Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/14/1989 MINUTES CC287 Bakersfield, California, December 14, 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 14, 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: Councilmembers Edwards , DeMond, Smith, Peterson, McDermott, Salvaggio Absent: None Brunni, Planning Director Jack Hardisty introduced Mr. Ted James, Director of the County of Kern Planning Division. Mr. James has worked with the City as a team member on the development of the 2010 General Plan. This Plan represents five years of study, planning, negotiations, compromise and progress between the City and County agencies and dedicated private citizens who have followed it from its beginning. He stated he is proud to present the Plan for Council's consideration and. feels it truly represents a blend of this community's values. This Special Meeting of the City Council was advertised to consider Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2010 General Plan and conduct a Public Hearing to. consider the Plan recommended by the Planning Commission and the Planning Advisory Committee which is the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan dated October 1989. There have been several editions earlier than that. The Planning Commission and Plaaning Advisory Committee have conducted the public hearing on the Environmental Impact Report, and they have determined that it complies with California Environmental Quality Act and the City's own local guidelines for Environmental Impact Reports. It has been forwarded to the Council for certification before adoption of the Plan. The next item on the Agenda opens the Public Hearing on the 2010 Plan. NEW BUSINESS Adoption of Resolution No. 204-89 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making findings and certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Metropolitan Bakersfield 20~0 General Plan. Mayor Medders asked if there were any persons in the audience who are present for the purpose of speaking to the inadequacy of the Environmental Impact Report. No one wishing to speak as to the inadequacy of the Environmental Impact Report, Mayor Medders returned the hearing to Council for their recommendations. Upon a motion by Councilmember McDermott, Resolution No. 204-89 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Edwards, DeMond, Smith, Peterson, McDermott, Salvaggio None Councilmember Brunni None Noes: Abstain: Absent: Bakersfield, California, December 14, 1989 - Page 2 HEARINGS This is the time set for a public hearing on the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and to formulate a recommendation to the Kern County Board of Supervisors. This hearing has been duly advertised, posted and the interested parties notified as required by law. Mayor Medders asked Jack Hardisty to read the list of correspondence received. Planning Director Hardisty stated that unless something has been received very recently, there is no correspondence that: specifically addresses the items in this book. Therefore, Council should proceed with discussion of policies contained in the book. Mayor Medders declared the hearing open for public participation regarding the Land Use Element. LAND USE ELEMENT Mr. David Dewey, 1930 22nd Street, Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, spoke the Land Use and Circulation Element. representing the in opposition to. Ms. Barbara Don Carlos, representing the Building Industry Association of Kern County, 5405 Stockdale Highway, spoke in opposition to the Land Use and Circulation Elements. Mr. Jim Redstone, representing Simpson VanCuren, spoke regarding the Land Use Element as follows: Simpson VanCuren has represented several clients at the Joint Committee stage, and I have one item, which would be Item No. 27. The only reason I am bringing it up is it is a mapping error. I think we brought it up with staff and they have recognized that, so I do not think we have a problem addressing that. First of all, I would really like to commend the Joint County Advisory Committee and the City Planning Commission for their diligent work during those 2010 Plan hearings. They conducted it and did very well with that. During the hearings, Simpson VanCuren represented numerous property owners within the 2010 boundary area. Many of our clients own land in the Rosedale area. We attempted several requested changes to the existing land use designations for our clients in this area that were denied by the Committee and that Commission. Bakersfield, California, December 14, 1989 - Page 3 One of the primary basis of denial was based on testimony that was presented by County staff that related to the insufficiency of the 2010 Plan as a document in addressing the Rosedale area. The County staff testified that the Rosedale area was too unique of an area to be studied by the 2010 Plan, too complex as well. The 2010 Plan process, they did not feel, was the time and place to do that and they made a recommendation that a specific plan should be required to address the adequacy of concern for this entire area in a separate document. Since it was apparently the Joint Committee's belief that the County staff' s recommendations were valid regarding this further study in Rosedale, several of our requests were denied because of the lack of sufficiency of that 201 0 Plan to fully address the advance planning for those Rosedale projects. As a result of this denial, based on the staff's recommendation, we requested that a Rosedale Specific Plan be immediately started because of the growth that takes place in that area. I might add that we are aware of the fact that there is a Rosedale Specific Plan currently there, but it does not address the same boundary areas as the 2010 Plan. The area I am referring to when I talk about Rosedale is generally in the north/south direction of Snow Road to Stockdale Highway and east/west Enos Lane and Renfro Road. Renfro picks up the existing Specific Plan area. We are just trying to provide our testimony for the record so that it is continuous as we go through this process. We are recommending that this body and the Board of Supervisors instigate, fund and immediately instruct staff to begin that Rosedale Specific Plan as per their recommendation and they do it as rapidly as possible. Like I said before, it is really our desire, therefore, to have our comments read into the record at this time. Planning Director Hardisty responded to a question by Councilmember DeMond by stating that the reason the City changed from a gross to a net was to make the calculations and plan designations the same as those that the County uses. The County has a little broader range or fine grain of uses so the City just adapted theirs to the County's. For the City, it is a mathematical calculation. The City can work in either mode. Planning Director Hardisty stated that there is a fairly consistent shift from net to gross. The roads generally take up always about the same percentage and if there is a park, that is calculated in. It is something that the City does in a fairly rapid fashion on a rough basis at the General Plan level, and then as subdivisions are submitted, the City can actually measure the lots that they have already gone through the trouble of drawing and designing. Bakersfield, California, December 14, 1989 - Page 4 CIRCULATION ELEMENT Mayor Medders declared the hearing open for public participation regarding the Circulation Element. Ms. Barbara Don Carlos, representing the Building Industry Association of Kern County, stated the Building Industry Association has fundamental concerns regarding the mandate of the level of service indicated in this Element for the streets and intersections. The concern is whether or not this community, and more specifically whether or not new development, will be able to economically bear the demands of a Level of Service "C," which is required within this Element. The policy is established first on Page 313 of the Circulation Element. It states that the objective of the planned street system is to accommodate planned land development without traffic congestion. "All new streets and freeways are projected to operate at Level of Service 'C' or better with volumes less than 80 percent of capacity. Existing streets operating at or below Level of Service 'C' are not to degrade below the existing level of service." The BIA would very much appreciate that this Council would review whether or uot it feels that a Level of Service "C" is something that new development can maintain. The recommendation would also be that the Council consider using a Level of Service "D," which would be just one step below that and perhaps would not be as detrimental. to the financial well-being of new development. Mr. Rick Lymp, Chairman of the General Plan Advisory Committee, advised that the level of service was raised[ originally in the General Plan Advisory Committee level, and there was more concern of wasting resources than the cost of new development unless it was at the expense of the new development and to the benefit of old development. Mr. Dennis Fox, 918 Blossom, spoke in support of reviewing the Plan yearly. Mr. Jeffrey Brown, 308-1/2 South Chester, stated that. by and large members of Ward 1, and in particular, members of the Southeast Enterprise Zone, and people in the downtown have been left out in the cold by this Plan. CONSERVATION ELEMENT Mayor Medders declared the hearing open for public participatiou regarding the Conservation Element. No one wishing to speak on the Conservation Element, Mayor Medders declared the hearing open for public participation regarding the Open Space Element. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Mr. Dennis Fox, 918 Blossom, stated he is his pitch that an annual update be require~. going to make 291 Bakersfield, California, December ~4, 1989 - Page 5 NOISE ELENENT Mayor Medders declared the hearing open for public participation regarding the Noise Element. No one wishing to speak regarding the Noise Element, Mayor Medders declared the hearing open for public participation regarding the Safety Element. SAFETY ELEMENT Ms. Barbara Don Carlos, representing the Buildinq Industry Association of Kern County, stated that within this Safety Element there is a policy which could prove to be the most detrimental to new residential constr~]ction and to new home buyers within the entire Plan. Within this Element there are policies mandating that new development dedicate land and pay in-lieu fees for land for new fire and police facilities. It also mandates that there be established a standard in which to ensure adequate fire protection levels which is to be comparison with other California communities. The BIA would never endorse, and hopes this Council would never endorse, policy which would require developers, builders and new home buyers to pay twice for fire and police protection. The BIA is: ready and willing to discuss potential financing methods in which the demands of fire and police protection can be met. However, the BIA has serious concerns with mandating that kind of requirement within this Safety Element. The BIA proposes that rather than these particular mandates, that wording be incorporated to encourage an. exploration into potential funding mechanisms. It should be phrased in a way to be free to explore all potential funding' mechanisms but never be mandated because these are requirements that assessment districts be formed to finance fire and police protection and developer fees and land dedications be exacted from developers to accommodate these facilities. DOWNTOWN ELEMENT Mayor Medders declared the hearing open for public participation regarding the Downtown Element. No one wishing to speak regarding the Downtown Element, Mayor Medders declared the hearing open for public participation regarding the Public Services Element. PUBLIC SERVICES No one wishing to speak regarding the Public Services Element, Mayor Medders declared the hearing open for public participation regarding the Parks Element. PARKS ELEMENT No one wishing to speak regarding the Parks Element, Mayor Medders declared the hearing open for public participation regarding the Kern River Element. 292 Bakersfield, California, December 14, 1989 - Page 6 KERN RI~E~ ELEMENT Mr. Rich O'Neil, 6600 Desmond Court, spoke on behalf of the Kern River Committee recommending, in agreement with the Advisory Committee and the work that has been done prior, that the Kern River Plan Element is accepted without any changes the 2010 Plan. Oceanic has already put the City of Bakersfield on notice that they would like to make changes to the Plan. No one else wishing to speak regarding the Kern River Element, Mayor Medders declared the hearing open for public participation regarding the Mapping Element. MAPPING ELEMENT Planning Director Hardisty provided a summary of the correspondence received regarding the Mapping Element as follows: Mr. Gilbert Banda, Jr., 907 Pacific Street, regarding expansion of R-4 uses to include some C-O uses on Truxtun. Kern College Land Company concerning different development proposals, general commercial at the northeast corner of Buena Vista and Pacheco and various high/medium residential and low residential uses on the remainder. Mr. Dean Gay, Mr. Lawton Powers and Mr. Scott Underhill for ASU concerning property at the northwest corner of Rosedale ~ighway and Calloway to enlarge the general commercial area and map correction. Mr. Frank Zamora, south of Houghton Road between Union and Chevalier Road concerning highway commercial at the southeast corner of Chevalier Road as estate residential on the remainder. Ms. Betty Jean Larimer, Hart Ranch Trust, 2819 Rice Street, area north of Panama Lane, 1/2 mile west of Buena Vista, protesting the revision of the proposed 2010 designation to intensive agricultural. Mr. Brian Haupt, Coleman Company, 5251 Office Park Drive, concerning the northeast corner of Mt. Vernon and Bernard - general commercial. Ms. Margaret Rowe, 2812 Wenatchee, area south of Columbus Street to Wenatchee, protesting the general commercial designation of property in that area. Tenneco West, P. O. Box 9380, area west of Buena Vista, south of the River. Oceanic Communities, Inc., 10000 Ming Avenue, area west of Buena Vista, south of the River. Bakersfield, California, December 74, 1989 - Page 7 Mr. Charles Stone concerning area east of "A" Street, south of 20th Street, to high density residential. DeWalt-Porter Civil Engineering, 2340 Niles Street, concerning a circulation plan amendment to change the designation of Hageman Road east of Fruitvale, west of Mohawk from an arterial to a collector. Mr. James R. Parker, Jr., 2330 20th Street, concerning area east of "A" Street, south of 20th Street, to high deasity residential. Mr. Thomas Hays and Mr. Ronald Morgan, north of Paladino Drive, west of Morning Drive, the suburban residential requested. Mr. Roger Mcintosh, Martin-Mcintosh, 4130 Ardmore Avenue, requesting an amendment to the Circulation Element for a small collector west of Cal-State University. Alta Engineering Hughes Surveying in support of the Kern College request. Mr. Gilbert Banda, 907 Pacific Street, stated he has: some property on the south side of Truxtun between "A" and Oak. Streets. He represents some of the property owners in that area, and he would like to recommend a zoning ordinance amendment for a new zoning category and would be willing to meet with the Urban Development Committee or some committee of that nature to discuss. further some of the ideas. George Dickey, Alta Engineering and Hughes Surveying, Civil Engineers and Land Planners, consultants on behalf of Kern College Land Company, stated their request was to provide some 2010 General Plan densities in accordance with what had been generally described as the Tevis Ranch Development Plan. Specifically, their request is that the area that is designated on the current plan, High Density Residential, be relocated to the north end of the property and to the southwest corner of their property which is adjacent to some other compatible development. He further requested that they be allowed General Commercial in this area which is the logical place for Commercial. He submitted a package that includes the surrounding zoning of the property and a fuller delineation of their requests. Additionally, they requested that they be granted the Commercial on the corner and be allowed to present testimony before the Land Use Commission. Mr. Eldon Hugie, a partner in Kern College Land Company, requested Council give serious consideration to their request for zoning, for utilization of the property in the same manner that has been planned for many years. Mr. Rick Lymp, Chairman of the General Plan Advisory Committee, stated the first issue the General Plan Advisory Committee had was whether or not the Plan was going to be adopted by the County and the City. If Council is going to defer a majority of these requests to Committee, people who came to listen to the requests may not be present to hear the questions asked at a later date or they may miss an opportunity to address some element of that request or response to the request because they are absent from the discussion of it. Bakersfield, California, December 14, 1989 Page 8 Mr. Dean Gay stated he represents Mr. Lawton Powers and they had learned after the 2010 Plan hearings had been held that there was an error in the mapping of the commercial area at Rosedale and Calloway at the northwest corner. In addition tm that, the developer has the opportunity to enlarge the center and[ is requesting that Commercial be placed at the tower lines at the north of their property, which would include an extra four acres. The extension is surrounded by Industrial and Commercial and[ tower lines at the north. Planning Director Hardisty clarified that there are two parts to this issue; one is that the 2010 Map shows less than what they actually have zoned for commercial development, and the second part is that as they have developed this project, they need the adjacent parcel, which is an expansion and it fills between a power line and this basic Commercial Zone. Therefore, it is a four-acre addition to a shopping center development, and! it is considered a minor problem. Ms. Martha Zamora, 13053 South Union Avenue, spoke on. behalf of her father-in-law, Mr. Frank Zamora, who owns 55.96 acres of land just south of the Bakersfield City limits. It is bordered by South Union Avenue, Houghton Road and Chevalier Road. She requested the Council's approval for 2-1/2 acres of Highway Commercial on the southeast corner of Houghton and Chevalier Roads and for Estate Residential or 1-acre parcels for the remaining property. Her other proposal was in regard to the remaining property which is 53.46 acres. She requested one-acre lot sizes instead of the proposed two-and-a-half-acre parcels. She urged approval of her requests for two-and-a-half acres of Highway Commercial on the southeast corner of Houghton and Chevalier Roads and for the remaining property to be changed to Estate Residential for the one-acre parcels. In response to Councilmember DeMond's inquiry, Mr. Ted James, Director of Kern County Planning Division, stated that in this area there is not the infrastructure that would typically be found in a more built-up area. Typically for a one-acre development, that should be on a community water system and also it would be appropriate if there were community sewer services available. The biggest concern with the request is that the lot sizes in the area are more typical of rural residential lot sizes, two-and-a-half acre, and it would be more appropriate if consideration was given to supporting the request for the Residential, that it be for two-and-a-half-acre parcels rather than one. Mr. Ron Haupt, Coleman Company, stated he was representing Coleman Company and also the Lutheran Church of Prayer, the owners of the site in question. He requested a reconsideration of the Commission and the Committee's rulings that this particular site remain High-Medium Residential. He submitted to all of the Council a letter from Mr. Gayle Carlson, who owns all of the property to the north, stating that he would have no problem, that this property be changed in a land use designation to a Commercial use, and he also cited the fact that it would still have to go in front of a Zoning Commission which would probably designate a PCD or a Planned Unit Zoning. 295 Bakersfield, California, December 14, 1989 - Page 9 Mr. James Parker, Jr., Case No. 91, stated he and his wife live at 2330 20th Street, on the northeast corner of 20th and "A." He stated he wrote a letter a few days ago concerning the request to change, basically delete, the Commercial Office designation for about a six-block area between 18th and 20th Streets on a north/south direction, and "A" and "C" Streets on an east/west direction. On the 2010 Plan, it is currently D-2,. which is High/Medium Density Residential with Office Commercial.. He requested that the Council delete the Office Commercial, the intent being to preserve the existing residential nature of the neighborhood. A compatible designation is High Density Residential, with the exception of one block on the south side of 20th, which is currently R-l, which would be Low Density Residential. Mr. Kevin Rupp, 2702 20th Street, spoke in support of this same proposal. He stated he would like to see the 2010 Plan made consistent with what is now processing through the Planning Department General Plan Amendment. Ms. Ruth Adams, 2311 19th Street, stated she wanted to say basically two things, the first being that it is not the wish of the residents to displace anyone. They merely would like to have things kept status quo as they currently exist. she mentioned that there was a tremendous amount of historic interest in the area they would like to have taken into consideration when action is taken. Mr. Charles Stone stated he thinks it was premature and would be a political over-response to delete this site from the Redevelopment Element and instead place the site within the Boundaries and Land Use Circulation Element. Planning Director Hardisty stated that from Mr. Parker's presentation, he requested that they delete the Office part of the designation and retain the High Density Residential Designation except for that property that is zoned R-l, which would go to Low Density, which the High Density would take in an R-3. In response to Councilmember Brunni, Planning Director Hardisty stated that the current zoning for this site is R-1 and R-3. He also stated that the Office Commercial does not fit in either of those two zones. Councilmember DeMond made a motion that Low Density be retained on the R-1 Zone and High Density which equals R-3 Zone. Planning Director Hardisty stated that the areas within the Redevelopment Element of the General Plan, which is a little bit larger than the project area for the Redevelopment Agency and the designation is Urban, Office, Medical, and Residential. That Plan was drawn up by the Redevelopment Agency, submitted to the Planning Commission for Public Hearing, and approved by the Planning Commission to the City Council who did adopt it. Therefore, when there is a change proposed within the boundaries of the Plan, it is referred to the Central District Development Agency for a report, comment and recommendation. The Planning Commission considers their recommendation and then takes their action and makes a recommendation to the Council. They have considered this as a proposal for High Density Residential. 296 Bakersfield, California, December 14, 1989 - Page 10 There was also a consideration that this should be continued to allow the re-evaluation of this neighborhood and in the process of working on the Redevelopment Element which is being reconsidered this year and next year. He asked Mr. Kronenberg from the Central District Development Agency to provide some input. Mr. Paul Kronenberg, Central District Development Agency, stated this General Plan Amendment change did come befor~ the Agency. It was referred to Committee and came back up for report. Essentially what the Agency did was ask the Planninq Commission and the Council to wait a little bit. The point the Agency made was the Land Use Designations fit with what the Redevelopment Plan was five years ago, which is currently undergoing an update. Agency Members asked for some time, not necessarily for the Planning Commission but for themselves because they were in the middle of that. The Agency has a Citizens' Advisory Committee that is looking at the Land Use Designations, particularly beyond the project area. The Agency felt that the General Plan Amendment change at this time was probably a little precipitous. It did not get into the politics of the battle that was fought a couple of months ago. But it did take a look at the usages there and felt that it was looking at mixed use on the boundaries of the project area. There is a major medical facility on Truxtun. If the Council takes the action that it did tonight, it might foreclose an expansion there of peripheral and ciliary services. That is essentially what the Agency recommended. It took that action at its last meeting and that was transmitted. The City Clerk would have the status of the correspondence. Councilmember DeMond made a motion that Council retain R-1 Low Density on the R-1 designation and R-3 on the High Density H-R and show on the Land Use Map not on the Redevelopment Map. Councilmember McDermott stated the question raised by Mr. Stone regarding down-zoning, it is essentially called R-l, R-3 someplace and someplace else it £s called UOM and asked Mr. Hardisty whether this was really down-zoning. Planning Director Hardisty stated it is not down-zoning as requested. The zoning is R-1 and R-3 and the rezoning of that is not an issue before the Council. The General Plan shows it as a mixed Urban/Office/Medical/Residential designation which allows a combination of apartments and business. Those offices and businesses would only be allowed in the present zoning either by a conditional use permit or through a process to rezone to the Professional Office as was requested by Mr. Stone. It is not a down-zoning; it would be a narrowing of the options under the policies of the General Plan for future zoning. It maintains a status quo as to the existing development. The motion by Councilmember DeCorid to retain R-I Low Density on the R-1 designation and R-3 on the High Density H-R and show on the Land Use Map not on the Redevelopment Map was approved by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Edwards, DeMond, Smith, Peterson, McDermott, Salvaggio Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Brunni , Bakersfield, California, December 14, 1989 Page Councilmember McDermott made a motion to rezone the northwest corner of Calloway Road and Rosedale Highway to G-C the additional four acres there, as per Mr. Dean Gay's request. Mr. Ted James stated that this item is in the unincorporated area of Kern County. There is no specific staff presentation for it because it was a request that was submitted fairly recently. As Mr. Hardisty indicated, it is a minor request. It is the expansion of the existing commercial area at the northwest corner of Calloway and Rosedale Highway. It would be infilling Commercial designation up to the PG&E easement, and the applicant does have an application for a General Plan Amendment on file and the processing of that would coincide with the 2010 Plan going before the Board of Supervisors. At this time staff does not see any problems with the request. motion. City Clerk Williams asked for a restatement of the Councilmember McDermott restated the motion to grant the request to G-C on the four acres on the northwest corner of Calloway and Rosedale Highway. The motion was approved 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 Smith, the 2010 Plan Use Designation of the Lutheran Church of Prayer, No. 90, was referred to the Urban Development Committee by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Edwards, DeMond, Smith, Peterson, McDermott, Salvaggio Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Brunni, Councilmember Salvaggio stated that he would like to discuss Map Nos. 4 and 6, the Zamora property. Planning Director Hardisty stated that regarding the Residential Rural request, Map No. 6, the Planning Commission and Planning Advisory Committee recommended that Rural Residential be established on that property and that was based upon staff's recommendation that surrounding lot sizes were more appropriate for two-and-a-half-acre size. Upon a motion by Councilmember Salvaggio, Map No. 6 (Residential Rural Request) was referred to the Urban Development Committee for further analysis by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Edwards, DeMond, Smith, Peterson, McDermott, Salvaggio Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Brunni , Bakersfield, California, December 14, 1989 - Page 12 Councilmember Salvaggio asked Mr. James to comment on Map No. 4, the request for designation as Highway Commercial. Mr. James stated that the primary concern of the County staff related to this request is that there are an existing twenty acres of vacant Highway Commercial property already located at the intersection at the on-ramp/off-ramp with Freeway 99 and Houghton Road. The County feels that it i~ unwarranted at this time to add additional Commercial. It may set a precedent for further extension of Commercial to the east along Houghton Road. Upon a motion by Councilmember Salvaggio, Map No. 4, the request for designation as Highway Commercial, was referred to the Urban Development Committee by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Edwards, DeMond, Smith, Brunni, McDermott, Salvaggio Councilmember Peterso~ None None Noes: Abstain: Absent: Upon a motio~ by Councilmember Brunni, the Kern College Land proposal, Old Map No. 54, was referred to the Urban Development Committee by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Edwards, DeMond, Smith, Brunni, Peterson, McDermott, Salvaggio Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Councilmember DeMond asked staff to fill in the Council regarding Mr. Banda's request, No. 28 on the first map, as to what was suggested and what was denied. Planning Director Hardisty stated that the area is approximately 6.84 acres in size. It is now zoned R-l, R-2, R-3 and R-4. The existing General Plan shows it as a Low Density Residential area. That designation is carried forward into the 2010 designation. Mr. Banda originally asked for Office Commercial to be shown before the Planning Commission. Now he is requesting ~hat it be more of a combination-type zone. It is west of Mercy Hospital and south of Truxtun Avenue. Staff recommended that the 2010 Plan be retained as a Low Density Residential designation. That was upheld by the Planning Commission and recommended to Council as well. Mr. Banda stated that he conceded to the denial of Map Change Request No. 28 that was made previously in May 1989. At that time it was requested to change the R-1 for Residential classification to the C-O Zone. He conceded to that denial. However, at his own request, he is making the request for a new zoning category. This zoning category will preserve the residential character of that area. However, it will allow some uses under the C-O Zone. He stated he is willing to meet with the Urban Development Committee at a future date or another committee of that aature to further explain his request. 299 Bakersfield, California, December 14, 1989 - Page 13 Planning Director Hardisty stated that at this time to introduce a new land use designation within the General Plan would be a significant change in the policy and map designations as well. If Mr. Banda wants to go forward with it, he should ask Council to reconstitute the Planning Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission, and have them have a hearing on this or he may have it go through its normal amendment process. At this point it is far too late to add an entirely new land use designation to the General Plan. Upon a motion by Councilmember DeMond, the request by Mr. Banda for a new land use designation 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 DeMond, Council recessed at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 p.m. Councilmember Peterson made a motion to limit the brief preview to five minutes for each applicant for appeal, then the Council can interact and ask questions; and to consider the policy decisions at this point of the meeting and then go on with the hearing. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Edwards, DeMond, Smith, Peterson, McDermott, Salvaggio Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Brunni , Councilmember Peterson made a motion that Council discuss the policy aspects of the 2010 Plan before going on to the next hearing. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Edwards, DeMond, Smith, Peterson, McDermott, Salvaggio Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Brunni , Councilmember McDermott discussed the policy aspects of the 2010 Plan. He stated that one aspect that has been overriding in his coasideration of a good General Plan is an adequate Circulation Element. He congratulated the Planning Advisory Committee and Planning Commissions on drafting a fairly comprehensive document dealing with the future of Bakersfield. He felt some very important implementatioa measures are listed, including taking the steps necessary to preserve the freeway, as Item 26 under the Circulation Element. Page 318 mentions preserving freeway rights-of-ways and interchanges. Item No. 29 states the developers will be required to make street dedications to ~he standards of this Plan. Councilmember McDermott stated that some issues were raised that need to be considered. One, under the Circulation Element, is the issue raised about mandating Level of Service "C." He felt that setting a Level of Service "C" as a goal is a very appropriate one. Anything less than Level of Service "C" would be deteriorating the quality of life in this community. 800 Bakersfield, California, December 14, 1989 - Page 14 Councilmember McDermott stated that Level of Service "C" says that, essentially, 30 percent of the time a person is going to have to wait at a signal for more than one light. That is not great service; however, that is a minimum that ought to be looked at. Councilmember McDermott then asked Mr. Schulz to address the issue of those intersections that are already existing. Public Works Director Ed Schulz responded regarding the Level of Service for existing intersections stating the way the language is written, the City cannot degrade existing intersections to a lesser level than what is there but prior to new development happening, occurring somewhere else. One of the problems with that is if that intersection is fully developed on all sides, what is to be done with that intersection? There is no right-of-way to purchase without removing structures. That needs to be looked into a little bit deeper. He suggested the matter be referred to the Committee so the problem could be addressed. Councilmember McDermott continued stating the other issues raised about the policies had to do with the Safety Element. Ms. Barbara Don Carlos raised a couple of issues there. The first one has to do with Item 837, No. 2, that basically said[ that new development is to pay for fire station operations and[ police operations. He felt that it is a more appropriate thing' to be funded out of the general fund. Item 837, No. 1, is one that needs to be at least examined, and that is the item about using developer fees to pay for the new structures. He urged, either by referring to Committee or by amending it, that portion of No. 2 be eliminated, and he suggested further discussion of No. 1, possibly by referring it to Committee. Councilmember ~cDermott made a motioa to refer the Circulation Element regarding Level "C," using fees to fund fire station maintenance, and the in-lieu fees to pay for new fire stations to the Urban Development Committee. Councilmember Peterson made an amended motion to refer to Committee the discussion of the level of service at intersections, the funding of police and fire services from general fund tax revenues, and the gross versus net acres as a way of looking at density. Councilmember Peterso~ restated the motion to approve the document with the exception of the Level of Service "C" comments, Item No. 313; with the exception of Item No. 837, No. 1; with the exception of Item No. 218, concerning the net and gross acres; and with the amendment to delete everything after the semi-colon on Item No. 837, No. 2; and that staff prepare on those subjects as much background as possible so they will be p~epared. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Councilmembers Edwards , DeMond, Smith, Peterson, McDermott, Salvaggio None None None Brunni , Mr. Ronald ~organ, 5900 Kirkside requested that his current zoning of R-M-P be Zoning for Single Family Residents. Drive, Condo "G," changed to an S-R Councilmember Smith stated this is a new request and the Planning Commission has not heard it before. Bakersfield, California, December 14, 1989 - Page 15 Planning Director Hardisty recommended that this item be considered as a General Plan Amendment in the next cycle if the applicant wishes to pursue it. Mayor Medders announced that Mrs. Margaret Rowe would be the next speaker. Mrs. Margaret Rowe was not present. Planning Director Hardisty stated that the property Mrs. Rowe would have addressed is at Columbus and Wenatchee~. south side of Columbus, and there will be several speakers speaking on both sides of this matter. Mayor Medders announced that this item is property between Highway 178 and Columbus in the Mt. Vernon and Auburn. regarding the area between Mr. Roger Mcintosh, principal in the firm of Martin 8~ Mcintosh Engineering and Land Surveying, who represents the property owner, stated that he has not seen the letter from Mrs. Margaret Rowe and asked staff to state the basic concern of the letter. Staff stated that the letter from Mrs. Margaret Rowe reads as follows: It is my understanding the Council will consider the Planning Commission's vote to rezone the above property to General Commercial Zone, as part of the 2010 General Plan, at a Special Meeting on December 14, 1989. I am a property owner residing 1/2 block north of the property in question and wish to advise the Council that I received no notification of this proposal prior to hearing by the Planning Commission or this Special Council Meeting. I am opposed to rezoning this parcel to General Commercial. This is a residential neighborhood and I believe there are other areas more suitable to commercial use. Commercial development could only result in lower property values, noise and traffic congestion. The Council's careful consideration of this rezoning is urgently requested. Mr. Roger Mcintosh made a request to change the property to General Commercial. Mr. Robert Norwood, 2803 Loyola, stated he opposes the rezoning to General Commercial. Mr. Pat Dunn stated he is the owner of the property in question and he would like more research done so he could get guidance on what he can put on the property. He talked to City Planning and was told that the City could support a precise commercial development. He was also advised he could build apartments on it. He requested the Council provide guidance with respect to what he can put on the property. Bakersfield, California, December 14, 1989 - Page 16 In response to Councilmember Brunni, Planing Director Hardisty stated that the existing zoning is Single Family Residential, R-1. The existing General Plan shows it as Medium Density Residential, which would allow it to be rezoned to The 2010 designation moved that up to an H-R, which is High Density Residential, roughly an R-3 level of zoning. The H-R designation was the draft plan; the Planning Commission then recommended that it be adopted as a General Commercial Zone. Mr. Trini Valdez, 3017 Roanoke Court, spoke in opposition to the General Commercial Zone change. Ms. Mary Ann Bughler, 3013 Roanoke Court, spoke in opposition to the requested zone change. She would like to see a definite proposed plan before anything is changed, study it on its own merits, and when a suitable plan is proposed, she will support it. Mr. Dwayne Keithley, Coldwell Banker, encouraged the Council to consider a PCD on this property since some arguments have suggested that R-1 Residential would not be appropriate because of the aoise levels of Freeway 178. Mr. Dennis Valdez, 4616 Panorama Drive, strongly urged Council to vote against this as a Commercial area. change. Mr. Pat Dunn spoke in support of the requested zone Councilmember Smith made a motion that the property remain R-l, which is the original zoning. Councilmember Peterson asked for a clarificatio~ of the motion. He stated that the motion was to retain R-1. The 201~. General Plan designation would be Low Density Residential. However, using 2010 terms, he stated that the current General Plan equivalency would be at a ~igh/Medium Density, ~-M-R, if that is to be held over. The 2010's draft Plan proposed H-R, which is ~igh Density Residential, which is 17 to 72 units per acre. Staff advised that if it is held as an H-R as first proposed in the 2010 General Plan, then to go to the PCD would involve a hearing to amend the General Plan to Commercial simultaneously with the PCD zone change. Councilmember McDermott stated that this property is currently H-M-R, although it is zoned R-l, and there is a recommendation to redesignate it as H-R, which would actually increase the deasity on ~hat. The suggestion should be to leave it at its current designation of H-M-R, High/Medium Density Residential Development, between 10 and 17 units per acre, which is either an R-2 or R-3 Zone. 'Councilmember Peterson made an amended motion to have staff meet with the residents and come up with recommended uses, and have staff work this problem out and come back to Committee with it. Councilmember Smith called for the question. Bakersfield, California, December 14, 1989 - Page 17 remain vote: The motion by Councilmember Smith to let the property zoned as H-M-R was approved by the following roll call Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Councilmembers Edwards, DeMond, Smith, Peterson, McDermott, Salvaggio None None None Brunni , Planning Director Hardisty announced that the next item to be addressed is the Old No. 65, west of Buena Vista and south of the Kern River Study Area. Mr. Roger Mcintosh, Martin & Mcintosh Civil Engineering and Land Surveying, consultant to Oceanic Communities, Inc., spoke in opposition to the Planning Commission's decision to revert the property back to R-I-A, Rural Intensive Agricultural. Mr. Peter Lacques, Oceanic Communities, spoke in opposition to the R-I-A. Councilmember McDermott made a motion to (1) approve the General Plan Amendment as submitted by Oceanic with the additional condition that a specific plan requirement be included for the Center and for the Industrial portion of the area; and (2) to establish a freeway system around Bakersfield. Councilmember Brunni made a substitute ,Notion that Council leave the existing Land Use designations in place as reco~maended by the Planning Commission and the Planning Advisory Committee from the County. Councilmember Brunni withdrew her substitute motion. Mr. Rich O'Neil, 6600 Desmend Court, spoke in opposition to Oceanic's proposal for all the Land Use Designation changes to tile 2010. Mr. Arthur Unger, 2815 LaCresta Drive, spoke in support of the 2010 General Plan. No further protests or objections being received and no one else wishing to speak in favor, Mayor Medders closed the public portion of the hearing for Council deliberation and action. Councilmember Edwards stated that those complicated appeals requiring further study and testimony from staff and others would be referred to the Urban Development Committee. He stated that this matter appears to be more complicated than the others have been, and he cannot support the motion on the floor if Council votes on it at this time because it is contrary to what Council said they were going to do earlier. Councilmember Edwards made a substitute motion that this matter be referred to the Urban Development Committee. Councilmember Brunni made a substitute motion to leave the designations as they were proposed by the Planning Commission and the Planning Advisory Committee. Councilmember Salvaggio urged the Council to support the recommendations of the Planning Commission and County Planning Advisory Committee with regard to the 2010 General Plan. Bakersfield, California, December 14, 1989 - Page 18 Councilmember McDermott spoke in support of th~ Planning staff's recommendation of the original draft Plan. Vice-Mayor Peterson spoke in support of Councilmember Brunni's substitute motion. Councilmember Brunni called for the question. Councilmember Brunni restated the substitute motion to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Planning Advisory Committee for the County. The ,~otion was approved by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers DeMond, Brunni, Peterson, Noes: Councilmembers Edwards, Smith, McDermott Abstain: None Absent: None Salvaggio Councilmember Peterson made a motion that Council draw a close to tonight's activities and reset another date. was Upon a motion by Councilmember ~cDermott, continued to 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 27, the hearing 1989. MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield, CA ATTEST: CITY CLERK and EX Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California kdsc