Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/18/00 AGENDA REGULAR PRE-MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall Monday, December '18, 2000 12:15 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice Chairman MA THEW BRAD Y MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC NOTE: Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours, prior to the Planning Commission meeting. A final agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department 72 hours prior to the meeting. Items listed on this agenda will be continued to 5:30 p.m. on the Thursday following the date listed on this agenda. 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON THE AGENDA OR WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING A PUBLIC HEARING NEED NOT FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD. ALL OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION MAY FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD AND PRESENT IT TO THE SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE MEETING. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAl Planning Commission decisions on Zone Changes, Parcel Maps and Tentative Subdivision maps are subject to appeal by any interested person adversely affected by the decision of the Commission. No permit shall be issued for any use involved in an application until after the final acceptance date of appeal. The appeal shall include the appellant's interest in or relationship to the subject property, the decision or action appealed and shall state specific facts and reasons why the appellant believes the decision or action of the Commission should not be upheld. Such appeal must be filed in writing within 10 days from date of hearing, addressed to the City Council, cio Office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A $334 non- refundable filing fee must be included with filing of the initial appeal for those appeals filed by the applicant or any person outside the notice area. All appeals filed on land divisions will require a $334 non-refundable filing fee. If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. Agenda, PC, Monday - December 18, 2000 Page 2 If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. 4. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - (marked by asterisk (*) These items will be acted on as a group without individual staff presentations if no member of the Planning Commission or audience wishes to comment or ask questions on a case. The items are recommended for approval by staff. The applicant has been informed of any special conditions and has signed an agreement to conditions of approval and requested to be placed on the consent agenda. If anyone wishes to discuss or testify on any of the consent items the item(s) will be taken off consent and will be considered in the order on the agenda. If not, the public hearing will be opened and the items acted on as a group. 3.1) 3.2) 3.3) Agenda Item 4) - Approval of Planning Commission minutes for November 2, 13 and 16, 2000 meetings. Agenda Item 7.2) - Amendment to Subdivision Ordinance regarding double frontage lots. (City of Bakersfield) Agenda Item 8) - Continuation of Comprehensive Sign Plan (Northwest Target LLC) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held November 2, 13 and 16, 2000. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED REZONINGS, AND ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS: 5.1) (Wa~ ~ General Plan Amendment File No. P00-0468 - Castle & Cooke CA, Inc. has proposed to change the land use designation from HMR (High Medium Density Residential) to LMR (Low Medium Density Residential) on 27.91acres, generally located on the north side of Ming Avenue (extended), west side of Buena Vista Road and on the south side of the Kern River Canal. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. 5.2) General Plan Amendment File No. P00-0660 - Kyle Carter Homes has proposed to change the land use designation from LMR (Low Medium Density Residential) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 58 acres of the project site and OS-S (Open Space - Slopes Exceeding 30 percent) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 106 acres. The applicant is also requesting to amend the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan to predesignate Paladino Drive, between Alfred Harrell Highway and State Route Agenda, PC, Monday - December 18, 2000 Page 3 (Ward 3) 178, from a collector to a local street and redesignate the Class II trail along the same Paladino Drive alignment to a Class III trail under the Specific Trails Plan. The project is 164 acres in size and is located north of State Route 178 and east of Alfred Harrell Highway. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. $.3.a) (Ward General Plan Amendment File No. P00-069'1 - Ridgeview ChUrch of the Nazarene has proposed to amend the land use designation from LR (Low Density Residential) to LMR (Low Medium Density Residential) on 4.8 acres located adjacent on the east side of Stine Road, just south of Hosking Avenue. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. 5.3.b) (Ward 6) Zone Change File No. P00-0691- Ridgeview Church of the Nazarene has proposed a zone change from an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) zone on 4.8 acres located adjacent on the east side of Stine Road, just south of Hosking Avenue. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. 5.4.a) (Ward General Plan Amendment File No. P00-0744 - Home Depot has proposed to amend the land use designations from HMR (High Medium Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial) on 27.90 acres located between State Route 178, East Hills Mall and Mt. Vernon Avenue in northeast Bakersfield. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. 5.4. b) (Ward 3) Zone Change File No. P00-0744 - Home Depot has requested a change in zoning from an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) to a C-2 (Regional Commercial) zone on 27.90 acres located between State Route 178, East Hills Mall and Mt. Vernon Avenue in northeast Bakersfield. (Negative Declaration on file) Agenda, PC, Monday- December 18, 2000 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. .(County) $.$.a) General Plan Amendment File No. P00-0756 - Floyd Hinesley has proposed to change the land use designation from R-IA (Resource-Intensive Agriculture) to GC (General Commercial) on 18.77 acres located at the northwest corner of Renfro Road and Stockdale Highway. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Disapprove Roll call vote. 5.5.b) (County) Zone Change File No. P00-0756 - Floyd Hinesley has requested a change in zoning from A (Agriculture) to C-2 (Regional Commercial) on 18.77 acres located at the northwest corner of Renfro Road and Stockdale Highway. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Disapprove Roll call Vote. 5.6) (County) General Plan Amendment File No. P00-0796 - City of Bakersfield has proposed a formal acknowledgment of the Kern County Board of Supervisors approved amendments to the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan's Kern River Plan Element, Land Use Element and Circulation Element maps from July 1996 to September 1999. These map changes are necessary to retain consistent land use maps for the unincorporated parcels of land within the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan area located at eighteen separate locations. (Exempt from CEQA) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. 6. PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT - MGC Architecture representing (Ward 7) Paul Owhadi, Sierra Pacific Development time set to receive testimony regarding the adequacy of the Initial Study and proposed re-use of the Grand Canal EIR for Proposed Zone Change No. P00-0419 which consists of a request to re-zone the 64 + acre site from a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) zone, known as the "Grand Canal" project, to a C-2 (Regional Commercial) zone for purposes of a mixed use commercial shopping center containing 555,000 square feet of leasable area, entitled the "Gateway Shopping Center." The site is located between State Route 99, the Arvin-Edison Canal, South "H" Street, and Berkshire Road alignment. (EIR on file) RECOMMENDATION: Receive comments and refer to staff for preparation of Final EIR. Roll call vote. Agenda, PC, Monday - December 18, 2000 Page 5 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS - AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE 7.1) (Afl Wards) Amendment to Title16 (Subdivisions Ordinance) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code (City of Bakersfield) to allow the advisory agency to require developers to provide fencing between their project and canals within 1/4 miles of a proposed tentative tract. (Exempt from CEQA) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE 7.2) (All Wards) Roll call vote. Amendment to Title16 (Subdivisions Ordinance) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code (City of Bakersfield) to allow double frontage lots on streets which function as a major street. (Exempt from CEQA) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Roll call vote. (Ward 4) PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN (Northwest Target LLC) for the Northwest. Promenade located at 8100 through 9400 Rosedale Highway zoned PCD (Planned Commercial Development). (Exempt from CEQA) RECOMMENDATION: Continue to January 4, 2001 Planning Commission meeting Group vote. 9. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees t t. ADJOURNMENT December 11, 2000 Held Monday, December '18, 2000 '12:15 p.m. City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice Chairperson MATHEW BRADY TOM MCGINNIS Absent: MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Assistant City Attorney JACK LEONARD, Assistant Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner JAMES MOVIUS, Principal Planner JENNIE ENG, Associate Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS .Chairman Dhanens read the Notice of the Right to Appeal Minutes, PC, Monday, December 18, 2000 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 3.1) 3.2) 3.3) Item 4 - Approval of Planning Commissioner Minutes for November 2, 2000, November 13, 2000 and November 16, 2000. Agenda Item-7.2 -Amendment to Subdivision Ordinance regarding double frontage lots. (City of Bakersfield). Agenda Item 8) - Continuation of Comprehensive Sign plan (Northwest Target LLC) These items will be voted on Thursday, December 21, 2000. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ApProVal of minutes of the regular meetings held November 2, 13 and 16, 2000. Item was continued until Thursday, December 21, 2000. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED REZONINGS, AND ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS: 5.1) General Plan Amendment File No. P00-0468 - Castle & Cooke CA, Inc. (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval. There were no Commission comments or questions. Item was continued until Thursday night. 5.2) General Plan Amendment File No. P00,0660 - Kyle Carter Home-~ (Ward 3) Staff report given recommending approval. Commissioner Brady asked if we have wide local streets in between a collector and a roadway that acts like a collector but not necessarily the full width? Mr. Gauthier said there are some other areas such as RiverLakes and Seven Oaks that have an intermediate size roadway. Commissioner Brady asked if staff has some examples of other areas where we took an arterial down to a local street? Ms. Shaw said that strictly from a question of volume that "no, we do not." This is far enough out that the studies don't show enough volume to warrant a six lane arterial nor a four lane collector. Mr. Gauthier asked if Commissioner Brady would like some other examples of roadways for Thursday night that he Minutes, PC, Monday, December 18, 2000 Page 3 referenced? Commissioner Brady said yes he would. He has some concerns that 20 or 30 years from now it will create a real problem because we didn't think we were going to have volume and it turns out that we do. Commissioner B°yle said he has a concern over the bike path issue. If this is going to be a development with homes in the % acre to 1 acre size he expects to see a lot of people out there with horses or other animals.' He feels that people who are going to bicycle would take this route rather than 178 and wanted to know why we are downgrading it from a Class II to a Class III bike lane? Mr. Gauthier said that because one occurs within an extra wide collector and as the collector goes that class of bike would go. It is clear that when we have our other cross sections on Thursday, if they decide to go that route, they Will look to see whether or not staff will have an option for the Commission to have an extra wide local collector that accommodates a bike path. Commissioner Boyle asked if staff could also bring with them cross sections of what a Class I, Class II and Class III bike path look like? Mr. Gauthier said he would. Commissioner Dhanens said the staff report says that this is going to be a large lot subdivision (one dwelling unit per acre) and wanted to know if this is information they can use in their consideration of this project? They are proposing an LR designation'and what is to say they can't come in with a subdivision that is pushing up to the 5-6 dwelling unit per acre issue as opposed to something that is less dense that we do have general plan designations for? Mr. Gauthier said it would not be a problem if they came in with a more dense subdivision but the fact is, as a matter of public record, they have already paid fees on a subdivision for this area. If the Commission would like to condition it in some fashion, it is up to them, but from staff's viewpoint if they go to seven dwelling units per acre, we don't care. The Commission might want to add a condition requiring 25 percent more density than is currently seen. It would .fit the traffic assumptions that were made as well. Commissioner Dhanens asked about the two triangular shaped pieces and whether it is a detriment to this project? Mr. Gauthier said that those pieces are - created already. Commissioner Dhanens asked about the triangular piece that is left over in the northwest portion and how the city feels about the leftover pieces? Mr. Grady said there are some topographical features out there that are going to limit the number of lots that can be put on the site. There are some land features that are going to preclude this applicant from maximizing the density that would be allowed under LR. The remaining land that is out there is going to remain Open Space that is not buildable. There were no other Commissioner comments or questions. Minutes, PC, Monday, December 18, 2000 Page 4 5.3.a) 5.3.b) Item was continued until Thursday night. General Plan Amendment File No. P00-0691 - Ridgeview Church of the Nazarene (Ward 6) Combined with 5.3.b below. Zone Change File No. P00-0691- Ridgeview Church of the Nazarene (Ward 6) Staff report given recommending approval. Commissioner Boyle asked if these apartments or complexes will be related to the church or is it something they are selling off.'? Mr. Gauthier said he would check into that. There were no other Commission comments or questions. Item was continued until Thursday night. 5.4.a) 5.4. b) General Plan Amendment File No. P00-0744 - Home Depot (Ward 3) Combined with 5.4.b below. Zone Change File No. P00-0744 - Home Depot (Ward Staff report given recommending approval. Commissioner McGinnis said he feels that this project is really needed but is concerned about traffic issues and wanted to know what provisions have been made for it? Ms. Shaw said that she believes there is a requirement for the applicant to pay their proportionate share for an expansion of the turn lanes on Mt. Vernon. Mr. Gauthier said he would have a complete list on Thursday night that staff has planned that they would have to pay a proportionate share. Commissioner Boyle said that he would like to reinterate the concerns that were mentioned as from personal experience on occasion you will have traffic backed onto 178. It does create a traffic hazard and he is not sure a turn lane alone is sufficient to address the issue. Commissioner Boyle asked if traffic going south on Mt. Vernon will be able to make a left turn into the project and will it be signalized? On Thursday night he would like drawings of where exactly the ingress and egress will be and where they will be able to make left turns in and out. He also asked for drawings of Minutes, PC, Monday, December 18, 2000 Page 5 where the left turn and deceleration lanes will be off of Bernard? Mr. Gauthier said he would have them Thursday. Commissioner Brady said that it would appear that the access to Mt. Vernon is going to be on the southern most portion right above the HMR/R-3 piece and wanted to know if that was correct? Ms. Shaw said the applicant has proposed an access to Mt. Vernon that is more northerly than that. Mr. Grady said that we have a plan that shows the proposed internal circulation that would show the connection to the mall as well as the proposed connections to Bernard Street. Mr. Grady said that if the Commission does not have that, staff will provide it for Thursday. Commissioner Brady said it is a concern and the more information concerning traffic that can be provided the better as he wants to see this developed. Commissioner Brady asked if with this projeCt there will be some access point or are we talking about a block wall to the north? Mr. Grady said the circulation map shows an access road going to the site from the north. Commissioner Brady asked if the Commission needs to consider circulation for the piece of property to the north being affected by this project? Mr. Grady said that was the intent of requiring the applicant to submit the internal circulation plan. So there would be access to that site and there would be access through his site to connect to East Hills Mall. Commissioner McGinnis asked if a PCD designation wouldn't be more appropriate than just a Regional Commercial C-27 Mr. Gauthier said it is clear that there are a lot of circulation issues in the area that could also be addressed through a PCD. It is a consideration in this type of project. Commissioner Boyle said that going southbound on Mt. Vernon and turning east on Bernard there are two left turn lanes that get backed up during peak times and he assumes once a left turn lane is put in to give access to this project and there is internal circulation that takes you to the rest of the mall, that traffic is going to split itself. How much of a stacking area will the~'e be in the left turn lane? This would be addressed on Thursday night. There were no other Commissioner comments or questions. Item was continued until Thursday night. 5.5.a) General Plan Amendment File No. P00-0756 - Floyd Hinesley'(County) Combined with 5.5.b below. Minutes, PC, Monday, December 18, 2000 Page 6 S.S.b) Zone Change File No. P00-0756 - Floyd Hinesley (County) Staff report given recommending denial of the proJect. Commissioner Brady asked if the commercial properties all had different owners to which Mr. Gauthier' answered yes. Commissioner Brady said in other words we cannot allow them to move their project to the corner and change the land use on one of the other properties? Mr. Gauthier said legally you probably can do that but "no" wehaven't done that in the last ten years. They are different ownerships. Commissioner Brady said that it made more sense to put the commercial property on the corner. Commissioner Brady asked if we could consider a land swap as a condition of approval on Thursday night? Mr. Gauthier said that the Planning Commission could give direction to staff so that we could renotice it and set the stage but it wouldn't come back until March. Commissioner Boyle said the picture that was shown before had the General Commercial on the county map in the northwest corner and wanted to know if that would be adjacent to the freeway if it was every built? Mr. Gauthier said that it is real close to where the alignment crosses Stockdale Highway. There were no other Commissioner questions or comments. Item continued until Thursday. 5.6) General Plan Amendment File No. P00-0796 - City of Bakersfield (County) Staff report given saying this is just a housekeeping issue there is nothing to add. Commissioner Brady asked if there are any other issues raised or is it rubber stamp time? Mr. Gauthier said "yes." There were no other Commissioner questions or comments. Item continued until Thursday. 6. PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT - MGC Architecture representing Paul Owhadi, Sierra Pacific Development Staff report given. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Hernandez about the "no project alternative"' and whether or not we need a different discussion now that we are going from a PCD to a commercial? Mr. Hernandez said there is an underlying residential tract map that is still Minutes, PC, Monday, December 18, 2000 Page 7 on the property also. Commissioner Boyle said he understands that but the "no project alternative" would leave it as a PCD with the underlying tract map still there but that has been in existence for several years. Mr. Hernandez said that we can make that annotation on the record that there is also the possibility of the "no project" resulting in the PCD also still existing on the property. The Planning Commission would give a periodic review to determine the status of the PCD. Commissioner Boyle said the EIR needs to address that it could be left as a PCD. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Hernandez if in judging the environmental impacts of the property we don't necessarily look at the change from what some map says, we are looking at changes of what exists on the property presently? Mr. Hernandez said that is correct. Commissioner Brady said that we are looking at the environmental impacts of what would be changed by putting in this C-2 piece of property that has been plowed under With a big ditch in the middle of it. Mr. Hernandez said yes. Commissioner Brady asked staff if they are stating that they have been out to the piece of property and looked at the property since the canal has been dug in it and made appropriate evaluations for purposes of amending the existing EIR? Mr. Grady said that staff has taken into account the condition of the site prior to the PCD. We did not do an evaluation of whether the canal that was dug out there is material to our decision as to whether we can or cannot use the existing EIR based on the change that the applicant is proposing in going from a PCD to a C-2. Commissioner Brady said that since the original EIR was sent to them the flora and fauna have been changed.because there was a lot of earth movement and grading work done. We are not dealing necessarily with the same situation today that existed at the time the EIR was certified. Mr. Grady said the physical characteristics of the site has changed. The environmental conditions have not changed. Staff is saying that the evaluation that was done on that site whether it had a canal dug or not, the surface environmental conditions related to biology and flora and fauna have not changed as a result of the hole being dug and we are saying that the evaluation that was done in the EIR absent of any additional information that would lead us to a different conclusion we are saying that that evaluation is sufficient for this proposed change. Commissioner Brady said that the fact that the property has been used as a dumping site since the time of this impact that we do not need to consider that? Mr. Grady said not from a CEQA standpoint. We are looking at whether the proposed change given the evaluation that's in the EIR leads us to a decision whether we need to do a new EIR or we can continue with the existing EIR and just evaluate the changes and recirculate a draft that references all the studies that were done in the previous EIR as being adequate for the project and then updating that information. Mr. Hernandez said'that what Mr. Grady is saying is that in staff's opinion the change in the property is not substantial enough to warrant a different analysis. · Commissioner Dhanens said that in the revised mitigation matrix regarding long-term Minutes, PC, Monday, December 18, 2000 Page R aesthetic impacts there is a discussion about the additional landscape requirements that have been added to the list and wanted to know if those requirements were based in any portion of the city zoning ordinance or are they .specific to this project as staff evaluated it? Mr. Grady said they are specific to the project based on staff's look at the conditions placed on the Grand Canal given its relationship to the residential to the south and the fact that this was not being requested to be a PCD and not knowing where the building placement is going to be on-site staff looked at the concerns that were addressed through the mitigation on the PCD and tried to apply reasonable. conditions that wOuld carry that through for a site that would be C-2 rather than PCD. Commissioner Dhanens said that Ms. Eng in her presentation said that the public has until January 5 to provide written comments on this matter and she said that when we hear this again it will be to certify this EIR document and that it would not be a pUblic hearing and wanted to know if their action would have to be certified by the City Council? Mr. Grady said "yes." Commissioner Dhanens asked Ms. Shaw to review with Mr. Walker by Thursday the following question: When the original traffic study was done, the applicant broke doWn the traffic generators on the site into three categories. There was the movie theater, restaurants and then a generic term called "shopping center." They each had a different ITE code. The new traffic study applies the same ITE code which is for shopping center over the entire 555,000 square feet. Commissioner Dhanens said he would have to assume that there would be some restaurants in that and would not this new traffic study be required to break that out and provide the different traffic generator number to that type of use? Commissioner Dhanens said that the traffic study talks about this project as a straight C-2 which would in some cases generate more impact than what is currently on the site and 'in other places it talks about traffic mitigation seems to be less. They are not dealing with as many road segments and as many signalized intersections, etc. than the original traffic study talked about. Because of this shopping center ITE code, the traffic impact of this project is generally less than what was on the project originally. And because it is not a destination shopping center it has more impact on local streets because you are getting more local people coming to it which Commissioner Dhanens believes that actually you would have more people coming to it locally not like an outlet mall where generally more people come on the freeway from out of town. Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Walker to look at those issues and provide the answers either verbally or in a memo to explain where this thing is coming.from? There were no other Commissioner comments or questions. This project was continued until Thursday night. Minutes, PC, Monday, December 18, 2000 Page 9 10. 11. January 31, 2001 PUBLIC HEARINGS - AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCF 7.1) Amendment to Title16 (Subdivisions Ordinance) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code (City of Bakersfield) Staff report given recommending approval. There were no Commissioner comments or questions. This item was continued until Thursday night. Amendment to Title16 (Subdivisions Ordinance) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code (City of Bakersfield) to allow double frontage lots on streets which function as a major street. (Exempt from CEQA) Staff report given recommending approval. There were no Commissioner comments or questions. This item was continued until Thursday night. 7.2) PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN (Northwest Target LLC) Staff is recommending a continuance until the January 4, 2001, Planning Commission meeting. There were no Commissioner comments or questions. This item was Continued until Thursday night. COMMUNICATIONS None. ' COMMISSION COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 1:35 p.m.