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