2003 - August 18
APPROVED
MINUTES
Planning Commission
City of Orange
August 18, 2003
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
INRE:
INRE:
Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith
Commissioner Bonina
Jim Reichert, Acting Planning Manager/Secretary
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer
Alice Angus, Community Development Director
Christine Kelly, Contract Planner
Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN:
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2459-03, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 293-03,
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1719-03, AND A DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ORANGE AND ST. JOSEPH
HOSPITAL FOR THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN FOR FUTURE HOSPITAL
EXPANSION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 234,000 SQ. FT. HOSPITAL
BUILDING - ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL
A request for a hospital master plan to allow the upgrading of health care facilities and
construction of new buildings to comply with State mandated earthquake construction
standards. The request includes the approval to allow the construction of a 234,000 sq. ft.
hospital building and new physical plant building. The project is accompanied by a
Development Agreement to allow phasing of project construction to occur beyond the time
period allowed in the City's Zoning Ordinance.
NOTE:
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1719-03 has been prepared for this project
in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
per State CEQA Guidelines.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Continue this item to a Special Planning Commission Meeting on August 25,
2003 per staff and applicant's request.
!\'lOTION
Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to continue this item
to August 25,2003.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith
None
None
Commissioner Bonina
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission
APPROVED
August 18,2003
IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR:
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
AUGUST 4, 2003.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Brandman and seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the
minutes from the August 4, 2003 meeting with the following changes: On page 4 under
Commissioner Brandman's comments, the fourth bullet point should read, "would like staff to
look at covers and landscape screening versus tarps which could possibly be mandatory." The
following bullet point should read, "look at stand alone canopies in areas other than front yard
setbacks."
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith
None
None
Commissioner Bonina
MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: None
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS:
3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2003-0005, ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
NO. 2003-0002 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO.5-CHAPMAN
UNIVERSITY), ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2003-0003 (SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT NO.1 - SANTA FE DEPOT), ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
NO. 2003-0004 (DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE SOUTHWEST
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA), ZONE CHANGE NO. 1223-03, AND
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1717-03 - CHAPMAN
UNIVERSITY - SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO.5
Proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 would add parcels totaling approximately 17.12
acres to the existing 40.35-acre project area to accommodate future University expansion
efforts, including the School of Film and Television, the Dance Center, and other uses.
Amendments to the City's General Plan Land Use and Circulations Elements, the Chapman
University Specific Plan, the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan, and the Design Standards for the
Amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area, and a Zone Change are proposed
to reflect the addition of these properties to the Specific Plan area. The amendment to the
Chapman University Specific Plan also proposes to update development and signage standards,
add historic preservation and edge/interface standards, add Secretary of the Interior standards
for rehabilitation, and identify an Area of Interest immediately adjacent to the campus which
may have a future relationship with the University.
NOTE: Environmental Impact Report No. 1717-03 has been prepared for this project in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State
CEQA Guidelines Article 7 - EIR process. The Planning Commission's review of
the EIR will include demolition of existing improvements on the "Anaconda"
properties on the south side of Palm Avenue between the AT &SF railroad tracks and
2
Planning Commission
APPROVED
August 18, 2003
Lemon Street and the reconstruction of the site for the School of Film and Television,
other related uses on various sites throughout the campus, and consideration of a
Statement of Overriding Considerations for environmental impacts that cannot be
mitigated.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution PC 31-03 recommending the City Council certify FEIR 1717-03,
which was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et seq.
Adopt Resolution PC 30-03 recommending to the City Council approval of the
following:
. General Plan Amendment No. 2003-0005
. Ordinance Amendment No. 2003-0002 (Specific Plan Amendment No. 5-
Chapman University)
. Ordinance Amendment No. 2003-0003 (Specific Plan Amendment No. I-Santa
Fe Depot)
. Ordinance Amendment No. 2003-0004 (Design Standards for the Southwest
Redevelopment Project Area)
. Zone Change No. 1223-03
Jim Reichert introduced the item.
Christine Kelly, contract planner for the City of Orange, made the staff presentation that outlined
the project and the different actions related to Chapman University Specific Plan Amendment
No.5. She explained that the Specific Plan is similar to a master plan and is intended to guide
development for 15-20 years. The items being proposed are a General Plan Amendment to
change the General Plan designation to public facilities; three ordinance amendments: one for
the amendment to the Chapman University Specific Plan, one for an amendment to the Santa Fe
Depot Specific Plan, and one for the design standards for the Southwest Redevelopment Project
Area; and a Zone Change from R-2-6, R-3, C-l, M-l, M-2 and SP2 to PI-SP (Public Institution-
Specific Plan). This project does require an environmental evaluation. The original EIR was
adopted in 1989 and this project is being processed with a subsequent EIR which updates and
adds to the original. The revised Specific Plan provides a more comprehensive approach to plan
for future growth for Chapman University and adds additional controls for design and
development standards that are not in the existing Specific Plan.
Ken Rvan, EDA W, 2737 Campus Drive, Irvine, representing Chapman University, provided a
brief overview of the project. He explained how the intent of this Specific Plan is to consolidate
several different documents and make it more user friendly. The current Specific Plan includes
42 acres and the proposed plan adds an additional 17 acres. The mission statement for Chapman
University is to be very good, not to be big. The total projected enrollment, in the worse case
scenario, is 8,715 students. Currently 4,000 seats are entitled which equates to 7,000 students.
The proposed plan will add more land to address parking and traffic issues. The key issues and
concerns from the community have been addressed in the updated Specific Plan and EIR. The
issues include campus build-out projections; traffic and parking; historic resources; Cypress
Street vacation; zoning and areas of interest. Cypress Street will not be vacated until such time
as Villa Park Orchard Packing House closes and then Cypress will be closed to traffic, but not to
pedestrians.
3
Planning Commission
APPROVED
August 18, 2003
Commissioner Smith's questions, issues and concerns:
. with the inclusion of Walnut and Schaffer in the Specific Plan, what would be the interim
and transitional uses? Mr. Ryan referred to page 6-38 in the Specific Plan and explained
that this relates to those areas within residential area B that are adjacent to other areas not
yet owned by the University and it's narrowed down to just four uses: child care and child
study facilities; recreational facilities of low intensity; residence caretakers; and any other
uses that the Community Development Director would deem similar to those low impact
uses. The parking lot has been omitted.
. why was the Villa Park Orchard Packing House included even though the University does
not own the property? Mr. Ryan stated that they have a letter from the packinghouse
indicating they wanted to be a part of the Specific Plan. She would like to see a copy of the
letter.
. by removing property from the boundaries of the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area
Design Standards and the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan, are we still maintaining the
elements that were in those two plans and transferring them over?
. what are the impacts of increasing FAR and adding 17 acres? Mr. Ryan explained that the
addition of 17 acres is not that much and provides a little bit of growth and will go a long
way to help reduce parking and traffic impacts in the neighborhood.
. is the on-site display of the history of the Anaconda Company and Cordage Company
included in the plans and where will that display be, who will design it and how big will it
be? Mr. Ryan indicated they have added a place in the Specific Plan for art in public places
and that would be something they would work on with the community.
. additional controls have been added for building design but she couldn't find them in the
report. Reference was made to the section in the environmental analysis on page 4-21 (item
4-2-4) and the site plan review on page 7-5 (item 7.3.4 site plan review procedures). Mr.
Ryan will come back to address the issue.
. why not include the property west of the railroad tracks that Chapman already owns in the
Specific Plan? Mr. Ryan said it's so far off in the future, there are no plans for it and it's
adjacent to the Villa Park Orchard property.
. concern with the fact that the Community Development Director can approve buildings
without public review. She would like to see how the existing Specific Plan has worked in
terms of reviewing a building and compare it to how it will be proposed to work in the
future. It could mean that a building could go in at the discretion of the Community
Development Director with no further review. She is concerned that the SRC meetings are
not noticed to the public. Chair Pruett stated that should be something for the City staff to
address.
. student population projections have increased with each Specific Plan. Mr. Ryan said the
8, 715 is total enrollment over time under the worse case scenario at build-out of the
University.
. Design Guidelines in the development regulations 6-15 talk about the height contours that
relate to the neighborhood but it doesn't tell how the process of reducing building height
would occur.
. there's a portion in the EIR where some buildings have been judged to be without historic
integrity, no longer with historic integrity. That would be in the document Draft
Environmental Impact Report Technical Appendices and that's the section where there are
photographs of some of the historic properties within the campus that the University owns.
The pages were hard to read but she guessed the page is R53A. She just picked one at
4
Planning Commission
APPROVED
August 18, 2003
random indicating there's a building at 428 N. Glassell and it says the building is in good
condition but has lost its historic integrity and she was just wondering who made that call,
who made the call that it lost its historic integrity. Then there are some that she assumes still
have historic integrity but it doesn't state that. The ones that say they do not have historic
integrity are stated but the ones where it's omitted, it doesn't say this building retains its
historic integrity. She only read the negatives. She wanted to know who made that
judgment because she went out and just did a windshield survey of some of them, and
although a window may have changed it still has historic integrity if your grandmother lived
there or your grandfather built it or the first president of the University lived there or
something like that. She was just curious about that process. Mr. Ryan will follow up.
. she understands that a Specific Plan overrides the design guidelines and zoning and once the
plan is set, if the Community Development Director made the call that none of the projects
that were brought forth needed to come back for public review, nothing that was developed
in the plan would ever come forward. Ms. Angus replied that this was correct but the
decisions are not made in a vacuum. In terms of making that decision, she is looking at the
Specific Plan and environmental document but if every project at Chapman brought forward
is something that fits within the Specific Plan and is meeting all the design standards, then
that is looked at and monitored to make sure they are doing everything that is required from
a mitigation monitoring standpoint. It is taken through the City's internal process which is
the Staff Review Committee to ensure every department is looking at it and giving her
feedback. It is also taken through the Design Review Committee and she relies on that body
to review the design. Her decision could be appealable and a noticing of the decisions
would be made. The public is not being excluded from knowing what is happening or being
able to give input on projects.
. were the library project and the music school decisions noticed by mail to people within 300'
of the campus? Ms. Angus stated that both of them were and the 300' radius was from the
boundaries of the academic portion of the campus.
. who monitors whether the University is complying with their own plan? It seems like it's a
subjective opinion to say it follows or doesn't follow the design standards. The design
criteria in this plan looks like it's been loosened and broadened because it says it needs to be
in the general spirit of neoclassic design with appreciation for historic features and the
context of the neighborhood. It's not specific and very open to interpretation. This could be
carte blanc for Chapman University to do whatever it wants to and the review process could
bypass public review. Because this is impacting the historic neighborhood, she thinks it
needs to have tighter controls.
. why did the Beckman building, law school and chapel go through the process and how were
they different? Ms. Angus stated that the Beckman building was a departure from the rest of
the architecture on campus in terms of height and the architecture itself and the current
Specific Plan does talk about those compatibility issues. The director at the time wasn't
sure if it necessarily met the intent of the Specific Plan so the director made a determination
to forward it to the Planning Commission. The law school required an amendment to the
Specific Plan. There was a question as to whether the chapel project truly met the intent of
the Specific Plan and so it came to the Planning Commission and then to Council. The
current Specific Plan is confusing as to its interpretation and if she has a problem with that
interpretation, she will refer the project to the Planning Commission. With the amendment
to the Specific Plan, it does become much more crystal clear. There would be a two-tier
process so if a project comes along and meets the standards, it's approved at a staff level. If
that's not the case, then her decision would be to refer it to the Commission or deny it and
have Chapman appeal it to them.
. would like to know about the General Plan changes to Public Facilities and what is it being
changed from. Ms. Kelly referred to an exhibit in the Appendix, item B-2, which has the
5
Planning Commission
APPROVED
August 18, 2003
existing General Plan designations identified and B-3 has General Plan designations as
amended. OT means Old Towne and is a General Plan designation.
. would like to know the General Plan designation for those properties neighboring the area.
It's so piecemeal because some blocks have public designations. Chair Pruett pointed out
on page 16 there is a study that deals with the development regulations on building height
and another page talks about what is on the other side.
. the neighboring residential property owners should have some input depending on the size
and location of the building.
. how have the design guidelines of Old Towne been consolidated?
. what is the policy of the City on street abandonment and who makes that decision?
. are we now setting the criteria as to whether a building is historic or not? Does Chapman
get to make the call as to whether a building is historic enough to keep or what if the
community feels the building is more important than Chapman? The document has to be
clearer on how this doesn't happen.
Commissioner Brandman's questions, issues and concerns:
. concerned with the number of possible students in the future.
. maximum seating will increase from 4,000 to 5,000 in the year 2016. Mr. Ryan stated that
the main issue with this is the parking, traffic and circulation and CEQA requires having
these impacts looked at and determine what mitigation factors are appropriate.
. Chapman University has become a very high profile university and there is concern about
the traffic in the downtown and residential areas so how will the traffic be monitored? Mr.
Ryan said there are mitigation measures and there is a mitigation monitoring report per
CEQA that needs to be adhered to. There is a report card that is required to be submitted
on a regular basis as well as a parking management plan.
. very concerned about the buildings that are to be demolished and who makes that decision.
Mr. Ryan indicated that they have met with OTP A and the concern was that with the EIR in
place, all the Anaconda property could be demolished. However, this cannot be done until a
demolition permit is issued.
. very concerned about Orange's precious resource of historic buildings. Since she's been
sitting on the Commission, she has been allowed to participate in the maintaining and in the
underlying and underscoring of their preciousness and she's concerned about a vote that she
might make tonight that would give someone a blank check either to negatively impact with
traffic, someone' s home area, which is another letter that was received or take down
buildings that she's wasn't aware of. She was being very, very careful so to not cast
dispersions on Mr. Ryan or Chapman, she just wanted to make very, very sure she knows
what she's voting on and will Mrs. Angus and her staff have an opportunity to revisit this
once it leaves here. And most important, will she have an opportunity to revisit it."
. there isn't a problem with the Specific Plan theory but she is very concerned about what
happens after the Specific Plan is approved, and what the public review process would be for
future buildings. She is particularly concerned about the Old Towne historic sites and she'd
like to hear what OTP A has to say. Ms. Angus said that if a project meets criteria in the
Specific Plan, it could be approved at staff level. Planning Commission can recommend that
the process change and there could be a public forum in which, for instance, projects of a
certain size or location need to come to Planning Commission. That's a deviation from
what the current Specific Plan says but the Commission can put various standards in place.
Chair Pruett's questions, issues and concerns:
. he asked staff to talk about the process for demolition and stated that the Specific Plan is
establishing the process and not necessarily approving the activity.
6
Planning Commission
APPROVED
August 18, 2003
. his understanding that the mitigation plan mitigates all the traffic issues including
signalization and that's really a build-out situation. How does the process work to make sure
we are managing the traffic issues? Ms. Angus stated that in terms of traffic and the
mitigation measures, it looks at build-out and safeguards when a new development is
proposed. Traffic and parking issues that would be associated with it would be looked at
and a traffic study would be done. The Specific Plan states that parking has to be in place
as each structure is built. With the Specific Plan, long term development is being looked at
and is creating its own zoning standards that go beyond what is in the zoning code,
Southwest Design Standards, Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan, and Old Towne Design
standards. When looking at historic properties, there is a process in place that requires
conversations with the community on those resources. The current Specific Plan is not clear
to staff and various decision makers as to what those design standards/guidelines are. She
explained the process by which she makes decisions and how they are appealable. The
intention, after listening to the community, is to find out what protections are being put in
place by this Specific Plan. Concerning FAR and future development, the EIR looks at the
worse case scenario. The parking standards are higher than what is currently in place. She
would like to get back to the Commission on the Technical Appendix, which goes through
the various properties and their historical integrity.
. the street vacation would have to come back for further hearing and approval before that
could occur, it's just put into the EIR as something that is a possibility at build-out. Ms.
Angus confirmed that the street vacation is a separate public hearing process and it does
require action by the City Council.
. for clarification, he stated that there are projects that are approved on a daily basis on the
part of staff because they meet all the requirements. So if there weren't a Specific Plan,
Chapman University would still be able to develop their property using a process that every
other property owner in the City can use and if it meets all the requirements, it would not be
subject to any review except by staff. When certain projects have come before the
Commission, they would have liked to see the big plan and so the Specific Plan is to help
deal with the big picture and then deal with the small projects as they come forward.
Without the Specific Plan, it puts them at a disadvantage. Need to look at what the Specific
Plan does in terms of managing how this project is going to move forward and build-out.
Ms. Kelly explained some of the standards that were included in the Specific Plan. Parking
criteria has been added regarding parking structures and setback requirements that apply when
they are adjacent to certain uses. The standard for parking criteria has increased and they no
longer subtract the residential component from the overall component. They have increased
their existing parking requirements by 200 spaces. A landscape master plan has been requested
and they have included enhanced landscape criteria and they have become more specific as they
move into the A-2 areas and types of open space. They have included a discussion on temporary
uses and the notification of the neighborhood. Some of the zones have been modified to ensure
there is compatibility with adjacent uses. The shade and shadow requirements have been
enhanced so that projects will not impact neighboring properties. They have added a pedestrian
walkway exhibit to show pedestrian pathways.
The public hearing was opened.
Those opposed and concerned with the item:
Augie Morales, 392 N. Lemon Street
David Floyd, 422 Everett Place
Jessica Hatfield, 660 N. Shaffer Street
7
APPROVED
Planning Commission
August 18, 2003
Vic Iversen, 719 E. Hoover Avenue
Roy Shahbazian, 3808 E. Palm Avenue
Paul Hudson, 212 S. Orange Street
Anne Siebert, 340 S. Olive Street
Their concerns were:
. thinking this Specific Plan does not adequately address the surrounding neighborhood that
has been there for over a hundred years and Chapman is coming in and destroying the
community
. traffic problems that will be created have not been addressed as well as the vacation of
Cypress Street
. wanting to know how much property Chapman owns in that area
. not wanting them to put up buildings that look like the Anaconda buildings
. concern with the shadowing of the buildings and not hearing anything specific on it
. what are the plans for the dorms with the increasing student population
. concern with rezoning property on Hoover Avenue
. not wanting the Santa Fe Depot Area Specific Plan overturned and concern with the A-2
zone in which too many uses would be permitted and some of those uses violate the intent
of the Santa Fe Depot Area Specific Plan
. Chapman has been open with this new Specific Plan but the plan is huge
. there is concern with the overall degradation of the neighborhood and approval of
demolition without any oversight of any historical property in the district
. signals at the intersections making the Old Towne area lose some of its old town charm
. confusion on the demolition of the Anaconda property
. the population number of 8,700 is alarming
. projects that affect every contributing structure in Old Towne should go through the public
process
. the demolition process is confusing
. who determines what is historical
Commissioner Brandman would like to see the notices sent either 300' or 600' to properties on
the outer boundary of Chapman instead of the interior of the campus.
In response to the various public comments and in summary, Mr. Ryan wanted to point out that
they have tried hard to listen to the concerns of the community. They have met with the
neighbors to listen and respond to concerns. In response to one such concern from Mr. Morales
and the Cypress neighborhood, they worked with the neighborhood to get stop signs along
Sycamore. They have included criteria on shade and shadow, on limiting uses on the parcels
adjacent to Mr. Iverson, and on incorporating more interaction with OTP A all to address
neighborhood compatibility and historic preservation concerns. They have been adhering to the
current processes in place. They will come back with specific information that will assist the
public and Planning Commission to understand all of the regulations included in the proposed
Specific Plan. They will point out in detail the demolition process as well as other mechanisms
that they have added that make it more restrictive for the University in terms of any potential
demolition.
The public hearing was closed.
Chair Pruett said that the University may want to explore doing a project by the History
Department and the film school where the students would go into the community and do
8
Planning Commission
APPROVED
August 18, 2003
documentaries on the historical significance of some of these locations that may be removed as
well as other sections of Orange.
Commissioner Smith would like staff to clarify the street abandonment process. Mr. Hohnbaum
explained that the first step taken is to do a traffic study to determine whether the street
abandonment would be appropriate. If it is determined feasible, then the next step is to find out
the ownership of that roadway. One would be fee ownership in which the City would actually
own the land and the other would be a road easement in which the City does not own the land
but merely has the right to have a roadway there. These considerations are brought forth to the
City Council along with the traffic, ownership and aesthetic issues. If it is determined the street
is no longer needed, then the City would abandon or sell it. It is not an eminent domain process.
Cypress Street abandonment is a separate process and would need Council approval.
Commissioner Smith was concerned with the possibility of both the Cypress Street and Center
Street being abandoned and how it would destroy the historic grid pattern of the neighborhood.
Ms. Angus talked about Center Street and the Library. She thought Roger did describe that from
an environmental standpoint, looking at the impacts and the historic grid, that was addressed
and it was decided that it was mitigated to a level less than significant and part of that had to
deal with some view corridors and keeping them visually open. She thought old Sandberg maps
had been reviewed and actually years and years ago it didn't go through so again it's looking at
what point in history. In terms of taking the two of them together, that is something the
Commission is always careful about because you could get into cumulative impacts. If it was
found that with the Library and Center Street, although that's not a done deal but
environmentally if that was found by itself not to be significant but now there's this request on
Cypress Street and I'll say we'll need to go back in the environmental and make sure we've
looked at cumulatively any impact beyond the stand alone request. Again, on the stand alone
request what we feel comfortable with and what the environmental documentation says is from a
traffic circulation standpoint, it does not have an impact from also in terms of the context of the
neighborhood and historic grid, it does not have a significant impact but we will go back and
look at the two of the in conjunction with each other. Is it setting up some type of pattern that
could result in disruption to the neighborhood and that type of impact? There still is a public
hearing process that will be undertaken for each of those potential abandonments and the City
Council will grabble with that policy decision.
Commissioner Smith wanted to be clear to staff on areas that the Commission needs feedback
on. The Commission would like to know what the demolition process is, suggestions on
providing public notice from the edge of the campus instead of the building site (300' from the
Specific Plan boundaries), look at the process in all the transactions: the process for review of
the height setbacks, the process for review of what a historic building is, the process for
determining if the Community Development Director would make a decision approving a project
or if it would go to the Planning Commission and Council for approval, the Cypress Street
abandonment process should be put in writing, the concept of the Notice of Decision is a good
idea and is open to appeal, will the traffic signal plan fit well, who monitors the University to see
if they are in compliance with their own plan, look at the uses that were not allowed in the Depot
plan but are now allowed in this project, the inclusion of property that is in the Specific Plan that
is not yet owned by Chapman University such as the Villa Park Orchard property and what
property is owned by the University and what could be there in the future.
9
APPROVED
August 18, 2003
Planning Commission
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Brandman and seconded by Commissioner Smith to continue this item
to the September 15,2003 Planning Commission meeting.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
INRE:
Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith
None
None
Commissioner Bonina
MOTION CARRIED
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to adjourn to a
special Planning Commission meeting on Monday, August 25, 2003 at 6:30 p.m.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith
None
None
Commissioner Bonina
MOTION CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 10:25 pm.
10