Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 SB343 Zoning Ord Amend 450-30 S B 343 Senate Bill 343 mandates supplemental materials that have been received by the City Clerk's office that relate to an agenda item after the agenda packets have been distributed to the City Council be available to the public. The attached document was received in the City Clerk's office after distribution of the October 4, 2011 City Council meeting agenda packet. 10-4-11 6.2 ~-5 0- 3~ Brad Sanders Dublin, CA 94568 September 30, 2011 Mayor Sbranti and City Council Members City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.40 (Accessory Structure and Uses Regulations) Dear Mayor Sbranti and Council Members: While Staff appears to be trying to work out a solution for the Sahara Market expansion, 'tt is taking many months of needless delays and expenses because of the arbitrary and capricious~decision by the Community Development Director on June 10, 2011. These delays can be crippling to a small business. The interpretation was based on a false assumption by the Director that no other market in Dublin has seating. (Please see Attachment 1). 1 The recently approved Zoning Amendments (Chapter 8.40 and Chapter 8.76) by the Planning Commission on August 23, 2011, is being promoted as making it easier for the market to expand. If the Director had ruled that the seating (without including food preparation areas) was an accessory use, as it is in all other full service markets in Dublin and in the country, there would have been no initial denial or need for new Qrdinances. Proposed Section 8.40.030.G (food preparation and seating areas) does NOT make it easier for Sahara Market to expand. I recommend that you do not pass Section 8.40.030.G with "food preparation areas" included. if passed, this new definition will lead to more confusion and ambiguity. For the first time, Dublin would be classifying part of a market as an Eating and Drinking Establishment ff the "food preparation areas and seating areas" exceeds 10% or more of the entire tenant space. ` I could not find any other city or agency in the country that uses the phrase, "food preparation areas and seating areas". It is a definition that was coined by the Development Director solely for Sahara Market. Staff has repeatedly refused to define "food preparation areas". It will bean arbitrary decision by Staff of what 1 a ~-/I constitutes a "food preparation area" and. hQw it is applied to different markets. It will lead to more ambiguity, not less; and will add more costs to plans. if Staff is incessant an developing accessary use standards that are mare stringent than most cities, then adopt an ordinance that can be equally and fiairiy enforced such as only counting the number of seats and eliminating flood preparation areas as .part of the definition. Please keep in mind that the 10°!0 limit is also a purely subjective percentage that is net a normally applied standard and has never been applied to a market or total commereia! use in Dublin. Furthermore, San Rafael and most ether cities allow up to 2~~1o as an accessory use while San Ramon classifies dating and drinking establishments as retail {same as a market) within a shopping center. Nate: Ranch 99 Market, perhaps. ether markets, exceeds.1 Q% under the new definition. The proposed Zr~ning Qrdinance Amendments are a response by Staff to justify the arbitrary and capricious interpretation ofi the Community Development Director, (t is not because ofi good planning fhat is flair and consistent ar needed. Sincerely yours,. Bard Sanriers On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Jeri Ram <ieri.Ram ,dublin.ca.gov> wrote: Brad -Please see my other email, that I sent about 5 minutes ago. It contains the information on what we measured. We do not have this issue in other markets in town as they do not have seating for consuming food on the premises; therefore, they are not a restaurant. Jeri Jeri Ram, Community Development Director City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 (9251833-6610 Note by Brad Sanders: Safeway, Sprouts, and Ranch 99 ail harre at least 20 to 50 seats. ATTACHMENT 1 '~'fir~~i ~ The present Dublin Municipal bode should be>interpreted to allow the proposed seating area as part of the market or as an accessory use, and use the market paring standard. Such an interpretation would not be precedent. setting. !n Dublin, this has already been allowed for Safeway, Sprouts and Ranch 99. Other retail stares in Dublin such as Target and Barnes & Nobly: have also been allowed food areas and seating as ancillaary use. The attached San Rafael staff report is an example cif a Bay Area city that interpreted its Municipal Code to allow a seating area, up tc~ 25°!~, in a food market and not. use the restaurant parking standard. i=urthermore, Staiff concluded-that ail sales ©f prepared foods are common and integral components of a market and are no different than the sale of groceries, Please see pages 5-6 for an analysis of market and ancillary use: The City of San Rafael Staff Report does a good jab of analyzing food service ~iithin a market. The City of San Rafael supports :our pt~sition on aricill~ry use {accessory . use} fc~r a market: Appropriately, Staff first analyzesldetermineslhe use, then determines what is an ancillary use based on a consistent standard that can be applied tc~ any business. Only when the use is determined, da they .proceed to ariaiyzefdetermine other issues such as parking, traffic, alcahc~l; and environmental, Please compare the difference in the analysis process and clarity of the Staff Reports between Dublin and San Rafael in the case of Sahara Market, Staff assumed, with no analysis -that the expansion was a restaurant. and then made if into a .parking issue. The Appellant, who was against the project because of potential competition, . was denied by a unanimous vote. Mer restaurant is now doing even better and the.market has been a huge hit. Please contact Appellant or Brad Sanders at full report and minutes.. Meeting Date: July 14, 2009 A enda Item: 9 Case Numbers: AP09-002 Community Development Department- Planning Divlslon P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 project Planner. Raffi Boloyan (415) 485-3095 PHONE: (415) 485-30851FAX: (415) 485-3184 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: 330 BeNam Blvd (Mi Pueblo Foods) -Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-014), Use Permit (UP09-015), Sign Permit (SR09-012) and Public Convenience of Necessity (PCN09-001) to allow: a) exterior modifications to the existing commercial building, including an alteration to the building entry, new colors and materials on the building and new wooden trellises and columns along front of building; b) outdoor dining area on the private sidewalk area in front of the structure; c) new building signs; and d) alcohol sales in the new grocery store; 009-280-06; General Commercial (GC) District; Ruth Donohugh, appellant, David Mena/Mena Architects, applicant; Simeon Commercial Properties, owner, File No AP09- 002 EXECUTIVE SUAAMARY On May 20, 2009, the Zoning Administrator conditionally approved planning applications for a new Mi Pueblo grocery store at 330 Bellam Blvd. The store proposes to occupy an existing building formerly occupied by Circuit City and includes a) plans for exterior architectural modifications to the existing commercial building; b) outdoor dining at the front of the store; and c) approval of a Public Convenience or Necessity for off sale liquor sales. This decision was subsequently appealed by an adjacent property/business owner. The appeal cites numerous issues including the dining and food service component of the grocery store not being an ancillary use to the grocery store, impacts from traffic intensfication, lack of parking on this site due to County Wellness Center operations on the adjacent properly, non-compliance with the parking standards, operational issues with deliveries, and no public convenience being served through the granting of another liquor license. The issues raised by the appellant were adequately reviewed and analyzed as part of the Zoning Administrator hearing. The grocery store use is a permitted use in the General Commercial (GC) District and, therefore the City has no authority to evaluate the establishment of this use at this location. The proposed parking complies with and exceeds the City's parking standards. Although traffic at this site would intensify, the traffic associated with a change in building tenancy and land use was planned, analyzed and incorporated into the EIR and General Plan 2020. As discussed and explained in the following report, staff recommends that the appeal points have no merit. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval of the project subject to conditions. PROPERTY FACTS Addressft_ocat3on: 330 Bellam Bivd Parcel Numbe s : 009-280-06 Pro a Slze: 172,465 ft 3.96 acres Nel hborhood: Canal REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: AP09-002 Page 2 Site Characteristics General Plan Desi nation Zonin Desl nation Existin Land-Use Pro ect Slte: General Commercial GC General Commercial GC Vacant retail buildin North: Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential Multi family townhomes MR3 South: Li ht tndustriaVOffice LI/10 Li ht IndustriaUOffice LI/IO Coun Wellness Center East: GCJLI/0 GCJLI/O Restaurant and vacant lots West: LIDO LI/0 Coun Wellness Center Site Description/Setting: The subject site is a flat lot that totals 3.96 acres (172,465 sq. ft) in size. The property is located near the southeast comer of the 6ellam and Kemer Boulevard intersection. The site is currently developed with an approximately 36,000 sq. ft. commercial building and 177 on-site parking spaces. Fifteen of the 177 parking spaces on this site are reserved by an easement far perpetual use of the adjacent property to the south, currently owned by County of Merin. The existing building is currently vacant and was last occupied by Circuit City. The site is surrounded by a variety of land uses with medium density residential townhomes to the north side across Bellam Blvd, a one story restaurant and vacant lots to the east (rear), a one story building hosting the County Wellness Center to the south side and a multi story structure for the County Wellness Clinic to the front (west). Primary access to the subject site is from a driveway on Bellam at the center of the site. Secondary access to the site is through a driveway at the rear of the site off Bellam and driveway off Kemer Blvd through the County property and into this site. The rear access off Bellam serves as the primary access to the loading docks at the rear of the building and also serves as an access easement for adjacent properties. BACKGROUND Background: In 1973, the property was originally created as part of the °Bahia de San Rafael Industrial Park,° a large light industrial park subdivision that created development lots along Bellam, Kemer and Francisco Blvd's. This Recorded Map (RM15-054) included a 40' sanitary sewer and drainage easement through the site from the southeast comer to the northwest comer and a 50-foot wide building setback easement along Bellam Blvd. In 1979, the subject property and the immediately adjacent property were re-subdivided again (PM016- 084) into their current form. This subdivision map included many of.the easement that currently exist on this site today, including a 40-foot wide roadway and utility easement along the rear (east) property line, a 40' sanitary sewer and drainage easement through the site from the southeast comer to the northwest comer and a 50-foot wide building setback easement along Bellam Blvd. In 1979, the Ciiy approved a 38,981 sq ft Handyman hardware store on the subject lot. In 1987, the Handyman store was converted to a Circuit City. The project included the removal of some of the existing building floor area and the addition of new floor area. The total floor area for the Circuit City was 35,708 sq. ft. In 2005, Seagate Canal Associates, LLC, the previous owner of the subject site (330 Bellam Blvd) granted Seagate SRBC Associates, LLC, the previous owner of the adjacent site to the south (3230- 32fi0 Kemer Blvd) a parking and access easement on their site. Although both properties are now owned by different entities (SimVest Real Estate, LLC owns subject site and County of Merin owns adjacent REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: AP09-002 Page 3 site), the easements are still in effect as they run with the land. This easement grants 15 of the 177 parking spaces on the subject site (located along the drainage ditch at the west side of the site) for use exclusive use by the adjacent property and grants pedestrian and vehicular access through the subject site to the adjacent site. All other previous easements recorded as part of the original subdivision also remain in effect. In 2008, the Circuit City use closed and the building has remained vacant since. Project History: March 3D. 2009. Formal applications submitted for Environmental and Design Review Permit, Sign Permit and Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN). Aaril 28. 2009. Project deemed incomplete far processing due to the need for additional information and the requirement that an application for Administrative Use Permit for outdoor dining be filed. An incompleteness letter was sent to the applicant. • May 1. 2009. Revised plans and materials submitted in response to the incompleteness letter. In addition, an application far an Administrative Use Permit was also filed to accompany the other previously flied applications far the proposed outdoor dining area. Mav 1.2009. Applications deemed complete for processing. May 1.2009. Applications scheduled for Zoning Administrator (ZA) hearing on May 19, 2009 and notices of said hearing were mailed to property owner, residents, businesses and neighborhood groups/associations within 300 feet of the site as well as persons who requested to be notified of this application. In addition, the site was posted with a public hearing notice board. Mav 19. 2009. The ZA hearing was conducted. The ZA explained the purpose and the necessity of the various planning permits and clarified the scope of the City's review and authority for these applications. During the hearing, the applicant, business operators and property owners presented the proposed project. The ZA then opened the public hearing and accepted comments from seven members of the public. The ZA posed questions of the applicant and property owner to obtain clarification on the project. The ZA alsa obtained responses to questions raised during the public hearing from the applicant, operator and property owner. Following closures of the public hearing, the ZA acted to continue the matter to May 20, 2009 to allow for the review and consideration of the numerous comments raised at the hearing. MaY 20. 2009. After review and consideration of the testimony presented at the May 19, 2009 hearing, the ZA rendered a decision on the project, approving the project with conditions. Notice of the decision, including transmittal of the meeting minutes and findings and conditions of approval were provided to the applicant and their team as well as the members of the public who requested such notice. A copy of the Zoning Administrator meeting minutes, from May 19 and 20~' are attached (Exhibit 3). The ZA also provided the appeal rights for which any aggrieved party could appeal the decision. The meeting minutes include the findings for the approval and the conditions of approval imposed on the project. June 8. 2009. The appeal was scheduled for June 23, 2009 Plannin~q Commission hearing. The appellant submitted an email to staff requesting a continuance to July 14 due to ongoing discussions with Mi Pueblo representatives. This request for continuance was granted and the item was scheduled for hearing on July 14"'. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: AP09-002 Page 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes to re-tenant an existing commercial building formerly used by Circuit City with a new grocery store. As part of the re-tenanting of the building, the applicant has proposed certain improvements to the building and site that require planning permits. ? An Environmental and Design Review Permit is required to evaluate the exterior modifications to the structure, including new architectural features, new entry tower design, new colors and materials as well as changes to the site to replace landscaping on the site and changes to the parking lot design to accommodate required accessible spaces; ? An Administrative Use Permit is required to allow the outdoor seatingldining in conjunction with the food service establishment; ? A Sign Permit is required to allow the preliminary sign design for wall and site signage; and ? Finding Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) in order to allow off-sale liquor license. A letter from Jeff Aldez of Mi Pueblo Foods providing background of the company and responses to the appeal points is attached (Exhibit 4a). Additionally, a letter from Mr. Aldez regarding their justrfication for the PCN is that was presented to the Zoning Administrator is also attached (Exhibit 4b). The complete project, including all the details, are provided in the project plans submitted for this project (distributed to Commission under separate cover). A summary of the project description is provided below. Use: The project proposes to reuse the existing commercial building formerly used by Circuit City as a new grocery store. The proposed grocery store would be a full service grocery store, with a specialty of Hispanic food and products. The proposed grocery store offers the sale of produce, frozen goads, meats, groceries, household products, prepared food and alcohol. The proposed grocery store would also contain a bakery, deli, bbq area, tortilleria and cremeria. The store is not proposed to operate past 11pm. The primary entrance to the store would remain at the center of the front of the building, with 9 checkout stands. The project would also include an indoor seating area (19 tablesR6 chairs) and an outdoor dining area (6 tables/18 chairs). The floor area dedicated to indoor dining totals 1,040 sq. ft, or approximately 3°1° of the 36,361 sq. ft store. Architecture: The proposed project would incorporate the following changes to the exterior of the structure: a) fagade renovations to all four sides of the structure to incorporate new building material and colors; b) redesign of the building entry; c) incorporation of new building materials and colors; and d) addition of trellis, columns, and pergolas along the front of the structure. In addition, the project would remove 440 sq. ft of enGosed entry area under the current entry tower and move the doors to the main building wall. Lastly, the project proposes the addition of an enGosed, 440 sq. ft. barbeque area at the front of the building. Site Improvements! Landscaping: Site improvements are proposed to include enhancement and replanting of existing landscaped areas, creation of new outdoor dining/seating area at the front of the store, and modifications to the parking lot to provide required accessible (ADA) spaces. ANALYSIS Appeal Issues: Nlhthin the statutory appeal period, an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's action was filed along with the required filing fee. The appellant, Ruth Donohugh owner of the adjacent Picante Restaurant, submitted a letter dated May 25, 2009, which is attached (Exhibit S). The appeal letter cites numerous points of appeal. In addition, the appellant submitted afollow-up letter dated July 8, 2009. Given that this follow-up REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: AP09-002 Page S letter from the appellant was submitted after the staff report had been prepared, the points have not been addressed in this report. The points of appeal remain the original points raised in the May 25"' letter. Below in bold italics are all of the appeal points presented in the May 25'" letter followed by a staff response: 1. The overall restaurant portion of this grocery store is not ancillary. It is not a grocery store (per se) as it dedicates a substantial portion of it's square footage to a commercial restaurant kitchen, bakery/cafe, ice cream/shaved ice/juice bar and rotisserie chicken restaurant operation with an interior dining room of 19 tables and exterior dining area of 6 tables. Staff Response: The subject property is located in the GC Zoning District. In the GC District, both grocery stores and restaurants are pemnitted land uses; these types of uses are allowed to be established and to operate in the District without the need to secure a Use Permit. However, in this particular case, the Toad service portion of the use was not determined to be a separate use, but rather an ancillary use to the main use of the building, a grocery store. The Zoning Ordinance does not include a definition of ancillary, therefore, planning staff has historically used its professional judgment to evaluate whether a use contained as part of a business is ancillary or not. Through past practice, the general threshold to define whether a use is ancillary to a primary use is determined through the following factors: ? Whether the floor area dedicated to the use is less than 25% of the total area; ? Whether the amount of business, revenue or activity generated by the use is less than 25% of the main use; and ? Whether the hours of operation and intensity of operation is similar to the primary use. ? Whether the uses are composed in separate and demised tenant spaces. As an example, most retail establishments include a sales floor or showroom, office space for store management, backroom storage and ancillary other uses within their tenant space. The City does not count these various components as separate and primary uses, but, rather, considers them a retail use as a whole with ancillary office and storage. Office and storage space in a retail business are common uses and as long as they are not stand alone offices for a different business, are not situated in a separate tenant space, do not compromise more than 25% of the floor area or activity of the retail use, they are considered an ancillary use. In reviewing this proposed grocery store use, staff has determined that the dining component comprises less than 25% of the floor area of the grocery store use (approximately 3% of the total floor area). Furthermore, the retail sales of prepared foods, deli, bakery. etc., are common and integral components of nearly all large, full service grocery stores. Being that the prepared food, deli, bakery, jufcery, etc are no different than the retail safes of groceries or other household products, that only leaves the dining area as an area that could even possibly be considered as a restaurant. Given the size of the dining area compared to the total floor area (approximately 3%) and the anticipated revenues from on site dining, staff concluded that the indoor seating/dining portion of the business as a minor, or ancillary, component of the business. Furthermore, the proposed Mi Pueblo grocery store is typical of most large, full service grocery stores found in the -City, County and other parts of the country. Many newer full service grocery stores include a deli, coffee shop, bakery, prepared foods counter and kitchen and other food preparation areas. The intensity of the various components of food service contained in this proposed Mi Pueblo are not atypical to other grocery stores in the community, such as Whole Foods (Third St), both Safeway's (Downtown and Northgate One), Scotty's Market (Terra Linda), or Andy's Market (Loch Lomond). Furthermore, several of these markets include both indoor and outdoor seating. Given the REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: AP09-002 Page 8 size of the building and use, the amount of food preparation area contained in this use is typical of other grocery stores in this community. Therefore, the proposed Mi Pueblo use is considered a grocery store with ancillary food service. Being that the primary use of the building is a grocery stare, staff does not consider ancillary uses as separate uses in terms of calculating parking or other zoning-related requirements. 2. The interior dining room measures 2,404 sq ft and the outdoor seating area of 600 sq. ff. DOES constitute more than 25% of the interior dining room which is not consistent with the requirements of an administrative use permit as stated by the ZA. Staff Response: Section 14.17.110 of the Zoning Ordinance prescribes the performance standards for outdoor dining areas. A copy of the pertonnance standards for outdoor dining are attached (Exhibit 6). The particular section relating to the size limit of outdoor dining area is contained in subsection C.3 of this chapter and states "The proposed area for outdoor eating shall not exceed twenty-frve percent (253b) of the indoor seating area." In applying this standard to this use, as well as other outdoor dining uses that have been processed and approved throughout the City, staff has used the number of chairs as the measurement of area for determining the size limit of the outdoor dining. to this particular case, the grocery store proposes 76 chairs inside and i 8 chairs outside, resulting in outdoor seating that is 24% of the indoor capacity. Even if staff were to evaluate the appellants claim that the floor area of the indoor seating should be measured to establish outdoor seating, staff has calculated a the floor area of the indoor seating by creating a rectangular box around the outermost area of the indoor seating, resulting in an area of 1,040 sq. ft (26 feet in depth and 40 feet in width). Staff is unsure as to how the appellant has measured 600 sq ft for the area of outdoor dining. According to staffs calculations, the proposed outdoor area would total 266 sq ft, or 25% (14 feet in depth by 19 feet in width) of the indoor seating area. However, as indicated above, the floor area has not been staffs past practice for measurement of the intensity of floor area and has been provided for illustrative purposes only. 3. Review of ail of the major grocery stores In Morin that have seating for dining on site was performed what is considered ancillary food service for grocery store and the proposed number of tab/es/seats at the proposed M! Pueblo are grossly In excess of the norm. Staff Response: The applicant has provided tabulation of the number of seats and tables at other grocery stores in the City and County. Staff has not investigated all of the other examples cited in the appeal letter to verify the assertions made by the appellant. As discussed above in the response to appeal paints 1 and 2, it is staffs determination that the proposed operation and activities, including the amount of indoor dining are consistent and typical of other grocery store uses that have prepared food service and associated dining. 4. Part of the parking that is proposed for use Is under lease with the new Health and Wellness Clinic and the parking on the Circuit City site and the clinic site arse not adequate for al! the clinic and the proposed Mi Pueblo. Staff Response: As illustrated on sheet P101 of the project plans, currently there are a total of 177 parking spaces on this subject property. Pursuant to a Grant of Easement dated March 16, 2005 between the subject site (330 Bellamy and the adjoining property (currently owned by the County of Morin), 15 of the 177 parking spaces on the subject site (loco#ed along the drainage:ditch at the west side of the site) are granted in perpetuity to the adjoining property owner. In addition, this easement also grants access REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: AP09-002 .Page 7 and egress rights to the adjacent property across the parking lot access these spaces. Therefore, 162 spaces are provided on the subject site for use by the existing vacant commercial building. A copy of this easement is attached {Exhibit 7). The property owner has indicated that they have temporarily leased an additional three rows of parking from their site to the County during the time while the building is vacant (January 2009 until approximately August 2009). This temporary lease agreement is month-to-month and will be terminated prior to occupancy by the new tenant. In evaluating the adequacy of the on-site parking, the City is required to evaluate the parking demand of the proposed use and whether it provides on-site parking as required by the Chapter 18 of the Zoning Ordinance (Parking). The City is not able to apply arbitrary parking requirements based on assumed or anticipated use of a building. The parking rates are established by City Ordinance which originate from the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) and are based on nationwide averages of the parking demands of different uses. In this particular case, the primary use of the building is a grocery store and the Zoning Ordinance includes a parking requirement for grocery stores of 1 space for every 250 sq feet of gross floor area. The existing building is 35,931 in size, plus a 440 sq ft enclosed entry area under the entry tower, for a total of 36,371 sq. ft. As part of the project, the applicant has proposed to remove the floor area from under entry tower and move the doors inward, thus eliminating 440 sq. ft. of floor area. In addition, the applicant has proposed to add an enclosed 440 sq. ft. indoor bbq area at the front. Therefore, there is no net change in the floor area of the existing building. In applying the parking rates established by the City's Zoning Ordinance, the 36,371 sq. ft. building requires the provision of 145 on-site parking spaces. Given that the proposed project provides 162 spaces (not including the15 granted in perpetuity to the County through the grant of easement), the project provides 17 more spaces than that required by the City's Zoning Ordinance. in conclusion, the project is consistent with the parking requirements. Staff has gone so far as provide a hypothetical analysis to the appellant of the project's compliance with the parking standards if the dining area were to be considered a separate, non-ancillary use. Under this hypothetical exercise, the Zoning Ordinance requires 1 space for every 50 sq ft of dining area in a restaurant. The food service, kitchen, food preparation areas and back rooms of restaurants are not counted in the parking calculation. Based an an indoor dining area of 1,040 sq. ft, the parking requirement for that area would be 21 spaces (1,040 sq ft/50 sq ft). The parking requirement for that same area if it were considered as part of the grocery store would be 4 spaces (1,040 sq. ft/250 sq ft). This would result in a net increase in the parking requirement of 17 spaces. Please note that in accordance with the performance standards for outdoor dining, outdoor dining areas that meet the performance standards are not required to provide any additional parking than that required for the indoor dining, given that they are considered to be seasonal in use. As previously mentioned, the site contains 162 parking spaces, 17 more than that required for the grocery store use, therefore even if the dining area were to be counted separately in terms of parking, the site provides on-site parking consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. However, staff would like to stress that this hvpothetical exercise is not how the narking requirements have been or are typically or practically aaalied to ancillary uses. 5. The ZA states that there are 162 parking spaces on site. The plan actually shows 160 dedicated to the project with 75 and a resMping to make 77 dedicated to the Clinic. Additionally, there are on file differing and conflfcting square footage totals ascribed to the same building. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: AP09-002 Page 8 Staff Response: Regarding the parking. see response to appeal point #4 above. As for differing floor area calculations, it is not uncommon for there to be differing floor area calculations in City files for a particular building. There are many nuances to calculating floor area and over the years, they may have been calculated slightly differently, i.e. measuring from outside of walls vs. inside of walls. Furthermore, given the increases in technology and the now common application of computer aided drafting, floor area calculations have become more precise and accurate throughout the years. The applicant has demonstrated on the project plans both the existing and proposed floor area. Although the plans do not identify the existing enclosed entry area as existing floor area, the City's definition of floor area would count that space as floor area (floor area is defined as gross total of all enclosed building space, excluding parking garages). A review of the planning files reveals that, at the time of the Design Review Permit for the renovation of the commercial building into Circuit City, the square footage of the building was identified as 35,700. The building pemnit issued for that project identified the floor area as 36,000 sq. ft. Planning calculations of floor area do not include walls like the Uniform Building Code calculations for floor area. Although there may be a difference of square footage, the difference is negligible and is attributed to different methods of calculation. Regardless, there has not been any construction of floor area without the benefd of city permits and all the existing space is considered legal. Given that there are no illegal additions of floor area or expansions to the building and the building satisfies the City's parking and floor area ratio requirements, this point is moot. 6. The conditions created by the Loop conf/guration and the new clinics warrant an updated traffic study as the underlying conditions have changed under which Circuit City was originally permitted to operate under the City's Zoning Ordinance.. The ZA's report did agree thaf traffic would intensify with Mi Pueblo. Staff Response: The City's Zoning Ordinance prescribes uses that are permitted or conditionally permitted in the varying zoning districts within the City. As previously mentioned, grocery stores are considered to be permitted uses in the GC Zoning District. Therefore, no Use Permit is required. If this retenanting did not propose any exterior modifications, outdoor dining or liquor off sale, then there would be no discretionary planning permits and no public notice. The project would only need to obtain a ministerial building permit and could begin its operation. Furthermore, in adopting the City's General Plan 2020 and the Zoning Ordinance, traffic analysis was prepared for the entire City to account for all the existing buildings and their potential to be occupied or reoccupied by the wide range of permitted and conditionally permitted uses. Therefore, the traffic associated with the retenanting of exiting buildings with permitted uses was wnsidered, analyzed, evaluated and incorporated as part of the City's baseline traffic conditions. Staff notes that if this was a vacant site and a new building was proposed or if the project proposed an addition of net new floor area to the existing building, the traffic associated with that additional floor area would be need to be evaluated in the City's traffic model to evaluate the potential impacts that it could have on the City's roadway system, and would require a traffic analysis and traffic mitigation fees. However, that is not the case for this application as the project only proposes the reuse of an existing commercial building with a permitted use with no additional new floor area. The appellant is correct in the statement that the reuse would generate more traffic than historical levels of Circuit City. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the project and identified the change in use to a grocery store would result in the generation of between 83 and 108 new A.M. peak hour trips and 226 to 308 new P.M. peak hour trips. However, as discussed above, the proposed grocery store use is a permitted use in the GC District and as part of the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan 2020 (adopted in 2004), the traffic generation from the wide range of allowable uses REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: AP09-002 Page 9 permitted in the GC District were incorporated into the traffic analysis prepared for the General Plan 2020 EIR as existing baseline conditions and has been accounted in the traffic system. T. The loading dock in the back of Circuit City is not one of the princfpal entrances to the new c/infcs. With deliveries to the grocery store occurring in this loading docks it Is Inconceivable all of the delivery trucks are proposed to ex/t via the main entrance to the clinics (onto Kerner Blvd) with two patient crosswalks and handicapped access. !f the delivery trucks exit the site via 6ellam 61vd it sis a one lane street and then they would have to make a U-tum in front of all the residences and there 1s not room to do that No provision has been made for delivery trucks for this project as the one lane street configuration abuts residential area. Staff Response: Grocery store uses are permitted uses, therefore, the City does not have the ability to regulate any component of the proposed use or operations. For uses that are conditionally permitted in a zone, a Use Permit would be required for that use before it could begin its operation and as part of the use permit, use-related issues could 6e subject to review and conditions of approval could be required. if the project involved major changes to the site plan, this would be reviewed as part of the Design Review Permit. However, as proposed, there are no major changes proposed to the site plan or the loading area and therefore the existing conditions would remain. Regardless, staff has still reviewed and considered this issue as part of the ZA hearing and concluded that there would be no conflict. Both the former Circuit City and previous hardware store conducted their loading and unloading at the rear of the building. That is the designated area on this property for loadinglunloading to occur. Although the grocery store use may have more daily deliveries than the previous uses, there is a dedicated loading dock area at the rear of the building that does not impede with the wide vehicular pathway along the rear properly line. Furthermore, many of the vehicles that deliver to grocery stores are small trucks or vans,. rather than all large trucks, which is typical of grocery stores except for large chain stores such as Safeway. Regardless, there is ample tuming area on the site to allow delivery vehicles to adequately maneuver on the site and exit from three different points from the site {two onto Bellam Blvd and one onto Kemer Blvd). This site has better loadinglunloading facilities and tuming opportunities than many of the existing sites in San Rafael. The City is not in a position to monitor the driving habits of delivery drivers and assumes that those persons delivering to the site will use caution while entering or exiting the site. These conoems with loading and unloading were heard by the applicant during the ZA hearing and they indicated a willingness to work with the appellant or any other interested parties to address any concerns. Regardless though, the City does not have the Use Permit authority to evaluate or condition the loading operations of a permitted use. 8. How can the Fine Department station on Castro Street respond to emergencies when the only way In an out is on Bellam and b/g trucks block the clinic entrance. Staff Response: Staff consulted with the Deputy Fire Marshall to review this issue. The Fire Prevention Division did identify a similar concern since the rear driveway is signed and used by the County Health Clinic as a means to access their site {through a recorded easement}. This driveway also serves as one of the fire lanes on the site. However, given that the City does not have Use Permit control, there are no changes to the location or design of the loading dock and this loading dock is part of the approved building, the City cannot condition or regulate the use. Furthermore, the plans as presented illustrate a code compliant roadway and ample room for loading trucks to perform their deliveries without impacting the fire access/lanes. It remains upon the business operator to monitor the loading area and ensure that deliveries are performed without blocking access to the driveway. Regardless, the City does still maintain enforcement power through Code Enforcement if the fire lane is blocked and REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: AP09-002 Page 10 can cite the business owner is proper fire access is not maintained. Furthermore, if the roadway is blocked, the easement holder also maintains enforcement rights to preserve access to their site. It should also be noted that the rear driveway is not the only way in and out to this site nor the only way in and out of the adjacent County Wellness center. There are multiple entrance/exits into this site, two from Bellam, one from Kerner. In addition, there are numerous secondary means of access into this site and the adjacent County wellness clinic site from the alleys and roadways behind the properties on Kerner (Madera St}. Therefore, the plans as presented would not impact emergency vehicle access and provide numerous other primary or alternate means for access to the site. 9. There is no need for finding of public convenience or necessity to allow off sale liquor sales. A cursory review of Alcohol and Beverage Control records show disciplinary actions against other Mi Pueblo operations. This warrants an investigation by someone who understands the sections violated, disciplinary actions and suspensiansJ/iquor license cancellation history of the M! Pueblo chain of store. Furthermore, the PCN should be denied due to the high density of existing liquor sales, existing neighborhood crimes associated with alcohol and proximity of the adJaceni residential area. Staff Resoonse: The project proposes to sell alcohol for off-sale purposes, meaning that liquor and beer would be sold from this site, but not consumed on this site. This type of sale is extremely common and found in most full service grocery store in San Rafael, the county and other parts of the State. As part of the appeal, the applicant has submitted copies of disciplinary actions by the State Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) against other Mi Pueblo facilities in the Bay Area. The appellant's claim that these issues warrant an investigation by someone who understands the violation, disciplinary actions and suspension history of Mi Pueblo. In response, prior to the ZA hearing and following the filing of the appeal, staff consulted with the State Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control {ABC), the agency that is empowered by State law to conduct such a review and make those decisions and staff offers the following response: a) Based on state law, ABC is the agency charged with issuing liquor licenses. ABC regulations are related to licenses for alcohol sales at a snecfic address or site. ABC has indicated that violations are specific to particular location and they do not have the authority to deny an application for a license at a particular location based on violations at another location. b) ABC did indicate that if one of the officers of an entity (corporation) applying for a license has certain types of felony offenses or is currently in prison, then ABC can deny a license for a new location since the officer of the corporation is in violation. c) As of late June, ABC concluded its review of the application for a liquor license at this location. The notice of the pending license application was noticed by ABC to residents within 500 feet of this site and advertised in the local newspaper. As prescribed by State law relating to liquor license applications, ABC does not notice other commercial business, just residents. The ABC officer processing this application stated that their review of the officers of the corporation revealed that none of the officers of the Mi Pueblo entity have any felony convictions or are currently in jail. Furthermore, the ABC officer informed staff that the liquor license for the proposed Mi Pueblo is ready to be issued subject to City's approval of a Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) and the opening of the business. In terms of the City's scope and role in the review of liquor licenses, ABC is the agency that has the authority to issue licenses. In certain circumstances, ABC will not issue a new license unless the local government body {city or county) first grants a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN). The PCN is required when ABC determines that there is an undue concentration of such licenses based upon county wide averages in the census tract in which the proposed license would REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: AP09-002 Page 11 be located. The San Rafael City Council has adopted Resolution No.10299 to govern the procedures for the City's review and criteria for determination of whether such license would provide a public convenience ar necessity. A copy of the resolution is attached (Exhibit 8). In summary, there are seven criteria for determining whether the public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance of an off-sale retail liquor license, including: a}. Whether fhe issuance of the license involves an existing business with a license which is being transferred to a new location and which will not result in a increase in the total number of off-sale license; b). Whefher fhe business by reason of ifs location, character manner or method or operation, merchandise or potentla! clientele will serve a segment of the City's business or residents not pmsently being service c). Whether the business will be located within 9,000 feet of incompafible facility, such as public or private schools, day care enters, churches, parking, homeless shelters and alcohol rehabilitation centers and facilities designed and operated to serve minors, d). Whether the location of the license will be in a crime data area which has 20% greater number of reported crimes Phan the average number of reported crimes for al! rime date area n the Cify over the previous year e). Whether the issuance of the license involves an existing business which has been located at a site which has had three or more reported crimes defined in #4 above; t). Whether the issuance of the license will promote the goals and policies of fhe City's General Plan,; g). Whether any other information supplied by fhe applicant or other competent evidence shows that public convenience will be served by the issuance of a license. The ZA reviewed the request for a PCN and found that the request was consistent with the above criteria. The ZA findings granting the PCN are included as part of the findings contained in the ZA meeting minutes (Exhibit 3). As part of the public hearing process, the ZA found that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that issuance of a PCN to allow liquor sales at this grocery store would provide a convenience to the shoppers of this facility given that the opportunity to buy liquor would in conjunction with typical shopping for purchase of groceries, household products produce, meats and other supplies typically found at other full service grocery stores. Off-sale of beer, wine and hard alcohol is a common component of nearly all full service grocery stores in this City; as well as in other communities throughout the state. In addition, given the operational plan and amount of area dedicated to liquor sales, the liquor sales are expected to make up less than 4% of the overall sales from the store, a minor portion of the merchandise sales. Lastly, the Police Department has reviewed the proposed application for a PCN, including the crime slats in this area of the City, and the business plan for the liquor and alcohol sales, and recommends that approval of the PCN is warranted and there are no issues. Police Department staff stated that they do not have many issues with the other large full scale grocery stores that conduct off sale of beer, wine or liquor. Most of their issues with liquor sates are a result of the liquor stores or smaller grocery stores in the City. A copy of Mi Pueblo's justification of why their use would serve a public convenience is attached (Exhibit 4b). Based on these facts, the PCN was granted for the Mi Pueblo store. T 0. Although the neighborhood has asked for a market for many years, there have been 8 small to medium sine markets that have opened up within a square mile, most of whom sell alcohol. Staff Response: The appellant is correct that there has been a long standing desire in the Canal neighborhood for a full service grocery store. Many Canal residents have lobbied the City for a full service, large grocery store in the east San Rafael area since the closest full-service grocery store is nearly 2 miles REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: AP09-002 Page 12 (Safeway in Downtown, United Market, Trader Joe's, Andy's Market and Whole Foods in Central San Rafael). Furthermore, a full service grocery store in the East San Rafael area was one of the needed neighborhood serving uses identified by the City Council for the City's Project Selection Process (PSP). Staff understands the concern expressed by other small businesses, especially small markets, on the potential impacts of this use on their businesses. Staff is not dismissing or ignoring this potential impact on other small businesses; however, competition is not an issue that the City has an ability to evaluate or regulate as part of this process. The City only establishes allowable land uses in various Zoning districts and evaluates potential impacts from conditionally permitted uses; the free market controls to regulates the success or various businesses. The Zoning Ordinance allows grocery stores by right in this Zoning District. Further, there are no City regulatory limits or policies limiting the number of grocery stores in any one area. In this particular case~the scone of the Citv's review is that of the exterior design modfications. compliance of the outdoor dining with the city's performance standards. warrants of whether another liquor license in the area would serve a public convenience or necessity and preliminary sign design. The issue regarding whether another liquor license should be granted for this use was previously discussed in appeal point #9 above. T 7. The proposed project should not be exempt from Environmental Review because the actual nature of their business model is not a true, tradiNonai grocery store and constitutes a new use. The intensecation of both parking and trafl7c are detrimental to the environment. Staff Response: The rationale and analysis for which this project qualifies as categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are provided in the Environmental Detemlination section below. As discussed throughout this report, the proposed use is not a new type of use and has been determined to be a grocery store. similar to other grocery stores in the City and County in terms of the types of products sold and intensity of use. Furthermore, even if this was a new use is not grounds or justification for warranting environmental review under the provisions of CE(~AA. This project qualifies for an exemption from the requirements of CEQA under Section 15301 (Existing facilities), as discussed below. Lastly, the proposed use is a permitted use in the GC District and provides more parking that that required by the City's Zoning Ordinance for this type of use. Given that the grocery store use is a permitted use and there is no expansion of floor area, the traffic intensfcation or de-intensification associated with all retenanting of existing building by permitted and conditionally permitted uses were incorporated, evaluated and analyzed as part of the environmental review conducted as part of the adoption of the City's General Plan 2020. San Rafael General Plan 2020 Consistency: There are a few and pertinent General Plan policies that are applicable to this project. As part of the ZA review and action, it was determined that the project is consistent with these policies. Land Use Element - LU-15 (Convenience Shopaina) This policy states "encourage the retention and improvement of existing retail stores and services in residential neighborhoods that provide needed neighborhood services and reduce trellic.° This project would place a full service grocery store adjacent from a high density residential area. Given that there are no large full service grocery stores within 2 miles of the canal, this would place a needed service near residents. Land Use Element - LU-23 (Land Use Ma~and Categories) REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: AP09-002 Page 13 The site is designated a general commercial which allows general retail and service uses, restaurants, automotive saleslservice and hotelslmotels. Neighborhood Element - NH-49 (Conflicting Uses) This policy states °prsvent the encroachment of new residential development into the Light IndustriaUOffice District to minimize conflicts. Businesses locating adjacent to residenfial areas shall be designed to minimize nuisance impacts." This new business would place a new grocery store across the street from residential uses. The subject site is a commercially zones property that allows grocery stores by right, therefore through the development of the zoning ordinance it has been determined that grocery store uses would be appropriate for the area. Furthermore, the proposed use would not operate outside of typical hours of typical grocery stores. Neighborhood Element - NH-52 (New Business Development) This policy states °enevurage and give priority to new business development that benefits the neighborhood through provision of needed services, low traffic impacts, or employment of a high percentage of neighborhood residents. Encourage opportunities for loco! residents to own and operate businesses.° As previously discussed, the Canal neighbofiood has expressed a long standing desire for a full service grocery store in the Canal. Although there are many smaller neighbofiood or specialty markets in the area, there is no large full scale grocery store. Furthermore, through the public hearing process, staff has received over 50 calls from residents in the Canal seeking employment at this facility. The operator of the grocery store has stated that their other facilities include large portions of the employees that reside in the same neighbofiood as their stores. Zoning Ordinance Consistency: The ZA determined that the project is consistent with all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as in various sections above and expanded on below. Chapter 14.05 -Commercial Districts The proposed use is a permitted use in the GC District and therefore, not use Permit is required for the proposed use. The modifications to the structure would comply with all development standards for the GC District, including setbacks, height, lot coverage and landscaping requirements. Chapter 14.17 -Performance Standards The project as designed. is consistent with the performance standards for outdoor dining/seating areas as it would be temporary/seasonal, does not exceed 25% of the seating/dining area of the inside, is pat pemlanently covered and uses movab{e seatinglfixtures. The Administrative Use Permit was approved with certain conditions of approval that require continued compliance with the performance standards for outdoor dining/seating, adequate lighting levels for safety purposes for the outdoor area, confirmation that no on site alcoholic beverages would be consumed, required trash Geanup, prevention of solid screening in front of the seating area to allow visibility into the area from the parking lot, and confirmation that the outdoor seating would only operate in conjunction with the grocery store use and hours or operation. Chapter 14.18 -Parking The proposed use would provide 162 parking spaces, more parking than the 145 spaces required by the Chapter 14.18 of City's Zoning Ordinance. The amount of compact parking spaces contained in the parking lot does not exceed the 30% maximum prescribed by the Ordinance. Staff does note that as part of the ZA process, a provision for bicycle parking was inadvertently left out of the conditions of approval was the requirement for bicycle parking. Chapter 14.18.090 requires retail uses provide bicycle parking equal to 3% of the total vehicle spaces. Therefore, four bicycle parking spaces should be required. Staff has included this requirement for four REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: AP09-002 Page 14 bicycle spaces in the draft conditions of approval. (Design Review Permit Condition of Approval #24 and 44) Chanter 14.25 -Environmental and Design Review Permits The project was n:viewed for conformance with the design review criteria contained in this chapter and was determined that the project would comply with those standards given that that the exterior modifications that are proposed would: a) upgrade to the existing building design and would create a design scheme for the entire building; b) provide accent features and visual interest to break up the large expanses of walls; c) address and upgrade all four sides of the existing building; d) use high quality materials for the construction of the exterior modifications; e) add visual relief and interest to the main entry and front fagade of the building through the addition of pergolas, file wainscoting and columns; f) improve landscaping at the main entry to the building and reestablish areas of failed landscaping; g) provide defined walkways and pedestrian entryways to the site to create a pedestrian friendly design from Bellam Blvd and encourage more pedestrian activity to the site; h) incorporate the proposed ancillary outdoor seating/dining area into the existing site without reducing existing on-site parking area; and i) improve the sense of entry to the building through the redesign of the building entry and addition of design features to the front of the structure. The ZA imposed certain conditions of approval on the Design Review permit. Most of the conditions are standard conditions of approval, but there are a few unique conditions to this proposal, including the need to add an architectural element to screen and cover the proposed vending machines at the front of the building (Design Review conditions #18-20}. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION The Environmental and Design Review Permit chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 14.25) does not require Design Review Board review of an administrative-level Environmental and Design Review Permit. The City processes many administrative-level Design Review Permits and most of these are administered at staff level. The Zoning Ordinance provide the opportunity and ability for staff to refer these administrative level permits to the Design Review Board for review and recommendation, if there are any substantial design issues or questions about a proposed design. However, in this case staff determined that the proposed modfications to the structure were well designed and consistent with City design policies and the appeal points did not raise any design related issues. Therefore, staff found no need to refer this matter to the Design Review Board. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Qualit}r Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts additions to existing structures less than 10,000 square feet on sites where all public services and facilfies are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and in that are not environmentally sensitive. This exemption was found to be acceptable given that: a) the proposed project involves the retenanting of an existing commercial structure with a use that is permitted in the zoning District; b) the exterior modifications would not result in an increase in floor area, the project proposes minor exterior modfications to building materials and colors and site and landscaping improvements that do not change the mass or bulk of the existing building and the site is located on a completely developed and graded lot and there are no known sensitive environmental factors located on this site. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING /CORRESPONDENCE Notice of hearing for the project'was conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: AP09-002 Page 15 occupants within a 300-foot radius of the subject site and the Baypoint Lagoons HOA, Rafael Bay Townhomes HOA, Spinnaker Pt HOA, Canal Alliance and Canal Area Property & Business Owners Association, and all other interested parties who requested to be notices of this hearing, 15 calendar days prior to the date of the Zoning Administrator hearing and this Planning Commission hearing. Public notice was also posted on the subject site 15 calendar days prior to the date of all meetings, including this hearing (Exhibit 9). Copies of all written public correspondence on the proposed project received prior to the Zoning Administrator hearing are attached to this report as Exhibit 10. !n addition, there were oral comments provided to the Zoning Administrator during the public hearing. There were four comments in opposition to the project, two comments with questions about the project and one comment in favor of the project, These comments are contained as part of the attached Zoning Administrator minutes (Exhibit 3). In summary, the public comments received to date on this project include the following: ? Traffic intensification from the proposed change in use ? Impacts of the new grocery store on other smaller grocery store in the area ? The proposed use being more of a restaurant/foad service use than a grocery store ? Lack of parking on the site to support the new use ? Existing lack of parking and traffic impacts an this site from the adjacent county health campus ? Potential for delivery truck to impede traffic for the county health center ? Unacceptable condition of the existing Bellam Blvd roadway and medians. ? Lack of pedestrian friendly features in the area Aside from the appeal letter, there have been a 11 new pieces of written conrespondence since the appeal was filed and copies are attached (Exhibit 11) D Four letters express support for the project citing the stores green practices and the benefit of a supermarket in the area. One of the letters is ftom the County of Marin, which owns seven buildings adjacent to this site that are used as the County Health and Campus and the Marin Community Clinic. This letter cites that the County has support for the new use and cites that parking in the area is adequate for their patrons and employees. The letter does cite concern that the rear access easement that provides access to their facility remain unobstructed. ? Seven letters are from nearby residents and advocacy groups and express issues with the project, including traffic, impact on small businesses, odor ftom outdoor barbequing, oversaturation of alcohol sales in the area, crime and security issues, and loitering. OPTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator approval {staff nrcommendation); 2. Deny the appeal and uphold Zoning Administrator's approval with modifications, changes or additional conditions of approval; 3. Continue the appeal to allow the applicant or staff to address any of the Commission's comments or concerns; or 4. Grant the appeal and direct staff to return with a revised resolution granting the appeal and denying the project. EXHIBITS 1. Vcinity/Location Map 2. Draft Resolution denying appeal and upholding Zoning Administrator's conditional approval REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: AP08-002 Page 16 3. Zoning Administrator Meeting Minutes, with findings and conditions of approval, May 19 and 20, 2009 4. Correspondence from Applicant a. Letter from Jeff Aldaz of Mi Pueblo foods Re: Response to Appeal, July 6, 2009 b. Letter from Jeff Aldaz of Mi Pueblo Foods, April 16, 2009 5. Con-espondence from Appellant • a. Letter of Appeal from Ruth Donohugh, Picante Restaurant, May 25, 2009 b. Follow-up Letter by Appellant, July 8, 2009 6. Chapter 14.17.110 of Zoning Ordinance -Performance Standards for Outdoor Dining 7. Grant of Easement dated March 16; 2005 8. City Council Resolution No 10299 -Procures and criteria for determination of Public Convenience ar Necessity 9. Public Hearing Notice 10. Public Correspondence Prior to Zoning Administrator hearing 11. Public Correspondence Prior to Planning Commission hearing Sized Plans (Distributed to the Planning Commission only)