2007 - October 1
~~CO fI ~..~..3
PC ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION
OCTOBER 1, 2007
Administrative Session
6:30 p.m. 10/01/2007
Commission and Staff discussed the memo they had received from the City Attorney's
Office regarding the Administrative Session of the PC Meetings, and how matters should
be handled or agendized for future meetings. Mr. Sheatz stated that items could be listed
under the administrative session heading of the Planning Commission Meeting agenda,
for example items such as Staff Issues or Training Issues could be listed and be open
ended for discussion. This would give the Commission a better way of managing the
Administrative Session.
Chair Imboden looked to the Committee for a review of the meeting agenda and asked
for any clarification needed on tonight's items.
Mr. Knight stated that the Wireless item was being brought before the Commission to
look to them for further recommendations and action based on their findings.
Chair Imboden read through the remainder of the items: Item No. (2) Gabbi's Mexican
Restaurant, Chair Imboden noted that this was a DRC Item being brought before the PC
due to a conflict item that would be presented by Ms. Thakur during the review session.
Item No. (3) Westoak Chevron, was an item that had been continued several times and
was coming before the Commission again. Commissioner Whitaker stated that he would
recuse himself from this item as his office was within 500' of the business.
Item No. (4) Spoon's Restaurant was a proposal to revoke an inactive CUP.
Item No. (5) Charo Chicken was seeking an ABC license. Commissioner Merino asked
how he could present information that pertained to both item 5 & 6. He had an issue he
wanted to present that would affect both items and asked how he could bring up his
concern regarding equal treatment on both items. Mr. Sheatz explained that there could
be no discussion on item 6 prior to its presentation on the agenda or at the Administrative
Session. Chair Imboden stated that each item needed to be heard and reviewed
independently- as separate items, and as listed on the Agenda.
In closing Chair Imboden reminded the Commission that the administrative session was
for clarification of items to be heard and, additionally, it was also the Commission's
responsibility to review the items prior to the meeting and have a clear direction on how
they would proceed to vote; and to use discretion on questions directed to staff, and those
questions asked during the Administrative Session.
Commissioner Merino wanted to clarify if he was being prevented from having any
discussion on the items presented before the Commission at these sessions? Chair
Imboden stated that was not the case.
Administrative Session adjourned @ 7:00 to the regular schedule PC Meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes
October 1, 2007
1 of 16
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
1 October 2007
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
Anna Pehousek, AICP
Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation
Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
(1) MODIFICATION TO THE CITY'S WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
FACILITIES REGULATIONS
Principal Planner, Anna Pehousek presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report of an amendment regarding the City's Wireless Communication Facilities
Regulations. The regulation was looking at four specific issues:
. prohibiting Wireless Communication Facilities in residential areas entirely
. requiring a greater separation of cellular facilities from residential
properties
. allowing co-location on existing towers within a defined separation from a
residential district
. the screening of ground equipment in relation to Police Department
Surveillance objectives.
Chair Imboden asked for clarification that Staff was looking for direction and input from
the Commission and if this item would be brought back to the Commission.
Ms. Pehousek responded that an amended version of the existing code language with
strikeouts and a cleaned up version would be brought back to the Commission for action
through a Public Hearing.
Commissioner Whitaker wanted clarification on the requirement for all Wireless
Communications Facilities in a residential district to be stealth, and asked if this would
Page 1 of 16 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 2007
2 of 16
mean that there could be no co-location on a non-stealth location in a residential area.
Ms. Pehousek answered that on a new co-location it would need to be stealth, and that in
other cities they have strongly encouraged the same. She also stated that with this change
the City of Orange requirement would be more stringent than other city's requirements.
Commissioner Bonina stated that it appeared that the other cities that were surveyed were
not surrounding cities. Ms. Pehousek stated that in preparing their report they were
requested to look at cities outside of Orange County and in a previous reports there was
information regarding cities in Orange County and that information could be provided to
the Commission.
Commissioner Bonina asked if there were any alternatives to cell towers and if there were
any alternatives based on newer technology available. He also asked for clarification on
the reference to Institutional and what this covered. Ms. Pehousek stated that they did
look at this, and with constant changes in technology that the panels are getting smaller
and Staff has been tracking it the best they can. In reference to the Institutional
requirement she clarified that this referred to schools, churches, parks and there would be
no changes required of these types of facilities.
Discussion continued by the Commission on the requirement for fully enclosed structures
and what this meant. Ms. Pehousek stated that Staffs conception was an enclosure with
four walls, a roof and a door with a secure lock. Commissioner Merino asked if the Police
Department had given their input for the need to have these wireless facilities fully
enclosed. Commissioner Steiner felt that an enclosed structure would invite more crime,
and he did not feel comfortable imposing architectural limitations on a design.
Ms. Pehousek stated that there had not been any specific crimes to wireless equipment,
but rather to the metals used in some of the components of the facilities, the Police
Department saw this change as more of a preventative measure. Chair Imboden
commented that there definitely needed to be a clear direction on how to screen these
facilities, but did not see the need to go to a structure with solid walls and a roof and
further exploration of alternatives needed to be done with some of the burden of security
placed on the cell provider.
Commissioner Bonina asked when looking at Option 1 in a residential stealth application,
is the concept that you would go through a priority process with the applicant and ask if
they had looked at the options that are laid out. Ms. Pehousek stated that this was the
idea, and in the east part of the City there were some cell towers installed on street lights,
that is something that would be looked at in discussing options whether equipment could
be mounted on existing equipment rather than introducing something new into the
environment.
Commissioner Merino asked if the proposal would be mandating a stealth design in a
residential area. Ms. Pehousek stated that yes this is what the proposal would require.
Commissioner Steiner stated that he did not have a problem mandating stealth in a
residential area and it would encourage co-location and wanted clarification on a non-
stealth pole in a residential area if someone wanted to co-locate what would be the
Page 2 of 16 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 2007
3 of 16
requirement for that co-location. Ms. Pehousek explained that the pole would have to be
replaced with some type of faux tree and there could be two carriers on that tree or find
somewhere else to go.
Chair Imboden stated he did not feel comfortable with the language: feasible, it is not a
term they typically use with projects in the City, it presents a gray area and he would like
to see that language avoided. On the comparison Cities he would like to see local
comparisons. On the location of equipment in public right of way what is the review
process for this installation, he wanted to see more information on what would be
allowed and how this is evaluated and processed. He also had a concern about the stealth
requirement and how it would affect structures in the historic district and felt that Design
Review would be warranted.
Chair Imboden stated that he had concerns with those towers located close to residential
areas and regardless of the zone those towers were the area that Staff needed to take into
consideration the residential needs nearby and not have a regulation based specifically on
zone. He felt that there needed to be a buffer in the separation issue to account for those
locations close to a residential area.
Commissioner Whitaker felt that mandating stealth for a new facility is a good thing,
however, he did not feel putting towers in a residential area was a good thing. On
existing towers he supported co-location, if it is non-stealth he would encourage co-
location and did not see the need for replacement of non-stealth existing towers as it
would encourage a new tower being installed at a lower cost with a proliferation of
towers being built.
Commissioner Merino stated that there were three issues: Appearance of co-location and
the language was not clear on the requirement. In reference to screening for existing
enclosures there needed to be clear direction in the ordinance and he did not see that
addressed in the proposal, and lastly what would be an acceptable stealth tower as there
were a variety of them and he felt the language needed to be clearer on that issue with the
screening requirements clearly stated.
Commissioner Bonina wanted to have clarified the out of use requirement and make sure
that there was a removal request within 90 days. He also agreed with the stealth mandate
in a residential area, however on existing towers in residential zones he felt that
upgrading them to stealth would enhance these locations.
Ms. Pehousek asked for input on the separation issue of facilities in a non-residential area
and the requirement of stealth vs. non-stealth. Chair Imboden felt a stealth installation
would be acceptable, and if it were a non-stealth or other application there should be a
requirement for greater separation as it had the potential for a greater impact on the
residential properties and to allow some variation and options that would assist the
vendors and protect the residential properties.
Chair asked for any further discussion, there was none. The item was closed.
Page 3 of 16 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
October 1, 2007
4 of 16
(2) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 4088-06 - GABBI'S MEXICAN
RESTAURANT
A proposal for modifications to the rear elevation of the existing restaurant. Proposed
modifications include the installation of fixed wood shutters, a new full length awning,
and a new 36' high wrought iron fence.
LOCATION:
141 S. Glassell
NOTE:
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
Guidelines 15331 (Class 31 - Historical Resource Restoration
and Rehabilitation) because the project is limited to maintenance,
repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation,
conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 45-06.
Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur gave a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
She also stated that she did not see the applicant or the architect present and that they had
been informed that their item was being heard tonight. She asked for direction from the
Commission as to continuance of this item.
Chair Imboden did not want to move forward without the applicant being present and
turned to the City Attorney for input. Mr. Sheatz stated that this item could be moved to
the end of the agenda with a motion.
Commissioner Merino made a motion to close the item and it was moved to the end of
the agenda.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Whitaker
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
None
None
Chair Imboden re-opened Item No.2 for discussion. As of 10:05 p.m. the applicant was
not in attendance. He looked to the City Attorney for clarification on moving forward on
this item.
Mr. Sheatz responded that the Commission had a few options; the item could be
continued with a date certain, continued with scheduling at a later date or a motion could
be made. He also advised the Commission to take into consideration that members of the
public had appeared ready to speak on the item and it would be at the discretion of the
Page 4 of 16 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 2007
5 of 16
Commission to re-notice this item if it was not heard tonight to allow those members of
the public to be present at the next hearing.
Chair Imboden commented that he would also like to look into how they would go about
renoticing this item at the applicant's expense. Imboden stated that there had been
similar items heard without the applicant being present and that this was in the guidelines
of the Commission to hear the item tonight.
Commissioner Steiner commented that he hesitated to make a finding on the item without
the applicant being present.
Ms. Thakur stated that on the last continuance the applicant had requested a
postponement of the meeting based on one of the Commissioners not being present at that
particular meeting.
Commissioner Whitaker stated that he would like the item re-noticed with a date certain;
make it clear to the applicant that it would be their last chance to appear. Commissioner
Bonina agreed that the item should be re-noticed to allow the public an opportunity to
speak; he also stated that he was in favor of continuing the item to a future date.
Commissioner Merino felt that based on the fact that the applicant had two prior
opportunities to appear and that the Staff Report was very clear he had enough
information to move forward and felt very strongly that they should move forward on
making a finding on this item.
Chair Imboden felt that based on the Staff s recommendation and the discussion by the
Commission that the item should be continued to a later date and that it would be
renoticed to give all parties involved an opportunity to speak.
Commissioner Bonina made a motion to continue item 4088-06 Gabbi's Mexican
Restaurant to a date uncertain.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABST AIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Whitaker
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
Commissioner Merino
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
CONTINUED HEARINGS:
(3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2662-07 - WESTOAK CHEVRON
LOCATION:
1940 E. KA TELLA
NOTE:
This project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions ofthe
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities) since
Page 5 of 16 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 2007
6 of 16
the project consists of the operation and licensing of an existing
private structure.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 30-07 denying
Conditional Use Permit No. 2662-07.
Commissioner Whitaker recused himself from this item as he had a client within 500' of
this business.
Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb presented a project overvIew consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Imboden asked for clarification that City Council had denied this item. Mr. Ortlieb
stated that the agenda before the Commission indicated that this was an item to be acted
upon; however it was before the Commission for a recommendation to the City Council.
Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff.
Commissioner Bonina asked how long the Ralph's Grocery Store license could be kept in
place as that facility had been closed for quite a while?
Sergeant Bird stated that a vacated location's license can be maintained for 3 years. If a
business moved into that location they could acquire the license without a new CUP or
the license could be transferred to another Ralph's location or sold to another business.
Chair Imboden opened the public hearing.
Applicant Christopher Wadleigh, 1342 Bell Ave Ste. 3K, Tustin came forward. He stated
that there were a few primary reasons that they were seeking a license. Customers had
stated that they were unhappy that they could not purchase beer at this location and
Westoak Chevron wanted to stay competitive and viable as a profitable business in the
area. As for the high crime rate the location had taken their own security precautions
such as locking the doors at midnight, there were cameras on sight, and there was a bullet
resistant glass customer window. If the license was granted they proposed to have two
refrigerated cabinets of beer, a very small use and a small volume of sales.
Commissioner Merino wanted clarification of the letters received from surrounding
businesses supporting this application and if they were supplied by the applicant.
Mr. Wadleigh stated that yes; the applicant prepared the letters to the businesses to be
signed.
Commissioner Steiner asked which businesses preferred to purchase beer at their
location. Also as this was not a destination location it would be more of a stop and shop
with the location being transitory and near a freeway on ramp. Mr. Wadleigh stated that
there was the Howard Johnson Hotel located behind them as well as many small
businesses adjacent to the gas station. In answer to the transit route, if you could not find
Page 6 of 16 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 2007
7 of 16
what you wanted at our location you may change your route and find another business to
go to.
Commissioner Steiner asked if selling beer would facilitate potential customers from
purchasing gas, food items and car washes? Mr. Wadleigh stated that he believed this
would be the case as customers have stated, on more than one occasion that they are
unhappy that they cannot purchase beer at that location and would go elsewhere. He also
commented that many of the negative issues working against them are forces outside of
their control, such as the high crime rate in the area and that the applicant had been
proactive in protecting their patrons and employees.
Chair Imboden closed the public hearing and brought the item back to the Commission
for discussion. He had an additional question regarding the surrender status of the
Ralph's license: would it require a large use business or could it be a different operation
that could use that existing permit.
Sergeant Bird stated the license was a Type 21 off-sale general license and if an applicant
came in and would like to increase their floor space or increase the current operation they
would need to go in front of the Planning Commission or City Council for a CUP,
however if a business went into that location and used existing space or downsized they
could use the existing permit.
Chair Imboden looked to the Commission for any further deliberation or a motion.
Commissioner Merino commented that he appreciated the applicants desire to have a
small sales opportunity but the risks to have a potential driver purchase alcohol, get on
the road and potentially hurt him/herself supported his recommendation to deny.
Commissioner Bonina stated that he did not support the proposal, he did not believe there
was a nexus between alcohol and a gas station and because of the type of business it
should be prohibited from obtaining an ABC License, however with this specific sight
based on the crime statistics and the proximity to the freeway, with the freeway access
being the main issue he did not support this item. Chair Imboden agreed with this
statement and he would not be in support of this item.
Commissioner Merino made a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 30-
07, denying Conditional Use Permit 2662-07 Westoak Chevron with the recommendation
that City Council deny
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
RECUSED:
Commissioner Bonina
Commissioner Bonina, Imboden, Merino, and Steiner
None
None
None
Commissioner Whitaker
MOTION CARRIED.
Page 7 of 16 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
October 1, 2007
8 of 16
NEW HEARINGS:
(4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1389-85 - SPOON'S
RESTAURANT
A proposal to revoke the aforementioned Conditional Use Permit, for a Type 47 on-sale
general alcohol license within a bona fide eating establishment.
LOCATION:
2045 N. TUSTIN
NOTE:
This 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
proj ect consists of licensing of an existing private structure.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.38-07.
Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur provided a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff.
Commissioner Bonina asked if the original CUP had additional rights and uses beyond
the ABC License. Ms. Thakur stated that this CUP was specifically for an alcohol
license. She also noted that there were only two conditions attached to this CUP: (1) All
alcohol needed to be consumed in the building and (2) There would be no advertising or
display devices in the windows.
Commissioner Merino stated that he supported this item and confirmed with Staff that the
property management firm had been contacted and they approved of this revocation.
Commission Steiner addressed the City Attorney and asked for clarification on
Subsection H that dealt with the occurrence of violation of a law and wanted to verify
that they were not looking at this Subsection in making a decision. Mr. Sheatz responded
that Subsection H did not apply and they were primarily looking at Subsection I non-use.
He clarified that CUP's do not expire and the only way to seek revocation is by due
process that was being done through the hearing.
Commissioner Whitaker stated that in reviewing the Staff Report there was information
regarding the surrounding area, and if they should be looking at that as a factor. He had a
concern with this, as they would be looking at a tenant wanting to move into that
location. Ms. Thakur responded that this was merely for background information.
Commissioner Merino asked if the only party that would potentially come before the
Commission would be the property owner. Ms. Thakur responded yes.
Page 8 of 16 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2007
9 of 16
Commissioner Steiner made a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 38-
07, Conditional Use Permit No. 1389-85, Spoon's Restaurant relying solely on subsection
I in making the motion.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Merino
Commissioner Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
(5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2660-07 - CHARO CHICKEN
A proposal to sell beer and wine for on-site consumption (Department of Alcohol and
Beverage Control Type 41 license) from a self-seat restaurant with outdoor seating.
LOCATION:
970 N. Tustin
NOTE:
This 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 licensing of an existing private structure.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 37-07 denying
Conditional Use Permit No. 2660-07.
Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff.
Commissioner Steiner asked what was Staff s response to similarly situated business?
Hypothetically, if they had an applicant where the number of existing on-sale licenses
was 13 and the allowed was 5, and the number of existing off-sale licenses was 5 and the
allowed was 3 in one part of the City and the difference in crime statistic was 196%, and
then you had another applicant where the licenses were exactly the same and the crime
statistic was higher; and Staffs recommendation on one was for approval and the other
for denial, do you perceive that this would be seen as unfair.
Mr. Ortlieb responded that there may be overriding circumstances. In one situation you
may have an area that was a known gang area and the other area where the focus was
economic development; the benefit of drawing in more business by having an alcohol
license to draw in more business may outweigh any negative effects.
Mr. Sheatz reminded the Commission that they needed to stick to the facts of each of the
items and not on hypothetical situations.
Page 9 of 16 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 2007
10 of 16
Discussion continued between the Commission and Sergeant Bird regarding the
connection between alcohol consumption and gang activity and how one was related to
the other in reference to the item being presented.
Chair Imboden opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward.
Applicant, Brad Patterson, 18101 Yon Karmen Ste. 330, Irvine came forward. He stated
that due to miscommunication he and his representatives had come to a previously
scheduled Planning Commission Meeting and at that time they were accompanied by five
customers that were ready to speak on their behalf. As they were not on that agenda they
were unable to make a presentation and those customers were not able to appear again.
Mr. Patterson added that they did receive support through customer signatures at the
restaurant location in support of obtaining the alcohol license.
Mr. Patterson stated that when the owner appealed he was encouraged by the City
Council to reapply for the license to allow the City and law enforcement to correct
problems in the area. In looking at the current crime statistics that the numbers have
increased. He stated that since this business has been open there was one call for service,
it was a call for a young man who had tagged an area of the restaurant, and they were
able to observe it on the cameras that were installed in the restaurant. In the 169 public
notices that were sent out by Staff he was not aware of any complaints or objections, he
explained that there were no sensitive land uses in the area and there were a number of
existing licenses in the area. This property is located in a redevelopment zone. By not
allowing Charo Chicken to obtain an alcohol license the City would be putting them at a
disadvantage over the other business' in the area.
Mr. Patterson addressed the issue of the opportunity for minors to obtain alcohol over the
outside rail. He stated that the alcohol in the restaurant would be sold in open containers
and the patrons of the restaurant are not there for an extended period of time. There are
generally up to 7 employees on the premises, 3 of them being managers. The food is
carried out to the patrons at their tables giving them an opportunity to observe what is
going on in the restaurant. The report stated that there is a potential for increased crime
and a potential for alcohol being served to minors and the report seems to assume the
worst.
Commissioner Merino asked the applicant if the camera surveillance was live and if the
alcohol that would be provided would be served in bottles, cans, glasses or cups. Mr.
Patterson stated that the wine is in splits, and the beer would be in bottles and cans that
would be opened at the cash register. If the Commission requested that the alcohol be
poured into a cup they would comply.
Chair Imboden asked for the public speaker to come forward.
Kristina Mears, 2339 E. Coolidge, Orange came forward to address the Commission. Ms.
Mears stated that she worked with the business owner on advertising for Charo Chicken
and she is familiar with the store and its location as she lives within one mile of this
location. She added that she was not a big fan of alcohol and her standing before the
Commission should say something about the business owner's character. Ms. Mears
Page 10 of l6 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 2007
11 of16
turned down selling alcohol at the Orange Street Fair as she did not want to put drunken
people on the streets. In closing she stated that she did not have a problem with people
going into a restaurant to have a drink with their meal.
Chair Imboden closed the public hearing and brought the meeting back to the
Commission for discussion.
Commissioner Bonina asked Sergeant Bird why there was a resistance to this item and
why the Police Department felt it was not an appropriate location for alcohol sales.
Sergeant Bird wanted to clarify that in the census data and the crime statistics there were
discrepancies in the way data was collected and based on that corrected information the
crime rate was actually higher than initially stated. There are currently 13 existing
licenses, with 5 allowed. These numbers are set by the State and the Department of
Alcohol and Beverage Control based on the population in a census tract. He stated that
in reference to crime in the area and why the Police Department is opposing this item
was due to the area being recognized as OCC (Orange County Criminals) gang territory
and they have had graffiti behind this location along with graffiti from OBC (Orange
Barrios Cypress) gang. He shared that these gangs are one of the most notorious gangs in
the City of Orange and he gave examples of some of the crimes they had committed.
Sergeant Bird stated that there was a correlation between crime and alcohol. Based on
the Department of Justice analysis 36% of those arrested had been drinking when they
committed a crime, in 2/3rds of victims who had suffered violence by an intimate stated
that alcohol was a factor and in 31 % of stranger victimization alcohol was a factor. He
concluded that it would not be a matter of an individual coming into the establishment
sober and leaving drunk and committing a crime, it would be the ability to obtain more
alcohol in a particular area. Based on studies when alcohol was added to an area there
was more cnme.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if one of the concerns was that Charo Chicken could
become a gang hang out. Sergeant Bird stated no he did not see that location as a hang
out for gangs.
Commissioner Merino stated that under the Broken Window theory of crime prevention,
wouldn't a successful business in a neighborhood and a positive influence in the
neighborhood make things better and not worse in this theory. If this business could not
compete and they go out of business wouldn't this be a worse result. It would make
sense to allow them to serve beer and wine in order to remain competitive. Sergeant Bird
responded that yes, in theory having a business in a building rather than an abandoned
building is better and he also stated that he had not heard any information about Charo
Chicken going out of business because they could not sell beer or wine.
Commissioner Steiner asked Sergeant Bird would it not be the case that a gang member
would be just as likely to commit a crime sober as if he were drunk? Sergeant Bird
responded yes.
Chair Imboden brought the item back to the Commission for discussion.
Page 11 of 16 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 2007
12 of 16
Commissioner Steiner stated that considering no other application and looking solely at
this item it was not clear that the prospect of serving alcohol at this location would create
bigger problems for the community. He had not heard anything negative from the public.
He felt that there was a certain degree of direction that they could take from City Council
and the fact that they waived fees and encouraged the applicant to reapply. There were
no sensitive receptors in the area and in his experience that gangsters do no like a
successful, well lit, highly surviellanced and responsible business.
Commissioner Whitaker added that there are two factors: the correlation between crime
and alcohol served at this location and if this was a sit down type restaurant this item
would be recommended for approval in spite of the crime statistics. In looking at the
public convenience and necessity issue, most restaurants make their margins on alcohol
sales and it would be a necessary component of their business. He explained that fast
food restaurants do not rely on alcohol whatsoever and Charo Chicken appeared to be a
successful business without alcohol sales and at that he was leaning towards approval.
Commissioner Merino commented that all the statistics brought forward were important;
however, he felt that they should not make this business owner a victim of gang crime by
denying the permit. He felt that the success of Charo Chicken would only breed
additional success and if someone wanted to abuse alcohol that they would more likely
go to a grocery store to purchase alcohol. Commissioner Merino would be willing to add
a condition that the alcohol would be poured as previously discussed and that he was
leaning towards approval.
Commissioner Bonina agreed that it was a very difficult and challenging decision. He
stated that Charo Chicken was a very well run business and that they were selling a good
product. He did not feel that adding alcohol would be a necessity for this business and
saw no logic in adding another alcohol license to the area. Commissioner Steiner
addressed Commissioner Bonina and restated that a gangster would be as likely to
commit a crime when he was drunk as he would be to commit a crime sober. He did not
feel that a gang crime area should be less amenable to an approach where they restrict
alcohol licensing.
Chair Imboden stated that his opinion had been altered through their discussion and he
also had a chance to review the City Council minutes. An important issue was the
service in the restaurant based on the applicants comments that there would be restaurant
staff circulating through the facility and did not see it as a much different type of
application as they have seen before. He stated that the business was good for the area
and the Community and wanted to give them the opportunity to be a nexus for more
redevelopment in that area.
Commissioner Steiner asked since the recommendation on this item was for denial and
the conditions for approval are so great, could a motion be made to continue with the
recommendations to Staff to prepare a resolution that would be in accordance for
approval.
Mr. Sheatz stated that this would be an option or the Commission could take an action
and if it was for approval, Staff could draft the findings and conditions to be presented at
Page 12 of 16 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
October 1,2007
13 of 16
a future meeting for a resolution to adopt.
Chair Imboden suggested that the Commission, with the advice of council, bring the item
back with conditions and recommendations that were heard on this item.
Mr. Knight stated that this item could be continued to a date certain of November 5,2007
and Staff would have adequate information to draft a finding.
Commissioner Steiner made a motion to continue Item No. 2660-07 - Charo Chicken, to
the Planning Commission Meeting of November 5, 2007 with instructions to draft a
resolution with statements and testimony to recommend approval.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Merino
Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
Commissioner Bonina
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
(6) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2660-07 - CAFE LUCCA
A proposal to sell beer and wine for on-site consumption (Department of Alcohol and
Beverage Control Type 41 license) from a self-seat restaurant with outdoor seating.
LOCATION:
970 N. TUSTIN
NOTE:
This 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.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.35-07 approvmg
Conditional Use Permit No. 2667-07.
Senior Planner Historic Preservation, Daniel Ryan provided a project overview consistent
with the Staff Report.
Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff.
Commissioner Merino asked Staff if the applicant was in complete compliance? Mr.
Ryan stated yes, they were in complete compliance. There were only two outstanding
items that the Commission might not have had information on. The applicant is replacing
the awning per code. The other issue was the area surrounding the stucco to the upstairs
entrance area, and that would be in the purview of the panel to decide whether the color
was appropriate or not. Additionally, Mr. Ryan explained that the set back and alignment
of the doors had been fixed.
Page 13 of 16 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
October 1, 2007
14of16
Commissioner Merino asked Mr. Knight how staff had made the recommendation to
approve, he was curious about the statistics presented and the similarities to the last item,
and what was the key issue that developed a different recommendation from Staff in
those two applications.
Mr. Knight stated that they had internal discussions as well as the discussions heard. He
pointed out that this project was in the downtown area, an Economic Development area,
and it created diversity in the area. The concept of having alcohol service was a positive
one for the business from an Economic Development point of view.
Commissioner Merino clarified that the decisions were made based on the crime statistics
not being as critical as having this business downtown with the ability to enable this
applicant to have alcohol served. He also questioned the sensitive receptors that were in
the area. Mr. Knight answered that these were not the only factors, and the sensitive
receptors were not considered to be a large factor.
Commissioner Bonina asked if one of the deciding factors was that the location was more
of a sit down, be served at your table type of facility vs. the previous application, where
there would be a more regulated distribution of alcohol. Mr. Knight stated that the type
of operation was a factor.
Chair Imboden opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward.
Applicant, Richard Coleman, 2360 N. Park Blvd, Santa Ana stated that beyond the
Staffs recommendations he noted that the business closed at 9:00 p.m., he also stated
that he believed they were in complete compliance from the prior recommendations. The
awning design was submitted approximately 3 months ago and with the approval they
received last week they would be installing it.
Chair Imboden closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for
discussion.
Commissioner Bonina asked Sergeant Bird what had persuaded him to endorse the
application which had a similar background with the prior item that he did not endorse.
Sergeant Bird stated that when the Police Department looked at this application a year
ago they had the 05/06 crime statistics to consider and if they looked at an application
similar to the item being reviewed, almost a year later, the Police Department would not
support the efforts of the applicant to secure a license. Sergeant Bird gave the
Commission information on current crime statistics. He added that in the area where this
applicant was located in the Downtown Plaza, it was recognized as a destination area and
a venue attraction for the City of Orange. Economic Development believed that an
addition of an ABC license would bring additional business to the area and it would be in
the best interest of the City and Plaza. He also stated that based on new statistics if a new
application was received for that area that was similar the Police Department would
oppose it.
Page 14 of 16 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 2007
15 of 16
Commissioner Bonina asked for clarification that if the basis for approval is because it
was a destination location and helped with economic growth, would that mean that the
crime statistics and number of alcohol licenses in the area would be secondary. Sergeant
Bird stated that these applications were not an easy issue any more. That the approval of
alcohol licenses had changed based on the growth of the City and that these issues were
more complex. The reasoning behind the initial application was based solely on the push
by Economic Development. He also stated that on future findings, even on those
applications that were considered destination locations, the Police Department's
recommendations would be different.
Commissioner Merino pointed out to the Commission that economic interests were not
discussed on the previous item.
Commissioner Whitaker asked what crimes were related to the increase in crime
statistics. Sergeant Bird gave an explanation of the differences in Part 1 and Part 2
crimes and presented the following statistics to the Commission:
. 2006 there were 81 Part 1 crimes vs. 2005 there were 60 Part 1 crimes
. 2006 there were 205 Part 1 crimes vs. 2005 there were 150 Part 2 crimes
Chair Imboden asked for any further questions to staff. There were none. He brought it
back to the Commission for deliberation or a motion.
Commissioner Whitaker stated that the Downtown area was being revitalized with unique
restaurants and Cafe Lucca would provide a more sedate dining experience, and although
he was concerned with the increase in crimes, he would support the application.
Commissioner Bonina made a distinction between this application and the previous
application as this item was in a destination location in the City and the operation was
different than that of a fast food location. He also stated that there was an economic
driver on the application. He was concerned with the crime statistics and the number of
alcohol licenses in the area and that he had endorsed the application over a year ago and
he would endorse it again.
Commissioner Merino stated that he felt that the economic driver was an issue on the last
application and he felt that whether the application was in a destination area and the type
of service was as critical as the fact that the previous applicant stated he would have the
same level of service to mitigate some of their issues. In terms of the crime statistics and
the increased number of type 2 arrests, these could be drunken college students that were
an issue in the Old Town area. He wanted to remain consistent, that Cafe Lucca was
competing with other businesses in the area, just as Charo Chicken was in the last
application, and felt he could support this item. He was relying on Staffs Report that the
applicant was in compliance with all previous approvals and regulations and if that were
not the case he would not have supported the application.
Chair Imboden felt he could support the item and these types of applications were
becoming more complex. He agreed with most everything stated by his fellow
Commissioners and that there were concerns, however he felt he could support the item.
Page 15 of 16 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
October 1, 2007
16 of 16
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2667-07
Cafe Lucca for a Type 41 ABC license and adopting Planning Commission Resolution
No. 35-07 and noting they were categorically exempt from CEQA.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
RECUSED:
Commissioner Bonina
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, and Whitaker
None
None
None
Steiner
Commissioner Steiner recused himself from this item as he had previous business with
the applicant.
(7) ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Steiner made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled
session of the Planning Commission held here in the Council Chambers Monday,
October 15,2007.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Bonina
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 10:17
Page 16 of 16 Pages