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