Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/20/01AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Thursday, September 20, 2001 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall ROLL CALL PUBLIC STATEMENTS CONSENT CALENDER STEPHEN BOYLE, Chairman RON SPRAGUE, Vice Chairman MA THEW BRAD Y DA VID GA Y TOM MCGINNIS JEFFREY TKAC MURRAY TRAGISH 3.1 Non.Public Hearingi Items: 3.1a 3.1b 3.1c - Group Vote* :Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract 5941. (Porter-RObertson) Containing 242 lots for single family residential purposes, zoned R-l; located north of Berkshire, east and west of Monitor Street. (Negative .Declaration on file) (Ward 7) ' General Plan Consistency finding for the sale of approximately 13.00 acres of surplus land,, located on the south side of Brundage Lane, north side of State Route 58, approximately one-fourth mile west of Oswell Street and one-half mile east of Mt. Vernon Avenue. (Kern Sanitation Authority) (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward1) General Plan Consistency finding for the sale of a 1,518 square foot portiOn of a 11,430 square foot water well site owned by the City, located on the east side of Jewetta Avepue, west side of Bridge Pass Drive, south of Eagle Rock Drive and 2,081.16 feet south of the Jewetta Avenue Brim hall. Road intersection. (City of Bakersfield Property Management) (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward4) 3.2 Public Hearing Items 3.2a A request for release of covenant for Parcel Map 10054. (Porter-Robertson) Located at the northwest corner of Coffee Road and Olive Drive. (Exempt from CEQA) (ward4) * This pre-meeting agenda may be amended up to 72 hours pdor to the Planning Commission meeting, at which time a final agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department. Items listed on this agenda will be continued to 5:30 p.m. on the Thursday following the date listed on this agenda. Agenda, . PC, Thursday - September 20, 2001-- COuncil Chamber, City Hall Page 2 3.2b Group Vote (Ward 4) (Ward 4) 4:2) Continuance of Vesting Tentative TraCt Map 6077 (SmithTech USA, Inc), generally located on all four Sides of Olive Drive and Verdugo Lane, to the October 4, 2001 meeting!! :(Negative DeClaration on file) PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps 4,1) Vesting lentatiYe lract 6045 {Mclntosh &Associates) generally located 1/2 mile west of Buena Vista Road, north of White Lane {extended), on the northwest corner of Chamber BlYd:: {extended) and future Windermere Street. {NegatiYe Declaration on file} ^ proposed subdivision containing 32 lots for single family residential purposes, and 1 lot for a well site on 13.47 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); a request to allow for private streets; and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.1. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE ' ' i: Roll Call Vote Vesting Tentative Tract 6046 (Mclntosh & Associates) generally located % mile west of Buena Vista Road, nOrth of White Lane (extended), on the southwest corner of Chamber Blvd. (extended) and future Windermere Street. (Negative Declaration on file) A proposed subdivision containing 48 Iqlts on 20.83 acres for single family residential purposes, zone R-1 (One Family Dwelling); a request to allow maximum block length to exceed 1,000 feet, a reverse corner Iot;=~and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.I. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Roll Call Vote Sm (Ward 2) PUBLIC HEARING - Zone Change P01-0599 (Goldman Enterprises, L.P.) generally located at 5001 Stockdale Highway. (Ex'empt from CEOJ~) Zone change from PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to a revised PCD zone on 4.96 acres to allow a 120 foot tall cellular tower. RECOMMENDATION: Roll Call Vote Approve Agenda, PC, Thursday - September 20, 2001-- Council Chamber, City Hall Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED REZONINGS,. 'AND TEXT AMENDMENTS: 'Ward 6.1a General Plan Amendment P01-0219 (Coleman Homes) generally located between Snow Road, Reina Road, Friant-Kern/Calloway Canals and JewettaAVenue. (Negative Declaration on file) Land use designation change from LR (Low Medium Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial) on 10.60 acres, increasing the density to the residential density from 3.27 to 3.95 dwelling units per gross acre on 336.40 acres. An amendment to the "type B trails" by deleting the concrete rail fence, decreasing the width of the landscape area from 24½ - 25½ feet to 20 feet, adding natural rock pilasters and modifying bridge improvement standards for the Polo Grounds development. (Ward 4) 6.1b RECOMMENDATION: Approve request except the change to "Type B Trail" Roll Call Vote Zone Chahge P01-0219 (Coleman Homes) generally located between Snow' Road, Reina Road', Friant-Kern/Calloway Canals and Jewetta Avenue. (Negative Declaration on.file) Zone Change from R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to C-2 (Commercial) on 10.60 acres. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll Call Vote (Ward 6) 6.2a General Plan Amendment P01-0326 (William Gammon) located along the west :side of Stine Road, generally between Taft Highway and McKee Road. (Negative Declaration on file.) Land use designation change from ER (Estate Residential) to LR (Low Density Residential) on .111.73 acres. RECOMMENDATION' Approve Roll Call Vote (Ward 6) 6.2b Zone Change P01,0326 (Willia~ Gammon) located alOng the west side of. ' Stine Road, generally between Taft Highway and McKee Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Zone Change from .A (Agriculture) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling) on 111173 acres. RECOMMENDATION: - Approve Roll Call Vote Agenda, PC, Thursday - September.20, 2001-- COuncil Chamber, City Hall Page 4 (Ward 4 (Ward 4) (Ward 2) (WanY 3 6~3a General Plan Amendment P01-0520 (Centex Homes) located generally along the north side of Reina Roa~d; generally between Allen Road and Jewetta Avenue. (Negative Declaration on file) Land use designation change from R-I~ (ResourCe-Intensive Ag!iculture) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 117.08 acres. I; ' RECOMMENDATION: Approve 6,3b Roll Call Vote , Zone Change P01-0520 (Centex HOmes) located generally along the north side of Reina Road, generally betWeen Allen Road and iJewetta Avenue. (Negative Declaration on file) Zone Change from E (Estate) to R-1 (One Family=Dwelling) on 117.08 acres. 6'.4 RECOMMENDATION: ApprOve Roll Call Vote !:: General Plan Amendment P01-0566 (City of Bakersfield) located at Central Park which is south of 21st Streeti east of""R" Street, nOrth of 19th Street and west of"V" Street. (Exempt from CEQA) = Text amendment to the Parks Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan to expand Central Park and rename it to "Kern Island Park." 6.5 RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll Call Vote ~ General Plan Amendment P01-0571 (City Of Bakersfield) located south and west of Alfred Harrell Highway, east of Boise Street, and north of Panorama Drive and Paladino Drive. (Negative Declaration on file) Text amendment to the Open Space Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan to support the acquisition'!and preservation of open space in the northeast area of the City of Bakersfield. RECOMMENDATION: Roll Call Vote Approve COMMUNICATIONS ,~) Written- B) Verbal Agenda, PC, Thursday - September 20, 2001-- Council Chamber, City Hall Parle 5 COMMISSION COMMENTS A). Committees 9. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING 10: ADJOURNMENT September 17, 2001 JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Acting Planning Director' Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Advisory Members.; Staff: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Gay, McGinnisl Sprague, Tragish Commissioner Tkac Ginny Gennaro, James D. Movius, Marian Shaw, Dennis Fidler Marc Gauthier, Wayne Clausen, Louise Palmer, Pam Townsend PUBLIC STATEMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR: 3.1 Non-Public Hearing ,Items: 3.1a Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract 5941. (Porter-Robertson) Containing 242 lots for single family residential purposes, zoned R-l; located north of Berkshire, east and west of Monitor Street. (Negative Declaration on file) (Ward 7) 3.1b General Plan Consistency finding for the sale of approximately 13.00 acres of surplus land, located on the south side of Brundage Lane, north.side of State Route 58, approximately one-fourth mile west of Oswell Street and one-half mile east of Mt. Vernon Avenue. (Kern Sanitation Authority) (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 1) : 3.1c General Plan Consistency finding for the sale of a 1,518 square foot portion of a 11,430 square foot water well site owned by the City, located on the east side of Jewetta Avenue, west side of Bridge Pass Drive, south of Eagle Rock Drive and 2,081.16 feet south of the Jewetta Avenue Brimhall Road intersection. (City of Bakersfield Property Management)(Exempt from CEQA)(Ward4) Motion made by CommisSioner S prague to Approve the Consent Calendar items 3.1a, 3.1b and 3.1c. Seconded by Commissioner McGinnis. 3,2 Motion Carried. Public Hearing Items 3.2a A request for release of covenant for Parcel Map 10054. (Porter-Robertson) Located at the northwest corner of Coffee Road and Olive Drive. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward4) Minutes, PC, Thursday, September 20, 2001 page 2 3.2b Continuanceof Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6077 (SmithTech USA, Inc), generally located on all four sides of Olive Drive and Verdugo Lane, to the October 4, 2001 meeting. (Negative Declaration on file) Motion made by Commissioner Sprague to aprove the Consent Calendar items 3.2a and 3.2b. Seconded by Commissioner Gay. Motion Carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS - EXTENSION OF TIME 4.1) 4.2) Vesting Tentative Tract 6045 (Mclntosh & Associates) and Vesting Tentative Tract 6046 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward4) Staff stated that the applicant and Stream Energy have reached an agreement, and there is a letter from Stream Energy withdrawing all opposition to these subdivisions, and staff has provided the Commission with a motion and attached a resolution which includes all the changes to conditions as a result of previous memos and the agreement with Stream EnergY. The public portion of the hearing was opened for those in opposition to staff's recommendation. The public potion of the hearing was opened for those in favor of staff's recommendation. Roger Mclntosh with Mclntosh & Associates, representing Castle & Cooke, stated that the changes have to do with the complete deletion and removal of all of theproducing oil wells in the two subdivisions. The only one change that may not have been addressed is condition number 36 on tract 6045 regarding the condition that required a covenant to be recorded on every lot within 500 feet of that production site, and the applicant would request that be deleted since the well locations are going to be removed. The applicant agrees with staff's reCommendation. Joseph Austin, CalifOrnia Division of Oil and Gas, stated they were unaware that there was a buy out and they are an interested party and need to retain access. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6045 with findings and conditions set forth in the resolution attached to the Planning Director's Memorandum dated September 20, 2001, Exhibit "A". Motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tragish, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6046 with findings and conditions set forth in the resolution attached to the Planning Director's Memorandum dated September 20, 2001, Exhibit "A". Motion was approved by the following roll call vote: Minutes, PC, Thursday, September 20, 2001 Page 3 AYES: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tragish, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING - Zone Change P01-0599 (Goldman Enterprises, L.P.) (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 2) Staff had no additional information since the Monday pre-meeting. .~ The Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation. ' David Schnault, a member of Golden Enterprises, stated they are in support of staff's recommendation. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Gay asked where the parking spaces lost to the tower would be relocated, to which staff responded that those spaces will be moved to the east of where the location is shown on the aerial photography. Commissioner Sprague inquired of the location of the trash bins to which the applicant responded that the trash bins will not be displaced, and it will be to the west of the location where there is an existing trash bin about 30 to 40 feet away, and there will be sufficient room to empty the trash bins. Commissioner Sprague inquired if the metropole style is acceptable, rather than the lattice style, to which the applicant responded that they would prefer the lattice style, but are willing to go along with staff's recommendation and do the esthetics. Commissioner Sprague inquired what types of antennas make up the 16 antennas to which the applicant responded that there are three different types used; the panels are about 12-18 inches by 6" wide and theywill be faced in the direction needed; there is a whip style which is a long narrow antenna that cannot hardly be seen; there is the dish style which are usually used for the main access points of one of the phone companies. Commissioner Sprague inquired how many of each kind the applicant anticipates to be on the tower, to which the applicant responded that one pad can hold a series of panels on the panel style, so for each mount on the pole. The applicant stated that if this is a mono pole there may be approximately 5 to 7 that a 120 foot mono pole could obtain. Commissioner Sprague stated that he prefers the mono pole and limiting the amount of pads on the pole. The applicant stated that he believes 16 is the maximum that could be allowed based on engineering, but the applicant's intentions were not to actually put 16 up, but rather 7 or 10 maximum. COmmissioner Sprague inquired if there would be a chain link fencing with slats around the pole to which the applicant responded in the affirmative. Minutes, PC, Thursday, September 20, 2001 Page 4 Commissioner. Brady inquired if the City's policy is to group the poles or have more spacing or what the intent is, to which staff responded that currently there is no ordinance or policy that regulates the spacing of the poles, and they are allowed in commercial and industrial zones by right up to the height limitations described in the ordinance, and then in other areas a Commercial Use Permit is required. Commissioner Brady inquired if the lattice issue was just an esthetic issue and not a safety issue; to which staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Brady inquired if staff's recommendation limits the applicant to a mono pole to which staff responded in the affirmative, and the applicant agrees to this condition of a mono pole. Commissioner McGinnis inquired that if the applicant were permitted to install a lattice pole and were to have the ability to put up 16 different antennas on there if in theory that Wouldn't decrease the amount of the applicants that come before the Commission to put another mono pole up, to which staff responded that it possible could reduce the number that the Commission would seein the future. Commissioner McGinnis inquired what the difference in width is between the mono pole and the lattice type antenna, to which the applicant responded that the mono pole on the large size can be up to six feet around at the base and two to three feet wide at the very top. Smaller towers have smaller dimensions. On the lattice style there are three legs. A 120 foot lattice towers are 10 to 12 feet wide at the base. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he personally would opt for the lattice antenna in that it may preclude this issue in the futur~e. Commissioner Tragish agreed with Commissioner McGinnis' comments. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the tower would be installed from the ground or from a roof to which the applicant responded that it would be installed from the ground and as close to the building ~and inset in the back corner out of the view corridors as much as possible. Commissioner Tragish inquired if landscaping could be put in around a lattice style to satisfy the esthetic issue with staff, to which staff responded that they do not think landscaping around the tower will be necessary. Staff was more concerned with the impact on the sky line as viewed from adjacent arterials. Commissioner Boyle inquired .why this tower needs to be 120 feet, to which applicant responded that it will allow more co-location. Approximately every 10 feet you can put another platform for another antenna. On a 90 foOt tower you could probably get 3 co-locations on a mono pole depending on the clearance in the area and what the cell providers are looking for. On a lattice it would be approximately 5 or 6 co-locations. Commissioner Boyle stated that he might rather have two 90 foot poles as opposed to one 120 foot pole. He stated that he doesn't want to make 120 feet a standard. Commissioner Sprague inquired of staff if a red light is required at the top of a 120 foot pole, to which staff responded in the negative. Commissioner Sprague inquired if fencing around the pole in the specified corner would prohibit the Fire Department form accessing the fire control system to which the applicant responded that it is fenced at this time to keeP out vandalism. There would be no Fire Department concern. Commissioner Sprague inquired if the ladder to the roof was strictly for maintenance and not for the Fire Department, to which the applicant responded in the affirmative. Minutes, PC, Thursday, September 20, 2001 Page5 Commissioner Gay inquired if Golden Enterprises would be the owner of the tower to'which the appliCant responded that their intentions are to maximize the-co-locations, and they will rent space on the tower and is not for a single provider. Commissioner Gay stated that he is favoring the lattice pole. Commissioner Tragish inquired if two 90 foot lattice poles would provide more antennas and co- I(~:ations than one 120 foot lattice pole, to which the applicant agreed, although this specific location probably is not amenable to two poles. CommissionecTragish agreed with Commissioners McGinnis and Gay that a lattice pole would be more efficient in this location and he would rather see the lattice. The applicant stated that he prefers a lattice pole. commissioner Brady stated that he thinks the downside of the lattice is the cabling that goes up, and inquired ifthe cable color could be changed to make it less noticeable, to Which the applicant responded that there probably would be some other color to help it blend in. Commissioner Brady inquired'if a 120 foot lattice was approved if the applicant would be willing to agree to a condition that the final plan, including efforts to minimize the effects of the cabling, be approved by the Planning Director, to which the applicant responded in the affirmative if it did not cause a hold Up in the construction. The applicant stated that the whole industry is moving toward esthetically pleasing towers and stated that he would not be surprised if it was simple to find another colOr that would serve the purpose. Commissioner Brady stated that he would support the application for the lattice tYpe pole up to 120 feet if the applicant is willing to use his best efforts to minimize the effect of the cabling so that it is not black, but something else that would blend better. Staff commented that condition number three would have to be deleted and replaced with condition that the applicant will use his best efforts to achieve an esthetically fix for the cabling. Commissioner Brady stated that condition four could remain because it is setting a minimum standard. Commissioner Tragish suggeSted some language to simplify such as the applicant would utilize best efforts to maximize the esthetics of the lattice pole, which would include neutrality of the cable that goes up the pole. The City Attorney suggested that condition number 3 be added, and add at the end of the first sentence in condition four the phrase "and use it's best efforts to maximize the esthetics of the cable within the pOle". Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, moved to approve Zone ChangeP01-0599 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resOlution Exhibit A and recommend same to City Council, along with the changes just stated on the record. Motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tragish Commissioner Boyle Commissioner Tkac Minutes, PC, Thursday, September 20, 2001 Page.6 Commissioner McGinnis suggested that a committee be appointed to lay out some guidelines for these types of future antennas. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED REZONINGS, AND TEXT AMENDMENTS: 6.1a&b General Plan Amendment/Zone Change P01-0219 (Coleman Homes) (Ward 4) Staff stated there is a,Memo from the Planning Director. Staff has received three letters in opposition and some phone calls in opposition. The Parks Dept. has met with the developer and has agreed to no changes to the block wall, no changes to the width of the landscaping, no changes to the width of the sidewalk, but to delete the split-rail fence. As a point of clarification, the equestrian trail is not an issue. The public Portion of the hearing is opened for those in opposition to staff's recommendation. Anita Fluertas stated she lives in the Montara subdivision on the west side of Jewetta. She read a letter from Mor~tara residences. The residents are strongly opposed to the recent zone change request by Coleman Homes. They are concerned about the following issues: traffic, increased lighting, noise and pollution. If a zone change must take place the residents would request that it be changed to C-1 rather than C-2. Ms. Huertas stated that with regard to the "type B trails" the residents want to keep the continuity of the neighborhood and keep the rail fence. They feel redoing the fence in something more durable and aesthetically pleasing is an option. Ms. Huertas stated that the residents would also like to keep the density at 3.27. Dennis McClain, a reSident of the area, read a letter opposing the project. The p~blic portion of the hearing is closed for those in oppOsition to staff's recommendation. The publicportion of the hearing is opened for those in favor of staff's recommendation. Harold Robertson with Porter Robertson Engineering & Surveying, representing Coleman Homes and Ennes Homes, clarified that Ennes Homes owns the southern 100 acres of the site, and Coleman Homes owns the northern portion. Tony Hogg with Coleman Homes stated that there are four separate elements to their General Plan Amendment. 1) Bridgbs on Snow Road: they request to only have to widen the southern half of the bridges, because the cost to build is not covered by the impact fees, and develop that portion of land from center line contiguous to the property. 2) Density: they are not trying to squeeze in a bunch of small lots. They came up with the request to increase from 3.27 to 3.95 when the 3.95 was approved by the City in another area in the same section owned by the same property owner at one time'. In the Madison Grove development, which was a 3.95 density, the lots range from 6200 sq. feet up to 15000 sq. feet. In the Centex tract (tract 5829), the first 100 lots go from 7200 sq. feet t° 25000 sq. feet, which is an average lot size of 9265. Further to the west are areas zoned for 7200 sq. foot lots currently in the county. Coleman's average lot size in the initial 409 Minutes~ PC, Thursday,' September 20, 2001 Page 7 lots is approximately 9100 square feet. In the near future Coleman will be before the Commission-regarding lots up to 27000 sq. feet. Coleman is not asking for a density increase that is inconsistent with the area. 3) Type B Trails: Clarified that Coleman does- not want to reduce the landscape area from 24 ¼ down to 20 feet. To eliminate the rail fence is to enhance the block wall. Coleman would further enhance this area with 24" box trees. Ennes Homes is agreeable to this. Coleman proposes a fence more like the River Lakes area with the rock pilasters, split rail and larger'trees. There is a memo from the ParkS Department concurring with the problems of the rail fence. 4) Amend the Land Use Designation from Iow medium residential to general commercial: northeast corner of Olive Dr. and Jewetta Ave. It is important to Coleman, as a builder, to create amenities withir~ their subdivisions in their master planned communities. Coleman believes a neighborhood shopping center is a terrific amenity. Coleman is in favor of a C-2 PCD. They will have lighting amenable to reducing glare and focused inward. They will create sound walls in appropriate places to buffer noise. They would create larger landscape bermsto help with noise. The loading docks will have 16' block walls to alleviate noise from trucks. Susan Lampity representing Ennes Homes, stated that it is their intention to build approximately 350 homes on the 100 acres that will be adjacent to and south of Olive Avenue but north of Reina Road. Ennes Homes sees this site as a benefit and amenity to this particular area. There are buffers on all sides. Regarding the density issue, she stated the whole issue is based on the entire site. The benefit of adding to the density does two things: 1 ) since site is triangular in size there are unbuildable sites; 2) As developers they try to use their land properly. They can mix homes anywhere from 6000 sq-feet to over 10000 'square feet and not have to get a farm parcel to build more homes. Regarding the trails Ennes homes concurs with Coleman Homes in the width and the sidewalks. Ennes concurs with the concrete railings and believes the rock or stone pilasters will be a beneficial enhancement. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady inquired of the Smart Growth Vision 20-20, and Ag Land Preservation groups' position that the City is not doing enough to increase dwelling units per acre, and staff concurred that it is their position in recommending approval of this increase that this applicant, with this increased density, is moving in an appropriate fashion to preserve the ag land. Commissioner Brady expressed the residences' concerns but stated that the better goal in this Situation is to try to preserve as much ag land as possible, and the only effective way to do that is to increase the number of dwelling units per acre, and therefore he supports the applicant's request to increase the density from 3.27 to 3.95. Commissioner Brady stated that he is in support of the zone change to commercial with the recommendation that the granting of the C-2 be subject to a requirement that the applicant.undergo a PCD. Commissioner Brady expressed his concern that the developer only wants to build a portion of the bridge because the other portion is in the County. Commissioner Brady asked what Public Works' position is on the developer only building halfa bridge when the other half is in the County, to which Public Works responded that these two bridges are on the facilities list for a transportation impact fee. Since the applicant is proposing to build half of the bridge, and take half of the credit, that would allow.a funding source for-the County to build the other half of the bridge when it becomes Minutes, PC, Thursday, September 20, 2001 Page 8 -necessary. They don~t anticipate that having a full width bridge on Snow Road will be necessary for a number of years even at the current growth rate. Public Works cannot guarantee that it will get built when necessary. Public Works stated that only half a bridge: is necessary for the development at this time, and is not addressing the construction of a full bridge at a later date. Commissioner Brady stated that he likes the look of the fences. Commissioner Sprague stated that he likes the fencing, but understands that it is very expensive for mainter~ance and there is a maintenance district already in place. Commissioner Sprague inquired of the fencing continuity in this area to which the Recreation and Parks staff responded that to the south there is trails going both ways. Staff has looked into other types of materials but those have issues with. burning and melting. Changing it probably wouldn't fix the problem. It costs more to keep the landscape up around~the poles. The maintenance costs come out of the City's general tax fund and from the, maintenance district fee. Commissioner Sprague asked how half a bridge is built to work effectively, to which staff responded that it would be a half-width bridge as opposed to half a bridge. On a half- width bridge for this type of road you can get four lanes of traffic. Builder could' build bridge with an agreement with the City and County that out of traffic mitigation fees or contributions to this area that they would recapture one-half of the costs of putting the bridge in. The bridg, es already exist and the request is to widen the southern half. Staff would like to be reimbursed from the City for work done in the County through traffic impact fee credits and/or other types of credits paid to the City may be an option. Staff Stated that they have a number of agreements with various developers allowing traffic impact fee credits for improvements on their facilities list that they construct. The problem with the agreements is that the City is limited to the amount of credit they can give to the dollar amount that is listed on the facilities list. The preliminary numbers that Mr. Hogg has submitted for the bridge to be constructed exceed that dollar amount. However, staff cannot exceed that dollar amount in allowing credit. The only way to do that is to modify the facilities list and potentially change the entire fee structure. It took three years last time to change the fee structure. Commissioner Sprague asked staff if the half-width bridge would Support the number of homes to be built in that area within a 10 year period, to which staff confirmed that it will, and that staff doesn't foresee a full-width bridge for 10 years. After 10 years, if the bridge is still in the County, the bridge is still on the facilities list and there is still a funding source that the County can use to construct if necessary. If the bridge area is annexed to the City, and it is needed it will be built. Commissioner Sprague stated that in regard to the density issue he thinks some apartments and/or condos need to be intertwined with the residential and commercial. There needs to be some multi-housing in the area. Commissioner Sprague would like to use the PUD/PCD overlay. COmmissioner Tragish stated he agrees with Commissioner Brady's comments on the density issue and supports the increase in the density. -Minutes, PC, Thursday, September 20, 2001 Page 9 Commissioner Tragish stated that with regard to the rezoning of the 10 acres, he inquired if applicant would object to a C-1 zoning configuration to which applicant.- respond that they wouldobject because a C-2 PCD does allow more flexibility. Staff confirmed that if the developer built a gas station, a drive through bank or fasffood under a C-1 PCD the developer would not have to go through a conditional use permit process, as well as would a deli, which is considered a restaurant related type facility, as long as there is no alcoholic sales, entertainment or drive through. ~ Applicant stated that they would still prefer the C-2 PCD. They would like the restrictions to come from the PCD process in the C-2. Commissioner Tragish stated that the fencing is a lost cause, the cost is quite high, and the tax payers are paying for this cost. If they can cut the cost for the taxpayer he is for doing that. He stated that he would support taking the fence down. Commissioner Tragish stated that regarding the bridge he agrees with Commissioner Brady, but states that'he trusts staff's comments that the half-width bridge will be sufficient for at least 10 years. Commissioner McGinnis states that he has no problems with a C-2 zoning with a PCD overlay because it will accomplish the same thing. .- Commissioner McGinnis inquired of the Parks Department what the exact maintenance cost is for the fencing,to which the Parks Department stated that he does not have an amount, but that it is considerable. The vandalism is a problem Commissioner McGinnis inquired as to the dimensions of a half-width and a full-width bridge to which staff responded that for an arterial road 52' wide for a half-width bridge and Snow Road is anarterial, and would be sufficient for four lanes. A full-width bridge would be 104' wide. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he would like to the see the rail fen~ing stay in for aesthetic reasons, but sees that there is a maintenance and cost problem. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he thinks it is a good project with a C-2 PCD. Commissioner Gay stated that he supports the deletion of the fencing and staff's memo dated the 19th. Regarding the density, he stated that he concurs. He stated that staff answered his questions about the completion of the bridge. He believes the growth factor will take care of the road/bridge. Regarding the commercial issue, he agrees with a C-2 with a PCD overlay: Commissioner Boyle stated that regarding the bridge he has no confidence that the County will have the same concerns that the City has with meeting the needs for traffic in 20 years. He thinks as a planning commission they need to plan for the cost of infrastructure,'and part of that infrastructure is the bridge, and as long as that property is in the County he is concerned that it will not be built out, and he does not want an arterial road that then narrows at the bridge and constricts and causes problems with vehicles and pedestrians causing a safety issue. Because staff cannot guarantee that the County will build a road,'he is not in support of allowing the applicant to only build the south half. Minutes, PC, Thursday, September 20, 2001 Page 10 Commissioner Boyle stated that regarding the issue of density he concurs-with the applicant. Commissioner Boyle stated that regarding the issue of the trails he feelS the trails make thisarea unique, and does not feel constrained to build the cheapest city possible. He does not support the change away from the split rail fence. Commissioner Boyle stated that regarding the commercial, he noted that the General Plan encourages commercial within one-half mile so that every resident will be within a half mile walk of a commercial center. He supports commercial property in this area and it is consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Brady 'stated that he is still concerned with the bridge issue. Staff stated that as :long as the funding is still in place, they feel comfortable that the County can be convinced to Spend the funding source in the appropriate location when the need arises. Staff cannot.imagine the funding source going away. The funding source is the transportation impact rfee collected on every home built in the City of Bakersfield and metropolitan area, including the County areas. CommissiOner Brady stated that because the Calloway bridge issue eventually worked itself out, he thinks either the area will just get annexed, or there will be enough "noise" from the citizens, that the bridge will be built. He, therefore, will accept staff's recommendation on the bridge issue. Commissioner Brady inquired if the Planning Department is still opposed to taking out the split rail fence to which staff responded that the Planning Department does not care either way. The Planning Department originally wanted continuity in the area, however, the maintenance issue is a significant factor that the Parks Department since the staff report was written, brought forth and provided new evidence to the record that it is a legitimate consideration regardir~g the maintenance issues. The City has made a decision that the maintenance district fees will not increase to compensate for the increasing maintenance costs. _The general fund picks up the costs not covered under the district fees. Commissioner Brady stated that he feels that it is not fair for other citizens in Bakersfield to pay for the increased maintenance costs to this one area to continue to make it look nice. ~He stated that he would support the Parks & Recreation Department's recommendation with regard to increasing the look of the fence by doing pilasters and increasing the size of.the landscaping and eliminating the rail fence. Gordon Statler with Coleman Homes stated that they plan to work in a fencing that would blend in. Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Spra~ue, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from LR to GC with a PCD combining zone on 10.60 acres as shown on Exhibit 2 and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following r011 call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tragish, Boyle NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Tkac Minutes, PC, Thursday, September 20, 2001 Page 11 Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from R-1 to C-2 with a PCD combining zone on 10,60 acres as shown on Exhibit 2 and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tragish, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tkac Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to adopt a Resolation making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested residential density increase from 3.27 to 3.95 dwelling units per acre as shown on Exhibit 2 and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES~ Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tragish, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tkac Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested amendment to Public Works condition number two of the City Council Resolution Number 23-90 and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tragish Commissioner Boyle Commissioner Tkac Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested amendment to Public Works condition number 2 of City Council Ordinance Number 3284 and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tragish NOES: Commissioner Boyle ABSENT: Commissioner Tkac Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested amendment of the Type B trails by adopting the September 19, 2001 memorandum from Ken Trone, Park Supervisor, to Jim Movius, Acting Planning Director, and recommend Same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: Minutes, PC, Thursday, September 20, 2001 Pacje 12 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tragish Commissioner Boyle Commissioner Tkac Twenty minute recess taken. 6.2a&b General Plan Amendment/Zone Change P01-0326 (William Gammon) (Ward 6) Staff commented that~there is a recently received condition which requires substantial costs for road improvements by the applicant, and therefore applicant requests a continuance until the next GPA cycle of December 20th, Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to continue this item until the next GPA cycle of December 20, 2001. Motion Carried. 6.3a&b General Plan Amendment/Zone Change P01-0520 (Centex Homes) (Ward 4) Staff responded to Commissioner Sprague's question why the fee is different in the Canyon Case ($2,000/acre) and there isn't any fee for Centex, by stating that they are two different service areas. The one south of town is actually the City of Bakersfield. The facilities are different, :the funding streams are different so it's really different service areas entirely. Staff also noted that the lot sizes are consistent with other developments in the area. Staff recommends approval. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Russ Johnson, land acquisition/construction manager for Centex Homes, stated they concur with staff's recommendation: The public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested General Plan Amendment, to change the land use designation from R-lA (Resource Intensive Agriculture) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 117.08 acres as shown on Exhibit "1" and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the followi.ng roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tragish, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tkac Minutes, PC, Thursday, September 20, 2001 Page 13 6.4 6.5 Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt a Resolution making fin'dings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from E (Estate) to R-1 (one family dwelling zone) on 117.08 acres as shown on Exhibit "1" and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tragish, Boyle NOES-: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tkac General Plan Amendment P01-0566 (City of Bakersfield) (Ward 2) Staff stated there was nothing further to add from Monday's pre-meeting. No one spoke either for or against the project. Commissioner Gay stated that it looks like a worthy project for downtown. He supports the motion. Commissioner Sprague stated that he likes the expansion of the park. Commissioner Sprague made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to adopt a Resolution approving .the text amendment to the Parks Element of the Metropolitian Bakersfield 2010 General Plan to support the expansion of Central Park and rename it Kern Island Park as provided in Exhibit "A" and recommend the same toCity Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tragish, Boyle None Commissioner Tkac General Plan Amendment P01-0571 (City of Bakersfield) O,Vard 3 Commissioner Sprague stated his potential conflict of interest and conflicted out of this item. The public portion of the hearing was opened for those in opposition to staff's recommendation. Chris Stockton, not necessarily in opposition, but questioned what impact the amendment will have on the current building on the property to which staff responded that the proposal has absolutely no impact on the zoning or the general plan designations for the property. Mr. Stockton asked if a house can still be built on it even though it is designated as a park site? Staff said that if you have R-1 zoning, you can bring in a subdivision after this us approved and get it approved under the R-1 zoning constraints. Mr. Stockton also asked where the funding would come from to pay for the property, to whiCh staff responded some sources have I:Jeen identified, but they definitely do not have Minutes, PC, Thursday, September 20, 2001 Page 14 ~nough money at this time to buy every piece of property but one of the sources would be the Habitat Conservation Plan which is a a joint plan with the City and County to acquire habitat- areas. Some groups are preparing grants to supply money for acquisition of land. The City is not limiting themselves at this time to just that. In some cases they may be lOoking at transfer of development rights, some type of credit system for.impact fees a developer would pay. Some developers may decide to give the land to the City if they · can't develop it in lieu of setting up homeowners associatiOns to maintain it. There are various funding sources available and there are various other mechanisms that can be negotiated with property owners to acquire land, but it is strictly on a willing basis. Mr. Stockton inquired how they determine the property value to which staff responded that the value is determined through negotiations with the property owner. If the value is not satisfactory to the property owner, the property owner can walk away and is not obligated to sell. Mr. Stockton stated that 2,500 acres is three times the size of Golden Gate Park, and is over twice the size of Central Park in New York City, and asked the City is realistic about what they are taking on and suggested the City look carefully into this kind of action before they assume responsibility because it is a very large public park for a very small community. The public portion of f~he hearing was opened for those in favor of staff's recommendation. Gene Albetre with Native American Heritage Preservation Council in Kern County, stated his support to keep the ground open. They would like input when there is any ground excavation. Robert Kapral stated he represents owner/developer General Holding of Sacramento who has a section of land,.Section 1, and there is a significant portion of the plan that has some significant features in it. They are in support of the plan and feel that it is a benefit to the residents in the City and the development community. Michelie Beck, Chairman of the Open Space Bluffs and Trail Subcommittee of the Kern River Parkway Committee, said they would like to see some of the hilly, less developable areas take up this open space. Having open space near housing developments has made the housing deVelopments more valuable, more unique and more 'desirable. Dave Dmohowski with Project Design Consultants, representing Catellus Development Corporation, which is a.very large California land owner and developer, and owners of Section 9, just to the north of Paladino and east of Masterson, stated they support staff's recommendation. Would suggest that if the amendment is adopted that the implementation plans required for by general plan amendment policy guidelines be as open and receptive to land owner input, as the process has been up to this point. Ketella feels that it is important that the developers be assured that the acquisitions will be on a voluntarily basis and that it is essential that the existing entitlements as represented by the current general plan land use designations and zoning map designations not be altered or amended by virtue of this general plan amendment proposal because they feel that it is important that the City acknowledge that any tentative map, precise development plan,'or site plan submitted in conformance with the general plan land use designations and zoning designations not be denied simply by virtue of being included in an open space boundary. He submitted their suggested additional finding for the resolution. Minutes, PC, Thursday; September 20, 2001 Page 15 Kristy Blaelock, Brian Burlock, Patricia Bernal, Renee Denado-Nelson, Clay Mannor and John Tarabiano all stated their support of the project and thanked City staff and Councilman Maggard:for their work on the project. _Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club, stated it's support of open space. They'd like the open.space to be as large as possible and are pleased with the larger size proposed. The land proposed for open space is really of minimal size for the proposed uses. The steep hillside makes it a marginal value to many of the older walkers who would be using it.: Some of the flat areas behind the bluffs should be included. It is likely that preservation of some of the fiat areas is necessary in order to ensure integrity of habitat conservation efforts to preserve endangered species. In order to preserve the view shed develOpment on the edge of the bluffs should be prohibited. Suggest an additional .implementation measure regarding adoption of a view shed ordinance requiring significance set backs from the edge of the bluffs. They suggest that a primary use for any available green sticker money should be for restoration of nati~)e vegetation. Developers should be required to contribute funding to purchase land in the NBOSA since they will benefit, and suggest that the impact on the NBOSA of perspective future developments in the area be studied in the environmental documentation for any such proposed project. Dennis Fox stated there is a whole river full of decomposed granite and trails can be made with it. He further stated that sometimes the endangered species is used as a tool for another agenda. Recommended that the City not lower it's ethics to that of other people/groups. Pauline Larwood, Jerica Loaiza, Vince Oddo, Kris Knight, Maxine Pierce, Larry Kritsch, and Clay Mannard spoke in favor of the plan. Commissioner Boyle stated that he had to leave for another meeting. Commissioner Brady was voted to take his place as Chairman for the rest of the meeting. Dick Taylor, President of Kern Off-Highway Vehicle Association, made comments in reference to implementation measure 11. He supports the property owners and developers and exercising their private property rights. Does support the open space plan. Would like to see a off-highway vehicle park near Bakersfield consisting of several thousand acres and far enough away from any current or future residential or commercial development. It would have sufficient topographical features to be a challenge to experienced riders, as well as a separate area for young riders to learn to ride. It could also contain a forward ride training range, It would be a family and community based leisure activity program where education, green space and environmentally enhancing activities with a focus 'on off-highway park recreational experiences. Rich O'Neil on behalf of the Kern Group Bike Path Committee stated they would like the Commission to support the Negative Declaration. 1) Most people are in favor of the Negative Declaration. 2) The consensus of tonight's speakers and letters received come from organizations and individuals who in the past have been in disagreement, but tonight agree. Off-road vehicle people, land owners, developers, environmentalists, passive recreationalists, 3) Most agree there needs to be an off-road vehicle park elsewhere. 4)It is agreed that past users were trespassers, but the needed changes in the Negative Declaration are needed to improve this area of Bakersfield. 5) The Vision 2020 calls for concepts such as Green Waste Paths, cluster homes, accessible shopping, neighborhood schools and would make Bakersfield a more desirable place to live. Minutes, PC, Thursday, September 20, 2001 Page 16 Lee W°olfolk stated they need a place close by to ride their bicycles. SUpports open space-plan,-but there needs to be a place to ride for their enjoyment. Dirk' Hago°rt is from Orange County, but has now moved up to Bakersfield and has a 'family and does not want Bakersfield to become like L.A. The PUblic portion of the hearing was closed. The hearing Was opened for Commissioner comments. Commissioner Tragish asked staff if the Commission has standing to suggest to the City Council that they pursue efforts to pursue an off-road vehicle park or location for off-road recreation, to which staff responded that the policy and implementation that is the subject of approval actually give direction to help the off-road vehicle users find another place, and Councilman Maggard has been working already with the off-road groups and with the' appropriate Board of Supervisor members to do that, and would be addressed by the motion.this evening. Commissioner Tragish stated the moving of the soil affecting fossils and other cultural significant type activities is covered in conditions 3, 4 and 5. Commissioner Tragish further stated that many of Mr. Nipp's comments are worthwhile, but he thinks this is a ~small first step in the right direction. The Sierra Club's comments will have to be addressed as time goes on. Commissioner Tragish stated that he thinks the request for the general plan amendment. .is broad enough and flexible enough to cover many of the situations and concerns of the land owners. Commissioner Tragish stated that he agrees with the agricultural concerns and supports this amendment.. ~ Commissioner Gay stated the he is disappointed that they will probably lose the off-road use, and is disappointed in the Sierra Club's comment "taking a gift horse looking it in the mouth~', he would like to see them take their own money to restore the area, rather than look fOr additional taxation. Commissioner Gay commended staff and Councilman Maggard. Commissioner McGinnis complimented staff and Councilman Maggard. He asked staff how the boundaries of this area are determined to which staff responded that originally there was a conceptual plan developed by the interest groups that showed some of the open space areas with certain types of uses and trail linkages. Staff drew a larger boundary along where the flat areas generally start to slope, and in some areas it includes fiat areas because they provide linkages to other depressions in the topography where you can linka trail system. Staff wanted to make it big enough so that it wasn't too tight and identify very specific areas that could be purchased. They wanted flexibility with the land owners. Commissioner McGinnis asked if this boundary would be amendable to expansion, to which staff responded .that there is no reason that it could not be expanded, but would .have to go through another set of public hearings. Commissioner McGinnis stated he supports the project and the amendment to the 2010 Plan. Minutes, PC, Thursday, September 20, 2001 Page 17 Commissioner Brady Wanted to know if the proposal includes the opportunity for the. Native American Community's involvement or is just only for palaeontologists and archeologists, to which staff responded that the mitigation measures provide for their involvement when required. Commissioner Brady stated that he would like the condition amended so that when palaeontologists do make a find that any finds that are recovered remain within the City of Bakersfield, or County of Kern instead of taken from the community. (Item 7 m,,.... depository within the City of Bakersfield or County of Kern".) Staff stated that a "where possible"should be included because they do not know if they have the actual authority to do that in all cases. Commissioner Brady Stated that he supports the project and appreciates the effort, and thinks this is the start of something great, but there are going to be conflicts. He stated- that he likes the voluntary condition. He further stated that he supports the off-roaders. Commissioner Brady inquired of staff what the relationship is between the Hillside Ordinance and what is being proposed, to which staff stated that this area covers much of the Hillside zoning designation in Northeast Bakersfield, and that Hillside Ordinance does not preclude development. Staff confirmed that much of the development will have to comply with the Hillside Ordinance. Commissioner Brady stated that he is in support of the prOposal with his ~recommended amendment to item 7. ' Commissioner Tragish made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to adopt the Resolution approving ~the Negative Declaration and approving the text amendment to the open space element of the Metropolitian Bakersfield 2010 General Plan _to support the acquisition and preservation of open space in the northeast area of the city of Bakersfield as provided in Exhibit "A" and recommend the same to City Council with the modification in' Exhibit "B", paragraph 7 so that the last sentence would read "the retain palaeontologist will transfer the fossil collection to an appropriate depository to be located in Bakersfield, and/or Kern County where possible." Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tragish, Brady NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Boyle, Tkac 7~ COMMUNICATIONS Booklet for the Downtown Charrette reviewed and approved by the City Council and working on a plan for implementation of the, policies within this document. There is also a Memorandum regarding status of the Northwest Promenade access to Calloway. Minutes, PC, Thursday, September 20, 2001 Page 18 8. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Sprague asked about the Memo and access issue and whether those access points should be pre-acquired, or the developer should have title to them before it is submitted to the Commission to make those decisions to avoid secondary access problems and traffic flow problems. Staff responded that once in awhile there is a situation where a secondary access point is required across an adjacent piece of property, and in those cases the Commission, City - CoUncil and staff look at that. If a condition is put on and then in fact it can't be met by the applicant than in many cases it is required by law to go to eminent domain where the City acquires the property through the condemnation process and the developer pays for that process. Commissioner McGinnis again suggested the appointment of a committee from the Commission to study any future transmission towers, microwave, cellular telephone, etc. '~ This recommended committee will be forwarded on to Chairman Boyle. Staff stated that it would be appropriate to bring this committee/issue up at the Urban Development Corn m ittee. Commissioner Brady noted that there is a meeting of the Oil Well Drill Operations Committee on September 25th at noon at the Development Services Building. ~ 9. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE 10. NEXT PRE-MEETING Staff recommended a pre-meeting be held on October 1, 2001. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m. October 19, 2001 Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary S D. MOVIUS, Secretary · Acting Planning Director Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue ' Due to a public hearing being advertised for this date, the hearing was opened and the hearing items continued until Thursday, October 4, 2001. Meeting adjourned at 12:18 p.m. October 15, 2001 Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary //J JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Acting Planning Director