Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/12/1983 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California December 12, 1983 Monday, 7:30 P.M. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hart at 7:30 P.M. PRESENT: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master and Vasquez ABSENT: None STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning PRESENT: and Commission Secretary; Jack McGee, Associate Planner; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; and Cathy Erskine, Record- ing Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21, 1983 Commissioner Hart stated that the Minutes of November 21, 1983 have already. been approved. IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: CONTINUED HEARING ON THE SANTIAGO CREEK PLAN - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - LAND USE ELEMENT 2-83A, ZONE CHANGE 1009. A proposal to change land use designations from Open Space and Low Density Residential (2-6 units per acre) to High Density Residential (15-24 units per acre) and rezone from R-1-7 (Single Family Residential, 7,000 square foot minimum lot), FP-1 and FP-2 (Flood Plain Combining) Districts to R_M-7 (Residential Multiple Family) and FP-2 (Flood Plain Combining) Districts to accommodate an estimated 420 unit apartment complex on 26t acres located on the west side of Tustin Street at La Veta Avenue (580 South Tustin Street). This item is continued from the meeting of November 21, 1983. Commissioner Hart explained that before proceeding with the hearing, he wanted to advise the meeting that he received a le~~ter from a Mr. John Tyson, 1047 East Fairway Drive who made reference to what P4r. Tyson perceived as the friendship between Commissioner Mason and the owner of the property, Mrs. Betty Beldon. Commissioner Hart explained that Mr. Tyson believed that ethics dictated that Commissioner Mason disqualify herself from the hearing because of the alleged friend- ship. Commissioner Hart stated that all Commissioners would then have to be disqualified from this hearing because he felt that all the Commissioners Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1983 Page Two that lived within the area in question. Commissioner Hart further stated that he personally had a friend that lived on Fairway Drive and that his friendship with said person ~~ would not cause him to act in any unbiased way, and stated that Commissioner Mason and the rest of the Commissioners have been appointed by the Council- to represent the people of the City of Orange in planning matters. Commissioner Hart explained further that the Council recognizes that each Planning Commissioner knows many people and are charged with acting officially for the good of the City. Commissioner mart stated that he did not intend to question Commissioner Mason's integrity, that he knew it was good, and that the Clerk file the letter from Mr. Tyson as part of the hearing. Commissioner Hart then began the hearing by stating that the developer and the representatives of the homeowners' group have met, and that the developer present any changes in his plan that he might have from his original presenta- tion. Mr. Gil Martinez then addressed the Commission stating that he represented the applicant, Frost Construction. Mr. Martinez requested that Mr.Elfend address the Commission to give a brief up-date as to the processing of the Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Elfun then addressed the Commission to provide a status report on what has occurred since the November 7, 1983 meeting with respect to the site plan. I~Ir. Elfend stated that after speaking with the representatives of the homeowners' associa- tion, they further defined the prior site plan and intended to resolve some of the issues which were raised at the last Commission. Mr. Elfend stated that two meetings were held with some of the representatives of the board on the associ- ation, and that after those meetings the major concerns of the association were as follows: the number of units, the overall density of the project, the heighth of the units (3 story units), the type of ownership, whether a fee owner- ship or a rental market, the flood control, traffic and circulation, and architectural considerations as to how the units would be viewed from the adjacent properties. Mr.Elfend stated that subsequent to the meetings had with the homeowners' association, he and Mr. Martinez met to discuss some of the issues and the environmental concerns and that a fifth site plan was prepared which was on view in the meeting room. Mr.Elfend stated that the fifth site plan was then presented to the association at large on November 30, 1983. At the c~n.ci.usion of the presentation of November 30, 1983, Mr.Elfend stated that there was very little dialogue and that the position taken by the homeowners' association on November 30, 1983 was that the only type of development which the homeowners would consider acceptable to the property would be single family dwellings and that Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1983 Page Three any type of multiple family proposal would not be considered. Mr.Elfend stated that subsequent to the November 30, 1983 meeting, he attempted to meet with other representatives of the homeowners' association but had not been successful in so doing. Mr. Elfend stated that the position taken by the homeowners' association was, in fact, the same position taken by them at the first scoping meeting which occurred in May, 1983. Mr. Elfend stated that the plan to be presented to the Commission at this meeting of December 12, 1983 is a result of approximately seven to eight meetings with the homeowners' association, it is the fifth site plan, and that the position of the homeowners' has basically remained unchanged. Mr.Elfend briefly addressed the environmental issues associated with the site plan and stated that these issues were included in the Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 1983. Mr. Elfendstated that the fifth site plan to be presented substan- tially reduces the environmental impact which incorporates mitigation measures as provided for this meeting. Mr. Elfend stated that there has been some redesign in the area of hydrol- ogy; that since the density of the development has been decreased, the traffic impacts are less than what they were earlier; and that in the area of services and utilities, these have been decreased as well. Mr.Elfend then turned the meeting over to Mr. Gil Martinez to present the fifth site plan to the Commission. Mr. Gil Martinez addressed the Commission and presented a slide show of the fifth site plan to the Commission. The slides incorporated the subject changes in the site plan and were as follows: 1. There is to be a total of 350 dwelling units (changed from a total of 459 dwelling units). 2. 2-story dwelling units are proposed instead of 3-story units. 3. No parking in the channel area. 4. Along the southern boundary of the property, the following conditions are proposed: (a) 50' to 65' set back to be used for landscaping in creating a park-like setting for 1-2-3 story dwellings is to be revised by adding an addi- tional 10' to this easement (set back) area. This area will provide for underground utili- ties, have the trees pruned and fences moved in order to create privacy and additional value for the residents living along the edge of the property limits. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1983 Page Four (b) The 60' set back area along the edge of the boundary area is to have dwellings not to exceed 2-story dwellings (rather than up to 3-story). (c) More uses within the open space area are to be incorporated in the project, including more landscaping, the building of gazebos, picnic areas, a more elaborate trail system and a free play area in this location. (d) The 100' channel area will not have any parking, and all the parking will be outside of the channel area. (Within this channel area, there will still be emergency access points, points for maintenance, trail access for joggers and pedestrians, etc.). 5. The density is to be a medium density designation, which is a density range of 6-15 units per acre. Mr. Martinez ended the slide show and summarized the staff report as follows: 1. High density not appropriate nor compatible with surrounding land uses and, therefore, a medium deniity is to be proposed. 2. A total reduction of the dwelling units is from 459 to 350. 3. A reduction from 3-story to 2-story is proposed. 4. Parking will be outside of the channel area. 5. A manor type treatment architecturally is proposed for all of the dwellings along the edge of the property so that any view of the property will be to a park-like setting with structures appearing like large manor homes with the 350 proposed dwellings within that outer structure. 6. The ownership situation would mean less control o.f the property vs. a management company controlling the dwelling situation. 7. The open space area has been changed to be more of an integral part of the total development. Mr. Martinez then concluded his presentation to the Commission and there were no questions at that time from the Commission. Commissioner Hart requested that the homeowners' association representative address the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1983 Page Five Mr. Ralph Massick, 1429 Fairway Drive, Assistant Vice- President of the homeowners' association addressed the meeting. Mr. Massick then briefly recapped the meeting of November 7, 1983 explaining the history of the flooding of the Santiago Creek, the involvement of the open space and master plan of the Santiago Creek area, the strain that the proposed plan would have on public services, the traffic and congestion proposed by the plan, and that the neighborhood as it now exists is a low density area. Mr. Massick stated that Commissioner Vasquez had informed them that there was a lack of community relations in the development proposed. He stated that Commissioner Mason asked the homeowners to consider a compromise, and that Commissioner Greek felt that the area should be developed but not at the detriment to the neighbors. Mr. Massick then summarized the meeting of November 30, 1983 of the homeowners' association stating that the homeowners felt there would still be a congestion problem with the type of development proposed and that there were no major changes brought to them by the developer at the November 30, 1983 meeting. fie stated that after the meeting that the homeowners voted unanimously to oppose any zone change, that the developers did not really show good faith in their new proposal and that the new plan did not really meet the directives of the Planning Commission or the con- cerns of the homeowners. Mr. Massick then requested that the Commission not recommend the approval of the proposed plan. Commissioner Hart then asked if any of the Commissioners had any questions of Mr. Massick and there were none. Commissioner Hart then asked Mr. Martinez to respond to Mr. Massick's state- ment. Mr. Gil Martinez addressed the Commission and stated that the engineers believed that the flood situation could be accommo- dated within the 55' wide channel as originally proposed and that they are now proposing a 100' wide channel. ~~ith respect to the open space, he stated a green belt was proposed around the perimeter of the project for flood purposes and recreational activity. Mr. Martinez analyzed the credits to be received and stated he believed the developers should receive credit for 25.8 acres. Mr. Martinez then requested for approval of the General Plan Amendment with the intent for zoning purposes. Commissioner Hart then asked if there were any questions of the applicant and as there were none, he declared the hearing closed. An unidentified individual asked if anyone else could speak and Commissioner Hart explained the general procedure of the hearing for December 12, 1983, noting that the applicant Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1983 Page Six makes the presentation, any objections or arguments are given, then the applicant answers. Commissioner Hart stated that unless there were some really different argu- ments that had not been offered previously at the November 7, 1983 meeting and at this meeting, he could see no reason to continue the hearing. Commissioner Hart did state, however, that he did not want to restrict any comments from any other speakers and invited any members of the public present at the hearing to address the Commission. Commission Hart then opened the public hearing. Mr. John Tyson, 1047 East Fairway, addressed the meeting. Mr. Tyson read a statement to the Commission, explaining that he wanted the Commission to inform the homeowners of any goals or aspirations it might have that might overide the concerns of the homeowners if it votes against the wishes of the people that the Commission represents. Mr. Tyson stated that he felt the Planning Commission existed to protect the citizens from overzealous developers and planners, to satisfy the needs of the people of Orange, and to not have the Santiago Creek bed rezoned. He then asked the Commission to give a unanimous vote against the proposed project. A discussion between rir. Tyson and Commissioner Hart then took place as to the relevancy of the owner of the proposed project, her identity and her economic status. Commissioner Hart stated that a personal attack on the owner of the project was unfair and inappro- priate and Mr. Tyson's concern was that a high density development as proposed would generate a great deal of income for the owner in place of continuing to run a golf course and that this desire of the owner was relevant to the subject hearing. Mr. Tyson then made mention of the cost to improve Tustin Avenue and the bridge and inquired as to who would pay for this improvement, whether by tax dollars, and if so, the homeowners would, in effect, be subsidizing their own destruction in the proposed area. Mr. Tyson then mentioned an article in the Register entitled "The Flood Control District Needs More ~7ater Storage Area and inquired as to whether the golf course valley is the appropriate place, generating a great deal of income for the owner of the golf course as an alterna- tive to the proposed high density dwelling project proposed, stating that this might be an example as a better use for the subject land area. Mr. Tyson asked that the Commission not rush into something that once done could not be undone and might adversely affect the citizens of Orange. Mr. Tyson stated that he felt sure that in good conscience the Commission could not recommend the proposed development or any rental development to the detriment to so many that the Commission represents' and to the benefit of so many that the Commission does not represent. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1983 Page Seven Mr. Wayne Spring, 1243 Fairway Drive, addressed the Commission stating that Mr. Gary Johnson, the City Engineer, wrote a letter indicating that Mr. Johnson strongly advised against the solution of the sewage disposal in the area in that the lines were not adequate to support the type of density pro- posed by the plan. He stated he felt the sewer lines were at capacity and that if the proposed plan was adopted, new sewer lines or additional sewer lines would have to be put in. He inquired if the developer or the citizens of Orange would be responsible for this type of improvement in order to facilitate the proposed project. He then recommended that the Commission take a real strong look at what it would cost the citizens of Orange to develop the proposed property. Cecil Pumphrey, 1422 East Chilean Avenue, addressed the Commission and requested that the zoning remain R-1. He stated the homeowners would take whatever legal steps neces- sary if there was a recommendation by the Commission for a change in the zoning and that this legal action would be in the best interests of the citizens of Orange. He then stated he understood any changes would devalue the price of the homeowners' property anywhere from $15,000 to $30,000 each. Mr. Pumphrey asked Commissioner Hart if more taxes would be incurred with the adoption of the proposed plan. Commissioner Hart stated that ta~~es were r_ot a consideration in the decision of the Commission. John Holmes, 957 Fairway Drive, addressed the Commission to mention that the golf course is full of gopher holes which run under the homes of the residents and that if any water gets out of line in the proposed project, it will wash and take the soil away from the area of the proposed green belt site. He stated that water would get into the irrigation lines and flood Fairway Drive at the area of the green belt and wanted the Commission to consider this possibility. James Everhart, 446 South Tustin, addressed the Commission and was concerned if Mrs. Beldon was still the legal owner of the property. Commissioner Hart stated that his staff report reflected that Mrs. Beldon is the owner now of the property. Mr. Everhart had understood that Mrs. Beldon is now deceased. Mr. Everhart retracted his statement once it was clarified by Mrs. Beldon that her mother-in-law had died. Mr. Everhart then inquired again of the Commission who the actual owner of the property is at present. A discussion between Commissioner Hart and Mr. Everhart resulted in Commissioner Hart stating that this inquiry was not rele- vant to the subject matter since Commissioner Hart had already informed i~r. Everhart that Mrs. Beldon was the legal owner pursuant to the Commission's staff report. Commissioner Hart then explained that if the proposal were to be accepted by the Commission, he assumed that the petitioner, Mr. Jess Frost, would be the new owner. Mr. Everhart was concerned Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1983 Page Eight that many individuals could be making a large profit from the development of the proposed plan that would be to the detriment of the homeowners and wanted the Commission to take this factor into account before making its decision. Robert Mace, 1102 Rosewood Avenue, addressed the Commission advising that he understood several million dollars were going to be spent on Tustin Avenue north of Katella so that the shopping center would be more available to the people of Orange. Mr. Mace inquired of the Commission if anything was going to be done about the South Tustin area. Commissioner Hart explained that the proposed $96 million is not City funds but that it is bond money to be repaid by the developer. Commissioner Hart then asked Mr. Gary Johnson, City Engineer, to address the meeting and explain what plans, if any, there were for the South end of Tustin. Mr. Gary Johnson, City Engineer, addressed the meeting and explained that the redevelopment funds are not presently envisioned for the subject area and that most of the money would be spent to improve traffic flow and signalization along Tustin and that these funds would probably be from gas tax money. Mr. Johnson stated that at present there wasn't a proposed project to improve anything along the South end of Tustin. Mr. Mace then stated his concerns about the traffic conges- tion in getting to the Orange Mall; he asked if the Corps of Engineers has approved a plan for the flood control. Mr. Gary Johnson answered Mr. Peace's question by explaining that what the corps of engineers is doing is reviewing the proposal by the Orange County Flood Control District for funds to improve both the Santiago River and the Santiago Creek flood potential. He explained that until that money is available, there will be no improvements along the Creek, that the Flood Control District will administer any private projects that might occur along the Creek, and that the corps of engineers will review any changes in concept for such improvements to make sure such change is in accordance with the standards of the City Engineers. Mr. Johnson explained that the requirement to improve the channel to 21,000 cubic feet per second is in keeping with the corps of engineers' requirements. Mr. Mace then inquired of the Commission if the City of Orange has subscribed yet to the National Flood Insurance Program. Mr. Gary Johnson answered Mr. Mace's question by explaining that the City of Orange was not a member of the flood insur- ance program and that federally subsidized insurance programs Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 193 Page Nine were only available to those agencies who are members. He stated that there were unsubsidized insurance policies available to citizens of Orange and that some citizens have taken out such insurance at probably higher rates than that of the federally subsidized rates. Mr. Johnson offered to give Mr. Mace the names of such citizens who received this type of insurance if Mr. Mace were interested. Mr. Mace said he would like to receive such information and asked why the City of Orange has not subscribed to this type of flood insurance. Mr. Gary Johnson responded to Mr. Mace's question by explaining that there was a feeling that an encumbrance is created by the various zones shown on the flood control map. He explained that the mandatory aspect of the insurance program is thought to be one that takes people's rights. He explained that if the B-zone could be stricken from the maps, thereby eliminating some of the implied encumbrance on the parcels which are in that zone, that the Counsel would join the flood insurance program. He explained that Congressman Danemeyer is assisting the City of Orange in attempting to strike such encumbrances. Mr. Mace then inquired of the Commission about the undeveloped area proposed by the plan and the reason for the developers' restriction of the channel at certain points. He asked if the developer could address the Commission and explain about the easement in the lower section of the plan. Mr. Gil Martinez addressed the Commission and explained that all of the landowners that are contiguous to the property on the South and North boundaries would be given the use of ten additional feet of land for the use of fencing, tree pruning, etc. and that the developer would pay the taxes on this additional property provided to the homeowners. Commissioner Hart inquired of Mr. Martinez if this payment of taxes was an offer made to the homeowners' association at the time the developers met with the group. Mr. Martinez answered Commissioner Hart's inquiry by stating that it was an offer that was made last week to the group. Commissioner Hart then stated that the homeowners group then were aware of this offer prior to the present public hearing and Mr. Martinez reiterated that there was prior knowledge but that there may have been a little confusion. John Holmes addressed the Commission again, directing his comments to City Engineer Gary Johnson explaining that Mr. Holmes has applied for the homeowners' flood insurance and that the premium would be $35 to $45 per month if the insurance is made available. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1983 Page Ten Commissioner Hart asked if anyone else would like to address the meeting and since there were no others, Commissioner Hart declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Hart then called for some discussion by the Commissioners. Commissioner Vasquez addressed the meeting and asked City Engineer Gary Johnson to elaborate on the questions raised about the bridge and the plans for it. Gary Johnson responded to Commissioner Vasquez and explained that the west side of the bridge has not been widened at present. He explained that as a part of the street improve- ment requirement, the bridge would be a part of such improve- ments. He explained that the City has applied to the County to widen the bridge under the County's bridge widening program, that the County has considered the bridge, and is presently making a report on the issue now to determine the factors involved in widening the bridge on the west side. He explained that he felt the City should not be responsible for widening the bridge because the area of concern is a regional flood control facility which would normally be taken care of by the Flood Control District's bridge funds or, in this case, private development. He explained that there is still a chance that the County would fund this bridge widening and that in the absence of those funds, the City looks at the funding as a requirement of the development of the subject property. Commissioner Vasquez asked Gary Johnson if he had any estimates as to the cost of improvements and Mr. Johnson said he did not have accurate figures at present and would determine the cost and advise the Commission once he received the County's report. Commissioner Vasquez then asked Gary Johnson about the issue of the sewage in the proposed plan. Mr. Johnson explained that the letter made reference to by Mr. Wayne Spring was Mr. Johnson's reaction to the E.I.R. and that the Tustin sewer has capacity as a trunk sewer and that there would be need for a pump. He explained that the City would not look favorably at a pumping system but that an offsite upgrading of the facilities would be required. IIe stated that it was possible to sewer the property, however, there may be added costs due to the offsite work that is necessary. Commissioner Mason then addressed the meeting with a question about the volume capacity analysis that was done pertaining to the 420 units proposed. She inquired about the level of service, the maximum urban design "D", and the projected "D" design for the La Veta/Tustin Avenue area. Commissioner Mason inquired as to whether this still pertains to the 350 units now proposed by the developer at Tustin Avenue and the Garden Grove Freeway. Commissioner Mason stated that at present the Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1983 Page Eleven congestion is just about at capacity and inquired as to how the figures would change. Mr.Elfend then addressed the Commission and introduced his traffic engineer, Mr. Paul Wilkerson, to respond to Commis- sioner Mason's inquiry. Paul Wilkerson then addressed the Commission and explained that on page 43 of the E.I.R. a projected level service decondition would be in effect during the a.m. peek hour for both locations with the project if the street improve- ments which exist now were left alone. He explained that the street widening would be conditioned to the project for an additional 22' of pavement width at a maximum for the bridge widening. He stated that whether the County pays for the widening or whether the applicant pays for it is still a matter to be resolved, He explained that the widening along the frontage and the potential widening of the bridge would improve the service level at both of the proposed locations due to the added traffic lane permitted by the improvements. He stated that the street would then become a six lane street and the traffic congestion would be greatly improved. Commissioner Hart then asked if there were any other questions by the Commissioners and Commissioner Vasquez inquired of Mr. Gary Johnson of the flood control alternative and whether he could elaborate for the Commission on this issue. Mr. Gary Johnson responded to Commissioner Vasquez by explaining that in order to have any meaningful capacity for a holding basin for flood control or water reclamation use, it would be necessary to utilize the entire site due to the steepness of the slopes in the pit and side slopes. He stated he did not think there was any feasability in utilizing this area as a retarding basin. He explained that the Flood Control District is acquiring properties upstream in the area bounded by Katella on the north, Villa Park Road on the north, Prospect on the west, and the extension of Spring which generally are Conrock holdings. He explained that the problem of reclamating those pits in that area makes the value of the pits a great deal more valuable for flood control than it does for development. He stated he thought that area was where the retarding facilities should be built and that that was what the .Flood Control District was planning on. He stated that those facilites would be adequate for the topping off proposal. Commissioner Hart then asked if the Commission was ready for a motion. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1983 Page Twelve Moved by Commissioner Master that the Planning Commission accept the Environmental Impact Report 83-A as being certified as having been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State and local guidelines for implementation of the Act; and that the Planning Commission finds that because of miti- gating measures outlined and those addressed in other hearings in the E.I.R. which would be required of the project to mitigate the impact of the project, the Planning Commission finds the Project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Commissioner Hart then requests that Commission Secretary Jere Murphy explain the significance of the environmental impact and whether the project itself_ is acceptable. Mr. Jere Murphy addressed the Commission and explained that the E.I.R. is an informational document anc? not a part of the application requiring action to approve or deny. Commissioner Hart then asks for a second to Commissioner Master's Motion that the Planning Commission accept the Environmental Impact Report, seconded by Commissioner Greek. AYES: Commissioner Hart, Greek, Mason, Master and Vasquez. NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none D'i0TI0N CARRIED IN RE: LAND USE ELEMENT 2-83A Commissioner Master addressed the meeting regarding the GPA and the zone change. He stated that he had some dif- ficulty with the requested zone change and the plan amend- ment with reference to the higher density to be used. He stated that single family residential, as much as it is probably most compliant to the adjacent property develop- ment, particularly north of the Creek, is a bit inappropriate for the type of area involved. He stated he would rather see something more toward multiple family in the sense of a planned unit development as the staff has recommended. He stated that it was appropriate in the R-D-6 which is a residential duplex district wherein the developer could come in with a plan unit development to provide some of the amenities we see here in the way of green belting and that would be more of the ownership concept. He stated that as Mr. Gil Martinez pointed out, the Irvine area is replete with areas that were developed similarly and that homeowners' associations due effectively control the activities in those areas. He stated he is inclined to go along with the R-D-6, and for this reason, he recommended denial without prejudice of the Application for the Rezoning, General Plan Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1983 Page Thirteen Amendment 2-83A, Zone Change 1009. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to deny without prejudice the Application for Rezoning, General Plan Amendment - Land Use Element 2-83A, Zone Change 1009. Commissioner Hart then asked for discussion on the motion. Commissioner Greek then addressed the meeting and stated he was in agreement with the motion and that he was concerned with the area to the west to be utilized in the density con- sideration. He explained that if an owner or a developer comes back with a different plan, one cannot leave one area for open space and count it into the density; he stated that density concerned itself with the development of the area utilized and that it should be the entire area to be utilized. He stated that if there is an area which is not going to be used, then the developer should not get credit for it. Commissioner Master then addressed the meeting and stated that in the R-D-6, there would be an approximate 10.9 unit/acre yield of the actual utilization area. He stated he would be inclined to go along with the 10-11 unit/acre figure. Commissioner Hart addressed the meeting and stated he agreed with Commissioner Greek that the undeveloped area should not be included in the density. He stated that at the first heavy rains, the improvements in that area would all be washed out and that whatever was credited as green area would no longer be green area but a rocky, boulder strewn creek bed. He stated he believed as Commissioner Master suggested that if the creek bed is going to be improved, some consideration must be given to the denssty more than the R-1-7. Commissioner Hart supported the motion by Commissioner Master to deny the proposed plan. AYES: Commissioner Hart, Greek, Mason, Master and Vasquez NOES: Commissioner none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Hart explained that the recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny the Application for Rezoning, General Plan Amendment - Land Use Element 2-83A, Zone Change 1009 will be considered by the City Council and that the public will be notified in the same manner as they were notified of the present meeting. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M.