Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/1988 MINUTES CCBakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, for the purpose of a Closed Session held in the Manager's Conference Room, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, at 5:15 p.m., November 16, 1988. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Payne. City Clerk Williams called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Payne. Councilmembers Childs, DeMond, Ratty, Peterson Absent: Councilmember Smith, McDermott, Salvaggio CLOSED SESSION Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 regarding Labor Negotiations with City of Bakersfield's Chief Negotiator Bill Avery. Upon a motion by Councilmember Childs, Council adjourned to the City Manager's Conference Room for Closed Session. There being Council, the meeting ADJOURNMENT no further business to come was adjourned at 6:05 p.m. before the ATTEST: MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield, CA CITY CSERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California bz Bakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers, City ~all, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, at 7:00 p.m., November 16, 1988. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Payne followed by the Invocation by Chaplain Ed Meissner of The First Assembly of God Church and the Pledge of Allegiance. City Clerk Williams called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Payne. Absent: None Councilmembers Childs, DeMond, Smith, Ratty, Peterson, McDermott, Salvaggio HEARINGS This is the time set for a public hearing regarding amendment to the Land Use Element and associated rezoning of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and proposed environmental documents concerning the following area: SEGMENT I: MOSESIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION has applied to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Industrial (auto related) to Industrial (general purpose) on 60 acres generally located south of Harris Road, east of Wible Road to Freeway 99. (GPA 2-88, Segment I). Concurrent rezoning has also been filed to change the zoning from M-1 (Light Manufacturing-Auto Related) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing-General Purpose). (ZC #4785) An appeal of the conditions of approval has been filed which is also to be heard at this time. This hearing has been duly advertised, posted, and the property owners notified as required by law. Planning Director Hardisty provided an update. Mayor Payne declared the hearing open for public participation. Mr. Richard Monje, Mosesian Development Corporation, stated that they would still like some consideration from the Council on the following conditions: 1. Requirement of a waiver of direct access to Wible Road: Bakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 - Page 2 He agreed to waiver the direct access to the southern half of the property, the commercial portion. He stated that they may need a point of access on the northern half of the parcel on Wible Road. Requirement of sidewalks without reduction of adjacent landscaping: Mr. Monje stated they do not object to the landscaping; but to sidewalks along Wible Road and the interior streets where there will not be pedestrian traffic. He stated they would like to keep the wide landscaping as it is if the sidewalks are reduced. If the wide sidewalks are required, they would like to reduce the landscaping bands. 3. Requirement of additional trip fees: They have no objections. Requirement of cost of additional traffic signal construction: They have no objections. Prohibition against use of amplified audio communication systems: He suggested prohibiting amplified audio on the southern half of the property, allowing it only on the northern half. Sandra Campbell, 3813 Margalo Avenue, spoke in opposi- tion. She stated she would like to see the landscaping and side- walks left as proposed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Richard Monje spoke in rebuttal in support of the appeal. Ms. Sandra Campbell spoke in rebuttal in opposition to the appeal. No further protests or objections being received, and no one else wishing to speak in favor, Mayor Payne closed the public portion of the hearing for Council deliberation and action. Adoption of Resolution No. 234-88 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making findings and adopting negative declaration and approving Segment I of proposed amend- ment to the Land Use Element of the Bakers- field Metropolitan Area General Plan. (Land Use Element Amendment 2-88) Bakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 - Page 3 Upon a motion by Councilmember McDermott, Resolution No. 234-88 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making findings and approving the proposed Negative Declaration and Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Industrial (Auto Related) to Industrial (General Purpose) for the area north of Auto Mall Drive and Commercial for the area south of Auto Mall Drive, subject to conditions as stated below, was approved by the following vote: Conditions: Prohibition of use of amplified audio on the south half of the property, allowing amplified audio on the north half but not to be heard in the residential areas. 2. Include one additional access point on the north half of the property in cooperation with the Traffic Engineer. The sidewalk and landscaping to match that which is north of Harris Road and Wible Road. Ayes: Councilmembers Smith, Childs, DeMond, McDermott, Salvaggio Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Ratty, Peterson, Councilmember McDermott made a motion to deny the appeal, except as modified by the conditions included with the General Plan Amendment: The motion was approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Smith, Childs, DeMond, McDermott, Salvaggio Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Ratty, This is the time set for a public hearing regarding amendment to the Land Use Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and proposed environmental documents concerning the following area: SEGMENT III: CALIFORNIA HARVEST SHOPS, INC. (Oceanic, Inc.) requests to amend the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan from Low Density Residential land use designation to Commercial on a total of 4.082 +/- acres for parcels A (2.02 acres) and B (2.062 acres) located at the northeast corner of Gosford Road and White Lane. Note: Zoning Change 4787 implements GPA 2-88, Segment III. Bakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 - Page 4 This hearing has been duly advertised, posted, and the property owners notified as required by law. Planning Director Hardisty provided an update. Mayor Payne declared the hearing open for public participation. Mr. Don Lindsey, Oceanic California, spoke in support. He stated that they have reviewed the staff report, understand the recommendations and conditions and concur with them. He requested approval of their application. No protests or objections being received and no one else wishing to speak in favor, Mayor Payne closed the public portion of the hearing for Council deliberation and action. Adoption of Resolution No. 220-88 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making findings, approving negative declaration and approving Segment III of proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Land Use Amendment 2-88). Upon a motion by Councilmember Ratty, Resolution No. 220-88 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making findings, adopting the Negative Declaration and Segment III to the Land Use Element with conditions and restrictions as recommended by the Planning Commission was approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Smith, Childs, DeMond, Ratty, McDermott, Salvaggio Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Peterson, This is the time set for a public hearing for the purpose of hearing any evidence for or against General Plan Amendment 2-88, Segment V: SEGMENT V: OCEANIC CALIFORNIA, INC. has proposed an amendment for T30S, R27E Sections 6 and 7 consisting of 1,050 acres planned for a variety of urban uses be rearranged for urban uses to include a mixture of low, medium and high density residential, com- mercial, open space for a golf course, two elementary schools with neighborhood parks, high school and office uses including a hospital. An interior loop design collector road is proposed in addition to the arterials of Stockdale, Buena Vista, White Lane and Old River. Bakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 - Page 5 This hearing has been duly advertised, posted, and the property owners notified as required by law. Mayor Payne declared the hearing open for public participation. The following persons spoke in support of the proposed General Plan Amendment: Mr. Don Lindsey and Mr. Peter Lacques, Oceanic California, applicant; Mr. Bill Williams, Superintendent Panama - Buena Vista School District; Mr. Don Muffin, Superintendent Kern High School District; Mr. Ken Secor, Vice President Cal State University Bakersfield; Mr. Mike DePetro, Vice President Mercy Hospital; and Mr. Chuck Tolfree, 2419 Hasti Acres, previously Vice President and General Manager, Tenneco West, currently Oceanic consultant. Mr. John Scott, 2020 F Street #2, spoke in opposition and asked the Council to consider a factor in the development west of Cal State Bakersfield. If Oceanic's proposal is to do away with much of the high density residential land designations for that area and what that would mean to the residents of that area. Mr. Don Muffin spoke in rebuttal in support of the General Plan Amendment. No further protests or objections being received, and no one else wishing to speak in favor, Mayor Payne closed the public portion of the hearing for Council deliberation and action. Councilmember Ratty made a motion to refer the proposed General Plan Amendment 2-88, Segment V, back to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Peterson made a substitute motion to adopt the Resolution to approve the Negative Declaration in each of the steps. Councilmember Salvaggio stated the following for the record: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO I am bothered by the fact the Planning Commission did not have the same numbers, the same figures, the same information that we have tonight. That is troublesome to me. I appreciate Staff's effort, Bakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 - Page 6 MAYOR PAYNE: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: particularly the Planning Department, playing catch up and trying to inform the Council, so we didn't encounter that same problem. We received the November 7th memorandum which addresses some of the discrepancies in our packet. As we all know, tonight we received another memo refining that memo. That's kind of a late date to get that. I'm sure it took a lot of thought and time to come up with those memos. It's better that we have it even though it came at the 11th hour. Because we didn't get the latest memo until this evening, or this afternoon. I saw it here when I walked in, what, after five. I do want to go back to the November 7th memo. Mr. Hardisty, I do have some questions. Mayor Payne may I continue. Certainly. According to the September Staff report to the Planning Commission, the Tenneco Plan would have a maximum of 7,131 dwelling units; in the Oceanic Plan there would be a maximum of 6,045 units according to the material prepared for the Council Meeting. Now referring to November 7th memo the Tenneco Plan would have a maximum of 5,962 units, and the Oceanic Plan would have a maximum of 5,352 units. I think your November 16th memorandum, the one received tonight clarifies that. I'm doing this for the record and because I think there are people in the audience who need to know this, and what I'm wrestling with. Question, Mr. Hardisty, relating to the commercial. Isn't it true that the 2010 Plan consultants origi- nally proposed to down zone the 85 acres of commer- cial office located north of Stockdale Highway? Mayor Payne, Councilmember Salvaggio. map by the consultants did show a down professional office to multi-family. The initial zoning from Why was that? The change was to increase the exposure of the res- idential environment to a green belt river environ- ment. Bakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 - Page 7 COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: The 2010 Plan was designed around a centers con- cept, is that correct? Mayor Payne, Councilman Salvaggio. The 2010 Plan as drafted by the consultants, amalgamated the centers concept, the resources concepts, and the status-quo But, way back was it the centers concept? There were three equally defined plans used for purposes of discussion. They didn't have a pre- ferred or superior plan in that state of drafting. Did the 2010 Plan allow for three new commercial centers at one time? Mayor Payne, Councilman Salvaggio. It did and still does. Okay, let's talk about the area surrounding the College. It's not designated as one of those cen- ters, therefore, the general plan consultants pro- posed to down zone 85 acres of commercial office to multi-family. Is that correct? Mayor Payne, Councilman Salvaggio. The university is shown as a center in the 2010 Plan. Under the recently revised 2010 Plan, has virtually all the proposed down zoning been eliminated? Councilman Salvaggio, yes virtually all the down zoning was eliminated. Was the Planning Commission made aware that 2010 planning consultants had felt there was already too much commercial office designation surrounding the college and that the 85 acres had at one time been down zoned? Bakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 - Page 8 PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: Councilman $alvaggio, no that was not an issue before the Planning Commission. Their comparison was between the existing General Plan and how it might be amended in accordance with the applica- tion. So, in your opinion, you don't feel that was rele- vant to their consideration? That's correct. Was the Planning Commission made aware there were 85 acres of commercial office designation north of Stockdale Highway and another 60 acres of commer- cial office designation south of the college along Ming Avenue? Councilman Salvaggio, yes, the Planning Commission was very aware of the adjacent and neighboring com- mercial uses. They used this same display map you have here tonight showing the area west of Gosford, south of the river. Do you think it was important that they were made aware of that? Yes, I think it was very important that they were aware. Why? Because, we take our General Plan ~nendments in the context of the City, not on a simple, as proposed incremental site proposal. I am very pleased with the decision by Oceanic California and Mercy regarding the relocation of Mercy. I think it's a marvelous move. I'm impressed with the golf course, something that wasn't in the Tenneco Plan. I'm impressed with the high school, was that in the Tenneco Plan? Bakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 - Page 9 PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: MAYOR PAYNE: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Salvaggio, the high school was not shown at this location in the Tenneco Plan. As Mr. Muffin explained, the High School District was negotiating a site westerly of this area. So it's not really fair to say that the high school is an additional amenity that wasn't in the Tenneco Plan, perhaps the location, but not the high school itself. If I can differ a bit. I think it's fair to say that the high school site was not set yet and now there is an agreement between the High School District and Oceanic as to a high school being at that corner. Before it was being negotiated and it wasn't shown on our plan, or Tenneco's plan, or particularly the high school's. But, was it under discussion by Tenneco and the City? It was under discussion. So, it's not a new idea? No. I'm pleased that Oceanic California brought Dr. Muffin and Dr. Williams, they're two of my favor- ite superintendents in the County; and I'm pleased that they've worked out this agreement with Mercy. How would you answer this question, Mr. Hardisty, if I may continue Mayor Payne. Certainly. Someone said, well, yes, Mercy supports this pro- ject; the high school district supports this pro- ject; and, Cal State University Bakersfield supports this project; but, what do they know about City planning? Is that a legitimate question? Bakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 - Page 10 PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Salvaggio, yes, it's a legit- imate question and I think those entities are very aware of City Planning. I've worked with all of them since my coming here in projecting the growth' and the needs of the City with respect to services they're expected to provide for the City and they follow it very closely as we progress into the future. Are they really versed in land use planning? Do they have planners or are these made by administra- tors, these decisions? Mercy Hospital has a Land Use Planner and Medical Facilities Planner; and they're very versed in the things that support hospitals. How about Cal State. know? Who is their planner, do we I'm not sure who Cal State's planner is. I deal with Mr. Secor. Was Dan Taylor involved, Mr. Dan Taylor? Councilman Salvaggio, I haven't had any discussions that I can recall with Mr. Taylor. As I've said, when we talk about [and use issues around Cal State I consult with Mr. Secor. I ask that because I understand he's a planner with this college, so, if I can have a nod of the head. Mr. Secor spoke from the audience. indistinguishable on tape. Comments were And the high school? Mr. Salvaggio, I'm not sure what other degrees are out there, but I do know that I have also dealt with Mr. Williams for the years I've been here and looking forward to different school sites. Bakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 Page 11 COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: You're recommending this General Plan Amendment to the Council? Yes, Councilman Salvaggio, I do recommend that you adopt this plan, with exception that the commercial along Stockdale Highway not be approved. And, Oceanic California has agreed to that, obviously? That's correct. At the Planning Commission level, and now do you believe that this master plan community proposal is an example of planned prepared growth for Bakersfield? Councilman Salvaggio, I believe that it fits quite well in our planned growth for the City of Bakersfield. Do you believe overall that it is a better plan then the Tenneco Plan was? Councilman Salvaggio, I believe that this is a bet- ter plan, but not better to the degree that it jumps out and just grabs my imagination and says this is an absolute inspiration. It is a better plan in a sense that it does have the golf course; it does have the parks and the schools tied down a little better in the sense of the General Plan. The problem I have in making the comparison is that Tenneco has progressed in its planning effort under the umbrella of the General Plan to the point of a preliminary subdivision. Whereas, Oceanic has not had that maturity yet in the development of its plans for this area. We have not even begun to zone in accordance with this plan, whereas, with Tenneco we had adopted zone districts and had looked at tentative subdivisions. So, I can't judge Oceanic the same. Bakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 Page 12 COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: MAYOR PAYNE: MR. LACQUES: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: MR. LACQUES: When we look at up here, we see the yellow, the ochre and the brown, at this point. Well, I don't see a problem with the yellow, the ochre and the brown at this point; and, I see some indication that they're going to try and be very responsive to the needs of Bakersfield from the preliminary work they have done. Is it correct to say that the golf course will pre- ceed any residential construction in the proposed plan? I've been advised by Oceanic that they want to pro- ceed rapidly on the golf course because it needs to be established as a part of the marketing program. Is it correct that this is planned to be a champi- onship golf course encompassing some 180 acres and not a 65 acres site or a pitch and put executive type golf course? That is correct, Councilman Salvaggio. And, in my view that would serve the greater good of the community. I would like, Mayor Payne, either Mr. Lacques or Mr. California. to ask a question of Lindsey from Oceanic You want to ask your question, the appropriate gen- tleman will come up to the microphone. If it's a difficult question I'm gonna defer to Mr. Lindsey. There has been some discussion among Councilmembers and Staff regarding your proposal on the office, near Mercy and Cal State University. You know what I'm referring to, the office, the commercial. Do you believe that is a better location for such use than what is already designated north of Stockdale Highway and south of the river? I think if you were to phrase the question as you phrased it as either, and, or. If I were forced to make a choice between the two locations, our pref- erence would be for the proposed location proximate to the Mercy Hospital. In fact, that's a far supe- rior site than what is already designated office commercial and that's basically the reason we pro- posed it. Bakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 Page 13 COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: MR. LACQUES: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: MAYOR PAYNE: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: MR. LACQUES: Actually, it's the superior of the three sites, isn't it? I think Mr. Lindsey indicated he felt this was the best of the three, if he had rank them. to I think you got that in context and you almost have to go off of the boundaries of the General Plan as shown here. If you start on Old River Road, go south of the hospital to Camino Media, then go west to east, with Camino Media being the northern boun- dary and Ming Avenue being the southern boundary. That, is a viable office entity conducive to gro%~th. In our view point, that is one location, even though historically there are three existing locations for office. One is the aforementioned site between Camino Media and Ming; the other being north of Stockdale; and the third being the pro- posed site south of Cal State Bakersfield. Our proposal, really, if your looking in context of a master General Plan, is to consolidate the office commercial in what really is an "L" shaped corridor anchored on the north by Mercy Hospital, coming down and anchored on the east by the intersection of Gosford and Ming. May I continue, Mayor Payne. Certainly. Why was the decision made to go with the office commercial as opposed to the multi-family density? The primary consideration was our desire. Again the view of planning is almost like a jigsaw puzzle. You put something in one place and you suggest another land use and these things are interdependent. They are not mutually exclusive so that you have to look at things in an overall con- text. In reality, we started with what we thought was a better site for Mercy. That immediately sug- gested a good use for office that would be ancil- lary uses to medical. Our planning consultants suggested the "L" corridor as a good nucleus to do a Campus Office Park environment. That's kind of the metamorphosis or the genesis of how we got from point A to point B. We think it's just a great attribute to the area. Again, it's really a func- tion of having good professional consultants taking a fresh look at things. We think that's going to be a tremendous attribute to the area. Bakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 - Page 14 COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: MR. LACQUES: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: MR. LACQUES: As it's currently zoned, the current General Plan, what type of multi-family units would go in there? Would it be condominiums? I'm trying to address a gentlemen that spoke earlier, Mr. Scott, I believe is his name. If I might respond to those concerns. The designa- tion was multi-family with no specific plans as to whether they might be apartments or condominiums. It was strictly a land use designation of multiple- family. I might point out that we currently have zoned on our property, particularly along the Gosford corridor coming up White Lane some 300 acres of multi-family property. It was appropriate at the time that the plan was promulgated 10-15 years ago that it be designated as multi-family. Currently, there is a tremendous surplus of multi- family property in the area. There hasn't been a multi-family structure in our part of town started in the last 2-3 years. So, we have an awful lot of surplus multi-family that needs to be used up and will certainly be responsive to the need to afford- able housing for the university. Okay, that generated another question Mr. Lacques. How do you respond, then, to the fact that we nave over one million square feet of open office space in Bakersfield? Well, that's correct, and again we're proposing a master plan, whereby we can reserve uses. The question was asked of the Planning Director as to how long it would take for this property to be absorbed. I have an opinion on that, at best it's only an opinion, but I think there is probably a 7-10 year supply of single-family commodity. As far as the office is concerned it might be a 15-20 year supply. You cannot plan a major office park devel- opment unless you have additional or sufficient property to expand the office commercial into. When it gets absorbed is something that we can't say. We're not prophets, we're only land develo- pers, but we believe we're doing an appropriate thing by having the proper land uses and the proper places so that they can reasonably be absorbed and put the appropriate uses where they ought to be. The easiest thing to do would be to take that prop- erty for a quick return and paper it with single- family houses which is the simplest way to market housing and the resources of that potential office land would be lost to the City forever. So, all we're attempting to do, really is to identify what Bakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 - Page 15 COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: MR. LACQUES: COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: COUNCILMEMBER $ALVAGGIO: we see as the future land uses and set aside enough property so that we can have a balanced master plan community and all of these uses are independent on each other. Is Oceanic California committed to a notion that the speed of development will be determined by the market? Yes sir, absolutely. There are some things that we think we can do. We're completely at the mercy of the market as a function of the local Bakersfield economy. That does not preclude the fact that we can reach outside of Bakersfield, which we're all very hopeful of doing to replace some of the jobs lost by the dislocation in the oil industry and replace that with office commercial type uses; and of course, if successful in doing that, that land can be absorbed in 7-8 years. It might still be there in 20 years. All we can do is make a reason- able judgment as to the highest and best use of that property and then implement a plan to try to make that happen. Thank you. Mr. Hardisty, and I'm almost done. The issue came up earlier, I guess it was a comparison between the proposed golf course and the previous golf course proposals before the City; and I addressed part of that with my comparison of the executive type to the championship; but, isn't it fair to say we're in a different ball game now than we were then, in respect to the fact that we're under the (HCP) Habitat Conservation Plan whereas before we weren't? Mr. Mayor, Councilman Salvaggio, that is correct. I supported the Habitat Conservation Plan. I had mixed feelings. I felt it wasn't fair to all par- ties within the development community. Developers and Farmers, there's a kind of a dichotomy there. I remember talking to Mr. Tolfree about it, and I asked him very pointedly at the Hill House how he felt, and he said, "I think it's a necessary evil". I agree with him but maybe not for the exact same reasons. Because what it does folks, is, you pay your fee and you can go out there and take the environment. But, am I correct in saying that is a provision that's provided for in Federal Law or State Law or both; Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife, which is it Mr. Hardisty ? Bakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 - Page 16 PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: We're working with the Fish and Wildlife Service on this, and the golf course itself will pay $123,000 in fees for the right to develop. COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: Where we can buy land elsewhere vation. for habitat conset- PLANNING DIRECTOR HARDISTY: That's correct. COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: So, I think that's important for the record. appreciate the Council's time, I appreciate Staff's time. Some of my comments may have appeared to be sarcastic. I didn't mean it to be that way. They were meant to be pointed because I wanted to bring out some things that hadn't been brought out. It's interesting to be a member of this City Council, having served under one Council now another Council. Sometimes you have to do a balancing act. You have to wade through the different diversity of opinions. I was going to say factions but that would not be fair, and this Council is divided tonight; and, I respect Councilman Don Ratty. This is difficult for me because here you have a Councilman who represents a ward and this project is in his ward. My own feeling is you should go along with that Councilmember, unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise. So, as I make up my mind on this, that's what's going through my mind; and, I appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion. Mayor Payne stated that every member has tunity to speak without interruptions for however wanted. had an oppor- long they Upon a motion by Councilmember Childs the call for the question was approved. Adoption of Resolution No. 221-88 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making findings, approving negative declaration and approving Segment V of proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Land Use Amendment 2-88) Mayor Payne restated Councilmember Petersoh's substitute motion as follows: To adopt the Resolution to approve the Negative Declaration; Bakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 - Page 17 Deny the proposed Commercial at the southeast corner of Stockdale and Buena Vista; and Adopt the remainder of the proposed amendment to the Metropolitan Area General Plan subject to conditions contained as recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 43-88. The motion was approved by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Councilmembers Smith, Childs, Salvaggio Councilmembers DeMond, Ratty None None Peterson, McDermott, recessed p.m. Upon a motion by Councilmember Childs, the meeting at 9:20 p.m. The meeting Mayor Payne reconvened at 9:30 This is the time set for a public hearing regarding amendment to the Land Use Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and proposed environmental documents concerning the following area: SEGMENT VI: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD requests to amend the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan to add an Open Space (Agricultural) land use designation on 14.86 +/- acres north of Stockdale Highway and east of Allen Road. NOTE: Zoning Upon Annexation 4794 implements GPA 2-88, Segment VI. This hearing has been duly advertised, posted, and the property owners notified as required by law. Mayor Payne declared the hearing open for public par- ticipation. No protests or objections being received, and no one wishing to speak in favor, Mayor Payne closed the public portion of the hearing for Council deliberation and action. Adoption of Resolution No. 222-88 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making findings, approving negative declaration and approving Segment VI of proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Land Use Amendment 2-88). Bakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 - Page 18 Upon a motion by Councilmember Ratty, Resolution No. 222-88 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making findings, adopting the Negative Declaration and Segment VI to the Land Use Element as recommended by the Planning Commission was approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Smith, Childs, DeMond, McDermott, Salvaggio Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Ratty, Peterson, This is the time set for protest hearing before the Council for the purpose of hearing any person owning real property within the territory designated as Renfro No. 1, proposed to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield. (Ward 4) This hearing has been duly advertised, posted, and the property owners notified as required by law. Mayor Payne declared the protest hearing open for public participation. No protests or objections being received, Mayor Payne closed the public portion of the hearing for Council delib- eration and action. Adoption of Resolution No. 223-88 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making findings that no majority written protest has been filed and ordering the territory designated as Proceeding No. 974, Annexation No. 324 (Renfro No. 1), annexed to the City of Bakersfield. (Ward 4) Upon a motion by Councilmember Ratty, Resolution No. 223-88 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making findings that no majority written protest has been filed and ordering the territory designated as Proceeding No. 974, Annexation No. 324 (Renfro No. 1), annexed to the City of Bakersfield was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Smith, Childs, DeMond, McDermott, Salvaggio Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Ratty, Peterson, This is the time set for protest hearing before the Council for the purpose of hearing any person owning real property within the territory designated as Calloway No. 1, proposed to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield. (Ward 4) This hearing has been duly advertised, posted, and the property owners notified as required by law. Bakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 - Page 19 Mayor Payne declared the protest hearing open for public participation. No protests or objections being received, Mayor Payne closed the public portion of the hearing for Council delib- eration and action. Adoption of Resolution No. 224-88 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making findings that no majority written protest has been filed and ordering the territory designated as Proceeding No. 966, Annexation No. 322 (Calloway No. 1) annexed to the City of Bakersfield. (Ward 4) Upon a motion by Councilmember Ratty, Resolution No. 224-88 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making findings that no majority written protest has been filed and ordering the territory designated as Proceeding No. 966, Annexation No. 322 (Calloway No. 1), annexed to the City of Bakersfield was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Smith, Childs, DeMond, Ratty, McDermott, Salvaggio Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Peterson, This is the time set for protest hearing before the Council for the purpose of hearing any person owning real property within the territory designated as Casa Loma No. 3, proposed to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield. (Ward 1) This hearing has been duly advertised, posted, and the property owners notified as required by law. Mayor Payne declared the protest hearing open for public participation. No protests or objections being received, Mayor Payne closed the public portion of the hearing for Council deli- beration and action. Adoption of Resolution No. 225-88 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making findings that no majority written protest has been filed and ordering the territory designated a Proceeding No. 971, Annexation No. 321 (Casa Loma No. 3), annexed to the City of Bakersfield. (Ward 1) Bakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 Page 20 Upon a motion by Councilmember Childs, Resolution No. 225-88 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making findings that no majority written protest has been filed and ordering the territory designated as Proceeding No. 971, Annexation No. 321 (Casa Loma No. 3), annexed to the City of Bakersfield was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Smith, Childs, DeMond, Ratty, McDermott, Salvaggio Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Peterson, This is the time set for protest hearing before the Council for the purpose of hearing any person owning real property within the territory designated as Rosedale No. 4, proposed to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield. (Ward 4) This hearing has been duly advertised, posted, and the property owners notified as required by law. Mayor Payne declared the protest hearing open for public participation. No protests or objections being received, Mayor Payne closed the public portion of the hearing for Council delib- eration and action. Adoption of Resolution No. 226-88 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making findings that no majority written protest has been filed and ordering the territory designated as Proceeding No. 973, Annexation No. 323 (Rosedale No. 4), annexed to the City of Bakersfield. (Ward 4) Upon a motion by Councilmember Ratty, Resolution No. 226-88 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making findings that no majority written protest has been filed and ordering the territory designated as Proceeding No. 973, Annexation No. 323 (Rosedale No. 4), annexed to the City of Bakersfield was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Smith, Childs, DeMond, Ratty, Peterson, McDermott, Salvaggio Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None NEW BUSINESS First Reading of an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 17.06.020 of Chapter 17.06 (Zoning Map) of the Municipal Code regarding prezoning of property known as the Stockdale No. 13 Annexation. Bakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 - Page 21 This Ordinance amends Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and prezones approximately 104.35 acres of Stockdale No. 13 Annexation as an A-20 (Agricultural Twenty-Acre Minimum Lot Size) Zone. The Planning Commission, on September 15, 1988, recommended both the prezoning and the annexation. First Reading of an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code by changing the Land Use Zoning of that certain property in the City of Bakersfield located at the northeast corner of Gosford Road and White Lane from an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling Zone to a C-2 (Commercial) Zone. NOTE: Zone Change 4787 implements General Plan Amendment 2-88, Segment III. Proposed Zone Change 4787 would replace existing R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) Zone with C-2 (Commercial) Zone on a total of 4.082 acres for Parcels A (2.02 acres) and B (~.062 acres). First Reading of an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code by changing the land use zoning of those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield located south of Harris Road, east of Wible Road to Freeway 99 from an M-1 (Light Manufacturing-Auto Related) Zone to an M-1 (Light Manufacturing-General Purpose) Zone and a C-2 (Commercial) Zone. This Ordinance would change the zoning to be consistent with Segment I, GPA 2-88. Upon a motion by Councilmember Ratty, Budget and Finance Committee Report No. 45-88 regarding Health Benefit Plan was con- sidered as an item that arose after the agenda was prepared and requires action at this meeting. The motion was approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Smith, Childs, DeMond, Ratty, McDermott, Salvaggio Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Peterson, Councilmember Ratty, Chairperson of the Budget and Finance Committee, read Report No. 45-88 regarding Health Benefit Plan as follows: Bakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 Page 22 The Budget and Finance Committee met on November 14, 1988, to finalize the review of the City's health and dental benefit plan. This review began when rate increases for the indemnity (fee for service) plan caused the City to do a thorough examination of the health benefits in preparation for remarketing the plan. The benefit consultant firm of Armtec, Inc. did not receive any quotes from insurance carriers in response to a formal Request for Proposals due to the trend of our employees choosing the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) plan and due to the large number of retirees participating in the indemnity plan. This identical trend has resulted in other agencies being left without an indemnity plan. As described to the Council in the workshop of October 12, 1988, the decision was made to restructure health benefits so that the indemnity plan could be saved. This was particularly important to retirees and to employees with specialized health needs. These changes involved removing the retirees from the active employee experience pool and equalizing payroll deduction rates for the HMO and indemnity plans. A shift of City funds between the two groups, as described in the attached resolution, is required to make sure that the retirees are not penalized in rates beyond normal increases experienced by all. A Preferred Provider provision is added to the plan along with other minor revisions to make health benefits more cost effective. In addition, a proposal is being considered to alter the benefit negotiation process with the bargaining units so that all units, through representatives, will jointly review health benefits on an annual basis in an effort to bring cohesion to an increasingly complex field. Although the form of the plan will be agreed to by the union representatives outside of the individual union negotiation process, the City's financial contribution will still be part of salary negotiations. These proposed changes have been reviewed with this Committee and the City Council during the workshop. In addition, the Employee Insurance Committee, the bargaining units and employees at large have had a series of meetings. The bargaining units have verbally agreed to the proposed changes but will have to adopt amendments to Memorandums of Understanding, in addition to action taken by the Council. The Committee expressed great concern about the claims processing service of the Foundation for Medical Care of Kern County which contracts with Blue Cross Insurance Company. The Committee requested that staff work with the Foundation to improve this service. The Committee also would like the dental prepaid plan to be open to a future change in carriers. Bakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 - Page 23 Therefore, the Budget and Finance Committee requests Council approval of this report and the attached resolution. The Committee also requests Council approval of the following revision in the health and dental benefits for employees and retirees of the City of Bakersfield contingent upon approval of these amendments to the bargaining units' Memorandums of Understanding: The City's indemnity plan will include a Preferred Provider provision for hospital care. There will be a common charge for each employee class, i.e., single employee, employee with one dependent, and employee with family, irrespective of the health and dental plan selected. Although the indemnity plan will be rated separately for active and retired employees, the City will prevent the retiree from experiencing an increase that results from such separate rating. Future health and dental benefits will be jointly bargained by representatives of each unit that serve as a single committee. Such benefits shall be decided at any time but resolved by October 31 of each year. The City's financial contribution toward employee health and dental benefits shall be considered at meet and confer sessions concerning benefit packages for represented employees and the City shall continue any salary negotiation. Upon a motion by Councilmember Ratty, Budget and Finance Committee Report No. 45-88 was accepted. Adoption of Resolution No. 227-88 of the Council of the City of Bakers- field regarding City contributions to premiums for retirees "Fee for Service,, Health Plan. Upon a motion by Councilmember Ratty, the recommenda- tions within the Budget and Finance Committee Report No. 45-88 were implemented and Resolution No. 227-88 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Councilmembers Smith, Childs, DeMond, Ratty, McDermott, Salvaggio None None None Peterson, Bakersfield, California, November 16, 1988 - Page 24 COUNCIL STATEMENTS Upon a motion by Councilmember McDermott, Mr. Richard Russell was nominated to the Miscellaneous Civil Service Board. Councilmember McDermott stated that he will be unable to attend the Council meeting of November 30, 1988. Upon a motion by Councilmember Childs, nominations for the Miscellaneous Civil Service Board will remain open until December 12, and appointments to be made at the next Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, upon a motion by Councilmember Childs, the meeting was adjourned at 9:46 p.m. MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield, ATTEST: CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California Calif. bz