Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC MINUTES 11-28-17 (2) MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 28, 2017 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. Given. INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Kozak ROLL CALL: Chair Smith Commissioners Kozak, Lumbard, Mason, Thompson PUBLIC CONCERNS: Mr. Miles McBride, resident, asked the Commission about keeping the "pathway open" from Columbus Tustin which allows people to walk from Columbus Square to Heritage Elementary School and if it would remain open during Veteran's Sports Park construction. Smith Smith informed Mr. McBride that staff would find out from the Public Works Department and email him a response. CONSENT CALENDAR: Smith Smith stated he would be abstaining from voting on Item #1 since he was not present at the previous meeting. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— NOVEMBER 14, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approves the Minutes of the _ November 14, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Kozak, to approve the Minutes of the November 14, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 3- 0-2. Mason and Smith abstained from the vote due to their absence from the previous meeting. Thompson Thompson requested Item #2 be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Smith proposed Item #2 be discussed later in the meeting in order to move forward with the Public Hearing items first. Minutes—Planning Commission November 28, 2017—Page 1 of 15 PUBLIC HEARING: Adopted 3. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Resolution No. (DA) 2017-001, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM) 18125, DESIGN 4355 and REVIEW (DR) 2017-012 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 218 Resolution No. RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD 4356, as G, TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN amended. APPLICANT: CalAtlantic Inc. Attn: Crystal Burckle 15360 Barranca Parkway Irvine, CA 92618 PROPERTY City of Tustin OWNER: 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: Lot 19 of Tract 17404; generally bounded by future Moffett Drive to the north, Park Avenue to the east, Victory Road to the south, and Tustin Ranch Road to the west within Planning Area 15 of Neighborhood G, Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. REQUEST: 1. General Plan Conformity to determine that the location, purpose, and extent of the proposed disposition of an approximate 20- acre site (Tract 17404 — Lot 19) within Neighborhood G of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan for the development of 218 residential condominium units is in conformance with the approved General Plan to determine that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, pursuant to Section 65402(a) of the Government Code. 2. DA 2017-001 to facilitate the development and conveyance of an approximate 20-acre site within the boundaries of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. 3. TTM 18125 to subdivide an approximate 20-acre site into eight (8) numbered lots and two (2) lettered lots for the development of 218 residential condominium units, a community facility, and other neighborhood amenities. 4. DR 2017-012 for the design and site layout of 218 residential condominium units, a community facility, and other neighborhood amenities. Minutes—Planning Commission November 28, 2017—Page 2 of 15 RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4355, determining that the location, purpose, and extent of the proposed disposition of an approximately 20 acre site within Neighborhood G of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan for the development of 218 residential units is in conformance with the approved General Plan. 2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4356, recommending that the City Council approve: a. DA 2017-001 to facilitate the development and conveyance of an approximate 20-acre site within the boundaries of Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. b. TTM '18125 to subdivide an approximately 20-acre site into eight (8) numbered lots and two (2) lettered lots for the development of 218 residential condominium units, a community facility, and other neighborhood amenities. C. DR 2017-012 for the design and site layout of 218 residential condominium units, a community facility, and other neighborhood amenities. Huffer Presentation given. Huffer described in the presentation that direct mailing was completed based on the available County Assessor records. Craig Jerry Craig, Deputy Director of Economic Development, provided background information on the project and the partnership between the Economic Development Department and Michael Battaglia, Levity Project Manager. He mentioned the recent 2017 Red Tape-to Red Carpet Award, the Orange County Business Council recognized the City of Tustin with a First Place award for "Real Estate, Redevelopment, and Reuse for the Flight at Tustin Legacy project in order to point out that both the Flight and Levity projects will be connected via Legacy Park. Craig also mentioned that CalAtlantic will be introducing new homes at price points not currently being offered in the Tustin market. The applicant, Crystal Burckle shared a short video of the project with the Commission, along with video books. Thompson Thompson's questions/concerns generally included: addressing public's concerns regarding parking (current standards), massing of the units (height of the structures) related to the Greenwood Community across the street; density of the development; and orientation of the pedestrian bridge. Minutes—Planning Commission November 28, 2017—Page 3 of 15 Hutter In terms of massing, Huffer replied that the Icon community (single-family detached homes along Park Avenue) are designed with step-backs so the entire buildings are not all three-stories, and there is variation in the elevations. The Greenwood homes are two-story structures. Some orientations of the Greenwood "roofs" along Park Avenue have "gable ends" which bring the peak of the roofs closer to public view and some are oriented where the slope is facing the.street. Hutter also mentioned that the area is within the density ranges of the Specific Plan. She also mentioned that the parking requirements have been met and that the project exceeds parking standards. With regards to Thompson's comment on the density, the proposal is within the Tustin Legacy range of density so these proposed products do fall under the maximum that has been anticipated. Hutter referred to the Overall Site Plan in her presentation showing the Commission the orientation of the pedestrian bridge (potentially Moffett Drive to have one of the "legs" of the pedestrian bridge). City staff is still reviewing the layout therefore there is no definitive information on a pedestrian bridge design. Kozak Kozak asked for clarification regarding the modification to Condition 4.1 of Resolution No. 4356. Hutter In response to Kozak's question, Hutter explained that the modification to Condition 4.1 is to reference the enhanced elevations that were proposed within the submittal packet. Smith Smith asked further if the depictions of the proposed elevations would be slightly modified based upon the modification to Condition 4.1 Huffer Huffer stated that the proposed elevations are consistent with what staff is expecting at plan check and Condition 4.1 is to reinforce that the elevations are provided at plan check. Mason Mason asked if it was ever specified on the Master Plan that there would only be single-family homes on the twenty (20) acre parcel. She referred to a past meeting where the Commission voted on the density regulations coming out of Sacramento and if this meets the requirements. Mason also asked if the project falls into affordable housing. She asked about the Y2 acre set aside for public use and the community and if it is designated as part of the plan and how much space is determined for the developer. Willkom Willkom stated that the adopted Specific Plan Amendment at the Tustin Legacy identified Planning Area (PA) 15 as a mixed-transit district which provides opportunity for a variety of housing types. The adopted Specific Plan does not identify a single housing type. What is being included in the Specific Plan document is the housing capacity for each of the planning areas and this proposed project is within the housing capacity for the total units within Planning Area 15. Also discussed, that there is not a density Minutes—Planning Commission November 28, 2017—Page 4 of 15 bonus for the project. She noted that the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan has an overall acreage of open space. In response to Mason's question regarding "density bonus" which is required by the State. That provision would be applicable if the project provided affordable housing, which means the applicant would be able to provide additional density above and beyond the capacity for Planning Area 15. Per Willkom, this project is not required to provide affordable housing. For each development, each developer could propose something unique for the development; however, the City's Specific Plan requires a certain number of acres of the Tustin Legacy to be set aside for open space. Staff does monitor the open space (acreages) for the entire Tustin Legacy. Binsack Binsack followed up on the Mason's density bonus question. She noted that if the developer were providing affordability on-site, the applicant could request an additional thirty (35) percent of the number of units provided on- site, plus they could request concessions. The number one concession typically requested is a reduction of on-site parking because it does cost a fair amount to build parking. The second concession often requested is a reduction in park-land (the provision of on-site park-land). Lumbard Lumbard's question slcomments generally included: noticing and the approach staff took in obtaining addresses from the County Assessor's Office; mentioned that some of his Greenwood neighbors were not notified of this project; he asked how County Assessor's records were checked being that they are "behind" on updating records due to new development; he asked if staff had a way of checking who actually lives there and who was noticed; he asked if there would be a change in zoning and if the project requires a change in zoning; Lumbard referred to Mason's previous comment on there being a previous project that was planned for and now the City is deviating from that plan; park space and access to the parks and if there was any consideration of access to the park from the development (i.e. "A" Street and Victory Road) without people jay-walking and he suggested a cross walk might help and make drivers slow down. Lumbard had a question with regards to Thompson's question on "massing" and the importance of varied massing along Park Avenue and the relationship to homes that will be facing the Greenwood homes. Binsack Binsack replied that staff did check addresses but the "gap" between the County Assessor's updates and last sales may not be known. Staff can only rely on what was provided on the latest tax assessor's records and cannot ascertain when an escrow closes. Per Binsack, this gap can sometimes take six (6) to nine (9) months of a lag depending on when an escrow does close. She added that staff was not able to identify the property owner Lumbard referred to, only his address and that the address was still listed under CalAtlantic ownership. Binsack stated that the project does not require a change in zoning and is fully consistent with the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. Minutes—Planning Commission November 28,2017—Page 5 of 15 Huffer In response to Lumbard's comment with regards to the suggested cross walk, there are currently intersections signalized with cross walks at Park Avenue and Victory Road and Victory Road and Tustin Ranch Road. Those signals will be able to service anyone wanting to cross the street. Having a mid-block crosswalk would have to be further explained by the Public Works Department and the effectiveness with such. There is infrastructure currently there to give access to residents and the general public to access Victory Park. Willkom Willkom estimated the Greenwood two-story homes to being twenty-six (26) to thirty (30) feet high. Thompson Clarified that Greenwood homes are approximately thirty (30) feet in height (two-story) and Levity is approximately thirty (36)feet in height. Smith Clarified on the HOA parking requirements for Levity, and if they will dictate/require parking in the garage and not bulky items (i.e. large televisions, lounge chairs). He also asked about the guest parking. Smith referred to Planning Area 15 boundaries and it being inclusive of the project area and the area across the street to Edinger Avenue. Hutter Hutter affirmed the City will be reviewing the draft CC&Rs for the project, which Resolution No. 4356 specifies to use garages for vehicle parking. CalAtlantic will ensure the CC&Rs state that garages shall be used for vehicle parking. The HOA will enforce the guest parking. She added that PA 15 is generally bound by Tustin Ranch Road, Edinger Avenue, Jamboree Boulevard, and Greenwood and St. Anton. Kozak Kozak had follow-up questions: housing cap and the project being within the density limits of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan, and he asked if the proposal has met the park/open space requirements. Willkom Willkom stated that Kozak's statements were both correct. 7:52 p.m. Public Hearing Opened. Tina Diep, Greenwood Community resident, is on neighborhood watch. Her concerns generally included: increase in crime; increased pollution smog, traffic, density, noise, and parking (parking has exceeded regulations); she did not receive notification on the meeting; stated she had an attempted burglary at her house and had to contact the Chief of Police to request additional patrols in the area. She requested a Community Relations Officer from the Tustin Police Department specifically assigned to the Greenwood community to address any issues. She stated it is sad that the open space will be developed on. Ms. Diep did not like that the park is a public park because of increased crime, "outsiders" have brought in guns, and there will be more people using the public park. Outside people have caused accidents in the community. Minutes—Planning Commission November 28,2017—Page 6 of 15 Tony Cantafio's general commentslconcems included: CalAtlantic will make a lot of money off of the project; not enough parking is being provided; asked if there will be driveways; stated Millennial kids will be the only ones buying the homes and they will have kids, where are the kids going to park when they are teenagers; Mr. Cantafio pays $5,000 in melo- roos and wanted to know how much residents at Levity will pay; asked if Levity residents are going to pitch in for streets and schools; and will the residents be allowed to have televisions on the balconies. Austin Hsu, Greenwood resident, is concerned with the widening of Moffett Drive and asked how wide the street will end up being. Michael Battaglia, applicant, provided the following responses, in general: discussed the building heights (36 to 38 feet on the three-story products) and 150 feet distance separation/buffer between Greenwood and Levity; there are landscaped berms on the Greenwood side, street, and other landscape buffers (actual depictions were shown in the video presented in a ten (10) year growing cycle); with regards to the Greenwood park, it states in the CC&R's that it is a public park, and the same public access will be made available at the Levity project. 8:03 p.m. Public Hearing Closed. Mason Mason had no comments. Lumbard Lumbard spoke of the parking issue in Greenwood. He would like the applicant to describe parking at the proposed Levity project area (where parking is available and where residents are supposed to park). Battaglia referred the Commission to the site plan with regards to the parking plan, spaces within the loop, and guest parking. He reiterated that there needs to be strict enforcement by the HOA. Thompson Thompson asked to discuss the architecture. He referred to a tour he went on of Playa Vista in Los Angeles, said this architecture is reminiscent of the proposed project. Thompson referred to the Tustin Legacy being similar to a "farmhouse revival in Greenwood." With regards to the public's concern that the Levity project looks too dense, he asked Mr. Battaglia to explain the architecture further. Battaglia explained that CalAtlantic worked closely with Economic Development staff with the elevations style and it was in conjunction with the Flight and they spent time individualizing each home to be more of a modern style with the architecture. Minutes--Planning Commission November 28, 2017—Page 7 of 15 Kozak Kozak's follow up question with respect to the architecture (i.e. aesthetics, wood) and asked if there is an opportunity for CalAtlantic to work with staff to soften some of the vertical/horizontal angles with some type of aesthetic treatment facing the public right-of-ways at Greenwood park and Moffett park (i.e. color or pop-outs in the perimeter of the project). Mr. Battaglia explained further that CalAtlantic and staff spent a lot of time on the colors, along with the different products being offered. He stated that the colors will pop out more in real life than the video but can go through the process further with staff. Smith Smith referred to the comments on the HOA enforcement with parking and asked if the source of the problem is with Greenwood. As well as how parking enforcement will be addressed differently than with Greenwood. He asked for further comment regarding the correlation between the price point option and the eleven (11) or twelve (12) dwelling units per acre ratio for the Levity project, Per the price point, he asked if it was correlated to just the density. Mr. Battaglia stated that in Levity, enforcement would happen right away which again, will be built in to the CC&Rs and the real estate budget for it immediately. The proposed project has parking requirements and most residents have driveways. Mr. Battaglia stated that CalAtlantic is well aware of the parking issues. He stated.that the average sales price will be low seven-hundred-thousand dollar ($700,000) range, which is a price point much lower than most places at Levity. Further pricing provided as follows: • The units along Tustin Ranch Road will be starting in the low six- hundred-thousand dollar($600,000). • The proposed units (the flats) within the interior of the Levity project will be in the seven-hundred-thousand dollar ($700,000) range. • The family detached units will be in the eight-hundred-thousand dollar ($800,000) range. Ultimately, the price range will be from six-hundred-thousand ($600,000) to nine-hundred-thousand dollars ($900,000). Mr. Battaglia added that the price point is correlated to density. Mason Mason mentioned that the staff report provided a price range of five- hundred-thirty thousand dollars ($530,000) to six-hundred-sixty-four thousand dollars ($664,000) being the "low end". In response to Mason's statement, Mr. Battaglia stated that there is a new market study which is showing the lower end being closer to six-hundred- thousand dollars ($600,000). Minutes—Planning Commission November 28,2017—Page 8 of 15 Thompson Thompson made favorable comments with regards to the presentation, staff, the applicant, and the residents in the audience. He wants the notice issue to be addressed. He urged staff that when the item goes to the next step, which is to the City Council, that notices be hand-delivered to residents, to avoid any issues with the County Assessor's Office. Thompson believes density is in compliance with the Environmental Impact Report. With regards to parking, he likes that the design flows with the area and cohesiveness with the Tustin Legacy. With regards to the architecture, Thompson liked the idea of staff working with the architect to enhance the transition within the surrounding neighborhood. Is in support of the project. He noted the project meets the conditions outlined in the Legacy Specific Plan. Kozak Kozak also believed the project meets the housing needs of our community. Knows that applicant will work with staff on the design. Kozak is also in support of the project. Mason Mason reinforced the notification issue needing to be addressed. She thanked staff for the presentation and to the applicant for the detail information. Mason knows parking will always be an issue but believes staff has taken that into consideration. She also likes the connections (i.e. bridge, pathways) into other communities. Mason suggested that staff look at a Victory Road pathway, along with more greenery in the park area. She is in support of the project Lumbard Lumbard asked for the timing of the Development Agreement, since it was not specified within the staff report. Is in favor of the project and believes it is a good addition to the Legacy area. Lumbard will not let the fact that he lives in Greenwood sway his decision. He is confident that the applicant will pay attention to the elevation on Park Avenue and how it affects Greenwood. Lumbard also asked that the applicant be sensitive to parking and green space. He said it will be good to offer housing that may be more affordable to "Millennials". Willkom Willkom stated that in terms of the Development Agreement is five (5) years but the developer may near completion in less than five (5) years. Binsack Binsack added to Lumbard's comments that typically there is a design review for approval for the Commission's consideration which is twelve (12) months to commence development. There is also a certain amount of the time applicant needs to complete that development. With the proposed Development Agreement, it is a negotiated timeframe which the term is five (5) years. It is an extended timeframe because of the transaction that is before the Commission and the City Council, the public improvements that are required, etc. Staff does not anticipate the term taking that long. Minutes—Planning Commission November 28,2017—Page 9 of 15 Mason Mason informed the Commission that they did not address Mr. Austin Hsu's concern at the beginning of the Public Comments section. Smith To answer Mason's question, Smith asked staff what the future of Moffett Drive is. He was sympathetic to parking and crime issues in Greenwood, said it is a universal challenge (he lives in Tustin Field II), and is glad to hear that these issues will be made a high priority in Levity. Stated the video was very informative, would like to feature the video for the public when the item is taken to City Council. Appreciated the input from his fellow Commissioners, reiterated that if the project meets the standards it should be approved. He also made overall favorable comments towards the project and specifically, the architecture. He was also in support of the project. Huffer To answer Mason and Smith's question on Moffett Drive, Hutter stated that the width of Moffett Drive is essentially will carry through on the north of Levity as what it currently is north of Greenwood which is one-way in each direction. Hutter also added that according to the plans, there is capacity to have two (2) lanes each direction, which is similar to Victory Road. Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Thompson, to adopt Resolution No. 4355 and Resolution No. 4356, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Adopt 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2017-17: FOOTHILL Resolution No. REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER MASTER SIGN PLAN 4354, as amended. PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: Diane Brown Welltower Inc. 4150 Regents Park Row, Suite 350 La Jolla, CA 92037 LOCATION: 14642 through 14662 Newport Avenue REQUEST: A request to establish a master sign plan for Foothill Regional Medical Center. ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15311 (Class 11) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Minutes—Planning Commission November 28,2017—Page 10 of 15 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4354 approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2017-17 to authorize the establishment of a master sign plan for the Foothill Regional Medical Center development. Willkom Presentation given. Mason Mason asked about the orientation of the illuminated signs facing the homes on the backside of Foothill Regional, and if they would create an issue for the residential area. Willkom Willkom referred to the zoning district map within the Power Point presentation in order to explain the orientation of the illuminated signs. The three (3) signs will be facing Newport Avenue (to the west), north and south. Lumbard Lumbard had no questions. Thompson Thompson had no questions. Kozak Kozak had no questions. Smith Smith had no questions. 8:40 p.m. Public Comments opened and closed. No public comments. Thompson Thompson had no concerns and was in support of the item. Favorable comments for staff and the applicant. Kozak Kozak was in support of the item and he made favorable comments. He had no issues with the item. Mason Mason also made favorable comments and was in support of the item. Lumbard Lumbard was in favor of the item and he also made favorable comments on the item. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4354, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Minutes—Planning Commission November 28,2017—Page 11 of 15 Staff to return 2. CONTINUED ITEM — TEMPORARY SIGNS WITHIN THE PUBLIC to the RIGHT-OF-WAY Commission with a draft sign ordinance. On August 8, 2017, the Planning Commission held a second workshop on the topic of temporary signs within the public right-of-way and discussed three (3) code amendment options addressing the regulation of temporary signs in the public right-of-way in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, AZ. The Commission received public input and directed staff to return with a modified option for Commission consideration prior to public notification and the publication of public hearing notices. This item was continued from the September 26, 2017, and November 14, 2017, Planning Commission meetings. RECOMMENDATION: If the proposed standards contained within Table 1 are acceptable to the Planning Commission, staff will prepare an ordinance and conduct required public noticing and targeted noticing to impacted properties prior to the Planning Commission public hearing. Thompson Thompson's questions to staff generally included: sign removal process; does a member of the public have the authority to remove the signs or is the City the only authority to remove the signs when in the public right-of- way; when there is a mass media of signs (i.e. special event, political event) who pays to have them removed; time limit for signs; complete restriction should be researched; and would like additional context on what other OC Cities are restricting signs completely. Smith Smith referred to the real estate industry and the concern about an outright ban. Some cities have banned signs and other cities allow signs but do not enforce the rules. Mason Mason asked staff about a possible option regarding no signage in the city. She voiced her concern with signs becoming a burden on the city (i.e. landscape, sign blight). Another possible option could be not having a sign ordinance. Lumbard Lumbard described enforcement being an issue and stated the city would have signs up regardless of what the rules say. The reason the Commission is continuing the discussion on signs is to hopefully allow staff to have the tools they need to clean up problems but to also allow the positive groups to have an opportunity to use signs within the rules. Binsack Binsack stated staff could draft the ordinance based on the feedback from the Commission. Some elements may be difficult to quantify. It will remain to be seen. Minutes—Planning Commission November 28,2017—Page 12 of 15 Smith There have been discussions of "zones" where signs would be allowed and to minimize the areas where there is sign blight. Smith did not feel this topic was covered at this point. He also asked staff if the City could assign certain intersections where signs would be allowed, and enforce everywhere else or if that was not an option. Reekstin In response to Smith's comment, Reekstin referred the Commission to the map included in the staff report which highlighted the major intersections that would attract signage. He further explained that there are zones but there would be many zones throughout the city and that the zones would have to be within 300 feet from an intersection. Kendig To answer Smith's question, it would be an allowable restriction to assign certain intersections where signs would be allowed and enforce everywhere else. Mason Mason asked if the Commission wanted staff to return to the Commission with additional options as follows: what other cities are doing as far as enforcement; and designated intersections within the city. After hearing further discussion from his fellow Commissioners, Smith interpreted the following, in general: to adopt the recommendation which staff had made on the temporary sign ordinance; staff to return to the Commission with an ordinance reflective of the ideas which were outlined in the staff report; and if staff could also include comments of the cities that have chosen to ban signs and their enforcement policies to assist the Commission in their decision. Binsack In response to Smith's interpretation, Binsack informed the Commission that a draft ordinance will be prepared but that it would be difficult to provide definitive answers on the effectiveness of removal and it will depend on how taxing of an issue it becomes. Ultimately, once the ordinance is adopted, it will remain to be seen. Kozak Kozak agreed with the comments previously stated. Lumbard Lumbard added that the need for this ordinance is to make the City's sign ordinance constitutional. Motion: It was moved by Smith, seconded by Mason to have staff return to the Commission with a draft sign ordinance. Motion carried 5-0. None. REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Binsack had no staff concerns. Minutes—Planning Commission November 28, 2017--Page 13 of 15 COMMISSION CONCERNS: Thompson Thompson congrats to his son Luke Thompson who finished up his football season at OCC. He attended the following events: • November 16th - Mayor's Thanksgiving Breakfast • November 19th — Fundraiser in the annual competition between USC and UCLA • November 21St—Veterans Sports Park Groundbreaking • November 28th -Annual Good Scout Award by the Boy Scouts Mason Mason missed the last meeting and wanted staff to express her gratefulness to her fellow Commissioners and staff. She attended the following events: • October 8th— rode in the Tiller Days Parade • October 21"- Old Town Art Walk • November 4th - Mr. Tustin contest Congratulations to Mr. Mason on completing the C.E.R.T. training! Lumbard Lumbard supported the world wide effort to raise funds to support research to cancers that are related to men ("Movember"). He attended the following events: • November 16th—Mayor's Thanksgiving Breakfast • November 21St—Veteran's Sports Park Groundbreaking Kozak Kozak thanked staff for their hard work and is glad the projects brought to the Commission moved forward. He attended the following events: • November 16th - Mayor's Thanksgiving Breakfast • November 21St-Veterans Sports Park Groundbreaking Kozak's son, Rusty, passed the bar exam! Congratulations! Smith Smith appreciates staff and his fellow Commissioners and loves working with Tustin. 9:02 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, December 12, 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Minutes—Planning Commission November 28,2017—Page 14 of 15 RYbER TODD SMITH kairp r o n Ms.ry w_� ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary MinUtes -Planning Commission November 28, 2017 -Page 15 of 15