HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-04-1997 PC Minutesj .J..../,'~_.,(--C,~
S-OO .~. ,~ . ~3
MINUTES
Planning Commission
City of Orange August 4, 1997
Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT:
Commissioners Bosch Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT:
None STAFF
PRESENT:
Vem Jones, Manager of Current Planning - Commission Secretary;David DeBerry, City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum,
Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin,
Recording Secretary IN RE:
CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL
OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETINGS OF JULY 7, AND JULY 21,1997.Moved by
Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve the Minutes of July 7, 1997, as written.AYES: Commissioners
Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None
ABSTAINED: Commissioner
Bosch MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch
abstained as he was not present at the July 7, 1997 meeting.Moved by
Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve the Minutes of July 21, 1997, as written.AYES:NOES:
Commissioners
Bosch,
Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION
CARRIED IN RE:
CONTINUED HEARING 2. ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT 3-97 - CITY OF ORANGE A proposal
to amend certain provisions of the Orange Municipal Code (Title 17, Zoning Ordinance) to address issuesrelatedtofencing, roof mounted equipment, paving of front yard areas in residential districts, rockcrushingequipment, and accessory structures. The Planning Commission has previously acted onallportionsexceptthosesectionspertainingtofencing.NOTE:This
project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.This item
was continued from the June 2, and July 7, 1997 hearings.)Joan Wolff,
Senior Project Planner, presented the full staff report. The Ordinance Amendment addresses several issuesandtheCommissionhastakenactiononallbutoneoftheprovisions. The final issue before theCommissionistheproposedregulationonchainlinkfences. The fencing issue has generated some attention. There have been a number of newspaper articles, letters and public comments. The issue wasfirstraisedbytheCityCouncilasageneralconcernaboutchainlinkfencingthroughouttheCity,and theCouncildirectedstafftofollowupwithacodeamendment. In trying to carry out their direction,staff discussedhowtheycouldbestaddresstheconcern. They tried to determine what was the basis of the concernandconcludedtheprimaryissuewaf, one of maintaining neighborhood character -_ an aesthetic issue. Staffalsoconsideredanumberofotherissuesthatwouldbeinvolvedinimplementinganewstandardforfencing. Some of the issues considered were a need to minimize future, non-1
Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1997
conforming situations, future needs for code enforcement, the need to have people remove illegalfences, staff's ability to then distinguish between chain link fences that were constructed prior to the new
regulations and which would be considered legal, non-conforming as opposed to those that may
have been constructed afterwards, which would be illegal, and then the additional cost that would be
involved for homeowners to utilize upgraded fencing materials. After considering all the issues, staff felt that
an outright ban on chain link fencing might actually aeate more problems than it solved. Staff focused
on limiting the use of chain link fence in the yard areas where they would be most likely to have an impact
on the neighborhood character. They noted most fencing existed in rear yard areas where it was not
visible to the general public. So, if they allowed chain link fencing to continue to be used in rear yards,
non-conforming situations could be minimized. Staff also noted that relatively few. homes have fenced
front yards. And when they do, the fencing is generally more decorative in nature. There are height
restrictions that are currently in effect for front yard fencing. Forty-two inches is the maximum height
allowed for fences in a required front yard setback area. The forty-two inch height is enough to define a
yard area and keep out nuisance activity, but not really enough to provide very much security
for homeowners. Based on these factors, staff felt the proposed regufations would have the greatest potential
to preserve the neighborhood character, while minimizing any infringement on the rights
of individual homeowners.If chain Unk fences are to be regulated, as staff was directed to provide some kind
of recommendation on,there are only a limited number of practical restrictions. In the staff report for
this meeting, staff highlighted various ways of modifying the proposed regulations. One would be to
create chain link fencing restrictions only in the historic areas. Another would be to create a permitting
process for chain link fencing. The type of regulations that might be imposed would be requiringconsentofadjacenthomeownersorthehomeownersassociation, creating some kind of landscape screen over
the chain link fencing, or looking at other pre.existing chain link fences that exist on the same
block. Another idea would be to impose suggested regulations, but to create a simpler process for granting
waivers in the existing variance process that is now used to provide a waiver from code restrictions.
Finally, staff made the suggestion that the Planning Commission might want to consider dropping theproposaltoregulatetheuseofchainUnkfence. There has not been an overwhelming response from the community
in favor of one position over the other. And, there does not seem to be a significant problem with
chain link fences under the current code regulations. Unless there are additional issues that have not yet
been raised, staff suggested that chain link fences be deleted from the proposed ordinance amendment,
as indicated in alternative 2 of
the staff report.The public hearing was opened
for public comments.Dave Casselman was against the chain link ordinance or invoking something similar to that. He
felt it was stretching the bounds of what the City should have a say on regarding someone's front
yard. He has driven in several neighborhoods throughout Orange and has seen chain link fencing in alltypesofyards.His other concern was the cost implication. He couldn't even afford a chain link fence in his
front yard, but noted there was over $1,000 difference between chain link and wrought iron. The Citywouldbeimposingafinancialimpactonmanypeoplewhocouldnotaffordsomethingotherthan
chain link fencing.Barbara DeNiro requested her input be included in the Minutes as a verbatim
transcript: "When we heard from Mr. McGee the last time he gave theimpression there wasn't any real
direction regarding this wish list" of restricting of satellite dishes (the biggest
one
Time-Warner) and
hardware... 70% paving of front yards when circular driveways to me are a necessity on busy streets so asnottohavedangerousbackingoutintothem...and the accessory structure restrictions. Today wearesupposedlyjustaddressin!l the residential chain link fence issue and it seems that the directives for this must
be coming from Council and staff yet someone must be desirous of this so could these requests really
be originating from the Old Towne area? The picture in the paper of the chain /ink fence around the
home pictured in the newspaper, not long ago, was in Old Towne Orange. Are we really trying to impose the
wishes of a few on the many, without due cause? It seems to me we are continually usurping the
rights and privileges of freedom of choice from citizens in general. This constant barrage of eroding our
freedoms starts with the action of this Commission, even if it goes to Council for action and approval, or does it? Some Associations evidently are seeking these prohibitions, but should it really apply to all
or should we let neighborhoods establish their desire, or not, and not impose these restrictionstotheoverallcommunity?It seems as if the more rural areas are desirous of having chain link fencina: to secure their animals.Speaking of chain link fencing, itwould seem graffiti can't be so easilyapplie , itholdsupwell, perhaps 2(1 to 30 years and must be sturdy enough and practical (Jess expensive) since it is
mostly used as a security hedge for school grounds in our midst, and not too easy toclimb. It promotes see-through security at less expense and promotes some privacy without blocking the view
if
desired
for
Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1997
animals, is maintained safely and provides protection. As for aesthetics, if one desires, climbingshrubberycanbeplantedandmaintainedandchainlinkfencingisn't affected by termites as with woodpicketfences, which requires lots of maintenance, yet is not so costly as brick and wrought iron.Sometimes I think the better part of valor is to back off of this issue unless someone can prove howextremelydetrimentalchainlinkfencinghasbecomeinourcity. "
The public hearing was dosed.
The Commission agreed to delete chain link fencing from the ordinance amendment. In their opinion,chain link fencing does not cause a significant problem. They felt chain link was not necessarily the mostbeautifulthing, but it has certain utility and perhaps in some portions of Orange it has become part of thehistoricfabric.
Chairman Bosch thought there were some construction standards that should be referred to staff to lookatwithregardtochainlinkfencingintermsofknucklingthefabricoverthetop, having the spring tensiongroundwire, having certain gauges of fabric and certain mesh sizes to assure that they don't become an
eye sore, security hazard or physical danger to the people in the community.
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to recommend to the City CounciltoadoptChapter17.14, Residential Districts, Alternative #2: Section 17.14.180 Fences and Walls, aspresentedinAttachment #1, Pages 1 of 8 and 2 of 8, of the staff report dated July 24, 1997.
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2181-97 - SUNDRIED TOMATO CAFE
A request to allow the sale and service of beer and wine with meals in a restaurant located within theCountrysideInnHotel. The site is addressed 3737 West Chapman Avenue.
NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.
There was no opposition to this item; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived. Thepublichearingwasopened.
Aoolicant. Robert Quest.
Jr..
is one of the owners of the Sundried Tomato Cafe and has operated asimilarrestaurantinWhittierforthepastfiveyears. This is an unique situation to be located in a hotel andtheyplantoservehotelguests, as well as the business/residential community. They plan to serve fun,unique California cuisine and want a beer and wine license to compliment their food. Business hours willbefrom11 :00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week. He had not read the staff report or conditions ofapprovalandwasgiventheopportunitytoreviewthereport. He did not object to the conditions ofapproval.
There were no public comments so the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Smith was happy to see the hotel was brought back to life. She was in favor ofapprovingthisrequest.
It was noted the project was categorically exempt from CEQA review.
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Conditional UsePermit2181-97, with conditions 1-15 listed in the staff report noting that all required findingshave
been
met.
AYES:NOES:'Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett,
Romero, Smith None
MOTION
CARRIED
3
Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1997
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2182-97 - RUBIO'S RESTAURANT
A request to allow the sale and service of beer and wine with meals, in a new restaurant to beconstructedwithinTheOrangeMallparkinglot, south of the existing "Olive Garden" restaurant andattachedtotherecentlyapproved "Boston Market".
NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the Califomia EnvironmentalQualityAct (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.
A staff report was not presented as there was no opposition to this item, and the public hearing wasopened.
ADDlicant. John Murray. was the agent for Rubio's Restaurant. They have read the staff report andconditionsofapprovalandsentthemtoSanDiegoforRubio's comments. They agreed to all of theconditionsexcepttwo. Condition 2 which relates to no advertising will promote the sale of alcoholicbeveragesfromthebuilding's exterior is not a big issue. They preferred to be able to put up a neonsignintherestaurant. The one Rubio's is most concerned about is Condition 6 which talks about limitingthesalesofbeerandwineandthehoursofoperation. Rubio's would like to have normal operatinghoursbetween7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday and 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight onFridayandSaturday. They propose to stop selling beer and wine one hour before closing to meet thePoliceDepartment's concerns. Beer and wine is a compliment to the meals served at Rubio's.
Commissioner Pruett wanted to know how service in the restaurant was provided. He asked if there wasawalk-up window where people place their orders? He wanted to be assured the purpose oftherestaurantistoservefood; beer and wine will compliment the
meals.Mr. Murray replied it was basically the same type of set-up as a Carl's Jr. Restaurant. People gouptothecounterandordertheirmeals. If the restaurant is not busy, employees will bring outthemeals;however, a number typically will be called for the customer to pick up the food. Waitresses willnotbewalkingaroundortakingordersfordrinks. Customers must go to the counter and put in
their order.Commissioner Carlton asked if the other Rubio's Restaurants were approved to sell beerandwinestartingat7:00
a.m.?Mr. Murray recently got involved with Rubio's Restaurant and could not answer thatquestion. The management stated their operating hours were from 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 or 11 :00 p.m., and they preferred to sell beer and wine during those hours. He knew Rubio's wanted tooperatetheirrestaurantsthe
same way.Commissioner Carlton had a problem with selling beer and wine at 7:00 a.m. and it wasbeyondherunderstanding. She could possibly see selling beer and wine from 10:00 a.m. on, but not at 7:00a.m.She asked if there were other restaurants in Orange who started serving alcoholic beverages thatearlyin
the morning?The public hearing was opened to receive
public comments.Dave Casselman knew several restaurants in Orange who served a Sunday brunch wherepeoplecouldorderalcoholicbeverages. He personally did not see a problem with serving alcohol during thehours
of operation.Barbara DeNiro struggled with a restaurant serving alcohol at 7:00 a.m. and she wasconcernedbecauseinthatarea, probably from Uncoln down to Taft, there was a lot of alcohol
being served.Sgt. Barry Weinstein, Orange Police Department, stated the hours set forth in the conditionsofapprovalareinthebestinterestofthecommunity. Condition 6 refers to the hours for sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages -- not hours of operation for the restaurant. There is no problemwiththerestaurantopenin~ at 7:00 a.m. or closing at midnight. The Police Department has done abackgroundinvestigationonRubiO's Restnurant and know they do not have a Sunday brunch. They do notwantalcoholsalesstartingat7:00 a.
m.
4 r---.-----
Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1997
Commissioner Pruett knew there were problem areas in Orange and was curious how the PoliceDepartmentviewedthisparticulararea. The number of apartment units in the area was a question too.
Sgt. Weinstein said there were a couple of issues in that area. The Mall is being torn up for the new warMartandtheBostonMarket, along with Rubio's. They feel the new businesses will be beneficial to thecommunityandtotheeconomicgrowthanddevelopmentofthearea. As far as A.B.C. license
requirements, the area is protestable. The Police Department is allowed by law to protest based oncrimeandaconcentrationofalcoholicbeveragelicensesinthearea. They determined, however, that iftheconditionsofapprovalweremet, there would not be a negative impact on the community.
Commissioner Romero asked if the Police Department would look favorably on selling alcohol beginningat11 :00 a.m. and then increasing the sale of alcohol by one hour in the evenings?
Sgt. Weinstein replied that would be acceptable. He had no problem with the hour increase in theevenings, especially since Rubio's has indIcated they will shut off the alcohol sales one hour prior to
closing the restaurant.
Commissioner Smith was concerned that some establishments were receiving special privileges andotherswerenot. She wanted to know how early the Red Robin in the Mall and Spoons could start
serving alcohol?
Sgt. Weinstein replied both restaurants have been in existence prior to the extensive conditions thePoliceDepartmenthasrecentlyimplemented. To his knowledge, there are no restaurants that servealcoholat7:00 a.m. If there is an early meal being served, the earliest alcohol sales start at 10:00 a.m.
Commissioner Smith wanted to know how the Police Department would look on alcohol being served at10:00 a.m. rather than at 11:00 a.m.
Sgt. Weinstein stated they would want to hold to the 11 :00 a.m. hour during the week, but on theweekendstheycouldbendto10:30 a.m.
Rebuttal
Mr. Murray asked for a compromise of 9:00 a.m., subject to Rubio's providing the Police Department with
some documentation on the amount of sales of alcoholic beverages. If 9:00 a.m. is not satisfactory based
on the documentation, then the hours would be adjusted to hours that were satisfactory to the PoliceDepartment.
Sgt. Weinstein was not at liberty to make a decision as far as 9:00 a.m. without consulting with the Chief ofPolice; however, he was authorized to change the hour to 10:30 a.m. on the weekends and 11 :00 a.m.during the week, and extending the hours in the evening by one hour. He would like to see somedocumentationorresearchastotheneedforalcoholsalesthatearly.
It was clarified that the sale of alcoholic beverages would be from 11 :00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. SundaythroughThursday, and from 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday, subject to discussions with thePoliceDepartment.
The public hearing was dosed.
Mr. Jones didn't know how the option to allow earlier hours, subject to some flexibility by the PoliceDepartmenttofurtherrestrictthatwouldfitintotheconditionsofapproval. Staff would need to interpretthatconditionusingsomeflexibilityandhewasnotsureifthatcouldbedone. He preferred a morerestrictiveconditionandplacetheburdenontheapplicanttocomebackandrequestamodificationtothe .conditional use permit to allow more expanded hours of operation based upon the documentation theysubmittothePoliceDepartment.
Chairman Bosch preferred giving a specific decision rather than trying to have a sliding scale or variablethatwouldbeimpossibletopolice.
5
I!
Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1997
Commissioner Carlton did not want to start serving alcohol at 7:00 a.m., but was willing to compromise tostartalcoholsalesat10:00 or 10:30 a.m. during the week and on weekends. She wouldn't mind reviewingthisconditionalusepermitinsixmonthsoroneyearforpotentialproblemsorconcerns.
Mr. DeBerry noted there are a number of problems with revisiting an issue in six months and giving theapplicantatemporary10:00 a.m. starting time. It really becomes a burden upon the City to present acaseifthereareproblemsassociatedwiththe10:00 a.m. opening and imposing a more restrictive time.It could involve enormous staff time in presenting that kind of case.
Sgt. Weinstein stated the Police Department would agree to the hours of 10:30 a.m., seven days a week,to try and resolve the issue of alcohol sales. The hours would be: 10:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. SundaythroughThursday, ancl10:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday.
Commissioner Pruett was concerned with the fast food operation to where this could become a beer andwinesalesandconsumptiononthesite. Condition 7 states alcoholic beverages are to be consumed onthepropertyadjacenttothelicensedpremises, except in outdoor dining areas controlled according toAB.C. regulations. The outdoor dining area on the drawing does not control the consumption of alcoholicbeverages. There was nothing there to guarantee the consumption is going to take place on thepremises. This area is going to be unsupervised. He suggested deleting the outside dining area fromCondition7asanareafortheconsumptionofalcoholicbeverages. He was not convinced that byextendingthesaleofalcoholbeyond10:00 p.m. was reasonable.
Chairman Bosch understands AB.C. requires the outdoor area for alcohol consumption can only beaccessedfromwithintherestaurant. If the C. U. P. were approved, the plan would require modification tomeetSt~te law relative to service.
The Commission asked for clarification on AB.C. regulations.
Sgt. Weinstein stated the AB.C. will not allow co-mingling of alcoholic vs. non-alcoholiccustomersandtherecanbenoegressfromtheoutdoorarea, other than for emergency access. ThePoliceDepartmentwasbasingitonseeingtheotherRubio's Restaurant in Tustin, which is enclosed and isnotco-mingled.He hasn't seen the plans for
the new restaurant.Mr. Jones pointed out that Conditions 7, 8 and 9 are grouped together to address theA.
B.C.regulations.The Commission had concern with the plans and would like to see some assurancetoavoidco-mingling and avoid any violation of A.B.C. regulations. The plans might need to bebroughtbacktotheCommissionbeforeany
building permits were granted.Commissioner Pruett said the other alternative would be not to allowoutdoorconsumption. Beer and wine need to be consumed inside the restaurant and that
would solve the problem.Chairman Bosch suggested revising Condition 7 to state: "Except in outdoor diningareaswhichshallbeenclosedandcontrolledaccordingtoA.B.C. regulations, and applicants shallbringbacktotheCommissionarevisedplandemonstratingcomplianceforconfirmationpriortoissuance
of any building permits."Commissioner Pruett asked how Condition 4 would be reviewed and how often
it would be reviewed?Sgt. Weinstein responded Condition 4 was reviewed by the AB.C. on aquarterly
basis by their auditors.It was noted this item was categorically
exempt from CEQA review.Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, toapproveConditionalUsePermit2182-97 with conditions 1-14, modifying condition 6 to read: "Sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages (beer and wine) are limited to the hours between 10:30 A.M., seven (7) days a week and 10:00 P.M. Sunday through Thursday; and 11 :00 P.M. on Friday andSaturday, or one hour before closing,if closing hours are moved to earlier." Modify condition 7 tostate: "The restaurant operator will ensure that no alcoholic beverages are consumed on property adjacent
to
Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1997
outdoor dining areas which shall be enclosed and controlled according to A.B.C. regulations. The
applicant shall bring back to the Planning Commission a plan demonstrating compliance with A.B.C.
regulations for review and acoeptance as a miscellaneous item prior to issuance of a buildin~ permit." The
findings required with regard to a conditional use permit as iterated in Subsection F" of O.M.C.
Subsection 17.10.030, Requirements for Granting Conditional Use Permits, are met by this application,and the conditions to be Imposed upon the alcoholic beverage service will assure that there is no
negative impact upon the community.
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero. Smith
None MOTION CARRIED
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2183.97 - ST. JOHN'S LUTHERAN CHURCH Proposal
to convert a single family residence to an administrative office for an elementary school in a residential
zone. Existing administrative offices would then be converted to a classroom. The site is located
at 536 Moreland Drive.NOTE:
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15314.Chairman
Bosch excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Vice-Chair
Smith conducted the hearing.
There was no opposition to this item and the public hearing was opened.
Aoolicant. Jim Beam. 3745 West Chaoman Avenue. has worked with staff regarding this item and has
read the staff report and conditions of approval.
Commissioner Smith asked how they plan to access the building -- through Moreland Drive or the school yard?
Mr.
Beam replied their access plan is through the school yard.Commissioner
Romero asked if the fence will be taken down, or how would that be changed? He also asked
when the Master Plan for the church would be finished? Would the conversion create additional staff
or students?Mr.
Beam said the fence would be taken down. They had hoped the Master Plan would have been finished .
Iast year, but unfortunately the congregation did not adopt it. They're back at the drawing board and
hopefully within the next year there will be an approved Master Plan. Mr. Beam explained why they wereconvertingtheresidencetoofficespaceandstatedtherewouldbenoincreaseinenrollmentorstaff.
Public
comments Bettv
Murrill. 603 East Almond. appreciated St. John's 20 foot chain link fence. She was concerned about parking
on Shaffer and Almond. She would hate to see the parking become an issue and wondered if St.
John's had adequate parking for their employees. She would also like to see Moreland Drive be made
a one-way street because it is so narrow. She opposed the piece-meal approach ofacquiringadditionalbuildingsandspace, and would like to see a Master
Plan.
Rebuttal Mr. Beam agreed Moreland Drive should be referred to the Traffic Commission. He felt St. John's
had adequate parking, but would like staff to comment on that issue. He hopes to see a Master Plan for
St.John's in the near future, butcouldn't tell the Commission when that would
be.The public hearing was
closed.Commissioner Smith asked staff to address the parking situation for St. John'
s.
7
Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1997
Mr. Donovan explained there were three parking facilities at St. John's and all three of them aresomewhatdifficulttousebecauseoftheirdifferentlocations. However, there is enough parking for theschool. The City's parking ratio for an elementary school is 1.8 spaces per classroom. That is intended toincludetherequirementfortheteacherandadministrativestafforparentsandvisitors. This proposal isnotarequesttoincreasethenumberofemployees.
Commissioner Romero was in favor of the project considering there is no increase in student enrollmentorstaff. He did not believe this would have a negative impact to the surrounding neighborhood.
It was noted the project was categorically exempt from the provisions of CEOA review.
Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Conditional UsePermit2183-97 with conditions 1-3 listed in the staff report, including the
required
findings.
AYES:
NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Carlton, Pruett,
Romero,
Smith None Commissioner Bosch
MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Pruett stated a Master Plan would be required for future projects if studentenrollmentorstaffincreasedatSt.
John's.Commissioner Smith reminded staff to have the Traffic Commission look at Moreland Drive intermsofsafetyforemergencyvehiclesandthefeasibilityofa
one-way street.Chairman Bosch returned
to the meeting.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to adjourn tothenextregularlyscheduledPlanningCommissionMeetingonAugust18,1997. The meeting adjourned at 8:
40
p.
m.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton,
Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
MOTION