[ LA HABRA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, MAY 12, 2025 6:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 100 EAST LA HABRA BOULEVARD LA HABRA, CALIFORNIA 90631 Please note that should all business not be concluded by 10:00 p.m., the Chair shall either authorize an extension of time to said meeting or continue all unfinished items to a future meeting, date certain, or date uncertain.]
[00:00:03]
WILL THE AUDIENCE PLEASE, UH, STAND AND JOIN.
COMMISSIONER CARDNIS IN THE FLAG SALUTE, PLEASE PUT YOUR HAT OVER YOUR HEART READY S TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE OF LIBERTY AND JUSTICE LAW.
WILL THE SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE ROLE VICE CHAIR SLAND.
HERE, COMMISSIONER LOGAN CANNON.
HERE, LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT CHAIRMAN MACHA HAS AN EXCUSED ABSENCE FOR TONIGHT.
WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO THE, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT.
PUBLIC COMMENT SHALL BE RECEIVED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE GOVERNING BODY MEETING AND LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER INDIVIDUAL WITH A TOTAL TIME LIMIT OF 30 MINUTES FOR ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS, UNLESS OTHERWISE MODIFIED BY THE CHAIR.
SPEAKING TIME MAY NOT BE GRANTED IN OUR LOAN TO ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL FOR PURPOSES OF EXTENDING AVAILABLE SPEAKING TIME AND COMMENTS MUST BE KEPT BRIEF, NON-REPETITIVE, AND PROFESSIONAL IN NATURE.
THE GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE MEETING ALLOWS A PUBLIC TO ADDRESS ANY ITEM ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR OR OF CITY BUSINESS NOT APPEARING ON THE SCHEDULED AGENDA.
PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 5 4 9 5 4 0.3 A.
SUCH COMMENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONDED TO BY THE GOVERNING BODY DURING THE MEETING.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION AT THIS TIME? ON ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR, OR ANY ITEM NOT APPEARING ON THE AGENDA? OKAY.
UM, SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
ALL MATTERS ON CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION UNLESS A COMMISSIONER CITY STAFF MEMBER OR MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE REQUESTS SEPARATE ACTION OR REMOVAL OF AN ITEM REMOVED, ITEMS WILL BE CONSIDERED FOLLOWING THE CONSENT CALENDAR PORTION OF THIS AGENDA.
PUBLIC COMMENTS SHALL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER INDIVIDUAL WITH A TOTAL TIME LIMIT OF 30 MINUTES PER ITEM THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION, UNLESS OTHERWISE MODIFIED BY THE CHAIR.
SPEAKING TIME MAY NOT BE GRANTED IN OR LOAN TO ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL.
FOR PURPOSES OF EXTENDING AVAILABLE SPEAKING TIME AND COMMENTS MUST BE KEPT BRIEF, NON-REPETITIVE, AND PROFESSIONAL IN NATURE.
BEFORE THE COMMISSION AT THIS TIME IS THE CONSENT CALENDAR, WHICH IS INCLUDES ITEMS ONE AND TWO.
ALL ITEMS WILL BE APPROVED BY ONE VOTE UNLESS AN ITEM IS REMOVED.
FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION, DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS WISH TO REMOVE AN ITEM? NO.
DOES ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO REMOVE AN ITEM? OKAY.
UM, SO HEARING, HEARING NONE, DO I HAVE A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
SO IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MANLEY AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CANNON
ROY AND GINGER, I NEED YOU GUYS TO PRESS CONFIRM.
SHOULD WE DO VOICE? IT IS, IT'S TO THE LEFT, RIGHT? YEAH.
AND THEN GINGER CAN DO IT TO THE LEFT.
UH, CAN YOU DO YOURS, GINGER? IS IT SHOWING UP? YOU HIT YES.
AND THEN CONFIRM THE BOTTOM BUTTON.
WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR THIS EVENING.
NO, THE PROCEDURES WILL BE AS FOLLOWS.
SO THE CHAIR WILL INTRODUCE THE ITEM AND THEN STAFF WILL GIVE A REPORT ON THE ITEM.
THOSE WHO WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE ITEM WILL BE RECOGNIZED FIRST AND THEN THE COMMISSION WILL HEAR FROM THOSE IN OPPOSITION.
REBUTTALS WILL BE ALLOWED ONLY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE CLOSED AND THE COMMISSION WILL DISCUSS THE MATTER AND TAKE ANY ACTIONS IT DEEMS APPROPRIATE.
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD AND LEAVE IT AT THE LECTERN.
WHEN YOU COME FORWARD TO SPEAK, YOU'LL FIND THE SPEAKER'S CARDS ON THE TABLE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE CHAMBER.
WHEN YOU COME FORWARD, PLEASE IDENTIFY
[00:05:01]
YOURSELF AND SPELL YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE ADDRESS ALL COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS TO THE CHAIR.THERE SHOULD BE NO DIRECT EXCHANGES BETWEEN MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE.
PUBLIC COMMENTS SHALL BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES PER INDIVIDUAL WITH A TOTAL TIME LIMIT OF 60 MINUTES FOR ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS.
FOR EACH PUBLIC HEARING ITEM ON THE AGENDA, UNLESS MODIFIED BY THE CHAIR, COMMENTS MUST BE KEPT BRIEF, NON-REPETITIVE, AND PROFESSIONAL IN NATURE TONIGHT.
FIRST PUBLIC HEARING ITEM IS A DULY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AN OR ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONE CHANGE TWO FIVE DASH ZERO ONE TO REPEAL AND REPLACE CHAPTER 18.66 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS OF TITLE 18 ZONING OF THE LA HARE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS IN ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS.
WILL THE STAFF GIVE A REPORT, PLEASE CHAIR.
WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY CORRESPONDENCE ON THIS ITEM.
GOOD EVENING, CHAIR, VICE CHAIR RAMS, LYNN, AND MEMBERS OF THIS, OF THE COMMISSION.
I'M DIRECTOR SUSAN KIM OF THE COMMUNION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
THE ITEM BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS A ZONE CHANGE PROPOSAL THAT WAS INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL IN ORDER TO CREATE A MORE BUSINESS FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT IN THE CITY AND TO REDUCE COST TO CERTAIN BUSINESSES.
THE ZONE CHANGE IS TO REPEAL AND REPLACE THE LA HABER MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER RELATED TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS.
THE ZONE CHANGE WILL CLARIFY PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS FOR C PS AND AS NOTED BEFORE, ESTABLISH A NEW CATEGORY OF CP, THE MINOR CUP OR MCUP.
THIS IS THE FIRST STEP IN A TWO PART PROCESS FOR TWO REASONS.
FOR ONE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL AND THEY WILL BE THE ONES WHO WOULD ULTIMATELY ADOPT THE ORDINANCE.
AS WELL AS THIS IS A FIRST STEP IN ESTABLISHING THE MCUP.
WE WANTED TO ESTABLISH THE PROCESS FIRST, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK WITH A SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT TYPES OF USES WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THIS NEWS PROCESS.
SO WHAT IS A CUP? IT'S A PERMIT THAT REQUIRES DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL FROM THE CITY.
IT'S FOR A USE THAT'S NOT ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN A PARTICULAR ZONE.
AND WE HAVE THOSE ALL LISTED OUT IN OUR LAND USE MATRIX WHERE WE TALK ABOUT 99 PERMITTED TYPES OF USES ACROSS 22 ZONES.
SO IT'S A PRETTY COMPREHENSIVE, UM, DESCRIPTION OF WHAT'S ALLOWED WHERE, AND THAT WAS ATTACHED TO YOUR STAFF REPORT.
IT'S ISSUED AT THE DISCRETION OF A LOCAL JURISDICTION.
IT'S APPROVED UNDER A SET OF CONDITIONS AS THE NAME WOULD SUGGEST AND REQUIRES PLANNING COMMISSION TO MAKE CERTAIN F FINDINGS.
WHAT ARE THE CEP FINDINGS? IT'S ONE IS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRES A CUP FOR THE USE.
SO GOING BACK TO THAT TABLE AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE PROCESSING THE RIGHT TYPE OF PERMIT AND THAT THE GRANTING OF THE CUP WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE UNREASONABLY INTERFERE WITH THE USE POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF SURROUNDING AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES, OR IMPAIR THE CHARACTER OF THE ZONE IN WHICH IT'S LOCATED.
WE ALSO HAVE TO DETERMINE IF THE SITE'S PHYSICALLY SUITABLE FOR THE USE, IF THE USE COMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE CODE REQUIREMENTS AND IF THE USE IS CONSISTENT WITH A GENERAL PLAN.
HOW IS THIS EUP APPROVED? IT'S REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT A PUBLIC HEARING.
WE PROVIDE 10 DAY NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH IS PRINTED IN THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, AND IT'S ALSO MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN A 300 FEET RADIUS OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE USE IS PROPOSED.
WE PROVIDE A STAFF REPORT AND DRAFT RESOLUTION, WHICH IS POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE, AND YOU ARE MADE AWARE THAT IT'S OUT THERE AND THAT'S PROVIDED 72 HOURS BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ALTHOUGH IN THE CITY OF LA HABRA WE DO A LITTLE BIT EARLIER ON THURSDAY.
UM, THE PUBLIC HEARING CONSISTS OF WHAT WE'RE SEEING TONIGHT, STAFF PRESENTATION, PUBLIC COMMENTS, DELIBERATION, AND THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION GETS TO CHOOSE TO APPROVE, DENY, OR CONTINUE THE ITEM.
AND THIS DECISION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITHIN THE 10 DAY APPRO WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE APPROVAL.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED MINOR COP VERSUS A COP IS, FIRST OF ALL, THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY IS DIFFERENT.
AS I MENTIONED, THE CP IS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT THE MCOP IS PROPOSED TO BE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MYSELF AT, AT THE CURRENT TIME.
FIRST I WOULD, UM, WE, WELL, WE'D SEND OUT NOTICING FOR IT, WHICH I'LL GET INTO IN A MINUTE.
AND IF WE RECEIVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE MCUP APPLICATION, IF THE MCUP IS IN CONNECTION WITH ANOTHER REQUEST THAT REQUIRES PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL.
IF THE MCUP IS NOT EXEMPT FROM CQA OR ALL OF, OR IF I MAKE A DECISION AND SOMEONE CHALLENGES THAT DIS DECISION, ALL OF THOSE, IN ALL OF THOSE INSTANCES, THE MCUP
[00:10:01]
WOULD COME BEFORE YOU AS A CUP AS FAR AS THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THE NOTICING, UM, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THERE'S A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A CUP AND I TALKED ABOUT THE PUBLISHING OF THE NOTICE AND HOW IT'S SENT OUT.FOR THE MCUP, THERE WOULD BE NO PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES WOULD BE SENT TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ONCE WE HAVE A COMPLETE APPLICATION AND IF A ADJACENT, UM, IF NO OBJECTIONS ARE RECEIVED FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS THAT CANNOT BE RESOLVED, THEN AGAIN WE WOULD, I WOULD BE REFERRING THAT REQUEST TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS A CUP.
SO IT REALLY, IN THE, IN MOST INSTANCES, WE'RE EXPECTING MCCS TO NOT HAVE A LOT OF ISSUES IN THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY FOR TYPES OF USES THAT REALLY AREN'T A BIG CHANGE IN, UM, USE FOR THE, AND THEY FIT THE TYPE OF CENTER, BUT IT'S NOT QUITE SOMETHING WE CAN ALLOW BY.
AND IF IT DOES END UP THAT IT IS EVEN PRETTY MUCH THE LEAST BIT CONTROVERSIAL, THEN IT WOULD BE MOVED ON TO PLANNING COMMISSION AT A PUBLIC HEARING.
WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE COST AND WE DID A SURVEY OF THE SURROUNDING CITIES AND OUR CUP COSTS, WHICH ARE JUST UNDER $7,000, ARE PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF THE SURROUNDING CITIES.
SOME GO DOWN, I THINK IT GOES DOWN TO FOUR OR 3000.
AND THEN SOME CITIES ALSO HAVE THIS MINOR CUP PROCESS, WHICH IS COSTS A LOT LESS THAN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
AS WE LOOKED AT THE PROCESS FOR APPROVING THE MCUP, WE SAW THAT IT WOULD BE SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT, WHICH CURRENTLY COSTS $386, SO IT'S MUCH LESS THAN A REGULAR CUP.
WE WOULD ALSO BE COLLECTING $458 BECAUSE WE'D HAVE TO DO A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION FOR THE APPROVAL.
AND THAT HELPS WITH, UM, SOME OF THE APPEAL PROCESS FOR THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
THE APPLICATION WOULD BE THE SAME FOR BOTH THE CUP AND AN MCUP AND THE SAME EXACT FINDINGS WOULD BE REQUIRED.
AND WHETHER IT'S A CUP THAT GOES TO PLANNING COMMISSIONER AND AN MCUP THAT GOES TO MYSELF, IT WOULD ALL BE IN WRITING HOW, UM, THE PROJECT MEETS THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
OTHER VIS REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 1866 THAT ARE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT ARE SOME CHANGES TO THE APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.
IT WAS JUST MOSTLY MINOR REVISIONS AND REORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION, INCLUDING THE FINDINGS.
WE PUT IT UP MUCH EARLIER IN THE CODE SECTION.
IT REQUIRES SPECIFICALLY A DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS.
IT'S, UM, INTERESTING AS MUCH AS YOU WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMEWHAT INTUITIVE.
SOMETIMES WE DON'T KNOW HOW THE USE IS ACTUALLY GOING TO OPERATE.
AND SO KNOWING THE HOURS OF OPERATION, KNOWING HOW MANY STAFF MEMBERS ARE GONNA BE THERE, UM, REALLY HELPS US IN OUR REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
AND THEN IT ALSO REQUIRES THE DIFFERENT MAIL LISTS FOR THE CUP OR VERSUS THE MCP 'CAUSE THE MCOP, IT'S JUST THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT, AND THEN THE CUP IS AT 300 FOOT RADIUS.
IT ALSO, UM, CHANGES THE EXPIRATION TERMINATION REQUIREMENTS.
OUR CURRENT REQUIREMENTS STATE THAT IF THE CUP HAS BEEN UNUSED, ABANDONED, DISCONTINUED FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATED.
CU PS CAN BE EXTENDED FOR ONE ADDITIONAL YEAR SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL.
WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO CHANGE THAT IS IF THE CUP IS UNUSED FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS, SO GIMME JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME FOR THOSE BUSINESS OWNERS TO GET THEIR USE IN PLACE.
UM, THEY, THEY, IF THEY COULD EVEN BE EXTENDED ONE ADDITIONAL YEAR BEFORE THEY WOULD BE TERMINATED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR.
SO A MUCH MORE SIMPLE PROCESS FOR THAT.
IF A DIFFERENT BUSINESS LICENSE IS APPROVED FOR THAT PROJECT SITE, THEN WHAT THE CUP WAS APPROVED FOR, THEN THAT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CUP WOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATED.
AND THE FINAL ONE IS GIVING DUE PROCESS TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS BECAUSE REALLY, UM, SAYING, STATING THAT THE CUP WAS GOING AWAY WITH IT ONE YEAR AFTER THE BUSINESS HAD STOPPED, REALLY DIDN'T GIVE THEM THAT DUE PROCESS TO COME IN AND APPEAL THE TERMINATION OF THEIR PERMIT.
SO WE NO LONGER THE PROPOSALS TO NO LONGER AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATE THE CUP IF THE USE IS ABANDONED OR DISCONTINUED FOR ONE YEAR.
AND IT PROVIDES DUE PROCESS FOR TERMINATION FOR WITH NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AND AN APPEAL PROCESS IN PLACE FOR THAT.
AND THOSE WOULD ONLY, I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK CLOSELY AT THE LANGUAGE THERE, THAT WOULD ONLY HAPPEN IF STAFF DETERMINES THEY WANT TO TERMINATE THE CUP.
SO AS IS TRUE WITH MOST OTHER CITIES, THE CUP WOULD RUN WITH THE LAND UNTIL IT'S TERMINATED, EITHER BECAUSE A NEW BUSINESS HAS GONE INTO PLACE OR BECAUSE STAFF HAS REACHED OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER TO TERMINATE IT OFFICIALLY.
SO WITH THAT, THAT'S SOMEWHAT AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THIS ZONE CHANGE, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION THAT'S RECOMMENDING CDO CANCEL APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT WAS PROVIDED TO YOU.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
UH, DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR KIM?
[00:15:01]
JASON? NO.I I JUST, I HAVE JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION AND JUST MY OWN CURIOSITY AT THIS POINT.
DO WE, UH, WHAT'S THE LOGIC OF JUST DOING JUST THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND NOT THE 300 FOOT? WE WERE TRYING, AGAIN, WE WERE TRYING TO KEEP, UM, PROJECTS AT THE TYPES OF USES AND THAT WILL BE SOMEWHAT DEPENDENT ON THE TYPES OF USES WE BRING FORWARD THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE MCUP, BUT WE'RE EXPECTING THEM TO BE RELATIVELY UNCONTROVERSIAL PROJECTS.
SO WE ARE REALLY LOOKING AT WHO ARE THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS AND HOW ARE THEY GOING TO BE IMPACTED.
IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT'S MUCH MORE CONTROVERSIAL, WE'D BE LOOKING AT THE 300 FOOT RADIUS AND THAT KEEPS THE PRICES DOWN QUITE A BIT.
UM, THE COST TO A ADVERTISE IN THE OC REGISTER AS WELL AS THE, THE COST TO SEND OUT THE MAILINGS OBVIOUSLY IS A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE THAN JUST DOING THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS.
SO WE WERE REALLY TRYING TO KEEP THIS COST DOWN TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN.
AND, AND DO WE HAVE ANY KIND AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT A MINOR CUP MIGHT BE? EVEN THOUGH YOU DON'T HAVE THE LIST WITH YOU? WE DON'T, BECAUSE A COUPLE EXAMPLES
WITH THE NEXT STAGE OF THE PROCESS.
UM, SOME OF THE RECOMMENDED ONES WERE DANCE AND FITNESS STUDIOS, ONES THAT ARE SMALLER THAN 4,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO SOME OF THE SMALLER ONES, TUTORING BUSINESSES, THOSE DON'T TEND TO TAKE, YOU KNOW, UM, CREATE AN ISSUE.
UH, WE WILL BE DISCUSSING SOMEWHAT WHETHER WE THINK RESTAURANTS SHOULD BE PERMITTED BY RIGHT, OR WHETHER THEY SHOULD REQUIRE AN MCUP.
THEY MAY BE SPECIFIC TO THE TYPE OF ZONE THAT THEY'RE IN, BECAUSE AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT, UM, WHAT WE FOUND ACROSS, LOOKING AT OTHER CITIES, AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT SERVING ALCOHOL OR THERE ISN'T A DRIVE THROUGH, THERE REALLY ISN'T NECESSARILY A REASON TO REQUIRE A CUP OTHER THAN TO JUST VERIFY THAT THE PARKING IS IN PLACE.
BUT IF THEY CAN MEET OUR CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING, THEN THAT LESSENS THE CHANCE OF BEING AN ISSUE.
UM, AND THAT'S REALLY LIMITED SOME RESTAURANTS FROM COMING INTO THE CITY.
SO AGAIN, AS A INCENTIVE TO BRING THESE BUSINESSES IN, WE ARE TRYING TO LOOK AT THE ONES THAT CREATED THE LEAST AMOUNT OF IMPACT.
WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE IMPACTS WHEN THERE'S ALCOHOL SALES OR WHEN THERE'S A DRIVE THROUGH, AND WE WANNA LOOK A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSELY AT THOSE ONES.
SO THOSE ARE JUST A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES.
OH, ANOTHER ONE WAS SHOWROOMS IN INDUSTRIAL AREAS.
RIGHT NOW WE REQUIRE A CUP FOR THAT.
IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT WOULD BE A VERY BIG ISSUE TO MAYBE JUST KEEP, KEEP IT DOWN TO AN MCUP SO IT DOESN'T BECOME A FULLY RETAIL USE, BUT JUST MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT EASIER IN THAT WAY.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
UM, AT THIS TIME, WE'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION AT THIS TIME? PLEASE SPELL YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
AND MY NAME IS KRISTIN DELEON.
K-R-I-S-T-E-N DELEON, DE SPACE LEON.
GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AGAIN, MY NAME IS KRISTIN DELEON.
I'M A WIFE, I'M A MOTHER, I'M A LAHABRA RESIDENT AND I'M A HOPEFUL LAHABRA BUSINESS OWNER.
I'M COMING BEFORE YOU TODAY TO DISCUSS THE EXORBITANT $7,000 FEE FOR A CUP LAHABRA.
WHAT MESSAGE ARE YOU SENDING TO THE FUTURE SMALL BUSINESSES? IS IT THAT YOU WANT THEM TO SEND THEIR BUSINESS ELSEWHERE? LAST YEAR WHEN I INQUIRED ABOUT THE CUPI WAS QUOTED $6,000 AND AS OF TODAY, IT WAS NOW $7,000.
$7,000 IS AN ASTRONOMICAL FEE THAT DOES NOT EVEN GUARANTEE AN APPROVAL.
NOT ONLY ARE YOU IMPOSING THIS RIDICULOUS FEE, BUT THEN I WAS TOLD I WOULD HAVE TO WAIT UP TO SIX MONTHS FOR A POSSIBLE APPROVAL AS WE SPEAK.
THERE ARE MORE THAN 20 SMOKE SHOPS UP FOR MORE SINCE OUR LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
THESE SMOKE SHOPS SPECIALIZE IN NARCOTIC PARAPHERNALIA.
THEY DON'T REQUIRE CUP AND THEY ALSO HAVE A GROWING STRONGHOLD IN OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR YOUTH.
AGAIN, I HAVE TO ASK YOU, WHAT MESSAGE ARE YOU TRYING TO SEND? SO NOW I'M URGING YOU THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE DECISION MAKERS TO PLEASE RECONSIDER THESE EXORBITANT FEES SO THAT LAHABRA CAN HAVE A FIGHTING CHANCE TO COMPETE WITH ITS NEIGHBORING CITIES AND THIS MAMA CAN MAKE HER DREAMS COME TRUE.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE SPEAKER? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
UH, DO ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? OKAY, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? ALL RIGHT.
AT THIS TIME I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK FOR ANY
[00:20:01]
PUBLIC COMMENT AND A MOTION.YEAH, I, I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF, UM, APPROVAL.
I, I THINK IT'S A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AS THE CITY COUNCIL HAS INDICATED, AS, UM, DIRECTOR HAS INDICATED.
I THINK MAKING THE CITY MORE BUSINESS FRIENDLY AND JUST MAKING SOME OF THOSE DECISIONS THAT PREVIOUSLY REQUIRED A CUP MORE ADMINISTRATIVE, UM, DOES MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE.
AND, UM, OBVIOUSLY JUST TO REITERATE ANYTHING THAT HAS MORE OF A PUBLIC IMPACT, COMING BACK TO THE COMMISSION I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND THAT'S, UM, HOW IT'S INDICATED HERE.
SO I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF APPROVING THE RESOLUTION AND PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION WITHOUT ANY OBJECTION FROM MY COLLEAGUES.
I MAKE A MOTION TO IS THE ONE IN THE SCRIPT.
I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA HARBOR, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 25 DASH 0 0 0 1 TO REPEAL AND REPLACE CHAPTER 18.66 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS OF TITLE 18 ZONING OF THE LABOR MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND MAKING THE DETERMINATION THAT THE ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, KNOWN AS CQA UNDER SECTION 1 15 0 6 1 B THREE COMMON SENSE EXEMPTION OF THE CA GUIDELINES.
SECOND, WILL WE PLEASE VOTE? MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO AND THIS WILL BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR APPROVAL.
WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO THE SECOND ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING, WHICH IS A DULY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONE CHANGE TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 2 TO AMEND SECTION 18.04030 TERMS DEFINED OF CHAPTER 18.04 DEFINITIONS AND REPEAL AND REPLACE SECTION 18.50 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS OF CHAPTER 18 POINT 12, SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TITLE 18 ZONING OF THE LA HARIO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS TO COMPLY WITH THE STATE LAW.
DID WE HAVE ANY CORRESPONDENCE ON THIS ITEM? YES.
THIS AFTERNOON THE COMMISSION AND STAFF RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM JAMES LLOYD, WHO'S THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND INVESTIGATIONS WITH THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE FUND.
AND ATTORNEY ROBERTO WAS ABLE TO RESPOND TO THEIR COMMENTS VIA EMAIL.
A HARD COPY OF THE EMAIL AND A REVISED RESOLUTION HAVE BEEN PLACED, UM, FOR EACH OF THE COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF.
I DON'T SEEM TO HAVE A COPY OF THE EMAIL.
THIS SO CAN MAYBE, CAN YOU FILL US IN? I DON'T, I DON'T SEEM TO HAVE A COPY OF THE EMAIL SO I
NO, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE LETTER FROM THE APPLICANT, BUT I'M NOT ACTUALLY EMAIL HE SENT.
UM, MR. VICE CHAIR THE, THEY SENT THIS HOUSING DEFENSE FUND SENT AN EMAIL THAT ATTACHED THE LETTER THAT YOU HAVE BEEN PROVIDED, WHICH IS BASICALLY CALLED OUT A FEW TYPOS IN OUR ORDINANCE.
SO THOSE HAVE BEEN CORRECTED AND YOU'VE BEEN PROVIDED WITH THE REVISED ORDINANCE.
GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I'M SONYA LOUIE, PLANNING MANAGER HERE TO PRESENT TO YOU.
THE PROPOSAL BEFORE THE COMMISSION IS CITY INITIATED.
IT'S A REQUEST TO UPDATE THE CITY'S ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REGULATIONS TO COMPLY WITH RECENT CHANGES UNDER STATE LAW.
THE AMENDMENTS ARE PROPOSED TO AFFECT TITLE 18 OF THE LA HABRA MUNICIPAL CODE, PARTICULARLY SECTIONS 18.0 4.030, WHICH AFFECTS THE CHAPTER ON DEFINITIONS AND SECTION 18.2 0.50, WHICH AFFECTS THE CHAPTER FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THE PROPOSED UPDATED REGULATIONS
[00:25:01]
WILL AFFECT ALL ZONES WITHIN THE CITY THAT ALLOW SINGLE UNIT OR MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.UP ON THE SCREEN, I'VE JUST PROVIDED A SIMPLE TIMELINE OF THE CITY'S CURRENT A DU REQUIREMENTS.
THE CITY'S CODE FIRST ALLOWED THE MINISTERIAL APPROVAL OF SECOND DWELLING UNITS AS FAR BACK AS FEBRUARY OF 2004.
IN FEBRUARY, 2017, THE TERM SECOND DWELLING UNIT WAS REPLACED WITH THE TERM ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT OR WHAT WE OFTEN ABBREVIATE AS AN A DU.
FURTHERMORE, THE CITY'S A DU REVIEW PROCESS WAS STREAMLINED AT THAT TIME PURSUANT TO SB 10 69 AND AB 2299, WHICH WAS INTENDED TO MORE EASILY ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADUS.
THE LAST UPDATE TO THE CITY'S A DU REGULATIONS WAS IN APRIL OF 2018, AT WHICH TIME THE A DU ORDINANCE WAS UPDATED PURSUANT TO SB 2 29 AND AB 4 84 AMENDMENTS WERE APPROVED, WHICH PROVIDED CLARIFICATION ON NEW A DU SIZE LIMITS AND REDUCED PARKING STANDARDS.
SINCE THE CITY LAST AMENDED THE A DU ORDINANCE IN 2018, THE STATE LEGISL LEGISLATOR CONTINUED TO PASS SEVERAL LAWS UPDATING STATE A DU LAW TO MORE EASILY UNDERSTAND ZONE CHANGE.
25 DASH 0 0 2 STAFF SUMMARIZE THE KEY CHANGES.
THE FIRST CHANGE UPDATES THE DEFINITION OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT EXPLAINING THAT AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IS ALSO REFERRED TO ITS SHORT FORM AS AN A DU.
THE SECOND CHANGE SIMPLY REITERATES THE, THAT THE UPDATED TERMS A DU AND JADU MUST BE APPROVED OR DENIED WITHIN 60 DAYS.
ADDITIONALLY, LANGUAGE WAS ADDED THAT IF THE CITY DENIES AN APPLICATION FOR AN A DU OR JADU, THE CITY MUST PROVIDE IN WRITING A FULL SET OF COMMENTS BACK TO THE APPLICANT, WHICH IDENTIFIES THE ITEMS THAT ARE DEFECTIVE OR DEFICIENT, AND A DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE APPLICATION CAN BE REMEDIED.
THE THIRD CHANGE RELATES TO DEMOLITION PERMITS.
IF A PROJECT NECESSITATES DEMOLITION OF A DETACHED GARAGE IN ORDER TO REPLACE AN A DU, THEN THE APPLICATION AND PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED AT THE SAME TIME.
NEW STATE A DU LAW CONTINUES TO ALLOW ONE A DU AND ONE JADU FOR A SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIALLY ZONED LOT.
IT IS BEING UPDATED NOW TO ALLOW UP TO EIGHT DETACHED A DS FOR AN EXISTING MULTI-UNIT DWELLING STRUCTURE.
IT IS PROPOSED TO STATE THAT A MAXIMUM TWO DETACH ADUS BE ALLOWED FOR PROPOSED MULTI-UNIT DWELLING STRUCTURE.
UM, AS WELL THE AMENDMENT WILL ALSO CLARIFY THAT THE MAXIMUM SIZE FOR AN ATTACHED A DU SHALL NOT EXCEED 50% OF THE EXISTING PRIMARY DWELLING.
AND IT WILL ALSO STIPULATE THAT THERE IS NO SIZE LIMIT ON AN A DU WITHIN EXISTING OR PROPOSED WITHIN AN EXISTING OR PROPOSED DWELLING UNIT.
NEW STATE A DU LAW SPECIFIES THAT A FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT MAY BE WAIVED TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 800 SQUARE FOOT A DU LANGUAGES PROPOSED TO PROHIBIT THE DENIAL OF AN A DU OR JADU.
DUE TO NON-CONFORMING ZONING CONDITIONS OR BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS OR ANY UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES THAT DO NOT POSE A PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY THREAT.
THE LAVA MUNICIPAL CODE IS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED TO SPECIFY THAT THE CITY IS PROHIBITED FROM DENYING AN UNPERMITTED A DU OR JADU CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1ST, 2020.
CURRENTLY, THE CODE DESCRIBES THAT ONE PARKING SPACE IS REQUIRED FOR AN A DU, BUT THERE
[00:30:01]
ARE SEVERAL EXCEPTIONS WHICH COULD WAIVE THIS PARKING REQUIREMENT.THE NEW STATE A DU LAW WOULD UPDATE THIS BY EXPANDING THE LIST OF EXCEPTIONS.
MORE SPECIFICALLY LANGUAGES PROPOSED TO STATE THAT THE CITY SHALL NOT IMPOSE PARKING STANDARDS FOR AN A DU IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN APPLICATION TO CREATE A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING OR MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING ON THE SAME LOT.
WITH THIS UPDATE, THE JADU DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE ALSO PROPOSED TO BE SEPARATED FROM A DS, WHICH SHOULD MAKE IT EASIER TO READ AND FOLLOW.
UH, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL ALSO CLARIFY THAT OWNER OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS WILL NOT APPLY TO ADUS, BUT WILL ONLY APPLY TO J ADUS, UH, EXCEPT UNDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND THAT MIGHT INCLUDE THOSE INSTANCES WHERE A-J-A-D-U MIGHT BE OWNED BY A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY, A LAND TRUST, OR A HOUSING ORGANIZATION.
THE PROPOSED UPDATE SPECIFIES THAT ADUS AND JADU SHALL NOT BE RENTED FOR PERIODS OF LESS THAN 31 DAYS.
FURTHERMORE, LANGUAGE IS PROPOSED TO STATE THAT AN A DU SHALL NOT BE SOLD OR CONVEYED SEPARATELY FROM THE PRIMARY DWELLING.
FINALLY, LANGUAGE IS BEING PROPOSED BY STAFF, WHICH WILL REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH SOME VERY BASIC, UH, OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.
IN THIS CASE, THE PROPOSED REQUIREMENT, UH, IS FOR A MINIMUM OF THREE ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENTS TO BE PROVIDED ALONG ANY STREET FACING ELEVATION OF AN A DU.
SO IN CLOSING, THE CITY'S REGULATIONS FOR ADUS IS OUTDATED, BUT IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGES UNDER ZONE CHANGE 25 DASH 0 0 0 2 WILL ENABLE THE CITY TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW.
IT STAFFS RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE AND ADOPT THE DRAFT RESOLUTION.
I BELIEVE A REVISED UPDATED RESOLUTION AS ATTORNEY ROBERTO STATED, WAS PROVIDED TO YOU AT YOUR DAAS.
IT'S ESSENTIALLY RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE AMENDMENTS UNDER ZONE CHANGE 25 DASH ZERO TWO.
UM, THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE.
DOES THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF SONYA? I DO.
UM, WHEN IT COMES TO PARKING, I NOTICED THAT IT SAID THAT, UM, THERE'S NOT GONNA BE ANY ISSUE.
THE CITY CAN'T ENFORCE PARKING IN THAT AREA, BUT WOULD PARKING BE, COULD SOMEONE APPLY FOR A PERMIT FOR PARKING ON THE STREET STREET PARKING? I BELIEVE THAT'S A SEPARATE POLICY FOR THE CITY WHEN IT COMES TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS, BUT WE CANNOT DENY AN A DU TO MEET OR PROVIDE PARKING, UM, AS PART OF THEIR PROPOSAL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, THANK, THANK YOU SONYA.
SO I'LL, I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE, IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL CLOSE THE, UM, PUBLIC HEARING AND HAVE COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND A MOTION.
UM, I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS AND I'M, I'M NOT GOING TO GET ON MY GIANT SOAPBOX AND RANT FOR 10 MINUTES, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THESE, THESE ARE REGULATIONS THAT ARE BEING FORCED ON THE CITY BY PEOPLE THAT LIVE HUNDREDS OF MILES AWAY AND HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WHAT THEY'RE DOING TO OUR CITY.
UH, WE, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY CHOICE ABOUT HAVING TO APPROVE THIS.
UM, BUT WE CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE TO LIKE IT.
AND, UM, BASED ON THAT, UM, IN THE RESOLUTION WE HAVE A SECTION THAT SAYS IT'S CONSISTENT WITH OUR GENERAL PLAN AND IN THE STAFF REPORT UNDER GENERAL PLAN, UH, RELEVANCY, THE FIRST ITEM LISTED, UM, IS GOAL LU DASH SEVEN FOR LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS ORDINANCE,
[00:35:02]
IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT GOAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN THAT THAT ONE, UM, COMPOSED A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES THAT ARE DESIRABLE PLACES TO LIVE.IT CONTRIBUTE TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND ARE WELL MAINTAINED.
TAKING AWAY PARKING AND PUTTING UNITS UP ON THE STREET AND DOING AWAY WITH FRONT YARDS DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE.
SO I WOULD PROPOSE THAT THAT BE REMOVED FROM THIS REPORT BEFORE IT'S FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? IF NOT, CAN SOMEBODY MAKE A MOTION? WELL, HOW WOULD, UH, HOW WOULD YOUR COMMENTS BE, I GUESS, INCORPORATED INTO WHAT WE'RE MAKING A MOTION FOR? WELL, WE'RE, WE'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL, SO STAFF WILL BE SENDING THEM A REPORT OF THEIR ORIGINAL REPORT AND THEN WHATEVER ACTIONS THE COMMISSION TOOK TONIGHT SO YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAHABRA CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 25 DASH ZERO TWO TO AMEND SECTION 18.0 4.0 30 TERMS DEFINED OF CHAPTER 18.08 DEFINITIONS AND REPEALING, OH, SORRY.
I WAS READING THAT VERONICA COMMISSIONER CARD WAS READING THE SCREEN.
YEAH, IF YOU COULD PUT IT BACK UP.
OTHERWISE I HAVE IT RIGHT HERE.
I HAVE IT RIGHT HERE OF, I THINK I LEFT OFF OFF CHAPTER 18 DEFINITION AND REPEAL AND REPLACE SECTION 18 POINT 12 1 5 0 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS OF CHAPTER 18 POINT 12 SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TITLE 18 S SONY OF THE LAHABRA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO AND THIS WILL BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR APPROVAL.
TONIGHT'S FINAL PUBLIC HEARING IS A DULY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 24 DASH 0 0 1 3 TO OPERATE AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AT 1515 WEST WOODIER BOULEVARD, ACCESSOR PARCEL NUMBER OH ONE SEVEN DASH 1 43 DASH 18.
DID WE RECEIVE ANY CORRESPONDENCE ON THIS ITEM? NO, WE DID NOT.
UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GIVE THE STAFF REPORT PLEASE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
UM, VICE CHAIR ASH SAEED, SENIOR PLANNER.
UM, GOOD EVENING PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HACIENDA ROAD AND WHITTIER BOULEVARD WITHIN THE LAHABRA GATEWAY SHOPPING CENTER SURROUNDING THIS LOCATION ARE RESIDENTIAL HOMES TO THE NORTH AND COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES TO THE EAST, THE SOUTH AND THE WEST.
THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO OPERATE A PRESCHOOL AND DAYCARE FACILITY OPEN MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY FROM 5:00 AM TO 10:00 PM THE PRESCHOOL WILL BE STAFFED BY FOUR TO SIX EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING A DIRECTOR, LEAD TEACHERS AND CARETAKERS SERVING A MAXIMUM OF 30 CHILDREN AT FULL CAPACITY AS PERMITTED BY THE STATE.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED AN INTERIOR LAYOUT WITH CIRCULAR TABLES FOR SNACKS AND DISCUSSION TO TOWARD THE ENTRANCE CUBBIES FOR TOYS AND CHILDREN'S BELONGINGS TOWARDS THE MIDDLE, A STORAGE AREA FOR TOYS, FLOOR MATS AND SLEEPING COTS BEHIND THAT.
AND A BREAK AREA WITH TWO A DA RESTROOMS AT THE REAR OF THE SUITE AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED A 1000 SQUARE FOOT OUTDOOR
[00:40:01]
PLAY AREA WITH A PLAY STRUCTURE, SITTING AREA AND OUTDOOR TOYS ENCLOSED WITH WHITE VINYL FENCING ACROSS SEVEN PARKING SPACES JUST OUTSIDE THE REAR ENTRANCE OF THE SUITE.HOWEVER, ALL DROP-OFFS AND PICKUPS MUST OCCUR WITH THE LEAD FACULTY AT THE FRONT ENTRANCE OF THE PRESCHOOL.
NO OTHER MODIFICATIONS RELATED TO ONSITE LANDSCAPING OR VEHICULAR ACCESS HAVE BEEN PROPOSED AS PART OF THE SCOPE OF WORK.
WHILE SEVEN PARKING SPACES ARE BEING UTILIZED FOR THE PLACEMENT OF THE OUTDOOR PLAY AREA, THE 214 PARKING SPACES THAT REMAIN, UH, WITHIN THE LOT STILL EXCEED THE 202 SPACES THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR THE SHOPPING CENTER.
THE OPERATION OF THIS PRESCHOOL AND DAYCARE FACILITY WILL PROVIDE A SAFE CHILDCARE OPTION FOR A LAHABRA PARENTS IN THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE THIS PROJECT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
THANK YOU STAFF AND THE APPLICANTS ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.
DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THOSE PEOPLE THAT WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
MY NAME IS SELENA, S-I-L-E-N-N-A, LAST NAME BROWN, B-R-O-W-N, LIKE THE COLOR.
UM, WE JUST WANTED TO TAKE THIS TIME TO JUST SAY THAT, UM, WE WOULD LOVE TO BE A PART OF THE LA HARBOR COMMUNITY.
THIS WOULD BE OUR SECOND LOCATION.
WE'VE HAD ONE THAT WE'VE OPERATED IN FULLERTON, A 24 HOUR LOCATION FOR NINE YEARS.
UH, MARIA CURRENTLY IS RUNNING THAT ONE WHILE I'LL BE RUNNING THE LA HABRA.
UM, AND WE LOVE EVERYTHING ABOUT CHILDREN.
I JUST BIRTHED MY FOURTH BABY THREE MONTHS AGO, SO I'M KIND OF A PRO.
AND SO WE DID THIS ALL THROUGH COLLEGE.
UM, THIS WAS WHAT OUR DEGREE WAS IN AND WE, UM, WE ACCEPT THE FAMILIES WE'RE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE, UM, CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER.
SORRY, MY BABY HAD ME UP ALL NIGHT.
SO WE GET ALL THE FAMILIES THAT DO NOT QUALIFY THROUGH THE STATE PRESCHOOL AND WE ALSO SERVE LOW INCOME FAMILIES.
SO THIS IS A POPULATION THAT WE'RE JUST HAPPY TO SERVE BECAUSE THEY'RE OFTEN FORGOTTEN, THUS THE HOURS.
UM, A LOT OF OUR MOMMIES, WE PARTNER WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTERS AND FOR THEM TO KEEP THEIR HOUSING, THEY HAVE TO WORK, BUT A LOT OF THEM DO NOT WORK.
SO WE OPEN AND EXTENDED OUR HOURS, UM, OPEN LATE AND WE'RE PROPOSING TO THE STATE TO ALSO MAKE THE LA HABER ONE OF 24 HOURS BECAUSE THIS IS HOW WE HELP THE COMMUNITY THAT WE SERVE.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS? UM, WE'RE JUST VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT WHAT WE DO.
UM, WE BELIEVE INTO POURING INTO THE CHILD.
WE BELIEVE INTO THE WHOLE BELIEVE IN THE WHOLE CHILD, MIND, BODY AND SPIRIT.
UM, WE ARE A TRILINGUAL PROGRAM, ENGLISH, SPANISH, AND SIGN LANGUAGE.
UM, WE TEACH INDEPENDENCE, WE TEACH CREATIVITY, AND WE JUST BELIEVE THAT, UM, OUR LITTLE LEARNERS ARE LITTLE CREATIVES THAT WE LIKE TO CALL, UM, COME OUT OF OUR PROGRAM, UM, READY TO GO INTO KINDERGARTEN AND WITH MUCH CONFIDENCE AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF.
SO, ONE MORE THING I'D LIKE TO ADD.
WE'RE ALSO A PART OF THE LPC, THE, UM, CHILDCARE CITY COUNCIL.
AND SINCE THE PANDEMIC OVER 8,500 DAYCARES CLOSED AND IT DIRECTLY IMPACTED THE INFANT SLOTS.
SO WE HAVE MANY PARENTS THAT CANNOT PLACE INFANTS.
IT IS LIKE A, IT'S A PROBLEM AT THIS MOMENT.
SO WE ARE PLANNING TO OPEN UP OUR INFANT SLOTS IN THIS SITE AND JUST HELP THE PEOPLE.
I I, IT JUST BREAKS MY HEART WHEN I HAVE PARENTS CALLING CRYING 'CAUSE THEY JUST CANNOT GET CHILDCARE.
SO IT HAS BEEN QUITE BECOME QUITE AN ISSUE.
UM, THE COUNCIL IS WORKING ON IT.
WE'RE TRYING TO GET MORE PROVIDERS IN, WE'RE TRYING TO GET MORE PEOPLE TO OPEN UP CHILDCARES, BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE SHIED AWAY DUE TO THE PANDEMIC AND THE, THE LOW PAY.
BUT WE'RE PASSIONATE ABOUT IT.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? IF NOT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK FOR COMMENT OR MOTION FROM THE COMMISSION.
MR. VICE CHAIR BEFORE THE COMMISSION MAKES A MOTION, I JUST WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR THAT YOU ALSO WERE PROVIDED A RE REVISED RESOLUTION FOR THIS ITEM.
SO WHEN YOU MAKE THE MOTION, IF YOU COULD JUST MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT YOU'RE APPROVING THE REVISED RESOLUTION IF YOU GO THAT DIRECTION.
I, UH, YEAH, I I THINK IT'S A GREAT USE OF THE SPACE.
[00:45:01]
I, I DON'T SEE AND HAVEN'T HEARD ANY IMPACT NEGATIVELY TO THE PROJECT.UM, I THINK IT'D BE GREAT FOR OUR COMMUNITY, UH, AND HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAHABRA, CALIFORNIA, MAKING THE REQUIRED FINDINGS AND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT WOULD ENCOMPASS ANY OF THE REVISED RESOLUTION THAT I MAY NOT HAVE BEFORE ME, CUP 24 DASH 0 0 1 3 TO OPERATE AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AT 1515 WEST WHITTIER BOULEVARD AS PER THE APPROVED PLANS AND SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AND MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, KNOWN AS CA PURSUANT TO SECTION 15 3 0 1, CLASS ONE, EXISTING FACILITIES OF THE CA GUIDELINES.
AND SECOND, WOULD EVERYBODY PLEASE VOTE? MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO AND THIS WILL BECOME IF FINAL IN 10 DAYS UNLESS IT'S APPEALED TO CITY COUNCIL.
THAT CONCLUDES TONIGHT'S PUBLIC HEARINGS.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM STAFF? I JUST LIKE TO, UM, REMIND THE COMMISSION OUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING.
WE'LL FALL ON A TUESDAY THE DAY AFTER THE MEMORIAL DAY HOLIDAY.
ANY COMMENTS FROM ANY COMMISSIONERS? NO COMMENTS.
WE ARE ADJOURNED UNTIL TUESDAY.