TO: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director
1. Subject
title
Public Hearing to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the City Council adopt a proposed Ordinance updating Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code adding provisions related to director interpretations, City exemption from the Zoning Ordinance, tie votes, and amending the appeal and time extension provisions.
body
2. Summary
The City has proposed changes to update Title 17 of the OMC to add and amend certain provisions to streamline and clarify ambiguities contained in the OMC. Specifically, to add provisions related to director interpretations, city exemption from the Zoning Ordinance, tie votes and amending the appeal and time extension provisions.
3. Recommended Action
recommendation
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.19-24 entitled:
A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange Recommending the City Council Approve an Ordinance Amending Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code to Add Provisions Related to Director Interpretations, City Exemption from Title 17, Tie Votes, and Amending the Zoning Ordinance Appeal and Time Extension Provisions
end
4. AUTHORIZING GUIDELINES
OMC Section 17.08.020 authorizes the Planning Commission to review and make advisory recommendations to the City Council on Zoning Ordinance Amendments.
5. public notice
Notice of the public hearing was provided by publication in a newspaper of general circulation on May 23, 2024.
6. environmental review
This proposed Ordinance is not a project under the California Environmental Quality, (“CEQA”) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, because it involves administrative activities of the City that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.
8. ANALYSIS
The Community Development Department has undertaken a review and evaluation of the Zoning Ordinance to streamline procedures, clarify ambiguities and/or address issues that have either not been addressed or are not clearly addressed in the Zoning Ordinance.
The following are proposed changes to the OMC:
• The addition of Section 17.02.050 to add “Director Interpretations” to the OMC. This provision grants the Community Development Director with authority to make administrative interpretations whenever an ambiguity exists in the Code. Interpretations would be subject to appeal. The Table at Section 17.08.020 is amended accordingly. This provision is broad and allows for the Director to address not just similar uses but also any Zoning Ordinance language interpretations that may be necessary.
• The addition of Section 17.02.060 to add “Exemption” to the OMC. This provision provides that any activities, developments, and/or projects initiated by the City on City-owned property are exempt from the Zoning Ordinance. This provision saves the City time and efforts in preparing applications for projects that have been initiated or directed by the City for what is tantamount to additional approval by the City.
• The addition of subsection (c) to Section 17.08.020(b)(3) to the OMC. This subsection addresses “tie votes” and provides explicitly that a tie vote is not merely “no action,” as provided by rules of parliamentary procedure, but shall mean a “denial” or, importantly, a “recommendation of denial” as some actions require that the Planning Commission formulate some written recommendation to the City Council. For example, amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map require that “the Planning Commission […] render its decision in written form to the City Council and the report shall include: Reasons for the recommendation; the relationship of the proposed amendment to the general plan and applicable specific plans; and environmental determination.” (Section 17.10.020(B)(2). In some cases, a body may want to have “a resolution of no decision” and such instrument is explicitly included as a possible action.
• The appeal section contained at Section 17.08.050(A) through (C) and (E) and (F) were amended. Non-substantive changes were made, such as changing “chapter” to” title” to be consistent with the remainder of the Zoning Ordinance and changing “may” to “shall” to clarify that appeals to certain bodies, while certainly optional to an applicant and potential appellants, are indeed mandatory. Other language was changed to be more precise and concise, and to eliminate redundancies. For example, the subsections regarding hearing date and notice as well as appeal authority were combined (eliminating subsection G) and language was added to provide greater clarity regarding the nature of an appeal as a non-adversarial and evaluative process.
• Finally, Section 17.08.050 was amended to change the manner of processing time extensions, and the time extension itself. A time extension would be reviewed by the Planning Commission-a more certain process (rather than the body providing final approval). That time extension would be for two (2) years with an administrative determination to be made thereafter, if necessary, by the Community Development Director, for an additional one (1) year.
Staff recommends these changes to the Planning Commission.
9. ATTACHMENTS
• Attachment No. 1: Resolution No. 19-24.