Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 - January 7 Planning Commission Minutes January 7,2008 1 of 16 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange 7 January 2008 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Chair Imboden opened the Administrative Session @ 6:35 p.m. Chair Imboden reviewed the Agenda with the Commissioners. Consent Calendar: Commissioner Steiner noted a spelling error on page 18 of the December 3, 2007 minutes. New Hearings Item No.2: Chair Imboden asked if Mr. Sheatz would be presenting this item? Mr. Sheatz stated yes he would be presenting the item. Chair Imboden stated there would be questions from the Commission. Commissioner Steiner had a concern on any potential regulation on the CUP regarding the number of people permitted at a job center. He was looking for a formula that could be used to determine the number permitted and would this number be regulated, and was there a provision in the regulation related to the lot size? Commissioner Bonina asked if there was an age requirement? Mr. Sheatz stated they had not ironed out the nuts and bolts of the operation. There was not an occupancy limit established at this time. There was no age limit in the Ordinance; it would be up to the job center personnel to police under age job applicants. The entitlements allowed them to have a job center and the ordinance covered the land use Issues. Commissioner Bonina asked if there was a distance requirement, if there would be a minimum distance requirement from another job center? Page 1 of 16 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 7,2008 2 of 16 Mr. Sheatz stated as this was a CUP, it would be determined by the provisions of the CUP and the proximity of other job centers. There was not a distance requirement. Commissioner Steiner asked ifthere was another job center in the area would another one be allowed and how would that be regulated? Mr. Sheatz stated if another job center came in, for example in a strip mall, they would first be required to establish a site plan, ensuring there would be safe ingress/egress, the lot size was adequate and that it would not be adjacent to another job center. The traffic issue was one of the requirements that needed to be submitted in the site plan. It would be difficult to place two job centers in a small strip mall. Commissioner Bonina asked if there was a parking requirement? Mr. Sheatz stated no, not per se, it would be vetted out in the site plan. Generally at a job center people were dropped off, came by bike or walked to the center. There was not a potential for a requirement. The ordinance addressed having an adequate area for applicants to congregate making sure that they would not be taking up parking spaces of the businesses in the center. He pointed out that Section C4, on page No. 3 of the Ordinance dealt with parking in regards to the site plan. Chair Imboden stated he would have questions regarding the language in that section. New Hearings Item. No.3: Commissioner Merino stated he would have questions for the applicant. Chair Imboden stated he would also have questions and there would be discussion on the item and he would look for a full reading. Administrative Session closed @ 6:50 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None CONSENT ITEM (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF December 3, 2007. Commissioner Steiner made a motion to approve the December 3, 2007 minutes with correction as noted. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Chair Imboden Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None Page 2 of 16 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2008 3 of 16 ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED NEW HEARINGS: (2) ORDINANCE 23-07 - AMENDING CHAPTER 17.30 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING SPECIAL USE REGULATIONS FOR JOB CENTERS Establishment of a Conditional Use Permit requirement for private property owners who desire to establish job centers. NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA guidelines 15305 (Class 5-Exemption-Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations) because requiring a conditional use permit is a minor alteration to land use limitations imposed on properties in commercial and industrial zones and does not result in any change to land use or density. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 02-08 recommending the City Council adopt Ordinance 23-07 Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, presented the item with the following reading: As you are aware, the City of Orange has been struggling with the effects caused by day laborer activity at locations throughout the City for the past 20 years. Ordinance 19-07 was previously adopted by the City Council in an on-going effort to reduce problems that include, but are not limited to, traffic congestion, jay walking, aggressive solicitation such as swarming of vehicles, littering, public urination, and various impacts to nearby businesses and their customers. To address these issues, Ordinance 19-07 created several reasonable time, place and manner restrictions as they relate to day laborer solicitation. For instance, the Ordinance prohibited solicitation from vehicles on public streets and from public sidewalks where there is no on-street parking; it prohibited solicitation from through traffic lanes, center medians or driveway aprons; solicitation was prohibited adjacent to the Resource Center or other authorized job centers; and finally solicitation from private property now requires the express permission of the property owner. The Ordinance before you this evening is a companion Ordinance to Ordinance 19-07. Ordinance 23-07 is proposed to regulate those private property owners who wish to allow day laborers to congregate on their property. Due to the impacts created by such a use, this land use would require a conditional use permit and would only be allowed in commercial or industrial zoned districts, no less than lOO feet from residential property. The Ordinance defines the use as a job center, which is defined as a place where 5 or more day laborers congregate to advertise their availability for off-site employment. It establishes development standards for job centers with minimal requirements such as Page 3 of 16 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 7,2008 4 of 16 providing restroom facilities, reasonable operating hours, providing trash receptacles, a site plan for safe and adequate ingress and egress, a congregation area that does not utilize required parking spaces during business hours and rules governing orderly conduct for potential employees. As presented to you this evening, we feel that the Ordinance provides an alternative forum for the solicitation of employment that is narrowly tailored to address those issues the City has documented as having negative secondary effects to adjacent property and the public right-of-way, as detailed in the record provided. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for questions to Staff. Commissioner Steiner asked for clarification on the provision in the contemplated Ordinance that would address the number of people permitted at anyone site, would that determination be made on a CUP by CUP basis? If so, what formula would be used to make the determination? Mr. Sheatz stated it would be a determination on an application by application basis. The formula used would be based upon the site plan that would be submitted. The anticipation would be that the job center would be an enclosed area, which would be driven by an occupancy rating given by the Fire Department or set up in an area that would allow people to congregate without an impact outside of the designated area. There was no cap or number established, the number given of 5 or more was used in the definition to establish the job center. No cap was placed on potential employees that could be at anyone site. Commissioner Steiner asked when an applicant came in and requested a CUP; the CUP would not allow them to have an unlimited number of employees at the site? Mr. Sheatz stated that would be correct. Commissioner Merino stated for clarification a property owner that had a similar type activity could not come into the City, claiming it was a previously existing activity, and request they could be excluded from complying with the CUP. Mr. Sheatz stated that was correct, they would still need to comply with the CUP. Commissioner Whitaker asked on Page No. 3 of the draft Ordinance, Section 1, requirement No.6; he was confused by the language. He understood the intent was to deal with effects that the City was suffering in the land use, and to narrowly tailor the statute to avoided running a foul of time, place and manner. He felt the language on the last sentence instead of stating: "otherwise determined in compliance", should read: "and to be in compliance with all State and Federal Laws, including Labor and Employment Laws". He thought they would want, in a City Ordinance, to have the purveyor of the site be in compliance. Mr. Sheatz stated he agreed. The point was to keep them on notice of their compliance. The intent was to have the person operating the job site make the determination, and they Page 4 of l6 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 7,2008 5 of 16 had to be in compliance with the way the site was operated. The City was not going to get deeply involved to dictate each and everything they needed to do operate the job center. Commissioner Whitaker stated he felt the language should be changed to otherwise compliant. Mr. Sheatz asked if it read: "to otherwise comply with State and Federal Laws", if that would make it more clear? Commissioner Whitaker stated yes, he agreed with that. Commissioner Bonina asked regarding commercial use, would this include the use of a church, for example, and would it fall under the category of a commercial parking lot? Mr. Sheatz stated if the property was zoned district designated for industrial or commercial, yes it would be included. The job center type of activity could only occur on property that had the zone district designation of industrial or commercial. Commissioner Bonina asked if there was a residential zone that had a CUP for commercial use, would that fall under the definition of a commercial parking lot? Mr. Sheatz stated no. Commissioner Bonina asked on the lOO' distance from a residential; if there was a shopping center with an open space that had applied for a job center CUP, was the distance from that space or from the overall shopping center property line? Mr. Sheatz stated it would be from the overall shopping center property line. Commissioner Bonina clarified that there would probably not be a job center m a shopping center located adjacent to a residential zone. Mr. Sheatz stated that would be correct. Chair Imboden stated in reference to site plan, Item No.4, Section 1, it read: "the congregation site shall not be located in an area that utilized parking space at anytime when a business was authorized to use such parking". Certainly businesses utilize parking spaces at times when they may not be open to the public, particularly in commercial areas when workers were present 2-3 hours before the opening of the business. He felt there was potential for a conflict in when the business was actually opened. He asked what the thought process was in creating that component? Mr. Sheatz stated in Section 2, there was a limitation on operating hours. The job center created the type of activity that took place in the early morning hours. If an individual came in, and in accordance with the Ordinance, wanted to open up in a shopping center area that did not open until 11 :00 a.m., and they wanted to operate a job center from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.; they could specify areas designated for congregation that took up Page 5 of l6 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2008 6 of 16 parking spaces and the Ordinance would allow it. This Section was designed for those situations. He understood the Chair's concern and was open to suggestions. Chair Imboden stated his concern was in a multi-tenant use of a space, one issue was to deal with safety on the site. People arriving at work at 5:00 or 6:00 a.m. and parking spaces were used for other purposes; he was concerned with the safety issues. Typically in looking at parking for uses on sites, they were not addressed based on hours and it would be better to state that the job center activity could not interfere with the operation of the businesses. Public Hearing: None Commissioner Merino made a motion to recommend to the City Council Ordinance 23- 07 - Amending Chapter 17.3- of Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code adding special use regulations for job centers, noting it was categorically exempt from CEQA with the following amendments to language: . Item No.6, Section 1, to otherwise be in compliance. . Item No.4, congregation site shall not be located in an area that utilizes parking spaces that were required for the operation of any business or facility. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Whitaker Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2688-07 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4296-07 - PRIME CUT CAFE AND WINE BAR A proposal to establish a restaurant with a bar specializing in wine via an "On-Sale General-Eating Place" (Type 47) ABC license. The applicant is also requesting to have on-site wine tasting and have patrons purchase wine at the site for off-site consumption. The restaurant would replace approximately 5,500 square feet of vacant space in the Stadium Promenade, a 157,834 square foot entertainment center. Fayade additions and outdoor seating is proposed to the exterior portion of the building that would be occupied by the business. LOCATION: 1547 W. Katella Avenue, Suite 101 NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA guidelines 15301 Class 1- Existing Facilities) because the project consists of the operation and licensing of an existing private structure. Page 6 of 16 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 7,2008 7 of 16 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 01-08 recommending approval of CUP 2688-07 and DRC No. 4296-07, but not for the provision of off-site sales. Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, gave a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Whitaker stated in a letter they received from the applicant there was mention of other restaurant concepts that had on-sale and off-sale, he asked if Staff had determined if any of the other projects had the problems that Staff was anticipating with the applicant's project? Mr. Ortlieb deferred the question to Sergeant Bird. Sergeant Bird stated he was advised from the property owner of an establishment in San Diego to use as a comparison, and he was not aware of another similar business in the City of Orange. Commissioner Merino asked, on the issue of the column, the Planning Commission had approved the Old Irisher application and did the property manager have authority to change the column design? He also asked if the management of the Old Irisher had been consulted? Mr. Ortlieb stated that he felt that fell under the lease agreement terms that Staff was not privy to, and the property manager was present to answer those questions. Commissioner Steiner asked if the license the applicant was requesting permitted off-sale and was it Staffs recommendation that it should not be permitted. Mr. Ortlieb stated currently Prime Cuts had no license at the proposed location. They had an application for on-sale wine, beer and distilled spirits, and off-sale for beer and wine. It was Staffs recommendation to deny the off-sale. Commissioner Steiner stated the reason for that was due to a perception that there would be a risk to public safety by virtue of patron's ability to buy and take home a bottle of wme. Mr. Ortlieb stated that was correct as well as the potential for off-site consumption in the center. Commissioner Steiner asked if Staff envisioned the possibility of patrons enjoying a bottle of wine so much that they would take it out and consume it in their vehicle? Mr. Ortlieb stated it was the thought process as a potential. Page 7 of 16 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 7,2008 8 of 16 Commissioner Steiner stated, based on an over concentration stand point, if Staff was willing to permit the on-sale and the burden could be met, it was difficult to anticipate that it would not be met for off-sale. The rational that justified the CUP to move forward permitting on-sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits, would seem, that it would be applicable to permitting off-sale as well. Mr. Ortlieb stated Staff was looking at precedence setting and consistency, there were existing CUP's that allowed off-sale in the center, and they did not want to set a pattern of allowing an off-sale scenario for each type 41 or 47 license. Commissioner Steiner asked on previous applicant requests that had prohibited off-sale of beer and wine, did Staffhave any knowledge of whether or not any of those applicants had sought the right to sell beer and/or wine off-sale? Mr. Ortlieb stated he could not speak on behalf of Staff based on his relatively new tenure with the City. Commissioner Steiner asked if during his research and preparation of the project, had Mr. Ortlieb encountered any situations from prior applicants seeking the right to sell off-sale beer and wine. Mr. Ortlieb stated in his research he did not encounter anything. Commissioner Bonina stated in the analysis of the number of alcohol licenses in the census tract, one of the overriding considerations was that the center maintained its own security staff. He asked if they anticipated a need for an increase in security staff if the application moved forward with the off-sale permit? What had been the thought process for the limitation of the hours of operation? Sergeant Bird stated they had not made a recommendation for increased security, if the off-sale was approved it would be a component that the center's security would need to be aware of. The hours of operation were based on the initial interviews with the proposed property owners. They had stated that the hours of operation would be 11 :00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Wednesday and 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Thursday through Saturday. He stated that this was the first time that he had heard they were requesting operating hours until2:00 a.m. Commissioner Bonina asked if the Police Department had an issue with the operating hours until 2:00 a.m.? Sergeant Bird stated the issue that they foresaw was the leaving of the realm of a bonafide eating establishment and entering the realm of a public premise, it was an issue the Police Department was not willing to deal with in that type of a complex. Commissioner Steiner asked if the contemplation of operating hours until 2:00 a.m. affected the Police Department's support for the application? Page 8 of 16 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 7,2008 9 of 16 Sergeant Bird stated they had based their support on the initial information, and yes the operating hours could affect the Police Department's support of the application. Commissioner Steiner asked for patrons who enjoyed a bottle of wine and decided to take it home, was it Sergeant Bird's opinion that those activities could lead to criminal incidents? Did the Police Department feel that would enhance the crime element or would it be an activity that could be handled with mitigation measures, such as restricting the hours that a patron could purchase a bottle of wine? Sergeant Bird stated there were laws that dealt with the issue in the Business and Professions Code. One of the laws allowed for on-sale establishments to allow patrons to take home a partially consumed bottle of wine. The other law, 23401, gave on-sale establishments off-sale authority. He had contacted Alcohol Beverage Control to clarify why on-sales were allowed off-sales, and why did they have a separation of the two? Currently he could look at a particular area and determine the number of on-sale licenses, as during the last few years they had asked to have no off-sales in on-sale establishments. In speaking with the legislative arm of the ABC, the initial law enacted in 1947 was established at a time when there were no convenience stores. This gave general stores with restaurants the ability to sell alcoholic beverages and the laws had not changed. Commissioner Steiner asked was the purpose for the Police Department seeking prevention of off-sale was for statistical purposes and record keeping? Sergeant Bird stated yes, that was correct. Also, from the Police Department's point of view there was over concentration and a high rate of crime in the area. Crime statistics had risen and it appeared that over the last year (2007) the crime stats were going up in that particular reporting district. To add another ABC license to an already over concentrated area, in a family oriented complex, prompted the Police Department to make a recommendation of denial for the off-sale to prevent the potential for alcoholic beverage consumption outside the licensed restaurants. Commissioner Steiner stated if there was a willingness to give the CUP for on-sale, the over concentration and crime argument could not be used to deny off-sales. Commissioner Whitaker asked if they modified Condition No. 17 to read: the sale of beer for consumption off premises was prohibited, would the Police Department have less of a problem? Chair Imboden stated that he did not see anywhere in the documents that the wine would only be sold with a meal. In the applicant's letter it described the establishment as a retail wine shop. Would this allow a patron to walk into the establishment, purchase alcohol, and walk out? He could not find anything that prohibited that activity and was that issue addressed? Assistant Planning Director, Ed Knight, stated yes, you could walk in the restaurant and purchase wine. Page 9 of 16 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2008 10 of 16 Sergeant Bird, answered Commissioner Whitaker's question, stating yes, in changing Condition No. 17 it would create less of a problem for the Police Department. Chair Imboden opened the Public Hearing. Robert Atkinson, 150 Pelican Way, San Rafael, stated as the property owner he was very excited about the addition of Prime Cuts, they had made many changes to the center over the last few years and had added many businesses. He believed that Prime Cuts would serve the sector of the community that desired steak and wine tasting. Mr. Atkinson stated he lived near the wine country, and often tasted a wine and had the opportunity to purchase a bottle, it was generally $30.00 to $40.00 a bottle and it would not get opened immediately and never opened on the way home. He had the opportunity to speak with Sergeant Bird and they had an average of one incident every 14 days for the last 3 years in the center. The number was low for a shopping center. Those incidents were primarily related to a stolen car and a stolen cell phone, there were very few alcohol related incidents. There was a situation at Acapulco, fortunately, with their relationship with the Police Department and security team it was addressed quickly. He supported the off-sale request. The applicant's intention was to sell wine not beer; they did not want a liquor store type business. The restaurant's plan included a wine bar and they should be given the opportunity to sell off-sale wine. Commissioner Merino stated the Commission had previously approved the design for the Old Irisher. The previous approval would be amended based on the recommendations for the column change for Prime Cuts. He asked if Mr. Atkinson had the authority to make the change, and did the Old Irisher tenant realize the column would be changed? Mr. Atkinson stated they had been advised and were in agreement. He was in the process of securing that approval in writing to provide to Staff. Kevin Diez, 2756 Granvia Place, Thousand Oaks, came forward to answer questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Merino asked Mr. Diez ifhe was a licensed architect, licensed by the State of California? Mr. Diez stated yes he was. Commissioner Merino stated on sheet 82-1 of the plans, there was a reference to a wine tasting room. He could not find anything on the floor plan that was a wine tasting room. Mr. Diez stated it was the corner room that was noted as a private dining room. Commissioner Merino clarified whether it was a private dining room or wine tasting room? Mr. Diez stated the room would serve as both. Commissioner Merino stated in the letter that was received from the applicant it was Page 10 of 16 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2008 11 of16 indicated that part of the service provided would be a wine tasting activity. He felt they could not have a private dining room functioning as a wine tasting room, and he asked how they envisioned that to work? Ken Dunkley, 7432 Cabrillo Ave, La Jolla stated they envisioned the room for private dining as needed, and used for special events such as a wine tasting presentation. The retail sales of wine would not be in a particular concentrated area. Wine would be displayed throughout the restaurant and patrons could access a bottle, take it to a hostess and make their purchase. Commissioner Merino stated it was a nice idea; however, he was concerned that the concept was more of a bar with the wine as an adjunct to it, and that there was not a dedicated location for the wine tasting. In the letter to Staff it was stated the purpose of having the off-sale was to enhance the patron's knowledge of the wine prior to taking it home. He had a concern that there would be selling of wine in a more retail, bar type, scenano. Mr. Dunkley stated their vision was for a premium casual restaurant. They would feature roasted meats with a very important wine component. There would be a number of different parts to the wine program. There would be wine tasting at the bar or at your table. They intended to have wine makers come in and host pourings. The private dining room would be used for wine dinners, where a prepaid meal could be purchased with wines to taste with their meal and purchased ifthey enjoyed it. Commissioner Merino asked if the wine tasting could still happen without the patron purchasing wine? He asked why the off-sale component was critical to the restaurant? Mr. Dunkley stated it was part of their business model. He felt it offered a total wine and food experience. Someone could come in enjoy food, taste the wines and purchase those that they liked. There would be specialty wines that could not be purchased elsewhere. Commissioner Merino felt all that would be true, with the exception of purchasing a bottle of wine. Would the off-sale be critical to their business? Mr. Dunkley stated part of the wine experience would include the opportunity for the patron to purchase the wine. He felt that the off-sales would be approximately 20% and it was a critical component to their restaurant. Commissioner Merino stated with the CUP it would stay with the property, and although the applicant may have the best intention, a future tenant might not have the same positive intentions. He asked the City Attorney if the approval of the CUP would remain with the property? Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, stated yes, the CUP would remam with the property. Mr. Dunkley stated the CUP required that 50% of the restaurant sales would be food. The State statute would allow a patron to re-cork an unfinished bottle of wine and take it Page 11 of 16 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 7,2008 12 of 16 home. This would also not force someone to drink an entire bottle of wine in the establishment. Commissioner Steiner asked if they had any objection of a condition that would prohibit the removal of glasses of wine from the premises? Mr. Dunkley stated they would have no objection to that. Commissioner Steiner stated the establishment proposed to inform their customers about wine and the goal was to offer a unique business model that was not offered elsewhere in the City. If a patron were to stumble in and grab wine bottles off the shelf and break out the American Express would there be limitations on how the restaurant staff handled and made judgments on the sale to such patrons? Mr. Dunkley stated yes, if there was a situation that would be workable for them. Commissioner Steiner stated he had seen in the past prohibitions to selling alcohol to clearly inebriated patrons. Condition No. 14 referenced stacking, and if it was clearly able to be assessed that a patron was inebriated, was the restaurant staff prepared to handle those situations? Mr. Dunkley stated yes, and they had prepared an alcohol management program that had been accepted by the Police Department. Commissioner Steiner stated in reference to the hours of operation, the hours had changed and he asked for clarification on that issue. Mr. Dunkley stated when they had initially spoken with Sergeant Bird he was given the proposed hours of operation. In looking at the other restaurants in the center they had determined there was a condition to stop the service of alcohol one hour prior to closing, and their thought was to have the same hours of operation as the adjacent businesses. Due to the conditions at the center, they wanted the right to stay open later to compete with the other businesses in the center. He was not aware of a condition that limited the hours of operation. Condition No.4 called for review of the CUP in 1 year and they were supportive of that condition and they were willing to work with the Police Department to assure they were successful. Commissioner Whitaker stated, in looking at the site plan, there did not appear to be an area set aside for the retail display of the wine. Several of the establishments that were listed for comparison did have a retail area for display. He asked why their establishment did not have that component? Mr. Dunkley stated primarily they were a restaurant. They wanted most of the common area designated for restaurant dining. The area around the bar would highlight the wine, and there would be bottles displayed throughout the restaurant as part of the decor. Patrons would see wine bottles displayed with the awareness that a bottle could be purchased to take home. Page 12 of 16 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2008 13 of 16 Commissioner Bonina asked if they were associated with any of the restaurants listed on the email that was sent to Ms. Angus? Mr. Dunkley stated no, there was no association. Chair Imboden closed the Public Hearing and brought the hearing back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Steiner stated he thought it was a splendid idea. He felt that one of the things the Commission was looking for was innovative business ideas that would be successful and provided appropriate land uses in that particular area. He was unprepared to accept the notion that this would be some big crime factory and the granting of an on- site license, which was supported by the Police Department, would lead to more crime. He was not persuaded that crime was a justifiable basis for denying the off-sale license for wine only. The willingness of the applicant to forsake the sale of beer suggested that they were intending to do just what they had stated. He understood there were administrative concerns; however, they did not appear to be a factor for denial. He was in support of having the application move forward with off-sale. Commissioner Whitaker stated he agreed with Commissioner Steiner. He had been to a number of the establishments listed as comparisons and those establishments had much more of a retail focus. The application did not have a retail focus, and their off-site sales would be much less than those establishments offered as a comparison. He felt if Condition No. 17 was modified to prohibit beer from off-site sale he would be in support of the application. There was some inconsistency in Condition No. 18, as they were stating an opened, re-corked bottle of wine could be taken off premises. He felt the application was an excellent concept for the City of Orange. Chair Imboden stated he felt uncomfortable that there was live product distributed throughout the facility. He was concerned with how those items were monitored and controlled. He understood you could walk through the restaurant take a bottle of wine to the bar and pay for it there. Commissioner Merino stated he understood a bottle of wine could be taken to the reception area for purchase. Chair Imboden looked to the applicant for acknowledgment of the patron taking product to the bar for purchase. The applicant acknowledged, with a nod, that was correct. Commissioner Bonina stated there was wine being stored throughout the restaurant and there was free access to those bottles by the patrons. That was not an uncommon scenario in good restaurants. There would be wines shelved and dispensed that were accessible to patrons to take to a hostess to purchase. He initially had a concern with the crime and concentration of licenses in the center, however, this was an area that they were looking to boost the economic viability of and historically alcohol licenses were permitted. The fact that there was not a dedicated retail area in the proposed establishment underscored that it would be a restaurant and not a retail facility. The operation was designed as a professional dining facility. There was a recommendation Page 13 of 16 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2008 14 of 16 from the Police Department to have the management look at their security service and increase security. He felt there would not be patrons who would take wine from the facility, uncork it and drink it on the premises. He was in support of the application. Commissioner Merino stated the first issue was the over concentration of licenses in a high crime area. In reviewing applications, they had recently reviewed a project at The Village and had denied a CUP. The analysis of these applications needed to be applied in a consistent manner. He felt ,the reason the project was acceptable for him was the mitigating issues that were brought forth by Staff and the Police Department referencing the location taking an unoccupied space in an entertainment area. He had reservations regarding the off-sale aspect based on future tenants, and although it was unfair to penalize the current tenant for what may occur in the future, he still had a concern. With the amendment to Condition No. 17, limiting beer sale and the assurances from the tenant and property manager that the facility would be high end and their interest in bringing a successful project to the community, he could support the project with reservations. Chair Imboden stated they had approved CUP projects in the past that were presented as high end facilities that did not develop into that. It was hard to condition high end. There were conditions in place for the on-sale component, however, he felt there needed to be some type of control for the off-sale component and that there should be one designated aspect of the business for that activity. They were not conditioning the business one year from now or a new business to have every server in the building selling bottles, or the fact that a patron could walk up to a hostess, make their purchase, and walk out the door. He was concerned with that. He felt the concept ofthe restaurant was good; however, the CUP would remain with the property and not the business model that was being presented. He could not support the application as he felt there was lack of control with the sale of alcohol. Chair Imboden stated he was willing to work with the applicant to designate one point of sale for all bottled goods. Commissioner Whitaker stated he understood the Chair's concern and he had been to high end restaurants where a server would bring a bottle of wine to the table for sale. It was a possibility to purchase through a bar tab to allow for auditing purposes. Chair Imboden stated his concern was that the product was distributed throughout the restaurant and there was a lack of control. How would the product be monitored? Commissioner Steiner asked for clarification on what was to be controlled? Chair Imboden stated he wanted to ensure that the diligence they applied to open goods was also applied to the off-sale component. Commissioner Steiner stated it was not uncommon for restaurants to display bottles throughout the establishments and it was part of the design. If he wished to purchase he could take that product for purchase and he felt that was sufficient control. He agreed with Commissioner Whitaker that the off-sales could be managed on a separate tab. That would enable monitoring of that activity. He did not feel that having one point of sale was necessary. Page 14 of 16 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2008 15 of 16 Chair Imboden stated he did not feel that the current proposal gave any control to whether the patron had consumed food or had already consumed alcohol prior to an off- sale purchase. Commissioner Steiner felt it was more useful to have the server make the determination about the ability for the patron to purchase more alcohol, than to have them deal with a separate employee. Commissioner Bonina stated he did not understand the need to separate the sales issue. If someone were to purchase wine only vs. someone having a meal and purchasing wine, he did not see a point in separating those transactions. Chair Imboden stated it was a different type of business to look at one as a bona fide eating establishment or a retail establishment, they were clearly two different things and operated differently. Commissioner Bonina stated the criteria on Condition No.7 stated that the gross sales of alcohol could not exceed the gross sales of food. They needed to be 50/50 and the regulation of alcohol sales would be regulated. He asked Staff if 50/50 was a common ratio? Mr. Ortlieb stated recent applications were less than a 50/50 ratio; they were closer to a 30170 ratio with a higher percentage of food sales. A 50/50 ratio was an annual gross receipts condition that was applied to type 47 licenses. Commissioner Steiner made a motion to adopt Conditional Use Permit No. 2688-07 and Design Review Committee No. 4296-07 - Prime Cut Cafe and Wine Bar noting the application was categorically exempt from CEQA, recommending approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 01-08 with the following changes: . Condition No. 17 delete words: and or wine . Condition No. 18 to change the language to: prohibit open containers from leaving the confines of the premises. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Commissioner Whitaker Commissioners Bonina, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker Chair Imboden None None MOTION CARRIED Page 15 of 16 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 7,2008 16 of 16 (4) ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Bonina made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled session of the Planning Commission held in the Council Chambers Monday, January 21, 2008. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED MEETING ADJOURNED @ 8:45 Page 16 of 16 Pages