Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/15/1986 MINUTES CCBakersfield, California, October 15, 1986 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 7:00 p.m., October 15, 1986. The meeting was called to order by Vice-Mayor Childs, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Reverend Steve Yeary of the First Assembly of God Church. Vice-Mayor Childs stated, for the record, that the rea- son the Mayor is not present is because he is out of town. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Saivaggio, Smith, Childs, Christensen, Dickerson Absent: Mayor Payne PUBLIC STATEMENTS Art Rockoff, member of the Board of Directors of the Civic Light Opera, expressed appreciation to the City for its enthusiastic acceptance of the production of Evita. He introduced Evita cast members and presented tickets to the Council and the Mayor. Against to adopt Carlos Lopez, Kern County Chair of Californians United Proposition 63, 1606 Beale Avenue, encouraged the Council a resolution in opposition to Proposition 63. Roy Malahowski, 5016 Pamela Street, with No On Proposition 63, spoke in opposition to Proposition 63. HEARINGS This is the time set for a public hearing on an appeal by JAMES G. BAILEY to Condition No. 3, of an approved Conditional Use Permit allowing a pro- posed hotel to serve alcoholic beverages on the premises and providing live enter- tainment, amplified music, and permitting dancing located within 500 feet of resi- dentiaiiy zoned property on that certain property commonly known as 1021 Oak Street. Correspondence was received from Morgan Burkett, Executive Vice President of Laral Group, P.O. Box 1368, San Luis Obispo, dated October i0, 1986, supporting the appeal of James G. Bailey. Vice-Mayor Childs declared the hearing open for public participation. Jim Bailey, that Condition No. 3 Permit. Developer of Holiday Inn Project, requested be removed from the approved Conditional Use John Moore spoke in opposition to the appeal. No further protests or objections, and no one else wish- ing to speak in favor, Vice-Mayor Childs closed the public portion of the hearing for Council deliberation. Bakersfield, California, October 15, 1986 - Page 2 Councilmember Ratty made a motion to grant the appeal and remove Condition No. 3 as a requirement of approval. Upon a motion by Councilme~nber Dickerson, the call for the question was unanimously approved. Upon a motion by Councilmember Ratty, the appeal by James G. Bailey was granted, and Condition No. 3 was removed as a requirement of approval by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Saivaggio, Smith, Christensen, Dickerson Noes: None Absent: None Childs, This is the time set for public hearing on Resolution of Intention No. 1013 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring its intention to order the vacation of Public Utilities Easements in the west 169 feet of the abandoned alley in Block 306 (Beale Memorial Library), City of Bakersfield. Vice-Mayor Childs declared the hearing open for public participation. No protests or objections being received, and no one wishing to speak in favor, Vice-Mayor Childs closed the public portion of the hearing for Council deliberation. Upon a motion by Councilmember Christensen, Resolution No. 152-86 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield ordering the vacation of Public Utilities Easements in the west 169 feet in the City of Bakersfield was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Salvaggio, Christensen, Dickerson Noes: None Absent: None Smith, Childs, CORRESPONDENCE Upon a motion by Councilmember Christensen, communica- tion from Panama Union School District, 4200 Ashe Road, dated October 1, 1986, submitting a report on Developer Fees collected during the period of July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986, was referred to staff and the Urban Development Committee, and after staff's review, contact the school district and prepare a workshop to discuss all concerns. Upon a motion by Councilmember Christensen, communication from Rosedale Union School District, 12439 Rosedale Highway, dated October 1, 1986, submitting a report on Developer Fees collected during the period of July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986, was referred to staff and the Urban Development Committee, and after staff's review, contact the school district and prepare a workshop to dis- cuss all concerns. Upon a motion by Councilmember Christensen, communica- tion from Buena Vista School District,Route 7, Box 548, dated September 26, 1986, submitting a report on Developer Fees col- lected during the period of July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986, was referred to staff and the Urban Development Committee, and after staff's review, contact the school district and come prepare a workshop to discuss all concerns. Upon a motion by Councilmember Ratty, communication Mr. Carl Elkins, P.O. Box 322, Victor, dated October 2, 1986, requesting permission to connect two houses located at 3815 Stockdale Highway to the Bakersfield City Sewer System, was received and referred to the Urban Development Committee. from Bakersfield, California, October 15, 1986 - Page 3 Upon a motion by Councilmember Christensen, communica- tion from Philip Kelmar, dated October 7, 1986, submitting a com- plaint regarding South Side Sanitation for refuse collection service, was received and referred to the Budget and Finance Committee. Upon a motion by Councilmember Salvaggio, communication from the City of Loma Linda, 11128 Anderson Street, Loma Linda, submitting a Resolution of the City Council of Loma Linda opposing ballot Proposition 61, was received and placed on file. Upon a motion by Councilmember Moore, communication from Crescent Moon Lagoons, Inc., 1001 East Hosking Road, dated October 10, 1986, requesting land used for spreading be leased directly to Crescent Moon Lagoons, Inc., on a long-term lease was referred to the Water Resources Committee for review and recommendation back to Council. Upon a motion by Councilmember Moore, communication from Cox Cable, 820 22nd Street, dated October 9, 1986, requesting to transfer cable television franchise granted to Trans Video Corp., to Cox Cable Bakersfield, Inc., was referred to the Budget and Finance Committee. RECESS Vice-Mayor Childs declared a recess at 8:00 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:02 p.m. REPORTS Councilmember Christensen, Chairman of the Auditorium and Community Services Committee, read Report No. 9-86, regarding Signage for California Smog Report, 4800 New Horizon Boulevard, as follows: At the July 30, 1986 City Council meeting, Mr. Randall Kerby requested Council assistance concern- ing the subject matter. After discussion, the mat- ter was referred to the Auditorium and Community Services Committee for evaluation. The Committee met with Mr. Kerby and staff on August 13, 1986 and reviewed all the circumstances concerning the subject signage. This matter was considered again by the Committee on August 27, 1986 at which time staff provided additional input from the property owner's agent. Following evalua- tion of this staff input, the Committee determined that Mr. Kerby's signage problem is a result of restrictions imposed by the property owner, not by the City sign ordinance. It is this committee's recommendation that the Council find that this is a problem between a pro- perty owner and tenant that the City cannot resolve. Upon a motion by Councilmember Christensen, Report No. 9-86 from the Auditorium and Community Services Committee regard- ing Signage for California Smog Repair, 4800 New Horizon Boulevard, was accepted. Upon a motion by Councilmember Christensen, the recom- mendations of Report No. 9-86 from the Auditorium and Community Services Committee, regarding Signage ~or California Smog Repair, 4800 New Horizon Boulevard, were implemented. Bakersfield, California, October 15, 1986 - Page 4 Councilmember Dickerson, Chairman of the Legislative Committee, read Report No. 7-86 regarding Counci! Support or Opposition to the Proposition Nos. 62, 63, 64 and 65 on the November State-wide Ballot, as follows: On September 3, 1986, the City Council referred to this committee Propositions 62, 63, 64 and 65 for review and recommendation regarding support or opposition by the Council. The committee met with staff to review the propositions and any potential impact they may have on the City of Bakersfield. The propositions discussed were: Proposition 62 Taxation. Local Governments and Districts. Initiative Statute. Proposition 63 Official State Language. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Proposition 64 - Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) Initiative Statute. Proposition 65 Restriction on Toxic Discharges into Drinking Water; Requirement of Notice of Person's Exposure to Toxics. Initiative Statute. The committee reviewed and discussed these proposi- tions and determined that due to their nature and scope, Propositions 62, 63 and 64 should be reviewed by the full Council. The committee also determined that due to the potential effects of Proposition 65 on the City's water supply that Proposition 65 should be further studied by the Water Resources Committee. Therefore, this committee recommends that Propositions 62, 63 and 64 should be reviewed by the full Council and Proposition 65 be referred the Water Resources Committee for further study. to Councilmember Dickerson made a motion to adopt Report No. 7-86 from the Legislative Committee. Vice-Mayor Childs restated Councilmember Dickerson's motion to accept Report No. 7-86 from the Legislative Committee, regarding Council support or opposition of Proposition Nos. 62, 63, 64 and 65 on the November State-wide Ballot. This motion was unanimously approved. Upon a motion by Councilmember Dickerson, Proposition 65 was referred to the Water Resources Committee. Councilmember Ratty made a motion to not take a position on Propositions 62, 63, and 64. Councilmember Dickerson made a substitute motion to divide the propositions to be dealt with individually. Upon a motion by Councilmember Smith, the call for the question was approved. Councilmember Dickerson's substitute motion to divide the propositions to be dealt with individually, was defeated by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council~nembers Salvaggio, Childs, Dickerson Noes: Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Smith, Christensen Absent: None Bakersfield, California, October 15, 1986 - Page 5 Councilmember Ratty's motion to not Propositions 62, 63 and 64, was adopted by the vote: take a position on following roll call Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstaining: Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Smith, Childs Councilmembers Salvaggio, Dickerson None Councilmember Christensen Vice-Mayor Childs clarified his yes vote stating that he publicly stated he is against Proposition 63 and since there is a split view on the Council he decided to support Council not taking a position. He stated publicly that he is against Proposition 63 and 64. Councilmember Dickersoil clarified his no vote by stating that Council's not taking a position is a subtle way to avoid the question. He stated that when dealing with tax dollars, Proposi- tion 62, and this is a way the voters are speaking out on this issue and this one directly affects governmental entities and may very well affect this governmental entity. He stated that this is a very conservative set of guidelines that governments should sup- port. Councilmember Salvaggio clarified his no vote stating that one of the greatest rights in a democracy is the right to vote, and people look to their public officials as role models and in terms of propositions that is as well. The passage of Proposition 62 is the most effective way to stop higher local taxes, adopted by local agencies, without voter approval. He explained that voters should have the right to approve any tax increase proposed by local governments, and there should always be clear community consensus before any new taxes are imposed. Councilmember Salvaggio stated, with respect to Proposition 63, that it is a blueprint for conflict and division. He thinks it would undermine attempts to bring new citizens into the mainstream of American life. It would produce countless liti- gation, resentment and perhaps an end to the use of multi-langual emergency services. This measure would do nothing positive and would punish those that have the right who have not had the oppor- tunlty to learn English. Governor Deukmejian is correct when he says it is unnecessary because English is the State's dominant language. He's also correct when he says that it would also cause fear, confusion and resentment among many minority Californians who see the measure as an effort to legislate the cultural superiority of needing English speaking people. He is particularly troubled over the aspect that would grant any California resident or person doing business in the State the right to sue the State of California to enforce its English only provisions. This would guarantee endless litigation over such important multi-lingual services as court interpreters or the 911 Emergency telephone ser- vice. Councilmember Salvaggio clarified his no vote to Proposition 64, stating the organization sponsoring this measure is trying to create an atmosphere of panic. The fear of quaran- tine could drive AIDS victims underground and prolong the spread of the disease. This proposition serves no medical purpose because AIDS cannot be transmitted by casual contact. Vice-Mayor Childs requested Councilmember Salvaggio keep to the issue of clarifying his vote. Councilmember Christensen made a motion to challenge the Chair and his right to take democracy away from an individual. RECESS Vice-Mayor Childs declared a recess at 8:30 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:35 p.m. Bakersfield, California, October 15, 1986 - Page 6 Vice-Mayor Childs restated Councilmember Christensen's motion to challenge the Chair's decision on limiting the comments to a particular vote. Upon a motion by Councilmember Dickerson, the call for the question was approved. Councilmember Christensen's motion Chair's decision on limiting the comments to defeated by the following roll call vote: to challenge the a particular vote was Ayes: Noes: Absent: Councilmembers Salvaggio, Christensen Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Smith, Childs, None Dickerson Councilmember Salvaggio made a motion to reconsider the vote on Proposition 65. Councilmember Salvaggio made a motion Proposition 65 to the Water Resources Committee, no position. to not refer but instead take Councilmember Salvaggio's motion to reconsider the vote on Proposition 65 was approved by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstaining: Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Salvaggio, Councilmembers Childs, Dickerson None Councilmember Christensen Smith, Dickerson The original motion by Councilmember Dickerson to refer Proposition 65 to the Water Resources Committee was defeated by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstaining: Councilmembers Childs, Dickerson Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Salvaggio, None Councilmember Christensen Smith, Councilmember Ratty made a motion to take no position on Proposition 65. City Attorney Oberholzer explained that no action is necessary. The previous action has been nullified, and it is not necessary to make a motion to not take action. Deputy City Manager Strenn read City Manager 24-86 regarding Protest of Special Districts for Urban within the City's Sphere of Influence, as follows: Report No. Services The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) adopted revised "Procedures, Standards and Policies for the Evaluation of Proposals" on July 22, 1986. Of particular importance to the cities in Kern County is the policy in Section F.2.: "It is the policy of this commission that no special service districts or County Service Areas will be formed within the sphere of influence of a city unless the city by legislative action declares it cannot serv- ice the area." This is very responsive to concerns expressed to LAFCO by cities about the extent of new urban development just outside city limits which is supported by the multiplicity of special districts within city spheres of influence where the cities could just as easily provide those ser- vices. Spheres of Influence are those areas around cities which have been jointly determined by LAFCO and the cities as serviceable by the cities upon annexation. Bakersfield, California, October 15, 1986 - Page 7 To implement policy F.2. LAFCO requires that within 30 days of notice mailed by the Executive Officer of LAFCO that the city respond if it intends to provide services contemplated by the proposal forthwith. Failure to respond within 30 days shall be deemed to be a determination that the city can- not provide the services. Since the adoption of this policy the City of Bakersfield has received notification twice of pro- posed County Service Area formation and annexation within our sphere of influence. The first was addressed by the Council on September 9, 1986, and the second will be before the Council on October 15, 1986. The response must be approved by the City Council. In both instances, my staff has found it difficult within the time allotted to evalu- ate the proposal, determine the City's ability to serve, formulate a proposed response for City Council approval, and place the item on the agenda with any time to spare for Council deliberation. Some City Councilmembers expressed their concern over this on September 9th. With the second notice from LAFCO, a response was scheduled for City Council consideration a week before the deadline. But, since the City Council will not meet next week, we are still left with only this meeting to consider a response. In view of the processing problem we have in com- plying with this new procedure, it is recommended that the City Council refer the matter of preparing City responses to these LAFCO notices to the Urban Development Committee for review and recommendation on ways we may more efficiently and expeditiously deal with them. Upon a motion by Councilmember Moore, Report No. 24-86 from the City Manager regarding Protest of Special Districts for Urban Services within the City's Sphere of Influence was referred to the Urban Development Committee for review and recommendation on the ways that Council may more efficiently and expeditiously deal with these items. Councilmember Christensen voted no. Vice-Mayor Childs, Chairman of the Budget and Finance Committee, read Report No. 29-86 regarding School Crossing Guard Program Request for Change in Insurance Coverage as follows: On August 27, 1986, the issue of a change in the limits of insurance coverage for the City's con- tract for school crossing guards was referred to the Budget and Finance Committee for review. The City has a four-year contract with J & J Services for crossing guard services of which we are in the second year. The City's contract requires J & J to provide liability insurance with limits of $3.5 million. This insurance requirement was structured as $500,000 in a primary policy and $3 million in an umbrella policy. The contractor's insurance expires October 20, 1986. He can renew the $500,000 primary policy but cannot find an insurer who will provide the $3 mil- lion umbrella liability policy. The premium for $500,000 coverage is approximately $18,000, about what he paid for the $3.5 million coverage last year. Bakersfield, California, October 15, 1986 - Page 8 The contractor has looked into obtaining an addi- tional $500,000 in excess of the $500,000 primary coverage to meet the City's $1,000,000 self- insurance deductible. The contractor has been unsuccessful in obtaining this coverage· The County of Kern also has a contract with J & J Services for crossing guard service. Their con- tract only requires a $500,000 policy. Therefore, J & J Services can meet the County's commercial general liability requirement. The County of Kern is fully self-insured and, thus, would be liable in any lawsuit greater than $500,000. Therefore, in order to insure the continuation of school crossing guard services, this committee rec- ommends that the City Council authorize the amend- ment of the current contract to include $500,000 limits for commercial general liability and recom- mends the acceptance and approval of this report and its implementation. Upon the Budget and Progam Request a motion by Vi Finance Commit for Change in ce-Mayor Childs, Report No. 29-86 from tee, regarding School Crossing Guard Insurance Coverage, was accepted. Upon a motion by Vice-Mayor Childs, the recommendations of Report No. 29-86 from the Budget and Finance Committee, regard- ing School Crossing Guard Program Request for Change in Insurance coverage, were adopted. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar: ao Approval of Warrant Nos. 2126 to 2265 inclusive, in the amount of $564,759.74. b. Claims for Damages and Personal Injuries from the following: William F. Funk, 2419 #A Westholme Boulevard; Pacific Bell, 1010 Wilshire Boulevard, Room 621, Los Angeles; Sherril Denise Johnson, 1313 Bernard Street, #8; John L. Campbell, 5001 Appleblossom, #32 and Natasha Sydorchuk, 5001 Appleblossom, #32. (REFER TO CITY ATTORNEY) c. Dedication of Property: Sewer Line Electrical 16th Street Easement from the Kern County Pension Trust Fund located south of and east of Myrtle. Quitclaim Deed of a sewer easement to Sill Properties, Inc., located east of Arrow Street and north of Gilmore Street. Street Right-of-Way Deed from 1701 Oak Partnership for a portion of Oak Street of Truxtun Avenue. north Bakersfield, California, October 15, 1986 - Page 9 Contract Change Order No. 1 for restroom and kitchen improvements, Contract No. 86-115, with Lewis Construction, at Fire Station No. 11. Pipeline License Agreement between the City of Bakersfield and Sunset Railway Company for a Sewer Outfall Line across Railroad Right-of-Way. Program Supplement No. 31 to Local Agency - State Master Agreement No. 06-5109 covering Bridge Widening on Calloway Drive at Friant-Kern Canal. and f call Upon a motion by Vice-Mayor Childs, of the Consent Calendar were adopted by vote: Items a, b, c, d, the following roll Ayes: Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Salvaggio, Christensen, Dickerson Noes: None Absent: None Smith, Childs, ACTION ON BIDS Upon a motion by Councilmember Ratty, usual bidding requirements were dispensed with, in accordance with Section 3.20.060 of the Municipal Code, and the Finance Director was authorized to negotiate a price, not to exceed the budgeted amount of $57,000.00 for five used cars. Upon a motion by Councilmember Ratty, usual bidding requirements were dispensed with, in accordance with Section 3.20.060 of the Municipal Code, and the Finance Director was authorized to negotiate a price not to exceed the budgeted amount of $15,500.00 with Western Information Systems for Word Processing Equipment for the City Clerk. Upon a motion by Councilmember Moore, the low bid from Akri Construction, in the amount of $17,940.00, for Concrete Block Pumphouse for Fairhaven Water Pumping Station #F-103 was accepted, all other bids rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the Contract. DEFERRED BUSINESS An Emergency Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield prohibiting free- standing signs, other than monument signs, and outdoor advertising signs on property between Highway 99 on the east, the Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way to and along the Carrier Canal on the south, Coffee Road on the west and the northern bank of the Kern River on the north. This matter was discussed by the Council at of October 8, 1986. The City Attorney was d~rected at to prepare this Emergency Ordinance· its meeting that time Ordinance tion back Councilmember Ratty made a motion to refer the Emergency to the Planning Commission for review and recommenda- to the Council. This motion was unanimously approved. Councilmember Ratty made a motion to accept Mr. Bob Martin's offering to not do anything for 30 days and to let the Council know before he proceeds any further with the sign con- structions on that site. Councilmember Smith called for the question. Bakersfield, California, October 15, 1986 - Page 10 Councilmember Ratty's motion to accept Mr. Bob Martin's offering to not do anything for 30 days and to let the Council know before he proceeds any further with the sign construction on the site, was approved with Councilmember Christensen voting no. Adoption of Resolution No. 153-86 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield order- ing installation of curb, gutter and con- necting paving along Mesa Grande Street in front of Parcel C, Tract No. 2263. Upon a motion by Councilmember Salvaggio, Resolution No. 153-86 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Salvaggio, Christensen, Dickerson Noes: None Absent: None Smith, Childs, Letter to Kern Press Club from the City Attorney's Office. letter. Councilmember Moore made a motion to approve sending the Councilmember Moore's motion to approve sending the letter to Kern Press Club from the City Attorney's Office, was approved by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Smith, Childs Noes: Councilmembers Salvaggio, Christensen, Dickerson Absent: None NEW BUSINESS Adoption of Resolution No. 154-86 in regard to a request by the Local Agency Formation Commission to take legislative action to determine intentions to forth- with provide services proposed in C.S.A. Annexation: north of Brundage Lane and west of Quantico Avenue. Upon a motion by Councilmember Dickerson Resolution No. 154-86 was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Salvaggio, Christensen, Dickerson Noes: None Absent: None Smith, Childs, A Resolution of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Resolution No. 127-86 determining unpaid assessments and providing for issuance of Bonds in the matter of City of Bakersfield Assessment District No. 86-2. City Manager Caravalho recommended that New Business Items b and c, regarding the issuance of Bonds for Assessment District No. 86-2, be continued to the October 29, 1986 meeting. Bakersfield, California, October 15, 1986 Page 11 Richard Hardgrove, Bond Counsel, stated that they could not move forward until the Federal Bankruptcy court had issued an order recognizing the City's lien of assessment as paramount over all other liens on the Laborde property. He indicated that the official statement and certain documents are not available and recommended that the documents be available to Council before taking action. Councilmember Dickerson suggested that a Special Meeting be held to adopt the Resolutions. Vice-Mayor Childs restated staff's recommendation to delete New Business Items b and c. A Resolution of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Resolution No. 128-86 awarding sale of Bonds in the mat- ter of City of Bakersfield Assessment District No. 86-2, Series A. Upon a motion by Councilmember Dickerson, staff's recom- mendation to delete Resolution amending Resolution No. 127-86 determining unpaid assessments and providing for issuance of Bonds in the matter of City of Bakersfield Assessment District No. 86-2; and Resolution amending Resolution No. 128-86 awarding sale of Bonds in the matter of City of Bakersfield Assessment District No. 86-2, Series A, was approved. Agreement between City of Bakersfield and L. Char]es Battersby for providing Construction Engineering Services for the Buena Vista Sewer Trunk. Upon a motion by Councilmember Ratty, the Agreement with L. Charles Battersby for Construction Engineering Services for Buena Vista Sewer Trunk was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the Agreement. Consulting Services Agreement with Edward J. Wilson to provide engineering services for Allen Road Sewer Trunk. Upon a motion by Councilmember Christensen, Agreement with Edward J. Wilson to provide engineering services for Alien Road Sewer Trunk was approved; the Mayor was authorized to execute the Agreement; and authorization to expend up to $22,500.00 was granted. COUNCIL STATEMENTS Councilmember Dickerson questioned whether the Water Board approves increases to water rates without approval of the Council. mendation on it. City Attorney Oberholzer stated that he believes a recom- is made to the City Council, but he would need to check RECESS Upon the request of Councilmember Dickerson, the meeting was recessed at 9:18 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:20 p.m.