Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MIN 04-14-15MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 14. 2015 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Altowaiji ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Thompson Chair Pro Tem Lumbard Commissioners Altowaiji, Kozak, Smith, 1. PLANNING COMMISSION REORGANIZATION As a matter of standard procedure, the Planning Commission reorganizes once per year by appointing a new Chairperson and Chairperson Pro Tem. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission elect a Chairperson and Chairperson Pro Tem pursuant to standard procedures. Motion: The Planning Commission reorganized as follows: Chair Thompson (5-0) / Chair Pro Tem Lumbard (5-0). None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MARCH 24, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the March 24, 2015 meeting as provided. Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Smith to approve the March 24, 2015 Minutes. Motion carried 5-0. Adopted Reso. 3. UPDATED RESOLUTION NO. FOR CODE AMENDMENT 2015 - No. 4280. 001 (ORDINANCE NO. 1454) — SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE CULTURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT At the March 24, 2015 meeting, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4277 recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Draft Ordinance No. 1454, related to the Second Residential Minutes — Planning Commission April 14, 2015 — Page 1 of 6 Units ordinance. Due to an administrative oversight, a duplicate Resolution No. was given to two (2) separate projects; therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission substitute Planning Commission Resolution No. 4277 with Planning Commission Resolution No. 4280. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4280. Thompson Thompson recused himself from the item since he lives within the Old Town area. Binsack Binsack explained the reason for the substitute Planning Commission resolution number. She requested that the Commission re -adopt the identical resolution that was considered at the March 24, 2015 meeting. There was no difference within the resolution only the resolution number differed. Altowaiji Altowaiji stated he had no objection to the change of the resolution number, but reminded the Commission and staff that he still is not supportive of the item, and since he voted against the item at the previous meeting, his vote remains the same. Smith Smith asked staff if there was any obligation to conduct a public hearing. Binsack Per Binsack's response to Smith's question, it is only an administrative change, therefore, no need for a public hearing. Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Kozak to adopt Resolution No. 4280. Altowaiji dissented. Thompson recused himself and abstained from the vote. Motion carried 3-1-1. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Adopted Reso. 4. APPEAL OF NOTICE OF INVALID BUSINESS LICENSE — No. 4279. LODESTONE CHIROPRACTIC Mr. Antoni Nguyen ("Appellant") appeals from and requests reconsideration of the Director of Finance's notice of invalid business license for Lodestone Chiropractic (17542 Irvine Blvd., Suite A, Tustin, CA). APPELLANT: ANTONI NGUYEN 17542 IRVINE BLVD., SUITE A TUSTIN, CA 92780 LOCATION: 17542 IRVINE BLVD., SUITE A TUSTIN, CA 92780 Minutes — Planning Commission April 14, 2015 — Page 2 of 6 RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, City staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Director of Finance's notice of invalid business license for Lodestone Chiropractic and approve Resolution No. 4279. Interrante Presentation given. Smith Smith asked staff if the business license was found to be invalid and then revoked, would the appellant have an opportunity to re -apply for a business license that identifies the work being done in this establishment and what the timeframe would be. Interrante In response to Smith's question, Interrante stated the appellant would be able to re -apply for a business license and that the appellant would be able to re -apply immediately. 7:14 p.m. Public Hearing opened. Judy Kollar, resident, voiced concern with the traffic and people coming in and out of the business in the evenings. She asked that the Commission "protect B Street". Ms. Kollar also stated the business had been operating the night prior even though the business license was revoked. Ashish Dudheker, representative for the appellant, provided a copy of the appellant's Satellite Office Certificate and resume to the Commission. His comments generally included: There was no dispute the appellant is a licensed chiropractor; provided the appellant's background employment history; denied the accusations referenced in the staff report; and asked the Commission if the appellant could submit the application correctly. Bobak Bobak informed Thompson that staff would need to make copies of the certificate and resume for the rest of the Commission, staff and for the record. Lumbard Lumbard asked what the limit is for the applicant to resubmit his application. Binsack Binsack stated that typically the City would allow the applicant/appellant additional time to provide their application or appeal. Smith Smith asked the appellant if he was currently operating the business. To clarify with City staff, Smith asked if the appellant's license would be active until revoked or appealed. Daudt Per Assistant City Attorney, Michael Daudt, any action on the license, in terms of invalidity, is pending the resolution of their appeal. The appellant's stated his business is currently open because he has to provide ongoing "treatments" to his patients. Minutes — Planning Commission April 14, 2015 — Page 3 of 6 Altowaiji Altowaiji asked the appellant about the massage sign in front of the business (not a chiropractic sign) and asked for the number of employees at the business. He also asked if massage services are provided alone, without chiropractic services. The appellant stated the massage sign belonged to a neighboring business. Lumbard Lumbard requested clarification from the appellant on the online advertisements and asked if the appellant is providing massage therapy instead of chiropractic services at his business. The appellant stated massage services is part of the chiropractic services, but not as an individual service. Kozak Kozak asked the appellant if he was the only person providing massage services and if there was massage therapy going on, who was providing that service. The application stated there would be no massage therapy, yet the appellant spoke of massage therapy. The appellant provided information on the process of his exam, which includes massage treatments by his employees. Thompson Thompson asked the appellant if the individual seen in the online advertisement was an employee of his massage business. The appellant stated he did not know who the person in the online advertisement was and again asked if the person who applied for a business license, to the City, in February was an employee of his. The appellant stated the massage therapist who applied for a business license with the City was not an employee. He also stated he has two (2) employees and that he does not perform massage services solely, but it is part of his chiropractic services. Ms. Sawyer J. Von Koerber, resident of 170 North B Street, voiced her concern with the ongoing activity being conducted at the subject location (i.e. men going in and out of the business at night), and also verified the address of the business was the subject of revocation. 7:33 p.m. Public Hearing closed. Lumbard Lumbard reminded the Commission that the report depicted what the issue was and that they need to determine if the application was filled out correctly and to determine if the license was invalid (per the Tustin City Code), which was determined by Finance. Thompson Thompson also questioned if the business was conducting massage therapy, or if it is a massage establishment. There should be no confusion on what is being provided by the appellant on the application. Thompson commented on the testimony provided by the witnesses Minutes — Planning Commission April 14, 2015 — Page 4 of 6 referencing the ongoing traffic activity taking place at the business in the evenings. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Lumbard to adopt Resolution No. 4279. Motion carried 5-0. None. REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Binsack informed the Commission and the appellant that this was an appealable item and that the appellant has ten (10) calendar days to appeal the item to the City Council. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Kozak Kozak congratulated Chair Thompson and Chair Pro Tem Lumbard on their reappointments. He also thanked staff for their hard work on the public hearing item. Kozak attending the following: 4/9/15: Congratulations to Council Member Murray, President of the Association of California Cities — Orange County; 3/26: ULI Workshop on Rail and TOD Developments; 3/31: Workforce Housing Forum sponsored by the Orange County Business Council; and the City of Tustin's 46th Annual Easter Egg Hunt — great event! Altowaiji Congratulations on the Chair/Chair Pro Tem reappointments. Smith Congratulations on the Chair/Chair Pro Tem reappointments. Lumbard Congratulated Chair Thompson and thanked the Commission for his reappointment. He thanked staff and the community involvement as well as Tustin P.D. for being in attendance. Thompson Thanked the Commission for his reappointment and requested staff provide an update at a future meeting with regards to City Council's policy relating to drought considerations (how it will affect building permits and what may affect future decisions). Thompson will be attending the ULI Conference in May. Binsack Binsack's stated various water districts are different depending on the different water issues. Staff will bring back to the Commission the strategies provided by the Governor relating to the drought. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, April 28, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way. Minutes — Planning Commission April 14, 2015 — Page 5 of 6 JE THOMPSON Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Minutes — Planning Commission April 14, 2015 — Page 6 of 6