Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJAN - MAR 1967Bakersfield, California, January 3, 1967 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Bakers£ield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at eight o clock P.M. January 3, 1967. The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Ralph Bolick of National Parks Ministry. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Rucker, Stiern, Whirremote Absent: Councilman Hosking Minutes of the regular meeting of December 27, 1966 were approved as presented. Council Statements. Councilman Whittemore said he was very much disturbed about an article in today's Bakersfield Californian which was headed "Woman Sues in City Sale of her Property", and he proceeded to read the article to the Council. Mrs. Mary Norwood has asked the Superior Court to declare invalid a sale in which her property was sold at public auction by Bakersfield Tax Collector Walter W. Smith for non-payment of $95.74 in delinquent property taxes assessed in 1960. Mr. Norwood names as co-defendants Walter Smith, Alma Investment Co., Publix Title Co., Fred Drinkhouse and Leo Goodman, alleging there was fraud and collusion on the part of Drinkhouse and Goodman. Councilman Whittemore said he would like to request that the City Manager, the City Attorney and all of the staff members necessary,conduct a thorough investigation of these allegations and report back to the Council in d~ail. Councilman Stiern asked the City Attorney to clarify the existing situation of only six Councilmen acting on the Council, and what would constitute a quorum and what vote would be necessary to adopt a resolution or ordinance under these conditions. City Attorney Hoagland pointed out that Section 21 of the Charter states a majority of all members shall be a quorum to do business, and that would be a L~inimum of four members. The affirmative vote of a majority of the 284 Bakersfield, California, January 3, 1967 = Page 2 members of the Council shall be necessary to adopt an ordinance or a resolution~ which would be at least four votes of the members present. Mayor Karlen asked what qualifications would be required for the Council to make an interim appointment to fill the vacancy in the Third Ward until such time as a special election is held. City Attorney Hoagland stated the qualifications were the same as those required for a candidate for election, three years in the City and an elector of the Ward he represents. The Council thendiscussed the advisability of making an interim appointment to £ill the vacancy. Allowance of Claims. Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, Rucker, Vouchers Nos. 2311 to 2360 inclusive, seconded by Councilman in amount of $8~901.45~ as audited by the Finance Approval Committee were allowed, and authorization was granted for payment of same. Reception of City Clerk's Certified List of Candidates filing petitions for Nomination for offices of Councilman and Member of the Board of Education to be voted upon at Nominating Municipal Election of February 28, 1967. Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Rucker, the City Clerk's Certified List of C~didates filing petitions for Nomination for offices of Councilman and Member of the Board of Education to be voted upon at the Nominating Municipal Election of February 28, 1967, was received and ordered placed on file. Adoption of Resolution No. 1-67 calling the Nominating Municipal Election for the Office of Councilman in the 2nd, 5th and 6th Wards in the City and an Election of Three Members of the Board of the Bakersfield City School District to be held in the City of Bakersfield on the 28th day of February, 1967, and directing the City Clerk to publish the Notice of Election. Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded 'by Councilman Stiern, Resolution No. 1-67 calling the Nominating Municipal Election for the Office of Councilman in the 2nd, 5th and 6th Wards and an Election of Three Members of the Board of Education of the Bakersfield City Bakersfield, California, January 3, 1967 Page 3 School District to be held in the City of Bakersfield on the 28th day of February, 1967, and directing the City Clerk to publish the Notice of Election, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: Councilman Hosking Adoption of Resolution No. 2-67 and Order establishing Voting Precincts, appointing Precinct Election Officers and establishing fees therefor, and designating polling places for the Nominating Municipal Election, and for the election of Three Members of the Board of Education to be held on the 28th day of February, 1967. Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Rucker, Resolution No. 2-67 and order establishing voting precincts, appointing precinct election officers and establishing fees therefor, and designating polling places for the Nominating Municipal Election, and for the election of three members of the Board of Education to be held on the 28th day of February, 1967, was adopted by tbe following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: Councilman Hosking Appointment of Mr. L. L. Leck Franks as Member of the Citizens Auditorium Committee. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, Mr. L. L. Leck Franks of 2601 Sunset Avenue, was appointed as a member of the Citizens Auditorium Committee for an eight year term expiring January 3, 1975. Letter of Appreciation ordered sent to Mr. James E. Armstrong. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Rucker, a letter of appreciation was ordered sent to Mr. James E. Armstrong, member of the Citizens Auditorium Committee, whose term expired January 3, 1967. 286 Rucker, Bakersfield, California, January 3, 1967 - Page 4 Encroachment Permit granted Ernest N. Oldham for easement encroachment located at 501 - 18th Street. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Encroachment Permit was granted Ernest N. encroachment located at the north edge of municipal services easement between 17th and 18th Streets and "R" and "T" Streets. Hearings. This being the time set for hearing on an application by J. O. Barber to amend Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code by changing the Land Use Zoning from an R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-3-P-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling Automobile Parking - Architectural Design) or more restrictive, zone, for those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield commonly known as 421 to 531 Olive Street, the City Clerk reported this hearing had been duly advertised and posted and notices sent to alii persons as required by the zoning ordinance, and no written protests had been received. At its public hearing held December 7, 1966, the Planning Commission recommended approval to amend the zoning boundaries as outlined above. Mr. Cliff Harding, architect representing the owner, J. O. Barber, stated that they are presenting a design which they believe will satisfy the problems of the neighborhood. The wall surrounding the area will be eight feet in height, it is set back as directed by the Planning Commission, and is coordinated so that it will enhance the neighborhood and be a credit to the area. It will be planted and maintained by an automatic sprinkling system. There is a parking problem in the area and this design will solve the problem as it will allow them to move the cars which are presently parked on the street onto the vacant land behind the block wall. It is not a work area, it is a storage area. When the presentation was made to the Planning Commission, there were 41 signatures on a petition from the neighbors requesting approval of the application. seconded by Councilman Oldham for Bakers£ield, California, January 3, 1967 - Pge 5 Mr. Herman Tenotto of 523 Cypress Street, said he had no opposition to improving the property but he was opposed to the gassy smell, the noise~ dust and the traf£ic hazard caused by the alley being clogged with cars during the day and residents of the neighborhood and the public prohibited from using it. Councilman Stiern said this was a tra£fic control problem~ on both Dracena and Palm Streets near Oak Street, as there is quite a bit of testing of cars in that area, and he believes the traffic authority should be instructed to enforce the speed limits there. Mayor Karlen closed the public hearing at this point~ and after Council discussion, Councilman Stiern said he would like to speak on the application. The last time it came before the Council he was very much opposed to it. Since that time all the unsightly shacks formerly on this property have been removed. This entire area adjacent to Oak Street is an area he is proud o£, because this is an example of what can be done in the way of neighborhood urban renewal by people who care. The people in the area are proud of the relationship among themselves, they have lived harmoniously and are diligently working every day to upgrade the area on their own. In view of this~ he thinks it deserves Council action~ and this propposal with an adequate masonry wall and landscaping will be a distinct asset to the area. The use of this area as a parking lot will make it possible for Mr. Barber to use his property without being offensive to the people in the neighborhood. This proposal represents something that the people can live with which will be an improvement. He then asked Mr. Sceales~ Planning Director~ to outline for the record~ the stipulations which will be imposed on the construction. Mr. Sceales stated that it will require approving the subject plans ~d elevations on file in the Planning Department which includes the following: Bakersfield, California, January 3, 1967 - Page 6 1. Eight foot decorative masonry wall set back 10 feet from Dracena Street and 15 feet from Olive Street 2. Landscaping and water to said landscaping, subject to final approval by the Director of Public Works and the Planning Director $. Curb, Gutter and Sidewalks as per City Ordinance 4. Paving of parking area as per City Ordinance Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, Ordinance No. 1660 New Series amending Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by changing the Land Use Zoning of those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield commonly known as 421 to 531 Olive Street, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent. Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, None Councilman Hosking Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore This being the time set for hearing on an application by Hazal Mathis to amend Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code by changing the Land Use Zoning from an R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) Zone and an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to a C-1-D (Limited Commercial - Architectural Design) or more restrictive Zone, for that certain property located on the east side of Beale Avenue between Jefferson Street and Grace Street, the City Clerk reported that this hearing had been duly advertised and posted and notices sent to all persons as required by the zoning ordinance and no written protests had been received. At its public hearing held December 7, 1966, the Planning Commission recommended approval to amend the zoning boundaries as outlined above. Councilman Balfanz stated that this is in her ward, and part of it is already zoned C-1. She has not received any calls on it, so evidently none of the neighbors are in opposition to it. Bakersfield, California, January 3, 1967 - Page 7 289 Dr. Marion Barnard of 2121 Niles Street, stated that this is an area adjacent to a freeway off-ramp. He said they plan to remove all the buildings on the property and are negotiating for the erection of buildings to serve the traveling public. Dr. Stiern asked is this in any way would be considered a hazard to the children at the Jefferson school. Mr. Sceales pointed out that there is a full time school crossing guard at the intersection where the off-ramp intersects Beale, so the traffic would be controlled. Mayor Karlen declared the public hearing closed and after Council discussion, upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Doolin, Ordinance No. 1661 New Series 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 on the east side of Beale Avenue between Jefferson and Grace Street was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: Councilman Hosking This was the time set for hearing on an appeal by the Central Southern Baptist Church to certain aspects of the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment granting a variance of an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to permit the development of Off-Street Parking for an existing church onthat certain property commonly known as 300 Houchin Road. This hearing was duly advertised and posted and notices sent to all persons required by the zoning ordinance. No one being present to represent the church, Mayor Karlen read a letter from the church, signed by L. Dean Lowe, Minister of Music and Religious Education, appealing certain conditions required by the Board of Zoning Adjustment when granting the application. 290 Bakersfield, California, January 3, 1967 - Page 8 Mr. Harold Taber of 310 Houchin Road, stated that the property owners in the area are opposed to the request of the church to have the conditions imposed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment set aside. After discussion, it was learned that the Central Southern Baptist Church, located inthe County, had not been notified of the date of the public hearing, therefore, upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, the hearing was continued for one week and the City Clerk was instructed to notify the Church of this action. Adjournment. There being no further business to come before the Council,. upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Counc:ilman Rucker, tile meeting adjourned at 9:35 P.M. the Cit of rsf --'ehe ATTEST: CITY ~x- ci the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California Bakersfield, California, January 9, 1967 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at eight o'clock P. M. January 9, 1967. Due to the absence of Mayor Karlen, Vice-Mayor Stiern acted as presiding officer. The Vice-Mayor called the meeting to order, followed by 'the Pledge of Allegiance. He then asked for a moment of silence in memory of Grayson who passed away on Saturday, the audience to remain standing former Chief of Police Horace January 7, 1967, after which Invocation was Baptist Church. Minutes of the regular meeting of January approved as presented. given by the Reverend Gordon Gilbert of the University 1967 were Reception of communication from Paul Thompson regarding trash can installation on Chester Avenue. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, communication from Paul Thompson regarding trash can installation on Chester Avenue was received and ordered placed on file. Reception of communication from R. Luttrell opposing proposed tax on cigarettes and cut in business license fees. Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, communication from R. Luttrell opposing proposed tax on cigarettes and a cut in the business license fees was received and ordered placed on file, to be read at hearing on proposed changes in the business license ordinance to be held January 16, 1967. Letter of appreciation ordered sent to Mr. Emmett E. Wilson and Mr. William R. Dolan. Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Rucker, letter of appreciation was ordered sent to Mr. Emmeit E. Wilson, member of the Police Civil Service Commission whose term expired December 31, 1966, and Mr. William R. Dolan, Member of the Civil Service Commission for Miscellaneous Departments, whose term expired December 31, 1966. Bakersfield, California, January 9, 11967 Page 2 Council Statements. Councilman Whittemore asked Director of Public Works Jing regarding the status of the plans for the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of South "H" Street and Planz Road, which were budgeted during the last budget session. Mr. Jing stated that tile plans were almost completed but they had been delayed in negotiating for right-of-way on the southewest corner of the intersection. Councilman Rucker stated that the Reverend Julius Brooks had moved from the City and resigned as a Member of the Inter-Group Relations Board. He therefore made a motion to appoint the Reverend Berry Minor, 626 Butte Street, to fill out Reverend Brooks' unexpired term. Councilman Doolin seconded the motion. It was moved by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, that a letter of appreciation be sent to the Reverend Julius Brooks for his service on the Inter-Group Relations Board. Reports. City Manager Bergen stated that there would be a detailed report submitted to the Council with the Administrative Report, but he wished to give a report on the sale of property owned by Mrs. Mary Norwood by the City Tax Collector. All the provisions of the state law and city ordinances were followed in this tax sale. The property was sold to the City of Bakersfield on June 30, 1961 (not .June 30, 1966, as the complaint alleges.) The property owner was notified each tax year, or for the last five years, of the delinquent tax, and that it would become the City's property at the end of the fifth year. There was a public auction held, which was published in the Bakersfield Californian on June 8th and June 22nd, 1966. In addition to this legalnotice, Mr.. Smith contacted Mrs. Norwood on several occasions and 'told her verbally of the intended sale, the date, etc. The tax sale was held at the counter of the tax collector's office, four of the staff and six persons from the public attending the sale. The tax of $95.24 was the delinquent tax for the first year for the City of Bakersfield only, in addition to 293 Bakersfield, California, January 9, 1967 - Page 3 taxes levied by the County of Kern. The total amount of delinquent taxes on this property was $2,110.08, which includes the penalties. The tax collecting functions were transferred to the County of Kern in 1962 and next year the City will hold another sale of delinquent property, but after that it will be the responsibility of the County of Kern to conduct these sales. Councilman Whittemore, chairman of the Governmental Efficiency Committee, read a report of a meeting of that Committee held on January 1967, with the members of the Administrative Staff, to consider and evaluate the results of the recent poll conducted by the Administrative Staff relating to the City's pay periods and the employee's payroll deductions. Each permanent employee was asked to state his preference for being paid on the 3rd and 18th of each month as is the current practice, or on every other Friday basis, as was requested by the refuse collector's union. The results of the poll were as follows: Pay period 3rd and 18th 405 Every other Friday 175 Each employee was also asked to state his preference on payroll deductions, whether they preferred deductions of shares in the Employees' Credit Union and United States Savings Bonds as is the current practice, or if they preferred to extend payroll deductions to include Association and Union dues as requested by the Employees' Association and Unions that represent various City employees. The results were as follows: Shares and Bonds 252 Shares, Bonds and Employees' Association and Union Dues 312 After careful consideration, the GEC would make the following recommendations: 1.The City's present policy of paying City employees on the 3rd and 18th of each month be retained 2. The ordinance relating to payroll deductions be amended to include Employees' Association Memberships and Union dues Bakersfield, California, January 9, 1967 - Page 4 mailed to all L. Dean Lowe, the Church. The Governmental Efficiency Committee would also recommend that the ordinance require each employee to reaffirm his desire to have these payroll deductions on an annual basis, as payroll deductions are strictly on a voluntary basis and an employee may terminate these deductions at any time he chooses. Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Rucker, the report was accepted and approved. Allowance of Claims. Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Rucker, Vouchers Nos. 2361 to 2447, inclusive, in amount of $82,602.75, as audited by the Finance Approval Committee, were allowed, and authorization was granted for payment of same. Acceptance of bid of James F. Smith for construction of a Restroom-Storage Building at Lowell Park. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, low bid of James F. Smith, in amount of $12,831.74, was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Continued Hearing. This being the time set for continued hearing on an appeal by the Central Southern Baptist Church to certain aspects of a variance granted by the Board of Zoning Adjustment of an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to permit the development of Off-Street Parking for an existing church on that certain property commonly known as 300 Houchin Road, the City Clerk reported that notices advising of the continued hearing were persons in the area and to the Reverend Carlton Ellis and Minister of Music and Religious Education, representing The City Clerk read a communication from the Central Southern Baptist Church appealing the following conditions enacted by the Board of Zoning Adjustment when granting the variance: Six foot masonry wall starting at a point 15 feet west of the rear property line to a point 25 feet from the front property line on Houchin Road, then a 4 foot masonry wall from said 25 foot setback line to front property line to be constructed Bakersfield, California, January 9, 1967 - Page 5 of the Church 25 foot landscaped setback from Houchin Road, as per "P" zoning requirements L. Dean Lowe, Minister of Music and Religious stated that he had no other comments to make, Education, that he a motion thought the letter stated the position of the church. Upon by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Rucker, the letter was received and ordered placed on file. Mr. W. R. Hurt, stated that the church has been a big improvement to the area, and the fence they are proposing in place of the masonry wall is an attractive one, used by many residences around town. The use of this type of fence has proved satisfactory in many areas. Mr. and Mrs. Harold Taber of 310 Houchin Road, stated they represented approximately six property owners in the area, and they were not opposed to the parking lot requested by the church, but did object to any variance from the Code. They do not feel that a grape stake fence or a chain link fence would be adequate or attractive for a parking lot in this area. In order to maintain the present atmosphere of the neighborhood, Mrs. Taber feels that the Code should be strictly adhered to. Also, the 25 foot setback should be maintained as all the homes in the area have this setback. In rebuttal, Mr. Hurt said to build this fence would cost approximately $3,000.00, an expense to the church which they had not planned for at this time, as they are in debt for some relatively new buildings. This will mean the difference between immediately clearing, fencing and utilizing the lot and waiting quite some time to absorb this expense. Mr. Martin Valentine, a member of the church, stated that the reason they needed the parking lot was because of the widening of "H" Street and acquisition of part of their property by the State. Bakersfield, California~ January 9, 1967 Page 6 Vice-Mayor Stiern closed the hearing to public comment and opened it to Council discussion. Members of the Council were sympathetic to the Church and wished to cooperate with them~ but also felt that the wishes of long-time residents in the area should be observed regarding the construction of the masonry wall and the 25 foot setback. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, Zoning Resolution No. 200 granting variance of the Land Use Zoning Ordinance of the City of Bakersfield affecting that certain property as hereinafter described and zoned as R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to permit the development of Off-Street Parking for an existing church on that certain property commonly known as 300 Houchin Road pursuant to the conditions set forth in the decision of the Board o~ Zoning Adjustment, was adopted by Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz~ Doolin~ Noes: Councilman Rucker Absent: None the following vote: Hosking, Stiern~ Whittemore Adoption of Resolution No. 3-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Kern to permit the County Clerk to render speci£ied services to said City relating to the conduct of the Nominating Municipal Election to be held on February 28, 1967. Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, Resolution No. 3-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Kern to permit fhe County Clerk to render specified services to conduct of the Nominating Municipal Election 1967~ Ayes: Noes: Absent: was adopted by the following vote: Councilmen Balfanz~ Doolin~ Hosking~ None None said City relating to the to be held on February Rucker~ Stiern~ Whittemore Bakersfield, California, January 9, 1967 - Page 7 Adoption of Resolution No. 4-67 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield calling a special election for the Office of Councilman in the Third Ward to be held in the City of Bakersfield on the 11th day of April, 1967, and directing the City Clerk to publish the Notice of Election. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Whirremote, Resolution No. 4-67 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield calling a special election for the Office of Councilman in the Third Ward to be held in the City of Bakersfield on the 11th day of April, 1967, and directing the City Clerk to publish the Notice of Election, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: None Adoption of Resolution No. 5-67 and Order establishing Voting Precincts, appointing Precinct Election Officers and establishing fees therefor, and designating polling places for the Special Election in the Third Ward to fill a vacancy on the Council, to be held on the 11th day of April, 1967. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, Resolution No. 5-67 and Order establishing Voting Precincts, appointing Precinct Election Officers and establishing fees therefor, and designating polling places for the Special Election in the Third Ward to fill a vacancy on the Council, to be held on the 11th day of April, 1967, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whirremote Noes: None Absent: None First reading of An Ordinance amending Section 11.04.620 (a) and (b) (One-Way Streets and Alleys Established) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield. First reading was considered given to An Ordinance amending Section 11.04.620 (a) and (b) (One-Way Streets and Alley Established) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield. 29S Bakersfield, California, January 9, 1967 - Page 8 Date of hearing set on appeal by Fred Gooch to decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment granting his application for a modification of an R-2 (Two Family Dwelling) Zone to permit the construction of a carport with reduction of the side yard setback on that certain property commonly known as 314 "E" Street, subject to the construction of sidewalks and paved driveway to City standards. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, date of January 30, 1967, was set for hearing before the Council on an appeal by Fred Gooch to decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment granting his application for a modification of an R-2 (Two Family Dwelling) Zone to permit the construction of a carport with reduction of the side yard setback on that certain property commonly known as 314 "E" Street, subject to the construction of sidewalks and a paved driveway to City standards. Date of hearing set on appeal by Mr. & Mrs. P.M. Pallesen, and Mr. & Mrs. B. G. Hankins, to decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment granting application by Samuel Earl Patterson for a variance to permit the operation of an on-sale beer establishment on that certain property in the City of Bakersfield commonly known as 2606 Brundage Lane. Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Doolin, date of January 30, 1967 was set for hearing before the Council on an appeal by Mr. & Mrs. P.M. Pallesen, 95 Spruce Street and Mr. & Mrs. B. G. Hankins, 101 Spruce Street, to decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment granting application by Samuel Earl Patterson requesting a variance of a C-1 (Limited Commercial) Zone to permit the operation of an on-sale beer establishment on that certain property in the City of Bakersfield commonly known as 2606 Brundage Lane. Date set for hearing before the Council on initiated action by the Planning Commission to amend the Zoning Boundaries for those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield located southerly of Route 178 Freeway fronting on Niles and Monterey Streets between Tulare and Stockton Streets. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman Hosking, date of January 30, 1967, was set for hearing before the Council on initiated action by the Planning Commission to amend the zoning 299 Bakersfield~ California, January 9, 1967 - Page 9 boundaries from an R-2 (Two Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) or more restrictive, Zone, from an R-2 (Two Family Dwelling) Zone and a C-1 (Limited Commercial) Zone to a C-2-D (Commercial - Architectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone; from an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) Zone to a C-2-D (Commercial - Architectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone; and from a C-1 (Limited Commercial Zone to an M-1-D (Light Manufacturing - Architectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone, for those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield located southerly of Route 178 Freeway fronting on Niles and Monterey Streets between Tulare and Stockton Streets. Approval of Plans and Specifications for Traffic Signal and Street Lighting System at the intersection of 17th Street and Eye Street. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, plans and specifications for traffic signal and street lighting system at the intersection of 17th Street and Eye Street were approved, and authorization was granted to advertise for bids. Councilman Hosking suggested that the Traffic Authority make a report on the dangerous intersection at Truxtun and Oak Street relative to signals. The City Manager stated that prior to the Pierce annexation, that portion of Oak Street was not in the City, that the grade separation over the Santa Fe Tracks presents a problem in signalizing this intersection, as some kind of warning must be worked out on the overhead when the signal is red. The staff will evaluate it and present a report at budget time. Acceptance of Grant of Easement from Charles L. and Ramona A. Wren for access along the southerly extension of Monitor Street to Pacheco Road. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Council- man Doolin, Grant of Easement from Charles L. and Ramona A. Wren, for access along the southerly extension of Monitor Street to Pacheco Road was accepted. 3OO Bakersfield, California, January 9, 1967 Page 10 Mrs. Helen Lee, Board, asked for permission to speak, which was granted by the She stated that absenteeism has hampered the work of the Board requested each Councilman to contact his appointee regarding attendance at the monthly meetings of the Board. Hearings. This was the time set for hearing any and all persons having any objections to Report and Assessment List for Weed Abate- ment filed in the City Clerk's office. The City Clerk read a Report from the Superintendent of Streets covering Phase I and Phase II of the 1966 Weed Abatement program. No protests or objections having been received, upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, the Weed Assessment List was confirmed and the Report was approved. This was the time set for hearing on the initiated action by the Planning Commission to amend the zoning boundaries from a C-2-D (Commercial - Architectural Design) Zone to an R-4-D (Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone, and to a C-1-D (Limited Commercial Architectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone, for that certain property located west of and adjacent to Dana Street, between Christmas Tree Lane and University Avenue. This hearing was a result of a petition submitted to the Council by residents and property owners of the neighborhood re- questing rezoning o£ this area. Mr. Taylor Knight, 2807 Christmas Tree Lane, stated that he owned the apartments at the north end of the area proposed to be rezoned. That he is in favor of the rezoning but he thinks it should be R-3 rather than R-4. He does not believe that Dana Street, being a narrow street, can support the traffic which the proposed development will put on the street. chairman of the Inter-Group Relations Council. and 301 Bakersfield, California, January 9, 1967 Page 11 Dr. and Mrs. Harry Tyerman, 2501 Christmas Tree Lane, state that their home is on the corner of Dana Street, and they are very much concerned with the student housing proposed to be constructed adjacent to their property. They are also in favor of rezoning the property R-3 instead of R-4. Planning Director aceales said the Planning Commission had received a recommendation from the Council to study the zoning of this particular property, after having received a petition from about 200 property owners in the area requesting that a study be made of this particular area to consider the feasibility of rezoning back to R-3-D on Dana Street and C-1-D on University Avenue. The commission held hearings on the matter and this is their recommendation back to the Council, to fezone the area R-4-D and C-1-D. Mr. Charles Elliott, a member of the Charles Howard Company, addressed the Council as a proponent of the rezoning, as recommended by the Planning Commission. He said they felt it would be a gross imposition on them to rezone the property R-3, from an economic aspect, as they had purchased the property when it was C-2, and rezoning it R-4 would be a loss, but it would be compatible with their plans for the area. He said he would like to clarify a point, that the building they have had approved, is a residential multiple unit, it is not a dormitory type building. They have extensive plans for administration and have studied it carefully before having their plans drawn, and it will not place an undue burden on this section of the community. It is a needed installation near the college because so many students are living off campus, and it will put them in a centralized area adjacent to the school. Councilman Whittemore said apparently Mr. Elliott had expended some funds in preliminary planning and studies of this property, and Mr. Elliott stated that his company had expended considerable money prior to coming to the Planning Commission, as they have been at least fifteen months in planning this apartment complex. 3O2 Bakersfield, California, January 9, 1967 - Page 12 Councilman Hosking asked Mr. Hoagland if there wasn't some question of violation of due process clause in this change o£ zoning~ when it had been zoned C-2-D when the Howard Company bought the property. Councilman Hosking and City Attorney Hoagland then dis- cussed the possibility of impairing a vested interest. Mr. Elliott stated that his company expect ultimately to spend up to a half million dollars on this project. This is not a dormitory as such~ each of these apartments will be individual one bedroom units designed in such a manner that three students car~ occupy them, plus a recreation hall, with a generous use of land~ scaping, walks~ etc., so that everything will not be crowded up. They will be using brick retaining walls and partition walls to deaden the sound in between, so that they do not fall into a dormilory category. Mr. Jack Wright, who lives at 4017 Noel Place, stated that he represents the people in the apartments which border on Christmas Tree Lane, Dana Street and Noel Place, and all of them are opposed to the proposed student housing~ as they believe that a traffic hazard will develop~ as there will not be sufficient parking for three students to a unit. He stated they wanted it to be R-3 at the most. Mr. Taylor Knight said the students may be, supervised in the housing complex~ but what they do in the neighborhood is worrying him and he does not want it. He said his main objection is there are two more sites on either side of the proposed student housing for which no plans have been presented. Mr. Don Swiers of 2607 Century Drive, said that Dana Street was purposely left narrow because it would not support heavy traf£ic. People who signed the petition presented to the Council were unaware of the C-2-D zoning and of what could conceivably be built on that property under that type of zoning. He said they were concerned about traffic, concerned about their children who play in the street, and concerned about the students being a burden to the neighbors. Bakersfield, California, January 9, 1967 - Page 13 The Planning Director pointed out that the way the Planning Commission interpreted the ordinance, an R-3 zone would permit the construction of the very same project that is under discussion. The density on the proposed project would fall within the R-3 limitation. Vice-Mayor Stiern said that was his understanding also, but he was not certain that R-3 would be compatible with what the people in the area wanted to live next to. Mr. Swiers said he was inclined to accept the R-3 compromise rather than have it remain C-2-D. Mr. Nathan D. Morrison, who stated he resides at 4011 Noel Place, said what goes on in the apartments is someone else's problem, but the Planning Commission should have considered the size of Dana Street. He hopes there are no children on the street if that many more automobiles are put on it. Councilman Stiern said again he is not certain whether R-3 is going to be better than R-4, in that respect either. Mr. Elliott was then given a chance to offer rebuttal. He said he would like to clarify some of the statements that were made. His company had neglected to inform the public of the exact nature of the plans they have for the basic administration of this project. They did counsel very thoroughly with the people in Santa Barbara, their administrative set-up is based on Santa Barbara's administra- tive code. For their dormitory operation they set up a student constitution which will be binding on the residents of the housing project. They have also talked with the Ford Foundation. The college here felt they could not enter into joint administration of this project under their charter. The student constitution is necessary for the benefit of the students and also their benefit, as owners of the property. Mr. Knight and Dr. Tyerman in rebuttal, again voiced opposition to the proposal to build the student housing in this area. 304 Bakersf~ld, California, January 9, 1967 - Page 14 Vice-Mayor Stiern then closed the public hearing. City Attorney Hoagland said he would advise the Council not to put too restrictive zoning on this area under the circumstances. Councilman Hosking said he had a serious question in his own mind as to precisely what they can do. He therefore made a motion, which was seconded by Councilman Doolin, that the hearing be continued for two weeks, pending an opinion from the City Attorney's office. This is the time set for hearing on the initiated action by the Planning Commission to amend the zoning boundaries from a C-2 (Commercial) Zone and an M-1 (Light Manufacturing) Zone to an M-1-D (Light Manufacturing - Architectural Design) or more res- strictive, Zone, for those certain properties located on Lake Street, easterly of Union Avenue, westerly of Kern Street, southerly of Niles Street and northerly of Kentucky Street. The Planning Commission initiated action to rezone these properties and accordingly recommends that subject properties be rezoned as outlined. Mrs. Kenneth Dawson of 613 Monterey Street stated that she and her husband are in favor of the zone change, as she believes it is a good idea to have an area designated for a speeific use. Mr. Richard Newman of 1709 Camino Primavera, general manager and president of Sparkle Cleaners, stated that he is in favor of this rezoning, as he feels it might be a way to better control certain conditions in the neighborhood. A discussion ensued regarding a freight trucking company in the area and what means could be adopted to control the parking o£ his equipment J.n the street near his terminal. Councilwoman Balfanz said she has had many calls on the matter and it has been a £1agrant abuse of the property. Council- man Hosking suggested that the matter be brought to the attention of the Public Utilities Commission who must have some provision for holding a hearing on whether or not his license should be revoked. 305 Bakersfield, California, January 9, 1967 Page 15 Vice-Mayor Stiern asked the City Attorney if the City had any legal recourse and Mr. Hoagland said he would hesitate to say that the matter can be resolved in the absence of any ordinance controlling it. This rezoning will prevent a recurrence in the future, but it will not operate retroactively. He suggested that the Public Utilities Commission would have some control and perhaps should be contacted. Vice-Mayor Stiern declared the public hearing closed. It was then moved by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Rucker, that Ordinance No. 1662 New Series amending Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by changing the Land Use Zoning of those certain properties located on Lake Street, easterly of Union Avenue, westerly of Kern Street, southerly of Niles Street and northerly of Kentucky Street, be adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern Whittemore Noes: None Absent: None Vice-Mayor Stiern said he would request the staff to contact the Public Utilities Commission regarding this problem and report back to the Council at its earliest convenience. Adjournment. There being no further business to come before this Council, upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Rucker, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 P.M. VICE-MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield, Cali£. ATTE ST: CIT anu~x-Officlo Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California 306 Bakersfield, California, January 16, 1967 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M. January 16, 1967. The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Norman Callaway of Wesley Methodist Church. Present: Absent: The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Mayor Karlen. Stiern, None Minutes Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Whittemore of the regular meeting of January 9, 1967 were approved as presented. Reception of Notice of Meeting of South San Joaquin Division League of California Cities. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, Notice of a Meeting of the South San Joaquin Division of tile League of California Cities to be held on Friday, January 27, 1967, was received and ordered placed on file. Council Statements. Councilman Hosking stated that in his opinion the ordinance regulating the collection of refuse should be amended, and asked the administrative staff to make a report to the Council on the matter. City Manager Bergen stated that a proposed ordinance had already been prepared and would be submitted to the Council for its consideration. He said they had been aware for some time that the ordinance was ambiguous in some areas and did not cover others. Mayor Karlen commented on his trip to Washington, stating that this area has probably one of the most highly soughtaafter Congressmen on Capitol Hill. He is a national and international figure and the City has a very prominent young man as its representative in Congress. Bakersfield, California, January 16, 1967 Page 2 Reports. At this time the City Clerk read a report from H. E. Bergen, City Manager, on the subject of Bakersfield Cable Television installation charge~ also a letter from Henry R. Goldstien~ vice president of Bakersfield Cable TV., Inc., apprising the Council of the position of the Company relating to the question of providing cable TV service to seven or eight downtown business firms. Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Rucker, the report and communication were received and ordered placed on file. Councilman Whittemore said he had several comments to make relative to the franchise granted Bakersfield Cable TV. When they were bidding on the franchise, they were directing their proposal to the residents of the City. There are no exceptions set out in the franchise, it was the intent ofthe Council that the service-be ex~nded to, the entire City of Bakersfield. This company has a one hundred thousand dollar performance bond posted and the City Council is entitled to call that bond if they so desire, as the completion date was August, 1966. He said he thinks it is important that the Council~sists on compliance with the terms of t~e franchise, requesting service, and under no conditions drop as a transmission line from the end of that they service everyone can they define a service their service clear into the downtown area. That is a transmission line, it is not a service drop and the subscribers are not required to pay for that transmission line. Councilman Hosking said he seconded Councilman Whittemore's remarks. At the time the hearing was held on the award of the bids, he was present, not as a Councilman but as a lawyer representing an unsuccessful bidder, and as he recalled the proceedings during the hearing, there was certainly no mention by anyone that there would be any exceptions about the downtown area. If this had been brought out at the hearing, he is sure the Council would have given it great consideration. It was never mentioned at the hearing that the service was only for the residents and not for the businesses in the downtown area. Bakersfield, California, January 16, 1967 - Page 3 Councilman Stiern said he would have to agree with Councilman Whirremote, that he does not recall any stipulation made by the Bakersfield Cable TV that they would service those areas that were easy to service and wouldn't service the ones that were difficult to service. They offered to provide service for the City of Bakersfield and it was in that vein that the City of Bakersfield entered into a contract with them. It may be difficult to supply some areas in the City of Bakersfield, but that is their problem. Councilman Doolin said he agreed that the company should be required to carry out the provisions of the franchise. City Attorney Hoagland said he didn't think it was a question of whether they will or will not serve an area, he thinks it is a question of whether they can charge the commercial establishments for the installations. Their bid proposal~ which became part of the ordinance, sets forth the rates which they would charge. There was no question but each franchise bidder agreed to serve the City, the question is on what basis they would serve the City. There is nothing in the ordinance which defines what their installations are. It states in the ordinance itself, which is part of the bid proposal, that to commercial installations the cost would be labor and materials. It doesn't say what labor, or what materials. Councilman Whittemore said the TV Cable Company was to have obtained pole contracts with the pole corporation which represents the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the Pacific Telephone Company in Bakersfield before they could execute the franchise with the City of Bakersfield, They assured the Council that they could do that when they signed the franchise. It isn't up to the individual businessman in the downtown area to go out and get a pole contract and then pay for the installation of the transmission cable. There is a lot of difference between a transmission cable and a service drop off that cable into a commercial establishment or a home. He said they are trying to get out of making the more expensive installations and skim the ice cream off the top of the bottle. 309 Bakersfield, California, January 16, 1967 - Page 4 It is in their contract that they will service all the business establishments and that is what he expects them to do. There is also a provision that if they don't comply with the terms of the franchise, they will be required to forfeit the franchise. City Attorney Hoagland said if that was the position of the Council, there is a provision in the franchise for holding a hearing in 30 days and he would suggest that they do it. Councilman Hosking said he would suggest that they do it too, and after discussion, made a motion that the Council set a hearing within 45 days on the forfeiture of the franchise, and that the staff be instructed to notify the cable company of the date of the hearing. Councilman Whittemore seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Councilman Stiern asked if it wouldn't be appropriate to discuss at the hearing whether or not the company is going to comply with the terms of the franchise. Councilman Hosking said they should hold the hearing to determine whether they have done the things required and whether the Council can legally require forfeiture of the franchise. Councilman Doolin wanted to know if that would eliminate cable TV, because he does not want to be a party to a situation where there wouldn't be any cable TV for city residents. He had not received any complaints. Councilman Stiern said he was not in favor of that either, that it was simply a hearing, and nothing would be decided until after the hearing was Councilman Doolin said in his mind the hearing would be to see why they are not held. the reason for holding complying with the terms of t~e franchise, because he doesn't want to even consider terminating the franchise and eliminating cable television in the City. Councilman Hosking said that what they were doing in effect was to have an order to show cause against them, why they shouldn't make the commercial installations without charge. 310 Bakersfield, California, January 16, 1967 - Page 5 After discussion, the previous motion was withdrawn, and it was moved by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, that the Council sit as an investigating body and request a repre- sentative of the Cable TV Company to appear before the Council to show cause why they shouldn't make the commercial installations without charge. Date of February 20, 1967 was set for holding the hearing on this matter. The motion carried unanimously. City Manager Bergen was requested to send a letter to the Company notifying them of the hearing. Councilman Samuel Del Rucker, chairman of the Special Committee on Business License Tax and Procedure, read a report submitted by the Committee supplementing report of December 19th~ stating that the Committee would suggest modification of Section 6.20.383 of the Municipal Code which requires an annual license fee of $25.00 for persons engaged in the business of installing or repair- ing scales or pumps, as the Committee feels this license fee is un- necessary, particularly since the contractor is already governed un- der the Gross Receipts Schedule. The Committee believes that the Business License Tax is too high, and in order to cut the Gross Receipts Schedule by fifty percent, it is essential that the City find an alternate source of revenue, therefore, the Committee is recommending a cut by fifty per cent in the Business License Tax on Gross Receipts, with the loss in revenue to be offset by the adoption of a cigarette tax. The Committee also requested the Council to endorse its suggestion that a member of the Auditor-Controller Staff be sent to Sacramento for a few days on an annual basis to audit records of the State Board of Equalization to insure that the Board's apportionment records are in order and the City of Bakersfield has received full credit on its share of sales tax revenue. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Doolin, the report was received and ordered placed on file. Bakers£ield, California~ Councilman Stiern then stated January 16, 1967 - Page 6 that he thinks the work that the Committee has done is commendable, he agrees with them in their desire to cut the business license tax which is a project long overdue, and in some instances it is exorbitantly high, but he does not feel that the way to offset the loss of revenue is to impose a tax which whould be unfair to the merchants of the City, since there is no such tax outside the city limits. He said he had no desire to forestall discussion by the public or anyone else, and would listen to anyone who wished to speak during the scheduled hearing on this matter, but would like to offer a motion to table the consideration to establish a cigarette tax, to refer the matter back to Committee for consideration and study, with the stipulation that there be a public hearing if it is reconsidered and taken off the table. Councilman Doolin seconded the motion, stating that he heartily agrees with Mr. Stiern. He also agreed with the Committee that the business license should be cut~ for i£ this is done~ it would encourage additional businesses to come into the City, which would offset the loss in revenue. Also, the City Manager has indicated there has been and increase in the sales tax which would make up for a cut in the business license. If the cigarette tax were adopted, it would only send purchasers into the county, and result in a loss of sales tax. Councilman Hosking said this motion is not debatable, but Re would like to remark that he agrees with both o£ the Councilmen and he couldn't in good conscience vote for a cigarette tax tonight. Councilman Rucker said his intent was to think in terms of the burden placed on businesses by the high business license~ and perhaps the cigarette tax is not the answer, but the Committee felt that the City should adopt the tax before the State entered into it. Councilman Whittemore said businesses outside the City have opposed annexation because of the high business license tax in the City~ so something has to be done to reduce the tax in order to attract business into Bakers£ield. There is reasoning behing the 312 Bakersfield, California, January 16, 1967 - Page 7 recommendation to find a new source of revenue:, and he feels the Council should be in a position, that should the State Legislature introduce legislation to adopt a cigarette tax, the City of Bakersfield could put the tax before tile people of the City instead of having the greater portion of it go to the State of California. Mayor Karlen said the tax is so discriminatory against the merchants of the City, that he does not think it is a good tax, but he does agree with Councilman Whittmore that should the legislature take action to adopt this type of tax, the Council should moave immediately to endorese the Committee's recommendation. Vote was taken on the motion and carried unanimously. Mayor Karlen stated that since this action had been taken, it would be appropriate to hold the scheduled public hearing on proposed changes in the Business License Ordinance. He asked if there where any proponents present. There were none. Mr. Fred Strickler said he had come to the hearing with a long dissertation opposing the proposed cigarette tax, but since the Council had tabled the proposal, he did not feel it was necessary to go into any discussion at this time. He thanked the Council for its action. Councilman Stiern called attention to the fact that the motion stipulated that a public hearing will be held if the matter is taken off the table at a later date. He then moved that the hearing be closed~ Allowance of Claims. Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Council- man Rucker, Vouchers Nos. 2448 to 2559 inclusive, in amount of $14,418.57, as audited by th~ Finance Approval Committee, were allowed, and authorization was granted for payment of same. Acceptance of Bid of Valley International Truck Sales for 25,000 G.V.W. Cab and Chassis. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Council- woman Balfanz, bid of Valley International Truck Sales to furnish 25,00 lb. G.V.W. Cab and Chassis for a net price of $4,387.22 was accepted and all other bids were rejected. 31.3 Bakersfield, California, January 16, 1967 - Page 8 Adoption of Ordinance No. 1663 New Series amending Section 11.04.620 (a) and (b) (One-Way Streets and Alleys Established) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield. Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Rucker, Ordinance No. 1663 New Series amending Section 11.04.620 (a) and (b) (One-Way Streets and Alleys Established) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whirremote Noes: None Absent: None Approval of Letter Agreement with California Water Service Company for installation of water main to fire station in Akers Road. Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Council- man Doolin, letter agreement with California Water Service Company for installation of water main to fire station in Akers Road was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. First reading of an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amend- ing Sections 3.36.030 and 3.36.031 of Chapter 3.36 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield. At this time first reading was given to an ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Sections 3.36.030 and 3.36.031 of Chapter 3.36 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield providing for certain payroll deductions. Action on request for Leave of Absence from Alice Burton, Cashier- Receptionist, deferred to be taken up in Executive Session at end of Agenda. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern; seconded by Council- man Hosking, action on request for Leave of Absence from Alice Burton, Cashier-Receptionist at the Civic Auditorium, was deferred, to be taken up in Executive Session at end of Agenda. Bakersfield, California, January 16, 1967 - Page 9 Approval of Change Order No. 1 for the Construction of Fire Station No.7, located at Akers Road and Serrano Drive Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman Stiern, Change Order No. 1 to Joe B. King, in amount of $328.00 for construction of Fire Station No. 7, located at Akers Road and Serrano Drive was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. Hearings. This being the time set for hearing protests by persons owning real property within territory designated as "Union Cemetery No. 2", proposed to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield, the City Clerk reported that this hearing had been duly advertised and notices sent to all owners of property in the area and no written protests have been received. No other protests or objections being received, the public hearing was closed, and upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, Resolution No. 6-67 declaring that a majority protest has not been made to the annexation of territory designated as "Union Cemetery No. 2", proposed to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: None Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman Hosking, Ordinance No. 1664 New Series approving annexation of a ]par- cel of uninhabited territory to the City of Bakersfield, California, designated as "Union Cemetery No. 2", and providing for the taxation of said territory to pay the bonded indebtedness of said City was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: None Bakersfield, California, January 16, 1967 - Page l0 the proper form. motion. Council Recesses for Personnel Session at 9:20 P.M. At this time the council recessed for personnel session to consider request for leave of absence by Alice Burton, .Cashier- Receptionist at the Civic Auditorium. Council Reconvenes at 10:10 P.M. The Council reconvened and the City Manager was asked for his recommendation on the request for leave of absence. He stated thai there seemed to be some misunderstanding on the part of Mrs. Burton regarding the procedure for applying for a leave and he would recommend that one week's leave of absence so that she may submit a request in the proper manner. by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Hosking, seven day's leave of absence was granted Mrs. Burton to submit her request in Councilman Whittemore voted in the negative on this of absence, be granted Upon a motion Adjournment. There being no further business to come before this Council, upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Rucker, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M. MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield, Calif. ATTEST: CITY CL~a~d' c Council of the City of Bakersfield, the California Bakersfield, California, January 23, 1967 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at ~ight o'clock P.M. January 23, 1967 The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Paul D Mangum of the First Nazarene Church. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Absent: None Minutes of the regular meeting of January i[6, 1967 were approved as presented. Progress Report submitted by the Ecomonic Development Committee of the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Art Masters, chairman, presented a progress report of the activities o£ the Economic Development Committee and Department of the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce since its last report to the City Council in April of 1966. Mayor Karlen thanked Mr. Masters and Councilman Doolin commented that it was an excellent report. Councilman Whittemore told Mr. Masters that he appreciated the report, and he knows that the Committee has been very active and successful. He also said theft he believes the entire community appreciates the opportunity to hear the report over the air and learn of the activities of the Committee. Request from Philana Junior Women's Club for permission to erect an eternal flame with monument in front of the Bakersfield City Hall referred to the Civic Auditorium Committee for study and recommendation. Mrs. Richard Anderson read a communication from the Philana Junior Women's Club requesting the consideration of the City Council in the erection of an eternal flame with monument in front of the City Hall, which is dedicated to the American servicemen from Kern County who have died for their country on foreign soil. After dis- cussion, upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman B17. Bakersfield, Cal±fornia, January 23, 1967 - Page 2 Whittemore, the request was referred to the Civic Auditorium Committee for study and recommendation. Gift of Garden Lantern from City of Wakayama to be placed somewhere on the City Hall grounds, referred to the Civic Auditorium Committee for recommendation. Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, gift of Japanese stone garden lantern being sent to the City from the City of Wakayama with the request that it be placed somewhere on the grounds of the City Hall,was referred to the Civic Auditorium Committee for recommendation. Public Works Department authorized to make arrangements to pick up Japanese Garden Lantern in San Pedro. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Hosking, the Public Works Department was authorized to make arrangements to pick up the Japanese Stone Garden Lantern when it arrives in San Pedro. Mayor Karlen was requested to accept the gift and send a letter of thanks and appreciation to the Mayor of Wakayama. Council Statements. Councilman Hosking said he wished to comment in regard to the problem with the cable television company. In re-reading the ordinance, he finds that the City has a non-exclusive franchise with this company, and he believes the staff should inquire whether the other cable tv companies might be interested in entering into competition with them. It is something the Council should consider. City Manager Bergen said he believes the Bakersfield Cable TV Company is aware of this fact, because it was very clearly pointed out to them when the franchise was awarded. Councilman Hosking said it wasn't a question of whether they were aware of it, he would like to know whether another cable company would be interested at all. Mayor Karlen asked City Attorney Hoagland if he had any comment to make. Mr. Hoagland said the poles in the Cit~f are owned by the P.G. & E. and the Telephone Company and they will only authorize one line. Bakersfield, California, January 23, 1967 - Page 3 Mayor Karlen said he had a couple of comments to make. First, they should know how many Council and staff members were attending the Association of Kern County Cities Meeting on Thursday, which is being held at the Hill House. Also, they should know how many are attending the Southern San Joaquin Division of the League of California Cities meeting in Selma on Friday night. He asked that the administrative office be informed so that proper arrangements can be made. He stated that he wanted to make a request to the Govern- mental Efficiency Committee to arrange a meeting as soon as feasible to discuss the secretarial services for the Mayor. A determination should be made as to what is desired, as the City Charter states it in terms that are somewhat vague. He asked that he and the City Clerk be given an opportunity to appear before the Committee to discuss the matter. Mayor Karlen asked the Council to look over a revised pro- posal from Cresap, McCormick and Paget, Management Consultants, for a study that would encompass the additional steps needed at this time to supplement previous work for a city industrial development program, copy of which he has furnished to each member of the Council. The Mayor also read a communication from this company, stating that he would send copies of the letter out to the Council. Reception of 1966 Annual Report of the Civil Service Commission for Miscellaneous Department. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Council- woman Balfanz, 1966 Annual Report of the Civil Service Commission for Miscellaneous Departments, was received and ordered placed on file. Reception and adoption of Special Ambulance Committee Report. City Attorney instructed to prepare amendment to present ambulance Ordinance. Councilman Doolin, chairman of the Special Ambulance Or- dinance Committee, read a report stating that the Committee has under- taken a complete examination of the present ordinance in an effort to uncover any inequities that could exist. After careful review, the Committee is satisfied that the City's Ambulance Ordinance is Bakersfield, California, January 23, 1967 - Page 4 sound. However, the Committee would recommend that the City Attorney be instructed to draft an amendment to the present ordinance to provide for the establishment of ambulance service rates. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, the report was received and adopted, and the City Attorney was instructed to draft the necessary amendment. Reception of Report No. i from Legislative Committee. City Attorney Hoagland presented Report No. 1 as submitted by the Legislative Committee composed of Councilwoman Kathryn Balfanz and Assistant City Attorney Clayton, urging the Council to go on record in favor of the enactment of Assembly Bill No. 84, which adds Section 12058 to the Elections Code. This makes it; a misdemeanor for a candidate, or person on the candidate's behalf, to place campaign posters or signs on private property without the consent of the owner or person entitled to legal custody of the property. The legislative proposal directs law enforcement officers to remove unauthorized pos- ters or signs upon request of the property owner, and imposes cost for on the persons responsible for the unauthorized placing of the removal sign. After Council discussion, it was moved by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman Stiern, that the report be received and placed on file and no action taken at this particular time. Acceptance of recommendations of the Recreation Committee relative to the use of City Swimming Pools by the Kern County Joint Union High School District. The City Clerk read a report of the Recreation Committee recommending that the City Council allow the Kern County Joint Union High School District and Junior College District to use the six City swimming pools without a rental fee, providing the School District allows the City's Recreation Division to conduct the recreation pro- grams at the School District's facilities with the same supervision and custodial services that were provided during the past. However, 320 Bakersfield, California, January 23, 1967 - Page 5 should the District levy the 5~ override tax for community services, this arrangement would be re-negotiated. In making this recommendation, the Committee would like to reiterate what it has stated many times in the past, that it feels the County of Kern is not meeting its responsibilities in the area of recreation. Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, the recommendations of the Recreation Committee were accepted, and the report was received and ordered placed on file. Acceptance of recommendations of the Recreation Committee relative to salary increases for part time recreation personnel. The City Clerk read a report of the Recreation Committee on a meeting held today with members of the Administrative Staff to consider the request from the Auditorium-Recreation Department's request relative to salary increases for part time recreation personnel. After inspecting the proposed hourly increase for various classifications for the part time recreation personnel, the Committee recommends increases as specified, effective February 1, 1967 Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Rucker, the recommendations of the Recreation Committee were approved, to become effective February 1, 1967, and the City Attorney was instructed to prepare the necessary amendment to the salary ordinance for action on next week's Council Agenda. Allowance of Claims. Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, ~econded by Councilwoman Balfanz, Vouchers Nos. 2560 to 2698 inclusive, in amount of $71,351.44, as audited by the Voucher Approval Committee, were allowed, and authorization was granted for payment of same. Continued Hearings. This was the time set for continued hearing in regard to a motion by the Planning Commission to amend Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code by changing the Land Use Zoning of that certain property bounded on the north by Christmas Tree Lane, on the south by University Avenue, on the east by Dana Stree~ and on the west by Mr. Vernon Avenue, from a C-2-D (Commercial - Architectural Design) Zone to an R-4-D (Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Bakersfield, California, January 23, 1967 - Page 6 323 Design) or more restrictive, Zone, and to C-1-D (Limited Commercial- Architectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone. This hearing was continued fmom meeting of January 9, 1967, at which time the public portion of the hearing was closed for Council discussion and deliber- ation. A communication opposing the proposed student housing received from W. Homer Teesdale was not read, as the Council agreed that the public portion of the hearing had been closed. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Stiern, the communication was received and ordered placed on file. Councilman Stiern, who had conducted the hearing on January 9, 1967 in the absence of Mayor Karlen, reminded the Council that the matter had involved a legal question and had been referred to the City Attorney for an opinion to be taken into consideration at this continued hearing. Mayor Karlen read the City Attorney's opinion requested by the Council regarding the Zone Change on Dana Street property, in which a number of cases were cited the fact that the company has sold perry does not alter the situation. and the City Attorney stated that its apartments built on this pro- It may very well be their inten- tion after development of the entire property to sell the remainder. Whether the company sells their property after development or not has no bearing on the fact that in reliance on the zoning they are fellow- ing a plan pursuant to which they have expended large sums including actual construction costs. In conclusion, he stated it is suggested by this office that a change in zoning without the consent of the property owner could very well subject the City to an inverse con- denmarion suit and damages. Councilman Whittemore said he has had many calls and contacts from people living in the Third Ward within the last week, and he can certainly sympathize with them for not wanting this change. It is not the Council's determination to make this anything but what was proposed as R-4 rather than make it C-2, as whatever they could 324 Bakersfield, California, January 23, 1967 - Page 7 construct under R-4, they could have constructed under the C-2 zoning, therefore, he believes Mr. Hoagland's ruling clarifies the situation for the Council and determines the course they are required to take. Councilman Hosking said he could not vote for an R-3-D zoning as the Council might find itself in difficulties. Councilman Stiern said in the development of the hearing the point that seemed to bother a lot of the people in the area was the high density that would result and the allegations of misconduct on the part of the students who would rent the apartments in the future. The considerations that the Council has to hear are planning considerations, and the points that Mr. Hosking and Mr. Whittemore are talking about are valid, the owner could have developed the pro- petty as a C-2 zone. As far as behavior and conduct in the apartments, this is a police problem rather than a planning problem and is not properly a matter of judgment by the City Council. The rights of the property owner have been pretty well outlined in the City Attorney's interpretation. Mayor Karlen said if the Howard Company had not agreed this proposed zoning, they could have started construction as a C-2 zone. Councilman Hosking commented that if this will be constructed as an area of college housing, it seems to him that the City has police powers to control it, and if it is necessary some special ordinance should be enacted by the Council which would require this property to be used as college housing according to certain norms, then it could probably be approached that way. He stated he has inquired around to see if they have such an ordinance in Santa Barbara and other college towns, and he has been told there are no city ordinances covering this, the housing is tied in to the administrafion of the University. But that is not the case in Bakersfield at this time. There isn't the rapport between the college administration and those property owners who have college housing, to see thai lhis problem is handled not only for the benefit of the general community, but those property owners in the immediate vicinity who are most affected by it. He said it seems to him that some remedy is indicated here. Bakersfield is going to be a college town, with not only the junior college but the proposed four year college, and if something needs 325 Bakersfield, California, January 23, 1967 - Page 8 to be done then the Council should create something that would remedy this situation. Mayor Karlen asked if he was referring to some type of restrictive ordinance, and Councilman Hosking said that was true, one aside from a zoning ordinance. The City has ordinances on how hotels are run~ and how other businesses are run, and something certainly could be worked out on how college housing should be run. This is the remedy these people are asking for. Councilman Rucker said he doesn't think they have any problem yet, maybe they are anticipating trouble in that area which won't develop. Mayor Karlen said he thinks Councilman Hosking is right and it should be referred to an appropriate committee, in anticipation of the need for such an ordinance. Councilman Whirremote then made a motion~ seconded by Councilman Doolin, that the matter of an ordinance to regulate student housing facilities be referred to the Legislative Committee for study and recommendation back to the Council. Councilman Whittemore said in view of the City Attorney's opinion and with the consent of the owners of the property, the Council has no other course to take, and he moved adoption o£ Ordinance No. 1666 New Series amending Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by changing the Land Use Zoning of that certain property bounded on the north by Christmas Tree Lane, on the south by University Avenue, on the east by Dana Street and on the west by Mr. Vernon Avenue. Councilman Hosking seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whirremote Noes: None Absent: None 326 Bakersfield, California, January 23, 1967 - Page 9 Denial of Request for Leave of Absence by Alice Burton, Employee of the Auditorium-Recreation Department. At this time the Council discussed a request for Leave of Absence by Alice Burton, Employee of the Auditorium-Recreation Department, which had been deferred from last week's meeting. Mayor Karlen read a memorandum from City Manager H.E. Bergen in which he brought out that pursuant to the Municipal Code, Mr. Graviss had granted Mrs. Burton a ten day's leave of absence, and he had approved an extension of 30 days, and that Mr. Graviss had recommended denial leave of absence. Mr. absence is a privilege of the request for an additional six week's Bergen stated that in his opinion a leave of and a right of an employee and should be granted on sufficient grounds. In view of Mrs. Burroh's short period of employment with the city and record during that time, he stated he would concur with Mr. Graviss and recommend that no additional leave of absence be granted. Mayor Karlen then read Mrs. Burton's letter dated January' 18, 1967, addressed to Mr. Graviss, requesting a six week's leave ef absence, stating that she is still under the care of her physician, and is the approximate length of time recommended by her doctor that she will need to recuperate from her accident. After discussion, it was moved by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman Doolin, that the recommendation of the City Manager be denied and the six week's leave of absence be granted. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Doolin, Rucker Noes: Councilmen Balfanz, Hosking, Stiern, Whittemore Absent: None Mr. Howard Dallimore, General Manager of the Bakersfield City Employees' Association, asked Mr. Hoagland if this in essence eliminated Mrs. Burton's position. City Attorney Hoagland replied that he assumes her position will be terminated because of being physically incapacitated to do the work. Bakersfield, California, January 23, 1967 - Page 10 Mr. Dallimore then asked if she will be entitled to a hearing before the Civil Service Commission, and Mr. Hoagland re- plied in the affirmative. Adoption of Ordinance No. 1665 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Sections 3.36.030 and 3.36.031 of Chapter 3.36 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, Ordinance No. 1665 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Sections 3.36.030 and 3.36.031 of Chapter 3.36 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: None Mayor Karlen said he would like to bring up a point and have the matter regarding deductions for organizations such as the United Fund, referred to a committee. It would not be a decision suggested by the employees, but a decision of the Council, as a matter of policy. He said he would like to have the opportunity to make a presentation before the Committee that would recommend action on the matter. Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Stiern, the matter was referred to the Governmental Efficiency Committee for study and recommendation. First reading given an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield repealing Section 6.20.383 (Repairing, installing and adjusting weighing and measuring instruments) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield. At this time first reading was given to an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield repealing Section 6.20.383 (Repairing, installing and adjusting weighing and measuring instruments of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield.) 328 Bakersfield, California, January 23, 1967 - Page ll Acceptance of Work for Contract No. 2-67 for Multi-purpose Game Slabs at Siemon Park and at California Avenue Park. Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Council- woman Balfanz, the Work was accepted and the Mayor was authorized to execute the Notice of Completion for Contract No. 2-67 with Joe C. Brown, Inc., covering Multi-purpose Game Slabs at Siemon Park and at California Avenue Park. Acceptance of Work for Contract No. 93-66 for a Storm Drain in Lakeview Avenue between Tenth Street and Potomac: Avenue. Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Council-. man Doolin, the Work was accepted, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the Notice of Completion for Contract No. 93-66 with William H. Schallock~ Inc., for a Storm Drain in Lakeview Avenue between Te. nth Street and Potomac Avenue. Adjournment. There being no further business to come before the Council, upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Rucker, the meeting was adjourned at 10 :06 P.M. MAYOR of the City of Bakersf~ie d ATTEST: C~~ ~ (~ k of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California Bakersfield, California, January 30, 1967 .529 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M. January 30, 1967. The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Frank W. Tolson of the East Bakersfield Church of the Nazarene. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: 'Present: Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Absent: None Minutes of the regular meeting of January 23, 1967 were approved as presented. Request from Musician's Protective Union, Local No. 263, for a more equitable financial arrangement for the summer band concerls, referred to the Recreation Committee for study and recommendation at the time the budget is considered. Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Doolin, request from the Musician's Protective Union, Local No. 263, for a more equitable financial arrangement for the summer band concerts held in Beale Park, was referred to the Recreation Committee for study and recommendation at the time the Recreation budget is considered. Request from teacher intern of University Elementary School at U. C. L. A., for certain information and assistance in conducting a proposed study of Bakersfield, referred to theMayor's office for handling. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Hosking, request from Judy Moulton, teacher intern of University Elementary School at U. C. L.A., for certain information and assistance in connection with a proposed study of Bakersfield as a model of a medium size City and its role in modern United States, was referred to the Mayor's office for handling. Bakersfield, California, January 30, 1967 -Page 2 City Attorney instructed to prepare Resolution ordering the City Clerk to canvass election returns and certify' the results to the Council. Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz~ the City Attorney was instructed to prepare a Resolution ordering the City Clerk to canvass election returns and certify the results to the Council. Council goes on record in favor of proposed amendment contained in Assembly Bill No. 32. Report No. 2 of the Legislative Committee was read, and upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Doolin, the Report was adopted, and legislative representatives are to be informed that the Council is in favor of the proposed amendment contained in Assembly Bill No. 32, which provides for the impounding of vehicles which are believed to have been involved in hit and run accidents. Allowance of Claims. Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Rucker, Vouchers Nos. 2699 to 2793 inclusive, in amount of $22,636.68, as audited by the Finance Approval Committee, were allowed, and authorization was granted for payment of same. Bid Action. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Stiern, low bid of Lyco Chemical Corporation for Annual Contract of Chlorine Compressed Gas was accepted, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, low bid of Cooper's Nursery for Annual Contract for Everyday purchases of Nursery Stock was accepted, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman Hosking, low bid of Colorama Paint Company for Traffic Marking Paints was accepted, and low bid of Deifel's for glass beads and curb marking paint was accepted~ and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Bakersfield, California, January 30, 1967 - Page 3 Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker,seconded by Council- woman Balfanz, low bid of Lyco Chemical Company for Annual Contract for Everyday Purchases of Pool Chemicals was accepted, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Doolin, low bid of Three-Way Chevrolet Company to furnish 18 Class III Automobiles was accepted, and all other bids were rejected. Adoption of Ordinance No. 1667 New Series repealing Section 6.20.383 (Repairing, installing and Adjusting Weighing and Measuring Instruments) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield. Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman Hosking, Ordinance No. 1667 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield repealing Section 6.20.383 (Repairing, Installing and Adjusting Weighing and Measuring Instruments) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: None Adoption of Resolution No. 8-67 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield adopting Plans and Specifications, careful estimates and District Map in the matter of Public Improvement District No. 819 for the con- struction of sidewalks and necessary re- taining walls along Wilson Road, Antonia Way, Dorian Drive and Rosalia Drive between "K" Street and "M" Street. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Council- man Hosking, Resolution No. 8-67 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield adopting Plans and Specifications, Careful Estimates and District Map in the matter of Public Improvement District No. 819 for the construction of sidewalks and necessary retaining walls along Wilson Road, Antonia Way, Dorian Drive and Rosalia Drive between "K" and "M" Street, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: None Bakersfield, California, January 30, 1967 - Page 4 Adoption of Resolution of Intention No. 819 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring its intention to order the construction of Sidewalks and Retaining Walls in t~ City of Bakersfield, describing the District to be benefited by said Work and to be assessed to pay the cost and expense thereof; determining that Bonds shall be issued to represent assess- ments to be levied; and fixing the time and place for hearing protests to said Work and said District and determining the Public Convenience and Necessity require such Improvements. Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, Resolution of Intention No. 819 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring its intention to order the construction of Sidewalks and Retaining Walls in the City of Bakersfield, describing the District to be benefited by said Work and to be assessed to pay the cost and expense thereof; determining that Bonds shall be issued to represent assessments to be levied and fixing eight o'clock P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall on March 13, 1967, as the time and place for hearing protests to said Work and said District, and determining the Public Convenience and Necessity require such improvements, was adopted by the follow- ing vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: None Reception of City Clerk's Certificate of Sufficiency of Petition for Annexation of territory designated as "Benton Park No. 8." Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Council- man Stiern, the City Clerk's Certificate of Sufficiency of Petition for Annexation of that certain territory designated as "Benton Park No. 8", was received and ordered placed on file. Adoption of Resolution No. 7-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring its intention to call a special election in certain inhabited territory contiguous to said City proposed to be annexed thereto, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors residing in said territory the question whether said territory shall be annexed to the City of Bakersfield, and fixing a time and place when and where any person owning real property within such territory may appear before said Council and show cause why such territory should not be so annexed. Bakersfield, California, January 30, 1967 - Page 5 333 Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Council- woman Balfanz, Resolution No. 7-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring its intention to call a special election in certain inhabited territory contiguous to said City proposed to be annexed thereto, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors residing in said territory the question whether said territory shall be annexed to the City of Bakersfield and fixing March 6, 1967 at eight o'clock P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall as the time and place when and where any person owing real property within such territory may appear before said Council and show cause why such territory should not be so annexed,was adopted by the following vote: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking~ Rucker, Stiern, Whirremote Ayes: Noes: None Absent: None Purchasing Division authorized to hold 1967 Sale of Surplus Equipment. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, the Purchasing Division was authorized to sell by bid and auction, the surplus equipment not needed by any City Department. Approval of Step Salary Raises February 1, 1967. Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Doolin, for seconded by Councilman the following step salary raises were approved, effective February 1,1967: Ernest J. Arribillaga Richard L. Choate J.L. Hollett L.E. McNeill Ronda R. Stokes V.G. Unruh Poundmaster 4 to 5 Detective Grade II 4 to 5 Mechanic II 3 to 4 Eng. Draftsman 4 to 5 Clerk Steno II 4 to 5 Firefighter 3 to 4 Acceptance of Street Right-of-Way Deed from Douglas Oil Company for property required for the widening of South "H" Street. Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Rucker~ Street Right-of-Way Deed from Douglas Oil Company for property required for the widening of South "H" Street was accepted. 334¸ Bakersfield, California, January 30, ].967 - Page 6 Hearings. This being the time set for hearing on an appeal by Fred Gooch to decision of theBoard of Zoning Adjustment granting his application for a modification of an R-2 (Two Family Dwelling) Zone to permit the construction of a carport with reduction of the side yard setback on that certain property in the City of Bakersfield commonly known as 314 "E" Street, the City Clerk reported that this hearing had been duly posted and advertised. At its regular meeting of December 27, 1966, the Board of Zoning Adjustment granted approval of the application subject to the construction of sidewalks and a paved driveway to City standards. Mr. Gooch stated he does not want sidewalks or concrete driveway, as it is only a carport costing less than $100.00, and his lawn is too short to cut it off with sidewalks. Also, damage would result to a pecan tree. No one being present to speak either for or against the appeal, upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Hosking, the hearing was continued until February 1.3, 1967. The City Clerk was instructed to notify Mr. Gooch of the Council's action and advise that this had been done to give him an opportunity to appear before the Council and discuss the matter. This being the time set for hearing on an appeal by Mr. and Mrs. P.M. Palleson and Mr. and Mrs. B.G. Hankins to the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment granting application by Samuel Earl Patterson for a variance of a C-1 (Limited Commercial) Zone to permit the operation of an on-sale beer establishment on that certain property in the City of Bakersfield commonly known as 2606 Brundage Lane, the City Clerk reported that this hearing had been duly advertised and posted. Letter of protest has been received from L. Dean Lowe, Minister of Music and Religious Education, of the Central Southern Baptist Church. A petition bearing the names of 29 persons living in the area was also filed in protest to the granting of the variance Bakersfield, California, January 30, 1967 - Page 7 335 At its regular meeting held December 27, 1966, the Board of Zoning Adjustment recommended approval of the application due to the fact that property directly across the street to the south is zoned C-2, which would allow said use and several variances for C-2 uses have been granted in the immediate area. The following persons appeared before the Council requesting that the variance not be granted, due to proximity to their homes which would result in noise as the establishment is not soundproof, increased traffic on Spruce Street, teenagers and children passing the estab- lishment walking to and from school, and it is a City bus stop where women and children could be attacked: Mrs. Myrtle Maple Mr. & Mrs. Donald Robson Robert Rose Molly Parker Bob Twitty Virgil Ray 2730 Brundage Lane 103~ Spruce Street 2706 Brundage Lane 16 Myrtle Street 103 Spruce Street 96 Spruce Street Mr. John Crawford, who is planning explained to the Council that the neighbors' on leasing the building, fears were groundless, that the establishment would be a well-run, quiet neighborhood tavern where packaged hot sandwiches- would be served, and that the school children would not necessarily pass in front of the building. Mrs. Crawford, his wife, stated that it was planned as an improvement to the neighborhood, not a detriment. Mr. Lester Chambers of 102 Spruce Street spoke in favor of the granting of the variance, stating that he was leasing the building to Mr. Crawford. After rebuttal from both opponents and proponents, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilman Stiern stated that the Council must be very careful about the type of C-1 and C-2 zoning granted close to residential areas, and after Council discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Stiern,Zoning Resolution No. 201 denying variance of the Land Use Zoning Ordinance of the City of Bakersfield affecting that certain property as here- inafter described and zoned as a C-1 (Limited Commercial)Zone to permit the operation of an On-Sale Establishment on that certain 336' Bakersfield, California, January 30, 1967 - Page 8 property commonly known as 2606 Brundage Lane, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Rucker, Stiern Noes: Councilman Hosking, Whittemore Absent: None Th~ being the time set for hearing on the initiated action by the Planning Commission to amend the Zoning boundaries from an R-2 (Two Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling or more restrictive, Zone; f~m and R-2 (Two Family Dwelling) Zone and a C-1 (Limited Commercial)Zone to a C-2-D (Commercial - Architectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone; from an R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) Zone to a C-2-D (Commercial- Architectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone; and from a C-1 (Limited Commercial) Zone to an M-1-D (Light Manufacturing - Architectural Design) or more restrictive Zone, for those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield located southerly of Route 178 Freeway front- ing on Niles and Monterey Street between Tulare and Stockton Streets, the City Clerk reported that this hearing had been duly advertised and posted and no written protests had been received in her office. No one present offering any objections, the Mayor closed the public hearing, and upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Doolin, Ordinance No. 1668 New Series amending Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by changing the Land Use Zoning of this property, was adopted by the following vote: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whirremote Ayes: Noes: None Absent: None There upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M.. Adjournment. being no further business to come before this Council, seconded by Councilman Rucker, ATTE ST: CIT~R~' erk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California 337', Bakersfield, California, February 6, 1967 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M. February 6, 1967. The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Maurice Lyerla of the First Christian Church. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Absent: None Minutes of the regular meeting of January 30, 1967 were approved as presented. Presentation of Service Pin. Mayor Karlen presented a service pin to Mr. Leonard J. Alaria, Tax and License Auditor in the Auditor-Controller's office, who completed 30 years service with the City of Bakersfield on January 8, 1967. Scheduled Public Statements. Mr. Ken Stephens representing the 20-30 Club of Bakersfield, requested permission to install plastic rubbish containers, with advertising, on poles in the downtown business area, as a fund raising project for this group. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Doolin, the request was referred to the City Manager and Public Works Department for study and recommendation. Correspondence. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman Hosking, communication from R.A. Campbell, 3005 Horace Mann Avenue, regarding Cable TV in the City, was received and ordered read at hearing of February 20, 1967, at which time Cable TV representatives will appear before the Council. 335 Bakersfield, California, February 6, 1967 - Page 2 Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Rucker, communication from the Bakersfield District Chapter, American Institute of Architects, requesting the Council to instruct the Planning Commission to take whatever steps are necessary to provide for the acceptance of Tentative Tract Maps from Licensed Architects, was received and placed on file and referred to the Planning Commission for appropriate study and recommendation back to the Council. Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Rucker, communication from the Philana Junior Women's Club expressing appreciation to the Council for the cooperative spirit with which they considered Philana's tentative project of a freedom memorial and stating that they have concluded such an undertaking is not practical at this time, was received and ordered placed on file. Reports. Councilman Robert Whittemore, chairman of the Governmental Efficiency Committee, read a report of a meeting held with members of the Administrative staff to consider and evaluate the City's present policy relative to contracting for independent outside auditing service. auditor, of Speer, In light of the City's experience with the present outside the Committee recommends to the Council that the services Chavez, Ruggenberg & Wright be retained for at least another year. The committee is making this recommendation based on the following: It is the current practice of Speer, Chavez, Ruggenberg and Wright to rotate personnel within their auditing firm when examining the City's books. This rotation of personnel allows for a fresh viewpoint that may result in a new approach and/or new economies in the conduct of the City's audit. o Retaining this firm will allow the City considerable savings, since the firm is quite familiar with City practices and procedures. If the services of this firm are retained, the cost for the coming year will be in the neighborhood of $8,300. As the Council is aware, it is the common business practice to retain the same auditing firm if the service is satisfactory. Bakersfield, California, February 6, 1967 - Page 3 If the Council concurs in the recommendation, the Committee asked that the City Attorney be authorized to prepare the necessary contract to retain the services of Speer,Chavez, Ruggenberg & Wright for the current year, and that the Council evaluate each year the services received and the requirements for outside auditing services. Councilman Hoski~g said he thinks the Committee has submitted a very good report, but if this firm has made the audit for the last three years, the Council should consider making a change. Councilman Stiern said he thinks the report has merit but he is taking exception to it. The recommendation that the Council change its auditing firm every three years came from competent private auditors. The Charter puts a mandate on the Council to perform an adequate audit of the City's Books. As a result of inadequate auditing some years ago, the Council found that the books of the City were not in good shape and competent auditing was hired at a considerable cost to put the books in order. This firm has done an excellent job for the City, however~ it would be good practice to rotate auditing firms as they have done in the past, and it is now time for a change. Councilman Whirremote said the report was not intended to bypass the Charter. Due to the excellent reports they have had from this firm and their praclice of rotating personnel working within the various city departments, it is down now to where they have a relatively inexpensive audit, and if firms are changed, the cost would be considerably higher. However, this is up to the majority of the Council. Councilman Doolin said he felt the reasoning is good, however, he would hate to see the selection of an auditing firm done by a split vote. He concurs with Councilmen Stiern and Hosking, but he can see the merits of the Committee's report. He said he would move that it be re- turned to the Committee for further study, for report back in two weeks. Councilman Stiern said if he remembered correctly, the Council had considered changing firms last year, but then deceided to stay with 34O Bakersfield, California, February 6, 1967 - Page 4 this firm for one more year to effect some savings and take advantage of their experience with the City's books, but in due respect to the Committee, he thinks it would be well to change this year. Councilman Whittemore said that was fine as far as the Committee is concerned, but he does not think there should be a two week delay, that they should move on it this evening. Councilman Hosking said he thinks some other auditing firms should be approached to see what kind of bid would be made, and if all the other firms were high and this firm would do it for $8,300, he would have to give it some consideration as to whether a change should be made at this time. Councilman Rucker said the Council is well aware there is a job to be done and changes will need to be made occasionally, but witlh the savings to be made, it might be wise to keep this firm for another year. Councilwoman Balfanz said it was the Committee's feeling that a decision should be made immediately so that the audit can be done on a yearly basis. Councilman Whittemore said the Committee did not have any special preference for this firm, it was only economically feasible as far as it is concerned. City Manager Bergen said one:of the things that was most important to the GEC was that this decision be made and the services evaluated each year as far as the Council was concerned. After further discussion, it was moved by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Rucker, that the City Manager be instructed lo contact various auditing firms and obtain bids for conducting the audit of the City's Books, for consideration at meeting of February 20, 1967. This motion carried unanimously. 34:1' Bakersfield, California, February 6, 1967 - Page 5 Allowance of Claims. Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, Rucker, Vouchers Nos. 2794 to 2898 inclusive, as audited by the Finance Approval Committee, were allowed, authorization was granted for payment of same. Hosking, seconded by Councilman in amount of $148,952.41, and Acceptance of bids for Annual Contracts for Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Requirements for 1967-68. Upon a motion by Counci~mn Stiern, seconded by Councilman contracts were awarded to the lowest bidder meeting specifications for annual requirements of Gasoline and Diesel Fuel, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute Union Oil Co. Regular Gasoline Fuel Truck & Trailer Shell Oil Co. Regular Gasoline Fuel Tank Wagon Shell Oil Co. Premium Gasoline Fuel Truck & Trailer & Tank Wagon Standard Oil Co. Regular Diesel Fuel Truck & Trailer & Tank Wagon Sunland Oil Co. Premium Diesel Fuel Truck & Trailer & Tank Wagon Accepfance of Bid of Deifel's for Everyday Purchases of Automotive Paint. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, low bid of Deifel's was accepted for Everyday Purchases of Automotive Paint, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Approval of Contract with the Kern County Union High School District for use of City Swimming Pools. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman Hosking, Contract with the Kern County Union High School District providing for the use of City Swimming Pools for the spring season was approved and the Mayor was aufhorized to execute the contract. The estimated cost to the City will be approximately $8,700, funds for which are to be transferred before the end of the budget year. the contracts as follows: 342 Bakersfield, California, February 6, 1967 - Page 6 Adoption of Resolution No. 9-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield ascertaining and determining the Prevailing Rate of Wages to be paid to certain crafts and types of Workmen employed on Public Works in the City of Bakersfield. Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Rucker, Resolution No. 9-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield ascertaining and determining the Prevailing Rate of Wages to be paid to certain crafts and types of Workmen employed on Public Work in the City Ayes: Noes: None Absent: None of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Adoption of Ordinance No. 1669 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 3.68.120 (Temporary Positions with Recreation Department) of the Municipal Code. Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman Doolin, Ordinance No. 1669 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 3.68.120 (Temporary Positions with Recreation Department) of the Municipal Code, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: None Claim against the City of Bakersfield filed by Stanley Allenthorp and Irma Allenthorp referred to the City Attorney for appropriate action. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Hosking, claim against the City of Bakersfield filed by Stanley Allenthorp and Irma Allenthorp was referred to the City Attorney for appropriate action, with the request that the Council be notified of the final disposition of the claim. Bakersfield, California, February 6, 1967 - Page 7 Request from Kern Rock Company for abandonment of 14th Street east of "S" Street referred to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation. Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Rucker, request from Kern Rock Company for the abandonment of 14th Street east of "S" Street, was referred to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation. City Attorney instructed to prepare amendment to Chapter 7.40 (Public Dances and Dance Halls) of the Municipal Code. At a regular meeting held February 1, 1967, the Planning Commission was asked to make a determination as to whether a dance hall and a recreational center should be considered as a conditional use in a C-2 zone, and the Commission is of the opinion that a dance hall would be no more obnoxious or detrimental to an area than those uses presently permitted in the C-2 Zone. Those uses halls, bowling alleys, revival meetings, restaurants, cafes and bars which allow dancing. It was therefore a Dance Hall be Zone. include pool including recommended that established as a permitted use in a C-2 (Commercial) Planning Director Sceales stated that this had come before the Planning Commission as a result of an application for a conditional use permit of a C-2 Zone to permit theoperation and maintenance of a teenage dance and recreational center on that property known as 2621 "F" Street, having been referred from the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Councilman Stiern said he would be the first to recognize that the City is deficient in teenage recreational centers, but he is concerned about whether they will be allowed in any C-2 Zone, because there are some C-2 zones which abut R-1 zones, and the noise and loud music would be very unpleasant to adjacent residents. If it were permitted in a C-2 Zone, how could it be controlled. Mr. Sceales said it was being controlled now by a special permit and the Police Department revokes the permit if it becomes a problem. 344 Bakersfield, California, February 6, 1967 - Page 8 Councilman Rucker stated he thinks a pool hall, which is permitted in a C-2 Zone, could be as obnoxious as a band playing at a teenage center. Councilman Hosking said he believes a dance hall should be determined on each individual application. Councilman Stiern said he did not believe it should be referred back to the Planning Commission, but the question in his mind is if it were a permitted use in a C-2 Zone, then could it be put in any C-2 Zone. Councilman Whittemore said a dance permit poses a unique situation and he agrees with Dr. Stiern and Mr. Hosking that establishing a dance hall should not be blanketed into a C-2 or a M-1 zone either, as some of them abut residential property and people would be disturbed at night. He thinks there should be a simple solution to the problem by the Council establishing a Board to pass on any application for a dance permit. Mayor Karlen stated they did not have to take action on the resolution, but should take action on the issue at hand with regard to the application for one specific establishment at 2621 "F" Street. City Attorney Hoagland said he didn't see how the Council could take action on any specific request when it is not in any zone as yet, it is just not provided for. That is the purpose of bringing the matter to the Council. It was referred to the Planning Commission to make a determination as to what zone it should be placed so that an application could be made for the dance hall permit. They cannot go anywhere for the permit at the present time because it is not provided for in any ordinance. Councilman Whittemore asked Mr. Hoagland if it would be workable if the Council established a Board, such as the Board of Zoning Adjustment with the addition of the City Manager and the Chief of Police. Bakersfield, California~ February 6, 1967 345 Page 9 Mr. Hoagland said it would, but they already have a permit procedure for dance halls. The only problem is that dance halls, as such, are not listed in any particular zone at the present time. It would require another ordinance setting forth the requirements which the Council has expressed, and suggested that it be made applicable to a conditional use permit, by going to the Board of Zoning Adjustment and having a hearing, and then if there are any objections, it could still come back to the Council. At the present time it is not listed as a category to appear before the Board of Zoning Adjustment. The zoning ordinance provides that in any zone where there is not a permitted use and a request comes in, the Planning Commission may make a determination that any particular use not listed in the zoning ordinance may go into one of the categories, ~d they have made the determination that this particular use should go into the C-2 Zone, and in accordance with the zoning ordinance, it comes to the Council for adoption of a resolution placing it in that zone. The present ordinance is adequate to the extent that it covers the operation itself, the investigation, etc., but it is not adequate for the purposes of zoning. Mayor Karlen read two letters objecting to the particular location on "F" Street being used as a teenage dance and recreational center from Alfred T. Gibson and Eilert Voge, Los Angeles, California, but owning property the proposed dance center. both residing in in the vicinity of Mr. Frederick B. Frick, who had made the application to the Board of Zoning Adjustment, for the Conditional Use Permit of a C-2 Zone to permit the operation and maintenance of a teenage dance and recreational center at 2621 "F" Street, explained his plans to the Council, stating that he would like a decision in the matter so that he could go ahead with his plans. Bakersfield, California, February 6, 1967 - Page 10 Councilman Rucker said he felt the City of Bakersfield was capable of regulating this type of operation and if it were not run properly, or a problem developed, the City had ways of correcting it. After some discussion, it was moved by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Hosking, that the City Attorney be instructed ~ amend Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code (Public Dances and Dance Halls) of the Municipal Code providing that proximity to residential areas and compatibility of the neighborhood for such a use be considered before a dance permit is issued. This motion carried unanimously. Councilman Stiern then made a motion, which was seconded by Councilman Doolin, that Resolution No. 10-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield establishing a Dance Hall as a permitted use in (Commercial) Zone, be adopted, by the following vote: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore None None a C-2 Ayes: Noes: Absent: Date set for hearing before the Council on application by Giovanni, Frank and John Bertano, for amending the zoning boundaries of that certain property in the City of Bakersfield located east of and adjacent to South "H" Street approximately 1320 feet South of White Lane. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman Rucker, date of February 27, 1967 was set for hearing before the Council on an application by Giovanni, Frank and John Bertano for amending the zoning boundaries from an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-4-T-D (Multiple Family Dwelling - Trailer Park Architectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone, for that certain property in the City of Bakersfield located east of and adjacent to South "H" Street approximately 1320 feet south of White Lane. Date set for hearing before the Council on application by Giovanni, Frank and John Bertano for amending the zoning boundaries of that certain property in the City of Bakersfield located east of and adjacent to South "H" Street 660 feet south of White Lane. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman Stiern, date of February 27, 1967, was set for hearing before the Council Bakersfield, California~ February 6, 1967 - Page ll on an application by Giovanni, Frank and John Bertano for amending of the Zoning Boundaries from an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-3-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Design) or more restrictive Zone, for that certain property in the City of Bakersfield located east of and adjacent to South "H" Street 660 feet south of White Lane. Date set for hearing before the Council on an application by J. L. Dandy for amending of the zoning boundaries of that certain property in the City of Bakersfield located on the south side of Ming Avenue approximately 500 feet west of Stine Road. Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, seconded by Councilman Balfanz, date of February 27, 1967 was set for hearing before the Council on an application by J. L. Dandy for amending of the Zoning Boundaries from an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-3-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone, for that certain property in the City of Bakersfield located on the south side of Ming Avenue approximately 500 feet west of Stine Road. Adjournment. There being no further business to come before this Councg, upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Rucker, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 P.M. ~'- MAYOR o'f the City of Bakersfield, ~Pallfornla ATTEST: nr x ici o e fof the Councii of the City of Bakersfield, California 348 Bakersfield, California, February 13, 1967 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at eight o'clock P. M. February 13, 1967. The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Edward Zeigler of the Church of the Brethren. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Absent: None Minutes of the regular meeting of February 6~ 1967 were approved as presented. Adoption of Resolution proclaiming Week of February 13-19 as "Kern Cotton Week." Mr. Harry Schrader of the Agribusiness Committee of the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council at this time. Miniature bales of cotton were distributed to the members of the Council. Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, Resolution proclaiming week of February 13-19 as "Kern Cotton Week" was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whirremote Noes: None Absent: None Reception ~f communication from Patricia A. Jackson, re City Pound. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern~ seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, communication from Patricia A. Jackson, regarding the City Pound~ was received and ordered placed on file. Councilmen Stiern stated that he would be making some recommendations relative to the letter to the Council at a later date. 349¸ Bakersfield, California, February 13, 1967 - Page 2 Adoption of Governmental Efficiency Committee Report re Contract for Private Refuse Collection in annexed territory. Councilman Whittemore, chairman of the Governmental Ef£iciency Committee, read a report of meetings held to consider a recommendation o£ the Public Works Department and the City Manager proposing a contract for private refuse collection for future annexed territory to the City of Bakersfield. Such an agreement would adequately protect the economic interests of the Rubbish Disposal Association of Kern County while at the same time maintaining adequate and economical City standards for refuse collections for both residential and commercial establishments. The GEC is satisfied that the contract would meet current City standards and facilitate annexation to the City, also would respect the existing County franchises of independent refuse collectors. This contract will provide for the trading of service areas between independent and City crews to achieve economies at some time in the future, and it is also understood that the independent collectors will not use the City's sanitary landfill for dumping. Provision will be made for a one year termination clause. Should the Council adopt the recommendations, the Council will be furnished with a draft copy of the proposed agreement. Councilman Doolin asked Mr. Bergen i£ the $2.20 per dwelling per month quoted in the report is the amount charged the County resident. Mr. Bergen said there is a difference in the charge in the unincorporated area covering the picking up of leaves and grass clippings.. If they don't want this service, they pay a little less. This service is provided uniformly by the City. Councilman Rucker asked how it would compare with the City doing this service, does the City save any money by having the private refuse collectors do it. 350 Bakersfield, California, February 13, 1967 -:Page 3 City Manager Bergen pointed out that when you compare the cost on the basis of return and the expenses involved with the persons collecting in the unincorporated area, and assuming that they are paying the franchise tax and have other expenses, this compares very £avorably with the City's cost. There are certain costs that the City does not incur when it is operating a truck, because the City does not pay taxes, etc., but it does compare on an economic basis. After further discussion, upon a motion by Councilman seconded by Councilman Doolin, the report was adopted by the Hosking, Council. Adoption of Report of Water and City Growth Committee relative to operation of the Municipal Transit System. Councilman Stiern, chairman of the Water and City Growth Committee, read a report of~.a meeting held to consider recommendations suggested by the City Manager for the operation of the Municipal Transit System. Mr. Bergen has recommended, and the Committee agrees, that the Transit Division may be supervised adequately with the establishment of the position of Superintendent of Transit at Range 48 and the establishment of a supporting position of Dispatcher at Range 22. This position can serve the Superintendent by assuming the responsibilities of dispatching, conducting surveys, shop operations and light administrative duties as assigned by the Superintendent. At present the Transit office has an authorized clerical staff consisting of a Secretary and an Account Clerk I. The Acting Director of Transit feels that the present position of Sectary, which is vacant, may be deleted, and the office adequately staffed with the authorization of an Account Clerk II position. Should the Council concur in these recommendations, it is asked to instruct the Civil Service Commission to prepare classification speci£ications for the two positions recommended for Council adoption, and instruct the City Attorney to amend the Salary ordinance to include the two positions. Bakersfield, California, February 13, 1967 - Page 4 The Committee would like to say that it will continue its efforts to secure a better break for the City on the cost of providing transit for Metropolitan Bakersfield. As the recently submitted Stanford Research Institute Report pointed out, a more economical approach towards providing transit £or the Bakersfield riding public should be found either through the consolidation of school district and city operations, or by the County of Kern meeting its responsibilities towards supporting transit for the Bakersfield Netropolitan Area. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, the report was adopted. Allowance of Claims. Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Rucker, Vouchers Nos. 2899 to 2976 inclusive, in amount of $34,819.93, as auditedI by the Finance Approval Committee, were allowed, and authorization was granted for payment of same. Acceptance of Bid of GKN Electric Company for installation of Traffic Signals at the intersection of 17th and Eye Streets. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Stiern, lump sum bid of GKM Electric Company in amount of $7,110.00, for installation of Traffic Signals at the intersection of 17th and Eye Streets was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Nayor was authorized to execute the contract. Hearing on appeal by Fred Gooch to decision of the Board o£ Zoning Adjustment continued for one week. This was the time set for continued hearing on an appeal by Fred Gooch to decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment granting his application for a modification of an R-2 (Two Family Dwelling) Zone to permit the construction of a carport with reduction of the side yard setback on that certain property in the City of Bakersfield commonly known as 314 "E" Street. The hearing was continued from meeting of January 30, 1967, to give Mr. Gooch the opportunity to appear 552 Bakersfield, California, February 13, 1967 - Page 5 in his own behalf. As Mr. Gooch was not present, upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, the hearing was continued for one week. Council goes on record as opposing SB 133 in its present form. Legislative Report No. 3, prepared by Councilwoman Kathryn Balfanz and Assistant City Attorney Ray Clayton, was read and explained ~ City Attorney Hoagland. Among other things, the proposed legislation, if enacted, would require all meetings of local legislative committees, if such committees contain two or more members of a governing body, to be public. The bill requires that written notice of the right to have a public hearing be given 24 hours prior to the meeting in person or by mail, to any officer or employee whose activities or conduct is to be the subject matter of an executive session. The bill permits legislative bodies to hold executive sessions during regular or special meetings to consult with their attorneys, when public disclosure of these matters would be detrimental to public interest. The bill limits executive sessions to regular or special meetings and requires that notice of the subject matter be given when an executive session is held during a regular meeting. After considerable discussion, it was moved by Councilman Whirremote, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, that the Council go on record as opposing the bill as written. After discussion, Councilwoman Balfanz, then amended the motion that the Council go on record as opposing the bill in its present form, however, that the Council would ~dorse SB 133 if it were extended to cover the activities of the State Legislature under the provisions of the Brown Act. This motion carried unanimously. Mayor Karlen left the Council Chambers at this time and Vice-Mayor Stiern acted as presiding officer. 3,)3 Bakersf±eld~ Cal±forn±a, February 13, 1967 - Page 6 Acceptance of Refund from the California Water Service Company for installation of a water line to the new Fire Station. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, refund in amount of $1,376.00, for installation of a water line to Fire Station No. 7, was accepted from the California Water Service Company. First reading given An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield enacting comprehensive rules regulating the conducting of parades within the City of Bakersfield and providing standards for the issuance or denial of permits for parades. At this time first reading was given an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield enacting comprehensive rules regulating the conduct of parades within the City of Bakersfield and providing standards for the issuance or denial of permits for parades. The Council commented on certain provisions of the ordinance, and City Attorney Hoagland stated that the ordinance can be held up if the Council wishes more time to go over it and make any corrections or recommendations. He staled : that the proposed ordinance is not meant in any way to inhibit the metropolitan area's traditional parades. It will require reasonable designation of the number of vehicles in a parade, so that the police department can make adequate plans for it. City Manager Bergen said the City needs an estimate of the size of the parade and its route control by the Police Department, get permits on short notice. to permit planning for traffic and it will prevent attempts to First reading of An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code by amending Section 7.40.040 therein, by repealing Section 7.40.080 therein, and adding Section 7.40.115. Councilman Hosking stated he wanted to compliment Councilman Stiern for suggesting the amendment to the Dance Hall Ordinance last week, because he has been swamped with telephone calls protesting 354 Bakersfield, California, February 13, 1967 - Page 7 and objecting to the establishment of a dance hall and 'teenage center at 2621 "F" Street in Westchester. He said he understands that some of the other councilmen and the administrative staff have also received a great many telephone calls objecting to the issuance of a permit to operate the teenage dance center. City Manager Bergen reported to the Council that he had sent a letter to the applicant, Lee Graebner of San Diego, denying him a permit to operate this teenage center. Councilman Hosking said ~hat he thinks the City has an obligation to provide a facility at city expense, or to be financed by a combination of the city and private enterprise, somewhere in the City, where teenagers can hold dances and entertainment that they themselves want. He said perhaps the Legislative Committee should study the enactment of an ordinance for teenage pavilions. Councilman Stiern agreed with Councilman Hosking that the City should consider a program for the teenagers. Councilmall Doolin said the d~ea of a Youth Center appeals to him, which has been discussed previously. First reading was considered given to an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code by amending Section 7.40.040 therein, by repealing Section 7.40.080 therein, and adding Section 7.40.115. Adoption of Resolution No. 11-67 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield directing the City Clerk to canvass the returns of Councilmanic Elections. Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, Resolution No. 11-67 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield directing the City Clerk to canvass the returns of Councilmanic Elections, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: None Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Bakersfield, California, February 13, 1967 - Page 8 Acceptance of resignation of William H. Carroll as Member of the Civil Service Board for Miscellaneous Departments. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, the resignation of William H. Carroll as Member of the Civil Service Board for Miscellaneous Departments, was accepted, and the Mayor was requested to send a letter of Carroll for his excellent service on this appreciation to Mr. Commission. Acceptance of Work and Mayor authorized to sign Notice of Completion on Fire · ~ation No. 7 Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman Doolin, the Work was accepted on Fire Station No. 7, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the Notice of Completion for recordation. Acceptance of Street Right-of-Way Deed from Hattie L. Draper and Edward J. Draper for property required for the widening of South "H" Street. Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, seconded by Councilman Hosking, Street Right-of-Way Deed from Hattie L. Draper and Edward J. Draper for property required for the widening of South "H" Street was accepted. Adjournment. There being no further business to come before this Council, upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Rucker, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. MAYOR o~f the City of Bakersfield, C~a-iifprnia ATTEST: CITY ~.~ ~i the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California Bakersfield, California, February 20, ~967 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M. February 20, 1967. The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Ross McGuire of the Colle~:e Heights Congregational Church. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Absent: None Minutes of the regular meeting of February 13, 1967 were approved as presented. Scheduled Public Statements. Representatives of the Bakersfield Cable TV, Inc. were requested to appear before the Council at this time and made the following presentation : Bob King: Mr. Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council, My Name is Bob King, I am an attorney with the law firm of King, Eyherabide, Cooney and Owens here in Bakersfield. I have been asked to appear before you in behalf of the Trans-Video TV Corporation and I tried to check to find out exactly what procedure you had to follow in a situation such as this, and as far as I can find out, you don't have any formal rules of procedure relative to this sort of thing. Mr. Mayor, I did talk to Mr. Hoagland, and with your permiss. ion, I would like to make a few preliminary remarks and then call upon the president of the company to make a few remarks. Perhaps I'll have a little bit to say when he finished, and from there on out we will let you gentle- men ask us anything that we have not covered, or go into further details. Mayor: I think that would be perfectly proper. This is not a formal hearing as such. Bob King: Well, our invitation to attend your meeting included that you would like to have us appear before you and to show cause why commercial installations should not be made without charge. I have gathered from additional information thai I sought to develop, Bakersfield, California, February 20, 1967 - Page 2 357 that what you're really talking about is the downtown business area, and for that reason, I did ask that the company prepare a map which you'll see over here beside us, which I think perhaps will be of some assistance. Now, the perimeter of the downtown business area shown in the blue, if you have made a closer examination of the map, you will note that we have tried to show all of the existing power poles which are primarily P. G. & E. poles which are located in the downtown area, and you will notice also that we have shown in red, the location of six establishments within this area who have requested that they be provided with Cable TV service. Now, there was a seventh one, it was located in the Bakersfield Savings and Loan Building, however,between the time that they made their request and the present time, they have moved their offices and have gone outside of this area, so we can presume that they no longer desire the service. Of the six which remain, five of them are bars and one of them is a barber shop. Now, you will notice on closer examination that there are a number of areas - this is an alley for instance, the narrow divisions, and the wider ones, are of course the streets - there are a number of areas where the poles have already been taken down, and of course this ~s pursuant to the city ordinance which we have that requires the gradual phasing out of all presently existing overhead lines within the City of Bakersfield. At the present time, between 20th and this alley, between 20th and 19th, and the alley back here, the P. G. & E is presently in the process of removing this entire line of poles that runs along here. So by the end of this year when the installation of the underground facilities is completed along here, these likewise will be removed. No, I think the shown here, is the point other significant feature which we have to which we have already brought Cable TV service as it adjoins this area. It's shown by the markings which you will find at the various points around the perimeter of the downtown area. 358 Bakersfield, California, February 20, 1967 - Page 3 The initial question as to why we should not be asked to give commercial installations free of charge, is I believe, answered by reference to the proposal which was made by the Cable TV people and which was incorporated by reference as a part of the ordinance which made the franchise itself available to them. Your attention is invited to Page 7 of that proposal, sub-paragraph B, which is entitled "Proposed Rates and Charges," indicates that there are to be two classes of charges, one Residential Charges, and second Commercial Charges. Specifically, under Residential Charges, is shown TV installation - No Charge. Under Commercial Charges, is found the designation "installation" and the notation "At our cost for labor and materials." It is therefore obvious to me, that at least in the minds of the company who was making this proposition and who also outlined in other portions of this proposal an estimated cost expenditure of in excess of $900,000.00, that they did not allow for free commercial installation. Now, what are we talking about in terms of dollars and cents here? I think it is important that we understand this. In attempting to determine what it would cost the company to put in lines so that service would be available to each and every one of the business houses which are within the perimeter of the diagram, embodies a laying of lines which would approximate 10,000 feet. In other words, it would be necessary to put in approximately 10,000 feet of cable in one form or another to have available for service to all of the downtown areas, Cable TV. This is exclusive of the amount of cable which would be required to run from the line, assuming it were put :into the street, to the building itself. There would be an additional situation involved there. The company has made a detailed study of approximately what they think this would involve in dollars and cents and we believe that a fair and reasonable cost would be $5.00 per foot, or a total of approximately $50,000, in order to put in the lines so that we would have the 10,000 feet that I am talking about. In addition, if the lines were put into the street, as is required by the present ordinance, we would then have the cost problem Bakersfield, California~ February 20, 1967 Page 4 of running a connection from any given establishment that requested the service, out to the point where the line is located, and it is fair to say that this would run an additional minimum of $100.00 per installation. Now, at the present time, on the basis of six requests for service, which would produce a pay of $4.85 per service, this would give the Cable television people, approximately $29.10 per month income to offset a minimum of $50,000 expense in putting in the lines. I did a little arithmetic, and those of you who know me, know that I went to Roosevelt School~ which was a progressive educational school hewe in the City, and one of the things that they were the worst on was arithmetic, so I really had to round this out so nobody could catch me and see how little I know, but I honestly, I tried to divi~the $29.10 per month into the $50,000, so being progressive, I rounded it off to $30.00 per month, and I came up with 1600 months. In other words I ca, up with 1600 months for the company to get their $50,000 back and then if I reduced thai properly to years, this means that in 130 years they would get their investment back without a penny of profit or interest on their money in the mean time. Now, despite the unpopularity of the profit organization, this company was organized and did come to the City of Bakersfield with the fond hope that they would realize a profit from their operation. And so it would appear that at least insofar as service to the downtown area is concerned, it would not be a particularly profitable venture at the present time. Now, what is there to make us think that this would not be profitable in the future, Well, basically speaking, I suppose it's because when you stop and think about it, really, the only establish- ments that would have any particular use for Cable are either bars or barber shops or places of this general nature. Very few offices are equipped with television of any kind, and even fewer would want to invest in the monthly expenditure for cable television, which would ~ course only be available for viewing during the daylight hours. Bakersfield, California, February 20, 1967 Page 5 Now, that's the proposition, that's what we ran into when we come to talking about what it would cost to comply with the ordinances as they exist at the present time. Now, are there other alternatives. Yes. There are some other alternatives. One of the alternatives would be to ask permission from the Council to go ahead and make these installations in the overhead manner. Now this would assume that you gentlemen and Mrs. Balfanz, would set aside the reasons why you adopted some ten years ago, the ordinance requiring all of the telephone and P. G. & E. lines to go under ground over the next 20 years. In the case of P. G. & E., I think probably there was a safety factor that was definitely involved, in the case of the Telephone Company there is little danger of personal harm if you come in contact with their wires, it must be an aesthetic situation, which prompts it, but whatever that istuation is, this would have to be set aside if we were allowed to place the lines above ground on poles. Unfortunately, however, that is not the whole answer, because as you can see from the map when you look at it, some of the poles are already gone, we would either be compelled to put poles back into the place of those that are takenaway, or in those particular areas where the poles are gone, we would then be compelled to go underground. In this regard, briefly, I would like to say that a request was made to the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph to find out whether or not they would allow us to use their presently existing underground ducts for purposes of putting the Cable TV in. The answer was that they would not. They have stated that in doing their construction work, which is extremely expensive, they had made allowances for what they thought would reasonbly be needed by their own company in the future, and their policy was that they would not make these facilities available to outside people. Consequently, that is not possible. With respect to the P. G. & E., of course, General Order 95, which is an electrical safety order, would not make it possible for us to put any Cable TV line in a conduit that held a P. G. & E. line. I think the reason is obvious, the danger of the contact Bakersfield, California, February 20, 1967 - Page 6 between the two and the catastrophe that might result would be the problem there. So~ even if we go to an overhead situation we have a minimum cost of approximately $75.00 per hundred feet, to put the Cable TV on presently existing poles. Now, if we don't put other poles back or if we don't go underground, then there is one other possibility, and that is~ in those areas where poles are not available~ you then use the technique which is described as going "building to building." This would mean that instead of making your contact pole to a power pole, you would place some sort of support on a building front and you would run your cable on the building front. This has some drawbacks, among others~ it requires the consent of the owner of the buildings, to put your cable on it. When you talk about some of our more attractive buildings here in the City~ I don't think there is any doubt but that would run into some complaints from the owners of those buildings who would simply not want to have a big cable hung from the side of their building. In ~se of others, are obstinate and would say dollars a year, or whatever you might simply run into people who that unless you give me five hundred figure they were moved to pick out of the air, they would say we don't care to have you run your cable on our building. It is considered in the industry thai it is bad practice to do it, it involves certain hazards, certainly in the case of older buildings here in the town, those that have false fronts and things of this nature. There would be a danger of some collapse and it could involve considerable expense, and we are notprepared to say how great this might be at the present time. But it is fair to say,that without any question, even if we kept everything overhead, the cost of having available to the downtown area of Cable TV could not be less than $10,000. Again, going back to my very poor mathematics, on the basis of the number of customers that we have at the present time and the rates that are charged, I have come to the conclusion that that would take us about thirty years to get back the ten thousand dollar investment which would be required. 36'2 Bakersfield, California, February 20, 1967 Page 7 Now, I am sure you are all familiar that in the ordinance and a part of the proposition which this company made to the Council and which I am sure made it attractive, it has to be one of the motivating reasons why you accepted it, is the fact that a customer does not have to agree to take this service for any length of time. I want to put this into a present situation which developed and which I mentioned briefly, and that was the Howard Oil Company which had its office in the Bakersfield Savings and Loan Building. In order to service lhat Howard Oil Company office from the nearest point where service is now available, it would have been necessary, Bakersfield Savings and Loan Building is here, the nearest point to which service comes at the present time is here. The distance between blocks just for your information, from the center of the street to the center of the street, is roughly 400 feet, and then go another 200 feet to the middle of that one, so its a difference of some 600 feet that service would have to be brought in order to reach there. It was estimated out to be $1300.00 plus. So in order for the Cable TV people to have serviced the Howard Oil Company, they would have had to expended in the most economical manner, the Howard Oil Company would have had their service for roughly two months before they moved out, they would have moved which would have been spent, would have been have been recouped by the company. Now this out and the $1300.00 lost forever and not very same situation would apply to the other places down here. I certainly do not mean to imply by that that the bars which are there are going to be gone over night or anything like that, a number of them have been in their present locations for a long period of time and I presume some of them would stay, but there are such things as cancellation of leases, death of the owners of the business, and numerous other things which result in these businesses being moved from time to time. Consequently:, under the proposition by which the company operates of not requiring any contract for a fixed period of time, there is very little likeli- hood that they would ever be able to realize even a slight proportion of the cost which they would be forced to put up. 363 Bakersfield, California, February 20, 1967 - Page 8 Now, I have read over with considerable interest, the entire text of both the proposals and the rates and the ordinance. I would invite the Council's attention particularly to Section 9 which deals with Regulation of Rates and Service. And that very briefly reads as follows: The City Council shall have the power and right at all times for the duration of this franchise and privilege to require Grantee to conform to reasonable rules and regulations adopted by the City Council, including the power to regulate and establish reasonable rates and charges by Grantee for services rendered under this franchise and privilege and to establish reasonable rules and regulations governing performance of the system. The establishment of such rules and regulations shall be discretionary with the City Council. It then goes on to say that "The said CATV System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the accepted standards of the industry to the effect that the subscribed shall receive the best signal to his TV set." I was looking for some law, I know you gentlemen have a very knowledgeable and competent City Attorney, but I was looking for some law so that I could properly advise my client, as to what interpretation the courts might place upon a request, if it were made to my clients, to spend $50,000 or whatever the sum actually is, in order to make service available to the downtown area. I couldn't find any cases which deal with Cable television facilities for the obvious reason that it is such a new industry that as yet litigation has not proceeded to the point of making any case law. But I did find some other law which I think is probably the point to which the courts would turn in looking for a guide or a possible answer. And that is the field of Public utilities such as Municipal Water Companies, Water Districts and organizations of that kind. Franchises are given to Water Companies for purposes of having them supply water to cities or to given District. I am not going to bore you with a lot of reading, but I did find one particular quotation which I thought gives some light as to how the courts feel about these things and I would suggest that it may well be a standard which the courts would ultimately apply when they come to judge requests made upon Cable television people. 364 Bakersfield, California, February 20, 1967 - Page 9 In the case of Boise and Sue Lay (??) rs. Bay Municipal Utilities District, 196 Cal. 2nd at Page 489, the Court was talking about a situation where a potential user of water had created a small subdivision located some distance from the presently' existing distribution facilities, and they had attempted to get the water company to extend their lines, although within the franchise area but to a point which they did not at that time serve. And the Court in part said as follows: "It is of course to be borne in mind that the right of an inhabitant of a municipality or the inhabitant of a particular portion of it, to compel the service to them by the Water Company through tlhe extension of its system, is not an absolute and unqualified right. The fact that the Water Company has undertaken to serve the entire municipality and that it would be an advantage to an inhabitant thereof, or a number of them, to have the water system extended to supply t~m, would not in and of itself, be sufficient to require or compel the company to make the extension. The duty which the Water Company has undertaken, is of a public nature, and to meet a public necessity of supplying of water to the community. The obligation of the company is not to supply each, or any number of inhabitants of the municipality, on demand as an absolute right on their part, but it has only assumed and become charged with the public duty of furnishing it where there is a reasonable demand for it and a reasonable extension of the service can be made to meet the demand. The right to require the service and the duty of furnishing it by an extension of the water system, is to be determined from a consideration of the reasonableness of the demand." That basically is legal point which I think would be invol- ved if this matter were taken to a court here in California. Is a demand which requires a capital outlay of the size which I have indicated necessary and reasonable in view of the demand which is limited to six isolated areas in the downtown area and which would produce a revenue of something less than $30.00 per month. I feel that frankly it is not. Now, you have been very considerate. I could speak a good deal 365 Bakersfield, California, February 20, 1967 - Page 9 longer on the situation. I believe that you were in receipt of a letter this evening from the Kern Cable Company. They were kind enought to furnish me with a copy of that letter after it had been delivered to you. I think it is significant because without doubt this was a company which -- Mayor: I don't mean to interrupt. The letter was un- doubtedly received by the Clerk but we do not have copies. I think the letter you are referring to is the letter from the Kern Cable Company. King: Yes, it is. Mayor: It was received today, and obviously our Clerk did not have a chance to make copies to distribute to the Council. King: Well, if you don't mind, I would be happy to read it. Mayor: I think that would be proper. It was brought to our attention that we had it, and we didn't know what its contents were. I think you may read it. King: Ok. This letter bears today's date. to the City Council. Gentlemen: It's addressed It has come to our attention that the Bakersfield City Council is investigating a matter concerning the installation of cable television facilities in the downtown Bakersfield area. We have been asked by several interested parties to offer an objective opinion of Bakersfield Cable Television's obligations in providing this service. The following is our opinion: Under the Bakersfield City Franchise as it now exists with no residential installation charge, no subscriber contract, a very low monthly commercial service rate, and considering that the potential number of subscribers in downtown Bakersfield is extremely limited, it would be unreasonable to request any cable television operator to make excessive capital outlays required to bring service to this particular area without provision for restitution of the costs involved. King: I went one step further and talked to the vice- president of that company -- 366 Bakersfield, California, February 20, 1967 - Page 11 (Comments by the Council in the background) Mayor: A question is being asked is that a legal opinion or is that -- Stiern: Who signed the letter? King: It is signed by Mr. John Calvetti, Vice-President and General Manager. Stiern: Is it intended to be a legal opinion of some kind? King: No, I think it's simply an expression of their opinion as to what would be proper and just under the circumstances. Stiern: Just their thoughts on the subject? King: I think that's all it is, Mr. Stiern Stiern: Thank you. King: I asked a very pointed question of the Company. I said suppose that you were given an opportunity to take over the franchise of the Trans-Video Company as it now exists, their rate structure, everything that they've got here, but with the require- ment that you be forced to put in service in the downtown area. Would you want it? The answer was "no." Gentlemen, I would like to call upon Mr. Lee Druckman, who has appeared before the hearings on the franchise, to make a few additional remarks in connection with this matter. Mr. Druckman. Druckman: Thank you, Mr. King. Mr. Mayor, Mrs. Balfanz, Members of the Council. My name is Lee Druckman. I'm president of Bakersfield Cable TV, located at 1615 "V" Street. It is somewhat ironical that it was just about two years ago that I appeared before you people when we were granted our franchise. In fact it was February 23rd. With regard to the total investment that we propose to make, Mr. King indicated that in our proposal we said that we planned to make a $900,000.00 investment in the City of Bakersfield. We just received our audited figures of December 31, 1966, and we had a total inveslment of approximately $927,000.00, together with an operating loss of a little over $200,000.00, which represents a total investment by our company 367 Bakersfield, California, February 20, 1967 - Page 12 in Bakersfield of $1,128,768.00. Now, we've been operating for about; nine months. We've had a total income from operations of $162,583.00. I don't want you to get the impression that we are going broke or that we are unhappy with our investment. presently have over 6600 subscribers, the homes in the City of Bakersfield. It's just to the contrary. We which represents about 30% of This far exceeds the national average of approximately 20 to 25% in the first year of operation of any cable system. Our system is presently capable of serving all of the residents in the City of Bakersfield. As a matter of fact, I would like to give you just one example of what we have done in some areas to serve just a very few homes. (Unfolds a map of the City.) Mayor: I think we could probably put that up for you here. Druckman: Well, I won't take that much time. But I just want to give you an example. Here is where our cable ran around the county to reach a total of 16 subscribers. The cost of this construction was approximately $13,000.00. Now, by that I am trying to convey to you that in order for us to have served all of the residents, it was necessary for us, because of the peculiar divisions of the city and county, to sometimes run an extended line to reach a number of people who live in the city but not directly c Gntiguous. Now, as far as the downtown business area is concerned, when I personally signed that proposal we never intended to serve the downtown area. For a number of reasons, primarily because it is not a practice of our industry. The reason for that is we just don't get customers in the downtown area. I think after nine months of operation these six red dots on that very large area is a pretty good indication of what we can expect. Now, together with the fact that we just never expected to wire the downtown area, was also the reason that we were well aware of the ordinance restricting overhead construction. We were also aware, after receiving our attachment agreements from the utility companies, that there were little or few poles that were left, and those that were left were coming down after a reasonable time. 368 Bakersfield, California, February 20, 1967 - Page 13 I think that Mr. King as correctly indicated or outlined our proposal with regards to our costs or rates with regards to commercial establishments. To give you an example, you might say that if that was our policy in regard to the downtown area, why did we even include a separate rate struction for commercial. Well, there are many cozmuer- cial establishments, I think you are aware of thefact that there are many outside of the downtown business area. For example, on the Broadway Department Store, we had to run way across their parking lot in order to get to the store, and they were charged $700.00 for extra construction to complete that installation. I think it's difficult to understand or to define what an installation or a drop service is, actually defined in terms of words. But the best way that we can define an installation is that; line which runs from a distribution line to a customer. In other words, it's not an extension of a distribution line~ but it is a line that runs from an existing distribution line eventually to the ultimate customer. There was also a question at the meeting which took place a month or so ago, in regard to the fact that we had initially promised Channel 28 and 34 on our system. Well, that is absolutely true. We did promise it and still intend to provide it and I think at that lime it was clear in everybody's mind that it would have to be brought in by microwave and that is the case. Now the Brentwood Corporation, which is the microwave common carrier, which was initially owned half by Mr. Harris's station and half by the Time-Life Station, has recently been bought out by Time- Life, and is 100% owned by Time-Life. Mr. Croes, in a letter dated February 7, 1967, advised me that after all of the construction permits, the unusual red tape in filing for and receiving government permits the delay in equipment, the adverse weather conditions on both Frazier and Breckridge, it now appears if all goes well, we will be able to deliver both signals to your system within 60 days. We are anticipa- ting to meet or possibly improve that situation, and we are most anxious 369 Bakersfield, not only to serve every possible bring Channel 28 and 34 in. King: Mr. Mayor, I believe that concludes the so-called formal presentation that we wanted to make. I would simply like to say one additional thing, and I will say it briefly. I have come here tonight simply as an attorney representing a client in an effort to present his case to you honestly and fairly. But I am also a reslent of this community. I am one who has lived here quite a long time and I feel that matters such as this are of more importance to us and the public image which we, the City of Bakersfield, desire to por- tray, than might be realized in some cases. I'm simply saying, that whether we like it or not, I have been aware many times when we have left Bakersfield and talked to people who were interested or had busi- nesses which could be brought into this area, that they would habi- tually respond to me, "Well, Bakersfield doesn't want us to come in. Bakersfield doesn't want new business." And of course, I say you are crazy, we certainly do. And they say, "Well you don't act like it." I think what they mean by that is, that not only has it occasionally been made quite difficult for a new business to come into the community, but occasionally some requests have been made on new business once it's here, which to the eyes or mind of a business man who is trying to make a living and trying to offer a good produ~ct at a fair and reasonable rate, that sometimes this is overlooked by those people who have the power and authority to make the regulations. I sincerely believe that this Council has been greatly interested in improving our image and I would hate to see any order come from this which would be misinterpreted by others perhaps who did not have full knowledge, as being another indication that Bakersfield wants to stay unto itself. I appreciate your courtesy on this and now we will answer anything that we reasonably can. I will simply say in the interests of time, we will be perfectly willing to meet with any group of you, if you have a smaller group that you wish to have go California, February 20, 1967 - Page 14 customer we can get, but also to 37O Bakersfield, into any of the facts or figures which I have given, background data, most anything you want, or we will we can here this evening. Doolin: Mr. Mayor, just a comment, rather than a question, on those last remarks about not wanting business. I think there is an opening in the next day or so down in the south part of town which I think definitely indicates that we are interested in outside business, so whoever told you that wasn't aware evidently, of the situation here, and the new stores coming from outside into the City of Bakersfield. King: Well, I don't think it is true. I've got a Dad who is in the lumber business here and -- Doolin: The proof is in the pudding and it's down there-- King: Well, it's wonderful and I'm glad te see it. I do know unfortunately, that personally I've been told on several occasions, "Well, they don't want us up there, and I've been disappointed when I've heard it. Hosking: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a request to the Clerk that she make a transcript of the presentation Mr. King and Mr. Druckman made. If you gentlemen will be kind enough to give us the names and addresses of those six people who made the request, I would ask that they be sent a copy of the transcript, so that they will know what the explanation is. I'd like a copy of it myself. Mayor: I think each of the Council should have copies. Whittemore: We may have somebody out here in the audience who would like to speak on this matter. Keon: Yes. Mr.Mayor and Members of the Council, and Mrs. Ballariz. My name is Jim Keon and I'm an attorney here in Bakersfield and I'm representing Mr. Kenneth Taylor who has an establishment at 1681 Chester, known as Kenny's Cocktail Lounge. I have just recently been asked to come here and I made some preliminary inquiries - first, I would like to know what an unofficial hearing means, Mr. Mayor. California, February 20, 1967 - Page 15 to supply the answer anything 371 Bakersfield, California, February 20, 1967 - Page 16 Mayor: Actually, I think we can run it as the Chair sees fit. Truly, what we try to do is explore the problems involved here, also to secure an explanation which the Council requested from the company with regard to this, and therefore, we are not actually conducting anoticed hearing. So your comments and questions will be welcomed and I am sure that Mr. to try and answer them. Keon: All right, sir. King and Mr. Druckman will be glad Well, in this short time in which I have been involved in this, which has been the last day and a half, I have made several inquiries and I found that Witham's, which is located at 19th and "H" Street, who are in the business of selling television sets which is in that area, had installation at no charge. I've also found that directly behind Witham's is a place called the, "Carriage House", right next to the Greyhound Bus Deport, which should be about 19th and "H" Street, where they have quoted a charge of $2500.00 for installation, which means they have to - I've paced[ it off - and I'm talking in the neighborhood of may be 93 or 100 feet, to run a line from Witham's to the Carriage House, for $2500.00. As Mr. King has pointed out, we are talking about a reason- able charge and you folks are the people who make that determination. We find that Brock's has it, I don't know what the charge was for putting it in Brock's at 20th and Chester, they sell television sets. We find that Booth's have it at 21st and "H" what the charge was for installation, there I don't know, but they are close within this out- lying area which indicates we only have six subscribers. I think that perhaps the presentation is in error. Now talking about Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor's location is at the corner of 17th and Chester, directly east of the Elks Club. We have a line in the Police Station, I don't know what the charge was there for putting it in the Police Station. From the Police Station it goes over to the Elks Club. I know that Mr. Taylor was originally quoted a price in excess of $4,000.00 to put this cable in. Now, the 372 Bakersfield, California, February 20, 1967 - Page 17 distance from the Elks Club to Mr. Taylor's place, we are talking in the neighborhood of 150 feet and going over an eight foot alley or right-of-way or driveway, whatever you want to call it, over which there are many extending lines at this point. Subsequently, after the installation at the Elks Club, for what reason the installation was made at the Elks Club, I don't know, whether there was a great deal of money paid or what, I don't know what the installation charge was. But subsequent to that', there was a representation made to Mr. Taylor that he could have it for $150.00 from the Elks Club to his place, and subsequently the offer was withdrawn saying "We won't give you any service until this hearing is over," and no price was quoted. I know that there is a place called the "Office Bar" at 17th Place, and it is just east of Chester Avenue, the price quoted there is in excess of $4,000.00 to drop this line in. The "Alibi" which is perhaps a hundred yards from Brock's, in excess of $4,000.00 to put it in there. Again, you folks in your charter, have stated that you have the right to dictate a reasonable charge, I think that the charges being asked are unreasonable in light of the idea that they put it into places that sell televisions for nothing or very reasonably. None of these places is more than a half a block away, or a block away, from the places that are asking for the commercial installation of the cable at this time. They say they never intended to place it downtown. They ask $4,000.00 to come across the alley from the Elks Club to Mr. Taylor's place and only $800.00 to put it in the Broadway, to run across I don't know how far they run across, but I am sure it is a number of hundred feet - The Broadway sells television sets. These people downtown are paying substantial taxes. From my understanding from what I read and from talking to the people in town, they are having a difficult time downtown, keeping the business downtown. These folks in business downtown have been in business for a number of years. It it takes this away, from a cocktail lounge, or whatever the place is, I don't care if it's a hotel lobby, it makes it very difficult for the people downtown to keep in business and compete 373 Bakersfield, California, FeBruary 20, 1967 - Page with the people in the outskirts. I think you have a discretion w~st- ed in the TV people which will ultimately destroy the downtown or destroy these folks which have been downtown for years paying taxes; for years. ! do feel that there has been arbitrary abuse of discretion by these folks and I do feel, your Honor, that perhaps you folks should look into this and I'm glad that it is a preliminary hearing, or as; you say, unofficial, so that we do have more time to look into this;, and I ask that you people consider what I have to say. Thank you. Stiern: Question, Your Honor. Since this is an unofficial hearing, may I ask a question at this point. Mayor: Surely Stiern: When the map was placed on the wall with the red squares and rectangles that are on it, I understood that those were, requested locations for service and they represented all the service downtown. Now perhaps, the map as this gentleman has suggested, incomplete, in that it should also show the present locations down-. town where service is being supplied and I think the Council, Mr. King and Mr. Druckman, would appreciate it if those places were filled in on the map so that we could see the proximity as it applies to the places where an application has been made. King: We would be more than happy, Mr. Stiern, to do that, If there is any confusion, I apologize. I intended to state simply that the red squares indicated those places which had requested service and which we had not filled. In other words, they are the unanswered call. Now, if I might, your Honor, make a brief answer to a couple of the comments Mr. Keon made. I'm sure that it is because Mr. Keon did not have too much time before he came here that he probably didn't have an opportunity to read the proposal or the ordinance. But if he had done so, I think he would have found on Page 8, that as a part of the ordinance, the proposal itself, requires the television dealers are to be connected to the cable at no cost for installation, regardless of what it costs the company, and they will pay a monthly charge of $10.00, and so consequently, Witham's and Booths have been provided with service in accordance with the ordinance. 374 Bakersfield, California, February 20, 1967 - Page 19 Now, I believe that Mr. Keon was incorrect when he indicated that Brock's has the service~ because we have not put any service into Brock's, they do not sell televisions in the downtown store. With respect to the Police Station, I believe that it just happens to fall right outside of the area which is shown on the map here, but whether it does nor not, again we agreed, un Page 6, that we would supply free of charge, in accordance with Section 19 of the proposed franchise, all public and non-profit private schools, city police and fire stations, city recreation centers and any additional municipal buildings, providing such locations were passed by the cable which was being maintained by others. As a matter o~ fact, there are some areas where we have actually gone over and provided this service even though it meant an extension and considerably expense to the company, because we wanted to provide it to these various associations. I think it's interest.- ing with respect to the Elks Club, to understand that it borders right on the very edge of the area that we are talking about. The Elks glub is shown on the map right here, and you will see that the presently existing service comes up directly across the street front the Elks Club. There is a power pole located right along side the Elks Club. The service was simply run by going across the street at this particular point. I suppose if you want to be technical about it, it's an illegal installation at that point because its probably comes in conflict with your ordinance, I'm not sure. The total cost on that was $44.70 and was, of course, simply because it was an over- head and it was just the distance of going across the street. The comments by Counsel relative to Kenny's Bar which is shown on the map in red on the opposite end of the block from the Elks Club, are based upon computations which we made as to what the cost would be to run "building to building," which would mean - there are poles in this area, so it's impossible to affix the line to a pole - what it would cost to go along, make attachments on the building 375 Bakersfield, California, February 20, 1967 - Page 20 and run it over to here to provide service. We came up with, if I'm not mistaken, of approximately $170.00, I think the figure was, it's close to that, and I could be more accurate. Of course, that implies that that we can get the permission free of charge from the people who own the buildings to which this would have to be attached, and it would further require that the Council grant whatever varia:ace is necessary in order to do this. Obviously, we could make no firm committeement to the man that we could do it at that price until we know whether or not the Council would want it. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. King. You did say that there were only two TV companies that you had provided service for. He mentioned one other thing, and that was the Greyhound Bus Depot and the fact that the cable came up to Witham's which is right o:n the alley across from that. Can you explain that? King: Yes, I can. This is an extremely long drop. The technical advisor of the company tells me that because of the length of the drop which had to be made in order to service Witham's, it was impossible to split the drop, so that they could then go across the alley as has been indicated would be the easy thing to do, and take care of the Carriage House Bar which is right beside it. It can't be done off of the drop for technical reasons, off of the drop which exists, and would require a new drop to come in from the nearest point which would be right on the border of - what is that street -. 18th Street, I believe. Now I said that Brock's downtown does not sell televisions, that is not correct, they do sell them but they are not the service and have not requested to be on the service. Mayor: Mr. Whirremote Whirremote: I'll quote a couple of pages myself here to clarify this thing for everyone concerned. On Page 1 - The Nature and Extent of the Grant. It states that the franchise hereby granted by the City authorizes Trans-Video Corporation, which is Bakersfield Calbe TV, to engage in the business of operating and providing a CATV system within the City limits of the City of Bakersfield. 376 Bakersfield, California, February 20, 1967 - Page 21 On Page 3 in Section 5 - Limitations upon Grant. No privi- lege or exemption is granted or conferred by this franchise except those specifically prescribed herein, and there is nothing herein that says that downtown Bakersfield will not be serviced. It has been stated that the high tax base in the downtown -'- area and the tremendous competition by these people should be con- sidered. It is very important for every man to maintain his business, and I think they are entitled to every consideration they can possibly get in being provided with this service because they are in competition with other people outside of the downtown area. Mr. Druckman was talking about distribution or transmission lines. It is my opinion, as I have stated before, there is a great deal of difference between a distribution line and a service drop. If you are going to charge the residents for a distribution line, I don't think you would have anyone connected, and I don't think it can be construed - we can go through here, it is all outlined in this ordinance granting the franchise, by no means is it construed that any commercial establishment, business establishment;, would be charged for the distribution line, it is only for the cost of the service drop from that distribution line to their establishment. I don't think it is fair to confuse the issue by saying that these men would have to pay $4,000.00 which would include, of course, the distribution line, because it was outlined that the cost projected would be $50,000.00. I know that it costs something to run the lines down the residential areas, I forget the footage on this line for $50,000.00, ten thousand feet at $50,000.00. It certainly cost you something to run it down the residential area, so I don't think that figure's a good comparison. Mr. Druckman also said, I think it was 16 subscribers that he went to the expense of supplying in the extreme northeast section of the City of Bakersfield. I am very familiar with that section and 377 Bakersfield, California, February 20, 1967 - Page 22 there are many hundreds of apartment houses in that area, and I don't know whether each service is one apartment house or whether it is all the people in there. It isn't the idea of this Council to inflict a tremendous expense upon the Cable T¥ people, but I want to refresh your memories regarding the tremendous competition that was here the night bids were accepted, ~ there were either four or five firms bidding for this, and no one mentioned the exclusion of the downtown are a. As far as the Kern Cable people are concerned, I imagine they are now looking at it in retrospect. ~ think that they are now using the same receiver and the same facilities that you are and I think that they have a franchise on Channel 28, if I'm wrong correct me, there's a partnership involved there. But I don't think its fair to say, without exploring every possibility for supplying these people with the service, that we should let it drop at this point and say their cost is too big, because if you went strictly underground perhaps it would cost you this much money. The Council has said several times that we would be willing to work with this company on the thing, if you had to string it on the poles existing downtown, or if you have to from building to building, we would like to hear that proposal and cost, also. Because I don't think it is going to be that much of a problem to service these areas. You say that there are just the six businesses involved down here, there are other hotels downtown, there are other businesses that I am sure if the service were readily available would subscribe to it also. · Hosking: presentations of Mr. Mr. Mayor, I am very much interested in the Keon and Mr. King and Mr. Druckman. I am very much interested in finding out who else in this area is receiving service. It appears to me that it doesn't do any good to apply 20-20 hindsight to what has happened down here. I think we've got a physical problem of actually getting a transmission line downtown 378 Bakersfield, California, February 20, 1967 - Page 23 whether we on the Council can talk to the telphone company to permit our franchise organization to put their cable in the underground facility that the phone company has, I don't know, all we can do is ask. I'm sure we would be quite willing to give whatever variance is necessary to go from building to building, but then that is not the only problem. As Mr. King pointed out, they have people requiring high rent for use of the building to run these lines. But in any ease, I think it is really a physical problem of getting 'these lines down- town and also it is a financial problem to find out whose going to pay for it in the long run. I think that we would be well advised to ask the company to consult with Mr. Jing on this, who is the City Engineer and the head of the Department of Public Works, and perhaps see if there is some area of compromise. If there isn't, that's one thing, if there is, I think a good expiration of it might be to the advan- tage of the entire City. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Hosking. Do any of the other Council members have any comment? I think you all received a copy of the letter we have, I think we received it and place it on file, I don't think it's necessary for us to read it again. It was just one of the few letters we received with regard to this. Hosking: I would like to say, too, Mr. Mayor, I think it was very kind of Mr. Druckman and Mr. King to come down at our request tonight and give us this explanation. It certainly cleared up a lot of things for me and I think it did for the rest of the Council. But we of course are not completely throught yet, are we, Bob? Whittemore: No, I don't think we are. I was going to say that as far as I am concerned, I am not satisfied at all. And in order to get this thing resolved, we are going to have this thing carried on to some extent with Mr. Jing and the City Manager, a Committee of the Council, we are going to have to find some solution to this, because there are businessmen downtown inw)lved who are not satisfied with the situation. 379 Bakersfield, California, February 20, 1967 - Page 24 Stiern: There were a few discrepancies that I heard from the Bakersfield Cable people. On the one hand a statement was made something to the effect that there are not very many people who want it downtown. On the other hand the company has been granted an exclusive franchise which should be profitable, and it would seem that there would be more than one way of solving the problem. They' talked about a $50,000.00 installation, but as Mr. Hosking has pointed out, if they could work with Mr. Jing to approach the problem regarding other possible installations which could be made, particularly in light of certain additional information that has been brought out about certain recent adjacent installations that we didn't know about, perhaps that $50,000.00 fee could be shaved down considerably. Keon: Your Honor, may I point out that there aren't very many people downtown who would want to pay $4,000.00 for it, perhaps that's why there aren't very many demands for it at this time. Mayor: I think they were indicating the number of requests they had had, not the demand. Keon: Those are the number of present requests. My investi- gation indicates there have been a number of requests withdrawn because of the cost that was quoted. Mayor: Thank you. This perhaps can be answered right now. Mr. King. King: I'm sure that there were possibly some that were withdrawn, your Honor, but it has been the experience of this company, not only in the in the Bakersfield area, but also in San Diego and in the other areas where they are presently operating Cable TV companies, that it really doesn't make an awful lot of difference whether the price is $4,000.00 or $400.00, or even in many cases of $40.00. People are very leafy of making any kind of substantial expenditure for the installation of Cable TV, which certainly has got to be classified in most instances as a luxury item. Your Honor, on behalf of the company, I can certainly say that in response to both Mr. Whittemore and Mr. 38O Bakersfield, California, February 20, 1967 - Page 25 Hosking, we will be more than pleased to meet with Mr. Jing, the City Manager and any of your gentlemen to discuss each and every possible phase of the problem. We will try our level best to come up with anything that is reasonable and just which we think is the test which you would ultimately apply in making a decision on this matter. Councilman Stiern, I don't think it is a material point, but the franchise in this case is not an exclusive franchise, it is a non-exclusive franchise, and if you would like to let some other company have the downtown area, we would be very happy to relinquish it. I don't mean that facetiously, but it is a non-exclusive franchise. Mr. Whittemore, one point. I don't know whether you mis- understood Mr. Druckman or whether he inadvertently stated it in- correctly. But the area where the $13,000.00 expenditure was made was not in the northwest area, it is in the southwest area, and to the best of my knowledge, that is not an apartment area, those are sixteen individual customers in a subdivision, but we could check this out. Mayor: I think the map was upside down. Stiern: I think we are approaching a solution here. If they are willing to sit down and talk to Mr. Jing and Mr. Bergen and work out those installations which can be sensibly worked out, there may be one or two places which would be economically impossible to service. But let's resolve the thing, if possible. Mayor: I think the suggestion you have made is probably as good an approach as could be made at this time, and if you will set up a time when they can meet, then we can hear from you again. Druckman: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to make it very clear that we are not trying to prohibit giving anybody service, or to withhold service from any body, our business is to get as many subscribers as we can, and that's our intention. And we surely have no personal or any.other consideration in not wanting to give every- body the service. 381 Bakersfield, California, Febru;~ry 20, 1967 - Page 26 I sincerely hope that our performance so far in these two years is representative of what our serious intentions are. So I just want to leave you with that feeling that we are more than happy to try to work with anybody on the problems that do exist to try to make everybody happy. And Mr. Whittemore, I want to assure you that we are not trying to get out of giving these people service because we don't desire to do so, inour business we try to give service to every darn person who wants it and is willing to pay for it. So we would be more than happy to meet with anybody you designate and to do our very best to solve this problem. Mayor: Mr. Druckman, I think it would probably be appro- priate if you would arrange to have a meeting with Mr. Jing and Mr. Bergen and we could get a report back from them in approximately be all right with the Council? Would it take that long? that long? I don't know. four weeks, would that Whittemore: Mayor: Take would you like, Mr. Bergen. Bergen: Well, I'm sure it would be at We could say two weeks, or as early as possible. weeks, or earlier, if possible. How many weeks least several weeks. We could say fou~ Correspondence. Mayor Karlen read a postcard he had received from Mrs. Clara B. Maurer who lives on Oregon Street, objecting to Mr. George Roberts referring to East Bakersfield as a "ghetto." Mrs. Balfanz said since this happens to be in her ward, she has been quite con- cerned about it also. She read a note from Mr. Ken Vetter, Bakers-. field insurance man, criticising Mr. Roberts, who is Assistant Director of the State Center Program, regarding comments attributed to him in a Los Angeles Times story, and asking that he retract those statements. All Council members discussed Mr. Robert's remarks and the adverse pub- licity received by the City of Bakersfield. It was suggested that Mayor ~ Karlen invite Mr. Roberts to visit Bakersfield and take him o~.a 382 Bakersfield, Cali£ornia, February 20, 1967 - Page 27 tour o£ the so-called "ghetto." Mayor Karlen also read a letter £rom Mr. Larry King o£ the King-Marshall Lumber Company, taking exception to statements in the Los Angeles Times made by John Tallman o£ the Kern County Community Action Program Committee, that 90,000 persons are defined as living in poverty in Kern County. Reports. The City Clerk read a report from H. E. Bergen, City Manager, on the subject of Contract for Outside Audit. He stated that the sta££ has made a survey of the general opinion of several Certified Public Accountants regarding the probable £ee in the first year of an audit contract compared with the fee in subsequent years under a similar contract. The opinion was that a good experienced auditor would spend 25% o£ his time during the year education himsel£ on the city's procedure and the sta££ there£ore concluded, that if the Council decided to change outside auditors this year, it would be necessary to increase the audit fee by approximately $3,000 £or the 1967-68 budget. All the certi£ied Public Accountants surveyed recommended that the City change its policy o£ changing outside auditors every three years. Mr. Bergen was also advised that professional ethics would discourage C.P.A.'s £rom submitting bids £or the City's audit contract. It was therefore recommended that the GEC's recommendation to retain the services o£ Speer, Chavez, Ruggenberg, & Wright for the current year be £ollowed. Also, that the Council evaluate each year the services received and requirements o£ outside auditing service. Councilman Whittemore made a motion, which was seconded by Councilman Hosking, that the report be received and placed on £ile, and the recommendations adopted. Councilman Stiern said that the report in part, eliminates his objections of a couple o£ weeks'ago. He said he valued the opinion o£ the other auditing firms, particularly since he had checked to see who they were and that they are £irms o£ considerable merit. 383 Bakersfield, .California, February 20, 1967 - Page 28 Councilman Whittempre, chairman of the Governmental Effi-. ciency Committee, reported on meetings held to consider several items relating to personnel needs within City Departments. The first re-. quest was submitted by the Director Of Public Works, with the appreval of the City Manager, for authorization for an additional Route Foreman Position, for enforcement of the refuse ordinance. The Committee feels that this request zation of an additional permanent basis. is justified, and would recommend the authori- Sanitation Route Foreman position on a The Committee also evaluated a request from the City Manager's office for the establishment of a Personnel Clerk position. This request was prompted by the increasing work load in the Personnel functions of the City Manager's office. The Committee feels the establishment of the position at Range 17 would be commensurate witlh the responsibilities as outlined in the report. After discussion, it was moved by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Hosking that action be deferred, and the report be taken under advisement by the Council for one week. Allowance of Claims. Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Stiern, Vouchers Nos. 2977 to 3121 inclusive, in amount of $97,647.95, were allowed, and authorization was granted for payment'of same. Bid Action. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Counc~L1- man Hosking,the lowest bid meeting specifications was accepted for the following items: Tire and Tubes Recapping Automotive Batteries All other bids were rejected, to execute the contracts. B. F. Goodrich Stores Boynton Bros¢ Inc. Kern Battery Mfg. Co. and the Mayor was authorized[ 384 Bakersfield, California, February 20, 1967 - Page 29 Adoption of Ordinance No. 1670 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code by amending Section 7.40.040 therein, by repealing Section 7.40.0S0 therein, and adding Section 7.40.115. Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Council- man Bosking, Ordinance No. 1670 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code by amending Section 7.40.040 therein, by repealing Section 7.40.080 therein and adding Section 7.40.115, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Bal£anz, Doolin, Bosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: None Bearings. This was the time set for continued hearing on an appeal by Fred Gooch to decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment granting his application for a modification of an R-2 (Two-Family Dwelling) Zone to permit the construction of a carport with reduction of the side yard setback on that certain property in the City of Bakersfield commonly known as 314 "E" Street. the meetings of February 6 and 13, in his own behalf. This hearing had been deferred from 1967, to permit Mr. Gooch to speak Mr. Gooch was present and stated that to construct the side- walk and concrete driveway as required by the Board of Zoning Adjust- ment as a condition to granting the modification, would be injurious to a pecan tree growing only a foot from the driveway, and that he did not feel is was necessary to construct sidewalks as he would prefer to leave the area in grass. It was brought out during discussion, that curb and gutter had been constructed as well as a six foot concrete apron leading to the driveway. Mr. Jing, Director of Public Works, stated that it had been the policy of the City to encourage the construction of sidewalks whenever possible and that was the reason for this condition being imposed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment. 385 Bakersfield, California, February 20, 1967 Page 30 cussion, Balfanz, members of the determine what The Mayor closed the public hearing and after Council dis- it was moved by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilwoman that action be deferred for an additional week, to permit Council to go look at the property in question to action should be taken by the Council.. Adoption of Resolution No. 12-67 of Application by the City Council of the City of Bakersfield to detach certain property from the North of the River Recreation and Park District. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Council- man Stiern, Resolution No. 12-67 of Application by the City Council of the City of Bakersfield to detach certain property from the North of the River Recreation and Park District, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: None Acceptance of City Clerk's Certificate of Sufficiency of Nominating Petitions filed for Councilman to fill the vacancy in the Third Ward. Upon a motion by Councilman Bosking, seconded by Councilman Stiern, City Clerk's Certificate of Sufficiency of Nominating Petitions filed for Councilman to fill the vacancy in the Third. Ward was received and ordered placed on file. Request from Union Cemetery Association for the closing of Potomac Street between King'and Baker Streets referred to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation. Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Rucker, request from the Union Cemetery Association for the closing .of Potomac Street between King and Baker Streets was referred to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation. Extension of Time granted Kern Sprinkler Company for completion of contract for construction of an Automatic Sprinkler System in Jefferson Park. Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Hosking, ten working days' extension of time was granted Kern Sprink]Ler Company for construction of an Automatic Sprinkler System in Jefferson Park. 386 Bakersfield, California, February 20, 1967 - Page 31 Acceptance of Work and Mayor authorized to execute Notice of Completion for construction of Tennis Courts at Wilson Park. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded hy Council- man Stiern, the Work was accepted and the Mayor was authorized to exe- cute the Notice of Completion for the construction of Tennis Courts at Wilson Park. Acceptance of Work and Mayor authorized to execute Notice of Completion for construction of Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert at Williams Street and Eastside Canal. Upon a motion by Councilman Rosking, seconded by Councilman Rucker, the Work was accepted, and the Mayor was authorized to execute Box Culvert at Williams Street and Eastside Canal. Approval of Bill of Sale for College Crest Street Lighting System. Upon a motion by Councilman Bosking, seconded by Councilman Doolin, the Bill of Sale was accepted, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the Contract for the College Crest Street Lighting System. Encroachment Permit granted S. L. Parrish for garden wall footing at 1611 First Street. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, Encroachment Permit was granted S. L. Parrish for construction of 45 feet of garden wall footing which will encroach nine inches on to First Street. Encroachment Permit granted Donald G. Collins, 4120 Ridgemoor Avenue. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, Encroachment Permit Ridgemoor Avenue to construct 3' existing sidewalk. was granted Donald G. Collins, 4120 high chain link fence adjacent to 387 Bakersfield, California, February 20, 1967 - Page 32 Adjournment. There being no further business to come before this Council, upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M. MAYOR of the City of Bakersfiei~d~ ATTEST: TY~C -~ - ~) - . C I RK knd - · ex-officio clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California. 06 . Bakersfield, California, February 27, 1967 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M. February 27, 1967. The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Councilman Richard Stiern. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Wbittemore Absent: None Minutes of the regular meeting of February 20, 1967 were approved as presented. Service Pin Award. Mayor Karlen presented a service pin to Councilman Samuel Del Rucker, who completed five years with the City Council on February 26, 1967. Correspondence. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman Rucker, communication from California Licensed Land Surveyors Associ- ation regarding the filing of tentative maps and other maps for subdivisions by architects was received and ordered placed on file and referred to the Planning Commission. Council Statements. Councilman Stiern said he had a short statement to make dedicated to anyone who is interested in fact rather than fancy. The Council will recall that several weeks ago it received a letter which alleged that there were certain unfavorable conditions at the City pound. He stated he had mentioned at the time that he had received certain suggestions for the improvement of the pound in the past and that the Kern County Veterinary Medical Associatior~ was presently making a study for the City. The Veterinary Association intends to study such aspects as sanitation, disease control, the care of small puppies and kittens at the pound, and to make recommendations, whenever necessary, to the City Manager. In Bakersfield, California, February 27, 1967 - Page 2 addition, the contribution of the Veterinary Association will include the offer of certain supervisorial services and the supplying to the public of useful publications, such as pamphlets of interest to the owners of new dogs and small puppies. The Kern County Veterinary Medical Association will continue in its efforts to assist the Council and the public to make the pound operation as adequate as possible. Councilman Whittemore said that last week at the informal hearing on Cable Television the issue was referred to the City Manager's office. He feels that it is going to be necessary to refer the matter to a Council Committee, and after discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Doolin, the matter was referred to the Business Development and Parking Committee. Councilman Hosking said he had a statement to make, that he had had occasion in the past to be engaged as counsel for various political campaigns, the latest one being for a congressional election campaign, and that the matter of the circulation of anonymous letters and pamphlets always comes up. He called attention to Section 12047 of the Election Code as amended by Stats. ].956, which reads as follows: Section 12047. Unidentified circulars, pamphlets or posters. Every person is guilty of a misdemeanor who writes or causes to be written, printed, posted or distributed, any circular, pamphlet, letter, or poster which is designated to injure or defeat any candidate for nomination or election to any public office by reflecting upon his personal character or political action, unless there appears upon the circular, pamphlet, letter or poster, in a conspicuous place, the name and address of the printer and either: (a) The name and address of the chairman and secretary or the names and addresses of at least two officers of the political or other organization issuing it; or (b) The name and residence address, with the street and number, if any, of some person who is responsible for it. Bakersfield, California, February 27, 1967 Page 3 3 He said he has noticed recently that a number of anonymous letters were being published in a local newspaper having to do with one of the Council candidates. It is clear from reading the Elections Code that the legislature doesn't think this is a fair election tactic. Assemblyman Stacy is having a scheduled meeting in the Council Chambers on March 4, 1967, for representatives of various governmental agencies, including the Council, and Councilman Hosking asked the City Attorney' to make a request to Assemblyman Stacy to put this matter on this agenda for consideration at the above meeting and to obtain an opinion from the Attorney General as to whether or not Section 12047 of the Elections Code would apply to newspapers. Reception of Reports from Inter-Group Relations Board regarding Talk Shows. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman Rucker, majority and minority report filed by members of the Inter-Group Board regarding Talk Shows were received and ordered placed on Relations file. At this time the order of business was changed, and the Council proceeded with the public hearings scheduled for this evening. Hearings. This being the time set for continued hearing on an appeal by Fred Gooch to decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment granting his application for a modification of an R-2 (Two Family Dwelling) Zone to permit the construction of a carport with reduction of the sideyard setback on that certain property in the City of Bakersfield commonly known as 314 "E" Street, the Mayor stated that the public portion of the hearing had been closed and Council discussion would be in order. Councilman Stiern stated that he hoped all members of the Council had had an opportunity to inspect the property in question. He did, and talked to Mr. Gooch about it. He said he still has mi~edC emotions about the matter, he would like to see Mr. Gooch construct a sidewalk, but after looking at the property, he can't see, in all fairness, that the Council should require him to do so as a condition for building the carport. After discussion, it was then moved by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Hosking, that the modification be granted, waiving the two conditions imposed by the Board of Zoning Bakersfield, California, February 27, 1967 - Page 4 Adjustment for construction of sidewalks and a paved driveway to city standards. The motion carried unanimously. This was the time set for hearing on an application by Giovanni, Frank and John Bertano requesting a change of zone from an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-4-T-D(Multiple Family Dwelling - Trailer Park - Architectural Design) or more restrictive, zone, o:f that certain property located east of and adjacent to South "H" Street approximately 1320 feet south of White Lane. The City Clerk reported that this hearing had been duly advertised and posted and written protest was received from Harold C. Stellmacher, secretary-treasurer of Countryside Homes, Inc., to be considered as 39 protests against the rezoning as they own 39 lots in the area. The Planning Commission recommended that the R-4-T-D zoning not be finalized until a 60 foot street (40 foot paved section) be constructed along the north boundary of subject property to connect with "H" Street. This would include the construction of a bridge across the Kern Island Canal. The condition would be satisfied by the posting of a bond for the improvements. At the request of Councilman Whittemore, Planning Director Sceales pointed out on the map the exact boundaries of the property for the benefit of those people present who were not familiar with the area. Mayor Karlen then invited the proponents for the rezoning to address the Council. Mr. Maurice St. Clair, who stated that he was the broker subdividing the property, outlined the plans for the construction of a trailer court stating that the facility would handle about 100 trailers. He said there was a great need for this of construction, that they would have their own bridge and road and be a distinct asset to the whole area. He felt that the neighbors out there had not been fully informed of the plans and'that they would be proud of the proposed construction. type it would Bakers£ield, California, February 27, 1967 - Page 5 Mayor Karlen advised that he had a petition on his desk containing the signatures of 336 residents and property owners in the area objecting to the construction o£ a trailer park and two story apartment buildings, and he also read two letters of protest from Mr. John Ernst of 4409 Chadbourn Street and Mr. Lawrence E. McNeil of 4313 Brunswick Street. The opponents to the proposed rezoning were then heard. Mr. Victor Huntington residing at 4308 Chadbourn Street, stated that he had been asked to represent the residents in the immediate area of the proposed rezoning for the purpose of building a trailer court, and stated that they were 100% opposed to this construction, as they £eel it would be detrimental to the value of their property and would crowd the schools in that area. Mrs. Helen P. Haar, who lives at 4304 Brunswick, said she wanted to express her opposition to the proposal as she does not feel there is a need for this type of construction. Apartments are being constructed just south of the Benton Park Shopping area and south on Pacheco and "H" Street and there is an own-your-own lot trailer park under construction by Wayne Reeder. No one else requesting to be heard~ the Mayor permitted rebuttal from the proponents. Mr. St. Clair stated that he had 80 lots which had not been built on and he certainly was taking this into consideration when they proposed building a trailer court in this area, as he would not build anything that would be detrimental to his own interests. Mr. Huntington and Mrs. Haar offered rebuttal and again stated their objections to the rezoning~ that they wanted this area to remain R-1 zoning, as the area is heavily populated with children their homes in the area are nice homes~ and they do not want them down graded by the construction of trailer courts. Bakersfield, California, February 27, 1967 - Page 6 Mr. Maurice Pisar of 1520 White Lane and Mrs. Wilma Fissel of 1212 San Vicente Drive also expressed opposition to any plans for the development of this area as a trailer court. Councilman Whittemore asked Mr. Huntington if he was aware of the distance from the homes of this proposed development at the time the petition was circulated. Mr. Huntington said in the event the trailer court and apartments were built, they would be in the other resident's backyards. They knew it was 584 feet to the trailer court, ~ey were aware that notices were not sent out and the area. was not posted because no one was in the immediate 300 feet. Councilman Hosking said he didn't see how he could vote any other way except against this rezoning, he has known Mr. St. Clair for a good many years and he builds excellent houses, but when almost 400 people sign a petition in opposition to the proposal, he cannot vote any other way. Councilman Doolin asked Mr. St. Clair if the rezoning for the trailer court was denied would he still be interested in building the apartments requested in the second application. Mr. St. Clair said he just didn't know, the cost of the bridge and the bond runs approximately $25,000 and it could be expensive if it were only for one half of the project. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Mr. Don Ward was permitted to speak at this time. He stated that he had helped Mr. St. Clair lay out the designs for the apartments and the trailer courts. He stated that this type of development doesn't depreciate the land it around it,/~hances the land, because it is a continuous change in the land use. Councilman Whirremote said that being the representative of the people who came up to the Council with a petition containing 350 names opposing this rezoning, the only way thathe could vote for it would be if he received another petition signed by 350 names in favor of it. Bakersfield, California, February 27, 1967 - Page 7 Councilman Stiern said he would not care to build a home next to a trailer court and he can certainly understand the three or four hundred people objecting to the construction of this trailer court. Councilman Rucker said he did not think the Council should let large numbers of people influence their decisions and not look out for the interests of the City of Bakersfield at large. The Council should listen to both sides and then make a decision on what it feels is the best thing for all concerned. He will therefore vote against this proposed rezoning. After further discussion, it was moved by Councilman Whirremote, seconded by Councilman Hosking, that the application be denied. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Noes: Councilman Doolin Absent: None This was the time set for hearing on an application by Giovanni, Frank and John Bertano requesting a change of zone from an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-3-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-3-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Design) or more restrictive zone, of that certain property in the City of Bakersfield located east of and adjacent to South "H" Street approximately 660 feet south of White Lane. The Planning Commission recommended that the R-3-D zoning not be finalized until a 60-foot street (40 feet paved section) be constructed along the south boundary of subject.parcel to connect with "H" Street. This would include the construction of a bridge across the Kern Island Canal. This condition could be satisfied by the posting of a bond for the improvements. Nayor Karlen said by the previous presentation they had probably already held a hearing on this application, but anyone who wished to make further statements could do so at this time. Bakersfield, California, February 27, 1967 - Page 8 Mr. Don Ward, associated with Mr. St. Clair, stated that generally the way development starts now the developer puts a package together and he divides the lots and at the same time builds the houses, and when he builds the houses he is working with a fixed set of standards and criteria in the neighborhood. Mr. Huntington was given the opportunity to be heard on this application, and he stated that 335 person on the petition he had presented were against both applications, they are opposed to changing the R-1 in any way. They would like to have the whole tract kept as R-1 and eventually have single family homes built in the area. Mrs. June Eckert of 1524 White Lane stated that as ~e understands it, in 20 years White Lane and South "H" Street will be the middle of Bakersfield and she does not think more apartments should be built which would be in the center of town, that they want this area kept R-1. Mr. St. Clair said he did not think the people who were objecting to his applications had been informed of the true facts. He said the project was designed so that there would be no apartments built within 200 feet of the border, and that there had never been another complex designed in Mr. Leo Schamblin this manner, it is something completely of 4413 Chadbourn Street, Mr. Fernando Marquez who resides on Alexander Street and Mrs. Helen Haar of 4304 Brunswick, stated that they were opposed to the construction of two story apartments and multiple dwellings. Mayor Karlen then closed the public hearing for Council discussion or questions. Councilman Hosking stated that he didn't have any questions but he feels that it is unrealistic to expect not to have apartments in this area, particularly since most of the homes were over 300 feet away. He said he does not think they should have the right to tell the landowner what he should build on his land and he does not think the Council should take the position that they don't want anything but R-1 in that area. Bakersfield, California, February 27, 1967 - Page 9 Councilman Stiern asked Mr. 3~eales if the property directly across from the proposed R-3-D zoning on "H" Street is zoned M-2. Mr. Sceales replied that this property is in the County and is zoned M-2. Councilman Stiern asked if it were realistic to expect R-1 development across from M-2 zoning and Mr. Sceales said it is not normally thought of as a good investment for the R-1 developer. It could be developed by backing up R-1 to the canal. In answer to Councilman Stiern's question, Mr. Sceales stated that it would not be good transitional type zoning to go from the M-2 to the R-3 to the R-l, from an economic standpoint, that normally people would not build a single family home next to an M-2 industrial Area. Public Works Director Jing stated that he wanted to make a comment. There is an offer of dedication for a 60 foot street, half of which is on this application, and the other half on the application which was previously denied. There is a letter from a bonding company that the developers have applied for an improvement bond and have been accepted and the bond will be forthcoming when requested. There was no committment on the offer of dedication and Mr. Jing said perhaps the owners would want to offer a comment. Mr. Ward, for the owners, said if the developer decided to go ahead with the development, they would probably go ahead with the street. City Attorney Hoagland said it is not a question of whether the developer decides to go ahead or not, there is a question of dedieation and bonding for the bridge regardless of what takes place. Mr. St. Clair said he didn't come prepared to make a decision on half of it. He said he didn't think it would be economically feasible to spend $25,000 for a bridge for half of a project. He said perhaps if they built the first project and then reapplied for the other half for some other use, they might decide to build a bridge, but he doesn't think it is necessary to have a bridge for one half of the project as there would be fewer people using it. 10 Bakersfield, California, February 27, 1967 - Page 10 Mayor Karlen asked Mr. St. Clair if both projects were approved R-3-D for the building of apartments, what would his position be on that. Mr. St. Clair said in that case they would have to redesign the project, especially the entrance. Mr. Jing said there was a recommendation from the Commission that the bridge and road be improved as a condition for the granting of either or both applications, and he does not think there would be any access to the property without the bridge. Mr. Sceales said the Commission's recommendation was based on two separate applications and that they felt a 60 foot street with a 40 foot paved section with a bridge was necessary regardless of whether one passed and the other failed. That street is a collector street and probably would be the only access to South "H" Street between Pacheco Road and White Lane, and the Commission felt that was needed and the Planning Staff would back up that recommendation. Councilman Whittemore said he wanted to make some comments. In his opinion there is a lot of difference between a trailer court and nice'apartments. He has listened to the arguments and he does know that there is a tremendous demand for apartments in the City of Bakersfield. He said he thinks with the proper controls on the construction that apartments in an R-3-D zone will not be a detriment to the neighborhood. Mr. St. Clair then made the request that the matter be deferred for one week to give him an opportunity to evaluate his proposals and see if it would be economically feasible to build the bridge and dedicate the street. Councilman Hosking said he would be inclined to make no decision on this tonight nor to continue it either, but to refer it back to the Planning Commission for further processing. It is too complicated as it now stands for the Council to try to make some decision. Bakersfield, California, February 27, 1967 - Page 11 City Attorney Hoagland said he had a question as to just what is the Council considering, only one part of the property or also the portion involving the application for the trailer park. Nayor Karlen said they are now completing 'the hearing of ~he Council on the second issue. Obviously, if new factors are brought out, it would seem reasonable that the public be allowed to be heard again. Mr. Huntington said he would just as ~on have it settled tonight, as they had nothing further to develop on the apartments. He said he does not think any reference should be made to the trailer court which had been denied earlier. After discussion, it was moved by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, that the matter be referred back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. This motion carried unanimously. At this time the Council recessed for five minutes. The Council reconvened at 10:35 P. N. This was the time set for hearing on an application by J. L. Dandy requesting a change of zone from an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-3-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Design) or more restrictive, zone, of that certain property in the City of Bakersfield located on the south side of Ming Avenue approximately 500 feet west of Stine Road. The Planning Commission recommended that the R-3-D zoning not be finalized until the south half of Ming Avenue 55 feet along the north boundary of subject property be improved and dedicated to the City or a bond be posted for the improvement of same. Mr. Dandy, the developer, informed the Council that he had the deed for the south half of the road which he needs to have signed and will return next week, and they are in the process of getting the required bond for the improvements of the south half Bakersfield, California, February 27, 1967 -iPage 12 Mayor Karlen closed the public hearing, and there being no protests or objections to the rezoning, upon a~tion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman Rucker, Ordinance No. 1671 New Series 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 on the south side of Ming Avenue approximately 500 feet west of Stine Road was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfamz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, SKern, Whirremote Noes: None Absent: None Allowance of Claims. Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, Vouchers Nos. 3122 to 3206 inclusive, in amount of $50,740.65, as audited by the Voucher Approval Committee, were allowed, and authorization was granted for payment of same. Appointment of James F. Flinn as Member of the Civil Service Commission for Miscellaneous Departments. Councilwoman Balfanz nominated James F. 'Flinn to fill the vacancy on the Civil Service Commission for Miscellaneous Departments, replacing William H. Carroll. Councilman Hosking moved that the nominations be closed. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Hosking, Mr. Flinn was appointed by an unanimous ballot for term expiring December 31, 1967. Acceptance of lowest bid meeting specifications for Annual Contracts for certain Everyday Purchases. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, the following low bids were accepted for annual contracts for everyday purchases as follows: Janitorial Paper Products Janitorial Supplies Janitorial Rags All other bids were rejected, and San Joaquin Supply Co. Odorire Janitor Supplies Mission Linen Supply the Mayor was authorized to execute the contracts. Bakersfield, California, February 27, 1967 - Page 13 Acceptance of Bid of Crook Company for Bituminous Distributor Truck. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman Rucker, bid of Crook Company to furnish Bituminous Distributor Truck was accepted, and the Purchasing Division was instructed to sell the trade-in equipment by bid. Approval and Adoption of Governmental Efficiency Committee's Report relating to personnel needs of the City Manager's office and the Department of Public Works. This being the time set to further consider recommendations of the Governmental Efficiency Committee relative to the authorization of an additional Sanitation Route Foreman Position on a permanent basis in the Public Works Department, and the establishment of a Personnel Clerk position in the City Manager's office, upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Stiern, the report was approved and the recommendations contained therein were adopted. Adoption of Resolution No. 13-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield modifying Freeway Agreement providing for on and off ramps at Mount Vernon Avenue. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Cou~ilman Hosking, Resolution No. 13-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield modifying Freeway Agreement providing for on and off ramps at Mount Vernon Avenue, was adopted by the following vote: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore None None Ayes: Noes: Absent: Adoption of Resolution No. 14-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield modifying Freeway Agreement providing for a Grade Separation at the southerly extension of Wenatchee Avenue. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, Resolution No. 14-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield modifying Freeway Agreement providing for a Grade Separation Bakersfield, California, February 27, 1967 - Page 14 at following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Noes: None Absent: None the southerly extension of Wenatchee Avenue, was adopted by the Stiern, Whittemore Adoption of Resolution No. 15-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield to extend Route 178 Freeway from Mount Vernon to Oswell Street. Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, Resolution No. 15-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield to extend Route 178 Freeway from Mount Vernon to Oswell Street, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whirremote Noes: None Absent: None Approval of Audit Contract between the City of Bakersfield and Speer, Chavez, Ruggenberg and Wright. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Rucker, Audit Contract with Speer, Chavez, Ruggenberg and Wright, Certified Public Accountants, was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. Approval and adoption of Classifications and Specifications for the jobs of Transit Superintendent and Transit Route Foreman. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman Hosking, classifications and specifications for the jobs of Transit Superintendent and Transit Route Foreman were approved and adopted. Acceptance of Check from the State of California Department of Justice, Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training. Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman Hosking, check in the amount of $1,727 from the State of California Department of Justice, Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training, was accepted, and transferred to Police Department Account No. 11-620-0100. Bakersfield, California, February 27, 1967 - Page 15 Approval of Step Salary Increases effective March 1, 1967. Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman Hosking, the following step salary raises were approved, effective March 1, 1967: O. Fisher D. Jones L. E. Nicola L. L. Suniga Sanitation Crewman I Motor Coach Operator Maintenance Man II Sewer Maintenance Man Step 4 to 5 Step 3 to 4 Step 4 to 5 Step 4 to 5 Approval of License Agreement to discharge Storm Water into the Kern Island Canal. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Cou~ ilwoman Bal£anz, License Agreement to discharge Storm Water into the Kern Island Canal was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. Encroachment Permit granted Shell Oil Company to install two light poles at southwest corner of California Avenue/Real Road intersection. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Doolin, Encroachment Permit was granted the Shell Oil Company to install two light poles within the street right of way at the southwest corner of the California Avenue/Real Road intersection. Approval of Agreement with the State Division of Highways for modification of traffic signals and street lighting at Sumner Street/22nd Street/Union Avenue intersection. Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, Agreement with the State Division of Highways for the modification of the traffic signals and street Lighting at the Sumner Street/22nd Street/Union Avenue intersection was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. Adjournment. There being no further business to come before this Council, upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Wh,~more, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M. ~'f- ~' ~ MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield? ~afif. ATTEST: CI'I~"~ ~n ~ of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California Bakersfield, California, March 6, 1967 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield~ California, held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M. March 6, 1967. The Mayor called themeeting to order followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend James Patterson of the First Presbyterian Church. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern~ Whittemore Absent: None Minutes of the regular meeting of February 27~ 1967 were approved as presented. Service Pin Award. Mayor Karlen presented a service pin to George Strelich, Detective Grade II of the Police Department~ who completed 25 years service with the City of Bakersfield on March 1, 1967. Council Statements. Councilman Stiern made the following statement: The proposal to create a Bakersfield Municipal Water District will be submitted to the voters very soon. There appears to be a tremendous emergency from some quarters to rush this issue to election, in spite of the fact that all people concerned must agree that there is now time for adequate and thorough study. The Board of Supervisors has indicated that the election will be set for the near future, yet all surveys and discussions indicate that the issue is far from clear in the minds and understanding of the voters. Therefore~ I would like to propose that the Council appoint a Citizens Committee to review and study the District proposal and to eventually make a recommendation to'the ' . - voters on their conclusions. There is material available which this Committee could review, the Water Agency has information~ and the City Council has accumulated information with particular reference to the future welfare of the City. Mr. Hosking and I would propose that each Councilman nominate two people Bakersfield, California, March 6, 1967 - Page 2 19 and the Mayor also nominate two. These people would 'then be appointed by the Mayor to a Citizens Water Study Committee. It would, of course, be up to them to organize their Committee and its meetings, examine existing materials and call for and listen to presentations from whomever they wish. The qualifications I would suggest are that they be residents of the City. Please do not eliminate someone because he is a farmer who lives in the City, as some of the wisest and fairest opinions concerning municipal water we have heard have come from certain farmers. Some of the poorest thinking is coming from certain westside land speculators, most of whom are not too obvious, even to the extent of posing as local businessmen. It would be my hope that the Committee's deliberations and decisions would be completely independent and w~hout political or personal economic limitations or overtones. It is also my hope that the Council would appoint a Committee that would be a real cross section and which would include engineers, C. P. A.'s, attorneys, bankers, realtors, merchants, housewives, and in fact anyone else who is truly interested and capable. Eventually they could report their opinions and conclusions to the voters of the City in order to help all persons arrive at a wise decision. Councilman Stiern then moved that such a Committee be appointed immediately. Councilwoman Balfanz seconded the motion. After discus. sion, the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Hosking said he would like to suggest that it might be easier if each Councilman submitted his names to the Mayor without waiting for a further meeting, then he can go ahead and make the appointments and the Committee can get started. - . Mayor Karlen said as soon as he has all the names, he would proceed as requested. 2O Bakersfield, California, March 6, 1967 - Page 3 Allowance of Claims. Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, Rucker, Vouchers Nos. 3207 to 3317 inclusive, as audited by the Finance Approval Committee, were allowed, authorization was granted for payment of same. seconded by Councilman in amount of $43,379.20, and Acceptance of Bid of Jim Alfter Cement Company for Everyday Purchases of Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks. Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, seconded by Councilman Hosking, low bid of Jim Alfter Cement Company for Annual Contract for Everyday Purchases of Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Acceptance of Bid of Kern Turf Supply for Annual Contract for Everyday ~rchases of P. V. C. Pipe and Sprinklers. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, bid of Kern Turf Supply for Annual Contract for Everyday purchases of P. V. C. Pipe and Sprinklers was accepted as meeting all specifications and for convenience of supply, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Acceptance of Certificate of City Clerk to result of the Canvass of Election Returns of Nominating Municipal Election held on February 28, 1967. Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Stiern, Certificate of City Clerk of Canvass of Returns of the Vote cast at the Nominating Municipal Election held on February 2S, 1967, for Councilman in the Second, Fifth and Sixth Wards of the City and for Members of the Board of Education, was received and placed on file and ordered spread on the Minutes. STATEMENT OF ALL VOTES CAST AT THE NOMINATING MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD February 28 IN CITY OF BAKERSFIELD STATE OF CALIFORNIA (When the City Clerk makes the Official Canvass, he must fill out Certificate on back page.) STATEMENT OF ALL VOTES CAST AT THE ELECTION PRECINCTS Firsl' W~rd i A Consolidated Precinct No. 1 [ $ 2 3 D Councilman Second Ward 48 Councilman Fifth Ward o < 5 F,: 96 6 G 77 i [ 7 H 119 8 j l 37 o i J !~124 ' 10 11 12 13 Percentage 32.62 Totals, FirstWard Second W~rd Consolidatcd Precinct No. 14 1S 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 Absentees Totals, Second Ward Percentage 53.65 ,: 75 150 82 lo85 :188 ~65 108 214 ;258 1197 i86 1:179 154 ; 142 104 M N 0 P O R S T 101. 82, 34 ' 30, 60 47 1~99 591 96! 57[ 92[ 5O[ 72I 31 12! 6 116951105 i595 Tot.,ds Czrried Forw,~rd NominatinE Councilman Sixth Ward A ELECTION HELD Member of the FTRST WARD Februarv 28th ,19 67 Board of Education ~L ~ 'i 37 42 20 36 41 32 31 34 23 11 14 21 25 25 30 20 26 13 35 19 26 21 13 13 34 74 36 69 33 113 17 24 43 19 32 17 46 2O 33 20' 15 14 15 18 35 15' 10 48 26 61 18 33 18 62 20 37 67 126 34 M N 38 55 26 36 45 29 99 38 27 : 76 13 , 27 845 ~284 346 , B C D E F G H L :, AbSentees Q R S T P 39' 40 63 77 137 147 135 146 52 60 100 128 76 96 89 _94 70 80 11 10 1037 Ll76 25 45 78 71 28 71 75 57_ 33 26 23 44 361 21 60I 96 55 58 89, 571 29! 36i 23 53!,107! 62 37 76i 61 .31~ 69L 55~ 31' 61 26 7! 14 5 67815191;816 521 STATEMENT OF ALL VOTES CAST AT THE ELECTION PRECINCTS Totals Brought Forward Third Ward Consolidated Precinct No. 25 26 27 B C D E :r 89 115 74 28 F 59 29 G 121 30 H 89 31 I ;114 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 Councilman Second Ward Councilman Fifth Ward iM N 0 P 50 78 : 52 $1 75 T Totals. Third Ward , A ~462 Percentage 24.5755 B' Consolidated Precinct No. 42 43 44 45 Totals, Fourth Ward Percentage 25.678 F 51 O 39 H 22 I 66 46 _ J_ 110 47 K ~ 127 48 L ! 50 49 M i 61 I' 50 N' 148 I' 51 O 93 52 : P 104 O R 871 TotMs Carried Forward Nominatin ELECTION HELD February 28th ,19 67 A B C D F G H I K M N O p O Councilman Sixth Ward B C ~ : D ~ 41i 451 40 26 30 27t 60 62, 53I 46i 38' 49, Member of the Beard of Education TI-II~D WARn 41 39 35, 61 52 ~ 29 36 25~ 32 20 32 ' 33 34i 52 30: 53; 77! I 75~ 86i 66:611 41i 64! 62: 59; 29~ 36: 22i 261 23 19~ 35i , 56~, 10, 30 31! 34! 38 51, 49 22, 24 281 27 38, 40 27 221 28 21 33 27 38 50 23 32 33 37 36! 45 762,793 623 FOURTH WARI 484 722i 796 F G H I 32 13i 45i 36 17 15 28 11 28 19 25i 12 7 14 10 11i 8 5 50 24~ 121 30 32 J ..... i " 69i 66, 33] 30; 60 51 g ' ~ 83[ 85: 38! 23; 90 49 M ~ 191 27:25i 231 141 27, 11711201 34i 17!108! 33 60: 63~ 43i 21 451 32:1 46 53 631 391 37i 61, 550 5891303 242!i483 318 P O R $ T STATEMENT OF ALL VOTES CAST AT THE ELECTION PRECINCTS Totals Brought Forward C,ms.lidated Precim't No.,5,3 ' C i 120 ,I 54 0 ~ 177 !] ~F, , G 139 ~ 58 59 ................ 60 61 62 63 Absentees T~tals, Fifth Ward Percentage 50.709 Sixth Ward Crmsolidated Precinct No. 64 65 67 68 69 7O H 103 M 129 N 2O 0 ~1750 C l 129 D 208 ~: Councilman Second Ward < 24 49 124 1421 76 F 168 O 107 Hi 251 I i 171 71 j ~ 63 K~ 113 L 194 M 50 N 208 O; 20 72 73 74 75 p 1786 $ T 2 60 5 113 3 102 13 126 1 78 7 1 2 ,968 1126 Absentees Totals, Sixth Ward Percentage 57.006 Totals Carded Forward Councilman Fifth Ward < © 25165 56161 ~-4 59 3 45 59 35 52 72 63 51 5O 5 1612 o z o E~ F~ L' 100 169 80 48 56 93 79 15 35 79 99 878 N0minatin ELECTION HELD February 28th ,19 67 Councilman Member of the Bo~r~ of Education Sixth Ward FISH 123 133 66 52 96 55 ,~ 72 79 56 54 68 42 63 72; 42 37 33 21 ;~105 119 54 42 92 62 ~ ;113 120 76 69 89 5~ ' '~107 129 57 52 105 66 ; 68 80 48~ 55 75~ 44 ~ 80 84 45 ~ 45 66 49 ~bsentee 14 10 7 10 5 6 , 962 1~7 6~7 683 787 521 ' 0 28 61 58~ 45 90; 26 31 7 3L 51 96~ 94 169. 38 40 0 120 93 113; 59 52~ 74 59 1 50 65 77i 62 35~ 31 29 12 78 88 97 65 74~ 72 58 2 45 ~ 76~ 85 3q~ 45 44 23 1 ~ 32 ~ 23 ~ 27 27 25 22 O~ 109 ~119 ~145 90 82 85 50 38][ 862 i~921 ~99'~716 823 682 483 STATEMENT OF ALL VOTES CAST AT THE ELECTION PRECINCTS ToteIs Brought Forward Seventh Werd Consolidated Precinct No. 76 77 Councilman Councilman Second Ward Fifth Ward A B C 46 D 39 ..... 7~8 _. __E_. 28 79 F ,53 80 G 45 81 I H 46 82 ~ 77 75 60 27 83 J 84 K 85 L Absentee !M 32 Totals, Seventh Ward N 526 pe_r.C_~.n_tage 16. 956 ~ 0 P D F G H I J Totals Carried Forward K L M N Q R S T Nominatin; ELECTION HELD February 28th ,19 67 A a C D' Councilman Sixth Ward 25 : 16 0 © Member of the Board of Education SEVENTH WARD F i 27 G ; [ 29 32i 19 ]9ii " I 28 27i ~8 17 ' i, [ ' I 49 461 261 29 K I ,~33 37; 21~ 21 L ~ : 19 20 10~ 8 ~ Ab ~ent~e :~ 32 32 14, 15i 20 17 18 27 15' 23 21 24 13 16' 31 31 18 22 18! 22 14 18 241 41r 331 35 N A B C D ~07 F G H I L? I II STATEMENT OF ALL VOTES CAST AT THE ELECTION PRECINCTS Totals Brought Forward Outlying Precincts Outlying Precim't No. Councilman Second Ward C 1120 26 92 26 195 h II Councilman Fifth Ward 26 H 27 I 28 ~ J K L3 M N 0 City of Bakersfield Totals Percentage of Total City Vote-35.96 P Q: R S T 20 B 34 21 C 72 ; 22 D 53 23 E 111 25 ' O 187 150 176 15 32 Absentee Totals, Outlying Precincts ABSENTEE VOTE 378 !105 595 16 R ;, 18 [ T ~ 65 19 !A 87 9 K , 81 L ¢40 i 11 M 179 , ' 14 p ]5 ]O [244 l: Nominatin~ 0 r~ ~] Ab~ 878 38 Councilman Sixth Ward 862 ELECTION HELD February 28th ,19 67 Member of the Board ~ ~ o ,-.q > ~ 42i 66 46 99;! 67i 93,i 72 184i 50 68 11 29 8 33 3~' 11:; 131 11ii 46![ 43 661 19i 18: 8 157 [ 4o[ 52! 40 47]: of Education 60¸ 71i 5: 11 1~6 ~ ~' 40; 40 491 28 35: 871 71, 48' 60 59 Ill 1171 61 53,~! 106 69;: 7478I: 551 48 77 801 127~ 140~__1!8j 79[i 143 1441 65 62, 77i 43? 73 93,I 74 70i] 45} 481 63 64li 42i 3311 491 36/ 34; 551 3413938i ~?!~1!4~ 32~,3123,28 1~ 18 6.q~64 4~ ~2 55~ 47~ 76 68,~ 63~ 45 70[ 74 x~3.zzoi 74~ 6s 9~i 93 s6~ 91! 72~ 50 68 126~123] 50~ 41 9~ ~!722~4 , : 6~67 736949~236 551) 4698 CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK TO RESULT OF THE CANVASS OF ELECTION RETURNS State of California, County of........~..I3..N.. ............................................................ I, ................ 31..AIl. I~fil~....$.,.....Ilg.¥.l~l~I. ..................................................................................................................... City Clerk of said City, do hereby certify that, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 22932.5 of the Elections Code and of the resohttion of the governing body of said City, heretofore adopted and entered upon the minutes of said governing body, I did canva,,:s the returns of the vote cast in said City, at the .......................................................................................................... ......... ltO. M. Ii~IA~.II~IG....IlLIIilI2I,PAL .......................................................Election held on FEBRIJARZ...2.8 ....................., 19.fi7...., for elective public ol~ces, and/or for and against each measure submitted to the vote of the voters, and that the Statement of the Fote Cast, to which this certificate is attached, shows the whole nmnber of votes cast in said City, and the zvhole num- ber of votes cast for each candidate and/or for and against each meas- ure in said City and in each of the respective precincts therein, and that the totals of the respective columns and the totals as shown for each candidate and/or for and against each meas~re are full, true and correct. WITNESS my hand and O~cial Seal this........~.~.q! .................... day of ............. g.g.r.o.h .............................,19......~.7.. (SEAL) By ..............................................................................................., Deputy. (The above certificate is to be used only when the governing body has ordered the City Clerk to make the official canvass.) Bakersfield, California, March 6, 1967 - Page 4 2! Adoption of Resolution No. 16-67 declaring result of canvass of returns of Nominating Municipal Election and of Election held in the Bakersfield School District. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Stiern, Resolution No. 16-67 declaring result of canvass of returns of Nominating Municipal Election and of Election held in the Bakersfield School District on February 28, 1967, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: None The following persons are hereby deviated to be elected to the office of City Councilman for a full term of four years: Walter F. Heisey Second Ward Richard A. Stiern Fifth Ward and the following persons are hereby declared to be elected to the Office of Member of the Board of Education of the Bakersfield City School District for a full term of four years: Thomas W. (Bill) Curran William H. Moore, Jr., M.D. Bennett Siemon Adoption of Resolution No. 17-67 calling a General Municipal Election in the City of Bakersfield to be held on Tuesday, April 11, 1967, for the purpose of electing a Councilman in the Sixth Ward; establishing voting precincts, appointing precinct election officers and designating polling places for said election. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, Resolution No. 17-67 calling a General Municipal Election in the City of Bakersfield to be held on Tuesday, April 11, 1967, for tlhe purpose of electing a Councilman in the Sixth Ward; establishing voting precincts,appointing precinct election officers and designating polling places for said election, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: None Bakersfield~ California~ March 6~ 1967 - Page First reading of An Ordinance amending Section 3.68.110 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield to include the positions of Transit Superintendent, Transit Route Foreman and Personnel Clerk. At this time first reading was considered given to An Ordinance amending Section 3.68.110 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield to include the positions of Transit Superintendent~ Transit Route Foreman and Personnel Clerk. First reading of An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Chapter 8.48 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield. At this time first reading was considered given to An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Chapter 8.48 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield - Re£use Collection. Claim for damages against the City of Bakersfield filed by Fred H. Newman referred to the City Attorney. Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman Doolin~ claim for damages against the City filed by Fred H. Newman was referred to the City Attorney. Hearings. This being the time set when any person owning real property within territory designated as Benton Park No. 8, proposed to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield, and having any objection to the proposed annexation, may appear before the Council and show cause why such territory should not be so annexed, the Mayor reported that this hearing had been duly published, and 170 written protests had been received in the City Clerk's office. Mayor Karlen invited all persons present who wished to make a protest to the annexation Go do so at this time. The following expressed opposition to the annexation: E. J. Rodekuhr 2408 Elaine Street Oliver Keough 3120 McCall Avenue Howard D. Garlinger 1810 Planz Road From time to time the City Manager and the Planning Director were requested to answer questions on zoning, the construction of sewers to serve this area~ and the keeping of animals in the area if annexed to the City. Bakersfield, California, March 6, 1967 - Page 6 Proponents of the annexation were then given an opportunity to be heard. Mr. Don Hopkins, chairman of the Greater Bakersfield Annexation Advisory Committee, said that he had not planned on speaking as he doesn't live in this area. He stated that people should stop and consider that Bakersfield could outstrip Fresno in growth, that the people who are opposed to annexation are also the greatest complainers about lack of industry, lack of eastern money being interested in Bakersfield. Industrialists who are considering a new site for business depend upon the census figures for chosing a new location, and at the present time Bakersfield cannot compete. The following persons also spoke in favor of the annexation: Wayne Edwards 3100 Durwood Street Norman Slick 2908 Jorie Avenue Chester Hedge 2301 Hughes Lane John Lencioni 2030 Oscar Street James A. Davis, Jr. 1809 Oscar Street Stanley L. Varney 2316 Castro Lane June Edwards 3100 Durwood Street Ida Mae Reid 2109 Elaine Street All of the above persons advocated annexation, stating it would result in the installation of street lights, construction of sewers, better police and fire protection and lower fire insurance rates. During the rebuttal period, Mr. Howard Gatlinger, Mr. E. J. Rodekuhr and Mrs. Alice Voorheis of 2816 Houchin Road, spoke in protest to the annexation and Mr. Don Hopkins, Mr. Norman Slick and James A. Davis, were heard in favor of the annexation. Mayor Karlen stated the City Council has continually lowered the tax rate at least ten percent within the last five years. He then closed the public discussion and recessed the hearing for two weeks to permit the staff to check the written protests and determine whether or not a majority protest has been made. Adjournment. There being no further business to come before this Council, upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Rucker, the Council meeting adjourned at 10:10 P.M. '~.~ MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield, ATTEST: cl'r¥ z oi tAe council of the City of Bakersfield, California C~Llif. 24 Bakersfield, California, March 13, 1967 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M. March 13, 1967. The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Kenneth. Scovill of the Valley Christian Church. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore. Absent: None Minutes of the regular meeting of March 6, as corrected. Approval of contribution toward sponsorship fund for the AAU Track and Field Championships to be held June 22-23, 1967. 1967, were approved Pursuant to request from Ralph P. Zellers, Meet Promotion upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Chairman, Stiern, contribution of $500.00 from the Council's Contigency Fund, was made toward the sponsorship fund for the AAU Track and Field Championships to be held in the City of Bakersfield June 22-23, 1967, and to provide for a special trophy to be called "The City of Bakersfield - Team Trophy." Acceptance of resignation of Mr. Walter F. Heisey as a member of the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, resignation of Mr. Walter F. Heisey as Member of the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board was accepted, and a letter of.thanks and appreciation was ordered sent to Mr. Heisey for his excellent work on this Board. Bakersfield, California, March 13, 1967 - Page 2 25 submitted Appointment of Members of the Citizens Advisory Water Committee. Mayor Karlen announced that the following names had been to him for appointment to the Citizens Advisory Water Committee: Bradley T. Ritter 3301 Christmas Tree Lane R. D. Grimes, St. 1430 E. 18th Street Wilbur Rickett 2224 Dracena Street Robert E. King 2511 Beech Street Francis A. Moore, Jr. 1107 Truxtun Avenue William G. Rea 111 Spruce Street Richard Lyness 2201 Oakwood Mrs. Mildred Graham 1224 Telegraph Avenue Melvin Magnus 828 Chester Avenue David Biggat 620 Oleander Avenue Hampton Lee 2930~18th Street Thomas J. Phillips 1730 Chester Avenue Gene Winer 204 Oakbank Road One other name will be submitted by Councilman Whittemore After discussion, Councilmen Stiern, and Hosking, members of the Council's Water Committee, called a meeting of the newly appointed Committee to be held on Thursday, March 16, 1967, at 7:30 P. M. , in the Caucus Room of the City Hall. Reception of report from the City Attorney on City vs. Evans. Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, report from the City Attorney on City vs. George Evans of the Padre Hotel re transient lodging taxes which were collected but not paid, was received and ordered placed on file. Reception of communication from California Society of Professional Engineers re request to allow other than civil engineers design and submit tentative subdivision maps. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, communication from the California Society of Professional Engineers re request to allow other than civil engineers design and submit tentative subdivision maps was received and ordered placed on file. 26 Bakersfield, California, March 13, 1967 - Page 3 City Manager's Status Report on Water Supply to Pierce Annexation. At this time the Council discussed the City Manager's Status Report on Water Supply to Pierce Annexation which is as follows: When Pierce Road annexed to the City of Bakersfield, one of the concerns of many of the property owners was water supply. For California Water Service Company to provide water service to the properties north of Kern River and adjacent to Pierce Road, it is necessary to construct a water main across the Kern River. On December 30, 1966, a meeting was held with representatives of the City of Bakersfield, the California Water Service Company and property owners to discuss methods of providing and financing water service to the area. At this meeting California Water Service Company offered under Public Utility Commission regulations, to extend water service to this area providing the subscribers would contribute a certain amount with California Water Service contributing the remaining amount. The cost to subscribers was estimated to be $47,000. The only drawback with this proposal was how would you require all benefited property owners to pay their prorated share. The only practical way tc distribute the cost to all property owners would be with a P~blic Improvement District. As a result of_this meeting, the City and the California Water Service Company evaluated the feasibility of forming a Public Improvement District. The property owners have indicated that the time element is important since well trouble occurs during peak use, namely the summer months. On March 3, 1967, of the City of Bakersfield, property owners. At this time the procedure for formation of Public Improvement Districts was outlined, and as a result the City was asked to prepare petitions for the formation of a Public ]improvement District On March 7, 1967, petitions for the formation of Public Improvement District were completed and given to property owners for circulating. another meeting was held with representatives the California Water Service Company and Bakersfield, California, March 13, 1967 - Page 4 2? Approval and adoption of report of the Council Auditorium Committee re: Placement of Lantern from Sister City. The City Clerk read a report of the Council Auditorium Committee regarding the placement of the lantern from sister city Wakayama, Japan, as follows: The Japanese lantern shipped to the City of Bakersfield by her sister city, Wakayama, Japan has been received and is now at the Corporation Yard. The Auditorium Committee has received several recommendations as to where this lantern should be located. Due consideration has been given to all of these requests and our recommendations are as follows: The lantern should be assembled in a fashion that will make it safe as well as decorative. The lantern should be placed in the courtyard of the City Hall so that everyone visiting City Hall will be able to view the lantern from the hallways. Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, seconded by Councilman Stiern, the recommendations were accepted, and the :report was adopted. Allowance of Calims. Rucker, Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, Vouchers Nos. 3318 to 3411 inclusive, seconded by Councilman in amount of $37,868.86, as audited by the Finance Approval Committee were allowed,~ and aul~hori- zation was granted for payment of same. Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, the following budget transfers were approw~d: Transfer from: Transfer to: Amount 11-640-0100 25-640-1200 $2,000.00 Make funds available for paving streets to new Fire Station No. 7 Transfer from: Transfer to: Amount 11-510-6100 11-510-4100 $7,500.00 To transfer appropriations in order to provide funds for payments for the balance of the current fiscal year to firms of Thomas Stetson and Helm & Budinger for their services as provided in Agreements 70-66 and No. 92-66, respectively. Bakersfield, California, March 13, 1967 - Page Reception of Report on Council Water Committee Accomplishments and Expenditures for study by the Council. Councilman Stiern submitted a report on Council Water Committee Accomplishments and Expenditures since the creation of the Water Resources Department April l, 1964, until January 1, 1967. Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Doolin, the report was ordered received and placed on file for study by the Council. Acceptance of Bids for Sale of Surplus Porperty. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, bids were awarded to George F. Holder for residence at 331 South "H" Street and to Doyle Reynolds for residence at 325 South "H" Street, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the proper documents. Adoption of Ordinance No. 1627 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Chapter 8.48 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No. 1627 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Chapter 8.48 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield (Refuse and Garbage Collection), was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: None Adoption of Ordinance No. 1673 New Series amending Section 3.68.110 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield to include the positions of Transit Superintendent, Transit Route Foreman and Personnel Clerk. Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Rucker, Ordinance No. 1673 New Series amending Section 3.68.110 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield to include the positions of Transit Superintendent, Transit Route Foreman and Personnel Clerk, was adol~ed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: None Bakersfield, California, March 13, 1967 - Page 6 Adoption of Resolution of Intention No. 18-67 to include within the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District a portion of territory designated as "Pierce No. 1", excluding therefrom a portion not benefited and setting the time and place for hearing objections to the inclusion and exclusion of said District. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Whirremote, Resolution of Intention No. 18-67 to include within the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District a portion of territory designated as "Pierce No. 1", excluding therefrom a portion not benefited and setting April 17, 1967 in the Council Chambers of the City Hall as the time and place for hearing objections to the inclusion and exclusion of said District, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern,Whittemore Noes: None Absent: None Adoption of Resolution of Intention No. 19-67 to.include within the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District a parcel of territory designated as "Westchester No. 1", and setting the time and place for hearing objections to the inclusion of said parcel of territory within said District. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Rucker, Resolution of Intention No. 19-67 to include within the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District a parcel of territory designated as "Westches~rNO. 1", and setting April 17, 1967, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall as the time and place for hearing objections to the. inclusion of said parcel of territory within said District, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemere Noes: None Absent: None 3O Bakersfield, California, March 13, 1967 - Page 7 Acceptance of check from Referee in Bankruptcy in the matter of the E1 Tejon Hotel, Inc. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Rucker, check in amount of $503.37 from the Referee in Bankruptcy, collected for transient lodging taxes by the E1 Tejon Hotel, Inc., was accepted and ordered deposited. Withdrawal of Appeal by Wayne V. Runnels, et al, to decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment granting application by Willard Christiansen, M.D., for a variance and modification to permit the reduction of the side yard setback on that certain property commonly known as 2026-21st Street. By letter filed with the City Clerk, Wayne V. Runnels, et al, withdrew appeal to decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment granting application by Willard Christiansen, M.D. requesting a variance of an R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) Zone to permit the construction, operation and maintenance of medical offices and a modification to permit the reduction of the side yard setback on that certain property commonly known as 2026-21st Street. Date set for continued hearing on request by Giovanni, Frank and John Bertano to amend the zoning boundaries form an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-3-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling- Architectural Design) or more restrictive Zone, for that certain property located east of and adjacent to South "H" Street approximately 660 feet south of White Lane. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Stiern, date of March 27, 1967 was set for continued hearing on request by Giovanni, Frank and John Bertano to amend the zoning boundaries from an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-3-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Design) or more restrictive Zone, for that certain property located east of and ad- jacent to South "H" Street approximately 660 feet south of White Lane. The City Clerk was instructed to notify all persons who requested to be informed of the date set for the continued hearing. 3! Bakersfield, California, March 13, 1967 - Page 8 Hearings. This was the time set for hearing any and all persons having any objections or protests to the construction of sidewalks and necessary retaining walls on Lots 1 to 59 inclusive of Tract No. 1577, along Wilson Road, Antonia Way, Dorian Drive, Rosalia Drive, "K" Street and "M" Street - Public Improvement District No. 819. This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and notices have been sent to all property owners. Written protests were filed with the City Clerk by the following property owners: 1. Ray Vanderpool 1213 Dorian Drive 2. Kenneth Fullmet 3. John Shirley 4. William L. Hargis 5. Theodore Kirkland 6. Buck Worthy 7. Beula Haneline 8. Charles Lynch 9. Gertrude Smith 10. Burney Andrews 11. Ray Malian 12. Albert Van Hyfte 13. Felix Ramirez 14. Charles Hatfield 15. Andrew Fields 16. Maude Locke 17. Jim Trantham 18. Cody Hewett 19. T. C. Periman 1205 Antonia Way 1309 Antonia Way 1312 Rosalia Drive! 1304 Rosalia Drive 2616 So. K Street 1300 Antonia Way 1304 Antonia Way 1200 Antonia Way 1217 Wilson Road 1305 Antonia Way 1201 Wilson Road 1316 Rosalia Drive 1212 Dorian Drive 1308 Dorian Drive 1317 Dorian Drive 1309 Dorain Drive 1313 Dorain Drive 1216 Dorian Drive Bakersfield, California, March 13, 1967 - Page 9 excess of the neighborhood: 1. 2. The following persons addressed the Council and expressed opposition to the cost of the project, which they stated was in figure quoted when a petition was circulated in their Dale Anderson Ray Vanderpool 1204 Dorian Drive 1213 Dorian Drive 4. 5. 6. 7. Earl F. Smith Orman Stone Andrew Fields Marro Mayfield William Hargis 1216 Antonia Way 2709 So. "M" Street 1308 Dorian Drive 1309 Wilson Road 1312 Rosalia Drive (Also written protest) (Also written protest) (Also written protest) Mr. Jing, Director of Public Works, explained how he had arrived at the estimated cost for each lot, stating that this figure was only an estimate and could change after bids were received. Mrs. Angelina Rivera of 1209 Dorian Drive and Mrs. Betty Wilkinson of 1313 Wilson Road, spoke in favor of the proposed construction of sidewalks which would provide safety for the children attending school in the area. Mayor Karlen closed the public hearing and upon a motion by the hearing was Councilman Whirremote, seconded by Councilman Hosking, continued for one week for checking the protests. Adjournment. There being no further business to upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded meeting was adjourned at 9:47 P. come before the CQuncil, by Councilman Rucker, the M. MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield~-w- ATTEST: and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California 33 Bakersfield, California, March 20, 1967 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M. March 20, 1967. The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Ted Stone of the Fruitvale Community Church. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Absent: None Minutes of the regular meeting of March 13, as presented. i[967 were approved Balfanz, to move Fifteen day extension of time granted George Holder to move ~use at 331 South "H" Street. Street, Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilwoman request from George Holder for a fifteen day extension of time a house he recently purchased from the City at 331 South "H'~ seconded by Councilman Rucker, Vouchers Nos. 3412 to 3623 inclusive, in amount of $92,62~.63, as audited by the Voucher Approval Committee, were allowed and authorization was granted for payment of same. Acceptance of low bids for Annual Contracts for Everyday Purchases of Maintenance Paint and Supplies and Typewriter Ribbons. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Hosking, low bid of Colorama Paints for Annual Contract for Everyday Purchases of Maintenance Paint and Supplies, and low bid of IBM Corporation for Typewriter Ribbons, were accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contracts. Appointment of Mr. Douglas B. Haddon as Member of the Citizens' Water Study Committee. Councilman Whittemore announced that he wished to appoint Mr. Douglas B. Haddon as Member of the Citizens' Water Study Committee, this being his second appointment to the Committee. was granted. Allowance of Claims. Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, 34 Bakersfield, Cali£ornia, March 20, 1967 - Page 2 Hearings. This was the time set for continued hearing on proposed annexation of that certain territory designated as Benton Park No. 8 to the City of Bakersfield, said hearing having been continued from meeting of March 3, 1967, to determine if a majority protest had been filed. City Manager Bergen stated that all protests had been checked and amounted to a total of 36.36 percent, which is considerably less than the required 50 percent necessary to terminate the proceedings. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking~ seconded by Councilman Stiern, Resolution No. 20-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield finding and declaring that a majority protest has not been made against the annexation of Benton Park No. 8 to the City o£ Bakers£ield was adopted by the £ollowing vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: None Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, Resolution No. 21-67 of the City of Bakersfield calling a Special Election to be held on the 16th day of May, 1967, pertaining to the annexation of Benton Park No. 8, to the City of Bakersfield, establishing voting precincts, polling places and officers o£ election ~or said election, and prescribing £ees to be paid to said of£icers o~ election and for said polling places, was adopted by the £ollowing vote: Ayes: Noes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore None Absent: None 35 Bakersfield, Hearings. This was the time set California, March 20, 1967 - Page 3 for continued hearing on proposal to construct sidewalks and necessary retaining walls on Lots 1 to 59 inclusive, of Tract No. 1541, and Lots 1 to 6 inclusive, of Tract No. 1577, along Wilson Road, Antonia Way, Dorian Drive, Rosalia Drive, "K" Street and "M" Street - Public Improvement District No. 819, which was continued from meeting of March 13, 1967 to check written protests received. Written protests received at the hearing amounted to 29.06%:, and additional verbal protests brought the total up to 22 protests, representing 33.58% opposed to the formation of the Public Improvement District. Councilman Whittemore stated that this is an unusual situation as it is apparent that a number of the people who signed the original petition are now protesting the establishing of the District due to 'the fact that the estimates are higher than what was originally. quoted to the residents of the area. He stated he feels that in view of this fact and in order to be fair to the approximately 51% who signed the petition and are in favor of the project, that the Council should go ahead and call for bids. At that time, after each property owner has been advised exactly what the cost will be to him, the Council could make its decision whether or not to terminate the proceedings. City Attorney Hoagland said they could terminate the proceedings at any time up until the bid is awarded. After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Whlttemore, seconded by Councilman Hosking, Resolution No. 22-67 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, making findings, and overruling protests and objections; ordering the construction of certain work and the giving of notice inviting bids therefor, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking,Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: None '3¸6 Bakersfield, California, March 20, 1967 - Page 4 Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman Hosking, Resolution No. 23-67 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, determining the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for legal holiday and overtime work in said City for certain crafts or type of Workmen, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking Rucker, None Stiern, Whittemore None Approval of Change Order to Dicco, Inc. for Widening and Improving of 34th Street. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, Change Order to Dicco, for the widening and improving of 34th Street, in amount of Inc. $558.90, was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. This was necessary due to additional asphalt concrete required to repair sag in roadway near K-Mart. Approval of Contract with Kern Refuse Disposal, Inc. for refuse collection in newly annexed territory. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, contract with the Kern Refuse Disposal, Inc. for refuse collection in newly annexed territory was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. Approval of amendment to Contract with Book Publishing Company for Supplementation of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, California. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman Stiern, amendment to the Contract with Book Publishing Company for supplementation of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakesfield, California, was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. Claim from Mrs. Lilliam B. Bell for damages referred to the City Attorney. Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Rucker, claim from Mrs. Lillian B. Bell for damages was referred to the City Attorney. 37 Bakersfield, C~fornia, March 20, 1967 - Page 5 Approval of Lease Agreement between the City of Bakersfield and Sill Bros., Inc. for conversion of partially demolished building at 18th and Eye Streets to a Parking Lot. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Doolin, Option No. 1 of Lease Agreement with Sill Bros., Inc. for the conversion of the partially demolished building at 18th and Eye Streets to a Parking Lot, was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. Councilman Stiern voted in the negative on this motion, stating he wanted the record to show that he voted "No" because he felt that the arrangement is unfair to the adjacent property owner who is expected to continue to pay taxes to operate the same kind of business. He said he went into this at some length when the matter was discussed previously, and he has been unable to change his thinking in this regard. Acceptance of Work and Mayor authorized to sign Notice of Completion of Contract for Jefferson Park Sprinkler System. Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, the Work was accepted, and the Mayor was authorized to sign the Notice of Completion of Contract for the Jefferson Park Sprinkler System. Approval of Agreement of Sale letter with the State Division of Highways for the purchase of State owned parcel adjacent to Saunders Park. Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin~ seconded by Councilman Rucker, Agreement of Sale Letter with the State Division of Highways for the purchase of 1.56 acre parcel adjacent to Saunders Park was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. Appointment of Mr. Don Simpson as Member of the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board. Upon nomination by Councilwoman Balfanz, Mr. Don Simpson of 220 Oakbank Road was appointed to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Mr. Walter Heisey, on the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board. the removal of parking meters Discussion re removal of parking meters in the Downtown Business Area. At this time the Council engaged in a discussion relative to in the Downtown Business Area. 38 Bakersfield, California, March 20, 1967 - Page 6 Council, Balfanz, Adjournment. There being no further business to come before this upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilwoman the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 P.M. o~' 'Bake ' MAYOh of the City ;sf~ie d, C ATTEST: L_ \Ex_O~fic~l~ Cl'erk of the Council C I'1' g~'R~ an~ '"--~ ~ of the City of Bakersfield, California Bakersfield, California, March 27, 1967 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M. March 27, 1967. The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Morris Lyerla, Interim Pastor of the First Christian Church. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore. Absent: Councilwoman Balfanz Minutes of the regular meeting of March 20, 1967 were approved as presented. Invitation from Y. W. C. A. to attend ground breaking for new building on site at 17th and "M" Street. Mayor Karlen read an invitation to the Council to attend the ground breaking for the new Y.W.C.A. building on site at 17th and "M" Streets to be held at 1:30 P.M., Sumday April 2, 1967~ Allowance of Claims Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Rucker, Vouchers Nos. 3624 to 3727 inclusive, in amount of $39,114.98, as audited by the Finance Approval Committee were allowed, and authorization was granted for payment of same. Acceptance of Bid of Atlantic Welding Works for Surplus Bituminous Distributor Truck. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Hosking, high bid of Atlantic Welding Works for Surplus Bituminous Distributor Truck was accepted, and all other bids were rejected. Acceptance of Bid of Zellerbach Paper Company for Office Paper Products. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Doolin, bid of Zellerbach Paper Company Purchases of Office Paper Products was accepted, authorized to execute the contract. Councilman for annual contract for Everyday and the Mayor was Bakersfield, California, March 27, 1967 - Page 2 Acceptance of Bid of Valley Office Supply Company for Annual Contract for Everyday Purchases of Office Paper Products. Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Rucker, bid of Valley Office Supply Company for annual contract for Everyday purchases of Office Supplies was accepted, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Acceptance of Bid of Chevron Chemical Company for Everyday Purchases of Chemicals Spray. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, low bid of Chevron Chemical Company for annual contract for Everyday Purchases of Chemicals Spray was accepted, all other bids were rejected and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Acceptance of bid of Kern Rock Company for Everyday Purchases of Select Road Materials. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Doolin, unit price bid by Kern Rock Company for Annual Contract for Everyday Purchases of Select Road Materials was accepted, all other bid- were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract Kern Rock Company is the only vendor whose plant is within the City limits. Hearings. This was the time set for continued hearing on an application by Giovanni, Frank and John Bertano to change the zoning boundaries affecting that certain property in the City of Bakersfield, located east of and adjacent to South "H" Street 660 feet south of White Lane from an R-1 (Single-Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-3-D (Limited Multiple Family D~elling - Architectural Design) or more restrictive zone, said hearing having been set at meeting of March 13, 1967. Mayor Karlen declared the meeting open for public discussion, and Mr. Don Ward, representing the realtor and the owners on the application, stated they had submitted a map showing a proposed R-1 development around the R-3 development and he would be glad to answer any questions. Bakersfield, California, March 27, 1967 - Page 3 Councilman Doolin asked the distance between the proposed rezoning and the nearest homes, and Planning Director Sceales answered that the easterly boundary was in the neighborhood of 500 feet away. Councilman Whittemore asked Mr. Ward if the proposed apartments were single story and Mr. Ward stated that was his understanding. Mayor Karlen then invited the opponents to present their views to the Council. Mr. Victor Huntington, who resides at 4308 Chadbourne, stated that at the previous hearing he has presented the Council with petitions containing the names of 336 persons who were opposed to rezoning this area for apartments and for trailer courts. Nothing has changed and they still feel the same way. Mrs. Helen Haar of 4304 Brunswick and Mrs. June Eckert of 1§24 White Lane also expressed their opposition to the rezoning, stating that it would down grade the neighborhood and open the doors for commercial zoning, and other apartments were already being built in the adjoining area. Councilman Stiern stated that to the members of the Council who see the City develop and who can see zoning changes occur, it seems legitimate that there will be apartments constructed in various parts of the town and it becomes incumbent on the whole city to absorb that type of construction where it is sensible, where it is possible to fit it in with the surrounding area. He asked Mr. Huntington i:~ the 500 feet between this proposed rezoning and the adjacent development wouldn't make it acceptable to him and Mr. Huntington replied he was only speaking for the 336 persons who have signed petitions opposing this. He said he could not speak only for himself but for the people in his area who had asked him to represent them, and they were not in favor of apartments being constructed in this area. Members of the Council discussed the number of apartments already built in the City and in their respective wards. 42 Bakersfield, California, March 27, 1967 - Page 4 Councilman Whittemore said he had contacted several people in the area after the last hearing, and the main objection was to the rezoning of the trailer court, which he is opposed to himself. It is his job to represent the people down there and also to be fair to all property owners. It is his understanding that these apartments are going to be single story apartments, and there are almost two city blocks between the proposed zoning and the residents on the other streets. That is one of the reasons he asked the people about these apartments and most of them replied that they didn't care about apartments being constructed, but they were definitely opposed to the trailer court. The people who have made the application for the rezoning are going to build a bridge, which will cost in the neighborhood of $25,000, and a full street for ingress and egress to the area. There is a need for apartments in this area and certainly the City of Bakersfield should set up the necessary zoning for them. Councilman Hosking said Westchester is one of the fairly new subdivisions in the City and there are quite a few apartments in that area, which is in his Ward. These apartments are absorbed int( the neighborhood very nicely, you forget they are even there, and you do not have the problems with apartments that you think you will have Councilman Stiern asked Mr. Huntington if he represented 336 people who were opposed to apartments or 336 people who were opposed to trailer courts. Mr. Huntington said the heading on the petition filed with the Council stated that the signers of the petition were opposed to trailer courts and apartments, 335 signed in opposition to both, one in opposition to the trailer court only, therefore, he goes on the assumption that the people are still opposed to the apartments. Councilman Doolin asked if he had gone back in the meantime to check with the people if they were still opposed to the apartments. Bakersfield, California, March 27, 1967 - Page 5 43 Mr. Huntington said he hadn't gone back, he had received calls from some of the residents that they still felt the same, plus calls from people who are thinking of future annexation fo the City. A lot of people are listening on the radio tonight wanting to find out just how this Council meeting comes out. Whether or not the Council is going to approve something for two men which 336 residents in the area do not want. This is going to have a bearing on the City's future annexation whether or not the people in the area have a voice or not. Whether or not they are wasting their time coming down here and explaining to the Council why they are against this. So they want to see tonight actually whether or not they are having a voice in the southwest or whether they are wasting their time. Councilman Stiern said apartments across from this industrial area could buffer that industrial and asked if it would be improper Mr. Huntington said all area from the to do so. he can say is residential area, that at the time to apartments in the petition was filed 336 persons were opposed the area. Councilman Doolin said he would like to have a week or two to continue the hearing so that he personally could spot check the area and find out how the people felt about fhe proposal to construct apartments in their neighborhood. Councilman Hosking said he would object to having any further public hearings on this, he wouldn't object to any continuance, but it is the same thing over and over, if they are going to continue to hear further public discussion, he isn't in favor of it. Councilman Stiern said he would like Mr. Huntington to go back to his neighborhood and come back to the Council in two or three weeks or a month with a petition which states clearly that the people in that area think it would be unfair to build apartments in their area. Councilman Doolin said if he could do that, he would sup]port him, but he does not think the people are opposed to the construction of apartments. Bakersfield, California, March 27, 1967 - Page 6 only the residents of the tract have changed their mind and are the apartments in the area. After discussion, it was moved by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Hosking, that the hearing be continued until April 10, 1967, to enable the members of the Council. to spot check the area regarding the feeling of the residents to the construction. of one story apartments, so that the Council could make a fair decision on the matter. Mr. Huntington said he would make a survey of in which he lives, and find out if they not opposed to the construction of Adoption of Resolution of Intention No. 820 of the Council of the City of Bakers- field, California, declaring its intention to order the vacation of a portion of 14th Street in the City of Bakersfield, California. Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Hosking, Resolution of Intention No. 820 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, declaring its intention to order the vacation of a portion of 14th Street in the City of Bakersfield, California, and setting April 17, 1967 for hearing on the matter before the Council, was adopted by the following vole: Ayes: Councilmen Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore Noes: None Absent: Councilwoman Balfanz Approval and adoption of classification and specifications for the position of Personnel Clerk. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Council- man Hosking, classification and specifications for the position of Personnel Clerk were approved and adopted. 45 Bakersfield, California March 27, 1967 - Page 7 Approval of Step Salary increases effective April 1, 1967. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Doolin, the following step salary increases were approved, effective April 1, 1967: P. DeWitt Recreation Supervisor 3 to 4 B. J. Joslin Detective Grade II 3 to 4 V. L. Mitchell Motor Sweeper Operator 4 to 5 A. O. Padilla Motor Sweeper Operator 4 to 5 J. C. Phillips Sanitation Crewman I 4 to 5 I. M. Robinson Communications Operator -- 4 to 5 D. J. Sourhard Fire Engineer 4 to 5 D. W. Wood Park Maintenance Man 3 to 4 G. Hopkins Data Processing Supervisor 3 to 4 J. Theobald Account Clerk II 3 to 4 Adjournment There being no further business to come before this Council, upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Rucker, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. MAYOR of the City of Bakersfl~ld,) California ATTEST: CITY~CLERK and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, Calif.