Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/10/1976 MINUTES CCBakersfield, Cali£ornia, May 10, 1976 Minutes of a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 8:00 P.M., May 10, 1976. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Mr. Ed Ottinger, President 3rd Quorum of Seventies, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers None Minutes of Absent: the regular meeting of May 3, 1976 were approved as presented. Scheduled Public Statements. Mr. Bob Griffith, 15th District Agricultural Association, invited the Mayor and Council to attend the Kern County Fair Community Steak Barbeque Benefit to be held May 23, 1976 at the Kern County Fairgrounds. Susan Harris, Miss Kern County Fair Princess, distributed tickets for the Barbeque to the Council and Mayor. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, the Council approved the Mayor proclaiming the week of May 17-23, 1976 as "Kern County Fair Benefit Week" in the City of Bakersfield. Mr. Tim Hauser, Bakersfield College student and repre- senting the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District, invited the Mayor and Council to attend the 100 Mile Swim Marathon to be held May 21-23, 1976 at North Beardsley Pool. Correspondence. Upon a motion by Councilman Sceales, Petition from residents of Kern City requesting traffic signs on Bermuda Street between Ashe Road and Sundale Avenue, was received and referred to the staff for study and recommendation. 38 Bakersfield, California, May 10, 1976 - Page 2 Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, communication from Mrs. Don (Sue) Bickford, 3912 Crescent Drive, requesting stop signs and crosswalks at the intersection of Christmas Tree Lane and Crescent Drive, was received and referred to the staff for study and recommendation. Consent Calendar. The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar: (a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 4199 to 4288, inclusive, in the amount of $226,506.07. (b) Street Easement from Tenneco Realty Development Corporation providing for right-of-way as required by Parcel Map No. 3443 for Calle Espada and E1Vernao Drive. (c) Map of Tract No. 3784 and Improvement Agreement for the construction of improvements therein, located east of Ashe Road at northwest corner of Ashe Road and Ming Avenue. (d) Map of Tract No. 3786 and Improvement Agreement for the construction of improvements therein, located at south- west corner of Stockdale Highway and Via Riata Street. (e) Consent of the City of Bakersfield to allow Lease Marketing, Incorporated, to enter City property being farmed by Lewis and Falletti Farms under certain specified conditions. Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Items (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the Consent Calendar, were adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers Noes: None Absent: None New Business. First reading of an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield repealing specified Sections of Title 17, and adding Chapter 17.54 to Title 17 of the Municipal Code, concerning the regulations of Signs within the City of Bakersfield. Bakersfield, California, May 10, 1976 - Page 3 39 A communication was received from the Planning Commission, dated May 10, 1976, complimenting the Sign Advisory Committee on the work which was done on the Revised Draft Sign Ordinance. Mrs. Fred Carlisle, Jr., President of the Junior League of Bakersfield, read a letter from the Junior League urging the Council to adopt the proposed Sign Ordinance. Mr. Joe Goesling, owner of Ad-Art Company, objected to the portion of the proposed Sign Ordinance that would eliminate bus bench advertising in residential neighborhoods. City Attorney Hoagland assured Mr. Goesling that bench signs under the proposed Sign Ordinance are exempt. Mr. Wayne McNamee, Co-owner of Center Neon Company, Inc., stated that the sign industry is not opposed to all of the proposed Sign Ordinance but certain sections are not acceptable and requested that these sections be amended before it is adopted. Mr. Arden H. Berg, Community Representative-Director of Community Relations and Legislative Affairs for the Sign Users Council of California, 311 North Normandy Avenue, Los Angeles, stated that they objected to portions of the proposed Sign Ordinance and suggested that the Council give it more consideration before adoption. Mr. Jeff Newman, President and General Manager of Sparkle Cleaners and Laundry, objected to the elimination of roof signs and requested that the Council take a closer look at the proposed Sign Ordinance before adoption. Mr. Jim Smith, representing Cleveland Outdoor Advertising, approved of the proposed Sign Ordinance,except Section 17.54.090 (2) (b), which states,"Outdoor advertising sign not exceeding three hundred (300) square feet in area, and not exceeding thirty- five (35) feet in height, except that: Such signs shall be at least six hundred (600) feet apart on the same side of a public street,"and requested that it be changed to 300 feet apart. Bakersfield, California, May 10, 1976 - Page 4 Mr. Larry Oliver, representing Bakersfield Chrysler- Plymouth, stated that the intent of the proposed Sign Ordinance is needed and is basically good, but there are a great number of inequities, and recommended that the ordinance be tabled until some type of economic impact survey is made in the major business areas of Bakersfield. Mr. Bill Wright, Bill Wright Toyota, Inc., stated that the City of Bakersfield should have an equitable Sign Ordinance and recommended that an economic impact survey be made in the major business areas of the City. Mr. Chuck Kidder, Co-owner of Bakersfield Neon Sign Company, stated that he is concerned about the economic loss to merchants if they are required to remove signs and the burden on the Planning Commission who will be responsible for reviewing each application for a new sign. Mr. David Cartnel, Architect and Chairman of the Special Advisory Committee to the Council on the Sign Ordinance, explained the process the Committee went through before the Ordinance was presented to the Council, answered some of the questions that were raised tonight and stated that he has a 1974 Economic Report from eight major cities that have instituted a Sign Program similar to the one that is being contemplated for the City of Bakersfield. Councilman Medders requested that the City Manager provide the most knowledgeable staff member (on signs) to tour parts of the City with him and explain the different types of signs. Councilman Barton made a motion that the first reading of the proposed Sign Ordinance be continued until next Monday, May 17, 1976. After discussion, Councilman Rogers offered a substitute motion that the first reading be considered given an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield repealing specified Sections Bakersfield, California, May 10, 1976 - Page 5 Ayes: Councilmen Noes: Councilmen Absent: None of Title 17, and adding Chapter i7.54 to Title 17 of the Municipal Code, concerning the regulations of Signs within the City of Bakersfield and that it be placed on the Agenda Monday, May 17, 1976, for further consideration by the Council. This motion carried by the following roll call vote: Sceales, Bleecker, Medders, Rogers Strong, Barton, Christensen Approval of Application by Bakers- field Neon Sign Company to install an 80 foot Sign for McDonald's Restaurant at 1000 Real Road. Pursuant to Section ~3.40.080 of the Municipal Code no permit for a sign exceeding fifty feet from grade level shall be issued without prior approval of the City Council. This is a C-2 zone and the sign is interior lighted plastic. The proposed sign is a double faced interior illuminated panel by approximately 7'2" x 16' with two 12' arches on top and will be located on Real Road between the Mobil Service Station and Rodeway Inn. Other signs in the immediate area over 50 feet in height are The Coffee Shop 90', Shell Oil 80', Standard Oil 80', Mobil Oil 65' and Rodeway Inn 70' Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, application by Bakersfield Neon Sign Company to install an 80 foot Sign for McDonald's Restaurant at 1000 Real Road, was approved. Deferral of a Resolution of the Council of the City of Bakersfield to allow Bakersfield Police Officers to participate in California Highway Patrol Training. This resolution authorizes the Council to direct the Chief of Police of the City of Bakersfield to execute agreements for participation of City Police Officers in the California High- way Patrol training programs which are offered without cost to the City. 42 Bakersfield, California, May 10, 1976 - Page 6 Councilman Bleecker moved that the Resolution of the Council of the City of Bakersfield to allow Bakersfield Police Officers to participate in California Highway Patrol Training, be de£erred for one week and a representative of the Police Department be present to answer questions of the Council. Mrs. Marie Dickinson, 1733 Cypress Circle, read the following statement: "To: Bakersfield City Council Resolution allowing Bakersfield Police Officers to participate in training offered by the California Highway Patrol. Before you consider any decision on this resolu- tion I'd like to ask you to look into it further to determine: What type training would be offered our local Police by the CHP? What type agreement would Chief Price make with the CHP? 3. What State program does this come under? 4. Where would the financing come from? State Funds? Federal Funds? If Federal Funds then does this fall under the Supreme Court decision that "what the government finances it has a right to control." Does this come under the national standards and goals for the criminal justice system dictated through LEAA and coming into local areas through programs such as "Project Safer California" and others? Is it one more program to take away local control of law enforcement and place it under the dictates of regions, the State and Federal Government? o Is it in any way tied in with a program dictated to the City of L.A. by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration? The letter received from LEAA on February 3, 1976 by Los Angeles City Attorney Burt Pines office deals with their Police Department and goes like this: The L.A. Police Department had filed an equal opportunities plan, LEAA had considered it a model one. Then they found problem areas and proposed a compliance agreement. Bakersfield, California, May 10, 1976 - Page 7 43 LEAA stated the L.A.P.D. must discontinue minimum height requirements of 5'7", end Police personnel tests, agility tests, oral interview as presently administered. Stop promotions unless procedures are in accord with equal employment oppor- tunity guidelines or shown to have no significant adverse impact on the basis of race, sex or ethnicity. do The Police Department would be instructed to determine whether the award of seniority bonus points was responsible for the lack of promotion of minorities or females in various ranks. The plan says the Police Department will have to award back pay and seniority to those who passed the new selection procedure retroactive to date of their elimination from employment consideration. The L.A.P.D. must notify blacks, Mexi- cans, female applicants who were eliminated from consideration in the last 2 years because of existing un- satisfactory procedures to reapply for positions. The Police Department must set goals and timetables to adjust the racial and ethnic composition of candidates to that of the labor force within the next 5 years. Therefore the Police Department must be 15.8% black, 16.3% Spanish surname, 5.1% American Indian and Asian. They must seek to hire the first year of agreement as many women as needed to constitute 20% of the force. Their training academy is to be shut down June 30th of this year. This letter also stated that if there is any doubt on the part of the LEAA that the Police Department of L.A. has taken the actions discussed LEAA may take adminis- trative action to withhold funds. It may also take judicial action concerning any other Federal Funds coming to the City of L.A. The LEAA cites Section ment Opportunities Act this. 518 of the Equal Employ- for their right to do Also LEAA has allocated $8.4 million to the L.A.P.D. for such programs this fiscal year, as: emergency command control network, media instruction for law enforcement, completion of automation communication networks, robbery alarm, detection response, vehicle the£t and rapid response to crimes. 0£ this amount $192,000 has been allocated to the City Attorney's office. 44 Bakersfield, California, May 10, 1976 - Page 8 It is becoming more apparent that whenever Federal Funds are taken local control is de- creased. In the case of law enforcement there should be great concern. When and if the Federal Government controls all law enforcement through dictates such as those just listed then we are well on the way to a National Police Force. So I ask you to look into this resolution concerning our own Police Department very carefully before you give permission to participate." Mrs. Dickinson also asked: 1. The City Attorney write a letter to the Los Angeles City Attorney and request a copy of the February 3, 1976 letter from LEAA to see if the information she supplied is correct and if she left any- thing out. 2.If the City of Bakersfield has received such a letter from LEAA? 3. How many other cities in the State of California have received this same kind o£ letter from LEAA? Councilman Bleecker requested that Mrs. Dickinson's statement be entered on the minutes so the Police Department can answer the questions at the next Council Meeting. City Manager Bergen stated that the City of Bakersfield does not participate in LEAA Funds and has not received any letter from them. Councilman Bleecker's motion that the Resolution of the Council of the City of Bakersfield to allow Bakersfield Police Officers to participate in California Highway Patrol Training, be deferred for one week and a representative of the Police Depart- ment be present to answer questions of the Council, was approved. Hearings. This is the time set for public hearing on application by Lucille B. May to amend the zoning boundaries from an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling), or more restrictive, Zone, affecting that certain property in the City of Bakersfield located on the south side of Belle Terrace, 700 feet west of Stine Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Bakersfield, California, May 10, 1976 - Page 9 45 This hearing has been duly advertised, the property posted and the property owners have been notified as required by law. Subject with a maximum of property contains 11 acres and could be developed 385 dwelling units under the proposed R-3 Zone. Adjacent properties to the east, west and south are zoned for multi-family residential and commercial uses. The Planning Commission found the proposed R-3 zoning consistent with the General Plan, and recommended approval subject to the application of the "D" Design Overlay Zone to assure compatible development with adjacent properties. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici- pation. Dr. Lucille B. May, the applicant, was present to answer questions of the Council. No protests or objections being received, the public portion of the hearing was closed for Council delibera- tion and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Sceales, Ordinance No. 2274 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 located on the south side of Belle Terrace, 700 feet west of Stine Road, with the application of the "D" Design Overlay and finding that it is consistent w~th the General Plan, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Sceales, Medders, Noes: None Absent: None This is the time set by M. Frank St. Clair to amend (One Family Dwelling) Zone, an Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen Rogers for public hearing on application the zoning boundaries from an R-1 R-2-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Design), Zone, an R-3-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Design) Zone, and a C-1-D (Limited Commercial - Architectrual Design) Zone to a P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development), or more restrictive, Zone, affecting that certain Bakersfield, California, May 10, 1976 - Page l0 property in the City of Bakersfield commonly known as 3535 Wible Road. (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 proposed P.U.D. consists of 300-unit apartment complex with recreation buildings, two swimming pools, tennis courts, children's play area and considerable landscaped open space, on a 22.8 acre parcel. The existing zonings o£ subject property would allow 411 dwelling units by conventional development on a lot-to-lot basis. The overall density of the proposed complex would equal one unit per 3,310 square feet. The Planning Commission £ound the proposed P.U.D. consistent with the General Plan. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici- pation. Mr. Ken Sorenson, Architect representing the applicant, was present to answer questions of the Council. No protests or objections being received, the public portion of the hearing was closed for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Sceales, Ordinance No. 2275 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 17.12.020 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code changing the Land Use Zoning of that certain property commonly known as 3535 Wible Road and making findings in connection with the P.U.D. Zone, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers Noes: None Absent: None This is the time set for public hearing on application by Joe Cantelmi to amend the zoning boundaries from an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling), or more restrictive, Zone, affecting that certain property in the Bakersfield, California, May 10, 1976 - Page ll City of Bakersfield commonly known as 3601 Hughes Lane. (Negative Declaration on file) This hearing has been duly advertised, the property posted and the property owners have been notified as required by law. Subject property contains 1.5 acres and is located on the west side of Hughes Lane between Planz Road and White Lane. The proposed R-2 zoning would permit a maximum of 20 dwelling units. A petition containing the signatures of 20 property owners within the area opposing the zone change, was received by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission found the proposed R-2 zoning consistent with the General Plan and recommended approval subject to the application of the "D" Architectural Design Overlay. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici- pation. No protests or objections being received, the public portion of the hearing was closed for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Sceales, Ordinance No. 2276 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 3601 Hughes Lane, with the application of the "D" Architectural Design Overlay and finding that it is consistent with the General Plan, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes Councilmen Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers Noes None Absent: None Bakersfield, California, May 10, 1976 - Page 12 Adjournment. There being no further business to come before the Council, upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 P. M. M field, Calif. ATTEST: C T CL~R~ and Ex-Offi~o Clerk of the Council of the ~ity of Bakers~4eld, California ma