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