Loading...
PC MINS 19870210asp ovke-Nell., M I N U T E S PLANNING COMMISSION February 10, 1987 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 PM by Chair Ortolano at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT: CONNOLLY, MC NULTY, ORTOLANO, VON HAGEN, WIKE ABSENT: NONE Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard, Associate Planner Greg Fuz, Associate Planner Steve Rubin, Assistant Planner Laurie Brigham, and Assistant Planner Carolynn Wilker-Roesch. COMMUNICATIONS Chair Ortolano related the following communications concerning convenience stores: (1) a letter from Ms. Robin Lindsay dated February 3, 1987; (2) a letter from Mr. & Mrs. R. Downing dated February 4, 1987; and (3) a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Brad Tepee dated February 3, 1987. Chair Ortolano noted the following communications regarding Height Variation No. 470: (1) a letter from Ms. Betty Schiff; (2) a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Van Barberi; and (3) a letter from the Seaview Residents' Association. Chair Ortolano discussed a communication from the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints dated February 6, 1987 relating to the proposed equestrian trail in the Wallace Ranch. Commissioner Von Hagen discussed that the Church's letter expressed displeasure with the idea that an equestrian trail may be planned in the area between Highridqe and Crenshaw. He stressed there is no such equestrian trail planned. Mr. Benard stated that the Commission will receive copies of Mayor Hughes' planned correspondence addressing the Church's concerns. CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of Chair Ortolano modified the minutes January 13, 1987 as follows: Page 2, Paragraph 9, "Chair Ortolano questioned whether...". Page 7, Paragraph 13, "...for the building mass which is on the site." Page 10, Paragraph 7, "...discussed whether requiring landscaping by the fence would...". Minutes February 10, 1987 Page 2 Commissioner Von Hagen modified Page 6, Paragraph 8, to read, "...should be used to require a business into compliance." Commissioner Von Hagen moved to approve the January 13, 1987 minutes as amended; seconded by Mr. Connolly and passed unanimously. Conditional Use Permit Commissioner alike requested clarifi- No. 76 - Revision "B" cation regarding Lot 17's setback. Tract No. 37060 —Staff said 4qt-- 17's footprint was revised to a 20 toot setback so there will be no entryway encroachment problem. Commissioner Von Hagen moved to adopt staff's recommendation including the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit "A"; seconded by Commissioner McNulty and passed unanimously. Appeal rights were noted. PUBLIC HEARINGS Conditional Use Permit Associate Planner Steve Rubin No. 115, Negative presented the staff report. Declaration for EA No. 505 31200 PV Drive West Commissioner Von Hagen questioned whether the site can accommodate recreational vehicles which are approximately 32 feet in length. Staff discussed that the recommended tank relocation area could accommodate recreational vehicles better than the applicant's proposed location but the Fire Department indicated the law would require that the bottles be removed from a vehicle when refilling. Staff said the approval could be conditioned to include that vehicles cannot park on the site for refilling purposes. Commissioner Connolly voiced concern over a possible catastrophe resulting from the malfunctioning of a truck's brakes while traveling up and down the steep hills on the peninsula. He questioned the route the refill trucks would take. Staff voiced uncertainty as to the exact route the refill trucks would take but noted gasoline refill trucks constantly travel up and down the peninsula without any problems. Minutes February 10, 1987 Page 3 Commissioner Connolly requested clarification regarding the proposed crash posts. Staff noted that the proposed crash posts must meet the Fire Department requirements. Commissioner Wike questioned whether there are any faults running by or near the property. Staff responded that there are no identified faults in the vicinity of the subject site. Chair Ortolano voiced concern over vandalism. She questioned whether there are any safety measures built into the tank design that would prevent or discourage vandalism. Staff discussed that a key would be required to turn the pumps on. Staff related that a fence to enclose the pumps is not proposed but could be required as a condition of approval. Commissioner Von Haqen questioned if the proposed LPG tanks would pose- any more of a vadalism problem than gasoline tanks. Chair Ortolano discussed that, due to the nature of LPG, State law requires the tanks be placed above ground. She noted that the area surrounding the station is very dark and it would be appropriate to condition the approval with a fence requirement. Mr. Benard noted that the applicant might relate experiences in securing the tanks. Chair Ortolano opened the public hearing. Mr. Robert Schneider, 2940 California Avenue, Long Beach, of Petrolan-e., addressed the -safety of leaving the tanks unattended at night and that the pump is enclosed in a cage -like box. He said it is his experience that the tanks are not sub3ect to vandalism which would be harmful to the communsty. Chair Ortolano voiced concern over the volatile nature of LPG. Mr. Schneider said that propane is less volatile than gasoline and he has never seen a propane tank explode. Commissioner McNulty moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed unanimously. E Minutes February 10, 1987 Page 4 Commissioner McNulty moved approval of staff's recommendation; seconded by Commissioner Wi-ke. Staff suggested the motion be amended to include a condition of approval requiring that all delivery vehicles to the sub3ect property shall follow the City's designated and appropriate truck routes. Mr. Benard discussed that the truck routes are designated by the California Highway Patrol. He noted there has been some problem with trucks not following the designated routes and said such a condition would assist in assuring that trucks making deliveries to the site utilize the proper routes. Chair Ortolano questioned whether the station's owner is aware of staff's recommended tank relocation. Staff said the applicant would prefer that the tank be placed near Hawthorne for visibility purposes but does understand that it must be relocated due to zoning requirements. The amendment was accepted by the maker of the motion. Commissioner Von Hagen said the approval could be conditioned to include that parking of vehicles within a certain distance of the LPG tank is prohibited. However, he noted that such a condition might not be appropriate because vehicles cannot be required to park on property used for another business. Commissioner Wike related that the approval could include a requirement that the propane bottles must be removed from the vehicles. Chair Ortolano questioned whether LPG is a self-service item. Staff said LPG is not a self-service item since the Fire Department requires that the dispensing of the gas shall be approved in an outside area and performed by a qualified attendant. Mr. Benard discussed that the requirement to fill the bottles separate from the vehicles would be in the Fire Department's Durisdiction. The motion was passed unanimously. Appeal rights were noted. • Minutes February 10, 1987 Page 5 NEW BUSINESS CUP No. 23 - Revision "K" 2912 Vista Del Mar C By consensus the reading of the staff report was waived. Mr. Lamar Robinson, Robinson North Architects, 1455 Crenshaw, Suite 260A, Torrance, discussed that the original application adhered to the Code's open space requirements and the Seacliff Hills Guidelines were adopted while the geology of the site was being evaluated. He noted the proposed driveway location is the same as the original footprint and stated the Code does not include the driveway as part of lot coverage. He requested the project be approved as submitted and emphasized the steepness of the lot makes it difficult to obtain open space without terracing. He said the proposed residence would be placed low on the lot to achieve visual relief to the highly visible Seacliff Hills area. Staff noted that the building footprint, the driveway, and the parking area are all considered lot coverage according to the Code. Chair Ortolano voiced that the item should be continued in order for the applicant to work with staff to redesign with 70% open space as per the Seacliff Guidelines. Mr. Steve Dubow, 6364 Chartres Drive, landowner, said the amount of retaining walls was reduced per staff's request and stated he was under the impression that all staff's recommendations had been met and was surprised at the recommendation that the rear terracing be removed. Staff said Mr. Robinson was notified of the open space problem when the staff report was prepared. Commissioner McNulty questioned whether the applicant's original plan (excluding the geology) met all City requirements before the adoption of the Seacliff Guidelines. Staff .related that the applicant's original plan was designed to meet Code and, while the qeology was being evaluated, the Commission adopted the Seacliff Guidelines. Mr. Benard noted the City Attorney's advice to cease any reviews and approvals in the area until the geology is resolved. Staff requested Commission clarification regarding whether landscaping of altered terrain should be included as lot coverage or open space. Chair Ortolano said the Jung project included such landscaping as open space. Minutes February 10, 1987 Page 6 Commissioner McNulty voiced his opinion that the Jung landscaping was designed as a parklike setting and, therefore, was included as open space. Staff discussed that the Seacliff Guidelines include as lot coverage areas which have been disturbed (such as graded, terraced, etc.). Commissioner McNulty questioned what the applicant's lot coverage would be if the landscaping was not included as lot coverage. Staff said the lot coverage would be 65% if the landscaping was not .included as lot coverage. Commissioner Von Hagen voiced his opinion that it was not generally the Commission's intent to include landscaping as part of the open space. Chair Ortolano stated her impression that grass and trees would be included as open space and an applicant would not be penalized if the proposed grading is minimal. Mr. Benard stated that the proposed terrracing and retaining walls would radically alter the natural terrain. Chair Ortolano said that the determination of the extent of the alteration to the natural terrain should be made at an admini- strative level. Staff noted that the portion of the Seacliff Guidelines dealing with open space is being resolved and refined. Chair Ortolano questioned whether Commissioner Connolly would have any problem with considering landscaping as part of the open space. Commissioner Connolly voiced his opinion that landscaping should be considered as part of the open space unless the land has been radically altered with terracing, retaining walls, etc. Chair Ortolano stressed that the Commission should have more project information before making a determination and suggested the item be continued. Commissioner McNulty moved to continue the item; seconded by Commissioner Von Hagen and passed unanimously. Chair Ortolano encouraged the applicant to work with staff to present a plan that tends to build more open space into the pro3ect. She stated that landscaping should be included as open space unless the open space is radically altered with terracing, retaining walls, etc. • Minutes February 10, 1987 Page 7 • Height Variation No. 465 Assistant Planner Laurie Brigham Appeal - 2131 Summerland presented the staff report. Chair Ortolano noted that the view from the main living area and not from the front door is usually considered in a view analysis. She said staff's interpretation of the Code appears different from the previous Director of Environmental Service's interpretation. Staff discussed that the view from the front door at 2165 General is the only viewing area on the entire property and the rear of the lot is covered by large shrubs and trees which block any potential view. Staff related that, according to the Code, the principal and identifiable view and viewing area shall be determined by the Director of Environmental Services. Mr. Benard discussed that the view from the front door at 2165 General is behind the street side setback and is in a portion of the yard which is a buildable area. He noted the view analysis considered the primary viewing area to be outside the front door rather than from the rear yard because there is no view from the rear and the area in the front is buildable. Mr. Anthony Pescetti, 29119 Highmore, Rancho Palos Verdes, 90732, representing the appellant, discussed that leaving the height of the proposed addition at 16 feet and moving it toward the front of the property would cost approximately $70,000 (an increase of approximately 50%) which would cause a financial hardship to the appellant. He said the resident at 2165 General gave the impression that there would be no objection to the proposed addition. Staff said the resident at 2165 General speaks little English but did voice concern over view blockage resulting from trees and additions. Commissioner Wike voiced her impression that the resident at 2165 General is not the property owner. Staff said that 2165 General appears to be owner occupied. Chair Ortolano questioned whether the removal of trees from the property at 2165 General would enhance the view. Staff said that the trees on the surrounding properties, in addition to the property owner's trees at 2165 General' would have to be removed in order to enhance the view. Commissioner Von Hagen moved approval of the appeal; seconded by Mr. McNulty and passed unanimously. Appeal rights were noted. 0 Minutes February 10, 1987 Page 8 Height Variation No. 470 Appeal - 3936 Admirable Dr. • Assistant Planner Carolynn Wilker- Roesch presented the staff report. Commissioner Wike questioned whether staff considered any alternatives to the applicant's proposed plans. Staff said the layout of the applicant's house is such that it would be very difficult to add bedrooms onto the first floor and meet the required setbacks and Building Code requirements for light and air. Commissioner Connolly requested clarification regarding the applicant's rear slope gradient. Staff indicated that the applicant's rear slope gradient is approximately 2:1. Chair Ortolano questioned whether staff toured any of the homes which have additions on Exultant Drive. Staff said homes on Exultant Drive were toured and noted the applicant wishes to add bedrooms whereas the additions to the Exultant Drive homes are family rooms. Ms. Kathryn Bartz, 3936 Admirable Drive, applicant, discussed her opinion that the only issue should be view obstruction. She said an attempt was made to minimize view obstruction, at separate times one contractor and two architects suggested the proposed plans, and since the City prepared a very careful study of the project the appeal should be denied and staff's recommendation to grant the request should be upheld. Chair Ortolano questioned whether the applicant considered any alternative designs. Ms. Bartz discussed that extending the house toward the front of the property was considered but the contractor indicated. the addition would be a thoroughfare and said because of Fire Department regulations a structure which would block existing windows could not be built. Those appealing Height Variation No. 470 were as follows: Mr. George Potter Mr. Lyle Quatrochi Mr. Walter Watson Dr. Anthony George Mr. Michae-1 Shipman ,Ms-. Gb.- rol Perestam., Ms. Dorann Wolf Ms. Louise Shipman 4014 Exultant 4002 Exultant 3938 Exultant 4104 Exultant 3948 Admirable 4032 Exultant' 4040 Admirable 3948 Admirable Seaview Residents! Assoc I I t k it Minutes February 10, 1987 Page 9 The appellants discussed: concern over coastline view obstruction, setting precedent, a uniform appearance in the neighborhood, consideration of alternative designs, reduction of views to approximately 10% of what they originally were, eroded home values as the views become increasingly obstructed, the applicant should abide by the CC&Rs and the City should support the fact that the CC&Rs were formed with view protection in mind, the intent of the Seaview home designs is to maximize views and maintain privacy, and the proposed addition would encourage adjacent property owners to plant foliage to regain privacy. Commissioner Von Hagen emphasized that the City is not in a position to enforce the CC&Rs. He said any attempt to enforce the CC&Rs should be made via the homeowners' association. Chair Ortolan6 advijdd Dr. George that discussion of the CC&Rs is irrelevant and immaterial since those having the power to enforce the CC&Rs are the members of the Residents' Association. Dr. George emphatically stated that his Constitutional rights would be violated if he was forbidden to speak regarding the CC&Rs. Chair Ortolano permitted Dr. George two minutes of speaking time. She indicated that the CC&Rs are beyond the Commission's scope of jurisdiction. Commissioner McNulty stressed that the Commission has no power to enforce the CC&Rs and questioned whether the Residents' Association plans to pursue the CC&Rs. Ms. Perestam related that the Association is beginning legal action to support the appeal. Commissioner Connolly clarified that the Residents' Association has been dormant and is currently in the process of reorganizing. Commissioner Von Hagen clarified that the parkway Pines are Canary Island Pines. Commissioner Connolly questioned whether any tree removals are slated for the area. Staff related the Public Works communication that 30 Canary Island Pines on Admirable Drive are slated for removal but the number will most likely be reduced because of the change in the Citv's tree removal policy. Staff said the trees to be Minutes February 10, 1987 Page 10 removed will be marked, the trees will be removed sub3ect to the approval of the homeowner in front of whose home the trees lie, and homeowners not wishing a tree to be removed must assume the liability for any future damage the tree may cause. Mr. Benard indicated that, though it would be inappropriate to condition the approval of the application to remove the trees adjacent to the proposed addition (because they sit in the public rlcfht- of- way), the Commission Aould request that Public Works look at the trees as a way to mitigate some of the view obstruction resulting from the proposed addition. Chair Ortolano voiced her opinion that it would be within the Commission's power to require the applicant to remove treesxonwo� which are higher than the proposed addition (24 feet). She_.(_""�4_ said an approval of the request should include a requirementl that applicant remove every shrub which is currently imposing, on neighboring views and a requirement that, in the future,! the applicant's shrubs can grow no higher than the height of; the proposed addition. I Mr. Benard clarified that the applicant's house has a minimum" setback of 7 feet (2 feet greater than the required 5 foot setback)! which increases as the house aoes back toward the south. He related that the applicant's proposed design would have a minimum of windows to the east and stressed that any future developments having single-family homes 16 feet in height will eventually obstruct the views of the bluffs to the south of PV Drive South. Chair Ortolano agreed that the coastline views will eventually be impaired by future developments. She noted that the applicant's proposed addition would be within the City's setback requirements which are designed to assure privacy. Commissioner Connolly questioned whether cutting back or removing the applicant's trees would enhance the views. He stressed that the remaining view is precious to those having it. Staff indicated that not only the applicant's trees but numerous trees in the area must be removed in order to enhance the views. Commissioner Von Hagen voiced his opinion that the addition would not significantly impact neighborhing views (especially those on the street above the applicant's). He said he could support staff's recommendation to deny the appeal. Minutes February 10, 1987 Page 11 Commissioner Wike voiced concern over the cumulative impact resulting from the approval of the request. She said the applicant should explore alternatives to expand the house out instead of up. Chair Ortolano said whether the proposed addition would cause a significant view impairment is a judgment call. She voiced her opinion that the application is exactly what the cumulative impact concept is designed to address and related that once one person is permitted to construct a second story it would be very difficult to deny that privilege to adjacent land owners. She emphasized that the problem should be stopped with the first application and stated her support of the appeal. Commissioner McNulty discussed that the growth and proliferation of the foliage, and not buildings, has reduced the views. He said most of the view impairment resulting from the proposed addition would be the shoreline views which will eventually be obstructed by future developments. He stressed that the mere fact one family expands their home does not mean every one will do so. He voiced his support to deny the appeal and grant the request with a condition that the applicant be required to remove all shrubs blocking neighboring views. Commissioner McNulty moved to _-deny the -appealandapprove-the­ project; seconded by Commissioner Von Hagen and defeated by a 2-3 vote with Commissioner Wike, Commissioner Connolly, and Chair Ortolano dissenting. Commissioner Wike moved to approve the appeal thereby denying the request; seconded by Commissioner Connolly and passed by majority with Commissioner McNulty and Commissioner Von Hagen dissenting. Appeal rights were noted. 0 Minutes February 10, 1987 Page 12 CONTINUED BUSINESS Code Amendment No. 23 Convenience Stores - Citywide Associate Planner Greg Fuz presented the staff report. Chat 0 tolano remarked that the proposed Code Amendment No. 23�fnrFi, not include a distance requirement between convenience stores and residences since such a requirement would, in effect, preclude convenience stores on Western Avenue. Staff clarified that the distance requirement that had been proposed would only apply to convenience stores selling alcoholic beverages. Chair Ortolano discussed that the proposed Code Amendment No. 23 deals specifically with the issue of convenience stores and touches on alcoholic beverage sales only in con3unction with gas sales. She clarified that the convenience store moratorium expires in mid March. Staff said an extension to the convenience store moratorium will be necessary as this Code amendment could not be implemented before the expiration of the existing moratorium. Chair Ortoland requested staff discussion related to any renoticing procedures regarding the Alternatives mentioned in staff's February 10 report. Staff indicated the first three Alternatives would involve applying regulations to alcoholic beverage outlets other than convenience stores and would, therefore, require renoticing. Chair Ortolano voiced uncertainty as to why renoticing would be necessary if no changes were made to those outlets currently selling alcoholic beverages. Staff related that the expansion of outlets currently selling alcoholic beverages would probably fall under the new Code and noted those outlets expanding less than 500 feet would not require Commission approval. Mr. Benard reiterated his January 27 statement that substantial noticing was done beyond obligation; however, he said that the subject of the notice was only convenience stores, not the regulation of alcoholic beverage sales in general. He stated that renoticing would be appropriate whether or not amortization was an issue and that an informal City management poll of several Council members indicated that the Commission should look at and address the entire convenience store issue based on the available information and public testimony. Minutes February 10, 1987 Page 13 Commissioner McNulty voiced his support in favor of staff's Alternative No. 2 with the deletion of the portion pertaining to a new Code amendment regulating alcoholic beverage sales city wide. He emphasized that public testimony did not include concern over the sale of alcoholic beverages city wide. Chair Ortolano voiced agreement with Commissioner McNulty's statement that public testimony did not include a concern over the sale of alcoholic beverages city wide and stated her opinion that convenience stores should not be permitted to sell alcoholic beverages. However, she noted such a ruling would result in the unequal treatment of convenience stores and she reviewed the City Attorney's opinion that it would be legally defensible to prohibit alcoholic beverage sales in conjunction with gas sales. Commissioner Connolly suggested a distance requirement of 300 feet from residences be included in Section 17.25.030 - Development Standards. Chair Ortolano agreed that a distance requirement should be included in Code Amendment No. 23 and she clarified that such a requirement would, not require renoticing. She questioned whether focusing only on convenience stores to the exclusion of other businesses in the City, such as fast food outlets, liquor stores, and drug stores, would present legal problems. Staff said that unique issues and problems related to convenience stores have been identified that Dustify separate regulation of convenience store development. Chair Ortolano discussed that staff's perceptions may not be accurate and indicated that a distance requirement could present legal problems unless valid reasons are documented for the separate treatment of convenience stores. Commissioner Vn Hagen related that no commercially zoned property 1� in the City is, ocated within 300 feet of a residence and discussed � that a Conditional Use Permit would be easier to condition than a Variance. Staff said a Conditional Use Permit would certainly offer more flexibility than a Variance. Commissioner Wike said any recommendation to Council should include a suggestion regarding the initiation of an amendment to regulate alcoholic beverage sales city wide. She stated she could support a Commission determination prohibiting convenience stores, with or without alcoholic beverage sales, where they are close to residences and voiced concern over future intensifi- cation of use. Staff reviewed that any intensification of use would require Commission review. Minutes February 10, 1987 Page 14 Commissioner McNulty and Commissioner Von Hagen reiterated that public testimony did not include a concern over the sale of alcoholic beverages city wide. Chair Ortolano voiced concern over the possibility that the Commission's intent to prevent alcoholic beverage sales at a particular location will be interpreted differently by future Commissioners. Mr. Benard noted Council's direction for the Commission to deal with any related problems as they arise. Commissioner Connlly reemphasized that residents ob]ected to the idea of convenience stores, with or without alcoholic beverage sales, and said he could support Code Amendment No. 23 as written with the insertion of a distance requirement in Section 17.25.030 - Development Standards. Commissioner Wike agreed that residents ob3ected to the idea of convenience stores whether or not they sell alcoholic beverages. Chair Ortolano questioned whether the current Code requirements include Commission review of liquor stores, markets, drug stores, etc., wishing to sell alcoholic beverages. Staff reviewed that the present Code requires a Conditional Use Permit for each new building over 500 square feet. However, staff said each existing building would not require Commission approval and the sale of alcoholic beverages alone does not require a Conditional Use Permit. Chair Ortolano voiced concern over the current Code requirements and stated she could support Alternative No. 2 with the inclusion of a distance requirement of 100 feet from residences. She noted that the smaller the distance the more legally defensible a distance requirement would be and clarified that a convenience store distance requirement from residences would not trigger renoticing. Mr. Benard noted that a distance requirement would be a determination with which the City Attorney may be uncomfortable. Commissioner Connolly clarified that two potential convenience store applications within the City are pending. commissioner Wike clarified that convenience stores could not be legally prohibited within the City and agreed that the proposed Code Amendment No. 23 should include a distance requirement. Minutes February 10, 1987 Page 15 Commissioner Connolly moved to accept Resolution P.C. No. 87- 9 as written with the stipulation that Section 17.25.030 - Develop- ment Standards - include a minimum distance requirement of 100 feet between convenience stores and residential buildings; seconded by Commissioner Wike. Chair Ortolano requested staff inform Council of the rationale for the distance requirement and obtain the City Attorney's opinion regarding the idea. Staff discussed that Code Amendment No. 23, including the rationale for a 100 foot distance requirement from residences, will be presented to Council at which time the City Attorney's opinion regarding the idea will be obtained. Chair Ortolano voiced concern over staff possibly placing unequal weight toward staff's recommendations when presenting items to Council. Mr. Benard stated his lack of awareness regarding unequal weight being placed toward staff's recommendations when presenting items to Council and reviewed the Commission's recommendation of Alternative No. 2 with the addition of a 100 foot distance requirement from residential buildings rather than a residential zone. Chair Ortolano stated the distance from structure to structure should be focused on. Commissioner Wike said the distance from a residential zone would be more restrictive. Staff indicated that the ABC uses building to building measurements. The motion passed by a majority vote with Commissioner McNulty and Commissioner Von Hagen dissenting. Minutes February 10, 1987 Page 16 REPORTS Staff Mr. Benard noted the March 2 Specific Plan IV Workshop Subcommittee meeting in Eastview. Commissioner Connolly and Commissioner McNulty expressed interest in attending the meeting. Mr. Benard voiced intent to mail the Planning Commissioners' Institute information to the Commissioners upon his receipt of the material. Commission Chair Ortolano discussed oG oGe --;'S, opinion that the Commission should take more time when dealing with applications and should not be pressured into making a decision. She noted -the Wallach Ranch as an example to which Council referred. Commissioner Von Hagen discussed that four public hearings on the Wallace Ranch item were held and mentioned that he never felt pressured to make a decision. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion of Commissioner McNulty and seconded by Mrs. Wike, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 PM.