Loading...
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 ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None CONSENT CALENDAR: APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF MAY 5, 2003 (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 2, 2003), AND MAY 19, 2003.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