Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, I think we're ready to get started. I'd like to call the Planning Commission meeting of July 20th, 2026 to order. Vice Chair Tucker, will you lead us in the pledge? Okay, roll call. Mr. Beckman, please call the roll. Thank you, Chair Leslie. Good evening.

Commissioner Vasquez?

Present.

Excellent. Thank you. I'd like to welcome Commissioner Connie Benson. Present. Excellent. Thank you. Commissioner Maldonado? She is absent this evening. Commissioner Vejar?

Here.

Excellent. Thank you. Commissioner McCormick? Here. Thank you. Vice Chair Tucker?

Here.

Thank you. And Chair Leslie? Here.

Here.

Wonderful. This evening we do have a quorum. Thank you.

Very good.

Okay, at this time, public comments.

Members of the public may address the Commission on matters not listed on the agenda, which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission, provided that no action may be taken on off-agenda items unless authorized by law. Public comments are limited to three minutes per speaker. Have we received any requests to speak tonight? It appears we have. We will start with Rachel. Roll Nikki. All right, very good.

It's 2411, there we go, Glassell Trucking Warehouse Project. I'm a District 3 homeowner in North Orange and live directly next to the proposed development site. Specifically, I live 80 feet from the site and I'm very personally invested and incredibly concerned about Rexford's proposal. I have a one-year-old daughter and my husband and I had planned to raise our family in our neighborhood, but this project is causing us to reconsider. As I understand, Rexford has proposed to demolish the existing office park and which they own on the corner of Glassell and Fletcher and build a 2,988,000 square foot warehouse with 36 trucking bays to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This facility is also a quarter mile from Fletcher Elementary School. My neighbors and I strongly oppose this project for many reasons. The increased trucking activity this project would bring would make a monumental impact to District 3 North Orange's community. The emissions these trucks spew and their weight on our public city roads will cause innumerable harm. Me and my neighbors, as well as the children attending Fletcher Elementary, will all suffer from the subsequent worsened air quality. The increased trucking traffic will also make our roads and communities less safe. The constant trucking activity would also make our community endure noise and sleep disruptions as Rexford has proposed to the city, excuse me, that the trucking warehouse operated all hours of the day, including nights and weekends. Ultimately this 24 hour a day, seven day a week trucking warehouse does not belong next to our residential neighborhood. This is not the orange way. Please hear my neighbors and I as we strongly oppose Rexford's 2411 Glassell Trucking Warehouse project. You'll continue to see us as we attend all future meetings leading up to the potential hearing date for the project. We respectfully ask for your no vote when the project comes before you. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments. We have another speaker. I believe Kevin is it new?

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Kevin New. I live here in Orange. I'm here about a project that will come before you soon, a proposed 24-hour industrial warehouse at 2411 North Glassell, nearly 300,000 square feet with 36 loading dock positions on site of the current office campus. I understand it may be scheduled for a hearing as early as September. I'm not here tonight to argue the merits. I'm here to respectfully ask each of you to give this project your close personal attention. before it reaches your agenda because of where it sits. The nearest homes are 54 feet from the project boundary. Fletcher Elementary School with about 500 students is roughly a quarter mile away. The project's own traffic study projects hundreds of daily new truck trips through this area. Many of my neighbors and I have spent months reading the environmental documents, the technical dependencies, and the agency comment letters, including one from South Coast Air Quality Management District. We've submitted written comments through the planning department and will continue to participate through the formal process. We're not opposed to investment in Orange. We're asking that a project of this scale, this close to bedrooms and a schoolyard, receive the level of environmental review the law and this community deserve. When the item is agendized, we'll see us here, parents, retirees, long-time residents, ready to speak to the record. Tonight, I simply wanted to introduce ourselves and to thank planning staff who have been professional and responsive throughout. Thank you for your time and your service to the city.

Thank you for your comments. We appreciate those. Are there any other speakers at this time?

Okay.

Yes, come on. Come forward, please. Just state your name when you come forward.

My name's Christina Martinez. Thank you. I want to talk to you about the proposal for the 2411 school cell. My name's Christina. I'm a homeowner in Orange, and most importantly, a terrified mother. While the conversation always seems to center on the homes near and Sorry. Near Fletcher Avenue, I'm standing here today to ask, what about the homes that back up directly to Glassell? My children sleep a few yards away from the street. The thought of massive diesel trucks roaring past their windows 24-7 breaks my heart. It's not just about traffic. It's about the constant, inescapable noise pollution that will shatter their sleep, disrupt their developmental brains, and potentially inflict lifelong neurological complications. The nightmare doesn't end when they wake up. Those same children attend Fletcher Academy a mere quarter mile away. If you allow this warehouse to be built, my children will breathe in toxic diesel exhaust all day at school and then come home only to breathe it all night. They will be trapped in a cloud of poison with absolutely nowhere to escape. My youngest had RSV as a baby, and his lungs are still compromised today. I am begging you to tell me, what will breathing in toxic diesel fumes every single day, all day long, do to his fragile healing lungs? Please consider the innocent children who will be affected by your decision to allow this environmental hazard to be built. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Appreciate those. At this time, if there's no other speakers, we will move on to the consent calendar. All items on the consent calendar are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. Any member of the Planning Commission, staff, or the public may request an item be removed from the consent calendar for separate action. Is there any request to remove any consent items at this time? Commissioners? Okay.

I'll move to approve the consent calendar.

All right, is there a second? Okay, we have a motion and a second. Let's take a vote. All right, the motion passes unanimously. Appreciate that. We should welcome our newest, I meant to welcome our newest commissioner, Connie Benson. It's good to have you on staff. That's right. Got your first vote in. That's good. All right. Okay. Moving on to the public hearing. Public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the Orange Municipal Code to update regulations for homeless shelters and establish regulations for low barrier navigation centers to ensure consistency with state law and finding of CEQA exemption. This time, we'll conduct, we already announced that staff report. Got it. Okay, very good. Mr. Beck.

All right, thank you, Chair Leslie, and good evening, members of the Planning Commission. Tonight before you is item 4.1, a request for the Planning Commission to recommend City Council adoption of an ordinance updating the Orange Municipal Code regarding homeless shelters and Establishing new regulations for low barrier navigation centers. So first for homeless or emergency shelters, state law requires the city to identify at least one zoning district where shelters are permitted by right. and subject only to written objective standards. The City Planning Commission continues to retain their local discretion regarding which qualifying zoning districts allow emergency shelters by right. And currently the Orange Municipal Code allows them in the M1 and M2 zoning districts, which are the industrial districts. Although the city updated its emergency shelter regulations in 2024, State law was amended again in 2025 and as a result rendered the city's existing standards no longer consistent. So this ordinance would make three primary changes to emergency shelter standards. First, The current requirement that a shelter be located within one half mile of a transit stop would become a preference rather than a mandatory requirement. Secondly, the existing requirement that shelters be located at least 500 feet from residential uses, residentially zoned property, parks, and kindergarten through 12th grade schools would be removed. And third, parking requirements would be based only on the number of spaces needed for shelter staff rather than the number of shelter beds. The second component to this ordinance update addresses low barrier navigation centers. Currently, there are no regulations regarding low barrier navigation centers in the Orange Municipal Code. State law requires that low barrier navigation centers be permitted by right in mixed use and non-residential zoning districts where multifamily residential uses are allowed. The ordinance therefore adds a definition for low barrier and low barrier navigation centers and identifies which zoning districts they are to be permitted in and establishes objective design standards related to supportive services, occupancy, staffing, security, facility management, reporting, and parking. So all of that brings the city regulations into compliance with state law and implements housing element programs 4G and 4J. So with that, staff recommends the commission adopt resolution number PC16-26, recommending city council approval of the ordinance and find the ordinance exempt from CEQA. That concludes that presentation. We're available for questions.

Thank you for that report. Commissioners, any questions of staff?

I have some questions. Okay, so my first question is about a sunset clause that was in OMC section 17.13.040 MMM 11. It says that this ordinance is set to sunset January 1st, 2027. So that's like less than six months from now. So I was wondering if that should be removed since Senate Bill 1395 from 2024 removed the January 1st sunset from the original bill.

I can take that one, Hayden. Yes, you're 100% correct. I'm sorry I missed out on my first review, but the sunset clause used to be part of the state law, but it has been gotten rid of. So unless you guys do want to come back and talk about this in five months, we totally can, but I would recommend getting rid of that.

Any other questions, commissioners of staff?

I have a few, but if other commissioners have questions, that's also okay if they want to jump in.

I have just a follow-up on the comment made. Why do you recommend that we not have the sunset clause?

Because if we had the sunset clause, then we'd essentially have to pass this again because these requirements are still required in a state law in 2027. They're no longer sunsetting, and HCD is going to... strictly scrutinize our housing element and this is part of that and if all of a sudden we eliminate these rules then hdd could come in and say we're not compliant so are we eliminating rules by not allowing the sunset the sunset clause would effectively state that that this ordinance would no longer be applicable in, I think it was January 1st, 2027, if we kept it. And then, so we would have to essentially redo it to be legally compliant with state law. So my recommendation is, so we don't have to come back twice to do the same thing, is to get rid of the sunset clause.

Okay, I'll have a follow-up question on that later.

I think I might add some clarity to that. The original law was AB 101 from 2019, which said that this by right low barrier navigation center would sunset January 1st, 2027. Then there was a follow up bill from the state, SB 1395, which amended this bill to remove the sunset clause. So the state law says there's no sunset of this requirement for cities. So that's that.

Hey, thank you. Commissioner Baker.

I have another one. Okay. Another one that I have is about what in this, the staff report used the word may that the, like our, what's currently in our ordinance as a city may be considered not compliant with state law. So what is like the may that the, isn't like absolutely hard concrete fact that it shall be non-compliant with state law. So what does the planning commission have some discretion over? And maybe the city has some discretion over as far as this ordinance.

Generally speaking, the language is... SUBJECTIVE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE, SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION, ALIGNING WITH STATE LAW. SO WHAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF A BEST FIT, BUT IN THE COURSE OF PURVIEW AND HOW THAT READS, IF THE COMMISSION FEELS THAT THE LANGUAGE COULD BE STRENGTHENED IN THAT WAY, THEN THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD ELECT TO DO IN THIS CASE. I don't know if Connor has any additional clarifying, but effectively, we took this effort to align ourselves with the government code, and that was the source for that language.

Yeah, there is some wiggle room with this. It's all basically whether HCD would see any restrictions placed on... CREATED BY YOU GUYS AS RESTRICTIVE OF HOUSING. THINGS LIKE OUR CURRENT OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS, WHICH STATES BASICALLY IT HAS TO BE CLOSED TO FOR USE BETWEEN NINE AND FIVE. BUT THEN THAT WOULD BE OVERBEARING. BUT HOWEVER, IF YOU GUYS COULD COME UP WITH FINDINGS THAT SAY, WELL, IT NEEDS TO BE CLOSED FOR AT LEAST TWO HOURS A DAY FOR CLEANING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT MIGHT BE PERMISSIBLE. THAT'S FAR MORE LIKELY. Maximum occupancy is something that I've seen cities limit, number of beds. Approximately other shelters, you guys can, there's a maximum you can do of 300 feet, but you could do less. You could do 150 feet or 200 or 275. Lighting and security, you guys can come up with stricter or looser security requirements. And design.

What about needing to have the police department approve their operational plan? We require that for every business that comes to the City of Orange. The police department has to, when they do a conditional use permit or something, the police department has to approve whatever their operational plan was in essence. So that was originally in the ordinance, but now has been removed. Is something like that allowed to come back?

Yeah, I would be allowed to come back, but again, if, say, the police are having too strict of operational plans, that could get really dicey, and HCD could then come back and say that we're essentially making a barrier for housing for emergency shelterers.

So often sometimes the police will give us their, I mean, at least when it comes to planning commission, the police give the report and then they'll make a recommendation one way or the other. And sometimes the planning commission has the ability to go against necessarily what the police department recommendation was. Couldn't then, um, if it is supposed to now become administerial by right, could staff make that decision if they thought that it was warranted, but

THE POLICE WOULD ESSENTIALLY NEED TO CREATE SOME OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, AND THEY COULD CHECK TO SEE IF THE OPERATIONAL PLAN COMPLIES WITH THOSE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, BUT DOING IT ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, I THINK HCD WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH. BUT A LOT OF THIS HASN'T BEEN TRIED IN THE COURTS YET, SO IT'S Impossible for me to say that HCD would definitely say that's not allowed, but in my opinion, everything has to be objective. So the police, the most they could do would come up with an operational plan, like a model one, and they could confirm that the shelter's operational plan complies with the objective operational plan given by the police.

Can we make that recommendation or that requirement that the police create SOME SORT OF STANDARD OPERATIONAL PLAN FOR REVIEWING OF THESE TYPES OF THINGS? YES. WHAT ABOUT STAY CAPS?

STAY CAPS, THE STATE LAW IS WRITTEN IN A WAY WHERE IT IMPLIES THAT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO GO UNDER THE 180 DAY MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM. HCD has essentially said in multiple letters to cities and in posts that they would be strictly scrutinizing any reason for doing that. We would have to have very good findings for having that requirement. And I'm not sure if we have that today.

And then no more local resident preference. It's not saying that we can't have people that aren't local residents, but no local residents preference, because that was in the original ordinance. And then the good neighbor ordinance was a preference to people who were orange neighbors, I guess. So that's been removed. Is that something that we could put back if we wanted to?

I think HCD would scrutinize that very strictly like stay caps.

I have a, maybe just, I know, David, you have a question. Based upon what you just said, and based upon what you had said, that these areas we're talking about are going to be in the M1, M2 districts. My question would be adjacency and ability to change the setbacks from those adjacencies question is and some of the wording I was reading is that these could not be located next to schools and parks. The other build upon on that would be to ask the question is are we only able to have ministerial review and only objective design standards Because you had brought up something about design, which I read through this whole thing, didn't see any restrictions or mention of design with the relaxed setbacks to adjoining uses.

Yes, these have to be by rights. So you guys could create some objective design standards as long as they weren't essentially restricting housing. But on a case-by-case basis, that would not be allowable.

Us making the decision to make more objective?

No, if you make objective ones that apply to all the shelters, that would be fine. But say on a case-by-case basis, that wouldn't be allowed because these are ministerial by right applications.

So any shelters that were not or were done previously and not under ministerial review and quite possibly not under any review at all, would we have to bring all those back? And how many are there if that?

I'm not sure, Hayden. Can you answer that one?

Generally, I believe staff's aware of just a single operation right now called the hub on Strzok Avenue. And that is a more of a low barrier navigation type of operation rather than a shelter. And so this code will differentiate homeless shelter from low barrier in that the homeless shelter provides housing and sleeps and things of that sort whereas low barrier is really more for assisting people that are experiencing homelessness get out of that situation via job resources connections to other community groups and resources things like that so it's creating a lane and it's creating a lane that is ministerial in its approach and it kind of decentralizes the fact that multiple cities deal with these in different capacities so the state recognize that and wants everybody to apply them in the same way. And so what we see here is we're just aligning that with the government code. But to your point, in the M1 and M2 zones currently, under existing OMC, homeless shelters are permitted by right. And that, in context, takes into consideration the fact that there are differing development standards, and there are less setbacks than you might see in a commercial zone, for example. But historically, these have been the zoning districts in which these operations have been operating, and the state would like to see that continue.

So I guess my question earlier is pertinent. How many of these potential M1, M2 sites are directly adjacent to schools or parks or, for that case, residences?

I don't know. Yeah, I don't have a specific number off the top of my head. But the city of Orange does have a well-established industrial corridor that's generally bounded by freeways and rail lines and things of that sort. So if there are conflict areas, it's probably a lower amount than other communities might see. But that type of an analysis didn't come by way of the state's mandate. It's something for us to consider as a local agency whether or not it's important. But we're taking the approach of we want to gain compliance so that HCD knows that we are working in good faith towards the commitments that we had in the housing element. If we find ourselves in a situation where there are land use conflicts in the future, there's an annual review requirement that is in this ordinance, and it would give staff the opportunity to address those on an annual progressive basis.

Okay. The next question, I'm sorry, David, the next question would then be, hearing earlier that the requirements for distances from transportation hubs, did that get the requirement to be closer to transportation hubs or further away?

Arlan, can you speak to that one? So currently, It is required that homeless shelters are sited within half a mile of a transit stop. HCD has determined that that is a barrier to housing and therefore that has been turned from a requirement to a preference. So it's not mandatory any longer. The proposed ordinance provides language saying while not required, it is preferred that it is within a half mile of a transit stop.

So it could be a mile away from a transit stop?

Potentially, yes.

Okay. Knowing that most people probably will be taking public transit to access this facility. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Vasquez. Thank you, staff, for your report, and Commissioner Vahar for your, like, really good questions. Good commissioner. I guess I'll start broad. I have several. That's okay. Okay. Are there any changes here that are recommended that go beyond what is being now required by government code through new state legislation? Or is it all simply we want to codify what we need to do by per state law? Yeah, it's strictly to comply with state law. That's what I thought, but I wanted to ask the question. So questions here just about kind of our code's definitions of homeless shelter. Pretty much right now we just define homeless shelter as a structure available for overnight housing of homeless persons. I think later on we referenced government code. I think that's probably defined by the government code, but I guess I was surprised by how how, I mean, to me it seems vague. Maybe it's vague intentionally. Maybe the government code, which I haven't looked at, is rather definitive. I'd just be curious for some context with that.

Yeah, so in order to be compliant with state law, we really, our definition gives a very general definition, but then references directly to the state law definition of an emergency shelter. And if that definition were to change, In the future, it would just reference to that part of the government code. So that way we can remain compliant.

Okay. And then just beyond what we're seeing here, like just I'm curious, what is there? Are these regulated? Is there a state agency that regulates homeless shelters? Is it cities? Does the county have any regulatory authority? So we approve this and folks want to start one, meet a need in the community, whatever it might be. What does that look like?

Yeah, so the state has provided legislation to cities to update their municipal codes to allow these by right in order to provide housing for individuals experiencing homelessness. It's required by every city. And so I... am unaware of any regulatory agency beyond that of the city and the State Department of Housing and Community Development.

There's no governing authority over homeless shelters themselves, it sounds like.

Effectively, the community development director becomes the person with the statutory regulation power.

Okay. and all sounds like based on what California government code states. I'm looking here, let me just pull it up, the parking definition. It's confusing, but also clear, so. It reads clear, then it reads confusing. So parking essentially is one space per maximum number of on-site staff at any given time. To me, it's period, and that should be it. But then we go on to define parking should be provided in amounts sufficient to accommodate on-site staff and operational needs and shall not exceed the parking requirements for comparable uses. We're defining it, and then we're sort of broadening it.

Yes, this language was bestowed upon us, and the direction was provided for context. It is something that can be, if necessary, cleaned up to a certain extent, but effectively, as long as it's read and understood, then I think it meets the requirement in this particular case.

Bestowed on us by whom? By the state?

I believe this context was given through the government code,

So the government code defines what the ratio is, one per staff person?

The government code sets a minimum that the parking needs to be sufficient for staff use. I'm not sure exactly where the second sentence came from in ours, but I think it's intended to essentially allow for things like food deliveries or other kind of not, staff who don't work there, but Operational needs aside from staff working.

Well, I think that's where the confusion is because I mean does it I'm imagine emergency shelter or any home shelter has volunteers has Deliveries as you said are we are we? Strictly I was looking for definitions for example of like staff.

We don't have any so his staff include anybody who's Your question makes much sense because like what's happening right now at the hub is is there's no parking for volunteers. I volunteer at the Hub regularly, and everybody's just fighting for street parking on that street. Luckily, it's not. crazy to find it sometimes but there are days where people are you know down probably two blocks you know parked away the volunteers to get there so um how how do we complete that and then to piggyback on your question i had a question about how do we determine what is the maximum number of on-site staff like how is the city determining that number too it's not just a ratio but the how many yeah

So there's a few things that kind of are into play that inform this parking rate as it's applied. Number one, by way of the M1 and M2 zones being the desired location, we know that we're currently operating about a 1 to 500 parking ratio based on building history and what the OMC currently requires for industrial buildings. So that does already create kind of a limited parking availability. THIS DEFINITION IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANOTHER SECTION OF THIS CODE, THE OPERATORS THEMSELVES HAVE TO SELF-IDENTIFY THE AMOUNT OF STAFF THAT THEY ANTICIPATE WILL BE A PART OF THEIR OPERATION. AND SO BY WAY OF THEM IDENTIFYING THAT TO THE CITY, SAYING THIS IS HOW WE INTEND TO OPERATE, THERE IS A NEXUS OF US DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S SUFFICIENT ON-SITE PARKING, AND THAT WEIGHS INTO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR'S ABILITY TO MAKE CHANGES UNDER ANNUAL REVIEW.

How will the community development director determine staff? Is that full-time employee part to anybody who's employed by it?

Does that include volunteers? I think based on our experience with the hub, it would be anybody who's going to be on site at any given time. And so that's kind of coming back to number nine here. The definition is at any given time, how many staff members we have. So it kind of forces them to think about shifts, managing those shifts, and then understanding that they have a certain limitation of available on-site parking.

Okay, so I would just make a comment for the commission that that might be something we wanna define a little bit.

To me, staff is- Staff sounds like it's just the paid employees, not volunteers, not the food delivery people. What if they have an all hands meeting or they're having some sort of, what if they're having seminars? They're teaching classes. The teachers they bring in. The services they bring in. You know, when they bring in doctors and they bring in someone to come and provide, you know, clothes and resources. And they have food donations. And there's so many things that happen at these resource centers that are wonderful things. But... how do we accommodate for all of that as well with our parking regulation to be still compliant with the state, but also compliant with the needs of the city. So that way it's not overflowing to those other businesses, those other places, those other, if it's, you know, within 275 feet of a home to those other neighborhoods, how do we make sure that that's captured appropriately still being in line with the state?

Could I ask a question? I don't totally know the protocol, but I would say to just my brain, shall not exceed the parking requirements for comparable uses. How is that defined? Because what would be a comparable use? And I think that leads to a lot of discretion. And I'm thinking in terms of what Allison is saying of the overflow goes into neighborhoods and Obviously, thinking of some of the centers that I know of, that probably wouldn't happen just because of where they're located, and that's zoning. But that starts to happen, and you want to enforce that. How do you define a comparable use for enforcement purposes?

Essentially, the government code states that there needs to be sufficient parking for all staff, but we can't require there be more parking THAN FOR COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL USES IN THAT SAME ZONE. SO WE CAN'T REQUIRE THEM THAT THEY HAVE A PARKING STRUCTURE WHERE NO ONE ELSE DOES OR THINGS LIKE THAT. SO IT DOES GIVE YOU GUYS SOME WIGGLE ROOM. IT'S MORE OF A MINIMUM THAN A MAXIMUM HERE, BUT THERE IS ULTIMATELY, LIKE, WE CAN'T GO ABOVE THE OTHER USES FOR THAT ZONE.

I just want to make sure that we get this right because we're making now it by right, right? So there is going to be no more planning commission or design committee review or it's just a staff review, which I understand the staff here is absolutely wonderful, but I want to make sure staff has all of the tools necessary to make this with the great ordinance that does this.

Commissioner Vasquez, are you done with your question? I have a few more, but if anybody has a comment, go ahead.

I'd like to maybe piggyback upon that, maybe just to get clarification so I can kind of hone down where the hub is. Is it adjacent to the low-cost housing project and next to the police station and a trucking center? So that's like the perfect example of what could potentially go really wrong that in terms of the impacts of residential emergency situation like police and a huge 24-hour trucking center on a fairly neighborhood street rather than an arterial And next to low-cost housing, which will have multiple uncontrolled somewhat off-street parking. So I'm concerned about, yes, I get a sense that the non-comfort of this issue about parking, because it is so wild on what could be the ultimate needs of these housing communities. or these homeless shelters, coupled with the fact that if we pull this further away from transit centers or transit hubs, that becomes even more impactful because vehicles would somehow be, you know, Ubers, although people really want to rely on buses if they're homeless. So I just see this perfect storm kind of brewing right now personally. And the overall thing, which I haven't mentioned at all yet, but I'm just totally embedded in, is design. There is absolutely no design constraints other than ministerial review and objective standards, which in my review of that when it came through is extremely loose.

And they would have to be a little loose because if you did too much like require that it has one bathroom per occupant or something like that, the HD would definitely see that as being overly restrictive. So yeah, there is some wiggle room there for cities, but once again, I wish this has been tested in courts more, but this law hasn't been. So I can't tell you exactly where that limit is, but I can give some wild examples of what wouldn't be allowed. Sure.

Yeah. I mean, that goes to the notion of design standards and no design, typically a qualified design review, um,

Chair, if I may, just some additional context. In the case of a ministerial land use approval, there still is a requirement for building permits for any physical build-out or tenant improvements that would be required for an existing space. So what that means is the city will still have an opportunity to review, prior to issuance of any building permit, life safety standards, as well as occupancy rates, as well as we'll have the opportunity to take a look at the site's existing parking and configuration. So that tied with the administrative regulations that are recommended in this ordinance. I believe that there's enough where we would be able to obtain or ascertain compliance based on a submittal and a ministerial type of review. So I just wanted to provide that as additional context. There is still this buffer, if you will, of the director's power and duties under the issuance of a building permit.

So on top of that, that would then come back to the Planning Commission for design review. Theoretically.

It wouldn't. Ministerial means there's no discretionary approval by anybody here at the City of Orange. They have the ability to open and operate without discretionary approval, but they would still need to comply with building permit and occupancy requirements.

Okay, thank you. I just want to make that clearly defined that there's no review or no provisions for any stipulations on what could or cannot be built.

Thank you, Commissioner McCormick. Commissioner Vasquez.

Thank you. I understand, obviously, the distinction low barrier navigation centers and homeless shelters. We've talked about both, but for the homeless shelters themselves, because I'm certainly understanding that the low barrier navigation centers are going to be mixed use and non-residential zones. Am I understanding correctly that that homeless shelters are then any residential zone, any zone?

No, so for homeless shelters, it's only permitted by right in the M1 and M2 zones.

Perfect, so that's initially what I thought, but then I guess for me, I'm curious as to why maybe that clarity's not there on the attachment we have, which is the actual language, because on, gosh, I just don't have page numbers. For me, it's... Well, let me just see. Basically, we define it, purpose and intent, number one. We say, you know, by ensuring that emergency shelters are permitted as a residential use without discretionary review and subject only to objective standards. And we don't define in what zones, whereas for the navigation centers, we define what zones.

Is that intentional?

Do you see where I'm at?

So the state law requires that... they be like low barrier navigation centers be permitted by right in mixed use and non-residential zoning districts where multifamily residential uses are allowed. So essentially, Later on in the proposed ordinance, we updated the master land use table, which allows low barrier navigation centers by themselves to be permitted in all of the mixed use zones, as well as the M1 and M2 zoning districts. We included the M1 and M2 zoning districts because that's where homeless shelters are also allowed, so we thought often they are operated in conjunction. So we thought it prudent to include that.

I think what David's asking is why is it not on our, like why are we not seeing it in the staff report or anything? That's because there's no change to that. Homeless shelters are already in the city code that they can be in an M1 and M2 industrial areas, and that's not changing. They're not recommending changes to that.

Yeah, fair enough. Maybe I just stopped because as I'm looking at the redlined version, Section 5, I mean, it's all redlined. So I didn't know if we define what zones in there or if it lives elsewhere in the OMC. Is that because the period does?

So in the 2024 update, the homeless shelters were, the OMC was updated to allow homeless shelters permitted by right in the M1 and M2. So that's the existing regulation, yeah.

Okay. And the government code doesn't require it be in a specific zone. We just, as a city, have to choose a zone for those homeless shelters, is that correct? And we've already got one by default, so we stick with the one we have in the code.

Yeah, the government code just says that you have to choose at least one. Right. And then the rest is to your discretion.

So obviously then it sounds like staff does not at all think that the way that this is written the added language that homeless shelters, emergency shelters are permitted as a residential use without discretionary review. We don't need to define where. That would be because elsewhere in the OMC we state. Am I understanding that correctly? Yes, that's correct. That's correct, okay. Thank you. And then just, have other municipalities adopted this already? Like, where are we in this implementation process? I mean, I've heard so much, like, I'll just be honest, like, if we don't do this, it's going to, like, I know that certainly something's animating this, in this case, state law, and we want HCD to be happy, but I'd just be curious where we fall. And also just thinking about, like, okay, so we, let's say we refer this to the council, council approves it, what happens? Are we hearing from other cities what they might be experiencing as they've adopted to these new realities?

So this actually represents, I believe, the final code amendment update that the city committed to upon the adoption of its last housing element. And so, A, if this were to be adopted and implemented, it brings us into full compliance based on the sixth cycle.

Mm-hmm.

I would say that Orange is in a very healthy state with HCD, and I believe that we're probably in the middle, if not a little bit to the forefront, of where other cities in Orange County, for example, might be as to their status. So we're not necessarily leading the way, but we are certainly... committing to the things that we said that we would do and preparing ourselves for future success as we enter into the seventh cycle. So, um, this, this is to say that with, with your support commission, we're able to make sure that the future of orange is very sound when it comes to housing policy and avoiding any, any state crackdown, if you will.

Um, so safe to say then from what your response is that we're, We're not able to see any impacts of municipalities that have already adopted this in terms of how they've adjusted or experienced the things unfolding as it relates to emergency shelters and navigation centers.

So I... I will say that the city of Orange participates in the North Service Planning Area, or the North SPA, which is a collaboration of the northern Orange County cities. And so there is a navigation center and homeless shelter in the city of Placentia, as well as the city of Buena Park. So, and... you know, the City of Orange provides funds for that operation. And so, Obviously, those cities have similar requirements. We don't know the result of that, but, yeah, they have similar regulations. Okay.

I mean, I get that, that we're not isolating alone. I mean, how many cities are there in California over 500? So I get that. I'm just trying to figure out where are we situated and what are we learning, if anything. So that's helpful. Thank you. That's enough questions for now. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Behar.

My next question is in section six, number 3F, about daily operations for low barrier navigation centers. Right now, the language says they must operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week to provide continuous support to residents so they can never close any time of the day or any time of the year since it says they must do that. Is that a requirement that they must operate or should it be that they, does state law require that they may operate that amount of time if they so choose? Because is it possible somebody might wanna create a navigation center that's only open from nine to five during normal business hours and not have staff there overnight? So-

They don't have to operate 24-7, but they can't be overly restrictive. Any requirements we have, and we'd have to have a very good reason for, or we'd have to have reasoning and finding for implementing that, I believe.

So right now it says must. So we're saying that they are absolutely required to operate 24-7. We will not allow a by right resource center, low barrier navigation center, unless they're operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And now that's on the, Orange Code enforcement to make sure that they're operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, take no holidays off? Or should it be that they may operate, not must operate? Right now we're saying we're requiring them to never close their doors.

Hayden, do you know where we got that language?

THIS LANGUAGE TO THE BEST OF STAFF'S KNOWLEDGE IS ALSO TAKEN FROM DIRECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE.

YEAH. SORRY, I MADE A MISTAKE. I THOUGHT WE WERE REFERRING TO EMERGENCY SHELTERS. YEAH, FOR LOCAL NAVIGATION, I BELIEVE 24-7 ACTUALLY IS THE REQUIREMENT.

IT'S A REQUIREMENT.

BUT SO, AND IF... I believe that's a requirement. Yeah, I can pull up the government code right now and read the actual language.

They can only have this by right low barrier navigation center if they absolutely operate and never close their doors ever. If they wanted to open a low barrier navigation center that was only open, you know, nine to five, seven days a week, they would have to come for planning commission approval because right now the language says they must operate 24 hours a day.

I don't believe that if they are self-identifying that they cannot or will not operate 24 hours a day, we would not be in a position to ministerially approve their operation. largely because it's predicated on compliance with state law. We're now integrating those requirements into our code. So yes, the language states must, and that's in alignment with our understanding, because we took a look at some of the surrounding communities, and when Arlen mentioned the Brea and the Placentia operations, those are also 24-hour. And so we believe that operation can mean providing services 24-7, it may mean that there's regular staff during daytime hours and there might be reduced staff. So there's a variety of ways I think that they could meet that requirement. But yes, the language that we're presenting is designed for compliance there.

Okay. In my mind, I thought that would be a barrier to creating this, that they must operate 24-7. And if we said may operate 24-7, that actually would reduce the barrier because it doesn't require them to operate 24-7, but it gives them the option to.

Can I piggyback on that statement or that thought? And maybe just a definition of what operations are. For this type of use, it would be common sense to have 24-hour operations and how it's defined as security. in and above of not just having cameras and relying on response of a third party. So I didn't know if I missed it, that operations, at least in terms of security or a presence of security for even something close to a 24-hour, which would probably be a smart thing to do. I didn't see anything in there in regards to public safety as that is adjacent to.

I think I've mentioned earlier, security requirements is something you guys can place some standards on. It can't be overly restrictive. You can't require someone to have seven security officers there at all time or anything like that. But yeah, if you guys wanted security there, you could require that.

OK, thank you. I don't think we need seven. But the question would be, I guess the question on top of all this is, where do we stand in terms of compliance? Is there a deadline for us to adopt this with council approval? Or are we ahead of the game? Or are we behind? Do we have a deadline?

Yeah, our housing element of the general plan commits us to having this update completed by June of 2025, so we're a little bit behind.

Okay. So are there penalties on that?

No, simply that we're just out of compliance with what we've agreed to do pursuant to our housing element. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions or comments of staff from the commissioners? Okay.

I still have some, sorry. That's all right. I have a question about pet standards. That is for the homeless shelters number 4D. The end of it says that they can be properly restrained per facility operation requirements. What, that seems kind of vague because what if a facility doesn't, like, what are facilities operation requirements? And are there maybe, instead of just saying per facility operation requirements, can we say per what, I don't know, some local animal, there's different regulations that already exist about like you can't tie up a dog outside on a post, right? You can't just leave a dog tied up on a post overnight. So I wanna make sure that's not happening in the operational facility requirements.

Yes, you guys could make operational requirements for pets, such as requiring they be crated, requiring food is, when they're brought in, they have enough food and things like that and access to water. You can make those requirements. Again, they can't be overly restrictive. You can't require that, you know, they have a separate play area or something like that. But, yeah, you can make sure the animals are taken care of.

Okay, yes, Commissioner McCormick, all right. Microphone, Commissioner.

In seeing the first one before the hot file came out and reading through it, it seemed really close to what I was expecting for the Orange Municipal Code. When I saw the hot file, I saw a significant amount of red and a significant amount of blue. I'm trying to find out, in my mind, what is the impetus of that major somewhat rewrite that I got at midday today, not able to review it to see what got taken out, what got put back in, what got added, those types of review things. And that's why subsequent, a lot of questions And then subsequent is are we on a deadline to deal with this or can we can we refine it better? To hit some of these issues that have come up with our deliberation

So I think a majority of the red lines in the markup that the commission received are outdated in terms of what the current state law requirements are. And so it's really a realignment of where staff had originally placed the requirements from the 2024 update. So because that had already been established and adopted, we had to move some things around. And so this is a best fit request and recommendation from staff so that we can at least check that box and report back to HCD that we've completed those commitments. But what you see in the red line is a working draft. It's an iteration of what we feel is necessary to put the correct information in the correct location and also remove any current references that are no longer relevant.

Commissioner Behar.

Sorry, I forgot I had one more question. So in the homeless shelter, the emergency shelter section, we have things about occupancy, floor area ratio, I think, things like that. One thing that I don't see in the low barrier navigation center is those things. And according to government code, low barrier navigation center is also a residential living facility. It's not just a drop in when you need help. So why are those things not in the low barrier navigation center language? It just says, it says density and occupancy shall be determined based on the applicable building code, fire code, and health and safety code, including but not limited to. THESE THINGS. WHY IS THIS ONE JUST REFERENCING CODES NOT REFERENCING SPECIFIC ONES LIKE THE HOMELESS SHELTER SECTION IS?

Thank you for the question. Generally speaking, homeless shelters, because they anticipate overnight stays, the occupancy rate and the physical requirements for conditioning that space are somewhat different than a more transitory space that you might expect under the low barrier navigation center. It is still a gathering space, but it's not an assembly or a dormitory style of setup. I know that there's reference to a residential style, but again, we're working with language that we're given and trying to place it.

But in government code 65660, which we reference, a low barrier navigation center is defined as a residential living facility, meaning that it does provide overnight beds and shelter alongside 24-7 support services.

That specific language could currently not be included?

Our language just says purpose and intent, and it references the government code 65660 to 65663. instead of saying that it is a residential facility. And according to that government code, it is a residential living facility. So it's not just a stop by when you need assistance. It has, whether it's dormitory or I don't know what style, but it is residential. There is living there. There are overnight stays.

Under purpose and intent, you're correct. It does state that a low barrier navigation center provides essential housing first, low barrier service enriched shelters that are designed to help individuals experiencing homelessness. To whichever extent a future build-out is required to comply with state law, if it does include some type of a residential space, then the onus is going to be on the operator to then build that space out to comply with minimum building codes and occupancy codes.

So why do we have occupancy codes then in the homeless shelter section, not in the low barrier navigation center section? We have floor area ratios, occupancy, different things of that nature in the homeless shelter section, but we don't include any of that. We just reference other things in this section.

My understanding of the way that the language is spelled out is because the city is proposing that these be provable in a mixed use zone, we don't necessarily know exactly what type of structure might be involved. And so it's almost a backup plan, if you will, so that there's a little bit of flexibility in terms of somebody proposing. It could be a former commercial space. If the underlying zoning is mixed use, then you could be retrofitting a commercial building. A classic example in orange is you may have mixed use, but a residential structure on top of it, those sites do exist. And so our read, staff's understanding at this point is that it's not as specific, A, to be consistent with the state's intent, and then B, to give staff the ability to work within a mixed use zone.

But even if it's working within a mixed use zone and repurposing existing buildings, wouldn't there still be occupancy floor area ratios per and limits and things of that nature that we could put into this ordinance that would still apply and still allow conversions of buildings?

I would have to say I think a lot of that rests with building code review. And while I'm not a subject matter expert, I don't know if placing those types of specifications in the OMC would put us at odds with HCD. We were trying to fly at a pretty high level so that we can make sure that we're allowing for them. The difference here is that The code's not designed to mandate these operations. We just have to simply allow for them. And so I think what you've identified is kind of a gap in that language. But we're hoping to use that as some flexibility should something be proposed.

I have something. By the way, great questions. I really do appreciate that. That kind of got my mind going even further.

Commissioner, this is why you don't say you have a final question, by the way.

Did I say that?

I was going to say that. I don't think I said that. At least twice.

Yeah, me too. I think what started me on this thought was, Hayden, you talking about, you said that word style. And I think that for this use, there are certain overnight stays, facilities that have overnight stays, and a hospital, a prison, a county facility, those types of things. I am now confused in terms of objective design standards. on how we get into dealing with style-type questions, which inherently goes directly to design and architecture. You know, residences don't look like commercial buildings. Commercial buildings don't look like residences. And hospitals the same, prisons the same. I think we've really opened ourselves, if we can at least get in the... the objective design standards, the ability to have some sort of way to deal with the perception of style or welcomeness to a homeless or an at-need person. Not, you know, reporting to a more aesthetically looking county facility, warehouse, correctional facility, that for the latter, if we're reusing buildings. I know this is a short-term situation, but just wanted to find out. I don't know at this point if we've really addressed that situation. I don't really, for that matter, think the state has. It's a one-size-fit-all type approach in terms of the state. But in some of these established communities and cities, for one being Orange being one of the oldest cities, that this kind of image of what makes up our neighborhoods and our zoning areas are visual to the extent and carry with it traffic and impacts and transportation and all those types of things. I'm feeling quite uncomfortable about this without further review, to be quite honest with you. And I am very, very happy to see the amount of inquisitiveness per this commission on this, because I think it is important for two reasons. One, to help our residences and the general public, you know, in general. And just to be a good city. And so I just want to try to figure out ways I can do to stop having us going in the kind of a, you know, I'm not going to say blind situation, just leaving it to be. objective design standards and leaving it possibly up to Mysterio view or even at worst case building permits which are code required structural mechanical those types of things handicap all that stuff I mean that it's a minutia of stuff that comes into play when you get in design but I'm just feeling uncomfortable that that this is this is a shotgun kind of approach I know we have to do it I know all the cities in State of California have to do it, but I was just, I'm just feeling that maybe we could get, I mean, I didn't know, I had less than two and a half hours to review this. And so I'm not feeling too comfortable about, not that, I'm saying you guys have done a great job with what you were tasked to do. So I just think.

May I provide some clarity? So I think, I think we're getting, mixed up on on the word design um this code amendment really when we're talking about design we're talking about site design um specifically um the services and facilities that have to be at all homeless shelters um such as a client intake and waiting area that's outside of sun and rain, things like laundry facilities, kitchen and dining areas, storage areas. So yes, the state law is completely silent on architectural detail, on setbacks, development standards of that nature. But I think when we're talking about design, we're really focusing on site design rather than architectural design.

Well, they both go hand in hand to me as an architect. In terms of transportation and circulation and access and safety and fire access and police requirements on developments, yeah, there's a lot to think about. And I don't think, honestly, I don't think we are putting ourselves in a position to review these from an architectural standpoint. at this point.

Commissioner, thank you for that comment. I did also want to provide just for context that in 2024, the city council adopted objective design standards for mixed use districts. So to whichever extent that we can apply those in the context of reviewing ministerially for a future operation, we will have that conversation with an applicant because they're still applicable based on zoning.

One more question on what you just said. Has the planning staff gone back and with the item we just got as a hot file today, have you guys kind of mashed them together and see how they become friends?

The existing and the proposed language, you mean?

No, the objective design standards and what's being proposed here. So I didn't have enough time to do that myself because it is an exhaustive review.

No, that's a good point. We were largely tasked with finding a way to provide the mechanism in the OMC, how that Manifest itself physically physical form we've yet to see because we haven't had a project come through under these revised guidelines So this is its new language there there the state has has taken the reins on on this and a number of other housing related issues and so By and large we haven't seen one yet, but we do feel that we have the necessary Review mechanisms in place to extract the best possible project should one be proposed in the mixed-use district for example

And piggyback on that, do you think a one-year review of how it's working out is too far out? Because things can be built, well, typically not, but they can be built in less than a year.

We have annual reviews for other conditional uses, and so we feel that the annual review is a good starting point. And if necessary, if we see issues down the road, we can propose a modification to that timeline.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Baskett. Mr. Chair, I have some thoughts I want to share, maybe my final thoughts, but first, do we need to open the public hearing?

Yes, we do. Okay. Is our commissioners comfortable with? Okay, very good. We'll move on to the opening of the public hearing. If there are any public comments at this time, I don't see any. All right, we will now close the public hearing, and we will go back to commission discussion.

Yeah, I just want to say really again, appreciate staff. They always do a great job, and part of that great job is answering our questions with these difficult planning commissioners, so thank you. These are great questions. Yeah, appreciate it. And again, just kudos to this crew, your great questions, and appreciate my commissioner, fellow commissioner's input. So I just, you know, this one's interesting. I think there's so many pieces that we've began to talk about, questions of security, questions of animals and proximity, and those sorts of things that just, I mean, I've been on this planning commission for, I actually forgot how many years. But I just, we've not dealt with this in this sense. And so they seem to go hand in hand. I appreciate the senior systems attorney saying that we can regulate in some of these areas but we need to be careful and I'm just wondering as a part of this I mean I know the answer is yes because the Planning Commission is allowed to but can we direct staff to look into these elements and come back to us maybe you folks feel like you what you've put forward is the best and final product and you're ready to go to City Council I mostly don't like continuances when there's an applicant in on board because they're paying fees and time and those sorts of things for consultants and projects. But this one just seems to me like there's some elements that I'd love to direct staff to come back to us on. But if you folks, I mean, this is genuine, I would appreciate your input. If you feel like, you know what, nope, we're ready to go see council and we're looking for a vote, I'd want to hear that too. So that's a direct question of staff. And then I'd ask that fellow commissioners feel the same way.

I WAS ACTUALLY ABOUT TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS TO A MEETING DEFINED WITH DIRECTION FOR STAFF TO EITHER MAKE REVISIONS TO IT, AND IF NOT ABLE TO MAKE REVISIONS TO US, COME BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING WITH EXACTLY WHY THE REQUESTED REVISIONS WEREN'T MADE.

YEAH. if the Planning Commission feels that they don't have enough information to make a recommendation in the affirmative or a denial to the City Councils tonight, then they can recommend a continuance.

Cool. Obviously, I'd imagine to date certain.

And just jump in there, yeah.

The consequence of not doing this is HDD could decertify our housing element. Now, HDD likes to see progress and movement, so I think continuing to date certain with some guidelines on what SAF needs to do would be fine. this should be staff's top priority and it should be the planning commission's top priority to get this through soon.

Yeah, fair enough. So you're saying not doing this as in not certifying, not approving these changes, obviously.

Yeah, not getting it compliant with state law. And we've just been working very hard to negotiate the existing builder's remedy applications away. And we've been pretty good at that. So I want to keep our housing element certified.

Yeah, I appreciate that. I certainly want the same aim. I hear that for sure. And from my perspective, I'd let the record say for me that like yeah, I want I want that as well And I want to see this move forward So I guess I'd be interested knowing that staff hearing your input of just Planning Commission of just maybe before and I'm happy to make the motion or somebody can But just your input if it's okay, mr. Chair on some of the things that we'd want to direct staff to take a look into And I want to just be mindful. I don't want to be overburdened some as a Planning Commission be my own kind of maybe personal preference, but

I have a comment. I default to the chair on how to do this. No, I'm in full concurrence. I'd like to hear from the other commissioners.

Can I ask a quick question, too? Again, new, and I don't feel like I have all of the back communications about this, and maybe that's my fault, not knowing where to look before I came, but Just quickly kind of going through the code sections, a lot of this is recitation of the code. Is there like, are you able to say from a percentage standpoint, is this 90% recitation of the code and 10% not? Or do you understand what I'm saying?

We have an attorney on the Planning Commission.

Lawyer brain here.

I don't have a direct 90% or 10%, but...

I mean, because if you are almost... Like, for example, Section 4, the low barrier that Commissioner Behar was referring to, I just quickly pulled that up, and this is direct language.

Yeah, a lot of it is direct language. I don't have a percentage or anything like that. But, yeah, a lot of it is direct language. We're really trying to stay... as close to those state guidelines as possible because we're dealing with HCD.

So then are there not definitions as to how much we can vary from the code? I mean, the code's the code.

Honestly, there isn't a lot of definition. It has been tested in the courts. It's very similar to HCD dealing with sober living homes in the past where they, state law, set out a set of guidelines and then cities tested it and HTD sometimes would say no, and then the state would, and then Costa Mesa would take them to court and win. And so a lot of this is pretty new. And you don't know all the guidelines yet.

I appreciate that. And my understanding of that would then be, to the extent that we vary from the code, including changing words like may, shall, which are important, we're running a risk of running afoul of, are we not?

We're running a risk. I'd say we run a risk mostly if we prove to be a barrier to these facilities. So keep that in mind. I think they care more about the form than the actual function and the form. But yeah, we are trying to stick as close to it as possible.

OK.

I had a comment. It may not be my final, but close to my final. You're learning. I heard notions of a motion to continue, which I would totally either propose or support. But I wanted to add another condition upon that that I think would make this with the total immersion of this planning commission to also say that if we could conduct some, and we've done this in the past, that planning staff reaches out to planning commissioners to have meetings, briefing meetings, to go over some of the issues that the planning commissioners have, some of the issues you have. So we're going through that in kind of a work study session type setting rather than in public view on TV. Not to say, it just seems that we could probably craft and roll up our sleeves a little bit DIFFERENTLY IN THAT REGARD. I KNOW THAT THERE IS REQUIREMENTS ON NOT HAVING ALL OF US TOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME, BUT WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, CONTAINMENT OF THAT.

I WOULD SAY THAT JUST MY OWN PERSONAL TAKE. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO CONDITION THAT. I THINK ANY ONE OF US, I MEAN, WE CAN REQUEST STAFF TO DO A BRIEFING ON ANY ITEM BEFORE US, I WOULD IMAGINE. MY SENSE IS STAFF WOULD HAPPILY DO THAT FOR THOSE THAT WOULD WANT THAT. Just my take. I don't think that we need to like condition it per se. My take.

Well, I guess my statement is to say that that's exactly what I thought. But if it's in there to say that we're going to do that, that is the perception that's going to get done.

Okay. No objection from staff. We understand that the existing timelines are not generous to the commission's review. And this has been a very hearty discussion. We appreciate that you take this very seriously. And while we are certainly tasked with full compliance by HCD, we want to do it right. Your input is valid and valuable. And so with that direction, we support your action. Mr.

Chair, it would be helpful just to, for me personally, Maybe just get a pulse from the commission on what types of things we would want to direct staff on.

I've been taking a list. If you guys want to hear what I have.

I think that's great. I wrote down several. And by the way, I appreciate all the discussion amongst all the commissioners as well. This won't be the final comment, but I have pets came up, the parking... There was something about operations, security, safety, occupancy for the LBNC. But again, I don't know where we ended up on that with the code language. And then something about design as well. But I don't know how that would factor. So there may be other items in there.

We also need to remove the sunset clause. Right. And then potentially have the police make an operational safety review plan.

Well, on that, real fast, if I may, Mr. Chair? Yes. For staff, I mean, I think one of the conditions is that the city, not the city manager, the community development director has to review the operational plan, correct? And would that be, would you naturally engage PD in that? Would the community development director or their designee naturally do that? Does it need to be codified? I like the idea, but I'm just asking.

Yeah, the proposed ordinance requires the operational plan to be reviewed and approved by the community development director. However, if the planning commission wants to add specifically PD review, then it would have to be objective. Okay.

Was there specific parts or elements of these, the pets, the parking, that sort of thing that we wanted to, language we wanted them to include? I know we talked about we could do minimums but not maximums for some of these things.

What I have is that we need to remove the sunset clause. For parking, we want staff to include volunteers, not just paid staff. For pet standards, to reference some other code that has pet standards, not just say at the facility's decision. Police to make, potentially have police have an operational safety review plan. And then look at set occupancy standards for the living quarter portions of the low barrier navigation centers.

My list, number one, design, architectural design and site design, to include... circulation, handicap conformance, Title 24 conformance, floor area ratio, those types of things coming into review, adjacencies, setbacks. Also, the issue of the operational side of this to some definitions on what operational is in terms of Security, whether it's only video or camera security or is it security that's in presence, those types of things to just kind of hone this to a point that we're doing this more for more for the public good and the public use. And to go to your point about the style, I know that that's not an objective design standards, although it is in a lot of ways. It's subjectional and objective and subjective at the same time because design is in the eye of the beholder. So that being said, those would be my focuses.

Thank you, Commissioner McCormick. Anything else we may discuss? Commissioner Vasquez. Mr.

Chair, I'd be happy to make a motion on this, and again, with gratitude for staff, for your input here, and my fellow commissioners, and might look to staff on some of the language here, but I'd move that the Planning Commission Continue item 4.1, public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the Orange Municipal Code to update regulations for homeless shelters and establish regulations for low barrier navigation centers to ensure consistency with state law. And finding a CEQA exemption to a date certain, which we can come back to at the end of the motion. Staff, you can be thinking about that if that's the next meeting or when that might be. and directing staff to provide guidance to the Commission. And I'm trying to choose my words, whether it's guidance or we want actual language or, you know, I think staff can sort of fill in the spirit of what we're looking for. If you need me to be more descriptive, I'm happy to be. But just as it relates to pet standards, to police, well, I'll get to that later. So pet standards, What else? Because we've talked about things that we want to change. What are the things that we want them to look into? We've talked about security.

The parking relative to staff?

Yeah, sorry. Thank you. Yeah, parking in terms of beyond employees. So that kind of the enterprise requirements of persons to make the enterprise happen, which... OUR NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONER LAWYER CAN FIND A MUCH BETTER WORD FOR WHAT I JUST SAID.

OCCUPANCY STANDARDS FOR THE LIVING QUARTERS OF LOW BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTERS. YES, WONDERFUL.

AND THOSE WOULD BE WHAT I WOULD ON MY MOTION WANT TO DIRECT STAFF TO DO. I'M FINE IF THE COMMISSION WANTS THE LANGUAGE FOR BRIEFINGS TO BE OFFERED TO COMMISSIONERS. I STILL FEEL LIKE THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BELONG IN THERE. So if anybody feels really strongly, let me know.

Otherwise... We need to remove the sunset clause.

Well, I'm going to get into that. Oh, sorry. Yes, so those are the kind of directing staff, but then in terms of actual revisions here, would be removal of the sunset clause, would be the addition of some sort of operational safety, operational review by the police department in conformity with the community development director's review. And do we have any other revisions to the language itself, to the resolution?

Can I add something to your list?

I'm open to hearing it.

Design, architectural design, site design, and in the addressing of adaptive reuses and anything that goes in that direction in terms of the live work, mixed use, commercial M1 to M1T and how those start to dance with each other. Those are the things I'll be looking at. I would like to have looked at.

If it's okay to do, I mean, can I ask if other commissioners feel like that should be included?

I just, I guess I have a question of staff regarding that. Is that being included, is it already existing in the OMC right now for that zoning, that those types of things have to be evaluated and by staff, by community development director?

Yeah, currently the OMC requires that the community development director review the operational plan. As we've discussed here in the city, the only homeless shelter operation that we're aware of is the hub, which has been in operation for quite some time. So we don't totally know what that process looks like.

I could add just a comment. There was a Mercy House was running a homeless shelter and I believe it was near the police station also on Grove and it was produced by HomeAid. And some years ago, I don't know if it's still open, but I know that that was an adaptive reuse. So there is some history on the books with how we handled that as a city. I was just a citizen at that time. but I remember reading a lot about it and how they tried to address some of the exterior landscaping and lighting and safety and so maybe there is something on the books already.

I'm happy to keep the motion as I've made it. So my motion would stand.

I would, well, it looks like we have a second already for that.

I don't know if he would want to, because I've not included his item. Yeah, without the item.

Yeah, I don't know if I can support that motion, because I think design is in everything that we look at. And I think to blindly ignore that is somewhat not the direction I want to go with it. I'm sorry. I'll do respect.

I would second your motion. Okay. I guess we need to change the second on the screen.

Look to staff when that date's certain would be, or do we just leave it at that?

So on the calendar for upcoming regularly scheduled meetings, we'd be looking at the month of August. The next available, which is a bit of a tight turnaround, is August 3rd, and then the next after that is August 17th. I do want to highlight that we are tentatively scheduling the draft historic preservation ordinance for the Planning Commission's review and consumption also on the 17th. But that being said, you have provided us with fairly clear direction. And so we can be prepared for that so that that's perhaps the first item. And we hope that we meet the expectation for a. Review and a vote at that point and then you can transition into the larger.

Now again, you're saying August 3rd is you want to go to August 17th?

Well, there's currently no items for August 3rd. And but it is just a two week turnaround. So from from a publishing perspective, we would probably have to have the staff report done by the end of next week.

I defer to you folks.

So I think we'd be either the 3rd or the 17th.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah. I mean, I prefer August 17th and everyone gets some Celsiuses and prefer for a late night. But if we can't, if staff can't do it, I totally get it. We're short-staffed and all that. I don't think HCD will decertify us if we do it the first meeting of September, but yeah, that'd be as far, September would be as far as I'm comfortable extending that to you.

Yeah, unfortunately, the third, we're a little tight on staff. The 17th, we have a big item, so if it's acceptable, the 10th is a Thursday, just because of the Labor Day, but the 10th could be an ideal date.

Yeah, so I would make my motion then to September, sorry, it was 10th? Yes.

I'll second that motion.

Yes, ma'am.

All right, there's a motion and a second. We'll take a vote. All right, motion passes unanimously. Well done. There we go. Great meeting, everyone. Commissioner Benson, thank you so much for your first meeting. It's a marathon. This meeting is now adjourned.

Mr. Can I just jump in? Well, you just adjourned it. I want to just say I wasn't here in our last meeting, and I hope this is okay for him, but I just really want to thank Commissioner Martinez for his service on the Planning Commission. I don't know if we, at the end there, so I just want to just really, as somebody who started I think the same time he did, the same week, just want to thank him for how he served on this dais through many years, and how much he values, loves, both he and his wife, the city of Orange. I think it's very fitting that Commissioner Benson, a longtime servant to the public and to the city of Orange, is taking his seat. It seems really well justified. So welcome, and thank you, Commissioner Martinez.

Well said, Commissioner Vasquez. Okay, now this meeting is now adjourned. The next regular meeting will be held on Monday, August 3rd, 2026 at 5.30 p.m. in the council chamber, or not.