Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/06/1986 MINUTES CCBakersfield, California, August 6, 1986 Minutes of the regular City of Bakersfield, California, City Hall at 7:00 p.m., August 6, meeting of the Council of the held in the Council Chambers of 1986. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Payne, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Chaplain Ed Meissner of the First Assembly of God Church. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Payne. Councilmembers Christensen, Dickerson, Moore, Ratty, Salvaggio, Smith, Childs Absent: None MINUTES Upon a motion by Councilmember Moore, the minutes of the Regular Meetings of July 9, and July 16, 1986, were adopted. SCHEDULED PUBLIC STATEMENTS Joyce Johnston, 6612 Hopper Avenue, requested Councilman Salvagglo and a representative trom IT Corporation attend a com- munity meeting at the People's Missionary Baptist Church on Madison Avenue regarding the cleanup of the Bakersfield Airpark. by Joyce attend a Upon a motion by Councilmember Christensen, the request Johnston for a representative from IT Corporation to community meeting was considered an emergency item. Upon a motion by Councilmember directed to ask IT Corporation to send a questions at the community meeting to be Missionary Baptist Church. Salvaggio, staff was representative to answer held at the People's HEARINGS This is the time set for public hearing before the City Council on the 1986 Weed Abatement Program. Mayor Payne declared the hearing open for public par- ticipation. No protests or objections being received, and no one wishing to speak in favor, Mayor Payne closed the public portion of the hearing for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilmember Moore, Resolution No. 119-86 ot the Council of the City o! Bakersfield ~inding that cer- tain weeds growing on properties in the City of Bakersfield constitute a public nuisance and directing the Chief of the Fire Department to abate such nuisance, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Christensen, Dickerson, Moore, Salvaggio, Smith, Childs Noes: None Absent: None Ratty, Bakersfield, California, August 6, 1986 Page 2 This is the time set for public hearing on Resolution of Intention No. 1009 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring its intention to establish Maintenance District No. 15 (Auto Mall), and adopting Negative Declaration for pro- perty generally bounded by Pacheco Road on the north, Wible Road on the west, Freeway 99 on the east and Panama Lane on the south. Mayor Payne declared the hearing open for public par- ticipation. Randy Zeeb, of Quad Consultants, spoke in support of Maintenance District No. 15. No protests or objections being received and no one else wishing to speak in favor, Mayor Payne closed the public portion of the hearing for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilmember Declaration for Maintenance District No. following roll call vote: Dickerson, the Negative 15 was adopted by the Ayes: Councilmembers Christensen, Dickerson, Moore, Salvaggio, Smith, Childs Noes: None Absent: None Ratty, Upon a motion by Councilmember Dickerson, Resolution No. 120-86 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield establishing Maintenance District No. 15 and confirming the Assessment (Resolution of Intention No. 1009, Auto Mall), was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Christensen, Dickerson, Moore, Salvaggio, Smith, Childs Noes: None Absent: None Ratty, This is the time set for public hearing on Resolution of Intention No. 1010 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring its intention to establish Maintenance District No. 16 (Laborde), and adopting Negative Declaration for property generally hounded by Norris Road on the north, Calloway Drive on the west, Coffee Road on the east, and Rosedale Highway on the south. Mayor Payne declared the hearing open for public par- ticipation. No protests or objections being received, and no one wishing to speak in favor, Mayor Payne closed the public portion of the hearing for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilmember Declaration for Maintenance District No. following roll call vote: Childs, the Negative 16 was adopted by the Ayes: Noes: Absent: Councilmembers Dickerson, Moore, Ratty, Councilmembers Christensen, Salvaggio None Smith, Childs Bakersfield, California, August 6, 1986 - Page 3 Upon a motion by Councilmember Childs, Resolution No. 121-86 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield adopting Negative Declaration and establishing Maintenance District No. 16 and con- firming the Assessment (Resolution of Intention No. 1010, Rancho Laborde), was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Counci Noes: Counci Absent: None [members Dickerson, Moore, Ratty, [members Christensen, Sa[vaggio Smith, Childs This is the time set for public hearing on Resolution of Intention No. 1011 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring its intention to establish Maintenance District No. 17 (Silver Creek), and adopting Negative Declaration for property generally bounded by Southern Pacific Railroad on the north, Gosford Road on the west, Panama Lane on the south, and Arvin-Edison Canal on the east. Mayor Payne declared the hearing open for public participation. No protests or objections being received and no one wishing to speak in favor, Mayor Payne closed the public por- tion of the hearing for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilmember Declaration for Maintenance District No. following roll call vote: Ratty, the Negative 17 was adopted by the Ayes: Noes: Absent: Councilmembers Christensen, Dickerson, Smith, Childs Councilmember Salvagglo None Moore, Ratty, Upon a motion by Councilmember Ratty, Resolution No. 122-86 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield establishing Maintenance District No. 17 and confirming the Assessment (Resolution of Intention No. 1011, Silver Creek), was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Councilmembers Christensen, Dickerson, Smith, Childs Councilmember Salvaggio None Moore, Ratty Councilmember Dickerson clarified his yes vote stating that Maintenance District No. 15 is a business area that is entirely consumed with businesses and Maintenance District Nos. 16 and 17 are not occupied at this time and there are no assessment of fees. CORRESPONDENCE Upon a motion by Councilmember Christensen, correspon- dence from Byrum, Kimball, Carrick, Koontz & Crear, dated August 1986, was considered at this time. Councilmember Christensen requested the following be inserted into the minutes. Dear Councilman Christensen: My partners and I own the old Bank of America building, which is located at 20th and Chester, directly west of Brock's. Bakersfield, California, August 6, 1986 - Page 4 We are becoming increasingly concerned and frustrated by the vandalism which occurs every weekend by Bakersfield's drinking youth. There seems to be either an inability or an indifference on the part of the Council and the City Police to do anything about it. Every weekend, broken beer bottles and debris have to be removed from our sidewalks and flower beds. Recently, I came to the office on a Saturday to find one of the trees which we had planted as part of the downtown beautifica- tion program cut off. Frequently, on Saturday the parking arms on our parking lot gates are broken. Frequently, debris has been hurled against our windows which require them being cleaned. Always, on Saturday morning, the area surrounding our building is a pig sty filled with fast food bags, coke cans, paper cups, 12-pack beer boxes, empty wine bottles, etc. We appear to be allowing our youth, even encouraging them, to come to downtown Bakersfield, get drunk, raise hell, van- dalize and leave a mess behind them. Why? Nothing encourages me more to move from downtown to southwest than having to come down to the office Saturday morning and spend half of it cleaning up. the First, I would like to know what the position of the City Council is with respect to this problem, which has existed for many years, and which seems to only be getting worse. If its attitude is that "boys will be boys", and that we really have to give them a place to raise hell, I would simply like to know that, because if that is the case, the future of the downtown area, as well as redevelopment, is doomed. If, as I would suspect, the City Council does not condone this acti- vity, has it budgeted sufficient manpower to the City Police Department in order to properly patrol the area? We need more than pious statements that the problem is terrible and something needs to be done. We need assurances from the Chief of Police that he either has adequate personnel at this time in order to properly handle the problem and, if not, assurance that the City Council is willing to allocate funds for this purpose. I would appreciate a meeting with you as well as a repre- sentative of the City Police Department to find out what is being done and what can be done. Thank you. Very truly yours, Claude P. Kimball Byrum, Kimball, Carrick, Koontz & Crear, P. C. Councilmember Christensen read the following article by Tom Maurer, of The Bakersfield Californian, dated January 22, 1986, as follows: A local litter law is being proposed to combat weekend "cruisers" and transients who leave trash downtown, although the law would apply city-wide and carry fines for violators." City Councilman J.M. Christensen initiated the proposal by complaining of litter left by high school students every weekend along Chester Avenue and of transients who trash the business district of Baker Street in east Bakersfield. Bakersfield, California, August 6, 1986 - Page 5 "I've put a lot of pressure on the staff about this. All you have to do is drive up and down Chester, 18th and 19th and take a look," said Christensen, who represents downtown and the Baker Street area. "The businesses will keep pulling out of the center of town until we do something about this. Instead of trying to get businesses in, we ought to learn how to take care of the businesses we've got." The proposal will be introduced tonight at the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency. It is expected sent to the City Council for final approval. to be Existing State litter laws have not been much help for cities, according to a staff report on the litter problem. State fines range from $100 to $1,000 for lit- tering. State law also requires some violators to pay for clean up. But because the fines are so stiff, they can be challenged in Municipal Court making them virtually unenforceable, the staff report said. The minimum $100 fine may result in a trial." "The court calendar could not tional proceedings," the report said. "demand for jury stand these addi- Staff members have studied a number of local litter laws throughout the State and are patterning an ordinance after them. Fines would range in the $10 to $20 range. The report suggests an extensive publicity and public education program before the litter law becomes effec- tive. It suggests the Beautiful Bakersfield Committee coordinate the publicity program. Both local cable television companies would be asked to promote the new law on their "public service" channels, which reach an estimated 75,000 homes in greater Bakersfield. The report suggests marketing a cleanup program with logos, slogans, borchures, stickers, litter bags and coloring books. The city will ask local businesses to become involved, promoting the program among employees. It also suggests that community service groups provide volunteers and invest in the project. The new law would be enforced by the Police Department, with assistance from City building inspectors and the Fire Department to spot violations. Councilmember Salvaggio made a motion to refer the com- munications supporting the proposed new Litter, Handbill, Weeds and Debris Ordinance to the Urban Development Committee. Upon a substitute motion by Councilmember Dickerson, communication from Kern High School District, 2000 24th Street, dated July 25, 1986, supporting the proposed new Litter, Handbill, Weeds and Debris Ordinance, was deferred to New Business item regarding Proposed Litter, Handbill, Weeds, and Debris Ordinance. (This item was discussed and acted upon on Page 18.) Upon a substitute motion by Councilmember Dickerson, communication from Beautiful Bakersfield, 4909 Stockdale Highway, dated July 21, 1986, supporting the proposed Litter, Handbill, Weeds and Debris Ordinance was deferred to New Business item regarding Proposed Litter, Handbill, Weeds and Debris Ordinance. (This ~tem was discussed and acted upon on Page 18.) Bakerst'ield, California, August 6, 1986 - Page 6 Upon a substitute motion by Councilmember Dickerson com- munication from Downtown Business Association, 1401 19th Street, Suite 101, dated July 29, 1986, supporting the proposed Weeds and Debris, Litter and Handbill Ordinance was deferred to New Business item regarding Proposed Litter, Handbill, Weeds and Debris Ordinance. (This item was discussed and acted upon on Page 18.) Upon a motion by Councilmember Moore, communication from Fair Housing Division of the Department of Weights and Measures, 1102 So. Robinson Street, dated July 28, 1986, submitting names for appointment to the Fair Housing Advisory Committee, was accepted and the implementation of the membership outlined in the correspondence was authorized. Upon a motion by Councilmember Childs, communication from Artache, Clark and Potter, Attorneys at Law, 5401 California Avenue, Suite 301, requesting the City Council delete Mr. Bailey's property trom the Casa Loma Specific Plan, was deferred until second reading of the Ordinance to be considered under Deferred Business. (This item was discussed and acted upon on Page 11.) COUNCIL STATEMENTS Upon a motion by Councilmember Moore, communication from Ed Hughes, Boy Scout Troop 110, 2300 Hasti Acres Dr., dated July 28, regarding Eagle Scout service project to remove graffiti in the City was accepted and referred to the City Attorney's Office tor action and implementation. Councilmember Dickerson requested the Mayor present Boy Scout Troop 110 w~th a certificate or resolution, and also requested to be involved. Councilmember Childs requested correspondence from Bakersfield Bicycle Club, 1327 Townsley Avenue, dated July 31, regarding requests to make the City safer for bicyclists, was referred to staff to get in touch with Mr. Lumpkin and bring back a report to Council. Councilmember Childs introduced correspondence from Walker-Lewis, Inc., P.O. Box 10592, dated July 30, regarding the center divider on Stine Road., south of White Lane. Councilmember Saivaggio emphasized Items 5 and 6 of the memorandum from City Attorney Richard Oberho[zer, dated July 6, 1986, regarding status report of contamination from Garriott pro- perty. Councilmember Childs read correspondence from Robert Ashbeck, Community Access Network, 4283 Country Club Dr., regarding Convention Center Hotel Handicapped Access, and thanked staff for immediately handling the situation. Councilmember for his time and effort Bakersfield Airpark. Dickerson thanked Councilmember Salvaggio relative to the issue of toxics at the Upon a motion by Councilmember Dickerson, the question of horseshoe pit regulations was referred to the Auditorium and Community Services Committee. Upon a motion by Councilmember Moore, the City Attorney was authorized to transmit the correspondence to Mr. Robert Bently, Managing Editor of The Bakersfield Californian, from the City Attorney, dated August 6, 1986, regarding closed session regarding toxic chemical waste on City property. Councilmember Christensen voted no. Council Statements is continued on Page 8. Bakersfield, California, August 6, 1986 Page 7 REPORTS Councilmember Moore, Chairman of the Water Resources Committee, read Report No. 2-86 regarding Canal Fencing Requirements ot the Kern Delta Water District as follows: On March 19, 1986, after many meetings with repre- sentatives of local water districts and the Kern County Water Agency, the City Council approved an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Sections 15.48.020 B., 15.48.030 B., and 17.08.180 of the Bakersfield Code Regarding Protective Enclosures for Canals and Ditches. By adopting this Ordinance, the Council resolved the concerns of all local water districts, except Kern Delta Water District. Since that time, staff and this committee have met several times with representatives of the Kern Delta Water Board to resolve their compliance with the fencing require- ments through a memorandum of agreement. We plan to meet with Kern Delta again in the next week to discuss the latest draft memorandum of agreement. When this committee has met wih Kern Delta and reached an agreement we believe to be reasonable, we will report back to the Council with a recommen- dation. Upon a motion by Councilmember Moore, Report No. 2-86 from the Water Resources Committee, regarding Canal Fencing Requirements of the Kern Delta Water District, was accepted. Upon a motion by Councilmember Moore, the recommen- dations within Report No. 2-86 from the Water Resources Committee, regarding Canal Fencing Requirements of the Kern Delta Water District, were implemented. CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of Warrant Nos. 9010 to 9103 inclu- sive, in the amount of $275,204.27; and Warrant Nos. 208 to 306 inclusive, in the amount of $234,852.12. b. Claim for Damages and Personal Injuries from the following: 1. Jessica Villegas, 1004 S. Robinson; 2. Mary Lou Artaway, 245 Clyde Street; 3. Lonnie Boykin, 2601 Columbus Avenue, #23; 4. Elias Louis Skapinakls, 1009 33rd Street, #2; and 5. Douglas Hutchison, 2905 Arnold Street. (REFER TO CITY ATTORNEY) Plans and Specifications for construction of Community House Parking Lot. d. Lease Agreement with the County of Kern for leasing of equipment. e. Williamson Act Contract, Certificate of Cancellation. Bakersfield, California, August 6, 1986 - Page 8 Negative Declaration for proposed road i~n- provements on Charger Avenue and Royal Scotts Way. Upon a motion by Councilmember Childs, Items a, c, d, e and f of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Councilmembers Christensen, Dickerson, Moore, Salvaggio, Smith, Childs None None Ratty, ACTION ON BIDS Upon a motion by Councilmember Smith, low bid from Griffith Company for Alternate A only, in the amount of $118,800.50, for improvement of portions of Charger Avenue and Royal Scotts Way, was accepted, all other bids rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the Contract. Upon a motion by Councilmember Salvaggio, low bid from Paxin Electric, in the amount of $44,460.00, for traf- fic signal system on Hughes Lane at White Lane, was accepted, all other bids rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to exe- cute the Contract. Upon a motion by Councilmember Christensen, low bid from Daniels Tire Service, in the amount of $135,105.59, for annual contract for recapping, was accepted, all other bids rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the Contract. Upon a motion by Councilmember Ratty, low bid from Gilliam and Sons, Inc., in the amount of $116,800.00, for annual contract for earth moving and hauling, was accepted, the other bid rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to exe- cute the Contract. Upon a motion by Councilmember Moore, low bid from General Seating, in the amount of $35,167.09, for annual contract for aluminum plan~s and accessories was accepted, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the Contract. Upon a motion by Councilmember Smith, low bid from Abate-A-Weed, Inc., in the amount of $25,000.00, for annual contract for application of chemicals, was accepted, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the Contract. Upon a motion by Councilmember Christensen, low bid from Target Chemical, in the amount of $47,834.61, for annual contract for puchase of chemicals (insecticides/herbicides), was accepted, the other bid rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the Contract. Upon a motion by Councilmember Smith, low bid from Union Metal Corporation, in the amount of $13,239.40, for signal standards, was accepted and all other bids rejected. Upon a motion by Councilmember Dickerson, low bid from M. G. Mechanical Welding, in the amount of $5,341.50, for prefabricated metal pipe, was accepted and all other bids rejected. COUNCIL STATEMENTS CONTINUED Upon a motion by Councilmember Salvaggio, Dr. Dai Watkins, representing IT Corporation, was allowed to address Council regarding the reconnaissance survey and status of the of toxics at the Bakersfield Airpark. the issue Bakersfield, California, August 6, 1986 Page 9 Dr. Dai Watkins, representing IT Corporation, provided an update regarding the Bakersfield Airpark and answered questions of the Council. Larry Moxley, representing McKittrick Mud, Petroleum Waste, IT Organization, answered questions of the Council. RECESS Upon the request of Councilmember Childs, the meeting was recessed at 8:45 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:00 p.m. DEFERRED BUSINESS Adoption of Ordinance No. 3063 New Series of the Council of the C~ty of Bakersfield making findings, approving Segment VI of Proposed Amendment to the Land Use Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Land Use Amendment No. 2-86) and adopting Casa Loma Specific Plan. Upon the request of Councilmember Dickerson, the following is a full rendering of the discussion regarding this item. CITY CLERK WILLIAMS: Next item on the agenda is Deferred Business. An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making findings, adopting Negative Declaration and approving Segment VI of Proposed Amendment to the Land Use Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and adopting Casa Loma Specific Plan. MAYOR PAYNE: Okay. I believe that we had correspon- dence that was deferred relative to this. Mr. Salvaggio has his light on. Mr. Salvaggio. COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: the correspondence. I'll defer to any comments on MAYOR PAYNE. Okay. Vice-Mayor Childs. COUNCILMEMBER CHILDS: I received a couple phone calls and also two letters from Mr. Bailey or someone who is repre- senting Bailey. And I have discussed this with staff and it appears that Mr. Bailey is concerned about his property in the Casa Loma Specific Plan. I believe -- I don't see Mr. Kennon here -- but the last time that Mr. Bailey was here he -- oh, I'm sorry Dave is here -- the last time Mr. Bailey and or the attorney appeared before the City Council he asked the question if his piece of property was deleted from the specific plan would it, in effect, do anything to delay, stop, or have any type of negative effect upon the Enterprise Zone boundaries and our Enterprise Zone application. At that time, I believe we tentatively told him we didn't think it did have any negative effects, however, I believe staff has contacted State, Mr. Bailey and his attorney contacted the Department of Consumers Affairs, and I also contacted the Department of Consumers Affairs. They said they were not overly concerned about that property being deleted from the Casa Loma Specific Plan, but they would be extremely concerned if we tried to take that out of the Enterprise Zone designation. I also told Mr. Bailey that his property is presently located in the County. We have no jurisdiction whatsoever in regards to taking that pro- perty out of the Casa Loma General Plan. But I did tell him that I had no problem whatsoever in recommending that it be deleted froin the General Plan. And I'd liRe to hear comments from other lnembers of staff and then after that I would he willing to make some type of motion. Thank you, your Honor. Bakersfield. California, August 6, 1986 - Page 10 MAYOR PAYNE: You wish to hear from staff. Mrs. Strenn COUNCILMEMBER CHILDS: Staff and Councilmembers. Thank you. MAYOR PAYNE: Mrs. Strenn. MAYOR PAYNE: Mr. Salvaggio had the floor but he deferred to Vice-Mayor Childs, so that would be appropriate. DEPUTY CITY MANAGER STRENN: Mayor Payne, members of the Council, we have two people, actually we have three people in the audience that could address that issue. Perhaps Dave Kennon would be able to talk to the issue of whether it could be taken out of the Enterprise Zone. ECONOM1C DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR KENNON: Yes, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The -- your comment regarding the impacts to the Enterprise Zone is correct. We are -- however, we are not necessarily recommending that this action take place. It is our understanding and discussions with the State that it would not necessarily impact our efforts in the Enterprise Zone. MAYOR PAYNE: Mr. Childs. COUNCILMEMBER CHILDS: There were some concerns by other members of the audience -- 1 would like to recognize Mr. Bill Lewis if I might, I believe he wanted to comment on this particu- lar item and Mr. -- and anyone else that might want to your Honor. MAYOR PAYNE: Okay, it takes a motion. COUNCILMEMBER CHILDS: Bill Lewis. So move that we recognize Mr. MAYOR PAYNE: Okay. All in favor indicate by saying Aye. COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye. MAYOR PAYNE: Opposed. Motion carries. Mr. Childs. COUNCILMEMBER CHILDS: Mr. Lewis, please. MAYOR PAYNE: Again sir, for the record, please identify yourself. BILL LEWIS: I'm Bill Lewis, President of the South East Enterprise Zone Incorporated, SEEZ in short. We are opposed to Mr. Bailey coming out of the Casa Loma Specific Plan for many reasons. The City and County jointly has spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $120,000 to get the Specific Plan constructed. It has been going on for somewhere close to two years now. There has been a meeting practically every month on this. This is one of the few projects in the City of Bakersfield where the community has actually put together a program that will work. Now these meetings has been notified to all the land owners. Mr. Bailey says he never was notified. I don't know where Mr. Bailey's been. But the meetings had been held without him Jf be wasn't there. But the community has got strongly behind this support and the boundaries are drawn. The City, in fact, run a water line down the front of his property there and I suppose he wants the free water too. That was part of the Enterprise Zone. So, here we go. Mr. Bailey wants a hundred foot sign space. But he wants to stay in the Enterprise Zone and get all the benefits from the Enterprise Zone. Yet he don't want to conform to the rules and regulations that's put up in the Casa Loma Specific Plan. And we just don't feel it's right. The Board of Directors of SEEZ says leave Mr. Bailey in this Casa Loma Specific Plan. Thank you. Bakersfield, California, August 6, 1986 - Page i1 MAYOR PAYNE: Mr. Salvaggio had the floor but he deferred to Vice-Mayor Childs, so that would be appropriate. DEPUTY CITY MANAGER STRENN: Mayor Payne, members of the Council, we have two people, actually we have three people in the audience that could address that issue. Perhaps Dave Kennon would be able to talk to the issue of whether it could be taken out of the Enterprise Zone. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR KENNON: Yes, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The -- your comment regarding the impacts to the Enterprise Zone is correct. We are -- however, we are not necessarily recommending that this action take place. It is our understanding and discussions with the State that it would not necessarily impact our efforts in the Enterprise Zone. MAYOR PAYNE: Mr. Childs. COUNCILMEMBER CHILDS: There were some concerns by other members of the audience -- I would like to recognize Mr. Bill Lewis if I might, I believe he wanted to comment on this par- ticular item and Mr. -- and anyone else that might want to your Honor. MAYOR PAYNE: Okay, it takes a motion. COUNCILMEMBER CHILDS: Bill Lewis. So move that we recognize Mr. Aye. MAYOR PAYNE: Okay. All in favor indicate by saying COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye. MAYOR PAYNE: Opposed. Motion carries. Mr. Childs. COUNCILMEMBER CHILDS: Mr. Lewis, please. MAYOR PAYNE: Again sir, for the record, please identify yourselt. BILL LEWIS: I'm Bill Lew~s, President of the South East Enterprise Zone Incorporated, SEEZ in short. We are opposed to Mr. B~aley coming out of the Casa Loma Specific Plan for many reasons. The City and County jointly has spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $120,000 to get the Specific Plan constructed. It has been going on for somewhere close to two years now. There has been a meeting practically every month on this. This is one of the few projects in the City of Bakersfield where the community has actually put together a program that will work. Now these meetings has been notified to all the land owners. Mr. Bailey says he never wsa notified. I don't know where Mr. Bailey's been. But the meetings had been held without him if he wasn't there. But the community has got strongly behind this support and the boundaries are drawn. The City, in fact, run a water line down the front of his property there and I suppose he wants the free water too. That was part of the Enterprise Zone. So, here we go. Mr. Bailey wants a hundred foot sign space. But he wants to stay in the Enterprise Zone and get all the benefits from the Enterprise Zone. Yet he don't want to conform to the rules and regulations that's put up in the Casa Loma Specific Plan. And we just don't feel it's right. The Board of Directors of SEEZ says leave Mr. Bailey in this Casa Loma Specific Plan. Thank you. COUNCILMEMBER CHILDS: Thank you, Mr. Lewis. I don't see any other hands. Mr. Chairman I need about a five minute recess. 1 have a letter that I -- another letter from Mr. Bailey that I would like to go get and review. MAYOR PAYNE: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen. Please, let's make every possible attempt to hold this to five minutes. Bakersfield, California, August 6, 1986 - Page 12 (RECESS) MAYOR PAYNE: The meeting is reconvened. Mr. Childs has the floor, then it's Mr. Salvaggio, Mr. Ratty, Mr. Dickerson. COUNCILMEMBER CHILDS. Mr. Mayor, on item twelve (a) and deleting -- let me rephrase that. On item 12 (a) regarding adopting the Casa Loma Specific Plan, I'd like to move that we adopt the Casa Loma Specific Plan with the exception that we delete Mr. Bailey's property from the Casa Loma Specific Plan. That would be my motion, your Honor. accept MAYOR PAYNE: It the correspondence, might be more appropriate to first at least from Arrache, Clark and Potter COUNCILMEMBER CHILDS: That could be included in my motion, you Honor. That we accept the correspondence and then motion if that is okay with you. MAYOR PAYNE: Why don't we deal with them one motion a time -- COUNCILMEMBER CHILDS: Surely. MAYOR PAYNE: Motion to accept the correspondence com- munication from Arrache, Clark and Potter receive and place on COUNCILMEMBER CHILDS: So move, you Honor. MAYOR PAYNE: Any discussion. Mr. Saivaggio. COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: Yes, question of Vice-Mayor Childs regarding the rationale for the deletion of that property. COUNCILEMBER CHILDS: If we may, could we just go ahead and receive the letters and then I will give you the rationale -- COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER the letter then -- if I out of the way and then reasons. COUNCILMEMBER MAYOR PAYNE: munication. the at SALVAGGIO: Oh, your gonna refer -- CHILDS: -- separately -- SALYAGGIO: -- that August 5th letter -- CHILDS: Well we're just going to receive may, your Honor -- just get the letters we'll discuss -- then I'll give you my SALVAGGIO: Okay. Fine. Okay, we have a motion to accept the com- Any discussion. All in favor indicate by saying aye. file. COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye MAYOR PAYNE: Opposed. COUNCILMEMBER CHILDS. MAYOR PAYNE: Yes. COUNCILMEMBER CHILDS: Mr. Bailey has conaced me a couple ot times and I dont' know if he was notified tonight, but I assume he was notified. Information we get -- the tendered?? infor-- mation that we gave him I based it on the fact that he -- that it would have some type of detrimental or negative ettect it he was taken out of the Enterprise Zone so that was the reason for my motion. Motion carries. May I continue, your Honor. Bakersfield, California, August 6, 1986 - Page 13 133 MAYOR PAYNE: Okay. Dr. Ratty. COUNCILMEMBER RATTY: Just a comment that I want -- I support the substitute motion for sure. Mr. Bailey's been, a long, long time the people have worked on this problem a long, long time. SEEZ is very important and I think it's been worked out quite well in the community that has had the input to make it work, and I think it ought to stay as it is. I support the substitute motion. MAYOR PAYNE: Okay. Mr. Dickerson. City Atto Amendment COUNCILMEMBER DICKERSON: I have a concern on what rney said. Correct me if I'm wrong. We had a Plan hearing last week. Was this part of that? the MAYOR PAYNE: Mr. Oberholzer. CITY ATTORNEY OBERHOLZER: Yes. COUNCILMEMBER DICKERSON: -- how does that affect the other Amendment hearing? Now were, were taking action items that were on that Plan MAYOR PAYNE: Mrs. Strenn. DEPUTY CITY MANAGER STRENN: Mayor Payne, Councilman Dickerson. It would not affect it. That was the first reading that was held last week. The only difference is that, in that there was the notation that there was a Negative Declaration that had been done, and in fact, a full blown Environmental Impact Report had been done by the County which was the Agency that was responslble for doing it. So it was merely a matter of deleting the Negative Declaration since obviously a full blown Environmental Impact Report had been done. Last week was merely the first reading. This is the second reading since it is not a substantive change. COUNCILMEMBER DICKERSON: Did you give -- did this City give notice in that hearing that we were considering the Negative Declaration or the Environmental Impact Report of the County? DEPUTY CITY MANAGER STRENN: Mayor Payne, Councilman Dickerson. Are you talking about last weeks? COUNCILMEMBER DICKERSON: You noticed a hearing for that Plan Amendment change correct, the City did? DEPUTY CITY MANAGER STRENN: That is correct. COUNCILMEMBER DICKERSON: And in that notice you indi- cated that ~t would be an adoption of a Negative Declaration approving this Segment and so forth, correct? DEPUTY CITY MANAGER STRENN: I cannot tell you specifi- cally how the notice read. It is likely that that may have been. We have cheeked it legally to make sure there would be no problem with th~s. We have been assured there is no problem. COUNCILMEMBER DICKERSON: Well I'm gonna put it into the record of what's occurring and you can certainly answer my questions on it. Your determination is fine. What I want to know is this is clearly in the record what's occurring. Now from what I understand is we are adopting this pursuant to the County's Environmental Impact Report, is that correct? DEPUTY CITY MANAGER STRENN: That is correct. COUNCILMEMBER DICKERSON: We did not notice that though to the property owners that are involved, we noticed as a City that we were adopting it per the Negative Declaration. Bakersfield, California, August 6, 1986 - Page 14 DEPUTY CITY MANAGER STRENN: Mayor Payne, Councilman Dickerson. If you would like some explanation of the process that has been used I'll have Dave Kennon address that. COUNCILMEMBER DICKERSON: This -- no, no. I don't need to get into a long disertation from staff as to what one is and what the other one is. I just need a straight answer to my question for the record. That's all I am trying to accomplish is that we notice this hearing as a Negative Declaration pursuant to this. I don't know all the legal ramifications, I don't begin to even try to put forth that. But what I want to do is get that into the record that we're adopting it not based on the Negative Declaration but based on this County survey or Environmental Impact Report. Now, did this Council get a copy of that pursuant to the hearing. Dickerson. respond. DEPUTY CITY MANAGER STRENN: Mayor Payne, Councilman I would appreciate it if Mr. Kennon would be able to MAYOR PAYNE: The Chair will recognize Mr. Kennon. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR KENNON: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I believe the Ordinance or the hearing was advertised as -- there was an Environmental Impact Report that had been completed. MAYOR PAYNE: Do you believe or you are sure? way ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR KENNON: it was advertised -- well MAYOR PAYNE: Thank you. Yes, that's the COUNCILMEMBER DICKERSON: continue. Neither the -- if I may MAYOR PAYNE: Please. COUNCILMEMBER DICKERSON: The property owner here is under one set of facts that this proposal is under a Negative Declaration. That is then suddenly changed in this meeting. As I understand, the attorney for that individual made considerable lengthy discussion in front of this Council. That's changed. Was he noticed that that was going to be -- this activity was going to be done under the County's Environmental Report? MAYOR PAYNE: Mr. Kennon, can you respond? Mr. Oberholzer, somebody. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR KENNON: Yes, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The Environmental Impact Report was approved by this agency as part of the application for the Enterprise Zone. That was reviewed, drafted per CEQA and sub- sequently approved by all agencies. MAYOR PAYNE: Mr. Dickerson. COUNCILMEMBER DICKERSON: We can go around and around -- ECONOMC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR KENNNON: And there was public hearings-- COUNCILMEMBER DICKERSON: -- and your not answering my question. Did Mr. Jim Bailey understand or know before tonight that the Negative Declaration is being withdrawn per say and is being substituted the County's Environmental Impact Report? Bakersfield, California, August 6, 1986 - Page 15 135 DEPUTY CITY MANAGER STRENN: Mayor Payne, Councilman Dickerson. I don't know if we can answer you directly. Because we are not the ones who sent the notices, but perhaps if I explain the dlfterence between the Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration is really -- COUNCILMEMBER DICKERSON: I understand -- I understand Mary the differences. I'm just asking you a question about -- if he's not notified how this document is being adopted, his attorney speaks and challenges the Negative Declaration aspects of this, it looks like to me that your -- that he's just not being given a fair treatment here and that,s all I'm after. I suggest we defer this item until Mr. Bailey can attend a meeting, and I say why. And I would ask Mr. Salvagglo. The gentleman is babysitting his three or four children at home and that's why he is not here. But he's got several thousand dollars involved in this project and I think he's spent attorney's tees and we ought to at least give him the opportunity to fully understand what's going on. MAYOR PAYNE: Mr. Salvaggio is the maker of the substi- tute motion. Do you understand what Mr. Dickerson is suggesting? Do you have a response? Mr. Dickerson, please continue. COUNCILMEMBER DICKERSON: I think it is significant and I have pointed it out and I think staff is resisting the question so I'm not going to belabor it. The statement I make is that we are adopting this under one set of facts that weren't then apparent at the public hearing. I'm noting it for the record. I wish the Clerk to make a full rendering of this information, of this dlscussion in the minutes. And I would move or I would request that pursuant to City code that a Councilmember can request an abstract ot his statement and I so move or so request. Thank you. COUNCILMEMBER RATTY: Call for the question -- MAYOR PAYNE: Thank you. We have a substitute motion stated by Mr. Salvaggio and Mr. Oberhotzer would you care to restate that please. Would you please restate that? as CITY ATTORNEY OBERHOLZER: Motion to adopt an Ordinance ot the Council of the City of Bakersfield making finOlngs, approving Segment V1 ot the Propose0 Amendment to the Land Use Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Land Use Amendment No. 2-86, and adopting the Casa Loma Specific Plan. MAYOR PAYNE: Thank you. Mr. Salvaggio, what has been removed from the written agenda are the last ot line two and beginning ot line three, "adopting Negative Declaration and," is that correct Mr. Oberholzer? CITY ATTORNEY OBERHOLZER: Yes. MAYOR PAYNE: Mr. Salvaggio, is that still your substi- tute mot~on? COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: Yes. MAYOR PAYNE: Okay. Please call the roll. CITY CLERK WILLIAMS: Councilmember Christensen. COUNCILMEMBER CHRISTENSEN: No. CITY CLERK WILLIAMS: Dickerson. COUNCILMEMBER DICKERSON: NO. Bakersfield, California, August 6, 1986 - Page 16 CITY CLERK WILLIAMS: Moore. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE: Aye. CITY CLERK WILLIAMS: Ratty. COUNCILMEMBER RATTY: Aye. CITY CLERK WILLIAMS: Salvaggio. COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO: Aye. CITY CLERK WILLIAMS: Smith. COUNCILMEMBER SMITH: Aye. CITY CLERK WILLIAMS: Childs. COUNCILMEMBER CHILDS: No. MAYOR PAYNE: Motion carries. Next item, please. Adoption of Ordinance No. 3064 New Series of the Council of the C~ty of Bakersfield amending Section 2.04.070, 2.04.100 and 2.04.110 A. 1. of the Bakersfield Municipal Code relative to City Council Meetings. This Ordinance was given first reading at the meeting July 30, 1986. Councilmember Moore made a motion to adopt the Ordinance with the modification of Council Statements being placed after New Business, and review it in 90 days. Councilmember Christensen requested a curfew of the Council. Councilmember Dickerson made a substitute motion to adopt the Ordinance and review it in 90 days. This motion was defeated by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Christensen, Dickerson, Salvaggio Noes: Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Smith, Childs Absent: None Councilmember Moore's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 3064 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield with Council Statements being placed after New Business and review the Ordinance in 90 days, was approved by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Smith, Childs Noes: Councilmembers Christensen, Dickerson, Salvaggio Absent: None Councilmember Childs requested the City Clerk provide copies of the revised Ordinance to the Council. Councilmember Dickerson stated, for the record, that he is generally in favor of most of the items on the new agenda, but feels that Council Statements should not have been put at the end of the agenda. Adoption of Ordinance No. 3065 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code by changing the Land Use Zoning of those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield located in the northwest corner of Stine and Harris Roads. Bakersfield, California, August 6, 1986 - Page 17 This Ordinance was given first reading at the Regular Meeting of July 30, 1986. Upon a motion by Councilmember New Series of the Council of the City of by the following roll call vote: Ratty, Ordinance No. 3065 Bakersfield was adopted Ayes: Councilmembers Christensen, Dickerson, Moore, Salvaggio, Smith, Childs Noes: None Absent: None Ratty, Proposed Contract Amendment between the Kern River Interests and the United States Bureau of Reclamation deleting Articles 24, 25 and Exhibit "C" and the October 23, 1964 Isabella Reservoir Contract relating to acreage limitations. Upon a motion by Councilmember Moore, the North Kern Water Storage District was authorized to execute the proposed Contract Amendment between the Kern River Interests and the United States Bureau of Reclamation on behalf of the City. NEW BUSINESS First Reading of an Ordinance of the Council of the C~ty of Bakersfield amending Sections 17.69.020 D. and 17.69.040 and adding Section 17.69.050 D. to the Bakersfield Municipal Code relating to Adult Entertainment Businesses. Adoption o[ Resolution No. 123-86 of the Council of t~e City of Bakersfield amending the boundaries of the Ashe Water Service Area. Upon a motion by Councilmember Moore, Resolution No. 123-86 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield was adopted by the tollowing roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Christensen, Dickerson, Moore, Salvaggio, Smith, Childs Noes: None Absent: None Ratty, Memorandum of Understanding with County of Kern for Baker Street Library Restoration. Upon a motion by Councilmember Christensen, the Memorandum o[ Understanding with the County of Kern for Baker Street Library Restoration was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute and forward it to the County of Kern by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Christensen, Dickerson, Moore, Ratty, Salvaggio, Smith, Childs Noes: None Absent: None Proposed Litter, Handbill, Weeds, and Debris Ordinance Upon a motion by Councilmember Ratty, the proposed Litter, Handbill, Weeds, and Debris Ordinance was referred to the Urban Development Committee for further review and final recommen- dation. Bakersfield, California, August 6, 1986 Page 18 CLOSED SESSION recessed ation of Upon a motion by Councilmember Salvaggio, the Council to Closed Session, at 9:55 p.m., to discuss the evalu- the City Manager and City Attorney. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Christensen made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Upon a motion by Councilmember Childs, communication from Kern High School District, 2000 24th Street, dated July 25, 1986, supporting the proposed new Litter, Handbill, Weeds and Debris Ordinance was referred to the Urban Development Committee. Upon a motion by Councilmember Childs, communication from Beautiful Bakersfield, 4909 Stockdale Highway, dated July 21, 1986, supporting the proposed Litter, Handbill, Weeds and Debris Ordinance was referred to the Urban Development Committee. Upon a motion by Councilmember Childs, communication from Downtown Business Association, 1401 19th Street, Suite 101, dated July 29, 1986, supporting the proposed Litter, Handbill, Weeds and Debris Ordinance, was referred to the Urban Development Committee. Mayor Payne announced that no action was taken by the Council in Closed Session. There being no Council, upon a motion by adjourned at 11:40 p.m. further business to come before the Councilmember Childs, the meeting was MAYOR oi' the City ATTEST: of the City or Bakersfield, Calitornia or' Bakersi'ield, Calif. rg