Loading...
2007 - July 2 C-a500. G.,;).3 Final Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange 2 July 2007 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: INRE: INRE: INRE: Commissioners Imboden, Whitaker, & Merino Commissioners Steiner & Bonina Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Jacqueline Bateman, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 21, 2007. Commissioner Imboden made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 21, 2007 meeting as written. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: INRE: Commissioner Whitaker Commissioners Imboden, Whitaker, Merino None None Commissioners Bonina and Steiner MOTION CARRIED. CONTINUED HEARINGS: None (2) NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 1775-06, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005-248, ND 1775-06, MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 407-05 AND VARIANCE NO. 2165-07 - WIMBLETON COURT (JOHN C. NGUYEN) At the Planning Commission meetings of February 5, 2007 and March 19, 2007, the Commission continued this item in order to allow the applicant some time to provide additional information as requested by the Commissioners. LOCATION: 200 feet east of Old Chapman Rd on the NS ofWimbleton Court NOTE: Negative Declaration No. 1775-06 was prepared for this project in accordance with provisions of the California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA preparation of a Negative Declaration because the parcel map exceeds the 20% average slope requirement of CEQA guidelines for Categorical Exemptions. Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 2007 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 58-06 adoption of Negative Declaration No. 1775-06 and approving of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-248, Minor Site Plan Review No. 407-05, and Variance No. 2165-07. Associate Planner Robert Garcia provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden asks if there are any questions for the Staff? There were no questions. Chair Imboden opens the public hearing and asks the applicant to come forward and share anything more about their project. Alan Nguyen comes forward as the applicant and Chair Imboden asks him ifhe has any additional comments beyond the staff report for this project that he wants the Commission to hear. Mr. Nguyen answers no. Chair Imboden asks the Commissioners if they have any questions for the applicant? Commissioners have no questions at this time. Chair Imboden asks for any speaker cards on this project. There is one card for Richard Vining. Richard Vining, 6231 Wimbleton Court. I have a few issues I would like to discuss. I don't think it has any real impact to the development. I am in favor of this particular project. One of the demands that the City has put on is that an easement of 6' on Wimbleton Court is going to be moved 6' to the north which is fine with me but where I have a little bit of a conflict is where the radius that exists now there is an allowance for an apron onto my property. An easement across that pie-shaped wedge, and I spoke before about that, and I want to make sure that rearrangement of the radius with a 6' extension of the roadway meets and matches as close as practical to the existing aprons there so that I will have access. Without that, I have no easement to that elevation on Wimbleton Court. The original intent was to use the road on the previous development. I gave them 7' or let them move the fence back 7' for that in exchange I was to get an easement. That never happened, so without this particular thing that I'm requesting and some assurance that it's recorded, because the other one wasn't, I wouldn't have any access to a public road off of that property. Does every body understand my point? Chair Imboden answers yes. Chair Imboden asks Mr. Vining to stay at the podium while they address this question with the City staff. Chair Imboden states that Mr. Vining's property is to the east and the access that you are talking about is off of the cul-de-sac directly onto your property. Mr. Vining answers correct. Chair Imboden goes on to states that with this easement, this rearrangement that we're talking about, how much of an adjustment are we talking about and can we speak to his concerns. Page 2 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 2007 Mr. Garcia states that if you look at your Conditions of Approval, Condition #26 specifically addresses the concern. The condition reads, "Improvement plans shall include the making of necessary improvements to the existing apron providing access to the neighboring property to the east". Also, we do have another condition that indicates that before the final map is finalized, all easements, dedications; road easements shall be included in the final plans before the final approval for the tentative tract map. Chair Imboden asks if that is anything that Mr. Vining would be noticed on when that time comes? Mr. Garcia states no that is something that Public Works works through the regular process and gets recorded through the County. Mr. Vining states that those are the provisions that would make me feel a little more comfortable with the project. I am not opposed to the project in any way and I have talked with Mr. Nguyen and I think he recognizes it and that it should be recorded to me. I don't think we have an issue here; I just want to make sure that it gets done like it didn't get on the other piece. Chair Imboden states that he is satisfied that it would take place. Commissioner Whitaker states that he believes that #55 does it. Chair Imboden states that's why he asked Mr. Vining to stay at the podium to be sure that he is satisfied also. I think that what you are asking for does make sense and I think that we have attempted to address that in the conditions. Mr. Vining states it sounds like it. Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney, states that on Condition #55 it talks about showing in detail the easements. I've had a conversation with Mr. Vining and one of his concerns has been having them recorded. If we added some language in Condition 55 that would require the recordation of the easement, that would get him to where he needs to be at the end of the day. Commissioner Whitaker states that the approval of the final map does get recorded and their needs to be a Grant Deed of an easement, but that is something that happens between the two parties. The only thing the City can do is approving the recordation of the tract map. Gary Sheatz responds that's true, but if that Grant Deed was conveyed and they showed proof of that, it would have to be done anyway. You couldn't convey that easement through the map and the map alone. Commissioner Whitaker states that we could make it a condition of approval that the final map not only does it detail the easements, but he provides proof of the recordation. Gary Sheatz responds yes, because you have the risk of land locking an adjacent parcel. So I think you would have that authority here to do that. I don't know if I would feel comfortable doing that in all instances, but in this one I certainly would give the circumstances. Chair Imboden states that they can handle that with our items as they wrap it up. Are there any further questions for staff or anyone at this time? Page 3 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 2007 Commissioner Merino asks Mr. Nguyen about the wall on the left side of the property. When I look at your Civil Engineer prepared grading plan and I look at the top of wall designations, there is a lot more stepping going on in terms of the steps on the wall that bring the scale down that are shown on this rendered elevation versus what's on the grading plan. I want to be assured that what we're looking at here is going to be what we can expect to see because it's not clear to me that's what's shown on the civil drawing. Mr. Nguyen comments what's on the drawings is what it is going to look like. Commissioner Merino states that you have two different drawings that say two different things. Mr. Nguyen states that the two different drawings, one does not show the steps because it is less detailed. Commissioner Merino asks then as this moves forward and the final construction documents are prepared, we're going to see that level of detail that is going to show this. Mr. Nguyen states yes. Commissioner Merino asks that you are assuring the Commission and the City that. Mr. Nguyen states that he is assuring that. Chair Imboden states that one thing that he wants to clarify for the record. I asked this question during the administrative session. The Staff Report indicates that the landscaping and its irrigation will be performed at the end of the construction. Is that construction of the homes or construction of the wall? And the answer was construction of the wall. Chair Imboden asks Mr. Nguyen if he has the same understanding? Mr. Nguyen states yes. Chair Imboden states that we are not waiting for the construction of the houses that it is part of the mitigation of this wall and it needs to be done at that time. Mr. Nguyen states yes. Chair Imboden asks if there are any other questions for the applicant? He closes the public hearing and brings it back to the Commission and look to the body for any further deliberation or motion. Commissioner Whitaker states he believes the applicant has done everything that we've requested and met the concerns of the neighbors and should be time to allow them to proceed forward. Commissioner Merino would be more than happy to second the motion. Chair Imboden asks do we want to make amendments to Condition 55 with the recordation? Commissioner Whitaker states absolutely. Let me make the motion that I move that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. PC 58-06, Negative Declaration No. 1775-06, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-248, Minor Site Plan Review No. 407-05 and Variance No, 2165-07 with the amendment at Condition 55 that all easements be recorded and proof of recordation be presented as a condition to final map approval. Chair Imboden states that he has a motion with an amendment to Condition #55. Do I have a second? SECOND: AYES: NOES: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Whitaker None Page 4 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 2007 ABSTAIN: ABSENT: None Commissioners Steiner and Bonina MOTION CARRIED. RE: NEW HEARINGS: (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2626-06 - DOABA DELHI PALACE A proposal to allow an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine for a Bona Fide Public Eating Place) license for an existing eating establishment and make a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity. LOCATION: 220 E. KatellaAvenue NOTE: This project is Categorically Exempt from the proVISIOns of the California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class I - Existing Facilities) since the project consists of the operation and licensing of an existing private structure. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No PC 10-07, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2626-06. Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Commissioner Whitaker asks Sergeant Jeff Bird from the Orange Police Department since this is a restarting of a previously established restaurant that previously had a license, have you done an on-site inspection of the facility. Sergeant Bird responds yes I have. Commissioner Whitaker wants to know if there have been any complaints during this period when it has not had a license that it sold alcohol? Sergeant Bird responds that prior to the new owners coming into this location, there was a complaint of noise late in the evening coming from the property itself back in the parking lot. The complainant voiced that it sounded like children running around screaming and they could hear music coming from the inside of that restaurant. Those complaints are about 1-1/2 years ago from the previous owner. There have not been any complaints since then. I spoke to that particular complainant in regards to that and she stated that she hasn't had any problems since that incident with the past owners. She actually lives to the rear, two properties east ofthe restaurant so the back of her property actually goes to the rear of the property that's to the east of Doaba Delhi Palace. Commissioner Whitaker states that there is a sign that states "champagne brunch offered" which seems relatively innocuous except that we had a condition that we're putting in that states in Condition 26 "there shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type including advertising directed to the exterior promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages". During the new ownership, has there been any indication that a champagne brunch has been offered when they haven't had a license and has there been any discussion with the owners as to whether that sign has to come down as part of this condition or not? Sergeant Bird responds that his belief is that when the new owners came into that particular establishment they believed they were going to get a person-to- Page 5 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 2007 person transfer of the existing alcohol license that was there. What they found when they moved into the location was that a hold was placed on that particular license by the Franchise Tax Board, State Board of Equalization and another one of the taxing authorities in the State of California. When they do that the license is no longer valid and put into suspended mode and they are not able to do a person-to-person transfer. So essentially the new occupants or owners would have to start from scratch as an original applicant. I'm not aware of them serving any alcohol during the time that they've been there. They haven't had the license to do so. Commissioner Whitaker asks with them that sign? Do we need to modify this condition to allow them to keep the sign after they get their license or do they need to take the sign down? Sonal Thakur states that she has not discussed that with the applicant but Staff would direct the applicant to remove the sign entirely. Commissioner Merino states that both off-sale and on-sale licenses in that area are above the maximum allowable in that area yet it is still not a high crime area by definition of the standard. Based on your knowledge of the area, do you foresee any crime increases being caused by another single liquor license being granted? Sergeant Bird states that prior tenants at that location including the past one that lost the license because of failure to pay taxes did not have any crime related problems related to the service of their alcoholic beverage. There were a couple of arrests made at that address meaning either out on the street or maybe sometimes in the parking lot. Sometimes when you have businesses where the parking lots at to the rear versus in the front, it provides a place for people to hide so there have been arrests of parolees, probationers, things like that in the rear of the business late in the evening but not associated with the business and the sale of alcohol itself. Commissioner Merino asks if liquor is sold at this location and there isn't adequate lighting, supervision or surveillance in the back, can we expect to see a resurgence of that issue as well? Sergeant Bird states that's an issue that we have to deal with for any business when they have parking lots to the rear of their location, so yes, proper external lighting and other types of measures, maybe video surveillance or something, could help in that particular area. I know that during the summer when we have peak use of energy, the law basically makes people turn a lot of lighting out at a certain period of time at night especially after businesses come to a halt. Commissioner Merino asks ifhe has been to this particular location after dark? Are there quite a bit of dark areas still in that part of the back of the building? Sergeant Bird answers that it's been a while since he's been there so he can't reply to that. Commissioner Merino states that he hadn't had a chance to go there at nighttime either. Commissioner Imboden asks if there are any further questions? Commissioners reply no. Commissioner Imboden opens the public hearing and asks the applicant to come forward and share any additional information that he would care to. Page 6 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 2007 Hakem Singh, 220 E Katella, Orange. Doaba Delhi Palace and the landlord Mr. Ron McCain. Commissioner Merino states that we're concerned and responsible for the community as a whole. Before we make a recommendation for additional liquor licenses we need to think about the impact of those licenses on criminal activity and crime. What I'm hearing from Sergeant Bird's comment is that there may be a concern about if there are dark areas in the back part of the parking area. Have you made any efforts to address the lighting in the back corner to insure that if someone goes off and gets a little loopy and starts wondering to the back, gets in their car and starts drinking some more that the lighting is going to dissuade that from happening or the Police can see that sort of behavior taking place? Mr. McCain states there is dawn to dusk lights upstairs over the rear. There is also another large light that floods the whole area. It's really adequately lit at night. Commissioner Merino asks if that's different than what was happening before? Mr. McCain states that the two large ones were there, but I put an additional one in the back. Commissioner Whitaker asks the applicant, on the record, if during the time that there hasn't been a license if he's sold alcohol? Mr. Singh responded no. Commissioner Whitaker asks ifhe understands Condition #26? Mr. Singh responds yes. Commissioner Whitaker asks if he wants us to modify that to allow you to keep that sign or are you going to put up Sunday Brunch or modify that sign? We don't want any problems like that, we don't want any problems like this one, the area should be calm, and we don't want any problems. Mr. McCain states that they would modify it if the City requests it, but I think that they would prefer to keep because they will have a Sunday Brunch and they would offer champagne. Commissioner Whitaker states that right now the sign says champagne brunch and if you look at the strict of our condition that has been put in here, it would say that sign would not be allowed. Commissioner Whitaker asks Gary Sheatz ifhe knows if they got an ABC License in the lottery or do they have to get their CUP first here and then go to ABC? Gary Sheatz responds that ABC won't grant them their license until they get the land use clearance first so they are going to have to show proof that they got clearance from the City before the license will issue. If that's one of the conditions of approval that is very common to these things, then so be it. Chair Imboden states that he thinks the two salient issues have been addressed here. One question that I want to propose is that you have been presented with all of the conditions that go along with this and that you are okay with it. Mr. Singh states that he is in agreement. Chair Imboden states that with regard to the signing of Condition 26, personally it is a very standard condition that we use and I haven't heard any kind of argument why we might sway from that standard condition at this point. I would rather see Sunday Brunch rather than going against what we typically do. I'm going to look to my two colleagues for their opinions as well. Commissioner Whitaker says he doesn't have a problem with the term champagne Page 7 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 2007 brunch. I think it is relatively innocuous and it certainly is a sign that has been up there for quite a long time. I am a little reticent to just force them to change the sign, but if it's a wise thing to do as part of the standard conditions, we should make him change the sign. It's one that I don't really have a strong opinion on either way. I wanted to make sure that the signage up there right now is actually a technical violation of the condition. Commissioner Merino states that one of the general comments that he has regarding the succession of serving of alcohol within a certain period of time prior the closing. I don't see that in there. Chair Imboden states Condition #11, the Pruett Condition. Commissioner Merino states that the reason he brings that to his attention is that his operating hours are in there and he wants him to understand that condition because really what it's requiring is that you stop serving alcohol prior to your actual closing time and I want you to clearly let us know that you understand that. Chair Imboden asks if Commissioner Merino has a comment on the signage? Commissioner Merino states that he just echoes the other comments that were made. I think the term champagne is again innocuous. You may find that the champagne is not all that profitable. It's a more critical issue that your plan for dealing with inebriated folks, that you pay attention to the outcomes of over consumption. That is probably more of a critical item from my prospective than the signage. Chair Imboden states that he'll look to Council then if we're acknowledging that the sign exists and we're not going to ask for it's removal, do we not need to change our condition because otherwise we are going to create a violation here, aren't we? Gary Sheatz responds yes. In a literal sense yes, it would be condoning or creating a violation. Chair Imboden states that in order for them to approve of this in good conscience, and then we're going to have to amend it with a motion. Gary Sheatz states that you can amend it, you can carve it out, you can say with the exception. Commissioner Merino states that if we said to eliminate that extra condition, would you be willing to take the sign down and therefore this goes away as an issue? Mr. McCain says that he'll agree to whatever and Chair Imboden states that he's agreeing to whatever, we just have to determine whatever is. Commissioner Merino says that from his prospective, he would rather see the sign go. That's one less thing that advertises alcoholic consumption. Mr. McCain states that it would have to be replaced, it's not a sign that can be taken away. Commissioner Whitaker states that it looks like a box sign that slides out and you have a new printing. Chair Imboden asks if there are any speaker cards for this item? There were none. He then asks if there is any further discussion with the applicant? No further discussion by the Commissioners. Chair Imboden closes the public hearing and brings it back to the Commission and determine what we're going to do about signage and then move forward. Commissioner Whitaker proposes that we would give them a limited carve out with Page 8 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 2007 respect to Condition #26 to allow the existing sign to stay. It's a new establishment. There have been restaurant failures there before. It's fairly innocuous and I don't necessarily see the need to make them go through the cost of changing the sign if we're actually going to give them the permit. Chair Imboden agrees with that. My concern, more than anything, is future projects that come in front of us, but I think that what you stated is acceptable and I can agree with that. Commissioner Merino states that he prefers not to see anything that is encouraging alcohol consumption, but in light of the fact that it is there and the owners express the desire to be cooperative, I think that this would be a good step to make them a good restaurant and if there are issues, we can always come back. If there are no further discussions, Chair Imboden asks for a motion from the Commission. Commissioner Whitaker motions to approve PC Resolution 10-07, Conditional Use Permit 2626-06 allowing a conditional use permit for the sale of an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 41 at 220 E. Katella Avenue with the amendment to Condition 26 that the existing champagne brunch signage be specific in limited exception and the only exception to Condition 26. Commissioner Merino seconds the motion and Chair Imboden adds that this item is categorically exempt from CEQA. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Merino, Whitaker, and Imboden None None Commissioners Bonina and Steiner MOTION CARRIED. (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2637-07 - MERIDIAN MARKET A proposal to allow an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 20 (Off-Sale Beer and Wine) license for an existing market establishment. LOCATION: 655 S. Main Street NOTE: This project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class I - Existing Facilities) since the project consists of operation and licensing of an existing private structure. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt PC Resolution No. 2637-07, approvmg Conditional Use Permit No. 2626-06. Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden asks if there are any questions for Staff? Commissioner Merino states Page 9 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 2007 that he has questions for Sergeant Bird. Sergeant Jeff Bird, Orange Police Department would like to say a few things before he answers questions. There have been some significant changes since the time that I took over the Narcotic and Vice Unit in our statistics. Basically what I found in the last nine months in supervising the Narcotics and Vice Unit is that the crime statistics were skewed at one point in time prior to my coming to the unit and that was because a filter was not put in place when they pulled the stats down and that filter was, when you generate statistics for alcohol concentration or for the crime rate in a particular location, you're looking for part I crimes and part 2 arrests. What had occurred was they had tabulated part I crimes with part 2 arrests totals for the Professions Code for generating the crime rate. That would skew numbers to some degree. The other thing I found was that ABC, and this was brought to me by the Mirdamadis, had gone down to ABC to do a little bit of their own investigation, and they asked ABC for the census tract numbers for alcohol licenses in that particular area. The printout that they were provided was vastly different from the printout that I was provided not more than just a few weeks before. What I found out from talking to supervisors at ABC is that they have three methods in which they tabulate concentration levels in a particular census tract. What generally has happened is in the past they used to have Thomas Guides and the Thomas Guides would show the borders of the census tracts running down dead center along roadways or thoroughfares, along railroad tracks and dead center down along riverbeds. They now have a newer system, which is computerized, and the computerized version allows them to zoom in and, as they zoom in, these particular borderlines were generated by a computer from statistics that were provided by the representative cities. Some of these have not been found to be completely accurate. What we found in this particular case, this particular census tract is quite a large census tract. It's basically from our railroad tracks at the station going west all the way to the 5 Freeway, from Chapman going south all the way as the 5 cuts around the bottom edge. So it's a very large census tract. As you went down Chapman and you zoomed in on their particular mapping system on the computer, it would show the line instead of being dead center roadway, it would show it 100' north of the north curb line of Chapman which would encompass other businesses that really are not part of that particular census tract nor were they when the ABC investigators went out and provided them with a license in the first place. What ended up happening is the statistics that were originally put on the memos back in February 2006 for this particular market were inconsistent with what is actually in that particular census tract. If you read the Business and Professions Code, it basically says that what they provide us is what we have to use. Since we found out there is 3 different reporting mechanisms, their website, their computerized and the old way through Thomas Guides, and if you look at all three they may vary to some degree on the number of licenses within a particular census tract, the Police Department has felt that it is probably a benefit for both the City and for businesses that we do a little bit more looking into what truly is the accurate numbers for each census tract. So now I have to ask for, not only pulling it off the web, but also the two other systems down at ABC, so it can be a little time consummg. In this particular instance though, Sonal had already mentioned that generally speaking we use census, which is once a decade, to provide us with our numbers for population. That is not what ABC does. They take the state numbers from every year so January of Page 10 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 2007 each year they take the new census for any particular census tract and if there is a significant raise in population that will allow more licenses for that particular census tract. In this case, this particular census tract 760.00 was allowed one more off-sale so it went from 5 to 6 in that particular one. In order for it to go up at least I, there has to be a raise in population by 2,500 people. So that's what you're looking as an additional amount of population in the census tract. We also found that because they were pulling in businesses that were not part of that census tract that the original memo stated that they were already 7 existing licenses for off-sale there when in actuality there were only 4 licenses in that particular census tract for off-sale. There are 3 pending licenses also within that census tract right now. One of them being the Mirdamadis for the Meridian, the second is the old 7-11 that closed at 1724 W. Chapman that is trying to reopen as a Circle K and the third at Chapman and Main on the southwest corner is the Fresh and Easy which has already come in front of the Planning Commission. The crime stats for this particular area had increased. They've gone from 100% over to 150% over for this particular location. I don't know how much you are aware of the Chiefs 5 Pillars and how he wants to make the City one of the safest cities in the state. Part of that during the early year of '06, we concentrated efforts in the southwest portion of the City where we had our highest crime rates. Concentrating those efforts and moving resources from other areas of the City and putting them in just that particular area of the City generated higher numbers for the '06 stats. That is a potential causal factor of why we had such a significant increase in crime. If you look at the numbers of crimes and you look at the crimes themselves, you'll see on the first page of part 2, arrests only for down in RD 12 were 43 outside bench warrant arrests. So what that essentially meant was there were a lot more contacts with individuals proactive stance on the streets than we had normal had because we had so many officers down in that particular area so that is a big causal factor for an increase in crime in that particular area. To go along why the Police Department favors now based on why they didn't favor before, there are a couple of different things that had taken place. The one that we just discussed were the ABC census tract calculations, we know that there's been a change in that growth of population in that particular area. The fact that the licensee had changed from the initial time from a Type 21, General Off-Sale License to now a Type 20, Off- Sale which is Beer and Wine only. Lack of any off-sale establishments currently south of the 22 Freeway, the closest ones would be CVS which is just north of the 22 right at La Veta and Main and the next one would be the 7-11 just north of that on Main Street on the west side of the street. The other issues that the Police Department looked at were the constraints provisions that we could impose on the CUP is constraints to sell a specific quantity and fluid ounce sizes of alcoholic beverages in that particular location, a requirement of percentage of alcohol to food sales limitations, limiting the hours of operation for sale of alcoholic beverages. This particular location, when speaking to the Mirdamadis, was represented as a high end deli location and I look at it that way, it's true intention really was not to become a liquor store, so in order to stop it from becoming a liquor store, limiting the hours to what they already operate right now until 9:00 in the evening for alcohol sales Page II of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 2007 would essentially short circuit it's ability to become the typical liquor store that we're all used to. It would restrict the location from becoming a liquor store in the future that it would have to be maintained as a Type 20 establishment with those hours of operation in the provisions. Commissioner Merino states that he understands there was an increase in enforcement within the area, however, whether there was an increase in enforcement or not, those crime still existed. Correct? Sergeant Bird answers yes sir. Commissioner Merino states so the 153% crime statistic tells us that this has a higher than expected concentration of crime and my understanding is that with the additional density that's being added, that is not likely to go down? Sergeant Bird responds that we're not always going to have that amount of officers down in that area, so you might not generate those numbers from year to year that you're talking about. When you have that proactive stance like we had and you're making more contacts and not just responding in a reactive mode from call to call, then you're not going to have the numbers that were there. The emphasis was to put those numbers of officers in the hopes of reducing crime. I did run the first 6 months of this year to see if there would be a difference, hoping that maybe from last year to this year having those efforts that we may reduce crime. Now we all know that crime isn't static and doesn't do the same month-to-month and it does have it's ups and downs, but when I look at the first 6 months of this particular year, we're about 1/3rd of the crime that we were last year in the first 6 months, i.e., . Larceny - there were 86 last year in that particular area, there's only 28 year-to- date . Motor Vehicle Thefts - there was 20, now there's only 7 . Burglary - there was 16, there's only 2 . Robbery - there was 7, there's only 2 Although that's only the first 6 months and I don't have a crystal ball to see the next 6 months, it could develop to the same as what we had last year, but right now the statistics are not showing us going that way. Commissioner Merino asks if Sergeant Bird has statistics on how many alcoholic related incidents there were? Sergeant Bird answers yes sir. Commissioner Merino asks for a comparison oflast year to this year on those? Sergeant Bird states that all he can show is there were 43 bench warrant arrests made. I couldn't tell you if any of those were under the influence when they were arrested, but I can tell you that alcohol related in the sense of alcohol-type crimes like DUIs, there were 14 DUIs in that particular area in RD 12. There were 5 juveniles in possession of alcohol in that particular area the last year and there were 27 Municipal Code violations which they don't show what the violation is, but you can believe that part of them were drinking in public as part of those Municipal Code violations, but I can't tell you exactly. Commissioner Merino asks if those were all last year's statistics? Sergeant Bird answers yes sir. Commissioner Merino asks ifhe has any for the first 6 months of this year? Sergeant Bird states that they pulled just the part I crimes and the part I crimes are not going to show, other than aggravated assault general has something to do with alcohol or being inebriated one way or another, drugs or alcohol, there were 3 last year, there are 0 to date right now. Burglary has a lot to do with being under the influence too. There were 16 last year, there are only 2 this year and like Page 12 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 2007 I said larceny was 86 year, so far there is only 28 in six months over a 12 month period from the year before. Commissioner Merino states that the other issue is the reason that the additional off-sale licenses have been generated because, as I understand the Staff Report, the Santa Ana housing is being factored in by ABC at this point. Correct? Sergeant Bird states that what he didn't understand and I know now is I thought that our census tracts only encompassed the borders of our City and that's inaccurate. Census tracts go beyond borders and in this particular census tract, it encompasses both Santa Ana and Orange so a number of alcohol licenses are actually part of the Main Place that is considered in these numbers. Commissioner Merino then asks do we have an accurate depiction of crime? Would you include crime statistics that are across the border? There isn't actually a city border between Santa Ana and Orange right there so we may have pushed, through our enforcement, those crime statistics over into that part of Santa Ana, correct? Sergeant Bird states those are the hopes, sir. The Business and Professions Code doesn't allow us to pull statistics from outside agencies. We have to only pull from our own reporting district. In this particular case, could Santa Ana influence crime rate in particular RD? Yes, as we can influence it in there's. Commissioner Merino asks as Santa Ana's high density residential comes into play in that area, is there a trend that you've seen in your experience with higher density residential development coming on line, would you expect to see the crime statistics fall, stay the same or increase in that area? Sergeant Bird replies that a lot of it has to do with demographics itself so depending on the type of element that those locations would bring in would kind of dictate the kind of crime that we might see in that area. Commissioner Merino asks if the higher density that's right behind this market has anything broken out on crime statistics in that area? Is it high, are we seeing a lot of calls for service? Sergeant Bird states that he doesn't have it for just that apartment complex, but I do encompass that entire reporting district which is part of that reporting district. Chair Imboden asks if there are any more questions for Sergeant Bird? Response was negative. Chair Imboden opens the public hearing and asks the applicant to come forward for any questions the Commission may have or additional items that he'd like to make note of to the Commission. Bardia Mirdamadi, 7 Deerwood East, Irvine, California. Chair Imboden asks if he has any comments that he would like to make? Mr. Mirdamadi states that he would like to let the Commission know that in opening this business, we opened in an area that we knew was a newly developed area with housing designated to attract working professionals and our business plan was to cater to that type of clientele and since opening the business about a year ago, we have tried to cater to an upscale clientele and tried to make it a very nice and upscale type of market and deli and we have put all efforts into that. We have a variety of products. We have everyday groceries, such as sandwiches and salads, fresh Page 13 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 2007 fruit, bakery goods, flowers, beverages, cleaning products, and pet food. We've also tried to focus on items that you wouldn't normally find in other stores, like organic foods and bottled sodas that you don't find in other places. We try to attract that type of clientele that enjoys a different type of product and that's what they are looking for. That's been our goal and that is our business plan and that's what it's been and our estimated sales on alcohol is about 20-30 percent and even in the business plan that we provided to the landlord prior to signing the lease, it accounted for only 30% of our business and we don't expect that to be any higher than that. Even in alcohol, our main goal will be to keep it very upscale, mostly wine and maybe imported beers and that type of clientele is what we're trying to attract. I've spoken to the Police Department on many occasions and I understand all the concerns and in order to show them that our goal is not at all to become a liquor store or a convenience store, we are a market and that's what we intend to be. We are applying for a Type 20 license. Our alcohol sales we've agreed to be only about 30% and we agreed to all conditions that have been put forth by the Police Department and the main thing about our store is that, as far as the increase in the population and in the town homes that are being built, we provide a convenient place for people to shop and the main point is that they are able to walk. Weare within walking distance whereas no other place is to the Meridian Apartments and the City Place Town homes that are being built. The nearest grocery store is Ralph's on the corner of Chapman and Main on the north side of the street. The nearest convenience store is 7-11. I don't compare ourselves to 7-11 because we are mainly a grocery store and when I have a customer walk in for the first time, their first reaction is that you carry a little bit of everything and that's what we do. We are there for them to be able to buy anything that they want in one place and that's been our goal and the walking is the main point where it is very convenient for them and the residents of the apartment complex are very, very happy to have us there and I had them sign something to state that it's made their life so much more convenient and before we opened, the management of the apartment complex weren't too sure about the type of business we intended to be. They had their doubts, but after being in business and talking to them, they now see that we are a selling point for the management of the apartment of the apartment complex. They hand out our brochures to their applicants, they even advertise for us in their monthly newsletters. It's been very convenient for them and their residents and not only them, the businesses in that area. There are a lot of businesses in that area on Town and Country looking for lunch in that area. There is a high demand for food at lunchtime and our intention is to increase our food sales and we've already had our plan approved by the Health Department and the City to be able to provide hot food and that's our intention to make the modifications and the necessary changes to be able to do that. We're planning on serving hot food and provide the type of food and service people require in that area. Chair Imboden asks if the any of the Commissioners have any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Whitaker states that he was over in the parking lot today and that's been a historic concern of the Planning Commission. Have you noticed any improvement in the parking situation and people complying with the 30-minute parking restrictions? Mr. Mirdamadi responds yes. Not only that, what's really changed and helped improve the Page 14 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 2007 parking situation, and we had a lot to do with that since moving into that apartment complex, the main problem with parking was that the employees of the shopping center had no other place to park and when you take into consideration the number of employees that inside Starbucks, Verizon, Rubio's and all those businesses, that was almost half of the parking spaces in the shopping center so there was no movement. The cars were parked there all day for the employees and there were only a limited number of spaces that had turnaround. Since then, we initiated and go other businesses to join in, met with the landlord and he recently rented 25 parking spaces across the street from Main Place Mall for the employees to park and that has made significant improvements in the parking situation. There is a high turnaround of the cars and, yes the 20-minute and 30-minute parking spaces have a high turnaround. There are very few businesses in that shopping center that requires a customer to stay longer than 30 minutes. Maybe Starbucks if people are there to study and there's a hair salon where it may take a couple of hours of so, but other businesses mostly just pick up what you need and go. Chair Imboden states that he has no questions for the applicant. Commissioner Merino also states that he has no questions for the applicant. Chair Imboden closes the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission. It seems like there are some questions for Staff. Commissioner Merino asks Sergeant Bird to verify that there are two more applications after this one pending, is that correct? Sergeant Bird responds that they have one more. They already voted on one about 4 weeks ago, Fresh and Easy. Do you know where the next one is? I don't know when it's going to occur. Commissioner Merino asks where? Sergeant Bird answers 1744 W. Chapman which is the old 7-11 that closed. Commissioner Merino states that's quite a distance, both of those are fairly across the freeway from this location. Sergeant Bird states yes sir, down in front of Adrays. Chair Imboden asks if there are any other questions? Response was no. Chair Imboden states that the reason he was opposed to this application when it came before the Commission the first time was because of the numbers that they had in front of us at that time. That information has changed and so I think that my decision is different this time. The reasons that I was against it last time are no longer present. I think that as we start looking at neighborhoods changing and the new forms that they take, we have to also think outside of the box a little bit in terms of the businesses that are needed to support them. The requirement of driving in your vehicle to a larger chain type establishment and try to encourage some of these smaller private businesses in our community. I think that they just go hand-in-hand with this kind of development and I think that any fears that were created by the information given to us last time are not present here this evening so I would be prepared to support this item this evening. Commissioner Whitaker concurs with Chair Imboden. He sat in the parking lot by the market and looked inside the establishment. He thought the establishment was more toward the high end. He was impressed that if he lived at the Meridian, I would think that it would be a convenience especially with the access gate for a professional who is tired from their day at work and wanting to pick up something for dinner and maybe be Page 15 of17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 2007 able to entertain and pick up a bottle of wine at the same time. I think forcing somebody to drive to the pharmacy on the other side of the freeway or up to the grocery store is short sided and I know living in Old Towne, I appreciate having the Palm Market only 2 blocks from my home to be able to walk for that item I forgot for the party. So with that, I think the applicant also is wise in reducing their request to a beer and wine license because you're not going for that hard liquor sale, you're going for that compliment to the food sale. I think that showed a wise choice and a wise operation so I'd be in favor of it. Commissioner Merino states that he is torn on this project because while I understand what all the other Commissioners said, the statistics that we have show that this is a high crime rate area and it's been my experience that when things become more dense, the crime is not going to go down, the calls for service are probably going to go up. Again, that's obviously no reflection on this business, but the concern I have is based on what we have been provided and whether the census data previously was erroneous to some degree, the bottom line is that we're still at 153% on the data that we do have and one of the efforts that the Council and we as a community are doing is to try and reduce crime wherever possible and there is a statistically documented connection between alcohol and criminal activity and my concern is that there is a lot of opportunity within this census district to consume alcohol. I don't know if all the restaurants being built adjacent to that higher density residential area are being included, but I am concerned and I want to be consistent with my view of liquor licenses and say if you're coming to the Commission and I'm looking at this and you're in a higher crime area, I just don't feel comfortable with approving another potential issue. Your business is already successful. It's obviously in demand and I think the professionals that are going there that live in the higher density residential are already taking advantage of your location. I just don't know that the sale of beer and wine are going to be critical to your success, that's for you to decide, but you're already going and as a larger concern for the community, the crime statistics make me very uncomfortable with approving this project. Commissioner Whitaker states that he thinks that we have to take a step back when we think of a liquor operation that generates crime, I think of one that's got a lot of neon and a lot of advertising and is drawing people off the street into it as opposed to this market which has relatively little signage, almost hidden frontage from Main Street and it's really there to serve the market and I think you can see a potential decrease in crime by not encouraging people to get into their car when at the party in their home they've run out of alcohol and need to go back out and by another bottle of wine. I actually think that there really isn't that much correlation for this particular market in crime. That's one of the reasons 1 would support it. Chair Imboden states that he has no additional comments. Commissioner Merino states that he understands Commissioner Whitaker's point, but for my prospective, one more opportunity for liquor sales just doesn't do it for me. Commissioner Whitaker makes a motion to approve Resolution PC 25-07, Conditional Use Permit 2637-07 for a Type 20 ABC license (off-sale beer and wine) at the existing market located at 655 S. Main Street #240 noting that this is categorically exempt from Page 16 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 2007 CEQA. Chair Imboden states that we have a motion to approve, do I have a second. Chair Imboden seconds the motion. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Whitaker and Imboden Commissioner Merino None Commissioners Bonina and Steiner ADJOURNMENT: Chair Imboden motions to adjourn to next regular meeting of Monday, July 16, 2007 at 7:00. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Whitaker Commissioners Imboden, Whitaker & Merino None None Commissioners Bonina and Steiner MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED @ 8:20 P.M. Page 17 of 17 Pages