Loading...
2003 - June 2 C';'otn. b-~ J APPROVED MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: INRE: INRE: INRE: (la) June 2, 2003 Monday - 7:00 p.rn. Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Jim Reichert, Planning Manager/Secretary Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Tom Mahood, City Engineer Khanh A. Le, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None CONSENT CALENDAR: APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 21, 2003 (CONTINUED FROM MAY 19, 2003). MOTION Moved by Vice Chair Smith, and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to approve the Minutes from the regular meeting of April 21, 2003. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Smith Commissioners Brandman, Romero None None MOTION CARRIED (lb) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 14, 2003 (CONTINUED FROM MAY 19, 2003). MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bonina, and seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve the Minutes from the regular meeting of May 14,2003. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: INRE: (2) Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero Commissioners Brandman, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED CONTINUED HEARINGS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-01, ZONE CHANGE 1208-00, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15750, MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 249-02, VARIANCE 2113-02, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 30-02, AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1647-00 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES,INC. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVEn June 2, 2003 The project is the subdivision of 109 acres into 183 dwelling units with lot sizes ranging from 6,000 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft., providing a 6 acre park site, adding a bridge for a recreational trail over Santiago Creek and reserving land for a grade- separate recreational trail crossing for Santiago Canyon Road. The proposal includes a project alternative that dedicates 2 acres for a private equestrian center and reduces the size of the proposed 20,000 sq. ft. parcels to 8,000 sq. ft. The zoning classification for approximately 12.60 acres located in the central area of the northerly half of the site is Residential, single-family, minimum lot size 8,000 sq. ft. (R-I-8), while the remainder of the subject site is zoned Sand and Gravel (S-G). This item was continued from the October 7, 2002, October 21, 2002, November 18, 2002, December 2, 2002, January 20, 2003, May 5, 2003, and May 14,2003 meetings. NOTE: Environmental Impact Report 1647-00 was prepared for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Article 7 - EIR Process. The Planning Commission's review will include consideration of a statement of overriding consideration for environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommendation to the City Council on General Plan Amendment 1-01, Zone Change 1208-00, Tentative Tract Map 15750, Minor Site Plan Review 249-02, Variance 2113-02, Administrative Adjustment 30-02, and Final Environmental Impact Report 1647-00. Chair Pruett addressed this agenda item. Commissioner Brandman recused herself from this project. Planning Manager Jim Reichert introduced the project and explained that this project has been continued from previous meetings. Staff Member Chris Carnes presented the staff report and explained the purpose of the continuation was to answer additional questions and concerns that the commissioners had: 1) The possibility of providing more than just irrigation and pavement for the public park area. The applicant will include dedication or bonding for $300,000 worth of improvements, which is the estimated cost of a thirtY-five (35) space parking lot and a restroom. The Department of Community Services determined the estimated $300,000 cost. 2) The possibility of adding a grade separation crossing at the southeast comer of site. The applicant will not provide funding for this possibility; they feel that their dedication of land for the under/over pass is adequate. 3) The possibility ofrelocating the horse arena and RV parking. The applicant considered three (3) other locations and concluded that all the options had more adverse affects than the current location. The applicant has revised the site plan by moving the stables farther away from the easterly boundary line of the propertY, away from the residents of the Reserve development. Mr. Carnes stated that the applicant also provided a letter summanzmg the gas emISSIOn mitigation program and the traffic mitigation program. The applicant has also sent a letter that raised concerns with three of the possible conditions that could apply to the project 2 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 2, 2003 Mr. Carnes explained that staff has revised the list of conditions for approvals. If the Commission should approve the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Tentative Tract Map, the conditions would apply to the Tentative Tract Map, Variance, and Minor Site Plan. He concluded that approval of this project would be unique in that the first recommendation to the City Council regards the Environmental Impact Report; the second decision regards the General Plan Amendment. If the commission does not approve the General Plan Amendment, then the Zone Change and following applications do not need to be considered. Chair Pruett reviewed for the public's benefit that during the last meeting, the commission had closed the public hearing and asked questions for the applicant to consider. The applicant is now responding to those questions, and the commissioners will continue to deliberate on the project based on the new information. Vice Chair Smith questioned the letter from Susan Obermeyer, regarding a letter from Patricia Henshaw, which seemed to be in contradiction to the County's letter from Timothy Neeley. Mr. Carnes replied that the issue she has raised is that the county is responsible for the mitigation of gas from this site. She does raise a possible inconsistency issue between two different paragraphs in the two (2) separate letters. Ultimately what it comes down to is that the applicant has designed the onsite mitigation measures to reduce the ability of gas to migrate from the neighboring site. But ultimately it comes down to the county's LEA being responsible for all migration of gas from their site onto this property and they have a monitoring program in place to make sure the gas does not exceed a certain level at the property line. Also, the applicant is proposing a monitoring program on their property to assure that the gas is not migrating onto their site. Chair Pruett restated Mr. Came's explanation for clarification. Basically the county has the ultimate responsibility for reviewing the mitigating measures that Fieldstone has laid forth, to make sure it is consistent with the county's, therefore, it meets the county's requirements. Vice Chair Smith asked if the county has accepted responsibility to do that. Mr. Carnes replied that by state law, they are responsible for monitoring the possible migration of gas emitting from that property. Vice Chair Smith expressed concern because the county report says there is a health risk from those emissions, perhaps they are saying they don't want to take on that health risk; and the report also shows there are gas emission readings in excess of 5%, which was above regulatory allowance. Mr. Carnes replied that even though there is that reading the county, as the property owner, is ultimately responsible for reducing the gas emission at the property line. Chair Pruett stated that Mr. Hohnbaum has addressed this inconsistency at the previous meetings. It was pointed out that one of the readings was taken prior to the mitigation measures being installed by the county on the site. But once the mitigation measure was in place, the readings dropped. The conclusion is that the proposed mitigation measures may control the migration of gas. Mr. Carnes replied that the initial readings that the report is referring to were completed three or four years ago. The county just completed the installation of the gas collection mitigation about eighteen months ago. 3 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 2, 2003 Chair Pruett asked the City Attorney for advice concerning the fact that the public hearing was closed during the last meeting, but the applicant has given new information, which the public may want to comment on. Mr. Sheatz replied that he would suggest the Commission allow the public to speak on the one issue concerning the new location of the stables and the RV parking. He would suggest accepting the testimonies for the new configuration only. Chair Pruett addressed the public that the commission would limit public comments to that issue only. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bonina, and seconded by Vice Chair Smith to reopen the public hearing to address the location of the two acre stable property and the applicant's proposal to switch the two uses of the stables and the RV parking at its existing current location. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith Commissioners Brandman None None MOTION CARRIED The applicant was invited to speak. Mr. Steve Cameron, representing Fieldstone, referred to the staff report page 2-07 and 08, and explained that based on the comments from the people from the Reserve, the applicant suggests to flip flop the location of the stable and the RV parking, which will make the stables over a football length away from the Reserve homes. Commissioner Bonina asked if there would be accessibility to the trails for this new configuration. Mr. Cameron replied that there would still be direct access to the trails. Chair Pruett invited public comments, but reminded that it must pertain to the stable location issue only. PUBLIC SPEAKERS (In Alphabetical Order): In Favor: Tom Anderson - address on file Tom Davidson - address on file COMMENTS INCLUDED: . There are other stables in the area that are closer to the homes than this stable and they have not been an issue before. . Concerns for the stable problem is not valid. . Agreeable with the flip-flop of the stables. In Opposition: Shirlev Grindle COMMENTS INCLUDED: . Were informed this afternoon that this session would not be opened to the public, so some people who might have come ended up not coming. 4 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 2, 2003 . All that has been done with the move on this change is moving the problem from one area to another. Now the other neighborhood will speak up and have the same concerns as the people from the Reserve. Chair Pruett invited the applicant to respond to the public comments. Since Mr. Cameron did not have anything further to add, Chair Pruett wanted to clarify with Mr. Cameron whether the stables will be operated under strict management to make sure they are clean and well taken care of. Mr. Cameron replied in the affirmative, the homeowner's association would contract out to a group to manage it. Since the association members have to live there, he is certain they will make sure it is managed well. Chair Pruett brought the floor back to the commission for comments and action. Commissioner Bonina expressed appreciation for the letter from OPA to clear up the use of the community center. He hopes that a conclusion can be made tonight. Commissioner Romero also expressed appreciation for the new information that was provided. His main concern is the consideration for the general plan and open space. He is not agreeable with the lots being 6,000 sq.ft because this area was planned for 40,000 sq. ft. lots. Vice Chair Smith commented that she is opposed to the General Plan change, not opposed to the specific project, which is a beautiful project. She also wants to reiterate appreciation to Fieldstone for their work in the community and philanthropy. Her concerns include taking open space away for homes, the reports on the gas emission situation, the homes being in a Dam Inundation Zone, and homes being in the flood plain. She also has issues for the children being so close to an open creek. She appreciates the quality and effort put into the project. Vice Chair Smith expressed disappointment in receiving emails that said that the people opposing this project are acting out a vendetta against OPA, getting back at OPA, or getting even with OPA; she doesn't like to hear these kinds of remarks because it doesn't serve any purpose. Chair Pruett commented that he would also like the open space, but he feels that this area is not developable as open space. The City doesn't have the money and he doesn't think the state will provide the money. In order to restore this property, the money will have to come from private money. What we have here are two different communities, equestrian and non-equestrian. This proj ect is trying to bring the two communities together, even though half of the parcels were set for 40,000 sq. ft. lots, and the other half were not. With the two-acre site for stables, it brings the community together and allows everyone to use the facility and hobby if they wished. Concerning the gas emission, the ultimate group responsible for the gas emission, LEA, has approved of the mitigation strategy. He feels the commission needs to honor that. Another issue brought up was the children from this community and that community. He pointed out that there needs to be an understanding that the equestrian community has as many needs as the other communities. This project has taken a property that will not see any change unless private money is involved. If the zone doesn't fit the need, then it needs to be changed to serve the best interest of the public. Concerning the people who live in the Reserve, they need to remember that they are an equestrian community. They have chosen to live in an equestrian community and they need to know there are issues with an equestrian community. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bonina, and seconded by Chair Pruett to recommend to the City Council approval of Final Environmental Impact Report 1647-00. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: Commissioners Bonina, Pruett Commissioners Brandman Commissioners Romero, Smith 5 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 2, 2003 ABSENT: None MOTION DENIED MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 1-01. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Pruett Commissioners Brandman Commissioners Romero, Smith None MOTION DENIED Commissioner Romero commented that he agrees with Commissioner Pruett's logic, but does not agree with the idea that since there is a lack of funds, then there needs to be immediate action on this property. Vice Chair Smith expressed that she respectfully disagrees with the statement that this is not developable as open space; she believes there is a potential for open space. But she liked Commissioner Pruett's comments about the development of an equestrian community. Chair Pruett explained that he said this is not developable as open space because of the costs that are inherent with this particular space. It's not the same as other spaces that are out there for open space. Mr. Cames explained that if this project were denied, the city could initiate a study to rezone the area. Chair Pruett asked if Mr. Carnes is saying that the study could lead to this property getting developed anyway. Mr. Carnes, Chair Pruett, and Mr. Sheatz then discussed the legalities of what the city would have to do for the study and if SMARA applies to the subject site. The commissioners discussed their agreement and disagreements on the issues related to this project. Mr. Carnes stated that the Planning Commission's action is final, unless the applicant or the public appeals. An appeal has to be filed within 15 days. (3) ORDINANCE NO. 4-03 - INTERNET CAFE'S A proposed Ordinance of the City Council amending Sections 17.04, 17.10, and 17.18 of the Orange Municipal Code in order to provide definitions and procedures for the establishment of amusement arcades or similar commercial gathering places where electronic games are played, including, but not limited to, video, computer, or Internet related games. This item was continued from the February 3, 2003, March 3, 2003, April 7, 2003, and May 19,2003 meetings. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5 - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). RECOMMENDED ACTION: 6 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 2, 2003 Adopt resolution No. PC 24-02 recommending to the City Council the approval of Ordinance No. 4-03. Chair Pruett addressed this agenda item. Because there was opposition from the public, a full reading of the staff report was required. Mr. Reichert introduced Mr. Sherman Jones to present the project. Mr. Jones eXplained that because of the nature of the business, age of customers, and limited or lack of parental supervision, the City became concerned that youth offences such as curfew violations, truancy, and gang activity could increase as a direct result of Internet Cafe's. He explained the different types of technology available and also gave statistical data on five businesses in the City of Orange that are doing business in the City. He added that one business has closed due to the problems involved. He referenced a police report given to the City Council indicating that there was loitering, truancy, violent games and drug usage at these business locations. Because of input from the Police Department, including crime statistics, the City suspended the establishment of any new cyber cafe's. Under the existing Title 17, there is not a differentiation between businesses that rent out computers as an incidental use and those that provide computers as a primary use. Staff is recommending a separate definition for copy centers. Mr. Jones stated that staff recommends conditions listed in the staff report for new cyber cafe businesses. He concluded that staff recommended approval of this ordinance amendment. Commissioner Bonina asked about condition #14; the procedure is to follow up after six (6) months, with the reports that have been received concerning those five businesses, would not this be a concern for the operation of the businesses. He also asked what the thought process was behind condition #4, allowing the businesses to be open until I a.m. Detective Mike Taylor replied that the six months is the best way to check and keep track of the businesses, and the reports do show concerns. Chair Pruett asked if there are other factors that are being used for the police to make their decision, other than this report. Detective Mike Taylor replied that the reports the police receive are a lot more detailed than what is presented here. Commissioner Bonina asked why the businesses might remain open until lam. Mr. Jones replied that it is based on the norm of the businesses in the area closing at that time. Mr. Bonina asked whether he meant other businesses such as bars, dance clubs, etc. Mr. Jones replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Brandman expressed that this project is very close to her heart because one of her sons had gone to one of these Intemet cafes and decided to stop going because he saw things that scared him. She feels that the City Council has felt the issue is important enough to request this report from the police. Mr. Jones stated he believes the collection of particular crime statistics were as a result of what happened in Garden Grove. 7 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 2, 2003 Lieutenant Dave Jensen of the Orange Police Department explained the statistics that were given in the report. Then to answer Commissioner Bonina's question, he stated that this report would indicate that the situation is alarming because ofthe number of disturbance calls. He agrees that the farther the business opens into the night, the more problems there could be, but the ordinance follows the ABC license guidelines regarding hours of operations. Commissioner Brandman commented that concerning the police department's request for a camera at the rear door, that that is not good enough. She would also like to see applicants have security guards from the start of the business. She asked whether computers in libraries should be listed. She stated that she sees a lot ofloopholes that could present problems. Commissioner Bonina asked if these cyber cafes serve alcohol. Mr. Jones replied in the negative. Commissioner Bonina then asked why is staff comparing these establishments to bars instead of restaurants. Mr. Jones replied that it is because there are older adults who want to stay out later. Commissioner Bonina asked if this is such a problematic business, as the police have said, then why is this type of business even being considered. Mr. Sheatz replied that there are no other businesses that the city limits the time of operation. This was brought up by a court order, and there needs to be a study done to show or prove that this is not working. Chair Pruett wished to take public comments before continuing the discussion with the Commissioners. PUBLIC SPEAKERS (in alphabetical order): In Opposition: Tom Del Mar (1411 E. 63"' St., Long Beach) COMMENTS INCLUDED: . He is not opposed to the conditions; just has a question conceming the six (6) ft in between desks, whether this is a fire issue. . Having security guards will send a message to the public and to the children that this type of establishment is dangerous, giving a preconceived negative image of the business. Chair Pruett asked Mr. Del Mar: 1) What his Conditional Use Permit number was. He did not know. 2) What are his hours of operation? He replied from 1 :00 p.m. until 1 :00 a.m. Commissioner Romero asked which location is his. He replied the name of his business is Cyber Detention. Commissioner Bonina asked Mr. Del Mar whether he would close his doors at 1 am even ifhe had kids there at that time. Also, does it not concern him that there are kids there at the time? Mr. Del Mar replied that he has been closing around 9:00 p.m. due to lack of business. Vice Chair Smith asked Mr. Del Mar: 1) How he charged. He replied $2 per hour. 2) What is the average age of the users? He replied the average is fourteen year old. 3) Asked if he could comment on his low list of incidences compared to everyone else. He said he would have to credit the strict CUP. Commissioner Brandman asked ifhe is aware that there is a curfew law and what would he do about the kids who are there late. Mr. Del Mar replied that he is aware that there is a curfew. She also asked to hear from the OPD on how that curfew works. 8 APPROVED Planning Commission Minutes June 2. 2003 Detective Mike Taylor replied that the curfew states that kids under the age of 18 need to be accompanied by an adult. The Police Department reserves the right to discern whether to enforce the curfew or not. Sometimes, they may call the parents to see if they have permission from their parents to be out. He added that the OPD would be dealing with curfew violations. Commissioner Bonina asked the detective: 1) What is the curfew? He replied 10 pm. 2) What is his response when he sees kids in these places after that time without adults? The detective replied that if they get a dispatch call, then they would take the time to contact the parents to take them home or ask a volunteer to take other kids home. 3) If there are kids at the establishment after curfew hours, the owner of the establishment is not responsible? The detective replied in the affirmative, that the parents would be responsible, not the establishment. Chair Pruett closed the public hearing and brought the floor back to the Commissioners. Chair Pruett asked staff what is known about the CUP for Cyber Detention. Mr. Jones replied that the application for CUP 2391-01 was received in January of2002. In May of2001, the Community Development Director developed the policy of requiring a CUP because there wasn't one currently in place. Included in the interpretation were conditions such as hours of operation and no food being served except for vending machines. Letters were sent out to two existing businesses and they were allowed to receive their business license. There are other cyber cafes in the city that did not receive the letter and did not request a business license for this type of business. They claim they are a computer related business. In regards to Mr. Del Mar, his CUP was processed shortly after an individual was killed in Garden Grove. His CUP has forty- one conditions, similar to the ones presented tonight. Chair Pruett stated that there are other businesses out there that are not operating by the rules. Mr. Jones replied that is correct. Chair Pruett also added that the conditions would become a part of the CUP for each applicant, that it would not be a part of the ordinance. He also added that staff should consider the separation of the booths for more than just fire safety, but also for public safety. Vice Chair Smith addressed a few issues: 1) She asked what is done about pornography. Mr. Sheatz replied that legally, the city cannot require someone to block pornography because of the First Amendment law. 2) Concerning condition number sixteen (16), the establishment cannot be used as a sexually oriented/adult business, she asked for clarification. Mr. Sheatz replied that under the ordinance, there is a definition of a sexually oriented business. In order to constitute a sexually oriented business, the whole business in general, is promoting and oriented to be an adult business. Vice Chair Smith expressed that she feels this is not ready to be voted on. She added that there are many establishments in town that have security guards. She asked that based on the city's laws, any business can say that they want to stay open 24 hours and they could. Mr. Sheatz replied in the affirmative, that the city currently does not have any limitations, except for when an ABC license is involved. Chair Pruett agreed that this project does need to go back, but he wanted to address some things that need to be looked at: 9 APPROVED Planning Commission Minutes June 2, 2003 1) Periodic review of CUP - there should be some way to collect the cost of doing this, there should be some billable service for the person receiving this; if there's something significant enough to prepare a report, there should be a way to recover those costs. 2) The Commission and police department have indicated that there needs to be surveillance cameras at the front and back door. Mr. Del Mar indicated that he has cameras that anyone can go onto his website to see the live feed. Why can't we require that of other businesses? Mr. Sheatz replied that the courts are highly critical of the security guard and security cameras. This is a First Amendment protected activity; the Commission needs to impose the restrictions by the least restrictive means to still accomplish the protection goals, and to still maintain First Amendment rights. Chair Pruett added that he agrees with the First Amendment issue, but that there's a value or benefit to a parent to check in periodically online. Commissioner Brandman applauded everyone for trying to balance this, but as a parent, there's no way, no matter how good a person is, to manage that many kids. There are too many unanswered questions and it needs to go back to staff for added information. She feels the Commission needs to balance out the business needs and the safety of the children. Chair Pruett stated that what is being considered is presently a draft ordinance and the Commission needs to give staff thoughts on what need to be looked at. Commissioner Bonina commented that possibly Mr. Del Mar may have a small amount of incidences because he's held accountable to the CUP and maybe the Commission needs to take a lesson from that. The end result should be closer to this than the other businesses in the report. Commissioner Romero commented that he doesn't believe it's the CUP but the gentleman's business management practices. Chair Pruett stated that he believes it requires both. He asked staff to look at condition number eight (8), concerning the computer stalls, size of computer stations as it relates to size of facility; and the configurations of stations. Vice Chair Smith commented that these are crime magnets and asked why are these types of facilities are even allowed. She believes there should be a limit on the maximum number of computers. She likes Commissioner's Pruett's idea about charging the business owners for those police reports and would like to see a more formal and detailed proposal for ramifications if an applicant does not live up to the CUP. She also feels that opening from 7 am to 1 am is way too long for this kind of business to be opened. Chair Pruett stated that there are some establishments where after a certain hour, you have to be twenty-one (21), and they're trying to manage the adult and children population. Maybe this can be managed some way along this line. Also, there may need to be a minimum age for a child to be there without supervision. Commissioner Brandman asked why are they open so early and whether this has anything to do with truancies. She asked if anyone has talked to the schools. Her son frequents the Market Place and the police there are very aggressive in asking the kids whether they have a ride home. She expressed concems for approving something like this and then having someone come back and blame us for approving this. She asked Mr. Sheatz if the Commission could look at this. Chair Pruett replied that the Commission has the option to deny the proposal, but it was brought to the Commission in the first place because it is a CUP, a land use issue. 10 APPROVFT Plmming Connnission Minutes June 2, 2003 Commissioner Bonina wants to see review of: 1) Statistics, if any, on the number of kids in ratio to the number of manager's onsite. 2) Whether smoking is allowed and how that would be monitored. 3) Is there any city that has banned this use in their city? Mr. Sheatz replied that there hasn't because one cannot ban a First Amendment activity. 4) He first thought that these incidences were exclusive to Garden Grove, but based on the report, there is the same type of situation in Orange. Chair Pruett added that paragraph number (8) defines the computer stall, but it should be added that only one (1) person is allowed in each stall. Commissioner Romero responded that would make sense for games, but not for some children who are emailing. Chair Pruett concluded that they would let staff deal with the issue. Chair Pruett asked when would be a good time for this project to be brought back. After some discussion, it was decided that this project should be continued tothe next meeting, and then if there isn't enough time, staff can request a continuance. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue this agenda item to the next regular meeting on Monday, June 16,2003. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: INRE: INRE: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED NEW HEARINGS: None ADJOURNMENT MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bonina, seconded by Commissioner Brandman to adjourn to the next regular meeting Monday, June 16, 2003 at 6:30 pm AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 10:00 pm June 2, 2003. 11