Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 - April 21 Planning Commission Minutes ~500.G.Q3 April 21, 2008 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange April 21, 2008 Monday-7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, and Steiner Commissioner Whitaker STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Chair Steiner opened the Administrative Session @ 6:40 p.m. with a review of the agenda and asked for any news from City Council. Assistant Planning Director, Ed Knight, stated that the Wireless Communications Ordinance had been continued pending a review by the City Attorney. Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz stated he would be reviewing the issut:s being brought before City Council. Consent Calendar: Item #1, Approval of the March 17, 2008 minutes. No changes or corrections noted. Commissioner Imboden stated he would abstain from the vote as he was not present at the March 17, 2008 meeting. Item #2, General Plan Conformance and CIP. Chair Steiner asked if anyone had attended the 4/1 event on Capital Improvements? Commissioner Merino stated he attended and the discussion included what impacts the budget issues would have on Capital Improvements and the coordination of land use requirements. Chair Steiner received clarification from Mr. Sheatz on the approval procedure for the Item; Mr. Sheatz stated the Item would be approved by minute order. New Hearings: Item #3, Conditional Use Permit No. 2708-08 Market Broiler, Commissioner Merino asked if a representative from the Police Department would be present? Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur stated Sergeant Bird would be present. Item #4, Conditional Use Permit No. 2637-08- Meridian Market, Chair Steiner stated the Item was being brought to the Planning Commission for a revocation of a Type 20 off- sale beer and wine license. Ms. Thakur stated the property owner had no objection to the revocation of the license. Page 1 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 2008 Item #5, Conditional Use Permit No. 2692-07, Circle K, Chair Steiner asked if a representative from the Police Department would be present? Ms. Thakur stated Sergeant Bird would be present and also stated that there were two corrections to the Staff report: Condition 9 on page 5 should be deleted, and Condition 16, currently read 10:00 p.m. to 1 :00 p.m. and should read 10:00 p.m. to 1 :00 a.m. Item #6, Conditional Use Permit No. 2703-08, Big E Food Mart, Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, stated there had been a 1 page addendum added to the item and there was an oversight on the Staff Report that required a correction. On page 5, the existing on- sale licenses should read 13 with 6 allowed. He would note this when the Item was being presented. Other information: Mr. Sheatz stated he had been involved in some internal discussion regarding the consistency in the requirement for hours an establishment could sell alcohol. This applied to both on-site and off-site sales. He had received a phone call from an ABC lawyer who discussed the requirements imposed by the City in regulating hours of alcohol sales, specifically consumption not prior to 11 :00 a.m. and the requirement for the cease of alcohol service 1 hour prior to closing. There was not so much of an issue with the 1 hour before closing requirement, however, there was a concern that the requirement was preemptive on the regulating of hours that alcohol could be sold. The discussion included the occurrence that took place after the L.A. riots when liquor stores were in the process of rebuilding and were retitled. The issue was raised by the licensee that the City could not regulate the hours of sales, as the Ordinance and the ABC licensing body already had regulations and conditions set forth, therefore, to place additional requirements upon approval of the license created a preemptive condition. The Court gave merit to Cities to regulate hours based on health, welfare and safety - when those required findings applied - the City could not randomly impose hours of operations and sales. To impose a requirement that an ABC licensed establishment could not open prior to 11 :00 a.m. and close at 1 :00 a.m. was an example of the preemptive conditions that were occurring. Mr. Sheatz stated when requiring a condition that a restaurant shall cease the sale of alcohol 1 hour prior to closing, with no specific requirement for hours of operation, a business owner could conceivably regulate his business based on the condition to allow the optimum hours of operation and still remain in compliance with the condition and not impose a limit on the hours of operation. There were many businesses that worked within this plan without incident. There was reference to a situation 10 years ago when the City tried to regulate off-site hours of sales which created a preemptive situation and the City stopped implementing that requirement. Chair Steiner asked if the condition was imposed due to valid concerns and the applicant bought into those conditions would that be acceptable, as the applicant was asked during the hearing for the issuance of a license if they agreed with the conditions set forth? Mr. Sheatz stated it might be acceptable to that applicant; however, problems occurred with the potential new owner of the business who might not have prior knowledge of the Page 2 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 2008 conditions set forth and might not be agreeable to those conditions. Commissioner Merino asked if they would still be allowed to impose the ceasing of alcohol 1 hour to closing condition? Mr. Sheatz stated the 1 hour prior to closing was not so much of an issue, as business owners could work within those guidelines. It was important that the conditions imposed in the Code were fashioned in a manner that the conditions could be enforceable. The main problem occurred when the hours that alcohol being sold was imposed as the Courts would hold to the preemptive condition, and the way the conditions were imposed needed to show good cause. Commissioner Imboden stated in a restaurant patio area when there might be concerns for the consumption during evening hours at the location they might look at an application and make a finding to require that consumption on the patio stop at a specific time due to the location - limiting the consumption only in a specific area. Mr. Sheatz stated the particulars ofthe application would have a bearing on the findings. Commissioner Merino stated it was important to focus on a particular issue for the regulation of hours of sales and not on the whole business. Commissioner Bonina asked if the crime statistics could be used as a factor? Mr. Sheatz stated yes, they would be relevant. Chair Steiner stated the conditions could be amended as conditions changed. He clarified that the condition of imposing that alcohol sales would stop 1 hour prior to closing was still a valid condition. Mr. Sheatz stated yes, the 1 hour was not an issue as long as the condition would not impose a specific hour for the business to close. Mr. Knight stated the condition generally would not apply to off-site licensing and the condition was related primarily to consumption at on-site restaurant type establishments. Administrative Session closed @ 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 17,2008. Commissioner Merino made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of March 17, 2008 as written. SECOND: Commissioner Bonina Page 3 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 2008 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bonina, Merino, and Steiner None Commissioner Imboden Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED (2) GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE FINDING FOR FY 2008-2009 THROUGH FY 2014-2015 SEVEN YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) serves as a single comprehensive plan of proposed capital improvement projects for the budget year FY 2008-2009 and the six years thereafter. In accordance with state law, the City must determine that the CIP is consistent with the General Plan. NOTE: This CIP General Plan conformity determination report is not a project under CEQA. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Minute Order, find the project identified within the proposed seven-year Capital Improvement Program are consistent with the City's General Plan. Chair Steiner stated the item was contained in the Commissioners' notebooks as a multi- paged excerpt with an analysis, statement of issues and numerous project lists. There was a request by Staff to find by Minute Order the projects identified within the proposed seven-year Capital Improvement Program as consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Merino made a motion to adopt by Minute Order General Plan Conformance Finding for FY 2008-2009 through FY 2014-2015 Seven-Year Capital Improvement Program. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Commissioner Bonina Commissioner Bonina, Imboden, Merino, and Steiner None None Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2708-08; DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4301-07 AND MINOR SITE PLAN NO. 0537-17 - MARKET BROILER A proposal to construct a new 653 square foot pati%utdoor dining area on the northwest elevation of the existing restaurant building. The applicant is requesting to extend the permitted alcohol premise area by modifying the existing CUP No. 2257-98 which allows Page 4 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 2008 the general on-site sale of alcohol (beer, wine and distilled spirits) in association with a bona fide eating establishment. LOCATION: 20 City Boulevard West; Building J, R-6 NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class I- Existing Facilities) since the project consists of the operation and licensing of an existing private structure. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 13-08. Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Merino stated he had a question for Sergeant Bird. He asked with the crime statistics being substantial for The Block, was there a way he could break down the number of calls for service that were directly related to the Market Broiler itself? Sergeant Bird stated it was difficult as Reporting District 71 was a district specifically for The Block itself, and it did not encompass anything outside of The Block. All the crimes attributed to occurrences at The Block were included, anytime a Police Officer stopped someone, whether in a car or on foot, the crime was not assigned a specific address. It was assigned as The Block. In looking at the Market Broiler and any history specific to the location, he was not able to show anything specific to the Market Broiler. It did not mean there was nothing attributed to the Market Broiler. Chair Steiner asked what Sergeant Bird's relationship was to the Vice Unit? Sgt. Bird stated he was a supervisor. Chair Steiner asked as a supervisor, would it be safe to state that he frequently conversed with other officers in the City concerning vice related issues? Sgt. Bird stated yes, that was correct. Chair Steiner asked if he was kept up to date on issues of concern or problem areas and how long had he had the supervisory responsibility? Sgt. Bird stated he was kept apprised of issues of concern. He was a Vice Detective in the Unit for 4 years, and had been a supervisor for the last year and a half. Chair Steiner asked if during the time as a Vice Detective he would have been kept up to date on vice related problems throughout the City? Page 5 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 2008 Sgt. Bird stated yes, that was correct. Chair Steiner asked if during the 4 years as a Vice Detective or during the recent 18 months as a supervisor had he heard of any problems related specifically to Market Broiler? Sgt. Bird stated no, he had not. Commissioner Bonina stated, although they did not have information specific to Market Broiler, could he give them a general sense of how much of the crime statistics were alcohol related. Sgt. Bird stated the majority of the crimes at The Block were attributed to petty theft, and right behind that were alcohol related crimes. There were a number of those, which included fighting, drunk in public or drinking in the parking lot. As far as the particular location, in looking at specific ABC disciplinary history, there was none for the Market Broiler. Commissioner Merino stated the patio area would be around the corner from the existing patio and was not as well traveled. He asked if having activity in that area could perhaps prevent petty theft? Sgt. Bird stated he understood the patio was being built on the north side of the restaurant, immediately west of the front doors, which would be between the Market Broiler and Tutu Tango, across from the Corner Bakery and what used to be Wolfgang Pucks, there would not be a high rate of petty theft coming from food establishments. Chair Steiner, addressing, Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, stated a common impression of the crime burglary was home break-ins. Drawing on his familiarity with the crime of burglary, he asked if that would also include an individual entering a retail establishment with the intent to steal? Mr. Sheatz stated yes, that information was correct. Chair Steiner opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to come forward. Applicant, Rodney Couch, 6141 Riverside Ave" Riverside, stated he was available to speak about any of the aforementioned concerns of the restaurant. He stated the Market Broiler's alcohol sales consisted of approximately 12%. They were certainly not a bar, but a food restaurant. He had not recalled the Police Department being called out to intervene on their behalf. They replaced part of the fresh fish concept with a Sushi Bar. Seating in the new area would be expanded to accommodate patrons dining in that area. Commissioner Bonina stated there was a reference to no more than 3 coin or token operated arcade games, he assumed those would not be out on the patio and asked if that was correct? Page 6 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 2008 Mr. Couch stated they did not have any coin operated arcade games. Commissioner Bonina asked if the patio had a gate that lead out to the walkway? Mr. Couch stated there was an emergency exit gate adjacent to Tutu Tango. It was designed in a manner that would allow Tutu Tango to expand with a patio which would be in the same vicinity as their gate and would be on the property line. It was a gate designed to meet Fire Department requirements. Chair Steiner closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion. There was none. Chair Steiner made a motion to adopt PC No. 13-08, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2078-08, Design Review Committee No. 4301-07 and Minor Site Plan No. 0537-07- to modify the exiting CUP No. 2257-98 permitting the general on-site sale of alcohol, Type 47, in an existing restaurant and to include the alcohol beverage service to occur within a new outdoor patio dining area, located at 20 City Boulevard West, Building J, R- 6. Chair Steiner stated he was particularly pleased to see the long record of responsible operation and is was a motivating factor in his motion. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioner Bonina, Imboden, Merino, and Steiner None None Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2637-07- MERIDIAN MARKET The City is pursuing the revocation of the aforementioned Conditional Use Permit for a Type 20 off-sale beer and wine license within a market establishment. The tenant space has been vacant for over six months and the use has ceased to exist. LOCATION: 655 S. Main Street #240 NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions ofthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section15301 (Class I- Existing Facilities) since the project consists of the operation and licensing of an existing private structure. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-08 recommending to the City Council that Conditional Use Permit No. 2637-07 be revoked and repealed in its entirety. Page 7 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 2008 Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Chair Steiner stated they were permitted by the City Ordinance to initiate revocation proceedings when a property had been vacant for six months or more. He asked at what point was the initial vacancy date determined? Ms. Thakur stated Staff considered the initial vacancy date based on what the business license records indicated. They had confirmed this date with the property owner. Chair Steiner asked if there had been confirmation that the date of vacancy was correct? Ms. Thakur stated the date had been confirmed through the business license, the property owner's statement and Staffs observation. Chair Steiner, addressing Mr. Sheatz, asked once six months of vacancy had lapsed, ifthe property would thereafter become occupied, would that prohibit the City's ability to proceed with revocation? Mr. Sheatz stated it would make it more difficult and be contrary to what the intent was by the City Council in adopting the Ordinance. The intent was to make the Ordinance user friendly and not hurt people that were already in the cue of entering into leases and things of that nature. They did not want the new tenants to be penalized for the vacancy. The City Council had asked Staff to track those locations where the entitlement currently existed, but were vacant. They had seen those locations from time to time; however, they were hard to track as they generally were older locations. Chair Steiner asked if there were legal ramifications if subsequent to the Commission's vote, prior to City Council adoption, the vacancy terminated? Mr. Sheatz stated it would not only be the occupancy of the location but also take into account the sale of alcohol. The safeguard in such an instance would be that the ABC license would have gone away from the location as well, and if a new tenant came to reside at the location a new ABC license would need to be applied for. Commissioner Merino asked if the property owner had indicated that there was another party interested in leasing the location? Ms. Thakur stated she was not aware of that situation. Commissioner Merino asked when was the last time she had spoken to the owner? Ms. Thakur stated it was April 8, 2008. She stated the lapse of time that the use ceased to exist was closer to nine months. Page 8 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 2008 Commissioner Bonina asked if the ABC license had been utilized? Ms. Thakur stated in her discussions with the property owner, as soon as the license was approved on the 27th they had vacated the location on the 30th. She was not aware if any sales had been made, it was possible that sales had occurred. Chair Steiner asked if there were any further questions or discussion? There was none. Commissioner Merino made a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-08, recommending to the City Council, revocation and repeal of CUP No. 2637-07 in its entirety. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bonina Commissioner Bonina, Imboden, Merino, and Steiner None None Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED (5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2692-07-CIRCLE K A proposal to allow an Alcohol Beverage Control Type 20 License (Off-Sale Beer and Wine) for a new convenience store within an existing commercial building. LOCATION: 1724 W. Chapman Avenue NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class I- Existing Facilities) since the project consists of the operation and licensing of an existing private structure. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-08 Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Merino stated he had a question for the Police Department representative. He stated one of the Police Department's perspectives was in getting an occupant in a vacant location that it would help to address other crime issues. It would offset the fact that there was a high crime rate in the area. Chair Steiner clarified that it had been referenced as a nationally recognized occupant. Commissioner Merino continued, in reviewing the conditions the Commission was asked Page 9 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 2008 to make findings on, that the Conditional Use Permit must be considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plan for the area in which it was located. He asked if Sgt. Bird could provide statistics that showed when 7-Eleven vacated and that there was a noticeable drop in the crime rate, due to a drop in drunken in public or other crime related activity, and if bringing in another similar type business would increase the crime rate? Sgt. Bird stated he drafted a memo in December of 2006, using the previous full year of crime statistics, which would have been the year 2005. He had the crime statistics that covered the periods of 2005, 2006 and 2007. Reporting District 61, which was the Reporting District for the application, had maintained a level of 3 or 4 within the City at all times. For the year 2005 there were 354 crimes, which included both part 1 crimes and part 2 arrests combined, with an average of 96 throughout the City. That gave them 296% over average. For the year 2006 there were 432, in Reporting District 61, which was 336%. For the year 2007 there were 384 crimes, which was above the 2005 number and lower than 2006. Commissioner Merino stated in reading those crimes correctly when the 7-Eleven store vacated crime actually increased. Although, the crime results may not be connected, one could make the argument. Sgt. Bird stated he agreed with the statement. Commissioner Imboden, addressing Ms. Thakur, stated in reference to licenses in the census tract there were 6 allowed and 5 existing. In reviewing the census map, it showed 7-Eleven on the property as holding a license and he wanted clarification whether there was an existing license on the property. Ms. Thakur stated the map was incorrect. The 7-Eleven should not be on the map as holding a license, as they did remove their license and take it with them in order to transfer it to a new location. There were currently 5 licenses in the census tract, with number 6 being proposed for Circle K. Commissioner Imboden stated the six would not include the two off-sale sites, which existed one directly across the street and another approximately one block away. Sgt. Bird stated the two off-sale sites were in different census tracts. On locations that went out of business with an ABC license, the business owner was allowed to place the license in suspense for up to three years. Currently there was not an active license at the proposed location and 7- Eleven had a policy of not transferring their licenses. Commissioner Imboden asked if the 7-Eleven was in fact included in the 5 existing licenses that were noted in the Staff Report and if the Commission was to grant approval that would bring the number to 6? If the 7-Eleven was removed from the map would that remove 1 from the number of 5? Sgt. Bird stated it removed 1 from the number of 7 bringing it to 6, with the removal of the license from Meridian Market it reduced the number to 5 in the same census tract. Page 10 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 2008 Chair Steiner asked how many notices were sent out to potentially affected neighbors? Ms. Thakur stated there were 54 with no complaints received. There was an inquiry by a property owner wanting information regarding a code violation - nothing in opposition to the proposed request. Chair Steiner stated there were photos included in the packages prepared for the Commissioners which showed a building with all of the windows boarded up and he asked Staff ifthey could confirm it was a photo of the business as it currently stood? Ms. Thakur and Sgt. Bird confirmed it was the current state ofthe building. Chair Steiner asked how long had the business been in its current condition? Ms. Thakur stated it had been vacant since August 2006. Chair Steiner opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to come forward. Applicant, Avinder Chawla, 1724 W. Chapman Ave., Orange stated he was applying for a CUP License for Circle K. If given the chance he would operate in a nice environment so there would not be problems. He had been in business at a location two blocks away in the City of Orange at 2310 W. Chapman Avenue and has been operating there for the last 6 years. Commissioner Bonina asked if the applicant was a franchisee of Circle K? Mr. Chawla stated yes, that was correct. Commissioner Bonina stated the franchise agreement included an Alcohol Management Plan and asked the applicant ifhe intended to implement the plan? Mr. Chawla stated yes, that was one of the conditions in the franchise agreement. Chair Steiner closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for discussion. Chair Steiner stated he was going to make a motion for approval and his basis for the motion was primarily influenced by the fact of the potential for the introduction of a nationally recognized chain being persuasive evidence of the need for public convenience and necessity, particularly in light of the present state of the property. He was also persuaded by the Police Department's support of the project and that Commissioner Merino's questioning regarding the year of a spike in crime was during the same year that 7-Eleven left the location. He stated that he accepted that there may not be a relationship between the two; however, it was anecdotally persuasive. He stated his final reason was the benefit of a responsible business person who had been in the City of Orange for many years and informed by Staff that there had not been any form of disciplinary action taken against him. Page 11 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 2008 Chair Steiner made a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-08, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2693-07 - Circle K, noting that the item was categorically exempt from CEQA. Mr. Sheatz asked if the motion included striking of Condition No.9, and modification to Condition No.16 to change 1 :00 p.m. to read 1 :00 a.m. Chair Steiner amended his motion to include the changes. Commissioner Merino stated he felt bringing in a nationally recognized chain to the location would enhance the location and address the urban blight situation. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioner Bonina, Imboden, Merino, and Steiner None None Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED (6) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2703-08 - BIG E FOOD MART A proposal to allow an Alcohol Beverage Control Type 20 License (Off-Sale Beer and Wine) within an accessory retail sales/cashier area of an existing automotive fueling station. LOCATION: 890 N. Batavia Street NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class I- Existing Facilities) since the project consists of the operation and licensing of an existing private structure. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-08. Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Chair Steiner addressing Sgt. Bird, stated one of the Police Department's concerns in issuing alcohol related Conditional Use Permits was whether a particular area was over concentrated, and asked if the proposed location was over concentrated? Sgt. Bird stated it was saturated, but not over concentrated. Page 12 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 2008 Chair Steiner stated the issuance of another CUP would create a situation of over concentration and one of the factors was whether the area was a high crime area. Sgt. Bird stated he agreed with the statements. Chair Steiner asked from a land use standpoint what type of area was the business located in? Sgt. Bird stated it was a primarily commercial manufacturing area with no residential in the immediate vicinity, with the closest residential being approximately % of a mile away. Commissioner Merino stated he was torn with one issue on the item. It was the fact that the property was a gas station where motorists would get fuel and they were looking at adding alcohol to the location. It was a difficult decision as a person could potentially fill up on gasoline, purchase alcohol and drive away. The opportunity for an individual to drink and drive was being added. As the Police Department was in support of the application was there less of a concern due to the location of the business or were there any mitigating factors? Sgt. Bird stated the property was not near a freeway on ramp, there were also provisions in the CUP that limited sales of certain types of alcoholic beverages, such as singles and sizes of singles. The idea was to sell prepackaged items that were more likely to be taken home or to another location, rather than to open while driving. The property was outside of a residential area. He felt that all locations that sought off-sale permits should be looked at carefully, not just those that sold gas along with the alcohol sales. Commissioner Merino asked based on his professional opinion, was it more likely that a business that was in close proximity to a freeway on/off ramp a greater potential for an individual to drink while driving? He felt, based on the location of the applicant's property, an individual would more likely be going to a local residence or other venue located in the City. Sgt. Bird stated when a service station/convenience store was located near a freeway on/off ramp they were there for vehicles traveling down those thoroughfares, to get off, get gas, get a snack and move on. They were not necessarily there for City residents. Commissioner Bonina stated wouldn't it be reasonable to say that those same facilities which were simply convenience stores located by on/off ramps would have the same issue regardless if they sold fuel or not? There was a convenience issue, and if one could be located by a freeway on/off ramp it would not matter if there was fuel or not. The same issues would remain regarding the purchase of alcohol. He stated he was trying to find how a fuel facility with an alcohol license was more dangerous for the community than a convenience store that did not sell fuel but sold alcohol. Sgt. Bird agreed with the statement. He felt the difference being, for example, if a person went to a 7- Eleven type convenience store without a fuel island, they would be going Page 13 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 2008 there for a particular item that was sold at that location. When a person entered a business that sold fuel, the primary reason for entering that facility was to make a fuel purchase, and the convenience store items would become secondary. Chair Steiner opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to come forward. Applicant, John Moorcroft, 764 S. Lawry, Orange, stated his facility had 16 cameras that ran 24 hours a day with a four month feed. He believed they had been utilized by the Police Department in the past. His property was approximately two blocks from the Police Department. He had a good relationship with the neighborhood and they carried open accounts with the commercial and industrial sector. Chair Steiner asked how long had Mr. Moorcroft been in business? Mr. Moorcroft stated the gas station had been there since 1973 and he had acquired the business approximately 6 months ago. Commissioner Merino stated he had been to the location multiple times. He was concerned with a patron purchasing fuel, grabbing a six pack and consuming it while they drove. As the proprietor of the location he asked if any thought was given to that issue? Mr. Moorcroft stated he worked seven days a week at another job as well as working 7 days a week at the gas station. He had a large number of repeat customers, new traffic accounted for approximately 15% of the customers. Many of the customers came in to purchase energy drinks before going to work, purchase food at lunch time and make a fuel purchase. He had a good relationship with the community. Commissioner Merino asked ifhe felt alcohol sales were critical to the business? Mr. Moorcroft stated he was successful now and the addition of alcohol sales would enhance the business. They were asked regularly by their customers if alcohol would ever be sold at the location. He had checked into the matter extensively and had various conversations with Sergeant Bird, who laid out the foundations that were strict and severe. He was able to accept the conditions. The alcohol sales would enhance the sales at the store. Commissioner Merino asked if they were open 24 hours? Mr. Moorcroft stated no. Chair Steiner stated Batavia was not a major thoroughfare; it was the type of street that you would not travel on if you did not live in the neighborhood. Mr. Moorcroft stated he agreed with that statement. Commissioner Merino, addressing Mr. Sheatz, asked if the applicant were to change his operating hours to a 24 hour convenience store would it necessitate a change to the Conditional Use Permit? Page 14 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 2008 Mr. Sheatz stated no, there were no hours of operation in the application. In the Code for the type of operation, there was no limiting hours of operation. There were regulations in the Business and Professions Code that specifically addressed places that sold alcohol along with motor vehicle fuel. There were limitations specific to that use. The applicant would not require any amendments to the Conditional Use Permit as hours of operation were not part of the application. Chair Steiner closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for any further discussion. There was none. Commissioner Bonina made a motion to adopt PC 15-08; recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2703-08 - Big E Food, noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Chair Steiner Commissioner Bonina, Imboden, Merino, and Steiner None None Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED (7) ADJOURNMENT Chair Steiner made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on Monday, May 5, 2008. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, and Steiner None None Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED MEETING ADJOURNED @ 8:05 P.M. Page 15 of 15 Pages