HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/29/1976 MINUTES CCBakersfield, California, March 29, 1976
Minutes of a regular meeting of
of Bakersfield, California, held in
Hall at 8:00 P. M.. March 29, 1976.
The meeting was called to
by the Pledge of Allegiance and
of the Calvary Baptist Church.
the Council of the City
the Council Chambers of City
order by Mayor Hart followed
Invocation by Reverend Fred Hobson
obscene production and the City
elsewhere.
requested copies of those court
goes
decisions that declared that "Hair" is not an obscene production
and stated that in the future she hoped that productions such as
this will not be allowed in Bakersfield.
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, communication from
Roger D. Randall, Attorney at Law, regarding Judy Wells' Appeal
of City Manager's denial for renewal of a "Cardroom Work Permit"
and requesting that the date for hearing this appeal be set for
Monday, April 5, 1976, before the City Council, was received and
hearing date set as requested.
declared that it is not an
by decisions that are made
Mrs. Van Alstyne
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Strong, Barton, Bleecker,
Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of March 22, 1976 were
approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mrs. Elizabeth Van Alstyne, 1640 Olive Street, questioned
the fact that the City Council would not allow the production "Hair"
at the Civic Auditorium in 1971 and it will now be shown on March
30th.
City Attorney Hoagland explained that since "Hair" was
canceled in 1971 lawsuits have been brought against those audi-
toriums which refused to show it simply because of the production,
not because of conflicting dates. The courts have specifically
Bakersfield, California, March 29, 1976 - Page 2
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, communication from
Motel 6, Inc., dated March 23, 1976, requesting permission to
erect a sign 80' high at their new motel located at 2727 White
Lane and Highway 99, was received and referred to the Building
Department for study and recommendation back to the Council in
two weeks.
Reports.
Councilman Rogers, member of the Governmental Efficiency
and Personnel Committee, read Report No. 6-76 regarding the Alarm
Ordinance, as follows:
The Ordinance referenced above, which has been
under study by this Committee for many months,
was presented to the City Council on Monday,
February 23, 1976. After a great deal of
discussion by the City Council and by members
of the alarm industry, the Ordinance was
referred back to the Committee for further
study.
When this Committee presented the draft
Ordinance to the Council, it was done so with
the belief that the greatest majority of
objections raised by the industry at previous
Committee meetings had been resolved and that
there was at least general agreement with its
provisions. It was apparent, however, that
this was not, in fact, true. In an effort to
resolve these differences, written comments
were reviewed by the Committee, and we have
now reached an agreement as to the final form
of the Ordinance, which takes into consideration
the expressed concerns of both the industry and
the City.
The major change in this Ordinance from the
one that was presented at the February 23rd
meeting is in the area of permits. The Ordinance
as proposed would require that both central
stations and alarm users must have a permit.
The alarm users would secure their permits
from the central station, not from the City.
The permit would be subject to revocation for
excessive false alarms, and those alarms would
be calculated on an individual basis and not
on a percentage of the total number of alarms.
Since we now have reached agreement with the
industry, it is the recommendation of this
Committee that the Ordinance regarding police
and fire alarms systems be adopted.
Councilman Rogers referred to a communication from Alan
Pepper, Law Offices of Lessing E. Gold, representing several of
47t;
Bakersfield, California, March 29, 1976 - Page 3
the alarm companies, recommending that the Alarm Ordinance be
adopted in its present form and commending the Council and staff
for their cooperation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, Report No. 6-76 of
the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee regarding
Alarm Ordinance, was accepted.
Adoption of Emergency Ordinance No.
2269 New Series of the Council of
the City of Bakersfield adding
Chapter 7.64 to Title 7 of the
Municipal Code Regulating Police
and Fire Alarm Systems,
and Users.
Upon a motion by Councilman
No. 2269 New Series of the Council of
Businesses
Rogers, Emergency Ordinance
the City of Bakersfield
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
adding Chapter 7.64 to Title 7 of the Municipal Code Regulating
Police and Fire Alarm Systems, Businesses and Users, was adopted
by the following roll call vote:
Councilmen Strong, Barton,
Rogers, Sceales
None
None
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, communication from
Alan Pepper, Law Offices of Lessing E. Gold, representing several
alarm companies, dated March 26, 1976, recommending adoption of
the Alarm Ordinance, was received and ordered placed on file.
Councilman Medders, Chairman of the Budget Review and
Finance Committee, read Report No. 4-76 regarding Transfer of
Funds for Police and City Hall Facilities, as follows:
The Budget Review and Finance Committee met on
Thursday, March 25, 1976, to discuss proposed
fund transfers for the Police and City Hall
facilities. The following is a list of the
requested items:
1. NEW POLICE BUILDING
a. Crime Photo Equipment $ 5,255
This equipment includes camera and
camera accessories, such as lenses, a
color enlarger, flash units, an
exposure unit, etc., that are needed
for the new photo lab.
Bleecker, Christensen, Medders,
Bakersfield, California, March 29, 1976 - Page 4
b. Tape Recording System $ 7,050
This item was removed from the original
electronic bid pending a further
analysis of the proper equipment needed.
The system selected will be installed
in the interrogation rooms.
c. Word Processing Equipment $ 12,000
This piece of equipment is one of the
latest innovations in the area of word
processing. It will be used for the
dictation and transcribing of all
police officer reports. An officer
in the field will be able to call in
from his beat and record directly into
the machine. Emergency reports will
automatically be separated from
routine ones. The equipment is capable
of keeping track of the amount of
dictation awaiting transcription, and
also the level of clerical output.
Considerable savings in time and man-
power will result from the purchase
of this equipment.
d. Burglar Alarm Equipment $ 1,500
This equipment includes the purchase
of an alarm cabinet and panel, and
three alarm units to connect the
Auditorium, City Treasurer's vault,
and the California Avenue Neighborhood
Center to the Police Department.
e. Miscellaneous Items $ 5,050
Vacuum cleaners, telephone installation
charges, vehicle maintenance building
paving, room identifiers, floor space
savers, etc.
In addition to the above, approved
change orders have resulted in an
additional $18,065 needed to complete
the new building.
Total Amount Requested for
New Police Building $ 48,920
2. CITY HALL ADDITION $ 25,000
Furnishings (desks, chairs, tables, file
cabinets, etc.)
3. OLD POLICE BUILDING SITE
$ 54,400
Demolition and Parking Lot Improvements.
TOTAL ALL ITEMS
$128,320
The Committee has reviewed the above requests
and feels they should be approved. The present
balance in the Council General Contingency Fund
Bakersfield, California, March 29, 1976 - Page 5
is $128,690. The committee feels that it is
important that this fund not be entirely
depleted, since three months still remain in
the current fiscal year. Therefore, it is
recommended that the following fund transfers
be made:
Transfer $48,920 from Account No. 56-650-9200
(Corporation Yard Facility) to Account No.
55-620-9200 (Police Building). The funds
borrowed from the Corporation Yard Facility
will be rebudgeted in the 1976-77 fiscal
year capital improvement budget.
Transfer $25,000 from Account No. 11-510-6100
(Council Contingency) to Account No. 25-795-
7100 (Capital Outlay Office Equipment).
Transfer $54,400 from Account No. 11-510-6100
(Council Contingency) to Account No. 25-795-
9100 (Land Improvements).
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Report No. 4-76 of
the Budget Review and Finance Committee regarding Transfer of
Funds for Police and City Hall Facilities, was accepted and Budget
Transfers as outlined in the report, were approved.
Councilman Medders, Chairman of the Budget Review and
Finance Committee, read Report No. 5-76 regarding Modification of
City Hall Addition Change Order Approved by City Council on
February 9, 1976, as follows:
On February 9, the City Council approved Budget
Review and Finance Con~ittee Report No. 1-76
which recommended the transfer of $5,700 for
lowering of the entire ceilings in the Mayor's
Office and Caucus Room and alterations to the
Caucus Room entrance. As a result of this
action, the architect for the City Hall addi-
tion obtained bids for this work which were
found to be considerably in excess of the
amount estimated. The architect recommends
that the modifications not be done at this
time.
The City Manager concurs in this recommendation
and has proposed to the committee that these
modifications be done next year under a
different contract.
In lieu of these modifications, there are a
number of other alterations that need to be
made at this time. These are revisions to
cabinet work, the electrical control diagram,
and one of the support columns which total
$3,275.
The Budget Review and Finance Committee recom-
mends that these changes be substituted for
Bakersfield, California, March 29, 1976 - Page 6
the original ceiling and Caucus Room modifi-
cations, and that the difference be left in
the City Hall Addition account for any unfore-
seen emergencies prior to completion of the
City Hall project.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Report No. 5-76 of
the Budget Review and Finance Committee regarding Modification of
City Hall Addition Change Order Approved by City Council on
February 9, 1976, was accepted and Modified Construction Change
Order No. 1 to Contract No. 75-112 with Fred S. Macomber for
construction of City Hall West Wing, was approved and the Mayor
was authorized to execute same.
Councilman Rogers, Chairman of the Water and City Growth
Committee, read Report No. 4-76 regarding Proposed Beach Park
Recreation Complex, as follows:
On September 9, 1976, the Kern County Property
Management Department notified the City
Manager's Office that the Board of Supervisors
had offered the City dedication of Beach Park
with the exception of the area where the
County's Board of Trade offices are located.
The staff's initial reaction was that the City
should not accept the park, since it would pose
additional annual maintenance costs on the
City with no revenue to offset such expendi-
tures. However, within the next two months,
the staff was contacted by two development
groups--one from the Ventura-Oxnard area who
was interested in building a racketball-handball
facility, and a group from the Los Angeles area
who expressed interest in the establishment of
a tennis complex in the community. Since that
time, staff from Public Works, Community
Development, Finance, Recreation, and the City
Attorney and City Manager's Offices have been
meeting to put together a proposal for the
construction of such facilities at Beach Park
that would be agreeable to both the City and
the developers.
The Water and City Growth Committee has had
two meetings on this subject since it was
referred to them by the City Council on
February 9, 1976, and feels that the proposal
outlined below has merit and should be pursued.
Basic Premises
The proposal for accepting the Beach Park
facility is based on three major premises:
(1) that the facility should provide additiona~
public recreation opportunities for the resi-
dents of Urban Bakersfield on a user-pay basis;
Bakersfield, California, March 29, 1976 - Page 7
(2) that the income derived from the tennis,
raquetball-handball, and restaurant complex
should offset annual maintenance costs on the
remainder of the park; and (3) that the proposal
is consistent with City plans and standards
for future park development.
Proposed Recreation Complex Facilities
The Beach Park property encompasses a total of
27.6 acres including land, streets and the
outer perimeter area adjacent to the canal.
Or this total, 8.1 acres would be used for the
proposed recreation complex. The complex would
consist of the following:
A 2-story racquetball-handball building of
approximately 15,000 square feet with ten
racquetball-handball courts, a pro shop,
lounge area, men's and women's locker and
shower facilities, two saunas, and a
jacuzzi.
Eleven lighted tennis courts, a separate
tournament court, and tennis practice
alleys, plus a pro shop, clubhouse-lounge,
and men's and women's locker and shower
facilities.
3. A first-class restaurant facility.
The remainder of the park (approximately 19.5
acres), including streets and the outer perime-
ter area adjacent to the canal, would be
maintained by the City for regular park use.
Present Tennis and Racquetball-Handball Facilities
The City presently maintains twenty-five tennis
courts at eight parks throughout the community.
Twenty-one of these courts are lighted. The
condition of the courts and conformance with
today's recognized standards vary. Tennis
facilities are available at the Bakersfield
Racquet Club and Rio Bravo,but both facilities
are private in nature. Furthermore, Bakersfield
Racquet Club has a 3-year waiting list. Bakers-
field College and Cal State Bakersfield have a
total of eighteen courts. The courts are
lighted at Cal State; however, Cal State is
considering closing their facilities to the
general public because of the heavy usage from
students alone. Tennis courts are also avail-
able at the various high school locations, but
the facilities are not up to accepted standards
and are not lighted. With the rapid increase
in the popularity of tennis over the last five
years, the number of courts has proven to be
inadequate to serve the growing number of
tennis enthusiasts. Racquetball-handball has
likewise become a very popular sport in recent
years. A total of ten courts is presently
available and open to the general public at
the Y.M.C.A., Cal State, and Bakersfield
Bakersfield, California, March 29, 1976 - Page 8
College. Here again, the condition of the
courts varies with the location. An additional
eight courts are located at Strelich Gym, the
Elks and Eagles Lodges, but these are available
only for members.
Advantages of Beach Park Proposal
The major overall advantages of the above
proposal are as £ollows:
The proposed complex will provide much-
needed additional tennis and racquetball-
handball facilities for the residents of
Urban Bakersfield.
The proposed tennis and racquetball-hand-
ball facilities will be open and £or the
use of the general public.
Except for the initial capital outlay
during the first two years, the proposed
£acilities, valued at $2.2 million, will
be built entirely with private capital
and not be a burden to the city taxpayer.
The proposed facilities wil~ be on the
tax rolls and, therefore, provide additional
property taxes.
The proposed facilities will alleviate the
demand for such facilities elsewhere which
would require City funds to develop. The
current 5-year capital improvement program
proposes the future construction of a 12-
court tennis complex estimated at $350,000.
This outlay would not be needed if the
proposed facilities are built.
The greater portion of Beach Park (19.5
acres) will be left in its present state
available for general park purposes and,
at the same time, be maintained with funds
derived from the tennis, racquetball-
handball, restaurant complex.
The proposed complex will provide the
community with a first-class restaurant
facility.
Tournaments proposed at the complex will
generate additional revenues from motel
and restaurant activity.
The acceptance of the County's offer will
provide access for development of the
property immediately south of the complex.
Such future development will add to the
tax base.
Financial Analysis
Attached is a summary of estimated revenues
Bakersfield, California, March 29, 1976 - Page 9
and expenditures during the first three years
from date of building permit issuance of July
1. As the summary indicates, the City's
initial capital outlay cost during the first
two years would be approximately $73,000. In
addition, park maintenance costs on the 19.5
acres are estimated at $43,250 annually.
Beginning with the third year, it is estimated
that total revenues from the recreation com-
plex would offset annual park maintenance
costs. The committee wishes to make it clear
that revenues have been estimated on the
conservative side and do not include revenues
that would be derived from tournaments and
other special events.
Conclusion
The committee, after reviewing all information
developed to this date, feels that the above
proposal would be a definite asset to Bakers-
field and Kern County as a whole. The committee,
therefore, recommends that (1) the staff be
authorized to prepare the appropriate agree-
ments with the developers for the proposed
tennis, racquetball-handball, restaurant com-
plex, and (2) that the County be asked to
forward the grant deed to the City for its
acceptance.
Mr. Rick Beguelin, Camarillo, California, developer of
the proposed Racquetball-Handball Facility, explained the facility
and presented slides showing a similar development which was
constructed in the Ventura-Oxnard area.
Mr. Bob Mahoney, Glendale. California, developer of the
proposed Tennis-Restaurant Complex, presented architectural
renderings of the complex for the Council's perusal and explained
the type of tennis facility that they would like to provide.
Mr. Jack Leach, Tennis Consultant from Glendale. Call-
fornia, outlined the tennis program that they would like to provide
in the proposed complex and presented slides showing several
Southern California tennis facilities.
After considerable discussion, Mr. Dean Gay, former
City Planning Commissioner, stated that he agreed that this type
of facility is needed in Bakersfield, however, he questioned
placing it on public property when there is ample private property
that can be purchased.
Bakersfield, California, March 29, 1976 - Page l0
After further discussion, Councilman Rogers moved that
the Council accept the concept as presented tonight, the staff
be authorized to proceed with the acquisition of Beach Park from
the County of Kern and that the deed will be accepted contingent
upon Council approval of satisfactory evidence of the financial
ability of the developers to put in the improvements. This motion
was unanimously approved.
Councilman Rogers, member of the Legislative Committee,
read Legislative Report No. 5-76, as follows:
Proposition 2. This measure calls for a $500
million bond issue to continue the 54-year old
Cal-Vet Farm and Home program. The program
has been extremely successful. The program
has not cost the taxpayer any money because
the bonds are self-liquidating. Further, the
use of the funds to buy homes stimulates the
economy by providing boosts to the construction,
insurance, app]iance and home furnishing
industries. There are a large number of our
citizens who are veterans eligible for loans
if funds are available.
Attached is a fact sheet relative to Cal-Vet
bonds.
It is recommended that the Council urge public
support for Proposition 2 on the June ballot.
The Legislative Committee has attempted only
to make recommendations on issues related to
local affairs. Proposition 2 is sufficiently
related to our community welfare and economy
to warrant a recommendation.
Congressman Ketchum has asked for our advice
on a bill which would permit municipalities
to issue taxable bonds with a federal subsidy
on interest payments. There are a number of
things wrong with such a procedure:
1. The federal subsidy on interest payments
would have to come out o£ taxes, whether
national or not.
2. The IRS has long wanted to do away with
local tax-free bonds, and if the subject bill
became law, the argument for local tax-free
bonds would dissipate because it would be
claimed that the federal government makes up
the difference by the subsidy. Such an
argument ignores the fact that taxes must be
used to provide the subsidy.
3. Whether such bonds would be eligible for
federal interest subsidy would be dependent
upon the rules and regulations promulgated by
4s4
Bakersfield, California, March 29, 1976 - Page ll
the Municipal Finance Assistance Office of HUD.
The reason tax-exempt bonds are so well received
is that they are tax exempt. It doesn't make
much sense to make bonds taxable, and then tax
the public in order to provide a subsidy. If
the local government held an election for
issuance of bonds which were taxable and, for
whatever reason, they were not eligible for
the subsidy, the cost to the municipality
would be prohibitive, and would require local
taxation to meet bond payments. Further, HUD
will have the power to determine the purposes
for which bonds could be issued.
4. The subsidy would be reviewed annually by
Congress. This is frightening in that the
subsidy could be withdrawn or reduced in any
year. In the case of a 30-year bond wherein
the subsidy was withdrawn after five years,
the result would create a grave financial hard-
ship on the city.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, that portion of
Legislative Report No. 5-76 urging public support of Proposition
2 on the June 8, 1976 ballot regarding Cal-Vet Farm and Home
Program, was approved.
City Attorney Hoagland explained the dangers of the bill
proposed by the House Ways & Means Committee which would permit
municipalities to issue taxable bonds with a federal subsidy on
interest payments.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Rogers,
that portion of Legislative Report No. 5-76 regarding a bill
which would permit municipalities to issue taxable bonds with a
federal subsidy on interest payments, was held over and the Mayor
was requested to contact Congressman Ketchum to obtain more
detailed information on this bill. Councilman Christensen voted
in the negative on this motion.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 3666 to 3731,
inclusive, in the amount of $98,309.34.
(b)
Notice of Completion and Acceptance of
Work on street and sewer improvements
under Tract No. 3745 - Contract No. 75-85
with Tenneco Realty Development Corporation.
Bakersfield, California, March 29, 1976 - Page
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(J)
Application for Encroachment Permit from
Frank Camenisch, 1012 Loch Lomond Drive.
Application for Encroachment Permit from
Sterling W. Clements, 2517 South "K" St.
Map of Tract No. 3777 Iocated north of
Stockdale Highway and east of E1 Rio Drive.
Map of Tract No. 3680, Unit "E" and
Improvement Agreement therefor located
at northeast corner of Appleblossom Drive
and New Stine Road.
Map of Tract No. 3778 and Improvement
Agreement therefor - located north of
Stockdale Highway and east of E1 Rio Drive.
Map of Tract No. 3793 and Improvement
Agreement therefor - located at southwest
corner of Kennedy Avenue and Real Road.
Map of Tract No. 3779 and Improvement
Agreement therefor - located north of
Stockdale Highway and east of E1 Rio Drive.
Map of Tract No. 3780 and Improvement
Agreement therefor - located north of
Stockdale Highway adjacent to E1 Rio Drive.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Items (a), (b),
(f), (g), (h), (i) and (j) of the Consent Calendar,
(c), (d), (e),
were adopted by the following roll call
Ayes: Councilmen Strong, Bleecker,
Rogers, Sceales
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman
vote:
Christensen,
Medders,
Barton
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, low bid of Jim
Alfter for Annual Contract for construction of curbs, gutters
and
sidewalks, was accepted, all other bids rejected and the Mayor was
authorized to execute the contract.
New Business.
Adoption of Street Name Sign Standard.
The City's present street name sign standard was adopted
by the City in 1955 and it consists of black lettering on white
background, coated with porcelain enamel. Our standard is not
being used by other municipalities and to our knowledge only one
Bakersfield, California, March 29, 1976 - Page 13
company fabricates the sign. Due to the lack of suppliers and
the type of material used in the sign, the cost is quite high.
The new standard which the Public Works Department
recommends consists of white lettering on green background and
will have a finish of re£1ective sheeting which will be much more
visible for both day and nighttime driving. The colors that are
being recommended are also used by Kern County and also recommended
by the State Traffic Manual.
If the standard is adopted, it would be used on all
future installations, whether new or for replacement of damaged or
stolen signs.
Upon a motion by Councilman Sceales, new standard for
street name signs consisting of white lettering on green back-
ground and having a finish of reflective sheeting, was adopted.
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing on application
by Frances Jean Fish to amend the zoning boundaries from an R-3-D
(Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Design) Zone to
a C-1 (Limited Commercial), or more restrictive, Zone, affecting
that certain property in the City of Bakersfield commonly known
as 2204 and 2218 "E" Street. (Negative Declaration on file)
This hearing has been duly advertised, the property
posted and the property owners have been notified as required by
law.
The Planning Commission was of the opinion that C-O
(Commercial and Professional Office) zoning would be more appropriate
for subject parcels as the uses permitted under the C-O zone would
permit the development of medical offices, as requested, and would
be more compatible with the existing residential and office uses
in the area.
The Commission also recommended the application of the
"D" Design Overlay and found the C-O (Commercial and Professional
Office) zoning consistent with the Land Use Element of the General
Plan.
Bakersfield, California, March 29, 1976 - Page 14
pation.
portion
action.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
No protests or objections being received, the public
of the hearing was closed for Council deliberation and
Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, Ordinance No. 2270
New Series amending Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code of the
City of Bakersfield by changing the Land Use Zoning of that certain
property in the City of Bakersfield commonly known as 2204 and 2218
"E" Street, finding that said zoning to C-O-D would not have a
substantial adverse impact on the environment and that it is
consistent with the General Plan, was adopted by the following
roll
Ayes
Noes
Absent:
call vote:
Councilmen Strong,
Rogers,
None
Councilman Barton
Council,
adjourned at
Bleecker, Christensen, Medders,
Sceales
There being no
upon a motion by Councilman Christensen,
lO:00 P. M.
Adjournment.
further business to come before the
the meeting was
Calif.
ATTEST:
CITY CI~E~K and Ex-~ficio Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bak~Yrsfield, California
ma