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