5PM Item 12 - Applicant Appeal - Orchard Lane Alcohol CUP (P20-012) [Published 01/14/2022] (PDF-15752 KB) — Sacramento City Council, January 25, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

Susana Alcala Wood, City Attorney Jorge Oseguera, City Auditor Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk Howard Chan, City Manager John Colville, City Treasurer City Council Report
915 I Street, 1st Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org

File ID: 2021-01187 January 25, 2022 Public Hearing Item 12

Title: Applicant Appeal: Orchard Lane Alcohol CUP (P20-012) [Published 01/14/2022]

Location: 2701 Orchard Lane (APN: 274-0030-082-0000), District 3

Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion deny: 1) Environmental Exemption: Exempt from Environmental Review (Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities); and 2) Conditional Use Permit for alcohol sales in the Shopping Center zone (SC) within the Camino Station Planned Unit Development (PUD), thereby denying the applicant appeal.

Contact: Jose Quintanilla, Associate Planner, 916-808-5879; [email protected], Teresa Haenggi, Senior Planner, 916-808-7554, [email protected], Community Development Department

Presenter: Jose Quintanilla, Associate Planner, 916-808-5879, [email protected], Community Development Department

Applicant: Thomas Barth, Barth Daly LLP, 2810 Fifth Street, Davis, CA 95618

Property Owner: Baljeet Dhadwal, DS&D Petroleum, Inc., 5093 Dynasty Way, Sacramento, CA 95835

Page 1 of 271 ends

File ID: 2021-01187 Public Hearing Item 12
January 25, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento

Attachments:
01-Description/Analysis
02-Background
03-Attachment 1: Findings of Fact
04-Exhibit A: Sales Floorplan
05-Attachment 2: Context Maps
06-Attachment 3: Applicant’s Response to Community Comments 07-Exhibit A: Police Calls for Service: Subject Site
08-Exhibit B: Police Calls for Service: Various Gas Stations with Alcohol Sales 09-Exhibit C: Willowcreek Orchard Lane Pedestrian Context 10-Exhibit D: Applicant Outreach
11-Attachment 4: Police Department Protest with Conditions Letter to ABC 12-Attachment 5: Applicant Appeal Letter
13-Attachment 6: Community Comments (All)

Page 2 of 271 ends

File ID: 2021-01187 Public Hearing Item 12
January 25, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento

Description/Analysis

Issue Detail: This is an applicant appeal of the Planning and Design Commission’s decision to deny the Orchard Lane Alcohol CUP project (P20-012). The project is a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption (Type 20 License) within an existing gas station convenience store, located at the southwest corner of West El Camino Avenue and Orchard Lane in the Camino Station Planned Unit Development (PUD) in South Natomas.

The subject site is located approximately 500 feet from Interstate 80’s eastbound on- and off- ramps and within one-quarter mile of two schools (Two Rivers Elementary and Leroy Greene Academy), three existing parks (Two Rivers Park, Orchard Park, and Cove Park).

To the north of the site, across West El Camino Avenue, is the newly constructed 300-unit Core Natomas Apartments project, and the Cove residential subdivision, with 554 single-unit dwellings. It is expected that both of these residential projects will result in an increase in the population of students commuting to the nearby schools to the south, as well as an increase in local residents that will utilize the local parks.

On June 10, 2021, the Planning and Design Commission denied the Orchard Lane Alcohol CUP project by a vote of 9:3 (with one recused commissioner and two absences). Within the 10-day appeal period, the applicant filed an appeal on the Commission’s decision to deny the project. The applicant files the appeal on the grounds that the liquor license is proposed for a business with no history of being non-compliant or a nuisance, and that alcohol sales are an allowable use that will have no negative impacts on the surrounding area. Furthermore, the applicant asserts that the Commission based its decision with little to no evidence to support their findings and was solely based on public comments and an aggressive letter writing campaign. Please see the appeal form and letter and provided in Attachment 5.

The appeal has been reviewed by staff and staff has determined that the appeal does not raise any issues or claims that have not been previously addressed by staff.

Policy Considerations: The 2035 General Plan designation for the subject site is Suburban Center (SCNT). This designation provides for predominantly non-residential, lower-intensity single-use commercial development with retail, service, office, and/or residential uses which include central public gathering places and other compatible public, quasi-public, and special uses. Other characteristics of this designation include attractive pedestrian streetscapes, low building heights, and façades with a high degree of transparency.

Staff finds that the project is inconsistent with the following General Plan goals and policies:

Page 3 of 271 ends

File ID: 2021-01187 Public Hearing Item 12
January 25, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento

Goal LU 2.1 City of Neighborhoods. Maintain a city of diverse, distinct, and well-structured neighborhoods that meet the community’s needs for complete, sustainable, and high-quality living environments, from the historic downtown core to well-integrated new growth areas.

Policy LU 2.1.1 Neighborhoods as a Basic Unit. Recognizing that Sacramento’s neighborhoods are the basic living environments that make-up the city’s urban fabric, the City shall strive through its planning and urban design to preserve and enhance their distinctiveness, identity, and livability from the downtown core to well-integrated new growth areas.

Policy LU 2.1.2 Protect Established Neighborhoods. The City shall preserve, protect, and enhance established neighborhoods by providing sensitive transitions between these neighborhoods and adjoining areas, and by requiring new development, both private and public, to respect and respond to those existing physical characteristics buildings, streetscapes, open spaces, and urban form that contribute to the overall character and livability of the neighborhood.

Goal LU 4.1 Neighborhoods. Promote the development and preservation of neighborhoods that provide a variety of housing types, densities, and designs and a mix of uses and services that address the diverse needs of Sacramento residents of all ages, socio-economic groups, and abilities.

Policy LU 4.1.10 Family-Friendly Neighborhoods. The City shall promote the development of family-friendly neighborhoods throughout the city that provide housing that accommodates families of all sizes and provides safe and convenient access to schools, parks, and other family-oriented amenities and services.

Because of the sensitive nature of alcohol sales, the Conditional Use Permit process allows for the project to be reviewed in the context of the surrounding neighborhood and to impose necessary conditions of approval.

Given the close proximity of a primary school, a secondary school, and three public parks within 1/4-mile of the subject site, staff believes this location is inappropriate for alcohol sales.

1) The subject site is located within ¼-mile of Two Rivers Elementary School (K-5; 637 students), and Leroy Greene Academy (6-12; 778 students);

2) The subject site is located within ¼-mile of Two Rivers Park, Orchard Park, and Cove Park, and approximately 1,700 feet away from Sally Hudson Park.

Page 4 of 271 ends

File ID: 2021-01187 Public Hearing Item 12
January 25, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento

Additionally, there are four locations within ¾ of a mile that sell alcohol for off-premises consumption, a truck stop, two gas stations, and a liquor store.

1) 2,200 feet to the northwest: License 403724, Sacramento 49er Travel Plaza, Type 20 License (beer and wine), 2828 El Centro Road, Sacramento (Unincorporated).

2) 2,300 feet to the northwest: License 574742, El Centro Chevron, Type 21 License (beer, wine, and distilled spirits), 2738 El Centro Road, Sacramento (Unincorporated).

Locations 1 and 2 are cater-cornered from one another and located across I-80 in unincorporated Sacramento County.

3) ¾-miles to the east: License 463761, A-1 Mart, Type 21 License (beer, wine, and distilled spirits), 2550 West El Camino Avenue, Sacramento.

4) ¾-miles to the east: License 592290, The Speedway (gas station), Type 20 License (beer and wine), 2650 Gateway Oaks Drive

Locations 3 and 4 are cater-cornered from one another and located in the City of Sacramento.

200-Year Flood Protection

State Law (SB 5) and Planning and Development Code chapter 17.810 require that the City must make specific findings prior to approving certain entitlements for projects within a flood hazard zone. The purpose is to ensure that new development will have protection from a 200- year flood event or will achieve that protection by 2025. The project site is within a flood hazard zone and is an area covered by SAFCA’s Improvements to the State Plan of Flood Control System, and specific findings related to the level of protection have been incorporated as part of this project. Even though the project site is within a flood hazard zone, the local flood management agency, SAFCA, has made adequate progress on the construction of a flood protection system that will ensure protection from a 200-year flood event or will achieve that protection by 2025. This is based on the SAFCA Urban level of flood protection plan, adequate progress baseline report, and adequate progress toward an urban level of flood protection engineer’s report that were accepted by City Council Resolution No. 2016-0226 on June 21, 2016 and the SAFCA 2021 Adequate Progress Annual Report accepted by City Council Resolution No. 2021-0328 on November 9, 2021.

Economic Impacts: None

Page 5 of 271 ends

File ID: 2021-01187 Public Hearing Item 12
January 25, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento

Environmental Consideration: The project has been determined to be exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act, per CEQA Guidelines, Class 1, Section 15301, Existing Facilities.

Sustainability: Not Applicable

Commission/Committee Action: On April 22, 2021, the Planning and Design Commission heard the item, with staff recommending the Commission deny the requested CUP. The Commission instructed staff to return with findings and conditions for approval. On June 10, 2021, the Planning and Design Commission denied the Orchard Lane Alcohol CUP project by a vote of 9:3 (with one recused commissioner and two absences).

Rationale for Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the requested entitlements and in doing so deny the applicant’s appeal. Staff finds that the proximity to two K- 12 schools and three public parks and playgrounds make this location inappropriate for the off- premises sale of alcohol.

Financial Considerations: Not Applicable

Local Business Enterprise (LBE): No goods or services are being purchased under this report.

Public/Neighborhood Outreach and Comments: As part of the application review process, the proposal was routed to Preservation Sacramento, WALKSacramento, Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates (SABA), Region Builders, Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS), Natomas Community Association, Natomas Chamber of Commerce, and River Oaks Community Association.

The project site was posted with hearing information and all property owners, residents, and neighborhood associations within 500 feet of the project site were mailed hearing information as well. As of the writing of this report, staff has received comments expressing opposition to the project in response to the hearing notice.

For the April 22 and June 10, 2021, Planning and Design Commission hearings staff received the following communications:

Hearing Body Date Comment Support Neutral Oppose Total
Planning and
Design
Commission
April 22, 2021 Email 15 0 49 64
e-Comment 71 2 58 137
June 10, 2021 Email 0 0 6 6
e-Comment 96 3 246 350

Page 6 of 271 ends

File ID: 2021-01187 Public Hearing Item 12
January 25, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento

All communications received for this project request are included as Attachment 6 to this report.

Comments Received Prior to the June 10 Hearing Date

Prior to the June 10 Planning and Design Commission (PDC) hearing date, staff received six comment letters in opposition to this project.

One letter refuted comments made at the April 22 PDC hearing including a statement by the applicant that described the nearby neighborhoods as “gated.” The letter included many of the same concerns included in previous letters such as panhandling at the subject site and in the area; the large amount of dumping at the adjacent vacant lot including trash, empty bottles, and drug paraphernalia; a large amount of people under the influence at nearby parks; and references to an agreement the station made to not sell alcohol at that location.

Other letters received reiterated similar arguments made in opposition that are touched on in the sections below. These comments further state that they agree with staff’s rationale to deny the project given the close proximity of schools and parks to the project site.

Comments Received Prior to the April 22 Hearing Date

Project Opposition
Letters of opposition were received from the Natomas Unified School District (Natomas USD), the River Oaks Community Association (ROCA), and Beazer Homes (developer of the Cove subdivision).

Natomas USD: The school district expressed opposition to the proposed alcohol permit due to the close proximity of the schools as these types of uses “negatively impact the community and create potential safety concerns for [their] students and school district.” Further comments expressed the potential for students loitering at “mini-marts.” The school district reiterated their past opposition to alcohol sales at this location.

The Natomas USD letter also mentioned that this convenience store “opened with a mutual agreement that owners of Arco would not sell alcohol.” This statement mentioning the agreement was reiterated in many of the opposition letters sent to staff.

Page 7 of 271 ends

File ID: 2021-01187 Public Hearing Item 12
January 25, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento

ROCA: The River Oaks Community Association opposes the project request and has opposed previous requests to allow for alcohol sales at this location given the potential impacts this use would have on the neighborhood.

Areas of concern in ROCA’s letter include:

• The large vacant lot adjacent to the subject site which “is occupied by a homeless population.” Because of the close proximity of the Sacramento River, and homeless encampments both at the adjacent property and at the river, could create “additional causes for public nuisance to occur in the neighborhood, around parks, residences, and the two schools.”

• The overall impact COVID-19 has had on the City’s budget, associated Police budget cutbacks, and how an over-extended police force could adequately respond to nuisances in the area that would result with the proposed use.

• The number of options at which one can purchase alcohol in the area. The letter states that there are 9 locations in a two-mile radius, and names four locations in close proximity to the subject site. These four locations can be seen in the context maps included as Attachment 2 of this report.

• High school students walking to, patronizing, and congregating at the convenience store.

• The prohibition of alcohol sales at this location.

Beazer: Beazer Homes, the developer of the Cove residential subdivision cater-cornered to the subject site, provided a letter of opposition to the project request. Their letter further stated that should the City grant this request, to impose conditions on the permit limiting the packaging type (six-packs and 750ml bottles), and product strength (alcohol by volume).

The remaining opposition letters received by staff included many of the same concerns expressed by Natomas USD and ROCA. Additional issues raised included:

• The number of robberies at this location.

• The amount of noise, cars, and litter attracted by this station without an alcohol license.

• Aggressive panhandlers and transients at similar locations to the west (gas station at Gateway Oaks and West El Camino Avenue).

Page 8 of 271 ends

File ID: 2021-01187 Public Hearing Item 12
January 25, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento

• Homelessness and littering along the nearby Natomas Main Drainage Canal.

• Litter from the convenience store on adjacent properties.

• Drinking, littering, and loitering at night at the nearby parks.

• Limited Police personnel to enforce nuisance crimes in the area.

The applicant provided a response to the concerns (see Attachment 3). A summary of this response is provided below:

• This is not a request to sell liquor (distilled spirits), only beer and wine. Sales will occupy approximately 1.5% of the store. This location is a full-service [gas] station and convenience store.

• Neighbors state the approval of an alcohol license at this location would be bad for the neighborhood.
o This location is not a corner liquor store and is located along a heavily used commercial street just off the freeway.
o There is very little pedestrian connectivity to the gas station from the surrounding neighborhoods.
o Adjacent developments are gated.
o The idea that kids will walk to the store to buy beer is farfetched. o There are no bus stops or pick-up/drop-off areas within proximity of the station.

• Many who oppose the CUP cite fears that the homeless would have a place to buy cheap beer and loiter.
o The Police Department has recommended conditions on the permit that would:
▪ Restrict the sale of beer to no less than a six pack; ▪ Restrict container size;
▪ Limited hours for the sale of alcohol.
o Additional Police conditions include:
▪ Lighting;
▪ Security Cameras.
o This location is not in an overconcentrated Census tract.

• There are several other gas stations in the area that are close to neighborhoods and schools.

Page 9 of 271 ends

File ID: 2021-01187 Public Hearing Item 12
January 25, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento

o These locations have operating restrictions and none exhibit the problems mentioned by neighbors.
o Calls for service for these locations and the subject site are provided (Exhibits A and B of Attachment 3).
o No ABC violations at these sites.
o No evidence to support the claims made by those opposed to the license.

• There are no conditions on this CUP or restrictions in the Camino Station PUD that prohibit us from applying for a CUP. Business and Professions Code prohibits local jurisdictions to prohibit beer and wine sales outright.

Project Support

Support letters expressed a desire to have a convenient local business they regularly frequent for gas and other items at which they could also purchase beer and wine. Proponents also share that they have never had any issues while shopping at this location.

Applicant Outreach

The applicant reports having performed outreach in-store with customers as well as outreach to the Natomas Chamber of Commerce, Natomas Unified School District, and the River Oaks Community Association. Further outreach was performed via a Virtual Community Meeting on October 7, 2020, and via the social media website Nextdoor.

Page 10 of 271 ends

Figure 1 - Vicinity Map

Page 11 of 271 ends

Background Information
A Special Permit (now called a Conditional Use Permit) for a gas station and ancillary car wash and a Special Permit for a 24 -hour convenience store on the subject site w ere approved by the Planning Commission in August 2006 (P05-209) and constructed in 2009. The initial project request for P05-209 included a requested for a Special Permit to sell alcohol at this location. The alcohol sales permit request , including the gas station and car wash uses were opposed by the community. The request for alcohol sales was withdrawn after community opposition , while the gas station and car wash uses were approved by the Planning Commission.

A subsequent request was made in 2009 for alcohol sales (P09-059). This project also included a request to appeal the Police Chief’s decision to deny a Letter of Public Convenience or Necessity for this location. The project, however, was withdrawn in 2010 after considerable community opposition.

The site was vacant prior to the construction of the gas station. The site is fully improved with parking, planting strips, eight fuel pumps (16 nozzles), a fuel canopy, an incidental car wash, and a 3,794-square-foot convenience store. The location underwent a change in ownership in early 2020.

In order to diversify their sources of income, the applicant is requesting permission for the sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption (Type 20 license) within an existing 3,794- square-foot convenience store. No changes are proposed to the site or building.

The convenience store sales area (excluding freezer space behind the coolers , staff rooms, restrooms, and storage) occupies approximately 2,400 square feet of the 3,794 square feet of the building. The applicant anticipates that beer would be stored in coolers and wine on the sales floor . Beer sales would occupy a footprint of approximately 30 square feet of space (1.25% of the sales area) , and wine 48 square feet of she lf space (2% of the sales area). All alcohol sales areas are calculated as the footprint that the use encompasses, without the inclusion of the vertical space and each shelf. See Exhibit A of Attachment 1 for a floorplan detailing these locations.

The applicant notes that with ever-increasing fuel standards, less and less stops to fill up equals fewer trips into the market or trips through the car wash. With increasing staff and maintenance costs, other sources of revenue, including beer and wine sa les, are necessary to continue operating a high -quality service station. Furthermore, Arco has made substantial investments in the property, including the addition of propane sales and a “Good Stuff” café which includes sales of pre-packaged food.

Page 12 of 271 ends

Table 1: Site Information
General Plan Designation: Suburban Center (SCNT)
Community Plan Area: South Natomas
Existing Zoning: Shopping Center (SC)
Existing Use: Gas Station / Convenience Store
Parcel Area: 1.45 acres
Land Use Context
The site is located at 2701 Orchard Lane on a 1.45-acre parcel, located at the southwest corner of the intersection of West El Camino Avenue and Orchard Lane, to the east of the I-80 West El Camino Avenue exit.

To the north of the site is West El Camino Avenue and a vacant parcel that has recently approved entitlements for a gas station, convenience store with ancillary restaurant, and two drive -through restaurant uses (P19 -012). That project, called the River Oaks Marketplace, initially requested a Conditional Use Permit for alcohol sales , but that request was withdrawn from later iterations of the project after community opposition.

Further north is the newly constructed 300 -unit Core Natomas Apartments project, and the Cove residential subdivision, with 554 single-unit dwellings.

To the south and southeast are single -unit dwellings, and to the east are multi -unit dwellings. To the west is vacant land and Interstate 80. There is a vacant property immediately south.

The subject site is located within ¼-mile of Two Rivers Elementary School (K-5), Leroy Greene Academy (6-12), Two Rivers Park, and Cove Park and approximately 1,700 feet away from both Orchard Park and Sally Hudson Park . Further land use context can be seen in Attachment 2 of this report.

Entitlement Review
Conditional Use Permit – Alcohol Sales
The subject site is located in the Shopping Center zone (SC) . The approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for alcohol sales is required for this project. The CUP process is designed to evaluate a project’s potential impact on a site and the surrounding area. Planning and Development Code section 17.228.108.A.2(a) requires the decision- maker to consider whether alcoholic beverage sales for off -site consumpti on will detrimentally affect nearby residentially zoned areas by considering the distance of the proposed use from residential buildings, faith congregations, schools, hospitals, parks and playgrounds, childcare centers, social services, and other similar uses.

Page 13 of 271 ends

The applicant is requesting permission for the sale of beer and wine for offsite consumption (Type 2 0 license). The approved hours of operation for t he convenience store and gas pumps are 24 hours a day.

Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) Letter Not Required The Police Department requested that the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) place conditions on the license (if approved), including:
 No beer or malt beverage product(s) shall be sold, regardless of container size, in quantities of less than six per sale;
 No Distilled Spirits shall be sold in bottles or containers of less than 750 ml.;  No wine shall be sold with an alcohol content of greater than 15% by volume; and,  Sales and service of alcoholic beverages shall be pe rmitted only between the hours of 8:00 am – 10:00 pm, each day of the week.

These conditions can be seen in their entirety in Attachment 4. The Police Department believes that adding these conditions will mitigate any potential issues. The Police Department provided no further comments and did not oppose the project.

The Census Tract (70.20) in which the subject site is located is not “over-concentrated” with off-sale alcohol licenses as there is only one active license . Because the Census Tract is not considered overconcentrated, a letter of Public Convenience or Necessity is not required.

There is one active alcohol license in this Census tract (No. 592694 – Type 85 – Limited Off-Sale Wine License) . The operating conditions on this license state that t he subject premises will be operated solely as a business office and no alcoholic beverages will be possessed, stored, or delivered from this location, nor shall there be any direct sales to consumers or retailers from this location.

There are four locations within ¾ of a mile that sell alcohol for off-premises consumption, a truck stop, two gas stations, and a liquor store.
1) 2,200 feet to the northwest: License 403724, Sacramento 49er Travel Plaza, Type 20 License (beer and wine), 2828 El Centro Road, Sacr amento (Unincorporated).
2) 2,300 feet to the northwest: License 574742, El Centro Chevron, Type 21 License (beer, wine, and distilled spirits), 2738 El Centro Road, Sacramento (Unincorporated).

Locations 1 and 2 are cater -cornered from one another and locate d across I -80 in unincorporated Sacramento County.

Page 14 of 271 ends

3) ¾-miles to the east: License 463761, A -1 Mart, Type 21 License (beer, wine, and distilled spirits), 2550 West El Camino Avenue, Sacramento. 4) ¾-miles to the east: License 592290, The Speedway (gas station), Type 20 License (beer and wine), 2650 Gateway Oaks Drive
Locations 3 and 4 are cater -cornered from one another and located in the City of Sacramento. Further context can be seen in Attachment 2 of this report.

These locations are not located in the same census tract as the subject site and therefore does not require a Letter of Public Convenience or Necessity from the Police Department.

Findings
Subsection 17.228.108.A of the Planning and Development Code requires the Planning and Design Commission consid er whether alcoholic beverage sales for off -premises consumption will detrimentally affect nearby residential areas and also consider the distance of the proposed use from church and faith organizations, schools (K -12), hospitals, parks and playgrounds, ch ildcare centers, social services, and other similar uses. Furthermore, projects that proposed alcohol sales have four additional findings that must be made in addition to the standard findings required for all Conditional Use Permits.

Proposed Findings of Fact for this project are included as Attachment 1 of this report.

Page 15 of 271 ends

Attachment 1
Proposed Findings of Fact
Orchard Lane Alcohol CUP (P20-012)
2701 Orchard Lane, Sacramento, CA 95833
APN: 275-0030-082-0000
Findings of Fact
A. Environmental Determination: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):

The project is exempt from review under CEQA (Per CEQA Guidelines, Class 1, Section 15301, Existing Facilities).

B. Conditional Use Permit for alcohol sales for off-site consumption in the Shopping Center zone (SC) within the Camino Station Planned Unit Development (PUD) is denied, thereby denying the applicants appeal, based on the following Findings of Fact:

1. The proposed use and its operating characteristics are not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan or transit village plan in that the proposed project is not consistent with General Plan policies that promote the protection of existing neighborhoods and family-friendly neighborhoods. The subject site is located in close proximity to multiple sensitive uses including one elementary school (grades TK to 5), one middle and high school (grades 6 to 12), and four existing public parks.

2. The proposed use and its operating characteristics are not consistent with the applicable standards, requirements, and regulations of the Shopping Center zone (SC) in which it is located, and all other provisions of this title and this code. While alcohol sales are an allowed use in this zone, the granting of a conditional use permit must take into consideration the close proximity to sensitive uses and the potential for negative impacts. Due to the close proximity of school and parks to the subject site, this project is not consistent with this finding.

3. The proposed use and its operating characteristics are detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience, or welfare of persons residing, working, visiting, or recreating in the surrounding neighborhood and will result in the creation of a nuisance in that the use is inconsistent with General Plan policies that promote the protection of existing neighborhoods and family- friendly neighborhoods. The subject site is located in close proximity to two K- 12 schools, and four existing public parks.

4. The proposed use will adversely affect the peace or general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood in that this store is open 24 hours a day and is situated close to schools and parks.

Page 16 of 271 ends

5. The proposed use will be contrary to or adversely affect any program or redevelopment or neighborhood conservation in that the proposed use at this location is in close proximity to new multi-unit developments (approximately 300 apartment units) and single-unit development (554 single-unit, detached and attached residential units) inconsistent with General Plan policies promoting the protection of established neighborhoods and family-friendly neighborhoods.

Attachments
Exhibit A: Sales Floorplan
Attachment 2: Context Maps
Attachment 3: Applicant’s Response to Community Comments Exhibit A: Police Calls for Service: Subject Site
Exhibit B: Police Calls for Service: Various Gas Stations with Alcohol Sales Exhibit C: Willowcreek Orchard Lane Pedestrian Context
Exhibit D: Applicant Outreach
Attachment 4: Police Department Protest with Conditions Letter to ABC Attachment 5: Applicant Appeal Letter
Attachment 6: Community Comments (All)

Page 17 of 271 ends

60 total SQFT in
beer cooler space, that
is approximately 1.5% of
the total store area.
2 4X6 Wine Shelves
For a total of 48 SQFT

Page 18 of 271 ends

P20-012

ARCO - ORCHARD LN CUP
DISTRICT 4
CUP (ALCOHOL SALES)
0 1,200 2,400
Feet
Two Rivers Elementary (K-5)
Leroy Greene Academy (6-12)
J. Quintanilla | 3/19/21
City of Sacramento, CDD GIS
License: 403724
Type: 20 (Beer & Wine)
2828 El Centro Road
License: 574742
Type: 21 (Beer, Wine,
& Distilled Spirits)
2738 El Centro Road
License: 463761
Type: 21 (Beer, Wine
& Distilled Spirits)
2550 W El Camino Ave.

License: 592290
Type: 20 (Beer & Wine)
2650 Gateway Oaks Drive
500-FOOT BUFFER
1/4-MILE BUFFER
1/2-MILE BUFFER
3/4-MILE BUFFER
Project Location

Page 19 of 271 ends

P20-012

ARCO - ORCHARD LN CUP
DISTRICT 4
CUP (ALCOHOL SALES)
0 660 1,320
Feet
å
å
Two Rivers Elementary (K-5)
Leroy Greene Academy (6-12)
J. Quintanilla | 3/24/21
City of Sacramento, CDD GIS
The Core Natomas
300 Multi-Unit Dwellings
The Cove
554 Single-Unit Dwellings
500-FOOT BUFFER1/4-MILE BUFFER
Project Location
River Oaks Marketplace (P19-012)
Approved 2020
VACANT
VACANT

MULTI-UNIT
VACANT

MULTI-UNIT

SINGLE-UNIT

SINGLE-UNIT
1/2-MILE BUFFER

Page 20 of 271 ends

P20-012

ARCO - ORCHARD LN CUP
DISTRICT 4
CUP (ALCOHOL SALES)
0 660 1,320
Feet
å
å

SUBURBAN CENTER

SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD LOW DENSITY

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

PARKS AND RECREATION

PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC

SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD HIGH DENSITY

SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD MEDIUM DENSITY
Two Rivers Elementary (K-5)
Leroy Greene Academy (6-12)
J. Quintanilla | 6/3/21
City of Sacramento, CDD GIS
500-FOOT BUFFER1/4-MILE BUFFER
Project Location
1/2-MILE BUFFER

Page 21 of 271 ends

P20-012

ARCO - ORCHARD LN CUP
DISTRICT 4
CUP (ALCOHOL SALES)
0 1,600 3,200
Feet
J. Quintanilla | 3/19/21
City of Sacramento, CDD GIS
License: 403724
Type: 20 (Beer & Wine)
2828 El Centro Road
License: 574742
Type: 21 (Beer, Wine,
& Distilled Spirits)
2738 El Centro Road
License: 463761
Type: 21 (Beer, Wine
& Distilled Spirits)
2550 W El Camino Ave.

License: 592290
Type: 20 (Beer & Wine)
2650 Gateway Oaks Drive
CENSUS TRACT 70.20
Project Location
CENSUS TRACT 70.10
CENSUS TRACT 70.17

Page 22 of 271 ends

P20-012 Arco Station Orchard Lane CUP

Jose,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me and Baljit last week regarding the status of our application.

As I mentioned, we have received lots of positive feedback and at this point, there is really isn’t much we can do to change the minds of the leader ship of the ROCA. We fully understand their concerns but disagree with their claims that granting this permit would be detrimental to the hea th of the neighborhood. Here are a few point we would like to clarify with planning staff as we move forward.

1. Several neighbors refer to the request as a “liquor store”. It must be made clear that the request is for a type 20 beer and wine license, no distilled spirits will be sold that this location. Beer and sales would be limited to 4 beer coolers. This is equal to 1.5 % of the entire store. The Orchard Lane Arco am pm is a full-service station and convenience store, not a liquor store.

2. In reading some of the letters of opposition, many of the neighbor’s state that because of the proximity to residential and schools, the license will be bad for the neighborhood. Again, this is not a corner liquor store in the neighborhood we are talking about. The station is on W. El Camino Avenue along a heavily used highway commercial street, just off the freeway. Both nearb y neighborhoods are gated and have little pedestrian connectivity to the station. Please see the attached street view exhibit. For the schools, there are no bus stops or pick -up/drop-off areas within proximity of the station. There is not even a complete sidewalk that connects Orchard Lane across Barandas Drive. Both schools are approximately 2000 feet away when measured from entrance to entrance with a reasonable walking path. The idea that kids will walk to the store to buy beer is farfetched.

3. Many who oppose the CUP site fears that the homeless would have a place to buy cheap bee and loiter. The Sacramento Police Department has recommended conditions that restrict beer sales to no less than a six pack. This means the store will not be selling single cans or bottles of beer.

The station is not in an over concentrated census track and is not requesting a letter of public convenience and necessity. However, in working with the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, the applicants will agree to the conditions if it satisfies the concerned neighbors. In addition to the restrictions on container size, the Sacramento Police Department also recommended several other conditions that require security camaras, lighting, limits o n time of alcohol sales. The current review process we have in the City of Sacramento’s works to address potential negative impacts a beer and wine license might have. The Sacramento Police Department will withdraw their protest based on the conditions placed on the license.

4. There are several other Station in the area that are close to neighborhood s and schools. Please see the attached map. All these locations have operating restriction and none of them have any of the problems that some fear. I have also included a copy of the cal ls for service data at each

Page 23 of 271 ends

site. There are not any alcohol related calls for service for the sites and not a singe ABC violation at each site. We understand the extra scrutiny an application near a school should receive but, in this instance, there is no evidence to support the claim made by some of the people opposed to the license.

See Attached
R015269_221DelPasoRD
R015269 2550WELCamino
R015269 2650GatewayDrive
R015269 2700DelPasoRD

5. Several neighbors keep referring to an “agreement” or “conditions” on the previously approved CUP for the station. As far as we know, there are no conditions on this CUP or restriction in the Camino Station PUD that prohibit us from applying for a CUP. Business and Professions Code prohibits local jurisdictions to prohibit beer and wine sales outright. 23790.5. Sale of beer and wine in conjunction with sale of motor vehicle fuel (a) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section to ensure that local government shall not be preempted in the valid exercise of its land use authority pursuant to Section 23790, including, but not limited to, enacting an ordinance requiring a conditional use permit. It is also the intent of the Legislature to prevent the legislated prohibition of the concurrent retailing of beer and wine for off– premises consumption and motor vehicle fuel where the retailing of each is otherwise allowable. (b)(1) No city, county, or city and county shall, by ordinance or resolution adopted on or after January 1, 1988, legislatively prohibit the concurrent retailing of motor vehicle fuel and beer and wine for off– sale consumption in zoning districts where the zoning ordinance allows motor vehicle fuel and off – sale beer and wine to be retailed on separate sites.

Jose, we appreciate your time and efforts with this application. For the stated reasons above, we ask that staff move this project forward with a recommendation for approval. The decions could ultimately end up at City Council and will likely include a protest hearing with the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

Page 24 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis
Number of Records Returned: 169

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
which_cad='P' and occ_date between TO_DATE('2017-08-01 00:00:00','YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS') and TO_DATE('2020-08-01 00:00:
00','YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS') and address='2701 ORCHARD LN' and jurisdiction='SA' Search Criteria:

Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Fri Aug 14 2020
For User: 1122

Page 1 of 12 ends

235868 MISDEMEANOR

AS/MISDEMEANOR ASS
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Aug-17-2017 23:10:09 2017-235868
235871 MISDEMEANOR ASSAULT-IN

PROGRES
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Aug-17-2017 23:10:46 2017-235871 239156 VANDALISM-REPORT REFERRAL 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Aug-21-2017 00:31:34 2017-239156 239159 VANDALISM-REPORT REFERRAL 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes AUTOMATICALL Y
(for advised
entries)
Aug-21-2017 00:31:55 2017-239159
245373 MISDEMEANOR ASSAULT-IN

PROGRES
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Aug-26-2017 18:05:09 2017-245373
254449 MEDICAL AID-CLARIFY IN TEXT 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Sep-04-2017 05:41:18 2017-254449
257402 ALL UNITS BROADCAST 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Sep-07-2017 01:51:05 2017-257402 290580 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE-OCCUPIED 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Oct-09-2017 02:03:33 2017-290580
292060 ALL UNITS BROADCAST 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Oct-10-2017 17:29:04 2017-292060 292062 VANDALISM-REPORT REFERRAL 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes AUTOMATICALL Y
(for advised
entries)
Oct-10-2017 17:33:18 2017-292062
295914 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE-

UNOCCUPIED
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Oct-14-2017 12:32:42 2017-295914
296694 ERRAND 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Oct-15-2017 08:08:46 2017-296694
327271 ADVISED ENTRY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes AUTOMATICALL Y
(for advised
entries)
Nov-13-2017 18:36:20 2017-327271
330684 VANDALISM-REPORT 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Nov-17-2017 00:52:09 2017-330684

Page 25 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Fri Aug 14 2020
For User: 1122

Page 2 of 12 ends

338271 DISTURBANCE-DOMESTIC

VIOLENCE-
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Nov-25-2017 12:40:06 2017-338271
341315 REPORT NUMBER ASSIGNMENT 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes OTHER/OUTSID

E AGENCY
Nov-28-2017 16:20:26 2017-341315
358389 MISDEMEANOR ASSAULT-IN

PROGRES
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-15-2017 14:33:19 2017-358389
358390 MISDEMEANOR ASSAULT-IN

PROGRES
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Dec-15-2017 14:33:53 2017-358390 366041 TRAFFIC STOP 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-22-2017 22:24:32 2017-366041
368389 PETTY THEFT-IN PROGRESS 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-25-2017 19:32:42 2017-368389
373482 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE-OCCUPIED 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-30-2017 23:03:32 2017-373482
2528 MISDEMEANOR ASSAULT-IN

PROGRES
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-03-2018 17:39:06 2018-2528
7522 FORGERY-IN PROGRESS 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-08-2018 18:59:17 2018-7522
9546 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE-OCCUPIED 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-10-2018 21:50:10 2018-9546
13640 MISDEMEANOR ASSAULT-IN

PROGRES
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-14-2018 16:20:30 2018-13640
15156 DISTURBANCE-DOMESTIC

VIOLENCE-
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-16-2018 10:43:18 2018-15156
16051 MISDEMEANOR ASSAULT-
REPORT
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-17-2018 08:55:25 2018-16051

Page 26 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Fri Aug 14 2020
For User: 1122

Page 3 of 12 ends

22088 ROBBERY-LESS THAN 15 AGO 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-23-2018 00:20:16 2018-22088
22098 ROBBERY-CSI 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-23-2018 00:41:50 2018-22098
22149 ERRAND 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-23-2018 02:21:31 2018-22149
24367 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE-OCCUPIED 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-25-2018 01:01:30 2018-24367
25488 BUSINESS CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-26-2018 00:26:09 2018-25488
29580 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE-OCCUPIED 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-29-2018 23:27:03 2018-29580
33164 BUSINESS CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Feb-02-2018 01:05:16 2018-33164
34441 BUSINESS CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Feb-03-2018 01:10:19 2018-34441
52887 SUSPICIOUS

SUBJECT/CIRCUMSTANC
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Feb-19-2018 15:24:35 2018-52887
54341 BUSINESS CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Feb-21-2018 00:10:30 2018-54341
56317 THEFT-GUN-REPORT 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes PENDING Feb-22-2018 18:02:52 2018-56317 65209 SUBJECT STOP 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Mar-02-2018 22:35:14 2018-65209
65368 BUSINESS CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Mar-03-2018 02:34:32 2018-65368

Page 27 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Fri Aug 14 2020
For User: 1122

Page 4 of 12 ends

68358 MEDICAL AID-CLARIFY IN TEXT 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Mar-06-2018 00:29:37 2018-68358
73510 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Mar-10-2018 13:58:04 2018-73510
78415 BUSINESS CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Mar-15-2018 02:49:14 2018-78415
88020 SUSPICIOUS

SUBJECT/CIRCUMSTANC
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Mar-24-2018 11:40:02 2018-88020
98626 BUSINESS CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Apr-04-2018 04:35:04 2018-98626
100456 BUSINESS CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Apr-05-2018 22:07:20 2018-100456
101670 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE-OCCUPIED 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Apr-07-2018 02:43:11 2018-101670
101691 SUSPICIOUS

SUBJECT/CIRCUMSTANC
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Apr-07-2018 03:45:05 2018-101691
105667 BUSINESS CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Apr-10-2018 22:29:19 2018-105667
108172 BUSINESS CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Apr-13-2018 02:10:52 2018-108172
113220 MISDEMEANOR ASSAULT-IN

PROGRES
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Apr-17-2018 15:02:14 2018-113220
119334 ROBBERY-LESS THAN 15 AGO 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Apr-22-2018 23:53:55 2018-119334

Page 28 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Fri Aug 14 2020
For User: 1122

Page 5 of 12 ends

119371 ERRAND 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Apr-23-2018 00:55:54 2018-119371
132042 BUSINESS CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-04-2018 02:13:37 2018-132042
141294 VANDALISM-LESS THAN 5 AGO 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-11-2018 16:40:25 2018-141294
147912 FELONY ASSAULT-REPORT 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-17-2018 13:29:43 2018-147912
162228 SUBJECT STOP 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-29-2018 12:56:43 2018-162228
165292 BUSINESS CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jun-01-2018 00:15:31 2018-165292
173466 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE-IN

PROGRESS
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jun-08-2018 03:30:16 2018-173466
173470 INCOMPLETE CALL FOR POLICE 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Jun-08-2018 03:46:09 2018-173470 173636 SUBJECT STOP 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jun-08-2018 09:18:47 2018-173636
183827 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Jun-16-2018 21:58:48 2018-183827 187530 VEHICLE ACCIDENT-NO OR

UNKNOWN
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jun-20-2018 11:21:43 2018-187530
188624 ERRAND 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jun-21-2018 10:50:20 2018-188624
195852 ERRAND 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jun-27-2018 09:55:15 2018-195852
202942 VANDALISM-REPORT 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jul-02-2018 20:05:38 2018-202942

Page 29 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Fri Aug 14 2020
For User: 1122

Page 6 of 12 ends

207597 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE-

UNOCCUPIED
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jul-05-2018 22:40:39 2018-207597
213897 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE-OCCUPIED 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jul-11-2018 01:48:50 2018-213897
224637 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jul-19-2018 17:45:03 2018-224637
229767 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jul-24-2018 00:51:19 2018-229767
242115 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Aug-03-2018 05:30:24 2018-242115
243355 BUSINESS CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Aug-03-2018 23:53:28 2018-243355
245511 VEHICLE ACCIDENT-NO OR

UNKNOWN
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Aug-05-2018 21:11:20 2018-245511 248506 SUBJECT STOP 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Aug-08-2018 08:38:26 2018-248506
264394 ALL UNITS BROADCAST 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Aug-21-2018 00:09:52 2018-264394 265186 WELFARE CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Aug-21-2018 17:18:39 2018-265186
271553 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE-OCCUPIED 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Aug-26-2018 20:49:25 2018-271553
278495 ERRAND 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Sep-01-2018 14:50:17 2018-278495
281522 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE-OCCUPIED 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Sep-04-2018 01:31:12 2018-281522
284089 WELFARE CHECK
/DISTURBANCE-FAM
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Sep-05-2018 23:06:47 2018-284089

Page 30 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Fri Aug 14 2020
For User: 1122

Page 7 of 12 ends

284092 WELFARE CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Sep-05-2018 23:08:34 2018-284092 299160 WELFARE CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Sep-19-2018 05:16:48 2018-299160
299327 DISTURBANCE-AGGRESSIVE

PANHAND
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Sep-19-2018 09:05:37 2018-299327
307461 INDECENT EXPOSURE-IN

PROGRESS
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Sep-26-2018 07:49:56 2018-307461
309761 INDECENT EXPOSURE-IN

PROGRESS
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Sep-28-2018 01:04:43 2018-309761
317391 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Oct-04-2018 13:52:01 2018-317391 318216 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO No POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Oct-05-2018 08:31:48 2018-318216
320850 DISTURBANCE-AGGRESSIVE

PANHAND
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Oct-07-2018 13:40:38 2018-320850 321017 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Oct-07-2018 16:42:24 2018-321017
322997 ALL UNITS BROADCAST 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Oct-09-2018 15:49:45 2018-322997 324732 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Oct-11-2018 06:17:51 2018-324732
325339 MISDEMEANOR ASSAULT-IN

PROGRES
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Oct-11-2018 16:02:48 2018-325339
338304 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Oct-23-2018 08:45:21 2018-338304
343467 ALL UNITS BROADCAST 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Oct-27-2018 14:40:56 2018-343467 355067 ADVISED ENTRY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes AUTOMATICALL Y
(for advised
entries)
Nov-06-2018 12:50:56 2018-355067
366582 MISDEMEANOR ASSAULT-IN

PROGRES
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Nov-17-2018 05:20:08 2018-366582

Page 31 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Fri Aug 14 2020
For User: 1122

Page 8 of 12 ends

367009 SUBJECT STOP 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Nov-17-2018 15:54:19 2018-367009
370646 ROBBERY-LESS THAN 15 AGO 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Nov-21-2018 02:19:29 2018-370646
370659 ROBBERY-CSI 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO No POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Nov-21-2018 03:00:48 2018-370659
370668 ERRAND 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Nov-21-2018 03:59:37 2018-370668
370677 FOUND PROPERTY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Nov-21-2018 04:41:02 2018-370677
375727 ALL UNITS BROADCAST 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Nov-26-2018 10:01:04 2018-375727 377565 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE-OCCUPIED 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Nov-28-2018 00:38:48 2018-377565
380255 SUSPICIOUS

SUBJECT/CIRCUMSTANC
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Nov-30-2018 12:15:58 2018-380255
398598 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE-IN

PROGRESS
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-17-2018 17:21:21 2018-398598
398603 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE-IN

PROGRESS
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Dec-17-2018 17:23:22 2018-398603 398601 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE-IN

PROGRESS
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO No CANCEL Dec-17-2018 17:23:34 2018-398601 406308 SUSPICIOUS

SUBJECT/CIRCUMSTANC
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-24-2018 22:01:50 2018-406308
409366 ROBBERY-LESS THAN 15 AGO 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-28-2018 04:37:42 2018-409366
409369 ROBBERY-LESS THAN 15 AGO 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Dec-28-2018 04:39:15 2018-409369 409368 MISDEMEANOR ASSAULT-IN

PROGRES
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Dec-28-2018 04:40:38 2018-409368

Page 32 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Fri Aug 14 2020
For User: 1122

Page 9 of 12 ends

409372 ROBBERY-CSI 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO No POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-28-2018 04:48:01 2018-409372
912 PETTY THEFT-IN PROGRESS 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-01-2019 22:20:47 2019-912
7566 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-08-2019 00:46:42 2019-7566
24390 STOLEN VEHICLE-RECOVERY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-23-2019 17:17:23 2019-24390
36900 ADVISED ENTRY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes AUTOMATICALL Y
(for advised
entries)
Feb-04-2019 05:00:22 2019-36900
37503 STOLEN VEHICLE-REPORT 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Feb-04-2019 15:53:37 2019-37503
40496 MISDEMEANOR ASSAULT-IN

PROGRES
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Feb-07-2019 08:07:46 2019-40496 55251 WELFARE CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Feb-20-2019 21:19:30 2019-55251
55399 WELFARE CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Feb-21-2019 01:44:02 2019-55399
55436 WELFARE CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Feb-21-2019 04:01:16 2019-55436 55479 ADVISED ENTRY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes AUTOMATICALL Y
(for advised
entries)
Feb-21-2019 06:44:43 2019-55479
55836 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Feb-21-2019 12:55:15 2019-55836
76190 WELFARE CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Mar-12-2019 10:15:55 2019-76190
78120 ALL UNITS BROADCAST 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Mar-13-2019 23:43:54 2019-78120

Page 33 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Fri Aug 14 2020
For User: 1122

Page 10 of 12 ends

92610 INCOMPLETE CALL FOR POLICE 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO No CANCEL Mar-27-2019 06:30:53 2019-92610 135197 INCOMPLETE CALL FOR POLICE 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL May-01-2019 16:40:38 2019-135197 148631 DISTURBANCE-FAMILY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-12-2019 19:16:18 2019-148631
151356 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-15-2019 00:40:02 2019-151356
151435 ALL UNITS BROADCAST 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL May-15-2019 04:48:49 2019-151435 151460 VANDALISM-REPORT REFERRAL 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes AUTOMATICALL Y
(for advised
entries)
May-15-2019 06:13:10 2019-151460
160247 DISTURBANCE-CL/SUSPICIOUS
VEHI
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-23-2019 02:08:06 2019-160247
171757 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE-OCCUPIED 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jun-01-2019 17:25:08 2019-171757
175883 WELFARE CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jun-04-2019 23:34:51 2019-175883
175904 WELFARE CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO No CANCEL Jun-05-2019 00:11:45 2019-175904 313298 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Sep-25-2019 21:29:54 2019-313298 319881 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Oct-01-2019 17:06:17 2019-319881
319883 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Oct-01-2019 17:06:58 2019-319883 353758 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE-

UNOCCUPIED
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Oct-31-2019 09:56:38 2019-353758
367975 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Nov-13-2019 05:36:49 2019-367975
371262 ALL UNITS BROADCAST 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Nov-15-2019 18:52:46 2019-371262 382435 INCOMPLETE CALL FOR POLICE 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Nov-25-2019 18:52:19 2019-382435 390684 FORGERY-IN PROGRESS 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-04-2019 09:59:53 2019-390684

Page 34 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Fri Aug 14 2020
For User: 1122

Page 11 of 12 ends

398083 ROBBERY-LESS THAN 15 AGO 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-11-2019 04:59:28 2019-398083
26771 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE-REPORT 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-25-2020 09:12:48 2020-26771
26949 DOMESTIC VIOLE/CSI REQUEST-
CLA
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-25-2020 13:30:10 2020-26949
46000 RETROACTIVE CA/ALL UNITS
BROAD
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Feb-11-2020 07:49:00 2020-46000 54319 WELFARE CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Feb-18-2020 15:51:04 2020-54319 57233 DIRECTED PATROL-NOT

AVAILABLE
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Feb-21-2020 03:22:21 2020-57233
88639 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE-

UNOCCUPIED
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Mar-20-2020 12:28:18 2020-88639
91255 INCOMPLETE CALL FOR POLICE 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Mar-23-2020 08:52:06 2020-91255 107323 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE-

UNOCCUPIED
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Apr-09-2020 09:19:30 2020-107323
116916 MISD HIT AND RUN-LESS THAN
5 A
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Apr-18-2020 14:36:25 2020-116916
137137 BUSINESS CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-07-2020 09:33:57 2020-137137
142381 SUSPICIOUS

SUBJECT/CIRCUMSTANC
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-12-2020 09:22:19 2020-142381
142412 ERRAND 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL May-12-2020 09:56:34 2020-142412 164796 NARCOTIC ACTIVITY-IN

PROGRESS
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jun-01-2020 12:10:23 2020-164796
166732 WELFARE CHECK 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jun-03-2020 09:10:34 2020-166732

Page 35 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Fri Aug 14 2020
For User: 1122

Page 12 of 12 ends

171621 STOLEN VEHICLE-RECOVERY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jun-08-2020 10:43:33 2020-171621
176046 ERRAND 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jun-12-2020 16:55:02 2020-176046
188879 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Jun-24-2020 12:56:03 2020-188879 188908 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Jun-24-2020 13:18:18 2020-188908 191568 ALL UNITS BROADCAST 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Jun-26-2020 21:17:58 2020-191568 202661 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE-REPORT 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jul-06-2020 12:49:37 2020-202661
217443 INCOMPLETE CALL FOR POLICE 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Jul-20-2020 14:59:11 2020-217443 218798 MEDICAL AID-CLARIFY IN TEXT 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO No POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jul-21-2020 21:48:40 2020-218798
226200 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jul-28-2020 22:50:43 2020-226200
227463 DISTURBANCE-

WE/DISTURBANCE-CLA
2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jul-30-2020 07:21:43 2020-227463
230001 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE-OCCUPIED 2701 ORCHARD LN SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Aug-01-2020 15:39:02 2020-230001

Page 36 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis
Number of Records Returned: 49

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
which_cad='P' and occ_date between TO_DATE('2019-10-15 00:00:00','YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS') and TO_DATE('2020-10-15 00:00:
00','YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS') and address='2550 W EL CAMINO AVE' and jurisdiction='SA' Search Criteria:

Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Wed Oct 28 2020
For User: 149

Page 1 of 4 ends

338032 ALL UNITS BROADCAST 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Oct-17-2019 16:22:35 2019-338032 358409 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 14 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Nov-04-2019 12:03:33 2019-358409
358872 TRAFFIC STOP 1 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Nov-04-2019 19:54:07 2019-358872
362099 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 14 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Nov-07-2019 16:55:21 2019-362099 370767 DISTURBANCE-

CL/DISTURBANCE-NOI
14 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Nov-15-2019 11:33:26 2019-370767
376497 SUSPICIOUS ACT/SUSPICIOUS
SUBJ
1 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Nov-20-2019 13:40:51 2019-376497
384092 SILENT ROBBERY/ALARM-

ACCIDENTA
14 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Nov-27-2019 12:06:18 2019-384092
388257 DRUNK DRIVER 1 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-01-2019 22:44:29 2019-388257
402391 RINGING ALARM /ALARM-

SECURE NO
10A - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-14-2019 21:39:38 2019-402391
409406 ERRAND 14 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-21-2019 11:04:06 2019-409406
414082 ADVISED ENTRY 1 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes AUTOMATICALL Y
(for advised
entries)
Dec-26-2019 15:49:27 2019-414082
418368 MISDEMEANOR ASSAULT-IN

PROGRES
1 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-30-2019 18:39:30 2019-418368
8152 RINGING ALARM /ALARM-

SECURE NO
10B - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-08-2020 12:53:15 2020-8152

Page 37 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Wed Oct 28 2020
For User: 149

Page 2 of 4 ends

11977 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 1 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-11-2020 19:56:42 2020-11977
21019 RINGING ALARM /ALARM-
CANCEL
10B - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Jan-20-2020 11:49:48 2020-21019 25694 BUSINESS CHECK 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-24-2020 13:26:35 2020-25694
65589 INCOMPLETE CALL FOR POLICE 14 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Feb-28-2020 10:12:48 2020-65589
65593 WELFARE CHECK 14 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Feb-28-2020 10:13:17 2020-65593 65591 INCOMPLETE CALL FOR POLICE 14 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Feb-28-2020 10:13:46 2020-65591 70815 SUBJECT STOP 1 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Mar-03-2020 20:49:07 2020-70815
72427 14 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Mar-05-2020 10:41:22 2020-72427
78798 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Mar-10-2020 20:16:37 2020-78798
81633 ADVISED ENTRY 1 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes AUTOMATICALL Y
(for advised
entries)
Mar-13-2020 08:27:34 2020-81633
82525 MISDEMEANOR ASSAULT-IN

PROGRES
1 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Mar-13-2020 22:11:25 2020-82525
87547 RINGING ALARM /ALARM-
CANCEL
12 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Mar-19-2020 10:05:17 2020-87547 119229 BURGLARY-IN PROGRESS 5 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Apr-20-2020 18:07:26 2020-119229
119233 BURGLARY-IN PROGRESS 5 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Apr-20-2020 18:08:16 2020-119233 121889 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 1 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Apr-23-2020 09:06:17 2020-121889

Page 38 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Wed Oct 28 2020
For User: 149

Page 3 of 4 ends

122085 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 1 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Apr-23-2020 13:01:49 2020-122085
127301 SILENT ROBBERY/ALARM-

ACCIDENTA
14 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Apr-28-2020 08:13:53 2020-127301
136789 ALL UNITS BROADCAST 14 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL May-06-2020 21:45:41 2020-136789 141277 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 1 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-11-2020 08:35:20 2020-141277
141434 WELFARE CHECK 1 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-11-2020 11:11:54 2020-141434
146770 PRISONER IN CUSTODY BY

OFFICER
14 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes MISDEMEANOR

CITATION
May-16-2020 08:56:45 2020-146770
150438 PRISONER IN CUSTODY BY

OFFICER
14 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-19-2020 16:33:54 2020-150438
164327 BURGLARY-REPOR/VANDALISM-
LESS
1 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jun-01-2020 01:18:24 2020-164327
178285 1 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jun-14-2020 16:17:09 2020-178285
197154 BUSINESS CHECK 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jul-01-2020 21:10:22 2020-197154
221950 ALL UNITS BROADCAST 1 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Jul-24-2020 20:44:11 2020-221950 222551 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 1 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jul-25-2020 13:12:29 2020-222551
222613 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 1 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jul-25-2020 14:51:45 2020-222613
225692 RINGING ALARM /ALARM-

ACCIDENTA
10B - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jul-28-2020 12:57:59 2020-225692

Page 39 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Wed Oct 28 2020
For User: 149

Page 4 of 4 ends

258855 PETTY THEFT-IN/PETTY THEFT-
LES
1 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Aug-29-2020 23:21:45 2020-258855
259679 MENTAL SUBJECT/WELFARE
CHECK
1 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Aug-30-2020 20:32:06 2020-259679
267436 TRAFFIC STOP 1 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Sep-07-2020 16:07:58 2020-267436
283789 14 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Sep-23-2020 16:39:26 2020-283789
283796 14 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Sep-23-2020 16:47:30 2020-283796 288804 WELFARE CHECK 10A - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Sep-28-2020 17:40:19 2020-288804 289009 MISDEMEANOR ASSAULT-IN

PROGRES
14 - 2550 W EL CAMINO AVE SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Sep-28-2020 22:01:02 2020-289009

Page 40 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis
Number of Records Returned: 91

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
which_cad='P' and occ_date between TO_DATE('2019-10-15 00:00:00','YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS') and TO_DATE('2020-10-15 00:00:
00','YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS') and address='2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR' and jurisdiction='SA' Search Criteria:

Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Wed Oct 28 2020
For User: 149

Page 1 of 6 ends

345180 DISTURBANCE-AGGRESSIVE

PANHAND
2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Oct-24-2019 00:10:29 2019-345180
348297 ADVISED ENTRY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes AUTOMATICALL Y
(for advised
entries)
Oct-26-2019 15:23:45 2019-348297
350160 FIRE/MEDICS NEEDED - CLARIFY
I
2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Oct-28-2019 00:01:16 2019-350160
350367 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Oct-28-2019 08:18:55 2019-350367
352439 ALL UNITS BROADCAST 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Oct-30-2019 05:27:16 2019-352439 355111 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Nov-01-2019 11:16:48 2019-355111
370536 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Nov-15-2019 08:19:47 2019-370536
380883 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO No POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Nov-24-2019 10:04:53 2019-380883
383768 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Nov-27-2019 05:33:21 2019-383768
392332 SUSPICIOUS

SUBJECT/CIRCUMSTANC
2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-05-2019 18:21:02 2019-392332
393624 MEDICAL AID-CL/WELFARE
CHECK
2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-06-2019 20:28:57 2019-393624
395311 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-08-2019 15:23:33 2019-395311

Page 41 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Wed Oct 28 2020
For User: 149

Page 2 of 6 ends

396852 NARCOTIC

ACTIV/DISTURBANCE-CLA
2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-10-2019 01:04:40 2019-396852
402556 WELFARE CHECK 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-15-2019 00:42:04 2019-402556
405019 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Dec-17-2019 12:47:57 2019-405019 405557 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-17-2019 21:11:21 2019-405557
405711 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-18-2019 02:28:30 2019-405711
406827 WELFARE CHECK
/DISTURBANCE-CLA
2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-19-2019 07:20:54 2019-406827
409010 PETTY THEFT-IN/DISTURBANCE-
CLA
2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-20-2019 23:21:51 2019-409010
409093 ALL UNITS BROADCAST 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Dec-21-2019 01:14:28 2019-409093 410656 PETTY THEFT-IN PROGRESS 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Dec-22-2019 17:46:41 2019-410656 413750 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-26-2019 10:07:55 2019-413750
1360 MISDEMEANOR ASSAULT-IN

PROGRES
2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Jan-02-2020 10:30:04 2020-1360 1386 FELONY

ASSAULT/BRANDISHING-LES
2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-02-2020 10:50:34 2020-1386
1388 FELONY ASSAULT-IN PROGRESS 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Jan-02-2020 10:50:47 2020-1388 1589 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Jan-02-2020 14:01:42 2020-1589 11358 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-11-2020 06:52:11 2020-11358
12071 SUSPICIOUS

SUBJECT/CIRCUMSTANC
2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-11-2020 22:04:08 2020-12071

Page 42 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Wed Oct 28 2020
For User: 149

Page 3 of 6 ends

29859 PETTY THEFT-IN/DISTURBANCE-
CLA
2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-28-2020 07:53:25 2020-29859
31727 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-29-2020 18:09:26 2020-31727
33321 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jan-31-2020 03:44:53 2020-33321
33324 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO No CANCEL Jan-31-2020 03:50:43 2020-33324 35843 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Feb-02-2020 03:09:43 2020-35843
36332 SILENT ROBBERY/ALARM-CRIME
OCC
2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Feb-02-2020 16:29:27 2020-36332
42180 ALL UNITS BROADCAST 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Feb-07-2020 16:25:53 2020-42180 43127 ALL UNITS BROADCAST 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Feb-08-2020 12:01:10 2020-43127 47367 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Feb-12-2020 11:36:02 2020-47367
53840 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Feb-18-2020 08:40:09 2020-53840
55482 PETTY THEFT-IN PROGRESS 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Feb-19-2020 15:09:57 2020-55482 57229 SILENT ROBBERY/ALARM-CRIME
OCC
2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Feb-21-2020 03:02:04 2020-57229
57232 ROBBERY-CSI 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Feb-21-2020 03:15:05 2020-57232 58711 ERRAND 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Feb-22-2020 10:36:40 2020-58711
68737

2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Mar-02-2020 06:41:38 2020-68737
70912 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Mar-03-2020 23:29:36 2020-70912

Page 43 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Wed Oct 28 2020
For User: 149

Page 4 of 6 ends

96354 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE-OCCUPIED 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Mar-28-2020 14:47:14 2020-96354
96378 ALL UNITS BROADCAST 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Mar-28-2020 15:24:26 2020-96378 97374 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Mar-29-2020 18:36:50 2020-97374 98991 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Mar-31-2020 13:26:22 2020-98991
112209 CAR CLOUT-LESS THAN 5 AGO 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Apr-14-2020 04:34:45 2020-112209
116576 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Apr-18-2020 05:23:16 2020-116576
125079 MISDEMEANOR ASSAULT-IN

PROGRES
2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Apr-26-2020 04:35:50 2020-125079
125082 MISDEMEANOR ASSAULT-IN

PROGRES
2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Apr-26-2020 04:41:46 2020-125082 130312 PETTY THEFT-IN/PETTY THEFT-
LES
2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Apr-30-2020 21:23:33 2020-130312
132136 PETTY THEFT-LESS THAN 5 AGO 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-02-2020 15:49:10 2020-132136
145331 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-14-2020 22:56:26 2020-145331
147388 CSI REQUEST-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO No POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-16-2020 20:38:46 2020-147388
159234 DISTURBANCE-FAMILY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-27-2020 15:44:39 2020-159234
159467 BUSINESS CHECK 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-27-2020 19:51:16 2020-159467

Page 44 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Wed Oct 28 2020
For User: 149

Page 5 of 6 ends

161286 BUSINESS CHECK 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-29-2020 15:04:31 2020-161286
161443 PETTY THEFT-IN PROGRESS 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL May-29-2020 17:38:59 2020-161443 161602 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL May-29-2020 21:07:48 2020-161602 161819 FELONY HIT & RUN-INJURIES 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-30-2020 01:44:16 2020-161819
161958 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-30-2020 08:31:14 2020-161958
165725 ADVISED ENTRY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes AUTOMATICALL Y
(for advised
entries)
Jun-02-2020 10:15:26 2020-165725
166126 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Jun-02-2020 17:47:27 2020-166126 167366 SILENT BURGLAR/ALARM-

ACCIDENTA
2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jun-03-2020 20:40:21 2020-167366
167369 SUSPICIOUS

SUBJECT/CIRCUMSTANC
2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Jun-03-2020 20:43:15 2020-167369 174291 ALL UNITS BROADCAST 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Jun-10-2020 22:52:23 2020-174291 177499 VEHICLE ACCIDENT-NO OR

UNKNOWN
2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Jun-13-2020 21:58:54 2020-177499 184894 VEHICLE ACCIDE/VEHICLE

ACCIDEN
2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jun-20-2020 21:12:55 2020-184894
184904 VEHICLE ACCIDENT-NO OR

UNKNOWN
2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Jun-20-2020 21:17:59 2020-184904 205448 VANDALISM-LESS THAN 5 AGO 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Jul-09-2020 04:31:47 2020-205448 207586 VANDALISM-LESS THAN 5 AGO 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jul-11-2020 05:32:54 2020-207586
212789 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jul-16-2020 07:28:43 2020-212789
225811 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jul-28-2020 15:12:55 2020-225811

Page 45 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Wed Oct 28 2020
For User: 149

Page 6 of 6 ends

226368 ADVISED ENTRY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes AUTOMATICALL Y
(for advised
entries)
Jul-29-2020 06:38:48 2020-226368
229770 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Aug-01-2020 09:56:22 2020-229770
235818 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Aug-07-2020 10:37:11 2020-235818
244061
-
2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Aug-14-2020 23:19:01 2020-244061
244082 WELFARE CHECK 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO No CANCEL Aug-14-2020 23:44:09 2020-244082 244951 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Aug-15-2020 21:16:14 2020-244951 244956 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Aug-15-2020 21:22:44 2020-244956 258191 SUSPICIOUS SUB/DISTURBANCE-
CLA
200 - 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Aug-29-2020 08:52:34 2020-258191
259881 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Aug-31-2020 01:27:53 2020-259881
261582 ALL UNITS BROADCAST 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Sep-01-2020 18:40:23 2020-261582 265065 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Sep-05-2020 01:42:14 2020-265065
265471 ATTEMPT PICKUP/WARRANT

SERVICE
2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Sep-05-2020 14:19:04 2020-265471
274033 WELFARE CHECK 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Sep-14-2020 06:53:26 2020-274033
280152 ERRAND 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Sep-19-2020 23:53:55 2020-280152
303000 ALL UNITS BROADCAST 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Oct-12-2020 13:16:59 2020-303000 304226 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2650 GATEWAY OAKS DR SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Oct-13-2020 17:41:21 2020-304226

Page 46 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis
Number of Records Returned: 56

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
which_cad='P' and occ_date between TO_DATE('2019-10-15 00:00:00','YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS') and TO_DATE('2020-10-15 00:00:
00','YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS') and address='2700 DEL PASO RD' and jurisdiction='SA' Search Criteria:

Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Wed Oct 28 2020
For User: 149

Page 1 of 4 ends

335908 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Oct-15-2019 20:00:24 2019-335908
339976 ROBBERY-LESS

T/DISTURBANCE-CLA
2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO No POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Oct-19-2019 11:44:28 2019-339976
345127 ERRAND 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Oct-23-2019 22:54:02 2019-345127
349216 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Oct-27-2019 08:24:36 2019-349216 353162 MISDEMEANOR HIT & RUN-

REPORT R
2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes AUTOMATICALL
Y
(for advised
entries)
Oct-30-2019 18:00:11 2019-353162
383529 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Nov-26-2019 19:50:16 2019-383529
387597
-
2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO No POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-01-2019 03:45:04 2019-387597
387607 WELFARE CHECK 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-01-2019 04:21:01 2019-387607
392909 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Dec-06-2019 09:57:23 2019-392909 395221 INCOMPLETE CALL FOR POLICE 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Dec-08-2019 13:28:55 2019-395221
39808 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Feb-05-2020 19:45:41 2020-39808
42429 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Feb-07-2020 19:38:08 2020-42429 47039 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Feb-12-2020 05:28:43 2020-47039

Page 47 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Wed Oct 28 2020
For User: 149

Page 2 of 4 ends

64009 DISTURBANCE-CL/SUSPICIOUS
SUBJ
2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Feb-27-2020 00:17:44 2020-64009
65335 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Feb-28-2020 04:39:40 2020-65335
67517 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE-OCCUPIED 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Feb-29-2020 22:57:01 2020-67517
74648 WELFARE CHECK 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Mar-07-2020 02:58:15 2020-74648
75242 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Mar-07-2020 17:12:59 2020-75242 76730 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Mar-09-2020 07:21:28 2020-76730 94459 SUBJECT STOP /ABANDONED
VEHIC
2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Mar-26-2020 14:15:43 2020-94459
102799 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Apr-04-2020 09:59:55 2020-102799
109549 WELFARE CHECK 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Apr-11-2020 12:33:12 2020-109549 115787 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Apr-17-2020 13:45:30 2020-115787
130159 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Apr-30-2020 18:07:06 2020-130159
141525 INCOMPLETE CALL FOR POLICE 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL May-11-2020 12:53:01 2020-141525 143711 DISTURBANCE-AGGRESSIVE

PANHAND
2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-13-2020 13:22:16 2020-143711
146674 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-16-2020 04:03:31 2020-146674
153189 TRAFFIC STOP 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-22-2020 00:29:36 2020-153189

Page 48 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Wed Oct 28 2020
For User: 149

Page 3 of 4 ends

154395 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-23-2020 02:11:04 2020-154395
154409 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-23-2020 02:33:13 2020-154409
154485 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-23-2020 06:16:11 2020-154485
155424 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL May-24-2020 00:38:36 2020-155424 155560 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-24-2020 05:19:33 2020-155560
156581 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-25-2020 05:05:45 2020-156581
159708 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE-OCCUPIED 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
May-28-2020 01:17:05 2020-159708
165255 SUSPICIOUS

SUBJECT/CIRCUMSTANC
2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jun-01-2020 21:04:32 2020-165255
166913 MISDEMEANOR

AS/DISTURBANCE-DOM
2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO No POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jun-03-2020 12:03:41 2020-166913
172071 DRUNK DRIVER 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes TRAFFIC

CITATION
Jun-08-2020 20:11:36 2020-172071
182137 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jun-18-2020 11:52:23 2020-182137
183114 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO No POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jun-19-2020 10:57:37 2020-183114
207770 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jul-11-2020 10:46:06 2020-207770
217428 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Jul-20-2020 14:36:06 2020-217428

Page 49 of 271 ends

CAD Call Print Synopsis

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Call Date Call Number Call Type Original/Final FoundedLocation Cleared ByTime Report # Printed On: Wed Oct 28 2020
For User: 149

Page 4 of 4 ends

218853 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE-OCCUPIED 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jul-21-2020 23:20:43 2020-218853
221004

2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jul-24-2020 00:57:34 2020-221004
223095 ATTEMPT PICKUP/WARRANT

SERVICE
2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Jul-25-2020 23:27:05 2020-223095
237649 DISTURBANCE-CL/MENTAL

SUBJECT
2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Aug-09-2020 01:29:13 2020-237649
241803 DISTURBANCE-AGGRESSIVE

PANHAND
2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Aug-13-2020 00:14:03 2020-241803
244475 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Aug-15-2020 11:35:58 2020-244475
245601 DISTURBANCE-AGGRESSIVE

PANHAND
2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Aug-16-2020 13:02:37 2020-245601
245615 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Aug-16-2020 13:13:56 2020-245615 256542 ALL UNITS BROADCAST 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Aug-27-2020 13:43:57 2020-256542 279561 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO No POLICE MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Sep-19-2020 13:16:18 2020-279561
283791 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Sep-23-2020 16:43:09 2020-283791
283930 SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY-REPORT 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Sep-23-2020 19:32:03 2020-283930 292907 MISD HIT AND RUN-LESS THAN
5 A
2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes POLICE
MATTER

RESOLVED AT
SCENE
Oct-02-2020 19:33:30 2020-292907
305370 DISTURBANCE-CLARIFY 2700 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO Yes CANCEL Oct-14-2020 18:10:30 2020-305370

Page 50 of 271 ends

Orchard Lane am pm is located along a highway commercial corridor, with close access to the Willow Creek Neighborhood and Regatta Apartment Complex. Both Willow Creek and the Regatta have masonry walls that limit pedestrian access to Orchard Lane Bardas Lane.

Activity at the Arco station has very little impact on the quality of life in the neighborhoods.

Most patrons access the station by car.

Page 51 of 271 ends

P20-012 ORCHARD LANE ARCO AMPM COMMUNITY OUTREACH

Jose,
Over the past year, the Orchar d lane Arco ampm group ha s reached out to several neighborhood and community stakeholders. Due to Covi d19 guidelines, we were unabl e to meet prior to filling the application for a conditional use permit. As online meetings became or common, the group and I hosted an online meeting and project Q&A. In addition to our online meeting, we met with:
• President of the River Oaks Community Association
• Office of Councilwoman Katie Valenzuela
• The Natomas Chamber of Commerce
• The Natomas Unified School District
• Several neighboring businesses.

We also had several communications through Nextdoor.com

Page 52 of 271 ends

Page 53 of 271 ends

Page 54 of 271 ends

Page 55 of 271 ends

Page 56 of 271 ends

Page 57 of 271 ends

Page 58 of 271 ends

Page 59 of 271 ends

Page 60 of 271 ends

Page 61 of 271 ends

Page 62 of 271 ends

Page 63 of 271 ends

Page 64 of 271 ends

Page 65 of 271 ends

Page 66 of 271 ends

Page 67 of 271 ends

Page 68 of 271 ends

Page 69 of 271 ends

Page 70 of 271 ends

Page 71 of 271 ends

Page 72 of 271 ends

Page 73 of 271 ends

Page 74 of 271 ends

Page 75 of 271 ends

Page 76 of 271 ends

Page 77 of 271 ends

Page 78 of 271 ends

Page 79 of 271 ends

Page 80 of 271 ends

Page 81 of 271 ends

Page 82 of 271 ends

Page 83 of 271 ends

Page 84 of 271 ends

Page 85 of 271 ends

Page 86 of 271 ends

Page 87 of 271 ends

Page 88 of 271 ends

Page 89 of 271 ends

Page 90 of 271 ends

Page 91 of 271 ends

May 21, 2020

Courtney Long
Assistant Planner
City of Sacramento
300 Richards Blvd., Third Floor
Sacramento, CA 95815

Re: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License – File No. P20-012

Dear Ms. Long,

It has been brought to our attention that the new owner of the ARCO AM/PM Gas Station #82450, located at 2701 Orchard Lane in Sacramento, has applied for an alcohol sales conditional use permit.

In 2006, when the AM/PM was first constructed, Natomas Unified School District registered a letter of concern with regard to the location of the station/mini mart being close to one of our schools, as well as the potential liquor sales at the mini mart negatively impacting our community and school district. It is my understanding that the mini mart opened with a mutual agreement that owners of ARCO would not sell alcohol.

In 2010, and then again in 2013, Natomas Unified School District registered additional letters of concern when the owners of the AM/PM applied for an alcoholic beverage license for liquor sales at this location. Although ownership of this AM/PM gas station has changed, our concerns have not. This AM/PM is within a quarter mile of two Natomas Unified Schools, Two Rivers Elementary and Leroy Greene Academy, which serve students PreK - 5th grade and 6th - 12th grade respectively. Mini marts alone attract students as a hang-out after school. Mini marts, located in neighborhoods close to schools, that sell alcoholic beverages negatively impact the community and create potential safety concerns for our students and school district.

Therefore, for the reasons previously stated, the Natomas Unified School District continues to register our strong opposition to the sale of alcohol at this location.

Page 92 of 271 ends

If we can be of further assistance, please contact the Superintendent’s Office at (916) 567-5401.

Sincerely,

Chris Evans
Superintendent

Lisa Kaplan
Board President

Page 93 of 271 ends

April 14, 2021
Re: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License - ARCO AM/PM Gas Station #82450 Dear Councilmember Valenzuela,
I am writing this letter to provide you with historical information and context about an ongoing request from a business in South Natomas that is of great concern to Natomas Unified. The safety of our students, as well as creating a safe and welcome learning environment on our campuses, is of the utmost importance to Natomas Unified School District. As you may have heard, the ARCO AM/PM gas station located at 2701 Orchard Lane continues to apply for an alcohol sales conditional use permit.

Despite my understanding that this mini mart opened with a mutual agreement that the owners of the AM/PM would not sell alcohol, this particular AM/PM has applied for an alcohol sales conditional use permit a number of times since at least 2006, which was about six years before I was the Superintendent in Natomas Unified. Although ownership of this AM/PM gas station has changed, the Natomas Unified School District’s concerns have not.

This location is within a quarter mile of two Natomas Unified Schools, Two Rivers Elementary and Leroy Greene Academy, which serve students PreK - 5th grade and 6th - 12th grade respectively. I think we can both agree that mini marts attract students as a hang out both before and after school.

It is Natomas Unifieds stance that mini marts that sell alcoholic beverages located in close proximity to schools negatively impact the community and create potential safety concerns due to the potential of alcohol sales to minors, among other things. In addition to being the Superintendent of Natomas Unified School District, I am also a resident of this neighborhood and I personally see students walking to this mini mart to purchase food, snacks, etc. It is also worth noting that there is a 7-11 that is opening nearby, and they have agreed to not sell alcohol.

For the reasons previously stated, Natomas Unified has sent letters of concern and opposition to various agencies in regards to this mini mart applying for an alcohol sales conditional use permit.

Letters were sent by NUSD in 2006, 2010, 2013, and most recently in 2020.

Page 94 of 271 ends

We were recently informed that this AM/PM is continuing to push forward with its quest to sell alcohol, despite what we are told is widespread neighborhood opposition. Natomas Unified will be submitting a public comment for the scheduled public hearing on April 22, 2021 to address this topic, and we will continue to register our strong opposition to the sale of alcoholic beverages at this location.

Sincerely,
Chris Evans
Superintendent

Page 95 of 271 ends

Page 96 of 271 ends

ROCA Comments on the Arco Station

Page 2 of 4 ends

does not support selling alcohol that can easily be taken to the parks or be consumed around students who congregate at Barandas Drive, Orchard Road and West River waiting to go to and be picked up from school. Garbage has been, and continues to be, a huge problem adjacent to the Arco and any additional garbage due to alcohol sales is more of a nuisance.

With many unknowns around the costs of corona virus response and Covid-19 impacts to the local, State and federal economy, increased police response because of alcohol sales, is not in the City's economic best interest. Measure U, which was passed by voters in 2018, was estimated to provide over $45 million to fund police equipment and personnel. The police force budget is larger than just Measure U funding. The City of Sacramento 20-21 budget shows a reduction in police positions and with a recession in place, it will be likely that less general fund and sales tax money will be available. Adding alcohol sales is counter-intuitive in an economic climate which can have additional cuts to the police force. Since the police have to regulate ABC compliance, respond to crimes, and are regularly providing homeless outreach in the neighborhood, ROCA does not believe the City should allow alcohol sales which could result in increased law enforcement issues.

There are already nine options to purchase liquor in a 2-mile radius including: El Centro Chevron, Sacramento 49er Travel Plaza, the Natomas Wine and Liquor, The Speedway, and the A-1 Mart.

The original permit conditions did not allow alcohol sales, and conditions have not changed in order to allow alcohol sales at this location. Additional alcohol sales in the ROCA area, when there are multiple choices for residents on the west and east side of 1-5 should not be allowed.

There are two schools adjacent to the ARCO. They are very close to this location and since the original request Leroy Greene Academy has been expanded to include a high school. Students from Leroy Green Academy regularly walk to the Arco to get food before and after school and congregate outside. The intersection of Orchard and West El Camino is busy with students from 7:30 - 8:30 AM and from 3:00 - 4:30 PM when school is in session. Alcohol sales are just not compatible with the community at this location.

The following are excerpts from the City zoning code 17.228.108 which ROCA believes would be violated if a special permit for alcohol sales is approved.

1. Findings. The decision-maker may approve a conditional use permit for alcoholic beverage sales for off-premises consumption, a bar, or nightclub based on the following findings, in addition to the findings required in section i 7 .808.200:
a. The proposed alcoholic beverage sales will not adversely affect the peace or general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood;
b. The proposed alcoholic beverage sales will not result in undue concentration of establishments dispensing alcoholic beverages;
c. The proposed alcoholic beverage sales will not enlarge or encourage the development of a skid row or blighted area;

Page 97 of 271 ends

ROCA Comments on the Arco Station

Page 3 ends

Because of the above reasons ROCA also believes that the considerations that the planning commission is to consider will result in denial of issuing the special permit. The considerations from the zoning code are listed below
a. The decision-maker shall consider whether the proposed alcoholic beverage sales will detrimentally affect nearby residentially zoned areas, and shall give consideration to the distance of the proposed alcoholic beverage sales from residential buildings; churches and faith congregations; schools, K-12; hospitals; parks and playgrounds; childcare centers; social services; and other similar uses.

ROCA has consistently opposed alcohol sales at this location due to alcohol sales saturation, the location adjacent to areas that can cause an increased public nuisance, and because of schools, parks, and residences in the area that make the ARCO not compatible with alcohol sales. The City of Sacramento has denied a special use permit for alcohol sales in the past and as long as the community continues to oppose it ROCA requests that the City of Sacramento deny the change of conditions and continue to prohibit the sale of beer and wine at this location.

If you have any questions, please contact Z Wayne Johnson at [email protected], or by calling 916/475 3557.

Sincerely,
1-.JL <2 L Jf::r2- y--
ROCA President
CC Councilmember Steve Hansen
In addition, the following ROCA residents and Board members expressed interest in signing on to this letter:

Melinda Dorin Bradbury
David Mansch
Sarah Reid Clough
Paulette and Donovan Davis
Holly and David Adams
Amy alkerloring
Janet Spilman
Drew West
Stacy Ray Knox

Page 98 of 271 ends

David Murillo
ROCA Board of Directors:

Melinda_Dorin Bradbury
Michael Fluke
David Mansch
Bridgett McFarland
Lois Walker
John Shiels
ROCA Comments on the Arco Station

Page 4 ends

Page 99 of 271 ends

Page 100 of 271 ends

From: Amy Adams
To: Courtney Long
Subject: Proposed liquor license by the AMPM on Orchard and West El Camino Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 08:33:50
As a Shorebird/Willow Creek resident and parent of children at both Two Rivers Elementary and Leroy Greene Academy, I am STRONGLY opposed to AMPM having the ability to sell liquor of any kind. Both schools are within a short walk of the store and kids frequent it often before and after school. This is a terrible idea. In addition, we already have issues with homeless in our area, and I am afraid this will make it exponentially worse. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THIS!
--
Amy Adams
33 Riverscape Ct, Sacramento, Ca 95833

Page 101 of 271 ends

From: mrcoachtone
To: Courtney Long
Subject: P20-12
Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 23:35:21
Courtney,
As resident of ROCA, a parent of two children who attend Two River Elementary, and a citizen who has had two vehicles stolen from my residence at 2317 Swainson Way. I think allowIng alcohol to be sold at The Am/Pm Arco station on W. El Camino and Orchard Lane would only increase the blight and negative behavior that happens all to often in our neighborhood, and surrounding area. For example, the property in question has been robbed numerous times and no operates with a plexiglass window after hours.

I also believe that it would negatively impact the youth in our neighborhood and community.

There are already numerous Alternative locations to purchase alcohol within 1 mile of this proposal.

I would like to formally state that I’m against the opportunity for Am/Pm to sell alcohol at this orchard lane location.

ROCA Neighbor,
Anton Alves
Sent from my iPhone

Page 102 of 271 ends

From: Alexander Asterlin
To: Courtney Long
Subject: Re: Liquor License Comment AMPM Orchard and El Camino. Revised Date: Thursday, May 28, 2020 10:33:19
Hi Courtney,
I mistakenly sent you the draft of my opinion. The following was the final version. My apologies. If possible to substitute the final version, it reads better and typos are removed. My error. If not, the draft version I submitted is fine too. Thanks again.

Dear Courtney,
I do oppose the City granting AMPM a liquor license. I live in Shorebird, the residential neighborhood behind the AMPM store, and I have lived in this neighborhood before the AMPM gas station was built. Since it was built, the corner of El Camino and Orchard is a busy intersection with continuous traffic exiting the AMPM on Barandas Street and Orchard. Semi delivery trucks, loud cars, motorcycles and loud music are some of the nuisances the AMPM attracts without a liquor license.

For us residents the AMPM is not only a source of noise but of litter that will certainly increase should the city grant a liquor license to this convenient store.

From what I understand with speaking with others in my neighborhood, the AMPM initially sought a liquor license when it was originally permitted but the city wisely rejected that application. AMPM was allowed to come into the neighborhood specifically without a liquor license. I, along with others in our neighborhood, believe a liquor license will have a negative impact on us residents as well as those commuters who rely on the AMPM for fuel and food. Transients already camp along the river and with the exploding homeless population will undoubtedly flock to the AMPM for liquor. Parents who drop off their kids, joggers, and parents who pick up their kids will needlessly encounter aggressive pan handlers or mentally ill transients who will hang around the AMPM just as many do six blocks west on El Camino where the liquor store on the corner of El Camino and Truxel is located.

Go another mile or so west to the Stonecreek shopping center on El Camino and Gateway Oaks and you will find a similar situation with transients and crime that is so prolific, stores hire off-duty police and security guards to protect property.

The AMPM is an already thriving gas station and large convenient store. While the convenience of fuel and food has a benefit to residents in the neighborhood, it comes at a cost with traffic, noise and litter. Adding a liquor license to this location I fear will bring crime and lower property values with it. The AMPM is two blocks away from Leroy Green middle school and Twin River Elementary School. Our schools have hundreds of children in the immediate area of the AMPM and the problems cause by a liquor license to the kids are the same problems avoided by maintaining an alcohol-free service station.

Please protect our area from the harm a liquor license will cause. Our area of Natomas, east of the I- 5, is growing with a new Beazer community. I believe if you grant this liquor license us residents will suffer lower property values because the gateway to our neighborhood will be a hub for transient persons who aggressively pan-handle for alcohol money, we will find more transients scavenging in our recycle cans, and we will likely find new homeless camps in the field next to the AMPM station.

The AMPM has a large footprint and liquor is inviting to youth. As such it will add a new hang out for those adolescents and younger folks at higher risk to engage in problematic behavior. Young persons with vehicles who want to hang out with friend in their cars will tend to congregate after hours. It is

Page 103 of 271 ends

not uncommon for teenagers, other youthful deviants to congregate at gas stations, for fights to occur and residents in the surrounding area be subject to the inebriate’s property crime or theft. I can’t count the number of fights and shooting that have occurred at Sacramento gas stations. None of this is a positive for our neighborhood and alcohol sales was not approved when the AMPM was build. AMPM has a responsibility to the community it serves to not be a nuisance.

Thank you for hearing my thoughts and for your careful consideration.

Alexander Asterlin
Sacramento, CA 95833
(Please delete my home address and phone number if posted publicly) From: Alexander Asterlin <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 10:19 AM
To: Courtney Long <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Liquor License Comment AMPM Orchard and El Camino Thank you, Courtney.

Much Appreciated.

Alexander C. Asterlin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Courtney Long <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 10:18 AM
To: Alexander Asterlin <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Liquor License Comment AMPM Orchard and El Camino Hi Alexander,
Thank you for taking time to write in with your comments. I will make sure they are considered as part of the project evaluation and the concerns are included in the staff report.

Please excuse my delayed response. I have received a number of comments on this project and it has taken some time to get back to everyone.

Kind Regards,
Courtney Long
Assistant Planner
City of Sacramento
(916) 808-8023
From: Alexander Asterlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 7:25 PM
To: Courtney Long <[email protected]>
Subject: Liquor License Comment AMPM Orchard and El Camino Dear Courtney,
I do oppose the City granting AMPM a liquor license. I live in Shorebird, the residential neighborhood behind the AMPM store, and I have lived in this neighborhood before the AMPM gas station was built. Since it was built, the corner of El Camino and Orchard is a busy intersection with continuous traffic exiting the AMPM on Barandas

Page 104 of 271 ends

To:

City of Sacramento
Community Development Department
300 Richards Boulevard, Third Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811
May 22, 2020
Dear Courtney,
I join a long list of residents and homeowners, as well as the River Oaks Community Association (ROCA) in OPPOSING the P20-012 Arco Station Orchard Lane Alcohol CUP.

Baljeet Dhadwal’s (the applicant’s) narrative deceptively claims he “turns away dozens of barbequers heading out of town daily”. If City of Sacramento and ABC approved this application with such a flimsy premise, it would be a failure of our local governance and not in the best interest of the community of Willowcreek residents. Ample alcohol sales are available on El Camino Ave at the Sacramento 49er, A-1 market and grocery stores – as well as, the two Interstate 80 exits (Reed & Truxel) on either side of the El Camino exit with full service box stores (2 Walmarts).

I am flagging for you my 3 important reasons to substantiate my opposition. #1 - Arco’s proximity to the Natomas Main Drainage Canal (<1/2 mile away) This is a miles long flood mitigation canal maintained by the Reclamation District RD1000. My home is on the canal and is the chief reason I bought my house. It is a spectacular site. Unfortunately, everyday I see floating in the water alcohol bottles, trash, tires – and even a refrigerator, which has been there >2 years. I frequently see homeless people camping along the canal. Along the grassy knoll where people like me exercise, I have seen condoms and discarded bottles. This beautiful canal and public access area lacks both security guards and trash pick-up.

1. What impact will abundance of alcohol, not consumed on the premises, be to my canal?

2. Has Reclamation District RD1000 weighed in on this?

3. Polystyrene, straws and bags have all been banned as part of a concentrated environmental effort. But, a bigger challenge is the significant resource constraints required to managing the dumping of trash  What is the plan to address this unmet need?

#2 - Arco’s proximity to two schools and two community parks (<400 feet away) Daily, the children of Two Rivers Elementary and Leroy Green Academy make their way down Orchard on the short walk to Arco for an after-school soda and snack. It is a significant milestone for child to go unsupervised to a store.

And, a healthy rite of passage to win the trust of your parents. The addition of liquor sales undermines that wholesome, communal “local store” innocence that every parent and every American cherishes. It is simply unnecessary to introduce to the Willowcreek community any additional threats to the emotional/physical safety and wellbeing of children who already face numerous distractions, challenges and interferences. #3 - The identity of Sacramento; City of Trees & Farm to Fork Capital With my job, I can live anywhere. I choose to live in Sacramento and I love it. I am one of the annual ~25,000 transplants who has moved to Sacramento from the Bay Area. Sacramento attracts people like me because it is NOT like other cities. It is clean and beautiful, has economic vibrancy, ample space, trees, parks and rivers and a positivity that I have not experienced in other cities I have lived in - San Francisco, Palo Alto and New York City. Where else can you walk around and pick an orange off a tree, walk to an outdoor concert at Discovery Park, spend a day on the river and have fresh local dining? The traditions Sacramento embraces are what attracts new families and more jobs – and it is up to us to nurture and protect our culture so that others can enjoy it also. There is an abundance of data, and you don’t have to drive far (Fresno, Oakland, Richmond) to have a real-world view of the degradation of communities where alcohol sales are abundant. Just Google the sentence “what a liquor store does for a neighborhood” and judge for yourself. There are many enhancements we can make to the Marketplace where Arco is located - alcohol is not one of them. I support other possible enhancements to the area– e.g. a farmers market, art installation, a parcourse or commercial services that are additive to this community.

P20-012 Is not in the best interest of the local community of Willowcreek residents. It puts the financial desires of a few, Mr Baljeet Dhadwal, against the well-being of all residents and that is NOT allowable.

Most Sincerely,
Anastasia Bellenger

Page 105 of 271 ends

From: BRANDON ADAMS
To: Courtney Long
Subject: Opposing the application of the AMPM at Orchard Lane and West El Camino Avenue"s alcohol permit for sales Date: Monday, May 4, 2020 17:15:08
Dear Courtney Long,
I hope you are the correct person to address this letter of opposition to Alcohol being sold at the AM/PM on West El Camino and Orchard. I am concerned as a resident that lives within walking distance of the location that sales of alcohol at the AM/PM will result in an even worse environment than it is presently. I have lived down by Barandas and West River dr. since 2003. I can tell you that the AM/PM has had a rough time. Homeless people buy food and Pan handle there. People sell drugs openly there. I have a 8 yr and 4 yr girls. We have walked there from time to time and several times I have been in intense altercations from the Homeless, and the people who get gas and drive poorly. Even an occasional kid doing graffiti has almost turned into a violent attack. So I do not take my girls there anymore. Where we live there is an unsafe place to avoid the AM/PM. I support local business and wish AM/PM had better luck, but its a magnet for people who do not care for other people's peace of mind and Safety. Many of my neighbors have talked about the near miss accidents from people leaving the Gas station and not obeying traffic laws. The homeless people have turned the surrounding undeveloped area into places to sleep. They leave human exactment and discarded needles in the bushes and trash where they like. The owners must have a terrible time dealing with these issues as well. I would not like Alcohol to be sold there because you can already go to the liquor store on Gateway Oaks and West El Camino. You may buy alcohol at the 49er truck and travel plaza. The Chevron across from the freeway also sells alcohol. These locations are within a half mile from the AM/PM. There are several Grocery stores that are within 5 miles from the AM/PM that all sell alcohol. I do not want to give people the chance to expose the children and adults of our neighbor hood to the people who are already reckless to add alcohol to the access. I already know if Alcohol was sold then the people who already make illegal U turns and drive out the "entrance only" will cause more accidents. Two Rivers Elementary and Leroy Greene Academy are with in walking distance of less than half a mile. There are a lot of children who frequent the AM/PM and their exposure to alcohol will not be positive. Quit often I seen children coming and going from AM/PM with no adults and that furthers my concern with alcohol being sold there. It is a desire of convenience that will provide people who are irresponsible to consume alcohol in our neighborhood and cause trouble. Presently residents due not suffer a lack of access to alcohol. The AM/PM is already a high crime problem in the area. Granting AM/PM a liquor license will not help any problems and will only lead to more problems with those who are okay breaking the law. I appreciate your time and wish I could be brief, however this issue really effects the quality of our lives here in Willow creek. I thank you again. Feel free to contact me if you need to my contact information will be below.

Wishing you warm regards
Brandon Adams
3415 West River dr.

Page 106 of 271 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Courtney Long
Subject: FW: Opposition to CUP for Alcohol Sales at 2701 Orchard Lane Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 11:46:49
Attachments: Arco ROCA 2010.pdf
Arco Council 102406.pdf
Arco ROCA Comments 0506.pdf
FYI
From: David Brady <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 2:42 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Opposition to CUP for Alcohol Sales at 2701 Orchard Lane Good afternoon Commissioner Pluckebaum,
Sorry for the delay in responding. It took me a little while to find the older documents.

The prohibition on alcohol sales is found in Section 3.3 of the Camino Station PUD:
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/CDD/Resources/Online-Library/Planned-Unit- Development/PUD_Camino_Station.pdf?la=en
There are more conditions in the project approval (P05-209), however the Planning Commission does not post their meetings and files prior to 2010 online. I requested a copy from Courtney Long, but have not yet received it.

I attached comments on the proposed Arco from the River Oaks Community Assn. (ROCA) in 2005-2006.

You will also find a notice from the 10/24/06 City Council meeting, when ROCA withdrew its appeal of the project, once the applicant agreed to eliminate alcohol sales.

In addition, I included a 2010 letter of objection from ROCA. This was the second of now four attempts by gas station management to obtain alcohol licenses.

It is really frustrating the owners of this operation have repeatedly tried to reverse the wishes of the community. I don't think ROCA would have dropped its opposition to the project in 2006, had we known at the time there would be an ongoing struggle for years to keep them from overturning this agreement.

Please feel free to call me, if you would like to discuss this matter.

Best,
David Brady
On Thursday, May 28, 2020, 12:19:17 PM PDT, <[email protected] > wrote:

Is the agreement to not sell alcohol in exchange for 24 hour operations formalized anywhere? If so, do you have a copy, or can you tell me where to look?
From: David Brady <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 1:38 PM
To: Courtney Long <[email protected]>
Cc: Angelique Ashby <[email protected]>; Steve Hansen <[email protected]>; Jeff Harris <[email protected]>; Mayor Steinberg <[email protected]>; Katie4council Info <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Opposition to CUP for Alcohol Sales at 2701 Orchard Lane May 22, 2020
Ms. Courtney Long

Page 107 of 271 ends

Page 108 of 271 ends

ROCA Comments on the Arco Station

Page 2 of 4 ends

convenience store & the A-1 Mart (6am to midnight, actually has permit to sell all liquors) at Gateway Oaks and West El Camino.
• Allowing a 24-hour convenience store to sell alcohol shall have an adverse affect on the peaceful nature of our community. The community did not oppose the special permit for 24-hour operation of the gas station and convenience store since alcohol was not going to be sold. Alcohol sales contribute to crime & violence, public nuisances, and illegal activities. The City Zoning Code (and many other Zoning Codes) reflects this as it has specific curricula based on floor area, etc. that require a special permit for a convenience store and not a larger retailer that sells much more than alcohol. Further, selling alcohol along with gasoline clearly increases the likelihood of drinking and driving in our community. All of these are adverse to the peace of our neighborhood, and coupled with the 24-hour operation even more so.
• Issuing a special permit to sell alcohol in such close proximity to two schools and a public park can have an adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of the children using them. Two Rivers Elementary and Leroy F. Greene Middle School are only a couple of blocks away, with the distance from property line to property line (as the crow flies) at LGMS approximately 750', and at TRES only approximately 625'. There are also public parks at both of the schools. Natomas Unified School District wrote a letter opposing alcohol sales with the original application, and continues to oppose alcohol sales at this location. • Issuing a permit in close proximity to residential properties can have an adverse impact on the safety and quality of those properties. The Regatta apartment complex is about 95' away, the single family residences on Drawbridge Court are about 295' away, and those on Bergamo Court are only about 265' away.

The apartments remain a well maintained and desirable place to live. Keeping the commercial area as quiet and peaceful as possible will help maintain those single family homes and residences as that.
• The ROCA community is tight knit and we are concerned about increasing traffic and crime brought to our community. We analyzed crime statistics from the Sacramento City Police Crime Database for 2009. The included ARCO AM/PM gas stations are located at 2501 Northgate Blvd., 4000 Norwood Ave, and 2701 Orchard Lane. The ARCO AM/PM stations at the Northgate Blvd. and Norwood Ave. locations sell alcohol. Both have incidents of theft, hit and run, robbery, and gang and drug activity.

The new ARCO AM/PM has already had a shoplifting incident as well as an increase in vehicle accidents and drug possessions. Approving a special permit for this location will only increase the number of incidents as well as bring an undesirable element to the neighborhood. The summary of incidences for 2009 includes 9 incidences at or near the ARCO AM/PM on Orchard and West El Camino; 34 incidences at or near the ARCO on Norwood and 26 incidences at or near the ARCO AM/PM at Northgate.

Page 109 of 271 ends

ROCA Comments on the Arco Station

Page 3 of 4 ends

• The applicant states that there is a petition with 225 signatures from the community in support of alcohol sales - ROCA conducted an analysis and disagrees. In reality, there are only a total of 214 signatures on the petition. Of these signatures, only 100 are within ROCA boundaries, the others included 103 outside ROCA boundaries and 11 without an address listed. Of the signatures within ROCA boundaries, 32 list addresses in apartment rentals which represent short term, mobile residents not invested in the long term quality of the community.

Further, most of the apartment addresses are on the east side of the canal and outside the immediate community which would be impacted by alcohol sales at this site.
• There are existing conditions in the permit which the owner fails to observe and therefore we do not think the owner should have the privilege of selling alcohol. One of the conditions (D/E16(d)) does not allow advertising on the outside of the building besides in the designated panels on the fa9ade. There are continual advertising signs in the landscaping strip along West El Camino and on the car wash building itself. Some announce the car wash, and there is at least one advertising diesel. Another condition (D/E18) does not allow unsupervised school age minors on site during the hours of 8:00AM - 4:00 PM when school is in session.

Multiple neighbors have reported school age children in the store on multiple occasions in violation of this condition.
• Given the above, it is ROCA's position that the findings required by Zoning Code Section 17.25.050 (40) for approval (noted below) clearly cannot be made and as such approval of the Special Permit must be denied.

Findings of fact:
a-i. The proposed use will not adversely affect the peace or general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood.
a-ii. The proposed use will not result in undue concentration of establishments dispensing alcoholic beverages.

Because of the considerations outlined above, ROCA believes that the Planning Commission should deny approval of the Special Permit in accordance with the following excerpt from the same Zoning Code Section:
b. Considerations. The planning commission shall consider whether the proposed use will detrimentally affect nearby residentially zoned areas, and shall give consideration to the distance of the proposed use from residential buildings and from churches, schools, hospitals, public parks and playgrounds, child care centers, social services, and other similar uses.

ROCA strongly urges the City Planning Department to find that alcohol sales are not appropriate at this site. Staff should not recommend that a special permit for alcohol sales be approved when the project goes before the Planning Commission. ROCA also urges the Planning Commission to deny approval of the permit. ROCA enjoys a relatively

Page 110 of 271 ends

ROCA Comments on the Arco Station

Page 4 of 4 ends

peaceful and safe community, and we see no reason to introduce alcohols sales, an element it does not need, that would adversely change that condition.

Please contact me at (916) 212-6589 or via e-mail at [email protected] if you have questions about the contents of this letter.

Sincerely,
Melinda Bradbury
Chair, Land Use Committee
Cc: Councilman Ray Tretheway
N). J. ,� 7 t f"' ,�-<,_ �Lc'""""''"""·_\,--i
� A 'j-; � cJ,\ P�� / f°'�:J :47 <r<c

Page 111 of 271 ends

Page 112 of 271 ends

Page 113 of 271 ends

Page 114 of 271 ends

Page 115 of 271 ends

Page 2 ends

Thank you for the opportunity for ROCA LUC to comment. If you have questions please contact me at 91 6-212-6589.

Melinda Dorin Bradbury
Land Use Committee Chair
River Oaks Community Association
Cc: Councilmember Tretheway
Mike Parker
attachment

Page 116 of 271 ends

Page 117 of 271 ends

Attachment "A"
Site Plan Comments
I. Operations-ROCA requests that the City limit the hours of operation for the convenience store, gas station, and carwash.
a. ROCA requests that the City deny the appplicant's Special Permit Application to allow the store to be open 24 hours. Having a 24-hour business this close to residential uses is inappropriate as it causes noise and light issues all night, but also becomes much more of a magnet for crime. ROCA's concerns are not only for crime at the store itself, but also for those late night crime elements which are now much more likely to find themselves exploring the community looking for opportunity. ROCA requests that the convenience store and gas station hours of operation be limited to 6 am to 11 pm as is typical business hours for non-24 hour facilities.
b. ROCA requests that the City limit the hours of operation of the car wash to 7 am to 10 pm. As there is multi-family residential immediately across Orchard from the carwash, this is necessary to mitigate the likely noise pollution from the car wash machinery.

2. Pedestrian Access-The approved PUD Schematic Plan was done at a time when pedestrian access was rarely considered for land development and hence none is shown on the Plan.

Unfortunately, the Site Plan submitted for the ARCO Is not much better as much of the pedestrian and bicycle facilities are merely "tacked on" and not well integrated either within the ARCO parcel itself, or worse within the rest of the Camino Station PUD. As the applicant is indicating that this larger convenience store will serve as the community's grocery store, it is therefore particularly important that the site be pedestrian, and bicycle, friendly. a. Pedestrian access to Orchard-

1. The pedestrian access to Orchard south of the carwash takes nearly the entire planter, leaving at most 1-2' of non-usable planter. ROCA requests that this planter be widened an additional 5' such that trees may be planted along this section.
ii. The pedestrian crossing is proposed as paint. ROCA requests that enhanced pavement be provided at all pedestrian crossings.
111. Rather than a striped area between a parking stall and planter, ROCA requests that the curbed planter be widened to incorporate the ped access, and the curb ramp moved out to the drive aisle.
iv. ROCA requests that the sidewalk along the east side of the store be widened to a minimum of 10' (8' including vehicle overhang) from the face of building. Per the plan, this is the primary pedestrian access, and a similar hardscape width as the front should also be provided on this side.
b. Pedestrian access from West El Camino-
!. No pedestrian access is provided to West El Camino to access this or any other parcel. As the driveway being constructed is the primary access off WEC for the entire Camino Station development, a pedestrian access needs to be provided along it. Also, since the driveway is a right-in only, it seems safest to provide the ped access on the east side of the driveway with this project such that pedestrians from the residential developments on WEC do not need to cross the likely busy and higher speed right-in vehicular access to access the development. This does not serve the ARCO so much as it serves the rest of Camino Station.

Page 118 of 271 ends

11. Also show the meandering walk on WEC that is proposed to be constructed with this project.
iii. ROCA requests that the planter west of the fueling canopy be widened a minimum ofan additional 6'. This provides for a 5' walk, as well as the minimum 6' needed for tree planting. Connection to the proposed public walk in WEC being constructed with this project should be shown. iv. ROCA requests that the pedestrian access be extended to the store through the planter at the northwest comer. As the development is overparked by 4 stalls according to the parking summary, ROCA requests that the westernmost stall be removed here to allow for the larger planter needed to accommodate the additional walk. A 7' planter width shall still be provided to accommodate a tree planting.
c. Pedestrian access from Barandas-

1. Given that a large portion of the community lives southwest of this project, it is important that the pedestrian access on the east side of the main drive aisle from WEC be continued south. ROCA requests that the applicant provide a pedestrian access to the store at the SW comer. Access will include a ramp, enhanced pavement crossing, and a temporary 5' wide striped path along the side of the drive aisle to Barandas.
d. Intra-site Access
i. Absolutely no pre-planning for how this site integrates with the rest of the Camino Station Development is provided on this site plan, including pedestrian access. ROCA requests that the site layouts for all neighboring parcels of the Camino Station Schematic Plan be overlaid onto the proposed Site Plan, and that pedestrian crossings to these future developments be indicated on the proposed Site Plan.

11. Curb ramps and other such improvements needed for these crossing locations must be provided. This would include a crossing to the west and south at the SW corner of the store, and a crossing to the south at the SE corner of the store. iii. In addition to no intra site access provided to the overall development, no intra site access is provided on this parcel as well between the store and car wash. As people waiting for their vehicles will likely walk to the store for a drink, addition of a clearly marked ( enhanced pavement) access between the store and carwash is needed. ROCA requests that the ramp and bicycle parking area provided be revised such that a curbed planter is pr9vided for this entire area, with the ramp incorporated into the planter. Without the need for the ramp flare on the north side, an additional 7' wide planter is requested in this space for an additional tree planting.
e. Bicycle Access/Parking
i. This convenience store will likely be used by the surrounding neighborhoods to pick-up occasional grocery items not only by car, but by bicycle. However the bicycle parking is not near the store entrance, but rather the carwash, approximately 150' away. This is unusable and unacceptable.

11. ROCA requests that the bicycle parking (racks in particular) be repositioned to a location near the front entrance of the store.

Page 119 of 271 ends

3. Landscaping-The landscape setbacks along the street right-of ways have been nicely provided by the applicant. However much of the internal landscaping areas can be easily improved with a few minor changes.
a. ROCA requests that the development signage on the comer for Camino Station be shown on this Site Plan. This signage should be constructed with this project as well such that landscaping, etc. is not removed at a later date to construct it. b. As this site lays at the entrance to the River Oaks community, ROCA requests that at the comer a community gathering area (pergola, seat walls, fountain, etc.) be provided. This would need to be integrated with the development signage for Camino Station noted above. Also, as this carwash is full-service offering hand drying, it would provide an alternative place for patrons to sit comfortably outside as they wait for their vehicles to be finished hand-drying without waiting indoors. (An outdoor waiting area is typical at most car washes.) An additional pedestrian crossing would need to be provided, but it appears enhanced pavement is already proposed at the location needed. c. ROCA requests that planters with trees be provided along the front of store as the only planters proposed are at the comers of the building. To easily achieve this, the flares of the handicap ramps could be removed and the areas to each side of the curb ramp in front of the handicap stalls would easily provide the room needed for the planters desired. As these areas are 9' wide by approximately 6' deep, they would be more than adequate to provide a location for a tree planting in each. Though minimal, this would also eliminate the potential tripping hazard of the flares. This would be similar to other retail developments throughout Natomas.
d. In addition to these planters, ROCA requests that planter pots also be considered to be provided at the front and east side of the building. This would also be similar to other retail developments throughout Natomas,
e. The landscape area behind the store is only provided at 5' wide, inclusive of the curb.

ROCA requests that this planter be expanded to 7' wide such that trees can be provided along this drive aisle. Although a gas station may be exempt from the City's shade ordinance, ROCA requests that the surrounding drive aisles have trees provided in accordance with it.
f. As this facility is proposed as 24 hour, light pollution mitigation is a serious concern.

ROCA requests that evergreen trees such as Coast redwoods be densely planted (15 '-20' spacing) in the landscaping along the drive aisle along the south side of the property, including behind the store. The height of the building is not adequate to block light from reaching the homes south of the project, as most are two story and have windows higher than the top of the store. Similar cluster plantings should also be provided at the NE corner to aid with blocking light from reaching the future Beazer homes. g. All trees planted for light mitigation shall be 24 inch box, all other trees shall be 15 gallon, minimum.

4. Parking Layout
a. The parking provided at the front of the store is not even as the handicap stalls extend further into the aisle than the rest of the stalls. ROCA requests that all of the stalls be shifted away from the store such that the back of all stalls is even with the handicap stalls (maintaining the desired 40' shown). This also provides additional hardscape space for bicycle racks, pots, etc.
b. Shift easterly stalls away from building per Pedestrian Access section above. c. ROCA requests that all non-handicap stalls not have curb stops. Curb stops are an eyesore, a tripping hazard, and they collect trash behind them. ROCA recommends shifting curbs away from the store into the stalls an additional 2' to accommodate the 2' vehicle overhang.

Page 120 of 271 ends

d. The planter at the NW corner appears even with the back of handicap stalls already, however the planter at the NE and SE corners do not. ROCA requests that the planters at these corners be extended to the back of stalls. This not only protects the stalls, but also maximizes the planter area.
e. The car wash appears to only provide approximately 70' of stacking (approximately three vehicles) for the car wash drive thru. As this is very close to the Orchard access, inadequate stacking will lead to back-up at this key access point to Camino Station.

ROCA requests that City staff review this drive thru and ensure that adequate drive-thru length is provided in accordance with Code requirements.

5. Street Improvements
a. ROCA still has concerns over the revision of the driveway from a right-in/right-out to a right-in only as it will direct all traffic exiting the Camino Station development towards WEC out to Barandas. Per S. Tobey on 5/5/06, it is likely that Barandas will also have a median, similar to that being conditioned on the project along Orchard, which will extend past the new driveway on Barandas being constructed by the Applicant. This future median will require all traffic exiting to WEC from Camino Station, and this Arco, to drive 500'+ to the west before having access out to Barandas and thence to WEC. Given this change in WEC access from that originally proposed, this future Barandas median, combined with the signalization at Barandas/Orchard, and the close proximity to the roundabout, ROCA requests that the Applicant further study options (median, striping, curb modifications, to maintain a right-out onto WEC. Should no alternative be acceptable to the City, ROCA requests that the Applicant update the traffic study to review the implications to Barandas and Orchard. The update should include today's traffic issues with the surrounding qevelopments as the exist, including the peak traffic at the two existing schools. Traffic flow is a serious concern to the community which must be properly planned for with this first development.
b. ROCA requests that not only all street frontage improvements be constructed with this development, but that all Orchard improvements and all Barandas improvements (to the new access driveway on Barandas proposed by the Applicant) be completed at this time.

These improvements would include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and a City standard driveway at the south access. ROCA also requests that landscaping of both the area between the separated sidewalk and curb as well as 1 O' behind the sidewalk be provided at this time.

Should the rest of Camino Station remain undeveloped for an additional 15 years, this IO' landscape buffer with trees, shrubs, etc. is needed between the walk and the weeds which will continue to seasonally proliferate on the un-developed land at the corner.

6. Signage
a. ROCA requests that the project be conditioned such that "Banners, signage painted or hung on widows, etc. shall be prohibited."
b. ROCA requests that the project be conditioned such that "Externally illuminated signs should not be allowed." as they are often directed at residences. c. ROCA requests that the project be conditioned such that "Inflatable animals, air driven signs, or other such promotional attractions shall be prohibited." d. ROCA requests that no freeway pylon sign be allowed with this project or the Camino Station development. Though this land has a PUD, it's underlying zone is SC- Shopping Center, which is described in the Zoning Code as providing "a wide range of goods and services to the community". A freeway pylon sign visible for miles away does not service the community, rather the traveler's along J-80. Camino Station is surrounded by residences to the south, east, and north east, and a pylon sign on this property is

Page 121 of 271 ends

inappropriate. ROCA requests that the project be conditioned such that "No signage of any sort higher than 6' tall shall be allowed."

7. Lighting
a. As noted above, this facility is proposed as 24 hour and light pollution mitigation is a serious concern. No lighting plan has yet been provided to ROCA to review. As this facility is proposed as a ROCA requests a site lighting plan with photometrics, and details of all proposed site lighting fixtures (including building mounted) to review. With the all-night operation, it is imperative that the residential surrounding this property to the northeast, east, southeast, south, and southwest not be impacted by the lighting proposed with this development.
b. Upon receipt of said lighting plans and details, ROCA will provide additional comments to the City.

Page 122 of 271 ends

From: David Brady
To: Courtney Long
Cc: Angelique Ashby; Steve Hansen; Jeff S. Harris; Mayor Steinberg; Katie4council Info; Allen W. Warren; Jay Schenirer; Eric Guerra; Rick Jennings; Lawrence R. Carr; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; william farrell; [email protected]; Todd Kaufman; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kendra Reed; Joe Yee; Dawn Stolarow
Subject: Opposition to CUP for Alcohol Sales at 2701 Orchard Lane Date: Friday, May 22, 2020 13:38:25
Attachments: Attachment 3 Inoperable Cash Machine.jpg
Attachment 1 Illegal Turns.jpg
Attachment 4 Garbage.jpg
Attachment 2 Carwash Damage.jpg
May 22, 2020
Ms. Courtney Long
Assistant Planner
City of Sacramento
300 Richards Blvd., Third Floor
Sacramento, CA 95815
Dear Ms. Long,
I reside in the River Oaks community of South Natomas, and I am writing you in opposition to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) request for alcohol sales in Planning Application P20-012.

The land where ARCO AMPM is located at 2701 Orchard Lane is part of the Camino Station Planned Unit Development (PUD) that was envisioned to include a mix of retail, dining and entertainment. The surrounding land has never been developed and remains vacant. In 2005, developers put forth a proposal to carve 1.45 acres out of the 8.59 acre PUD for a free-standing 24-hour gas station, carwash and mini- mart, with alcohol sales.

The River Oaks Community Assn. (ROCA) vehemently opposed the alcohol sales Special Permit from the City as well as the Special Permit for 24-hour operation, and expressed other concerns as well. As a condition of ROCA dropping its opposition to the 24-hour operation and other aspects of the facility, the Arco developers agreed the AMPM would not sell any alcohol.

Additional mitigations included:

Installing a traffic signal at Orchard Lane and Barandas Dr. to allow vehicles to safely return to West El Camino Ave.

Requiring an attendant to ensure that the car wash was operational and properly maintained Limiting the number of students from nearby schools allowed into the store at one time Limiting outdoor signage and ensuring the cleanliness and safety of the facility Successive owners of this facility have not lived up to these conditions of approval by:

Seeking to overturn the agreement not to sell alcohol
Failing to prevent unsafe and illegal vehicular turns onto West El Camino Ave. (See Attachment 1: Applicant’s own overhead photo of the facility showing tire tracks of vehicles making illegal turns from gas station onto West El Camino Ave.) Failing to provide full-time staffing for the carwash, letting the equipment fall into disrepair and damaging vehicles.
(See Attachment 2: Yelp reviews and pictures of vehicles damaged by carwash) Failing to limit the number of minors in the store in and around school hours.

Page 123 of 271 ends

Failing to maintain a safe and clean environment, as evidenced by:

Inoperable cash machines
(See Attachment 3: photo of taped-off machine)
Debris accumulating on adjacent property
(See Attachment 4: Yelp review showing photos of trash on ground next to facility.) Repeated robberies that prompted the owners to lock the doors at night and leave patrons waiting outside to be served by a single employee through a Plexiglas window.

Despite the full availability of these conditions, immediately after taking control of the operation in February, 2020, the latest owners, DS&D Petroleum Inc., filed an application for beer and wine sales with the CA Dept. of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) and are seeking a CUP for alcohol sales from the City of Sacramento. While the new owners may try to distance themselves from previous management, they are going down the same path of reneging on the agreement with the community not to sell alcohol.

It is important to note, not only is the AMPM in close proximity to neighborhood schools, but there are also four other retail locations licensed to sell alcohol within one mile of the AMPM, and five more licensees sell alcohol at the corner of West El Camino Ave. and Truxel Road. In addition, alcohol is banned in our neighborhood parks, including Sand Cove Beach, which is the site of many large gatherings in the summertime that require significant resources from the Sacramento Police Dept. and other agencies.

Unfortunately, we also frequently have transients who traverse our neighborhood between the freeway and river, and the availability of quick-grab alcohol at AMPM would not be a positive situation either for these individuals or those who live in the surrounding community.

The River Oaks community has sought for many years to support and advocate for the safety and livability of our neighborhood. Arco AMPM is a local resource and partner, but there is no reason to believe that selling alcohol at this location will improve conditions for current and future residents. I urge the City of Sacramento to deny this permit for alcohol sales.

Thank you,
David Brady

Page 124 of 271 ends

Page 125 of 271 ends

Page 126 of 271 ends

Page 127 of 271 ends

Page 128 of 271 ends

From: David Murillo
To: Courtney Long
Subject: P20-012
Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 13:29:52
Dr. Ms. Long
I hope you are safe during this pandemic.

I am a homeowner and resident of Trigo Way in the Willow Creek neighborhood and am writing in vehement opposition to an alcohol sales permit at the ARCO AM/PM at 2701 Orchard Lane.

Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that a hard alcohol license is even being considered for that location given the easy access to alcohol nearby. Approving this permit will result in rapid deterioration of our neighborhood with crime and blight. It will especially be detrimental to those new residents at The Cove, who just purchased brand new homes and are eager to form a safe, family oriented community.

I am signing on the comments made by another concerned resident with respect to this permit found below:
"The land where ARCO AMPM is located at 2701 Orchard Lane was originally part of a planned unit development (PUD) that was envisioned to include a mix of retail, dining and entertainment.

The surrounding land has never been developed and remains vacant. In 2005, developers put forth a proposal to carve 1.45 acres out of the 8.59 acre PUD for a free-standing 24-hour gas station, carwash and mini-mart, with alcohol sales.

Successive owners of this facility have not lived up to these conditions of approval by:
• Seeking to overturn the agreement not to sell alcohol • Failing to provide adequate staffing, letting carwash fall into disrepair and damaging vehicles • Failing to limit the number of minors in the store in and around school hours. • Failing to maintain a clean, safe environment, as evidenced by:
o Inoperable cash machines
o Allowing debris to accumulate on adjacent property
o Repeated robberies that prompted the owners to lock the doors at night and leave patrons waiting outside to be served by a single employee through a Plexiglas window.

Despite the full availability of these conditions, immediately after taking control of the operation in February, 2020, the latest owners, DS&D Petroleum Inc., filed an application for beer and wine sales with the CA Dept. of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) and are seeking a Special Permit for alcohol sales from the City of Sacramento. While the new owners may try to distance themselves from previous management, they are going down the same path of reneging on the agreement with the community not to sell alcohol.

Page 129 of 271 ends

alcohol is banned in our neighborhood parks, including Sand Cove Beach, which is the site of many large gatherings in the summertime that require significant resources from the Sacramento Police Dept. and other agencies.

Thank you so much for your attention.

Best,
David A. Murillo

Page 130 of 271 ends

From: Ernesto Feliciano
To: Courtney Long; Angelique Ashby
Cc: Ernesto Feliciano; Tim Ahmadzai; Fumare Fair Oaks; [email protected]; Chris Feliciano Subject: 2701 Orchard Ln P20-012 Alcohol Permit
Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 11:32:12
Mrs. Long, and Council Woman Ashby.

I am aware the Arco AM/PM located at 2701 Orchard Land, is requesting an Alcohol Sales permit for the existing gas station and convenience store located in the Shopping Center zone, Camino Station.

FYI.. The AM/PM original approval for the gas station in 2010 was contingent of no alcohol sales.

The main reason for the no sale of alcohol is the close proximity to the Leroy Green middle and high school and Two Rivers Elementary school.

I oppose the sale of alcohol as the students visit the store every day after school. Secondly, the (Willow Grove/Riverbend) are has number a high number of liquore and alcohol license.

The A-1 Liquore store approximately 1/2 mile on W. El Camino sells alcohol Therefore, the area does not need an additional site for alcohol sales.

Please note our opposition to the permit P20-012.

In addition, The applicant is required to send notice to the community in addition to posting the sign on the adjacent property line.

Ernest Feliciano
Christine Feliciano
Riverbend Residence since 2000.

Page 131 of 271 ends

From: George Furtsch
To: Courtney Long
Subject: P 20-012
Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 13:38:09
Please add me to the list of concerned residents of the River Oaks Community Assn. (ROCA). I vehemently oppose alcohol sales, at the Arco Am/Pm. This property is too close to our schools.

Thank you
George Furtsch
3315 sweet maple way
Sent from my iPhone

Page 132 of 271 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Courtney Long
Subject: Liquor license application for AM/PM on West El Camino and Orchard Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 13:41:18
Hi -
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the pending liquor license application for the Arco AM/PM Located on West El Camino and Orchard near the I-80.

The AM/PM should not be granted a liquor license given its close proximity to residential neighborhoods and two schools within walking distance. We understand the owner has to tell customers they don’t sell beer or wine.

However I see the place always busy with people buying gas. I walk pass there regularly.

When walking by I notice some homeless people by the driveway off of Barandas. The liquor license may attract more homeless into the neighborhood. The area has issues with littering especially around AM/PM driveways, car break ins, and other crimes. We don’t need to add alcohol to the mix.

Sincerely,
Joanne Furtsch
Sent from my iPhone

Page 133 of 271 ends

From: Jasmine Rose
To: Courtney Long
Subject: Liquor License Application AM/PM (2701 Orchard Ln, Sacramento, CA 95833) Date: Friday, May 22, 2020 16:02:23
Dear Ms. Long:

Please deny a liquor license to the AM/PM on Orchard and West El Camino (), or pass this along to those who make the decision to deny applications for liquor licenses. I am making this request for the following reasons:

It will exacerbate crime.

There are two parks near the AM/PM. People already congregate at two parks in the area and smoke marijuana, use the park in the evenings, and leave litter. Particularly in the summer months, they park their cars in front of the park, apparently drink (as evidenced by the trash left behind) and smoke marijuana in the cars (as evidenced by the smell). If liquor is sold at the AM/PM this problem will be exacerbated.

My husband witnessed a fight involving two seemingly drunk individuals in front of the liquor store on West El Camino and Gateway Oaks. Selling liquor will increase the likelihood of this occurrence of fighting and other crimes.

There are already enough stores that sell liquor in the area.

The Bel Air on West El Camino and Truxel sells liquor, there is a liquor store on West El Camino and GateWay Oaks. The Grocery Store Outlet on West El Camino sells liquor as does the CVS on Truxel and West El Camino. There are probably other outfits that sell liquor, but these are the stores that come to mind.

It will interfere with the functioning of the two schools close by.

There is an elementary and middle school nearby. Children walk to school.

It can be dangerous already. I saw on the NextDoor application that earlier this year, a child was hit on his/her way to/from school. Unfortunately, people drink and drive. An AM/PM that sells liquor will increase the risk of this occurring.

Page 134 of 271 ends

As I mentioned above, my husband witnessed a fight involving two seemingly drunk individuals in front of the liquor store on West El Camino and Gateway Oaks. Selling liquor will increase the likelihood of this type of violent behavior. When children see violence it creates vicarious trauma.

Trauma interferes with childrens' learning, thereby interfering with the function of the schools. Selling liquor at the AM PM also increases the risk that the children themselves will get hurt either by being innocent bystanders or getting involved with an intoxicated unstable person, which will interfere with their education. Again, interfering with the education of children interferes with the functioning of the schools, which is to educate.

Additional Harm to the Public
Homelessness is already at crisis level Statewide and in Natomas. I have seen many homeless people by the entrance driveway leading to the AM/PM seeking money. Selling liquor will only make the area more of a draw.

Selling liquor will increase the chance that homeless people and people with substance abuse problems hang out in the area where the liquor is sold, which harms the neighborhood.

We are in the midst of a pandemic. The economic situation for many is dire and getting worse. In these unprecedented times, it is reasonable to predict that crime and homelessness will increase. Granting a license will be another factor to tip this community in the wrong direction. If the license is granted we can expect to see a rise in public drunkenness, vandalism, graffiti, traffic congestion, and automobile accidents. Also consider how this interferes with the residents' right to "quiet enjoyment" within their own homes. Please consider the harm to the public welfare that granting the liquor license will cause.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Sheri Newman

Page 135 of 271 ends

From: herrerasix
To: Courtney Long
Subject: AM/PM at Orchard and W El Camino
Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 18:46:02
Hello- as a resident of the Shorebird development I would like to request that the liquor license application submitted for the AM/PM at Orchard and W El Camino be denied. As a parent of two teenage boys who attend the nearby Leroy Greene Academy, I do not want the sales of alcohol so close to the schools. There are already two locations that sell alcohol within 1/8 of a mile. There is no need for another business to sell alcohol in my community. I again request that you deny the alcohol application at this site.

Thank you
Karina Herrera
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

Page 136 of 271 ends

From: KONA
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: GOT BEER?
Date: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 8:39:44 PM
Please NO, do NOT proceed to allow ARCO AM/PM @W El Camino & Orchard. There is a school right down Orchard Lane a few blocks down from there. We do not need alcohol sales at every corner in South Natomas. It will attract transients loitering around the store all hours begging for money to buy beer. We do not need more alcohol sales in this area, please.

Respectfully, Kathy McCabe Lopes
[email protected]
Kathy McCabe, Lead for Nextdoor.com

Page 137 of 271 ends

From: Ken Napper
To: Courtney Long
Subject: P20-012
Date: Friday, May 22, 2020 16:38:53
Attachments: ampm 2701 Orchard.docx
Hi Courtney,
Attached are my comments regarding the AM/PM at 2701 Orchard Ln being permitted to sell alcohol. Please let me know if you have any issue opening the attachment.

Thank you,
Ken Napper
14 Paddle Wheel Ct

Page 138 of 271 ends

Hello,
I have been a resident of the Willow Creek neighborhood since 2009 and take great pride in my neighborhood and where I choose to live. I am a frequent customer of the AM/PM and purchase beer and wine on a regular basis from other retailers. For me, the convenience of purchasing beer and wine so close to home does not outweigh my concern over several issues with the issuance of an ABC license for the following reasons:

The proposed use of the parcel is not physically suitable for alcohol sales due to its proximity to an elementary and middle school, as well as two parks.

The joint-use school and neighborhood park, Two Rivers Park, is approximately 800’ away The youth-oriented community park, Orchard Park with attached skate park, is only 1250’ away Currently both these parks are frequently used by residents and in good repair. That is in stark contrast to Natomas Oaks Park at 2230 River Plaza Dr (1.5 miles east) which has been overtaken by transients and abnormal users. The park’s shade area is constantly occupied by transients with off-leash pit bulls and the benches are used as a workshop for bicycle and other miscellaneous repairs. The trash cans are regularly filled with beer cans and small bottles of liquor.

Due to the non-existence of normal users in the park, the parking lot has become a comfortable place for drug use and drug transactions in parked vehicles. The west end of River Plaza Dr has become a dumping ground for vehicles in disrepair being used as shelters.

There is a significant transient population near Willowcreek, mostly living along the levee, south of Garden Highway. These transients heavily frequent the shopping centers south of W El Camino on Gateway Oaks Dr. There are two off-sale ABC licensed venues at that intersection, and a trip to the bank, the coffee shop or the cleaners without being solicited for money or approached by an off-leash dog is rare.

As of now, there is a small transient camp located approximately 600’ to the west of the AM/PM in the vegetation. The Police department’s IMPACT team has addressed these camps, but until the vacant lot is developed, the camps will continue to come back. There is also regularly a different transient subject seated at the south entrance to the AM/PM off Barandas Dr, panhandling 70’ from neighboring residences. The availability of alcohol at the AM/PM will increase the number of transient subjects loitering around the business and our neighborhood and will threaten the peaceful use of Orchard Park.

The neighborhood has also had an ongoing nuisance issue with Sand Cove Park which is just over 1 mile away from AM/PM. The issues are mostly a combination of alcohol and loud parties. Although the Sand Cove Park entrance is located off Garden Highway, our neighborhood is frequently used as overflow parking for the park. Our neighborhood was able to come together and petition the city to add fire lanes and permit parking to help curtail the issue, and although it helped, we continue to have an issue with the beachgoers causing a nuisance.

When these unlawful gatherings are broken up by PD, Park Rangers and helicopters, the intoxicated beachgoers walk across Garden Highway and hike down the levee to return to their cars, leaving trash

Page 139 of 271 ends

and beer cans on their path. These beachgoers will often urinate on the side of the road before driving out of our neighborhood intoxicated. The convenience and availability of alcohol will no doubt encourage them to continue accessing the beach through our neighborhood.

Our neighborhood is also already adequately served for alcohol sales with 9 licenses within 2 miles.

Red Carpet Liquor and Lotto, 1508 W El Camino, 2 miles east Bel Air, 1540 W El Camino, 2 miles east
CVS, 1587 W El Camino, 2 miles east
Natomas Wine & Spirits, 1620 W El Camino Ave, 1.9 miles east Grocery Outlet, 1630 W El Camino Ave, 1.9 miles east
A1 Mart, 2550 W El Camino Ave, .9 miles east
Speedway Gas Station, 2650 Gateway Oaks Dr, .8 miles east Chevron, 2738 El Centro Rd, .8 miles west
49er Truck Stop, 2828 El Centro Rd, .8 miles west
Currently, the AM/PM store does a good job of keeping the landscaping and actual property well maintained. In the past, there has been a significant amount of trash along the fields to the south that came directly from AM/PM. I had previously contacted the manager of the store and was advised that they were not responsible for any parcels other than their own. I pointed out that the trash strewn along the different parcels was mostly AM/PM cups, marketing paperwork and items being sold at AM/PM. I’ve included pictures I took in 2018 of the debris.

There is also currently 900 residential units in different stages of development directly north of the AM/PM (The Cove and The Core). I would like to see how these developments effect the surrounding community prior to the city considering adding an additional alcohol license.

I would have also appreciated a more thorough narrative application from the owner than what was posted on the city’s website. Possibly listing any other stores they operate that currently sell alcohol, what types of beer/wine they intend to sell, if they plan on increasing staffing and what types of ID scanning software they will use.

The AM/PM has also added a plexiglass pass-through window to be used after 10pm on weekends. The store is locked up, and all transactions take place through a pass-through window. It’s my understanding that this was installed after an armed robbery. Personally, I find the pass-through window to be inconsistent with the neighborhood and presents visitors with the feeling of it being a high-crime area. I also believe that use of the pass-through window is unsafe for customers and exposes them to an increased level of vulnerability when paying for items. The customer has their back to the parking lot and anyone approaching while they remove their wallet or purse to pay for things. It’s my understanding that there has been at least one armed robbery of a customer at the pass-through window. I believe that the addition of a “POD” camera at the corner of West El Camino / Orchard Ln would be much more beneficial in deterring crime and investigating criminals than the pass-through window.

Page 140 of 271 ends

Many of the issues that Willowcreek experiences are nuisance related crimes and are already significantly underreported. I believe that the addition of alcohol sales at this location would add to the nuisance crimes. Some feel that these issues should be addressed by Police and should not play a role in the applicant being denied the ability to sell alcohol because of that. Being that Willowcreek is on the outskirts of the city, in a relatively quiet residential area, we receive extremely limited police personnel to enforce nuisance related crimes.

For the above-mentioned reasons, I would like to protest the issuance of a CUP for alcohol sales at the AM/PM located at 2701 Orchard Ln. I believe the issuance of an ABC license would have a distinct and immediate impact on where I live and will incur additional problems for my neighborhood.

The photos below were taken from a previous complaint I had with the business in late 2018.

Page 141 of 271 ends

From: Rogersfamily007 Family
To: Courtney Long
Subject: Am/Pm liquor license on west el Camino
Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 14:17:15
Dear Courtney,
I do oppose the City granting AMPM a liquor license. I live in Shorebird, the residential neighborhood behind the AMPM store, and I have lived in this neighborhood before the AMPM gas station was built. Since it was built, the corner of El Camino and Orchard is a busy intersection with continuous traffic exiting the AMPM on Barandas Street and Orchard. Semi delivery trucks, loud cars, motorcycles and loud music are some of the nuisances the AMPM attracts without a liquor license. For us residents the AMPM is not only a source of noise but of litter that will certainly increase should the city grant a liquor license to this convenient store.

Parents who drop off their kids, joggers, and parents who pick up their kids will needlessly encounter aggressive pan handlers or mentally ill transients who will hang around the AMPM just as many do six blocks west on El Camino where the liquor store on the corner of El Camino and Truxel is located. Go another mile or so west to the Stonecreek shopping center on El Camino and Gateway Oaks and you will find a similar situation with transients and crime that is so prolific, stores hire off-duty police and security guards to protect property.

Please protect our area from the harm a liquor license will cause. Our area of Natomas, east of the I-5, is growing with a new Beazer community. I believe if you grant this liquor license us residents will suffer lower property values because the gateway to our neighborhood will be a hub for transient persons who aggressively pan-handle for alcohol money, we will find more transients scavenging in our recycle cans, and we will

Page 142 of 271 ends

likely find new homeless camps in the field next to the AMPM station. The AMPM has a large footprint and liquor is inviting to youth. As such it will add a new hang out for those adolescents and younger folks at higher risk to engage in problematic behavior.

Young persons with vehicles who want to hang out with friend in their cars will tend to congregate after hours. It is not uncommon for teenagers, other youthful deviants to congregate at gas stations, for fights to occur and residents in the surrounding area be subject to the inebriate’s property crime or theft. I can’t count the number of fights and shooting that have occurred at Sacramento gas stations. None of this is a positive for our neighborhood and alcohol sales was not approved when the AMPM was build. AMPM has a responsibility to the community it serves to not be a nuisance. I’m a mother of 2 children one attends Leroy Greene Academy and the other one attends Two Rivers Elementary School we don’t need liquor being sold this close to 2 schools and Orchard Park.

Thank you for hearing my thoughts and for your careful consideration.

Kanika Rogers /Ajschildcare & Preschool
6 Rivulet Court 95833
Contact #

Page 143 of 271 ends

From: Kristen Solari
To: Courtney Long
Subject: AMPM Alcohol Permit
Date: Sunday, May 3, 2020 13:15:59
Hello Ms. Long,
My name is Kristen Solari. I am a home owner in the Willow Creek Development in the River Oaks District of Natomas. I live at 2501 Marta Bella Way, Sacramento, CA 95833.

I am writing today to appose the alcohol permit that the AMPM store applied for recently at the corner of Orchard Lane and West El Camino Avenue. This store is a block away from a elementary school Two Rivers and junior & senior high school Leroy Greene Academy. The location of the AMPM market with alcohol sales would have me worried for the safety of these children attending these schools and their proximity to the proposed application site. The same AMPM has tried to apply in the past and got denied by the outpouring of disagreement by my neighbors. I feel they are applying again hoping we will not notice. This is not the case and our community does not want this trouble in our neighborhood.

Please consider the disruption this type of business would bring to a neighborhood that we have grown to love because of its peaceful environment.

Thank you for your consideration,
Kristen Solari
2501 Marta Bella Way
Sacramento, CA 95833
cell

Page 144 of 271 ends

From: Korinne Tarien
To: Courtney Long
Subject: Liquor Licence Application P20-012
Date: Friday, May 15, 2020 20:53:08
Attachments: neighborhood.pdf
Hello,
My name is Korinne Tarien and I would like to voice my concern regarding the application for a liquor license by the AMPM off of West El Camino Avenue and Orchard Lane in Sacramento, CA. It was made clear that the AMPM is requesting a liquor license because a proposed development going up across West El Camino Avenue has claimed that they will be pursuing a liquor license as well. The AMPM has applied for a license in the past, but the community fought very hard to prevent alcohol sales within the neighborhood and I am sure that will be no different this time around.

I work as a transportation planner and have studied urban planning issues. While I am not against commercial activity being mixed with residential neighborhoods, alcohol sales are uncharacteristic of the River Oaks community. River Oaks Community Association prides itself on being a quiet, safe neighborhood with low activity after sundown. Many residents are already unhappy with the newly proposed development on the north side of the West El Camino Avenue not reflecting the neighborhood’s character. The fact that the development is provoking the AMPM to pursue alcohol sales is only adding insult to injury.

Please find some additional reasons that I believe alcohol sales will be detrimental to this community below:

Alcohol is already sold in the adjacent neighborhood at the A1 Mart off of West El Camino Avenue and Gateway Oaks Drive. This location is less than 1 mile from the AMPM requesting a license. Therefore the AMPM does not provide any additional benefit to the neighborhood since alcohol is already available down the road.

Unlike the A1 Mart, which is surrounded by other commercial businesses and office parks, there is currently no buffer between the AMPM and the surrounding residential community. This would create a sense of having alcohol being sold in our backyards.

The only exits from the AMPM property lead into the residential neighborhood. One driveway exits directly onto Barandas Drive, which backs several homes. By allowing alcohol sales at the AMPM, you are encouraging increased traffic, noise, and disturbances later into the evening which will directly impact the homes on the residential road. The driveway configurations will also encourage new traffic through the residential neighborhood.

Empty lots have been shown to increase loitering and crime. The AMPM is located on the the southwest corner of West El Camino Avenue and Orchard Lane, with undeveloped lots on the West and South sides of the establishment. The empty lots surrounding the AMPM provide a space for loitering. The empty lots surrounding the AMPM are also high risk fire areas in the summer. Loitering as a result of alcohol sales could lead to increased fire risk due to cigarette burning. The would threaten essential infrastructure including electrical lines and gas pipelines and be a safety threat to the surrounding community.

The Willow Creek neighborhood is bordered by the Sacramento River to the south. The river and the nearby Discovery Park are a hotbed for homelessness. The location of the AMPM on the opposite side of the neighborhood would encourage increased transient

Page 145 of 271 ends

activity north via Orchard Lane, including directly past two schools.

The AMPM has already experienced several crime incidents, including stick ups. This is a clear indicator that this commercial business has induced crime. Alcohol sales would only exacerbate the issue by introducing new people to an otherwise unknown neighborhood.

I would also like to take a moment to remind the permit reviewers to consider the neighborhoods from which comments on this liquor license are coming from. I have found that most people in favor of a liquor license do not actually live in the River Oaks community.

I would like to encourage the committee to listen to the residents of the neighborhood, as they know their neighborhood better than anyone else.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Korinne Tarien
[email protected]

Page 146 of 271 ends

Page 147 of 271 ends

From: Ken Thomas
To: Courtney Long
Subject: P20-012
Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 13:07:43
I have been a resident of Willow Creek for the past 12 years and live directly across from the ARCO AM/PM gas station located at 2701 Orchard Lane. The developers of the station agreed they would not seek an alcohol sales license. Now after several transfers of ownership they are once again trying to.

I highly oppose this request due to the fact that this is in a community with two elementary schools nearby. This location gets many visits from these grade schoolers before, during, and after school. The location has already been hit by multiple armed robberies even without alcohol sales. It also attracts transients which the owners fail to take care of.

Please do not grant this. There is already a liquor store that sells beer/wine across the freeway and another that sells it at W. El Camino & Gateway Oaks.

Thanks
Ken Thomas
2751 W River Drive.

Page 148 of 271 ends

From: Leslie Gordon
To: Courtney Long
Subject: No Alcohol Permit for AM/PM
Date: Sunday, May 3, 2020 18:30:45
Dear Ms. Long,
I am a resident of the Willowcreek neighborhood near the Arco AM/PM at West El Camino and Orchard Lane. I am writing in opposition of allowing an alcohol permit for this location. The close proximity to my children’s schools make this a very bad decision for the families in this neighborhood. Additionally, this location has already seen its fair share of criminal activity. Alcohol sales would only exacerbate this. Please consider disapproving the permit to sell alcohol.

Thank you,
Leslie Gordon
3483 River Shoal Ave
Sent from my iPhone

Page 149 of 271 ends

From: Michael Hubbard
To: Courtney Long
Subject: Land Use at ARCO
Date: Friday, May 22, 2020 19:08:22
Courtney Long,
The land where ARCO AMPM is located at 2701 Orchard Lane was originally part of a planned unit development (PUD) that was envisioned to include a mix of retail, dining and entertainment. The surrounding land has never been developed and remains vacant. In 2005, developers put forth a proposal to carve 1.45 acres out of the 8.59 acre PUD for a free-standing 24-hour gas station, carwash and mini-mart, with alcohol sales.

Successive owners of this facility have not lived up to these conditions of approval by:
• Seeking to overturn the agreement not to sell alcohol • Failing to provide adequate staffing, letting carwash fall into disrepair and damaging vehicles
• Failing to limit the number of minors in the store in and around school hours. • Failing to maintain a clean, safe environment, as evidenced by:
o Inoperable cash machines
o Allowing debris to accumulate on adjacent property
o Repeated robberies that prompted the owners to lock the doors at night and leave patrons waiting outside to be served by a single employee through a Plexiglas window.

Despite the full availability of these conditions, immediately after taking control of the operation in February, 2020, the latest owners, DS&D Petroleum Inc., filed an application for beer and wine sales with the CA Dept. of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) and are seeking a Special Permit for alcohol sales from the City of Sacramento. While the new owners may try to distance themselves from previous management, they are going down the same path of reneging on the agreement with the community not to sell alcohol.

Page 150 of 271 ends

Best regards,
Michael Hubbard

Page 151 of 271 ends

From: Suzanne Morrissey
To: Courtney Long
Subject: P20-012
Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 14:34:27
Dear Ms.Long,
I am a Riveroaks Homeowner and resident. Having lived in This wonderful neighborhood since 2000, I have enjoyed the convenience of the AM/PM Mini mart and gas station and always was grateful they didn’t sell alcohol. They are located within walking distance to two schools and many parks. Allowing them to sell alcohol increases the chance of sales to minors, increased opportunity for crime and a host of other not so desirable options.

I, encourage you to decline their request for alcohol sales. They do a very brisk business just they way they are and alcohol is available in several locations less than 1/2 mile from them.

Thank you for your consideration.

Mr and Mrs Morrissey
"When your work speaks for itself, don’t interrupt." - Henry J. Kaiser

Page 152 of 271 ends

From: Matt Thompson
To: Courtney Long
Subject: Alcohol Sales at the AM/PM on Orchard Lane (95833) Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 12:12:54
I live in the Willow Creek neighborhood of Natomas in Sacramento. I know that the AM/PM down the street from my house is applying for a license to sell alcohol and I think that would bring a lot of bad things to our neighborhood.

I think it's especially bad since there
is an elementary school and a middle school and a high school all within two blocks of it.

I strongly urge you to not allow the AM/PM
to sell alcohol.

Thank you
--
Matt Thompson
M.W. Thompson Investigative Services
2171 Shady Arbor Drive
Sacramento, CA 95833
CA PI#24051
www.PrivateInvestigatorsSacramento.com

Page 153 of 271 ends

From: Tee Tee
To: Courtney Long
Subject: AMPM Liquor Sale
Date: Friday, May 22, 2020 22:05:06
Hello,
I am writing regarding the sale of liquor at the AMPM on Orchard Lane and W El Camino. I live directly across from the gas station in the apartments with my family. I oppose the license sale due to the already sale of liquor within a few miles and for the safety of my family.

I can see the gas station from my apartment window and constantly hear cars screeching, homeless walking through our apartments, and just pray no one speeds off and crashes into our apartment gates. This summer we were hit hard with car theft.

The sale of will not bring a positive vibe to the community. With new homes being built the community needs commodities that will contribute positivity to our growth and well being.

In addition, the traffic lights right in front of the store constantly have accidents and there could possibly be an accident with a drunk driver taking a risk to get more alcohol at a gas station.

AMPM is a place to get gas, get some snacks which we often do and feel safe doing so. If you have any questions for me I can be reached at 916-470-3013.

Thank you,
Natasha
Jeffrey
Zoey
Jordan
Mariah
Analisa
Susan
Sent from my iPhone

Page 154 of 271 ends

May 21, 2020
To: Ms. Courtney Long
Assistant Planner
City of Sacramento
Sent via email: [email protected]
From: Patrick and Rachel Perry
3301 Kittiwake Drive
Sacramento, CA 95833
RE: Project# P20-012 Arco AM/PM Request for Special Permit for Alcohol Sales Dear Ms. Long:

As residents of the River Oaks commun ity who also have two school-age children who attend school locally, we would like to formally express our opposition to the proposed special permit request to sell alcohol at the AM/PM located at the corner or Orchard Lane and W. El Camino.

Sacramento City Code Section 17.228.108(A)(2)(a) specifies the considerations for granting a conditional use permit for alcohol sales, and requires decision makers to evaluate "whether the proposed alcoholic beverage sales will detrimentally affect nearby residentially zoned areas, and shall give consideration to the distance of the proposed alcoholic beverage sales from residential buildings; churches and faith congregations; schools, K 12; hospitals; parks and playgrounds; childcare centers; social services; and other similar uses."
Residents of River Oaks successfully mitigated alcohol sales away from this development in 2005 based on a number of issues, but predominantly because the facility is located in close proximity to and frequented by the students of two neighborhood schools (Two Rivers Elementary 660 students and Leroy Greene Academy 780 students). There is a plethora of educational, social, and academic research that strongly supports the notion of limiting the access to and exposure of alcohol sales to K-12 age students; it is clearly not beneficial to the students, their schools, or their neighborhoods. This conclusion is also supported by the Natomas Unified School District, who has submitted its opposition to the proposal both in 2005 and once again in its letter to the City on May 21, 2020.

Additionally, within an equally close range in the River Oaks neighborhood are no less than eight (8) parks and playgrounds {Barandas, Natomas Oaks, Orchard, Sally Hudson, Two Rivers, Shorebird, River Otter, and Sand Cove), all of which do not allow alcohol, and the latter (Sand Cove) of which has presented a consistent problem to River Oaks residents and resource expenditure for the City; the proposed AM/PM site would become the nearest outlet for Sand Cove visitors to access and procure alcohol.

Within one mile of the AM/PM, four (4) other businesses licensed to sell alcohol already exist; a quick scan of Sacramento area crime activity maps show correlation between these areas and reportable incidents. There is no unmet business demand for alcohol sales in the area.

Page 155 of 271 ends

Page 156 of 271 ends

From: Reyes & Laura Rios
To: Courtney Long
Subject: Oppose to sale of alcohol at ampm
Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 20:21:02
Please submit for the record my opposition to our local am/pm at West El Camino/ Orchard in their pursuit to sell alcohol at their establishment. I own a home in the area and I feel there are enough businesses in our area that sell alcohol. In addition, there are two schools within walking distance of the am/pm. Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone

Page 157 of 271 ends

From: Sabrina Laffan
To: Courtney Long
Subject: Alcohol Sales - Opposed
Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 10:03:59
Our family is opposed to allowing alcohol sales at the AMPM on Orchard and West El Camino Avenue, as well as any business located at this intersection that may be built in the future.

Thank you,
Sabrina Laffan

Page 158 of 271 ends

From: Shahid Mehmood
To: Courtney Long
Subject: AMPM alcohol permit
Date: Sunday, May 3, 2020 22:22:43
Hi, I don’t like the idea to give the alcohol permit to AMPM at the corner of W. El Camino and Orchard Ln, it’s too close to 2 schools and there are already enough close by stores which are selling alcohol.

Shahid Mehmood

Page 159 of 271 ends

From: Steve Pruett
To: Courtney Long
Subject: Alcohol Sales at AM/PM
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 11:10:36
I live nearby the AM/PM store located on West El Camino and Orchard Lane. I buy my gas there.

I am OPPOSED to granting a liquor license for that establishment.

There are TOO MANY options to do so close by. Our community does not need another.

Thank you for listening to me.

Stephen Pruett
15 Durazno Court
Sacramento, CA 95833

Page 160 of 271 ends

From: gardenhighway
To: Courtney Long
Subject: ROCA letter re alcohol sales
Date: Monday, May 25, 2020 09:41:54
Please add our opposition to letter from ROCA.

Lois and David Walker
1413 Garden Hwy.

FILE NUMBER:

P20-012
CONTACT:

Courtney Long
Assistant Planner
City of Sacramento
[email protected]
The land where ARCO AMPM is located at 2701 Orchard Lane was originally part of a planned unit development (PUD) that was envisioned to include a mix of retail, dining and entertainment. The surrounding land has never been developed and remains vacant. In 2005, developers put forth a proposal to carve 1.45 acres out of the 8.59 acre PUD for a free- standing 24-hour gas station, carwash and mini-mart, with alcohol sales.

Successive owners of this facility have not lived up to these conditions of approval by:
• Seeking to overturn the agreement not to sell alcohol • Failing to provide adequate staffing, letting carwash fall into disrepair and damaging vehicles
• Failing to limit the number of minors in the store in and around school hours. • Failing to maintain a clean, safe environment, as evidenced by:
o Inoperable cash machines
o Allowing debris to accumulate on adjacent property
o Repeated robberies that prompted the owners to lock the doors at night and leave patrons waiting outside to be served by a single employee through a Plexiglas window.

Despite the full availability of these conditions, immediately after taking control of the operation in February, 2020, the latest owners, DS&D Petroleum Inc., filed an application for beer and wine sales with the CA Dept. of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) and are seeking a Special Permit for alcohol sales from the City of Sacramento. While the new owners may try to distance themselves from previous management, they are going down the same path of reneging on the agreement with the community not to sell alcohol.

Page 161 of 271 ends

Sacramento Police Dept. and other agencies.

Page 162 of 271 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Courtney Long
Subject: Liquor license @ AM/PM on West El Camino andOrchard Date: Monday, May 4, 2020 13:14:48
Hi Courtney,
I am speaking on behalf of my neighbors on Watercourse Way and River Pebble Court in River Oaks.

We live a mere two blocks away from the AM/PM convenience store and gas station.

We vociferously oppose the liquor license proposed at this establishment.

First of all, it is unnecessary. There are two Bel Air grocery stores nearby, one 2.5 miles away Arena Blvd) and another less than 2 miles away on West El Camino Avenue. As grocery stores, these are appropriate venues for alcohol sales.

There is also a liquor store at Gateway Oaks and West El Camino less than a mile away. This location is acceptable since it is surrounded mostly by commercial buildings and office complexes (Metro Center).

The location of AM/PM is utterly terrible for liquor sales. It is two blocks away from Two Rivers elementary school and Leroy Greene middle school. It is adjacent to a residential community including new high density development across the street.

We see a lot of foot traffic, mostly young adults along Watercourse heading to the convenience store for snacks.

Conversely, we purchase alcohol at the grocery stores. I suspect that the residents of River Oaks will continue to do the same.

Instead, it is most likely that liquor sales will predominately go to passing motorists on adjacent I-80 and nearby I-5.

That is a problem in and of itself but we are somewhat more concerned about alcohol sales to minors.

Specifically, unscrupulous adults, mostly traveling along the interstate, could transfer liquor to neighborhood children with an easy getaway. We realize this is a worst case scenario and that ABC does the rare “sting”.

But it does serve to illustrate just
how horrible a location this is for alcohol sales.

We urge the city to deny this liquor license.

Thank you,
Eric Webb
Colette Newman
Melva Newman
The Smith family
The Jones family
and others

Page 163 of 271 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Courtney Long
Subject: Alcohol salesw at AM/PM at West El Camino and Orchard Lane Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 16:10:15
To those concerned:

We oppose the proposal to sell alcohol at the AM/PM.

It is too close to schools and is an invitation to further problems.

Also it was an understanding from the original agreement for the gas station that it would not sell alcohol.

There are already plenty of places a bit further away to purchase alcohol already.

Thanks for consideration of our complaint.

File number:P20-012
Sincerly,
Byron Wescott/ David Blair
3107 Spinning Rod Way
95833

Page 164 of 271 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: Orchard Lane Arco in Natomas
Date: Saturday, April 10, 2021 10:14:14 AM
I would like to voice my opposition of the Orchard Lane Arco owners’ request to sell alcohol at the location off of West El Camino in Natomas (95833). I was told you can help represent thoughts for the proposal, but please let me know if there is a better way.

I am a resident of that neighborhood and this would be detrimental to our great River Oaks/Willow Creek community. I’m disappointed they are even asking as they knew they would not sell alcohol when they developed the location. There are two schools within two blocks, there is an alternative liquor store .25 miles away, and proposed commercial/retail partners across the street have agreed to not sell alcohol.

Allowing the arco owners to sell
alcohol would jeopardize that agreement and open the flood gates to loitering, traffic, and unnecessary exposure to the children who attend the school near by.

The location is also not
set-up for the influx of customers that would likely come through. Every person leaving Arco and traveling west on W El Camino has to travel down a poorly maintained road that leads into the willow creek neighborhood before they make a left hand turn on orchard and another left hand turn on W El Camino.

That street traffic is dangerous and quite frequently leads to illegal u-turns or unsafe speeds.

Sincerely, Dave Harmon

Page 165 of 271 ends

From: Dave Savage
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: Alcohol use permit 2701 Orchard Lane
Date: Friday, April 9, 2021 4:01:09 PM
I am a homeowner at 17 Minnow Court, approximately 1/2 mile from 2701 Orchard Lane. I am in opposition to the use permit for alcohol sales in our neighborhood.

We already have homeless issues in our neighborhood and I believe this would exasperate the situation further. The homeless living on the levee would transverse our neighborhood to access this location. In addition, there are adequate alcohol sale locations North and East within a mile or two.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Dave Savage
17 Minnow Court
Sacramento, CA 95833
Sent from my iPad

Page 166 of 271 ends

From: Edmond
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: Arch Orchard Lane Alcohol CUP
Date: Friday, April 9, 2021 1:15:40 PM
The 2701 Orchard Lane Arco owners are pushing ahead with their drive to sell alcohol. I am living in this neighborhood and I want to stop this request.

Please let me know what I need to provide in order to stop their request.

Thank you

Page 167 of 271 ends

From: Elena Thrower
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: Orchard Lane Arco alcohol
Date: Saturday, April 10, 2021 5:41:34 PM
I’m riding with concerns about the Orchard Lane Arco application/push to to sell alcohol. I will not be able to attend the hearing at the Planning Commission on April 22 but I wanted to make sure my voice was heard.

We have lived in this neighborhood for 15 years, and in the past year I have seen more homeless people in the neighborhood and our neighbors have had more cars and mailboxes broken into than ever before. I am very concerned that adding alcohol sales will negatively affect our neighborhood (even more than the increase in homelessness has already done).

I want my kids to be able to walk to the park and play basketball or walk to school, if we add alcohol sales in such close proximity I don’t think it will be safe.

Not only will it concern me for my family but We have two schools in this neighborhood that are very close to the Arco station, Leroy Green Academy and Two Rivers Elementary.

Alcohol purchases increases hanging out, homeless, close proximity to freeway entrance/exits makes for quick(er) get away (robbery), and all coupled with more residents in neighborhood (new apartments and houses). The neighborhood is changing already and we do not need to add alcohol sales as another unknown. The developers of the 7-11 across the street have agreed not to sell alcohol, but this agreement could be in serious jeopardy, if Arco is successful in their effort.

Please help keep our neighborhood and kids safe and keep alcohol sales out.

Thank you,
Elena

Page 168 of 271 ends

From: J Moran
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: Oppose liquor license at Arco AM/PM on Orchard Ave/W El Camino Date: Friday, April 9, 2021 6:04:37 PM
I write to strongly oppose the granting of a liquor license which is being proposed at the Arco AM/PM station located at Orchard Lane and W El Camino Real In Sacramento, CA. -Jody Moran
Sacramento, CA
--
Jody Moran

Page 169 of 271 ends

From: Laura Holeman
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: Objection to Arco selling alcohol
Date: Friday, April 9, 2021 1:06:42 PM
Hello,
I live in the Harbor Oaks Apartment complex, which is approximately 2 miles east of the Arco station on El Camino that is requesting to sell alcohol.

I strenuously object to this request because there is already a liquor store on El Camino about 1 mile to the east of the Arco station.

Thank you for considering my request.

Laura Holeman
2212 Gateway Oaks Drive, Apartment 400
Sacramento, CA 95833
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note9, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone

Page 170 of 271 ends

From: lois walker
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: Arco alochol
Date: Saturday, April 10, 2021 5:11:15 PM
We have been round and round about this in River Oaks for decades.

No booze at the AM-PM.

There is a liquor store a couple blocks away.

Lois Walker
ROCA Board Member

Lois

Page 171 of 271 ends

From: Suzanne Morrissey
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: Am/pm alcohol permit
Date: Sunday, April 11, 2021 6:13:11 PM
Dear mr/mrs/ms Quintanilla ,
We have been home owners and community business owner since 2000.

Please, do not allow AM/PM to sell alcohol.

There are two schools within walking distance, selling alcohol this close to two schools is not a good plan.

There are two, Easily accessible stores, Chevron and the Truck stop

As well as A-1 mart that sell alcohol for those in the near area looking for this specific drink.

It should be noted that for 20 years this AM/PM has not sold alcohol and is still a high producing market.

Thank you for your consideration.

Suzanne and Michael Morrissey

“Nothing is impossible, the word itself says ‘I’m possible’!” Audrey Hepburn

Page 172 of 271 ends

From: Christian and Vanessa Espinosa
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: Oppose - Alcohol sales at Arco on Orchard
Date: Saturday, April 10, 2021 5:54:54 PM
Hello,
I am writing to formally oppose the approval of alcohol sales at the Arco AMPM on Orchard Lane. As a homeowner and resident of The Willowcreek Neighborhood I strongly urge the planning commission to deny the request.

According to the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE), “... even when levels of poverty and the age and the ethnic background of residents are taken into account, a high density of outlets is strongly related to violence regardless of a neighborhood’s economic, ethnic or age status.” There are already at least three locations to purchase alcohol less than 1 mile from the Arco AMPM. Selling alcohol at this location would not benefit the neighborhood or community and more likely hurt this family and kid friendly neighborhood.

Thank you,
Vanessa Mercado
Sent from my iPhone

Page 173 of 271 ends

6/2/2021 Mail - Jose Quintanilla - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=20210524004.15 1/1 P20-012
George Furtsch <[email protected]>
Thu 5/27/2021 6:02 PM
T o: Jose Quintanilla <[email protected]> My name is George Furtsch I live at 3315 Sweet Maple Way in Sacramento. I would like to submit,I am opposed to any additional alcohol sales outlets in the area. With children frequenting the establishment at 2701 orchard I believe that this creates a detrimental environment for them.There are multiple locations that sell alcohol locally that are away from the schools.

Thank you
George Furtsch
916-212-7904
Sent from my iPhone

Page 174 of 271 ends

From: Heather Fargo
To: Z Wayne Johnson; Sachiko; Ericka Harden; Raul Huerta; Flavio Huizar; Marbella Sala; Annette Emery; Amie Tokuhama; Karen Grace-Kaho; Noel Mora; Julio Lamas; Joe Contreraz Cc: Jose Quintanilla; Katie Valenzuela; Phil Pluckebaum; Lynn Lenzi; Joe Yee Subject: Re: ARCO Alcohol CUP P20-012
Date: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 2:50:44 PM
Importance: High
I have just submitted my comments in opposition. Comments must be submitted before noon tomorrow or they will not be shared until after the meeting. I am hoping some will change their mind or give us more ammunition for our appeal to city council, which we will probably need to do.

This is what I wrote:
"Please reconsider your decision to support. I remain opposed to another gas station selling alcohol to drivers.

As staff told you, it is too close to nearby schools and parks to be in compliance with city policy. Since the last meeting had such fatal technological issues, you couldn't hear from all the community, and the community couldn't witness your decision.

Please put on the record your rationale for supporting alcohol sales in a location that is strongly opposed by the neighborhood and the staff.

Be sure those supporting this live in
95833 and are not just friends of the owner. Thank you." On Jun 8, 2021, at 2:25 PM, Z. Wayne Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:

Below is the position of the South and West Natomas Community Associations, regarding the ARCO CUP application, as well as our desire for the Mayor to provide for representation of our area on the Planning and Design Commission missing for a decade. Please include in the June 10, 2021 hearing package.

From: South Natomas Community Associations
To City Staff, Mayor, Council Members and Planning and Design Commissioners:

On April 22, the Planning and Design Commission (PDC) conducted a public hearing on the Alcohol Sales permit request of the Arco Gas Station at Orchard and W. El Camino.

Staff recommended denial due to city policies which discourage such sales in close proximity to schools and parks. (There are 2 schools and 3 parks nearby.) In addition, over 100 residents sent letters, emails or e-comments in opposition. Unfortunately, the city’s technical equipment failed during the hearing that would have allowed the public to participate in the discussion. As a result, the Commissioners did not hear directly from the community nor did the Community witness the proceeding and ultimate vote to approve the permit of alcohol sales at the Arco gas station. This was the 3rd time that the Community opposed such a request, with subsequent denial, since the opening of the station 12 years ago. After each denial, the city made a commitment to the Community that there would not be alcohol sold at that gas station. What changed? Collectively we support denial of the CUP.

Moreover, we were disheartened that the intent of the Brown Act was ignored.

Recently, the PDC announced they are holding another hearing on June 10. It is our hope that should a technical failure occur again, the PDC will adhere to the Brown Act

Page 175 of 271 ends

and suspend further discussion until such time as the Community can be present.

Additionally, we request that every community plan area be represented on the PDC.

South Natomas has had NO planning commission representative for over 10 years. We are the size of West Sacramento with over 40,000 residents. As South Natomas continues to grow with multiple new housing projects affecting our area, we need our own distinct representative.

Sincerely Submitted, the South Natomas Community Associations:

ROCA President Z Wayne Johnson

NCA President Sachiko Konatsu
GNNA President Flavio Huizar
SNU President Raul Huerta
NGAC President Amie Tokuhama.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Page 176 of 271 ends

From: Karina Herrera
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: Alcohol sales at ARCO on Orchard Lane
Date: Thursday, April 22, 2021 12:09:44 PM
Hello. As a parent and resident of the Willowcreek neighborhood, I would like to express my concern for alcohol sales at the ARCO station on Orchard/West El Camino. There are already businesses that sell alcohol within one mile of this store and there is no need for another. The store location is close to two schools for students TK-12 and students walk to that store everyday. They do not need the temptation of alcohol visible.

Please do not approve this
location to sell alcohol.

Thank you
Karina Herrera

Page 177 of 271 ends

From: Kelly Schluter
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: Arco Orchard Lane Alcohol CUP
Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 4:25:01 PM
Good evening,
I am a resident of this neighborhood and would like to express my opposition to the request for arco to sell alcohol at this location. We have a liquor store within a mile and there are numerous schools within spitting distance from this business. I don't think arco carrying alcohol is necessary for the betterment of our neighborhood.

Thank you for your consideration!

Page 178 of 271 ends

From: Katja Townsend
To: [email protected]; Katie Valenzuela
Cc: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: Project Number P20-012: Orchard Lane Arco Alcohol CUP Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 11:38:50 AM
Good Afternoon Councilmember Valenzuela and Commissioner Buckley-

I very rarely submit comments but felt compelled to reach out after viewing the recording of the Planning Commission meeting on 4/22. I was very disappointed in the commission’s decision to not concur with staff’s recommendation to deny the CUP for alcohol sales at the Orchard Lane ARCO considering the opposition from the school district and many residents.

I
was unable to access the live video to comment during the hearing, and many others had the same problem.

I would like to address several misrepresentations that were made by the applicant during the hearing.

The applicant stated that “every residential development within walking distance of this station is gated”.

This is a 100% false. Most of the residential areas next to the station are not gated (including Willowcreek, where I reside). I’ve attached a map your reference. The gated communities are outlined in red, the non-gated in blue.

The applicant stated that the elementary and middle schools are “9 and 11 minutes walking distance away”.

This is also false. You can look at the route on google maps to confirm this. The middle school is right at the next corner, no more than a 5-minute walk.

The elementary school is only a 6–7-minute walk.

My main concern is that I’ve already seen the area next to the station deteriorate in the four years since living here.

There are constantly encampments and trash in the vacant lot next to the station and along Barandas Drive. Panhandling is also very common at this location.

Earlier this year it took more than 10 dump trucks to clean up the hazardous waste left behind by campers. There are needles, mattresses, hazardous waste, and (surprise!) lots of empty alcohol containers.

This also extends to the public parks. I clean up trash and empty bottles almost every time I take my 2-year old to the playground by the elementary school. I’ve attached some recent photos- all of this is right next to the station, my neighborhood & the schools.

Just this week there was an individual who appeared to be under the influence hanging out by the school with small kids around throwing up and asking where to buy liquor.

Incidents like these are already happening too frequently and I believe alcohol sales right next to the school will compound these problems.

I understand and support businesses trying to supplement their revenue, but this station agreed to not selling alcohol when built in 2006.

If this CUP is approved, the 7-11 across the
street will request one as well. Then we’ll have 2 locations selling alcohol while still lacking grocery stores, retail, and other walkable necessities that were promised when the neighborhood was built. I don’t know of any instances where this sort of situation has

Page 179 of 271 ends

improved a community. These are the wrong priorities.

Thank you for considering my concerns, please let me know if you need additional information or would like to discuss.

Sincerely,

Katja

Katja Townsend
[email protected]
m: (916) 677-6853

Page 180 of 271 ends

From: Maria Avila
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: Liquor License for Arco
Date: Thursday, April 22, 2021 4:31:58 PM
Please do not approve the Arco application for liquor. We don’t want liquor being sold in our neighborhood. There is a liquor store about 1/2 mile from the ARCO on West El Camino & Gateway Oaks. Our community is situated between Interstate 5 and 80. We have enough comings & goings in this area and we do not need another store that sells liquor.

Thank you!
Sent from my iPhone

Page 181 of 271 ends

From: margarita Garcia
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: 4/22 City Hearing on Alcohol Sales at Arco
Date: Thursday, April 22, 2021 9:21:36 AM
Dear City Council Members,
I oppose the sale of alcohol by the Orchard Lane Arco owners. I have lived in this neighborhood for 20 years and believe selling alcohol would not in the best interests of our community, especially since the Arco is located a short distance from Twin Rivers Elementary School. Please vote note no to this request.

Kindly,
Margarita Garcia
3145 Spinning Rod Way
Sacramento, CA 95833

Page 182 of 271 ends

To: Sacramento Planning and Design Commission
From: ROCA (River Oaks Community Association)
Date: May 8, 2021
RE: ARCO Alcohol CUP, P20-012
The Commission has our original comments in opposition to this alcohol CUP, but based on comments by some Commissioners at the original hearing, we herewith add to our earlier comments in response:

1. Our opposition is about community planning, community values, and conditions attendant to the original ARCO station approval, which all supported this location as an alcohol-free “island” in our neighborhood. ARCO should not be allowed to renege on the original agreement that allowed their construction.

2. Non-approval of alcohol sales at ARCO is consistent with City Planning regulations and several prior Planning and Design Commission and ABC decisions. The community directly adjacent to ARCO continues to grow with houses, apartments, town homes and commercial development intensifying the original baseline concerns.

3. ARCO is within close proximity to two (2) schools and three (3) parks, which is an allowable disqualifier under City and State regulations, and our community (and prior official decisions) supports such continued denial.

4. Despite some comments, ROCA is not universally opposed to alcohol sales as evidenced by the existence of at least 6 locations within ½ mile where patrons can purchase or sit and enjoy alcohol. We do advocate the integrity of our schools and parks. We actively participate in area clean-ups, homeless care and reporting of campers on private property, help identify those potentially needing a welfare check by the City Police and formed our own volunteer patrol as added eyes and ears for police and Code Enforcement. We see the existing problems, which are not always captured in police stats, because we coordinate directly with City staffs, assistance groups or give aid to those in need.

5. Planned communities are just that, planned. And residents move there based on the community nature and make-up. Older neighborhoods are reflective of the standards at the time, grandfathering of existing uses and what the neighborhood wants or tacitly accepts. ROCA residents should not be ridiculed for following regulations in place and exercising their right to voice their concerns for community standards, stability and safety. We are not doing anything other neighborhoods cannot choose to do or have previously done throughout Sacramento.

6. An earlier comment by one Commissioner stated that ROCA/Willow Oaks area is an affluent community, and therefore seeking to be treated differently than poor and racially different areas of the city. We respectfully, but ardently object to that statement. We are a community of both blue and white collar workers, retirees, millennials, and seniors and are diverse in racial and economic make-up, as well as the

Page 183 of 271 ends

division between homeowners and apartment renters. We refer back to Item #5 above for further comment and rationale.

7. Approving this ARCO CUP in actuality sets the stage for approval of alcohol sales at two (2) sites at the intersection of W. El Camino Ave. and Orchard Lane. The 7-11 store, in the proposed River Oaks Marketplace, has agreed to NOT sell alcohol, as long as the ARCO minimart continues to not sell. Obviously, that eventuality increases the community concerns.

8. Saturation is an added issue for consideration. Every major intersection on W. El Camino Ave. has at least one alcohol dispensing location already. Adding essentially two (2) at the last remaining intersection and in close proximity to our schools and parks is unnecessary and problematic. ARCO has operated successfully for over 12 years without alcohol, and such sales by their own comments are a de minimis portion of their overall revenue. This is hardly a compelling argument for overriding the original Staff Report and Recommendation, wisdom of past PDC and ABC decisions and the majority wishes of the community.

We respectfully seek the support of the Planning and Design Commission in opposing this alcohol CUP for all the above cited reasons. Do not alter the nature of our community and its design, or impact the efforts to maintain our quality of life. Thank you.

Submitted On Behalf of ROCA
Z. Wayne Johnson
President, ROCA
[email protected]

916.475.3557 cell

Page 184 of 271 ends

Page 185 of 271 ends

division between homeowners and apartment renters. We refer back to Item #5 above for further comment and rationale.

Submitted On Behalf of ROCA
Z. Wayne Johnson
President, ROCA
[email protected]
916.475.3557 cell

Page 186 of 271 ends

From: Z. Wayne Johnson
To: Jose Quintanilla
Cc: Heather Fargo; Sachiko; Flavio Huizar; Raul Huerta; Amie Tokuhama; Darrell Steinberg; Katie Valenzuela; [email protected]
Subject: ARCO Alcohol CUP P20-012
Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 2:25:22 PM
Importance: High
Below is the position of the South and West Natomas Community Associations, regarding the ARCO CUP application, as well as our desire for the Mayor to provide for representation of our area on the Planning and Design Commission missing for a decade. Please include in the June 10, 2021 hearing package.

From: South Natomas Community Associations
To City Staff, Mayor, Council Members and Planning and Design Commissioners:

On April 22, the Planning and Design Commission (PDC) conducted a public hearing on the Alcohol Sales permit request of the Arco Gas Station at Orchard and W. El Camino. Staff recommended denial due to city policies which discourage such sales in close proximity to schools and parks. (There are 2 schools and 3 parks nearby.) In addition, over 100 residents sent letters, emails or e-comments in opposition. Unfortunately, the city’s technical equipment failed during the hearing that would have allowed the public to participate in the discussion. As a result, the Commissioners did not hear directly from the community nor did the Community witness the proceeding and ultimate vote to approve the permit of alcohol sales at the Arco gas station. This was the 3rd time that the Community opposed such a request, with subsequent denial, since the opening of the station 12 years ago. After each denial, the city made a commitment to the Community that there would not be alcohol sold at that gas station. What changed? Collectively we support denial of the CUP.

Moreover, we were disheartened that the intent of the Brown Act was ignored. Recently, the PDC announced they are holding another hearing on June 10. It is our hope that should a technical failure occur again, the PDC will adhere to the Brown Act and suspend further discussion until such time as the Community can be present. Additionally, we request that every community plan area be represented on the PDC. South Natomas has had NO planning commission representative for over 10 years. We are the size of West Sacramento with over 40,000 residents. As South Natomas continues to grow with multiple new housing projects affecting our area, we need our own distinct representative.

Sincerely Submitted, the South Natomas Community Associations:

ROCA President Z Wayne Johnson
NCA President Sachiko Konatsu
GNNA President Flavio Huizar
SNU President Raul Huerta
NGAC President Amie Tokuhama.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Page 187 of 271 ends

From: lois walker
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: Arco
Date: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 4:02:39 PM
Adding my name.... Lois Walker (ROCA Board Member)

We, the concerned residents of Willowcreek/River Oaks
continue to support the City’s Planning and Design
Commission decision, and the City Planning staff
recommendation, to
OPPOSE the ARCO AM PM
Minimart’s proposed sale of packaged beer and wine in
close proximity to two schools, 4 parks, and residential homes. Sufficient numbers of other existing alcohol sales locations are within ½ miles from our neighborhood, not necessitating adding a potential nuisance attraction so close to our schools and parks, nor to attract added homeless and other unwanted activity to the area. Allowing alcohol sales at ARCO will in effect create compelling competitive
justification for the recently approved River Oaks
Marketplace 7-11 minimart to apply for an alcohol sales permit also. They have committed to not sell alcohol,
unless ARCO is approved over the objection of the City’s Commission, Planning staff and the community. We are
further joined in urging the City Council to
DENY the
ARCO Appeal by the River Oaks Community Association
(ROCA), Natomas Unified School District, Beazer
Homes/The Cove, parents and other residents.

Thanks!!

Page 188 of 271 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: P20-012
Date: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 2:04:59 PM
I vote NO to allowing ARCO to obtain an Alcohol Sales Permit.

Pam Davis
855 Turnstone Dr
Sacramento CA 95834
916 359-5843
[email protected]

Page 189 of 271 ends

From: Edmond
To: Jeff S. Harris; David Gonsalves; Jocelyn Navarro; Jose Quintanilla Subject: Re: Arch 2701 Orchard Lane Alcohol CUP CA 95833 Date: Saturday, January 15, 2022 1:53:52 PM
Attachments: P20-012_NOPH.pdf
The 2701 Orchard Lane Arco owners are pushing ahead with their drive to sell alcohol. I am living in this neighborhood and I want to stop this request.

Please let me know what I need to provide in order to stop their request.

Thank you
Begin forwarded message:

On Friday, April 9, 2021, 1:20 PM, Jose Quintanilla <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello,

Your comments are sufficient (it will become part of the public record provided to the Commission). There is also the opportunity to comment during the public hearing. The notice of public hearing is attached with participation instructions.

Let me know if you have any other questions, comments, or concerns.

Thank you,

Jose R. Quintanilla
Assistant Planner | North Area | Planning Division
Community Development Department
300 Richards Blvd., 3
rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 808-5879 | [email protected]

E-mail correspondence with the City of Sacramento (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

From: Edmond <[email protected]>

Page 190 of 271 ends

Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 1:15 PM
To: Jose Quintanilla <[email protected]> Subject: Arch Orchard Lane Alcohol CUP

The 2701 Orchard Lane Arco owners are pushing ahead with their drive to sell alcohol. I am living in this neighborhood and I want to stop this request.

Please let me know what I need to provide in order to stop their request.

Thank you

Page 191 of 271 ends

From: lois walker
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: Alcohol at Arco
Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 10:19:58 AM
Please count us in the no alcohol at Arco group.

We have plenty of liquor availability nearby already.

Lois and Dave Walker
1413 Garden Hwy.

Page 192 of 271 ends

From: Justin Ozeroff
To: Z. Wayne Johnson; Jose Quintanilla
Cc: Melinda Dorin Bradbury; Mike Fluke; Dave and Lois Walker; David Mansch; Bridgette McFarland; John Shiels; Heather Fargo; Sarah Bucknam; David Brady; David Abrahams Subject: Re: Notice of Public Hearing - Applicant Appeal, Arco 2701 Orchard Lane Alcohol CUP Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 1:35:38 PM
Attachments: image.png
Who owns this???
Because if it is the City - There is only room for 2 way traffic to safely pass here, there is absolutely no reason camper RV's should be at this location at any time and need to be removed immediately, not to mention the safety of the Hundreds of kids that walk to this store everyday.

If it is the ARCO owner - The camper RV's are trespassing and need to be removed
immediately
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 1:10 PM Z. Wayne Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:

Here is today's official notice of the Jan. 25. 2022 ARCO Alcohol Appeal to City Council.

Lois please post to our social media.

I am following up with Jeff Harris, Katie Valenzuela
and Angelique Ashby on their
supporting our opposition, the Staff Recommendation and the Planning and Design Commission decision. Z
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
From: Z. Wayne Johnson <[email protected]>

Page 193 of 271 ends

Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 12:38:39 PM
To: Jose Quintanilla <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Notice of Public Hearing - Applicant Appeal, Arco 2701 Orchard Lane Alcohol CUP

Jose, thank you for this Notice. The staff report to be attached to the item will include the earlier ROCA residents petition, number of comments pro and con, the continued Staff Recommendation opposing the appeal, SacPD response at the Commission hearing that alcohol sales tend to attract actions of concern to neighborhoods, and what else? ROCA and various residents will be commenting at the Council meeting again. Do I need to resubmit our previous written opposition letter? I appreciate your past and future response. Z
Z. Wayne Johnson
President, ROCA (River Oaks Community Association)
[email protected]

916-475-3557 cell
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
From: Jose Quintanilla <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 9:33:45 AM
To: Jose Quintanilla <[email protected]> Subject: Notice of Public Hearing - Applicant Appeal, Arco 2701 Orchard Lane Alcohol CUP

Hello,

You are receiving this email Notice of Public Hearing because you have commented or shown interest in the request for an Alcohol CUP at 2701 Orchard Lane. This project, P20- 012 Arco Orchard Lane Alcohol CUP, was denied by the Planning and Design Commission on June 10, 2021. An applicant appeal was filed in response to the Planning and Design Commission’s decision, and the appeal will be heard by the City Council on Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 5PM.

Members of the Public may participate in public meetings (including making live comments during the public comment period) by joining the meeting using Zoom—an online meeting platform—or submitting written comments electronically before and during the meeting via eComments accessible through the City’s official website at https://meetings.cityofsacramento.org
. Members of the public may also watch the meeting
live online (without participating via Zoom).

Instructions for accessing and participating in the Zoom meeting, how to submit written comments, and how to watch or listen to the meeting online will be posted along with the

Page 194 of 271 ends

meeting agenda by close of business Thursday, January 20, 2022. To access this information, please visit https://meetings.cityofsacramento.org and choose “Upcoming Meetings” and then select the appropriate meeting to access the agenda material.

Thank you,

Jose R. Quintanilla
Associate Planner, North Area (North Natomas, South Natomas, North Sacramento) Planning Division | Community Development Department
300 Richards Blvd., 3
rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 808-5879 | [email protected]

--
Justin Ozeroff
916-212-7278
[email protected]

Page 195 of 271 ends

From: Don Gibson
To: Courtney Long
Subject: Support for AMPM on El Camino and Orchard Liquor License Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 22:18:34
Hello,
I am just writing to express my support for granting the AMPM gas station on El Camino and Orchard a liquor license. I am a homeowner in the neighborhood and live about a 10-minute walk from that station for the last 7 years. As a regular shopper at AMPM I have not had any issues with their staff or patrons. I would be happy to see them granted a license. --
Don Gibson
3157 Spinning Rod Way, Sacramento, CA

Page 196 of 271 ends

From: Dalenahoward Howard
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: Arco
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 9:36:29 PM
We would love to be able to buy beer in our own community.

Page 197 of 271 ends

From: Firdose Khan
To: Courtney Long
Subject: Beer license!
Date: Friday, May 22, 2020 21:26:14
Hi i live in the neighborhood by the Arco AM/PM on W. El Camino in Sacramento. I am in favor of them carrying beer at their location. I have never had any issues with their staff and if they carried beer I would need to make one less trip.Thank you!
Firdose khan
Sent from my iPhone

Page 198 of 271 ends

From: Siv Lang Khou
To: Courtney Long
Subject: Beer license fo Arco
Date: Sunday, May 24, 2020 21:21:47
Hello Ms. Long,
I wanted to share my perspective of the proposal of the beer license for the Arco on W. El Camino and Orchard. I live within 5 miles of the gas station and have been going there for the past 4 years. They carry convenient products at a reasonable rate and I believe the addition of beer and wine will be accommodating for the neighborhood the gas station is located in. In conclusion I am in favor of the beer and wine license and would like to see them carry it! Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Lisa Khou
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Page 199 of 271 ends

From: De Vitto Mark
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: Do the right thing
Date: Friday, February 19, 2021 10:18:05
I was informed that sending this email would help facilitate the availability of beer to be sold at the ampm on West El Camino, near the 80 freeway. This is the right thing to do. I live very close to this store and it would bring convenience to me and many others. There is a massive housing and multi apartment building operation
currently being erected across the street from
this ampm. This deserves to happen prior to the traffic that is going to be inflicted on this area onto the people that never wanted THAT many more new neighbors. There is going to be
an exceptional amount of additional vehicles very soon to this area. It is a simple request to be able to purchase beer at a store nearest our side of the current neighborhood. Please make this happen immediately, we in the neighborhood would appreciate that very much.

Sincerely,
Mark DeVitto
Resident of
Waters Edge Way
(916) 202-8964

Page 200 of 271 ends

From: maritza ruiz
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: Support for Am pm on W. El Camino and Orchard Ln Date: Thursday, February 18, 2021 11:48:17
Hello,
I am writing in regards to the AM PM gas station on the corner of W. El Camino and Orchard Ln to be granted a beer and wine license. I have been a long time customer at this location and the staff has always been very courteous and professional. Therefore, I am in full support of you authorizing this location the license which will serve as a convenience for the community.

Thank
You
Maritza Ruiz

Page 201 of 271 ends

From: Nikki Keller
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: Arco 2701 Orchard Ln, Sacramento, CA 95833
Date: Thursday, February 25, 2021 10:46:22 AM
Hello,
Can you please approve this location’s liquor license to sell beer? Thank you,
N Keller

Page 202 of 271 ends

From: Nida
To: Courtney Long
Subject: Beer license!!
Date: Friday, May 22, 2020 18:18:49
Hello!
l reside in the neighborhood near Arco AM/PM on W. El Camino in Sacramento. I writing this email to state that I am in favor of them having a beer at their location. I have never had any issues with their staff and if they had a beer license it would be one convenient stop for my needs which is super helpful! Nida Tahir
(916) 868-2223

Page 203 of 271 ends

From: Ramishah Ahmad
To: Courtney Long
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 18:16:03
To Whom It May Concern:

I'm a resident of the neighborhood the Arco/AM/PM falls in and I recently paid a visit to the store. I was happy to see the gas station is in the process of obtaining a beer/wine license and I'm writing this email to say I'm completely in favor of it. I believe the addition of the beer products, will allow the store as well as the neighborhood to thrive. I will be happy to see this license be approved and the gas station to meet more needs of the neighborhood.

Thanks,
Ramishah
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Page 204 of 271 ends

From: Sunny Atwal
To: Courtney Long
Subject: Support for Am PM On W. El Camino and Orchard Ln Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 17:42:41
Hello,
I am writing to show my support in granting the license of beer and wine to the Am Pm located 2701 Orchard Ln. This location is at a walking distance from my residence and has been serving our community in its daily needs and wants such as gas, food, coffee etc; and adding beer/wine to its inventory will serve as a convenience by avoiding making multiple stops. I am hoping that you will make your decision in favor of granting the license to this location.

Thank You
Sunny

Page 205 of 271 ends

From: sonia bains
To: Courtney Long
Subject: ARCO liquor grant
Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 19:26:41
Hello,
I saw a board outside the Arco/AM PM on 2701 Orchard Ln. I wanted to express my support for the license, I live about 5 minutes away from the gas station and it's one of my go-to places for coffee and gas. I would like seeing them carry beer so I wouldn't have to go anywhere else.

Thanks,
Sonia Bains
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

Page 206 of 271 ends

From: shaanrai12
To: Courtney Long
Subject: Beer License Arco AM/PM
Date: Sunday, May 24, 2020 21:06:20
Hello,
I have recently visited the AM/PM Arco on W. El Camino and Orchard and on my way out I saw the proposal for the beer license. I would love to see this Arco location selling beer and wine! I am definitely favoring this proposal, which would make my trips to the gas station more convenient.

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

Page 207 of 271 ends

From: Stephen, Xuebin, Liu
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: Arco on Orchard Lane
Date: Saturday, February 13, 2021 4:05:30 PM
Hi,
I am resident of the Natomas area. I am writing your this email to express my wish to see the Arco gas station on Orchard Lane be allowed to sell beers. That would be a great convenience to serve the residents in the area.

Sincerely yours
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Page 208 of 271 ends

From: Terry K
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: Arco Gas Station Petition
Date: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 7:28:44 PM
Good Evening,
I would like to petition for the Arco Gas Station at 2701 Orchard Lane, Sacramento, CA, 95833 to be able to sell alcohol, including but not limited to beer and wine. It is a very convenient location to buy these beverages as it is directly off the I-80 Freeway.

I have grown weary of constantly having to backtrack to find the nearest grocery outlet that is able to sell alcohol. It not only wastes my time and makes me late to dinners and parties, but it also makes little to no sense as to why this specific gas station is prohibited
from the sale of alcohol, while places like FoodMaxx or Walmart, which are in the same vicinity, have no restrictions or limitations. Also, considering the
fact that we are currently in a pandemic, it is extremely important that we support local businesses rather than franchisees, especially during these times.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Terry K

Page 209 of 271 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: beer at am/pm 2701 Orchard lane
Date: Friday, February 26, 2021 3:27:41 PM
To whom it may concern:

My name is Tony THE TIGER Lopez and I live in the neighborhood of this am/pm it would be great if they were allowed to sell beer at that am/pm.

Page 210 of 271 ends

Planning & Design Commission
Meeting Time: 04-22-21 17:30
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
Planning & Design Commission 04-22-21
17:30
21 153 81 64 2
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.

Overall Sentiment

Page 211 of 271 ends

Planning & Design Commission
04-22-21 17:30
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral

4. Delta Shores Residential Development, Villages MDR-5 and MDR-8 (P20-024) (Noticed on 04/06/2021) File ID: 2021-00421 1 0 1 0

5. Ordinance Amending Various Sections of the Sacramento City Code Related to Accessory Dwelling Units (M21-001) (Noticed 04/09/21) File ID: 2021-00387
15 10 5 0

6. Orchard Lane Alcohol CUP (P20-012) (Noticed 04/09/21) File ID:
2021-00366
137 71 58 2
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.

Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for 4. Delta Shores Residential Development, Villages MDR-5 and MDR-8 (P20-024) (Noticed on 04/06/2021) File ID: 2021-00421
Overall Sentiment
Heather Fargo
Location:

Submitted At: 4:37pm 04-22-21
This is an issue of EQUITY . Please do not reduce the number of park acres in the Delta Shores development.

Adding higher density and more residents should result in more park acres, not less. South Sacramento and future residents of Delta Shores need you to protect their interests in having the most livable community you can plan for. Small parks are fine if well designed. The city has many small parks which add vitality, interest and fun to the neighborhoods they serve - Bertha Henschel, Roosevelt, Fremont, Cesar Chavez, Valley Oak Dog Park, Truitt Dog Park are all LESS than 3 acres. Be fair to South Sacramento and treat them like other Sacramento neighborhoods with quality parks that add to the quality of their lives. No good reason was given to not do so.

Page 212 of 271 ends

Thank you for making the best decision you can on behalf of the future residents who can't speak for themselves.

Agenda Item: eComments for 5. Ordinance Amending Various Sections of the Sacramento City Code Related to Accessory Dwelling Units (M21-001) (Noticed 04/09/21) File ID: 2021-00387 Overall Sentiment
Nick Shepard
Location:

Submitted At: 4:47pm 04-23-21
ADUs will help promote a variety of much needed housing options and support diverse communities throughout our city.

Kevin Higgins
Location:

Submitted At: 10:29pm 04-22-21
Through this ordinance, a large two story garage with a ADU on the second floor was built at our back fence line by neighbors, at a location where previously no garage stood. In the building process, they tore out a very old Japanese Maple tree, an orange tree, and killed a city Sycamore tree. Previously, these trees were visible over our fence line, now we see a large two story unit, which is ugly, and affects the use and enjoyment of our own property, and was very environmentally wasteful in killing three mature trees. One of the rationales for allowing the building of these is to provide housing for elderly family members, that goal could be better achieved by building an accessible one story unit where the garage stood as older adults can have difficulty climbing stairs.

The building of the two story backyard units are not only unsightly, but they affect the backyards of every other house with these huge monolithic structures being built at or right near the property lines.

Adrian Smith
Location:

Submitted At: 5:57pm 04-22-21
My name is Adrian Smith and I live in District 4
I am a member of House Sacramento, a local network advocating for policies to end our housing shortage I am writing on behalf of House Sacramento in support of staff’s proposed ADU ordinance before the PDC UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation has consistently shown that ADUs provide more badly needed infill housing development, increase the housing supply without significantly altering existing neighborhoods, provide multigenerational housing options, and generate supplemental income for homeowners Staff have done an excellent job preparing a full ordinance to comply with state ADU laws The city is currently operating under an emergency ordinance. Residents still find the ADU approval process confusing and it’s time to adopt these policies to ensure that homeowners and builders can have certainty when looking to add an accessory unit or two to their homes.

Andrea Rosen
Location:

Submitted At: 5:39pm 04-22-21
I am an experienced small developer of ADUs. 1 in CP and 1 in LP . This is a traditional form of dwelling; they are

Page 213 of 271 ends

everywhere in historic neighborhoods. support ALL of the staff report minus TWO provisions. 1: Please do NOT give the ZA, etc the authority to require parking for ADUs. This encourages NIMBYs. I have experienced this and every single prediction about lack of parking was unfounded. Midtown lost one beautiful townhome due to irrational neighbors' objections. 2:Exempt all ADUs from the solar panels.. These are TINY units and the additional expense of adding solar panels is unnecessary and a barrier I am in favor of the parking exemption and the setback changes. ONE more change needed and that is re alley access. I was prepared to build two ADUs and provide alley access but was unable to do so because Public Works required that I alone improve the entire length of the unpaved alley Please require public works to drop this requirement as it another barrier to development
Kirk Vyverberg
Location:

Submitted At: 5:28pm 04-22-21
The Land Park Community Associations OPPOSES for the lack of community engagement, review and input.

Cornelious Burke
Location:

Submitted At: 4:11pm 04-22-21
I write on behalf of the North State Building Industry Association (BIA). The BIA is in strong support of the city's code amendments relating to ADUs. The City of Sacramento is in a housing crisis and ADUs will help provide much needed middle missing housing. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission approve Item 5 and continue to enact policies that will further expand the use of ADUs in Sacramento.

Cornelious Burke
North State BIA
Mathew Malkin
Location:

Submitted At: 3:32pm 04-22-21
I am a Sacramento resident who is currently building an ADU and I appreciate the flexibility of these rules. Like most neighbors, I will build and maintain rental structures on my land that I would want to live in and want tenants to be welcome and good community members. I've had only great experiences with my neighbors on my block who rent and think providing homes for more of them is the least we can do. I fully support this ordinance and encourage we adopt other similar pro-housing ones.

Dov Kadin
Location:

Submitted At: 3:22pm 04-22-21
As someone who has built an ADU in Sacramento, these changes will absolutely help to facilitate the construction of ADUs by making it more flexible. Appreciate the staff work on making Sacramento an ADU friendly city.

Joseph Wraithwall
Location:

Submitted At: 2:59pm 04-22-21
We love ADUs! Alley activation, segregationist regulations, creating opportunity for diverse and vibrant neighborhoods, opening doors to intergenerational housing: what’s not to love? Flexibility and empowerment for more neighbors is key!
From the experience of living in an alley-facing ADU with no setback, I wish more people could have the opportunity to live in such a great situation. We used our parking space for bike storage - while handy for the tandem we used to ride around, it was also an unnecessary and uneconomical waste of space that could have offered more value as living area. We had an amazing quality of life, and we loved being part of a community with the people in the duplex that shared our lot as well as the house and the ADU in an adjacent lot (all built and partly inhabited by a longtime downtown resident family).

It makes us sad to see comments from people who would prevent that from being possible for others.

Joey and Kristen Wraithwall

Page 214 of 271 ends

Former D4 ADU residents
Louis Mirante
Location:

Submitted At: 1:25pm 04-22-21
Louis Mirante, D4 resident. Thanks so much for these helpful changes! ADUs are an important part of building enough housing for everyone in Sacramento.

Parker Evans
Location:

Submitted At: 1:21pm 04-22-21
My name is Parker Evans, and I'm a renter in Midtown. I strongly support this ordinance. Expanding and promoting the use of ADUs citywide is a small step towards addressing Sacramento's housing crisis. Sacramento should be taking advantage of every opportunity to promote multigenerational housing and additional rental units, which further the stated goals of the General Plan.

Ansel Lundberg
Location:

Submitted At: 1:00pm 04-22-21
My name is Ansel Lundberg. I am a co-chair of House Sacramento, a local network advocating for policies to end our housing shortage. I am writing on behalf of House Sacramento in support of staff's proposed ADU ordinance before the PDC. UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation has consistently shown that ADUs provide more badly needed infill housing development, increase the housing supply without significantly altering existing neighborhoods, provide multigenerational housing options, and generate supplemental income for homeowners.

Staff have done an excellent job preparing a full ordinance to comply with state ADU laws. The city is currently operating under an emergency ordinance. Residents still find the ADU approval process confusing and it's time to adopt these policies to ensure that homeowners and builders can have certainty when looking to add an accessory unit or two to their homes.

Ann Broderick
Location:

Submitted At: 11:49pm 04-21-21
I object to the refinement Sacramento is making to the State ADU standards. The floor area, parking, setbacks, and lot coverage should not be changed for the following reasons:

ADUs that are larger and closer to the property will reduce individuals lack of privacy, outdoor open green space, and sunlight, which is very important to one’s quality of life. Forcing all the cars to park on the street will cause congestion for emergency vehicles, lack of ability to charge electric vehicles and even more car burglaries. ADUs should not be built on top of 100-year-old deteriorated combined sewer system (CSS) pipes that parallel the rear property lines in East Sac. According to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit of 2020, any added volume of drainage and sewer flows from growth within the CSS service area cannot increase overflows or outflows within the CSS area.

M. Coulter
Location:

Submitted At: 9:07pm 04-21-21
I object to the proposed changes to the Sacramento ADU ordinance that go beyond the provisions of State Law.

The current draft ordinance would be harmful to existing Sacramento neighborhoods and the environment and offers no benefit to neighborhoods or the community.

Sacramento’s ordinance should be the same as the State provisions, specifically:
- One onsite parking space must be provided for each ADU - Minimum side and rear yard setbacks are 4 feet.
- A maximum of 800 square feet of a detached ADU can be exempted from lot coverage requirements. - The maximum floor area is the greater of 50% of the primary unit or 800 sq. ft. (1 or less bedrooms) or 1000 sq. ft. (2 or more bedrooms).

In addition NO deviations should be allowed from the above. If a provision for deviations must be included, then

Page 215 of 271 ends

Sacramento City CouncilJanuary 25, 2022

Sacramento City Council
January 25, 2022