Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21-1991 PC Minutesr-h j /~ I I,...' j F J PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California October 21, 1991 Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Murphy, Scott ABSENT: Commissioners Cathcart, Master STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary;John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning;Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney;Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE:MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER l6, 1991 Moved by Murphy, to recorded. Commissioner approve the Scott, Minutes seconded by Commissioner of September 16, 1991 as AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Murphy, Scott None Commissioners Cathcart, Master MOTION CARRIED IN RE:ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1927-9l - BURKE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT:A request to allow the development of a mixed use complex in the M- 2 (Industrial District) zone consisting of retail, office, and industrial uses. Subject property is located at 1432 North Main Street. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303. provisions of the per State CEQA Staff received a change which requires re- noticing,November 18, 1991.from the applicant in the application They are intending to continue until Moved by continue Commission Commissioner Scott,Conditional Use meeting of November seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to Permit 1927-91 to the Planning l8, 1991. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners None Commissioners Bosch, Murphy, Scott Cathcart, Master Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1991 - Page 2 IN RE:ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP PERMIT l72l, CLOSURE FAVOR OF REALIGNMENT l262 - IDM CORPORATION:14544, MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE OF A PORTION OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD IN THROUGH THE PROJECT SITE, ADDENDUM TO EIR Request for approval of the following applications: l) Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the property; 2) modification to the site plan and project phasing as originally approved under Conditional Use Permit 172l-89; and 3) an addendum to EIR 1262, addressing thepotentialchangesinenvironmentalimpactsduetothechangesintheproject. In conjunction with the site plan modifications,there is a change to the City street system including the closure of a small section of State College Boulevard at that location where State College intersects The City Drive. A realignment of the arterial road system will occur, with the construction of a roadway through the project site. Subject property is located at the Orange Drive-In site, located at the intersection of State College Boulevard, The City Drive, Anaheim Boulevard, and Koll Center entrance driveway. In compliance with the California CEQA), an addendum to EIR 1262 project, and is available for public City Hall through October 2l, 1991. Environmental Quality Act has been prepared for this review and comment at Orange This item has 1991. Since Chairman Bosch continuance. been requested to there were people explained the be continued present to applicant until November 4, hear this item, has requested a Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to continue Tentative Tract Map 14544, Modification to Conditional Use Permit 1721, Closure of a portion of State College Boulevard in favor of realignment through the project site, Addendum to EIR 1262 to the Planning Commission meeting of November 4, 1991, subject to identification of the currency of the previous Conditional Use Permit, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Murphy, Scott None Commissioners Cathcart, Master MOTION CARRIED IN RE:NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1920-9l - HOLY FAMILY CATHEDRAL: A request to allow the expansion of a church use and to authorize the move-on of an existing structure; pursuant to Orange Municipal Code Sections 17,54.040(B) and l7.94.050(B), Planning Commission Minutes October 2l, 1991 - Page 3 property La Veta Glassell is located on the west side of Glassell Street between Avenue and the Garden Grove Freeway, addressed 566 South Street. This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section l5303.There was no opposition; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived.Staff commented the applicant has contacted the Fire Department regarding Condition 6, which related to a requirement for an on- site hydrant. A memo was received from the Fire Marshal, dated this date, agreeing to waive that condition with the understanding that any subsequent construction on the propertywillrequireadditionalon-site hydrants per Fire Department specifications.The public hearing was opened. Applicant Father Arthur Holquin, Holy Family Cathedral, 566 South Glassell,said they had 450 students in their growing school and they also have an extended day care program, which assists many of the families. This particular unit is going to assist them in providing that extended day care consisting of a safe environment for their students. They are also expanding their music program and they need the extra space.The public hearing was closed.Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1920-9l, subject to Conditions l-l3, deleting Condition 6. AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Murphy, Scott None Commissioners Cathcart, Master MOTION CARRIED IN RE:NEW HEARINGS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP l455l, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT PERMIT 9l-l9, NEGATIVE DECLARATION l388- 9l - STEPHEN D. CUNNISON:A request to allow the subdivision of an existing 1.17 acre parcel into 6 parcels, and an Administrative Adjustment Permit application to allow the creation of three ( 3) of the parcels with less than the code required minimum lot width. Subject property is located at the northeast corner of Prospect Street and La Veta Avenue, addressed 485 Planning Commission Minutes October 2l, 1991 - Page 4 In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA), Negative Declaration 1388-9l has been prepared for this project, and is available for public review and comment at OrangeCityHallthroughOctober2l, 1991. Ms. Wolff presented the staff report as there was opposition to this request, This is a large parcel located on the northeast corner of Prospect and La Veta. It's located in the R- l-7 district which allows single family residential development on lots a minimum of 7,000 square feet in size. Most oftheparcelsinthisareaareapproximately7,000 square feetorlarger,whereas this parcel is 1.17 acres. The application is to subdivide the property into six lots and the lots would range in size from 7,000 square feet to approximately 11,000 square feet.No lot would be smaller than the minimum 7,000allowedbyordinance. Five of the lots would have full frontage on either La Veta or Prospect, and one lot (Lot 6) would be a flag lot with only a 20 foot wide driveway access going out to La Veta. Zoning regulations for the R-l-7 district require that each lot have 70 feet of width and lOO feet of depth. Three of the lots are shown with just under 70 feet of lot width and an Administrative Adjustment has been requested to authorize lot widths of 68.38 feet, 68.41 feet, and 69.07 feet. The construction of single family homes would occur at a later date. At such time as construction would occur, all vegetation and the existing house and garage would be removed from the site, A Negative Declaration has been prepared for thisprojectandthefindingsoftheNegativeDeclarationindicatethat the approval of the proposal would not have a significant impact to the environment,The public hearing was opened.Applicant Stephen Cunnison, 5196 Queen Street, Riverside, desired to respond to questions, Those speaking in opposition Theresa Mather, 3320 East Ruth Place;Larry Range, 3405 East La Veta;Joe Hanson, 3344 East Ruth Place;Wendy Mather, 3320 East Ruth Place,Their concerns were with fire access, the danger of fire, traffic accidents at Prospect and La Veta, the grade of the property, and lack of square footage on the property,Commissioner Bosch explained many of their concerns were addressed in the staff report through conditions of approval.The plan shows clearing of the entire site and indicates the proposed pad e leva tions abou t 16"-l8" above Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1991 - Page 5 Ms. far less Wolff responded the project does not lack square footage as as lot size. They have additional depth, but they're short than 2 feet in width on three of the lots.Rebuttal Mr. Cunnison of the flag structure to structures. said the conditions were acceptable. The large size lot would allow sufficient clearance around the avoid the concern about a fire spreading to other The public hearing was closed,Commissioner development Department the County.Scott said of individual standards, which Condition l5 states that future lots shall comply with all Fire he considers one of th~ highest in Commissioner Murphy echoed some of the concerns as well. The staff report might help to clarify some of the specific issues.The E,R.B. did specify an on-site turn around area be provided for the future development of all the lots -- each individual lot, On-site hydrants and sprinkler systems can be required in private residences subject to fire approval. Those issues are taken very seriously and addressed at the site plan level, which comes further down the road in the development process. He would be happy to volunteer his copy of the staff report for the audience to review it, Chairman Bosch said in addition to the motion of this item, it would be prudent to request a specific copy of the action and concerns be iterated to the Fire Department so that as such time as the development comes forward, they will have an extra reminder of the problem. Also, the traffic at the corner is a serious condition. It should be considered notifying the Traffic Division to look at that intersection, look at the dynamics of it, the current signage and striping and identify what problems occur there; and interface with the Police Department, Traffic Safety Division to see if there is anything that can be done regardless of whether or not this project proceeds. Commissioner Scott asked if there was a back up allowed on arterial streets under the H,F,P. Program? Mr. Johnson said the intent of the arterial highway financing policy guidelines is to restrict access to arterials where it is necessary, due to the development of limited access points, Then the turn around is a requirement, which will solve the problem. Planning Commission Minutes October 2l, 1991 - Page 6 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1388-9l, which has been prepared to evaluate potential environmental impacts. The E.R,B. has found with the implementation of the suggested mitigation measures, the projectwillnothaveasignificantadverseeffectonwildliferesources or the envi ronme nt. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Murphy, Scott None Commissioners Cathcart, Master MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Scott to recommend to the City Council to approve Tentative Tract Map 1455l and Administrative Adjustment Permit 9l-l9, subject to the listed Conditions 1- 19. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Murphy, Scott None Commissioners Cathcart, Master MOTION CARRIED Moved by Chairman Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to direct staff to request the Traffic Division to study the intersection of Prospect and La Veta to identify any existing impediments to safe traffic flow, traffic control devices,striping, vision blocking, and recommend mitigation measures to remediate those conditions. Also, that staff be directed to specifically inform the Fire Department of the concerns expressed by the public and Commission regarding Lot 6 of the Tentative Tract Map relative to potential additions of fire protection or suppression devices to any future residential construction on the lot. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Murphy, Scott None Commissioners Cathcart, Master MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE lI37-9l, NEGATIVE DECLARATION l386-9l - KUEFLER:A request for a Zone Change application from R-l-7 (Single Family Residential Minimum Lot Size 7, 000 square feet) to R-2-7 Residential Duplex Minimum Lot Size 7,000 square feet) district, or other zoning classification determined appropriate by the Planning Commission, while retaining a low density (2-6 units per acre) General Plan land use designation. Subject property is located southwest of the intersection Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1991 - Page 7 In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA), Negative Declaration l386-9l has been prepared for thisproject, and is available for public review and comment at OrangeCityHallthroughOctober21, 1991, Ms. Wolff presented the staff report. The property is an undeveloped piece of land, approximately 25,000 square feet insizeorabout .58 acres. The property has frontage on Tustin. It's located immediately south of the two commercial properties,which are at the southwest corner of Tustin and Santa Ana CanyonRoad. The south side of this parcel abuts the single familyresidentialpropertieswhichhavefrontageonHillviewDrive,The site consists of two parcels and is currently zoned R- l-7,The application is to change the zone to R- 2-7, R-l-7 allows single family residences on aminimum7,000 square foot lot,R-2-7 allows construction of two units on a lot, also with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet. The General Plandesignatesthispropertyforlowdensityresidentialdevelopment,which is two to six units per acre, A site plan has been prepared for this project for illustration purposes only and it shows development of a duplex on each of the two lots. The development of two duplexes would result in four dwelling units over the entire property. The application, however, is for a zoning reclassification only and the site plan is not part of the determination. If the zone change is approved, the project shown, or an alternative site plan, could be approvedadministrativelyprovideditmetallthezoningrequirements.Under the R-2-7 zoning classification and low density GeneralPlandesignationfourunitswouldbethemaximumnumberpermittedforthisproperty. Any development would be subject to obtaining gradingpermitsandwouldhavetocomplywithall the zoning standards. Any deviation from the zoning regulations would require another public hearing. Negative Declaration 1386hasbeenpreparedforthisprojectindicatingthat no significant environmental impacts are affected with the implementation of mitigation measures, These mitigation measures address the issuance of grading permits, the retention or replanting of trees along the southern property line and a driveway landing and vision zone,The public hearing was opened. Applicant Ken Kuefler, 62 Minnow View Drive, Pomona, represented his brother, Paul, who couldn't attend the meeting. Paul Kueflerlivesat17992DarmelPlace, Santa Ana, The proposed property had been planned for single family on each lot which covered a large area for a house. They discovered it was not that economical to build and believe that a change to R- Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1991 - Page 8 building limitations as to height. They are low enough on the hill that the maximum height would not extend that much above the rear property line or interfere with any view from the two houses on top of the hill. They plan on digging the houses into the hill to minimize any disruption of the current slope,Those speaking in opposition Richard Villa, 1736 Santa Ana Canyon Road;Robert Caulopie, l746 East Santa Ana Canyon Road;Their concerns were about the increase in density, security in the area, crime and vandalism, transient traffic, limited access,and increased traffic at the corner, thus requiring a traffic signal. The culvert at the top of the hill was destroyed. It left huge chunks of concrete piled up behind the motel.Maintenance of the neighbors' parkway was a concern because of the drainage problem. The area behind their homes is a bird sanctuary ( Bolinger Hill), The project would have a negative effect on the birds and wildlife.Rebuttal Mr. Kuefler feels by developing this property into residential duplexes it would be more secure. The vacant lot is a nuisance for people to congregate without being seen, It would help reduce criminal/transient problems. With only four units, the traffic should not increase. They propose a right turn only out of the driveway on Tustin, going south, with no left turns, He noted the culvert was damaged and did not know how it got that way. When the project is constructed, it will be replaced and the water diverted into the proper channels. He wasn't aware of the hill being a bird sanctuary because he saw very few trees on the property, Weeds are cut once a year per a Fire Department requirement. The property is an eyesore now. When developed, it would be more attractive.Chairman Bosch mentioned regardless application, he stated repair of the destroyed was necessary.of the culvert action that on the has been The public hearing was closed,Commissioner Scott commented the entire City of Orange is a wild bird sanctuary -- not just Bolinger Hill.Commissioner Murphy wanted to know what tools were available,should this move forward, to ensure that there is no obstruction of view. Could the Commission put some control over that factor to ensure that later on down the line that doesn't change?I Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1991 - Page 9 Chairman Bosch noted the mitigated Negative Declaration would be theopportunityforrecognizinganymeansortoolsforthatpurpose. The maximum height (3D feet) allowed for construction ofaresidenceunderthecurrentzoningordinancewouldstillleavethehighestpartofaresidencebelowthebuildingpadsonthelotsabove,Chairman Bosch shared some of the concerns that he heard from oppositionanddoesn't feel they were answered relative to the fitofthisintotheexistingzoninginthearea. It is an extremely difficult parcel to develop no matter what is done to it. He sympathizes with the owner and developer on that basis.Adjacent zoning, however, has been established and types of residencesforwhichthepropertyvaluesorthewayoflifecouldbe negatively impacted, particularly the down slope residences to the northwest, along Santa Ana Canyon Road. It's true single familyresidencescouldbebuiltunderstandardsthatcouldendup with a dwelling about the same size, but then you have assured home ownership on the site, There is no restraint in the ordinance against having two renters in the duplex units. An owner would not necessarily be present on the site, Even though thesiteplanisanillustrativeplanonly, he felt it does not fit in with the surrounding properties in the neighborhood.Moved by Chairman Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to find that mitigated Negative Declaration l386-9l, wherein staff has determined that with implementation of mitigation measures there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment or wildlife resources, has been prepared in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and is recommended for acceptance. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Murphy, Scott None Commissioners Cathcart, Master MOTION CARRIED Moved by Chairman Bosch, seconded recommend to the Ci ty Council to deny of non-conformance of the proposed single family residential neighborhood,by Commissioner Murphy, to Zone Change ll37- 9l because zoning to the surrounding AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Murphy, Scott None Commissioners Cathcart, Master MOTION CARRIED Ms, Wolff explained the recommendation of a denial for a Zone Change effectively ends processing unless this itemisappealedwithin15daysof Planning Commission Minutes October 2l, 1991 - Page lO IN RE:NEW HEARINGS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-9l-A, ZONE CHANGE 1134- 9l, NEGATIVE DECLARATION l376-9l - COUNTY OF ORANGE:Request for approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Open Space/Park to Low Density Residential, 2-6 dwelling units per acre, and a Zone Change from RO (Recreational/Open Space) to Rl- 8 (Residential, Single Family Minimum Lot Size 8,000 square feet) and RI-lO (Residential,Single Family Minimum Lot Size lO, OOO square feet) or other designations the Planning Commission may consider appropriate,The site is presently used for growing strawberries, Subject property is an undeveloped property, approximately 30 acres in size, located south of the intersection of Hewes Street and Rancho Santiago.In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA), Negative Declaration l376- 91 has been prepared for this project, and is available for public review and comment at Orange City Hall through October 21, 1991.Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The item before the Commission is a request by the County of Orange to establish residential use on a property they originally purchased for a park site, Back in the 1960's, the County had originally planned to develop an extensive park system along the Santiago Creekbed. Over time, the potential for a park site was less and less. As of December, 1990, the County deleted a great deal of this area from their future park sites. They changed the Rancho Santiago Oaks park site to include more land in the foothills, but deleted everything southwest of the existing park site. In making this request, the County is establishing transition zones between the residential area to the south and the existing County island to the east of this site. The RI-IO,OOO designation is adjacent to existing R-l-IO,OOO on a tract south of the site and to R-l-20,000 to the east of the site. The delineation between the Rl-8 and Rl-IO, OOO is a legal boundary that the County had established originally for an alignment for Hewes Street, The City will not require, when this property is developed, the future alignment of Hewes to follow what was originally anticipated alignment on the subdivision to the south, In staff's review, they did not find that the site could not be developed as Rl-IO,OOO and Rl-8,000 designations.The increase in traffic would not cause increased traffic loads on Planning Commission Meeting October 2l, 1991 - Page II Applicant Grace Seckete, County of Orange, Staff Analyst, 401 Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana, stated the County's intent in filing this application was that before surplusing the property, they wanted to make it clear to anyone bidding on the property what the intended use of it would be and to gain any incremental values that may be obtainable by getting the zone change for the public rather than for the developer.Those speaking in favor Warner Stenberg, 462l East Swallow Avenue;Larry Bonam, 332 South Olive;Shirley Grindle, 1905l Glen Arran;There have been so many annoyances throughout the years,development will be welcomed. They were pleased Hewes will not be repositioned as originally planned. The need to save as much land as possible along Santiago Creek is encouraged, The City needs more park land. The reality is that the County does not have the money to develop park land, The compromise worked out with the County is acceptable to most of them. The City was asked not to allow this property in the future to be brought back every two years with a new owner who wants to increase the density. The County has been asked to put deed restrictions on the property before it is sold.Those speaking in opposition Maurice Colin, 802 Red Robin;Frank Gibson, 905 North Red Robin;Margie Hills, 4745 East Swallow;Kevin McCann, 4607 East Blue Jay;Roger Holloway, 19002 Glen Arran;Duke Hoenshell, l0932 Glen Robin Lane.They want the property to remain as open land. Many of the neighbors bought their homes with the understanding there would be a park. The land was donated by the developer for a park.Traffic will continue to increase and it's a nightmare now. There was concern about home values, the density per acre, and the size of the houses. Additional homes are not needed right now, will there be the same quality of homes built as Warmington? Some of the people speaking in opposition had mixed feelings about this project. There was opposition to a sports arena or that type of enlarged facility with lights and on-going events, however, low-density housing was favored for the area. One person questioned the way public notice was given. Many people did not receive notices of this Planning Commission Minutes October 2l, 1991 - Page l2 Ms. Wolff explained the notice procedure, which meets State requirements. Two forms of advertisement were used: l) is a mailing to everyone within a 300 foot radius of the property boundaries; 2) the Orange City News lO days before the hearing,Rebuttal Ms. Seckete responded the property is zoned by the County of Orange, The Harbors, Beaches and Parks district, per se, was dissolved, but it is now considered part of the County service area, which encompasses the entire County, which was the district. The property was not donated by the developer, nor was it dedicated. It was purchased with State bond act park monies,The County had to obtain State legislation which enabled them to sell the property, The stipulation is that all the proceeds be expended in the same manner as that original bond act, which would be developmental parks or acquisition of new park lands.They must have an agreement with state parks on the expenditure of those funds before they can sell the property, The density and property value one reason why they are doing this is to make it clear what the density should be on the property and feel it will help to maintain property values in the area, Traffic would be standard residential traffic, Park traffic would probably generate more traffic, especially during certain hours.This park was on the Master Plan for a good many years. It was unfortunately deleted because the County couldn't come up with a comprehensive acquisition that would be of regional importance.Quality of homes could not be guaranteed by the County. Anyone purchasing the property from the County would still have to go through the planning process and the Building Department. She would be happy to work with anyone after the meeting before the item is heard by City Council.Chairman Bosch asked about the opportunity for retaining the funds for enhancement of regional park facilities in the area?Ms, Seckete said the County was working with another jurisdiction to try and exchange some of the value in this parcel for an acquisition that would be easily within the sphere of the City of Orange. They would very much like to see that succeed, but there are no guarantees,The public hearing was closed.Chairman Bosch stated they received a letter from Steven Sidelick, 10622 Rancho Santiago, who could not be present. He expressed concerns relative primarily to traffic, alignment of streets, bike trails and other suggestions which have been referred to the Planning staff. Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1991 - Page l3 Commissioner Scott commented some of the opposition would like to see this developed as a park. If it were developed as a park, it would have to be developed within the City of Orange, Because of it' s size, the cost would range from lS to 30 million dollars to purchase it from the County. Then to develop it, it would cost another IS to 30 million dollars, With the economy the way it is now, the City cannot afford to develop the site as a park,Commissioner Murphy said it was important to note Item II of the staff report concerning E,R.B.'s comments for additional street right- of-way, construction of street improvements, including additional right-of-way and a bike/pedestrian trail on Rancho Santiago Boulevard. That does address some of the concerns expressed.Traffic signals at the proposed location was discussed, as well as the quality of the open space issue. The Commission encouraged the utilization of the monies that may result from the sale of this property to keep them in the area, to enhance the remaining portions of the Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan,Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1376-9l. The E,R.B, has found that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment or wildlife resources.AYES:NOES:ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Murphy, Scott None Commissioners Cathcart, Master MOTION CARRIED Moved by recommend 3-91-A and Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to to the City Council to approve General Plan Amendment Zone Change 1l34-9l. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Murphy, Scott None Commissioners Cathcart, Master MOTION CARRIED IN RE:NEW HEARINGS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-9l-B, ZONE CHANGE llI2-89, NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1294-89 - A&A VENTURES:Request for approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the property from Open Space to Low/Medium Density Residential, 6-lS dwelling units per acre, and a Zone Change to pre-zone the property from County AR 20 Agricultural, Residential, Minimum Lot Size 20,000 square feet)to R-3 ( Planning Commission Minutes October 2l, 1991 - Page l4 Subject property in size located approximately 500 is an undeveloped site, approximately four acres on the east side of Crawford Canyon Road feet south of Chapman Avenue,In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA), Negative Declaration 1294-89 has been prepared for this project, and is available for public review and comment at Orange City Hall through October 2l, 1991, Staff has received a letter from the applicant, which was given to the Planning Commissioners this date, discussing the potential Zone Change designation for this property. Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as there was opposition from the audience, This item is to establish the pre-zoning for a 3.9 acre site to City zoning,either R-3 as originally proposed, or as revised to R- 2; and to designate the site low medium density residential, permitting 6-l5 units per acre, The main concerns raised by staff and the E.R.B. is the steepness of the site and the difficulty in developing because of the rocky soil. A soils report has been presented by the applicant that showed the site could be developed. The soils report was prepared for an office-medical building on the site; that it was considered acceptable for preliminary review for the conceptual residential plan turned in on the site, E,R,B, did not find that the increase in traffic generated by the conceptual 30 units on the site would create a problem for development, Staff discussed in the staff report the possibilities of designating the site as low density and changing the zoning to R-l-6, which would limit the potential on the site to up to lO units; that the site could be developed without requiring mass grading.The public hearing was opened.Applicant Phillip Anthony, A&A Ventures, 3200 East Frontera Street,Anaheim, requests a pre-annexation zoning on the property which is presently in the County of Orange. It's almost surrounded by the City of Orange. They started work on this almost three years ago, The original use discussed with staff was an office- professional complex, At that time they were working with the mining company to the north and the plan was to take access to the north, through the mining company driveway, making that access much closer to Chapman which seemed to be more suitable if it were a commercial office/professional type use, Unfortunately because the land owner of the mining company property would not cooperate with the appropriate easement, they abandoned that approach. Since there is a sizable R-3 project across Chapman,they thought that would be a second choice as a compatible kind of Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1991 - Page l5 taking access to the south, farther from Chapman for residential use. They were seeking 60 units, which was at the upper end of the R-3 range, Because there were so many difficulties with the access, traffic and location of the access to the south, they sought other technical help, They reduced the conceptual density about half. They're now looking at a conceptual site plan involving only about 30 units (density of about 7 1/2 units per acre), They also changed the plan to reduce the grading considerably and also to take access about in the middle of the property, which is a natural low spot and lines up with the major access for the condominium project across the street. The grading plan they are working with now has absolutely no filled slopes (a tremendous difference from the earlier approach, which did try to create a larger pad and called for extensive filled slopes). The approach now follows the natural contours much more closely. All of the slopes in the front of the property and on the sides would be kept up at the more conventional 2:1 slope ratio, There are some good benefits to this project and they would like to pursue annexation to the City of Orange, Their first meeting with LAFCO is November 6, 1991, One of the benefits would be the widening of Crawford Canyon Road along the length of this property. Widening would involve extensive grading because right now the east half of Crawford Canyon is under the slope of this property, He feels this would improve the safety for the area, which is a busy highway a good part of the day. They are also proposing a good addition to the City's housing stock good quality condominiums or townhouses. They are trying to work with staff on density issues. The maximum exposure on this site would be 32 units. Their request for R- 2-B zoning only allows l8 units, coming back later for a Conditional Use Permit for a total of 32 units.Bruce Jordan, 15375 Barranca Parkway, Irvine, architect for this project, passed out a document that might help to illustrate some of the issues. The issues can easily be mitigated to allow reasonable development on the site. There was a geotechnical investigation which pointed out the site is suitable for development, They have come up with a plan that will blend nicely with the surrounding area. The project is tucked in an area where the grading will be behind the buildings and be screened in such a way that will not be very visible. He addressed the l:l cut slope issue and referred to the last page of his document, They understand a more detailed geotechnical study will be required prior to obtaining building permits. The fill slopes have been eliminated so that changes the extent of work that would occur on the site. Their concept would be to come back to the Commission with a contoured grading solution;one that has exaggerated rock faces, irregular, to look as natural as possible. It would not be a shear, manufactured slope face at all, He would like to leave open the opportunity for possibly making a rock feature in the back. He feels Planning Commission Minutes October 2l, 1991 - Page 16 Review Board may concur with that, If the rock face is an issue,there are a number of different treatments that could be utilized to deal with that subject,Those speaking in opposition Bob Bennyhoff, l0642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres;Shirley Grindle, 19051 Glen Arran;Justine Evans, 242 Jl9 South Crawford Canyon,Concern was voiced about the mistakes in Crawford Canyon and they do not want to repeat them. R-2-8 is much better than R- 3, but there is nothing in writing of what is going to be done; the submitted plans do not make sense. A continuance of the item was suggested to give everyone time to study and review all issues.Traffic is a major concern, along with the widening of Crawford Canyon Road. Additional information is pertinent before a decision can be made, Specific concerns were: Who is A&A Ventures? Who are the principals? It sounds like someone trying to buy property, getting an amendment and zone change, and then selling it to another developer, who is going to come in and say they can't live with this property, The next person will ask for a higher density because of all the problems on this difficult piece of property. What happened to the East Orange Specific Plan? Is this property located within that area? What was ear marked for this property? The property across the street is of different terrain and doesn't even warrant comparison to this property, Have the Foothill Community and Panorama Heights people been notified of this hearing? Can a deed restriction be imposed on the property limiting the number of units to be built?An East Orange Association Committee is suppose to review all plans prior to public hearings, If they're still active, the Committee should review these plans,Rebuttal Mr, Anthony was also concerned about the issues raised by the audience, They have not gone far enough in their process to have an exact project only a conceptual plan of about 30 units.They are only requesting a basic zone change within reason.Based on their geotechnical studies, the proposed grading is not that severe, They are only talking about 2:l slopes in the front of this property; the l:l cut slopes would be in the back,screened by the buildings themselves and landscaping, There are no perfect answers to these questions, He agrees the traffic problem is terrible. Part of the problem is that the street isn't fully developed to a reasonable distance from Chapman. If this project were allowed, it would be the only way to get new monies in the budget to widen the street, He would be pleased to work with those people in opposition to explain the project in more detail. They would welcome a decision tonight, Planning Commission Minutes October 2l, 1991 - Page l7 t work he aho would also be willing to work out these issues/concerns.is an officer and the Adams officers, They have done some with the City and A& A Ventures is a family ( mentioned land development,residents to corporation; earlier) are Ms, Wolff responded to other questions raised by the opposition.She did not know if this property was within the East Orange Specific Plan. Staff looked at the overall General Plan for the City, but the East Orange Specific Plan was not consulted. Staff will look into that matter if the hearing is continued, The same applies to the East Orange Committee, Noticing for this project consisted of a notice in the Orange City News and there was a mailing to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the property boundaries. There was no additional noticing to other associations. Commissioner Scott and then suggested density pre-zone? said this was advertised for pre-zone to R-3 pre-zone to R-2-8, could they act on a less Ms, Wolff said staff advertised the property to change to R-3 or any other designation that the Planning Commission would find appropriate. The Commission is given some latitude in determining another designation that might be more appropriate.Commissioner Scott with the geologist the hill, there was asked staff if there has been any stimulation as far as the fault zones are concerned, Over a fault zone that showed up.Ms. Wolff responded no. Staff There was specific information in an investigation of that fault recent activity found. took the the report and there reports as written.that there had been was no evidence of Commissioner Scott asked if it were possible to intent to pre- zone rather than pre-zone?Ms. know been Wolff said it has been done how to answer his question.utilized in several years.in the past, but really didn't That's something that has not Mr, Godlewski was not sure if it were appropriate in a situation where the applicant is basically trying to establish some value on the land. A conditional zone change is kind of difficult later down the line when they try to get financing for the project, It means little to the applicant.The Commission felt quite a few issues and questions have not been addressed. It was called out there would be no fill. How many trips are they talking about? Originally they were looking at 100,000 yards that Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1991 - Page 18 balance as far as fill? The conceptual grading plan shows a raw volume cut of l06,000 cubic yards, export of 98,450 cubic yards,It' s about 8,000 yards fill under the original submittal.Chairman Bosch said the Negative Declaration before them is entirely crafted towards the R-3 residential multiple family. What would be required for them to consider the Negative Declaration in light of the amended request of the applicant for some lesser density? What kind of action can be taken on this that would provide a Negative Declaration in place that would be protective and inclusive of the information obtained at this meeting? Ms, Wolff stated the Negative Declaration is evaluating a worse case scenario. The impacts of an R-2 development would be less than that evaluated in the Negative Declaration. If the Commission could accept the findings of the Negative Declaration,then any lesser density would also not be worse in terms of impact. The mitigation measures are written to the worse case scenario. Again, if the Commission feels they are overly stringent, staff can entertain revisions to them. In addition,the public record from the meeting this date is also part of the Negative Declaration, The Negative Declaration is not just what you see before you, but the Minutes of the meeting and any decisions or revisions that occur at this meeting tonight,Chairman Bosch asked if they were adopt the Negative Declaration and continue the remainder of the actions should such other information come to their attention that a continued public hearing for the remainder of the application, can they re-address the Negative Declaration and amend it at that time?Mr. Herrick recommended if the Commission contemplates continuing the action on the Zone Change, they may wish to also continue the action on the Negative Declaration to hold that open if there's any consideration on changes that the Commission is not currently prepared to make,Chairman Bosch's question was towards a vehicle by which the City might protect itself relative to the Negative Declaration and still provide a vehicle for the environmental approval that might address request for annexation to the City, which may occur prior to the next hearing on this item.Commissioner Scott asked if the property could be annexed without being pre-zoned?Mr. Herrick said the annexation cannot become final without that pre-zoning taking place, The fact there is a hearing before LAFCO is not nearly to the stage of finality as the annexation,There are several steps that need to take place between LAFCO and the final annexation, which takes place here at the City, by action Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1991 - Page 19 Commissioner Scott asked if the City could annex that property with the zoning as it exists within the County? Could they bring it in that way, which is open space right now?Mr. Herrick responded would have to be put Traditionally, the City the value to the City pre- zone. there is no particular designation that on that property in order to be annexed. tries to establish what they anticipate is in the annexation process by the Chairman Bosch said they've heard expressions of a number of questions that can't be addressed at this meeting. Questions have been raised by speakers which seem to require clarification, A stipulation by the applicant to a continuance for some time to arrive at a better understanding of the project and answers to the questions involved. He personally would like to see a continuance of the item in order to have the questions answered and give the applicant an opportunity to speak with the concerned citizens and perhaps develop a vehicle by which they might resolve the concern about limitation of density, the exposed rock face and the traffic. Commissioner Murphy brought up the ambiguity of the and a question about blasting. He would also questions answered as part of the continuance, soils report like those Staff recommended a hearing 18's agenda is very heavy another steering committee, meeting quickly, Mr. Anthony date of December 2, 1991 as November and in order to get in touch with it might be difficult to set up that concurred with the meeting date, Moved by continue Negative Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to General Plan Amendment 3-9l-B, Zone Change 11l2-89 and Declaration l294-89 to December 2, 1991.AYES:NOES:ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Murphy, Scott None Commissioners Cathcart, Master MOTION CARRIED IN RE:NEW HEARINGS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-9l, NEGATIVE DECLARATION l389-9l - CITY OF ORANGE:A proposed amendment to the City's General Plan to establish a Growth Management Element as required by the Revised Traffic and Growth Management Ordinance (Measure M) approved by Orange County voters on November 6, 1990.In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA), Negative Declaration l389- 9l has been prepared for this project, and is available for public review and comment at Orange Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1991 - Page 20 Two letters were received: I) Frank Elfend, requesting a continuance of this item; and 2) Irvine Company addressing the Growth Management Element.Jere Murphy, Manager of Advanced Planning, commented the Element is a response to Measure M; that it is the only remaining significant item that's required to qualify the City for funding under Measure M. There are lawsuits still pending on the Growth Measure and the Orange County Transportation Authority is withholding funding until those lawsuits are settled, There are two ways that cities can classify themselves in developing a Growth Management Element, One, as a developed city -- that's the position the City of Orange has taken at the present time, in which only infrastructure is addressed. Developing cities must also address such facilities as police, fire and flood control.The East Orange General Plan area will be addressed with the first Specific Plan and the Element will be amended at that time to address the other than transportation/public facilities. The Growth Management Element contains pOlicies for planning and provision of traffic improvements necessary for orderly growth and development. That's the basic premise of the approval last November. Programs within the Element include the establishment of levels of service, development mitigation, development phasing and annual monitoring programs, The current draft before the Commission is the fifth draft, It includes input from both of the staffs of Public Works and Community Develoment over a series of months, as well as input from the Transportation Planning Committee and the Irvine Company, The original draft of the Element was based on the League of Cities Model Element, with modifications that primarily eliminated the comprehensive phasing provisions. The Transportation Planning Committee reviewed the Element on August 2l. Planning Commission held a study session to review the draft Element and on September 23 staff received a letter from Frank Elfend requesting a continuance to allow for additional time to review the Element, The Irvine Company has submitted a letter that indicates their involvement in the development of the fifth draft, and also indicates concerns they still have for the matter of additional fees that might be developed through the Growth Management area process,Commissioner Murphy wanted an involved from the standpoint and when it is required to move idea of what kind of time frame is of the rest of the approval cycle forward,Mr, Murphy said if the Commission were to act at this meeting, a hearing before the City Council would take place in mid-November,and have approval take place by resolution hopefully before the end of the year. Staff is attempting to gain formal approval of the Element before the end of this year so that they would be able to start the first part of next year knowing the City was qualified to receive funds. Planning Commission Minutes October 2l, 1991 - Page 21 The public hearing was opened.Bob Bennyhoff, I0642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, gave strong supporttothisElement, He was on the Committee that wrote it and it was a series of compromises, It's a fairly decent document, He thinks the City will have trouble on the GMA's,The public hearing was closed,Chairman Bosch thought it was fair to address the question in the Foothill Community Builders' letter to staff their concern that any new fee that would come out of the program would be that necessary to establish the deficit intersection fund that was alluded to and methods by which the City will be sure that it's previous planning to assure adequate transportation funds gathering through other vehicles will be recognized by the other cities/ agencies with which we deal in arriving at the final formula. Staff understands those comments from the company and basically agree. They want to remain competitive with the other agencies and jurisdictions in the County in terms of fees, They feel they are competitive at the present time and they don't want to lose any competitive edge in terms of encouraging development to occur that generates revenue for the City,Chairman available review of Council, Bosch was sure Mr. Elfend will be aware between now and the City Council meeting to the fifth draft and make his comments he has time prepare any to the City Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration l389-9l. The Environmental Review Board has found that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Murphy, Scott None Commissioners Cathcart, Master MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to recommend to the City Council to approve General Plan Amendment 2-9l (Growth Management Element). AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Murphy, Scott None Commissioners Cathcart, Master MOTION Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1991 - Page 22 IN RE:NEW HEARINGS CITY OF ORANGE LANDSCAPE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS:A proposed amendment to Chapter l6 of the Orange Municipal Code,incorporating by reference that document entitled .City of Orange LandscapeStandards & Specifications., establishing standards for landscape design, construction and inspection of both private and public works projects. The document establishes procedures for plan preparation and submittal, review and approval,Jeff Erhart, Community Services, was available to answer any questions.The Commission had a number of formatting changes that don't really affect the intent of the document, There are some corrections to the Table of Contents and formatting issues,Commissioner Murphy would be happy to work with staff to ensure that as part of the Subcommittee for the Landscape Ordinance and could focus on the specific, technical intention of the document at the hearing. It should be noted to remove all specific references within the green book, as far as chapter and verse,The public hearing was opened.Cora Lee Newman, Vice-President of Entitlement for Foothill Community Builders, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, submitted a number of letters regarding this ordinance. It is a very important document to them. She focused on her letter of October II, 1991. There are four points: l) the need for flexibility to address unforeseen circumstances and regulations; 2) to clarify the time frames for landscape plan review; 3) landscape design guidelines; and 4) street tree requirements and design criteria found on Page 26, They believe the standards as written may not be sufficiently adaptable to allow the City to achieve it's goal of creating a quality landscape environment in the context of increasingly and difficult to foresee environmental regulations. Their example was the increasing trend towards habitat enhancement as an environmental mitigation may be at odds with the slope planting requirements, They gave a case in point, which is on the new Page 20 -- requirement for a specified level of tree coverage on all manufactured slopes may be inconsistent with future requirements for slope revegetation to include habitat enhancement. They are suggesting to add language to the introduction page of the ordinance (Page 7, after the 3rd paragraph), " The standards presented in this document are intended to establish an acceptable level of landscape treatment for public and private development projects, It is recognized that alternative standards and specifications may be necessary Planning Commission Minutes October 2l, 1991 - Page 23 and desirable to meet environmental and/or aesthetic requirements which could not be anticipated in this document. Alternatives to these standards, guidelines and approach set forth in this document may be considered and adopted through the plan review process as necessary to comply with requirements established through CEQA review process or otherwise determined appropriate by the reviewing body to achieve the City's landscape goals,"In terms of the flow chart (Page 5), the issue continues to be of concern as you look at the chart, what are the time frames that coincide with zoning? They request that the time frames that are now provided for in the zoning ordinance that have to do with the "project application" coincide with that in the landscape ordinance. They do appreciate the chart being added;it helped for a lot of clarification,They would like to see the concurrent planning/processing flow into the landscape ordinance, as it has with the zoning ordinance update, On Page 8 "Landscape Design Requirements", the concern remains that they believe these requirements or considerations cannot all happen at once or simultaneously at every project. They had asked originally and will continue to ask is that there be language that says "these considerations be balanced".Landscape considerations which are to be balanced in the plan review and approval process." The landscape design requirements may be mutually exclusive. For example, a landscape which compliments existing landscape or integrates with existing and proposed slopes, may not necessarily be able to be designed to accommodate low maintenance, You may not in every landscape plan be able to accommodate and make everyone of these points happen simultaneously. They're asking that the language be changed to state that the landscape considerations which are intended to be balanced in the plan review and approval process -- replace demonstrated with balanced.Steve Ross, Senior Director of Urban Planning and Design with the Irvine Company, said the best example would be a case where a project was both required to compliment existing landscape (might be adjacent to an existing project) and a case where a landscaped pallet that complemented that existing landscape was not necessarily the lowest maintenance landscape pallet that could be proposed for that project, As a consequence, if you were consistent with or complementing the adjacent existing landscape and satisfying that criteria, it would be difficult to also satisfy the low maintenance requirement. The criteria should be balanced".On Page 26, Section 4.14 "Design Review Board about 3/ 4's down the page the sentence, "The required to verify street tree requirements, ..n requirements? That needs to be clarified.Requirements" ,applicant is what are those Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1991 - Page 24 At the top of that, at the beginning of the Design Review Board requirements, the first sentence says "The following Design Review Board landscape requirements are to be used for all multi- family tract"," (they take it to mean residential tracts). They believe some areas do not apply to all of those; for example, there are requirements for trees be planted in back yards and side yards. Is that what you mean for a residential tract? They request in the very beginning of that section there would be a clause that says, "Unless approved otherwise by the reviewing body, the following Design Review Board landscape requirements are to be used for..," (Page 26), They request that they be able to work with the Subcommittee and staff regarding their comments detailed in their October II letter, Bob Bennyhoff, l0642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, asked why these suggestions/changes were not acted on previously. At some point the process needs to be stopped, Chairman Bosch questioned staff about street tree requirements Page 26), Isn't there any reason why there can't be an appendix or supplemental attachments for reference? Mr. Erhart said the requirement for a standard street tree size is lS gallons (as noted in the fourth paragraph from the top). Beyond that, the individual street designation is recorded or held on record with the Parks Department and is grouped per neighborhood by species of tree, It is very difficult for staff to list each individual street tree requirement because it primarily deals with infill plantings, The document is referred to as the Street Tree Master Plan, Chairman Bosch suggested replacing the third paragraph from the bottom of Page 26 with a statement similar to "Different neighborhoods and streets within the city, per the City's adopted Street Tree Master Plan having individual street tree species designations, Said designations can be confirmed for your street or for the streets in the specific project with the Parks Division," Mr, Erhart also referred to Page 2l, "Street Tree Planting" under Design Criteria, staff identified the IS gallon container size, the size of the tree stake, which is pre-approved and an insert at the base of the bullets which reads, "All tree selections will be approved on a project- by-project basis,"Commissioner Scott thought if they tied the two thoughts together, "Tree selection shall be approved on a project-by-project basis, based on the City's Street Tree Master Plan.", the statement on Page Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1991 - Page 25 Referring to Page 26 regarding requirements to be used by the Design Review Board, some of these are requirements that don't apply to each of the land uses indicated in the first paragraph,Chairman Bosch sees the problem, but has a problem inserting unless approved by the reviewing body". It solves the initial problem, but also opens the whole thing up. We either have requirements or suggestions, There is a contradiction,It was suggested Industrial should residential. to be group added, the and trees tract by species in a list.should be augmented to Mr. Godlewski interjected the Design Review Board will act as a recommending body in most cases, unless specified otherwise in the ordinance, Rather than making the Design Review Board have a list of requirements, the Commission may want to consider this as recommendations. You wouldn't have to do anything to the list;just change the title, In terms of the tract question, it is needed to cover single family tracts. Residential tracts would be appropriate, Industrial tracts would be covered under office/ institutional and then add industrial and commercial.Commissioner Murphy came back to the idea of sUb-listing the trees as part of the technical review, There was also concern on Page 8 relative to considerations to be demonstrated on a landscape plan where the suggested word balanced" be substituted for demonstrated because there might be incompatibility of planting or environmental conditions. There was a problem using just the word balanced because it equates to something of equal weight. The intent is there. All these things should be considered, but not necessarily all required, Suggested wording: "Criteria to be considered on a preliminary landscape plan include the following:" rather than "balanced". Introduction - VII. - relative to the concern about CEQA or other environmental requirements. On Page 37, under fuel modification,the October II letter from the Irvine Company addressed the sensitivity of a requirement of fuel modification or an imposed planting list on a native area, Staff added the first paragraph under 6. 8. If there is the appropriate position elsewhere to do a similar minor editing, it would solve the problem, Then it would become the exceptions to the standards referenced on the introductory page without changing the introductory page.Steve Ross thought the other area they're most concerned with in this area is the section dealing with slopes (Pages 22 and 23,Sections 4, l3 l, 2, and 3). Each of the sections specifies a particular kind of tree planting and shrub planting approach.Those approaches may not be consistent with environmental regulations, In lieu of the language suggested for the I Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1991 - Page 26 introduction, this could perhaps be resolved by including the languageasaleadintoeachoftheslopeplantingrequirementsundereachofthesesections: "Unless approved otherwise by the reviewingbody," the slope planting would have some flexibility andthusbeabletorespondtothoseenvironmentalissues.Commissioner the lead in fuel, Bosch suggested doing it once on Page 2l under 4.l3,on slopes or something similar to staff's wording on Time frames were not included because there are so many processes togothrough. The only published time frames at this point are intheapplicationforthevarioustypesofpermits, In addition, there is another flow chart that talks about minor projectswhichdon't require discretionary procedures. There are no formal time frames published. It's difficult to find something to reference to.Perhaps it's just the chart itself, When the City Council finally adopts the revised zoning ordinance also incorporating therevisionstothecurrentprocess, that then there be referencebacktothesamecharttohavethemcoincidewiththeevents not the exact number of days, but as long as the events coincide, the process is incorporated adequately in the zoning ordinance.Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to recommend to the City Council to amend Chapter l6 of the Orange MunicipalCodetoincorporatebyreferencethedocumententitledCityofOrangeLandscapeStandards & Specifications" with the corrections noted in the public hearing discussion and minor technical corrections to be addressed prior to City Council actionbytheSubcommittee,AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Murphy, Scott None Commissioners Cathcart, Master MOTION CARRIED IN RE:ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to adjourn to a study session on October 28, 1991 at 5:30 p,m, in the Weimer Room to discuss Tentative Tract l4544 - IDM; and also to discussResolutionl72lBlastingOrdinance. Then, to adjourn to a joint study session on October 29, 1991 at 8:00 a,m,in theWeimerRoomwiththeCityCouncilforthepurposeofreviewingthe Historic Survey Update and high rise study.AYES:NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Murphy, Scott None Commissioners Cathcart, Master MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at lO:35 p.m,sld I