HomeMy WebLinkAboutJAN - MAR 1973254
Bakersfield, California, January 8, 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., January 8, 1973.
In the absence of Mayor Hart due to illness, Vice-Mayor
Whittemore called the meeting to order, followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance and Invocation by Herman Lippert, Minister of the
University Avenue Christian Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: Mayor Hart
Minutes of the regular meeting of December 18, 1972 were
approved as presented.
Vice-Mayor Whittemore presented a retirement plaque to
Mr. William H. Burnett, Sanitation Superintendent, who has com-
pleted 23 years of service with the City of Bakersfield and retired
effective January l, 1973.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. Stanley Simrin, Attorney, addressed the Council, and
read a lengthy statement regarding the Council's adoption of
Resolution Key '73 at meeting of December 18, 1972. He stated he
is appearing to ask that the Council rescind the resolution and
establish a policy within the Council that whenever a matter of
religious significance is brought before it for consideration, it
be placed on the agenda in advance so that
affected members of the community can make
realizes that the resolution was passed in
all interested and
their wishes known. He
all good conscience and
without any ill-will on the part of any members of the Council,
but the fabric of society may suffer from the hasty and ill-advised
acceptance of this resolution. As a Jew, this resolution was
offensive to him, he is not a radical, but a member of the estab-
lishment, being a practicing lawyer. He has served on the Board
of Directors of his synagogue for the past 11 years. People of the
Jewish faith recognize the importance of Christianity and the
relevance of Christ to Christians, but Jewish teachings are different
and have helped them to survive for 5,000 years. The phrase is
heard often that this is a Chrisiian nation, which causes people of
Jewish faith to cringe. This country is a nation for all religions,
Bakersfield, California, January 8, 1973 - Page 2
255
which makes it the most noble experiment devised by man, and makes
it separate and distinct from every other country from the beginning
of time. The good offices of the City Council should not be used
to change the ways of Jews or people of any faith, but that is
exactly what Resolution Key '73 seeks to do. He again urged the
Council to rescind the resolution.
Mr. Dan Speare stated he is here tonight in an official
capacity representing Temple Beth El. A special Board of Directors
meeting was held,at which time they voted unanimously to officially
support Attorney Simrin's presentation before the City Council
tonight concerning the Key '73 resolution and to request that it
be rescinded and any further action of a religious nature be
presented to the people by reasonable public notice in advance of
any vote to be taken by the City Council.
Mr. David Willard, representing Unitarian Universalist
Fellowship of Kern County, stated that they vigorously object to
the Council's recent endorsement of Key '73 and view the action
as an alarming violation of the constitutional separation of church
and state. They strongly support freedom of religious expression,
and they therefore call upon the
from such actions in the future.
Reverend Ross McGuire,
Council to scrupulously refrain
Minister of the College Heights
Congregational Church, stated that he would like to add his voice
to those who have just spoken. He feels that the Council's action
in adopting Key '73 is unappropriate to a body elected to represent
all of its constituents fairly. He deeply respects those involved
in the effort relative to Key '73, their good intentions are
unquestioned in his mind, but he strongly feels that official City
action on this resolution was a mistake. He does not doubt but
that the Council meant well in passing this resolution, but the
point is, an area of deep feelings has been touched raising a very
real question of religious bias at a level where religious plurality
should be carefully respected. He urged the Council to rescind
the resolution on the part of those people who profess another
faith than Christianity.
256
Bakersfield, California, January 8, 1973 - Page 3
Councilman Rees stated that although he is overwhelmed
by the eloquence of Mr. Simrin, he would not personally subscribe
to his first suggestion that the Council rescind the resolution.
This would be negative, as the first part of the Key '73 program
is already over, it ended January 6th, although it is presumably
a program without end. He would support Mr. Simrin's second
suggestion to forewarn the Council and the public whenever anything
of religious significance is to be considered by the Council. He
pointed out that at a recent meeting upon a motion by Councilman
Bleecker the Council adopted a Minute Order that any legislative
matter be placed on the agenda so that the Council could study it
before taking any action. He feels that anything touching on the
subject of religion should likewise be placed on the agenda for
study before action. He then moved that the Council be placed in
the position of taking that action.
Councilman Rucker raised the point that he feels Council--
man Bleecker's previous motion would cover this, and he cannot see
why if is necessary now to make another motion to that effect.
Councilman Heisey stated that he, too, found Mr. Simrin's
comments most eloquent, however, he feels more was read into the
resolution than actually exists. He pointed out that this same
resolution is being adopted by cities and counties throughout the
State, including the City of Los Angeles. Two gentlemen stopped
by his office today and gave him a copy of an official Jewish
publication of Southern California which contained a picture of
Los Angeles Mayor Sam Yorty presenting a resolution to the officials
promoting a Jewish cause, which was very similar to the resolution
adopted by the Council promoting a Christian cause. If any group
comes before the Council, regardless of what religion they represent,
and asks the Council to support them in any matter which is going
to upgrade the moral fiber of the community, he is certain that
the Council will go along with it. The resolution was adopted by
the Council in good faith and he agrees with Councilman Rees that
it would be untimely to repeal the resolution at this late date,
the purpose of the resolution has been accomplished.
Bakersfield, California, January 8, 1973 - Page 4
Councilman Rucker agreed that the Council had only the
intentions in adopting Resolution Key '73, the Council is
best
interested in the good of the community as a whole, and as stated
by Councilman Rees, the resolution should not be rescinded at this
time.
Councilman Bleecker stated that he would think the motion
he made at a previous meeting would encompass almost everything
that would be brought before the Council; however, he can see
nothing wrong in re-affirming the Minute Order that was passed
previously, that matters of a serious nature should be brought to
the Council's attention prior to a Council meeting. He will vote
in favor of Councilman Rees' motion. He repeated that it certainly
was not the intention of the Council to offend any particular group
by adopting the resolution. At the time this resolution was passed,
it was the intention of the Council to lend its support to some-
thing that the members thought was good.
On behalf of Mayor Hart, Councilman Whittemore made the
following statement which he feels would possibly summarize the
action taken by the Council:
Adoption of Resolution on Key '73 by the Council
was not intended to offend or ask any person to
give up his religious beliefs. We were calling
on people who are Christians to be better Christians,
and I can assure you that this body believes in
the fundamental freedom of religion as set forth
by the Constitution. Rest assured that the
government of the City of Bakersfield does not
intend to, nor will it ever, interfere in the
religious beliefs and the religious teachings
of any religious segment of the City.
Councilman Rees restated his motion that any matter
involving anything controversial should be placed on the agenda
for Council consideration prior to any Council meeting.
Councilman Medders stated that in his opinion the Minute
Order previously adopted covers everything except matter of an
emergency nature.
Councilman Rucker commented that he thought Councilman
Bleecker's motion provided that any resolution, no matter what it
Bakersfield, California, January 8, 1973 - Page 5
pertained to, should be placed on the agenda prior to a Council
meeting~ to permit Council study before any decision is made. He
stated he would make that into a substitute motion. Councilman
Rees stated he would accept the substitute motion.
Councilman Bleecker pointed out that the City Attorney
had informed the Council that at times emergency ordinances and
other legislation of an emergency nature must be passed~ and may
not have even come up except a day or two prior to the Council
meeting. He feels that what would be appropriate at this time
and would satisfy the fears of the gentlemen who addressed the
Council~ would be that his previous motion should stand, but that
this Council should adopt a special Minute Order that any resolutions
passed by this Council in the future or considered by this Council
in the future~ having to do with religion per se, should be placed
on the agenda for the perusal of the public~ the press and the
Council itself~ before being considered
Councilman Thomas stated that
Bleecker had brought out a valid point,
at the meeting.
in his opinion, Councilman
that sometimes there is
emergency legislation on which action must be taken immediately.
He suggested that copies of any proposed legislation be given to
the Council, laid aside until the end of the meeting so that the
members could give the matter some thought~ and acted on at that
time.
City Attorney Hoagland stated that the Council at this
time is not really voting on a resolution, it is voting on a
Minute Order. If a matter comes up pertaining to City business,
it means that the Minute Order must be modified in order to take
any immediate action when it is necessary to meet certain deadlines.
Vote taken on Councilman Rees' motion~ with amendment by
Councilman Rucker, carried unanimously.
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, communication from
members of the Kern County Board of Supervisors expressing its
regrets at the untimely passing of Chief Jack Towle~ was received
and ordered placed on file.
Bakersfield, California, January 8, 1973 - Page 6
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Heisey,
communication from Mr. and Mrs. Robert Leek, 309 Monterey Street,
which they requested be read aloud and filed in the City's records.
was received, ordered placed on file, and referred to the Police
Department for report back to the Council. The communication
called attention to the constant burglaries and vandalism occurring
in the East Bakersfield area.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, communication from
Estal G. Starr, 235 Irene Street, commending members of the Council
who voted against the plea for Amtrak passenger service in the San
Joaquin Valley, was received and ordered placed on file.
A communication was read from Mrs. Peggy Lenhard,
Secretary-Treasurer of the Bakersfield Ice Skating Club, pointing
out that due to the activities being scheduled at the Civic
Auditorium, the ice area is becoming.less available for public
ice skating use. This skating club would like to start investiga-
tion relative to having a permanent ice arena in Bakersfield such
as other cities are getting. They feel that this would be a very
fine addition to the community and would appreciate it if the
Council could assure them that there would be no opposition to any
company desiring to install an ice rink in this City.
Councilman Rees stated that he would encourage an endeavor
like this, that the City has been put to considerable expense to
offer ice skating because it was thought that was what the community
wanted.
City Manager Bergen commented that he has talked to the
Auditorium-Recreation Manager and he feels that from a staff stand-
point, this proposal should be supported, and would recommend to
the Council that this group be encouraged to proceed with a permanent
ice arena in Bakersfield.
Councilman Bleecker commented that actually there is no
way the City of Bakersfield could oppose private enterprise from
building a public arena, and moved that the letter be referred to
the Council Auditorium-Recreation Committee for recommendation.
If there is any way that the rink at the Civic Auditorium can be
used more often, it would be desirable.
260
Bakersfield, California, January 8, 1973 Page 7
Councilman Thomas asked Mr. Graviss, Auditorium-Recreation
Manager, if the rink was utilized by the public when the ice had
been made available for skating. Mr. Graviss replied that it
depended on the time of the year, the best time is in the fall and
winter, it is not well patronized in the summer months, but it
would be if the rink was open for skating in January, February and
March.
Vote taken on Councilman Bleecker's motion to refer the
letter to the Council Auditorium-Recreation Committee carried
unanimously.
Vice-Mayor Whittemore permitted Mrs. Jill Haddad to be
heard at this time. She explained that in Japan they have a flag
system which entails small children carrying flags back and forth
across cross walks on their way to school, and in her opinion could
solve the problem of safe conduct on crosswalks in the City of
Bakersfield. Over a month ago she attempted to correspond with
the Mayor of Wakayama, Japan, concerning this flag system, but
has not had a reply to her letter.
She commented on the hazards existing at Renegade and
Wenatchee due to speeding~ and the need for a stop sign at that
intersection. She feels the flag system could be given a try at
this intersection, or other intersections in the City where the
Police Department has stated that stop signs are not warranted.
Councilman Rees commented that he does not believe any-
one should scoff at the suggestion to use flags to aid small
children in crossing busy intersections, and moved that the Mayor
be requested to correspond with the Mayor of Wakayama regarding
the flag system in use in Japanese cities.
Councilman Thomas commented that if Mrs. Haddad came
down to the City Hall on Thursday morning at 9:00 A.M., she could
probably talk to some officials from Japan who will be visiting the
City on that date.
Vote taken on Councilman Rees' motion carried unanimously.
Bakersfield, California, January 8, 1973 - Page 8
261
Council Statements.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Mr. Robert Watson
was re-appointed as a member of the Board of Directors of the
Greater Bakersfield Transit District
January,
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
for a four year term expiring
1977, by the following roll call vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
None
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees,
Mr. Lindsay Pryor was
re-appointed as
Committee for an eight year term expiring January 3,
following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
a member of the Citizens Auditorium-Recreation
1981, by the
was re-appointed as member of the Miscellaneous Departments Civil
Service Board for a four year term expiring December 31, 1976, by
the following vote:
Ayes:
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None ~
Absent: None
Councilman Heisey referred a petition to the City Manager
for study, from residents on Pasatiempo Drive and the first block
of Panorama Drive requesting that street lights be installed in
the alley between these streets.
Councilman Heisey complimented the staff for its response
to his request to landscape the median islands on Union Avenue. The
staff worked out an agreement with the State Division of Highways
to re-install the irrigation system to water tree wells and certain
planting, and have painted the median islands green to blend in with
other median islands of the community. He is very well pleased with
the improvement and appreciates the efforts made to reconstitute
Union Avenue as an attractive street.
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Rees, Rucker,
None
None
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Mr. James F.
Flinn
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Thomas, Whittemore
Bakersfield, California, January 8, 1973 - Page 9
Councilman Rucker asked the City Manager to check on the
feasibility of installing street lights on Potomac between Collins
Way and Kirby Street in his Ward.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 1948 to 2102,
inclusive, in amount of $95,878.20.
(b) Claim for damages from Mr. A. L. Heckman
(refer to the City Attorney).
(c) Claim for damages from Jo Ellen Parker,
121 McCord Avenue (refer to City Attorney).
(d) Application for an Encroachment Permit
from the Bakersfield Californian.
(e) Application for an Encroachment Permit
from Donald F. Stewart, 100 Flower Street.
(f)
Plans and Specifications for construction
of Automatic Irrigation Systems for Median
Island Planters in New Stine Road from
Ming Avenue to Wilson Road and in Ming
Avenue from New Stine Road to Ashe Road
(approve plans and specifications and
authorize Finance Director to advertise
for bids).
(g)
Acceptance of Work and Notice of Completion
for Contract No. 58-72 for improvement of
Ming Avenue between New Stine Road and Ashe
Road and improvement of Ashe Road between
Ming Avenue and North City Limits.
(h) Street Right of Way Deed from Simonsen-
Lemons Development Company.
(i) Grant Deed from the Pacific Telephone and
Telegraph Company.
(j)
Street Right of Way Deed from Teachers
Insurance and Annuity Association of
America.
(k) Street Right of Way Deed from Harold and
Judy Davis.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b), (c),
(d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j) and (k) of the Consent Calendar,
were adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield~ California~ January 8, 1973 - Page l0
263
Authorization granted Finance Director
to transfer funds for Map and Field
Survey of the City Pistol Range.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, the Finance Director
was authorized to transfer funds in amount of $800.00 from Account
No. 11-510-6100 to Account No. 11-655-4100, to provide funds
necessary to pay for Parcel Map 697 and Field Survey of the City
Pistol Range, by the following roll call vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
Forms for
other bids were rejected,
the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees,
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, bid of Moore Business
annual contract Printing Special Forms was accepted, all
and the Mayor was authorized to execute
51 items for annual
contract Printed Forms were awarded to Kern Printing Company, 47
items to Hoven & Company, and 48 items to Printing Center, and the
Mayor was authorized to execute the contracts.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, low bid of Target
Chemical Company for Agricultural Chemicals was accepted, all
other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute
the contract.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker,
bid of O. B. Nuzum Tire Service for annual contract Automotive
Tires and Tubes was accepted, and the Mayor was authorized to
execute the contract which has been bid by the County of Kern
jointly with the City of Bakersfield.
The Council engaged in a discussion regarding the con-
struction of Tennis Courts at Siemon Park. The low bid exceeds
the budgeted amount by approximately $4,000, and the Council has
the option of deleting the lighting system and awarding the contract
for the tennis courts only, or it can award the contract including
the lighting system and transfer $5,000 from the Council Contingency
Fund to make up the deficit.
Bakers£ield, California, January 8, 1973 - Page ll
Councilman Rees stated inasmuch as the Council does have
this option and the lighting system will provide better lights than
are installed in other tennis courts in the City, he would move
that the appropriate transfer of funds be made from the Council
Contingency Fund so the lights can be installed at the same time
as the courts are built.
Councilman Bleecker questioned Director of Public Works
Bidwell regarding the number of courts which would be built and
asked if it were not unusual to receive only two bids on a project
of this type. Mr. Bidwell stated two courts were to be built, and
invitations to bid were sent to four paving contractors and four
electrical contractors in the City.
Councilman Bleecker asked if
better than the lights on other courts
replied that is a fair statement. In the past they have had com-
plaints from tennis players that the lighting systems in other City'
courts are inadequate and they hope this one will satisfy those
complaints. All other tennis courts have been examined, but he
cannot say to what extent the lighting systems have been upgraded.
It is the matter of budgeting the funds to improve the lighting
systems.
Councilman Bleecker commented that since this Council
has had a number of hassles regarding spending and exceeding the
budget in some instances, to build the courts at this time would
be sufficient, and he offered an amendment to Councilman Rees'
motion to approve the construction of the courts only and to install
the lights at such time as the Council sees fit to budget the funds
for this purpose.
Councilman Rucker commented that the Public Works Depart-
ment is undoubtedly satisfied with the bids submitted, or Mr.
Bidwell would have recommended that they be rejected and the
project be re-advertised.
Mr. Bidwell stated this is correct, the staff has examined
the bids quite closely as they are over the budgeted amount. In
connection with the electrical portion of the bid, the City's
General Services Superintendent has estimated that the material
alone would cost very close to $4,000, if the City were to purchase
the material, which would indicate it is a good bid.
the lights were substantially
in the City, and Mr. Bidwell
265
Bakersfield, California, January 8, 1973 - Page 12
Councilman Medders remarked that at the rate costs are
increasing, he does not think the Council can afford to wait
another year to do the electrical work, to his knowledge there
are no lighted courts in that area of the City, and it seems to
him that the people have waited a long time for this tennis court,
and there is no need to do it half-way.
Councilman Heisey stated there has been a lot of dis-
cussion on this, and he would move that the matter be referred to
the Council Auditorium-Recreation Committee for evaluation and
report back to the Council with its recommendation next Monday
night.
Councilman Bleecker stated he would like to have a
breakdown of the cost of the lights, the courts, any back stops
which may be needed, any figures that would present the total cost
of building everything that is pertinent to the two tennis courts.
Mr. Bidwell stated that this information can be prepared easily
enough.
Councilman Rees went on to say that at budget sessions,
$14,000 was budgeted for these tennis courts based on previous
experience, and at that time it was not broken down item by item.
He has been told that the contractor would be willing to bid only
on the tennis courts and have the lighting system bid separately
by an electrical contractor. He is going to accept the recommenda-
tion of the Public Works Director that this is a good bid. He
doesn't want to refer it back to a committee to hold it up for a
period of time, or wait to build the lighting system some other
year after the price has gone up. He feels that the Council should
keep its promise to give the people in the neighborhood of Siemon
Park two tennis courts complete with lighting.
Councilman Bleecker stated it would appear to him that
they are being asked to spend $4,000 in excess of the budget for
this project and he will vote in the negative to construct it with
lights at this time.
Director of Public Works Bidwell pointed
is included in the bid for the construction of the
so they will be complete for play.
out that fencing
tennis courts,
'266
Bakersfield, California, January 8, 1973 - Page 13
tennis
feels it would be prudent to let
mittee study the bid to see that
deal.
Councilman Heisey remarked that he would like to see the
courts constructed just as much as Councilman Rees, but he
the Auditorium-Recreation Com-
they are getting the best possible
Councilman Rees commented that he doesn't think the
Recreation Committee can add anything by studying the project
which will improve on what has already been given to the Council
by Public Works and Purchasing Departments.
Councilman Bleecker withdrew his substitute motion, and
vote taken on Councilman Heisey's substitute motion to refer the
matter to the Auditorium-Recreation Committee for study and report
back to the Council, tailed to carry by the following roll call
vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey~ Rucker
Councilmen Medders, Rees, Thomas, Whittemore
None
For a point of clarification, Councilman Rees stated
that his motion specifically was that the Finance Director be
authorized to transfer $5,000 from Account No. 25-510-6100 to
Account No. 25-680-9400 to cover the amount of the bid exceeding
the budget~ and his intent was to award the bid to Griffith Company,
reject all other bids and authorize the Mayor to execute the con-
tract. Roll call vote taken on this motion carried as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey~ Medders, Rees~ Rucker, Thomas,
Whirremote
Noes: Councilman Bleecker
Absent: None
Councilman Heisey stated he would have liked to have
studied this project further and possibly rejected the bids and
readvertised the project, but as this was not possible~ he would
support the project and therefore voted in favor of it.
Councilman Medders stated he supported the motion as he
felt the price would increase if it were not built at this time.
Councilman Rucker stated he thought it was a good idea
to have the Auditorium-Recreation Committee study this matter, but
he voted in favor of the construction of the tennis courts with
the electrical system as he thought it should have been done as bid.
Bakersfield, California, January 8, 1973 - Page 14
267
Councilman Rucker stated that he was very anxious to
have something done regarding the Imperial Hotel as the sidewalks
have been blocked off continuously for a number of months, and there
is a need for demolition of this hotel. He then moved that all bids
for the demolition of the former Imperial Hotel and the Arizona
Care be rejected, and the Purchasing Division be instructed to call
for bids as two separate demolition jobs. Vote taken on Councilman
Rucker's motion carried unanimously.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, bid of Thorp's
Harley-Davidson for six Harley-Davidson solo cycles and the bid of
Melvin C. Dinesen for seven Moto-Guzzi solo cycles for the Police
Department were accepted, and all other bids were rejected.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2069 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Chapter 3.18 of
the Municipal Code adding Section
3.18.175 providing Severance Pay not
applicable where by law employees are
included in another entity.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Ordinance No. 2069
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Chapter 3.18 of the Municipal Code adding Section 3.18.175 providing
Severance Pay not applicable where by law employees are included in
another entity, was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
None
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
No. 886 of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield, California, declaring
its intention to order the abandon-
ment of Flowage Easements in Lot 16
of Section 18, T. 30 S., R. 28 E.,
in the City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Resolution of Intention
No. 886 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield~ California, de-
claring its intention to order the abandonment of Flowage Easements
in Lot 16 of Section 18, T. 30 S., R. 28 E., in the City of Bakers-
field and setting date for hearing before the Council for January
29, 1973, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
Rees, Rucker,
None
Bakersfield, California, January 8, 1973 - Page 15
Reception of City Clerk's Certificate
of Sufficiency of Petitions of Nomi-
nation of Candidates for Office of
Councilman to be voted upon at Nomi-
nating Municipal Election of February
27, 1973.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, City Clerk's Certifi--
cate of Sufficiency of Petitions of Nomination of Candidates for
Office of Councilman to be voted upon at Nominating Municipal
Election of February 27, 1973, was received and ordered placed on
file.
The following candidates have filed petitions with the
City Clerk for the Office of Councilman:
Samuel Del Rucker
Cicero Napoleon Goddard
Raymond E. Rees
Donald A. Rogers
T. Keith Bleecker
Mrs. Nancy Berrigan
Ronald R. Reid
Robert N. Whittemore
James Steven Leek
Charles L. Reed
First Ward
First Ward
Third Ward
Third Ward
Fourth Ward
Fourth Ward
Fourth Ward
Seventh Ward
Seventh Ward
Seventh Ward
Full Term
Full Term
Full Term
Full Term
Full Term
Full Term
Full Term
Full Term
Full Term
Full Term
Adoption of Resolution No. 1-73
calling the Nominating Municipal
Election for the Office of Council-
man in the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 7th
Wards to be held in the City of
Bakersfield on the 27th day of
February, 1973, and directing the
City Clerk to publish the Notice
of Election.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Resolution No. 1-73
calling the Nominating Municipal Election for the Office of Council-
man in the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 7th Wards to be held in the City of
Bakersfield on the 27th day of February, 1973, and directing the
City Clerk to publish the Notice of Election, was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, January 8, 1973 - Page 16
269
Adoption of Resolution No. 2-73 and
Order establishing voting precincts,
appointing precinct election officers
and establishing fees therefor, and
designating Polling Places for the
Nominating Municipal Election to be
held on the 27th day of February,
1973.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Resolution No. 2-73
and Order establishing voting precincts, appointing precinct election
officers and establishing fees therefor, and designating Polling
Places for the Nominating Municipal Election to be held on the
27th day of February, 1973, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 3-73 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field requesting the Board of Super-
visors of the County of Kern .to
permit the County Clerk to render
specified services to said City
relating to the conduct of the
Nominating Municipal Election to be
held on February 27, 1973.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution No. 3-73
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield requesting the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Kern to permit the County Clerk to
render specified services to said City relating to the conduct of
the Nominating Municipal Election to be held on February 27, 1973,
was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Approval of Specifications for position
of Supervising Foreman (Streets).
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Specifications for
the position of Supervising Foreman (Streets) were approved.
27O
Bakersfield, California, January 8, 1973 - Page 17
NAME
Kern County Land Co.
Approval of Map of Tract No. 3617 and
Mayor authorized to execute Contract
and Specifications for Improvements
therein.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, it is ordered
that the Map of Tract 3617 be, and the same is hereby approved,
that all easements and the road shown upon said map and therein
offered for dedication be, and the same is hereby accepted for
the purpose or the purposes for which the same is offered for
dedication. The offer of dedication of the private streets is
hereby rejected. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 11587 of
the Business and Professions Code, the City Council hereby waives
the requirement of signatures of the following:
NATURE OF INTEREST
Easement recorded in Book 44,
Page 287, Book 225, Page 8c,
Book 80, Page 190 of Deeds.
Henry Miller, James B. Haggin Contract
and others
Garden Water Corporation
Norma Frances Cohn
The Clerk of
the face of said map a
Seal of the City
is authorized to
the improvements
of settlement of water
rights under date of July 28,
1888.
Easement recorded May 25,
in Book 3950, page 503 of
Official Records.
1966
Mineral rights below 500 ft.,
Deed recorded March 26, 1951 in
Book 1788, Page 504 of Official
Records and Deed recorded June
3, 1965 in Book 3846, Page 1 of
Official Records.
this Council is directed to endorse upon
copy of this order authenticated by the
Council of the City of Bakersfield, and the Mayor
execute the contract and specifications covering
in said Tract.
Approval of Cooperative Agreement
between the City of Bakersfield and
the County of Kern for Construction
of Traffic Signals at the intersection
of Chester Avenue and West Columbus
Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Cooperative Agree-
ment between the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern for
Construction of Traffic Signals at the intersection of Chester
Avenue and West Columbus Street was approved, and the Mayor was
authorized to execute same.
Bakersfield, Calllorn±a, January 8, 1973 - Page 18
Hearings.
This is the time set for publis hearing before the Council
on application by Kenneth C. Cummings to amend the zoning boundaries
from an R-1 (One Family Dwelling - Architectural Design) or more
restrictive, Zone, of that certain property located on the north-
east corner of Monitor Street and Pacheco Road.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and
notices sent as required by law. No written protests or objections
have been filed in the City Clerk's office.
This 19.41 acre parcel presently in the City is contiguous
to a 10 acre parcel known as Pacheco No. 6 Annexation, both owned
by Mr. Cummings. At its December 6, 1972 meeting, the Planning
Commission heard this zone change request and a presentation of an
amendment to the application by Mr. Cummings' representative.
After review and deliberation, the following zoning was
recommended by the Commission:
(a) The P. G. & E..Tower Line Easement and
the portion north of this easement to
remain R-1.
(b) All that portion below. the P. G. & E.
Tower Line Easement to be zoned R-2-D
(Limited Multiple Family Dwelling
Architectural Design) or more restrictive
Zone.
Vice-Mayor Whittemore stated he would open the public
portion of the hearing to the proponents of this zoning, and he
will then asked that the hearing be continued for two weeks. He
received a telephone call from a man representing a group in this
particular area who stated they have just heard about this, and
have asked that the hearing be continued, which is normally granted
by the Council.
Councilman Heisey commented that he felt it would be
better to hear from the public on both sides of the matter.
Councilman Whirremote agreed that it would give the continuity to
both the proponents and opponents, and that it would probably be
better to hear them both at the same meeting.
No representative of the applicant being present,
Councilmen Whittemore moved that the public hearing on this re-
zoning be continued until January 22, 1973. This motion carried
unanimously.
272
Bakersfield, California, January 8, 1973 - Page 19
This is the time set for public hearing before the Councll
on application by Lois M. Myers to amend the zoning boundaries from
an R-4 (Multiple Family Dwelling) Zone to a C-O (Professional Office)
or more restrictive, Zone, of that certain property commonly known
as 124 17th Street.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and
notices sent as required by law. No written protests or objections
having been filed in the City Clerk's office.
This property is west of Union Avenue and is developed
with an older dwelling which the applicant wishes to use as a real
estate office. Property to the east and north is zoned C-2. Most
of these older dwellings are being utilized for C-O and C-1 uses.
The Planning Commission was of the opinion that C-O
(Professional Office) Zone would be compatible with R-4 uses and
that it would be a logical buffer between
and that this use would be an improvement
has been vacant for the past eight years.
the C-2 and R-4 zoning
to the property which
Vice-Mayor Whittemore declared the hearing open for
public participation. No protests or objections were received.
Mr. Bill Hovland, an associate of the real estate firm, urged the
Council to grant the application for the rezoning.
The public hearing was then closed for Council delibera-
tion and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance
No. 2070 New Series amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code by
changing the Land Use Zoning of that certain property commonly
known as
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
124 17th Street was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
None
Bakersfield, California, Januar.y 8, 1973 - Page 20
273
This i.s the time set for public hearing before the Council
on application by Golden Empire Properties to amend the zoning
boundaries from an R~i. (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-3
(Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) or more restrictive, Zone, and
to a C-1 (Limited Commercial), or more restrictive, Zone, of that
certain property located on the southeast corner of Wilson Road
and Stine Road.
Th.is hearing has been dul~ advertised and posted and
notices sent as required by law. No written protests or objections
have been filed in the City Clerk's office.
This zone change request was heard by the Planning Com-
mission at its meeting of November 1, .1972, and at the request of
the applicant it was continued to the regular meeting held December
6, 1972. It was the opinion of the Commission, after deliberating,
that the C-1 zoning should not extend easterly beyond the point
parallel with the boundary line of Lots 15 and 16 on the north side
of Wilson Road. The remaining portion of fifty feet fronting Wilson
Road was recommended as R-2-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling -
Architectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone, and the southerly
portion bordering Stine Road and
was recommended as R-2-D zoning.
It was the judgment of
approximately 620 feet to the east:
the Com~nission that the "D" Overlay
should be applied. to protect traffic circulation to and from this
site and to protect the residential homes to the north and east.
Vice-Mayor Whittemore declared the hearing open for public
participation. No protests or objections were expressed by anyone
present in the audience. Mr. Tony Wells read a prepared statement
advising that they have immediate plans to build a Speedy 7-11
convenience market on the requested 1.5 acres of commercial develop-
ment as soon as they receive approval of the Building Department.
He presented each member of the Council with a small map of the
property and proceeded to give pertinent information on the plans
for development of the property.
Mr. Wells stated that should the City wish to close Stine
Road, they will cooperate with the City Engineer in rerouting the
traffic to the easterly edge of this parcel and urged the Council
to concur with the Planning Commission and grant the zoning requested
for this property.
274
Bakersfield, California, January 8, 1973 Page 21
Mr. Melvin Madruga of 3613 LaVerne Avenue, stated he was
present representing not only himself but his family, who are the
owners of the property, a small portion of which they are requesting
be rezoned tonight. He submitted a petition to the Council signed
by 17 property owners in the vicinity of the proposed development,
stating they do not object to the granting of the change of zone
requested for this property.
Mr. Madruga gave a brief history of the property since
it was first acquired by his grandfather in 1897, and at that time
it was used solely for farming. They have been advised by the
Public Works Department, that the City will need approximately one--
half acre of land to complete the widening of New Stine Road along
the southerly portion of his property. Also, they have been informed
that a permanent utility easement of 20 feet in width on which
nothing can be built, must be maintained upon the property. They
feel that the approval of the Council to the rezoning to commercial
of the acreage requested will compensate them fairly for the closing
of 1400 feet of Stine Road along their property.
Vice-Mayor Whittemore declared the public hearing closed
for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman
Thomas, Ordinance No. 2071 New Series amending Title 17 of the
Municipal Code by changing the Land Use Zoning of that certain
property located on the southeast corner of Wilson Road and Stine
Road was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
by Councilman Bleecker, the meeting was adjourned at
upon a motion
10:32 P.M.
MAYOR Of Bakersfield, Calif.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK and Ex'-Officfo Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, January 15, 1973
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of fhe City
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City
Hall at eight o'clock P.M., January 15, 1973.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Gerald Deaton,
Director of Pastoral Services.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whirremote
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of January 8,
approved as presented.
Mayor Hart sworn in for four year term.
At this time the City Clerk administered the Oath of Office
to Donald M. Hart for four year term as Mayor of the City of Bakers-
field.
1973 were
Mayor Hart stated it has been a delightful four years
and that he would like to give credit where credit is due, to those
people in City service working behind the scenes each day to make city
government move in the direction which will render the maximum service
to the community in the most economical manner. He read the following
prepared statement:
City Government and the people of Bakersfield should
realize that fundamental urban problems can be solved
only through mutual confrontation and not through
avoidance.
Confrontation necessarily demands increased participation
of every segment of the City's population. This
involvement is the process which makes City government
truly representational of all diverse population elements..
The Citizens of Bakersfield should be aware that their
direct participation in government is'essential to
effectively solve City problems. At the same time,
City governments must make every attempt to include
representation of all groups at each level of government.
When government does not reflect or fulfill the desires
of the electorate, them government is not doing its job
but the elected representatives cannot do their job
unless the citizens participate.
276
Bakersfield, California, January 15, 1973 - Page 2
I do not use the word "confrontation" in the sense
that it might be an aggressive one. I mean mutual
agreement that there is a problem on which the
proper action must be taken.
I say in all sincerity that I admire the gentlemen
I have served with here at the level of administration
of the City Council. I can say without reservation
that I have yet to find one of them that did not
represent his constituents fairly, with no regard
for selfish personal gain.
It is a privilege and I hope that we fulfill the next
four years as gracefully and as fruitfully as we
have the past four.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. Tom Folsom, Executive secretary of the Kern County
Taxpayers Association, addressed the Council and read a lengthy
prepared statement on supplemental water for the Urban Bakersfield area.
He stated that the popular support last September of the 17.5 million
bond issue was subject to~e assurance that those responsible for
utilizing it would follow the principal of l~st costly alternative.
In addition to identifying an example of proposed public works in
very general terms, the Kern County Water Agency's Resolution 6-72,
which determined and declared the amount of the bonded indebtedness,
contains a statement indicating the adoption by the Agency's Board of
Directors of the principle of ]east costly alternative. In keeping
with this principle, the Agency's Board of Directors has authorized
an economic review of an alternate route, procedure and facilities
involving the Cross Valley Canal. The results of this review are expected
to be submitted to the Board at its next meeting the 25th of this month.
The Resolution approving the proceedings to encumber
Improvement District No. 4 with $17.5 million bonded indebtedness
contains provisions whereby the Board of Directors can
select the ~t costly public works necessary to make the
supplemental water available to retail water purveyors. Over the
several years involved, two principal alternatives for providing
potable water have been considered. These are: An Underground
water recharge program by percolation water in and near a portion
of the Kern River, and running the water through a surface
treatment plant.
Bakersfield, California, January 15, 1973 - Page 3
277
Generally speaking, the consensus acknowledged that an i
underground water recharge and recovery system is the less costly
alternative. An underground recharge program has not been
whole heartedly endorsed, however, by all of the Kern g~ounty Water
Agency's advisors and consultants.
In introductory remarks in Mr. Sfetson's recent report
note that one of the proncipal objectives is "to obtain sufficient
supplemental water to assure the future needs of the area at the
least practicable cost." From this point of view, it seems reasonable
that the Council would want to embark immediately on a program that
truly would see the accomplishment of this objective. Consequently,
it is recommended that the Council encourage the Kern County Water
Agency to proceed immediately to obtain all of the data necessary
in preparation for the design of an underground water recharge and
optimum recovery systemand to defer consideration for the design
of a treatment plant.
Councilman Heisey complimented Mr. Folsom on his presentation
and moved that the statement be received and referred to the Council
Water Committee, and that the City Manager call a meeting of this
Committee some time before next Monday, to evaluate Mr. Folsom's
comments and any other views which might be forthcoming. If there
is any way to solve the water problem locally without building a
treatment plant, the Council will all be in favor of it. If there is
anyway that it can be resolved to the satisfaction of the Committee,.
it will strongly advocate that this action be taken by the Kern County
Water Agency at its meeting on the 25th of January. Actually it is
not necessary for the Agency to make a decision on that date, they can
delay if indefinitely if they see a need for it.
Councilman Whirremote stated he would be happy to meet as
a member of the Water Committee, however, the meeting will have to be held
Tuesday evening or on the week end, as he is committed for the
rest of the week. Mr. Bergen added that he will call the City's
water consultant tomorrow to be sure that he is available for a
meeting.
27S
Bakersfield, California, January 15, 1973 - Page 4
Councilman Bleecker asked Mr. Folsom if he had any idea
what the study would cost. Mr. Folsom said he is not qualified to
answer that question. Councilman Bleecker commented that the
percolation of water into the underground is a tried and true
procedure to replenish well water and irrigation projects
throughout the whole valley and there is no reason why it would
not work to replenish and recover water for wells,for consumption
of the City of Bakersfield.
He stated that he would like to be informed when the
Committee meets, as he does have some experience in this line and
might be able to lend something to the discussion.
Vote taken on Councilman Heisey's motion carried unanimously.
Council Statements.
Councilman Rucker stated that the long-awaited groundbreaking
for the California Avenue Park Community Center will be held at
3 o'clock P.M., on Wednesday, January 17, 1973, and he invited
the Mayor and all members of the Council to attend this groundbreaking
ceremony, as well as Mr. Vernon D. Strong, chairman, and all members
of the Citizens Advisory Committee for the California Avenue Park
Multi-purpose Center. The Council has been informed earlier that
the Committee will participate in raising the funds to furnish this
center which will be open to the entire City of Bakersfield, and
Councilman Rucker urged this Committee to start working on this
fund-raising project as soon as possible.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Clains Nos. 2103 to 2190,
inclusive, in amount of $59,655.73.
(b) Street Right of Way Deed from Crocker
National Bank as Trustee for the C. Cohn
Estate.
(c) Street Right of Way Deed from Church of God
at Bakersfield, at 401Pacheco Road
Bakersfield, California, January 15, 1973 - Page 5
Consent Calendar.
(d) Application for Encroachment Permit from
Buck H. Tillery, 3500 Arcadia Street
(e)
Notice of Completion for Construction of
Median Islands and Planters on New Stine
Road between Ming Avenue and Wilson Road
and on Ming Avenue between New Stine Road
and Ashe Road.
(d) and
Ayes:
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b), (c),
(e) of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 4-73 and
Petition of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield requesting annexation
of Municipal Farm No. 2 to the City
of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No.
4-73
and Petition of the Council of the City of Bakersfield requesting
annexation of Municipal Farm No. 2 to the City of Bakersfield by
the Board of Supervisors, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Whirremote
Thomas.
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2072 New
Series approving annexation of a
parcel of uninhabited territory to
the City of Bakersfield,California
designated as "Stockdale No. 5", and
providing for the taxation of said
territory to pay the bonded indebtedness
of said City.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Ordinance No. 2072
New Series approving annexation of a parcel of uninhabited territory'
to the City of Bakersfield, California, designated as "Stockdale 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:
Councilman Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, January 15, 1973 - Page 6
First reading of An Ordinance.of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Sections 17.23.010 and
17.23.020 of, and adding Sections
17.23.024 and 17.23.026 to Chapter
17.23 of the Municipal Code
concerning Zoning Regulations.
First reading was considered given An Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Sections 17.23.010 and
17.23.020 of , and adding Sections 17.23.024 and 17.23.026 to Chapter
17.23 of the Municipal Code concerning Zoning Regulations.
Adoption of Resolution No. 6,73 of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield
making finding that Tentative Tract
3656, together with provisions for its
design and improvement, is consistent
with applicable general and specific
plans.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Resolution No. 6-73
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making finding that Tenative
Tract 3656, together with provisions for its design and improvement,
is consistent with applicable general and specific plans, was adopted
by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council[
on Resolution of Intention No. 884 of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield declaring its intention to order the vacation of Alleys
in Blocks No. 328 and 329, City of Bakersfield. This hearing has been
duly posted. Request for vacation was made by the County of Kern.
This alley is located between 16th Street and the railway track
between "L" and "N" Streets.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participa~:ion.
No protests or objections being received, the hearing was closed for
Council Deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker,
Resolution No. 5-73 ordering the vacation of Alleys in Blocks Nos.
328 and 329, City of Bakersfield, was
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey,
Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
adopted by the following vote:
Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Bakersfield, California, January .15, 1973 - Page 7
Hearings.
This is the time set for .public hearing before the Council
on Resolution of Intention No. 885 of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield, declaring its intention to order the vacation. of a
portion of "K" Street between Truxtun Avenue and 17th Street, in
the City of Bakersfield. This hearing has been duly posted and
the vacation was initiated by the Planning Commission.
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 Bleecker, this hearing was continued indefinitely, by
the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council[
on application of Oliver A. Hollar to amend the zoning boundaries from
a C-O (Professional Office)~to a C-1 (Limited Commercial) or more
restrictive, Zone, of that certain property.commonly known as 2331
"E" Street. , ~
This parcel, presently zoned C-O,. was purchased by Mr. Hollar
for the purpose.of oper,ating a ear upholstery business. Two variances
in past years have allowed the operation of a service station and a
car top installation business. Properties to the north, west and south
are zoned C-O; to the east the zoning is C-1. Subject property is
located within the proposed right of way of 178,Freeway, as adopted by
the City Council. A car upholstery business would require a conditional
use permit if the C-1 zoning is granted. '~
Mayor Hart declared t~e heari'ng open for public pa'rticipation.
No objections or protests were express.ed by any person in the audience.
Mr. John Harbin, a real'tot, addressed the~Comm£ssion, stating that
he was the broker who sold the property to Mr. Ho,llar and asked that:
Bakersfield, California, January 15, 1973 - Page 8
the Council give the application favorable consideration.
Mayor Hart declared the public hearing closed for Council
deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker,
Ordinance No. 2073 New Series amending Title 17 of the Municipal
Code by changing the land use zoning of that certain property
commonly known as 2331 "E" Street was adopted by the following vote
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
This is the time set for public hearing before the Counci]L
on application by Thurmond McWhorter to amend the zoning boundaries
from an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-3 (Limited Multiple
Family Dwelling) or more restrictive, Zone, of a parcel of land lying
on both sides of the proposed easterly extension of Norseman Street~
being approximately 200' easterly of Valhalla Drive.
At its December 6, 1972 meeting, the Planning Commission
considered Mr. McWhorter's request for this parcel of land which will
be served by a north-south,street connecting with Ming Road and Belle
Terrace and NorSeman Street, which intersects Valhalla Drive at West
High School. The proposed plan by the applicant appears to be
compatible with the surrounding area which is predominately R-3-D
and R-2-D. The applicant stated the development planned would be
between R-2 and R-3 destry.
It was the £eeling of the Planning Commission that the
"D" Design Overlay should be applied to insure the development of
the subject parcel would be compatible with adjacent zoning and
development.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participation.
Mr. Jack Balfanz, a real estate broker representing Gannon Realty,
addressed the Council, stating that a letter expressing the opposition
of the land owners and developers in the vicinity was delivered to all
members of the Council over the week end.
Councilman Thomas questioned Mr. Balfanz regarding the
statement in the letter that there was a vacancy factor of over 400
Bakersfield, CalifOrnia, January 15, 1973 - Page 9
283
apartments and condominiums in this area and aaked him ~e source
of these figures. Mr. Balfanz listed the apartment complexes which
have a large number of vacancies or units which have not been sold
within a mile radius of the proposed rezoning. He also referred to
the shortage of high schools in the southeast and stated that any
additional density of population would create a tremendous burden on
the schools in the area.
Councilman Medders asked M~.. Balfanz what his company would
do with Mr. McWhorter's ten-acre parcel if they owned it, wouldn't it
be difficult to dispose of if if were zoned R-1. Mr. Baifa~zJstated
they couldn't do anything with it on today's market., they would just
pay taxes on it.
Councilman Whirremote asked Mr. Balfanz if his company would
build on the property if it were zoned R-3 and he replied that they
would not.
Mr. Balfanz introduced Mr. Vincent DiGiorgio, Attorney,
representing Gannon Realty and Other developers in the vicinity of
the ten-acre parcel, who stated that their basic position is that the
applicant is not suffering any hardshop from the existing zoning
regulations which could not have been anticipated by him when he
purchased the property. This would appear simply to be a property
investment which Mr. McWhorter speculatively hoped would increase
in value upon obtaining a zone change. If this 10 acre parcel were
approved and fully developed despite the depressing vacancy factor
now existing, roads from Valhalla Drive on the west and Ming Avenue
on the south would have to be constructed to serve the area. If zoned
R-3, this would create an unreasonable traffic burden upon Valhalla
Drive and unreasonable demands upon the existing neighborhood school
capacities would be involved. Nothing has been shown that insufficient
public necessity and convenience exists to Support this application..
The applicant, Mr. Thurmond McWhorter,
himself and Dr. Puder as owners of the property,
He fee~ the application is reasonable to develop
stating he represented
addressed the Council.
the property as
284
Bakersfield,
California,
January 15,
1973 - Page 10
at this time,
in that area.
and he is not
they are surrounded by multiple units and commercial property
and he does not feel that R-1 zoning would be compatible
The Planning Commission covered the proposal very well
prepared to argue the point of whether or not Ihere are
a great many vacant apartments in the area, he is here to ask that ~khis
10-acre parcel be rezoned and that the Council look at it from that
standpoint.
Councilman Thomas discussed the request for rezoning with
the applicant, stating that there is so much of the land which has not
actually been developed and built upon at the present time that no
public need t~s been shown which would justify the granting of this
application.
Mr. McWhorter stated that the potperry is practically sur.-
rounded by R~3 and commercial property, and he does not feel that because
there is undeveloped R-3 in this area the Council should be prejudiced
against granting his application.
Councilman Thomas stated that he has been opposed to the high
density in this area, his constituents have complained to him, and he
is not going to consider the rezoning of
Mr. McWhorter can convince his otherwise,
R-1 property and is speculating.
this parcel to R-3 until
as in his opinion he bought
Mr. McWhorter stated it would appear to him that starting
with the Planning Commission, it should have been decided so~e time ago
that there would be no more multiple zoning in this area, rather than
allowing R-3 for prior situations under similar circumstances to other
people and suddenly say this is as far as it can go and stop here. The
opposition already has its R-3 and are utilizing it. If it were
unreasonable and impractical to develop this land, it would be impossible
to obtain financing to develop it.
Councilman Whirremote stated that when this high school
property was offered for sale, it was master-planned and a great deal
of study went into it. Prior tO this time a subdivider wanted to build
a mobil bome~park in the near vicinity of this property, and it was
denied due to the fact that the collector streets were
2S5
Bakersfield, California, January 15, 1973 - Page 11
not constructed to handle the high volume of traffic. This was one
of the arguments given to the Council when the master plan was
submitted for acceptance. If the Council has been informed that it
was only to be a tentative zoning for this large parcel, he would not
have voted to accept it and would have insisted that the plans be completed
for streets, etc., before the Council accepted it. This zoning has
been upgraded tremendously and he feels that support should be given
to the City to build streets without putting it on the general tax :rolls.
Mr. McWhorter stated that since they
street was dedicated through the center of it.
Planning Commission would not have recommended
bought the property, a
He would assume that the
it if they did not think
that the streets were able to handle the density, that the Planning
Department would have taken this into consideration.
Mr. Difiorgio was given the opportunity to rebut Mr.
McWhorter's statements and said that the group he repres~nts"does~'t
wish to inflict any hardship on Mr. McWhorter, but he took his chances
like everybody else when he purchased this property which was zoned R-1
at a lower property price, and speculatively hoped the property would
increase in value upon obtaining a zone change.
Mr. McWhorter stated there have been no objections from any
of the immediate adjacent property owners to his plans for the development
of his property, and that the owners of the property which is not
presently zoned multi-residential and commercial have plans for making
application for multi-residential zoning.
Mayor Hart closed the public portion of the hearing for
Council deliberation and action.
Councilman Bleecker stated that he has always supported
efforts to promote the highest and best use of a parcel of property:,
particularly from the standpoint of the property owner. The density
in this particular area has concerned him for some time, he believes
that the vacancy factor is an important one. It is important that those
who have invested their money have the priviledge of making a dollar out
of their investment. Therefore, he cannot support the Planting
Commission's recommendation, in view of what has been said here by hoth
sides.
Bakersfield, California, January 15, 1973
Page 12
Councilman Heisey stated that
Council and the argument presented, Mr.
He inquired of Mr. Gannon if he and his
judging from the comments of the
McWhorter's case is rather ,~eak.
colleagues would have any
objection to zoning the property to R-2 instead of R-3,
see that this property can ever be developed as R-1.
Mr. Joe Gannon of Gannon Construction, stated
thinks their case has been presented before everyone here,
a matter of asking reasonable men for a reasonable action.
are not asking anything that is out of order. There is a
as he cannot
that he
it is only
They
great deal
of R-3 land for sale in this area at the present time, and no more R-3
zoning should be granted until that land is used up. When they bought
the land they paid R-3 price for the property because it was felt
that there would only be limited competition working against them.
To fezone R-1 land to R-3 when there is no need for it, to him is
not a "fair shot."
Councilman Rucker commented that he doesn't see anything
wrong with speculation, but he does not think the R-3 acreage should
be increased at this particular time.
Councilman Thomas stated that everything. has been said on this
subject that can be said, and moved that the change in zoning from
an R-1 to R-3 be denied at this time.
Councilman Medders stated that it is his understanding
that the school enrollment is about 3,000 ~ss than it was last year.
The reason for the conversion of Bakersfield High School and the
construction of two new high schools is for a different purpose than
housing, it doesn't have anything to do with this zone change.
Vote taken upon adoption of Zoning Resolution No. 241
denying application of Thurmond McWhorter to amend Title 17 of the
Bakersfield Municipal Code by changing the Land Use Zoning of that,
Bakersfield, California, January 15, 1973 - Page 13
certain property in the City of Bakersfield located on both sides of
the proposed easterly extension of Norseman Street, being approximately
200' easterly of Valhalla Drive, containing.ten acres of land, was
adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilman Bleecker, Heisey,. Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: Councilman Medders
Absent: None
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
the meeting was adjourned at
upon a motion by Councilman Heisey,
9:21P. M.
M~~~i y or'Bakersfield
ATTEST:
ERK a x' lerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
Bakersfield,
California,
January 22, 1973
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, Calif~ nia, held in the Council Chambers of the City
Hall at eight o'clock P.M., January 22, 1973.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by
the Pledge of Allegiance and Imvocation by the Reverend Bennie Blair
of the Zion Hill Baptist Church.
Present:
Absent:
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
None
Minutes of the regular meeting of January 15, 1973 were
approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. Jose Mendoza of 2112 Bank Street, addressed the Council
and reas his letter to Mr. Raymond Gonzales, Assemblyman 28th District,
regarding an incident which occurred at Bakersfield High School when
his son Reuben was allegedly assaulted and injured at the High School
by some of the other students during a basketball game.
Mayor Hart commented that under the circumstances, Mr.
Mendoza should make this prosentation to the Kern County High School
Board of Education.
Correspondence.
A communication was read from the Housing Authority of
the County of Kern requesting the approval of the City Council to
a Cooperation Agreement required by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development for the 200 units of low rent elderly housing
approved by the electorate at the November 6, 1972 election. Upon
a motion by Councilman Rees, the letter was received and date of
February 5, 1973 was established for public hearing on the matter
before the Council. (This hearing date was changed as there was
not sufficient time to publich as required by the Government Code.)
Bakersfield, California,
January 22, 1973 - Page 2
'Council Statements.
Councilman Heisey commented that last week Mr. Tom Falsom
of the Kern County Taxpayer's Association requested the Council to urge
the Kern County Water Agency to conduct an additional study to obtain
all of the data necessary-to.an underground water recharge and
recovery system and to defer consideration for the design of a treatment
plant until the study is completed. Councilman Heisey quoted from 'the
Council minutes of December 18, 1972 in which it was stated that
"the water and City Growth Committee believes that the report prepared
by Tom Stetson is satisfactory. However, it feels that an additional
study and examination needs to be made of the spreading program within
the Improvement District. With this reservation, Councilman Heisey
moved that the Council accept and approve the report of Mr. Tom Stetson,
which motion carried unanimously." It'~was recommended ~o the
Water Agency at that time that they make a study Of the spreading
program in the District.
Also, the minutes'of the Citizens Advisory Committee which
was appointed to advise the Kern County Water'Agency Committee on certain
Water matters, stated that a discussion was held regarding a percolation
program and it was considered advisable that this matter be
to the attention of the Agency Board of Directors, although the chairman
pointed out that this had been accomplished at the December 12, 1972
meeting of the Committee and read the motion relating thereto.
Councilman Heisey stated that in his opinion, it would be
proper for the Council to correspond with the Kern County Water Agency
and once again reiterate that the Council does not want just "lip service"
but wants the Agency fo make a detailed, adequate study of the ground
percolation program of the urban area, and as was pointed'out by the
Citizens Advisory Committee, that this be done prior to the construction
of the extension canal. Whatever douts that may exist in the major
segment of the community should be resolved before any costly program
is sfarfed, as once this is done the public will be committed to
it forever.
290
Bakersfield, California, January 22, 1973 - Page 3
The findings should be revealed to the general public and
the reasons why it is necessary lo proceed on the course which is
decided upon. Councilmsn Heisey them moved that the City Attorney be
directed to communicate with the Kern County Water Agency and reiterate
the City Council's position as stated I]ecember 18, 1972, that the Water
Agency make a thorough study of the spreading program within the
improvement district and also that this study be made prior to awarding
any contracts for the cross-valley extension cabal or for any
treatment plant.
City Attorney Hoagland stated if so directed,
icate wi~h the Agency, however, he did wish to call the
to the fact that contracts have already been awarded for the design of a
cross-valley and the extension canal. The Urban Advisory Committee
has twice requested the Agency to proceed with studies on ground water
percolation. If the Council made a request also, it would have some,
added weight.
Councilman Heisey remarked that it is true the contract has
been awarded for the engineering services for the cross-valley canal,
but he does not believe anything has been done regarding a contract for the
extension canal.
Councilman Bleecker stated that it all boils down to the fact
that there is some concern the Kern County Water Agency is going ahead
with the program, including a water treatment plant and the extension
canal, without making a thorough and detailed study of a percolation
process, Bakersfield is the largest single entity and would stand to
gain or lose.the most from those areas encompassed by the Water Agency.
On today's market the treatment plant would cost about 7 million dollars.
No doubt it can be determined through a detailed study that the taste of
the water would be substantially better for human consumption by
recovering it from underground wells. The treatment plant water is
hygienic enough but it doesn't have the taste of well water.
Councilman Rees stated that as a member of the Water and City
Growth Committee, he wanted to underscore Councilman Heisey's motion.
he would co~un-
Council's attention
Bakersfield, California, January 22, 1973 - Page 4
291
He likes the choice of words that an ."adequate study" be made and not
just "lip, service." When a multi-million dollar project such as
the treatment. plant is being considered, a
obligation to the people of the communtiy,
like to support Councilman Heigey's motion,
detailed study is
and he would
an
as it is very much in order.
Councilman Thomas asked~Councilman Heisey if the canal
could be built and the detailed study still be made as far as the
percolation program is concerned.' Councilman Heisey stated that it could
be, a certain amount of water has been allocated and that must be
brought to the urban area. What.is done after that happens is a
problem as to whether Jr'will be percolated, treated, or both. Council-
man Thomas asked if the study would slow down the construction of tile
canal, and Councilman Heisey answered that he couldn't see any reason
why it should.
Councilman Bleecker_commented that.this study, hopefully
a detailed and legitimate one, could have been made a long time ago.,
and if 7 million dollars can be saved, it should be done.
Vote taken on Councilman Heisey's motion carried unanimously.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Mr. Manuel Ruiz,
2600 Loma Linda, was appointed as a member of the Citizens Advisory
Committee for the California Park Neighborhood Facility to replace
Mr.
Charles Williams, who has resigned.
Councilman Medders stated that he would like
to reflect
briefly on three items that be feel should be mentioned:
1. Last week, a Mr. McWhorter (whom to my knowledge
I had never seen before,) asked for a zone change
that was denied. I don't argue with the right
or the wisdon of the Council in denying this request,
and I feel that in time the only fair thing to do
· is to altow~some~t~e of re+zoning.
I fully understand the dilemma that the!.signers
find themselves in, but it is beyond my poor power
of comprehension to understand how some of the
signers of the petition mustered the courage to do
so. I simply can't believe that some of the
developers - or maybe better termed "over-developers"
who have prostituted land development in the area,
have all of a sudden become so righteous.
I am not a proponent of R-3 zoning. In fact, my
favorite zoning is R-1 with a little R-2 sprinkled
in. The thing that irks me is this particular case
is the oft-time "speculators" appear to think
something is wrong with someone else who sometimes
speculates. It just seems to point up the old
adage of "the pot calling the kettle black"
Bakersfield, California, January 22, 1973 - Page 5
Without going into any great detail, I am just
going to suggest that the City of Bakersfield is
certainly progressive and sophisticated enough to
work out some type od City-wide Clean-up campaign
without making a "Mountain out of a Mole Hill."
If it cost the Maximum estimate of $6,000, which
is .0004 of the annual budget, it seems to me it
would be well worth the effort.
Some months ago, the President gave the order to
drop a few explosives around Haiphong and Hanoi.
Councilman Bleecker brought forth a resolution of
support and it passed. An aspiring political
candidate went to great lengths through the news
media to say that this was not within the realm
of the Council's responsibility.
Upon this politician's subsequent election and
assumption of duties, one of the first things he
did was to sign a resolution rnjoining the Congress
of the United States not to approve expenditures
for finishing up the Vietnam operation.
Since that person is not a national representative,
here I sit wondering how that happens to be within
the realm of his responsibility according to his
previous stand.
Councilman Rees commented that it isn't customary to cross-
question a Councilman on his statements, but he didn't quite understand
Mr. Medders' reference to the clean-up campaign. He asked for an
explanation.
Councilman Medders stated that as it was proposed, it was
referred to the staff for study and when the report was made, nothing
happened, except it was decided to help a little area over in southeast
Bakersfield clean up the neighborhood. It started city-wide and
wound up with a small area in the southeast Bakersfield section.
Councilman Rees suggested that Councilman Medders make a motion
to cover the situation that the Co6ncil could support. Councilman
Medders replied that a motion was made, and as he recalled it,
Councilman Rees was opposed to it.
Mayor Hart suggested that they discuss it privately and then
both Councilmen could be filled in on the proposal·
Councilman Bleecker commented that some months ago, the Council
supported the 23rd-24th Street corridor for a freeway route, all of
which is in his ward. There was a big rush to get this freeway route
approved, and them funds were not available from the Federal government
Bakersfield, California, January 22, 1973 - Page 6
and the state for some reason or another. The acquisition of land
was to take place, the freeway was supposedly to be started on 1977
or 1978, and now they have been told that the latest projection is 11983.
The people in his ward who own the homes and properlies that will be
in the path of the freeway have a tremendous problem. They don't know
how long they will be able to live there, and the real estate agencies
keep telling them that their property isn't going to be worth as much
as it used to be. Not only the people whose properties will be taken,
but those living in the vicinity are concerned.
The last time this Council considered the freeway issue,
he supported the Council in its determination to see that the freeway
is built as quickly as possible. He is for it, since there isn't ally
other way to go, but it ought to be done in a reasonable length of
time. A group of citizens in his ward have contacted him and advised
that they are circulating a petition to ask the Council to request the
State of Californis to prohibit the heavy disel truck type to traffic
on 24th Street until the freeway is built. The heavy truck traffic causes
a great deal of noise in the neighborhood and is very annoying. There are
alternate routes to the 24th Street corridor, such as the new 99'Freeway.
on the west side of 24th Street and old 99 Highway on the'east side of
24th Street.
He asked the Council to consider referring this question to
an appropriate committee of the Council for study and recommendation.
Since this is a state route, the City of Bakersfield cannot close this
artery to heavy truck traffic without State approval.
Mayor Hart commented that Councilman Bleecker's comments and
his request have a great deal of merit. He and Supervisor Mitchell have an
appointment with the State Highway Committee on February to request
early construction of the 178 Freeway route and'this would add a great
deal of impact to the presentation. Under the circumstances, this
should be referred to a committee for recommendation.
It was then moved by Councilman Heisey that the request be
referred to the Citizens Advisory Committee for Freeway Study. Councilman
Bleecker stated that his intention was to refer the matter to a
294
Bakersfield, California, January 22, 1973 - Page 7
Committee of the Council. After discussion, Councilman Bleecker
offered a substitute motion that the request be referred to the
Council's Water and City Growth Committee for study. This motion
carried unanimously.
Reports.
Councilman Rucker, chairman of the Auditorium-Recreation
Committee, reported that this Committee met recently to discuss
naming the City's newest park located at White Lane and Grissom Street.
Due to the fact that this project is funded 50% by the federal
government, the park cannot be named after any individual. With this
thought in mind, the following names were submitted to the Council
for consideration in naming the ~ark:
1. Stine Canal Park or Canal Park
2. Cottonwood Park
3. Kern Island Park
Councilman Rees commented that as there was no urgency
connected with the naming of the park, and the name for the park
is of a permanent nature, he would move that the report be received,
placed on file, and action be deferred for two weeks. This motion
carried unanimously.
Councilman Rucker, chairman of the Auditorium-Recreation
Committee, stated that this Committee was instructed to review a
communication from Mrs. Peggy Lenhart, Secretary-Treasurer of the
Bakersfield Ice Skating Club, which would like to investigate the
prospects of having a permanent ice arena in Bakersfield, however,
they would like assurance from the Council that they would not oppose
such a facility locating here.
Since the Auditorium's primary purpose is for conventions,
meetings, sports events and shows, the Committee feels that it would
be impossible to schedule ice skating in any other manner than it is
presently being done.
This Committee is, therefore, recommending that the Council
go on record as supporting the Bakersfield Ice Skating Club in thei~
Bakersfield, California, January 22, 1973 - Page 8
efforts to provide Bakersfield with a privately owned ice skating
arena.'
Councilman Rucker moved adoption of the report. Councilman
Bleecker asked if this would preclude the Civic Auditorium from
scheduling ice skating from time to time.
it would not do so, this activity can be
whenever it is possible to do so.
Councilman Rucker stated that
provided by the Auditorium
Councilman Bleecker suggested that since the City has an
ice rink and it is not the intention of the Committee's report to
prohibit the City of Bakersfield from using its facility for ice
skating purposes any time in the future, that the Auditorium-Recreation
Committee might consider that ice skating be scheduled on a regular
basis for a year ahead of time so that the public would be aware of
the availability of the rink and take advantage of it.
Councilman Heisey commented that the City will never be
able to have ice skating on a regular basis for the public until such
time as the c~mmunity is willing to support a professional ice hockey
team which would carry the expense of laying the ice for public use.
The way it is set up at present, the Auditorium Manager is giving
as much .time to scheduling public ice skating as the City can a£ford.
Vote taken on Councilman Rucker's motion to adopt the.report
carried unanimously.
Councilman Robert Whittemore, chairman of the Governmental[
Efficiency and Personnel-Commit.tee, reported that City Clerk Marian Irvin
has notified the City Manager of her intention to retire sonetime this
spring. In order for the City to prepare in advance for a replacement,
it is necessary to update the job specifications for this position,
and it is recommended that the new City Clerk have a combination
of education and experience equivalent to a college degree in
Political Scirnce or Business Administration. According to information
available to the Committee, this seems to be the trend in cities
throughout California,
The Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee is
recommending approval of the proposed City Clerk job specifications
Bakersfield, California, Jnnuary 22, 1973 - Page 9
and
this position as soon as possible.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore,
adopted.
the City Manager is instructed to begin recruitment statewide ior
the report was
Councilman Whittemore, chairman of the Governmental E£ficiency--
and Personnel Committee, reported on the reclassification of Clerk
Typist position to Office Clerk in the City Clerk's office. Several
months ago the City Clerk's Assistant became ill and recently notified
the City Clerk that she would not be able to continue her employment with
the City. During her absence the Clerk Typist in this department has
performed all o~ the Assistant's~ work and possibley could qualify for the
Assistant's job on a permanent basis. The City Manager has suggested,
however, that the Assistant's job not be filled permanently at this
time, as the new City Clerk might have some suggestions on this position.
In reviewing this Clerk Typist position, we have found that
her duties and responsibilities are more in line with an Office Clerk
classification. The Committee is recommendihg approval of reclassifying
the Clerk Typist position in the City Clerk's office to Office Clerk.
The City Manager has informed the Committee that there is enough money
in the Clerk's budget to take care of this reclassification; therefore,
a transfer of funds is not necessary.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, the report was
adopted.
Councilman Whittemore, chairman of the Governmental Efficiency
and Personnel Committee, reported on the Administrative Assistant Job
Specifications - Modified, and Engineer II Position, in the Public Works,
to be reclassified to Administrative~Assistant, stating that the present
job specifications for Administrative Assistant are limited strictly
to the City Manager's office. In order that this position can be used
if the need arises in other departments of the City, it is necessary
that these job specifications be modifies. The proposed job specificatkvhs
are basically the same as in the past; however, any mention which'would
limit them to the City Manager's office has been deleted.
Bakersfield, California, January 22, 1973 - Page l0 297
The Public Works Director has requested that the Engineer II
position in the Administration Division of Public Works be reclassilfied
to Administrative Assistant. This position is at the same pay scals,
therefore, additional monies would not be necessary.
This Committee is recommending that the job specifications
for Administrative Assistant be modifies, and that the Engineer II
position in the Administration Division of Public Works be reclassified
to Administrative Assistant, Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, the
report was adopted.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, the Annual Report
of the activities of the Miscellaneous Civil Service Board and
Personnel Division for the calendar year 1972 was received and ordered
placed on file.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a)Allowance of Claims Nos. 2191 to 2322,
inclusive, in amount of $83,896.17
(b) Storm Drain Easement from Stockdale.
Development Corporation to City of Bakersfield
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a) and (b) of the
Consent Calendar, were adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore ,
Noes: None
Absent: None
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, request for Budget
Transfer of funds in the amount of $850.00 to re-roof Fire Station No. 3,
from Fund No. ll-510-6100 to 11-640-3900, was approved.
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, low bid of M.D. Wesson for the demolition of the former
Imperial Hotel was accepted and all other bids were rejected.
City Attorney Hoagland informed the Council that an informal
bid had been received for the demolition of the Arizona Care.
298
Bakersfield, California, January 22, 1973 - Page 11
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, bid of Witco Chemical
for Automotive Lubricants was accepted, and the Mayor was authorized
to execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, low bid of TCH Pipeline,
Inc. for construction of Storm Drains in various locations was accepted
all other bids were rejected and the Mayor was authorized to execute
the contract.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2074 New Series
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 17.23.010 and 17.23.020
of, and adding Section 17.23.024 and
17.23.026 to, Chapter 17.23 of the Municipal
Code, concerning Zoning Regulations.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No.
New Series of
17.23.010 and
17.23.026 to,
the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
17.23.020 of, and adding Section 17.23.024 and
2074
SectiOns
Regulations, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilm~n Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Rucker, Thomas,
Request of The American Lutheran Church
for annexation of property in the 5700
Block on stockdale Highway referred to
the Planning Commission for study and
recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, request of the American
Lutheran Church for annexation to the City of Bakersfield of proper~:y
in the 5700 Block on Stockdale Highway, was referred to the Planning
Commission for study and recommendation.
Request of Finance Department for authorization
to enter into discount agreement with
O. B. Nuzum Tire Service granted.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, request of the Finance
Department for authorization to enter into discount agreement (EMMA account)
with O. B. Nuzum Tire Service for extraordinary tires and supplies,
was granted.
Chapter 17.23 of the Municipal Code, concerning Zoning
299
Bakersfield, California, January 22, 1973 - Page 12
Hearings.
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. 5 Annexation." This hearing had been duly advertised
and no 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, the public hearing was closed
for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas,
Resolution No. 7-73 annexing "Stockdale No. 5" to the Greater Bakersfield
Separation of Grade District was adopted by the following roll call Vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes; None .
Absent: None
This is the time set for continued public hearing before
the Council on application by Kenneth C. Cummings to amend the zoning
boundaries from an R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-2-D (Limited
Multiple-Family Dwelling.- Architectural Design) or more restrictive,
Zone, affecting that certain property in the City of Bakersfield
located at the northeast corner of Monitor Street and.Pacheco Road.
At the request of Councilman Whittemore, that hearing was continued
for two weeks from meeting of January 8, 1973.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participation.
No protests or objections were received. Mr.. George Lusich,
representing the owner, was present and stated he would be happy to
answer any questions of the Council regarding this rezoning. The
public hearing was.closed for Council deliberation and action.
Councilman Whittemore Commented that he had requested the
two week's continuance of this hearing because he had received two
calls from concerned citizens who asked questions relative to the
proposed zoning.of this-property. In the interim period he has met with
the people, and their questions have been answered to their satisfaction.
300
Bakersfield, California, January 22, 1973 - Page 13
Upon a
New Series
Use Zoning
located at
Road was
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No. 2075
amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code changing the Land
of t~ t certain property in the City of Bakersfield
the northeast corner of Monitor Streef and Pacheco
adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
None
None
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council
on application of Stockdale Development Corporation to amend the
zoning boundaries from an R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) Zone to an
R-2-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Design)
or more restrictive, Zone, of that certain property commonly known
as 5503 - 5719 Wilson Road (southeasterly side only.)
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and notices
sent according to the ordinance. No protests or objections have been
filed in the City Clerk's office.
The Planning Commission as its regular meeting held
December 6, 1972, considered this zone change request as described
above. Stockdale Development Corporation plans a development with
a density of one duplex per lot, or five dwelling units per acre. The
Commission was of the opinion that the requested zoning would be
compatible with the density as proposed on the Bakersfield Metropolitan
General Plan and the Stovkdale - California State College General Plan,
and therefore recommended approval.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participal~ion.
No protests or objections were received. Mr. Chuck Tolltee,
Stockdale Development Inc. representative, was present to answer
any questions posed by the Council.
Mayor Hart closed the public hearing for Council deliberation
and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Ordinance No. 2076
New Series amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code by changing the
Land Use Zoning of that certain property commonly known as
301
Bakersfield, California, January 22, 1973 - Page 14
5503 - 5719 Wilson Road, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
This is the time set for
on application of Jim Wattenbarger
Thomas,
public hearing before the Council
to amend the zoning boundaries
from a C-2-D, a C-O-D, an R-3-D and an R-1 to an MH; and from an
R-1 to an R-3, of that certain property in the City of Bakersfield
located northerly of West Columbus Street from easterly of "0" Street
to easterly of San Dimas Street, together with a parcel on the
southeast corner of West Columbus Street and San Dimas Street.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and notices
were sent according to the ordinance. No protests or objections were
filed in the City Clerk's office.
At its regular meeting held December 6, 1973, the Planning
Commission considered this zone change. The proposed MH zone, containing
27 acres, would accommodate 243 mobile homes. The applicant at the
present time operates a mobilhome park containing 139 units.
The proposed R-3 zone, containing 12.8 acres, would allow
construction of 445 apartments; however, approximately one-third of
this parcel is occupied by a P G & E Transmission line and Easement
and this would prohibit any construction being built in this area.
Therefore, the Planning Commission recommended R-2-D (Limited Multiple
Family Dwelling - Architectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone, for
the parcel presently zoned R-1 lying southeasterly of West Columbus
Street and easterly of San Dimas Street. The Commission recommended
the "D" Design Overlay to insure a compatible development with
other developments in the area.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participation.
No protests or objections were received. Mr. Jim Wattenbarger, the
applicant, was present to answer any questions posed by the Council and
Planning Director Sceales explained the Commission's recommendation
that the parcel be zoned R-2-D instead of approving the request of the
Bakersfield, California, January 22, 1973 - Page 15
Mayor Hart declared the public hearing closed for Council
deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance
No. 2077 New Series amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code by
changing the Land Use Zoning of that certain property located northerly
of West Columbus Street from easterly of "O" Street to easterly of
San Dimas Street, together with a parcel on the southeast corner of
West Columbus Street and San Dimas Street, as recommended by the
Planning Commission, was adopted by the following ~ote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Council, upon a motion
adjourned at 9:20 P.M.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the
by Councilman Rucker, the meeting was
MAYO t~akersfield--
ATTE ST:
CITY ~LERK and E~-0ff~io Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, January 29, 1973
' 3
30,
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., January 29, 1973.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by
the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Major D. Elmer Baker of
the Salvation Army.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
ADsent: None
Minutes of
the regular meeting of January 22, 1973 were
approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. James Barton, President of the International Firefighters
Union Local 1301, presented Awards of Honor to Engineer Clyde "Ed"
Reynolds and Hoseman Gordon Brooks, for "bravery and heroism
above and beyond the call of duty at considerable risk and without
regard for life or personal safety", in rescuing a mother and small
child stranded in an auto during the torrential rains and flood on
June 7, 1972. On behalf of the Council, Mayor Hart expressed his
gratitude to these men for reacting to an emergency situation, and
stated that the community is proud of them for what they represent
to their fellow citizens.
Council Statements.
Councilman Heisey thanked the members of the City Council
and the City staff for their expressions of sympathy to him and his
family upon the loss of his father.
Councilman Heisey presented Mayor Hart with an award which
he accepted Sunday night on behalf of the City which reads "Community
Service Award to Honor Dedicated People for Community Service
Presented to the City of Bakersfield for Outstansing Service to the
Community in Support of the March of Dimes Telerama 1963 to 1973."
304
Bakersfield, California, January 29, 1973 - Page 2
Councilman Whittemore co~anented that he had been watching
the late news and heard Mr. Vernon Strong, who is seeking election as
a write-in candidate in the First Ward opposing Councilman Del Rucker,
state that he felt Mr. Rucker had slighted him during the ground
breaking ceremonies for the multi-purpose building in California Avenue
Park.
Councilman Whittemore reminded the Council and the press
that during a pre-meeting discussion in the caucus room he had
stated that he did not understand why invitations had been issued by
Mr. Strong as chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee for the
California Avenue Park Multi-purpose Center, to attend the ground
breaking ceremony for this building, the members were certainly
entitled to be present, but he felt that it was the prerogative
of the Mayor or the City Council to set the date for any ground
breaking ceremony.
Furthermore, it was by the sole efforts of Mr. Rucker, that
the project was adopted by the entire Council and the application
made for the federal grant to construct the building. Councilman
Rucker has devoted a great deal of time and effort over the years in order
to achieve the recreation center for the community, and it is unfor~kunate
that a misunderstanding had occurred with Mr. Strong at this particular
time. However, the man who headed the program, who worked so long and
finally saw the center accomplished, should receive the credit for
and that man is Councilman Del Rucker.
Councilman Medders read from the Administrative Report
that Chairman James Flinn of the Miscellaneous Civil Service Board
had received a communication from Mr. William H. Tatro advising thai;
due to a heavy work schedule, he would no longer be able to serve as
a member of this Board. Mr. Tatro's term expires December 31, 1974..
Councilman Medders placed the name of Stanley E. Jones in nomination
for appointment to this position to fill out the unexpired term.
Councilman Rees commented that he is acquainted with Mr. i~nes
and feels he is an excellent choice for this Board. Councilman Heisey
concurred that Mr. Jones would be an admirable appointment to serve
on this Board.
Bakersfield, California, January 29, 1973 - Page 3
3O5
Councilman Medders moved that the resignation of Mr. Tatro
be accepted, that he be sent a letter of commendation for his services,
and that Mr. Starley Jones be appointed to fill the vacancy on the
Miscellaneous Civil Service Board.
Councilman Whittemore called for a separation of the
question. Vote taken to accept the resignation of Mr. Tatro carried
unanimously.
Councilman Whittemore stated he has no particular opposition
to the appointment of Mr. Jones, he does not have a name to submit for
appointment, but possibly some other member of the Council would wish
to do so. He then offered a substitute motion that the matter be derletted
for one week.
Councilman Bleecker commented that he doesn't have anyone
to nominate so he would oppose the substitute motion.
thinks it
week.
Councilman Thomas supported Councilman Whittemore's motion,
stating he has a name to submit, but is not prepared to do so this
evening.
Vote taken on the substitute motion to defer the matter
for one week failed to carry by the following roll call:
Ayes: Councilmen Rees, Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rucker
Absent: None
Vote taken on the motion to appoint Mr. Stanley E. Jones,
2709 Bank Street, to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of
Mr. William Tatro, term to expire December 31, 1974, carried by
the following roll call:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilman Rees stated he would support Mr. Jones, but
is perfectly appropriate to hold the matter open for another
Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Whittemore
Councilmen Bleecker,
Councilman Thomas
None
306
Bakersfield, California, January 29, 1973 - Page 4
Mayor Hart informed the Council that Portia Siplin has
submitted her resignation as a member of the Kern County Economic
Opportunity Corporation and he offered the name of Mr. Robert Jackson
as a replacement for Mrs. Siplin on the Board of Directors. Mr. Jackson
has expressed a willingness to serve on the Board. Councilman Whittemor-
moved that the resignation of Mrs. Siplin be accepted, she be sent a
letter of appreciation for her services, and that the Mayor's
appointment of Mr. Jackson be approved. This motion carried unanimously.
Reports.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, report from J. E. Deem,
Acting Chief of Police, in response to a complaint from Mr. and Mrs.
Robert Leek, 309 Monterey Street, Apartment "B", alleging a lack of
police service in their area and a lack of follow-up on a theft of
gasoline from a neighbor, was received and ordered placed on file.
The complaint was received by the Council at meeting of
and referred to the Police Department for report.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 2323 to 2363,
inclusive, in amount of $20,737.84
(b)
Claim for personal injuries from Edith King,
12207 W. Lacey Blvd., Hanford, California
(Refer to the City Attorney)
Request of A. W. Anderson for annexation to
the City of Bakersfield of property on the
southwest corner of Baldwin Road and
Belle Terrace (Refer to Planning Commission)
(c)
(d), (e),
Ayes:
January 8, 1973
(d) Street Right of Way Deed from Douglas A. and
Nancy R. Alexander
Calendar:
(e) Street Right of Way Deed from Lee D. Towery and
Janice Towery
(f) Notice of Completion of Work on Lennox Avenue
and Wilson Road
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b), (c),
and (f), were adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, January 29, 1973 - Page 5
307
Adoption of Resolution No. 8-73 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
declaring that the' City is providing ~
Fire Protection Services within its
jurisdiction and directing filing thereof
with the Board of Supervisors of Kern
County.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Resolution No. 8-73
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring that the City
is providing:Fire Protection Services within its jurisdiction
and directing filing thereof with the Board of Supervisors of Kern
County, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Approval of Agreement between P G & E
and the City of Bakersfield for natural
gas service to the City Police Pistol
Range property west of Oak Street and
Truxtun Avenue.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Agreement between P G & E
and the City of Bakersfield for natural gas service to the City Police
Pistol Range property west of Oak Street and Truxtun Avenue, was
approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Approval of Plans and Specifications
for Bakersfield TOPICS Plan 3 for
the Modification of Traffic Signals
at Various Locations.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, plans and specifications
for Bakersfield TOPICS Plan 3 for the Modification of Traffic Signals
at the following locations were approved, and the Finanee Director was
authorized fo advertise for bids:
Truxtun Avenue @ Eye Street
18th Street @ Q Street
17th Street @ Chester Avenue
18th Street @ M Street
21st Street @ ' Q Street
3O8
Bakersfield, California, January 29, 1973 - Page 6
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council of Resolution of Intention No. 886 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, declaring its intention to order the
abandonment of Flowage Easements in Lot 16 of Section 18, T. 30 S.,
R. 28 E., in the City of Bakersfield.
This hearing had been duly posted. Application was made by
Troy Castain and Maurice and Frank St. Clair. Easements are located
on the southeast corner of the intersection of South "H" Street
and Calcutta Drive.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participation.
No protests or objections being received, the Mayor closed the public
hearing for Council deliberation and action.
Public Works Director Bidwell explained that this
undeveloped property is draining into the drainage field to the south
and there are easements on the property to carry the storm water. The
tract is now proposed for development in this area. This abandonment
is requested to fake the easements off the tract prior to recordation.
Drainage facilities will be provided in the tract itself to replace
these flowage easements.
Councilman Whirremote commented that Mr. Bidwell has just
answered his question, there won't be another drainage
field in the tract. He asked if the new tract would have the proper
grades, etc.
Mr. Bidwell stated
south of this tract north of
snd proper grades will
that the drainfield will be immediately
the development that fronts on Pacheco Road
be maintained.
Bakersfield, California, January 29, 1973 - Page 7
309
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Resolution No.
9-73 ordering the abandonment of Flowage Easements in Lot 16 of
Section 18, T. 30 S., R. 28 E., in the City of Bakersfield was
adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Whittemore
None
None
Adjournment.
There being no
upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker,
at 8:25 P.M.
Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
further business to come before the Council,
the meeting was adjourned
f thef
MAY( of Bakersfield,
Calif.
ATTEST:
Council of the City of Bakersfield, Calif.
Bakersfield, California, February 5, 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., February 5, 1973.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by
the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Richard G.
Gerbrandt.
The City Clerk Called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of January 29, 1973 were approved as
presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mrs. Ann Monroe, 236 N. Stine Road, addressed the Council,
stating she has an interest in the City government and feels she has
a right to ask questions of the City Attorney. Although she resides
outside the City limits, she operates a business in and pays taxes
to the City.
Council Statements.
Councilman Rees read the following statement prepared by
Public Works Director Bidwell which indicates the City's position
regarding the tumbleweeds which have accumulated on private property
and streets during the recent high winds:
Several times in recent weeks strong winds have
blown tumbleweeds from vacant lands onto private
property or the public right of way including
alleys. The City has received many calls from
residents asking what can be done about this problem.
The City will remove tumbleweeds from the public
right of way including alleys, but will not remove
them from private property. The City will respond
to these requests but only when the wind has
subsided.
The Air pollution Control District has granted
exemptions for burning tumbleweeds so that
individuals who want to burn tumbleweeds on their
property can obtain permission to do so by
contacting the nearest City fire station. The Fire
Department must inspect the property as a safety
precaution prior to authorizing such burning.
Bakersfield, California, February 5, 1973 - Page 2
Councilman Bleecker commented as follows on a move
recently made by the executive branch of the federal government which
he thinks is important to cities and their surrounding environs:
During the past few days, the President of the United
States has made it clear to Congress that it intends
to alter or eliminate certain federal programs. He
believes thay have been wasteful, unproductive or
duplicated by the various agencies. These programs
have restricted the individual American to seek his
own destiny, in his own community, according to
local needs and self-determination. The President
emphasized the retention of the worthy goals of
these programs, but feels that they can be !better
accomplished by local government, local people and
local institutions. He would de-emphasize the role
of the federal government in our every day lives.
Councilman Bleecker stated that as a Councilman with a
sincere interest in his community and in people, and as an every day
American who believes that the federal government has in many ways
misjudged the real need and hopes of its people, he supports the
proposition that the people in Bakersfield can better determine their
own needs and their own way of live for today and tomorrow, and for
as long as local government and institutions strive to promote a general
excellence in community affairs.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 2363 to 2431,
inclusive, in amount of $24,509.55
(b) Application for Encroachment Permit from
Robert L. Thompson, 301 "H" Street
(c) Street Right of Way Deed from Melvin G. Madruga
(d)
Plans and Specifications for Paving Central
Park and Wayside Park parking lots and a portion
of Elm Street Mediam Island
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b), (c)
and (d) of the Consent Calendar, were adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, February 5, 1973 - Page 3
Finance Director authorized to
transfer funds for replacement of vehicle
in Public Works Department.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, the Finance Director
was authorized to transfer funds in amount of $2,900.00 from Fund
No. 11-510-6100 to Fund No. 81-691-7200, for replacement of
1968 Chevrolet ½ Ton Pickup in the Public Works Department which
was damaged on January 18, 1973 and declared a total loss.
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, low bid of Kern
Sprinkler Company for construction of Antomatic Irrigation Systems
for Median Island Planters in New Stine Road - Ming Avenue to Wilson
Road, and in Ming Avenue - New Stine Road to Ashe Road, was accepted,
all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute
the contract. Councilman Heisey commented on the range in the bids,
the low bid being about a third of the high bid. Public Works Director
Bidwell pointed out that the developers Ire participating in the
cost of this landscaping, in this particular instance they are paying
49% of the cost of the construction.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, low bid of A-1 Battery
Company for annual contract Automotive Batteries, was accepted, all
other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute
the contract.
Adoption of Resolution of Intention No.
887 of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield, California, declaring its
intention to order the vacation of a portion
of Stine Road between Wilson Road and New
Stine Road.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Resolution of
Intention No. 887 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, declaring
its intention to order the vacation of a portion of Stine Road between
Wilson Road and New Stine Road and fixing the date o£ March 12, 1973
for hearing on the matter before the Council, was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, February 5, 1973 - Page 4
313
Approval of Lease Agreement with
Thomas Anchordoquy for portion of
Sewer Farm No. 3, to be used for
grazing of sheep.
At this time the Council discussed proposed agreement for
lease of portion of Sewer Farm No. 3 (Section 33, less the north and
east 1700 feet), to be used for grazing of sheep for a six months'
period.
Councilman Bleecker asked how many acres were involved
and Mr. Bidwell replied there were approximately 580 acres. Council-
man Bleecker asked what criteria was being used for determining whether
the highest bid was a sufficient bid. Mr. Bidwell stated they did not
have a criteria, it was hoped there would be some competition as in-
terest was expressed by two other parties, but they failed to submit
a bid due to the City's requirement of filing liability insurance,
which probably eliminated any profit. With the information that he
has at the present, he would be unable to actually state what the
grazing fees should be for the use of the land. This is strictly un-
developed land, covered with tumbleweeds, is not leveled and is not
watered. The only growth comes from this year's rainfall.
Councilman Bleecker commented that there must be some way
to determine what the fees should be, he would dislike to just give
the land away for nothing because only one bid was received. He
suggested that the staff contact local sheep growers and find out
what the farmer is being paid to sheep off his last growth of alfalfa
hay, so the Council would have something to go on. He then moved
that in lieu of any answers, action be deferred until the next meeting
of the Council.
Mr. Tom Anchordoquy asked permission to speak to the Coun-
cil, stating that he had made the single bid for the grazing privi-
leges, and had subleased this property from Tenneco before the City
acquired it about a year ago. The insurance requirements are
$300,000 public liability, and he agrees with Mr. Bidwell is prob-
ably the reason other sheepmen were unwilling to submit bids. They
have made arrangements to have the City of Bakersfield added to an
existing policy they carry.
314
Bakersfield, California, February 5, 1973 - Page 5
Mr. Anchordoquy stated they have bid a little over $300
for the use of the property for six months which is more than they
paid formerly. This is a short term lease and most of the other
sheepmen have already left for their grazing areas, which is prob-
ably another reason why only one bid was received. He asked if
they could move their livestock onto the property as soon as pos-
sible, as they want to use the land for a small herd of sheep which
they have been feeding in the area. If there is any delay, they
will be forced to move the sheep to another field and then trans-
port them back to the city property, which would entail additional
expense. He asked if this could not be decided tonight.
Councilman Thomas asked if the property could be used
for any other purpose and Mr. Bidwell stated they had contacted
one individual who had been interested in it on a long term farming
basis, but he did not respond to using it for a short term. The
property is not generating any revenue at the present time.
Councilman Rees remarked that in view of the fact that
other sheep owners have been approached and are not interested,
the amount of money involved, and it being a short term lease of
the property, he cannot see the wisdom of deferring the matter and
would oppose the motion.
Councilman Bleecker stated that it would appear to him
with the large number of people here in this community in the sheep
industry that the City could have found more than three sheep owners
to contact. He feels it is the same as giving it away; however, if
the Council wants to lease it for 50~ an acre, it is all right with
him, but he will vote against the proposal.
After additional discussion, vote taken on Councilman
Bleecker's motion to defer action until the next Council meeting
failed to carry by the following roll call:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilman Bleecker
Councilmen Heisey, Medders,
Whirremote
None
Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Bakersfield, California, February 5, 1973 - Page 6
315
Upon a motion by Councilman~ Whirremote, proposed agreement
with Thomas Anchordoquy for lease of a portion of Sewer Farm No. 3
to be used for sheep grazing for a term of six months was approved,
and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. Councilman Bleecker
noted in the negative on this motion.
First reading of An Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 6.12.020 of the
Municipal Code changing the rate of
Transient Lodging Tax from 5% to 6%.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 6.12.020 of the
Municipal Code changing the rate of Transient Lodging Tax from 5%
to 6% effective April 1, 1973.
Councilman Whittemore asked the City Manager to give a
chronological rundown of the background for requesting &dditional
taxes in the middle of a budget year. Mr. Bergen asked Mr. Graviss,
Auditorium-Recreation Manager, to do this, as he has been working
very closely with the matter.
Mr. Graviss stated that the Chamber of Commerce, through
the Convention Bureau, requested additional funds from the City and
the County for the promotion of conventions by increasing the Room
Tax from 5% to 6%. The Association of Kern Counties Cities took
this matter under advisement, and later all cities in the Associa-
tion voted for an increase to 6%, if the County would do likewise.
Councilman Bleecker asked if any opposition has been re-
ceived from the motel and hotel owners on this increase in the room
tax. Mr. Graviss replied that the operators had initiated the re-
quest for the increase.
Mr. Charles Collins, Manager of the Ramada Inn, stated all
the major hotels and motor hotels and many of the smaller ones favor
this proposal, except one motel operator in the County. They sin-
cerely want the 6% tax to go through so that additional money will
be available for the Convention Bureau to promote and service con-
ventions.
31.6
Bakersfield, California, February 5, 1973 - Page 7
Councilman Whittemore asked Mr. Collins who paid the tax,
and Mr. Collins responded that the whole of it is paid by the tran-
sient who comes into the City to rent a room.
Approval of Map of Tract 3614 and
Mayor authorized to execute Contract
and Specifications for improvements
therein.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, it is ordered that
the Map of Tract No. 3614 be and the same is hereby approved, and
the Mayor is authorized to execute the Contract and Specifications
for improvements therein.
Plans and Specifications for Access
Modification of Southwest Entrance
to City Hall referred to the Business
Development and Parking Committee for
evaluation and report back to the Council.
The Council discussed plans and specifications for pro-
posed Access Modification of Southwest Entrance to City Hall. The
budgeted amount for this project is $4,500. Due to changes in the
design of the ramp to meet the requirements for the handicapped,
the estimated construction cost if $6,300.
Councilman Bleecker stated that he has received a number
of telephone calls regarding the high estimated cost for this proj--
ect. No one on the Council would deny any handicapped person easy
access to City Hall; this is not the intention of his remarks.
However, before he can support anything close to $6,000 to build
a ramp which would be used primarily by people in wheel chairs,
someone on the staff will have to show him why it is going to cost
this much.
Mr. Bergen stated he did not believe this is a matter of
great urgency, and he would recommend that it be deferred until
the next Council meeting. Prior to the meeting either he or the
Director of Public Works will go over the plans with each Council-
man individually and outline what they are trying to do. Since
the Council has a handicapped person committee which was appointed
a few months ago, their comments could be heard on the proposed ramp
before the next Council meeting.
Bakersfield, California, February 5, 1973 - Page 8
317
Councilman Bleecker asked why an adequate ramp, with
handrails out of concrete, could not be built for less than $1,000.
Mr. Bergen indicated that this is a matter of the requirements of
the State for a handicapped facility. The State requires certain
grades, handrails and automatic doors built to its standards.
Councilman Whittemore commented that this is a deluxe
ramp and the State has stiff specifications for the construction.
He moved that the matter be referred to the Business Development
and Parking Committee for a complete evaluation. This Committee
can consult with the members of the handicapped committee and make
a report of its findings back to the Council.
Councilman Thomas asked if any contact had been made
with the handicapped persons interested in this project, have they
made any suggestions for the construction of this ramp. Mr.
stated there had been discussions, that this group had made
more aware of the latest standards in effect at the present
this type of project.
After additional discussion, vote taken on Councilman
Whittemore's motion carried unanimously.
Bidwell
the staff
time for
Hearings.
is the time set for public hearing before the Council
Bakersfield to Zone Upon Annexation to an R-1 (One-
This
of the City of
Family Dwelling) or more restrictive, Zone, and to an R-2-D (Limited
Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Design) or more restrictive,
Zone, of those certain properties located northerly of Fraser Road,
east of the proposed southerly extension of Ashe Road and bounded
on the north and east sides by the City of Bakersfield, and known
as Stockdale #5 Annexation.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and no-
tices sent to property owners as required by Ordinance. The pro-
posed zoning upon annexation of 125.4 acres of R-1 and 35.7 acres
of R-2-D is in agreement with densities depicted on the Bakersfield
Metropolitan General Plan and follows the design of the Stockdale
Development and California State Bakersfield Master Plan.
318
Bakersfield, California, February 5, 1973 - Page 9
At the Planning Commission meeting held December 6, 1972,
the Commission recommended approval of the zoning upon annexation.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation, no protests or objections were received. Mr. Chuck Tolltee,
representative of the Stockdale Development Corporation, pointed
out that the density will be less than five to the acre.
The public portion of the hearing was closed for Council
deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Ordi-
nance No. 2078 New Series amending Section 17.12.020 (Zoning Map)
of Chapter 17.12 of the Municipal Code was adopted by the following
vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Rees, Rucker,
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before
the Coun-
the meeting was ad-
cil, upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore,
journed at 8:45 P.M.
~ALD M. HART
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK and Ex-Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
Bakersfield, California, February 26, 1973
Minutes of the.regUlar meetinglof the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City
Hall at eight o'clock P.M., February 26, 1973.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by
the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Councilman Walter Heisey.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of February 5, 1973 were
approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. Carl Miller, representing the Bakersfield Epileptic
Club, invited the Council to attend meetings
organization which is interested in learning
Mr. Ivo Keyset, general manager of
politan Transit District, stated that at the
of this non-profit
about epilepsy.
the Bakersfield Metro-
last Board meeting of
the Transit District, approval was given to reducing the fare on
City buses from the two rate structure of 30~ and 40~ now in effect
to 25~, as the Board felt this reduction in fares would encourage
more people to ride the buses. Other cities have recently reduced
fares and have noted an increase in passengers. He asked the
Council to adopt a Minute Order approving this action in order to
put this new rate schedule in effect by March 1, 1973.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Minute Order reducing
the bus
1973.
fares on City buses to 25q was approved, effective March l,
had been taken by the Council,
Councilman Rucker expressed his pleasure that this action
as the citizens of Bakersfield and
those people in his Ward who use the
fill them up every day.
Councilman Bleecker stated
buses frequently will possibly
this action of the Council is
constructive and during the City budget sessions the tax rate should
be reduced sufficiently to reflect the savings the City will be
making when a deficit is no longer borne by the taxpayers.
Bakersfield, California, February 26, 1973 - Page 2
He feels that the
the system and he
to do.
Councilman Heisey agreed with Mr. Bleecker's remarks,
stating he is sure all Councilmen wish to reduce the tax, as the
City will be reimbursed for its losses by the Transit District.
Transit District should set the fares and run
is happy to endorse whatever the members wish
Councilman Whittemore stated that every Councilman has
waited with greatest anticipation to turn the transit system over
to the District for operation. He feels that the tax rate should
be reduced accordingly, as everyone is already paying a tax into
the District itself. When the buses are replaced and a definite
schedule is set up, they will become attractive enough that citi-
zens will want to patronize the buses, and the operation will be
a tremendous success.
City Manager Bergen made the following statements:
I would like to publicly express my appreciation as
City Manager to the ranking officers at the Police
Department for their conduct during the trying time
since Chief Jack Towle's untimely death. The fact
that they were candidates for the Chief's position
did not stop them from acting in their normal
professional manner and I think they are to be
commended for their action.
I would also like to publicly recognize the amount
of time and effort spent by the Bakersfield Police
Department Civil Service Board, Walter Wickersham,
Dick Hosking and Robert Lumis, in conducting their
examination for the Chief of Police. It was an
exhaustive and comprehensive one and I, as City
Manager, certainly appreciate it.
Council Statements.
Councilman Heisey reported on a meeting held in Sacrament()
before the State Highway Commission on February 14, 1973 regarding
early completion of the crosstown freeway on 23rd-24th Streets
through the City of Bakersfield. Attending were Mayor Hart and
Councilman Heisey from the City, Mr. Robert Hoven and Supervisor
John Mitchell. The Division of Highways has scheduled this free-
way for completion in 1983, and the City-County presentation was made
because it is felt that this date is not realistic and the congestion
which will develop over the next few years will make it untenable.
Bakersfield, California, February 26, 1973 - Page 3
Councilman Heisey stated that Mayor Hart made the major
presentation in a brief manner which seemed to impress the Highway
Commission and was well received. Off the record the Commission agreed
to set up a hearing on this matter in October in Bakersfield. Their funds
are limited and the Commission pointed oui that it is going to be
necessary to "trade off dollars" and priorities, or in other words
delete and defer projects in other communities and funnel those funds
into Bakersfield in order to complete the project at an earlier date
than originally scheduled.
Mayor Hart commented that Councilman Heisey had covered the
matter very adequately. The group was prepared with statistics which
stressed traffic congestion and accidents in the area of the proposed
route. He feels that they were well received to the degree that
when the hearing is held in October, the Council may be able to influence
the Commission to consider an earlier completion of the freeway which
is so essential to downtown Bakersfield.
Councilman Thomas made a motion :that the Mayor be requested
to prepare a Resolution to be forwarded to Coach Larson, congratulating
the Cal State Roadrunners on winning a historic first as
basketball co-champions of the California Collegiate Athletic
Association. This motion carried unanimously.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of C~ims Nos. 2432 to 2720,
inclusive, in amount of $277,907.22
(b) Resolution No. 10-73 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield making finding that Tentative
Tract No. 3660, together with provisions for
its design and improvement, is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans
(c) Resolution No. 11-73 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield making finding that Tentative
Tract No. 3663, together with provisions for
its design and improvement, is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans
(d) Resolution No. 12-73 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield making finding that Tentative
Tract No. 3664, together with provisions for
its design and improvement, is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans
Bakersfield, California, February 26, 1973 - Page 4
(d), (e),
adopted
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
(e) Applicafion for Encroachment Permit from
Delton D. Davis, 2900 Maywood Drive
(f) Sewer Easement from Keneth R. Hallum,
et al, to City of Bakersfield
(g) Grant Deed from Stockdale Development
Corporation to the City of Bakersfield
(h)
Acceptance of Work and Notice of Completion
£or resurfacing a portion of University
Avenue, Bradley Avenue, and Frontage Roads
on Golden State Avenue at Garces Circle
(i)
Plans and Specifications for Construction
of New Stine Road and Wilson Road to Planz
Road and Paving Median Islands on Ming
Avenue and on New Stine Road.
(j) Guitclaim Deed for street purposes from
George E. Bailey to City of Bakersfield
Upon a morion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b), (c),
(f), (g), (h), (i) and (j) of the Consent Calendar were
by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas:,
Whittemore
None
bid for Annual Contract
to furnish Gasoline and Diesel Fuel. The City of Bakersfield has
again bid cooperatively with the County of Kern and other public
agencies for gasoline and diesel fuel requirement for the ensuing
year. Due to the apparent fuel shortage, only one bid was received
by the County of Kern Purchasing Department, and it was recommended
by the staff that the contract be awarded to the Union Oil Company
to assure adequate supplies for the year.
Councilman Bleecker asked the staff for an explanation
for receiving only one bid for these materials as usually several bids
are received. Mr. Frank Casey, Assistant to the Finance Director,
read a short article appearing in the Wall Street Journal which
clarified the fuel shortage situation. The oil industry suddenly
has all the customers it can serve and fuel surpluses which existed
None
Action on Bids.
The Council considered the
Bakersfield, California, February 26, 1973 - Page 5
only a few short months ago have changed into shortages. Petroleum
products demand is currently climbing at the rate of 6% per year, and
prices are also beginning to climb. Requests to bid were sent to
nine major oil companies and the lone bidder, Union Oil Company, did
agree to take care of the City's needs for the contract year. The
other companies informed the Purchasing Division that due to the
shortage, they cannot take on any additional customers this year.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, bid of Union Oil Company
for Gasoline and Diesel Fuel requirements for the coming year was
accepted, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, low bid of Griffith
Company for paving parking lots in Central Park and
Wayside Park and a portion of Elm Street Median Island was
accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized
to execute the contract.
Deferred Business.
Action on Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 6.12.020 of the Municipal Code changing the rate
of Transient Lodging Tax from 5% to 6% was deferred until Thursday,
March 1, 1973 at 12:00 noon in the Council Chambers of the City Hall.
Approval of Joint Powers Agreement with
the Greater Bakersfield Metropolitan
Transit District for operation of the
present transit system.
City Manager Bergen explained that the proposed joint powers
agreement whereby the operational management of the Transit
system would be transferred to the Greater Bakersfield Metropolitan
Transit District during the interim period of operation before the
formal transfer of the City transit system to the District would
permit the retention of Mr. Ivo Keyset, general manager of the
Transit District as superintendent of the present transit system,
to be operated within the framework of the city budgeted controls.
Bakersfield, California, February 26, 1973 - Page 6
Mr. Hoagland stated that Mr. Keyset will operate this
system under the Greater Bakersfield Metropolitan Transit District.
However, under the Joint Powers Agreement, he will be in charge
of the transit system with the powers and functions of a department
head in order to handle disciplinary problems. Upon a motion by
Councilman Rees, Agreement with the Greater Bakersfield Metropolitan
Transit District for the operation of the transit system was
approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
No. 888 of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield, California, declaring its
intention to order the abandonment of
the dedication of Vehicular Access Rights
from Lot 27, Tract No. 2720, to Ming
Avenue in the City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Resolution of Intention
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Whittemore
None
None
Council of the Cisty of Baksersfield rescinding Resolution No. 7-72
adopted March 6, 1972, relating to authority of Building Department to
charge fees for maintaining building plans for life of building, was
adopted
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Whittemore
None
None
Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Rees, Rucker, Thomas~,
Adoption of Resolution No. 13-73 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
rescinding Resolution No. 7-72 adopted
March 6, 1972, relating to authority
of Building Department to charge fees
for maintaining building plans for life
of building.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution of the
California,
the dedication
2720, to Ming
date of March 19,
was adopted by
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
No. 888 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield,
declaring its intention to order the abandonment of
of Vehicular Access Rights from Lot 27, Tract No.
Avenue in the City of Bakersfield, and fixing the
1973 for hearing on the matter bef~e the Council,
the following vote:
325
Bakersfield, California, February 26, 1973 - Page 7
Acceptance of resignation of H. Alston
Thomas as member of the Bakersfield
Planning Commission.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, communication from
Mr. H. Alston Thomas stating that he did not wish to be re-appointed
as Member of the Bakersfield Planning Commission when his term expires
April 17, 1973 was received, his resignation was accepted, and the
Mayor was requested to send Mr. Thomas
many years of service to the community.
Appointment of Mrs.
a letter of appreciation for his
Jill Haddad
as Member of the Bakersfield Planning
Commission.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, Mrs. Jill Haddad
was appointed as a member of the Bakersfield Planning Commission to
fill vacancy created by resignation of Mr. H. Alston Thomas.
Approval of Boundaries of Annexation
designated as Stockdale Annexation No. 7.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, the boundaries of
uninhabited annexation designated as Stockdale No. 7 were approved,
and referred to the City Engineer and City Attorney for referral to
LAFC.
Approval of Boundaries of Annexation
designated as Terrace Way No. 2.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, boundaries of inhabited
annexation designated as Terrace Way No. 2 were approved, and
referred to the City Engineer and City Attorney for referral to LAFC.
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council
on the matter of proposed Cooperation Agreement between the Housing
Authority of the County of Kern and the City of Bakersfield, for 200
dwelling units for elderly persons of low income. This hearing
had been duly advertised.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for
No protests or objections were received.
City Manager Bergen recommended that the hearing be continued
for one week to permit the City Attorney and Public Works Director
public participation.
Bakersfield, Cali£ornia, February 26, 1973 - Page 8
to meet with the Housing Authority officials to discuss a Letter
of Understanding with regards to the proposed agreement. This is a
standard contract but the staff wishes to make sure there is no
misunderstanding. Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the hearing
was continued for one week.
City Manager Bergen reported that seven bids were received
and work has been commenced to demolish the old Ragland Dairy building
for a sum of $750.00. Seven bids were received for the demolition of
the old American Legion Building and this work will be started at a
cost of $2,475.
Meeting recessed until March 1, 1973
at 12 Noon.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
1973, at 12:00 Noon
the meeting was recessed until Thursday, March 1,
in the Council Chambers of the City Hall.
M~f Bakersfield, Calif.
ATTEST:
~K an~ Ex-O{f of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, March l, 1973
Minutes of recessed meeting of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the
City Hall at 12:00 Noon, March 1, 1973.
The meeting was called to order
City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present:
by Mayor Hart. The
Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Thomas
Absent: Councilmen Rucker, Whirremote
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2079 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Section 6.12.020
of the Municipal Code changing the
rate of Transient Lodging Tax from
5% to 6%.
Councilman Bleecker stated that he would be in favor of
adopting this ordinance and increasing the tax from 5% to 6% as he
has not received any protests from the motel and hotel owners and
it will not constitute an increase in property taxes in any way.
At the request of Councilman Rees, City Manager Bergen
reported on meeting held last evening by the Association of Kern
County Cities when this subject was discussed. He listed the
Cities who were in the process of adopting the ordinance and those
who were opposed to increasing the tax. The County of Kern has
adopted the tax to become effective April 1, 1973.
Mr. Charles Collins, representing the major hotel and motor
hotel association, stated this group, as well as the Chamber of
Commerce and the Convention Bureau, favored adoption of the ordinance.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Ordinance No. 2097
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section
6.12.020 of the Municipal Code changing the rate of Transient Lodging
Tax from 5% to 6% was adopted by the
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey,
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen Rucker, Whittemore
following vote:
Meddsrs, Rees, Thomas
Bakersfield, California, March 1, 1973 - Page 2
upon
P.M.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
a motion by Councilman Rees, the meeting was adjourned at 12:112
MAY~y~Bakersfield, Calif.
ATTEST:
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, March 5, 1973
329
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., March 5, 1973.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by
the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend D. J. McDowell
of the Pleasantview Baptist Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of February 26, 1973 and
the recessed meeting of March 1, 1973, were approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mrs. Edna Buster, 2009 California Avenue, requested
an explanation from the Council regarding a summons she received from
the Superior Court of Kern County. City Attorney Hoagland stated
t~at Mrs. Buster had denied ownership of her property and had denied
that refuse collection was available from the City. She has been
issued a Request for Admissions which is contained in any lawsuit in
a court of civil procedure.
Mayor Hart suggested to Mrs. Buster that she comply with
the direction of the Court as contained in the letter she received.
The matter is under litigation and cannot, under the circumstances,
be discussed by the Council.
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, communication addressed
to Finance Director Haynes, advising that a Certificate of Conformance
has been awarded to the City of Bakersfield by the Municipal Finance
Officers Association of the United States and Canada, for its Annual
Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1972, for
disfinguised financial reporting, was received and ordered placed
on file.
Mayor Hart commended the Council and the staff for their
particular involvement in this performance of duty which resulted in
the City receiving this distinguished award.
330
Bakersfield, California, March 5, 1973 - Page 2
At the request of Councilman Rees, the City Clerk read a
communication from the North Bakersfield Chapter #1155, of the
American Association of Retired Persons, enclosing copy of a resolution
to be sent to their elected representatives in the State Legislature.
to enact laws to obtain eeomonical mass transportation for the older
citizens who in many cases cannot afford air travel and cannot
obtain licenses to drive cars.
Councilman Rucker called attention to "Black American
Day" which honors many brave black men in history. He stated that
black men have always been willing to perform their duty and have
been outstanding in fighting for their country during the many wars
waged in the history of the United States.
Councilman Heisey pointed out that a communication had been
received from Lieutenant Governor Ed Reinecke inviting the Council
and the Mayor to testify at a hearing before a subcommittee of the
Governor's Council on Intergovernmental Relations, to be held in
the Board of Supervisors Chambers on March 9,
City have been requested on six major issues
Council feel confront local government today.
1973. Comments from the
which the Mayor and
Councilman Heisey made
a motion that the Council officially authorize the City Manager and
the Finance Director to appear and to cover the subjects they orally
outlined in the Caucus Room. This motion carried unanimously.'
and (d)
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Upon
of the
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Whittemore
None
None
the Consent Calendar:
Allowance of Claims Nos. 2721 to 2796,
inclusive, in amounts of $132,994.68.
Application for Encroachment Permit from
Frank L. Stramler, 507 Jamacta Way.
Application for Encroachment Permit from
Mrs. Clifford Huff, 1701 - 18th Street
Notice of Completion of all Improvements
in Tract No. 3598 A
a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a),
Consent Calendar were adopted by the
Rees,
(b), (c) ,
following vote:
Rucker, Thomas,
Bakersfield, California, March 5, 1973 - Page 3
331
Adoption of Resolution No. 14-73 of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield
authorizing and directing the Mayor to
execute on behalf of City an Agreement
relating to proparation of Population
Estimate by the State Department of
Finance for the City.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Resolution No. 14-73
authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute on behalf of the
City and Agreement relating to the preparation of a Population Estimate
by the State Department of Finance for the City of Bakersfield, was
adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Reception of Certificate of City Clerk
of Result of the Canvass of Election
Returns of the Nominating Municipal
Election for the Office of Councilman
in the First, Third, Fourth and Seventh
Wards of the City of Bakersfield,
held on February 27, 1973.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Certificate of
City Clerk of Result of the Canvass of Election Returns of the
Nominating Municipal Election for the Office of Councilman in the
First, Third, Fourth and Seventh Wards of the City of Bakersfield,
held on February 27, 1973, was received, placed on file, and ordered
spread in full on the Minutes.
33o_
Bakersfield, California, March 5, 1973 - Page 4
STATEMENT OF ALL VOTES CAST
AT THE
NOMINATING MUNICIPAL ELECTION
HELD
February 27, 1973
In The
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Bakersfield, California, March 5, 1973 Page 5
NOMINATING MUNICIPAL ELECTION
FEBRUARY 27, 1973
WARD NO. 1
CONS. CONSISTING OF
NO. PRECINCTS
REGISTERED VOTES
VOTERS CAST RUCKER GODDARD STRONG
1 501
2 502
3 508
4 509
5 510
6 201, 511 &
7 512
8 524
9 532
Total 11-72
Total 2-1-73
Absentee Ballots
GRAND TOTAL
PERCENT 43.03%
514-A
452 95 43 8 44
512 58 40 9 8
555 179 86 20 69
515 209 98 23 88
533 172 90 34 46
415 203 119 35 46
507 208 103 24 79
384 155 58 12 85
415 174 50 31 92
4,288 1,453 687 196 557
3,390
11 6 1 4
1,464 693 197 561
WARD NO. 3
CONS. CONSISTING OF
NO. PRECINCTS
REGISTERED VOTES
VOTERS CAST REES ROGERS
10 311
11 312
12 313
13 314
14 315 & 317
15 316
16 318
17 319
18 320
19 321
20 322
21 323
Total 11-72
Total 2-1-73
Absentee Ballots
GRAND TOTAL
PERCENT 37.86%
583 215 109 105
460 137 81 55
517 164 81 83
405 158 67 91
528 168 56 112
468 160 78 82
388 138 40 96
492 177 68 109
407 145 42 103
521 146 91 55
449 121 68 51
585 162 80 82
5,803 1,891 861 1,024
5,065
29 13 16
1~920 874 1~040
335
Bakersfield, California, March 5, 1973 Page 6
NOMINATING MUNICIPAL ELECTION
FEBRUARY 27, 1973
WARD NO. 4
CONS. CONSISTING OF
NO. PRECINCTS
REGISTERED VOTES
VOTERS CAST BLEECKER
BERRIGAN REID
22 324
23 325
24 401
25 516
26 517
27 518
28 519
29 520
30 521
31 522
32 523
33 525
34 526
Total 11-72
Total 2-1-73
Absentee Ballots
GRAND TOTAL
PERCENT 33.21%
603 127 74
133 42 34
79 15 8
433 154 98
470 165 119
447 175 126
777 227 192
429 167 125
457 159 118
441 114 81
621 107 68
500 107 54
490 85 61
5,880 1,644 1,158
4,950
35 28
1~679 1~18_____~6
31 21
7 1
6 1
45 11
44 2
41 8
25 10
34 6
34 7
32 1
27 12
31 18
21 2
378 100
7 0
385 100
WARD NO. 7
CONS. CONSISTING OF
NO. PRECINCTS
REGISTERED VOTES
VOTERS CAST WHITTEMORE
LEEK REED
35 202,
36 203
37 204
38 406
39 546
40 547
41 548
42 549
43 550
44 552
205 & 206
Total 11-72
Total 2-1-73
Absentee Ballots
GRAND TOTAL
PERCENT 30.36%
483 119 65
555 159 98
808 185 53
398 100 66
540 91 56
461 178 110
502 103 52
440 127 86
516 95 39
538 181 80
5,241 1,338 705
4,475
21 13
1~359 718
6 47
32 29
18 112
14 20
13 22
30 37
10 39
6 35
13 43
26 74
168 458
3 5
171 463
TOTAL ALL WARDS
(2-1-73)
PERCENT ALL WARDS
17,880
35.91%
6,422
Bakersfield, California, March 5, 1973 - Page 7
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
TO RESULT OF THE CANVASS
OF ELECTION RETURNS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
)
COUNTY OF KERN)
MS.
I, MARIAN S. IRVIN, City Clerk of said City do hereby
certify that, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 22932.5
of the Elections Code and of the resolution of the governing body
of said City, heretofore adopted and entered upon the minutes of
said governing body, I did canvass the returns of the vote cast
in said City, at the Nominating Municipal Election held on
February 27, 1973, for the offices of Councilman of the First,
Third, Fourth and Seventh Wards, and that the Statement of the
Vote Cast, to which this certificate is attached, shows the whole
number of votes cast in said City and in each of the respective
precincts therein, and that the totals of the respective columns
and the totals as shown for each candidate are full, true and
correct.
CITY CLER]~
Bakersfield, California, March 5, 1973 Page 8
33'7
Adoption of Resolution No. 15-73
declaring Result of Canvass of
Returns of Nominating Municiapl
Election for Councilman in the First,
Third, Fourth and Seventh Wards of
the City of Bakersfield, California,
held on February 27, 1973.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Resolution No. 15-73
declaring the following Result of Canvass of Returns of Nominating
Municipal Election for Councilman in the First, Third, Fourth, and
Seventh Wards of the City of Bakersfield, California, held on
the February 27, 1973, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Bleecker, Reisey,
Whittemore
None
None
WARD NO. 1
Samuel Del Rucker
Cicero Napoleon Goddard
Vernon D. Strong
WARD NO. 3
Raymond E. Rees
Donald A. Rogers
WARD NO. 4
Keith Bleecker
Nancy Berrigan
Ronald A. Reid
WARD NO. 7
Bob Whittemore
James Steven Leek
Charles L. Reed
Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
693 Votes
197 Votes
561 Votes
874 Votes
1040 Votes
1186 Votes
385 Votes
100 Votes
718 Votes
171 Votes
463 Votes
full term of four
THIRD WARD
FOURTH WARD
SEVENTH WARD
years:
to the office of City Councilman for a
DONALD A. ROGERS
T. KEITH BLEECKER
ROBERT N. WHITTEMORE
The following persons are hereby declared to be elected
Bakersfield, California, March 5, 1973 - Page 9
City Attorney instructed to prepare
Ordinance naming alley at Wayside Park.
At its February 21, 1973 meeting, the Planning Commission
considered a request by the Parks Department to name the 20 foot
alley-access road adjacent to Wayside Park to provide direction to the
public who uses the park and picnic facilities. The Commission
recommended "Wayside Lane."
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas~ the name was approved~
and the City Attorney was instructed to prepare the necessary ordinance.
Reception of petition for formation of
a Public Improvement District from residents
along Cherry Street and Dracena Street
between Pine Street and Beech Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker~ petition from residents
along Cherry Street and Dracena Street between Pine Street and Beech
Street requesting the formation Of a Public Improvement District for the
construction of curb, gutter and sidewalk in this area~ was received
and ordered placed on file.
Reception of City Engineer's Certificate
of Sufficiency of petition for formation
of a Public Improvement District.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, City Engineer's
Certificate declaring sufficiency of petition for formation of a
Public Improvement District to construct curbs~ gutter and sidewalk
along Cherry Street and Dracena Street between Pine Street and Beech
Street was received~ and the City Attorney was instructed to prepare
the necessary resolutions to commence the proceedings.
Acceptance of Engineer's Report on
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal for
Southeast Bakersfield.
Councilman Heisey commented that this is a report that should
be studied by every member of the Council and he £eels that the Council
as a whole should act on the report rather than refer it to a Council
Committee. He moved that the Engineer's Report on Wastewater Treatment
and Disposal for Southeast Bakersfield be accepted, and that $3,000 be
transferred from the Council Contingency Fund to pay the City's share
of the total cost o£ $8,000. He pointed out that only $5,000 was
budgeted for this purpose in the current budget.
Bakersfield, California, March 5, 1973 - Page 10
339
Councilman Rees questioned budgeting only $5,000 for this
service when the cost to the City actually amounted to $8,000.
Director of Public Works Bidwell explained that at the time
the budget was prepared only an estimate was used, as no prior contact
had been made with any engineering firm to prepare this report, and
the actual cost was not known at that time. The Engineering firm will
be in Bakersfield on March 19, 1973 to submit a detailed explanation
of the various wastewater treatment alternatives available to
the City and the Mt. Vernon Sanitation District, and to answer any
questions of the Board of Supervisors. This firm will also be avail-
able to appear before the Council and make the same presentation at
the regular Council meeting of March 19, 1973.
Councilman Heisey then included in his motion that the
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Report for Southeast Bakersfield be
discussed with the engineering firm of Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. at
the Council meeting of March 19, 1973. This motion carried unanimously.
Hearings.
This is the time set for continued public hearing before the
Council on the matter of proposed Cooperation Agreement between the
Housing Authority of the County of Kern and the City of
Bakersfield for 200 dwelling units for elderly persons of low income.
This hearing has been duly advertised.
The public portion of the hearing was closed at the meeting
of February 26, 1973, and action was deferred to permit the City Attorney
and Public Works Director to meet with the Housing Authority officials
to discuss a Letter of Understanding. Meeting was held and the following
letter, dated February 28, 1973, was received from Mrs. Lila Little,
Executive Director of the Housing Authority, clarifying the contract.
In order to clarify the Cooperation Agreement between
the Housing Authority of the County of Kern and the
City of Bakersfield entered into March, 1973, the
Housing Authority will conform to all normal City
procedures in obtaining any street vacations or
zoning changes felt necessary for the development
of the project.
340
Bakersfield, California, March 5, 1973 - Page 11
Further it is our understanding that any costs incurred
by the City in street vacations necessary for the
project will be reimbursed to the City.
It is our understanding that all utilities leading
to or serving the project will be maintained by the
City in accordance with normal policy.
In response to a request for clarification from Councilman
Rees, Mrs. Lila Little stated that the Housing Authority has applied
for a construction grant from the federal Housing and Urban
Development but no actual plans or a location have been developed
for the 200 proposed units. The application is being held in abeyance
until the Cooperation Agreement is approved by the Council.
Councilman Bleecker asked the City Attorney if he was satisfied
that entering into this agreement does not violate any of the City
ordinances or building codes. Mr. Hoagland stated that he was not
satisfied with some of the language in the contract when he first
read it, that it was not clear to him who had the authority to do
certain things to protect the development. However, with the letter
submitted by Mrs. Little, he is satisfied with the Contract and that
anything concerning zoning,
nature will be carried out
a private developer.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees,
from the Housing Authority was included as
street vacations and matters of that
through the normal procedures required of
the supplemental letter
part of the contract, the
Cooperation Agreement with the Housing Authority of the County of
Kern for the 200 dwelling units for elderly persons of low income
was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
This is the time set for hearing before the Council for
consideration and confirmation of the Report and Assessment List for
Abatement of Weeds under Phase II of the 1972 Weed Abatement Program.
This hearing was duly posted and notices mailed to all owners of
property on which the nuisance was abated.
Bakersfield, California, March 5, 1973 - Page 12
The Director of Public Works submitted the following report
to the Council and answered all questions posed by the Council through-
out the hearing.
The 1972 Weed Abatement Program, Phase+II, commenced
with the City-wide inspection and posting of 509 vacant
lots during the period of September 25, through
October 4, 1972.
On October 20, 1972, "Notice to Destroy Weeds" cards
were mailed to the owners of 472 vacant lots posted.
The second inspection was made on October 30-31, 1972
and there were 285 non-compliances.
Resolution No. 75-72 adopted by the City Council on
November 6, 1972 finding weed growth on 266 certain
properties to be a nuisance, directed the Superintendent
of Streets to remove and destroy said Weeds and to send
registered letters to property owners informing them
that weeds on their property have been declared a public
nuisance.
On November 10, 1972, the owners of 266 properties were
notified by certified mail.
On November'17, 1972, a third inspection was made and there
were 132 non-compliances.
Prior to the arrival of
and destroy said weeds,
cleaned by the owners.
the contractor's forces to remove
additional parcels of land were
From December 5, 1972 to February 9, 1973, a total of
81 parcels were cleaned by the contractor, Specialized
Spray Service. The total assessment for work done,
including incidental costs, under the Weed Abatement
Program Phase II, was $5,180.
In the absence of Mayor Hart, Vice-Mayor Whittemore acting as
presiding officer, opened the hearing for public participation and asked
if there was anyone present who wished to protest the assessment for
weed abatement on his property.
Mrs. Eva Wilkins of 4000 White Lane, who was assessed $45.00
for the removal of weeds from her property, stated that she no longer
was the legal owner of the property, she had transferred it to her son,
Guy Wilkins, on December 5, 1971, by Deed recorded in Book 4606, Page 249
of County Records. She further stated that her son and two of his
friends had cleaned the lot and some of the tumble weeds were blown
back on the property by the wind. She does not feel this is a fair
assessment, she is not the legal owner, and she asked the City to
cancel it.
Bakersfield, California, March 5, 1973 - Page 13
Mr. Guy Wilkins, 4000 White Lane,verified his mother's
statement that the lot had been cleaned, that he not only used a swamper
on his own lot, but also removed weeds from the City parkway adjacent
to his property. These weeds were later picked up by a representative
of the City in a truck, as Mr. Wilkins had not had the opportunity to
dispose of them himself.
Mrs. John S. Trino, 2919 Panorama Drive, stated that she was
protesting the assessment because no time limit was placed on the
removal of the weeds in the notice she received. After'she received
the notice, she made arrangements to have a high school boy do the work
for $20.00, but this was not done. Her assessment from the City for
doing the work was $50.00. She was told by a City representative in the
Public Works Department that the actual removal of the weeds by the City
amounted to $35.00, but an additional $15.00 was charged for incidental
expenses, such as posting, mailing notices and certified letters to the
property owners. She is therefore objecting because no definite deadline
was set for removing the weeds and to the $15.00 incidental charge
added to her assessment which she does not think is fair. She does not
feel that the program is being handled correctly.
Councilman Rees asked Mr. Bidwell for his reasons for not
including a cut-off date for the removal of the weeds in any notice
that goes out to the property owners. Mr. Bidwell stated that his
department does not have a regular schedule set up with the contractor,
that they try to give the owners as much advance notice as possible to
clean the lots themselves, so that the City does not have to make any
assessment against the property. He explained that the $15.00 incidental
assessment does not begin to cover the cost to the City for several
inspections, posting and certified mailings to each owner.
Councilman Bleecker asked the City Attorney if it were
possible to make a motion during the public hearing and the City
Attorney replied that the Council makes it own rules in this area.
Councilman Bleecker stated that the City can make errors, this weed
abatement program ought to be perfect for everyone involved. He then
moved that the whole Weed Abatement process as outlined in Weed Abatement
343
Bakersfield, California, March 5, 1973 - Page 14
Ordinance No. 536 New Series, be referred to the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee for extensive review. Councilman
Rees asked that the matter of assessing each individual whose lot is
cleaned $15.00 for administrative
this review. This motion carried,
in the negative.
costs of the City be included in
with Councilman Medders voting
Councilman Rucker asked Mr. Bidwell if the $15.00 charge
was considered a penalty against those property owners who failed
to clean their own lots, and Mr. Bidwell reiterated that this charge
is only a very small percentage of the cost incurred by the City,
it in no way covers the cost of the actual program, it is a nominal
administrative fee that is established without any consideration
of the total number of parcels originally posted.
Mr. Eddie V. McGee, 3017 Hughes Lane, stated he did not
receive a certified letter and he had received an assessment for
$60.00, which is the first notice he received. Mr. Bidwell stated
his records show that the certified letter to Mr. McGee was returned
marked "Moved - Not Forwardable." The assessor's record sho~s an
address different from Mr. McGee's residence. Someone recognized the
name as the records were being checked after the weeds had been removed,
checked it through the phone books, and sent the assessment charge
to his proper address.
Mr. Hoagland commented that sending the registered letter
is not required by the ordinance, it is an additional service to bring
to the attention of the property owners that the weeds have not been
removed from their lots. Legally, posting of the lot itself is
sufficient.
Mrs. Victoria Adams, representing Margaret Klingenberg
deceased, stated she lives in Oxnard and has never been notified to
remove the weeds on this property until she received the assessment
which was forwarded to her new home. Mr. Bidwell stated he did not have
a return receipt showing that a registered letter had been redeired
on this property.
344
Bakersfield, California, March 5, 1973 - Page 15
Mr. Eddie R. Johnson, 728 Eureka Street, received a notice
of assessment in amount of $65.00, and stated that he had cleaned
the property and the charge was being made just for someone to come
in and haul away the cut weeds he had piled on the lot. He said he
had not received a registered letter, but Mr. Bidwell reported that
a receipt bearing his signature had been returned to the Public Works
Department. Mr. Johnson said that
than the taxes on his property.
Mrs. Adams remarked that
the $65.00 charge amounted to more
it took three men who spent the
last week end cleaning this lot and she cannot see
contractors has done any work to remove the weeds.
the $55.00 is unreasonable and unfair.
Mr. John Trino joined his wife
assessment, stating they were not trying
that the City's
She believes
in protesting their
to avoid the issue,
the work was done by the City, but the major point they are trying to
make is that the way the program is being handled is not the best way
to do it, the procedures are not explained to the public. Also he
feels that the contractor is not
for lots of various sizes.
Mr. Julian P. Calderon
fair in charging the same amount
informed the Council that he had
recently purchased a lot on the northwest corner of Eto~ and University
Avenue and the assessment of the cost for cleaning the lot had been
mailed to him, but the certified letter had been mailed to the previous
owner. He had attempted to share the cost with the previous owner, but
the owner refused to do so. He therefore asked that the assessment
be cancelled, as he did not feel it was his responsibility. In response
to a question from Councilman Rees, City Attorney Hoagland stated that
if Mr. Calderon was not the owner of the lot at the time the notice
went out, he would not be liable for the assessment.
Vice-Mayor Whittemore closed the public hearing for
Council deliberation and action.
Councilman Heisey made a motion to delete the following
assessments from the Assessment Lists:
345
Bakersfield, California, March 5, 1973 - Page 16
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
motion.
NAME
Eddie V. McGee
3017 Hughes Lane
Margaret Klingenberg
c/o Victoria Adams
Oxnard, California
Julian P. Calderon
3617 Miami Street
This motion carried by the
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey,
Councilmen Rees, Rucker
None
AMOUNT
$60.00
PARCEL NO.
18-400-20
$55.00 15-240-09
$45.00 24-042-13
following roll call vote:
Medders, Thomas, Whittemore
Councilman Rucker later changed his vote to "Aye" on this
Councilman Thomas then moved that the Assessment List, with
the deletion of the three names, be confirmed, and the City Clerk
directed to file with the County Recorder.
Councilman Bleecker ssked for a separation of the question,
as the proper person had not been billed for the assessment sent
to Mrs. Eva Wilkins.
Councilman Thomas withdrew his motion, and the Council
acted separately on each of the three remaining protests.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Assessment No.
162-250-552, in amount of $45.00 assessed against Eva Wilkins, 4000
White Lane, was deleted from the Assessment List by the following
roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
It was moved by Councilman Bleecker, the Parcel No.
24-421-12 assessed to John S. Trino, 2919 Panorama Drive, in amount
of $50.00, remain on the Assessment List. This motion carried by
the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
346
Bakersfield, California, March 5, 1973 - Page 17
It was moved by Councilman Rucker, that Parcel No.
17-200-14 assessed to Eddie R. Johnson, 728 Eureka Street, in amount of
$65.00, be deleted from the Assessment List. This motion failed to
carry by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilman Rucker
Noes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Thomas, Whirremote
Absent: None
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, the ramaining
Assessment for 1972 Weed Abatement - Phase II were confirmed, with
the four properties deleted, and the City Clerk was directed to
file with the County Recorder.
This is the time set for public hearing before the Counicl
when all persons interested in Report and Assessment List for
demolishing and removing dangerous buildings and having any objections
thereto, may appear and be heard. This hearing has been duly advertised
and notices sent to all persons interested.
Vice-Mayor Whittemore declared the hearing open for public
participation. Mo protests or objections being received, the public
hearing was closed for Council deliberation and action.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No. 16-73
confirming the Assessment of certain property located in the City of
Bakersfield upon which dangerous buildings have been demolished and
removed, was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
There
upon a motion by Councilman Rees,
P.M.
Adjournment.
being no further business
adjourned
ATTEST:
the meeting was
to come before the Council,
at 10:10
Bakersfield, Calif.
CI~E~ an~x-Officio Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California~ March 12, 1973
347
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., March 12, 1973.
In the absence of Mayor Hart, the meeting was called to
order by Vice-Mayor Whittemore, £ollowed by the Pledge of Allegiance
and Invocation by the Reverend Ross P. McGuire of the College Heights
Congregational Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as £ollows:
Present: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Absent: Mayor Hart
Minutes of the regular meeting of March 5, 1973 were
approved as presented.
Councilman Heisey pointed out that the term of Mr. Robert
Chairman o£ the Bakers£ield Redevelopment Agency, had expired
re-appointment to the Agency for a four
1977. Vote taken on this nomination
E. King,
and he nominated Mr. King for
year term expiring February 1,
carried unanimously.
Correspondence.
The City Clerk read a communication from Mr.
Cliff Hewitt,
Chairman of the Board of Trade Industrial Committee, calling the
Council's attention to the fact that the Kern County Association of
Cities, Kern County Council of Governments, and various Chambers of
Commerce throughout the County endorsed the basic concept of a Board
of Trade proposal for a county-wide industrial development program.
The Board of Supervisors last June approved a request of the Board
of Trade Directors for a special $30,000 appropriation to increase
the Board's efforts to attract industry to the County, and at this
week's meeting authorized the Board of Trade to proceed with the
program, subject to approval as to the legality by the County Counsel.
Mr. Hewitt requested the Bakersfield City Council, in
cooperation with the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, to
appoint a representative from Bakersfield to serve as a member of
a County-Wide Advisory Committee to move forcefully into a full-
fledged program in three basic steps, which he outlined in his letter.
348
Bakersfield, California, March 12, 1973 - Page 2
Councilman Rees commented that he feels it is quite appropriate
to comply with the request of the Board of Trade, and he then moved
that the Council delegate the Water and City Growth Committee to consult
with the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce to select a member
for this proposed County-wide Advisory Committee. This motion carried
unanimously.
Mayor Hart requested that the following communication from
the California Highway Commission, Winston R. Fuller, Chairman, be read
into the record:
Honorable Donald M. Hart
Mayor, City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Mayor Hart:
On behalf of the Highway Commission I wish to thank
you for your appearance and excellent presentation
made at our meeting of February 14, 1973, at which
you urged the advancement of construction of uncompleted
Route 178 Freeway to connect with Route 99.
You noted that a corridor has been shown on the City
General Plan which appears to be a desirable connection
between the completed freeway and Route 99. The matter
has not been carried to a Public Hearing or route location
recommendation since funds for construction are so far
in the future.
We recognize the desirablity of a Route 178 Freeway in
providing improved traffic service to downtown Bakersfield
and its potential coordination with redevelopment.
However, due to funding limitations, we are concerned that
advancement of this project would be possible only if some
other project were deferred. It is possible that formal
establishment of a freeway route would be appropriate
despite the lack of near term funding. This could be
valid particularly if done in conjunction with land use
planning by the City.
A copy of this letter will be sent to the Division of Highways,
which will ensure that State Highway Engineer R. J. Datel
and his staff know of our interest in this matter. We are
well aware of the excellent coordination between the City
and District Engineer Ramey. We are confident that this
will provide a basis for a satisfactory resolution of
the matter.
Councilman Hiesey commented that this is the answer they had
anticipated at this early date; however, as time goes on he believes
the construction of the project will be moved up considerably from
349
Bakersfield, California, March 12, 1973 - Page 3
the 1983 date. The Highway Commission knows the City wants this
project advanced, and it recognizes the desirability of completing
Route 178 Freeway to provide improved traffic service to downtown
Bakersfield. Councilman Heisey moved to receive the communication
and place it on file. This motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Rucker commented on complaints voiced by his
constituents regarding packs of dogs roving through the streets in
the Sunset-Mayflower section of his Ward. He asked the City Manager to
contact the Animal Warden to pick up the stray animals in order to
provide relief to the people residing in the area.
Reports.
Councilman Raymond Rees, member of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, read a report of that Committee
on the subject "Correction of Compensation Ordinance relating to
payment for Call-Back Hours of the Police Department."
It has come to light that the compensation ordinance
inadvertently omitted the section which specifically authorizes
the payment for court time as call-back hours fo~ the Police
Department. An Ordinance has been prepared which corrects the
oversight, and the Committee recommends adoption of the ordinance
and acceptance of this report as first reading. Upon a motion by
Councilman Rees, the report was adopted and the ordinance was
considered given first reading.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 2797 to 3091,
inclusive, in amount of $55,624.55
(b) Application for Encroachment Permit from
Gregory P. Iger, 211 "H" Street
(c) Request from George Stiles, Waste Water
Treatment Plant Operator II, for an additional
90 days leave of absence without pay
(d) Plans and Specifications for Construction of a
Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert at Belle
Terrace and Stine Canal
350
Bakersfield, California, March 12, 1973 - Page 4
(e) Plans and Specifications for installation of
Security Lighting at Patriots Park
(f) Plans and Specifications for Construction of
Sprinkling System at Patriots Park
(g) Sewer Easement from Stockdale Development
Corporation to City of Bakersfield
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b), (c),
(d), (e), (f) and (g) of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the
following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whitfemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
First reading of An Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
designating a name for the alley at
Wayside Park, as Wayside Lane.
First reading was considered given An Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, designating a name
for the alley at Wayside Park, as Wayside Lane.
Adopfion of Resolution No. 17-73 calling
a General Municipal Election in the City
of Bakersfield to be held on Tuesday,
April 10, 1973, for the purpose of
electing a Councilman in the First Ward;
establishing voting precincts, appointing
Precinct Election Officers and designating
Polling Places for said Election.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Resolution No. 17-73
calling a General Municipal Election in the City of Bakersfield
to be held on Tuesday, April 10, 1973, for the purpose of electing
a Councilman in the First Ward; establishing voting precincts,
appointing Precinct Election Officers and designating Polling
Places for said election, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, March 12, 1973 - Page 5
Councilman Medders commented that it had been brought to
his attention that electioneering signs had actually been posted
on the house where the Nominating Election of February 27th was
being held, and he asked if campaigning of this nature was legal.
The City Attorney explained that the State Elections Code
prohibits any person, including an election officer, from placing
a sign or doing any electioneering within 100 feet of any polling
place. At the Nominating Election it was necessary for the City
Clerk to have a police officer remove the illegal signs at one
polling location.
Mr. Hoagland went on to say that one candidate had registered
a complaint that /he election officials refused to place and would not
allow him to place, pencils inside the voting booths, even though he
had offered to supply the pencils. This candidate stated that a
voter desiring to write-in his name was forced to openly request a
pencil, thus destroying the voter's right to cast a secret ballot.
Mr. Hoagland stated thaf the Elections Code prohibits the placing of
pencils in the voting booths, only allows the stamp pad and stamp,
although pencils are made available to voters requesting one. If a
ballot is marked with a pencil rather than the stamp, except for
write-ins, the ballot will be invalidated. If pencils were placed
within the voting booth along with the official stamp and pad, it
would be misleading to /he voters in that they could conceivably believe
that an option was open to them to use either a pencil or a stamp,
a procedure which under present legislation is not allowed.
Request from Stockdale Development
Corporation for vacation of two
easements in Section 10, referred to
the Planning Commission for study
and recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, request from Stockdale
Development Corporation for abandonment of two easements in the NE~
of Section 10, was referred to the Planning Commission for study
and recommendation.
Approval of request from Pacific
Telephone Company for an extension
of time for undergrounding location
described as south side of Ming
Road between Akers Road.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, request from Pacific
Telephone Company for an extension of time for undergrounding location
Bakersfield, California, March 12, 1973 - Page 6
described as south side of Ming Road between Akers Road and a
point 600' east of Akers Road was approved. This extension of
time would only prevail until the houses are removed or relocated.
Action on petition to delete the
parking mall on 17th Street between
Chester Avenue and Eye Street deferred
for one week and referred to Traffic
Authority for study and report.
Mr. Francis Morelli~ assistant Manager of Title Insurance
and Trust Company, addressed the Council, stating that as they
understood it, the ordinance adopted by the Council on October 20,
1972, was to vacate the mall entirely south of 18th Street. His
company and the Crocker Citizens Bank have had numerous complaints
from customers and employees because under the present situation
much difficulty is encountered in trying to enter the multiple
parking garage from any direction other than Chester Avenue. Visibility
is hindered and there have been a number of collisions. Consequently,
usage of the parking garage has dropped off. This is very important
to these two companies and he asked that prompt action be taken to
delete the parking mall on 17th Street between Chester Avenue and
Eye Street.
Councilman Bleecker commented that the question of deleting
that particular portion of the mall dig not come before the Business
Development and Parking Committee~ of which he is the Chairman~ only
the portion between Chester Avenue and the next street east. The City
elected to drop portion of the mall south of 18th Street from the
one-way traffic system~ retaining the 17th Street portion in order to
facilitate ingress and egress pending construction of the new Bank of
America complex and the senior citizens housing development at 17th
and Eye Street. Councilman Bleecker stated that this is located in
his ward~ he sees no particular problem, and moved that the matter be
deferred for one week and referred to the Traffic Authority for study
and report to guide the Council in its decision.
Acceptance of Map of Tract No. 3626
and Mayor authorized to execute Contract
and Specifications for Improvements
therein.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Map of Tract No.
3626 was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the
Contract and Specifications for the improvements therein.
Bakersfield, California, March 12, 1973 - Page 7
Councilman Whittemore asked Mr. Bidwell if all the curbs,
gutters and grades in this proposed mobilehome park will be constructed
to the standards of the City and to his satisfaction. Mr. Bidwell
replied that sufficient funds have been placed in trust by the
developer to insure that the work is completed to City standards.
Also, the drainage sump is being installed to the City's standards.
Councilman Bleecker stressed the necessity for installing
concrete curbs and gutters. He visited a recently constructed
mobilehome subdivision and the curbs, gutters, etc., which had been
constructed of asphalt were already crumbling because of erosion.
Councilman Whittemore commented that Mr. Bidwell had
assured the Council that the curbs and gutters in this subdivision
were to be constructed of concrete instead of asphalt.
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council
on Resolution of Intention No. 887 of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield, declaring its intention to order the vacation of a
portion of Stine Road between Wilson Road and New Stine Road.
This hearing has been duly posted and no protests or
objections have been filed in the City Clerk's office. This action
was initiated by the Public Works Department.
Vice-Mayor Whittemore declared the hearing open for public
participation. No protests or objections were received and no one
present spoke in favor of the vacation.
Director of Public Works Bidwell explained that bids for
the construction of the extension of New Stine Road on Wilson Road
southerly to Planz Road will be opened on March 19, 1973.
He requested that the closing of Stine Road which carries
traffic now, be deferred until the contracted work is about to start,
354
Bakersfield, California, March 12, 1973 - Page 8
which would then require the detouring of all traffic over another
route.
.Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, the hearing was
deferred indefinitely by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilman Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council
concerning the Public Services and Facilities Element of the
Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. This hearing has been
duly advertised.
At its February 7, 1973 meeting, the Planning Commission
held a public hearing on the Public Services and Facilities Element
of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, and after a
thorough review, approved the report and recommended same to
the City Council. This report was authored by Koebig & Koebig, Inc.,
an engineering firm contracted by the County of Kern under joint powers
agreement, and was financed in part through an urban planning grant
(701). The development of the report was coordinated with the City
Engineering and Planning Staff, using land use and population projects
furnished by Hahn, Wise and Associates, planning consultants.
The report evaluates the existing potable water, watershed
and drainage systems and expands the system to indicate the planned
facilities required for the year 2000, along with estimated current
project costs of the proposed improvements.
Councilman Heisey asked the Public Works Director to comment
on this Public Services and Facilities Element, and Mr. Bidwell
stated that Mr. Dale Hawley, Deputy Director of Public Works, was
prepared to comment on the report.
Mr. Hawley stated that the Public Services and Facilities
Element is a survey of existing sewers, drainage and water systems.
This information was obtained from the City, County, Sanitation
Bakersfield, California, March 12, 1973 - Page 9
Districts, Water Companies and the Kern County Water Agency. The
purpose of this report is to put into a single document maps and
plans of existing and proposed facilities, and an attempt was made
to utilize and correlate the plans and studies into the General Plan
for the Bakersfield area. The contents are general in nature; this is,
the size and location of proposed improvements are for planning and
budgeting purposes only.
Councilman Rees asked Mr. Hawley if the report specifically
considers the construction of a cross-valley canal and/or a treatment
plant. Mr. Hawley replied that the information for the maps displayed
on the wall of the Council Chamber was obtained from the Kern County
Water Agency. It does show the approximate location of the cross-valley
canal, the location of the treatment plant, but that is the extent of
the plan as fa~ as the water system is concerned.
Councilman Bleecker asked Mr. Hoagland if adoption of the
resolution would in any way indicate that the Council lends tacit approval
to the idea of the establishment of a freatment plant for water.
Mr. Hoagland stated that it would be a general schematic
working plan showing the elements it purports to show, such as the
water, storm drains, sewage facilities and the like.
Councilman Bleecker stated if that were the case he can
support the resolution.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Resolution No. 18-73
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield adopting the Public Ser~ces
and Facilities Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the meeting adjourned at
8:40 P.M.
ATTEST:
~.~RK and Ex-Offico Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield, Calif
MAY R t~~~Bakersfield Calif.
3 56
Bakersfield, California, March 19, 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., March 19, 1973.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by
the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Richard Ober
of the First Christian Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whirremote
Present: Mayor Hart.
Absent: None
Minutes of the
approved as presented.
regular meeting of March 12, 1973 were
Correspondence.
The City Clerk read a communication from Mr. George DeArmond,
president of the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, submitting
the name of Robert L. Hoven as the representative from the Bakersfield
area to be appointed to the Kern County Industrial Advisory Committee;
also, a letter from the Kern County Board of Trade urging the
appointment of a representative to the County-Wide Advisory Committee
as soon as possible, as the Board wishes to schedule a initial
meeting of this Committee on Wednesday,
Councilman Heisey stated that
Committee had been delegated to consult
April 4th.
the Water and City Growth
with the Greater Bakersfield
Chamber of Commerce to select a member for this proposed County-Wide
Advisory Committee; however, the Committee has not held a meeting with
the Chamber of Commerce. The only comments he has heard from other
members of the Council is that the Chamber has submitted the name of
a nominee without consulting with the Council's Committee. He feels
that Mr. Hoven is an excellent selection, he does not know where
anyone more qualified could be found, and he certainly hopes the
other members feel the same as he does. He is prepared to support
the recommendation of the Chamber of Commerce, as the City expects
the Chamber to promote an industrial program with the contributions
received from the City and it acts more or less independently.
Bakersfield, California, March 19, 1973 - Page 2
357
Councilman Bleeeker agreed that Mr. Hoven is well qualified
for this appointment, and he feels sure he will do an excellent job.
Councilman Rees made a motion to refer the letter to the
Water and City Growth Committee which had been delegated to select a
representative from the Bakersfield area. Councilman Heisey pointed
out that this matter should be decided at the next meeting, as the
Board of Trade has stated it wishes to schedule the initial meeting
of the Committee for April 4lh. Vote taken on Councilman Rees' motion
carried unanimously.
Council Statement.
Councilman Whittemore stated that as an advisory member of
the Planning Commission, he had attended the retirement dinner held for
Mr. H. Alston Thomas, who served on the Planning Commission for many
years and recently resigned. Mr. Jill Haddad was appointed in the
interim period to the vacancy created by Mr. Thomas' resignation
which will expire on April 17, 1973. He then moved that Mrs. Haddad
be re-appointed as a member of the Planning Commission for a four year
term expiring April 17, 1977.
Councilman Recker asked the City Manager to contact the
proper entity and request that consideration be given to increasing
the time of the traffic light at Fourth Street and Union Avenue to
permit crossing Union Avenue safely, as he has had many complaints
from his constituents regarding this intersection.
Councilman Bleecker asked if there has been any concise
action taken by the Urban Bakersfield Water Advisory Committee in
response to the Water and City Growth Committee's letter of February
5, 1973, signed by Councilman Walter Heisey, chairman, requesting a
detailed study to compare water percolation versus the construction of a
proposed seven million dollar water treatment plant to supply supplemental
water to the urban Bakersfield area. He asked the City Clerk to search
the record and submit a copy of the minutes of the meeting at which
the Council had taken action to request the Kern County Water Agency to
conduct such a study. A brief recess was called for this purpose.
Bakersfield, California, March 19, 1973 - Page 3
After the meeting reconvened, Councilman Bleecker quoted from
the minutes of the January 22, 1973 meeting, stating that it would appear
from the minutes that it was the unanimous will of the Council that
a detailed study of the percolation process be made by the Water
Agency and submitted to the Council for its evaluation and decision
whether or not it would recommend that a treatment plant or percolation
process be instituted. He asked Mr. Hoagland if he had communicated
with the Kern County Water Agency as directed in the minutes of
January 22, 1973, and reiterated the City Council's position as stated
December 18, 1972, that the Water Agency make a thorough study of the
spreading program within the improvement district and that this study
be made prior to awarding any contract for the cross-valley extension
canal or for any treatment plant.
Mr. Hoagland stated that he was not asked to write a letter;
however, he did communciate. with Mr. Bryant, who at that time was the
managing director of the Kern County Water Agency and re-affirmed the
Council's position. The Kern County Water Agency has stated that a
detailed study of the percolation method would be made during the
intervening years, but it could not be done in anything short of a
lengthy period of time. Mr. Hoagland went on to say that it was his
understanding that the Council's Water and City Growth Committee's
position was that a detailed study could be conducted concurrently with
construction of the water treatment plant.
Councilman Bleecker maintained that it was the will of the
Council that a detailed study of the percolation method be made prior
to the Kern County Water Agency proceeding with the construction
of a seven million dollar treatment plant, and if it were voted on
again tonight, he feels that the Council would confirm his opinion,
because that is what is stated in the minutes of January 22, 1973. He
asked where it was stated in the minutes that the Council would favor a
detailed study be made concurrent with the building of a water treatment
plant.
Bakersfield, California, March 19, 1973 - Page 4
359
Mr. Hoagland replied that it has always been the opinion
of the Water and City Growth Committee, whether or not it has been
the opinion of the Council as a whole, that a percolation process
had to be studied, but not necessarily in detail, prior to the
construction of the sewage plant.
Councilman Bleecker stated the very fact that the Council
saw fit to bring it up again at its meeting of January 22, 1973,
and the fact that Chairman Heisey of the Water and City Growth
Committee has stated that an adequate study should be made before any
costly program is started which would commit the public forever, would
indicate the Council expected the Water Agency to conduct an independent
study before proceeding with the design of a treatment plant. He
asked if any move has been made to build a treatment plant.
Mr. Hoagland advised that the Urban Water Advisory Committee
met today at the request of the Kern County Water Agency to consider
the latest Schulz and Stetson reports which stated that virtually
no savings could be realized with the total percolation process.
Councilman Bleecker asked if those were the reports that
were made available to the Council at the Caucus session this
evening, and the City Manager replied that the answer was "yes."
Councilman Bleecker remarked that it seemed peculiar to
him that a meeting of the Urban Bakersfield Water Advisory Committee
was held today where it was apparently decided to proceed with the
water treatment plant, when it has been made very clear by the Council
many times that a detailed study to determine the feasibility of
constructing a water treatment plant be conducted before any further
proceedings are taken along these lines.
Councilman Heisey stated that the Council should realize
that the cross-valley extension is an unlined canal, and the study
of percolation in this unlined canal is just as important to the
City of Bakersfield as the study of percolation in the river bed
360
Bakers£ie,d California, March 19, 1973 - Page 5
and elsewhere. That was reiterated in the letter the Committee sent
to the Kern County Water Agency on February 5, 1973, which was
written with the assistance of Mr. Tom Stetson, the City's consulting
engineer. The final determination and the ultimate decision will
be made by the Kern County Water Agency.. All the Urban Water
Advisory Committee did today was to unanimously endorse the conclusions
in the reports submitted to them from Mr. Schulz and Mr. Stetson.
Councilman Whirremote stated it was not the opinion of
the Water and City Growth Committee that a concurrent study of the
percolation process be conducted with the construction of a water
treatment plant. He supports Councilman Bleecker's stand that
until a complete comprehensive study is made as to how successful
the percolation process would be in the urban area, he is opposed
to spending seven million dollars to construct a treatment plant,
because people will not be satisfied with the quality of the water.
It would not be proper for the Kern County Water Agency to consider
the construction of a treatment plant without first completely
exploring the feasibility of percolating the water instead of
treating it.
Councilman Bleecker remarked that it is his understanding
that the Urban Water Advisory Committee includes Councilman Heisey,
Chairman of the Water and City Growth Committee, suppliers of urban
water, and City Manager Bergen and City Attorney Hoagland, who are
alternates to the Council's committee. These members met today and
confirmed the hiring of a design engineer for the construction of a
treatment plant, which he believes is entirely against the will of
the Council, according to the minutes of January 22. The Council or
the Water and City Growth Committee have not received any type of
detailed study on the percolation of water and well recovery as
opposed to the idea of building a treatment plant.
Councilman Thomas asked Councilman Heisey.if the unlined
cross-valley canal extension is being designed to deliberately
percolate water. Councilman Heisey stated it was. Councilman Thomas
commented that was exactly why he asked if a study o£ constructing a
Bakersfield, California, March 19, 1973 - Page 6
a treatment plant would delay the construction of the cross-valley
canal. It was his understanding that the canal would be built but the
seven million dollar treatment plant would be deferred until the
Council received and evaluated a detailed report from the Water Agency.
He feels that the will of the Council was circumvented if a treatment
facility has been endorsed at the meeting held today.
Councilman Heisey remarked that there had been no attempt
to circumvent the Council. He, himself, does not think the report
which the Water Agency came up with is as detailed as it should be,
but the Agency did make a study. No ratification was made at today's
meeting to contract for a design engineer for the treatment plant;
he did not hear the words "design engineer" mentioned. He offered the
suggestion that the City's consultants appear at the next meeting
of the Council to answer questions, after the members of the Council have
had the opportunity to study the two reports.
Councilman Bleecker asked permi~ion of Mayor Hart for
Mr. Tom Folsom, executive secretary of the Kern County Taxpayer's
Association, to address the Council and give his interpretation of
the meeting held today by the Urban Water Advisory Committee, which
he attended.
Mr. Tom Folson stated that he appreciated the opportunity
given him today by Councilman Heisey to express some of his points
of view and also to listen to the conclusions and different
viewpoints which were expressed at the meeting based on a
discussion that was conducted that there was concurrence the Kern
County Water Agency should proceed with the necessary steps involved
in the employment of a design engineer, which action had already
been taken by the Board of Directors. The indication was that the
meeting was called by the Water Agency to obtain the
Advisory Commitee's response to the reports that had been made
available, essentially to determine if there had been anything
developed that would cause a recommendation for the Agency Board
of Directors to change the action they had previously taken.
He was concerned and r~ised the question regarding the intent
of the letter that had been submitted by Councilman Heisey, chairman
Bakersfield, California, March 19, 1973 - Page 7
of the Water and City Growth Committee, requesting the agency to conduct
a detailed study. It was his assumption that this letter indicated
that the Council was definitely in favor of a complete study being made
prior to any final decision on a treatment plant. However, when
he rai~ed the question regarding the
request for a study was not intended
struction of a treatment plant.
Councilman Bleecker stated that the February
was signed by Councilman Heisey for the Water and City
letter, it was stated that the
as a condition preceding con-
5, 1973 letter
Growth Committee
and no meeting
have been held
to the Council.
of the Committee took place where any conference could
as to what the will of the Committee was to recommend
He maintains that the reports from Mr. Stetson
and Leeds, Hill and Jewerr, Inc., received tonight after certain
actions were taken by the Water Agency to go ahead with the employment
of a design engineer for a treatment plant plus the fact that this
council has had no opportunity to read the cursory reports, is a very
high-handed way to circumvent the will of the Council.
Councilman Medders asked who has jurisdiction over the
cross-valley canal system. Mr. Hoagland replied that the Kern
County Water Agency has jurisdiction. Councilman Medders commented
that if this were the case, about all the Council can do is give the
Agency advice and recommendations, it cannot compel the Agency to
do anything, it is just an exercise in futility.
Mr. Hoagland stated that due to the misunderstanding arising
out of Mr. Bleecker's concern with the matter, he would suggest that
any action attributable to the City of Bakersfield be their Advisory
Committee, be negated until this Council had had an opportunity to
hear the City's consultants on the matter.
Councilman Bleecker commented that it would behoove the
Kern County Water Agency to search for some independent study of
its own, so that the City may be assured that seven million dollars
will not go down the drain.
Councilman Heisey remarked that was especially what he asked
for in some detail in his letter of February 5, 1973, that an
Bakersfield, California, March 19, 1973 - Page 8
363
independent study be made by the Agency. At the request of Councilman
Heisey, Mr. Hoagland read the Water and City Growth Committee's
letter to the Kern County Water Agency in which was set out four
specific points to be included in the requested study.
Councilman Heisey stated they did not receive this study,
all they could do is ask, as they do not have any authority over the
Kern County Water Agency. They have struggled hard to get an
independent study made by an outside firm but have not been successful.
An in-house study was made and they are continuing with a study program
which will go on for some time.
moving in the right direction.
Stetson and representatives of the
to go into this matter in-depth at
However, he is satisfied they are
He asked Mr. Bergen to invite Mr.
California Water Service Company
the next Council meeting.
Councilman Rees stated that at a meeting of the Water and
City Growth Committee held last week, the report of Mr. Schulz,
who impressed him as being a non-water expert,was brought up,
and it was explained that the comparative cost of a treatment plant
versus a well farm was approximately equal, that basically it is
misleading to say seven million dollars can be saved if a water treat-
ment plant is not built.
Councilman Bleecker addressed Mr. Hoagland, stating that at
the last meeting of the Council he asked the specific question that
if the Council approved the Public Service and Facilities Element of
the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan would it be committing
it self in any fashion to the building of a treatment plant, and as he
recalls it, Mr. Hoagland's answer was "no", that they were only approving
a general plan such as parks, storm drains, sewers, etc. He asked Mr.
Hoagland if the building of a treatment plant in this water improvement
district would require Council approval before it could be constructed.
Mr. Hoagland stated that the Public Services and Facilities
Element did not specify a treatment plant although it was represented
at the Council meeting that it did. The Council did not approve a
364
Bakersfield, California, March 19, 1973 - Page 9
treatment plant per se, just zones, it is an element showing water ways
and waste disposal areas; however, a treatment plant could be in-
cluded in it.
Councilman Rees commented that Councilman Heisey, the City
Manager and the City Attorney are very knowledgeable regarding water
matters. They are men who are deeply concerned about the
interests of metropolitan Bakersfield and he is going to listen to
them carefully.
Councilman Whittemore stated he feels the Council should
have the opportunity to review the Stetson and Schulz reports, and as
one Councilman he would very much interested in hearing what Mr.
Stetson and Mr. Wade have to say. He moved that the City's water
consultant and representatives of the California Water Service
Company be invited to appear before the Council next Monday night,
so that the Council can take whatever additional action it deems
necessary. Councilman Heisey seconded the motion. Councilman Bleecker
amended the motion that the chair be prepared to recognize so~e other
expert in the field at the same time. Vote taken on the motion and
the amendment carried unanimously.
Reports.
Director of Public Works Bidwell stated that in August of
1972, the City of Bakersfield in joint agreement with the Mount Vernon
County Sanitation District engaged the engineering firm of Metcalf &
Eddy to perform a preliminary investigation of wastewater treatment
and disposal alternatives for southeast Bakersfield. A copy of the
completed report of this investigation was given to each of the Council
members on March 5, 1973. Tonight, at the City's invitation, the
project engineer for Metcalf and Eddy, Mr. Charles Pound, is present
to make a detailed presentation of this report and to answer any
questions that the Council may have.
Bakersfield, California, March 19, 1973 - Page 10
365
Mr. Pound, project engineer with the firm of Metcalf
and Eddy, thanked the Council for the 'opportunity to come before
the Council and pres~t the report which had been submitted in
writing. As was pointed out last June, 1972, the Regional Water
Quality Control Board established new standards for the discharge
of the three sewage treatment plants located in southeast Bakersfield.
These treatment plants are not able to meet the standards and
therefore the firm of Metcalf and Eddy, together with Mason, Vancurn
and Wachob, were retained to define the problems and to develop
alternative solutions to the problems, including cost estimates.
Since that time, Congress saw fit to pass the amendment to
the 1970 Water Quality Act which has very far reaching implications
in this field. He brings it up because it does bear on the report
and the conclusions presented to the Council. These amendments
demand regional treatment and control which will be in excess of the
requirements which have been established on treatment at this time.
He recommended that the Council get out of the farming business
and into the water reclamation business. He explained the
conclusions and recommendations reached as a result of the investigative
report and answered all questions posed by the Council. He offered
the following recommended program:
1. Decision on recommendation. This will include
such inferences as the seeking of federal aid
to the extent of 87~% of the costs, conclusion
on consolidation of the plants and how it should
be approached, and desire to promote water
reclamation. All of this would be involved in
this first decision.
2. Prepare project report and investigate recharge
and withdrawal potential.
3. Authorize negotiations with the local irrigation
districts or agencies to receive the reclaimed
waste water and distribute it. This water will
be suitable for unrestricted irrigation. It is
acceptable for crops, for contact sports according
to State requirements, but not suitable for
drinking water.
4. Authorize management study for consolidation -
the legal and financeal aspects.
366
Bakersfield, California, March 19, 1973 - Page 11
o
Submit a series of project reports to SWRCB by
October 1, 1973. Upon acceptance of those
reports, there would be the authorization of
preparation of plans and specifications. When
those are completed, an application for a grant
can be submitted, which must be done by May 1,
1974.
o
The grant offer is made, can be accepted in
thirty days and the construction program is
ready to begin.
This same presentation was made to the Mount Vernon
Snaitation District and one question was asked "are sufficient
funds available". The point was that they do not want to go
into a long program, get down to the end of the road and learn
there is no money available. This is conjecture to a degree
but the practice is now that if the application has been made
and the plans have been submitted and accepted, if there isn't money
available, it is deferred until the next year. An extension from
the Regional Board can be obtained, at least to some degree, to
allow that.
Mayor Hart thanked Mr. Pound for his presentation
and appearance before the Council.
Councilman Bleecker, chairman of the Business Development
and Parking Committee, read the following report from Chief of
Police R. O. Price on the subject of the deletion of 17th Street
from the Parking Mall:
Reference is made to your memorandum of March 13
regarding the petition from certain business people
requesting the deletion of 17th Street from Chester
to Eye Street from the Parking Mall.
As you will recall, it was our recommendation several
months back that the parking mall be brought back to
the original boundaries; namely, 18th to 21st Streets,
"L" to "H" Street, due to the increased projected
traffic demands resulting from the new bank building
and also because it was felt that the need for the
parking mall would be eliminated by the off-street
parking facilities which are planned. At the time the
action was taken, the section of the parking mall between
Chester and "H" Streets was not deleted due to a request
by several of the business people in the area, and as I
understand it, this was a temporary measure until the
bank actually began construction. Now we have a petition
from several other business people requesting that
that part of the mall, or at least one block of that
part of the mall which is remaining south of 17th
Street, be eliminated.
Bakersfield, California, March 19, 1973 - Page 12
367
A parking mall really should not be considered in a
block-by-block expansion or deletion due to the
problems it creates with traffic patterns and if
the City decides to consider parking malls in this
manner, then any block within the City which felt
they had a need could petition for a parking mall.
This would create one block one-way streets which
would cause considerable disruption of traffic.
It is therefore recommended that if the Council decides
at this time to delete any portion of the remaining
mall south of 17th Street, that it be eliminated in
its entirety back to the original parking mall
boundaries with two-way traffic and parallel parking
reinstalled. This will have an additional benefit
of decreasing the load which is already on 18th
Street and Truxtun Avenue.
The Bakersfield Californian, which is the second largest
land holder within this parking mall area, indicated
they would not object to the removal of the parking
mall if certain considerations were given with regard
to short time parking in front of their building
until such time as their construction project is
completed and their parking lot is able to be again
used for parking. It is also my understanding that
some of the businesses on Chester Avenue requested
that short time limits of one hour be installed on
17th Street to give a maximum turn-over for customer
parking. Both of these requests can be taken care of,
I feel, without any great inconvenience to the other
businesses in the area.
Therefore, if the Council decides to delete any portion
of the remaining parking mall south of 17th Street, it is
recommended that in order to promote good traffic patterns,
the mall be eliminated in its entirety back to the
original boundaries.
Councilman Bleecker, asked Councilman Thomas, a member of
the Business Development and Parking Committee, if he had any objection
to granting the reques~ of Mr. Morelli of the Title Insurance and
Trust Company, to delete 17th Street from the Parking Mall. Councilman
Thomas stated that the Downtown Business Association appeared before
the Committee prior to the holidays and requested that the mall be
retained until after the Christmas holidays, and he feels the City's
obligation has been fulfilled, and the mall should be deleted.
Councilman Rucker, another member of the Committee, agreed with
Councilman Thomas.
Councilman Bleecker read a telegram addressed to him
signed by Tony Cueto, businessman and vice-president Downtown Business
Bakersfield, California, March 19, 1973 - Page 13
Association, in which Mr. Cueto requested the Council to consider
waiting until after construction is finished on 17th Street
before changing traffic to two-way.
When permitted to address the Council, Mr. Cueto stated
that the downtown merchants held a meeting last week and it was the
concensus of opinion that it would be a good idea to keep this portion
of the mall open until after the Bank of America building was finished.
The Parking Mall has increased business, thay are fighting something
all the time, and it isn't fair to the downtown merchants to delete
the mall.
City Manager Bergen stated that two-way traffic on 17th
Street was based on the design of the parking structure which is yet
to be built as part of the Bank of America complex. It will not have
access to Truxtun Avenue, "K" Street or "L" Street, only to 17th
Street, which certainly would not accommodate one-way traffic
out of the parking structure.
Councilman Bleecker moved
to its original boundaries and that
that the mall be changed back
this be considered first reading
of the ordinance amending the municipal code setting the parking mall
boundaries. This motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Bleecker, chairman of the Business Development
and Parking Committee, read a report of the Committee on the subject
of construction of a ramp to City Hall. This Committee has met with
the staff concerning construction of this ramp. The estimated cost
of the original plan was $6250. The amount budgeted for this work
is $4500. Five different plans have been reviewed in an attempt to
reduce the cost but still retain a plan that is acceptable in all
respects. After considerable discussion, the Committee has se{ected
the plan which will reduce the amount of work done by contract;
however, some labor and materials will be provided by the City.
The estimate of costs for this plan are $2500 for contract work and
$1000 for materials provided by the City, making a total cost of
$3500 for this plan. The Committee recommends that the Public Works
Department be authorized to proceed with the implementation of this plan.
Bakersfield, California, March 19, 1973 - Page 14
369
Councilman Bleecker commented that both Mrm. Nancy Berrigan
and Mr. Tomothy Beckwith, who is in a wheelchair, were contacted to
appear before the Committee, and they felt that the proposed plan was
thoroughly acceptable. Councilman Bleecker then moved adoption
of the report and that the construction be commenced as
soon as possible. This motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Heisey asked what the cost of the labor will
be to the City and Mr. Bidwell stated it would be in the neighborhood
which is a real savings to the City.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 3092 to 3179,
inclusive, in amount of $128,953.72
(b) Acceptance of Agreement with Pacific Gas and
Electric Company to perform work along
Calcutta Drive between Balboa Drive and
Palmacta Dr~ive
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a) and
of $500,
of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
transfers
Approval of Budget Transfers.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, the
were approved:
From 11-516-0300
From 11-516-0100
To provide
Calendar:
(b)
Thomas,
following budget
$ 300.00
$1700.00
To 11-516-0200
To 11-530-0200
$ 245.00
$1700.00
funds for temporary employee in City Clerk's
office needed because of illness of City Clerk's Assistant.
From 11-510-6100 $1500.00 To 11-640-9200 $1500.00
To provide funds to replace damaged apparatus floor door
at Fire Station No. 1.
37O
Bakersfield, California, March 19, 1973 - Page 15
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2080 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield designating a name for the
Alley at Wayside Park, as Wayside Lane.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Ordinance No.
as Wayside Lane,
was adopted by
Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield designating a
for the alley at Wayside Park,
following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2081 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Section 3.18.152
(Call-back - Additional Compensation
except Fire Department) of the Municipal
Code of Bakersfield.
Rees, Ordinance No~ 2081 New Series of
Bakersfield amending Section 3.18.152
~pmpensation, except Fire Department),
2080 New
name
the
Thomas,
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
the Council of the City of
(Call-Back - Additional
of the Municipal Code of the Cit~
Advisory Committee,
appointed. Vote taken
nominees for representation on this Citizens
so that the Council may select members to be
on this motion carried unanimously.
Appointment of members of the Citizens
Advisory Committee to KERN COG.
On September 25, 1972, the Council adopted Resolution No.
6-72 establishing and providing for the appointment of a Citizens'
Advisory Committee to KERN COG. One member is to be appointed by each
Councilman and one member appointed by the Mayor of the City of
Bakersfield. Four members are to be appointed by the Council from
representatives of the Department of Human Resources, the Kern
County Housing Authority, the Kern County .Equal Opportunity Corporatiol
and from school district, elementary, high school or college. Councilman
Rees moved that Mayor Hart contact these four agencies and request
of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, March 19, 1973 - Page 16
371
The following Council appointments
were made, with others to be made at
Councilman Rees
Councilman Heisey
Councilman Whittemore
to this Committee
a later date:
Mrs. Mary Peters Viles
Mrs. Bill Steele
Mrs. Betty Pinckard
Approval of Annexation Boundaries
designated as Stockdale No. 6.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, annexation boundaries
designated as Stockdale No. 6 were approved, and referred to the
City Engineer and City Attorney for referral to LAFCO.
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing on Resolution of
Intention No. 888 of the Council o£ the City of Bakersfield, California,
declaring its intention to order the abandonment of the Dedication of
Vehicular Access Rights from Lot 27, Tract No. 2720, to Ming Avenue
in the City of Bakersfield. This hearing has been duly advertised and
posted. No protests or objections have been filed in the City Clerk's
office. Request for the dedication was made by Mr. and Mrs. Frank
Munis, property owner.
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
Thomas, Resolution No. 19-73 ordering the vacation of dedication of
Vehicular Access Rights from Lot 27, Tract No. 2720 to Ming Avenue,
in the
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whirremote
None
None
There being no
Adjournment.
further business to come before the Council,
Calif
upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore,
10:20 P.M.
ATTEST:
the~ adjourned at
MAYO~ ~rfe'City of Bakersfield,
CI ERK fficio Clerk of the Council of
the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 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., March 26, 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 the Reverend Russell Paulson of the Shepherds of
the Valley Lutheran Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: Mayor Hart
Minutes of the regular meeting of March 19, 1973 were
approved as submitted.
Drive,
was granted at the Council meeting of March 5,
wooden fence with a chain link fence six feet
curb, with the condition that a sidewalk be installed
encroachment. He asked that this condition be waived,
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. Frank Stramler, owner of property at 1300 E1 Sereno
addressed the Council regarding an Encroachment Permit which
out that in reviewing the tract he finds that there are only about
260 feet of sidewalk in the area. Councilman Thomas stated that
the Council has many demands from parents, concerned with the safety
of young children, that sidewalks be installed in the City, and he
hopes that eventually Mr. Stramler and his neighbors will find it
advisable to construct sidewalks along their property. He then
moved that Mr. Stramler's request for waiver of the sidewalk be
granted. Councilman Medders commented that it didn't seem to him
the requirement of a sidewalk in this area is practical and in view
of the existing situation he would support Councilman Thomas' motion.
Vote taken on the motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. Marzetta Pankow, Safety Chairman of the Colonel
Nichols School, addressed the Council stating that the last time
she brought the matter of the dangerous intersection at Renegade
1973, to replace
from the back of the
along proposed
and pointed
Bakersfield~ California~ March 26~ 1973 - Page 2
373
Avenue and Wenatchee Street to the attention of the Council was in
December, 1972, and as of this date nothing has been done to
alleviate it.
Recently the crosswalks were repainted white and the
signs reading "Pedestrian Crossing" are still there. The Vehicle
Code stated that within 1400 feet of the school the crosswalks
should be painted yellow and "Slow School Signs," be posted which
means that University and Boise Avenues should have yellow cross-
walks and appropriate school signs. She asked why this matter
hadn't been investigated. Mr. Bergen stated he was under the
impression that this had been done by the Traffic Authority. In
fact he recalls that the Traffic Authority had submitted reports
to the Council on this intersection several times.
Mrs. Pankow stated that an accident occurred March 22,
1973 between the hours of 3:10 and 3:30 at the intersection of
Wenatchee and Renegade, and fortunately no children were involved.
Radar reports they have received, stated that over 80% of the cars
exceeded the speed limit on Wenatchee. She realizes that this
speed limit cannot be lowered and that it can only be patrolled
infrequently during the day. However, they believe that if more
school signs were installed and the existing ones moved back to
give the people turning onto Wenatchee from Columbus Avenue~ a
better view of the intersection~ it would improve the safety factor
for the children attending Colonel Nichols School. Also, warning
lights should be installed~ and she stressed the need for hiring a
crossing guard at this location.
Mr. Bergen assured Mrs. Pankow that he would furnish her
with a copy of the reports submitted by the Traffic Authority.
Councilman Rees commented that he respects Mrs. Pankow's position
on this matter; it was carefully investigated and studied by the
Traffic Authority~ and it was the professional opinion of this
Authority in conjuction with a study made by the Public Works
Department, that neither a stop sign or a crossing guard are
warranted at this intersection.
374
Bakersfield~ Calitornia~ March 26~ 1973 Page 3
Council Statements.
Councilman Rucker stated he had been contacted by the
Principal of the Bessie Owens School on March 15th, expressing his
concern regarding an incident which occurred when a woman being
pursued by a man, drove her car at high speed across the school
grounds where approximately 250 children were playing at recess.
He asked the City Attorney to investigate the matter and report to
eilher the superintendent or to him, relative to preventing a
recurrence of an incident of this nature.
Councilman Bleecker stated he was contacted today by
Mr. Mike Curry regarding his registered male Poodle which has been
picked up in the County and taken to the City pound. When Mr.
Curry arrived at the Pound and made an e£tort to retrieve his dog
by paying the fine and fees, it was discovered that the dog had
disappeared from the pound, although a record had been made of a
dog of that description being delivered to the Pound the day before.
He stated that Lt. Meeks of the Police Department is familiar wilh
the situation and asked Mr. Curry to call him back later after he
had checked into the situation. Councilman Bleecker feels that
it was the duty of the Police Department to contact Mr. Curry and
give him an written explanation tor the Poundman being unable to
produce his dog. He asked the City Attorney to investigate the
City's responsibility in a matter o£ this kind and that some eftoft
be made to locate Mr. Curry's dog and return it to him.
Councilman Rees expressed his regret at the passing of
Mr. Howard Dallimore, who had represented the Bakersfield City
Employees' Association before the Council for so many years. Mr.
Dallimore occupied the position of a good friend and valued associate
to many people in the County. He feels that the position of the
Council could be voiced in the words that Mr. Dallimore was con-
sidered a "respected adversary," as he conducted himself honorably
at all times and never made an enemy in this negotiations for the
City employees with the Council. He moved lhat the Mayor be directed
to send a letter of condolence to Mrs. Dallimore expressing the
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 Page 4
375
sympathy of the Council. Councilman Heisey seconded the motion
with the comment that Mr. Dallimore always conducted himself as a
gentleman. Councilman Bleecker stated that as a member of the
Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee and in the role of
management, he had been in close contact with Mr. Dallimore and
Mr. Ward, who represented both County and City employees in the
highest professional manner, and he always respected Mr. Dallimore
as a fine gentleman. He concurred with the motion that the City
send a letter of condolence to the Dallimore family. This motion
carried unanimously.
Reports.
Councilman Heisey, Chairman of the Water and City Growth
Committee, reported on the subject of an appointment of a representa-
tive to the Kern County Industrial Advisory Committee, which the
Committee was delegated to do two weeks ago after consultation with
the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce. Last week the Chamber
submitted the name of Robert L. Hoven for appointment to this
Industrial Advisory Committee. The Committee has evaluated the
qualifications of the nominee and enthusiastically recommends the
appointment of Mr. Hoven to the Kern County Board of Trade Industrial
Advisory Committee. Councilman Heisey moved adoption of the report
and the appointment of Mr. Hoven as recommended by the Committee.
This motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Heisey, Chairman of the Waterand City Growth
Committee, reported on the subject of the sale of the Transit
Equipment Inventory, stating that on February 26, 1973, the Council
approved a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement whereby the Greater
Bakersfield Metropolitan Transit District would assume the actual
operational managment of the City's transit system effective
March 1, 1973. It is hoped that the City will be able to complete
the total transfer of employees and equipment to the District by
July 1, 1973. Staff from the City Manager's office, the Purchasing
Division and the District General Manager have conducted an inventory
of transit equipment and have arrived at a total resale value for
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 5
the transit equipment inventory of $39,204.
The Committee has reviewed the inventory with the staff
and feels that the values are fair and reasonable. On March 21,
1973, the District Board of Directors approved the inventory.
Therefore, the Committee recommends that the City Council approve
this inventory and authorize the staff to take the necessary steps
to complete the sale of the transit equipment.
Councilman Heisey, stated that he had personally checked
several ilems in the inventory and was completely satisfied. Upon
a motion by Councilman Heisey, the report was adopted and the
transit equipment inventory was approved.
Councilman Bleecker commented that since everything was
in order, why is it necessary to wait until July 1, 1973 to make
the transfer of employees and equipment to the District. City
Manager Bergen stated that part of the problem was transferring
the employees. Retirement and the other benefits that the Act
provides the District institute for its employees, is the primary
problem, and it takes time to do this. However, the City will
continue to be reimbursed for all operational expenses incurred.
Councilman Heisey stated that before calling on the
City's Consulting Water Engineer, Mr. Tom Stetson, he would like
to review what he believes is the central issue for discussion on
water tonight. He paraphrased from Mr. Stetson's report of
November 22, 1972, as follows:
It is my conclusion that immediate construction of the
treatment plant is necessary to the implementation of
a sound plan for supplying supplemental water to the
Urban Bakersfield Area. Much additional information
needs to be developed through field exploration and
actual experience in spreading imported water. The
combined treatment plant and water replenishment program
as proposed by the Agency in the formation of the
Improvement District will enable the achievement of that
information while at the same time supplying the needed
supplemental water to the Urban Bakersfield Area at a
reasonable cost.
The Nickel Plan is impractical insofar as the Improve-
ment District is concerned. It would render the
Improvement District financially unfeasible and would
result in increased costs over the plan proposed by the
Agency.
377
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 6
I recommend that the treatment plant~ with a capacity
of approximately 25,000 acre-feet per year, be included
as an initial component of the plan of importation of
supplemental State Project Water for Improvement District
No. 4, as proposed by the Kern County Water Agency and
further recommend that no substantial change be made in
the Kern County Water Agency plan for the Cross-Valley
Canal~ and the Cross-Valley Canal Extension and the
water treatment plant and pipelines as finally formulated
for Improvement District No. 4 in the formation of that
improvement district.
The Council Water Committee with all members present,
met to discuss this report and also to hear arguments by Mr. George
Nickel and Mr. Tom Folsom. The Committee reported to this City
Council on December 18~ 1972, and stated that "this Committee
believes that the report prepared by Tom Stetson is satisfactory~
however, it feels that an additional study and examination needs
to be made for the spreading within the Improvement District. With
this reservation~ Councilman Heisey moved that the Council accept
and approve the report of Mr. Tom Stetson~ and this motion carried
unanimously."
Councilman Heisey went on to say that during the last
week he asked the City Manager to duplicate copies of all pertinent
recent action and information that the Council had received relative
to water matters and distribute copies to the members of the Council
to study over the weekend in preparation for the discussion on water
here this evening.
The members of the City Council have a great responsibility
to the community. It should remember that it represents the electorate
and not vested downriver water and agricultural interests. He then
asked Mr. Tom Stetson to give his presentation to the Council.
Councilman Bleecker asked Councilman Heisey if he had
ever had any indication that downriver farming interests have been
represented out of proportion~ or have tried to influence the
Council in any manner.
Councilman Heisey responded that the only articulate
expressions of dissent that he has been aware of have come from
downriver water interests and they have been persistent and most
vocal.
378
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 7
Councilman Bleecker asked Mr. Heisey if he were trying
to prejudice Mr. Stetson with that remark.
Councilman Heisey stated that he thought he had outlined
in his opening sentence that he wanted to lay the groundwork for
the discussion tonight. This seems to be the sum and substance of
the Council's discussion, as to what action had been taken; what
had been done with Mr.
he thinks at this time
Stetson.
Stetson's report; what the report said; and
it would be appropriate to hear from Mr.
Councilman Bleecker asked that he be given an opportunity
to make some comments before Mr. Stetson defends his report. He
feels it was quite o~vious at the last Council meeting, that a firm
statement was made by the Council, and at least five of them
expressed the idea at a public meeting, that they have not been
assured that their request for an intensive study to be made of
spreading and well recovery procedures had been given consideration
by the Water Agency. The request was made January 22, 1973, by way
of Minute Order, that the City Attorney reconfirm the Council's
position to the Water Agency. Also, he would like to say he has
spent many hours familiarizing himself with the various techniques
appropriate for obtaining the best possible water for the people
of the City of Bakersfield and for the other entities within the
Water District. This is a serious matter befogthe Council at
this time, and he would hate to have a shadow cast on the sincerity
of anyone who speaks before the Council tonight.
Mr. Thomas M. Stetson, Consulting City Engineer, addressed
the Council as follows:
I believe most of you know that I have been retained by
the City of Bakersfield as its Engineering Water Con-
sultant for seven years and during that time we:have
been attempting to study and develop information with
the objective of obtaining for the Urban Bakersfield
Area sufficient water supply to meet its future needs
and to alleviate the declining ground water levels below
the Urban Bakersfield Area.
Back in 1967 there was a proposal to create an Urban
Bakersfield Municipal Water District as a means of
obtaining this water supply and there was opposition to
that as being an unnecessary layer of government and
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 8
379
that election was defeated in May,,1967. Out of that
evolved the concept of an Improvement District of the
Kern County Water Agency. Through such a district, the
Kern County Water Agency could then allocate to the
urban area a sufficient quantity of its State contract
water, to meet the future needs of the Urban Bakersfield
Area. The City staff and consultants worked long and
hard with the Kern County Water Agency staff and its
consultants and its attorneys over the years.
Many of the negotiations were not friendly, there was
differences of opinion, but many meetings were held
until the differences were ironed out. Meanwhile it
was the City's position, that the Kern County Water
Agency should look into possible exchanges of Kern River
water for State water on behalf of the urban area, and
the Kern County Water Agency did that, and not, of them
were satisfactory.
It was finally through the cooperative efforts of the
Agency staff and its consultants and the City's staff
and consultants, that the Plan as how embodied in the
Improvement District No. 4 was finally evolved, which
includes the Cross-Valley Canal originating at the State
Aqueduct at Tupman and crossed the valley north of the
Kern River, terminating in the vicinity of the Friant-
Kern Canal. From that point there would be an extension
canal, an unlined portion of the canal, extending up to
the vicinity of Calloway Weir and also in the vicinity
of Calloway Weir is the site of the proposed water treat-
ment plant and two pipelines, one to take treated water
north of the river, and one to take treated water easterly
up to the East Niles Area and to a portion of the Cali-
fornia Water Service Company service area.
In addition, there is embodied in the Plan recharge
facilities for percolating imported water into the Kern
River bed for replenishment of the ground water basin.
The participants of this project are three agricultural
districts; the Cawelo Water District, the Rosedale-Rio
Bravo Water Storage District, and the Kern Delta Water
Storage District, along with Improvement District No. 4.
It was through the development of this Plan that it was
determined to be the least costly method of transporting
State Project Water into the Urban Bakersfield Area.
The joining together of four entities in common use of a joint
facility such as the canal naturally results in savings
for all of those participating.
An Election in the Urban Area, last September, to approve
of 17~ millionsdollars in bonds for the financing of
facilities necessary to the improvement district's
participation in that project was passed. The improve-
ment district has been allocated a maximum annual quanity
of 77,000 acre feet ofwater per year. The State cost
of that water will be in the neighborhood of 1~ million
dollars for the year at the Aqueduct at Tupman.
During the election campaign for the approval of the bonds
it was stated that on approval of the bonds the City would
undertake to take another look at the need for the treat-
ment plant and subsequent to the election, I was instructed
to do so. He had members of his staff, competent hydro-
logists and licensed geologists, look into this matter
and they constructed a mathematical model of a portion
of the San Joaquin Ground Water Basin, that portion
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 9
generally encompassed in the immediate environs of the
improvement district. Through this model we attempted
to simulate what would happen to the ground water basin
when. you import the 77,000 acre feet and spread it in
the river and in the extension canal. Also, including
projections of increased production of water from within
the improvement district to meet the increased needs of
the area.
We found through testing of that model through historic
data, that it tested out fairly well, sufficiently to
use it for postulating future conditions using the model.
Granted we don't have all the information, there just
isn't sufficient information in parts of the area to
guarantee accuracy on these models. We did have con-
siderable reliable information available from water
purveyors such as the California Water Service Company,
from use of the other areas, there is a lack of data.
By operating the model over a period from 1975 to 1990,
we have reached the conclusion that we would still have
declining ground water levels in major portions of the
improvement district. We also found that there would
be mounding in the ground water in the area immediately
adjacent to the river bed. There would also be water
escaping from the area as ground underflow unless some-
thing were done about it in the future. In fact through
a sustained water spreading operation, year in and year
out, spreading 77,000 acre feet of water per year, you
could have rising water coming up to the surface in the
bed of the river and flowing out to the west.
It was my conclusion after those studies that the best
plan, the plan to insure an adequate supply for the urban
area, and to assure the best plan for the operation of
the ground water basin, would be a combination of the
water treatment plant to treat 25,000 acre feet of water
per year, and then spread the balance of the water in
the extension canal and the river bed. This would mean
about 1976 when the canal facilities are constructed and
the project is in operation, the area would be importing
about 35,000 acre feet of water. 25,000 acre feet, or
two-thirds of it, would be put through the treatment
plant, the other 12,000 acre feet, or one-third of it,
would be spread in the river bed and in the extension
canal.
Also, and this should be started immediately, in fact it
should have been started a couple of years ago when there
was water being spread under the temporary exchange pro-
grams, there should be a comprehensive monitoring program
on all ground water wells that can be affected by this
spreading, and also, a monitoring program on percolation
rates in the river bed. The object of this would be to
develop experience over the first four or five years of
operation to determine just what is going to happen to
the water that is spread.
We know that it is very difficult to control the movement
of ground water when it is moving away from you by gravity,
and that is exactly what happens here. We are on an
alluvial sand where the water is spread on the upper
portion or apex, and it is moving out in at least three
different directions.
He pointed out that immediately south of the improvement
district and immediately to the northwest of the improve-
ment district, there are two large ground water depressions.
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 10
The ground water elevation along the river form a ridge.
Water moving along the ridge is going to move downhill.
I do think with the combination o£ the treatment plant,
which ultimately by 1990 would still be processing 25,000
acre feet, or at that time, one-third of the total supply,
and the balance of two-thirds would be spread, or 52,000
acre feet per year. But meanwhile with experience gained
in the first five or six years of operation, methods could
be developed by which we could seek to prevent as much
of the imported water as possible from percolating to the
southwest, west and northwest out of the improvement
district area.
In the past week or so, I have reviewed ground water maps
in this area that go back to the 1920's and I notice that
in the 1940's for example, ground water elevations near
the westerly boundary of the improvement district near
the river, were within five or ten feet of the ground
surface. But with the rapid development of this area
after World War II and intensive pumping of the entire
ground water basin, it's just hadto happen that ground
water depressions would develop. Unfortunately, they
are downhill from the improvement district, and that
means water is going to flow towards those areas.
I am sure most of you know the Kern County Water Agency
had its Consulting Engineer, Walter Schulz, make a study
of a comparison of costs between the treatment plant and
a well-field and pipeline, the well-field being located
in the westerly portion of the improvement district near
the river. Schulz's conclusion was that the capital cost
of the well-field and pipeline to recover 25,000 acre
feet of water per year, was slightly in excess of the
capital cost of the treatment plant. On the other hand
he found that the annual operating cost of thetreatment
plant was less than the operating cost of the well-field
and pipeling. However, he used present day electrical
energy costs for pumping the water from wells and I
firmly believe that by 1990 we are going to see substantial
increases in electrical energy rates, something on the
order of 50%.
However, I feel thai costs alone should not be the criteria.
Especially when you have two alternatives that are about
equal in cost, according to the Schulz' study. The
treatment plant is 100% efficient in that the water taken
through the treatment plant relieves that quantity of
water being pumped from the underground basin. So it is
indirectly punishment on a 1 to 1 ratio.
Also under the operation of the State Aqueduct System as
municipal and industrual water users, our water is going
to be delivered to us on a fairly constant year-around
basis. There will be times when there will be flood
waters in the river and we won't be able to spread the
imported water. The treatment plant assists in that
regard in that there will always be a basic supply that
can be run through the treatment plant over those periods
when it is difficult or impossible to spread in the river.
This basically is a very brief review of recommendations
contained in my letter of November 22, 1972, and I will
be very happy to answer any questions you may have.
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 11
Councilman Bleecker commented it was his understanding
Mr. Stetson was to look over and make comments on the letter of
March 5, 1973 from Leeds, Hill and Jewett, Inc., to the Board of
Directors of the Kern County Water Agency signed by Mr. Walter
Schulz.
it.
at
He asked Mr. Stetson if he spent a great deal of time on
Mr. Stetson replied that he had attended the meeting
which Mr. Schulz presented the report and he independently read
the report; however, he didn't spend
Councilman Bleecker stated
surveys made by the California Water
days doing it.
that Mr. Schulz used certain
Service Company to arrive at
his conclusions. Mr. Stetson replied that he was aware Mr. Schulz
conferred with representatives of the California Water Service
Company to get their experienced information on cost of wells and
other data.
Councilman Bleecker asked Mr. Stetson if he had made an
independent survey regarding the cost of the wells. Mr. Stetson
stated he had not done so, however, his firm has been involved in
well construction in several areas of California and Arizona and
the costs
line.
for municipal wells
Councilman Bleecker
quoted by Mr. Schulz appear to be in
asked if, in the areas adjacent to
the Kern River, would it be necessary to drill wells to a depth of
600 feet to recover the water. Mr. Stetson replied that he would
think so. The wells would undoubtedly be perforated down from 150
feet to 550 feet.
Councilman Bleecker asked if the water was spread on
purpose to be recovered by wells, wouldn't it be reasonable to
assume that this water would be pumped somewhere between 80 to
100 feet. Mr. Stetson replied not at all times, because the water
table at the presnet time is probably on the order of 60 to 80 feet
below the ground surface.
Councilman Bleecker commented that he was not talking
about that. He is talking about when the water is spread on purpose
Bakersfield, California~ March 26; 1973 Page 12
and wells are drilled to recover it, if those wells have to be
drilled 600 feet in order to recover the water. Mr. Stetson stated
it would be necessary in order to recover it at the capacities
which Mr. Schulz has assumed in his report, with the 17 wells that
are mentioned.
Councilman Bleecker asked Mr. Stetson if the cost of
$87,400 for the construction of one.well is a legitimate cost and
not over-stated in this report. Mr. Stetson stated he thinks it
is a legitimate cost for the construction of a well of the design
that Mr. Schulz has used here. Councilman Bleecker asked if he
had looked into the design to determine if it were over-sufficient.
It would appear to him that Mr. Stetson is taking Mr. Schulz' and
the California Water Service Company's figures without having really
looked into it himself and figuring the Cost of the wells, the
acquisition of the land, the cost of drilling, the pumps, etc.
Mr. Stetson said he believed he had stated that he did
make independent cost estimates based on his experience on well
construction in other areas. However, he finds that these cost
estimates in Mr. Schulz' letter are reasonable for this size and
type of well.
Councilman Bleecker asked Mr. Stetson if it were customary
for him to accept someone else's report; to take certain things for
granted without looking into it himself and making his own survey.
Mr. Stetson replied that he felt he had reviewed it
sufficiently to express an opinion on it. Councilman Bleecker
remarked that he felt the comments were cursory at the best.
Mr. Stetson informed the Council he did not attempt to
re-do Mr. Schulz' study, to go through each item and recalculate
or re-estimate costs. A meeting was held by the Water Agency on a
Thursday night, the President of the Agency indicated that no
comments would be received from the audience that night, as it was
being referred to the Urban Committees. When he returned to his
office, he re-read the report and wrote a letter to Mr. Bergen, so
that he would have it in case his Committees were meeting and he
would not be available.
Bakers£ield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 13
Councilman Bleecker asked if he had been informed of the
action of the Council on January 22, 1973, that the Council felt
an extensive study should be made, in addition to those already
made, of the spreading and well-recovery process. Mr. Stetson said
he had been informed, and that is the study which he, himsel£,
believes should be conducted
regardless of whether or not
there is going to be a water
under the auspices of the Agency, that
they construct a treatment plant,
spreading program.. He believes that
it needs and deserves considerable study.
Councilman Bleecker eommented that it was expressed by
the Council last Monday night, that studies of the spreading and
well-recovery process should be made prior to any recommendations
to construct a treatment plant.
have said last Monday, that was
not only by what was said, that
versations he has had with some
Regardless of what the staff may
the understanding of the Council,
evening, but through private con-
of the Council since that time.
He asked Mr. Stetson if it has been indicated to him his report
should be extensive enough to bring out to the Council those matters
which cover spreading and we!l~recovery prior to building any
treatment plant or was he instructed to make his survey in con-
junction with the treatment plant.
Mr. Stetson replied that his instructions after the
election of last September were to again review the need for a
treatment plant. However, he was not asked to make the study which
Councilman Bleecker stated the Council was requesting. The letter
of March 12, 1973, which he wrote to Mr.
meeting of the Kern County Water Agency,
any Council action of January 22, 1973.
Bergen after attending a
had nothing to do with
Councilman Blqecker then asked City Manager Bergen what
his understanding was as to how the Council is to receive additional
information after its January 22, 1973 meeting, relative to spreading
and well-recovery compared to the treatment plant.
Bakersfield,.California, March 26, 1973 - Page 14
395
City Manager Bergen. stated that it was his understanding
the staff was to request the Kern County Water Agency to make an
extensive study and evaluation of the spreading and well-recovery,
so that it would be satisfactory to all parties concerned; not only
the Council, but anyone interested in the urban area. The Council
specifically asked the City Attorney to convey the Council's position
to the representatives of the Kern County Water Agency so that 'this
study would be made. It wasn't in the purview of the Ci~y's Con-
sultant to make this detailed study, but it was indicated that the
Kern County Water Agency should make the study as representatives
of the entire urban area.
Councilman Bleecker asked if Mr. Bergen didn't think it
was the responsibility of someone on the staff, because of the
concern expressed by the Council, to request an opinion from the
City's Consultants as to what had already been done.
City Manager Bergen. replied that he thought~ it was the
request of the City Council to specifically ask the Kern County
Water Agency to make the study. The City has been carrying on some
concurrent studies and contributed to the Agency's information but
it hasn't been the staf£'s feeling that the City should make this
detailed study, it is up to the Kern County Water Agency.
Councilman Thomas asked Mr. Stetson if he could make a
detailed survey of the percolation program and recovery phase of
He asked if canal wager was needed as a means to make
the project.
the survey.
Mr.
Stetson stated they need the spreading. experience,
however, there are certain things which the Agency could be doing
now. It could be setting up. a monitoring program, which he under-
stands they have already started but there is additional field
information which should be collected, such as percolation rates
in the river, soils exploration along the river and possible adjacent
areas. That is the only phase which he thinks should be done now.
The balance of it is going to be gained by experience and operation
of the spreading program, and that can: be done when water is available
to spread.
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 15
election, obviously,
During the campaign,
representatives that
Councilman Thomas asked if a water treatment plant was
promised to the North of the River and the East Niles Water Districfs
at the time campaign statement were being made for the September
bond election. Mr. Stetson stated he was not involved in that,
but since the treatment plant was included as an item in the bond
it has to be assumed that it was to be built.
commitments were made by City of Bakersfield
if the election were succussful, the City would
then instruct him to review the need for the treatment plant.
Whether or not the Agency made similar
not know.
Councilman Bleecker told Mr.
his point of view in his presentation,
commitments, he just does
Stetson that he appreciates
but he would like to ask
him why he has not mentioned the quality of the water, comparing
that which might be percolated and recovered from the Kern River
with water that would be treated in the treatment plant.
Mr. Stetson replied that the reason he has not mentioned
the quality of the water or the potability is that both sources of
water would result in excellent quality.
Mr. Jeptha Wade, Chief Engineer of the California Water
Service Comtmny whose offices are in San Jose, addressed the
Council. He has been .involved with water problems throughout the
State and particularly, with water problems here in Bakersfield.
He' stated that an overdraft exists in the underground water, which
is a problem that belongs to everyone, as everyone participates in
the general health of the community and in slable water supply,
which is why it is necessary to enter into a program for importing
supplemental water. The people have authorized the sale of bonds
in amount of 17½ million dollars to bring the water across the
valley and put it into use for the co~ununity. He feels that the
best plan possible has been formulated, it contemplates that every~
one who depends upon the underground water within the urban area
will participate equally in paying the cost in bringing the supple-
mental water to the community.
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 16
Mr. Wade pointed out that the water table has dropped
and unless this is reversed, the situation is going to become
progressively worse.. The advantage of the treatment plant is that
it allows th~m to immediately do two things. 1. The supplemental
water can be put 'to work directly in service to the community
without loss through evaporation or pe~colation. 2. These facilities
can be fully utilized as soon as they are constructed, to leave
water in the ground until needed without operating wells. The
quickest way to get water into the ground in a recharge program
is simply not to take it out. It isn't necessary to worry about
the speed with which water moves underground. Mr. Stetson's studies
indicate that it could be as long as 15 years before there would
be any noticeable diminution in the dropping of the water table in
those wells which are in the southernmost parts of the distribution
system. ~
What Mr. Schulz addressed himself to in this last report
was the proposition that there are two'ways to purify water; to
put it through a treatment plant or allow it to sink into the ground
and then recover it through wells. Responsible engineers who have
studied this program do have some questions as to how rapidly the
12,000 to 50,000 acre feet of water proposed to be percolated will
charge the system.which is presently producing up to 100,000 acre,
feet for municipal~ industrial.and agricultural use within the
urban area. ,
Councilman Bleecker asked why these wells needed to be
so expensive. Mr. Wade replied that in the first place they are
talking about using,them for purification. There are some standards
which.must be met, ,they must a~oid short circuiting between water
which is put on the ground and the water which is recovered in the
well. Simply allowing water to run on the ground and picking it
up through shallow wells, doesn't provi.de any level of purification
to the water. Water moving through the underground moves very
slowly, which provides for purification. They have to get water
which has been in the ground long enough, moved slow enough~ to
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 17
lose any sediment that was in the water, to eliminate any bacteria
that may be present, and to take full advantage of the percolation.
This is why these wells, even though they are located down near the
river close to where it is percolated, must be 600 feet deep, must
have the upper couple of hundred feet sealed off to prevent direct
short circuiting of the water and other materials which underlay
the ground and cause the water to take a longer period to seep
through. If that is done the water will be a good quality water,
but it cannot be done by short cuts.
He is very uneasy about some~of the estimates which Mr.
Schulz made in his report. Mr. Schulz talked to Mr. Wade during
the preparation of that study, requesting and using figures which
came from Cal Water's current construction budget for just completed
wells. Mr. Schulz is proposing that they go to a permanent program,
and is assuming that each of the wells can produce as much as the
largest wells Cal Water has in its system; that they will operate
50% of the time, whereas their wells operate within 15% of the time
because of clog up. Mr. Schulz assumes that it will not be necessary
to figure on any substantial replacement of the facilities over a
period of time. Mr. Wade therefore feels that Mr. Schulz has not
over estimated the cost of a well field, but in terms of real
practical comparison, he has under estimated the cost.
Mr. 'Wade went on to say that one of the things which they
have discussed with the City's staff and the Committees as they have.
studied the program is the desirability of some type of exchange
agreement on the Kern River. The difficulty with most of these
programs is having a water supply which is really an equivalent of
the water supply from the State Aqueduct. The one great asset of
the water in the State Aqueduct is that it is substantially there
every day of the year. If they have to put in expensive treatment
facilities, it can only be justified if they are utilized every day
of the year. He has insisted that his company's position should be
that whenever they discussed an alternative to the water from the
State P~oject, it had to be a true alternative and the water had
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 18
389
to be available on the same type of schedule for the water that
was paid for from the State Aqueduct. There wasn't any point of
trading the water away which had already been t~id. for unless it
was going to be there when it was needed on precisely the same
schedule. This means that all of the water has
in a percolation program but some of it will be
treating at a treatment plant for immediate use.
not truly benefited by the percolation program which has been in
effect, the water is there, it can be used, more treatment plants
can be built if necessary,
basic supply exists which
water program.
not been placed
available for
If the wells are
the future had been preserved, and a
is the objective of the supplemental
Councilman Whittemore invited Supervisor Gene Young, of
the Third District, to speak at this time. Supervisor Young thanked
the Council for permitting him to appear,~stating he is very con-
cerned about water, as a
located in his area. He
Board of Supervisors~ but
large percentage of the Water District is
is not speaking as the Chairman of the
as:Supervisor of the Third District,
which represents the area North of the Kern River and the East
Bakersfield area. He has been talking to the consulting engineers,
has listened to the expertise of the Kern County Water Agency, all
have recommended that a treatment plant be constructed. He urged
the Council to consider that this community needs water, and to
let the community develop, and give the water to East Bakersfield
and Oildale Water Districts.
Councilman Bleecker reminded the Council that at the last
Council meeting he had stated there might be certain water experts
present tonight besides the proponents of the treatment plant who
would wish to speak to the Council about water. He asked the
Chairman to:recognize other'persons in the audience who were present
to discuss the matter of water with the Council.
Mr. Tom Folsom, Executive Secretary of the Kern County
Taxpayers Association, stated he didn't know whether he had any-
thing new to add, in some respects it could be repetitious. However,
39O
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 19
the Kern Councy Taxpayers Association is greatly concerned about
fhe general issue of water in the Urban Bakersfield Area, and as
Executive Secretary of the Kern County Taxpayers Association, he
wished to file the following letter which he read into the record:
Honorable Mayor and Council
City of Bakersfield
Bakersfield, California
Gentlemen:
In the analysis of issues related to the provision of
supplemental water to the Urban Bakersfield areat the
staff of the Kern County Taxpayers Association traditionally
has sought assurance that the least costly alternative
works projects will be selected. With a qualification
reflecting this attitude, the Board of Directors of the
Kern County Taxpayers Association last September endorsed
the $17,500,000 bond proposal for Improvement District
No. 4.
Included in staff's analysis regarding the issue between
the construction of a treatment plant or the provision
of appropriately located wells to assure the optimum
recovery of percolated water is the report of Leeds, Hill
and Jeweft, Inc. (No. 720203) written in early 1972.
This report indicates that the difference in annual cost
between the treatment plant and a well field is in excess
of half a million dollars.
Apparently misgivings prevailed as to whether man could
duplicate, supplement or replace what nature has accom-
lished over the years; namely, storing water in the
underground of the Urban Bakersfield area. In this
situation, I have great confidence that what nature has
done, man can do likewise. Because of the misgivings
of others, indications were made that a more thorough
evaluation would be made. To the best of my knowledge,
that evaluation has not been completed. Consequently,
any judgement on this issue made at this time will be
considered by those with opposite leanings to be the
result more of haste than of technical knowledge. Again,
speaking personally, it appears most unfortunate that
the March 5, 1973, report by Leeds, Hill and Jewett~ Inc.
to the Kern County Water Agency considered only a part
of the problem out of context of the principal alternatiw~s
involved. The basic proposal, subject to the Agency's
willingness to construct more economical facilities if
determined desirable, is the annual provision by 1990 of
77,000 acre feet of supplemental water by treating
approximately one-third and percolating approximately
two-thirds. The principal alternatives involve either
percolating all of the supplemental water or treating
all of it. Why the issue at hand hasn't been analysed
in this broad context continues to baffle me. Considering
the willingness of the Agency's Board of Directors to
construct the more economical facilities for the purpose
of the project, it is hoped the people of Urban Bakers-
field will soon find out.
In further consideration of this matter, it is noteworthy
that the recent report of Leeds, Hill and Jewett, Inc.,
contains no comment disclaiming any of the substance of
the report written a year previous. To the best of my
391
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 20
knowledge, the March 5, 1973, report essentially identifies
the costs related to a well field situation alternative to
the one considered earlier. Naturally, this raises the
question, how many other alternative considerations are
there? Does the Kern County Water Agency staff have any
analyses, evaluations or recommendations regarding this
issue?
Before concluding, it is believed pertinent to direct atten-
tion to a comment in the letter of Thomas M. Stetson dated
March 12, 1973, and directed to Mr. Harold Bergen. Mr.
Stetson noted that water delivered to the Urban Bakersfield
area for percolation in 1990 will cost $40 per acre foot.
Applying this cost to the comment contained in his report
of November 22, 1972:
Substantial quantities o£ percolated water,
perhaps as much as 50 percent, will escape to
areas outside of the Improvement District.
indicates that without appropriately located wells, the
potential annual water loss could exceed a cost of
$1,000,000. This is a most significant amount which in
my opinion can be appreciably reduced if not eliminated
by appropriately located wells. However, if all the avail-
able funds are expended for a treatment plant, no capital
funds will be available for drilling any necessary protec-
tive wells. This simple fact alone would seem to justify
the completion of a more satisfactory solution. The ques-
tion needs also to be answered: if it is not feasible to
percolate annually 25,000 more acre feet of water, why is
it feasible to percolate 52,000 acre feet?
It seems that now is the time for the Kern County Water
Agency to recognize that the letter directed to it last
February 5th by the chairman of your Water and Growth
Committee is appropriate for consideration and that more
specific information be obtained as to how man can best
utilize what nature has provided.
Respectfully yours,
TOM FOLSOM
Councilman Heisey remarked that in response to Mr. Folsom's
question contained in his letter "if it is not feasible to percolate
annually 25,000 more acre feet of water, why is it feasible to
percolate 52,000 acre feet," he would say that frankly many people
have strong reservations that they can ever percolate 52,000 acre
feet, they are just hoping that they can do it, and in ten or fif-
teen years they are going to know whether or not they can. He asked
Mr. Folsom if he was here tonight at the direction of his Board of
Directors.
Mr. Folsom replied that if there was any question regard-
ing his representation of the Kern County Taxpayer's Association,
he would suggest that this be taken up with his bosses. He is here
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 21
with proper sanction, merely presenting a follow-up of the posi-
tion that the Association took at the time they made a qualified
endorsement which specifically related to the issue which he is
raising here.
Councilman Heisey commented he was only trying to get
it clear in his own mind whether the Taxpayers' Association has
changed its position and is now taking a position for or against
the treatment plant.
Mr. Folsom stated to the best of his knowledge, the
Association still feels there is inadequate information available
to pass judgment on this matter, and representing his Board of
Directors, he would say that they are still seeking the kind of
information that is expressed in Councilman Heisey's letter of
February 5, 1973.
Councilman Heisey remarked that there seems to be some
confusion regarding those requests which were made in the letter
of February 5, 1973. The requests are still valid from his point
of view, and they will continue to be valid through the next five
or ten years that the percolation program is studied. It is most
urgent that they get started on certain things as soon as possible.
The idea of the letter was not to suggest that there was not going
to be a treatment plant because of any future studies made. The
studies need to be made to determine whether they can actually
percolate the 52,000 acre feet of water.
Mr. Folsom told Mr. Heisey he appreciated his clarifi-
cation of his letter as he has been confused on some of the issues.
Mr. Arnold Rumsberg, of 6013 Pine Drive, speaking as a
taxpayer-water user, addressed the Council, stated he agrees with
the Kern County Water Agency's program for bringing supplemental
water into the urban area, however, prior to commiting six million
dollars to build a water treatment plant, which must be paid for
by the taxpayers, he feels that a study should be made utilizing
various engineering and geological techniques to determine with
some reasonable degree of assurance the efficacy of any program
that can be developed with ground water.
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 22
Councilman Medders asked the staff who has jurisdiction
over the Cross-Valley Canal, the percolation program and the water
treatment plant. Mr. Hoagland replied that the determination of
construction of a treatment plant, or study of a percolation pro-
gram lies entirely with the governing board of Improvement District
No. 4, the Kern County Water Agency.
Councilman Medders
is in this whole matter. Mr.
City are participants in the
then asked what the City's capacity
Hoagland stated the citizens of the
Cross-Valley Canal and the importation
of supplemental water for the area.
Councilman Medders remarked that all the Council can do
at this point is offer advice to the Kern County Water Agency.
Councilman Whittemore commented that when he made a motion
to invite Nr. Stetson and Mr. Wade to submit a presentation to the
entire Council, he had no intention of holding a public hearing as
it isn't going to influence the Kern County Water Agency, in fact,
some of these statements possibly should be made to the Agency it-
self. The Council members felt that more information was needed to
determine whether or not they would openly endorse either the treat-
ment plant or the percolation system, or a combination of both.
Councilman Bleecker stated that the amount of money which
will be spent on the whole project is a concern of all taxpayers.
Whatever determination this Council makes, the Kern County Water
Agency is listening. The members of this Agency are elected to a
Board of Directors by the people and are expected to do whatever
they think is right. But they are listening, and.for the Council
to determine that whatever they say or do here has no effect on the
project per se is making a predetermination not in the interests of
the taxpayers of the City of Bakersfield.
Councilman Heisey commented that he admires Councilman
Bleecker's tenacity and his conservatism on any issue that comes
before the council; however, he would like to point out that con-
servatism and obstructionism are not necessarily the same thing.
394
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 23
To play the part of an obstructionist when the necessity and the
will of the public demands otherwise, is a disservice to the com-
munity. Obstructionism held up the crosstown freeway for a number
of years, long after logic had dictated otherwise. The community
is the loser and burdened with growing congestion, and it will be
several years before that problem is resolved. Let us not stand
in the way of progress now in the matter of water for the community,
which needs an adequate supply of water of the right quality.
Councilman Heisey then moved that the Council reaffirm
its support of Mr. Tom Stetson's report submitted on November 22,
1972, which the Council adopted unanimously on December 18, 1972.
Councilman Bleecker stated there was at least one other
knowledgeable person in the audience who wished to make a presenta-
tion to the Council. He would also say that he can't take the blame
for the freeway not being completed. He doesn't feel that searching
for the facts and presenting different points of view is obstruc-
tionism. Councilman Heisey seems to go with the wind, he takes a
stand one night and says something else the next night. He has
made very clearly defined statements in the Minutes of January 22,
1973, that he didn't think the Kern County Water Agency had done
all that it could in investigating the spreading and recovery of
water from the underground. A wide difference of opinion has been
expressed regarding the processes for obtaining the best possible
water at the cheapest cost to the citizens of Bakersfield. He went
on to say that constructing a treatment plant will not cost the
California Water Service Company anything, it is a public agency
operating under the laws of the State of California, but Mr. Schulz
used this company's figures in determining the cost of the wells
for this project.
Councilman Rees expressed his support for Councilman
Heisey's motion, stating that although many diverse opinions have
been expressed for bringing supplemental water to urban Bakers-
field, he is listening very carefully to the opinions of the experts
employed by the City.
He cannot conceive that Mr. Stetson would have
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 24
395
any reason for presenting anything to the Council but a true picture
as he sees it, and he cannot see. that California Water Service Com-
pany would hav~ any motivation other than to bring water to the com-
munity in the best and cheapest manner. The water users and the
taxpayers are going to pay the bill however it is done. He stated
he wanted his expression in support of the original Council position
on this matter to supersede anything that he has said in haste pre-
viously.
Councilman Bleecker asked Vice-Mayor Whittemore if it was
the intention of the chair not to permit one other person in the
audience, who is knowledgeable in this field, to be heard.
Councilman Whirremote stated there is a motion on the floor
and unless it is withdrawn, the Council will note on the motion.
Councilman Bleecker asked the City Attorney if it were tile
prerogative of the chair under a circumstance of open debate to have
the authority to entertain a motion while the debate is still going on.
Mr. Hoagland stated at the time the motion was made there
was no debate going on. Councilman Heisey made a motion, and it is
the prerogative of the chair to hear that motion.
Councilman Bleecker asked Councilman Heisey to withdraw his
motion and Councilman Heisey stated that he thinks the Council has
heard everything that can be presented, repetition isn't going to
accomplish anything, and he asked for a vote on the motion.
Councilman Bleecker then offered an amendment to the motion
that by a roll call vote before the motion is voted upon the Council
recognize one other interested person in this field. Mr. Hoagland
stated
motion.
this should be treated as a substitute motion, not an amended
motion failed to carry as
A roll call vote taken on Councilman Bleecker's substitute
follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstaining:
Councilmen Bleecker, Medders, Rucker
Councilmen Heisey, Rees, Thomas
None
Councilman Whirremote
3.96
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 25
Mr. Hoagland remarked that the ruling on a tie vote is
that it fails for lack of passage.
Vote taken on Councilman Heisey's original motion that
the Council reaffirm its support of Mr. Tom Stetson's report of
November 22, 1972, which the Council adopted unanimously on
December 18, 1972, carried as follows:
Ayes:
Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes:
Councilman Bleecker
Absent: None
Councilman Bleecker stated that he had just handed the
City Clerk a letter from one of the persons who was not permitted
to be heard tonight, Mr. George Nickel, Jr., in which he commented
on the March 5, 1973 letter of Walter G. Schulz of the firm of
Leeds, Hill and Jewerr, Inc., consulting engineers, also on alter-
natives for Public Improvement District No. 4. He then moved that
this statement be spread in full on the minutes. This motion car-
ried unanimously.
City Council
City of Bakersfield
1415 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
Gentlemen:
At the request of City Council Member, Keith
Bleecker, I have been asked to comment upon the
March 5, 1973 letter of Walter G. Schulz of the
firm of Leeds, Hill and Jewerr, Inc., consulting
engineers. Such letter was directed to the Board
of Directors of the Kern County Water Agency to
apparently justify a treatment plant instead of
a well field to process 25,000 acre feet annually
of Urban Bakersfield's Supplemental Water Supply
to be received from the California Aqueduct. When
Improvement District No. 4 was created by the Agen-
cy, the taxpayers within the Improvement District
were assured that the Agency would consider all
alternatives that might lower costs and produce a
better quality water supply in Improvement District
No. 4 than the projected Agency Plan. The most
important alternative to be considered was a well
field instead of a treatment plant to handle 25,000
acre feet annually of the supplemental water supply
for Urban Bakersfield. The City of Bakersfield
recognized the importance of a full scientific
study and evaluation of this matter as is evidenced
by Councilman Walt Heisey's letter of February 5th
to the Board of Directors of the Kern County Water
Agency. In such letter, Walt Heisey outlined
engineering studies and evaluations that should
be made. In addition, in the last paragraph of
Wait Heisey's letter, he recommended that the
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 26
397
Agency should retain outside engineering expertise
in handling the requested engineering study and
evaluation.
While on the subject of Walt Heisey's letter of
February 5th, there are two points that I would
like.to mention. First, Walt personally arranged
for me to get a copy of his letter; secondly,
Walt called to my attention language in the second
paragraph of his letter that was apparently unin-
tended upon his part. I will note below the
specific sentence that Walt made reference to:
"The City of Bakersfield has approved the November
22, 1972 report of its consultant, Thomas M. Stetson,
which reco~nuended the inclusion of the water treat-
ment plant as an initial component of the Improvement
District plan".
In my conversation with Walt Heisey, he told me
that he did not have authority, nor did he intend
to state that the City of Bakersfield has approved
a water treatment plant as an initial component of
the Improvement District plan. I am sure that
this has been an embarrassment for Councilman
Walt Heisey, as you would surely not be meeting
on this subject tonight, if the City of Bakersfield
had actually approved the water treatment plant
as an initial component of Improvement District plan.
Making direct reference to the March 5th letter
report of Walter Schulz, I am disappointed to note
that Walt's opinions and statements are not backed
up with any of the engineering data and evaluation
requested in Walt Heisey's letter of February 5th
to the Board of Directors of the Kern County Water
Agency. Walt Schulz has made a number of assump-
tions that are critical to his report that have no
engineering backup whatever. To better illustrate
what I mean, I will make direct reference to various
points in the Schulz' report and raise issues for
your consideration:
1) In Paragraph No. 2, on page 1, Schulz starts
out with the sentence noted below:
"In order to accomplish the percolation of an
additional 25,000 acre feet, other recharge areas
would be required".
Nowhere in his report does Schulz even attempt to
backup or justify this statement. Instead, Schulz
has arbitrarily assumed that 52,000 acre feet
annually can be spread and percolated in the Kern
River Bed upstream from the crossing of the Friant-
Kern Canal. No engineering study has been made
to show what the percolation ability of the River
Channel area may be upstream from the crossing of
the Friant-Kern Canal. In absence of a proper
engineering study, it is just as factual to state
that 77,000 acre feet can be percolated upstream
from the Friant-Kern Canal Crossing as it is to say
that 52,000 acre feet can be so percolated. Never-
theless, in the Schulz report, he states that if
25,000 acre feet is to be spread for percolation
and subsequent recovery by a well field to replace
the proposed treatment plant, such operation must
occur in the most westerly portion of Improvement
District No. 4. Schulz then notes on page No. 4
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 27
of his report, that because he has located the
well field in the most westerly portion of Improve-
ment District No. 4, it becomes necessary to expend
$4,275,000 on extra pipeline installation. I point
out to you that all or most of this expenditure in
excess of four million dollars might be saved by
having the well field located near the proposed
treatment plant site. This can only be properly
determined by an engineering study and evaluation
that is not yet made.
2) In the Schulz' report in paragraph 5, page 2,
it is noted that a treatment plant would cause
cessation of 25,000 acre feet of overdraft imme-
diately; it is also implied that similar benefits
would not occur with a water spreading operation.
Schulz does not go on to note that the proposed
treatment plant is designed for the sole benefit
of the North of the River District, East Niles
Community Services District, and the old Crest
area of the Cal Water Services Company. Wells
in these areas are known to contain water of
inferior quality, which is a direct indication
that such wells are not pumping from the same
aquifers that furnish the better quality well
water throughout the balance of Urban Bakersfield.
There appears to be very little likelihood that
cessation of pumping in these inferior water
quality areas will be a general benefit to the
useable groundwater basin. In this connection,
it should be noted that it would indeed be phys-
ically possible for California Water Services
area to shutdown some of its wells that are lo-
cated in the vicinity of the Stockdale Industrial
Park and thereby benefit other nearby wells. The
Cal Water wells, that I refer to, discharge into
a 30" pipeline that does presently go to service
the old Crest Water Company area. The problem
that we have here is that Cal Water has announced
no intention whatever to shutdown any, or all,
of its wells that discharge into the referred to
30" pipeline. In absence of some sort of a declara-
tion from Cal Water, it is entirely possible that
Cal Water will merely increase its service area in
the eastern part of Urban Bakersfield. A close
look at this over-all program seems to indicate
that Cal Water may be its chief beneficiary, and
not necessarily the taxpayers within the Improve-
ment District No. 4.
3) In paragraph 6, page 2, Schulz shows concern
about groundwater outflow of the percolated Aque-
duct Water. This would appear to be a proper con-
cern and is exactly why a scientific evaluation
program is necessary before a treatment plant con-
struction is rushed into. Aside from spreading
Aqueduct Water, it would seem essential at the
same time to experiment with recovery well place-
ment to see how the percolated water can best be
harvested without loss. Since we have presently
little knowledge on this subject, it might even
be found that all 77,000 acre feet of supplemental
water should go through a treatment plant, rather
than just 25,000 acre feet annually. If this should
be concluded, there certainly would be no economy
in locating a treatment plant in the vicinity of the
Calloway Weir above old Highway 99. Instead, the
Cross-Valley Extension would be eliminated as far as
Improvement District No. 4 is concerned with savings
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 28
399
to Improvement District No. 4 well'in excess of
two million dollars. In paragraph 7, on page 2,
Schulz implies that the proposed treatment plant
has some peaking flexibility. This is directly
contrary to prior testimony and statements of
Schulz.
Schulz has stated that continuous operation of
the treatment. plant is required to produce 25,000
acre feet annually. As to peaking Schulz has
stated that peaking will be accomplished by use of
wells, as such would be less expensive than to
build extra capacity into the treatment plant for
that purpose. It is important to note the above
because Schulz now states that to produce a like
quantity of water from a well field, it will be
necessary to install 17-4 cfs wells which, if
operated continuously, would produce 50,000 acre
feet annually versus 25,000 acre feet that can be
produced by the proposed treatment plant. Aside
from the reference to a peaking requirement, Schulz
also states that twice as many wells are required
in order to assure 30 years of operation.
Using the Schulz' figures on well cost on page 4
of his report in the amount of $2,225,000, it can
be stated that this is twice as much as necessary,
or, $1,112,500 of extra expenditure to put out in
order to assure a 30 year operation.
Also, under paragraph 7, Schulz states that the
wells would be drilled to a depth of 600 feet;
however, he has no real knowledge or information
to base his conclusion on. If there is an effec-
tive spreading recovery program, it is much more
likely that water will be picked up at pumping
levels not to exceed 100 feet. There is a good
chance that wells with an overall depth of 300
feet will be indicated rather 600 feet. This
would substantially reduce Schulz' well cost
estimate of $2,225,000. The fact of the matter
is, specific engineering information is necessary
to make a proper evaluation and estimate.
4) In paragraph 8, on page 3, Schulz argues that
to have comparable reliability to a treatment
plant, the wells will have to have a secondary
power source. Reliability is certainly an impor-
tant subject regardless of whether it is a treat-
ment plant or a group of wells. Hence, let us
examine the Schulz' assumption that reliability
is one of the merits of the treatment plant.
Just to get Aqueduct Water to the treatment plant,
you must come through a canal in excess of 21
miles in length and water must be boosted through
nine lift stations. A break in the canal or a
power failure at any one of the nine lift stations
would immediately put the treatment plant out of
operation. Furthermore, there is no presently
indicated plan to install secondary power sources
at any of the nine life stations.
It would actually seem proper to conclude that
lack of reliability is one strong argument against
the treatment plant. On the other hand, relia-
bility is a real argument in favor of a well field
operation. Aside from possible power outage, which
4OO
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 29
can be overcome with relatively minor cost by
installation of secondary power source, a well
field acts as a regulatory reservoir that is
unaffected by such things as temporary breaks
in the Cross-Valley Canal, or, in the California
Aqueduct itself. If the same potential relia-
bility were suggested for the proposed treatment
plant, there is probably no way to accomplish it
even with the tremendous outlay of money not
presently planned for.
5) In paragraph 10, on page 3, Schulz notes that
wells would not be placed in the northwest part
of Improvement District No. 4, because there may
be groundwater quality problems. Here, again,
admitted lack of knowledge would seem to argue
in favor of having a full evaluation of the over-
all spreading program before charging forward with
the treatment plant construction. In discussing
this problem with several prominent geologists I
have been told that a spreading program will create
an opportunity to recover good quality water, even
in areas where there may be present groundwater
quality problems. This is explained by the fact
that newly percolated water can probably be re-
covered from aquifers that are higher and unaf-
fected by existing groundwater problems.
6) In paragraph 11, on page 3, Schulz states
that his well cost estimates came directly from
Cal Water Services Company. It is to be noted
that on page 4 of his report, that Schulz shows
that installation of 17 wells will cost $2,225,000,
which is an average of $131,000 per well. Since
these are Cal Water's figures, it must follow that
Cal Water's base for its rates approved by the
Public Utility Commission are related to this type
of cost. If this is true, it is high time that
Cal Water's rates were challenged by the water con-
sumers in its service area. There is no possible
excuse for wells in a spreading area long the Kern
River costing $131,000 per unit.
7) Also in paragraph 11, on page 3, on the totally
unsupported assumption that 52,000 acre feet rather
than 77,000 acre feet annually can be percolated
and recovered by spreading in the River Channel
above the Friant-Kern Canal, Schulz proposes to
reduce the size of the Cross-Valley Extension to
reflect the assumption that 25,000 acre feet will
be spread downstream from the Friant-Kern Canal
Crossing. At the same time, Schulz makes the con-
clusion that apreading and recovering the 25,000
acre feet downstream of the Friant-Kern Canal will
require an expenditure of $4,275,000 for pipelines.
This is set forth on page 4 of his report. Then
on page 5 of his report, he shows that only $142,000
in capital expenditure has been saved by reducing
annual capacity in the Cross-Valley Canal Extension
by 25,000 acre feet.
It must again be noted that no factual information
has been introduced to show what the real spreading
capacity is in the River Channel area above the
Friant-Kern Canal. In absence of some specific
engineering information, it is just as logical to
estimate that such apreading capacity is 77,000
acre feet, as 52,000 acre feet, annually. The
importance here is obvious in that most of Schulz'
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 30
401
estimate of $4,275,000 for pipelines~can be saved
if spreading capacity above the Friant-Kern Canal
is found to be 77,000 acre feet or more. If there
ever was a crying need for a scientific evaluation
o£ a spreading and recovery program, it is evident
in, this situation. Furthermore, the opportunity
to make this evaluation is excellent at this time.
The Buena Vista Water Storage District and the
Hacienda Water District have already agreed to
make up to a 70,000 exchange without charge or
compensation for doing so in 1973. My specific
recommendation is that the Agency should again be
requested by the City of Bakersfield to hire experts
in this field to work with the Agency staff in a
full evaluation programsthat will include, not only
spreading, but also installation of some strategically
located wells to actually test the recovery potential
for, at least, the quantity of water required for
North of the River District. Regarding a firm expert
and experienced in this field, I point out to you
that the Agency already has working for it on the
CrosseValley Canal Design, the firm of Bookman-
Edmonston. In that connection, I note for you,
that Bookman-Edmonston has conceived and designed
a spreading and recovery program for the Arvin-
Edison Water Storage District that is the largest
and most progressive district organized effort of
its kind in California. I suggest that the Agency
should be requested to use this readily available
talent in fully evaluating in 1973 a spreading and
recovery program for Improvement District No. 4.
8) On pages 6 and 7, Schulz belittles the potential
savings of a well field versus a treatment plant by
implying that such savings would only amount to 31~
to 849 annually to an individual householder. Such
an implication can be very misleading. First,
Schulz' cost estimates may be off by literally mil-
lions of dollars; secondly, Schulz totally avoids
a discussion of water quality. Treated water will
not compare with most of the water now pumped from
the Kern River underground. Treated Aqueduct water
without any dilution by mixing with Kern River re-
charge will be four to five hundred percent higher
in total solids. Treated water will have an un-
pleasant taste of chlorine and other chemicals.
Treated water may be as much as twenty degrees higher
in temperature than well water. The end result of
use of treated water will almost certainly be simi-
lar to what is experienced in other communities.
This will mean greatly expanded purchases of bot-
tled water that can easily cost the affected house-
holder an extra five to ten dollars per month.
9) In paragraph 2, at the bottom of page 7, Schulz
shows concern that if a well field plan doesn't work,
there would not then be sufficient capital to return
to a treatment plant without a supplemental bond
authorization. What Schulz does not note is that
even in his overall plan, 52,000 acre feet is to be
spread annually.
Hence, if a spreading program doesn't work, the solu-
tion may well be to have to build the equivalent of
two more 25,000 acre feet treatment plants. Using
the Schulz' cost estimates, we are looking at two
times six million four-hundred fifty-five dollars,
or, $12,910,000. Why should Urban Bakersfield
have to speculate on this subject? The answers
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 31
are available by a competent engineering study
of a spreading and recovery operation prior to
the consideration of a treatment plant.
In closing, I want to state that I have been
happy to cooperate with Councilman Keith Bleecker
by making this presentation on the Schulz March
5th report to the Kern County Water Agency. I
compliment Councilman Bleecker for having the
determination and courage to push for a full
engineering of a well field program versus a
treatment plant. There is so much to poten-
tially be gained when armed with adequate engi-
neering knowledge that the Kern County Water
Agency can certainly delay consideration of a
treatment plant for that portion of 1973 that
will be required to make a proper engineering
evaluation and report.
Yours very truly,
GEORGE W. NICKEL, JR.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 3180 to 3300,
inclusive, in amount of $91,402.87
(b) Application for Encroachment Permit from
Anthony E. Well, 2204 19th Street
(c) Application for an Encroachment Permit
from Jack Toon, 825 Chester Avenue
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b),
and (c) of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the following
vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, bid of Kern Turf
Supply for Annual Contract PVC Pipe and Sprinklers, was accepted,
this being the only bid received, and the Mayor was authorized
to execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, low bid of San
Joaquin Supply Co. for Annual Contract Janitorial Paper Products
was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was
authorized to execute the contract.
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 32
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, low bid of More-
land & Sons for Annual Contrmct Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks was
accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was author-
ized to execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, low bid of San
Joaquin Supply Company for Annual Contract Janitorial Supplies
was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was
authorized to execute the contract.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2082 New
Series of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield amending Section
11.17.020 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Bakersfield setting the
boundaries of the Parking Mall.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Ordinance No. 2082
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 11.17.020 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield
setting the boundaries of the Parking Mall was adopted by the fol-
lowing vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 20-73
asking findings and determinations
that owners of more than 60% of the
area within the boundaries of the
proposed Public Improvement District
No. 889 have signed written petition
for specified improvements and waiving
all proceedings required by the Special
Assessment Investigation, Limitation
and Majority Protest Act of 1931.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Resolution No. 20-73
asking findings and determinations that owners of more than 60% of
the area within the boundaries of the proposed Public Improvement
District No. 889 have signed written petition for specified im-
provements and waiving all proceedings required by the Special
Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of
1931, was
Ayes:
adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Rees,
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 33
Adoption of Resolution No. 21-73
ordering the preparation of Plans,
Specifications, Estimates of Cost,
District Map and Diagram in the
matter of the Proposed Public
Improvement District No. 889.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Resolution No.
21-73 ordering the preparation of Plans, Specifications, Esti-
mates of Cost, District Map and Diagram in the matter of the
Proposed Public Improvement District No. 889, was adopted by
the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Adoption of Resolution No. 22-73 of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield
declaring its intention to approve an
amendment to Contract between the
Board of Administration of the Public
Employees' Retirement System and the
City Council of the City of Bakersfield.
It was moved by Councilman Thomas, that Resolution No.
22-73 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring its
intention to approve an amendment to Contract between the Board
of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System
and the City Council of the City of Bakersfield. Councilman
Heisey commented that he was not certain he understood what was
being proposed by this Resolution, and asked if it would prohibit
the employment of part-time employees for the summer recreation
program. The City Clerk was requested to read the resolution
for clarification. After additional discussion, vote taken on
adoption of the Resolution carried as follows:
Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Councilman Bleecker
None
Authorization granted Finance Director
to enter into discount agreement with
Berchtold Equipment Company for Ford
Tractor parts and supplies.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, authorization was
granted the Purchasing Division of the Finance Department to
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 34
enter into.a discount agreement, (EMMA account) with Berchtold
Equipment Company for Ford Tractor parts and supplies.
Approval of Annexation Boundaries desig-
nated as Panorama No. 1 Annexation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Annexation Boundaries
designated as Panorama No. i Annexation were approved and referred
to the City Engineer and City Attorney for referral to LAFC.
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the Coun-
cil on application by Kenneth C. Cummings, Inc. to amend the Zoning
Boundaries from an R-2-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling -
Architectural Design) Zone to an R-3 (Limited Multiple Family
Dwelling) or more restrictive, Zone, of that certain property
located on the northeast corner of Pacheco Road and Monitor Street.
This hearing was duly advertised and posted and notices
were sent to property owners as required by ordinance. No protests
or objections were filed in the City Clerk's office.
At its regular meeting held March 7, 1973, the Planning
Commission considered this zone change involving fifteen lots
within approved Tentative Subdivision Map No. 3660. The stated
purpose for the request is to permit the construction of a four-
plex apartment unit on each lot which average approximately 7800
square feet in area. It was the opinion of the Commission that
this use would be compatible with the zoning and development of
the surrounding area and recommended approval with the application
of the "D" Overlay.
Vice-Mayor whirremote opened the hearing 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. 2083 New
Series amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code by changing the
Land Use Zoning of that certain property located on the northeast
corner of PachecQ Road and Monitor Street, was adopted by the
following vote:
4O6
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 35
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medde~s, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council on application of Stockdale Development Corporation to
amend the zoning boundaries from an "A" (Agricultural) Zone to
an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) or more restrictive, Zone, and to
an R-2-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural
Design) or more restrictive Zone of that certain property lo-
cated on the northwest corner of Fraser Road and Stine Road.
This hearing was duly advertised and posted and notices
were sent to property owners as required by ordinance. No pro-
tests or objections were filed in the City Clerk's office.
At its regular meeting held March 7, 1973, the Planning
Commission considered this zone change request to R-1 and R-2-D.
This requested change of zoning was solicited by this Corporation
in order that they might continue with the orderly development of
the area. It was the opinion of the Planning Commission that the
requested zoning would be compatible with the zoning and develop-
ment of the surrounding area and would be consistent with the
Bakersfield Metropolitan General Plan and the General Plan of the
State College Area.
Vice-Mayor Whirremote declared the hearing open for
public participation. No protests or objections were received.
Mr. Charles Tolfree, representing the Stockdale Development Cor-
poration, stated that immediately across the street from the bulk
of the R-2 property which fronts on Stine Road the zoning is R-1
and R-3, so this proposed zoning would be of less density than
the property immediately adjacent to the parcel.
The public hearing was closed for Council deliberation
and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Ordinance No.
2084 New Series amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code by chang-
ing the Land Use Zoning of that certain property located on the
northwest corner of Fraser Road and Stine Road, was adopted by
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 36
the following vote:
Ayes Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, .Rees,
Noes
Absent:
None
None
This is
Thomas, Whittemore
the time set for public
Rucker,
hearing before the
Council on application of Frank Wolfe to amend the zoning bound-
aries from an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) Zone to a C-O (Profes-
sional Office) or more restrictive, Zone, of that certain prop-
erty located south of Wilson Road and north of Planz Road fron-
tage on Wible Road.
This hearing was duly advertised and posted and notices
were sent to property owners as required by ordinance. No pro-
tests or objections were filed in the City Clerk's office.
The property involved is a long parcel 983 feet in
length and varies in width from 90 feet at the widest point to
0 feet at each end and is a remnant from the construction of Free-
way 99. The applicant proposes to develop the parcel with two
separate single story medical offices.
At its March 7, 1973 meeting, the Planning Commission
considered this zone change and it was its judgment that a pro-
fessional or commercial office use of this parcel would be com-
patible with adjacent residentially developed properties. How-
ever, the Commission would recommend the "D" Design Overlay be
applied to the zone change to insure the development of this
parcel will be in harmony with the residential character of this
area.
Vice-Mayor Whittemore declared the hearing open for
public participation. No protests or objections were received.
Mr. Frank Wolfe, applicant, stated that he had no objection to
the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the "D" Over-
lay be applied to this parcel.
The Public Hearing was closed for Council deliberation
and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Ordinance No. 2085
New Series amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code by changing
Bakersfield, California, March 26, 1973 - Page 37
changing the Land Use Zoning of that certain property located
south of Wilson Road and north of Planz Road frontage on Wible
Road, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, the meeting was
adjourned at 11:10 P.M.
ATTEST:
CLERK and Ex~Offic~Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield