Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 18, 2002 PC MeetingCouncil Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, None Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague Advisory Members: Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Dennis Fidler Staff: Jim Movius, Marc Gauthier, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC STATEMENTS Darrel Sparks, President of the Bakersfield Association of Realtors, spoke regarding the Housing Element. He wanted to commend the City of Bakersfield and the Housing Element of the General Plan. He said he is pleased to see that Bakersfield is working to obtain its objectives in providing adequate affordable housing for Iow and moderate income residents in Bakersfield. CONSENT CALENDAR 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items: 4.1a Approval of minutes from Planning Commission meetings of June 4 and 6, 2002. Motion was made by Commissioner Blockley, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve the non-public hearing items portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5989 (Porter-Robertson) located south of Cesar Chavez School, at the northeast corner of Chase Avenue and Mesa Marin Drive. (Ward 3) 4.2b Approval of Street Name Change for a Portion of Georgia Drive to Peacock Park Lane (City of Bakersfield) located on a portion of Georgia Lane west of Fallgatter Street to Denise Avenue. (Ward 3) Minutes, Planning Commission, July 18, 2002 Page 2 4.2c Approve continuance to August 1, 2002, of Master Wall and Landscape Concept Plan P02-0534 (Porter- Robertson) for Vesting Tentative Tract 6000, located on the northeast corner of Highway 178 and Alfred Harrell Highway. (Ward 3) (Agenda Item 5) 4.2d Approve Tentative Tract Map 6112 (Smith & Associates Engineering) located on the south side of Panama Lane between Akers Road and Wible Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Agenda Item 6.2) Hearing opened for public comment. Commissioner Tragish requested that Item 4.2d be removed from the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Sprague stated that he had a conflict of interest on Items 4.2a and 4.2c. He would abstain from voting on them. Motion was made by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to approve the remaining items on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried. Approval of Master Wall and Landscape Concept Plan P02-0534 (Porter- Robertson) See Consent Agenda Item 4.2c PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps 6.1) Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6108 (Porter-Robertson) Staff reported that the Commission should have the following memorandums: One memo dated July 15 adding conditions regarding flag lots, one dated July $ regarding street vacation and one containing all of the changes that has been presented to the Commission along with the motion. Staff recommended approval of the project with the conditions and the addition of the above memorandums. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Two property owners spoke against the project. Michael Carlovsky, a resident of the area, stated that because of the continuance from a previous meeting, the property owners have been able to meet with the developers and have come to an agreement for all except one of the issues which is the pedestrian access which exists at the south end of the cul-de-sac. The residents in the neighborhood have concerns that if a pedestrian access is located there that residents of the new development will attempt to use Dove Creek or Majesty Palm to park their vehicles along. The residents in the neighborhood have concerns regarding traffic safety, vehicle congestion and other similar nuisances. The map they were presented with did not have a pedestrian access and were told that a map would not be submitted with a pedestrian access on it. They understand that the school district has since requested the pedestrian access but originally were told that bus stops would not be determined until the number of students were known. The residents feel that the three or four children that might be attending school from there does not warrant the pedestrian access. It was suggested that an access be located on the corner of Allen and Dove Creek Road to allow the children to get to the bus stops which might prevent the people from parking along their streets to access their units. Minutes, Planning Commission, July 18, 2002 Page 3 The residents also requested that the crash gates be solid metal, preferably diagonal mesh and painted the same color as the block wall the developer has agreed to build. Andrew Thomson also stated he was against the location of the pedestrian access and thinks it should be moved to the corner. The following spoke in favor of the project. Jeff Williams, the applicant, stated that they met with the homeowners and that the access gate was a condition from the city based on a recommendation from the school district. They did not request it but would place it anywhere the residents would like. He said he would accept all the conditions as written and that Harold Robertson, the engineer for the project, would address some flag lot issues. Harold Robertson, with Porter Robertson Engineering and Surveying, said that they have eliminated two lots and created lots 13 and 14 with a minimum of 35 feet of frontage on the knuckle which is the minimum required by the city ordinance in designing subdivisions. He said he knows there has been some concern regarding access and how these lots are going to be developed because the property is zoned R-2 but asked the Commission to keep in mind they still have the site plan review process to go through which will address all the issues regarding access, emergency access and sanitation pickup. He showed the Commission a concept plan which gave them an idea of what can be done with the two lots regarding parking, fire service and access into the lot. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Tragish asked staff if the pedestrian access could be put off of Allen Road? Mr. Grady said that it would be possible. Commissioner Tragish asked if there is any other place a secondary access could be put? Mr. Grady said not without a redesign of some sort. Commissioner Tragish asked if there is a down side to moving the pedestrian access? Mr. Grady said that it is the school district's desire to keep the school children off of Allen Road. Commissioner McGinnis asked about the number of school children attending school and said that 2 or 3 seems strikingly Iow. Mr. Grady said that came from one of the speakers and not the school district. Commissioner McGinnis asked if the crash gate issue could be resolved further down the review process? Mr. Grady said "yes, at the site plan review process." Commissioner McGinnis asked Ralph Huey, Director of Fire Prevention, if he could see a solution? Mr. Huey said there are two things they have talked about. The crash gate has to be there regardless of it being posts or a gate. He has talked to Mr. Robertson about the flag lots and he believes there are possible ways to service the area. They need to look at the 150 feet area for hose layout and they need to look at turning radius. Mr. Huey said he feels that it can be worked out but hasn't seen anything yet that would be adequate. Commissioner McGinnis asked if it would be Mr. Huey's suggestion that the Commission tag the flag lots for further study? Mr. Huey said he thinks they need a final review of the layout before the project is approved. They need to agree on something that would provide access to emergency vehicles within that area. Commissioner McGinnis reinterated to Mr. Huey that he is not comfortable with the latest proposal from Mr. Robertson? Mr. Huey said that that is the best looking one but he hasn't had a chance to look at it thoroughly. Commissioner Gay asked about condition number 20 and asked Ms. Gennaro if they Minutes, Planning Commission, July 18, 2002 Page 4 could define it to say that the flag lots shown on the proposed map would not be allowed unless approved by the Fire Department? Ms. Gennaro said that it would be appropriate to include in the motion but also condition it upon the site plan being approved. Commissioner Gay asked Mr. Grady regarding the pedestrian access, if the residents have a problem parking on Dove Creek if they can go to the streets department and ask for no parking signs or something like that? Ms. Shaw said that there have been areas of town where they have posted no parking except to residents with special stickers but Ms. Shaw said the Commission should keep in mind that it is a county street and not a city street. The city cannot offer this option. Commissioner Gay said that he thinks the school district has the best interests of the children in mind and that he supports the motion as presented. Commissioner Ellison said he could support the map as presented. He has to take the Rosedale School District recommendation for safety at heart and he is ready to take it as it stands supporting the pedestrian access and denying the flag lots. Commissioner Tkac said that since staff doesn't support the flag lots if there has been a meeting with the developer about the flag lots? Mr. Robertson said that his understanding of the purpose of designing a flag lot is to provide access back to a portion of a larger area on a lot. The southern portion of the lot in question is wider than most single family residential lots. It is 80 feet wide. The frontage on the street is the required 35 feet. In his opinion, this does not meet the definition of a flag lot. Mr. Grady said that they have not discussed the option of eliminating one of the lots to provide either an east/west street or a north/south street. Based on the comments from the Fire Department tonight, if the Commission is inclined to approve the lots, a condition could be placed on the project that the site plan for those parcels would have to be approved by the Fire Department so that fire safety issues are fully mitigated. If that occurs, the fire issue goes away and the Commission makes the finding that there is no reasonable alternative to plotting so this should be that case. Mr. Grady said the issue of whether or not these are defined as flag lots has not been brought up before. Commissioner Sprague said he likes the plan the way it is and the way it was presented tonight but condition this upon approval of the Fire Department regarding the flag lots as far as site design and approve the map tonight. Commissioner Sprague said regarding the secondary and pedestrian access, if they put posts in with a walk through for students it gives them a safe place to stand to catch the bus. It would be a dual purpose for fire and pedestrian access. Commissioner Sprague said he believes this is the proper spot for the pedestrian access. Allen Road would not be a safe place for school children to stand. There were no other Commission comments. Motion was made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and approve Vesting Tentative Map No. 6108 with the findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A and with Exhibit 1 amended as shown in the memorandum from the Planning Director dated July 18, 2002, including the appropriate crash gate for secondary and pedestrian access. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Sprague Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Minutes, Planning Commission, July 18, 2002 Page 5 NOES: None ABSENT: None 6.2) Tentative Tract Map 6112 (Smith & Associates Engineering) Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Harry Ellingston, engineer for the applicant, said he is present to answer any questions the Commission might have. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Ellingston if he had any problem agreeing to a condition requiring a contractors wood fence or block wall along the south and east boundaries? Mr. Ellingston said "no." There were no other Commission comments. Motion was made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and approve Vesting Tentative Map No. 6112 with the findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution adding the condition that the applicant will construct a fence - either contractors wood fence or block wall - along the south and east boundaries of the map with no openings in the fence. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Sprague Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, NOES: None ABSENT: None 6.3) Revised Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6018 (Porter-Robertson) Mr. Grady said the Commission should have in their possession four memorandums: One dated July 8 regarding permit streamlining as the basis for sending this case back to the Commission sooner than expected, one dated July 15 regarding conditions of approval concerning offers of dedication, one dated July 15 with a change of condition and one dated July 6 containing correspondence. Staff is recommending approval and is available for any questions. Public portion of the hearing was opened. The following spoke in opposition to the project: David Stanton, Mike Callagy, Robert Thomas, Ken Swift, Tracy Roberts and Cheryl Santos. The stated concerns were in regards to traffic issues and the desire to have the project have access off of Coffee Road. Mr. Stanton asked the Commission to require a traffic study after school gets back into session and would like the developer to agree for the Commission to disregard the 180 day deadline for the permit streamlining act. Mike Callagy, of Cornerstone Engineering, stated the RiverLakes Master Association has asked them to file an amendment to the RiverLakes Specific Plan to allow access to Coffee Road which will be heard on September 19, 2002. They have also been asked to Minutes, Planning Commission, July 18, 2002 Page 6 do a traffic study within the project because of public safety issues. Mr. Callagy said that he thinks the study will show, without these multi-family projects, that there is a street capacity issue that these streets are at their maximum capacity during peak hours. Mr. Callagy said if the Commission approves access to Coffee Road for this project and the other one on the north end, the access for the subdivision and project will be dramatically improved. If the developer would let the city exceed the permit streamlining time limits, there is a good chance they could end up with better access than they have now and avoid lawsuits over CC&R problems. Mr. Callagy said that he believes that a responsible alternative for both city staff, the developer and the people at RiverLakes is to defer this until the general plan amendment can be heard regarding access to Coffee. Randy Bergquist, Porter-Robertson Engineering, spoke in favor of the project. He said there is an existing tract that the Planning Commission approved which did not show access to this property off of Coffee Road. This could currently be constructed and no one opposed that project. The existing approved tentative tract generates 564 average daily trips. Their revised map generates 653, an increase of less than 16%. He believes the issues that have been brought up in regards to traffic can be addressed by city staff by possible stop signs and signals. He asked the Commission to approve the project. It is a project that should be built and could be built in any residential neighborhood in Bakersfield. Jay Rosenlieb, representing the applicant, said that the issue of gating which has been brought up regarding the CC&Rs is not an issue as it is anticipated that these will be public streets and you cannot gate a public street. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Blockley asked if we had the option to accept an offer of time extension on the permit streamlining act? Mr. Grady said that there can be an extension with the applicant's agreement. Commissioner Gay said that he thinks by accessing Coffee Road you are trading off a traffic issue on Southshore to a high risk traffic issue for those homeowners coming off of Coffee Road. If that is going to go forward through the Council's process, then he believes that would be the Council's choice to make for access off of Coffee Road. Commissioner Tragish said he thinks both the applicant and the developer have made their points with this. He agrees with Commissioner Gay that they can't deal with Coffee Road tonight. It is something the Council will have to deal with. He wished the developer would agree to the extension of the 180 day time limit so that the issue could be resolved before the City Council to avoid any further potential costs and involvement. Commissioner Tragish feels that the issue tonight is the traffic on Northshore and Southshore Drives. He feels that a safety study should be made more so than a traffic study. He also feels that the site is not really physically suited for the proposed type of density and the impact on this area is raising a high safety risk factor given all the testimony. Commissioner Sprague asked staff if it is true that the applicant has offered a dedication of perpetual easement to Coffee Road off of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Grady said yes and that there is a condition in the July 15 memorandum that says "prior to recordation, we would get that offer of dedication and we will exercise that offer of dedication if the specific plan amendment is approved." Mr. Grady said that the way this is setup now is that if Minutes, Planning Commission, July 18, 2002 Page 7 the specific plan amendment is approved, we will exercise the option without an additional traffic study or additional analysis. We will take the offer of dedication and will put the street through if the specific plan amendment is approved. Commissioner Ellison said when he looked at this map, he was unable to make the mandatory findings to deny the map but agrees there is a traffic safety issue and in that regard, he feels the Negative Declaration issue regarding traffic is weak. He said he would really like to continue this if the developer would agree. Commissioner McGinnis asked the applicant if he would consider a continuance? Mr. Rosenlieb said the applicant is not prepared to agree to an extension of time. They believe that staff has adequately and appropriately stated where they are is where they are and it is time to make a decision. Commissioner McGinnis asked if they approve this tonight can they recommend a traffic study be done before it goes to City Council? Mr. Grady said no, if the Commission believes a study is needed and they don't have adequate information to make a decision and the environmental document does not suffice, then the Commission would deny the map and require another environmental document be done. Commissioner McGinnis said he doesn't believe there is a right or wrong answer. He can see both sides. Commissioner Gay asked if it is true that they have an approved map now on this property and they can build at this time? Mr. Grady said there is an underlying map that was approved for a different product type. Commissioner Blockley said that as far as he can see there will be apartments at that location whether they approve this project or not. There is a foregone conclusion that there is a traffic safety problem in the vicinity and he does not think this project has significant bearing on that given that there is nothing built there now and the problem exists as it is. Commissioner Blockley asked if the City Council voted down some kind of access to Coffee already? Mr. Grady said yes, that was done a few years ago. At that time there was no specific project in front of them. Mr. Grady said the Commission has an expert on staff who provided them testimony with respect to traffic. The Traffic Engineer provided the Commission with information with what they might get with a traffic analysis and information that perhaps traffic devices could be used to resolve some of the existing problems out there. Commissioner Sprague said he has taken a substantial amount of time to review this project and visited the project five times. This project is in accordance with what was originally designed and meets the concept that was laid out within the concept of the RiverLakes plan. Going back to the original general plan and the traffic analysis done in 1998, the traffic study was correct for this high density area. Commissioner Sprague said that it is his belief that this project cannot be denied based on what they have heard tonight. Commissioner Sprague asked Steve Walker, Traffic Engineer, to explain the traffic issues and offer of dedication by the applicant. Mr. Walker went into a lengthy explanation. There are traffic calming methods that can be done up in the north and south end that would reduce the speeding of the residents and discourage some of the cut through traffic. There are various traffic control methods that can somewhat mitigate the traffic concerns. That is going to be looked at whether or not anything is developed at this site. If an access is made through there to Coffee Road, it will probably relieve some of the volume of traffic that might have been going strictly on Southshore Drive and that area but it is strictly an unknown. Minutes, Planning Commission, July 18, 2002 Page 8 Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Walker if he feels a traffic study inside the next 180 days would show much differential from the 1998 traffic study? Mr. Walker said that in relation to traffic capacity and circulation in the area, it would probably not show much difference. They would have more information about mitigation for specific intersections. Commissioner Sprague said that it is his feeling that with proper site plan and proper engineering, the problem can be resolved. His recommendation is to approve and move on with the project. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Walker if a new traffic study was done, if there would be a significant issue in the pattern of traffic? Mr. Walker said that the 1998 traffic study was specifically looking at punching a street out to Coffee Road and the affect or necessity of having that access to Coffee Road. In that matter, it showed the street capacities were adequate existing so it was not a necessity to punch into Coffee Road. It was an option but not necessary. The Council chose not to require it. Commissioner Tragish asked if there is a difference between a safety study and a traffic analysis? Mr. Walker said that in general the traffic studies are looking at circulation element and capacity of roads and the layout of roads. An operational standpoint takes place later where they look at traffic tools that can be used to mitigate operational problems. That is not usually something the Commission hears about. Commissioner Tragish asked if the traffic study done in 1998 propose any operational mitigation? Mr. Walker said no it did not. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Walker what kind of operational suggestions could he make regarding this project and the traffic issues? Mr. Walker said the northern four- way intersection gives them more concern. The southern intersection is a "T" intersection. Mr. Walker said that based on what they know about the traffic there now and the characteristics of the drivers that are driving out there now, a traffic analysis would be made to see if a four way stop would be appropriate. Commissioner Tragish asked if the city is actively reviewing the traffic situation of people using this as a short cut to Olive Drive? Mr. Walker said that his staff has been reviewing the area in general and Councilmember Couch has asked them to look specifically at the operation characteristics of the whole area including the "defined" shortcut. There are traffic calming methods that can be used and other things that can be done in the area. There are tools that are being investigated. These are longer term analysis and they will be doing more analysis when school starts. Commissioner Tragish asked if stop signs at each of the intersections (both the four-way and the "T") would have a beneficial effect to some extent to mitigate the traffic? Mr, Walker said that definitely at the four-way intersection and it would be normal to have a stop sign at the location of the "T" intersection where the street comes into the main street. Mr. Walker said it would be very unusual to place stop signs on the main road at the "T" intersection. Although it has been done. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Rosenlieb, representing the applicant, if his client would have an objection about putting a four-way stop sign at the intersection? Mr. Minutes, Planning Commission, July 18, 2002 Page 9 Rosenlieb said there would be no objection. Commissioner Tragish asked about the "T" intersection and whether they would agree to placing stop signs there and Mr. Rosenlieb said that it would be typical to put a stop sign going northwest onto Southshore Drive but he didn't understand Mr. Walker to recommend that there be a stop sign on Southshore as traffic proceeds north and south. Commissioner Tragish said that he is not thrilled with this project because of what he sees as substantial safety problems but by the same token they can only do so much under the subdivision map act. He does agree with the chairman whereby they have to make objective findings - not emotional findings. He feels that he would have to support the project if there are stop signs placed at the four way intersection (the corner of White Water and Southshore Drive). Commissioner Tkac asked Mr. Walker if in his opinion the traffic circulation in and around this area is sufficient and has it been planned properly for the area? Mr. Walker said the roadway system itself is designed and exists as such to handle the amount of traffic that is generated and will be generated at full buildout of all the parcels. There are some built in operational problems that if you had 20/20 hindsight, you would have liked to do something different. But those are the challenges. There is plenty of capacity but the way people use it and drive it, creates some problems. There are traffic calming tools that can be done to alleviate the problems and that is something they are actively pursuing. Commissioner Tkac said that they can't deny the project on an emotional issue and that he will be reluctantly voting to approve this project and passing it onto the City Council. There were no other Commission comments. Motion was made by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the Revised Vesting Tentative Map No. 6018 with the findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A incorporating the memorandums from Marian Shaw, Public Works Department dated June 5, 2002, one from Stanley Grady, Planning Director, dated July 15, 2002, include the Traffic Engineer's recommendations and a memorandum dated July 8, 2002 to be incorporated in the motion. Ms. Gennaro stated to clarify the motion to add Commissioner Tragish's recommendation to make a condition to add the four way stop signs at the intersection of White Water and Southshore and a stop sign at the "T" intersection. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: Commissioner Ellison ABSENT: None Commissioner Ellison stated that he voted no because he feels that the changes in the Minutes, Planning Commission, July 18, 2002 Page 10 traffic patterns necessitate a traffic safety study. He thinks the negative declaration did not properly address that issue. PUBLIC HEARING - Street Name Chanqe from Lakeview Avenue to Dr. Martin Luther Kinq Jr. Blvd. (Isaiah Crompton) Mr. Grady said that at the pre-meeting there was a question as to whether or not any State signs would be impacted by this street name change. Staff has investigated that and found out there would not be any State signs impacted by the proposed name change. Staff gave a staff report recommending approval to take affect January 18, 2003 with findings set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A.. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Isaiah Crompton thanked the Commission and staff for the effort they have put into getting this street name change. Renee Nelson thanked Isaish and Walter for proposing this name change and stated they look forward to continued work with city staff to make the southeast a vibrant and exciting place to be. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague said that he thinks this is a very positive approach for the southeast area of Bakersfield. Commissioner Tkac and Ellison made positive comments regarding the street name change. Motion was made by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to approve the proposed street name change from Lakeview Avenue to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. to take affect January 18, 2003, with findings set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: None GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT P01-0734 HOUSING ELEMENT. (City-wide) Jean Lauren, a principal with Jean Lauren and Associates, gave a presentation to the Planning Commission on the Housing Element. She stated that the Housing Element is required to be updated every five years according to State law. It is one of the required elements of the general plan. It is mainly comprised of three separate parts: 1) the previous Housing Element and what was accomplished over that five year period, 2) what's going on right now and 3) its goals and policies to guide the city over the next five to ten years as far as housing development. After the presentation the following questions were asked by the Commission: Minutes, Planning Commission, July 18, 2002 Page 11 Chairman Sprague asked Ms. Lauren how many buildable lots are available in residentially zoned properties within the central core of Bakersfield? Ms. Lauren said unit capacity is 60,377 within the city. Commissioner Tragish made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution making findings, approving a Negative Declaration and Draft Housing Update and directing staff to transmit same to the State Department of Housing and Community Development. Motion carried by group vote. 9. AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT REGARDING PROJECT NOTICE TO RENTERS. (All Wards) Ms. Gennaro stated that the committee met and are ready to give their recommendation. Their recommendation was to have staff implement a policy that on all notices which will be mailed to property owners, staff will place the language "if your property if rented or leased, we request that you provide your tenants notice of this public hearing." Ms. Gennaro said that since that is basically policy, there is no need to implement any type of ordinance change. Commissioner Sprague asked if a notice could be placed on the property in bold print that the general population in the area would be able to review prior to the approval? Ms. Gennaro said that the committee did consider that at length. The primary factor that the committee did not include it as part of its policy was because: 1) sometimes that would require the applicant to go onto private property, which would not be legally advisable, and 2) if it were a vacant lot there is no proof that a notice had been placed. The committee felt that that was a very difficult thing to enforce and that is why the committee steered away from implementing that policy. Commissioner Tragish asked what the penalty would be if a landlord does not notify the renters? Ms. Gennaro said there would be no penalty. This policy was put into effect to go above and beyond our duty. Commissioner Tragish asked if the city could somehow get involved in a lawsuit between a tenant and a landlord if the landlord fails to notify his tenant as per the notice? Ms. Gennaro said that from a legal perspective she does not think staff is proposing any additional vulnerability to litigation on behalf of the city. Commissioner McGinnis thanked staff and Ms. Gennaro for her summation of their meetings. Their main intent was not question whether the city has given legal notice of any items on the agenda but was a courtesy to try to go above and beyond what we are doing right now without incurring a great deal of cost to the City of Bakersfield to do that. What the city is doing at this point is completely adequate and theirs was just a public courtesy to give the tenants a little input into some of the decisions that the Commission makes. He thanked his other committee members and staff and feel that they reached the goal they were trying to achieve. Motion was made by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to accept report and refer to staff for implementation. Motion carried by group vote. 9. WORKSHOP - PROCEDURES WORKSHOP BY STANLEY GRADY AND GINNY GENNARO. Mr. Grady and Ms. Gennaro presented information regarding operational and functional issues with respect to the Planning Commission at Monday's pre-meeting. Minutes, Planning Commission, July 18, 2002 Page 12 10. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Grady told the Commission that tonight they received a copy of the general plan EIR and the general plan itself. The Commission will be taking comments on the EIR on August 12, 2002, at 6:30 p.m. This will be a joint meeting between the City and County Planning Commission. Ultimately, the Commission's decision will be on the adoption of the general plan which contains policies and updated data similar to what the Housing Element was except they have added in policies of the 2020 Visioning and Council goals as they relate to general plan policies. 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS As a result of recent projects, Commissioner Gay said that Mr. Grady will be bringing some ideas for a revision of the four-plex ordinance at a later date. 12. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING. It was decided there will be a pre-meeting on July 29, 2002. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:48 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary August 27, 2002 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director