HomeMy WebLinkAboutJULY - SEPT 1971 1_09
Bakersfield, California~ July 12, 1971
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield, California,
the City Hall at eight o'clock P.
The meeting was called
held in the Council Chambers of
M., July 12, 1971.
to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Councilman Samuel
Rucker.
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 June 28, 1971 were
approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Dr. Parley Kilburn, Director of the Kern County Inter
Agency Council on Drug Abuse, addressed the Council, stating that
he was representing a group of young people referred to as "Just
People" who are endeavoring to find a location within the City of
Bakersfield where they can get together and discuss their mutual
problems. He pointed out that there is a dire need for a Teen
Center in Bakersfield. This group had selected one site but were
told by the Police Department that it would be objectionable to
open a coffee house at this location because of lack of adequate
parking and opposition from adjacent businesses.
He stated that this group is supported by the Bakersfield
Junior Chamber of Commerce, the Kern County Mental Health Associa-
tion, the Council of Churches and a number of other concerned
groups and citizens who are interested in developing a creative
arts and recrecational center. They had finally decided upon the
City-owned building at 20th and L Streets and a contract has been
tentatively drawn up for this. In the meantime, they were told
that this was not a suitable site and they could not open a coffee
house there. They are asking now for the support of the Council
in order to go ahead and open a Teen Center within the confines of
the City of Bakersfield. The question to be decided this evening
is whether or not the City is going to support young people by
allowing them a chance to do things for themselves, by giving them
Bakersfield, California, July 12, 1971 - Page 2
an opportunity to prove what they can do. He has visited teen
centers throughout the state and they all observe the following
three rules: (1) No drugs in the building at any time. (2) No
sexual activity. (3) No violence. He asked the Council's per-
mission to go ahead with the development of a Teen Age Center if
another building is found within the confines of the City.
Councilman Rees commented that Dr. Kilburn comes with
proper credentials to speak about the youth group. He is sponsored!
by respected and responsible individuals. He is not asking the
Council for financial support, he is merely asking for permission
to lease suitable quarters for the group to meet. He asked the
City Manager for an explanation for not renting the building at
20th and L Streets to Just People.
Mr. Bergen stated they were trying to obtain the best
offer possible to lease the building and cited offers they had
received. At the present time they are negotiating with a company
who has indicated an interest in leasing the building for a five
year period. He stated that he was not aware until last week that
the Just People group was interested in leasing the building. He
has not had a report from the Police Department indicating approval
or disapproval, because it has never got to that point.
City Attorney Hoagland commented that he has two leases
on his desk, one from the Just People group and the other from
Hyland Labs. The Hyland lease is much better financially, as they
have asked the City for a five year lease of the building. Nego-
tiations have been conducted by the Finance Department to obtain
the best lease possible.
Councilman Whittemore stated he was very much interested
in Dr. Kilburn's program, but he is also concerned about the manner
by which the City building is leased. He endorses the policy of
advertising for bids, as he thinks everyone should have an equal
opportunity to bid on the property and have if occupied as soon as
possible. It should be definitely set out in the bid specifications
Bakersfield, California, July 12, 1971 - Page 3
what the City's responsibility is as far as maintaining the building,
etc., and what will be expected of the lessee, which is the only
way he would approve any lease that comes before the Council.
After discussion, Councilman Bleecker moved that the
request of the Just People group be referred to the Civic Auditorium-
Recreation Committee for study and report back to the Council. This
motion carried with Councilman Rees voting in the negative.
Mrs. Robert Carter of 1213 Terrace Way, addressed the
Council on behalf of herself and her husband, stating that she was
seeking damages for a back door at her residence which was broken
down by two members of the Police Department while arresting her
son. Upon seeking payment from the City's insurance adjuster, she
was informed that the police were within their rights in damaging
the door and no payment would be made.
Mayor Hart asked the City Attorney what recourse Mrs.
Carter had, and Mr. Hoagland stated that she should file a civil
claim with the City, which will then be referred to the City Attorney
and to the Insurance Company.
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, communications
from James. E. Uding, Poundmaster, California State Humane Officer,
and Miss Patricia Kirby, 3214 Granada Avenue, relative to alleged
conditions existing at the City Dog Pound, were received and ordered
placed on file.
The City Clerk read a communication from Bakersfield
Parlor #42 of the Native Sons of the Golden West commending the
City Council for its recognition of Independence Day July 4fh,
and Admission Day September 9th, as official holidays.
Council Statements.
Councilman Rucker stated that he has received complaints
from constituents in his Ward relative to the speeding and ignoring
of the Stop Sign at the intersection of South Owens Street and
Potomac Avenue. Mr. Bergen stated he would ask the Traffic Authority
to investigate the matter and make a report back to the Council.
Bakersfield, California, July 12, 1971 - Page 4
Reports.
Councilman Robert Whittemore, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, reported on a meeting of this
Committee held to discuss the reorganization of the Auditorium-
Recreation Department.
Five years ago the Auditorium Department and Recrecation
Division were combined into one department with the merging of
personnel. Since that time, certain changes have taken place
which have caused difficulties. Key people in both the Auditorium
and Recreation operation have left, and new responsibilities had
to be placed on the newly acquired people to help in the efficient
operation of the department.
The Auditorium-Recreation Manager has made recommendations
as follows:
1. It is the recommendation that the Assistant Auditorium-
Recreation Manager be relieved of his duties at the Auditorium, with
the administrative duties of the Auditorium to be removed from his
job specifications, and the job reclassified to Assistant Recreation
Manager.
2. It is recommended that the Auditorium Stage Manager's
duties be increased to reflect his assistance in the Auditorium
duties and his job specifications be increased to reflect his
duties. It is also requested that his salary be increased to Range
51 to reflect his additional duties and to make his pay equal to
that of the Assistant Recreaction Director.
It is the opinion of the Auditorium-Recreation Manager
and this Committee that these recommendations will enhance the
efficiency in the operation of this department. The Civil Service
Board has reviewed the enclosed specifications and concurs with
this action.
Councilman Medders asked if the personnel affected by
this recommendation have been informed of the action to be taken.
Councilman Whittemore stated he was sure that they had been.
1_13
Bakersfield, California, July 12, 1971 - Page 5
Councilman Medders asked why the Recreation Department
was placed under the supervision of the Civic Auditorium. Council.-
man Whittemore stated they had discovered a number of years ago
that the Recreation Department was never authorized or created.
The fact that the Civic Auditorium is closely tied in with recrea-
tion caused the Council several years to determine that the best
form of operation would be to combine the Division of Recreation
and the Department of the Civic Auditorium, and it has proved to be
an economical move as far as the City is concerned.
Councilman Medders stated he can see conflicts of per-
sonalities and he feels there is a motive behind this move to force
an employee's retirement at 55 years of age.
Mayor Hart asked to be enlightened on the matter as he
sees no reference to Councilman Medders' statement in the report.
Councilman Whittemore commented that he doesn't feel there
is any guarantee that this couldn't happen, but it would have to
be determined by the next year's performance. He then moved
adoption of the report.
Councilman Bleecker commented that since the report
involved personnel and he is a member of the Committee that
approved this report which was discussed in detail by the Committee,
he asked the Mayor if there would be any objection to holding a
short executive session regarding personnel. Since there was no
objection from any member of the Council, the Mayor declared the
meeting recessed at 8:40 P.M. for this purpose.
The Council reconvened at 9:00 P.M. Mayor Hart stated
that the motion had been made by Councilman Whittemore to adopt
the report. This motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
None
114
Bakersfield, California, July 12, 1971 - Page 6
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a)
(b)
Allowance of Claims Nos. 4542 to 4653
inclusive, and Nos. 1 to 19 inclusive,
in amount of $248,021.44.
Plans and Specifications for Construction
of Sanitary Sewer in Belle Terrace and
Relocation of Sanitary Sewer in Summer
Tree Lane.
Temporary Turnaround Easement from Stock-
dale Development Corporation for Tract No.
3504.
(c)
(d) Street Right-of-Way Deed from Morosa
Properties, 4800 Stine Road.
City of Bakersfield Standard Drawing S-38,
Standard for Construction of an Industrial
Sand Trap.
Sewer Easement from Watson Realty Company
and James, Alfred and Jack Saba.
Storm Drain Easement from Kern County
Joint Union High School District.
(e)
Street Easements from Stockdale Develop-
ment Corporation for Kroll Way and
Montalvo Drive adjacent to Tract No. 3363.
(f)
(g)
(h)
Street Right-of-Way Deed from the Full
Gospel Revival Center of Bakersfield.
(i)
a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b), (c),
Upon
(d), (e), (f),
adopted by the
Ayes:
(g), (h) and (i) of the Consent Calendar were
following vote:
Thomas,
this
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees~ Rucker,
Whittemore
None
None
Councilman Heisey commented that the Police ~eport
morning mentioned the large number of bicycles that were being
stolen and that the Police Chief has urged everyone who owns a
bicycle to register it as it is easier to trace them when they
are stolen. It has occurred to Councilman Heisey that if the news
media would print the form for registering bikes in the newspaper,
all a citizen would need to do is fill in the form and mail it in
to the Police Department to register his bicycle.
Bakersfield, California, July 12, 1971 -Page 7
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, bid of Service Oil
Company for Automotive Lubricants was accepted, all other bids
were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, low bid of B.C.
Chemicals for Annual Contract
all other bids were rejected,
execute the contract.
Water Treatment Chemicals was accepted,
and the Mayor was authorized to
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, low bid of
William H. Schallock, Inc. for Construction of Planz Road Sanitary
Sewer was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor
was authorized to execute the contract.
Action deferred until next meeting on
Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield amending Chapter 11.04
of the Municipal Code by adding Section
11.04.739, Traffic Restrictions on
Service Roads adjacent to South Chester
Avenue.
Councilman Thomas asked Director of Public Works Jing
for an explanation regarding the proposed traffic restrictions on
service roads adjacent to South Chester Avenue. Mr. Jing stated
that the one way movement was needed for the signal installation.
Councilman Thomas expressed his concern for the necessity for
motorists to either make a U Turn or a left turn at E1 Rancho in
order to cross over, which seems to him to be a traffic hazard.
Mr. Jing stated that the survey for the movement was made by the
Traffic Authority and was considered the safest way to handle it.
Councilman Thomas then moved that action on proposed Ordinance of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Chapter 11.04 of
the Municipal Code by adding Section 11.04.739, Traffic Restrictions
on Service Roads adjacent to South Chester Avenue, be deferred until
the next scheduled meeting for his study. This motion carried
unanimously.
116
Bakersfield, California, July 12, 1971 - Page 8
Adoption of Joint Resolution No. 58-71
of the Council and the Redevelopment
Agency regarding public parking being
made available to encourage the develop-
ment of the Bank of America site in
downtown Bakersfield.
Councilman Rees stated that the Budget Review and
Finance Committee met last week and was asked to indicate to any
prospective developers in a statement of good faith the City's
intention to provide public parking for a 12 story building to be
constructed on the Bank of America site in downtown Bakersfield.
It seems to him to be a very reasonable statement of policy which
would not embarrass the City at any time and would assure any
prospective developers of the good faith on the part of the City
to make public parking available.
Councilman Heisey commented that the one thing he feels
should be made a matter of public record is that the homeowners
would not be potentially burdened with the repayment of the bonds
but the assessment valuation of the redevelopment area would
guarantee the repayment of the bonds for the parking structure.
City Attorney Hoagland explained that in the event the
high rise office building is constructed, the funds would come
from tax increment bonds. The money would not go into the general
fund but together with the revenues from parking from the garage,
would be used to retire bonds issued to construct the garage
facility.
After additional discussion, upon a motion by Councilman
Heisey, Joint Resolution No. 58-71 of the City Council and the
Redevelopment Agency regarding public parking being made available
to encourage the development of the Bank of America site in down-
town Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
117
Bakersfield, Cali£ornia, July 12, 1971 - Page 9
Reception of Report submitted by Mr.
Eugene B. Jacobs dated July 6, 1971,
and letter from United Progress, Inc.
requesting that consideration of
endorsement of the "Innovative Program"
be discontinued.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, report from Mr.
Eugene B. Jacobs, City's Special Counsel, dated July 6, 1971, and
letter to Mayor Hart from United Progress, Inc. requesting that
consideration by the City of endorsement of the "Innovative Program"
be discontinued at this
file.
Proposed
time, were receivedand ordered placed on
Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Bakersfield amending Chapter
4.04 of the Municipal Code altering the
boundaries of City Wards to reflect all
annexations of territory to the City to
the date of this Ordinance deferred for
certain information requested by the
Council.
At this time it was proposed that an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Chapter 4.04 of the
Municipal Code altering the boundaries of City Wards to reflect
all annexations of territory to the City to the date of this
Ordinance, be given first reading.
Councilman Whirremote commented that his Ward was affected
by the change of boundaries and he does not know whether he favors
it or not. The normal procedure is to submit a map of the proposed
changes to each Council member for his consideration. He therefore
moved that each Councilman be furnished with a copy of a map of the
proposed changes so that plenty of time can be given to a detailed
study and requested that the ordinances be held in abeyance and not
considered given first reading until the Council had completed its
study of the proposed altering of the boundaries of each Ward. This
motion carried unanimously.
Finance Director authorized to increase
revolving Stamp Fund in the City Clerk's
office to $150.00.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the Finance Director
was authorized to increase the revolving Stamp Fund maintained in
the City Clerk's office to $150.00.
Bakersfield, California, July 12, 1971 - Page 10
Approval of Tire Mileage Contract
with Firestone Tire and Rubber
Company.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Tire Mileage Contract
with Firestone Tire and Rubber Company was approved and the Mayor
was authorized to execute the contract.
Approval of Map of Tract No. 3549
and Mayor authorized to execute the
Contract and Specifications for
Improvements therein.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, it is ordered that
the Map of Tract No. 3549 be and the same is hereby approved, that
all easements and alley, Roberta Way and Belle Terrace, shown upon
said map and therein offered for dedication be, and the same is
hereby accepted for the purpose for which the same is offered for
dedication.
The Clerk of this Council is directed to endorse upon
the face of said Map a copy of this order authenticated by the
Seal of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield and the Mayor
is authorized to execute the Contract and Specifications for the
Improvements in said Tract.
Encroachment Permit granted Bill
Wright Toyota, Inc. at the southwest
corner of Oak Street and San Emidio
Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Encroachment Permit
was granted Bill Wright Toyota, Inc. to install five light standards
adjacent to the existing sidewalk at the southwest corner of Oak
Street and San Emidio Street.
Encroachment Permit granted American
Home Industries Corporation to con-
struct three moveable type buildings
within the public utility easement
between 14th Street and 15th Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Encroachment Permit
was granted American Home Industries Corporation to construct three
moveable type buildings within the public utility easement between
14th Street and 15th Street for a one-year period beginning July
12, 1971.
Bakersf±eld~ Cal±fornia, July 12, 1971 - Page 11
Approval of Cooperative Agreement
between the City of Bakersfield and
the County of Kern for reconstruction
of a portion of Mr. Vernon Avenue.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Cooperative Agreement
between the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern for recon-
struction of a portion of Mr. Vernon Avenue was approved, and the
Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council
on appeal of James F. Flinn from decision of City Manager Bergen
granting Harvey L. Hall a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity to operate an ambulance service within the City of
Bakersfield.
This hearing was continued from June 21st meeting at
request of the attorneys. Copies of communications received in
the City Clerk's office regarding this hearing have been submitted
to the City Council.
Mayor Hart asked that the record show that he has relin-
quished the chair to the Vice-Mayor in the event that it could be
construed that he might have some real or imaginary conflict of
interest in the proceedings.
Vice-Mayor Whittemore stated that the City Attorney has
outlined some ground rules for them to follow, he understands that
each of the participants is represented by legal counsel. However,
it doesn't preclude audience participation. He invited the attorney
for Mr. Flinn to address the Council.
Mr. Ralph L. McKnight, representing James Flinn, of Flinn
Ambulance Service, stated that they were offering considerably more
evidence at this hearing than was offered by Mr. Flinn at the
hearing before Mr. Bergen, where Mr. Flinn was not represented by
counsel. He then proceeded to give the Council a little background
on the matter, stating that Hall Ambulance Service is a new service
which was formed since the first of the year, 1971. It is composed
of Flinn Ambulance's Ex-Manager Harvey Hall, its Ex-Office Manager,
Bakersfield, California, July 12, 1971 - Page 12
Mrs. Harvey Hall, its three Ex-Ambulance Drivers who terminated
with Flinn Ambulance Service and are now employed by Mr. Hall.
The procedure followed by Mr. Hall, even the name of his service
Hall Ambulance Service, is identical to Mr. Flinn's. His service
is located on Mr. Flinn's ex-wife's present husband's property.
Councilman Bleecker interrupted to ask if the re£erence
to Mr. Flinn's ex-wife has anything to do with whether there is a
need for another ambulance service in the City of Bakersfield. He
stated he doesn't feel that it will have anything to do with his
thinking on the matter.
Councilman Whittemore stated that the Council is accusto~ed
to hearing different kinds of evidence from the floor and he doesn't
wish to rule that this testimony is irrelevant to the matter, that
both sides should be given the opportunity to present their case
in an orderly manner, as this is a very serious matter to both
applicants.
Mr. McKnight continued, stating that offers were made by
Mr. Hall and his wife to buy Mr. Flinn's business, and evidently
at that time they did not feel there was a need for another
ambulance service in the
He stated that
business world but in an
City.
free enterprise has a proper place in the
emergency service such as an ambulance
service which is an absolute necessity for any city, free enterprise
doesn't work to the best interests of the public. Studies demon-
strate that for an aumbulance service to make a reasonable profit,
it must service a population area of at least 90,000 individuals.
Bakersfield at the present time has a population of approximately
72,000, and according to these studies, Bakersfield could not make
an ambulance service profitable. Any service that attempts to
service this number of people will suffer one of two ways, either
it will have to charge more than a reasonable fee for services
because it will have a reduced number of calls, or it will reduce
Bakersfield, California, July 12, 1971 - Page 13
the service offered by lower paid personnel,
or not as much equipment.
ambulances in service.
At the present time Mr.
24 hours a day, with a full crew.
inferior equipment,
In other words, reducing the number of
Flinn has three ambulances manned
The third ambulance is not working
to its capacity, therefore he has more capacity that he could extend
to the City. If the Council takes away the franchise and divides
the service between Mr. Flinn and Mr. Hall, the only recourse for
Mr. Flinn to keep the service, equipment and personnel at a high
level, is to drop the third ambulance. The question is whether
the City will grant a regulated monopoly, or throw it open to any-
one who has the proper equipment and proper personnel. This same
situation existed in the City several years ago, which resulted in
chaos and lack of service because of free competition. This is not
the place where free competition best serves the public. Where
there is only one service, it can upgrade its service under City
regulation.
He stated that in the City of Bakersfield two public
agencies initiate emergency ambulance calls, the Police Department
and the Fire Department. At the hearing held before the City
Manager on Mr. Hall's application the Chief of Police and the Fire
Chief both indicated that the service was good and there were no
complaints. A letter from the Better Business Bureau furnished to
the Council indicates that there have been no complaints registered
with that organization relative to Flinn's Ambulance Service now or
in the past.
Mr. McKnight stated that he caused a survey to be made
of 174 Kern County doctors and the six administrators of hospitals
in this area. 102 doctors and the six hospital administrators
returned the questionnaires. 24 dbctors stated they did not have
occasion to call for an ambulance pickup within the last five years,
3 did not answer, and 64 stated they were pleased in all respects
with the service. 11 stated they had used the ambulance service
and were displeased. Some of these doctors have written letters
on behalf of Mr. Hall's service to the Council.
Bakersfield, California, July 12, 1971 - Page 14
Four of the hospital administrators stated the requests
for ambulance service had been promptly and adequately filled.
Two hospital administrators answered equivocally. Therefore, he
would submit that there has been no demonstration of a need that
requires service of Mr. Harvey Hall's ambulance, as there have been
virtually no complaints against Mr. Flinn's Ambulance Service which
has operated as the sole franchise holder in Bakersfield for ten
years.
Councilman Bleecker asked Mr. Hy Weitzman, Executive
Secretary for the California Ambulance Association, if the Hall
Ambulance Service was a member of his association. Mr. Weitzman
stated it was not, however, he has known Mr. Hall for many years
and he is a fine gentleman and he is certain if he applied for
membership, he would be accepted as a member, as all ambulance
services are certified if they live up to the standards of the
association.
Councilman Bleecker asked Mr. Weitzman if Mr. Hall had
been a member of the association would he have written his letter
in support of Flinn Ambulance Service, and Mr. Weitzman replied
that he would have, as the letter had nothing to do with Mr. Hall,
the letter was a matter of policy, of principle. Mr. Weitzman went
on to say that there is no profit in emergency ambulance business.
The emergency business costs the most and brings in the least amount
of profit. In order to exist, in order to make money and be able
to subsidize the emergency service, the ambulance operator has to
have the regular normal calls, the transfer of patients and of
convalescents, as this is the only way an ambulance service can
stay in business. He stated that it takes $100,000 a year to main-
tain an ambulance service. In response to a question from Council-
man Thomas, he stated that Mr. Hall is qualified to operate an
ambulance service, he is a fine gentleman and he knows his business,
and he would certify him to become a member of the California
Ambulance Association.
Bakersfield, California, July 12, 1971 - Page 15
Mr. Milton Younger, representing Harvey Hall Ambulance
Service, addressed the Council, stating that the City's Ambulance
Ordinance requires the City Manager to conduct a hearing upon ten
days notice. The hearing, which lasted for two hours, was held in
a fair way, and the same things were said at that hearing which
have been stated here tonight, no new evidence has bee.n presented.
Mr. Bergen issued the Certificate to Hall Ambulance Service and if
he has abused his discretion in doing this, then the Council would
be justified in overruling his decision.
Mr. Bergen found that Mr. Hall was financially responsib~[e,
was of good moral character, he satisfied the requirements of the
Municipal Code Section on Ambulance, complied with the laws of the
State of California, had the necessary insurance policies~ and thai:
each private ambulance used by Mr. Hall was adequate and safe and
not more than five years old, something which Mr. Flinn can't say.
Mr. McKnight has argued for a monopoly, Mr. Flinn has had
a monopoly for nine years. It is true that Mr. Hall wants part of
Mr. Flinn's business and it is true that he was the Manager for Mr.
Flinn for a number of years and that his wife was the Office Manager.
They are well qualified for competing in an ambulance service. Mr.
Hall tried to buy the Flinn Ambulance Service because he felt that
Mr. Flinn was an inefficient operator, he did not attend to business.
Since Mr. Hall has made an application for a Certificate, Mr. Flin~
has done some things to meet the competition, such as opening two
other locations and cutting his rates. Thus there have been
positive benefits to the community as a result of Mr. Hall opening
an ambulance service.
He stated that at the original hearing held in Mr. Bergen's
office~ they offered a petition signed by 76 doctors in the com-
munity asking that the City grant a Certificate to Hall Ambulance
Service. These are the doctors who are primarily responsible for
initiating ambulance calls. In addition to the petition containing
the names of 76 doctors~ 38 of those doctors have gone to the trouble
to actually write letters to the Council favoring the establishment
o£ an additional ambulance service in the City of Bakersfield.
Bakersfield, California, July 12, 19?l - Page 16
Two of the three hospitals in the City, Mercy Hospital
and the San Joaquin Hospital have written similar letters to the
City Council. This is significant in that the San Joaquin Hospital
with its new enlarged facilities is going to be the only 24 hour
emergency room facility operational within the City and metropolitan
Bakersfield.
He pointed out thai there are a great deal more people
in metropolitan Bakersfield than the 90,000 mentioned, and there
are enough people to sustain the two ambulance services. Flinn
Ambulance did not upgrade its service until the competition came
along, but it still operates equipment which violates the Ordinance~
in that it is more than five years old. The public has profired
by the £act that a second ambulance service has been granted a
certificate.
Mr. McKnight filed the questionnaires which were returned
to him by 102 doctors and six hospital administrators and made them
part of the record.
Councilman Thomas criticized Flinn Ambulance Service for
its late response to a call to pick up his wife and daughter who
were involved in a traffic accident two blocks from the Flinn
Ambulance location at H~ghes Lane and Wilson Road. He stated that
it took from 5 to ? minutes for the ambulance to respond to the
call and while he was a passenger in the ambulance with his daughter
the ambulance driver complained about being called out while eating
his dinner.
Mr. McKnight stated that the average time to answer a
call is six minutes to arrive on the scene.
Mr. Snyder, past President of the California Ambulance
Association, and who formerly operated an ambulance service in the
City, addressed the Council stating franchising areas for individual
companies guarantee the best service to a community. He also
commented that the City Ordinance regulating ambulances needs some
cleaning up.
Mr. Younger stated that the issue is whether or not the
City Manager has abused his discretion in granting a Certificate
to Hall Ambulance Service. If he did not abuse his discretion, if
1'25
Bakersfield, California, July 12, 1971 - Page 17
he exercised it reasonably, his decision should be upheld. There
has been nothing shown here tonight to indicate that he hasn't
done so. There has been nothing new of any consequence presented
here tonight that wasn't brought out at the City Manager's hearing.
Since Mr. Hall has applied for a Certificate, Mr. Flinn has dropped
his price and started figuring his mileage from the place of pickup
to destination rather than from his office to the destination.
This has reduced the cost to the citizens of Bakersfield by about
eight to ten dollars per call. In response to competition, he has
opened two new locations which provides better service to the com-
munity. He stated that this is more conclusive evidence t.han any-
thing else offered that competition is healthy.
Mr. Frank Subrier, operator and owner of Jerry's Ambulance
Service in East Bakersfield, addressed the Council, stating that he
has had an application on file with the City of Bakersfield for over
a year for a Certificate to operate an ambulance service in the City.
If additional ambulance service was not needed a year ago, how can
it be needed now. He pointed out that actually four ambulance
services are operating in Bakersfield, and
ambulance service should be operating here.
that a private citizen should be permitted
he does not fhink another
He stated that he feels
to call the ambulance of
his choice, because under the City Ordinance an ambulance cannot go
to a private residence and make a pickup. He feels that the City
Ordinance regulating ambulances should be amended.
Councilman Whittemore closed the public hearing for Council
deliberation and action. Councilman Heisey stated that he had been
on the Council for five years and two or three applications for
ambulance service have been made, and in each case the staff has
vigorously opposed them on the basis that there would be a dilution
of service. He asked the City Manager for an explanation of why he
has come up with a recommendation for a change, why he believes the
City can support two ambulance services.
Mr. Bergen stated that he did not want to enter into the
deliberations tonight if he can avoid it. First of all, since he
has been City Manager he has conducted three hearings on applications
126
Bakersfield, California, July 12, 1971 - Page 18
for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for operating
an ambulance service, the last one being from Mr. Harvey Hall.
Mr. Bergen stated that he doesn't think it necessary to
discuss the prior hearings, the records will indicate the action
taken. Based on information that was available at that time, the
decision was made several months ago in the case of Mr. Hall. He
does want the Council to be aware of several facts, one being that
at the hearing he conducted, Mr. Flinn was not represented by
counsel, he was there by himself, and the intensive survey presented
by Mr. McKnight this evening was not made for or available at the
hearing.
The City's Ordinance with regard to ambulance services
is sound. Possibly some improvements could be made in it, it was
originally adopted in 1961, and has been amended several times,
but the idea of a franchise or restrictive ordinance is sound.
The question is, should there be one exclusive ambulance service
in the City, or should there be two services. It is a controversial
matter as evidenced by the testimony given here this evening. He
stated that he wouldn't want to see the Council go in the directio~
of throwing it wide open because both the emergency service and the
public would suffer.
Councilman Heisey asked if the Fire Chief and the Police
Chief submitted a recommendation on this matter. Mr. Bergen
replied that both of the departments were very careful to indicate
that there had never been any complaint made to them regarding the
service; however, both of the departments felt that one additional
service would be justified. Chief Towle did not attend the hearing,
his report was made in writing. Chief Paddock was present at the
hearing and his statements were quoted in the information furnished
to the Council prior to this hearing.
Mr. McKnight was correct in stating that both the Fire
Chief and the Police Chief indicated that they have never had any
complaints and Flinn Ambulance Service was providing adequate
service.
Bakersfield, California, July 12, 1971 - Page 19
Councilman Bleecker asked if anything had been brought
out tonight that would indicate to the City Manager that he should
change his recommendation.
Mr. Bergen stated that he was not prepared to answer that
question directly. He could say though that he thinks there is a
predominance of evidence showing that public convenience and necessity
do not require a second ambulance service that was not submitted at
his hearing. At this hearing there was a very large degree of
evidence showing that public convenience and necessity needed, or
at least wanted an extra service. He stated he wouldn't want to
second-guess the Council and wished to point out again that the
decision he made was based on information available at his hearing.
The Council is hearing the appeal and additional information has
been submitted, so he believes the Council should make the final
determination.
Councilman Rees moved that the matter be referred to the
Water and City Growth Committee for study and report back to the
Council as a whole.
Councilman Rucker asked if this should be done after a
public hearing was held tonight, should it be referred to a Committee
for study and a report to the Council, or is the purpose just to
cotninue it. The matter has come before the Council, and he doesn't
understand why it is being referred to a Committee. This matter
has already appeared before the City Council as a whole, and he
cannot see what will be gained by doing this.
City Attorney Hoagland stated he would support Councilman
Rucker, as this is a hearing that was held before the Council as a
whole, it has heard evidence from both the parties involved. He
cannot see sending it to a Committee for study and determination
of something that is to be decided by the entire Council, and
certainly it would not be proper for a Committee to take additional
evidence, when the final determination depends upon the entire
Council, at least a quorum of the Council. However, the hearing
can be continued for Council deliberation on the matter.
Bakersfield, California, July 12, 1971 - Page 20
Councilman Whittemore commented that possibly some
members of the Council, including himself, should be given more
time to study the documents which have been presented, some of
which were only received this evening.
Councilman Rees withdrew his
to continue the hearing until the next
previous motion and moved
regularly scheduled Council
meeting. Councilman Bleecker spoke against the motion, stating
that he felt all the documents presented by each party appeared to
be in order, and he thinks what the Council is to decide tonight
is whether or not the City needs one or two ambulance services.
To continue the hearing without any additional evidence, seems to
be out of order, and he would oppose the motion to continue the
hearing.
Roll call vote was taken on the motion which carried as
follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Heisey, Rees, Rucker~ Thomas, Whittemore
Councilmen Bleecker, Medders
None
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Heisey,
adjourned at ll:15 P.M.
the meeting was
ATTEST:
MAYOR of ~ ~akersfield,
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Calif.
Bakersfield, California, July 26, 1971 1~9
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City
Hall at eight o'clock P.M., July 26, 1971.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by
the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Councilman Walter Heisey.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of Jyly 12, 1971 were
approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Reverend Cicero Goddard, representative of the Lakeview
Community Council, appeared before the Council to solicit assistance
in conducting a campaign which he has instigated in the southeast area
of Bakersfield to clean up trash and rubbish that has accumulated
on lots, some of which are owned by absentee landlords. They have asked
each property owner to clean his own lot, and if this cannot be dor~e,
to contribute a certain amount of money to the Lakeview Council to
hire underprivileged youth to do the work for them. They have a problem
in getting this trash hauled away, and asked the City for trucks and
a wrecker to pick up junk cars.
Councilman Rees commented that the City cooperated in a
similar problem recently and he asked Mr. Bergen to comment on
assisting this group with their project. Mr. Bergen stated that the
City doesn't have a wrecker designed for picking up cars, they do
have an A-frame, but normally, in clean-up areas, with the consent of
the Council, the City forces will pick up rubbish and trash which has
been piled in a central location. He suggested that Reverend Goddard
and Mr. Jing, Public Works Director, discuss how the City could best
fit into the program and proceed on that basis.
Councilman Rees then moved that subject to Mr. Jing's expert
opinion, full cooperation of the City be given to assisting in this
clean-up campaign. After discussion, this motion carried unanimously.
Bakersfield, California, July 26, 1971 - Page 2
Councilman Rucker thanked Reverend Goddard for bringing
the matter to the attention of the Council and for participating in
such a worthwhile effort to clean up one area of the City which
is badly in need of improvement.
Council Statements.
Councilman Heisey pointed out that a vacancy exists on
the Board of Building and Housing Appeals Board due to the resignation
of Mr. O. D. Williams. Inasmuch as it is necessary to appoint a
general contractor to this Board, Councilman Heisey placed the name of
Mr. Clifford L. Fowler in nomination for appointment to the Board.
Councilman Rucker submitted the name of Mr. Clifford Strait to serve on
this Board. Mayor Hart called for a roll call vote on appointment of
Mr. Fowler which failed to carry as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders
Noes: Councilmen Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whirremote
Absent: None
Abstaining: Councilman Bleecker
Councilman Clifford Strait was then appointed as a member of *%e
Board of Building and Housing Appeals by an unanimous vote of the
Council.
Reports.
Councilman Rucker, chairman of the Auditorium and Recreation
Committee, reported on a meeting with the staff to discuss the lease of
the City-owned building at 2014 L Street, formerly occupied by the Chamber
of Commerce, and the endorsement of a group of young adults known as
"Just People."
Two current
at 2014 L Street have
Travenol Laboratories,
offers to lease the city-owned building
been received; one from the Hyland Division
Inc., and the other from the "Just People" group.
As this Committee wishes the City to obtain the best lease possible
on this building and based upon the information received from the staff
the Committee recommends awarding the lease for a five-year term
commencing August 1, 1971 to the Hyland Laboratories, as their offer
is much better than the current offer from the "Just People" group.
131
Bakersfield, California, July 26, 1971 - Page 3
As to the question of endorsement for the group of young
adults known as "Just People", this Committee encourages the City
Council to endorse their goals and encourage the development of a
drop-in center within the confines of the City of Bakersfield, provided
a suitable location is found and adequate supervision is maintained
within the facility. It will be necessary to obtain a conditional use
permit lrom the Board of Zoning Adjustment when a suitable building is
located. Also, if contributions are to be solicited within the City
oi Bakersfield, it will be necessary to obtain a permit from the
Board o£ Charity Appeals and Solicitations.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, the report was adopted.
Councilman Rees commented that he hopes the members of the
"Just People" group will take the City Council at its face value when
it endorses the program and goals of this group. He stated that he
is behind the people who are concerned and working for this group and
he hopes they find a suitable location for their activities.
Councilman Rucker moved that the Lease Agreement with Hyland
Laboratories be approved and the Mayor authorized to execute same. This
motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Whittemore, chairman of the Govermental Efficiency
and Personnel Committee, reported that this Committee and the staff have
met to discuss a request by the Bakersfield Fire Department Pension
Board for an acturial study by the Public Employees' Retirement System
for the purpose of determining the cost of a change-over from the present
pension plan for members oi the Bakersfield Fire Department to the same
State Retirement plan that the saiety members of the Bakersfield Police
Department have now. The cost of $125.00 for this study will be paid
for out of the Fire Departments' Relief and Pension Fund.
This Committee recommends that the City Council authorize
a contract with the Public Employees' Retirement System to make the
actu~ial study.
Councilman Whittemore moved adoption of the report, which
motion carried unanimously.
132
Bakersfield, California, July 26, 1971 - Page 4
Councilman Whittemore, chairman of the Governmental Efficiency
and Personnel Committee, reported on a meeting of this Committee and the
staff to discuss the job specifications of position of Buyer-Trainee,
which was authorized reclassified
hearings. Specifications for the
cellaneous Civil Service Board on
from Storeskeeper during budget
position were approved by the Mis-
July 20, 1971. The Committee
recommends approval of the specifications.
Councilman Whittemore moved adoption of the report, which
motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Whittemore, chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, reported on a meeting between the
Committee and the staff to discuss the operation of the Municipal Dog
Pound. With the increased activity, present manpower is minimal arid
should be increased. The County has assured the City that a new
facility will be constructed within the current fiscal year and it will
take over the complete operation.
Until this facility becomes a reality, this Committee recommends
the hiring of one additional Poundman for the operation of the present
animal shelter. The additional annual cost will amount to $7,300
for salary and supplemental wage benefits and the Committee recommends
that this amount be transferred from the Council Contingency Fund
Councilman Whirremote commented that he and the Mayor had
made an unannounced visit to the Dog Pound last week and found that
the facility was clean, the animals are fed late in the afternoon
before the attendant goes off duty, there are covers and adequate shade,
and the animals seemed contented with their surroundings. He stated
that he resented an official from Santa Cruz coming down to Bakersfield
and criticizing the operation of the dog pound.
He pointed out that the Board of Supervisors has made every
possible effort to find a new location for a dog pound. It has been
a real problem, but he has been told that the Board has settled on a
site which will be ready for occupancy within the next year.
Councilman Whittemore stated that the only water supply for
use at this facility is a 3/4" line which doesn't provide an adequate
Bakersfield,
California,
July 26, 1971 - Page 5
133
pressure to wash out the pens, and suggested to the City Manager that
a larger water line be installed which would shorten the time to de
the work and give sufficient pressure to clean up the pens.
Councilman Heisey commented that he can't see the need fer
a full time employee at the pound, that possibly some thought should
be given to hiring temporary or part-time help and using students
or underprivileged youth for the job. He pointed out that the City
has a tight budget and he doesn't think it is necessary to expend
$7,300 for this position.
Councilman Bleecker stated that he visited the dog pound
a couple of weeks ago and it seems to him that the poundmaster is a
dedicated man who does the best he can with what he has. He discovered
that a report must be written on every animal that comes in or goes
out of the pound and that a great deal of the poundmaster's time is
spent in assisting about 100 people a day to select animals for adeption.
That is why he recommended that another employee be added to the pound
staff to assist in the feeding and cleaning, and that the drop-off
facilities be substantially enlarged. His third recommendation, which
he would like to add to the report, is that the facility not be opened
to the public until 11 o'clock in the morning, which would enable
the employees to clean the facility and make the pound more presentable
to the public. He then moved that the report be amended to include
a recommendation to the City Manager, at his discretion, to discuss
the matter with the poundmaster of opening the pound at 11 o'clock
instead of 8 o'clock in order to enhance the appearance to the public.
Mr. Bergen stated there were two reasons for not including
this recommendation in the GEPC's report. One is that the new man
will be starting cleanup early before the facility is opened, and the
other is that it would result in some inconvenience to the public who is
accustomed to the 8o'clock hour to claim animals which have been picked
up and brought to the pound.
134
Bakersfield, California, July 26, 1971 - Page 6
Councilman Bleecker stated he would think that would be
sufficient and that he would withdraw his amendment to the report,
but Mayor Hart urged him not to withdraw his motion, as it might
be necessary to determine whether it is necessary to operate in
this fashion. Mayor Hart also suggested that the Council pursue
the recommendation of Councilman Whittemore to increase the water
pressure to expedite the cleaning of the pens, and that the City Mana-
ger and the staff conclude when the facility should be open to the public.
Councilman Bleecker then moved to adopt the report as
amended. Councilman Heisey stated that he has not been convinced that
it is necessary to spend $7,3000 for an additional employee. The
present pound staff has been performing its duties for the past several
years with the same volume of animals and doing a commendable job, and
he feels that a part time employee can do this work. He does not
believe that it is justified to spend $7,300 a year when perhaps the
same job can be done for $2,500 a year. He then moved that the motion
be amended to state the salary may not exceed $7,300 and the staff
be authorized to employ whatever part-time may be needed to
alleviate conditions at the pound. After discussion, vote was
taken on the motion which carried unanimously.
Councilman Rees, member of the Legislative Committee, re-
ported on AB 1617, the so-called Tippier's tax measure. In a communi-
cation to the Council, Assemblyman William Ketchum stated that this
bill represents a unique opportunity for local government to secure
on a permissive basis some of the revenues which they are sadly lack-
ing. He strongly supported the bill on the Assembly floor and con-
tinues to support it. He has been informed by Senator Stiern, chairman
of the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee, that he will reheat the bill
if a majority of the committee members indicate to him they are
willing to reconsider it.
Councilman Rees then moved that the City Attorney be
instructed to inform the members of the Senate Revenue and Taxa-
tion Committee that the City of Bakersfield is in accord with the
provisions of AB 1617 and wishes to support the measure.
135
Bakersfield, California, July 26, 1971 - Page 7
After discussion, vote was taken on Councilman Rees'
which carried as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker
Noes: Councilmen Bleecker, Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: None
The
(a)
(b)
(c)
Consent Calendar.
following items are listed on the Consent Calendar:
Allowance of Claims Nos. 4654 to 4693, inclusive,
and Nos. 20 to 202 inclusive, in amount of
$131, 294.73
Flowage Easement from Stockdale Development
Corporation
(d)
Upon
and (dS of the
Ayes:
Request from Bakersfield City School District
to connect Curran and Munsey Schools to City
sewer
motion,
Request from Mr. Denzel A. Madewell to connect
residence at 125 Olive Street to City sewer
a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a~, (b~, (c),
Consent Calendar were adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, low bid of A-1 Battery
for annual contract for Automotive Batteries, was accepted,
for replacement Diesel Engine for Fire Truck was accepted, all other
bids were rejected and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
low bid of Valley GM Diesel
and the Mayor was authorized
was accepted, all other bids were rejected,
to execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees,
Company
all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute
the Contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, low bid of
Specialized Spray Service for Phase I of 1971 Weed Abatement Program
136
Bakersfield, California, July 26, 1971 - Page 8
First reading considered given An
Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Chapter 4.04 of the
Municipal Code altering the boundaries
of City Wards to reflect all annexations
of territory to the City to the date of
this Ordinance.
Councilman Whittemore had previously requested that first
reading not be given an ordinance of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Chapter 4.04 of the Municipal Code altering
the boundaries of City Wards to reflect all annexations of territory
to the City of Bakersfield to the date of th~ ordinance until the
Council members had been furnished with maps of the proposed changes
for review. After discussion, Councilman Whittemore stated that he
was satisfied as far as the new annexations are concerned, and moved
that first reading be considered given to the proposed ordinance, which
motion carried unanimously.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1952 New Series
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Chapter 11.04 of the Municipal Code
by adding Section 11.04.739, Traffic
Restrictions on Service Roads adjacent to
South Chester Avenue.
Councilman Thomas stated that his previous objections to
the ordinance had been resolved, and moved adoption of Ordinance No.
1952 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Cahpter 11.04 of the Municipal Code by adding Section 11.04.739, Traffic
Restrictions on Service Roads adjacent to South Chester Avenue. This
motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Action on Emergency Ordinance of the
Bakersfield City Council amending the
Bakersfield Municipal Code by repealing
Chapter 7.44 and substituting in lieu
thereof a new Chapter 7.44 regulating
the conduct of Massage services and
Massage Establishments and requiring
the issuance of a Permit therefor,
deferred until next meeting.
Councilman Bleecker commented on the proposed Emergency
Ordinate of the B~ersfield City Council amending the Bakesfield
Municipal Code by repealing Chapter 7.44 and substituting in lieu thereof
a new Chapter 7.44 regulating the conduct of Massage services and
Massage Establishments and requiring theissuane of a Permit therefor'.
The letter received from the Chief of Police indicates that this
ordinance includes certain educational requirements for people
employed in Massage Establishments, and he understands that there
are several operating in Bakersfield at the present time. He would
hate to impose a restriction in the form of a new ordinance on legitimate
businesses whi2h would either put them out of business or force them
to dismiss some of their employees. He moved that the Ordinance be
held over until the next meeting of the Council and that some determination
be made in the minds of each Councilman or by the City Attorney, that
this ordinance would not adversely affect those people engaged in
legitimate massage business in the City of Bakersfield, and that any
permits for this type of business be held in abeyance until a
determination has been made by the City Council. This ordinance can be
considered as an Emergency Ordinance when it is re-submitted at the next
meeting. This motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 59-71 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield, State
of California, calling a Public Hearing to
determine whether public necessity, Health,
Safety or Welfare require formation of an
Underground Utility District within designated
area.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Resolution No.
59-71 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, State of California,
calling a public hearing to determine whether Public Necessity, Health,
Safety or Welfare require formation of an Underground Utility District
within designated area and setting September 13, 1971 in the Council
Chambers of the City Hall as the time and place for hearing on the
138
Bakersfield, California, July 26, 1971
Page 10
matter before the Council, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Request from Stockdale Development
Corporation for abandonment of Langdon
Avenue east of Grissom Street referred
to the Planning Commission for study
and recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, request from Stockdale
Development Corporation for abandonment of Langdon Avenue east of
Grissom Street was referred to the Planning Commission for study
and recommendation.
Purchasing Division authorized to
negotiate discount prices for extraordinary
office supplies, office equipment service,
telephone communications equipment, and
electrical equipment.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the Purchasing Division
was authorized to negotiate discount prices for extraordinary office
supplies, office equipment service, telephone communications equipment,
and electrical equipment from the following vendors:
Bakersfield Rubber Stamp Company
General Office Machine Co.
Valley Office Supply Co., Inc.
Graybar Electric Co., Inc.
First reading deferred on proposed
Ordinance to add Chapter 16.22 to Title 16
providing for Optional Design and Improvement
Standards in Subdivisions; to amend Chapter
17.43 of Title 17 establishing and regulating
R-1 Zones; to add Section 17.44.040 to Chapter
17.44 providing for future maintenance of
non-dedicated improvements; and amending
Section 17.52.010 of Chapter 17.52 relating
to conflicting reguations and exceptions
thereto.
The Planning Commission initiated action to add Chapter 16.22
to Title 16 providing for Optional Design and Improvement Standards
in Subdivisions; to amend Chapter 17.43 of Title 17 establishing and
regulating R-1 Zones; to add Section 17.44.040 to Chapter 17.44 providing
for future maintenance of non-dedicated improvements; and amending
Section 17.52.010 of Chapter 17.52 relating to conflicting regulations
and exceptions thereto.
139
Bakersfield, California, July 26, 1971 - Page 11
Councilman Rees asked Planning Director Sceales where these
changes originated, and Mr. Sceales stated that the Planning
Commission has considered the procedures of several different cities
for these changes and the ordinances were written by Charles Leach,
Assistant City Attorney. The ordinances of many cities throughout
the state were reviewed in order to draft this ordinance which is
necessary to provide divelopers
construction.
Councilman Whittemore
with flexibility in subdivision
stated that condominiums are not a
new concept in living and many people have turned to this type
of residence to enjoy the recreational facilities offered. There has
been a substantial market for condominiums nationwide. It is difficult
for a subidvider to compete with the trend toward condominiums.
Essentially it allows for construction of this particular type of develop-
ment on R-1 property and doesn't change the present 7,200 feet
density requirements.
Councilman Heisey stated that it is a good thing there are
first and second readings on these ordinances as it is obvious thai
the Council needs some education on what condominium construction
entails. It is apparent that an ordinance in some form is needed to
regulate condominiums as details on past construction were just worked
out as they went along and certain things were left in limbo, especially
the legality of the construction. In the next two weeks all members
of the Council will have an opportunity to study this ordinance and come
back with better knowledge of condominium construction.
Councilman Whirremote stated that this is vitally important
to the zoning regulations of the City of Bakersfield and probably requires
more than the two weeks to thoroughly study the ordinances. He
therefore moved that first reading be held over until the next
meeting of August 9th, which would give everyone on the Council time
to review the ordinance which is badly needed in Bakersfield.
140
Bakersfield, California, Jfily 26, 1971 - Page 12
Councilman Bleecker stated that what the Council should
determine is whether or not there is sufficient R-2 or R-3 areas
in the City at the present time to accommodate this type of
structure. He stated that he would dislike to approve an ordinance
which would destroy an established neighborhood. He offered a
substitute motion to Councilman Whittemore's motion to defer first
reading on this ordinance for 90 days.
Councilman Whirremote stated 90 days would work a hardship
on subdividers who are waiting to develop their property, as the
more delay, the more costly it becomes. He pointed out that a
condominium complex is not a slum, it costs considerable money
to build and considerable money to live in.
Roll call vote taken on Councilman Bleecker's 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 Councilman Whittemore's motion to
set aside the first reading until August 9, 1971, carried as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: Councilman Bleecker
Absent: None
Attorney Robert Patterson, appearing for Attorney Bennett
Siemon, who is in London, stated that he is representing a group of
property owners on Panorama Drive and he is sure that the Council
is well aware that there has been considerable discussion on and
opposition to the development of a subdivision on that point of land
to the north and west of the curve of Panorama Drive.
He stated that there isn't any question that this proposed
ordinance will permit the completion of the structures on Panorama
Bluff which were commenced without authorization and on which con-
struction has been suspended. All the discussion that has taken place here
this evening has referred to condominiums. The two proposed ordinances
Bakersfield, California, July 26, 1971 - Page 13
also refer to group dwellings which are an entirely separate category of
dwellings defined as a combination of dwellings on one building stile.
This would constitute a more significant change than condominiums
themselves.
He asked Mr. Sceales if the adoption of this ordinance would
allow the continuation of the structures on Panorama Bluffs by the
developer. Mr. Sceales stated not necessarily, approval of the ordinance
would set up the machinery for resubmitting the plans which would be
subject to Planning Commission review and approval, and approval of
the City Council.
Mr. Patterson criticized the fact that these ordinances
have been proposed in mid-summer when everyone is out of town on
vacation. He praised Councilman Bleecker's idea to delay the matter
90 days, and stated that this amendment will affect a large number of
people and should be given considerable review, study and a great deal
of publicity.
Hearings.
This is the time set for continued public hearing before the
Council on appeal of James F. Flinn from decision of City Manager
Bergen granting Harvey L. Hall a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity to operate an ambulance service within the City of Bakersfield.
This hearing was continued
for Council deliberation and review.
been recieved from the administrators
the public portion of the hearing has
from meeting of July 12, 1971
Additional communicalions have
of all the hospitals. However,
been closed and in order to
receive this additional evidence, it will be necessary for the
Council to re-open the hearing.
Mayor Hart surrendered the gavel to Vice-Mayor Whittemore
and asked that the record show this has been done in the event
that it could be construed he might have some real or imaginary
conflict of interest in the proceedings.
Councilman Thomas stated that it is his opinion that
Mr. Hall should be granted a Certificate of Public Convenience and
142
Bakersfield, California, July 26, 1971 - Page 14
Necessity to operate a second ambulance service in the City, and
moved that the City Manager's decision granting Mr. Hall a Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity be upheld by the Council.
Councilman Medders commented that two other companies
had made application to operate an ambulance service in the City
and asked if this action would open it up to four or five
ambulance services to operate in the community which could result
in poor service to the public.
Councilman Thomas stated that he had received many letters
and telephone calls requesting him to express his approval for a second
ambulance service in the City, that there are a lot of people in the
City of Bakersfield who feel another service is necessary.
Councilman Bleecker commented that as far as he can tell,
no new evidence has been introduced to the Council over and above
that given to the City Manager when he approved Mr. Hall's application.
He stated that a little competition never hurt anybody and from the.
standpoint of competition alone the service has improved, therefore.,
he would support Councilman Thomas' motion.
Councilman Heisey stated that he must concur with Mr.
Thomas, that the preponderance of letters and telephone calls he has
received were in favor of Mr. Hall. However, he voted to continue this
hearing because he wanted to make some speci£ic inquiries of the
Police and Fire Departments who work with the ambulance services.
After discussion with them and with the staff, he has come to the
conclusion that the City has grown to the point where it can support
two ambulance services and as Mr. Bleecker has pointed out, a little
competition is a good thing. He would not care to go back to the days
when there was so much competition that the public was receiving poor
service, but he is satisfied in his own mind that it would be to the
best interests of all the people in Bakersfield to have this second
ambulance service.
Bakersfield, California, July 26, 1971 - Page 15
143
Councilman Rucker agreed with Councilman Heisey's remarks,
stating that he had also had a number of telephone calls on this
matter and that competition would make it possible for people
throughout the entire community to enjoy service at a lower cost.
He feels that only one additional service should be added, however,.
and that a citizen should be permitted to select the ambulance of his
choice.
Councilman Rees stated that this is an issue that has been
before the Council for some time and he is sure that the other members
of the Council are as concerned as he is to do the right thing for
the welfare of the City as a whole. He stated that he has decided
to support Councilman Thomas' motion, and he hopes it will be for the
benefit of the sick and the dying.
Councilman Medders commented that has it suddenly been decided
that there is a need for a second ambulance service that wasn't present
when the other two applications were made. Councilman Whittemore asked
the City Manager to answer the question.
Mr. Bergen stated that first he would like to explain that
another application for ambulance service had never come before the.
City Council for action. For the record, two other applications were
submitted to the City Manager, in accordance with the City's ordinance,
but in both cases they were withdrawn before the hearing was completed
and no decision was ever required.
He stated that he also wanted to say that his granting of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity was not in any way
influenced by the feeling that unlimited ambulance service be permitted
in the City. Putting it in another way, it is his feeling that the
philosophy of the City's Ordinance is proper and assures the City of
adequate service.
Councilman Medders stated that this didn't really answer his
question. Mr. Bergen explained that in both cases, the only other two
applications for a certificate of public convenience and necessity made
to the Manager's office were terminated before the hearing was completed,
so that he has never made a decision except in the case of Harvey Hall.
144
Bakersfield, Cali£ornia, July 26, 1971 - Page 16
Councilman Medders asked if the operator o£ Jerry's
Ambulance Service who addressed the Council last meeting withdrew
his application. Mr. Bergen replied that before the hearing was over,
Mr. Subtier indicated that he did not need to show public convenience
and necessity to operate in the City~ and theretore, the hearing was
terminated without a decision on the part o£ the City Manager.
There being no further discussion by the Council, the
Vice-Mayor called £or a roll call on Councilman Thomas' motion
to uphold the decision o£ the City Manager granting Mr. Hall a
Certificate o£ Public Convenience and Necessity. This motion carried
as £ollows:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees~ Rucker, Thomas
Noes: Councilmen Medders, Whittemore
Absent: None
This is the time set £or public hearing on application
by Mr. Frank St. Clair to amend the zoning boundaries trom an R-1
(Single Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family
Dwelling) Zone, or more restrictive, Zone, ot that certain property
commonly known as 1406 White Lane.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and notices
sent to property owners as required by law. No written protests have
been tiled in the City Clerk's otfice.
The applicant has requested zoning o£ this 300 toot wide
R-1 strip between White Lane and Calcutta Drive to develop an
apartment complex for senior citizens. After review and consideration,
the Planning Commission recommended approval of R-2-D zoning for
subject parcel. The "D" Overlay was recommended to insure the
compatibility of uses with the adjacent R-1 and R-3-D properties.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open tor public participation.
No
of
and action.
protests or objections being received and no one speaking in favor
the rezoning, the public hearing was closed tor Council deliberation
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore~ Ordinance No. 1953
145
Bakersfield, California, July 26, 1971 - Page 17
New Series amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code by changing the
Land Use Zoning of that certain property commonly known as 1407
White Lane, 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 on application
by Leland Emory Chow to amend the zoning boundaries from an R-4
(Multiple Family Dwelling) Zone to a C-O (Professional Office), or more
restrictive, Zone, of that certain property commonly known as
1306-1324½ "K" Street.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and
notices sent to property owners as required by law. No written
protests have been filed in the City Clerk's office.
This property is within an area recommended for a change
of zone to commercial by the Planning Commission; the Council approved
C-O-D zoning for two properties. After review and consideration,
the Planning Commission recommended approval of C-O zoning for subject
property with the application of the "D" Overlay to insure the
compatibility of any new commercial development with the existing
residential uses while the area is going through the transition period.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participation.
No protests or objections being received and no one speaking in favor
of the rezoning, the public hearing was closed for Council deliberation
and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance No. 1954
New Series amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code by changing the land
use zoning boundaries of that certain property commonly known as
1306 - 1324½ "K" Street, was adopted by the
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Whirremote
Noes: None
following vote:
Rees, Rucker, Thomas
Absent: None
146
Bakersfield, California, July 26, 1971 - Page 18
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the meeting was adjourned at
10:15 P.M.
Bakersfield,
Calif.
ATTEST:
L~.R~an 0 rk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
147
Bakersfield, California, August 9, 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., August 9, 1971.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by
the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Councilman Walter Heisey.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Thomas
Absent: Councilmen Rucker, Whirremote
Minutes of the regular meeting of July 26, 1971 were
approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. Tom Bates, 2301 A Street, addressed the Council on the
subject of construction of bicycle ways and lanes in the City, speci--
fically requesting a bike trail to serve the new California State
College Bakersfield. He read a communication addressed to the City
Council from Mrs. Wilbur Rickeft, 2424 Dracena Street, asking the
City of Bakersfield to take a definite stand on implementing a pro-
gram for the creation of bicycle ways and recommending that the
Director of Public Works be instructed to prepare a study and a
feasibility report to set a plan in motion to implement this program.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the
matter was referred to the Planning Commission for study and recom-
mendation.
Miss Pauline Marzette, Youth Coordinator, addressed the
Council, requesting verbal support of K.C.E.O.C's Youth Program. She
stated that they are nor asking for financial support, just verbal
support, in order to make their efforts seem worthwhile. If their
records are investigated at any time, they can point out that they
have received letters of support from various agencies in the City
who are aware that the Youth Program of Kern County Economic Opportunity
Corporation exists.
Councilman Rees stated that he was impressed with Miss
Marzette's presentation and since Mayor Hart has seen fit to send
this group a letter of endorsement, he would move that the City Clerk
148
Bakersfield, California, August 9, 1971 - Page 2
be instructed to send a similar letter on behalf of the Council.
Councilman Heisey asked the nature of the program the
Council is being asked to endorse. Miss Marzette replied that the
Youth Program is more or less a stepping stone toward preparing
youth to take over for themselves, they are aware that they cannot
get them totally out of poverty, but the program does have something
to offer and it is up to the youth to accepf it and take advantage
of it. They hope to interest the youth in the area of registration
and voting and are working toward this goal at the present time.
Mayor Hart commented that the coordinators of the program
are teaching the young people of the community to work within the
structure of society with the idea of achievement for everyone.
Councilman Bleecker asked if there was any literature
available for his perusal and Miss Marzette stated that she would
furnish him with a total program package.
Councilman Heisey offered a substitute motion that Council-
man Medders and one other Councilman Look into the matter and come
back with a recommendation as the Council should be aware of the facts
of the situation prior to endorsing the program.
Councilman Rees commented that in his opinion this group
acting in good faith and he doesn't think that it is necessary to malie
any investigation before giving Council approval to the request.
Councilman Thomas stated that all the Council is being ask,~d
to do is endorse the ideals and objectives of the organization. He
can see no reason for the Council not sending this letter of endorse.-
merit and expressed his support of Mr. Rees' motion.
Vote was taken on Councilman Heisey's substitute motion,
which carried as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:~
Absent:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders
Councilmen Rees, Thomas
Councilmen Rucker, Whirremote
that
Councilman Thomas assured Miss Marzefte/she would receive
his personal letter of endorsement of this Youth Program.
Bakersfield, California, August 9, 1971 - Page 3
149
Council Statements.
Mayor Hart announced that City Manager Harold Bergen has
appointed Calvert Haggard as the City's Fire Chief effective August
6, 1971. He will succeed Chief Robert Paddock who retired recently.
Mayor Hart stated that the City can be proud of Cal Haggard's record
over the years and he is sure that the efficiency of the Bakersfield
Fire Department will be maintained under his
lated Chief Haggard who was in the audience,
Reports.
The City Clerk read the following report
Commission on the subject of Tax Exempt Properties
guidance. He congratu-
on his appointment.
from the Planning
and City Services:
Pursuant to the Council's request, the Planning Commission
has studied the feasibility of a charge for city services to tax
exempt structures and a possible height limitation on structures in
commercial zones.
A committee of the Commission has met with the administrative
staff on several occasions and reviewed, in detail, the laws pertaining
to tax exempt properties as well as specific facts and figures
associated with the Bakersfield Christian Towers Project.
It is the opinion of the Commission that building heights
should be controlled by the zone districts and the Zoning Ordinance
revised to impose a more equitable limitation. However, the Comission
feels high rise office and apartment complexes should not be discouraged
within the City.
The City Attorney has advised that to levy a service charge
only on properties that have been designated tax exempt (federal,
state, county, schools, churches, charitable organizations, etc.)
could be discriminatory, and that the City cannot legally charge tax
exempt properties for a service when said service is included within
the property tax for all other collections. This, in effect, would
single out tax exempt properties for a service charge and could be
considered a violation of a constitutional privilege.
Bakersfield, California, August 9, 1971 - Page 4
In review of the services performed by the City, the most
glaring example of inequity of charges is the refuse collection be-
cause it varies so greatly for residential, commercial and industrial
collections that a property tax supported service cannot be just and
equitable. Under a user pay concept, all tax exempt properties should
be charged a fair and equitable rate.
Based on the above findings, the Commission has reached the
following conclusions:
(1) The City cannot single out tax exempt properties when
levying a service charge for City services.
(2) There is no direct relationship with the public ser-
vices required by a property served to the assessed valuation o£
that property.
(3) It would appear that the most equitable approach
would result in a direct user pay charge concept in proportion to
the user's need for services rendered, where practical.
(4) Height of all structures should be controlled by the
zone district in which they are located and the Zoning Ordinance re-
vised to impose a more equitable limitation.
Councilman Heisey remarked that he thinks it is a very
good report and his only regret is that it was so long in coming to
the Council. It is evident that it will be necessary to make some
very important decisions at the next Council meeting. Unfortunately,
he will not be present as he has been ordered to report to the United
States Naval Academy at Annapolis for two weeks active duty. He has
urged the staff and the Council committee to resolve the tax rate
situation prior to this date, but so far it hasn't been done. During
budget hearings, by a 4 to 3 vote, the Council voted to spend a
quarter of million dollars more next fiscal year than the City will
be receiving in revenue and so far a program has not been presented
to finance this deficit. He expressed regret that he will not be
present at the Council meeting to hear the recommendation and to
speak either for or against it.
Bakersfield, California~ August 9~ 1971 - Page 5
Councilman Heisey went on to say that he has heard rumors
to the effect that there is a strong possibility the City will charge
commercial and industrial users an additional fee for refuse pick-up
while still including it in the property tax rate. In his opinion
this is wrong, completely dishonest and illegal, and he thinks it
will result in taxpayer's suits from business entities who are forced
to make that kind of payment. He stated that he hopes the Council
will give serious thought to the decision on the course it will take
on the recoramendation, if it is done two weeks from tonight, as he
understands that the tax rate must be set by the end of the month.
Councilman Heisey then made a motion that the report be
received and placed on file, which motion carried unamimously.
Consent Calendar.
The following items are listed under the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 203 to 326,
inclusive, in amount of $188,188.65
(b) City of Bakersfield Standard Drawing No.
S-39, Trench Backfill and Compaction
Requirements
(c) Plans and Specifications for Construction of
Culvert at Stine Canal and Wilson Road and for
Construction of Improvements at 34th Street
and the Kern Island Canal
(d) Plans and Specifications for Construction of Vernal
Place Storm Drain and Pump Station
(e)Application for an Encroachment Permit from
Fred Giovanetti
Application for an Encroachment Permit from
American Home Industries Corporation
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b), (c),
and (f) of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the
(d), (e),
following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker,
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen Rucker,
Heisey, Medders, Rees, Thomas
Whirremote
151
Bakersfield, California, August 9, 1971 - Page 6
Action on Bids.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker,
Item F Bid £rom Wallace Machinery Co., less trade-in and on a total
guaranteed repair and guaranfeed repurchase price, for Crawler Tractor
with Hydraulic Bulldozer, was accepted, all other bids were rejected
and the Mayor was authorized to execute the agreement.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, bid of Tenant Co. for
Industrial Sweeper was accepted, this being the only bid received.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, low bid of Field and
Gooch, Inc. for construction of Sanitary Sewer in Belle Terrace and
Relocation of Sanitary Sewer in Summer Tree Lane was accepted, all
other bids were rejected and the Mayor was authorized to execute
the agreement.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, low alternate bid of
Parker Paints to furnish annual contract of Street Paint was accepterS,
all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute
the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, low bid of American
La France to furnish 1500 GPM Pumper was accepted and all other bids
were rejected.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1955 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Chapter 4.04 o£
the Municipal Code, altering the boundaries
of City Wards to relect all annexations
of territory to the City to the date of
this Ordinance.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker,
New Series of the City of Bakersfield amending
Ordinance No. 1955
Chapter 4.04 of the
Municipal Code altering the boundaries of City Wards to reflect all
annexations of territory to the City to the date of this Ordinance,
was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Thomas
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen Rucker, Whittemore
153
Bakersfield, California, August 9, 1971 - Page 7
Second reading deferred until September
20, 1971 on proposed Ordinances to add
Chapter 16.22 to Title 16 providing for
Optional Design and Improvement Standards
in Subdivisions; to amend Chapter 17.43
of Title 17 establishing and regulating
R-1 Zones; to add Section 17.44.040 to
Chapter 17.44 providing for future
maintenance of non-dedicated improvements;
and amending Section 17.52.020 of Chapter
17.52 relating to conflicting regulations
and exceptions thereto.
At this time the following ordinances were proposed for
first reading:
An Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield adding Chapter 16.22 of Title 16 of
the Municipal Code providing for Optional Design
and Improvement Standards in Subdivisions
An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakers-
field amending Chapter 17.13 of Title 17 of the
Municipal Code, establishing and regulating R-1
Zones
An Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield adding Section 17.44.020 to Chapter
17.44 of the Municipal Code, providing for
Future Maintenance of Non-Dedicated Improvements.
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 regulations and
exceptions thereto.
Councilman Thomas commented that he has conferred with
City Attorney Hoagland and has asked for an alternate zoning plan
in connection with these controversial ordinances. He asked Mr.
Hoagland to explain the Northern California Standards under which
developers of proposed non-conforming R-1 projects are forced to
justify rezoning. He stated that he has brohght this to the
attention of the Council for the protection of the residents and
the developers'of the City.
Mr. Hoagland stated that there are a number of alternative
ways by which this particular problem can be handled and cited regu-
lations in force in Contra Costa County.
Councilman Heisey stated that this is considered first
reading tonight, and he asked the City Attorney if it would be out
of order to defer the second reading until the September 20th Council
154
Bakersfield, California, August 9, 1971 - Page
meeting for the benefit of any Councilman on vacation or out of town
during that period, and to permit the City Attorney to prepare
appropriate amendments to the proposed ordinances which would be
acceptable to everyone.
Mr. Hoagland stated that it is entirely within the province
of the Council to set the time for the second reading. Councilman
Heisey then moved that the second reading of the proposed ordinances
be deferred until September 20, 1971.
Mr. Hoagland pointed out that these ordinances have already
been acted upon by the Planning Commission and if another type of
ordinance is proposed, it should be referred back to the Planning
Commission for study, to hold a hearing, and make a recommendation
back to the Council.
Vote was taken on Councilman Heisey's motion which carried.
Councilman Thomas voted in the negative on this motion.
Councilman Rees asked Mr. BennettSiemon present in the
audience, if he cared to comment. Mr. Siemon stated 'he was present
to oppose the adoption of the proposed ordinances and represented
the Panorama Drive property owners. Mayor Hart suggested that he
make his presentation at the time the ordinances are considered for
second reading.
Councilman Heisey asked Mr. Siemon if he had any suggestions
for amending the ordinances which would satisfy his clients. Mr.
Siemon stated that basically they are opposing the ordinance because
they feel it is special legislation proposed solely for the benefit
of Watson Company to allow development of its property on the Panoraraa
bluffs. He stated that he knows of no amendments he could propose
which would be acceptable to the property owners he represents.
Councilman Thomas then moved that the Contra Costa County
regulations be made available to the Planning Commission for study
of an alternate zoning plan prior to the second reading of the proposed
ordinances on September 20, 1971. This motion carried unanimously.
155
Bakersfield, California, August 9, 1971, - Page 9
First reading of An Ordiance amending
the Bakersfield Municipal Code by re-
pealing Chapter 7.44 and substituting
in lieu thereof a new Chapter 7.44
regulating the Conduct of Massage
Services and Massage Establishments
and requiring the issuance of a Permit
therefor.
Councilman Bleecker commented that it was at his request
that proposed ordinance regulating the Conduct of Massage services and
Massage establishments and requiring a permit therefor had been held
over from last meeting, and he asked the City Attorney for an explana-
tion and clarification of certain sections of the proposed ordinance.
It was brought out that established businesses would be subject to
the new regulations but would not be required to apply for a permit
or renewal thereof under this ordinance. After considerable dis-
cussion, the City Attorney was instructed to incorporate phraseology
and make minor changes in the language of the proposed ordinance.
This ordinance was considered given first reading at this meeting.
Adoption of Resolution No. 60-71
certifying Title to the Intersections
within the "Bakersfield Tops Plan for
the Installation and Modification of
Traffic Signals and Street Lighting
Systems at Various Intersections."
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Resolution No. 60-71
certifying Title to the Intersections within the "Bakersfield Topics
Plan for the Installation and Modification of Traffic Signals and
Street Lighting System at Various Intersections" was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Thomas
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen Rucker, Whittemore
Adoption of Resolution No. 61-71 of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield
making application to the Office of
Procurement, Department of General
Services, State of California, to purchase
Credit Card Service.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Resolution No. 61-71
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making application to the
_156
Bakersfield, California, August 9, 1971- Page 10
Of£ice of Procurement, Department of General Services, State of
California, to purchase Credit Card Service, was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Bleecker,
None
Heisey, Medders, Rees, Thomas
Councilmen Rucker, Whittemore
Approval of Agreement between the City of
Bakersfield and California State College
Bakersfield Foundation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Agreement between the
City of Bakersfield and California State College Bakersfielf Foundation
for 60 dates for use of the Civic Auditorium over the next five years,
was approved,
and the Mayor was authorized to execute the agreement.
Adoption of Resolution No. 62-71 of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield
whereby the City waives the 90 day
waiting period required by Section 73
of the Streets and Highways Codes'and
accepts the State relinquishment of
that portion of State Highway 178
superseded by relocation (Niles and
Monterey Streets) between Stockton and
Virginia Streets.
Upon
of the Council
the 90 day waiting period required by Section 73 of the Streets
and Highways Codes and accepts the State relinquishment of that
portion of State Highway 178 superseded by relocation (Niles
Monterey Streets) between Stockton and Virginia Streets, was
a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No. 62-71
by the
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
of the City of Bakersfield whereby the City waives
Rees, Thomas
following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
None
Councilmen Rucker, Whittemore
and
adopted
157
Bakersfield, California, August 9, 1971 - Page 11
Approval of Utilities Agreement No.
9529051 between the State of California
and the City of Bakersfield for relocation
of Vernal Place Pump Station for Freeway
58.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Utilities Agreement No..
9529051 between the State of California and the City of Bakersfield
for relocation of Vernal Place Pump Station for Freeway 58 was approved
and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Approval of Agreement between the City
of Bakersfield and Garone Cattle Company.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Agreement between the City
of Bakersfield and Gatone Cattle Company for providing labor for fencing
eight miles of the City Maunicipal Farm was approved, and the Mayor was
authorized to execute same.
Acceptance of offer to dedicate future
Streets, alleys and easements for property
bounded by Ming Avenue, Valhalla Drive,
Belle Terrace and Stine Road.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, offer made by Kern Joint
High School District, Elmer F. Karpe, Inc. and Sames Saba, Alfred Saba
and Jack Saba to dedicate duture streets, alleys
property bounded by Ming
Stine Road was accepted.
First
Avenue, Valhalla Drive,
and easements for
Belle Terrace and
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 3.18.060 (Salary Schedule)
of the Municipal Code of the City of
Bakersfield.
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 khanging the salary
range of the Auditorium Stage Manager.
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council
for hearing protests by persons owning real property within territory
designated as "Airpark No. 1" proposed to be annexed to the City of
Bakersfield. This hearing has been duly advertised and notices sent
as required by law. No written protests or objections have been filed
in the City Clerk's office.
reading given an Ordinance of the
158
Bakersfield, California, August 9, 1971 - Page 1.2
Mayor Hart delcared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. Mr. Victor Dallons stated that he is the owner of 10 acres
on the southwest corner of Planz Road and Union Avenue and he does
not wish to annex to the City as it would raise his taxes $258 a
year. Also, he is not in favor of changing the zoning upon annexation.
He was not notified of hearing on the matter before the Local Agency
Formation Commission and he would like to have his property withdrawn
from this annexation.
No other protests or objections being received, Mayor Hart
closed the public portion of the hearing for Council deliberation and
action. Mr. Hoagland stated that this property can only be excluded
from the annexation by the Council who may reduce the area proposed
to be annexed by not more than 5%. However, the withdrawal of this
piece of property will result in an island within the City boundaries.
He pointed out that the annexation has been approved by LAFCO after
public hearing was held, and it is not unusual to include property
owners who would prefer not to join the City. This property represents
a very small part of the total annexation and would not void the
annexation; however, if the boundaries are re-drawn, it will necessi.-
tate referring them back to the Local Agency Formation Commission.
After additional discussion, upon a motion by Councilman
Thomas, the hearing was continued until August 23rd meeting for con-
sideration by Councilman Whirremote who is absent from this meeting
and in whose ward the property will be included after annexation.
As this was the time set for public hearing before the Council
on Resolution of Intention to include within the Greater Bakersfield
Separation of Grade District a portion of certain territory designated
as "Airpark No. 1" and to fezone upon annexation that property known
as "Airpark No. 1" Annexation", these hearings were also continued
until the meeting of August 23rd.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come b~fore the Council,
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the meeting ~as~a~l)llrned at
P.M.
MAYOR 1f {d~ty [of Bakersfield.-
CITYNCLERK and ~x-offi.cio dl~rk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield.
Bakersfield, California, August 23, 1971 159
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of
the City Hall at eight o'clock P. M., August 23, 1971.
The meeting was called to order by Vice-Mayor Whittemore,
followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend
D.V.C. Black of St. Mark's Methodist Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Councilmen Bleecker, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Absent: Mayor Hart. Councilman Heisey
Minutes of the regular meeting of August 9, 1971 were
approved as presented.
City Manager Bergen stated that a petition has been
submitted to the Council from Mr. Milton Miller and asked the
City Attorney to clarify the Council's position in this matter.
City Attorney Hoagland made the following statement:
This petition alleges certain grievances against specified police
officers, including the Chief of Police. In accordance with the
ordinance, this type of oral or written communication has to be
filed with the appointing authority, which, in the event of any-
one other than the Chief, is the Chief of Police, to investigate
alleged grievances against the police officers. As to the Chief,
if there is a grievance, any oral or written communication must
be filed with the City Manager who is the appointing authority.
It is improper to file it with the Council; the Council has no
jurisdiction in the matter other than jurisdiction over the City
Manager. The Council has no jurisdiction to hear this type of
grievance against the Chief and officers and they have no juris-
diction to order the Police Civil Service Commission to hear it.
Council Statements.
Councilman Medders stated that as directed by Council
Action at the August 9 meeting he made a study of the Kern County
Economic Opportunity Corporation Youth Program with the help of
Councilman Bleecker.
1{50
Bakersfield, California, August 23, 1971 - Page 2
Written materials describing the program including
involvement, expenditures, descriptions~ and objectives were
provided by Miss Marzette and I talked with her at the Kern County
Economic Opportunity Corporation offices on Eureka Street.
On a positive note, Miss Marzette did not seem to be
offended that an inquiry was being made, but stated that she
thought this to be a superior procedure to our giving a stamp of
approval without looking into the matter.
In analyzing the materials received, this endeavor
appears to be an effort designed toward enabling youth to face
their problems through the orderly processes available to them
within the framework of our society, and to seek solutions through
personal involvement within the system.
In view of these findings and taking the information
obtained at face value, it is recommended that we support the
program as requested by Miss Marzette.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders the report was
adopted unanimously.
Councilman Rucker stated that the lot on the southwest
corner of "P" Street and California Avenue was covered with high
weeds and asked the Director of Public Works to see that the lot
was cleaned.
Reports.
Councilman Whittemore, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, read the following report on
Refuse Collection:
The cost of providing municipal refuse collection service
and its direct effect on the City budget has been a major concern
of the Council and other affected persons for some time. Spiraling
costs for this operation, due mainly to increases in salaries and
services, has necessitated re-evaluation of our refuse collection
policies and means of financing.
Bakersfield, California, August 23, 1971 - Page 3
This Committee £ound thai the City's policy in refuse
collection has been inconsistent with reference to residential,
commercial, and industrial collection. The kind and quantity o£
refuse generated from residential, commercial, and industrial
collections vary greatly, and a service supported solely by a
property tax cannot be equitable.
Lack of uniformity in residential service is not as
pronounced as in commercial and industrial, mainly because the
quantity of refuse is somewhat similar for each residence.
Major inconsistencies exist in the services required
and provided for commercial and industrial collections. These
inconsistencies stem from difficulty in establishing hard and
fast de£initions between commercial and industrial collections.
It has been City policy to collect commercial refuse but not
industrial, and there are some instances where a distinction
between commercial and industrial is most dif£icult. In some
cases, commercial establishments require no service~ yet they must
pay taxes for a service they do not receive, whereas some com-
mercial establishments may require daily collection or large
volumes of refuse.
Labor and equipment are not the sole reasons our refuse
collection costs have increased the past year. During this period
regulations were enacted which ban open burning of refuse. Modern
methods of packaging goods produce an ever-increasing volume of
waste material. These and other factors contributed to a 10%
increase in the tonnage of waste collected by municipal ~orces,
and more than a 50% increase in the tonnage of waste received at
the landfill.
A major inequity in our refuse collection service is
that tax-exempt properties cannot be charged for this service
unless a charge is uniformly established. These tax exempt
properties include Federal, State, a'nd other levels of:government,
Bakers£ield, California, August 23, 1971 - Page 4
along with schools, churches, and such properties as Christian
Towers~ who presently pay nothing for refuse collection. Many
of these properties prodhce a heavy demand for our refuse collec-
tion service. Again, this is especially true because of the no-
burning requirements. This means many entities and agencies can
demand and receive free service while other property taxpayers
bear the burden. There are approximately 180 such tax-exempt
properties within the City.
This Committee has been concerned with the principle of
equity in tax matters, and we wonder if the property owner, com-
mercial establishment, and industrial property are getting a fair
return by way of service for his tax dollar. If we asked the
question, what is the relationship between assessed valuation and
the amount of refuse collected from the property or the comparative
cost of providing refuse collection service, there is no relation-
ship. The Committee also questioned whether refuse collection can
be financed solely from the General Fund when commercial refuse
service varies so greatly among businesses.
In looking for a solution to our problem, we explored
the possibility of contracting all or part of our refuse collections.
Our present municipal collection operation has been in existence
for twenty-two years and performs a very satisfactory service for
the City and its residents. Information and opinions were solicited
from the public and local refuse contractors that we might better
grasp the implications of such a transformation.
To further assist the Committee in its studies, a recent
survey was made of 404 California cities. This survey took into
account the methods of collection and financing. This survey showed
that at least 382 of the 404 cities have a direct charge to finance
all or some of their refuse collection operations. Based on this
and other surveys of similar character~ this Committee feels that
serious consideration be given to the establishment of some form
163
Bakersfield, California, August 23, 1971 - Page 5
of direct charge to complement the financing of our refuse collec-
tion operations.
CONCLUSIONS
The City is faced with the choice of increasing the City's
Tax Rate to compensate for the rising cost of refuse collections
and continuing the inequitable treatment of businessmen and resi-
dents, or adopting a form of consumer charge which would treat all
individuals and all properties on a more equitable basis, each
paying for the extent and kind of service received.
It is the feeling of the Committee that our tax rate
has been burdened by financing too many services that are not
directly related to property and the property tax. This piling
of the cost of services on the property tax rate has created a
high tax rate which has been an obstacle to City growth. We
believe that our recommendation for a direct consumer charge will
relieve the property tax of some of that burden, and we believe
that it will give a new dimension to equity in the property tax
rate. We believe that all citizens and all properties will thus
be treated on a more equitable basis, each receiving the extent
and kind of service for which they pay.
Specifically, the Committee recommends adoption of a
direct charge for refuse collection, except single family detached
dwellings. Under this form of direct charge, payment could be
proportional to the volume of refuse and the cost of collection.
Single family detached dwellings would be excluded from this
direct charge because the service each receives is of the same
type. Gross inequities prevalent in multiple units, commercial,
and industrial collection services would be regulated by charging
for the actual service received. One additional important feature
is that all tax-exempt properties will be charged for refuse service
which they now receive at no cost.
To implement this recommendation, we propose~lhe attached
ordinance for a direct consumer charge for all refuse collection
164
Bakersfield, California, August 23, 1971 - Page 6
We ask you
ordinance which will
increase.
service, except single family detached dwellings, to become
effective January 1, 1972. The charges for refuse service, as
defined in the proposed ordinance, are identical to those presently
being paid the private contractors for refuse collection in the
City. Based upon these rates, we anticipate an annual revenue of
approximately $400,000, less the added annual cost of inspection,
billing, and collection of approximately $40,000. Therefore, the
annual net revenue to be collected by using the proposed schedule
of charges will be approximately $360,000. One half of this amounl;
to be collected from January 1, 1972 through June 30, 1972 will be
approximately $180,000. This is the amount needed to balance the
current budget.
In summary, the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel
Committee has given this matter long and serious study, and after
deliberations, it is our considered opinion that the proposed
direct consumer charge is an equitable way to help finance the
City's refuse collection operations.
to support our recommendation and adopt this
eliminate the necessity for a property tax
Councilman Rees stated that as a member of the Committee
he would emphasize what was said about long and careful delibera-
tions. He said that it was suggested to the Committee that this
tax upon multiple family residences and businesses be put in force
in October or November in order to gain earlier revenue. The con-
sensus of the Committee was that it would be a surprise and unfor-
tunate shock to these businesses and residences to get the tax
earlier than January 1; therefore, we supported this beginning
date. He said in his opinion there is no such thing as a painless
tax and in our sincere attempt to achieve equity in taxation I'm
quite fearful that we are going to find some inequities; neverthe-
less, we feel this is the best way of solving our financial problem:s.
165
Bakersfield, California, August 23, 1971 - Page 7
Councilman Rees moved for the adoption of the report
and the ordinance was considered given first reading.
Councilman Medders stated I have heard the arguments
in favor of putting a charge on the refuse collection for busi-
nesses, apartments, and the "own your own" or condominium type
of dwelling.
In effect what we are attempting to do is. extract enough
funds from the foregoing sector of the population to balance the
budget. I cannot agree with this because these people pay a
property tax for services rendered just as other people do, either
directly or indirectly.
I feel that the owner who lives in a condominium has as
much right to City services as any other single unit dweller has
because he pays his property tax; also, a common wall or walls is
no excuse f.or initiating a discriminatory practice. Many of these
citizens only contribute one can of refuse twice weekly.
Councilman Rees stated, back to the question of equity
as regarding business property vs. residential property, we find
that business sections of the community get more police protection
than residential sections, business sections of the community get
their streets swept daily, some of the residential sections get
their streets swept approximately once a month so the equity is
inequitable; we have to find a balance as best we can. The in-
equitable has already been established and I feel that we are not
doing anything further to unbalance it by this proposal.
Councilman Medders said that he could not see that the
condominium type dwelling gets any of those special services and
I don't think they contribute as many problems as the regular
residential does. I look on the condominium as being single unit
dwellings.
_166
Bakersfield, California, August 23, 1971 - Page 8
and
After further discussion, motion to approve the report
ordinance considered given first reading was adopted by the
Councilmen Bleecker, Rees, Rucker,
Councilman Medders
Councilman Heisey
Councilman Bleecker, Chairman of
Thomas, Whirremote
ment and Parking Committee, read a report on the subject of the
Downtown .Business Promotion District Budget, stating the Business
Development and Parking Committee and the staff have met with the
Board of Directors of the Downtown Business Association, who also
serve as the Board of Directors of the Downtown Business Promotion
District) to review their proposed 1971-72 Promotion District
Budget.
Included in this total is $14,500.00 for Christmas decorations
the Christmas Parade, and $9,500.00 for office salaries and
insurance.
This Committee has evaluated the various account requests
and recommends that the Council approve the attached 1971-72 Down-
town Promotion District Budget and authorize the Finance Director
to pay $11,737.50, which is the amount needed to finance the
Promotion District for the first quarter expenses of July, August
and September, 1971.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the report was
adopted unanimously.
Councilman Whittemore, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, reported that during the past
several weeks this Committee and staff have met to discuss the
conversion of unused Sick Leave upon retirement.
You will probably recall that on June 14, 1971, the
Cify Council approved a report from this Committee on the 1971-72
The proposed annual plan of expenditures totals $28,750.00.
and
following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
the Business Develop-
167
Bakersfield, California, August 23, 1971 - Page 9
salary andsupplemental benefit recommendations. Included in that
report was a recommendation that the City institute a procedure
allowing payment for one half of accumulated Sick Leave at the time
of retirement to become effective October 1, 1971.
The Sick Leave Ordinance which is attached to this report
accomplishes that objective. It provides that an eligible employee,
who leaves permanent City service or who must retire from permanent
City service because of medical disability, shall be allowed his
regular compensation for one half of his accumulated Sick Leave due
him up to the effective date of his termination.
This ordinance would also amend the present Sick Leave
Ordinance by allowing an eligible employee to use Sick Leave as
it has been accrued. The present ordinance requires that an
eligible employee must have been employed for six months before
Sick Leave can be used. This particular change would not increase
the amount of Sick Leave benefits.
Copies of this revised ordinance have been provided to
the various employees' organizations.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore
adopted and the ordinance considered given first
the report was
reading.
and
call
Consent Calendar.
The following items are listed under the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 327 to 530
inclusive, in amount of $164,361.33.
(b)
(c)
(d)
Upon
(d) of the
vote:
Acceptance of the Work and Notice of
Completion for Contract No. 60-71 for
Construction of Planz Road Sanitary
Sewer between Akers Road and South
Real Road.
Correctory Grant Deed from Stockdale
Development Corporation for a portion
of Patriots Park.
Street right-of-way Deed from University
Christian Church.
a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b), (c),
Consent Calendar were adopted by the following roll
Bakersfield, California, August 23, 1971 - Page 10
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Heisey
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, low bid of Rich Valve
Company to furnish 97 Fire Hydrants complete with Burys was
accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized
to execute the contract.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Rucker,
contract for Automotive Tires and Tubes for the balance of the
year 1971 was awarded to B. F. Goodrich Co. based on County of
Kern Contract price schedule, and the Mayor was authorized to
execute the contract.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1956 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.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance No. 1956
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, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Heisey
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1957 New
Series of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield amending Bakersfield
Municipal Code by repealing Chapter
7.44 and substituting in lieu there-
of a new Chapter 7.44 regulating the
conduct of Massage Services and
Massage Establishments and requiring
the issuance of a Permit therefor.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance No. 1957
New Series 'of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending the
169
Bakersfield, California, August 23, 1971 - Page 11
Municipal Code by repealing Chapter 7.44 and substituting in lieu
thereof a new Chapter 7.44 regulating the conduct of Massage Ser-
vices and Massage Establishments and requiring the issuance of a
Permit therefor, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Heisey
At this time
Councilman Bleecker
read a. communication
from Verne Wicklille addressed to Mr. Jack Towle, Chief of Police,
requesting withdrawal of his application to operate a masseuse
facility. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the communication
was received and placed on file.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1958 New
Series of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield levying upon the
assessed valuation of the taxable
property in the City of Bakersfield
a rate of taxation upon each one
hundred dollars of valuation for
the Fiscal Year beginning July 1,
1971 and ending June 30,~ 1972.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Ordinance No. 1958
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield levying upon
the assessed valuation of the taxable property in the City of
Bakersfield a rate of taxation upon each one hundred dollars of
valuation for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1971 and ending
June 30, 1972, by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: Councilman Medders
Absent: Councilman Heisey
Approval of Addendum to the 1971-72
Budget.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Addendum to the 1971-
72 Budget in order to effect its decision to levy a user charge
for commercial refuse collection which will provide appropriations
1.70
Bakersfield, California, August 23, 1971 - Page 12
for postage, stationery and the following personnel was adopted:
~ Time Office Clerk - Finance Department
~ Time Cashier - Finance Department
Programmer-Console Operator - Finance Department
Sanitation Route Inspector - Public Works Department
by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Councilman Medders
Absent: Councilman Heisey
Claim for personal injuries and prow
perry damage from Rebecca Golf referred
to the City Attorney.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, claim for personal
injuries and property damage from Rebecca Golf was referred to
the City Attorney.
Authorization granted the County
Auditor-Controller to levy delin-
quent Building Demolition Assess-
ments as part of the 1971-72 Secured
Tax Roll.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, authorization was
granted the County Auditor-Controller to levy delinquent Building
Demolition Assessments as part of the 1971-72 Secured Tax Roll.
Authorization granted the County
Auditor-Controller to levy delin-
quent Weed Abatement Assessments
as part of the 1971-72 Secured Tax
Roll.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, authorization was
granted the County Auditor-Controller to levy delinquent Weed
Abatement Assessments as part of the 1971-72 Secured Tax Roll.
Approval of request from M. A. Burud,
Office Clerk, Fire Department, for
Maternity Leave of Absence Without
Pay.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, approval of request
was granted for a Leave Without Pay for maternity from September
1 through October 31, 1971, for a total of 61 calendar days.
171
Bakersfield, California, August 23, 1971 - Page 13
Approval of Map of Tract No. 3538
and Mayor authorized to execute
Contract and Specifications for
improvements therein.
Mr. Bennett Siemon made the following statement:
I represent some 12 to 15 owners of property on the
south side of Panorama, west of Loma Linda. Tract No. 3538
consists of a point of land lying west of the County property,
north of Panorama Drive, and West of Manor Street. These owners
have objected to the building of a condominium and object to the
proposed development in that it is not compatible with the adjacent
properties and that it does not conform with the requirements of
the Subdivision Ordinance in that the purchasers cannot be guaran-
teed access to their property. This is an isolated area consisting
of 4.7 acres; the only access is by way of an easement granted to
the present owner's predecessor interest, Kern County Land Company,
for private road purposes.
Most of you are familiar with this project; however,
there are two new members on the Council so I would like to give
a brief history on the matter. Sometime prior to March 15, 1971,
Watson Construction Company commenced building a condominium unit
on this land prior to applying for or obtaining a Building Permit.
They laid the slabs for the floors, inserted the plumbing that had
to be in the slabs, and commenced building a wall. Prior to the
commencement of this, they filed their first tentative map of this
tract, which provided for the development of this area as a con-
dominium. We objected to the approval of the map on the grounds
that this was a violation of the Zoning Ordinance, this land being
zoned for an R-1 residential area. As a result of our objection
Watson Company abandoned their project to the present time. The
second tentative map was filed before the Planning Commission on
April 7; that map is essentially the same as the map that is before
you today. Later the Planning Commission proposed amendments to
172
Bakersfield, California, August 23, 1971 - Page 14
the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances which were set for hearing
July 26, continued to August 9, with the final hearing to be held
September 20. These proposed amendments to the Zoning and Sub-
division Ordinances were apparently proposed solely for the purpose
of allowing a condominium to be built in this subdivision, as it
would not fit any other developed area in the City. This matter
has been extremely disturbing to the residents of the area because
it is obvious that special treatment is being given to the developer.
We feel that this special treatment is a result of Dean Gay's
actions. Although Dean Gay is directly interested in Watson Realty
Company and the development of this point, he has abstained from
voting on any of these matters that have come before the Planning
Commission, but he certainly has not abstained from directing what
is being done.
I would like to list some of the special treatment that
has been given this area. First they put the sewer in. An ordinary
situation when you put in a sewer across a busy street you close
half of the street, put half the sewer in, close the other half
and put the remainder in. This didn't happen on Panorama Drive,
which is one of the main thoroughfares. It was closed completely
for a period of approximately two weeks, starting February 8 of
this year. Next the Planning Commission approved the subdivision
containing a very obvious violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Then
the Planning Commission proposed amendments and additions to the
zoning and subdivision maps, which could apply only to the Panorama
project. Another thing is the failure of the Building Department,
the City Attorney, or the City to prosecute Building Code violations.
I think that you are all aware the Building Code requires a permit
before any construction is commenced. It requires the inspection
of reinforcing steel before it is covered, it requires foundation
Bakersfield, California, August 23, 1971 - Page 15
inspection, it requires plumbing inspection, none of which were
had in this construction. The only Building Permit that had been
secured is for building the wall, and that wall was three-quarters
completed before the permit was granted. Section 205 of the Building
Code provides that any violation of the code is a misdemeanor. It
also provides that it is a separate offense for each day that a
violation is committed, continued, or permitted. If you want to be
technical about it, I imagine the Building Department could find
at least four, perhaps six, separate violations, each of which
continued for a period of 180 days--7 times 180 days, how many
misdemeanors? Has there been a prosecution against Watson Company?
Isn't this a special treatment? Would this treatment have been
given me if I had been the one that violated the ordinance?
To get back to my specific objections to the adoption
of this ordinance. First, the average size of the lots on Panorama,
in the area I am speaking about, is around 14,000. square feet.
These lots that are on this subdivision have in excess of 7,200
square feet required by your ordinance; however, a good portion,
greater portion of that 7,200 square feet is side hill that has
no earthly use. The adoption of this tract map would permit you
to build houses on areas, I would be willing to guess, that would
not be more than 3 or 4 maybe 5,000 square feet in the same areas
where you have houses with 14,000 square feet lots. I don't think
that the proposed development would be compatible with the already
developed use in the area. The primary purpose of zoning laws is
to prevent damage by encroachment of neighboring property in a
manner not compatible with the development of the general locality.
I think that is what is going to happen if you approve this map.
The map does not comply with the ordinance in two
respects. One, Section 16.20.062 requires an offer to. dedicate
174
Bakersfield, California, August 23, 1971 - Page 16
private roads. There is absolutely no way that they can make a
valid offer to dedicate this easement from across the County
property to the tract. The second is Section 16.20.170 which
requires that side lines so far as possible be at right angles
to the streets. It says
requirement. But if you
have side lines that are
so far as possible; it isn't an absolute
will look at this map, Lots 1, 2, and 3
approximately 45° to the angle of the
street. The third objections is that I don't think the purchasers
of this property would have any guaranteed right of access. One
of the purposes for zoning and ordinances is to protect prospectiw~
purchasers of property. The only access to this land is an ease-
ment of 40 feet right-of-way for private access purposes; this was
granted to the Kern County Land Company. Is the use by 10 or 11
families an excessive use? I think only the courts can determine
this. The County could file an action enjoining the use, or any
taxpayer of the County could file a like action if he felt the
County's rights were being encroached upon. The County Road
Commissioner recommended that public safety would require an
extension of this easement into the intersection of Loma Linda.
This, of course, is under the jurisdiction of your local Police
Department. This was the Road Commissioner's recommendation.
You will note on the subdivision map, it shows the
water line, the water main to the area running down the County
easement into the property.
access purpose. The use of
excess of the permitted use.
The easement is solely for private
it for a water main is definitely in
I feel for the benefit of the City
as
the scope of which the City Council is
this matter.
The City Attorney stated that
conforms to the Subdivision
a whole this tract map should not be approved.
Vice-Mayor Whittemore asked the City Attorney to explain
functioning this evening on
if a subdivision map
Ordinance and the zoning for that
Bakersfield, California, August 23, 1971 - Page 17
175
area, then the action of the City Council is purely administrative,.
it is not legislative or quasi judicial. You don't make a deter-
mination of whether you want to accept the map or if you don't want
to accept the map. You accept it, if it conforms to the require-
ment of the State law and also local ordinances. On the subdivision
map there is an Offer to dedicate; that's all the ordinance requires,
an offer to dedicate. We don't have to accept it; we can accept
the offer at any time at a subsequent date. It is an irrevocable
offer and remains open. Private streets are permitted by the Sub-
division OrdinanCe if they also promise to maintain them, which
they have done on this subdivision map. The only determination is
to see if the map conforms to the State laws and the City ordinances;
other than that there isn't any discretion whether you want to
accept a subdivision because someone claims that it is not compatible.
If it is in the right zone, meets the requirements, then it is
purely an administrative action on the part of the City Council.
Vice-Mayor Whittemore asked if the map met the require-
ments. The City Attorney said that it had been certified by the
Director of Public Works and I believe the Planning Department as
meeting those requirements.
After further discussion, upon a motion by Councilman
Bleecker it is ordered that the map of Tract No. 3538 be and the
same is hereby approved, that the continuing easement and right-
of-way shown upon said map and thereon offered for dedication be
and the same are hereby accepted for the purpose or the purposes
for which the same are offered for dedication; the offer of dedi-
cation of the private street and private access road are hereby
rejected.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 11587 of the
Business and Professions Code, the City Council hereby waives
the requirement of signatures of the following:
Bakersfield, California, August 23, 1971 - Page 18
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, easement
holder by instrument recorded March 9, 1943
in Book 1090, Page 448, Official Records.
Tenneco West, Inc., owner of mineral rights
below 500 feet without right of surface
entry as per Deed recorded October 30, 1968
in Book 4211, Page 738 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 City Council of the City of Bakersfield.. I hereby
certify that the foregoing order was adopted by the City Council
of the City of Bakersfield at a meeting held August 23, 1971.
Hearings.
Adoption of Resolution No. 63-71 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field declaring that a majority
protest has not been made to the
annexation of territory designated
as "Airpark No. 1" proposed to be
annexed to the City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Resolution No. 63-71
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring that a majority
protest has not been made to the annexation of territory designated
as "Airpark No. 1," proposed to be annexed to the City of Bakers-
field, by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Heisey
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1959 New
Series approving annexation of a
parcel of uninhabited territory to
the City of Bakersfield, California,
designated as "Airpark No. 1" and
providing for the taxation of said
territory to pay the bonded indebted-
'hess of said City.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Ordinance No.
approving annexation of a parcel of uninhabited
New Series
1959
territory
Bakersfield, California, August 23, 1971 - Page 19
177
to the City of.Bakersfield, California, designated as !'Airpark No.
1" and providing for the taxation of said territory to pay the
bonded indebtedness of said Ci'ty, by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Heisey
Adoption of Resolution No. 64-71 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field annexing certain territory
designated as "Airpark No. 1" to the
Greater Bakersfield Separation of
Grade District.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Resolution No. 64-71
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield annexing certain terri-
tory designated as "Airpark No. 1," to the Greater Bakersfield
Separation of Grade District, by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Heisey
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council on the initiated action by the Planning Commission to
Zone upon Annexation to an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling), or more
restrictive, Zone; to an "A" (Agricultural), or more restrictive,
Zone; to a C-2-D (Commercial - Architectural Design) or more
restrictive, Zone; and to an M-1-D (Light Manufacturing - Archi-
tectural Design), or more restrictive, Zone, of that certain
property in the County of Kern located between Casa Loma Park on
the north, White Lane on the south side, and from Madison Street
on the east side to the westerly boundary which consists of South
Union Avenue north of Planz Road and South Chester Avenue south of
Planz Road, known as "Airpark No. 1" Annexation.
The Planning Commission has reviewed the existing County
zoning and proposed developments within this annexation and recom-
mends zoning as shown on display map and on file in the Planning
Department.
178
Bakersfield, California, August 23, 1971 - Page 20
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and no
written protests were filed in the City Clerk's office.
Vice-Mayor Whirremote declared the hearing open for
public participation. Mr. William Lott, President of Eonair
Corporation, stated I am objecting to the zoning that is proposed
to continue as R-l, thaf is approximately midway between South
Union Avenue and Madison Street and on the northerly side of Watts
Drive. I'm sure everyone is aware that there is an airport there,
and Mr. Bender who owns the property has plans for improving this
airport and greatly increasing the traffic. We purchased property
there as we are in an aircraft accessory manufacturing business.
The property next to us has been purchased and contracts have
been let to put up a building for an operation similar to ours.
When you zone property R-1 adjacent to an airport, you are asking
for a lot of complaints and a lot of trouble from the residents
who are going to move in adjoining that airport because of the
noise factor and other possible hazards, some of them imaginary.
I am objecting primarily to this R-1 zoning and I understand
applications for subdivisions have been put in and if this air-
port expands, as it has a great deal since Mr. Bender has taken
over, I feel that this Council is going to be faced with many,
many complaints. It has been proven in many situations similar
to this that when you zone a place for residences adjacent to an
airport, there are petitions
which in turn will shut down
oriented around that airport.
is what I am objecting to.
circulated to shut down that airport,
the industries that are aviation
That particular part of the zoning
Vice-Mayor Whirremote declared the hearing closed for
Council deliberation and action. Councilman Rees said he would
like to hear the reasoning of the staff on the allocation of the
R-1 zoning of that particular parcel.
Bakersfield, California, August 23, 1971 - Page 21
The Planning Director stated that the parcel is zoned
R-S in the County, which is a residential zone; there has been a
tentative subdivision map filed with the Planning Commission and
approved subject to final annexation.
Councilman Rees commented that he would be inclined to
go along with the comment that anybody who bought a residential
lot there would see the airport, would know that such growth of
the airport was possible, and would certainly be taking a con-
siderable risk when he made the purchase.
The City Attorney commented that what Mr. Lott has said
is true. I don't think an R-1 zone should go next to airports
but under our existing ordinance you can't prohibit it because
if you zoned it a higher use or less restrictive use they could
still put it in if they wanted to. We would have to change the
whole zoning ordinance in that respect.
Councilman Bleecker said that he agreed with Councilman
Rees, that anyone buying a house or a lot there for an R-1 use
would certainly know the airport was there. If it was the other
way around and we were asked to approve an airport that would be
adjacent to an existing single family dwelling, I don't think I
could vote for that.
After further discussion, upon a motion by Councilman
Thomas, Ordinance No. 1960 New Series of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield amending Section 17.12.020 of Chapter 17.12
Map) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, was
by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Heisey
(Zoning
adopted
Bakersfield, California, August 23, 1971 - Page 22
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Medders the meeting was
adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
ATTEST:
~31~y OI l~aKersTiel(J,~lf.
MARIAN S. IRVIN
CITY CLERK and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
C1TYCLERK'S ASSISTANT
Bakersfield, California, August 30, 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., August 30, 1971.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend John
Jaster of the Lutheran Church of Prayer.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whirremote
Absent: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey
Minutes of the regular meeting of August 23, 1971 werw
approved as presented.
Mayor Hart announced that this was the time for scheduled
public statements, but inasmuch as all of the requests this evening
are relative to Item 3a on the agenda, I'm going to ask that those
persons requesting permission to speak on this item wait and speak
at that part of the meeting.
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, communication
from Maurice J. McDonald commending Chief of Police Towle and the
Police Department was received and placed on file.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, communication from
the Panorama Gardens Community Association protesting the Refuse
Collection Charge on condominiums, was received and placed on file.
Council Statements.
Councilman Whirremote pointed out that there were some
members on the Citizens Advisory Committee, appointed to assist
in a study and to make recommendations to the Highway Department
relative to Freeways, who are no longer residents of the City of
Bakersfield. Councilman Whirremote, made the motion to disband
the existing committee and the Mayor and City Council members be
permitted to re-appoint members and make new appointments to this
Committee. This motion carried unanimously.
Bakersfield, California, August 30, 1971 - Page 2
Reports.
Councilman Rucker, Member of the Business Development
and Parking Committee read the following report on the subject of
Extension of the Downtown Parking Mall:
The Committee, staff and members of the Board of Directors
of the Downtown Business Association have met to discuss an exten-
sion of the present Downtown Parking Mall, south to Truxtun Avenue.
The extension, if implemented, will make a one-way street
out of 17th Street going west between "H" Street on the west and
"L" Street on the east. Eye Street will be extended as a one-way
street going south from 18th Street to Truxtun Avenue. "K" Street
will be extended as a one-way street going north from Truxtun
Avenue to 18th Street, east and west bound traffic will be continued
on 18th Street.
Angle parking will be authorized on 17th Street, Eye and
"K" Streets within the described area. This proposed program will
increase parking space 100% within that area. One 36-minute
parking space will be placed at the end of each block and two 36-
minute parking spaces will be placed in the middle of each block
for people who are in a hurry. The remaining parking spaces will
be 2-hour periods of time. Pedestrians will be permitted to cross
one-way streets within the area without the need of going to the
end of the block for such purposes.
To implement this program, the City will have to transfer
$2,500 from the City Council's Contingency Reserve to purchase the
necessary barricades, traffic signs, and other related items.
The Board of Directors of the Downtown Business Association
have indicated to this Committee their enthusiastic support of this
proposal and would like to see it implemented as soon as possible.
Therefore, this Committee recommends that this report be
approved, that the present Parking Mall Ordinance be amended to
implement the recommendations contained herein, and that $2,500.00
be transferred from the City Council's Contingency Reserve.with
Bakersfield, California, August 30, 1971 - Page 3 183
$1,500 going to Account No. 11-660-1100 for the purchase of barri-
cades, and $1,000 to Account No. 11-622-1200 for the purchase of
traffic signs.
Mr. Bergen stated that inasmuch as the Chairman of the
Business Development and Parking Committee isn't here and we were
unable to get this report out until this evening, I would suggest
that you receive and file the report and consider the ordinance as
given first reading. At the meeting of September 13, the Council
can act on the report and ordinance.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, the report was
received and placed on file and the ordinance was considered given
first reading. This motion carried unanimously.
Cou-ncilman Whittemore, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee read a report relative to the
Emergency Employment Act of 1971:
The Federal Government recently enacted the Emergency
Employment Act of 1971 which, in effect, is designed to combat
unemployment in the nation through the employment of persons in
new and existing public service jobs. The Department of Labor has
appropriated $250,000,000 to be used by Special Employment Assistance
Programs in areas having an unemployment rate above 6%. The Act
provides for Federal Funding at a 90% level with the remaining 10%
local share made up through "in-cash" or "in-kind" contributions.
Under the operating procedures established by the Depart-
ment of Labor, sixty-six (66) local "Program Agents" have been
designated throughout California to develop local programs under
this act. The County of Kern has been designated as this area's
Program Agent, as only those cities with a population of 75,000
people or more receive funding directly from the Federal Government.
The City of Bakersfield has been notified by the County
thai the eleven cities within Kern County are to receive $110,000
of the total $1,063,400 allocated for local programs in this area.
184
Bakersfield, California, August 30, 1971 - Page 4
Of this $110,000, the City of Bakersfield is to receive $48,000.
This money will be used to employ approximately five to seven
additional personnel. It is the Committee's intention to fill
those positions that were disapproved at budget time due to lack
of funds. Consideration is also being given to fill new positions
in the Refuse and Data Processing Divisions due to the City's new
Refuse Collection Program.
According to the rules established by this act, benefits
should be given to special veterans of Indo-China or Korea as of
August 1964. Also, the persons hired must presently be unemployed
and live within the boundaries of the program agents. Salaries
paid may not be higher than $12,000 annually, not including fringe
benefit costs, and only one-third of the employees may be in
professional capacities.
In order to apply for these funds, the City must file an
application with the County of Kern prior to Friday, September 10,
1971. Since the City Council will not be meeting again until
Monday, September 13th, this Committee would like to recommend
that the City Manager be given authorization to file the necessary
application forms. Copies of the completed application will be
forwarded to the members of the Council.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, the report was
approved.
Councilman Rees commented that we do not propose to use
these Federal Funds to make work, that is, rake leaves which might
just as well be left there, but rather to fill those positions
essential to the welfare of the City. The City could be in jeopardy
with one of the programs with the Federal Government because of
the lack of funds for the position of Building Inspector. This
position should be given first priority so that our workable
program application to the Federal Government is not jeopardized.
1.85
Bakersf±eld, Calllorn±a, August 30, 1971 - Page 5
Councilman Medders asked if it was to be an "in-kind" or
"in-cash" contribution or a combination of the two.
City Manager Bergen said the City's share would be "in-
kind" services and fringe benefits.
Councilman Rucker pointed out that there have been pro-
grams where all the money has gone to one or two individuals. I
would like to see the money distributed in smaller amounts to a
larger number of people.
After further discussion, the motion to approve the
report, carried unanimously.
Consent Calendar.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Item (a) of the
Consent Calendar was adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Medders,
None
Councilmen Bleecker,
Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Heisey
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, low bid of D. M.
Kitchen for construction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe Culvert at
Stine Canal and Wilson Road and construction of improvements as
34th Street and the Kern Island Canal was accepted, all other
bids rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the Contract.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1961 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, pro-
viding for the collection, removal
and disposal of refuse and establish-
ing a direct charge therefor.
At this time Mayor Hart called upon persons who had
requested permission to be heard regarding the proposed Refuse
Collection Ordinance.
186
Bakersfield, California, August 30, 1971 - Page 6
Mr. Ralph Poehner,
stated my complaint is to make
and not as apartment dwellers,
unit and the adjacent one. We
3901 Union Avenue, Panorama Gardens,
people aware that we as homeowners,
have an attached wall between our
receive the homeowner's exemption
and pay taxes as you would on your home. The only thing we share
is a common wall. We pay our gardener in a group effort and main-
tain a swimming pool together, but we are individuals.
As far as our refuse being picked up, we each have two
A truck goes down our alley, stops once - picks up four
cans.
units. Two - 30 gallon
feet and does likewise.
guess 7 to 10 minutes.
containers, the truck moves up another 120
He can pick up our 35 units in I would
I'm sure he can't do that in a residential
area. Also all of our garden trimmings are carried away by the
gardener. We feel that condominium owners should be removed from
the ordinance.
Mr. Craig Jenkins stated that he was an owner of a con-
dominium at 2811 Summit Circle and was here to speak in opposition
of the proposed Refuse Collection Charge. I think that you are
discriminating against homeowners in this ordinance. We are not
businesses, we are individuals. I have a serious question as to
the constitutionality of the proposed ordinance. I think it is
arbitrary, unreasonable and double taxation.
Mr. Frank Clark said he was here to speak in opposition
to the proposed Refuse Collection Charge on behalf of the restau-
rant owners of Kern County. The number of taxes that we have to
pay keep growing by leaps and bounds. Our business brings in a
lot of tax money to the City of Bakersfield. We do not want any
special consideration, but feel that if one is charged all should
be charged.
Mr. Gorrell Norman representing Crest Arms stated that
he would like to express their opinion of the inadequacy of this
proposed Refuse Collection Charge. We feel that we should be
considered on the basis of a single-family dwelling.
Bakersfield, California, August 30, 1971 - Page 7 ~_~7
Cy Lowen representing Riviera Gardens in Westchester
stated they were also opposed to the proposed Refuse Collection
Charge.
Alameda Range, 2822 Summit Circle, representing 26 owners:
of Panorama Highway North, stated they also wished to express their
opposition to the proposed ordinance as it was presently written.
This particular condominium is not considered to have a common
wall. The Insurance Underwriters decided that since we do not
have a common wall, they could insure us as individual homeowners.
We do pay our taxes individually, both on the land and the building.
We feel this. is an unjusttried discrimination.
Adeline Remerouski representing Oleander Arms stated
they were protesting on the grounds that their containers are only
20 gallon capacity and not the minimum container which is 32 gallons.
Gene Prehoda representing Villa Vista said there is one
point that I would like to add; all of our apartments are zoned
R-l, so they are individual family dwellings.
Burdell Dickinson., President of the Bakersfield Apartment
Owners Association, said they have obtained legal counsel and we
have been advised that the ordinance is not legal. We had over-
sized ~ontainers built according to City Standards; now we will
be penalized for having larger containers. I think the charge
should be based on the number of apartments that a complex has,
not the size of the container. We are also considering going to
court if this ordinance is adopted.
Mr. Jing, Director of Public Works pointed out that the
unit cost on a bin is less than individual cans.
Mr. Dale Stolter, representing Speedie Catering stated
this will be an additional $500 to $600 in taxes. The only thing
I ask you people to remember is that business has to survive in
this town for you to be here.
Bakersfield, California, August 30, 1971 - Page 8
Councilman Rees stated that during budget sessions we
had to consider various alternatives. At the present moment we
have a limited number of alternatives. We have already set our
tax rate, therefore, we cannot raise the property tax, although
we did have that alternative earlier in the year. From my point
of view it resolves itself now into a discussion of what is legal
and what is not legal. The Council is obligated to rely upon the
opinion of its Attorney. I would appreciate it if our City Attorney
would explain the City's position at this time.
Mr. Hoagland stated it seems that we get more of these
law suits than the larger cities who have been doing these things
for years, such as Los Angeles. I am not prepared to say that
this ordinance is unconstitutional; as a matter of fact I am pre-
pared to say just the opposite, until a court of competent juris-
diction determines it unconstitutional. Everytime we enact some-
thing whether it is a Hotel Tax or a Theatre Ticket Tax, we get
the same plea before the Council. Both cases that have gone to
the Supreme Court have been held valid.
Constitutional questions come up on any ordinance we
may propose and in my opinion its a matter of classification,
proper classification as opposed to improper classification. I
feel that the classification is entirely proper for such an
ordinance. I would be a little bit worried if you start granting
exemptions to one group or another in which you could conceivably
enter into a realm of true discrimination within a class. I feel
that the ordinance will stand up. It's not to say that I can't
be mistaken. I just wish that I was as sure of anyone thing as
representative counsel seems to be of everything.
Councilman Rees said it was quite possible that some
people in the audience did not realize that the fee for most
condominium owners is $2.48 per month~ As indicated by Mr. Jing,
if people went together with a bin they could get along on less
than $2.48 per month. When we levied the 5% Utility Tax last
year, there was evidence at that time~ some businesses were going
to be literally hurt. I raise a question whether any individual
living in an apartment or condominium will be literally hurt when
he is saving on his Property Tax and paying $2.48 for Refuse
Collection.
Mr. Craig Jenkins said it's a matter of principle. You
are establishing a dangerous precedent to homeowners.
Mr. Bergen said the ordinance refers to a single family
detached dwelling. It doesn't make any mention of ownership or
renter~ it doesn't discuss a single family. You have single
families living in apartments, in duplexes. You are talking
about a single family detached dwelling, this is a certain type
of structure.
Councilman Medders said he hadn't changed his opinion
from last week. I have heard all the Council had to say and all
that the City Manager had to say and I just can't bring my thinking
in line with that line of thinking. If a person owns his place
and pays his taxes, he just flat owns it and pays his taxes. It
doesn't matter if it happens to have a common wall and I'm going
to be hard pressed to believe that somebody couldn't get the
ordinance turned over.
After further discussion, upon a motion by Councilman
Rees, Ordinance No. 1961 New Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending the Bakersfield 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:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Councilman Medders
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey
Whirremote
190
Bakersfield, California, August 30, 1971 - Page 10
Adoption of Ordinance' No. 1962 New
Series of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield amending Section
3.18.200 (Sick Leave) by amending
Subsection (i) and adding Subsection
(j) of the Municipal Code of the
City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, Ordinance No.
1962 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 3.18.200 (Sick Leave), by amending Subsection (i) and
adding Subsection (j) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakers-
field, was adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
None
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 11.04.754 of the
Municipal Code (Speed Limit on Uni-
versity Avenue east from Haley Street
to the City Limits).
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
the Municipal Code (Speed Limit on
Haley Street to the City Limits).
Claim for personal injuries from
Cathy Ann Bilas, a minor, by her
guardian Richard A. Bilas referred
to the City Attorney.
amending Section 11.04.754 of
University Avenue east from
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, claim for personal
injuries from Cathy Ann Bilas, a minor, by her guardian Richard A.
Bilas', referred to the City Attorney.
Claim for personal injuries and
property damage from Vicki Lorraine
Fager referred to the City Attorney.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, claim for personal
injuries and property damage from Vicki Lorraine Fager, was
referred to the City Attorney.
Bakersfield, California, August 30, 1971 - Page 11
191
Approval of Map of Tract No. 3494
and Contract and Specifications for
Improvements therein.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, it is ordered that
the Map of Tract No. 3494 be, and the same is hereby approved:
That all the easements, drives, roads, streets and avenues shown
upon said Map, therein offered for dedication be, and the same are
hereby, accepted for the purpose for which the same are offered
for dedication.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 11587 of the
Business and Professions Code, the Council of the City of Bakers-
field hereby waives the requirement of signatures of the following::
NAME NATURE OF INTEREST
Tenneco West, Inc. formerly Mineral rights below a Depth
Kern County Land Company of 500 feet with no right of
surface entry
Tenneco West, Inc. formerly The right to pass over and
Kern County Land Company 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 com-
pany as excepted and reserved
in that deed recorded May 27,
1960 in Book 3271 at Page 26,
O. R., County of Kern.
The Clerk of said 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.
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council
on application by Norman K. Larson to amend the zoning boundaries
from an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to a C-2 (Commercial),
or more restrictive, zone of that certain property commonly known
as 2800 Larson Road.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and
notices sent as prescribed by law. No written protests have been
filed in the City Clerk's office.
Bakersfield~ California, August 30, 1971 - Page 12
Property was
existence at the time.
use. Since Annexation,
Board of Zoning Adjustment, one in Jul~ 1967
the dairy plant and the other in April, 1968
station.
annexed in 1967 and the dairy use was in
The use was and is a legal non-conforming
two variances have been granted by the
for an addiction to
for a self-service
The Planning Commission would recommend approval of the
application subject to the "D" (Architectural Design) Overlay as
applied to the adjacent commercially zoned 'properties.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections being received and no one
speaking in favor of the rezoning, the public hearing was closed
for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman
Whittemore, Ordinance No. 1963 New Series amending Title 17 of the
Municipal Code by changing the Land Use Zoning of that certain
property commonly known as 2800 Larson Road, was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Medders,
None
Councilmen Bleecker,
This
Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whirremote
Heisey
is the time set for public hearing before the
Council on application by Bruce Lachenmaier to amend the zoning
boundaries from an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to a C-2
(Commercial), or more restrictive, Zone on that certain property
commonly known as 2125 & 2129 Brundage Lane.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and
notices sent as prescribed by law. No written protests have been
filed in the City Clerk's office.
The zone change request consists of two parcels--one
parcel is developed with commercial use (Heidi's Pie Shop) and
the other parcel is developed with a single family dwelling.
Wedged in between the southerly portion of subject parcels is a
parcel 65 feet by 176 feet developed with a single family dwelling.
193
Bakersfield, California, August 30, 1971 - Page 13
In view of the continuing change in character of this
portion of Brundage Lane from mixed uses (dwelling and marginal
commercial) to viable commercial usage and the major arterial
designation and usage of Brundage Lane, the Planning Commission
would recommend kpproval of the zone
northerly portion of both parcels to
line of the east-west alley in Tract
change to a C-2-D for the
the prolongation of the south
1235 to the east of said
parcels. The remaining southerly portion of Parcel #l which is
part of the required parking area for Heidi's Pie Shop, be zoned
(Automobile Parking). The southerly portion of Parcel #2 presently
undeveloped, be zoned R-2-P-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling -
Architectural Design - Automobile Parking) which would be more
compatible with adjacent single family homes that face Roosevelt
Street. The "D" Overlay would insure a compatible development of
said parcels whether developed as a parking area or low density
residential.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections being received and no one
speaking in favor of the rezoning, the public hearing was closed
for Council deliberation and action.
Councilman Thomas said he wanted the record to show that
at the Planning Commission meeting held August 4, the owner of the
property agreed to build a concrete wall on the southerly boundary
of the property in order to keep the flow of traffic off Roosevelt
Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Ordinance No. 1964
New Series amending Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code by
changing the Land Use Zoning of that certain property commonly
known as 2125 & 2129 Brundage Lane, was adopted by the following
vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whirremote
None
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey
194
Bakersfield, California, August 30, 1971 - Page 14
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council on application by Stockdale Development Corporation to
amend the zoning boundaries to an R-3-D (Limited Multiple Family
Dwelling - Architectural Design), or more restrictive, zone; to a
C-0-D (Professional Office - Architectural Design), or more
restrictive, zone; to an R-1Hosp (Single Family Dwelling - Hospital),
or more restrictive, zone; to an R-2-D (Limited Multiple Family
Dwelling - Architectural Design), or more restrictive, zone; to a
C-2-D (Commercial - Architectural Design), or more restrictive,
zone; and to a C-1-D (Limited Commercial - Architectural Design)
or more restrictive, zone, affecting that certain property located
north of Stockdale Highway and west of California Avenue; and south
of Stockdale Highway and east of New Stine Road.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and
notices sent as prescribed by law. No written protests have been
filed in the City Clerk's office.
The zone change request involves two separate tracts in
the same general vicinity. One tract lies westerly and northerly
of California Avenue extension and the other tract lies southerly
of Stockdale Highway and easterly of New Stine Road. Generally,
the requested change involves the shifting and clustering of
existing zones with the exception of the change of the C-2-D to
C-0-D on that portion that lies southerly of Stockdale Highway
and easterly of New Stine Road.
The Planning Commission would recommend approval of the
requested zone change as submitted.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. Mr. Don White, Director of the Real Estate Development
Department for Tenneco, West, stated he was here to answer any
questions the members of the Council might have. No protests or
objections being received, the public hearing was closed for
Council deliberation and action.
195
Bakersfield, California, August 30, 1971 - Page 15
Planning Director Dewey Sceales reviewed the requested
changes in the zoning.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Medders,
Ordinance No. 1965 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakers.-
field amending Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code of the City
of Bakersfield by changing the Land Use Zoning of that certain
property in the City of Bakersfield located north of Stockdale
Highway and west of California Avenue; and south of Stockdale
Highway and east of New Stine Road, was adopted by the following
roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey
Councilman Rucker stated that in the Southeast part of
Bakersfield the cross streets were in poor condition as a result
of an overflow of water from watering lawns, and asked the Director
of Public Works to inspect this area to see what can be done.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Medders the meeting was
adjourned at 9:20 P.M.
ATTEST:
Calif.
MARIAN S. IRVIN
CITY CLERK and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Council
of the/City of Bakersfield, C~iforn~a
196
Bakersfield, California, September 13, 1971
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of
City of Bakersfield, California,
the City Hall at eight o'clock P.
The meeting was called
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Councilman
Heisey.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart.
Absent:
None
Minutes
the
held in the Council Chambers of
M., September 13, 1971.
to order by Mayor Hart followed
Walter
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
of the regular meeting of August 30, 1971 were
approved as presented.
Correspondence.
It was moved by Councilman Rees that a petition signed
by 120 residents of the Greater Bakersfield area urging the Bakers-.
field City Council to immediately adopt the freeway route along
24th Street as proposed by the State of California Division of
Highways in order to get the project underway without further delay',
be received and ordered placed on file. Councilman Bleecker
requested that the motion be amended to include that the petition
was submitted to the City Clerk by an employee of the Watson
Construction Company. After discussion, the motion as amended
carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Council Statements.
Councilman Bleecker stated that he had missed the Council
meeting of August 30, 1971 and quoted from the minutes relative to
the action taken by motion of'Councilman Whittemore to disband the
existing Citizens Advisory Committee appointed to assist in a study
and to make recommendations to the State Highway Department relative
to the Freeway. He pointed out that both he and Councilman Heisey
were absent from this meeting and as both of them are members of
the Citizens Advisory Committee he felt this action should have
been taken when he, as Chairman of the Committee, was present to
answer questions.
He has looked into the matter with the staff and it
would appear that out of twelve members of the Committee, only
one had moved from the City and he could see no reason for acting
to disband the entire Committee.
Councilman Whittemore commented that there was no reason
for his motion other than to clean up the committee, and the same
members can be re-appointed or someone new can be appointed by
each member of the Council. There are actually only ten members,
one appointed by each Councilman and three Council members desig-
nated by the Council. Three of these members are not qualified to
sit on the committee, as Mr. Vetter is no longer a Councilman and
Mr. Franks and Mr. Kraetsch have moved out of the City.
Councilman Rees commented that to clarify the record,
Mr. Ralph Kraetsch has moved out o£ the City and he has already
appointed Mr. Robert M. Castle of 3311 Christmas Tree Lane to
replace him.
Councilman Whittemore appointed Mr. Ronald L. Dillon,
3812 Wenatchee Avenue to the Committee and stated he would urge
this Committee to start £unctioning, hold meetings and make recom-
mendations back to the Council as soon as possible.
Councilman Bleecker stated that as Chairman, it was his
understanding that there were many more facts and figures to be
submitted to the Committee by the State of California and he
doesn't think the Committee is ready to act until this information
is forthcoming.
Councilman Whittemore stated that as he understands it
the figures are available from the State of California, and if the
Citizens Advisory Committee is going to function as legally consti-
tuted, it is necessary to re-form the Committee.
Councilman Bleecker commented that as Chairman of the
Committee, he feels that out of courtesy he should have been notified
of the intention of the Vice-Mayor to call for disbandment of the
Committee.
Councilman Whittemore replied that Councilman Bleecker
was not present at the meeting and he felt that it was urgent to
have a qualified committee appointed to hold meetings on this
important matter without further delay.
198
Bakersfield~ California, September 13, 1971 - Page 3
Councilman Bleecker then moved that nominations be held
for Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee. Councilman Rees
commented that it would appear to him the committee itself should
be appointed before selecting a Chairman. He offered a substitute
motion that the committee be re-formed and that appointments be
made at this time, or as soon as the availability of the appointees
is determined. Councilman Bleecker withdrew his previous motion
and Councilman Rees' motion carried unanimously.
The following appointments were made to the Citizens
Advisory Committee for Freeway Study:
Robert M. Castle
3311 Christmas Tree Lane
Ronald L. Dillon
3812 Wenatchee
Mrs. Salene Stevens
1118 Chico Street
Harry W. McDonald
3504 Bryn Mawr
Robert E. Jones
2500 Renegade Avenue
Frank A. Ghezzi
2914 - 21st Street
Councilman Rees
Councilman Whittemore
Councilman Rucker
Councilman Thomas
Councilman Heisey
Councilman Bleecker
Councilman Medders stated that he would prefer to wait
next meeting to make his appointment. The Council then
until the
unanimously approved the appointments.
Councilman Rees nominated Councilman Bleecker to act as
Chairman of this Committee. Councilman Bleecker declined the
nomination and made the following statement:
I wish to thank Councilman Rees for nominating me. The
Freeway Development Plan has been in the works for so long that
having been Chairman, I find there are so many preconceived ideas
by the State of California~ by the Technical Coordinating Committee,
by other in authority including the Planning Commission some of
which who may have a definite conflict of interest in this issue,
that I would feel more comfortable as a private citizen with the
199
Bakersfield, California, September 13, 1971 - Page 4
opportunity to be a member of the
not as the Chairman. There are a
might bring up at the proper time
committee as a Councilman but
number of things that I feel I
that would not behoove me as the
Chairman of the committee to take the prerogative to do so. I feel
that the Chairman in conducting the meeting should be unbiased. I
am not unbiased, I have learned a lot, I intend to fight and I
would feel much more comfortable as a member instead of Chairman.
Councilman Rees then nominated Councilman Heisey as
Chairman of the Committee, which action was unanimously approved
by the Council.
Councilman Rucker nominated Councilman Medders as a
member of the committee. Councilman Thomas nominated Vice-Mayor
Whittemore who declined the nomination stating he serves on another
committee relative to this matter. He then nominated Councilman
Thomas. The Council unanimously approved the nomination of
Councilmen Medders and Thomas to serve on this Committee.
Councilman Rees moved that the Committee be directed to
meet at its earliest opportunity and report back to the Council in
the near future o~ its findings for the location of the crosstown
freeway. This motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Whirremote asked Mayor Hart to write letters
of appreciation to former Councilman Vetter and those members of
the Committee who would no longer be serving on the Citizens
AdvisOry COmmittee, and this action was unanimously approved.
Councilman Heisey stated that he had just returned from
two weeks duty at Annapo]~ Naval Academy and that he has been
counseling young men in Kern County for Academy appointments.
The have a vigorous minority program and he urged all young men
between the ages of 17 and 22 who are
to contact him.
He read a letter from Arthur E.
the King Lumber Company, stated that the
interested in a naval career
Masters, President of
recommendations of the
200
Bakersfield, California, September 13, 1971 - Page 5
Bakersfield Council Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee
concerning the new proposed refuse collection rates were quite
disappointing to businesses already paying large amounts of tax
dollars. It is readily understood that the scope and extent of
these charges ark higher than should have been assessed. The King
Lumber Company has endeavored to go along in the efforts to improve
the air pollution in Bakersfield at a cost of over ten thousand
dollars. Besides paying $3,731.43 in City taxes this past year,
the changeover will further cost $35.20 per month, for an annual
total of $422.40 additional. The high cost of refuse collection
as proposed by Bakersfield Governmental Efficiency and Personnel
Committee will unquestionably lead to further inflation and less
desirable evaluation already contributing to the economy of the
community. Apartment houses will also be penalized as they are
paying considerable in City taxes and this refuse tax will be added
on top of their already high tax burden.
man Medders that the refuse measure will
condominium dwellers. They realize that
They agree with Council-
burden businessmen and
the tax levy probably had
to be increased, but it is unfortunate that the City Council
believes that the businesses who provide a large share of the
support in the City of Bakersfield should be unduly penalized.
Councilman Heisey stated that to single out the business
and commercial interest.s to bear the entire cost of the refuse
program is morally unjust, it is. obviously unfair, and it grieves
him to see the Council take such action. If there is going to be
a refuse charge, it should have been placed on all the people of
Bakersfield not just one particular segment. The business and
commercial people feel that they are being singled out and justly
so, for this special tax. If it had been pro-rated to all the
property owners of the City, all citizens of the City could have
enjoyed a fifty or sixty cent tax reduction. While the action has
already been taken, he feels that the Governmental Efficiency and
Personnel Committee needs to consider this matter in the months
ahead as it isn't too late to amend the ordinance so that it can
be a more equitable way of financing the refuse collection.
Bakersfield, California, September 13, 1971- Page 6
Councilman Rees
letter from Mr. Masters who is a constituent of his
asked the.Public Works Department staff to give him
that he can in turn relay to Mr. Masters as soon as
stated that he had received the same
Ward. He has
information
the figures
are compiled, indicating how much refuse collection he would require
daily and what he would be gaining from a tax saving.
Councilman Medders stated he has been looking over the
Refuse Ordinance and referred to the section which states that
after the.ordinance becomes effective collection will no longer
be made from underground or submerged refuse containers. He asked
the City Manager if this provision could not be removed from the
ordinance.
Mr. Bergen stated they have had several calls and he
feels that this section should be evaluated further. He has dis-
cussed this with the Public Works Department, they are going to
have a meeting with the Committee this week and will come back
with a recommendation at the next Council meeting. He feels that
this section should be modified and at the very minimum give the
occupant a period of six months to a year to phase in~ While the
staff is studying the matter, they will recommend that the present
method of pick-up be continued.
Councilman Medders commented on the fact that he has
seen references in the newspapers to the "Just People" group where
it is stated that "they" will not permit the group to occupy a
building in the City, and he asked the City Manager to identify
the term "they."
Mr. Bergen replied that he feels the references go back
to past action taken before the City Council went on record as
supporting this group. He stated that the Council is probably
getting credit where it is not deserved.
Reports.
The City Clerk read a communication signed by Dean A. Gay,
Chairman of the Planning Commission, in which it was stated that
the Planning Commission held an informal public hearing on Septembe:~
1, 1971, on a report of the Commission's Transportation Committee
relative to-the extension of Freeway 178 and 58 between "M" Street
and Freeway 99 along the 23rd-24th Street corridor. After.review
of the findings of the Transportation Committee and consideration
'2O2
Bakersfield, California, September 13, 1971 - Page 7
of the testimony received, the Planning Commission approved the
report and recommended in concept that Freeway 178 be continued
from the present terminus westerly along 23rd-24th Street to inter--
sect Freeway 99 and that studies on Freeway alternates westerly of
Freeway 99 be continued and consideration be given at a future
date.
Councilman Bleecker asked Mr. Bergen if it would be
proper for the City Council to hold public hearings to consider
the proposed freeway routes for the westerly extension of 178
Freeway. Mr. Bergen replied that it would be entirely proper, it
has always been the policy of the State Division of Highways to
obtain as much publicity as it can on any proposed freeway routes.
The Council can hold its own public hearing and can request the
State to provide maps and exhibits and to have State Engineers and
representatives present to answer any. questions posed by the public:
or the Council~ In addition to that, the State will undoubtedly
hold hearings of its own, but the Council can certainly augment
the State's hearing and indicate that it is desirous of holding
public hearings on the proposed routes.
Councilman Bleecker commented that it has been obvious
for some time that the Engineering Department of the State of
California has its own preference for a certain route through the
City of Bakersfield for the so-called crosstown freeway. If the
Department of Engineers of the State of California had taken a
neutral attitude, and done nothing but supply information to the
Planning Commission and the Citizens Advisory Committee when
requested and made its recommendation at the time all the evidence
was in, it would have been more proper. Therefore, he feels that
the attitude for the Council to take would be to ultimately hold
public hearings itself with the State Engineers present to answer
any questions from the public or the Council and he made a motion
to that effect, requesting that the hearings be held under the
jurisdiction of the Council as a Committee of the whole, and that
proper notice be given so that every citizen would have the oppor-
tunity to attend and express his views.
Councilman Whirremote stated that he feels the report of
the Planning Commission should be received, that the Citizens
Bakersfield, California~ September 13, 19?l - Page 8
2O3
Advisory Committee should become active on the matter as soon as
possible, and after all committees have made their recommendations
to the Council and the Department of Public Works of the State of
California has held its public hearing, then the Council should
most certainly hold a public hearing.
After discussion, vote was taken on Councilman Bleecker's
motion which carried unanimously.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, report from the
Planning Commission on the subject of westerly extension of 178
Freeway between "M" and 24th Streets and Freeway 99 was received
and ordered placed on file and referred to the Citizens Advisory
Committee on Freeways for study.
Appointment of voting representatives
for voting at the business sessions
to be conducted at the Annual League
of California Cities Conference in
San Francisco.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Mayor Hart was desig-
nated as voting representative and Vice-Mayor Whittemore as the
alternate voting representative for voting at the business sessions.
of the Annual League of California Cities Conference to be held in
San Francisco on September 26-29, 1971.
Proposed Ordinance amending the Zoning
Ordinance regulating planned unit
development withdrawn from further
action until future date.
It was moved by Councilman Whittemore that proposed
ordinances amending the Zoning Ordinance regulating Planned Unit
Development which had been given first reading on August 9, 1971,
be withdrawn from further action at this time and be placed on the
agenda at a future date. After discussion, this motion carried
unanimously.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 580 to 693
inclusive, in amount of $112~356.27.
(b)Application for an Encroachment Permit
from Kern Community C~llege Districi.
(c) Application roy an Encroachment Permit
from Standard Oil Company.
2O4
Bakersfield, California, September 13, 1971 - Page 9
(c) of
vote:
Ayes:
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders~ Items (a), (b) and
the Consent Calendar were adopted by the following roll call
Councilmen Bleecker,' ~eisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Approval of Transfer of Funds for
fees for processing. non-criminal
fingerprints for City employees.
The Department of Justice of the Office
of the State of California now requires a
Noes: None
Absent: None
General
of the Attorney
fee of $3.10 for
the processing of non-criminal fingerprints for all new City
employees and Police Department applicants. Upon a motion by
Councilman Medders, transfer of funds in amount of $1,800 from
Fund 11-510-6100 to Fund 11-520-4200 - $700; 11-620-4200 - $1,000;
and 11-640-4200 - $100, was approved.
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, bid of Brown-Bevis
Equipment Company for Heater Planer was accepted, this being the
only bid received.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, low bid of Hemisphere,
Construction, Inc. for construction of Vernal Place Storm Drain and
Pump Station was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the
Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Medders,
low bid of Hopkins Roofing Co. for re-roofing Police Building was
accepted, all other bids were rejected and the Mayor was authorized
to execute the contract.
Deferred Business.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Ordinance No. 1966 New
Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section
11.17.020 of the Municipal Code relative to boundaries of the
Central Parking Mall, and report of the Business Development and
Parking Committee were adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
2O5
Bakersfield, California, September 13, 1971 - Page l0
Ayes: Councilmen
Noes: None
Absent: None
Councilman Thomas asked Mr. Bergen if the appearance of
the barricades for the parking mall was going to be improved. Mr.
Max Amstutz, President of the Downtown Business Association,
addressed the Council, and stated that his organization approves
the extension of the Downtown Parking Mall, they concur with Mr.
Thomas' request, and urged the Council to install a more appropriate
barrier in these areas.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Ordinance No. 1967
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 11.04.754 of the Municipal Code (Speed Limit on University
Avenue east from Haley to the City Limits) was adopted by the
following vote:
Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Claim for damages from Jeanne M..
Edmondson referred to the City
Attorney.
Upon
from Jeanne M.
a motion by Councilman Rucker, claim for damages
Edmondson was referred to the City Attorney.
Request from Gilbert Burns and the
First Baptist Church of Bakersfield
to close alley way dividing the pro-
perties in Block 288 referred to the
Planning Commission for study and
recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, request
from Gilbert
Burns and the First Baptist Church of Bakersfield to close the
alley way dividing their properties in Block 288, was referred to
the Planning Commission for study and recommendation.
Approval of amendment to Tire Mileage
Contract with Firestone Tire and
Rubber Company.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, amendment to Tire
Mileage Contract with Firestone Tire and Rubber Company was approved
and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Approval of Contract with Security
Transport Company for transportation
of prisoners arrested in other juris-
dictions.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, contract with the
2O6
Bakersfield, California, September 13, 1971 - Page 11
Security Transport Company for transportation of City prisoners
arrested in other jurisdictions, was approved and the Mayor was
authorized to execute same.
Adoption of Resolution No. 65-71 of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield
objecting to the use of the Functional
Classification Study as the basis for
deleting or adding highways to the
State Highway System.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution No. 65-71
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield objecting to the use of
the Functional Classification Study as the basis for deleting or
adding highways to the State Highway System was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Approval of Revised Map of Tract No.
3494.
Contract and Specifications and the original Map for
Tract No. 3494 were approved by the Council on August 30, 1971.
Waiver of Pacific Telephone Company signature for an existing
easement was omitted. The Map has been revised to include the
waiver. Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, revised Map of Tract
No. 3494 was approved by the Council.
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council to ascertain whether the public necessity, health safety
or general welfare require the removal of poles, overhead wires
and associated overhead structures and the underground installation
of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication, cable
television or similar and associated service in District No. 3,
which is a portion of Ming Avenue.
Notices have been mailed to all utilities and affected
property owners in District No. 3. No written protests have been
filed in the City Clerk's office.
207
Bakersfield, California, September 13, 1971 - Page 12
Mayor Hart declared the meeting open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections being received, and no one
speaking in favor, the public portion of the hearing was closed
for Council participation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman
Thomas, Resolution No. 66-71 of the Council of the City of Bakers-
field,
No. 3,
Ayes:
State of California, establishing Underground Utility District
was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Council,
adjourned at 9:40 P.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
upon a motion by Councilman Rucker the meeting was
M.
MAYOR o Bakersfield, Calif.
ATTEST:
C an of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
gO8
Bakersfield, California, September 20, 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., September 20, 1971.
to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Donald
Swain of the Westminster Presbyterian 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 regular meeting of September 13,
were approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. Warren Rose, Treasurer of the
tion of Fire Fighters No. 1301, submitted a
petitioning the removal of Section 5.38.170
1971
International Associa-
letter to the Council
of the Bakersfield
Fire Department Retirement System referred to as the Offset Section,
stating that on May 19, 1971 the Bakersfield Fire Department Pensten
Board unanimously voted to recommend removal of this section.
Councilman Rees asked the City Attorney to comment
regarding the status of this matter. Mr. Hoagland stated that he
understood the Fire Department Pension Board voted to review the
matter in relationship to a possible inclusion of the Fire Depart-
ment Pension Plan in the Public Employees' Retirement System. Thi~.
is a "meet and confer" matter, a fringe benefit which normally
would have been addressed to the Governmental Efficiency and Per-
sonnel Committee, the Committee designated by the Council to
discuss matters of this nature. As he understands it, the GEPC
did consider it but is awaiting a study of the financial impli-
cation of the request, particularly in relationship to a transfer
to P.E.R.S. It is presently under the 90 day Federal Wage-Price
freeze, so if the Council did take action to remove this Section,
it couldn't become effective until the freeze is lifted.
Councilman Rees commented that he was under the impression
the group who discussed this matter with the GEPC left with the
attitude that some mutual understanding or agreement had been
reached. He asked Mr. Bergen to comment.
Mr. Bergen stated there was a general agreement, or
understanding, that this offset procedure needed to be evaluated,
and it was his impression that
would be answered within 60 to
would make its recommendation.
Councilman Heisey moved that
the questions regarding this matter
90 days and after that the Committee
the communication be received
and referred to the GEP Committee for study and eventual report back
to the Council. This motion carried unanimously.
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, communication addressed
to Mayor Hart from Anthony Haswell, Chairman of the National Associa-
tion of Railroad Passengers, re legislation at the Federal level
which will provide additional funding to enable support or expandeel
passenger service in the AMTRAK system was received and ordered
placed on file.
Council Statements.
Councilman Heisey commented on the proposed hearing by
the Public Utilities Commission on application of the California
Water Service Company for an order authorizing it to increase
rates charged for water service in the Bakersfield District, to be
held in the Council Chambers on September 21, 1971, and moved that
the City Attorney be instructed to attend this hearing and oppose
,any equalization of water rates for the former Crest Water District
in the event the issue is raised.
Councilman Rees stated that he is the Councilman for the
Third Ward, although he is not a part of the Crest Tariff District
where the residents at the present time are paying from 35% to 85%
more for water service than other Bakersfield residents. He stated
that it is not the intention of the Public Utilities Commission to
210
Bakersfield, California, September 20, 1971 - Page 3
of rates, he will
hearing itself is
rate increase.
discuss the equalization of water rates at its scheduled hearing
in Bakersfield tomorrow. The Commission has given notice of a
hearing to consider an application of the California Water Service
Company for authorization to increase rates in the Bakersfield
district. He asked his fellow Councilmen not to direct the City
Attorney to appear at this hearing to oppose any equalization of
water rates as it would indicate a lack of faith in him and his
constituents in the northeast part of the City of Bakersfield.
Councilman Heisey stated that the City Attorney has all
the information necessary to attend this hearing and it would be
a dereliction of duty if he was not present to defend the citizens
of Bakersfield from being burdened with an additional increase in
cost to provide benefits for a special interests group.
City Attorney Hoagland commented that if the Council
directs him to appear at the proceedings to oppose an equalization
do so; however, he wished to point out that the
not on equalization of rates, but on a general
Mr. Bergen quoted from the Minutes of March 15, 1971
stating that the Mayor was directed to send a letter to the Public
Utilities Commission expressing the Council's concern at the size
of the proposed rate increase by California Water Service Company
and requesting that the PUC watch out for the best interests of
the people of Bakersfield in making its determination on the pro-
posed rate increase.
For the benefit of the two new Councilmen, Councilman
Rees reviewed the sequence of events leading up to the California
Water Service Company providing water service to the people residing
in the Crest Water District area. Over five years ago, the Public
Utilities Commission went on record as stating that as a matter of
Commission policy the rates were justified when a new and expensive
installation was made to deliver water to the College Heights
system, but at some future general rate session the rates should
be reviewed, reduced and equalized. Although the hearing has been
Bakersfield, California, September 20, 1971 - Page 4
called by the Public Utilities Commission to consider an application
by the California Water Service Company for a general rate increase,
he has notified the Commission that it is his intention to appear
before them and personally suggest that this is the proper time
for consideration of equalization of water rates in the Greater
Bakersfield District. He has no idea what reception he will receive
from the Commission, but he feels he is substantially in the right
and it is his hope that the Commission will grant his request.
After additional discussion, vote was taken on Councilman
Heisey's motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: Councilmen Rees, Rucker
Absent: None
Councilman Bleecker informed the Council that due to
personal reasons, Mr. Frank Ghezzi has declined to serve on the
Citizens Advisory Committee for Freeway Development. He nominated
Mr. John Fortenberry, 2323 Spruce Street,
Councilman Medders nominated Mr.
Monte Way, to serve on the Committee.
Mayor Hart commented that these two nominations will
complete the Committee. The appointments were unanimously approved
by the Council.
Councilman Bleecker read the following article from The
Bakersfield Californian dated September 16, 1971, into the record
and asked that it be made a part of the Minutes:
Menlo Park. Voters have rejected by more than
a 2 to i margin a City Council proposal for a
$45,000,000 Expressway through the middle of
town. Of 6,575 ballots cast, 4,570, or 69.7%
said "No", and only 1,987, or 30.3% said "Yes",
in an advisory vote on whether the Council
should continue negotiation with the State for
construction of the 6.4 mile Willow Expressway,
which would link Sand Hill in Menlo Park with
the Dunbarton Bridge which spans the Bay.
to serve on this Committee.
Stan Godecke, 4605 E1
Bakersfield, California, September 20, 1971 - Page 5
Reports.
Councilman Robert Whirremote, Chairman of
mental Efficiency and Personnel Committee, read the
report on the subject of Approval of Specifications
Processing Operator:
In order to implement the City's new fees
charge for commercial refuse pickup, it will
be necessary to hire a Data Processing
Operator, a Sanitation Route Inspector and
two part-time Keypunch Operators.
At the present time the City does not have a
position of Data Processing Operator estab-
lished in its salary schedule. In order to
do so, it is necessary for the Council to
consider approval of the attached job speci-
fications.
This position will be filled through the Federal
Emergency Employment Act of 1971. In addition,
under this program the City will also hire a
Sanitation Crewman I and promote a Sanitation
Crewman II to the position of Sanitation Route
Inspector, thus filling two needed positions
with Federal funding.
the Govern-
following
for Data
In response to a question from Councilman Heisey asking
if part of the report was to indicate the hiring of additional
employees, Mr. Bergen stated that this is not approving employment
of additional personnel. Authorization to hire additional employees
and make application under the Federal Emergency Employment Act
has been previously approved by the Council.
Councilman Heisey asked if he was just reporting some-
thing that was an already established fact and Mr. Bergen stated
that adopting the report would approve the specifications for Data
Processing Operator and acknowledge notification of specific post-
tions to be filled.
Councilman Medders
the Federal funds were to be
only to fill these positions.
requirement is that veterans
commented that it was his understanding
used for the employment of veterans
Mr. Bergen replied that the only
be given preference.
Councilman Whittemore then moved adoption of the report.
Bakersfield, California, September 20, 1971 - Page 6
Councilman Heisey asked if the employees had been inter-
viewed for these positions. Mr. Bergen replied "No", however, if
a veteran is presently on the Civil Service list for the position,
he would be given preference. If no veteran is on the list, the
position must be advertised and if no veteran qualifies, the
appointment would be made from the regular Civil Service list.
Vote was then taken on Councilman Whittemore's motion to
adopt the report which carried, with Councilman Bleecker voting in
the negative.
Councilman Robert Whittemore, Chairman of the Govern-
mental Efficiency and Personnel Committee, read the following
report on the subject of Clarification of Refuse Ordinance:
Due to a misinterpretation of the operative
date of the refuse collection ordinance adopted
by the Council on August 30, 1971, some
announcements were made by the Refuse Division
of the Public Works Department that refuse
collection service would not be provided to
persons having underground or submerged refuse
containers. This ordinance does not become
operative until January 1, 1972. Until thai
time, refuse shall be collected in compliance
with the present ordinance, which does not
prohibit this type of collection.
Within the next sixty days, appropriate amend-
ments to the recently adopted ordinance will
be recommended to the City Council by this
Committee which should satisfy the majority
of the persons having underground and submerged
refuse containers.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, the report was
unanimously adopted.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were included under the Consent
Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 694 to 855,
inclusive, in amount of $137,054.57.
(b)
Acceptance of Work and Notice of Com-
pletion for Contract No. 64-71 for
Construction of Automatic Sprinkler
System in the parkway under the
Towerline Easement at Monitor Street
north of Pacheco Road.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a) and (b)
of the Consent Calendar and a Transfer of Funds in amount of
$6,475.00 from Fund No. 11-510-6100 to Fund 11-705.8300 for
214
Bakersfield, California, September 20, 1971 - Page 7
additional appropriation for Portable Basketball Floor and Back-
stops, were adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas~
Noes: None
Absent: None
Whittemore
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, low bid for Portable
Basketball Floor was awarded to DiNatale Floors, Inc., and bid for
Backstops was awarded to Outdoor Products Co., all other bids were
rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contracts.
Adoption of Resolution No. 67-71 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field deleting a Council Meeting in
the month of September, 1971.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Resolution No. 67-71
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield deleting Council Meeting
of September 27, 1971 was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
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).
First reading was considered given an Ordinance 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).
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 11.04.060 of Title
ll of the Municipal Code regulating
Traffic in the City of Bakersfield.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the
Bakersfield, California, September 20, 1971 - Page 8
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 11.04.060 of
Chapter 11.04 of Title ll of the Municipal Code regulating Traffic
in the City of Bakersfield.
Adoption of 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 Cottonwood Road, and a
portion of Robinson Street, in the
City of Bakersfield, State of Cali-
fornia.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Resolution of Inten-
tion 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 Cottonwood Road, and a portion of
Robinson Street, in the City of Bakersfield, and fixing October
18, 1971 for hearing on the matter before the Council, was adopted
by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
No. 868 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield declaring its inten-
tion to order the vacation of Public
Utilities Easements in Ora Vista
Housing Project.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Resolution of Inten-
tion No. 868 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring
its intention to order the vacation of Public Utilities Easements
in Ora Vista Housing Project, and fixing October 18, 1971 for
hearing on the matter before the Council, was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilman Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
None
None
Bakersfield, California, September 20, 1971 - Page 9
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker the meeting was
adjourned at 8:55 P.M.
of Bakersfield, Calif.
ATTEST:
of the City of Bakersfield, California