Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-25-00 MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Pontious ROLL CALL: Chairman Kozak, Commissioners Bell, Jennings, and Pontious Present: Chairman Kozak, Commissioners Bell, Jennings, and Pontious Staff: Elizabeth Binsack, Director of Community Development Doug Holland, Deputy City Attorney Patrick Sanchez, Director of Parks and Recreation Doug Anderson, Senior Project Manager (Transportation) Lori Ludi, Associate Planner Minoo Ashabi, Associate Planner Patty Adams, Assistant Planner Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS: The Director indicated that Item No. 5 on the agenda was not a Public Hearing. Several members in the audience had expressed interest in speaking to that item and were advised the appropriate time to do so would be after the staff report. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of September 11,2000 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Bell moved, Commissioner Pontious seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Use Determination 00-005 and Conditional Use Permit No. 00-024 for authorization to operate a banquet facility located at 721 West First Street within the "Commercial as Primary Use and "Hotel as a Secondary Use" designations of the First Street Specific Plan. APPLICANT: PHILIP AZZARA PROPERTY OWNER: DONALD W. CALLENDAR LOCATION: 721 WEST FIRST STREET Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution Nos. 3749 and 3750 approving Use Determination 00-005 to permit conditionally banquet facilities within the "Commercial as Primary Use" and "Hotel as a Secondary Use" designation of the First Street Specific Plan (FSSP) and Conditional Use Permit 00-024 to operate a banquet facility at 721 West First Street. The Public Hearing opened at 7:01 p.m. Lori Ludi presented the report. Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Page 2 Philip Azzara, applicant, indicated he has been leasing the kitchen area of this location since 1996 and does catering out of the facility. For the past four years he has attempted to rent the entire facility, however, the landlord was not financially motivated. Hence, the building has remained under-utilized and under-rented. Mr. Azzara recently acquired a lease on the entire facility. He presented the Commission with a color rendering of the site. The location lends itself to a banquet facility to accommodate 25 to 200 people. Mr. Azzara anticipates renting the facility for seminars, board meetings, high school booster meetings, etc., and referred to nearby Abigail Abbott as possibly using the facility for its corporate meetings. He asked for clarification regarding Condition 2.19 and asked if a disc jockey would be considered "live entertainment." Staff responded negatively and indicated a disc jockey would be permitted under the conditional use allowed. Mr. Azzara further stated that the facility will remain structurally intact. It will be repainted on the interior and exterior, the trees will be trimmed back, and the lighting will remain as it was. Chairman Kozak asked whether applicant understood the response of staff regarding the disc jockey. Mr. Azzara responded affirmatively. Chairman Kozak asked if all the conditions of approval are understood and accepted. Mr. Azzara responded affirmatively. Commissioner Jennings noted she is delighted the building will be utilized and asked if there is one room that will hold 200 people. Mr. Azzara responded negatively, indicating that the design involves four rooms that flow into one another and that is the way it will remain. Chairman Kozak asked, regarding Condition 3.1, whether or not the existing pole sign will remain in existence. Staff responded that no new signage has been proposed. This condition is intended to make applicant aware of sign requirements in submitting plans for new signage. Chairman Kozak confirmed with staff there is no specific application for a sign program and asked that consideration be given to using the pole sign or dismantling it, whether or not that would require an amendment. Chairman Kozak then questioned whether the use of the banners presently in existence on the site is covered under the City's sign ordinance. The Director responded that the restriction on use of banners is included and indicated the applicant presently has a permit for a temporary sign banner. Commissioner Pontious asked for clarification regarding Condition 2.7 and the maximum of 282 seats versus the 105 existing off-street parking, suggesting that the total permitted seating would be 315. Staff answered that occupancy, through the Uniform Building Code, requires that applicant comply with parking and occupancy rate. Additional seating beyond 282 seats would require a review by staff to assure compliance. The Public Hearing closed at 7:16 p.m. Commissioner Pontious moved, Commissioner Bell seconded, to adopt Resolutions Nos. 3749 and 3750 approving Use Determination 00-005 and Conditional Use Permit 00-024. Motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Page 3 Conditional Use Permit 00-022 for authorization for the on-site sale of beer and wine (ABC License Type "41") for on-site consumption in conjunction with a new restaurant and shared parking within the Tustin Market Place. APPLICANT: CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN PROPERTY OWNER: THE IRVINE COMPANY LOCATION: 3001 EL CAMINO REAL Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3748 approving Conditional Use Permit 00-022. The Public Hearing opened at 7:17 p.m. Lori Ludi presented the report, indicating a clerical error in transposing the number of parking spaces and the corrected table at the dais showing 1809 spaces rather than 1089. Chairman Kozak invited the applicant's comments. Art Rodriguez, representing California Pizza Kitchen, stated the liquor license was applied for on July 28, 2000, and presented facts from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Mr. Rodriguez pointed out California Pizza Kitchen's record of compliance with local and State regulations and further stated agreement with all the conditions recommended by the staff. The Public Hearing closed at 7:18 p.m. Commissioner Jennings moved, Commissioner Pontious seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3748 approving Conditional Use Permit 00-022. Motion carried 4-0. REGULAR BUSINESS: Design development report from the Director of Parks and Recreation for future park site at Portola Parkway and Jamboree and Tustin Ranch Roads. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission receive and file this report. The Director provided background information regarding the East Tustin Specific Plan's inclusion of parks and open spaces throughout the planning area. The item to be presented is a 17-acre site at the south side of Portola Parkway and Tustin and Jamboree Roads. It was envisioned to be a community park. In January 2000, the City entered into an agreement with RJM Design Group to furnish master planning services for the future park site, which included the preparation of a design development report. Every effort was made to generate input and reaction to the planning program from affected individual citizens, other governmental agencies, and City staff. Patrick Sanchez, the Director of Parks and Recreation, presented the report and the vision for the park, utilizing a PowerPoint color-slide display of possible design features. Commissioner Jennings inquired whether or not this is the park which was originally designated to be the cultural park. Staff responded affirmatively. Commissioner Jennings then asked whether there is any chance the City will ever have a cultural park since this design does not include cultural facilities. Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Page 4 Mr. Sanchez responded that the Parks and Recreation Commission is reviewing the Capital Improvement Program for parks throughout the City. A cultural arts facility is a part of the consideration. Chairman Kozak asked if the action from the Planning Commission would be to move the draft design review forward to City Council for their consideration. Mr. Sanchez stated that this was brought before the Planning Commission as an informational item only. Any suggestions or ideas should be shared at this time for them to be included before final adjustments are made and the final proposal is presented to the City Council. Chairman Kozak inquired whether there is going to be sufficient parking on-site or off street for this park. Mr. Sanchez responded that the discussion regarding the design of this park addressed the parking issue. Specific technical requirements having to do with the number of parking spaces needed were considered and applied. Doug Anderson, Transportation Project Manager, and his staff have been involved in this process. Staff is cognizant of the issues facing Cedar Grove Park and intends to be sure there is adequate parking for this new facility. Commissioner Jennings commented that the new restroom at Peppertree Park is a beautiful addition and hoped that an appropriate design will be implemented in this new park. Commissioner Pontious moved, Commissioner Bell seconded, to receive and file the report. Motion carried 4-0. 5. Design Review 00-024 and Administrative Adjustment 00-001 for authorization: 1) to install two nine (9) foot tall pilasters and add wrought iron fencing to an existing stone veneer wall for an overall height of nine (9) feet, and two pedestrian gates at the existing main entrance to the project on Hannaford Drive; and 2) to install a six (6) foot tall wrought iron fence across an open paved and landscaped area approximately 200 feet north of the terminus of Township Drive (Lots F and S). APPLICANT: STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES OWNER: STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES AND TUSTIN RANCH ESTATES MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION LOCATION: TRACT 15563 AT THE MAIN ENTRANCE ACROSS LOT L AND K AT HANNAFORD DRIVE AND ACROSS LOTS F AND S 200 FEET NORTH OF THE TERMINUS OF TOWNSHIP DRIVE Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3746 approving Design Review 00-024 and Administrative Adjustment 00-001. The Director presented the report, utilizing overhead visual aides. Chairman Kozak stated that it is the Commission's policy to request that speakers in favor of the recommended action speak first followed by those opposed and requested that speakers' comments remain focused on the item before the Commission, presenting new information wherever possible. Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Page 5 Lou Marlin, a resident of Tustin Ranch Estates and a member of the Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association Board of Directors, stated his concerns regarding trespassing at the Estates by pedestrians, motorcyclists, and dogs and the resulting debris and destruction; stated that the residents of Tustin Estates paid for the right to gate their community; and asked the Planning Commission to approve the proposal. Richard Neuland, corporate counsel for the Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association, stated that this proposal is not an unusual improvement within the residential communities in the City of Tustin, that the proposal meets with the criteria for an Administrative Adjustment, and urged the approval of the proposal in keeping with the Planning Commission's standard practices. John Fruehauf, a resident of Tustin Ranch Estates but formedy from the adjoining community, stated he has two small children, appreciates the safety of a gated community, and feels this proposal is reasonable and similar to that of other gated communities in the City. Holly Foster, a resident of Tustin Ranch Estates, stated that she has two small children and does not allow them on the streets due to the safety issue and referred to blind curves; and, emphasized that people from other communities should be more concerned with their children's safety than having a quicker route to Pioneer Middle School. Pete Grande, a resident of Tustin Ranch Estates, stated that he does not allow his son to ride his razor or bike to school due to encounters with construction trucks and a resulting accident in which his son was injured and does not allow his son to walk through the Estates to get to Peters Canyon Elementary School because of the unsafe environment; related an incident at the front gate in which people were trying to enter the Estates and did not have a valid homeowner name; and, stated there should not be free access to the Estates unless it is provided in other gated communities within Tustin. Christy Marlin, a resident of Tustin Ranch Estates, stated her concern that this issue has been presented in the press in a way that suggests the residents of the Estates are anti-children; related her concerns are not only the residents of Treviso coming through the Estates but also people from Cedar Grove Park; and, complained that the Estates are being treated like a park rather than private property. Jennifer Hudler, a resident of Tustin Ranch Estates, stated she is primarily concerned about the lack of privacy and invasion of the Estates by people who are trespassing and showing no respect for the homeowners; stated her resentment that the newspapers suggest the residents are not child-friendly; suggested that the time difference in walking around the Estates is minimal; and, provided the suggestion that parents drop their children at Tustin Ranch Road and Pioneer where there is a crossing guard, making this a safer route than walking through the Estates. Robert Wong, a resident of Tustin Ranch Estates, referred to the cost involved in living in a gated community and the fact that trespassers increase the cost of maintenance and the liability to the homeowners; stated that he and his wife moved to the Estates for the privilege of not being bothered by vendors; and, asked for the same legal rights as any other gated community. Linda Strohbach, a Tustin Estates homeowner who has not yet moved in, stated her belief that the problem lies in the dangerous traffic around Peters Canyon and Pioneer schools as well as the construction traffic within the Estates and the fact that she will not allow her children to walk to school once they are moved in because she does not feel it is safe for them to do so. Chairman Kozak asked if that concluded the presentations from those in favor of the recommended or proposed actions and requested presentations from any members of the audience who were in opposition to the proposal. Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Page 6 Elizabeth Nadon, a resident of Treviso, stated that she did not have an issue with the children walking through the Estates but wanted to clarify that this was not an entitlement issue but a design issue; stated her understanding when she bought her home in Treviso that there would be bollards to prevent traffic from going up and down and that was not aesthetically displeasing; pointed out the idea of a fence across a fire access road seemed obtrusive; and, suggested putting the fence at the top of the slope. Steve Austin, a future Treviso resident, addressed the safety issue and suggested that when the construction is finished, it will no longer be an issue; noted his daughter's best friend lives in the Estates and asking someone to drive her or have her to walk around to the front entrance seems unreasonable; stated his understanding of the privacy issue; requested a pedestrian access gate as in other communities; stated the characterization of Treviso residents as thieves and vandals is offensive; and, pointed out that putting up a fence in the proposed location seems unfriendly. Clare Kogler, a resident of Treviso, stated her children are grown so getting them back and forth to middle school is not an issue; the issue is the location and safety regarding the fence in its proposed location, offered the suggestion that a heavy rain could cause debris to clog the V-ditch, which is behind her property, and could result in possible flooding, erosion, and mudslides which would cause serious damage to homes below the fence and V-ditches; stated she will hold the City of Tustin responsible for any such damage; stated her understanding that the Estates probably has the right to erect a fence; and, requested that at least the location be changed. Lou Sansevero, a resident of Treviso, stated his concern is with drainage ditches alongside his property; remarked that he did not buy in Treviso because it is a gated community; and, stated he prefers open access. Jack Mitchell, a resident of Treviso, requested that the Commission uphold the underlying condition of unlocked pedestrian gates. John Oetken, a resident of San Miguel, stated that when he bought his home it was his understanding that an unlocked pedestrian gate would be allowed and voiced his concern that traffic is only going to get worse when the elementary school opens. Lou Marlin then requested a chance to respond. Chairman Kozak asked Mr. Madin to come to the podium and explained to him that this was not a Public Hearing and that the points in support of the proposal had been made. Chairman Kozak asked if there were more speakers. Lauren Austin, a student at Pioneer Middle School, stated that she will be moving into the Treviso homes soon; that all she wants to do is walk to and from school through the Estates; and that she does not understand why that is such a bad thing because no one she knows has done anything destructive. Cynthia Hanna, a Tustin resident and a marathon runner, stated that she has lived all her life in Tustin, attended Tustin schools, and believed that erecting a barrier keeping out runners and school children is anti-community and has no place in Tustin. Chairman Kozak asked for comments from counsel. Doug Holland, Deputy City Attorney, stated that this process was designed to receive testimony and evidence from various individuals of the community in regard to the strengths, merits, or problems with this proposal and recommended that the Commission stay its course, receive testimony, and make a decision accordingly, confirming that it was not intended to be a debate or a closing argument within a judicial proceeding, but a proceeding whereby the Planning Commission had the opportunity to elicit input in regard to the issues. Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Page 7 Chairman Kozak brought the matter back to the dais for discussion regarding the entry fencing. Commissioner Pontious stated her support of the open access. Chairman Kozak asked staff for clarification regarding Condition 2.1 which indicates that there will be a prohibition on installing locks on the gates but stated support for the design with the conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Jennings stated as long as the pedestrian gates are not locked she supports the Design Review. Commissioner Bell stated no objections to the proposal with the modifications presented by staff. Chairman Kozak asked staff if the items should be considered separately in terms of making a motion. The Director replied that the decision could be made later, depending on the Commission's consensus at the end of the discussion by the members of the Commission. Chairman Kozak suggested relocating the fence because it is not aesthetically pleasing in its proposed location. Commission Pontious requested that Condition 2.8 be changed to a "natural" color rather than "green" and also expressed support for relocating the fence. Commissioner Jennings stated the design would be a detriment to the community below it and her belief that something more attractive could be proposed; restated her concern about drainage problems; and, affirmed support for an unlocked pedestrian gate. Commissioner Bell stated other locations should be explored and her concern regarding the V-ditch location in regard to the fencing. Chairman Kozak asked staff if a condition could be added to the resolution concerning the location. The Director responded that staff would need the Commission's direction in that regard. Chairman Kozak asked if alternative locations were ever proposed, considered, or discussed. The Director pointed out alternatives on the overhead map and stated the fence suggested along the property line was unacceptable because it gave the appearance of a cattle chute. The Director also noted that staff had recommended a fence at the top of the property. That proposal was rejected because it would have resulted in fencing off a rather large portion of the land owned by the Estates. Chairman Kozak asked if relocation would address the drainage issue. The Director answered that storm drains in various locations within the City can fill with debris and clog quickly; therefore, it would be the responsibility of the homeowners' association upslope to insure that those are maintained. Chairman Kozak asked, regarding staff's recommendation with respect to this particular fence, if the pedestrian gate is to remain unlocked. The Director said a Iockable device is indicated on the plans. Commissioner Jennings asked if that meant Iockable on both front and back and asked what kind of locks. Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Page 8 The Director responded that staff is not proposed; locks are identified on the plan. which refers to the front gate only. sure what kind of mechanism would be Hence, provision is made in Condition 2.1 Commissioner Pontious asked the Director for verbiage modifying Condition 2.1 to cover both gates. The Director responded that staff recommends that the Commission consider modifying a finding or adding a finding if the consensus is to do that. Chairman Kozak asked if modifying Condition 2.1 would require an additional finding. The Director answered that staff would recommend the Planning Commission provide support for that decision. Doug Holland interjected that the problem stems from the original condition of approval that did not require secondary access to remain open. This is a fence between two private properties. If the Planning Commission were going to make a finding to provide for access, then an appropriate finding would be required to justify that particular modification in the design, prohibiting any kind of locking on this gate. Chairman Kozak inquired whether or not the East Tustin Specific Plan provides any guidance in this area. The Assistant City Attorney responded negatively. The Director provided a point of clarification: There are several tracts within the East Tustin Specific planning area that are gated and that are required to remain open or have open secondary access points. Some of them have been locked. In some instances the condition was not imposed. Chairman Kozak remarked that the City seems to have a mixed bag of secondary access points, some being locked, some not being locked The Director answered, "That's correct," and added, responding the discussion regarding circulation, that the developer intended to create a rural environment and proposed there be no sidewalks, there be steep slopes to create a rural environment. There were speed mitigation devices, various signing at multiple locations, rolled curbs versus traditional curb and gutter, and limited fencing in some areas. This was intended to create a pedestrian-friendly or more rural atmosphere; this is perhaps the reason fencing was not included surrounding the Estates. Chairman Kozak expressed an understanding of the need to address the issue of secondary access as well as the policy issue to develop some consistency. Commissioner Pontious asked if it would it be possible for the Commission to require open access contingent upon an overall review of the entire area. The Director replied that the issue should be addressed on a broader level if the restrictions are going to be removed on any of them because these were conditions of the various entitlements. If secondary access is to be proposed, the Commission should identify it as site specific, provide staff with some direction, and allow staff a brief break to prepare the language. Chairman Kozak announced a 10-minute recess. Chairman Kozak called the meeting back to order and returned to the two issues being discussed before the recess, drainage location and access for the pedestrian gate, and asked the Director for a report. The Director responded with a draft finding for the Commission's consideration: Finding Q: "The Planning Commission finds that the requirement for the installation of bollards at the base of Lot F as shown on the private street improvement plans for Tract 14396 is the functional equivalent of requiring Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Page 9 open access at a secondary access location and that open access at Lot F should be preserved and maintained. Installation of locking devices to limit pedestrian access would require comprehensive analysis of the pedestrian circulation of the areas affected by this change and amendment to the conditions of approval of Resolution 3539 for Tract Map 14396 or the East Tustin Specific Plan would be required." The Director suggested modification of Condition 2.1 to read: "Open pedestrian access at the main entrance from Pioneer Way and across Lot F and S shall be provided at all times"; and, addressing the issue of relocation of the fence and conditioning such a modification, the Director expressed concern regarding the Commission's conditioning something perhaps not anticipated. The Director stressed that the Commission should use caution in modifying a condition, which should be approved at the staff level, due to the related public concerns. Chairman Kozak stated his understanding of that caution and asked that staff address the issue of the nexus between the fence location and the drainage. The Director stated that staff would have to see a design before responding with surety. Chairman Kozak questioned whether staff would want to take a look at the actual engineering drawings in terms of making that determination. The Director answered in the affirmative. Chairman Kozak asked if the Commission had any other questions. Commissioner Pontious suggested that Condition 2.5 perhaps covers the drainage issue. The Director replied affirmatively. Chairman Kozak asked the Director to summarize the additions to the actions being considered in order to entertain a motion. The Director summarized as follows: 1) the revision to the findings would be the addition of Item Q as provided earlier; 2) a finding to support your modification to Condition 2.1 which would include that pedestrian access remain open across Lots F and S; Condition 2.4 be modified at the end to read "landscaping and fencing"; 3) adding Condition 2.7 that would require additional landscaping to the greatest extent feasible after the developer and the City and IRWD work together on that issue; and (4 Condition 2.8 require that the wrought iron fence across Lots F and S be relocated and painted a natural color to complement the landscaped areas. The Director emphasized that if the Planning Commission is desirous of modifying that condition further regarding relocation, it can be brought back at a staff level. Chairman Kozak then asked that the Commission consider a motion for the adoption of Resolution No. 3746 and Administrative Adjustment 00-001 as just summarized. Commissioner Pontious moved, Commissioner Bell seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3746 and Administrative Adjustment 00-001 with the following revisions: Add Item Q to the findings as follows: "The Planning Commission finds that the requirement for the installation of bollards at the base of Lot F as shown on the private street improvement plans for Tract 14396 is the functional equivalent of requiring open access at a secondary access location and that open access at Lot F should be preserved and maintained. Installation of locking devices to limit pedestrian access would require comprehensive analysis of pedestrian circulation of the areas affected by this change and an amendment to the conditions of approval of Resolution 3539 for Tract Map 14396 or the East Tustin Specific Plan would be required." Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Page 10 Condition 2.1 shall read as follows: "Open pedestrian access at the main entrance from Pioneer Way and across Lots F and S shall be provided at all times. No locking devices may be installed on pedestrian gates." Add to last sentence of Condition 2.4: "... landscaping and fencing." Add Condition 2.7 to read as follows: "To insure that the proposed fence along Lots S and F is compatible with the surrounding area, the applicant shall coordinate with the Community Development Department and IRWD to remove pavement and install landscaping, to the greatest extent feasible, in the areas that are not required for IRWD access. Said plans shall be provided to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit." Add Condition 2.8 to read as follows: "The wrought iron fence across Lots F and S shall be relocated and painted a natural color to complement landscaping subject to final approval by the Community Development Department." Commissioner Pontious moved, Commissioner Bell seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3746. Motion carried 4-0. The Director noted that the appeal period ends at 5:30 p.m., October 2, 2000. STAFF CONCERNS: 6. Report on Actions taken at the September 18, 2000 City Council Meeting Presentation: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development Interviews for the positions for the Planning Commission and the Cultural Resources Advisory Committee are scheduled for October 2, 2000, at 5:30 p.m. The Parks and Recreation Commission made a recommendation on Cedar Grove parking for Alternative 4. Commissioner Jennings inquired whether this was the alternative approved by City Council. The Director indicated in the affirmative. Reminded the Commissioners of the October 12, 2000, Planning Officials Forum and indicated she will be a speaker at the session entitled: "What Have You Gotten Yourself Into? What Planning Commissioners Need to Know." COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Jennings None Commissioner Bell Noted that what she thought was going to be a pilaster at Pioneer and Patriot has been turned into an avocado stand and asked what is going on. The Director indicated staff will investigate and report back to the Commission. Commissioner Pontious Noted that the daycare center next to the high school on El Camino has two banners and inquired what the allowable signage is in that location. Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Page 11 Staff indicated this matter will be investigated. Chairman Kozak Noted the completion of the widening of Irvine Boulevard at Red Hill which was discussed some time ago. It was good to see a long overdue situation rectified. Commissioner Bell asked what will be happening on the opposite side of the wall. Doug Anderson responded that that is County jurisdiction, and staff is not aware of any plans. Shared an article he clipped from the Los Angeles Times, August 30, 2000, relating to urban runoff and installation of fossil filters and large catch basins, as well as information he gathered on infrastructure and economic development bank. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Pontious moved, Commissioner Bell seconded, to adjourn at 9:30 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on October 9, 2000, beginning at 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Elizabeth A. Binsack Planning Commission Secretary ~,~1~_...~ V. Kozak Chairman