HomeMy WebLinkAboutJULY - SEPT 1972Bakersfield, California, July 10, 1972
1
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of
the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M., July 10, 1972.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend A. L.
Greenwalt of the Trinity Baptist Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present:
Absent:
Mayor Hart.
None
Minutes of the regular meeting of June 26,
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mrs. Daisy Urner, retiring President
1972 were
of the Bakersfield
Art Association, introduced the new incoming President, Mrs. Betty
Graviss, and the new Gallery Director, Mr. Francis Parsons, as
Bakersfield Art Association's representatives on the Bakersfield
Art Commission. Mrs. Jean Kious, First Vice-President, is the
third member of the organization.
Mrs. Lila Little, Executive Director of the Kern County
Housing Authority, requested the Council to pass a resolution
placing a proposal by the Housing Authority to build 200 housing
units for the elderly, on the November 7, 1972 ballot. Upon a
motion by Councilman Heisey, the matter was referred to the Budget
Review and Finance Committee for study and recommendation to the
Council.
Mr. Fred Gifford who lives at 5012 College Avenue outside
the City of Bakersfield and owns considerable property inside the
City, submitted a questionnaire to the Council requesting infor-
mation on the number and assessed valuation of non-tax paying
entities in the City, the cost to the taxpayers for free services
rendered by the City to those entities, especially churches, and
proposing that hospitals in the City be taxed.
Bakersfield, California, July 10, 1972 - Page 2
After discussion, Councilman Bleecker moved that Mr.
Gifford's letter be received and placed on file and referred to
the City Manager for answers, and that Mr. Gifford be invited to
attend the next meeting of the Council for discussion of his
questions. This motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Tom Folsom, Executive Secretary of the Kern County
Taxpayers' Association, speaking as an individual, stated that he
was present in the Council Chambers when the matter of evaluating
the cost of City refuse collection and private enterprise service
and comparing the costs to determine which is the least costly
alternative for the City, was referred to the Governmental Efficiency
and Personnel Committee for consideration.
It has occurred to him that refuse collection should be
set up by the City for budgetary purposes as an Enterprise Fund,
in which some of the indirect costs could then be applied and it
would be possible to relate with private enterprise. It behooves
the Council to be able to identify not only the direct costs, but
the indirect costs, so that however, the user-pay principle is
applied, the Council will be sure that it is actually being reim-
bursed for everything possible. In the organizational structure,
the Refuse Collection is part of the Public Works Department, and
any hidden administrative costs should be identified as is done by
private enterprise.
There are also certain accounting services which are a
legitimate charge against this type of enterprise, and in private
enterprise is identified. There does not appear to be any charge
relating to structural rent or structural building maintenance set
up in the City's budget for refuse collection. These are just some
of the things which he feels the Committee should take into con-
sideration in making its evaluation.
Councilman Rees commented that it would be important for
the Council to decide whether it will literally give the whole
refuse collection function to private enterprise without any muni-
cipal control, or whether to supervise it in some manner. If the
Bakersfield, California, July 10, 1972 - Page 3
3
latter were the case, the City would have administrative costs, and
some of these costs would be hard to distribute or divide.
Mr. Folsom said that is one reason for making the recom-
mendation of establishing an Enterprise Fund, as it would identify
some of the costs which are in a sense currently hidden in the
City's budgetary method. He also referred to a Working Capital
Fund for the equipment department stating that it is a matter of
being able to identify the appropriate costs for the purpose of a
valid comparison. He feels that the Council can appreciate the
problems that are created because of an over-simplified budgetary
procedure.
Councilman Bleecker thanked Mr. Folsom for his presentation
and as a member of the GEPC, he invited Mr. Folsom to attend the
Committee's first meeting to consider whether or not to franchise
out the whole refuse collection system to private enterprise. He
has mentioned previously that perhaps the City should be required
to bid against the private collector or collectors as that will be
an excellent way to really find out how much it does cost govern-
ment to perform this function. As mentioned by Councilman Rees,
he would think the City would want to retain the rig~ht to supervise
the collection in a minor way so the City would have control to
take over any complaints that were made and take care of them
promptly. This would result in some minor administrative costs.
Councilman Whittemore stated he appreciated Mr. Folsom's
recommendations, and as Chairman of the GEPC would extend an
invitation to him to come to their meetings. The Committee is
wrestling with this problem and plans to come up with a solution
to it, hopefully, by the first of the year. He remarked that he
would be amazed if the City staff in making its computation of the
cost of the refuse collection had not already included overhead in
the figures submitted to the Council.
Mrs-. Edna Buster, 2009 California Avenue, asked to discuss
the multi-purpose facility and the resume which she directed to
each member of the Council. Mayor Hart stated that the correspondence
sent to his office is being duplicated for the Council, and he will
contact her at a later date.
4
Bakersfield, California, July 10, 1972 - Page 4
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, communication from
the Parking and Traffic Committee of the Downtown Business Associa-
tion requesting a study be made to determine the feasibility of
extending the present parking mall east and west of 19th Street,
was referred to the Business Development and Parking Committee for
study and recommendation.
Council Statements.
Councilman Whirremote stated that the names of a number
of well-qualified citizens of the community have been submitted
to the Council for appointment as members of the Board of Directors;
of the Greater Bakersfield Metropolitan Transit District, and it
is unfortunate that there are not enough positions to permit all
of these persons to serve the City. He moved that Mr. Robert
Watson and Mr. Arend Folkens be appointed to serve on the Board.
This motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Heisey commented that about a year ago the
Planning Commission made an in-depth study and report to the
Council regarding a refuse charge for tax exempt properties and
City services. He moved that the Planning Commission re-evaluate
their previous study in light of what has transpired this last
year, and update their recommendations to the Council.
Councilman Medders asked if in making the study, the
Planning Commission would include what the people think about it,
or would the Commission just impose its views with the idea that
"We know what's best."
Councilman Whirremote stated he did not object to Council-
man Heisey's motion, but this matter has been referred to the GEPC
and therefore he feels there is no point in having two committees
studying the same thing~ it is a duplication of effort.
Councilman Heisey remarked that he was only asking for
a re-evaluation of the Planning Commission's facts, as he feels
it would be most helpful to the GEPC to have this viewpoint. Any
knowledgeable groups wishing to appear before the GEPC and make a
presentation, should be encouraged to do so.
Bakersfield, California, July 10, 1972 - Page 5
5
Councilman Whittemore commented that an alternative to
asking the Planning Commission to study this matter again, would
be to invite the Commission to sit in on the GEPC meetings and
present any information that they have at that time.
Councilman Bleecker stated he recalled that the Planning
Commission was particularly slow in getting their report to the
Council; he waited for it for some time and kept asking about it;
and he was criticized for criticizing the Planning Commission.
The report was short and concise when it was finally submitted and
as one member of the GEPC, he doesn't believe that he needs any
further information from the Planning Commission to make up his
mind on this issue, he wants facts and figures at this point. He
wants to know how much will it cost, does the City' have the right
type of equipment, could the City be competitive with private
enterprise, how much does it cost the taxpayer, and any decision
that the Planning Commission would make at this time would not
impress him very much. He therefore opposed the motion.
Councilman Medders stated he had hoped that the Committee
would come up with something they coul~ live with and not go through
a series of deliberations and then come up with something contro-
versial, presenting another problem.
Councilman Whittemore stated he agreed with Mr. Medders
100% and that as Chairman of the Committee he hopes they can come
up with facts and figures which can be simplified to the point
that the news media can convey the message to the people, and, if
necessary, this issue can be put to a vote of the people in
November.
Councilman Bleecker stated that might be a good idea,
however, he feels the language on the ballot would have a great
deal to do with whether or not the measure would pass. The issue
of refuse collection has been the most misunderstood issue since
he has been on the Council, and as far as the GEPC recommending to
the Council that the issue be put on the ballot, he would have to
consider that for a long time.
6
Bakersfield, California, July 10, 1972 - Page 6
Councilman Heisey remarked that there are times when the
Council should lead public opinion instead of trying to follow
public opinion, that is one of the reasons they were elected. The
Council has to set its tax rate by August 21st, and he would
certainly hope that something meaningful could be done by that
time. A couple of members of the Planning Commission have indicated
to him that they would be willing to re-evaluate their former study
and then make their recommendations to the Committee.
Vote taken on Councilman Heisey's motion to request the
Planning Commission to re-evaluate its previous report failed to
carry by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Rees, Rucker
Noes: Councilmen Bleecker, Medders, Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: None ,
Councilman Heisey stated that the City had been asked
by the League of California Cities to support Assembly Bill 1000
which is now called the Reagan-Horetti Tax Reform Program. This
Bill will provide a highly satisfactory alternative to the Watson
Initiative and be beneficial to cities. He moved that the Council
go on record as supporting AB 1000, and that this information be
conveyed to the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee who will be
meeting on July 19, 1972 to consider this Bill.
After discussion, Councilman Rees offered a substitute
motion that the issue be referred to the Legislative Committee and
it be empowered to act on behalf of the Council in contacting the
City's legislators.
Councilman Bleecker stated he could not support a motion
which would allow an important bill of this nature to be decided
by two Councilmen. He would support a substitute motion that this
matter be referred to the Legislative Committee to make a recom-
mendation to the Council. It was pointed out that there was not
sufficient time for the Legislative Committee to consider it and
report back to the Council. Councilman Bleecker stated he would
then oppose the motion and the substitute motion.
Bakersfield, California, July 10, 1972 - Page 7
7
Councilman Rees withdrew his substitute motion, and after
considerable discussion, vote taken on Councilman Heisey's motion
to support AB lOO0, failed to carry by the following roll call
vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstaining:
(c),
adopted
Ayes:
The
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(d),
(h)
(i)
Noes:
Councilmen Heisey, Whittemore
Councilmen Bleecker, Medders, Rucker, Thomas
'None
Councilman Rees
Consent Calendar.
following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
Allowance of Claims Nos. 4111 to 4246,
inclusive, and Claims Nos. 1 to 11,
inclusive, in amount of $280,587.81.
Claim for damages from next of kin of
Pearl Woodson, deceased (to be referred
to the City Attorney).
Claim for damages from Hemisphere Con-
struction (to be referred to the City
Attorney).
Claim for personal injuries for Helena
L. Hannum, Minor (to be referred to the
City Attorney).
Application for an Encroachment Permit
from R. D. Grimes.
Offer to dedicate right-of-way for Wilson
Road, South Real Road and Kennedy Avenue
from Victor A. and Velma Supertino.
Plans and Specifications for Paving
Parking Lots and Service Drives in
Patriots Park.
Proposed Underground Electric Easement
to Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
Storm Water Flowage Easement from Stock-
dale Development Corporation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b),
(e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of the Consent Calendar were
by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
Rees, Rucker,
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, July 10, 1972 - Page 8
Action on Bids.
Upon.a motion by Councilman Rees, low bid of Rose Chemical
Company for Annual Contract Water Treatment Chemicals was accepted,
all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to
execute the contract.
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
No. 874 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield declaring its intention
to order the vacation of a portion
of Auburn Street, in the City of
Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Resolution of Intention
No. 874 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring its
intention to order the vacation of a portion of Auburn Street, in
the City of Bakersfield, and setting July 24, 1972 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
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 11.04.777 of the
Municipal Code (Speed Limit on Planz
Road).
First reading was considered given to an Ordinance of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 11.04.777
of the Municipal Code (Speed Limit on Planz Road).
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2027 New
Series of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield amending Chapter 5.38
of the Municipal Code by amending
Section 5.38.090 and repealing Sec-
tion 5.38.170.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance No. 2027
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Chapter 5.38 of the Municipal Code by amending Section 5.38.090
and repealing Section 5.38.170, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
9
Bakersfield, California, July 10, 1972 - Page 9
Approval of Increase in Police Depart-
ment Petty Cash Fund.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, increase in Police
Department Petty Cash Fund from $540.00 to $1,100.00 was approved.
Approval of Extension of Tire Mileage
Contract with Firestone Tire & Rubber
Company.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, extension of
Tire Mileage Contract with Firestone Tire and Rubber Company for
was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute
one year,
same.
Adoption of Resolution No. 40-72 of
the City Council consenting to Joint
Public Hearing, authorizing the
establishing of a date therefor, and
publication of Notice of Joint Public
Hearing on the Redevelopment Plan for
the Downtown Redevelopment Project.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Resolution No. 40-72
of the City Council consenting to Joint Public Hearing, authorizing
the establishing of a date therefor~ and publication of Notice of
Joint Public Hearing on the Redevelopment Plan.for the Downtown
Redevelopment Project, was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
Approval of Map of Tract No. 3609
and Mayor authorized to execute
Contract and Specifications for
Improvements therein.
Upon a mot£on by Councilman Thomas, it is ordered that
Map of Tract No. 3609 be, and the same is hereby approved: That
the easements, street and drive shown upon said Map, therein
offered for dedication be, and the same are hereby accepted for
the purpose for which the same are offered for dedication.
Pursuant to the provision of Section 11587 of the Busi-
ness and Professions Code, the Council of the City of Bakersfield
Bakersfield, California, July 10, 1972 - Page 10
hereby waives the requirement of signatures of the following:
NAME NATURE OF INTEREST
Tenneco West, Inc.
(Formerly Kern County Land Co.)
Mineral rights below a depth
of 500 feet with no right of
surface entry.
Tenneco West, Inc.
(Formerly Kern County Land Co.)
The right to pass over and
across said land for ingress
to and egress from any lands
of Kern County Land Company,
which are not accessible from
any public road, highway or
over other lands of said Company
excepted and reserved in that
Deed recorded May 27, 1960, in
Book 3271 at Page 26 O. R.,
County of Kern.
The Clerk of this Council is directed to endorse upon
the face of said Map a copy of this order authenticated by the
Seal of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, and the Mayor is
authorized to execute the contract and specifications for said
Tract.
Approval of Map of Tract No. 3544
and Mayor authorized to execute
Contract and Specifications for
Improvements therein.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, it is ordered that
the Map of Tract No. 3544 be and the same is hereby approved, that
the easements, courts, roads and alleys shown upon said Map and
therein offered for dedication be, and the same are hereby accepted
for the purpose or the purposes for which the same are offered for
dedication.
The Clerk of this Council is directed to endorse upon
the face of said Map a copy of this order authenticated by the
Seal of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield and the Mayor
is authorized to execute the Contract and Specifications, condi-
tioned on approval of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions by the City Attorney.
Bakersfield, California, July 10, 1972 - Page 11
Approval of Agreement with the Santa
Fe Railway Company for installation
of improved crossing protection at
"N" Street.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Thomas,
Agreement with the Santa Fe Railway Company for the installation
of improved crossing protection at "N" Street was approved, and
the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Request of Marvin E. Rea to connect
property to the City Sewer System
referred to the Water and City Growth
Committee for study and recommendation.
The Council engaged in a discussion regarding a request
from Marvin E. Rea to connect property located at 4018 Garnsey
Lane to the City Sewer System. Councilman Medders questioned
whether or not the City's annexation program was receiving any
benefit by permitting non-residents to connect their property to
the City Sewer System. If these residents receive sewer services,
there is no incentive to support City annexation proceedings,
therefore, he felt this matter should be given Council consideration.
Councilman Rees asked the City Manager if at present
the rates for sewer rentals are set so that the City recovers its
costs, or more than its costs.
Mr. Bergen assured the Council that the rates set up for
the suburban sewer rental agreements are to the advantage of City
residents. These people pay the full costs of the service, in
fact they pay more than a City resident does in his taxes. This
policy has been evaluated by prior Councils and Planning Commissions,
who have come to the conclusion that this policy benefits annexa-
tions. The City's sewer lines extend through the southwest in the
unincorporated area where people are not contiguous to the City
and unable to annex, but want to connect to the sewer. If they
are allowed to connect and not required to invest in an expensive
septic tank, when an annexation is being considered in that area,
they may not actively support it, but they also will not oppose it.
Councilman Bleecker stated there are many other benefits
besides a sewer rental agreement when annexing to the City. If
Bakersfield, California, July 10, 1972 - Page 12
a County resident connects to the City sewer and he is satisfied
with the other County services) he will want to remain in the
County. There are more annexations which have failed where pro-
perties are connected to the sewer than have been approved by the
voters. He stated he would oppose this connection.
Councilman Thomas moved that the matter be referred to
the Water and City Growth Committee to study and make a recommenda-
tion back to the Council. Councilman Whittemore commented he
doesn't mind this being referred to Committee, but it isn't going
to change his opinion about providing City services to the people
in the outlying areas.
Vote taken on Councilman Thomas' motion carried by
following roll call vote:
Ayes.
Noes:
Absent:
the
Councilmen Heisey, Medder~, Rees, Rucker, Thomas
Councilmen Bleecker, Whittemore
None
Requests to connect certain properties
to the City Sewer System referred to
the Water and City Growth Committee
for study and recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, the following requests
to connect properties to the City Sewer System were referred to the
Water and City Growth Committee for study and recommendation:
Jim Weaver
Alfonso Alderete
Hardt Real Estate
2200 Roland Street
2100 Madison Street
Belle Terrace west of
South "H" Street
Councilmen Bleecker and Whittemore voted in the negative
on this motion.
Bakersfield, California, July 10, 1972 - Page 13
Councilman Heisey stated that he has worked rather
actively to have landscaping in the east side of town and to have
the median islands painted green, which he feels is a big ~mprove-
ment. He recommended that the Public Works Director contact
Tenneco Company to provide funds for painting the median islands
green on California Avenue west from Oak Street, with the City to
do the work.
Mr. Mel Jans who was in the audience, stated that his
company would receive the request.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Medders,
at 9:35 P.M.
come before the
the Council adjourned
kAYOR .ty of 3akersfield,
Calif.
ATTEST:
C ~ an b rk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
14
Bakersfield, California, July 24, 1972
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of
the City Hall at eight o'clock P. M., July 24, 1972.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Robert
Armstrong of the Niles Assembly of God 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 July 10, 1972 were
approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mayor Hart invited Mrs. Edna Buster to address the
Council; however, Mrs. Buster who had previously requested to
appear before the Council, was not present in the audience.
Mr. Richard Leask, Vice-President of Great Western
Savings, stated that a large pictorial map of early Bakersfield
dated 1901 hangs on the wall of the Savings Company and it has been
admired by many people including Mayor Hart. Mr. Leask stated he
has had the map reproduced and wishes to present if to the City
with the request that it be hung in City Hall for the enjoyment of
the public. On behalf of the City Council, Councilman Heisey
thanked Mr. Leask and his company for this gift, and moved that
the map be received and made available to the people of Bakersfield.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Fred Gifford, 5012 College Avenue, was present and
requested answers to his presentation on taxes at the Council
meeting of July 10, 1972. In a memorandum fo the Council, Mr.
Bergen stated that the presentation made by Mr. Gifford has been
examined for areas over which the City has responsibility. Many
of the statements and/or questions do not refer to operations,
policies or laws over which the City has any control.
The City Clerk read a memorandum from D. L. Haynes,
Finance Director, commenting on Mr. 6ifford's inquiry regarding
Bakersfield, California, July 24, 1972 - Page 2
15
certain tax matters as follows:
1. The City has no count of the number of exempt
organizations inside the City of Bakersfield.
The claims for exemption are based upon
various Federal and State laws and are
approved and allowed by the State Board of
Equalization.
The tax charged to trailer coaches is set by
the State Department of Motor Vehicles. If
the wheels and axles are removed from any
mobile home, it is assessed by the County
Assessor either as unsecured property or as
secured property depending upon whether or
not the owner also owns the land upon which
the home is located. The regular property
tax rates then apply.
The amount of taxes paid upon a mobile home
with wheels and axles is determined by the
State.
The cost of services provided to mobile
homes depends upon many factors, which as
the number of persons living in the homes
and generating refuse, sewage, street wear
and tear.
City taxpayers pay County, State and Federal
taxes. The City does not pay any of its tax
collections to the County, State or Federal
Governments for free medical treatment.
Savings and loan institutions hold money in
trust for property owners until such time
as property taxes are due upon the property.
This is done for their own protection be-
cause the institution holds a trust deed. on
the property. The City cannot legally hold
this money in trust for a property owner
nor make tax payments to the County Tax
Collector.
The Finance Director also summarized the general programs
of the City Government and the amounts budgeted for them.
In a memorandum to the City Manager, the City Attorney
stated that the license fee for a mobilehome on wheels is 2% of
the market value of the vehicle as set forth in the Vehicle Code.
The money collected is distributed 1/3 to the City, the school
district, and the County. This license fee is in lieu of ad valorem
taxes.
Mr. Gifford compared taxes collected for mobilehomes
and apartments, asking if it costs the City less for a family of
4 in a mobilehome than it does a family of 4 in an apartment, as
the tax collected would indicate that this is true. He commented
on the fact that organizations such as hospitals and mutual insurance
16
Bakersfield, California, July 24, 1972 - Page 3
companies do not pay property taxes on their buildings to the City
and County. He asked if the City is currently charging for a fire
engine responding to a call, how much does it cost to operate a
fire engine with a full crew, and does the Fire Department charge
for respiratory calls.
Mr. Darrell Helmuth, President of Park Stockdale Civic
Association, addressed the Council, stating that the Stockdale
Development Corporation plans to open a new subdivision contiguous
to the west boundary of Park Stockdale and continuing westward to
the college· His organization understands that the subdivision
plans and application for annexation will soon be brought to the
Council for approval. Part of the subdivision plan is the west-
ward extension of Hesketh Drive· As representative of the Park
Stockdale Civic Association, he requests that Hesketh Drive not be
continued for the following reasons:
Park Stockdale is a community planned and
developed in accordance with Kern County
Land Company's Master Development Plan for
southwest Bakersfield. The salient feature
of this Master Plan is a concept of small
communities. Park Stockdale is such a
community with an association community
center, park and pool.
The westward extension of Hesketh Drive
would violate both the community integrity
and Park Stockdale and the advertised develop-
ment concept of Kern County Land Company
and its successor Stockdale Development
Corporation.
The secondary street, Rio Dravo, is too
small and inadequate to become a larger
area collector and Hesketh Drive, being
a tertiary street, does not have the
capacity to handle what would be a consider-
able volume of non-indigenous traffic from
the new subdivision.
Additional traffic would create a hazard
in a neighborhood with a large number of
children, with a population given to bicycle
riding in the quiet environs of the com-
munity.
The common boundary of the two subdivisions
will become the City-County line. This will
introduce a discontinuity of services. Both
the Sheriff and Chief of Police consider
this situation undesirable from a law enforce-
ment standpoint.
In a meeting with the County Planning Commission, they
received the Commission's promise of cooperation and the County
Road Commissioner's assurance that he would aid in obtaining the
Bakersfield, California, July 24, 1972 - Page 4
17
closure of the west end of Hesketh Drive. At this meeting, Mr.
Tolfree, representative of the Stockdale Development Corporation,
stated that if the Park Stockdale residents wished the street closed,
he could see no basic objection as far as Stockdale Development
Corporation is concerned. Therefore, the residents of Park Stock-
dale respectfully request the City Council to not approve any sub-
division plans for this new subdivision that include the Hesketh
Drive extension. Since the Council will have final approval of the
Tract, the Park Stockdale Civic Organization wishes to be on record
requesting the Council's cooperation and concurrence when the Tract
is being considered.
Councilman Medders commented that it was his understanding
it was the Stockdale Development Corporation's intention to close
off Hesketh Drive entirely, which would remove the objection.
Mr. Mel Jans, Vice-President of Stockdale Development
Corporation, commented on the development of Park Stockdale and
stated that in order to proceed with the orderly planning and
development of the balance of the area westerly of Park Stockdale,
it would include continuing with Hesketh Drive. Recognizing that
there would be problems with traffic, they laid out the street
design in such a fashion that it would discourage any through
traffic along Hesketh as a result of the proposed development to
the west. At the time it was first brought up, Mr. Tolfree did
indicate at the County level that no problem existed. However, at
this point in time, if Hesketh Drive is closed, the storm drainage
for this area would have to go into pipe, which would cost in the
vicinity of $9,000. He believes that closing Hesketh Drive would
not be good planning and good development and he does not feel they
should be required to close this street.
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, communication from
Congressman Bob Mathias, addressed to Mayor Hart, advising that
he had requested AMTRAK to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of re-instituting rail passenger service through the
Bakersfield, California, July 24, 1972 - Page 5
Valley, and as soon as the study is concluded, he will advise Mayor
Hart of AMTRAK's determination on this matter, was received and
ordered placed on file.
Mayor Hart advised that he has corresponded with Assembly-
man Kent Stacey, Assemblyman Bill Ketchum and Senator Alan Cranston
in an effort to generate enthusiasm for the restoration of passen-
ger service in the San Joaquin Valley. As replies are received,
they will be read into the record.
Council Statements.
Mayor Hart announced that he has appointed Mrs. Portia
Siplin of 201 "P" Street, to serve on the Board of Directors of
the Kern County Economic Opportunity Corporation to replace Mrs.
Dolly Teters, who has moved from this community.
Reports.
Councilman Whittemore, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, made the following report on
the subject of Public Works Department Reorganization:
During the recent budget sessions, the City
Council approved the GEPC's recommendations
for employees' salaries and supplemental bene-
fits increases, along with reorganization of
several departments.
Two of the three employee organizations were
satisfied with the Committee's recommendations;
however, the American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees' Union contended
that the reorganization and the salary recom-
mendations were racially discriminating.
The GEPC held another meet and confer session
with the AFSCME representatives and explained
in more detail the plan for the reorganization
of the Public Works Department. It was the
consensus that the reorganization was not dis-
criminatory if put into effect at the same time
as the other divisions.
The Committee is recommending that the reorgani-
zation of all the Public Works Divisions be
completed as soon as possible, and in order to
implement it as of August 1 instead of January
1, the following specific recommendations are
made:
NO o
l:
Reclassification of one Equipment Operator III
to Foreman I (Tree Section)
Cost Factor: $40 per month pay increase for 5
months Total $200
No. 2:
Y-Rate Assistant Sanitation Superintendent
Classification to Supervising Foreman (Sanitation)
Cost Factor: None
Bakersfield, California, July 24, 1972 - Page 6
No. 3: Y-Rate Street Maintenance Supervisor to Super-
vising Foreman (Streets)
Cost Factor: None
No. 4: Title Change of two Sanitation Roufe Inspectors
to Foreman I (Sanitation) and one Sanitation
Route Foreman to Foreman I (Sanitation)
Cost Factor: $125 per month for 5 months - $635
No. 5: Title Change of one Sanitation Supervisor to
.Foreman II (Sanitation)
Cost Factor: None
No. 6: Approval of job specifications for Supervising
Foreman (Sanitation)
These changes will result in an additional cost of $825
for Fiscal Year 1972-73 over and above what was budgeted.
The GEPC has recommended that the staff make a job audit
by December 31st in order to establish inter-city relationships of
the following positions:
1. Equipment Operators I, II and III
2. Sanitation Crevauan I, II and III
3. Motor Sweeper Operator
The staff will meet with union representatives concerning
these job audits.
These recommendations are a result of meet and confer
sessions and have been approved by the American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees. The Governmental Efficiency
and Personnel Committee recommends this report be adopted and
implemented.
Councilman Whittemore moved adoption of the report,
which carried unanimously.
Councilman Medders, reporting for the Legislative Com-
mittee, stated that the Mayor had received a letter from Vice-
President Spiro Agnew announcing that the House of Representatives
had passed legislation establishing a program for general revenue
sharing. The amount set forth in the House version of this bill
would return $676,472 of the City's money to the City of Bakers-
field. Vice-President Agnew urged the Council to exert whatever
influence it might have with Senators to insure passage of this
Bill by the Senate. Hearings will be held in the Senate Finance
Bakersfield, California, July 24, 1972 - Page 7
Committee on Thursday or Friday and conference reports will be
forthcoming which will be a compromise between the House and
Senate version. The conference reports will go back to the House
for approval, and if approved by the Senate, on to the President
for signing. This revenue sharing cannot be considered Federal
money, it is City money being returned to the community. He moved
that communications be sent to Senators Cranston and Tunney and
to Congressman Bob Mathias, supporting this Bill with the qualifying
statement that "The Council supports a general revenue sharing plan
with no strings attached."
Councilman Heisey asked for a division of the question,
as he feels there are two separate issues, one asking that no
strings be attached to the funds if they are voted, and the second:,
endorsing the concept of revenue sharing by the Federal Government,,
Councilman Bleecker stated he would like to.speak against
the motion. There are going to be strings attached, particularly
if these funds are given in a general way. General revenue sharing
by the Federal Government will have certain implied requirements
with which the City must comply before any funds will be granted.
Vote taken on Councilman Heisey's request for a division
of the question failed to carry by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey
Noes: Councilmen Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: None
Vote taken on Councilman Medders original motion to
endorse the concept of revenue sharing with the stipulation that
there be no strings attached, carried as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
receive $676,472 in financial aid from the Federal Government,
would amount to about a 40~ reduction in the property tax rate.
Councilmen Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey
None
Councilman Medders pointed out that if Bakersfield should
it
Bakersfield, California, July 24, 1972 -Page 8
Councilman Bleecker stated that under these conditions,
he would like to change his vote on the previous motion, that if
this Council will go on record favoring allocating every penny of
the City's share of any revenue to reducing the tax rate, he will
change his vote. He then moved that any funds the City receives
from the Federal Government under Federal revenue sharing, currently
estimated under a House version to be $676,472, be applied to
reducing the property tax rate.
Councilman Rucker seconded the motion stating that if
this money would be applied to affording property tax relief, he
is in favor of the motion.
Councilman Whirremote commented that the League of
California Cities has estimated that revenue from Federal revenue
sharing and from the gasoline sales tax allocation should provide
approximately $1.5 million to the City of Bakersfield.
Councilman Thomas stated the idea is commendable and he
favors lowering the property tax rate, but he doesn't think the
Council should commit itself so far in advance for the use of these
funds. He would therefore oppose the motion.
Vote taken on Councilman Bleecker's motion carried by
the
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
following roll call vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Whittemore
Councilman Thomas
None
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Rees, Rucker,
the Consent Calendar:
Allowance of Claims Nos. 4247
inclusive, and Nos. 11 to 169
in amount of $294,888.62.
to 4275,
inclusive,
Claim for Real Property Damage and Loss
from Greater Western Real Estate Invest-
ment Trust (to be referred to the City
Attorney).
Claim for damages from Helen McGuire ~.
(to be referred to the City Attorney).
Request for Leave of Absence without Pay
for Melvin C. Chow.
22
Bakersfield, California, July 24, 1972 - Page 9
Consent Calendar (Continued)
(e)
(f)
A Resolution of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield making finding that
Tentative Tract No. 3633, together with
provisions for its design and improve-
ment, is consistent with applicable
general and specific plans (for adoption).
Plans and Specifications for the Improve-
ment of Stine Road between Southern
Pacific Railroad and White Lane.
(g)
Plans and Specifications for the Paving
of Vernal Place between Richland Street
and Kern Island Canal.
(h)
Acceptance of the Work and Notice of
Completion for Contract No. 40-72 for.
Improvement of New Stine Road between
Ming Avenue and Wilson Road.
(i)
Acceptance of the Work and Notice of
Completion of Contract No. 42-72 for
Construction of a Pre-Engineered Steel
Shop Building at Waste Water Treatment
Plant No. 2.
(j) Acceptance of Grant Deed from Hilltop
Developers, Inc.
(k)
(1)
Acceptance of Street Right of Way Deed
from Stockdale Development Corporation.
Acceptance of Easement for Sewer Line
purposes from George King, Jr.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b), (c),
(d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) and (1) of the Consent
Calendar were adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, low bid of Parker
Paints for Annual Contract Street Paint was accepted, all other
bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the
contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, low bid of Francis
and Jacobs Construction Company for construction of right turn lane
on Oak Street at California Avenue was accepted, all other bids
were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Bakersfield, California, July 24, 1972 - Page 10
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, bid of Specialized
Spray Service for Abatement of Weeds was accepted, this being the
only bid received, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the
contract.
Councilman Whirremote, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and personnel Committee, reported that this Committee
has analyzed the bids received for Refuse Collection Service for
Two Routes in Downtown Bakersfield, and submitted the following
facts and figures:
The City's cost to contract two downtown commercial
Refuse Collection Routes on an annual basis without trade-in to
high bidder, are as follows:
Data is based on present service (Contract provides
for Unit Cost.
Cost to City based on 100% of $76,500
established contract rates
Cost to City based on 94% of
established contract rate $72,000
Cost to City to Administer Contract $ 6,000
Total Cost to City $78,000
Cost of present City operation $96,285
This would effect a savings to the City over a five year
period of this contract of $90,000. The Committee therefore recom-
mends that the Council accept the high bid to the City of the
Consolidated Waste Removal Company of National City, California,
to begin the operations on or before September 1, 1972. Councilman
Whirremote then made a motion to that effect.
The bidder had bid a total of $47,300, which considerably
exceeded the minimum bid request by the City of $20,000 per unit
for the two front loading trucks. This organization provides its
own equipment, personnel, insurance and performance bond to the
City of Bakersfield, in fact they assume the entire responsibility
of the two downtown routes.
After some discussion, vote taken on Councilman Whittemore's
motion to award the bid for the downtown refuse collection service
to Consolidated Waste Removal Company carried unanimously.
24
Bakersfield, California, July 24, 1972 - Page 11
Deferred Business.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No.
2028 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 11.04.777 of the Municipal Code (Speed Limit on Planz Road)
was adopted by lhe following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Thomas, Whirremote
None
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent: None
Rees, Rucker,
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2029 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Section 3.18.180
(a) and (i) (1) (Holidays) of the
Municipal Code of the City of Bakers-
field.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No.
2029 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 3.18.180 (a)&(i) (1) (Holidays) of the Municipal Code of
the City of Bakersfield was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Councilman Heisey pointed out to the Council
that the
eleven holidays being granted City employees by this Ordinance are
more than generous. The employees have a vacation program, a sick
leave program which can now be converted to vacation time if not
used as sick leave, and he believes that eleven holidays are
unreasonable. He feels that a week of holidays is more appropriate,
as he doubts fhat any employee in private industry receives eleven
holidays. He made a motion that the GEPC re-evaluate these holidays
taking into consideration sick leave and vacation, and report back
to the Council with a recommendation. This motion carried
unanimously.
Bakersfield, California, July 24, 1972 - Page 12
25
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2030 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Sections 3.18.070
(Temporary Positions) and 3.18.135
(Driver Differential Compensation -
Sanitation Division - Public Works
Department) of the Municipal Code of
the City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Ordinance No. 2030 New
Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section
3.18.070 (Temporary Positions) and 3.18.135 (Driver Differential
Compensation - Sanitation Division Public Works Department) of
the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
No. 875 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield declaring its intention
to order the vacation of a portion of
Auburn Street, in the City of Bakers-
field.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Resolution of Intention
No. 875 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring its
intention to order the vacation of a portion of Auburn Street in
the City of Bakersfield, and setting date of August 21, 1972 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
Adoption of Resolution No. 42-72 of
application by the Council of the
City of Bakersfield detaching those
portions of recently annexed terri-
tory designated as "Airpark No. 1"
from the Union Avenue Sanitation
District.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, Resolution No.
42-72 of Application by the Council of the City of Bakersfield
Bakersfield, California, July 24, 1972 - Page 13
detaching those portions of recently annexed territory designated
as "Airpark No. 1" from the Union Avenue Sanitation District, was
adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker~ Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
adding Section 7.52'.205 to Chapter 7.52
of the Municipal Code, concerning
Taxicabs and Limousines.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield adding Section 7.52.205 to Chapter
7.52 of the Municipal Code, concerning Taxicabs and Limousines.
Approval of Annexation Boundaries
designated as Stine No. 3 Annexation.
Upon a motion by Councilman ThomaS, Boundaries of Annexa-
tion designated as Stine No. 3 annexation were approved and referred
to the City Engineer and City Attorney for referral to the Local
Agency Formation Commission.
Approval of Agreement with the State
Division of Highways for repaving of
Vernal Place between Richland Street
and the Kern Island Canal.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Agreement with the
State Division of Highways for the repaving of Vernal Place between
Richland Street and the Kern Island Canal was approved and the
Mayor was authorized to execute the agreement.
Adoption of Resolution No. 43-72 authorizing
the Filing of an Application for a Federal
Grant under Water and Sewer Facilities
Grant Program.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Rucker,
Resolution No. 43-72 authorizing the filing of an Application for
a Federal Grant under Water and Sewer Facilities Grant Program,
was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whirremote
Councilman Bleecker
None
Bakersfield, California, July 24, 1972 - Page 14
Approval of Change Order No. 1 to
Contract No. 53-72 for Construction
of Utility Building and Electric
Service at Patriots Park in the City
of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Change Order No. 1 to
Contract No. 53-72 for Construction of Utility Building and Electric
Service at Patriots Park in the City of Bakersfield for additional cost
of $195.00, was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council
for hearing protests by persons owning real property within territory
designated as "Kern River No. 1," proposed to be annexed to the City
of Bakersfield.
This hearing has been duly advertised and notices sent to
property owners as required by law.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participa-
tion and asked if there were persons in the audience who wished to
speak in opposition to the annexation of this territory to the City'
of Bakersfield.
Mr. Donald Arnett, attorney, representing the Gulf Oil
Company, read a letter signed by Mr. B. W. Miller, District Explora-
tion Manager for Gulf Oil, in which Mr. Miller protests the proposed
annexation of certain lands under oil and gas lease to Gulf Oil
Corporation, which approximate 37.875 acres of land. Gulf requests
that the 37.875 acres be deleted and that the proposed annexation be
referred back to the Local Agency Formation Commission under the
provisions of Government Code Section 5477.1.
If the Council should determine that the deletion would
invalidate the proceedings under Government Code Section 35313.5,
because the deleted 37.875 acres constitutes more than 5% of the
Kern River No. 1 annexation, Gulf requests that the Council terminate
the proceedings, then the proceedings can be reinstituted, excluding
Red Ribbon Ranch Lands.
If the Council should determine not to delete the Red Ribbon
Ranch Lands, nor to terminate the proceedings, Gulf prays that the
Bakersfield, California, July 24, 1972 - Page 15
proceedings to be terminated because they are contrary to law for
the following reasons:
1. The proposed annexation includes three separate
and unconnected parcels of land. The law permits
only a unified tract to be annexed in a proceeding
and requires separate proceedings for separate
tracts
2. Gulf Oil Corporation received no notice of any
hearing before the Local Agency Formation Com-
mission and no notice of hearing before the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
Gulf Oil estimates that the annexation of 8 oil and gas
wells which are included within the approximate 37.875 acre~ under
lease will cost Gulf an estimated $2,210.00 annual increase in
taxes and business license fees and the annexation will not cause
any benefit to Gulf's wells or their operation, nor will the annexa-
tion afford any services not already afforded these lands by the
County. The effect of the annexation will be simply an increase in
taxes without any service or benefit resulting from the annexation.
A notice of hearing before the Local Agency Formation
Commission published in the Bakersfield Californian on January 7,
1972, referred to Kern River No. 1 Annexation without further descrip-
tion of the lands to be annexed. Therefore, it was impossible for
Gulf to have known that its lands were included within Kern River
No. 1 and Gulf had no notice or opportunity to appear and protest.
Mr. Hoagland stated that Mr. Arnett has raised sufficient
legal questions in connection with this annexation that he feels the
hearing should be continued until the next Council meeting to enable
him to check them out. He did not receive a notification of this
protest from Gulf Oil Company until after five o'clock this after-
noon so that he has not had the opportunity to do any research on
the questions raised.
A request was received from Texaco Oil Company to exclude
a 39.75 acre parcel of their property included in Parcel A of the
proposed Kern River No. 1 annexation, for the same reasons cited
by the attorney of Gulf Oil Corporation.
Bakersfield, California, July 24, 1972 - Page 16
Mr. Chuck Tolltee of Stockdale Development Corporation,
asked Mr. Arnett if he was objecting to the annexation of property
owned by Tenneco West which Gulf may have under lease. Mr. Arnett
stated they are not objecting to the 10 acres identified on the
plat as being owned by KCL. Mr. Tolltee told the Council that the
Stockdale Development Corporation would like to see the annexation
proceed on the parcels which are not affected by the protests.
No further protests or objections being received and no
one speaking in favor of the annexation, the Mayor declared the pub-
lic portion of the hearing closed for Council deliberation and action.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the hearing on the
annexation of Kern River No. 1 to the City of Bakersfield was con-
tinued until meeting of August 7, 1972, by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Although the public portion of the hearing has been closed,
Mr. Hoagland stated that he would think Mr. Arnett, attorney for
Gulf Oil Corporation, should be permitted to comment on any legal
decisions that may come from the City Attorney's office.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, hearings on Item No.
2 on the Agenda, proposing to annex Kern River No. 1 to the Greater
Bakersfield Separation of Grade District, and Item No. 3, proposing
to zone Kern River No. 1 upon Annexation, were continued until
meeting of August 7, 1972, by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Mr. Chuck Tolltee, representative of Stockdale Development
Corporation, stated that his company feels the hearing on Item No. ,i
on the Agenda - application by Stockdale Development Corporation to
amend the zoning boundaries of that certain property located northerly
3O
Bakersfield, California, July 24, 1972 - Page 17
of Stockdale Highway in the vicinity of E1 Rio Drive - is inter-
connected with the annexation and zoning upon annexation of Kern
River No. l, and they would like to have it deferred until the
next Council meeting. Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, this
hearing was continued until August 7, 1972 by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
Noes:
Absent:
None
This is
the time set for public
hearing on application
by Marion C. and Cleo P. Barnard to amend the zoning boundaries
from an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-2 (Limited Multi-
ple Family Dwelling) or more restrictive, Zone; to an R-3 (Limited
Multiple Family Dwelling) or more restrictive, Zone; and to a C-2
(Commercial) or more restrictive, Zone, affecting that certain
property located on the southeast corner of Oswell Street and
Freeway 178.
Subject property contains 3.14 undeveloped acres and is
bounded by Oswell Street, a major Highway, on the west, 178 Freeway'
on the north, Bakersfield Country Club Golf Course on the east and
single family homes to the south.
A revised plan for zoning was submitted by the applicant
on June 30, 1972, which proposed the following change:
a. C-2-D along Oswell Street be reduced from
13.04 gross acres to 11.95 gross acres
b. Proposed R-3 area changed to R-1 and R-2-D,
proposed change would increase R-1 area from
3.00 gross acres to 6.47 gross acres. The
R-2-D would be increased from 6.3 gross acres
to 12.98 gross acres.
Traffic and Engineering have recommended one access street
be permitted to serve the site which would require a median island
break in Oswell Street. This would require the construction of a
complete synchronized traffic signal system at that intersection.
It is also recommended that Riviera Drive should not be allowed
to connect to the traffic circulation of the proposed development.
Bakersfield, California, July 24, 1972 - Page 18
31
Eighty-four names were received on a petition opposing
the proposed zoning. One letter and four telephone calls were
received requesting the withdrawal of their names from the opposing
petition. A letter was received from the Bakersfield Country Club
informing the Commission they did not object to the rezoning of the
R-2-D area.
The Planning Commission recommends that the more restric-
tive zoning as shown on the revised plan as submitted, specifically
R-l, R-2-D, and C-2-D, be approved by the City Council.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation and asked if there were persons present who wished to oppose
the proposed zoning.
Mrs. Joy Lane, who resides at 5101 Ojai Drive, stated she
wished to speak in opposition to the proposed commercial zoning.
She posted a detailed map of the area and designated on the map the
property proposed for rezoning, stating that the neighborhood, the
southeast quarter of this area, is composed exclusively of the
Bakersfield Country Club and the estate-zoned and single family
residences which surround it.
She requested that the Council disapprove the proposed
commercial zoning, as the most important feature, and the one the
neighbors oppose, is the large commercial areas which would be the
first intrusion of this type of use into the country club residential
area and would be incompatible with the character of the existing
neighborhood. Also, the developers have not demonstrated a definite
need for the proposed shopping center and this site is not suitable
for the nature of use proposed. Commercial use of this property
could only result in increased traffic and congestion and add further
hazards to those which already threaten the children who must cross
Oswell Street on their way to and from school.
If the Council grants C-24) zoning on this property, it
will be granting a blank check for high rise properties. She reminded
Bakersfield, California, July 24, 1972 - Page 19
the Council of a similar situation citing the inability of the City
to have any control over the construction of the Christian Towers
senior citizens housing development in a C-2-D zone. If the Council
does not deny the rezoning, it is giving present and future owners a
blank check to draw upon city services with no guarantee that the
eventual development will supply self-sustaining revenue.
Mr. Frank St. Clair, who resides at 5118 Annadale Street:.
which is backed up to the proposed development, stated he concurs
with the statements made by Mrs. Lane. He suggests that the area
proposed to be zoned R-2 be zoned R-i, with a Planned Unit Develop--
ment, because the way it is set up now would permit the developers
to completely ignore the plan submitted to the Council tonight. He
has no objection to the construction of condominiums but he feels
that the developer is asking for a blank check and expects the City
to rely on his integrity to build according to the plan submitted.
Councilman Rees asked Mr. St. Clair if he had any objection
to the commercial zoning and Mr. St. Clair replied that the Planning
Director made the statement at the Planning Commission's hearing
the matter, that he felt the area had too much commercial zoning at
the present time, that there was already sufficient commercial
zoning in the area.
Mayor Hart asked those persons present who wished to speak
in approval of the rezoning to address the Council.
Mr. Lawton Powers stated he represented the owners of the
property in question, as well as being a co-owner, and he read the
names of the other owners of the property. He stated that this
piece of property is possibly the most outstanding area of land in
northeast Bakersfield, as the Oswell interchange is the most stra-
tegic interchange
to lend itself to
the entire area.
the freeway
quality C-2
in that area. The parcel is sufficient in size
a development which will complement and enhance
The proposed commercial zoning along Oswell and
interchange will make the commercial area the only
land in that area.
Bakersfield, California, July 24, 1972 - Page 20
33
With the commercial area being leveled to the grade of
Oswell, it fits well into the overall development. The proposed
R-2 condominium zoned area will be 12 to 16 feet higher than the
rear of the shopping center, the planned R-1 will be high enough
to protect the property owners to the south. The R-2 zoning along
the Country Club offers the people of Bakersfield a unique oppor-
tunity to purchase condominiums and enjoy living on a major golf
course. Their plans include selling condominiums in a range of
$35,000 directly behind the shopping center, to a high of $65,000
to $70,000 for those facing on the Bakersfield Country Club.
The R-1 property south of the condominium project pro-
vides a complete buffer of 300 feet to the existing R-1 area. This
area is high enough to create a geographical barrier of its own.
A 12 to 16 foot retaining wall will be built at the easterly edge.
The original opposition to the project was the opening of Riviera
Street. This would have created a large amount of traffic through
the existing subdivisions to the south. With this street closing,
the subdivisions to the south are completely divorced from this
project. The R-2 residential condominium project along the Bakers--
field Country Club has received the approval of the Board of Direc-.
tots and will command an excellent view of the fairways. He feels
that they have demonstrated that they want to be good neighbors in
every respect.
Mr. Powers concluded by stating thatthe Council can be
assured that he and his investors will develop what he has presented
tonight, and he asked that the Council approve the zoning for the
development as submitted, as it will be beneficial and an asset to
the City of Bakersfield.
Mr. Robert Butler, vice-president of Newman Properties,
Inc., in Long Beach, developer of the proposed shopping center,
stated that it is his company's intention to purchase the commer-
cial property from Mr. Powers and Associates and to develop a
neighborhood shopping center anchored by a drug store, bank, and
34
Bakersfield, California, July 24, 1972 - Page 21
other retail uses. They have 11 centers under development in the
western states and are working on one in southeast Bakersfield at
the present time. He stated he could see no reason why the center:.
as they propose it, which is one story plus mezzanine for the
financial institution, with no service stations, no bowling alleys,.
no theatres, no tires, batteries and accessories, could not exist
on C-1 zoning. They have retained the local architectural firm of
Eddy, Paynter and Renfro, and can assure the Council the shopping
center will be an asset to the City.
Councilman Rees asked Mr. Butler if C-1 would be satis-
factory, and Mr. Butler stated it would be. Councilman Rees asked
Mr. Butler if he would consider the single access road on Oswell
Street to be adequate for a complex of this size. Mr. Butler replied
that they would like to have more access, but they can get along very
well with the single access road.
Mayor Hart permitted Mrs. Lane to rebut statements made
by Mr. Powers and Mrs. Lane stated she lives about a one minute walk
from the proposed zone change and her property would be affected.
She pointed out that the shopping center traffic will pass the inter-
section of Pico and Oswell Street, which is a subject of great con-
cern to all of the parents whose children must cross Oswell Street
to attend Harding and Compton schools.
Councilman Bleecker asked Mr. Powers if he would accept
C-1 zoning of the shopping center, and Mr. Powers replied they would
be happy with it, they were merely asking for C-2 in order to cover
all the uses that normally go into a shopping center.
Councilman Thomas asked Mr. Powers if he had entertained
the thought of contributing toward the cost of a complete synchro-
nized traffic signal system at the intersection of Oswell Street,
since his development would benefit the most from it. Mr. Powers
answered that the Planning Director did not suggest that the City
would pay for the signal system, it would be the responsibility of
the development.
Bakersfield, California, July 24, 1972 Page 22
Mayor Hart closed the public hearing and declared a
brief recess.
The Council reconvened and permitted Mrs. Lane to sum-
marize her reasons for expressing opposition to the proposed re-
zoning and redevelopment of this property. She stated that the
access problems, the failure to demonstrate a need for commercial
use, the additional traffic problems hazardous to the school chil-
dren, are against a C-t zone as well as C-2 zone, and she asked
the Council to direct the Planning Commission to investigate the
matter of Planned Unit Development which would permit the entire
property to be developed as a residential project with a higher
density than R-1. This type of development would make it profit-
able for the subdivider and would give something compatible with
the neighborhood and the Country Club setting.
After discussion by the Council and the Planning Direc-
tor, Councilman Bleecker stated that he had been hopeful that a
C-1-D would be acceptable to both sides. However, he believes
the project has merit and if the developers perform as they have
demonstrated here this evening, it would be very beneficial to
the area, with the exception that the commercial area should be
zoned C-1-D. He then moved that the ordinance be adopted and
that this project be approved with the change from C-2 to C-1-D
for the commercial portion of the area.
After Council discussion, Ordinance No. 2031 New Series
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Title 17 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by changing the Land Use
Zoning of that certain property in the City of Bakersfield located
on the southeast corner of Oswell Street and Freeway 178, with a
C-1-D zoning placed on the commercial area of the project, was
adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, July 24, 1972 - Page 23
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, the meeting was
adjourned at 11:00 P.M.
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield,
Calif.
ATTEST:
CITY~CLERK and ~x-Of~icio Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, July 28, 1972
37
Minutes of a special meeting of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of
the City Hall at five o'clock P.M., July 28, 1972.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by roll call by the City Clerk.
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders~ Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whirremote
Absent: None
Mayor Hart stated that a protest has been filed in be-
half of the Bakersfield Californian, challenging the Council's
right to hold an executive session on a personnel matter under
the newspaper's interpretation of the Brown Act. He asked the
City Attorney for an opinion concerning the legality of the
Council holding an executive session not open to the public.
City Attorney Hoagland stated it should be obvious to
the news media that a strike has occurred, there is a termination
of employment of named individuals who engaged in that strike, and
in his opinion this is subject to the exclusion of the Brown Act.
Furthermore, the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee
has met and conferred with the labor organization and now wishes
to inform the Council as a whole of their deliberations. That also
is subject to the exclusion of the Brown Act, specifically, the
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. In his opinion, it is proper for the
Council to go into executive session at this time.
Mayor Hart stated that he and the Council want to review
the information compiled by the Governmental Efficiency and Person-.
nel Committee, learn what their conclusions are, and then any public
statements can be made or the Council can conduct itself in any
fashion it sees fit. The full details should be given to the
Council by the Committee which has been meeting and conferring with
the refuse employees and the union officials.
The Council then went into an executive session on a
personnel matter.
Bakersfield, California, July 28, 1972 - Page 2
After 47 minutes, the Council reconvened,
asked the City Manager to present a resume of what
date relative to the refuse collection strike.
Mr. Bergen stated that Wednesday morning,
and Mayor Hart
has happened to
he received a
call from the Corporation Yard and it was indicated to him that the
refuse collection employees did not plan to go out on their routes
that morning until they held a meeting with some responsible offi-
cials from City Hall.
The City Manager, Director of Public Works and Gene
Richardson, Assistant Sanitation Superintendent, met with all the
members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees for about an hour and fifteen minutes. The members
stated that the GEPC had not been meeting and conferring with them
in good faith and until they were satisfied on seven key issues,
they did not intend to go back to work. The City Manager pointed
out that meeting and conferring in good faith with them did not
necessarily mean granting all their requests. He tried to outline
several areas where the Council had agreed to requests which had
been made by the AFSCME in an attempt to arrive at a solution. He
advised that he would try to set up a meeting with the GEPC, but
could not say when all members of the Committee would be available.
He contacted the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel
Committee and the members indicated that they would be available for
a meeting at 5:15 P.M., but they expected the employees to be working
in the meantime. He went back to the Corporation Yard at 10:15 A.M.
and conveyed the message to the men and indicated to them that the
staff and the GEPC would be happy to meet with them at 5:15 P.M.
but assumed that they would be working their routes that day.
In the meantime, the union had prepared a list of seven
items which they felt should be satisfied by the City before they
would return to work. Mr. Bergen stated he told them that he could
not see any problem with some of the points, he thought that the Com-
mittee would agree to them, but some of the others were impossible.
Bakersfield, California, July 28, 1972 - Page 3
39
One of the key issues involved the awarding of a contract to private
operators for the refuse collection in the downtown area. These two
routes had been under discussion for many months and he pointed out
that a written report was submitted to the GEPC by the staff in March
of 1972 and a report was submitted to the union at the same time.
There have been many discussions and several meet and.confer meetings
with the union and as a result, on May 1, 1972, the Council approved
the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee's report recom.-
mending the contracting out of the downtown routes. As a matter of
fact, one union representative agreed with the City that the con-
tracting out of the downtown routes might be a good idea. Shortly
after the first of May, invitations to bid were advertised with the
bid for the operation of the refuse collection in the downtown routes
being awarded on July 24, 1972.
The union's last request was that no punitive action be
taken, and at 10:30 on Wednesday, Mr. Bergen assured them that as
far as he was concerned, at that time they would be considered late
in going to work. The employees wanted to caucus on it and shortly
after that, the president of the union stated they would not return
to work until certain key demands were met to their satisfaction.
The GEPC with the staff, met from about 5:15 until 6:30
P.M. on Wednesday, after which time it was determined to meet with
the union representatives in a normal meet and confer session, as it
is difficult to meet and confer with about 50 men who had showed up
for the meeting at 5:15 P.M. Mr. Ron Glick, attorney for Local
1078, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
attended this meeting. A list of seven demands was submitted and
the GEPC discussed each one of them, indicating the ones which they
could agree to. The Committee pointed out to the union officials a
section in a city ordinance which stated that an unauthorized leave
of absence for a period of two consecutive working days can be con-.
sidered voluntary resignation and results in the immediate termina-.
tion of employment unless the employee can demonstrate that such
absence was due to circumstances beyond his control. A copy of the
entire ordinance was given Mr. Glick. There was a general agreement
4O
Bakersfield, California, July 28, 1972 - Page 4
on most of the points; however, not complete agreement.
The Committee adjourned about 7:30 P.M. and evidently
a mix-up occurred, in that contact was not made later with the union
members. One of the conditions set out by
go back to work on Thursday, and as far as
cerned, there would be no punitive action.
the GEPC was that the men
the Committee was con-
Thursday morning the
men did not report for work and asked for an additional meeting.
Mr. Bergen called the GEPC and two members were able to attend a
meeting at the City Hall with the union officials around 8:00 A.M.
The demands had boiled down to three points, they were insistent on
the one point that the City put in writing that it would agree not
to contract out any other city routes and would continue to operate
the refuse collection system until July l, 1973. The City Attorney
pointed out the City's rights at this time, that the Council cannot
give up this right entrusted to it by the people, the final deter-
mination was the City Council's.
The GEPC members stated that the Council had unanimously
requested this Committee to study putting the re£use collection dis-
posal system out to private contractors, and they intended to pro-
ceed with the study, although it might be several months before a
report could be made to the Council. The employees indicated that
this would not be acceptable to them.
To explore means of breaking the impasse, another GEPC
meeting was held at lunch time, and it was decided that perhaps the
men did not understand what jeopardy they were putting themselves
in by refusing to come back to work, and perhaps they did not under.-
stand the ordinance. The members of the GEPC decided to hold a
meeting in the Council Chambers at 3:30 P.M. in order to explain
their position. The staff contacted as many groups as possible and
informed them that the GEPC would hold this meeting. The Committee
held its meeting, however, very few people were in attendance, which
indicated that the impasse had not been broken.
The City was faced with an emergency situation regarding
refuse collection at various hospitals, restaurants and other food
Bakersfield, California, July 28, 1972 - Page 5
41
handling businesses where a health hazard would exist. The Kern
County Health Officer had notified the City that this was a health
problem, and an emergency pickup was made by management personnel.
On Friday, inasmuch as more than two days had elapsed
since the work stoppage, a number of employees were in violation
of the ordinance which terminated employment after two days absence
without leave. Later in the morning some of the men came to the
corporation yard and stated they wanted to go back to work. These
men had not been off the two days and were permitted to go to work.
There are approximately 60 workers
Division, and all are members of the union.
ed to work and five trucks went out for part
in the Sanitation
Sixteen members report;-
of the day picking up
the garbage and are presently working. Approximately 17 employees
were off sick, on vacation or day off, and have not been off with-
out leave for two consecutive days, and would not be in violation
of the ordinance. The remaining 27 members of the sanitation divi-
sion are beyond the two day period.
Councilman Whittemore, Chairman of the Governmental Effi-
ciency and Personnel Committee, stated that Mr. Bergen has basi-
cally covered what took place, and he will reiterate his statements.
There are 16 full-time employees with uninterrupted service by vir-
tue of the fact that they reported for work today and performed
their duties. These men are not affected by the ordinance. There
are 27 employees who were voluntarily terminated today and if these
men wish to return to work, it will be necessary to apply for re-
employment with the City. They have lost their seniority rights,
vacation, sick leave and about the only thing that has not been for-
feited is the retirement which has been paid into PERS. There are
17 employees who have been on vacation, on sick leave, or for some
other reason were not working legally, who are not affected by the
ordinance.
In closing he would say that the City has decided to con-
tinue in the refuse collection business and will continue to perform
that service at least during the immediate future.
Bakersfield, California, July 28, 1972 - Page 6
Councilman Thomas commented that he is also a union
member and if he leaves the job for any reason, he can expect no
help from his union, he would be fired at once. He has had a
number of calls from residents of not only his ward but some of
the other wards in the City, who wanted him to state to the public
and the sanitation workers that they felt the refuse collectors in
their area were outstanding in their attitude and the manner in
which they performed their work, and they asked that this be passed
along to the City and the sanitation workers.
Mr. Bergen stated that when he went to the Corporation
Yard this afternoon, some of the employees who have exceeded the
two days being absent without leave, asked to be re-employed, and
he indicated to them at that time that they were beyond the ordi-
nance level and he therefore could take no action on their request
to go back to work. With very few exceptions, all of the men he
has been in contact with were very courteous and acted with a great
deal of restraint and he wishes to commend them for it.
Councilman Rucker stated he was well aware of the City
ordinance which terminates employees after a two day absence with-
out leave without a legitimate reason. These ordinances are adopted
by the Council and employees must expect to adhere to them, other-
wise there might be a tremendous problem in the City.
Councilman Heisey stated he had received many fine com-
ments on the action of the staff and the GEPC and he would like to
add his own commendations on the way the situation has been handled.
If this concludes the action tonight, he would move that the Counci].
adjourn.
Councilman Bleecker stated he would hate to see this
meeting turn into a confrontation. There is
patton on the agenda.
Councilman Thomas pointed out that
no audience partici-
there are 27 members
of the Sanitation Division who have terminated themselves, many of
them are present and if they wish to speak before the Council, they
should be advised that they are speaking as citizens of the City of
Bakersfield and not as employees of the City of Bakersfield.
Bakersfield, California, July 28, 1972 - Page 7
43
After additional discussion, vote taken on Councilman
Heisey's motion to adjourn failed to carry as follows:
Ayes: Councilman Heisey
Noes: Councilmen Bleecker, Medders, Ress, Rucker, Thomas,
Whirremote
Absent: None
City Attorney Hoagland having ruled that public state-
ments could be made at this special meeting, Mr. Bob Griffith,
reporter for the News Bulletin, stated that the management of his
newspaper concurred with the objection of the Bakersfield Califor-
nian newspaper, relative to holding an executive meeting behind
closed doors.
Councilman Whittemore stated some of the Councilmen were
reluctant to hold an executive session, but as it materialized it
was warranted. Everything which transpired at the executive session
has been presented to the audience by the Council, a complete report
has been made of what went on.
Mr. Charles Quinlan addressed the Council, stating that
if a strike were held in the future, it could end up to be much more
devastating than this one, especially if the City contracted out the
refuse collection to private collectors. Private individuals will
not be striking for job security, but will be working on a strike for
higher benefits, which will result in more strikes and worse strikes.
City Attorney Hoagland commented that putting the refuse
collection out to private collectors is not relevant to what is
being considered here tonight.
Mrs. Johnie Mae Parker, representing the Sunset Mayflower
Progressive Club, stated her boss had been called today because she
talked to people in the City Hall and she would like to let the
Council know that it didn't frighten her at all, that she is "fright
proof" and she will continue to call the City Hall.
Mr. Lacy Henry, Chairman of the Kern County Economic
Opportunity Corporation, stated that the refuse workers were threat-
ened with job security when the Council ordered a study to franchise
out the refuse collection, and he feels that this would cause any man
to act in a hasty, ill-considered manner when he has a constant threat
44
Bakersfield, California, July 28, 1972 - Page 8
of his job being eliminated. He urged the Council to reconsider
and act in good faith by reinstating these men in their positions
and negotiate in such a way that both the Council and the employees
are satisfied. He asked the Council to take a second look as he
feels there are loopholes in any ordinance, and restore these men to
their positions without loss of benefits, as they are human beings
who have families and the council would be then acting in good
faith towards them.
Councilman Bleecker stated there are a lot of people in
this country who do not know whether their job will be continued,
and there are a great many people who are out of work and would
like to have a job. Well before the two day period ended, the
Chairman of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee
personally handed a copy of the ordinance to Mr. Glick of the AFSCM]~
with that section of the ordinance colored in yellow so that it
could not be overlooked, and it was assumed that all of the members
of the union were apprised of the contents of the ordinance. A
special point was made so that there would not be any misunderstanding
about the wording of the ordinance.
Councilman Thomas commented that the Council has to con-
sider the health and welfare of the general public as a whole, and
this should be taken into consideration. He is opposed to contracting
out the refuse collection for the entire City, he is going to keep
an open mind on it, and when it is finalized by a report from the
GEPC, he will then make his decision.
Councilman Whittemore stated that what Mr. Henry interpreted
as a constant threat to the men that their jobs would be eliminated
is only that the Council is evaluating contracting out the refuse
collection for the entire city, and if it is determined they can
save money, if it will be more economical to have private collectors,
they have told the unions that they intend to do this. They are only
complying with the law of the State of California that the union must
be informed of what the GEPC's intention is, of what they have been
doing, because if the men were not told about this, they would not be
operating and conferring in good faith. That is the crux of the
entire thing.
Bakersfield, California, July 28, 1972 - Page 9
There is no threat, it is a statement of fact. The
refuse collection department is not the only department being
evaluated. Functional consolidation of the City and County Fire
Departments will be studied in the near future, and if this be-
comes a reality, somebody in the Fire Department will lose his
job. There are also other areas being evaluated for contracting
out services, such as the engineering functions, going into a
secretarial pool; wherever the cost of government can be reduced,
it is the Council's responsibility to do so. Everything is on
the table, these are not threats, but something that this Council
must explore for the benefit of the City.
Councilman Rucker stated that he thought that this Coun-
cil might have possibly been able to recommend to reprimand these
men for the action they have taken and this city ordinance over-
looked but he was informed that the ordinance must be lived up to,
or this same thing will happen again. He stated that perhaps Coun-
cilman Whittemore's committee should study the matter of the sheriff's
office taking over the Police Department, it would only be fair if
the Fire Department is turned over to the County.
Speaking as a concerned citizen, Mrs. Annie Evefly stated
that perhaps the Council has taken the right road, but she is asking
them to please consider their previous action, as some child will
suffer, some home will be affected. Many of the sanitation workers
do not have the sophistication that the Council has or that the
staff and elected officials of the City have. Perhaps the Council
could have spent a little more of its time and help these people
solve their problems. These men feel insecure and the action they
have taken was in defense of their jobs.
Mr. Ron A. Glick, attorney for the local 1078 American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said that the
City has a very serious problem and he has been waiting to see how
the Council stands in connection with the absent without leave
section of the ordinance. While the Council is saying that it is
going to abide by that ordinance, he questions whether this is so.
46
Bakersfield, California, July 28, 1972 - Page 10
This is a very emotional time, the men of this particular division
have been faced with the fear that something is going to be con-
tracted out, something is being altered. And suddenly from nowhere
some positive action takes place which does affect the employees.
Tuesday the employees realized what was taking place and Tuesday
night they held a meeting. Some of these people have served this
City for a good many years and apparently they have served it well.
After spending some time at the meeting, they felt that it was a
reasonable request that they be assured of a one year period before
their jobs were contracted completely out of existence, to give them
an opportunity to make arrangements to sell homes, find new jobs,
and things of that nature.
In the first meeting with the GEPC,
characterized as a strike, possibly it was.
the work stoppage was
It was a protest, a
matter of fear, of fright, a little bit of everything. Regardless
of what it was, the 27 men that have been fired have served the City
well, and to request a year's security was not an unusual request
and should not have bothered the City too much. One of the major
concerns of the total membership of the union was that of the
safety of the community. The membership offered to voluntarily
operate the trucks to pick up refuse on an emergency basis and their
offer was refused. Instead several police officers, the chief of
police and staff appeared at the yard as though they were planning
on having a big fight. They were allowed to work this afternoon
and he finds it difficult to reconcile unauthorized absences when
the men have volunteered to work and have not been allowed to do so.
The total issue here is one of some sort of assurance to
these people that for one more year they will have a job. One
reason for a year's period of time is to permit the City to draft
an ordinance of employer-employee relations, to implement the
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act of the State. The City agreed to do that
and once this draft is in the hands of the various employee organi-
zations~ the completed ordinance would be in effect and there would
be sufficient time to hold elections and do all those things that are
necessary to accomplish a true Meyers-Milias-Brown situation in the
City.
Bakersfield, California, July 28, 1972 - Page 11
47
None of these men have been out of work fora full two
days, and even if they have been, the. City should determine from
each of them why they were not at work and what the circumstances
were.
Councilman Bleecker stated that it has been stated and
reiterated over and over again that from the middle of March of
this year this Council was instructed to look into contracting
out the downtown refuse. So he doesn't see how Mr. Glick can say
that all of a sudden something happened that the union didn't know
anything about. What the Council is being asked to do is to change
the rules the way the union would like to see them changed instead
of what the ordinance says. In other words, in any type of disagree-
ment there must be a closing off place, a place where certain actions
must be taken. As one Councilman he does not feel that the Council
can continue with the threat of a strike. He thoroughly understands
a refuse worker's concern that the City may at some time in the future
either piecemeal or totally turn that particular part of the City
service over to private enterprise. This does not necessarily mean,
however, that many of these people cannot work for private enterprise.
Many of them did before they cameto work for the City of Bakersfield.
The whole thing boils down to where it appears that now,
today, certain employees realized that their jobs were in jeopardy
and they did return to work. Others chose not to do so, so where
does the Council draw the line. What the union tells its members,
how the union keeps them informed from day to day, has a whole lot
to do with the attitude of the worker. But that is a union problem,
that is not a problem of management. The taxpayer wants to have his
refuse picked up, and it is up to this Council to see that it is.
The Council has done everything possible to avoid a strike, one that
the Council did not sanction or call for. The rules cannot be
changed after something has happened, because if the rules are
changed he is concerned that possibly next week there will be
another strike.
Councilman Whittemore told Mr. Glick that possibly he
was not informed of what the GEPC did when Mr. Winther was repre-
48
Bakersfield, California, July 28, 1972 - Page 12
pick up these routes,
me that the strike is
that.'
senting the union. This was not something that came up suddenly.
This has been going on for months and the men have known it. In
fact, Mr. Winther said "I think this is a good idea, then you will
find out how inefficient this private contracting operation is
going to be."
It is correct that the men offered to pick up the routes.
Mr. Bleecker and he were at the corporation yard yesterday with the
City Manager and the City Attorney and told Mr. Smith, president of
the union, that the Health Department had issued a list of the priority
pickups. Mr. Smith stated that he had told the City the men would
and Mr. Bergen said to him 'Then you are telling
over,' and Mr. Smith said 'No, I did not say
The men had exceeded their two days of being absent with-
out leave, so the supervisorial staff took the trucks out, picked uip
the refuse and brought the trucks back to the yard. Nothing should
have been a surprise to the men, the only thing that was a surprise
was the illegal strike, called without even confirming with manage-
ment, the GEPC or anyone else. Neither the Committee nor the Coun-
cil is at fault, they are not responsible for this.
Councilman Rucker stated that many people make mistakes
and possibly mistakes were made by the participants in this strike.
As a result of this, the men took this action because they were in-
secure in their jobs. He is in great sympathy with these men and
he feels their actions should be overlooked, that they be penalized
by being suspended. He suggested that the Council rescind whatever
action it has taken tonight so far as the city ordinance is con-
cerned, perhaps put the men on probation. He asked the City Attorney
if it would be legal to put the men on probation.
Mr. Hoagland stated he thinks the ordinance is very
specific, an unauthorized leave of absence for two days acts as a
termination of employment unless there is a valid reason. Under
the circumstances where the strike or work stoppage was invalid,
unlawful, contrary to the laws of the State of California, there
Bakersfield, California, ~uly 26, 1972 - Page 13
49
is no leeway in the ordinance. The only thing the Council can do
is change the ordinance, or if these men were re-employed and given
a step increase for their experience, or whatever is proper for the
man's experience. An employee can be started in any step with.the
concurrence of the Council, the City Manager or the Department Head.
Councilman Rucker sta%ed that he is trying to see that
these men get their jobs back, and Mr. Hoagland informed the Coun-
cilman that he was getting into an obligation which is intrusted
to the Civil Service Commission. He does not know whether the Civil
Service Commission will give these employees priority.
Councilman Thomas asked Councilman Whittemore if it were
not true that no permanent jobs were ever in ~eopardy when the down-
town routes were contracted out, but temporary personnel had been
employed for the downtown refuse collection trucks. He asked if the
union had been notified to this effect.
Councilman Whittemore stated five permanent positions
were filled by five temporary.employees as they. became vacant, and
this was done in anticipation of franchising out the downtown refuse
collections. Those are the men who will be terminated and some of
them will continue working until they have completed 960 hours on a
temporary basis. No permanent.union personnel has lost his job.
The matter of contracting out the downtown routes has been discussed
with the union since last March.
Councilman.Whittemore stated that the reason he gave Mr.
Glick a copy.of the ordinance underlining the section relative to
termination after two days absence without leave, was to point out
to him how extremely important the ordinance is, that the Council
is bound by the ordinance. The men who were on strike had the entire
next day to go back to work and then sit down and air their griev-
ances, which they did not do.
Mr. Bergen repeated that the City had informed the union
as early as March that as permanent positions became vacant,, they
were being filled by temporary employees in anticipation of the down-
town routes being contracted out to private enterprise.
5O
Bakersfield, California, July 28, 1972 - Page 14
Mr. Glick stated he was trying to find a peaceful solu-
tion to what has been thus far a peaceful demonstration, so far
there have been no incidents of any sort. Men have gone back to
work not because they have decided to stop protesting, not because
they decided on their own to return, they went back to work because
that is what the union agreed to do. They were acting in good fait]~
and fulfilling those things which they felt were very valuable and
important to them, to take care of any problems created due to a
health hazard to the public as indicated by the County Health Officer.
It is his opinion that the men will not be at work tomor-
row if these 27 men are not working also, and if the City is forced
to go into private contracting, he is afraid that it will result in
an end to the peaceful attitude that is present at this point. He
is not trying to threaten the City in any way, he is telling the Coun-
cil what can happen on the basis of experience.
Mrs. Salene Stevens, representing the Sunset-Mayflower
Progressive Club, addressed a number of questions to the staff and
stated she feels the problems which have arisen are caused because
the people have been misinformed. She urged the Council to sit down
and reason with the people and come up with a constructive answer.
Mr. Fred Ward, representative of the Bakersfield City
Employees Association, stated that most of the sanitation employees
involved are affiliated with this association and he has a great
interest in all aspects of the problem. He reminded the GEPC that
as long as three years ago he had pointed out that there is a
serious need for an employer-employee relations policy statement
which would provide for orderly processes and mediation when a work
stoppage occurs. The union's request that the City issue some
assurance for a period of time so that the men will have job secu-
rity given to them to afford them the opportunity to adjust, to
make plans for their future, is not unreasonable. He urged the
Council to amend its ordinance to permit the men to go back to
work without penalties, if they so desire. Sometimes arbitrary
decisions on the part of management force employees into some type
Bakersfield, California, July 28, 1972 - Page 15
51
of action which they do not want and the community does not
want.
Councilman Bleecker stated that he cannot buy this,
that if the ordinance is amended to permit these employees to
come back to work, he can see a continuance of the same attitude.
The GEPC and the majority of the Council feel that the City can-
not accede to demands from the union which take away the prerog-
atives of management under the law.
Councilman Heisey commented that as far as he can see
from the evidence presented by both the Governmental Efficiency
and Personnel Committee and the staff, the City has complied with
its ordinance, and from this point on it is redundant to keep
hearing the same thing over and over again. Whatever additional
action might be appropriate is up to the chairman of the GEPC,
the City Manager and the City Attorney to work out, and he would
like once again to move to adjourn.
This motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
The meeting was adjourned at 7:~ P.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK and E~-Offi~io Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield, Calif.
Bakersfield, California, July 31, 1972
Minutes of a special meeting of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers
of the City Hall at 12:00 noon, July 31, 1972.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by roll call by the City Clerk.
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: None
Mayor Hart announced that this special meeting was
called for the purpose of discussing refuse collection and the
Council would meet in executive session.
The Council reconvened and the City Clerk read Emer-
gency Ordinance No. 2032 New Series of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield amending Chapter 3.18 of the Municipal Code by
adding Section 3.18.200 (k), which restores accumulated sick
leave to those employees involved in a work stoppage ensuing in
one of the departments of the City. Upon a motion by Councilman
Whittemore, Ordinance No. 2032 New Series was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Councilman Whittemore, chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, read the following report:
A meeting was held Saturday, July 29, 1972, between the
Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee and the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Union and the
City Staff, at which time five items were agreed upon as follows:
1. There will be no compromise in the present
ordinance concerning termination of the
affected men
2. The City will hire all affected men as new
employees
3. Because of knowledge and experience of the
affected men, they will be placed in the same
class and step that they were in prior to
July 27, 1972
Bakersfield, California, July 31, 1972 - Page 2
53
4. An Ordinance shall be adopted allowing credit
of unused sick leave for those affected men
The City shall have the right to contract
collection services; however, if contracted,
any contract will require affected employees
to be offered employment
Based on these five points, the Committee recommends
authorization be granted to credit affected men with prior sick
leave.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, the Government
Efficiency and Personnel Committee Report was adopted unanimously.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the City Council
granted authorization to credit the affected employees with accu-
mulated sick leave as provided in Emergency Ordinance No. 2032
New Series, by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Council,
adjourned at
Thomas,
None
None
Whirremote
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the meeting was
12:25 P.M.
MAY~ o£/th~ City of Bakersfield, Calif.
ATTEST:
ounc.
of the City of Bakersfield, California
54
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1972
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the
City Hall at eight o'clock P.M., August 7, 1972.
In the absence of Mayor Hart, Vice-Mayor Whirremote
called the meeting to order followed by the Pledge of Allegiance
and Invocation by Dr. Glenn Puder of the First Presbyterian
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Rucker
Minutes of the regular meeting of July 24, 1972 and
special meetings of July 28 and 31, 1972 were approved as presented.
Special Joint Meeting of the Council
and the Redevelopment Agency called
for the purpose of conducting a joint
public hearing on the Redevelopment
Plan for the Downtown Bakersfield
Redevelopment Project.
VICE-MAYOR WHITTEMORE: This is the time set for the
special joint meeting of the Council and the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Bakersfield called for the purpose of conducting a
joint public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown
Bakersfield Redevelopment Project, pursuant to the Community Re-
development Law of the State of California.
This is the time and place set for such joint public
hearing as specified in the Joint Notice of Public Hearing pub-
lished pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law.
AGENCY CHAIRMAN ROBERT KING: Will the secretary of the
Redevelopment Agency please call the roll.
Present: King, Casper, Poehner, Puder, Stewart, Taber
Absent: None
VICE-MAYOR: The record contains the following documents:
a. The proposed Redevelopment Plan for the downtown
Bakersfield Redevelopment Project
b.The Redevelopment Agency Report to the City
Council on the proposed Redevelopment Plan
c. Rules governing Participation and Preferences by
owners, operators of Businesses and Tenants in
the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project
Church.
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1972 - Page 2
d. The report and recommendation of the City
Planning Commission, recommending approval
of the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the
Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project
I now declare the public hearing open for the City
Council of the City of Bakersfield.
Ladies and Gentlemen, in order that we may have an
orderly meeting and make the most efficient use of our time here,
I am going to ask that everyone who participates in this hearing
observe a few simple rules. In order to assure that everybody
who wishes to speak will have an opportunity to be heard, the
Council and the Agency will follow the following rules:
a. The written agenda will govern the course of the
meeting. Copies of the Agenda are available in
case you did not take one at the door
b. All persons who desire to be heard will have an
opportunity to speak
c. Before commencing to speak, you will be sworn in
by the City Clerk
d. Before you start to speak, please give your name
and address and the organization, if any, which
you are representing at this hearing
e. In order that everyone will be able to hear those
who are speaking, we want to urge you to speak
clearly and directly into the microphone
AGENCY CHAIRMAN: I declare the public hearing Qpen for
the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Bakersfield.
VICE-MAYOR: Under the law, it is my responsibility to
preside over this joint public hearing. We shall now have the
presentation of the Agency. At this time I would like to call on
the Community Redevelopment Director of the Agency to introduce
the persons who will participate for the Agency and have them
stand and be sworn in.
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (City Manager Bergen):
For the record, I am Harold Bergen, the City Manager. The persons
who will be participating this evening will be myself, City Attor-
ney Kenneth Hoagland, Director of Planning Sceales, and Eugene
Jacobs, the Agency's special Counsel. (The Agency participants
were sworn in as a body by the City Clerk.)
56
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1972 - Page 3
Mr. Bergen stated that he has heard many references to the
funding of this particular project by fhe Federal Government and
wished to say that no federal funding is involved in any manner.
Mr. Jacobs stated that for many years almost all urban re.-
newal in California was done through federal funding. Almost without
exception, it was required that a federal grant be used to buy everlg
parcel of property in a project area, ultimately relocate or tear
down the buildings, put in the public improvements and then sit with
the empty land available to developers, hoping they would come in
and buy it. Due to the lack of the availability of federal funds
and due to the fact that full clearance projects were not adaptable
in most cities, many cities in Southern California have entered into
the type of project where the idea is to design, but not buy any land
in the project unless there was a developer prepared and ready to
develop. In doing this, the boundaries would cover an area suf£icient
in size to do everything possible to encourage and motivate develop-
ment by the owners of the project. This kind of project is referred
to as a back to back escrow project, to be worked out with the owners,
selling to the new developers almost immediately in back to back es.-
crow; being off the tax roll for as short a period of time as pos-
sible and being able to start the project only if the new develop-
ment was of sufficient size to justify the use of bonding and tax
increments. There are no federal funds in this project, no federal
participation whatsoever. There is no contemplation of any and the
project can be developed without federal funds.
Mr. Jacobs outlined the project boundaries, stating that
this area would be primarily oriented to public and office building
areas, particularly related to the Civic Center. It is hoped by
the Redevelopment Agency that a developer can come in and possibly
develop a neighborhood regional shopping center in the area lying
north and east. The Redevelopment Agency has entered into an exclu-
sive agreement to negotiate with John S. Griffith Co. and this com-
pany is now spending a great deal of time with a great deal of opti-
mism toward putting together a major regional shopping center in
that area. If that shopping center materializes, then the project
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1972 - Page 4
57
boundaries will be expanded, or a new project will be started in
the northeastern area, which would also have some office orienta-
tion, primarily going to the revitalization of the retail area.
Mr. Jacobs considers the corner of Chester and Truxtun
Avenues to be the number one corner in Bakersfield. This block has
been lying vacant for some time. The Agency has been negotiating
with the Bank of America for several months and a transaction will be
coming before the City Council in the very near future, as soon as
the final negotiations have been worked out with the Bank of America.
In his judgment, this will be a great catalyst for bringing back
downtown Bakersfield. This might have been done sooner if it had not
been for the very bad financing condition during the last two years.
The major technique which overcomes the need for federal
funds is what is referred to as tax increment. Such increment finan-
cing is allowed by the California Constitution since 1951. Adoption
of the Redevelopment Plan prior to August 21, 1972, will permit the
March 1, 1972 assessment roll to be used as
increases in assessed valuations will go to
exclusively to repay the debts incurred for
the tax base and any
the Redevelopment Agency
the project.
The Redevelopment Plan sets forth basically the legal
powers and authority available to the Agency. The power of eminent
domain is available but is rarely used on most of these projects as
there is great emphasis placed on the developments going forward
from the petitioners themselves. The Redevelopment Plan permits
the vacation of streets, changing any traffic patterns which may be
necessary to revitalize this area, the method of financing in more
detail, and the fact that the Planning Commission has recommended
this project and the Redevelopment Plan.
Mr. Bergen added that the only street vacation that is
contemplated in this project is the closing of "K" Street from
Truxtun Avenue to 17th Street, with 17th Street being returned to
two way traffic movement in both directions.
As Community Redevelopment Director, Mr. Bergen then
stated that this would conclude the staff presentation.
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1972 - Page 5
The Vice-Mayor asked the City Clerk to read all written
communications received in objection to the adoption of the Plan
in the order set forth on the Agenda, and the City Clerk reported
that no written communications had been received objecting to the
adoption of the Plan.
VICE-MAYOR: At this
merits and questions by persons
Plan in this order:
time we will have the oral state-
in objection to the adoption of
a. Real Property Owners in the Project Area
b. Tenants in the Project Area
c. Organizations in the Project Area
d. Others
At this time the Council will hear oral statements
Real Property Owners in the Project Area.
from
After being sworn in by the City Clerk, Mr. James Vizzard,
co-owner of a law office at 1801 Truxtun Avenue, stated that he
hasn't made a sufficient study of the entire matter to take a stand
on the project as a whole, but he and his partners do have a very
strenuous objection to being included in the boundaries of this pro-
posed project. If the project is for the purpose of revitalization,
it seems inconsistent to him to include the developed property south
of Truxtun and west of G Street in the redevelopment area. More than
50% of this area is devoted to office buildings which are relatively
new. His investment is around $200,000 market value now, and the
various attorneys and doctors offices and insurance offices in the
area have already been revitalized by their own efforts and invest-
ments. He can't see any advantage to these professional men being
included in this area, the only object and purpose of it would be to
throw in improved property, then if there is an increase in land
values, to double taxes. There is no benefit to him whatsoever to
being part of the so-called shopping center which would increase
taxes in order to help the owners of run-down property in the a tea.
If there is going to be a downtown improvement, the proposed area
should stay downtown, and not include people who have already spent
their money, made their investments and who do not want to be in any
situation where there would even be a threat of condemnation. There
is no provision in the law now which would begin to compensate a
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1972 - Page 6
59
property owner for being torn up by the roots from an established
business and forced to move elsewhere. He requested that his busi--
hess not be uprooted and moved several miles from the Court House,
because if this situation arises, he might as well go out in the
County somewhere and not pay City taxes.
After being sworn in by the City Clerk, Allan McFarland,
attorney and co-owner with Mr. Vizzard of property on Truxtun Avenne,
expressed his objections to the public hearing being held in August.
It is one of the poorest months of the year to hold a meeting of this
scope and importance as most of the people in the area are on vaca--
tion and could not attend this meeting tonight. He heard Mr. Jacobs
say action must be taken tonight, he doesn't like rash decisions,
something of this magnitude and importance should not be voted upon
in a hurry. In his opinion, this area was put into the redevelop-
ment area for no other reason than to give the Redevelopment Agency'
a larger tax base. There are nothing but professional buildings in
this area, they do not depend upon walk-in traffic. They requested
not to be included in the proposed revitalization area two or three
years ago and are now back asking the same thing. They are orienta-
ted to the Court House, the City Hall and the Police Building, so
that they can walk back and forth to service their clients. The
doctors are there because of the proximity of the Mercy Hospital.
They do not need this redevelopment, they are not commer-
cially orientated towards the center of town. If the people in the
downtown area need this, that is up to them, but he does not want to
be included in the redevelopment area.
Mr. Gerald Clifford who stated he has a controlling inter-
est in a quarter block on the corner of "F" and Truxtun Avenue, par-
tial interest in property on 16th and G Streets on the southeast and
northeast corners, asked if this area is included in the redevelop-
ment area, and a prospective developer utilizes the present struc-
tures or takes the present structures reimbursing him for the prop-
erty, would the taxes go up immediately because his property was
within this area.
6O
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1972 - Page 7
This Agency,
nor will it
Plan.
Mr. Jacobs stated there would not be any increase in
taxes for this project. The Agency has no intention whatsoever
to purchase any of the properties west of G Street, in fact it is
the desire of the Agency that those properties all be developed on
their own just as Mr. McFarland and Mr. Vizzard have done. The
first thing they should do is to come into Mr. Bergen's office and
enter into a very simple participation agreement with the Agency
which would assure them that their property would not be purchased.
Mr. King commented that in order to reassure these gentle-
men he would say that the Redevelopment Agency has no taxing author-
ity whatsoever, it is unlike a Water Agency or a Special District.
regardless of what plan is adopted, can levy no taxes,
levy taxes on any property in the Redevelopment Agency
Mr. Jacobs added that the Agency would just be receiving
taxes that would normally be levied on property and the property
that is paying taxes will not be aware of any difference, unless
the area becomes so revitalized that all properties in it will
increase in value.
Mr. Clifford stated that it would mean his property would
increase in value because all other properties in the area had in-
creased because of the revitalization. He would only be true to
his own thinking to say that if he were repaid for his property, he
would take the money and go elsewhere, there are plenty of places t.o
reorganize a business and settle down. It is his opinion that this
is a good thing and he has no objections to the proposed Redevelop-
ment Agency Plan.
There were no further objections to the adoption of the
Plan. No one else spoke in opposition.
Vice-Mayor Whittemore asked the City Clerk to read all
written communications received in favor of the adoption of the
Plan. The Clerk reported that no written communications in favor
of the adoption of the Plan had been received.
Vice-Mayor Whirremote asked for oral statements and ques-
tions by persons in favor of the adoption of the Plan. No one
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1972 - Page 8
requested permission to speak. Vice-Mayor Whittemore then declared
the public hearing closed for the purposes of the Cit~ Council~
Agency Chairman King declared the public hearing closed for the
purposes of the Agency.
Mr. Jacobs stated that the Agency does not desire to tear
up the roots of attorneys or doctors and send them three or four
miles from the Court House or from the downtown core. They hope to
motivate others to move into the downtown core and close to the Court
House. Upon his recommendation, this hearing was set for August 7th
only after it was felt that the Agency had something real to go on
with the Bank of America and there was a reason for establishing a
project. Negotiations were. entered.into and this date in August was
set many weeks ago, taking into account all the notices necessary.
Vice-Mayor Whirremote asked if the Agency desired to dis-.
cuss and consider taking action at this time.
Agency Chairman King replied that the Agency did and asked
if any members of the Agency desired to ask questions or request fur-
ther clarification of the proposed Plan. If there were none, he
would call for a resolution either in favor or opposed to the Plan.
Upon a motion by Mr. Casper, Resolution No. RA-6-72 of the Redevelc. p-
ment Agency of the City of Bakersfield approving the Redevelopment
Plan for the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project and recom-
mending to the Council of the City of Bakersfield that the Plan be
adopted, was adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Agency Members King, Casper, Lee, Poehner, Puder,
Stewart, Taber
Noes: None
Absent: None
Mr. King stated that he hereby transmits to the City Clerk
and the Council the Resolution of the Agency approving and recom-
mending that the Council adopt the proposed Redevelopment Plan.
The Vice-Mayor asked if any members of the Council desired
to ask questions or wished any further clarification of the proposed
Plan.
Councilman Rees stated he would think that basically this
form of negotiation has to be reduced to simple forms that the average
6'2
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1972 - Page 9
citizen can understand. Stating that he is an average citizen,
he asked Mr. Jacobs if it would be likely that these professional
offices will be included in the district, have no increase in their
assessed valuation or their taxes, be completely unaffected, even
if the program is successful.
Mr. Jacobs replied that if no further development takes
place in the project area, there would be no increase in taxes
merely by the adoption of this Plan. But being close to the num-
ber one corner of Bakersfield, if the Bank of America building
leads to other buildings of the same quality, if a major regional
shopping center is successfully constructed immediately adjacent
and northeast of this area, then without question property values
will increase in the area. Not an increase in taxes, but an in-
crease in property values which could ultimately reflect itself in
an increase in taxes. This has been the reaction in any area where
revitalization has occurred.
Mr. Hoagland added that any increase in the valuation of
property in that area could happen if the activity increased regard.-
less of this project, as can be seen from the many doctor's offices
that went in along Truxtun Avenue between "F" Stret and the Mercy
Hospital. What Mr. Jacobs is saying is that if the Bank of America
building causes more property to be developed along that area, then
probably there would be increases in taxes because the valuation of
the property has increased due to increased productivity, but not by
the development of the Redevelopment Plan per se, the assessed valu.-
ation will only increase because of the increased desirability.
After additional Council discussion, Councilman Heisey
moved that the City Clerk read the ordinance adopting the Redevelop-
ment Plan for the first time by title only. The City Clerk read by
title only, Ordinance No. 2033 New Series of the City of Bakersfield,
California, approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the
Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project. This was considered
first reading.
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1972 - Page 10 63
Councilman Heisey stated he was delighted to see this
Redevelopment Plan advance as far as it has and that it will be
done without federal financing which he was very much opposed to
from the inception of the Redevelopment Agency. It was borne with
a great many misgivings on the part of many members of the Council
and he thinks it is on the right course that will insure community
support and accomplish what the community would like to see done.
There being no further discussion, Agency Chairman King
adjourned the meeting of the Redevelopment Agency and asked that
the members be excused at this time.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, the joint meeting of
the City Council with the Redevelopment Agency for the purpose of
holding a public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan was
adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
A short recess was declared at this time.
The Council reconvened, and Vice-Mayor Whirremote thanked
the Redevelopment Agency for an outstanding job and contribution to
the City of Bakersfield. He thanked all the citizens who partici-
pated in the hearing this evening.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. Jack Winter, 206 Pacific Street, questioned the con-
struction of ramps in alleys in the downtown business district for
the purpose of using the City's front end refuse trucks to collect
commercial refuse. He asked if that amount was figured in on the
cost of collection by the private contractor. He commented that he
understood the collection of rubbish in the downtown area which had
been recently franchised out to a private collector was being done
for 22% less than the City forces had been collecting these two routes.
Vice-Mayor Whittemore stated there was a $6,000 adminis-
trative fee which was a cost to the City in addition to the contract
price, that the 22% figure quoted by Mr. Winter was inaccurate.
Mr. Bergen stated that the staff would have been glad to
answer Mr. Winter's questions if he had come in to see them. He
4 Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1972 - Page 11
pointed out a few of the problems that were involved. The City of
Bakersfield, mainly because of cost factors, decided to pick up
the refuse in the downtown area mechanically, rather than by hand.
The businessmen and property owners had considerable investments
in existing bins. The City of Bakersfield wanted to change the pick-
up and felt that if it were going to change the method of pickup
service and require the business people to lease or buy a different
type of bin, the City would have to make street modifications neces-
sary to convert from hand to mechanical pickup. Because there is no
charge for refuse pickup, the downtown property owners were not con-
cerned or interested in changing the method of pickup. This change
was instituted by the City for more efficient operation.
Reports.
City Manager Bergen reported that on June 12, 1972, the
City Council adopted Resolution No. 34-72 declaring a local emer-
gency in the City of Bakersfield due to the flood of June 7, 1972.
An analysis has been made for eligibility of State assist-
ance for recovering the City's costs attributable to the storm. The
amount of funds for which the City may be eligible is less than $300;
therefore, it is recommended that no further action be taken in this
matter.
Councilman Rees, chairman of the Budget Review and Finance
Committee, reported on the subject of recommendation for Resolution
calling for special election for Low-Rent Housing for the Elderly
which was requested by Mrs. Lila Little, Executive Director of the
Kern County Housing Authority and referred to the Budget Review and
Finance Committee for study and recommendation.
It was requested that this election be consolidated with
the November 7, 1972 general statewide election, and that the Coun-
cil adopt a Resolution which would submit the following proposal
to the electors within the City of Bakersfield:
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1972 - Page 12 65
Shall the Housing Authority of the County of Kern
develop, construct, and acquire in the City of
Bakersfield, with federal financial assistance,
a low-rent housing project or projects not to
exceed in the aggregate, 200 dwelling units for
living accommodations for elderly persons of
low income?
This Committee is not endorsing or opposing this project;
however, it is recommending that the Council adopt the proposed Reso-
lution as requested in order to allow the voters to decide on Novem-
ber 7 whether they wish this project to be constructed in Bakersfield.
Councilman Roes then moved adoption of the Resolution.
Councilman Heisey commented that this report came out of
Committee without any endorsing or opposition, as he personally
felt it should be discussed before the Council and he is sorry thai;
some members of the Council are absent. He has some strong reser-
vations on this, but he would like to say that Mrs. Lila Little and
her staff run the Kern County Housing Authority in an admirable man-
ner. Nevertheless, he has learned since the Committee meeting that:
it will cost the City of Bakersfield approximately $1,000 to place
this measure on the ballot and he hasn't heard that any provision
has been made to reimburse the City for this expense. He pointed
out that there are other senior citizens retirement homes which are
receiving and will demand certain services from the City without
charge. Until such time as this City is resolutely on a course of
user-pay where it can collect for these services, he doesn't feel
that he can support this. In lieu taxes
that they would not begin to pay for the
would amount to quite a subsidization on
are such a nominal sum,
normal taxes, therefore, it
the part of the community.
stated
living
Authority does pay for all services
Therefore, he will not support the report tonight.
Councilman Rees stated he would be very pleased to hear
from Mrs. Little at this time.
Mrs. Lila Little of the Kern County Housing Authority
that there are many elderly people in Bakersfield who are
in substandard homes which pay very few taxes. The Housing
that every other property owner
~akersfield, California, August 7, 1972 - Page 13
pays, if the garbage pickup was billed directly to the people of
Bakersfield, the Housing Authority would pay for garbage pickup.
Elderly people are the first to be affected by the inflation spiral.
Many of them are living on social security and a supplement from
welfare. The maximum rent for these units to elderly people would
be $50.00, which would be within their ability to pay economically.
It is possible that the Housing Authority will have funds to pay
for the expense for conducting the election.
Roll Call vote was taken on the proposed Resolution calling
a special municipal low rent housing project election to be held in
the City of Bakersfield on November 7, 1972, and requesting consoli-
dation of said election with the general statewide election as fol-
lOWS:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Rees, Thomas, Whirremote
Councilmen Heisey, Medders
Councilmen Bleecker, Rucker
Councilman Rees, Chairman of the Budget Review and Finance
Co~unittee, reported on the purchase of additional property adjacent
to the Pistol Range, stating that the Police Chief has indicated
that the present police pistol range is inadequate for the firearms
training needs of the Police Department.
At this time the City has an opportunity to purchase approx-
imately 3~ acres of vacant property adjacent to the Police Pistol
Range for needed expansion at a cost of $7,000, plus escrow fees
and closing costs, or $7,500.
This Committee is recommending approval of the purchase
of this 3.2 acre parcel from Atlantic-Richfield Company and the
transfer of the amount needed from the Council Contingency Fund to
the Police Department Capital Outlay Fund.
Councilman Rees moved to adopt the report and transfer
$7,500 from Fund 11-510-6100 to Fund No. 25-620-9100 to purchase
the parcel adjacent to the Police Pistol Range. This motion
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1972 - Page 14 67
carried by the
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
following roll call vote:
Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees,
None
Councilmen Bleecker, Rucker
Councilman Heisey, Chairman of
Thomas, Whittemore
the Water and City Growth
Committee, reported on Suburban Sewer Rental Agreements, stating
that this Committee has reviewed with the staff the City's present
selective policy of granting suburban sewer rental agreements to
nonresidents.
At the present time the City Council refers any request
to the Planning Commission for evaluation as to whether such agree-
merit would be in the best interest of the City. The Department of
Public Works evaluates the request to determine if and how a sewer
connection can be accomplished and also the construction design is
reviewed for present and future maximum utilization of connection
lines. If approved by the Planning Commission, the application is
referred back to the City Council for action.
This Committee recommends continuance of the City's present
selective policy of granting suburban sewer rental agreements to
nonresidents when it is in the best interest of the City, and also
recommends approval of the four connections which were recommended
by the Planning Commission to the City Council for action on July 10,
1972.
In addition, this Committee recommends adoption of an
Amendment to the Municipal Code, Chapter 8.72, to accomplish the
following:
1.
Authorize the City Engineer to enter into
suburban sewer rental agreements in accordance
with the ordinance in any unincorporated island
which is surrounded by the City; and
Establish areas by resolution in which the City
Engineer may enter into suburban sewer rental
agreements in accordance with the ordinance.
Councilman Heisey then moved adoption of the report and
the provisions contained therein.
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1972 - Page 15
Councilman Whittemore pointed out that although he is
a member of the Committee, he did not sign the report, as he has
been unalterably opposed to sewer rental agreements due to the fact
that the City is providing services to people in the outlying areas
who do not feel that they should annex to the City of Bakersfield.
He feels that if these services are provided by sewer rental agree-
ments, then these people should become part of the City. City tax-
payers should not be expected to provide sewer facilities to people
in the outlying areas, and he will continue to oppose sewer rental
agreements.
Councilman Rees commented that he relies on the City staff
for information and he has been personally convinced beyond any doubt
whatsoever, that any individual who has entered into a sewer rental
agreement with the City of Bakersfield, pays fully and completely
for any service that he gets. In increasing the areas of the City
limits, no individual has shown more initiative than the City Manager,
and it is the Manager's conclusion and he has convinced him, that as
a lever towards annexation, these sewer agreements are more likely
to be a positive factor than a negative one. Councilman Rees stated
he would therefore support the report and the amendment to the Muni-
cipal Code.
Councilman Thomas asked if the report is accepted as writ-
ten, will the proposed amendment to the Municipal Code be adopted
tonight, or will the City Attorney draft it for adoption at the next
meeting.
Mr. Bergen stated this could be considered first reading,
with the ordinance in its final form to be submitted at the next
meeting for adoption.
Councilman Thomas stated he opposed the amendment but is
in favor of accepting the report.
After discussion, roll call vote taken on Councilman
Heisey's motion to approve the report deleting the reference to
granting the four sewer connections contained therein, carried as
follows:
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1972 - Page 16 69
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Thomas
Councilmen Whittemore
Councilmen Bleecker, Rucker
Director of Public Works Bidwell read the following list
of applications for Suburban Sewer Connections to the City Sewer
System and recommended approval:
Laura Clark
2321 Akers Road
Alphonso Alderete
2100 Madison Street
Gene Bird
724 Palo Verde
Hardt Real Estate
Belle Terrace, West of South H St.
Marvin E. Rea
4018 Garnsey Lane
Jim Weaver
2200 Roland Street
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, sewer rental agree-
merits with the six persons listed were approved, with Councilman
Whirremote voting in the negative on the motion.
First reading was considered given to proposed ordinance
amending Chapter 8.72 of the Municipal Code.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 170 to 307,
inclusive, in amount of $41,863.67
(b)
Claims for damages from Florence Smith and
Robert Lindsay (To be referred to the City
Attorney)
(c) Sewer Line Easement from Alberta W. Digier
(For acceptance)
(d)
Plans and Specifications for Construction of
Reinforced Concrete Pipe Culvert at Stine Canal
and New Stine Road (Approve and Advertise for
Bids)
(e)
Resolution of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield making finding that Tentative
Tract No. 3629, together with provisions
for its design and improvement, is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans
(For adoption)
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b),
(c), (d) and (e) of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the fol-
lowing vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen Bleecker, Rucker
0 Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1972 - Page 17
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, low bid of Griffith
Co. for paving of Parking Lots and Service Drives in Patriots Park
was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was au-
thorized to execute the contract.
Deferred Business.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Ordinance No. 2034
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield adding Sec-
tion 7.52.205 to Chapter 7.52 of the Municipal, concerning Taxi-
cabs and Limousines was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen Bleecker, Rucker
Hearings (Continued)
This is the time set for continued public hearing before
the Council for hearing protests by persons owning real property
within territory designated as "Kern River No. 1~' proposed to be
annexed to the City of Bakersfield.
This is the time set for continued public hearing before
the Council to include territory designated as "Kern River No. 1"
annexation within the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade
District.
This is the time set for continued public hearing before
the Council to zone upon annexation that certain territory desig-
nated as "Kern River No. 1."
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Resolution No. 45-72
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield halting proceedings to
annexation of territory designated as "Kern River No. 1," was
adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Heisey, Medders,
None
Councilmen Bleecker, Rucker
Rees, Thomas, Whittemore
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1972 - Page 18 71
This is the time set for continued public hearing before
the Council on application of Stockdale Development Corporation to
amend the zoning boundaries of that certain property located north-
erly of Stockdale Highway in the vicinity of E1 Rio Drive (Zone
Change No. 2213). Stockdale Development Corporation has requested
that this rezoning be continued until such time as zoning upon
annexation of the territory which will take the place of Kern River
No. i annexation. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, rezoning
of this property was continued until hearing is reset.
Approval of annexation boundaries of
territory designated as Kern River #1.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, the annexation bound-
aries of territory designated as Kern River #1 were approved and
referred to the City Engineer and City Attorney for referral to I~FC.
Approval of annexation boundaries of
territory designated as Kern River #2.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, the annexation bound-
aries of territory designated as Kern River #2 were approved and
referred to the City Engineer and City Attorney for referral to LAFC.
Approval of annexation boundaries of
territory designated as Kern River #3.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, the annexation bound-
aries of territory designated as Kern River #3 were approved and
referred to the City Engineer and City Attorney for referral to LAFC.
Approval of annexation boundaries of
territory designated as San Dimas #4.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the annexation bound-.
aries of territory designated as San Dimas #4 were approved and
referred to the City Engineer and City Attorney for referral to LAFC.
Approval of annexation boundaries of
territory designated as Pacheco #5.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, the annexation
boundaries of territory designated as Pacheco #5 were approved and
referred to the City Engineer and City Attorney for referral to
LAFC.
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1972 - Page 19
First reading of An Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 17.23.020 (c) of
Chapter 17.23 of the Municipal Code
providing for regulations of the C-O
Professional Office Zones.
First reading was considered given to an Ordinance of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 17.23.020
(c) of Chapter 17.23 of the Municipal Code providing for regulation
of the C-O Professional Office Zones.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2035 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Section 3.18.060
(Salary Schedule) to include Supervising
Foreman (Streets) of the Municipal Code
of the City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Ordinance No. 2035
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 3.18.060 (Salary Schedule) to include Supervising Foreman
(Streets) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, was
adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen Bleecker, Rucker
Adoption of Resolution No. 46-72
authorizing the City Manager to
execute a release in Civil Action
No. 51107 (The State of California
rs. Standard Oil Company of California).
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution No. 46-72
authorizing the City Manager to execute a release in Civil Action
No. 51107 (The State of California vs. Standard Oil Company of
California) was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen Bleecker, Rucker
First reading of An Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Sections 11.04.740 (a)
(Speed Limit on South Chester Avenue)
and 11.04.746 (Speed Limit on Chester
Avenue between Truxtun Avenue and
Brundage Lane) of the Municipal Code
of the City of Bakersfield.
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1972 - Page 20 73
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Sections 11.04.740 (a)
(Speed Limit on South Chester Avenue) and 11.04.746 (Speed Limit
on Chester Avenue between Truxtun Avenue and Brundage Lane) of
the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield.
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
No. 876 of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield declaring its intention to
order the vacation of the Alley in
Block 190, City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Resolution of Inten-
tion No. 876 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring its
intention to order the vacation of the Alley in Block 190, City o£
Bakersfield, and fixing September 18, 1972 for hearing on the matter
before the Council, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen Bleecker, Rucker
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
No. 877 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield declaring its intention
to order the vacation of Public Utilities
Easements in Lot 46 of Tract 2783 and
Lot 7 of Tract 2957, City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Resolution of Inten-
tion No. 877 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring
its intention to order the vacation of Public Utilities Easements
in Lot 46 of Tract 2783 and Lot 7 of Tract 2957, City of Bakers-
field and fixing September 18, 1972 for hearing on the matter
before the Council, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Thomas~ Whittemore
Noes None
Absent: Councilmen Bleecker, Rucker
Ratification of Civil Service Rule
6.09 added to Rules and Regulations
of the Miscellaneous Departments
Civil Service Board.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Civil Service Rule
the Miscellaneous
6.09 which was added to Rules and Regulations of
Departments Civil Service Board, was ratified.
4 Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1972 - Page 21
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Rees, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:05 P.M.
W~MAYOR of the City o~ m~rS/~ld
ATTEST:
C~T~ c~.~.e and ~.x-0f~'eio Cle~ of
Council of the City of Bakersfield,
the
Calif.
Bakersfield, California, August 14, 1972
Minutes of a special meeting of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the
City Hall at 12:00 noon, August 14,
The meeting was called to
by roll call by the City Clerk.
Present:
Absent:
submitted
1972.
order by Mayor Hart followed
Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Thomas
Whittemore '
Councilmen Medders, Rucker
At this time Mayor Hart read into the record a letter
by Councilman Heisey in which he stated he would like
to make it a matter of public record that he has a vested interest
in the north half of Block 316, City of Bakersfield. Upon a motion
by Councilman Whittemore, letter was received and placed on file.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2033 New Series
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
approving and adopting the Redevelopment
Plan for the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelop-
ment Project.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No. 2033
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield approving and
adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelop-
ment Project, was adopted by the following roll call vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Thomas, Whittemore
None
Councilmen Medders, Bucker
Approval of Participation Agreement between
the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency, Bank
of America and Arcon, Inc.
Mr. Bergen pointed out that the City was not a participant or
signature to this agreement. It was submitted for approval only. Upon
a motion by Councilman Heisey, Participation Agreement between the
Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency, Bank of America and Arcon, Inc.,
approved unanimously.
75
76.
Bakersfield, California, August 14, 1972 Page 2
Councilman Whittemore stated that every individual who
seeks public office says he is in favor of revitalization of the
downtown area and he would like to compliment the City Manager,
City Attorney, and everyone else involved including the City Council,
for its work on this project. It is the first step in revitalizing
a very badly needed project in the downtown area.
Councilman Rees said he hoped that this is a point from
which the City moves forward. There are some very responsible
private interests involved here and in his opinion, the City, officially
should do anything and everything that it can to make sure that thi~
Redevelopment Project goes forward.
Councilman Heisey stated that it is not only going to have
a big impact on downtown Bakersfield, it already has. It is going
to do nothing but good for this community.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the meeting was adjourned at
MAY ~'rsfield
ATTEST:
MARIAN S. IRVIN
CITY CLERK and ex-officio clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
CITY CLERKrs A~tant
Bakersfield, California, August 21, 1972
77
Minutes of
City of Bakersfield, California,
the City Hall at eight o'clock P.
The meeting was called
the regular meeting of the Council of the
held in the Council Chambers of
M., August 21, 1972.
to order by Mayor Hart followed
by
of
the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Ed Hart
the First Presbyterian Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as
Mayor Hart. Councilmen
Present:
Absent: None
Minutes
follows:
Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Rucker, Thomas, Whirremote
Rees,
of the regular meeting of August 7, 1972 and the
special meeting of August 14, 1972 were approved as presented.
Reports.
Councilman Whittemore, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, read a report on the subject
of recommendation regarding Charter Amendments relating to the
Fire Department.
On March 27, 1972, the City Council requested this
Committee to evaluate whether or not to place a measure on the
November ballot which would repeal City Charter Section (202) 20
to allow Firemen to engage in outside employment on their days off.
On June 5, 1972, the City Council requested this Committee to also
evaluate the matter of amending City Charter Section (200) 18 to
change the composition of the Fire Department Trial Board.
This Committee has completed its review of these two
charter provisions. In regard to the outside employment of Fire-
men, the Committee endorses and supports the present charter pro-
vision. The Committee feels that the Charter should be amended to
exclude the City Manager and Fire Chief from serving on the Fire
Department Trial Board. However, it does not think that this one
matter alone is sufficient to go to the expense of placing a Charter
Amendment on the November ballot, but to include this amendment at
some later time when other Charter Amendments are placed on the
ballot.
78
Bakersfield, California, August 21~ 1972 - Page 2
In conclusion, this Committee recommends that the Council
take no action on the present Charter limitation to the outside
employment of Firemen and take no action on the Charter provision
regarding the Fire Department Trial Board composition at this time.
Councilman Heisey moved to adopt the report and place it
on file.
Don Hoffman, Executive Secretary of the Kern County
Firefighters Union, stated he was unable to be present when the
Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee met to consider
these Charter Amendments. He said it is not true that the Fire-
fighters are not in favor of having the outside employment Charter
Amendment placed on the ballot. The union has been informed by
its attorneys that the Charter provision is unconstitutional and
unless this issue is placed on the ballot for the people to indicate
what they want, the end result will be litigation, as Firefighters
are being discriminated against as one group of employees. From a
union leader's standpoint, he is opposed to Firefighters holding
outside employment, however, he urged the Council to reconsider its
position and place this measure on the ballot for the vote of the
people of Bakersfield.
Councilman Whittemore commented that he did not think
there was any tremendous objection to putting it on the ballot,
but he, personally, thinks it would fail. If the other members of
the Council wish to give the people the opportunity to vote on this
issue, he has no objection.
Councilman Thomas stated he is not endorsing anything,
he doesn't think this measure will pass, but he would like to have
the people decide once and for all on this issue. He then asked
for a division of the question and offered a substitute motion
that the matter of repealing City Charter Section (202) 20 to allow
Firemen to engage in outside employment on their days off, be placed
on the ballot and voted upon separately from amending the Charter
to exclude the City Manager and Fire Chief from serving on the
Trial Board. Councilman Heisey then withdrew his motion.
Bakersfield, California, August 21, 1972 Page 3
79
City Attorney Hoagland called the Council's attention to
the fact that any resolution requesting this measure to be placed
on the ballot and consolidated with the election of November 7,
1972, must be in the hands of the County Clerk on August 22, 1972.
The form of the ballot and the wording of the resolution, of necessity,
must be left to his discretion. Councilman Thomas added to his
motion that the City Attorney be authorized to draw the necessary
resolution and form of the ballot.
Councilman Heisey stated he wanted to speak in opposition
to the motion. The GEPC has made the correct recommendation in its;
report and he does not think that the Council should go to the ex-
pense of placing issues on the ballot at the last minute. He feels
quite sure that every building trades union in the community will
oppose this measure most vigorously.
Councilman Rucker stated he has no objection to placing
this amendment on the ballot and would vote in favor of the motion.
Councilman Bleecker said this issue has been with the
Council a long time. In his opinion the members of the Fire Depart:-
ment, from the bottom to the top, are well paid, but the nature of
their work gives them time off to participate in some other kind
of employment. He has been told by members of organized labor
that they are not in favor of Firemen working on their days off and
taking jobs from members of their unions. He does not believe
there is any sense in spending money to place this issue on the
ballot, when it will probably go down to defeat. Therefore, he
cannot support the motion.
After additional discussion, vote taken on Councilman
Thomas' motion failed to carry as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees
None
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the report was
received and ordered placed on file.
Bakersfield, California, August 21~ 1972 - Page 4
The
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
Consent Calendar.
following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
Allowance of Claims Nos. 308 to 540,
inclusive, in amount of $202,555.81.
Approval o£ Plans and Specifications
for Construction of Ramp and Southwest
entrance to City Hall.
Notice of Completion and Acceptance of
Work for Tract No. 3549.
Acceptance of Work and Notice of Com-
pletion for Contract No. 19-72 for
Improvement of Columbus Street between
Mr. Vernon Avenue and Auburn Street
and Paving Median Islands in Panorama
Drive between Wenatchee Avenue and
Crescent Drive.
Notice of Completion of Contract No.
39-72 for Improvement of Wible Road
between Wilson Road and Ming Avenue.
Construction Change Order No. 1 for
Contract No. 41-72, Street Improvement
and Traffic Signal Modification on
Columbus Street at Union Avenue.
Notice of Completion of Contract No.
41-72 for Street Improvement and
Traffic Signal Modification on Columbus
Street at Union Avenue.
Notice of Completion of Contract No.
53-72 for Construction of Utility
Building and Electric Service at
Patriots Park.
Notice of Completion of Contract No.
54-72 for Resur£acing a portion of
Truxtun Avenue from "L" Street to
"V" Street.
Resolution No. 51-72 of the Council of
the City of Bakersfield making finding
that Tentative Tract No. 3597, together
with provisions for its design and
improvement, is consistent with appli-
cable general and specific plans.
(k) Claims for damages from,
1. Sam's Pizza Boat
15 South Chester Avenue
2. Rebecca M. Lara
Los Angeles, California 90026
(1) Request for 90-day Leave of Absence
without pay for Woodrow P. Kirk.
Bakersfield, California, August 21, 1972 - Page 5
(m)Encroachment Permit for John Barber,
500 Oak Street.
(n) Easement Deed from County of Kern to
City of Bakersfield for Improvements
in Alley 1000 feet south of Ming Road
on the East side of Wible Road.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b), (c),
(d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (1), (m) and (n) 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 Whittemore, low bid of
Francis & Jacobs for improvement of Stine Road between Southern
Pacific Railroad and White Lane was accepted, all other bids were
rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, bid of American
La France for 1500 GPM Fire Pumper was accepted and all other bids
were rejected.
Deferred Business.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Ordinance No. 2036
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Sections 11.04.740 (Speed Limit on South Chester Avenue) and
11.04.746 (Speed Limit on Chester Avenue between Truxtun Avenue
and Brundage Lane) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield,
was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
After explanation by City Attorney Hoagland, upon a
motion by Councilman Rucker, Ordinance No. 2037 New Series of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 17.23.020 (c)
Bakersfield, California, August 21, 1972 - Page 6
of Chapter 17.23 of the Municipal Code providing for regulations
of the C-O Professional Office Zones, was adopted by the following
vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Ordinance No. 2038
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 8.72.010 of the Municipal Code authorizing the City Engineer
to enter into agreements for Suburban Sewer Connections under
certain conditions, was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker
Councilmen Bleecker, Thomas, Whittemore
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
None
Adoption of Resolution No. 47-72 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field calling Special Municipal Low
Rent Housing Project Election to be
held in the City of Bakersfield on
November 7, 1972, and requesting
Consolidation of said Election with
the General Statewide Election.
Councilman Whirremote moved adoption of Resolution No.
47-72 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield calling Special
Municipal Low Rent Housing Project Election to be held in the City
of Bakersfield on November 7, 1972, and requesting consolidation
of said election with the General Statewide Election. This
resolution was returned to the agenda as there were not sufficient
affirmative votes for adoption at the meeting of August 7, 1972.
Stating that he had been absent when this proposal was
discussed, Councilman Bleecker asked if the City has been shown
any proof that a need exists for this type of facility. Mr. Bergen
stated that in discussions with developers or Planning Commissions,
it has been agreed there is an increasing need for housing for the
elderly at a price they can afford to pay. Planning Director
Sceales stated that the Housing Authority has told the City they
feel the need exists for 200 housing units for the elderly in
Bakersfield, but he does not know what proof they have to back up
this statement.
Bakersfield, California, August 21, 1972 - Page 7
Councilman Rees asked the Council to recognize Mrs. Lila
Little, Executive Director of the Housing Authority of the County
of Kern. She stated that to demonstrate the need, they have on
file at the present time
posed housing facility.
cant's income.
August 7,
eligible applications to fill this pro-
The rent will amount to 25% of the appli-
Councilman Heisey reiterated his statements made at
1972 meeting, that the primary reason he is opposed to
this is that the in lieu taxes paid to the City on these units by
the Housing Authority will only amount to about 10% of the revenue
the City could collect in taxes on these properties. After the
middle of September, the City will be forced to pick up refuse and
furnish all other City services to these 200 units free of charge.
He does not think that the City can afford to take on any more
charitable contributions.
Councilman Bleecker asked Mrs.
would be to build these 200 units. Mrs.
had not consulted an architect until the
whether or not
being urged to
that a similar
Little what the cost
Little replied that she
Housing Authority knows
the project will be approved by the voters. Upon
give an estimate of the cost, Mrs. Little stated
high rise project built in Las Vegas cost approxi-
mately three million dollars.
After additional discussion, roll call vote taken on
adoption of the Resolution carried as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 48-72 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field providing for the Consolidation
of a Special Municipal Low Rent
Housing Project Election with the
General Statewide Election to be held
on Tuesday, November 7, 1972, and
requesting the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Kern to order the
consolidation of said Election.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Resolution No. 48-72
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield providing for the
84
Bakersfield, California, August 21, 1972 - Page 8
consolidation of a Special Municipal Low Rent Housing Project
Election with the General Statewide Election to be held on Tuesday,.
November 7, 1972, and requesting the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Kern to order the consolidation of said Elections, was
adopted
Ayes:
by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
None
Noes:
Absent:
Rees, Rucker,
Adoption of Resolution No. 49-72 of
Intention to include within the
Greater Bakersfield Separation of
Grade District certain territory
designated as Union Avenue No. 5,
and setting the time and place for
hearing objections to the inclusion
of said territory within said District.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Resolution No. 49-72
of Intention to include within the Greater Bakersfield Separation
of Grade District certain territory designated as Union Avenue No.
5 and setting September 25, 1972 in the Council Chambers of the
City Hall as the time and place for hearing objections to the
inclusion of said territory within said District, was adopted by
the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
Petition requesting the City to per-
manently close the Pedestrian Walkway
on Ivan Avenue between Lots 21 and 22
in Tract 2268 referred to the Planning
Commission for study and recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, petition containing
50 signatures requesting the City to permanently close the Pedestrian
Walkway on Ivan Avenue between Lots 21 and 22 in Tract 2268 was
referred to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation.
Bakersfield, California, August 21, 1972 - Page 9
County Auditor-Controller authorized
to levy delinquent Building Demolition
Assessments as part of the 1972-73
Secured Tax Roll.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the County Auditor--
Controller was authorized to levy delinquent Building Demolition
Assessments in amount of $7,546.00 as part of the 1972-73 Secured
Tax Roll.
County Auditor-Controller authorized
to levy delinquent Weed Abatement
Assessments as part of the 1972-73
Secured Tax Roll.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, the County Auditor-
Controller was authorized to levy delinquent Weed Abatement Assess-.
ments in the amount of $4,725.00, as part of the 1972-73 Secured
Tax Roll.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2039 New
Series levying upon the assessed
valuation of the taxable property
in the City of Bakersfield a rate
of taxation upon each One Hundred
Dollars of valuation for the Fiscal
Year beginning July 1, 1972 and
ending June 30, 1973.
Councilman Thomas moved adoption of Ordinance No. 2039
New Series levying upon the assessed valuation of the taxable
property in the City of Bakersfield a rate of taxation upon each
One Hundred Dollars of valuation for the Fiscal Year beginning
July 1, 1972 and ending June 30, 1973.
Councilman Heisey stated that the State Legislature
sorely let the City down as it should have passed a good tax reform
bill, which lost by one vote. This probably insures passage of the
Watson Amendment at the November election which is a poor substitute
for a bill which the Legislature should have adopted. He feels that
the Council is letting the City taxpayers down by adopting this
ordinance. On December 6, 1971, the Council adopted a Resolution
expressing its intention to reduce the tax rate by 50~ or more
during Fiscal Year 1972-73, and voted unanimously to do so. He
can't break with that promise and will have to vote in opposition
to the ordinance.
Councilman Whirremote commented that when the Refuse
Ordinance was adopted, had it remained in effect, it would have
been a cinch to reduce the tax rate 50~ and that was what the
Bakersfield, California, August 21, 1972 - Page 10
Resolution of Intent was predicated upon. Since the Refuse
Collection Ordinancewas rescinded, it is impossible to reduce the
tax rate. As far as he knows, the majority of the people in the
City are satisfied with the refuse charge being included in the
tax rate.
Councilman Rees stated that everyone who was on the
Council then and now, knows that the Council had a plan to put the
refuse collection on the user-pay principle and reduce the property
tax rate approximately 50~ per hundred. As that wasn't done, the
tax rate cannot be reduced. He does not think the Council is
breaking faith with the people by doing what seems to be the people's
bidding, to keep the refuse charge on the tax rate and leave the
tax rate alone, which is the only option the Council has at this
particular point.
Councilman Thomas stated he had intended to try to reduce.
the tax rate by at least 50~ but thanks to the efforts of a group
of people who worked hard against the user-pay Refuse Ordinance
and got it defeated by public pressure, the tax rate cannot be
reduced.
Councilman Rucker stated he considered the user-pay
Refuse Collection Ordinance as a tax, as each individual who lived
in the City had to pay it.
Councilman Whittemore asked Mr. Bergen how much reserve
was being carried in the City accounts by adopting the same tax
rate. Mr. Bergen asked the Finance Director to give the Council
a specific answer.
Mr. Haynes stated that the County Assessor catches up
on Bakersfield property price increases every four or five years.
This is one of the catch-up years. The City's cost of servicing
the property has, of course, gone up each year with the price
increases. The City has used its reserves during the past four
or five years to hold the tax rate. This year the City is re-
plenishing its major reserves as follows:
Replacement Reserve Fund From $192,618 to $800,000
Payroll Reserve Fund From $225,000 to $375,000
Cash Basis Reserve From $500,000 to $600,000
There are other minor changes in other reserves such as
various bond redemption funds and Capital projects.
87
Bakersfield, California, August 21, 1972 - Page 11
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
The reserve funds have been built back to where they
were before, because of an appreciable increase in the City's
assessed valuation, even over and above what was anticipated at
budget time.
Councilman Bleeck~r asked if the condition of the reserw~
funds at the present time is generally acceptable and what the City
should maintain. Mr. Haynes stated that the City is in a very good
position at the present time and the reserves are adequate.
Vote taken on Councilman Thomas' motion to adopt the
ordinance carried as follows:
Councilmen Bleecker, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Councilman Heisey
None
Approval of Downtown Improvement
District Budget for 1972-73.
Finance Director authorized to pay
the first quarter amount of the
budget.
Councilman Whittemore asked if the budget for the Down-
from the funds received from
to carry ou% the purposes of the improvement
year ago there was a great deal of objection
the promotion district, which has since been
district. About a
to the operation of
changed to improvement
district. Many of these objections have been removed by a closer
working relationship between the Downtown Business Association and
those people who have stores in the area who have evidenced a desire
to work with the District even though they may not be members of the
DBA.
He feels that a good step forward has been taken to
acquiring harmony in that area and the approval
step forward in helping downtown to help itself.
the budget and authorize the Finance Director
amount. This motion carried unanimously.
of the Council is a
He moved to approve
to pay the first quarter
town Improvement District was paid
the business license tax on the improvement district and if this
amount had been collected to date. Finance Director Haynes stated
that $34,000 has been collected and the $14,775 for the first
quarter of the budget could be paid at this time.
Councilman Bleecker, Chairman, stated that the Business
Development and Parking Committee has met with the improvement
district representatives and their budget appeared to be sufficient
Bakersfield, California~ August 21, 1972 - Page 12
Approval of Agreement for Engineering
Services between City of Bakersfield,
Mount Vernon Sanitation District and
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Palo Alto,
California.
Stating that the Water and City Growth Committee has met
and discussed this agreement in detail, Councilman Heisey moved
that the Council approve the agreement and authorize the Mayor to
execute same. This motion carried unanimously.
Estimated cost of the survey is $16,000 and the City's
share will amount to approximately $8,000.
Approval of Map of Tract No. 3624
and the Mayor authorized to execute
Contract and Specifications for
Improvements therein.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, it is ordered that
the Map of Tract No. 3624 be, and the same is hereby approved:
That all the easements~ alleys, courts, lanes, roads, drives and
avenues shown upon said map, therein offered for dedication be,
and the same are hereby accepted for the purpose for which the
same are offered for dedication.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 11587 of the
Business and Professions Code, the Council of the City of Bakers-
field hereby waives the requirement of signatures of the following:
NAME NATURE OF INTEREST
Tenneco West, Inc. Mineral rights below ~ depth
(Formerly Kern County Land Co.) of 500 feet with no right of
surface entry.
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Gas Pipeline easement holder
recorded in Book 4704, Page
625, O. R.
The Clerk of this Council is directed to endorse upon
the face of said map a copy of this order authenticated by the
Seal of the Council of the City of Bakersfield and the Mayor is
authorized to execute the Contract and Specifications for the
improvements in said Tract No. 3624.
Bakersfield, California, August 21, 1972 - Page 13
Quitclaim Deeds from City of Bakers-
field to William A. Howell, Jr. and
Genevieve M. Howell, and to Jack I.
Straus and Robert K. Straus approved
for recordation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Quitclaim Deeds from
City of Bakersfield to William A. Howell, Jr. and Genevieve M.
Howell, and to Jack I. Straus and Robert K. Straus, surviving
trustees of the trust under Article XII of the will of Jesse
Isadore Straus were approved for recordation, and the Mayor was
authorized to execute same on behalf of the City.
Hearings.
This was the time set for public hearing before the
Council on Resolution of Intention No. 875 of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield declaring its intention to order the vacation
of a portion of Auburn Street, in the City of Bakersfield. Notices
of Vacation have been posted in the area as prescribed by ordinance.
This action was initiated by the City.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections being received, the public
hearing was closed for Council deliberation and action. Upon a
motion by Councilman Rees, Resolution No. 50-72 of the Council of
the City of Bakersfield ordering the vacation of a portion of Auburn
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
Council on the initiated action by the Planning Commission for
street name change as follows: That portion designated as West
Monterey Street between the intersection of Espee Street and West
Niles Street and Union Avenue be changed to Espee Street.
9O
Bakersfield, California~ August 21~ 1972 - Page 14
At a public hearing held July 19, 1972, the Planning
Commission considered two street name alternatives: That Espee
Street and West Monterey Street between "Q" Street and Union
Avenue be changed to West Monterey Street; or that portion desig-
nated as West Monterey Street between the intersection of Espee
Street and West Niles Street and Union Avenue be changed to Espee
Street.
As a result of this public hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of the proposal for street name change of:
That portion designated as West Monterey Street between the inter-
section of Espee Street and West Niles Street and Union Avenue be
changed to Espee Street.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections being received, the public
hearing was closed for Council deliberation and action. Upon a
motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance No. 2040 New Series
changing the name of West Monterey Street to Espee 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
Council on application by D. LeMons to amend the Zoning Boundaries
from an R-2-D and R-3-D to an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) or more
restrictive, Zone, and to an R-2-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling -
Architectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone, affecting that
certain property located on the southwest corner of Akers Road and
Planz Road. This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and
notices sent to property owners as prescribed by ordinance.
The applicants wish to readjust the existing zoning on
this property to meet their proposed development plan for the
parcel. They will be reducing the existing R-3-D (5.2 acres) to
R-2-D and readjusting the boundary between the existing R-1 and
R-2-D zones. The net result will be 16.37 acres o£ R-2 which will
allow a maximum of 285 units. The existing maximum allowed under
present R-3 and R-2 would be 358 units. The overall density is
Bakersfield, California, August 21, 1972 - Page 15
lower and the Planning Commission recommends approval of the zone
change as submitted.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections being received, the public
hearing was closed for Council deliberation and action.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No.
2041 New Series amending Title Sevenfeen of the Municipal Code of
the City of Bakersfield by changing fhe Land Use Zoning of that
certain property in the City of Bakersfield located on the south-
west corner of Akers Road and Planz Road, was adopted by the
~ollowing 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 appeal by Mary Addington to the decision of the Board
of Zoning Adjustment denying her application for a Conditional Use
Permit £or the purpose of permitting the operation and maintenance
of a restaurant including the sale o~ beer and wine when served
together with and incidental to the serving of food in a C-1
(Limited Commercial) Zone pursuant to Section 17.64.020 of the
Bakersfield Municipal Code, affecting that certain property commonly
known as 1656 Oak Street. This hearing has been duly advertised
and notices sent to property owners in the area as prescribed by
ordinance.
The applicant, a restaurant operator, has applied for a
Conditional Use in a C-1 Zone for the "on sale" of beer and wine
to be served with the serving of food to patrons.
At the public hearing held July 25, 1972, the Board of
Zoning Adjustment received several letters in opposition to the
Conditional Use Permit; two property owners also appeared in
opposition to the proposal.
At the conclusion of the public hearing the Board found
that the neighbors are not amenable to this application for a
Conditional Use Permit and therefore denied the request.
92
Bakersfield, California, August 21, 1972 - Page 16
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation, and asked those persons who wished to speak in opposition
to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to address the Council..
No protests or objections were received from anyone in the audience.
Mayor Hart then asked if there were persons in the
audience who wished to speak in favor of granting the Conditional
Use Permit. Mrs. Penny Castro, 3026 - 16th Street, stated that
she and a number of her neighbors were in favor of the granting of
the Permit.
Mrs. Mary Addington, the applicant, filed petitions with
the City Clerk containing several hundred names and three letters,
requesting that her application for a Conditional Use Permit be
granted. She stated that no hard liquor would be sold and there
would be no bar in operation. Before she was able to obtain a
license for serving beer and wine, she was thoroughly screened,
fingerprinted and investigated by the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Board. Her establishment will continue to operate from 10 A.M.
to 10 P.M. and closed on Sunday.
Mayor Hart closed the public hearing for Council delibera-
tion and action. Councilman Medders read a letter signed by Mr.
and Mrs. Harlan Van Alstyne, 1640 Olive Street, expressing strong
opposition to the granting of the permit stating it would attract
an undesirable element to the neighborhood and i~crease law enforce-
ment problems. Also, according to the law, Mrs. Addington's place
of business could keep open until 2 A.M.
Councilman Bleecker stated that he has received a number
of telephone calls opposing the granting of the permit and none in
favor of it. This restaurant is in his ward and if the establish-
ment is permitted to sell beer and wine, he is concerned with the
impact on the neighborhood. Also, it is his understanding that the
permit will remain with the property, and if Mrs. Addington should
sell the property, another tenant could operate until 2 A.M. He
submitted a petition containing 65 signatures of persons residing
in the general neighborhood objecting to wine and beer being sold
close to residences and to the elementary school, and opposed to
the granting of the Conditional Use Permit.
93
Bakersfield, California, August 21, 1972 - Page 17
Councilman Bleecker stated there are enough people opposed
to the granting of the Conditional Use Permit to justify the Council
upholding the action of the Board of Zoning Adjustment in denying
the Conditional Use Permit.
Considerable discussion ensued, and the City Attorney
was asked to explain the intent of the ordinance permitting the
sale of beer and wine in a C-1 Zone.
Councilman Heisey commented that he feels the Council is
overlooking one important point. Every business has certain rights,
but the people in the neighborhood have an overriding right, they
have established their homes and relied on the zoning being main-
tained that was present when they purchased their homes and raised
their families. A~y time a significant number of people express
opposition to a change in zoning, their wishes should be respected.
Councilman Whittemore pointed out that Oak Street is a
highly traveled, commercial street and he doesn't think this
restaurant will add to the noise, dust, or increase traffic. If
an undesirable situation arises, the State Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board can cancel the license at any time. He feels it would
be an injustice to Mrs. Addington if the Council reads something
into her business which doesn't actually exist, the decision this
evening should be based on her application, not on something which
may happen in the future.
Councilman Rees stated that if he were convinced that the
preponderance of the immediate neighbors were opposed to this, he
would side with them. However, he is going to have to base his
judgment upon what he saw when he inspected Mrs. Addington's
premises, and he is inclined to think that Mrs. Addington is running
a legitimate restaurant, and there is no prospect of it becoming
an undesirable hangout for beer and wine drinkers.
Councilman Thomas stated that he believes Mrs. Addington
is running a respectable restaurant, and he feels that:the people
in the neighborhood have been misinformed. He would be in favor
of granting the Conditional Use Permit.
94
Bakersfield, California, August 21, 1972 - Page 18
Councilman Bleecker stated
many people who are opposed to
who have spoken do not live in
circumstances.
that he has
this. Several of
this area and are
talked to a great
the Councilmen
not aware of the
Councilman Rucker commented that he feels Mrs. Addington
will probably operate a business which most of the neighbors will
accept and will do a good job.
Councilman Medders stated the people who live in the
neighborhood have a right to express their opposition to a business;
being operated close to them which serves beer and wine.
Mrs. Jill Haddad was recognized by Councilman Thomas and
endorsed the application of Mrs. Addington~ pointing out that there
are many other restaurants in the area serving beer and wine with
food.
Councilman Bleecker stated that he felt the Council
should consider what is best for the people residing in the
immediate neighborhood and then moved adoption of Zoning Resolutior,
denying the Conditional Use Permit.
After Council comments relative to their vote on this
issue, Councilman Bleecker's motion failed to carry as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders
Noes: Councilmen Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: None
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Zoning Resolution
No. 239 granting Conditional Use Permit to permit the operation and
maintenance of a restaurant including the sale of beer and wine
when served together with and incidental to the serving of food on
that certain property commonly known as 1656 Oak Street, was
adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders
None
Bakersfield, California, August 21, 1972 - Page 19
95
Councilman Bleecker commented that since several Council-
men found it necessary to explain why they were voting the way they
did, they must have had some compunction at one time or another
this evening to vote another way. He thinks that what the Council
has done is to completely overlook a potentially bad situation
which could arise without any further control from the Council.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:10 P.M.
ersfield,
Calif.
ATTEST:
of the City of Bakersfield, California
96
Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1972
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of
the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M., September 11, 1972.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Kenneth
Adams of the First Methodist Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Heisey,
Thomas,
Absent: Councilman Bleecker
Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Whittemore
Minutes of the regular meeting of August 21, 1972 were
approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mrs. Edna Buster, 2009 California Avenue spoke on Senate
Bill 2007. It spells out the would be sovietization of our American
children and is a prototype of all successive bills on that subject.
While the comprehensive child development program on SB 2007 would
have provided the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare with
legal authority to assume almost dictatorial powers over America's
children, House Resolution 1235 divided the powers between the
Director of OEO and the Secretary of HEW. This proposed facility
at California Avenue Park may appeal to some as a benevolent grant
with Federal and State aid, but in truth, these child care control
laws are sharpened on the poor families. Finalized, the law will
affect all children. The scheme is to destroy our family life for
communal living, destroy all sanctity of the home life and let the
government agents dictate what should make the child a worthy
citizen. This sudden clamor for enactment of child development,
child advocacy and child day care centers comes in the wake of
two reports. These two reports are the Joint Commission on Mental
Health of Children, and the White House Conference on Children.
Mrs. Buster then read recommendations of the White House Conference
on Children for the Nuclear Family.
97
Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1972 - Page 2
Mr. Don Whipple, 1408 West Point Drive stated he was a
layman in the areas of geology and hydraulic engineering and just
a taxpayer who is seeking the least expensive and best method for
the extra supply of water we all need. He asked why it was necessary
to build a cross county canal to bring water to urban Bakersfield
when so much water already runs right through the center of the
area.
We are told that we are running out of ground water; yet
geologists have said that urban Bakersfield sits astride one of the
finest natural water reservoirs in the world. The Oil and Gas
Field Maps and Data Sheets published by the Division of Oil & Gas,
State of California, shows that fresh water in much of the urban
Bakersfield area extends down 3,000 feet and more and questioned
why that water table is not being allowed to .replenish itself.
The timing of this Special Election, and the big rush
for voter approval, raises some questions. The General Election,
with its assured large voter turnout would give this measure a
larger number of voters to decide the issue.
too important to be decided by anything less
possible number of voters.
Councilman Heisey stated
had waited until the eleventh hour
This issue is much
than the greatest
he was sorry that Mr. Whipple
to bring up these questions
instead of calling him at the office or coming to one of the
meetings during the past six years. Why bring 77,000 acre feet
of water to Bakersfield when we have a river flowing past our City
is a question frequently asked. Our problem is that we need addi-
tional water, supplemental water in our area in order to stabilize
our ground water basin. Merely taking the water from the Kern
River and giving it to the people of the City of Bakersfield or
our urban area doesn't bring anymore water into the area. We need
additional water and the voters of our County and this area agreed
that we needed it when we adopted the State Project some ten or
fifteen years ago. We are assessed whether we use it or not, so
it is foolish to leave the water there and not be able to get it
here where we can get some economic benefit from it.
98
Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1972 - Page 3
Mrs. Elizabeth Van Alstyne stated she was unable to
attend the hearing in which the Council granted to Mary Addington
a Conditional Use Permit to permit the operation and maintenance
of a restaurant including the sale of beer and wine at 1656 Oak
Street, and wanted to thank the Councilmen who were opposed to
the granting of this Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Tim Harris, 18311nyo Street, stated the refuse bill
mailed in June, due to previous occupants having moved, was not
received until July 6th. He contacted the Refuse Department and
explained to them that the City had not picked up any refuse,
that their refuse was being disposed of in the County dump at
Frazier Park, and was told that an investigator would be assigned
to the case. On August 24, two additional bills, for eleven dollars,
were received and Mr. Harris contacted the Treasurer's office, read
the City Ordinance governing refuse billing and was told that this
is a User-Pay Ordinance. He stated that all of their refuse has
been disposed of in the Frazier Park County Dump, they do not
qualify as users. In this instance, there is no health hazard
which was the primary reason for making it all inclusive.
City Attorney Hoagland stated the Ordinance does not
allow the residents of the City of Bakersfield to handle their own
refuse. We have had discussions, on many occasions, relative to
the chaos that would be prevalent if we allowed each individual
to determine whether they use the service of refuse collection or
not.
Mr.
Ordinance was
Harris asked Mr. Hoagland if it were true that the
constructed in its form, as a deterrent against
hazardous conditions. Mr. Hoagland replied that it was both a
revenue and police power ordinance.
Councilman Heisey stated the City has kept its part of
the bargain, for $2.00 per month, a garbage truck was sent to your
door two or three times a week, whether you had rubbish to be picked
up or not. What you did with your rubbish is up to you and has
nothing to do with the moral right of the ordinance.
Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1972 - Page 4
Councilman Whittemore stated that the Council has listened
to your problem and Mr. Hoagland has attempted to explain it as far
as legality is concerned and there have been many other cases the
Council has listened to the past few months, all bringing up
different situations. The refuse collection charge has been eli-
minated, effective the 15th day of September, 1972.
Mr. Harris said, then there is nothing at this time that
I can do about the refuse bill I have on hand.
Councilman Rucker suggested the City investigate Mr.
Harris' case, to see if an exception could be made.
Director of Public Works Bidwell explained that the
Ordinance is very explicit, there are no exceptions to the minimum
charge.
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, communication from
Richard Hosking stating that his property has been re-assessed
upwards one-third again of its former cash value, and requested
that the tax rate be reduced at least 80 cents, was received and
placed on file.
Communication from the Department of Intercollegiate
Athletics, California State College, Bakersfield requesting that
funds be appropriated for additional lighting at the Civic
Auditorium for the televising of their basketball games, referred
to the Auditorium-Recreation Committee for study and recommendation.
Council Statements.
Councilman Heisey said he would like to say a word of
thanks and appreciation to
Water Bond Election.
all of the news media in promoting the
Reports.
Councilman Whittemore, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee read a report on Executive
Salaries, making specific salary recommendations and recommendation~
of the necessary budget transfers. This Ordinance was considered
given first reading.
100
Bakersfield, California, September ll, 1972 - Page 5
Councilman Whittemore read a report of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee on Refuse Collection Ordinance.
The repeal by Ordinance No. 2023 New Series, which is effective
September 15, 1972 eliminates all regulations regarding refuse
collection, including the user-pay provisions. The Emergency
Ordinance is basically the same as the repealed ordinance, how-
ever, the user-pay provisions have been deleted and some minor
changes have been added, such as the size and shape of the standard
containers, requirements allowing dirt which is incidental to
rubbish, such as weeds, leaves and grass, to be placed in recep-
tacles as long as it does not exceed the maximum weight limit.
Also a provision has been included requiring the collector to pick
up items or rubbish, such as cardboard boxes, from single family
residents. The section of the ordinance, which provides a charge
for hand handling and other special services has been retained.
The Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee has
studied this Emergency Ordinance in detail and would recommend its
adoption effective September 15, 1972. It was moved by Councilman
Rees that Governmental Efficiency Report on Refuse Collection be
approved and Emergency Ordinance No. 2042 New Series was adopted
by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker~ Thomas~
Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Bleecker
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 541 to 701
inclusive, in amount of $132,517.78.
(b) Plans and Specifications for Paving
Lennox Avenue and Wilson Road.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a) and (b)
of the Consent Calendar was by the following vote:
Ayes: Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Noes:
Absent:
adopted
Councilmen Heisey, Medders,
Whirremote
None
Councilman Bleecker
101
Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1972 - Page 6
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, low bid of Griffith
Company for Paving Vernal Place between Richland Street and Kern
Island Canal was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the
Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, low bid of Wally
Tucker Datsun for two small pickups (Turf Trucks for Park Division)
was accepted, and all other bids were rejected.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, bid of Halprin
Supply Co. for Fire Department Breathing Air Compression and
Purification System was accepted, and the other bid rejected.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, bid of Valley GM
Diesel for Replacement Diesel Engine for Fire Truck was accepted,
and all other bids were rejected.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, bid of L-Tron for
Auditorium Sound System Renovation was accepted.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, bid of James C.
Packer for construction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe Culvert at
Stine Canal and New Stine Road was accepted, all other bids were
rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 14.04.340 (d) of
Chapter 14.04 of the Municipal Code,
concerning Self-Service Gas Stations.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 14.04.340 (d)
of Chapter 14.04 of the Municipal Code, concerning Self-Service
Gas Stations.
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
No. 878 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, declaring
its intention to order the vacation
of a portion of "K" Street between
Truxtun Avenue and 17th Street, in
the City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Resolution of Inten-
tion No. 878 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California,
declaring its intention to order the vacation of a portion of "K"
102
Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1972 - Page 7
Street between Truxtun Avenue and 17th Street, in the City of
Bakersfield, and setting date of October 2, 1972 for hearing on
the matter before the Council was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Bleecker
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
No. ~879 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, declaring
its intention to order the vacation
of a Sewer Easement in Block 38 of
Southern Addition, in the City of
Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Resolution of
Intention No. 879 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield,
California, declaring its intention to order the vacation of a
Sewer Easement in Block 38 of Southern Addition, in the City of
Bakersfield, and setting date of October 2, 1972 for hearing on
the matter before the Council, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Bleecker
Resolution of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield amending Resolution No.
57-71 creating Citizens Advisory Com-
mittee to Kern Cog and appointing the
members thereof, deferred for two weeks.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Resolution No. 57-71
creating Citizens Advisory Committee to Kern Cog and appointing
members thereof, deferred for two weeks.
Appointment of voting representatives
for voting at the business sessions
to be conducted at the Annual League
of California Cities Conference in
Anaheim.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Mayor Hart was desig-
nated as voting representative and Vice-Mayor Whittemore as the
alternate voting representative for voting at the business sessions
of the Annual League of California Cities Conference to be held in
Anaheim on October 15-18, 1972.
103
Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1972 Page 8
Adoption of Resolution No. 52-72 of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield
approving and authorizing the execution
of the contract for an Open-Space Land
Program Grant from. the U.S. Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Resolution No.
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield approving and
the contract for an Open-Space Land
Department of Housing and Urban
52-72
authorizing the execution of
Program Grant from the U.S.
Development, and approval of transfer of necessary funds, was
adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Bleecker
Approval of Agreement with Pacific
Gas & Electric Company for electric
extension and service at Patriots
Park.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Agreement with
Pacific Gas and Electric Company for electric extension and
service at Patriots Park was approved.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Medders, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 P.M.
~ ~nerc~ty of' Bakersflela,
Calif.
ATTEST:
MARIAN S. IRVIN
CITY C~MRK and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Council
of thelCity of Bakersfield, California
CITY CLE"K'S ASSISTANT
104
Bakersfield, California, September 18, 1972
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of
the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M., September 18, 1972.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Councilman Heisey.
The City Clerk called the roll as £ollows:
Present:
Absent:
Mayor Hart.
None
Minutes
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whitfemore
of the regular meeting of September 11, 1972
were approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. Francis Moore, Finance Chairman,
of the Citizens for
Water Committee stated this committee spent several months studying
the problem, preparing factual material and planning a campaign to
educate the public as to the necessity of passing the Bond Election,
and was happy to report their campaign resulted in a successful
vote on September 12, 1972.
The Water Committee made a commitment to the public that
the least expensive method of implementing this project would be
used.
During the course of the campaign it was expressed
several times that they felt a separate engineering firm should be
used for this urban project. The Kern County Water Agency and their
Engineering Consultants are experts in agricultural projects. Many
urban people expressed a desire to see a firm employed locally.
Several of the participating entities have said they
intend to file an objection to the awarding of the contract to the
present Kern County Water Agency engineering firm without opening
the contract to other qualified engineering firms. At least two
of these entities, Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District and
the North of the River Municipal Water District, have already filed
letters with the Kern County Water Agency.
105
Bakersfield, California, September 18, 1972 - Page 2
Mr. Moore requests the City Council to adopt a resolution
requesting the Kern County Water Agency to employ, as the engineer-.
ing firm, a firm who has a local office in the area and who is
familiar with local problems and has some experience in municipal
and industrial water problems and designs.
Councilman Heisey said he would like to pay tribute to
the Citizens Committee, particularly the three gentlemen who carried
the bulk of the planning and built the spark that made the entire
project work and they, of course, are Francis Moore, Ralph Zellers
and Fred Morris. They did an outstanding job and we are very
grateful. Councilman Heisey then moved that the Mayor be authorized
to send letters of appreciation to all of the members of the com-
mittee that worked so diligently on this matter.
Councilman Heisey said in regards to the comments about
the engineering firm, many of us, have been rather unhappy with
the performance of Leeds, Hill and Jewerr and was assured by the
Manager of the Kern County Water Agency that they would not auto-
matically make an award of these contracts to Leeds, Hill & Jewerr,
but would first take them to the Advisory Committee, which is com-
posed of all of the entities participating in these projects. These
entities would make a recommendation to the board prior to any action.
With this assurance the need to pass a resolution is questioned.
Mr. Hoagland stated that there will be a meeting very
shortly with the Water Committee, California Water Service Company
and other members of the Advisory Committee and advised against any
action until after the meeting.
Motion made by Councilman Heisey carried unanimously.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 702 to 786
inclusive, in amount of $43,852.45.
(b)Sewer Line Easement Deed from Stock-
dale Development Corporation.
(c) Sewer Line Easement Deed from State
of California, Department of Public
Works.
106
Bakersfield, California, September 18, 1972 - Page 3
(d) and
vote:
Ayes:
(d)
(e)
Street Right of Way Deed from Stockdale
Development Corporation for a portion
of Wilson Road, located west of New
Stine Road and north of Courtleigh Drive.
Application for Encroachment Permit
from Cecillia McCracken, 1201 Terrace
Way.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b), (c),
(e) of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the following
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey,
Lease of City owned
real property and building on 17th Street between "K" and "L"
Streets, to the organization known as Youth for Christ, Campus
Life, to be used as a Halloween Scare House known as "Scream in
the Dark" for the period beginning September 19th and ending
November 6, 1972, was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to
execute the contract.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2043 New
Series of /he Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Section 14.04.340(d)
of Chapter 14.04 of the Municipal Code,
concerning Self-Service Gas Stations.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Ordinance No. 2043 New
Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section
14.04.340(d) of Chapter 14.04 of the Municipal Code, concerning
Self-Service Gas Stations, was adopted by the following roll call
vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomasp Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
:107
Bakersfield, California, September 18, 1972 - Page 4
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2044 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Section 3.18.060
of the Municipal Code of the City of
Bakersfield, concerning Salary Schedules.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance No. 2044
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Sec-
tion 3.18.060 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield,
concerning Salary Schedules, was adopted by the following roll
call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Whittemore
Noes: Councilmen Medders, Rucker, Thomas
Absent: None
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2045 New
Series approving annexation of a
parcel of uninhabited territory to
the City of Bakersfield, California,
designated as "Union Avenue No. 5,"
and providing for the taxation of
said territory to pay the bonded
indebtedness of said City.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No.
2045 New Series approving annexation of a parcel of uninhabited
territory to the City of Bakersfield, California, designated as
"Union Avenue No. 5~' and providing for the taxation of said terri-
tory to pay the bonded indebtedness of said City, was adopted by
the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Approval of Contract between the City
of Bakersfield and Greater Bakersfield
Chamber of Commerce for the service of
advertising the City and promoting the
industrial development of the City.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Contract between the
City of Bakersfield and the Greater Bakersfield Chambe'r of Commerce
for the service of advertising the City and promoting the industrial
development of the City, was approved and the Mayor was authorized
to execute same.
108
Bakersfield, California, September 18, 1972 - Page 5
Approval of Contract between the City
of Bakersfield and the Greater Bakers-
field Chamber of Commerce providing
for the operation of a Convention
Bureau.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Contract between the
City of Bakersfield and the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
providing for the operation of a Convention Bureau, was approved
and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
First reading of an Ordinance amending
Chapter 13.56 of, and adding Chapter
13.68 to, Title 13 of the Municipal
Code, concerning Building and Con-
struction Regulations and Standards;
adopting by reference the Uniform
Electrical Code, 1971 Edition and
National Electrical Code, 1971 Edition;
and adopting by reference the Uniform
Building Codes Accumulative Supplement,
1972.
It was moved by Councilman Bleecker, that an Ordinance
amending Chapter 13.56 of, and adding Chapter 13.68 to, Title 13
of the Municipal Code, concerning Building and Construction Regu-
lations and Standards; adopting by reference the Uniform Electrical
Code, 1971 Edition and National Electrical Code, 1971 Edition; and
adopting by reference the Uniform Building Codes Accumulative
Supplement, 1972, be considered given first reading, that the City
Clerk be instructed to publish Notice of Hearing in the Bakersfield
Californian for two successive weeks, and that date of hearing to
consider adoption of said ordinance be set for 8:00 P.M., October
30, 1972.
Adoption of Resolution No. 53-72 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field making application to the
Office of Procurement, Department
of General Services, State of Cali-
fornia, to purchase Credit Card
Services.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Resolution No. 53-72
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making application to
the Office of Procurement, Department of General Services, State
of California, to purchase Credit Card Services, was adopted by
the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, September 18, 1972 - Page 6
109
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
No. 880 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield declaring its intention
to order the vacation of a Public
Service Easement in Tract No. 2268
between Lots 21 and 22.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution of
Intention No. 880 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield,
California, declaring its intention to order the vacation of a
Public Service Easement in Tract No. 2268 between Lots 21 and 22
in the City of Bakersfield, and setting the date of October 30,
1972 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
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
No. 881 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield declaring its intention
to order the vacation of a portion
of Inyo Street in the City of Bakers-
field.
Upon a molion by Councilman Heisey, ResoLution of
Intention No. 881 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield,
California, declaring its intention to order the vacation of a
portion of Inyo Street, in the City of Bakersfield, and setting
the date of October 30, 1972 for hearing on the matter before the
Council was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Nedders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 54-72 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field to include a Professional
Photography Studio to the list of
permitted uses in a C-O (Professional
Office) Zone.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Resolution No. 54-72
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield to include a Professional
Photography Studio to the list of permitted uses in a C-O (Professional
110
Bakersfield, California, September 18, 1972 - Page 7
Office) Zone, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 55-72 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field to include, a Travel Agency to
the list of permitted uses in the
C-O (Professional Office) Zone.
of
Agency
Office)
Ayes:
Rucker,
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Resolution No. 55-72
the Council of the City of Bakersfield to include a Travel
to the list of permitted uses in the C-O (Professional
Zone, was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 56-72 of.
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field approving request of San Joaquin
Community Hospital for an Emergency
Ambulance Helicopter Landing Pad
(Hellstop) on roof of new hospital
facility and finding that benefits
of Hellstop outweigh adverse effects
and environment.
Councilman Whittemore stated that the proposal for the
Helistop on the roof of the San Joaquin Community Hospital located
at 2615 Eye Street was presented to Kern-Cog, and at that time it
was understood that there was to be a study made relative to any
interference with the television and radio stations north of it
and the telephone company facilities located at 20th and Eye Streets,
and asked if the study had been completed.
Mr. Adrain Pasqaini~ an employee of Ernest McCoy, Archi-
tect, stated in regards to the question as to whether the television
and radio stations and telephone company have been notified, he was
informed by a Mr. Wetdell of the Department of Aeronautics in
Sacramento that it would be their responsibility to contact these
companies. The City Council is required to approve the plan for
its construction prior to submitting an application for its con-
struction to the State Department of Aeronautics.
Bakersfield, California, September 18, 1972 - Page 8
111
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
After further discussion, it was moved by Councilman
Bleecker that Resolution No. 56-72 of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield approving request of San Joaquin Community Hospital
for an Emergency Ambulance Helicopter Landing Pad (Hellstop) on
roof of new hospital facility and finding that benefits of Heli-
stop outweigh effects to environment, was adopted subject to the
condition that the approach and take-off pattern for the Hellstop
are not oriented to the Westchester residential area, and subject
to final determinations of the Federal Aviation Administration
respecting any adverse effect on the environment. This motion
carried by the following vote:
Bleecke~ Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Councilmen
None
None
Upon
Adoption of Resolution No. 57-72 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field, California, providing for the
Sewage Dumping from Sewage Pumping
Trmcks.
a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution No. 57-72
of the Ceuncil of the City of Bakersfield, California,
for the Sewage Dumping from Sewage Pumping Trucks, was
the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Whittemore
Ayes:
Thomas,
Noes: None
Absent: None
Hearings.
This was the time set for public hearing before
on Resolution of Intention No. 876 of the Council
providing
adopted by
the
Council of the
City of Bakersfield declaring its intention to order the vacation
of the Alley in Block 190, in the City of Bakersfield. Notices of
vacation have been posted in the area as prescribed by Ordinance.
This action was initiated by the City.
112
Bakersfield, California, September 18, 1972 - Page 9
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections being received, the public
hearing was closed for Council deliberation and action. Upon a
motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No. 58-72 of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield ordering the vacation of the alley in
Block 190, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
This was the time set for public hearing before the
Council on Resolution of Intention No. 877 of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield declaring its intention to order the vacation
of Public Utilities Easements in Lot 46 of Tract 2783 and Lot 7
of Tract 2957, City of Bakersfield. Notices of vacation have been
posted in the area as prescribed by ordinance. This action was
initiated by John Deeter.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections being received, the public
hearing was closed for Council deliberation and action. Upon a
motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution No. 59-72 of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield ordering the vacation of Public Utilities
Easements in Lot 46 of Tract 2783 and Lot 7 of Tract 2957, City of
Bakersfield, 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
Council on appeal by Errol Harris to the decision of the Board of
Zoning Adjustment granting his application for a modification of
an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to permit the elimination of
the required ten-foot side street yard setback for construction of
Bakersfield, California, September 18, 1972 - Page 10
I13
a six-foot fence affecting that certain property commonly known
as 2230 "B" Street. This hearing has been duly advertised and
notices sent to property owners in the area as prescribed by
Ordinance.
At the public hearing held August 8, 1972, the Board of
Zoning Adjustment granted the application for modification with
the condition that curb and gutter be installed to City Standards
along 23rd Street, driveway approach on 23rd Street be paved to
City Standards and fence to have a ten-foot diagonal cut-off.
Mayor Hart declared the public hearing open for public
participation.
The applicant stated he was opposed to the conditions
imposed in the granting of the modification. He doesn't feel that
curb and gutters are necessary since there are no other curb and
gutters in the area, there are no other driveways paved to City
Standards. In regards to the safety regulation that there be a
10-foot diagonal cut-off on the fence adjacent to the garage, the
applicant stated that there wasn't 10-foot of fence there. Any
vehicle backing from the garage is completely visible to the
street.
Councilman Bleecker stated he was in accord with Mr.
Harris' request, particularly in regard to the curb and gutter
and bringing his driveway up to standard, but would like some
explanation regarding the 10-foot diagonal cut-off adjacent to
the garage.
Mr. Bidwell, Director of Public Works, stated it was
strictly a safety factor recommended by the Traffic Authority.
Mayor Hart closed the public hearing at this time for
Council deliberation and action. After discussion Councilman
Bleecker moved for the adoption of the Zoning Resolution granting
the modifications without restrictions.
Bakersfield, California, September 18, 1972 - Page
garage.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent: None
Vote taken
Zoning Resolution No.
Councilman Heisey offered a substitute motion to adopt
Zoning Resolution granting the modification with the restriction
that the fence have a ten-foot diagonal cut-off adjacent to the
This motion failed to carry by the following vote:
Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Councilmen Bleecker, Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
on Councilman Bleecker's motion to adopt
240 granting modification of the Land Use
Zoning of Ordinance of the City of Bakersfield to permit the
elimination of the required ten-foot side street yard setback for
construction of a six-foot fence on that certain property commonly
known as 2230 "B" Street, without restrictions, carried by the
following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: Councilmen Medders, Rees
Absent: None
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, the meeting was
M.
Council,
adjourned at 9:15 P.
MAYOR~~the~Cityo~fBak'ersfield,
Calif.
ATTEST:
MARIAN S. IRVIN
CITY CLE}(~ and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Ul~y Clerk s as~ls~an~
Bakersfield, California, September 25, 1972
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of
the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M., September 25, 1972.
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 Tom Toler of the First 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 September 18, 1972
were approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mrs. Ann Monroe, who resides at 236 North Stine Road,
read a prepared statement relative to salaries of employees and
taxing practices of the City.
Mr. John Smith of Los Angeles, former Middleweight
Champion of California, presented the Council with tickets for
the opening match of professional boxing to be held in the Civic
Auditorium on October 3, 1972. Mr. Smith stated it is planned to
hold boxing matches on a semi-monthly basis at the Auditorium.
of the Council extended their best wishes to Mr. Smith
in his venture to return the sport of boxing to Bakers-
All members
for success
field.
Council Statements.
Councilman Heisey commented on a thank-you card he received
from a Wakayama, Japan, visitor to Bakersfield.
Councilman Rees stated that the Council has been informed
a new schedule of rates has been filed with the City Clerk by the
operator of an ambulance service in the City which are comparable
to the rates allowable in Los Angeles, and he asked the staff if
it is reasonable and proper that Bakersfield ambulance rates should
be tied to Los Angeles rates.
116
Bakersfield, California, September 25, 1972 - Page 2
City Manager Bergen explained that Bakersfield rates
are not necessarily tied to Los Angeles rates, the maximum rates
in Bakersfield would be equivalent to those charged in Los Angeles.
The operators can charge less, and have been doing so, but they
feel an increase is needed at this time. One local company has
already filed its new rates and the other company has notified the
City that it intends to raise its rates accordingly.
Councilman Rees pointed out that applications had been
made to the Council in the past to transport medical patients to
and from convalescent and nursing homes by a type of non-emergency
vehicle such as a station wagon, which would not require patients
to hire an ambulance and pay ambulance rates; however, these appli-
cations were not granted by the Council. He then moved that the
section of the ordinance covering ambulance rates be referred to
the Business Development and Parking Committee for review and
report back to the Council. This motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Rees commented on an emergency in the West-
chester area which occurred some months ago whereby the water
system was contaminated when a pest control insecticide was flushed
into the water system. A report on this matter made by the Kern
County Health Department concluded with a single recommendation
that some statewide legislation was necessary to protect water
users from a similar incident.
Mr. Bergen stated the staff will check with both the
Kern County Health Department and the California Water Service
Company to find out what precautions are being taken at a local
level or if there has been legislation by the State to adequately
control the use of the water system facilities by pesticide operators.
Councilman Rees asked for a report from the staff as he
feels this matter has never been resolved.
Bakers£ield, California, September 25, 1972 - Page 3
117
Councilman Rees stated that there have been many instances
in the area of the Colonel Nichols School and Siemon Park where
small children have been bitten by vicious dogs on their way to
school or while playing in the park. Parents have called him and
expressed concern about what happens to biting dogs and what re-
course they have against vicious animals. He ha~ reviewed the
current dog ordinances with the City Attorney's staff and they have
come to the conclusion that the terminology in the City's current
ordinances is obsolete. He moved that the City Attorney's staff
be requested to review the City's animal ordinance with particular
reference to biting~ vicious dogs and submit a report and recom-
mendation back to the Council. This motion carried unanimously.
Reports.
Councilman Rees, Chairman of the Budget Review and Finance
Committee~ reported this Committee has been informed by the Kern
Community College District that additional parking must be acquired
if the State is to fund their portion of the proposed downtown
center of Bakersfield College to be developed at 21st Street and
Chester Avenue.
The City owns two blocks within a 3-block radius of the
proposed development and as the District will be submitting its
final preliminary planning package to the State this week, it is
requesting the Council to assure the California Community College's
office by letter that such parking area will be available.
Therefore~ this Committee is recommending that the City
Council request the Mayor to send the attached letter which out-
lines the following facts:
1. The City is aware of the District's parking needs.
2. The City will make space available through negotia-
tions with the District.
3.The City understands such an acquisition will be
made by District funds.
4. Such property for parking will be available on or
before the proposed occupancy date which is now
September l~ 1974~
Councilman Rees moved adoption of the report which carried
unanimously.
11_8
Bakersfield, California, September 25, 1972 - Page 4
Consent Calendar.
The following items were included on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 787 to 922,
inclusive, in amount of $122,572.75.
(b) Street Right of Way Deed from Martin
Pinal for acceptance.
(c) Application for Encroachment Permit
from Standard Oil Company of California.
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, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 60-72 of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Resolution No. 57-71 creating
a Citizens' Advisory Committee to Kern-
Cog and setting forth the membership
thereof.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution No. 60-72
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Resolution No.
57-71 creating a Citizens' Advisory Committee to Kern-Cog and setting
forth the membership thereof, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Sub-Section A (5) and E of
Section 15.04.080 of Chapter 15.04
of the Municipal Code concerning
Mobile Home Park Design.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Sub-Section A (5) and
E of Section 15.04.080 of Chapter 15.04 of the Municipal Code con-
cerning Mobile Home Park Design.
Extension of Time granted Monatley,
Inc. Acceptance of Work and Notice
of Completion for Contract No. 13-72
for Phase One Relocation of Sewer
Main for State Route 58 Freeway.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, the Work was accepted,.
and the Mayor was authorized to execute the Notice of Completion for
Bakersfield~ California, September 25, 1972 - Page 5
119
Contract No. 13-72 for Phase One Relocation of Sewer Main for
State Route 58 Freeway. Thirteen days extension of time was granted
the contractor, Monatley~ Inc.~ due to weather conditions and
delays beyond his control.
Authorization granted to purchase ten
foot strip adjacent to sump located
north of Wilson Road and west of Castro
Lane scheduled to be sold for delinquent
taxes.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, authorization was
granted for City purchase of ten foot strip of property located
north of Wilson Road and west of Castro Lane scheduled to be sold
for delinquent taxes, at a purchase price not to exceed $150.00,
which will provide access to City drainfield in this area. The
Finance Director was authorized to make the necessary transfer of
funds for acquiring this parcel of land.
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council
on Resolution of Intention to include within the Greater Bakersfield
Separation of Grade District a portion of certain territory desig-
nated as "Union Avenue No. 5," This hearing has been duly advertised
and no written protests have been filed in the City Clerk's office.
Vice-Mayor Whirremote 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 Rucker, Resolution No. 61-72 annexing
certain territory designated as "Union Avenue No. 5~" to the
Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District 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
Council on initiated action by the Planning Commission to zone
upon annexation to an MH (Mobile Home), or more restrictive, Zone,
and to a C-2-D (Commercial - Architectural Design), or more
120
Bakersfield, California, September 25, 1972 - Page 6
restrictive, Zone, on those certain properties in the County of
Kern located on the west side of South Union Avenue, approximately
850' south of Pacheco Road, known as Union Avenue No. 5 Annexation.
This hearing was been duly advertised and posted and notices sent
as required by law. No protests or objections have been filed in
the City Clerk's office.
The Planning Commission has reviewed the existing County
Zoning and proposed developments within this annexation and would
recommend approval of the MH (Mobile Home) Zone and C-2-D (Commerci:~l -
Architectural Design) Zone as requested by the property owner.
Vice-Mayor Whirremote 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, Ordinance No. 2046 New Series
amending Section 17.12.020 of Chapter 17.12 (Zoning Map) of the
Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
This is the time set for hearing before the Council for
consideration and conformation of the Report and Assessment List
for abatement of Weeds under Phase I of 1972 Weed Abatement Program.
This hearing was duly posted and notices mailed to all owners of
property on which the nuisance was abated. The City Clerk stated
that three letters had been received from property owners stating
they had either cleaned their parcels themselves or had the work
done. These communications were referred to the Public Works
Department for investigation prior to the Council meeting. Public
Works Director Bidwell stated the claims
four parcels of property questioned have
Assessment List.
Vice-Mayor Whirremote asked Mr.
had been checked out and
been removed from the
Bidwell if he wished to
make any statements regarding the Weed Abatement Program before
the hearing was opened to the public. Mr. Bidwell stated that a
Bakersfield, California, September 25, 1972 - Page 7
considerable amount of effort had been expended in notifying
property owners, sending out certified letters, taking pictures
immediately preceding the removal of the weeds and immediately
after the lot was cleaned.
Vice-Mayor Whittemore declared the hearing open for
public participation. City Attorney Hoagland replied to several
questions posed by Mr. George Webster, 1915 20th Street, regarding
the legality of City enforcement of
abatement of weeds.
No protests or objections
the ordinance regulating the
being received, the
public
Councilmart
Bleecker if at
this incident,
of legislation.
stated
the meeting held with the principals involved in
overtures were made to the State to enact this type
Councilman Bleecker, who
represents the Westchester area,
he couldn't recall whether overtures were made, however, it
hearing was closed for Council deliberation and action.
Heisey moved that the Council confirm the assessments and direct
the City Clerk to file same with the County Recorder. This motion
carried unanimously.
Councilman Heisey commented that the Weed Abatement
Program has improved each year and evidently the community whole-
heartedly endorses it. As no one appeared to express objections
to the assessment on their property, the City is apparently per-
forming a good public service.
Councilman Bleecker remarked that this is the first time
since he has been on the Council that not one property owner
appeared before the Council to express opposition to the assessment
on his property for the abatement of the weeds, which speaks very
well for the Department of Public Works.
Councilman Rees again commented on the Westchester water
contamination incident stating that the Health Officer of the
County of Kern wrote at the conclusion of his report dated May 15,
1972, that it is essential that immediate attention be given to
the enactment of State legislation which would control the type of
equipment used in pressure spray operations. He asked Councilman
Bakersfield, California, September 25, 1972 - Page 8
was made absolutely clear to the local businessman whose equipment
caused the insecticide to back up in the water system, that it was
not to happen again. As far as he knows, legislation has not been
proposed at the State level; however, he feels it would be appro-
priate for a committee of the Council to explore some type of
control or regulation on a local level, and give the State some-
thing to shoot at.
Councilman Heisey asked the City Attorney some questions
regarding the proposed ordinance amending the Municipal Code con-
cerning Mobile Home Park design which was given first reading
tonight.
Councilman Rees stated that one of the parents who is
greatly concerned about the vicious dog question in the College
Heights area told him that the State of Arizona has an animal
control law which is quite effective, and he requested the Attorney's
staff to secure a copy of this law and any recent California laws
for use as reference in updating the City's Dog Ordinance.
Councilman Heisey asked the staff to place an item on
the agenda next week for consideration by the Council, to change
the Council meeting from Monday to Tuesday night.
Councilman Rucker requested the Council to recognize
Charles Reed who lives at 4409 Axminister Street. Mr. Reed stated
that before the Council sends a letter to the College District
regarding auxiliary parking for the downtown college center, it
should take into consideration the fact that parking space could
be essential for the promotion of the downtown area and that the
voters might not be too receptive towards the measure on the
November ballot which would require a bond issue for college
improvement.
Bakersfield, California, September 25, 1972 - Page 9
1o 3
Councilman Whittemore commented that none of the City
property which would be made available to the College District has
any parking value £or the downtown area.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
M YOR o~~yy ~ersfield,
Calif.
ATTEST:
C~N~n~-Officlo Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield~ California