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