CITY COUNCIL
Darrell Steinberg, Mayor
Angelique Ashby, Vice Mayor, District 1
Sean Loloee, District 2
Jeff Harris, District 3
Katie Valenzuela, District 4
Jay Schenirer, District 5
Eric Guerra, Mayor Pro Tem, District 6
Rick Jennings, II, District 7
Mai Vang, District 8
CHARTER OFFICERS
Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk
Susana Alcala Wood, City Attorney
Jorge Oseguera, City Auditor
Howard Chan, City Manager
John Colville, City Treasurer
City Council
Financing Authority
Housing Authority
Public Financing Authority
Redevelopment Agency
Successor Agency
City Hall-Council Chamber
915 I Street, 1st Floor
Published by the Office of the City Clerk
(916) 808-5163
CORRESPONDENCE
Description of Attached: Correspondence received after publishing the Agenda.
For the Meeting of: Tuesday, January 25, 2022, at 5:00 p.m.
Agenda Item: Public Hearing Item 12
12. Appeal: Orchard Lane Alcohol CUP (P20-012) [Published 01/14/2022] File ID: 2021-01187
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, [email protected], Associate Planner, 916- 808-5879; Teresa Haenggi, Senior Planner, 916-808-7554, [email protected], Community Development Department
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]>
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
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.
From: Justin Ozeroff
To: Jose Quintanilla
Subject: Fwd: ARCO Appeal - Discussion With Jeff Harris Date: Monday, January 24, 2022 11:30:43 AM
Attachments: New Letter and Protest Signatures 1-23-2022.pdf Hi,
This idea of the city still considering giving the ARCO AM/PM located at 2701 Orchard Ln, Sacramento, CA 95833, a license to sell liquor after everything that has happened and been brought to light is beyond astonishing. This runs counter to everything the City and its current council is claiming to support. Please, acknowledge the overwhelming community opposition and the previous agreement to not allow alcohol sales at this location and deny this request by a wholly negligent and self serving business owner. Please see attached.
From: Z. Wayne Johnson
To: Jose Quintanilla
Cc: Melinda Dorin Bradbury; Mike Fluke; David Mansch; Dave and Lois Walker; Bridgette McFarland; John Shiels Subject: ARCO CUP Appeal 1/25/2022
Date: Monday, January 24, 2022 7:50:56 PM
Attachments: ARCO New Letter and Protest Signatures 1-23-2022[15422].pdf ARCO Appeal Jan 25 Letter.docx
Importance: High
Attached please find a recent quick petition showing part of the majority opposition by residents to the sale of alcohol at the ARCO gas station and Minimart. ROCA representing close to 2,000 homes remains adamantly opposed to this application for the reasons stated in our letters and this petition.
Additionally, attached is the official ROCA letter, signed by me as President, which adds to comments made in the one attached to the petition. My eComment also includes an attachment of the petition.
We commend City Planning staff for the excellent and comprehensive Staff Report/Recommendation submitted with the item to City Council. Thank you for a job well done! Z
Z. Wayne Johnson
President, ROCA
[email protected]
916.475.3557
Sent from Mail for Windows
To: Sacramento City Council
From: River Oaks Community Association (ROCA), President Z. Wayne Johnson Date: January 24, 2022
RE: Appeal - ARCO Alcohol CUP, P20-012
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, nor past rulings by the ABC. We pushed off attempts to sell alcohol when ARCO station was first proposed in 2005 and 2006. Rebuffed again in 2009, 2010 and with PDC in 2012. The Staff Report clearly lays out this history, and the hundreds of residents opposition comments.
2. Non-approval of alcohol sales at ARCO is consistent with City Planning regulations, multiple City Planning staff recommendations and several prior Planning and Design Commission and ABC decisions. The community directly adjacent to ARCO continues to grow with houses, apartments, townhomes 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) strongly supports such continued denial. ROCA will never support such sales in this area of our community.
4. The ARCO driveway and adjacent undeveloped property have been repeated sites of homeless encampments, RVs and homeless cars. Sales of readily available alcohol will predictably exacerbate the situation. The Appeal applicant has stated during the Planning and Design Commission hearing that there have not been any problems on site with sales to minors or loitering. This is largely due to lack of alcohol sales there!
5. 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 however advocate for 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.
6. 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.
7. An earlier comment by one PDC 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 division between homeowners and apartment renters.
8. 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 and approved River Oaks Marketplace, has agreed to NOT sell alcohol, as long as the ARCO minimart continues to not be approved to sell. Obviously, that eventuality increases the community concerns. We applaud 7-11 for showing good corporate/community citizenship.
9. Saturation is an added issue for consideration. Every major intersection on W. El Camino Ave. , from El Centro Rd. to Northgate Blvd., has at least one alcohol dispensing location already.
There are an additional four (4) locations on Garden Highway to the rear of our community.
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 series of Staff Reports and Recommendations, wisdom of past PDC and ABC decisions, concerns of Natomas Unified School District and the majority wishes of the affected community.
We respectfully seek the support of the City Council in opposing this alcohol CUP Appeal 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 and protection of our students. Thank you.
NOTE: This letter was circulated as a petition to our community in the last few days, and signed copies were emailed to Mayor and Council today, as well as to Jose Quintanilla of the Planning Department.
To: Sacramento City Council
From:
Date:
RE: Appeal - ARCO Alcohol CUP, P20-012
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, nor past rulings by the ABC.
2. Non-approval of alcohol sales at ARCO is consistent with City Planning regulations, multiple City Planning staff recommendations and several prior Planning and Design Commission and ABC decisions. The community directly adjacent to ARCO continues to grow with houses, apartments, townhomes 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) strongly supports such continued denial.
4. The ARCO driveway and adjacent undeveloped property have been repeated sites of homeless encampments, RVs and homeless cars. Sales of readily available alcohol will predictably exacerbate the situation. The Appeal applicant has stated during the Planning and Design Commission hearing that there have not been any problems on site with sales to minors or loitering. This is largely due to lack of alcohol sales there!
5. Despite some comments, ROCA is not universally opposed to alcohol sales as evidenced by the existence of at least 6 locations within 1/2 mile where patrons can purchase or sit and enjoy alcohol. We do however advocate for 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.
6. 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.
7. An earlier comment by one PDC 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 division between homeowners and apartment renters.
8. Approving this ARCO CUP in actuality sets the stage for approval of alcohol sales at two (2) sites at the ir:ersection of W. El Camino Ave. and Orchard Lane. The 7-11 store, in the proposed and approved 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. We applaud 7-11 for showing good corporate/community citizenship.
9. Saturatic n is an added issue for consideration. Every major intersection on W. El Camino Ave. , from El Centro Rd. to Northgate Blvd., has at least one alcohol dispensing location already.
There are an additional four (4) locations on Garden Highway to the rear of our community.
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 series of Staff Reports and Recommendations, wisdom of past PDC and ABC decisions, concerns of Natomas Unified School District and the majority wishes of the community.
We respectfully seek the support of the City Council in opposing this alcohol CUP Appeal for all the above cited reasons. Do not alter the nature of our community and its design, or impact the efforts to main N
ai our quality of life and protection of our students. Thank you. I
WiZZ 34
1.-)Otiode-Ife rip11l-ecC.10 rd5
Qdo-f_cict&
1-4-(Al\A
- )i\A\16Cf
SOSGiViornoi n
2.-9eFb 1Kt6 A-VO,A5K-- \N(
3.?,) ofrnA s-e
e_ciUwA-
\<) , \ T,
I(t- i/A4 NEVI ru/37179)-)
eC2-2)P (,) 4'rU1
A 19 )010 co
fFG
Pot
perira.57- m Se -L-
z`io6. / (5E5 ei -7" 6611(9/(/( ►4-
Pte-,41
E /40.o/dg_5--
/ 30 5 oa (‘)-7-77-
-5 litp, w ik-CF\J LA'
tos - cy-A,1145e yet-v e,
Q\C'''\-t1 C.
/ U(6 Ivy cresi (,&) sQ, _C4 c --5,Le
5 3ro e LA 1)0D-r- —TA) vi')Y0
cts-s33
361 o0/- 14(2i,6ovi a, 50c il5-6233
\--\\-tyv\\e:iq setc '96e)-73Lf
35o .4\ c:
o V 15333
( e - /14<eiri( 4 /e./rr My/ (37de, a 9$33
3?9-7 ov_nqt.)c cis 1-33
di-ye (ro? Cte-vzi
te\i-t\ c\,% ti ,k Ave_ '14,g)
30) Pe 0h 1/76
3 41 f R I iP4- Fr ,W11) CA q15-5
3(C/ Lvf,
vti6 wu 5
(1\6;)1-)
row"— -----
cx c_ 3
\ArcP ?Ro ST -Thi-J-1 A IN) EA- L 0 K ifkivi/PM
S' ._ P- 41 co i-\c) L 0 N ? ,G_ MIS ES -r— - 1 C A 01 ( kl 0 \ -4- CDK0A-N .-D 50L', Dr
614.1), PV
S\-6 Ltk
"qcg-'‘.1" ql sL(kT5f. Sv`al - c0v/t-
attaw-Y : '2-2? _SAL
- iTgo 3 Jou I i;)51514 r/
ar(„k•L :1"4 517
gve) -t-Shoc(J Avc,
2C0 Skadt/iiv-k9ot-
Z—e573
to/a_ va.
.c.frI cw:r ■_e) tA) JR:j± e/i. i>(
YU 3 4-4- 4 CiV,a LC)1(1,‘,Tx -
Qc k 1G20 \,J R;Qer
Members of Sacramento City Counsel:
Regarding - No Alcohol Sales License to AP/PM CCUP, P20-012 ARCO AM/PM Loacated At 2701 Orchard Lane, Sacramento, CA 95833 My name is Sarah Bucknam, I live in Willowcreek and am a member of the River Oaks Community Association Patrol. My job is to patrol the perimeter of Two Rivers Elementary School and LeRoy Green School as children are leaving school.
I drive the area prior to school dismissal to check for any possible problems a child could encounter on their way home and during prick-up and walk-home time. Many elementary children as well as older LeRoy Green students walk the two blocks to the local neighborhood AM/PM mini mart and gas station for after school snacks. That in itself is a problem due to the many things they could and do encounter while walking to and from the store.
On one occasion I observed a male standing at the round-about at Orchard and West River at dismissal time, in the middle of at least 20 students leaving school. He was dirty, carrying many filled plastic bags, and wrapped in two blankets. I observed him throwing garbage in the street then spitting on it with children standing by watching. I asked him to please pick up his garbage and move on because there were many students watching him.
He asked me where a store was. I told him there was one on West El Camino. He angrily replied that if I was talking about AM/PM, those guys don't sell alcohol and I want alcohol!
There is empty space on the side and behind AM/PM where homeless continually try to set up camp, close to residences and both schools. Last week a vehicle and travel trailer, parked behind AM/PM, directly across the dirt path the school students use to go to AM/PM blocking them and making them walk close to his trailer or through the weeds.
When these campers leave they always leave garbage strewn about with empty alcohol bottles for students to walk through.
There was a camper who set up a tent in River Otter Park in our neighborhood where children play basketball regularly. I saw empty beer and wine bottles left behind where they had camped.
I have observed homeless individuals sitting in front of AM/PM with garbage around them. The students told me they ask them for their money.
I was called by a neighbor who observed a homeless woman throwing objects off the overpass onto Highway 80 traffic By the time I got there she was throwing objects at cars on West El Camino. I spoke with her and she then went into AM/PM. I spoke with the cashier about what the woman had just done, there were students in the store, I asked if he would call PD and have her removed, while I make sure students don't go near her.
She was extremely dirty and spoke with an obvious mental disability. AM/PM employees refused to have her removed. They said she was a customer. She then went across West El Camino and threw rocks at the windows of the building on the corner. It appeared she was trying to get in to set up a camp, she set up camp on the front porch or the home. It took 4 phone calls to CHP and 311 before Sac PD finally arrived and removed her.
On many occasions I have told the homeless to move on, and out of the neighborhood due to the proximity to the neighborhood schools. Instead they go directly to AM/PM.
We have so many problems with speeders in our neighborhood and many more on the freeways. AM/PM being so close to Highway 80 is an ideal location for drivers to stop for alcohol to drink while driving.
This store is very close to residences and two schools. We have continuous issues with homeless, home and vehicle burglaries and we all know that alcohol sales in our neighborhood will make these problems much, much worse.
This business owner agreed to run his business without seeking alcohol sales when his building permit was issues. No alcohol sales was a condition of approving the building permit and allowing a gas station to be on this corner. Please honor the agreement that the City made with the community and do not allow AM/PM to sell alcohol at this location Thank you
/ Sarah Bucknam
From: Melinda Bradbury
To: Jose Quintanilla; Z. Wayne Johnson
Cc: Mike Fluke; David Mansch; Dave and Lois Walker; Bridgette McFarland; John Shiels Subject: Re: ARCO CUP Appeal 1/25/2022
Date: Monday, January 24, 2022 9:20:26 PM
Dear Jose,
I did not sign the petition, but I also would like to add my name to the list and formally oppose granting the ARCO gas station any opportunity to sell alcohol at the West El Camino location for all of the reasons in ROCA's previously supplied letters.
Sincerely,
Melinda Dorin Bradbury
On Monday, January 24, 2022, 07:50:54 PM PST, Z. Wayne Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
Attached please find a recent quick petition showing part of the majority opposition by residents to the sale of alcohol at the ARCO gas station and Minimart. ROCA representing close to 2,000 homes remains adamantly opposed to this application for the reasons stated in our letters and this petition. Additionally, attached is the official ROCA letter, signed by me as President, which adds to comments made in the one attached to the petition. My eComment also includes an attachment of the petition.
We commend City Planning staff for the excellent and comprehensive Staff Report/Recommendation submitted with the item to City Council. Thank you for a job well done! Z
Z. Wayne Johnson
President, ROCA
[email protected]
916.475.3557
Sent from Mail
for Windows
From: Heather Fargo
To: Mayor Steinberg; Angelique Ashby; Sean Loloee; Jeff S. Harris; Katie Valenzuela; Jay Schenirer; Eric Guerra; Rick Jennings; Mai Vang
Cc: Z Wayne Johnson; Jose Quintanilla; Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Opposition to ARCO Alcohol sales appeal
Date: Friday, January 21, 2022 2:11:16 PM
Dear Mayor and Council members,
I am opposing the sale of alcohol at the W. El Camino and Orchard Arco gas station, and respectively ask you to deny the appeal. This is at least the third time I have written a letter like this, since originally denying the alcohol sales in 2005 when I was Mayor and the project was first approved. How many times should a community have to say “no”? There is no reason other than profit to support the appeal. Both your staff and Planning Commission recommend denial along with hundreds of Natomas residents who live nearby, and the Natomas Unified School District, who operates 2 schools within blocks. Those schools and the 3 nearby parks within one-half mile are valid reasons for denial.
Alcohol sales are already available at every major intersection on W. El Camino Ave., from El Centro Rd. to Northgate Blvd.
The project was approved without alcohol sales in 2005 and has operated successfully since. ABC has already reviewed and denied sales here in the past.
Please vote to deny this appeal for alcohol sales.
Thank you,
Heather Fargo
South Natomas resident and former Mayor