North: Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential MR3 Multi family townhomes South: Light Industrial/Office 1-I/10 Light Industrial/ ice 1-I/10 County Wellness Center East: GC/LI/O GC/LI/0 Restaurant and vacant lots West: LI/O LI/O County Wellness Center Site Description/Setting: The subject site is a flat lot that totals 3.96 cres 465 sq. ft) in size. The property is located near the southeast corner of the Bellam and Kerne evard intersection. The site is currently developed with an approximately 36,000 sq. ft. commercial building and 177 on-site parking spaces. Fifteen of the 177 parking spaces on this site are reserved by an easement for perpetual use of the adjacent property to the south, currently owned by County of Marin. The existing building is currently vacant and was last occupied by Circuit City. The site is surrounded by a variety of land uses with medium density residential townhomes to the north side across Bellam Blvd, a one story restaurant and vacant lots to the east (rear), a one story building hosting the County Wellness Center to the south side and a multi story structure for the County Wellness Clinic to the front (west). Primary access to the subject site is from a driveway on Bellam at the center of the site. Secondary access to the site is through a driveway at the rear of the site off Bellam and driveway off Kerner Blvd through the County property and into this site. The rear access off Bellam serves as the primary access to the loading docks at the rear of the building and also serves as an access easement for adjacent properties. BACKGROUND Background: In 1973, the property was originally created as part of the "Bahia de San Rafael Industrial Park," a large light industrial park subdivision that created development lots along Bellam, Kerner and Francisco Blvd's. This Recorded Map (RM15-054) included a 40' sanitary sewer and drainage easement through the site from the southeast corner to the northwest corner and a 50 -foot wide building setback easement along Bellam Blvd. In 1979, the subject property and the immediately adjacent property were re -subdivided again (PM016- 084) into their current form. This subdivision map included many of the easement that currently exist on this site today, including a 40 -foot wide roadway and utility easement along the rear (east) property line, a 40' sanitary sewer and drainage easement through the site from the southeast corner to the northwest corner and a 50 -foot wide building setback easement along Bellam Blvd. In 1979, the City approved a 38,981 sq ft Handyman hardware store on the subject lot. In 1987, the Handyman store was converted to a Circuit City. The project included the removal of some of the existing building floor area and the addition of new floor area. The total floor area for the Circuit City was 35,708 sq. ft. In 2005, Seagate Canal Associates, LLC, the previous owner of the subject site (330 Bellam Blvd) granted Seagate SRBC Associates, LLC, the previous owner of the adjacent site to the south (3230- 3260 Kerner Blvd) a parking and access easement on their site. Although both properties are now owned by different entities (SimVest Real Estate, LLC owns subject site and County of Marin owns adjacent REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP09-002 Page 3 site), the easements are still in effect as they run with the land. This easement grants 15 of the 177 parking spaces on the subject site (located along the drainage ditch at the west side of the site) for use exclusive use by the adjacent property and grants pedestrian and vehicular access through the subject site to the adjacent site. All other previous easements recorded as part of the original subdivision also remain in effect. In 2008, the Circuit City use closed and the building has remained vacant since. Project History: March 30, 2009. Formal applications submitted for Environm a d n Review Permit, Sign Permit and Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN). April 28, 2009. Project deemed incomplete for processing due to the need for additional information and the requirement that an application for Administrative Use Permit for outdoor dining be filed. An incompleteness letter was sent to the applicant. May 1, 2009. Revised plans and materials submitted in response to the incompleteness letter. In addition, an application for an Administrative Use Permit was also filed to accompany the other previously filed applications for the proposed outdoor dining area. May 1, 2009. Applications deemed complete for processing. May 1, 2009. Applications scheduled for Zoning Administrator (ZA) hearing on May 19, 2009 and notices of said hearing were mailed to property owner, residents, businesses and neighborhood groups/associations within 300 feet of the site as well as persons who requested to be notified of this application. In addition, the site was posted with a public hearing notice board. May 19, 2009. The ZA hearing was conducted. The ZA explained the purpose and the necessity of the various planning permits and clarified the scope of the City's review and authority for these applications. During the hearing, the applicant, business operators and property owners presented the proposed project. The ZA then opened the public hearing and accepted comments from seven members of the public. The ZA posed questions of the applicant and property owner to obtain clarification on the project. The ZA also obtained responses to questions raised during the public hearing from the applicant, operator and property owner. Following closures of the public hearing, the ZA acted to continue the matter to May 20, 2009 to allow for the review and consideration of the numerous comments raised at the hearing. May 20, 2009. After review and consideration of the testimony presented at the May 19, 2009 hearing, the ZA rendered a decision on the project, approving the project with conditions. Notice of the decision, including transmittal of the meeting minutes and findings and conditions of approval were provided to the applicant and their team as well as the members of the public who requested such notice. A copy of the Zoning Administrator meeting minutes, from May 19 and 201h are attached (Exhibit 3). The ZA also provided the appeal rights for which any aggrieved party could appeal the decision. The meeting minutes include the findings for the approval and the conditions of approval imposed on the project. June 8, 2009. The appeal was scheduled for June 23, 2009 Planning Commission hearing. The appellant submitted an email to staff requesting a continuance to July 14th due to ongoing discussions with Mi Pueblo representatives. This request for continuance was granted and the item was scheduled for hearing on July 14th The project proposes to re -tenant an existing commercial building formerly used by Circuit City with a new grocery store. As part of the re -tenanting of the building, the applicant has proposed certain improvements to the building and site that require planning permits. 11 ➢ An Environmental and Design Review Permit is re the structure, including new architectural features, materials as well as changes to the site to rept parking lot design to accommodate required ce: ➢ An Administrative Use Permit is required to aIIb4G the food service establishment; �ta�te the exterior modifications to design, new colors and on the site and changes to the outdoor seating/dining in conjunction with ➢ A Sign Permit is required to allow the preliminary sign design for wall and site signage; and, ➢ Finding Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) in order to allow off -sale liquor license. A letter from Jeff Aldez of Mi Pueblo Foods providing background of the company and responses to the appeal points is attached (Exhibit 4a). Additionally, a letter from Mr. Aldez regarding their justification for the PCN is that was presented to the Zoning Administrator is also attached (Exhibit 4b). The complete project, including all the details, are provided in the project plans submitted for this project (distributed to Commission under separate cover). A summary of the project description is provided below. Use: The project proposes to reuse the existing commercial building formerly used by Circuit City as a new grocery store. The proposed grocery store would be a full service grocery store, with a specialty of Hispanic food and products. The proposed grocery store offers the sale of produce, frozen goods, meats, groceries, household products, prepared food and alcohol. The proposed grocery store would also contain a bakery, deli, bbq area, tortilleria and cremeria. The store is not proposed to operate past 11 pm. The primary entrance to the store would remain at the center of the front of the building, with 9 checkout stands. The project would also include an indoor seating area (19 tables/76 chairs) and an outdoor dining area (6 tables/18 chairs). The floor area dedicated to indoor dining totals 1,040 sq. ft, or approximately 3% of the 36,361 sq. ft store. Architecture: The proposed project would incorporate the following changes to the exterior of the structure: a) fagade renovations to all four sides of the structure to incorporate new building material and colors; b) redesign of the building entry; c) incorporation of new building materials and colors; and d) addition of trellis, columns, and pergolas along the front of the structure. In addition, the project would remove 440 sq. ft of enclosed entry area under the current entry tower and move the doors to the main building wall. Lastly, the project proposes the addition of an enclosed, 440 sq. ft. barbeque area at the front of the building. Site Improvements/ Landscaping: Site improvements are proposed to include enhancement and replanting of existing landscaped areas, creation of new outdoor dining/seating area at the front of the store, and modifications to the parking lot to provide required accessible (ADA) spaces. ANALYSIS Appeal issues: Within the statutory appeal period, an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's action was filed along with the required filing fee. The appellant, Ruth Donohugh owner of the adjacent Picante Restaurant, submitted a letter dated May 25, 2009, which is attached (Exhibit 5). The appeal letter cites numerous points of appeal. In addition, the appellant submitted a follow-up letter dated July 8, 2009. Given that this follow-up REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP09-002 Page 5 letter from the appellant was submitted after the staff report had been prepared, the points have not been addressed in this report. The points of appeal remain the original points raised in the May 251h letter. Below in bold italics are all of the appeal points presented in the May 25P letter followed by a staff response: 1. The overall restaurant portion of this grocery store is not ancillary. It is not a grocery store (per se) as it dedicates a substantial portion of it's square footage to a commercial restaurant kitchen, bakery/cafe, ice cream/shaved ice/juice bar and rotisserie chi en restaurant operation with an interior dining room of 19 tables and exteri rea of 6 tables. Staff Response: The subject property is located in the GC Zoning Distri n t trict, both grocery stores and restaurants are permitted land uses; these types of use (lowed to be established and to operate in the District without the need to secure a Use Permit. However, in this particular case, the food service portion of the use was not determined to be a separate use, but rather an ancillary use to the main use of the building, a grocery store. The Zoning Ordinance does not include a definition of ancillary, therefore, planning staff has historically used its professional judgment to evaluate whether a use contained as part of a business is ancillary or not. Through past practice, the general threshold to define whether a use is ancillary to a primary use is determined through the following factors: ➢ Whether the floor area dedicated to the use is less than 25% of the total area; ➢ Whether the amount of business, revenue or activity generated by the use is less than 25% of the main use; and ➢ Whether the hours of operation and intensity of operation is similar to the primary use. ➢ Whether the uses are composed in separate and demised tenant spaces. As an example, most retail establishments include a sales floor or showroom, office space for store management, backroom storage and ancillary other uses within their tenant space. The City does not count these various components as separate and primary uses, but, rather, considers them a retail use as a whole with ancillary office and storage. Office and storage space in a retail business are common uses and as long as they are not stand alone offices for a different business, are not situated in a separate tenant space, do not compromise more than 25% of the floor area or activity of the retail use, they are considered an ancillary use. In reviewing this proposed grocery store use, staff has determined that the dining component comprises less than 25% of the floor area of the grocery store use (approximately 3% of the total floor area). Furthermore, the retail sales of prepared foods, deli, bakery, etc., are common and integral components of nearly all large, full service grocery stores. Being that the prepared food, deli, bakery, juicery, etc are no different than the retail sales of groceries or other household products, that only leaves the dining area as an area that could even possibly be considered as a restaurant. Given the size of the dining area compared to the total floor area (approximately 3%) and the anticipated revenues from on site dining, staff concluded that the indoor seating/dining portion of the business as a minor, or ancillary, component of the business. Furthermore, the proposed Mi Pueblo grocery store is typical of most large, full service grocery stores found in the City, County and other parts of the country. Many newer full service grocery stores include a deli, coffee shop, bakery, prepared foods counter and kitchen and other food preparation areas. The intensity of the various components of food service contained in this proposed Mi Pueblo are not atypical to other grocery stores in the community, such as Whole Foods (Third St), both Safeway's (Downtown and Northgate One), Scotty's Market (Terra Linda), or Andy's Market (Loch Lomond). Furthermore, several of these markets include both indoor and outdoor seating. Given the REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP09-002 Page 6 size of the building and use, the amount of food preparation area contained in this use is typical of other grocery stores in this community. Therefore, the proposed Mi Pueblo use is considered a grocery store with ancillary food service. Being that the primary use of the building is a grocery store, staff does not consider ancillary uses as separate uses in terms of calculating parking or other zoning -related requirement's. 2. The interior dining room measures 1,404 sq ft and the outdoor seating area of 600 sq. ft. DOES constitute more than 25% of the interior dining room which i of consistent with the requirements of an administrative use permit as stated by the Staff Response: Section 14.17.110 of the Zoning Ordinance prescribes standards for outdoor dining areas. A copy of the performance standards for outdo i attached (Exhibit 6). The particular section relating to the size limit of outdoor dining area i eed in subsection C.3 of this chapter and states "The proposed area for outdoor eating shall not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the indoor seating area." In applying this standard to this use, as well as other outdoor dining uses that have been processed and approved throughout the City, staff has used the number of chairs as the measurement of area for determining the size limit of the outdoor dining. In this particular case, the grocery store proposes 76 chairs inside and 18 chairs outside, resulting in outdoor seating that is 24% of the indoor capacity. Even if staff were to evaluate the appellants claim that the floor area of the indoor seating should be measured to establish outdoor seating, staff has calculated a the floor area of the indoor seating by creating a rectangular box around the outermost area of the indoor seating, resulting in an area of 1,040 sq. ft (26 feet in depth and 40 feet in width). Staff is unsure as to how the appellant has measured 600 sq ft for the area of outdoor dining. According to staff's calculations, the proposed outdoor area would total 266 sq ft, or 25% (14 feet in depth by 19 feet in width) of the indoor seating area. However, as indicated above, the floor area has not been staff's past practice for measurement of the intensity of floor area and has been provided for illustrative purposes only. 3. Review of all of the major grocery stores in Marin that have seating for dining on site was performed what is considered ancillary food service for grocery store and the proposed number of tableslseats at the proposed Mi Pueblo are grossly in excess of the norm. Staff Response: The applicant has provided tabulation of the number of seats and tables at other grocery stores in the City and County. Staff has not investigated all of the other examples cited in the appeal letter to verify the assertions made by the appellant. As discussed above in the response to appeal points 1 and 2, it is staff's determination that the proposed operation and activities, including the amount of indoor dining are consistent and typical of other grocery store uses that have prepared food service and associated dining. 4. Part of the parking that is proposed for use is under lease with the new Health and Wellness Clinic and the parking on the Circuit City site and the clinic site are not adequate for all the clinic and the proposed Mi Pueblo. Staff Response: As illustrated on sheet P101 of the project plans, currently there are a total of 177 parking spaces on this subject property. Pursuant to a Grant of Easement dated March 16, 2005 between the subject site (330 Bellam) and the adjoining property (currently owned by the County of Marin), 15 of the 177 parking spaces on the subject site (located along the drainage ditch at the west side of the site) are granted in perpetuity to the adjoining property owner. In addition, this easement also grants access REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP09-002 Page 7 and egress rights to the adjacent property across the parking lot access these spaces. Therefore, 162 spaces are provided on the subject site for use by the existing vacant commercial building. A copy of this easement is attached (Exhibit 7). The property owner has indicated that they have temporarily leased an additional three rows of parking from their site to the County during the time while the building is vacant (January 2009 until approximately August 2009). This temporary lease agreement is month-to-month and will be terminated prior to occupancy by the new tenant. In evaluating the adequacy of the on-site parking, the City is required to evaluate the parking demand of the proposed use and whether it provides on-site parking as required by the Chapter 18 of the Zoning Ordinance (Parking). The City is not able to apply arbitrary parking requirements based on assumed or anticipated use of a building. The parking rates are established by City Ordinance which originate from the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) and are based on tionwide averages of the parking demands of different uses. In this particular case, the pri of the building is a grocery store and the Zoning Ordinance includes a parking require ro stores. of 1 space for every 250 sq feet of gross floor area. The existing building is 35,931 in size, plus a 440 sqGlosed entry area under the entry tower, for a total of 36,371 sq. ft. As part of the project, the applicant has proposed to remove the floor area from under entry tower and move the doors inward, thus eliminating 440 sq. ft. of floor area. In addition, the applicant has proposed to add an enclosed 440 sq. ft. indoor bbq area at the front. Therefore, there is no net change in the floor area of the existing building. In applying the parking rates established by the City's Zoning Ordinance, the 36,371 sq. ft. building requires the provision of 145 on-site parking spaces. Given that the proposed project provides 162 spaces (not including the15 granted in perpetuity to the County through the grant of easement), the project provides 17 more spaces than that required by the City's Zoning Ordinance. In conclusion, the project is consistent with the parking requirements. Staff has gone so far as provide a hypothetical analysis to the appellant of the project's compliance with the parking standards if the dining area were to be considered a separate, non -ancillary use. Under this hypothetical exercise, the Zoning Ordinance requires 1 space for every 50 sq ft of dining area in a restaurant. The food service, kitchen, food preparation areas and back rooms of restaurants are not counted in the parking calculation. Based on an indoor dining area of 1,040 sq. ft, the parking requirement for that area would be 21 spaces (1,040 sq ft/50 sq ft). The parking requirement for that same area if it were considered as part of the grocery store would be 4 spaces (1,040 sq. ft/250 sq ft). This would result in a net increase in the parking requirement of 17 spaces. Please note that in accordance with the performance standards for outdoor dining, outdoor dining areas that meet the performance standards are not required to provide any additional parking than that required for the indoor dining, given that they are considered to be seasonal in use. As previously mentioned, the site contains 162 parking spaces, 17 more than that required for the grocery store use, therefore even if the dining area were to be counted separately in terms of parking, the site provides on-site parking consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. However, staff would like to stress that this hypothetical exercise is not how the parking requirements have been or are typically or practically applied to ancillary uses. 5. The ZA states that there are 162 parking spaces on site. The plan actually shows 160 dedicated to the project with 15 and a restriping to make 17 dedicated to the Clinic. Additionally, there are on file differing and conflicting square footage totals ascribed to the same building. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP09-002 Page 8 Staff Response: Regarding the parking, see response to appeal point #4 above. As for differing floor area calculations, it is not uncommon for there to be differing floor area calculations in City files for a particular building. There are many nuances to calculating floor area and over the years, they may have been calculated slightly differently, i.e. measuring from outside of walls vs. inside of walls. Furthermore, given the increases in technology and the now common application of computer aided drafting, floor area calculations have become more precise and accurate throughout the years. The applicant has demonstrated on the project plans both the existing and proposed floor area. Although the plans do not identify the existing enclosed entry area as existing floor area, the City's definition of floor area would count that space as floor area (floor area is defined as gross total of all enclosed building space, excluding parking garages). A review of the planning files reveals that, at the time of the Design Review Permit for the renovation of the commercial building into Circuit City, the square footage of the building was identified as 35,700. The building permit issued for that project identified the floor area as 36,000 sq. ft. Planning calculations of floor area do not include walls like the Uniform Building Code calculations for floor area. Although there may be a difference of square footage, the difference is negligible and is attributed to different methods of calculation. Regardless, there has not been any construction of floor area without the benefit of city permits and all the existing space is considered legal. Given that there are no illegal additions of floor area or expansions to the building and the building satisfies the City's parking and floor area ratio requirements, this point is moot. 6. The conditions created by the Loop configuration and the new clinics warrant an updated traffic study as the underlying conditions have changed under which Circuit City was originally permitted to operate under the City's Zoning Ordinancee ZA's report did agree that traffic would intensify with Mi Pueblo. /r1 Staff Response: The City's Zoning Ordinance prescribes uses that are rmit c nditionally permitted in the varying zoning districts within the City. As previously m e , grocery stores are considered to be permitted uses in the GC Zoning District. Therefore, no se Permit is required. If this retenanting did not propose any exterior modifications, outdoor dining or liquor off sale, then there would be no discretionary planning permits and no public notice. The project would only need to obtain a ministerial building permit and could begin its operation. Furthermore, in adopting the City's General Plan 2020 and the Zoning Ordinance, traffic analysis was prepared for the entire City to account for all the existing buildings and their potential to be occupied or reoccupied by the wide range of permitted and conditionally permitted uses. Therefore, the traffic associated with the retenanting of exiting buildings with permitted uses was considered, analyzed, evaluated and incorporated as part of the City's baseline traffic conditions. Staff notes that if this was a vacant site and a new building was proposed or if the project proposed an addition of net new floor area to the existing building, the traffic associated with that additional floor area would be need to be evaluated in the City's traffic model to evaluate the potential impacts that it could have on the City's roadway system, and would require a traffic analysis and traffic mitigation fees. However, that is not the case for this application as the project only proposes the reuse of an existing commercial building with a permitted use with no additional new floor area. The appellant is correct in the statement that the reuse would generate more traffic than historical levels of Circuit City. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the project and identified the change in use to a grocery store would result in the generation of between 83 and 108 new A.M. peak hour trips and 226 to 308 new P.M. peak hour trips. However, as discussed above, the proposed grocery store use is a permitted use in the GC District and as part of the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan 2020 (adopted in 2004), the traffic generation from the wide range of allowable uses REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP09-002 Page 9 permitted in the GC District were incorporated into the traffic analysis prepared for the General Plan 2020 EIR as existing baseline conditions and has been accounted in the traffic system. The loading dock in the back of Circuit City is not one of the principal entrances to the new clinics. With deliveries to the grocery store occurring in this loading docks, it is inconceivable all of the delivery trucks are proposed to exit via the main entrance to the clinics (onto Kerner Blvd) with two patient crosswalks and handicapped access. If the delivery trucks exit the site via Bellam Blvd it sis a one lane street and then they would have to make a U-turn in front of all the residences and there is not room to do that. No provision has been made for delivery trucks for this project as the one lane street configuration abuts residential area. Staff Response: Grocery store uses are permitted uses, therefore, the City does not have the ability to regulate any component of the proposed use or operations. For uses that are conditionally permitted in a zone, a Use Permit would be required for that use before it could begin its operation and as part of the use permit, use -related issues could be subject to review and conditions of apprpp?pQQVal could be required. ff the project involved major changes to the site plan, this would be reviewart of the Design Review Permit. However, as proposed, there are no major changes prise the site plan or the loading area and therefore the existing conditions would remain. Regardless, staff has still reviewed and considered this issuert �e ZA hearing and concluded that there would be no conflict. Both the former C uit nd previous hardware store conducted their loading and unloading at the rear of the buil hat is the designated area on this property for loading/unloading to occur. Although the grocery store use may have more daily deliveries than the previous uses, there is a dedicated loading dock area at the rear of the building that does not impede with the wide vehicular pathway along the rear property line. Furthermore, many of the vehicles that deliver to grocery stores are small trucks or vans, rather than all large trucks, which is typical of grocery stores except for large chain stores such as Safeway. Regardless, there is ample turning area on the site to allow delivery vehicles to adequately maneuver on the site and exit from three different points from the site (two onto Bellam Blvd and one onto Kerner Blvd). This site has better loading/unloading facilities and turning opportunities than many of the existing sites in San Rafael. The City is not in a position to monitor the driving habits of delivery drivers and assumes that those persons delivering to the site will use caution while entering or exiting the site. These concerns with loading and unloading were heard by the applicant during the ZA hearing and they indicated a willingness to work with the appellant or any other interested parties to address any concerns. Regardless though, the City does not have the Use Permit authority to evaluate or condition the loading operations of a permitted use. 8. How can the Fire Department station on Castro Street respond to emergencies when the only way in an out is on Bellam and big trucks block the clinic entrance. Staff Response: Staff consulted with the Deputy Fire Marshall to review this issue. The Fire Prevention Division did identify a similar concern since the rear driveway is signed and used by the County Health Clinic as a means to access their site (through a recorded easement). This driveway also serves as one of the fire lanes on the site. However, given that the City does not have Use Permit control, there are no changes to the location or design of the loading dock and this loading dock is part of the approved building, the City cannot condition or regulate the use. Furthermore, the plans as presented illustrate a code compliant roadway and ample room for loading trucks to perform their deliveries without impacting the fire access/lanes. It remains upon the business operator to monitor the loading area and ensure that deliveries are performed without blocking access to the driveway. Regardless, the City does still maintain enforcement power through Code Enforcement if the fire lane is blocked and REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP09-002 Page 10 can cite the business owner is proper fire access is not maintained. Furthermore, if the roadway is blocked, the easement holder also maintains enforcement rights to preserve access to their site. It should also be noted that the rear driveway is not the only way in and out to this site nor the only way in and out of the adjacent County Wellness center. There are multiple entrance/exits into this site, two from Bellam, one from Kerner. In addition, there are numerous secondary means of access into this site and the adjacent County wellness clinic site from the alleys and roadways behind the properties on Kerner (Madera St). Therefore, the plans as presented would not impact emergency vehicle access and provide numerous other primary or alternate means for access to the site. 9. There is no need for finding of public convenience or necessity to allow off sale liquor sales. A cursory review of Alcohol and Beverage Control records show disciplinary actions against other Mi Pueblo operations. This warrants an investigation by someone ho understands the sections violated, disciplinary actions and suspensions/liquor licen cellation history of the Mi Pueblo chain of store. Furthermore, the PCN should be deu o the high density of existing liquor sales, existing neighborhood crimes associate alcohol and proximity of the adjacent residential area. Staff Response. The project proposes to sell alcohol for off -sale purposes, me . that liquor and beer would be sold from this site, but not consumed on this site. This type of sale is extremely common and found in most full service grocery store in San Rafael, the county and other parts of the State. As part of the appeal, the applicant has submitted copies of disciplinary actions by the State Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) against other Mi Pueblo facilities in the Bay Area. The appellant's claim that these issues warrant an investigation by someone who understands the violation, disciplinary actions and suspension history of Mi Pueblo. In response, prior to the ZA hearing and following the filing of the appeal, staff consulted with the State Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC), the agency that is empowered by State law to conduct such a review and make those decisions and staff offers the following response: a) Based on state law, ABC is the agency charged with issuing liquor licenses. ABC regulations are related to licenses for alcohol sales at a specific address or site. ABC has indicated that violations are specific to particular location and they do not have the authority to deny an application for a license at a particular location based on violations at another location. b) ABC did indicate that if one of the officers of an entity (corporation) applying for a license has certain types of felony offenses or is currently in prison, then ABC can deny a license for a new location since the officer of the corporation is in violation. c) As of late June, ABC concluded its review of the application for a liquor license at this location. The notice of the pending license application was noticed by ABC to residents within 500 feet of this site and advertised in the local newspaper. As prescribed by State law relating to liquor license applications, ABC does not notice other commercial business, just residents. The ABC officer processing this application stated that their review of the officers of the corporation revealed that none of the officers of the Mi Pueblo entity have any felony convictions or are currently in jail. Furthermore, the ABC officer informed staff that the liquor license for the proposed Mi Pueblo is ready to be issued subject to City's approval of a Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) and the opening of the business. In terms of the City's scope and role in the review of liquor licenses, ABC is the agency that has the authority to issue licenses. In certain circumstances, ABC will not issue a new license unless the local government body (city or county) first grants a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN). The PCN is required when ABC determines that there is an undue concentration of such licenses based upon county -wide averages in the census tract in which the proposed license would REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP09-002 Page 11 be located. The San Rafael City Council has adopted Resolution No. 10299 to govern the procedures for the City's review and criteria for determination of whether such license would provide a public convenience or necessity. A copy of the resolution is attached (Exhibit 8). In summary, there are seven criteria for determining whether the public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance of an off -sale retail liquor license, including: a). Whether the issuance of the license involves an existing business with a license which is being transferred to a new location and which will not result in a increase in the total number of off -sale license; b). Whether the business by reason of its location, character manner or method or operation, merchandise or potential clientele will serve a segment of the City's business or residents not presently being service c). Whether the business will be located within 1, 000 feet of incompatible facility, such as public or private schools, day care enters, churches, parking, homeless shelters and alcohol rehabilitation centers and facilities designed and operated to serve mono d). Whether the location of the license will be in a crime data area lid X20% greater number of reported crimes than the average number of rep es l all rime date area n the City over the previous year e). Whether the issuance of the license involves an exist b s which has been located at a site which has had three or more reported crimes de in #4 above; f). Whether the issuance of the license will promote the goals and policies of the City's General Plan,; g). Whether any other information supplied by the applicant or other competent evidence shows that public convenience will be served by the issuance of a license. The ZA reviewed the request for a PCN and found that the request was consistent with the above criteria. The ZA findings granting the PCN are included as part of the findings contained in the ZA meeting minutes (Exhibit 3). As part of the public hearing process, the ZA found that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that issuance of a PCN to allow liquor sales at this grocery store would provide a convenience to the shoppers of this facility given that the opportunity to buy liquor would in conjunction with typical shopping for purchase of groceries, household products produce, meats and other supplies typically found at other full service grocery stores. Off -sale of beer, wine and hard alcohol is a common component of nearly all full service grocery stores in this City, as well as in other communities throughout the state. In addition, given the operational plan and amount of area dedicated to liquor sales, the liquor sales are expected to make up less than 4% of the overall sales from the store, a minor portion of the merchandise sales. Lastly, the Police Department has reviewed the proposed application for a PCN, including the crime stats in this area of the City, and the business plan for the liquor and alcohol sales, and recommends that approval of the PCN is warranted and there are no issues. Police Department staff stated that they do not have many issues with the other large full scale grocery stores that conduct off sale of beer, wine or liquor. Most of their issues with liquor sales are a result of the liquor stores or smaller grocery stores in the City. A copy of Mi Pueblo's justification of why their use would serve a public convenience is attached (Exhibit 4b). Based on these facts, the PCN was granted for the Mi Pueblo store. 10. Although the neighborhood has asked for a market for many years, there have been 8 small to medium size markets that have opened up within a square mile, most of whom sell alcohol. Staff Response: The appellant is correct that there has been a long standing desire in the Canal neighborhood for a full service grocery store. Many Canal residents have lobbied the City for a full service, large grocery store in the east San Rafael area since the closest full-service grocery store is nearly 2 miles REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP09-002 Page 12 (Safeway in Downtown, United Market, Trader Joe's, Andy's Market and Whole Foods in Central San Rafael). Furthermore, a full service grocery store in the East San Rafael area was one of the needed neighborhood serving uses identified by the City Council for the City's Project Selection Process (PSP). Staff understands the concern expressed by other small businesses, especially small markets, on the potential impacts of this use on their businesses. Staff is not dismissing or ignoring this potential impact on other small businesses; however, competition is not an issue that the City has an ability to evaluate or regulate as part of this process. The City only establishes allowable land uses in various Zoning districts and evaluates potential impacts from conditionally permitted uses; the free market controls to regulates the success or various businesses. The Zoning Ordinance allows grocery stores by right in this Zoning District. Further, there are no City regulatory limits or policies limiting the number of grocery stores in any one area. In this particular case, the scope of the City's review is that of the exterior design modifications, compliance of the outdoor dining with the city's performance standards, warrants of whether another liquor license in the area would serve a public convenience or necessity and preliminary sign design. The issue regarding whether another liquor license should becopis previously discussed in appeal point #9 above. 11. The proposed project should not be exempt from Environmental Review because the actual nature of their business model is not a true, traditional grocery store and constitutes a new use. The intensification of both parking and traffic are detrimental to the environment. Staff Response: The rationale and analysis for which this project qualifies as categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are provided in the Environmental Determination section below. As discussed throughout this report, the proposed use is not a new type of use and has been determined to be a grocery store, similar to other grocery stores in the City and County in terms of the types of products sold and intensity of use. Furthermore, even if this was a new use is not grounds or justification for warranting environmental review under the provisions of CEQA. This project qualifies for an exemption from the requirements of CEQA under Section 15301 (Existing facilities), as discussed below. Lastly, the proposed use is a permitted use in the GC District and provides more parking that that required by the City's Zoning Ordinance for this type of use. Given that the grocery store use is a permitted use and there is no expansion of floor area, the traffic intensification or de -intensification associated with all retenanting of existing building by permitted and conditionally permitted uses were incorporated, evaluated and analyzed as part of the environmental review conducted as part of the adoption of the City's General Plan 2020. San Rafael General Plan 2020 Consistency: There are a few and pertinent General Plan policies that are applicable to this project. As part of the ZA review and action, it was determined that the project is consistent with these policies. Land Use Element - LU -15 (Convenience Shopping) This policy states "encourage the retention and improvement of existing retail stores and services in residential neighborhoods that provide needed neighborhood services and reduce traffic." This project would place a full service grocery store adjacent from a high density residential area. Given that there are no large full service grocery stores within 2 miles of the canal, this would place a needed service near residents. Land Use Element - LU -23 (Land Use Map and Categories) REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP09-002 Page 13 The site is designated a general commercial which allows general retail and service uses, restaurants, automotive sales/service and hotels/motels. Neighborhood Element - NH -49 (Conflicting Uses) This policy states "prevent the encroachment of new residential development into the Light Industrial/Office District to minimize conflicts. Businesses locating adjacent to residential areas shall be designed to minimize nuisance impacts." This new business would place a new grocery store across the street from residential uses. The subject site is a commercially zones property that allows grocery stores by right, therefore through the development of the zoning ordinance it has been determined that grocery store uses would be appropriate for the area. Furthermore, the proposed use would not operate outside of typical hours of typical grocery stores. Neighborhood Element - NH -52 (New Business Development) This policy states "encourage and give priority to new business development that benefits the neighborhood through provision of needed services, low traffic impacts, or employment of a high percentage of neighborhood residents. Encourage opportunities for local residents to own and operate businesses." As previously discussed, the Canal neighborhood has expressed a long standing desire for a full service grocery store in the Canal. Although there are many smaller neighborhood or specialty markets in the area, there is no large full scale grocery store. Furthermore, through the public hearing process, staff has received over 50 calls from residents in the Canal seeking employment at this facility. The operator of the grocery store has stated that their other facilities include large portions of the employees that reside in the same neighborhood as their stores. COPY Zoning Ordinance Consistency: The ZA determined that the project is consistent with all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as in various sections above and expanded on below. Chapter 14.05 - Commercial Districts The proposed use is a permitted use in the GC District and therefore, not use Permit is required for the proposed use. The modifications to the structure would comply with all development standards for the GC District, including setbacks, height, lot coverage and landscaping requirements. Chapter 14.17 — Performance Standards The project as designed is consistent with the performance standards for outdoor dining/seating areas as it would be temporary/seasonal, does not exceed 25% of the seating/dining area of the inside, is not permanently covered and uses movable seating/fixtures. The Administrative Use Permit was approved with certain conditions of approval that require continued compliance with the performance standards for outdoor dining/seating, adequate lighting levels for safety purposes for the outdoor area, confirmation that no on site alcoholic beverages would be consumed, required trash cleanup, prevention of solid screening in front of the seating area to allow visibility into the area from the parking lot, and confirmation that the outdoor seating would only operate in conjunction with the grocery store use and hours or operation. Chapter 14.18 — Parking The proposed use would provide 162 parking spaces, more parking than the 145 spaces required by the Chapter 14.18 of City's Zoning Ordinance. The amount of compact parking spaces contained in the parking lot does not exceed the 30% maximum prescribed by the Ordinance. Staff does note that as part of the ZA process, a provision for bicycle parking was inadvertently left out of the conditions of approval was the requirement for bicycle parking. Chapter 14.18.090 requires retail uses provide bicycle parking equal to 3% of the total vehicle spaces. Therefore, four bicycle parking spaces should be required. Staff has included this requirement for four REPORT TO PLANNING - Case No: AP09-002 Page 14 bicycle spaces in the draft conditions of approval. (Design Review Permit Condition of Approval #24 and 44) Chapter 14.25 — Environmental and Design Review Permits The project was reviewed for conformance with the design review criteria contained in this chapter and was determined that the project would comply with those standards given that that the exterior modifications that are proposed would: a) upgrade to the existing building design and would create a design scheme for the entire building; b) provide accent features and visual interest to break up the large expanses of walls; c) address and upgrade all four sides of the existing building; d) use high quality materials for the construction of the exterior modifications; e) add visual relief and interest to the main entry and front fagade of the building through the addition of pergolas, tile wainscoting and columns; f) improve landscaping at the main entry to the building and reestablish areas of failed landscaping; .g) provide defined walkways and pedestrian entryways to the site to create a pedestrian friendly design from Bellam Blvd and encourage more pedestrian activity to the site; h) incorporate the proposed ancillary outdoor seating/dining area into the existing site without reducing existing on-site parking area; and i) improve the sense of entry to the building through the redesign of the building entry and addition of design features to the front of the structure. The ZA imposed certain conditions of approval on the Design Review permit. Most of the conditions are standard conditions of approval, but there are a few unique conditions to this proposal, including the need to add an architectural element to screen and cover the proposed vending machines at the front of the building (Design Review conditions #18-20). IPY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATIONC ve The Environmental and Design Review Permit chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 14.25) does not require Design Review Board review of an administrative -level Environmental and Design Review Permit. The City processes many administrative -level Design Review Permits and most of these are administered at staff level. The Zoning Ordinance provide the opportunity and ability for staff to refer these administrative level permits to the Design Review Board for review and recommendation, if there are any substantial design issues or questions about a proposed design. However, in this case staff determined that the proposed modifications to the structure were well designed and consistent with City design policies and the appeal points did not raise any design related issues. Therefore, staff found no need to refer this matter to the Design Review Board. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts additions to existing structures less than 10,000 square feet on sites where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and in that are not environmentally sensitive. This exemption was found to be acceptable given that: a) the proposed project involves the retenanting of an existing commercial structure with a use that is permitted in the zoning District; b) the exterior modifications would not result in an increase in floor area, the project proposes minor exterior modifications to building materials and colors and site and landscaping improvements that do not change the mass or bulk of the existing building and the site is located on a completely developed and graded lot and there are no known sensitive environmental factors located on this site. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING / CORRESPONDENCE Notice of hearing for the project was conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP09-002 Page 15 occupants within a 300 -foot radius of the subject site and the Baypoint Lagoons HOA, Rafael Bay Townhomes HOA, Spinnaker Pt HOA, Canal Alliance and Canal Area Property & Business Owners Association, and all other interested parties who requested to be notices of this hearing, 15 calendar days prior to the date of the Zoning Administrator hearing and this Planning Commission hearing. Public notice was also posted on the subject site 15 calendar days prior to the date of all meetings, including this hearing (Exhibit 9). Copies of all written public correspondence on the proposed project received prior to the Zoning Administrator hearing are attached to this report as Exhibit 10. In addition, there were oral comments provided to the Zoning Administrator during the public hearing. There were four comments in opposition to the project, two comments with questions about the project and one comment in favor of the project, These comments are contained as part of the attached Zoning Administrator minutes (Exhibit 3). In summary, the public comments received to date on this project include the following: ➢ Traffic intensification from the proposed change in use ➢ Impacts of the new grocery store on other smaller grocery store in the area ➢ The proposed use being more of a restaurant/food service use than a grocery store ➢ Lack of parking on the site to support the new use ➢ Existing lack of parking and traffic impacts on this site from the adjacent county health campus ➢ Potential for delivery truck to impede traffic for the county health center ➢ Unacceptable condition of the existing Bellam Blvd roadway and CnFly ➢ Lack of pedestrian friendly features in the area Aside from the appeal letter, there have been a 11 new pieces of written correspondence since the appeal was filed and copies are attached (Exhibit 11) ➢ Four letters express support for the project citing the stores green practices and the benefit of a supermarket in the area. One of the letters is from the County of Marin, which owns seven buildings adjacent to this site that are used as the County Health and Campus and the Marin Community Clinic. This letter cites that the County has support for the new use and cites that parking in the area is adequate for their patrons and employees. The letter does cite concern that the rear access easement that provides access to their facility remain unobstructed. ➢ Seven letters are from nearby residents and advocacy groups and express issues with the project, including traffic, impact on small businesses, odor from outdoor barbequing, oversaturation of alcohol sales in the area, crime and security issues, and loitering. OPTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator approval (staff recommendation); 2. Deny the appeal and uphold Zoning Administrator's approval with modifications, changes or additional conditions of approval; 3. Continue the appeal to allow the applicant or staff to address any of the Commission's comments or concerns; or 4. Grant the appeal and direct staff to return with a revised resolution granting the appeal and denying the project. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity/Location Map 22. -Dr2ft Resolution denying appeal and upholding ZoniRg Administrator's GeRditie REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP09-002 Page 16 3. Zoning Administrator Meeting Minutes, with findings and conditions of approval, May 19 and 20, 2009 4. Correspondence from Applicant a. Letter from Jeff Aldaz of Mi Pueblo foods Re: Response to Appeal, July 6, 2009 b. Letter from Jeff Aldaz of Mi Pueblo Foods, April 16, 2009 5. Correspondence from Appellant a. Letter of Appeal from Ruth Donohugh, Picante Restaurant, May 25, 2009 b. Follow-up Letter by Appellant, July 8, 2009 6. Chapter 14.17.110 of Zoning Ordinance - Performance Standards for Outdoor Dining 7. Grant of Easement dated March 16, 2005 8. City Council Resolution No 10299 - Procures and criteria for determination of Public Convenience or Necessity 10. Public Correspondence Prior to Zoning Administrator hearing 11. Public Correspondence Prior to Planning Commission hearing 330 Bellam Blvd - Vicinity Map N SCALE 1 : 4,068 200 0 200 400 600 FEET File #: AP09-002 Title: Vicinity Mao Exhibit: 1 REGULAR MEETING CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ZONING ADMINISTRATOR May 19 and May 20, 2009 1. 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) — Requests for an Environmental and Design Review Permit, Use Permit, Sign Permit and Public Convenience of Necessity (PCN) to allow: a) exterior modifications to the existing commercial building, including an alteration to the building entry, new colors and materials on the building and new wooden trellises and columns along front of building; b) outdoor dining area on the private sidewalk area in front of the structure; c) new building signs; and d) alcohol sales in the new grocery store; 009-280-06; General Commercial (GC) District; , David Mena/Mena Architects, applicant; Simeon Commercial Properties, owner; File No's.: ED09-014/UP09-015/SR09-012/PCN09-001. Project Planner: Raffi Boloyan PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes to reuse an existing commercial building that was formerly used by Circuit City as a new grocery store. The project requires an Environmental and Design Review Permit for exterior changes to the building and site, an Administrative Use Permit for the outdoor seating/dining area, a Public Convenience and Necessity (PCN) to allow the off -sale of liquor from the grocery store and a Sign Permit for the preliminary design of the new signage. The proposed project would entail the following changes to the exterior of the structure: fagade renovations to all four sides of the structure to incorporate new building material and colors, redesign of the building entry to a new design, incorporation of new building materials and colors, addition of trellis, columns, and pergolas along the front of the structure, addition of a 455 sq foot barbeque area at the front of the building. Site improvements are proposed to include enhancement and replanting of existing landscaped areas, creation of new outdoor dining./seating area at the front of the store, modification so the parking lot to provide required accessible spaces. The complete project, including all the details, are provided in the project plans submitted for this project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15301 Class 1 of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts minor interior and exterior alterations to existing commerical buildings. PUBLIC HEARING Present at the meeting were Raffi Boloyan, Principal Planner, acting as the Zoning Administrator (ZA), Ruth Donohugh, 340 Bellam Blvd, Fernando Quezado of 50 Tiburon St, Neal Talley of 90 Belvedere St, Allyn Otnes of 425 Bahia Way, Christine Bachman of 10 Avocet Ct, Gloria Gasperor of 5 Avocet Ct, , Dwight Steeves of 244 Vista Del Mar. In addition, the following persons were present as part of the project and applicant team: Walt Stephenson (560 S Winchester Blvd, San Jose), Real Estate agent for Mi Pueblo, David Mena and Leon Lopez (600 Montgomery St, San Francisco), Mena Architects/ File #: AP09-002 Title: ZA Minutes. 5/19/09 & 5/20/09 Exhibit: 3-1 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) Re: ED09-014/UP09-06/SR09-012/PCN09-001 Date: May 19 and May 20, 2009 applicants, Bonnie Tragni (376 Sand Hill Rd, Scotts Valley), real estate for Mi Pueblo, Russ Pitto (70 Peninsula Rd, Belvedere), property owner/Simeon Properties and Susan Cronk (73 Broadmoor Ave, San Anselmo), property owner/Simeon Properties. The ZA opened the meeting at 10:08 a.m. by introducing himself and explaining the reasons for the hearing and the protocol for the meeting. The reasons this project requires a public hearing and discretionary planning permits are as follows: • Environmental and Design Review Permit to evaluate the exterior modifications to the structure, including new architectural features, new entry tower design, new colors and materials as well as changes to the site to replace landscaping on the site and changes to the parking lot design to accommodate required accessible spaces. • Administrative Use Permit to allow the outdoor seating/dining in conjunction with the food service establishment. • Sign Permit to allow the preliminary sign design for wall and site signage. • Finding Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) in order to allow off -sale liquor license. The ZA stated that the grocery store use, including the ancillary food service use, are both permitted uses in the General Commercial Zoning District and do not require a Use Permit for review and consideration. Therefore, the ZA stated that the scope of this hearing will be on the design of the exterior changes, including signs, the outdoor seating design and its consistency with the performance standards, and whether the there will be a public convenience or necessity served by the granting of the PCN for off - sale liquor sales. The ZA then explained to those present the procedures for today's hearing. First, the ZA would ask that the applicant and/or the project team to make a presentation on the project. He explained that they should try to keep it under 5 minutes. Then, the ZA would ask any questions of the applicant after their presentation. Then, the ZA would open the public hearing and accept public comments. He asked that the public try to limit their comments to 3-5 minutes and not be repetitive. The ZA would then answer any city - related questions that arose as a result of the public hearing and if any questions were best answered by the applicant, he would ask the applicant and their team to respond. Given the need to take minutes of the meeting, the ZA asked that everyone only speak when called upon, one person speak at a time, and that all comments be directed to the ZA (not to the applicant or members of the public). David Mena, project architect, introduced the project and stated that they are trying to convert a retail building to grocery store and trying to reuse as many existing material as possible. They are adding landscaping to the site to fill in depleted areas and addressing ADA upgrades to the site. They are trying to reuse as much of the "cube', the entry tower, but will give it a new look at feel to match the Mi Pueblo identity. They are also trying to re -use as many mechanical units on the roof in an attempt to be green. Mr. Mena distributed a colored elevation of the proposed project. Bonnie Tragni, VP for Real Estate for Mi Pueblo, introduced Mi Pueblo Foods. She stated that Mi Pueblo has 13 stores and they are a full service super market, with File H: AP09-002 Title: ZA Minutes. 5/19/09 & 5/20/09 Exhibit: 3-2 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) Re: ED09-014/UP09-06/SR09-012/PCN09-001 Date: May 19 and May 20, 2009 meat, produce, all types of groceries and household products. They also have a deli that primarily serves Hispanic/Latin American food. Mi Pueblo offers a place for pleasant shopping experience and offer customer service items like check cashing. They have requested a liquor license since they want to be a full service grocery store. Mi Pueblo has policies in place that they don't serve single serving containers, don't serve anything less than 16 ounces, have a strict policy to prohibit loitering, have 1-3 security guards on duty during operating hours. She also stated that they would hire 175-225 employees and this would be positive for the Canal area.. Mr. Mena continued that alcohol sales accounts for less than 2% of total sales, so it would be a minor part of the business. They also have a strict policy for removal of trash and preventing loitering. Lastly, he stated that the site would comply and actually exceed the City's parking requirements. The ZA asked Mr Mena if the roof equipment would all be new and whether it would be visible from the public right of way. Mr. Mena responded that most of it is existing, but the new equipment would be over the food service area and would be less than the 4 foot parapet in that area. They would ensure that all new equipment is screened from public view. The ZA asked the property owner to further explain the parking spaces over which the County and the Wellness Center holds easement rights. Mrs. Cronk stated that there are 15 spaces at the west side of the site that the County has exclusive rights to use. The County also has access rights into their site from the main entry to the site from Bellam as well as the rear entrance to the site off Bellam Blvd. These are noted on the site plan and she showed a plan depicting the parking and access easements. Cronk continued that they also have a short-term lease with the County to allow their use of additional parking in the parking lot while the property is vacant. However, this lease will terminate once Mi Pueblo is ready to start their construction and take over the lease. She also continued that the County has recently purchased a property at 3110 Kerner Blvd which would host 126 parking spaces for their use. She stated that once Mi Pueblo is operational, the County would only have access to the 15 spaces on the side of their property. The ZA also asked about the loading and where and how it would occur. Mr. Mena responded that most deliveries would occur by small or large van, with a daily large truck. These would occur in the rear at the designated loading dock. The ZA then opened the public hearing for public comments. Ruth Donohugh, stated that she owns the restaurant to the rear of this site. She is concerned with dining portion of the project. The City is calling it ancillary, but it has 96 seats and that restaurants should not be allowed as ancillary uses. She has called other grocery stores in the county and the most amount of seating in any of these stores is 14 tables. There will be more traffic as a result of this change in use. With the loop, all traffic is funneled to Bellam. There needs to be a full traffic study since this is an intensification of use. She continued that the primary access to the clinic is along the driveway along the rear of the building and that would conflict with deliveries for the grocery store. She doesn't understand the math used for parking since in her count of parking spaces, there File #: AP09-002 Title: ZA Minutes 5/19/09 & 5/20/09 Exhibit: 3-3 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) Re: ED09-014/UP09-06/SR09-012/PCN09-001 Date: May 19 and May 20, 2009 are only approximately 130 spaces on this site. There are already 9 other markets in the area, including a Smart and Final and this additional large grocery store and restaurant should not be allowed. Fernando Quezada, owner of Quezada Market, stated that he owns a small mom and pop store in the canal. He is also the VP of Canal small business chamber of commerce and represents those other businesses as well. He stated that all new businesses come in and take over other small business. Other small business in the Canal can't get approved to occupy because of lack of parking or intensification of use. He doesn't feel that there is a need for another grocery store in the area. Bellam Produce at 151 Bellam is planning to give up if this goes in. Although he understands free enterprise, this will not be an asset to the community. He asked that the date of the hearing be postponed to allow for him to talk to more businesses and get the word out. He just heard about this the other day. Neal Talley, asked where the 200 employees that will be working there are going to park if there are only 150 or so spaces on site? He said that most employees for this market will come from other small businesses in the area and this will put those others out of business. The 94 seats in this restaurant is excessive and asked how much parking would be generated. He also stated that there are no contingency plans for traffic or pedestrian access to the site. He concluded by stating that this new restaurant/deli would not only other Hispanic restaurants out of business, but other non -Hispanic restaurants such as Yu Shang as well. Alllyn Otnes, stated that at other Hispanic markets in the Canal, employees do not speak English. She asked if there would be any English speakers at this store. Christine Bachman, Baypoint Lagoons, stated that she has been a resident of Spinnaker and Baypoint Lagoons for 22 years. She asked what was done to estimate the amount of traffic that this new store would generate. There have been lots of changes to the roadways and the traffic conditions in the area since the original building was built. Gloria Gasperor, stated she is a resident in the nearby Baypoint area and stated that when the loop was done, nothing could have predicted what would come out of that reconfiguration. She stated it may be worth it to go back to pre -loop configurations. Traffic at Kerner and Bellam sometimes backs up a great distance. She sees a need for grocery store like this in the area. She has researched this particular business and feels they do a great job in the communities they have gone into. She suggested some of the other small business in the area may want to focus on specialization and they could succeed. She stated that she feels there is room for everyone to start their businesses. She does not want to see a building so large sit vacant, especially in these difficult economic times. Dwight Steeves, stated that the traffic study done for Target showed that traffic in the area was already saturated and past capacity. He asked how would traffic be dealt with if already past standards. He reiterated that the County uses the rear and main entry to this site for access and this would impact this new use. He continued that except for Bellam/Kerner, there are no cross walks in the area and this is dangerous. He is also concerned with the cleanliness of the site and food use with trash. He also File #: AP09-002 Title: ZA Minutes. 5/19/09 & 520/09 Exhibit: 3-4 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) Re: ED09-014/UP09-06/SR09-012/PCN09-001 Date: May 19 and May 20, 2009 continued that there are some issues in the area that need to be addressed and he understands that they are not the responsibility of just this site, but feels that someone, whether it be the city through tax dollars, or this owner or applicant. These include Bellam Blvd past this site needs to be redone, the paving is shot; street lights are dim and not bright; and median is in bad shape. He concluded by stating 94 seats is a restaurant, not an ancillary use. There being no other comments, the ZA stated that he would now respond to questions raised during the public hearing that were related to City regulations and would ask that the applicant or owner to respond to questions relating to the use or the site. The ZA responded to the issues related to the City regulations and requirements. First, the ZA stated that he understood the concern by other businesses on the potential impacts of this use on their businesses. The ZA stated that he is not trying to discount the potential impact nor the concern, but the issue of competition is not an issue that the City has an ability to evaluate or regulate as part of this process. The Zoning Ordinance allows grocery stores by right. There has also been a long standing desire from many residents in the Canal community for a large full service grocery store in the East San Rafael area since the closest full service grocery store is nearly 2 miles away. He reminded those in attendance of the scope of the City's review in this particular case was that of the exterior design modifications, compliance of the outdoor dining with the city's performance standards, warrants of a liquor license and whether it would serve a public convenience or necessity and the sign design In response to the uses, the ZA explained how the City's zoning ordinance works. Basically, in this particular zoning district, the GC District, grocery stores/supermarkets (that do not operate after 11 pm) and food service establishments (restaurants) are permitted uses. This means that they could operate without the need to obtain a use permit or any other discretionary planning permit. If the grocery store/super market operates past 11 pm, it would first need a Use Permit from the Planning Commission. If a restaurant includes a bar or live entertainment, it would also need a Use Permit. In this particular case, the use is a grocery store and the deli/food service is considered an ancillary use to the grocery store, therefore no Use Permit is required by the City. Without the requirement for the Use Permit, the City does not have the ability to review, condition or make decisions on the grocery store use. It is considered an appropriate use for the area. The ZA continued that all uses must also comply with the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In this particular case, the proposed use as a grocery store/super market is required to provide 1 space for every 250 square feet of floor area. The existing site provides more parking spaces that are required for a building of its size. Therefore it is considered consistent with the parking requirements. There were public comments that the food service is not ancillary, but a separate use and should provide parking as is required for a restaurant use. The ZA stated that given the area that is dedicated for use by the deli and seating (approximately 2.7% of the floor area of the store), the anticipated sales from the deli and food service, these types of uses are considered ancillary to the grocery store use. This has been the case with other grocery stores in the City that include a food service/deli and seating. File #: AP09-002 Title: ZA Minutes. 5/19/09 & 5/20/09 Exhibit: 3-5 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) Re: ED09-014/UP09-06/SR09-012/PCN09-001 Date: May 19 and May 20, 2009 Lastly, the ZA explained the traffic evaluation that was conducted for this project. The ZA first stated that Mr. Steeve's comments about the Target EIR and its conclusions were accurate. The Bellam/Kerner intersection, as well as some others in the area, do operate at or past the acceptable level of service (LOS) standards, the standards that the City uses to evaluate traffic impacts. The City has established LOS standards for the AM peak period (7-9am) and the PM peak period (4-6 pm). In this particular case, the proposed use is a permitted use in the GC District. The only reason that it is going through a planning process is due to the exterior design changes to the building and the need for a PCN for off -sale liquor sales. Although the change in use would increase the traffic generation from the site (according to the Institute of Traffic Engineers trips generation rates), traffic impacts from changes in use are not evaluated nor considered for uses that are considered permitted uses by the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance assumes some degree of intensification or de -intensification through the natural change of uses that occur over time in a commercial area. Buildings that reoccupy from one use to another permitted use are not required to undergo traffic studies or analysis. Throughout the City, there is on going change in uses that are permitted and some of these changes may intensity traffic while others would reduce traffic. Given that these changes are permitted uses, the City acknowledges there will be a natural transition and changes in permitted uses will balance out over time. Uses that are conditionally permitted, do require further traffic analysis In regards to the Bellam Blvd needing to be repaired, the ZA concurred with Mr Steeve's assessment that it is not a requirement that could be placed on this project or property owner, unless there was a nexus to impacts from the proposed new use. He stated that the existing road would be considered as part of the City's overall road resurfacing program and that the Public Works Department could provide additional information if Mr. Steeve's was interested as to the timing of when this street is scheduled to be resurfaced/repaired. The ZA offered to speak with the Public Works Department and provide Mr Steeves with additional information on the timing of the repairs. In regards to the parking on the site, the ZA asked Susan Cronk to respond to identify the location of all the parking spaces on this site and which ones are designated for use by the County Wellness Center. Susan Cronk stated that there are some spaces that are on the south side of the building that are currently signed by the County for their use, but these are not permanently for use by the County, only as a temporary short term lease while the building is vacant. The signs would be removed once the lease with the County is terminated. She stated that there are only the 15 spaces on the property owned by her group that are for use by the County. The remaining spaces are for exclusive use by Mi Pueblo and these spaces exceed the number required by the City parking ordinance for a grocery store. The ZA asked Mi Pueblo representative to respond to whether the employees would speak English in addition to Spanish. Bonnie Tragni stated that there would be bi lingual employees and that employees wear name tags that indicate the languages that they speak. David Mena expanded that nearly all the customer service representatives and the managers are bi lingual, so if they can't find an employee any of the managers or customer service representative can help. File #: AP09-002 Title: ZA Minutes, 5/19/09 & 5/20/09 Exhibit: 3-6 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) Re: ED09-014/UP09-06/SR09-012/PCN09-001 Date: May 19 and May 20, 2009 The ZA asked whether there were additional questions form the public that were not answered. Ruth Donohugh asked for more information on the deliveries and if Mi Pueblo would consider restricting the number of seats to a lower amount to reduce the intensity of the food service. David Mena stated that Mi Pueblo could consider reducing the number of seats and he would speak with the ownership and that deliveries would occur in the rear, in the loading area, parallel to the building. Ruth Donohugh stated that trucks parked for delivery would block the rear driveway. Mr. Mena stated that they would park parallel. The ZA also stated that given the orientation of the loading area, he would anticipate that trucks would enter from Bellam, unload in the delivery area and then continue forward around the building and exit on to Kerner. He did not anticipate that delivery trucks would attempt to turn around in the rear driveway and exit back onto Bellam Blvd. Mr. Mena continued that they are actually improving pedestrian circulation by creating a accessible walkway from the public sidewalk onto the sidewalk on the site. He also stated that in their other stores, the peak shopping period for their business typically occurs outside of the peak period for other surrounding uses, starting after 10am and they again after 6 pm. Mr. Mena also stated that their last new store that was opened in Pittsburg hired 75% of the new employees from the local area. The ZA then asked the project applicant about the proposed vending machines at the front of the building and if they planned on screening or enclosing them. Mr Mena stated that it was their intention to create a housing or enclosure for the vending machines and stated that it should have been put on the plans. The ZA stated that they were not on the plans at this time. Mr. Sleeves asked if they could secure these vending machines to prevent vandalism and theft after hours. Mr Mena stated that they could secure them with a grill. The ZA stated that there had been numerous comments raised today and these needed to be reviewed and considered. Therefore, the ZA was going to continue the matter to tomorrow to allow an opportunity to review the comments in more detail before rendering a decision. The ZA polled the group to see if people in attendance were more interested in attending another meeting tomorrow or if they would rather be informed of the decision by email. The property owner, Mr Pitto, also stated that he would like an opportunity to meet with some of the neighbors to see if he could address some of these concerns. The consensus of those in attendance was to be informed of the decision via email. Therefore, the ZA asked that those interested in getting a copy of the decision ensure that their email address is listed on the sign in sheet. The ZA also stated that the decision would be emailed by 5:00 pm on Wednesday to all those who have expressed interest. Once the decision is emailed, there is a 5 business day appeal period where any member of the public or the applicant can appeal whatever decision is made. The appeal period would end next Thursday, May 28th at Spm. Any appeal of the ZA's decision to the Planning Commission must be filed before the deadline at the City of San Rafael Community Development Department and include a letter citing the points of appeal and the required appeal fees. The ZA stated that the public hearing was closed and no further comments would be accepted. File #: AP09-002 Title: ZA Minutes 5/19/09 & 5/20/09 Exhibit: 3-7 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) Re: ED09-014/UP09-06/SR09-012/PCN09-001 Date: May 19 and May 20, 2009 May 20, 2009 Following the meeting, the ZA reviewed and considered all comments raised by the applicant and the public during the hearing. In conclusion, the ZA found that the majority of the comments that were provided related to the proposed use and concerns with the potential impacts of the proposed grocery store, including traffic intensification, operational issues with deliveries, and potential impacts on other similar uses in the area. Given that the City's Zoning Ordinance prescribes grocery store uses as permitted uses, the ZA did not have the ability to evaluate those sorts of issues. Although the issue of market competition with other small businesses is not an issue the City can regulate under its current regulations, the ZA expressed an understanding with the other businesses and a desire that all businesses in the area will improve as a result of this new addition to the community. In terms of parking, the ZA finds that the project would comply with the City's parking standards. Given the amount, intensity and scope of the food service area proposed within the grocery store, it is found that it would be a small portion of the grocery store use and is therefore considered as an ancillary use to the grocery store use. The proposed seating area for the food service portion inside the grocery store is approximately 1,000 sq ft of the approximately 36,000 sq ft store. This represents approximately 2.7% of the floor area of the store. This is found to be a minor portion of the overall grocery store use. The intensity, scope and size of the food service/deli is similar to the size and scope of other food service areas in grocery stores in San Rafael and these have been considered an ancillary use to the grocery store uses. Furthermore, information was presented during the hearing about the size of the largest food service area in 9 other grocery stores in the county being 14 tables. The food service area inside this use proposes 19 tables, which is reasonable and consistent with the scope and intensity of other food services areas that are part of grocery stores. Furthermore, the ZA finds that even if the food service area was considered as a stand alone restaurant use within the grocery store, restaurant uses are permitted uses in the GC District and there is no limitation on the size or scope of a restaurant. In terms of the design of the structure, the ZA finds that the exterior modifications that are proposed would: a) upgrade to the existing building design and would create a design scheme for the entire building; b) provide accent features and visual interest to break up the large expanses of walls; c) address and upgrade all four sides of the existing building; d) use high quality materials for the construction of the exterior modifications; e) add visual relief and interest to the main entry and front fagade of the building through the addition of pergolas, tile wainscoting and columns; f) improve landscaping at the main entry to the building and reestablish areas of failed landscaping; g) provide defined walkways and pedestrian entryways to the site to create a pedestrian friendly design from Bellam Blvd and encourage more pedestrian activity to the site; h) incorporate the proposed ancillary outdoor seating/dining area into the existing site without reducing existing on-site parking area; and i) improve the sense of entry to the building through the redesign of the building entry and addition of design features to the front of the structure. The ZA has imposed certain conditions of approval on the Design Review permit. Most of the conditions are standard conditions of approval, but there are a few unique conditions to this proposal, including the need to add an architectural element to screen File #: AP09-002 Title: ZA Minutes, inutes 5/19/09 & 5/20/09 Exhibit: 3-8 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) Re: ED09-014/UP09-06/SR09-012/PCN09-001 Date: May 19 and May 20, 2009 and cover the proposed vending machines at the front of the building (Design Review conditions #18-20). Regarding the Administrative Use Permit for the outdoor dining/seating area, the project as designed is consistent with the performance standards for outdoor dining/seating areas as it would be temporary/seasonal, does not exceed 25% of the seating/dining area of the inside, is not permanently covered and uses movable seating/fixtures. The Administrative Use Permit is approved with certain conditions of approval that require continued compliance with the performance standards for outdoor dining/seating, adequate lighting levels for safety purposes for the outdoor area, confirmation that no on site alcoholic beverages would be consumed, required trash cleanup, prevention of solid screening in front of the seating area to allow visibility into the area from the parking lot, and confirmation that the outdoor seating would only operate in conjunction with the grocery store use and hours or operation. Lastly, in terms of the whether there would be a public convenience or necessity served by allowing the off -sale of liquor as part of the grocery store, the ZA finds that the preponderance of the evidence shows that issuance of a PCN to allow liquor sales at this grocery store would provide a convenience to the shoppers given that the opportunity to buy liquor would in addition to the ability to buy groceries, household products produce, meats and other supplies typically found at other full service grocery stores. In addition, given the operational plan and amount of area dedicated to liquor sales, the liquor sales are expected to make up less than 2% of the overall sales from the store, a minor portion. The Police Department has reviewed the proposed application for a PCN, including the business plan for the liquor and alcohol sales, and recommends that approval of the PCN is warranted. Based on these facts, the PCN is granted for the Mi Pueblo store. ACTION TAKEN The Zoning Administrator, after the meeting of May 19, 2009, granted approval of Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-14), Use Permit (UP09-015) and Sign Review (SR09-012) subject to conditions of approval. The Zoning Administrator also granted the Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN09-001) for off -sale liquor sales. The decision shall be final at 5:00 P.M. on Thursday, May 28, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. provided no appeals are filed with the City of San Rafael Planning Division by that date. FINDINGS Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-014) 1) The project design to modify the exterior building materials and colors and revise the design of the building entry tower is in accord with the General Plan 2020, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of this Chapter in that the project would: a) provide a comprehensive design scheme for the entire building; b) upgrade the appearance of the existing commercial building through the provision of accent features and visual interest to break up the large expanses of walls; c) address and upgrade all four sides of the existing building; d) use high quality materials for the construction of the exterior modifications; e) add visual relief and interest to the main entry and front fagade of the building through the addition of File #: AP09-002 Title: ZA Minutes. 5/19/09 & 5/20/09 Exhibit: 3-9 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) Re: ED09-014/UP09-06/SR09-012/PCN09-001 Date: May 19 and May 20, 2009 pergolas, tile wainscoting and columns; f) improve landscaping at the main entry to the building and reestablish areas of failed landscaping; g) provide defined walkways and pedestrian entryways to the site to create a pedestrian friendly design from Bellam Blvd and encourage more pedestrian activity to the site; h) incorporate the proposed ancillary outdoor seating/dining area into the existing site without reducing existing on-site parking area; and i) improve the sense of entry to the building through the redesign of the building entry and addition of design features to the front of the structure. 2) The project design to modify the exterior building materials, colors and design of the existing commercial structure is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the General Commercial (GC) District in which the site is located in that the project would: a) not propose any new development of structure; b) even though new development is not proposed, the existing structure complies with all current development standards for the GC District, including setbacks, lot coverage, building height, and landscaping requirements; c) provide 162 on-site parking spaces, in excess of the 145 spaces required for a grocery store use (at a rate of 1/250 sq ft); d) maintain all existing landscaped area and reestablish dead or dying landscaping in parking lot planter areas; and e) in addition to Environmental and Design Review Permit Finding #1 above, improve the overall site plan design, site circulation, landscaping and design of the building. 3. The project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts in that the project: a) is a reuse of an existing developed site that hosts an existing commercial building; b) proposes exterior modifications to an existing structure; c) would not result in any new grading, development or tree removal; and d) is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA per section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines (Existing Facilities) since it is a reuse of an existing commercial building that entails minor alterations to the exterior and the site plan of the structure and interior tenant improvements. 4. The project design to modify the exterior building materials, colors and design of the existing commercial structure will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that: a) there is not new development proposed on the site, would be consistent with the development standards for the GC District; b) proposes a use that is permitted by the General Commercial Zoning District, c) has been reviewed by appropriate City Departments and appropriate conditions have been included to mitigate any potential impacts from the exterior redesign; and d) would be required to obtain a building permit and health department permit for the interior and exterior modifications to ensure that the use and structure complies with all current building, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, health and fire codes. Administrative Use Permit (UP09-015) 1. The proposed outdoor dining/seating use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of the General Commercial (GC) District in which the site is located given that the proposed outdoor File #: AP09-002 Title: ZA Minutes. 5/19/09 & 5/20/09 Exhibit: 3-10 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) Re: ED09-014/UP09-06/SR09-012/PCN09-001 Date: May 19 and May 20, 2009 dining/seating area: a) complies with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance by proposing a design that is integrated with the building remodel and satisfies the design criteria in Chapter 25 as discussed in the Environmental and Design Review Permit findings above; b) is listed in the GC District as a permitted use subject to approval of a administrative Use Permit; c) complies with zoning setback, height, site distance and site design standards and does not have any significant effect on the existing site plan, and d) complies with the performance standards that apply to the outdoor seating use under Chapter 17 as discussed in Use Permit Finding # 2 below. 2. The proposed outdoor dining/seating use as conditioned conforms to the standards established in Chapter 17 (Performance Standards) given that: a) the proposed outdoor seating area will not have a permanent roof over the outdoor seating area, b) outdoor seating fixtures would be movable and not permanent, c) the area does not exceed 25 -percent of the indoor dining/seating area capacity; and d) the seating area would be available during the normal hours of the grocery store and food service area. 3. The physical placement of the use on the site is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the surrounding uses in the neighborhood given that the use has been: a) located in front and near the main entry to the grocery store use, a permitted use in the GC District; b) away from adjacent residential uses, c) integrated into the site design with new architectural features, including an open, non permanently -covered wood pergola and potted landscaping; and d) designed in accordance with and subject to approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit pursuant to Chapter 25 with appropriate findings made to approve the design. 4. The outdoor dining/seating use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the City given that the use is a) integrated into the site plan on an existing walkway area, b) the redesign of the parking layout and landscaping do not reduce the available parking area on-site, and the site plan has been reviewed by all appropriate City departments, including the City Traffic Engineer, and has been conditioned accordingly to ensure that City standards are met as a part of the re -use of the building to the maximum extent feasible. 5. The outdoor dining/seating use, as conditioned, will be compatible with surrounding uses in that the use is: a) located on a commercially developed site that will be occupied by a grocery store with ancillary food service and the outdoor seating is ancillary to the food service use; b) compatible with the other uses in the area, including the County medical clinic, restaurant, residential uses, office uses and other commercial, retail and light industrial uses in the area since food service is complementing to other commercial and residential uses in terms of type and intensity of use, c) consistent with the applicable performance standards as discussed in Use Permit Finding #2 above, d) located entirely on-site would operate only during the normal business hours of the grocery store and ancillary food service within he grocery store; it should not have significant impacts on the nearby residential neighborhood, particularly in the evening hours. File #: AP09-002 Title: ZA Minutes. 5/19/09 & 5/20/09 Exhibit: 3-11 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) Re: ED09-014/UP09-06/SR09-012/PCN09-001 Date: May 19 and May 20, 2009 Sian Permit (SR09-012 1. The proposed signs for the re -tenanting of the building are in general conformity with the sign ordnance and well integrated with the proposed design of the structure. A complete sign evaluation will be conducted at the time of Sign Permit submittal to ensure compliance with the Ordinance. This approval does not grant approval of specific signage, just the conceptual placement and design. Public Convenience and Necessity (PCN09-001) The Zoning Administrator makes the following findings related to the criteria identified in City Council Resolution No. 10299 required for the determination of whether Public Convenience or Necessity will be served by the issuance of an on -sale or off -sale license where a finding of undue concentration has been made by the State Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control. Criteria 1: Whether the issuance involves an existing business license which is being transferred to a new location, and which will not result in an increase in the total number of off -sale retail liquor licenses or on -sale retail licenses in the City or in the census tract in which the business would be located. Finding: The applicant proposes a full service retail grocery store use, with ancillary food service, within the General Commercial Zoning (GC) District. Off -sale alcohol sales are proposed to be an ancillary part of the grocery store use. The grocery store use, including the ancillary food service use, is permitted by right in the GC District given the fact that grocery stores that do not operate past 11:00 pm are permitted uses in this Zoning District. The application would increase the number of off -sale retail liquor licenses within the census tract by one. The off -sale liquor license would be transferred from the applicants existing retail liquor store in San Rafael. The San Rafael Police Department has reviewed the proposed project and has recommended approval of the application. Criteria 2: Whether the business, by reason of its location, character, manner or method of operation, merchandise, or potential clientele, will serve a segment of the City's business or residents not presently being served. Finding: The proposed grocery store use, with off site sales, is marketed as a full service grocery store. The grocery store would not sell: • Items/containers with more than 7% alcohol content; • High alcohol malt liquor; • Single unit containers less than 20 ounces; • Hard alcohol containers under 9 fluid ounces; or • Half pints or airport size bottles. File #: AP09-002 Title: ZA Minutes 5/19/09 & 5/20/09 Exhibit: 3-12 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) Re: ED09-014/UP09-06/SR09-012/PCN09-001 Date: May 19 and May 20, 2009 The proposed use would focus on grocery and food items, with alcohol sales estimated at representing 1-2% of total store sales. This particular store would service the demand for a large, full service grocery store, including the sale of off -sale beer, wine and hard alcohol, a type of use and convenience not readily available in the entire Canal or East San Rafael area. Criteria 3: Whether the business will be located within a 1,000- foot radius of incompatible facilities, such as public and private schools, day care centers, churches, parks, homeless shelters, and alcoholic rehabilitation centers, and facilities designed and operated to serve minors. Finding: The proposed liquor store at 330 Bellam Blvd is located on a major transportation corridor within the East San Rafael area and would not be within 1,000 feet of a church, public school day care center or homeless center. Given the type of use and that the license is for off -sale only The San Rafael Police Department has reviewed and recommended approval of the project. The Zoning and General Plan designations for the parcel allow grocery stores or supermarkets, uses that typically contain alcohol sales, by right and do not require a Use Permit. The proposed business with operational conditions would not be incompatible with surrounding uses and facilities in that there are other small retail establishments and liquor stores in the vicinity. Criteria 4: Whether the location of the license will be in a crime data area covered by Police Department statistics, which has a twenty percent (20%) greater number of reported crimes than the average number of 'reported crimes" for all crime data areas in the City, over previous year. For this purpose, "reported crimes" means reported offenses of criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny theft, and motor vehicle theft, combined with all arrests for other misdemeanor or felony crimes, except for traffic citations. Finding: The property at 330 Bellam Blvd was formerly an electronic retail store and is located within a crime data area with high calls for police service; however, the subject site has only had 36 calls for service for calendar year 2008. Of these 36 calls, seven calls were for Part 1 crimes. There were 110 Part 1 crimes in the entire crime data area (Zone 2) in which this site is located. The 36 calls for service for this site over this period are considered to be low. As stated above, the Police Department has recommended approval of the project. Criteria 5: Whether the issuance of the license involves an existing business, which has been located at a site which has had three or more reported crimes defined in (4) above within the previous one-year period. Finding: This proposed grocery store, with ancillary off -sale liquor sales, is not an existing business within the City of San Rafael and this subject site. Therefore this is not applicable. File #: AP09-002 Title: ZA Minutes. 5/19/09 & 5/20/09 Exhibit: 3-13 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) Re: ED09-014/UP09-06/SR09-012/PCN09-001 Date: May 19 and May 20, 2009 Criteria 6: Whether the issuance of the license will promote the goals and policies of the City's adopted General Plan, any applicable specific plan, or any similar policies that have been formally adopted by the City Council. Finding: The proposed grocery store is a permitted use for the General Commercial district. Liquor sales contained in a full service grocery store are considered an ancillary use to the grocery store use and therefore considered within the scope of a typical grocery store. Establishment of a full service grocery store in the Canal area is a long standing goal of the City's General Plan to provide full service groceries sales to residents in the area. Currently, there is no full service grocery store within walking distance of the Canal neighborhood and residents would have to travel 1.9 miles to the Whole Foods on 3' St or 2.3 miles to the Safeway in downtown. The use would be compliant with all General Plan 2000 and Zoning Ordinance regulations. The General Plan designation for 330 Bellam Blvd is General Commercial and the Zoning is General Commercial (GC). As stated in item 1, a grocery store with ancillary liquor sales is a permitted use by right in the GC District. Criteria 7: Whether any other information supplied by the applicant, or other competent evidence shows that public or necessity will be served by issuance of the license. Finding: The applicant has submitted a proposed letter and operational plan, dated April 16 2009 fro Mi Pueblo Foods that addresses various Planning and Police Department concerns. The proposed business would provide the convenience of having beer, wine and liquor available to customers when they purchase groceries at the new full service grocery store. There is no other large full service grocery store in the Canal (nor is there within 1.9 miles) with the wide variety of food and household products, including off-site alcohol sales. The project was noticed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and although objections were voiced at the public hearing, no evidence was presented that the liquor sales would not serve a public convenience or necessity as described by the project proponent. In addition, the project was referred to the Canal Area Property and Business Owners Association, Canal Alliance, Rafael Bay Townhomes HOA, Spinnaker HOA and Baypoint Lagoon HOA. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-014) General and On -Going Conditions Community Development Department - Planning Division 1. The exterior modifications to the structure and the site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the building techniques, materials, elevations and appearance of the project, as presented for approval on plans prepared by Mena Architects, titled Mi Pueblo Food Center, date stamped Approved May 20, 2009 by File #: AP09-002 Title: ZA Minutes 5/19/09 & 5/20/09 Exhibit: 3-14 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) Re: ED09-014/UP09-06/SR09-012/PCN09-001 Date: May 19 and May 20, 2009 the Zoning Administrator and on file at the Community Development Department containing Sheets No. P001, P101, L1, P102, P103, P104 and colored elevation of Sheet P105 and shall be the same as required for issuance of a building permit, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. Minor modifications or revisions to the approved design of the exterior of the structure and site approved by this project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision making body, the Zoning Administrator, and the City's Design Review Board, if necessary. 3. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-014) shall be valid for the life of the project provided that a building permit is issued and construction begun within two (2) years of this approval or until May 20, 2011. Failure to obtain a building permit or a time extension by the specified date or a time extension may result in the expiration of this Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-014) approval. Approved colors are as shown on the approved building elevations contained in the approved plans as on file with the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Any future modification to colors shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Division and major modifications may be referred to the Design Review Board. 5. Applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities ("indemnities"), the purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application or the adoption of any environmental document which accompanies it. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted or incurred by any person or entity, including the applicant, third parties and the indemnities, arising out of or in connection with the approval of this application, whether or not there is concurrent, passive or active negligence on the part of the indemnities. 6. In the event that any claim, action or proceeding as described above is brought, the City shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and the City will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action, or proceeding. In the event the applicant is required to defend the City in connection with any said claim, action or proceeding, the City shall retain the right to: 1) approve the counsel to so defend the City; 2) approve all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted; and 3) approve any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action or proceeding, provided that if the City chooses to have counsel of its own to defend any claim, action or proceeding where applicant already has retained counsel to defend the City in such matters, the fees and the expenses of the counsel selected by the City shall be paid by the City. File #: AP09-002 Title: ZA Minutes. 5/19/09 & 5/20/09 Exhibit: 3-15 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) Re: ED09-014/UP09-06/SR09-012/PCN09-001 Date: May 19 and May 20, 2009 As a condition of this application, applicant agrees to be responsible for the payment of all City Attorney expenses and costs, both for City staff attorneys and outside attorney consultants retained by the City, associated with the reviewing, process and implementing of the land use approval and related conditions of such approval. City Attorney expenses shall be based on the rates established from time to time by the City Finance Director to cover staff attorney salaries, benefits, and overhead, plus the actual fees and expenses of any attorney consultants retained by the City. Applicant shall reimburse City for City Attorney expenses and costs within 30 days following billing or same by the City. 8. The City shall have the right of entry to inspect the premises to verify compliance with the conditions of approval and the San Rafael Municipal Code. 9. The property owner shall pay the costs of any code enforcement activities, including attorney fees resulting from the violation of any conditions of approval or any provision of the San Rafael Municipal Code. 10. All site improvements, including but not limited to, the site lighting, fencing, landscape islands, paving and striping shall be maintained in good, undamaged condition at all times. Any damaged improvements shall be replaced in a timely manner. 11. The site shall be kept free of litter and garbage. Any trash, junk or damaged materials that are accumulated on the site shall be removed and disposed of in a timely manner. The applicant shall institute a program to provide regular cleanup of the parking lot, landscaped areas and sidewalk in front of the store, as well as all other areas immediately around the new structure. 12. The operator shall remove all graffiti from the building or site in a timely manner. 13. All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free of weeds and debris. Any dying or dead landscaping shall be replaced in a timely fashion with new healthy stock of a size compatible with the remainder of the growth at the time of replacement. 14. All existing and new site landscaping shall be routinely maintained in good order and free of weeds, debris and overgrown vegetation. Plants and trees shall be irrigated and/or watered as necessary to ensure their growth and stability. 15. All new exterior lighting shall be shielded down to avoid spillover onto adjacent properties or public streets. Public Works Department — Land Development Division 16. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair of all damages to public improvements in the public right-of-way resulting from construction -related activities, including, but not limited to, the movement and/or delivery of equipment, materials, and soils to and/or from the site. File #: AP09-002 Title: ZA Minutes. 5/19/09 & 5/20/09 Exhibit: 3-16 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) Re: ED09-014/UP09-06/SR09-012/PCN09-001 Date: May 19 and May 20, 2009 Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit Community Development Department Planning Division 17. Construction plans submitted for building permit approval shall include a plan sheet, which incorporates these Conditions of Approval for ED09-014, UP09-015 and SR09-012. 18. The open, uncovered vending machine area at the front of the building shall be covered and designed with a cover/enclosure that places the equipment within an architectural screening. The purpose of this is to screen the sides and top of the equipment from view with an architectural feature. The architectural feature shall be designed as an integral part of the building design. This feature shall also include a grill/security barrier at the front to prevent theft and vandalism from the machines during off hours. 19. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit the design of this new screening feature (as required by #18 above) to the Planning Division for review and approval. 20. Once the final design of the architectural feature is approved by the Planning Division (as required in #19 above), the final design of the screening feature shall be incorporated into the plans submitted for building permits. 21. The outdoor dining/searing area and area on the sides of the seating area shall be illuminated with one -foot candle level of illumination. The method, light design and illumination levels shall be identified on building permit plans and shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Division. 22. All mechanical equipment (i.e., air conditioning units, meters and transformers) and appurtenances not entirely enclosed within the structure (on side of building or roof) shall be screened from public view. The method used to accomplish the screening shall be indicated on the building plans and approved by the Planning Division. 23. Prior to issuance of the building permit, any outstanding Planning Division application processing fees shall be paid. Community Development Department — Building and Fire Prevention Division 24. A building permit is required for the proposed work. Applications shall be accompanied by four (4) complete sets of construction drawings 25. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2007 California Building Code, 2007 Plumbing Code, 2007 Electrical Code, 2007 California Mechanical Code, 2007 California Fire Code, and 2005 Title 24 California Energy Efficiency Standards. 26. Please note on the construction documents that fire sprinklers are required throughout the building. A licensed C-16 contractor shall submit fire sprinkler system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to making alterations to the existing system. File #: AP09-002 Title: ZA Minutes. 5/19/09 & 5/20/09 Exhibit: 3-17 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) Re: ED09-014/UP09-06/SR09-012/PCN09-001 Date: May 19 and May 20, 2009 27. Please note on the construction documents that a commercial kitchen hood fire - extinguishing system is required in each Type I hood. A licensed contractor shall submit the kitchen hood fire -extinguishing system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation of the system. 28. Please note on the construction documents that a fire alarm system is required where the occupant load exceeds 499. If a fire system is required in this building, based on the occupant load, please note on the plans that fire alarm system plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation of the system. 29. A Knox Box is required at the primary point of first response to the building. 30. On site fire hydrants will be required. 31. Fire lanes must be designated; painted red with contrasting white lettering stating "No Parking Fire Lane" A sign shall be posted in accordance to City of San Rafael standard #204. 32. Hazardous Materials Placard shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 704. 33. Storage height in excess of 12 feet shall require a "High Pile Storage' permit. 34. The proposed facility shall be designed to provide access to the physically disabled in accordance with the requirements of Title -24, California Code of Regulations. For existing buildings and facilities when alterations, structural repairs or additions are made, accessibility improvements for persons with disabilities may be required. 35. In -ground grease separator(s) will be required outside the building perimeter to handle waste water from the restaurants and food court area. 36. Review and approval by the Marin County Health Department may be required prior to submittal for building permit plan review. Public Works Department - Land Development Division 37. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide details on the building permit plans showing how the new accessible sidewalk and other elements that connect to the existing City sidewalk interface During Construction Community Development Department — Planning Division 38. Construction of the project shall comply with the City's noise ordinance. Public Works Department - Land Development Division 39. An encroachment permit shall be required for debris boxes or any construction or work in the City right-of-way. File #: AP09-002 Title: ZA Minutes. 5/19/09 & 5/20/09 Exhibit: 3-18 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) Re: ED09-014/UP09-06/SR09-012/PCN09-001 Date: May 19 and May 20, 2009 Prior to Final Occupancy Community Development Department - Planning Division 40. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to request a final inspection, prior to the issuance of the final building permit. The request for final inspection by the Planning Division shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. 41. All exterior lighting shall be subject to a 60 -day lighting level review by the Community Development Department, Planning Division staff to insure compliance. This lighting review period shall commence upon issuance of final inspection approval by the Community Development Department, Building Division. 42. Prior to final occupancy, the applicant shall have their landscape architect inspect the existing and new landscaping and irrigation to ensure the health of all species and operation of all irrigation. If any deficiencies are discovered, those shall be remedied. A letter from the landscape architect shall be submitted to the Planning Division as part of the final inspection. Administrative Use Permit (UP09-015) 1. Except as modified herein, the Administrative Use Permit (UP09-015) authorizes outdoor seating/dining on the subject site on the private sidewalk area in front of the existing building as shown on the approved plans. 2. This Administrative Use Permit (UP09-015) shall be valid for the life of the project provided that a building permit is obtained from the City's Community Development Department and the outdoor dining/seating use is initiated within two (2) years of this approval or until May 20, 2011. Failure to obtain a building permit and initiate the use, or apply for a time extension by the specified date, may result in expiration of this Use Permit. 3. The outdoor dining shall remain in conformance with the General Commercial District Zoning District and the performance standards for outdoor dining contained in Section 14.17.130 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The outdoor dining/seating area shall only be used during the hours of operation (public hours) for the grocery store. Outdoor dining area shall not be used outside of those hours. 5. Adequate number of trash and recycle bins shall be maintained outside the store at all times. These bins shall be serviced as frequently as required to prevent overflow. 6. The operator shall implement a regular trash clean up program to patrol and clean up trash and debris from this site. If any trash from this site is blown or deposited on the public right-of-way or sidewalk, it shall be cleaned up as well. 7. Prior to the issuance of a business license, the applicant shall receive approval of an Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) for off -sale of liquor. File #: AP09-002 Title: ZA Minutes. 5/19/09 & 5/20/09 Exhibit: 3-19 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) Re: ED09-014/UP09-06/SR09-012/PCN09-001 Date: May 19 and May 20, 2009 8. An alarm system shall be installed and connected to a central station prior to the business operating. 9. The grocery store, including the ancillary alcohol sales and food service and all other ancillary functions of the grocery store, shall not operate past 11:00 pm, 7 day's a week, unless a Conditional Use Permit is applied for and approved by the Planning Commission (as required for grocery stores in the General Commercial Zoning District identified in the land use table). 10. The outdoor dining/searing area shall be illuminated with adequate lighting levels to allow visibility of the area from the parking lot (one -foot candle level is the standard). The method, light design and illumination levels shall be identified on building permit plans and shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Division. 11. There shall be no solid walls, fencing or screening surrounding the outdoor dining/seating area. Visibility into the outdoor dining/seating area shall remain non - obscured from the parking lot area and shall be visible to persons in the parking lot. 12. There shall be no consumption of any alcoholic beverages allowed within the outdoor dining/seating area or on the site. The applicant and operator of the business shall be responsible to monitor this implement any appropriate security measures to remain consistent with this requirement. 13. The business operator shall comply with the alcohol policies and procedures as identified in the April 16, 2009 letter from Jeff Aldaz of Mi Pueblo Foods to the City of San Rafael, including: a. No items/containers with more than 7% alcohol content will be sold. No high alcohol malt liquor ill be sold. No single unit containers less than 20 ounces will be sold). b. No items or containers under 9 fluid ounces shall be sold. No half pints or airport size bottles shall be sold. c. The following signage shall be posted and maintained at the entrance and exit of the store. i. State ABC license ii. No loitering iii. No open containers iv. No littering d. The operator shall employ an external security company that specializes in supermarkets and shall have the security personnel on site during all hours of store operations/. 14. The applicant shall obtain a City of San Rafael business license. Sign Permit (SR09-012) 1. This Sign Permit approves only the conceptual sign plan and locations as presented in the architectural elevations. File #: AP09-002 Title: ZA Minutes 5/19/09 & 520/09 Exhibit: 3-20 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) Re: ED09-014/UP09-06/SR09-012/PCN09-001 Date: May 19 and May 20, 2009 2. Prior to the installation of any signage on the site, the applicant shall apply for and receive approval of a sign Permit. The application for a sign permit shall include all required submittal requirements for sign review J Raffi Boloyan, Actmg Zoning Administrator Date File #: AP09-002 Title: ZA Minutes. 5/19/09 & 5/20/09 Exhibit: 3-21 o t Lit, I 0 Ir•'� July 8, 2009 City of San Rafael Planning Commission 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Ret Mi Pueblo Food Store response to appeal Esteemed Commissioners, Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the claims made by appellant, Ruth Donchugh. This letter is composed of three parts. The first section will provide additional background information on Mi Pueblo Food Center, our history and values. The second section will specifically address the main points raised by the appellant. Lastly, the third section will address a few other points that the appellant has raised in the community through letter writing and the distribution of flyers to local neighborhoods. The appellant has mischaracterized a number of facts about this project in her flyers which have been brought to our attention by a number of community leaders. We hope to shed light on all of the issues raised by the appellant, Furthermore, we wish to note that Mi Pueblo Food Center staff met with the appellant on June 12th, 2009 in good faith to understand her concerns. We consequently offered to reduce some of our indoor seating which seemed to be of great concern to the appellant, but our offer which was expressed through Simeon Properties was declined. About Mi Pueblo Food Center Mi Pueblo, means "my town" or "my people." Our mission is to create a warm, inviting home away from home for many whom nostalgically long for their Latin American foods and traditions. Friendly smiles, colorful surroundings, and delightful fragrances welcome every customer in 13 locations throughout Northern California today— including San Jose, Oakland, Hayward, Salinas, Modesto, Mountain View, Watsonville, and Pittsburg. Everything from our store music and decor, product merchandising and assortment, and specialized client services is focused on and selected with the very distinct needs and tastes of our customers in mind. The secret of Mi Pueblo Foods can be traced back to our founder and CEO, Juvenal Chavez, who recognized the opportunity to serve the fast-growing Latino community. His goal was to create more than a place to buy groceries and other goods. As an immigrant himself, Mr. Chavez envisioned a place where his customers would feel appreciated and respected — a place where they would feel right at home. It was in 1991, in the city of San Jose, California where he purchased a small, 4,000 square -foot butcher shop, where the concept for Mi Pueblo Foods was born. By creating an environment of tradition, culture, and family values, today Mi Pueblo Foods has blossomed into a successful business that employs over 2,000 people. We offer CUSTOMER SERVICE: 1-888.997-7717 CORPORATE OFFICE: MAILING ADDRESS: 1745 Story Road P.O. Box 3288 San Jose, CA 95122 San Jose, CA 95158 File #: AP09-002 Title: Letter from Applicant 7/809 Exhibit: 4a-1 IQ4 customers quality foods, greater value, and genuine service in an authentic environment modeled after hometown mercados or markets found in Mexico and Latin America. We are a family oriented and community minded business that seeks to create a welcoming atmosphere for families and communities to enjoy. We sponsor student scholarships, annual food drives, cultural celebrations, and support our local communities. Everything we do —from product selection, employee training to operational practices — is focused on serving our families with the greatest care and respect which they deserve, Response to Appellant's concerns The appellant cites a number of concerns in her appeal which we will address one by one as follows: Deli Operations The Deli department that is currently being proposed for the San Rafael location Is in compliance with all city zoning and ordinance codes. The Deli department is planned at 1,040 sq. ft. of the 35,931 total building size or 3% of the total building footprint. The Deli department as a whole represents less than 8% of total sales in all stores. Of which, based on supplies usage (to go vs. in store consumption) approximately 70%+ of the products purchased from the Deli are consumed outside of the store. Parking Mi Pueblo's total proposed parking spaces are a total of 161 spaces. We are required by city ordinance to provide parking at a ratio of 250 sq. ft. per parking space or 145 total spaces. We have had discussions with the County of Marin Wellness Campus already about encouraging and incentivizing employees to make the closest parking spots available to our mutual clients. There are a number of parking lots behind and around the campus that employees will be asked to park at. The operations staff of the Wellness Campus are supportive of the proposed Mi Pueblo Food Center and are not concerned about parking given the additional lots available. Receiving 1. Operations a. Receiving hours for Mi Pueblo are from 7:00 AM to 1 PM, Monday through Friday. b. Mi Pueblo works with all of our vendors to schedule and stage deliveries to avoid congestion and unnecessary traffic. c. MI Pueblo employees and Enterprise Security (MI Pueblo's 3rd party security company) work with vendors to move rapidly in and out of the receiving area. 2. Logistics and space considerations a. The space from the face of the building to the curb is 40 ft. CUSTOMER SERVICE: 1-888-997-7717 CORPORATE OFFICE: MAILING ADDRESS: 1745 Story Road P.O. Box 3288 Sen Jose, CA 95122 San Jose, CA 9516G File #: AP09-002 Title: Letter from Applicant 7/9/09 Exhibit: 4a-2 b. The fire code required that 20 ft. remain clear at all times. c. Mi Pueblo will ensure that any and all trucks will comply with this requirement at all times. i. Our current plans are to have no more than two trucks (1 full size truck and 1 bobtail) delivering at any one given time. ii. The full-size truck will deliver via the dock door, and the bobtail truck . will deliver through the roll -up door. Liquor The requirement for Mi Pueblo to sell liquor to our customers is based on genuine customer convenience. It would be very difficult for a full service grocery store of our size to justify not being able to provide basic liquor products to our customers. Total beer, wine, and liquor sales represent less than 4 % of total store sales. However, that being said, the following are some of the operations standards that we maintain at all our stores: Mi Pueblo Food Center Beer Policy: no items/containers with more than 7% alcohol content will be sold. • No high alcohol malt liquor will be sold. No single unit containers under 20 ounces will be sold (including 6 oz, 12 oz, or 16 oz containers). Security: Mi Pueblo employs an external security company that specializes in Supermarkets and will have 1-3 guards on-site during store operations. Signage: State ABC license, No Loitering, No Open Container, and No Littering signs will be posted at the entrance of the store. All store windows will be kept clear of visual obstructions. Trash Cans: Mi Pueblo will provide, empty, and maintain at least 2 non-flammable trash cans located near the entrance of the store Store Front Conditions: Sidewalks and parking lot will be monitored and cleaned at all times. Graffiti shall be removed from the premises within 24 hours of identification. No pay phones will be located on or near the building. Loitering: Mi Pueblo will make the appropriate efforts to discourage loitering from the premises including calling the police to ask that they remove loiters who refuse to leave. Persons hanging around the exterior of the store with no apparent business for more than 10 minutes shall be asked to leave. In response, to appellant's comments about Mi Pueblo Foods' track record with ABC. With 13 store locations and over 2,000 employees, our company has had only 2 violations in the last 36 months, which would be considered at least above-average by industry standards. In both cases, Mi Pueblo Food Center immediately took disciplinary actions with the employees involved and took corrective actions to ensure that every store -front employee was retrained_ CUSTOMER SERVICE: 1-888.997.7717 CORPORATE OFFICE; MAILING ADDRESS: 1745 Story Road P.O. Box 3288 San Jose, CA 95122 San Jose, CA 95159 File #: AP09-002 Title: Letter from Applicant 7/909 Exhibit: 4a-3 N 4% � W7 none �eblvv�-,T If 0011 CENTER on the appropriate procedures. We take ABC compliance very seriously and are committed to on-going training and strict oversight of these important regulations. Additional concerns raised by appellant publicly Over the last few weeks, the appellant's fliers have mischaracterized our plans for selling barbecue chickens at our stores. Our barbecue, as shown in the store designs, will be attached to the store building and part of a commercial kitchen with a special hood that captures smoke. The barbecue grill faces the outside of the building for the viewing pleasure of our customers. Lastly, the appellant's fliers have raised concerns about Mi Pueblo Food Center's commitment to reducing its carbon footprint. We encourage our customers to walk to our store locations and take our free shuttles home. We partner with Energy Smart Grocer and PG&E to maximize energy efficiency across the company and minimize our impact on the environment, Furthermore, we are currently evaluating new opportunities for expanding our efforts in this area, including exploring alternatives to our recycled plastic bags and styrofoam containers for the proposed San Rafael store, in closing, M1 Pueblo Food Center is excited about the possibility of being part of the San Rafael community. We look forward to investing our resources in this great city, creating over 175 new jobs for local residents, and generating new tax revenue streams to benefit local residents. We are very appreciative of the vast community support we have received thus far from local leaders and residents. Should you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Furthermore, we would like to make ourselves available for a tour of one of our local stores at your convenience (this coming week/weekend if possible). A private tour can be arranged through Perla Rodriguez, our Vice President of Public Affairs at (408) 205- 9514 or Perla.a.rodrieuez@mipueblofoods.com. Again, thank you for your kind consideration. Sincerely, Jeff Aldaz Chief Operating Officer Mi Pueblo Foods (408) 595-7129 Jeff.aldaz@mipueblofoods.com CUSTOMER SERVICE: 1-888997.7717 CORPORATE OFFICE: MAILING ADDRESS: 1745 Story Road P.O. Box 3288 San Jose, CA 95122 San Jose, CA 95156 File #: AP09-002 Title: Letter from Aoolicant 7/55109 Exhibit: 4a-4 A111 Q o ebl� FOOD CENTER April 16, 2009 RaffiBoloyan City of San Rafael Community Development Dept P. 0. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA. 94915 Re: Mi Pueblo Food Center Application for ABC License Dear Raffi, RECEIVED APR 2 7 2009 COMMUNITY MDEVELOPMENT OF SAN 1Z 4FAEL Over the last several months, Mi Pueblo Food Center has been working diligently to prepare for the opening of our newest store location at 330 Bellam Boulevard in San Rafael. We are excited to be part of the San Rafael community, to invest new resources into this neighborhood retail center, to create over 200 new jobs, and to generate more than $500,000 in local sales tax revenue per year. Mi Pueblo Food Center offers quality foods, greater value and genuine service. Each store features traditional Latin American food products and several fresh departments including produce, meats, bakery, tortilleria and an in-house hot deli and taqueria. Mi Pueblo currently operates 13 stores in Northern California located in the cities of San lose, Oakland, Hayward, Salinas, Modesto, Mountain View, Watsonville, and Pittsburg and employs over 2,000 people. We are known for creating an environment of tradition, culture, and family values, as well as for being a good corporate citizen that supports the community. With the needs of our customers in mind, we respectfully request that Mi Pueblo Foods be granted an ABC license for this store location. We would like to delineate our policies around alcohol procedures that have effectively ensured community safety and wellness at all of our stores. While alcohol sales represent only 1-2% total store sales, our customers have greatly valued the convenience of having these products available when they purchase their groceries. Mi Pueblo's Alcohol Policies & Procedures 1. Beer Policy: No items/containers with more than 7% alcohol content will be sold. No high alcohol malt liquor Will be sold. No single unit containers less than 20 ounces will be sold (including 6 oz., 12 oz., or 16 oz. containers). CUSTOMER SERVICE: 1.888.997-7717 File #: AP09-002 CORPORATE OFFICE: MAILING ADDRESS: Title: Letter from Applicant 4/16/09 1745 Story Road P.O. Box 3288 Exhibit: 4b-1 San Jose, CA 95122 San Jose, CA 95156 2. Liquor Policy: - No items or containers under 9 fluid ounces will be sold. No half pints or airport size bottles will be sold. (Mi Pueblo has had only 1 ABC infraction in the last 36 months in all 13 Mi Pueblo locations.) 3. Store Front Management a. The following signage will be posted at the entrance of the store: State ABC license No Loitering No Open Containers No Littering (All store windows will be kept clear of visual obstructions.) b. Trash Cans: Mi Pueblo will provide, empty and maintain at least 2 non-flammable trash cans located near the entrance of the store C. Store Front Conditions: Sidewalks and parking lot will be monitored and cleaned at all times. Graffiti shall be removed from the premises within 24 hours of identification. No pay phones will be located on or near the building. d. Loitering: Mi Pueblo will make the appropriate efforts to discourage loitering from the premises including calling the police to ask that they remove loiters who refuse to leave. Persons hanging around the exterior of the store with no apparent business for more than 10 minutes shall be asked to leave. 4. Security: Mi Pueblo employs an external security company that specializes in supermarkets and will have 1-3 guards on-site during store operations. Our goal is to create a more complete and convenient shopping experience for our customers. Alcoholic products are made available to customers in a safe and convenient way, but represent a very small percentage of overall sales for our company. We are very committed to enhancing the economic vitality of our local community and to provide the utmost care and service to our customers. Please let us know if we can provide more information. Thank you for your kind attention. Sincerely, eff da Chief Operating Officer (C00) Mi Pueblo Food Center T:408-240-5665 M: 408-591-7129 E: jeff.aldaz@mipueblofoods.com File #: AP09-002 Title: Letter from Applicant 7/6/09 Exhibit: 4b-2 May 25, 2009 To: City of San Rafael Planning Department and Planning Commission From: Ruth Donohugh RE: 330 Bellam Blvd I appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator RE: ED09-014/UP09-06, 015/SR09-012/PCN09-001 based on the following points. There are major problems with the plan to convert the Circuit City store site into a large Mi Pueblo as proposed. I have walked the site with the property owner to discuss the specifics of my objections. I called David Mena, the architect, who has not returned my call. The proposal attempts to put a greatly intensified retail use into a site that is severely restricted by parking, easements, the Loop and the building of the Health and Wellness Clinics which have recently opened and dominate the area. The PROJECT DESCRIPTION provided by the applicant did not disclose that the 455 square foot barbeque area includes a drive up/walk up food counter to sell hot food directly at the sidewalk/parking lot level. The overall restaurant portion of this "grocery store" is not "ancillary' at all as outlined at the hearing. Current zoning regulations may not be adequate for this newer hybrid form of grocery store that is actually heavily dedicated to use as a restaurant/food court. If you actually review the floor plan of this "grocery store", it is not a grocery store per se as it dedicates a substantial portion of its square footage to a commercial restaurant kitchen, bakery/cafe, ice cream/shaved ice/juice bar, and rotisserie chicken restaurant operation with an interior dining room of 19 tables and an exterior dining area of an additional 6 tables. The total seating as proposed in Mi Pueblo's formal plan would be 94 seats, and the plan clearly leaves space to double the interior seating once the business is open. If you visit Mi Pueblo's existing sites, this hybrid restaurant/grocery store HAS BEEN their business model for success, This cannot be characterized in any way as a "dell' ; it more resembles a "food court " serving hot food with 4 cash registers dedicated to each of the several different restaurant operations inside. Even if you deduct the ice cream store, tortilleria, bakery and dining room, the commercial kitchen square footage is over 2800 square feet. It is comprised of 34 steam table pans, two 6 foot char broiler grills, 2 regular grills, 7 stock pot stoves, a 10 burner stove, a double fryer, rotisserie, etc., etc. and could never be misconstrued as a "deli" operation. It also proposes check cashing facilities and liquor sales adjacent to residential areas, The interior dining room measures 1404 sq feet (52 x 27) and the outdoor seating area of 600 sq feet DOES constitute more than 25% of the interior dining room which is NOT consistent with the requirements of an Administrative Use Permit as stated by the ZA. Using the ZA' s stated interior dining room square footage of"about 1000" when it is actually 1404, the outdoor dining area of 600 sq feet which is subject to review would still NOT be in compliance. For purposes of comparison, a review of all of the major grocery stores in Marin that have seating for dining on site was performed to determine what is considered "ancillary food service" for grocery stores, The results show that Mi Pueblo's proposed 27 tables and 94 seats are grossly in excess of the norm as follows: Safeway (new construction) in Strawberry -3 tables RECEIVED Mollie Stones m Greenbrae-3 tables outside only SAY 6 2��9 Paradise Foods in Corte Madera -3 tables inside and 4 tables outside, total United Market in San Rafael4 tables outside and one bench PLANNING Woodland Market in Kentfield-6 tables outside Whole Foods in San Rafael -4 tables for 2 people each inside and 4 tables for 4 each outside Costco in Novato -14 tables inside -this does not really compare as a grocery store but is the maximum of File #: AP09-002 Title: Letter of Appeal, 5/25/09 Exhibit: 5a-1 any grocery store/other in Marin Seating for this project needs to be reduced to fit the normal expected "ancillary" use in Marin or adequate restaurant parking use permit requirements need to be met. Even if a hypothetical split of the square footage between restaurant and grocery store were calculated, the site has inadequate parking as it would need 168 spaces. The outdoor dining and outdoor selling counter should be removed from the plan. As proposed the project does not meet the requirements for an Administrative Use Permit because of the proposed square footage of the outside dining area; itis actually 43% of inside dining. The onsite dining rooms inside and outside should be reduced to actually be "ancillary" with from 2-7 tables total as is the currently accepted "ancillary" use in Marin County for this type of store. PARKING There is another HUGE problem with this proposed project. Currently, part of the parking that they propose to use is under lease with the new Health and Wellness Clinics. The ZA completely dismisses the fact that this large facility of Clinics just opened and historically much of the Mi Pueblo parking has been and now is currently used for these buildings. He dismisses this factor because he stated that the County made all of the decisions and is responsible for the plan and that San Rafael has no jurisdiction. They may have no control but it is adjacent to this project with several easements through the Circuit City site for parking and traffic. The Clinics ARE already there and the parking on the Circuit City site and the Clinic sites is not adequate. The ZA also proposes that all of the delivery trucks are going to exit out of the parking lot driveway entrance to the clinics (while patients are coming in ??). I have thoroughly reviewed the County of Marin's files on the Health and Wellness Clinics. These Clinics are not even fully operational and already all of the parking on site (including that leased from Circuit City) and in the street is fall everywhere nearby. The total square footage of the Health and Wellness Clinics is 85,833. According to the state and city code, the number of parking places required for the Clinics was supposed to be 343 spaces. Their original plans showed 277 spaces, but only 255 spaces were eventually built on site. Their plans clearly included the continued use of the parking at the Circuit City site. Even including the 15 spaces leased in perpetuity to the Clinic, it is still short 73 parking spaces. That combined with the parking shortfall that will occur by Mi Pueblo's misrepresentaion of the restaurant/foodcourt/grocery store as a "grocery store" will compound an existing parking shortfall problem. Also, the ZA's report quoting Susan Cronk as stating the Clinic has built an additional 126 spaces at 3110 Kerner is wrong. There are 116 spaces and they were included in the original calculations for the Clinics as well as my totals. There exists another problem in assessing the parking. The ZA states there are 162 spaces on site. The plan actually shows 160 dedicated to the project with 15 and a restriping to make 17 dedicated to the Clinic. Additionally, there are on file differing and conflicting square footage totals ascribed to the same building. We need clear and precise numbers which have not been provided to date. TRAFFIC Everyone at the hearing expressed concerns about the traffic intensification. When the original GC zoning designation was given for Circuit City, traffic could exit via Kerner to the freeway. Now, all commercial, Clinic and neighborhood traffic exits to 101 via Bellam. The conditions created by the "Loop" configuration and the new Clinics warrant an updated traffic study as the underlying conditions have changed under which Circuit City was originally permitted to operate under the City's Zoning Ordinance. The ZA's report did agree that traffic will intensify with Mi Pueblo . It is common sense that a "grocery store", particularly a hybrid restaurant/grocery store, would generate many more traffic visits each month than an electronics store or a"true" grocery store. There is the further problem that the loading dock in the back of Circuit City is now one of the principal File #: AP09-002 Title: Letter of Appeal. 5/25/09 Exhibit: 5a-2 entrances to the new Clinics as it provides quicker access for employees than the "Loop". The "Loop" also dumps all of the traffic from Kerner onto Bellam with no other way out inmost cases. Please visit Bellam Blvd at 5:15 pm on a weekday if you have any doubt about the current traffic congestion. The Mi Pueblo architect states that they are closing 2 of the 4 loading docks that would block this easement during deliveries. Still, the proposed truck delivery is to enter on Bellam, pulling up adjacent to the building (this is a major entrance driveway to the Clinics and their employee parking) and the exit would be via the Clinic's Main entrance on Kerner. It is inconceivable all of the delivery trucks are proposed to exit via the Main entrance of the Clinics with two patient crosswalks and handicap access in the same place at the same time. The size of these trucks would make that route impossible as the bridge is not even wide enough. Alternately, if the delivery trucks leave via Bellam, it is a one lane street and then they would have to make a Utum in front of all of the residences and there is not room to do that. No provision whatsoever has been made for delivery trucks for this project as the one lane street configuration abuts residential areas. Nor has anyone from Mi Pueblo volunteered any solutions, such as restricting deliveries to before lam. We have a fire department and emergency response station on Castro between Bellam and East Francisco that will be further impacted by the gridlock the additional traffic will cause. How can they respond when the only way in and out is Bellam Blvd. and big trucks block the Clinic entrance? LIQUOR SALES There is no need for Finding Public Convenience or Necessity to allow off sale liquor sales. A cursory review of Alcoholic Beverage Control records show disciplinary actions against the other Mi Pueblo operations. This warrants an investigation by someone who understands the sections violated, disciplinary actions, and suspensions/ liquor license cancellation history of the Mi Pueblo chain of stores. It is obvious that violations have occurred and they should be investigated. It should be brought to the Planning Commission's attention that the neighborhood asked for a market here for years. In the vacuum, a number of small and medium size markets have opened and there are now g markets within a square mile of this location, most of whom already sell alcohol. The scale of this Walmart size operation will shut them down with no net gain in employment. Mi Pueblo claims to monitor loitering,' but as we all know from Marin Square, it is legal to loiter on the public sidewalks and Mi Pueblo's operation will just bring the loitering farther into the reidential neghborhoods. The proposed project should not be exempt from Environmental Review because the actual nature of their business model is not a "true" traditional grocery store and constitutes a new use. That new use would exacerbate the existing parking and traffic problems that are partly due to the Clinic and existing entitlements on this property. The intensification of both are detrimental to the environment. The Mi Pueblo should not be considered until all of the parking and traffic issues associated with the Clinics (based on their full capacity) have been thoroughly investigated and effective mitigation measures have been implemented. The fact that the description did not include the outdoor hot food sales counter and the fact that the outdoor dining exceeds 25% of indoor dining makes it ineliglible for an Administrative Use Permit. The off sale liquor license should be denied due to the high density of existing liquor sales, existing neighborhood crimes associated with alcohol and the proximity of the adjacent residential area. File #: AP09-002 Title: Letter of Appeal. 5/25/09 Exhibit: 5a-3 �g 3 h • i .�#p a '< - ` TV vc 3, '', y d' E. �s1�.4'.kF�,sr ��������{ €i'`�'��t $e -s a• �ev� as ��`�3yv:sa,,,.a'1v.� � >�r* � F f e1�`�ir��i� EON RMAN 111 i 4 a�bfi� aE� ) g i at `' �, a IN —,7- S 4s a e p ri ek,„ FsG�kJiaa��ry Y't �'^ate v -'i3 p"'r �,�. �, - s93v€:z' ES �{ A �4�':Lta +yy �W 4.,' . Y A -1E 3 il4 y +v 9 ;" e . ;Eal`7x? it n ��� �s'§ � 'S �" �,'� End v ��� d��R 31�ad -r}`>�s� x n F v'a tx f 'Ns`, s R Y p a 591 m szFt4 ss r r Mo WIN iii r4 4 ttai '� ��, 4 r "u z z rr �#�� � 'r.:,q � x�a�z ���• § '� a 43 ��cix�� � r � PoF ,�W „ f 3 � _4"' $�� _ 4 X' % 04N,� � m . .w�� �sdh Sr�3. _ i F ������mm�6 � � � � � � : ����\: � � � � � � «; � � � � : � :; }� � 2 ; ���{;��� � � � � � �� � � � \\ � ,y,. .. . � /� � d ; �5 � } . � \ \ »± \ / \\/ ` C®� � , �a :/� . , \� \ \ \ \ \: &: y.. . �� � � . � / : \� � : :� � < ^ � � . : \� <t ..� �� {\\� � \ �� /\%:�����': «� � � ' \ � \� � � � � � � � � � : .. � \� \> ���\%\�\���® � � � � ��� \� � � \ \\� � � \ � w ?2� �\� � +tom z » \\ \ ®�� � � � � � § �� ./� . \ « . %� / �� , � /\\� � (� § � � \ V 4 � California ABC - License Query System - Data Summary California Departmentof Alcoholic v, +% Beverage License Query System Summaryas I 511912009 [License Information [License Number: 274490 Status: CANCEL Primary Owner: CHAVEZ JUVENAL C Office of Application: SAN JOSE usiness Name Ooing Business As: MI PUEBLO FOOD CENTER 2 usiness Address ddress: 40 S RENGSTORFF AVE Census Tract: 5094.04 i : MOUNTAIN VIEW County: SANTA CLARA tate: CA Zip Code: 94040 icensee Information icensee: CHAVEZ JUVENAL icensee: CHAVEZ MARIA License Types 1 License Type: 20 - OFF -SALE BEER AND WINE License Type Status: CANCEL Status Date: 08-NOV-2004 Term: 12 Month(s) Original Issue Date: 13 -AUG -1992 Ex iration Date: 31 -OCT -2005 Master: Y Duplicate: 0 Fee Code: NA License Type was Transferred On: 05 -OCT -2004 To: 419135 Current Disciplinary Action , . No Active Disciplinary Action ound .. . Oisciplinary History Reg. Number: 98044736 1 Section Violated: 24200 a&b 2 Section Violated: 25658(a) Proeeedin Status: COMPLETE Decision: SUSPENDED Suspension Days: 15 Stayed Das POICNine: 3000 Suspension Start Date: Suspension End Date.- Reg. ate:Re . Number: 04056781 1 Section Violated: 24200(a) 2 Section Violated: 25658(a) Proceeding Status: COMPLETE Decision: SUSPENDED Suspension Days: 15 Stayed Days POIC/Fine: 3000 File #: AP09-002 Page 1 of 2 Title: Letter of Appeal, 5/25/09 http://www.abc.ca.gov/dalport/LQSData.asp?ID=274490000 Exhibit: 5a=10 uautorma ABU - License Query System - llata Summary Page 2 of 2 Suspension Start Date: Suspension End Date: old Information No Active Holds ound .. . Escrow No Escrow ound .. . - - - End of Report - - - For a definition of codes, view ourIg ossag.., File #: AP09-002 http://www.abe.ca.gov/datpoft/LQSData.asp?ID=274490000 Title: Letter of Appeal. 5/25/09 Exhibit: 5a -I l California ABC - License Query System - Data Summary �x �oRti�,'�tiv Californiaof Alcoholic Beverage Control License Query System Summary �d�FJ,neEVERPf''�4�i as I 511912009 icense Information icense Number: 274490 Status: CANCEL Primary Owner: CHAVEZ RNENAL C Office of Application: SAN JOSE [Business Name IDoing Business As: MI PUEBLO FOOD CENTER 2 [Business Address ddress: 40 S RENGSTORFF AVE Census Tract: 5094.04 City: MOUNTAIN VIEW County: SANTA CLARA State: CA Zip Code: 94040 [Licensee Information icensee: CHAVEZ JUVENAL icensee: CHAVEZ MARIA icense Types 1 License e: 20 - OFF -SALE BEER AND WINE License Type Status: CANCEL Status Date: 08-NOV-2004 Term: 12 Month s Original Issue Date: 13 -AUG -1992 Expiration Date: 31 -OCT -2005 Master: Y Duplicate: 0 Fee Code: NA License Type was Transferred On: 05 -OCT -2004 To: 419135 Current Disciplinary Action .. —No Active Disci li Action ound .. . Oisciptinary History Reg. Number: 98044736 i Section Violated: 24200 a&b 2 Section Violated: 25658(a) Proceeding Status: COMPLETE Decision: SUSPENDED [—Suspension Days: 15 Stayed Das POIC/FSne: 3000 Suspension Start Date: Suspension End Date: r --Reg. Number. 04056781 1 Section Violated: 24200(a) 2 Section Violated: 25658(a) Proceeding Status: COMPLETE Decision: SUSPENDED Suspension Days: 15 Stayed Days POIC/Fine: 3000 File# AP09 http://www.abe.ca.gov/datport/LQSData.asp?ID=274490000 Page 1 of 2 002 Title: Letter of Appeal. 5/25/09 Exhibit: 5a5a=12 California ABC - License Query System - Data Summary Suspension Start Date: Suspension End Date: old Information . No Active Holds found... Escrow . No Escrow ound .. . - - - End of Report--- For Report---For a definition of codes, view our glossary. http://www.abe.ca.gov/datport/LQSData.asp?ID=274490000 Page 2 of 2 File #: AP09-002 Title: Letter of Appeal 5/25/09 Exhibit: 5a5a=13 t -anomia "k - License yuery system - vata summary • s 'n. California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control License Systemery �i//9i• [License Information icense Number: 403276 Status: WITHDRAWAL rima Owner: MI PUEBLO SAN JOSE INC JABC Office of Application: SALINAS usiness Name Ooing Business As: MI PUEBLO FOOD CENTER 5 usiness Address ddress: 950 E ALISAL ST Census Tract: 0009. [City: SALINAS Coun : MONTEREY State: CA Zip Code: 93905 icensee Information icensee: MI PUEBLO SAN JOSE INC Company O rcer In ormation Officer: ALDAZ JEFFREY ALFONSO, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER Officer: CHAVEZ JUVENAL, PRESIDENT/SECRETARY Officer: CHAVEZ MARIA, VICE PRESIDENT Officer: SALAS HECTOR, VICE PRESIDENT [License Types 1 License e: 20 - OFF -SALE BEER AND WINE License Type Status: WITHDRAWAL Status Date: 19 -SEP -2003 Term: Month(s) Ori final Issue Date: Expiration Date: Master: Y Duplicate: 0 Fee Code: NA Current Disci ling Action [7No Active Disciplinary Action found... isci ling History . No Disq)?Iinary Histo ound .. . old Information I.. No Active Holds ound .. . scrow . No Escrow ound... ---End of Report --- For a definition of codes, view ourlg ossary. Page 1 of 1 File #: AP09-002 Title: Letter of Appeal, 5/25/09 http://www.abe.ca.gov/datport/LQSData.asp?ID=2022228454 Exhi6it:5a=14 California ABC - License Query System - Data Sununaty ,�P41fOgti 9�or CaliforniaDepartment of Alcoholi(i License Query System �„QEVER? �t as of 1 / l 1 icense Information icense Number: 403276 Status: WITHDRAWAL Primary Owner: MI PUEBLO SAN JOSE INC Ofce ofA lication: SALINAS [Business Name Ooing Business As: MI PUEBLO FOOD CENTER 5 [Business Address ddress: 950 E ALISAL ST Census Tract: 0009. i : SALINAS County: MONTEREY tate: CA Zip Code: 93905 icensee Information icensee: MI PUEBLO SAN JOSE INC Company Officer Information Officer: ALDAZ JEFFREY ALFONSO, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER Officer: CHAVEZ JUVENAL, PRESIDENT/SECRETARY Officer: CHAVEZ MARIA, VICE PRESIDENT Officer: SALAS HECTOR, VICE PRESIDENT icense Types I License e: 20 - OFF -SALE BEER AND WINE License Type Status: WITHDRAWAL Status Date: 19 -SEP -2003 Term: Month(s) Original Issue Date: Expiration Date: Master: Y Duplicate: 0 Fee Code: NA Current Disciplinary Action F. . No Active Disci lino Action ound .. . isci ling History . No DisciplinTj Histo ound .. . old Information . No Active Holds. found .. . FE;c—row . No Escrow found .. . - - - End of Report - - - Page 1 of 1 For a definition of codes, view ourlog s� File #: AP09-002 Title: Letter of Appeal 5/25/09 http://www.abc.ca.gov/datport/LQSData.asp?ID=2022228454 Exhibit: 5a=15 California ABC - License Query System - Data Summary v ��r nRry9a California Department of Alcoholi(s Beverage Control �o Query Summary as of 1 / l 1 License Information License Number: 477469 Status: PENDING rima Owner: MI PUEBLO SAN JOSE INC Ofce of Application: SANTA ROSA Business Name Ooing Business As: MI PUEBLO FOOD CENTER 16 usiness Address ddress: 330 BELLAM BLVD Census Tract: 1122. Ci : SAN RAFAEL County: MARIN State: CA Zip Code: 94901-4804 Licensee Information iceusee: MI PUEBLO SAN JOSE INC Comany Officer Information Officer: ALDAZ JEFFREY ALFONSO, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER Officer: CHAVEZ JUVENAL PRESIDENT/SECRETARY Officer: CHAVEZ MARIA, VICE PRESIDENT Officer: SALAS BECTOR, VICE PRESIDENT [License Types 1 License e: 21 - OFF -SALE GENERAL License Type Status: PENDING Status Date: 14 -APR -2009 Term: Month(s) Original Issue Date: Expiration Date: Master: Y Duplicate: 0 Fee Code: NA License Type was Transferred On: From: 440233 . Current Disci ling Action . No Active Dis&linary Action ound .. . nisciplinary History F. No Disciplinary Histo bund .. . old Information old Date: e: FORM 220 scrow scrow: ABC ESCROW 17383 W SUNSET BLVD STE A310 PACIFIC ALISADES CA 90272-5106 - - - End of Report--- For Report- For a definition of codes, view ourlg ossM. http://www.abc.ca.gov/datport/LQSData.asp?ID=2031281528 Page 1 of 1 File #: AP09-002 Title: Letter of Appeal, 5/25/09 Exhibit:5a-16 RUTH DONOHUGH 34o BELLAM BOULEVARD SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 94901 July 8, 2009 RECEIVED Planning Commission JUL 07 NbJ City of San Rafael - PLAN ]".IG 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: 330 Bellam Boulevard (Mi Pueblo Food Center), File Nos. ED09- 014/UP09-015/SR09-012/PCN09-001 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Zoning Administrator approved this proposed project. I appealed the decision because the proposed project fails to comply in material respects with Title 14 — Zoning — of the San Rafael Municipal Code (the "Zoning Ordinance"). The applicant describes the proposed project simply as a "grocery store."' That is inaccurate and misleading. The proposed project is, in fact, an expansive kind of food mall featuring a variety of separate commercial uses relating to food, from which the proposed project derives its name: "MI PUEBLO FOOD CENTER." The proposed Food Center contains a fast food restaurant. As shown in the plans, the proposed Food Center has many separate uses: a grocery store, a tortilleria, a panaderia (bakery), a shaved ice bar, a gelatine bar, a coffee bar; a juice bar, and a very substantial "fast food restaurant." The fast food restaurant occupies the northwest portion of the building at the entrance near Bellam Boulevard. It consists of 19 large tables with at least 76 chairs inside and another six large tables with more chairs outside; a huge commercial kitchen with 34 steam table -pans, nine food trays, a three-foot grill, two four -foot grills, seven stock pot stoves, a ten -burner stove, a double fryer; a chicken rotisserie, a pastor rotisserie, and seven food preparation work tables; a large walk-in refrigerator unit; a 435 -square "Grocery store" is not defined in the Zoning Ordinance but the common definition is a store for the sale of staple foodstuffs, meats, produce, dairy products and household supplies (Webster's Dictionary). "Kitchen" is defined as "any portion of it structure equipped, used or intended to be used for the storage, preparation, and cooking.of foods" (Zoning Ordinance; Section 14.03.030). File #: AP09-002 Title: Additional Letter from Appellant. 7/8/09 Exhibit: 5b-1 Planning Commission July 8, 2009 Page 2 foot addition for two six-foot charcoal barbecues open to the Bellam Boulevard entrance; an outside counter for drive-in service; and four cash registers (which are in addition to nine more cash registers at the grocery store check-out counters). The area occupied by the fast food restaurant is at least 5,266 square feet.3 The fast food restaurant is designed for customers to order food at the interior counter or the outside counter and, upon ordering, to..pay for their orders at the counter cash register. The customers are served at the counter with disposable plates, utensils and napkins. They take the food to the tables to eat or carry it out "to go." There is no table service. The fast food restaurant customers do not go through the grocery store or its check-out counters. There can be no doubt that this use constitutes a fast food restaurant under the Zoning Ordinance because it perfectly fits the statutory definition. Section 14.03.030 of the Zoning Ordinance defines "fast food restaurant' as a facility which specializes in rapidly prepared foods and beverages, served with dispensable (such as paper or plastic) plates and utensils for on- or off- site consumption. Table service is generally limited to delivery of counter - ordered meals and busing. Service to persons in vehicles may be a function of fast food restaurants. Fast food restaurants have high customer volume and high traffic generation, plus one or more of the following elements: _ 1. Drive-through service; - 3 This is the minimum area of the fast food restaurant, which includes the commercial kitchen, the interior seating area and the charcoal barbecue addition. It excludes the exterior dining area. Areas used for the tortilleria and the panaderia and kitchen work spaces associated with them could appropriately be allocated to the fast food restaurant to increase its area to as much as 6,575 square feet. 4 The model for the proposed.Food Canter is the existing Mi Pueblo Food.Center in Pittsburg (2100 Railroad Avenue). A visit to the Pittsburg location will confirm beyond doubt the fact that the proposed Food Center contains a fast food restaurant. File #: AP09-002 _ - Title: Additional Letter from Appellant. 7/8/09 Exhibit: 5b-2 Planning Commission July 8, 2009 Page 3 2. Late/early hours of operation (open after eleven p.m. (11:00 p.m.) or before six a.m. (6:00 a.m.)); 3.: Potential litter problems; 4. Noise (for example, from drive-through intercoms); 5. Potential outdoor gathering places. The proposed Food Center does not comply with the parking requirements. The proposed Food Center clearly contains a fast food restaurant as well as a grocery store. These are multiple, separate uses in the building. It is, therefore, a "mixed-use project' under the Zoning Ordinance because it is "a development in which more than one use is combined in a single building or on a single site" (Section 14.03.030). Section 14.18.070 of the Zoning Ordinance provides: Where there.is more than one use in a single structure or on a site, or two (2) or more separate instances of the same use, off-street [parking] requirements shall be the sum of the [parking] requirements for the various uses. Section 14.18.070 thus mandates that each of the fast food restaurant use and the grocery store use must satisfy the separate parking requirements applicable to each such use. Parking requirements are set forth in Section 14.18.040. The parking requirement for fast food restaurants is 1 space.per 100 sq. ft. for 50 percent of the gross building sq. ft.; and one space per 65 sq. ft. for -50 percent of the gross building sq, ft. or one space per 2.5 interior seats, whichever is greater. File #: AP09-002 Title: Additional Letter from Appellant 7/8/09 Exhibit: 5b-3 Planning Commission July 8, 2009 Page 4 Applying this requirement to the fast food restaurant in the proposed Food Center, the required parking is 67 spaces, calculated as follows:5 [(5,266 x 50%) =.100] + [(5;266 x 50°/4) _ 65] = 67 The remaining grocery store area in the building is 3 1, 100 square feet. The parking required by Section 14.18.040 for that use is "1 space per 250 gross building sq. ft.," which equals 124 parking spaces ([36,366-- 5,266] - 250 =124). Accordingly, the parking required by the Zoning Ordinance for the proposed Food Center is at least 191 spaces (67 + 124 =191). The site excludes 8,583 square feet along the westerly boundary granted exclusively to the Marin Health and Wellness Campus for parking and vehicular and pedestrian access for the Marin Health and Wellness Campus.6 Excluding that area, the site contains, at most, 162 parking spaces. Therefore, the site fails by at least 29 parking spaces to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. A proponent.of the proposed Food Center may argue that the separate fast food restaurant and the clear terms of the Zoning Ordinance applicable to the fast food restaurant should be ignored on the baseless theory that there is only a "deli" that is "ancillary" to the grocery. store. Such an argument dismisses the facts demonstrating the existence of a fast food restaurant and violates Sections 14.03.030 (fast food restaurant and mixed-use project), 14.18.070 (cumulative requirements for separate uses) and 14.18.040 (parking for fast food restaurants). The Zoning Ordinance 5 The fast food restaurant area shown in the applicant's plans could comfortably accommodate more large tables and many more chaos for greater seating capacity, which could increase the required parking under the formula based on interior seats. 6 This is not merely an allocation of 15 parking spaces; it is a grant of Ole exclusive right to use the 8,583 -square foot area. The transfer to the Marin Health and Wellness Campus of the exclusive -right to use this area effectively reduces the site from 172,465 square feet to 163,882 square feet and increases the FAR to 0.22 (36,366 = [172,465 — 8,583] = 0.22). This exceeds the maximum FAR of 0.21 permittedforthe site by Section 14.16.150 of the Zoning Ordinance. No increase in the size of the building should be allowed.,' File #: AP09-002 Title: Additional Letter from Appellant - _ - 7/8/09 Exhibit: 5b-4 Planning Commission July 8, 2009. Page 5 explicitly recognizes the significance of fast food restaurants and specifically responds to the impacts of them. It cannot be ignored. The Zoning Ordinance does not define what is "ancillary" so it is inappropriate to rely on such an undefined term in making important land use decisions. Comparative sales or proportional areas are irrelevant in determining the separate existence of a fast food restaurant because Section 14.03.030 (fast food restaurant and mixed-use project) does not include those factors. The relevant statutory guide is Section 14.05.020 (land use regulations), which states that "uses customarily incidental to a permitted use and contained on the same site" are permitted. The test, therefore, is whether a different use is "customarily incidental" to a permitted use. The proposed Food Center is unique and unprecedented. There is nothing like it anywhere in San Rafael (or Marin County). The fast food restaurant, especially on the scale in the proposed Food Center, cannot under any circumstances be considered "customary" in a grocery store or "incidental" to a grocery store in any way whatsoever. The best comparison is the Whole Foods grocery store on Third Street. Whole Foods has a traditional delicatessen counter for sandwiches and a standard refrigerated display case,for sliced meats, salads and the like. As an amenity for the convenience of customers, Whole Foods has four small tables with only two seats each inside and four small tables to seat four people each outside. Whole Foods contains a true "deli" of the kind that is "customarily incidental" to a grocery store.7 By contrast, the fast food restaurant in the proposed Food Center grossly exceeds the norm. In this case, the plain. terms of the Zoning Ordinance dictate the finding that a fast food restaurant exists and the determination that 67 parking spaces are required for it.8 Other examples of this common arrangement include United Market in San Rafael, Safeway in Strawberry, Mollie Stone in Greenbrae, Woodland Market in Kentfield, and Paradise Foods in Corte Madera. Many grocery stores, however, have nothing similar at all. 8 This.conclusion conforms to the mandate of Section 14.03.0 10 of the Zoning Ordinance: "The Purpose of this chapter is to promote consistency and precision in the application and interpretation of zoning regulations." File #: AP09-002 Title: Additional Letter from Appellant. 7/8/09 Exhibit: 5b-5 Planning Commission July 8, 2009 Page 6 The proposed Food Center requires a Conditional Use Permit. In view of its substantial magnitude, the fast food restaurant use within the proposed Food Center will constitute a "high volume food service establishment," which is defined in Section 14.03.030 of the Zoning. Ordinance to be a "food service establishment over one thousand (1,000) square feet in size which serves more than two hundred (200) lunches daily or equivalent volume at other meal times." Section 14.05.020 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit both for a fast food restaurant use and for a high volume food service establishment. The proposed Food Center cannot, therefore, be approved unless a Conditional Use Permit is issued for the fast food restaurant/high volume food service establishment. Strict compliance with the Zoning Ordinance is necessary. The area surrounding the intersection of Kerner Boulevard and Bellam Boulevard in general, and the site of the proposed Food Center in particular, are already severely impacted by very high traffic volume, inadequate parking and congestion. All northbound traffic on East Francisco Boulevard exits on Kerner and travels to the Kerner/Bellam intersection. That traffic must turn left and go westbound on Bellam to reach Highway 101. At the Kerner/Bellam-intersection, eastbound traffic on Bellam is reduced to one lane. The Kerner/Bellam intersection has already reached an unacceptable LOS. The site is burdened by easements for the benefit of the Marin Health and Wellness Campus. Access to the Marin Health and. Wellness Campus is available from Bellam through the alley along the easterly boundary of the site behind the building where the loading dock is located. Traffic exits Bellam behind the building, travels south and then west through the parking lot to the Marin Health and Wellness Campus. Traffic flow through the parking lot will be unsafe. The presence of many.large delivery trucks, which will frequent the site daily to serve the proposed Food Center, will block Bellain and the loading dock alley and back traffic up through the Kerner/Bellam intersection and beyond it. Cars and trucks will cross the site through the easterly alley from Bellam, then continue westerly across the site's parking lot to Kerner, where the principal entrance and exit for the Marin Health and Wellness Campus is located. The Marin Health and Wellness Campus also has the exclusive right to use the 8,583 -square foot area along File #: AP09-002 Title: Additional Letter from Appellant 7/8/09 Exhibit: 5b.6 Planning Commission July 8, 2009 Page 7 the westerly boundary of the site for parking and for access by vehicles and pedestrians. This will create an extremely hazardous condition at the very focal point for visitors to the Marin Health and Wellness Campus. -- As it exists today, there is inadequate parking in the area. On -street parking along Kerner and Bellam is full. The site is inadequate for the necessary parking. These traffic and parking problems will be exacerbated as the Marin Health and Wellness Campus achieves its full capacity in the future. The resulting chaos and danger in the parking lot will create an unmanageable situation.9 In these circumstances, the area has an acute need for careful land use planning. The City of San Rafael has the legal obligation to ensure strict compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and, as expressed in Section 14.18.010, to carry out the "specific purposes of parking regulations ... to... [p]romote the safety and convenience of all land use and circulation systems,... more efficient street systems .... the continued health and vitality of all.land uses,... [and] compatibility among adjacent land uses."to Y It is evident that the site of the proposed Food Center was planned for an earlier time prior to the establishment of the Marin Health and Wellness Campus when the use of the site was far less intense. The intensity of use in the area has increased dramatically. The proposed Food Center is a further gross intensification of the land use. 10 Section 14.18,010 declares: In addition to the general purposes listed in Section 14.01.030, the specific purposes of parking regulations are to; A. Promote the safety and convenience of all land use and circulation systems within the city by providing standards and policies for the creation and maintenance of vehicular off- street parking and loading; B. Promote more efficient street systems by reducing to a minimum.the congestion which may be created by uncontrolled parking; C. Promote the continued health and vitality of all land uses by providing reasonable satisfaction for normal parking demands; D. Promote compatibility among adjacent land uses and enhance the appearance of the city through appropriate design and aesthetic standards related to parking; : (... continued) File #: AP09-002 _ Title: Additional Letter from Appellant 7/8/09 - - - Exhibit: 5b-7 Planning Commission July 8, 2009 Page 8. The City of San Rafael must, on this important occasion, discharge its legal responsibility for strict compliance with all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance applicable to the proposed Food Center. I respectfully submit that the proposed Food Center does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance and cannot be approved. Very truly yours, ARmh'�Znohugh cc: Mr. Raffi Boloyan Simeon Commercial Properties - Mena Architects (... continued) E. Ensure that off-street parking.and loading facilities are provided for new land uses and for major alterations and enlargements of existing uses in proportion to the need for such facilities created by each use; F. Establish parking standards for commercial and industrial uses consistent with need and with the feasibility of providing parking on specific commercial and industrial sites; G. Ensure that off-street parking and loading facilities are designed in a manner that will ensure efficiency, protect the public safety and, where appro_ priate; insulate surrounding land uses from adverse impacts; H. Establish parking standards which recognize the more urban character of parking downtown. File #: AP09-002 - Title: Additional Letter from Appellant 7/8/09 - - - Exhibit: 5b-8 14.17.110 Outdoor eating areas proposed in conjunction with food service establishments. Page 1 of 2 14.17.110 Outdoor eating areas proposed in conjunction with food service establishments. A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote outdoor seating in conjunction with food service establishments to enhance the pedestrian ambiance of the city. Performance standards ensure that outdoor seating for restaurants and cafes does not adversely impact adjacent properties and surrounding neighborhoods. B. Applicability. Performance standards for outdoor eating areas proposed in conjunction with restaurants or other food service establishments shall apply in any zoning district where food service establishments are permitted uses (as of right or by conditional use permit). Compliance with performance standards for outdoor eating areas shall be reviewed by an administrative use permit process for any existing food service establishment. In cases where the restaurant or food service establishment is being proposed as a new use and is subject to a conditional use permit in the zoning district in which it is located, the performance standards shall be incorporated into the required use permit process. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any outdoor eating area located on city sidewalks or rights-of-way shall not be subject to the administrative use permit or use permit process, but shall be regulated as provided in Chapter 14.16, Site and Use Regulations, Section 14.16.277 and in Chapter 14.25, Design Review Permits, Section 14.25.040(C)(4) Administrative Design Permits. C. Standards. 1. Property Development Standards. The outdoor eating area shall comply with the property development standards for the zoning district in which it is to be located. 2. Accessory Use. The outdoor eating area shall be conducted as an accessory use to a legally established restaurant or food service establishment. 3. Intensification of Use. The proposed area for outdoor eating shall not exceed twenty- five percent (25%) of the indoor seating area. 4. Parking. Parking shall be provided for all permanently covered outdoor seating areas located outside of the downtown parking assessment district in accordance with parking standards in Section 14.18.040 (Parking requirements). 5. Barriers. If perimeter barriers are proposed around the outdoor eating area, approvals from the community development and public works departments shall be required. Perimeter barriers shall be temporary/movable fixtures unless the sidewalk has been expanded to accommodate an outdoor eating area. In areas where the sidewalk has been expanded, a permanent barrier and/or structure can be considered subject to terms and conditions of a license or lease agreement. If a barrier is bolted to a public sidewalk and is subsequently removed, the sidewalk shall be repaired subject to the review and approval of the public works director. 6. Sunshades. Retractable awnings and umbrellas may be used in conjunction with an outdoor eating area, but there shall be no permanent roof, or shelter over the sidewalk cafe area unless the sidewalk has been previously expanded to accommodate an outdoor eating area. Any awning, umbrella, permanent roof or shelter shall be adequately secured, and shall comply with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code. 7. Fixtures. The furnishings of the interior of the outdoor eating area shall consist only of movable tables, chairs and umbrellas. Movable plant pots or planter boxes are also permitted. Lighting fixtures may be permanently affixed onto the exterior of the principal building, but shall be shielded from adjacent uses. 8. Refuse Storage Area. No refuse structure enclosure or roronfiarlo c hall ho ororforl nr File #: AP09-002 Title: Outdoor Dining Performance Standards http://library2.municode.com/default-test/DocView/16610/1/1975/2069/2 Bahibit:6_1 14.17.110 Outdoor eating areas proposed in conjunction with food service establishments. Page 2 of 2 placed on a public sidewalk or right-of-way. 9. Maintenance. The sidewalk inside the outdoor eating area, the adjacent areas outside of the eating area, and all appurtenances related thereto, shall be steam cleaned or pressure washed on a quarterly basis, and shall be otherwise maintained at all times in good repair and in a clean and attractive condition as determined by the community development director. 10. Hours of Operation. The hours of operation of the outdoor eating area may be limited depending on surrounding uses. (Ord. 1751 §§ 4, 5, 2000: Ord. 1663 § 1 (part), 1994; Ord. 1625 § 1 (part), 1992). i f i 1 i i f k i f i i File #: AP09-002 Title: Outdoor Dining Performance Standards http://library2.municode.com/default-test/DocView/16610/1/1975/2069/21 Exhibit: 6_2 RRP!1"� AT REOUEST OF CAL LAND TITLE RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP 333 Market Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94105 Attn: George H. Guess, Esq. Illi 111 111 l 1111 l 11 1111 l 11111 Ili 111 20fb5-001985A Recorded 1 REC FEE 46.00 Official Records I Countyp Of I Mait I JOAN Recorder I 08108AM 22 -Mar -2005 I Page i of 14 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE GRANT OF EASEMENT AND RELATED AGREEMENTS VR�Ut� lass ;219N */air ,ki., This Grant of Easement And Related Agreements (the "Agreement") is entered into as of this f fo day of March, 2005 by and between SEAGATE CANAL ASSOCIATES, LLC, a California limited liability company ("330 Bellam), and SEAGATE SRBC ASSOCIATES, LLC, a California limited liability company ("SRBC'% with respect to the following facts: A. 330 Bellam is the owner of the real property in the City of San Rafael, County of Marin, State of California commonly known as 330 Bellam Boulevard and more particularly described in Exhibit attached hereto (the "330 Bellam Property"). B. SR13C is the owner of the real property in the City of San Rafael, County of Marin, State of California commonly known as the San Rafael Business Center and more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto (the "SRBC Property" and collectively with the 330 Bellam Property, the "Properties" and each, a'Troperty"). C. The parties hereto desire to provide for 330 Bellam to grant an easement appurtenant to and for the benefit of the SRBC Property and to enter into certain agreements relating thereto, as expressly provided below in this Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: I. Grant of Easement. 330 Bellam hereby grants to SRBC, as a perpetual casement appurtenant to and for the benefit of the SRBC Property, the "elusive right to access over and to, and use of, the portion of the 330 Bellam Property described in Exhibit C attached hereto, sufficient to provide parking for fifteen (15) vehicles (the "Easement Area'). Such easement is granted for the purpose of the parking of motor vehicles and ingress and egress by vehicular and pedestrian traffic by SRBC and its successors and assigns and any person or entity, from time to time emitted to the use and occupancy of any portion of the SRBC Property, including but not limited to owners and lessees and their employees, customers, vendors and visitors ("Users'). 2. Compliance with Applicable Laws. SR13C shall comply with and this Agreement shall be subject to (i) any and all applicable zoning laws and other laws pertaining to the easement and the Parking Area and (H) all recorded covenants, conditions and restrictions of record as of the date of this Agreement ("CCR's'), and SRBC shall, at its sole cost and expense, obtain any and all permits and approvals required in connection with the exercise of its rights under this Agreement. -SANFl,264MS.v7 File #: AP09-002 Title: Grant of Easement Exhibit: 7-1 pen RESOLUTION NO, 10299 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 9450, AND ADOPTING REVISED PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION WHETHER PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY WILL BE SERVED BY ISSUANCE OF OFF -SALE OR ON -SALE LIQUOR LICENSES, WHERE A FINDING OF UNDUE CONCENTRATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL WHEREAS, Business and Professions Code Sections 23958 and 23958.4 condition issuance of all off -sale liquor licenses, and certain on -sale liquor licenses, upon a determination by the local governing body or its designated subordinate body or officer that public convenience or necessity will be served by issuance of a license, where the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has determined that there is an undue concentration of such licenses, based upon county- wide averages, in the census tract in which the proposed license would be located; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Rafael previously adopted Resolution No. 9450, which established the existing procedures and criteria for the determination of such liquor license public convenience or necessity; and WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of San Rafael desires to revise the procedures and criteria for the future determination of such liquor license public convenience or necessity; NOW THEREFORE, the City Council for the City of San Rafael does hereby resolve as follows: Resolution No. 9450 is hereby rescinded, provided that the determination of public convenience or necessity as to the liquor license application now pending before the City Council shall be subject to said Resolution. All off -sale or on sale liquor license applications that require a local determination of public convenience or necessity as a condition of issuance of the license, pursuant to Business & Professions Code Sections 23958 and 23958.4, shall be handled hereafter as follows. 1 File #: AP09-002 Title: Resolution #10299 Re PCN's Exhibit: 8-1 r r pen RESOLUTION NO, 10299 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 9450, AND ADOPTING REVISED PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION WHETHER PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY WILL BE SERVED BY ISSUANCE OF OFF -SALE OR ON -SALE LIQUOR LICENSES, WHERE A FINDING OF UNDUE CONCENTRATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL WHEREAS, Business and Professions Code Sections 23958 and 23958.4 condition issuance of all off -sale liquor licenses, and certain on -sale liquor licenses, upon a determination by the local governing body or its designated subordinate body or officer that public convenience or necessity will be served by issuance of a license, where the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has determined that there is an undue concentration of such licenses, based upon county- wide averages, in the census tract in which the proposed license would be located; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Rafael previously adopted Resolution No. 9450, which established the existing procedures and criteria for the determination of such liquor license public convenience or necessity; and WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of San Rafael desires to revise the procedures and criteria for the future determination of such liquor license public convenience or necessity; NOW THEREFORE, the City Council for the City of San Rafael does hereby resolve as follows: Resolution No. 9450 is hereby rescinded, provided that the determination of public convenience or necessity as to the liquor license application now pending before the City Council shall be subject to said Resolution. All off -sale or on sale liquor license applications that require a local determination of public convenience or necessity as a condition of issuance of the license, pursuant to Business & Professions Code Sections 23958 and 23958.4, shall be handled hereafter as follows. 1 File #: AP09-002 Title: Resolution #10299 Re PCN's Exhibit: 8-1 Application and Fees A completed application for a determination of public convenience or necessity, in a form prescribed by the Community Development Director, shall be filed by the applicant with the Community Development Department, together with such application processing fee as may hereafter be set from time to time as part of the City Council's Master Fee Schedule Resolution. II. Review and Processing of Application . The determination of public convenience or necessity shall be made by the Community Development Director or the Community Development Director's designee, except that such determination shall be made by the Planning Commission in any case where the applicant is required to obtain a separate use permit or other land use permit that otherwise would be considered by the Planning Commission. Within 90 days following receipt of the completed PCN application, the Community Development Director or the Community Development Director's designee shall set the application �J for hearing and determination in accordance with the criteria provided in Section III. In the case of a PCN application for which a separate use permit or other land use permit is required, the PCN application shall not be deemed complete unless the application for the separate use permit or other land use permit is also complete. The Police Department shall provide input with respect to such criteria as relate to criminal activity and security issues, together with any proposed operational conditions to address such issues. Mailed notice of the hearing date on the determination shall be provided to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property, and to any other persons who have a written request for notice on file with the Community Development Department, at least ten calendar days prior to the hearing. The burden shall be placed upon the applicant to show that public convenience or necessity ` will be served by issuance of the license according to the criteria established hereafter. File #: AP09-002 2 Title: Resolution #10299 Re PCN's Exhibit: 8-2 A decision to find public convenience or necessity will be served by issuance of a license may be conditioned on operating restrictions and other conditions, if the issuance of the license subject to such conditions is deemed sufficient, after considering the criteria established hereafter, to serve public convenience or necessity. A decision approving or denying a determination of public convenience or necessity may be appealed by the applicant or any other interested party to the City Council by filing a written appeal within five (5) business days of the decision with the Community Development Department together with any required filing fee. Such an appeal shall be subject to the appeal procedures prescribed in San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 14.28. The Community Development Department shall give written notice of any final decision approving or denying a determination of public convenience or necessity to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. M. Criteria For Determination of Public Convenience or Nece si For purposes of determining whether public convenience or necessity will be served by issuance of an on -sale retail liquor license or off -sale retail liquor license subject to local determination, the following criteria shall be considered, (1) Whether the issuance involves an existing business with a license which is being transferred to a new location, and which will not result in an increase in the total number of off -sale retail liquor licenses or on -sale retail liquor licenses in the City, or in the census tract in which the. business would be located. (2) Whether the business, by reason of its location, character, manner or method of operation, merchandise, or potential clientele, will serve a segment of the City's businesses or residents not presently being served. (3) Whether the business will be located within a 1,000 -foot radius of incompatible facilities, such as public and private schools, day care centers, churches; parksi homeless shelters, and alcohol rehabilitation centers, and facilities designed and operated to serve minors. File #: AP09-002 3 Title:! esolution #10299 Re PCN', Exhibit: 8-3 01 1 (4) Whether the location of the license will be in a crime data area covered by Police Department statistics, which has a twenty percent (20%) greater number of reported crimes than the average number of "reported crimes" for all crime data areas in the City, over the previous year. For this purpose, "reported crimes". means 'reported offenses of criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny theft, and motor vehicle theft, combined with all arrests for other misdemeanor or felony crimes, except for traffic citations. (5) Whether the issuance of the license involves an existing business, which has been located at a site which has had three or more reported crimes as defined in (4) above within the previous one year period. (6) Whether the issuance of the license will promote the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, any applicable specific plan, or any similar policies that have been formally adopted by the City Council. (7) Whether any other information supplied by the applicant, or other competent evidence shows that public convenience or necessity will be served by issuance of the license. 11 JEANNE M. LEONCMI, Clerk of the .City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on Monday the 17th day of AUGUST 1998, by the following . vote to wit: APES: COUNC]I-NMM$ERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor B.oro' NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen 6.4 � JE LEUNCINI,—City Clerk File #: AP09-002 Title: Resolution #10299 Re PCN's 4 Exhibit: 8-4 PICANTE 340 Bellam Blvd San Rafael, CA 94904 May 4, 2009 Mr. Raffr Boylan Community Development Department City of San Rafael San Rafael, 94915-1560 Dear Mr. Boylan, I would ask that you read my letter at the public hearing to discuss the Use Permit for Mi Pueblo Foods at 330 Bellam Blvd. I am the adjacent neighbor of this project and object to several aspects of the permit. First of all, this area has become very crowded for parking and general traffic since the opening of the Marin Community Clinics. We welcome them, but their parking lots are already completely full. I would ask that the Use Permit only allow truck deliveries before 9am or after 6pm. It is almost complete traffic gridlock between 5 and 6pm. The clinics already use the driveway behind 330 Bellam to enter their parking lot. Any double-parked trucks during commute time will be dangerous. There is no other emergency egress from this area. I welcome a grocery store but object to a large chain grocery store such Mi Pueblo being allowed to have a restaurant inside and an outdoor dining area. There are a number of small restaurants such as ours in this area that object to a grocery store being allowed to "piggyback" a restaurant operation onsite. I would ask that you remove the restaurant part and outdoor dining part of their application. I also want the hours to be limited if they are going to permit alcohol sales. Check your own police department records if you need any evidence of the problems related to alcohol in this area. The opening of this store will only make them worse. I do not want the store open past 9pm because the neghborhood will suffer the consequences. As the adjacent neighbor, I also want a required schedule for exterior cleanup. For years I have provided an outdoor portapotty because there are many homeless people living in cars and such here. I have also picked up the trash from Circuit City and the abandoned mattresses, tires, etc.. A market will only be worse than Circuit City. Mi Pueblo must have a exterior trash collection cleanup schedule attached as a condition of operation. There are many small businesses such as mine here who have spent a lot of time trying to improve the neighborhood and we do not want to tarn it over to a large uninterested absentee corporation without a commitment on their part to improve the area. S' car Ruth Donohugh RECEIVED MAY - 6 2009 r COMMUNITY DEYELOPMENT CITY OF$ -• •--_ File #: AP09-002 Title: Correspondence Prior to ZA hearin¢ Exhibit: 10-1 There are some serious concerns about the Mi Pueblo Market location. The proposed number of employees far outnumbers any traffic that was generated by Circuit City when it was open. What was the traffic prediction for Circuit City? Was there a survey done when they were in the planning stages? To add to the problem; the street narrows to one lane before the entrance to the property. That will cause major flow problems. The new health clinic is already generating a huge increase in traffic and it appears that some of the Circuit City parking lot is being used by the clinic and parking for county employees. Where are the extra cars going to end up parking? The shear size of the proposed "ancillary" restaurant is larger than any of the close to 20 eating and grocery establishments that are within a half mile of the Circuit City location. With 94 seats, there must be some concern about traffic just for the restaurant, not to mention the mega market that will occupy most of the space. Even if the restaurant is averaging 75% capacity,_ that means that 70 customers an hour would be patronizing the facility. Using the figure of 2 people per car that means that 35 cars an hour will be there just for the restaurant. That could mean 350 cars per day just for a small part of the business that wants to go in there. When you add in shoppers using the market, I can't even imagine where they will park. The amount of new traffic a day would be well over 500 vehicles, not to mention the highly increased large truck traffic needed for the store. It has taken many years for the canal area to evolve into a viable business area for the many Hispanic business owners. The proposed project, while it may seem like a windfall for the city coffers will actually reduce the number of locally owned businesses. The net result will not be many more jobs since the smaller businesses will be forced to close or scale back in the face of the mega store that is proposed. Here is a list of eateries that are already in the area and will certainly suffer if this project is allowed to proceed without any study done on its impact to the community. Picante, Celia's. Playa Azul, Quezada Taqueda, Palomar, Salvador, Taqueda Bahia, La Croissant, Yu Shang, Michael's Sourdough, Viking Sub Shop, Foodles, Pier 15, Brooklyn Pizza There has been a serious need for grocery stores in the area and it has been met with many smaller markets in the community that easily employ close to the same number of people that the market claims it will employ. Mi Tierra, Quezada Market, Bellam Produce and Meats, La Plaza, Azteca Market, More ftLess, 7-11 It just appears that there hasn't been much thought given to the overall impact of this project. I believe the first step is to do a real traffic forecast. That in itself would expose many concerns. /v) S�bm1��J File #: AP09-002 Title: Correspondence Prior to ZA hearing Exhibit: 10-2 May 15, 2009 Dear Raffi and the Planning Commission, gho There are several major problems with the plan to convert the Circuit City store into a large Mi Pueblo as proposed. 1. The proposed restaura /dining room and outdoor dining patio is considered an "ancillary "use to a grocery store. The plans call for seating for 94 people, which is definitely NOT ancillary, That is the size of a rather large fullscale restaurant. In an effort to educate myself I visited or telephoned all of the major grocery stores in Marin that even have seating on site to find out what their total seating both inside and out was. The results were as follows: Safeway (new construction) in Strawberry -3 tables Mollie Stones in Greenbrae-3 tables outside only Paradise Foods in Corte Madera -3 tables inside and 4 tables outside, total 7 United Market in San Rafael4 tables outside and one bench Woodland Market in Kentfield-6 tables outside Whole Foods in San Rafael4 tables for 2 people each inside and 4 tables for 4 each outside Costco in Novato -14 tables inside The largest store I could think of in Marin was Costco, with only 14 tables total. I would ask that seating capacity be reduced to fit the normal expected "ancillary" use in Marin or that adequate restaurant parking criteria be met. The proposed seating for 94 vastly exceeds any of our standard "ancillary" dining seating capacity in place in any grocery store in Marin. 2. I also question your premise that a 36,000 grocery store/restaurant generates the same amount of traffic as the old Circuit City store. In the newspaper you were quoted as saying Mi Pueblo will employ 200 people; the old Circuit City did not have 50. It is common sense that all of us visit a grocery store/restaurant many more times each month than we visit an electronics store. We also all drive to a grocery store because it is hard to carry everything if you walk. There is the further problem that the loading dock in the back of Circuit City is now the principal entrance to the new clinics as it provides quicker access than the "Loop". It is also the access to the employee parking at the 3110 building. The "Loop" also dumps all of the traffic from Kerner onto Bellam with no other way out in most cases. There have also been no provisions to provide footpaths through the complexes for pedestrians. Please visit Bellam Blvd at 5:15 pm on a weekday if you have any doubt about the current traffic congestion. As the adjacent property, I would like to formally request that a traffic study be done to assess whether the site can handle the additional automobile traffic that it will generate. 3. You also were not able to adequately answer questions about parking and the math does not add up. Right now there are 81 parking spaces in the Circuit City lot and that includes all of the loading zone and handicapped spaces. All of the rest are used and signed accordingly for exclusive use by the employees of the Wellness Complex and the county, These spaces are completely full all day long as emplpyees do not leave. I have taken pictures to illustrate this. If this Walmart size Mi Pueblo store is going to be allowed, then it must have dedicated parking and prove that the parking has not already been allocated to the Clinic, which is what it looks like has been done. 4. It should be brought to the Planning Commission's attention that the neghborhood asked for a market here for years. In the vacuum, a number of small and medium size markets have opened and there are now 8 markets within a square mile of this location. I would also ask that a review of the liquor sates be done File #: AP09-002 Title: Correspondence Prior to ZA hearing Exhibit: 10-3 a as there are more criminal incidents involving this area than other parts of Marin. File #: AP09-002 Title: Correspondence Prior to ZA hearing Exhibit: 10-4 Page 1 of 1 Raffi Boloyan From: Finn Jeff [1956kiteboarder@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 2:10 PM To: Raffi Boloyan Subject: Mi Pueblo Hello, in follow up to a voice message I left you Monday afternoon, I object to mi pueblo, burning charcoal on the sidewalk for barbecue, this will acerbate my health problems. I am concerned about Alcohol being side on site as there is a big drinking problem in the canal area. Also there should be adequate off street parking for all customers, plus private security and cleanliness of store parking lot, loitering etc. Sincerely Jeffrey S. Finn 375 Catalina Blvd apt 102 San Rafael CA. 94901 415-456-4216 File #: AP09-002 Title: Correspondence Prior to PC hearing Exhibit: 11-1 6/23/2009 Page I of 1 Raffi Boloyan From: Sarjit Dhaliwal Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:59 AM To: Raffi Boloyan Subject: FW: Mi Pueblo Foodcenter Ruff i: This is for you. Sorjit From: Ruben Madrid [mailto:rufusmadrid@yahoo.com] Posted At: Monday, June 22, 2009 4:48 PM Posted To: Community Development Internet Mail Conversation: Mi Pueblo Foodcenter Subject: Mi Pueblo Foodcenter I am a new resident of San Rafael and I have enjoyed the "small town" feeling I feel everywhere that I go. Recently I "found" a restaurant named "Picante" on Bellan Blvd. in San Rafael While there, I noticed that there is a planned development proposed for the old Circuit City site. The planning commission should go to the site and look around. It is located on a divided "one way" street that is not conductive to heavy traffic coming out of the site. Exiting customers would have to cross 2 lanes of traffic in order to reach a left hand lane, permitting them to make a "u -turn", causing a danger to on coming traffic and to pedestrians. I find that it also "smells like" the beginning of a "Wall -Mart" way of thinking which is: Go into a small community and "wipe out the small guy". Bring in "mom & pop" individual stores and business, where one can walk in and do business with the owner or manager, who lives and works in the community. I worked in a small town named "Montrose" in the Los Angeles area, and I saw and felt the residents and businesses suffering because of the "Big Box" syndrome. Please reconsider your plans for the approval of the "Mi Pueblo Foodcenter". Thank You for your time Ruben Madrid 107 San Rafael Dr. San Rafael, Ca. 94901 (415) 250-4329 File #: AP09-002 Title: Correspondence Prior to PC hearin¢ Exhibit: 11-2 6/23/2009 Page 1 of 1 Raffi Boloyan From: Jorge Castillo [orgec@marininstitute.org] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 4:04 PM To: Raffi Boloyan Subject: Mi Pueblo in the Canal area and the alcohol License Mr. Boloyan, I am writing to inquire on the status of the Mi Pueblo super market alcohol license application. As a nationally recognized alcohol watchdog organization, Marin Institute --which works to monitor the harms alcohol causes in our communities; we have been receiving calls from local neighbors and we have also spoken to local residents and they have been expressing to us that they are concerned that Mi Pueblo might sell alcohol in the Canal area. We share their concern as there is an over saturation of retailers selling alcohol in the area. The Latino community in general is disproportionately affected by alcohol harms. We also understand that the Canal area has a higher rate of crime than other parts of the city making it an area where it is not desirable to add more alcohol sales. Please inform us on what steps community members can take to make their concerns heard in the city planning process in regards to this matter. with appreciation, Jorge E. Castillo Advocacy & Outreach Manager Organizador de Enlace Comunitario Marin Institute - Alcohol Industry Watchdog 24 Belvedere St. San Rafael, CA 94901 Jorgec@marininstitute.org T (415) 257-2488 F (415) 456-0491 http://www.marininstitute.org File #: AP09-002 Title: Correspondence Prior to PC hearing Exhibit: 11-3 6/25/2009 Date 6/29/09 To: File for 330 Bellam (Mi Pueblo Appeal) From Raffi Boloyan I received call today from Theresa Davidson. She stated that she owns three townhomes across from this site and that she and her tenants support this project since it would provide convenient shopping for her tenants and won't impact the neighborhood sine it would allow more people to walk to the store. File #: AP09-002 Title: Correspondence Prior to PC hearing Exhibit: 11-4 Page 1 of 1 Raffi Boloyan From: allyno@att.net Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 9:28 PM To: Raffi Boloyan Subject: Mi Pueblo Foodcenter I plan to attend the City Council meeting in July on the subject of Mi Pueblo's installation on Bellam Street. 1 think this area would benefit from a supermarket in the proposed location. However, it seems to me that the traffic here has been worse lately and it might behoove you to reexamine that problem between now and then. Perhaps a plan can be worked out that, even if it delays a market there, would prevent a huge mistake vis a vis traffic tie-ups. No. 2. 1 don't think a charcoal burning smoking barbeque on the sidewalk operating from 7 a.m. should be acceptable to the City, as I understand has been planned. Allyn Otnes 425 Bahia Way allyno(a)att.net File #: AP09-002 Title: Correspondence Prior to PC hearine Exhibit: 11-5 6/29/2009 Page 1 of 1 Raffi Boloyan From: louissjoan@aol.com Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 3:49 PM To: Raffi Boloyan; louissjoan@aol.com Subject: Mi Pueblo disaster Did not think, as a long term resident on the Bellam Kerner area, I would need to write a note about the inept idea of this Mi Pueblo taking over Circuit city A. Let me first of all have you make note of the fact that Mr, Boro and his Cohorts have now for years dumped everything onto East San Rafael area the they do not know how to handle and it is still going on B. If this situation goes through- I hope that the City of S.R, will have the resources available for extra Police Force, to control Security, Drug dealing, Alcoholism and Pollution. 1 also suggest that if this debacle comes to pass, may be the city could make the entrance to this Grocery store one way in and another way out In other words one way traffic ? You do understand that this situation will accelerate the Canal area to expand into an accelerated slum -area , as had been happening for years. You do undersand that this move will create numerous vacant stores ? and boarded up buildings, I suggest you take a drive through the area, and see how well the high density area is coping with its mess Time to secede East San Rafael from the city and have its own tax base ? This is not the first time this has been suggested in the past Thank you for lending me your ear.... Regards An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! File #: AP09-002 Title: Correspondence Prior to PC hearing Exhibit: I 1-6 6/29/2009 Page 1 of I Raffi Boloyan From: Barbara Spector [barb@smartmovesinc.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 8:43 AM To: Raffi Boloyan Subject: I object to the proposed Mi Pueblo Food center I live in Baypoint Lagoon and was stunned to learn of a plan to turn the old Circuit City into this Food Center. The traffic this will produce will be intolerable to the neighbors in Baypoint Lagoon and depreciate our property value. Please include my opposition to this plan in whatever hearings occur. Barbara Spector, President 415-456-1990 ext.4 barb@smartmovesinc.com 'Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. " George Carlin File #: AP09-002 Title: Correspondence Prior to PC hearin Exhibit: jj 7/7/2009 Circuit City Raffi Boloyan From: Dee Carroll [carrollinc@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:06 AM To: Raffi Boloyan Subject: Circuit City Page 1 of 1 I understand there is a possibility that yet another Hispanic market is being considered for the property vacated by Circuit City. We already have Hispanic markets all over the Canal/East San Rafael area: the market behind Yu Shang at Kerner and Bellam, Bellam Produce, Mi Tierra, even the Cheaper on Bellam certainly leans towards Hispanic. For those of us with more main -stream needs, we must get in our cars and add to the traffic problems on E. Francisco to go to United, Whole Foods or Trader Joe's. Or, jam onto Bellam to Anderson to get to Safeway. In other words, we have nothing nearby in East San Rafael that serves the needs of the non -Hispanic. I'd have to guess that at least half the people living in East San Rafael are not of Hispanic background. Look at Spinnaker Point, Bay Point, and a great part of Bahia. IF we're going to get yet another market, can't we get one that will be more main stream? A place where people who speak English might actually be able to read the labels on the items? Why does everyone forget that we do have English speaking people in East San Rafael? If we had a main -stream market in the Circuit City building, I would rarely have to use my car since I could walk to the market. That would be one less car on the road. Thank you. Dee Carroll File #: AP09-002 Title: Corresoondence Prior to PC hearine Exhibit: 11-8 7/7/2009 rEnergy5mart Grocer energysmartg rocer.org Anon Fries EnergySmart Grocer 1400 SW 5`h Ave, Portland, OR 97201 July 7, 2009 City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: Mi Pueblo Food Center To Whom It May Concern: The EnergySmart Grocer program works with grocery stores throughout the Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) territory to improve the energy efficiency of their stores' operations. Mi Pueblo Food Center has been actively working with the EnergySmart Grocer program since 2003, and has since completed 43 energy efficiency measures at 10 different locations. Mi Pueblo Food Center's investments in energy efficiency through the EnergySmart Grocer program have saved over 672,000 kWh. This is equal to 935,000 lbs of CO2 not emitted, or over 1,000,000 miles not driven. Mi Pueblo Food Center has been a valuable partner in the EnergySmart Grocer program and I look forward to their continued commitment to energy efficiency. Sincerely, Arron Fries Program Manager 1400 SW 5th Avenue Suite 700 Portland, Oregon 97201 File #: AP09-002 Title: Correspondence Prior to PC hearine Exhibit: 11-9 61 Pacific Gas and Electric Company' July 8, 2009 City of San Rafael Planning Commission 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Dear San Rafael Planning Commission, Alexander FeLz Account Executive Corporate Service & Sales 4040 West Lane Stockton, GA 95204 Mailing Address Pacific Gas and Electric Company P. 0. Box 930 Stockton, CA 95291 209.942.1433 luounai: 942.1433 Fax: 209.942.1460 Internet: AAF 701pgncom This letter is to confirm that Mi Pueblo Foods is actively working with Pacific Gas and Electric Company to reduce its energy use and carbon footprint through our energy efficiency programs. M1 Pueblo Foods has applied for energy efficiency design assistance for their new construction projects in San Rafael, East Palo Alto & Salinas through PG&E's Non Residential New Construction Program. PG&E's Non -Residential New Construction, also known statewide as Savings By Design is a program for commercial, industrial, high Tech and agricultural customers that encourages energy-efficient building and process design and constriction. It offers analysis and resources to aid owners and design teams with energy-efficient facility design. In addition, Mi Pueblo is also in the process of implementing several energy efficiency projects with the EnergySmart Grocer program in order to reduce their energy use and carbon footprint at existing stores. Mi Pueblo's Energy Team has also been working with PG&E to ensure the cooking and refrigeration equipment purchased for their stores meets PG&E's energy efficiency criteria. We are delighted to be working together with Mi Pueblo Foods to help them achieve their sustainability objectives. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. File #: AP09-002 Title: Correspondence Prior to PC hearin¢ Exhibit: 11-10 COUNTY OF MARIN OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR 3501 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 325, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903 415/499-6358 - FAX 415/50'7-4104 Matthew H. Hymel County Administrator July 8, 2009 Raffi Boloyan Senior Planner City of San Rafael PO Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 RE: Case numberAP09-002 Dear Mr. Boloyan: I am writing to clarify the County's Health and Wellness Campus program located in the Canal Area of San Rafael near the intersection of Bellam Boulevard and Kerner Boulevard. The Health and Wellness Campus consists of six (6) buildings located at 3110 Kerner Boulevard, and 3230, 3240, 3250, 3260, and 3270 Kerner Boulevard. The building at 3110 Kerner Boulevard is occupied under lease from the County to the Marin Community Clinics. The five other buildings are located adjacent to the former Circuit City store. The County and the City of San Rafael entered into an Agreement regarding the County's creation of the Health and Wellness Campus in those six (6) existing buildings on September 12, 2006 (City of San Rafael Resolution 12027, September 5, 2006). The Agreement references a number of studies done prior to creating the Health and Wellness Campus, one which considers the parking needed for the six (6) buildings. There are at least 275 off-street parking spaces dedicated solely to the Health and Wellness Campus, with at least an additional 33 street parking spaces on the east side of Kerner Boulevard, totaling over 300 parking spaces available. The over 300 combined parking spaces on the County property and on Kerner Boulevard have to date been more than enough to accommodate employees and visitors. The Health and Wellness Campus has been in full operation since October 2008. To date, the County's operation (including the Marin Community Clinics) has generated no complaints we have heard regarding access to parking for its staff or visitors. The County had been leasing some spaces on a temporary basis from the owner of the Circuit City site. This lease was in order to transition the staff and visitors into the new operations of the Health and Wellness Campus, and this transition has gone smoothly. That County lease for the Circuit City site parking spaces has ended. County staff from the Department of Health and Human Services has met with representatives of Mi Pueblo Foods regarding a number of issues ranging from security to the type of foods sold. The County and Mi Pueblo hope to work together to improve the health of the local community that Mi Pueblo may serve. File #: AP09-002 Title: Correspondence Prior to PC hearing Exhibit: I I A I Raffi Boloyan July 8, 2009 Page 2 The County's main concern is that access easement behind the former Circuit City store be maintained free and clear for vehicular traffic, including County staff and visitors to the Health and Wellness Campus. This is a joint access easement benefiting all properties of this area, including those occupied by Kamer Optics. Overall, it appears that the land use as a Mi Pueblo Foods market is very compatible with the County's land use for the Health and Wellness Campus, given each party's operations, timing of visitors, parking requirements, etc. We expect the store to provide a convenience to our employees and clients. The County hopes that we can both be good neighbors to each other, as well as this new use will be a benefit to the surrounding community as much as the Health and Wellness Campus has. Should you have further questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincere David Speer Facilities Planning and Development Manager Office of the County Administrator County of Marin cc: Margaret Kisiiuk, Chief Assistant Director, Department of Health and Human Services File #: AP09-002 Title: Correspondence Prior to PC hearing Exhibit: 11-12 Community Development Department INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DATE: July 14, 2009 ,00�0\`l,J/(J O PY TO: Chairman Pick and Planning Commissioner's �( FROM: Raffi Boloyan, Principal Planner SUBJECT: Staff Response to Follow-up letter from Appellant and Transmittal of Revised Draft Resolution. STAFF RESPONSE TO FOLLOW-UP LETTER FROM APPELLANT: The appellant has submitted a follow-up letter to their appeal dated July 8, 2009. Although a copy of this letter was included as Exhibit 5b of the staff report, staff was unable to provide analysis in the staff report since it was received after the completion of the report. As with the original appeal letter, the primary point of this follow-up letter is the difference in how the proposed use is defined and interpreted. In the original appeal letter, the appellant stated that the grocery store should not be considered a grocery store, but rather a new sort of use or should be considered a separate restaurant due to the amount of dining area and prepared food sales/service proposed as part of the use. This new letter furthers that challenge, but now states that the proposed use should be considered a "fast food restaurant." This letter continues that based on the assertion that the use should be considered a "fast food restaurant," a Use Permit should be required and on site parking would not meet the Zoning Ordinance standards. Below in bold italics are the new issues presented in the July 8th letter followed by a staff response: Proposed Food Center contains a fast food restaurant Staff continues to find that the food service component of the grocery store is neither a separate nor a primary use of the building, therefore it is considered an ancillary use to the primary use of the building, a grocery store. The primary use of the structure is found to be that of a grocery store based on the: 1) proportion of the prepared food sales/food service vs. the total sales from all other uses in the building, 2) amount of area dedicated to the food service vs. the total floor area; 3) amount of revenue from the food service vs. total revenue; 4) lack of a demised and separate space for the food service; and 5) most of the food service sales would occur in conjunction with the sales of groceries and other household products in the grocery store. In addition, the proposed food service component of the grocery store use would not be considered a "fast food restaurant" since it does not meet the definition of "fast food restaurant" contained in Section 14.03.030 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance definition of fast food is: Fastfood restaurant" means a facility which specializes in rapidly prepared foods and beverages, served with dispensable (such as paper or plastic) plates and utensils for on- or off-site consumption. Table service is generally limited to delivery of counter -ordered meals and busing. Service to persons in ATTACHMENT 7 Planning Commission - Re: Mi Pueblo Appeal (330 Bellam Blvd) July 14, 2009 Page 2 vehicles may be a function of fast food restaurants. Fastfood restaurants have high customer volume and high traffic generation, plus one or more of the following elements: 1. Drive-through service; 2. Late%arly hours of operation (open after eleven p.m. (11:00 p. m.) or before six a.m. (6: 00 am.)); 3. Potential litter problems; 4. Noise (for example, from drive-through intercoms); COPY 5. Potential outdoor gathering places. The appellant is correct that the food service portion of the grocery store may meet the characteristics identified in the paragraph portion of the definition above. However, as identified in this definition, a use must also exhibit one or more of the elements listed in 1-5 to be considered a fast food restaurant. This proposed use does not include drive- thru service (including an outdoor speaker for drive thru service) nor does it propose late (past 11 pm) or early hours (before 6am) of operation. Furthermore, the proposed use does not exhibit potential litter problems or outdoor gathering places more than that a typical restaurant given that: a) the food service portion of the use is limited and considered an ancillary use; b) the outdoor seating area is of a limited size; and c) the outdoor dining is consistent with the performance standards for outdoor dining and an Administrative Use Permit has been granted for the outdoor dining. The types of food service establishments that have been historically been considered "fast food" in the City of San Rafael are limited to uses such as Burger King (Francisco Blvd), Jack in the Box (Second St), Kentucky Fried Chicken (Second St), McDonalds (Fourth St and Merrydale Rd), A&W (Redwood Highway) and Wendy's (Anderson Dr). Considering this type of ancillary food service within this grocery store a "fast food restaurant" would not be consistent with the historical application of the Ordinance for other food service establishments in the City and would render other uses that have been considered food service restaurant to be considered as fast food. If the City were to apply the rationale and definition of fast food in a manner suggested in the appeal, then a great number of other small restaurants, deli's, coffee shops, taqueria's, etc, including many of the existing food service establishments in the Canal, would have to be considered as fast food and thus necessitate use permits. Proposed Food Center does not comply with parking requirements. The proposed use is considered a grocery store, with ancillary uses, including food service, office, storage, beer and liquor sales, check cashing, etc. The parking is based on the primary use of the building, not all the ancillary uses. The food service component of the grocery store is neither a separate nor a primary use of the building, therefore it is considered ancillary. The parking requirement for grocery stores is 1 space/250 gross sq ft. of building area. The project site provides 162 on-site parking, 17 more than the 145 required by the zoning ordinance. In addition, the letter states that for mixed use projects that contain more than one use in a single building or on a single site, parking must be projected for the sum of the parking requirements for the various uses. In this case, this use is not considered a mixed use project. The project is a grocery store with a variety ancillary uses. The method in which the mixed use requirements have been historically applied within the Planning Commission - Re: Mi Pueblo Appeal (330 Bellam Blvd) July 14, 2009 Page 3 City of San Rafael, as well as most other jurisdictions, is illustrated by the following examples 1) A single building that contains two separate tenants in separate demised tenant spaces, one a restaurant and one a retail store. The required parking for the building must be the sum of that required for the restaurant and that of the retail store. 2) A site that has numerous building and numerous separate uses, i.e. a strip shopping mall. The required parking is the sum of the parking requirements for each of the separate uses in the separate tenant spaces. The reason why the mixed use argument does not apply to this case is that the types of uses operated in this building are not considered separate uses or in dependant businesses. The use operates and functions as one business in one tenant space, is operated by the same entity, and serves as ancillary uses that are typical of the primary use of the building, a grocery store. Nearly all land uses host a variety of sub, or ancillary uses. For example, the former use of this building was that of an electronic retail store. As part of the electronic retail use, there were other ancillary uses, including storage and stockroom areas, office space for store management, installation services and repair facilities. Parking was not counted by dividing the store into the various functional areas and totaling the sum of the parking requirement of each of the sub uses. The sub uses were all considered to be ancillary uses. Therefore, the use was considered to be a retail store as the primary use and the parking required was that required for the primary use. Using the appellant's methodology would not be consistent with how the City applies its Ordinance throughout the City. The proposed Food Center requires a conditional use permit. The use is considered a grocery store, with ancillary food service, office, storage, beer and liquor sales and a variety of other ancillary uses. The food service component is not considered a "fast food restaurant", but ancillary food service that is part of a grocery store. Therefore, since the food service component of the use is not a separate or primary use and does not meet the definition of fast food, no Use Permit is required REVISED DRAFT RESOLUTION: Since the preparation and distribution of the draft resolution that was included in the Commission's staff report, staff has identified further revisions and additions to the draft resolution for the Commission's consideration. A copy of the revised resolution is attached and the revisions/additions are identified in stFke4hfu/underline format to illustrate the recommended changes. A summary of the changes is provided below: Page 2-9 to 2-11. Additional findings were included to respond to the July 8, 2009 follow-up letter from the appellant based on the analysis discussed above. Page 2-14 to 2-15. Revised finding for PCN findings criteria #1 to clarify that the applicant does not have another facility in Marin County and that the proposed PCN would increase the number of off -sale licenses in this census tract by one. Planning Commission - Re: Mi Pueblo Appeal (330 Bellam Blvd) July 14, 2009 ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE: N�r -'Zer LW Since the preparation of the staff report, staff has received additional written correspondence. Copies of the new letter are attached. These include ➢ Flyer that is being distributed in the area, a copy of which was submitted to staff; ➢ Letter form the Canal /Alliance expressing support for the new store and the addition of the grocery store. This letter does express a preference if the use would not sell alcohol; ➢ Letter from the Chamber of Commerce supporting the new use; and ➢ Email from resident expressing concern with traffic and the oversaturation of Hispanic markets in the area. ATTACHMENTS: Revised DFaft Resolution C cu�niei 0. < CONVERSION OF CIRCUIT CITY (330 Bellam Blvd) TO 0,A - MI PUEBLO FOODCENTER WILL CREATE TRAFFIC GRIDLOCK 1. Mi Pueblo Foodcenter, as proposed, has the equivalent of 6 fast food stores under its roof with seating for up to 150+, a large liquor store, check cashing center, etc. with employees arriving at 4am and large delivery trucks. They will even have a large charcoal burning smoking barbeque store on the sidewalk operating from lam. This is the most intensive use of the site that could be imagined and will be a traffic nightmare. 2. Much of the parking they intend to use is currently under lease to the new Health and Wellness Clinics because there is a shortage of parking in the neighborhood. 3. The Community. already has two large grocery stores, Mi Tierra and Smart & Final, as well as many small markets and liquor stores. Mi Pueblo specializes in selling 30 pack cubes of beer which will cause even more problems. Please contact the City of San Rafael to express YOUR opinion.. San Rafael planner Raffi.Boloyan@ci.san-rafael.ca.us or 485-3095 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUE JULY 147 2009 bhcanaL aWance 91 Larkspur Street, San Rafael, CA 94901 rei415.454.2640 FAx415.454.3967 www. c a n a l a l l i a n c e. o r g July 9, 2009 Raffi Boloyan Community Development Department Planning Division City of San Rafael P,O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94912 '?z7CE,Vz4 AUC 7 4 CoM(rArf� '*cf, �Lc�FNT Re: July 14, 2009 Planning Commission Hearing — 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) Mr. Boloyan: I am writing in regards to the above referenced hearing date where an appeal of the permits submitted by Mi Pueblo to open their store will be heard. On a number of occasions, we have met with representatives of Mi Pueblo Foods and, for the most part, we support their initiative to open a new store at 330 Bellam Boulevard. The Canal community will benefit from greater access to fresh produce and vegetables and other cultural amenities at the store. We have been assured that Mi Pueblo will follow through on their commitment to hire as many people from the local community as possible. We applaud their decision not sell cigarette or tobacco products. In regards to their application to sell alcoholic products, we would strongly prefer that Mi Pueblo not sell alcohol since the Canal community is saturated with alcohol selling establishments. We have asked Mi Pueblo to not aggressively promote the sale of alcohol and to address any alcohol related problems or disturbances in the vicinity of their store. Sincerely, Tom Wilson Executive Director Developing self-sufficiency and leadership for a healthier community SRO Chamber SAN RAFAEL CHAMBER Of COMMERCE July 13, 2009 San Rafael Planning Commission c/o Raffi Boyolan Senior Planner San Rafael Planning Department San Rafael, CA 94901 RECEIVED ,4 JUL 14 2.009 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT QTY OF SAN RAFAEL RE: 330 Bellam Blvd — Mi Pueblo Foods (ED09-14, UP09-015, SR09-012, PCN09-001) Dear Planning Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce in support of the above planning applications. The proposed Mi Pueblo Foods Center will bring many benefits to the City of San Rafael and to the neighborhood. Mi Pueblo is a regional grocer who cares about the communities they serve. They plan to make a significant investment in the store. The store will generate approximately 200 jobs, with a majority to be hired locally. The grocery items offered will be diverse and tailored to the local customer base. Security is provided during store hours to foster a safe and friendly environment. Mi Pueblo prides itself on supporting the local community through participating in fund raising and through programs such as adopt -a -school. The use is consistent with zoning and will fit well with the existing adjacent uses. I have personally visited the Mi Pueblo Foods Center in Pittsburgh. I was very impressed at the overall quality of the operation as well as by the quality and selection of the fresh foods. I have heard local chefs shop there for their restaurants and I could see why, based on the beautiful produce and the wide variety of grocery items. It is a full service grocery store which offers selection currently not found elsewhere in Marin County. We believe the store will be a tremendous asset to our community due to the jobs it will create locally, the convenience and service it will provide the neighborhood, and the planned improvements to the vacant building which will make the property more attractive and the area safer. The chamber welcomes a company like Mi Pueblo Foods who has a long track record of contributing in meaningful ways to the local community. The San Rafael Chamber of Commerce urges you to approve the design review and liquor license applications for the Mi Pueblo Foods Center. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Will Rigney Chairman Board of Directors 817 Mission Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 415 454 4163 1 415 454 7039 fax w ..sanrafadcbamberxom Page 1 of 2 Raffi Boloyan From: Karin Granados [khgl77vdm@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 1:10 PM To: Raffi Boloyan Cc: City Principal Planner Subject: 330 BELLAM BLVD (MI PUEBLO FOODS) I am probably getting involved too late, but would still like to voice my opinion. True, this area could use a large grocery store - but I am not at all pleased that it is going to be one that will cater mostly to the Hispanic/Latino (whichever is politically correct at the moment!) population. It seems everything done in this area caters to this ethnic group. First, it will definitely add to the TRAFFIC problem on Bellam Blvd. which will negatively impact the homes across from this site. I hope someone thought of a second access and/or exit (using Kerner Blvd.) for the increase in traffic. Second, there will be outdoor seating and dining and permission to sell alcohol. I don't know of any other GROCERY STORE that features these amenities (indoor dining - yes). With the outdoor dining and alcohol being sold, I can forsee obnoxious and loud behavior and trash being generated on the street more than there already is. And with drinking comes the urge to eliminate, so I hope someone thought of providing ample restroom facilities (I have seen men urinating in public places!). Third, here is a LIST of five (5) Hispanic/Latino grocery stores already in the Canal area, plus two (2) other stores that I know of: Bellam Produce - cor. Bellam & Kerner Blvds. La Plaza Mkt. - Bahia Corner (Bellam & Kerner Blvds.) Quezada Mkt. - 90 Belvedere St. Mi Tierra Super Mercado - 175 Belvedere St. Azteca Mkt. - 555 Francisco Blvd. Smart & Final - Anderson Dr. More For Less - Bellam Blvd. (There is also a 7-11 (?) on Medway & a gas station on the corner of Bellam/Francisco Blvds. with a'mini-mart') OTHER Hispanic/Latino grocery stores in San Rafael: Azteca Mkt. - 802 Fourth St. Casa Del Palmar - 757 Lincoln Ave. Pueblo Latino Mkt. - 925 Fourth St. Now - how many Hispanic/Latino grocery stores do we need in San Rafael? Is this town turning into Mexico north? I would welcome a regular grocery store on that site, but am against another ethnic store especially with outdoor seating and the sale of alcohol. I think it is enough that alcohol can be purchased at More For Less and Smart & Final. 7/14/2009 :Page 2 of 2 I Sincerely, Karin Granados East San Rafael To: From: Date: Re: San Rafael Police Department 1400 Fifth Ave. San Rafael, CA 94901 Raffi Boloyan, Senior Planner Jeff Franzini, Captain September 2, 2009 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) Project Marin Institute has raised some concerns in regards to the approval of this project, and this memo will address two of their concerns from the Police Department's perspective. Marin Institute commented that the original report did not mention the Marin Health and Wellness Campus and a day care center that were in the immediate area. Is the location of the business applying for the liquor license within 1000 feet of an incompatible facility such as day care centers, schools, churches, parks, homeless shelters, rehabilitation centers or places that are designed and operate to serve minors? The Police Department looked for some comparable grocery stores (a full service grocery store with alcohol sales as a minor part of their business) to help us evaluate the potential impact. Some examples were: B Street & First Street — Safeway store — to the north is the St. Vincent De Paul Soup Kitchen. Directly to the south side of this Safeway grocery store is the City of San Rafael B Street Recreation Center, Alberts Park, and Parkside Childcare Center. All three have daily programs that service all ages of our community. Union & Third Street — Whole Foods & Trader Joe's stores — directly to the east of these grocery stores is San Rafael High School and the Canal Child Care Center (215 Mission Ave). Nova Albion & Las Gallinas Ave — Safeway store — To the rear of this store is Davidson's Middle School, Saint Marks School, and Terra Linda High School. Del Ganado Road & Manual T. Freitas Parkway — Scotty's Market — across the street from the store is the City of San Rafael Terra Linda Recreation Center which has daily programs that service all ages of our community. ATTACHMENT 8 San Rafael Police Dept. Memo (cont.) Point San Pedro Road & Loch Lomond Drive — Bruno's Market — in the area of San Pedro School and Gallinas School. After completing the comparison's it is our belief that Mi Pueblo, a full service grocery store with alcohol sales as a minor part of their business, is not an incompatible facility and will not result in an increase in alcohol related crime in that area. 2. Marin Institute commented that this census track was a high crime area. Is the potential licensee located in a high -crime area? (Including the entire census tract data). The PCN resolution and criteria requires us to look at what are known as Part 1 crimes (Homicide, Rape, Robbery Assaults, Burglary, Larceny, Stolen Vehicles, and Arson). Our research indicates that based on the crime stats and population estimates, the Part 1 crime rate in the Canal area is 41.2 per 1,000 residents annually. The Part 1 crime rate for the remainder of the city is 39.5 per 1,000 residents annually. This means the Canal only exceeds the remainder of the City by 4.3% (41.2 divided by 39.5 = 1.043). This is well below the standard of 20% recommended for denial of the permit. The Marin Institute provided data to substantiate their high crime area claim, but that data was taken from the San Rafael Police webpage and was not Part 1 crime info. The data they provided was from our "calls for service" section. This section lists what the original caller thinks is occurring. As an example, it is very common that an original call is entered as "Drinkers" but when an Officer arrives he finds that they are not drinking alcohol. After reviewing the location of the proposed Mi Pueblo Grocery Store, the surrounding area use (businesses, school, service providers, etc.), the Part 1 crime data, and a review of the non -Part 1 crime data pertaining to alcohol related incidents, it is still our belief that the Mi Pueblo Project will not have a negative impact on the area. 9/4/2009 12:01:06 PM CITY OF SAN RAFAEL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR MORE Contact Raffi Boloyan, Project Planner at (415) 485-3095 or raffi.boloyan@cityofsanrafael.org. You can INFORMATION: also come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m, on Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and 8:30 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. on Tuesday and Friday. You can also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/Govemment/City_Clerk/ City_Council_ Redevelopment_ Agency_Agendas.htm. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL /s/ Esther C. Beime Esther C. Beime CITY CLERK At the above time and place, all letters received will be noted and all interested parties will be heard. If you challenge in court the matter described above, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing. (Govemment Code Section 65009(b)(2)). Judicial review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be filed with the Court not later than the 9e day following the date of the Council's decision. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6) Sign language interpretation and assistive listening devices maybe requested by calling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (415) 485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours in advance, Copies afdocuments are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 10 or 23. Para -transit is available by calling Whistlestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964. - To allow individuals with environmental illness or mubiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested to refrain from wearing scented Please publish in the Marin Independent Journal on Friday, September 4, 2009 ATTACHMENT You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following project: PROJECT: 330 Bellam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods)— Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-014), Use Permit (UP09-015), Sign Permit (SR09-012) and Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN09-001) to allow: a) exterior modifications to the existing commercial building, including an alteration to the building entry, new colors and materials on the building and new wooden trellises and columns along front of building; b) outdoor dining area on the private sidewalk area in front of the structure; c) new building signs; and d) alcohol sales in the new grocery store for consumption off site. APN 009-280-06; General Commercial (GC) District; Ruth Donohugh and Bruce Livingston/Marin Institute, appellants, David Mena/Mena Architects, applicant; Simeon Commercial Properties, owner; File No AP09-004 As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed Planning staJJ'recommends that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt from the provisions ofthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section15301(Existing Facilities). Zfthe City Council determines that this project is in an environmentally sensitive area, further studies may be required HEARING DATE: Monday, September 21, 2009, 8:00 p.m. LOCATION: San Rafael City Hall — City Council Chambers 1400 Fifth Avenue at "D" Street San Rafael, California WHAT WILL You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to HAPPEN: grant or deny the appeal. IF YOU CANNOT You can send a letter to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of San Rafael, P.O. ATTEND: Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You can also hand deliver it prior to the meeting. FOR MORE Contact Raffi Boloyan, Project Planner at (415) 485-3095 or raffi.boloyan@cityofsanrafael.org. You can INFORMATION: also come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m, on Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and 8:30 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. on Tuesday and Friday. You can also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/Govemment/City_Clerk/ City_Council_ Redevelopment_ Agency_Agendas.htm. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL /s/ Esther C. Beime Esther C. Beime CITY CLERK At the above time and place, all letters received will be noted and all interested parties will be heard. If you challenge in court the matter described above, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing. (Govemment Code Section 65009(b)(2)). Judicial review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be filed with the Court not later than the 9e day following the date of the Council's decision. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6) Sign language interpretation and assistive listening devices maybe requested by calling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (415) 485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours in advance, Copies afdocuments are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 10 or 23. Para -transit is available by calling Whistlestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964. - To allow individuals with environmental illness or mubiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested to refrain from wearing scented Please publish in the Marin Independent Journal on Friday, September 4, 2009 ATTACHMENT to r r rn M r r r r r 0 r M r N ,t N M r O O 0 M It 0 0 0 0 0 d' d'000 0 00 'V' O O 00 (O 0 0 0 0 0 d' O MC) O O V V' V V' V' It � rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn CL N w H (n U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U W J J J J} J J J J J J} J J J J J J J J J J J -i J J >- J J J ¢ W W W W W W W W W W W W w W W W U w W W W W W W W W W W W W OmLQQQLLLLL QLL¢JUaLL LLLLLLLLLLJLL QLL LL¢LL JLLI.LLLLLLQLL QLLQULLLL LL LLLLL� J LL LL LLL Q IZLIK��K>aKK d'�2'd'>�KCL�����K4'R'Q>�d'K �> W Z Z z z J z z z z z z l z z z z D z z z z z z> Z Z Z Z IL- - Z Z Z UzwU' tq(LncLncLn�ozoivLi(Ln(Ln(LnvLaiu¢irLnaivicLncLncLncLncLncLnOzuL�u¢iaicLnau��icLncLnvLi m w OL Cl) 4 m ¢o¢o1Y�Wa0000000 w o o ¢Oa aa¢o U�m�mLEUw mmm0mOJOmm WwOm m �m ¢ F- 020�w<�0o2��O 2�200 2M2W-CLQ2mmOOma (mnwz�-i�gow<}iL-go---o>L��° �_gz,(/)—i aR wC�O)WU)Wm¢gLowwwwwwwwwgWwa>_woogwU)WLLmU) m>m>mQ O� a>mmm mmmm(naOfmmmm Omrnm>U)� >a ��rnC)Lo2M0(OOr�OMLOr� MU)MV) rn ri.(O OrnNrou) v O N V N N OD O rn M r r O O O M M IO N O CJ O O O In O O n In W d' �> r- 0 m M a N M r n. r M r r- r N r d' 06 a of w Cf J F a6 W .6 ? 0 WZC4 W � W C (n a LU cU Oi5 02S J LU °� m O } x W x W w O r1 L C ofzz w C-jzwx o 'OzU)0v~i¢zn��o�>a o w co ZLU ?Qw��¢zz J���wma LL.WwOOz��aW OOz Z O N Z Z O E of g¢< z W¢ W U O W d W Y W 0�~ d Y ~ Z Q wzW Uz�I-WZWZ�d' W W _ZUzW �: W QOZZ ZQZWzQ . W Iii LQ- W LD C) >- Y¢ UU z�O W wa�Y Q Lzu ii'O%' W m�}� 2 LL Z d'2 m ZWo-iUJ�zhQ Win 05 LU J»(n �Y-Z �IiJ QOOW JZ - Ox�gQ WQC9Qm2�W�Z(�N�¢W UC7¢C7���C�d Z x m w� x x m a v m z>¢ O x m x Q=i m m� z z z z J U w z m (O W NN( m m W V V' O r V' M n n O N M M O (D V rn O O O O W W M N (O 0 r O W I,r r r (O 9 w U-) r-- m w Nm rn m w I- r O W w 10 m m n r- O W W w CQ I� O W r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r W m V LO m Lo In N (() m U V V' t 7 l� N N m Lo N V V 0 N Lo V N 0 0 0 N 0 0— r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r o> o� w rn rn rn rn rn o� rn rn rn rn m rn rn rn rn rn rn o> o� m rn rn rn rn rn o� w o� rn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r 00 r r 0I r r r N r "to O to M r r r r tq t!p r W O 0 N LO M r O V O N 0 0 0 d' 0 0 0 0 O O 0 M O N O [T O O O O O N O r M M�) 0 0 LO 0 0 IT W t IT Ir In O m 1A lA 1n /A 1P W N O O r /A t() /A W /T 0 0 0 } r W IT 1A O lT O) 0 0 V V W V It V' d' It V V d' V V V V N V' d' V V' 'C V' V V V V d' W V d' V C V V V' 'd' V O W O O) !n W W W T 6l W W 01 W W M W tT m W M W MO O W W p� W 0 0 0 m !P M W 07 d �t O m U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U lL U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U UOw U W 0 J} J w J J J J J J J J J(n J J� J J J J J J J J� J J W W WOW W W W W W W W W U— W O W a W W W W W W U W W LL JQLL �LLLaiLLULLLLLLLaL LLLLLQZ z < zQ< 0 LLLLLLLL LLLL�LLQQ Z�S���� U- LL 2'H a KLLOYKm W KK QK YYQaQaCLK Z � Z w z z z> z z z z z z Z O W Z Z Z W Z Z Z Z Z� Z z nwQe awe-- r�� z z can�cLnOU(LncancLnZ(<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<W< ncancLn(ancLncancan-ai JLaaUaaaa <W <(an ..la wwwwc<< w 0 3t > W ° } of w Cf) a00« > a w O¢OLLaaaa 0 O O W>>Wo cf W �¢ U J -j J W ^2 2-J2 J(n O - J* J m z m m w J 2 m W Q ww d mwmawwww�Om a0mam}�wwwMr�c60OO �r www azQa0000rn g. O ��QQ¢Z a z z 0:50 an 2 m(MO(°0 c1o�O }m�Xgc Jav~it~nu~iv~ixg-j j-a�U)U)Wof W -iXXOW XXXX9� go00W_W2--__0m0m-WaW0:5"<m002g=00000- ELw co mm»»co LL MJmm ONm mm mmmmU> I� MCO r r to r to M O (!) O N O V N N (n O M N N O O w O� to � r N O M (n N M O m (D w 0 CO M �` O 0 0 0 t -) 0 0 0 0 r r Cl) (O d M r() Mrrrr d N W n r N I- N r d' M M• M d d m r N M LL CL CL U r m 0 U U) J ED O Z O M J am Q S Z J L = J J J J U a O J `L O 0 OOW 000060 oti O J a W J Z �-- J h- I-- W J J J J "I � 2w U}� SZ� 0� ¢a0 Ca Oaa 00000 < w0cQ0<nU wca-f ¢azw 7can zw0 wZ21W--�� aFHFH<0 EE QWdD -jmPz YLwio� zw06WU(Do°F->CO O� Z0000w� an.n,a aswo<WwazwwOwwWF-CZW2i� W 0 W Ow¢DW (D¢p=OaC<<<<¢ 0 g z z m� Z a z m> Z z O Q w a w O Z Z MW Z w U)O.W W W W W 2 � i- mL <W —� z nnII z z W Z F— S O S O z a m z Z Z O Q U Q LL Q 0 ¢ w �_ D Q Q D 0= V¢ C07t07 Q O Z Q�=— z z z z w Q LO LO V N 1-- 0 O O W M W M N M I`O N d* O r M W N 0 r m w (O r O n W O W r� (O L?h W W W � 0 T 9OP 1A O T O00000000000r O rr0 rOD r r r r r O O O O O m N O 0 tl') 0 u) t!') 47 � 41 d' V' d' V V' d' V' V N V N NN N N N N w 00 M a0 W m W M m Mm MM W IT N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N O M M M M r N m mm IA W CT m Ir m m m m m(D m 0 0 0 m W W W 0 0 W IT 0 m W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (DOC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Orr Lr)OO V O M O N O O O O O O C N V (O W N rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn O) rn rn rn rn rn rn r r rn rn rn rn V r rn rn rn rn rn rn V u7 V V V d' V Vv V V V V V' <t V V V d' V' � d' d' d' V' U� N V V d' d' V V rn r rn rn m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn r rn rn rn rn rn rn rn r rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn v v rn rn Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q¢ Q Q Q¢ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q¢ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q U O.. U UU U U U U U U U UU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U 00 UU J= J J m m¢ J J J J ¢ J J J J J J W 0 W W U U U W W W W m U W W W W W W Q d m m m m m a a d a m d m d Q¢ a z z Q Q Q Q Q Q Q¢¢ Q m m m m m m m �O m m m fo �o m fa m LL U- � LL LL Oti LL O 6u. U. LL U-LLLL �mmmmmmmm mmmm m mm cu (u m�� �'9�I-��� �'¢¢�Q�¢ fn LL'LL'�d'�2'LL'LL'LL'LL'LL'CL LL'LL'0' W LL'WLLLL'O) Q m-O)LL'LL' z r c c c c c c c c c c c c c c cc z z c Z Z c Z Z> z Z —c c Z z z z z z c¢naaiv¢iim<< ww<<0zaic¢nininai<<<<< (n a� of Co CO 0 0 V (D Co � N N Cl) *k # LL N w � m>z vvvvvvv>>m (U o�(1 igip E -o Z 'O 'O '] "O 'O > > > > > > > 9 > 'O O m T W m m m m m m m > (O ° > �S**m comm mm vvm (O(.N aO a).mMmM�m� Nm m g0EEEEEEcccccccmmEUUF-oNQQmc(MDa)(�va E�OU J J L (0 (o Io l6 f0 m 3 3 m C Z N M L L N N O) d M 0 (o N w J a) d a) m m m Y Y Y Y Y Y Y c c d .n x p M O= lr x` x x> > a) m o (°) m Q Lo co mm m m m(O Lo m N 00 Sm to m�U) co m moi m m� a) mm > O (OOMoo0o(nrn(O(00(OLO q r-�0inm 000J U HmotoQQ [Y (O V' (D OD co V M 10 N N M N N N N O O �' O N V O O O O O O O V' N O CL Z O C Oa) > O .a) ° m U m ¢ 2 mw U y °) m - 0 cu �¢ M> > N E 4))((ooZ mo Z Z Co (n C m C V m L U _ Q_0 L) _ °LL ° a) (D d c moo ° m m J J w O. d a) Q O m E K~ m m C C O J N J Y C m `O 0 0_ C w- N 3 L 0 ZY a)75 zc JZ°)cUc�No_°oou�ac a)mao ��OTd�m o Z Y m �= ° m m E +c 4) "O m m a) m` N �. N m m O G m O¢�1=� m mO�� ixs o NYO �0�0(nUg-mo m m = E~� m c(D ~ m -) m L C a) a) 'O _m a) a) a) �. O C 'o L L L a1 'C O - m (� m ot1 >U) m °) r E c m of LL d c� E m c, y 5 U U (q E Q c m Tin . O m° - E m.� m:_ a) m a) m- a ° m° o 0 0° m o° a) a u. s° 7m2d}n, w as U' >JmY U` 1e 2OU(n0 (� o uh OmLLZdQU (D (D c 3 O N a) a) C N (n d J O V! m 0E 06 w L Q a) n C C O N N O C E 0 O O O O a) 2 y 0 l7) O) m W m W M N M O W CO CO M W 1` W O O a) m j. O L LL m T d c a) LL L m O r r r r O i aD r t�' i i O O r r J O U ` O J m _co O ° O r N r r O N 0 0 O d C m Y m O cl'Nrnrnm W CO LO LO0)0)comm W O)MM �1M CO¢ m'0 mQ¢Q. m Q N N N N N O r N c7 I1 N O m 0 CL @ C m m m° o) d) rn rn rn rn o) m m rn rn co' 06 o) 0) rn o) 0) o m E a° a m m 'E m m a IL ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 W 6) 2 m w (q 0 U O0O.Om - 11:O,m W m gy g IT m m m m m m 6 O O Q) O) m O) r D) d' Q Q Q Q Q Q Q U U U U U U U O U J J J U) LQL 0LLLLZ N Q X Q Q O w@Ofof LL.� Z C C Z Z Z c viO�aiai�vl m U CO F>N Q > O C(n pU) N"O V j .N+ N N >m �. i CG m Q m o N(�p V Nod N O U` p > N N .'Z'' U U U W i N C C N N d Y C d N C U U��md'd'U C O N N C T� d m C 2 m Z Q W J,t, �ffffff ,71 K ` September 15, 2009 San Rafael City Council City Hall 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, California 94901 Dear Members of the City Council: Thank you for this opportunity to address the appeals filed by Ruth Donohugh and the Marin Institute from the decision of the San Rafael Planning Commission on July 14`h, 2009, Mi Pueblo Food Center has made good faith efforts to address the concerns of these applicants with little success. This letter will briefly outline our attempts to address the concerns of the appellants, will respond to the Issues they have raised, and lastly will summarize the benefits this project will bring to the community. Appeal by Ruth Donohue, Owner of Picante Restaurant On June 121i, 2009, a month before the above mentioned Planning Commission hearing, Ml Pueblo Food Center staff and Simeon Properties staff met with Appellant Ruth Donohue to understand her concerns and explore possible remedies. The appellant raised a long list of Issues that we wished to better understand and to address one by one. However, the appellant made it very clear in this meeting that she did not want Mi Pueblo Food Center opening a store next door to her business. After our meeting, Mi Pueblo Food Center staff made yet another attempt to find some common ground with the appellant. In good faith we offered to negotiate some concessions to address her concerns. We furthermore offered to explore ways to modify the outdoor landscaping to make her business more visible. Appellant Donohue rejected our offers and has refused to continue dialogue with us. It is clear to us that Appellant Donohue fears how competition might impact her Mexican restaurant, even though most of our stores have Mexican and all other types of restaurants adjacent to them without apparent impact to their business. It appears that because competition is not an issue addressed by the Planning Commission, a claim was manufactured that would be heard by the city. Appellant Donohue's most recent appeal to the City Council makes the argument that Mi Pueblo Food Center is not a grocery store, but instead a fast-food restaurant. She falsely asserts that some of our stores have a drive-through ordering and payment options. None of our stores offer any drive-through or drive -up service and none have intercom systems for orders. Mi Pueblo Food Centers are full-service grocery stores that also include bakery, hot deli, and ATTACHMENT 10a CUSTOMER SERVICE: 1.888-997-7717 CORPORATE OFFICE: MAILING ADDRESS: CONTACT N 1745 Slory Road P,O. Box 3208 Phone: (408):,��, San Jose, CA 95122 San Jose, CA 95158 Fax: (408) 9281172 Page 2 tortillerfa departments. Our deli departments represent less than 8% of total sales across all of our stores. Approximately 70% of the products purchased from our deli departments are take-out and not consumed at the store, based on our estimates of supplies usage. Many of those Items are sold by the pound and therefore are typically consumed at home. Ample seating is made available at our stores as our shoppers typically come in small groups. It Is common to see entire families shopping together at our stores and to have some family members wait in the seating area. The deli department in the proposed San Rafael store represents only 3% of the total building footprint. Appellant Donohue has widely distributed fliers that grossly mischaracterize many facts about this project to galvanize opposition. She is looking for any argument that can prevent Mi Pueblo from coming to the City of San Rafael, without any regard for the many benefits our company can bring to the community. She dismisses the community's long-time desire for a local grocery store in the Canal neighborhood. This proposed M1 Pueblo Food Center project complies with all of the zoning requirements of the City of San Rafael including use and parking. Appeal by Marin Institute Months before the Marin Institute filed their appeal, MI Pueblo Food Center staff proactively sought to meet with this organization about their concerns over the sale of alcoholic beverages at the proposed Mi Pueblo Food Center. Our request was denied. In researching their appeal, It appears that this is the first time that the Marin Institute has ever filed an appeal in the application of a full-service grocery store or any other establishment that sells alcohol in the City of San Rafael, despite the fact that liquor stores and restaurants have applied and received similar permits in recent years, It is the norm for full-service grocery stores, like all others in the City of San Rafael, to sell alcoholic beverages as a convenience to customers. Ml Pueblo Food Center customers, like Traderloe's or Whole Foods customers, appreciate the ability to purchase alcoholic beverages from a safe, clean, and reputable establishment. The sale of alcoholic beverages represents less than 4% of MI Pueblo Food Center total sales. Our company has always maintained the highest operational standards with regard to the sale of alcoholic beverages. These include the following practices: • MI Pueblo provides comprehensive training to all new employees about the sales of alcoholic beverages, as well as regular refresher training. • We actively monitor our employees to ensure that Mi Pueblo Food Center complies with all local and state laws. • We do not sell beer in containers with more than 7% alcohol content. • We do not sell high alcohol malt liquor. • We do not sell any single unit containers under 20 ounces. Page 3 • We employ an external security company that specializes in supermarkets. We have 1-3 guards at each of our stores during store operations. • We post the following signs at the entrances of our stores: o State ABC License o No loitering o No open container o No littering • We provide and maintain at least 2 non-flammable trash cans located near the entrance of each store. • Our sidewalks and parking lots are monitored and cleaned at all times. Graffiti Is removed Immediately. • No pay phones are located on or near the building. • Mi Pueblo discourages loitering. Persons hanging around the exterior of our stores with no apparent business for more than 10 minutes are asked to leave. We contact local police departments about loiterers who refuse to leave the premises. Central to our core values and philosophies Is Mi Pueblo Food Center's commitment to being a warm, inviting and safe place for families to enjoy and to choose from a variety of fresh, affordable foods that promote good nutrition and health. We work hard to create an environment that is not only safe and clean, but also truly family -centered. Contrary to the Marin Institute's claims, we do not specialize in selling large cases of beer. We specialize in serving families and in providing great customer service. This is why It is customary to see mothers and children shopping at Mi Pueblo, gathered around one shopping cart. As expressed by City of San Jose Council Member Nora Campos in the attached letter, Mi Pueblo has been a positive light in the City of San Jose. As a result of our commitment to safety and creating a sense of community, Mi Pueblo has transformed neighborhoods and has made San Jose residents feel safer in areas previously only known for blight and crime. Lastly, we wish to report that our good faith efforts continue, This past Friday, September 11, 2009, the Canal Alliance was able to successfully bring MI Pueblo Food Center and Marin institute leaders together to discuss the Marin Institute appeal. We were also joined by a representative of the Department of Health and Human Services. In this meeting we were able to share our exemplary policies and procedures for ensuring safe, responsible sales of alcoholic beverages, The Marin Institute articulated its concerns and Identified some possible areas for negotiation/collaboration. All parties are working together to see if we can come to an agreement around Issues of concern. Page 4 Benefits of a Mi Pueblo Food Center Over the last several months, Mi Pueblo Food Center has made great efforts to reach out to San Rafael residents and community leaders in our desire to become a fully engaged member of this community. We have conversed with hundreds of San Rafael residents about this project and have been overwhelmed by the positive responses we have received. By far, local residents are most excited about the possibility of employment opportunities and health benefits that we offer. Mi Pueblo Food Center plans to hire over 175 new employees, the majority of which will come from within a 3-5 mile radius from the proposed store location. On July 14th, 2009, Mi Pueblo presented to the City of San Rafael Planning Commission over 1,000 letters of support from local residents who would like to see Mi Pueblo Food Center come to the City of San Rafael. On a daily basis our corporate office receives calls from City of San Rafael residents about employment opportunities. However, Mi Pueblo Food Center will bring a lot more than employment opportunities and a new stream of tax revenue for the City of San Rafael. MI Pueblo is a good corporate citizen that supports its local communities. For example, Mi Pueblo Food Centerjust completed a scholarship campaign raising $65,000 in scholarships for Bay Area students. We are beginning to plan our holiday food drives that will benefit thousands of needy families throughout Northern California in the coming weeks. Locally, Mi Pueblo Food Center is collaborating with the Canal Welcome Center, Encuentro Latino, the Marin Department of Health and Human Services, the Viviendo Verde campaign, Bahia Vista School, and many others to help raise awareness about Important community issues. The Canal Alliance is supportive of Mi Pueblo Food Center and testified on our behalf at the July 10 hearing. Other supporters include the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce and the San Rafael Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. In closing, we respectfully request that the City Council deny the appeals of Ruth Donohue and the Marin Institute. We ask you for the opportunity to make a positive impact in this extraordinary community. Sincerely, /} Perla A. Rodriguez Vice President of Public Aff My OF SAN JOSE CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY August 11, 2009 Juvenal Chavez, CEO Mi Pueblo Food Center 1745 Story Road San Jose, California 95122 Re: Storjand King corridor of San Jose Dear Juvenal: Nora Campos COU NCI UM EN113 r1k UISTII ICT > I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your continuous commitment to both my district and the City of San Jose. As you know, the Story and King corridor is the economic heart and soul to the City of San Jose and District 5. Yet there was a time in our recent past where this great corridor was known more for its crime, blight, and sense of hopelessness. Your commitment to our district was the cornerstone that began the renaissance that has led us to where we are today. Your ability to share in my vision and to invest where others feared, created the necessary ingredients by which to bring economic change to this neighborhood — a change that within the last six years has led to a 105% increase in revenue generated in that corridor. The greatest testament to your vision goes beyond the economic growth that has been created. The true testament of your legacy is when you see families walking in their community, investing in their community, and feeling a sense of pride that was once forgotten. Juvenal, I am proud to call you a partner in the great struggle to turn blighted neighborhoods into beacons of hope. May you continue to bring your vision to other areas that greatly need your energy and commitment. Sincerely, Nora Campos Councilmember, City of San Josh 200 East Sana C11n1 Sheet, 186 Floor San Jose, CA 95113 Irl (408) 535-4905 fiat (408) 292-6462 nori.campos a sanjoseca.gov LAW OFFICES OF 950 NORTHGATE DRIVE, SUITE 107 NEIL SORENSEN SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 94903 WEB WWW.SOfBOseHIOW.COm September 9, 2009 Mayor Al Boro and Members of the San Rafael City Council 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 TELEPHONE 415 499-8600 FACSIMILE 415 499-0140 EMAIL neil@5orensenlaw.COm RECEIVED SEP 0 9 2009 PLM,ff\:fiNG Re: 330 Bellam Blvd. — Mi Pueblo Foods Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Design Review and Use Permit Dear Mayor Boro and Members of the City Council: This office represents Simeon Properties and Mi Pueblo Foods, the owner and applicant for the above -referenced project. The purpose of this letter is to address the appeals filed by Ruth Donohugh and the Marin Institute from the decision of the San Rafael Planning Commission approving the applications for Mi Pueblo Foods at 330 Bellam Blvd. As described more fully below, there is no factual or legal basis for the appeals and the Planning Commission's decision was well reasoned and fully within the confines of the zoning ordinance and the City's General Plan. Moreover, the Mi Pueblo Food Center will provide significant benefits to the community, including a full service grocery store within the walking distance of the Canal area residents, over 175 jobs, and $400,000 in local sales tax revenues. I. Donohuah Appeal. A. The Proposed Food Center is Not a Fast Food Restaurant and No Use Permit for Fast Food is Needed. The Planning Commission specifically found that the proposed Mi Pueblo Grocery Store is not a "fast food" restaurant and did not meet the requirements of Municipal Code Section 14.03.030, which defines "fast food" restaurants. See Resolution 09-06, pages 9 and 10. In fact, the Planning Commission, in order to make this finding crystal clear, added a condition that there be no drive -up window and no "amplified sound" at the exterior of the building. They also reduced the size of the outdoor seating area. See condition 16, page 19, Resolution 09-06. ATTACHMENT 10b Mayor Al Boro and Members of the San Rafael City Council September 9, 2009 Page 2 of 4 Even without the Planning Commission's clarifications, it is clear that the primary use of the structure is that of a grocery store. Like many other grocery stores within San Rafael and elsewhere in Marin County, it includes ancillary uses (e.g., a bakery, a deli, a butcher shop, etc.). These ancillary uses do not convert the use into a fast food restaurant. There is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding that the primary use of the structure is that of a grocery store. The prepared food sales portion of the building area is only 3% of the total floor area, and the amount of revenue from the prepared food service is only 8% of the gross sales of the entire store. The prepared food service area is not in a separate demised space with a separate tenant as the operator. Finally, most of the prepared food sales would occur in conjunction with the sale of groceries and other household products within the grocery store. It is also clear that none of the requirements of Municipal Code Section 14.03.030 are met: there is no drive-through (the Planning Commission specifically added a condition prohibiting a drive -up); the store would not be open after 11:00 p.m. or before 6:00 a.m.; there are no potential litter or noise problems (again the Planning Commission specifically prohibited amplified outdoor noise — see condition 17, page 19, Resolution 09-06); and, the outdoor eating area is limited in size and meets the standards of the zoning ordinance for "outdoor dining" and an administrative use permit. B. The Mi Pueblo Project Complies With All Parking Requirements. The Mi Pueblo Food Center is a grocery store. The City's parking requirement for grocery stores is one parking space per 250 sq. ft. of building area. Based on the building area, the zoning ordinance requires 145 parking spaces. The project includes 162 parking spaces and therefore qualifies with a surplus of 17 parking spaces. Contrary to Ms. Donohugh's allegations, this is not a "mixed use" project. Like many other businesses in San Rafael, it is a grocery store, with other ancillary uses, including food service, office, storage, beer and liquor sales, and other uses. However, the parking is based on the primary use of the building, not a sum of the ancillary uses. If the former Circuit City building was to be occupied by multiple tenants with separate demised spaces, the situation would be different and the grocery store parking standard may not apply. That is not the case — the building will be occupied by one tenant in one demised space with the "primary" use being a grocery store. Even if the appellant is correct that this is a "mixed use" project, Municipal Code Section 14.18.040 B allows the Planning Commission to modify the parking standard to what is "fair, equitable, logical and consistent" with the intent of the parking regulations. As noted in the minutes, the Planning Commission felt that parking was not an issue. Mayor Al Boro and Members of the San Rafael City Council September 9, 2009 Page 3 of 4 C. The Mi Pueblo Grocery Store is Not a High Volume Food Service Establishment and No Use Permit is Needed. The appellant's contention that Mi Pueblo is a "high volume food service establishment" under Section 14.03.030 is incorrect. In order to qualify as a "high volume food service establishment" the store must have a food service area of over 1,000 sq. ft. in size and serve more than 200 lunches daily. This does not apply to Mi Pueblo. The Planning Commission specifically limited the food service area to less than 1,000 sq. ft. As noted in the minutes, the Planning Commission restricted the outdoor seating area to 190.75 sq. ft. or 25% of the indoor area (which is 763 sq. ft.). See condition 15, page 23, Resolution 09-06. II. Appeal of Marin Institute. The Marin Institute has appealed the Planning Commission's approval of a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity relating to the alcohol license for Mi Pueblo. Again, there is no factual or legal basis for this appeal. The Planning Commission reviewed a similar allegation in the appeal before it and based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Commission made findings that the public convenience or necessity will be served by the issuance of an off sale license for this project. As stated in the Planning Commission Resolution (09-06), although the number of off sale retail licenses would increase by one within the City, the Mi Pueblo grocery store, because of its location, character, and manner or method of operation will serve a segment of the City's residents not presently being served. The proposed grocery store use with ancillary sale of beer, wine and alcohol will serve the demand for a large full service grocery store which is not readily available in the entire Canal or east San Rafael area. Off sale alcohol is a common component in nearly all full service grocery stores in the City as well as in other communities throughout the state. In addition, the proposed alcohol sales are expected to make up less than 4% of the overall sales from the store, a minor portion of the merchandise sales. This together with the fact that the applicant has proposed, and the conditions of approval include, limitations on the sale of alcohol, including no sale of beer with more than 7% alcohol content; no sale of malt liquor; no sale of single containers of less than 20 ounces and no sale of half pints or small airport size bottles. See condition 13, page 23, Resolution 09-06. The Planning Commission also found that the Police Department had reviewed the proposed application for a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity, including the crime statistics in the area and the business plan for the alcohol sales, and recommends approval of the finding of Public Convenience or Necessity. As noted by the Police Department staff, they Mayor Al Boro and Members of the San Rafael City Council September 9, 2009 Page 4 of 4 normally do not have issues with large full scale grocery stores that sell beer, wine and liquor. Most of the Department's issues arise in the context of liquor sales at convenience stores or single purpose liquor stores in the City. III. Conclusion. For the reasons stated herein it is respectfully requested that the City Council deny the appeals of Ruth Donohugh and the Marin Institute and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the Mi Pueblo project. Sincerely, NEIL SORENSEN NS/mjs cc: Robert Epstein, City Attorney Raffi Boloyan, Community Development Dept. Russell Pitto, Simeon Properties Bonnie Tragni, Mi Pueblo Jul ll cu..J 11 ._Ill.unul URVV IUD VCr1 110T0.luua r.1 THAND HUMAN SERVICEa Larry Meredith, Ph.A, Director Date: July 14, 2009 To: Ra€fi Boylan San Rafael Planning Commission From: D.J. Pierce, Chief Division of Alcohot Drug and Tobacco Programs Division of Alcohol, Drug and Tobacco Programs 10 North SwPedro Road, Suits M13 - San Mad, CA 94903 Phoma: 415.499.303a Fac: 415.499.7008 Re: Sale of alcoholic beverages at the proposed Mi Pueblo market to be located at the old Circuit City building on 330 Bellam Blvd in San Rafael. As Chief of the Department ofHealth and Human Services, Division of Alcohol, Drug and Tobacco Programs I would like to provide some information on our prevention strategies in Marin County as well as some key local data that you may find useful in making decisions around sales of alcoholic beverages at the proposed Mi Pueblo market to he Ionated atthe old` Circuit Citybuilding on 330 Bellam Blvd in San Rafael. Hieb _Alcohot Qatlet Devfiif_X First, the City of San Rafael has a significantly higher alcohol sales outlet density than the rest of Marin County: to fact; there area tetal of 21-2 alcohol serving -and sellingestablishments in Sart Rafael, accounting for 31.3% of the total outlets in Marin County. Based on current population figures, there are 3.09 alcohol establislurna is -for every t,000 persons living in San Rafael, a rate higher than the County average.' Drlvina After Drink!nt Second, a significant number, almost 209/q, of individuals 18 years of age or older arrested -for: driving while intoxicated named their place of arrest as within the City of San Rafael. Much progress needs tobemadewithex;cr�refaitersto-complet mandatory ResponsibleBe-ve Service training to reduce the sale of alcoholic beverages to intoxicated and underage persons which results insignificant problems- 'for -our communities: In the mest'reeent ana]ysis ofthe Place of Last Drink Survey, which measures a number of factors related to arrests for driving under the influence; a total of 778 individuals -provided 7rrformation-about amirarrests for dtriving while intoxicated in Marin County for the period July 1, 2007 — June 30, 2008. A total of 174 (or 22°/6) individuals in the Drinking Driver Program reported their arrests occurred in San Raf=L Thisrepresents an.inerease of 1M6/a over the. prior reporr_ing pedoc . _Youth Access to Alcohol Finally, young people themselves report that access to alcohol in Marin County is surprisingly casy.andmore than three-quarters of.. youth-respondentsacknow- lP�thatthekfriends_."�Mer� often the source of alcohol. We are concerned that this pattern will continue at an establisluneht ATTACHMENT 11 that is in such close proximity, and shares a parking lot and driveway with our new Health and Wellness. Campus. The Campus serves a large number of uuderage_yauth in clinical and social services settings as well as a large number of adult clients with mental health and alcohol addiction issues. Additionally, underage youth report that they are often not even asked -fon identification when purchasing alcohol from retail establishments. The Marin Youth Health Advisory Council (MYHAC) which is an initiative of the Youth Leadership Institute conducteda-surve-y of appmximatel3x-2,394hi9h-seheo4 students from 1 -2 - schools across the County. Included in that survey were students from San Rafael who attend San -Rafael High School, Term Linda -Nigh -School; Marin -Catholic, Marin -Academy, madrone, and Phoenix Academy, Several Key Findings included:" • More than three quarters of youth reported that friends are most often the source of alcohol (77°l0)_. • 56.9% of youth who purchase alcohol said they are not consistently asked for an ID when theybuyalcohoL . Impact of Existine Ordinmces In an initial review conducted by the -Division -of Alcohol, Drug -and Tobacco, Program,- San Rafael currently has several ordinances related to alcohol that could potentially impact the proposed establishment and necessitate increased-patroiand enforcement costs. These include: Sec. 8.18.050 Consumption. of Alcohol on- Private ParkingAreas;.and-Sec. 8_1-8_04a Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages on Public Property. Summary Our Division has recently completed a five-year strategic ptan_for the prrrvention of alcohoLand_ drug problems among both youth and adults and is currently engaged in a new strategic planning pmcm .•long-pre-venuonftr atnieni andl re vel NZW= arA.keea data-show&that 7t ts-- essential to place strong and clear conditions on alcohol sales in community areas where there is ahigh-aleoholoutlet densityand-a-large-numbero€community-probtems: It is the-opinionofourDLWsian,.based_on-theavailable data that-the-City-ofSan-Rafael-should Put strong and clear conditions on the sales of alcoholic beverages at the proposed Mi Pueblo Market. Proposed Conditions At a minimum, the City of San Rafael should require the following of the Mi Pueblo Market: 1. Provide Mandatory Responsible Beverage Service training for all new employees within 90 days of hire and. refresher sessions on -an annual -basis- Thistrainjug s1houldt include -the following, model components: A. Comprehensive training with information on the social impact of alcohol as well as its impact on the body; local -and- state or sales -to - underage persons and cutting off service and refusing sales to intoxicated patrons. r.� B. Include slali development component with role playing C. Target both managers AND servers D. Include management policy development E. Last amini^^um Length of-fourhours - F. Criteria and procedures for certifying training, trainers, and trainees G. Periodic refrasherorboostertraming H, Active monitoring of training_programs, trainee,-and.liccnsee compliance: 2. Create,implement and enforce policies that clearly define.how. alcohgl is sold. Key management personnel must endorse these policies and everyone, from the cashiers to the owner, must comply with -local -and -state -laws - Minimize the promotion of.alcoholicbeverages_visible.fromthe exterior r of the_cstablishmeat and within the establishment including signage, promotional materials and giveaways. Prohibit the -sale -of "single servings' of alcohol In addition, the City of San-Raf w4 should conduct regular alcohol compliance-checkcoperations, at mi Pueblo to ensure that there is compliance with all applicable local and state laws and regulations. The Division of Alcohol, Drug and Tobacco Programs would be happy to work with Mi Pueblo to provide information, resources andtechnical as is an a to help with_tllc establishment of the conditions listed above. l 3incerel , D. J. Pierce, MPA, 0T- R Chief 'Alcohol Outlets Per Capita by Zip Code, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, May 2005. Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol, Baseline Report, Division of Alcohol, Drug and Tobacco Programs, September 2004. 3Place of Last Drink Survey. Summary, Division of Alcohol, Drug and Tobacco Programs, April 2005. 4Marin Youth Health Advisory Council, Access Survey 2005. Raffi Boloyan Page 1 of 1 From: John Cape [hijaycee@att.net] Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2009 1:21 PM To: Raffi Boloyan Subject: NO New food market on Bellam St Please do not approve the new food mart in the old Circuit City building. There is no need and it would create a traffic and parking problem for the neighborhood and the surrounding businesses. Thank you, John Cape ATTACHMENT 12 7/20/2009 September 8, 2009 Community Development Department Planning Division City of San Rafael P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94901 RE: Hearing for 330 Bellam Blvd — Mi Pueblo Foods September 21, 2009 To Whom It May Concern: RECc vei) SEP > > 2000 COC U ITy DEVELOPIyE��r:.. OF SAKI RAFAEL I have some concerns about this market being put right across the street from where I live. 1. I do not think selling alcohol and having an outdoor dining area is a good idea. Alcohol is going to end up with fights and trouble, especially in this neighborhood. That location should be a safe place for families to go. 2. I do not want live music outside, as it will be too loud for where I live. It was horrible when the car stereo place with Circuit City was there. People would come to visit the guys working there and blast their rap music for hours, day after day: I work hard and when I'm home I don't want to hear blasting music coming through my walls. 3. The building I live in is for people with chemical sensitivity. A BBQ would cause health problems for most of the residents. 4. There are 3 local markets of this sort within a block of 330 Bellam. I don't like the idea of a chain store coming in and potentially driving out small businesses that have been here for many years. There are enough stores in this area. Please consider my concerns during the hearing on September 21st Thank you, Carol Louton 375 Catalina Blvd. #201 San Rafael, CA 94901 425 Bahia way San Rafael CA 94901 RECEIVED September 10, 2009 Planning Division Community Dev. Dept. P>O> Box 151560 San Rafael 94915-1560 Re: MiPuebloFoods on Bellam Blvd. Gentlemen: COMMU° .., (;FMENT CITY r., . %. -L I shall not be attending the September 21 public meeting on the subject of Mi Pueblo Foods' new market at 330 Bellam Blvd. I went over there and walked the whole property. It seems to me there is plenty of room for parking, access and egress. I am sorry for the small markets that will lose business, but I feel this area has needed a supermarket for a long time, and the location is ideal for that purpose. Should the outdoor dining become a problem for the neighborhood we can address that then. Sincerely, _ (Ms) Allyn Otnes Community Development Dept. Adrienne Plasse Planning Division 170 Vista Del Mar City of San Rafael San Rafael, Ca. 94901 P. O. Box 151560 San Rafael, Ca. 94901 Dear City Council Members; I am responding to your request for public comment regarding the petition on the part of Mi Pueblo Foods to open a store at 330 Bellam Blvd. I am a resident of the Rafael Bay Condo Association located directly across Bellam Blvd. from the proposed store site. I have some concerns about the impact on our community if this project is approved: 1. The potential for loitering of single men around the store and very close to our homes. I do not fell particularly threatened my most of the men who hang out nearby at other stores but this activity may invite others, less desirable, such as transients to emulate such behavior. I have a 12 year old daughter who is already intimidated by groups of men congregating in the neighborhood. They don't need to be so close to were we live. 2. The selling of alcohol and the potential for public drinking in our open spaces. There are already beer bottles and cans left in lawn areas. How much more will we need to clean up when the source of the bottles is 50 feet away? I am by no means a temperance advocate, but there is a time and place for drinking, my front lawn on Saturday evening isn't it. 3. The safety of pedestrians trying to reach the store. Traffic is already heavy at the Bellam- Kerner intersection. There is no crosswalk in the middle of the very long block between Playa del Rey and Kerner, where the store would be located. People are already crossing in the middle of the block, narrowly escaping oncoming vehicles. How much more dangerous will it be when lots more folks will be attempting to outrun the cars? I care about my neighbors, all of them. I think we need a good market nearby to shop. It would be convenient, especially for those without transportation and older folks. It would also cut down on car pollution for all of us. I just don't know how to resolve the above issues. I spoke with a representative of the market at a community event and he assured me that there would be guards at the store. I'm not sure that's enough. I'm afraid that will only push people who want to hang out or drink onto our property and if this does happen, the market is there, it won't leave. We will be stuck with the problem. So, I have a dilemma. We need a good market. I was even moved enough at the community event to sign a petition in favor of Mi Pueblo that I now wish to rescind after having had time to reflect on the history of public drinking and discarded trash we have experienced at Rafael Bay. Perhaps if alcohol was not sold, a cross walk was put in and guards were vigilant about disbanding groups of men around the store, I could reconsider. If not, I would urge you to deny the store's petition. Thank you so much for soliciting input on this issue and allowing me to air my concerns. RECEIVED Sincerely, SEP 1 Adrienne Plasse rn%4p.41JN1TY DEVELOPMENT PITY OF SAN RAFAEL