Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/19/97 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall Thursday, June 19, 1997 5:30 p.m. MATHEW BRADY, Chairperson JEFFREY TKAC, Vice-Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MICHAEL DHANENS MARTI KEMPER ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN ALTERNATE: BETSY TEETER 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. 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 person aggrieved. No permit shall be issued for any use involved in an application until after the final acceptance date of appeal. 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 $330 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 $330 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. Agenda, PC, 6/19/97 Page 2 3. 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN LAND U_SE AMENDMENTS; ASSOCIATED REZONINGS AND NOISE ELEMENT AMENDMENT_ la) GPA; ZONE CHANGE AND KERN RIVER PLAN ELEMENT AMENDMENT_ #P96-0859 -- CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING, INC. has proposed an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan 2010 General Plan by changing the land use designation from Highway Commercial and Service Industrial to Public Facilities on 10.1 acres for property generally located on the south side of Sillect Avenue, east of Pierce Road, north of Riverside Drive. (Draft Environmental Impact Report on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuance. Roll call vote b) Zone Change from C-2 (Regional Commercial) and M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) on 10.1 acres for property generally located on the south side of Sillect Avenue, east of Pierce Road, north of Riverside Drive. (Draft Environmental Impact Report on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuance. Roll call vote c) Kern River Plan Element Amendment to amend the land use code on 10.1 acres from 6.1 (Major Commercial) and 7.2 (Service Commercial) to 3.3 (Other Facilities) generally located on the south side of Sillect Avenue, east of Pierce Road, north of Riverside Drive. (Draft Environmental Impact Report on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuance. Roll call vote A~enda, PC, 2a) b) c) 3) 6/19/97 - Page 3 GPA: ZONE CHANGE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #P97-0056 -- MARINO ASSOCIATES has proposed an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan 2010 General Plan by changing the land use designation from HMR (High Medium Density Residential, > 7.26 and _< 17.42 dwelling units/net acre) to GC (General Commercial) for property located on the south side of Columbus Street generally between Wenatchee Avenue and Loyola Street. (Negative Declaration on file) · STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial. Roll call vote Zone Change from R-1 (One Family Dwelling - 6,000 square feet per dwelling unit) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) zone for property located on the south side of Columbus Street generally between Wenatchee Avenue and Loyola Street. (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial. Roll call vote Conditional Use Permit for a mini-storage facility for property located on the south side of Columbus Street generally between Wenatchee Avenue and Loyola Street. (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial. Roll call vote GPA CASE NO. P97-0067-- THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD has proposed an amendment to the Noise Element (Chapter VII) of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan by adopting standards for cumulative noise impact analysis. (Notice of Exemption on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. Roll call vote 5. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written 6. COMMISSION COMMENTS A. Committees -%, Ag'enda, PC, 6/19197 Page 4 DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCFLLATION QF~ 8. ADJOURNMENT STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director June 16 1997 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, June 19, 1997, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: MATHEW BRADY, Chairperson JEFFREY TKAC, Vice-Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MICHAEL DHANENS MARTI KEMPER ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN BETSY TEETER ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney JACK LaROCHELLE, Engineer IV JACK LEONARD, Assistant. Building Director STAFF: Present: MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS The chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS None. 4.1a PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED REZONINGS AND NOISE ELEMENT AMENDMENT -- GPA, ZONE CHANGE AND KERN RIVER PLAN ELEMENT AMENDMENT P96-0859 - CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING Staff recommended continuance to the July 17th meeting, and stated that all comments will be responded to in writing. Minutes, PC, 6/19/97 Page 2 Public portion of the hearing was opened. Dr. John Byfield expressed strong disapproval of the Commission's involvement in the economic analysis of the proposed project, Bakersfield Heart Hospital and Medical Office Building Complex, pointing out that no such analysis was evident during the Mercy Southwest merger. Ms. Karen Barnes stated that addressing the project at this time was premature because it was impossible for the Commission to vote on the application on the date scheduled for the meeting, that written comment for the draft E.I.R. did not close until June 20, 1997. She suggested Staff had attempted to create a separate hearing schedule for this one GPA application. Ms. Barnes pointed out certain CEQA issues which she felt still need to be considered in the draft E.I.R, among them adequate habitat studies, significant noise studies, allowance for comment-on any change in the flight path, the need to study the impacts to the Kern River corridor,' potential harm to existing emergency medical services and effects of any physical change caused by the economic impact the project would have on the health care delivery system. She requested that the Commission vote to either deny the project or continue the matter until the next GPA cycle. Mr. Dennie Conrad distributed excerpts from the draft E.I.R. and Environmental Impact study, indicating that several flaws and significant omissions existed in the material. Mr. Conrad also submitted a letter from Dr. Robert Barnes, Medical Director of the Emergency Department at Mercy Health Care in Bakersfield regarding the project's impact on the emergency medical services system. Ms. Marcy Cunningham represented the Kern Equestrians for Preservation of Trails. She stated that various concerns the organization presented to the developer had been addressed and mitigated satisfactorily and that their organization was no longer opposed to the project. - - Mr. John VanBoening, Assistant Administrator and Operations Officer at Bakersfield Memorial Hospital, addressed the economic and business strategies of the developer to capture cardiac volume and possible scenarios regarding empty or abandoned hospitals in the community resulting from the implementation of this project. He referred to statiStics from a Charlotte, North Carolina business journal relating to revenues, profitability, and cash flow for hospitals with cardiac services. Mr. Van Boening quoted from the developer's prospectus and compared these figures to San Joaquin and Memorial hospitals' current heart programs. Minutes, PC, 6/19/97 Page 3 He concluded that according to the developer's forecast, the proposed project would capture virtually all cardiac volume which would result in similiar programs in other hospitals being closed. He pointed out that Memorial had borrowed considerable funds to add extensive cardiac care facilities to fill the need .of the community at that time, and that even currently Memorial and San Joaquin could double their volume without further construction. Mr. VanBoening also questioned what negative effects would occur should the proposed facility fail, and the equally negative effect if it should succeed, since the projected profit would be removed from Bakersfield. Dr. Denis Maddox, cardiologist, expressed support for the project, indicating that healthy competition does not necessarily result in a detriment to the community. He felt opposition to the project has been based on corporate concerns of acquisition, expansion, and safeguarding of assets rather than patient advocacy. -Mr. Mike Callagy represented the Bakersfield Heart Hospital. He stated that even though the existing GPA and zone classifications permitted the proposed use by the developer, an EIR was nonetheless commissioned and that the amendments to the General Plan and zone have been submitted to correct certain circumstances. The proposed PCD classification would allow the City more control and the public more input. The EIR revealed six areas of concern that were addressed resulting in thirteen technical reports, none of which identified any impact significant to require mitigation. Dr. Bill Baker, internist, stated that he had been given the opportunity to participate as an investor in the Bakersfield Heart Hospital and declined. He felt that the true objective of the project was to shore falling incomes in an environment of increased managed care, and quoted projected returns of investment for participating cardiologists. He suggested that by capturing the cardiac volume, initial lower prices for services would then be adjusted to whatever level the investors choose. Ms. Audrey Cochran, registered nurse, suggested that an environmental impact would result from the project, that of deserted buildings blighting the landscaping. She also indicated that statistics support the conclusion that more hospital beds within a community tend to elevate health care costs rather than lower them, that competition to fill empty beds would result in unnecessary procedures being performed. Ms. Cochran expressed concern that allowing the project would decrease the quality as well as increase the cost of health care in the community. Minutes, PC, 6/19/97 Page 4 Dr. Terry Boulware, cardiologist, Director of the Sandrini Clinic, quoted discrepancies from a June 1990 study that addressed cardiac care in central and southern California, a study based on information provided in part by local hospitals to the Federal government. Referring to two unidentified Bakersfield area hospitals, he compared Medicare reimbursement to cost ratios, length of stay, transfer to extended health-care facilities or home health care, cost of procedures, complications resulting from cardiac surgery, and failed angioplasties. Dr. Boulware indicated that these statistics suggested serious health care quality issues. He indicated that the use of certain FDA-approved techniques and drugs had been delayed or prohibited because of cost. Dr. Boulware also stated that facilities for families of cardiac patients in both hospitals were either poorly planned or inadequate, and that newly admitted cardiac patients had to remain in the Emergency Room because of a lack of proper bed space and available equipment. He concluded by asking whether quality care should be superseded by monetary issues. Mr. James Richards, retired police officer, expressed support for the proposed Bakersfield Heart Hospital. Diagnosed with severe arterial blockage on May 16th, surgery had been recommended within 48 to 72 hours. Because of lack of facilities, his surgery could not be scheduled until May 21st, and on May 20th was postponed. His request to be admitted to another hospital was initially denied, and it was only after his own repeated entreaties to his insurance company that the surgery took place as scheduled on May 21st. Based on his own case as well as comments from his own surgeon regarding the number of delayed surgeries, he feels there is a distinct lack of critical beds in existing hospitals. Ms. Ellen Waxenberg, registered nurse, presented data on Medicare, systems affiliations and projected census. She suggested that statistics present in this data indicated that other hospital services were not supported by revenue- generated by cardiac care. She also presented statistics supporting the desirability of affiliation of hospitals with larger health care organizations. Dr. Hans Einstein, Medical Director at Memorial Hospital, stated that the difficulty in cardiac care is not lack of beds but personnel. He expressed concern that another hospital would further dilute the pool of available qualified staff. He also stated that there are currently approximately 800 cardiac surgeries performed in Bakersfield hospitals per year, and a new heart hospital will not increase that number since there are good heart programs currently operating in the valley, in Visalia, Fresno, Lancaster, Newhall. Dr. Bruce Frazier, cardiovascular surgeon, quoted statistics reflecting the history of cardiac services in the community. He pointed out that when Memorial Minutes, PC, 6/19/97 Page 5 HosPital initiated its heart program, San Joaquin Hospital was the only facility in Bakersfield that offered cardiac surgical and care facilities. The consensus at the time was that since there would not be enough cardiac patients to justify dual availability, one of the two heart programs would fail; however, this did not occur. Dr. Frazier felt that a third facility could not only be easily accommodated in the community but that it would be required. Dr. Brijesh Bhambi, cardiologist, expressed support for the project, stating that Bakersfield Heart Hospital was a needed advanced facility for cardiac care, a novel concept designed around the needs of the seriously ill cardiac patient. He referred to certain design concepts specific to the accommodation of such cases. He alSo felt that suggesting the motive of the developers was based on economic greed was an attempt to sabotage good.competition, and indicated that even if the project was successful, it would still take several years for the participating physicians to break even when considering the time, personal effort, and funds they have invested. Dr. Bhambi also felt that such a facility would_ draw patients from the surrounding areas, such as Visalia and Ridgecrest. Dr. Ravindranath A. Reddy, cardiologist, practicing in Porterville and affiliated with a Bakersfield hospital, expressed the difficulties he has encountered in obtaining beds on a timely basis for critically ill patients, and that frequent delays of as long as a week necessitated the postponement of surgical procedures. He expressed support for the project, indicating the need for such a facility that would have the latest technology available. Dr. Reddy also indicated that current advancements in cardiac care have not always been available in existing heart programs in Bakersfield, and suggested that cost factors have prevented these improvements from being implemented. He also pointed out that many patients choose outside cardiac facilities such as Scripps and Santa Barbara because of the advanced techniques practiced in these institutions. Mr. Rick Post, Chief Financial Officer of Medcath, reviewed Metcath's financial position, which indicated a steady growth of revenue and profitability. He attributed the success of the company to a combination of having ideas that make good sense and a conservative capital base. Mr. Post stated that the company has the resources and would like the opportunity to bring high quality, state of the art cardiac care at a Iow cost to the community. Ms. Christine Cray, cardiac patient, told of her experience with Memorial Hospital a year ago, that the ambulance taking her to Memorial Hospital was turned back en route because Memorial was "saturated." She was subsequently taken to San Joaquin Hospital at about five o'clock in the afternoon and remained on a gurney in the hall until five o'clock the next morning. Ms. Craig expressed her unquestioned support for the proposed new heart hospital. Minutes, PC, 6/19/97 Page 6 Mr. Arnie Reese, Senior Vice-President for Smith Barney, gave an independent · 'financial analysis of Medcath based on opinions of eight other Wall Street investment firms. This analysis supported Medcath's claim of financial strength and steady growth. Mr. Bill Moore of Medcath summarized his firm's position, touching on issues of quality of health care, availability of facilities, and economic benefits to the community. Commissioner Boyle stated that though concerned with the quality of health care, his approval or disapproval of the project as a Planning Commissioner should not be based on that issue. He also indicated that his vote should not be determined by economics except if the economics of a project resulted in blight to the community. He also suggested that those who had additional information or comments should submit them in writing prior to five o'clock June 20th. Commissioner Dhanens asked Staff if this item were continued to July 17th whether the consultant would have sufficient time to review comments made in this hearing as well as written input and respond to them adequately for Commission review prior to the July 17th hearing. Staff replied that the consultant would have sufficient time to do so. Mr. Dhanens referred to certain CEQA issues raised in the last hearing, and enquired of Ms. Marino if testimony made in this hearing indicated further study. Ms. Marino declined to answer without review of the record. Mr. Dhanens requested that such review be made. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, to continue this item to the regular meetings of July 14, and July 17, 1997. Motion carried. 2a) GPA, ZONE CHANGE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT P97-0056 - MARINn ASSOCIATES Staff report recommending denial was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Mr. John Botten expressed opposition to the project, stating that similar proposals for the property had been denied twice before. He also expressed cOncern with potential overbuilding of mini-storage facilities in the community. Minutes, PC, 6/19/97 Page Mr. Tom Reese, owner of a self-storage facility, opposed the project. He referred to a video that was shown in a previous meeting and pointed out certain errors, including materials used in construction. He indicated that the proposed facility uses wood as opposed to steel and concrete, .which are preferred by the industry. Mr. Reese also stated that the proposed self-storage facility would elevate available space to more than 6 square feet per resident within the area, while the national average is just over 2.5 square feet, and that this increase would flood the market. Ms. Pauline Fallow expressed her support of the free enterprise system, that everyone should be allowed to have their own business if they choose. However, she felt that approval of the proposed project would be neither right nor fair since two other applicants who wished to build the same type of facility had been denied. · -Ms. Lillian Willey opposed the project because she felt an additional mini-storage facility would further contribute to overbuilding in this area, and agreed that approval would be unfair to the two previous applicants whose proposals had been denied. Ms: Gloria Fulcher opposed the project because of potential blight due to saturation. Ms. Mary Ann Buechler opposed the project, citing a number of instances where residents of the neighborhood in question had publicly stated that they did not wish warehouses built on that stretch of Columbus Avenue because they are not compatible with single-family residences and the feeling that they belong in an industrial-zoned location. Mr. John Thompson expressed opposition based on the zone change, citing past efforts by himself and others to do so, that all had been advised that the zone could not be changed, nor would it ever be changed. He also stated that improper landfill methods and materials used over the past several years would have to be corrected, no matter what eventually was built on it. Mr. Thompson's attorney in this matter, Mr. Joe Hughes, added that the proposed project is inconsistent with the City's General Plan, and submitted a letter to the Commission. Mr. Hughes also stated that the project was inconsistent with policies, objectives and goals of the Housing Element, and requested that the Commission consider such inconsistencies carefully. Mr. Dennis Elbez suggested that a mini-storage at this particular location would encourage crime, and suggested that other use of the property could be found more Compatible with the surrounding area. Minutes, PC, 6/19/97 Page 8 Mr. Floyd Heinsley represented the ownership of a church site contiguous to the property in question. Mr. Heinz supported the project, and stated that what has been an eyesore can be converted to something useful and attractive. He suggested that the surrounding area would benefit from the improvements that would be made, including curb and gutter, paving of a frontage section of Columbus, landscaping, and street lights. He stated that the project would 'reduce crime, not encourage it, and that the traffic impact of a mini-storage is only ten percent of what a residential use would generate. Mr. Steve Fenton, a long-time resident of the area, supported the project, stating that because of its proximity to the freeway, the property would not be attractive as a residential site.- Mr. Fenton said that what is presently a blight to the area can be vastly improved by converting it to something useful and pleasing to the eye as well, and pointing out that the developer has goneto considerable lengths to include greenery and trees to make it as attractive as possible. Mr. J.R. Selise, property owner, stated support for the project, pointing out that crime would more likely rise if the property is developed as a residential area, especially a high-density apartment complex, citing the J.L.J Apartments nearby as an example. He also pointed out the improvements that would enhance the neighborhood, especially curb and gutter and street light installation. Mr. Robert Trommel expressed support for the project, stating that the design is very beautiful and would greatly benefit the area. Mr. Craig Stickler stated that though opposed to the project initially, he now supports it. A long-time resident of the area, he stated that the project would improve the neighborhood with green grass and trees and waterfalls instead of a dirt lot filled with trash and concrete and other refuse. Mr. Stickler also agreed that a mini-storage would generate far less noise and traffic than any residential use of the property. · - Mr. Jim McKay also indicated he had initial reservations about the project, but now supports it. He agreed that a mini-storage facility would not only generate less crime, noise, and traffic, but would actually increase the value of the surrounding properties. Mr. Mike George, a resident of the area, pointed out that the existing property does not contribute to the increase in value of the surrounding neighborhood, and expressed his support of the project. Mr. Daryl Ridenour, owner and developer of the project, gave a presentation of the scope of the proposed project. His topics included research, design and construction, security, and neighborhood impact. He also stated that demand for Minutes, PC, 6/19/97 Page 9 such facilities has increased dramatically over the past ten years. Mr. Bob Vanderway, marketing manager for the developer, described the research undertaken for this project and its findings, which support their conclusions for a need of this type of facility. He pointed out that their firm has built similar units next to existing mini-storage facilities in other parts of the city. He also stated that those who use self-storage prefer to have them nearby rather than have to drive long distances to access the units they have rented. He also discussed lower impact of crime, utility requirements, noise and traffic; curb and gutter improvement, lighting, and landscaping; design in compatibility with the preferences of the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Brian Haupt of ASU and Associates spoke on the status of the escrow of the project, indicating that the developer is committed to purchasing the property regardless of whether or not the mini-storage project is approved, and has instructed him to proceed with closing. Mr. Haupt discussed suggested alternative residential development of the property andwhy this would be a less desirable use of the site than the proposed project. Mr. Jim Marino represented the current owners of the property. He compared the current proposed site to a similar facility built on Calloway which backed up to a residential neighborhood, stating that the facility had been approved by the Planning Commission. He described and analyzed the existing zoning and land use of the surrounding area. Mr. Roger Mclntosh of Martin-Mclntosh Engineering gave a slide presentation of the project. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Boyle stated his approval of the project. He stated that though the property is zoned R-I, he could not see any reasonable possibility that residential development would take place there because of proximity to the freeway and soil conditions. He stated that though the Commission has denied commercial development on that site twice before, certain changes have occurred, one of which is that approximately 82% of the canvassed residents either approve of the project or do not actively oppose it. Commissioner Kemper agreed with Mr. Boyle, stating that the proposed project would be a definite improvement to the area, and indicated she was in favor of approving the project. Minutes, PC, 6/19/97 Page 10 Commissioner Tavorn asked for clarification on the basis of traffic analysis, Whether the developer's numbers reflected number of units Or acreage. Mr, Vanderway replied that their analysis was based on the number of units on the acreage. Mr. Tavorn asked how many residents lived within a three-mile radius of the project; Staff replied that approximately 340,000 people live within the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area and 'this area would probably comprise approximately one-third of this population. Mr. Tavorn asked for clarification on use of mini-storage, noting that the Bakersfield area requirements appeared to be twice the national average. Mr. Vanderway replied that their marketing included television, radio and other media to educate the public on the use of mini-storage which resulted in an increase not only for their own market but that of their competitors. Mr. Tavorn expressed concern about how public perception will be affected if the project is approved since a previous applicant had been denied. Commissioner Ortiz, though expressing discontent with the proposed project, did agree that the existing property is a detriment to the community and needs to be improved. He indicated he would approve the project reluctantly because it appeared to be the best alternative available. Commissioner Tkac stated that he was in favor of the project, that the proposed project would generate less impact in crime, City services, traffic and property values than other alternatives. Commissioner Teeter agreed that the mini-storage facility wOuld be the best use for the property and expressed approval for the project. Commissioner Boyle commented that should an R-2 application come before the Commission, he would be hard-pressed to deny it since the present zoning would allow R-2 as effectively as R-I. He agreed that an R-1 use would not be practically forthcoming, and that between an R-2 use and commercial, the proposed project would be the.better use of the site. A motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, to adopt a resolution approving the proposed General Plan amendment with the exception that Item Number 5 on the mitigation measures on Exhibit H would be changed to read that -the sign shall not be greater than ten feet in height, nor greater than 64 square feet, and no thicker than two feet. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Kemper, Ortiz, Tavorn, Teeter, Tkac, Brady NOES: None Minutes, PC, 6/19/97 Page 11 3) A motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, to adopt a resolution approving the zone change with the same exception as on the General Plan amendment regarding the size of the sign. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Kemper, Ortiz, Tavorn, Teeter, Tkac, Brady NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Dhanens A motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, to adopt a resolution approving the conditional use permit with the same exceptions as on the General Plan amendment regarding the size of the sign. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Kemper, Ortiz, TavOrn, Teeter, Tkac, Brady NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Dhanens GPA CASE NO. P97-0067 - NOISE ELEMENT AMENDMENT - THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Staff report recommending approval was given. The public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Kemper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt the resolution approving General Plan Amendment P97-0067 amending the Noise Element, Chapter VII, of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan as proposed based on the findings presented in said resolution and attached Exhibit C, and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried. COMMUNICATIONS There were no written or verbal communications. Minutes, PC, 6/19/97 Page 12 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Boyle reported that they were still meeting on the Subdivision Committee, and that a written report would be given next month. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF PRE-MEETING. Chairman Brady stated that the Commission would have a pre-meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the-Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary STA , Secretary Planning Director Dennis C. Fidler Building Director (805) 326-3720 Fax (805)325-0266 BAKERSFIELD Development Services Department Jack Hardisty, Director Stanley C. Grady Planning Director (805) 326-3733 Fax (805-) 327-0646 _ NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD NoTIcE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regularly scheduled meetings of the Planning Commission :of the City of Bakersfield scheduled for Monday, June 30, and Thursday, July 3, 1997 have been Cancelled. DATED:June20, 1997 Planning Director City of Bakersfield · 1 715 Chester Avenue · Bakersfield, California ' 93301