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