Loading...
PC MINS 19920825The meeting was called Katherman at Hesse Park Boulevard, Rancho Palos MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 25, 1992 to order at 7:40 p.m. by Chairman Community Center, 29301 Hawthorne Verdes, CA. PRESENT commissioners Alberio, Lorenzen and Mowlds, Vice Chairman Byrd and Chairman Katherman. ABSENT Commissioners Hayes (excused) and Clark. Also present were Director of Environmental Services, Dudley Onderdonk, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, Assistant Planner Paul Espe and Assistant Planner Kim Klopfenstein. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Director Onderdonk advised that he will provide directions and a map for the Planning Commission/Staff Retreat on August 29, 1992. Commissioner Alberio added that Mayor Pro Tem Brooks will be attending. A. Minutes of May 12, 1992: Commissioner Mowlds noted the time for the Planning commission/Staff Retreat should be 8:00 a.m. not 8:00 p.m. B. Minutes of July 28, 1992: No corrections. MOTION: Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to approve the Consent Calendar as corrected. Motion passed 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING A. EXTREME SLOPE NO. 32, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 446 - APPEAL; Ms. Corrine Stolz, 6425 Via de Anzar. Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the staff report which recommended that the Commission approve the Extreme Slope No. 32, with conditions, and deny the appeal on the Minor Exception Permit, thereby upholding the Director's decision. It was Staff's opinion that the proposed location of the addition would significantly block a portion of a neighbor's (6426 Via de Anzar) Los Angeles Basin/city lights view. Staff's approval of a related Grading Permit was not appealed. In response to Chairman Katherman's inquiry, Assistant Planner de Freitas advised that an acceptable alternative would be to place the addition at the back of the residence, where it would not impair any views. PLANNING COMMISSIaEETING AUGUST 25, 1992 Ms. Corrine Stolz (applicant), 6425 Via de Anzar, advised the Commission that the purpose of the addition was to add a dining room. If she had to place the addition in the back of the residence as suggested by Staff, she would not be able to access the dining room from the kitchen and would have to enter through the living room instead. Ms. Stolz thought that the addition would look better aesthetically in front of the house as currently proposed. She also stated that since the roof line would be exactly the same, her neighbor's view would still be impaired if the addition was moved back to comply with the front yard setback, which would not need Planning Commission approval. Commissioner Mowlds commented that the neighbor on the side that would be most impacted by the addition had written a letter stating that they were in favor of the addition and thought it would enhance the neighborhood. Chairman Katherman asked if her architect had given any consideration to making a hip roof on that side of the house rather than extending the existing roof. Ms. Stolz responded that they had done what they thought was most aesthetically pleasing. Robert W. Ford, 6426 Via de Anzar, stated that he believed his views would be seriously impaired by placing the requested addition in front of applicant's house. Mr. Ford said that he had purchased the house for the views and had done over $100,000 of remodeling to take advantage of them. He thought that applicant's proposed addition would decrease the value of his house. He stated that the applicant had alternatives that would not impact his views and that she could redesign the interior of her house to access the dining room from the kitchen with the addition at the back of the house. He felt it would be inequitable to allow the applicant to significantly impair his views. In answer to Commissioner Alberiols question, Mr. Ford said he would be willing to compromise, but he was not aware of any alternatives beyond what Staff had proposed. Commissioner Lorenzen stated that he and Commissioner Alberio visited the site and noticed the large glass entryway from which Mr. Ford can see the view and that he also can see the view from the window in the kitchen. Most of Mr. Ford's view is over the neighbor's house on the right, which would not be affected by the proposed addition. Mr. Ford agreed that at least 50% is over that area, but said that he also sees 20% to 30% of his view over applicant's house. He said the addition as proposed would totally block the view from his kitchen, which he enjoys on a daily basis. 2 PLANNING COMMISSICWEETING AUGUST 25, 1992 Commissioner Mowlds commented that applicant can push the addition back to meet the setback and the view obstruction would be the same. He stated that the applicant can go four feet back without coming before the Planning Commission. Mr. Ford responded that placing the addition four feet back would allow him to keep the view of the Basin and the Valley. NOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd, to close the public hearing. Motion passed 5-0. The Commissioners stated that placing the addition four feet into the front setback would not significantly impact the view. vice Chairman Katherman suggested that a hip roof be placed on the proposed addition to reduce the bulk of the structure. Chairman Byrd said it was necessary to have the hip roof on both ends of the structure in order to maintain architectural integrity. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to approve Extreme Slope Permit No. 32 with the conditions on Exhibit "A", and to uphold the appeal of Minor Exception Permit No. 446, thereby approving the request to encroach into the front and side yard setback areas. As a condition of approval of the Minor Exception Permit, the applicant must put a hip roof on both ends of the house. Motion passed 5-0. Applicant is to obtain Staff approval of the redesign of the roof before the next Planning Commission meeting on September 8, 1992 and Staff is to bring the redesigned plans to the meeting for the Commissioners, review. A. VARIANCE NO. 341, COASTAL PERMIT NO. 112; Dr. and Mrs. John Moeller, 47 Seawall. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the staff report on applicant's request to build front and rear additions. The variance is required for additions which exceed the 250 sq. ft. allowed in the Coastal Zone, a 13% reduction in open space (currently the open space is 11% under the required 60% open space) and an 8 foot encroachment into the 15 foot rear setback. The Coastal Permit is required because the lot is located within the Coastal Zone. Staff determined that the additions which encroach into the 15 foot rear setback would result in significant view impairment. Staff recommended approval of the reduction in open space to accommodate the additions toward the front of the property and requested specific direction from the Commission regarding design of the additions in the rear of the property. The Commission asked if Staff would object to a flat roof with a slight pitch like the other roofs in the area instead of the 3 PLANNING COMMISSIWEETING AUGUST 25, 1992 barrel roof as shown on the plans for the addition. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein replied that Staff did not object, but would have to check with the Building Department if a flat roof is up to Code. Commissioners Mowlds and Byrd asked why the applicant was indicating a three feet setback on one side instead of five feet as required in a RS -2 zone. It was their understanding that as additions were approved, they were supposed to be brought up to current Code standards. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein responded that in the Portuguese Bend Club, many of the lots are smaller than the required standards for RS -2 zone and many of the residences were built with non -conforming setbacks. She said that it is determined on a case by case basis if the Staff will recommend that the applicant be required to respect the new setbacks. Chairman Katherman asked about Condition No. 6 on Exhibit "B" limiting the addition to 250 sq. ft. Ms. Klopfenstein confirmed that the additions in the Coastal Zone are limited to 250 sq. ft. but that can be exceeded by Planning Commission approval of a variance. Staff has done a survey of homes in the Portuguese Bend Club and found that the maximum approved in the Coastal Setback Zone has been 468 sq. ft. Richard Linde (Architect for the Applicant), 2200 Amapola court, Torrance, stated that the applicant will adhere to all conditions required by Staff in Exhibits "All and "B". Mr. Linde said the final square footage will be 1,008 sq. ft. which is small compared to adjacent houses which are approximately 1,600 to 2,000 sq. ft. in size. With regard to the Commissioners' request to change the roof, he stated that the Building Code would not allow a completely flat roof. A 1/2 inch to a foot pitch is required by the Building Code and the major roof manufacturers recommend a 1/2 to 2 and 12 pitch for a rock roof, otherwise water will pond on the roof. Cap sheets which allow 1/2 inch to a foot pitch will not pond. Commissioner Lorenzen stated that, even with the minimum pitch needed, the applicant could still put in some skylights, which would preserve the neighbor's view. Mr. Linde said that if he went to a gable roof with the minimum pitch recommended by the leading manufacturers, the ridge would be a foot less than as it is now designed and then with that built up roof you could use skylights. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that the house is smaller than the other homes in the area because of the courtyard, and asked if the architect had considered enclosing the whole courtyard. Mr. Linde responded that the current proposal encroached into it, but 4 PLANNING COMMISSIADMEETING AUGUST 25, 1992 he did not consider enclosing the whole courtyard since they are already over the allowable coverage. Chairman Katherman asked if the kitchen can be flipped from the west half of the property to the east half of the property to allow an opening for the abutting property owner to view through the southwesterly corner of the rear yard. Mr. Linde replied that he could take a look at it. Marion Ruth, 46 Seawall, stated that she is the owner of the house next door to the applicant's property. Ms. Ruth said that if the vaulted roof is built she will lose her view. She also informed the Commission that County records indicate her house is 1,848 sq. ft., not 2,000 ft. as stated by Mr. Linde; and that the house on the other side is 1,232 sq. ft. and the house next door to that house is 796 sq. ft. Ms. Ruth requested that the Commission consider a flat roof no higher than it is right now. MOTION: commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by commissioner Alberio, to continue Variance No. 341 and Coastal Permit No. 112, to the Planning Commission meeting of October 13, 1992. Motion passed 5-0. The Commissioners instructed the applicant and his architect to redesign the project with a flat roof, to not encroach into the rear yard setback but to use the courtyard space instead, and to consider moving the kitchen. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein asked for direction regarding expanding beyond the existing wall which is not yet to the 15 foot rear yard setback. The Commission advised that they did not want to expand beyond the existing wall on the west side of the property. Chairman Katherman clarified that the Commission would be willing to consider relocation of the kitchen to the east side of the rear yard if the views from the adjacent property would not be adversely affected. Commissioner Mowlds said that he could not agree with Item 6, Exhibit "B", which limits the addition to 250 sq. ft. and requires a covenant prohibiting further additions. He thought the covenant requirement was unfair since there was no way to tell what would happen in the future. There may be two story condos down there. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein advised that this was not a standard condition and that Staff would check into it. Vice Chairman Byrd requested that requires the side yard setbacks be maintain the three foot set backs the building. RECESS AND RECONVENE Item 2 on Exhibit "A", which five feet, be changed to and follow the existing wall of 5 PLANNING COMMISSI10MEETING AUGUST 25, 1992 The meeting was recessed at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened at 9:37 p.m. Chairman Katherman advised that it is Planning commission policy to not start New Business after 11:00 p.m., and he requested that the Commission consider the New Business items at this time. NEW BUSINESS A. SIGN PERMIT NO. 584, Carlson Co., 31244 Palos Verdes Drive West (Golden Cove Shopping Center). MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to continue Sign Permit No. 584 to the next Planning Commission meeting on September 8, 1992, with the understanding that this item will be taken as one of the first items on the agenda. Motion passed 5-0. B. PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Vice Chairman Byrd requested that the commission review both his original submittal and the Staff's version of the proposed policy recommendations, since what the Staff was proposing was somewhat different from what he was proposing. Staff agreed to work with Vice Chairman Byrd on a new set of policies. Chairman Katherman ordered the proposed policy recommendations be continued for two weeks. PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 166, VARIANCE NO. 307, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 627,. GRADING PERMIT NO. 1585; Mr. and Mrs. Stanton, 28798 S. Western Avenue (formerly Ark Gardens). Associate Planner Silverman presented the Staff report on applicant's request for a new full service car wash and smog inspection facility. The Development Code allows for the proposed uses in a Commercial General (CG) zone upon approval by the Planning Commission of a Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Silverman stated that while Staff is sympathetic to the concerns and objections expressed by the surrounding neighbors, the project has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and it is Staff's opinion that the imposition of the recommended mitigation measures and conditions of approval will result in a project that is in conformance with the City's General Plan and Development Code. She also stated that implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce all the adverse impacts associated with the project to less than significant levels. Staff's recommendation was to revise the project to eliminate the dryer and blower units, to approve the modified project, subject to conditions and 0 PLANNING COMMISSI10MEETING AUGUST 25, 1992 measures in Staff report, to mitigate the adverse environmental affects, and to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Commissioners expressed their concern about cars making an illegal turn or using the Church parking lot to turn since there is no U-turn signal at the intersection of Caddington and Western. They also discussed the possibility of cars backing up into Western Avenue and whether the queuing area was adequate. Associate Planner Silverman responded that the mitigation measures recommended by the Traffic Committee will require that the operators of the car wash monitor the queuing area and if there is a potential for backup, the vehicles will have to be directed to the northern driveway, which will also serve as the exit. Commissioner Alberio stated that excavation would be necessary, and that the applicant would have to comply with the new regulations if gas tanks have been left in the ground by the previous tenant. He thought the applicant should do a special study of the site and that an EIR might be necessary because of the underground gas tanks. Associate Planner Silverman informed the Commission that there are no records of the gas station tanks having been removed. Soil tests will be done and if contaminants are found, Staff has required that the grading permit be revised to include the cleanup and removal of contaminated soil. Staff consulted with the SCAQMD and the Fire Department and both agencies suggested mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the Initial Study under Risk of Upset. Chairman Katherman opened the public hearing. Frank Stanton (Landowner), 16 Cinchring Road, Rolling Hills asked the Planning commission to consider the following points in favor of the project: The Lutheran Church is located one block south and the Lutheran School is located one block southeast of the site; no residences face the project and they are very well screened from the subject property; a car wash will have no traffic or noise at night; a park -like atmosphere surrounds the commercial property; sound studies indicate minimum noise with modern equipment that is available; and sound barrier walls diminish even the traffic noise radiating from Western Avenue to the west. Tab Johnson, Rich Development Co. (Applicant), 302 West 5th street, San Pedro, said he agreed with the staff report except for the requirement to remove the blowers and dryers. Mr. Johnson stated that the extra cost required for a hand car wash is not viable at this location. He also felt hand drying would cause more congestion since the cars would not get off the lot as quickly. In response to questions from Vice Chairman Byrd and commissioner Alberio, Mr. Johnson informed the Commission that Rich 7 PLANNING COMMISSIOMEETING AUGUST 25, 1992 Development Co. operated three other car much larger than the proposed project. processing 85 to 100 cars per day at the would be basically the same and would be the 160 cars per day that the Gaffey car • washes, all of which are Although they anticipate new site, the equipment capable of processing wash handles. Commissioner Alberio stated that confining sound to a smaller site would have more impact on the neighborhood, prevailing winds would blow fumes from cars over to Strathmore, and that there were a lot of students walking back and forth across the front of the site on Western Avenue. He also said that many people stay in bed late on weekends and the car wash starts at 8:00 a.m. Mr. Johnson responded that most people are still at work and not having their car washed when students get out of school, plus the children are not in school on weekends when the car wash is very busy. Also, cars will be going in and out regardless of what use is allowed on the site. He suggested they could be flexible on week -end hours to accommodate late sleepers. Vice Chairman Byrd asked what type of barrier they planned to install between the Church/School facility and the car wash and stated that he thought there should not be any access between the car wash and the Church/School. Mr. Johnson answered that there was access which they have closed and would be willing to keep permanently closed. The plans do not show any barriers at this time since they are still going through sound studies and Staff recommendations. Staff recommended a sound wall be extended around corner near the Church/school with extensive shrubbery, which they are willing to do. Commissioner Lorenzen asked if any local car wash was using the new sound reducing equipment. He also asked how the enclosure of the building is designed to contain engine noise and engine exhaust created by the smog check facility when cars are going though the required high rev cycles and questioned if the exhaust goes through any filter system. Commissioner Mowlds advised the Commission that the State is considering a bill requiring dynamic testing of smog devices which mean that the motors would have to be revved up to 55 miles per hour for testing. Mr. Johnson answered that he did not know of any local stations using the new equipment. Also, he said that they are not putting exhaust through any filter and he did not think any smog check station did. He stated that since the building is three sided with a roof and with the ingress and exit through garage type doors facing Western Avenue, the sound would be radiated out in that direction. Chairman Katherman interrupted the public hearing to address Item D., Service Station Ordinance, and requested that it be postponed to the Planning Commission meeting of September 8, 1992. MOTION: Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to continue Public Hearing, Item D, Service Station PLANNING COMMISSIO MEETING AUGUST 25, 1992 0 Ordinance, to the next Planning Commission meeting on September 8, 1992. Motion passed 5-0. C. Jonathan Bryan, President, Christ Lutheran School, 28850 South Western, spoke against the project on behalf of the Church and, at their request, spoke for the following church members who were in the audience: Tracee Froehcich, 2275 West 25th, San Pedro; Ronald A. Lebetsamer, 28617 Mt. Lasen Lane; Denise Fullington, 34 Orbit Avenue; and Ed Arriola, 2179 Mt. Shasta Drive. Their concerns were as follows: 1. The Environmental Assessment Report refers only to a "church parking lot" and does not recognize the existence of their grade school with 432 students presently enrolled. 2. The staff report is incorrect in indicating that the intersection at Western and Caddington allows U-turns. In fact, the only access to the car wash for the southbound traffic will be to illegally use the school parking lot for turning around, thus adding to the congestion and endangering the school children. This is currently a problem which will be exacerbated by the car wash. 3. Mr. Bryan also disagrees with the staff report indicating that the potential for backup traffic on Western Avenue is insignificant. The back up of even one car of northbound traffic would block access to the school parking lot, posing a serious safety problem for both children, parents and staff. He questioned the applicant's claim that there would only be 85-100 cars daily since this would give them a profit margin of only about $30 a day. 4. The high pitched noise of the vacuum units, which are located closest to the school, would disturb the learning environment of the classrooms. Additional noise and pollution will be generated by the smog testing station. The fumes will blow directly into the school playground. In conclusion, Mr. Bryan said he could not imagine a commercial application less suited to be placed next to a grade school than the car wash/smog test station facility proposed. Commissioner Mowlds stated that the curb in front of the church parking lot is a no parking zone. Therefore, if a que develops at the car wash, it would have to resume at the front door of the church. _Jill Kelso, 1326 Park Western Drive; Craig Andrich, 966 Bloomwood Road, San Pedro: and Wes Kwiecien, 1638 W. Caddington Drive, spoke against the project and expressed their concern about the danger caused by increased traffic to the many school children who walk past this intersection. They are also opposed to the project because of the increase in noise and air pollution. 0 PLANNING COMMISSIOMEETING AUGUST 25, 1992 John W. Sharkey, 30320 Ave de Calma, stated that the applicant had no legal right to build a car wash. Mr. Bryan and he object to this car wash on CEQA grounds. The Negative Declaration cannot apply to this project since the blower and dryers will result in a significant noise impact and the applicant has indicated that he needs them to have a viable project. Mr. Sharkey disagreed with the applicant that wind has nothing to do with noise and air pollution. Also, there is no evidence that the gas tanks were taken out. The proposed project will have the following additional environmental impacts: Traffic, since there are 35,000 cars on Western Avenue, just one additional car means an additional environmental impact that must be mitigated. Noise that can't be mitigated even with a sound wall. Parking and queuing are also environmental impacts. An EIR must be done or the City may have a lawsuit from the Church or adjoining residents. The applicant has no legal right to put a car wash there because it is unsafe to the citizens of the City and the adjoining city. If there is a danger to children in terms of traffic because of the school next door, the Planning Commission does not have to approve the car wash. Chairman Katherman advised Mr. Sharkey that the staff report states that the mitigation measures, particularly the noise barrier, must be required if the Planning Commission is going to approve the project with a Negative Declaration. If they are not required, Staff is not recommending that the Conditional Use Permit or the Negative Declaration be adopted. Chuck Kelso, 1326 Park Western Drive, stated that the water that would be used at the car wash comes from the Colorado River and even though some would be recycled, most of it would be wasted and would, therefore, contribute to the water shortage. Associate Planner Silverman advised that no specific calculations were done to determine how much water would be reclaimed, but that Staff had consulted with California Water Services and they recommended mitigation measures that would incorporate state of the art water recycling, reclamation and filtration systems in construction of the car wash. They also indicated that the quantity of water consumed by car washes is typical of any other business operation due to the incorporation of reclamation measures. Vice Chairman Byrd, Commissioner Alberio and Commissioner Lorenzen stated that the site seems too small to include a smog testing facility. They asked if Rich Development Co. would consider eliminating it, which would give them more room to process the cars and would also decrease the problems with smog and noise. Mr. Johnson of Rich Development Co. indicated that the applicant would be willing to consider the elimination of the smog check service. Ea PLANNING COMMISSI*'MEETING AUGUST 25, 1992 Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he thought Mr. Bryan made an excellent point that the applicant could not make a profit on this facility with only 85 cars per day. Mr. Johnson responded that other items and services would be sold such as waxing, detailing, smog inspection, air fresheners and other auto related items. Chairman Katherman asked Associate Planner Silverman to explain what uses are allowed as a matter of right on the site under the C.G. zoning district. Associate Planner Silverman advised that without a Conditional Use Permit, various uses permitted on this site would include major department stores, major hardware/home improvement stores, appliance stores, furniture stores and any similar uses as determined by the Director. A Conditional Use Permit is needed for automobile service stations, car wash accompanying auto service station, bowling alleys, movie theaters, plant nurseries, hotels, skating rinks and similar uses. Staff's interpretation was car wash with accompanying service station (i.e., smog check facility) would be permitted under a Conditional Use Permit. The Commissioners again expressed their concerns about the U-turn problem, the location of the driveways with respect to Caddington Drive and the proximity of the driveway to the Church, the underground gas tanks, and the aesthetics of the sound walls. Chairman Katherman stated that he was not disposed to approve the project at this time; but that he was willing to vote to continue the hearing in order to give the applicant time to modify the project to address the concerns of the Planning Commission. He advised the applicant to meet with the Lutheran Church and talk about how they will mitigate the access situation to this project, so it does not create a hazard to the Church and school. Mr. Johnson appealed to the Commission to grant a continuance, stating that he has spent a lot of time and money going through the process with Staff and in fairness should have at least one opportunity to modify the project. Chairman Katherman advised that if the Commission denied applicant's request, the applicant's only recourse would be to appeal to the City Council. Director Onderdonk advised the Commission that, from a Planning perspective, Staff thought that the combination of the smog testing unit and the car wash deserved an additional level of public review. That is why Staff required the submittal of a Conditional Use Permit. Director Onderdonk stated that this was a very conservative interpretation of the Code, but he thought it was appropriate, given the level of community reaction to this proposal. 11 PLANNING COMMISS*MEETING AUGUST 25, 1992 0 MOTION: Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by commissioner Lorenzen, to close the public hearing. Motion passed 5-2, with Commissioner Mowlds and -Chairman Katherman dissenting. MOTION: Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 166, Variance No. 307, Environmental Assessment No. 627, Grading Permit No. 1585. Notion failed 2-3, with Commissioner Mowlds, commissioner Lorenzen and Chairman Katherman dissenting. NOTION: Commissioner Lorenzen moved, seconded by Commissioner Mowlds, to continue the matter for 60 days to the Planning Commission meeting on October 27, 1992 with directions to the applicant to work with Staff and adjacent landowners to redesign the project. Motion passed 3-2, with Commissioner Alberio and Vice Chairman Byrd dissenting. NOTION: Commissioner Lorenzen moved, seconded by Commissioner Mowlds, for reconsideration of the motion to close public hearing. Motion passed 5-0. MOTION: commissioner Lorenzen moved, seconded by Commissioner Mowlds, to reopen the public hearing and to continue to October 27, 1992. Motion passed 5-0. Associate Planner Silverman informed th a deadline for a decision in September. receive written authorization to extend the applicant prior to this date. Mr. have the request in writing by Thursday 1992. AUDIENCE QUESTIONS e Commission that there is Staff would have to the action deadline from Johnson said Staff would morning, August 26, Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, said that the Planning Commission/Staff Retreat scheduled for August 29, 1992 was in violation of the Brown Act. Planning Administrator Petru responded that it is currently not a violation of the Brown Act for the Planning Commission to hold social events as long as no action is being taken. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to adjourn the meeting to 10:00 a.m., Saturday, August 29, 1992. Notion passed 5-0. The Meeting was duly adjourned at 11:47 p.m. 12