Loading...
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