2012 - February 6Planning Commission Meeting
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT: Commissioners Buttress, Gladson, and Grangoff
ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner
STAFF
PRESENT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager
Jennifer Le, Senior Planner
Robert Garcia, Associate Planner
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION
February 6, 2012
Page 1 of 13
February 6, 2012
Monday 7:00 p.m.
Vice Chair Buttress opened the Administration Session of the Planning Commission
Meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Vice Chair Buttress stated that Commissioner Merino had resigned his position as a
Commissioner of the Planning Commission and that the City Council would assign
someone to replace him. She asked if there were any questions or comments on the
Agenda.
Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry stated on Agenda Item No. 3.3, Asiana Grill,
the applicant was unable to make it to the meeting and therefore, the item would be
continued to a date certain of March 5, 2012. Vice Chair Buttress stated she would state
that for the record in open session that the item was to be continued. Ms. Aranda
Roseberry stated the item would need to be opened with a motion to continue and by
proceeding in that manner it would not necessitate re- noticing of the item.
Vice Chair Buttress stated the other Agenda items appeared very straight forward.
Ms. Aranda Roseberry asked Vice Chair Buttress if she had a copy of the appeal process,
and stated that she should read the appeal process before opening the items. Vice Chair
Buttress stated she had a copy.
Commissioner Gladson asked if the reorganization item on the Agenda should be
postponed in light of Chair Steiner's absence. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated that was a
component of Commission Business and they could postpone. Assistant City Attorney
Gary Sheatz stated the Commission could proceed with the reorganization with or
without Chair Steiner's input. Vice Chair Buttress stated she was ready to move forward
on the reorganization as Chair Steiner had shared his input on the matter with her. Mr.
Sheatz stated there was no violation in doing that and they could consider postponing.
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting February 6, 2012
Page 2of13
Vice Chair Buttress stated she would make a formal statement out on the dais.
Commissioner Grangoff stated he was prepared to move forward on the Commission
reorganization. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated they could postpone until the next meeting
in February. Commissioner Gladson stated that during open session she would share her
input on the reorganization and they could have an open discussion with input on the
Commissioner's preferences.
Vice Chair Buttress asked if the Zone Ordinance was a Public Hearing. Ms. Aranda
Roseberry stated yes. Vice Chair Buttress asked if she should read the appeal process
before each item on the Agenda. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated no, just once at the start of
the meeting.
Vice Chair Buttress stated the minutes were okay. Commissioner Gladson and Grangoff
concurred, there were no changes.
There was no further discussion.
Administrative Session adjourned @ 6:57 p.m.
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
Commission Reorganization:
Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson
Vice Chair Buttress opened the item for discussion.
Commissioner Gladson stated it would be her suggestion to postpone the reorganization
to allow input from Chair Steiner. She suggested that Chair Steiner remain the Chair
person of the Planning Commission, but that could be an open discussion.
Vice Chair Buttress stated in her discussion with Chair Steiner, he had mentioned that the
reorganization would be open for discussion. He would be happy, if it was the
Commission's desire, to continue as the Commission's Chairperson.
Commissioner Grangoff stated having that information, he was prepared to make a
motion.
Commissioner Grangoff made a motion to elect William Steiner as Commission
Chairperson and Pat Buttress as Commission Vice Chairperson.
SECOND:
Commissioner Gladson
AYES:
Commissioners Buttress, Gladson and Grangoff
NOE:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Steiner
Planning Commission Meeting February 6, 2012
Page 3 of 13
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None
REGULAR SESSION
Vice Chair Buttress opened the regular Session of the Planning Commission Meeting
with a review of the City's appeal process.
Consent Calendar:
(1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR SCHEDULED
MEETING OF DECEMBER 19, 2011.
Commissioner Gladson made a motion to approve the minutes from the Planning
Commission Meeting of December 19, 2011 as written.
SECOND: Commissioner Grangoff
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Gladson, and Grangoff
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting February 6, 2012
Page 4 of 13
NEW HEARINGS:
(2) ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — HOMELESS SHELTER ORDINANCE
The City is proposing to modify Title 17 (Zoning) of the Orange Municipal Code to
allow homeless shelters as a permitted use in the M -1 and M -2 zoning districts, subject to
certain requirements and standards. State law requires the City to establish zones where
such facilities are permitted by right.
LOCATION: City Wide
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5 — Minor Alterations to
Land Use Limitations). This exemption applies to projects
involving minor alterations to land use limitations in areas with an
average slope of less than 20 %, which do not result in changes in
land use or density.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 07 -12 recommending the
City Council approve an Ordinance amending Title 17 (Zoning) of
the Orange Municipal Code to allow homeless shelters in the M -1
and M -2 Zoning districts, subject to certain development standards
and requirements.
Senior Planner Jennifer Le presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Vice Chair Buttress opened the item to any questions for Staff.
Commissioner Gladson stated in terms of the outreach, the Staff Report was very
comprehensive regarding the outreach to the non - profit organizations that catered to the
particular need that the Ordinance spoke to. She asked if there had been feedback on the
parking standard that was laid out in the draft ordinance?
Ms. Le stated at the initial meeting they discussed general operation of shelters and the
experiences of the shelter operators and service providers. In the course of that
discussion, they reviewed the number of cars vs. number of beds available and there was
a range of responses and it depended on the type of shelter and population the shelter
served. Staff proposed 1 parking space per 6 beds requirement and those numbers were
discussed at the subsequent stakeholder's meeting and there were no stakeholder's
comments regarding that.
Commissioner Grangoff asked if the Orange Police Department representative could
share how the zoning that had been chosen, best fit the model for public safety and if
Planning Commission Meeting February 6, 2012
Page 5of13
shelters came to those locations as presented, how the Police Department would work to
keep the neighborhoods safe?
Orange Police Department representative Sergeant Mike Monjaraz stated the Orange
Police Department had worked with Ms. Le from the get go and they had taken into
consideration a lot of the concerns with public safety and the assurance of minimal
impact on residences. By placing shelters in the M -1 and M -2 zones, it would minimize
the impact to the citizens of Orange and ensure that quality of life was not impacted.
They had reviewed several different areas; location and proximity was one issue, over-
capacity and shelter size were also looked at, they had limited the size to 100 bed
capacity. The sexual registrant concern was also looked at and the Orange Police
Department had worked with Ms. Le on that and how to include language in the
Ordinance to minimize the impact to the citizens.
Commissioner Grangoff asked Ms. Le if the City of Orange chose not to adopt the
ordinance before them, would the City be in violation of State Law and were there
consequences for that?
Ms. Le stated anytime there was a State Law requirement the ultimate consequence for
non - compliance was loss of permitting powers due to an out of compliance General Plan
or out of compliance Building Ordinance and that would be the ultimate repercussion.
Vice Chair Buttress stated, during the study session that she had attended, they spoke of
the parking situation and that most occupants that would be sheltered would not be at
those shelters during regular business hours and not impact the parking structures of the
area.
Ms. Le stated in the manner that the ordinance was written, it focused on shelters that
offered overnight accommodations as their primary use. Day use and an expanded set of
services would not be allowed by right and one of the reasons for that would be to avoid
any overlap that might happen if there was day use of a shelter in the industrial business
district that would be operating at the same time. She believed that addressed any
potential issue.
Vice Chair Buttress opened the hearing for public comment.
Diane Ferrante, address on file, stated she was a member of Covenant Presbyterian
Church in Orange, and most of what she did was in the City of Orange. She asked for a
map of where the zoning sections were. Ms. Ferrante was handed a map, there was also a
map visible on the wall behind the dais. Ms. Ferrante reviewed the map and asked if it
was color coded?
Vice Chair Buttress stated the area that was referred to in the Ordinance was color coded
purple, those were the areas that were being looked at for emergency shelters; shelters
that would not be long -term shelters.
Planning Commission Meeting February 6, 2012
Page 6of13
Ms. Ferrante asked if they were only discussing emergency shelters.
Ms. Le stated the Ordinance only addressed emergency shelters. Senate Bill 2 also had
some requirements related to transitional housing that were not included in the
Ordinance, but would be coming before the Planning Commission as a separate
document at a later date.
Ms. Ferrante stated she was pleased that the City of Orange was looking into shelters as
there was such a need.
Commissioner Grangoff stated they were not approving the installation of a shelter, but
an Amendment that would allow a temporary shelter if someone sought to do that.
Ms. Le stated that was correct. The City of Orange was establishing zoning that would
allow a shelter to be located in the M -1 or M -2 zone; and it would not require the City
itself to operate a shelter.
Vice Chair Buttress closed the public hearing and brought the item back to the
Commission for action.
Commissioner Gladson stated she felt the City Council would appreciate the
Commission's feedback on the issue as it was rather complex to attempt to figure out a
location taking into consideration all of the adjacent uses and the potential for negative
impacts to the area. As land use experts, they could certainly provide feedback on the
draft ordinance and she felt it well put together and completely in the right location, in
her judgment. She had experience with the same situation in another jurisdiction where
she was employed and it had not proved to be a negative use. The standards also provide
Staff with the ability to define limitations of the use and the expectations for the
providers. It was a great starting point in compliance with State mandates. Specifically
during her discussions with Ms. Le, she was reminded of the fact that the whole purpose
of the SB -2 as referred to in its short form, was to allow every community to "step up to
the plate" and assist with the particular need of homelessness as every community in
California and in every state there was homelessness and the City of Orange was doing
their part, and no more than their share, and it gave the City the ability of having criteria
in place if a shelter should be added to the community.
Commissioner Gladson made a motion to adopt PC 07 -12, recommending approval to the
City Council, Ordinance Amendment- Homeless Shelter Ordinance, subject to the
conditions contained in the Staff Report and noting the items categorical exemption from
CEQA.
Planning Commission Meeting
SECOND:
Commissioner Grangoff
AYES:
Commissioners Buttress, Gladson, and Grangoff
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Steiner
February 6, 2012
Page 7of13
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting February 6, 2012
Page 8of13
(3) ZONE ORDINANCE NO. 19 -11— AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 17.20.240
OF THE ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE
The City proposes to amend Chapter 17.20.240 of the Orange Municipal Code regulating
electromagnetic and radio frequency interference to update the Code in compliance with
federal law.
LOCATION: City Wide
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines 15305 (Class 5 — Minor Alterations in Land Use
Limitations) because the project involves a minor amendment to
the text of the zoning code which would not result in any changes
in land use or density.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 08 -12 recommending the
City Council adopt Ordinance No. 19 -11, amending Chapter
17.20.240 of the Orange Municipal Code regulating
electromagnetic interference and radio frequency interference.
Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz presented a project overview consistent with the
Staff Report.
Vice Chair Buttress opened the item to any questions for Staff. There were none.
Vice Chair Buttress opened the item for public comment. There was none.
Vice Chair Buttress brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or action.
Commissioner Grangoff made a motion to adopt PC No. 19 -11, recommending approval
to the City Council, Amendment to Chapter 17020.240 of the Orange Municipal Code,
subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and noting the items categorical
exemption from CEQA.
SECOND: Commissioner Gladson
AYES:
Commissioners Buttress, Gladson, and Grangoff
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Steiner
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting February 6, 2012
Page 9of13
(4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 2839 -11 — ASIANA GRILL
The applicant proposes to sell beer, wine and sake under a California Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 41 license in association with an approximately 2,000
square foot restaurant use.
LOCATION: 1273 N. Tustin, Unit A
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 — Existing Facilities)
because the project only involves the licensing of alcohol sales and
no new construction is proposed in association with the request.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 06 -12 approving an ABC
Type 41 license (On -Sale Beer and Wine — Eating Place) with a
Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity.
Vice Chair Buttress opened the item, noting that the applicant was not available and had
requested a continuance.
Commissioner Gladson made a motion to continue to a date certain of March 5, 2012,
CUP No. 2839 -11- Asiana Grill.
SECOND: Commissioner Grangoff
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Gladson, and Grangoff
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2012
Page 10 of 13
(5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2847 -12 — FUTURES IN EDUCATION
(HALSTROM HIGH SCHOOL)
The applicant is proposing one -to -one instruction learning. The applicant provides
students in grades 7 through 12 instruction in a full curriculum of subjects.
LOCATION: 3111 N. Tustin, Suite 120
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) because
the project consists of a new use at an existing facility with no
expansion of the existing facility.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 09 -12,
allowing the one -to -one instruction learning school.
Associate Planner Robert Garcia presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Vice Chair Buttress opened the item to any questions for Staff.
Commissioner Gladson stated she had a few clarification issues on the Conditions of
Approval when they got to those.
Vice Chair Buttress opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to address the
Commission.
Mike Halasz, address on file, stated their program was very unique and dynamic in the
manner that it was structured and in the setting of the program. Everything they did was
1 to 1. In a 1 to 1 setting, the student had an understanding of what was being taught and
they were being taught in the best way that they could learn. They had been in business
for over 25 years. They had school site locations in Mission Viejo, Vista and the San
Diego -Poway area. All three schools were functioning and they always had looked to
open something in North County. He grew up in Anaheim and knew the area needed
their type of instruction.
There clients were actors, actresses, athletes, students with autism, ADHD, and teen
pregnancy, they had students that ranged from one gamut to the other. They taught
students who were looking to a division one scholarship in their NCAA divisions. Those
students were able to take classes that worked with their schedules. They were accredited
through the Western Association of Schools and Colleges and they had UC certification
for the UC system and NCAA compliance. The teaching process was enhanced by the
teaching be it auditory, verbal or kinesthetic or a combination of all, and in teaching
Planning Commission Meeting February 6, 2012
Page 11 of 13
students in those ways there was not a fear of being called on in a larger class setting.
There was also immediate teacher feedback with the 1 to 1 environment. All of their
students were taught in 45 minute increments throughout the day. There were students
who came to them full time and part time. There was a need out there and they were
hopefully able to fill that need and to be good community members. They required 75
hours of volunteer work for their students to graduate and they would tie that in with the
City and were eager to do that.
Commissioner Gladson asked what the schools total enrollment would be.
Mr. Halasz stated because it was open enrollment, students could start at any time and
they would come to the facility once a week for 45 minutes. They were only required to
complete 15 graded assignments and exams to complete a class. A student could
complete a class in 15 sessions. Some students might complete 2 sessions a week and it
was based on availability, they had only 6 teaching stations and at one time that would be
the highest number of students who would be at the site. Staff members included a
principal and teachers. Administrative staff was also out in the community meeting with
other principals, counselors and teachers. They were also out marketing and they were
50% in and 50% out. He was a former principal and comparatively the number of
discipline issues that were dealt with at their site were minimal, it was all education based
and every Wednesday they had 45 minute blocks to meet with parents, students and other
professional development personnel to discuss student progress. There would not be a
mass rush to their facility.
Commissioner Gladson stated many of the students were not driving themselves and
might be dropped off.
Mr. Halasz stated that was correct, he was experiencing a trend where students were
waiting later to get their licenses. They had conducted an internal study with their
schools and the majority of drivers where students who attended later in the afternoon.
They also had an on line system, where students came in only every other week to meet
with teaching staff.
Commissioner Grangoff asked the applicant if he was comfortable with all the Conditions
of Approval.
Mr. Halasz stated yes. They anticipated over time that they may need to expand to a
larger suite and there would be more parking spaces allotted with further expansion.
Vice Chair Buttress closed the public hearing and brought the item back to the
Commission for further discussion or action.
Commissioner Gladson stated she had a clean up issue on the Conditions of Approval.
Condition No. 4, and she had added to condition language on a previous submittal, in
memorializing the hours of operation and on the second to last sentence she proposed to
Planning Commission Meeting February 6, 2012
Page 12 of 13
add the wording: exception for special events. If the item was approved, she would
want that wording added if that was amenable to Staff? The change in hours of
operation would be for special events only. She also believed that Condition No. 10 was
repeated down at the bottom in Condition No. 13 and she believed Condition No. 10
could be stricken.
Commissioner Gladson made a motion to adopt PC No. 09 -12, approving CUP No. 2847-
12- Futures in Education Halstrom High School, subject to the conditions contained in the
Staff Report and with the changes to the conditions as previously stated; and noting the
item is categorically exempt from CEQA.
Commissioner Grangoff stated he wanted to ensure that the applicant was okay with the
modifications to Condition No. 4, which was exception for special events that would be
made with prior approval with the Community Development Director. He asked the
applicant if there would be any problems with that change.
Mr. Halasz stated no.
SECOND: Commissioner Grangoff
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Gladson, and Grangoff
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting February 6, 2012
Page 13 of 13
(6) ADJOURNMENT:
Adjournment to the next Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for Wednesday,
February 22, 2012.
Commissioner Grangoff made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled
meeting of the Planning Commission on February 22, 2012; making a special mention
that today was the 101" birthday of the United States 40 president Ronald Reagan and
he wanted to adjourn in special memory to him, someone whose belief in the American
people and advocacy to freedom was an inspiration to this date.
SECOND: Commissioner Gladson
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Gladson, and Grangoff
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner
MOTION CARRIED
Meeting Adjourned @ 7:37 p.m.