2013 - January 7Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
January 7, 2013
Page 1 of 11
January 7, 2013
Monday 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner
ABSENT: None
STAFF
PRESENT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager
Robert Garcia, Associate Planner
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
REGULAR SESSION
Chair Steiner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call
All Commissioners present.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
None
PLANNING MANAGER REPORT:
Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated there was nothing additional to
report.
Chair Steiner provided an overview of the City's appeal process.
Planning Commission Meeting
Consent Calendar:
January 7, 2013
Page 2of11
(1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR SCHEDULED
MEETING OF DECEMBER 17, 2012.
Commissioner Gladson made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the
December 17, 2012 Planning Commission meeting as written
SECOND: Commissioner Grangoff
AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Buttress
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting
New Hearings:
January 7, 2013
Page 3 of 11
(2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2872 -12 — MARISQUERIA &
TAQUERIA MEXICO
The applicant proposes to sell beer and wine under a California Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control Type 41 (On -Sale Beer and Wine for a Bona Fide Public Eating Place)
license in association with an existing 1,984 SF restaurant.
LOCATION:
4509 E Chapman
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class
1 — Existing Facilities) because the project only involves
the licensing of alcohol sales and no new construction is
proposed in association with the request.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 02 -13 approving
the allowance of an ABC Type 41 license for an existing
restaurant.
Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, provided a project overview consistent with
the Staff Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions for Staff.
Commissioner Gladson asked for a crime summary from the Police Department's
representative from 2006 to the present application date for the census track.
City of Orange Police Department Representative, Sergeant Fred Lopez, stated in Orange
crime was tracked per reporting districts and crimes per reporting districts in 2011 were
77 per district for the entire City of Orange. Reporting district 54E, which was where the
subject site was located, was one of the lowest in the City of Orange and currently they
reported 40 crimes for the year 2011 which was 48% below the average. He took it one
step further, because the restaurant was surrounded by some County of Orange pockets,
he pulled some crime stats from the Orange County Sheriff's that patrol that area;
keeping in mind how they document things was a bit different. Currently for 2011 the
Orange County Sheriff's Department had an additional 15 part one crimes, which
included homicides, there were no aggravated assaults, which would be any injury that
would require a hospital visit even for stitches, burglary, larceny and stolen vehicles were
also included in part 1 crimes and those were the crimes they tracked in considering
CUP's. That number added an additional 19% increase in crime, but still below the
City's average, 29% below the average of any of the reporting districts in the City.
Planning Commission Meeting January 7, 2013
Page 4 of 11
Commissioner Gladson stated the applicant had a prior application in 2006 and she asked
for statistics for that time frame.
Sgt. Lopez stated he had not had the crime stats for 2006, as the requirement in
considerations for CUP's was to go back one year prior to the year that the application
was being requested. A couple of things he could state about the business was that in the
past year, the Orange Police Department had responded to 2 calls for service at that
business and they were both false alarm calls; which was not unusual and was a very
common call for service in the City, due to malfunctioning alarms or employees who
were not familiar with operating the alarm system. Some things to consider and he had
gone over the entire CUP, often times when owners were looking to increase or add
alcohol they were also looking to add an entertainment permit, looking to have parties or
rent the facility out, looking to remain open extended hours, but that was not the case
with the particular business before them. The business was asking for hours to remain
open until 11:00 p.m. Many of the alcohol related crimes that occurred in the City of
Orange occurred well after that time, generally closer to bar closing hours and certainly
not at 11:00 p.m. Another thing that was unique about the business was that they were
not looking for bands or D.J.'s and was agreeing not to have those types of things. They
could apply for a one time permit for a wedding reception, but for day to day business
they were not asking for any of those things and it was an established business where
there had not been any problems. The business was looking to add beer and wine to
enhance their business and sales as well. The Orange Police Department could find no
reason to oppose the permit based on the factors as stated.
Chair Steiner opened the item for public comment and invited the applicant to address the
Commission.
Dick Evitt, address on file, stated he was a real estate broker and specialized in selling
liquor licenses throughout the Inland Empire. His clients had gone through all the
Conditions of Approval and they agreed and had no objections on the conditions that had
been set by the City and the Police Department. The applicants were a young couple
trying to help out their business.
Chair Steiner stated there were 44 Conditions of Approval and asked if they agreed to all
of them?
Mr. Evitt stated they had read through all of them and he believed that there was a
question on one, but basically they had read through all of them and they had no
objections to any of them.
Chair Steiner asked how long had the business owners been in business at that location?
Mr. Evitt stated almost 8 years.
Chair Steiner asked if there were any questions for the applicant's representative. There
were none. He invited public speakers to address the Commission.
Planning Commission Meeting January 7, 2013
Page 5 of 11
Max Amaro, address on file, stated he lived in the Modena area where the restaurant was
located. He was present to ask that the CUP not be approved. The reason was that he did
not want people drinking and driving, there was another restaurant close to the other
restaurant and he saw people coming in and eating and drinking. They had a lot of
illegals and there was trash everywhere and there was not another place that needed
drinking. There was a store, an Albertsons, a liquor store and a 7 Eleven store and he did
not think they need another place for drinking. They did not need another permit for
people to go and drink again. He lived there, he was a tax payer and a citizen and he had
not thought it was right to have another place to drink. There were already a lot of
problems and the City did not know because his area was County. He had to call the
sheriff's department because of people blocking his driveway, blocking the street, and a
lot of illegals there. There was a school pretty close and it was not o.k. to have another
place for people to come and drink. Mr. Amaro stated the applicants wanted their
restaurant to be more profitable and they needed to fix it or make better food. Sometimes
he went to the other restaurants where the food was good and he had not thought that they
needed alcohol to have a better business. He was very opposed to it.
Chair Steiner asked Mr. Amaro if he had been opposed to the CUP in 2006.
Mr. Amaro stated they urinated outside and around there was a lot of graffiti and gangs
and he saw the Police Department there all of the time.
Jeanette Palacio, address on file, stated she was a home owner and she had opposed the
permit in 2006. Sergeant Lopez was correct, El Modena had jumped leaps and bounds
and they referred to themselves as county folks there. The restaurant submitting the
permit was directly across the street, they were their neighbors, and they were not talking
about other parts of Orange where there was a business area and then a residential area;
her home was directly across the street. Since 2006, El Modena had come a long way
because of groups like hers, which was the El Modena in Action Community. They
knew they had to police themselves. Statistics may show that there was less crime in El
Modena and she understood every business needed their start and the opportunity to do
the best with their business, but the business had been there for 7 years and they had not
been selling liquor in all that time. The restaurant had weathered a recession and that
said a lot for them. The community and they asked as fellow citizens, although they were
county folks, that the community had not needed another liquor license in that area.
Maybe the statistics showed that crime was not as heavy, but it had taken citizen's groups
and the Sheriffs Department to get a hold on El Modena and they refused to let it go
down again. The restaurant had been in business and had been doing well, through a
recession and they were still in business and they wished them the best. She thanked the
Commissioners.
Chris Feliujan, address on file, stated she liked to deal with the reality and the facts and
what the statistics showed. The important thing to look at was what were they doing to
their community that was starting to improve and was doing better. According to the
American Journal of Public Health in adding an additional outlet for alcohol there would
be an increase of crime in the city of 3.4 assaults per year. According to the Journal of
Planning Commission Meeting January 7, 2013
Page 6 of 11
Public Health Policy the single most important reason for environmental factors
explaining why violent crimes were hirer was due to alcohol outlets. The Journal on
Studies of Alcohol had completed a comparison for every 100 alcohol outlets and if one
more was added in Orange the crash level would be increased by 9.27 crashes and
vehicular problems. The Journal of Criminology indicated the risk of murder taking
place on that block would increase 5% and adding one bar would result in an increase of
3.38 crimes and violent crimes of all types would be an increase of 17.6 %. It was also
noted under the temporary economic policy, October 1996, whenever there were a lot of
alcohol outlets around high schools and junior high schools there was a lot of under age
drinking. There was a high school and two junior high schools in the area. It also
became a problem with the quiet enjoyment of property; it would become noisy and
people would be rude and there were enough problems with people not being so polite in
walking down the street where the restaurant was located. Her mother had problems, she
was 77 years old and she had not needed those problems and it was annoying. The
Department of Justice stated alcohol abuse was a factor in 44% of violent crimes
committed in the United States. 35% of victimization involved people who had been
drinking. In about 2/3 of violent crimes they were described as simple assaults. The
victims might not wind up in the hospital, but she had not wanted to be grabbed or
attacked as she was walking down the street. If they had not believed the Government,
there was a very conservative group that found 60% of alcohol costs were not related to
alcoholics, they were related to social drinkers that got out of control and stuff happened.
It accounted for 185 billion dollars per year in societal costs; those costs were related to
loss of productivity, absenteeism, diabetes complications, some cancers, unprotected sex
leading to pregnancy and fights. Half of the trauma patients in the ER were related to
alcohol. Who would bear the cost; the City or County of Orange? Although the Police
Department gave statistics for the immediate area it was not as if a person would crash
their car in the first block, it might occur miles away or on the freeway. She would hope
that the Planning Commission would oppose the request before them. Statistics were not
on their side.
David Cortez, address on file, stated that he opposed the application because it would not
improve the community. It would exclude children, there were a lot of children that
lived in El Modena and it would open the door for people who wanted to drink. People
would be drinking; when people should be having breakfast with good nutrition, orange
juice, and pancakes. The restaurant used to open at 10:00 a.m. Mr. Cortez presented a
map and stated the restaurant was on the border of the County line and one block south of
Chapman and other off site locations was located within a mile of the restaurant in their
community. There were the other markets.
Chair Steiner stated the applicant was not requesting an off sale license, they were
requesting an on sale license.
Mr. Cortez stated there was an abundance of on sale and the numbers that he had gotten
from the last submittal was not correct because 3 they got from the county and were not
in the City; it was something to think about. Some of the locations were just 2 to 3
blocks from each other. The day laborers would hang around there sometimes and the
Planning Commission Meeting January 7, 2013
Page 7ofII
police came by and it would give them another chance for a hang out at 7:00 a.m. Most
of the time when he went by the restaurant the owner was not there and most of the time
there was just one person there. On Monday there was just 1 person there. The
restaurant was in close proximity to the El Modena Center, a preschool and the church.
Everything was close. He opposed the application and it would not benefit the City. It
would exclude the children and the children needed things to do and that was his main
point. It was a good place and was succeeding without alcohol.
Tuyet Mai Ho, address on file, stated she had a 17 year old daughter and if the restaurant
would sell beer and wine it would bring strangers into the community. There were
enough problems and trouble in the community and with a new alcohol license it would
create a problem. As the El Modena community children walked to school, walk to
church or the library; and those were really good places for the community for their
children — the new generation and she would want children raised with a good value for
the community and raised with their family, for the community and with good results for
society. She opposed the application.
Chair Steiner invited Mr. Evitt to present any comments with regard to the public
speakers.
Mr. Evitt stated most of the speakers had good causes, but what they were speaking to
was off sale beer and wine licenses. The CUP before them had conditions that there
would be no signs for beer or wine advertisement and it would not be visible that beer
and wine would be offered at the restaurant. He referred to Condition No. 32. As far as
the schools, Conditions No. 39 and 40 specifically stated that no child under 18 years of
age shall be allowed, at any time, to sit in the restaurant at any time without the
supervision of a parent. The hours being from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. that unaccompanied
students would not be allowed in the restaurant, unless accompanied by an adult. He
had just celebrated his 78 birthday last week and he had gone to a Mexican restaurant
and had cocktails with his dinner and what was wrong with having a cocktail, beer or
wine with a meal. The applicant was asking for that situation. Customers of the
restaurant had been asking for beer and wine. There was no graffiti at the restaurant or
trash or any of the things at their shopping center; things that had been brought up by the
speakers. He was not a heavy drinker, but liked to have a drink once in a while. He was
asking the Planning Commission to consider the application and the Police Department
had not considered the area as a high crime area. It was in the scope for the City to allow
the license and he was asking a consideration of the information as presented and to
approve the request. He thanked the Commissioners.
Commissioner Gladson stated a Type 41 license was a particular number and she asked
what would that entail if a patron walked into a facility and sat down to order just a beer?
Mr. Evitt stated with a Type 41, the condition specified that alcohol only service was not
allowed. A patron must order food. The beer or wine would be served with food only. It
was specifically stated in the Conditions of Approval.
Planning Commission Meeting January 7, 2013
Page 8 of 11
Ms. Feliujan stated she found it important that the applicant had stated just alcohol in
general; the statistics that she had quoted were for outlets such as restaurants and bars and
places where people ate and drank. She wanted to clarify that. They needed to have a
real understanding of the type of restaurant they were talking about. The restaurant had a
glass counter at the front and a few simplistic tables and essentially looked like a Del
Taco. Basically the restaurant was asking to grant a beer and wine license to a Del Taco;
and maybe Del Taco would now want to serve beer and wine. There was a Del Taco
down the street and it was a little bit nicer. There were other fast food locations around
the area and not dissimilar in appearance. The restaurant was not a fancy sit down
restaurant; it was a totally different atmosphere. Maybe the area was not high crime
currently, but putting beer and wine in a fast food restaurant they might wind up with a
high crime area.
Chair Steiner closed the meeting to public comment and brought the item back to the
Commission for further discussion or action.
Commissioner Grangoff made a motion to adopt PC Resolution No. 02 -13, approving
CUP No. 2872- 12- Marisqueria & Taquieria Mexico; subject to the conditions contained
in the Staff Report, and noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA.
Commissioner Grangoff stated he made the motion not falling to deaf ears to the public's
concerns, but with a lot of confidence in the Police Department's recommendation.
Often times the Police Department came to the Commission with conditions that he
found very restrictive. The Police Department was stating that the application before
them would not endanger the public and it was imperative for the business to remain
competitive in the area.
Commissioner Gladson stated she would second the motion and further add in terms of
their discussion that the key land use for the equation was that the location before them
was a restaurant and it was a bone -fide eating establishment that would primarily offer
food as the main draw. The ancillary part of it was that if a patron was of age, legally 21,
an adult beverage could be ordered to go with a meal and enjoy that. As Commissioner
Grangoff had stated so wonderfully there were a number of strong Conditions of
Approval attached to the CUP that should provide a sense of confidence to the neighbors
that if issues arose, there would be an annual review that would go through the Planning
Director and the Chief of Police to ensure everything remained on the up and up. If there
was a problem or if the community found problems that could be communicated with the
City's Staff and there were grounds for revocation of the permit. The fact that the license
was for a restaurant she was comfortable with that. A bar would be a totally separate
issue and the crime statistics would show a different picture. It was legal to drink in the
United States of America and they were all supposed to be responsible with that. If
someone became inebriated and had not acted appropriately there were nice men in
uniforms to take the citizens away. She could support the CUP.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 7, 2013
Page 9of11
Commissioner Cathcart stated he understood the neighbors concerns and they were
relevant, but the facts presented would not disallow the applicant a beer and wine on site
license.
SECOND: Commissioner Gladson
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting January 7, 2013
Page 10 of 11
(3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2880-12 - TELACU
The applicant is proposing an administrative office in excess of the 25% allowed in an
industrial zone. The office area would be 3,428 SF, which is 53% of the tenant building
space.
LOCATION:
604 E Eckhoff
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class
1 — Existing Facility) because the project is for the interior
improvement of an existing structure.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 03 -13 for an
administrative office in excess of the 25% allowed in an
industrial zone.
Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions for Staff. There was none. He stated
that the application would be phased in and there were 3 phases to the project.
Chair Steiner invited the applicant to address the Commission.
John Clem, address on file, stated his firm had purchase the building and they were
excited to be part of the community of Orange. He completely agreed with Staff's
recommendations.
Chair Steiner closed the public hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for
further discussion or action.
Commissioner Buttress made a motion to adopt PC No. 03 -13, approving CUP No. 2880 -
12-Telacu, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and noting the items
categorical exemption from CEQA.
SECOND: Commissioner Cathcart
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting January 7, 2013
Page 11 of 11
(4) ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Buttress made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled
meeting of the Planning Commission on Monday, January 21, 2013.
SECOND: Commissioner Gladson
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED
Meeting Adjourned @ 7:39 p.m.