Loading...
2002 - February 20 C ,(JrJ . {,....1. .3- APPROVED MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange February 20, 2002 Wednesday -7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: INRE: INRE: INRE: 1. Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Smith Romero Karen Sully, Planning Manager, Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney, Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Anna Pehoushek, Senior Planner Madeline Russell, Recording Secretary ~o ':-::::.' ,,-' -1 :-< ,-..' ...-; .~) '':":) . q , .-0 ',;,..:0 'J).' .~'''~~ rTj PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -None (.n ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN - None CONSENT CALENDAR c..) r &" APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF JANUARY 21,2002 AND FEBRUARY 4,2002 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Brandman, seconded by Commissioner Bonina to approve the Minutes of January 21, 2002 meeting. Commissioner Brandman added the following notation on page 2 of the minutes: "Commissioner Brandman further underscored the need for pragmatism and her support for maintaining the new library at it's current location rather than in East Orange." AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Bonina to approve the Minutes of February 4, 2002 meeting. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: INRE: INRE: 2. Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED CONTINUED HEARINGS: - None NEW HEARINGS: REVISED MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1670, REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16218, REVISED CONDmONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2372-01, AND REVISED MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 185-01 - BRANDYWINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION The proposed project involves the subdivision and grading of approximately 5.4 acres of land for a 21-lot single-family Planned Unit Development. On-site circulation consists of APPROVED Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2002 a private loop road. Common open space for the project would be provided by two lots, totaling 1.56 acres. The proposal includes the demolition of an existing single-family residence and assorted accessory structures, and removal of much of the existing vegetation. The address of the site is 1740 Bolingridge Drive. NOTE: Revisions have been made to this project since the September 5, 2001 Planning Commission Public Hearing. Specifically, these changes include: . Elimination of the electronically controlled gate at the Sunview Drive access point; . Establishment of an open point of access at the east end of Bolingridge Drive; . Elimination of one of the common open spaee lots to allow grading and site plan adjustments; . Creation of four additional guest parking spaces; and, . Redesign of the building floor plans and elevations in an effort to better integrate the proposed residences with the existing neighborhood. The applicant is requesting multiple entitlements for the proposed project including a tentative tract map, necessary for the subdivision of the property; a conditional use permit, required to develop the property as a Planned Unit Development; and major site plan review. NOTE: Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1670-01 has been prepared for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15070 et seq. Document revisions include updates to the project description, and impact discussions pertaining to plant life, transportation/circulation, and aesthetics. The public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration was January 25 through February 13, 2002. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution PC 01-02 recommending approval to the City Council of Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1670-01, Revised Tentative Tract Map 16218, Revised Conditional Use Permit No. 2372-01, and Revised Major Site Plan Review No. 185-01. Commissioner Brandman recused herself from hearing this item for conflict. Because opponents to this proposal were present, Chair Smith requested a complete reading of the Planning Commission Staff Report. Chair Smith also indicated receipt of three items of correspondence regarding this application. The letters are from Mr. A.D. Hilly, dated February 10th, Mrs. Carol Hilly, dated February 12th, and Mr. Richard E. Polley, dated February 15th. Ms. Karen Sullv. Planning Manager, presented highlights of the Staff Report as outlined in the meeting's agenda. She indicated that two of the public comment letters arrived during the public review period of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Ms. Sully then called on Ms. Anna Pehoushek, Senior Planner, to address issues raised in the two letters and provide more project details. Ms. Pehoushek stated the Barandywine Development proposal first came before the Planning Commission on September 5, 2001. Ms. Pehousek, in review, noted that in the original proposal, the applicant proposed a gated 21-lot single-family Planned Unit Development, with one gate controlled entry on Sunview Drive. She continued that variances were needed for the fence height and for building height 2 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 20, 2002 of the residences along Sunview Drive. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the project based on concerns about neighborhood compatibility, traffic and parking impact, and pedestrian circulation. A public hearing was scheduled to be held before the City Council on October 9, 200lwhere the applicant asked for a continuance to redesign the project. Ms. Pehousek indicated that several changes had been made to the project to address Commission and neighborhood concerns, including elimination ofthe gated entrance, providing a secondary access point at Bolingridge Drive; reduction of fence height along Sunview Drive to 42 inches; increase in the number of guest parking spaces from 18 to 22; adjustments to lot sizes and configurations; and modification to building elevations and floor plans to reduce residence size and massing. To accommodate these changes, the applicant has eliminated the common open space lot originally proposed at the western edge of the project site. Also, an additional 25 trees, above the number originally proposed, will be removed from the site. Staff agrees with the proposed modifications, and considers them an improvement over the original proposal. Staff believes that the revised project proposal is consistent with the Planned Unit Development provisions in the Zoning Ordinance and therefore, recommends approval of the requested entitlements and revised environmental document. Ms. Pehoushek noted letters received during the public review period from Carol Hilly and A. D. Hilly who reside at 1642 E. Bolingridge Drive. The letters expressed concerns regarding project related drainage, impact to plant and animal life, grading, public services, and cultural resources. Staff is in the process of preparing a formal response to these concerns and will be forwarded the response to the City Council, for final decision-making, in a Response to Comments document. She pointed out that City grading and drainage standards prohibit site runoff from new development onto adjacent properties. During plan check for the grading permit, the Public Works Department will review design of the drainage system to verify that site runoff will be diverted to the City's storm water system. With respect to biological resources, the biology report and Staff analysis show that, none of the plants or animals present on the site are formally listed sensitive, endangered or protected species, therefore, under CEQA, the change is not considered of significant impact. Additionally, the City's landscape coordinator concurs with the conclusions of the arborist's report regarding the declining condition of many trees on the property. On the issue of public services, the project has been reviewed by all the City departments responsible for providing services to the site and indicated they are able to provide adequate services. Finally, regarding cultural resources and the General Plan EIR, technical studies indicate there is evidence of historic settlement throughout the City, but tends to be concentrated in low-end areas along streams and flat promontories overlooking auroras. Staff concluded this site does not fit those characteristics. Further, although the site is a somewhat naturalized condition, it and the surrounding area have been significantly disturbed by development activity via the construction of houses, grading, excavation, and landscaping. These factors are the basis for environmental determination that impact to cultural resources is not anticipated. However, Staff indicated that the Commission has the option to incorporate mitigation measures requiring a record search for the site prior to issuance of a grading permit and for site monitoring during grading. Regarding the letter from Mr. Richard Polley of 3118 Westhaven Street, Staff has not had an opportunity to review the letter, but will respond in the Response of Comments document. Commissioner Bonina asked about the garage spaces and guest spaces and whether that was an appropriate number relative to project density. Ms. Pehoushek responded that it exceeds the Code requirement. Chair Smith called forward the applicant, Brandywine Development Corporation. 3 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 20, 2002 James Barisic. Brandvwine Development Com.. 1801 E. Edinger Ave.. Suite 125. Santa Ana. CA 92705. Mr. Robert Mickelson. Planning Consultant. P.O. Box 932. Orange. CA 92856 (temporarilv located at 1742 Bolingridge Dr.). and Scott Crawford. Wildlife Biologist. Michael Brandman and Associates were present. Mr. Barisic prefaced his presentation with a description of his development experience in Orange and the neighboring area. Mr. Barisic reiterated that there have been a number of project plan changes. Mr. Barisic introduced Robert Mickelson as part of the project team. Mr. Mickelson noted that there was one additional neighborhood meeting held regarding the changed plans and they met with several neighbors and incorporated some of their requested changes. In addition to the project changes enumerated in stafrs presentation, Mr. Mickelson noted the following changes: . Driveway was narrowed because there was no longer a need for the turnaround area and the driveway was moved further east so that as a car exits their headlights shine onto a lOft. high bank across the street. . Reconfigured certain lots, moving all except one back further from the street . Eliminated the flag lot creating a larger open park-like area and changed the grading in some locations, included block walls where requested, added open fencing to allow neighbors to see the landscaping. Mr. Mickelson continued by referencing the building elevations with overlays showing the significant reduction in the size and bulk of the houses. Chair Smith asked Mr. Mickelson to address the loss of the oak grove, describing what will replace it and how it will affect the neighbors to the West. Mr. Mickelson said that most of the oak grove will go away. The grading has changed - raising some areas higher to create a path, making it aesthetically pleasing by adding a 3ft. wall to be landscaped almost completely out of view, and reducing the amount of export, all positive adjustments for the neighbors. To Chair Smith's question regarding landscaped area to the South and whether it was available for walking, Mr. Mickelson responded positively, indicating there would be a walkway in the area and some furniture. Chair Smith expressed her dismay at the number of trees to be removed from the site. The original number was 176, now it's over 200, and only 20 will be retained. Mr. Mickelson indicated that there were a lot of trees to be removed and many to be relocated on site depending on the health of those trees. Many trees are in poorer health than was previously thought; and that a large pine tree fell in a recent storm, demonstrating its poor health. New landscaping will either relocate some of the trees or add new species that better fit the area. Mr. Barisic further said Mr. Applegate, the applicant's arborist has tagged certain trees to save or relocate with the goal to save as many existing trees as possible, and transplant those that could withstand the process. Mr. Barisic continued with the exhibits showing the reduction of mass and scale. He pointed out: . The floor plans emphasize craftsman and cottage architecture; there are eleven different elevations; . The exterior palette designs of wood, masonry and shingle siding, stone, brick veneer, etc., in fourteen different combinations have been employed to reflect the neighborhood diversity; . The two story character has been retained by clipping roofs from the front of the houses, dropping the mass and moving the upstairs front to the back to give more of a single-story feeling; . The Plan 4 home, was a 3-story home and is now 2-story. This addressed Commissioner Bonina's question of rear elevation, particularly visible from Sunview. 4 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 20, 2002 · In working with the DRC, a majority of the residences have 3-sided architecture and one has a 4- sided architecture. Commissioner Bonina pointed out that Lots #2 and #3 have 2-sides without exterior treatment and asked whether these lots were not visible to property owners in the back. Mr. Barisic responded affirmatively. Commissioner Bonina asked for clarification of park area accessibility for residents and neighbors. Mr. Barisic stated that there will be a low fence, creating minimal separation, but there is nothing to prevent neighbors from walking in. Other higher fences would be in the rear yards to provide normal protection of the homes. They will be made of a combination of half decorative masonry and tubular steel on top to provide some privacy and a more open look. Commissioner Bonina asked for a review of drainage concerns. Mr. Barisic reiterated what Staff noted earlier that a development couldn't increase the amount of drainage, concentrate, or runoff above what is current. In this case all the runoff is being intercepted by a series of collection devices, reducing the amount that would go onto any adjacent property, and redirect it out to the street system and subsequently to the drainage collection system. Chair Smith inquired about the proposed material for window treatment and the new size proposed for the homes. Mr. Barisic responded that the windows are dual pane vinyl and the homes now range in size from 2990 sq. ft to the largest at 3267 sq. ft. Chair Smith further asked about sidewalks. Mr. Barisic said that it is a simple thing to provide sidewalks, but in order to maintain as much of the lot size as possible, sidewalks were not part of the plan. He considered the critical element was to add more parking and disperse the parking, providing both parallel and perpendicular parking convenient to all the residences. This is the tradeoff for sidewalks, resulting in elimination of mass grading and preventing the loss of more trees and shrubs. Chair Smith continued that there are other sidewalks in the neighborhood, 3 ft. wide, and wondered how providing sidewalks would affect the grading. Mr. Barisic responded that there are no sidewalks immediately adjacent to the development on Sunview or Bolingridge and believes that, if any exist, they were put in by the individual homeowners. He indicated that reducing the size of the homes and usable lot area might accommodate sidewalks, but would reduce the 20 ft. backyards. Mr. Mickelson added that when the site was first proposed, the Public Works Department indicated that there were no sidewalks in the immediate area. The requirement was thought to be 4 ft. wide sidewalks for public access. Public Works did not require sidewalks for private streets. Additionally, even though the development is no longer gated, it is still a private street. Commissioner Bonina asked if the lots could be rearranged considering that some backyard setbacks are less than 20 ft. Mr. Barisic stated that Plan 4 could not be relocated because it was designed to minimize grading. The others may be interchangeable, but it reduces the possibility of a good mix and an aesthetically pleasing site. Mr. Barisic, responding to Commissioner Bonina's question about the 3 ft. wall on the North property line, indicated that it was a retaining wall Chair Smith asked if the landscape plan had been approved. Mr. Barisic responded that the concept had been approved by DRC and a non-automatic irrigation system would be installed on the North slope with metered locations, hand operated and maintained by the Homeowners Association under a Landscape Management Plan recommended by the landscaper. Chair Smith asked for public comment, taking those in favor of the proposal first: 5 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 20, 2002 Speaker in favor: Mr. J. Michael Vanderhoof - 1903 E. Bolingridge Drive. · Appreciates the tenacity of the builders. . The quality of the homes is impeccable and will only enhance the neighborhood. · The property is in a bad state due to lack of irrigation for some 10 years and the trees are very weak. . Believes the project, the landscaping, the common areas, and the park will soften the view for everyone. Speakers in opposition: Mr. Del Gonzales - 1736 Sunview Drive; Mr. Richard Pollev ~ 31 18 Westhaven Street; Mr. Charles Rupp - 1802 Sunview Drive: Mr. Anthonv HiIlv - 1642 Bolingridge; Mrs. Carol HiIlv - 1642 Bolingridge; and Mr. Robert Nicolini - 1712 Sunview Drive. Their concerns and comments included: . An have lived close to the proposed site in excess of 25 years. . Although the gated entrance is gone, the street is too narrow for such a large entrance. · Concern about Homeowners Association installing a gate in the future. · Concern that the Association will eventually want to build a wan where the back of the houses face Sunview, to provide privacy for the residents. · Belief that the development is in direct conflict with CEQA with reference to soil excavation and unstable earth conditions. . Lack of concern, by the applicant, for historical issues. · Removal of 2 I 2 of 223 trees and the resulting impact. · Concern about the added traffic concentration on Sunview Drive. · Narrow streets making fire truck access and deliveries difficult. . Allowing parking on Sunview Drive. · Whether there is a 3-car garage for every unit. · The lots are too small and the houses too big and overpowering to blend with existing homes. . Drainage proposal and whether it will work. All the drainage will be going to the West from a higher elevation and will land in someone's back yard or swimming pool. · Heavy excavation and construction equipment traffic on Sunview Drive causing vibrations and earth movement and damage to the existing structures and houses in the area. . Lack of an independent wildlife study when birds and other animals and endangered species are being displaced. Chair Smith asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission and seeing none, closed public hearing. Chair Smith called on Mr. Barisic to respond to the public comments and summarize the proposal before the Commission goes into deliberation. Mr. Barisic began: . Michael Brandman and Associates did a biological study. · Sunview Drive is 36 ft. wide and provides for 2-way traffic and parking on both sides of the street. Believes it is adequate for in and out vehicular traffic. The City's Traffic Engineer reviewed traffic circulation and street patterns and found it more than adequate for the sman number of vehicles accessing the development. · The gate was removed in concurrence with the community sentiment. A gate cannot be installed in the future without City approval. The developers would not oppose a condition that the project cannot be gated at a future date. · Regarding the view of the homes, there are two different fencing systems: one immediately adjacent to Sunview Drive, a 42 in. high combination tubular steel & plaster fence. A fence has been designed for the homes with backyards on Sunview Drive that will work for both the 6 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 20, 2002 residents and the neighbors across Sunview. At the top of the slope there is a 3 ft. solid decorative masonry, and 3 ft. of tubular steel on top as an added screening wall. Chair Smith clarified that the heavily landscaped combination wall is a 6 ft. high wall that is the backyard fence for the homes that backyard onto Sunview. Commissioner Bonina asked if the street curb would be painted to indicate that parking is not allowed. Mr. Barisic responded that some Cities paint the curb and sign the street. The option is in the City's purview and the rules are enforced quite effectively. Mr. Barisic continued: . Regarding CEQA, the developer has to trust that Staff and the City are experts in that area, and they believe they are in full compliance and have met all the obligations. · As for the soil impact, the developer hired H & T Soil to do the soil research and analysis. They completed an initial review report. The developer also had the benefit of the long list of developers who had looked at this property and passed on it for financial reasons. So there has been a lot of review of this area and there have been no substantial problems. Additionally the developer would not be interested in incurring that kind of liability going forward. . With respect to tree removal, the developers don't have a final detailed landscape plan yet, but the homes automatically serve as a wind buffer, if that's an issue. In terms of the true replacement, the developer is replacing I-for-I and wants the area to have plenty of trees and shrubs. · Traffic continues to be an area of concern for neighbors in this sedate community. The developer hired an independent traffic engineer to perform an analysis. It is true that 80% of the current traffic goes on Sunview Drive out to Tustin Avenue. 20% goes in the opposite direction on Sunview and ancillary streets down towards the park. · With the opening of the upper road, traffic has been dispersed significantly. No matter what is done, traffic ends up on Sunview Drive. The maximum impact in anyone-hour during peak traffic is 14 cars. . It is true that at the most accentuated corner ofIot #13, adjacent to the Hilly's, there is no change in the North side pad elevation. As the project moves to the South, the height is increased by 6 ft., as clarified by Mr. Mickelson. There was an attempt to lower that elevation by using reverse lot drainage, but it wouldn't work any better. There was, ultimately, a modification to pull the retaining wall off the property line, allowing the lot to drain out toward the private circulation system. · Concerning construction traffic on Sunview, it is a legitimate complaint. The City has enumerated some stringent conditions. In terms of stability issues, all the traffic has to go onto Sunview, there is no alternative. · Development should not cause any lot or land shifting at other residence. · There could be damage to the streets because of the heavy trucks going back and forth. Developer accepts responsibility for street repair. · Mr. Barisic asked Mr. Scott Crawford to address the biology on the site. Chair Smith inquired about the 3-car garages. Mr. Barisic indicated that each unit has a three car garage, some are straight-on and some are tandem. Mr. Scott Crawford, Wildlife Biologist with Michael Brandman and Associates: . The analysis performed was a due diligence survey to assess the kind of habitat existing on the property. · The habitat is considered non-native, it is all ornamental woodlands and landscape vegetation and is not considered habitat to any endangered or threaten species, particularly those covered under the Endangered Species Act. 7 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 20, 2002 . There is presence of a red-tailed hawk nest and two other bird nests on the project site, which are covered under the Migratory Treaty Act of 1986. This means those nests cannot be removed during the breeding season from February 15th to the end of August. · If there is a desert tortoise on the site, it is someone's pet. Any other species would be passing through the project site to other areas and would not be considered resident species. . There are bunnies, squirrels, and coyotes that frequent the site on a regular basis, but probably live on the northern slope, if not off-site of the property, as evidenced by the holes under the chain linked fence. . The wildlife species will be impacted no matter what is done with the site. The property is in such a degraded state now that squirrels and mice and other rodents are present, not large mammals. · As far as the Wildlife Movement Corridor, they are considered travel routes and not sIgnIficant corridors between any two major patches of habitat. Mr. Barisic concluded that the project has been in process for 14 months, and wished he could compose a development scheme without impacting any of the areas of concern, but it's impractical. It is a special site in a special neighborhood and the developer has tried to make every requested compromise and still make it feasible. The result is a development the City can be proud of and there is hope that the community will embrace it. Chair Smith inquired as to development time. Mr. Barisic responded it is a total of 15 months including sales and final closing. The actual time for building the homes is approximately 12 months. Chair Smith indicated the hearing was closed and called a twelve-minute recess before Commission deliberation at 9: 10 p.m. Deliberation of the Planning Commission: . Chair Smith asked Staff whether the size and width of the entrance and the street inside the project meet City Code and about the possibility of adding a gate in the future. . Ms. Sully said if the Commission moved to approve the project, it would be as proposed, as shown on the plans. There is no proposed gate. The Commission can add a condition that a gate would not be permitted. Anyone wishing to build a gate would have to return to the City for approval. . Mr. Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, indicated that the current City Standards are driven, primarily, by emergency access and the current minimum width is 20 ft. On the regular local street, typically, there would be a 25 ft. minimum width; with no parking either sides, 32 ft. with parking on one side, and 40 ft. with parking on both sides. The 36 ft. being proposed is in excess of minimum safety width because there is no parking proposed, although it can accommodate parking on one side. · Commissioner Pruett asked Mr. Hohnbaum to address City Code relating to drainage requirements for public awareness. Mr. Hohnbaum said that all the flat parts of the lot must drain to the street for conveyance to the public drainage system. In the case of this development, a significant portion of what is now probably flowing to the edge of the development, in all directions, will be picked up by the drainage system. · Mr. Hohnbaum further indicated some drainage might be escaping off-site, primarily to the West side. Drainage Code does not address slope drainage, which is allowable from minimal slopes. A slope drain is not required until the slope height is 30 ft. If there is a concern of drainage escaping the property, a condition to install "toe-drains" could be executed. Typically, it is not something done as part of the grading plan check, but the Commission could add the condition as part of this hearing. . Commissioner Pruett's second question regarded the Environmental Impact Report and the letters received. Two letters were received within the public review period, and one letter received from Mr. Polley, outside that period. What are procedural issues involved. 8 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 20, 2002 · Assistant Attorney Sheatz indicated that because the 3"' letter, on the Mitigated Negative Declaration, was received outside the 20 day public review period, the Commission could not address any comments raised in that letter, although Staff can respond with comments at a later date and the City Council can review the letter and Staffs comments in subsequent hearings. · Commissioner Pruett asked Ms. Pehoushek about her comments regarding record search and monitoring during grading. Mr. Pruett wanted to know if she was trying to address some of Mr. Polley's issues. Ms. Pehoushek said that her comments about mitigation responded to comments in Mr. Hilly's letter, some of which actually overlap with Mr. PoIley's letter. Additional discussion continued as the Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, and Smith reviewed improvements made to the project plan, review hearing comments, summarized their positions, and framed conditions to set forth with the motion for approval. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Bonina' for approval of Planning Commission Resolution PCI-02 recommending to the City Council the approval of Revised Mitigated Declaration No. 1670-01, the revised Tentative Tract Map No. 16218, the Revised Major Site Plan Review No. 185-01, and the Revised Conditional Use Permit No. 2372-01 with the conditions listed in the resolution and the foIlowing new or modified conditions: · Modify Condition #10 to require the applicant submit a final landscape and water management plan for review and approval by the Design Review Committee; . ModifY Condition #31 to add language, foIl owing .. .any tree removal. (Mitigation PL-3)." requiring "a minimum of one-to-one replacement of the trees and this replacement shall be included in the final landscape plans." . Add a condition providing for the City's discretion in the use of "toe-drains". . Add a condition that the southerly entrance shaIl not be gated, nor shall the Bolingridge East ingress and egress be closed without review and approval of the Planning Commission. . Add a condition for record search and monitoring during grading to occur. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Chair Smith stated that this is a recommendation to the City Council, which will cause another Public Hearing. INRE: NEW BUSINESS - None INRE: ADJOURMENT - 9:45 p.m. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to adjourn to the study session on Monday, March 4, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. for a briefing by Linda Boone, Director of Economic Development followed by the regularly scheduled meeting at 7 :00 p.m. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 9