2010 - October 18Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes
October 18, 2010
Page 1 of 16
Planning Commission October 18, 2010
City of Orange Monday 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Cunningham, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden
STAFF
PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Community Development Director
Robert Garcia, Associate Planner
Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION:
Chair Whitaker opened the Administrative Session at 6:50 p.m. with a review of the
agenda. He asked on the minutes from the September 20, 2010 meeting if they could be
approved with only 2 Commissioners. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz stated 2 of
the Commissioners who had been present at the September 20, 2010 Planning
Commission Meeting could approve the minutes.
Item No 2 CUP 2771-09 -Henry's Grill. Chair Whitaker stated he had been absent
from the previous meeting and he had not reviewed the tape. He would abstain from the
vote on the item. Mr. Sheatz stated if there was a majority of the quorum present who
had heard that item those Commissioners could vote. Commissioner Merino stated he
was absent from the September 20, 2010 PC Meeting and would abstain.
Item No 3 CUP 2794-10 - EM & M Guns & Jewelry. Chair Whitaker stated he would
have questions on the item. Commissioner Steiner asked if the site of this application
was next to the rib place. Associate Planner Robert Garcia stated no; it was located on
Chapman. Commissioner Merino asked if the Orange Police Department had an opinion
on the application. Mr. Garcia, stated the Police Department was in support of the
application.
Item No 4 CUP 2795-10 -Inter-Coast International Training. Associate Planner Doris
Nguyen stated there was information in the Commissioner's hot file. Commissioner
Steiner asked if that was the document that stated opposition to the application. Ms.
Nguyen stated that was correct. Commissioner Merino asked if the document had any
legal standing. Ms. Nguyen stated the Dean of the school would be present.
Item No. 5 CUP 2796-10 - JS Black Belt. Commissioner Merino asked if there were any
concerns received on the application. Assistant Community Development Director Ed
Knight stated no, it was a pretty straight forward application.
Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2010
Page2of16
Commissioner Steiner asked if teaching massage therapy was a violation of a CUP. Mr.
Knight stated no, it was a legitimate business and persons in that trade had to be certified
and there were legitimate schools that taught massage therapy. Chair Whitaker stated a
license was also needed to practice massage therapy. Mr. Knight stated he assumed there
was also a requirement for some form of certification to teach it.
There was no further discussion.
Administrative Session closed at 6:55.
REGULAR SESSION:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
Consent Calendar:
(1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 20, 2010
(2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2771-09 -HENRY'S GRILL
On September 20, 2010, the Planning Commission approved a proposal for a new
Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine -Eating Place) at a new
2,018 square foot restaurant. The restaurant will include a new 400 square foot outdoor
dining area at the rear of the building. The Planning Commission directed staff to draft
Conditions of Approval for the approval of the request.
Staff has drafted Conditions of Approval which have been reviewed by the Police
Department and by the applicant. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
approve the draft resolution based on the facts set forth in the staff report and
administrative record presented to it. The Planning Commission can add and/or remove
conditions as needed.
LOCATION: 149 N. Glassell
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 29-10 approving a
Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine -Eating Place) Alcoholic
Beverage Control License for a new restaurant.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to approve the minutes from the September
20, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting as written, and to adopt PC 29-10, approving
CUP 2771-09 Henry's Grill, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report.
SECOND: Commissioner Steiner
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham and Steiner
Planning Commission Meeting
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioners Merino and Whitaker
ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden
October 18, 2010
Page 3 of 16
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting
New Hearings:
October 18, 2010
Page 4 of 16
(3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2794-10 - EM & M GUNS &
JEWELRY
A proposal to operate a pawn business at an existing gun and jewelry shop.
LOCATION: 1124 W. Chapman Avenue
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 37-10 approving a
pawn shop in an existing commercial building.
Associate Planner Robert Garcia presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Whitaker opened the item for any questions to Staff.
Chair Whitaker asked if a pawn shop required any other State licensing, other than the
CUP under the City of Orange's Municipal Code.
Mr. Garcia deferred that question to the Orange Police Department's representative,
Sergeant Peterson.
Sgt. Peterson stated the business required a secondhand dealer's license.
Chair Whitaker asked if the applicant had obtained that license.
Sgt. Peterson stated the applicant had the license.
Chair Whitaker invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Michael Hein, address on file and Emily Atkinson, address on file came forward to
address the Commission. Ms. Atkinson stated their business was by the book and they
were clean and ran a good solid business. They generated income for the city and their
business would be a great asset. Mr. Hein stated they had quite a number of years of
experience with their particular type of business. He had 30 years of experience with
jewelry, firearms and the pawn business. He never had any complaints or bad marks.
They ran their business by the book, by the law.
Chair Whitaker stated the applicant's previous location on Tustin had not had the pawn
license and now they were wishing to add that. He asked why they wanted to add that
license.
Mr. Hein stated in the previous location they were in a C-1 Zone and in planning they
were not zoned for it. The new location was a freestanding building and when the proper
Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2010
Page 5 of 16
zoning became available, they moved to the new location with the idea that they would
add the pawn license to it.
Chair Whitaker opened the hearing for public comment.
Kimberly Bottomley, address on file, stated she was never notified that a gun shop was
going in. She had basically seen it when she was driving home one day and then a
neighbor told her a pawn shop was going in, and that was when she heard of the meeting.
She wished something else had gone in at that location. There was an elementary school
one block south and another one just one block west. The area was single family
residences, they walked their dogs and there was another elementary school on Main
Street and a middle school over at Portola. When the kids would walk up to the circle
where many of their activities took place, they would see the gun shop and the pawn shop
and it would have been nicer if there had been something else put there. She appreciated
the medical building that was now on Citrus and Chapman that made the area look really
nice. She was hoping that in the future, being in front of the Planning Commission, if
any businesses went up for sale, such as the used auto shops, that possibly they could
support St. Joseph's and their expansion and Choc's to get more medical buildings. She
lived in the neighborhood for 20 years and raised her kids in the neighborhood. Her son
came home from Cal Poly Pomona and stated look mom now we have a gun shop. For
her 22 year old son to make that statement, it was not the greatest thing. She thanked the
Commission.
Mr. Hein stated the manner in which the building was located, they were walled in from
all sides and the only part of the building that was visible as to what was in the building,
would be from Chapman Avenue. The building was completely self-contained. There
was a cinder block brick wall surrounding the building; and for the children's protection,
they would not be able to see inside anyway.
Ms. Atkinson stated the pawn part of the business would be mostly jewelry. There would
be no radios or drum sets on the ground; it would not be the epitome of a pawn shop.
The majority of the business would be jewelry.
Mr. Hein stated it would not be a full blown pawn shop. They dealt in firearms and
jewelry and the pawn was intended mostly for the jewelry. Most people that owned guns
would not pawn them anyway. As far as stereos and other merchandise sitting around,
they would not deal in those types of items.
Commissioner Merino asked Sgt. Peterson if there was any activity, and he felt the
resident's concern was that perhaps if there was activity such as criminals attempting to
fence goods and that element became prevalent at the proposed site, would there be
recourse or would that be an area that the Police Department would become involved in?
Sgt. Peterson stated the Police Department had a Pawn Detail and they investigated all
pawns; they were identified by a driver's license anytime there was a pawn transaction
they would know who was conducting business.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 2010
Page6of16
Commissioner Merino stated he understood that if a negative element became present at
the proposed location, the Police Department would be able to deal with it.
Sgt. Peterson stated that was correct.
Chair Whitaker closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission
for further discussion or action.
Commissioner Steiner made a motion to adopt PC 37-10, approving CUP NO. 2794-10-
EM & M Guns & Jewelry, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report, and
noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA.
Chair Whitaker asked if the motion also contained the Conditions of Approval that Staff
had added regarding the hours of operation.
Commissioner Steiner stated his motion included Condition No. 15.
SECOND: Commissioner Cunningham.
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 2010
Page 7 of 16
(4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2795-10 - INTER-COAST
INTERNATIONAL TRAINING, INC.
A proposal to expand into 9,582 square feet of the second floor by converting existing
office space into two classrooms, break room and offices to provide additional classes for
an existing college on the first floor.
LOCATION: 3745 W. Chapman, Suite 200
NOTE: This 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 includes no expansion of the
existing building.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 37-10 approving a
pawn shop in an existing commercial building.
Associate Planner Doris Nguyen presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Whitaker opened the item to any questions for Staff.
Chair Whitaker asked if the current hours of operation that existed with Inter Coast were
those that were being requested with the proposed application.
Ms. Nguyen stated they were not; the hours on the first floor were Monday through
Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Friday through Sunday. The
applicant was requesting longer hours and to be open 7 days a week.
Chair Whitaker asked what was Staff's analysis of how the change in hours would affect
the parking?
Ms. Nguyen stated it was concluded that if they had 42 persons on site in Suite 200, the
parking would still be under-parked by one space. There were currently 102 parking
spaces provided and with only 42 students, faculty and employees in Suite 200, there
would be 101 spaces provided, with one additional space.
Chair Whitaker asked if there had been an investigation into the allegations by the other
tenants regarding the number of students being more than what was permitted.
Ms. Nguyen stated the written letter was received on 10/19/2010 at 1:00 p.m. She had a
conversation with the Dean of the school on Wednesday and she had driven by the
school on Thursday. She had driven to the site 3 times and had seen people standing
outside, but she had not seen any trash around and she could not speak to the sexual
Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2010
Page8of16
harassment issue or the other points that were brought up in the letter. There was no
trash in the front.
Commissioner Merino stated those were future attorneys that were doing all those
nefarious things.
Ms. Nguyen stated no they were speaking of Inter Coast College.
Commissioner Merino stated he was just being humorous.
Commissioner Steiner asked who occupied the second floor of the building.
Ms. Nguyen stated the property owner was in Suite 200, but his business had downsized
and he had not had as many employees as he had previously had in the 9500 square foot
area. It was an equipment leasing and finance company and they apparently worked east
coast hours and there were very few employees. The space would be converted into the
school. In Suite 250 was the law school.
Commissioner Steiner stated he understood the American College of Law had no CUP.
Ms. Nguyen stated that was correct, and they also had no business license and there was
currently a code enforcement issue with the site.
Commissioner Steiner asked if the City was taking action on that.
Ms. Nguyen stated the City had been working with that business since February.
Commissioner Cunningham asked if the law school was there illegally.
Ms. Nguyen stated the American College of Law had no business license or CUP.
Commissioner Cunningham stated with the students smoking outside, was there any
prohibition against that?
Ms. Nguyen stated not that she was aware.
Commissioner Cunningham stated it was just that the law school was complaining about
that.
Ms. Nguyen stated that was correct.
Chair Whitaker invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Geeta Brown, address on file, stated she was the President of Inter Coast Colleges and
the location in Orange was their oldest location. They used to be located in Santa Ana,
but moved to Orange in June of 2004. They were with the previous landlord and had a
Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2010
Page 9 of 16
wonderful relationship with him and they now had a great relationship with their current
landlord. They were planning on having a practical or vocational nursing program on
the second floor. There was such a need for nurses all over California but particularly
Orange County and it would not be a registered nursing program as the letter indicated;
it would be a practical nursing program that would be 14 months in length. A lot of their
programs that were on the 1St floor and definitely on the 2"d floor were programs that
students would be involved in didactic training on site and then they would go out to
complete clinical training off site. It was the same for their alcohol and drug counseling
studies program; which was a very popular program. They produced more CADAC
Certified Counselors in Southern California than any vocational school or even the
Universities in the area. They had a wonderful reputation for that program and for all
their programs.
There were some comments made about the restroom use and the trash. The upstairs
restrooms were part of the common area and they had access to both restrooms upstairs
and downstairs; and she was not certain what other comment to make about that issue
other than it was common area space. The students and other tenants smoked in a
specific area of the site. It was not the most ideal location; but she was working with the
landlord to locate a better spot for that use. In terms of the parking, there had been a
comment made about spots marked by Inter Coast. Ms. Brown stated that the previous
landlord had done that in 2004 and there had not been any modifications made to those
designations. If there were spaces that were marked for Inter Coast and adjustments
were necessary, they were not opposed to that.
Ms. Brown stated as pointed out, the American College of Law had not had a CUP.
They had wanted to be on the second floor and had been working on the project for 19
months and they knew they had to go about it in the correct manner. They understood
they needed a CUP and had been working with an architect on the building and gaining
the necessary approvals from various bureaus and regulatory agencies that governed
Inter Coast; and there were many. She was pleased to be in the City of Orange and
looked forward to a long term relationship with the tenant and with the City.
Chair Whitaker opened the hearing for Public Comment.
Dr. Weleed Akleh, address on file, stated he was the Dean of the American College of
Law. Before they moved into the building they were told that they had a CUP in place
and he had not found out that they needed a separate CUP until he came to the City to
apply for a simple license. He was told he needed a separate CUP for the second floor
and they were working on that. They had a 3 year lease in place, with options. Inter
Coast had not had a lease. They were a law school and it was not the law school
students that were doing things. They had only lawyers and judges teaching and the law
school was the second oldest law school in Orange County and they brought a good
element into the City. They had a limited student body and they were an evening part
time school. They would not create waste; they would not allow their students to camp
on every corner of the parking lot and certainly would not trash the building. He felt the
building was being trashed and Inter Coast had outgrown the building. Before he left
Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2010
Page 10 of 16
that site he counted 84 cars in the parking lot, none of which were the law schools. His
students and professors came to him to ask where do they park. What Inter Coast had
done was order signs and posted them on every single parking space, leaving a few next
to the trash. Inter Coast had no management what so ever; he doubted that they had
managers on site. One of his female students came to him very scared; she stated she
could not enter the front by herself. Inter Coast had 8 campuses and they catered to
former alcoholics, drug abusers, and maybe some of them needed a certificate of
completion to go back to court to show a judge that they had served a sentence and they
had not looked like students to him. He was familiar with the building for six years and
the former owner was his landlord in Anaheim. During the past year, Inter Coast must
have recruited well over 100 students and his facility had no room to be there and no
parking. There was trash and smoking everywhere and not to mention the noise. He had
the paperwork on file and his CUP should have no problem getting approved.
Commissioner Steiner stated he had a question.
Chair Whitaker turning to Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz stated they generally
only asked questions of applicant's and not the public speakers.
Mr. Sheatz stated unless they had a question that required an answer; most of the time
that was the case, however, it would be acceptable.
Commissioner Steiner stated for clarification he asked Dr. Akleh how long the law
school had been at their current location.
Dr. Akleh stated they had been there for a year.
Commissioner Steiner stated he understood that the CUP was a misunderstanding and he
was attempting to remedy that, but asked why had he not had a business license?
Dr. Akleh stated he had a copy of the existing CUP that he thought they could be on and
then the City told him they needed a 2°d one to be on the 2°a floor and he had needed a
letter from the landlord which he just received. The landlord's business had been
reduced which helped the law school with their parking situation.
Commissioner Steiner stated his question was why was the law school operating without
a business license?
Dr. Akleh stated he had applied for one, but the City stated that he needed a CUP and
not a license.
Commissioner Steiner stated a business license was separate from a CUP.
Dr. Akleh stated he applied, the application was on file and his deposit was on file.
Chair Whitaker asked the next public speaker to come forward.
Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2010
Page 11 of 16
Brij Patel, address on file, stated he was the owner of the property and they had also
been a tenant of the property. They had a great working relationship with Inter Coast
College overall as a landlord. In fact, Ms. Brown, the Principal of Inter Coast, had
brought to his attention the need to create a smoking area to clean up the building's
image and he had not had any problems with the students or faculty of Inter Coast
College. They were an anchor tenant and his business had disappeared. He was
looking, as part of their strategy, to allow the college to expand into the upstairs space
and he would move to a smaller lease space somewhere else in Orange. He had been in
the building since March of 2008, about 2 %2 years with Inter Coast, and they had not
experienced any problems and he was supportive of their expansion.
Chair Whitaker stated it appeared that Mr. Patel's other tenant had some issues and he
asked if he had worked with that tenant on those issues.
Mr. Patel stated he had explained to Dr. Akleh that in order to expend capital to create a
space for smoking and leisure; he had needed a lease in place as their landlord. Part of it
had been the chicken and the egg to invest in that; both in additional restrooms and clean
up measures to secure an anchor tenant. His strategy as a landlord with Ms. Brown, in
writing, was that he would improve the tenant space to improve the general overall
building's appearance and for her space once a lease agreement was in place.
Commissioner Cunningham stated the Dean had brought allegations of parking signs
being posted.
Mr. Patel stated he was in commercial and industrial finance and he should have stuck
with that and not gone into real estate, but that was another issue. The prior landlord had
each space designated with the tenant's name, it was a physical iron sign. As his
business took over the space, they had removed signage that belonged to tenants who
were no longer there. The only signs that remained were those of Inter Coast College
and it was just something that he had been grandfathered into and he was not certain
why they had been placed there by the previous landlord.
Chair Whitaker invited the applicant to respond to the public comment.
Ms. Brown stated in terms of the leadership of her organization, Christine Sanchez was
the Director who had been there for about 3 years and prior to that both herself and her
husband had been based at that location. Ms. Sanchez was present in the audience and
knew her students quite well and could attest to any of the comments made. The signage
had been placed their by a previous landlord and most of the old signage had been
removed; it was done in 2004. In response to the comment about there not being a lease;
she had not felt comfortable signing a lease without having a CUP in place, unlike the
person who had opposed her CUP. It was the correct manner in which to do things, to
secure the right to be in a location and then sign a lease. The lease would be signed
upon the CUP's approval. She had all the other approvals from the various accrediting
agencies. She had gone through the appropriate channels to get that all done. In terms
of their pride in that space; her company had personally invested lots of money in capital
Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2010
Page 12 of 16
improvements in their space. They took pride in their space and they spoke with their
students and staff about that. She wanted to have a smoking space designated and she
had been talking to the landlord about that for years. The law school was upset about
Inter Coast being in that space, but just a few weeks ago the Dean of the law school had
approached Inter Coast to use some of their space. She was concerned that once the
CUP was submitted what would occur there. Just for the record, her students were not
attending Inter Coast for any specific program; they were not taking courses to submit a
completion certificate to the Courts or anyone else. They were not that type of program,
but an accredited program and they were very proud of their programs.
Commissioner Steiner asked if she was aware of any incidents involving harassment of
one of the attendees of the law school.
Ms. Brown stated she had only been made aware of that through the letter, but nothing
prior to that.
Chair Whitaker stated it appeared that there was a perception that there was more
parking being used than what was allowed. If Suite 100 and 200 would be operating at
the same time, they would probably have 88 spaces occupied and would the applicant
have a problem if there was a condition that there would be no parking space designation
and that all parking space signage would need to come down and that would allow
common access to all of the 102 spaces that existed at the site. The perception was that
when the other tenant was there, it was difficult to find a space to park.
Ms. Brown stated where there were no parking space designations currently, those
spaces were very close to the building. Those were not marked at all; and she felt they
would have no opposition to the spaces being un-marked. She turned toward the
audience and asked two other members of the school if they had any opposition to that
request? The response was no opposition.
Chair Whitaker stated the other tenant would be entitled to 9 spaces based on their
building's square footage.
Chair Whitaker closed the public hearing and brought the item back to the Commission
for further discussion.
Commissioner Merino stated they had what appeared to be potential issues between two
tenants on a piece of property with "x" amount of parking. If a conditional use permit
was brought forth with the amount of students that could potentially attend, and he was
speaking about the law school, he asked if it was possible for the law school to have the
required amount of parking spaces with the number of students who currently attended.
Ms. Nguyen stated there would be 10 spaces left for the law school and last session the
law school had 19 students who were not there at the same time.
Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2010
Page 13 of 16
Commissioner Merino stated based on the math in table D, there would only be one spot
leftover. Assuming Suite 250 received their 9 spots.
Ms. Nguyen stated they would get their 9 spots, plus the one extra, which would be 10.
Chair Whitaker stated the law school had a variability of 19 people including staff.
Commissioner Merino stated the math had not come out correctly, if all students
attended there would be a parking deficiency.
Ms. Nguyen stated she understood that not all students would be there at the same time.
Very similar to what they were doing now was they would limit the number of students
who could be there at one time to 10.
Commissioner Merino stated the subsequent application and applicant would then need
to deal with any parking issues with their application.
Ms. Nguyen stated that was correct. Inter. Coast College had applied for their CUP in
June and they had been able to get their application in within 24 hours; and the City had
been working with the other applicant since February.
Chair Whitaker brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion or
action.
Commissioner Merino stated there were two applicants and issues with the property that
required discussions between the landlord and the applicant before them and a potential
future applicant. He felt it would be the right thing to have it be a win win for everyone
to perhaps continue the item to let the issue settle and a discussion to occur with the
landlord and the tenants and City Staff to come up with a better solution and to allow the
situation to be de-conflicted. He felt they would place the law school at a disadvantage
if they would move forward with Inter Coast, as the law school would be following
behind that application. He was not confident that all the parking issues had been
worked out to the satisfaction of all the applicants or potential applicants before them.
Commissioner Steiner stated it appeared that Inter Coast College had followed the rules
and had moved forward constructively and to tie the Commission's actions to having
some issues worked out would be adverse to the applicant and he would not support that.
Commissioner Cunningham stated there were issues between Inter Coast and the College
of Law and the landlord; those were issues to be worked out amongst those parties and
he had not felt they involved City Government. Inter Coast had appeared to be going
through the process effectively and quickly and he got the strong impression that the
American College of Law was not. He was not of a mind to penalize Inter Coast for the
law school's lack of action. He would be supportive of adopting the recommended
action.
Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2010
Page 14 of 16
Commissioner Merino stated they had two legitimate and positive members of the
community and he looked to the applicant and landlord to see if they would be amenable
as it would be an issue with the next application that would come before them for that
location. He looked to the applicant to see what their thoughts were.
Chair Whitaker stated he understood Commissioner Merino's thoughts. In reviewing the
Staff Report, he noticed that in Suite 200 Inter Coast College would only be allowed to
have 42 students and faculty at any one time. There was one space per person required
for trade schools. They would have the same occurrence if the law school had been
before them with their own CUP and they would also be designated that at any given
point in time, they would need to break up their allowable student and faculty ratio to
accommodate the parking situation. He felt it could be worked out at the Planning
Commission level when a subsequent CUP came through and that the landlord needed to
work together to resolve those issues. He agreed more with Commissioner Steiner and
Cunningham in that the applicant had presented their information and there was nothing
wrong with that application and he was in favor of approval.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to adopt PC 36-10, approving CUP 2795-10-
Inter Coast International Training, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report
and noting that the item was categorically exempt from CEQA.
SECOND: Commissioner Steiner
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2010
Page 15 of 16
(5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2796-10 - JS BLACK BELT, INC.
A proposal to operate a martial arts school within an existing commercial center.
LOCATION: 655 N. Tustin Street
NOTE: This 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 involves the operation of a martial arts school
in an existing building.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 38-10 approving a
martial arts school in an existing commercial building.
Associate Planner Robert Garcia presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Whitaker opened the item for any questions for Staff. There were none.
Chair Whitaker invited the applicant to address the Commission. The applicant had no
further information and there was no public comment.
Chair Whitaker brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or action.
Commissioner Merino made a motion to adopt PC 38-10, approving CUP 2796-10-JS
Black Belt, Inc., subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and noting the
item was categorically exempt from CEQA.
SECOND: Commissioner Cunningham
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting
(6) ADJOURNMENT:
October 18, 2010
Page 16 of 16
Adjournment to the next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, November 1, 2010.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled
Planning Commission Meeting on November 1, 2010.
SECOND: Commissioner Merino
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden
Meeting Adjourned @ 7:53 p.m.
MOTION CARRIED