2003 - June 16
c "'-JOt). 6--..1.. 1-
APPROVED
MINUTES
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
INRE:
INRE:
INRE:
(1)
June 16, 2003
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith (arrived at around
8:10pm.
Brent Mullins, Acting Planning Manager/Secretary
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer
Khanh A. Le, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF
MAY 5, 2003 (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 2, 2003), AND MAY 19, 2003.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Bonina, and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to continue this
agenda item on July 7, 2003 meeting.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
INRE:
(2)
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett
None
Commissioner Romero
Commissioner Smith
MOTION CARRIED
CONTINUED HEARINGS:
ORDINANCE NO. 4-03 - INTERNET CAFE'S
A proposed Ordinance of the City Council amending Sections 17.04, 17.10, and
17.18 of the Orange Municipal Code in order to provide definitions and
procedures for the establishment of amusement arcades or similar commercial
gathering places where electronic games are played, including, but not limited to,
video, computer, or Internet related games. This item was continued from the
February 3, 2003, March 3, 2003, April 7, 2003, May 19,2003, and June 2, 2003
meetings.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section
15305 (Class 5 - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution No. PC 24-02 recommending to the City Council the
approval of Ordinance No. 4-03.
Planning Conunission Minutes
APPROVE))
June 16, 2003
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Romero, and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to continue this
agenda at the end of the meeting.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero
None
None
Commissioner Smith
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Pruett readdressed the issue agenda item.
Staff Member Sherman Jones explained that this agenda item was continued from the last
meeting. At the last meeting, the Commission concentrated on the crime statistics and asked staff
to look at a few issues, staff reported on the following:
1) Minimum customer age;
2) Age limits after a certain time period;
3) Quantity and types of devices;
4) Hours of operations;
5) Mandatory licensed security guards;
6) Definition of amusement devices;
7) Provision for smoking and time limit use on amusement devices.
Mr. Jones stated that with all the information in the report, inputs from the public, from the
Commissioner, and the Police Department, staff has drafted the ordinance as presented, with one
change to condition number fourteen, which now states that if the OPD determined that six (6)
months is too long to wait for a review, then OPD may review the business earlier.
Commissioner Bonina asked whether the ordinance allows for people bringing in their own
computers to access the ports at those businesses, or whether all computers had to be onsite. Mr.
Jones replied that staff wants to plan for the future, so the ordinance states that it is possible that
people could bring in their own computers or PDA. Commissioner Bonina concluded that the
number of computers at each facility would not be limited to the number of computers onsite.
Commissioner Bonina asked with the minimum age allowed to use the facility is there any
childcare code that may apply to this type of use. Mrs. Angus replied that this type of business
does not broach the line of a childcare, this type of business is not licensed that way, and so it
does not have the applications as a childcare. Commissioner Bonina continued by asking whether
a parent dropping off a child at this type of business will be confined to the same laws as a parent
dropping off a child at a childcare. Mrs. Angus replied that she is not aware of any law or code
that would apply.
Mr. Sheatz concurred with Mrs. Angus, giving the analogy that this would be the same as a parent
dropping off a child at a shopping mall.
Commissioner Bonina asked whether there would be children of a certain age who will be at the
location after a certain hour and how it will be tracked.
Mrs. Angus replied that she feels the business operator will not become the guardian or
responsible for the child after a certain. She also referred to the OPD to address the curfew
situation.
Chair Pruett asked the city's attorney at what point is a parent negligent when they leave their
child by themselves.
2
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
June 16,2003
Commissioner Brandman stated that she was told that fourteen (14) was the age that may be left
at home by themselves. She also asked the OPD to clarify that.
Commissioner Bonina interjected that his question is that when does the responsibility transfer
from the parent to the business operator, if at all.
Mr. Sheatz stated that there isn't a magic number because it depends on the maturity level ofthe
child. As for the question of when the responsibility transfer, it doesn't. No matter where the
child is, if the child is under eighteen (18) years of age, the parent is responsible for that child.
Chair Pruett asked when is it negligent on the part of the parent to give the child the responsibility
to take care of himself.
Commissioner Smith arrived at 8: 10pm.
Mr. Mike Taylor from OPD responded that the OPD would handle that on a case-by-case basis,
on the nature of the event. If a parent leaves a fourteen (14) year old at home by himlherself
during the gap between school and when a parent comes home from work it is acceptable. It is
the same in this cyber cafe situation. The OPD will look at it the same way.
Commissioner Bonina stated that this location is not like a school; the parent is taking a child to a
location that has a lot of access to negative influences. He expressed that concerns him greatly.
He believes the Commission would be very short sited as a city to close their eyes to this kind of
environment/situation. He feels the city will be ashamed later because of this.
Chair Pruett opened the public hearing, inviting Mr. Tom Del Mar to come and speak.
Mr. Tom Del Mar wanted to reiterate his comments from the last meeting. The conditions
opposed on this type of business would not allow him to make a profit. He addressed the
condition pertaining to the partitions; it will not allow him to see the children in each booth.
Another condition addressed the screening of the windows, and because of the sun coming
through, there is a glare and does not allow the use of the computers. He suggested having a
screened area to separate a room for eighteen (18) years and above users. He added that he spoke
with Mr. Sheatz and learned that he didn't even really need a CUP because less than 50% of his
business is from the amusement devices; the core of his business is computer repairs. He
expressed concerns for the cost associated with opening this type of business based on the all
conditions that are set. He stated that earlier in this meeting, a project was approved when a
gentleman said he would police his own area, but now, when he's saying that he will police his
own area, but the Commission is saying that's not enough.
Chair Pruett asked Mr. Del Mar how he would feel, as an operator, if it was required that he
communicate to the parents of children under a certain age, the risks of this environment into
consideration, possibly signing a notice of some sort. Mr. Del Mar replied that he has already
spoken to Mr. Sheatz about this situation, but it is already being done.
Commissioner Bonina asked what if parents view a disclaimer that states that there is access to
pornographic information on this site, and requires a parent's signature for files, and also has a
child sign in and out each time they come in and out.
Mr. Del Mar stated that he has rules at his site, which he has taken directly from the Orange
school rulebook. He feels that these rules have helped him stay in business.
3
Planning Cormnission Minutes
APPROVED
June 16, 2003
Commissioner Bonina asked if it is possible to have a parent sign the child in and out. Mr. Del
Mar replied that he would not want to get into that as part of his operation. Commissioner
Bonina asked whether Mr. Del Mar's disclosure agreement discloses that pornographic
information can be accessed. Mr. Del Mar's replied yes.
Commissioner Romero asked Mr. Del Mar:
I) What percentage of his clients are in elementary, middle, or high school age. Mr. Del
Mar replied that the bulk of his clients are older teenagers who arrive at the facility by
skateboards, scooters, bicycles, etc. The youngest child that uses the facility is around
ten years old, who arrives right after school, before mom gets home from work.
2) Whether Mr. Del Mar felt his competitors have a similar situation. Mr. Del Mar replied
that he feels his competitors have fewer children as customers.
3) What Mr. Del Mar felt was the attraction to the children at being at his business location
instead of being at home and using the computers there? Mr. Del Mar replied that the
attraction is for the children to come together and hang out with each other.
4) Does he allow groups to sit together? Mr. Del Mar replied that in most cases, he tries to
keep one per booth, but when a couple comes in to check email from out of town, then he
would not separate them.
Commissioner Brandman explained that she felt the Commission has to make a decision that is
good for the majority, not for the few. She hoped that Mr. Del Mar will not feel personally
attacked because of all these conditions, that the conditions are being set for everyone who wants
to apply for this type of business. She asked Mr. Del Mar what draws the children, in one
instance that she knows of, at another place, the owner buys pizza and sit around and have a little
party. Does he also offer food or allow the children to have food inside. Mr. Del Mar replied that
he does allow food, that the children order pizza from time to time, or that they walk down the
street to a nearby fast food place. Commissioner Brandman expressed concern hearing that the
children can leave the facility and walk around in the streets. Mr. Del Mar responded that it is the
parent's responsibility to limit the child from going to a particular place if that parent feels that
place would not be safe for the child.
Chair Pruett asked how many video stations Mr. Del Mar have. He replied that he has fifty-two
(52) computers in his 5200 sq. ft. facility.
Commissioner Bonina asked how many more could he install. Mr. Del Mar replied that he does
not have any more room for more stations, possibly only a table limited for laptops only.
Vice Chair Smith explained that she had a chance to visit Mr. Del Mar's facility and she would
like to emphasize that she saw herself on the web cam at Mr. Del Mar's facility and she also saw
that Mr. Del Mar had permission slips from the parents for the children on file.
Chair Pruett closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Romero asked how or should this code, in regards to cyber cafe, control the
wireless communications, such as what star bucks is doing.
Mr. Jones replied that the proposed ordinance include computers as amusement devices, but it
only addresses the businesses whose main revenue comes from the amusement devices. In the
case of Starbucks and such businesses, the use of computers is a secondary service to their main
business. Starbucks does not even charge for the access to their wireless communications, T-
Mobile charges the fee.
Vice Chair Smith asked staff to clarifY what is meant in the code on page three (3) under section
four (4) that states that no more than three (3) amusement devices shall be permitted at anyone
4
Planning Connnission Minutes
APPROVEIJ;
June 16, 2003
business, how does that pertain to Mr. Del Mar's fifty-two (52) computer stations. Mr. Jones
explained that for businesses that have less then four (4) computers, it would not be defined as an
amusement arcade. Vice Chair Smith asked if that meant, pertaining to the second part of that
same sentence in the code, that businesses that have less than four (4) computers, they cannot
advertise that they are a computer arcade business. Mr. Jones replied that is correct.
Vice Chair Smith eXplained that she had visited three (3) of the internet cafes and found that
most, with the exception of Mr. Del Mar's, was not in compliance:
1) Two of the businesses had their windows completely blacked out, unlike what the CUP
condition on page five (5), number fifteen (15) says that windows shall not be tinted. She
asked Mr. Jones how the CUP would apply to these businesses that are not in compliant.
Mr. Jones replied that all these businesses would have to come in for a new CUP, which
would require them to comply with all these conditions.
2) All backdoors were open when the code states that backdoors shall remain close and only
allowed for emergency access.
3) The code also expresses lighting requirements, yet all the businesses she visited were
dark inside.
Vice Chair Smith also asked what the rational behind the condition on page four (4), item number
nine (9) was. Mr. Jones replied that the OPD wanted the cashier area to be closed off for safety.
Vice Chair Smith expressed that she felt this condition conflict with number three (3), which
requires that the operator should be able to see throughout the establishment. She feels the
partition will block the view of the cashier from the establishment. She suggested getting the fire
department involved with these conditions pertaining to each establishment as well. It would be
hard to get people out in case of emergencies because of lighting and the layouts of the site.
Mr. Jones replied that staff is also concerned about these issues and the existing businesses would
be required to come back and apply for a CUP and would be subjected to these conditions.
Vice Chair Smith stated that Mr. Del Mar's business does not have any tinting on his windows at
all, but it causes a glare on the computers. She asked if something could be about that. Mr. Jones
replied that issue is being explored with the OPD, to see what blinds may be used.
Chair Pruett suggested defining what a clear view is, as stated in the condition, and suggested
adding a matter of degree. He also expressed that he preferred the blinds to the tinting.
Commissioner Brandman concurred concerning the tinting of the windows. She added she does
not understand the dark lighting in these places; computers can be on in a lighted room and would
still be visible. She suggested that the partitions of the cashier's and waiting areas do not have to
be completely solid. Concerning the report from the last meeting, based on the times of the
alarms, she learned that it could have been a staff member who didn't turn it on or off correctly.
That alarms her. She has also seen establishments where there is only one door for an entrance
and exit. She suggested that a condition be placed that requires every door have a loud alarm.
Also, that if there are cameras, then the video is kept for 30 - 90 days.
Chair Pruett added that condition number seventeen (17) should read as "shall be used as panic
alarms for emergencies."
Commissioner Bonina asked if Mr. Jones could explain condition number sixteen (16), pertaining
to "sexually oriented business" in section 5.86. Mr. Jones deferred to Mr. Sheatz.
Mr. Sheatz gave the definition of "sexually oriented adult business" according to code section
5.86, "Any business establishment or concern which has a regular and substantial course of
conduct performs or operates as a sexually oriented adult bookstore, sexually oriented adult
5
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
June 16, 2003
theatre, sexually oriented adult motion picture arcade, sexually oriented adult motel/hotel,
sexually oriented adult motion picture theatre, nude or seminude studio, sexual encounter
establishment, or sells, or distributes sexually oriented/adult merchandise or any business or
concern which as a regular and substantial portion of its business offers to its patrons products,
merchandise, services, or entertainment, which are disguised or characterized by an emphasis on
matters depicting, describing, or relating to specified sexual activities or specified anatomical
parts, but not including those uses or activities. The regulations of which is preemptive by state
law. Sexually oriented adult business shall also include any establishments which has a regular
and substantial course of conduct allows performers, models, employees, or other persons to
appear in any public place in lingerie or any similar garment that does not opaquely cover the
nibbles, areola of the female breasts, the pubic region and/or naval cleft."
Chair Pruett asked Mr. Sheatz if the Commission could include something in the ordinance to
require full disclosure to the parents of children under the age of eighteen (18), not asking the
parents to agree or approve of anything, just to ask the parents to acknowledge that they
understand the full nature of the business, which may include: 1) there may be lack of
supervision, 2) there may not be pornography blocking on computers, etc. The idea is that the
parents would know what kind of environment the parents are putting their children in
Mr. Sheatz replied that the concern is what is the city requiring the establishment to disclose. The
Commission has to try to identify the impact of the requirements placed on the businesses.
Neither has this city nor other cities been able to identify or provide evidence of child
endangerment or negligent or anything like that. An analogy to this situation is the parents
dropping their children off at the Block. There have been many stories about dangers at the
Block, but the parents have to be the one to decide whether they will allow their children to go
there. In this case, there has not been an identification of the problem, so how can there be an
identification of how to address the problem? The court says that the city has to address the
problem without being overly burdensome and so it has to be narrowly tailored, tailored to the
issue and impact that has been identified. So what is the impact? The Commission needs to
identify the impact and issues, and then tailor the conditions to those impacts. Requiring parents
to sign a disclosure cannot be a "catch all" answer.
Chair Pruett agreed with Mr. Sheatz's analogy of the parents dropping off their children at the
Block.
Commissioner Bonina addressed the issue of Barnes and Nobles shielding the sexually oriented
magazine; that is a very specific case, is it possible for the Commission to tailor something like
that, something that specific.
Mr. Sheatz replied that in a specific circumstance, it is possible. In the case of pornographic
material, it is possible to block the material from minors, but not as a whole, to everyone. It
could be stated that "filtering shall be required on computers to be used by those under eighteen
(18) years of age" or something to that affect; unless the parents have consented to the un filtering
the child's access. The law criticizes filtering because filtering is flawed. It has to be done in a
very limited and narrow type of condition. It has to be very well thought out and least offensive
to the first amendment.
Chair Pruett commented that the Commission needs to take action on this issue tonight because of
the time constraint the Council is in. He suggested to the Commissioners that even though they
may not be able to resolve issues pertaining to this item, but the Commissioners can make it very
clear to Council what the concerns and issues are.
Expressing the process, Mr. Sheatz explained that based on the statistics that have been gathered
so far, staff has crafted the conditions to address the issues and impacts of this type of business.
6
APPROVED
Planning Commission Minutes
June 16, 2003
The city is trying to react to this type of business, based on what the city knows so far, through
this proposed ordinance and conditions.
Chair Pruett added that based on experience, this ordinance will get changed as the city
experiences more.
Vice Chair Smith expressed that the Commission is making the presumption that these kids are
here because they need to be babysat. These kids are there for the recreation. She feels this
situation can be solved with two (2) conditions:
I) Condition number six (6)-the lighting situation. She went to three (3) places, Mr. Del
Mar's was the only one that had a waiting room and all the lights were on. Half a dozen
kids were there, all playing on separate booths, the kids were clean, and the place was
clean. Mr. Del Mar told her that all the kids had computers at home, so it's not the
computers that are drawing them. In another place, most customers were young people, a
couple of older guys, there were no partitions, and one gentleman had on his screen 'jail
babes". She got the feeling that she was in the wrong place. Condition number six (6) is
a key regulation. She is also concerned for the lighting in the case of a fire. In most
places, the aisles were small. Having a staff monitoring at the front desk is essential.
2) Condition number fifteen (IS)-she likes the way the condition is currently drafted, but
her question is to whose satisfaction, who would decide what is a clear view.
Chair Pruett explained that the ordinance and conditions is stating that per code, that is a
requirement, but how it will be achieved will be answered at the time when the applicant applies
for the CUP.
Vice Chair Smith added that she is concerned about the ventilation--the computers make the place
very hot. Her last comment is concerning the parental permission slip. Every kid will come back
with those things signed, but it's not guaranteed that it is a parent's signature on there. The kids
are not there to use the computers; they are there to congregate with friends.
Commissioner Brandman asked that condition number six (6) be clarified-who is to determine
what the lighting is going to be.
Chair Pruett again expressed that the ordinance is to determine the code, but each individual who
comes in will present their own situation and staff will make the determinations for each
circumstances.
Commissioner Brandman asked who is going to make those determinations.
Chair Pruett replied that the Commission will be approving the CUP, so each applicant will have
to come before the Commission for their CUP.
Mr. Mullins interjected that when the CUP comes up for review, the typical language would state,
"to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development or her designee and the Orange
Police Department or his/her designee."
Commissioner Brandman pointed out that if it is so dark, the security cameras might not be able
to pick anything up.
Mr. Sheatz replied that condition number six (6) addresses the lighting, both inside and outside.
Chair Pruett suggested dropping condition number eight (8) because it conflicts with condition
number three (3), which is more important. Concerning condition number nine (9), it is more
important that the waiting area be enclosed with a wall, but not sure the cashier area, it can be left
up to the operator. Concerning condition number fifteen (lS)-he is comfortable with the
7
APPROVEC
Planning Commission Minutes
June 16, 2003
condition the way it is. Concerning condition number seventeen (17), the back door should be
closed and be installed with panic alarms.
Commissioner Bonina commended Vice Chair Smith for her insight and articulation of her stand.
He agrees that if a child wants to get into a place, they'll find a way in. He also expressed that
she made a good comparison ofMr. Del Mar's operation compared to the other facilities. But he
would like to point out the possibility Mr. Del Mar's place is better because he's got a CUP and
some of his voluntary actions, including blocking porn, etc. So the Commission would not want
to do anything that is less than the current CUP. He would like to see the hour of operation be
limited to 7am - IOpm, along the same line as the curfew. He would also like to see this activity
be age restricted, to sixteen and above; or have a clear disclosure sign and structured at each
facility. The issues of security guards, emergency lighting, and exiting strategies need to be
addressed. He also prefers the blinds instead of the tinted windows. Personally, he does not
understand the whole concept of cyber cafes. It provides an environment that is not healthy for
children. Under these additional conditions, he would vote to push this forward to the City
Council.
Commissioner Romero agrees with Chair Pruett and Vice Chair Smith. Concerning security
guards, the Commission cannot require that because it would create an additional burden to the
business owners. He concurs with Commissioner Pruett concerning the stalls, the walls at the
cashier's area, and the panic alarm on the doors. Concerning condition number fifteen (15),
Commissioner Romero gave the Havana Club as an example, the lawslconditions may be there,
but the enforcement is key. Besides that, he feels there is plenty to submit to Council.
Vice Chair Smith agrees with Commissioner Romero conceming the Havana Club.
Mr. Sheatz expressed that he needed to address a couple of modifications to the conditions that
the Commissioners have requested:
1) The hours of operation-this is the topic of several meetings. StalTarrived at 7am-1am
based on the police records. There is enough evidence introduced that there isn't many
young children who are using this type of establishments. That is all that could be
mustered in evidence. If ever they were challenged on this issue, that is all the city could
provide in evidence.
2) Security guards-that has been struck and changed from "shall require" to "may"
because oflack of evidence to show problems are created by this type of business.
3) Age restriction~again, there is a lack of evidence to show that there are problems
associated with the age specific groups. If ever the city was asked how was the age of
sixteen determined as the cut off, there would not be adequate evidence to support that.
Commissioner Brandman asked how the OPD determine there are children under curfew age
walking around, for example, at the Block.
Mr. Taylor replied that if the child is not with an adult, an officer would ask for ill. If the person
does not have an ID, even if they are above age, then they're escorted off the facility.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, and seconded by Vice Chair Smith to adopt resolution No. PC
24-02 recommending to the City Council the approval of Ordinance No. 4-03 with the following
cond itions/modifications:
I) Change section 17.18.070, subsection B8, conceming the forty-two (42) inch high
separators, to be struck.
2) Change section 17.18.070, subsection B9, concerning the statement "cashier area and", to
be struck from that section, to read, "the waiting area shall be enclosed."
8
APPROVED
Planning Commission Minutes
June 16, 2003
3) In section 17, following "shall be used", add the language "add panic alarms for
emergency access."
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
Commissioner Bonina
None
MOTION CARRIED
Vice Chair Smith requests that Council pay special attention to condition number six (6),
concerning the lighting.
INRE:
(3)
NEW HEARINGS:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2448-03 - THE WOOLERY
RESIDENCE (ERIC & LISA WOOLERY)
A proposal to demolish a non-contributing garage and construct a 428 sq. ft. two-
story second unit above a new detached two-car garage at the rear of their
property. The owners have applied for Conditional Use Permit No. 2448-03 to
allow two-story construction within The Old Towne Orange Historic district.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Guidelines
Section 15303 (New Construction of Small Structures), and The City's
Local CEQA Guidelines, Section IV, C, 2(d).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution No. PC 24-03 approving Conditional Use Permit No.
2448-03.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Romero, and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to continue this
agenda item second to the last ofthe meeting.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero
None
None
Commissioner Smith
MOTION CARRIED
Because there isn't any opposition from the public, a full reading of the staff report was waived.
Chair Pruett invited the applicant to speak.
Mrs. Woolery thanked the Commission for looking at project. She stated that she took care to
hire an architect who knew all the laws.
Commissioner Romero asked if any of the neighbors are in opposition to the proposed
modifications. She responded in the negative.
Commissioner Brandman asked if the garage is currently being used. Mrs. Woolery replied that
the trees block the entrance, so it cannot be used for parking. Commissioner Brandrnan continued
9
APPROVED
Planning Corrnnission Minutes
June 16,2003
to ask whether the trees would be removed with the modifications. Mrs. Woolery replied that the
trees would be removed, which will allow her to use the garage for parking.
Commissioner Bonina commented that the Commission has had to deal with other projects that
had a lot of bulk and mass and it's refreshing to see this project come through. He is also pleased
that it has adequate parking.
Commissioner Brandman added that this project is easier because it has a noncontributing garage
and that it's a useable garage. She expressed that this is a lovely house.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Romero, and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to adopt resolution
No. PC 24-03 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2448-03.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero
None
None
Commissioner Smith
MOTION CARRIED
(4)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2450-03
RESTAURANT BANQUET (TIM ZIMPRlCH)
THE VILLA
A proposal to amend an existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 1118-81 in
order to allow the continuance of the sale of alcoholic beverages (ABC License
Type 47 - On-Sale General Eating Place) in conjunction with a restaurant that
provides an entertainment (disc jockey) venue for special events, the expansion
of banquet services, and make a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section
15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution No. PC 23-03 approving Conditional Use Permit No.
2450-03.
Because there was opposition from the public, a full reading of the staff report was required.
Staff Member Mario Marquez-Chavez presented the project, as outlined in the staffreport. He
summarized that the staff recommends approval ofthe project with thirty-three (33) conditions of
approval.
Commissioner Bonina asked if this project is in close proximity to the other restaurant that has
been approved recently. Mr. Marquez-Chavez replied that is correct, and that restaurant was Top
of China.
Commissioner Romero asked if it also had live entertainment. Mr. Marquez-Chavez replied in
the negative.
Chair Pruett wanted to clarify whether the only addition being requested for the existing CUP
1118-81 is the addition of the live entertainment. Mr. Marquez-Chavez replied in the affirmative.
Chair Pruett invited the applicant to speak.
10
APPROVEP
Planning Commission Minutes
June 16.2003
Mr. Tim Zimprich (2714 N. Springfield, Orange) eXplained that ninety percent (90) of the
business is devoted to off site catering. They will no longer be offering bakery items to be sold to
the public. The proposal is to have a banquet room in addition to the catering, for private parties.
The request for entertainment will normally be a DJ, and it will only be for private parties.
Commissioner Bonina asked ifthere would ever be any live entertainment. Mr. Zimprich replied
that normally, it would just be a DJ, but once in awhile there may be a small live band.
Chair Pruett wanted to clarify that part of the condition for the CUP is that entertainment would
only be provided during the private parties, not during regular restaurant hours, and also that the
live entertainment is not to be amplified.
Commissioner Romero clarified whether the banquet area is away from the adjoining residential
area. Mr. Zimprich replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Brandman asked if they would no longer be offering bakery goods. Mr. Zimprich
explained that the bakery menu would only be provided for banquets, not for retail sale.
Public Speakers (In Alphabetical Order):
In Opposition:
Anthonv Mihalick (515 E. Hoover Ave., Orange);
June Mihalick (515 E. Hoover Ave., Orange)
COMMENTS INCLUDED:
. Gave background: Has lived in this home for 30 years, in back of parking lot. The restaurant
prior to Top of China had live music, and when doors opened, the music blared out into the
parking lot.
. The types of events seen at the restaurants were weddings, birthday parties, etc. weddings are
the worst.
. Events have caused parking problems for the neighborhood--there are only forty-four (44)
parking spaces in that area. On special holidays, weddings, or other events, people park on
the neighborhood streets.
. Noise from the music gets loud for the neighborhood.
. People gather in front and back of the restaurant areas, to smoke, which gets loud.
Chair Pruett invited the applicant to respond to the public comments.
Mr. Zimprich replied that the southeast doors are the ones that face the residences, but he does
not plan on using those doors as entrances or exits. As for parking, he has a signed agreement to
share parking on the adjoining property. In response to the loitering, he stated that he has private
security and will have a strict policy on loitering.
Chair Pruett asked whether the doors on his property are on an alarm system. He suggested that
the applicant set up those doors on an alarm to alleviate the problem of people opening the doors.
Mr. Zimprich replied that he would be open to that.
Chair Pruett asked ifthere are signs displayed communicating the shared parking for the public.
Mr. Zimprich replied that there aren't any signs in place. Chair Pruett stated that the Commission
might require him to post signs to that affect.
Chair Pruett asked if there is an area for smoking. Mr. Zimprich replied that he used to have an
area like that, but the city required it be removed.
11
APPROVED
Planning Commission Minutes
June 16, 2003
Commissioner Brandman suggested to the applicant to look at a restaurant in Irvine that had a
smoking area that was fenced off and offered a classy looking area for smokers, which could also
be used for people who are waiting for a table.
Chair Pruett suggested there would only be two (2) doors that would require an alarm, the west
and east doors.
Chair Pruett closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Brandman commented that she can understand the neighbors' concerns, but if
panic bars will be installed on the doors and if the smoking situation is accommodated, she can
support the project.
Commissioner Romero was in agreement with the panic bars on the doors, and the smoking
situation accommodated. He stated he could also support the project.
Commissioner Bonina concurred with Commissioner Romero's and Brandman's comments.
Commissioner Pruett clarified the hours of operation for the public. The closing hours for the
restaurant are 8pm on Monday through Thursday, and IOpm on Friday through Sunday. The
ABC license also states that the restaurant will stop serving alcohol one hour before closing,
which will get people to leave. He added that although the panic bars will be added as a
condition, he doesn't know whether he would want to set up the smoking situation as a condition,
just have the applicant work with staff.
Commissioner Brandman commented that it seems that the applicant would police the parking
situation. She expressed that she is comfortable that the applicant wants to come into the
community and be a good neighbor, but she suggests that the Commission may want to condition
a review of the project in six (6) months.
Chair Pruett replied that there is a condition for a one (1) year review as part of the CUP. He
expressed that he welcomes an action be taken and suggested adding to condition number
eighteen (18) to state that the east and west doors be fixed with a panic bar alarm as a special
emphasis to keep those doors closed.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Romero, and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to adopt resolution
No. PC 23-03 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2450-03 with the following additional
condition:
1. Revise condition number eighteen (18) to read that the east and west doors be fixed with
a panic bar alarm to have special emphasis to keep the doors closed.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero
None
None
Commissioner Smith
MOTION CARRIED
12
APPROVED
Planning Commission Minutes
June 16, 2003
(5)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2453-03
BERKMAN)
RUTABEGORZ (PAUL
A proposal to modify an existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP No. 244) to allow
the serving of beer and wine in an outdoor patio dining area, and to establish the
business hours of an existing restaurant.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section
15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution No. PC 25-03 approving Conditional Use Permit No.
2453-03.
Because there was no opposition from the public, Chair Pruett waived a full reading of the staff
report.
Chair Pruett invited the applicant to come forward to speak.
Mr. Paul Berkman explained that this restaurant used to be a Mexican restaurant that had alcohol
in the restaurant, but he was not sure whether it ever received a license to serve alcohol in the
patio area. The applicant wanted to make sure the restaurant is properly legal to serve alcohol on
the patio, so this modification to the CUP is being requested.
Commissioner Brandman asked Mr. Berkman that based on the fact that the OPD reports that this
is a high crime area, how would the restaurant handle so much alcohol being served, at this
restaurant and others in the vicinity.
Mr. Berkman replied that whenever an ABC license is requested, an alcohol management plan
must be submitted that has to be approved by the OPD. The employees are trained on what to
look for, how to handle things, etc. The applicant also operates two (2) other locations with good
records.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Brandman, and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to adopt resolution
No. PC 25-03 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2453-03.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero
None
None
Commissioner Smith
MOTION CARRIED
INRE:
ADJOURNMENT
The Commissioners wanted to recognize and express appreciation for Commissioner Romero's
service, insight, and work on the Commission for all these years. They expressed regret for his
resignation, but also wished him well in his endeavors.
13
APPROVED
Planning Conunission Minutes
June 16, 2003
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Brandman to adjourn to a study
session at on Monday, July 7, 2003 at 6:00 pm
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 pm June 16,2003.
14