Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/6/1989 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange March 6, 1989 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott ABSENT: Commissioner Greek STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Sr. Planner & Commission Secretary; Jack McGee, Administrator - Current Planning; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: IN RE: MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 1989 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of February 6, 1989 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek Hart, Master, Scott MOTION CARRIED ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED ZONE CHANGE 1107-89 - FAR HORIZONS MONTESSORI, INC.: This was a request for a proposed Zone Change and they are also required to file a General Plan revision. Therefore, they are requesting a continuance to April 3, 1989. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission accept the continuance of Zone Change 1107-89 to April 3, 1989. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek Hart, Master, Scott MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1733-88, PRE-ZONE CHANGE 1103-88, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13819 - B. E. DEVELOPMENT: A proposal to subdivide an existing 4.6 acre parcel into five lots, four of which will be suitable for single family residences. The Conditional Use Permit requests consideration of a Planned Unit Development and the creation of lots without frontage on a public street. The Pre-Zone request will establish a City zone of R-1-40,000. The site Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 1989 - Page 2 is located on the east side of Santiago Canyon Road mid-way between Chapman Avenue and Amapola Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1271-88 has been prepared for this project. Conditional Use Permit 1733-88, Pre-Zone Change 1103-88 and Tentative Tract Map 13819 was continued from the January 16, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant George Kerns, Salkin Engineering, 1215 East Chapman Avenue, represented the applicant, who was in the audience. They concur with the staff report and briefly outlined their proposal. When they originally looked at the property they explored the possibility of doing a standard street and four full acre lots. However, it required removing almost all of the hill. The pads would be graded 10 feet above the elevation of Santiago Avenue. It was not very desirable so they came up with an alternative solution. They propose to provide a private street with steeper grades in which the lot size fits the ground much better. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1271-88. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it approve Tentative Tract Map 13819, Pre-Zone Change 1103-88 and Conditional Use Permit 1733-88 subject to the staff's recommendation and the Engineer's Plan Check sheet. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 1989 - Page 3 IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1721-88 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 3-8$ - I.D.M.: A proposal to approve a Development Agreement to facilitate the construction of approximately 1,675,000 square feet of high rise offices and a proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow the development of two 10-story and three 18-story office buildings. Orange Municipal Code Section 17.46.110 permits additional height in excess of 45 feet subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. Orange Municipal Code Section 17.46.040 permits office use in the M-1 zone, subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. NOTE: Environmental Impact Report 1262 has been prepared for this project. Conditional Use Permit 1721-$8 was continued from the December 5, 1988, January 4, 1989 and February 6, 1989 Planning Commission Meetings. The staff report was presented by Mr. Godlewski. I.D.M. proposes a Development Agreement to facilitate the construction of approximately two 10-story and three 18-story office buildings, as well as a Conditional Use Permit for height in the M-1 zone. Supplemental information has been received within the last week from I.D.M. The site is currently occupied by the Orange Drive-In Theater. The project stretches across both the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange, with the majority of the project in the City of Orange. The primary concern addressed in the environmental documentation is the traffic and increases in traffic due to the future development. The proposal is made in two phases with the first phase being one building in Anaheim and two buildings in Orange, with the subsequent development of two buildings in Phase 2 at such time as the anticipated freeway widening takes place and traffic mitigation measures are in place. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Ron Winkler, I.D.M. Corporation, 5150 East Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, is the project manager for this project. The previous continuance was to allow I.D.M. to resolve certain issues and differences of opinion regarding content of the conditional Use Permit and the Development Agreement. This will be a project of significance to the City and will contribute quite a bit in terms of the scale of the development, the consistency of that development with Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 1989 - Page 4 the redevelopment program the City has in mind for the area and the tax increment and employment opportunities it will generate for the community. Their estimate when the project is completely built out, will produce nearly four million dollars worth of taxes to be shared by the cities of Anaheim and Orange annually. They are prepared to accept the conditions as prepared and published in the blue staff report dated February 8, 1989. They have had conversations with the Traffic Engineer regarding Item 49 (b) as it pertains to the State College intersection. They think that instead of the northeast/northwest corner, it might be southeast/southwest corners. There are differences of opinion regarding the Development Agreement. He prepared a letter to the Commission outlining those differences. It deals with some business points. (1) The reservation of the area for the freeway off ramp -- they do not believe it is appropriate for them to contract their rights away in terms of receiving just compensation for that area at the time Cal-Trans intends to acquire it. (2) There should be an adequate provision, in the event they fail to perform, that the City receive a certain liquidated damage. They agree with that concept, but it should be limited. Under that circumstance, both parties walk away from the project. The City receives the liquidated damages agreed upon and there is no more liability on the part of either party. They would like to see a provision amended to be consistent with the C.U.P. pertaining to the traffic studies to be done as future phases of the project occurs. They feel Condition 52, to perform a traffic analysis before they initiate Phase 2 of the project, is proper and that's how it should be done. The Agreement talks about having a traffic analysis as each building in the project moves forward. The need for a traffic assessment would occur when the second phase of development would take place, which involves the latter two 18-story buildings. Commissioner Hart made reference to the Development Agreement and understood Mr. Winkler to not be in agreement with it. Mr. Winkler felt the Conditional Use Permit and Development Agreement were independent items and should stand by themselves. Commissioner Hart thought they would also be in disagreement with the Environmental Impact Report as it addresses the freeway off ramp possibility. If the issue is not addressed, the Environmental Impact Report would be in jeopardy. All of these things must tie together to make it work. Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 1989 - Page 5 Mr. Winkler said their position would be that the Environmental Impact Report and the site design addresses the issue of the possible freeway off ramp. They have accommodated the City's concerns that an area be preserved for that off ramp. The issue of acquiring it, the issue of compensation is a matter between I.D.M. and Cal-Trans. The design does not interfere with the location of that off ramp. The Environmental Impact Report locates it and addresses the issue. Their concern is whether or not they are going to have a permanent reservation as a condition of a contract for the off ramp. They feel it can adversely influence the acquisition appraisal that might take place at the time Cal-Trans comes to value the property. Commissioner Hart saw his point: If they do not have a parcel that is developable, it cannot be sold as such. Those speaking in opposition: David Lurker, Attorney with the firm of Voss & Cook, 840 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, represented an adjacent property owner at Tweed and Wells. The property owner is immediately to the north of the parking structure. Their concerns are the design of the parking structure. The C.U.P. and environmental processing provides for no setback on that property line and provides for what could be a six story, sixty foot high parking structure with a solid cement face, six feet high, stretching the length of the northerly property line. The concern is with the use of the adjacent property currently to have that kind of a wall and secondly, with future development opportunity and the impact it would have on it. Some of the problems will be shadowing and aesthetics on the adjacent property. Chairman Bosch wanted Mr. Lurker to know that portion of the project is within the City of Anaheim, although all aspects of the project inter-relate in terms of their impacts on the proposal for development. Doug Molugin, 1220 East Adams, owns property across the street from the previous speaker. He is opposed to the parking structure. A concrete wall is a pity and he asked if something better could be done. Counsel Mark Huebsch, Stradling, Yocca, Carlson and Rauth, 616 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, commented briefly on some of the comments that were made on part of the applicant. The comments track the February 28 letter that was submitted by the applicant in relation to Section 6.2 as proposed to the Development Agreement and the reservation Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 1989 - Page 6 and dedication of land. It relates to the question of the level of consideration that is appropriate for a city to get in exchange for a Development Agreement -- a matter of policy and not a legal matter. There have been a number of discussions regarding Section 6.2 with representatives of I.D.M., and that I.D.M. has stated one position and Public Works has stated another position. Although both positions may be understandable in terms of the goals and objectives of the respective parties, there does not seem to be an agreement at a manager level on this issue. Regarding the language changes that are proposed, the languages he heard from I.D.M. is that in the eyes of the proponent (I.D.M.) they envision that a certain level of compensation, or the ability to recover damages, on the part of the City is appropriate if there is a default on the part of I.D.M. under the Development Agreement. The other view is that there may be other items with respect to which some other relief should be afforded. For example, in terms of the reservation provision, it has been the City's position that the City should have the ability to seek specific performance of the reservation. I.D.M. disagrees with that because they don't think the City should receive a reservation, or that they should be required to make that reservation in the first place. As far as the scope of conditions that would be susceptible to enforcement under the liquidated damages clause, there are certain disparities between the two staffs relating to day care, well site, art work, parking rights study and a focused traffic study. In regard to the timing of the focused traffic study, they have had numerous discussions on that. The distinction is that the staff language would require or provide for a focused traffic study should some portion of the so-called Phase 1 be initiated by I.D.M., whereas I.D.M. wants to complete Phase 1 before they do the focused traffic study. The question that is the potential difficulty is that the flexibility is retained where I.D.M. could initiate a building that is part of Phase 2 even though they have not completed Phase 1. If that turned out to be an appropriate way to proceed with the development, given market conditions, it was staff's view that it should be facilitated. Staff wanted to assure that the focused traffic study is available at a meaningful time and that the City of Orange would have a contractual right to assure that it will be done. Commissioner Master asked Mr. Huebsch to comment on the inter-relationship between the E.I.R., the Agreement and the C.U.P. as they affect each other. Mr. Huebsch said a Conditional Use Permit is one process and it is within the province of the City to grant. It reviews and can impose appropriate conditions on a development that Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 1989 - Page 7 deal with the impacts raised by the project. In enables an applicant to proceed now to develop in accordance with the terms of the approval. However, the limitation of a Conditional Use Permit is that if there is a change in zoning, etc., if there is not a commencement of the project (issuance of building permits), generally speaking there would not be a vested right. So there would be no vested right of the applicant to continue with the development of the project even though at one time he obtained a Conditional Use Permit. The basic purpose of the Development Agreement is subject to satisfying certain conditions affording an applicant a vested right. He would lose the vested right if he doesn't perform in accordance with the Agreement. It doesn't totally deprive the City of discretion in that you apply the existing rules. They are still subject to the existing rules. But, you can't change the rules once the Agreement was approved and become enforceable. Under C.E.Q.A., the environmental report is an informational document for the decision maker. That is designed to help you make the kinds of decisions for a C.U.P., Zone Change, or Development Agreement. In this particular situation, there are certain items dealing with traffic where there are conditions under the Conditional Use Permit and where also they may additionally be addressed in the Development Agreement. There is a certain overlap in the scope of conditions. There can be an overlap in remedies. If a party has a Development Agreement and approval of a C.U.P. and it does not implement a condition correctly, the City would have the legal right to enforce the condition of the Conditional Use Permit. Rebuttal Tim Cameron, 110 Pine Avenue, Long Beach, Attorney for I.D.M., addressed a few of the points raised in Mr. Winkler's letter of February 28, and also to respond to Mr. Huebsch. Concerning the reservation of the land, they have a development proposal to develop 18 acres of land. The reservation is not part of their application for development. It has nothing to do with their application. The Environmental Impact Report addressed that piece of property and basically said before they could build Phase 2, they would have to do something with the traffic flow and Cal-Trans widening of I-5. They do not have a condition concerning that reservation in their Conditional Use Permit. It came up in the Development Agreement where the City staff asked them to agree that they would not use that land throughout the term of the Agreement. That basically said that land had zero value for 10 years. If Cal-Trans came tomorrow and condemned it, they have talked to appraisers and they have told them there is a very good likelihood that Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 1989 - Page 8 they would receive very little value for that six acres of land. That is not money. When that property is acquired, it's not revenues from the City of Orange that would be used. It would be Cal-Trans revenues. When they evaluated this through the appraisal process, that loss (because of that reservation) could cost the California Drive-In Theater Corporation and I.D.M. approximately four million dollars. You add that as consideration to the Agreement, in addition to the million forty thousand dollars in area wide public improvements, the two hundred fifty thousand dollars of art work and a hundred thousand dollars for day care, you will start to see there is an awful lot of money to be added to the pro forma for a Development Agreement invested right. None of those would be part of a C.U.P. application. If they just had a C.U.P. application for five buildings, none of those items would apply. The concern is that it makes the total project infeasible when that much cost is added to it. There is still a difference of opinion on this issue. He addressed the damage provision. As far as the actual concept of damages or specific performance, he doesn't think they are in disagreement. The problem is they ran out of time on the language. They agree there are certain things in the developmental approvals (tract maps, building permits, etc.) that the City always under its existing rules would have the right to enforce those approvals. Their difference of opinion is that they feel the language in the Agreement, as it now stands, is ambiguous. I.D.M. Corporation cannot be exposed to whatever the damages might be if because the economic realities of the world, they can't build all of those buildings. The proposed language accomplishes just that. As far as the specific items that would be included in liquidated damages, the way the negotiations evolved, was that the City of Orange wanted certain area wide improvements accomplished. By the fact there were certain entitlements on the property, they would not give entitlements to some other piece of property that would have contributed to these area wide public improvements. Therefore, if I.D.M. did not go forward with the development, the City would lose the ability to collect funds to do the area wide improvements. They agree to that as liquidated damages. The problems begin with a park and ride study on their property, paying two hundred fifty thousand dollars for art work on the property, and putting a day care center on the property. If the property is not developed, why should those items be liquidated damages to the City to put on someone else's property? Concerning the focused traffic study, they felt they had an agreement with the City staff that the focused traffic study would be completed prior to any construction in Phase 2. He thought that agreement was in place right after the last public hearing. They agreed to and accepted the language in the C.U.P. (Condition 52). If they have a traffic study that Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 1989 - Page 9 occurs at any time in the process (the first building), and the City said they had additional mitigation measures and our part of that is five million dollars. The certainty in the development process has gone out. The economic burdens have become catastrophic and they have millions of dollars invested in the process at that point. That is why they objected to it. That's why the negotiations and C.U.P. fix that traffic study at the beginning of Phase 2. They would agree to do a focused traffic study before they built the first building that would be part of Phase 2. Commissioner Hart feels there is still a major disagreement about the freeway offramp. He wondered why they want the Development Agreement? Why not just go ahead with the Conditional Use Permit without it? Mr. Cameron said if the City changed its General Plan... Commissioner Hart stated I.D.M. wanted the assurance the City would not change it. Mr. Cameron responded in the affirmative; it would be a vested right. Chairman Bosch asked if it would not be unreasonable to have the applicant determine where, during the course of development, the various requests are fulfilled. For instance a child care center. The purpose is to lower traffic impacts and improve potential employment and economic growth. A proposal has not been submitted indicating that. He also had concern with regard to the reservation of land. What proposal does the applicant have with regard to the potential use of that land? Is there an agreement with Cal-Trans? Mr. Cameron stated as far as the reservation, it becomes an economic issue. They don't have any entitlements on the property. The traffic studies that were done allow Phase 1 to be completed without having to do the freeway off ramp. If the freeway off ramp is not completed, but the conditions are in the C.U.P., they would have to somehow demonstrate sufficient traffic flow and access to that property in order to be able to build Phase 2. They would be cutting their own throats by trying to develop that piece of property because they would lose Phase 2 of the development. Chairman Bosch understands that it is a catch 22. Mr. Winkler mentioned one other thing. He understands the Development Agreement affords not only protection to them in terms of giving them a vested right, but in the event of third party challenges, it gives them a defense mechanism. That defense mechanism serves the City as well. It helps protect the project and the economic investment to the community. There are other factors the City should be concerned with as well. Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 1989 - Page 10 Commissioner Scott wished to ask David Quan about the reservation of the property for the expansion of Cal-Trans. Mr. Quan said from staff's point of view, the reservation of right-of-way for Cal-Trans I-5 widening off ramp is extremely crucial. Not so much for I.D.M. alone, but for the area wide -- both the City of Anaheim and City of Orange together. Whether I.D.M. goes through or not, the ramp is needed. The E.I.R.'s review was based on the completion of the I-5 widening according to today's design. If for some reason that ramp is not constructed or completed, the E.I.R. is questionable (especially for Phase 2). If development of Phase 2 went ahead, then both I.D.M. and the City of Orange could be liable for being in violation and conflict with the E.I.R. findings. Chairman Bosch had a question regarding the focused traffic study. The staff report indicates it would be desirable for that to occur upon the completion of Phase 1 to monitor and indicate what the impact has been of the mitigation measures towards alleviating the traffic from the development. It has been indicated that there is a potential that a building of Phase 2 might occur in fairly rapid order after the first building in Phase 1, which would mean that the focused traffic study in that instance would occur prior to the start of construction of the first Phase 2 building. If this occurred early in the process, what's the window of opportunity in terms of years or total growth, square footage, traffic impacts from the project that the focused traffic study is really intended to hit? Regardless of the Phase, it should have the same degree of review. Mr. Quan responded the most important thing would be the number of square feet. To a certain extent, the location of the buildings. Traffic generations would basically be the same no matter where you locate the buildings. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Scott said at their previous meeting they had asked for everything to be resolved and for materials to be submitted to them at least one week in advance so they could review it. He was disappointed the items have not been resolved. It seems like it is being brought to them to be resolved legally. Commissioner Master thought there would be resolution prior to this meeting, but it has not been accomplished. He proposed a course of action might be to act upon both the E.I.R. and C.U.P. In the interim of their action and Council action, that there would be further resolution. Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 1989 - Page 11 Chairman Bosch thought if they acted on one without the other, it may have some negative impact on the reasonability or the nexus of those conditions in the C.U.P. as they refer to state law regarding the Development Agreement. He was concerned about separating them. Commissioner Hart could not separate the Conditional Use Permit from the Development Agreement. He thought it unwise to advance the Conditional Use Permit without some kind of agreement under the Development Agreement. It appears that we're at a stand off to work out some way I.D.M. could be protected on some kind of condemnation of that off ramp property. He could not act favorably on the Conditional Use Permit without the Development Agreement being resolved. Chairman Bosch stated Commissioner piaster was indicating to move ahead with the staff report as written. The concern there are some real issues raised. It could be done and that way the potential negative impacts or mitigation that may occur in Anaheim with regard to the parking structure on the property line and how that might affect the remainder of the project on the City of Orange's site, and the linkage of remedies to damages between the C.U.P. and the Development Agreement gives him concern. He prefers to see some resolution before pushing it forward to the City Council. Mr. Winkler was prepared to go before the Council per Commissioner Master's suggestion. Commissioner Master clarified his suggestion: Have the action proceed with the applicant aware there are difficulties. Differences of opinion could be stated on the Agreement. Planning Commission's position would be to recommend approval per staff's recommendation as stated in the blue staff report. There would be no more negotiations at the Planning Commission level. Chairman Bosch went back to the root of the whole thing -- the land use. The Development Agreement goes with that. Is the City prepared to face the fact that approval may lead to an unacceptable traffic condition? The overall project proposed is a very viable one for the City. It would be nice to see some fine tuning with regard to potential impacts on neighbors. Commissioner Master asked about a condition of approval addressing the ingress/egress of adjacent property? Mr. Godlewski explained the two conditions (#39, page 17 and #52, page 21) . Planning Commission Meeting March 6, 1989 - Page 12 Commissioner Hart commented Chairman Bosch's concern regarded the east/west road without an outlet might place the City in some kind of liability potential. Mr. Winkler elaborated on Condition 39. That was included because they recognize the City is currently preparing an amendment to its Circulation Element which will further address part of the issue. In terms of the location of a road that may extend through an adjacent property, it is not a predetermined fact that it would, for example, go through the mobile home park. In the event that the property is acquired by Cal-Trans for the off ramp, there are certain other parcels that will be part of that acquisition that are not part of the ownership they represent. Those parcels may become land locked because of the freeway off ramp. It would afford an opportunity for an exit road. That is something for future study and would be evaluated Phase 2 would be implemented. Commissioner Hart said that roadway was not cast in concrete at this time. Chairman Bosch said it was tied to the implementation of Phase 2, although there may be some re-assessment of exactly how it comes out on the adjacent property. He does not find any difficulties with the staff report. If I.D.M. prefers to move forward to the Council and try to review the economic difficulties, the only issue remaining is the Condition 49 (b) with regard to the Orangewood/State College intersection enhancement. Staff has provided a memo substituting the wording to correct the corners of the intersection that would be impacted. Also, they changed some wording regarding the right-of-way. He understands the City of Anaheim has permitted a building at the southeast corner which would impact the normal enhanced intersection design. Commissioner Master wanted input from the City of Anaheim regarding the property line and setback issue. Mary McCloskey, City of Anaheim, Planning Division Manager, stated the setback issue will be addressed at Anaheim's Planning Commission Meeting of March 13, 1989 in the afternoon. The plan does show the parking structure setting at the property line on the north. She was sure the gentleman will probably address that issue to their Planning Commission at that time. They have not had any correspondence from any neighboring property owners to date other than what she heard at this meeting. Planning Commission Meeting March 6, 1989 - Page 13 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that certification of E.I.R. 1262-88 has been completed in compliance with CEQA. It is recommended that the City Council accept the Environmental Impact Report and Response to Comments. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to adopt the Statement of Facts & Findings and Overriding Considerations. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to approve Conditional Use Permit 1721-88 (identified in the blue staff report dated February, 1989) and amended to include the language noted in the March 3, 1989 memorandum from staff. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to adopt Development Agreement 3-88, dated Z/23/89, as recommended by staff. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek Hart, Master, Scott MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission refers final action on the Memorandum of Understanding concerning Revenue Allocations to the City Council. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek Hart, Master, Scott MOTION CARRIED IN RE: OTHER ITEMS 1. Commissioner Scott and Chairman Bosch attended the Downtown presentation on earthquakes. It was very educational. Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 1989 - Page 14 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission adjourn to a 5:00 p.m. meeting on March 7, 1989. It will be a joint meeting with City Council in the Weimer Room to discuss transportation issues. Then, adjourn to March 13, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. for a General Plan hearing. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. /sl d