Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1989-06-14 . . . CITY 0' SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING JUNE 14, 1989 The regularly scheduled Plann1ng Comm1SS1on meet1ng of June 7, 1989 was adJourned to an add1t1onal meet1ng ton1ght, June 14, 1989, 1n C1ty Counc11 Chambers. Cha1rman Sharp called the meet1ng to order at 7:35 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Alleg1ance was led by Mr. Jessner ROLL CALL Present: Cha1rman Sharp Comm1ss1oners Rullo, F1fe, Suggs, Jessner Staff Present: Sandra Massa-Lav1tt, Inter1m D1rector Development Serv1ces Department Barry Curt1s, Adm1n1strat1ve A1de, Dev. Srvcs. Also Present: Ed Kn1ght, Former D1rector, Dev. Srvcs. Dept. QU1nn Barrow, C1ty Attorney SCHEDULED MATTERS HELLMAN/MOLA: CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES K1rk Evans * Mola Development Corporat1on Mr. Evans presented Mola Development's plan for develop1ng the commun1ty park. It was noted the C1ty of Seal Beach does not have the funds to develop or ma1nta1n the commun1ty park at th1s t1me. Mola's plan 1ncludes: G1 v1ng the commun1 ty park land to the C1 ty at the record1ng of the Map. Develop1ng the commun1ty park as shown on the B.2 plan. Est1mated costs for develop1ng the commun1ty park $1.8 m1111on. Development of commun1 ty park to be completed 1n two phases: ~ . A . 4IIt Page 2 - Planning commission M1nutes of June 14, 1989 1. First 50% of the community park to be completed with the first phase of houses (86 houses) . 2. Second 50% of the commun1ty park to be completed with the second phase of houses (86 houses) . The commun1ty park could be bU1ld first, the tennis courts to the West and second, the ball diamonds to the East --- or V1ce versa. This community park will be 100% built when 50% of the homes are built. Communi ty park 1ssues should be separated from Gum Grove Park because Mola is committed to spending $150,000 for improvements in Gum Grove Park. Loan: Mola will front the entire cost. . C1ty Redevelopment Agency is to sign a loan w1th Mola Development. Mola would ask the City Counc1l, si tt1ng as a Redevelopment Agency, to sign a loan W1 th Mola Development. Loan amount of $1.8 million, to be paid back over ten (10) years at 7.5%. Payment amount approximately $250,000 per year. Initial payment one year from completion of last house. There are 346 houses. Taxes would go to Redevelopment Agency after first year, making the funds ava1lable for the annual payment. Recent stud1es show $570,000 tax monies com1ng into the Redevelopment area. Maintenance . Mola proposes to purchase an annuity or tax bond for the ten (10) year period. Mola will bear the cost and the annuity interest will pay maintenance costs. Ma1ntenance costs estimated at $50,000 - $80,000 per year. .. .. . . , ... Page 3 - Planning Comm~ssion Minutes of June 14, 1989 Mola invest~gated forming an assessment district to maintain the commun~ty park but Mola has concern~ that a few year~ from ~ow the 346 homeowners in the Mola proJect could compla~n to c~ty Hall "why are we paying for a public park that the ent~re c~ty is using?". The only fair thing to do is for Mola to pay for ~t. Cn1ll1lli ssion OUest ions to Mr. Evans Mr. Jessner asked Mr. Evans to read the Mola Development letter to the City dated June 14, 1989 into the official Record. Mr. Evans read that letter and it is attached as a part of these Minutes. Mr. F~fe asked if the ball fields would have stands, backstops, fencing, dugouts, equipment bins. Mr. Evans said yes, the ball f~elds w~ll be completely done for games. This w~ll include restroom facilities. Mola has not considered night lighting but the City'S Recreat~on and Park Comm~ssion could rev~ew. The cost is not proh~bit~ve. Night light~ng for tenn~s courts would not present a problem since the tenn~s courts are far enough removed from new and existing homes. Mr. Fife asked if the improvement estimate adjusted would Mola be w~lling to adjust accord~ngly? Mr. Evans sa~d yes, Mola would adJust up or down. Mr. Fife asked if the wetlands area would be fenced? Mr. Evans said yes, there is a requ~rement to keep people and dogs/cats out of the wetlands. Mr. Fife asked ~f the developer would be doing any wetlands restoration. Mr. Evans sa~d r~ght now, the actual restoration of the wetlands ~s above the approval of Mola and the City Council. "Mola is go~ng to see that the wetlands does get restored as best we can" . Mr. Evans explained that to restore the wetlands causes Mola to d~g up existing wetlands. This property was filled and wetlands have been created in areas that are too high to restore them. Mola would have to d~g that area out and put ~n a new culvert to br~ng water. This w~ll require a permit from both the Federal and state governments. Mola doesn't have an answer at this time as to exactly what the restoration of the wetlands is going to be but there will definitely be some restorat~on plan approved. Mr. Fife asked about the wetlands restorat~on ratio. Mr. Evans explained that both the Federal and state government policy now is "1:1" which means you have to have the same value replacement of what you have today and you must have "acre for acre". For example, if you were to destroy three acres you would have to restore three acres of wetlands. The Coastal Comm~ssion could ask for more. .J . " . . . Page 4 - Planning Comm1ssion Minutes of June 14, 1989 Mr. Fife asked Mr. Evans what his "best vision" is on how these wetlands might be restored to true wetlands. Mr. Evans said Mola presented a plan to the Port of L.A. and the Port of Long Beach last week show1ng restoration of 39 acres of wetlands. The plan proposes to have an island in the middle of the wetlands area. with water around that island b1rds would be able to use the mud flats w1thout fear of dogs or cats getting to them. This must be approved by the EPA, Corps of Engineers, F1Sh & Game, National Marine FiSheries, F1sh & Wildlife Services and the Coastal Commiss10n. The only permitting author1ties are going to be the Corps of Engineers and the Coastal Comm1ssion. Mr. F1fe asked who would actually pay for dredg1ng, channelizing, revegitating? Mr. Evans said the Port of L.A. is looking into what cred1ts would be given to them by restor1ng these wetlands and the decid1ng how much money they can spend. with the 20/20 Plan, the Port would have to find certa1n mitigation areas to restore and they will not spend money unless they get a like amount of cred1t for it. If they feel there are not enough credits involved, Mola has also been contact with the Ca11forn1a Coastal Conservancy who 1S also interested 1n restoring the wetlands in conJunction with Mola Development. Mr. Sharp asked what is the distance between the ball diamonds and the homes? Mr. Evans said eighty feet. The ball d1amonds could be turned to be further away. Right now the ball diamonds are very large (for a softball diamond). Mola 1S invest1gating the d1mensions for a l1ttle league field. Mr. Rullo noted the Zoeter school ball d1amond lights go off at 10:00 p.m. Mr. Rullo asked about grading the wetlands in conJunct10n w1th site grad1ng. Mr. Evans sa1d right now Mola could balance the si te without touching the wetlands but if Mola 1S out there grad1ng anyway, Mola would grade the wetlands at the same t1me. The cost factor would go down accord1ngly. Mr. Rullo said the plans showed 80,000 yards shortfall on the cut and f1ll and that fill would have to be imported. Mr. Evans sa1d the Port of L.A. would l1ke a larger t1dal range ... r1ght now we're at 3' to 4' and they'd like a 5' tidal range Wh1Ch would bring 1n more fish. To do that, you'd have to dig out more of the wetlands which would involve more cost but the cost would be equalled by not having to import d1rt. Mola could balance the d1rt on s1te by d01ng that. Mr. Jessner stated, for the Record, that he was given a video tape of the Plann1ng Commission meet1ng of June 7, 1989 and he rev1ewed that tape completely. Mr. Jessner asked Mr. Evans what his concerns were regarding the C-1 plan. Mr. Evans said Mola had two major concerns w1th the C.1 plan at this time: . Page 5 - Plann1ng Comm1SS10n M1nutes of June 14, 1989 Golf Course: Mola does not know what 1S be1ng asked of the developer under the C.l plan. If you're asking the developer to build a commun1ty park and a golf course etc., then Mola can state they cannot afford to do th1s. Econom1CS Two years ago Mola offered the C1 ty a golf course and Gum Grove Park --- we were flatly turned down. In the past two years th1ngs have changed --- Mola cannot get a golf course approved for the or1g1nal plan through e1ther the state or Federal governments. Accord1ng to f1gures g1ven to Mola by experts they h1red the golf course, as 1t'S la1d out today w1th no dr1v1ng range, show the golf course be1ng 1n the negative the f1rst three years and th1s 1S w1thout any land debt on 1t. Th1S 1S assum1ng Mola developed the golf course and gave 1t to the C1ty w1th no debt. The ma1ntenance costs etc. would put the n1ne hole course 1n the red. Mola has looked at the C.l plan because they're concerned as to how the C.l plan could be built 1f the C1ty Counc11 approves that plan. Mola 1S concerned about trY1ng to sell homes on a golf course that may/may not eX1st. . Desl.gn A decent p1tch-and-putt golf course would take 45 acres and there's 34.3 acres 1n th1s course. Some homes would be 1n a d1rect path of ball f11ght w1th th1s short yardage. Some balls could land on Seal Beach Blvd. because of short yardage. A forty foot h1gh fence would be necessary along Seal Beach Blvd. to keep the balls 1n. Mola, tak1ng 1nto account the earthquake fault, the eX1st1ng 011 wells on s1te etc. they don't have a s1te that can economically accommodate the number of homes and a golf course that w111 work. Golf Course & Gum. Grove Park Mr. Mola does not want to touch Gum Grove Park. The golf course will encroach 1nto Gum Grove Park the way 1t 1S la1d out now. To stay out --- the golf course would get smaller than 1 t is now. Mola would ask the C1 ty to s1gn an 1ndemn1 ty agreement to protect Mola Development from any poss1ble future 11t1gat10n. Mola could get 11ab1lity 1nsurance only if they owned the golf course. Mola' s 11ab111ty could not be m1t1gated by the C1ty'S own1ng the property. . Getting Perm1ts Mola doesn't know 1f they can get C.l perm1tted. Mola knows the B. 2 plan --- as do the Federal and State governments because they've rev1ewed it. B.2 could get perm1tted through the Coastal Comm1ss10n and the Corps of Eng1neers. . . . Page 6 - Plann1ng Comm1ss1on M1nutes of June 14, 1989 Mr. Evans sa1d he has not called the Federal or state governments on the C.1 plan. The Corps of Eng1neers lS very clear ... before you touch any wetlands you must obta1n a "404 Perm1t". Under the "404 Perm1t" process you have to prove to the Corps that there's no other way to develop the property economically W1 thout d1srupt1ng the wetlands. If the C1 ty owned that land and sa1d we have a golf course and slngle fam1ly commun1ty and we want to bU1ld 1t ... the "404 Perm1t" could be 11m1ted to Seal Beach. If Mola Development lS the property owner the "404 Permit" lS not 11m1ted to Seal Beach. Mola would have to look for alternat1ve sites throughout Southern CA. Both the B. 2 and C.1 plans 1nfringe on wetlands. The Federal government understands bU1ld1ng homes on wetlands but they don't necessar1ly understand bU1ld1ng a golf course on wetlands. The restored wetlands area for both plans would be exactly the same. Mr. Jessner asked about the pr1vate streets 1n B.2 and C.1--- both gate-guarded commun1t1es. He expressed concerned over the percentage of gate-guarded commun1t1es w1th1n Seal Beach (Surfs1de, Le1sure World) and sa1d the C1ty Council, if they want this to be a gate-guarded commun1 ty , should have the CC&R' s adopted 1n a manner to allow pol1t1cal Sollc1tation and other spec1fied act1v1t1es. Mr. Kn1ght sa1d 45% of the City is gate- guarded. Th1S 1ncludes about 200 homes 1n Surfside (about 600 res1dents) and 10,000 res1dents 1n Le1sure World. Mr. Evans said the gate-guarded commun1t1es prov1de secur1ty and pr1vate street ma1ntenance by homeowners 1nstead of the C1 ty . The homeowners would bear the 11ab111ty and ma1ntenance. Frank Mola * Mola Development When Mola Development f1rst came to the C1ty, we had 1000 un1ts and the C1ty was ask1ng for a ma1n thoroughfare to go through the slte. Now, the reduced amount of un1ts, that ma1n thoroughfare does nothing for the slte at all. If the commun1ty is not gate- guarded, people w111 f1gure out that they can take a shortcut through the commun1ty uS1ng that thoroughfare. Publ1C Hear1nq Opened La1rd Mueller * 142 11th Street Spoke 1n favor of the B. 2 plan stat1ng the golf course would serve fewer res1dents, Wh1Ch lS 1n ser10US doubt and doesn' t address the 20% setas1de, and doesn't glve a commun1ty park. Beverly K1sar1s * Marv1sta Spoke 1n favor of the B.2 plan stat1ng the schools need the tax monies. Larger lots apprec1ate more and br1ng back more value to . . . Page 7 - Plann1ng Comm1ssion Minutes of June 14, 1989 the C1ty of Seal Beach. golf course bus1ness. The C1ty cannot afford to go 1nto the Galen Ambrose * Wetlands Restorat10n Soc1ety Suggested mod1fY1ng both B.2 and C.1 by e11m1nat1ng all but 79 houses on the bluff. 5 MINUTE RECESS Tony Luna * 7017 Bayou Way Spoke 1n favor of the B.2 plan, saY1ng he 11kes the parks. Mar10 Voce * 730 Cata11na Avenue Spoke aga1nst C-1 stat1ng he d1s11ked gate-guarded commun1 t1es saY1ng they were "a form of segregat10n and should be abolished". He spoke against the golf course because 1t's sprayed w1th tOX1C pest1c1des, saY1ng 90% of the spray m1sses the target and goes 1nto peoples and an1mals lungs. The sprays w111 get 1nto the s011 and leech 1nto the wetlands. He sa1d he would make the eventual p01son1ng of the wetlands a big 1ssue at the State level because they 1nformed h1m of the problem of hav1ng a wetland so close to a wetland. Pete Jacks * 1030 Fathom Spoke 1n favor of the B.2 plan. He sa1d the ball d1amonds can prov1de more for more people for a longer per10d of t1me. Helen Potopan & 1870 Sunn1nadale Spoke 1n favor of the B.2 plan, urg1ng the Comm1ss10n to 11sten to the V01ces of the people. John O'Neal * 395 Clipper Way Spoke 1n favor of the b.2 plan, stating he's talked to several people 1n Br1dgeport and around town and no one 1S 1n favor of the golf course. Bruce Stark * Ocean Ave. Sa1d 1f the C1 ty Counc11 and Plann1ng Comm1ss10n 1S 1ntent on developing the proJect as proposed that we 1nsist the Redevelopment Agency get an 1ndemn1ty bond from Mola to protect the City from the geological hazards that have already been test1f1ed to over and over again ... the developer wants to bU11d a tract of homes 1n a swamp on an earthquake fault of unknown locat10n and f1fty feet from 'ground zero'. D1scuss1ng the tax 1ncrement mon1es, Mr. Stark said "... a b1g chunk of that 1S outs1de the Redevelopment Agency and there 1sn't g01ng to be any money com1ng into 1t anyway. Mola says 1t'S g01ng to be a four year proJect so ... won't be any money com1ng 1n for 4 years anyway. " When we start sel11ng bonds we become 1ndebted. We don't get to vote on Redevelopment Agency bonds, only C1ty bonds. Build1ng th1S project w111 cost every c1t1zen 1n Seal Beach. . . . , Page 8 - Plann1ng Comm1ss10n M1nutes of June 14, 1989 The golf course 1S only land storage for future development. In land use plann1ng the commun1ty usually states what 1t wants--- not for a developer to come along and tell the C1ty what he wants to do. He urged democracy in the commun1 ty and lett1ng the people speak up on more than two bad ch01ces. R11ey Forsythe * 523 R1v1era Dr1ve Spoke 1n favor of the B.2 plan. Mr. Forsythe read a list of pros and cons for both the B.2 and C.1 plans stat1ng the ball fields were more useable for recreat10n, and B. 2 has more pros than cons. Wendy Morr1s * 1729 Crestview Spoke 1n favor of the B.2 plan. The beauty of the golt course 1S overshadowed by the safety concerns of the balls poss1bly h1tt1ng persons or homes. The C.1 plan 1S 11m1ted to golfers only whereas the B. 2 plans offers everyone parks. Ms. Morr1s asked the Comm1ss10ners "I the golf course d1dn't make it ... then what would you do? Would you bU11d more homes on it?" Mr. F1fe rem1nded Ms. Morr1s of the or1g1nal plan recommendat10ns was that the golf course could not be converted, used or developed for any purpose other than a golf course w1thout a 2/3 ma)Or1ty vote of the C1ty voters. If C-1 were approved th1s cond1t10n could be app11ed aga1n. Ms. Morr1s asked what has happened between the or1g1nal plan, where it was stated that only an 18-hole golf course W1 th a dr1 v1ng range would be f1nanc1ally feas1ble, and now, where a 9-hole course 1S proposed? Mr. F1fe sa1d one of the 1deas for the 9-hole course keeps the 'w1ndow of opportun1ty' open for an l8-hole course 1n the future when the Hellman Ranch property owners f1n1sh the1r 011 extract10n could be leveraged to putt1ng up another n1ne holes. Ms. Morr1s sa1d th1s could be over 20 years. She noted a lack of figures and 1nformation on the C.1 plan. Add1t10nally, her many d1Scuss10ns w1th res1dents show most people prefer the B.2 plan. Morally she would choose the Wetlands Restorat10n Soc1ety plan wh1ch 1S the only plan that addresses the true geolog1cal problems of the area. Pub11C Hear1ng Closed * * * K1rk Evans * Mola Development Mr. Evans 1n h1s closing remarks noted the people who spoke ton1ght are 1n favor of the B. 2 plan. Env1ronmental concerns aS1de, the B.2 plan was taken to the people. No C1ty SUbS1dy or Mello-Roos w111 be requ1red for B.2. Comm1ss10n Comments Mr. Jessner suggested the lot at the corner of F1rst Street and Pac1f1c Coast H1ghway not be a house but be an entry. . . . Page 9 - Plann1ng Comm1ss10n M1nutes of June 14, 1989 Mr. Jessner sa1d he has many deta11ed comments for the B.2 plan to be d1scussed later on, after the C1ty Counc11 dec1des on the Spec1f1c Plan. Mr. Jessner sa1d he does not want the ball diamonds designated as "softball d1amonds" but as "ball d1amonds". Mr. Jessner asked 1f the wetlands breed mosquitos? Mr. Evans said they would des1gn the wetlands would not breed mosqu1 tos . We now have a salt water marsh, Wh1Ch 1S d1fferent than a fresh water marsh. It w111 be clean water that w111 be connected to the San Gabr1el River for the t1de act10n. Mr. Evans sa1d that you have water that ponds now. The fully restored wetlands w111 be ma1nta1ned. Whereas now you have to wa1 t for the Vector Control 01strict to come out and spray, th1s s1tuat10n would be d1fferent where Mola would be work1ng hand-1n-hand w1th the Vector Control oistr1ct so we don't control a mosqu1to nU1sance. It w111 also be ma1ntained by the ent1ty (whoever gets ownersh1p of the wetlands). Mr. Kn1ght sa1d mosqU1 tos do breed 1n salt water. Mr. F1fe asked what the cost of the wetlands restorat10n study would 1nvolve? Mr. Evans sa1d the restorat10n study done by Mola cost $45,000. The Coastal Conservancy told Mola they are w1111ng to put up another $25,000 and Mola would put up another $25,000 for any plan that they may be 1nterested 1n. Mr. Evans d1d not know how much money the Port of Long Beach has spent to date. But they have come up w1th a restorat10n plan as well. The only th1ng being d1scussed w1th the Port 1S how much cred1t w111 be ava11able and based on that, how much they'd be w1111ng to spend for the actual restorat10n. More stud1es w111 be needed depend1ng on wh1ch Federal or State agency determ1nes what they'd 11ke to see there. * * * Cha1rman Sharp stated the Tract Map w111 come back before the Plann1ng Comm1ss10n 1n case one of these plans 1S adopted. Chairman Sharp asked each Commiss10ner comment on each of the three plans. After wh1ch he requested a straw vote as to the1r plan preference. Mot10n w111 follow. Commissioners agreed. Cha1rman Sharp, speak1ng of the or1g1nal plan sa1d th1s plan had a few more people but was pa1d for by the developer --- the golf course, the streets, an extra 5-acre park on the outs1de, Gum Grove Park, a thoroughfare. The B.2 plan, 1S the cheapest way to f1nance the commun1ty park. It would be wonderful to have 1t for ten years w1thout worrY1ng about the upkeep. Regarding the C.1 plan, you have a 9-hole golf course and parks would be n1ce open space. . .. . . Page 10 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of June 14, 1989 Emmett Suggs said the B.2 plan seems to be the most popular plan. However, a golf course would be a good lnvestment ln the long run under the C.1 plan. If the golf course should fall, the open space would stll1 be there. I prefer the C.l plan. Ron Jessner sald the ball dlamonds are lmportant to the city and 1 ts chlldren. He noted he had to take hlS chlldren to other cltles for all thelr actlvitles. Therefore, he prefers the B.2 plan. The B.2 plan has 15.7 acres of communlty park and the C.1 plan has 6.0 acres of communlty park. Phllllp F1fe sald he preferred flrst (wlth modlflcatlons) the B.2 plan; second the C.1 plan; and thlrd, the orlglnal plan. The modlflcatlons proposed by Mr. Fife are set forth ln the followlng motlon. Joe Rullo cautioned the audience that they do not represent the entlre Clty of Seal Beach and that many people call ln and make thelr deslres known. He sald he favored flrst, the B. 2 plan; second, the C.1 plan; and thlrd, the original plan. . MOTION by Rullo, SECOND by Fife to approve the B.2 plan as presented by Mola Development Wlth the following cond1t10ns and with the assumption that all condltions that were part of the original plan approved last fall WhlCh were not affected by the change 1n design (safety lmprovements on F1rst Street, nOlse m1t1gat10n studles, burled atomic waste etc.) are lncluded in the B.2 alternat1ve plan: 1. That the Covenants, Condltions and Restrict10ns (CC&R's) for the project would requlre that for a period of slXty (60) days prior to any elect10n 1n wh1ch polls w1ll be open ln the Clty of Seal Beach, and while any initiative or referendum petition 1S on f1le W1th the C1ty Clerk for c1rculation wlth1n the C1ty that any person shall be adm1tted through any gate with1n the commun1ty, with/without a vehicle, dur1ng the same hours of the day that the polls would be open if that were elect10n day for the purposes of conduct1ng polit1cal act1v1ty upon simply 1dent1fying h1mself and stat1ng his purpose is to conduct polit1cal acti V1 ty . This prOV1S10n 1S not subject to amendment or terminat10n by the owners w1th1n the gated commun1ty. 2. That the deeds and the sales l1terature shall aff1rmat1vely d1sclose to prospective buyers that the development area 1ncludes s1gn1ficant geological hazards, 1ncluding unmapped earthquake faults and s01ls subject to l1quefact10n. . 3. That the developer shall grade the wetlands des1gnated area and extract therefrom as much f1ll material as 1S requ1red for the rest of the proJect as may feas1bly be . . . " . Page 11 - Plann1ng Comm1SS10n M1nutes of June 14, 1989 taken from the wetlands area. And shall comm1t up to $50,000 for complet1on of needed or adv1sable wetlands restorat1on stud1es. 4. That IV.b and IV.c of the developer's letter dated 6/14/89 as presented to the Plann1ng Commission this even1ng shall be elim1nated and that the prov1s1ons of the letter are otherw1se part of the B.2 plan. 5. That the f1rst lot at the intersection of First street and Pac1f1c Coast H1ghway be split between the adjacent lot and an appropr1ate parcel of ground for the erection of a entry S1gn for the proJect. AYES: Rullo, Fife, Sharp, Jessner NOES: Suggs MOTION CARRIED 4 - 1 Mr. F1fe asked 1f the C1ty Counc11 was ask1ng the Plann1ng Comm1SS10n to recommend the1r second and th1rd ch01ces 1n some sort of order. Mr. Sharp sa1d, no, he was the one recommend1ng it. QU1nn Barrow, C1ty Attorney, stated that 1f the Counc11 acts on the Spec1f1c Plan, the Comm1ssion w111 not see the Spec1f1c Plan aga1n but they will see 1t 1f the Counc11 goes w1th e1ther al ternat1 ve. The Tentat1 ve Tract Map has to comply W1 th the Spec1f1c Plan. The Map that is currently on file does not comply w1th e1ther one of these alternat1ves. So the Commiss10n w111 see the rev1sed Tentat1ve Tract Map. At th1s t1me the Comm1ss10n can 1mpose condi t10ns and there w111 be a Publ1c Hear1ng to cons1der the Tract Map. ADJOURNMENT Cha1rman Sharp adJourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully Subm1tted, noa:....-- ~ a....-~ ~n F11lmann Secretary Development Serv1ces Department THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. * * * THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 114, 1989 WERE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER ON ~ 1989.