Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06251996 - D19 Dv • - Contra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS o.' s Count/ FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon Director of Community Development AcouK DATE: June 25,. 1996 SUBJECT: Proposed Off-Sale Alcoholic Beverage Retail Establishment Ordinance SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS (S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Determine whether to adopt the ordinance as drafted and recommended for approval by the County Planning Commission, and if so, find the adoption exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15061 (b) (3) , or; 2 . Direct staff to prepare a modification to the North Richmond Planned Unit District (P-1) for application only in the North Richmond area of the County, or; 3 . Direct staff to prepare a Combining District Ordinance for application in specific areas of the County and to report further within 90 days, or; 4 . Direct staff to modify the current draft ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT 1> Minimal costs for adoption of the proposed ordinance. Substantially higher costs if a combining district and general plan amendment approach is pursued; perhaps $15, 000-$20, 000 in staff and processing costs for County Counsel and Community Development Departments. $5 , 000-$7 , 000 for modification to the North Richmond Planned ;Unit Development District Ordinance. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The hearing on this proposed Ordinance was originally scheduled before the Board of Supervisors on May 7 , 1996. At that meeting, Supervisor Rogers moved approval of the Ordinance as proposed. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _x_ YES SIGNATURE:_b,� RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CO ITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON J u n e 2 5—, APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER See attached addendum for Board action . VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT 3 ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Source: Aruna Bhat 646-4208 ATTESTED June 25 , 1996 -------------------- Orig. Dept. Community Development PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF cc: County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Sheriff's Office AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Substance Abuse Advisory Board Contra Costa Countywide Youth Commission BY , DEPUTY -P.l9 2 . Supervisor Torlakson seconded the motion and proposed that the adoption of the Ordinance be continued for 2 weeks to enable him to speak to the Planning Commissioners in his district relative to their concerns. The Board took testimony at its May 21, 1996 hearing and continued the matter for a month and directed staff to check with the County Sheriff's Office regarding complaints received around liquor stores. The Board also requested additional clarification on implementation of the ordinance as proposed, and to look at the possiblity of an overlay and/or combining district. Staff has since contacted the Sheriff's Office and has been informed that they are not aware of any specific location creating problems in unincorporated County (see attached memo) . They also do not keep data on complaints based on location (i. e. liquor stores) . The Board requested staff to clarify implemenation of Section 82- 38 . 402 (3) . As proposed, the ordinance requires non conforming uses to apply for a permit when the off-sale alcoholic beverage retail use is increased, enlarged or expanded. This provision of the ordinance would be difficult to enforce when there is only an increase in square footage of the sales area of alcohol beverages, since staff would not have any indication of such a change; unless a complaint revealed compelling evidence of such a change. There is currently no baseline information against which such a change could be documented. No building permits are required when there are no additions or internal structural improvements proposed as part of the increase in alcohol sales. Building permits and/or Development Plan approval are required for physical expansion of a store. However, if the applicant is not expanding the building for use of alcohol sales, no use permit would be required per the proposed ordinance. In the absence of information to the contrary staff must rely on the representation made by the applicant. If complaints occur alleging violations, staff would investigate and enforce in the usual manner. In the North Richmond area, the proposed regulations could be added to the Planned Unit District zoning district already applied in the area. As part of the P-1 district, the North Richmond area of the County contains a land use matrix. The matrix currently requires use permits for all new liquor stores in the area. The existing matrix could be modified by adding the provisions applying to nonconforming uses from the proposed ordinance. The Board may also want to consider the adoption of the ordinance in selective areas of the County. An overlay zoning or combining district could be adopted and applied to a particular area or areas of the County. This may require additional General Plan policy foundation. In order to accomplish this approach, the proposed ordinance would have to be rewritten as a combining district and adopted. Following its adoption, the combining district would need to be applied to specific properties through the rezoning hearing process. It would be advisable to amend the general plan as it pertains to those specific areas in order to lay a foundation of fact and policy as to the reasons that additional regulation was needed through the zoning in those specific areas. Since the last hearing, staff has met with Supervisor Torlakson and John Handley with the Northern California Grocers Association. Mr. Handley had proposed some changes to the proposed ordinance and forwarded it to Supervisor Rogers office for comments. As of the date of prepartion of this report, staff has not been able to secure a copy of the changes proposed by Mr. Handley. For the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, staff finds that this activity is not a project subject to CEQA, pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) . Adoption of the proposed ordinance would not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Dig ADDENDUM TO ITEM D. 19 JUNE 25, 1996 Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the proposed Off-Sale Alcoholic Beverage Retail Establishment Ordinance . Supervisor Torlakson presented a complaint protocol as an alternative to try for a four month period. Supervisor Rogers commented in support of the protocol proposal . The following persons presented testimony: Don Kaplan, 634 Blue Spruce Drive, Danville; Mark Simonton, 1097 Mohr Lane, Concord; John Handley, 1807 Tribute Road, Sacramento, representing the Northern California Grocers Association. Supervisor Torlakson recommended not taking action on the proposed ordinance but to urge implementation of the protocol which could be adopted later by resolution. Victor Westman, County Counsel, advised that the Board indicate that they are not adopting the ordinance at this time and indicate intent to approve the protocol and direct County Counsel to place the matter on the Consent Calendar in two weeks for Board consideration and adoption. Supervisor Torlakson moved the intent to implement the protocol, giving it a five month trial basis, not take any further action on the ordinance, and also declare intent to refer to the Finance Committee the consideration of a special pilot project for any kind of identified alcohol sale problems in the North Richmond area. Supervisor Rogers seconded the motion with the understanding that the Board would keep an eye on the issue and if there were problems, the ordinance would be considered. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the above matter is CLOSED; further action on the proposed ordinance providing for a land use permit process for off-sale alcoholic beverage retail establishments in the unincorporated area of the County is DEFERRED; intent is DECLARED to approve a Liquor Store/Retail Store Complaint Protocol for a trail period of five months and the Community Development Department staff is INSTRUCTED to list the matter on the July 9, 1996, agenda for Board consideration and adoption; and the issues of the development of a pilot program relative to identified alcohol sale problems in the North Richmond area and the monitoring of the protocol implementation are REFERRED to the Finance Committee . *************** ORDINANCE NO. 96- AFT (OFF-SALE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS ) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official text from the enacted provision of the County Ordinance Code . ) SECTION I . SUMMARY. This Ordinance provides a land use permit process for off-sale alcoholic beverage retail establishments in the unincorporated area of the County. SECTION II . Chapter 82-38 is added to the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code to read as follows : Chapter 82-38 Off-Sale Alcoholic Beverage Retail Establishments Article 82-38 . 2 General 82-38 . 202 Purpose . This chapter requires and provides criteria for the consideration and approval of land use permits before off-sale alcoholic beverage retail establishments will be permitted in any land use zoning district where otherwise allowed or permitted . This chapter does not authorize off-sale alcoholic beverage retail establishments where they are not otherwise allowed or permitted by the applicable involved zoning district' s regulations . (Ord . 96- § . 2 . ) ORDINANCE NO. 96- 1 82-38 . 204 Off-Sale Alcoholic Beverage Retail Establishments .- Off-sale alcoholic beverage retail establishment shall mean any business that sells alcoholic beverages in original , unopened packages for consumption off the premises where sold including, but not limited to, any facility which has obtained or intends to obtain a California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control License . (Ord . 96- § 2 . ) 82-38 . 206 Conditional Use Permit for New Establishments . Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, no off-sale alcoholic beverage retail establishment may sell alcoholic beverages for off- site consumption unless a land use permit has been approved for such establishment . A Iarid use permit' sha7 nct bdrsquxred �fthe osta`b � s men i� a re>�.ai stogie having; 10squaro deet o rno e of flQc� ;;;axea and: wh� h denotes. not more Mian (> Taercet c such Qo area tea t h Pdi spy ay, and stQzageo ;QhoaJO beverages': (Ord . 96- §2 . ) Article 82-38 . 4 Non-Conforming Use 82-38 . 402 Non-Conforming Use . Upon the effective date 1996 ) of this chapter, any off-sale alcoholic beverage retail establishment which has been .legally operating without a land use permit prior to the adoption of this chapter shall be permitted to operate at its present location provided that such establishment shall not be permitted to operate without a land use permit if any of the following occur: ORDINANCE NO. 96- 2 ( 1 ) the establishment changes its type of retail off-sale liquor license granted by Lhe State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (e . g . beer and wine to distilled liquor) ; ( 2 ) the establishment is abandoned, discontinued or the retail Liquor license for such operation is suspended for a period of sixty ( 60 ) days , provided that this provision shall not apply when the business operation is suspended or discontinued because the building or structure in which the establishment is operating is (a ) destroyed or damaged due to causes beyond the owner of the establishment ' s control by an act of God or a toxic accident which prevents the establishment from operating and any such restoration of the establishment does not increase the square footage of the business use for the sale of alcoholic beverages or; (b) being repaired if that repair does not change the nature of the establishment, does not increase the square footage of the business used for the sale of alcoholic beverages and the closure for repairs does not extend beyond a thirty ( 30 ) day period; ( 3 ) the off-sale alcoholic beverage retail use is increased, enlarged or expanded; ( 4 ) there is a substantial change in the mode or character of operation of the establishment; or. ( 5 ) the retail liquor license is transferred to another location within the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County or the establishment, either in whole or in part, is moved or relocated to another location within the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. To the extent the provisions of this section ORDINANCE NO. 96- 3 conflict with the non-conforming use provisions of Chapter 82-8 , this section shall prevail as to off-sale alcoholic beverage retail establishments . (Ord . 96- § 2 . ) 82-38 . 404 Review by Zoning Administrator . After a noticed public hearing ( following the requirements of section 26-2 . 2004 ) , the zoning administrator may determine, or postpone determination to another hearing date, whether there has been a substantial change in the mode or character of operation of the establishment under section 82-38 . 402 ( 4 ) . In making this determination, the zoning administrator may consider whether repeated nuisance activities at the establishment, including those activities set forth in 82-38 . 606 ( 1 ) , have resulted in a pattern and practice, which taken together, constitute a substantial change in the mode or character of operation of the establishment . If the zoning administrator determines that such a change has occurred, he or she may 8,hall. continue the public hearing €er a SpeGified perie 90 to 180 days , to allow the establishment to resume its former mode or character of operation in order to retain its non-conforming use status . The zo<za ng admxatrat�ty :the c x�rn 0 ,.d. prey rnz nary a ndxngs �n i � to CrnDuring this period, the owner of the establishment or the owner' s agent may submit evidence of steps taken to document maintenance of its non- conforming use status , including those set forth in section 82- 38 . 608 . The zoning administrator ma-y shNil render a final decision at a second or subsequent pub I.Q. hearing . The zoning administrator may, without public hearing, decide whether the events set forth in ORDINANCE NO. 96- 4 section 82-38 . 402 ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) , ( 3 ) , or ( 5 ) have occurred . (Ord . 96- 2 . ) 6- 2 . ) 82 . 38 . 406 Decision by Zoning Administrator . If the zoning administrator determines that a land use permit is required pursuant to the provisions of sections 82-38 . 402' or 82- 38 . 404 , the requirements and procedures set forth in article 82- 38 . 6 shall apply . (Ord . 96- § 2 . ) Article 82-38 . 6 Land Use Permit . 82-38 . 602 Requirements . No off-sale alcoholic beverage .retail establishment may commence to operate unless and until a land use permit is first obtained pursuant to this chapter and in accord with the provisions and the procedure set forth in Articles 2.6-2 . 20 through 26-2 . 24 . Any such off-sale alcoholic beverage retail establishment must maintain an approved land use permit in full force and effect in order to continue its operation . (Ord. 96- § 2 . ) 82-38 . 604 Additional Findings . In addition to the findings required to be made in Article 26- 2 . 20 and section 82-6 . 002 , no land 'use permit to allow an off-sale alcoholic beverage retail establishment to operate shall be issued unless all of the following findings are made: ( 1 ) the proposed establishment will not contribute to an undue proliferation of off-sale alcoholic beverage retail establishments in an area where such additional establishments would be ORDINANCE NO. 96 5 undesirable due to the area ' s function and character, including problems of crime, loitering , and traffic; ( 2 ) the proposed establishment will not adversely affect adjacent or nearby uses , including churches , schools , hospitals , parks , recreation centers and residences ; ( 3 ) the proposed establishment will not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian circulation along a public street or sidewalk and will not promote the accumulation of litter and debris on such streets or sidewalks or adjacent properties ; ( 4 ) adequate litter receptacles will be provided and maintained by the permittee on the site of the proposed use; and ( 5 ) the proposed establishment is found to be of an architectural and visual quality that harmonizes with or enhance.s ,. where appropriate, the visual quality of the surrounding area , and the design avoids unduly large or obtrusive signs , a bleak, unlandscaped parking area , and an overall garish appearance . (Ord. 96- § 2 . ) 82-38 . 606 Grounds for Revocation . In addition to the grounds for revocation of a land use permit set forth in section 26-2 . 2022, any land use permit granted pursuant to this chapter may be modified, discontinued or revoked in accordance with the procedure set forth in article 26-2 . 20 , if it is found that the use as operated or maintained: ( 1 ) has resulted in repeated public nuisance activities on the premises of the establishment, including but not limited to disturbances of the peace, illegal drug activity, public ORDINANCE NO. 96 6 drunkenness , public consumption of alcoholic beverages , harassment of passersby, gambling, prostitution, sale of stolen goods , public urination, theft, assault, batteries , acts_ of vandalism, loitering, excessive littering, illegal. parking, excessive loud noises , ( particularly after 10 : 00 p .m. or before 6 : 00 a .m. ) , traffic violations , curfew violations , lewd conduct or police detention and arrests ; ( 2 ) violates any provision of this Code or any federal or state law or regulation; or ( 3 ) violates any of the conditions or terms of the land use permit . (Ord . 96- § 2 . ) 82-38 . 608 Evaluation of Nuisance Activity. In evaluating whether nuisance activities are occurring on the premises of the establishment, the zoning administrator will consider any evidence timely submitted by owner of the establishment or the owner' s agent that reasonable steps to abate the nuisance, including contacting and cooperating with the Sheriff ' s Department, have been taken, provided that: ( 1 ) neither the owner of the establishment nor the owner' s agent shall be required to engage in abatement activity that would endanger the safety of the owner or the owner' s agent; and ( 2 ) the fact that the owner of the establishment or the owner'.s agent calls for the Sheriff ' s Department assistance shall not by itself constitute a basis for finding that a nuisance exists ORDINANCE NO. 96 on the premises of the establishment . (Ord . 96- § 2 . ) SECTION III . Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors , voting for and against it in the , a newspaper published in this County. (Gov. Code §§ 25123 & 25124 . ) PASSED ON by the following vote : AYES : - NOES : ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: PHIL. BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board and County Administrator By: Deputy Board Chair [ SEAL] djs-5\a1coho1.or2 ORDINANCE NO. 96- 8 A ' OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF Contra Costa County Administration Division 646-2402 Date: June 6, 1996 To: Aruna Bhat, Project Planner CommunityDevelopment Department From: Robert dtderson, Undersheriff Subject. Off-Sale Alcoholic Beverage Retail Establishment Ordinance I am writing in response to your memo of June 3, 1996, regarding data on complaints received by this Office "in and around liquor stores in unincorporated Contra Costa County." Unfortunately, we cannot comply with your request. We do not collect or archive information in a format that would allow us to identify incidents occurring at the location of a liquor store or in the vicinity. The exception to this rule is when we have a known problem location. In cases such as that, we identify and isolate related incidents and track them in a different manner. At this time, I am not aware of any specific location being tracked due to an unacceptable level of complaint. RRH:cb Y . LIQUOR STORE/RETAIL STORE COMPLAINT PROTOCOL PREFACE In general, small businesses contribute to the health, safety and welfare of communities. Small businesses provide important services to our communities plus jobs and taxes which improve our communities. At times, some businesses may not operate as a good neighbor. They can contribute to activities that either directly or indirectly contribute to public nuisances. In some cases, such activities may threaten the quality of life and, ultimately, the safety of the the community. In some instances, unabated problems can negatively impact property values and economic development opportunities. Most complaints can be resolved by improved communications between community representatives and the store owner or manager. When a complaint (or series of complaints) is made to the Sheriff or other county enforcement agency regarding problems -- on or near the premises at any retail store with wine, beer and/or hard liquor sales -- action needs to be taken to resolve these issues as soon as possible. Complaints may be centered around sales to minors, drinking on the premises, loitering and littering on the premises or nearby. In some instances, complaints have been made regarding alleged drug sales on the premises, or "drug business" conducted through phones located on the premises. Municipal Advisory Council members can assist in channeling detailed complaints to the Sheriff's Department when they are notified of the problem. Citizens and MAC members are encouraged to use a standard complaint form or follow established complaint guidelines (attached) in a letter of complaint to the Sheriff's Department. t 4 PROTOCOL I. Municipal Advisory Council groups agree to the following: 1. MAC's will designate one MAC member or staff member to be the code enforcement coordinator for liquor sales/liquor establishment complaints. 2. The MAC will put complaints in writing on complaint forms or in a letter, or encourage other citizens to do so directly. A copy of the complaint will be provided by the MAC to the Sheriffs Department. 3. MAC coordinators agree to provide information to the community on how to register complaints properly and to provide some training opportunities for citizens with concerns in this area. 4. The MAC coordinator agrees to be a communicating link to all parties and to check to see if complainants feel that their concerns have been addressed. 5. The MAC coordinator agrees to copy the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) and the Grocer/Retailer's Association with a copy of the complaint. II. The Sheriffs Department agrees to: 1. Investigate the complaints -- speaking with the store owner or manager and providing a written warning or citation if appropriate. 2. The Sheriffs Department agrees to let the complainant (either MAC coordinator or citizen) know what action has been taken. 3. The Sheriff's Department agrees to copy ABC and the Grocer/Retailer Associations with a copy of any complaints received from individual citizens that have not been handled by the MAC coordinator and been a part of the MAC notification process (outlined above). 2 III. ABC agrees to: 1. Investigate any complaints received and to let the Sheriff's Department, MAC coordinator (when involved) and complainant know what action has been taken. IV. The Grocer or Retailer's association agrees to: 1. Contact the store owner and/or manager and assist in resolving the alleged problem as soon as possible. 2. Offer training or counseling on how to correct the alleged problem. 3. Agrees to notify the Sheriff's Department, the MAC Coordinator, and/or individual citizen as to any actions taken by the Association. 3 LIQUOR STORE/RETAIL STORE COMPLAINT PROTOCOL PREFACE In general, small businesses contribute to the health, safety and welfare of communities. Small businesses provide important services to our communities plus jobs and taxes which improve our communities. At times, some businesses may not operate as a good neighbor. They can contribute to activities that either directly or indirectly contribute to public nuisances. In some cases, such activities may threaten the quality of life and, ultimately, the safety of the the community. In some instances, unabated problems can negatively impact property values and economic development opportunities. Most complaints can be resolved by improved communications between community representatives and the store owner or manager. When a complaint (or series of complaints) is made to the Sheriff or other county enforcement agency regarding problems -- on or near the premises at any retail store with wine, beer and/or hard liquor sales -- action needs to be taken to resolve these issues as soon as possible. Complaints may be centered around sales to minors, drinking on the premises, loitering and littering on the premises or nearby. In some instances, complaints have been made regarding alleged drug sales on the premises, or "drug business" conducted through phones located on the premises. Municipal Advisory Council members can assist in channeling detailed complaints to the Sheriff's Department when they are notified of the problem. Citizens and MAC members are encouraged to use a standard complaint form or follow established complaint guidelines (attached) in a letter of complaint to the Sheriff's Department. t PROTOCOL I. Municipal Advisory Council groups agree to the following: 1. MAC's will designate one MAC member or staff member to be the code enforcement coordinator for liquor sales/liquor establishment complaints. 2. The MAC will put complaints in writing on complaint forms or in a letter, or encourage other citizens to do so directly. A copy of the complaint will be provided by the MAC to the Sheriff's Department. 3. MAC coordinators agree to provide information to the community on how to register complaints properly and to provide some training opportunities for citizens with concerns in this area. 4. The MAC coordinator agrees to be a communicating link to all parties and to check to see if complainants feel that their concerns have been addressed. 5. The MAC coordinator agrees to copy the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) and the Grocer/Retailer's Association with a copy of the complaint. II. The Sheriff's Department agrees to: 1. Investigate the complaints -- speaking with the store owner or manager and providing a written warning or citation if appropriate. 2. The Sheriffs Department agrees to let the complainant (either MAC coordinator or citizen) know what action has been taken. 3. The Sheriffs Department agrees to copy ABC and the Grocer/Retailer Associations with a copy of any complaints received from individual citizens that have not been handled by the MAC coordinator and been a part of the MAC notification process (outlined above). 2 III. ABC agrees to: 1. Investigate any complaints received and to let the Sheriff's Department, MAC coordinator (when involved) and complainant know what action has been taken. IV. The Grocer or Retailer's association agrees to: 1. Contact the store owner and/or manager and assist in resolving the alleged problem as soon as possible. 2. Offer training or counseling on how to correct the alleged problem. 3. Agrees to notify the Sheriff's Department, the MAC Coordinator, and/or individual citizen as to any actions taken by the Association. 3 COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ CALIFORNIA Date: June 19, 1996 To: Board of Supervisors From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel By: Diana J. Silver, Deputy County CoEt, Re: Proposed ordinance re off sale alcoholic beverage retail establishments in unincorporated areas On May 21, 1996, the Board of Supervisors requested this office and the Community Development Department to investigate options available in connection with the adoption of an ordinance regulating off sale alcoholic beverage retail establishments, including overlay zoning. The Board also requested review of issues relating to definitions in the ordinance. We understand the Community Development Department is submitting a report to the Board concerning these issues. This memo report is supplemental to the report to be submitted by the Community Development Department. With respect to the possibility of an overlay zoning combining district, the proposed ordinance now under consideration by the Board would have to be substantially revised to provide for the establishment of a new combining zoning district which would only apply zoning regulation to any new off sale alcoholic beverage retail establishments proposed in areas rezoned to the overlay combining district. Such overlay combining district zoning would not affect currently existing establishments since they would become legal nonconforming uses. Concerning more precise definitions of terms used in the proposed ordinance, it is certainly possible to define such terms with more detail. The more precise the definitions, however, the more limited will be the scope of the discretion available to the zoning administrator in making decisions in this area. We note that the current text of the ordinance is consistent with the scope of discretion usually given to zoning administrators in these matters. Also, enforcement of the ordinance will be limited by the narrowness of any such precise definitions. It is uncommon to find more precise definition of terms in ordinances such as this one which addresses zoning , regulation and nuisance issues. If the Board intends to limit the discretion available to the zoning administrator and to narrow the scope of the ordinance's enforceability to a greater extent than is currently provided by the proposed ordinance, specified terms could be further defined to reflect that Board intent. DJS:dj aAalcbev Northern California Grocers Association ® REPRESENTING INDEPENDENT GROCERS IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 1807 Tribute Road • Sacramento, California 95815 • (916) 929-9741 • Fax (916) 929-0301 u u RECEIVED JUN 2 6 � June 20, 1996 �tEAK BOARD OF CONTRA COS A CRG.VISORS.f The Honorable Jim Rogers County Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94552-1292 Re: Proposed Land Use Permit Ordinance Dear Supervisor Rogers, Pursuant to our conversation of this date, this is to inform you that Northern California Grocers Association remains opposed to the proposed ordinance that will come before the Board of Supervisors on June 25, 1996. Although discussions were held regarding changes, none of these changes were submitted to any County agency for review or publication. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the ordinance that will come before the Board on June 25 will contain the identical provisions that were debated in Board Chambers during the public hearing of May 21, 1996. Northern California Grocers Association sees no justification at this time for any ordinance dealing with the sale of alcoholic beverages. We welcome the opportunity to work with you in the future. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, tJonHzandley rector of Government Relations cc: Sharon Paxton, NCGA Vice-President Chuck Beaver, CGA/CANS Supervisor Jeff Smith Larry Kranich Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Don Kaplan Supervisor Tom Torlakson Joan Wilson Supervisor Gail Bishop OUR VISION IS TO BE THE BEST POSSIBLE ASSOCIATION BY PROMOTING,SUPPORTING,EDUCATING, PROTECTING AND FULFILLING THE NEEDS OF THE INDEPENDENT GROCER. Request to Speak Formjkvl-� ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT Complete this form and place it In the box near the spwkers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Warne: -- 14 `./ wr C N Address; ?16 .13 ,oy, o 7V-Y— r- 1 am spealdng for myself C w orgeninwm J< imnre of orswduldn 0*0C ONE: 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item #� TAI My comments will be: general for j*W 1 wish to speak on the subject of . 1 do not wish to speak but leave dose cornnwnts for the Board to consider: