HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/07/99AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Council Chamber, City Hall
Thursday, October 7, 1999
5:30 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL
JEFFREY TKAC, Chairman
MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice-Chairman
STEPHEN BOYLE
MA THEW BRADY
MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER
TOM MCGINNIS
RON SPRAGUE
NOTE: Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
final agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department 72 hours prior to the meeting.
A
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, c/o 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. Ail
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are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision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.
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withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final.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, Thursday - October 7, 1999
Page 2
3.1)
3.2)
3.3)
3.4)
3.5)
3.6)
3.7)
3.8)
3.9)
3.1o)
3.11)
3.12)
3.13)
3.14)
(Ward 4)
(Ward 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.
Agenda
Agenda
Agenda
Agenda
Agenda
Agenda
Agenda
Agenda
Agenda
Agenda
Agenda
Agenda
Agenda
Agenda
way
Item 5 - Master Wall & Landscape Plan #P99-0649 (Coleman Homes)
Item 6 - Public Scoping Meeting EIR ~ North of the River Sanitary District
Item 7.1 - EOT for Tentative Tract 5515 (Porter-Robertson)
Item 7.2 - EOT for Tentative Tract 5646 (Telstar Engineering)
Item 7.3 - EOT for Tentative Tract 5001 (Telstar Engineering)
Item 9 - Final Development Plan (GPA/ZC P98-0991) (Church of Christ)
Item 10 - Zone Change #P99-0515 (Bynum & Associates)
Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
11.1 - Tract 5876 Phase D - Vesting Rights (Castle & Cooke)
11.2 - Tract 5876 Phase E - Vesting Rights (Castle & Cooke)
11.3 - Tract 5876 Phase F - Vesting Rights (Castle & Cooke)
11.4 - Tract 5876 Phase G - Vesting Rights (Castle & Cooke)
12.1; General Plan Consistency Finding - Acquisition of 13.28 acres
12.2 - General Plan Consistency Finding - Acquisition of a 9,912 sq.ft. Lot
12.3 - General Plan Consistency Finding - Vacation of public street right-of-
PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE
4.1)
4.2)
General Plan Amendment P99-0435 - Jeffries Brothers requesting to amend
the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan from
OC (Office Commercial to GC (General Commercial), located at the southeast
corner of Camino Media and Haggin Oaks Boulevard. (Negative Declaration on
file) (Continue from September 17, 1999)
Recommendation: Deny
Roll Call vote.
Zone Change No. P99-0435 - Jeffries Brothers requesting to amend the
zoning from C-O (Professional and Administrative Office) to P.C.D. (Planned
Commercial Development) on. 1.17 acres, located at the southeast corner of
Camino Media and Haggin Oaks Boulevard. (Negative Declaration on file)
(Continue from September 17, 1999)
Recommendation: Deny
Roll Call vote.
Agenda, PC, Thursday - October 7, 1999 Page 3
(Ward 4) 5.
(Ward 4) 6.
MASTER WALL AND LANDSCAPE CONCEPT pLAN #P99-0649 (COLEMAN
HOMES)
Wall and landscape concept plan for the "River Oaks" residential development located
between Stockdale highway, the Kern River, Buena Vista Road., Kern River Canal, Ming
Avenue and South Allen Road. (Exempt from CEQA)
Recommendation: Approve
Group vote.
· PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - North of the
River Sanitary District site Environmental Impact Report (EIR) scoping meeting. The
North of River Sanitary District site project consists of a General Plan Amendment and
Zone Change on 304.3 acres generally located in the northwest portion of the City of
Bakersfield within Kern County, California_. (Continued from September 2, '1999)
RECOMMENDATION:
Continue to November 4, 1999
=
(Ward 3)
(Ward 3)
PUBLIC HEARINGS - EXTENSIONS OF TIME
7.1)
.Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 5515 (Porter-Robertson)
Extension of time for Tentative Tract 5515 (Optional Design) consisting of 57
single family residential lots on 21.31 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling),
located in the Rio Bravo golf course, south of Highway 178 and east of
Miramonte Drive. (Negative Declaration on file)
Recommendation: Approve
Group vote
7.2)
Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 5646 (Telstar Engineering)
Extension of time for Tentative Tract 5646 (Optional Design) for multiple family
residential purposes, consisting of 45 residential lots on 15.54 acres, zoned R-2
(Limited Multiple Family Dwelling), located on the southeast corner of Fairfax
Road and Valleyview Drive. (Negative Declaration on file)
Recommendation: Approve
Group vote
Agenda, PC, Thursday - October 7, 1999 Page 4
7.3)
Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 5001 (Telstar Engineering)
Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 5001 consisting of 136 single family
residential lots on 40 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling), located north of
Hosking Road approximately 1/4 mile east of South "H" Street. (Negative
Declaration of file)
Recommendation: Approve
Group vote
PUBLIC HEARINGS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS AND ASSOCIATED ZONE
(Ward 7)
(Ward 6)
(Ward 4)
CHANGES.
8.1)
Tentative Tract 5941 (Cemland Development)
Tentative Tract 5941 to create 242 lots on 56.05 acres for single family
residential purposes and request for modification of lot depth requirements for
cul-de-sac lots. The subdivision includes one 2.13 acre drill site for possible
mineral extraction and request for waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to
BMC 16.20.060.B.3. Located north of Berkshire Road approximately 1/2 mile
east of South "H" Street. (Negative Declaration on file)
Recommendation: Approve
Group vote
8.2)
Vesting Tentative Tract 5958 (Porter-Robertson)
Vesting Tentative Tract 5958 containing 185 lots on 40 acres for single family
residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); a request for
modification for reduced lot depth on some lots and waiver of mineral rights
signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B. 1, located on the south side of Hosking
Avenue, and the east side of Stine Road. (Negative Declaration on file)
(Continued from September 2, 1999)
Recommendation: Approve
Group vote
8.3.a)
Vesting Tentative Tract 5940 (Martin-Mclntosh)
Vesting Tentative Tract 5940 containing 253 lots on 47.93 acres for single family
residential purposes zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and R-2 (Limited Multiple
Family Dwelling); also a request for deviation from lot size standards, building
setbacks, street design standards, re-location of the Buena Vista Canal and
waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.1, generally
located on the southwest corner of Old River Road and Campus Park Drive.
(Negative Declaration on file)
Agenda, PC, Thursday - October 7, 1999 Page 5
(Ward 4)
8.3.b)
Recommendation: Approve
Group vote
Zone Change P99-0586 (Martin Mclntosh)
Zone Change P99-0586 consisting of a change in the land use zoning from
R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) zones to a
P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) zone on 47.93 acres for a single family
residential development for seniors including a club house and private park,
generally located on the southwest corner of Old River Road and Campus Park
Drive. (Negative Declaration on file)
Recommendation: Approve
Roll Call vote.
(Ward 4 )
(Ward 4)
(Ward 3)9.
8.4.a)
8.4.b)
Vesting Tentative Tract 5959 (Martin-Mclntosh)
Vesting Tentative Tract 5959 containing 90 lots on 19.46 acres for single family
residential purposes zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); also a request for
deviation from lot size standards, building setbacks, street design standards, and
waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.1, generally
located on the east side of Mountain Vista Drive and the south side of Campus
Park Drive. (Negative Declaration on file)
Recommendation: Approve
Group vote
Zone Change P99-0587 (Martin-Mclntosh)
Zone Change P99-0587 consisting of a change in the land use zoning from an
R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone to a P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) zone
on 19.46 acres for a single family residential development including a private
park and recreational vehicle storage, generally located on the east side of
Mountain Vista Drive and the south side of Campus Park Drive. (Negative
Declaration on file)
Recommendation: Approve
Roll Call vote.
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (GPA/ZC P98-0991) (Church of Christ of East
Bakersfield) - Review of the final development plan for a PUD (Planned Unit
Development) zone for a 5.02 acre senior citizen housing project located generally along
the north side of Bernard Street, approximately 1,000 feet west of Oswell Street.
(Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from meeting of July I and 15, 1999)
· Agenda, PC, Thursday - October 7, 1999 Page 6
(Ward 4)10.
11.
(Ward 4)
(Ward 4)
(Ward 4)
(Ward 4)
12.
(Ward 5)
Recommendation: Continue to the October 21, 1999 meeting
Group Vote.
pUBLIC HEARING -ZONE CHANGE P99-0515 (Bynum & Associates)
Zone Change P99-0515 requesting a change in the zone from a P.C.D. (Planned
Commercial Development) consisting of 74,000 building square footage to a P,C.D.
(Planned Commercial Development) zone consisting of 127,500 building square footage
on 21.71 acres for development of a phased commercial shopping center, on the
northwest corner of Coffee Road and Granite Falls Avenue. (Negative Declaration on
file)
Recommendation: Approve
Roll Caffl vote.
EXTENSIONS OF TIME - VESTING RIGHTS
11.1
11.2
11.3
Tract 5876 Phase D (Castle & Cooke)
Located North of Ming Avenue, west of Old River Road. (Exempt form CEQA)
Recommendation: Approve
Tract 5876 Phase E (Castle & Cooke)
Located North of Ming Avenue, west of Old River Road. (Exempt form CEQA)
Recommendation: Approve
Tract 5876 Phase F (Castle & Cooke)
Located North of Ming Avenue, west of Old River Road. (Exempt form CEQA)
Recommendation: Approve
11.4 Tract 5876 Phase G (Castle & Cooke)
Located North of Ming Avenue, west of Old River Road. (Exempt form CEQA)
Recommendation: Approve
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS (GC. 65402)
12.1)
Acquisition of 13.28 acres for permanent open space within the Kern River
Element boundaries. Subject site is located easterly of Sillect Avenue at the
easterly termination of Riverside Drive between the Cross Valley Canal and the
Kern River. (Categorically exempt)
Agenda, PC, Thursday - October 7, 1999 Page 7
(Ward 4)
(Ward 4)
13.
14.
15.
Recommendation: Make Finding
Group vote.
12.2)
Acquisition of a 9,912 sq.ft. Lot for a "water well site" located along the east side
of Jewetta Avenue south of Vermillion Drive. (Categorically exempt)
Recommendation: Make Finding
Group vote.
12.3) Vacation of public street right-of-way for Ramsgate Way, Eagle Crest Drive and
Princeville Court in Tract No. 5291 for conversion to gated community.
(Categorically exempt)
Recommendation: Make Finding
Group vote.
COMMUNICATIONS
A) Written
B) Verbal
COMMISSION COMMENTS
A) Committees
DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE
16.
October 4, 1999
NEXT PRE-MEETING.
ADJOURNMENT
Planning Director
Held
Thursday
October 7, 1999
5:30 p.m.
City Council Chamber, City Hall
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
Present:
JEFFREY TKAC, Chairperson
MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice Chairperson
STEPHEN BOYLE
MATHEW BRADY
MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER
TOM MCGINNIS
Absent:
RON SPRAGUE
Commissioner McGinnis noted that he was absent for the Monday pre-meeting but has
reviewed the tape recordings of that meeting and is prepared to participate in tonight's
meeting.
ADVISORY MEMBERS:
Present:
CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney
DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director
MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV
STAFF:
Present:
STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director
MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner
JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner
PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC STATEMENTS
None.
Chairman Tkac read the Notice of the Right to Appeal.
· Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 7, 1999 Page 2
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
3.1)
3.2)
3.3)
3.4)
3.5)
3.6)
3.7)
3.8)
3.9)
3.10)
3.11)
3.12)
3.t3)
3.14)
Agenda Item 5 - Master Wall and Landscape Concept Plan #P99-0649
(Coleman Homes).
Agenda Item 6 - Public Scoping Meeting - Environmental Impact Report.
Agenda Item 10 - Public Hearing - zone Change P99-0515 (Bynum & Associates).
Agenda Item
Agenda Item
Agenda Item
Agenda Item
Christ)
Agenda Item
Agenda Item
Agenda Item
Agenda Item
Agenda Item
acres
Agenda Item
lot.
Agenda Item
right-of-way.
7.1 - EOT for Tentative Tract 5515 (Porter-Robertson)
7.2 - EOT for Tentative Tract 5646 (Telstar Engineering)
7.3 - EOT for Tentative Tract 5001 (Telstar Engineering)
9 - Final Development Plan (GPA/ZC P98-099t) (Church of
11.1 - Tract 5876 Phase D - Vesting Rights (Castle & Cooke)
11.2 - Tract 5876 Phase E - Vesting Rights (Castle & Cooke)
11.3 -Tract 5876 Phase F -Vesting Rights (Castle & Cooke)
11.4 - Tract 5876 Phase G - Vesting Rights (Castle & Cooke)
12.1 -General Plan Consistency Finding -Acquisition of 13.28
12.2 - General Plan Consistency Finding - Acquisition of a 9,912 sq.ft.
12.3 - General Plan Consistency Finding - Vacation of public street
Commissioners Boyle made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to approve
the Consent Agenda Items. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING-GENERALPLANAMENDMENTANDZONECHANGE
Commissioner Dhanens declared a conflict Of interest.
Commissioner Boyle declared a conflict of interest.
4.1)
General Plan Amendment and zone Change P99-0435 - Jeffries Brothers
(Continued from September 17, 1999)
Staff report recommending the Commission deny the Project was given.
Public portion of the meeting is opened for opposition.
Fred Porter with Porter Roberts Engineering representing the applicant stated
that they have worked hard to work with everybody. In response to a
Commissioner inquiry at the pre-meeting, the distance from the site to the college
entrance is about 700 feet.
Don Jeffries, owner of Jeffries Brothers gave history of his company, the quality
and uniqueness of the Brookside convenience store, and hiring of outgoing
positive employees.
Paul Pavelitch with Dewars Candy Shop stated that they have had an
association with Jeffries Brothers for the last few years, and stated that he thinks
the site will be a benefit to Cai State and involves a lot of local businesses and
will be a great addition to the surrounding community, and a great addition to Cai
State Bakersfield.
Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 7, 1999 Page 3
Mike George, owner of Pyrenees French Bakery, stated the local community is
supportive of businesses and educational facilities. Supports Jeffries Brothers in
putting this facility in this part of town. He thinks it would be a very good addition
to the community.
Kenneth Hersh, stated that the applicant should be praised for its attempts to
inform the community and keep the community abreast of what was happening
with the project and any changes and he supports them. Being a PCD, the
community will have input. University representative Neil objected to the lack of
a formal presentation to the university and to the project completely. Castle &
Cooke has the ability to build a gas station in the northeast corner of the Market
Place and the University never objected.
Pamela Peckridge a member of the Southwest Community Action Committee
and serving as the secretary, stated their group supports the project as proposed
for the corner of Camino Media and Haggin Oaks Blvd. The Committee met with
Jeffries Brothers early in the year to review the project and were impressed with
the cooperative attitude and willingness to work to meet the standards of the
community and its residents. A mailing was sent to the entire committee and
they received no objections to the project. They received some who agreed that
they need a gas station. Their Committee recommends approval.
Larry Morgan, a resident near the project, stated he supports the project.
Bart Wallace with Wallace & Smith Contractors stated he supports the project.
John Coors, with Skarphol Associates, the architects for the project, explained
design features of the project.
Mike Ming, a resident of Stockdale Estates, stated he supports the project.
Julie Sanders a resident near the Brookside Market and employed near the site
on Camino Media stated she, and her colleagues, support the project.
Bunny Board stated her positive experience with Jeffries Brothers, and her belief
it would be a positive facility.
Erica Diaz a Cai State student stated Brookside has been very supportive in
fundraising. She has not heard any negative comments with respect to the
facility.
Paul Mert, General Manager for Jeffries Brothers handed out some positive
letters.
John Ritchie, an employee of Jeffries Brothers, stated they have worked
cooperatively with the community.
- Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 7, 1999 Page 4
Bruce Baretta representing the landowners of the site and the contiguous
property to the southeast and immediately to the east of the site stated that the
facility will add value to his properties. This is the only project he has seen that
as an adjacent landowner he would support.
Tom Schroeter, attorney for property Baretta owns, made reference to the letter
submitted, and that the resolution does not mention the word veto and does not
give any power'to Cai State. It is simply a resolution from the City, not Cai State.
The letter from Mr. Neil only has one sentence that talks about the resolution and
only refers to the resolution being nothing more than a promise to review the
Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan with college officials. The CC&R's
provide for a service station. The CC&R's which were recorded prior to 1968 are
restrictive covenants that did not run with the land, and did not go beyond the two
original owners that entered into them. Mr. Neirs letter works against the staff
recommendation which relies on the resolution by basically saying the resolution
is nothing more than a promise to review the Metropolitan General Plan. Mr.
Neil's main point of reliance on the CC&R's was handled by Mr. Grady in the
memorandum where it was stated with CC&R's we don't consider them within the
public purview. You cannot defer to private CC&R's in your planning process
that you're not a party to. The two sides working to oppose this project actually
cancel each other out. There is no justification for being against the project in
Mr. Nell's letter, only the fact of the zone change, and not that it would be bad for
Cai State, or create too much traffic, etc. There is no substantial evidence to
deny the project. A denial would be an arbitrary, capricious act.
No further opposition was made.
Public portion opened for those in favor of staff's recommendation for a denial.
Mike Neil, a representative of Cai State and resident in the community, stated
over 30 years ago the community was selected for the site of the college which
had to meet strict requirements. He stated Cai State has been a magnet for
upscale development and is a neighboring property owner. Cai State objects to
the change in land use from a commercial professional office space to retail. A
gas station will require transportation, delivery and distribution of hazardous
materials to the borders of the university which increases the likelihood of
explosions or hazardous spills or contamination to the university community or its
students, and is unnecessary. The proposed project would be located on a
secondary street rather than a primary artery which is inconsistent with the
planning in the other areas of the city. A gas station would result in increased
traffic flow and congestion for the area and the impact and safety of faculty, staff
commuting to the campus. Once you change one piece of property to a retail
location, that means that all the properties in that location will also want to be
changed. The university has been planning for 30 years with the City staff and
the landowner. Reads definitions of harmony.
Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 7, 1999 Page 5
Frank Gitsey, a principal of BFGC Architects who is the master plan architect for
Cai State University, stated they object to the issues related to the Master Plan
objective. Over 30 years ago the intent was to preserve the surrounding area for
residential or professional offices.. Changing the zoning would be a gross
violation of the Master Plan and is very, very detrimental.
Bill Paynter, a local architect, stated 30 years ago they did the initial buildings
and master planning at Cai State. The Cai State area was selected because
there was surrounding land under ownership control that the university could be
assured the sphere of influence could protect them over the years. They have
kept fighting for that protection. He believes the long-standing planning for the
area should be consistent with the intent 30 years ago.
Tomas Arciniega, President of Cai State University Bakersfield, stated the
university has worked very harmoniously to use the intended work that is
reflected in the original agreement with the City. There has never been any
question about the importance of maintaining the relationship for the benefit of
the City and recognizing the importance of the university to the development of
the entire region. In reference to the agreement, it is important to understand
that this agreement has been recognized in the California State University
system, and outside of our system as a true model agreement, not only in its
wording but in respects to a vision.
Dr. Arciniega stated that in relation to the specifics of this particular area, the
university is against a gas station being built. They do not believe it is to the
benefit or well being of the university and particularly the student body and
students involved. They received a letter of commitment from Castle & Cooke
that there would be no gas station built across the street, or in any of that area.
Dr. Arciniega further commented that the university specifically objects to the
project for safety reasons. It is a hazard to have major tankers coming through in
that area, and is not in the best interest of the students, its activities and the
university as a whole. The increased traffic congestion is not acceptable. It will
completely destroy the intent and purpose of the bike path. It is not on a straight
artery, and in a straight Planning Commission sense that should be of concern.
Doug Keline, President of Safe One Credit Union in Bakersfield, stated they have
purchased property due east, and they have concerns about a late night, high
traffic operation at this location, which will reduce the likelihood that a
professional office would locate on the adjacent property due east of the project.
They oppose the project and would suggest that at the very least a wall should
be built on the eastern boundary. They believe if this is approved it would give
way to more retail projects.
Mr. Fallgatter rebutted that given the Market Place's current traffic it is hard to
believe that a legitimate concern for Safe One would be with traffic. The facility
will close at 11:00 p.m., and Cai State has classes that let out as late as 10:00
p.m. and so Cai State generates traffic. There is also traffic from the theatre at
the Market Place and operates late into the evening. One of Bakersfield's better
known dinner houses and bar is planning to move out to the Market Place and
Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 7, 1999 Page 6
will be operating until 2:00 a.m., and there have been no objections to that. In a
letter presented to the commission they have agreed to build the block wall
requested by Safe One, but there is concern from the adjacent owner (Mr.
Baretta) about when he gets ready to sell the adjoining property, the new owner
may not want a block wall.
Mr. Fallgatter commented that the CC&R's, even though they don't directly
impact the Commission's decision, do not prohibit a gas station. There are a
variety of uses set forth in the CC&R's that are prohibited, and gas stations are
not one of them. The commitment as embodied in the most extensive document
ever recorded to that date in Kern County, did not prohibit a gas station. The site
at issue was originally zoned 1:{-2 in the 1970 Plan, and was not zoned CO.
Under the 1970 plan that site of Mercy Hospital Southwest was zoned residential
R-2 and that has been changed. Under that same plan the property south of
that, State Farm, was zoned R-2. South of that was zoned R-3, all the way to
Ming which is now commercial office building. The new commercial site of
Castle & Cooke along the River Walk which was zoned for open land, and Cai
State never disputed that it could only be open space and the plan could not be
changed. No planning can ever be perfect and always see into the future. The
area has changed. Major changes for the plan have been made if you compare
the 1970 plan with what there is today. Castle & Cooke had drafted a lease with
Stewart Petroleum, although not executed, for a gas station and so it is not true
that Castle & Cooke have committed that there would be no gas station. There
were no comments when the property was zoned to allow a gas station. There
were no comments about hazardous substances that will come as a result of the
gasoline trucks. The university actually has a gas station on the campus to
service their own vehicles so the hazardous materials are already delivered to
the university campus.
Mr. Fallgatter stated that in reference to the statement that it is a secondary
artery, the theatres use the back road to get into the theatres, it's the'road to get
intOthe university, and there is a traffic study that says the City is satisfied that
the impacts will not be detrimental. There is no traffic concern, and there was no
traffic concern when the university had knowledge of Castle & Cooke's gas
station immediately across the street.
Mr. Fallgatter feels that it is a stretch to see how the facility will impact the athletic
facility. Where was the university when Castle & Cooke was going to have a gas
station?
Mr. Fallgatter stated that the commitment made has been made. The area has
changed. There is not a holy agreement written somewhere that can never be
modified. It has been tremendously modified, and modified in ways that make
this project insignificant compared to the changes that have been made.
Mr. Fallgatter stated his client received no objection to the project. The university
did express concern about the gas station, but there was no formal objection.
There was no objection from any architectural committee, and did not get invited
back for meetings, and were not asked to change the project in any way. Based
on the staff's input, the communities input his clients have gone forward and
Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 7, 1999 Page 7
spent over $20,000.00 to get this project as far as it is today. The commitment
the community made was to attempt to work harmoniously with the university. Mr.
Nell failed to point out that harmony requires two sides and requires reasoned
opposition which is not present in this case on the university's side. This project
should be approved and from the planning standpoint there is no valid objection.
Doug Keline stated that Mr. Fallgatter implies that there is some underlying
reason for Safe One to come in addition to Cai State. Safe One did not know
about Cai State's objection until this morning. Safe One is objecting and wrote a
letter to the City staff. Mr. Fallgatter did not address the likely migration of retail
to adjacent property and the northeast corner gas station to us is not a problem.
It is to Cai State. Safe One feels that when it crosses that street, is when they
have a migration problem, because the problem adjacent to them will be the
property where a new office building or owner would not want to relocate
because he is next to a gas station. We would not buy that property for our
administrative headquarters if there was a gas station located there. If there
was a gas station across the street I think it would be likely that we would. So it
changes for us, not for Cai State, but for us it changes the equation once it
moves across the street.
Mike Nell with the university rebutted that Mr. Fallgatter has forgotten about the
migration of the retail operations from outside the Market Place. A shopping
center is controlled where other migrating retailers with less stringent control
upon the nature of what they sell and what they do. The Mercy Hospital and
State Farm zone changes were made in cooperation with Cai State. The
university told Jeffries Brothers they needed to make a formal presentation and
that was not carried out by Jeffries Brothers. The university does not want any
additional retail operations on the borders of the campus outside the Market
Place, and there are serious objections to a gas station. The latest site map
they had for the Market Place showed professional office in the northwest corner.
He can provide documentation from Castle & Cooke that they will not build a gas
station without the permission of the university.
Public portion of the meeting is closed.
Five minute break taken at 7:30 p.m.
Meeting opened up for Commissioner comments and questions.
Commissioner Brady disclosed that since the Monday pre-meeting he has
received a telephone call from Mr. Neil who asked for a meeting, and he
declined. Mr. Hersh also called Commissioner Brady and he asked Mr. Hersh
to give his comments tonight. He also received a phone call from Mr. Boyle who
indicated that he had a conflict.
Commissioner Brady inquired with respect to the resolution and the issue of
control that the City of Bakersfield has the zoning power within the City of
Bakersfield to which the City affirmed. Commissioner Brady asked if the City has
zoning power can they give that up by resolution or any other way, to which the
City responded that the City cannot lawfully delegate away its police powers and
Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 7, 1999 Page 8
its ability to make land use decisions. Therefore, if the City cannot give away its
police powers/zOning power and the ability to control the zoning for lots within the
City of Bakersfield they cannot give anyone veto power, and the City must
maintain that by law to which the City affirmed. It is clear that the Planning
Commission can make the recommendation to the City Council to grant, or not
grant the zoning ordinance based on policies and it has the power not anyone
else. The resolution did not grant anyone else veto power regarding zoning, and
the Commission has the power to act. With respect to the CC&R's he has
reviewed them. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions were not executed
by anyone on behalf of the City of Bakersfield or the County of Kern, and
therefore not being a signatory to them, they are not bound by them. It would
be a private agreement between a landholder and the trustees of the California
State Colleges, or Universities. To the extent that there is, or is not, compliance
with the CC&R's that is not a City issue but rather is a property owner issue.
Commissioner Brady addressed the issues of the University. The University
already has a gas station for University vehicles to which the University
responded that it is very small. A small vehicle, not a regular size tanker,
delivers the fuel. The University did not know the frequency of the delivery of fuel.
Commissioner Brady inquired of Jim Shapazian, Fire Marshall, the likelihood of
explOsion and hazardous spills with respect to gasoline to the facility to which Mr.
Shapazian responded that without data, but with past experience, many safe
guards have been included in the codes for protection. The record for tankers
and gasoline tankers is excellent as far as accidents. The Bakersfield Fire
Department looks to make sure that there is an alternative route should there be
a spill or fire, and he does not see any major concerns with this specific location.
Commissioner Brady inquired if the University has any traffic studies that would
support the University's suggestion that this specific location is on a secondary
street rather than a primary street, to which the University responded that they
have not commissioned a study.
Commissioner Brady inquired of Steve Walker, Public Works Traffic Engineer, if
he had an opportunity to review the traffic study that was done for this project, to
which Mr. Walker responded in the affirmative and they found it to be
satisfactory.
Mr. Walker stated that the traffic on Camino Media between Gosford and Haggin
Oaks is approximately 8,300 cars a day. The capacity of the roadway is 30,000 a
day. This project will add to that segment of Camino Media between Gosford
and Haggin Oaks Blvd. an estimated 360 vehicles per day. Mr. Walker indicated
that a dental business office could generate more than the 8,300 cars a day, or
other business offices could generate even more traffic. Mr. Walker stated that
at the 2020 level it is estimated that with the project there would be
approximately 15,700 vehicles per day; the level service C capacity is 24,000;
the level service A capacity is around 16,000. It would stay right around level
service A, maybe high B in the future at 2020 which is within the acceptable
levels for the City of Bakersfield, which is C for new roadways, and D for existing
roadways.
Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 7, 1999 Page 9
Commissioner Brady asked the University to clarify their issue of safety for the
students and faculty, to which the University responded that it involves a main
intersection/entrance with a bike path, the activities and students that walk to the
Market Place. The University does not feel any margin of risk is necessary.
Applicant explained initial presentation to the University discussed. There was
no mention for them to come back and talk to the University. A letter was written
the 22nd of last month that requested they submit a plan and justification as to
why this project should go in. There was a meeting with the University on the
27th of July and they did express their desires and reasons why they wanted this
project, and the positive effect it was going to have on this community. The
residents of the community supported the project, and the University was very
emphatic that this project was not going to happen; it wasn't going to be a gas
station. He feels that if they were so emphatic what else was there to discuss?
Mr. Fallgatter stated they would be willing to discuss with the University their
concerns, and corrected the record to indicate that they did not receive any
written response from Cai State until September 3rd, which was just a request for
a continuance directed to staff. There was a second letter that requested a
submission; that letter is dated September 9th and was not received until
September 20th until they are way far into the cycle. They hope to set up a
meeting the with University in the next ten days and be good neighbors and go
forward.
Commissioner Brady inquired of the University if they would be able to sit down
and compromise with the applicant to which Mr. Nell responded that he could not
commit the University, and that the University made it clear five times during the
first meeting that it was not a formal meeting through their planning board, and
that they did send a letter requesting a meeting. Members of their planning
board are two members from Castle & Cooke, one is the President, and one is
himself. The University's letter told the applicants that they hoped to schedule a
meeting within ten working days.
Tomas Arciniega stated that the Commission needs to rule on the zoning change
and everything else is background.
Commissioner Brady likes the project and does not feel that the issues presented
by the University are supported by any evidence, and the more credible evidence
through the reports and testimony from fire and traffic tend to favor the fact that
this is not going to have an adverse impact on the community.
Commissioner Brady further stated that the staff's revised recommendation is not
appropriate and that the original recommendation is appropriate. The evidence
would support a recommendation to support the application, accept the zone
change and allow this PCD to go forward as planned.
Commissioner Kemper stated that she agrees with Commissioner Brady's
comments, and she is also in' favor of the project. Resolution 1066 was drawn
up before a site was even chosen and makes a couple of references to the three
possible sites. Essentially all it says is that the City agrees to provide fire, police,
Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 7, 1999 . Page 10
sewer, transportation and cooperation in the successful operation of the state
college. She does not see any veto power there. Regarding the CC&R's, they
didn't want these uses near the college: animal feed yards, slaughter houses,
steel mills, gravel pits, cotton gins, race tracks, junk yards, cemeteries,
crematories, prisons, cardrooms or gambling establishments, which don't apply.
In Principal section under intensive zones it talks about space should be
provided for public facilities that serve both the town and the college. More
intensive residential development should be provided in the nature of
townhouses and apartments as supplement to college housing. She states that
she doesn't see much affordable housing around there. Under the Village
Concept, one or two small village convenience type commercial facilities should
be provided in each village. Broad use facilities, general service, church sites
and gasoline stations should be provided on the edges of the villages in proximity
to major arterials at access roads to the villages. Sounds to her like maybe
somebody had an idea that you do need a gas station out there.
Commissioner Kemper disclosed that she did get a voice mail from Mr. Hersh
and they didn't talk until tonight. Mr. Neil provided a presentation at her office
today, and she did receive a fax from Mr. Ritchie which is the same information
that she received tonight. Mr. Neil said the last time the board met was
sometime in 1998, so she doesn't see how they can complain that the applicant
wasn't acting in good faith when they didn't even take the information provided
and have a board meeting with it.
Commissioner Kemper stated that the 5th Amendment protects the rights of the
property owner and the government can't do a taking without compensation. The
owner of this property is not Cai State, however Cai State wants to restrict the
rights of the property owner without compensation. If the government can't take
property rights there is no logic that assumes Cai State can restrict the property
rights of the subject property owners.
Commissioner Kemper further stated that the 2010 Plan did not adopt the
intensive zone of influence established by Cai State, and the City is not a party to
the CC&R's, and the City has no legal obligation to abide by, nor authority to
enforce matters arising under the CC&R's. She is in favor of building the
project.
Commissioner McGinnis disclosed that he did have the opportunity to speak to
Mr. Neil on the telephone today, and was unable to make contact with the
representative from Jeffries Brothers. He stated that Commissioner Brady
answered every question on his list and he is prepared to cast his vote at this
time.
Chairman Tkac disclosed that he had a meeting with Mr. Neil and did get some
phone calls from Mr. Mert and Mr. Ritchie and he did meet with Mr. Neil. He
stated that he is not in support of what Cai State is asking for. With regard to the
traffic issue, the streets are capable of handling 30,000 trips per day, if this
present project creates 380 more trips, it is less than 4% of what is there now,
which is 8,300. Four percent more is hardly significant. There is a gas site,
whether large or small, already on Cai State's campus, and he suggests that he
Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 7, 1999 Page 11
would have a large concern there, because if there is a problem his experience
has been to respond to more car fires than gas station fires.
Chairman Tkac stated that the input from the community is in support of the
project, and the college is for the community. He believes that Jeffries Brothers
will attempt to mitigate with Cai State.
Chairman Tkac reiterated that there have been some radical zone changes from
what it was zoned for originally, and Cai State has approved those, and said that
is okay. The stretches of those zone changes (Mercy Hospital, Castle & Cooke
Building, State Farm Building) is more of a stretch than the small stretch being
asked for tonight from Jeffries Brothers.
Chairman Tkac stated that he is going to vote in support of making a
recommendation to support the applicant.
Commissioner Brady inquired of staff if the Commission approved the project
would the proposed motion set forth in the September 16, 1999, memorandum
from Stanley Grady be appropriate to which staff replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Brady inquired about the building of the wall on the subject
property to which the response was that the wall would probably be built at the
time the project is completed.
Paul Mert, general manager for Jeffries Brothers stated that if they wanted a wall,
and that would make everybody happy, they will build a wall. Mr. Baretta owns
the property directly to the east and if Mr. Baretta gets a prospective buyer on the
adjacent property that wants a wall, then Jeffries Brothers would build a wall.
Staff responded that if a wall is to screen something that doesn't exist today and
it's to provide that screen for something that might exist in the future then you
could record some covenant on this property as part of the approval that they will
construct a wall if it is required in the future.
Commissioner Brady reiterated the concern that by building this project at this
location that the adjacent properly will be difficult to market or sell because of the
use of the gas station, and therefore the wall is to make it more appealing.
Commissioner Brady asked staff to write up a condition for the wall which states
the applicant is willing to construct a block wall 6' in height along the eastern
border of the property upon the written request of the adjacent property owner to
the east.
Mr. Fallgatter cautioned that they will need to be sure that they get appropriate
setbacks so they don't get right along the street for visibility.
Mr. Keline stated that regarding the wall they are willing to work with Jeffries
Brothers to come up with a solution that the City could then incorporate rather
than making it specific now with the Commission's recommendation.
Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 7, 1999 Page 12
Mr. Grady stated that the following language is suggested: "Applicant shall
record a covenant to construct a 6' wall according to City standards along'the
eastern border of the property which shall be constructed upon written request of
adjacent property owner."
Commissioner Brady moved, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to adopt the
Resolution approving and adopting a mitigated negative declaration and
approving the requested general plan use amendment with findings and
mitigation measures as set forth in said resolution, (see attached Exhibit E-l)
with the change as stated by Mr. Grady and recommends the same to City
Council. Motion carried.
AYES:
Commissioners Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Tkac
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Boyle, Dhanens, Sprague
Commissioner Brady moved, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to adopt the
resolution approving and adopting the mitigated negative declaration and
approving the zone change as requested with findings and conditions as set forth
in said Resolution (see attached Exhibit E-2), along with the change as read by
Mr. Grady and recommend same to City Council. Motion was carried by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Tkac
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Boyle, Dhanens, Sprague
=
MASTER WALL AND LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN #P99-0649 (COLEMAN
HOMES)
See Consent Agenda.
PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Continued until November 4, 1999.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - EXTENSIONS OF TIME
7.1 ) Extension of Time for Tentative Tract ,551,5 (Porter-Robertson)
See Consent Agenda.
Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 7, 1999 Page 13
7.2) Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 5646 (Telstar Engineering)
See Consent Agenda.
7.3) Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 5001 (Telstar Engineering)
See Consent Agenda
PUBLIC HEARINGS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS AND ASSOCIATED ZONE
CHANGES.
8.1) Tentative Tract 5941 (Cemland Development)
Staff report given. Nothing new from Monday's pm-meeting except that the
subdivider has asked for a clarification as to what staff would require for the
construction of Birkshire Road at the first phase, and the memo submitted
verifies the amount of paving that staff is going to require for that connection
down to Birkshire.
Public portion of the meeting opened for opposition to staffs recommendation.
Paul Andre, representing the Andre Family mineral interests, explained the
history and his concern about the relocation of what was a previously agreed
upon location for the drill site. He asked that the original drill site be maintained
in the location that it was and the map as needed be reconfigured around it,
and/or the developer to come to the table with them, and do away with the drill
site the City would rather not have in either case. They highly oppose the way
the map is laid out; because it restricts and/or eliminates the rights that they have
for future exploration and they request to go back to the original drill site as it was
agreed upon in the past.
Staff commented that the life of the drill line is 10 years from approval of this map
that the drill island is being designed on.
Public portion of the meeting opened for those in favor of staff's
recommendation.
Harold Robertson, with Porter Robertson Engineering & Surveying, commented
that with respect to the revised wording of condition number six as provided by
the Public Works Department and Marian Shaw earlier, his client has reviewed
the wording and has approved it and they have no objections to the conditions of
approval that have been provided by staff. He is not opposed to a continuance
for two weeks.
Public portion of the meeting is closed.
Commissioner Boyle stated that applicant's suggestion for a continuance is a
wise one.
Commissioner Dhanens concurred with Commissioner Boyle.
Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 7, 1999 Page 14
Commissioner Boyle moved, and seconded by Commissioner Dhanens, to
continue to October 21, 1999 and/or to the pro-meeting of October 18, 1999.
Motion carried.
8.2) Vesting Tentative Tract 5958 (Porter-Robertson)
Staff report given. No new information since Monday's pre-meeting.
Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition.
Harold Robertson, Porter-Robertson Engineering, stated that they have reviewed
the staff report and are in concurrence with all the conditions of approval with the
exception of one. They would like to request a change in the wording in
condition number five on the Public Works conditions. The last sentence
requesting it be changed to phase three improvements.
Public portion of the meeting is closed.
Meeting opened for Commissioner comments or questions. Commissioner
Brady confirmed with staff that they want the change.
Commissioner Dhanens stated that he concurred with staffs recommendation.
Commissioner Dhanens made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to
approve and adopt the negative declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 5958 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution
Exhibit A with the change that on Exhibit 1 of that Exhibit A Public Works
condition number five the last sentence shall read "Stine Road shall be
constructed with Phase 3 improvements." Motion carried.
8.3.a & b.)
Vesting Tentative Tract 5940 and Zone Change P99-0586 (Martin-
Mclntosh)
Staff report given.
Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition.
Roger Mclntosh, representing Castle & Cooke California, stated that he has
submitted comments which were written prior to receiving Mr. Movius'
recommended changes on the conditions.
Public portion of the meeting was closed.
Commissioner Boyle asked staff if they have any comments to the changes that
Mr. Mclntosh is requesting in his October 7th memo to which staff responded they
are amenable to the changes of 9.1, 9.2 and 3.
Mr. Mclntosh confirmed that all of the other conditions have been taken care of
by the Planning Department memorandum to which he agrees to.
Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 7, 1999 Page 15
Mr. Mclntosh clarified that the phrase on A "6' high masonry wall" would be
changed to read "chain link fence", and vice-versa on B; "chain link fence" would
be changed to read "6' high masonry wall."
Commissioner Boyle made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to
approve and adopt a negative declaration and to approve the Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 5940 with findings and conditions set forth in attached Resolution
Exhibit A and incorporating the recommendations of the Planning Director's
October 7, 1999 memo with the exception in item one of the memo affecting tract
condition number 21, in paragraph A the reference to the 6' high masonry wall
would be changed to a chain link.fence, and the reverse change would be made
in paragraph B where it states chain link fence would be reversed to 6' high
masonry wall, and that we would also add to it the changes to conditions 9.1, 9.2
and 3 from Roger Mclntosh's memorandum of October 7, 1999. Motion carried.
Commissioner Boyle made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to
approve and adopt the negative declaration and approve the PUD zone change
P99-0586 with findings and conditions set forth in attached Resolution Exhibit A
and incorporating the recommendations of the Planning Director's October 7,
1999 memo, including the change to condition number 3 from Mr. Mclntosh's
memo of October 7th. Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Kemper, McGinnis, Tkac
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Sprague
8.4.a. & b.)
Vesting Tentative Tract 5959 and Zone Change P99-0587 (Martin-
Mclntosh)
Staff report given recommending approval was given.
Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition.
Roger Mclntosh, with Martin-Mclntosh Engineer representing Castle & Cooke
California, handed out requested changes of conditions of tract 5959 and change
zone P99-0587.
Public portion of the meeting closed.
Commissioner Boyle inquired if staff has any comments to the memo of October
7th to which staff responded they are amenable to the changes.
Commissioner Boyle made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to
approve and adopt the negative declaration approving the vesting tentative tract
map 5959 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit
Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 7, 1999
Page 16
10.
11.
A inclUding the memorandum from Stanley Grady dated October 7th and the
memorandum dated October 7th from Roger Mclntosh regarding conditions 1, 5
and 10. Motion carried.
Commissioner Boyle made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brady, to
approve and adopt the negative declaration approving the PUD zone change
P99-0587 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit
A with the modifications as contained in the October 7th memorandum from
Roger Mclntosh regarding condition number 2. Motion was passed by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Kemper, McGinnis, Tkac
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Sprague
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (GPA/ZC P98-0991) (Church of Christ of East
Bakersfield)
Continue to the October 21, 1999. Motion passed on the Consent Agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE P99-0515 (Bynum & Associates)
See Consent Agenda.
EXTENSIONS OF TIME - VESTING RIGHTS
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
Tract 5876 Phase D (Castle & Cooke)
See Consent Agenda
Tract 5876 Phase E (Castle & Cooke)
See Consent Agenda
Tract 5876 Phase F (Castle & Cooke)
See Consent Agenda
Tract 5876 Phase G (Castle & Cooke)
See Consent Agenda
Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 7, 1999 Page 17
12.
13.
14.
15.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS (GC. 65402)
12.1) Acquisition of 13.28 acres for permanent open space within the Kern River
Element boundaries.
See Consent Agenda
12.2) Acquisition of a 9,912 sq.ft. Lot for a "water well site" located along the east side
of Jewetta Avenue south of Vermillion Drive.
See Consent Agenda
12.3) Vacation of public street right-of-way for Ramsgate Way, Eagle Crest Drive and
Princeville Court in Tract No. 5291 for conversion to gated community.
See Consent Agenda
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no written or verbal communications.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Boyle inquired of staff if they need to have some kind of overlay on the
maps or something so that in the future when applicants come in within this one mile
zone of influence for Cai State they are informed in the very beginning of this process
that they need to go back and cooperate with the University. Should they be informing
applicants the first time they come and pull permits from the City. Staff responded that
they will be developing a response to this new information.
Commissioner Brady stated that for the next meeting he is going to be leaving early so
he can attend the supervisor's meeting on the Kern River Freeway.
DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THF
NEXT PRE-MEETING.
Mr. Grady stated that the only item that has been deferred is the final development plan
for the Norris Street Senior's Project. The rest of the matters are vesting maps, some
extensions of time and a revision to an existing map that the Commission has seen
before.
Commissioner Brady inquired if staff is going to have everything together to which staff
responded that he has not spoken with the applicant. He stated that he would like the
pre-meeting to get as many things out of the way as they can because he will be leaving
the regular meeting early.
Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 7, 1999 Page 18
16.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:40 p.m..
Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary
Planning Director
October 20, 1999