Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/1/1994MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 1994 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. in the SCAQMD Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Schad. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Meyer; Vice Chairwoman Plunk; Commissioners: Flamenbaum, Fong, Schad Also present: Community Development Director James DeStefano; Associate Planner Rob Searcy; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery; Administrative Secretary Marilyn Ortiz and Patrick Mann of Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. Absent: None j MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 1. ADOPTION OF THE 1994 GENERAL PLAN James DeStefano reported that Patrick Mann, consultant from Cotton/Beland/Associates, provided the Planning Commission with additional information as requested during the last discussion of the Noise Table found in the Public Health and Safety Element of the 1992 General Plan. Chair/Meyer announced that the public hearing portion of the Public Health & Safety Element has been completed and directed staff to provide additional input regarding the units of measurement for the noise level. Chair/Meyer referred to the memo from Mr. Mann recommending the use of the CNEL standard although it lacks uniformity throughout the state. Chair/Meyer asked C/Flamenbaum and C/Fong if their questions regarding the CNEL standard were answered satisfactorily. C/Flamenbaum responded '.. affirmatively. August 1, 1994 Page 2 Planning Commission o'IP C/Fong asked for an explanation of the higher CNEL level allowable for Hospitals compared to the lower CNEL levels for libraries and residential areas. He believes that hospitals should have a lower level or at least levels comparable to libraries or residential level. Patrick Mann explained that the interior CNEL levels for these uses were set by the GPAC in their deliberations. The hospital provideshigher noise levels in living areas and lower levels of noise in sleeping areas than the library use. The noise levels are quite low as set in the table and it is believed they would provide adequate protection for those land uses. C/Fong responded he has no other questions or objections. Chair/Meyer questioned whether the CNEL standards recommendations are achievable or do they prohibit development. Patrick Mann stated that the maximum exterior CNEL standards that are not to be exceeded are achievable in most cases. The exterior CNEL objective for quiet areas may not be achievable in many areas exposed to freeway noise. GPAC added this type of standard to the -element that originally contained only, the maximum exterior CNEL Level. Chair/Meyer questioned the outcome of an environmental review studying the noise generally associated with a project, if the project did not achieve the standards in the General Plan. Would it require an environmental impact report because of inability to mitigate it to this level of considered non -significance? Patrick Mann responded that a judgment determination would have to be made about whether the magnitude of the variation was sufficient to require an environmental impact. In the residential areas the maximum exterior CNEL is probably achievable. There may be places in commercial, industrial and offices areas where the 70 dBA CNEL standard could note be achieved because of an existing freeway noise condition. Chair/Meyer asked if this would give rise to an argument to prohibit development in those areas. Patrick Mann responded that it could. Chair/Meyer addressed the conflict between the CNEL standard (7.0 dBA) of the General Plan for industrial areas and terms of the General Plan encouraging a balanced growth. He stated it appears that if the current levels are not attainable, then a proposed development that added noise to a ,.,,.., ;,,;mn. .. ,.r..a,<< ,_ ., 1, JP d 7r0!;' i, ' a air„ � '�„a �. , i �', ....�',i� ,#�,�1 �:-�����h„�a�arU�ler„����a�'�I�.i�,r�,��,',•a`ti',_�`* August 1, 1994 Page 3 Planning commission the area would provide the basic argument against issuing any development permits. Chair/Meyer suggested that as a major source of noise, we need to recognize that freeways have higher noise levels than other parts of the city and treat them as unique situations, possibly requiring differential treatment. Patrick Mann extended further Chair/Meyer's comments that the 71 Freeway will eventually become a full-fledged freeway. In his opinion the noise from it will carry over into Tres Hermanos combining with the Pomona noise. Using the chart in the EIR as a basis of measurement, it must be decided what levels are adequate to attain our goals. C/Schad pointed out that noise levels vary according to the time and peak of traffic. Tire planing creates the most significant noise on the surface of the road; the faster cars go, the nosier it gets. Peterson Park is a good example of the inverse funnel affect. Due to its geology and location near the freeway, the sound in this area is actually amplified to levels of 85-90 decibels. C/Schad stated that he had recommended a chart at the last meeting which reduces most of these levels by approximately 5 dBA. Patrick Mann reminded the Planning Commission that -the --chart C/Schad spoke of dealt with interior noises. The problem Chair/Meyer brought up is exterior noises. Chair/Meyer asked Mr. Mann if, for example, we wanted to expand the use of Peterson Park, would the standard be used which implies that the park uses adds additional exterior noise? If the goal is 70 dBA and the park already exceeds that, would there then be case basis to deny development of the park? Patrick Mann replied that development could be denied. For instance, if an application from the Parks and Recreation Department was received to put in three new bathrooms, it would have to be denied. Chair/Meyer reiterated the need to recognize that when considering exterior standards, freeways and their immediate adjoining areas should be treated differently. Primarily due to the unique situations freeways present as a major source of noise that run throughout the city. Patrick Mann suggested a freeway adjacent criteria. Chair/Meyer continued, saying that if a'development will add to the exterior noise and the goal is 70 dBA in commercial August 1, 1994 Page 4 Planning Commission and industrial areas, then the City is limited from adding any more commercial industrial, because it would increase the present dBA which already exceeds the goal. Discussion ensued regarding the effects of reducing noise levels on future development. James DeStefano stated that the General Plan can always be amended. He stated that a more valid point is why send it through with wrong recommendations. ICA/Montgomery recommended an upper and lower limit -be provided on the chart, as a guideline and judge each case on specific merits through the public hearing process. Patrick Mann stated that in the preparation of the GPAC noise element, a table -with different categories of significance -for noise for varying land uses was presented to the committee. What might now be provided is to 'add another column, separating what is clearly unacceptable for these'land uses and what would normally be unacceptable. Levels could be exceeded if there were unique circumstances or efforts made to provide additional sound insulation, appropriate to the land use. To some extent the commercial! and industrial areas where the land is exposed to noise between 70 and 75 dBA can be utilized for those types of uses instead of other uses. For office and commercial buildings, above 75 dBA would normally be unacceptable for those uses. However if adequate or special sound insulation is included in the design, and those uses do not depend on outdoors space substantially, the noise level could be acceptable— C/Schad stated that the table presented,by Cotton/Beland sets time frames which allows for accumulation of sound. Although he prefers Table IV -I on page IV -12, dBA's should,, be slightly reduced, it would be acceptable to him if the figures shown were used as maximum allowable CNEL. Motion was made by C/Schad, seconded by C/Flamenbaum to add an additional row to Table IV -1 called "Freeway Adjacent Commercial/Industrial/Office Areas" using 65 dBA for the exterior CNEL objective and 70 to 80 dBA for the maximum exterior CNEL and the interior at 45 dBA. CDD/DeStefano suggested as a strategy that additional verbiage be added to 1.10.12 to read: "New development should not exceed the standards outlined within Table IV -1: If new construction does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise v+,^u. insulation features included in design." �"�'�:; .,� �� r�c��ti.. W August 1, 1994 Page 5 Planning Commission Motion was amended by C/Schad and seconded by C/Flamenbaum to include CDD/DeStefano's suggested strategy 1.10.12 and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. C/Flamenbaum suggested that a maximum interior CNEL level of 40 dBA be added to the chart for recreation and quiet, passive areas. Motion was made by C/Schad, seconded by C/Fong to amend Table IV -1, Recreation: Quite, Passive Areas: add 40 dBA to the maximum interior CNEL . The motion carried 4-1 with the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad, Fong, Chairman Meyer, Flamenbaum NOES: COMMISSIONERS: V/Chair Plunk ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None -� Motion was made by C/Schad and seconded by C/Flamenbaum, to change Strategy 1.10.3 on page IV -10 to read "New construction, excluding additions and remodels that do not expand the existing floor area of the dwelling by--25-*.-shall not be permitted to cause exterior CNEL level of surrounding residential neighborhoods to exceed those limits stated in Table IV -1... CDD/DeStefano suggested Strategy 1.10.3 be changed to read "New construction, including additions and remodels exceeding 25% of original floor area, shall not be permitted to cause the exterior CNEL level of surrounding residential neighborhoods to exceed those limits stated in Table IV -1, or to significantly, adversely effect.the existing CNEL of those neighborhoods." The motion carried 4-1 as follows: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad, Fong, Flamenbaum, Chair/Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: V/Chair Plunk ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Chair/Meyer inquired whether there were any additional changes or questions. None were expressed and Meyer declared the Public Health and Safety Element completed. RECESSED: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:00 p.m. August 1, 1994 Page 6 Planning Commission RECONVENED: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 8:12 p.m. CDD/DeStefano introduced Karen Warner, Cotton/Beland/Associates, stating she had,participated in the GPAC workshop process and would be presenting the Housing element, GPAC issues and the issues before the ' community. Karen Warner stated that the Housing Element is the most complicated element. It is the only General Plan element required to undergo State review. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is required to prepare written findings as to whether in their opinion "A housing element is in substantial legal compliance". The courts tend to side with the State. The goal is to achieve the State's approval of the Housing Element. Only 40% of cities state- wide have a State approved Housing Element. If a housing element is not in state compliance and someone; chooses to challenge the City on the basis of an inadequate, General Plan and the courts find on the side of HCD that you have an inadequate housing element, courts can shut down the City. Essentially the State can take away all discretionary actions of the City until the element is brought under compliance. This happens fairly infrequently, but it does happen and tends to happen to cities that have redevelopment agencies and have some money involved. Ms. Warner went on to explain Diamond Bar's situation. The last housing element was prepared in 1993. Significant revisions were made to the element at that time in response to the State's comments. The State had one outstanding concern which was the lack of adequate sites. The state defines adequate sites according to density categories. All cities are given their regional share_of housing needs divided among income categories. Diamond Bar's regional needs figure is 781 dwelling units. This is divided up into 117 units for low income, 182 units for low income, 144 for moderate income and 338 units for upper income. The Housing Element needs to demonstrate enough land zoned at densities that the state considers high enough to provide affordability to that number of units in those income categories. In response to C/Flamenbaum, Ms. Warner stated that the income categories are based on the County median. Avery low income household is defined by HUD by 1993 standards for a family of four in Los Angeles County as earning 50% or below the County median of $24,150. A low income household August 1, 1994 Page 7 Planning commission i earns between 50% and 80% of the county median which is essentially between $24,000 and $38,650. Moderate income is between $38,650 to $57,950 and that's essentially up to 120% of the County median. The rule of thumb that the State uses in urban areas to achieve affordability to these income levels is a minimum of 25 units/acre for the very low income category. Diamond Bar has a need of "117 units. For the low income category, a density criteria of 18 units/acre is used. Both of those categories need to be available for rental: For the moderate income, a density criteria of 8 units/acre is used and can be ownership or rental. Diamond Bar has a need of 144 units. Part of the process when cities are initially assigned these numbers is that cities have 90 days in which to review the numbers and make an appeal to Southern California Association of Government (5CAG) if they feel the numbers are inaccurate. Diamond Bar was just incorporating at the time and wasn't able to take advantage of that opportunity. After the 90 day appeal period is up, there's no adjustment to the figures. In working with these numbers and these density criterias from the state, GPAC realized there was an issue regarding the.land use policies in Diamond Bar for lower density housing and limited multi -family housing.. GPAC considered the following options to achieve State approval: OPTION ONE: to leave the site inventory as it stands in the Land Use Element and for the City Council to adopt findings showing why the document is in substantial compliance with the law based on a variety of physical and infrastructure constraints to multi -family development. OPTION TWO: to show greater commitment in the Tres Hermanos specific plan area for the multifamily units that would be required under your regional housing needs. OPTION THREE: to increase the densities under the medium and high density land use categories to the 18 and 25 unit/acre minimum. OPTION FOUR: (in combination with some other programs) to adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance which says that in all projects of a certain size that the developer will be a, required to set aside a certain portion, commonly 15%, of the units as affordable to lower income households. August 1, 1994 Page 8 Planning Commission Jill, Hill OPTION FIVE: try to adopt more proactive programs -so that affordable housing is achieved without providing a significant increase in density city wide. (Proactive Density Bonus Ordinance) Ms. Warner reported, GPAC agreed by a majority on Option #1. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open. Gary Neely, residing at 344 Canoe Cove Dr., praised Karen Warner for her presentation. He stated that we have an opportunity to meet HCD's requirements. He expressed his concern to protect the canyons. He recommended adding a mixed use density at 25 units/acre and to identify this on the land use map. He also recommended the remainder of the land use in Tres Hermanos be designated as University Specific Plan identifying the mixed use around the reclaimed water lake. Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig Lane; pointed out a change on page II -14, Table II -4 Potential Development, and:, asked for clarification. ' CDD/DeStefano stated that Mr. Maxwell is referring to the original Page II -14 and the changes that occurred on the July 13th ERRATA SHEET. The reason the rural/residential '' vacant acres changed and the dwelling units changed is 1) the number of rural residential acres were lowered as a result of turning some of those properties into GPAC's recommended Open Space Category; 2) The dwelling unit numbers were lowered because the previous table reflected a higher density. The number 136 is referring to an estimated 1 unit for every 2.5 acres, which is an assumption based upon the known fact that the majority of these vacant remaining hillside acres are at about 30% slope or greater'; and the relationship to the GPAC strategy of a ratio of 1 to 2.5 acres to 1 to 2.75 acres when rural residential properties exceeded a slope of 30%. Barbara Beach Courchesne, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd., referred to Page II -16, Paragraph 1, Line 5 where it states that Tres Hermanos could be built at densities higher than 16 units/acre. She stated GPAC wished it to remain that way. She suggested Diamond Bar work with the State to convince them that because of Diamond Bar's topography 25 units/acre may not be feasible. If it is the Planning Commission or the City Council's desire to build at that density, they should first take a more careful look at available facilities and services. 1 August 1, 1994 Page 9 Planning Commission She wants it on record that the GPAC never intimated that they wanted to make it difficult for development to occur in Diamond Bar. GPAC wants country living atmosphere and high quality types of developments and growth. That does sometimes create difficulty and certainly creates expense, but it is not an anti -development. Gary Neely stated he wanted to make clear that his comments do not relate to very low income, low income or moderate income housing, but upper income housing. He pointed out some inconsistencies in the document. On Page II -22, in order to be consistent with the Circulation Element there is a star on the section of Diamond Bar Blvd. located between Pathfinder and Brea Canyon Cutoff that indicates it is operating at level of service E or F. That intersection is not currently identified as operating at that level of service. Mr. Neely also pointed out inconsistencies regarding the Housing Opportunity Map on Page II -15 and the Vacant Land Subject to Development Restrictions Map on Page II -24. Chair/Meyer thanked Mr. Neely for his presentation and commented that it was thoroughly investigated and very well presented. The Public Hearing was declared closed. RECESS: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 9:20 pm. RECONVENED: The meeting was reconvened at 9:32 p.m. C/Flamenbaum inquired whether, in terms of the HCD housing requirements, there is a density requirement or just number of units. Karen Warner replied that there is a number of units required and there is a density criteria. As long as the criteria for the income is met, any density achievable is OK. Chair/Meyer requested everyone take a few minutes and focus on what the philosophy of the Planning Commissioner should be in terms of review of the Housing Element. He stated that only 40% of the cities in the state of California have been able to meet the State's criteria. He also noted that the Planning Commission has been presented with the GPAC presentation of the Housing Element which is a constraints type of approach indicating that it's impossible for the ,� City of Diamond Bar to comply with the numbers given by SCAG August 1, 1994 Page 10 Planning commission because of a number of unique elements that are particular to Diamond Bar. Chair/Meyer continued, there may be a third approach which would be a combination of both, indicating a willingness to comply with the State goals but also outlining and elaborating on the constraints of the City. This may make it unrealistic to try and obtain. the 781 units that have;, been allocated to the City. Chair/Meyer asked the Commissioners to think about their philosophy and take a few minutes to share it. C/Flamenbaum responded that it's a shame that our children can't live in the city in which they were raised. We should try to do what we can to comply with State requirements to aid low income families. C/Schad agreed with C/Flamenbaum. V Chair/Plunk stated she thinks Diamond Bar should try.to comply. Chair/Meyer stated if the Commission is going to comply., the t�'1 densities will need to increase. There should really be an investigation in terms of the constraints as hillside properties, circulation, etc. We should also do what's possible to make a valiant effort to comply with our RHNA (Regional Housing Allocation) goals. He further stated hiss approach would be to take combination of the both -to take a'. compliance approach and certainly identify the constraints of this community so when the round of new RHNA numbers come up we can actually present some viable input at that time. C/Fong stated he doesn't think it's possible to comply 100%1. He continued on with questions on Table II -4 , Page II -14. CDD/DeStefano brought up another alternative equally fraught with public policy issues and issues of balance and possible political turmoil. That is the issue of changing some of the currently designated commercial or industrial properties that are now vacant, to residential, using Gateway Corporate Center as an example. There is a need to provide more jobs in Diamond Bar . There is a great imbalance in terms of,jobs and housing. Diamond Bar is an export city, exporting , labor, sales tax, etc.; we would be reducing our inventory of commercially developable properties and the economical development return that the City gets on that, in terms'of taxation, jobs and etc. It is an opportunity that presents A itself. August 1, 1994 Page 11 Planning commission Chair/Meyer suggested going through the Housing Element page by page._ Chair/Meyer commented on citizen participation on Page II -2 stating it should be 38 members not 36. C/Plunk~ requested that staff check for validity of the sentence on Page II -4, Paragraph 2; "Both the City's Code Enforcement officer and the Building Official indicate that Diamond Bar has very few units that are considered substandard, and all are suitable for rehabilitation." Chair/Meyer suggested that additional documentation be added to the Table on Page II -5 showing the income level reflects 1994 figures. C/Fong, Page II -14 footnote (1) under Vacant Land Acres for Specific Plan should be footnote (2). V Chair/Plunk commented this chart should be revisited. There is also a need to talk about the slope densities before discussing rural/residential. C/Flamenbaum expressed concerns about Table II -4 making an assumption of 2.5 acres per unit as reflected in footnote CDD/DeStefano stated that the 2.5 acre per dwelling unit was an assumption based upon the known facts regarding many of the remaining vacant rural/residential properties that are at or may even exceed 30% slopes. Based upon the chart in the Land Use Elements, 1 - 2.5 acres was picked as a medium point to -come up with a number. Chair/Meyer noted II -14 was an important section and would have to be revisited C/Flamenbaum, noted on page II -15 Housing opportunity Areas doesn't reflect the land use categories that are called out. Rural/Residential has an average of 2.5 acres per unit. Then we say 0 - 1 dwelling unit per acre and that isn't shown anywhere. On the map it says 1 unit per acre. Karen Warner responded that the map should either say maximum units/acre to clarify that's the upper end of the density -range or be modified to use the actual density that was used for the basis of calculating dwelling units. In the Rural it would be the 2.5 acres/unit average. That's ' why it says 1 unit/acre for Rural, because that is the 4 maximum. Either of those two could be used. August 1, 1994 Page 12 Planning commission CDD/DeStefano suggested a 3rd alternative would be to list the actual Slope Density Table, under Rural/Residential or the 1 unit/acre category. Take Table II -4 as base and change the map to reflect the table. V Chair/Plunk had questions -regarding an apparent conflict between the maps on II -22 and II -24. CDD/DeStefano responded that the maps represent a graphic portrayal of what the text is saying. The surgical precision with which one speaker has examined these maps is not necessary for a map in the General Plan at this scale. CDD/DeStefano suggested, it would be useful to the staff for the Commission to determine which maps they desire and then direct staff which inconsistences to reconcile. V Chair/Plunk suggested the Commission go through the document and revisit the maps. The other Commissioners concurred. C/Fong, stated on page II -16, 2nd Paragraph, that 676 units does not include Tres Hermans which is currently designated Agricultural. CDD/DeStefano stated C/Fong is correct. Tres Hermanos is not included because there are 110" dwelling units allocated for t' Tres Hermanos. The area is supposed to remain agricultural for the foreseeable future based upon this General Plan with the intent that a specific plan be prepared in the future.; CDD/DeStefano responding to an inquiry by C/Flamenbaum stated that the Hillside Ordinance does not contain a slope density formula. It would require modification to the Hillside Management Ordinance to insert such a slope density formula. It would dramatically alter the number of dwelling units that would be permitted on the steeper slope properties. C/Flamenbaum questioned what would be the existing units per acre that would be permitted under the existing Hillside Management Ordinance. CDD/DeStefano stated that it would be the underlying zoning plus whatever environmental constraints the site has instead " of considerations as a result of the Hillside Management Ordinance that cause a lessening of the density. CDD/DeStefano continued that the previous General Plan's -_ Rural/Residential classification had a density of 1; unit/acre and there were several hundred more acres August 1, 1994 Page 13 Planning Commission classified Rural Residential. Those two factors created the majority of the 1,900 additional dwelling units that were anticipated within that plan. By lowering the density and reducing the number of rural residential acres, the figure drops dramatically down to 676. C/Flamenbaum stated that previously 1,220 dwelling units could have been built on the existing land that was classified Rural Residential. Today, the net result is 136 dwelling units can be built based upon what we think the existing slope is, resulting in an apparent 90% reduction. He asked ICA/Montgomery what the landowners could do to the City. ICA/Montgomery answered, that ratio would be considered a reasonable down zoning with no cause of action as long as there is a reasonable use of the property. One would have to be denied all reasonable use of their property and those definitions have been skirted back and forth. V Chair/Plunk questioned what happens if the court decides that the City is denying the reasonable use of property. ICA/Montgomery replied that the test on that is what is reasonable and down,zoning to 1 unit per 20 acres has been approved. The benefit of the doubt goes to legislative body. V Chair/Plunk, asked whether the slope classification, was -taken from another city. CDD/DeStefano replied that it was brought forward by GPAC members. C/Schad responded that this was heavily debated for several days by GPAC. This was their final conclusion on it. He stated he thinks it is a good ratio and should remain as is. Motion was made by C/Schad and seconded by C/Fong that the slope density formula should only apply to rural residential. The motion failed 3-2 as follows: AYES:. COMMISSIONERS: Schad & Fong NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum, V /Chair Plunk, Chair/Meyer ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 1~a Chair/Meyer questioned whether there should be a Slope Density Formula at all. August 1, 1994 Page 14 Planning Commission C/Schad, expressed his belief that Diamond Bar should have 'h!1 Slope Density Formula because of the geology of the city in general, and to maintain the rural appearance. Chair/Meyer asked the commissioners if the slope density formula should apply to all property. The response was no. CDD/DeStefano pointed out there is another alternative that has yet to be expressed and which is to permit density transfers. Concentrate the density on the areas that you deem to be suitable for development while maintaining in perpetuity the balance of the development site. This would, apply to the remaining vacant land and how to deal with that in terms of preservation, element and in this case housing issues, etc. Chair/Meyer asked the if the Commissioners want a Slope Density Formula? C/Fong replied since it is what the people want, it should be left in. Chair/Meyer stated, "The question is - Should there be a Slope Density Formula?" C/Flamenbaum said NO; C/Fong, C/Schad, and Chair/Meyer said YES; and V/Chair Plunk -ABSTAINED Chair/Meyer directed the Commissioners to,think about the Slope Density Formula, what the percentages ought to be and the impact on housing before the next meeting. V Chair/Plunk directed Staff to advise the Commission of Slope Density Formulas in different cities and what they are. Chair/Meyer advised that the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meetings are the 8th and 22nd of August. He asked that the Commission consider having an additional General Plan meeting on Monday, August 15, 1994. Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by V/Chair Plunk to continue the General Plan deliberations to Aug. 8th and reopen the General Plan public hearing on Aug. 8th, V/Chair Plunk seconded. Motion carried unanimously. 11 ntl a �... �s_4 a 7 . August 1, 1994 Page 15 Planning Commission r ADJOURNMENT: - Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried unanimously to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 11:15 p.m. to Monday, August 8, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully, les DeStefan Secretary Attest: Chairman