Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
JULY - SEPT 1973
Bakersfield, California, July 9, 1973 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at eight o'clock P. M., July 9, 1973. In the absence of Mayor Hart the meeting was called to order by Vice-Mayor Whittemore, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Councilman Walter Heisey. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Councilmen Thomas, Whittemore, Heisey, Medders, Strong Absent: Mayor Hart. Councilman Bleecker Minutes of the budget sessions of June 11, 12, and 13, 1973 and regular meeting of June 18, 1973 were approved as presented. Presentation of Retirement Plaque. Vice-Mayor Whittemore presented a retirement plaque to Mr. Jangles L. Miller of the Public Works Department, who has been employed by the City of Bakersfield for 22 years and 10 months. Correspondence. A communication was read from Mr. J. Wesley Jones, 716 N Street, asking that a swimming pool and a tennis court be constructed at Lowell Park and that the Police Department do something about the gamblers and the teen-age gangs who make it unsafe for young children and families to use the facilities of the park. Councilman Heisey moved that the requests for the swimming pool and tennis court be referred to the Budget Review and Finance Committee for consideration in next year's budget, and that the problem of gamblers and the teenage-gangs roaming the park be referred to the Police Department for and appropriate action. Mr. Bergen suggested that the capital improvement investigation items, such Rogers, Bakersfield, California, July 9, 1973 - page 2 the swimming pool and tennis court, be referred for evaluation complexity of and political study be made. the subject. in nature, it The Committee itself on how this study should be made and to the Council in the near future. Since this study is very complex is very important that an objective is not in complete agreement expects to report back as and inclusion in next year's capital improvement budget. Councilman Heisey amended his motion to that effect and also requested that Mr. Jones be notified by the Mayor of the Council's action on his request. This motion carried unanimously. Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, copy of communication to the Federal Communications Commission from Warner Cable Corporation requesting extension of time to August 15, 1973 to review material received in connection with application for Certification to carry Station KMPH on Cypress Cable TV was received and ordered placed on file. Council Statements. Councilman Rogers inquired if Mr. Bruce Hoyt has been furnished with a copy of the report submitted by Chief of Police Price and Captain James Ware relative to a survey made by the Traffic Division on Mr. Hoyt's request for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of University Avenue and Wenatchee Street. Mr. Bergen replied that a copy of this survey was sent to Councilman Heisey and to Mr. Hoyt for their information. Councilman Thomas gave the following oral report of the City-County Cooperation Committee: The City-County Cooperation Co~unittee is studying the operation of the Fire Department. As the Council will recall, the subject of functional consolidation of the Fire Department was referred to this Committee some time ago. One of the reasons the Committee has not made a report to date is the 223 Bakersfield, California, July 9, 1973 - Page 3 The Committee has discussed its name and feels that it would be more appropriately called Intergovernmental Relations Committee. Originally, the name City-County Cooperation Committee was given because of a corresponding committee in the County which no longer exists; therefore, we recommend that the Council approve changing the name from City-County Cooperation Committee to Intergovernmental Relations Committee. Councilman Medders, Chairman of the Budget Review and Finance Committee, read the following report from that Committee on the subject of Approval of Preliminary Plans for New Police Building: This Committee has reviewed the preliminary plans and schematic model of the new Police Building with the architects for the project. Other members of the City Council have been invited to review the plans and model. The proposed facility will not only be functionally well suited to the needs of the Police Department, but will also be an attractive addition to the Civic Center area. The building has been designed to blend with the architecture of the City Hall building. With Construction costs continuing to rise sharply, this Committee would like to see the City proceed with the construction of the new police building as soon as possible; therefore, this Committee recommends acceptance of the preliminary plans and authorization for the architects to proceed with th~ preparation of working drawings. Councilman Medders moved that the report be adopted, the preliminary plans accepted, to proceed with the preparation Mr. Bergen stated the acceptance of the preliminary plans, that the architect shall receive 20%, and the a~chitects authorized of the working drawings. record should show that Phase I provides under the contract or $37,958.00 of his fee, and Bakersfield, California, July 9, 1973 Page 4 under Phase II, preparation of the working drawings which is being authorized at this time, 50% of the fee, or $94,895.00, becomes due. Vote taken on Councilman Medders motion carried by the following roll call Vote: Ayes: Councilmen Thomas, Whirremote, Medders, Rogers, Strong Noes: None Absent: Councilman Bleecker Abstaining: Councilman Heisey City Attorney Hoagland read a three page summary of Senate Bill 672 (Petris) "California State Policies Act", which if enacted, would require the creation of from 10 to 15 regions in California as designated by the Governor, each region composed of no less than two counties. Mr. Hoagland stated that the Council now has the power to do everything that this regional commission would be empowered to do. It would also replace KernCog, as the local agency for federal and state grants and is regional government at its boldest. Councilman Heisey thanked the City Attorney for condensing SB 672 into a comprehensive summary. This bill is so bold and all-inclusive, that it is appalling. The Council should most strongly condemnthis Bill and ask the City's legislators to oppose its passage. Councilman Rogers echoed Councilman Heisey's statements. This State Commission is appointed by the Governor and is so isolated from the reach of the voters, the people would have no voice in the matter. It is just another layer of regional government and he is definitely opposed to it. Councilman Whittemore stated he would support opposition to this Bill as one of the things which KernCog has been fighting is losing the powers of local government. Councilman Heisey moved that the Council unanimously condemnthis Bill and that the City Attorney forwa~ copies of - 225 Bakersfield, California, July 9, ~ - Page 5 a resolution expressing the Council's opposition to Mr. Pettis the author of the Bill, the City's representatives in Sacramento, the members of the Committee which is hearing this Bill, and fhe Governor, who evidently has given his blessing to this Bill. Councilman Whittemore asked that a copy be made up for the League of California Cities which he will hand-carry to a meeting he is attending this week. Councilman Rogers added the Lieutenant Governor and the Director of the Department of Conservation to the list to receive the Resolution opposing Senate Bill 672. Vote taken on Councilman Heisey's motion carried unanimously. Councilman Medders, chairman of the Budget Review and Finance Committee, stated that the Committee was requested to send a letter to Mr. Roy R. Dull, Director of Continuing Education, regarding endorsement of Cal State's efforts to institute a program of Public Administration courses in its night school which would lead to a certification in Public Administration. Copies of the letter were sent to all members of the Council. An answer has been received from Mr. Dull thanking the Council for its letter of support regarding the certificate program in Public Administration, and stating that implementation of programs for the Criminal Justice community rests largely in the School of Behavioral Science. It is his understanding that an advisory committee has been formed, including Police Chief Price, and progress in this area will be due largely to school community efforts. Councilman Medders commented that perhaps he had not contacted the right person, but felt that he had made the statements in his letter strong enough that Mr. Dull was aware of the Council's feelings. Councilman Heisey complimented Councilman Medders on 2R6 Bakersfield, California, July 9, 1973 - Page 6 his letter strong enough that Mr. Dull was aware of the Council's feelings. Councilman Heisey complimented Councilman Medders on his letter. However, he does not think the best answer was received to the request to initiate a police science program. He suggested that Councilman Medders discuss this problem with the Chief of Police and attempt to get something moving which would be beneficial to the City. Consent Calendar. The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar: (a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 4248 to 4546, inclusive, and Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, in the amount of $377,691.49 (b) Request from First United Presbyterian Church for vacation of the alley in Block 283, bounded by Truxtun Avenue, G, 17th and H Streets (Refer to Planning Commission) (c) Petition from 60 property owners in vicinity of Sue Lin Way, Linda Cara Way, Alum Avenue, Marjal Avenue, and South Real Road, requesting the flying of radio-controlled model airplanes in and around Tract 3201 be stopped and prevented (Refer to Traffic Authority) (d) Claim for property damage from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company - Michael Dale Shipman (Refer to City Attorney) (e) Request from Hull-Moreland that the City of Bakersfield enter into a land exchange concerning Tentative Tract No. 3679 (Refer to Planning Commission) (f) Request from Hull-Moreland for annexation of a portion of the SE~ of Section 10, T. 29S., R. 28E., M.D.B. & M. (Refer to Planning Commission) (g) Request from Stockdale Development for abandonment of portions of 36th Street adjacent to Lots 3 and 4, Block 657, and adjacent to Lots 1 and 2, Block 631. Also portion of "O" Street adjacent to Lots 2 and 3, Block 631 and adjacent to Lots 2 and 3, Block 657 (Refer to Planning Commission) (h) Application for Encroachment Permit from Robert E. Minner (i) Plans and Specifications for Improvement of East Truxtun Avenue from Sonora Street to Tulare Street 2,3'7 Bakersfield, California, July 9, 1973 - Page 7 (j) Plans and Specifications for Improving Sfine Road from Wilson Road to Ming Avenue (k) Grant Deed for drainage sump in Tract No. 2924 from Parkdale Development Co. (1) Street Right of Way Deed from Loyd Lum (m) Street Right of Way Deed from Charles Lum (n) Adoption of Resolution No. 50-73 of the Council the City of Bakersfield making finding that Tentative Tract 3679, revised, together with provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with applicable general and specific plans of (o) Adoption of Resolution No. 51-73 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making finding that Tentative Tract 3680, together with provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent wifh applicable general and specific plans (p) Adoption of Resolution No. 52-73 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making finding that Tentative Tract 3685, together with provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with applicable general and specific plans Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, Items (a) (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (1), (m), (n), (o) and (p) of the Consent Calendar, were adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Thomas, Whirremote Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong Noes: None Absent: Councilman Bleecker Action on Bids. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, low bid of Griffith Company for Annual Contract Type "B" Asphalt Concrete was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Deferred Business. This was the time set to further consider Report of the City Attorney on Kern County Council of Governments (KERCOG) which was accepted at meeting of June 4, 1973. Councilman Rogers commented that since the Council has unanimously taken action to oppose Senate Bill 672 which is a form Bakersfield, California, July 9~ 1973 - Page 8 of regional government setting up a two-county commission, he cannot see how it can take any other action than to vote to withdraw from KERCOG and let it die. Mrs. Marie Dickson, who resides at 1723 Cypress Circle, addressed the Council, stating that a companion bill to SB672 which was introduced to the California Senate, is SB10$1, which would eliminate all the City Councils and the Board of Supervisors in the County of Sacramento and put it under regional government. If the State Legislature can introduce a bill and pass it in one county, they could do the same thing in other counties of the State. She stated that another form of regional government is revenue sharing. When the City takes revenue sharing funds and uses them for the construction of a Police Building or any other Police program, the Council is inviting federal control over the City's local police. The program of regional government pertaining to the Police Department is to federalize them and when this is done it results in a Gestapo. She went on to say that regional government is a national program~ it is a program to destroy the Constitution of the United States, to destroy the 50 sovereign states, to replace the Constitution with a new one which has already been adopted~ and to change the 50 states into ten regions, which has already been done by executive order of President Nixon. She urged the Council to vote against KERCOG, refuse federal revenue sharing funds~ and to remove itself from the vast government program to socialize everyone in the United States and concentrate all of the power, control and money in Washington~ D. C. Mrs. Clark, who stated she County, asked the Cify Attorney if it the Council to go on record is a citizen of the is constitutional for as adopting KERCOG. Bakersfield, California, July 9, 1973 - Page 9 239 Councilman Whittemore stated that he did not think the City Attorney was in a position to rule whether or not this action would be constitutional. Mrs. Clark asked if the Council was ready to vote on the issue of KERCOG not knowing whether it is constitutional or not. Councilman Whittemore replied that he did not care to engage in a debate on the constitutionality of this program; however, it is in effect, the City hs participated in it, and the Council will eventually take a vote on a motion, if it is made. Councilman Rogers commented program was put into effect that the regional in February, 1972 government by Executive Order 11647 of President Nixon. Neither the U.S. Congress or the Senate had anything to do with it, so it was not passed by either of those houses, strictly by executive order. The plan is to appoint directors for the ten regions to serve at the pleasure of President Nixon. Councilman Whittemore stated that he hoped the ten regions President Nixon has set up by his executive order would not be confused with the COGS which have been established throughout the United States, as KERCOG was established on November 4, 1970, several years prior to the President's executive order. Councilman Heisey asked City Attorney Hoagland what the alternatives would be if the City withdrew from KERCOG, would that preclude the county and the cities of Kern from participating in programs for certain grants to assist in local projects. Mr. Hoagland responded that KERCOG was created by a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement in order to keep any other form of regional government from operating and still make available federal and state grants. If KERCOG did not exist, 24O Bakersfield, California, July 9, 1973 - Page 9 (Cont) no governmental entity in Kern County could receive grants under HUD and EPA programs and probably could not receive grants under the FHWA and UMTA programs. Mr. Hoagland stated that KERCOG could not be reestablished the second time without the City of Bakersfield's participation, and programs under the Department of Agriculture, Economic Development Administration, Health, Education and Welfare, Interior, Justice, Labor and OEO could probably be processed for grants through the State, in lieu of any areawide clearing house, although it is not certain. Councilman Whirremote commented that withdrawal of Bakersfield from KERCOG and its resultant demise would automatically bring the six county cog into existence which KERCOG has been fighting against for many months. He indicated the importance and value of KERCOG to the City of Bakersfield's taxpayers, stating that during the past four years the City of Bakersfield chose to apply for grants for street improvements, sanitary sewer facilities and storm drains. $2,030,895 in grant money was received by the City during that four year period, or just over $500,000 a year. To raise this money for these needed city improvements through the property tax would have required an increase of 25~ for each of the four years. He explained the programs, such as the sewerage treatment facilities which have brought industry and jobs into the City. No strings have been attached to any federal grant that the City has received, only that the money be used for the purpose for which the application was made. As far as KERCOG is concerned, he feels it would be a tremendous mistake for the City of Bakersfield to withdraw from it. Councilman Rogers reminded the Council that revenue sharing funds are provided by the federal government which first took the money away from the citizens of Kern County, so the federal government is actually not asking the City to participate Bakersfield, California, July 9, 1973 Page lO in revenue sharing funds but in the revenue sharing debt. Councilman Heisey remarked that it seems to him they are trying to solve federal problems on a local level and the only way this can be done, is to replace the lawmakers in Washington that are setting the policy. Whether the City of Bakersfield receives federal grants or not, is not going to have any effect on the federal programs, they will still continue, income taxes will be the same. The Council has~been very meticulous about getting involved with any program which would permit the federal government to come in and dictate operating policies to the City, particularly, funds for police programs. He pointed out that the Council was elected to represent the citizens of all Bakersfield and the projects for which the City has made application and accepted federal funds have been for the good of all the citizens of the community, and it is in their best interests that the Council continue in this manner. He stated he does not want to withdraw from KERCOG, if it means becoming involved with something far worse than KERCOG, which was the best alternative presented to the City at that time. If at some later date it is demonstrated to him that the City is in a strong position and that it should withdraw from KERCOG, he will support that action. Mrs. Edna Buster stated that Councilman Heisey should realize the Country has just about been taken over by regional government, which is circumventing the Constitution. Mrs. Buster read several articles from material on regional government which she had given Councilman Rogers for his perusal. She stated resistance to eventually losing the freedom of the United States begins on a local level. Mrs. Elizabeth Van Alstyne addressed the Council expressing her opposition to the Council's remaining in KERCOG. She urged all members of the Council to read the report on regional government which was presented by Mr. Robert Charlton 241 Bakersfield, California, July 9, 1973 - Page 11 several weeks ago to the Council. She stressed that receiving federal money in the form of revenue sharing funds to build the new Police facility would be one of the biggest mistakes the City has ever made, as it will result in federal control. Mrs. Marie Dickinson again expressed her concern regarding the City remaining in KERCOG and receiving state and federal grants, stating that the Council is delegating its responsibilities and controls to a higher governmental agency. Mr. George Preston who resides at 2620 19th Street, addressed the Council, stating he is an average citizen who is definitely opposed to the formation of additional agencies in government and urged the Council to withdraw from KERCOG. Councilman Strong remarked that it seems to him this Council is responsible to a great number of people to do the practical thing and by so doing, not ignoring the fact that regional government does exist. It has been indicated several times by Councilman Whittemore that KERCOG was formed in lieu of a form of regional government which would be far more restrictive than KERCOG as it now exists, and that KERCOG was necessary as a vehicle by which the various cities and the County could participate in federal funds. As far as he is concerned, that money belongs to the taxpayers of Kern County and the City of Bakersfield, the same as it does to other people in the country. He wants to get back as many of these tax dollars as possible, and of organization in order is what this Council has if it is necessary to form some kind to participate in these funds, that to do. Councilman Thomas commented that he has heard this discussed many times and he wished to remind the Council and the people present that the Council was elected to serve all the people in the City of Bakersfield and not a minority group. Bakersfield, California, July 9, 1973 - Page 12 He then moved that the Council reaffirm its support of KERCOG. After some additional discussion, vote taken on Councilman Thomas' motion carried by the following roll call: Ayes: Councilmen Thomas, Whittemore, Heisey, Strong Noes: Councilman Rogers Absent: Councilman Bleecker Abstaining: Councilman Medders City Attorney Hoagland pointed out that previous vote by the Council in adopting Resolution No. 43-73 at meeting of June 18, 1973 was not sufficient, it takes a two-third vote of the Council to pass a Resolution for the acquisition of the property for the construction and maintenance of a new police building and facilities on Lots 3 and 4, Block 315, City of Bakersfield. He again presented the resolution to the Council for its consideration. It was then moved by Councilman Medders, that Resolution determining and declaring that the public interest, convenience and necessity of the City of Bakersfield requiring the construction and maintenance of a new police building and facilities on Lots 3 and 4, Block 315, City of Bakersfield, and that the public interest, convenience and necessity demand the acquisition of certain real property, and further declaring the intention of the City of Bakersfield to acquire said property under eminent domain proceedings, and directing the City Attorney of the City of Bakersfield to commence an action in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Kern, for the purpose of acquiring said property be adopted. This motion failed to carry as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Thomas, Whittemore, Medders, Rogers Noes: None Absent: Councilman Bleecker Abstaining; Councilmen Heisey, Strong 243 Bakersfield, California, July 9, 1973 - Page 13 Mr. Hoagland stated that four favorable votes still did not constitute a two-thirds vote of the Council, and this Resolution had not been adopted. Adoption of Ordinance No. 2104 New Series amending Sections 3.18.140 (c), 3.18.150 (a) and 3.18.220 (d) of, and adding Sections 3.18.150 (h) to Chapter 3.18 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield concerning compensation for City employees. Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Ordinance No. 2104 New Series amending Sections 3.18.140 (c), 3.18.150 (a) and 3.18.220 (d) of, and adding Sections 3.18.150 (h) to Chapter 3.18 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield concerning compensation for City employees was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Councilmen Thomas, Whittemore, Heisey, Medders, Rogers Strong None Councilman Bleecker First reading of an Ordinance of the City of Bakersfield adding Section 11.04.799 to the Municipal Code (Speed Limit on "Q" Street between 34th Street and West Columbus Avenue) of the City of Bakersfield. First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield adding Section 11.04.799 to the Municipal Code (Speed Limit on "Q" Street between 34th Street and West Columbus Avenue) of the City of Bakersfield. Adoption of Emergency Ordinance No. 2105 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Sections 6.60.040 (a), 6.60.050 (a), 6.60.060 (a) and 6.60.070 (a) of Chapter 560 of Title 6 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, concerning the Service Users Tax. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, Emergency Ordinance No. 2105 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Sections 6.60.040 (a), 6.60.050 (a), 6.60.060 (a) and 6.60.070 (a) of Chapter 6.60 of Title 6 Bakersfield, California, July 9, 1973 -Page 14 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, concerning the Service Users Tax, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Thomas, Whittemore, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong Noes: None Absent: Councilman Bleecker Councilman Medders stated has contacted residents of that the Finance Department the three major utility companies serving the the City of Bakersfield - the Pacific Gas & Electric, Pacific Telephone and companies have agreed reading as follows: California Water Service, and all three to include inserts with their August bills As a result of action taken by the Bakersfield City Council at its June budget hearings, the City's Utility Users Tax has been reduced from 5% to 3.5% effective for all utility billings on and after August 1, 1973. Adoption of Resolution of Intention No. 892 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, declaring its intention to order the vacation of alleys and a portion of "C" Street between Truxtun Avenue and 16th Street, City of Bakersfield. Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution of Intention No. 892 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, declaring its intention to order the vacation of alleys and a portion of "C" Street between Truxtun Avenue and 16th Street, City of Bakersfield, and setting date of August 13, 1973 for hearing on the matter before the Council, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Thomas, Whittemore, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong Noes: None Absent: Councilman Bleecker Bakersfield, California, July 9, 1973 - Page 15 Adoption of Resolution No. 53-73 of Intention to include within the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District certain territory designated as Stockdale No. 6, and setting the time and place for hearing objections to the inclusion of said territory within said District. Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Resolution No. 53-73 of Intention to include within the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District certain territory designated as Stockdale No. 6, and setting August 13, 1973 in the Council Chambers of the City Hall as the time and place for hearing objections to the inclusion of said territory within said District, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Thomas, Whittemore, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong Noes: None Absent: Councilman Bleecker First reading of an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 15.04.060 and repealing Section 15.04.070 of Chapter 15.04 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield concerning use of Mobile Homes. First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 15.04.060 and repealing Section 15.04.070 of Chapter 15.04 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield concerning use of Mobile Homes. Adoption of Emergency Ordinance No. 2109 New Series of the City of Bakersfield adding Sections 9.08.270 to Chapter 9.08 of the Municipal Code to provide that an Animal Warden as a public employee has the power of arrest without a warrant and may carry a loaded firearm. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Emergency Ordinance No. 2109 New Series of the City of Bakersfield adding Sections 9.08.270 to Chapter 9.08 of the Municipal Code to provide that an Animal Warden as a public employee has the power of arrest without a warrant and may carry a Bakersfield, California, July 9, 1973 - Page 16 247 loaded Ayes: Noes: Absent: firearm, was adopted by the following vote: Councilmen Thomas, Whittemore, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong None Councilman Bleecker Approval of Job Specifications for Auditorium Technical Aide and Supervising Foreman (Waste Water). Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, Job Specifications for the positions of Auditorium Technical Aide and Supervising Foreman (Waste Water) were approved. Extension of Time to October 2, 1973 granted for completion of Seismic Safety Plan Element of the General Plan. On October 30, 1972, the City entered into a letter agreement with KERCOG to prepare the Seismic Safety Plan for the General Plan which provided for the plan to be completed prior to June 30, 1973. Several delays have been encountered in the preparation of the Plan and it has been requested to extend the time until October 2, 1973 for the completion of this Plan. Councilman Heisey asked the City Attorney why the City would enter into an agreement with KERCOG for preparation of this Plan. Mr. Hoagland stated that the Seismic Safety Plan is larger than the City boundaries and is required by the State, it is an element of the General Plan. Councilman Heisey asked if KERCOG ratified the Seismic Safety Plan Element, stating he did not quite follow why it was necessary for KERCOG to prepare the Plan. Mr. Bergen responded "no", stating that if the City of Bakersfield is satisfied with the Plan as prepared and recommended by consultants for the entire County, the Council would act on the portion of the Plan for the City of Bakersfield. It would also be submitted back to the other cities and the County of Kern for their action. Bakersfield, California, July 9, 1973 - Page 17 Councilman Heisey asked how KERCOG fit into this action. Mr. Bergen explained that KERCOG is the eleven incorporated cities and the County of Kern acting under a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement. It would be v~ry difficult for the City of Bakersfield to come up with its own Seismic Safety Plan Element with the erratic boundaries of the City. It is almost mandatory that if any sense is to be made out of a Seismic Safety Plan that it include the adjacent metropolitan area, and more preferably, the entire County. KERCOG is the logical association to coordinate this type of study. Councilman Whittemore commented that a great deal of money is saved by going in this direction because all of the Cities and the County are required to have a Seismic Safety Plan Element of the General Plan, as these faults run County wide. Mr. Hoagland commented that this will be presented at some future time to the City of Bakersfield and the Council itself will be the body to adopt it, and if there are any questions about it, it can be sent back for restudy. It is part of the City's General Plan and will be submitted to the Planning Commission and the City Council for approval. Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, extension of time to October 2, 1973, for preparation of the Seismic Safety Plan Element of the General Plan, was approved. Approval of Annexation Boundaries designated as Union Avenue No. 6 Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Annexation boundaries designated as Union Avenue No. 6 were approved, and referred to the City Engineer and City Attorney for referral to LAFC. Approval of request from Geophysical Service, Inc. for permission to enter upon the City of Bakersfield Municipal Farm and along South "H" Street and along Stine Road to conduct geophysical work. 249 Bakersfield, California, July 9, 1973 - Page 18 Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, request from Geophysical Service, Inc. for permission to enter upon the City of Bakersfield Municipal Farm and along South "H" Street and along Stine Road to conduct geophysical work was approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Work to be completed within ninety days 2. Company shall carry adequate public liability insurance 3. Company will indemnify and hold City harmless from any claims Approval of Supplement No. 4 to Local Agency - State Topics Agreement No. 2. Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Supplement No. 4 to Local Agency - State Topics Agreement No. 2 for a TOPICS project covering reconstruction and widening of Baker Street between Truxtun Avenue and the Southern Pacific Railroad was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the agreement. Approval of Drainage Agreement between Kern Island Water Company and the City of Bakersfield to discharge storm water into the Kern Island Canal System. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Drainage Agreement between Kern Island Water Company and the City of Bakersfield to discharge storm water into the Kern Island Canal System was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the agreement. Denial of Request from Sebastien Minaberri for sewer connection to City sewer system. Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, request from Sebastien Minaberri for connection to the City sewer system was denied, based upon the isolated location of the property and the expense involved in maintaining a single connection this far removed from the City limits. Hearings. This was the time set for public hearing before the Council on application by Dean Gay to amend the zoning boundaries from an R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) - Zone, to an R-3-P (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Parking), or more restrictive, Zone, of that certain property in the City of 25L Bakersfield, California, July 9, 1973 - Page 19 Bakersfield commonly known as 808 Eye Street. This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and notices sent to property owners as required by Ordinance. The applicant, owner of property to the east and facing Chester Avenue, could utilize this parcel for parking. If this lot were to be developed for parking, under the "P" Zone Ordinance, a six-foot masonry wall would be required on the north and south sides and the front of the lot would require landscaping or screen wall. The Planning Commission was of the opinion that with the site development requirements, the requested zoning would be compatible with the neighborhood, and therefore recommended approval of this zone change at its regular meeting held June 6, 1973. A negative declaration was filed with the County Clerk and the Planning Commission determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Vice-Mayor Whittemore declared the hearing open for public participation. No protests or objections were received. The applicant, Mr. Dean Gay, was present to answer any questions from the Council. The Vice-Mayor declared the public hearing closed for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Ordinance No. 2110 New Series amending Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by changing the Land Use Zoning of that certain property in the City of Bakersfield commonly known as 808 Eye Street, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Councilmen Thomas, Whittemore, Strong None Councilman Bleecker Adjournment. Heisey, Medders, Rogers Bakersfield, California, July 9, 1973 - Page 20 There being no further business to come before Council, upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 P.M. the 251 ~VICE-MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BAKeSFIELD ATTEST: CITY CLERK and Ex-Offlclo Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield Bakersfield, California, July 23, 1973 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M., July 23, 1973. The Metting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Henry Wells, Assistant Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Hart. Absent: None Minutes of the regular meeting of approved as presented. Scheduled Public Statements. Councilmen Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas July 9, 1973 were in this field to aid relations ordinance, than one unit. in the final development of the employees as any such ordinance would have to have more Mr. PaUl D. Summers of 101 Jefferson Street, addressed the Council and requieted a ten-day extension to complete the modifications required for granting an encroachment permit and also appealed a decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment, asking that a hearing on the matter be held before the Council. Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, dated August 27, 1973 was fixed for hearing Mr. Summers' appeal. Mr. Cy LeMaire, consultant to the Kern County Employees' Association and the Bakersfield City Employees' Association, addressed the Council stating that he understands the City's employee relations ordinance is well underway but there have been some recent occurrences which have prevented it from being fully implemented. He suggested when the ordinance is finally adopted that it include an independent agency to act as umpire. Whem the City undertakes to do this itself the action always appears unilateral. After an employees relations ordinance is adopted and through consultation, rules can be drawn and when both sides have guidelines, any irritations that exist would disappear. It might be advisable to engage people who have experience Bakersfield, California, July 23, 1973 - Page 2 Obviously, the employees of the City have suffered a "slap in the face" by no pay raise. He cannot recollect when the employees were as well represented and presented documentation that would warrant a movement in their salaries, especially in a background of spiraling inflation which is now being threatened more so. It is his understanding that $200,000 has been appropriated for a classification study and such pay increases as are warranted. How this classification study is to take place is rather vague to him, and it would be his suggestion that it not be an in-house procedure, that an outside consultant be employed, so that the results can be more readily accepted by the employees. It soesn't work to have an in-house classification and pay plan review where the various committees of the Council interject themselves and the staff is reluctant to make recommendations which would be to the benefit of the City as a whole. If just a small amount of money were set aside for an outside consultant, there would be enough remaining to provide at least a 2½% pay increase to indicate good faith towards the employees, and such a pay increase would not interfere with the end product of the consultant. The matter of a pay increase should be placed on the Council's agenda for reconsideration, in light of the fact that the Council did appropriate $200,000, and if the Contingency Fund or the Reserve Funds could be squeezed slightly to provide more, a 2½% pay increase could be granted and the Council would still remain within its budget. Mr. LeMaire went on to say that the employees are very concerned, at this late date in the year they are still seeking petitions and he filed petitions that were signed by City employees and also member of the public asking that the City employees be granted a salary adjustment, with the City Clerk. Mayor Hart thanked Mr. LeMaire for his presentation. Correspondence. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, copy of communication from the Federal Communications Commission to attorneys for Cypress Cable TV requesting further clarification of six points contained in application to carry station KMPA, was received and ordered placed on file. Bakersfield, California, July 23, 1973 - Page 3 The City Clerk read a communication from the Downtown Business Association, Marvin Lipco, president, stating that the Board of Directors of the DBA recently passed a resolution to request the Bakersfield City Council define "hard-core pornography" and proceed to establish a city ordinance harming such pornography in the City of Baksersfield. Councilman Heisey expressed his appreciation to the Downtown - Business Association, stating in the six years he has been on the Council it has been fighting pornography in every way possible. He is very much encouraged by the Supreme Court decision which grants the Council local option, and he then moved that the letter be referred to the City Attorney to work out a program with the District Attorney that will encompass not just the City of Bakersfield, but all the urban community, and report back to the Council within 30 days on the appropriate action to be taken. Councilman Bleecker stated it is up to the people of the community to decide through their representatives how the downtown area primarily, is going to be run. It appears to him the recent decision by the Supreme Court would give the Council wide latitude to do whatever it thinks is fair and reasonable and sound for the community regarding pornography. It is the duty of the Police Department and the District Attorney to join their efforts to close all the pornographic places in the City as soon as possible. Vote taken on Councilman Heisey's motion carried unanimonsly. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, communication from Mr. Nathan Krevitz, offering to conduct a survey for the sum of $150,000 to determine if the City employees should be granted pay raises, was received and ordered placed on file. Councilman Whittemore voted in the negative on this motion. The City Clerk read a request from the Rarer Johnson PTA to use the Casa Moore parking lot on Saturday, September 15, 1973, to conduct a rummage sale. Councilman Medders moved that the request be granted. Councilman Heisey asked the City Attorney for clarificatio~ of the City Policy for use of City property to display merchandise on public streets for certain occasions. Bakersfield, California, July 23, 1973 - Page 4 Mr. Hoagland stated occasions ~f this nature have if it is within his authority that permits for certain special been issued by the City Manager and to do so, undoubtedly there will be no problem regarding the request of the Rarer Johnson PTA. Councilman Bleecker asked if this would require the closing of City streets~for this purpose. Mr. Bergen stated this would not affect city streets, if it his understanding that the sale will be held within a city parking lot. Vote taken on Councilman Medders' motion to grant the request carried unanimously. Council Statements. Councilman Strong stated there were a number of people in the audience interested in Mr. LeMaire's presentation, and he feels the Council should indicate whether or not consideration will be given to his request regarding city employees' salaries at tonighl~'s meeting. The Council has a duty to at least respond to the public present in the audience, or set a date for response, so that the employees will know where the Council stands regarding salaries. Councilman Bleecker, chairman of the Governmental Eddiciency and Personnel Committee, stated that the GEPC will be very happy at some time in the very near future to look into the request that was made here this evening. He announced that the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee is now scheduled to meet on a regular basis every Wednesday all through the summer to consider old business, current business and new business. He is sure that the presentation by the employees' representative will be a matter of discussion at the next scheduled meeting of the GEPC. If the Committee has a recommendation to make, it will be made for the consideration of the entire Council. Bakersfield, California, July 23, 1973 - Page 5 Reports. Councilman Walter Heisey, chairman of the Water and City Growth Committee, reported on an agreement for a Project Report on Waste Water Facilities, as follows: This Committee has met with the staff and reviewed a proposed agreement for engineering services to prepare a project report for the treatment and disposal of wastewater in southeast Bakersfield. Supplemental information concerning this report is provided from the Director of Public Works. The proposed project will consolidate City Plants Nos. 1 and 2 and upgrade the treatment to meet State requirements. Although there is no firm commitment regarding the availability of Federal-State grant assistance, the project has been placed in a priority class that will be considered eligible for grant funds in 1973-74. The first step in obtaining such assistance is submittal of a project report. Preliminary work for the proposed project was done by Metcalf and Eddy. This engineering firm is well qualified to do work in the wastewater field and because they have the experience gained from this prior work, we feel it would be in the best interests of the City to retain them for this project report. was conceived as a joing City-County project, the County has voted against participation. Originally, this project however, since that time If the County should at some future date requist a combination of facilities or service, it would be on conditions established by the City Council. The cost of the joint City-County report was estimated at $84,500. Without County participation the cost has been reduced to $70,500. However, the City had budgeted only $59,150, which was its share of the joint report. Therefore, an additional $11,350 is needed to fund the proposed agreement. It is proposed that this additional money be transferred from the Council Contingency Fund. This cost is composed of two parts: (1) A lump sum determined by estimating the man-hours required to perform specific work, and (2) an indefinite amount of work reimbursable on a time and material basis and to be done only upon request by the City. Bakersfield, California, July 23, 1973 - Page 6 Consolidation of Plants Nos. 1 and 2 has been the plan of the City for some time. Upgrading the treatment of both plants is necessary to meet waste disposal requirements. The total cost of these improvements is so prohibitive that we must take the necessary steps to become eligible for grant assistance. Therefore, we recommend that the City enter into a supplemental agreement with Metcalf & Eddy for the preparation of a project report and authorize the transfer of the necessary funds. Councilman Heisey moved adoption of the report to enter into a supplemental agreement with Metcalf & Eddy for the preparation of a project report and authorizing the transfer of $11,350 from the Council's Contingency Fund, the additional amount needed to fund the proposed agreement. This motion carried unanimously. Councilman Heisey, chairman of the Water and City Growth Committee, reported on the subject of the Extension of the Municipal Farm Lease, as follows: This Committee has met with the staff and reviewed a proposed agreement with Garone Cattle Company to extend the lease of the City's Municipal Farm. The company desires to improve the farm by extensive grading, construction of culverts and improvements and development of additional pasture. The estimated cost for these improvements is $197,710.00 The existing lease expires December 1974 and is too short to enable the company to realize a reasonable onomic benefit from the improvements. It is proposed to extend the lease six years with a five year option for renewal at an annual rental rate of $37,920 which is equal to the present rental. If the City restricts or prohibits the types of crops which can be grown and/or which differ from the historical usage of the land, the rental rate will be adjusted. if the City terminates the lease during the first six years, the City is to reimburse the company a proportionate share of the monies spent on the improvementS. Bakersfield, California July 23, 1973 - Page 7 The Committee therefore recommends that the City enter into a new agreement with Gatone Cattle Company providing for the development of the Municipal Farm and extending the term of the lease and that the Mayor be authorized to execute same. After general discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the report was adopted. Councilman Bleecker, chairman of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee, reported on Short Term Automobile Leasing as follows: On occasions, it is necessary for the City to lease automobiles on a short term as nedded basis. Situations arise period- ically wherein the City needs an additional automobile for one or two days at a time. The Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee has evaluated this request and r~ommmends that the City Manager be authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, such documents as are required to meet this need. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the report was adopted. City Manager Bergen read the following report from Calvin A. Bidwell, Director of Public Works, on the subject of HUD Grant for Grissom Park: On June 4, 1973, we recommended rejection of all bids received for development work at the Grissom Park site. At that time the eslimated cost of the complete development was $172,800 or $51,000, or more than the available funds. Our recommendation was based in part on the fact that HUD has informed us that the City would have to provide all of the $51,000 necessary to complete the work. Since that time we have met with representatives from HUD to determine their final position in this matter. Following that meeting, this department has further evaluated the total project and prepared three alternates for you to review. Bakersfield, California, July 23, 1973 - Page 8 259 Complete the project as originally conceived, HUD has now indicated they will fund 50% of the cost overrun of $25,500 if the City provides its additional matching share. Funds are not budgeted for this increased cost and the work must be completed prior to next year's budget hearings. Therefore, funds would have to be made available from some other source Reduce the amount of development to the extent that available funds ($121,600) will permit. HI3D had indicated this could be done but they would review which improvements would be deleted. This alternate would provide a usable facility within one year and stay within the limits of existing finds. o Reject the HUD grant for this project and proceed with the park improvements as the needs dictate and as City funds are budgeted in the Capital Improvement program We have certain observations to make which relate to these alternates. When we applied for grant assistance we anticipated a greater growth in the vicinity than has occurred. In fact, a sizeable number of homes in the adjoining area have since become vacant. This raises a quistion of whether complet6 development is premature. If so, we would be assuming maintenance costs for a facility that wouldn't be fully utilized. Normally, park develppment coincides with neighborhood growth and needs. We believe the cost of the completed project is more that anticipated because the contractors were not permitted to do as much work with City forces as we had planned. We feel that Alternate No. 1 is the lease desirable because it requires additional funds and a complete development seems premature. We do suggest, because the development can be done as needed and.more of the work can be done by City forces, that Alternate No.. 3 appears to be the most desirable. Councilman Thomas stated this is his area of responsibility and he has spent some time with Public Works Director Bidwell regarding this proposed park. The site is adjacent to a 235 low income housing area, however~ the vacancy factor is phenomenal and in his opinion it would not be economically feasible to develop 2 6 Bakersfield, California, July 23~ 1973 - Page 9 a park in this area at this time. He then moved that the Council approve the recommendation of the Director of Public Works and the City Manager to accept Alternate No. 3, to reject the HUD grant for this project and proceed with the park improvements as the needs dictate and as City funds are budgeted in the Capital Improvement program. This motion carried unanimously. Councilman Medders, chairman of the Budget Review and finance Committee, reported on the subject of the Audit of the California Park Neighborhood Facility as follows: The grant agreement between the City of Bakersfield and the Department of housing and Urban Development for the construction of the California Avenue Park Neighborhood Facility requires that an independent accountant be contracted wi~h to audit the project costs when the building is completed. The Budget Review and Finance Committee has solicited estimates from four local certified public accounting firms and based upon these estimates recommends that the Council approve an audit contract with the firm of Elmer Fox and Company in the maximum amount of five hundred dollars, and the Mayor be authorized to execute the contract. Upon a mition by Councilman Medders, the report was adopted. Public Works Director Bidwell informed the Council that Mr. Rex Mason and Mr. Jerry Claussen of Mason, Vancuren and Wachob, Engineers,were present this svening and wished to make a presentation to the Council relative to a drainage report they prepared for the County of Kern relative to drainage in northeast Bakersfield, a major portion of which is within the City boundaries. Mr. Mason stated that some months ago they were commissioned by the Board of Supervisors to study the northeast Bakersfield area, specifically the Hawthorne Ravine and Wilshire Heights areas, and Bakersfield, California, July 23, 1973 - Page 10 prepare a report and recommendations on the drainage problems that exist. This:report was presented three weeks ago to the Board of Supervisors and tonight they would like to give the report to the Council. Mr. Jerry Claussen, project engineer, discussed the report and recommendations using an aerial photo map of the area and answering all questions from the Council and the Staff. Councilman Heisey remarked that this is an areas that needs a lot of work and cooperation on it from both the City and the County. The City has already spent a small fortune in the past six or eight years on storm facilities for this area and it would be interesting to see what can be worked out in the way of division of costs, etc. between the City and the Councy. He then moved to refer the matter to the Public Works Department for study and to confer with the County staff and come back to the Council with a recommendation. This motion carried unanimously. Consent Calendar. The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar: (a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 4547 to 4674, inclusive, and Nos. 8 to 69 inclusive, in amount of $160,203.30 (b) Adoption of Resolution No. 54-73 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making finding that Tentative Tract 3682 - Revised, together with consistent with applicable general and specific plans. This tentative tract is located south of Kern City Golf Course, West of New Stine Road and North of Ming Avenue (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Claim for damages to City~Attorney) Claim for damages William H. Osborn from Donna C. Marshall (Refer from Fireman's Fund - Re: (Refer to City Attorney) Parcel Map 1137 - deleted Parcel Map 1000 - deleted Quitclaim Deed from County of Kern to City of Bakersfield Plans and Specifications for Improvements of Baker Street between Truxtun Avenue and Sumner Street 262 Bakersfield, California, July 23, 1973 - Page 11 Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, Items (a), (b), (c), (d), (g) and (h) of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas Noes: None Absent: None Action on Bids. Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, bid of Start-Rite Stationers for Annual Contract for Office Supplies was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. As members of the Council had indicated some concern with receiving only one bid for Automotive Paint Supplies, Mr. Frank Casey of the Finance Department explained that two paint suppliers were not available for bidding this year, one bidder forgot to bid but asked to be sent a request next year, another bidder stated it was too much trouble to handle all the items requested by the City for such a small volume of business, there are 74 items requested and the total amounts to $1,369.45, which includes paint and all related items, such as sandpaper, and the brands which the City likes to use. After general discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, bid of Deifel's, Inc. for Automotive Paint Supplies was accepted, this being the only bid received, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Mr. Casey commented on the one complete bid and one partial bid received for Street Paint, stating that the primary reason for only receiving one complete bid is that the ingredient which makes white paint bright is in short supply and could only be provided for a twelve month period by one supplier. Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, bid of Parker Paints was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Bakersfield, California, July 23, 1973 - Page 12 263 Mr. Casey explained that o~bid and one alternate bid were received for the rebuilt 6 x 6 Water Truck from one dealer. This is a used rebuilt piece of equipment which exactly meets the. City's needs. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, alternate proposal by A1 Asher & Sons, Inc. for a rebuilt 6 x 6 Truck was accepted, ant the basic bid was rejected. Deferred Business Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Resolution No. 43-73 determining and declaring that the public interest, convenience and necessity of the City of Bakersfield require the construction and maintenance of a new Police Building and facilities on Lots 3 and 4, Block 315, City of Bakersfield, and that the public interest, convenience and necissity demand the acquisition of certain real property, and further declaring the intention of the City of Bakersfield to acquire said property under eminent domain proceedings, and directing the City Attorney of the City of Bakersfield to commence an action in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Kern, for the purpose of acquiring said property, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Whirremote, Bleecker, Medders, Rogers, Thomas, Noes: Councilman Strong (Has unanswered questions in his mind and until they are cleared up, he votes "no") Absent: None Abstaining: Councilman Heisey (Because of possible conflict of interest) Upon a motion Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No. 2111 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 15.04.060 and repealing Section 15.04.070 of Chapter 15.04 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield concerning use of Mobile Homes, Ayes: Noes: Absent: was adopted by the following vote: Councilmen Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey, Strong, Thomas None None Medders, Rogers, Bakersfield, California, July 23, 1973 - Page 13 Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance No. 2112 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield adding Section 11.04.799 to the Municipal Code (Speed Limit on "Q" Street between 34th Street and West Columbus Avenue) of the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas Noes: None Absent: None Petition requesting the Council and Department of Recreation and Parks to approve proposal for swimming pool and tennis court at Lowell Park, referred for evaluation in nex year's Capital Improvement Budget. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, petition containing 326 names requisting the Council and Department of Recreation and Parks to approve proposal for swimming pool~ and tennis court at Lowell Park was referred to the staff for evaluation for inclusion in next year's Capital Improvement Budget. Councilman Strong asked the City Clerk to notify Mrs. Juanira 819 - 6th Street, who had filed the petition, of the Council's Harmon, action. Date set for hearing before the Council on appeal of Clyde Barbeau to action of the City Manager denying his application for renewal of a cardroom permit.~ Councilman Whittemore moved that date of August 13, 1973 be set for hearing before the Council on appeal of Clyde Barbeau of 2714 Silver Drive, to action of the City Manager denying his application for renewal of a cardroom permit. Councilman Bleecker asked the City Attorney for a clarification, what the hearing was based on. Mr. H~ gland stated that the original application for a cardroom permit is made to the City Manager. There is certain criteria the City Manager follows in either granting or denying the application, including an investigation of the person Bakersfield, California, July 23, 1973 Page 14 265 making the application. Mr. Barbeau had to violation of certain gambling laws in which would deny him a gambling permit. previously pleaded guilty the State of California Subsequent to that time, he has been successful in having his plea of guilty withdrawn and a dismissal of the charge, which can be done under certain penal code statutes. The appeal is based on the fact that he has not been convicted.of certain gambling laws of the State of California. Mr. Hoagland went on to say that the City Manager will provide the Council with background material from which the Council can drew its won conclusions. Councilman Heisey questioned whether or not it was mandatory that the Council hold a hearing. Mr. Hoagland stated that under the ordinance Mr. Barbeau is entitled to have a hearing before the Council, if the City Manager's decision stands. Councilman Heisey asked what would be Mr. Barbeau's recourse if the Council denied the hearing. Mr. Hoagland stared his only other alternative would be to go to court. Councilman Strong asked the City Manager if he has had time to reconsider the application after Mr. by the court. Mr. Bergen replied it is with the Chief of Police. Mr. Hoagland Barbeau's case was dismissed his intention to evaluate it stated that if in the interim Ayes: Noes: Absent: None Councilman Bleecker remarked that the City Manager should reconsider on the basis of the new developments, there would be no need for a hearing; it would be taken off the agenda. Vote taken on Councilman Whittemore's motion carried as follows: Councilmen Whittemore, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas Councilman Bleecker it was his understanding that it wasn't necessary to be a convicted criminal to be denied a license or permit in the City of Bakersfield. Bakersfield, California, July 23, 1973 - Page 15 Adoption of Resolution No. 55-73 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield fixing a time and place for hearing protests by persons owning real property within territory designated as "Stine No. 3", proposed to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield. Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Resolution No. 55-73 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield fixing September 17, 1973 in the Council Chambers of the City Hall as the time and place for hearing protests by persons owning real property within territory designated as "Stine No. 3", proposed to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas Noes: None Absent: None Adoption of Resolution No. 56-73 of Intention to include within the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District, certain territory designated as "Stine No. 3", and setting the time and place for hearing objections to the inclusion of said territory within said District. Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Resolution No. 56-73 of Intention to include within the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District, territory designated as "Stine No. 3", and setting September 17, 1973 in the Council Chambers of the City Hall as the time and place for hearing objections to the inclusion of said territory within said District, was adopted by the following vote: Councilmen Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas Ayes: Noes: None Absent: None First reading of An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 16.14.100 (d) of Chapter 16.14 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code concerning Parcel Maps. First reading was considered given An Ordinance of the Coundl of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 16.14.100 (d) of Chapter 16.14 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code concerning Parcel Maps. Bakersfield, California, July 23, 1973 - Page 16 267 First reading of An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield authorizing amendment to the Contract between the City of Bakersfield and the California Public Employees' Retirement System concerning an increase of certain cost of living retirement allowances and directing the Mayor to execute on behalf of the City. First reading was considered given An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield authorizing amendment to the Contract between the City of Bakersfield and the California Public Employees' Retirement System concerning an increase of certain cost of living retirement allowances and directing the Mayor to execute on behalf of the City. First reading of An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 13.64.030 of Chapter 13.64 and Section 13.66.020 of Chapter 13.66 of Title 13 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield (Known as the Buildings and Construction Code) providing for amendments to the Uniform Housing Code and Uniform Dangerous Building Code. First reading was considered given An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 13.64.030 of Chapter 13.64 and Section 13.66.020 of Chapter 13.66 of Title 13 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield (Known as the Buildings and Construction Code) providing for amendments to the Uniform Housing Code and Uniform Dangerous Building Code. Adoption of Resolution No. 57-73 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making application to the Office of Procurement, Department of General Services, State of California, to purchase Credit Card Service. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Resolution No. 57-73 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making application to the Office of Procurement, Department of General Services, State of California, to purchase Credit Card Service, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Whirremote, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas Noes: None Absent: None 268 Bakersfield, California, July 23, 1973 - Page 17 Adoption of Ordinance No. 2108 New Series approving annexation of a parcel of Uninhabited Territory to the City of Bakersfield, Californis, designated as "Stockdale No. 7", and providing for the taxation of said territory to pay the bonded inbebted- hess of said City. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Ordinance No. 2108 New Series approving annexation of a parcel of uninhabited territory to the City of Bakersfield, California, designated as Stockdale No. 7 and providing for the taxation of said territory to pay the bonded indebtedness of said City, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas Noes: None Absent: None Hearings. This is the time set for continued public hearing before the Council on application by Jim Wattenbarger to amend the zoning boundaries from an R-2-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Design) Zone, to an MH (Mobile Home Park), or more restrictive, Zone, affecting that certain property in the City of Bakersfield located on the east side of San Dimas Street and south of West Columbus Street. Action on the NH (Mobilehome) portion of applicant's request for rezoning of this property was deferred for 30 days for review by the Council. Letters and a petition signed by 27 property owners in the immediate area requesting that this zone change be denies as this narrow strip would not lend itself acceptabley to MH development, have been filed in the City Clerk's office. Also, letter from Pacific Gas & Electric Company to James T. Wattenbarger stating that the use of this company's fee lands is a non-permissable use and requesting that the MH zoning be denied, has been filed with the City Clerk. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participation. No protests or objections were received, and no one was present Bakersfield, California, July 23, 1973 - Page 18 269 representing the applicant to speak in approval of the rezoning. Mayor Hart then closed the public hearing for Council deliberation and action. Councilman Heisey stated that he has had nothing but an overwhelming response in opposition to this rezining, also the P G & E Company has clearly indicated that this property cannot be used for this perpose without permission. Councilman Heisey then moved that Zoning Resolution No. 243 denying application of James T. Wattenberger to amend Title Seventeen o£ the Bakersfield Municipal Code by changing the Land Use Zoning of that certain property in the City of Bakersfield, located on the east side of San Dimas Street and south of West Columbus, be adopted. This motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas Noes: None Absent: None This is the time set for public hearing before the Council for hearing protests by persons owning real property with territory designated as "Pacheco No. 5", proposed to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield. This hearing has been duly advertised, the property po~ed and notices sent to the property owners. No protests or objections have been filed in the City Clerk's office. Mayor Hart declardd the hearing open for public particiaption. No protests or objections being received, and no one present speaki:ag in favor, the Mayor closed the public hearing for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, Resolution No. 58-73 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring that a majority protest has not been made to the annexation of territory designated as "Pacheco No. 5", proposed to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas Noes: None Absent: None 270 Bakersfield, California, July 23, 1973 - Page 19 Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No. 2107 New Series, approving annexation of a parcel of.uninhabited territory to the City of Bakersfield, California, designated as "Pacheco No. 5", and providing for the taxation of said territory to pay the bonded indebtedness of said City, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Whirremote, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong Thomas Noes: None Absent: None This is the time set for public hearing before the Council for hearing objections to include within the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District a portion of certain territory designated as "Pacheco No. 5". This hearing has been duly advertised. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participation. No protests or objections being received, and no one speaking in favor, the Mayor closed the public hearing for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Resolution No. 59-73 annexing certain territory designated as "Pacheco No. 5" to the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas Noes: None Absent: None This is the time set for public hearing before the Council for hearing protests by persons owning real property within territory designated as "Pacheco No. 6", proposed to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield. This hearing has been duly advertised, the property posted, and notices sent to the property owners. No protests or objections have been filed in the City Clerk's office. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participation. No protests or objections being received, and no one present speaking in favor of the annexation, the Mayor closed the public hearing for Council deliberation and action. Bakersfield, California, July 23, 1973 - Page 20 Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, Resolution No. 60-73 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring that a majority protest has not been made to the annexation of territory designated as "Pacheco No. 6", proposed to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Whirremote, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas Noes: None Absent: None Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, Ordinance No. 2107 New Series approving annexation of a parcel of uninhabited territory to the City of Bakersfield, California, designated as "Pacheco No. 6", and providing for the taxation of said territory to pay the bonded indebtedness of said City, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas Noes: None Absent: None This is the time set for public hearing before the Council for hearing objections to include within the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District a portion of certain territory desihnated as "Pachexo No. 6". This hearing has been duly advertised. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participation. No protests or objections being received and no one speaking in favor, the Mayor closed the public hearing for Council deliberation a~ action. Upon a motion by Council Whittemore, Resolution No. 61-73 annexing certain territory designated as "Pacheco No. 6" to the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Councilmen Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Thomas None None Rogers, Strong 272 Bakersfield, California, July 23, 1973 - Page 21 This is the time set for public hearing before the Council for hearing objections to include within the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District a portion of certain territory designated as "Stockdale No. 7." This hearing has been duly advertised. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participation. No protests or'objections being received and no one speaking in favor, the Mayor closed the public hearing for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Resolution No. 62-73 annexing certain territory designated as "Stockdale No. 7" to the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas Noes: None Absent: None This is the time set for public hearing before the Council of the City of Bakersfield to zone upon annexation to a C-O-D (Pro fessional Office - Architectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone, that certain property northerly of Stockdale Highway, southerly of Van Horn School and westerly of present City bouncary, and known as "Stockdale No. 7" Annexation. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participation. No protests or objections being received and no one speaking in favor of the rezoning~ the Mayor closed the public hearing for Council deliberation and action. Councilman Medders moved adoption of Ordinance No. 2113 New Series amending Section 17.120.020 of Chapter 17.12 (Zoning Map) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield. Councilman Thomas inquired if the applicant or a representative was present at the hearing. Mayor Hart stated he did not see a representative present. Councilman Thomas stated he was just told '" that the rezoning was initiated by the Planning Commission, and Bakersfield, California, July 23, 1973 - Page 22 273 the Planning Director concurs, he will support lhe motion. Planning Director Sceales stated that normally on a zoning upon annexation and if the Planning Commission initiates a rezoning, it it not a requirement to have a representative present at the hearing. Councilman Whittemore inquired if a block wall screening the Van Horn School was deleted as requiremment of the rezoning. Mr. Sceales stated that the Planning Commission was asked to waive this condition, the Comanission recommended that it be waived, but to do so would require a hearing before the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Mr. Kean Gay, a member of the Planning Commission, stated that the reason the block wall was delefed from the Van Horn School side of the property was that the school has presently improved it with the erection of a chain link fence, and the question arose of how feasible it would be to erect a block wall fence against a chain link fence which would result in a cleaning problem with trash falling between the fences. The school does want to maintain the chain link fence. The owners are contemplating planting shrubbery along the chain link fence so that there will be some sort of buffer there. However, it will be the Board of Zoning Adjustment which will waive the block wall fence, the recommendation for shrubbery was made by the Planning Commission. Councilman Heisey commented that in his opinion it would be appropriate for the Council to mandate that a hedge be planted along the chain link fence. Mr. Gay stated he felt it would certainly be in order. The block wall requirement was not deleted around the residential area, however. Councilman Heisey asked Counoilman Medders to amend his motion to mandate a hedge along the chain link fence, and Councilmall 374 Bakersfield, California, July 23, 1973 - Page 23 Medders stated carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Whittemore, Bleecker, Strong, Thomas Noes: None Absent: None he would amend his motion. Vote taken on the motion Adjournment. Reisey, Medders, Rogers, There being no further business upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, to come before the Council, the neeting was adjourned. MAYO t~Bakersfield, Calif. ATTEST: ~ER~'and E~-0 ~ler of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California Bakersfield, California, July 30, 1973 275 Minutes of a special meeting of the Council of of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers City Hall at 7:00 P.M., July 30, 1973 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hatt. Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas, Whirremote the City of the The City Absent: None Councilman Heisey thanked Mayor Hart for calling the special Meeting and moved that the Council adjourn to an executive session for the purpose of being brought,up to date by the City Attorney and the City's water consultants on all water litigations. This motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayrs: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: None Adjournment. The Council reconvened and there being no further business to come before the Council, upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 P.M. MAY o the~kersfield ATTEST: and .x-dff 'o Clerk of tbe Conneil of the City of Bakersfield, California 276 Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M., August 13, 1973. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Bruce Myles of the First Assembly of God Church. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore Absent: Councilman Rogers Minutes of the regular meeting of July 23, 1973 aM the special meeting of July 30, 1973 were approved as presented. Scheduled Public Statements. Mr. Nathan Krevitz, a dealer in securities, addressed the Council expressing his opposition to the Downtown Promotion Tax, which he has paid under protest, stating that he does not participate in this improvement district in any way and ethically and legally he cannot do so unless the district complies with the National Association of Securities Dealers regulations. The Downtown Promotion or Improvement District has done nothing to promote his securities business, all it has done is promote the businesses of the retail merchants o~ Chester Avenue who use the city sidewalks to display and sell their wares for promotional sales. He pointed out that there are many companies and banks engaging in the securities business not confributing to the District's finds and not required to obrain a city license to conduct their businesses. In his opinion, all people in the same business should be required to have a city license and only businesses that can benefit, or even participate in the Downtown promotion district should be taxed to promote downtown retail businesses. Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the matter was referred toll~e City Attorney and the Business Development and Parking Committee for study and recommendation back to the Council. Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 2 277 Mr. Milton Younger representing the Bakersfield City Employees Association and the Firefighters Rnion, addressed the Council stating the Myers-Milias-Brown Act which was adopted in 1969 mandates the adoption of an Employer-Employee Relations Ordinance. Although four years have gone by, the City still does not have an ordinance which meets the standards of this Act. The failure to have "meet and confer" sessions for nearly six months with respect to the formulation of a City ordinance, has prompted the two organizations he represents to ask that the conciliation service of the State of California enter negotiations at this time. He has confeted with the Conciliation Department and it is willing to assume the responsibility in this regard, in fact he has ascertained that this department directed a letter to the GovernmentaS Efficiency and Personnel Committee several months ago and have never received a reply. He requested specifically that the Council join in the request to the Department of Conciliation to enter into negotiations with respect to the formulation of an adequate Employee-Employer Ordin- ance and that a time limit be set for holding this meeting with the Conciliation Department. Councilman Heisey moved that Mr. Younger's request be referred to the City Attorney and the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee for study, recommendation and possible action by the Council. Councilman Strong pointed out that Mr. Younger had indicated a time limit was involved and it might be a good idea to advise when the Committee will'meet so that the Employees' Associations or their representative will be aware when this matter is being considered. Councilman Bleecker stated that any committee of the Council meets primarily when all members are available for that purpose, there are three members on the GEPC, and one member is on vacation at the present time. There were many things brought out by Mr. Younger tonight that are not necessarily true. Mr. Younger, along with several people from the employees' association, met with the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee a week ago, and these same things were brought up. The employees' Association knows that the City 278 Bakersfield, California , August 13, 1973 - Page 3 does have an Employer-Employee Relations Ordinance in draft form. Councilman Bleecker told Mr. Ward over the phone two or three days ago that the Committee was in the process of preparing a final draft and when that was completed, it would be given to the Employees Association for its consideration. This is eminent, within the next two or three weeks, and this was told to Mr. Ward also. Councilman Bleecker stated that in his opinion, and he is not a lawyer, the GEPC has met and conferred in good faith on all issues at all times and at times promptly. The Committee will certainly consider Mr. Younger's resuest as soon as possible and will confer with the City Attorney in regard to certain legal responsibilities which Mr. Younger claims the City has. Councilman Thomas asked that the motion be amended to notify Mr. Younger and the State Conciliation Department 48 hours before the Committee holds it meetings in order to participate with the Committee at the meeting. Mayor Hart commented that Councilman Bleecker has informed the Council and Mr. Younger that the Committee will meet as soon as possible and continue its business as it has in the past. Councilman Bleecker remarked that if it is the proper thing to do the Committee will notify these people a week ahead of time, it is not trying to put anyone off. Vote was theu taken on Councilman Heisey's motion which carried unanimously. Mrs. Elizabeth Van Alstyne addressed the Council stating that on Friday, August 3, 1973, about 4:30 P.M., she observed two city cars driving up to Jastro Park Tennis Court, two men energed dressed in tennis attire whom she recognized as city employees, and started to play tennis. She called City Hall to find out if City employees were granted permission to use city vehicles for this kind of activity and found out that they were not. She stated she is wondering how many other city employees are abusing the privilege of having the use of city-owned cars. Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 4 279 Councilman Heisey stated that he, himself~ had frequently reported certain employee activities to the City Manager. This particular incident came to his atfention and he has been told that the employees in question have been disciplined for it and everyone can be assured that it will not happen again. Councilman Bleecker stated that the Council is concerned with this type of thing and is now in the process of evaSuating six or eight different private firms to come in and act as an investigative overseer in every endeavor of City business. A Council Committee will make a recommendation to the full Council in the very near future relative to selecting one of these firms to make the in-depth survey. Correspondence. Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, communication from James G. Gowles, Attorney, withdrawing appeal by Mr. Clyde Barbeau £or renewal of his cardroom permit~ was received and ordered placed on £ile. Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, communication from Gabriel W. Solomon, Attorney, representing Frank Subfiat, doing business as Jerry's Ambulance Service, et al, regarding City promotion and protection Private Business Monopoly, Chapter 7.62 Bakersfield Municipal Code, was referred to the Business Developmen£ and Parking Committee to report back to the Council at the earliest possible date. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the staff was requested to furnish background information to the Council for ils consideration in connection with request from City Cab Company for increase in taxicab rates. A public hearing will then be held at a later date to evaluate the request of the Cab Company. Council Statements. Councilman Bleecker commented on a letter contained in his Council agenda packet written by a member of the City staff in his capacity as a member of the Finance Committee of the League o£ California Cities, the Southern San Foaquin Division, setting out certain recommendBlions which are contrary to the will of the Council. On a number of occasions Councilman Bleecker has made public statements regarding the participation of the City of Bakersfield ill 280 Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 5 the League of California Cities and the legislation which it considers and recommends to the State of California. One of these important areas is taxation. The letter in question was addressed to Mr. Harry Armstrong, President of the South San Joaquin Division of the League of California Cities, and reads as follows: The following is my report of the July 20, 1973 meeting of the Finance Committee of the Southern San Joaquin Division of the League of California Cities. The Committee met and had a very comprehensive discussion of the Policy Committee's recommendations for an adequate and equitable revenue base. Our Committee agrees t~t the League and the Cities of California should oppose the proposed constitutional amendment (SCA 12) and the petitions mow being circulated. We have some suggestions regarding the major tax reform proposals of the League Board of Directors and the Polic~ Committee. Regarding the City levied income tax on personal income and on corporate income, we do not oppose this concept, but so feel that more study need be given to the quistion of whether or not the income tax levy would be optional to each City. Is there also a way that it can be levied without creating tax sheltered areas in those unincorporated communities which are adjacent to our cities. Our Committee believes that more study should be given to the neaning of the term "Need Basis as it is proposed in the distribution of the corporation income tax. Regarding the suggested changes in the state and local sales tax, our committee believes that this subject should be divided into two sections. One section would deal with extending the sales tax to personal services and we wholeheartedly support that proposal. The Finance Committee of the Southern San Joaquin Division lends its wholehearted endorsement to all other items of the major tax reform proposals and wishes to commend the League's Board of Directors and its Policy Committee for a job very well done. (s) D. L. Haynes Temporary Chairman of the Finance Committee Councilman Bleecker went on to say that what he particularly objects to is a member of the staff of the City of Bakersfield under a letterhead of the City of Bakersfield recommending ostensibly for him and for the propie of this city that an income tax be levied Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 6 by this City on personal and corporate incomes. He opposes this type of tax, he would never vote for it for an reason as long as he is on this Council, he soesn't believe that government should be devising new ways of taxation, it should be decreasing some of the ones they already have. This City is going to have to establish some iron clad policies for participation in and recommendations made by members of the staff, particularly in organizations that promote legislation for cities such as the League of California Cities. It is his understanding that the president of the League of California Cities appoints members of committees on recommendation from some of the regional vice-pre- sidents or area chairmen, etc. It upsets him to think of the number of things that he may have overlooked in not reading every bit of cortes- pondence that comes across his desk. He stated that he hoped Mr. Haynes did not take this as an individual attack, because it is not, but it is an example of the type of thing that this City should guard against and that there should be some policy set by this Council along these lines. Councilman Heisey read the following statement: During the past several days there have been a number of articles in the news media concerning a proposed acquisition of certain water rights by the City of Tenneco. The contents of these articles to a large degree have been speculative and misleading and I think it would be worthwhile at this time to clarify this matter. It should be thoroughly understood that the City has for sometime had outstanding suits and contemplated condemnation action against Tenneco West for certain water rights. In the absence of any specific negotiations with Tenneco, the City will pursue further litigation or condemnation. The entire purpose is to indure the citizens of Bakersfield that they will have an adequate water supply for future needs. To further clarify this, any contracts or rights now held by agricultural interests would be preserved in any such negotiated settlement with Tenneco. Further than that it would not be appropriate at this time to discuss the details relative to our discussions with Tenneco. In response to any divversnce of opinion as indicated by the news media between the Kern County Water Agency and the City, the chairman of the Kern County Water Agency in personal discussion today, has assured me of the Agency's cooperation in this matter. Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 7 Councilman Heisey stated that all governmental agencies have the problem of responding to the problems that are created by population increase'and pressure, and specifically, he is concerned about traffic congestion. A problem that becomes more acute each month is the traffic congestion at California Avenue and Oak Street. Another route is desperately needed from downtown Bakersfield to west Bakers- field and the Stockdale area. This has been studies and re-studied by the Planning Commission, the Traffic Authority, the Public Works Department, etc., and all these departments have come to the same conclusion as to an appropriate solution of the problem. He asked that at the time the staff's findings are given to the Planning Commission, the Council be advised and dept fully informed and that the Planning Commission deal with it as expeditiously as possible and return its recommendation to the Council for adoption. A certain sum of money has been tentatively budgeted for next year for the expansion westward and it is important for the City to have a definite plan adopted so that it can proceed next year when the time comes, as it will take a minimum of two years to complete the route. As soon as the route is established, the Council is in a position to make application for state and federal funds that are allocated for highway purposes. Councilman Whirremote stated he would like to respond to Councilman Bleecker's statement relative to the League of California Cities and the Finance Director's letter. He, too, is concerned about the proposed municipal income tax and has been for about the past eight months. Last spring, the South San Joaquin Division of the League of California Cities, he is currently serving on the Board of DirectOrs, invited all the Senators and Assemblymen who represent the 39 cities within the League to appear in Fresno to explain the impact of SB90 and what the alternatives are going to be. The cities were assured that the Legislature was going to heop offset the loss of revenues from SB90 by allowing, the cities to enact a municipal income tax. This Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 8 was also brought up at a meeting in Tahoe in July and he expressed his opposition to this tax, stating that the City of Bakersfield would not favor a municipal income tax. Last week in Oakland he attended a Board of Directors meeting and engaged in a debate with the Mayor of Oakland because the large industrialized cities in the state are pushing for a municipal income tax. As he understands it, a recommendation will be made that it be a permissive tax and not a mandatory one. He attended the neeting in Visalia the night Mr. Haynes was drafted to chair the Finance Committee and Mr. Haynes was merely recording the discussions of that Committee, mot expressing the policy of the City of Bakersfield, mo policy has been set and cannot be set until action is taken by the entire Council. Councilm~n Heisey stated he understands the South San Joaquin Division of the League of California Cities will be meeting in Porterville on August 24, and he feels it would be very appropriate for this Council to take a positive position in regard to any proposed municipal income tax. He then moved that the Mayor be authorized to notify Mr. Harry Armstrong, prosident of the South San Joaquin League of California Cities, that the City of Bakersfield is unequivocally opposed to the concept of levying a city-wide income tax on personal or corporate income. Councilman Whirremote remarked that he would encourage every member of the Council who can make it to be in attendance at the League meeting in Porterville on August 24th. Vote taken on Councilman Heisey's motion carried as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas, Whirremote Noes: None Absent: Councilman Rogers Reports. City Attorney Hoagland stated that at the last regular meeting of the Council, in response to a request from the Downtown Business Association, he was asked to investigate stricter controls relative to the Supreme court ruling on obscenity or pornography cases. He has invited District Attorney Albert Leddy and his deputy 284 Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 9 Mr. Joe Beckerr, who have been doing a terrific amount of work along these lines, to address the Council on how the new Supreme Court ruling affects Bakersfield and local control. Mr. Leddy stated that he regrets to say he is not the bearer of necessarily happy tidings. When the decision on the Miller case, a recent supreme court case on pornography came out, many people weee quite encouraged by the prospects of local option and getting rid of the naterial without redeeming the social importance test, which up until then was assumed to be part of the United States Supreme Cou~t's holdings. After close reading of that decision, it appears that California is no better off than it was before the decision came out, as the City is stuck with the laws enacted by the State legislature that basically define pornography as prurient matter utterly without redeeming social importance. On the local option issue, the California Supreme Court has ruled that there is a statewide standard and the Miller case indicated the California standard is acceptable constitutionally to the United States Supreme Court. Unless the California Supreme Court changes that, they still have a statewide standard and they are still stuck with spending a lot of money bringing in experts to testify on local cases. Mr. Leddy then introduced Mr. Joe Beckett, stating that he is one of hos principal attorneys and has devoted a great deal of his time bringing pornography cases to trial having handled over 40 of them. He also stated that at the present time he soes not think that any one of three adult theaters is showing any dirty movies, a~tho~gh he cannot guarantee that this will always be the case. Mr. Beckett then proceeded to give the City Council a point by point description of what the County has done, what it can do and what the future prospects are, stating he has been assigned to the prosecution of obscenity cases since 1970. In connection with these duties he has communicated with other prosecutors in the State of California, he is a member of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on the laws of obscenity, and he has been able to communicate directly Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 10 with the prosecutors who have handled such cases as the Miller decision.. He explained the Miller decision to the Council. The State LegislaIure has pre-empted the field of regulating obscenity; however, has granted to the communities the power to enact topless and bottomless ordinances. He has studied the ordinances of the City of Bakers£ield an the County o£ Kern and these ordinances are constitutional. The District Attorney's office has confiscated 104,000 feet of purported pornographic film and has spent approximately $20,000 prosecuting a recent film case which ended up with a hung jury. It is very difficult to get ordinances regulating the criminality of obscenity mayters but there have been efforts to pass ordinances which regulate the licensing of adult theaters and book stores. The usual result has been that any ordinance which singles out an adult theater for licensing purposes has been held as a prior restraint, violation of the first amendment of the Constitution, and therefore void. He does not believe the City has the power to refuse a business permit'to these operations. for several adult book stores in the City, and on a new Cinema 19 operation. He has trials scheduled they are now working Mr. Becket answered questions from the Mayor and the Council and in conclusion, stated that this County and this City have all the legislation which is appropriate, all the legislation which a community can enact under the two enabling acts of the State Legislature, and in granting the communities the limited power of enaction~ the State Legislature has in effect expressed its imtent to cover the field under pre-emption, so there is nothing more that the communities can enact at this time. Mr. Hoagland thanked Mr. Leddy and Mr. Becket for appearing this evening and stated that from their presentation the Council can conclude that at the present time, unless the State Legislature redefines certain standards, the City of Bakersfield enacted all the ordinances it can relative to obscenity. As Mr. Becket has pointed out, the pursuit of these trials is very expensive and would be costly to the City. In his opinion, the District Attorney's office is doing Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 11 a remarkably fine job in this area and in effect, prosecuting those violations which it is able to prosecute on behalf of the City. Councilman Heisey asked the Mayor to recognize Mr. Dean Morrison, owner of several adult book and novelty stores, who stated that the Council has heard the legal aspects o£ this issue and he doesn't think it has solved any of the problems. He is being prosecuted at the present time and he expects to win his cases, however, if he doesn't and he is put out of business, it would just mean that another person would come in and start a similar business. He stated that his book stores are not dirty book stores, no one is forced into the store, but he questioned whether the community really wanted his type of store closed, because he is being patronized by the citizens of the community. As long as people want this type of store and it is legal, he is going to sell the books to them. He stated that the City is going to be forced to set standards, somewhere a guideline must be set for operation of adult theaters and book stores. Councilman Bleecker commented he has stated in the past that it would be his intention as a representative of the people, that when local laws are permitted, to make the motion that would delete all of the hard-core pornography in this City. Councilman Bleecker, chairman of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee, reported on the subject of Increase in Benefits for Fire Department Retirees, as follows: During the recent budget hearings, the City Council approved a 5% increase in benefits for employees covered under the Public Employees Retirement System who retired on or before December 31, 1970. This request was granted as a result of meet and confer sessions with the Kern County Employees' Association. After the budget hearings were concluded, Mr. James Barton, president of the Kern County Fire~fighters Union, requested that this 5% increase also be granted to members of the Fire Department Pension System. They were of the opinion that this increase would automatically cover all retired City employees, and they did not make this request during the regular meet and confer sessions. In evaluating this request, the committee finds that there are 48 retired firefighters remaining in this pension system. An Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 12 287 additional 5%.to these retirees will cost the City approximafely $7,500 per year until 1977. At that time an actuarial study will be made and a reduction in cost can be expected. It is therefore recommended that the Council grant the 5% increase to those employees under the Fire Department pension System who retired prior to December 31, 1970; that the necessary funds be transferred from the $200,000 which was set aside in the budget and that the Mayor be authorized to sign the necessary papers for this action. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the report was adopted. Councilman Bleecker, chairman of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee, reported on the subject of City Employees' Health and Life Insurance Programs, as follows: Several months ago the City's health insurance carrier notified us that due to some sizable claims this past year the City would be faced with an increase in its premium rates during fiscal year 1973-74. In order to be completely satisfied that this rate was justified, the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee recommended that these programs be re-bid. As a result of this re-bidding, the City was able to negotiate a lower life insurance rate. The Employees' and recommends that the Blue Cross, be retained, Insurance Committee has reviewed all bids City's present health insurance carrier, and that the Unigard Olympic Life Insurance Company be awarded the contract for employee life insurance coverage. The additional cost for employees' health insurance will be $19,000, which includes the City's contribution to the Firefighters' medical plan. Life insurance coverage will be reduced by $600. The Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee recommends that the City's health insurance contract be awarded to Blue Cross of Southern California; that the City's life insurance contract be awarded to Unigard Olympic Life Insurance Company; and that the Mayor be authorized to execute the necessary contracts for this purpose. Councilman Bleecker then moved adoption of the report. 9 88 Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 13 Councilman Thomas questioned transferring funds from the $200,000 which he understood was set aside in the budget for conducting a study and to increase employees' that using these funds constitutes aside for this purpose. He is not salaries if justified. He feels whittling away at the money set opposed to granting the 5% increase for the Fire Department retirees but feels the funds should be transferred from the Council's Contingency Fund. Councilman Bleecker stated he did not think it was the intention of the Council to exclusively reserve the $200,000 for salaries and wage benefits, certainly the 5% increase in retirement is a fringe benefit and part of the employees pay. Councilman Strong asked Councilman Bleecker if money had been set aside in the budget for this purpose, and Councilman Bleecker stated there were no funds budgeted for this 5% increase in benefits for the Fire Department retirees, that is why the Committee brought it back to the Council for approval. After general discussion, vote taken on Councilman Bleecker's motion to adopt:the report and authorize the Mayor to execute the contracts, was unanimously approved. Councilman Bleecker commented that he didn't recall that Councilman Heisey's motion indicated the Finance Director was instructed to deposit the $200,000, in the Council Contingency Fund and he asked for a clarification in order to avoid any argument at future meetings. Mr. Bergen stated the funds are appropriated in the 6100 account, the Council Contingency Fund, but the expenditures can be accounted for separately within that account. Councilman Thomas remarked that this only strengthened his argument, that the $200i000 which was allocated for a special purpose is being spent on fringe'benefits. According to Councilman Heisey's motion~ these funds were to be but to be used for a study and so indicated. set aside, not used to reduce taxes, possible salary increases if the study Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 14 289 Mr. Bergen stated the 5% increase in the Fire Department retirees' retirement was not discussed at budget sessions, and it was the staff's understanding that the $200,000 was to be used for employee benefits which were not specifically included in the budget. Councilman Heisey remarded that he thinks this is an appropriate item to charge to~e $200,000 in the Contingency Fund, this is a salary increase for retired employees, he can't see where any difference exists. Councilman Bleecker stated he soesn't know that it is the Council's intention to whittle away at this fund. The problem of findings funds for the increase in the Fire Department retirees benefits did come up after the budget sessions, and everything else was budgeted. The $200,000 was appropriated for things of this nature. Mr. James Barton, prosident of the Firefighters Union, addressed the Council, stating that the Fire Department retirees deserved the cost of living increase granted by the Council. However, he was present the night Mr. Heisey's motion was made, and the entire discussion that evening was based on the fact that an efficiency survey was proposed, and if justified, salary adjustment would be made from the $200,000 set aside for this particular purpose. He agreed with Councilman Thomas that this was the basis of the whole argument at the time. Councilman Bleecker commented that this will probably come up from time to time, and he then moved that the City Attorney search the record and report back to the Council on the purpose and use of the $200,000 which was set aside during budget sessions. This motion carried unanimously. Councilman Thomas, chairman of the Intergovernmental RelatiDns Committee, reported on the subject of Adoption of Emergency Plan including amendments to Civil Defense Ordinance and Perservation of Government Ordinance, as follows: In recent months, the County of Kern has adopted a new 0,90 Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 15 emergency plan to replace its outdated Civil Defense and Disaster Plan. As a result~ the staff has developed a proposed City of Bakersfield Emergency Plan. In order that the City and County act in concert during an emergency, both plans are standarized and compatible with respect to concepts of operations, responsibilities, organization structure, and terminology. In addition, the proposed City of Bakersfield Emergency Plan includes selected portions of tile county plan. Since the County provides certain types of services to Bakersfield residents which the City does not, it was felt that the City plan should adopt those portions of the Councy plan which spell out such services to city residents during an emergency. The proposed City of Bakersfield Emergency Plan has been reviewed and approved by the State Office of Emergency Services, subject to a few minor changes, including an updating of the City's Civil Defense Ordinance and Preservation of Governments Ordinance. The only substantive change in these ordinances is the reference to the state legal authority, resulting in the references to Civil Defense being changed to Emergency Services. The Intergovernmental Relations Committee recommends that the Council take the City of Bakersfield Emergency Plan under consideration, and to consider this first reading of An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending the Bakersfield Municipal Code by repealing Chapter 1.80 and substituting in lieu thereof a new Chapter 1.80, relating to Emergency Organization and Functions, and an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 2.20.010 of Chapter 2.20 of Title 2 of the Municipal Code concerning preservation of City Government in event of enemy attack. When the amendments to the ordinances are adopted, the City of Bakersfield Emergency Plan with selected portions of the County Plan, can be approved by resolution. Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, the report was adopted. Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 16 Consent Calendar. The following items were listed On (a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 70 to 246, inclusive, in amount of $300,961.58 (b) (c) the Consent Calendar: (d) (e) (f) (g) Claim for damages from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company - Re Edgar L. Brown (Refer to City Attorney) Claim for damages from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company - Re Ronda Gene Bartch (Refer to City Attorney) Claim for damages from Mrs. C. E. Straub (Refer to City Attorney) Acceptance of Tract No. and Specifications for Acceptance of Tract No. and Specifications for 3664 and Contract improvements therein 3629 and Contract improvements therein Street Right of Way Deeds for the widening of "Q" Street between the Southern Pacific Railroad and 34th Street (h) Application for Encroachment Permit from the Bank of America, 2800 Oswell Street (i) Parcel Map 1000 Improvements Agreement and Street Right of Way Deeds from Stockdale Development Corporation and John R. Pulskamp, Mo Do (j) Parcel Map 1137 Improvements Agreement (k) Map of Tract No. 3663 and Contract and Specifications for improvements therein Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, Items (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j) and (k) were adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: Councilman Rogers Action on Bids. Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, low bid of Dicco, Inc. for Improvement of East Truxtun Avenue from Sonora Street to Tulare Street, was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Councilman Heisey abstained from voting on this motion. Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 17 Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, low bid of Madonna Construction Company for improving Stiae Road from Wilson Road to Ming Avenue was accepted, all ot~r bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, low bid of Tyack's Tire, Inc. for annual contract for Tire Recapping was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Upon a motion by iCouncilman Thomas, low bid of Valley GM Diesel for replacement Diesel Engine for Fire Truck was accepted, and all other bids were rejected. Deferred Business. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No. 2114 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 13.64.030 of Chapter 13.64 and Section 13.66.020 of Chapter 13.66 of Title 13 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield (Known as the Buildings and Construction Code), providing for amendments to the Uniform Housing Code and Uniform Dangerous Buildings Code, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: Councilman Rogers Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance No. 2115 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield authorizing amendment to the Contract between the City of Bakersfield and the California Public Employees' Retirement System concerning an increase of certain cost of living retirement allowances and directing the Mayor to execute on behalf of the City, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: Councilman Rogers Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 18 Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, New Series of the Council of the Section 16.14.100 (d) of Chapter Code concerning Parcel Maps, was Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Noes: None Absent: Councilman Rogers Adoption of Ordinance No. 2117 New Series approving annexation of a parcel of uninhabited territory to the City of Bakersfield, California, designated as "Stockdale No. Ordinance No. 21116 City of Bakersfield amending 16.14 of Title 16 of the Municipal adopted by the following vote: Heisey, Medders, Strong, Whittemore, Thomas 6", and providing for the taxation of said territory to pay the bonded indebtedness of said City. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Ordinance No. 2117 New Series approving annexation of a parcel of uninhabited territory to the City of Bakersfield, California, designated as "Stockdale No. 6", and providing for the taxation of said territory to pay the bonded indebtedness of said City, was adopted by the following vote: Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Noes: None Absent: Councilman Rogers ann Adoption of Resolution No. 64-73 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield consenting to the commencement of annexation proceedings for the annexation to the City of Bakersfield of certain inhabited and unincorporated territory in the County of Kern, contiguous to the City of Bakersfield, designated as "Terrace Way No. 2." After discussion, No. 64-73 of the Council of upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Resolution the City of Bakersfield consenting to the commencement of annexation proceedings for the annexation to the City of Bakersfield of certain inhabited and unincorporated territory in the County of Kern, contiguous to the City of Bakersfield, designated as "Terrace Way No. 2", was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, None Strong, Thomas, Whittemore Absent: Councilman Rogers 294 Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 19 Adoption of Resolution No. 65-73 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield acknowledging receipt of a copy of Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition and approving circulation of petition for "Terrace Way No. 2", Annexation Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Resolution No. 65-73 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield acknowledging receipt of a copy of Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition and approving circulation of petition for "Terrace Way No. 2", Annexation was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: Councilman Rogers Adoption of Resolution No. 63-73 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield adopting Plans and Specifications, estimates of cost, District Map and Diagram for construction of required curb and gutter, cross gutters, sidewalk, driveway approaches and necessary drainage facilities and all necessary earthwork in proposed Public Improvement District No. 889. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Resolution No. 63-73 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield adopting Plans and Specifica- tions, estimates of cost, District M~p and Diagram for construction of required curb and gutter, cross gutters, sidewalk, driveway approaches and necessary drainage facilities, and all necessary earthwork in proposed Public Improvement District No. 889, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: Councilman Rogers Adoption of Resolution of Intention No. 889 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, declaring its intention to order the construction and installation of required curb and gutter, sidewalks, driveway approaches and necessary drainage facilities in proposed Public Improvement District No. 889; describing the District to be benefitted by said Work and to be assessed to pay the cost and expense thereof; determining that Bonds will be issued to represent assessments to be levied; and fixing the time and place for hearing protest and objection to said work or to extent of the District to be assessed or both, and giving Notice thereof. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Resolution of Intention No. 889 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 20 9 95 declaring its intention to order the:construction and installation of required curb and gutter, sidewalks, driveway approaches and necessary drainage facilities in proposed Public Improvement District No. 889; describing the District to be benefitted by Said Work and to be assessed to pay the cost and expense thereof; determining that Bonds will be issued to represent assessments to be levied; and fixing September 17, 1973 in the Council Chambers of the City Hall as the time and place for hearing protest and objection to said work or the extent of the District to be assessed or both, and giving notice thereof, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: Councilman Rogers First re~ding of an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield providing lot the working of prisoners confined in the County Jail. First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield providing for the working of prisoners confined in the County Ja~l. Councilman Thomas inquired if the City would be responsible for injuries received by a prisoner while working for the City. Mr. Hoagland stated at the present time the City would be; hopefully, by the adoption of this ordinance, the City would be relieved from responsibility. Approval of Plans and Specifications for Construction of Aeration Systems and Modification of Stabilization Ponds at Sewage Treatment Plant No. 3. Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Plans and Secifications for construction of Aeration Systems and Modification of Stabilization Ponds at Sewage Treatment Plant No. 3 were approved, and the Finance Director was authorized to advertise for bids. 296 Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 21 Time Extension granted Foth Construction Company for Construcing New Stine Road from Wilson Road to Planz Road and Paving Median Islands on Ming Avenue and on New Siine RoaO. Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, nine days extension of time was granted Foth Construction Company for constructing New Stine Road from Wilson Road to Planz Road and for paving Median Islands on Ming Avenue and on New Stine Road, the Work was accepted, and tile Mayor was authorized to execute the Notice of Completion. Approval of Electric Service Agreement between C~ty of Bakersfield and Pacific Gas & Electric Company for service at the California Avenue Park Neighborhood Facility. Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, electric Service Agreement between City of Bakersfield and the Pacific Gas & Electric Company for electric service at the California Avenue Park Neighborhood Facility was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Application for Encroachment Permit from Michael Kish, 3406 Getty Street. Mayor Hart recognized Mr. Michael Kish, owner of Kish Body Works, 3406 Getty Street, who had resuested an encroachment permit for placement of a directional sign in the public right of way at the intersection of Getty Street and Pierce Road for a place of business located approximately 250 feet west of the location. The sign would be located in front of an existing truck service station not owned or operated by the applicant. The Public Works Department does not recommend placement of this type of sign within the street right of way since this would set a precedent for numerous signs of this nature appearing at other intersections, and would create a definite traffic and pedestrian hazard. Mr. Kish stated that of this type on adjacent cafe's the restaurant had been closed, four years ago he had placed a sign leased property, but since that time and the owner of the existing truck service holding the master lease has removed and destroyed the sign, and has harassed his in other ways for many years. He asked the City for an encroachment permit to place his sign on the street right of way. Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 22 297 City Attorney Hoagland advised that when an encroachment permit is granted it is personal to the property owner, as obviously the City is not in the business of granting an encroachment permit on the property of others. A property owner controls the property to the center of the street, and if he wants to encroach on the right of way of his own property, he can ask the Council for a permit for the use of his own property. Mr. Bidwell, Public Works Director, stated that Mr. Kish's sign was placed on the right of way which is personal to the property owner by the existing truck service station. Mr. Kish doesn't own the abutting property but the former lessee had permitted him to place a sign on the property under his jurisdiction, on which the owner of the truck service station holds the master lease. Councilman Bleecker stated that he is aware this problem has existed over the years between Mr. Kish and Mr. Holden, owner of the truck service station. It would appear that Mr. Kish had an opportunity to remove his sign, but did not do so. Councilman Heisey suggested to Mr. Kish that he file an action in small claims court and recover the cost of the destroyed sign. Hearings. This is the time set for public hearing before the Council on Resolution of Intention No. 892 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, declaring its intention to order the vacation of alleys and a portion of "C" Street between Truxtun Avenue and 16th Street, City of Bakersfield. Motice of this hearing has been duly posted. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participation. Councilman Strong questioned closing only a portion of the alley and Mr. Bidwell stated that it was done because the property owner on the southwest corner of the intersection objected to the closing of that portion of the alley, as it created a problem for access to the parking lot at the rear of hos property. Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 23 NO .one~s~oke in opposition to the vacation. Mr. Bob Eddy, architect, stated they. are planning for the additions to a major remodeling program proposed for the Mercy Hospital. This is a very extensive, multi~mil!ion dollar project which proposes to up-date facilities so that the hospital can offer the highest standard of nursing and hospital care in the community. As a part of the program, the properties adjacent to the hospital will be improved for parking and for the relocation of utilities, and to provide better circulation around the grounds of the hospital. The City had requested that access be provided for fire, police and other emergency vehicles and that the relocation of the utilities is satisfactory to the utility companies, which has been done. Miss Charlene Rosack, representing her father, requested that the southwest corner of the alley remain open as this is the only access to the parking lot on their property in the rear. She stated they have a petition with 76 signatures requesting that this portion of the alley not be vacated. Director of Planning Sceales stated this portion of the alley would not be vacated and the request of Miss Rosack was being granted. Mayor Hart closed the public hearing for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution No. 66-73 ordering the vacation of alleys and a portion of "C" Street between Truxtun Avenue and 16th Street, City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: Councilman Rogers This is the time set for public hearing before the Council for hearing objections to include within the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District a portion of certain territory designated as "Stockdale No~ 6". Notice of this hearingshas been duly posted. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participation. No protests or objections were received. The public hearing was closed Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 24 299 for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by iCouncilman Medders, Resolution No. 67-73 annexing Stockdale No. 6 to the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: Councilman Rogers This is the time set for public hearing before the Council on application of Hull-Moreland Associates, Inc. to amend the zoniug boundaries from an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) Zone, to an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling), or more restrictive, Zone, and to an R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling), or more restrictive, Zone, of that certain property located on the east side of New Stime Road between Wilson Road and Planz Road. This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and notices sent to property owners as required by ordinance. The properties are within a tentative subdivision approved by the Planning Commission. The proposed zoning would act as a buffer between adjacent R-2 zoned lots, New Stine Road, a major highway, and the planned single family lots within the proposed development. It was the opinion of the Commission that the proposed zining would not be in conflict with the general arrangement of land uses as depicted in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. A negative declaration was filed with the County Clerk and posted in City Hall on June 19, 1973. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the R-2 and R-3 zoning with the condition that the "D" Architectural Design Overlay, be applied to insure a compatible development between the nultiple family and single family lots. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participation. No protests or objections were received. In the absence of applicant or a representative, upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, the hearing was continued until the next meeting. 300 Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 25 This is the time set for public hearing before the Council on application of Norman K. Larson to amend the zoning boundaries from an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) Zone to R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling), or more restrictive, Zone, and to an R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling), or more restrictive, Zone, of that certain property located east of Larson Road and west of Agate Street. This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and notices sent to property owners as required by ordinance. A petition containing approximately 85 names expressing opposition to the zone change as proposed by Mr. Larson and requesting that the zone remain R-l, was filed in the City Clerk's office. Mr. Larson propose~ to relocate his dairy operation from subject property and sell this land for multiple family dwelling development. Properties to the north, west and south are zoned and partially developed C-2 general commercial. Properties to the north, south and east of subject property located adjacent to Agate Street are zoned R-1 and developed with single family dwellings and the Seibert Elementary School. It was the opinion of the Commission that the proposed zoning would not be in conflict with the general arrangement of land uses as depicted in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, although property adjacent to Agate Street should remain R-1 since it is contiguous to single family homes. A negative declaration was filed with the County Clerk and posted in City Hall on June 7, 1973. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested zoning with the exception of a strip 117 feet in depth adjacent to Agate Street and further recommended the application of the "D" Overlay on the R-2 and R-3 properties to protect the adjacent properties and to insure compatible development in the area. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participation Mr. Kendall Wright, who had previously filed the petition in opposition to the rezining with the City Clerk, requested permission to add three Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 26 301 more signatures, stating that the petition represents property owners who are opposed to construction of the duplexes and apartments proposed by Mr. Larson. When they canvassed the area, it was discivered that apparently the real estate representative had misled the people by telling them they had to either accept the dairy or the apartments. Also, that the school was in favor of the zone change, but as of this morning the school principal was unaware of such action. If the zone change is granted it will crowd the schools, create a greater traffic hazard on Agate Street and will lower the property values. All signers of the petition are in favor of removing the livestork but are opposed to changing the entire area from R-1. Mr. Norman Larson, applicant and owner of Larson's Dairyland, stated that at the Planning Commission hearing, it was recommended that the zone be changed from R-1 to R-2 and R-3. He owes a lot to the people in southwest Bakersfield, he hag seen that area grow and has been fortunate to be able to work and do business with these people. His property is not suitable for development as R-1 so the only alternative is to request R-2 and R-3 zoning. He has received a letter from the Secretary of the Panama Union School District stating that the district does not oppose R-2 and R-3 zoning in this area. He disagrees with the Planning Commission's recommendation that R-1 zoning be maintained adjacent to Agate Street, because R-1 isn't particularly selling today. R-2 is a duplex where the owner lives on one side and rents out the other side and the property is generally maintained better than that of the average R-1 householder. If R-1 were left on Agate Street, it would probable be undeveloped for a considerable length of time. Thebiggest reason for requesting R-2 and R-3 is that he has come to the point in his dairy business where additional corrals are needed, and he feels it would be doing the community a~service to prepare to leave the location. The only way he can do this is to find a piece of property to exchange and come up with a certain amount of 30E Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 27 money, which can't be done on slow-moving R-1 property. His only alternative is to have the property zoned R-2 and R-3. Seven years ago he posted a sign on his property stating that the dairy had been in this location since 1955, has no plans to move, and will stay in that location just as long as possible. The people who bought in that area knew the dairy was there and that it was prepared to stay. If the property is not zoned R-2 and R-3, the dairy.will be there for quite a few years. If it is rezoned, he can make an orderly move to the country; however, the milk plant will remain and the milk will be delivered to the plant every day for processing. Mr. Larson then asked the Council to act favorably on his application and fezone the property R-2 and R-3 and to overrule the Planning Commission's recommendation to have R-1 zoning ramain adjacent to Agate Street. Mayor Hart closed the public portion of the hearing for Council deliberation and action. Councilman Whittemore stated he has known for ten years that this night would come when rezoning would be requested for the dairy, so that it could move. He feels it is time that it does so, and there is only one fair approach to this and that is to allow Mr. Larson the requested zoning so he can break even financially to move to the country. This has been going on for ten years and it is time for the dairy to move and the Council has the responsibility to permit the owner the highest and best use of that land after the dairy has been moved. Some of the people on the petition are very close friends of his and if they were present tonight, they would possibly understand his reasoning. He disagreed with the statement that changing the zoning would lower the land values, if the dairy continues operation in this location, property values are bound to remain low. Councilman Whittemore asked the Planning Director if it would be possible to upgrade the zoning on Agate Street .without requiring Mr. Larson to make another application to the Planning Commission. Mr. Sceals.stated that rezoning was advertised as R-2 and R-3 and it was the Commission's recommendation to approve the Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 28 303 requested zoning with the exception of the strip adjacent to Agate Street to remain R-1. Mr. Wright commented that speaking strictly for himself, he would rather have the cows as neighbors than R-2 and R-3 and many of the people in the neighborhood feel the same additional discussion, it the zoning be approved as Councilman Bleecker offered a approve the recommendation of zoning, way. After Whittemore that D-Overlay. the Council was then moved by Councilman advertised, including the substitute motion~at the Planning Commission approving the resuested zoning with the exception of a strip 117 feet in depth adjacent to Agate Street be zoned R-l, and that the D Overlay be applied. Roll call Vote on this motion failed to carry as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey Noes: Council Medders, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore Absent: Choucilman Rogers Vote taken on Councilman Whittemore's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 2118 New Series amending Titlq Seventeen of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by changing the Land Use Zoning of that certain property in the City of Bakersfield located east of Larson Road and west of Agate Street, as advertised and including the application of the "D" Overlay, was adopted by the following roll call. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore None Councilman Rogers This is the time set for public hearing before the Council to Zone upon Annexation to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) or more restrictive, Zone, and to An R-1CH (One Family Dwelling - Church) or more restrictive, Zone, that certain property on the southeast corner of White Lane and Monitor Street - Pacheco No. 5 Annexation. 3O4 Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 28 This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and property owners notified as required by ordinance. The land within Pacheco No. 5 annexation, 18.69 acres, is undeveloped with the exception of a church located at the northwest corner of the property. The owner proposed to develop the remainder to the property with single family homes. The proposed zining is in accordance with the general arrangement of land uses, as depicted in the General Plan. The Plann- ing Commission held a public hearing on the proposed zoning on April 4, 1973, which was prior to effective date of the EIR Assessment requirement, and recommended approval of the requested zoning upon annexation. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participation, and asked if there were persons in the sudience who would oppose the zoning upon annexation. Mr. Manuel Escamilla addressed the Council stating that he owns five acres south of the church and asked if his property had been annexed, as he was unable to attend the annexation hearing. He was informed that if had been, that this hearing is being held for the purpose of zoning the property upon annexation. Councilman Heisey asked the City Attorney if Mr. Escanilla owns roughly a fourth o£ the annexation, about five acres, which was zoned agricultural in the County before coming into the City, why it could not remain "A" instead of "R~i", and if the Council is mandated to make the change. Mr. Hoagland stated that under the zoning ordinance the property automatically becomes R-1 whenever it is annexed regardless of what it was zoned in the County. The public notice was given as R-1 zoning, which it became when it was annexed. Planning Director Sceales stated that Mr. Cummings who had initiated the annexation asked for R-1 zoning, and the property is in the process of being annexed, the Ordinance approving annexation was adopted by the Council at its July 23rd meeting. If the Council feels Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 30 305 that the City should have a small parcel of agricultural zoning in the middle of a residential zoning, it can be referred back to the Planning Commission to hold a hearing again at the Commission level, and the Council can act on the rest of the property this evening. Councilman Heisey commented it seems to him the owner of a fourth of the total annexation should be given the zoning he wants. After general discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Ordinance No. 2119 New Series amending Section 17.12.020 of Chapter 17.12 (Zoning Map) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield Zoning Upon Annexation to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) Zone and R-1-CH Zone, that certain property on the southeast corner of White Lane and Monitor Street - Pacheco No. 5 Annexation, excepting therefrom the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 18, T. 30 South, Range 28 East, M.D.B. & M., property of Manuel Escamilla, which was referred back to the Planning Commission for further consideration, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Noes: None Absent: Councilman Rogers This is the time set for to Zone Upon Annexation to an R-1 Medders, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore public hearing before the Council (One Family Dwelling) or more restrictive, Zone, that certaim property west of Eve Street and 600' north of Pacheco Road - Pacheco No. 6 Annexation. This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and property owners notifies as required by ordinance. The land within Pacheco No. 6 Annexation, 10 acres, is undeveloped and the owner proposes to develop the land with single family homes. This proposed zoning is in accordance with the 6eneral arrangement of land uses, as depicted in the General Plan. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed zoning April 4, 1973, which was prior to the effective date of the EIR Assessment requirement, and recommended approval of the requested zoning upon annexation. 306 Bakersfield, California, August 13, 1973 - Page 31 Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participation. No protests or objections being received, the public hearing was closed for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No. 2120 New Series amending Section 17.12.020 of Chapter 17.12 (Zoning Map) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas, Whirremote Noes: None Absent: Councilman Rogers Adjournment. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, at 11:47 P.M. MAYO~f Bakersfield, Calif. ATTEST: the City of Bakersfield, California 3O7 Bakersfield, California, August 27, 1973 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M., August 27, 1973. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Joseph A. Ferrante of the Oildale Assembly of God Church. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker. Absent: Councilman Rogers Minutes of the regular moeting of August 13, 1973 were approved as presented. Scheduled Public Statements. Mr. Tom McGinnis, President of the Bakersfield College Alumni Association, requested the Mayor and Council to proclaim the week of September 2, 1973 as "Renegade Week" in the City of Bakersfield and he listed the activities planned for that week. Mayor Hart stated he has already prepared the Proclamation requested by Mr. McGinnis and expressed the Council's pride in the Renegade Football team which has Mr. Gabriel W. Subriar, doing business upheld the tradition of Bakersfield College. Solomon, Attorney, representing Frank as Jerry's Ambulance Service, requested to address the Council at this time. Councilman Bleecker remarked he is not in any way attempting to preclude Mr. Solomon from stating his views before the Councill however, he would think that since his client has seen fit to file a suit against the City of Bakersfield, anything he would say at this public meeting could influence whatever position the City may have. Mr. Solomon stated the nature of the litigation is such there is no remote possibility that the case will be tried by a jury, there is no material dispute as to the facts, it is just a question of what is the law applicable in this regard. The primary purpose for his appearance here this evening is to ask the Council to direct its staff to prepare an amendment to delete certain objectionable and vague provisions of Chapter 7.62 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, which at the present time 308 Bakersfield, California, August 27, 1973 - Page 2 provides for an exclusive monoply of ambulance business in the City vested in two operators~ Mr. Flinn and Mr. Hall. 'The Council has the right and duty to carefully regulate the ambulance business in the public interest, but there is a vast distinction between appropriate and reasonable regulation of all ambulance operators and the prohibition of other ambulance owners from entering into the business. Specifically, he is referring to the provision of the ordinance which states that no license shall be issued to anyone to operate an ambulance business within the limits of the City of Bakersfield unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the City Manager and the Council that there is a public necessity for this service; also, the requirement that no license will be issued unless the applicant satisfies the City Manager and/or the Council that he is "financially responsible.,' If that amendment takes place, the City Attorney's office will be relieved of the responsibility of spending time in litigation and the entire problem will be resolved. If the Council directs the deletion of the Certificate of Public Necessity and amends the ordinance to restrict the requirement of financial responsibility to an insurance requirement, it will permit the certification of another operator who will comply with all the regulations of the City's ordinance regarding insurance, equipment and safety standards. Councilman Heisey taking exception to Mr. Solomon's remarks, stated he does not think it is appropriate to even answer his comments in view of the fact that he is suing the City in this regard. How- ever, the City does have both the right ambulance service just as it does other type of business in the community where and responsibility to regulate public utilities, any monopoly it is in the public's interests. He is unprepared to say whether Bakersfield is large enough for a third ambulance service and then moved that the matter be referred to the Business Development and Parking Committee to consult with the Fire Chief and the Police Chief for recommendations, and then report back to the Council. Bakersfield, California, August 27, 1973 - Page 3 309 Councilman Strong asked Mr. Solomon if his appearance before the Council was due to the tact that he was unable to get a satisfactory response from the city staff, and Mr. Solomon replied that he was not blaming the staff, the problem is with the ordinance, it is the duty of the staff to enforce its provisions. Mr. Subriar has twice made application for a Certificate of Public Necessity and after negotiations with the staff, he takes the position that he will not play the City's monopoly game. The staff takes the position that he must prove there is a need for another ambulance service in the City and when this is done, then a permit might be granted. Mr. Solomon went on to say that the issue can be referred to city officials or Council committees, but it will ultimately come back to the Council for its decision. There is only one solution, either the Council is in favor of a monopoly and the protection of a couple of businessmen, or it believes in an open, free, private enterprise society properly regulated in the public's interest. Vote taken on Councilman Heisey's motion carried as follows: Ayes: Noes: Councilman Strong Absent: Councilman Rogers Mr. Nathan Krevitz, investment business, Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Thomas, Whittemore who stated he is in the insurance and addressed the Council, stating that two weeks ago the Council instructed Mr. Hoagland Business Improvement tax and make a but as far as he knows, nothing has to investigate the Downtown recommendation back to the Council, been done up to this time. He read a letter which he filed with the City Clerk, stating he has been advised by Mr. Philip Kelmar of the Finance Department, that banks are exempt from having to procure any licenses for any other businesses in which they might engage. He pointed out that he is being subjected 310 Bakersfield, California, August 27, 1973 - Page 4 to involuntary servitude by being required to pay the downtown improvement tax which does not in any way benefit him, and he requested the Council to revoke the ordinance and require that this tax be a voluntary one for those businesses benefiting, and if the banks are not required to pay city business licenses, he should not be required to pay them either. Councilman Bleecker questioned Mr. Philip Kelmar, Assistant Finance Director, regarding the City's position toward those banks engaging in the business of securities. Mr. Kelmar stated that according to the State Franchise Tax Board, as long as banks are doing business under the designation of a bank, they are exempt from local businesslicense'taxes. Insurance companies are also exempt by State law from paying business license taxes, as they pay a gross receipts tax to the State. Some insurance companies may be engaged in the securities business, and the City is now making inquiries Of the State Insurance Commissioner's office to determine if these insurance companies are exempt from local business license taxes. According to City records, Mr. Krevitz is classified as a securities dealer, and like the other brokerage firms in the City, is required to pay the local business license tax. The City has mailed out letters to every insurance agent or broker in Bakersfield inquiring whether they are engaged in the securities business. A number of replies have been received, but none of the companies has indicated that they are dealing in securities. However, all companies have not as yet responded. Mr. Krevitz contended that nation-wide, his business is primarily insurance, and he stated that all he is asking is that everyone be treated equally and that he be exempt fr~n paying the business license tax if banks are not required to pay. Bakersf±eld, California, August 27, 1973 - Page 5 311 Council Statements. Councilman Heisey reported on a meeting he attended of the South San Joaquin Division o£ the League of California Cities in Porter- ville Friday evening, along with Councilmen Strong and Whittemore. Other Valley Councilmen with their wives were present for a social evening and from the attitude of the members present, he didn't think anyone really wanted to transact business. He was particularly concerned with one issue on the agenda, the endorsement of legislation for cities to levy a municipal income tax. Last meeting the Council authorized Mayor Hart to write a letter to the president of the South San Joaquin Division of the League expressing its strong opposition of levying a municipal income tax against individuals and corporations. Councilman Heisey asked to be heard on this issue, and while he was speaking, discovered that his microphone had been turned off, so probably only a very few people heard his remarks. By voice vote a recommendation was adopted in favor o£ levying an income tax, and out of 39 cities, Bakersfield was the only one voicing opposition. He was shocked that Councilmen representing the southern end of the valley could actually return to their communities and say that they voted for this legislation as he does not feel that the people of the communities want a municipal income tax. This issue will be brought up again at the Conference of the League of California Cities in San Francisco in October and he intends to be there to voice vigorous opposition to this issue on the floor and he hopes that he will have the support of the full Council to see that a measure of this kind does not become the adopted policy of the League for the entire state. He feels it is being pushed through by the major cities of the State, but certainly, the small cities of the State should be united in opposition to an issue of this nature, now is the time to object. Coundilman Heisey went on to say that at the next meeting of the South San Joaquin League of the California Cities, an attempt should be made by Bakersfield to change the basic tales that govern the business meetings, business to be taken care of first and the social 312 Bakersfield, California, August 27, 1973 - Page 6 activities to follow. There were a number of issues adopted with very little discussion, and if anyone wished to speak on the question, he was almost out of order. Councilman Whittemore supported Coundilman Heisey, stating he is sure that if Councilman Heisey's microphone had been turned on, his motion would have received more votes, but the president very arbitrarily said that Councilman Heisey's motion did not carry. Tilere was such little interest shown, that he had to second Councilman Heisey's motion. The Council members who attended the meeting from cities with the same interests as Bakersfield who voted for the municipal income tax, should be somewhat apprehensive about their Council seats. Councilman Bleecker stated that a letter addressed to Mayor Donald Hart from the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Modesto, California, indicated that a meeting has been scheduled for September 13, 1973, im Modesto, to discuss the subject of financing Amtrak trains other than by full federal funding. Congress appropriated the necessary funds to cover the train's estimated first-year loss of $516,000, but after signing the appropriation act, the President froze the money. The Federal Act now provides an altermte way of financing Amtrak trains other than full federal funding by authorizing Amtrak to provide train service over any route if the state and/or local governments pay for two-thirds of the train's losses. Modesto is inviting a representative of the Council to attend a meeting with representatives of Amtrak and the State Department of Transportation to determine what interest there is in supporting the cost of the train by the State of California and the various counties and cities which would be served. Councilman Bleecker stated that this only indicates a double reason why this Council should continue to oppose the idea of the people subsidizing an old, slow train to San Francisco. He then moved that the letter to attend the meeting in Modesto on September 13, 1973, be turned over to the Budget Review and Finance Committee for consideration and report back at the next meeting, and that either a member of the staff or a Councilman be designated to attend that meeting to either support or oppose the idea of Amt~tk service paid for by the state or local governments. This motion carried unanimously. Bakersfield, California, August 27, 1973 - Page 7 Reports. Mr. Charles Graviss, Auditorium-Recreation Manager, reported that the California Park Neighborhood Facility should be completed by the latter part of September. He introduced Mr. Mike Dutton who was appointed as the Community Center Coordinator for this facility on July 24, 1973. Mr. Dutton furnished each member of the Council with a program he has compiled since employed on the activities, services and anticipated use of the California Avenue Park Neighborhood Facility. Councilman Strong complimented Mr. Graviss on his appoiutment of Mr. Dutton as Community Center Coordinator, he has known Mr. Dutton for a long time and has the greatest admiration for him and his capabilities. Consent Calendar. The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar: (a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 247 to 460, inclusive, in amount of $166,357.79. (b) Acceptance of Map of Tract No. 3562, Unit "B", and Contract and Specifications for Improvements therein. (c) Grant Deed to Pacific Telephone Company (d) Acceptance of Work and Mayor to execute Notice of Completion for the construction of Storm Drains in Bank Street - Olive Street to Cypress Street and in Cypress Street - Bank Street to Verde Street. (e) Acceptance of Work and Mayor to execute Notice of Completion for the construction of Storm Drains in portions of "V" Street, "U" Street, Pine Street, Eggers Street, Lacey Street, Benton Street, Planz Road and California Avenue. (f) Street Right of Way Deed from Antonio C. Baffo and Thomas J. and Frances L. McFarland Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, Items (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the following roll call Vote: Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Noes: None Absent: Councilman Rogers. Strong, Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker 314 Bakersfield, California, August 27, 1973 - Page 8 Action on Bids. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, low bid of Kern County Equipment Company to furnish Diesel Motor Grader was accepted, and all other bids were rejected. Deferred Business. Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Ordinance No. 2121~ New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending the Bakersfield Municipal Code by repealing Chapter 1.80 and substituting in lieu thereof a new Chapter 1.80, relating to Emergency Organization and Functions, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker Noes: None Absent: CounCilman Rogers Councilman Heisey remarked that this is a very important document to the people of the City in the advent of an emergency, and he asked if copies could be made available to the press to write an article in order to inform the public of the city's emergency procedures. City Manager Bergen stated that this is a lengthy document which will be put together and printed. He asked the Council to return the copies sent out to them earlier and stated that copies will be made available to the news media. Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Ordinance No. 2122 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 2.20.010 of Chapter 2.20 of Title 2 of the Municipal Code concerning preservation of City Government in event of enemy attack, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas, Noes: None Absent: Councilman Rogers Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, of the Council Emergency Plan, Whirremote, Resolution No. 68-73 Bleecker of the City of Bakersfield adopting the City of Bakersfi including certain attachments and annexes of the Kern County Emergency Plan, was adopted Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Noes: None Absent: Councilman Rogers by the following vote: Strong, Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker Bakersfield, California, August 27, 1973 - Page 9 315 Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Ordinance No. 2123 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield providing for the working of Prisoners confined in the County Jail, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker Noes: None Absent: Councilman Rogers Adoption of Resolution No. 69-73 of Intention to include within the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District certain territory designated as "Stockdale No. 8", and setting the time and place for hearing objections to the inclusion of said territory within said District. Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Resolution No. 69-73 of Intention to include within the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District certain territory designated as "Stockdale No. 8", and setting the time and place for hearing objections to the inclusion of said territory within said District, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker Noes: None Absent; Councilman Rogers Approval of Contract between the City of Bakersfield and the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce for the service of advertising the City and promoting the Industrial Development of the City. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Contract between the City of Bakersfield and the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce for the service of~ advertising the City and promoting the Industrial Development of the City, was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. Approval of Contract between the City of Bakersfield and the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce providing for the Operation of a Convention Bureau. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Contract between the City of Bakersfield and the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce providing for the operation of a Convention Bureau was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. 316 Bakersfield, California, August 27, 1973 - Page 10 First reading of.an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Sections 17.25.026 (4), adding Section 17.27.020 (2a), amending Section 17.27.020 (19), amending Section 17.27.026 (1), and amending Section 17.31.020 (6) of Title 17, concerning Uses of Land First reading was considered given to an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Sections 17.25.026 (4), adding Section 17.27.020 (2a), amending Section 17.27.020 Section 17.27.026 (1), and amending Section 17.31.020 (6) concerning Uses of Land. This amendatory ordinance would following effect: (19), amending of Title 17 have the Permit car washes with 5 bay maximum in the C-1 Zone as use permitted subject to Conditional Use Permit 2. Permit small animal hospitals and kennels wholly within a building as a permitted use in C-2 Zone Permit small animal hospitals and kennels in C-2 Zone as a permitted use subject to Conditional Use Permit regardless of whether wholly within a building Permit small or large animal hospitals and kennels in M-1 Zone regardless of whether wholly within a building This was approved by the Planning Commission after public hearing on August 15, 1973 First reading of An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 17.51.100 of Chapter 17.51 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield concerning Planned Residential Development. First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 17.51.100 of Chapter 17.51 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield concerning Planned Residential Development. This amendatory ordinance would permit dwelling units to be built within a Planned Residential Development Zone without necessity to apply the regulations of the underlying zone, provided that any increase in the number of dwelling units (density) be justified and compensated for by the development of an approved plan which would increase open space and service the general welfare. This was approved by the Planning Commission after public hearing o~ August 15, 1973. Bakersfield, California, August 27, 1973 - Page ll 317 Approval of Application of Bakersfield Neon Sign Company to erect sign 62' in height at Henry VIII Restaurant located a5 955 Real Road. Pursuant to Section 13.40.080 of the Municipal Code, no permit for sign exceeding a height of fifty feet from ground level shall be issued without prior approval of the City Council. Councilman Whirremote stated that in order to avoid any real or imaginary conflict of interest, he would ask that the record show he will not participate in any discussion, or in the vote taken on this request. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, the application of the Bakersfield Neon Sign Company to erect sign 62' in height at the Henry VIII Restaurant located at 955 Real Road, was approved. Councilman Whittemore abstained from voting on this motion. Adoption of Ordinance No. 2124 New Series Levying a Rate of Taxation for the Fiscal Year 1973-74. Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Ordinance No. 2124 New Series levying a rate of taxation for the Fiscal Year 1973-74 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Strong, Noes: None Absent: Councilman Rogers The City's general tax rate has been reduced by .23~, the bond tax rate is reduced by .02~, making a total of .25~ reduction in the property tax rate of the City of Bakersfield. Councilman Heisey commented that he feels every one on the Council is proud of what has been accomplished in reducing taxes for the people of the community. County Auditor-Controller authorized to add delinquent building demolition Assessments as part of the 1973-74 Secured Tax Roll. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, The County Auditor- Controller was authorized to add Delinquent Building Demolition Assessments levied during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, as part of the 1973-74 Secured Tax Roll. AssessMent on American Hotel Company in amount of $2,000 is to be added to the list of Delinquent Assessments. Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker 318 Bakersfield, California, August 27, 1973 - Page 12 County Auditor-Controller authorized to add Delinquent Weed Abatement Assessments to the 1973-74 Secured Tax Roll. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, the County Auditor- Controller was authorized to add Delinquent Weed Abatement Assessments levied during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, to the 1973-74 Secured Tax Roll. Approval of Boundaries of proposed annexation designated as Ming No. 6 annexation. Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, uninhabited annexation designated as Ming No. boundaries of proposed and referred to the City Engineer to LAFC. 6 Annexation were approved and City Attorney for referral Approval of Cooperative Agreement between City of Bakersfield and County of Kern for Construction of the Akers Road Drainage System. Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Cooperative Agreement: between the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern for construction of the Akers Road Drainage System was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. Approval of request of Public Works to substitute multi-purpose bucket for Skip Loader budgeted in Equipment Replacement Budget. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, the Public Works Department was authorized to delete a skip loader from the Equipment Replacement Budget and substitute purchase of a multi-purpose bucket, which would result in a savings of approximately $24,000. Authorization granted for replacement of Fire Apparatus Squad Pumper Unit. In this year's budget the Fire Department requested replacement of one squad pumper unit, with plans to request replacement of Unit #49 in next year's budget. Unit ~49 has broken down beyond repair and upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, authorization was granted to replace Unit #49 this year at a cost of $12,600, funds to be transferred from Account 11-510-6100 to Account No. 81-640-7440, for this purpose. Bakersfield, California, August 27, 1973 - Page 13 3 _9 Approval of Supplement No. 3 to the Local Agency-State TOPICS Agreement No. 2. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Supplement No. 3 to the Local Agency-State TOPICS Agreement No. 2 was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. This agreement is for TOPICS projects covering construction and modification of traffic signals at the following intersections: Truxtun Avenue @ Eye Street 2.18th Street @ "Q" Street 3.21st Street @ "Q" Street 4.18th Street @ "M" Street 5. 17th Street @ Chester Avenue Councilman Bleecker called the City Manager's attention to traffic signals which are confusing to motorists making a left turn at the intersection of 24th and "F" Street. Mr. Bergen stated he has taken this up with the Traffic Authority and the delay occurs due to motorists wishing to make a left turn not being aware that there is an overlap at this signal. This is being discussed with the State Division of Highways, but he has not as yet received a reply. Councilman Thomas pointed out that the same situation exists at the intersection of Chester Avenue and 24th Street. Approval of Change Order No. 1 for the California Park Neighborhood Facility. Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, Change Order No. i to Frank Terry Construction, for the following changes in were approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute 1. Furnish all labor necessary to construct wall according to instruction of the architect. 2. Relocate water line to make connection to City main which was not at the location shown on the plan. 308.00 3. Install classroom sink in day care center which was requested after the bid date. 407.00 Total $2.216.50 Funds are available in the Building's Contingency Fund. Approximately $15,000 remains in the Contingency Fund after payment of this Change Order. the Contract, the Change Order: block $1,501.50 32O Bakersfield, California, August 27, 1973 - Page 14 Approval of Plans and Specifications for Installation of Traffic Signals at the Intersection of Oleander Avenue and California Avenue. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Plans and Specifications for Installation of Traffic Signals at the Intersection of Oleander Avenue and California Avenue were approved. Approval of Plans and Specifications for Installation of Traffic Signals at the Intersection of Wilson Road and Hughes Lane. Upon a joint motion by Councilmen Thomas and Whittemore, Plans and Specifications for Installation of Traffic Signals at the intersection of Wilson Road and Hughes Lane were approved. Hearings. This is the time set for continued public hearing before the Council on application of Hull-Moreland Associates, Inc. to amend the zoning boundaries from an R-1 (One Family Dwelling ) Zone, to an'R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) or more restrictive, Zone, and to an R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) or more restrictive, Zone, of that certain property located on the east side of New Stine Road between Wilson Road and Planz Road. This hearing was continued from meeting of August 13, 1973, due to absence of applicant or representatave. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participation asking if therewere persons in the audience who would speak in opposition to the proposed rezoning. No protests or objections were received. The applicant was present to answer any questions regarding the rezoning. Mayor Hart declared the hearing closed for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, seconded by Councilman Thomas, Ordinance No. 2125 New Series amending Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by amending the Land use Zoning of that certain property in the City of Bakersfield located on the east side of New Stine Road between Wilson Road and Planz Road was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore, Noes: None Bleecker Absent: Councilman Rogers Bakersfield, California, August 27, 1973 - Page 15 This is the time set for public hearing before the Council for the purpose of hearing any person desiring to be heard on the matter of the adoption by the City Council of the Amendment to the Open Space Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. This hearing has been duly advertised. No written protests or objections have been received in the City Clerk's office. This amendment to the Open Space Element would delete statement that parallel transmission lines on agricultural land shall not occupy separate tower systems and delete requirement that new and relocated utility lines shall be placed underground on recreation and scenic land. This was approved by the Planning Commission after public hearing on August 1, 1973. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participation. No protests or objections being received, the public hearing was closed for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution No. 70-73 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield adopting Amendment No. 1 to the Open Space Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas, Whirremote, Bleecker Noes: None Absent: Councilman Rogers. This is the time set for public hearing before the Council on the appeal of Mr. Paul D. Summers, 101 Jefferson Street to the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment and a request to eliminate the conditions required by the City Council upon approval of an encroachment permit. This hearing has been duly advertised. The City Council on June 18, 1973, approved Mr. Summers' request for an encroachment permit on his property located at 101 Jefferson Street, subject to two conditions 1. Reduce encroachment on chain link fence to nine feet. 2. Construct standard sidewalk along Stockton Street frontage. 322 Bakersfield, California, August 27, 1973 - Page 16 The Board of Zoning Adjustment on June 26, 1973, the request of Mr. Summers for a modification to permit the of the required ten-foot sideyard setback for a fence, wall roof subject to the following conditions: 1. Overhang of patio structure to be cut off to one foot from beam, thus reducing the encroachment to five feet. 2.Patio fence to north to be moved back to align with swimming pool enclosure 3. Space between sidewalk and existing fence to be landscaped and not used for parking of vehicles. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for No protests or objections were received. Mr. Paul of the property at 101 Jefferson Street, addressed that there are 23 homes on Stockton Street from Alta Vista to Bernard Street and only three of them have sidewalks. If his neighbors put in sidewalks, he will be more than happy to do the same at this time. He filed with the City Clerk letters from the owners of the three dwellings adjoining his property and from the principal of Longfellow school directly to the west of his property who state they are in opposition to the recommendations of the Board of Zoning Adjustment conditions. He stated that the recommendation of the Board of Zoning Adjustment to cut off the overhang of the patio structure to within one foot from the beam, would be costly, this cover is not a danger to school children or passing trucks. He also expressed objections to moving the patio fence as he would lose the privacy that he now enjoys and it would reduce the size of his patio. He stated he would remove the trailer and landscape the space between the fence as recommended by the Board of Zoning Adjustment. resided at this location, he has made many improvements in the appearance of the entire neighborhood. He appealed to the Council to permit him to finish his project and he stipulated that he will not stand in the way of progress. approved elimination and patio public participation. D. Summers, owner the ~ouncil stating sidewalk and Since he has and it reflects Bakersfield, California, August 27, 1973 - Page 17 323 Mr. Bergen commented that he is surprised a principal of a school would approve waiving the construction of sidewalks around the school. Mr. Summers stated that he asked for the waiver of the sidewalks because there are no sidewalks to the north or south of his property, but are constructed directly across the street. Councilman Medders remarked that a sidewalk in that location would be of no benefit fo children attending the school across the street. Councilman Medders also stated he could see no reason to require the overhang of the patio to be cut off, it is not interfering with traffic-and it certainly improves the neighborhood. Mayor Hart closed the public portion of the meeting and returned to the Council for deliberation and action. After Council and staff discuB~ion, Councilman Heisey stated that he has been out to look at this property and Mr. Summers has used fhe public right of way in so many different ways that it amazes him. However, he can see it was an easy thing to do because most of the neighbors north and south have been doing the same thing with the right of way. In keeping with the balance of the neighborhood, the Council could go along with many of the encroachments he has made, it would be reasonable to eliminate Items Nos. 1 and 2, the conditions required by the Council for the granting of the Encroachment Permit. Also, to eliminate Item 2 - to move back the patio fence to align with the swimming pool enclosure, as required by the Board of Zoning Adjustment. However, the overhang of the patio structure should be cut off to one foot and it is only reasonable that the trailer be taken out of the right of way and the area landscaped as required by the Board of Zoning Adjustment. He ~herefore moved adoption of Zoning Resolution No. 244 granting Modification of the Land Use Zoning Ordinance of the City of Bakersfield to permit the elimination of the required ten-foot sideyard setback for a fence, wall and patio roof on that certain property commonly known as 101 Jefferson Street, subject to the following conditions: 324 Bakersfield, California, August 27, 1973 - Page 18 1. Overhang of patio structure to be cut off to one foot from beam, thus reducing the encroachment to five feet. 2. Space between sidewalk area and existing fence to be landscaped and not used for parking or storage of vehicles. After discussion, this motion carried by the following roll call: Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Strong, Thomas, Bleecker Noes: Councilmen Medders, Whirremote Absent: Councilman Rogers This is the time set for public hearing before the Council on application of Rex L. Martin to amend the zoning boundaries from an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) Zone to a C-2-D (Commercial - Agricultural Design), or more restrictive, Zone, of that certain property in the City of Bakersfield located on the southeast corner of Akers Road and Ming Avenue. This hearing has been duly advertised, posted and notices sent to property owners as required by ordinance. Subject property is 200 feet by 349 feet and annexed as part of Ming No. 5 Annexation. The parcel is surrounded on all sides with commercial zoned property. The proposed zoning is consistent with the general arrangement of land uses as depicted in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and compatible with the zoning and development of adjacent properties. A negative declaration was filed with the County. Clerk and, posted in. the City Hall on June 16, 1973. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the requested C-2-D zoning as submitted. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participation. No protests or objections were received. The applicant was present to answer any questions regarding the rezoning. Mayor Hart closed the public hearing for Council deliberation and action. Councilman Thomas stated that he was advised Mr. Martin. plans to develop this property i~nmediately, and he is very much in favor of having the street widened. He moved that Ordinance No. 2126 New Series amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code by Bakersfield, California, August 27, 1973 - Page 19 325 changing the Land Use Zoning of that certain property in the City of Bakersfield located on the southeast corner of Akers and Ming Avenue, be adopted. This motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker Noes: None Absent: Councilman Rogers Councilman Bleecker commented that the type of request made by Mr. Summers comes before the Council many times. When an owner is attempting to improve his property and through some hang-up of the Board of Zoning Adjustment is required to put in a sidewalk which would be the only sidewalk in the middle of a block, he doesn't see why the Council has to hold this type of hearing. Possibly the ordinance requires the Board of Zoning Adjustment to bring it to the attention of the Council, but he would think the Council's time could be better spent, if the Board of Zoning Adjustment explored the matter a little more in detail. Councilman Heisey stated that the way most of these come before the Council is that the property owner tries to do something to his property without getting a building permit. In substantial changes where a permit is obviously required, in most cases the homeowner knows he couldn't get a permit, but he goes ahead and does it with the idea that hopefully, he will not be caught up with by the City. He is sure there are many encroachments that are never brought to the attention of the City, but those that are should be resolved by the Council. Adjournment. There being no further business to come before the Council, upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, thl me~ng was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. MAyO~ h~ehe ~lt'~ of Bakersfield, California ATTEST: CITY'CLERK and E~-Offic~o Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California 326 Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1973 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M., September 11, 1973. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Elihue Brown of the Union Baptist Church. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas, Absent: None. Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey. Minutes of the Regular meeting of August 27, 1973 were approved as presented. Correspondence. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, communication from Gabriel W. Solomon, Attorney, in behalf of Frank Subriar, dba Jerry's Ambulance Service, regarding City Ambulance Ordinance Study, was received and ordered placed on file. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, communication from Milton M. Younger, Attorney, representing Hall Ambulance Service, regarding application by Frank Subfiat, dba Jerry's Ambulance Ser- vice, was received and ordered placed on file. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, communication from Mr. George Gaekle, Chief Administrative Officer, Modesto, California, advising that due to a poor attendance response, they have cancelled the meeting to be held in Modesto on September 13 to discuss the feasibility of Amtrak services in the San Joaquin Valley, was received and ordered placed on file. Council Statements. Mayor Hart stated he deemed it a privilege to present a Certificate of Appreciation for ten years of loyal and conscientious service to Councilman Robert N. Whittemore, which had been signed by all members of the Council. Councilman Whittemore accepted the Certificate stating he wished to thank the residents of the Seventh Ward who have returned him to Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1973 - Page 2 3 27 office during four elections. He remarked on the changes which have occurred during his ten years in office, stating that the intrusion of the federal and state governments into local affairs has placed a burden on the Council requiring many Council Committee meetings to work out the problems of the City of Bakersfield. Reports. Councilman Whittemore, Chairman of the Business Develop- ment and Parking Committee, reported on the Subject of Approval of Downtown Improvement District Budget for Fiscal Year 1973-74, and approval of Revised Agreement with the Downtown Business Association, as follows: In March of 1969, the Downtown Business Association entered into an agreement with the City of Bakersfield to budget and expend £unds under the City's direction for the promotion of the downtown area. Since the inception of this agreement, the District has provided the City with their annual budget on a calendar year basis, and also submitted quarterly expenditures. After reviewing the District's proposed budget and after a thorough evaluation of its requests, the Business Development and Parking Committee is recommending that the Council approve the 1973- 74 Downtown Improvement District budget. Also, this Committee is recommending approval of agreement with the Downtown Business Asso- ciation with the following revisions: 1. The Downtown Improvement District budget is to be submitted with a separate breakdown from the Down- town Business Association budget. 2. The Downtown Improvement District Budget will be submitted to the City Council on a fiscal year basis rather than a calendar year basis. 3. The agreement provides for automatic continuation, subject to termination by either party. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, the report was adopted and the Mayor was authorized to execute the agreement. Councilman Rogers commented that he would like to have the Downtown Business Promotion District tax levied on a voluntary basis, Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1973 - Page 3 so that members of this group who feel they are not receiving direct benefit, should not be required to pay the tax. Councilman Whittemore moved that the Council approve the first quarterly expenditures of the Downtown Business Promotion District. This motion carried unanimously. Councilman Bleecker commented on Councilman Rogers' state- ment that he would like to have some thought given to taxing certain businesses in the downtown business promotion district on a voluntary basis, stating that this was explored and discussed at some length by the Business Development and Parking Committee at its last meeting. He asked Mr. Hoagland to give the Council a brief resume of his and the Committee's thoughts on the subject. Mr. Hoagland stated that the Committee discussed reclass- ifications which can be accomplished based upon a lower grading, these gradings are all more or less arbitrary, and over the years have been studied by representatives of the downtown group and the City. There is nothing really sacred about a business being in one category or another, it is just the way they came out. The idea of levying the tax on a voluntary basis could be done, but in that event, there would not be a business improvement district, it would simply be voluntary for all people who are benefited. In a recent case, a court in San Bernardino upheld the validity of such an improvement District. The court felt that lacking such improvements either by the City or by the means o£ an improvement district, certain offices might not care to remain in an area which was stagnant. Councilman Whittemore, Chairman of the Business Development and Parking Committee, reported on the Status of Banks and Insurance Companies' Payments of Business License Tax, as follows: This Committee has met and reviewed the efforts of the staff in obtaining business licenses from insurance agents and banks. Banks are constitutionally exempt from local business license taxes in their banking activities. Insurance companies are Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1973 - Page 4 329 likewise exempt for their insurance business, but not where they are engaged in the securities business other than for the sale of variable annuities. At the present time the staff is seeking information from insurance companies aud brokers in order to determine which, if any of them, is engaged in the security sales business. Those found to be engaged in such business will be required to obtain a business license. Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the report was received and ordered placed on file. Councilman Bleecker commented ment does not receive voluntary replies that if the Finance Depart- from insurance companies that are dealing in securities admitting they are doing so, they should pursue it without any further instructions from a Committee of the Council of the Council. There may be certain firms engaging in this type of business who have not reported they are doing so. Councilman Rogers asked Mr. Haynes, Director of Finance, for an explanation of a communication sent to him by Mr. Nathan M. Krevitz relative to an ad by the Prudential Insurance Company for a Systematic Investment Plan, which he would assume would cover the purchase of mutual funds or common stock shares, and also adver- tising a Variable Annuity Plan. In Mr. Haynes' answer to Mr. Krevitz, he stated that this ad covered Variable Annuities with no comment on the Systematic Investment Plan. Mr. Haynes stated that upon investigation, he was advised by the Prudential Insurance Company that this ad refers to an invest- ment portfolio which are the investments necessary to handle the Variable Annuities. Prudential Insurance is licensed to sell Variable Annuities which are exempt from the payment of a city business license. Council Bleecker questioned Mr. Haynes regarding Variable Annuities and Mr. Haynes stated that funds are invested in common stocks and bonds from which are derived earnings which will vary with the portfolio and inflation. It is a way of buying an annuity which will vary with the cost of living. Insurance companies 330 Bakersfield, California, SeEember ll, 1973 - Page 5 invest all premiums so that they are always buying securities, thea?e- fore, they are exempt from the business license tax; however, where mutual fund shares are being sold, they are not exempt. This exemp- tion does not extend to the sale of mutual funds or any other invest- ment plans other than insurance and annuities. Councilman Bleecker asked how many insurance companies have been queried by mail, whether or not they are engaging in the sale of mutual funds or investment plans other than insurance and annuities. Mr. Haynes replied that all companies in the City of Bakersfield have been sent a letter, and on more than one occasion. This is something they have been working on over a period of years. He would like to point out that Bakersfield is not the only city which has this problem, apparently all cities in the state are having the same problem. The Finance Department has been seeking information from the State Insurance Commissioner and under date of September 5, 1973, mailed out the last letter to all insurance companies setting forth certain sections of the laws and the constitution, they all have a bearing on these companies' operations. Replies have not been received from all the companies, about 20 responses have been received, 19 of which indicated they are not in the business of selling mutual funds or investment plans, one sent in a payment. When all these companies and agents have had sufficient time to respond, the City will commence an auditing program. Mr. Nathan Krevitz, stated he is in the insurance business and also in the securities business, and commented on the full page ad taken by the Prudential Insurance Company which he sent to Mr. Haynes, Finance Director. He stated that this insurance company is in the securities business and if Prudential is not required to buy a city license to sell securities, then he should be exempt, also. He Commented on the amount of tax he is required to pay for the downtown improvement district, stating that it is highly irregular and unfair as he does not receive any benefit from this tax. He has informed the director of the Downtown Improvement District that she must send in a report to the National Association Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1973 - Page 6 33_[ of Securities Dealers, which regulates the securities industry, and receive approval from them in writing before any promotion can be conducted involving a securities dealer. Councilman Robert Whittemore, Chairman of theBusiness Development and Parking Committee, reported on the Subject of Modification of Lease Agreement No. 30-67 - Sill Parking Lot, as follows: In March, 1967, the City entered into a lease agreement with Sill Properties, Inc., for the removal of existing building and construction of a parking lot at the northwest corner of 18th and Eye Streets. The lease provided that all revenues after operating costs would go towards reimbursing the City for the total costs of improvement. In February, 1971, the City improvement costs were paid. Since that time, the distribution has been on a fifty-fifty basis after payment of operating costs. Mr. Hugh Sill has requested that since the original investment has been paid, a more equitable distribu- tion would be on a fifty-fifty basis with all expenses being paid before distribution of revenues. In other words, operating costs and taxes be deducted from gross revenues and the remainder be divided on a fifty- fifty basis. If for any reason the revenues from the lot do not beat the operating costs, plus the taxes, the operating costs will be paid first, and the re- mainder goes toward the payment of the taxes. The lot serves many businesses in the adjacent area and would be a loss to the City as well as business- men if not maintained for parking. The Committee recommends that Lease Agreememt No. 30- 67 be modified to pay all expenses from gross revenues, and net revenues then be distributed on a fifty-fifty basis. Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, the report was adopted and the Mayor was authorized to execute the agreement as modified. In response to a question from Councilman Heisey, Council- man Whittemore stated that the taxes and revenues received from the lot are just about at a break-even point. Mr. Bergen stated t~ t the gross revenue is presently approximately $6,500 and under the proposed agreement, after expenses are paid would result in a fifty- fifty split of around $1,370 for the City and the same amount for Sill Properties. Bakersfield, California, September ll, 1973 - Page 7 Councilman Robert Whirremote, Chairman of the Business Development and Parking Committee, reported on the subject of Revision of the Ambulance Ordinance, as follows: The Committee has reviewed the request of Mr. Gabriel W. Solomon regarding revision of Chapter 7.62 of the Municipal Code on Ambulances. The Committee is quite satisfied with the Ambulance Ordinance as it now reads. The Ordinance affords protection to the public which is so necessary in this type of business. Contrary to the expressions made to the Council, the Ordinance does not create a monopoly, but does regulate the number of ambulance services in the City depending upon the need for such services. Past experience has proved that unregulated ambulance service generates a chaotic situation in which the public suffers. To provide for the health and safety of citizens of the community is a primary function of the Council of the City. The Ambulance Ordinance does that. Further, the Ambulance Ordinance is now being attacked in Superior Court as being unconstitutional and invalid. Legal counsel assures us otherwise. If, upon final determination in the Courts the Ambulance Ordinance is invalid, the Committee will review the situation. It is the recommendation of this Committee that no further action be taken on the revision of Chapter 7.62 of the Municipal Code until such time as conditions might warrant changes. Councilman Whittemore then moved adoption of the report. Councilman Strong requested that Mr. Gabriel Solomon be recognized by the Council. Mr. Solomon stated he would like to ask a few questions at this time. It is his understanding that at its August 27, 1973 meeting, the Council referred for study and report to the Business Development Committee, his request in behalf of Jerry's Ambulance Service, for revision of the City Ambulance Ordinance. Mayor Hart replied that this is correct, the chairman has just read the report of the Committee on Mr. Solomon's request. Mr. Solomon then asked when and where the Committee met. Councilman Whittemore responded that the meeting was held last Thursday in the Caucus Room of the City Hall. Councilman Bleecker added that the Council specifically requested the Committee to review the ordinance, which was done. The Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1973 - Page 8 333 Committee in its report recommended that no change be made in the ordinance. If Mr. Solomon's client had not sued the City of Bakersfield, Councilman Bleecker perhaps could have a different point of view; however, the ordinance has been reviewed, the Com- mittee has not recommended to the revised, and the Council will have sion may be that is handed down by Council that the ordinance be to live with whatever the deci- the court. Mayor Hart remarked that Mr. Bleecker's point is well taken, and since a suit has been initiated, and the matter is in litigation, it has been the policy of the Council in the past not to discuss an issue until a decision has been made by the court. Mr. Solomon stated that if he has a ruling from the chair precluding any comments from him, he will feel obliged to obey that ruling, recognizing there are some public officials who, when they are about to be embarrassed are inclined to squelch the speaker. Councilman Bleecker commented that whatever Mr. Solomon is about to say. will not embarra~him, it is not his intention to preclude Mr. Solomon from saying anything he wants to, but he is not going to answer any questions. Mayor Hart stated that he has already indicated to Mr. Solomon that inasmuch as he has presented his case to the Council at previous meetings, and the Committee has now made its recommen- dation to the Council, he would think that Mr. Solomon would accept: the Council's determination until the court decides what course should be taken. Mr. Solomon remarked that he wished to make a precise point and that is he doesn't believe there has been an adequate study of the ordinance, that the purported study is a farce which the Committee is proposing to perpetrate upon the Council as a whole. He would like the opportunity to bring out some points in regards to the purported study of the ambulance ordinance. 334 Bakersfield, Calif~nia, September 11, 1973 - Page 9 Mayor Hart stated he was going to exercise his prerogative as chairman and call for a vote on the motion. Mr. Solomon will have his day in court to determine to his own satisfaction the degree of investigation made by the Council Committee relative to the laws that govern the ambulance business. Mr. Solomon stated it appears to him what is being done is to vote on whether to squelch him and he suggested that the Council vote "straight up" and say "we don't want the public to hear what Mr. Solomon might say." Councilman Whirremote pointed out that he had moved adoption of the report which was unanimously recommended by the Committee. The ordinance was adequately studied, he himself has reviewed the same ordinance a dozen times since he has been a Councilman and he knows the report; however, it Mr. Solomon has to say. what is in it. He is prepared to stand by is not his intention to squelch anything The City is being sued and it has always been the position of the Council in the past to refrain from dis- cussing any issue which is in litigation. Councilman Thomas stated he wanted to make it clear to Mr. Solomon that he intends to support the motion and by doing so he has no intention to squelch his presentation. He does not think this is a fair statement by Mr. Solomon. Councilman Strong stated it would appear to him that each member of the Council has exercised his prerogative to express various remarks to Mr. Solomon, and now the Council, prior to giving him the chance to respond, is going to take a vote to squelch any- thing else he has to say. He just can't see how this Council could be so unfair as to treat a citizen and taxpayer of Bakersfield in this manner. Mr. Solomon stated he appreciates the efforts that have been made by one Councilman to leave the discussion open, but he can read between the lines very clearly and he doesn't think there is any point in addressing the Council further. He asked permission to file a letter with the City Clerk and will leave the judgment on the action of the Council to the public. Bakersfield, California, September ll, 1973 - Page 10 335 Mayor Hart commented the issue and Mr. Solomon will orally if he would like to, on the motion at this time after the vote is taken. that a suit has been initiated on be given time to pursue the matter but he is going to call for the vote and Mr. Solomon can submit his letter sufficient interest was not indicated to hold a show that the people of this valley do not want funds to subsidize an old, slow train. meeting would local or state Vote taken on Councilman Whittemore~s motion to adopt the report carried, with Councilman Strong voting in the negative. Mr. Solomon stated he would file his letter and will not pursue the matter further. He is making no appeal for public sympathy, the public will judge the case on its merits. Councilman Clarence Medders, Chairman of the Budget Review and Finance Committee, stated that this report on Amtrak would be one for information only, as a letter has already been read by the City Clerk indicating the meeting would not be held due to poor attendance response. He reported as follows: Several weeks ago, Mayor Hart received a letter from the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Stanislaus County informing the Council that a meeting has been arranged in Modesto on September 13, 1973i and inviting a representative from Bakers- field to discuss what interest the City has in supporting Amtrak services in the San Joaquin Valley. The proposal has been evaluated by the Committee and i~ is recommended that a representative of this':City be instructed by the Council to attend this meeting in Modesto and once again voice the Council's opposition to Amtrak service in the San Joaquin Valley. Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the~report was received and ordered placed on file. Councilman Bleecker commented that the mere fact that 336 Bakersfield, California, September ll, 1973 - Page ll Councilman Clarence Medders, Chairman of the Budget Review and Finance Committee, reported on the subject of Modification of Agreement No. 86-60 - Appraisal Services, as follows: In July, 1960, the City Council entered into an agreement with Mr. Egan Gost for acquisition and appraisal services. This agreement provided for compensation at the rate of $50 per day for acquisition of right-of-way work and $75 per day for appraisal work. Upon a request by Mr. Gost, this Committee recently evaluated this agreement and found that a rate increase has not been made in nearly 13 years. Furthermore, the City has an agree- ment with Mr. George Olson whereby the City pays $12.50 per hour for his appraisal services. Based on these findings, this Commit- tee is recommending that Agreement No. 86-60 be modified and approved by the Council to provide that Mr. Gost will be compensa- ted at the rate of $75 per day ($9.37 per hour) for acquisition of right-of-way work and $100 per day ($12.50 per hour) for appraisal work. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, the report was adopted and the Mayor was authorized to execute the modified agreement. Councilman Whittemore stated that upon his request some time ago, a list of qualified appraisers was submitted to the Council with the idea that any appraisal work could be allocated so that each appraiser would receive his fair sha~ of City business. Mr. Gost has been doing this appraisal work for years, he seems to have almost a monopoly; however, he is sure there are other quali- fied appraisers in the City of Bakersfield who should be offered the opportunity to perform some of the City's appraisal work instead of concentrating on one or two people. He asked that the staff submit a list of qualified appraisers to the Committee at its next meeting, for review, and then rotate the appraisal work. Councilman Rogers requested Mr. Haynes, Finance Director, to prepare an insert to be enclosed with the property tax bills mailed to City taxpayers the first week in November, reminding them of the Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1973 - Page 12 337 City Council's efforts to reduce the tax rate in the amount of 25~. He asked Mr. Haynes to submit the insert to the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee at his earliest convenience, so that approval can be requested from the entire Council on enclos- ing this insert with the City's tax bills. City Manager Bergen called the Council's attention to a request made by the City Cab Company for an increase in taxicab rates. He pointed out that a public hearing should be held on this matter before the Council at which time testimony can be accepted and the Council can make~ its decision on the matter. Councilman Thomas moved that date of September 24, 1973, be set for hearing before the Council. This motion carried unanimously. Councilman Bleecker asked the news media to announce to the public that the automatic lights in all city tennis courts will be turned on Thursday and be available as early as 4:30 o'clock a.m. and automatically go off at 8:00 o'clock a.m., for those wishing to play tennis in the morning. The (a) Consent Calendar. (b) <c) (d) (e) persons following items were listed on the Consent Calendar: Allowance of Claims Nos. 461-569, inclusive, in amount of $97,416.96. Adoption of Resolution No. 71-73 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making finding that Tentative Tract No. 3683 (Op- tional Design), together with provisions for its design and improvement, is consis- tent with applicable general and specific plans. Adoption of Resolution No. 72-73 of the Council of the City.of Bakersfield making find- ing that Tentative Tract No. 3690, together with provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Application for Encroachment Permit from Bernard W. Anthony, 1104 Planz Road. Application for Encroachment Permit from Haberfelde Ford, 1400 "H" Street. 338 Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1973 - Page 13 (g) (h) Map of Tract No. 3513 Plans and Specifications for Improving of Truxtun Avenue, and 17th Street. the Widening and Chester Avenue Street Right of Way Deeds from Robert & Dorothy E. Lack, Mildred Lazarrago, Jack G. & Evette L. Baker, Johnie Alena Hughes and Mary A. Seals. Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, Items (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the Following vote: Ayes: Noes: None Absent: None Councilmen Medders, Rogers, Bleecker, Heisey Strong, Thomas, Whirremote, Action on Bids. Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, bid of Rossi Bros. for grazing livestock at Sewer Plant #3 for period ending December 31, 1973, was accepted, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, bid of Ellis Equipment Company for 1½ cubic yard John Deere Four Wheel Drive Loader, was accepted, and all other bids were rejected. Deferred Business. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No. 2127 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 17.51.100 of Chapter 17.51 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield concerning Planned Residential Development was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey Noes: None Absent: None Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1973 - Page 14 Upon a 2128 New Series of the Sections 17.25.026 (4); Section 17.27.020 (19), motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No. Council of the Cityof Bakersfield amending adding Section 17.27.020 (2a), amending Section 17.27.026 (1), amending and amend- ing Section 17.31.020 (6) of Title 17 of the Municipal Code concern- ing Uses of Land, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey None None Adoption of Resolution No. 73-73 of the Noes: Absent: Upon of the Council Council of the City of Bakersfield, State of California, calling a Public Hearing to determine whether Public Necessity, Health, Safety or Welfare require formation of an Underground Utility District within designated area. a motion by Councilman Thomas, Resolution No. 73-73 of the City of Bakersfield, State of California, calling a Public Hearing before the Council on October l, 1973, to determine whether Public Necessity, Health, Safety or Welfare require formation of an Underground Utility District within desig- hated area,was Ayes: Noes: Absent: adopted by the following vote: Councilmen Medders, Rogers, Strong, Bleecker, Heisey None None Thomas, Whittemore, Request of Bakersfield Neon Sign Company granted to raise existing 40 foot sign to 69 feet above grade at Bill Wright Toyota, Inc. located at 911 Oak Street. Application has been made by Bakersfield Neon Sign Company to raise existing 40 foot sign to 69 feet above grade at Bill Wright Toyota, Inc., at 911 Oak Street. Pursuant to Section 13.40.080 of the Municipal Code, no permit for sign exceeding height of fifty feet from ground level shall be issued without prior approval of the City Council. 340 Bakeysfield, California, September 11, 1973 - Page 15 Councilman Whittemore stated that in order t© avoid any real or imaginary conflict of interest, he would ask that the record show he will not participate in any discussion, or in the vote taken on this request. Mr. A. E. Stewart of Bakersfield Neon Sign. Company was present to answer questions posed by the Council. After general discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Medders, approval was granted to the Bakersfield Neon Sign Company to raise existing 40 foot sign to 69 feet at 911 Oak Street, by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas, Bleecker, Heisey Noes: None Absent: None Abstaining: Councilman Whirremote Finance Director authorized to advertise for bids for two cabs and chassis. Since placing one unit out to bid, the Fire Department has been granted'contingency funds to replace a second'truck which was taken out of service due to a major breakdown. The staff has requested that the two bids received for the one unit be rejected and that the Finance Director be instructed to re-bid for two cabs and chassis in order to get a better bid. Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the Finance Director was authorized to re-adver- tise for two cabs and chassis, and the two bids received were rejected. Adjournment. There being no further business to come before the Council, upon a motion'by Councilman Whirremote, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 P.M. MA~~~ITY~OFBAKERSFIELD ATTEST: CITY RE and x ~i ~rk--~of the Council of the City of Bakersfield Bakersfield, California, September 17, 1973 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M., September 17, 1973. In the absence of Mayor Hart, the meeting was called to order by Vice-Mayor Whirremote, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Dr. Glenn Puder of the First Presbyterian Church. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Councilmen Rogers, Thomas, Strong, Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders Mayor Hart 11, 1973 were Absent: Minutes of the regular meeting of September approved as presented. Scheduled Public Statements. Mrs. Martin Iribarren of 1104 Oregon Street, addressed the Council stating that she and her husband are being sued for unpaid refuse bills, that they have appeared in court and in her opinion were not given the opportunity to present their case and were treated rudely by the judges. Her husband holds a city license as a gardener and has disposed of the refuse from his residence for the past five years, although paying for the rubbish pick-up in his property tax. She asked why he was billed and why he is being sued. Council Statements. Councilman Medders stated he has been advised of a problem which he would like to discuss with the Council. Oak Place, a short block-long street, is in a residential neighborhood and the property owners are constantly harassed by customers from McDonald's on Oak Street, who park in front of their homes, litter the lawns and intrude on the privacy of the neighborhood. Councilman Medders stated that all city departments are aware of the conditions existing at this location, and moved that this matter be referred to the Public Works Department for study and report back at the next Council Meeting. This motion carried unanimously. 342 Bakersfield, California, September 17, 1973 - Page 2 he feels to their problem. Councilman Thomas commented on the restroom problem at the McDonald establishment on Oak Street and requested the staff to check into whether or not this business is complying with the State Health and Safety Codes. Councilman Heisey stated that in defense of McDonald's, if the Public Works Department would bring any complaints attention, they will be most cooperative and rectify any Councilman Medders commented on an alley behind the resi.- dences on the west side of Olive Street and also back of Sambo's and Josts which is being used as a commercial alley; however, it is actually a residential alley. Lieutenant Meek of the Traffic Depart- ment is aware of the problem, is giving it attention at the present time and will make a report to Councilman Medders, who in turn will keep the Council informed. Councilman Bleecker remarked on the automobiles traveling north and south on Oak Street which are lined up six or seven deep waiting to turn into McDonald's. He suggested that the Police Depart- ment investigate the matter and work out some better way of regulating traffic at this location. Councilman Rogers returned to the statement made by Mrs. Martin Iribarren earlier in the meeting, and asked the staff if any- thing will be done to follow-up on her complaint. Mr. Hoagland responded that this case, as well as others, is in litigation. These law suits were filed in Municipal Court by the City and by means of a stereotyped answer, all defendants con- tested the validity of the City ordinance. costs were assessed because the defendants cases be transferred to another judge. Councilman Rogers stated that if he would not comment further. As a result, additional requested that their this case is in litigation, 343 Bakersfield, California, September 17, 1973 - Page 3 Councilman Bleecker, as chairman of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee, reported on the subject of Reclassification and Change in Job Specifications - Auditorium Stage Manager, as follows: Civic Auditorium and Recreation Manager Charles Graviss, is currently in the process of a major reorganization in the administrative functions of his department. The first change which he has recommended is the reclassification of the Audi- torium Stage Manager position and that the position be lowered to a supervisory capacity at a pay range of $832 to $1014 per month. The Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee has evaluated this request and recommends approval by the Council of the revised job specifications and the reclassification of the Auditorium Stage Manager to a supervisory position at a range of $832 to $1014 per month. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the report was adopted and this was considered first reading of the ordinance. Councilman Bleecker, as chairman of the Governmental Effi- ciency and Personnel Committee, reported on the subject of Consultants for Efficiency Study, as follows: Last month this Committee interviewed representatives of four firms relative to the proposed efficiency study of all phases of this City. All of these firms are exceptionally qualified to conduct this study; however, after considerable deliberation, this Committee is recommending the firm of Arthur D. Little, Incorporated, which is a national firm operating independently out of San Francisco. Mr. Bob Coop would be in charge of the Bakersfield study team. Mr. Coop has indicated that his firm initially prefers to do an overview study of the City which would spell out specific problem areas. During this overview study, the GEPC will be meeting with the consultants for specific direction in areas of study and will welcome suggestions from all Councilmen regarding this matter. The cost of this overview study will be $8,500. At the conclusion of the study, the Cityv~uld be under no obligation to continue working with this company, if the Council so indicates. Once the Council decides on which areas to pursue, it will be free to enter into an agreement with this or any other firm to complete the study. The Committee recommends that the Council name the firm of Arthur D. Little, Incorporated to do an overview study of this City's efficiency, that the Mayor be authorized to execute an agreement to this effect, and that the Finance Director be authorized to transfer the necessary funds from the Council's Contingency Fund for this purpose. Councilman Bleecker moved adoption of the report. Councilman Thomas asked if any time limit had been set for conducting this overview study. 344 Bakersfield, California, September 17, 1973 - Page 4 Councilman Blecker stated that this particular firm suggested the overview study~ but he doesn't recall any actual time element 'being mentioned, however, believes it will probably require 60 to 90 days. This is one of the things the Committee will learn at the time the contract is submitted. This firm impressed the Committee as being extremely pro£essional and removed £rom any thought except to pursue certain areas for facts to submit to the Council. Councilman Strong asked for a brief description of an overview study, that the amount named in the report is considerably lower than the figures initially discussed for conducting an effi- ciency study. Councilman Bleecker stated that this company will be respon- sible and responsive to the Council~ not to the staff or to any other area of city government. The overview study will consist of this company familiarizing itself with City problems, consulting with City departments, learning what their functions are, how many people are employed in certain departments, etc. At the conclusion of the overview study, this company will come tothe Committee and present its estimation of the City's problems, and submit a fixed price for an in-depth study to the Council; however, the City would be under no obligation to continue working with this company. Councilman Rogers remarked that in most studies of this nature the biggest problem is to clearly define what the problems are, and once this is decided, they can make recommendations for solving the problems. Councilman Heisey commented that it was his understanding these efficiency consultants will be working for the entire Council, they are not working for a Committee. The Coramittee on Intergovern- mental Relations is already charged with one area in particular to investigate and is certainly going to be working very closely with this company. Vote taken on Councilman Bleecker's motion to adopt the report carried unanimously. Bakersfield, California,September 17, 1973 - Page 5 Councilman Bleecker, as chairman of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee, reported on the subject of Fire- fighters Education and Incentive Pay Ordinance, as follows: The original intent of the City of Bakersfield's five percent incentive pay ordinance was to compensate fire- fighters with an Association in Arts Degree in Fire Science. It was our understanding that this would be equivalent to an AA Degree with a Fire Science Certi- ficate, which is 42 units of required academic courses and 30 units of course work in the Fire Science Certi- ficate Program. Recently it was brought to our attention that Bakers- field College initiated a program which offers 16 units of credit for work experience. Although we are certainly in favor of such a program, we feel it should be made that the units received for work experience do not apply to the City's incentive pay plan. This Committee has requested the City Attorney to reword the present incentive pay ordinance whereby an employee must successfully complete all required aca- demic courses for a Fire Science Certificate in order to be eligible for an incentive pay increase. Work experience is not to be included in this program. The Committee has met with representatives of the Fire Union on this matter, who have no major disagree- ments on this change. The Committee agreed to keep this subject open for future discussions with possible modi- fications in the future. It is therefore recommended that the Council approve this change, and consider this first reading of the ordinance. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the report was adopted. Councilman Bleecker, as chairman of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee, reported on the subject of Change in Standby Pay Ordinance, as follows: Last July the City Employees' Association requested an increase in standby pay for Sewer Maintenancemen from $3.00 per shift to $5.00 per shift, and that the City discontinue withholding standby pay when overtime exceeds the amount earned for standby. This Committee, along with the staff, has evaluated this request and finds that there is no standard rate in private enterprise or other public juris- dictions which would justify a rate increase at this time. 346 Bakersfield, California, September 17, 1973 - Page The Committee has met with. the Bakersfield City Employ- ees' Association and after discussions with them, it is this Committee's feeling that the present $3.00 per shift, which equals $9.00 per day, is adequate. However, we feel that the Association's request to discontinue withholding standby pay has merit. This $3.00 per shift is intended as compensation for forfeiture of free use of off time hours, not as compensation for emergencies that might arise. Therefore, the Committee has requested the City Attorney to make the necessary changes, and consider this the first reading of the ordinance. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the report was adopted. Councilman Bleecker, as chairman of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee, reported on the subject of Fair Employment Practice Commission (F.E.P.C.) as follows: Early this year, officers of the Western Regional Office of the N.A.A.C.P., the League of United Latin American Citizens, the American G. I. Forum, and the Mexican American Political Association, filed a complaint with the California Fair Employment Practice Commission making vague allegations having to do with discrimina- ting employment procedures in the police and fire departments of 28 California cities, including the City of Bakersfield. As a result of this complaint, the California Fair Employment Practice Commission, for vague and question- able reasons, authorized a Labor Code 1421 preliminary investigation into the hiring practices in the cities of Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Oakland, and Bakersfield. The Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee, along with the staff, has been looking into this situa- tion very.carefully to determine by whom and for what reasons this complaint was filed, and why the F.E.P.C. authorized an investigation. According to statistics, the City of Bakersfield ranks in the top three of the 28 named cities in percentage of minority employees. City records indicate that an affir- mative action employment practice has been followed for many years. The City Council indicated its awareness of this need in 1957 when it adopted a fair employment practice ordinance which has been complied with and which the City will continue to comply with. At a meeting last week with the F.E.P.C. staff, the Committee was informed that the original 28 cities were picked at random by the complainants, and that Bakers- field was included without any specific complaint by any individual working for the City of Bakersfield or one who had applied for employment with the City. According to the F.E.P.C. staff, these four cities were selected on a geographical and size basis. The Committee is not satisfied with the answers received from the F.E.P.C. staff, as they have requested volumes of information from the City which would take weeks to compile. At the conclusion o£ the meeting last week with the F.E.P.C. staff, the Committee suggested that a letter 347 Bakersfield, California, September 17, 1973 - Page 7 be written to Pier Gherini, Chairman of the Fair Employ- ment Practice Commission, and inform him that the City is willing to cooperate on this matter; however, feels that the investigation should be limited and more specific in nature. Also, if necessary, a member of the Committee would be willing to meet with the F.E.P.C. to arrive at a better understanding of the entire issue of this investigation, if this is the pleasure of the Council. This Committee welcomes any suggestions that the members of the Council may have regarding this matter. Councilman Bleecker moved the adoption and intent of the report, but not to preclude any discussion by the members of the Council. Councilman Beisey asked the City Attorney what responsi- bility the City has to cooperate with the F.E.P.C., it is obvious from the beginning that they are only on a fishing expedition in Bakersfield, hoping to uncover something that would indicate the City had been guilty of wrongdoing. He asked if there wasn't some way to terminate the investigation at the onset. City Attorney Hoagland stated that a 1421 investigation is predicated upon a complaint of an actual unlawful employment practice or where one may have occurred. Since there was a com- plaint filed, they are going on the premise that there may have been unlawful hiring practices in the City of Bakersfield and the Commission ordered the investigation. In doing so, the Commission has subpoena powers. Councilman Heisey commented that the City Attorney is evidently endorsing the approach reflected in the report and Mr. Hoagland stated he is, however, he is not saying that the City will accept the findings. The staff assured the Committee that they were not attempting to pick on Bakersfield as such, but nevertheless, the Commission did order the investigation. If they had the staff, they indicated they would still be compelled to investigate the other 28 cities originally named, and conceivably, will get around to doing so at a later date. Bakersfield, Californ~ , September 17, 1973 - Page will improve regarding the hiring of minorities correct the present situation. Councilman Strong commented that there were a couple of points in the report thai he would like to clear up. As he has stated earlier and as indicaled in the report, it was the regional office of the N.A.A.C.P. and not the local branch, that initiated this request. Apparently this inquiry deals with only two areas of the City, the Police and Fire Departments, and he would like to say publicly thai he respects the attitude of the Chief of Police regarding the hiring of minorities. He has made his position very clear and his department has done everything possible to attract minorities for positions in the Police Department. He can't say the same thing for some of the other departments; however, he does have confidence in the City staff who are directly concerned with the hiring of minorities, and hopefully, in the future, Bakersfield in some areas, and report (d), Ayes: Vote taken on Councilman Bleecker's motion to adopt the carried unanimously. Consent Calendar. The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar: (a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 570 to 647, inclusive, in amount of $55,610.36 (b) Plans and Specifications for construction of a Storm Drain System in portions of Akers Road and Planz Road. (c) Application for Encroachment Permit from Haberfelde Ford, 1400 "H" Street. (d) Grant of Easement for storm drain purposes from Filsco Realty Corporation (e) Plans and Specifications for Parking Lot at California Avenue Park. Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, Items (a), (b), (c), (e) of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the following vote: Councilmen Rogers, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders Noes: None Absent: None 349 Bakersfield, California, September 17, 1973 - Page 9 Action on Bids. Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, low bid of Kern County Equipment Company for a 3-5 Ton Galion Tandum Roller was accepted and all other bids were rejected. The Council discussed the award of contract for Modifica.- tion of Traffic Signals at Various Locations. Councilman Heisey commented that the low bid from a Fresno Company is just a few hun- dred dollars lower than the bid of the local firm and he would imagine the local sales tax would almost make up the difference in the two bids. He asked if the Council was under any obligation to award the bid to the Fresno firm, when the low bid only exceeds the other bid by such a small amount. Mr. Bergen stated the staff usually analyzes the sales tax, but other than that, it is felt the City is under a legal obli- gation to award a contract to the low bidder. Councilman Reisey suggested that action on the bid be deferred for a week and the staff submit a report to the Council after analyzing the two bids. Mr. Frank Casey of the Purchasing Division of the Finance Department, explained that 1% is generally all the City feels it can justify in awarding a bid to a local vendor. Recently a similar case occurred in another part of the State where the City failed to award the bid to the lowest qualified bidder. The bidder took it to court and won the case. Ten invitations to bid on these Traffic Signals were issued, only two were returned. In Checking, Mr. Casey was informed that there are only three local bidders who specialize, in this type of electrical work, one of which was not interested, and the other was unable to schedule any additional work at this time. Mr. Bergen stated it isn't unique to receive only two bidso for Traffic Signals, also, much of the cost is reflected in the labor for the construction of the signals. The whole purpose of bidding is to attract the lowest possible bid. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Electric for Modification of Traffic Signals at was accepted, the other bid was rejected, and ized to execute the contract. low bid of Safety Various Locations the Mayor was author- 35(} Bakersfield, California, September 17, 1973 - Page 10 Adoption of Ordinance No. 2129 New Series approving annexation of a parcel of unin- habited territory to the City of Bakers- field, California, designated as "Stockdale No. 8", and providing for the taxation of said territory to pay the bonded indebtedness of said City. Upon a motion by Councilman Thoams, Ordinance No. 2129 New Series approving annexation of a parcel of uninhabited territory to the City of Bakersfield, California, designated as "Stockdale No. 8", and providing for the taxation of said territory to pay the bonded indebtedness of said City,was adopted by the following vote:: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Councilmen Rogers, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker:, Heisey, Medders None None Reception of petition requesting install- ation of four-way stop sign at intersection of Oswell and Columbus. A petition containing the signatures of 210 residents in the area requesting installation of a four-way stop sign at inter- section of Oswell and Columbus was Councilman Rogers pointed out that hazardous one, and recognizing the filed with the City Clerk. this intersection has been a fact, the Council placed funds in the 1973-74 budget for the construction of traffic signals at this location. There are stop signs on Oswell Street, but none on Columbus, and upon receipt of the petition last Thursday, the Public Works.Department installed the four-way stop signs at this location pending the construction of traffic signals. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, the petition was received and ordered placed on file. Approval of Annexation boundaries designated as Panoramic Heights No. 4 Annexation. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, annexation boundaries designated as PanoramicHeights No. 4 Annexation were approved, and referred to the City Engineer and City Attorney for referral to LAFC. Approval of Job Specifications for position of Community Center Leader. Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, job specifications for the position of Community Center Leader were approved. Bakersfield, California, September l?, 1973 - Page ll Hearings. This is the time set £or public hearing before the Council for hearing protests by persons owning real property within terri- tory designated as "Stine No. 3", proposed to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield. This hearing has been duly advertised and property posted. Notices have been sent to all property owners as required by law. No written protests from persons owning property in this territory were filed with the City Clerk. Petitions containing the signatures of ll6 persons representing the majority of homeowners and residents of the Wayne Reeder Ranchos, who are not city residents and do not reside within the proposed annexation, were filed with the City Clerk. These petitions expressed objections to the proposed mobile home zoning and the M-1 zoning and asked the Council to deny the proposed annexation so that they can remain free of the City and free to continue the present usage of their land. Vice-Mayor Whirremote stated he has had at least six telephone calls from people who live in the Wayne Reeder Ranchos tract, the Council will certainly want to hear any arguments pertain- ing to the annexation, but he would like to point out this hearing is for the purpose of hearing protests by persons owning real pro- perty in territory designated as "Stine No. 3". The Wayne Reeder Rancho development is not within the proposed annexation. In ta~ng with these people, he has been told that they do not want the pro- perty developed, they ride their horses on this property; however, this could not be considered a legal reason for the Council to con- sider, because the owners of the property requesting the annexation are entitled to develop it to its highest and best use. Concern has been expressed by the same people that the California Legislature may change the annexation laws whereby at some future date this inhabited area will become an island within the City of Bakersfield and the City can lawfully annex the area with or without an election. However, this matter has been before the legislature several times and has failed to pass. He is sure the Council will hear designated spokesmen in the Wayne Reeder Rancho group, but he would ask that they re£rain from being repetitious. 352 Bakersfield, California, September 17, 1973 - Page 112 Vice-Mayor Whirremote opened the hearing for public parti- cipation, and invited those persons who were present to speak in opposition to the annexation to address the Council. Mr. Kenneth M. Byrum, attorney, representing Pioneer Mercantile Company who owns 20 acres within the area proposed to be annexed, asked the Planning Director to explain why the City is annexing this 568 acres. Mr. Sceales replied it was being done primarily because 73% of the owners of the property have requested it. Mr. Byrum read a recent ruling of the Supreme Court which reversed an Appellate Court ruling that the uninhabited territory annexation statutes of the State were unconstitutional. Mr. Byrum asked why the Wayne Reeder Rancho tract and the area in the upper left hand corner of the map were excluded from the boundaries. Mr. Sceales responded he couldn't say why the one area was left out, but the Reeder Tract was excluded because this small inhabited area. would have controlled the 568 acre uninhabited annexation if an election were held. Mr. Byrum concluded his statement saying that this annex- ation as a whole is not within the spirit of the law, although it may be technically correct. The boundaries of this annexation are unreasonable and he would therefore request the Council to disapprove this annexation. Mr. Allan McFarland, attorney, representing residents living both in and out of the area, filed a petition with the Council signed by three property owners of the area totalling approximately 6 to 8 acres within the boundaries of the proposed annexation, requesting to be excluded from the annexation. Mr. McFarland stated he represents a group of the people residing within the Wayne Reeder development who moved out there to raise their children and livestock. These people will not be happy if the proposed area is annexed and subdivided, and if it is changed from an agricultural zone to the various zonings recommended by the Planning Commission. On the basis of fairness, the Council should 353 Bakersfield, California, September 17, 1973 - Page i[3 give serious consideration to the position of the residents of this tract, and put back into government the credibility that has been lost because of trying to use the means to achieve the end without any consideration for the people affected. This is not an orderly it is a patchwork, jerrymandering act on the part of development, the Council. Mr. Kenneth Hastin, Company, stated this corporation moved into the area proposed annexed three years ago and established a manufacturing plant. is not present to protest the annexation, but wishes to point that in the County this company was able to obtain a M-3 zoning and with the plans for their present structure and their future plans for expansion, feels that a M-3 or its equivalent in the City of M-2 is a proper zoning for the area. This company supports the annexa- tion, but does not support and it is only urging that by the Council. attorney, representing Smither's Oasis to be He out Mr. Sceales stated that at the time the zoning was being considered, the staff felt the existing use of Smithers-Oasis would. fall within the M-1 zone. He still feels that it would, however, they do have plans for expansion and their. attorney is of the opinion that it would be better to go to an M-2. The Planning Commission has initiated readvertising this for hearing at the Commission level and it will come back to the Council. Mr. Ellis Andrews, 3716 Harris Road and Jimmy F. Barron, 5416 Stine Road, who also spoke for Art Lee of Rt. 3, Box 1237, and signed the petition filed by Mr. Allan McFarland on their behalf, addressed the Council and all expressed the desire to be excluded from the annexation and not become part of the City. Councilman Whirremote stated the Council is present to hear the objections of any property owner within the designated area. The purpose of the hearing is not to listen to protests from persons residing outside of the area. He stated he was not going to permit a parade of people up to the microphone who wuuld be Council is aware that they would like to have this and do not want it annexed, but the owners of this repititious, the remain vacant land land do want to bring the reclassification of the zoning to M-.1 there be a reconsideration of the zoning 354 Bakersfield, California, September 17, 1973 - Page 14 it into the City in order to take advantage of the City's fine services. He then permitted Mrs. Gayle Sanders, a resident of the Reeder Tract, to express her opposition to the Council~ She stated that she was speaking for many other people in the same tract who were also present in the audience. They are opposed to the annexa.- tion and she asked the Council to terminate the proceedings. The people bought in the Wayne Reeder Tract for its rural atmosphere, so that their children could keep busy with their 4-H projects and their horses and other animals. The Council just does nor under- stand how the.people in this area feel, they do not want to introduce city life into their area. This is not a democracy, as the majority is not being permitted to rule. Councilman Thomas took exception to Mrs. Sanders' statement. He is representing the Sixth Ward, he is not representing anyone in the County. The residents of the Reeder tract are not the majority, they do not ~ave the advantage of the Council. No one present speaking being represented by any member of in favor of the annexation, Vice-- Mayor Whirremote closed the public portion of the hearing for Council deliberation and action. Councilman Heisey remarked that there has been a great deal of talk regarding fairness, and as chairman of the Water and City Growth Committee, he would like to say that out of all fairness to the City's annexation policy, there should probably be an agricul- tural boundary within the City limits to extend at least five miles beyond the inhabited area, in order to have an orderly development of the community. The City stood still for almost 50 years without any annexations and during that period of time a great deal of develop- ment occurred around the City in the County area. Within the last six or eight years, the City has done a great job in increasing the boundaries of the community in an orderly manner. He stated that he certainly supports the annexation. Bakersfield, California, September 17, 1973 - Page 115 Councilman Rogers asked the City Attorney to briefly revlew the high points of the annexation law. Mr. Hoagland stated there .are two annexation laws, one is the so-called uninhabited law, which is defined by the State Legislature to be any territory which has less than 12 registered voters. Territory with more than that number of voters requires an election within the area. Basically, once the boundaries are set by LAFC, it comes to the Council for a public hearing, at which time the landowners within the area may register protests. In order to terminate the annexation, the protests must be equal in value to over 50% of the land and improvements, although the Council upon its own motion may terminate it. The Council may delete property from the annexation, it may not add territory. In the deletion of property, the boundaries must be redrawn and returnled to LAFC for its approval. Councilman Rogers asked Mr. Sceales how the proposed zoning would affect those people in the contiguous area who do have animal. s, horses, chickens, rabbits, etc. Mr. Sceales stated anyone living in the island outside of the annexation would be controlled by the zoning laws of Kern County, the City zoning would not affect them in any way. Councilman Rogers commented most important rights that anyone has, that property rights are the and these people have a right to use their property the way they wish as long as it conforms to the law. It is a very difficult decision, but it must be kept in mind that this also extends to the property owners who have requested the annexation. He asked the staff if there would be any disadvan-. rage to the individual property owner within an island if this pro-. posed area were annexed. Mr. Bergen stated he would doubt it very much, one of the reasons the owners of this property were anxious to annex is the availability of sanitary sewers, as the treatment plant recently con- structed by the City includes this drainage area. 356 Bakersfield, California, September 17, 1973 - Page 16 Councilman Strong stated he was disturbed that perhaps tire people located within this island will be affected and some recog- nition has been given to this by virtue of the. fact that they were notified of the hearing. They have complained that they were not permitted to voice their objections at the Planning Commission hearing, and it is only through the graciousness of the vice-chair.- man that they have been permitted to speak here tonight. He feels these people should be given an avenue by which they can be heard and express their views. Mr. Sceales commented on Councilman Strong's statement that the people in the island were notified of the annexation hearing. He stated that the notices sent out by the staff were for the Planning Commission hearing on the zoning, and the notices the City Clerk sent out were for the zoning upon annexation hearing to be held later on this evening. Notices were sent out by both departments to those persons owning property within the area notifying them that there was a proposal to annex this property to the City. Notices were sent out by both departments to those persons residing within 300 feet of the property under consideration for zoning upon annexation. Councilman Heisey stated the Council has never refused to. recognize any group who wishes to speak, but in this case attorneys representing certain groups in and out of the propesed annexation area have been permitted to speak, also individuals have been heard by the Council. In his opinion, they have been very well represented and have presented their views very well. He then moved adoption of Resolution No.74-73 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring that a majority protest has not been made to the annexa- tion of territory proposed to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield designated as "Stine No. 3". After general discussion, Councilman Strong offered a substitute motion to continue the hearing for further consideration at a later date to be determined by the staff. Council- man Whittemore pointed out that the public portion of the hearing has been closed. Mr. Hoagland stated the Council could take it under 357 Bakersfield, California, September 17, 1973 - Page 17 advisement, but would have to vote to reopen the hearing to the Public. Councilman Reisey remarked that he couldn't see what there was to be gained by deferring action on this annexation.. The Coun- cil will just have to stand up and be counted either for or against it. All that would be done is hold off the inevitable for another week or two, these people have been represented by an attorney, their opinions have been well expressed, and there is no point in prolonging the Council's decision. Vote taken on Councilman Strong's motion to continue this hearing until a later date failed to carry by the following roll call: Ayes: Councilmen Strong, Bleecker Noes: Councilmen Rogers, Thomas, Whittemore, Heisey, Medders Absent: None Vote taken on Councilman Heisey's motion to adopt Reso- lution No.74-73 declaring that a majority protest has not been made annexation of "Stine No. 3", carried by the following roll to the call: Ayes: Councilmen Rogers, Strong, Thomas, Whirremote, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders Noes: None Absent: None Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Ordinance No. 2130 New Series approving annexalton of a parcel of uninhabited territory to the City of Bakersfield, California, designated as"Stine No. 3", and providing for the taxation of said territory to pay the bonded indeb- tedhess Ayes: Noes: Absent: of said City, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Councilmen Rogers, Thomas, Whittemore, Heisey, Medders Councilmen Strong, Bleecker None 358 Bakersfield, California, September 17, 1973 Page 18 The Council reconvened after a five minute recess. This is the time set for public hearing before the Councll for hearing objections to include within the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District certain territory designated as "Stine No. 3". This hearing has been duly advertised. Vice-Mayor Whittemore declared the hearing open for public participation. No protests or objections being received, the public hearing was closed for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution No. 75-73 annexing "Stine No. 3", to the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Rogers, Strong,Thomas, Whirremote, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders Noes: None Absent: None This is the time set for public hearing before the Coun- cil to Zone Upon Annexation to an "A" (Agricultural) or more restric- tive, Zone; to an M-~-D (Light Manufacturing-Architectural Design) or more restrictive Zone; to a C-1-D (Limited Commercial - Archi- tectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone; and to an MH (Mobile- home) or more restrictive, Zone, those certain properties in the County of Kern generally located 1/4 mile west of Stine Road, easterly to Wible Road and between existing city boundary located 1/4 mile north of Pacheco Road, southerly to 1/4 mile south of Harris Road, and designated as "Stine No. 3 Annexation". This hearing was duly advertised and the property posted. Notices were sent to all property owners as required by law. This proposed zoning encompassing 568.26 acres of land, is very similar to the existing County zoning and is in general conformity to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. A negative declaration was filed with the County Clerk and posted in the City Hall on August 17, 1973. 3,5 9 Bakersfield, California, September 17, 1973 - Page 19 The Planning Commission proposed to initiate a change of zone on several parcels of property within the annexation to bring said p~operties in conformity with recent County zone changes, and with additional zoning upon annexation requests received after the zoning was advertised. The Commission recommends approval of this zoning upon annexation as advertised and as set forth above. Vice-Mayor Whirremote declared the hearing open for public participation. Speaking for his client, Smithers-Oasis, Mr. Ken Hastin asked that the proposed M-1 zoning be deferred for this property until such time as the Council and the Planning have read- vertised the zoning to M-2 as requested by his client. City Attorney Hoagland advised the Council that it could go ahead and zone the remainder of the property excluding those parcels which Mr. Sceales has stated will be readvertised for public hearing before the Planning Commission at its October meeting. It will be necessary to draw new boundaries, but that can be done. No one voicing opposition, Vice-Mayor Whittemore closed the public hearing for Council deliberation and action. Council- man Thomas moved that Ordinance No. 2131 New Series amending Section 17.12.020 of Chapter 17.12 (Zoning Map) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, excluding those parcels which are currently proposed to be readvertised by the Planning Commission for a public hearing. This motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Rogers, Thomas, Strong, Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders Noes: None Absent: None This is the time set for public hearing before the Council on Resolution of Intention No. 889 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, declaring its intention to order the construction and installation of required curb and gutter, sidewalks, driveway approaches and necessary drainage facilities in proposed 360 Bakersfield, California, September 17, 1973 - Page 20 Public Improvement District No. 889; describing the District to be benefited by said Work and to be assessed to pay the cost and ex- pense thereof; determining that bonds will be issued to represent assessments to be levied; and fixing the time and place for hearing protests and objections to said Work and the extent of the Districl: to be assessed, or both, and giving notice thereof. This hearing has been duly published and notices sent to all property owners within the area. Two written protests were filed in the City Clerk's office prior to the hearing, eleven written protests were filed with the City Clerk this evening in the Council Chambers. Vice-Mayor Whittemore declared the hearing open for public participation. Mr. Fred Stone, 2612 Dracena Street, asked questions regarding the cost to be assessed against individuals, the cost for those people who already have sidewalks, how the cost would be divided up among those property owners living on the corners, etc. Mr. Dale Hawley, Deputy Director of Public Works, explained that the Public Works Department had made an estimate for the entire district in the amount of $25,500. It will be recommended to the Council that the City participate in a portion of the cost for this district in the amount of $7,500, which would cover the engineering and legal services, the removal of trees and shrubs and retaining walls in the right of way, and other miscellaneous items. The Dis- trict's share would then be $18,000 based upon an estimated cost. An estimated cost for a typical 60 foot interior lot would be $510.00. Some of the properties have curb and gutter and would only need sidewalk and driveway which would cost $240.00. Construc.- tion of curb, gutter and sidewalks for a corner lot would cost $930.00. Mr. Hawley answered all questions of the Council and those of Mr. Stone, who stated that most of the people on Dracena Street were opposed to being included in thisproposed Public Improvement District. 361 Bakersfield, California, September 17, 1973 - Page 21 Mrs. Bessie Miller, 2608 Cherry Street, stated she is very much in favor of the construction of curbs, gutters, and sidewalk, if will improve the appearance of the street and take care of the poor drainage of water, especially in front of her residence. Mr. Ron Waddell, 2624 Dracena Street, opposed the pro- posed public improvement District, stating there is no drainage problem on Dracena Street, most of the people living on Cherry Street signed the petition for the improvement, which amounts to a majority in one area forcing the expense on a few people in another area. Mrs. Pauline O'Hare Pascoe, representing O'Hare properties, stated this property is not developed and she requested that it be excluded from the proposed improvement district. Mrs. Argyl J. Alexander, 2709 Dracena, stated that she a~d two or three of her neighbors would appreciate having the sidewalks constructed because it would improve the property and increase the assessed valuation. No further protests or objections being received and no one else in the audience speaking in favor of the proposed Public Improvement District No. 889, the Vice-Mayor closed the public hearing for Council deliberation and action. It was brought out by Mr. Hawley that 62.5% of the property owners signed the petition for formation of the district, 13 letters of protests were received, one of which signed the original petition, which would reduce the percentage to 60.65% of the property owners who are still in favor of the public improvement District. After a general discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Resolution No. 76-73 of the Council of the City of Bakers- field ordering the work in Public Improvement District No. 889, and directing the City Clerk to post and publish Notice Inviting Bids therefor, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Rogers, Strong, Thomas, Whirremote, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders Noes: None Absent: None Bakersfield, California, September 17, 1973 - Page 22 Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Resolution No. 77-73 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield ascertaining and deter- mining the General Prevailing Rate of Per Diem Wages and General Prevailing Rate for Legal Holidays and Overtime Work to be paid in the matter of Public Improvement District No. 889, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Rogers, Strong, Heisey, Medders Noes: None Absent: None Adjournment. cil, at 11:30 P.M. ATTEST: Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker, There being no further business to come before the Coun- upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the meeting was adjourned ~ICE~YO~R o;~he City of ~a~k~field CITY'CLERK a erk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield, California, September 24, 1973 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M., September 24, 1973. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by the Pledge of Allegience and Invocation by Councilman Walter Heisey. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Absent: Mayor Hart. None Minutes of the regular meeting of September 17, Councilmen Strong, Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers approved as presented. Correspondence. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, 1973, were request from the City of Petaluma for financial assistance in lawsuit regarding its Residential Development Control Policy, was referred to the Inter- governmental Relations Committee for study and recommendation back to the Council. A communication was received from the Women's Division of the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, requesting the Bakersfield City Council to define "hard-core pornography", and proceed to establish a city ordinance banning such pornography in the City of Bakersfield. Councilman Heisey asked the City Attorney to corament, stating that after the District Attorney and his assistant addressed the Council on this subject several weeks ago, it was his understand- ing the Council could not take any action on pornography. Mr. Hoagland responded that as was explained by the Dis- trict Attorney, local option means state-wide option, it does not mean the City of Bakersfield, the State has pre-empted the field. Remarking that this group should receive an answer, Councilman Heisey moved that the Mayor and City Attorney draft a reply to the communication setting out the City Attorney's comments as stated to the Council. This motion carried unanimously. 364. Bakersfield, California, September 24, 1973 - Page 2 Councilman Rogers addressed his comments to Mr. Hoagland stating that it has been brought to his attention that some of those persons who did not pay the additional refuse collection assessmen1; will be prosecuted under the~w, while others have had their accounts turned over to a local agency for collection. He asked for an ex- planation of why some accounts were selected for litigation and others were not. number of difficult Mr. Hoagland stated that basically there were such a large delinquent accounts involved, that it would have been very to file law suits on all of them. For that reason 996 accounts between $5.00 and $16.00 were turned over to Sears for collection. His office is handling 130 cases above $16.00 and has collected $1500 on ten of these cases. Presumably his office will get around to prosecuting all of these cases sooner or later. Councilman Rogers commented regarding the Downtown Improve- ment District stating that several businessmen who have licenses to sell securities are not permitted to participate in any promotions which are not first cleared by the National Securities Association. In order to prevent their licenses from being placed in jeopardy, by being required to participate in the downtown promotions, he moved that the Business Development and Parking Committee make a study of this matter and report back to the Council in 30 days. This motion carried unanimously. Councilman Bleecker named Mr. John Fortenberry, 2323 Spruce Street, as his appointee to the California Avenue Park Neighborhood Facility Citizens Advisory Committee to replace Mr. William F. (Lucky) Malone, who has resigned. Councilman Medders stated that last week he had asked the Traffic Authority for a report regarding conditions existing on and around Oak Place. However, sufficient information has not as yet been ascertained to make a report to the Council tonight. A firm answer should be in his hands by next week. Mrs. Sidwell, who lives on Oak Place, stated that the traffic counter placed on this street by the Engineering Department is not in the right place to record all the traffic. Mayor Hart asked the Director of Public Works Bidwell to look into this matter. 365 Bakersfield, California, September 24, 1973 - Page 3 Reports. Councilman Rogers, as chairman of the Auditorium-Recrea- tion Committee, reported on the Subject of Transfer of Funds from the Council Contingency Fund to California Avenue Neighborhood Facility Fund as follows: During the budget deliberations for fiscal year 1973-74, $39,290 was budgeted for capital outlay purposes at the California Avenue Park Neighborhood Facility. As you know, this building is nearing completion and equipment must be ordered prior to opening the doors to the public. The Council's Auditorium-Recreation Committee has reviewed these proposed expenditures with the staff, and after careful con- sideration, it ~s been able to cut the costs from the proposed $39,290 to $29,406. We have been assured amount should be adequate; however, if it will evaluate future needs as they arise. by the staff that this is not, this Committee Attached to this report is an itemized list of equipment to be purchased. We would like to assure the Council that this is strictly basic equipment needed for this facility to function properly. We have been informed by the California Avenue Park Neighborhood Facility Advisory Committee that a fund raising effort is being made in the community in order to buy additional recreation equipment. We feel that this is a worthwhile endeavor and back this concept wholeheartedly. This committee is recommending that the Council approve the transfer from its Contingency Fund the sum of $12,093 into Fund 711-7100 and $17,964 into Fund 711-8300, and instruct the Finance Director to begin bid proceedings as soon as possible. For the Council's information, the $39,290 was added to the Council Contingency Fund. Expenditure of this money will not affect the regular $150,000 for contingencies or the $200,000 set aside for an efficiency study. Councilman Rogers stated that he would like to make a short statem~ before he moved to take action on this report. 366 Bakersfield, Californ~, September 24, 1973 - Page 4 This project was started some five years ago, when the first request was made to HUD for federal funds. I was not on the Council at that time. I am not speaking as the chairman of the committee, but I am speaking as a Councilman and a member of the Committee. I am opposed to this concept of requesting federal funds because every time you do and you receive these funds and use them, you give up a measure of your freedom to aot as a local community. I am opposed to this. The money has been spent, the building has been built, some $120,000 in addition to the $320,000 from the fed- eral government was received from the County and $40,000 from the City. All this has been spent in the construc- tion of the building. It im a beautiful building, it is very impressive. The potential there for recreational facilities and other activities is tremendous. But the City now is saddled with the cost of salaries and main- tenance of this facility and according to one of the strings which was attached to our taking this HUD grant, was that we have to continue to maintain and operate this; facility for 20 years. It is obvious that the revenue that the City can derive from the facility, again because of the strings attached to the grant, is limited as to how much revenue it can generate. The revenue will not be sufficient to match the outgo that will be required from the City to maintain this facility. My only further comment before I move on this is that the local people in this area have stated that they are willing to provide the recreation equipment, and this is commendable. I admire them for this, but I want to say this to Mr. Graviss and Mr. Mike Dutton, who is the new Director out there, that it will not be fair to come back to the taxpayers of Bakersfield for any more money as we are going to be spending money to maintain this facility. There is of course a side benefit to the City in that it will provide a lot of recreational facilities for the people out there. You can't really put a dollar and cents value on that, because it will prevent other costs to the City that may occur were these recreation facilities not available. This is certainly a plus and I guess in taking a long look at it, I feel that now that the money has been spent, the facility is there, it would be foolish not to spend this additional money and equip it properly, to open it up for business, because portions of the building have already been rented to three separate groups which will provide some revenue for the City. So I think it is only wise that we go ahead and vote to spend this additional money and prepare this facility for opening. Councilman Rogers then moved that the Council adopt the report and authorize the Finance Director to transfer the funds as stated therein. 367 Bakersfield, California, September 24, 1973 - Page 5 Councilman Bleecker questioned Councilman Rogers regarding the amount of money collected by the Citizens Advisory Committee and Mr. Rogers referred the question to Councilman Strong. Councilman Strong stated that to his knowledge there was $350.00 in this fund. Councilman Bleecker reminded Councilman Strong that prior to his election, and as a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee for this facility, he had appeared before the Council numerous times and stated that this fund raising effort was an on- going thing, and now that the building was a reality, the Committee and the people in the area were really going to make an effort to solicit funds and help furnish the building. He asked what was planned along this line. Councilman Strong replied that the Committee and the people he has talked to felt that they were not going to place themselves in a position to be laughed at by this Council or anybody else. The Civic Auditorium as it exists right now operates at a deficit, and the taxpayers pick up the tab without any complaint whatsoever. It is felt that the basic furnishing for this building should be provided from the general fund the same as the basic furnishings were provided for the Auditorium. He can say here and now that they are organized and only waiting to see what this Council does tonight with respect to the allocation requested by Mr. Rogers. They do not want to take the position as being threatened into raising money. Councilman Bleecker stated it was his understanding that some of the people leasing space in this building were willing to furnish their own office furniture. Mr. Graviss, Auditorium-Recrea- tion Manager, stated K.C.E.O.C. did agree to furnish their own offices, but the Committee felt it would be better if the whole building were furnished with the same type and quality of furniture.. Then too, if an agency decided to move from the facility at a later date, the offices would be without furniture. During discussion, Councilman Rogers explained that a number of items covering recreation equipment had been deleted from the original Bakersfield, California, September 24, 1973 - Page 6 budget request. Councilman Strong stated this points out that some of the equipment listed here would be n~cessary to run certain pro- grams in the building and those items that were not basic were cut out. The items deleted from the budget are the ones which his Committee had committed itself to raise additional funds to purchase, possibly in the amount of $10,000, in order to carry out certain recreational programs for the center. Councilman Bleecker asked if the staff would be using recreational equipment from some of the other City recreational budgets for the California Avenue Neighborhood Facility. Mr. Grav~Lss stated this facility will have it~ own recreational budget, but they do anticipate using existing equipment until private funds are raised for additional equipment, and in order to get the program started. Councilman Heisey stated that he has personally gone through the proposed budget for the equipment for the building and in his opinion, equipment in the amount of $7,736.00 can be deleted, which would reduce the appropriation to $21,670. This would include two of the refrigerators, eight 4-drawer file cabinets, one lounge table, eight lounge chairs, a manual typewriter instead of an elec-. tric typewriter, and 200 folding chairs. He is not questioning the recommendation of the Committee, but this amount is an important saving. He then offered a substitute motion that the proposed budget be reduced by the amount of $7,736.00. Councilman Rogers commented that the Committee had discussed every one of the items and deliberated whether they were required. After making a tour of the building and learning what programs are planned, it was felt that this budget request is not out of line. Councilman Thomas remarked that he wouldn't disagree with Councilman's Heisey's comments regarding the electric typewriter and the 200 folding chairs, but he had toured the facility this afternoon with Mr. Graviss, and as far as the refrigerators are concerned, one would be used by the nurses to store vaccines, etc., and two of them would be in the kitchen areas tohold certain items for the day care 369 Bakersfield, California, September 24, 1973 - Page 7 centers. In his opinion, the three refrigerators are absolutely necessary, and possibly a fourth one would be needed. Councilman Bleecker asked for justification of the proposal to purchase 19 file cabinets for 11 offices. Mr. Graviss stated there were ll to 13 offices actually, and there would be day time and evening usage it was proposed to provide two file cases it was anticipated that by agencies, therefore, for each office. During discussion, it was brought out that to this point the offices rented at the present time would have only day-time usage. Councilman Bleecker commented on the proposed 500 folding chairs as requested in the budget. Mr. Graviss stated that it was felt a better price could be obtained if 500 chairs were purchased at one time. Even with the tables in use, it was felt that some side chairs will be needed, however, thisnumber can be reduced to 400. Councilman Heisey asked Councilman Medders, as a member of the Committee, if he were satisfied with the list the way it was recommended to the Council. Councilman Medders stated that originally he was one of the persons who was against using City money for this purpose, but on the other hand, the building will be leased out, and it does seem that it must be furnished for the tenants. He has some reservations about it, but conceded the City must go ahead and complete the job. He feels much the same as Councilman Rogers does about it. Councilman Whirremote asked if the proposed chair would be a padded chair similar to those in use in the Auditorium. Mr. Graviss stated that is the type of chair they had anticipated putting into the building. These chairs have a ten year guarantee and with the hard use they will receive at this building, if anything happens to the basic structure of the chair, the company will replace it. Councilman Bleecker questioned buying 500 padded chairs for the use they will receive in this facility, he is not convinced that they need to purchase 19 four-drawer file cabinets, after the explanation given by Mr. Graviss. He sees a need for the three refrigerators, he cannot say anything about the lounge chairs and 370 Bakersfield, California, September 24, 1973 - Page 8 the electric typewriter. He is very doubtful about how much will be forthcoming for the recreational equipment from the Committee. It has already been explained by Mr. 6raviss that it is the intention of the City to provide recreational equipment whether private funds are forthcoming or not. He then strongly urged the Council to cut as much from this specific request as it can. He stated he thinks Councilman Heisey's motion is appropriate and well in line with the current needs for this facility, excluding recreation. Councilman Strong stated that the agencies planning to rent space in this facility will need adequate equipment. The Conunittee did an excellent job of cutting where it could, it was very serious about cutting down to the basic equipment needed to operate the building. He went on to say that he is a little,disappointed that so much time is being devoted to talking about the spending of $29,000 when this Council doesn't hesitate to spend thousands of dollars outside of that area. Councilman Bleecker commented that he doesn't see why the, City has to buy and stock pile certain equipment based on vague promises from certain agencies that they may'want to operate at night some time in the future. He can see where many of these things are needed. It is his intention at any time to ask questions when he feels it might save a tax dollar somewhere along the line. If at some point in the future more equipment is needed by some of these offices, as one Councilman he will be perfectly willing to use the funds to do so, particularly as a savings has been made at this time. Councilman Rogers stated that some of the items Councilman Heisey deleted in his substitute motion should be kept in the budget, as they are actually needed if adequate use is to be secured from this facility. After discussion, it was concluded that ll file cabi- nets would suffice at this time and that the facility would be able to operate with a minimum number of 400 chairs. 371 Bakersfield, Californ~ , September 24, 1973 - Page 9 Councilman Heisey stated he had been conferring with Council- man Medders and he would recommend that basically $3,350.00 be deleted from the proposed budget and amended his motion to reduce the budget by that amount, which would set the budget for equipment for the building at $26,056.00. Councilman Thomas reminded the Council that the black and brown people living in the area are also taxpayers in the City and he thinks it is a disservice by the Council not to furnish this building for the use of the minority community. He stated that some of the racist attitude of the Council has been displayed very vividly here this evening. Councilman Rogers stated that as a member of the Committee he would be willing to go along with Councilman Heisey's substitute motion if he would specifically restate it to the effect that 100 chairs and 8 file cabinets be deleted from the budget, which would give Mr. Graviss specific directions regarding the purchase of equipment. Councilman Bleecker stated that he would assume Councilman Thomas' remark had been directed at him since he had been critical of this budget, and he wanted it made a matter of record that there is nothing in any remark that he has made from his seat tonight about race in any shape, fashion or form. He has taken this budget and asked questions that he thought were appropriate. If Councilman Thomas can read something else into his remarks he would like him to explain what he has in mind. Councilman Heisey added that he was only concerned that Councilman Thomas was referring to him when he made his remark. Because a Councilman is critical of a budget, he hopes he is not going to be classified as a bigot or racist. He doesn't consider himself to be one, as he was one of the Councilmen who supported Councilman Stiern's proposal in the beginning for the construction of this building. He has tried to see that all matters in connection with this center were conducted in a business-like manher, and he doesn't feel that furnishing offices in advance of being rented is particularly business-like. 372 Bakersfield, California, September 24, 1973 - Page 10 Councilman Thomas stated he has a lot of faith in the Committee that evaluated the list of equipment to be purchased. He assured Councilman Heisey that he was not referring to him as a racist, however, Councilman Bleecker's constant criticism of this building since it was first planned has caused him to feel that he is a racist, and he has background information to prove it. If this facility had been built in the white neighborhood that Councilman Bleecker represents there would have been no opposition from him. Councilman Thomas stated he is not opposed to reducing the budget, he will support Councilman Heisey's motion as amended. Councilman Bleecker remarked that he has always felt people should do what they say they will, and he has heard so many times that private funds would be raised for participation in this project. The only thing he can say now about being called a racist and that there is evidence to prove that he is one, is that the Councilman at the end of the table is a liar. Councilman Strong stated there are some intelligent tax- payers out in that area and no matter how much the Council talks, he thinks people recognize that the Council does manifest its feelings. He knows that just recently over $85,000 was spent to put new carpet- ing in the Civic Auditorium, alfhough he does not mean to infer that the Auditorium does not need new carpeting. Mr. Graviss just mentioned that there are 3,000 chairs waiting to be used af the Auditorium, they are not used all the time, just there if someone wants to use them. The Council has spent many millions of dollars building the Civic Auditorium which the people in his area helped support without getting any benefit from it whatever. Now they are asking for a very basic allocation to furnish the building in his area. Anything that will be given them will be appreciated, but he wants the Council to know here and now, that the people out there see them for what they are, they know what is being done to them, and they just aren't satisfied with the Council. Councilman Bleecker commented thaf he has been associated with the Civic Auditorium a lot longer than Councilman Strong has, and the need is there. People and taxpayers from all areas of the 373 Bakersfield, Californ~ September 24, 1973 - Page ll City are welcome cerned, it was worn out, years that he can recall, Council. to use the facility. As far as the Carpet is con.- it had been in the budget for at least four before the replacement was approved by tile Councilman Whittemore inquired of Councilman Heisey if it was his intention that the $3,338.00 deleted from this budget would remain in the contingency fund for the purchase of more equipment in the future, if it was decided that was what he had in mind, Council to transfer Roll call motion to adopt the it was needed. Councilman Heisey said but it would require an action of the it. vote taken on Councilman Heisey's substitute report and reduce the budget in the amount of $3,338.00 for equipment for the California Avenue Neighborhood as follows: Councilmen Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker, Roberts Facility, carried Ayes: Heisey, Medders, Noes: Councilman Strong Absent: None Consent Calendar. The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar: (a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 648 to 782, inclusive, in amount of $97,714.41 (b) Grant deed for alley from Hugh Curan and Robert K. Straus. (c) Grant Deed from Robert K. Straus, Berdell L. Dickinson and Nildus Dickinson (d) Plans and Specifications for Resurfacing Portions of South "K" Street, Antonia Way and Dorian Drive. Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, Items (a), (b), (c), and (d) of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Strong, Thomas, Whirremote, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers Noes: None Absent: None Deferred Business. Councilman Thomas suggested that before the Annual Confer- ence in San Francisco, the Council discuss the proposed resolutions to be considered at the Mayors' and Councilmen's Business Sessions, so that direction can be given by the Council to the voting 374 Bakersfield, California, September 24, 1973 - Page representatives of the City of Bakersfield. He made a motion that Mayor Donald M. Hart be designated as voting representative and that Vice-Mayor Robert N. Whittemore be designated to act for the Council as alternate voting representative at the League o£ California Cities Conference to be held in San Francisco on October 21-24, 1973. This motion carried unanimously. Councilman Heisey stated he has strong feelings on several of the proposed resolutions and the Council should definitely allot time to discuss and vote upon these resolutions. Councilman Rogers agreed that the Council should have the opportunity to express its opinion on these resolutions and give directions to the voting representatives on the feelings of the full Council. Councilman Bleecker commented that he was going to make a motion that the City of Bakersfield extricate itsel£ from the League of California Cities but he is going to save that for later. Councilman Whittemore stated he thinks it is extremely important that the Mayor and Council go through every resolution to be considered by the League. It may be necessary to hold a special Council meeting to analyze these resolutions in order to direct the voting member of the Council how to proceed at the League Conference. He does not think that one member should take it upon himself to vote for the entire City without some instructions from the Council. Councilman Rogers asked that the staff provide the Council with copies of the proposed resolutions prior to the next Council meeting. Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Ordinance No. 2132 New Series of the City of Bakersfield, California, amending Section 3.18.095 of Chapter 3.18 of the Municipal Code concerning Firemen Incentive Pay was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Strong, Thomas, Whirremote, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers Noes: None Absent: None 375 Bakersfield, California, September 24, 1973 - Page 113 Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No. 2133 New Series of the City of Bakersfield amending Sec~on 3.18.154 of Chapter 3.18 of the Municipal Code concerning Stand-by Compensation for Sewer Maintenancemen, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Strong, Thomas, Whirremote, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers Noes: None Absent: None Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance No. 2134 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 3.18.060 of Chapter 3.18 of the Municipal Code, concerning reclassi- fication of Auditorium Stage Manager and adding Community Center Leader, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Strong, Thomas, Whirremote, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers Noes: None Absent: None Adoption of Resolution No. 78-73 authorizing Auditorium-Recreation Manager to execute Agreements of lease of designated portions of the California Avenue Park Neighborhood Facility, approving form of such lease, establishing certain rental rates and requir- ing annual report on the use of the facility. Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, Resolution No. 78-73 authorizing Audiforium-Recreation Manager to execute agreements of lease of designated portions of the California Avenue Park Neighbor- hood Facility, approving form of such lease, establishing certain rental rates and requiring annual report on the use of such facility, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Strong, Thomas, Whirremote, Bleecker, Heisey Medders, Rogers Noes: None Absent: None 376 Bakersfield, California, September 24, 1973 - Page 14 Hearings. This is the time set for public hearing before the Council to Zone Upon Annexation to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling), or more restrictive, Zone; to an M-1 (Light Manufacturing) or more restrictL- ive, Zone, and to an M-2 (General Manufacturing) or more restrietive, Zone, those certain properties in the County of Kern located within the west half o~ Section 15, T. 30 S., R. 27 E., between Fraser Road on the north and Southern Pacific RR Tracks on the south, and desig- nated as "Stockdale No. 6" Annexation. This hearing has been duly advertised and the property has been posted. Notices were sent to all property owners as required by law. These properties, containing 312.87 acres, involve two owner-- ships; the zoning requested is the same as it is presently zoned in the unincorporated area, and is Use Element of the General Plan. with the County Clerk and posted in general conformity to the Land A negative declaration was filed in the City Hall on August 17, 197'3. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this zonlng upon annexation as advertised and as set forth above, and with the further recommendation that the "D" design overlay be applied to the M-1 property since this parcel is contiguous to R-1 property. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participa- tion. No protests or objections were received. Mr. Chuck Tolfree, representing Tenneco-West, was present to answer any questions. Mayor Hart closed the public hearing for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Ordinance No. 2135 New Series amending Section 17.12.020 of Chapter 17.12 (Zoning Map) of the Municipal Code, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Strong, Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers Noes: Non~ Absent: None 377 Bakersfield, California, September 24, 1973 - Page 15 Noes: Absent: This is the time set for public hearing before the Council to Zone upon Annexation to an "A" Agricultural, or more restrictive, Zone, that certain property in the County of Kern, located north- easterly of the intersection of Monitor Street and Calcutta Drive, designated as a portion of Pacheco No. 5 Annexation. This hearing has been duly advertised and the property posted. Notices were sent to property owners as required by law. One written protest has been received in the City Clerk's office. On September 5, 1973, prior to the public hearing before the Planning Commission, Mr. Escamilla requested the Planning Direc- tor to withdraw his request for "A" (Agricultural) zoning on his property located within Pacheco No. 5 Annexation. Mr. Escamilla agreed with the prior recommendation of the Commission to zone his property R-1 (One Family Dwelling). A negative declaration was filed with the County Clerk and posted in the City Hall on August 17, 1973. The Planning Commission at a public hearing held on September 5, 1!)73, recommended subject property be zoned upon Annexation as R-1. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participa- tion. No protests or objections being received and no one speaking in favor of the proposed rezoning, the public hearing was closed for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Whitte- more, Ordinance No. 2136 New Series amending Section 17.12.020 of Chapter 17.12 (Zoning Map) of the Municipal Code, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Strong, Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers None None 378 Bakersfield, California, September 24, 1973 - Page 16 This is the time set for public Hearing before the Council of the City of Bakersfield relative to taxicab rates within the Cil:y. It is proposed that the rates or fares charged the public shall be as follows: Fifty cents for the first 1/4 mile or flag drop 10~ per 1/7 mile traveled thereafter $6.00 per hour waiting time $1.50 minimum charge whenever passengers with more than three parcels are involved in a ride. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici- pation, and asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak in approval of the proposed taxicab rates. Mr. Phil B. Bradford, repre- senting the City Cab Company, the Yellow Cab and Black and White Cab Company, stated that his position is one of basic economics, his costs have risen since the last increase was granted in 1971, and are con- tinuing to rise and he is asking for an increase in order to be consistent with the rates charged elsewhere and to continue to operate. Councilman Thomas commented that it has been his experience that the cabs operated by Mr. Bradford's companies are not in very good repair. Mr. Hoagland stated that a report from Lt. B.H. Meek of the Traffic Division made on August 22, 1973, would indicate that ~ir. Bradford has always been cooperative and generally keeps his fleet of vehicles in good repair. Mr. Bradford stated his cabs were inspected quarterly by the Police Department and he has always complied with any requests for repairs immediately. Councilman Bleecker stated he would assume that the cabs were in operable condition, he has a Police Department. Mayor Hart closed the great deal of confidence in the public hearing for Council deliberation and action. After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, an increase in rates was granted, and this was considered first reading of the ordinance. Adjournment. · no co e mo on Council of the City of Bakersfield