The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/09/1990 B A K E R S F I E L D Ken Peterson, Chair Kevin McDermott Patricia M. Smith Jack Hardisty (Staff) URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING May 9, 1990 12:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room AGENDA 1. Emergency Powers in Disaster Ordinance - Art Saalfield 2. Cable TV Community Protests - Trudy Thornton 3. Memorial Hospital Sign - Art Saalfield 4. Proposed Ordinance relating to Vehicles Prohibited in Central Traffic District - Art Saalfield DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ADDING SECTION 2.40.050 B 6 TO THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO POWERS OF THE DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES. WHEREAS, natural disasters and other emergencies as defined in Bakersfield Municipal Code 2.40.020 commonly caused widespread and significant damage to structures; and, WHEREAS, damaged structures, especially multi-story buildings, often constitute an immediate threat to life, public health and safety, and hamper rescue operations; and, WHEREAS, damaged structures which pose a clear and present danger to life, public health and safety, and impede rescue operations in the wake of emergencies must be sununarily dealt with to eliminate the danger to life, public health and safety, and to facilitate rescue operations; and, WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Public Works Director, or Building Director, in conjunction with the Director of Emergency Services, are competent to evaluate such dangerous structures and since, in an emergency, it is necessary that summary abatement procedures be instituted; and, WHEREAS, it is necessary to suspend any section of the Bakersfield Municipal Code that is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this ordinance dUring the emergency. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Section 2.40.050 B 6 is hereby added to the Bakersfield Municipal Code to read as follows: 2.40.050 B 6 Demolition without notice. During any declared emergency, the Director of Emergency Services, with the concurrence of the Public Works Director, or Building Director, or their designee, may order the i~nediate demolition of any structure which constitutes a clear and present danger to life, or public health and safety, or which hampers rescue efforts. The demolition may be accomplished without notice to the owner or owners and without a hearing. Should the Director be unavailable, any number of the Bakersfield City Council which can be assembled under Bakersfield Municipal Code 2.48.070 may order the demolition with or without the concurrence of the Public Works Director or the Building Director. Should a structure be significantly damaged, but not so damaged as to constitute a clear and present danger to life, public health and safety, or an obstruction to rescue efforts, the building may be demolished by following the procedure set forth in Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 15.24 for the abatement of dangerous buildings. The Director of Emergency Services during the declared emergency shall have the authority to waive the requirements of the Bakersfield Municipal Code which are inconsistent with the intent and purpose of this ordinance. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the City Charter prOvisions and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. o0o .......... - 2 - I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED CLARENCE E. MEDDERS MAYOR of tl]e City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: ARTHUR J. SAALFIELD CITY ATTORNEY of the City of Bakersfield ADD:lg EMERSVS.ORD 02/28/.90 CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL MEETING OF: 04/18/90 REFERRED TO: URBAN DEVELOPMENT J HARDISTY ITEH: RECORD~ 4990 Cable TV issue. (Pe%erson) ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL: MOTION TO REFER TO URBAN DEVELOPHENT COMMITTEE. APPROVED. AB: KM. BACKUP HATERIAL ATTACHED: YES DATE FORWARDED BY CITY CLERK: 04/19/90 STATUS: PLEASE ENTER THE STATUS INTO THE PRIME COHPUTER COUNCIL REFERRAL TRACKING SYSTEH AS PROGRESS ZS MADE. II .Sant~a ~ ..rbara News/Press~ Sunday, April 8, 1990 It C'D & r Jo~ph C, Har~ :'. ~pm~S~Wdt~ companies -- Cox Cable Barbara. which se~es the South ;able companies doing business '~ ontinued from Page B 1 Coast, and Comcast, which se~es San~ Barbara County operate ~my have p~ovided extra chan- San~ Maria and Lompoc -- have ~e little fiefdoms-- they force all .: ~ els, but some people don't want raised rates an average of 90 per- tstomers to accept a ce~ain 'ti~e channels, and they didn't do cent in unincorporated communi- ~mber of channels and, without s~eys* ~ ~e if people wanted ties since Janua~ 1985, according we~ment review, decide'.how those channels. The bosom line is, to county fi~res. The price fig- uch ~ charge for the semite." we 'want local needs and interests ures do not cover any cha~es that That is the view of the county's reeL" may prevail in the cities of San~ tble ~ o~cials, who say the ay* The cable ~ office will place Barbara, ~mpoc or $an~ Maria *age monthly cable bill charged before the Board of Supe~iso~ -- where ci~ councils are charged , the two major companies se~- on Tuesday a resolution calli~ for with cable monitoring. g customers in unincorporated local gove~ment to regain the Comcast and Cox spokespe~ons o~h Coun~ and South Coast right to control-cable rates. The disable with the count's price ~mmunities has nearly doubled call for rate re~lation is ~i~ fi~re~ sa~ the coun~ has fiveyears. " minored in many communities 'l~ked~only at raw rate increases County re~lato~'monitor eer- across the nation, apd Cong~ss is but dismisses ~e fact that more in peffo~anee s~ndards gov-.' expected to debate several cable channels are now offered. " ~ing.cable operator, but since ~ re~lation bills in coming months.' . ~cal cable o~rato~, faci~ ~ they have had no say over 1~.::' The ~solution expresses "the challenges to their unrestrained d cable rates. The eoun~ con* / need to restore prima~ ~sponsi- abili~ to raise rates, thin~ derek- ntis local cable fi~s are "quasi-~ L biliW for cable re~lation ~ local · lation has worked to the benefit of onopolies"., that .don't have t%~:.., gove~ment to ensure ~at.cable eye,one. The operato~ say high- o~ about competition. Cableg: systems a~ responsive to .the er subscriber cha~es have al- ~s, the count' adds, are ~aran- ~ needs and inte~s~ of ~e' corn- lowed companies to expand and ~ed a large market because many munities theyse~e." improve p~ammi~ and set- ,nra Barbara Coun~ households The coun~'s.:.~o la,est cable :~ces, and ~ ea~ a mo~ reason- m pick up only a few non-cable )~. companies have voiced st~ o~ able p~fit a~er suffeh~ yea~ ~annels with conventional anten- .'. jecUons'W the counW cable ~ off- tight r~te cont~ls by l~al gover- ns..' ........ :" '~ ..... ' " ice's fac~ and fi~res rega~i~ men~]~ "We want them to be subject ~ the need for rate re~lation. "Rates were so a~ificially sur- ~'~lation," Deb~ He~ra of the "What they're doing," complains p~sse6 for yea~," said Didier of lble ~. o~ce said of the five':~. Bo~bi Didier of.Cox Cable San~' Cox Cable. "For yea~ our ~tes' ~bl~ fi~s that se~ee residen~ *: Barba~, "is compa~ apples ~ '"~we~ bei~ void on by ci~ eoun- uninco~o~ted * a~a~ ..'"They · oranges." · '.. .... ~;:?'. · ' oils or ~a~s of su~so~ who '~ .~.: S~ C~, Page B 2 . The resolution'uges*Con~s tg':., were bei~ asked, 'Do I w~t ~-::~: L.:'~ . ~,.~.: .?- re,se the 19~ cable de~lation'.~ cable bill ~is~ or not?''~.'" '~ .' ac~ which ~'es cable fi~s a free~'~'' Didier believes politicia~ find ' .......' ............... hand in s~ing cus~mer cha~es]~'it ha~ ~.~sist keepi~ a tight lid Accordi~ to info~afion releas~:~- on ca~le ~ ~ even if a dispas- 6uhng a recent confessional.', sionate ~ew might'show cable hea~ng, cable rates have risen an:..~, eha~es we~ not keepi~ up ~th .~n'tl~ve,beingin a regulated'en-~ tibn that Cox's rate rOsei07 .ronment, i~ut If we were, lt. cent since 1985--from SSt o the". ,ould h,ve somethln~ to do with' current $16.56 --is'flawed by the' (fair) rate of return, or.keeping,.~, same apples-to-oranges methodol4 ~ with the':C?I (consumer'price'~"'ogy.'Like· Comcast, 'Cox also Before deregulatiow in 1985, ture in 1987. When thathappened~' ~ble rates were, falling .72 per-~ customers who-were receiving the .nt behind inflation,". Didier less-expensive basic service began :id...., ~-~ .. ............. paying more; and about 25 percent ' Both Didierand,ltoberi:Right: of customers who were aiready rc-.:', ' · Il ofthe Comcast cable'compan~ ceiving the ..more-expensive..fuil'.~" .tying Lom_~p~.,. and Santa Maria'. service at that time got a slighi · y the county s'figures,'.on::cable:, rate decrease, Didier saick~, 9~. te increases in uni~orp~.rated: Montemayor counters · cas are off baSe;· ~. :.'j, ';...-.. '..~';'~::.'..: is not telling the full story about; f~~~.~/.~, I do t know where,she, gother.: its rates. The company,, she says,~' ,,urea," Rightsell said~'of county quotes its ',monthly.. customer~, ble TV directOr'.Patricia Mon,' charge as $15.20, then "itemizes" ~ ~::. mayor's contention, fo~example, 76-cent-per-customer government at Comcast of. :.Lompoc's.. rate' franchise fee, and a 60-cent "copy- ~ :nt'frem . Si.' anu yl to' i ht"charge. ' ' · ~.95 a.s of last Jariua~:~.'an 89 "Cox itemizes that on its bill, but ~rcent m.crease,:!~_.i:.I ,.~:~?.,,::. :: . the other companies include it as ~hghtsell says Comcast.'o!~ Lorn-: P ri of their basic rates, Mort- o's charge, in 1984, was'S9/15 for~ temayor said. "It could be con- channels of basic service, and' strned as ,false advertising", she l,.10 for 24 channels, consideredi sa~dof,C, oxsbillingpractice.... ~,: .mium. service. .He 'says Mon-i ' ~l'hats a personal opini~n""°i nay.or Is c.o.mpanng'the lowest, hers.., and it's highly inappropri- :.e .c, na~ea, nve y. ea~.ago with. ate," Didier responded;' saying .ay s, r,a~...As most c. ame compa-, federal law allows special fees to ,s (~io lonowing 'oeregulation, be separated from the basic rate. '; recast eliminated its '*tier' pric-: 'Tve never seen a 'customer cpm- ~ system in 1987, opting instead' nlain about that." after more channels for alleus ' - ' ' ' ',, , . . ' Didier said the county . didn. t .lets under a single rate. Corn- advertise" the fact last year that it . o , one :.95. for 28 .ehann.els;.m?,an. ing franchise fee, it ehargeS. Co~.~ · pr)ce-per-enannet actually nas which, also edges .up. ;customer ~edown, RightsellpointsouL , rates. The francfiise"ifee Was Patricia is bending(the figures) raised from 3 percent to the cu~'- · way to make it look negative" rent 5 percent on taxable revue- instthecablecompanies,"he hUeS.. .......... ..... : .,i . Channel Letlers Channel Name Channel La,ers Channel Name Channel Lel~ers ' Channel Name .... 2 Community Billboard 20 USA Network I 38 Viewer's Choice 3 KGET .......... Bakersfield (NBC) Ch. 171 21 El-TV ~ . . Los Angees (IED) Ch. 111 39 Request TV e ........ · , 23.,~1~ .......... ge es (I D) Ch. 131 ...~1~ BET - 81ack Enlerta nment TelevisionI 4 PREVUE-Pl'ogram Listings '22 TNN-'l~l;sh~ill;'Network 40 :' Event PPV & A SI 5 KMPH'. ........ Fresno (IND) Ch 26J 23 COP ~ Los An N ' ' ~ '~'" u r,,cmj ......... ~aKersHeld (CBS) Ch. 23~ t1~1~ ,~rI'NT. Turner Network ~ I ~ KNBC ~ Los Angeles NBC Ch 4 ~ F,I:f~K .......... Bakersfield (ABC)_Ch~:[i~ ~;~ _(3~12 - Headline News ~ J~ KCBS. :...'~. .... Ins Angeles (CBS) Ch. 2 1 ~?'"'e ' 9 Pay Pe'r Wew Ust ngs 2 ic elo eon . Uov etime . H ~-Iv: ~-oucationa~ unanne~ ~ ~ "'~9 Arts and Entertainment r~tt"~ VH-1 - Video Hits One ( 1.? ,K.C~T, ..~'~, ...... I~,s...Angele, s <1:~) {~,lJ~ CBN- Family'Channel ' KABC .... ~ .... Los Angeles ABC) Ch. 7 12 KF-T'V .............. Fresno (SP~xl) (J~.~l 30 Discovery d~annel I4s Wdeo Jukebox 13 KDOB .......... Bakersfield (I/Ij~/~,~. ~ 31 Home Box Office I~"-' I 47 The Comedy Channel /" . 14 ESPN- 24 Hour Sports ~ 32 Showtime 49 Telemundo - ' 1165 pK rTiml~e '.~l~:~<;il ~.i~; ~c il"ia~ NAenwgse I~Se~lwNo rO~ C h' 51 ~43 ~iSn~emYaxChannel /~10 ~.BsNp,~NTrinity B r°adcasting Netw°rk 17 CNN - Cable News Network I 35 The M-vi ~ ' ~ - ' ' ' ' 'i "' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~' I J I I I I I I I I I I I : : roue GA 93308 VV~NER CABLE ~ (805) 327-g671 COMMUNICATIONS INC. Dear CustomE ~~~.be making mportant changes in ~e s,e.~v, s you eiiecTL,Ue .....___..... M'~V-i, 1990. C)'.~ of these changes is being mc'de i~ir i 3( to ~-ew Fede~a~l.,/' ~...j3 ~.c~_n:~,~,¢i~'s Commission rules whic~h gu~,.a~tee i°C.al'broadcasters progran~,,' ~.'-Others a.re made to improve t,~ .~..a~et.~..o.,.~,~.P~c;., es av ,,a,b,e e%? ts of our customers, j~ach is described iF. tt~is le,..~,.{ ' .. [~ ,.. :~;" .,._.. - PROGRAMMING AD 1.,'1, ~. . ',. · .' .' A scientific custom~S~,~Y~,~c,~o.nducted by telep~...~ I~te Eeb..,~.u.a'ry. We.,I.e.a~r~ned ~.:~,. a great deal about..,~,5'u'[., v~v~g habits and fo, u~at~:,o,Ur....c.ustomers were'~,.ery. interested in nev~,P'~)c~ar~-'~rvices. Hi~.h~...ev~l, Ls,~T,i~,t~st W~.~e expressed by Warn. '~,, customers in Amer c~fl: Movie ClassiCs, ~B..0,st, C.b.~hannel~and Th?Erav~.el':,, ~,, . ~ ~. .~,- : .,' %~. ",~,~... ~' ...,... Channel. · _,_ ~, !~ ~.JlJ ~!," '", "..,' m leased to announce "at~'~lofth~e.rviceswill beadde~toWarn~:erstarida.[d la p . ~:,',v,~;'.' ', ,- ~t .~,'~,, '" "'~'. · : ~ . ~.: ,,,~,..'. k "' ¢ ~,,~, b ~..,.,"~.... r'.:~ ~':.-'L~:.. ~,,.,. ',~'.. ~, "~ ~' ~.'. ~. ',,., ~,~!. b.~ \:.'. ;..~, ".: 'i~ . t' ,. ...~ ,.~ :,. ~ ~.~ .; ..,, ',,,. ~,,, Arnencan M,o.v,e Classics i~.ka very'~'popu,ar serv,ce,,.~..- '\~ \ .,,..., .---' · { ~ ..,~gT.~, ~. ;:.'.., . - ', ,' ~,....','~'~m~ · ~i~ C~medv Channel, s'one of cable's ewes.L.-" t,;:.. ;:..-: ........ ,, ~ .~. ii~,~' se~vice~,' featuring~'~ ~.c~. ed.y S~ows of eve'~ type" · ima inab e. The cC~rfl'edyt~ha~neI will b~,iavail-able .;" \:" _ g .l~, ;.,,,.: :-..,.., .... ~ , ~.~-' "",~ Apl:il'~, O~hannel 44, but wdl .move..-.J,.aterZ.,"fe its ~ ~., '\ -":'. '%,,. "k "lS'e;~_'~,c{l~cation.~,o,n..,,Chann~:~,7':.~.,, ~:~%'~ ~ .-.. '~ ~ ,'v' '.',. '""'%, -- '" ':' '""::'~'" ' ' , " "~i ~' . .,... ';'% ' ".,. z!~,,.j. '"~4. nresenting desti~tafl"~ff~s and busin ~s~~ /', ~;'~7 : '-.. ' ,..,..¢¢ r-" . ... , ~ ..... ,~;:; '-*~ ~-¥~ leisure travel!,n'e~ra¢'el Channel also !~j~]?r~r ,,L'~ '~-'~'"- .._.~April 2;'?!1~ ;pl~a'[~''~)'n Channel 36 fr( '.3 ~.1~. tqi;;~;~--. --'"""~'5-Ri:Vl,.".~:s"we!l'~s' '~ due to \ , ,.' ' ',. z.- '.. ' ° ".' ,, ,,,c~^, D~r~?'.RA'M~G ALTERNATIVE ANI~. P~TES.,,. broa~c~sb..;,.~at ~.~,~ an¢;~ther :~p'ro~rams of-'r(~c~ .iCt~est. It is designed' for those customers ~it~~v~w~g~ests or limited 'incOmes. The price for this basic serviceswill b~i375~;~ntb':, end,there will be ¢' $40 installation charge ren~e~tiCg~:he A~a c'~st~(erial~ ~[ ,~he actual ~annels are shown ~'~- , ,' 7~ . '..,. . , ,..L ~ ',~ on the n' *ah/~e lineup ca~ whic~.~L~e~ ¢ ~ . ~ ~ ~.'.'.. ~., .. , ~ , . ,,,.,~¢r'~ ¢~~'~'~e ~ta,dard se~v ce. ~~'d o*~e,.~-c~a~ ~a~,c service and an additio~ 27-channel bet, will conbnue to ~nclu~ ali your iavo te channels plus the new.'channels described above. Standard service will be priced at $19.50, $13.95 for ~siC service and $5.55 for the tier, effective May 1, 1990. This new monthly standard service price represents a price increase which reflects increases in many of the programming, maintenanc~ and operating expenses which we incur in providing you with the diversity of progCamming and quality of service you expect. '~~ All rates for premium services, additional o~(~%s¢;~c~age discounts, remote co~trols will remain exactly the same. MoCker, ?sto~e~f~hing to subscribe to pay-per- view and premium services ~st pur~e sta'~ard servia: , CHANNEL RE-ALIGNME~. "~. '.~. " . ':'-..~:.. In order to offer the basic se~ice,:it Wi'Il..?, n~8~ssaw;~or techni~al..reas~'~ to rearrange o~r c,r~e~t 39*ch~t~?~, e'ect?Ma~ l¢??'d~...~f~;??corr~t.s~r.v?s . -' ..... ~%v~ ~bl~but screw II be on new channelS~lease re,er ~o ~ne Will CO~(IRUe tu ~,~ . % .... '. enclosed channel li&:eup car84er the new Io~atignM'e~ Yo'O~avorite channels. OTHER CHAN~~,,'"%~ ' 'i:: ?" . ' . M~ sta~ ~ ~e~s~'~,ounc~ the t~ree exc~'~ new ~erv,c~s.we earlier to ou~us~e'r~ t~s year. These additions enhance the vane~y and ~ua~y , %. ' ':'" ' ~ · than com ensate for the ~osses o,~r,ers ~ro~%;~e~ n~s. Moreover. the~ more P of ~uplib~d prog~ming on the Los Angeles stations due to our compliance with ~cC'~Program exclusivity rules. ' - · ~ W~¢p~c~0 accOmplish the channel realignment~~lessly-as pOssl,ble', but h~pe y~ URCe~tand it is a technical necessity in ord~ t~crCate the new Das,c serv,ce for customers of limited viewing intere~t ~~~~mic~eans. , ' · ~ ' r d~ cus mers w~th the As always, Warners Bakersfield st~,s~~~~" ~m. ' ..~ . , . . ...... vice ~ossibl~.We~e~ev~t~~'~'~ges Wilkh~s to meet ~ ni~ n s~ qua,~y caD~e se~p u,~,,~., ~ ~~:~. , ~ ~ . ~, ge . ~ -' ,¢. ~ ?ese g~ls. '.'.. % ~~r' ~. '; ' ~Gener~an~e VICE MAYOR REFERRAL (PROPOSED ORDINANCES ONLY) DATE OF REFERRAL: April 24, 1990 REFERRED TO: Urban Development (Jack Hardisty) ITEM: (Proposed) An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield Repealing Section 10.44.010 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code Relating to Vehicles Prohibited in Central Traffic District. BACKUP MATERIAL ATTACHED: Yes STATUS: To Council Committee on Committee Report No. Sent to Council on Public Hearing on Ordinance Adopted (date) Proposed Ordinance Canceled (date) Other cc: Carol Williams Mary Ellen Gonzales REFER4-90 JP .... MEMORANDUM April 6, 1990 ~~l~~%J~. ~: Vice Mayor Ken Peterson ~'"~ Cl~ MANA~Ds OFFICE Arthur J. Saalfield, City Attorney ~-"~ . ~OM: S~JE~: ~FE~' OF PROPOS~ O~IN~CE ~P~NG SE~ION 10.44. 010 OF ~ B~SFI~ ~CIP~ CODE ~~NG ~ ~ICLES PROHIBI~ IN C~ ~FIC DIS~ICT. Please refer the following proposed ordinance to whichever committee you deem appropriate: 1) VEHICLES PROHIBITED IN CENTRAL TRAFFIC DISTRICT. Background: This ordinance repeals a section of the Bakersfield Municipal Code which prohibits certain vehicles in the central traffic district between 8 am and 6 pm any day, provided signs giving notice of the restrictions have been posted and maintained. These provisions were enacted in 1944 but, apparently, the'required signs were never posted and the section has never been enforced, at least in the memory of any present staff. Further, the restrictions are of doubtful validity as they do not conform to California Vehicle Code provisions. The Public Works Director and Traffic Engineer recommend repeal of Section 10.44.010. Thank you. AJS/meg ORD-REFERRAL VEH-PROH.MEM Attachment cc: J. Dale Hawley Ed Schulz Steve Walker DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OFT HE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD REPEALING · SECTION 10.44.010 OF THE BAKERS- FIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VEHICLES PROHIBITED IN CENTRAL TRAFFIC DISTRICT. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Section 10.44.010 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the City Charter provisions and shall become effective 'thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. o0o I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED CLARENCE E. MEDDERS MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: ARTHUR J. SAALFIELD CITY ATTORNEY of the City of Bakersfield AJS/meg REPEAL VEH-PROH.ORD 2/20/90