Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1989-06-07 . e . e- J e , . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING JUNE 7, 1989 The regularly scheduled meet1ng of the Plann1ng COmIn1SS10n was called to order 1n C1 ty Counc1l Chambers by Cha1rman Sharp at 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Alleg1ance was led by Mr. Rullo. ROLL C~T.T. Present: Rullo, F1fe, Suggs, Sharp Absent: Jessner Note: Mr. Jessner's absence was due to a business tr1p. Staff Present: Sandra Massa-Lavitt, Interim Director, Development Serv1ces Department. Barry Curt1s, Adm1n. A1de, Development Serv1ces Dept. Also Present: Ed Kn1ght, Former D1rector, Development Serv1ces Dept. QU1nn Barrow, City Attorney Art Homr1ghausen, LSA Consultants Ray Moe, LSA Consultants Ellen M11lle, Michael Brandman Assoc1ates Curt1s All1ng, M1chael Brandman Assoc1ates CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF MAY 17, 1989 2. PLAN REVIEW 13-89/1305 SANDPIPER DRIVE MOTION by Rullo to approve Item 1 and Item 2 as presented on the Consent Calendar; SECOND Suggs. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 AYES: Rullo, Fife, Suggs, Sharp ABSENT: Jessner , Page 2 - Plann1ng Comrn1ss1on M1nutes of June 7, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 4-89 1120 CENTRAL AVENUE Staff Report Barry Curt1s del1vered the staff report on CUP 4-89. Th1S 1S a request by appl1cant, Bruce Stark, to add approx1mately 1470 square feet to a legal non-conform1ng duplex, 1n con)Unct1on w1th the establ1shment of six (6) covered park1ng spaces. Comm1ss1on Comments Mr. F1fe asked staff how does the lim1tat1on for the expans10n of greater than 10% of the floor area apply when going up to a th1rd story? Staff repl1ed the QQgg prov1des for add1tions in excess of 10% and mod1f1cat1ons 1n excess of 50% of the interior bear1ng walls to be allowed. Th1S 1S 1n the 75% coverage zone the appl1cant could have coverage of 2062 square feet. Staff said the QQgg prov1des for propert1es 1n the RHO or RMO zones hav1ng a w1dth greater than 37.5 feet to have a th1rd floor on the rear half of the property. , Publ1C Hearlng Bruce Stark * Old Town. Seal Beach Mr. Stark said the staff report m1ssed a substant1al curb cut eX1sting on Central Ave. that would be removed. Th1S would provlde an add1tional two curb parking spaces. The net ga1n will be SlX (6) enclosed parklng places; the two (2) existlng outside places w1II be removed. No one 1n the aud1ence came forward to speak 1n favor or against th1S CUP. MOTION by Suggs to approve Condl.tl.onal Use Perml.t 4-89 by the adoptl.on of Resolution No. 1547; SECOND by Rullo. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 AYES: Rullo, Fl.fe, Suggs, Sharp ABSENT: Jessner . , Page 3 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on Mlnutes of June 7, 1989 SCHEDULED MATTERS HELLMAN SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW OF PLANS B.2, C.1 staff Report Sandra Massa-Lav1tt presented the staff report, stat1ng the Plann1ng Comm1SS1on approved Mola Development's or1g1nal proposal 1n 1987. S1nce that t1me the C1ty Counc11 has cons1dered several alternate proposals for the site (they are the orig1nal proposal plus alternat1ves A, B, B.1, B.2, C, C.1 --- a total of 7). At th1S t1me the C1ty Counc11 wants the Plann1ng Commission to reV1ew the Mola alternat1ve, known as the B.2 plan, and the C1 ty' s proposed al ternati ve, known as the C.1 plan. The staff report conta1ned background informat1on, proposed act10ns to/for the Planning Commiss1on, staff recommendat1ons and d1scussion of the alternatives B.2 and C.1. . Comm1ss1on Comments Gum Grove Park Acreage Staff sa1d Gum Grove Park acreage under B. 2 1 t would be 10.4 acres and under C.1 1t would be 9.8 acres. Funds to Develop Parks. Golf Course. Baseball Diamonds Mr. Rullo asked staff about ava11able fund1ng for Gum Grove Park, the commun1ty park area, the baseball d1amonds, the golf course. Ms. Massa-Lavitt sa1d, under B.2, the property (Gum Grove Park, the commun1 ty park area and the baseball d1amonds) would be dedicated to the C1ty for development as a park. It's unclear at th1S p01nt whether th1S property w1l1 be developed or not. Ms. Massa-Lav1tt said, under C.1, the property for the golf course w1l1 be ded1cated to the C1ty and the C1ty w111 ma1ntain the property thereafter. Mr. Kn1ght said, regard1ng B.2, the lands for the commun1ty park and the tenn1s courts w111 be dedicated to the City but there is no funding at th1s t1me from the developer to 1mprove the vacant land. The land, therefore, w111 remain vacant and undeveloped ln the Clty'S hands untl1 the City can come up wlth fund1ng sources --- such as Redevelopment tax 1ncrement, or an assessment d1str1ct. . , Page 4 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of June 7, 1989 Addltlonal Plannlng CommlSSlon Meetlng Scheduled Chalrman Sharp announced that (because Mr. Jessner was unexpectedly called out of town on buslness and he represents the Hlll area) this meetlng wlll be carrled over to June 14, 1989. No vote wlll be taken tonlght. Public Hearlng Klrk Evans * Mola Development Corporatlon Mr. Evans sald the C. 1 plan lS a Cl ty plan and has not been endorsed nor put forth by Mola Development. Mola cannot address what lS on the C.1 plan except to note that Mola dld adVlse the Clty Councll lt lS not Mola's lntentlon to bUlld a golf course wlth 273 slngle family homes. . Mr. Evans addressed the B.2 plan as a plan Mola presented to the Clty Councll and one that was dlrected to the Plannlng CommlSSlon for reVlew. Accordlng to Mr. Evans, In January 1989 lt became lncreaslngly apparent the Cl ty Councll needed al ternatl ves (to the orlglnal plan) because the communlty was vOlclng concerns re the orlglnal plan. Addltionally, the Federal and State agencles expressed concerns over wetlands restoratlon. At the dlrectlon of the Clty Councll, Mola put together alternatlve slte plans and prepared a new Supplemental EIR WhlCh addresslng these. The communlty relayed ltS needs to Mola --- don't get lnto Gum Grove Park. The meadow area of Gum Grove Park was extremely lmportant --- don't touch It. Mola's plan now leaves the fence Ilne exactly where lt lS. Communlty parks were deslred. The General ~ has a 12 - 17 acre deslgnatlon for a communlty park. Mola attempted to flgure a way to accommodate recreatlon needs of the communl ty through 15 acres of a community park, tennls courts, tot lots, )ogglng paths, basketball courts. What the CommlSSlon sees tonlght lS a "conceptual plan" showing what the Clty could have. Gum Grove Park lS 10.4 acres and Mola has made a commltment to the Clty to restore lt for $150,000. ThlS would invol ve cleanlng out the dead and dlseased trees, lrrlgatlon, replantlng tree-for-tree. The fence Ilne would stay exactly where lt lS wlth the exceptlon of an openlng at the bottom of Gum Grove so you could tle In wlth the other recreatlonal amenltles. Presently Mola's plan lS to grade the slte and dedicate lt to the Clty. The Clty could do whatever lt llkes on that park land. Mola has removed the homes behlnd the anlmal shelter and the 011 wells. *** . . Page 5 - Plann1ng Comm1ss1on M1nutes of June 7, 1989 Comm1ssion Ouest1ons to Mr. Evans Separat10n Between Homes Mr. Sharp asked how close to Pac1f1c Coast H1ghway were certa1n homes? Mr. Evans sa1d about 100 feet. There w111 be f1fty to SlXty feet (50' 60') separat10n between the eX1sting homes along Crestview and the new Mola homes. This cons1sts of a th1rty foot (30') landscape buffer between the homes plus a yard of twenty-f1ve to thirty foot (25' - 30'). OU1mby Fees Mr. Sharp asked Mr. Evans about ded1cat1ng the land ... 1n the or1g1nal plan, after Gum Grove Park was restored, there was $1 million that would have come to the C1ty from the QU1mby Act. Under the B.2 plan, w1th Mola ded1cat1ng the land to the C1ty, have any f1gures been generated? . Mr. Evans sa1d the C1 ty' s ord1nance requ1res f 1 ve ( 5 ) acres of land for every 1000 populat1on. The C1ty'S General Plan would mandate six (6) acres of land be1ng ded1cated to the C1ty 1n a rough graded sltuat10n w1th no fees pa1d. Mola 1S propos1ng to glve the C1ty f1fteen (15) acres of rough graded property and restorat1on of Gum Grove Park. There w111 be no QU1mby fees unless the Plann1ng Comm1SS1on and C1ty Counc11 d1rect there be QU1mby fees. The C1ty Attorney has told the C1ty 1t must be a reasonable request. Mr. Kn1ght said the C1 ty' s QU1mby park ord1nance requ1res f 1 ve (5) acres of land for everyone thousand (1000) persons. For 373 homes the breakdown would be approx1mately 5 6 acres of ded1cat1on of land or payment of fees. You'd go thru the appra1sal process --- that's what the C1ty d1d (the other t1me) to come up w1th the $1,000,000 f1gure. Mola 1S proposing to ded1cate land to the C1 ty, which 1S well 1n excess of the 6 acres. No fees would be apparent since the C1 ty 1S rece1 v1ng land. In 1987, the C1ty Attorney, Greg Stepan1c1ch, prepared a memo to the City Counc11 stat1ng that through a Specif1c Plan process the Comm1ss1on could make recommendat1ons and the C1ty Counc11 could adopt cond1t1ons Wh1Ch exceed City standards under a zon1ng code or, 1n th1s case, a SUbd1v1s1on code. There would have to be some sort of connect1on between those excess ded1cations and the need that they would serve. The memo was adamant that that nexus would be very d1ff1cult to make for th1s proJect due to the open space (golf course and restorat1on of Gum Grove Park). . QU1nn Barrow, C1ty Attorney, summed up the City's pos1t1on. Under B.2, the land ded1cation would sat1sfy the ord1nance. It would be d1ff1cult to establ1sh a nexus for anything over that. , Page 6 - Plann~ng Comm~ss~on M~nutes of June 7, 1989 K~rk Evans clar~f~ed (because of the many plans we've rev~ewed) that at the t~me the c~ty arrived at the $1 m~ll~on plus f~gure that Mola was go~ng to be own~ng the golf course and Gum Grove Park and Mola was go~ng to be gett~ng a cred~t for the pr~vate l.mprovements that Mola had on-s~ te for recreat~on and a credit for a certal.n amount of money Mola would be spend~ng ~n the Gum Grove Park and the golf course. There was a fee at that time because the city was not ~nterested ~n tak~ng any land. Fundl.ng Sources Mr. Rullo asked how many years that land would sit there, graded, before anyth~ng ~s done to ~t? Mr. Sharp sa~d ~t doesn't appear there is money ~n the c~ty's budget to make the ~mprovements. . Mr. Knight sa~d funds would be ava~lable to develop the park through tax l.ncrement generated through the Redevelopment Agency. The decl.sl.on to dedicate funds to park development would have to be made by the Redevelopment Agency through thel.r normal budget~ng process. There is no ded~cat~on at th~s time for those funds. Addl.tl.onally, those Redevelopment funds cannot be used to mainta~n thl.s park. Approximately 20 acres of park land w~ll need a crew of several persons to ma~nta~n and operate l.t. Under the Revised Final Supplemental EIR, Stanley Hoffman (MBA consultant) prepared a fiscal analysl.s for both B.2 and C.1. The negatl.ve generated on the proJect cont~nues to ~ncrease because more publ~c park land ~s com~ng under City control. Wh~le that's a benefl.t to the City ~t's also a cost. Kl.rk Evans sal.d he felt it was ~mportant for the Record to reflect how much money ~s bel.ng generated to the Redevelopment Agency by the B.2 plan. The B.2 proJect is gOl.ng to generate approximately $675,000 per year. Presently the law does not allow a Cl.ty to use Redevelopment funds to ma~ntal.n publ~c ~mprovements. Mr. Fl.fe asked Mr. Evans what the fl.gures are for the cost of developl.ng the communl.ty park. B.2 would cost $800,000 to $1.2 ml.lll.on. Mola has comml. tted to do the $150,000 restoration of Gum Grove Park. Assuml.ng the Cl.ty got all $675,000 of the tax l.ncrement fund~ng, ~t would take ... 2 years of fundl.ng to bu~ld the park. The Cl. ty w~ll not get the $675, 000 ~mmed~ately but wl.ll get some tax mon~es. Mr. Sharp sa~d Redevelopment mon~es can be used to bu~ld but not maintal.n the park. Mr. Evans sa~d the c~ty could use tax increment f~nanc~ng to bUl.ld the park today. He suggested the Cl.ty could float a $5 - 6 ml.lll.on bond and generate enough money to bu~ld the community park. Mola ~s not asking for any Cl.ty subsl.dy whatever on B.2. All those tax l.ncrement monl.es would be ava~lable for Cl.ty use. . Mr. Sharp asked Mr. Evans what k~nd of a subsl.dy is needed for C.1? Mr. Evans sa~d numbers he rece~ved from the Cl.ty Manager's offl.ce (that Mr. Grgas was uSl.ng) say that the Cl.ty is gOl.ng to , Page 7 - Plannlng Comrnlsslon Mlnutes of June 7, 1989 buy the golf course for $1 mllllon and that Mola would spend $2.5 mllllon to bUlld 1 t Wl th the posslbili ty of uSlng Mello-Roos f lnancing . Mr. Evans sald Mola would need most of the tax lncrement flnanclng to develop the C.1 plan. Mola's studles show the golf course havlng a loss durlng the flrst 3 years of operatlon. If the Clty can't malntaln a comrnunlty park can they malntaln a publlC golf course? . Mr. Sharp sald the flgures he's heard have been $10 - $15 mllllon the Clty is gOlng to have to underwrlte it ln some form. Mr. Evans sald the confuslon arlses because there was a Plan C and under thlS plan there was an 18-hole golf course, restoration of 25 acres on-site, condomlnlums etc. That plan was not do- able from the Federal government's standpolnt. At the tlme the C plan was revlewed, Mola dld the studles and uSlng Mouchley' s numbers Mola came up wlth up to $14 mllllon dependlng on who owned the golf course. At the last Councll meetlng, when Mr. Grgas asked Tom Jerowsky to present the flnanclal plcture lt was mentloned that when he first did the C.1 plan there was a $4 mllllon dollar shortfall in the proJect. When he allowed for $10 mllllon flnanclng from Mello-Roos and lncreased the lot premlums of the zero lot line houses along the golf course to $120 per lot suddenly the proJect would make sense. Mello-Roos lS a flnanclng mechanism not a subsidy. It allows the developer to save money on hlS lnterest expense. Normally the sale prlce wlll go down a like amount to offset the homeowner's added costs. That wasn't done. , You Cannot BUlld On Wetlands Regardlng the orlglnal plan, Mr. Rullo asked Mr. Evans lf any agency has told Mola "you absolutely cannot build thlS plan"? Mr. Evans sald there has been no formal appllcatlon, but every single agency has told Mola "no". The Coastal Act and the Federal and State governmental pollcles make lt very clear that you do not bUlld on wetlands. There are 25 acres of degraded wetlands on Sl te. In the orlglnal plan there were 20 acres. Mola has many memos from F1Sh & Game etc. saYlng "if you glve us 20- acres of wetlands on-slte everythlng wlll be flne". The law says ''If you don't have value-for-value, acre-for-acre on slte they cannot legally approve your project". The EPA lS a vetolng authorlty. They have made lt clear that they wlll veto lf the Corps of Englneers trles to glve Mola a permlt to dlg up those wetlands to bUlld a house or golf course. Flrst you have to go through a "404" permlt process. The flrst step ln thls process lnvol ves asking "can you develop thlS land ln any other way Wl thout touchlng the wetlands? ObVlously thls can be done and EPA says then do It. The next lssue the EPA ralses lS, lS there any other land ln Southern Callfornla that you could build on wi thout displaclng the wetlands? Yes. The EPA sald 1 t would take Mola 18 - 24 months to go thru the "404" permlt process--- circllng Southern CA sltes ---and then they'd stlll deny It. The B.2 permlt process wlll go qulckly - about 4 months - because all . Page 8 - Plann1ng Comm1SS10n M1nutes of June 7, 1989 the Federal agenc1es have already rev1ewed the plan (F1sh & Game, Nat10nal Mar1ne F1sher1es, u.s. W1ldl1fe, EPA, Corps of Eng1neers) and they are all supportive of it. BU1lder Prof1t Mr. Suggs asked Mr. Evans 1f Mola had done a feas1b111ty study of bU1ld1ng C.1 and how does 1t compare 1n prof1t to Mola w1th the B.2 plan? The B.2 plans does not need a subs1dy. The C.1 plans would need a subs1dy. . Tax Increment Funds/Commun1ty Serv1ces Mr. F1fe asked about the B.2 tax 1ncrement generat10n ($675,000) and 1f th1s would be needed to mainta1n and fund the cost of added commun1ty serv1ces? Mr. Evans sa1d there would be no negat1ve to the commun1ty serV1ces. There would be some sort of assessment d1str1ct 1n addition to Redevelopment funds put on th1s property. Th1S proJect would pay for any shortfalls. Th1S proJect 1S penal1zed for be1ng 1n the Redevelopment area because all of the money goes d1rectly to the Redevelopment Agency. You're not gett1ng the tax revenues 1nto the General Fund. The negat1ve 1mpacts 1n the Hoffman study are because there are no tax revenues --- it all goes to the Redevelopment Agency. The Hoffman study proJects the negat1ve at $120,000 per year to the General Fund for B.2. The negat1ve fluctuates from alternative to alternat1ve. One of the cond1t10ns 1n the EIR that would be carr1ed through to the Tentat1ve Tract Map would be that a Mello- Roos would be formed to make up that d1fference. You can use a Mello-Roos for ma1ntenance. It would be an added tax on each house. Mr. Barrow said 1t should susta1n a legal challenge but he would 11ke to reV1ew th1s further. Mr. F1fe asked 1f all the $675,000 1S ava1lable to construct the commun1ty park? Mr. Kn1ght sa1d no --- twenty percent would have to be set aS1de for low to moderate 1ncome allocat10n. So about $120,000 each year would be set aside 1n a trust fund. Mr. Sharp expla1ned only a port10n of th1s proJect 1S 1n the Redevelopment Agency area and the C1ty gets all the taxes but, again, there are 11mitat10ns on what we can use it for. In the other port10n, the taxes go to the general County tax and then 1S d1 v1ded. The Redevelopment funds can be used outs1de a Redevelopment area. 5 MINUTE RECESS Comm1SS1on OUest1ons of LSA Consultants Ray Moe * LSA Mr. Moe, represent1ng LSA, spoke on tr1p generat10n f1gures: . f.ldMf Or1g1nal B.2 C.1 TRIPS/DAY 6210 3450 3016 AM TRIPS 450 260 220 PM TRIPS 540 340 300 . Page 9 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on M1nutes of June 7, 1989 Ten 1ntersect1ons were evaluated and LSA found two 1ntersect1ons be1ng 1mpacted: 1. PCH and Westm1nster. Proposed m1t1gat1on 1S the prov1s1on of a second northbound left turn lane from PCH to Westm1nster. 2. PCH and Studebaker 1n Long Beach. The bas1c problem w1th that 1ntersect1on 1S not really 1mpacted by th1s proJect. The problem 1S the easterly leg of the 1ntersect1on 1S bU1lt to less than one-half standard. Bas1cally, one lane 1n and out. To rect1fy th1s, an add1t1onal lane out should be prov1ded. Comm1ss1on Ouest1ons of M1chael Brandman Assoc. Consultants There were no Comm1ss1on quest10ns for Ellen M111le and Curt1s A111ng, the MBA consultants present. Aud1ence Commentary . Galen Ambrose * Wetlands Restorat1on Soc1ety Mr. Ambrose sa1d he 1S aga1nst all three plans because of the encroachment 1nto the wetlands. Mr. Ambrose sa1d Mola's attorney 1ns1nuated (at the 5/15/89 C1ty Counc11 meet1ng) they'd sue the C1ty (1f the Council voted for the or1g1nal plan) but Mola would not w1thdraw the or1g1nal plan. Does Mola want the plan bU1lt or what? Mr. Sharp sa1d he d1dn't have the knowledge to clar1fy th1s s1tuation for Mr. Ambrose and wouldn't care to comment. Walt Wr1ght * Consultant to Wetlands Restorat1on Soc1ety Sa1d Hellman's have allowed wetlands to degrade over the years. The Redevelopment Agency covers most of the h1stor1c wetlands. In the State Lands parcel the C1ty sa1d there are 3 or 4 concepts they would like to see. For that parcel they sa1d we should preserve the h1stor1c and scenic her1 tage of the C1 ty. Under Redevelopment we should look at redevelopment of wetlands. The wetlands on the Hellman property, like the State Lands parcel, are part of the C1 ty' s her1 tage. Maybe we could come up W1 th another new plan and then we'd not be 1n favor of any of the three plans. The development on the wetlands and the uplands 1S a 11ttle 1ntense. Sally H1rsch * 1325 Crestview Ms. H1rsch asked 1f the golf traff1c was 1ncluded 1n the C.l count? She sa1d she wants a 26 acre park. She noted the C. 1 golf course has 1721 yards and the Ben Brown Course has 2240 yards. . Ron Moore * 605 Taper Mr. Moore sa1d he has 11ved here 15 years. He's a coach for Seal Beach K1ds Baseball. In our baseball assoc1at1on 1n Seal Beach, for Just k1ds, not count1ng adults, there are 28 teams. All . Page 10 - Plann1ng Comrn1SS1on M1nutes of June 7, 1989 these teams have to play and pract1ce at McGaugh School. There are no other places 1n th1s area to pract1ce S1nce we don't use the adult d1amond near PCH. He sa1d h1s team has not been able to pract1ce because of demand for d1amonds. Dur1ng the week and Saturday all 3 diamonds are used for actual games. He supports the B.1 plan. Sa1d hav1ng a m1n1-golf course 11ke th1s 1S "almost an embarrassment". Jane McCloud * 700 Balboa Ms. McCloud says she th1nks the proposed golf course lacks challenge. She supports "wetlands all the way to the bluff w1th 70 - 80 homes on the bluff" but would favor B.2 of these 3 plans. Please don't add add1t1onal homes to cover development costs. Al1ce DaV1S * 224 4th Street Ms. DaV1S prefers open space and wetlands; ch1ldren can't play on a golf course. . Carl Santobol * 801 Avalon Mr. Santobol sa1d re-do1ng the park would rU1n 1t and 1t should be left 1n its orig1nal cond1t1on. He asked for more ne1ghborhood part1c1pat1on from Catal1na, Surf and Avalon. Mar10 Voce * 730 Catal1na Mr. Voce sa1d he wished the Wetlands Restorat1on Soc1ety's plan had had due recogn1t1on and 1t 1S also a c1t1zen's plan. It had complete env1ronmental aspects. He preferred the B. 2 plan and keep1ng parks. He prefers restorat1on versus cosmet1zation of the parks. Charles Antos * 210 8th Street Mr. Antos sa1d he prefers the B.2 plan. He felt C.1 has had no c1t1zen rev1ew, 1S not well thought out and encroaches 1nto Gum Grove Park. Cha1rman Sharp sa1d he had two letters from the City Counc11 regard1ng the C.1 plan, stat1ng 1 t was sent to the Plann1ng Comm1ssion as a courtesy and that they d1d not necessar1ly endorse 1t. Gwen Forsythe * 523 R1v1era Ms. Forsythe prefers the B.2 alternat1ve but urged not add1ng any more houses. She sa1d parks are needed for places for children to play. ORAL Commun1cations There were no oral commun1cat1ons from the aud1ence. . STAFF CONCERNS There were no staff concerns. ~ Page 11 - Plann1ng Commiss1on M1nutes of June 7, 1989 COMMISSION CONCERNS There were no Comm1SS1on concerns. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Sharp adJourned th1s meeting to a special meet1ng of the Plann1ng Comm1SS1on on June 14, 1989. The meet1ng was adJourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, , ~DC'~ Joah F1llmann, Secretary Department of Development SerV1ces * * * THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. * * * . The M1nutes of the June 7, 1989 Plannin approved by the Plann1ng Comm1ssion on meet1ng were 1989. * .