Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC Minutes July 12, 2016 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING ITEM #1 TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 12, 2016 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Smith ROLL CALL: Chair Lumbard Chair Pro Tem Smith Commissioners Kozak, Mason, Thompson None. PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JUNE 14, 2016 June 14, 2016 Minutes. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the June 14, 2016 Planning Commission meeting as provided. Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Smith, to approve the Minutes of the June 14, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. 2. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY DETERMINATION APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: 1) 14542 Newport Avenue#3 2) 27 Look Out Lane 3) 140 South A Street REQUESTS- 1. EQUESTS:1. General Plan Conformity finding for conveyance of two (2) residential units located at 14542 Newport Avenue #3 and 27 Look Out Lane. 2. General Plan Conformity finding for conveyance of one (1) vacant parcel located at 140 South A Street. Minutes—Planning Commission July 12, 2016—Page 1 of 8 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4316, determining that the conveyance of two (2) affordable residential units located at 14542 Newport Avenue #3 and 27 Look Out Lane at market rate and one (1) vacant parcel located at 140 South A Street owned by the City of Tustin to the Habitat for Humanity of Orange County, Inc. is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan. Thompson Thompson commented on the equity that is being preserved with two (2) units being sold as market rate units which once were affordable and the two (2) units being added to the inventory of the City as "for rent" housing stocks. It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4316, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: Adopted Reso. 3. REVOCATION OF CUP 2015-05 (ON-SITE BEER AND WINE SALES), No. 4313 DR 2015-005 (OUTDOOR SEATING), IVY LOUNGE RESTAURANT APPLICANT: Vahid Adamkhoshbakht Ivy Lounge and Grill 14001 Newport Avenue, Unit A Tustin, CA 92780 PROPERTY OWNER: Louie Properties 5936 Temple City Boulevard Temple City, CA 91780 LOCATION: 14001 Newport Avenue, Unit A REQUESTS: This item was continued from the June 14, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15270(b) (Article 18. Statutory exemptions for projects which are disapproved) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4313- 1. Finding that the continuance of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2015-05 for on-site beer and wine sales (ABC License Type 41) and Design Review (DR) 2015-005 allowing outdoor seating Minutes—Planning Commission July 12, 2016—Page 2 of 8 associated with the Ivy Lounge restaurant located at 14001 Newport Avenue, Unit A, would be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use, or would be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City; and, 2. Directing staff to transmit a report of the Planning Commission's findings and recommendation that the City Council set a hearing to revoke CUP 2015-05 and DR 2015-005. 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing opened. Binsack Binsack informed the Commission of the applicant's request to continue the item then referred the Commission to Bobak to hear her comments on the matter. Bobak Bobak provided an overview of the item that was presented at the previous June 14, 2016 Commission meeting with regards to the revocation. Her comments generally included: the status of the owner's efforts to sell the business; staff's previous recommendation that the Commission continue the item to give the applicant the opportunity to open escrow and proceed with a then-contemplated sale of the business; staff's recommended conditions/stipulations for the applicant; non-payment of the City's administrative enforcement costs which was included in the original CUP approval; the applicant agreed to all stipulations, including payment of the City's administrative enforcement costs; Bobak was recently notified the proposed sale of the business was not moving forward and was delayed due to lack of funds from the prospective buyer; a formal invoice was sent to the applicant's attorney, Mr. Mafi, June 28, 2016 with a payment date of July 5, 2016; Bobak received a call from Mr. Mafi's office on June 30, 2016 stating they would be working with the applicant on payment date; Bobak received word from Mr. Mafi on July 11, 2016 that the invoice had not been paid since he did not have the opportunity to review the invoice with his client since he was hospitalized; staff's recommendation to the Commission was to proceed with the revocation hearing; any final action would be made by the City Council and would likely not be heard until the September 20, 2016 Council meeting; if the applicant still wants to pursue the sale of the business, it can be done within the 60 days between this meeting and the Council meeting; if the applicant opens escrow, staff could recommend to the Council that they either continue the item to allow the sale be completed or return the matter to the Commission so that the Commission could monitor the new business owner; and since the original continuance allowed the sale to move forward, and the sale is likely not going to occur, staff sees no reason to continue the hearing on the revocation any further, but it would be up to the Commission. Lumbard Lumbard asked the Commission if they would like to continue the item. He was in favor of recommending to the City Council that they move forward with the revocation. Lumbard asked for any comments from the Commission. Kozak Kozak agreed with Lumbard's recommendation. Minutes—Planning Commission July 12, 2016—Page 3 of 8 Mason Mason also agreed with Lumbard and Kozak. Thompson Thompson wanted to continue to hear the item on the basis that the item has already been continued from the June 14, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. Smith Smith was not in favor of continuing the item. The applicant's attorney, Mazir Mafi, stepped up to the podium and asked when he would be able to respond to the Commission. Lumbard Lumbard informed the attorney once the public comment portion was opened, the attorney could respond. Binsack Binsack provided highlights of the Power Point presentation, staff report, resolution, and supporting documents and noted that all are inclusive of the public record, for the Commission's consideration. She also mentioned that Tustin police officers and Code Enforcement staff were in the audience and that they had conducted investigations of the business, in the event the Commission had questions for them. Lumbard Lumbard reminded the Commission to ask staff questions and comments and to not get into commentary about what the Commission thinks about the revocation. He also stated that the attorney and applicant were in the audience to address the Commission. Thompson Thompson asked staff about the initial CUP being approved. He asked for clarification on the type of ABC license associated with the restaurant, as opposed to a bar with regards to a revenue business standpoint. Thompson also asked if there was any confirmation that the applicant has been adhering to the ABC license requirements. Binsack In response to Thompson's questions, Binsack clarified that the business was approved as a bona fide eating establishment versus a bar which generally means the majority of sales is food versus alcohol. She said that there has not been any confirmation but staff or the Commission could request an audit of the alcohol versus food sales, although she was not sure if there would be any success in receiving that information. Smith Smith questioned the initial investigation from one (1) year ago and asked, from a resident's perspective, if the complaints stemmed from noise issues. Binsack In response to Smith's question, Binsack stated that the multiple afterhours noise complaints is what triggered the Tustin Police Department and Code Enforcement staff to investigate the business. 7:31 p.m. Public Comments opened. The applicant's attorney, Mazir Mafi, addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. His comments/complaints generally included: procedural issues (June 28, 2016 email correspondence and the violation of the applicant's Minutes—Planning Commission July 12, 2016—Page 4 of 8 stipulation — payment of the administrative costs that Mr. Mafi and the applicant agreed to pay); he stated that they have not backed out of paying the invoice and "promised to make the payment tonight..." but due to the 4t" of July holiday, they found it was "unreasonable" to pay the invoice four (4) days later since Bobak and the applicant were on vacation and Mr. Mafi was in and out of the hospital; the Planning Commission packet being emailed to his office on July 7, 2016 and that it was "insufficient time" to review and prepare a response; he referred to the U.S. Constitution; claimed the contents of the staff report were "allegations", "far-fetched" and "ridiculous"; that he and the applicant have complied with the agreement; their capability of complying with the business hours and conditions set forward; they claim they have not violated any of the conditions and that whatever happened in the past, will not be repeated; and he requested the item be continued in order to find an alternative with regards to submitting an application for extended hours for the restaurant. Thompson Thompson reminded Mr. Mafi of the outcome of the June 14, 2016 Planning Commission meeting which was to continue the item to the July 12, 2016 Planning Commission meeting and to continue with the proceedings unless the applicant was in compliance with all of the conditions, which he is not. He also asked if Mr. Mafi was aware that the June 14, 2016 meeting was an actual hearing. Although there appears to be no new issues from the applicant; however, the applicant still was not in compliance with the conditions (no fees have been paid). Mr. Mafi understood the June 14, 2016 Planning Commission meeting was a hearing and as long as the applicant was in compliance with the conditions, the hearing would be continued. He did not understand that at each hearing there would be the prospect of a revocation hearing going forward. Mr. Mafi repeated some of the statements he previously made with regards to non- sufficient time to respond to the July 7, 2016 email. He also stated that everything, with the exception of the invoice being paid, has been complied with and if the invoice could be paid in three (3) payments. Lumbard Lumbard mentioned the agreement made between staff and the applicant at the June 14, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. His understanding of the revocation was being based on the non-adherence of the conditions to the CUP up until June 14, 2016. Lumbard asked Mr. Mafi if the applicant did in fact adhere to those conditions up until the June 14, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Mafi stated it is "constitutionally impermissible to respond to staff on a two (2) day court notice being that they are not prepared". Kozak Kozak asked the City Attorney, Michael Daudt, to put Mr. Mafi's comments in perspective for the Commission. Daudt In response to Mr. Mafi's comments/concerns, Daudt did not see any procedural bar to moving forward with the revocation hearing and that the matter was slated for the June 14, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, which the Commission, at that time, made a determination to continue the hearing in Minutes—Planning Commission July 12, 2016—Page 5 of 8 an effort to allow the business owner to bring forward a prospective buyer for the business, which did not happen. Therefore, staffs advice to the Commission was to recommend to the City Council that they move forward with the revocation, which would still allow a period of 60 days for the owner to prepare for the City Council's final determination. The City Council will act as the final decision maker on this matter. 7:45 p.m. Public Comments Closed. Lumbard Lumbard clarified to the Commission that the decision the Commission is being asked to make is whether to recommend that the City Council proceed with revocation in September or continue the item to a future Planning Commission meeting based on the applicant's request. Kozak Kozak concurred with Lumbard's comments and added that the information presented to the Commission on June 14, 2016 is valid information for the Commission's decision. Thompson Thompson commended staff with the staff report presented. His comments generally included: he was not in favor of the applicant's request for additional time since the first violation occurred one (1) year ago. If his colleagues agreed, Thompson suggested a two (2) week continuance with the request that the Commission obtain additional information on compliance with the California Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC). Mason Mason had favorable comments for staff and the applicant for their information brought to the Commission. Her understanding, from the June 14, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, was that this meeting would be a revocation hearing and that an extension was already given with regards to the prospective buyer and ultimately, the stipulations were not met. Mason was in favor of recommending that the City Council proceed with the revocation. Kozak Kozak was also in favor of recommending that the City Council proceed with the revocation being that the evidence provided shows non-compliance with the CUP based on the information provided at the June 14, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. Smith Smith asked Lumbard for clarification with regards to the options he mentioned previously. Lumbard In response to Smith's question Lumbard stated that the Commission did not have to recommend that the City Council move forward with the revocation hearing. That the Commission can 1) say no 2) continue 3) recommend to the City Council revocation or however the Commission wishes to proceed. Smith Smith agreed with Mason's comments previously stated and recommended revocation to the City Council. Lumbard Lumbard compared the CUP to a contract. He was reluctant to continue the item since the violations occurred throughout the year. Minutes—Planning Commission July 12, 2016—Page 6 of 8 Motion: Lumbard moved to approve Resolution No. 4313, seconded by Smith. Motion carried 5-0. 7:56 p.m. Public Hearing item closed. Binsack Binsack noted to the Commission that all decisions made by the Commission are appealable to the City Council; however, this item will be recommended for revocation to the City Council; therefore, no appeal is necessary. A report will be transmitted, within five (5) days, of the Commission's actions and set for hearing at the first available City Council meeting, which will be the second meeting in September. Staff will comply with the process set forth in the Tustin City Code. Lumbard Lumbard asked that staff and counsel keep the lines of communication open with the City Council and keep them apprised of all deadlines. Thompson Thompson added that the open items discussed (i.e. fees, escrow documents) be encouraged to the applicant for the next 60 days until City Council takes action. REGULAR BUSINESS: Received & 4. SUMMARY OF PROJECTS Filed The following report provides a summary of projects and activities since the Year in Review report was presented at the January 26, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. The report focuses on the status of projects that the Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator, or staff approved; major improvement projects; Certificates of Appropriateness; Code Enforcement activities; and, other items which may be of interest to the Commission. DiLeva-Johnson Presentation given. Smith Smith had a clarifying question on Area 15 at Tustin Legacy, which encompasses one of the hangars and if the City has entered into negotiations with a group to take on development or design of the entire area. Also, if it would be for the entire Area 15 or a portion of Area 15. Smith asked if it would include the City-owned Blimp Hangar. He also asked if the developer's plans are contingent upon potential ongoing engineering studies at the Hangar being incorporated into the development plans. Smith asked for the timeline of the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan (DCCSP). Binsack Binsack showed the Commission an area map showing Area 15 and stated that the City entered into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement to develop part of the area. The developer is Oliver McMillan and they will design and that they may be the builder as well. Binsack stated it does include the Blimp Hangar. The development plans will incorporate the Hangar but it is uncertain what type of form it will provide. The structural engineering analysis has not been completed. Once completed, then staff will know what the Hangar's future possible uses will be. For the DCCSP, staff continues working through the regulatory document and then the environmental document will follow, Minutes—Planning Commission July 12, 2016—Page 7 of 8 which could be approximately six (6) months. Kozak Kozak commended DiLeva-Johnson on the presentation, staff report and asked about the timeline for the Red Hill Specific Plan. STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Binsack informed the Commission of the July 21, 2016 public workshop — Red Hill Corridor Specific Plan, along with the Brown Act should all of the Commission attend. The Red Hill Specific Plan is estimated to take 15 to 18 months to develop. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Mason Favorable comments for staff, DiLeva-Johnson's presentation, as well as the many City activities. Kozak Thanked staff for the items presented. Continue to attend the Concerts in the Park (thanked P&R for the line-up for the music groupos), appointed to the OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee by Supervisor Spitzer (thanks to Chuck Puckett for his sponsorship of his application). Thompson Great project overview of things happening in Tustin; the many improvments of things happening in the Downtown Tustin; OCTA re-appointment. He attended the following: • 7/4: Tustin's Firework Display • 7/5 Completed training for his commission position at OCTA's Environmental Cleanup Allocation • 7/9: Grand Opening of Sycamore Grove Smith Smith had no concerns and nothing to report. Lumbard Lumbard thanked staff for presentations and all that is happening in Tustin. 8:17 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, July 26, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Closed the meeting in solidarity with all Law Enforcement and their families. Minutes—Planning Commission July 12, 2016—Page 8 of 8