Planning Commission Struggles and The Discussion Heats Up

We’ve been looking at the June 12 meeting of the Planning Commission at which they discussed whether or not to recommend granting a license to sell beer and wine to two 99 Cents Stores.

Yesterday we discussed the struggle that four of the Commissioners were having trying to accommodate a valued business that is seeking to increase their profitability with the knowledge that the result will have negative impacts on the health, safety, and well-being of our residents.

Commissioner Ludden reported several problems with the way 99 Cents Stores does business, including poor lighting, apparent ease of shoplifting, and more telling, repeat violations of alcohol law regulations in the few OC stores that currently sell beer and wine.

Following Ludden’s revelations, Chairman Hamilton offered an eye-opening look back at why the original alcohol laws were instituted. He quoted from the statute –

“This division is an exercise of the police powers of the State for the protection of the safety, welfare, health, peace, and morals of the people of the State, to eliminate the evils of unlicensed and unlawful manufacture, selling, and disposing of alcoholic beverages, and to promote temperance in the use and consumption of alcoholic beverages. It is hereby declared that the subject matter of this division involves in the highest degree the economic, social, and moral well-being and the safety of the State and of all its people. All provisions of this division shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of these purposes.”

In a nutshell, Hamilton had found the Occam’s Razor. The City’s duty was clear. Regulating the sale of alcohol is in the best interests of  “the highest degree the economic, social, and moral well-being and the safety of the State and of all its people” and should be “liberally construed” to protect these interests. Moreover, among the law’s many purposes is “to promote temperance in the use and consumption of alcoholic beverages.”

Under these circumstances, the PC’s duty is clear. Unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the role of the PC is to maintain the status quo and not endanger the public’s “…safety, welfare, health, [ and] peace…”

When he finished quoting the law, Hamilton showed that he’d done his homework too. He rattled off nearly a dozen studies, all of which demonstrated that increased alcohol outlet density resulted in increased crime and health problems. His research mirrored my own, which relied on more than 50 such studies.

Fuentes was furious. She warned her colleagues that obeying the law would send a “loud message” to everyone that “Lake Forest is not business friendly.”

Commissioner Brower opined that allowing major chains like 99 Cents Stores to sell beer and wine would have a major impact on the many small mom and pop businesses that are in Lake Forest and who depend on the sale of beer and wine to maintain their profitability. From this POV, the Commission was being “business friendly” – protecting our small mom and pop businesses.

At one point, Commissioners VerPlancke and Ludden pointed the finger at the City Council for not providing any guidance to the Commissioners (as well as the public and businesses) as to what constitutes the decision-making process by which these matters can more easily be addressed. Indeed, even the staff and the attorney continually made the point that the language of the law is too vague.

Nearly a year ago, during the disastrous reign of Scott Voigts, a complete revision of the PCN process was suggested by Councilman Nick, and the Council agreed, but that’s as far as they got. The issue, like more than a dozen other issues, could not be resolved and sits in  the Council’s  “In Box”, waiting for resolution.

Fuentes was still upset. She had no need of any guidance from the Council. “We are the policy” she declared. She was ready, there and then, to move forward, and no new facts and no guidance from the Council was needed.

But no one else was as comfortable as Mrs. Fuentes was. Tomorrow we’ll see what happened.