Bakersfield City Councilman Ken Weir responded to my e-mail/blog post just now. Here it is. For clarity, on the parts where he's quoting me, I've italicized. Then I'll throw some more stuff in at the end, also italicized.

I believe that it is important to discuss our communications over the past few weeks and to insert some facts that were mysteriously omitted from your blog comments.
 
You sent an e-mail on the 7th of January requesting information on unfunded liabilities. You also stated “I am facing a hard deadline of a week and a half out.” which means that you needed the info on or before January 16th.
 
At the City Council meeting on January 14th I apologized for taking so long in responding.  I was out sick the first week of the month and January 12th was my real first day back.
 
You said that you had turned in the initial story but it may be helpful if I could respond by Friday.
 
Even though I was behind at work, I spent valuable time the next few days requesting and gathering information and preparing what I hoped would be a useful response for you.  I e-mailed that response to you on Friday the 16th as we discussed.
 
I received your 'Canyons' e-mail on January 6th.  As noted before, I was out sick when you sent the e-mail.  In your e-mail you commented “I hope you'll have time to answer before you are buried in tax season.”  I appreciated that comment and there seemed to be no sense of urgency or deadline.  Accordingly, I have been attending to issues that are time sensitive and fully intended on responding as time allowed and before I was “…buried in tax season.”
 
Instead of waiting for a response, your obsession with the Canyons Project has resulted in premature comments that fail to meet your own employer’s editorialized positions regarding transparency and full disclosure.
 
Here are the answers to your questions:
 
You and Mr. Movius talked about not wanting block walls and gated communities. But then Mrs. Beck talked about the Canyons, and the impression I got was that you would be reluctant to impose such a standard on a project that is so far along. Is that correct?
I showed a slide of a northeast neighborhood surrounded by block walls and asked the audience if we wanted neighborhoods that look like fortresses.  The next slide showed two neighborhoods with wrought iron fencing and different landscaping and also a third neighborhood having a completely different look.  I then asked if we wanted a more open look and feel that would be conducive to walk ability and connectivity.  While I would advocate for the open look, that does not mean that there will never be block walls.
In fact, there was some discussion during the meeting that we could probably not completely eliminate block walls particularly in the northeast.  Block walls may be needed for stability, noise reduction, and other purposes.
 
I have reviewed my presentation notes and other notes taken during the meeting and I can find no reference where Jim or I mention not wanting gated communities.  In fact, when I spoke about a more open look and feel that would be conducive to walk ability and connectivity, the slide on the screen had pictures of entrances to gated communities.
 
The goal of the evening was to provide information and an opportunity for dialogue.  I wanted to encourage community input, suggestions and alternatives as we proceed through this process.
 
I made it very clear during the presentation that we were not here to consider a specific property, neighboring properties, or a specific neighborhood.  The purpose was to focus on an overall goal for the community and not on individual properties.
 
This was the first presentation of ideas, themes, and concepts and the first opportunity for interaction with the community.  These were just ideas and suggestions for a concept – not a complete plan.
 
I explained that there would be additional opportunities for public input and that this was just the beginning of a process.
 
Eventually, a concept will be formulated and submitted through established City processes for adoption.  There will be opportunities for additional public input during that process and the plan will be subject to changes throughout the adoption process.
 
So, without more input from stakeholders and until we work through the adoption process, there is no formal plan with any authority for implementation.  Without a plan, I can not tell you how the plan’s concepts or ideas will be applied to a specific project.
 
I believe that my response at the meeting can be accurately paraphrased as, "... the Canyons project is pretty far along in the process and I don’t know how these concepts will be specifically applied to that project."  That statement was true – not reluctant.
 
 Once the Northeast Bakersfield Community Plan is created and adopted, to what extent should it be guidance vs. rules?

And once the standard is created, to whom should it apply?
• Any new development or redevelopment?
• Only new development that goes through a GPA or zone change?
• Only property that has changed ownership since the standards were adopted (the Oregon Measure 37 model)?
 
I have asked staff to assist with determining the appropriate tools to implement an adopted plan or concept.  It could be a combination of ordinances, general plan policies and/or a Community Plan.  We will be discussing different options and approaches at the appropriate time.
 
General plan policies, ordinances or community standards would typically be required during site plan reviews and tract maps.  State law usually is pretty clear on when rules can be applied to different types and stages of development.
 
I would appreciate your printing my entire response unedited.
 
Ken Weir

Weir's entire account is correct, but missing one thing — I first sent him the e-mail on Dec. 19, which was the Friday before Christmas.