Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 - August 18 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED August 18, 2008 1 oflO Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange August 18, 2008 Monday-7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner, and Whitaker None STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Chair Steiner opened the Administrative Session @ 6:40 p.m. with a review of the Agenda. Consent Calendar: Item #1, Approval of the minutes from the regular meeting of July 21, 2008. No changes were noted. Commission Whitaker would abstain from the vote as he had been absent from the July 21, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting. New Hearing: Item #2, Meejana Restaurant, a proposal to upgrade an ABC Type 41 License to a Type 47 License. Commissioner Whitaker asked Staff if a representative from the Police Department would be present and if Staff had received any input from the community? Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, stated yes a representative would be present and Staff had not received any input from the community on the item. Chair Steiner stated he would open up discussion on the use of data from a neighboring district. Other Business: Chair Steiner asked for any news from City Council. Assistant Planning Director, Ed Knight, stated on the upcoming City Council Agenda there was an item for the appointment of a Commissioner to the Planning Commission and conceivably they could have a new member for the 9/3 Planning Commission Meeting. Administrative Session closed @ 6:48 p.m. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None Page 1 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2008 2 of 10 CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 21, 2008. Chair Steiner made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular scheduled meeting of July 21, 2008 as written. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Commissioner Whitaker Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None MOTION CARRIED NEW HEARINGS: (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2701-08-MEEJANA RESTAURANT A proposal to upgrade an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 41 License (On-Sale Beer and Wine Bona Fide Public Eating Place) to a Type 47 License (On-Sale General Bona Fide Public Eating Place) for an existing restaurant. LOCATION: 1804 North Tustin Street NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Class 1. (Class I-Existing Facilities) because the project consists of the operation and licensing of an existing private structure. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 30-08 denying the upgrade to allow on-site sale of alcoholic beverages. Associate Planner, Robert Garcia presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the discussion for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Merino asked if the proposal was a change from an existing license to a new license and if the Planning Commission denied the request would it affect the original license? Mr. Garcia stated the CUP was for an upgrade to the existing license and a denial would not affect the existing license. Commissioner Whitaker stated the original CUP went back to 1997 and the existing Page 2 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2008 3 of 10 business operators had been at the location since 2006. He asked the Police Department representative if he had statistics on how many alcohol related incidences or disturbing the peace calls had been made to the location under the new operators and for the prior operators of the business? Sergeant Lopez stated there were no calls for service directly related to the specific business location. He explained that there could be 10 calls for service just north of or below the address of the restaurant. The Police Department looked at the particular reporting district from 2006 to 2007 and the number of reported crimes had moved up, however, the reporting district was considered a low crime area. In 2006 it ranked 50th in total crimes and it had moved up to 47th in total crimes. What had been a greater indicator for the Police Department was the reporting district directly across the street which was currently ranked number 13 in total crimes reported, and that reporting district had been in the 28th position. It had moved to the number 13 position and in that particular area that was one of the things they focused on. There was a 300% concentration level for on-site and off-site licenses and in addition to that the crimes in the area continued to rise. The Police Department felt that there was a direct correlation between the number of alcohol licenses and crimes in that census tract. Chair Steiner asked what Sergeant Lopez based his supposition on - that the number of alcohol permits was responsible for the increase in the crime rate? ..../ii!.~iO? Sgt. Lopez stated it was based on total statistics. Historically they based the analysis on the number of crimes that were reported to the Federal Government. A census was completed every year on the number of alcohol and drug related crimes and it had been shown that the people in custody, almost 53% of them, had been in custody due to a crime while under the influence of alcohol. He stated that was what his analysis had been based on. Chair Steiner stated he noticed that there had been a statistical determination presented by Staff regarding the crime rate which referenced a census tract outside of the tract that Meejana Restaurant operated from. He asked ifhe had interpreted that correctly? Mr. Garcia stated it was a census tract directly east of the restaurant location. Chair Steiner stated he had sat on the Commission for the last few years and he was trying to recall whether it had been customary to incorporate data from other census tracts and rely on that data in making a determination of suitability. Mr. Garcia stated similar data had been used in the past in a neighboring situation as the one that was being presented. Chair Steiner asked if it was Mr. Garcia's perspective that the significance of using the neighboring census tract statistics was attributable to the proximity of the census tract? Mr. Garcia stated Staff felt that it gave them a better perspective of the neighborhood and general area and not just of the specific census tract. Page 3 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2008 40flO Chair Steiner stated he was not disputing whether it did or did not, he was trying to determine the basis upon which they should expect to see reliance of data from other reporting districts. He was interpreting that in cases when the business at issue was very close to a border of a census tract, and in those instances where the data of another census tract was relevant, it could be incorporated into the decision making process - and he asked if that was correct. Mr. Garcia stated that was correct. Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, stated they had a similar situation recently, which was the Meridian Market, on Main Street. There was a reporting district and a different census tract as well located in Santa Ana and Staff had utilized that data that had been obtained through ABC to provide a general picture and a general idea. It had not been used to count the number of licenses within that area, but used to offer the Commission and City Council a gauging point. Assistant Planning Director, Ed Knight, stated in determining concentration they kept to what the law dictated which was the census tract. They had situations, such as Bagel Me, that had been directly on a border ofa census tract where some of the Commissioners had asked about the licenses held on businesses across the street. There had been licenses at those locations and they could not use that information as a determination for over- concentration as they were in a different census tract and could not be counted. Based on the legal guidelines for over-concentration, only specific census tracts could be used. Chair Steiner asked Mr. Sheatz if there was a constraint that related to over-concentration or concentration that limited them to consider only the licenses in the affected district and was there not a similar constraint on evaluation of crime trends or crime data? Mr. Sheatz stated that was correct. Commissioner Merino stated listed under the required findings determination were neighborhoods, community and bordering areas and in that regard it was in their purview to make that determination. Chair Steiner stated that finding would not permit the Planning Commission to rely on concentration data from other areas. Mr. Sheatz stated that interpretation was correct. Commissioner Merino clarified from a perspective of crime information from adjacent areas. Chair Steiner opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to corne forward. Applicant, John Tannous Abi Najon, address on file, stated the restaurant offered Lebanese Cuisine and they were family owned and operated. When patrons entered they would most likely find him at the restaurant, his mother cooking, his brother serving and his father in the back. The restaurant was the family's baby. His mother had always had Page 4 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2008 5 of 10 a passion for cooking and they had gotten into the business learning as they went and finding out what it took to compete with the competitors and be able to strive and make money. They had found that they were compared to Darya's Restaurant, an establishment that had been around for 20 years that did quite well. The intent of Meejana was to give back to their customers what Darya's offered and provide something that would attract business to their place. Mr. Tannous Abi Najon stated he received several calls a week asking if alcohol was served and was asked if they served hard alcohol and he felt they were losing business due to that. It was not an attempt to increase crime as the restaurant would remain a family establishment. Meejana wanted to provide complete service at the restaurant and having the privilege of winning a license in a lottery, as only 20 per year were granted in Orange County, he felt was a tremendous opportunity for them. He asked the Commission for their input on what they viewed as concerns for not granting the alcohol license. Commissioner Whitaker asked the applicant if they received the change in their liquor license, was there any intention of changing the rest of the operation? Mr. Tannous Abi Najon stated no, they did not anticipate a change. Commissioner Whitaker clarified that the restaurant would operate with the same hours and be a restaurant that was filled with sit down tables, no dance floor or amplified music and asked if they intended to add any of those things? Mr. Tannous Abi Najon stated they were actually considering closing earlier during the week as the traffic in the business center was not very busy during the week. There was no plan to change the menu. Chair Steiner asked where was the competitor located that was permitted to serve hard alcohol? Mr. Tannous Abi Najon stated they were located one center away. Chair Steiner stated the main reason they hoped to get the license was to maintain a competitive business advantage with the very nearby competitor and he asked what type of cuisine was offered at Darya's? Mr. Tannous Abi Najon stated they served Persian cuisine which was similar to their Lebanese dishes, in the sense of kabobs and rice. Chair Steiner asked how many other restaurants similar to Meejana and Darya's were there in the vicinity? Mr. Tannous Abi Najon stated he was only aware of one other Zena, on Meats and Tustin. Commissioner Merino stated he understood the point the applicant was making in regard to competitive advantage and asked if serving hard alcohol would make that much of a difference in the restaurant's ability to succeed? Page 5 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2008 6 of 10 Mr. Tannous Abi Najon stated yes. If the sale of hard alcohol brought in an extra $100.00 per day in 30 days that would be an extra $3,000.00 per month which was a sizable amount for a small business and it would make a difference. Chair Steiner stated the request for the license was motivated by more than just supposition and that he had indicated that the customers had been asking for it. Mr. Tannous Abi Najon stated there was a Lebanese drink called Arak that went well with an appetizer and they had many requests for Arak which would compliment their cuisine and they wanted the opportunity to provide the drink to their customers. It would attract more business. Chair Steiner asked how long the restaurant had been in their present location? Mr. Tannous Abi Najon stated they had been there for 2 years. Chair Steiner asked if the restaurant had experienced any alcohol related incidents in those 2 years and how late were they open? Mr. Tannous Abi Najon stated no, there had been no incidents and they had not had any calls for service. The restaurant was open until 10:00 p.m. six nights a week. Chair Steiner asked how many employees worked at the restaurant? "ik<".-.'''' Mr. Tannous Abi Najon stated there were six employees. He stated Staff and the Police Department had made reference to crime across the street in that census tract which consisted of mainly apartment buildings and lower income homes, the residents in that area generally would not frequent his restaurant. There was also a bar one block over and a liquor store. They would not want to pump out alcohol; their goal was to provide a full experience at their restaurant. Chair Steiner stated there was not a bar and he asked if there was an area that would enable a customer to purchase only alcohol and had they anticipated adding a bar area? Mr. Tannous Abi Najon stated he was correct that there was not a bar in the restaurant and they had not anticipated adding one. They would add a display case and shelving to store the alcohol, however, there would not be a designated bar area. Chair Steiner stated the applicant's intent for the license was to add an additional stream of income and asked if the increase would provide a substantial percentage of their operating revenue? Mr. Tannous Abi Najon stated the main income would continue to be from food sales. The clientele they attracted were higher income patrons that enjoyed their food and they were becoming well known in the Arabic community as they used fresh ingredients, no powdered garlic was used, only fresh garlic, no lemon juice was used, just fresh lemons and that was part of their established reputation that they had no intention of changing. Page 6 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2008 7 of 10 Chair Steiner opened the hearing for Public Comment. David Goldberg, 3045 James Street, San Diego stated he was present to respectfully request that the CUP be granted to Meejana Restaurant. He worked in the City of Orange three days a week and for the last 2 years he had been a patron of the restaurant and during that time he had gotten to know the Abi Najon family quite well. They were decent, hard working and honest people with great integrity and the City of Orange was fortunate to have their restaurant. They ran a wonderful restaurant that served tasty, healthy and authentic Lebanese cuisine at very reasonable prices. Mr. Goldberg stated he had met friends at the restaurant and with the 3 of them the bill had only totaled $40.00, and they had more food than they could eat - it was a wonderful experience. He had learned quite a bit about Lebanon and Lebanese cuisine, it was more than just the food; it was the experience and the people. Approximately one year ago they had a rave revue in the Los Angeles Times and they would have no reason to deviate from how they were currently operating. The restaurant had been in business for 2 years and, to the best of his knowledge, they had been very responsible business owners and he felt they had earned the right to the CUP. Amit Sakhram, 8190 E. Marblehead Way, Anaheim stated he owned and operated a business in Anaheim for the past 2 years and had known the Abi Najon family since he was 13 years old. He was familiar with the former restaurant and compared to what was there now it was a complete change. As Mr. Goldberg had stated it was an asset to the community, it was a good restaurant with a family atmosphere and he would not anticipate that patrons would be at the restaurant primarily for the alcohol. He was present to request the approval of the CUP. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Whitaker stated he was always concerned when the Police Department recommends denial of an alcohol permit and he took that very seriously; at the same time he looked at the statistics. In the instance of Bagel Me, that had been a situation where the statistics actually supported placing a CUP at Bagel Me. He had opposed it due to the location which had been immediately adjacent to a high school field. Although there had been low crime statistics and concentration levels, he felt the layout of the facility and the location were inappropriate for an alcohol permit, and could have been a potential beer hangout where there was a risk of underage serving. He felt that sometimes the individual statistics or locations were not looked at carefully and there were times when the concentration of restaurants or risk was encouraged in a particular area. The census tract, ignoring the tract across the street, had a lower crime rate and there had been no individual calls for service at the restaurant location. They currently had a license and they were merely requesting an upgrade that would allow them to serve hard alcohol which some of their customers would want. It would allow the restaurant a competitive equalizer with other restaurants and would improve the community. Commission Whitaker stated he found himself disagreeing with the Police Department, not that he wanted to, but in looking at the statistics ignored the location of the restaurant, how they operated and the purpose for the license. He was inclined to make a motion opposing Staffs recommendation and issuing the CUP for the upgrade. Page 7 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2008 8 of 10 Commissioner Imboden stated he concurred with most of the comments that Commissioner Whitaker had stated. He stated they ran at odds in looking strictly at the concentration issue as it was the zoning that concentrated the uses together. It was an intentional effort on their part. He stated upon initial review of the proposal, he had not been sure where he would fall with it; however, the more he had looked into it and particularly in reviewing the required findings, he was certain that he would not concur with the Staff Report. The Commission had heard testimony from law enforcement, but nothing that would guide him to feel the statistics were necessarily relevant to the application. It would be a different situation if the proposal was for an off-site permit and he felt the operation and the manner that it was being proposed would not persuade him to concur with the conclusion which had been presented in the Staff Report. He would support approval of the CUP. Commissioner Merino stated he found it to be a very difficult decision. They were all present when the application for City Wok had come before them for a CUP, the difference that had been key was that City Wok had no existing license and in the proposed CUP, request before them there was an existing license that was simply being upgraded. He agreed with Commissioner Whitaker and Imboden that the statistics were relevant to the application. If there had been an issue with the restaurant having calls for service he would be inclined to agree that it was pertinent, the restaurant currently held a beer and wine license with no calls for service and it was difficult to make the connection that they were a contributor to a problem that existed. Commissioner Merino stated he would not support the denial. Chair Steiner, addressing Mr. Sheatz, stated hypothetically if a problem would present itself and a business were to start having alcohol-related problems, the City would have the authority to revoke a CUP. Mr. Sheatz stated that was correct. Chair Steiner stated his feelings were in line with the other Commissioners and he had not found it a particularly difficult decision to make. With respect to the City Wok application, he had been recused from that and he would have dissented from the ultimate decision that had been made in that case. He felt the Planning Commission took the input from law enforcement very seriously and when it came to businesses or applications that were fly-by-night or had no proven history of performance and responsibility or off-site sales, the input had been extremely useful and important. Meejana had demonstrated an ability to operate with an alcohol permit already and the change they were seeking was not dramatic. He felt they understood clearly, if the CUP were to go forward and if they began to have problems with drunk customers who were out of line that the City would come down hard. The applicant had a proven track record of 2 years of responsible operation. Chair Steiner stated he was in agreement with the other Commissioners and would be inclined to not deny the application. Mr. Sheatz stated it appeared that the proposal was headed for an approval, and if it was inclined to go in that direction he would ask that the Commission continue the item to a date certain to allow Staff to develop findings. Findings that would be based on the Commissioners comments and to ensure that the business operated in a manner that the Page 8 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2008 9 of 10 Commission recommended. Chair Steiner asked the applicant to come forward and stated what they were proposing that the Commission was inclined to vote down the request of Staff to deny the CUP, which meant that they anticipated an approval. Staff needed to formulate a number of conditions that every business was subject to and some that were unique to their business and they required time to prepare those condition. Mr. Sheatz had stated that it would be beneficial to continue the proposal to the next Planning Commission Meeting which would be held on Wednesday, September 3. At that meeting the application would be presented with a recommendation for approval with conditions related to approval. Chair Steiner asked if the applicant was agreeable to that? Mr. John Tannous Abi Najon asked if they would be able to move forward with ABC and the state licensing process? Chair Steiner stated the authority which the Planning Commission had related only to the CUP and any other legal authority that the applicant needed to move forward with could continue as long as it was not dependent on the issuance of a CUP. A CUP had not been issued that would authorize them a Type 47 sale of liquor at their establishment. Mr. John Tannous Abi Najon asked for clarification on the conditions? Chair Steiner stated there would be several conditions and they would be available for review, questions and concerns. Commissioner Merino stated one of the conditions he would like added would be to prohibit any type of a bar, a display case was not an issue; however, he wanted to make it clear to Staff that they would not want to see live music or anything of that nature. Chair Steiner stated among the conditions that the applicant would have to agree with would be a restraint on the restaurant's ability to install a bar and the specifics of such a condition would be defined. He agreed with Commissioner Merino's suggestion and stated there would be additional constraints. Commissioner Whitaker stated all the CUPs that they had approved recently had constraints on alcohol sales ceasing one hour prior to closing. Mr. Sheatz stated that Staff had completed research on the limiting of hours and there was a restriction on limiting the hours of alcohol sales due to State Law that controlled that element; what they could condition would be the hours of operation for the business. Commissioner Merino made a motion to continue, Meejana Restaurant, CUP No. 2701- 08, to a date certain of September 3, 2008. Commissioner Imboden stated the applicant was clearly concerned about the conditions of approval and asked that Staff to provide that information to the applicant as early as possible to allow discussion with the applicant and planning Staff. He felt it would be beneficial to all parties involved. Page 9 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: August 18, 2008 10 of 10 Chair Steiner Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED (3) ADJOURNMENT Chair Steiner made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on Wednesday, September 3, 2008. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Whitaker Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED MEETING ADJOURNED @ 7:40 P.M. Page 10 of 10 Pages