HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCT - DEC 1971Bakersfield, California, October 4, 1971
217
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., October 4, 1971.
to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Gordon
Gilbert of the University Baptist Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of September 20, 1971
were approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. Harvey Means, Attorney representing the California
Republic Bank whose main office is located on the southwest inter-
section of Eye Street and Truxtun Avenue, addressed the Council
relative to a recently adopted ordinance which extended the parking
mall to Truxtun Avenue and would make Eye Street a one-way street
to that point. He stated that the bank is extremely concerned in
that Eye Street becoming a one-way street between Truxtun Avenue
and l?th Street will have an adverse affect upon the bank and many
of the bank's customers, and will create a traffic hazard. He
pointed out that the California Republic Bank has been designated
to cash unemployment vouchers issued by the Department of Human
Resources Development which has resulted in a tremendous increase
in business transacted at the bank and also in traffic into the
bank's off-street parking lot. He asked that the Council rescind
that portion of the ordinance making Eye Street a one-way street
between Truxtun Avenue and l?th Street.
Also voicing opposition was Mr. Ray Griffith, owner and
operator of the Arco Station at the intersection of l?th and Eye
Streets who stated that making Eye Street a one-way street will
virtually close his station. He has already suffered a considerable
decrease in the gallonage pumped at his station due to the present
parking mall.
2t8
Bakersfield~ California, October 4, 1971 - Page 2
Mr. Max Amstutz, President of the Downtown Business
Association, addressed the Council, stating that as previously
indicated to the Council and at the traffic committee meetings,
the Board of Directors of the Downtown Business Association
supported the Bakersfield Police Department and concurred with
the decision of the Traffic Authority to expand the parking mall.
The DBA does not want to jeopardize the future expansion of the
mall, as downtown has experienced an increase in business since
the mall was established.
Councilman Whittemore stated that originally he favored
the downtown mall because it was something the DBA had requested
to increase business. The Council has always assisted businesses
whenever possible; however, he feels that the requests of the two
businesses involved should be studied again by the Business Develop-
merit and Parking Committee before the parking mall is extended to
Truxtun Avenue.
Councilman Bleecker, Chairman of the Business Development;
and Parking Committee, commented that both businesses are in his
ward. He has had only a very brief opportunity to read a report
made by Captain R. O. Price of the Traffic Authority Division
regarding the mall extension which was given to the Council at
the Caucus meeting. He is concerned when two businesses will
apparently suffer if the proposed plan is not modified, and moved
that the matter be referred to the Business Development and Parking'
Committee for study and recommendation back to the Council.
Mr. Bergen advised that the ordinance expanding the mall
has not as yet become effective and implementation of the ordinance
will be held up until after the committee reports back to the
Council. Vote taken on Councilman Bleecker's motion carried
unanimously.
Councilman Heisey moved that the report from Captain R. O.
Price of the Traffic Division regarding the extension of the Mall
be received and ordered placed on file, and copies be made available
to Mr. Means and Mr. Griffith. This motion carried unanimously.
The City Clerk
Ervin Berrigan, in which
appointee to
Correspondence.
read a communication from Mr. and Mrs.
it was stated that Councilman Bleecker's
the Citizens Advisory Committee for Freeway Development,
Bakersfield, California, October 4, 1971 - Page 3
519
Mr. John Fortenberry, had circulated a petition at a PTA meeting
in opposition to the corridor freeway route and therefore should
not be considered unbiased and able to give a fair and impartial
recommendation on a freeway route to the Council.
Councilman Whittemore commented that he would think an
investigation should be made and if this allegation is found to
be true, the appointment to the Citizens Advisory Committee should
be rescinded.
Councilman Bleecker stated that evidently there was a
misunderstanding expressed in the letter of some statement he has
made and also a misunderstanding of action taken by his appointee
to the Freeway Committee. He reminded the Council that on or about
May 19, 1971, he made certain criticisms of the Engineer for the
State of California whose job it was
and around the City of Bakersfield.
Bakersfield Californian "24th Street
to study freeway routes in
Under a headline in the
Freeway Needed", the State
Engineer said "If you don't put a freeway through here, referring
to the 23rd-24th Street corridor, you will have worse problems
than you have today.." Councilman Bleecker stated this statement
by the State Engineer exceeded his authority and prejudiced future
deliberations of the Freeway Committee. The State should not
engage in publicity to support its own pre-conceived route pre-
ferences. He stated that Mr. Fortenberry was present in the
audience and he asked that he be recognized in order to give his
account of what happened at the ice cream social and to advise the
Council of the wording of the petition which is referred to in the
letter from Mr. and Mrs. Berrigan.
Mr. John Fortenberry addressed the Council, stating that
he resides at 2323 Spruce Street and when he attended a PTA Ice
Cream Social recently, the auditorium was already filled and he
was forced to stand outside where he brought up his petition and
his friends and other interested persons affixed their signatures.
He did not go into the PTA meeting and present his petition. At
the time Mr. Bleecker appointed him to the Freeway Committee, he
had no knowledge that Mr. Fortenberry was circulating a petition
in protest to the corridor freeway.
Bakersfield, California, October 4, 1971 - Page 4
He stated that he has opinions regarding the freeway
which are the result of years of study. He had taken this freeway
matter very seriously before he was appointed to the Committee,
and he is still taking it very conscientiously even though the
Committee has not as yet held a meeting. He has spoken to at
least 200 residents whose homes will be taken by the freeway should
it go through the 23rd-24th Street corridor, and to others. He
has tried to educate himself to what the people want, and he has
been educated by the opinions of many other people who are repre-
sentative of the area. Should someone be able to convince him
that the freeway belongs in this area, he will probably change his
opinion, if he felt it were for the good of the City. He has picked
no set route because it is still open to study, and he stressed
that he is not opposed to freeways per se.
the petition he circulated as follows: "We
to express out opposition to a freeway link
corridor connecting the so-called crosstown
He read the text of
the undersigned wish
to the 23rd-24th Street
freeway with Highway
99.
residential and business areas
Mr. Fortenberry went
the 77 homes and 49 businesses
We recommend circumvention of, rather than the destruction of
within our City."
on to say that in order to acquire
in this area which would be required
for the right of way for the freeway, it would cost about
$20,000,000, which would be coming off the tax rolls. It has been
estimated by the State that the total cost of the freeway will be
$208,000,000, which is approximately six times the Bakersfield City
School District taxes for the entire year.
Councilman Thomas asked Mr. Fortenberry if at the time
he was appointed to the Freeway Committee he informed Councilman
Bleecker that he was circulating a petition opposing the freeway.
Mr. Fortenberry stated that he did not believe Mr. Bleecker had
any knowledge of the petition, but he was aware that Mr. Fortenberry
was opposed to the freeway, as he had spoken out in opposition to
the freeway at the City Planning meeting on the proposed freeway
route, where Mr. Bleecker was present.
Bakersfield, California, October 4, 1971 - Page 5
After some additional discussion, Councilman Heisey,
Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee for Freeway Develop-
ment, remarked that a divergence of opinion is necessary, but this
isn't the time or place to hold a freeway hearing, there is a large
Committee appointed for this purpose, and the place to study this
matter is at the Committee level.
Council Statements.
Councilman Heisey commented on a recent feature article
on the City of Bakersfield printed in the "West" Magazine of the
Los Angeles Times, which took a very negative approach, was biased,
derogatory, completely unjusttried, and may have damaged the City's
reputation throughout the State. He complimented the Bakersfield
Californian on its answer to the article and moved that Mayor Hart
direct a letter to the Times Publisher, Mr. Otis Chandler, with
copies to his editors, expressing the indignation of the citizens
of Bakersfield at the scurrilous article printed in his newspaper.
All members of the Council supported this motion, which carried
unanimously.
Councilman Rucker commented that the crossing guard at
Beale and California Avenues has encountered problems with fast
traffic at these locations and requested the City Manager to look
into the possibility of indicating in some manner that there is a
school crossing at these locations in order to slow down the traffic.
He also asked the City Manager to provide signs indicating pedes-
trian crosswalks at the intersections of Clarendon Street and
Ralston Street with Lakeview Avenue.
Councilman Whirremote asked the City Manager to call an
organizational meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee for the
Kern County Council of Governments in the very near future.
Councilman Medders stated that the people living on the
west side of the freeway on that portion of California Avenue
recently annexed to the City are having.problems with Cable TV
reception. Mr. Bergen stated that this area is served by Kern
200
Bakersfield, California, October 4, 1971 - Page 6
Cable Company. Councilman Rucker commented that some of his con-
stituents are also having Cable TV problems and Mr. Bergen stated
he would check into the matter and report back to the Council.
Councilman Thomas commented on a traffic problem existing
at Wilson Road and Castro Lane suggesting that either a signal or
a motorcycle officer be provided at that location.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed under the Consent
Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 856 to 986
inclusive, in amount of $130,278.59.
(b)
Construction Change Order No. 1 to Con-
tract No. 69-71, Construction of Sanitary
Sewer in Belle Terrace and Relocation of
Sanitary Sewer in Summer Tree Lane.
(c)
Construction Change Order No. 1 to Con-
tract No. 31-71 for Improvement of Ming
Avenue between Stine Road and Real Road
and the Paving of Median Islands on New
Stine Road from Stockdale Highway to
Sundale Avenue.
(d)
Acceptance of Work and Notice of Completion
for Contract No. 31-71 for Improvement of
Ming Avenue between Stine Road and Real
Road and the Paving of Median Islands on
New Stine Road from Stockdale Highway to
Sundale Avenue.
(e) Street Right of Way Easement from Stock-
dale Development Corporation.
(f)
Construction Change Order No. 3 for Con-
tract No. 108-70, Construction of Water
Pollution Control Facility (Sewage
Treatment Plant No. 3).
(g) Application for Encroachment Permit from
Robert G. Monson, 1001H Street.
(h)
Street Right of Way Deed from Watson
Realty Company and S. G. E. Investment
Company.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b), (c),
(d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of the Consent Calendar were adopted by
the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, October 4, 1971 - Page 7
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1968 New
Series of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield amending the Municipal
Code of the City of Bakersfield by
amending Sections 11.04.783 (Speed
Limit on Niles Street) and 11.04.784
(Speed Limit on Monterey Street).
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance No. 1968
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending the
Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by amending Sections
11.04.783 (Speed Limit on Niles Street) and 11.04.784 (Speed Limit
on Monterey Street), was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1969 New
Series of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield amending Section
11.04.460 of Chapter 11.04 of Title
11 of the Municipal Code regulating
Traffic in the City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Ordinance No. 1969
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 11.04.460 of Chapter 11.04 of Title 11 of the Municipal
Code regulating Traffic in the City of Bakersfield, was adopted
by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
No. 865 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield declaring its inten-
tion to order the vacation of a
portion of Inyo Street, in the City
of Bakersfield, State of California.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution of Inten-
tion No. 865 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 Bakersfield, State of California, and fixing date of
October 18, 1971 for hearing on the matter before the Council, was
224
Bakersfield, California, October 4, 1971 Page 8
adopted by
Ayes:
the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas~ Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Claim for damages from Mark Anthony,
Simon and Irmalinda Chavez, referred
to the City Attorney.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Claim for damages
from Mark Anthony, Simon and Irmalinda Chavez was referred to the
City Attorney.
90 Day Leave of Absence without Pay
granted J. C. Phillips, Sanitation
Crewman I.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, 90 Day Leave of
Absence without Pay was granted J. C. Phillips, Sanitation Crewman
Adoption of Resolution No. 68-71 of
Application by the Council of the
City of Bakersfield detaching the
recently annexed territory designa-
ted as Brundage No. 2 from the Union
Avenue Sanitation District.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Resolution No. 68-71
of Application by the Council of the City of Bakersfield detaching
the recently annexed territory designated as Brundage No. 2 from
the Union Avenue Sanitation District, was adopted by the following
vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, October 4, 1971 - Page 9
225
Adoption of Resolution No. 69-71
acceptin~ under protest, the Federal-
Aid Urban Street System and requesting
an opportunity to revise the classifi-
cation of streets in the Bakersfield
Area.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Resolution
69-71 accepting, under protest, the Federal-Aid Urban Street
System and
of streets
vote:
Ayes:
NO.
requesting an opportunity to revise the classification
in the Bakersfield area, was adopted by the following
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adjournment.
There being no further business
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Heisey,
adjourned at 9:20 P.M.
to come before the
the meeting was
MAYOR
~Li/~ of~CBak~ers fi
o~/ .... eld, Calif.
ATTEST:
cou c.
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, October 18, 1971
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., October 18, 1971.
to order by Mayor Hart followed
by
Cragg of
the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Kenneth
the Northminster Presbyterian Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart.
Absent: None
Minutes
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
of the regular meeting of October 4, 1971 were
approved as presented.
Presentation of Certificates of
Completion.
Mayor Hart presented Certificates of Completion to
Woodrow J. Laviolette, Bob G. Gibson and Ronald E. Owens, who
have completed a 44-week educational program lot Waste Water
Treatment Plant Operators sponsored by the Environmental Protection
Agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, the City of Visalia
and the Sacramento State College.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mrs. Phyllis Dabbs, who resides at 5200 Ojai Drive,
addressed the Council, stating that she represents the residents,
students, parents, teachers and neighbors in the Eissler Elementary,
Chipman Junior High and Highland High School areas. She pointed
out that Auburn Street between Oswell Street and the three schools
is the only access road to these schools. In order to provide safe
biking to the schools, it will be necessary to improve Auburn Street,
as at the present time there is no paved shoulder, no curbing, and
just enough roadway for auto and bus traffic. She urged the City
Council to initiate action to provide a suitable bikeway on Auburn
Street in order to prevent the children attending the three schools.
from becoming accident statistics.
Councilman Heisey commended Mrs. Dabbs on her excellent
presentation and stated that about six or eight weeks ago the
Bakersf±eld, Cal±forn±a, October 18, 1971 - Page 2
Council directed the staff to make a study of bike lanes, and he
would imagine that the report is about ready for presentation. He
moved that Mrs. Dabbs' comments be received and referred to the
Traffic Authority and that the City Manager give the Council some
indication of the progress made on the study that has been under
preparation for the past several weeks.
Miss Chris Williams, a member of the Highland High School
Executive Council, addressed the Council, stating that she has been
riding her bike to school on Auburn Street for over a year. During
the past year she has been run off the road many times by cars as
well as by school buses. Because Auburn Street is the only access
road to a block of three schools, the students feel that a bikeway
is badly needed. She stated that the Highland Executive Council
has drafted letters to the City Council, the County Board of Super--
visors, the Bakersfield Californian and the News Bulletin, requesting
support for the construction of a bikeway on Auburn Street. She
filed a petition containing the signatures of 1178 persons re-
questing the City Council of the City of Bakersfield to provide
paved bicycle lanes between Oswell and Highland High on both sides
of Auburn Street.
City Manager Bergen stressed the fact that it is not the
responsibility of the City to make street improvements, such as
curb, gutter and sidewalks. This is the responsibility of the
adjacent developer. Unfortunately, the City finds itself with
three schools located a half to three-quarters of a mile within
undeveloped property. To further intensify the problem, no time
table has been set up for development of the area, and the only
access road is Auburn Street which is only partially developed.
The staff agrees that temporary facilities for pedestrians and
bicycles should be provided. The staff has met with the school
officials and has considered several alternatives for providing
for a temporary facility which would allow pedestrian and bicycle
movement on Auburn Street. The present plans are to use oil mix
which will be put down and graded.
Further meetings will be held with the Traffic Authority
and the school officials within the next week or two to make a
final determination on the locations.
2'28
Bakersfield, California, October 18, 1971 - Page 3
Councilman Heisey included in his motion that the comments
from Miss Chris Williams be referred to the Traffic Authority for
study and that the City proceed as outlined by the City Manager.
Councilman Rees stated that he is the Councilman from
the Third Ward where these three schools are located. He is im-
pressed with the interest taken in this matter by the student body
representated by Miss Chris Williams, and he is convinced, after
his conversations with City Manager Bergen and Director of Public
Works Jing, that they are wholeheartedly behind this effort. He
pointed out that the construction of a bikeway is not being done
for the benefit of the developers. It is something that has been
referred to as temporary, but if it works, he is in favor of it.
He congratualted Dr. Dabbs for her excellent presentation, con-
gratulated Miss Williams and her fellow students for obtaining the
signatures on the petitions, and expressed the hope that the City's
efforts will solve the problem satisfactorily.
Vote taken on Councilman Heisey's motion carried unani-
mously.
Mr. Leonard Kranenburg, who resides at 9302 Gladys Street,
addressed the Council, stating that he is the owner of several
apartments on Pacific Street in the City of Bakersfield. He voiced
his opposition to the proposed refuse collection rates to be imposed
on all property in the City of Bakersfield except single family
dwellings. He stated that the charge per month of $2.48, or $29.76
a year, is in excess of the $1.76 a month a single family dwelling
of the same valuation would be required to pay. The apartment
renters will be paying the charge of $1.76 per month plus the
additional charge of $2.48 indirectly through their rent, making a
total of $4.24 per month for refuse collection for one unit, or
240% more for the same, or less service. He feels that the renter
is being penalized for being a renter, that he is going to carry
the biggest part of the load
to retirees on fixed income,
a home, or those who wish to
for refuse collection. This is unfair
to people who cannot financially buy
live in apartments. In other words,
Bakersfield, California, October 18, 1971 - Page 4
generally, people in the lower income brackets will be paying the
higher fees or tax for refuse collection in the City. He feels
that this is a gross inequity and is discriminating to renters.
He stated that if the City wishes to continue in the refuse collec-
tion service, apartments and condominiums should be exempt the same
as the single family dwellings. He suggested that private enter-
prise take over the refuse collection service for the City, that
it charge according to the use, and the City Council collect fees
for franchises and licenses. By adopting this method, the City
could sell its equipment, eliminate tax exempt City yards, put the
money in the general fund and eliminate the 71~ on the present tax
base.
Councilman Heisey stated he concurs that there are some
gross inequities in the present ordinance and the charges currently
being proposed. If it was proposed that everyone who uses the
service, pay for it on a user-pay basis, the inequities and the
opposition would disappear. He moved that Mr. Kranenburg's comments
be referred to the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee
for study and evaluation. This motion carried unanimously.
Correspondence.
Mayor Hart commented that the Council had directed him
to write a letter to the publisher of the Los Angeles Times to
express the indignation of the community with an article in the
September 26, 1971 issue of the "West" magazine which was written
by Mr. Charles T. Powers, staff writer for the paper. He stated
he was seeking the Council's opinion on the possibility of filing
a class action suit against the L. A. Times on behalf of the citizens
of Bakersfield. He read his letter, directed to Mr. Otis Chandler,
publisher of the Los Angeles Times, into the record as follows:
I have been directed by the Council of the City
of Bakersfield to communicate with you and your
staff the displeasure of this community with the
article in your Sunday, September 26, issue of
"West" that referred to Bakersfield in a most
abusive and inaccurate fashion. I am sure that
the lack of integrity displayed by Mr. Powers
and Mr. Salisbury would have sorely troubled
Bakersfield, California, October 18, 1971 - Page 5
Mr. Harrison Gray Otis and Mr. Harry Chandler,
and I cannot believe Mr. Norman Chandler would
have published such a muckraking article inas-
much as his great service to the State and
nation and his desire for honesty and fair
play are widely known. Also, I am reasonably
certain that if you had had full awareness of
the effect and implications of this article
you would not have permitted its publication.
The contributions of this area to the sciences,
to education, to the music world, and to the
economy of this nation leave me secure in the
knowledge that the article is without merit.
I request you and your staff to send into the
area reporters and photographers and ask that
they seek out the truth about the other 99.99%
of the people in this community who were denied
consideration in the article as it was published.
Out local daily newspaper, The Bakersfield
Californian, under the signature of the Managing
Editor, pointed out some of the inaccuracies in
your article, and an editorial in the Friday,
October 1 issue further verifies what I have
stated to you, as well as an editorial in the
semi-weekly Bakersfield News Bulletin (copies
enclosed). I am reasonably sure that the
letter by Mr. Don Fritts, Publishers of The
Bakersfield California, and others that you
have received should impress you with the many
shortcomings involved in the story.
Communications are directed to my office from
people in various parts of this country and in
some instances many areas of the world, one of
the most recent of which refers to "wonderful
Bakersfield and its beautiful people." It seems
rather apropos that I include this phrase in my
letter inasmuch as this is the usual reaction
to this community and its inhabitants.
I wish to add that we are very proud of the
people who over the many years have migrated
into Bakersfield and proven time and again that
here the American dream can come true if you
want to achieve it badly enough to work for it.
I believe that it is this spirit that built this
nation and, God willing, I hope that other per-
sons will come to Bakersfield and that they and
the descendants of these people that Mr. Powers
speaks so mockingly of continue to contribute
their industry and vitality to this City, this
State, and Nation, for without them and their
kind, the people of courage and vision and
determination, this nation would not continue
to prosper, and I am afraid would disappear
from its position of leadership in the world.
On behalf of the citizens of this City and its
Council, I therefore urgently request your
prompt and sufficient publication of the truth
about Bakersfield so as to mitigate to the
extend still possible the damages caused by
your purposeless publication which was so de-
grading and insulting to us all.
Bakersfield, California, October 18, 1971 - Page 6 ~31
In closing might I add that I recall there is
an inscription under the statue of your grand-
father in the lobby of the Times Building that
reads: "He thought great thoughts and did
great things." I feel that this inscription
reflects the thinking of a multitude of people
about the leadership of your family in the
world of journalism. I ask that you bear it
in mind when you consider my request stated in
this letter.
Mayor Hart stated that newspapers are not infallible.
It is the considered opinion of a number of attorneys of this
community that the City has grounds for a class action suit in
behalf of this community. He said that he feels a disservice was
done to Bakersfield by this article in the sense that any organi-
zation considering holding a convention in the City might give it
second thoughts. He does not intend to involve the City Attorney
but does intend to ask the Local Bar Association to appoint a
committee to investigate the feasibility of taking some legal
recourse against the Los Angeles Times in behalf of the citizens
of Bakersfield.
All members of the Council agreed that an injustice has
been done to the City of Bakersfield and commended the Mayor on
the splendid letter he had written to the Los Angeles Times. It
was moved by Councilman Bleecker that a Committee of the Local Bar
Association be asked to investigate this matter and report on the
course of action to be taken by the Council. This motion carried
unanimously.
Mayor Hart requested to be excused from the meeting due
to illness, and Vice-Mayor Whirremote acted as Chairman for the
meeting.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, communication from
Bob Mathias, U.S. Congressman, concerning the construction of
Section 235 and 236 Housing Projects in southwest Bakersfield and
enclosing a copy of a letter recently received from the Acting Area
Director of the Los Angeles Office of HUD on this subject, was
received and ordered placed on file.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, communication from
John D. Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs,
regarding the location of a Space Shuttle Facility at Edwards Air
Force Base, and advice from Mr. Robert Finch's office telephoned
direct from Washington, that he will do all that he can to support
this issue, were received and ordered placed on file.
Bakersfield, California, October 18, 1971 - Page 7
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, communication from
Mr. Milton Miller addressed to the members of the City Council and
members of the Police Department Civil Service Commission, in
connection with a request for hearing under the City Charter, was
received and ordered placed on file.
Council Statements.
Councilman Don Thomas filed three letters and a petition
containing the signatures of 106 property owners and residents on
South Chester Avenue from the 600 block to and including the 1500
block, who stated they want the two way side streets back as they
were before. They believe that with signals at Belle Terrace and
South Chester it would be possible to make a left and/or right
turn onto South Chester from the side streets. They do not want
the islands taken out, as it would be almost impossible to back
out of their driveways with the fast traffic up and down South
Chester Avenue. Councilman Thomas asked Public Works Director
Jing to set up a meeting either in the Council Chambers or at one
of the schools, and have members of the Traffic Authority present
to answer questions, to discuss the matter with the interested
citizens of the area with the idea of working out a solution to
everyone's mutual satisfaction. Mr. Jing stated he would arrange
for a meeting sometime next week after Captain Price returns to
the City.
Councilman Heisey asked the staff to clarify a recent
article printed in the newspaper on Friday, October 15, requiring
the flameproofing of floats entered in parades. It has not been
widely publicized that this was required, and several merchants
who sell this material and specialize in building floats have a
large invenfory on hand for use in the upcoming parades.
City Attorney Hoagland stated he had no knowledge of this
regulation, but he will look into the matter and inform the Council.
Councilman Heisey stated that since no one was aware of the existence
of this rule, enforcement should perhaps be delayed until after the
first of the year. A check with the Fire Marshal revealed that
authority for requiring the fireproofing of flammable materials is
contained in Article 26 of the Uniform Fire Code. It has been
233
Bakersfield, California, October 18, 1971 - Page 8
brought to his attention on October 4, 1971, that many of the floats
entered in parades are in an unsafe condition, and as a result, he
issued an order that required all float decorations to be constructed
of fire resistant materials.
Councilman Heisey moved that this regulation become
effective 30 days from the date this regulation was first broughl
to the attention of the public, and Councilman Whittemore commented
that he agreed with this motion, as this order would have destroyed
the Veteran's Day Parade. However, since it is part of the Fire
Code, it should be enforced within the 30 day period. Vote taken
on Councilman Heisey's motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Medders commented that at times people who
work hard to promote the City and the interests of the Bakersfield
area are overlooked. He would like to take this opportunity to
commend Herman Riese, Director of Recreation, for securing the 1973
AAU Track and Field Meet for Bakersfield. The Committee he repre-
sents has worked diligently for years to put this City on the map,
both nationally and internationally. He extended his congratulations
to Herman Riese for a job well-done.
Reports.
Councilman Keith Bleecker, Chairman of the Business
Development and Parking Committee, read the following report on
the subject of Extension of Downtown Mall and Anti-Peddling
Ordinance.
The Business Development and Parking Committee
recently met with members of the Downtown
Business Association, representatives of the
California Republic Bank, Ray Griffith of
Griffith's Arco Service Station, Captain
Robert Price of the Bakersfield Police Depart-
ment and members of the Administrative Staff
regarding extension of the downtown mall.
After hearing the pros and cons regarding this
extension and the Traffic Engineer's report,
this Committee is recommending that the present
central parking mall ordinance be amended to
implement making a one-way street of 17th
Street going west between Chester Avenue on
the west and "L" Street on the east. "K"
Street will be extended as a one-way street
going north from Truxtun Avenue to 18th Street.
234
Bakersfield, California, October 18, 1971 - Page 9
Because of several problems which would exist
if the mall were extended west of Chester Ave-
nue, this Committee is recommending that further
study be made in this area, including the
possibility of making northbound traffic only
on "L" Street and southbound traffic only on
"K" Street. This Committee would further recom-
mend that the extension of the mall east of
Chester Avenue be implemented promptly, as the
downtown business merchants have indicated that
the Christmas season is soon approaching and this
additional parking would be of great benefit to
them.
In regard to Mayor Hart's request of some months
ago that the Business Development and Parking
Committee look into the feasibility of an anti-
peddling ordinance in residential areas, this
Committee met with the City's Administrative
Staff, Captain Dalley of the Bakersfield Police
Department, representatives of the Downtown
Business Association and a representative from
the Better Business Bureau.
As a regult of this meeting, it is this Committee's
feeling that there is not a need for additional
ordinances at this time regarding this matter,
as the present laws are sufficient to handle
this problem.
Mr. Joe Henley, owner and operator of a photo shop at
1673 Chester Avenue in the downtown area, addressed the Council,
stating that parking in the downtown area has become a very serious
problem,
Chester Avenue. To compete with the outlying areas,
with the mall conditions downtown now, the merchants
borhood need additional and convenient parking along
and he is particularly concerned with the parking west of
and particularly
in his neigh-
the west side
of Chester Avenue and along 17th Street. These businesses feel
that the extension of the parking mall would be of great benefit
to them and would appreciate the plan to extend the parking mall
being put into effect as soon as possible, if necessary on a three
month trial basis. Leaving the parking on 17th Street, is really
the key to the whole situation.
Mr. Ray Griffith of Griffith's Arco Station was asked if
he wished to comment, and he declined to do so stating he had
nothing to add to Mr. Henley's remarks.
Councilman Heisey commented that Mr. Henley's request was
very reasonable and it is most urgent that something be done
immediately for the Christmas season.
Councilman Thomas stated at the Committee meeting he was
opposed to removing the one quadrant only because he was opposed to
Bakersfield, California, October 18, 1971 - Page 10
what it would do to the boundaries, so he was opposed to extending
the mall at that time. He discussed it with the Committee and
agreed to taking out the quadrant on the recommendation of Captain
Price who advised the Committee that it would be wise to either
take out the whole quadrant or leave it in its entirety, as other-
wise it would create a traffic hazard.
Councilman Rucker stated that as a member of the Committee
he attended the meeting. His main concern was for the businesses
on Eye Street who had requested that the parking mall not be extended
to Truxtun Avenue. He also considered those businesses who would
be hurt if the extension of the mall was denied, which has been
supported by Mr. Henley's remarks here tonight. He is concerned
with doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
If this can be done by granting the mall extension, he would vote
in favor of it.
Councilman Medders read a letter from a group of senior
citizens stating that in a discussion at Community House relative
to the present mall in Bakersfield, the enthusiastic negative re-
actions lead the writer to believe that the Council should take
some type of opinion poll among many groups, the older and the
younger.
In a discussion relative to reversing the direction of
parking on the two streets as mentioned, Mr. Jing stated he would
not think there would be time to implement this before the Christmas
season, as all of the existing markings for parking would need to
be removed and new ones painted in.
Councilman Rucker commented that he was opposed to
reversing the direction of parking on the two streets, as he felt
it would be confusing and inconvenient to the public who has become
accustomed to the present mall.
Councilman Rees stated that he feels the Council should
lean heavily on the recommendation of the Committee which has made
a study of this problem, but he is also influenced by the requests
of civic minded businessmen who are interested in the welfare of
downtown and in whom he has complete confidence, therefore he would
move to adopt the mall extension plan as originally presented for a
three month trial period, and have it reevaluated at that time by
the Business Development and Parking Committee.
Bakersfield, California, October 18, 1971 - Page 11
Councilman Whittemore stated that the unfortunate thing
is that Captain Price is not present this evening to clear up some
of the confusion that exists. During the 90-day period he would
think that the block between 17th and Truxtun on Eye Street should
remain open in order to accomodate the two businesses who have
requested that this be done. He would like to see the businessmen
given every parking space that is available, but he feels the
motion should be amended to delete this one block.
Councilman Heisey then offered a substitute motion that
the plan for extending the downtown parking mall as originally
presented be adopted, but the one block north of Truxtun Avenue
on Eye Street be continued as a two-way street.
Councilman Bleecker stated that it was on the advice of
Captain Price that a recommendation was not made in tonight's
report that Eye Street between Truxtun and 17th Street remain a
two-way street. If it is the concensus of the Committee and the
Council feels that it is justified, the report can be amended to
approve the extension of the parking mall as presented to the
Committee with the exception of the one block on Eye Street between
Truxtun and 17th Street.
After additional discussion, Councilman Bleecker stated
that he would offer an amendment to the substitute motion, that
the Council consider adoption of the report as written, but incor-
porate Councilman Heisey's motion that the plan for extending the
downtown parking mall as originally presented be adopted, deleting
the one block on Eye Street between Truxtun Avenue and 17th Street,
which is to remain a two-way street, on a three month temporary
basis.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Roll call vote taken on this motion carried as follows:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Councilman Rees
None
Bakersfield, California, October 18, 1971 - Page 12 237
City Attorney Hoagland reminded the Council that this
action will require amending the existing ordinance, and asked
that this be considered first reading of the ordinance. Council-
man Medders moved that this be first reading of the ordinance,
which carried unanimously.
Re-appointment of Councilman Rucker
as Member of the' Board of Charity
Appeals and Solicitations.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Councilman Samuel
Del Rucker was re-appointed as a Member of the Board of Charity
and Solicitations for a four year term expiring October 1,
Appeals
1975.
and (d)
Ayes:
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 987 to 1195,
inclusive, in amount of $194,219.67.
(b) Street Right of Way Deed from Crocker
National Bank as Trustee for the C.
Cohn Estate.
(c) Encroachment Permit from Housing
Authority of Kern County.
(d)
Street Right of Way Deeds from the
Housing Authority of the County of
Kern for opening portions of Northrup
Street, Robinson Street, Clyde Street,
Eleventh Street, Lakeview Avenue and
an alley between Lakeview Avenue and
Owens Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b), (c),
of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Roes, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Upon a motion
Action on Bids.
by Councilman Rees, low bid of Kern Turf
Supply for Annual Contract for PVC Pipe and Sprinklers was accepted,
all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute
the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, the low bid of J. E.
Bauer Company for Line Striping Machine for Police Traffic Line
Painting Division was accepted and all other bids were rejected.
Bakersfield, California, October 18, 1971 - Page 13
,Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, bid for Seven
Pickups and two vans, less trade-in allowances, was awarded to
the Three-Way Chevrolet Company, and bid for two 24,000 Cab &
Chassis was awarded to Haberfelde Ford Co., and all other bids
were rejected.
Adoption of Resolution No. 70-71 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field acknowledging receipt of a
copy of Notice of Intention to Cir-
culate Petition for the Annexation
of territory designated as "Union
Avenue No. 4", and an Affidavit of
Publication thereof, and approving
the circulation of the Petition.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Resolution No. 70-71
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield acknowledging the receipt
of a copy of Notice of Intention to Circulate Petition for the
Annexation of territory designated as "Union Avenue No. 4", and an
Affidavit of Publication thereof, and approving the circulation of
the Petition, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 71-71 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field acknowledging the receipt of
a copy of Notice of Intention to Cir-
culate Petition for the Annexation
of Territory designated as "Wilson
Road No. 2", and an Affidavit of
Publication thereof, and approving
the circulation of the Petition.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No.
71-71 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield acknowledging the
receipt of a copy of Notice of Intention to Circulate Petition for
the Annexation of Territory designated as "Wilson Road No. 2", and
an Affidavit of Publication thereof, and approving the circulation
of the Petition, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
239
Bakersfield, California, October 18, 1971 - Page 14
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
adding Chapter 16.22 to Title 16 of
the Municipal Code providing for
Optional Design and Improvement
Standards in Subdivisions.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield adding Chapter 16.22 to Title
16 of the Municipal Code providing for Optional Design and Improve--
ment Standards in Subdivisions.
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 17.52.020 of Chapter
17.52 of Title 17 of the Municipal
Code relating to conflicting regula-
tions and exceptions thereto.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 17.52.020 of
Chapter 17.52 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code relating to con-
flicting regulations and exceptions thereto.
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Chapter 17.50 of Title 17
of the Municipal Code providing for
a Mobilehome Zone and regulations
for Mobilehome Parks and Mobilehome
Subdivisions.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Chapter 17.50 of Title
17 of the Municipal Code providing for a Mobilehome Zone and regu-
lations for Mobilehome Parks and Mobilehome Subdivisions.
Letter from Strait & Fambrough, General
Contractors, requesting the Planning
Commission to reaffirm that Tract No.
3364 was approved knowing that a low-
cost housing project was planned for
this Subdivision deferred for two weeks.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, letter from Strait &
Fambrough, General Building Contractors, requesting the Planning
Commission to reaffirm that Tract No. 3364 was approved knowing
that a low-cost housing project was planned for this Subdivision,
was deferred for two weeks to permit the staff to check with Mr.
Strait relative to his intention to withdraw the request.
24O
Bakersfield, California, October 18, 1971
Page 15
Mr. Charles Tolfree of Stockdale Development Corporation,
stated that his company is the owner of Tract No. 3364 mentioned
in Mr. Strait's letter and that regardless of whether or not Mr.
Strait or Mr. Fambrough wish to continue with the 235 Project,
Stockdale Development Corporation feels that the tract was con-
ceived as a 235 Project and is requesting that the Council will
reaffirm that this area remain as a 235 Project. Inasmuch as the
Council had already acted to defer this matter for two weeks, no
action was taken on Mr. Tolfree's request.
Approval of Annexation Boundaries
designated as Kern River No. 1.
Upon
designated as
City Engineer
a motion by Councilman Medders, Annexation Boundaries
Kern River No. 1 were approved, and referred to the
and City Attorney for referral to LAFC.
Approval of Agreement between the
City of Bakersfield and the County
of Kern for Emergency Employment
Act Funds.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker,
for Emergency Employment Act
authorized to execute same.
on this moteion.
90 Day Leave of Absence Without Pay
granted Jethro Reynolds, Sanitation
Crewman II.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, a 90 Day Leave of
Absence Without Pay was granted Jethro Reynolds, Sanitation
Crewman II.
Approval of Agreement between the
City of Bakersfield and Santa Fe
Railway Company for construction of
Crossing Protection at the "Q" Street
intersection.
Agreement
Company for construction of Crossing Protection at the "Q" Street
intersection was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute
the agreement.
the County of Kern
Funds was approved, and the Mayor was
Councilman Medders voted in the negative
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker,
between the City of Bakersfield and Santa Fe Railway
Agreement between the City of Bakersfield and
Bakersfield, California, October 18, 1971 - Page 16
Mayor Hart requested to direct letter
to the Department of Housing and Urban
Development expressing Council's
interest in rehabilitation of the old
Elks Club.
City Manager Bergen informed the Council that he had
been contacted by several realtors, and also by Judy Stein repre-
senting the Urban Housing Company, who is anxious to proceed with
plans to renovate the old Elks Club Building on 17th Street in
downtown Bakersfield. He advised Judy Stein that he did not think
it was the Council's intention to prohibit the rehabilitation of
this project, although the Council did adopt a Resolution requesting
the Department of Housing and Urban Development to defer further
235 and 236 Projects in Urban Bakersfield until such time as the
need is shown. He therefore would recommend to the Council that
the Mayor be requested to send a letter to HUD indicating (1) that
the City is interested in the rehabilitation of the old Elks Club
providing the project satisfies all of the code and ordinance
requirement; (2) that there is a need for modern, low-income housing
in the downtown area and this could lend itself to that type of
housing; (3) that 236 funding would be appropriate to construct
this project. If the Council concurs that this would be an
appropriate type of improvement in the downtown area, it would be
in order to ask the Mayor to direct a letter to HUD based on the
points outlined by the Manager.
Councilman Bleecker asked Planning Director Sceales where
the parking would be constructed for this project. Mr. Sceales
stated this company could ask for a modification of the parking,
but as far as any off-street parking being available at the present
time, there is none. Councilman Heisey commented that would be the
problem of the developer.
Mr. Bergen stressed the fact that in order to construct
this project it will be necessary for the developer to meet the
standards of the City and apply for a modification or variances in
a normal fashion.
After discussion, it was moved by Councilman Rees that
the City Manager's position be supported and that the Mayor be
24'2
Bakersfield, California, October 18, 1971 - Page 17
requested to direct a letter to HUD including the points outlined
by the City Manager. This motion carried by the following roll
call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council on Resolution of Intention No. 865 of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield declaring its intention to order the vacation
of a portion of Inyo Street, City of Bakersfield, California.
Request for this vacation was made by Mr. Glenn Helm and has been
approved by the Planning Commission. This hearing has been duly
posted and no protests or objections were filed in the City Clerk's
office.
Vice-Mayor Whittemore declared the hearing open for
public participation. No protests or objections being received,
and Mr. Helm speaking in favor of the vacation, the public hearing
was closed for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by
Councilman Heisey, Resolution No. 72-71 ordering the vacation of a
portion of Inyo Street, City of Bakersfield, California, 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 Resolution of Intention No. 867 of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield, California, declaring its intention to order
the vacation of a portion of Eleventh Street, a portion of Cotton-
wood Road and a portion of Robinson Street, in the City of Bakers-
field, California. Action was initiated by the Public Works
Department and has been approved by the Planning Commission. This
hearing was duly posted and no protests or objections have been
filed in the City Clerk's office.
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, October 18, 1971 - Page 18 243
Vice-Mayor Whittemore declared the hearing open for
public participation. No protests or objections being received
and no one speaking in favor of the vacation, the public hearing
was closed for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by
Councilman Rees, Resolution No. 73-71 ordering the vacation 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
on Resolution of Intention No. 868 of fhe Council of the Cify of
Bakersfield declaring its intention to order the vacation of Public
Utilities Easements in Ora Vista Housing Project. This action was
initialed by the Public Works Department and was approved by the
Planning Commission. This hearing has been duly advertised and no
protests or objections were filed in the City Clerk's office.
Vice-Mayor Whittemore declared the hearing open for
public participation. No protests or objections being received
and no one speaking in favor of the vacation~ the public hearing
was declared closed for Council deliberation and action.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Resolution No. 74-71
ordering the vacation of the Public Utilities Easements in Ora
Vista Housing Project was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council on Phase II of fhe 1970 Weed Abatement Program.
Public Works Director Jing reported that 190 properties
hearing before the Council
had been posted with 91 compliances. Registered letters will
be mailed to those persons not complying, and another 50% is
expected to respond and destroy the weeds as requested.
now
244
Bakersfield, California, October 18, 1971 - Page 19
Vice-Mayor Whittemore declared the hearing open for public
participation. Mr. Joe Bruce, who resides at 27 Clyde Street,
addressed the Council, stating that he has not complied with the
notice to destroy the weeds on his property, as he is disabled and
physically and financially unable to comply. He pointed out that
formerly burning was permitted, and he was able to clean his property
by this method. However, since it is no longer permitted and con-
sidered a source of air pollution, he has endeavored to secure a
permit from several agencies in the City and County for controlled
burning of his weeds, but to date no one will assume the responsi-
bility of issuing a permit for this purpose.
Councilman Thomas offered to call two organizations who
he is sure will be able to assist Mr. Bruce with his problem. City
Attorney Hoagland asked Mr. Bruce who he talked with at the Air
Pollution Control Board, stating that this agency does have the
power to issue permits for controlled burning after an application
is made, as the City cannot grant burning permits. He offered to
call the Air Pollution Control Board for clarification, and Mr.
Bergen stated he would attempt to convey to this Board that it is
their responsibility to control the burning in this area.
After further discussion, the staff was instructed to
investigate the matter of securing permits by City residents for
controlled burning and notify Mr. Bruce of the procedure to follow.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No. 75-71 finding
that certain weeds growing on property in the City of Bakersfield
constitute a public nuisance and directing the Superintendent of
Streets
Ayes:
to destroy said Weeds,
Councilmen
Noes: None
Absent: None
was adopted by the following vote:
Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
245
Bakersfield, California, October 18, 1971 - Page 20
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Medders the meeting was
adjourned at 10:40 P.M.
MAYOR~I~e City of Bakersfield,
Calif.
ATTEST:
E Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
246
Bakersfield, California, November 1, 1971
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., November 1, 1971.
Vice-Mayor Whittemore presided in the absence of Mayor
Hart and called the meeting to order followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Charles Wilkerson of the
Chester Avenue Baptist 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 October 18, 1971 were
approved as presented.
Council Statements.
Councilman Bleecker stated that he was honored to appoinl;
Miss Cathy A. Rickett of 2424 Spruce Street as a member of the
Citizens Advisory Committee for the Kern County Council of Govern-
ments.
Councilman Rees stated that in response to presentations
made by Dr. Phyllis Dabbs and Miss Chris Williams, member of the
Highland High School Executive Council, at the last Council meeting
requesting the City Council to initiate action to provide a suitable
bikeway on Auburn Street, representatives of the schools, Public
Works Department, the Traffic Authority and Highland High School
Executive Council, held a meeting last Wednesday. Captain Price
of the Traffic Authority outlined a plan developed by him and the
Public Works Department for a combination bike path and pedestrian
way running from Oswell Street to Royal Scotts Way, the entrance
to Highland High School, which was acceptable to everyone present.
At the request of Councilman Rees~ City Manager Bergen
briefly reviewed the proposed plan for this combination bike path
and pedestrian way on the north side of Auburn Street, stating
that it is the hope of the City to have this facility under con-
struction within 30 days and completed shortly after that.
Bakersfield, California, November 1, 1971 - Page 2
247
Councilman Bleecker stated that he has had several calls:.
especially from persons who own small rental property, regarding
the proposed increase in collection fees under the new Refuse
Ordinance. He asked Director of Public Works Jing to explain the
method of assessing rental property consisting of 8 units with only
one person living in a unit which the owner stated will cost $59.75
per quarter for a twice a week pickup under the new ordinance.
Mr. Jing stated that two containers are permitted per
unit based on a minimum charge of $2.48 per month. However, if
the property owner installs a detachable bin, the charges would be
based on the volume of refuse generated in the apartments, and
would reduce the pickup charge to $9.90 per month.
Councilman Bleecker commented that in his opinion this
cost for small rental units with each apartment occupied by only
one person is excessive, and that is the main reason why he did
not sign the report of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel
Committee which will be presented later. He suggested that the
Refuse Collection Ordinance be studied again by the Department of
Public Works and members of the staff, as there are too many
inconsistencies in this ordinance which are unfair to the public.
Councilman Rucker stated that if a property owner does
not use the service, he feels that he should not be required to
pay the established fee; however, the staff has advised him that
it is necessary to exercise some type of enforcement of refuse
pickup in order to present a health hazard and therefore all
property owners will be charged this fee.
City Manager Bergen stated the City Attorney has pointed
out to him that the City is not making a distinction between a
single family rental and a single family dwelling and no minimum
charge of $2.48 per month would be made for a single family rental,
as it is covered by the tax rate.
Councilman Heisey commented that this discussion should
be brought up at the time the GEPC report is submitted. The
inequities that have been presented are very good examples of the
248
Bakersfield, California, November 1, 1971 - Page 3
injustice which is done when legislation only benefits a special
group in the community. This problem would have been eliminated
if it had been originally considered strictly on a user-pay basis.
Councilman Heisey stated that he is still convinced that it is
illegal to charge only part of the people for refuse pickup and
not charge everyone the same, as those people who are charged are
also being assessed under their property tax rate. He agreed with
Councilman Bleecker that the whole ordinance should be given further
study in order to obviate this injustice.
Councilman Heisey, Chairman of the Water and City Growth
Committee, stated thai he is pleased to report on a proposal for
an Urban Bakersfield Area Improvement District which will have a
great impact on the development of the entire metropolitan area
of Bakersfield in the future as well as have a favorable bearing
on the present economy of the area. He reviewed the background
and history of the progress made by the Committee which had worked
and held meetings for five years for a plan for the delivery of
supplemental water to metropolitan Bakersfield which would be
acceptable to all the participants, subject to an equitable arrange-
ment for financing and sharing of costs.
The Water Committee has held many meetings investigating
every alternative and plan as they were presented and finally
arrived at the conclusion that the best possible plan that could
be presented for the metropolitan Bakersfield area is the Second
Supplemental Report for the delivery of Water to and a Financial
Plan for an Urban Bakersfield Area Improvement District by Walter
G. Schulz, Consultant to the Kern County Water Agency, which
incorporates the recommendations of the City's consultants and
staff and the members of the Water Committee. It is a fair plan,
not only to the people of the City of Bakersfield but to all the
other entities in the metropolitan area who will participate in
the cost of the canal to convey water from the west side over to
the metropolitan area.
Bakersfield, California, November 1, 1971 - Page 4
249
The Water Committee is urging adoption tonight of a
Resolution which is in no way prejudicial to any benefits accuring
to the City from the successful prosecution of its water rights
suits. Meetings were held with the attorneys about ten days ago
at which the Committee was briefed on the progress of these suits
and was informed that all causes of action are still being pursued
vigorously and effectively. The Resolution further provides that
if the irrigation districts as proposed do not participate in the
joint use facility, the Resolution becomes null and void.
Councilman Heisey complimented the City Attorney for
writing a very fine resolution with adequate conditions to protect
the interests of the people of Bakersfield. He then read Resolution
No. 76-71 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield consenting
to the inclusion of lands within the City in the proposed Urban
Bakersfield Area Improvement District under specified conditions.
City Attorney Hoagland, stating that he was commenting
for the Council's benefit, pointed out that at the present time
the Urban Area has an entitlement of 77,000 acre feet of supple-
mental water. Due to the contract between the Kern County Water
Agency and the State of California for supplemental water, the
Urban Area continues to pay in taxes at the present time, in excess
of $300,000 annually for water which has not been received. The
State contract requires M&I water to be paid for as of the date of
the contract continuously on a built up schedule and this $300,000
accelerates as time goes on. If for any reason, the City should
decide not to enter into the program of bringing supplemental water
to the Urban Bakersfield Area, it would nevertheless be required
to continue to pay for the water until the final contract is con-
summated for building the City's portion of the aqueduct. If the
Cross-Valley Canal is not constructed and water is not obtained in
any other fashion, the City will not receive the water but will
continue to pay for it. The water is the City's, it is paying for
it, and it is a question of getting the water delivered. By joint
25O
Bakersfield, California, November 1, 1971 - Page 5
participation of all the water entities and districts, the water
will be delivered. He also pointed out that the cost has been
reduced materially from the original proposal of five or six years
ago.
Mr.
boundaries of
Tom Stetson, Consulting Engineer, delineated the
the proposed Urban Bakersfield Improvement District
on display maps and explained that the costs will be apportioned
among the three agricultural districts and the improvement district
from the formula that was derived from the annual entitlement of
each entity and the actual capacity which will be built into the
system. The cost of the Cross-Valley Canal over to the Friant
Kern Canal is estimated to be about 9½ million dollars. The Urban
area's share of that cost will be about 4 million dollars. The
extension canal will cost about 1.2 million dollars, which will be
the cost to the improvement district. The two major pipelines for
distribution throughout the major portion of the area will cost
about 3½ million dollars and the treatment plant about 5 million.
The entire project will cost about fourteen million dollars as
opposed to the project recommended five or six years ago which was
estimated to be 26 to 30 million dollars.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution No. 76-71
of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield consenting to the
inclusion of lands within the City in the proposed Urban Bakersfield
Area Improvement District under specified conditions~ was adopted
by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas~ Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Councilman Whittemore, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee~ read a report on a meeting of
the Committee with the staff to discuss amendments and additions
to the Refuse Collection Ordinance adopted by the Council on
August 30, 1971, to become operative January 1, 1972.
Bakersfield, California, November l, 1971 - Page 6
Principal Change
The Refuse Collection Ordinance previously adopted by
the Council established a refuse collection charge to be paid by
occupants of all uses of property in the City, except single-family
dwellings. A single-family dwelling was defined as being a detached
structure. Originally, it was felt that the use of the detached
dwelling would be the most distinctive and clearly ascertainable
way of distinguishing which occupants should be charged.
Due to concern voiced by members of the Council that
condominium owners occupy single-family dwellings, considerable
research has been conducted by the City Attorney. Since condominium
units are, in effect, the same use as single-family detached dwell--
ings~ except for their being attached to other dwelling units, the
proposed ordinance amends the definition of a single-family residence
to exclude condominium units from a refuse collection charge.
Specific Changes
The following is a summary of the specific amendments
and additions to the previously adopted Refuse Collection Ordinance
as contained in the ordinance attached to this report:
Section 8.48.010 - This amendment adds a clause for legal clarifi-
cation purposes with no substantive change.
Section 8.48.020 (n) - This amendment changes the definition of a
single-family dwelling to include condominium units and exclude
bungalows.
Section 8.48.020 (s) - This addition provides a definition of a
bungalow court.
Section 8.48.030 - This amendment makes appropriate changes in the
schedule of charges for various containers in accordance with
suggestions of the Public Works Department.
Section 8.48.100 - This amendment makes minor changes in the required
refuse containers.
Section 8.48.110 - This amendment removes the prohibition against
occupants using submerged or underground containers. With this
change, container provisions will be exactly the same as are in
effect at the present time.
25'2
Bakersfield, California, November 1, 1971 - Page 7
Section 8.48.170 - This addition clarifies the fact that this
ordinance becomes e£fective on January l, 1972~ and leaves the
present ordinance operative until then.
This committee recommends adoption of this report and
first reading of the attached ordinance.
Councilman Whittemore stated that the Committee's report
was signed by only himsel£ as Chairman and Councilman Raymond E.
Rees, as Councilman Keith Bleecker, the other member of the
Committee, did not choose to sign the report.
Councilman Whirremote moved adoption of the report and
that this be considered first reading of the ordinance.
Councilman Bleecker commented that in his opinion there
are still many inconsistencies in this proposed ordinance which do
not promote fairness for the taxpayers and those persons who own
rental property. He stated that if he had it to do over, he would
not have voted for the original ordinance and he asked his fellow
Councilmen not to approve the report or the proposed amendments to
the previously adopted ordinance.
City Attorney Hoagland stated that he would like to
remind the Council that the City already has a Refuse Collection
Ordinance which is to become effective on January 1, 1972. These
particular amendments do not change the ordinance already effective
but not to become operative until January 1, 1972. Legally speaking,
he feels that these amendments would secure the legality o£ the
present ordinance on the books to a greater extent and will make
it less subject to charges of invalidity.
Councilman Rucker commented that he does not wish to hold
up the ordinance but he feels as Councilman Bleecker, that there
are many inequities in this ordinance and he hopes that more study
will be given to removing the unfair sections.
Mr. Hoagland commented that all he is concerned with is
the legal integrity of the ordinance which is consonant with the
Council's policy.
Bakersfield, California, November 1, 1971 - Page 8
253
Councilman Heisey called for a division of the question
in connection with Section 8.48.020 (n). Councilman Whittemore
stated this could be done at the time the motion is voted upon.
Mr. Hoagland pointed out that the substantial change to
this ordinance is centered around condominiums, which he considers
to be a substantial change because it changes the concept of
classification between single-family residences and all other
types of residences. He stated thai the most acceptable ordinance
the Council could adopt would be one that would place a refuse
collection charge on every single occupant in the City which has
already been rejected by the Council.
Councilman Medders commented that he does not feel he
to refer the proposed amendments back to the Committee
He would prefer to wait and see how the proposals work
would like
for study.
out.
Councilman Whittemore stated
tremendous changes in this ordinance.
that there are not any
The majority of the Committee
felt that a condominium is a single-family dwelling, even though
each one has a common wall and has a separate deed to that piece
of property. There are many bungalow courts in the City of Bakers-.
field which normally are not separated by separate deeds, and it
is necessary to provide a definition of a bungalow court in order
to exclude it. He stated that if the proposed changes are not
acceptable to the majority of the Council, he cannot see any alter-
native but to pass an ordinance which would require every single-
family dwelling in the City of Bakersfield to pay a refuse collection
charge. This is something that the citizens have indicated they do
not want, and therefore, those people who do own a number of properties,
will be required to pay the collection charge on whatever category
they come under the ordinance.
Councilman Rees stated that he feels this particular
report is not a substantial change in the ordinance, it is a matter
of clarification of it point by point. These points of clarifica-
tion are improvements of the existing ordinance as it is now
proposed. He would therefore support the Committee's report.
254
Bakersfield, California, November 1, 1971 - Page 9
After additional discussion, Councilman Bleecker com-
mented that for a number of reasons he would propose a sectional
amendment to the Committee report which he would call Section
8.48.171, to read as follows: "This addition excludes rental
apartments in groups of ten and less from any extra charge."
Councilman Bleecker's proposal was discussed by the
Council and the City Attorney. Councilman Whittemore stated he
believes that if the Council discovers it is necessary to correct
any inequities after the ordinance becomes effective, this will
be done but at this point he feels the ordinance should be adopted
with the condominium units included as single-family dwellings.
Councilman Heisey commented that he feels very strongly
the user should pay for whatever service he receives. There is no
reason that it shouldn't be extended to all users of refuse service
and if it were, the Council could very justifiably cut the tax rate
by 60~. He stated he is in opposition to anything that is going
to reduce the number of units that are now scheduled to pay for
the refuse service.
Mr. Hoagland stated that he does not usually speak to
policy of the Council, but he will not be responsible for the
validity of the ordinance if condominiums are included as apart-
ments. He has done a lot of review on this and considers a con-
dominium to be a single-family residence within the concept of
this ordinance. It is certainly not a commercial unit, it is not
for rent, it is to be lived in.
Councilman Heisey withdrew his motion for a separation
of the question in connection with Section 8.48.020 (n), and offered
a susbtitute motion that this matter be referred back to the GEP
Committee and presented at a later date when the Committee has had
a change to re-evaluate it and possibly come back with a unanimous
recommendation, rather than a split Committee report. Councilman
Whirremote remarked that he does not think the Committee can come
back with a unanimous recommendation.
Bakersfield, California, November 1, 1971 - Page 10
Roll Call Vote taken on Councilman Bleecker's motion to
amend the report to exclude rental apartments in groups of ten and
less from any extra refuse collection charge failed to carry as
follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Councilman Bleecker
Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Absent: None
Roll Call Vote taken on Councilman Heisey's substitute
motion to refer the matter back to Committee and return with a
unanimous
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
recommendation failed to carry as
Councilman Heisey
Councilmen Bleecker, Medders, Rees,
Whirremote
None
Roll Call Vote taken on
to adopt the report and consider this
proposed ordinance carried as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
follows:
Rucker, Thomas,
Councilman Whittemore's motion
the first reading of the
Councilmen Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey
None
Councilman Whirremote, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, read a report stating that
during the past several months, the Committee and the staff have
discussed a proposed change in the Fire Department Relief and
Pension Fund Ordinance to exclude non-safety employees of the Fire
Department from being placed in this disability and retirement
plan. When the Fire Department Relief and Pension Fund was estab-
lished years ago, there was no other retirement system; therefore,
clerical employees of the Fire Department were included as members
of this plan and received the same benefits as safety employees of
the Fire Department, which are substantially greater than these
received by clerical. employees of the Police and Miscellaneous
Departments.
The proposed ordinance will
create equity in retirements benefits
of the City.
included in
correct this situation and
between all clerical employees
Clerical employees of the Fire Department will be
the Public Employees' Retirement System for Miscellaneous
Bakersfield, California, November 1, 1971 - Page 11
Employees with the same benefits as all other clerical employees
of the City. This change will not affect the present clerical
employees of the Fire Department. The change has been considered
and unanimously approved by the Fire Department Pension Board.
The Committee recommends adoption of the report and first
reading of the attached ordinance.
Councilman Whittemore's motion to adopt the report and
consider this first reading of the ordinance carried unanimously.
Councilman Raymond Rees, Chairman of the Budget Review
and Finance Committee, reported that the Citizens Committee
appointed by the Council to consider the need for a new Police
Building in a report filed May 20, 1970, concluded that a particular
need exists for a new and adequate police facility and recommended
that the necessary steps be taken to provide a facility of at least
42,000 square feet to be so constructed that the facility may be
added to for needed expansion at a later date. In recent weeks
the Budget Review and Finance Committee has worked in two particular
directions on the Police Building Problem. 1. It has explored
ways and means for financing construction of the building and' has
met with financial consultants who have advised them and will meet
with local people knowledgeable in the field of finance in the
future. 2. It has interviewed architects in order to recommend
an architect for the design of the building. Over a two week
period, 13 out of 14 local available architects responded to the
Committee's invitation to be interviewed and it is his personal
opinion that anyone of the firms interviewed is capable of designing
a sound police building for the City of Bakersfield. Unfortunately,
only one could be recommended by the Committee and it is the recom-
mendation of the Budget Review and Finance Committee to engage the
firm of Robert'F. Stuhr, A.I.A.~ to design the Police Department
Building. Councilman Rees then moved that the Council appoint this
firm as architect for the new Police Building.
Councilman Heisey concurred with the Chairman's report
stating that the Committee spent a lot of time talking to all of
Bakersfield, California, November 1, 1971 - Page 12
257
these architects, and it was difficult to make a decision.
Councilman Bleecker offered a substitute motion that the
firm of Frapwell and Ghezzi be engaged as the architects to design
the Police Building. Roll call vote taken on the substitute motion
failed to carry as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Medders
Noes: Councilmen Heisey, Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: None
Roll call vote taken on the original motion to appoint
the firm of Robert A. Stuhr, A.I.A. to design the new Police Build-
ing carried unanimously.
Councilman Heisey, Chairman of the Citizens Freeway Com-
mittee, reminded the Council that a committee was appointed by the
Council at its meeting of July 6, 1970 to study the freeway alternate
and report back to the City Council with a recommendation, and after
several meetings the route selection was narrowed to three logical
locations. A meeting was held by the Citizens Advisory Freeway
Committee on October 28, 1971, with representatives of the State
Division of Highways to consider the alternate routing of the free-
way east of Freeway 99. One alternate "N" was located east of and
parallel to Union Avenue. A second alternate "O" was located along
Golden State Avenue looping north of the Westchester area. A third
location was along the 23rd-24th Street corridor.
Three factors,
given major emphasis in
factors are as follows:
1. Environmental
2.
3.
Any
traffic problems on
while not the only consideration, were
the final selection of a route. The three
impact, or the number of property
parcels directly affected.
Economics or cost of construction, right of
way acquisition and utilities relocation.
Traffic allocation - or which route best serves
the traffic needs.
freeway alternate selected must alleviate the major
the 23rd-24th Street couple. Studies show
258
Bakersfield, California, November 1, 1971 - Page 13
that neither alternate "0" or "N" will attract enough traffic to
provide a solution to this problem. A freeway route along 23rd-
24th Streets will solve this major traffic problem.
Cost is a factor which everyone recognizes as significant.
Estimates from the Division of Highways indicate the cost of alter-
nate "O" at $32,271,000; the cost of alternate "N" at $31,783,000;
the cost of the alternate along 23rd-24th Streets at $22,404,000.
There is a significant difference in the number of parcels
directly affected by each alternate location. The number of parcels
includes residences, apartment units, commercial businesses,
industrial businesses and miscellaneous. Alternate "0" directly
affects 285 parcels including 133 residences. Alternate "N" directly
affects 596 parcels including 375 residences. The 23rd-24th Street
alternate directly affects only 187 parcels including 72 residences.
This Committee recognizes and regrets that those people
directly affected by any of these route locations must sustain
considerable inconvenience. The number of parcels and thus people
affected is the only measure of such inconvenience. Cost of any
alternate locations doesn't affect each of us as forcefully as
relocation, but certainly is an item which should be reviewed and
weighed heavily by any citizens committee or governing body.
Responsibility for presenting a recommendation which
will have such an impact on many people and the whole community
weighed heavily on all members of this Committee. However, it has
acted on the premise that although some people are to be inconven-
ienced by any recommendation, it is in the best interests of the
community as a whole. The ultimate selection was made less difficult
than expected because of the unusual characteristics of the Committee's
choice. It provides best for traffic needs; it is the least expensive;
and it disrupts the fewest people.
Accordingly, and on this basis, the Committee recommends
the 23rd-24th Street corridor as the freeway route location between
existing Highways 178 and 99.
Bakersfield, California, November 1, 1971 - Page 14
259
Councilman Thomas commended Councilman Heisey on his
excellent report and stated that he concurred with it whole-heartedly.
Councilman Bleecker commented that ordinarily a report of
this importance is given to the Council for its study at least a
week ahead of time. He is no longer a member of the Committee but
he is particularly interested as this proposed route goes directly
through the Fourth Ward, which he represents. He stated that he
was not informed of the meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee
until four o'clock on the afternoon prior to the meeting. Had the
courtesy been extended to him a week in advance that the meeting
was being held, he would have attended. Letters notifying the
members of the Committee were mailed on October 21, 1971; however,
new members, Mr. Fortenberry, his appointee, and Mr. Godecke, were
not notified by mail, but were called on the telephone on the day
of the meeting and informed that the meeting was being held that
evening. He questioned the method by which the committee members
were notified, stating that he thinks it is highly irregular, and
whether or not it was an oversight on the part of the staff, he is
going to take official action against whoever is responsible if it
happens again. He remarked that from reading the brief minutes of
the meeting he could not see how the Chairman arrived at his report,
as the minutes tell him nothing.
Mr. Jing, Director of Public Works, stated that the
letters were sent out only to members of the Committee, pursuant
to a list on file in his office, on October 21st. All members were
again alerted by telephone on the morning of the meeting, and as a
courtesy, Councilman Bleecker was also notified on Thursday, the
day of the meeting. He apologized to Mr. Bleecker for not informing
him earlier.
Councilman Heisey stated that there was 100% attendance
of the Committee at the meeting, no one was absent.
Mr. John Fortenberry, a member of the Citizens Advisory
Committee, addressed the Council, and reiterated Councilman Bleecker's
statements, that he did not receive advance notice.by letter, but
was telephoned at his home to that effect on the afternoon of the
260
Bakersfield, California, November 1, 1971 - Page 15
meeting. He stated that he felt he was rushed into a Situation
without having the opportunity to study the issues at stake. He
submitted what he called a minority report in letter form to the
Council, as follows:
At a recent meeting held by ~he Citizens Com-
mittee for Freeway Planning held on October 28,
1971, statistical data was supplied to the
committee members by Mr. L. S. Van Voorhis.
This data served as a major part of the basis
on which the members voted and was passed out
during the meeting and priorI to the vote.
I chose to study a small part of the statistical
data in order to determine its accuracy. I
selected the small one block wide corridor
between Route 99 and Spruce Street. According
to the material passed out at the meeting, this
area contains 35 homes, 41 apartments, 4 com-
mercial, i industrial, and 2 other sites'. A
total of 83 sites were stated to be in this
area.
I made a personal survey of this area on October
31, 1971. My survey disclosed 23 homes, 1 vacant
field, i canal, and part of a county park. I
did not find the 4 commercial sites or the 1
industrial site. I did not find the 41 apartments.
I found 12 homes less than the State survey data
listed.
I believe my figures can be checked by anyone
and should not require the State to make another
lengthy and possible inaccurate survey. The
differences between these two counts is only
for a four block area (approximately). It
suggests that possibly larger differences exist
in the whole survey.
Vice-Mayor Whirremote pointed out that the Council is not
adopting a route this evening, but will hold public hearings on the
freeway location and that will be the appropriate time to present
facts and figures.
After additional discussion, Councilman Bleecker moved
that the Department of Public Works be instructed to check out
Mr. Fortenberry's figures as presented in his report for comparison
with the statistical data supplied to the committee by Mr. Van
Voorhis of the State Division of Highways. This motion carried
unanimously.
Councilman Heisey moved adoption of the Report of the
Citizens Advisory Committee on Freeways, which carried, with
Councilman Bleecker voting in the negative.
At this time the Vice-Mayor declaried a five minute
recess.
Bakersfield, California, November 1, 1971 - Page 16
Consent Calendar.
At the request of Councilman Heisey, Items (b) on the
Consent Calendar - Approval of Plans and Specifications for the
Construction of Tailwater Return System for Municipal Sewer Farm,
was removed for separate consideration by the Council.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 1196 to 1311,
inclusive, in amount of $80,309.22.
(c) Acceptance of the Work and Notice of
Completion for Contract No. 69-71,
Construction of Sewer in Belle Terrace
and Relocation of Sewer in Summer Tree
Lane.
(d) Grant Deed from First Baptist Church to
City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (c) and
(d) of the Consent Calendar were approved by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
Approval of Plans and Specifications
for the Construction of Tailwater
Return System for the Municipal Sewer
Farm.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Heisey,
Plans and Specifications for the Construction of Tailwater Return
System for the Municipal Sewer Farm were approved, and the Finance
Director was authorized to advertise for bids.
Deferred Business.
Councilman Whittemore commented on a request from Strait
& Fambrough, General Building Contractors, that the Planning Com-
mission reaffirm that Tract No. 3364 was approved knowing that a
low-cost housing project was planned for this subdivision, stating
that until these applicants have met all the requirements of the
law which includes surveying the neighborhood and ascertaining if
the School District can absorb any increase in students, he will
still oppose development of any low cost housing projects.
262
Bakersfield, California, November 1, 1971 - Page 17
Councilman Bleecker stated that he understood Strait &
Fambrough had informed Councilmen Heisey and Rees they no longer
had an interest in this property, and he made a motion to disapprove
the request. This motion carried unanimously.
A communication from Stockdale Development Corporation
requesting a letter of reaffirmation from the Council that Section
235 Housing is acceptable for the use of the remaining lots in
Tract No. 3364, was ordered placed on next week's agenda for
Council consideration.
Mr. Bennett Siemon, Attorney for residents on Panorama
Drive, stated that when he first read the series of ordinances
next on the agenda for Council action, he felt that a loophole was
being opened, ambiguous in a certain sense, which would permit
building a two unit condominium in a R-1 Zone. He has talked to
Mr. Bergen, Mr. Hoagland and Mr. Sceales, and they have assured
him that fhis is not the case, and if this is the legislative
intention, he is satisfied in behalf of his clients.
Mr. Hoagland asked for permission to spread his remarks
on the Minutes for future adherence to by any parties. His advice
to the Council is that these ordinances would not permit condominiums
or apartment houses, or even duplexes, in the R-1 Zone.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Ordinance No. 1970
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield adding Chapter
16.22 to Title 16 of the Municipal Code providing for Optional
Design and Improvement Standards in Subdivisions, was adopted by
the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Ordinance No. 1971
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 17.52.020 of Chapter 17.52 of Title 17 of the Municipal
Bakersfield, California, November 1, 1971 - Page 18
263
Code relating to conflicting regulations and exceptions thereto,
was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore.
Noes: None
Absent: None
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Ordinance No. 1972 New
Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Chapter
17.50 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code providing for a Mobilehome
Zone and regulations for Mobilehome Parks and Mobilehome Subdivisions,
was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Medders,
Ordinance No. 1973 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakers-
field amending Section 11.17.020 of the Municipal Code relative to
boundaries of the Central Parking Mall, was adopted by the following
vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Rees, Rucker,
Approval of Contract between the City
of Bakersfield and Transit Ads, Inc.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Contract
between the
City of Bakersfield and Transit Ads, Incorporated, was approved
and the Mayor was aufhorized to execute the agreement. Councilman
Whittemore requested that a cancellation clause be inserted stating
that should the Transit System for any reason cease its busing
operations during the term of this agreement, this contract shall
terminate without further responsibility upon the part of the
Transit System.
264
Bakersfield, California, November 1, 1971 - Page 19
Approval of Contract between the City
of Bakersfield and the Greater Bakers-
field Chamber of Commerce for the
service of advertising the City and
promoting the industrial development
of the City.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Contract between
the City of Bakersfield and the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of
Commerce for the service of advertising the City and promoting the
industrial development of the City, was approved and the Mayor was
authorized to execute same.
Approval of Contract between the City
of Bakersfield and the Greater 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.
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
No. 870 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield declaring its intention
to order the vacation of a portion of
Inyo Street north of East Truxtun
Avenue, in the City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution of
Intention No. 870 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
declaring its intention to order the vacation of a portion of Inyo
Street north of East Truxtun Avenue, in the City of Bakersfield,
and setting November 22, 1971 for hearing on the matter before
the Council, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstaining: Councilman Heisey
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
No. 871 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield declaring its intention
to order the vacation of the alley in
Block 288, City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, seconded by Council-
man Rees, Resolution of Intention No. 871 of the Council of the City
Bakersfield, California, November 1, 1971 - Page 20
of Bakersfield, declaring its intention to order the vacation of
the alley in Block 288, City of Bakersfield and setting November
22, 1971 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 4.06.040 of Chapter
4.06 (Election of Mayor) of the
Municipal Code of the City of Bakers-
field.
First reading was considered given to an Ordinance of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 4.06.040
of Chapter 4.06 (Election of Mayor) of the Municipal Code of the
City of Bakersfield.
Authorization granted to increase
Auditorium Change and Petty Cash
Fund to $1,500.00.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the Finance Director
was authorized to increase the Auditorium Change and Petty Cash Fund
Claim against Public Entities filed
by Milton M.Miller referred to the
City Attorney.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, claim against Public
Entities filed by Milton M. Miller was referred to the City Attorney.
City Attorney instructed to prepare
Ordinance naming "Loustalot Lane."
The Division of Highways has requested that a name be
given to a new frontage street which will be constructed approxi-
mately 300 feet south of Richland Street connecting the eastbound
ramps at the interchange between Route 58 and South "H" Street
Chester Avenue. It was recommended by the Planning Commission that
said frontage road be named "Loustalot Lane." Councilman Thomas
commended the Planning Commission for its recommendation, and moved
that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare the necessary
ordinance naming the new street "Loustalot Lane." This motion
carried unanimously.
to $1,500.00.
266
Bakersfield, California, November 1, 1971 - Page 21
Approval of Drainage Agreement between
Kern Island Water Company and the City
of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Drainage Agreement
between Kern Island Water Company and the City of Bakersfield was
approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute.
Adoption of Resolution No. 77-71 of
Application by the Council of the
City of Bakersfield detaching the
recently annexed territory designated
as Beale No. 2 from the Panorama
Sanitation District.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Resolution No. 77-71
of Application by the Council of the City of Bakersfield detaching
recently annexed territory designated as Beale No. 2 from the
Panorama Sanitation District, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Councilman Medders commented that he would urge the
Citizens Advisory Committee on Freeway Locations to give some
study to Highway 58 extension and make recommendations on the
location of the route. Councilman Meisey stated that as soon as
a recommendation is made by the State Division of Highways, the
Committee will give its attention to this route.
Request from Frank Munis for annexation
and zoning upon annexation of property
located in Tract 2720 referred to the
Planning Commission for study and recom-
mendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, request from Frank
Munis for annexation and zoning upon annexation of his property
located in Tract 2720, was referred to the Planning Commission
for study and recommendation.
Bakersfield, California, November 1, 1971 - Page 22 ~67
Councilman Heisey requested the City Manager to have the
Authority investigate the feasibility of installing signs,
in the area of
which has become
Traffic
or some method of slowing down the fast traffic
1428 Lake Street between Haley and Brown Street,
a hazard to the residents of the area.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the Council adjourned at
11:15 P.M.
ATTEST:
CIT~Y L'~E'~ ~,r~c~ the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, November 8, 1971
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., November 8, 1971.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend William
East of the Kern County Southern Baptist Association.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Present:
Absent:
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
None
Minutes of the regular meeting of November l, 1971 were
approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mayor Hart presented a $200 U.S. Savings Bond to Miss
Sallie Stanton who won the first place award in the George V.
Allen Youth Essay Contest which was sponsored by the Town Affilia-
tion Association of the Sister-City Program. Mr. Walter Kane,
Chairman of the Sister-City Program, presented Miss Stanton with a
bronze plaque which was included in the award.
Mr. Nurl Renfro, who resides at 1907 Cedar Street and
owns property and operates a business at 1915 - 20th Street,
addressed the Council relative to the Refuse Collection Ordinance,
urging the Council not to adopt the proposed ordinance on the
agenda this evening. He stated that this ordinance is discrimina-
tory as it preys on commercial and multiple-dwelling projects while
having no effect on single-family residences. Property owners
cannot afford the additional burden of refuse fees in the wake of
other increased taxes. There is now less demand for apartments,
there is a surplus of apartments in the greater Bakersfield area,
and taxes have increased 94.3% on several of his rental units
without a corresponding increase in the rental value. Adding the
increase in refuse fees would result in an increase of 33.7% com-
bined taxes without any regard for vacancies.
Bakersfield, California, November 8, 1971 - Page 2
269
The owner of rental properties will find it necessary to
pass the burden of the additional refuse fees on to his tenants,
many of whom are social security or welfare recipients. Mr. Renfre
requested Councilman Bleecker to give this proposed ordinance his
special attention and to move that it not be adopted. He asked the
other members of the Council for the same consideration.
For Mr. Renfro's benefit, Councilman Bleecker reviewed
the Council's action at budget time relative to granting an increase
in salaries to Cify employees, which created a deficit and forced
the Council to seek the funds to pay for the increase. Additional
revenue from the refuse collection fees, plus some other minor
revenue, was intended to offset the deficit. He agreed with Mr.
Renfro fhat the refuse charges are inequitable, stating that he
proposed an amendment to the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel
Committee report last Monday night which would have exempted multi-
family dwellings of ten or less from any additional refuse charge,
but his proposal was not supported by his fellow Councilmen. If
this ordinance is passed tonight, all those people who reside in
the City of Bakersfield will be paying double fees except those
who own single-family homes, have houses for rent, or live in
condominiums. Councilman Bleecker stated he is not prepared to
make the motion tonight to do away with the ordinance, but will do
so in the future whenever he feels there is a possibility that a
majority of the Council will agree that this ordinance should be
repealed.
Councilman Heisey complimented Mr. Renfro on his presenta-
tion and his excellent grasp of the inequities in the ordinance.
He has opposed it from its inception,
honest way to levy such an ordinance
the service which he gets, and until
as the only equitable and
is by having the user pay for
that is done the inequities
will exist. If the ordinance had been drafted properly in the
beginning, the Council would have been able to successfully reduce
the City tax rate in the amount of 6D~, and the Cify would have a
user pay ordinance which would have included all the citizens of
Bakersfield.
Councilman Rucker commented that with the present day
cost of living, as one member of the Council, he felt that the
270
Bakersfield~ California, November 8, 1971 - Page 3
good employees of the City of Bakersfield should receive an increase
in salary and therefore, the cost of government was increased which
must be met in some fashion.
Correspondence.
The City Clerk read a communication from concerned
citizens in the West Park area regarding a meeting held on October
14 with State Division of Highways Engineer Van Voorhis and his
staff to present proposed alternative freeway routes for the West
Park area. A second communication from this group was read
apologizing to Councilman Medders for not recognizing him as being
in attendance at the October 14th freeway meeting.
Mayor Hart stated that two weeks ago he read a letter
into the record which the Council had directed him to write to
Otis Chandler, Publisher of the Los Angeles Times, in which he
stated "--also, I am reasonably certain that if you had had full
awareness of the effect and implications of this article, you
would not have permitted its publication." The Mayor then pro-
ceeded to read the following response from Mr. Chandler:
Dear Mayor Hart:
I apologize for the delay in replying to your
October 6th letter, but I have been away for
sometime and am just now catching up on my
correspondence.
Your statement to the effect that had I had
full awareness of the effect and implications
of our West story on Bakersfield is quite true.
I was not pleased with it and have since dis-
cussed it with my editor. However, there will
be no follow-up story on the subject.
I am a shareholder and former director of Tejon
Ranch and I have spent considerable time in Kern
County over the past twenty-five years, and I
assure you that I know Bakersfield has a great
deal to offer its citizens and certainly has
many other sides than the one portrayed in the
Powers article.
Mayor Hart expressed his pleasure at receiving this
response from Mr. Chandler and stated he is sorry that there will
not be a follow-up presenting a different picture of Bakersfield.
He will refrain from reading into the record his letter to Mr.
Bakersfield, California, November 8, 1971 - Page 4
McKnight, President of the Kern County Bar Association, until he
receives a reply to it, so that the matter of filing a class action
suit is not interpreted in a haphazard fashion and is totally
accurate, and the public will understand what is actually under way.
Councilman Whittemore moved that the letter from Mr. Otis:
Chandler be received and ordered placed on file, which carried
unanimously.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, note from Mrs.
John E. Loustalot expressing deep appreciation that the Council
saw fit to name a street in honor of late Postmaster Loustalot,
was received and ordered placed on file.
Council Statements.
Councilman Heisey commented on a Council resolution
adopted last week which he submitted to the Kern County Water
Agency consenting to the inclusion of the lands within the City
in the proposed Urban Bakersfield Area Improvement District under
specified conditions, stating that now is the appropriate time for
the Council to form a Citizens Advisory Committee to assist in
negotiations for the formation of the Improvement District and the
setting up of an election. He therefore moved that the Council
appoint a committee of 17 members, two members to be appointed by
each Councilman and three by the Mayor, and that the individuals
appointed represent a good cross section of the community and adept
at the analysis of cost figures, etc. After discussion, this
motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Heisey stated that the Engineers of the State
Division of Highways have indicated that Tuesday, November 16, 1971,
will be an acceptable date for them to attend a public hearing
before the Council to discuss the 23rd-24th Street corridor for the
westerly expansion of 178 Freeway which was recommended by the
Planning Commission and the majority of the Council. He then moved
that a Council public hearing be advertised for this date, which
could either be considered an adjourned meeting or a special meeting
of the Council.
272
Bakersfield, California, November 8, 1971 - Page 5
Councilman Bleecker commented that everyone is very
anxious to have a public hearing held on this matter, but he feels
the location of the freeway is of sufficient importance to deserve
giving more than one week's notice to the people of the City who
might wish to attend and express their views on the subject. He
suggested that at least thirty days be allotted for this purpose.
After discussion, Councilman Heisey amended his previous motion
and moved that the Council's public hearing be held on December 7,
1971. He asked the staff to contact the State Engineers to that
effect.
Mr. Bergen stated that the State Engineers are reacting
to the City's invitation to attend a public hearing of the City
Council and he is certain they will make themselves available to
serve as a background for the Council's comments on any date fixed
for that purpose. If the State decides whether the route is
acceptable or not, it will hold its own hearing at a later date.
Councilman Bleecker asked Mr. Hawley, Deputy Director of
Public Works, if the October 14th meeting held by the State Highway
Engineers and referred to in the letter on freeway proposals from
the citizens of West Park area, was called by the State Division
of Highways or did the City schedule this meeting. Mr. Hawley
replied that the Department of Public Works was not aware of the
meeting until the afternoon before it was held, and the City did
not promote it in any way. Councilman Medders informed the Council
that the residents in the West Park area arranged the meeting and
Mr. Jing, Director of Public Works, was present.
Councilman Bleecker asked Mr. Hawley if he was prepared
to report on the figures presented in Mr. Fortenberry's minority
report of last week in order to make a comparison with the statis-
tical data supplied by Mr. Van Voorhis, State Engineer, to the
Citizens Advisory Committee on Freeways.
Mr. Hawley stated that the staff hopes to submit a report
to the Council at next Monday's meeting. The State has supplied
his department with maps, however, a report of this nature involves
Bakersfield, California, November 8, 1971 - Page 6
273
more than merely going out and counting houses because there is
nothing in the field which would show where the right of way lines
would lie. They are taking a little more time in order to give
the Council an accurate report and it is anticipated that the infor-
mation will be made available to the Council at next Monday's meeting.
Councilman Bleecker moved that the Director of Public Works be
instructed to submit the report requested of him at last Monday's
meeting at the next Council meeting of November 15, 1971. This
motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Rees asked Councilman Bleecker why he was in
such haste to receive a report from the Department of Public Works
when he had asked for a 30 day delay on fixing the date for the
public hearing on the proposed freeway route. Councilman Bleecker
stated that there was such a discrepancy between Mr. Fortenberry's
figures and the State's figures as submitted to the Citizens
Advisory Committee, that there could also be many errors in the
State's statistical data which should be made a matter of public
knowledge before the public hearing.
Reports.
Councilman Whittemore~ Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, reported on the subject of the
Fire Department reorganization~ stating that the City of Bakersfield
has not made any major changes in the Fire Department regarding
organizational supervision and emergency response procedures for
the past twenty years, during which time the population has doubled[,
the area has tripled and the total number of Fire Department emer-
gency calls has increased by four times.
Due to the increase in the City's size and the increase
in emergency calls, the present system is proving to be outdated
and in dire need of change. With this in mind, the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee has recommended that the City
be divided into two fire operation battalions as follows:
Battalion No. 1: West of Union Avenue, including Fire
Stations No. 1, 3, 5 and 7. In effect,
there will be four pumper companies,
two truck companies, two squad units
and one rescue unit within this
battalion.
274
Bakersfield, California, November 8, 1971 - Page 7
Battalion No. 2: East of Union Avenue, including Fire
Stations No. 2, 4, 6 and 8, which in
essence, will consist of four pumper
companies, one truck company, two
squad units and one rescue unit within
this battalion.
To properly activate this operation, the Committee
further recommends the authorization of three Fire Suppression
Battalion Chief positions. In order to initiate this reorganization,
the Committee is recommending that the authorized complement of
Fire Captains be reduced by three and that this report be considered
for first reading tonight authorizing three new positions of Fire
Suppression Battalion Chief, placed in Range 55, Step 4 of the City's
compensation ordinance. The additional cost for salaries will amount
to $2,196 the first year, or a total of $183.00 per month.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore~ the report was
received and placed on file, and this was considered first reading
of the ordinance.
Consent Calendar.
The following items are listed on the Consent Calendar:
and (d)
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Allowance of Claims Nos. 1312 to 1376,
inclusive, in amount of $139,341.32.
Street Right of Way Deed for alley from
Elmer F. Karpe, Inc.
Acceptance of Work and Notice of Com-
pletion of Contract No. 74-71 for
Construction of Reinforced Concrete
Pipe Culvert at Stine Canal & Wilson
Road and Improvements at 34th Street
and Kern Island Canal.
Acceptance of the Work and Notice of
Completion of Contract No. 55-71 for
Construction of Automatic Sprinkler
System in Patriots Park Drainfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b), (c)
were approved by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
None
Bakersfield, California, November 8, 1971 - Page 8 275
Action on Bids.
by Councilman Whittemore, low bid of Mission
accepted, all other
to execute the
Upon a motion
Linen Supply for Industrial Laundry Service was
bids were rejected and the Mayor was authorized
contract.
Deferred Business.
Councilman Rees moved adoption of Ordinance No. 1974 New
Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Sections
8.48.010, 8.48.020(n), 8.48.030(a), 8.48.100, 8.48.110(d), adding
Sections 8.48.020(s) and 8.48.170, providing for the effective date
of Chapter 8.48 relating to Refuse Collection and Control and
Charge thereof~ which was given first reading at last week's meettrig.
Councilman Medders commented that he has opposed this
ordinance in the pasl, but he is not going to do so this evening,
because if this is done, the existing ordinance will be effective
and the sections considering condominiums as single-family residences
and permitting underground containers will be deleted. It is not
a change in his position, but he does not wish to get back into the
situation which existed a couple of weeks ago.
Councilman Bleecker asked the City Attorney if the effective
date of the whole ordinance as amended by the proposed ordinance
would be January 1, 1972. Mr. Hoagland slated the effective date
will be thirty days from the date of adoption, but the operative
date is January 1, 1972. This is not ~ proposed ordinance, il is a
proposed amendment to the existing ordinance which is already in
effect but not operative until January 1, 1972. Councilman Bleecker
stated in that case, he will support the motion before the Council.
Councilman Heisey stated that any time one segment of the
community is deleted from the ordinance it places further inequities
on the remaining potlion of the community, so for that reason he
opposes the motion.
Roll Call Vote taken on Councilman Rees' motion to adopt
Ordinance No. 1974 New Series carried as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: Councilman Heisey
Absent: None
276
Bakersfield, California, November 8, 1971 - Page 9
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No.
1975 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 5.38.020 (c) of Chapter 5.38 (Relief and Pension Fund for
Fire Department) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield,
was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance No. 1976
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Sec-
tion 4.06.040 of Chapter 4.06 (Election of Mayor) 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
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 3.14.280 of Chapter
3.14 of the Municipal Code, providing
for Service Awards to Employees.
First reading was considered given to an Ordinance of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 3.14.280
of Chapter 3.14 of the Municipal Code, providing for Service Awards
to Employees.
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
No. 866 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, declaring
its intention to order the vacation
of a portion of Langdon Avenue east
of Grissom Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution of Inten-
tion No. 866 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California,
declaring its intention to order the vacation of a portion of
Langdon Avenue east of Grissom Street and setting November 22, 1971
for hearing on the matter before the Council, was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
None
Rees, Rucker,
Bakersfield, California, November 8, 1971 - Page 10
277
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
No. 869 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield declaring its inten-
tion to order the vacation of a
portion of 15th Street, in the City
of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Resolution of Inten-
tion No. 869 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, declaring
its intention to order the vacation of a portion of 15th Street, in
the City of Bakersfield, and setting November 22, 1971 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 3.18.060 (Salary
Schedule) of the Municipal Code of
the City of Bakersfield by adding a
position.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 3.18.060 (Salary
Schedule) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, by
adding the position of Data Processing Operator.
Mr. Bergen explained that this position was actually
approved during the budget sessions and it was intended to be
included in the Salary Schedule Ordinance adopted effective July
1, 1971. Emergency Employment Funds are used for filling this
position.
Approval of Annexation Boundaries
designated as Ming No. 5 and referred
to the City Engineer and City Attorney
for referral to LAFC.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, the annexation
boundaries of that territory designated as Ming No. 5 were approved,
and referred to the City Engineer and City Attorney for referral to
LAFC.
Bakersfield, California, November 8, 1971 - Page 11
Council reaffirms that Tract No. 3364
was designed and approved for low-cost
housing.
Councilman Rees asked for an explanation of a letter
from the Stockdale Development Corporation requesting the City
Council to reaffirm that Tract No. 3364 was originally approved
for government low-cost housing. A similar request appeared on
previous Council agendas from Strait & Fambrough, Building Con-
tractors.
Mr. Mel Jans, Vice-President of Stockdale Development
Corporation, stated that the tentative map of this Tract was
approved in 1969 and was recorded in 1970. The Tract had a total
of 75 lots and a commitment was obtained for the development of
40 lots under a HUD 235 Housing Program. Strait & Fambrough were
involved to the extent that they were anticipating receiving a
commitment for the remaining 35 lots, but dropped the matter when
the commitment was not received. HUD is reluctant to approve any
235 units in the southwest area as a result of the City Council's
resolution of June 22, 1971, which requested HUD to defer further
235 and 236 projects in Urban Bakersfield until such time as public
hearings may be held. In order to clear up any confusion which
may exist at government level, Stockdale Development Corporation
is asking that the Council reaffirm that this Tract was intended
for 235 Housing.
Councilman Whirremote stated that he cannot see any action
for the Council to take other than reaffirm that this Tract was
originally approved for 235 Housing and made a motion to that
effect.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
This motion carried as follows:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
None
Bakersfield, California, November 8, 1971 - Page 12 279
Adoption of Resolution No. 78-71
authorizing the filing of an appli-
cation for a Federal Grant under
Water and Sewer Facilities Grant
Program.
Councilman Bleecker moved that Resolution authorizing
the filing of an application for a Federal Grant under Water and
Sewer Facilities Grant Program be deferred for two weeks, and that
the staff be instructed to prepare an in-depth analysis of this
request for the benefit of the Council.
Councilman Whirremote stated that this matter was con-
sidered at the Kern Cog meeting last Tuesday night, and is not
anything which would cost the City money, has no strings attached
and will take care of the drainage problem existing in Councilman
Rucker's Ward. He stated that the Council should move with as much
haste as possible, because these Federal funds will allow the
if the City
project to be constructed at a lower overall cost than
budgets the funds to build it later.
Councilman Rees stated that he can't see any
reason for
delaying action on the application to make "busy" work for the
staff, he is willing to accept the recommendations of the City
Manager and the Engineering staff on this project, and their state-
ments regarding the necessity for applying for the grant.
City Manager Bergen pointed out that this is an application
only. Some time element is involved, he cannot say how critical,
because he is not sure of all of HUD's requirements from day to
day. The extension of the storm drain projects into the Sunset-
Mayflower Tract are projects which are already in the five year
Capital Improvement Program not as yet budgeted. In this year,
the City and State have a joint project budgeted for $291,000;
Bakersfield's share is $1t0,000 which is budgeted and programmed
for expenditure this year; together with the State of California's
share of $181,000, making a total project cost of $291,000. It
was called to the City's at.tention that HUD had available funds
for storm drains and with time being somewhat important, it was
the staff's recommendation that the City make application for funds
Bakersfield, California, November 8, 1971 - Page 13
for the construction of some of the projects already proposed in
the five-year Capital Improvement Program for the Sunset-Mayflower
area, amounting to around $200,000. The City can use the storm
drain project which is presently being constructed on the south
side of future Freeway 58 between Mr. Vernon and Cottonwood Road
as the City's matching share, and that was the basis of the City's
application.
Mr. Bergen went on to assure the Council that the staff
is not just dreaming up storm drain projects to spend Federal funds,
but these are future projects in the five-year Capital Improvement
Budget which can be constructed at this time and possibly would
not be funded by the City for three to five years.
Councilman Rucker asked the Council to support this
application in order to give the Sunset-Mayflower area a drainage
system and eliminate the flooding which exists after every storm.
Councilman Bleecker asked if the City contemplates making
application for any other grants in the future besides these funds.
Mr. Bergen replied that the City has been told by representatives
of HUD that they would look favorably on additional applications
for funds which could be used for constructing curbs, gutters and
sidewalks in the southeast area, and even get into redevelopment
such as the removal of substandard homes. These applications will
be brought to the Council in the future for consideration. The
City has no assurance that HUD will approve this application with-
out additional applications "packaged together", but it was thought
that the City should apply, and if the Federal Funds are tied
together with other types, the Council will have to re-evaluate on
that basis at that time.
Councilman Bleecker asked the staff to advise the Council
when they are contemplating making applications for a couple of
hundred thousand dollars of Federal Funds, so that it isn't just
"sprung" without any warning, as the Council didn't know anything
about this application prior to the meeting this evening. Mr.
Bakersfield, California, November 8, 1971 - Page 14
Bergen stated it had been mentioned to some members of the
Council at a meeting of the Budget Review and Finance Com-
mittee last Friday. It is only an application and in no way
commits the City. An application was also made to Kern Cog
for concurrence on this project. Of course, the Council
would have to give final approval for making any formal
application to HUD.
Councilman Rees commented that Mr. Bergen had indicated
there might be some relation between other HUD overtures and
this one, relative to related packages, etc. Mr. Bergen asked
the Council to recall that he had sent each member a copy of
a letter he directed to HUD in response to notification from
HUD officials relative to available funds for improvements in
the southeast area. The proposal from HUD was in the manner
of a package arrangement, which included various types of
grants. He is not sure how far the City wants to go into
urban redevelopment. HUD could take the position that unless
the City is willing to participate in these other types of
grants, it will not receive any funds.
Councilman Whittemore pointed out that this matter was
considered by Kern Cog at last Tuesday's meeting, and there
are no strings tied to the application for funds. Councilman
Heisey remarked that if there are no strings tied to it, that
could be a fine project; however, he feels as many of the
other Councilmen do, that prior notice should be given to the
Council if an item does not originate from or have the Council's
recommendation. At least a page of explanation should accompany
the agenda for Council perusal so if there are any questions,
it can be discussed prior to the Council meeting. He pointed
out that it was obvious many of the Council members did not
know what this application represented.
Councilman Whittemore stated that if the Council wishes
it, after every Kern Cog meeting, he will present a report to
Bakersfield, California, November 8, 1971 - Page 15
the Council explaining the City's application for grants. Council-
man Heisey asked that the report be a written one, rather than take
up the Council's time with an oral report.
Councilman Bleecker asked Mr. Bergen if all requests for
Federal Funds originate with Kern Cog. Mr. Bergen replied "no",
any application for funds has to come from the City, all requests
must originate from the receiving agency. Kern Cog or HUD can
notify the City that funds are available for certain purposes, but
the City determines whether to make application for the funds.
Councilman Bleecker asked that if for some reason Kern Cog turned
down this request, could the City still get the money. Mr. Bergen
replied that it is his understanding that the City could not get
the money if Kern Cog did not recommend approval of any City
application.
Councilman Bleecker remarked that in other words, a sort
of super-government exists in this County that can approve or dis-
approve applications for Federal Funds for the City of Bakersfield.
Mr. Bergen stated that the incorporated cities and the county were
very reluctant to form Kern Cog, but had no choice in order to
retain local control.
Councilman Whittemore commented that Kern Cog was formed
in self-defense, and was done due to the fact that the eleven
incorporated cities joined together and now have what they consider
the best local control they can possibly get. Had Kern Cog not
been formed, the State was mandated by the Federal Government to
step in and form regional governments,
have had any
applications
satisfactory,
local control. As far as
are made, if the terms of
the City can back off at
and the cities would not
accepting funds after
any agreement are not
any time. The Executive
Director of Kern Cog is very well informed on the Federal Funding
Acts, and if he sees funds are available that would be attractive
to the City, he calls the City Manager, and if the City wants to
apply for the funds, it can do so.
Bakersfield, California, November 8, 1971 - Page 16 283
After additional discussion, Councilman Bleecker with-
drew his motion to defer acting on the Resolution for two weeks,
and stated he would support the Resolution. Councilman Whittemore
then moved to adopt Resolution No. 78-71 authorizing the
an application for a Federal Grant under Water and Sewer
Grant Program, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
filing o~
Facilities
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
None
City Manager Bergen commented that he does not think
there is anything wrong with the full Council discussing something
of this much importanceto the community and what this Council's
attitude is towards Federal Grants, as a Committee can not speak
for the full Council. Personally, he appreciates having the
opportunity to hold a discussion on this matter with the full
Council and he invites the Council's comments at any time.
Councilman Whittemore commented that in the future, after
a Kern Cog meeting, anything which pertains to the City of Bakers-
field should have a written report prepared and sent out in the
Council's weekly packet.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the meeting adjourned
Calif.
at 9:45 P.M.
ATTEST:
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, November 15, 1971
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield, Cali£ornia, held in the Council Chambers of
the City Hall at eight o'clock P.~M., November 15, 1971.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Olan
Terrell of the Wesley Methodist 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 November 8, 1971 were
approved as presented.
Correspondence.
The City Clerk announced that the next meeting of the
South San Joaquin Division of the League of California Cities will
be held in Tulare on Friday, December 3, 1971, and the program
will be the installation of new officers.
The following communication from A. T. Samuelson, Director
of the United States General Accounting Office, addressed to
Congressman Bob Mathias, was read:
Pursuant to your request of May 26, 1971, and'
subsequent discussions with you, we have been
reviewing the operations of the Kern County
Economic Opportunity Corporation, Bakersfield,
California, an Office of Economic Opportunity
Grantee. The purpose of this letter is to
inform you of the current status of the review.
We have substantially completed our examination
of the following program areas:
General Administration of the Corporation
Emergency Food and Medical Program
Neighborhood Service Centers
Economic Development
Urban Planning
The review has been heavily oriented towards
developing and evaluating information on the
results obtained from the Corporation's pro-
grams and activities. We also tested the
adequacy of the Corporation's financial adminis-
tration.
We are in the process of drafting a report 'on
the results of our review and expect to release
it to you about the end of January, 1972.
Bakersfield, California, November 15, 1971 - Page 2
Councilman Heisey commented that the investigation con-
ducted by the General Accounting Office was quite extensive, as 4½
months were spent reviewing the operations of the KCEOC. A great
deal of time will be spent in writing the report on the investigation,
as it becomes an official document of the United States Congress
when it is completed. He then moved that the communication be
received and ordered placed on file, which carried unanimously.
Council Statements.
Councilman Bleecker read two communications into the
record which were addressed to him as a Councilman, and requested
that they be spread on the Minutes, as follows:
Councilman Bleecker, Councilman
Dear Keith:
Speaking as one owner of apartments, I want to
thank you for the common sense approach you have
taken regarding the refuse fees. I wish I had
the money and the time to fight this issue
through the courts. The present stand of the
City Council is discriminatory and as such, I
believe, illegal.
The use of the term "free services" where
government at any level is concerned, is phony
and dishonest. The refuse service has been a
part of our property tax structure. If this
is no longer the way to go, lets level the fee
at all of the users of that service. As it
stands, I feel that I will be paying twice for
a service via taxes and the fee. This is unjust.
The apartments I own are the low-rent variety,
taxes and costs have gone up, and if I were to
pass all of these costs on, the renters involved
could not pay. With the saturation of apartment
dwellings in this area, the competition is such
that they do not have, to stay. I now have three
vacancies out of seven units. Aside from the
investment of time this month, it appears I am
going to have to dip into other earning sources
to make payments on the apartments. My case is
not unusual, and yet the City looks to us as a
fat source of revenue to balance the budget.
We have as much or more financial pressures as
the owner who only occupies his own home.
Today I would be happy with all my efforts to
bail out of the described property for what I
have in it or less. I think there are many
others like me. This is not a big expense to
owners some would say, but it is one more
expense which unfairly burdens only part of
the users of the refuse service.
Sincerely,
James D. Copeland
Bakersfield, California, November 15, 1971 - Page 3
The second communication reads as follows:
Dear Councilman Bleecker:
As the letter writer for the ten Montclair
Street residents, the letter you had read into
the Council record, I wish to thank you for
your interest and courtesy thai our letter be
made a part of the record. We do not want a
freeway rammed down our throat any more than
do the residents of your Ward.
We have written to the Highway Action Coalition
in Washington, D.C., asking for suggestions on
how to fight poorly-planned development. Have
residents of the Fourth Ward contacted this
organization. Also, the Valley Transportation
Coalition in Phoenix might be helpful. Actually,
there would have been three times the number of
signatures on the letter that went to the Council
last week. It's just that this letter writer
got tired revising the original letter after
talking with each person who signed. But it's
the only way to have a truly representative
letter.
I am quite sure that if I had gotten all interested
parties to sign, Councilman Medders would have been
on the telephone for more than one night. Is there
any way that residents of the Fourth and Fifth Wards
could work together to bring about a more logical
and humanistic solution of the Bakersfield Freeway
problems.
Very truly yours,
Jean Cleaves
604 Montclair Street
Bakersfield,
Councilman Bleecker stated that he has had a number of
calls from people asking why the quadrant added to the existing
parking mall has so many 36 minute parking zones. He asked the
City Manager to check into this with the Traffic Department and
furnish him with a report tomorrow.
Councilman Rees stated that the matter of the County-
wide district unification is still an issue in Kern County. In
April, 1968, the Council of the City of Bakersfield went on record
with a Resolution opposing any type of school district reorganiza-
tion that would divide the Bakersfield metropolitan area. He is
greatly concerned with the education of people and he intends to
pursue the matter by seeking what he believes is best for the
school children and the City and County. The Kern County Committee
on School District Organization has once again opened hearings on
what is referred to as the 14-District Plan which will divide the
Bakersfield, California, November 15, 1971 - Page 4 ~7
urban area into three districts; the north, the south and the east..
He quoted the tax figures which would support each pupil and which
would range from $4.74 in the north, $7.24 in the south and $10.03
in the east. He moved that the Council go on record as it did in
1968 to oppose any plan which would divide the metropolitan Bakers--
field area in an unequitable manner, and that the City Attorney be
directed to prepare an appropriate resolution reaffirming the
Council's position. Also, that the City be represented at the
hearings which will be held in various sections of the community
on November 16, 17 and 18, 1971. Councilman Bleecker expressed
support of the motion. Vote taken on the motion carried unanimously
and Resolution No. 79-71 was adopted.
City Attorney Hoagland asked if Councilman Rees had in
mind for him to present the resolution at one of the hearings this
week. Councilman Rees produced a copy of the previous Resolution
stating that it could be reworded to reaffirm the Council's
opposition to the 14 point plan. Mr. Hoagland stated that at the
time this resolution was drawn, his office was not in possession
of all the facts, but he does have additional arguments at this
time and they can be incorporated in the resolution.
Councilman Medders pointed out that the 14-District Plan
is being proposed now and the Resolution should definitely state
the Council's opposition to this Plan, as this proposal will divide
the metropolitan area of Bakersfield into three districts.
Councilman Heisey referred to the letter read earlier by
Councilman Bleecker from a constituent expressing opposition to the
refuse collection fees, stating that his phone has been ringing
constantly both at home and at his place of business. The people
are incensed and it is particularly bad, inasmuch as this Council
has enjoyed a fine reputation for responsibility for the past
several years. The commercial and industrial segments of the com-
munity are being charged for refuse pickup on the tax rate and are
now being told that they will be charged another refuse fee. It
is grossly unjust and he feels that the probability of the City
being sued is a good one, as he has been told by several people
that they are contemplating such action.
288
Bakersfield, California, November 15, 1971 - Page 5
The honest and fair way to handle this is to take the
whole thing out of the tax rate, drop the tax rate for everybody
and then charge those individuals who use the service for the
service they get, which is a straightforward approach everyone
can understand, as it is equitable to everyone.
Councilman Medders read the following letter into the
record which was sent to him from a constituent:
Editor, Bakersfield News Bulletin
Dear Sir:
In fairness to Mr. L. S. Van Voorhis, Division
of Highways Engineer, I would like to clarify
the accusations made against him in a letter
read to the City Council and reported in this
paper.
I am one of those who initiated the West Park
citizens meeting and Mr. Van Voorhis was the
invited guest speaker. The audience was tense
and to reduce this tension, he used the word
"hostile" in his opening remarks. Members of
the audience constantly interrupted him, al-
though he had requested that questions be asked
after he finished his talk.
Those of us who live in the actual site of the
proposed freeway preferred to confine discussion
to the issue of the freeway rather than diverting
to attack individuals.
Yours truly,
Margaret Haut
4601 E1 Monte Way
Councilman Whittemore commented that the West Park area
citizens who criticized the Council members for not attending their
freeway meeting, did not notify the Council that a meeting had been
scheduled or that Mr. Van Voorhis would be in attendance. He would
have been happy to attend if he had received an invitation to do so.
Councilman Whittemore went on to say that the Council has
discussed "garbage" for three consecutive weeks and that Councilman
Bleecker has done a complete "flip flop" since budget sessions when
as a member of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee,
he supported the Refuse Collection Fee Ordinance and he reviewed
the facts and figures and recommended this action to the City
Council. Also, Councilman Heisey doesn't pull any bones about
representing the commercial and business interests of the City.
Evidently he feels that the single family property owners are "free
Bakersfield, California, November 15, 1971 - Page 6 289
loaders",
He analyzed some of the costs for City services,
high concentration of Police and Fire Protection
mercial section, paid for out of the general tax.
and some of the Council doesn't happen to feel that way.
stating that the
are in the com-
Those people
living in the neighborhoods are lucky to have their streets swept
once a month, while they are swept nightly in the business downtown
area, which also comes out of the general fund. The high rate of
flow and concentration of sewage treatment is generated from the
commercial area, but is still paid for from the general tax which
is paid by the single family property owner. He pointed out that
90% of the cities in the State of California charge for refuse
collection and all of them are charging commercial and industrial
users, so that the City of Bakersfield is not unique. The majority
of the Council felt and still feels that this is the equitable
manner to charge for refuse collection and he will continue to
support it.
Councilman Bleecker stated that the Vice-Mayor maintains
that he did a "flip flop", and he is right. He was a member of
the GEPC which initially recommended this ordinance to the Council.
Since that time, however, he can see the myriad of problems it has
caused and at the last Council meeting he made the statement that
he hoped if the ordinance could not be repealed, that it would be
piece-meal amended to death. He still has that feeling, he feels
that it is grossly unfair, primarily to those people who are small
property owners or in the middle income ($8,000 - $15,000) taxpayer.
In any elected body legislation is either repealed all together
later or amended, because the legislators are trying to do what is
right for the public.
Councilman Heisey commented that Mr. Whittemore stated
most of the cities in the United States have a fee for refuse
collection~ 'and he is correct. But they charge everyone who uses
the service, and if it is not used, the property owner is not charged
for it in his tax rate. That is the important difference.
Councilman Whittemore stated that perhaps Mr. Heisey
should be supplied with a copy of the survey made on refuse collection
in various cities, and Councilman Heisey stated he had a copy in
his office.
29O
Bakersfield, California, November 15, 1971 - Page 7
Councilman Rucker commented that there are inequities in
everything that the City attempts to do on behalf of its citizens,
and there are possibly inequities in the Refuse Collection Ordinance
which through the City staff and the City Council will be corrected
in the future. It will work a hardship on some people, but he
feels that it will do a great job for the majority of the people.
Councilman Bleecker pointed out to Mr. Rucker that the
low-income families in his ward would possibly be the hardest hit
by this refuse charge.
Councilman Thomas stated that he had checked with the
Finance Director's office and the County Assessor, and using the
65~ tax rate deduction referred to at several Council meetings
and on the radio, based on an average home worth $12,000, with an
assessed valuation of $3,000, the property owner would save $19.50
per year. An $18,000 home using the same 65~ reduction in the tax
rate, would break even. Therefore, he is in favor of the refuse
collection fees, otherwise, the property owner with the expensive
home would make money off the little person, and he doesn't like
it, it just isn't fair.
Councilman Rees stated he sympathizes with the people
in the low-income bracket, but the Council is discussing a division
of refuse charges between the commercial and the non-commercial
users, and he asked what that had to
income class.
Councilman Bleecker stated
do with being in a certain
that most of the people that
make a decent wage and have a good job, are paying 85% of the taxes,
whether it is taxation on refuse, taxation on incomes, for schools,
or whatever it is.
Councilman Rees
prove to his satisfaction
commercial operations
people, he is against
remarked that if Councilman Bleecker can
that a charge for pick up of refuse from
in the City of Bakersfield is a tax on poor
it.
Bakersfield, California~ November 15, 1971 - Page 8
291
Mayor Hart welcomed and introduced the individual students
participating in Teen-Age Government Day being held November 17,
1971~ who were present at the Council meeting to observe their
counterparts conduct City affairs.
Reports.
Councilman Rucker, Chairman of the Auditorium-Recreation
Committee, read the following report on the California Avenue Park
Neighborhood Facility:
Last week the Kern County Board of Supervisors
approved the City of Bakersfield's request that
the County financially support 75% ($120,000)
of the California Avenue Park Neighborhood
Facility, emphasizing that this is the maximum
amount they will contribute to this project.
In 1969 the City of Bakersfield had an annexa-
tion pending which would have annexed and made
the City responsible to all residents of the
entire southeast area of Bakersfield. At this
time both residents and the unincorporated area
showed an interest in developing a multi-purpose
facility in California Avenue Park since Federal
aid was available for such projects. The City
was reluctant to make application for such a
project until the annexation vote occurred,
because if it failed, a substantial area not
within the City could not participate. Officials
of HUD informed the City that the time element
was crucial and if the City made application
and the annexation failed~ the City was not
obligated to proceed. On this assumption the
City submitted an application, with the reasoning
if the annexation failed, perhaps the County of
Kern could assist in the project.
In March of 1969 the annexation was defeated,
and as a result, the City was faced with the
possibility of providing a neighborhood center
which would be used by more than 50% non-City
residents. Rather than doing away with the
project, the Council instructed the City's
Auditorium-Recreation Committee to meet with
members of the County Board of Supervisors to
work out an equitable solution in financing
the local portion of the project.
Over the past 2~ years, the Council Committee
and City staff have met with the Board of Super-
visors and the County's Administrative Staff and
discussed the project plans and development
schedule in detail. The County indicated that
they might assist in the capital cost of con-
struction; however, they could not be involved
with maintenance and operation costs. Since
maintenance and operation costs would amount to
approximately $50,000 annually, to the City on
an on-going basis, it was felt that the County
should contribute at least 75% of the original
out-of-pocket cost to the City. During the
fiscal year 1969-70, the County budgeted $40,000
toward this project, in the 1970-71 budget they
budgeted $40,000, and last week approved a con-
tribution of an additional $40,000 which brings
its total contribution to the requested $120,000.
Bakersfield, California, November 15, 1971 - Page 9
The City budgeted its one-fourth ($40,000)
during the 1969-70 fiscal year. This means
that matching funds in amount of $160,000 as
required by HUD are available, which will be
matched by HUD's two-thirds contribution of
$322,213, for a total project development cost
of $480,000.
On October 14, 1971', the City' received a contract
from HUD which would finalize its agreement for
this facility, which was to be executed and
returned within 30 days; however, as the County
and the City had not arrived at a mutual under-
standing on the local portion, the City requested
an additional 30 days to submit this final con-
tract.
With the final approval of the County's portion
of this project, the City and County should now
enter into a Joint Powers Agreement. The City
Attorney's office has prepared a draft copy of
this agreement, and as soon as the details are
worked out, it will be submitted to the Council
and the Board of Supervisors within the next
two weeks for adoption, so that the City can
proceed with entering into a contract with HUD.
Councilman Rees commented that he was privileged to be a
member of the Auditorium-Recreation Committee at the time this
project was in the formative stages and he is very happy to see
that it is at the stage of final action. It will benefit the
people in the southeast Bakersfield community and it is for those
people the Council is concerned. He expressed his gratitude to
the Board of Supervisors for honoring its commitment to make this
project possible and especially commended Supervisor Miller for
cooperating with the Committee as a liaison member of the Board in
a very friendly manner. Mr. Schroeder, the Architect for the
multi-purpose building has virtually completed his plans and
Councilman Rees expressed the hope that it will not be very long
before the building is completed.
Councilman Bleecker stated that it was his recollection
that the maintenance and operation costs were originally considered
to be $35,000 and this report indicates that these costs are now
$50,000 annually. He asked if the City has raised its sights on
these costs in the amount of $15,000 a year. Mr. Bergen stated
that both amounts were estimates and he would say that the cost
will depend on the different levels of service provided. It is the
City's intention to hold the line within this amount, which will be
a budgeted item each year, so that the Council can look at the cost
on an annual basis.
Councilman Heisey stated this is a very worthwhile project,
he has supported it from the beginning. This project is needed in
Bakersfield, California, November 15, 1971- Page l0
293
this area and it is appropriately part of the Recreation budget.
As stated by the City Manager, the operating costs will be con-
sidered each year at budget time, and can be kept within a reason-
able figure.
Councilman Whittemore stated he was the Councilman who
first introduced this project to the Council floor many years ago.
He thanked Supervisor Milton Miller for his cooperation in the
program and also thanked those citizens who participated and looked
forward to this building with a great deal of anticipation. He
stated he is very proud and pleased that it has finally reached
reality.
Councilman Rucker then moved adoption of the report,
which carried unanimously.
Consent Calendar.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Item (a) of the
Consent Calendar - Allowance of Claims Nos. 1377 to 1455, inclusiw~,
in amount of $24,039.64, and Budget Transfer from Fund No. 11-510-6100
in amount of $5,825, to be distributed to Fund 11-615-6200 - $540;
11-615-7100 - $435; 11-690-7200 - $4,800; and 11-716-3400 - $50,
were adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Councilman Medders asked the City Manager if this amount
of $5,825 providing funds for the employment of a Building Inspector
I under the Emergency Employment Act did not exceed the 10% overall
amount alloted for employment under the Emergency Employment Act.
Mr. Bergen stated that the staff did not anticipate coming back to
the Council for additional funds, but it is necessary to purchase
capital items such as office equipment, car and radio for the
Building Inspector I position. These funds were originally budgeted
for this purpose, but were removed during budget time when this
position was not approved.
Deferred Business.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No.
1977 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 3.14.280 of Chapter 3.14 of the Municipal Code providing
294
Bakersfield, California, November 15, 1971 - Page 11
for Service Awards to Employees,
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
None
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance No.
1978
Absent: None
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 3.18.060 (Salary Schedule) of the Municipal Code of the
City of Bakersfield to include the new class title of Fire Battalion
Chief, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Ordinance No. 1979
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 3.18.060 (Salary Schedule) of the Municipal Code of the
City of Bakersfield adding position of Data Processing Operator,
was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Councilman Bleecker asked if this position is one that
primarily concerns itself with figuring the additional refuse
collection fees to be charged by the City. Mr. Bergen stated this
was related to it. Councilman Bleecker asked what the estimated
cost would be for this position, and Mr. Bergen stated about $7500.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1980 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield designating a name for
City Street, as Loustalot Lane.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, seconded by Council-
man Heisey, Ordinance No. 1980 New Series of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield designating a name for City Street as Loustalot
Lane, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
295
Bakersfield, California, November 15, 1971 - Page 12
Petition from 122 citizens requesting
the parking time on the south side of
17th Street between "K" and "L" Streets
be returned to 5 hour parking zone
referred to the Traffic Authority.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, petition from 122
citizens requesting the parking time on the south side of 17th
Street between "K" and "L" Streets be returned to 5 hour parking
zone was referred to the Traffic Authority for study and recommenda-
tion.
Councilman Bleecker asked that a copy of this petition
be furnished to him as it concerns an area in his Ward.
Acceptance of Grant Deed for 10 acre
Drainfield and Parksite on Akers Road
between Planz Road and White Lane.
Councilman Whirremote asked several questions relative
to the proposed 10 acre Drainfield and Parksite on Akers Road
between Planz Road and White Lane.
1. Are the developers in that area donating a
portion of this land to the City of Bakers-
field as all other subdividers have been
required to do.
2.Are the developers going to share the cost
of fencing and improvements in this area.
3. What will be the disposition of the five
existing small drainfields.
Mr. Bergen replied that the drainfield would serve
developed property without a direct charge. However, as any
vacant property is developed, the subdividers will be required to
pay as is done in other areas. The five drainfields will be
abandoned, however, some of the sump sites will revert back to the
developer and the sumps that do belong to the City will be filled
and sold. This will help pay the cost of the drainfield for the
developed property.
Mr. Jing, Director of Public Works, stated that his
department is working on a drainage district plan to be submitted
to the Council for approval, which will then set a rate for acreage
fees as adjacent properties make use of the drainage facility.
Bakersfield, California, November 15, 1971 - Page 13
Councilman Whirremote suggested that the funds from the
sumps which are filled and sold be used to help defray the cost
of the new drainfield and moved that the Grant Deed for this
property be accepted. This motion carried unanimously.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Whitfemore the meeting was
adjourned at 9:12 P.M.
ATTEST:
Calif.
C~~an~.x-~~lerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, November 22, 1971
297
Minutes of
of Bakersfield, California, held
City Hall at eight o'clock P.M.,
The meeting was called
a regular meeting of the Council of the City
in the Council Chambers of the
November 22, 1971.
to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Gerald
Spencer of the Rexland Acres Baptist Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of November 15, 1971 were
approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mrs. Roger Narinian of 5805 Easton Drive, addressed the
Council and expressed objections to Refuse Collection Ordinance No.
1961 New Series. She stated that her primary objection was the
reason that created the need for the ordinance, the salary increases
granted City employees because of pressure from organized employee
groups which should not have been done without funds to pay for the
increases. She voiced objections to the ordinance because it
singles out certain segments of the taxpaying public who already
pay higher taxes than single family home owners, and are being
taxed double because the collection service fee is also included
in the property tax rate. She asked if landlords who own individual
rental houses are required to pay additional collection fees. She
and her husband own apartments and are unable to pass on the addi-
tional fees to their rentals because rents are frozen. They are
already losing money on these apartments, and she asked where the
incentive is to continue in private enterprise or invest in the
economy. She asked what it will cost the taxpayer to collect this
refuse fee, as she has been told that additional employees and
equipment are needed to do so.
Mrs. Narinian suggested that Ordinance No. 1961 New Series
be rescinded, the salary increases be rescinded and the services
reduced. If this is not feasible, a solution would be to turn the
collection over to private enterprise and permit the property owner
Bakersfield, California, November 22, 1971 - Page 2
to utilize the service he so desires. Also, another solution to
the problem would be to raise the property taxes so that everyone
would be paying equally for the refuse collection service and
could write it off on his income tax. She suggested that some
consideration be given to recycling refuse which would reduce the
costs to the taxpayers.
Councilman Bleecker commented that the questions raised
by Mrs. Narinian are those which some members of the Council have
asked both publicly and privately. In answer to some of her
questions, he stated that the single family dwellings that are
rentals are not included in the ordinance, and the cost of the new
ordinance is the cost of the collection of the fees, which is
difficult to determine.
Councilman Whittemore complimented Mrs. Narinian on her
presentation here tonight and complimented Mr. Webster and Mr.
Renfro for their community-wide participation in the matter of
refuse collection. He stated that he had listened to their
recording and would take exception to some of the statements made
in it. This ordinance is not an introduction to imposing a refuse
fee on single family dwellings, which was attempted by the Council
several years ago and voted down. This ordinance is not infallible,
it is apparent to him that many aspects of it need corrected.
Bills for these charges far exceed the estimate presented to the
Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee at the preliminary
hearings and on which was based its recommendations to the Council
during budget sessions. As it was proposed, it is a sound ordinance,
as it is being put into effect, there are abuses in it. The charges
are far too high, it was not the intent of the ordinance to force
anyone out of business, the Council members have the community's
interests foremost in their minds and before the ordinance is put
into effect on January 1, 1972, these fees will be studied and
corrected. He stated that the Committee will meet to review this
ordinance as soon as the City Manager returns from vacation and
adjustments as necessary will be made with the approval of the
Council.
If the Council should go to the proposal of user-pay,
people in neighborhoods are going to get a tremendous tax break,
because the collection of the refuse is only one facet, the volume,
'99
Bakersfield, California, November 22, 1971 - Page 3
the transportation, the cost of the sanitary landfill, the use of
the sewage treatment plant, all of these things must be considered.
He cited the additional services being furnished to the business
areas which are paid for out of the property tax and which are not
provided to those people living in the residential areas.
Councilman Heisey complimented Mrs. Narinian on her
presentation, stating that she has brought out a lot of points
that have needed to be discussed. Since August he has been talking
against this ordinance at every meeting. It is grossly unjust and
the Council by a 4 to 3 vote adopted a budget which was completely
out of balance without the funds to underwrite it. In order to
finance the budget, the Council came up with a scheme to charge
the commercial and business interests of the community enough
additional fees for refuse pickup to cover the deficit. Councilmail
Whirremote has pointed out that downtown business receives City
services at a higher level than the residential area. This is done
because those businesses pay about 30 or 40 times more in property
taxes than the residential areas which certainly warrants more
protection and service. He has learned from the Finance Director
that 71.4~ of the tax rate goes for refuse collection services.
It is most important that the Council is concerned about the property
tax rate as it is the only rate the Council has any control over.
Since the bills started going out for the additional refuse
collection fees, he has had many calls, and he thinks that the
entire ordinance should be repealed,which is a good point of
beginning, and since the Council has already spent the funds, it
will be necessary to come back with an ordinance that is fair to
everyone. He strongly feels that charges for refuse should be on
a user-pay basis, which he is sure will be acceptable to all home-
owners. He will support that type of ordinance, but he cannot
support the one which is in effect now.
Councilman Bleecker commented that the only way a City
can operate is by using the power to tax and when it does, those
funds have to be well spent. He stated that he d~esn't know of
3O0
Bakersfield, California, November 22, 1971 - Page 4
any other way to operate City business than to allocate on the tax
roll so many cents per hundred dollars valuation for the services
that are performed by the City.
Mr. John Ramage, owner of the Manley Apartments located
at 1908 18th Street, voiced objections to the additional refuse
collection fees, stating that he has been assessed about $88.00
per month for his 35 apartments which in a great many instances do
not use the garbage cans. He stated that he has already been hit
hard by the additional utility tax levied on his apartments and his
taxes have gone up every year. He has to meet competition and is
not permitted by the freeze to raise his rents. He feels that this
additional fee is grossly unfair to the apartment owners, and if
this is going to continue, every property owner should share in
the costs.
Mr. B. L. Dickinson who lives at 3500 Panorama Drive,
addressed the Council stating that he is President of the Apart-
ment Owners Association, and he asked the City Council to vote
tonight to repeal the ordinance and to adjust the fees so that
they are fair and equal to everyone in the community. He stated
that when he received his statements for additional collection
fees for his apartments, he informed the City to take him into
court, as he is not going to pay them. Two organizations to which
he belongs are in the process of getting an injunction against the
City on January 2, 1972, to prevent the collection of these fees,
which will cost the City and the taxpayers to fight this suit. He
stated he thinks it is time to call a halt, to reconsider it, and
to adjust it so that everyone will be happy.
Councilman Bleecker commented that he had intended to
wait until Council Statements to say what he is going to say now,
but since Mr. Dickinson has made this request of the Council and
has indicated the apartment owners feelings on the refuse collection
ordinance, he is now going to move to repeal the Ordinance. He
then made the motion that Refuse Collection Ordinance No. 1961 New
Series and all amendments thereto, be repealed and that Monday,
November 29, 1971, a regular Council session, be set aside for the
301_
Bakersfield, California, November 22, 1971 - Page 5
Council to meet as a Committee of the Whole to consider alternatives
to the Refuse Collection Ordinance. He then called for the question.
Mayor Hart stated he could call for the question, but it
did not isolate or prevent debate on the motion. Councilman
Whirremote asked for a ruling from the
the legality of the motion. Assistant
it was a legal and proper motion.
City Attorney relative to
City Attorney Leach ruled
Councilman Rees submitted an amendment to the motion that
the Council act as a Committee of the Whole at the December 6, 1971
meeting to consider this matter. Councilman Bleecker accepted this
amendment to his motion.
Councilman Thomas asked for a division of the question in
order to give the Council the opportunity to vote on repealing the
ordinance and on setting the date for the meeting fo discuss and
determine alternatives, as two separate actions.
Councilman Bleecker stated that there is no way to divide
the question that one section of it depends upon the other. If the
Ordinance were not repealed at this time, then the second part of
the motion would be a moot question. Therefore, he would say that
this is one and the same motion, and he would oppose any ruling
that decided otherwise. When consulted, Mr. Leach stated that if
the ordinance were repealed, the Council would have to consider
alternatives, so the question could only be voted upon in total.
Councilman Whittemore stated that he would support
Councilman Thomas because if the Council votes not to rescind the
ordinance, it would preclude the Council from meeting on December
6, 1971, to discuss alternatives which some of the Council wants
to do. He stated that he is opposed to it in this form, because
any suggestion to adjust the tax rate at this late date is not
possible.
After some additional discussion, vole was taken on
Councilman Bleecker's motion which carried as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abs e,n t:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Councilmen Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
None
Rees
3O'2
Bakersfield, California, November 22, 1971 - Page 6
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, communications
from Mr. Chuck Maskal, dba Emergency Plumbing Service, Mrs. AlbertsL
Kenney and Mrs. H. E. Foreman, expressing objections to the addi-
tional refuse collection fees, were received and ordered placed on
file.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, communication from
Mr. John Robinson, Lakeview Community Council, re City Council
support of Program "College as Parole Plan" was received and ordered
placed on file.
Council Statements.
Councilman Rees asked the Director of Public Works what
progress is being made on the construction of a bikeway and pedes-
train path to the three schools located on Auburn Street, stating
that a hazard definitely exists as a young student on a bicycle has
collided with a school bus at Oswell and Auburn Street and he would
like a report that would give some encouragement to the people who
are asking when this bikeway will be finished and when the students
will be able to use it.
Mr. Jing stated that the staff has met with the school
officials and has given them a plan, the construction work of the
bike lanes has been completed except for that portion which is
under the P. G. & E. easement. Verbal consent has been given for
the use of it, but he has not received written permission to that
effect. The pathway has been graded, but it has not been paved and
as soon as permission is received from the utility company, the
paving of the lane itself will be completed at once. Reflectors
and plastic buttons have been ordered by the Traffic Department
which will define the travel pbrtion of the lanes and delineate
the bikeway and pedestrian path from the roadway.
Councilman Rees thanked Mr. Jing and stated that he is
sure this will be a functional, useable, practical bikeway and a
plan which will require the cooperation of the students to observe
the speed laws.
Councilman Rees complimented Mr. Owen Kearns, Jr. for
his excellent column in the Bakersfield Californian last weekend,
Bakersfield, California, November 22, 1971 - Page 7
303
in which he undertook an informative analysis of the Kern County
School redistricting problem. He stated he thought it was very
well done, and although he didn't happen to agree with every con-
clusion Mr. Kearns made, he recognized it as a very thorough and
professional study.
Councilman Rees expressed his admiration of the manner
in which the Teen-Age Government
various high schools in the City,
on Wednesday, November 17, 1971.
Students, representatives of the
conducted their Council meeting
He was pleased that .they discussed
some real subjects, not just make-believe, and that they have asked
to come back to the Council to report their conclusions after
another meeting. He stated that perhaps they can learn something
from the Council, but he knows that the Council can certainly learn
something from these young people.
Councilman Rucker stated that California Avenue has been
improved from Williams to King Street and it is his understanding
money was budgeted for the painting of the median islands on this
street. As of this date, these islands have not been painted and
he asked the staff when this will be done. Mr. Jing stated he will
check on it and report to Mr. Rucker later. Councilman Heisey
verified Councilman Rucker's statements that funds were placed in
the budget for this street as well as other streets for fhis
purpose, and he would encourage fhe Public Works Department to
pursue this project as it is a much needed improvement.
Councilman Medders stated that he attended the meeting
at the Bakersfield Education Center on Tuesday night, November 16,
1971, and the Council would have been gratified with City Attorney
Hoagland's presentation of the Resolution reaffirming the Council's
position opposing the 14 District Plan for redistricting the school
districts. He stated that he wished to compliment the City Attorney
for his real fine job in behalf of the Council.
3O4
Bakersfield, California, November 22, 1971 - Page 8
Reports.
Councilman Bleecker read a report of the Business Develop-
ment and Parking Committee on the subjecf of 36-Minute Parking Zones
in the Downtown Parking Mall. The question arose at the last
Council meeting as to whether there were more 36-Minute Parking
Zones in the new mall extension than there were in the old mall
area, and whether all of the 36-Minute Zones were needed. The
Business Development and Parking Committee, the staff and the
Traffic Authority held a meeting to discuss this matter and Captain
Price advised that there were four 36-Minute Parking Zones per
block on each side of the streets, the same number as existed in
the old parking mall. He suggested leaving all of the 36-Minute
Zones in the new parking mall extension for about 30 days in order
to evaluate whether they are being used. If necessary, some of
the parking zones could then be removed until such time as they
are needed.
The Committee therefore recommends adoption of this report
to allow the Traffic Authority sufficient time to evaluate whether
all of the 36-Minute Parking Zones are needed in the new parking
mall extension.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the report was
received and adopted.
Councilman Bleecker, Chairman of the Business Development
and Parking Committee, reported on the subject of an amendment to
Ordinance relating to benches on public right-of-ways.
During this past week, this Committee and the staff have
met to discuss an amendment to the ordinance relating to benches
on public right-of-ways. The present bench permit fee of $2.00
per bench was established 25 years ago. The staff has contacted
other cities who have recently updated their bench ordinances and
learned that all of the cities are charging at least $4.00 per
bench, with a few charging as much as $6.00 per bench. The staff
has discussed a proposed increase with the Bench Ads Company that
presenfly owns all of the benches on public right-of-ways within
the City and company officials have agreed that a proposed increase
to $4.00 per bench is a fair rate.
Bakersfield, California, November 22, 1971 - Page 9
3O5
This Committee recommends adoption of a fee schedule of
$4.00 per bench and also recommends a change in the requirement
that a separate bench permit be issued for each and every bench.
The Committee feels that one permit per year should be issued for
all of the benches owned by one Company. The Committee recommended
adoption of this report and that the attached ordinance be con-
sidered given first reading. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker,
the report was adopted and the ordinance considered given first
reading.
Councilman Bleecker read a report submitted by Captain
R. O. Price, Traffic Division, on the subject of petition presented
to the Council signed by 122 persons who requested the re-estab-
lishment of 5-hour parking on the south side of 17th Street between
"K" and "L" Streets.
Captain Price stated that all of the 5-hour parking had
been cut to 2-hour parking long before the installation of the new
mall extension with the exception of the south side of the 1300
Block of 17th Street, and requests had been received to consider
the reduction of the time limit in that block also. If only one-
half of the Block were returned to 5-hour parking, the number of
spaces which would be available would not be enough to alleviate
the parking problem for 122 people. In addition, all of "L" Street
is already 5-hour parking. There is a 10-hour parking lot for 25~
at 18th and "K" Streets, within one block of the requested time
zone, and a free city parking lot at Truxtun Avenue and Eye Street
which is about three blocks. There are several private garages in
the immediate area and the Traffic Authority feels that there are
adequate places not too far removed from the parking mall where
employees can park all day.
It is the Traffic Authority's recommendation that the
area requested is not changed to 5-hour parking. If it is changed,
it will have to be done by City Ordinance on action of the Council
as the time limit within the mall area is now designated as 2-hours
or 36-minutes by ordinance.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the report was
received and referred to the Business Development and Parking
Committee for study and recommendation.
306
Bakersfield, California, November 22, 1971 - Page 10
Consent Calendar.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Item (a) of the
Consent Calendar, Allowance of Claims Nos. 1456 to 1591 inclusive,
in amount of $165,387.30, was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
Approval of Agreement with City of
Taft for Rental of Brush Chipper,
subject to any adjustment in price.
It was moved by Councilman Bleecker that Agreement with
the City of Taft for rental of Brush Chipper for $120 per month,
be approved and the Mayor authorized to execute same. Councilman
Heisey asked Mr. Jing what this machine cost the City. Mr. Jing
stated it cost $4800.00. Councilman Heisey offered an amendment
to the motion that Mr. Jing be instructed to adjust the fee on the
agreement to provide for whatever the going rate is on rental of
equipment of this type. This motion carried unanimously.
Approval of Agreement between Bakers-
field Swim Club and the City of
Bakersfield for Competitive Swimming.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Rucker,
Agreement between the Bakersfield Swim Club and the City of Bakers-
field for competitive swimming, was approved and the Mayor was
authorized to execute same.
Approval of Map of Tract No. 3546
and Mayor authorized to execute Con-
tract and Specifications for Improve-
ments therein.
Upon m motion by Councilman Thomas, it is ordered that
the Map of Tract No. 3546 be, and the same is hereby approved:
That all the easements, drives, courts, alleys, roads 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 Bakersfield
Bakersfield, California, November 22, 1971 - Page 11
307
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
accessible from any public road:,
highway, or over other lands of
said company as excepted and
reserved in that deed recorded
May 27, 1970, in Book 3271 at
Page 26, O. R., County of Kern.
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Easement Holder per deed recorded
January 5, 1971, in Book 4473,
Page 630 of Official Records.
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 Improvements therein.
Approval of Map of Tract No. 3519
and 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. 3519 be and the same is hereby approved: That
all the easements, streets, courts and drives shown upon said Map
therein offered for dedication be, and the same are hereby accepteel
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 Bakersfield 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.
Tennece 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 as excepted and
reserved in that deed recorded
May 27, 1960, in Book 3271 at
Page 26, O.R., County of Kern.
Southern California Gas Co.
Easement holder, per deed recorded
November 10, 1966 in Book 3993,
Page 120 of Official Records.
Bakersfield, California, November 22, 1971 - Page 12
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 Improve-
merits therein.
Offer by the Stockdale Development
Corporation to donate the Kern City
Golf Course to the City referred to
the Water and City Growth Committee
for study and recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, offer by the Stock-
dale Development Corporation to donate the Kern City Golf Course
to the City of Bakersfield in order to assure the permanent dedica-
tion of this land for open space to be available to all members of
the community, was referred to the Water and City Growth Committee
for study and recommendation.
Approval of Agreement between the
City and Santa Fe Railway Company
for opening of Tulare Street Crossing
of the Santa Fe Tracks.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Agreement between
the City of Bakersfield and the Santa Fe Railway Company for opening
of Tulare Street Crossing of the Santa Fe Tracks was approved and
the Mayor was authorized to execute the Agreement. Councilman
Heisey abstained from voting on this motion.
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council
on Resolution of Intention No. 869 of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield declaring its intention to order the vacation of a
portion of 15th Street, in the City of Bakersfield. This hearing
has been duly posted and no written protests were filed in the City
Clerk's office. Request for the vacation was made by American Homes,
Inc.
Mayor Hart declared the meeting open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections being received, the public
hearing was closed for Council deliberation. Upon a motion by
Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No. 80-71 ordering the vacation
was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
None
Rees, Rucker,
309
Bakersfield, California, November 22, 1971 - Page 13
This is the time set ior public hearing before the
Council on Resolution of Intention No. 870 of the Council of the
City of Bakersiield declaring its intention to order the vacation
of a portion of Inyo Street north of East Truxtun Avenue in the
City of Bakersfield.
This hearing has been duly posted and no written protests
were filed in the City Clerk's office. Request for the vacation
was made by the Bakersfield Sandstone Brick Company.
Mayor Hart requested that the record show Councilman
Heisey is not participating in debate or voting due to any real
or imaginary conflict of interest~ and declared the hearing open
for public participation. No protests or objections being received,
the public hearing was closed for Council deliberation and action.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution
No. 81-71 ordering the vacation of a portion of Inyo Street north
of East Truxtun Avenue was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstaining: Councilman Heisey
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council on Resolution of Intention No. 871 of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield declaring its intention to order the vacation
of the alley in Block 288, City of Bakersfield.
This hearing has been duly posted and no written protests:
have been filed in the City Clerk's office. Request for the
vacation was made by the First Baptist Church.
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. 82-71 of the Council
Bakersfield, California, November 22, 1971 - Page 14
of the City of Bakersfield ordering the vacation of the alley in
Block 288, City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Council,
adjourned
Thomas,
None
None
Whittemore
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
upon a motion by Councilman Medders, the meeting was
at 9:30 P.M.
ATTEST:
Calif.
Cl'i~'~ and Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, November 29, 1971
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., November 29, 1971.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Joe V.
Bruce of St. Paul's C. M. E. Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart.
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whirremote
Absent: None
Minutes of the
approved as presented.
Upon a motion
regular meeting of November 22, 1971 were
Correspondence.
by Councilman Rees, communication from
Miss Chris Williams, Highland Representative, extending the thanks
of the Highland High School Student Body to the Council for its
interest and quick response to their request for a bicycle path
on Auburn Street, was received and ordered placed on file.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, communication from
Chuck Maskal, dba Emergency Plumbing Service, relative to the
Garbage Collection Fee increase, was received and ordered placed
on file.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, communication from
the Bakersfield City Employees Association expressing opposition
to possible employee salary rollback, or curtailment of City
services that would necessitate employee lay-offs, was received
and ordered placed on file.
Mayor Hart read the following communication, which was
addressed to him, into the record:
The Kern County Bar Association Committee
appointed to study the feasibility of a law-
suit against the Los Angeles Times because of
its article on Bakersfield in the West Magazine
section has completed its work and reported its
findings.
Briefly, its findings are that a lawsuit could
be filed, but for various rather technical and
complex legal reasons, the chances of sustaining
the case in court, much less obtaining a favor-
able judgment, are highly problematical. There-
fore, the Committee's conclusion, with which I
concur, is that a lawsuit should not be filed.
Respectfully submitted,
RALPH J. MCKNIGHT, President
Bakersfield, California, November 29, 1971 - Page 2
Councilman Rees stated that Mayor Hart should be commended
for champtoning the truth about Bakersfield when it was attacked by
the Los Angeles Times journalist, and he hopes that this is the
last time anything derogatory is written about the City. He then
moved that the communication
Councilman Heisey asked that
sending the Council's thanks
be received and ordered placed on fiI~.
the motion be amended to include
to the Kern County Bar Association
for its support and cooperation. This motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Hart stated he would be delighted to carry out the Council's
instructions.
Council Statements.
Councilman Medders read an invitation to the Mayor and
Council to attend special previews of the pageant "King of Glory"
to be held at the First Baptist Church in the Music Room on
Thursday, December 2, at 8 P. M., and on Thursday, December 13,
at 8 P.M. This is an undertaking of major magnitude and will be
presented to the public in April, 1973 at the Civic Auditorium.
Participating in the pageant will be churches, cultural groups
and individuals from all over Kern County and it is believed that
the pageant will be the greatest dramatic and musical event in
Kern County's history.
Adoption of Amendatory Resolution No.
85-71 of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield consenting to the inclu-
sion of the lands within the City in
the proposed Urban Bakersfield Area
Improvement District.
Councilman Heisey presented and read a resolution
amending Resolution No. 76-71 adopted on November 1, 1971, which
was necessary in order to satisfy the requirements of the Bond
Counsel who will be concerned with the sale of the bonds for the
proposed Improvement District. Councilman Heisey moved adoption
of Amendatory Resolution No. 85-71 of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield consenting to the inclusion of the lands within the
City in the proposed Urban Bakersfield Area Improvement District,
which carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Thomas, Whirremote
Rucker,
313
Bakersfield, California, November 2~, 1971 - Page 3
Councilman Heisey submitted the names of former Council-
man Richard A. Stiern and Certified Public Accountant Francis Moore
as his appointees to the Citizens Water Advisory Committee. He
urged members of the Council who have not already done so to submit
names at the next Council meeting as it is important to hold a
meeting at an early date to consider and analyze the problems in
forming an Urban Bakersfield Improvement District. He stated that
he understands from the City Attorney that committee members are
not required to reside within the boundaries of the City. Mr.
Hoagland verified this statement. This is a Citizens Advisory
Committee without discretionary powers set forth by the Council
and the members need not reside within the City limits.
Consent Calendar.
The following items appeared on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 1592 to 1634,
inclusive, in amount of $27,366.81.
(b) Street Right of Way Deed from Wiltower
Properties, Inc. to City of Bakersfield.
(c) Plans and Specifications for Resurfacing
portions of University Avenue, Oswell
Street, Custer Avenue and Fremont Street.
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
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, low bid of Hoven
& Company for Annual Contract for Blueprint Reproduction was
accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized
to execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, 91 Items of Annual
Contract for printed Forms were awarded to Kern Printing Company,
81 items to Hoven and Company, all other bids were rejected, and
the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
31.4
Bakersfield, California, November 29, 1971 - Page 4
Deferred Business.
Councilman Bleecker moved to adopt Ordinance No. 1981
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield repealing
Ordinance No. 1961 New Series (Chapter 8.48 of the Municipal Code)
and all amendments thereto, and that this be considered second
reading of the Ordinance.
Councilman Thomas stated that after talking with the
City Attorney this morning, he understands that he can move to
divide the question to vote first on repealing the ordinance and
secondly, to set aside the date of December 6, 1971 for the Council
to sit as a Committee of the Whole to consider alternatives to the
repealed Refuse Ordinance.
City Attorney Hoagland stated that as he understands it,
some confusion existed at last week's Council meeting regarding
parliamentary procedure. Apparently there were two items being
considered by the Council last Monday, the rescinding of Ordinance
No. 1961 New Series and all amendments thereto, and also an action
to set the date of December 6, 1971 for discussion of alternative
measures relative to alleviating a cash deficit in the budget as
a result of rescinding the Refuse Collection Fee Ordinance. As
far as he is concerned, the rescinding of the ordinance is a
separate action from having a discussion on alternative measures
to provide funds for other budgetary items. Setting the date of
December 6, 1971 should be by Minute Order of the Council, and
rescinding of the ordinance is a separate item. The ordinance was
considered given first reading at the last meeting and is on the
Agenda for adoption tonighf. Item (a) as set forth on the Agenda
is not correctly stated, so if two motions are made and the question
is divided, he would say it is perfectly proper to do so.
Mayor Hart commented that on advice of counsel, the
chair would ask Councilman Bleecker if he will rephrase his motion
to repeal the ordinance and secondly to confirm the date of
December 6, 1971 for the Council to meet as a Committee of the
Whole to consider alternatives to the repealed Refuse Ordinance.
Bakersfield, California, November 29, 1971 - Page 5
Councilman Bleecker replied "no". The ordinance given
first reading at the last meeting was not divided. He feels that
the City Attorney should have written it as passed b.y the City
Council and then if the question came up later to divide if, this
could be done by the City Council itself. He stated to the City
Attorney that he does not know why this was done, but the prepara-
tion of the ordinance as written was not what the Council passed
on at the last meeting.
City Attorney Hoagland agreed, stating that the ordinancn
Councilman Bleecker was speaking about had been pulled off the
Agenda today. It was sent out with the Agenda Briefs, he did not
write it, and the ordinance received in the Council packet is to
be disregarded. The ordinance to be acted upon tonight is simply
the repeal of Ordinance No. 1961 New Series written in three
sections, one to repeal the ordinance, the second is the retenfion
of the previous Refuse Ordinance existing before August 30th, and
a third section that the ordinance will become effective 30 days
after its passage. Setling the date of December 6, 1971 for the
Council to sit as a Committee of the Whole is not a subject for an
ordinance, but is a subject for a Minute Order. The only action
as he sees it, is to vote on whether or not to repeal the ordinance,
and then to vote on whether or not to hold a meeting on December 6,
1971.
Councilman Bleecker stated that he had no objection fo
voting first to repeal Ordinance No. 1961 New Series and then to
vote to set the date of December 6, 1971 to consider alternatives
to such Refuse Ordinance. Councilman Whittemore commented he thinks
that Councilman Thomas' request for a division of the question is
proper, and he moved for the question. Councilman Bleecker slated
it had already been ruled by the City Attorney that the question
can be divided, and if it meets with Councilman Thomas' approval,
it is alright with him to vote separately on the two propositions.
Roll Call vote on motion to adopt Ordinance No. 1981 New
Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield repealing Ordinance
Bakersfield, California, Nayember 29, 1971 - Page 6
NO.
amendments thereto, carried as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
1961 New Series (Chapter 8.48 of the Municipal Code) and all
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees
Councilmen Rucker, Thomas~ Whittemore
None
Roll Call vote taken on motion to set aside
the date of
December 6, 1971 for the Council as a Committee of the Whole to
consider the alternatives to the Refuse Ordinance which has been
repealed, carried as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance No. 1982
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Sections 7.06.020; 7.06.030(d), (e) and (f); 7.06.040(a), (b), (c),
and (d); 7.06.060(a) and 7.06.090 of Chapter 7.06 of the Municipal
Code relating to Benches on Public Ways, was adopted by the
following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
adding Section 11.04.781 to the Muni-
cipal Code (Speed Limit on Wilson
Road between South Chester Avenue
and Wible Road).
This was considered first reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield adding Section 11.04.781 to the
Municipal Code (Speed Limit on Wilson Road between South Chester
Avenue and Wible Road).
Councilman Whittemore stated that Wilson Road splits his
Ward and that of Councilman Thomas. It is a wide street with many
small children crossing the road to attend Frank West School.
Another problem is that the area is in a transitional period, being
part commercial and part residential. The residents in his Ward
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, November 29, 1971 - Page 7 3i7
have complained to him about traffic citations during the hours in
which the school is not in which the school is not in progress, as
a City ordinance does not pre-empt the State Law which provides for
a 25 mile per hour speed limit during school hours. He urged any
interested citizens in the area who are opposed to raising the
speed limit to 35 miles per hour to attend the Council meeting
next week to voice objections to the passage of the ordinance.
Rejection of application for Leave to
Present Late Claim by Kelwyn D. Kitchel,
Claimant.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, application for Leave
to Present Late Claim by Kelwyn D. Kitchel, Claimant, was rejected.
Adoption of a Joint Resolution No.
83-71 of the City Council of the City
of Bakersfield and the Board of Super-
visors of the County of Kern addressed
to the Local Agency Formation Commission
regarding the proposal to form the
Greater Bakersfield Metropolitan
Transit District.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, seconded by Council-
man Bleecker, Joint Resolution No. 83-71 of the City Council of
the City of Bakersfield and the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Kern addressed to the Local Agency Formation Commission regarding
the proposal to form the Greater Bakersfield Metropolitan Transit
District, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Councilman Heisey commended the Greater Bakersfield
Metropolitan District Committee that worked so hard for the develop-
ment of the Metropolitan Transit District. As Chairman of the
Water and City Growth Committee, he attended many of the meetings
with the Board of Supervisors for the past couple of years, and
they have had the complete cooperation of the City and the Board
of Supervisors. He is sure that the' Transit District will have the
Bakersfield, California, November 29, 1971 - Page 8
enthusiastic support of the entire community because it is a very
worthwhile program.
Councilman Bleecker stated that the instigation of the
Metropolitan Transit District was brought about when the City felt
that it could no longer support the bus system by itself. He thinks
it is a fine thing that a group of responsible citizens has taken
it upon themselves to lend their time for something that is very
important to the community and he is sure that it will be accepted
by the people in the metropolitan area.
Councilman Rucker stated that he is very much in favor
of the Metropolitan Transit District as it will be of great service
to the people in the Greater Bakersfield area. As time goes on he
hopes that there will be some revamping of the routes to accomodate
those people who do not have transportation and he is certain this
Committee will study it and make sure this is done.
Councilman Whittemore stated that having served with the
Water and City Growth Committee with Councilman Heisey on this, he
would like to compliment the Citizens Committee who worked so hard
and also to commend Merrick Creagh the Attorney for LAFCO, who
drew up the original document which was sent to Sacramento.
Councilman Rees stated that by its action tonight the
City Council has placed the City's budget out of balance by approxi.-
mately $190,000. It has done this by eliminating a source of
revenue, the charge for commercial refuse pickup which was an
integral part of the City's budget.
He stated he would hasten to re-assure anybody who thinks
that Bakersfield is falling apart because of the $190,000 deficit.
The City has an annual budget of $13,500,000 this year and has the
highest finance rating that is possible for cities to be given for
the purpose of borrowing money. The City borrows at the lowest
interest rate which is available to municipalities. The City of
Bakersfield has always honored its debts and its obligations.
Speaking for himself and possibly speaking for all the
other Councilmen, and if anyone feels otherwise he would invite
him to speak out, they are not proposing to rescind any salary
increases in order to balance the budget, the Council does not
319
Bakersfield, California, November 29, 1971 - Page 9
propose to request a refund of salary increases which were granted
last July. The City does not propose to reduce the number of City
employees or positions in any wholesale, reckless fashion, without
good and sufficient reasons. Everyone realizes that this is some-
what of a minor crisis in the history of Bakersfield but they will
ride it out just like they did in the 1952 earthquake. They are
approaching an area of cooperation between all of the citizens, the
esteemed and professional staff and the Council, and when he says
the Council, he means all members of the Council.
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council on Resolution of Intention No. 866 of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield declaring its intention to order the vacation
of a portion of Langdon Avenue east of Grissom Street.
This hearing has been duly posted and no written objections
have been filed in the City Clerk's office. Request for vacation
was filed by Stockdale Development Corporation and has been approved
by the Planning Commission.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections being received, the Mayor closed
the public hearing for Council deliberation and action. Upon a
motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No. 84-71 of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield ordering the vacation of Langdon Avenue
east of Grissom Street, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
Councilman Bleecker, the meetin was j rned at
8:47 P.M.
MAYOR o~/CFty/of Bakersfield, Calif.
ATTEST:
~ an~ ~x-O~i~ Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1971
Present: Mayor Hart.
Absent: None
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., December 6, 1971.
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 follows:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whirremote
Minutes of the regular meeting of the November 29, 1971
were approved as presented.
Council meets as a Committee of the
Whole to consider alternatives for
Refuse Collection Charges.
This was the time set for the Council to meet as a
Committee of the Whole to consider alternatives for Refuse Collection
Charges due to repeal of Ordinance No. 1961 New Series and all
amendments thereto.
City Manager Bergen briefly outlined two alternatives
which had been prepared for consideration of the Council by the
staff. He stated that in addition to Alternate No. 1, designated
as Refuse Charges for All Users except Single Family Dwellings,
and Alternate No. 2 - Refuse Charges for Everyone, if the Council
makes its determination to modify any of the costs or principles
that are outlined therein, it could settle on a number of alter-
natives for refuse charges.
Councilman Rees commented that he thinks it is important
to recognize that any ordinance adopted by the City of Bakersfield
at this time is subject to revision as the need indicates. In
spite of the expertise of the administration~ in spite of the com-
parison with other cities which have similar ordinances, only time
will tell what is right, proper and equitable.
is perfectly proper. He offered a suggestion,
made to him by Director of Public Works Jing,
The right of revision
which was originally
that it might be
practicable to appoint a Board of Adjustment to hear cases which
were unusual or where a particular hardship exists. Also variations
could be made in the ordinance to remedy any so-called inequities.
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1971 - Page 2
Councilman Bleecker stated that Alternative No. 2 as
explained by the City Manager and designated as Refuse Charges
for Everyone, is a misnomer, as everyone is paying now. For
purposes of discussion, he moved that Alternate No. 2 be termed
"User-Pay Refuse Charges." This motion carried with Councilman
Rucker, Thomas and Whirremote voting in the negative.
Councilman Rucker commented that the City does need
$196,000 to balance the budget. However, refernece is constantly
made to accomplishing this by increasing refuse fees, and he does
not think that refuse collection charges are the only means avail-
able, there are other sources in the City for obtaining revenue to
make up the deficit in the budget.
Councilman Bleecker stated there are other means. He
asked the City Manager what would be the ultimate cost of the multi-
purpose building in the southeast which will have a maintenance
cost of approximately $50,000 per year.
City Manager Bergen stated the initial local share is
$160,000 with the County of Kern agreeing to pay three-quarters,
or $120,000 of this amount and the City picking up the balance of
$40,000, most of which has already been expended for architect's
fees for the building. Therefore, the City's share would be
$40,000, plus operating and maintenance costs which are estimated
to be $50,000 a year.
Councilman Bleecker pointed out to Mr. Rucker that if
the multi-purpose building was not constructed, the City could
pick up $90,000 right there. He is not opposed to this building
in any way, is merely inquiring of Mr. Rucker what his thoughts
are on it. Since it hasn't been built yet, it might be something
that the City could do without.
Councilman Rucker stated it is possible the City could get
along without this building, but $106,000 would still be needed to
balance the budget. He can't offer any suggestions as to where
the Council can find the necessary funds but he doesn't feel that
the Council should expect it all to come from the Refuse Department.
He wants the public to understand this, that it is possible to
eliminate other things in the City budget, it is not only a problem
of the Refuse Department.
322
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1971 - Page 3
Councilman Bleecker asked Mr. Rucker if he was suggesting
that the employee's salaries be cut, and Councilman Rucker stated
"no", he would not.
Councilman Medders commented that he had a lengthy state-
ment which he would like to make as follows:
The most unusual aspect of the Refuse Collection
controversy is that Refuse Collection is not
solely responsible for the budget deficit. When
you consider that employees from all departments
were granted at least a 5% salary increase - it
just doesn't make sense that only one group should
come under fire. What about Fire, Police, Planning,
Auditorium-Recreation and the other departments?
The foregoing statement pretty well tells you that
Refuse Collection alone should not be the center
of furor.
Looking back to budget time, the unbalanced
budget was adopted by a 4 to 3 margin. The
minority opinion represented the almost for-
gotten old-fashioned idea or philosophy that
you "ought to have the required funds necessary
to carry out a program before you adopt it."
Later, when it was decided that the funds for
balancing the budget could be extracted from a
certain segment of the populace through Refuse
Collection Fees, the margin of passage was 4 to
1 with two absent. I cast the negative vote.
I can well remember the Budget hearings. On the
first night the Council Chamber was practically
filled. Most of the audience was made up of
City employees. One question comes to mind -
"Where were the concerned citizens."
On the second night the chamber was practically
empty. The employees, with their requests
granted, stayed at home. My second question -
"Where were the concerned citizens?"
I am going to tell you where the concerned
citizens were. They were at home sitting on
the back sides of their laps, either watching
television or otherwise being too busy to come
down and see what was happening. The comeback
to this criticism is usually "we elect our repre-
sentatives and we expect them to look after our
interests." The term "elect" in this case leaves
an awful lot to be desired, when you consider
that only 30 to 35% of the electorate is con-
cerned enough to vote. Maybe the "Concern-~
irons" should take a closer look at just how
well he is being represented.
Getting back to the dilemma that faces us. The
timing to solve our current fiscal problem
cou--'~'t be worse. We are in the period where
the tax rate has been set, statements have been
mailed, and many tax bills have either been
partially or fully paid. This precludes the
possibility of going to a user-pay and reducing
the tax rate, and it also takes away the possi-
bility of adjusting the tax rate upward to wipe
out the deficit.
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1971 - Page 4
I do not feel that the people of the City of
Bakersfield should be called upon to make up
a deficit in the budget that has been created
by the ineptness of elected and appointed
officials. A budget that was out of balance
should not have been recommended nor should
it have been passed. When funds are not avail-
able for salary increases, salary increases
should not be granted. I have worked for tax-
supported institutions for the past twenty years
and we have never been afforded the luxury of
adopting a budget and later seeking to balance
it. When funds are not available the line simply
has to be held. This was the City's predicament
and responsibility was conspiciously absent.
My solution is simply this - Let's take a look
at the budget items that have not yet been spent,
and take out those things that can be done with-
out. Let's look at any money that is ear-marked
for future projects and where it is at all
possible, apply these funds to balancing the
current budget. Let's initiate an austerity
program in every department that will cut out
any excess fat. I do not propose to eliminate
any employees, but if the budget cannot other-
wise be balanced, I think it would then become
logical to rescind the percentage of the salary
increase thai would balance the budget.
An area of finance that could be improved upon
and that should be studied soon is the feasibility
of a fire protection district that would combine
fire protection services in the metropolitan area
and eliminate duplication of services at a con-
siderable savings.
My greatest hope is that we shall never find
ourselves in this unenviable position again
regardless of the motivation involved.
Councilman Whittemore commented that was an outstanding
statement by Councilman Medders and he can support everything he
said. It has already been stated from the Council floor many times
that a duplication of services should be eliminated and a better
relationship established with the Board of Supervisors. With the
new Board and the new City-County Cooperation Committee this may
be done. He stated that he will support any action that the Council
takes to cut the costs of City government which was not explored
during the budget sessions. At that time it was agreed that the
Council was adopting a "bare bones" budget but a deficit still
existed. Councilman Bleecker has suggested that the Council
eliminate the multi-purpose building in Councilman Rucker's ward
which will be constructed for the betterment of the people in the
southeast area. The City of Bakersfield year after year gives the
Chamber of Commerce $40,000 which could be eliminated too, if the
people so desired, although some of that money is being used to
promote the City of Bakersfield, He pointed out that the tax rate
324
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1971 - Page 5
has been held at $2.87 for longer than he has been on the Council.
However, the cost of government keeps going up and last year it
was necessary to vote in a 5% Utility Tax to balance the budget.
He does not feel that the citizens of the community want their
Police and Fire Departments to become ineffective, or have street
sweeping cut down. He would welcome an ad-hoc citizens committee
to sit down and point out to the Council exactly where the budget
can be cut. Some suggestions have been made to let the employees
subsidize the City of Bakersfield, give the employees a cut in
salary. Bakersfield is not the highest salary paying city in the
State of California, it is
are concerned. Credit can
the increase in the number
barely in the middle as far as salaries
be given to the City Manager for keeping
of employees hired to the barest minimum.
The Council has a problem tonight, it isn't something that any of
the members like or are proud of, if an alternative solution can
be found, he will support it 100%.
Councilman Bteecker stated that the Council is going to
have to get down to specifics instead of talking in glittering
generalities. Let the record show that he did not suggest the
elimination of the multi-purpose building, that he only asked Mr.
Rucker if that would be one of his alternatives for saving money.
He stated that the minutes will show that, and he asked the Vice-
Mayor for an apology.
Mayor Hart stated that requests have been received from
citizens to be heard at this meeting, and he invited Mr. B. L.
Dickinson to speak, stating that in the interests of time, he
would request that he not be repetitious in his remarks.
Mr. B. L. Dickinson, who resides at 35 Panorama Drive,
addressed the Council, stating that he represents the Apartment
Owners Association and they are in favor of going on record that
the City employees keep their pay raise. Using the figures that
the City has supplied to them, they find that if every apartment
and home owner were charged 65~ a month next year, the City would
come up with $205,000 in revenue. He stated his organization would
like to go on record as urging the City to take the refuse collection
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1971 - Page 6 ~'~J
out of the general fund and make it a user-pay service. Whatever
the charge everyone should be assessed equally and not expect the
apartment owners, or one particular group, to carry the load.
Councilman Bleecker stated that Mr. Dickinson's suggestion
is very fair when it is looked at in this way. According to the
Finance Department, the average assessed valuation for a single
family dwelling in the City of Bakersfield is slightly in excess
of $4,000. If a .refuse charge of $2.00 per month minimum were
instituted through a new ordinance, the charge would be $24.00 per
year. Under the present situation with 71~ per $100 assessment on
the same home, the charge is $28.40 per year. It is not going to
harm anyone to pay $2.00 a month for refuse collection and completely
eliminate the 71~ of the assessed valuation currently charged for
refuse collection.
Mr. Nurl Renfro, who operates a business at 1915-20th
Street, a few rentals adjacent to the business and some property
at 19th and Cedar Streets, read a lengthy statement to fhe Council,.
stating that from the testimony from persons appearing previously
before the Council and from the correspondence received, it is
very plain that the financial burden that the Council wants to
place on the taxpayer cannot be tolerated. The present economic
climate in Bakersfield does not permit any tax increase to be
absorbed by higher rent, even if there was not a rent freeze
situation at the present time. The business community, especially
downtown Bakersfield, has had no increase in business to offset
any higher taxes, or any higher special charges which are proposed
each year. He stated he would presonally favor curtailing some
services to make up for the deficit in the budget. In the event
the Council cannot develop other solutions to handle the deficit,
the only remaining alternative is for the entire City Council to
stand up and say it meant well when the salary increase was granted
to City employees, but the funds are just not there to continue
paying it. Those affected can well be consoled by the fact that
they do have a job, even at the old rate. Good steady jobs are
definitely a scarcity at the present economic climate. A user-pay
concept and a franchise concept carry a great deal of merit. Per-
haps this subject given to the voters at election time would be
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1971 - Page 7
proper, either concept could be considered. He personally favors
the franchise concept. Many others who have talked to him also
feel that private enterprise can operate more efficiently, more
economically, give better service for less money than City forces.
With the franchise system the City could sell the equipment, the
employees would still have jobs, and with the revenue from the
sale of the equipment, the City could build the multi-purpose
building in the southeast portion of Bakersfield. The people of
Bakersfield cannot afford any additional fees of any kind this
fiscal year, and the way things look now, probably not next year
either. He proposes Alternative No. 3, the "do nothing and make
do with what you have," alternative.
Councilman Rees remarked that he wondered if Mr. Renfro
knew that the City of Bakersfield had private collection service
before the City residents decided that they did not like it and
by an election voted to go to City refuse pickup. The Committee
had an in-depth discussion with private sanitation contractors and
one of the things that the Committee learned was that the private
contractors were not eager to immediately take over the responsibility
of refuse collection in the City of Bakersfield. They recognize
it is a sizeable problem for the City to handle and it would
possibly be a much bigger problem to them on the basis of a rapid
change over to private sanitation operation.
Mr. Thomas Hancock, owner and Manager of Renter Reference
Service an organization of landlords, apartment owners and private
home owners who have rentals, addressed the Council stating he is
representing 200 landlords tonight who are in complete opposition
to what they feel are double taxes, and who can't vote themselves
a raise due to the current rent freeze. Therefore, they want to
go on record as opposing any increase in their taxes at this time.
Mr. Art Boehning, Manager of Penney's store in College
Center, addressed the Council, stating that he is the spokesman
for a number of businessmen in the City, many of them are present
tonight, and they have been meeting regularly to oppose the pre-
viously rescinded City Ordinance on rubbish collection. As tax-
payers they recognize the urgent need for the City to balance its
budget. He is not here to suggest that the City does so by reneging
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1971 - Page 8
on the commitments made to the employees of the City, that obliga-
tions must be kept to the City staff and employees. They also
recognize that the charge for the garbage pickup may be the only
acceptable course that the Council is able to come up with tonight
and although they very much dislike the idea, they will, as a com-
promise measure, be willing to pay providing it is placed on an
equitable basis, that is, a complete user-pay basis. The Ordinance
that was repealed last week was inequitable, very discriminatory
and possibly unconstitutional. The charges that were set up under
the ordinance were in many cases very unrealistic. The business
and commercial firms of this City will probably be willing to
support the imposition of refuse collection charges, provided that
it is applied fairly to everyone in this City, not just the com-
mercial segment, and that the charges be based on a scale pro-
portionate to the demand for its services. Alternate No. 1 as
proposed tonight is totally unacceptable to them. Alternate No. 2,
with a Board of Adjustment as suggested by Councilman Rees to handle
inequities, on a user-pay basis would be supported by his business
group.
Councilman Thomas commented that speaking of being fair
and equitable on this, if a $2.00 charge were placed on all
businesses and on all single family dwellings, a business man can
deduct it from his taxes, but the people living in single family
dwellings cannot do so. This is not fair and equitable in his
mind. Also, his refuse is picked up twice a week, while downtown
business has a pickup six times a week, which is three times the
service he receives. Therefore, perhaps the 71.4~ should be
multiplied three times and made the tax rate for refuse pickup in
the downtown area.
Mr. Boehning stated they did not want to get into tech-
nicalities as to how it is going to work, that is up to the City
Manager and his staff. His group is opposed to discriminatory
practices set out in the old ordinance which it was wise to rescind.
He thinks Councilman Rees has made a suggestion that the Council
appoint a Board to handle inequities. The business people are
3'28
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1971 - Page 9
reasonable, and' they expect the City to respond in a like manner.
Councilman Heisey stated he thinks the Council can come
up with a reasonable ordinance. He doesn't care to go back and
discuss what happened last June when a majority O~ the Council
adopted a budget which was out of balance, that is history. How-
ever, the Council does have an obligation to keep the commitments
that the Council as a whole adopted last June. The problem is
where does the money come from for this purpose, it is not solving
anything to eliminate a project from the budget. It will only solve
the problem temporarily and will not provide the additional funds
that will be needed next year. The solution is to find the
$200,000 which will take care of this year and which will be a
continuing source of revenue to balance the budget next year.
Alternate No. 1 is the same ordinance which the Council repealed
a week ago with a reduction in the rates, it still has to be levied
on the same small segment of the community. Most home owners are
not looking for a special free ride, they expect to pay their fair
share, in fact most of the criticism he has received has been with
the discriminatory action in the old ordinance. A couple members
of the Council got together with the staff and asked them to submit
an ordinance that would be equitable and fair with reasonable rates.
Mr. Bergen, in his presentation of Alternate No. 2, better known
now as "User-Pay~Refuse Charges" did not stress the fact that a
very integral part of that ordinance would be a resolution from
this body expressing its intent to reduce the tax rate for next
year by a minimum of 50~, and the Finance Department advised that
this can be done without any difficulty, if adopted as the staff
has worked it out. The charges are reasonable compared with those
of private collectors outside the City, they are reasonable when
compared with other cities. The single family resident would pay
$2.00 per month, $24.00 a year, and he pointed out that the average
assessed valuation as given to the Council by the County Tax
Assessor is $4,475. If the property tax rate is reduced by 50~
next year, it would result in a deduction of $22.37 from the
average homeowner's property tax, or an additional amount of $1.63
for the entire year. Using the figures given to him by the staff,
the refuse charge raised annualy would be $873,600. A drop of 50~
in the tax rate for the entire City of Bakersfield would amount to
$750,000. This would mean that for the next fiscal year there
would be an increase in revenue of $123,600, less $60,000 for
servicing pickup and collection, etc., or a new increase in revenue
of $63,000 for the Fiscal Year 1972-73. He stated he thinks this
a reasonable, workable alternate for the ordinance which was
rescinded last week and he would like to move the adoption of the
User-Pay Ordinance as outlined in the report submitted by the staff,
which would result in a charge for this fiscal year effective April[
1, 1972 and would give the City the required revenue for balancing
the 1971-72 Budget.
Councilman Bleecker commented that Bakersfield is only
one of two other cities in the State of California that charges
on the tax base for refuse collection. Up until now the total
charge has been borne by property owners based on the assessed
valuation of their property. He asked Mr. Bergen if this were not
correct. Mr. Bergen replied "yes, verydefinitely." They were
unable to find another City which had all of the refuse collection
and disposal services included in the general fund. One or two
cities had one segment of this service which would apply to the
general fund, but by far the overwhelming majority had a charge
for all other refuse collection. Councilman Bleecker then stated
he would support Councilman Heisey's motion.
Councilman Rees asked if Councilman Heisey was proposing
in his motion an action which would cover a three month period
starting April 1, 1972. Councilman Heisey stated that was part of
the motion. He stated that reducing the tax rate by 50~ would be
included in a Resolution and was not a part of his motion. That
his motion is to adopt the User-Pay Ordinance as outlined by the
City Manager under Alternate No. 2, and that it be considered given
first reading tonight, and adopted next week after the City Attorney
had prepared it in proper Ordinance form.
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1971 - Page 11
Mr. Hoagland reminded the Council that there were other
things to be included in the ordinance which were rescinded by the
Council and are not germaine to any of the controversy which arose
out of the ordinance. These sections should be incorporated in the
ordinance before adoption.
Councilman Rees remarked that inherent behind the motion
made by Councilman Heisey, is the proposal that this plan be con-
tinued not only for three months beginning April 1, 1972, but be
continued thereafter, and Councilman Heisey predicts and the City
Manager predicts with cautious conditions, that the Council may be
able to save 50~ for the taxpayer on the tax rate. Subject to the
Manager's carefully considered conditions, he wishes to be reminded
at the next budget session that if the Council is not able to affect
a 50~ savings for the taxpayer on property tax, that the Council
will remember what was promised on December 6, 1971.
Councilman Whittemore stated there is a fallacy existing
when statements are made that the Council is going to reduce the
tax rate by 50~. At the present time this can be writlen off the
taxpayer's income tax. The only thing the Council is doing is
taking this charge off the property tax and requiring the property
owner to pay this amount every month to the City of Bakersfield.
The property owner is not saving money and he will not be able to
write it off his income tax.
Councilman Rucker expressed concern for the taxpayer
living on Social Security and other fixed income stating that the
businessmen in the City possibly should pay a larger share of this
cost, as they can pass this on to the consumer.
Councilman Bleecker pointed out that they were not talking
about some exorbitant fee, but the idea that the average person
must continue to pay and pay so that some residents who cannot
afford to pay should get some kind of a free ride, is not part of
his political philosophy. What the Council needs to do is to
decide what is fair to everyone, as the people who have been paying
the freight are not going to do it any longer, and will express
their objections at the next budget session. These people are the
ones who have been providing the jobs, who have put their money
and credit into their own business at their own risk to provide
jobs for people.
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1971 Page 12
Councilman Thomas stated that there are "back alley"
politics going on here and he can see it very clearly. The
businessmen will receive the benefit of any User-Pay Ordinance
and the 5% Utility Tax and they can write it off their income tax,
but he cannot do so, and neither can other homeowners. This is
just the beginning and he does not want it to continue.
Councilman Heisey stated they are not talking about very
much money for the homeowner, actually they are getting a bargain.
The City isn't in the welfare business, the Federal Government is
in it, the State is in it, the County is in it, and welfare problems
should be taken up with the County. Every level of government
doesn't have to be'in the welfare business and he is in favor of
keeping the City out of it, keep revenue raising on a fair and
equitable basis.
Councilman Medders commented that both of the alternates
presented tonight are objectionable to him, but he finds the User-
Pay Ordinance less objectionable, so he will support Councilman
Heisey's motion.
After additional discussion,
Councilman Heisey's motion, carried as
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
roll call vote taken on
follows:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees
Councilmen Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
None
Mayor Hart declared a brief recess at this time.
The Council reconvened and Councilman Heisey moved
adoption of a Resolution of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
expressing its intention to reduce the tax rate 50~ or more during
Fiscal Year 1972-73.
Mayor Hart questioned City Attorney Hoagland regarding
the legality of the adoption of such a Resolution.~ Mr. Hoagland
stated this was not a commitment, it is an intent.
After some discussion, roll call vote taken on this motion
carried as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
Rees, Rucker,
None
33'2
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1971 - Page 13
Correspondence
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, communication from
Assemblyman William M. Ketchum, requesting each and every Council
member to send him any appropriate legislation and advise for his
new legislative program, was received and ordered placed on file.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, communication
from Wilson Call, Architect, on the subject of refuse collection
fees, was received and ordered placed on file.
Council Statements.
Councilman Whittemore commented that the Council has had
some confusion the last two weeks relative to the residency require-
ments for members of ad hoc committees, and without having any
ulterior motive, he addressed a letter to the City Attorney
requesting the authority for his opinion that members need not be
a resident of the City to serve on ad hoc committees.
Mr. Hoagland replied to his request stating that members
of ad hoc committees are not required to be residents of the City
as it would unduly and unreasonably limit the power of the City
Council to hold that ad hoc advisory committee members must all be
residents, and it is felt that the framers of the Charter never
intended to so limit the members of the Council.
Councilman Whittemore stated that some extremely well-
qualified people have served on ad hoc committees who did not live
in the City; however, when the Freeway Ad Hoc Committee was appointed,
the ruling was given to him that the members must be residents of
the City of Bakersfield. If the Council does not restrict appoint-
ments to the City Limits of Bakersfield, there are going to be
conflicting interests. Also, the Council's main interest is to
represent the people of the City, not those people living outside
the City Limits. He then moved that from this point on, which
would not preclude persons already appointed to existing committees,
the members appointed to future ad hoc committees be residents of
the City of Bakersfield, which is the same condition imposed on
other committee and commission members.
Councilman Bleecker stated that ordinarily he would
concur with this motion, but he thinks there would be a number o£
people living outside the City, particularly for appointments to
the Citizens Advisory Water Committee, that are extremely know-
ledgeable and well-qualified in issues concerning water and water
rights. He believes that the City needs to draw from the best
talent available to serve on these various committees. He cannot
support an idea that would preclude anyone with special knowledge
from serving on ad hoc committees of the City.
Councilman Rees stated he agrees with the general principle
of Councilman Whittemore's motion~ He asked Mr. Hoagland earlier
for an answer on this subject and received a reply which satisfied
him and which he would think for general purposes would be fitting
and proper. Mr. Hoagland said "when an issue concerns greater
Bakersfield, a member of the Committee could live outside of the
City Limits" and for that reason he would not support this motion.
Councilman Whittemore stated he had put it out for dis-
cussion~ and it is a matter that is not too critical. He felt that
there is enough talent among City residents to handle any of the
problems which pertain to.the City.
Councilman Heisey stated he concurs with Councilman
Whittemore~s motion. When he appointed former Councilman Stiern
to the Water Committee, it was ruled that a member did not necessarily
need to be a resident of the City. Mr. Stiern is articulate and
knowledgeable on water problems and he has put many hours of study
in on the subject. He stated he would support Councilman Whittemore's
motion if it applied to future committees, but he would not want
it applied to the Citizens Advisory Water Committee.
Roll Call Vote taken on the motion carried as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Heisey, Rucker, Thomas., Whirremote
Councilmen Bleecker, Medders, Rees
None
334
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1971 - Page 15
Councilman Medders stated he understands this motion did
not include the Citizens Advisory Water Committee and announced
his two appointments to this committee,
as follows:
Dr. Leon Ackermann
Charles L. Sturtevant
Councilman Thomas
as follows:
2701 Beech Street
3409 Laverne Avenue
appointed two members to this committee
Finance
Marlyn Marshall
Ernest E. Wright
Councilman Rees, Chairman
Committee, recommended that
800 Montclair
802 Montclair
of the Budget Review and
the City of Bakersfield enter
into an Option Agreement with the American Legion for purchase of
their property located at 1301 - 17th Street; cond,itional to this
agreement is the payment of $300.00 for a three month option to
purchase that property for $100,000. The Committee has been advised
by the Redevelopment Counsel that this is a desirable move and has
been informed that $100,000 for this property is a fair price.
The purpose of entering into this option agreement is that the
City is proposing to build a parking facility in conjunction with
the construction by the Bank of America of a multi-story building
on the former site of the E1 Tejon Hotel. The out-of-pocket cost
at the present time for the option would be $300.00, whether or
not the option is taken up. According to the best advice they have,
the purchase price of $100,000 three months hence would not be a
bad investment whether or not the City elected to use the property
for a parking facility. He then moved that the City enter into
the option agreement with the American Legion and that the Mayor
be authorized to execute the agreement.
Councilman Heisey questioned whether three months was a
long enough option and asked the City Attorney if it should not be
a six months option. Mr. Hoagland stated the City would like six
months, but unfortunately, a three months period is all the American
Legion will grant the City. If the City exercises the option, it
will not be necessary to pay the $100,000 until July, which is a
six months period and in accordance with the City's financial
consultants, the City should make that deadline. The option would
begin December 14, 1971.
Councilman Heisey asked how the $100,000 will be paid,
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1971 - Page 16 ~)35
where is the revenue coming from,
would like this information. Mr.
that a redevelopment project will
stating that he feels the public
Hoagland stated it is contemplated
be instituted around the Bank of
America Building and a few other areas. The land will be frozen
at its present value and any improvements on the property, which
will be substantial, may be used for tax increments for bonds when
the bonds are sold, to be paid for entirely out of the structure
itself. It would not be a general tax obligation of any area other
than where the building is erected, the redevelopment area.
Councilman Thomas asked the City Attorney if action could
be deferred until next Monday night as he would like to have some
time to study the matter. Mr. Heatland replied that he could not
answer what the reaction of the American Legion will be, whether
it would make any difference to them to hold it over. Councilman
Bleecker stated' he had the same comment as Councilman Thomas, he
cannot support the measure. The City has just found $193,000 to
balance the budget after considerable debate, and now the Council
is proposing to spend another $100,000 to buy this piece of property.
Councilman Rees stated that if the downtown business area
and other declining areas of the City are ever going to get off
dead center and progress and become vigorous, the City must take
some initiative. The Committee has elected to take this initiative,
upon the best possible advice that it can find, that of Mr. Eugene
Jacobs, who is Redevelopment Counsel for many California cities
several of which are larger and doing bigger things than Bakersfield.
Because of the imagination, foresight and the faith of a large
banking operation in Bakersfield, the Council is asked to match
this confidence and faith in its own City with a self-liquidating
parking facility. The Bank has pledged that it will pay for and
assume a certain number of parking spaces, that the tenants in their
building will take a number of parking spaces, and the Committee
decided that this was a progressive thing. Mr. Jacobs has advised
the City that it is a wise and proper thing to do, and Mr. Bergen
and Mr. Hoagland have affirmed that it is a wise thing for the
Council to do. He understands that because of his affiliation
336
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1971 - Page 17
with the American Legion, Councilman Whittemore wishes to abstain
£rom entering into any discussion on this option. However, he
asked Councilman Whittemore to comment on this offer, whether the
City can defer action for a week.
Councilman Whittemore stated he was reluctant to comment,
and he is going to abstain from voting on the matter. He does
know that the American Legion now has two offers for the property
for a particular use, at this time. He also knows that the Legion
wants to cooperate with the City on this redevelopment, as this
property is an integral part of the Bank of America development.
The fee of $300'.00 for a three months option is very nominal for
the property, which he is sure they can sell this week at the same
price they have quoted to the City.
City Attorney Hoagland commented that no one knows more
than he does how much the Council dislikes being faced with some-
thing at the last moment without being given an opportunity to
study it. However, between now and the time the option is to be
exercised, each Councilman will be informed specifically on the
project prior to expending $100,000.
Vote taken on Councilman Rees' motion to approve the
Option Agreement, authorize the Mayor to execute, and instruct
the Finance Director to make the necessary transfer of funds from
the Council's Contingency Fund carried, with Councilman Whirremote
abstaining from voting.
Consent Calendar.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Item (a) of the
Consent Calendar - Allowance of Claims Nos. 1635 to 1691 inclusive,
in amount of $197,637.73, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Noes: None
Absent: None
Thomas, Whirremote
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1971 - Page 18
337
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, low bid of Wm. H.
Schallock, Inc. for construction of Surplus Water Return System
for Municipal Sewer Farm was accepted, all other bids were rejected,
and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, bid of Specialized
Spray Service for removal of Weeds under the 1971 Weed Abatement
Program was accepted, this being the only bid received, and the
Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Deferred Business.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Ordinance No. 1983
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield adding Section
11.04.781 to the Municipal Code (Speed Limit on Wilson Road between
South Chester Avenue and Wible Road) was adopted by the following
vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Councilman Thomas stated that Wilson Road is the dividing
line between the Sixth and Seventh Wards, and he asked the staff to
look into the feasibility of constructing a bikeway or some type of
pedestrian crossing for the young people who cross Wilson Road at
Benton Street.
Adoption of Resolution No. 86-71 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field to include Electrolysis treat-
ments to the list of permitted uses
in a C-0 (Professional Office) Zone.
Upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, upon a
motion by Councilman Rees, Resolution No. 86-71 of the Council of
the City of Bakersfield to include Electrolysis Treatments to the
list of
adopted
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
permitted uses in a C-0
by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Thomas, Whirremote
None
None
Professional Office) Zone, was
Rees, Rucker,
338
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1971 - Page 19
Council recesses until 7:30 P.M.
Tuesday, December 7, 1971.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, Mayor Hart declared a recess at 10:00 P.M. until Tuesday,
December 7, 1971, at 7:30 P.M., for the purpose of holding a
public hearing to make recommendations to the State of California,
Department of Public Works, Division of Highways, relative to the
adoption of State Highway Route 178 between State Highway Route 99
and Union Avenue.
Calif.
ATTEST:
and~EX-Of'ficlo Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 19?l
339
Minutes of reconvened meeting of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield held December 7, 1971 at 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall,
Bakersfield, California, called for the purpose of holding a public
hearing to make recommendations to the State of California, Depart-
ment of Public Works, Division of Highways, relative to the adoption
of State Highway Route 178 between State Highway Route 99 and Union
Avenue.
Mayor Hart asked Mr. Van Voorhis to give a resume and bring
the Council up to date on the preliminary work that has been done.
Councilman Heisey: I think it will be well to point out
that this isn't a State hearing or a Highway Department hearing,
this is a hearing conducted by the City Council of the City of Bakers-
field. The State Division of Highways will conduct a public hearing
at a later date. Mr. Van Voorhis and his staff have been invited to
be here simply to provide information as it may be requested.
Mayor Hart: I may point out that Mr. Heisey is the
Chairman of our Freeway Committee and will bring us all up to date.
I thank you for that. Please proceed, Mr. Van Voorhis.
Mr. Van Voorhis: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council,
ladies and gentlemen, we are very happy to be invited to participate
in this public hearing. We have quite a few people from our office
here~ Mr. Ramey~ District Engineer~ we also have several of our
staff people to help hang maps. If the Council pleases to call a
recess at any time, our people are available to answer personal or
technical questions that people in the audience may have. As
suggested by the Mayor and we think it would be advisable for the
record of this hearing to show a resume of what has taken place so
far on this transportation effort, here in the Bakersfield area.
The basic data from a traffic standpoint was obtained from the
area wide transportation study which was started in 1965 and com-
pleted in 1969. The results of this area wide study were presented
in an informal meeting to the City Council in these Chambers, Board
of Supervisors, Planning Commission Staff and interested citizens
on November 19, 1969.
The large map against the wall on my right is the result
of that study. Now for the audience on how to read that map, the
Bakersf±eld, Cal±£orn±a~ December 7, 1971 - Pa~e 2
traffic that is attracted to all of those streets is shown by the
widlh of bands. As pointed out in all of the meetings that we have
had there are several critical areas in the Bakersfield area where
in future years the existing facilities will not be adequate to
handle the traffic. Some of those corridors are, for example,
California Avenue west o~ Highway 99 which will not be adequate;
Stockdale Highway will be inadequate; Rosedale Highway will be
inadequate; and 24th Street will be inadequate. The dafa shown on
the map is predicated on the assumption thai there will be no
additional freeways other than what is already been established,
namely Highway 99, Route 58 east of Highway 99 and Route 178 Freeway
east of "M" Street. After the City Council had an opportunity to
add this to the information that was presented them at the November?
19th meeting, the Council adopted a Resolution on December 15, 1969,
requesting the Division of Highways to begin Freeway Route Studies
between "M" Street and Route 5, that is Interstate 5 that passes
west o~ Bakersfield. The next thing that the Division of Highways
did, we ordered Aerial photography. On February 20, 1970, at a
meeting of the Technical Coordinating Committee, for the record,
is made up of staff members from the City, the County, both
Engineering and Planning, and from the Division of Highways. We
requested recommendations and suggestions on alternate routes to
investigate. We came to this meeting with a blank map with no
preconceived ideas. As a result of this meeting, there was 13
alternate routes suggested £or investigation. The small Aerial
Map displayed on my far right shows the alternate lines that were
recommended for the investigation. It was agreed at that meeting
that the first thing to be done was to determine the ability of
the various routes requested for study to test their ability to
attract traffic and determine what effecl they would have on
reducing tra£fic on the various City streets. Particularly those
streets where future attraction exceeded the capacity.
341
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 3
On May 11, 1970, we appeared before this Council to
announce that we were ready to begin studies and we suggested
that the Council appoint a Citizens Committee to act in an Advisory
Capacity to the City Council. Between that date and the present
date, a total of 13 meetings have been held with the Technical
Coordinating Committee and five meetings with the Citizens Com-
mittee. The last meeting with each of these groups was held on
October 28, 1971. At this last meeting the Technical Coordinating
Committee took no official action. At the Citizens Committee
meeting held in the evening, the Committee voted to recommend the
23rd-24th Street Corridor Alternate.
Now, we would like to present the data that has been
gathered and presented to the Technical Coordinating Committee
and the Citizens Committee on which their recommendations have
been based. I would like to clarify an assumption that I have.
I understand that this hearing is to consider the part of the
study between "M" Street and Highway 99, and that is what we are
here to discuss tonight. I believe that was also an official
action of the Citizens Committee when they made their recommendation
to the Council. Only on that part between Highway 99 and "M"
Street.
Mayor Hart: Mr. Van Voorhis, if you will permit me at
this time I would like to turn the gavel over to the Vice-Mayor,
Bob Whittemore, because of the conflict of interest at this hearing
and I will step down at this time.
Mr. Van Voorhis then proceeded with the use of Aerial
Maps, displays with overlays and slides to explain the method by
which traffic is attracted on Freeway alternates.
Councilman Bleecker: Mr. Vice-Mayor, since I came late,
which I apoligize for, I would just like to know what is going on.
Councilman Whittemore: Mr. Van Voorhis has been asked
and is giving us a resume of the freeway program to date.
Councilman Bleecker: Before we go any further Mr. Vice-
Mayor, have any ground rules been set down to govern this hearing,
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 4
when the audience can participate, when the Councilmen can partici-
pate, etc.
Councilman Whittemore: Yes, if we will he kind enough
to let Mr Van Voorhis complete his presentation, then we will
hear audience participation and then Council participation and
then Council Action.
Bleecker:
got here.
sents the traffic that
I thought that might have occurred before I
Mr. Van Voorhis: This display that you see now,
would be attracted to an alternate
repre-
identified
by the Aerial Map on the other wall marked H-1. This alternate is
in the location of 23rd-24th Streets. It also shows the traffic
that would be remaining on the other streets in that general
vicinity as well as Highway 99.
This last alternate is a little different than the other
two, in that it is a route that was suggested at one of the Citizens
Committee meetings as an exploratory idea to determine whether the
traffic, the esst-west traffic that was attracted to the 24th
Street Corridor without a freeway, could be handled if a freeway
was constructed in the vicinity of Union Avenue which would connect
the 178 Freeway with the 58 Freeway, which is south of Brundage
Lane. We agreed to investigate this thoroughly. A map showing
the configuration of this particular alternate is hung on the right
hand wall.
At this time I would like to emphasize a few important
facts about traffic, general traffic in the Bakersfield area. I
have talked to lots of people about traffic and lots of people
think, all of the traffic on the State highway is non-stop through
traffic. This is not correct. We have gone to a little trouble
here to try to identify and clarify some of this information. (At
this time Mr. Van Voorhis erected a screen and showed some slides.)
To give you some basic facts, Highway 99, I'm sure most people
think is through traffic, however only 42~% of the traffic on
343
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page5
Highway 99 is through traffic and 57½% has an origin or destination
in Bakersfield.
I want to call your attention to those wide bands thai
represent the Freeway. If you will look at Route 58, which is the
Brundage Lane Freeway, you will notice fhe width of the band at
the right hand side of the map is much narrower than the band in
the heart of the City. Actually from the edge of the built up
area fo the heart of the City, the width of the band increases in
width four times. Route 99 doubles within the major part of the
City. Rosedale Highway which is west of Highway 99 as you approach
the City increases by six times. Route 178 way out at the edge of
the developed area compared into the downtown part, increases eight
times. The difference in the width of these bands represents the
increase of traffic that is generated by the metropolitan area,
and you will see that the band increases as you approach the heart
of the City. Still another way to describe the make-up of traffic,
83~% of all of the traffic circulating in fhis area is intra-traffic,
in other words, never leaves the area.
Plase E showing on the screen, this represents the traffic
that was interviewed on Highway 99, the north leg of Highway 99.
The interview was made leaving the Bakersfield area. You can see
that a large portion of this width of bands is accumulated inside
the urbanized area of Bakersfield. As a matter of fact, only 37%
of the total passes out of the south end of the area as through traffic.
Another interesting fact that I have developed here of that total
volume up there that was interviewed at the top of the map; the
area bounded by Golden State Avenue, Union Avenue, Brundage Lane
and 99 Freeway, 21% of those trips that were interviewed, were
generafed out of that area. That is to show you the high percentage
of the local traffic that is using the State highways.
Slide on Highway 65. I'm sure most of you understand
where Highway 65 is. Only 30% of that total width of band at the
north end passes on through on one State highway or another, the
344
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 6
rest of it is all generated locally. That same heart of the City
generates also 21% of this total traffic.
Slide on Highway 58. This slide represents Highway 58
and is Plate G. Please note the width of the band at the right
hand edge and that is the interview point east of Bakersfield.
Only 26% of the traffic, out there at the interview point, passes
on through the City without stopping. Here again thai core area
of the City generates 15%.
Plate H. This is Highway 184, locally known as Weedpatch
Highway. A lot of people think that the major portion of the
traffic that is on 184 is going to Lake Isabella, but look how that
traffic disburses into the Bakersfield area. A very small percent-
age of that total traffic at the interview point continues on up
to Lake Isabella.
Plate I. This is not a State highway, it is Union Avenue.
We inlerviewed Union Avenue also because it was very highly
traveled, but isn't it interesting to see how that traffic distri-
butes into the City and the core area that I mentioned before
attracts 28% of the traffic that is on Union Avenue.
Plate J. This is Highway 99 from the south. It is kind
of interesting to note that there is considerable more traffic on
Highway 99 north of town than there is south of town. And here is
a bigger percentage of the traffic south that is through traffic,
this is 49% compared to 37% from the north leg. We find the same
percentage wholly on trucks. There is much more truck traffic
from the north than from the south. A larger percentage of the
trucks that are on Highway 99 North stop in Bakersfield.
Plate K. This is Rosedale to the west. This is a very
interesting one I think, the central portion of Bakersfield attracts
24% of the Rosedale traffic and there is only 4% of the traffic
that is on Rosedale west thai is through traffic. It is practically
all local traffic. This is why it is impossible to serve traffic
in a melropolitan area by building a State highway that by-passes
the City. We found from this big study lhat the central business
345
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 7
area which is the CBD, we call it, generates 20.3% of all the trips
found in this entire area. Out of this 20%, almost 80% is generated
within the study area. 13.4% of the trips had origin or destination
right within the CBD, so there is a lot of circulation around within
the CBD itself, and only 7% had one end outside the metropolitan
area.
There are other factors that must be considered for such
traffic and one is the cost factor. We have made an exhibit which
shows the cost factors involved in these three alternates. (Mr.
Van Voorhis then read the cost
Alternate H-I, which
alternate. The estimated cost
factors from the exhibit.).
is the 23rd-24th Street Corridor
is $12,865,000; the estimated
right of way cost is $9,539,000 for a total of $22,404,000. There
are 72 single family residential units involved; there are 73
apartment units; there are 39 commercial establishments; one
industrial establishment, 2 unclassified, for a total of 187.
The last alternate is Alternate O. The estimated con-
struction cost is $16,300,000; the right-of-way cost $15,956,000;
for a total of $32,271,000. There are 133 single family residences;
99 apartment units; 25 commercial establishments; 19 industrial;
9 unclassified, for a total of 285.
Since we had the last committee meeting with the Citizens
Committee, we had a bright idea that we thought we would investigate.
You will see at the top map up there, that Plan calls for recon-
structing the bridge across the Kern River on Rosedale or 24th
Street, whichever you want to call it. We started looking for
a way to avoid having to do that, and by moving the Freeway a short
distance southerly where it crosses Highway 99 we were able to
eliminate the reconstruction of that Rosedale Bridge. Another
facet that is connected with this, we thought you people would be
interested in us making an investigation to see what would happen,
if we didn't make 24th Street a continuous street through there,
like it shows on the top map. The reason that we did This is
because of exactly what is now taking place on Oak Street. There
346
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 8
is more traffic on Oak Street now than before we built the 99
Freeway. We thought you would be interested in us making an
investigation to avoid something like this happening on 24th
Street. The bottom picture is based upon not connecting Rosedale
Highway directly into 24th Street. But actually, closing it at
Oak Street, which would definitely return 24th Street to a purely
residential street; therefore, the traffic that would be coming
in from the west would get on to the freeway at Oak Street, also
the traffic from Oak Street that wanted to go east would get on
the interchange at the freeway, and by closing 24th Street, we
would force that traffic to use the freeway rather than use 24th
Street.
According to our estimated traffic figures, this will
increase the traffic on the freeway and definitely reduce the
traffic on 24rh Street. Beginning at Oak Street, 24th Street
would become a local residential street again and would be rid of
this traffic. If you will look at the upper map again, we have
tentatively shown ramp connections at F Street. The traffic that
we are forcing to get on the freeway at Oak Street would have the
opportunity to get off at F Street, right where the commercial
area begins. We would eliminate that possibility of 24th Street
continuing to be used as a through street.
This is a decision that the City should make, we don't
want to make it for you. We are giving you this opportunity to
think about it; incidentally, there is a savings in cost involved.
000
The construction cost is lowered from $12,865/to $11,454,000. There
was a slight increase in the right-of-way cost from $9,539,000 to
$9,610,000. There is a $1,400,000 saving in total cost. In the
right-of-way we increased the single family residents from 72 to
81, we reduced the apartment units from 73 to 32, the commercial
is reduced from 39 to 36, industrial remains the same, there is one
unclassified. We now have a total of 151 parcels compared to 187.
The reason for this change is because we have eliminated taking any
property north of 24th Street by this alternate plan. A lot of the
347
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 9
savings that you ~ee there in the cost factors is represented by
a saving in bridge costs at the crossing of Highway 99 and the
Kern River. This was discovered by pure coincidence, we didn't
anticipate that this would happen when we started investigating
this plan. I believe this is something that the City should give
serious consideration to, because I believe it is worth serious
consideration to eliminate the possibility of 24th Street still
being used as a through street.
There are other factors also that we have to consider and
they are environmental. We have not finished our environmental
investigation yet. We have developed a few things. Beach Park is
seriously damaged by either Alternate H-1 or Alternate O. We have
called attention to this in all of our Committee meetings. However,
we know that there is sufficient vacant land in the general area
of Beach Park, that Beach Park can be made whole by the Division
of Highways and that will be our obligation to do so. If the owner
whether it is the County or the City, wishes that park to be main-
tained in that area.
We find that there are no churches or other public build-
ings affected by any of these alternates. We find no barrier to
schools that cannot be solved. Wherever there is any heavy traffic
of school children, we can provide a crossing of the Freeway. The
H-1 alternate can be depressed for its entire length between the
crossing of the canal just east of Oak Street, over to between "M"
and "L" Streets. At the west end, in order to pass over the 99
Freeway and the river we have to start bringing it up out of the
ground, but on our present plan it can be kept beelow ground until
we reach that canal. We are confident that we can provide a sound
barrier as far west of the canal that will make that short piece of
freeway comparable to a depressed freeway.
Alternate O, as we leave existing 178 near the Southern
Pacific Railroad, that will have to be elevated. Approximately
half way between that point until we pass across Golden State Avenue
348
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 10
to about a quarter of a mile beyond the crossing of Golden State
Avenue. At that point, we believe, that we must bring this Freeway
up to grade because of its proximity to the river, we wouldn't dare
put that in a freeway so close to the river, I mean in a depressed
section. We know that the soil out there is extemely sandy and
the water runs through it very rapidly. That Freeway would have
to be built at grade until we start approaching Rosedale Highway
where it will have to be elevated and go over Rosedale Highway and
over Highway 99 and the river. We have not finished the environ-
mental study as yet.
We understand that the City desires that a decision on
the portion of the study east of Highway 99 be made at the earliest
possible date. In order to accelerate a decision on that portion,
it will be necessary to separate it from the old study originally
requested by your Council in your Resolution of December 15, 1969.
If our understanding is correct, we will need a supplemental
Resolution from your Council to proceed on the basis of two rather
than one study. We are prepared to do this if you prefer it. We
estimate that a minimum of at least six months additional time will
be required to bring the studies west of Highway 99 to the same
degree of completion as we now have on the portion east of Highway
99.
WHITTEMORE: Thank you, Mr. Van Voorhis, we appreciate
it very much. We will open this portion of the meeting to comments
from the audience. We will recognize you as you hold your hand
up. As you are recognized if you will approach the microphone and
identify yourself for the record please.
Forternberry: My name is John Fortenberry, my residence
is 2323 Spruce Street, City of Bakersfield. What interested me in
the Freeway to begin with, was first of all my location in the midst
of the Freeway Corridor, or Freeway area. If it were just my own
home involved, I would have let it go as eminent doman or whatever
you call it. But then I started to look around and to me the idea
of this Freeway as originally planned, did not sound good. So I
349
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 11
began to investigate furlher. I guesss Mr. Van Voorhis very well
presented his case of a history leading up to the freeway. I have
a slight history, facts leading up to this date from a slightly
different point of view.
meeting where on the one
look at this information,
I attended a City Planning Commission
night that the Planning Commission had to
regardless of what was said at the
meefing, the Resolution had already been written. The Resolution
was presented by Mr. Davis of the City Planning Commission. I do
not intend to be catty, but I do wish to announce that it was read
by Mr. Davis as though he had never see a word of the that pre-written
report be£ore. He had to confer with Mr. Dean L. Gay, Chairman of
the Planning Commission, in order to find out what his own submitted
report seemed to say. This seemed to go through with a one sided
vote, I believe, one gentlemen on the Planning Commission voted
and was vehemently opposed to this. That was Mr. Ken Vetter, with
all due respect to him.
The following week, or the following City Council meeting,
then brought forward a petition signed by a number of people who
were in favor of this 24fh Street Corridor going through. As it
turned out, the first name on this list was Dean A. Gay, who I
believe is the father of Dean L. Gay. The petition was turned into
the City Council by the Warde L. Watson Realty Company and Con-
Struction Company, an organization of which the Chairman of your
City Planning Commission happens to be the Manager. I felt that
this man may have had some personal interest or conflict of interest
as it was called, although unlike our Mayor, Mr. Hart, he did not
in a gentlemanly manner refuse to participate in voting on this
issue.
I then decided I would take out a small petition of my
own in opposition to this 24th Street Corridor that the Watson
Realty Company seemed to favor. At the time I did not realize that
I would be appointed to the Citizens Commission for Freeway Study,
as I was later appointed. I had made a short round of the area,
picked up a few names and then had it called to my attention by a
350
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 12
letter submitted by Mrs. Berrigan that I was probably out of order
in soliciting these names. At this moment I ceased and desisted
from attempting to get any more names on that petition. I believe
I did read to the Council what was on that petition, so they would
realize that I was not at this point closed-minded. I did not
suggest any one route and I will read the petition as I have it.
It was addressed to the City Council, the City of Bakersfield. It
reads: We, the undersigned wish to express our opposition to a
freeway link through a 23rd-24th Street Corridor connecting the
so-called cross town freeway with Highway 99. We recommend the
circumvention of, rather than the destruction of residential and
business areas within our City.
All of these people on this list are not within the 23rd-
24th Street Corridor. All of them aren't even in the Westchester
area. These were just some people I had solicited door to door
and some people I happen to bump into or asked me if they could
sign. At this point, I had desisted and ceased, or whatever after
I had my wrist rapped for being on the committee and handling a
petition at the same time.
I then attended only one meeting of the Citizens Committee
on Freeway Study and at this time it was immediately put to a vote
on which route the Citizens Committee would select. Unfortunately,
I had missed all of the build-up meetings to this. My attempts to
study the freeway situation didn't completely in my mind, give me
all of the background I would like to have had. I felt it was
rushed into. When I asked questions at this Citizens meeting I
heard a few grunts and groans from one of the ladies to my right
and rear, because she had probably been through this information
before at an earlier meeting. Although it was an attempt on my part
to ask questions in order to bring myself up to date, so that I
could use a little cormnon sense in voting. As it turned out, I
happened to be the minority of one that voted against this 24th
Street Corridor at that Citizens Committee. Mr. Medders did abstain.
I don't know if this was a somewhat vote of confidence on his part
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 13
or not, and I did not question him on that.
At that particular meeting it seems when I made a state-
ment that I thought to be correct, Mr. Van Voorhis was quick to
tell me when I was wrong. He even told me when I was wrong on some
things that I later checked and found out I wasn't wrong. I called
to Mr. Van Voorhis' attention that north of "F" Street on old
Highway 99 was two lanes, I was quickly told it was a three lane
highway. I can't help it, but I did pass it the other night and
I still only see two lanes on each side, not three lanes on each
side. Although I am not an expert at interpreting these things.
Mr. Van Voorhis, I have spoken to him on more than one
occasion, I believe he will verify this, requesting him to draw a
Freeway route that has not yet been drawn. One that I think will
be more suitable than either of these previous existing routes we
have on the board. The new route on the bottom is a completely
new one to me and I have not had the
this one before this meeting tonight,
been furnished at this last Citizens
opportunity to even look at
much less study it. We have
Committee for Freeway Study,
some figures. These figures were very close, if not the same ones
that you have up on the board here tonight. Part of this area was
broken down into smaller segments, I selected one of these smaller
segments just to check on the figures. I had no way of checking
the dollar and cents figures and I don't have a team of Engineers
or experts or Mathematicians working with me. I had mentioned at
one City Council meeting that I was able to go out and count
residences, properties or structures are various lots. My figures
differ greatly with those furnished by the State. Mr. Jing, wifh
the City Planning Technicians, was able to help verify our differences.
He said "yes" thaf my figures were correct for the area that we had
for the homes and properties in the Corridor, but that the State's
figures were more correct, although not identical with the City's,
because the State's figures were wider than the Corridor, not just
taking in a width from 23rd to 24th Street but going beyond and
35'2
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page
north of 24th Street. That the State had planned to take in homes
north of 24th Street from Myrtle Street on out to the river. They
would be taking in a service station at Oak Street and 24th Street,
they would be taking out a place called the Golden Key, and a
service station structure next to this. That all of the properties
on Pierce Road facing eastward with their backyard to the freeway
were going to lose their backyards also. This new inclusion
included 41 to 47, or 41 to 43 apartments. The State and the
City had a slight difference in their figures that may commonly be
known as the Deeter and Reeder apartments.
I did find out that the City and State had failed to
notify any of these people north of 24th Street that their homes
might be included or any of the residences south of 23rd Street,
that their homes would also be included. I took it upon my
shoulders to notify some of these people and immediately I had a
slight state of shock from some residences who had made the great
trip to Fresno to the Highway Department office within six months
prior to this information and had been told by the State Highway
Department that "No" no homes would be taken off of 24th Street.
There seems to be a little conflict in what the State has told
some people in the last six months and what is on the map today,
or rather, as yesterday. The new map today doesn't show anything
north of 24th Street. I don't know which map we are working with.
But there is some conflict. Possibly, by not telling people that
their homes are involved keeps our meetings smaller. It keeps our
interests down, because we know a lot of people don't come out and
grind an axe unless they they they have an axe. Unfortunately,
we're not all our brother's keepers we don't get out and take an
interest in what is going on in the other part of town.
When I compared figures, the true Corridor figures which
were more than the ones that I had thought them to be, just within
the 23rd-24th Street area that took in a much wider margin, it seems
while the cost figure by the City, by Mr. Jing's Department were
14
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 15
slightly more for the 24th Street Corridor than the State had come
up with on their written figures submitted to us at the Planning
Committee meeting. It also indicated, from Mr. Jing's indication,
that the figures for the old map over here were a little less than
what the State had quoted to the representatives at the meeting.
Not a major difference, but there was hedging on both ends. I don't
believe we should hedge too much when we supply data to representative
commitlee members. I am not opposed to a Freeway, please do not
get me wrong. I do believe that we need a freeway or highway or
some means to facilitate our transportation from one end of town
to another or from one location to another. I don't necessarily
feel that I must accept all of our 1990 predictions and I am going
to quote some words that Mr. Van Voorhis used earlier in this meeting,
and I don't believe ! am going to quote them out of context because
I believe this is the way this type of information is obtained or
used predicated on the assumption for 1990. I remember at fhe
term~nusof the Second World we all believed that within the
next ten years or so we would be flying around in helicopters, this
really didn't pan out. I don't know if.we are all going to be
using bicycle paths in 1990 or shanks mare. But I hate to predicate
things for too many years ahead. Although I do believe at the same
time we have to have foresight. We know that Engineers make mis-
takes, whether its miscounting, two lanes for three or whether its
producing a freeway that last year's first big rain brought a mud
slide and all our traffic on the cross-town freeway to a standstill
or whether they are building a freeway from Bakersfield to Kernville
and starting on the wront end so that all of the supplies and goods
used in building the road and most of the employees working on the
road have to drive all the way up to Kernville and build the road
bakc to Bakersfield instead of building the road from Bakersfield
and using it to transport those supplies up, Engineers do make
mistakes. I would like our City Councilmen out of fairnmess, to
picture themselves in the position of the City Councilman from Ward
353
354
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 16
4 and imagine this same freeway, when they used their judgment,
were going through their own part of town, because if this freeway
wipes these people out of this part of the community, those people
are either going to have to relocate outside of the City of Bakers-
field or possibly in your Ward. I know darnwell none of you would
want to have to live with me in your Ward. Sometimes I am a dis-
agreeable fellow, I don't mean thai as a threat, but I wish you
would picture yourselves in the position of having this freeway go
through your Ward. Now I have some reasons that I am opposed to
this 23rd-24th Street Corridor route. I believe that more property
is going to be disturbed than has been let on originally. I have
mentioned one person already who was a little shocked when he was
told he wouldn't be in it but now he is in it. I was a little
unhappy about the hedging, and I don't mean bushes to hide behind.
Now, I am going to try to take these things as simply as
I can. The Westchester, or northwest area, is one integral area
in our City. it is an inter-dependent unit. The people move from
one part of this to another. It's true we do have supermarkets on
both sides of 24th Street, but a vast number of people do cross
24th Street and go to the northern half of this area. It is also
true that the only school, elementary school, we have in this area,
is on the south side of 24th Street and all elementary students
living north of 24th Street must cross and go to that elementary
school. Most of the churches in this Westchester area are along
17th, 18th, 19th Streets and Truxtun, the people from the north of
24th Street must go south of 24th to use this.
A freeway going down 24th Street or any streef is really
a beautiful thing, if you are going along in the direction it is
going, but you happen to be on either one of the other four points
of the compass, it is a heck of a barrier to get across. And I
would hate to think of this one integrated community area, with
its inter-dependencies, split in two. And I would also hate to
think of an additional remark made tonight about closing off 24th
Street and really trapping them in there. This is really a barrier
355
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 17
right within the community and I think most of you have been to
Los Angeles enough and found yourself in the same position I have
found myself down there where you couldn't get across, you could
drive along the side of a freeway for miles and wonder where do
you get across this durn thing. I do not believe too many people
here would want to swap and accept a freeway and the living con-
ditions that we find in Los Angeles.
Now some people may actually believe this, maybe they
are grasping at straws, I don't know, but they may believe that
this freeway will help our downtown businessmen. I can't see
where a freeway a few blocks closer is going to make or break our
downtown area. If they need that straw to grasp by, backing this
23rd-24th Street Corridor, I think it is a pretty weak one. I
don't think its going. to help them or hurt them. I don't think
it is a life or death benefit to them.
Now we speak of a park located at the end of 24th Street
between Oak Street and the River or Oak Street and Highway 99.
There is a loss of this park, or most of this park to this Freeway.
And yet the State can come up and give you another piece of land,
it won't be the same piece of land, it might not be in the same
place, it couldn't possibly occupy the same place, but they will
reimburse you for this. Course they have to buy this land from
someone else. I mean they can't reimburse you with land you already
own, they must reimburse you with land that they have to obtain
from someone else. Somewhere somebody is going to pay for this
land whether you put it in the Federal taxes, the County taxes,
or State taxes, or what, it comes out of the taxpayers pocket.
Oh by the way, that park that we think of down there, Beach Park,
I didn't realize how much the park was used, I figures maybe I'm
just one of those people that go down there with a Cub Scout
baseball team two or three times a week in summer. Or maybe a few
people stop along the highway to use it. We got some figures the
other day, these figures were furnished to the State of California,
Department of Highways by the County of Kern. Even the State of
356
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 18
California Highway Department didn't believe the figures that were
presented to them and they had to double check these figures with
the County to bear them out to be Correct. The number of people
that used Beach Park last year was 1,400,000 people. I'd say it
was a fairly necessary park, I'd say this park had to be used, I
don't believe the State will give you a different figure than that.
I got that figure from the State.
The'area that the freeway - 23rd-24th Street Corridor is
planned ~ts construction on, is a floodSarea. People who have
businesses on that street know about this. The City Council have
heard about their sand bags for a few years every time it rains,
regardless of how major or minor the rain. It is a sand base area,
it is subject to flooding, and at this point a below ground level
freeway was planned. I hope they are also planning on a ½ million
gallon a day standby pump which .... and you know how these pumps
work when they standby for a year all the time. We had an experience
with that last year on our first rain on our cross-town freeway.
Now we have been told that this freeway is to be submerged, so that
the noise will not be heard. Mr. Jing's office with the City tells
me that from Spruce Street on, and that was the reason that on
earlier financial figures submitted to the Citizens Committee for
Freeway Study, that the 23rd-24th Street Corridor was broken into
two sections. One section wou~d be figures at a cost of building
it at below ground level, and one set of figures for a freeway
that would be built coming up on an upramp, out of the ground
into the sky, or overhead, at which point our trucks woul~ have to
gun their engines to climb, creating a real
area. And they have got a new term for it,
pollution." Anyone in this area would have
noise impact in the
they call it "noise
a' difficult time
escaping., the noise, you would have to live with it, also your
property values surely wouldn't climb like the freeway would. I
hadn't heard this term before, until I spoke with Mr. Jing of the
City Planning Technicians, but unfortunately Mr. Jing is not here,
but he used the term that indicated a six level freeway stack up
Bakersfield, California, December ?, 1971 - Page
on new 99 due to this cloverleaf. This was not my terminology,
not my choice of words, but one handed me by a City employee and
a member of your Planning Technician group.
Now, if this 23rd-24th Street Freeway Corridor were to
go through, it would also remove many properties permanently from
our tax rolls. Our City Council would not be able to make up their
$2.00 difference on garbage, or collect any taxes from these pro-
perties that would be non-existent. And I'm not talking about non-
existent for next year, or the year after, but I'm talking aboul
forever which is considered to be a heck of a long time. So there
would be a loss of income from properties, you know you can't get
income off properties that cease to exist.
I don't mean to take up all of your time but these things
have to be said, somebody's got to say them, and I'm afraid somebody
else might miss them. Now, let's be fair now to both sides. We
have some people thai are in favor of a freeway in this area and
we owe these people something because the State has done them a
terrific injustice. With the shadow of a freeway hanging over
their property, their value of their property has gone down. Whose
going to buy their property if they are in a position where they
want to sell now and get out? Nobody. And, I mean these people
are stuck for it, and you have to respect them for trying to get
out if they no longer desire to remain in residency in this one
spot. But now the State comes along and says "Sure we will buy
your property." They feel good. But how good can they feel when
at the earliest the State can come up until 1974 to appropriate
the funds to purchase their property. Or maybe 1977 before they
get around to purchasing their property. This isn't helping those
folks out either, if the shadow of a freeway weren't over their
homes, they would be in a position to sell that property at its
true value now, not at whatever the State seems to be agreeable
to work out with them through negotiations and litigations and
what not else. Five to seven years from now.
357
19
358
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 20
Now the area we are talking about still, the 23rd-24th
Street Corridor, is a beautiful area, it is an area mainly composed
of older homes that have been kept up in good condition. This is
not a slum area that we are going to wipe out and replace with some
new bright shiny structure. This has much aesthetic and social
value. It is one of the necest areas, if the not the nicest area in
our City. Now when you fake cream out of the bottle of milk and
you replace it with water, you are thinning down the whole bottle,
and in this case, the whole bottle is your City. I hate to see
some Of the nicest homes in our area dropped down. This is also
a form of double jeopardy. This battle was fought 12 years ago
and these homes, you might say they won, they were untouched,
although a shoi gun was left pointing at them at the time. We
don't approve of double jeopardy when a person's life or limb is
at stake, and I think his home, or his residence or his neighbor-
hood or his City is an important theing to him also.'
When it comes to this aesthetic value loss, I keep thinking
back to the Los Angeles area.
Now let's go back to this freeway. If you don't mind I
am going to walk over here and I am going to point myself, because
I don't have a man over here with a rod. Here is the cross-town
freeway, at no place does this cross-town-freeway---unintelligible.
You know you can't sit here and knock a highway or knock
a freeway and find nothing but fault with it, unless you've got
something constructive to put up in its place. And I think I am
doing a lot of complaining, so I've got to have something to come
up with. We have been told that the shortest distance between two
points is a straight line, but again I contend where do you draw
your straight line from, from a freeway that's curved out of its
way somewhere else.
Now if we take these people out of this 23~d-24th Street
Corridor and we remove them from this area, they are going to be a
loss to that business district downtown that is screaming for
customers, because these people are many of the people that cater
359
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 21
t o our
If you
shop somewhere else.
district.
downtown stores. They are in the close approximate area.
relocate these people somewhere else, they are going to
It'll be a further loss to our business
By the way, I did have one more complaint against this
choice of location. Not a complaint that I thought of, in fact I
am really surprised that someone thought of something that I hadn't.
I have a petition'here submitted to me by people who I did not know
prior to this, it was unsolicited by me and I'll go ahead and I'll
read it:
It's addressed to the City Council. Gentlemen: We would
like to petition to the Bakersfield City Council to establish an
alternate truck route to the 24th Street Corridor for heavy truck
traffic East and West through the City of Bakersfieldi All of us are
heavy truck drivers with a Class A Truck Drivers Licenses and we are
concer~ed not with the hazard to our own safety, but with the hazard
to the safety of the residents of the City of Bakersfield presented
by the existing 24th Street Corridor. The danger presented by even
a minor accident to a truck carrying gasoline or explosives cannot
be minimized. We have discussed it amoung ourselves and decided
that the only safe access route to connect with routes to and from
the East is the old Highway 99 route north and south along Union
Avenue and Golden State Highway. This is a heavy roadbed, capable
of handling heavy equipment, is safe for us to drive, and even
reduces the number of miles that we have to drive. We would there-
fore like to petition the Bakersfield City Council to take whatever
steps that are necessary to establish diversion route signs at the
north and south intersections of old Highway 99 with the new High-
way 99 Freeway Bypass. In addition, signs should also be placed
for guiding traffic to the East at Brundage Lane, Sumner Street,
Niles Street and the new Cross-Town Freeway (Highways 58 and 178
now under construction). It is signed by about 12 truck drivers.
Now these truck drivers are the people who would use our
Freeways.
360
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 22
Now I have a recommendation, since I have found a lot of
fault with the routes we have here. I would recommend a route that
has not yet been drawn,
correctly and not drawn
to have been drawn. Mr.
State Highway Department
or if it has been drawn, was drawn in-
according to the way it has been requested
Bleecker originally suggested it to the
representatives here, that they draw a
freeway line, or highway line, or oute line, in the vicinity of
and using old Highway 99. A particular route that is already in
the possession of taxpayers, a route that will not require an
excessive number of overpasses or underpasses to be constructed
around it, a route that has a correct and proper roadbed already
in place, a route that will not cost the taxpayers a vast sum of
money, if may cost some to modernize and bring if up to date,
possibly even widen it. This highway already exists to a great
extent.
Mr. Van Voorhis tells us that people will use freeways
when they are there. Alright, if we put one there, if he is
correct, they use if. If they don't use it right away, Mr. Van
Voorhis tells us and Use his own words here - that people will
learn to use it. By the way this old 99 area, I don't believe
even when we had our heavy rain, the heaviest in many years about
six or seven years ago, didn't flood, the water came right up to
the edge of it but it didn't cross it, and this was seven years
ago, the big rain, the one that flooded roads up to the top of the
highway from here to beyond Fresno.
There will be no blockage of schools or churches by this
route drawn in this new area. There will no dividing of the
community that is already established. There will be no loss of
business by taking residents out of this community, the people
will still be there to spend the little dollar bills uptown. There
will be no relocating of people that are on 24th Street, north of
24th Street, south of 23rd Street into other areas. You will all
be saved from having me in your individual wards. You will be
saved the high acquisition of the cost of property. There will be
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 23
no loss from your tax rolls. We can continue to pay our $2.00 for
garbage or whatever and our other taxes. Now, here's where I
deviate somewhat. (Leaves microphone - cannot hear)
Mr. Van Voorhis said tonight, that it is local or intra-
traffic that is using the freeways. He showed a Plate that he
called Plate I as proof, that this traffic peters off and divides
up inside our community, it doesn't go on out beyond our community.
If we have a situation that is going to eat up our traffic within
the City, then why should we have a 70 mile an hour freeway going
through town to take these people right on through, if we need
these access roads right in our City. Old 99 does have these
access streets already there. It would be a service highway to
our people and remember freeways are built for people~ people are
relocated for freeways. He says again, more traffic is on 99 north
of Bakersfield. Okay, north of Bakersfield, that's where we go.
(Away from microphone- cannot.hear)
My plan is to superimpose this highway. Make use of the
existing road. Either take it straight off our 99 or as it crosses
the river, curve it around through an unconstructed, or unbuilt up,
or an area that is not built up with property. The route could be
shorter over 99, a road off to the left and one to the right. It
wouldn't be any more complicated than the interchange we have here.
a
If a~ything, it would probably be/less complicated interchange.
He says most of all the traffic coming from Rosedale is
local. Why should we shoot that through at
they are going to drop out before this. At
as being the Councilman
yourself gentlemen,
is to be located.
I've got
70 miles an hour, if
this point again picture
in the area where this
some after thoughts here. Somebody is going to
pay for this highway. Now the State of California is sitting back
licking their chops. This highway is not going to be paid for by
the State of California. Why, you know, its going to come out of
Federal Funds. Of ourse nobody pays Federal Funds, we all take
362
Bakersfield; California, December 7, 1971 - Page 24
money from the Federal Government. But if the Federal Government
won't pay for this, if this should not meet some of the requirements
of the Environmental Control Act, and it may be in violation in
some areas. There are many questions about fhe loss of this park
which services 1,400,000 people, there is much environmental question
about dividing a community right in the middle, there is much
question about buying access property, access road when road is
there.
The Federal Government may not just string along with the
State of California on their request for funds here. It might take
longer than five or seven years before the Federal Government comes
up with its money ~or either one of these planned routes. This is
something to think about. Now you know durned well that the State
of California is not going to come up with this And I'm not
opposed to freeways And here we might be completely shenaniganed
out of this. Now we have to try to also remember, I don't know
what the finances would cost on this route I picked. I can't see
where a route going down a highway we already owned could possibly
cost more than buying property that we don't own I dan't see
whet buying a roadbed, building a roadbed, would possibly be
cheaper than using a roadbed we already have. I can't see that
acquiring property with some structures on it already could possibly
be cheaper than using this unimproved land. If anything to us,
the taxpayers. should be less whether its a State taxpayer's
position, or a Federal taxpayer's position, or what.
I'm'sorry but there's just some things I'm just not too
bright about Even it it did cost us a few dollars more or less,
I think the environment of our people, the people who live in this
City and make the need for freeways possible, should be concerned
before the freeways. And if I talk any longer and take up any more
of your time, I am going to be very much ashamed of myself. Thank
you
363
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 25
Whirremote: Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry. Is there any-
one else in the audience who would like to be heard. Please
identify yourself for the record.
Hugh Sill: I'm Hugh Sil~. I'm a resident and a property
owner in the general area of the 24th Street Corridor proposal.
Sitting here as I have for the last half hour, I can anticipate
that the arguments that are going to be given here tonight are
pretty much the same as the ones given for the last ten or twelve
years. There doesn't seem to be much difference. The representation,
naturally, are those who mostly opposed to these things and judging
from the amount of people by comparison to the overall population
of Bakersfield, it must be relatively unimportant decision that has
to be made. I don't think it's so monumental. Especially sinc~
some of you in City Government have had ten years to think about
this thing. Some of you were probably instrumental in granting
the right-of-way for the cross-town Freeway on 24th and "M" Streets.
When the City of Bakersfield did that, in my estimation, they cast
the die for the 24th Street Corridor. I could never see, in my
opinion, how it could be realigned in any other manner. It's been
a long time, and not much has changed for the good. A lot of things
have changed for the worse in this, inasmuch as the town is growing,
the fact that we have never extended that freeway has been a
hindrance to the growth of certain areas, the congestion is greater,
the costs are higher, and I think its just time now that the City
of Bakersfield made a decision.
This isn't monumental, as I have said before. It's been
given a lot of thought by a lot of people. The thinking doesn't
seem to alter much, it seems to always go back to 24th Street or
something similar to that. I have seen the drawing there that has
been presented tonight, and I daresay if it takes my hopse out,
I'm for that one, but I think that all that you gentlemen have to
do is do something and do something rather quickly following good
engineering principles, good reasoning which you have. I don't
think there's anything here that anybody can look at and analyze
364
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 26
in their own mind, without coming to the same directives as the
State Highway Department has instituted here. They haven't altered
at all, they have given us some alternative plans, but they always
come back to the 24th Street Corridor. It's a natural. There's
no other way to look at it. In the first place it's a State Route
and it's been a State Route for fifty years, and judging from the
statistics, it's the cheapest route and the most direct route.
And will serve the most people.
So I don't think that you've got a big problem. I think
that all you have to do is have the courage to make a decision.
Councilman Rees: Mr. Vice-Mayor, I was thinking Mr.
Fortenberry's position when he found himself appointed to the
cross-town
had in the
or worse
Engineer.
about this matter.
San Francisco and
freeway committee and that it paralleled a position we
Third Ward which is mainly College Heights, for better
My appointee to this committee was originally an
I didn't ask him when I appointed him, how he felt
But his company in its wisdom moved him to
I appointed another man who was intelligent,
educated, and was not an Engineer.
didn't ask him how he felt about it
met at the home of the Engineer
discussion of the background of
Committee had had and my second
to, I believe just one meeting,
He had my confidence and I
either. These two gentlemen
and they had a full evening's
the many meetings that this
appointee, the replacement, went
like Mr. Fortenberry, and cast
his vote as did Mr. Forternberry and was probably in roughly the
same position. Did not protest and I haven't heard from him since,
I don't know whether he was right or whether he was wrong. I do
know I was interested in drawing this parallel to indicate that
Mr. Fortenberry was not alone in this particular situation of being
a late appointee to this particular Committee.
Councilman Bleecker: I would like to ask Mr. Sill a
couple of questions, if you don't mind Mr. Chairman. Hugh, you're
a neighbor of mine, are you not?
365
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 27
Sill: That's right.
Bleecker: Do you own property that would be taken by
this freeway, a substantial amount of property on the 24th Street
Corridor.
Sill: No, not directly. I have relatives that would
lose a house.
Bleecker: But no commercial properties of any kind.
Sill: Possibly, I am not sure. It could be closely
related in some manner.
Bleecker: Mr. Sill, you seem to have a lot of knowledge
about where the freeway should go and everything. It would appear
to me that you would know whether or not you owned a substantial
amount of property that would be taken by this 24th Street Corridor.
Sill: Well, I don't think that you can say that because
it is not aligned there and surveyed. The lines you see there
could be maybe three or four hundred feet one way or the other.
Bleecker: Well, if they were three or four hundred feet
one way or the other and this only a corridor, the lines have
not been exactly drawn - would you own a substantial amount of
property which would be taken by this freeway, three or four hundred
feet one way or the other.
Sill: No.
Bleecker: You would not.
Sill: No
Bleecker: Thank you.
Whittemore: Is there anyone else in the audience.
Allister McTaggert: I live up on Christmas Tree Lane so
I am not affected one way or another as far as selling my house is
concerned. I think what has happened here is that the City of
Bakersfield and the Division of Highways has made a mistake in the
creation of the cross-town freeway as it exists today. I think
its time we cut our losses and re-route that freeway from Lake
Isabella area completely around the City of Bakersfield. I also
366
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 28
feel that the route coming in from Mojave and the Tehachapi area
should also be re-routed around the City of Bakersfield. I don't
think your cross-town freeway has done anything for you the way
it exists today, its a mess. Thank you.
Whirremote: We have another gentleman back here who
would like to be recognized.
V. W. Whaley: My wife and I own our home on 24th Street
2301. I want totalk a little bit about this 24th Street Corridor.
The south side of 24th Street on the tax records is known as the
old North Section. The north side of 24th Street is Westchester
area. I very much object to any action being taken through there
until the present route over Brundage is completed. They have
had 12 years that I know about to complete Brundage Lane and they
are still monkeying with it~ I think I can take a wheelbarrow and
do it myself. I'm retired but I still have a little interests
around the City here and there. I agree with these truck drivers.
I'm on Pierce Road, almost every day. There was a group of them,
they're union drivers. There was a group of them talking here not
long ago and one of them sitting there eating lunch and he was
driving a set of doubles. That's a truck pulling two big trailers.
He had on a cargo of 50% dynamite andexplosive written all over
it. A slight accident in that 24th Street area, there's no telling
what the damage could be. So I would like to see Brundage Lane
completed. I would like to see a truck route established as quick
as possible and then we can go from there.
Frank Ghezzi: I reside at 2914 21st Street You've
heard a lot tonight about bands, brown bands, pink bands, you heard
about automobile's speeds, costs, feasibility, you have heard a lot
of things, but one rather important thing seems to have been for-
gotten. That's the human being that lives in the City. So I would
like to take a little bit of different approach than the people
who talked before me. I'd like to address you tonight as a City
Planner and as an Ecologist. I would also like to point out thaf
this is a much more important subject thaf we are falking about
367
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 29
tonight, than just the immediate neighborhood. It affects the
City at large, it affects the whole metropolitan area, it is a
most important decision, not just a neighborhood decision.
I would also like to point out that, I'm not against
freeways, certainly it's not a question tonight about comparing
the actual condition on 24th Street now and a freeway. It's a
matter of where should a freeway go. As a City Planner one cannot
be but very vehemently opposed to a freeway that cuts through any
area. This is in violation of axioms of City planning, modern and
ancient. The Greeks and Romans, I have said this before, they
knew about it, they never would plan a City and cut right through
it. let along cut through one that hasn't even been built, an
existing area.
To deprive a citizen that lives on one side from easily
going to the other side of the freeway, if it wouldn't be a freeway
it would be simple for him to cross this thing.. To put this
barrier in his path, it's taking away one of the most fundamental
conveniences of urban living. Like a child walking to school. a
wife rushing to the grocery store quickly and pick up something.
Rather than to being cut by this ridiculous gorge that is being
planned. The decision tonight is going to be rather important
and it rests on you. And it is not just the Councilman of the
Fourth Ward who should take very deep concern in this, it is all
of you. I know your constituents, your electorate is not here.
It is not here because they are not interested in the City of
Bakersfield, perchance, that is one of the reasons why the City is
not what it really should be.
I also wish to point out that there is in existence at
this time such a thing as the Environmental Quality Act of 1970
which you may not be familiar with. If I didn't take papers other
than the Bakersfield Californian, I wouldn't be familiar with it.
San Francisco, Santa Monica, Los Angeles, several communities in
California with the help of these acts, have defeated freeways.
For some reason or other, beyond my knowledge, or I would certainly
368
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 30
not know why, it was never mentioned in our papers, but I never-
theless would like to read a couple things out of this act, and
maybe you should judge it accordingly.
It says that the Legislature further finds and declares
that it is the policy of the State of California to mainfain a
high environment now and in the future and take all action necessary
to protect the environmental quality of the Stale. To take all
action necessary to provide the people of this State clean air,
enjoyment of aesthetic environmental quality and freedom from
excessive noise.
So I think this is something that should be taken into
consideration when you make this choice tonight. There is no
question in my mind but that this freeway would be but another ugly
scar in our City whose lustrous beauty has not been particuarly
shining.
The populace of Bakersfield, I would like to take this
opprtunity at this time, is to be blamed greatly for many of the
things that go on in theCity of Bakersfield and if they are not
here I think it is your duty as a Councilman of those area that
are not represented tonight to really think about this decision
you are going to make~. The populace of Bakersfield, they don't
care if it doesn't happen right in their backyard. Most of us who
are here are living in that very neighborhood and not in areas
that are actually equally affected by this freeway. People in
Bakersfield besides refusing to annex to the City which is foolish
in my opinion, they travel, they go to Europe, they go to Carmel,
they come back, and the rave about the beauty of those cities.
What are we doing here in Bakersfield? We knock down trees, we
get rid of the shade, the rustling of the leaves, the singing of
the birds, the fragrance of the blossoms. We replace those things
with a freeway, the smell of castor oil, a honking of two tone
automobiles and squeaking of brakes. And we think may be. we are
not so bad. We are doing our part of the ecology because in the
trunk of our car we have a six-pack of Cocoa Colas and we are going
369
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 31
to recycle those bottles. That's about the contribution of the
population at large to ecology, some contribution! Thank you.
Whirremote: Thank you, Mr. Ghezzi.
Bob Hoven: I am President of the Greater Bakersfield
Chamber of Commerce and I have followed Mr. Ghezzi before and he's
a hard act to follow.
The Chamber of Commerce is on record, as you know, in
sypport of the adoption of the 24th Street Corridor as the best
solution to the problem of the cross-town freeway. This conclusion
has been reached after making a..protracted and in-depth study of
the factors involved and after taking into consideration the need
for a decision to be made at the earliest possible moment. Many
of our members have been involved in this study, including the
owners of residences and businesses in the affected area.
There are, and always have been, only three basic routes
which can be used to connect the present freeway termination at
"M" Street with Highway 99. in the west. There are probably hundreds
of variations which could be made on these three basics. And if
we sat down long enough we could probably study them all. Mean-
while~ the traffic problem on 24th Street gets worse and worse.
According to the records of your Bakersfield Police
Department, there were 228 accidents on 24th Street and the two-way
couplet last year. For the first nine months of this year there
were 158 accidents with the winter months yet to come. Several
businesses are holding expansion and remodeling plans in abeyance
unable to go ahead so long as the freeway decision is.undecided.
They can't move off the street and rebuild somewhere else because
no one will buy the property for the same reason.
Many home owners on the street have exactly the same
problem and you have heard some of those tonight. They are unable
to sell and afraid to remodel~
It is impossible to build a freeway in an urban area.
without destroying property, uprooting people and changing the
character of an area. The same objections being advanced tonight.
37O
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 32
would be made by the residents of any other area which was ehosen
for the freeway. Like most growth problems, this one must be
decided on the basis of its effect on the total community.
We believe the present traffic problem on 24th Street
is the basic problem to be solved. The State Division of Highways
stated that neither a northern alternative nor a southern alter-
native route will appreciably reduce the traffic. They indicate
the only solution is the freeway in the 24th Street Corridor.
It has been suggested that the Division of Highways are
saying this to justify their preference for the 24th Street route.
If we cannot rely on their experience and judgment, who shall we
rely on instead. It just doesn't make sense to us, to ignore the
advise of e~perts who are making this kind of decision everyday.
We strongly urge the City Council to approve the 24th Street Freeway
Corridor and press for an early adoption of the route by the State
Division of Highways. Thank you.
Whittemore: Mr. Hoven,~Mr. Bleecker has a question.
Bleecker: Yes, Mr. Hoven, was,it ever indicated to you
as President and a member of the Chamber of Commerce, and you
express some immediancy to approve a freeway route,by anybody from
the State of California, that if the Chamber of Commerce didn't go
along with the 24th Street Corridor, that there might not be any
freeway at all.
Hoven: I can't, no, it was not indicated to me in no
way.
Lawton Powers: I'd like to speak as a resident and a
member of - or rather one of Mr. Bleecker's constituents. No one
has brought up the point of the people that live in the immediate
area and the problems that they have in getting to and from work,
their wife.taking the kids to school. .24th Street is there,'it
has been there for a long time, and I can tell you that every time
that we go on 24th Street, we'take our lives in our hands. There
have been several people killed where we intersect that road, and
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 33
I think that the freeway will only replace this condition. I have.
two youngsters, I don't want them on 24th, I certainly wouldn't
allow them to cross it to go to high school. But with a freeway
they would have the opportunity to get to and from school safely.
Also, Mr. Bleecker, when you ran for office, I was a
supporter of yours and through all of these hearings, as a resident
of that area, I have not said a word. I waited until the final
decision tonight to even say anything. But to my knowledge, nobody
from your office, you personally or anybody from your office, has
been around to take a count to see what the people in your own
area think. And it might be a good idea for you to take a reading
in your ward and find out how many are against. Thank you.
Bleecker: I would like to talk to Mr. Powers. Mr.
Powers, I appreciate your support in the past, since you brought
it up. That maybe the only support I will ever get but that
doesn't bother me a whole lot Mr. Powers, because when I was
elected to all this, there were no strings attached to my election
and I thought that I could serve the people best by doing what I
thought was best. To answer your question about nobody being
contacted in the immediate area - Mr. Fortenberry presented this
Council with a petition tonight that had some 120 signatures, I
don't know whether that would suffice. Had you thought that you
and your family might be able to cross 24th Street much easier
if there were a couple of stop signs on that street. Had you
thought, Mr. Powers, that through signs, outside the immediate
area, that over a period of time, it is my opinion, that traffic
has purposely been directed down 24th Street to make the cut
through the area more feasible, reasonable and sound when the time
came to put the freeway through. I would just like to give you a
couple of things to think about, Mr. Powers.
Powers: Thank you, I have been thinking a lot of things
in the consideration for several years with the delay of this
project. I think that we should set aside the talk and get down
to business of building a freeway.
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 34
Mrs. Sargent Eissler: I live at 2300 Elm Street. I
simply want to say that I agree with Mr. Hugh Sill. The 23rd-24th
Street is a natural. I think everyone must have known that when
it stopped the present freeway - when the present freeway stopped
where it stopped. I, personally, and most of my neighbors - well,
Mr. Fortenberry stopped by to get me to sign his petition which I
did not. He accused me of being on Mr. Gay's petition, which I
certainly am not, I am not on anyone's petition. But I live in
the shadow of 24th Street and the congested traffic of 24th Street.
Mr. Bleecker and Mr. Fortenberry live in the shadow of a proposed
freeway. Thank you.
David Cleves: I live not in the local community, but
across the town somewhat, over in the West Park Area and the White
Front Store is located somewhere near my home. I have taken an
interest in the freeway because my wife is a Woman's Lib'er and
said she doesn't like freeways at all. I happen to like freeways,
I drive on them all the time. So we went to a freeway meeting
and heard Mr. Van Voorhis explain ways that the freeway south of
24th is going to serve our City. It seems to me that here tonight
you are faced with the problem of taking a short segment of a
rather long project, a long range project, that goes just not in-
side the City Limits but outside the City Limits into the County.
And if you decide tonight to take the short section of the freeway
and as your resolution to connect with Highway 99, solving the
problem by going to the 24th Street Corridor, you will alter all
of the other possibilities. So only taking a short route is, I
think, dangerous. It will eliminate the possibility of what I see
on a small, but large map, its a small map in size but it covers
a large area. It shows a yellow line and it shows a brown line.
The yellow line appears to go somewhat north of the 24th Street
Corridor, it goes somewhat like "O" does, but it'doesn't make this
curve back down toward town, the yellow line continues north and
meets 99 farther north than these two maps show. I don't know that
that route is any better than perhaps the purple one, or an orange
373
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 35
one or some of the others here. But it seems to me that the long
range planning for the entire County needs to be looked at and not
just the short segment.
I also had some questions as to the statistical nature
that we have found ourselves in. We have studies based on 1965
questionnaires that Mr. Van Voorhis has made public to us. I think
that was before Valley Plaza, I think that was before Fedway closed,
I think many things have happened since those statistics were
obtained. I don't know that those statistics are telling us the
entire truth about the entire traffic that flows through, into or
around Bakersfield. I am not sure whether the statistics indicate
that the traffic traveling north and south on 99 if traveling
through, stopping off in Bakersfield for a cup of coffee, and then
getting right back on, and therefore being a statistic twice, one
coming in and one going out, or just'how those figures are arranged,
I haven't got a book to look at or to study. I am faced with looking
at 7 or 8 plates tonight and they all tell me well, maybe we need
something in the line of a freeway. We do need something to serve
the people that are in the City to get them out of the City.
still think that two freeways are.quite possible, one north of the
City and one south of the City. I have also heard that it was the
request of the City Council that those two freeways meet somewhere
west of 99. In the long range planning I see that they would be
meeting a mile maybe two miles west of 99 causing a triangular
shaped area to be surrounded by freeway. Those people living
within that triangle would not be served any better by one than
by another of the freeways and the people that live very far away
from that triangle, would not be served at all, because it wouldn't
help them. So I think that you must look at more than just a short
segment of your freeway. You must look at the long segment and
take the whole thing in one great big package rather than one Iitt]e
short thing that will temporarily solve the immediate problems of
the City. I submit, gentlemen, that it is a bigger problem and
will take much more time. Thank you.
374
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 36
Heisey: I would just like to point out that the Council
Advisory Committee has looked at the long range freeway study west
of Highway 99 but tonight we are only considering that portion
east of 99.
Cleves: Yes, and if you make the mistake of only con-
sidering that portion east of 99 without the rest of ---
Heisey: Well, this is the only portion that we have
jurisdiction over right now, the State hasn't come up with their
costs, etc. and all the alternates.
Cleves: I'm submitting that this is not enough for us
to look at. If we are only going to look at - Thank you.
Dee Abbott: Perhaps I shouldn't be butting in on this.
I have certain property which is unimportant, along the Corridor,
but that's neither here
people who are going to
least dust about this.
several businesses down
nor there. The strange thing is that the
be displaced the most have kicked up the
There are three automobile companies and
in there and I haven't heard a squawk from
any of them. They take the same position, I think, that I feel.
We've been sitting on a tight wire for 12 years while this has been
kicked around and kicked around. That property in there was
valuable before'they made two one-way streets in there which has
killed the value of that property. If we sit around for another
12 years trying to decide what we are going to do, nobody is going
to be ahead. Those automobile companies, three of them, and several
other companies, they don't dare expand, they don't know what's
going to happen. I happen to know, off the record, that they are
looking for new locations. Regardless of what this does, that is
killed right now by these two one-way streets. Personally, I would
like to see the Council get off their duff and do'something.
Either kill it completely, or put it through. I certainly am not
going to profit by its going through but I certainly would like to
see it put on through.
375
Bakersfield~ California, December 7, 1971 - Page 37
John Blackwood: I am here as a representative of the
Downtown Business Assiciation and also as a businessman and a
property owner in Bakersfield. Last year the Downtown Business
Association made a motion to approve the 23rd-24th Street Freeway.
On July 20th of this year, the reaffirmed their position in favor
of this freeway route. As a spokesman for the Downtown Business
Association, I'm here to urge you to adopt this freeway route.
There has been enough time and energy expended making studies and
decisions and I think that now is the time for you to make your
decision on this. I attended the Planning Commission meeting here
two months ago I believe it was, I attended the Planning Commission
meeting on this subject and felt that the results of this study
were comprehensive and thorough and should be accepted. It was
at this meeting that I heard a member say that the east-west free-
way east of "M" Street was in the wrong location. But I'm sure
the people using it do not feel that way. The Rosedale Highway
might also be in the wrong location. I'm sure of something, Free-
way 99 is in the wrong place. And there could be even those who
think the whole City of Bakersfield is laid out wrong. And it well
could be. But its here and we must face the facts. We can't change
the whole City. The Court House, the County offices, City Hall,
the Sheriff's office, the Police Department, the Hall of Records,
the Federal Building, plus many other businesses, are in this area.
And the peole are going to use the quickest, shortest route to get
downtown. So, therefore, I think that we do need this freeway.
I know what ever route that you pick, you're not going to please
everybody. But I think that you have to make a decision for the
benefit of the majority of the people and for the City of Bakers-
field. Thank you.
Bleecker: I would just like to make mention of the fact
that I attended the same Planning Commission meeting that Mr.
Blackwood did, and having had some experience in politics so far
and having had some before I was elected to this Council in various
groups, I'd like to say right now that that Planning Commission
376
Bakersfield, Cali£ornia, December 7, 1971 - Page 38
meeting was dominated by two of its members. On an important
issue of this nature, only one other member of the Commission,
and I can recall asked any questions whatsoever. The rest of the
members sat on their duffs and it was the biggest railroad job
I'd ever seen. Thank you.
Eileen Langston: I live at 2311 - 24th Street. It sort
me that you keep referring to 24th Street as a COrridor
think it is a freeway, only you don't call it that.
of amuses
because I
Twelve years ago - I might say I've lived there 14 years, and I
boasted you know, and one day I came out and they were digging up
my front yard and I can shake hands with the people going down the
street. Lo and behold, a month later, here's that curve sign going
around there, you know, and so, all of the accidents they talk
about, I'm no longer afraid of blood, because every time - you
know, the thud and you run out because there's an accident. But
on also you hear this man with his whistle oh it is a highway,
I'm not knocking that, I knew it when I built the house there.
But there's absolutely no sign out there telling you that that's
a school crosswalk. And so three of us in that area, we didn't
know that we did this, I approached the patrolman out there and he
said that cross guard, he said they can't put it up there, a sign
that this is a crosswalk because it is a highway. And the man
whistles, and you see him jot down names, but it is absolutely
amazing that a child hasn't been killed on 24th Street. As far
as visiting a neighbor across the street, I'd never live .that
dangerously to borrow a cup of sugar. I don't even know my neighbors
across the street. But I honestly think every time I pick up the
paper or I listen to the news, they mention a Corridor, I can't
believe that. Oh then, the traffic, they have a sign that says
35 miles an hour and honestly believe you would get a ticket if
you went that slow. That means you have to go that fast and so
I'm not arguing a freeway or not. But I say if you leave it as it
is, then something has to be done to protect the children, even me,
you know, to get out there. We go out the back way. Thank you.
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 39 377
Nate Krevits: I live at 21st and Elm Streets in Mr.
Bleecker's domain. Just a question that I would like to ask of
Mr. Blackwood. I think he said he represented the Downtown Business
Association, that the Downtown Business Association approved the
24th Street Corridor, and so forth and so on. I'm a businessman
with offices downtown, I don't know whether I belong to the Down-
town Business Association or not, but I as a downtown businessman,
was never asked to vote whether or not I would agree or not agree
to the 24th Street Corridor. So I don't know how he can speak for
the downtown business people. If there is a separate organization
calling itself the Downtown Business Association, I as a downtown
businessman do not go along with it because I don't go down 24th
Street to get to my office. I don't have to go down 24th Street
and I very seldom use 24th Street. Thank you.
Gerald Clifford: I am a property owner in the area, I'm
speaking for myself, not for the Chamber of Commerce of which I'm
a member, or the Board of Realtors. I was surprised tonight on
the H-l, I see that there's a bridge north of the present bridge
on 24th Street that would wipe my house out, and that's a good
point. I live about 2 houses north of where Lawton Powers lives,
he spoke just previously, and then I have property, I'm the owner
of, at 21st and Elm Street that probably would be south of where
the proposed corridor would be. That touches on Mr. Ghezzi's
property, just east of Mr. Ghezzi's and runs 132 feet west to Elm
Street fronting 21st Street. I've said all my life, and I've been
in the real estate business for 25-30 years, that if anybody w~nted
to build a freeway through my house or along side of it, they could[
do it. This probably is the moment of truth here tonight, because
if this unrehearsed bit of bridge work up there, should it happen,
my house might be right on the edge of the freeway, being north of
24th Street. And you can either take it or I can sit on the edge
of it when you get through with it, I'll sell it. You could do the
same thing on 21st and Elm Street. I have never seen such a
378
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 40
scattering of experts as
One longer than others and I learned a good deal. I thought
expert here was Mr. Van Voorhis of the State of California.
is true of most everything we do today. We hire
get into a problem and we abide by his decision.
you get a more honest appraisal of the situation
I have listened to here this evening.
the
This
experts, if we
Now where could
than a disinterested
party like Mr. Van Voorhis, making his statistics and his recom-
mendation to the City of Bakersfield. We get all that done for us.
And how can anybody else stand up, like I'm standing here and say
I think it should be someplace else. I feel that the complexion
of the town does not warrant it going down 24th Street. I can not
visualize that we could do that. I noticed, he may be here this
evening, that Gene Reid is in the area, who with his $1,500,000
complex, and he probably trusts that this freeway will be placed
where it should be, or he would have a battery of attorneys here
arguing with you tonight telling you to put it someplace else.
Mr. Bleecker I will possibly still vote for you. I really think
that we should rely on the expert, and no one else.
Bob Pike: I happen to live in Bakersfield, California.
The only reason I stood up is I objected to one statement the last
man made. Any man that will stand up and say that any man in
government is an expert and belittle the people; to my way of
thinking has not put much thought into what he is saying.
Barbara Bates: I had no intention of coming up here
tonight. I live at2301 "A" Street. I would like to say something
about experts also. Trying to bring out what Mr. Bleecker was
trying to bring out a few minutes ago. The fact that everything
has been planned down this Corridor. When the cross-town freeway
was planned in the beginning down to "M" Street, we were promised
by the'State Highway Commissioner, I can't remember his name right
now. But he promised us that the Lake Isabella traffic would be
routed down old Highway 99. That was promised. But if you will
come down Highway 99 through 24th Street, you will see a sign that
379
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 41
says "Lake Isabella" that way, right up 24th Street, not down old
99 like it was promised. Also, I'd like to say that as far as
Downtown Businessmen's Association is concerned, I shop downtown
and I shop downtown because it's nearby. If we are displaced from
our area on "A" Street, I no longer will be shopping downtown
because I won't be close to downtown. Thank you.
Whittemore: Is there anyone else in the audience who
would like to be heard at this time? Alright, we will close the
public discussion and declare a five minute recess.
Whirremote: I was just informed by the City Clerk that
we have additional petitions filed in favor of the freeway with
31 signatures on them. We are going to reconvene with the Council
portion of the meeting this evening. We will hear the pros and
cons of each member of the Council.
Bleecker: Thank you, Mr. Vice-Mayor. For those of you
who were not aware of the fact, I was the Chairman of the Citizens
Advisory Committee for Freeway Study for some few months. The
question was brought up on more than one occasion about how does
it affect the people involved. The primary concern at all times
on the 15 or 18 freeway alternates that we looked at, at one time
or another, was how many cars does it take off the street. That
was about all I heard as Chairman of that Committee. I felt that
there was much more to it. It was brought up by the State of
California tonight, that the environmental studies have not been
completed. Hopefully, this Council would not take some action that;
could later on be termed in violation of Federal Law. The success
of any freeway, it is my understanding anyway, depends on Federal
funds, perhaps up to 90%. At least 50% to 75% depends on Federal
funds. This City has engaged in the business of requesting Federal
funds from time to time. We have found that for some small minute
reason at
have been
etcetera.
times, our funds have been delayed or denied or excuses
given, that we have had to rework our requests, etcetera,
380
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 42
The alternate to a freeway such as H-l, which I certainly
believe would destroy the neighborhood and this is my primary con-
cern, is that one that would be Similar to the one called "O" on
the board. I asked the Chairman of the Committee that a line be
drawn to circumvent the residential areas and come back into a
tie-in somewhere on 99. This was not done, the Department of
Engineers drew a line that cut through the northern most part of
Riviera Westchester and as you can see on the board over there,
took out more homes, more businesses, etc. compared to the straight
shot right down the 24th Street Corridor.
I talked to Mr. Jing about this sometime later and asked
him about it, that maybe another line could be drawn that would
serve the same purpose but take it a little further north. I
believe that there is an alternate to the proposed Corridor under
H-l, but as of today, no other line has been drawn, and I believe
that by not doing so, the State of California has not only done
a disservice to the Committee,'that it explains these various
freeway routes too, but it has done a disservice to itself.
If I might use a member of the staff, they haven't had
too much to do tonight with a pointer, please at the board over
there. On the Map over there called "0", if you take it up from
the extreme right hand corner there, or where it comes at say near
Ed Fant's, where the freeway ends, if that line were drawn along
existing old 99, and take it on up north and out of the residential
area at Riviera Westchester and bring it back in, or somewhere down
closer than that, bring it on down and make a tie-in, I believe
you would find that it might be a little bit longer but that it
would be the number 2 alternate if "O" as it exists now is the
No. 2 Alternate, in the one critera of taking cars off the street.
That was my understanding when I was a member of that Committee.
I believe that this can be done, that it would certainly alleviate
a lot of problems in cutting up the northern part of the Fourth
Ward, because if you would again use your pointer there, Dewey,
you'll find that there are the Santa Fe tracks running north and
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 43 3~1
south, or east and west, over by the Bakersfield High School, the
Santa Fe tracks. Alright, there you are. Frommthat area, say at
the bottom~ to 24th Street~ is about five blocks, you have a natural
barrier with the railroad tracks. Put a freeway right ~own the
middle of that area of town, which is another barrier, and to the
north of that~ you have another existing barrier which is old 99.
I believe that this is cutting up an'area of the City too much and
I don't care whose ox gets gored, and who owns what property in
that area.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is very
interesting, and we must remember at this time that this freeway
depends on these Federal Funds. It says in e£fect lhat if you
break up neighborhoods or make it possible to secure Sufficient
replacement dwellings in the immediate area, then the freeway
route does not comply with the Federal Law. The Laws says too,
that the freeway has to be in existence for two years before you
can determine whether or not noise levels are louder than they
were before there was a freeway. It must also be documented that
fumes must not be a problem because of the freeway. It also says,
and this is perhaps the most important thing of all, that if there
is a reasonable alternate that causes less harm and works
aesthetically to the benefit of the community~ it is preferable.
Federal Funds depend on compliance with the Act, and the funds,
as I said before, could represent as much as 75%, or more of the
cost and without Federal participation, there would be no freeway.
I would like to ask Mr. Van Voorhis, a couple of questions
at this time. If I recall correctly, Mr. Van Voorhis~ at one of
our meetings~ you made mention of the fact~ that if there is a
freeway, people would go out of their way to get to it. Is that
not correct.
Van Voorhis: Some people will. I think we showed you
on the traffic attraction displays, that some people are going out
of their way.
33~000 cars.
not.
The "O" Alternate attracts, in our estimation,
Some people will go out of their way, others will
Bakersfields California, December 7, 19?l - Page 44
Bleecker: When we talked about something similar to
"0", let's say, you advised me that you couldn't take it outside
of the Riviera Westchester area because the curve would be too
keen to come back and hook it at the existing new 99 Freeway,
Route 5, is that right.
Van Voorhis: As I recall the suggestion, when you made
it, and correct me i~ I'm wrong, you asked us to draw an alternate
which would follow Golden State Avenue and come back to the inter-
section near the intersection of 24th and Oak. We tried to - and
as I explained the rate of curvature, must be a minimum rate of
curvature in order to meet present day standards, and the curve
that we show on the map is the minimum rate of curve that we are
using now on urban freeways.
Bleecker: But it is not impossible to use one that is
more restrictive than the curve you speak of, in other words, to
maintain a 70 mile an hour speed around that curve, is that right.
That was my impression.
Van Voorhis: We would use a sharper radius curve, how-
ever, from actual experience we know that that increases the
accident frequency. This is why this rate of curvature was adopted
as a minimum standard. We have freeways built in other areas with
sharper radius curves from which these statistics have been
gathered that show the safety factor on a freeway is reduced by
reducing the radius
Bleecker:
not be done.
Van Voorhis:
lice some of the safety
of the curves.
In other words, you are saying that that could
Oh, it could be done, but it would sacri-
features of a freeway.
Bleecker: Then that is no longer done, nobody is doing
that anywhere.
Van Voorhis: This is a policy that has been laid down
by the State Highway Engineers, that unless we experience an
extremely critical situation that this is the standard that is to
be used.
Bakersfield, California, December?, 1971
Page 45
Bleecker: Well, Mr.'Van Voorhis, do you have any idea
if the freeway were taken north of the curve that it is making now
and cross straight over the river and come back in down there at
the proposed interchange, would you have any idea what the assessed
valuation of the property would be compared to H-1.
Van Voorhis: I would hesitate to predict without making
a study because I might be quoted. I would hate to guess at this
stage of the game whether it will be or not. The map shows it is
vacant property. Actually, we tried to draw an alternate that
would cross the river further up and come down through thai vacant
property. But we got to the Highway 99 crossing, we found our-
selves in a very awkward position so far as trying to design a
good interchange with Highway 99. The acute angle was so severe
that we felt that we could not draw a proper interchange with 99,
and in addition, it would wipe out the interchange that now exists
with Rosedale Highway. Based on the study that we have made so far,
we believe that that Rosedale interchange is vital to this area
because it would be right on top of it. The locations thai we haw~
drawn~ these interchanges on the two alternates you see there, are
very critical so far as retaining the existing interchange with
Rosedale Highway. For example, we drew an interchange on another
alternate that has since been eliminated by vote of the Committee
involved, that dark blue line on the other map that maybe you can't
see, we drew an interchange there and we found no way that we could
maintain or retain the existing interchange with Rosedale Highway.
That's why I say it would eliminate that interchange which provides
local access to Highway 99 in that area. We know it is very
important because there is a lot of traffic that's using it.
Bleecker: Mr. Van Voorhis, in regards to the replacement
of Beach Park. Can you now, as an official of the State of California,
guarantee this City that that park will be replaced and what it
would cost at no cost to the City of Bakersfield.
Van Voorhis: What we have done, Mr. Bleecker, we have
investigated the vacant land lying immediately east of Highway 99,
384
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 46
from
that
park
the State will.buy that
owns the park wants the
cases before.
Bleecker:
immediately south of Beach Park and behind the headquarters of a
subsidiary of Kern County Land Company or Tenneco, that faces on
Oak. There is more vacant property in the back immediately adjacent
to the existing park than either one of these alternates removes
the existing park. Therefore, I can honestly and truthly say,
there is sufficient land available to replace the area of the
taken and I can assure you, based on past experience, that
additional land if the jurisdiction that
park retained. We have done it in many
Well, I would think that since that park had
1,400,000 visitors last year, that it would certainly be the
intention of this City and this County to retain it or relocate it,
but what I want to get at, Mr. Van Voorhis, can you guarantee this
Council that thai.park will be replaced if that freeway route takes
it out. Now that's what I'm getting at. Can you give me a "yes"
or "no" to that, Mr. Van Voorhis.
Van Voorhis: I can give you a'~es" it will be. Although
you know, Mr. Bleecker, nobody can guarantee anything but death and
taxes. But that's as'strong a guarantee as I think you'll get on
anything.
Bleecker: Sometimes we hear a lot of things on this
Council, where people guarantee this and guarantee that, and nothing
ever happens.
Van Voorhis: I have been involved with many projects
where we have had a similar case and in every case that I know of,
a park has been replaced, and usually the jurisdiction with the
park ends up with more land than they started with.
Bleecker: And just to reiterate one more time! You're
telling this Council that it is - that you cannot route that free-
way to go north of the northern most extremity of Riviera Westchester
and bring it back and tie it in at thai existing interchange, or
somewhere near it, to make satisfactory connection with that inter-
change on those other freeways.
Bakersfield, California, December.7, 1971 - Page 47
3S5
Van Voorhis: I don't like the word "cannot." You can
do anything if you want to compromise your standards and ignore
all standards of engineering. Nothing is impossible. So I would
like to say thaf it would be a very compromise type of design based
on the investigation that we have made so far. And I, as a pro-
fessional Engineer, would certainly not like to see any compromise
in design standards. These projects are in the pipeline so long
that even at the most modern thinking, certain features are out of
date, so to speak, with the existing standards before we get it
built. I believe it would be a mistake with a design that was
compromised before you start. That's the strongest statement I
can make.
Bleecker: You recall here,.a few minutes ago, I made
mention of certain aspects of this National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969. Have you.made sufficient investigation along those
lines to satisfy yourself that the proposed H-1 would satisfy the
Federal requirements to receive the funds to assist in building
this freeway.
Van Voorhis: I believe it is reasonable to believe that
we will, but I'm not going to guarantee that. But I will guarantee
this, that before this study is finished by our office, that we
will have a complete analysis of the environmenial impact all
written up in an environmental statement. And this statement will
be reviewedby many agencies before there will be any.official
action taken by the State to adopt a route. The action by this
Council would be extremely valuable to the State in making a
decision on this matter. However, the final decision has to be
made by the California Highway Commission by law, and I can assure
that the California Highway Commission is nor going to make a final
decision on this until they are satisfied that the environmental
impact has been fully and carefully considered.
Heisey: Just one thing, Mr. Van.Voorhis. I might say
that we discuss~aaawful lot of material here tonight and for some
of us it has been somewhat repetitious. Frankly, I don't think
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 48
very much has come out that's new to me, but I'm sure that a lot
of it is new to some of you individuals who have not been parti-
cipating in hearings and study groups over the past couple of years.
I think it might be well, Mr. Van Voorhis, if you would comment on
one of the alternatives that was discussed at a very great length
by Mr. Fortenberry, which provided for going down the old Golden
State Highway and using that existing roadbed as a freeway. I
know there are some real problems in expenses there that I am not
sure whether he is aware of them, but I know Van Voorhis can point
out the pitfalls and problems entailed there, and I really think
that the public ought to understand that.
Van Voorhis: Mr. Heisey~ this is a very complicated
question. Existing Golden State Avenue is a conventional highway
except for the section that crossed over the Garces Circle which
is four lanes wide on the elevated section. The street is six
lanes wide, but all of the frontage abutting to that highway has
access to it, that's what makes it
makes it different from a freeway.
have just on that portion from."F"
attraction of that "0" Alternate
cars a day using that alternate.
that there are 17,000 cars a day
a conventional highway and
The traffic analysis that we
Street to "M" Street, the traffic
indicates there would be 33,000
But in addition to that, we find
that would want to use existing
Golden State Avenue. Those two volumes of traffic add up to
50~000 cars. The present street in its present condition as a
conventional highway with traffic signals on it would not be adequate
to handle 50~000 cars a day.. We know because we have a street in
Fresno called Blackstone Avenue that has 45,000 cars a day~ that
iS a six lane street similar to this~ and it is woefully inadequafe.
I think the basic traffic assignment map proves, at least
to my safisfaction, that if you leave Golden State Avenue as a
conventional highway, it will not attract 33,000 cars. The basic
map over there shows, and that is assuming Golden State Avenue
continues to exist. The basic traffic data shows that there will
387
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 49
be 60,000 cars on 24th Street. To attract these 33,000 cars in
Golden State Avenue Corridor, you have to develop a freeway. If
you wanted to develop Golden State Avenue itself as a freeway, the
very nature of a freeway requires that all of the frontage that
abutts Golden State Avenue on both sides, the access must be
restricted. Now how are you going to restrict it? You can either
buy out the property and eliminate if, or you can build frontage
roads to serve these businesses. But. that's a vicious circle,'
because when you build these frontage roads to serve this property,
you in effect, wipe it out or destroy a lot of it. So, I don't
believe it's feasible to convert the existing six lane conventional
highway to a freeway without doing an awful lot of damage to the
area. It is not a simple thing, like putting up a fence, it's not
that simple. It takes a lot more than that to convert a street
to a freeway. We have found out through numerous studies, that
the way we have drawn it on the map there between "M" and "F"
Streets the. most economical way to do it, where you put the freeway
on one side and leave the highway intact to serve the property on
the other side.
When we first started drawing that alternate, we were
going to reduce Golden State Avenue to a frontage road. But to
our surprise we'found out that there were still 17,000 cars that
wanted to use that street. So we had to leave it as a multi-lane
highway to serve the traffic that wanted to use that. Have I
answered all your question yet, or just a part of it?
Heisey: No, I think you have pretty well answered it.
Mr. Chairman, we can sit here all night and I don"t mind sitting
as long as anybody else, but I do think for the sake of accomplishing
something we ought to have a motion on the floor to discuss and
eventually get to the point of having a vote. Of all: of the study
groups and organizations that have evaluated this, there hasn't
been one, to my knowledge, that hasn't come up with the recommenda-
tion of going H-1 Corridor up there, 23rd-24th Street Corridor.
388
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 50
There is a
there, but
Corridor.
new wrinkle thrown in as a possible interchange down
it still doesn't alter the fact that it is the same
When Mr. Bleecker ceased being Chairman of the Citizens
Council Committee on Freeway, I was appointed Chairman. At the
last meeting that the Committee had, they voted with but one
dissenting vote, to adopt and recommend to the City Council, the
adoption of this particular route. After listening to the dis-
cussion tonight, I'm still of the opinion that this is the best,
the most efficient, the most economical and that it will serve the
area in the best manner. I personally feel that most of these
fears are unfounded that are being presented tonight. I think
that a freeway after it has been built and it is landscaped, is
a very attractive part of the City, in fact they are almost a park
unto themselves, and I would move the adoption of the 23rd-24th
Street Corridor with the possible interchange being left to be
decided at some later date, whichever is going to work out best
at that particular western terminus there, by the river.
Whittemore: Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have
./
to designate this as H-I, is that the proper designation. Fine.
We have a motion to adopt the 23rd-24th Street Corridor, known as
H-1. We have two lights here, Mr. Bleecker.
Bleecker: Mr. Van Voorhis, would you go up to Alternate
"0" please, so we will know what we are talking about. If you have
something to write on, on the big white space, will you write "O-A,"
as an alternate to that route. Would you just take your pointer
and take the line from Chester - would you draw a line that cir-
cumvents the northern part of Riviera Westchester and goes through
substantially vacant property and bring that back around into -
across the river and back into an interchange.
Van Voorhis: I am not capable of plotting curves that
represents a rate of change that this curve represents free hand.
Bleecker: You are generally familiar with the line you
have drawn there called "O-A." I am not trying to put you on,
389
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 51
am just trying to establish an "O-A." Mr. Vice-Mayor and Council,
if in writing the State of California will guarantee to replace
Beach Park as indicated by Mr. Van Voorhis, if the State of Cali-
fornia can guarantee that the 24th Street Corridor is in compliance
with, and will continue in compliance with the'National Environ-
mental Policy Act'of 1969 before any construction begins, and if
through a written communication to this Council, the State Depart-
ment of Engineers can indicate promptly that Alternate "O-A" is
nor feasible and sound and according to good engineering practices
and is not substantially cheaper than H-l, under these three con-
ditions I can support Mr. Heisey's motion.
Whiftemore: Thank you, Mr. Bleecker. Thank you, Mr.
Van Voorhis. Mr. Rees.
Rees: Councilman Whittemore, I'd like to say first that
the answers that Mr. Van Voorhis gave as an Engineer and as a
representative of the State of California, presumably a disinterested
professional, to the questions about Beach Park and about the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, satisfies me of the
integrity of the State, of the State's representative here tonights,
and with no further gimmicks like "Will you take.an oath -
Bleecker: I didn"t ask anybody to take an oath.
Rees: I'm sorry, I correct myself. No further gimmicks.
The word "Gimmick" is my own, are necessary. I've heard no person
speak here tonight whom I do not respect further for having heard
from them tonight. In two particulars, No. i - Their sincerity,
No. 2 - Their ability to express themselves. I'm speaking of
people in the audience and also Councilmen. I:particularly respect:
Mr. Van Voorhis for what I regard as his professional excellence
as an Engineer. For these reasons, I would support'M~. Heisey in
his motion.
' Whirremote: Thank you, Mr. Rees. 'Are there any further
Council comments.
39O
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 52
Bleecker: Mr. Vice-Mayor, I would move that the require-
ments I just mentioned be added to Mr. Heisey's motion as a sub-
stitute motion.
Whittemore: We have a substitute motion - we have
Bleecker: I don't know any other way to do business.'
Rucker: Mr. Mayor, like Mr. Rees here, I have listened
to all of the discussion from each and every individual and I
think, too, that most of them are very interested and. I know that
the people who are most concerned are the ones who are going to
be hit directly. I also thought as far as Bakersfield is concerned,
or any City where a freeway is being discussed, those people who
are in the direct path of the freeway will oppose it more than
those people who are not in the path of the freeway. Certainly,
I think if you put the freeway any place where people are, then I
think those people are going to complain. If it was hanging in the
air I suppose if people were there already, I think the people where
the freeway was going to pass, would also complain. So Mr. Mayor,
I possibly will have to agree and support Mr. Heisey's motion.
Whittemore: Thank you, Mr. Rucker. Any further comments
from the Council. If not we have an amendment to Mr. Heisey's
motion, a substitute motion which would encompass the original
motion and whidh would include Councilman Bleecker's request that
the State guarantee that Beach Park would be replaced, and that
the State would guarantee in writing that Mr. Bleecker's alternate
proposal "O-A" is not feasible and sound and according to good
engineering practices and is not substantially cheaper than H-1.
Bleecker: There was another one there, Mr. Vice-Mayor.
That the State of California guarantee that the 24th Street Corridor
is in compliance with and will continue in compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 before construction.
Whittemore: Alright, you have the motion restated. We
will have the roll call vote:
3.ql
Bakersfield, California, December~ 7, 1971 - Page 53
City Clerk: Bleecker, Aye. Heisey. I would like to
state before I vote that in Committ.ee I studied these possible
alternates, the "O" Alternate and to my judgment I think these
requests,iKeith, and I would like to support you on them, are
really unreasonable and unnecessary, and I think it is another
delay which is a waste of time, because I'm satisfied the answers
are going to be the same, particularly in regard to another long
drawn out study on another alternate, I just can't in good faith
support your substitute motion, and I vote "no."
City Clerk: Medders - It isn't objectionable to me.
Aye. Rees - No. Rucker - Let me ask one question. Isn't this
some of the requests made by Councilman Bleecker, doesn't the
State automatically look into this before they do anything anyway,
Mr. Van Voorhis.
.Van Voorhis: Mr. Rucker, we did examine this alternate
and I tried to answer that question a while ago, but I will try
to repeat it as best I can. And if I don't make it clear, you
ask another question so you will be sure and understand what I am
saying. We did investigate this and we did try to draw a line
across the river up there north of the Riviera Westchester and
come down along the river on the northwest side through that vacant
property. But when we got'to Highway 99, the acute angle of crossing,
it was our opinion we were unable to develop a proper interchange
with Highway 99 that met the rigorous standards of design that we
think we must provide. We have investigated this in a preliminary
way to our satisfaction that it was not as good as this plan from
that standpoint. Now, if the Council wishes us to investigate this
further, we will do so.
Rucker: How about some of the other requests that were
made by Mr. Bleecker, do you automatically look into these things.
Van Voorhis: Do you mean this guarantee on the environ-
mental that word "guarantee" scares me a little bit. That's
asking quite a lot. Environmental factors sometimes involve
392
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 Page 54
different things to different people. To guarantee something - I
did assure'Mr. Bleecker, I thought, that the California Highway
Commission Would not make a decision on this until all of the
comments are in from everybody that has an opportunity to review
this environmental statement that we prepare, they Will not make
a decision until that i~ done. Whether that constitutes a
guarantee, I'm not sure.
Rucker: Thank you. Mr. Mayor,' I vote "nb."
City Clerk: Thomas - No. Whittemore - No.
Whittemore: Now:we will vote on the original motion by
Mr. Heisey which is to designate the 23rd-24th Street H-1 Plan as
the adopted route. Mr. Bleecker.
'Bleecker: Thank you, Mr. Vice-Mayor~ I don't believe
that the requests that I have made of this Council for a responsible
segment of State Government to put in writing certain guarantees
to this City, that would indicate that a park that is ~sed by
1,400,000 people be replaced. That no~construction would begin
until the State satisfies itself and the Federal Government
satisfies itself that the State of California is in compliance
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, before con-
struction begins', which is 7 years from now. I don't believe it
is unreas6nable to ask that the Council ask the Department of
Engineers to put in writing what they have said here tonight. I
don't believe'these requests are unreasonable. But in the wisdom
of the Council it chose, by a 5-2 vote, not to support my motion,
therefore, on this motion I will have to vote "no," as I cannot
support it without these guarantees.
City Clerk: Heisey - Aye. Medders - For the same reason
that Mr. Bleecker stated, I will vote "no." Rees- Aye. Rucker-
Mr. Bleecker, don't you think that with the discussion here tonight
and Mr. Van Voorhis has been before the mike, and the news reporter'
and radio, etc., don't you think this would be sufficient to pin
Mr. Van Voorhis down.
393
Bakersfield, California, December 7, 1971 - Page 55
Bleecker: Mr. Rucker, if I thought so, I wouldn't have
to make an amendment to the motion.
Whittemore: I think that Mr. Van Voorhis has gomas far
as he possibly can. When you ask somebody to guarantee something
there might be something happen in the future which could disrupt
it. He is being as frank and open with us he possibly can. He
has said what their policy is, they are doing it elsewhere. We
discussed this in a joint meeting of the Technical Coordinating
Committee and the Advisory Committee, at which we were told the
same thing. This is their policy and I have no reason to believe
otherwise, I don't think that we should belabor the point on into
the night in an attempt to get a personal guarantee out of Mr. Van
Voorhis~ when he has said and has always been open with us, this
is what they are going to do. Continue with the vote, please.
Rucker: I will vote Aye.
City Clerk: Thomas - Aye. Whittemore - Aye.
Whittemore: Carried and so ordered. Now before we
adjourn, Mr. Van Voorhis has another statement to make.
Mr. Van Voorhis stated that this will be his last
appearance in Bakersfield he is retiring on December 24, 1971 and
wished everyone present the best of luck. He has decided that 42
years is long enough. He has enjoyed his long association with the
City and the cooperation he has received from the City Council and
the staff.
Whittemore: On behalf of the Mayor and the Council we
wish to thank you for the tremendous job that you have done and
the efforts that you put forth over and above what you would have
had to do~ to explain these problems and issues to the people. I
want you to know that it is greatly appreciated by all of us. We
are certainly going to miss you.
Rucker: Mr. Vice-Mayor,
Citizens Advisory Water Committee.
Artie Williams
John L. Fulton
I have two appointments to
He named,
422 9th Street
100 "U" Street
the
394
Bakersfield, California, December ?, 1971 - Page 56
Whittemore: I would like to thank all of the people in
the City who have turned out this evening and shown their interest
and expressed their views to the Council. I think this is the way
to see your government work. If there is anything else to come
before the Council, if not I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
Adjournment.
There being nothing furthe~ to come before the Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, the meeting was adj'ourned at
10:45 P.M.
ATTEST:
of the City of Bakersfield, California
-1-
Bakersfield, California, December 13, 1971 -
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. December 13, 1971.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by
the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Edward Zeigler.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
None
Absent:
Minutes of the regular meeting of December 6,
approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
1971 were
Mr. Braxton Martin, chairman of the March of Dimes Sickle
Cell Anemia Committee, addressed the Council stating that Sickle Cell
Anemia is called the "Neglected Disease", a hereditary blood disease
suffered by about two million black people as well as by Caucasians;
however, the largest number of cases in the United States appear among
the Negroes. Recently, $142,000,000 has been appropriated by the
Federal Government to fight this disease. He has been designated to
educate Bakersfield regarding this abnormal disease of the red blood
cells which alter their ability to carry oxygen throughout the body.
They have people willing to help, funds are available, but his biggest
difficulty at the present time is getting the black people to come out
and take the free test. He urged the Council to adopt a Resolution
expressing support and endorsement of the efforts that are being put
forth to test for this disease.
Councilman Rees stated that something needs to be done and
the Council should help in every way to control this disease before
it reaches epidemic proportions in the United States. After Council
discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Rees, the City Attorney was
directed to prepare an appropriate resolution indicating Council
support of the efforts of the March of Dimes and all other agencies
in education and information concerning Sickle Cell Anemia and urging
all citizens to cooperate in taking the Test. Councilman Heisey
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
-2-
Bakersfield, California, December 13, 1971 - Page 2
Mr. Nathan Krevitz, operator of International Securities
Corporation, stated this since he was informed that he is part of
the Downtown Business Promotion District and is forced to contribute
to something which he must oppose, he has written letters and left
messages for the Promotion District to contact him so that they could
get together and discuss this but he has never heard from them in
any way. He sent each member of the Council a letter, the original of
which was directed to the Downtown Business Association, which stated
that it is illegal for him to enter into any promotion of any kind
unless the National Association of Securities Dealers approves.
He has a federallicense and a
is in jeopardy, as before any
allowed to participate in any
state license and his
one in the securities
promotions, they must
federal license
business is
be cleared and
approved by the National Association of Securities Dealers. Therefore,
he asked that he not be included in the Downtown Business Promotion
District.
Councilman Heisey moved that the matter be referred to the
City Attorney for evaluation. Mr. Hoagland stated he could give the
Council an answer this evening. Under State Statutory authority,
the City Council created a Business Promotion District, which as tar
as Mr. Krevitz is concerned, is entirely involuntary on his part to
pay the license taxes for participation in this promotion district,
and was the decision of the majority of the people in the area and
the City Council. Mr. Krevitz is in no different position than any
other person who is prohibited from advertising in the area, including
attorneys and doctors. To his knowledge, no one has ever made the claim
that the payment of taxes would jeopartize their license.
Mr. Krevitz stated that if it in the City Attorney's opinion
his license wouldn't be in jeopardy, he will take it up with the
National Association of Secttries Dealers and impart this information
to them.
Miss Lora Stratta, activities director at Cal State, Bakersl-
field, thanked the Council for getting their basketball program started
and presented each member of the Council and the Mayor with to compli-
mentary season passes to the Roadrunner basketball games scheduled to
be played in the Civic Auditorium.
3
Bakersfield, California, December 13, 1971 - Page 3
Correspondence.
Notification was received from Mr. A. G. Geib, District
Manager of the Kern Mosquito Abatement District, that the two-year
term of George H. Barnett as member of the Kern Mosquito Abatement
District Board of Trustees will expire December 31, 1971, and upon
a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman Bleecker, Mr.
Barnett was re-appointed to the Board of Trustees for a two-year
term expiring December 31. 1973.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, communication from
Mr Wayne Culver commending the Council and the Parks Department
for the high level of service rendered to thousands of Bakersfield
children and adults at Jefferson Park, was received and ordered
placed on file.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, communication from
Kern County Taxpayers Association endorsing the Council's recent
expression of intent to reduce the tax rate for the next fiscal
year by not less than fifty cents and offering to assist and
participate construcfively to review phases of the City's
pending budget, was received and ordered placed on file.
Council Statements.
Councilman Bleecker inquired of Director of Public Works
Jing whose responsibility it was to maintain the parkway adjacent
to the property on the west side of South "H" Street south of
Brundage Lane, as the grass is unkempt and presents a very bad
appearance. Mr. Jing replied that it is the responsibility of the
property owner. Councilman Bleecker asked whose responsibility it
was to mow the grass between the chain link fence and the street on
the other side of South "H" Street adjacent to the canal, and Mr.
Jing stated the City has an agreement to treat this grass with
chemicals, particularly on the outside and under the fence, but in-
side the fence is the responsibility of the Canal Company. The
junction of the fence is a joint responsibility. Councilman Bleecker
suggested that Public Works do something about the unsightly appearance
of this area and Mr. Jing stated they would take care of it.
4
Bakersfield, California, December 13, 1971 - Page 4
Mayor Hart announced this appointments to the Citizens
Advisory Water Committee as follows:
James Antonious 3908 Fairmount
Lawton Powers 2412 Elm Street
Hugh Sill 1809 Beech Street
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consetn Calendar:
(a)Allowance of Claims Nos. 1692 to 1770,
inclusive, in amount of $20,158.23
(b) Acceptance of Work and Notice of Completion
of Contract No. 54-71 for Paving and
Improving White Lane between South "H" Street
and Pontiac Street
(a) and (b)
vote:
Rucker, Thomas,
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items
of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the following
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Whittemore
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
Deferred Business.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Ordinance No. 1984 New
Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending the Bakers.-
field Municipal Code by repealing Chapter 8.48 and substituting in
lieu thereof a new Chapter 8.48, providing for the Collection, Removal,
and Disposal of Refuse and establishing a direct charge therefor, was
adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees
Noes:
Absent:
Budget
Councilmen
None
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Approval of Budget Incrases.
It was moved by Councilman Medders, that'the following
Incrases be approved:
5
Bakersfield, California, December 13, 1971 - Page 5
To amend the 1971-72 Finance Budget in accordance with
the new Refuse Ordinance:
Full-time Office Clerk
Full-time Cashier-Receptionist
1/2 Time Tax & License Auditor
Employee benefits
Postage and supplies
Miscellaneous Services
Automobile Rent
Automatic Letter Opener
3 Office Desks
4 Secretary chairs
Desk Calculator
Cash Receipting Machine
Total
$4,464
1,347
951
624
6,071
500
255
325
475
196
650
85O
Less amount previously budgeted
13,063
To amend the 1971-72 Data Processing Budget in accordance
with New Refuse Ordinance:
Full-time Computer Operator
Full-time Keypunch Operator
Overtime for original set up
Employee benefits
Forms & Supplies
Equipment Rental increase
Five card file cabinets/locks
Less amount previously budgeted
$5,014
2,245
1,260
752
1,929
210
1,500
6,734
6,176
To amend the 1971-72 Equipment Replacement Budget in accor-
dance with the new Refuse Ordinance:
One trade-in auto:to be held for the
Use of a field tax & license Auditor
in the Finance Dept.
$1,200.
To amend the 1971-72 Public Works Budgets in accordance
with the new Refuse Ordinance:
Part-time Clerk Typist
Materials for counters &
partitions in Finance Dept.
Repair parts & tires for used
auto added to fleet
$2,584
1,000
395
Councilman Medders' motion carried by the following roll call
Vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: Councilman Rucker
Absent: None
6
Bakersfield, California, December 13, 1971 - Page 6
Approval of Joint Powers Agreement
between the City of Bakersfield and
County of Kern for development of
Multi-purpose Neighborhood Facility.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Joint Powers Agreement
between City of Bakersfield and County of Kern providing terms and
conditions for financial contribution by the County of Kern for the
development of a Multi-purpose Neighborhood Facility, was approved
and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Adoption of Resolution No. 89-71 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
approving and providing for the
execution of proposed Neighborhood
Facilities Grant Contract with H. U. D.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Resolution No. 89-71
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield approving and providing
the execution of proposed Neighborhood Facilities Grant Contract with
H.U.D., 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
adding Chapter 17.51 to the Municipal
Code (Zoning Regulations) establishing
a Planned Unit Development Zone and
providing Regulations therefor deferred
for one month.
At this time an Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield adding Chapter 17.51 to the Municipal Code (Zoning
Regulations) establishing a Planned Unit Development Zone and Providing
Regulations therefor, was submitted for first reading.
Councilman Thomas asked Planning Director Scealesif this
ordinance was drawin in response to his suggestion to give consideration
to the Contra-Costa ordinance. Mr. Sceales stated that it was.
Councilman Thomas asked Mr. Sceales to refer back to the Minutes
as he wanted the basis of the ordinance to be of an R-1 density,
and he can't see where it is referred to in the proposed ordinance,
it is very vague to him.
Bakersfield,
California, December 13, 1071 - Page
he doesn't remember the request
if there was an R-1 density, there
Mr. Sceales replied that
for an R-1 density, he feels that
would be no reason for the ordinance.
Councilman Bleecker stated that he had read the proposed
Planned Unit Development ordinance over rapidly and it would seem
to him it would allow a unit development which could be in violation
of a number of city ordinances regarding density, etc., in fact
the violation of the ordinance is inherent in the plan. He thinks
that each Councilman would wish to read the proposed ordinance very
carefully before it is adopted, as there are a number of things in
it which have not been permitted previously in spot zoning and re-
zoning of certain areas, etc.
Mr. Bergen commented that no action is required on this
ordinance next week, if there is any reason that the Council wishes
to defer it, there is no problem. He invited any Councilman who has
questions or comments on this ordinance to call the Planning Department
for a clarification of any points.
Councilman Thomas stated that when he proposed it initially,
he very carefully pointed out to the staff that he wanted an R-1 den-
sity, and he therefore moved that the ordinance be returned to the
staff to research the Minutes and come up with a better ordinance. The
way it is written now, is in no way an interpretation of his request.
Mr. Bergen stated that there have been several people involv-
ed in drafting this ordinance, the Attorney's office the Planning
Director, and others, and he believes they were trying to carry out
the directives of the Council. If there are specific areas which
are not satisfactory, they can go into it again and see why it was
changed. There are many principles involved here.
Councilman Thomas changed his motion to defer the first
reading of the Ordinance for one month to give him time to confer
with the staff and other Council members and analyze it in further
detail. This motion carried unanimously.
7
7
Bakersfield, California, December 13, 1971 - Page 8
Claim for personal injuries, compensatory
Damages and Punitive Damages from Robert
Lee Chafin, referred to the City Attorney.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore claim for Personal
Injuries, Compensatory Damages and Punitive Damages from Robert Lee
Chafin, was referred to the City Attorney.
Report from Water and City Growth Committee
Re donation of Kern City Golf Course to
the City of Bakersfield by the Stockdale
Development Corporation.
Councilman Heisey, chairman of the Water and City Growth
Committee, stated that the committee had considered proposal of the
STockdale Development Corporation to donate the Kern City Golf Course
and shopping center located in southwest Bakersfield to the City of
Bakersfield. The committee requested the staff to submit a budget
for the proposed annexation of this area which includes 164 acres of
land, The Golf Course Pro Shop, maintenance shop and other buildings
located on the golf course. The budget figures not only show the
cost of operating the golf course but also the expected revenue
from this operation. Councilman Heisey stated that this will not be
a potential moneymaker for the City but hoefully, it could be brought
to the point where it would at least be a break-even proposition. He
stated that a Municipal Golf Course would be a very fine thing for
City. He then asked Mr. Melvin Jans, Executive Vice-President of the
Stockdale Development Corporation, to make a presentation.
Mr. Jans read a letter from Stockdale Development Corporation
submitting The proposal to donate the Kern City Golf Course to the City
of Bakersfield, stating that this corporation wishes to accomplish the
donation prior to December 31, 1971; therefore, would request That
the City Council indicate its decision as to acceptance of this golf
course by Tuesday, December 21, 1971.
Councilman Heisey asked the staff to place this item on the
agenda for consideration at next Monday's Council meeting in order lo
permit the Council to study the matter in the meantime.
Bakersfield, California, December 13, 1971 - Page 9
Mr. Bergen explained the figures which the staff had
submitted covering a budget request for the operation of the Kern
City Golf Course. He pointed out that the annexation of this area
could not be completed earlier than April 1, 1972. He stated that
the staff felt it was its obligation to evaluate this offer from a
financial standpoint and to submit an actual operating budget to
the Council. A preliminary draft of the conditions of the transfer
will be mailed with the agenda packet on Thursday. Probably the
most significant condition is that the residents of Kern City are
to be allowed a preferentih120% discount from the published
green fees.
Mayor Hart asked Mr. Jans if the golf course was originally
part of the attractive package offered to the purchasers of homes in
Kern City. He is wondering what the Real Estate Commission would have
to say about this exchange of priorities. Mr. Jans replied in the
negative.
Councilman Bleecker commented that in scanning the figures
submitted by Mr. Bergen, he did not see any notation regarding the
amount the City would lose in tax revenue.
Councilman Heisey stated he looked into this and as he
recalled it, the City's share of the taxes amounted to about $1,000
a year. Councilman.Bleecker stated the loss of this tax would be
the same as a cost to the City. He doesn't see why the City wants to
get into the golf course business. He asked if these figures were
comparable to what it costs the County to operate its golf course.
Mr. Bergen stated that these figures were comparable with the cost
to Stockdale Development Corporation for its present operation of this
course and also to those of
this report is exactly what
to operate this golf course.
are not understated either.
the County, and the cost estimate shown on
the City Council would be asked to budget
These figures are not inflated, but they
9
l0
Bakersfield, California, December 13, 1971 - Page 9
Councilman Bleecker asked Mr. Bergen why the City would
want to take this golf course off the tax rolls and operate it,
even recreation for the citizens of Bakersfield and at the present
time it does not provide a municipal golf course. If a time element
problem regarding the acceptance of this donation had not been present,
it would probably have stayed in Committee for a longer period of title
in order to evaluate the offer.
Councilman Bleecker asked Mr. Jans why Stockdale Development
Corporation wanted to donate the golf course to the City. Mr. Jans
stated this his company is not in the recreation business, their
prime business is land development. They cannot devote any amount
of management time to the operation of this one small facility. The
potential of the golf course as income or a profit producing facility
is not very great. His company feels that it would be an asset to
the City, they want it to remain as a golf course and therefore, are
offering it to the City. However, they have no intention o'f with-
drawing it from use as a golf course.
Mayor Hart asked Mr. Jans what would happen if the Council
did not make its decision by the deadline established by his company.
Mr. Jans stated they are approaching a new year with the necessity to
enter into a new contract. They now operate the golf course under a
management contract and would have to enter into a new contract for
a period of a minimum of two years. If the City does not see fit to
accept the facility, they will continue to operate it as a golf course
and enter into whatever agreement is necessary to do so.
Councilman Rees commented that he was pleased the Council
has engaged in discussion on this matter and expressed opinions on
the operation of the golf course. He has evaluated this matter as
best he could with what information he had on hand. Stockdale
Development Corporation apparently has a corporate objective, possibly
tax-wise, in disposing of this property, along with the objectives
that Mr. Jans mentioned that this does not fit into their operation.
Bakersfield, California, December 13, 1971 - Page 11
The staff has assimilated information and figures which
would indicate that this facility could be operated at very nearly
a break-even point, compared with city parks and the Civic Auditorium,
which are not operated at a break-even point. If this golf course
can be operated for the benefit of a great number of citizens and if
the shopping center can be annexed in the package deal, the proposi-
tion is worth serious consideration between now and Next Monday night.
Councilman Medders remarked that the City is a non-profit
corporation and has a number of facilities which it is now operating
in the red. If the City acquires another property and can't seem to
make it go, can it be returned, can it be sold. Is it necessary to
take it whether the City needs it or not.
Mr. Bergen stated the answer to that is "no." One of the
conditions is that the City operate it at least until 1991.
Councilman Heisey stated the Auditorium-Recreation Committee
will hold a meeting this Thursday and the Committee will have a chance
to study it and come back with a recommendation for next Monday Night.
Councilman Bleecker observed that Councilman Rees made a
number of good comments;
now, anyone can use it.
be provided to play golf
however, this golf course is a public course
He doesn't see where any more places would
than there are now, whether the City owned
it or not. He stated he would like to know exactly what the taxes are
on this property and would like to be informed on this before next
Monday's meeting.
Councilman Thomas stated that Gary Rawn of Kero tv 23, would
like to speak to the Council. Mr. Rawn stated he would like to dis-
cuss a problem which had apparently arisen this evening. The City
Manager has just indicated to him that certain members of the Council
object to the location of the television cameras used for filming the
Council meetings, and have stated that the cameras are too loud. In
behalf of the press corps present this evening, he stated that they
find it very objectionable and hard to understand this attitude. The
lights may be too bright and the cameras noisy, but this is one of
the prices the Council members have to pay for sitting where they do.
It is the price of fame. It is the duty of the press to attend the
meetings every Monday night to see what the Council does is not
Bakersfield, California, December 13, 1971 - Page 12
presented to the public as a b~n~h' of garbage and to keep the Council
in line. That's why they want to stay where they are at the present
time. They want to cooperate with theCouncil in every way possible,
but do not feel that they should be intimidated into moving their
cameras. He asked Mr. Bergen which Council member indicated to him
that the press should move their equipment cameras.
Mayor Hart commented that it is the prerogative of the chair
to question Mr. Bergen who stated that he thinks the question is out
of line and he declined to point out which Councilman complained to him.
He has had many complaints from the audience regarding the hot lights
and noise, and he want to state very clearly that the City
administration, with the approval of the City Council, has done
everything possible to provide jacks, extension cords, platforms and
other facilities for. the press and TV, so that they can cover the
Council meetings as efficiently and comfortably as possible.
Councilman Bleecker stated he was not one of the Councilmen
who complained; however, he would like to say that Mr. Rawn's remark
about the Council dealing in garbage is out of line. This Council
is responsible enough to conduct city business whether the press is
here or not. The Council welcomes the news media here, hopefully,
they will always be here, but he feels that they are making a lot
out of nothing.
Mayor Hart commented that the Council doesn't owe Mr. Rawn
any explanation, he is an employee of the news media. The Council
is anxious to please the press and has installed every facility for
its convenience, however, the Council members will express themselves
as they see fit.
Councilman Heisey stated he did not know there was a problem
but whether the news media is present or not, he is sure the business:
of the city will be transacted just the same. This is a public
corporation and as such, the news media should be present to make
its report to the public.
Councilman Medders stated that one night the noise was so
greated that he could not hear the Council discussion to cast his vote
on it and he had complained to the City Manager.
Bakersfield, California, December 13, 1971 - Page 13
Mr. Rawn stated that if the Council has a complaint, they
will try to rectify it and are willing to work with the Council and
do as good a job as they can; however, he did not wish to have com-
plaints made to him by innuendo.
Councilman Rucker stated he had not made a complaint and
was not aware of any problem. The press is very important and he
thanked the news media for being present at the Council meetings
for the benefit of those people who cannot attend the meetings.
Councilman Rees stated he was not implying by innuendo,
or otherwise, that he had a complaint. He soes not think it is
inappropriate for the press to register its feelings regarding this
matter as the press is an important function to the Council's meet-
ing since the public relies on the press to learn what goes on at
the meetings.
Councilman Whittemore stated that the press sometimes gets
a little noisy but often it is necessary in order to get into the
spirit of the Council meeting. The press should have the best van-
tage point as it has a job to do, the same as the Council.
Mr. Rawn stated that what touched this off was when the
City Manager told him that the electrical outlets would not be
available for their equipment and they would be discouraged from
attending the meeting unless they moved.
Mr. Bergen commented that he wanted to take direct exception
to the statement that there was any inference by him that press cove:c-
age would not be permitted in the Council Chambers. There was uo in-
ference made that facilities would not be provided and continue to be
provided, but they would be provided in a manner to allow the best
coverage and permit the Council to transact its business without any
undue interference.
Mr. Dan Masters, representing KBAK-TV 29, stated his prima~zy
concern over this whole issue was not so much that they were going to
be moved, but of the problems which would crop up if they were moved.
If they were changed to the location proposed by the City Manager,
it would be impossible to get a direct shot of the person speaking
from the podium, what they would be getting is a head shot. The audio
14
Bakersfield, California, December 13,
1971 - Page 14
and newspapers make no sound whatsoever, use no lights and get their
message across. But it is definitely necessary for TV cameras to
use bright lights to reach an acceptable level light reading. If
there is any alternate proposal, they will be willing to accept it.
After additional discussion, Mayor Hart suggested that he
meet with Mr. Bergen and representatives of both television stations
solution that will be acceptable to everyone
to reach an equitable
concerned.
Hearings.
This is the time set when any and all persons interested in
Report and Assessment List for Demolishing and Removing Dangerous
Buildings and having any objections to said Report and Assessment and
List, or to any other matter or thing relating thereto, may appear
and be heard.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public parficipation.
No protests or objections being received, the public hearing was closed
for Council deliberationsand action. Upon a motion by Councilman
Whittemore, Resolution No. 87-71 confirming the Assessment of certain
property located in the City of Bakersfield upon which Dangerous
Buildings have been demolished and removed, was adopted by the follow-
ing vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, the meeting was adjourned at
MA akersfield,
ATTEST:
C~~k' ~c~lerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Cali of S~-~ia
Bakersfield, California, December 20, 1971
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., December 20, 1971.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Howard Campbell of
the Y. M. C. A.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees,
Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: Councilman Medders
Minutes of the regular meeting of December 13,
approved as presented.
Rucker,
1971 were
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. George Nickel asked for permission to address the
regarding the Kern County Water Agency's proposal versus
Council
the Nickel plan for importation of supplemental water to Urban
Bakersfield.
Mayor Hart asked the City Attorney if this was the proper
place for the presentation.
Mr. Hoagland stated that the City, by resolution, has
granted consent to the inclusion of its land in the Urban Bakers-
field Improvement District contemplated by the Kern County Water
Agency. Any change in that position would mean a change by the
City Council as.a whole tonight,.as the Kern County Water Agency
will hold its final meeting on the formation of the Urban Bakers-
field Improvement District tomorrow evening at 7:30 P.M. To allay
the fears that have been expressed, the plan contemplated by the
Agency has certain flexibility, which means that if any specific
part of that project is unnecessary, or other specifics in the
plan can be accomplished at a savings, those alternatives which
are built into the project may be either deferred or even discon-
tinued. With that, he feels Mr. Nickel's presentation could be of
interest to the Council.
Mr. Nickel stated that he is appearing as a private citizen
and as a resident of Urban Bakersfield in the Stockdale area. He
passed out copies of his presentation to the members of the Council
Bakersfield, California, December 20, 1971 - Page 2
and invited the Council to sample water, both treated and untreated,
which he had brought with him in containers. He proceeded to com-
pare the Walter Schulz proposal for water for Urban Bakersfield
with his program and offered the following specific suggestions
for consideration by the Council:
1. Rescind the endorsement of the Schulz 10/71 program.
Adopt a new resolution approving formation of an
recommended spreading grounds between Buena Vista
Road and Enose Lane.
ae
Acquire the approximate 2,000 acres of
Nickel recommended spreading grounds
between Buena Vista Road and Enose Lane.
Install a well field in the spreading
grounds to supply at least an amount of
water equal to the annual aqueduct allo-
cation to Urban Bakersfield.
Build a pipeline system from the well
field large enough to not only accommo-
date North-of-the-River District and
East Niles, but all other areas of Urban
Bakersfield requiring supplemental water.
Call for maximum water exchanges with
Kern River interests on a 2 for 1 basis
as long as this is possible. The Kern
River interests will be required to pick
up the variable charges on the extra
cost to Urban Bakersfield over its
existing annual Agency obligation.
ee
Build the Cross Valley Canal along the
south side of the Kern River to Buena
Vista Road.
Put off consideration of a Cross Valley
Extension until there is a better justi-
fication for it than now exists. As an
example, it is not known at this time if
Cawelo Water District will even partici-
pate in the cost of the proposed Cross
Valley Canal Extension so long as
reasonable water exchanges are possible
with Kern River interests.
Require that North-of-the-River District and East
Niles pay a realistic price for imported well
water rather than a price far below cost for
treated water.
He pointed out the monetary gain and stated that the
Nickel program actually brings water and not just huge expenses
to Urban Bakersfield.
Bakersfield, California, December 20, 1971 - Page 3
17
Councilman Heisey stated he appreciated Mr. Nickel
bringing his figures to the Council, as it is a good idea to have
them a day ahead of time for evaluation prior to the hearing which
will be held tomorrow night. At that time the figures will be
rebutted in great detail. He pointed out that the figures con-
tinually referred to as being costs for Urban Bakersfield are not
entirely for the City of Bakersfield, but will be borne by the
Greater Bakersfield Metropolitan Area. He invited Mr. Tom Stetson,
the City Consultant, to comment on Mr. Nickel's program.
Mr. Stetson stated the George Nickel plan is not a complete
plan, Mr. Nickel has been comparing apples with oranges. His program
would spread water.west of the Urban-Bakersfield Area outside of
the Improvement District. There are existing wells and existing
water systems within the Improvement District and those are the
wells to be supplied with imported water. Mr. Nickel's water spread
would benefit the agricultural area west of the district but it
would not benefit the wells in the Urban area. To recover spread
water in a 2,000 acre area as suggested by Mr. Nickel would be muclh
less efficient than recovering the same quantity of water spread
within the Urban area where there are about 30,000 acres overlying
the ground water basin. Very briefly, that is his primary criticism
of the George Nickel plan, it is a concept, but it is not a complete
plan, and he is not comparing the proper items.
Mr. Owen Goodman, Chapter Chairman of the Kern County
Unit of the March of Dimes, JUdge John Jellitich, Gary Friedman,
Mr. Ralph Hughes, Co-Chairman of the Sickel Sell Anemia Committee
of the March of Dimes, were present at this meeting in connection
with Resolution of the Council of the City of Bakersfield supporting
the efforts to educate the public concerning Sickle Cell Anemia
and urging citizens to cooperate in testing for the disease, which
was read into the record by Councilman Bleecker. Upon a motion by
Councilman Rees, Resolution No. 90-71 was adopted as read by the
following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
None
Councilman Medders
Bakersfield, California, December 20, 1971 - Page 4
Mayor Hart stated that Councilman Rucker and he will be
happy to deliver the Resolution to the Sickle Cell Anemia Committee.
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, communication from
Bruce Hart Armstrong, President of the West High School Ecology
Club, requesting the construction of a bicycle path to West High
School was received, ordered placed on file, and referred to the
Traffic Authority for study and recommendation.
Council Statements.
Councilman Rees read a communication addressed to the
Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce~ from Mr. Harold Shaw,
TOurnament Manager of the Golden State Regional Contract Bridge
Tournament recently held in the Civic Auditorium, stating that
the Auditorium is an excellent facility and commending Mr. Charles
P. Graviss and his highly competent staff for the cooperation and
excellent treatment the players received.
Councilman Whittemore appointed Mr. John A. Fox, 1820
Los Robles, as a member of the Citizens Advisory Water Committee.
Reports.
Councilman Bleecker, Chairman of the Business Development
and Parking Committee, read a report on the subject of Amendments
to the Ordinance relating to Business License Tax, stating that
during the past few weeks this Committee and staff have met to
discuss amendments to the Business License Tax Ordinance which
would specifically add classes for (1) Oil Wells; (2) Administrative
Offices, and (3) Storage and Warehousing Businesses. The staff
has also proposed technical changes to facilitate the administration
of the Business License Tax and drafted an Administrative Rule and
Regulation to comply with recent.court rulings.
At the time the present Business License Tax Ordinance
was enacted, there were no oil wells within the City of Bakersfield.
However, as a result of recent annexation of land containing a
number of producing oil wells, the staff has proposed an addition
to the present Business License Tax Ordinance to include such oil
wells. The rates proposed are consistent in their relationship
with the other rates in the present Business License Tax Ordinance.
Bakersfield, California, December 20, 1971 - Page 5
The staff has also proposed an addition to the present
ordinance to. include administrative offices and storage and ware-
housing facilities. Many of the local businesses who would be
affected were contacted to discuss this proposed addition to the
ordinance. The proposed rates are consistent in their relationship
with the other rates in the present Business License Tax Ordinance
and are in line with what is presently being charged by other cities
contacted by the staff.
The staff has proposed and drafted an Administrative
Rule and Regulation to comply with recent court rulings that exempt
all or a portion of gross receipts from sales of merchandise
delivered outside the City.
The Committee has reviewed the proposed amendments to
the Business License Tax Ordinance and the Administrative Rule and
Regulations as proposed by the staff, and as they appear to be
reasonable and equitable, recommends adoption of this report and
that the attached ordinance be considered given first reading.
Councilman Bleecker then moved adoption of the Report.
Councilman Heisey asked the staff if the proposal to
amend the present Business License Tax Ordinance to include
administrative offices and storage and warehousing facilities
would be collected from companies who had not previously been taxed
by the City. Finance Director Haynes stated that they are not
certain how much revenue will be collected or who will be included
until the ordinance is effective. City Attorney Hoagland commente,~
that in answer to Councilman Heisey's question, the answer is "yes"',
these are businesses which have not been subject to business
licenses prior hereto, businesses that escape other taxes.
Councilman Whittemore commented that thought should be
given to investigating many other businesses which come into Bakers-
field, use all the facilities of the City, transact their business
and leave without paying a Business License Tax. He cited insurance
adjusters as an example. Mr. Hoagland stated that he doesn't doubt
there are a number of people transacting business within the City
who do not pay a Business License Tax; however, insurance companies
are exempt under a constitutional provision.
Bakersfield, California, December 20, 1971 - Page 6
After additional
Bleecker's motion to adopt
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 1771 to 1898,
inclusive, in amount of $107,816.34.
(b) Application for an Encroachment Permit
from Bank of America.
discussion, vote taken on Councilman
the Report, carried unanimously.
the Consent Calendar:
not particularly con--
front end loader,
He feels the Committee
should submit a recommendation so thai they will know they are doing
the right thing.
Councilman Rees asked if this was not a budgeted item.
To what extent has the Council considered this? City Manager
to maintain them.
Councilman Heisey stated that he is
cerned with the rear end loaders but with the
which is a somewhat new and expensive venture.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Items (a) and (b)
of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Medders
Action on Bids.
It was moved by Councilman Rucker to accept low bid of
Gaskin Service Company for three Refuse Packers, sell surplus units
to East Bay Sanitation Co., Inc., and reject all other bids.
Councilman Heisey offered a substitute motion that this
matter be referred to the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel
Committee for study and evaluation. He questioned whether the
City needs another front end loader and if it is possible to get
along without it this budget year, he feels this should be done.
City Manager Bergen stated this has been discussed on
several occasions. Originally, Public Works intended to ask for
four Refuse Packers, as one of the problems encountered in pur-
chasing this type of equipment is the length of time involved for
delivery. In fact they have just received the packers ordered
last year. At the present time they do not have sufficient trucks
Bakersfield, California, December 20, 1971 - Page 7
Bergen explained the process for evaluating and justifying the need
for this equipment prior to and during budget sessions and stated
this is an excellent bid and an urgent need does exist.
Councilman Thomas pointed out thaf this item had been
listed in the Administrative Report for at least three weeks prior
to the time it was advertised for bid, and he feels the Council
has had plenty of time to be aware that bids would be submitted to
the Council.
Councilman Bleecker commented that with the institution
of the new Refuse Ordinance, there are a number of businesses in
town who might find it eheaper and more convenient to have the
number of pickups reduced, which would determine the need for addi-
riohal equipment. Councilman
Finance Director can probably
aspect of the matter before a
Heisey agreed, stating that the
give the Committee figures on this
final decision is reached.
Councilman Whirremote stated that he was going to support
Councilman Heisey's motion because he feels that there possibly
could be a reduced need for this type of packer. Also, the City
might explore the possibilify of side loaders as being more
economical than the rear loaders. It has always puzzled him if
the City's equipment is in such bad shape, why other sanitation
companies are eager to buy the City's surplus equipment. He feels
the Council should take a good look at this purchase to see if it
might not be feasible to cut some of it out of the budget.
Vote taken on Councilman Heisey's substitute motion to
refer the matter to the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Com-
mittee, carried unanimously.
Councilman Thomas stated he was not opposed to deferring
action on this bid, he merely wanted to point out thai the Council
had plenty of advance information on the purchase of the equipment..
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, .low bid of Start-Rite
Stationers for Annual Contract Office Supplies was accepted, all
other bids were rejected and the Mayor was authorized to execute
the contract. ~
Bakersfield, California, December 20, 1971 - Page 8
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, low bid of Kern Rock
Company for Annual Contract Select Road Material was accepted, all
other bids~were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execu.te
the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, low bid of Griffith
Co. for Annual Contract Type "B" Asphalt Concrete was accepted, all
other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute
the contract.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Heisey,
bid of O. B. Nuzum Tire Service for Annual Contract Automotive
Tires and Tubes was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and
the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Deferred Business.
This was the time set to further consider offer of Stock.-
dale DevelopmentCorporation to donate to the City of Bakersfield
the Kern City Golf Course which is located in Southwest Bakersfield.
This offer includes 164 acres of land, the Golf Course Pro Shop,
maintenanc~ shop and other facilities located on the golf course,
together with other improvements and all existing.machinery and
equipment utilized for the maintenance of the course.
Councilman Heisey stated that for two years he had been
hoping the time would come when St'ockdale Development Corporation
would offer this golf course to the City of Bakersfield, and that
the dayswould arrive when all of Kern City would seek to annex to
the City. Therefore, it is with a great deal of reluctance that
he finds himself opposed to the acceptance of this valuable
recreation facility. Many major cities operate golf courses, how-
ever, it would be a deficit operation for the City at this time,
and he does not believe the Council would be justified in accepting
this gift, in view of the fact that they have just charged the
people of the City $2.00 a month for refuse pickup in order to
make up a deficit in the budget. He hopes that at some future
date, Stockdale Development Corporation will come back to the City
with this same offer, or something similar, but in view of the
present economic situation, he does not feel the Council should
accept this gift at this time.
'23
Bakersfield, California, December 20, 1971 - Page 9
Councilman Bleecker stated he wanted to point out to the
Council certain thoughts he had after reading the contract. He
asked if the City can legally contract to and discriminately reduce
green fees by 20% in order to benefit a small segment of the popula-
tion, i.e., Kern City residents, particularly when this group does
not reside within the boundaries of the City. It is his understanding
that the golf course is to be given to the City and annexed but that
the surrounding residents would not necessarily be annexed except
upon their own volition. This is a fine gesture, but he doesn't
see how the City of Bakersfield as owners of a golf course, can
even legally permit reduction of fees for any particular group.
Also, keeping in mind that one of the main sources of income for a
golf course, whether it is public or private, is the rental of self-
propelled golf carts, can the City limit the free use of privately
owned carts to Kern City residents and deny other citizens the same
privilege? Why remove this parcel from the tax rolls at an annual
current loss of $10,614.98 in taxes to the City and County taxpayers,
and admittedly operate /he golf course at an estimated additional
loss of $12,000.00 per annum? What change could possibly benefit
the residents of metropolitan Bakersfield as whether publicly owned
or privately owned, this will still be a public golf course as it
is now, with each and every citizen having the right to pay if they
want to play.
Is it wise to annex 164 acres of land completely surrounded
by a County residential area and at the City taxpayers' expense
maintain this acreage as a golf course for the primary use of non-
City residents who live in homes surrounding the course. It is his
understanding that the Planning Commission has advised that this
acreage is in accordance with the General Plan, he would think that
any open space acquisition would fit in with the Plan. It would
appear to him, however, that the Planning Commission should have
Bakersfield, California, December 20, 1971 - Page 10
studied the feasibility and the economics of this offer, particularly
in light of the questions which he has enumerated. He stated he
would either support' Councilman Heisey's motion, if he made one,
or would move that the issue be'referred to the Planning Commission
for study and recommendation.
Councilman Heisey stated he
waiting to see what the other members
hadn't made a motion, he was
of the Council had to offer.
Councilman Bleecker stated he would reserve his motion until after
Council comment.
Councilman Rees asked if the City Attorney wished to
answer Councilman Bleecker's questions. Mr. Hoagland stated that
in his estimation, this reduction in fees for those people who had
prior dealings with the Kern City Golf Course is valid as part of
the consideration for the offer. If the City had installed its
own golf course and charged fees, then it would not be valid, as
it would be discriminatory, one class against another. When this
reduction in fees is considered as part of the contract, it becomes
a part of the consideration for taking the golf course. The same
holds true for the use of private golf carts.
Mr. Bergen stated that the City does provide recreation
facilities and a program to many segments of the City residents
and taxpayers, and most of them are not self-supporting, Golf is
a facility the City does not provide. In the overall context, the
staff does feel that it will be beneficial to the City, as the City
of Fresno operates two golf courses, the City of Sacramento operates
five. It is not a unique thing for a City to operate a golf course.
Councilman Rees asked permission for a constituent of
his, Mr. Eugene Sanders, to address the Council. Mr. Sanders stated
he had come'to the meeting in order to help the Council decide on
this issue,.he does business with many agencies regarding golf
courses. 'He stated he would be happy to spend some time with the
City people and contact people who are in the same business in order
to get City people acquainted with their experience in this field.
Councilman Whittemore stated he made every attempt durin~
the past week to talk to different people in the community to see
Bakersfield, California, December 20, 1971 -Page 11
what their reaction was regarding acceptance of this golf course,
and surprisingly enough, everyone he talked to was in favor of it.
For several reasons he is in favor of it. The City is always looking
for industry, and one of the prime things which industry looks for
in a community, is recreation. There are many things which come
before even the tax rate of the City, and as it has been pointed
out, the City of Bakersfield has a fine recreation program for the
young people, but none for the adults. If this golf course were
given more publicity and promoted, there would be much more partici-
pation and it could make money for the City.
Councilman Heisey asked Mr. Jans if it wasn't conceivable
that if the Council does not accept this gift this year, that Stock-
dale Development Corporation might possibly offer it to the Council
at some future time.
Mr. Jans stated that it is certainly possible, however,
he can't indicate whether it will or not. If the City does not
proceed with this gift, they will enter into certain arrangements
and continue to operate the golf course themselves, which would be
for some period of time.
Councilman Thomas
to its maximum at this time.
asked if the Golf Course was being used
Mr. Jans stated that was hard to say:.
but as far as he can tell, it is not operating at full capacity.
Councilman Thomas stated it had been brought out by Councilman
Heisey that the County is going to raise its green fees. Council-
man Heisey stated he had said the County is considering it. Council-
man Thomas commented that if the fees were raised, it would bring
this course up more to capacity and help offset the $12,000.00 a
year loss in operation. Councilman Heisey commented that he has
heard it is already the second busiest golf course in Kern County,
and it is doubtful it would get much buster in relation to the other
golf courses.
Mr. Bergen stated that it is his underst'anding that the
County has evaluated it, but they are not going to raise fees at
this time. About 48,000 rounds of golf are played. on this course
a year. Both the cities of .Fresno and Sacramento operate golf
Bakersfield, California, December 20, 1971 - Page 12
courses at an
bookkeeping is done.
on the operation of
figures.
overall profit. However, that depends on how the
The budget figures submitted to the Council
the Kern City Golf Course are true and realistic
Adoption of Resolution No. 90-71 of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield
deleting a Council meeting in the month
of December, 1971.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Resolution No. 90-71
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield deleting Council meeting
of December 27, 1971, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Medders
Petition from Wilson Call requesting
extension of Parking Mall referred to
the Traffic Authority.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, petition from
Wilson Call requesting extension of the Parking Mall was referred
to the Traffic Authority for study and recommendation.
Approval of Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement between City of Bakersfield
and County of Kern for operation of
Traffic Signals at the intersection
of Chester Lane and Oak Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Joint Exercise
of Powers Agreement between the City of Bakersfield and the County
of Kern for maintenance and share of costs for operation of the
Traffic Signals at the intersection of Chester Lane and Oak Street,
was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Council.
Councilman Heisey then made a motion that the City Council,
with reluctance, refuse the gracious offer of the Stockdale Develop-
meat Corporation to donate the Kern City Golf Course to the City o:f
Bakersfield. Vote taken on the motion resulted in a tie as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rucker
Noes: Councilmen Rees, Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: Councilman Medders
Pursuant to Section 14 of the City Charter which provides
that the Mayor shall have the right to vote when the vote of the
Council results in a tie, Mayor Hart voted Aye, and the offer of
the Stockdale Development Corporation was not accepted by the City
Bakersfield, California, December 20, 1971 - Page 13
Councilman Whittemore asked the City Manager and the
Director of Public Works to conduct a traffic survey at the inter-
section of Wilson Road and Hughes Lane to determine if the traffic
has reached the point to warrant a traffic signal at this inter-
section.
Hearings.
This is the time set to consider application by Frank
Morgantint to amend the Zoning Boundaries from an R-1 (Single
Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-2 (Limited Multiple Faimly Dwelling)
Zone on that certain property commonly known as 1718 and 1715
Hendricks Lane. This hearing has been duly advertised and posted
and no written protests have.been filed in the City Clerk's office.
This zoning application has been reviewed by the Planning
Commission at a public hearing. The original request included fou:~
lots (not in the applicant's ownership) that would make a logical
zoning boundary. Since the filing of the application, two ot these
property owners have objected to the zone change and requested they
not be included in the application. A petition signed by sixteen
property owners within 300 feet radius was filed in opposition to
the granting of said application. At the public hearing, three of
those present who were against this zone change, did not object to
the Morgantini's property being rezoned R-2, but were against the
inclusion of the other parcels.
It was felt that R-2 zoning would be a logical buffer and
transition between the existing R-4 and R-1 properties. The Planning
Commission recommended approval of the Morgantint parcel (1715
Hendricks Lane) being rezoned tO R-2-D and the remaining parcels te
remain R-! zoning.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation and asked those persons in favor of the rezoning to address
the Council.
Eugene Prehoda, owner of the Shady Manor Convalescent
Hospital, which is immediately to the east of subject property,
stated they feel that the zone change and the resultant developmenl
of the property will be of great benetit to the hospital. The
fences that are proposed will shut off noise from motorcycles and
the young people who live back of the hospital. It will be of
immeasureable benefit to his patients and the hospital. He voiced
his approval of the zoning change and urged that it be allowed.
Bakersfield, California, December 20, 1971 - Page 14
Gar McIndoe with Hardt Real Estate andConstruction whose
firm has contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Morgantint to build a duplex
on their property, addressed the Council, stating that they have
evaluated the particular plot of land on which they would like to
build a duplex, as it would not be economically feasible to build
single family residences in this area. A duplex would be an asset
to this area due to the high density of property to the east of
the Morgantini's property. This property would also be a logical
buffer zone for the property to the west.
Mayor Hart asked if there were persons in the audience
who wished to speak in opposition to the.rezoning. Mr. Herschel
Brown, Mr. J. Leroy Berkshire and Mr. Leo Huston voiced their
opposition, stating that there are already too many apartments in
the area and a parking problem as tenants do not use the inside
parking, the traffic is congested, and it will decrease the value
of their property.
Mayor Hart
tion and action. Councilman Whirremote stated that this has been
a bone of contention for many weeks. The people who reside in the
area at the present time have a legitimate complaint, as the streets
are too narrow for the high density. In order to abate the dust in
that area, the property can be posted and then the Police Department
can step in and issue citations to those motorcycle riders who are
causing the dust problem. If it is rezoned to R-2, that developer
can change his plans at any time. There is a tremendous traffic
hazard at that intersection and someone can be seriously hurt. He
is not going to support anything that will increase the density at
that point.
Councilman Whirremote then~moved adoption of Zoning
Resolution No. 234 denying application to change the land use
zoning of that certain property in the City of Bakersfield commonly
closed the public hearing for Council delibera-
Bakersfield, California, December 20, 1971 - Page 15
known RS
roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
1715 Hendricks Lane. This motion carried by the following
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey,
Whittemore
Council, upon a motion by Councilman
adjourned at 10:10 P. M.
Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
None
Councilman Medders
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Heisey, the meeting was
?
MAYOR~y~e/ Cilty of akersfield,
ATTEST:
an of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Calif.