Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/27/1989 MINUTES CCBakersfield, California, December 27, 1989 Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 6:00 p.m., December 27, 1989. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Medders, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. City Clerk williams called the roll as follows: Present: Absent: Councilmembers Edwards, DeMond, Smith, Peterson, McDermott, Salvaggio None Brunni, Planning Director Jack Hardisty stated that this hearing was continued from the meeting of December 14, 1989, to consider additional map changes requested. He provided a summary list and overhead projections of issues that may be discussed to facilitate the Council's review. Planning Director Hardisty briefed the Council on the hearing procedures. Planning Director Hardisty stated that petitions have been received from the Mustang Mini Ranch in opposition to Suburban Residential development in the area north of Rosedale and west of Nord. A letter from Mr. Eldon Hugie concerning the land use designation west of Buena Vista was received. HEARINGS This is the time set for continued Public Hearing on the Metro~olitan Bakersfield 2010 ~neral Plan I.and Use Element Map. This Hearing is being continued from the Special Meeting of December 14, 7989. Mr. Roger Mcintosh, Principle in the firm of Martin & Mcintosh, Civil Engineering and Land Surveying, spoke regarding the Land Use Element pertaining to the area east of Old River, north of Camino Media. He requested the Council delete the designation of a Local Collector from the Comprehensive Circulation Plan Map for this area. Upon a motion by Councilmember Brunni, the request to delete the Local Collector designation for Old River Road in the Circulation Element was approved. Mr. Richard Nemmer, 2633 Stagecoach Street, spoke on behalf of the residents who oppose the land use change request as proposed by Mr. and Mrs. Martin and Simpson-VanCuren for the area t/4 mile north of Rosedale, 1/4 mile west of Nord, designated as PC/PAC No. 23. He stated they are in opposition to the proposed zone change from R-I-A to Residential Designation S-R, which would allow quarter acres. He submitted petitions to the Council. Ms. Candi Millett, 2720 Carriage Street, spoke in opposition to the Planning Commission's assignment of Suburban Residential Land Use Designation to the area located 1/4 mile north of Rosedale and 1/4 mile west of Nord. She stated that there would be a water and sewer problem. Ms. Jerry Moffit, founder of "Keep Rosedale Country," spoke in opposition to the proposed zone change from Agricultural to Suburban Residential. She is in support of development but feels it should be consistent with the current zoning, and the atmosphere in Rosedale should remain country. Bakersfield, California, December 27, 1989 - Page 2 Ms. Michelle LeMoyn, Simpson-VanCuren Engineering, representing Charles and Darlene Martin, spoke in support of changing the designation from Agricultural to Suburban Residential. Mr. Jim Redstone, Simpson-VanCuren Engineering, representing Mr. and Mrs. Martin, spoke in support of the S-R designation for the area located one-q~arter mile north of Rosedale and one-quarter mile west of Nord (PC/PAC No. 23). He stated that this designation allows for one-half acre and quarter-acre parcels. He stated they are planning for the future and not developing at this time. Ms. Ruth Gilman commented that the Council should adopt the 2010 Plan and then accept proposed amendments to the General Plan with an EIR attached. Upon a motion by Councilmember recommendation was supported and the present R-I-A, Resource Intensive Agriculture, by the vote: DeMond, the staff zoning was retained following roll call Ayes: Councilmembers Edwards, DeMond, Smith, Brunni, McDermott, Salvaggio Councilmember Peterson None None Noes: Abstain: Absent: Mr. B. D. Benton, 2524 Haley Street, spoke regarding PC/PAC No. 1 pertaining to the northeast corner of Mt. Vernon and Bernard. He stated for the record that they are asking for Commercial Designation for the area in question, which is 28.6 acres south of the freeway. Councilmember Smith made a motion that the request be denied and the High-Medium Density Designation be retained. Vice-Mayor Peterson made a substitute this matter to the Urban Development Committee. motion failed by the following roll call vote: motion to refer The substitute Ayes: Councilmembers Peterson, McDermott, Salvaggio Noes: Councilmembers Edwards, DeMond, Smith, Brunni Abstain: None Absent: None The motion by Councilmember Smith to deny the request and retain the High Density Residential designation was approved by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Edwards, DeMond, Smith, Brunni, McDermott Councilmembers Peterson, Salvaggio None None Noes: Abstain: Absent: Upon a motion by Councilmember DeMond, the new proposal requested by Mr. Jim Weaver pertaining to the area of Rosedale and Rudd Road was denied by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Edwards, DeMond, Smith, Peterson, McDermott, Salvaggio Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Brunni, 8O7 Bakersfield, California, December 27, 1989 Page 3 Mr. Tom Boozer, 3829 DiGiorgio Road, spoke regarding PC/PAC No. 44, the area south of Panama Lane, east of Wible. He requested that this property be zoned Commercial. Upon a motion by Councilmember McDermott, the request was denied, and the L-M-R designation was retained by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Edwards, DeMond, Smith, Salvaggio Councilmembers Peterson, Brunni None None Noes: Abstain: Absent: McDermott, Mr. Tom Boozer, 3829 DiGiorgio Road, spoke regarding PC/PAC No. 59, the area south of Loustalot, both sides of Haybert. He requested that this property be zoned Commercial. In response to Councilmember Peterson, Planning Director Hardisty stated there is an Office-Commercial designation that would be more compatible than General Commercial in that it does create a buffer between the freeway traffic and would allow a better working relationship. Upon a motion by Councilmember Peterson, the request to change this land use designation to G-C (General Commercial) was denied, and the land use designation was changed to O-C (Office-Commercial) by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Edwards, DeMond, Smith, Peterson, McDermott, Salvaggio Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Brunni , Mr. Tom Boozer, 3829 DiGiorgio Road, spoke regarding PC/PAC No. 56 pertaining to 12313 Main Street, Lamont. He requested that this property be changed from Commercial to H-M-R. Upon a motion by Councilmember DeMond, the request was approved, and the land use designation was changed to H-M-R by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Councilmembers Edwards, DeMond, Smith, Peterson, McDermott, Salvaggio None None None Brunni , Mr. Ted James, County Planning, spoke regarding the Circulation Element Map pertaining to Hageman Road between Mohawk and Fruitvale. He stated that the request by Mr. Burquist, representing DeWalt-Porter, is to downgrade the classification of Hageman Road from an arterial street with six lane capacity to a collector street with four lane capacity from Fruitvale to Mohawk Street. Staff's concern at this time is that it may be premature to downgrade this classification. He noted that within the surrounding area from Olive Drive to the north down to Rosedale Highway, there are few other major streets that would provide adequate east/west traffic. Staff's recommendation is that this request be considered through the normal General Plan amendment process. Bakersfield, California, December 27, 1989 Page 4 Upon a motion by Councilmember DeMond, the request to change the designation of Hageman Road from an arterial street to a collector street was denied by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Councilmembers Edwards , DeMond, Smith, Peterson, McDermott, Salvaggio None None None Brunni , Upon a motion by Councilmember Brunni, the new request by Mr. Paul Vibe pertaining to the southwest quarter of Olive Drive and Fruitvale Avenue was denied by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Edwards, DeMond, Smith, Peterson, McDermott, Salvaggio Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Brunni , Mr. Mel Jans, Senior Vice President and General Manager of Tenneco West, spoke regarding the southwest portion of Bakersfield and the area west of Buena Vista. He requested that Council reconsider the Oceanic issue which was heard on December 14, 1989, specifically with respect to 960 acres owned by Tenneco West. Vice-Mayor Peterson made a motion that this entire issue be referred to Committee for further recommendation. Councilmember Salvaggio spoke regarding this matter as follows: I want to point out for the record that I am in receipt of your December 13, 1989, letter which the other members of this Council received prior to the first part of this Hearing, which was on December 14, 1989. So I do not know how anyone could be ignorant of your concerns at that meeting because we had your letter in hand, unless we did not read that material in preparation for the hearing. You mention in your letter, Mr. Jans, that you are concerned basically with about 960 acres, is that correct? Mr. Mel Jans responded that that was correct. Councilmember Salvaggio continued as follows: You indicate that you are not here representing Oceanic Communities tonight, but they have an option to buy how much of that acreage? Mr. Jans clarified that the 960 acres referred to is not under the Oceanic Properties option. Councilmember Salvaggio continued as follows: So you are only concerned then with the 960 acres? Bakersfield, California, December 27, 1989 - Page 5 Mr. Mel Jans responded as follows: Yes, basically that is my concern. I would express, though, that from a good planning and development process to that August 22nd layout of the 201 0 Plan is not at all extending too far in the future in my opinion, which does take, I believe, about a half a mile beyond Oceanic Properties' own properties into the properties that we own upon which they do have an option. Councilmember Salvaggio continued as follows: I would submit then that you do have an interest. Mr. Mel Jans responded as follows: An interest in the sense that yes, they have an option on the property, and, of course, that will affect that, but from the standpoint of good development, and I think we have done a good job in the southwest; from the standpoint of good development, it is what I am really interested in seeing continue in the southwest. I do not think it should stop at Buena Vista Road. Councilmember Salvaggio continued as follows: The only other comment I would have, Council, Mr. Jans, staff, and the public, is that in your letter you indicate that the proposed changes in zoning will work to the detriment of the landowner as well as the future growth of the City of ~akersfield. We are not talking about proposed changes in zoning, we are talking about land use designations. I would submit for the record that there is a difference. As I said at the first part of this hearing, I am concerned that this 4,400-acre site is simply too large and cannot be reviewed properly within the all-encompassing 2010 Plan. I think that we should go through the usual General Plan amendment process next year or whenever the applicant would choose to do so after we have adopted this 2010 Plan so we can conduct a comprehensive review of the request. I bring that up now because you are talking about the actions the Council made which include the 960 acres as well as the other acreage that was before us under consideration by Oceanic Communities. Bakersfield, California, December 27, 1989 Page 6 We are not talking about no growth here, but we are talking about our concern for long-term impacts on Jafrastructure, transportation, air quality, and other environmental issues. I think that is the form to take to better address those. The 2010 Plan should represent a vision of urban growth into the next century. The next twenty years is what I think your words were. But I submit there is no real vision unless this growth is guided by good comprehensive planning. Good growth management means growth must go hand in ]land with an improvement in our quality of life. Mayor Medders clarified that Council will be voting on whether or not to refer this entire matter of the Oceanic request to the Urban Development Committee. Assistant City Attorney Louise Closs clarified that this request was not an appeal hearing at this time. Councilmember Salvaggio asked for a clarification of Vice-Mayor Peterson's motion. Vice-Mayor Petersom restated his motion that Council re-hear this matter by referring it to the Urban Development Committee, and the Committee will report back with a recommendation to the Council. Councilmember Salvaggio stated there should be a motion to re-hear if they want to re-hear this first, then go forward with a motion to refer it to Committee. He further stated he has not heard any requests from Oceanic to have this re-heard tonight and it is not on the Agenda. Assistant City Attorney Louise Closs stated that it is a motion to reconsider, and if that passes, then the motion could be to refer it to Co,~mittee. There should be two separate motions. Councilmember Salvaggio stated he is opposed to reheating the Oceanic request. Councilmember McDermott spoke in favor of re-hearing the Oceaaic request. Ms. Ruth Gilman stated she is opposed to re-hearing the Oceanic request and is opposed to referring it to Committee. Mr. Don Ratty spoke in opposition to re-hearing the Oceanic request. Councilmember Brunni spoke in opposition to re-hearing the Oceanic request. Mr. Craig Lofton, 13205 Ceanne Court, spoke in opposition to re-hearing the Oceanic request. Mr. Arthur Unger, 2815 LaCresta Drive, Conservation Chair of the Sierra Club, spoke in opposition to re-hearing the Oceanic request. Mr. Rich O'Neil, 6600 Desmond Court, spoke in opposition to re-hearing the Oceanic request. Bakersfield, California, December 27, 1989 - Page 7 Mr. Bill Cooper, Chairman of the Kern River Parkway Committee, spoke in opposition to re-hearing the Oceanic request. Councilmember DeMond stated she is opposed to re-opening the hearing on the Oceanic request. Mr. Dennis Fox, 918 Blossom, spoke in opposition to re-hearing the Oceanic request and requested changes. Mr. Eldon Hugie..spoke in favor of submitting the matter to Committee for further study. Mr. Peter Lacques, Oceanic Communities, spoke in favor of re-hearing the Oceanic request. Councilmember DeMond made a motion that Council go forward with the motion to re-hear this issue. Councilmember Edwards stated he is opposed to re-hearing the Oceanic request and is opposed to referring it back to Committee. Councilmember Salvaggio made a call for the question. Oceanic's call vote: The motion by Councilmember Peterson to re-hear and Tenneco West's request failed by the following roll Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Councilmembers Smith, Peterson, McDermott Councilmembers Edwards, DeMond, Brunni, Salvaggio None None Upon a motion by Councilmember Brunni, the public portion of the Hearing was closed. Upon a motion by Councilmember DeMond, the Hearing was continued to January 24, 1990, to hear the report and recommendation from the Urban Development Committee. There being no further business to come before the Council, upon a motion by Councilmember McDermott, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield, CA ATTEST: CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California kdsc