Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-04-1999 PC Minutesca56it/ MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: AElSENT: STAFF PRESENT: IN RE: October 4, 1999 Monday - 7:00 p.m.Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Vern Jones, Planning Manager/Secretary,John Godlewski, Principal Planner,Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR 82 :01 6S lJG 61 Item 1 was pulled from the Consent Calendar.ii: J:n} J.J,]:) _.1.a. Approval 01 the Minutes from the Meeting 01 September 13,1999 Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to approve the Minutes 01 September 8, 1999.AYES:NOES: ABSTAINED: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED 1.b. Approval 01 the Minutes Irom the Meeting 01 September 20, 1999 Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to approve the Minutes 01 September 20, 1999.AYlES:NOES: ABSTAINED: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Smith None Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTION CARRIED 2. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1605.99 - PAUL HUDSON A proposal to demolish the rear portion of a 1 1/2 story, 1911 Craftsman Bungalow and construct a new 11t.2 story, 1,454 sq. ft. addition atthe rear of the structure. The project is located within the Old Towne Orange Historic District and is addressed 212 South Orange Street. (This item was continued from the Au~,ust 16, 1999 and September 8, 1999 meetings.)RECOMMENDATION: Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration 1605-99.MOTION MOi, ed by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Bosch to approve the Consent Calendar.AYES:NOlES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 1 Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1999 IN RE:CONTINUED HEARING 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2304-99 - STAURI HILO (LUXOR) AS A MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2019- 94)The applicant was not present; therefore, the Commission voted to defer this project until later in the evening. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Smith fo defer Conditional Use Permit 2304-99 to later in the evening. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smilh None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING 4. VARIANCE 2066-99 - WESTERN TECHNICAL SERVICES The applicant was not present and the Commission voted to defer this project until later in the evening.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to defer Variance 2066-99 until later in the evening.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE:MISCELLANEOUS 5. REVISIONS TO CITY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES AND OLD TOWNE DESIGN STANDARDS RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES A proposal to revise the Local CEOA Environmental Review Guidelines and the Old Towne Design Standards, including modifications to Appendix B which establishes City policy with regard to the use of substitute materials within the Old Towne Historic District.Mr. Jones referred to the packet of information that outlines the revisions relative to the protection of historic resources. Staff acknowledges that the policy is not comprehensive enough to address the variety of situations. The Planning Commission initiated a public educational process to review the existing rules and procedures, and suggested some improvements. Over the last eight ( 8) months, there have been meetings to review and discuss these issues and to talk about some of the problems and what the goals should be. Staff has established a goal to clarify the appropriate use of materials on historic and on non-historic structures. At this meeting, the Commission is reviewing revisions to the Old Towne DElsign Standards and the Local CEOA Guidelines.The Design Review Committee had one suggestion regarding the use of materials policy and recommended that materials used for new infill development, whether occurring on a vacant or developed parcel, be consistent with those materials that are currently existing in Old Towne. Staff proposes to add a sentence: "The materials used for new infill development, whether occurring on vacant or developed properties, shall be consistent with those materials original to historic structures Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1999 Robert Chattel. Historic Preservation Consultant, clarified the goals, use of appropriate materials and the streamlined process. It was the City's goal to reduce time and cost in the process as well. They wanted to make the Local CEOA Guidelines conform with the State Guidelines. Signilicantthresholds have been established in the CEOA Guidelines that are fairly unique. They recognize that demolition of more than 20% of the floor area of a primary historic resource is a potential for substantial adverse change. With respect to the use of appropriate materials, the policy was redefined. The use of in kind materials on additions is important, both for historic and non-historic resources.The public hearing was opened.eODle sDoke in favor Joan Crawford, 394 South Orange.Anne Siebert, 340 South Olive.They believe this is a creative approach to the process and they support the changes. It is important for follow-up of a project, all the way through to code enforcement. Education is needed for all staff,especially in historic preservation. They would like stall to determine the FAR on all projects in Old Towne and eventually create a data base that might be able to help determine the cumulative effect.Re,modeling/decking (as a staff review item) was questioned on Page 13 of the stall report.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Smith looked at Page 13 of Attachment 4 and she was concerned about skylights,gmenhouse windows, solar panels and roof mounted equipment. She did not think they were in keeping with the spirit of what they are trying to accomplish with the document.Mr. Jones wanted to make sure the Commission understands that staff has not proposed any changes to tho existing Old Towne Design Standards except to show they are changing the name of the Design Review Board to Committee. Staff is very concerned about historic structures, and they have the ability to refer any item to the Design Review Committee if it is felt a project might negatively impact a historic r9!)ource.Commissioner Smith asked about the educational process of Planning staff to allow over the counter rel/iew of projects.Mr. Jones responded that stall has attempted to focus more time and attention to the educational process when dealing with historic structures. Many ot the projects and questions are referred to Dan Ryan.Historic preservation issues are discussed at their stafl meetings. They are also working to develop the historic resource center at the library. The National Preservation Conference will be held in Los Angeles next year and they will be sending staff and anyone else who is interested in attending the conference.The State Historic Preservation Conference is coming up in March or April in Monterey. Staff also plans to put together informational brochures for the public as a follow up to whatever is adopted as part ot this program.The Commission talked about additional review when 20% demolition of existing floor area is proposed in tho Local CEOA Guidelines. This is consistent with the Old Towne Design Standards and is more conservative than 25%. The floor area does not include the porch area or other exterior features ot a residence. However, these historic features are covered in the document and will be reviewed. Mr.Chattel also stated if demolition is less than 20%, it would not trigger substantial adverse change. It might be good to have a Department policy in terms of how these historic projects will be handled at the Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1999 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Smith to recommend to the City Council the following: The Commission finds that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 as per Attachment #1. To approve the proposed revisions to the Local Environmental Review Guidelines, adding: 'Section IV. Historical Resources and Environmental Review" including, renumbering other sections, and changing the name of the document to "Local CEQA Guidelines" for consistency with State CEQA language, covered in Attachment #2. To approve the proposed revisions to Use of Alternate Materials policy, Appendix B to the Old Towne Design Standards, including changing the name to "Use of Appropriate Materials", Attachment #3, with a revision to the last sentence under New In Fill Development, adding: "The materials used for new in fill development (whether occurring on vacant or developed properties) shall be consistent with those materials that are original to the historic structures in Old Towne." And, to approve the proposed minor modifications to Old Towne Design Standards to reflect: (a) changes to the Use of Appropriate Materials policy, (b) addition to the Local CEQA Guidelines, and (c) recent Council actions modifying the Design Review Process as per Attachment #4. The Commission dimcted staff to change all references to the Design Review Board to the Design Review Committee. In the context of use of historic fabric, the word "fabric" shall be changed to "material (s)". AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED ThE! Commission thanked everyone involved in this process for their hard work, including the City Council and Cily Manager, with special thanks to Mr. Chattel for his time and expertise. IN RE:CONTINUED HEARING MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Romero to hear Conditional Use Permit 2304-99 at this time. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2304-99 - STAURI HILO ( LUXOR)ASA MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2019-94)A r,equest to allow a change in restricted hours of operation allowing daily use (after 9:00 p.m.) to use amplified music and to enlarge the dining area by 1,100 square feet. The site is located at 2688 North Santiago Boulevard. (This item was continued from the September 8, 1999 meeting.)NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.Commissioners Carnon and Romero noted they were not present when the request was heard initially, but they have read all of the materials and feel they can participate in this hearing.Jim Donovan, Senior Planner, said at the last hearing a number of questions were raised about the applicant's compliance with the conditions of the original CUP that authorized a restaurant at this location.There was a concern that the restaurant's entry had changed to the front of the building rather than the back. Staff was asked to present a more thorough description of the code enforcement activities that were involved in the restaurant operations. The existing exit requirements need to be addressed, or maintained as inilially approved. There was also a concern that valet parking was to be provided by Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1999 restaurant operator and is not being provided at this time. Finally, a deed restriction, hold harmless agreement and insurance requirements were not adequately satislied. Th'3 applicant stated that he intended to use the rear entrance to the building, but it wasn~ clear that such an intent was properly documented as a City requirement. The current owner obtained a copy 01 the Planning Commission's resolution in an attempt to understand those requirements that were associated with the permitted use, and no such requirement is listed in the resolution. It is also the current operator's desire to conduct business as described by the initial applicant and a partition wall would be constructed to divide the restaurant Irom the Iront entrance. Staff is now recommending a condition to specily the domway at the Iront 01 the building will be used as the restaurant's primary entrance in the luture. Re9arding code enlorcement, the Commission has received a summary 01 code enlorcement activity dating back to July 8, 1998 and police reports back through 1993. Inspections were also conducted by the Fire Department. The City's code enlorcement liles indicate that the only parties to have liled complaints against the restaurant were those who shared the property and not neighborhood residents or owners 01 businesses off site. The number of alleged complaints or violations has a relationship to the Irequency 01 complaints received by the code enforcement staff. A recent memo was provided to the Commission indicating that there is only one issue left to be resolved; a requirement lor an electrical permit. With regard to the exiting requirements, the City's Plans Examiner and Building Official concur that the proposal is deficient. A building permit is required lor these improvements and the proposal will be made to c:omply with the City's building regulations. There may have been some conlusion on the applicant's plan which seems to indicate that an existing corridor would be sealed off at the dining room. The applicant does not intend to build a partition wall at this location and the corridor would remain accessible Irorn the main portion of the dining area. Valet service was provided lor patrons when the current owner assumed operation 01 the business; however, she found there was simply no demand for the service. The restaurant primarily caters to special events that draw lamilies or large groups, making valet service cumbersome. There is on-site parking available when the restaurant opens. The applicant is willing to resume valet parking if needed.Although stall initially advised the applicant that they must satisly insurance and hold harmless requirements, staff ultimately decided that these requirements were not necessary and were inconsistent with requirements that are commonly placed on other businesses in the City. In an attempt to clarify the applicant's on-going obligations and eliminate confusion, stall is now proposing to eliminate those conditions attached to the applicant's original CUP. Staff is also recommending that the requirement to provide valet parking be eliminated.Commissioner Carlton was concerned with the wording 01 Condition 2 in that she didn't recall the word consumption" 01 beverages in other approvals. She didn't know how someone could enforce consumption 01 alcohol.Mr. Jones explained those three words, "sales, 'service and consumption" are part 01 the standard lan!luage in the condition on alcoholic beverages.Commissioner Smith directed staff's attention to condition 2 in the original staff report, which states the sale, 01 alcohol dillerently than what is proposed.The public hearing was opened.licant. Susan Avoub. 2688 North Santiaoo Boulevard, discussed the issue of the entrance, which has been cleared up. The business is allowed to be open 13 112 hours per week, but most 01 the time they are only open 10 hours. She requested additional hours of operation, only if it is needed lor private parties. She had valet parking at first, but the valet company said there was no need to park cars. Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1999 we,uld like to expand the restaurant by 1,100 square leet and she proposed to build a sound prool wall il her request lor amplilied music is granted. She would like to have a 3-piece band provide entertainment,and that it be amplified lor better sound.Commissioner Romero asked for a comment about the alleged incident that occurred on Friday,September 17, 1999 when the restaurant opened at 7:00 p. m.Ms. Ayoub has never opened the restaurant belore 9:00 p.m. and her musicians start playing at 10: 00 p.m. They were not open at 7:00 p. m.Heratch Torisian. 12338 Oxnard Street. North Hollvwood. is the sound engineer and he explained how amplified music will enhance the dining experience at the restaurant.The Commission was concemed about live music because a CUP is approved lor the lile 01 the property.PnJper mlligation measures are required to control the sound 01 amplified music so that future uses will not impact the neighborhood.QJ)eoole sooke in oooosition Lewis Crouse, 412 South Crest.Carol Amone, 2680 Santiago Boulevard.Gelry Arnone, 2680 Santiago Boulevard.Charles Martin, 1530 South Lewis Street, Anaheim.Tory Zweigle, 9646 Crestview Circle, Villa Park.The Commission has been lied to by the Luxor Restaurant and the operators. There have been no less than 75 entries in the summary regarding the restaurant. The restaurant was open September 17 at 7: 00 p.m. Terms and conditions have not been enlorced with the existing operation. Night club activities are tailing place with private parties and loud, amplified music. The salon has tried to work out their problems and differences with the restaurant, but there has been no cooperation. Mr. Martin is a licensed private investigator who conducted a surveillance 01 the restaurant on Friday, September 17 and on September 24. On September 17, he watched band members arrive a little after 7:00 p.m. and at 7:30 p.m. patrons started arriving at the restaurant. Uve music could be heard Irom where he was sitting in his vehicle in the parking lot. On September 24, again the restaurant opened at 7:35 p.m. and patrons entered by the east entrance to the restaurant. The music was playing lrom a stereo. One person exited the restaurant with a bottle 01 beer, but entered the rear 01 the restaurant soon thereafter. He did not observe any other alcoholic beverages outside the building. There is trash littering the property along with some graffiti.RE.soonse Irom aoolicant Ms. Ayoub denied that her restaurant was open at 7:30 p.m. on those two Friday evenings. She plays her ste>reo in her office and he might have heard that music. The musicians never arrive until just before 10: 00 p.m. They do not allow alcohol outside of the building. She and her lather took an alcohol management course through the ABC when they first took over the restaurant. Their customers do not have trash and are not littering the property. The 75 violations against the Luxor Restaurant are from the previous owner.Ms. Ayoub agreed to a change in the conditions that would stipulate that revenues from the operation of the lacility would exceed that 01 alcohol consumption.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Pruett linds it difficult to approve this proposal and will make a motion to deny with several recommended changes to the conditions 01 approval only lor the purposes that if it is appealed, some issues are put on the table. He did not think there was an interest Irom the applicanf in trying to resolve many of the issues. He stressed that II was important to work with the neighbors and try to seek solutions to the problems. Under the original approval lor the Luxor, there was a great deal of concern about the Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1999 impact this lacility was going to have on the adjoining neighborhood. That's why live music or amplifiedmusicwasnotapprovedintheapplication. He's concerned that there is amplilied music being used now, without consideration to the neighboring land uses or the community. There has not been a standard 01 responsibility demonstrated by the applicant to try to work with the community as a whole. Commissioner Romero was also opposed to the project because 01 the history 01 the violations 01 the existing CUP and City codes. If there had been a good attempt to comply with the conditions 01 approval,perhaps he could have been persuaded differently. Approval 01 this request would be more detrimental thaln positive. Commissioner Carlton agreed and she encouraged the applicant to maintain and create an exemplary example 01 their operations. Perhaps after six months 01 compliance, without complaints from the neighbors, the Commission might view the request differently. Commissioner Smith said the concerns are addressed in the staff report, and for the most part, the accusations were incorrect. All 01 the requirements asked 01 the applicant were lulfilled except lor the one violation 01 an electrical permll. She didn't know it there was a language barrier or misunderstanding 01 the law, but the things that were required have now been brought into compliance. But, they should have belln addressed long belore the new application. She is not in lavor 01 granting the CUP because many01theproblemsinthepasthavejustnowbeencompliedwith. She thought the Luxor Restaurant would want to address the trash problem, whether it's their problem or not. The problems between the two nei,ghbors are troublesome. She encouraged both neighbors to try and get along. She also encouragedtheapplicanttocomebackinalewmonthswithacleanrecord. Chlairman Bosch agreed with many 01 the comments that were stated. He looked back to the original CUP and he recollected that was a very difficult process. The site supports a community 01 an adjacent residential neighborhood and also transients of Ireeway users and the commercial district 01 Tustin Street and the Orange Mall. There were restrictions lor the restaurant because of trallic, parking and noise. The ori!linal application included a restriction 01 hours, the point 01 access and the location 01 the main entrance door to avoid impacts upon the neighboring residents. Amplilied music could lead to a largerbandanduncontrolledactivitiesbyanotheroperatoronthesite. Parking is a concern. He doesn't believe the site can bear an expansion 01 this use in terms of number of people and days 01 operation. M.m.!.2!! Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Bosch to deny Conditional Use Permit 2304-99, a modification to Conditional Use Permit 2019-94 noting the project is categorically exempt lrom CEOA review. In terms 01 the conditions 01 approval, in the event the Commission's action is appealed, it should be noted that: 1) Revenues from the operation 01 the lacility would exceed that of alcohol consumption; 2) Amplified music is strongly opposed, as well as the expansion 01 the lacility andthedaysofoperationuntilthereissomeconsiderationtakenintoaccountrelativetotheimpactsupon theadjacent nei!)hbors and community; and 3) If amplified music was to be approved, there needs to bearequirementforsoundattenuationintherestaurantinterms01designandconstruction01thebuildingso that noise cannot be heard off 01 the premises. Since the conditional use permit should be granted upon sound principles 01 land use and in response to services required by the community, and in reviewofpastapprovalsonthesite, an increase in the capacity and the infensity of utilization as proposed by the applicant, would not lulfill sound principles of land use at the site. Also, because 01 the increase in traffic,noise and impacts upon surrounding properties would cause deterioration 01 bordering land uses and create special problems lor the site area. The Planning Commission has considered this application in relationship to its effects on the community and neighborhood plan lor the area and it hasbeenstipulated11'0111 the past testimony and this hearing that it would have a negative impact, if granted. Granting 01 this permit, even though there are conditions, would not preserve the general welfare, but would be to promote the individual welfare of the applicant. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1999 Mr Jones explained appeal procedures to the applicant. IN RE:NEW HEARING MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to agendize Item 4 lor public hearing at this time. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 4. VARIANCE 2068-99 - WESTERN TECHNICAL SERVICES A proposal to allow a variance 01 the Orange Municipal Code to permit a telecommunications tower and antennas at 135 feet in height. The site is located at 526 West Blueridge Avenue. NOTE:Negative Declaration 1616-99 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts 01 this project.John Godlewski, Principal Planner, reported the applicant is proposing an antenna with a maximum height 01 140 leet. The project is located in the middle 01 the industrial zone and is quite a distance Irom residential properties. A maximum height allowed by code is 651eet. The applicant has already applied lor and received approval lor a 65 loot tall antenna at this location through the normal process 01 the Staff Rewiew Committee. Although the applicant has approval lor the 65 loot antenna, they are seeking a variance to increase its height beyond that to 130 leet. The reason for the variance is that the applicant has a service thaf provides antennas and antenna monitoring to other companies. This antenna would provide the co-location of multiple antennas at one location so that the prolileration 01 small cellular antennas and other types of antennas could be locafed on one pole instead 01 each individual company operating their own antennas. This is also the justification the applicant has included in the application lor the variance. The closest residential property is east 01 Orange Olive Road, which is some 1, 700 leet away, about 113 mile away. The staff report includes pictures and examples of towers that are located ne,arby. The closest thing in height would be the Edison towers located to the north. They range Irom 140 to 170 leet in height.The public hearing was opened.ADolicant. Robert Jordan. 602 South Hilda Sfreet. Anaheim, is the Operations Manager lor Western Tllchnical Services. They moved to Orange from Anaheim last year and they provide a technical service lor installation 01 over 300 users. They have worked with cities across the country to try and help to lacilitate the issues that many cities lace relative to the many new wireless service providers. They are encouraging co-location 01 all the providers. They will charge rent lor tower space to the service providers,but it is not a profitable business. They will build the 65 loot structure because it will serve their needs to use the lacility lor training, as well as provide services. This is vertical real estate and a person can only put so many antennas in a specific area. There are interlerence issues as lar as the users using similar fnequencies in proximity 01 the antennas. The only way to separate the antennas is to go broader or higher. Technology is primary line of sight and the trees in the area exceed the 65 loot level. The structure is designed to accommodate a maximum load. The configuration 01 the anfennas may vary some, but the quantity can not exceed what is shown on their plans. They are only requesting the one 1:~ 0 Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1999 1 oerson sooke in oooosition Paul Proulx. 1830 North Neville Street, objected to the 130 loot tower and dish being in his back yard. HefearedtheIrequencieswouldaffecthis2-way radio operation and other devices such as computersand telephones.Aoolicant's resoonse Mr. Jordan responded the Iree-standing towers are designed not to lall down. They own thetowerandtheywanttousethetowerfortheirownpurposes. There should be no interference 01frequencieswiththeneighbors' equipment. They operate within the FCC guidelines and every piece 01 theirequipment is licensed.The public hearing was closed.Chairman Bosch appreciates the wireless technology; however, he can't find the lindings lorthevariancerequest. The demand is not an issue. He cannot support the precedent that thiswouldset,unsubstantiated by the lindings necessary to support the variance to breach the height limit. Hecouldn't find a basis lor compromising in-between. The 65 loot tower is a substantial structurethatmeetstheprimaryneedsforthistype01zoneandthecommunicationneeds01Orangeatthistime. The higher tower is not an enhancement lor Orange. It substantially degrades the visual character andquality01thesite and its surroundings.Commissioner Pruett thought this would set a precedent that would open the gate to luture requests.Commissioner Smith could not support the variance because it is a sell-imposedhardship. She is very impressed, though, with the aggressive business style 01 Mr. Jordan's company.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner PruetttodenyNegativeDeclaration1616-99 linding after review of the materials that there is a potentiallysignificantimpactthatcannotbemitigatedwithregardtotheMandatoryFindings01SignilicanceItem17.(b) withregardtotheellects01probablelutureprojectswerethisprojecttobeapproved. And, also with regard toAestheticsItem1(c) in that the project would have a potentially significant impact andsubstantiallydegradetheexistingvisualcharacter, quality 01 the site and its surroundings. And, to denyVariance2068-99 finding that the required findings lor approval 01 a variance under Orange Municipal CodeSection17.1 0.040E and Section 56906 01 the Calilornia Government Code cannot beloundlavorablylorthisapplicationbecausetherearenotspecialcircumstancesapplicabletotheproperty, including its size, shape, topography,location or surroundings. And, the strict application 01 the ZoningOrdinancedoesnotdeprivethesubjectproperty01privilegesenjoyedbyotherpropertiesinthevicinityandotheridenticalzoneclassification.And, linding that the variance, il granted, would constitute a granf01specialprivilegelortheapplicantinconsistentwithlimitationsonotherpropertiesinthezoneon which the subject property is located.AYES:NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE:ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Smith to adjourn at 10: 25 p.rn.AYES:NOES:sld Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett,