Council approves consent calendar, pulls Tortuga Bay item for separate review
Loading...
Summary
The Bakersfield City Council approved the bulk of its consent calendar Nov. 19 but pulled item 7E10 related to the proposed Tortuga Bay development. Staff clarified the developer will pay for the environmental impact report and estimated 6–9 months before the project returns to the planning commission.
The Bakersfield City Council voted Nov. 19 to approve most consent calendar items while excluding one item tied to a proposed development at Hageman and Mohawk.
The motion to approve consent calendar items 7a through 7i — with the exception of 7E10 — passed, with the clerk announcing the motion was approved with Council member Weir absent. Mayor Karen K. Goh presided.
Residents and council members asked for clarity about the pulled item, commonly referenced in public comments as the Tortuga Bay proposal. Council member Coleman asked staff whether approving the consent item would greenlight a water park; city staff member Burns responded, “We are not approving a water park at this time.” Burns explained the item will return for a future public hearing at the planning commission stage.
Staff also clarified how environmental review will be funded. Burns said the developer has already provided payment for the environmental impact report and related work; in his words, “Not only that, they’re paying staff’s time too.” Burns estimated it would take roughly six to nine months before the project would be scheduled before the planning commission for public hearing.
The council’s action tonight did not approve land-use changes or final project entitlements for the site. A separate public appeal hearing on a larger planning matter (see related item 9a) was also returned to staff for renotification to address appellant comments.
What happens next: staff will return the pulled item for public hearings at the planning commission level and then back to the council as required by the city’s review process; timing was estimated at about six to nine months.
Authorities cited at the hearing included references to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Williamson Act cancellation, and the General Plan amendment process.
