2006 - July 17
~~'50o.G'd.3
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
17 July 2006
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Imboden, and Steiner
Commissioner Enderby
STAFF
PRESENT:
Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Mari Burke, Recording Secretary
Chair Bonina welcomed the newest member of the Planning Commission, Commissioner
Scott Steiner.
IN RE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None.
IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR:
(1) THERE WERE NO MINUTES FOR REVIEW AT THIS MEETING.
(2) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005-312 AND MINOR SITE PLAN
REVIEW NO. 0445-06 - BATAVIA BUSINESS PARK
A request to subdivide one parcel into five, within an industrial zone, where two of the
five lots will not have direct access to a public street, and where one parcel has an access
obstruction restricting entry to required parking areas. The site is located at 1402-1424
North Batavia Street and 1130 West Trenton Avenue.
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).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 27-06 recommending
approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-312 and Minor Site Plan Review No. 0445-
06.
Chair Bonina posed two questions to Staff:
(I) In Condition #7 of the Staff Report it speaks to the establishment ofCC&R's for the
development; however, there doesn't seem to be any reference to establishment of an
Association to address any future maintenance costs. Is it just implicit in the
development of the CC&R's that there would be an Association as well?
Planner Fox responded that Staff has received a draft copy of the CC&R's and it is the
Planning Commission Minutes
17 July 2006
applicant's intent to create a voting organization amongst the five members where they
would share responsibility for maintenance costs.
(2) Is the gate/fence located in a common area or is it located in one of the parcels being
developed?
Planner Fox responded there are no specific common areas. All of the area in the maps is
devoted to a specific property. They share reciprocal access, easements, utilities, etc.
Parcel 5 has the access obstruction where it has gated access in both areas from the public
street at Trenton Avenue and access obstruction where it connects with Parcel 3.
Recognizing that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class I -
Existing Facilities), Chair Bonina made a motion to approve Tentative Parcel Map No.
2005-312 and Minor Site Plan Review No. 0445-06.
Brvon Ward. the owner's representative. address on file took exception to Item #6 in the
Staff Report, "The existing chain link fence/gate with plastic slat inserts shall be replaced
with a wrought-iron style, or equivalent type of material. The applicant shall submit
plans and specifications to the Building Division for plan check review, and permit
issuance." Mr. Ward asked the Commission to reconsider and modify this condition. He
stated the reasons for requesting immediate modification are that the perimeter fencing
for Building #5 is a shared condition with the neighbor to the west. The yard area is used
to store service vehicles and equipment of value belonging to that neighbor and the style
fencing in place provides partial screening for security purposes. The applicant cannot
go in and unilaterally replace it. Further, chain link fencing with slats is commonly used
in the area and absorbs the trauma of truck traffic and is much more practical for a
number of reasons. Photographs of surrounding buildings where this style fencing is
used were provided.
Planner Fox clarified that the condition is specifically related to the access obstruction.
They are not being asked to replace the perimeter fencing, only the controlled access to
the parking lot-the gate and the fence adjacent to the gate.
The applicant replied with this clarification they are okay with it.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Bilodeau
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner
None
None
Commissioner Enderby
MOTION CARRIED.
Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes
17 July 2006
INRE:
CONTINUED HEARINGS:
None.
INRE:
NEW BUSINESS:
(3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2575-06 - GARDEN GROVE QWIK
KORNER DELI
A proposal to allow an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 21 (Off-Sale General) license
for a new liquor and deli establishment, and make a finding of Public Convenience or
Necessity. The site is located at 4045 Garden Grove Boulevard.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 - New
Construction).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 29-06 approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2575-06.
Commissioner Imboden recused himself.
A project overview was provided by Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry during
which she advised:
. The applicant is proposing to demolish his existing 3,291 sq. ft. liquor store, deli/pizza
delicatessen and mini-mart establishment.
. The applicant will rebuild a 5,650 sq. ft. establishment.
. the property owner does not presently have a Conditional Use Permit for the sale of
alcohol and they are required to request a Conditional Use Permit approval to sell
alcoholic beverages at the new establishment.
. The Planning Commission is also required to make a finding of public convenience and
necessity.
. The Orange Police Department has been consulted and they have recommended
approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
Chair Bonina asked Ms. Roseberry to confirm the application was for a deli/liquor store
combination and if there was an area where a customer who purchased a sandwich could
consume it on-site and potentially purchase an alcoholic beverage to be consumed with it.
Ms. Roseberry confirmed the application was for a deli/liquor store combination;
deferred to the applicant for clarification about sandwich consumption on-site and
indicated there is a condition that prohibits consumption on the property.
Chair Bonina indicated there is one driveway that has been taken off the pin corner and
asked if the existing drive off Lewis Street would be moved away from the corner. Ms.
Roseberry responded that there have been numerous conversations with Public Works
and the Traffic Engineers that resulted in a few changes; however they were fine with the
location of the driveway in regards to the radius of the corner.
Page 3
Planning Commission Minutes
17 July 2006
Chair Bonina asked if there was a bus stop in front of the property. Ms. Roseberry
responded she didn't think so.
The applicant's representative, Bob Mickelson stated the Barash family has owned this
business since 1990. Mr. Mickelson provided statements of support from the Catholic
Church across the street from the project and a statement signed by nineteen of the
tenants from the adjacent Senior Tower.
Mr. Mickelson stated the new requirement for trash enclosures with a roof on top
presented some issues; however they have now arrived at a workable solution. Further
Mr. Mickelson stated the conditions recommended by Staff are acceptable; however, he
wanted to discuss Condition # II: "There shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or
type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating
the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages which are
clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition." Mr.
Mickelson indicated that since 1990 they have operated under an ABC license and the
ABC license permitted two window signs. Other than this requested change everything
else was acceptable.
Commissioner Steiner asked for clarification that the signs requested have been in place
since the applicant originally purchased the business. Mr. Mickelson responded
affirmatively and indicated they do not wish to add any additional signs; they would just
like to retain the existing two.
Chair Bonina asked Ms. Roseberry if there are other businesses with Conditional Use
Permits that have ABC licenses that allow for window signage. Ms. Roseberry
responded she has not been able to find any and that Condition #11 is a standard
condition being put on stores as well as restaurants. Ms. Roseberry also clarified that
window advertising is allowed; however, it cannot cover more than 25% of the window
space and cannot relate to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Chair Bonina asked if
approval to have signage relative to alcoholic beverages would set precedence. Ms.
Roseberry responded affirmatively and added that if approval were to be given, the
Commission could specify the percentage of window space that could be covered with
signage of that nature and also that illumination would not be permitted.
Chair Bonina asked the applicant what limitation in terms of size would they be
comfortable with. Mr. Barash replied "whatever the Commission would be happy with
would work, we would like to keep it clean and don't want it to be cluttered in any way."
Chair Bonina asked Mr. Mickelson if the adjacent property is a parking lot for the Senior
Tower and if it was secured. Mr. Mickelson deferred the response to Mr. Barash who
indicated it was a parking lot that is secured by an electronic gate that the residents access
via keyless entry.
Page 4
Planning Commission Minutes
17 July 2006
Chair Bonina asked Mr. Mickelson ifhe could describe the lighting plan. Mr. Mickelson
responded there is a condition that a certain level of lighting must be installed but the
plan hasn't been developed yet.
Mr. Mickelson also responded to the question asked earlier regarding consumption of an
alcoholic beverage with a sandwich---he indicated there is a huge sign that states no
alcohol is to be opened or consumed on the premises. Further, if someone purchases a
beer and walks towards the deli, the ownership and staffwill remind the customer that the
beer cannot be consumed on premises.
Chair Bonina asked how Condition #8, "No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on
any property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the licensee" would be
controlled. Mr. Barash responded that each day when he leaves the business he reminds
his staff to check identification and constantly check the parking lots. Mr. Mickelson
added that Mr. Barash and his wife have agreed to an alcohol management plan that was
completed with the Orange Police Department.
Commissioner Steiner asked if there was any conflicting regulatory or statutory authority
with respect to advertising the sale of alcoholic beverages. Assistant City Attorney Gary
Sheatz quoted a provision in the Code (Chapter 17 under Special Use Regulations) that
prohibits the signage and deferred to Ms. Alice Angus, Community Development
Director to comment on how it has been applied in the past. Ms. Angus stated they have
consistently applied the Code universally to any new Conditional Use Permit and
modified Conditional Use Permit for alcohol sales across all the various zones and not
allowed signage to be directed out. Approval of this request would therefore be a
departure from this standard practice.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked if the driveway apron on Lewis Street exists currently.
Mr. Mickelson responded affirmatively and added that he personally reviewed the
driveway locations with Public Works as they had thought about moving them; however,
it was not a requirement.
Sgt. Miller, Orange Police Department stated he had reviewed this application and the
concern the police department would have is if the signage were allowed it would be
breaking from the norm and would result in additional applications in the future all
wanting similar consideration.
Chair Bonina asked if the on-ramp being developed not too far from this business along
Garden Grove Blvd was cause for concern. Sgt. Miller responded that the fact that this
business is freeway close is a concern as most criminals look for easy freeway access to
allow for quick escape.
Commissioner Steiner asked Sgt. Miller if he was voicing an objection to continued
signage at this location and if part of his fear would be that there would be an avalanche
of new signage requests similar to the one being made by this applicant. Also,
Page 5
Planning Commission Minutes
17 July 2006
Commissioner Steiner wanted to know what it is about the signage that is concerning?
Sgt. Miller confirmed his objection to the signage and stated that this business is real
close to a high-density complex where there is a lot of crime and the last thing that is
needed is advertising for inexpensive alcoholic beverages.
Chair Bonina stated he didn't have a problem with this Conditional Use Permit and that
he's looking forward to the redevelopment of the site; however, he did not see a reason to
depart from the conditions of approval.
Recognizing that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 - New
Construction), Chair Bonina made a motion to recommend approval of Conditional Use
Permit No. 2575-06.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Steiner
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Steiner
None
Commissioner Imboden (recused)
Commissioner Enderby
MOTION CARRIED.
(4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3583-06 - CHARO CHICKEN
A proposal to allow an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine)
license for a new eating establishment. The site is located at 970 North Tustin Street, C.
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).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 26-06.
A project overview was provided by Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry during
which she advised:
. The applicant is requesting an on-sale beer and wine license for their newest eating
establishment.
. Staff is recommending denial of the Conditional Use Permit based on the high crime
rate in the reporting district as well as the over concentration of licenses in the census
tract.
. Another reason for the recommendation at the Stafflevel is unlike a sit down restaurant
a fast food restaurant has a little less oversight of the distribution of the alcohol.
. Staff could not make a finding of convenience and necessity for this establishment.
Page 6
Planning Commission Minutes
17 July 2006
The applicant Wes Metcalf, asked to have the Commission reconsider this application,
stating:
. They are a casual fast food restaurant and they do bring the food to the table.
. They have gone above and beyond the call of duty in the design of the store.
. They have fourteen (14) cameras installed in the store --- one that is audio so they hear
and see everything including out on the patio.
. Both applicants have taken the alcohol management class.
. They have three other managers and there are generally two managers present at all
times.
. They have even more control than at a pizza establishment in that they only sell one
beverage at a time.
. The alcohol absorption rate would be slower due to the type of food.
. There seems to be an increasing call from the patronage expressing how nice it would
be to have a Mexican meal with a beer.
Commissioner Steiner asked if they were to have the alcohol permit how would they
handle it's distribution and if they would ever envision selling alcohol without food. Mr.
Metcalf responded they would distribute the alcohol in the same fashion as they do food,
they would bring it to the table and they would not envision selling alcohol without food.
Commissioner Imboden asked if there are other Charo locations that sell alcohol. Mr.
Metcalf responded there is one in PIano, Texas that not only sells beer and wine, they
also have a margarita machine. He has consulted with them and they have had no issues
at all, it usually only includes a single beverage sale with the meal. He has also done
some research with Baja Fresh in the Anaheim Hills area and they have not had any
issues either. Mr. Metcalf stated the radical issue with the Police Department seems to be
the location in a high crime area; however, in the eight months they've been in the
location, they haven't seen any. Commissioner Imboden asked ifthere are any Southern
California Charo Chicken locations serving alcohol. Mr. Metcalf responded there are two
being built now that are applying for their licenses.
Chair Bonina asked if the property surrounding the store is primarily made up of
apartments. Mr. Metcalf responded it is a pretty good mixture of commercial and
residential and they are literally within fifty (50) yards of the Tulsa Rib Company.
Sgt. Miller indicated he processed the application and gave the recommendation to
oppose it due to the over concentration/high crime rate. Specifically, the over
concentration is twice what is recommended by ABC guidelines. In the area of crime this
reporting district is ranked #5 for the amount of crimenthere are 88 reporting districts.
Sgt. Miller stated he did not see the necessity; however, some of his concerns have been
alleviated in terms of controL Further, he stated there is a high density residential
complex just to the northwest (within 50 yards) of the restaurant where they have had
some crime and gang problems.
Page 7
Planning Commission Minutes
17 July 2006
Commissioner Steiner asked for confirmation of the number of licenses in the area. Sgt.
Miller indicated that his report was completed in February and at that time ten (10)
existed and only five (5) were allowed. Ms. Roseberry interjected that in the Staff Report
it states there are two (2) requests in house at this time and this one for Charo Chicken
would bring the count to thirteen (13). Commissioner Steiner asked of the ten (10) that
currently exist what type of facilities are theymare they similar to the applicant's
business or are they bars? Ms. Roseberry reviewed the list of businesses and the types of
establishments.
Mr. Metcalf reiterated his commitment to do whatever is necessary to gain approval
including he would make any changes (temporary or otherwise). Mr. Metcalf stated it
was important for him to have clarity or understanding if the City of Orange would
approve a Conditional Use Permit perhaps in another location or if the City is shut down
on the number of permits they would approve in the future. Chair Bonina assured Mr.
Metcalfthat each location stands on its own merits-there is no blanket determination.
Chair Bonina stated he has had the pleasure of eating at this location and it does appear
they have a good, clean operation; unfortunately he believes this is a great facility in the
wrong spot as it relates to the request for the ABC license. He reiterated the concerns
expressed by Sgt. Miller and underwrote the recommendation of Staff for the denial of
this particular license.
Commissioner Steiner stated he was impressed with the facility and how responsibly the
business is run; however, the fact that this Conditional Use Permit (if issued) would go
with the land is a concern.
Recognizing this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class I -
Existing Facilities), Chair Bonina made a motion to adopt Resolution No. PC 26-06,
denying Conditional Use Permit No. 3583-06.
SECOND:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioner Bilodeau stated this was a close one for him as obviously this is a great
establishment with good, responsible owners but in looking at the map it tells the story in
terms of the proliferation of alcohol permits along Tustin A venue and the crime statistics
speak for themselves. For these reasons Commissioner Bilodeau indicated he would be
following the Police Department recommendation and supporting the motion made by
Chair Bonina.
Commissioner Imboden stated he would love to grant the Conditional Use Permit for this
establishment, as he believes it would be a good fit with the business and he was
impressed with the ownership as they presented themselves; unfortunately, the crime rate
presented an overwhelming concern.
Page 8
Planning Commission Minutes
17 July 2006
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner
None
None
Commissioner Enderby
MOTION CARRIED.
Ms. Roseberry provided details of the appeal process to the applicant.
Chair Bonina made a motion to adjourn the meeting until the next scheduled meeting on
Monday, August 7, 2006.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Bilodeau
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner
None
Commissioner Enderby
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 8:07 p.m.
Page 9