HomeMy WebLinkAboutJULY - SEPT 1967Bakersfield, California, July 3, 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. July 3, 1967.
The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the Pledge
of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Arthur Bomers of the
First Congregational Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker,
Stiern, Vetter, Whittemore
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of June 19th and the special
meeting of June 22, 1967 were approved as presented.
Correspondence.
The Council received a copy of an invitation to attend the
44th Annual Congress of Cities,
of its kind in the world, to be
Massachusetts.
the largest national municipal conference
held July 29-August 2, in Boston,
Mayor Karlen read a copy of a letter sent to Chief of Police
Towle by Sheriff C. H. Dodge, thanking the Police Department for the
splendid wooperation which was rendered on June 22nd when the Sheriff's
office called for mutual ~id;assistance 'for additional officers to
search for an escaped armed robber who was reportedly hiding somewhere
in the Edison area. Members of the Council stated they were very
pleased to receive this information and to know that such splendid
cooperation exists between these two law enforcement bodies.
Council Statements.
Councilman Rees said that when there is cooperation between
the City and County, attention should be called to it. He said he
has learned that there will be a joint training program of new law
enforcement personnel held at the Bakersfield College this Septembe:~,
which has been worked out with the cooperation of Chief Towle and
Sheriff Dodge. This is the first time such a cooperative training program
has been used in this County, in fact it is a first for California.
Bakersfield, California, July 3, 1967 - Page 2
This is a four hundred hour course and the men spend 8 hours
a day for ten weeks in instruction. Mr. Paul Howard of Bakersfield
College is coordinator and both the Police Department and the Sheriff's
office will furnish instructors. There are three important benefits -
first, more efficient and economical use of instructors with the
elimination of duplicate classes; second, personnel in each department
will learn about the specialized functions of the other department;
and third, the deputies and policemen will get to know each other
on a personal basis. This program has the cooperation of the FBI,
and Mr. Paul Howard, an ex-FBI man, is very-enthused about it,
stating that this pilot program would not have been possible without
the cooperation of the Police Chief of the City of Bakersfield and the
Sheriff of the County of Kern. He said they certainly should be
commended for this effort.
Councilman Rees said there will be other cities in the
County participating in this program and also men in this t~pe of work
from Edwards Air Force Base.
Mayor Karlen said he would like to urge the people in the
community to demonstrate their patriotism by not only participating
in the programs of the community, but by desplaying the flag on July
4th, in order to encourage and support the fighting men in Vietnam.
Mayor Karlen stated that he~felt comments;made by a reporter
for Sports Illustrated Bagazine covering the National AAU championship
meet were uncalled for and certainly did not draw conclusions that
were very favorable to Bakersfield. He stated that the Chamber of
Commerce and Mr. Ken Croes, manager of Channel 23, have written letters
to the magazine taking exception to these remarks. After discussion
of the article, the Council agreed that Mayor Karl~n should write a
letter to the magazine defending the City of Bakersfield and calling
attention to the fact that this report was neither complimentary nor
true.
Bakersfield, California, July 3, 1967 - Page 3.
Reports.
City Manager reported on the placement of grass clippings,
as required in Ordenance No. 1672 New Series, which involves factors
which should be seriously considered. If these items are allowed to
remain at the curb where no alleys exist, the City may anticipate a
savings of approximately $16,000 per year. There has been a reduction
of fifteen man-minutes per ton in the pick-up, which is attributed to
grass being placed at the curb where required. He also stated that
future annexations will present an additional economic bearing as '~o
whether grass clippings should be collected at the curb or the back
yard, because if a contractor is required to collect grass clippings
other than at the curb, the rates would increase.
A survey has been made and it ~as found that heavy loads
and excessive walking will be at a minimum if grass clippings, leaves and
tied brush are kept at the curb, and that employees will be able to
carry their share of the workload without suffering physical exhaustion,
especially during summer months. Also, by the elimination of excessive
grass loads being carried out to the refuse truck, there should be a
decline in back injuries, muscle strains and illnesses. He concluded
by stating that these facts were evaluated before adoption of the
ordinance and the administration feels they are still valid.
Under Council comment on the report, Councilman Stiern said
he could talk about an economic'type'of discrimination where the people
who are furtunate enough to have an alley behind their residence are
treated in one manner and those who don't have an alley, are treated
in another manner. The requirement that rubbish containers, boxes, etc.,
be placed in front of the residences has done a lot to degrade the
appearance of the city. Many people are elderly and they have difficulty
in carrying a load of grass clippings out to the front curb. He said
he appreciates the efforts of the City Manager to save money, he can't
argue with his efforts, he commends him for it, and he will support
him whenever he can. But he takes strong exception to certain portions
of this ordinance especially when it degrades the appearance of
residences by the parking of boxes of rubbish in the front yards. He
asked what the other members of the Council had to say about this.
226
Bakersfield,
California,
July 3,
1967 - Page 4
Councilman Hosking said he has not had an opportunity to study
this report as he only received it a short time before the meeting began.
He said he would like a little time to look over the figures before
they decide what to do, but he can't get over the feeling that the-
Council is treating some of the residents of the City shabbily in
requiring them to put their clippings at the curb. They provide other
services to people, this is a service which affects almost every home
owner in the City, and he believes it should be extended to
everyone.
Councilman Vetter said this particular situation has created
much comment in his ward~ initially people did not understand the
ordinance and now that they do understand it, they don't care for it.
He would certainly agree with Dr. Stiern that they should attempt to
save money wherever possible, but if there is any way to go back to
the original practice of carrying it out from the rear, he thinks
they should do so.
Councilman Heisey said he has had a number of phone calls
about this. Individuals have told him that if there was additional
cost involved to return to the old method, they would be happy to pay
it, they just don't want the unsightly garbage cans sitting in their
front yards. He is sure that somehow or other, they should be able to
provide this service without additional charge. He said he would like
to hold it over until the next Council meeting.
Councilman Whirremote said he was getting a great many
telephone calls about this, many people were not able to carry their
grass clippings out to the curb. It is only during the summer months
that people have this excessive trash, so he feel~ they should have
another review of the figures to see if they are saving this much
money, as they are based on twelve month figures. The front yards
are looking very bad in the City.
Mayor Karlen said he thinks if they can subsidize the Civic
Auditorium and the bus system for county residents, they can subsidize
some of the city residents with some extra service. He feels that
the City can provide this service.
227
Bakersfield, California, July 3, 1967- Page 5
Councilman Stiern said he thinks the trouble with this
ordinance is that it is a little bit arbitrary. It is a quick solution
to a problem that probably should have several solutions. He wonders
if it wouldn't be advantageous to the~annexation program when they
annex vacant property for a subdivider, that some type of consideration
be given to the fact that some of his property is developed and some
is undeveloped, and not charge the subdivider for services which he
doesn't receive. Perhaps the solution might be to require that grass
cuttings be carried out to the curb only three or four months during
the summer and leave them in the back yard where they belong the other
eight or nine months. He asked the City Manager to give it a little
more study and see if they can't realize some kind of a compromise
which would be fair to the people who pay their taxes.
Councilman Rucker said he has listened to the various
comments and he was under the impression that it would increase taxes
to continue to collect by the old method, that was the reason the City
Manager had recommended this practice. He said he doesn't think it wise
to put the lawn clippings on the front yard until the day the refuse
collectors pick them up. If it is a savings to the taxpayer, he is.
willing to go along with it.
Councilman Rees said he, too, has had calls and letters and
he hopes it can be worked out to the benefit of everyone concerned
without exaggeration or emotionalism. This is not garbage.they are
talking about, it is rubbish that they are required to put out on the
front lawn, not garbage.
Councilman Stiern said he considered 50 gallon galvanized
cans with lids on them "garbage cans". They are most commonly used
for grass clippings and set out by the curb. He said he would suggest
and hope that Mr. Bergen can review this matter. There just has to
be some money somewhere to work this out in a manner which would be
fair to all citizens.
225
Bakersfield, California, July 3, 1967 - Page 6
City Manager Bergen said he would be very happy to review
this. There are some aspects which Councilman Stiern has brought up
which he thinks are quite important. Anyone with large acreage is
somewhat reluctant to annex~ because he is paying for services that
he is not receiving. On the other hand, there are persons within
the City who are receiving these services that are not paying taxes.
For instance, they pick up refuse for the Federal Building here in
town and they don't pay any taxes, and they are subsidizing them to
a certain extent. So he thinks there are some areas which are open
to study. He would like to send out a survey and see what some of
the other cities are doing. It is exceedingly difficult to organize
routes and change them between summer and winter. He would like to
bring graphs down to the Council Chamber to show how the tonnage
fluctuates between the winter and the summer. It is really a terrific
difference in the workload in the winter versus the summer, it is much
higher in the summer.
He is real cognizant of the problem and of the feeling of
some of the residents and of some members of the Council. They will
take it under advisement and make more studies on it, and perhaps
come up with something that will be of benefit to the taxpayer and
satisfy the Council.
After some further discussion, upon a motion by Councilman
Stiern, seconded by Councilman Vetter, the City Manager was instructed
to conduct a further study of the problem and report to the Council
at the earliest possible date.
Allowance of Claims
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Vouchers Nos. 4939 to 5183 inclusive, in amount of $130,778.01,
as audited by the Finance Committee were allowed, and authorization
was granted for payment of same.
229
Bakersfield, California, July 3, 1967 - Page 7'
Rejection of one bid received and
AuditorLController authorized to
re-advertise for bids for the demolition
and removal of structure located at the
northwest corner of 18th and Eye Streets.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, one bid received for the demolition and removal of structure
located at the northwest corner of 18th and Eye Streets was rejected
as excessive, and the Auditor-Controller was authorized to re-advertise
for bids for this project.
Acceptance of bid of Alex Robertson, Inc.
for construction of a storm drain and
junction box at the Eastside Canal near
Union Avenue and 34th Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, bid of Alex Robertson,
Inc. for construction of a storm drain and junction box at the Eastside
Canal near Union Avenue and 34th Street in amount of $3323.00, was
accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to
execute the contract.
Acceptance of b~d of',G.:K.M. Electr£c~ '
Company for modification of Traffic Signal
and Highway Lighting Systems at California
Avenue and "P" Street.
Vetter,
all other bids were
the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman
lump sum price bid by G.K.M. Electric Company was accepted,
rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute
Acceptance of bid of Sierra Pipe &
Supply Company for 108 - #54 Bakersfield
Type Fire Hydrants.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Heisey,
seconded by Councilman Stiern,
for 108 - #54 Bakersfield Type
meeting all specifications and
bid of Sierra Pipe & Supply Company
Fire Hydrants, being the lowest bidder
in consideration that they are a local
supplier and the sales tax will be returned to the City, was accepted,
all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute
the contract.
230
Bakersfield, ~alifornia, July 3, 1967 - Page 8
Acceptance of Quit Claim Deed from the
Kern County Land Company for easement
at 323 South "H" Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, Quit Claim Deed from the
Kern County Land Company conveying their interest in an easement at
323 South "H" Street was accepted.
Fixst reading of An Ordinance amending
Chapter 11.04 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Bakersfield by adding Section
11.04.724 prohibiting parking on Brundage
Lane adjacent to "H" Street intersection.
First reading was given an Ordinance amending Chapter 11.04
of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by adding Section
11.04.724 prohibiting pa~king on Brund~ge Lane adjacent to "H" Street
intersection.
Approval of agreement with Mr. Howard S.
Boros, Attorney at Law, for legal
representation in the United-Pacific Transfer
Case.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, agreement with Mr. Howard
S. Boros, Attorney at Law, for legal representation in the combined
actions of the cities of Modesto, Merced, Visalia and Bakersfield :and
the County of Kern, in the United-Pacific Transfer Case, was approved
and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Claim for damages from Oregon Mutual
Insurance Company referred to the City
Attorney.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman
Vetter, claim for damages from Oregon Mutual Insurance Company was
referred to the City Attorney.
Request from Mercy Hospital for vacation
of alley in Block 413A referred to the
Planning Commission for study and
recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, rsquest from the Mercy Hospital for vacation of alleys in
Block 413A which enter A Street and 16th Street, was referred to the
Planning Commission for study and recommendation.
Bakersfield, California, July 3, 1967 - Page 9
Approval of Letter agreement with Kern
Rock Company for leasing warehouse space
to the City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, letter agreement with the Kern Rock Company for leasing
warehouse space to the City of Bakersfield was approved and the Mayor
was authorized to execute same.
Approval and adoption of Specifications
for the position of Transit Garage Foreman.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman
Vetter, specifications for the position of Transit Garage Foreman were
approved and adopted.
Approval of Salary Step Advancements
effective July 1, 1967.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Rees, the following employees are recommended for salary step
advancements effective July 1, 1967: .
L. A. Bayus Communications Sergeant Step 3 to 4
J. R. Best Detective Grade II Step 4 to 5
C. D. Brummer Motorcycle Patrolman Step 3 to 4
I. L. Carroll Clerk Typist II Step 3 to 4
T. E. Lambert Lieutenant Step 4 to 5
R. O. Price Lieutenant Step 4 to 5
Approval of Map and Contract and
Specifications for Tract No. 3096.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Heisey, it is ordered that the Map of Tract No. 3096 be, and the same
is hereby approved. That all streets, drive, alley and easements as
shown upon said map and thereon offered for.dedication be, and the same
are hereby, accepted for the purpose or the purposes for which the same
are offered for dedication.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 11587 of the Business
and Professions Code, the City Council hereby waives the requirement of
signature of the following: Sara L. Mack, F, K. Hamlin, F. W. Liete,
Arthur Meyer, Jose P. Alvarez and Juana C. Alvarez, Charles L. Wren and
Ramona A. Wren, E. A. Bender and Beth G. Bender, Merlin J. Frasch and
Judy L. Frasch, owners of mineral interests with no rights of surface
entry; Pacific Gas and Electric Company, owner of easements; and the
City of Bakersfield, owner of easements.
Bakersfield, California, July 3, 1967 - Page 10
The Clerk of this Council is directed to endorse upon the
face of said map a copy of this order authenticated by the seal of
the City Council of the City of Bakersfield, and the Mayor is authorized
to execute the Contract and Specifications for improvements in said
Tract No. 3096.
Adoption of Resolution No. 51-67 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
approving and submitting a budget proposal
to the State for the City's share of gas
tax finds to be expended for engineering
and administrative expense during the
1967-68 fiscal year.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Vetter, Resolution No. 51-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
approving and submitting a budget proposal to the State for the City's
share of gas tax funds to be expended for engineering and administrative
expense during the 1967-68 fiscal year, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 52-67 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield approving
an agreement between the City and the State
for the modification of the traffic signal
and lighting system at the intersection of
Baker Street and Sumner Street (State Route
#58. )
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Resolution No. 52-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
approving an agreement between the City and the State for modification
of the traffic signal and lighting system at the intersection of Baker
Street and Sumner Street (State Route #58), was adopted by the following
vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker~ Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, July 3, 1967 - Page ll
Approval of Service Riser Agreement
with Pacific Gas & Electric Company for
the new traffic signals to be installed
at 17th and "Q" Streets.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Service Riser Agreement with Pacific Gas & Electric Company
for the new traffic signals to be installed at 17th and "Q" Streets,
was approved and the Nayor was authorized to execute same.
Adoption of Resolution No. 53-67 of the
City Council of the City of Bakersfield
approving an agreement between the City
and the State for the installation of
lighting at the intersection of Union
Avenue (State Route 204) with 4th'Street
and with Sth Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, seconded by Councilman
Stie~n~ Resolution No. 53-67 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield
approving an agreement between the City and the State for the
installation of lighting at the intersection of Union Avenue
(State Route 204) with 4th Street and with 8th Street, was adopted
by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Approval of Agreement with Pacific Gas
and Electric Company for Pole Contacts
for the new traffic signals to be
installed at 17th and "Q" Streets.
Upon a motion by Councilman Roes, seconded by Councilman Rucker,
Agreement with the Pacific Gas & Electric Company for Pole Contacts for
the new traffic signals to be installed at 17th and "Q" Streets, was
approved and'the Mayor"wa~ authorized to execute Same.
Bakersfield, California,
July 3, 1967 - Page 12
Reception of petitions for the formation of
Public Improvement District in Benton Park
No. 8.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, petitions for the
formation Qf a Public Improvement District along Hendricks Lane,
Oscar Avenue and Lacey Street, from South"H" Street to Regent Street,
requesting the construction of sewers, were received and ordered place,
on file.
Reception of certificate from City Engineer
of sufficiency of petition for formation
of a Public Improvement District.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, certificate from the City Engineer of sufficiency of petition
for the formation of a Public Improvement District to construct sewers
and necessary appurtenances along Hendricks Lane, Oscar Avenue and
Lacey Street f~om Regent Street to South "H" Street, was received and
ordered placed on file, and the City Attorney was instructed to prepare
the necessary resolutions to commence the proceedings.
Hearings.
This was the time set for hearing before the Council to :zone
upon annexation to an R-S (Residential Suburban) Zone; to an R-S-1A
(Residential Suburban One Acre Minimum Lot Size) Zone; to an R-2-D
(Two Family Dwelling - Architectural Design) Zone; to an R-3-D
(Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Design) Zone;
to an R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) Zone; to an R-4-D
(Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Design) Zone; to a C-2-D
(Commercial - Architectural Design} Zone; ana ~o an M-1 (Light
Manufacturing) Zone, of those certain properties in the County of Kern
located easterly of Wible Road, northerly of White Eane, westerly ,of
South "H" Street and southely of Ming Avenue (Benton Park 8 Annexation).
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted. The
Planning Commission initiated action for zoning upon annexation of
Benton Park No. 8 Annexation and recommended that subject properties
be zoned as per map. No protests or objections being received, the
237
Bakersfield, California, July 3,1967 - Page 13
Mayor declared the public hearing closed, and upon a motion by
Councilman Whirremote, seconded by Councilman Heisey, Ordinance Ne.
New Series amending Section 17.12.020 of Chapter 17.12 (Zoning Map)
of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Thsi being the time and place set for hearing objections to
the inclusion of a portion of certain territory designated as
"Benton Park No. $" within the Greater Bakersfield Separation of
Grade District and no protests or objections having Been received,
the Mayor declared the public hearing closed, and upon a motion by
Councilman Vetter, seconded by Councilman Rucker, Resolution No. ~[-67
annexing to the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District that
portion of certain territory designated as "Benton Park No. $" not
already included within said District, was adopted by the following
vote:
Councilmen Neisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
1683
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before this Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, seconded by Councilman Rucker, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
RUSSEL V. KARLEN, M.D.
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield, California
ATTEST:
MARIAN S. IRVIN
CITY CLERK and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield,
California,
July 17, 1967
Minutes of the regular meeting of the
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council
Hall at eight o'clock P.M.July 17, 1967.
Council of the City
Chambers of the City
The
of Allegiance and Invocation by the
Grace Reformed Church.
Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the Pledge
Reverend Robert D. Steubbe of the
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker,
Stiern, Vetter, Whirremote
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of July 3, 1967 were approved
as presented.
Service Pin Award.
Mayor Karlen presented a service pin to Captain Paul H.
Barnhart who completed twenty-five years service with the Fire
Department of the City of Bakersfield on July 15, 1967.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. William M. Rasmussen, president of the American Society
for Public Administration, addressed the Council stating that annually
the Board awards a Certificate of Meritorious Service to the one
individual in Kern County who has done most in the past year to ad-
vance the science, processes and art of public administration. He
stated that he was present tonight to honor the City's distinguished
Manager Harold Bergen. He then presented Mr. Bergen with the John
W. Doubenmier Service Award. All members of the Council and the Mayor
stated that they felt it was a great honor to have Mr. Bergen se-
lected as the recipient of this award. In accepting the award, Mr.
Bergen expressed his appreciation for the cooperation which exists
between his office, the Council and the department heads.
Bakersfield, California, July 17, 1967 - Page 2
Correspondence.
The Council discussed a communication from R. E. Deffebach,
District Engineer of the State Division of Highways, addressed to the
Mayor, which indicates that funds in the amount of $400,000 are included
in the 1967-68 Fiscal Year Budget for planting on the Route 178
Freeway in East Bakersfield. Mr. Bergen advised that in the meantime
the State has informed him they would do some weed abatement along
the route of the freeway.
A notice was received from the City of Sanger that it will
host the next meeting of the South San Joaquin Division of the League
of California Cities which will be held on July 21, 1967. The Mayor
requested that reservations be made with his office by those Councilmen
planning to attend this meeting.
Council Statements.
Councilman Heisey complimented the Mayor in his letter to
the Editor of Sports Illustrated Magazine regarding statements made by
Pete Axthelm in reporting on the 79th A.A.U. Track and Field Meet
which was held in Bakersfield on June 22-23, which the Mayor declared
were distasteful, unkind and untrue.
Councilman Rucker called the attention of the City Manager
to a traffic hazard existing at the intersection of Virginia and
South Brown Streets and requested that some sort of boulevard stop sign
be installed. Mr. Bergen stated that he would request the traffic
authority to evaluate what can be done there.
Councilman Rees and other members of the Council commented
on the invasion of crickets into the City and County areas.
Mayor Karlen discussed precautions to be taken if acts of
violence and civil disobedience should strike in Bakersfield in the
future. He called the attention of the Council to a plan developed
by Governor Reagan's administration for action in case of emergency,
called "Emergency Communications Procedure", copies of which he will
send to each member of the Council and the City Manager's office.
It is the Governor's contention that local law enforcement
is to be aided in any way deemed necessary by local officers in any
Bakersfield,
California,
July 17, 1967 - Page 3
emergency situation, but the State does not intend to take over. The
California Disaster Office will accept all emergency calls, eliminating
the question of who should be contacted at the State level. The Mayor
suggested that the City Manager, the Chief of Police, the Sheriff
and some one in County administration sit down together and plan
the procedures to be taken in case of emergency. Hie said he hoped
that citizens would respect law enforcement in this community.
Councilman Rees said he wanted to pay recognition to the
front page articles in the Sunday New Bulletin describing the City
of Tulare and its experience with downtown revitalization. He commended
Mrs. Hosking of the News Bulletin for the manner in which she reported
on this subject.
Reports.
City Attorney Hoagland reported on SB 556 which contains
provisions increasing state taxes in .certain catagories, one of which
is the cigarette tax. He also reported on AB 399 by Assemblyman
Lanterman, which would authorize cities and counties to levy a local
cigarette tax of 3½9 per pack and would provide for state collection
of the tax just as local sales taxes are collected now. After discussion,
upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Vetter,
the Council reaffirmed its position as supporting the Lanterman Bill.
Allowance of Claims.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman Rucker,
Vouchers Nos. 51S4 to 5239 inclusive in amount of $137,118.5S and
Vouchers Nos. 1 to 162 inclusive in amount of $47,224.40, as audited
by the Voucher Approval Committee, were allowed, and authorization
was granted for payment of same.
Acceptance of bid of Francis & Jacobs
Company for paving and improving California
Avenue between "L" Street and Union Avenue.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, unit prices bid by Fr~mcis and Jacobs Company for paving
and improving California Avenue between "L" Street and Union Avenue
were accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was
authorized to execute the contract.
Bakersfield, California, July 17, 1967 - Page 4
Acceptance of bid of R & C Backhoe
Service for construction of Median Island
Curbs and a Cross Drain on Mr. Vernon
Avenue between Columbus Street and
Panorama Drive.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, low bid of R & C Blackhoe Service for construction of Median
Island Curbs and a Cross Drain on Mr. Vernon Avenue between Columbus Streel
and Panorama Drive was accepted, all other bids were rejected~ and the
Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Acceptance of bid of Charlie Ray Gann
for demolition and removal of structure
located at the northwest corner of 18th
and Eye Streets.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Heisey, low bid of Charlie Ray Gann for demolition and removal of
structure located at the northwest corner of 18th and Eye Streets was
accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to
execute the contract. :
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1684 New
Series amending Chapter 11.04 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield
by adding Section 11.04.724 prohibiting
parking on Brundage Lane adj~acent to "H"
Street intersection.
Upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, Ordinance No. 1684 New
Series amending Chapter 11.04 of the Municipal Code of the City of
Bakersfield by adding Section 11.04.724 prohibiting parking on Brundage
Lane adjacent to "9" Street intersection, was adopted by the following
vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Appointment of Members of the Inter-
Group Relations Board.
At this time the following members of the Inter-Group Relations
Board were appointed for a one year term expiring July 1, 1968:
242
Bakersfield, California, July 17,
1967 - Page 5
Mrs. Frances M. Sill
Mrs. Helen P. Lee
Mr. Peter Caciuc
Mr. Ed Spencer
Mr. David Scott
Mrs. Keith Bleecker
(Re-appointed)
Councilman Stiern
Councilman Heisey
Councilman Whirremote
Councilman Rucker
Councilman Rees
Councilman Hosking
Mayor Karlen and Councilman Vetter stated they would make
their appointments at a later date.
Councilman Stiern commented that in the past they had discussed
the possibility of amending the Resolution creating the Board, that as
he recalled it, the existing Board felt the requirement for a monthly
meeting could be changed to a more sensible consideration of meetings
as needed, subject to call. He asked Mrs. Lee, who was in the audience,
if the Board had made recommendations for changes in the Resolutio:n.
Mrs. Lee said it had been discussed a number of times, as
there was a certain amount of dissatisfaction among the members of the
Board when a meeting was held just because the Resolution required it
and there was no business to discuss. She said the question has been
asked several times why the Board holds meetings when it has nothi~ag
to do. She said it was possible that the Resolution could be amended
to provide that meetings'be held quarterly, or that the Board be in
existence to be called only when needed or an emergency arises, with
no specified time for meetings. This would be helpful to the Council
in making appointments to the Board.
After discussion, Councilman Stiern asked the City Attorney
to prepare an amendment to the existing Resolution, worded appropriately,
to allow the Board to meet as often as is necessary, or on call, but
not stipulating a regular meeting, for presentation to the Council
at its next meeting.
City Attorney Hoagland commented that the Resolution could
be amended without establishing any meeting dates and the Board could
draw up its own rules and regulations and establish its own meeting
dates.
Councilman Stiern said he has found that :in discussing this
Resolution with members of the Board who have been appointed over the
last few years, that this requirement that they meet monthly and they
243
Bakersfield, California, July 17, 1967 - Page 6
come down here and thera is nobusSness, spoils the spirit of the
Board. They feel they have something to offer, if needed, and they
are perfectly willing to work, but they don't like a monthly meeting
type of thing. He again asked the City Attorney to prepare the
Resolution for the Council's consideration.
Adoption of Resolution No. 55-67 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 of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Resolution No. 55-67 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 of Bakersfield
was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 56-67 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfi~l~ fixing
a time and place for hearing protests by
persons owning real property within
territory designated as "Stine No. 2", proposed
to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman
Rucker~ Resolution No. 56-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
fixing September 5, 1967 in the Council Chambers of the City Hall as the
time and place for hearing protests by persons owning real propertly
within territory designated as "Stine No. 2", proposed to be annexed
to the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
244
Bakersfield, California, July 17, 1967 - Page 7
Adoption of Resolution No. 57-67 of
Intention to include within the Greater
Bakersfield Separation of Grade District
certain territory designated as "Stine
No. 2", and setting the time and place
for hearing objections to the inclusion
of said territory within said District.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Resolution No. 57-67 of
Intention to include within the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade
District certain territory designated as "Stine No. 2", and fixing
September 5, 1967 in the Council Chambers of the City Hall as the
time and place for hearing objections to the inclusion of said
territory within said District, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore.
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 58-67 of
Intention to approve anamendment to
Contract between the Board of Administration
of the State Employees' Retirement System
and the City Council of the City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilmen
Hosking, Resolution No. 58-67 of Intention to approve an amendment to
Contract between the Board of Administration of the State Employees
Retirement System and the City Council of. the City of Bakersfield was
adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 59-67 of 'the
City Council of the City of Bakersfield
ordering the preparation of Plans,
Specifications, Estimates of Cost and
District Map, in the matter of proposed
Public Improvement District No. 822.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilmail
Hosking, Resolution No. 59-67 of the City Council of the City of
Bakersfield ordering the preparation of Plans, Specifications,
Estimates of Cost and District Map, in the matter of proposed Public
245
Bakersfield, California, July 117, 1967 - Page 8
Improvement District No. 822, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 60-67 of
Findings and Determination on Petition
for construction of certain sanitary
sewer lines, located as shown on the Maps
attached and marked "Exhibit B", the same
to be included in the proposed Public Improvement
District No. 822 in the City of Bakersfield,
California.
Upon a motion by Counciman Whirremote, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, Resolution No. 60-67 of Findings and Determination on petition
for construction of certain sanitary sewer lines, located as shown
on the Maps attached and marked "Exhibit B", the same to be included
in the proposed Public Improvement District No. 822 in the City of
Bakersfield, California was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter
Whittemore '
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 61-67 of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield
urging the California Highway Commission
to budget funds for improvement of
Route 166 (SR 57).
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, Resolution No. 61-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
urging the California Highway Commission to budget funds for improvement
of Route 166 (SR 57), was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
246
Bakersfield, California, July 17, 1967 - Page 9
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending the Municipal Code by amending
Section 11.04.764 (Speed Limit on Columbus
Avenue), by adding Section 11.04.783 (Speed
Limit on Niles Street), by adding Section
11.04.784 (Speed Limit on Monterey Street)
and by adding Section 11.04.786 (Speed Limit
on Bernard Street.)
First reading was given an Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield amending the Municipal Code by amending Section
11.04.764 (Speed Limit on Columbus Avenue) by adding Section 11.04.783
(Speed Limit on Niles Street), by adding Section 11.04.784 (Speed
Limit on Monterey Street), and b~ adding Section 11.04.786 (Speed Limit
on Bernard Street).
Approval of Agreement between the City
of Bakersfield and the Trustees of the
California State Colleges.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded
by Councilman Heisey, Agreement between the City of Bakersfield and the
Trustees of the California State Colleges was approved and the Mayor
was authorized to execute same.
Claims in connection with death of William
Merle Cummins, a Minor, referred to the
City Attorney.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman
Rucker claims in connection with the death of William Merle Cummins, a
Minor, were referred to the City Attorney.
Approval of Salary Step Advancements
effective August l~ 1967.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, secinded by Councilman
Rucker, the following salary step advancements were approved, effective
August 1, 1967.
C. W. Hewett
O. C. Highman
R. C. Hughes
M. R. Kirchner
G. Martinez
R. Patterson
W. E. Philbrook
J. A. Steen
A.D. Truitt
D. Gilliland
Electrician Step 3 to 4
Street Mtn. Foreman Step 4 to 5
Fire Engineer Step 4 to 5
Fire Captain Step 4 to 5
Equipment Operator I Step 4 to 5
Detective Grade II Step 3 to 4
Motor Patrolman Step 3 to 4
Detective Grade II Step 4 to 5
Fire Captain Step 4 to 5
Account Clerk II Step 3 to 4
247
Bakersfield, California, July 17, 1967 - Page 10
Date set for hearing on request by
Safeway Stores, Inc. to amend the Zoning
Boundaries for that certain property in
the City of Bakersfield commonly known
as 40 Chester Avenue.
Upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, date of August 7, 1967
was set for hearing before the Council on request by Safeway Stores,
to amend the Zoning Boundaries from an R-3 (Limited Multiple Family
Dwelling) Zone to a C-2 (Commercial) or more restrictive, Zone~ for
that certain property in the City of Bakersfield commonly known as
40 Chester Avenue.
Inc.
Date set for hearing on initiated action
by the Planning Commission to amend the
Zoning Boundaries for those certain
properties in the City of Bakersfield
located north of Truxtun Avenue, east of "A"
Street, west of "F" Street and south of 21st
Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, date of August 7, 1967
was set for hearing before the Council on initiated action by the
Planning Commission to amend the Zoning Boundaries from an R-3
(Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) Zone and an R-4 (Multiple Family
Dwelling) Zone to a C-O (Professional Office) or more restrictive, Zone,
for those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield located north
of Truxtun Avenue, east of "A" Street, west of "F" Street and south
of 21st Street.
Adoption of Resolution No. 62-67 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
accepting for street purposes that certain
strip of land lying between the west right
of way line of Kern Island Road (South ~"
Street) and the line designated as "Future
Street Line" in Lof 16 of Tract No. 1366.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, Resolution No. 62-67
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield accepting for street purposes
that certain strip of land lying between the west right of way line
of Kern Island Road (South "H" Sfreet) and the line designated as
"Future Street Line" in Lot 16 of Tract No. 1366, was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, July 17, 1967 - Page
Approval of Master Street Lighting
.Plan for Tract 3096.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, Master Street Lighting Plan for Tract 3096 was approved.
Acceptance of Grant Deed from Fairway
Land and Development Company for easement
included with the boundaries of Tract 3096.
Upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, Grant Deed from Fairway
Land and Development Company for the 150 foot by 655 foot area of the
P. G. & E. easement included with the boundaries of Tract 3096, was
accepted.
Acceptance of Grant Deed from James T.
Inman and Dolly F. Inman for property
required ~or the widening of South "R"
Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Grant Deed from James T.
Inman and Dolly F. Inman for property required for the widening" of
South "H" Street was accepted.
Adoption of Resolution No. 63-67 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
approving and submitting a request for
State Allocation through the crossing
protection Fund for automatic signal
devices at the crossing of California
Avenue and the Buttonwillow Branch of
the Southern Pacific Railroad, Crossing
No. BT 314.15.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman
Rees, Resolution No. 63-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
approving and submitting a request for State Allocation through the
Crossing Protection Fund for automatic signal devices at the crossing
of California Avenue and the Buttonwillow Branch of the Southern Pacific
Railroad, Crossing No. BT 314.15, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, July 17, 1967 - Page 12
Permit granted Bakersfield Cable TV,
Inc. to leave overhead cable TV line,
serving several downtown commercial
establishments subject to conditions
and time limitations established by
Ordinance No 1215 New Series.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, permit was granted
the Bakersfield Cable TV, Inc. to leave overhead cable TV lines serving
several downtown commercial establishments subject to conditions and
time limitations established by Ordinance No. 1215 New Series.
Adoption of Resolution No. 64-67 of
the'Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending the Select System and requesting
the amended system be approved by the
California Highway Commission.
Upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, Resolution No. 64-67
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending the Select System
and requesting the amended system be approved by the California
Highway Commission was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern; Vetter
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Approval of request from Anthony Cueto
of Anthony Homes for permission to
connect property at 3700 Stockdale
Highway to the City sewer system
subject to certain conditions.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman
Heisey, request from Anthony Cueto of Anthony Homes for permission to
connect property at 3700 Stockdale Highway to the City Sewer System
was approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. Proper installation and construction of lines
2. Enter into a suitable sewer rental agreement
3. Sewer Rental Agreement to be recorded
Bakersfield, California, July 17, 1967 - Page 13
Hearings.
This was the time set for hearing on Phase I of the 1967
Weed Abatement Program. The Director of Public Works reported that
after the fourth inspection was made of the original 512 vacant lots
which were posted with "Notice to Destroy Weeds" between May 1 and
May ll, there were 53 non-compliances remaining. No one present offering
any protests, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, the City Attorney was instructed to prepare a Resolution
for adoption at the next Council meeting, finding that certain weeds
growing on property in the City of Bakersfield constitute a public
nuisance and directing the Superintendent of Streets to destroy said
weeds.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, seconded by Councilman Rucker, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:25 P.M.
MAYOR 6f the Cityof Bakersfield, Cal~if.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERKand Ex-Officio Cler~ of the Council of
the City of Bakersfield~ California
Bakersfield,
'California, August 7, 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. August 7, 1967.
The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Norman Calloway
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Vetter,
Whittemore
Absent: Councilmen Heisey, Stiern
Minutes of the regular meeting of July 1967 were
approved as presented.
Council Statements.
Councilman Hosking commented that the trucking firm on
Monterey Street is still engaged in parking its trucks on the street.
He stated that he feels the only thing the City can do in fairness to
the people who have complained about this over a long period of time,
is to institute a suit to declare this firm a public nuisance, and if
the City is successful in the suit, the perpetrator of this violation
could be jailed for being in contempt of court. He would like a report
regarding the feasibility of filing such a suit because he thinks it is
ridiculous that the City can't protect itself.
Mayor Karlen said he had looked into it only briefly, but
Monterey Street is part of the State Highway and this firm has the
right to park on it without the City being able to do much about it.
Acting City Manager Jing stated that it is a State Highway,
however, the trucking firm has agreed to do a certain amount of
improvement and may be able to confine some of this equipment within
its property.
City Attorney Hoagland said the property was not confined to
Niles Street, it is also along the side street and at the present time
the City is embroiled in several jury trials in connection with
citations issued to this firm. However, if there is going to be
no parking on Niles Street, the City would have to secure the
of the Wesley Methodist Church.
252
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1967 - Page 2
permission of the State Division of Highways, to make it a no
parking zone.
Councilman Rucker called the attention of the Council to a
truck being parked across from Guadaloupe Church, just west of Baker
Street, which is covered with very ugly signs. If this property
belongs to the City, the owner of the truck should not be permitted
to park it there. Mr. Jing said the staff would check into it,
but it is probably private property.
Councilman Whittemore asked what happened to the proposed
sign ordinance. City Attorney Hoagland said he is re-drafting an
ordinance now, as the proposed ordinance which the Council considered
previously was deficient in certain areas.
Councilman Vetter stated that he observed two parking
spaces at the Post Office on 18th and "G" Streets, that were marked
for "Passenger Loading Only", which were put in originally for the
Rehabilitation Center operating in that location, which has moved
some time ago. He asked the Traffic Authority if these spaces
could not be returned for general parking, and one of them has been
changed. He said he would like to ask the staff and business concerns
to be conscious of the City's need for expanded parking facilities and
to bring to the Council's attention any suggestions they might have in
this connection. He also commented on the parking lot at 17th and
"F" Street which is not being utilized to capacity. If at all
possible, legally, he feels that the parking meters should be removed
from this lot and people permitted to park there on an all day basis,
which would make it possible for residents of the area to park in
front of their homes. He asked that this be checked into and a
report made on what can be done.
Councilman Hosking said he had previously asked the staff
to check the use of the lot at 17th and "F" and also the one at 23rd
and "H" which is not used substantially. The Council has stated
many times that the parking meters cannot be moved until such time
as the bonds are retired, and he believes that the lots that are not
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1967 - Page 3
being used should be either sold or exchanged for property which can
be used for parking.
Councilman Vetter stated that he would like to mention that
the Chamber of Commerce is sponsoring a "Try Kern County First"
program to encourage residents and businesses to buy services and
make purchases locally or in this area. He feels that this program
should have the full support of the City, and he asked the staff if
unused advertising space on the buses could be made available to the
Chamber of Commerce for its decals "Try Kern County First."
Mr. George Barton of the Chamber of Commerce who was
present in the audience, stated that they were using all forms of
advertising except the City buses, and they would be very grateful
for the offer of this space if it can be made. They would be very
happy to make suitable decals available to the City.
Councilman Vetter, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, then
made a motion that advertising space on the buses be made available
to the Chamber of Commerce, if it is legally possible to do so.
Councilman Whittemore said the matter of parking lots had
been discussed by the Council for over two years and he thinks an
appraisal should be made of the lots which are not being utilized
and the full block of property on the East side, and put this property
on the market for sale and use the funds to retire the off-street
parking bonds and get the property back on the tax rolls. City
Attorney Hoagland said Mr. Bergen is in the process of making a
survey and appraisal of off-street parking lots and a report will
be made to the Council in the near future.
254
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1967 - Page 4
Reports
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, a report of the
Planning Commission Central Park Land Use Study Committee was
referred to the Auditorium-Recreation Committee for study.
Allowance of Claims.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Vouchers Nos. 163 to 465 inclusive, excluding No. 438, in
amount of $144,874.01, as audited by the Finance Approval Committee,
were allowed, and authorization was granted for payment of same.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1685 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending the Municipal Code
by amending Section 11.04.764 (Speed Limit
on Columbus Avenue), by adding Section
11.04.783 (Speed Limit on Niles Street)
by.adding Section 11.04.784 (Speed Limit
on Monterey Street) and by adding Section
11.04.786 (Speed Limit on Bernard Street.)
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Vetter, Ordinance No. 1685 New Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending the Municipal Code by amending Section 11.04.756
(Speed Limit on Columbus Avenue), by adding Section 11.04.783 (Speed
Limit on Niles Street, by adding Section 11.04.784 (Speed Limit on
Monterey Street), and by adding Section 11.04.786 (Speed Limit on
Bernard Street), was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Hosking,
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen Heisey,
Rees, Rucker, Vetter, Whittemore
St ie rn
Appointment of Member of the Inter-
Group Relations Board.
Councilman Vetter advised that he had appointed Mr. CharLes
H. Williams of 3801 Balboa Drive, as a member of the Inter-Group
Relations Board.
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1967 Page 5
Action deferred on proposed assignment
of Maintenance Paint and Supply Annual
Contract and Street Paint Annual
Contract from William A. Swain, DBA
Colorama Paint to Center Glass Company
No. 6, SKA Center Glass and Paint Company.
Action was deferred on proposed assignment of Maintenance,
Paint and Supply Annual Contract No. 12068 and Street Paint Annual
Contract No. 11968 from William A. Swain, DBA Colorama Paint to
Center Glass Company No. 6, SKA Center Glass and Paint Company.
Adoption of Resolution of Intention No.
823 of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield declaring its intention to
order the vacation of a Public Utilities
Easement between Lots 12 and 13, Tract
2468, Mobilhome Corporation, in the
City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Resolution of Intention No. 823 of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield declaring its intention to order the vacation of a Public
Utilities Easement between Lots 12 and 13, Tract 2468, Mobilhome
Corporation, in the City of Bakersfield, and fixing September 5,
1967 as the date for hearing before the Council, was adopted by
the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Rosking, Rees, Rucker, Vetter, Whitttemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen Heisey, Stiern
First reading of An Ordinance amending
Section 11.04.500 of the Municipal Code
to provide alley parking where the
Traffic Authority of the City of
Bakersfield has found by study that
such parking is warranted and amending
Section 11.04.620.
At this time first reading was considered given to An
Ordinance amending Section 11.04.500 of the Municipal Code to provide
alley parking where the Traffic Authority of the City of Bakersfield
has found by study that such parking is warranted and amending Section
11.04.620.
256
Bakersfield,
California,
August 7,
1967 - Page 6
Adoption of Resolution No. 65-67 of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield
adopting Plans and Specifications,
Careful Estimates and District Map for
the construction and installation of
a Sanitary Sewer in proposed Public
Improvement District No. 822.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Co~ncilm;
Vetter, Resolution No. 65-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
adopting Plans and Specifications, Careful Estimates and District
Map for the construction and installation of a Sanitary Sewer in
proposed Public Improvement District No. 822, was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Vetter, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen
Heisey, Stiern
Adoption of Resolution of Intention No.
822 of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield, California, declaring its
intention to order the construction of
Sanitary Sewer Line along Hendricks Lane,
Oscar Avenue and Lacy Street from Regent
Street to South "H" Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, Resolution of Intention No. 822 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, declaring its intention to order the
construction of Sanitary Sewer Line along Hendricks Lane, Oscar Avenue
and Lacy Street from Regent Street to South ~'H" Street and fixing
September 18, 1967 as the date for hearing on the matter before the
Council, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Vetter, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen Heisey, Stiern
257
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1967 - Page 7
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1686 New
Series of the City Council of the City
of Bakersfield authorizing an amendment
to the Contract between the City Council
and the Board of Administration of
California State Employees Retirement
System.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Ordinance No. 1686 New Series of the City Council of the
City of Bakersfield authorizing an amendment to the Contract between
the City Council and the Board of Administration of the California
State Employees' Retirement System and authorizing the Mayor of said
City
Ayes:
Noes:
to execute the same, was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Vetter, Whirremote
None
Absent: Councilmen Heisey, Stiern
Action deferred on proposed Resolution
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Resolution No. 47-63 establishing
an Inter-Group Relations Board.
Action was deferred until next Council meeting, for further
study and review, on proposed Resolution of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield amending Resolution No. 47-63 establishing an
Inter-Group Relations Board.
Claim of Herbert Hamilton, also known
as Herbert Freemen, a minor, for
personal injuries, referred to the
City Attorney.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, claim of Herbert Hamilton, also known as Herbert Freemen,
a minor, for personal injuries, was referred to the City Attorney.
Approval and adoption of Specifications
for the positions of Maintenanceman III
and Maintenanceman III (Parks.)
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, specifications for the
positions of Maintenanceman III and Maintenanceman III(Parks)
were approved and adopted.
258
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1967 - Page, 8
Date set for hearing on request by the
Presbytery of San Joaquin to amend the
zoning boundaries for that certain
property in the City of Bakersfield
located at the northwest corner of
Bernard and Oswell Streets.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, date of September ll
1967 was set for hearing before the Council on request by the Presbytery
of San Joaquin to amend the zoning boundaries from an R-1 (Single
Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling)
or more restrictive Zone; to a C-O (Professional Office), or more
restrictive, Zone; and to a C-1 (Limited Commercial) or more restrictive,
Zone, for that certain property in the City of Bakersfield located at
the northwest corner of Bernard and Oswell Streets.
Councilman Hosking stated that he had received a complai:at
on this particular rezoning request, and he would like to be appraised
actually of what happened at the Planning Commission hearing before
the matter is heard by the Council. Acting City Manager Jing stated
that the Council would be furnished with the background information.
Date set for hearing on request by
Sill Properties, Inc. to amend the
Zoning Boundaries for that certain
property in the City of Bakersfield
located at the northeast corner of
Oak and 19th Streets.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, date of September
1967 was set for hearing before the Council on request by Sill
Properties, Inc. to amend the zoning boundaries from an R-1 (Single
Family dwelling) Zone to a C-1 (Limited Commercial) or more restrictive,
Zone, and to a "P" (Automobile Parking) or more restrictive Zone, for
that certain property in the City of Bakersfield located at the northeast
corner of Oak and 19th Streets.
259
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1967 - Page 9
Date set for hearing before the Council
on request by Elmer F. Karpe, Inc. to
zone upon annexation those certain
properties in the Counly of Kern located
east of Stine Road and north of Robindale
Drive, known as Stine No. 2 annexation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Vetter, date of September 5, 1967 was set for hearing before the
Council on request by Elmer F. Karpe, Inc. to zone upon annexation
to an R-t (Single Family Dwelling) Zone for proposed Lots 1
thru 13 of tentative Tract No. 3101 and to an R-3 (Limited Multiple
Family Dwelling) Zone for proposed Lots 14 thru 19 of Tentative
Tract No. 3101 for those certain properties in the County of Kern
located east of Stine Road and north of Robindale Drive, known as
Stine No. 2 annexation. Councilman Whittemore called attention to
the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the zoning is
not to be finalized until the recording of the final tract map.
Date set for hearing before the Council on
proposed Plan Lines for an ultimate 110
foot right of way width for Brundage Lane
between 200 feet west of South King Street
and 1200 feet east of Cottonwood Road.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, date of September 11, 1967
was set for hearing before the Council on proposed Plan Lines for an
ultimate l10 foot right of way width for Brundage Lane between 200
feet west of South King Street and 1200 feet east of Cottonwood Road.
Date set for hearing before the Council
on amending the Text of the Zoning
Ordinance to set a minimum time limit at
which reapplication for zoning changes,
modifications, conditional use permits
and variances may be made.
Upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, date of September 11, 1967
was set for hearing before the Council on amending the Text of the
Zoning Ordinance to set a minimum time limit at which reapplication
for zoning changes, modifications, conditional use permits and
variances may be made.
260'
Bakersfield,
California, August 7, 1967 - Page 10
Date set for hearing before the Council
on request by the Tejon Investment
Company to amend the zoning boundaries
for that certain property in the City
of Bakersfield located on the east
side of Cottonwood Road 600 feet north
of Watts Drive.
Upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, date of September 11,
1967 was set for hearing before the Council on request by the Tejon
Investment Company to amend the Zoning Boundaries from an R-S
(Residential Suburban) Zone to an R-3 (Limited Multiple Family
Dwelling) or more restrictive, Zone, for that certain property in
the City of Bakersfield located on the east side of Cottonwood
Road 600 feet north of Watts Drive.
Acceptance of Street Right of Way Deed
from William B. Carter and Eunice Carter
for the east half of Della Street and
the south half of Lum Avenue in Tract 2215.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Street Right of Way Deed from William B. Carter and Eunice
Carter for the east half of Della Street and the South half of Lum
Avenue in Tract 2215 was accepted.
Approval of Plans and Specifications
for the installation of intersection
lighting on California Avenue between
"L" Street and Union Avenue.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Plans and Specifications
for the installation of intersection lighting on California Avenue
between "L" Street and Union Avenue were approved, and authorization
was granted to advertise for bids for this project.
Acceptance of Map and Approval of
Contract and Specifications for
Tract No.2924.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, it is ordered that
the Map of Tract 2924 be, and the same is hereby approved. That
all the easementst avenues, roads and alleys shown upon said Map~
therein offered for dedication~ be and the same are accepted for
dedication. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 11587 of the
261_
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1967 - Page 11
Business and Professions Code, the Council of the City of Bakersfield
hereby waives the requirement of the signatures of the following:
NAME NATURE OF INTEREST
Lain E. Moynier
Lydia Moynier
City of Bakersfield
Mineral Rights below a
Depth of 500 feet with
no right of surface entry'
Sewer Easement as Per
Deed recorded June 18,
1964 in Book 3736, Page
698, O.R. Kern County
The Clerk of this Council is directed to endorse upon the
face of said Map a copy of this Order authenticated by the Seal of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield and the Mayor is authorized
to execute the Contract and Specifications for Improvements in said
Tract.
Approval of Plans and Specifications for
the construction of an Automatic Sprinkler
System and Planters in Median Islands on
South "H" Street between Terrace Way and
Ming Avenue and construction of an
Automatic Irrigation System for Median
Island Planters on California Avenue
between "L" Street and Union Avenue.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Plans and Specifications for construction of an Automatic
Sprinkler System and Planters in Median Islands on South "H" Street
between Terrace Way and Ming Avenue and construction of an Automatic
Irrigation System for Median Island Planters on California Avenue
between "L" Street and Union Avenue were approved, and authorization
was granted to advertise for bids.
Approval of Agreement with the County
of Kern for construction of Drainage
Improvements at the intersection of
California Avenue and Baker Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, Agreement with the County of Kern for construction of Drainage
Improvements at the intersection of California Avenue and Baker Street
was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
262
Bakersfield,
California, August 7, 1967 - Page 12
Approval of Plans and Specifications
for California Avenue and Baker Street
intersection drainage improvements.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, plans and specifications for California Avenue and Baker
Street intersection drainage improvements were approved and authorization
was granted to advertise for bids.
Approval of Freeway Maintenance Agreement
for Freeway 178.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, seconded by
Councilman Hosking, Freeway Maintenance Agreement with the State
Division of Highways for Freeway 178 was approved, and the Mayor
was authorized to execute same.
Petition from residents in Tracts 1833
and 2215 requesting the formation of a
Public Improvement District for the
construction of sewers referred to the
City Engineer for checking.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by
Councilman Hosking, petition from residents in Tracts 1833 and 2215,
in the vicinity of Castro Lane and Wilson Road, requesting the
Council to form a Public Improvement District for the construction
of sewers was referred to the City Engineer for checking.
Certificate from City Engineer of
sufficiency of petition for formation
of a Public Improvement District in
Tracts 1833 and 2215 received and
placed on file.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, seconded by
Councilman Hosking, certificate from the City Engineer of sufficiency
of petition from residents of the area for formation of a Public
Improvement District to construct sewers and necessary appurtenances
in Tracts 1833 and 2215, in the vicinity of Castro Lane and Wilson
Road was received and ordered placed on file, and the City Attorney
was instructed to prepare the necessary resolutions.
263
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1967 - Page 13
Extension of time granted Bakersfield
Electric Company for installation of
New State Lighting Control System under
Contract No. 79-66.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Vetter, 90 calendar days extension of time was granted Bakersfield
Electric Company to Contract No. 79-66 for construction of new Stage
Lighting Control System at the Civic Auditorium due to problems
matching the existing house lighting Vickers Mag-Amps to the new
control system.
Hearings.
This was the time set for hearing on a request by Safeway
Stores, Inc. to amend the zoning boundaries from an R-3 (Limited
Mulitple Family Dwelling) Zone to a C-2-D (Commercial - Architectural
Design) or more restrictive, Zone, of that certain property in the City
of Bakersfield commonly known as 40 Chester Avenue. This hearing was
duly published and posted and no written protests have been received
in the City Clerk's office. The Planning Commission recommended the
"D" (Architectural Design) Overlay be applied to protect the adjacent
residential property.
No protests or objections being received, the Mayor declared
the public hearing closed for Council discussion. Upon a motion by
Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Vetter, Ordinance No.
1687 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 commonly known as 40 Chester Avenue
was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Vetter, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen Heisey, Stiern
This was the time set for hearing on the initiated action
by the Planning Commission to amend the Zoning Boundaries from an
R-4 (Multiple Family Dwelling) Zone to a C-O-D (Professional Office -
Architectural Design) or more restrictive~ Zone; from an R-4
264
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1967 - Page 14
(Multiple Family Dwelling) Zone to a C-O (Professional Office) or
more restrictive, Zone; and from an R-3 (Limited Multiple Family
Dwelling) Zone to a C-O (Professional Office) or more restrictive,
Zone, of those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield located
north of Truxtun Avenue, east of "A" Street, west of "F" Street
and south of 21st Street. This hearing was duly published and posted
and no written protests were filed in the City Clerk's office.
The Planning Commission initiated action for the above
mentioned change and accordingly recommends approval.
Mayor Karlen read a letter from William R. Dolan, 2200 -
20th Street expressing his support of the proposed change of zoning
for this area.
No protests or objections being received, the Mayor declared
the public hearing closed for Council discussion. Upon a motion by
Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Vetter, Ordinance No. 1688
New Series amending Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code of the City
of Bakersfield located north of Truxtun Avenue, east of "A", west
of "F" and south of 21st Streets, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Vetter, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen Heisey, Stiern
Appointment of Councilman Rees as
Member of the Sign Committee of the
Greater Bakersfield Chamber of
Commerce.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Whittemore, Councilman Rees was appointed as a Member of the Sign
Committee of the Greater Bakersfeild Chamber of Commerce.
The Council extended its best wishes to Administrative
Assistant Ed Valliere who will be absent from the City for several
weeks due to surgery.
Bakersfield, California, August 7, 1967 - Page 15
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, seconded by Councilman Rucker,
the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M.
MAYOR of the City of Baker~~-~
ATTEST:
CITY CL~an~x2g~ci'o C~I r~r~k o~ ~e
Council of the City of Bakersfield.
266
Bakersfield, California, August 21, 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. August 21, 1967.
The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend George Woodgates
of All Saints Episcopal Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker,
Stiern, Vetter, Whirremote
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of August 7, 1967 were
approved as presented.
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, request from Piute
Packing Company for permission to connect property on Hughes Lane
to the City sewer was received and referred to the Planning Commission
for study and recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, communication from
San Joaquin Distributors, Inc. re assignment of contract by William
A. Swain, dba as Colorama Paint, to Center Glass Company No. 6,
and the Assistant City Attorney's reply to the communication, were
received and ordered placed on file.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, communication from
Mrs. Edward K. Sturges urging the Council to continue to maintain
the metered parking lot at 17th and "F" Streets, was received and
ordered placed on file.
Councilman Hosking commented that since the adjacent
church apparently needs the parking space, the lot should be offered
to the church for purchase.
Councilman Vetter stated that on the day Mrs. Sturges
advised that the lot was not being used, all the parking area
surrounding the lot was being used, and it is unfair to the property
287
Bakersfield~ California~ Augus~ 21~ 1967 - Page 2
owners to have the parking spaces in front of their businesses or
residences taken by persons who should be using the municipal parking
lot.
City Manager Bergen commented that he has taken the matter
up with the Traffic Authority and it is their intention to make a
more detailed survey after the summer is over, probably in September
or October, and report to the Council later in the year on a study
made of all parking lots owned by the City.~
Council Statements.
Councilman Heisey said he had received a telephone call from
Mrs. Ray H. Stevens, 819 Oregon Street~ regarding street sweeping in
her neighborhood which she considered inadequate. He asked Mr. Bergen
to investigate this complaint and report back on it, and he understands
the City Manager had sent her a letter explaining the schedule for
street sweeping in that area.
City Manager Bergen stated that the City has recently
purchased two new street sweepers and in order to sweep residential
streets on a closer schedule~ it may be necessary to purchase one
of the used sweepers that is being replaced. He stated he would come
back to the Council with a specific recommendation within the next
few weeks. He pointed out that they cannot have an effective mechanical
street cleaning program when parking is allowed on the streets~
however, they are attempting to do as good a job as possible, and
it is usually satisfactory.
He advised that during the normal leaf season, extra crews
are used to pick up leaves at the curb on a clockwise rotation
throughout the City. After discussion, Mr. Bergen stated that the staff
would evaluate the cost for accelerating the sweeping schedule in
the residential areas and report back to the Council.
Mayor Karlen stated that he would like to take this
opportunity to introduce Assemblyman William Ketchum of the 29th
District, and his administrative assistant, who were present in the
Council Chambers.
265
Bakersfield, California, August 21, 1967 - Page 3
Assemblyman Ketchum stated he would like to thank the Mayor,
the members of the Council, and particularly the City Attorney,
for the tremendous cooperation received all through this session of
the Legislature.
Allowance of Claims.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman
Heisey, Vouchers Nos. 466 to 679 inclusive, with the exception of
Nos. 494 and 655, in amount of $63,550.00, as audited by the Voucher
Approval Committee, were allowed and authorization was granted for
payment of same.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1689 New
Series amending Section 11.04.500 of
the Municipal Code to provide for Alley
Parking where the Traffic Authority of
the City of Bakersfield has found by
study that such parking is warranted
and amending Section 11.04.620.
Upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, Ordinance No. 1689 New Series amending Section 11.04.500 of
the Municipal Code to provide for Alley Parking where the Traffic
Authority of the City of Bakersfield has found by study that such
parking is warranted and amending Section 11.04.620, was adopted by
the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whirremote
Adoption of Resolution No. 66-67 of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Resolution No. 47-63 establishing
an Inter-Group Relations Board.
At this time Resolution of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Resolution No. 47-63 establishing an Inter-Group
Relations Board was discussed. It was moved by Councilman Stiern
that the Resolution be adopted. Councilman Vetter stated that he had
mentioned before that ~he believes the Board should be required to
meet at least once a quarter. Councilman Stiern said the problem has
269
Bakersfield, California, August 21, 1967 -Page 4
been that the Board hasn't had any business to transact, and by
calling meetings once a month, the members lose interest in coming
down to a no business meeting. He said he thinks the determination on
how often to meet should be left to the descretion of the members of
the Board, whom he feels will meet as often as necessary.
Councilman Hosking stated that he agreed with Councilmart
Vetter and offered a substitute motion that the proposed Resolutien
read "Regular meetings of the Board shall be held on a day and time
fixed by the Board, but in any case, no less than once each quarter."
Councilman Vetter seconded the motion. After discussion, vote was
taken on the amendment to the proposed Resolution which
carried as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Vetter
Councilmen Heisey, Stiern, Whittemore
None
Upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, Resolution No. 66-67
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Resolution No.
establishing an Inter-Group Relations Board was
by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Heisey, Hosking,
Whittemore
None
None
47-63
adopted as amended,
Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Approval of the Mayor's re-appointment
of two Members of the Inter-Group
Relations Board.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stier~ seconded by Councilman
Hosking, the Mayor's re-appointment of Dr. Homer K. Myles, Jr. and
Mr. Rudy Galicia as Members of the Inter-Group Relations Board for a
one year term effective July 1, 1967, was approved.
Bakersfield, California, August 21, 1967 - Page 5
Acceptance of Bid of Kern Sprinkler
Company of construction of an Automatic
Sprinkler Ststem and Planters in Median
Islands on South "H" Street between
Terrace Way and Ming Avenue and construction
of an Automatic Irrigation System for
Median Island Planters on California Avenue
between "L" Street and Union Avenue.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, seconded by Councilman
Vetter, unit prices bid by Kern Sprinkler Company for the construction
of an automatic sprinkler system and planters in median islands on
South "H" Street between Terrace Way and Ming Avenue, and construction
of an automatic irrigation system for median island planters on
California Avenue between "L" Street and Union Avenue were accepted,
and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Acceptance of bid of Stewart
for Annual Contract for
Lamps.
Electric
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by
Councilman Hosking, low bid of Stewart Electric for Annual Contract
for Lamps was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor
was authorized to execute the contract.
Acceptance of bid of Haughton Elevator
Company for service at City Hall.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman
Heisey, bid of Haughton Elevator Company for elevator service at City
Hall for period beginning on September 1, 1967 and terminating on June
30, 1968 was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor
was authorized to execute the contract.
Adoption of Resolution No. 67-67 of
Findings and determination on Petition
for construction of certain Sanitary Sewer
Lines located in Tract No. 1833 and Tract
No. 2215 and along Castro Lane between
Wilson Road and Ming Avenue, the same to
be included in the proposed Public Improvement
District No. 824 in the City of Bakersfield,
California, as shown on the attached drawing
marked Exhibit "B".
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Vetter, Resolution No. 67-67 of Findings and Determination on Petition
~C
2 71
Bakersfield, California, August 21, 1967 - Page 6
for construction of certain Sanitary Sewer Lines located in Tract
No. 1833 and Tract No. 2215 and along Castro Lane between Wilson
Road and Ming Avenue, the same to be included in the proposed Public
Improvement District No. 824 in the City of Bakersfield, California,
as shown on the attached drawing marked Exhibit "B", was adopted by
the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey~ Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 68-67 of the
City Council of the City of Bakersfield
to order preparation of Plans,
Specifications, Estimate of Costs, and
District Map on the matter of proposed
Public Improvement District No. 824.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, seconded by Councilman
Heisey, Resolution No. 68-67 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfiel~
to order preparation of Plans, Specifications, Estimate of Costs, and
District Map in the matter of proposed Public Improvement
District No. 824, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 69-67 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
acknowledging.receipt of a copy of Notice
of Intention to Circulate Petition for
the annexation of territor~y designated
as Ming No. 4~ and an Affidavit of Publication
thereof, and approving the circulation of the
Petition.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, Resolution No. 69-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
acknowledging receipt of a copy of Notice of Intention to Circulate
Petition for the annexation of territory designated as Ming No. 4,
272
Bakersfield, California, August 21, 1967 - Page 7
and an Affidavit of Publication thereof, and approving the circulation
of the petition, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 70-67 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
acknowledging the receipt of a Copy of
Notice of Intention to Circulate Petition
for the annexation of territory designated
as Brite No. 7, and an Affidavit of
Publication thereof, and approving the
circulation of the petition.
Upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, Resolution No. 70-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
acknowledging the receipt of a Copy of Notice of Intention to
Circulate Petition for the annexation of territory designated as
Brite No. 7 and an'Affidavit of Publication thereof, and approving
the circulation of the Petition, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
First reading of an Ordinance altering
the Boundaries of the Seventh Ward of
the City of Bakersfield.
At this time first reading was given an Ordinance Altering
the Boundaries of the Seventh Ward of the City of Bakersfield,
California, to include a parcel of territory known as Benton Park
No. 8, which was recently annexed to the City of Bakersfield.
tax rate
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1691 New Series
levying upon the assessed valuation of the
taxable property in the City of Bakersfield
a rate of taxation upon each One Hundred
Dollars of valuation for the fiscal year
beginning July 1, 1967 and ending June 30,
1968.
City Manager Bergen read his report on the ordinance setting
for fiscal year 1967-68 advising that the final revenue
273
Bakersfield, California, August 21~ 1967- Page 8
figures indicate the Council will be able to reduce the City of
Bakersfield's property tax eleven cents from its present rate
of $2.9816 per hundred dollars of assessed valuation to $2.8721 per
hundred dollars assessed valuation.
He pointed out that during the past year, annexations
have resulted in significant increases in the assessed valuation
rolls because of the additional properties within the city limits.
The annexation program also contributes to increased revenue from
sales tax and gasoline tax. This, coupled with budget savings of
the departments which show as a carryover for 1967-68 and the
cigarette tax that will be effective October 1, strengthens the
City's financial position and will allow the accomplishment of the
following this fiscal year:
1. Reduce business l'icense tax
2. Build up reserves in the Council Contingency
Fund to equal the amount in last year's budget
3. Increase the Capital Improvement Fund
4. Reduce the property tax
City Manager Bergen stated that the primary factor in the
City's accomplishment can be attributed to the leadership and guidance
of the City Council and the diligent manner in which the department
heads have exercized their responsibilities in programing for
their needs and submitting department requests.
All members of the Council expressed gratitude and pleas'are
at lhe year to year reduction in the property tax rate and congratulated
Mr. Bergen for his efforts in lowering the property tax for the
property owners of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, Ordinance No. 1691 New Series levying upon the assessed
valuation of the taxable property in the City of Bakersfield a rate
of taxation upon each One Hundred Dollars of valuation for the fiscal
274
Bakersfield, California, August 21, 1967 - Page 9
year beginning July 1, 1967 and ending June 30, 1967, was adopted
by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
No. 825 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield declaring its intention
to order the vacation of a Public Utilities
Easement in Lots 13, 14 and 15, Tract
No. 1396, in the City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, Resolution of Intention No. 825 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield declaring its intention to order the vacation of a
Public Utilities Easement in Lots 13, 14 and 15, Tract ~). 1396,
in the City of Bakersfield, and setting September 18, 1967 as the
date for hearing on the matter before the Council, was adopted by
the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 71-67
finding that certain weeds growing
on property in the City of Bakersfield
constitute a Public Nuisance and
directing the Superintendent of
Streets to destroy said Weeds.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by
Councilman Stiern, Resolution No. 71-67 finding that certain Weeds
growing on property in the City of Bakersfield constitute a
Public Nuisance and directing the Superintendent of Streets
to destroy said Weeds, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
'.275
Bakersfield, California, August 21, 1967 - Page 10
Rucker,
Approval of Step Salary Advancements.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking~ seconded by Councilman
the following step salary advancements were approved, effective
September 1, 1967:
D. E. Enns Firefighter Step 3 to 4
B. D. Fleming Equip. Operator II Step 4 to 5
M. R. Morris Fire Engineer Step 4 to §
J. O. Ramirez Utility Man Step 3 to 4
R. L. Shepherd Equip. Operator II Step 4 to 5
L. L. Truitt Fire Captain Step 4 to 5
Salary advancement
for Paul Allen, Engineering Aide I, from
Step 4 to 5, was approved effective July 1, 1967.
Approval of recommendation of the Planning
Commission re request to the Board of
Supervisors to zone certain areas adjacent
to the City in accordance with the general
arrangement of uses as depicted on the
General Plan.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, seconded by
Councilman Vetter, the Council approved recommendation of the Planning
Connnission that the Council direct a request to the Board of Supervisors
to zone areas in the county lying north of 34th Street and south of
Pacheco between South "H" Street and Freeway 99, in accordance with the
general arrangement of uses as depicted on the General Plan.
Approval of Street Lighting Plan
for Tract No. 2924.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Street Lighting Plan
for Tract No. 2924 was approved.
Approval of:Agreement for the
Joint use of Mt. Vernon Avenue south
of Brundage Lane.
Upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, agreement with CALSC for the joint use of Mr. Vernon Avenue
south of Brundage Lane was approved and the Mayor was authorized to
execute same.
276
Bakersfield, California, August 21, 1967 - Page 11
Mayor Karlen commented that two proposed annexations
to the City of Bakersfield will be considered at the Local Agency
Formation Cor~nission meeting to be held Tuesday, August 22, 1967.
One annexation is designated as Bernard No. 1 and the other is
designated as San Dimas No. 1. Both of these have been reconunended
for approval by the staff. During discussion, the staff was requested
to report to the Mayor prior to the meeting, whether or not the
apartment house north of Panorama Gardens, which is not included
in the proposed San Dimas No. 1 annexation, has a suburban sewer
agreement with the City.
Adjournment.
-There being no further business to come before the
Council~ upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 P.M.
the City of Bakersfield, California.
ATTEST:
Ek-Officio Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California.
Bakersfield, California, September 5, 1967
277
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council
of Bakersfield, California,
Hall at eight o'clock P.M.
The Mayor called
of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Gordon Gilbert of
University Baptist Church.
Present:
Absent:
of the City
held in the Council Chambers of the City
September 5, 1967.
the meeting to order followed by the Pledge
the
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Mayor Kar!en. Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker,
Stiern, Vetter, Whittemore
None
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. Howard S. Dallimore, General Manager for the Bakersfield
City Employees Association, addressed the Council, stating that at the
meeting of the Association held on August 8, 1967, the Board of Directors
instructed him to request the following fringe benefits for all City
employees:
1. Time and one-half for all overtime
2. Stand-by pay
3. Call-back pay
He stated that this is common practice in private enterprise
and many government agencies, and the Association feels City employees
should be granted the same benefits. He presented to the City Manalger
for his information a copy of an ordinance recently adopted by the Board
of Supervisors of the County of Kern, concerning Overtime, Stand-by
and Call-Back Pay of Employees.
After discussion, it was moved by Councilman Heisey, seconded
by Councilman Hosking, that the request be referred to the Governmental
Efficiency Committee for study and report.
Councilman Hosking called attention to the presence of
several young people in the audience and suggested that they be permitted
to address the Council, if they so desired. Mayor Karlen invited the
spokesman of the group to come to the microphone. Mark Dreblow of
1512 Glenwood Drive said he would like to know why the City enforced
an ordinance which did not permit any person who has not reached the
age of sixteen years to attend or remain at any public dance
278
Bakersfield, California, September 5, 1967 - Page 2
unless accompanied by the parent or legal guardian.
Mayor Karlen stated that this ordinance was adopted some
time ago, but if Mr. Dreblow believes it should be changed, for him
to sdbmit his recommendations in writing to City Manager Bergen
who will give the matter some study and make a report to the City
Council.
Chris Bankstrom of 144 N. McDonald Way addressed the
Council concerning the appearance of the Jefferson.Airplane concert band
atthe Civic Auditorium on Saturday night. A disturbance occurred
due to the fact that the leader of this group encouraged the young
people present to dance to their music which constituted a violation
of Section 7.40.110 of the Municipal Code.
Mayor Karlen explained that this group was brought here
by a promoter with the understanding that this was to be a concert only.
Just prior to their appearance at the Civic Auditorium, it was
reiterated in their presence and with their knowledge that this was
a concert and that dancing would not be permitted. This group defied
the request of Civic Auditorium Manager Graviss thai; there be no
dancing and kept inciting people to dance, which was contrary to
their contractual arrangement.
Mr. Bankstrom stated that the Mayor's explanation altered
his viewpoint on the affair, as he did not understand that there was
to be no dancing to this band.
Mr. Mike Thomas, general manager of KAFY, stated that he
would attempt to answer some of the questions. KAFY promoted the
concert in name only, it was part of the advertising package that the
promoter purchased. The promotion was put together rather fast
and there wasn't time to print the proper tickets with seat numbers
on them, so the promoter decided to go on an unreserved house. There
was a mix-up in the starting time of the concert, and he stated
that he was very unhappy that KAFY had any thing to do with it, becaus~
he does not think the Jefferson Airplane group acted as good citizens.
Bakersfield, Cal±fornia, September 5, 1967- Page 3
He said he was in the process of obtaining copies of the
contract which this group had signed, and he is sure that there was
a stipulation that this was to be a teen-age concert only. He
stated that if the young people who attended the concert were
short-changed; it was the fault of this group who did not behave
as they should, and not caused by KAFY or the Civic Auditorium.
Several others in the audience were permitted to speak an,~
the Council discussed the problem. Councilman Rees said he was
impressed with the manner in which the young people expressed
themselves and Councilman Hosking stated that he agreed with
Councilman Rees and he feels that the future is in safe hands.
Council Statements.
Councilman Rees called the attention of the Council to
an illustrated article in the Sunset magazine for September pertaining
to the subject of shopping malls. He said he also noticed that
Don Fritts had written an editorial in the Bakersfield Californian
regarding the hearing to be held on the Downtown Revitalization
on September 20, and he is hopeful that something constructive will
come out of this hearing. Councilman Hosking said he had read the
editorial and he, too, thinks that it is absolutely necessary to
hold this hearing and additional hearings, on the reports which
have been obtained by the Downtown Business Association, if for no
other reason than the City has put $20,000 of the taxpayers money
into the report. The Committee hopes that all interested people
and especially all members of the Council will attend the hearing
to hear the public debate on this important matter.
Councilman Rucker said he agrees with Councilman Hosking
and is gratified that the matter is being brought before the public
to express its ideas.
Bakersfield, California, September 5, 1967 - Page 4 '~'~'
Councilman Rucker stated that a group of employees called
on him and asked if the Council had a grievance committee and reqnested
him to ask the Council to appoint a committee to hear employees'
grievances. Councilman Whittemore said the Governmental Efficiency
Committee handles personnel matters and he is sure that it has already
met with this group of employees at least twice. tfe thinks that
their procedure should be to go through the normal chain of commar~d
with their department heads and then the City Manager, and if it
proves necessary, to approach the GEC.
Mayor Karlen said he thinks tha GEC would handle any
grievance that an individual may have after he has gone through the
normal chain of command. Councilman Rucker said they are desirous
of bringing the problem to the entire Council, however, if the Council
did go into session with this group regarding their problem it would
have to be open to the public. Councilman Whittemore said they can
always call an executive session, if an employee wants something kept
from the public limelight, he can request an executive session with
the Council, which of course, is closed to the public.
City Manager Bergen stated that he believes there are
procedures at this time which any employee or group of employees can
utilize. If they are unable to get satisfaction from their department
head, the department head would then get in touch with him, and he would
hold a meeting. If they cannot arrive at a solution of the problem at
this meeting, then he would recommend that it be referred to the
Governmental Efficiency Committee.
recommendation to the Council,and
Mr. Bergen said he does
The GEC could make some type of
it'could go to the Council as a 'whole.
not believe that the Council wants
to have grievances start with the Council, certainly they are going
to end up with the Council, if they are not settled beforehand.
Bakersfield, California, September 5, 1967 - Page 5
Councilman Whirremote said the purpose of the Council
isn't to administer everyday problems of the City, it is a policy
determining body, a legislative body. However, if there is no
other recourse, naturally the Council will want to hear a problem.
City Manager Bergen said after it goes to the Council there isn't any
further recourse as far as employee relationship is concerned.
Councilman Rucker said another group came to him requesting
the lighting of an alley, and he hopes it is possible for the City
Manager to look into it. City Manager Bergen said they would evaluate
it, but he wanted to remind the Council that street lights are not
placed at every intersection within the City, they are in the process
of installing them and they have set up a standard for street lighting
requests. Generally speaking they can't get involved in installing
street lights in alleys, but they will look at this location.
Reports.
Councilman Hosking read a report of the meeting of the
City Auditorium-Recreation Committee which was held on September 5,
1967. Discussion was held on the recommendation by Mr. Graviss that
the contract with Frank Johnson for the improvement of the sound system
be extended from the completion date of September 1, to September 8, 1967.
This extension is required because of a change order which occurred
as the work was being performed. The Committee recommends the following
two actions:
Heisey,
That the contract expiration date be extended to
September 8, 1967
That the Council approve a transfer of funds in
the amount of $125.00 from the Council
Contingency Fund 11-510-6100, to the Auditorium's
sound equipment contract fund 11-715-9975
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman
the report was received and adopted.
2S2
Bakersfield,
California,
September 5, 1967 - Page 6
Allowance of Claims.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Vouchers Nos. 680 to 878 inclusive, in amount of $48,133.8.8,
as audited by the Voucher Approval Committee, were allowed, and
authorization was granted for payment of same.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1692 New
Series altering the Boundaries of the
Seventh Ward of the City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, Ordinance No. 1692 New Series altering the Boundaries of the
Seventh Ward of the City of Bakersfield was adopted by the following
vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Acceptance of bid of GKM Electric,
Inc. for installation of a street
lighting system on California and
Union Avenues.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman
Heisey, bid of GKM Electric, Inc. for installation of a street
lighting system on California and Union Avenues for lump sum of
$14,441.00 was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor
was authorized to execute the contract.
Acceptance of bid of R & C Backhoe
Service for drainage improvements
at the intersection of California Avenue
and Baker Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, unit prices bid by R & C Backhoe Service for drainage
improvements at the intersection of California Avenue and Baker
Street were accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor 'was
authorized to execute the contract.
Bakersfield, California, September 5, 1967- Page 7
Acceptance of low bid of Brown-Bevis
Industrial Equipment Company for two
Diesel Engine Powered Dual Gutter Broom
Street Sweepers.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, low bid of Brown-Bevis Industrial Equipment Company for two
Diesel Engine Powered Dual Gutter Broom Street Sweepers was accepted,
all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the
contract.
Acceptance of bid of Ray Gaskin Service
for 20 Cubic Yard Refuse Packer Truck.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, bid of Ray Gaskin Service for 20 cubic yard Refuse Packer Truck
was accepted, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Approval of Contract with the County of
Kern for care of City prisoners in
County Jail.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Contract with the County of Kern for care of City prisoners
in the County jail was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute
same.
Approval of amendment to Agreement No.
63-67 with Howard S. Boros, attorney for
the City on the United Air Lines-Pacific Air
Lines Transfer Case.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Amendment to Agreement No. 63-67 with Howard S. Boros, Attorney
for the City on the United Air Lines-Pacific Air Lines Transfer Case,
was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Claim of Dorothy Marie Tarpley for
personal injuries referred to the
City Attorney.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, claim of Dorothy Marie Tarpley for personal injuries was
referred to the City Attorney.
Bakersfield, California, September 5, 1967 - Page 8
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
Acceptance of Grant of Easement from
the Mobilhome Corporation for five foot
wide Public Utilities Easement in Tract
2468.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, Grant of Easement from the Mobilhome Corporation for a five
foot wide public utilities easement in Tract 2468, was accepted.
This being the time set for hearing protests by persons owning
real property within uninhabited territory designated as "Stine No. 2",
proposed to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield, the City Clerk reported
that no written protests had been received in her office. No protests
Extension of Leave of Absence without
Pay granted H. V. Fuentez, equipment
operator in the Public Works Department.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman
Heisey, an extension of leave of absence without pay, until
September 30, 1967, was granted H. V. Fuentez, equipment operator
in the Public Works Department.
Hearings.
This being the time set for hearing on Intention of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield to order the vacation of a Public
Utilities Easement between Lots 12 and 13, Tract 2468, Mobilhome
Corporation, in the City of Bakersfield, and no protests or objections
being received, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed. Upon
a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Heisey, Resolution
No. 72-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield ordering the
vacation of a Public Utilities Easement between Lots 12 and 13,
Tract 2468, Mobilhome Corporation, in the City of Bakersfield, was
adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore
255
Bakersfield, California, September 5, 1967 - Page 9
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
being presented by persons in the audience, the Mayor declared the
public hearing closed. Upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, Resolution
No. 73-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring that
a majority protest has not been made to the annexation of territory
designated as "Stine No. 2", proposed to be annexed to the City of
Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote:
Rees, Rucker, ,Stiern, Vetter,
Councilmen Heisey, Hosking,
Whittemore
None
None
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1690 New
Series approving annexation of a parcel of
uninhabited territory to the City of
Bakersfield, California, designated as
"Stine No. 2", and providing for the
taxation of said territory to pay the bonded
indebtedness of said City.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, Ordinance No. 1690 New Series approving annexation of a parcel
of uninhabited territory to the City of Bakersfield, California,
designated as "Stine 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 Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
This being the time set for hearing objections to the
inclusion of Stine No. 2 within the Greater Bakersfield Separation of
Grade District, and no protests or objections being received, the Mayor
declared the public hearing closed, Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern,
seconded by Councilman Vetter, Resolution No. 74-67 annexing certain
territory designated as Stine No. 2 to the Greater Bakersfield Separation
of Grade District was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Heisey, Hosking,
Whittemore
None
None
Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
286
Bakersfield, California, September 5, 1967 - Page 10
request
(Single
This being the time set for hearing before the Council on a
by Elmer F. Karpe, Inc. to zone upon annexation to an R-1
Family Dwelling) Zone for porposed Lots 1 thru 13 of
Tentative Tract No. 3101 and to an R-3-D (Limited Multiple Family
Dwelling - Architectural Design) Zone for proposed Lots 14 thru
19 of Tentative Tract No. 3101,'those certain properties in the
County of Kern located east of Stine Road and north of Robindale
Drive, known as Stine No. 2 annexation, and no protests or objections
having been received, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Whittemore moved that Ordinance No. 1693 New Series
amending Section 17.12.020 of Chapter 17.12 of the Municipal Code
and zoning upon annexation said properties by adopted, subject
to the recommendation of the Planning Commission that zoning not be
finalized until the recording of the final tract map. Councilman
Vetter seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll
call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
upon a motion by Councilman Vetter,
9:30 P.M.
Rees, Rucker, Sliern, Vetter,
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
the meeting was adjourned at
YOR of the City of Bakersfie~Calif.
ATTEST:
f ~ of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California.
Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1967
2S7
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City
Hall at eight o'clock P.M. September 11, 1967.
The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the
Pledge of
the First
Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Arthur Bomers of
Absent:
Minutes of the regular meeting of
approved as presented.
Congregational Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Karlen, Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker,
Stiern, Vetter, Whittemore
None
September 5,
1967 were
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. Ed Winslow, representing State Wide Theaters Corporation,
invited Mayor Karlen and his wife and the members of the Council and
their wives to attend and participate in the premiere performance
of the movie "Hawaii" to be held September 19, 1967, in the new
Cinema Valley Plaza, as guests of the State Wide Theaters Corporation.
Mr. Don Hopkins, Manager of the Better Business Bureau,
expressed the appreciation of the Bureau for the excellent and
immediate cooperation received from the Bakersfield Police Department
and the City Attorney's office. He stated that the Bureau also takes
pride in the fact that it has been of assistance to the Police
Department.
He asked the Council for consideration of the passage of
an ordinance which would restrict and regulate the activities of
curb sign painters and this ordinance specifically contain a
section requiring the consent of the owner or occupant before such
painting is done. The City Attorney had prepared and submitted a
proposed ordinance adding Chapter 7.05 to the Municipal Code of
the City of Bakersfield providing for and requiring a license and
permit to paint house numbers on curbs within the City of Bakersfield
and it was considered given first reading at this time.
Bakers£ield, California, September 11, 1967 - Page 2
Councilman Hosking commented that perhaps the Council
should consider a series of ordinances to regulate door to door
selling, patterned on the Green River ordinance. Mr. Hopkins stated
that the Bureau would be opposed fundamentally to the adoption of a
blanket ordinance which would stifle direct door to door sales by
legitimate merchants in the City, who depend on this type of
soliciting for their livelihood.
At the suggestion of Councilman Vetter, the proposed
ordinance will be held over for two weeks for study by the Council..
Mayor Karlen read a petition containing the names of
several hundred persons, which had been presented to the City Clerk
before the meeting started. The petition, dated September 9, read
as follows:
Whereas the well known musical group known as the
Jefferson Airplane has offered to come to Bakersfield
to present a £ree entertainment in one of the City
parks on Sunday a~ternoon, September l?th~ and whereas
they have expressed their willingness to invite all
members of the community who wish to attend~ and
whereas many of the people who attended their previous
performance would feel deeply aggrieved i:~ not allowed
to hear them again, we, the undersigned residents of
Bakersfield, request of the City Council its approval
of the use of one of the city parks for said
entertainment. If the City Council sees :~it to grant
our request, we will do all within our power to make
sure the event will be a credit to the colamunity.
Michael Stewart addressed the Council stating he was making
a plea to bring the Jefferson Airplane back to the City. He said he
didn't personally feel it was their fault, it was a misunderstanding
on the part of everyone
to Bakersfield to play,
problems in Bakersfield
to do.
involved. By not letting them come back
the kids are being kept away, and one of the
is the fact that there is nothing for the kids
Mayor Karlen explained some of the background on what had[
taken place since last Council meeting. The City Council went on
record last week as stating that if the Jefferson Airplane wanted to
come back, for the Mayor to see what could be done about it properly,
and that the Airplane should request formally to come back to play
Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1967 - Page 3
289
in the City, as everyone who wishes to use a City park is required
to make a formal request to do so.
The Jefferson Airplane group knew it was a show and not a
dance, they knew there was an ordinance against dancing, they were
told that they should not incite the young people to dance. Dancing
could not be allowed in the Auditorium because it constituted a fire
hazard. They deprived the young people of entertainment by insisting on
being paid in advance and delayed the performance. Mayor Karlen said
he suggested that they make a written statement requesting to come
back to the City and apologizing to the Civic'Auditorium Manager
Mr. Graviss, and the Bakersfield Police Department and Police Chief
Mr. Towle, for the unwarranted action by the group in defying the
local ordinance with regard to public dancing. The Mayor said he felt
this was necessary in order to present the precipitation of rebellious
action which could end up in a riot.
He explained that there was not a city park large enough
to accomodate the overflowing crowds which would undoubtedly attend
the free concert. Also, there would be a lack of parking and the noise
would be offensive to the many residents living around the parks. ~[n
an effort to find a place, he sought the most logical place within the
Greater Bakersfield area, which in his opinion was the Sam Lynn Ball
Park. He hurdled all the obstacles necessary for obtaining this park
and have the event carried out in proper form sponsored by the City.
A request for the use of the park next Sunday must be made to the
Board of Supervisors by tomorrow morning. But before this can be done,
it is necessary to have a formal request from the Jefferson Airplane
which as oT this date, has not been received. Mayor Karlen said he
can't understand why they have not contacted him unless they feel
they are entirely in the right and the facts do not speak for them.
Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1967 - Page 4
The Mayor told Mr. Stewart that he is sorry there is nothing
further that can be done, as the time has run out for making
arrangements. He thinks the City, through its Mayor, has done all
it could be expected to do. He has devoted many hours of his time
to bring this group back to the City to accomodate the young people
of the Community. This group, in refusing to contact the Mayor, is
not showing good faith, and nO further action can be taken by the
Council.
Chris Berenson of 2715 Christmas Tree Lane, stated that
he represented a group proposing an amendment to Ordinance No. 1375
New Series dealing with public dances. They feel that any person
attending high school is qualified to conduct himself properly
at a public supervised dance, and asked that the age limit be lowered
from 16 years to 14 years of age. The Mayor stated that he agreed
that this ordinance, as well as many others, should be studied with the
idea of amending them, but he thinks that a de£inite proposal should be
made for this purpose. Mr. Berenson submitted the proposed amendment in
writing to the Mayor.
Mark Dreblow of 1512 Glenwood Drive, and Richard Maloy of
730 Crane Street, after discussing the need for amending the dance
ordinance, stated they would like to have this ordinance amended to
give the young people some place to go.
After discussion, the Council referred the matter of
amending the present dance ordinance to the Auditorium-Recreation
Co~uit~ee for study and report.
CorreSpondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by
Councilman Rees, a request from Bob Monagan, Assemblyman, Twelfth
District, urging the Council to join, by resolution~ with the
legislature in requesting Congress to enact some form of a federal
tax sharing program, was referred to the Budget-Finance Con~mittee
for evaluation and report.
Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1967 - Page
A notice was read from the South San Joaquin Division of
the League of California Cities advising that the City of Exeter
will host the next meeting on Friday, September 15. Mayor Karlen
requested that members of the Council who plan to attend this
meeting, notify his office by Wednesday, September 13th.
Mayor Karlen read a letter from the Kern County Economic
Opportunity Corporation, John H. Tallman, Executive Director, stating
that earlier in the year he had addressed a letter to the Association
of Cities, requesting that body to nominate a replacement for £ormer
Councilman Doolin as a member of the Board of Directors, and that no
reply had been forthcoming from the Association. He therefore
asked if it might be possible for the Mayor to stimulate the
nomination of a member of the Bakersfield City Council to the
KCEOC Board of Directors.
Councilman Stiern said the last time this was brought up
there was no one who was willing to volunteer. There have been some
changes on the Council and perhaps one of the new Councilmen might be
willing to consider it.
Councilman Heisey suggested that the Council give it some
serious thought between now and the next Council meeting.
Reports.
Councilman Heisey, chairman of the Council Water Committee,
read a report stating that on June 19, 1967, the City Council authorized
the City staff and City consultants to meet with staff members and
consultants of the Kern County Water Agency.
The Water Committee has been meeting with the staff and as;
a result of these meetings, a Resolution has been prepared that the
City can support and adopt setting forth principles respecting
supplemental water needs in the City of Bakersfield and adjacent
areas. The Committee recommends that the City Council adopt the
resolution and the chairman submit this Resolution to the Board of the
Kern County Water Agency at its meeting to be held at 7:00 P.M.
Thursday, September 14, 1967. The Water Committee invites all Council
Bakersfield, California, September ll, 1967 - Page 6
members to be present at the Kern County Water Agency meeting, as the
Committee feels that this resoluation is a significant step in
obtaining supplemental water for the Urban Bakersfield Area. Upon
a motion by Councilman Heisey, seconded by Councilman Stiern,
Resolution No. 75-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield setting
forth principles respecting supplemental water needs in the City of
Bakersfield and adjacent areas of Urban Bakersfield, was adopted by
the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Heisey, Hosking,
Whittemore
Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter
None
None
Councilman Stiern commented that he thinks it would be
pertinent and he would like the City Attorney to discuss briefly and
compare the type of improvement district mentioned in the Resolution
just adopted, with a Municipal Water District.
City Attorney Roagland stated that ordinarily a municipal
water district has a great deal of power, it is a separate entity,
separate both from the City and from the Kern County Water Agency.
It is a multi-purpose district and would have powers such as providing
water, recreation, drainage, sewage and the like.
The public improvement district proposed here is a single
purpose district, in that the only purpose for this district is to
collect charges for payment for this state water project. As the
plan developes later, and it is necessary to have such improvements
as water treatment plants, then additional single purpose public
improvement districts will be formed, but that will be through
the office of the Kern County Water Agency. There will not be a
separate board, there will not be a separate staff, as there would be
if there was a municipal water district. He stated this is a brief
statement of the distinction between the two but he hopes this will
Bakersfield, California, September ll, 1967 - Page ?
293
clarify it to some extent. It will be quite similar to those
districts which the city has formed in the past for sidewalks, curbs,
lighting, etc.
Councilman Heisey said he thinks it is important to point
out that the City will have control of the policies of the district
by the articles of intent which the City would ratify, stating in
detail what the Improveme~t:~istric~ ~ould~and could not do.
City Attorney Hoagland stated that the Council has been
through the improvement district acts where the property owners
protest, or if there were 50% of the property owners protesting, it
would terminate the proceedings. In this particular instance, the
language of the Kern County Water Agency Act stated that a public
entity may withdraw from any district with which it is not satisfied.
So the resolution of intention creating the district will set forth
not only the purpose, but the method of financing, and at that
time any areas within the proposed improvement district, that are
governmental agencies, could withdraw if they are not satisfied. So
that in effect, means that there must be cooperation between both
the proposing agencies and the agencies whose land would be included
within it.
Mr. John Stockton, electrical engineer and consultant for
the installation of the Civic Auditorium stage lighting control system,
stated that he had made a trip to Salt Lake City, Utah, to Ariel Davis,
Inc., who are manufacturing and fabricating the new stage lighting
consoles. He would like to make some changes in these consoles which
would benefit the City, and would be made at no expense to the City,
but would entail the granting of 45 days extension to the existing
contract. In order to save time, he requested tentative approval
from the Council to proceed with these changes, stating he would
present a written request at the next meeting. After discussion,
upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, seconded by Councilman Hosking,
tentative approval for proceeding with these changes was given,
and the additional 45 days necessary for this purpose were granted,
294
Bakersfield, California~ September 11, 1967 - Page 8
pending receipt of a formal written request at the next Council
meeting.
Councilman Stiern asked that the record show that the
operation of the Auditorium would in no way be impaired during
this 45 day period and it would be able to function quite satis-
factorily. He said, as he understands it, Mr. Stockton would have
the opportunity to obtain 1968 models instead of 1967 models of th:Ls
equipment, at no extra cost to the City. Mr. Stockton stated that
this was correct.
.Council Statements.
Councilman Heisey called the attention of the Council and
the City Manager to an article in today's Wall Street Journal
regarding receipt by cities of funds in lieu of taxes from non-profit
corporations, as well as other governmental agencies. Some time ago
the Council asked the City Manager to make a study of this particu]~ar
subject which was brought up in the Stanford Research report. This;
study was not necessarily on in-lieu taxes but on charges to be made
for certain city services. He asked the City Manager what the status
of the study was.
The City Manager said he remembered the discussion, but
did not remember being asked to make a formal report. Councilman
Heisey stated that he was asked to ascertain what charges were being
made by other cities for collecting refuse, sewer charges, and that
type of thing. City Manager Bergen said a report on refuse charges;
would be submitted to the Council within the next couple of weeks
as it was just about completed. This was on refuse charges only, but
not on sewer charges. He stated that he would make a copy of the
Wall Street Journal article in question and send it out to the Council
with next week's administrative report.
Allowance of Claims.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Vouchers Nos. 879 to 950 inclusive, in amount of $40,435.821,
as audited by the Finance Approval Committee, were allowed and
Bakersfield, California, September ll, 1967 - Page 9
authorization was granted for payment of same. Councilman Whittemore
stated that he had a question. He has noticed in the last few weeks;
that there have been a number of vouchers submitted for payment of
appraisal fees. .He asked the City Manager what appraisal work is
being done at the present time.
City Manager Bergen stated that in addition to the South
"H" Street widening, appraisals have been made of several properties~
which are being considered as surplus and on which they have received
indications of interest for sale. Councilman Whittemore asked what
the basis was for selecting an appraiser. City Manager Bergen
replied that normally they tried to select an appraiser who is not
involved with the City or in the real estate business, so that there
would not be any conflict of interest.
Councilman Whittemore asked if there was only one in town.
Mr. Bergen said he believes there are several, some of them are
appraisal companies who do acquisition and real estate work. Councilman
Whittemore said as he recalls it, there has been only one particular.
individual used for appraising the City's property during the past two
years. He said he thinks that a list should be made of the qualified
appraisers acceptable to the City and submitted for consideration.
this would be done and the names submitted to.
Mr. Bergen stated that
the Council.
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, seconded by Councilman
Heisey, unit prices bid by Specialised Spray Service for destroying
and removing weeds growing on property in the City of Bakersfield
which constitute a public nuisance, under Phase I of the 1967 Weed
Abatement Program, were accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the
Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, bid of Price Blueprint
& Supply Company on 192 Printed Forms in amount of $4:026.33 was
accepted, and the 6 items not competitively bid are to be renegotiated
as requisitioned by the using departments. All other bids were
rejected and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1967 - Page
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, bid of Moore Business
Forms, Inc. on the printing of 61 Special Forms in amount of $5875.41
was accepted, and the other items not competitively bid are to be
renegotiated when requisitioned by the using departments. All other
bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the colatract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, bid of the Globe Ticket
Company for $ Tabulation Card Forms in amount o£ $1361.50 was accepted,
all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute
the contract.
County Auditor authorized to Levy
Delinquent Weed Abatement Assessments
as part of the 1967-68 Secured Tax
Roll.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Heisey, the County Auditor was authorized to levy Delinquent Weed Abatement
Assessments as part of the 1967-68 Secured Tax Roll, per list submitted
by the City-Auditor-Controller and the Director of Public Works.
Acceptance of Work and the Mayor
authorized to execute Notice of
Completion of contract for Demolition
of Building at the northwest corner
of 18th and Eye Streetm.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the Work was accepted
and the Mayor was authorized to execute the Notice of Completion of
Contract for recordation, for the demolition of the building at the
northwest corner of 18th and Eye Streets.
Hearings.
This was the time set for hearing on request by Sill Properties,
Inc. to amend the Zoning Boundaries from an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling)
Zone to a C-1 (Limited Commercial) or more restrictive Zone, and to a
"P" (Automobile Parking) or more restrictive Zone, for that certain
property in the City of Bakersfield located at the northwest corner of
Oak and 19th Streets. This hearing has been duly advertised and posted
and a petition containing the signatures of 16 property owners opposin~
the change in zoning, the parking area, and concerned about trouble
that might occur in the parking lot at night, was read by the Mayor.
Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1967 - Page ll
DOdge,
change
The Mayor also read a communication from Charles and Mary
owners of property at 3031 - 20th Street, who supported the
of zoning and favored the construction of a quiet type office
building rather than an objectionable commercial business, which
could be built at the present time due to the area being zoned C-1.
The planning Commission recommended that the "D"
(Architectural Design) Overlay be applied to protect the residential
area and to insure a compatible development with the existing
neighborhood.
Mr. Hugh Sill, representing Sill Properties, addressed the
Council, stating that it is his desire to acquire 40 more feet of
C-1 zoning to add to the 132 feet already zoned C-1 to give him a
little more flexibility in the development of this parcel. His
family owns the adjoining land and his brother lives in the house
behind the proposed development, and as far as a nuisance is concerned
and as far as depreciation of the surrounding property, he feels that
they would have as much to lose as anyone in the neighborhood.
Previous to this time they could have developed the 1132 feet in any
manner permitted under a C-1 zone. It will be a cement block building
and at all times will be kept in good order. If it is developed as an
office building, it will be closed down at five o'clock every
evening.' He said he didn't know at this time whether it was going
to be an office building one hundred percent, there may be a retail
outlet on the west side of. it on the parcel that faces Oak Street.
It is a dirty lot today and has been for a long time, and he thinks
anything that goes in there would be an improvement.
Councilman Hosking said he had quite a few phone calls and
everyone wants to know what the retail store is going to be. He has
told them it could be anything including a liquor store as it is
already zoned for that. Some of them seem to be confused and he
has not been able to convince them that it is already a C-1 zone
there and anything could be built.
Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1967 - Page 12 ~
Mr. Sill replied that the only thing he can say is that he has
a cranky brother and if the development satisfies him, it should satisfy
the rest of the neighborhood. The Planning Commission requires a eertain
amount of parking and it is his intention to construct a small parking
lot in the rear. Also, he is required to construct a six foot block
wall on the east and north side of the development.
Mayor Karlen stated for the benefit of the opponents, that
it is important to recognize the fact that the D-Overlay is actually a
means of protecting the homes owners in the vicinity.
Mr. Sill said it would be approximately a hundred thousand
dollar investment, the family home is lying right next door to
and he certainly doesn't want to do anything that would depreciate
it,
it.
Mrs. Myrtle Fike of 3031 - 19th Street, addressed the Council
stating that the persons who have signed the petition all live in the
same block with the property, that she didn't go beyond that block for
names, but could have gotten more signatures if necessary. They are
opposed to the parking lot and more business in the area. She asked
what retail stores are being planned for this development. Mrs. Fike
was asked to check over the plot plan of the development so that she
would have knowledge of what is being planned. Mrs. Fike stated that
they were opposing the parking lot especially the noise from motorcycles
going in and out of the lot.
No one else requesting to be heard in opposition to the
rezoning, the Mayor closed the public hearing and proceeded with Council
discussion and action.
Councilman Whirremote stated that he had the benefit of
attending the Planning Commission hearing on this and he also knows that
Mr. Sill has attempted to do something with this property for a nu~aber
of years. He thinks that with all the precautions 'that are being taken
under the D-Overlay with the six foot masonry wall to protect the
neighbors and the vacant property to the east which is zoned R-1 at the
Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1967 - Page 13
present time, over which the Planning Commission and Council will
have future control on the zoning. He is in favor of a property
owner having the highest and best use of his property, and unless
there is some opposition to it, he would make a motion to adopt the
Ordinance amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code.
Councilman Hosking said he would like to point out that
he has lived in the general area and that there have been changes ill
zones and variances granted. For the information of the Council,
he recited the history of the zoning in that particular area.
Councilman Vetter asked Mr. Sceales if he could control
whether or not offices would go in with the D-Overlay on this property.
Mr. Sceales said he could not. Councilman Vetter said the people
that he has talked to who are in opposition to the rezoning have
expressed concern about the retail stores, and asked if it would
be possible, in order to insure a buffer in this particular area,
to change the zonine from C-1 to C-0, so offices would actually be
constructed on the east side of the property. He asked Mr. Sill
if this would be too restrictive. Mr. Sill said if he was developing
the building for a single person, he might be able to do it with the
C-0 zoning, but he doesn't have any prospects at the present time
and he wouldn't want to give up the C-1 zoning. The reason he
asked for C-1 on the 32 feet is it gives him more flexibility,
more to work with and more profit on his investment.
Councilman Whittemore remarked that it would be difficult
to get the project financed if a small strip was zoned C-0. Councilman
Vetter said the C-0 would just affect the 32 feet.
Mr. Sceales said he didn't attend the Planning Conu~ission
meeting, but it was his understanding that the Commission acted in
good faith in accordance with the plot plan and the C-1 was asked for
instead of C-0 because there are some limitations on the type of
offices that can be built even on a C-0, and this would allow for a
wider flexibility to the office range. Mr. Sill indicated that this
was correct.
3O0
Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1967 - Page 14
Mr. Sill said he had worked with this plan for a long time
to try to satisfy his brother in the adjoining house, that he could have
built a grocery store and a number of things, but he didn't do so.
He finally came up with this idea and design which on the north side
will have a complete solid block wall so that no one will be looking
into the yard, which combined with the parking lot and the requireraent
that a wall must be built on two sides of it, will make it more or less
a separate entity, so designed and built that it will cause the least
amount of inconvenience to the adjoining property.
Councilman Stiern commented that he has been concerned in
the past and is still concerned with the development of Oak Street
in such a manner that it will not infringe on the rights of people in
the adjacent residential area. He cited specifically the corner
Sunset and Oak and Parkway and Oak. The same situation has occurred
on Brundage Lane and in at least two instances
within the last two years, on Brundage and A and on Oleander and
"H" on Brundage. The Council is very concerned with the fact that
no buffer was constructed between very heavy C-1 and very quiet and
well established, orderly residential. Some of the effects that
occurred he does not have to review. He said he
wouldn't want to live on the first block off Oak Street on Sunset
or Parkway, but unfortunately there are people with considerable
investments in homes who must continue to live there. There is
no buffer between them. Councilman Hosking has mentioned that
immediately south across 19th Street where there was a commercial
zone, that a previous Council did zone an apartment complex in there,
and he was part of that Council and the feeling at the time was that
this would provide an orderly transition between heavy commercial
zoning and R-1 Zoning immediately east. In this case, it was good
transitional zoning. He fails to see that the plot plan and the
development Mr. Sill has presented is going to be injurious to
the people on the east. But on the basis of what Mr. Sill has said
Bakersfield, California, September ll, 1967 - Page 15
here tonight,
that this is
Mr.
what assurance does the Council or the people have
precisely what is going to be built.
Sill said he could not give them that assurance, the
only thing he can say is he has as much to lose as any of the adjacent
neighbors. This idea is the culmination of an effort to so design
a building that will contribute the least amount of inconvenience
possible. In the history of Oak Street, the C-2 zoning has been
there for a long time. The people in all those houses knew that the
C-2 zoning existed when they built their homes. The property on Oak
Street was zoned C-1 many years ago, and the people built around it.
He asked what could be done with the property if they didn't follow
the plan he has presented. No one is going to build a house there.
They could build an apartment house but what is the difference between
an apartment house and what is being presented here. He said you
can't stifle the growth of a town and when property becomes obsolete
should be utilized to the best advantage.
Councilman Stiern said he was not suggesting that Mr. SilZ[
build ~esidences, but he thinks there was some merit to Mr. Vetter's
suggestion that the strip be zoned C-0 to act as a buffer. The
plot plan presented would be very good and very functional and very
pleasant to live adjacent to but if it were zoned C-0, the parking
lot would not be used after sundown.
Councilman Whittemore said they have built in buffers there
already, Mr. Sill owns the property adjacent to this, he is only
asking for 32 feet, and apparently he is not intending to build a
Taco Bell or a Drive-in. No one that he knows in the building
business would buy the property as an R-1 lot to build a house on
so that's going to be natural buffer unless some day it is upgraded
in zoning to an' R-2 or R-3, which it probably should be. If this is
not rezoned now, the land is going to lie there for another half a
century and it isn't going to be on the tax roll or be of value to
anybody.
it
308
Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1967 - Page 16
Councilman Heisey commented that everyone is always concerned
about what his neighbors are going to be like. He said he can certainly
appreciate how everyone in the area on 19th Street is concerned, and
it is only right that they should be. He doesn't believe Mr. Vetter's
suggestion to have a C-O classification on the eastern end of the
property is out of line. If Mr. Sill comes in later with plans for
a specific project, needs a variance, he is sure that the Council
will probably consider it at that time. But due to the opposition,
he thinks this is a reasonable request to make the property C-0 on
the eastern end.
Mr. Sill said as he understands it, no one is opposing the
C-1 zoning, they are opposing the parking lot.
Mayor Karlen said he thinks actually they are opposing the
change in zoning in its entirety but have included that they oppose
the parking lot and the trouble that might occur in the parking lot
at night.
Councilman Whirremote said he doesn't know where the trouble
with the parking lots came up, he thinks that is a law enforcement
problem, not a zoning problem. Parking has to be provided for any
structure you want to build, that is the logical place to put it
back of the building. He stated he wished more people wanted to
invest a hundred thousand dollars in the City.
After further discussion, Councilman Heisey said he would
like to offer a substitute motion, that the ordinance be adopted changing
the 32 feet strip from an R-1 to C-0 and leaving the easterly 50
feet as a P-D zone, as requested. The motion failed to carry by the
following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Heisey, Stiern, Vetter
Councilmen Rosking, Rees, Rucker,
None
Whittemore
Bakersfield, California, September ll, 1967 - Page 17
309
Vote was then taken on the original motion to adopt
Ordinance No. 1694 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 at the
northeast corner of Oak and Nineteenth Streets~ which carried by
the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Rees, Rucker, Vetter, Whittemore
Noes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Stiern
Absent: None
Now is the time set for hearing on request by the Presbytery
of San Joaquin to amend the Zoning Boundaries from an R-1 (Single Family
Dwelling) Zone to an R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) or more
restrictive Zone; to a C-0 (Professional Office) or more restrictive
Zone; and to a C-1 (Limited Commercial) or more restrictive Zone, for
that certain property in the City of Bakersfield located at the norlh-
west corner of Bernard and Oswell Streets. This hearing has been
duly advertised and posted and no written protests have been received
in the City Clerk's office.
The Planning Commission recommended that the "D"
(Architectural Design) Overlay be applied to protect the existing
residential area and to insure a compatible development~
The Mayor asked the proponents of the zone change to come
to the microphone. Dr. Marion C. Barnard stated that he is the
prospective purchaser of the property for the development and
displayed a plot plan for a specific development. He stated that they
had firm contracts for the C-1 development as soon as the zoning is
granted. They feel this is a very natural commercial zone, the C-1
would~ be developed as soon as financing is available which will be
immediately, the apartments will be constructed later, and then the
professional offices will be built. He stated that he was happy to
say that the opposition which has been voiced before had been withdrawn.
He had a telephone conversation with Mr. Kenneth Bates, the attorney
for Mr. Lou Adler, who had previously opposed the rezoning, and he
Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1967 - Page 18
authorized Dr. Barnard to tell the Council he is withdrawing his
objections.
Councilman Heisey asked when Mr. Bates had made this
statement, and Dr. Barnard said it had been this ew~ning. Mayor
Karlen said they have not received any written protests to the
rezoning.
Mr. William Savage from Tarzana, representing Humble Oil
Company, presented his company's proposed layout for a service station
in case the zoning is approved. He stated his offices are located
adjacent to 7-11 Southland Corporation, and he was authorized to
convey the fact that this company does have a lease with Dr. Barnard
if the zoning is approved. He stated that he feels this is a
well-planned development and his company is happy to be a part of it.
Dr. Barnard stated that the City would probably end up
with a million dollar taxable development when it has been entirely
completed.
Councilman Vetter asked Dr. Barnard if all opposition has
been withdrawn to this zoning now. Dr. Barnard advised that as far as
he knows, it has been. Councilman Vetter pointed out that at the
Planning Commission meeting there was an attorney present representing
Dorothy Briggs, William A. Fleming and Lou Adler. He asked if
Mrs. Briggs and Mr. Fleming no longer opposed the rezoning. Dr.
Barnard stated that as far as he knows, after talking to the
attorney for Mr. Adler, the opposition had been withdrawn. He
didn't ask him about the other two persons because nothing further
had been heard from them.
There being no opposition from anyone in the audience, tile
Mayor closed the public hearing to proceed with Council discussion
and action.
Councilman Stiern asked Councilman Rees' opinion on this
rezoning, as it is in his Ward. Councilman Rees said he had looked
this area over and had talked to the staff and the Planning Commission
about it, and it would appear to him that there are fine single
-Bakersfield~ California, September 11, 1967 - Page 19
family dwelling residences to the east but they are backing up
against Oswell and they have a cement block wall around them. Furtller
south, there are large apartment houses, which are actually about tile
nearest residential structures to Oswell. North of 'this is a church
which has a cement block wall on the south, and he understands that the
representatives from the church have not expressed any opposition to the
rezoning. There is the question, of whether a need exists for additional
commercial development at this time, however, he stated~ he is somewhat
favorably inclined toward this rezoning and made a motion to adopt
Ordinance No. 1695 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 at the northwest
corner of Bernard and Oswell Streets.
Before voting on the motion, Councilman Hosking asked
Planning Director Sceales what the staff's opinion is of the zoning
and why they recommended against it. ·
Mr. Seeales replied that originally the Planning Commission
had recommended denial of the request. The staff did not feel that
the proposed shopping area generally corresponded with the General Plan.
The staff felt that if you start commercial zoning on this intersection,
what critera would you use for controlling it, also that it would be
detrimental ~rom a land value standpoint to adjacent property.
Councilman Vetter asked if Mr. Sceales had talked to the ~rn
County Planning Commission regarding a request for the zoning of the
southwest corner of this intersection. He asked if it wouldn't be
well to work on this jointly with the County Planning Commission so
that the recommendations are most advantageous for both and City an([
the County.
Mr. Sceales said he couldn't see why the two commissions
couldn't get their heads together and come up with something for both
intersections. He said he didn't know if Mr. Adler had a precise plan,
but the City does have a~ precise plan here.
3_12'
Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1967 - Page 20
During discussion of a joint County and City Planning
Commission meeting to discuss rezoning this area and to secure
joint cooperation between the two Planning Departments and Commissions
engaged in by the Council, Mr. Dean Gay, a member of the City
Planning Commission, addressed the Council, stating that he really
didn't want to get involved in this as he had already been accused
of a number of things which were not true.
However, he was present at the previous Planning Commission
meeting when they wrote to the Kern County Planning Commission and
requested that they hold a joint meeting on the extension of Mr. Vernon
and the extension of Casa Loma, as they are trying to bring together
two roads that would make for a better improvement on the City Sewer
Farm and prevent a road being developed down thru the sewer farm.
They received two letters from the Kern County Planning
Commission at the next meeting. One, replying to the Commission's
letter requesting a joint meeting, advised the City Planning Commission
that it was solely within the discretion of the County to make
that decision and they had no interest in meeting with the City. The
second letter asked the City Planning Commission to meet with the
County jointly to review the area of Oswell and Bernard. He stated
that the Commission disregarded both of them.
Subsequently, a committee has been appointed, he is a
member, with the County appointing three members of its Commission,
and they are going to review the General Plan. He thinks that out
of this Committee there will come a revision of the General Plan.
He said the City Planning Commission was a little bit put out that
night when they got one letter asking for cooperation and another
telling them it wasn't any of their business. He said they have
held one meeting, they are going to have another Wednesday, and out
of that he believes will come some good for both
County.
Councilman Vetter asked Mr. Sceales if
objection in the County hearings on its rezoning
of the staff
the City and the
the principal
request and also
here, was that it was contrary to the General Plan
Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1967 - Page 21
313
as it now stands. Mr. Sceales said he thinks the County made that
statement. The City staff didn't push so much regarding it being
contrary to the General Plan because they are talking about one little
lot on which will be built a service station and a 7-11 Market, this
is certainly not a shopping center. It is just sort of a corner
stop-over, and it depends on how strictly you interpret the generalities
of the General Plan. His feeling was based on that if they allow one
lot as C-1 here for one particular property owner, where do they stop.
Councilman Vetter asked Mr. Gay if he thinks it would be
particularly advantageous to the City to discuss this particular problem
with the Kern County Planning Commission. Mr. Gay replied that if the
City goes to the County with every individual lot change, it will never
get anything accomplished. He said this did not affect the General
Plan. The County didn't agree with the City when they rezoned Valley
Plaza because it wasn't on the General Plan. This proposed rezoning
still does not affect the General Plan, as such.
Councilman Whittemore said the General Plan makes a nice
guide but it has to be flexible enough to suit the particular needs
of the community. If the demand for a particular piece of property
changes, it must be flexible enough to allow use of the property. The
Council should be willing to help people invest their money in
Bakersfield, with the proper protection for the surrounding properties.
And there isn't anybody surrounding this property, it is all hills.
Councilman Vetter said he is certainly in favor of the
development of the property he was just interested ill getting the
County and City going in the same direction. It doesn't seem reasonable
to have one side commercial and the other side R-1.
Mr. Sceales said he wasn't trying to outguess the County but he
would just imagine that if the rezoning is approved by the Council, it
will have a large influence on the Board of Supervisor's decision
when they hold their hearing on September 19th on Mr. Adler's request,
because they have to recognize the land use across tile street, whether
it is in the City or the County.
314
Bakersfield, Cali£ornia, September ll, 1967 - Page 22
Councilman Hosking said originally he brought up the
question as to whether there was some impropriety involved in this
particular request for rezoning. He said he has satisfied himself that
there is no conflict of interest after talking to all the people involved
Councilman Heisey said he would like to second Mr.
Whittemore's motion, as he does think this development is a tremendous
step for the area. His feelings had been much the same as Councilman
Hosking's on this request. There had been a number of rumors floating
around, and he is now more or less satisfied that the rumors were
without basis.
Councilman Vetter said he would like to second the motion
on the basis of Mr. Hosking's statement.
Vote was then taken on the adoption of Ordinance No..1695
New Series approving the rezoning, and carried by the following roll
call Vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
This was the time set for hearing on the proposed Plan
Lines for an ultimate 110 foot right of way width for Brundage Lane
between 200 feet west of South King Street and 1200 feet east of
Cottonwood Road. This hearing has been duly advertised and no written
protests were received in the City Clerk's office. The
Planning Commission recommended adoption of the proposed plan lines
as the City and the County are attempting to qualify the proposed
joint widening project on Brundage Lane for Urban Extension Fund
participation, and to qualify, the ultimate right of way of 110 feet
must be protected.
No protests or objections being received, the Mayor declared
the public hearing closed, and upon a motion by Councilman Heisey
the proposed plan lines were approved.
Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1967 - Page 23
This was the time set for hearing on a request by the .Tejon
Investment Company to amend the Zoning Boundaries from. an R-S
(Residential Suburban) Zone to an R-3 (Limited Multiple Dwelling) or
more restrictive zone, for. that certain property in the City of
Bakersfield Located on the east side of Cottonwood Road 600 feet north
of Watts Drive. This hearing has been duly advertised and posted
and no written protests have been received in the. City Clerk's office.
The Planning Commission recommended that the "D" (Architectural Design)
Overlay be applied to enhance the area with a compatible future
development and to protect access to and from the major highway.
Councilman Heisey stated that he was a member of the Board of
the Tejon Investment Company and wished to disqualify himself.
No protests or objections being received, the Mayor closed
the public hearing to proceed with Council discussion and action.
Councilman Rucker asked if everyone had been notified of this
hearing and Mayor Karlen stated that all City residents had been notified,
but not the County residents. Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking,
seconded by Councilman Vetter, Ordinance No. 1696 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 Cottonwood Road 600 feet north
of Watts Drive, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstaining: Council Heisey
This was the time set for hearing on amending the Test of
the Zoning Ordinance to set a minimum time limit at which reapplication
for zoning changes, modifications, conditional use permit and variances
may be made. The hearing has been duly advertised and no written
protests have been received in the City Clerk's o~fice. The
316
Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1967 - Page 24
Planning Commission recommended a minimum time limit of one year
at which reapplications may be made.
No protests or objections being received, the Mayor
declared the public hearing closed for Council discussion and action.
Councilman Stiern stated that this action was long
overdue. Many examples have been offered to the Council of the
wisdom of the change. He stated that he would like to move adoptien
of Ordinance No. 1697 New Series setting a minimum time limit at which
reapplication for zoning changes, modifications, conditional use permits
and variances may be made. Councilman Vetter seconded the motion.
Councilman Rucker said this action disturbed him because
he feels that it may be placing a hardship on property owners who
would be forced to wait a year to make reapplications for zoning
changes. ~
Councilman Stiern said he thinks the point is well taken
but the people on adjacent properties who are forced to attend
several hearings before the Planning Coramission and the Council sho~uld
be protected also.
City Attorney Hoagland pointed out that in the ordinance
there was a provision that if a change has occurred which in the
sound discretion of the City Council or the Planning Commission
or the Board of Zoning Adjustment indicates that a new hearing should
be had on an application, the provision may be waived after a
finding by the body petitioned that the public interest would best
be served by a reconsideration or a new hearing.
Vote was then taken on the Ordinance which carried by
the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Noes: None
Absent: None
Whittemore
Bakersfield, California, September 11, 1967
Page 25
317
Councilman Whittemore said he had one question on
the second hearing, was a D-Overlay applied to the property,
was this in the ordinance. He was assured that it was.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, the meeting
was adjourned at 11:27 P.M.
ATTE ST:
CIT and Ex-Ofticio Cler~ ~]
the Council of
the City of Bakersfield, California
318
Bakersfield, California, September 18, 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. September 18, 1967.
The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Gordon Beale of
the First Congregational Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker
Stiern, Vetter, Whittemore
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of September 11, 1967 were
approved as corrected.
Mayor Karlen welcomed the sixth grade students from Myra
Noble School, Mrs. Sharron Wenniham, Teacher.
Correspondence.
An invitation was received from the Kern County Planning
Commission to attend a special meeting to be held on October 3, 1967
in the chambers of the Board of Supervisors for the purpose of
appraising interested public agencies and officials of the forthcoming
studies regarding flood hazards on portions of the Kern River. City
Manager Bergen assured the Council that a member of the staff would
attend the meeting.
A request was received from the Bakersfield Art Association
to appoint newly elected officers to the Bakersfield Art Commission.
Mr. Francis Parsons, immediate past president of the Bakersfield At1;
Association, introduced the following new officers:
Mrs. Phillip Niederauer President
Mrs. Aslan Turoonjian Gallery Director
Dr. Robert Scherb First Vice-President
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Heisey, the newly elected o~ficers were appointed as members of the
Bakersfield Art Commission and were sworn in by the City Clerk.
32O
Bakersfield, California, September 18, 1967 - Page
Rucker,
County,
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilmall
communication from Supervisor Curtis Tunnell, Santa Barbara
thanking the Council for its support for the improvement of
Highway #166, was received and ordered placed on file.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. George Barton, Manager of the Greater Bakersfield Cha~er
of Commerce, stated that he was present to make a brief statement on
behalf of the Chamber. The businessmen in the City are extremely
pleased to receive the news that the City tax rate is being further
reduced for the current fiscal year. The major source of their
satisfaction is the fact that these tax cuts, which the Council has
been making year after year, are not just juggling with figures,
but are made possible through continuing City growth and through
continuing efficiency in City government.
They commend the members of the Council for their approach
to the problems of City development and their willingness to accept
the challenge of change. They particularly commend City Manager
Harold Bergen and his staff. In their opinion, the City of Bakersfield
is served by an outstanding management team and this is of tremendous
value to any program of business development, such as the work the
Chamber is engaged in. They have nothing but praise for the
cooperation the Chamber is getting consistently from the City
departments with which they come in contact.
With the opening of discussions and studies of the future
water needs of, the Greater Bakersfield area and the forthcoming
annexation proposals designed to enlarge the City to one hundred
thousand people by 1970, they look forward to the continued progress
of this community and pledge their full support to the Council in
these efforts.
On behalf of the Council, the Mayor thanked Mr. Barton
for his kind remarks. He stated that many people in the community
had expressed their appreciation to him for the fact that the City
Bakersfield, California, September 18, 1967 - Page 3
had continually sought to carry on its needs with a minimum of
expense and a maximum of efficiency and with no relaxation of its
endeavors to serve the community with quality, and he appreciates
hearing it publicly from others.
Chris Berenson asked the Mayor what the results of the study
were on his request for an amendment to the dance ordinance. The
Mayor told him he was out of order and could speak to the Council
a£ter the meeting, explaining the procedure to publicly address the
Council. Councilman Hosking stated that the Council Auditorium-
Recreation Committee would have something to say on the matter during
reports.
Council Statements.
Councilman Heisey stated that he would like to take just
a moment to compliment the Fire and Police Departments for the
rapidity with which these departments responded to a fire across
the street from his business, controlling the fire almost immediately.
He commented that he would also like to compliment the
local newspaper on the space given to the growth of weeds just outside
the City limits. The City has worked hard to clean up its weeds
and it is good to see some encouragement given to the neighborhood
immediately adjacent to the City. Perhaps some progress will be
given to a clean-up outside the city in the near future.
He wanted to report to the Council members that the
Resolution on water, which was adopted by the Council at its last
meeting, was presented to the Kern County Water Agency by the
Council Water Committee at its regular meeting on September 14, 1967.
The Agency themselves adopted a resolution which incorporated the
basic content of the Council resolution. This is a tremendous step
forward with the City, the Kern County Water Agency and the other
Water Districts working toward a common objective of a supplemental
water program for the entire area. The members of the Water Committee
feel that the adoption of this resolution by the City Council, as
well as by the Kern County Water Agency, is a significant
achievement.
Bakersfield, California, September 18, 1967 - Page 4
Councilman Rucker stated that for a number of years the
Downtown Business Association has been making an effort toward the
revitalization of the downtown business area. The Business Development
and Parking Committee would like to invite all members of the Council
to attend a Planning Commission hearing on Wednesday evening,
September 20, 1967, on the Golden Corridor Plan ~or the revitalization
of the Downtown Business District, to be held at 7:30 P.M. in the
Council Chambers. He stated he would appreciate it if all members
of the Council would appear at the hearing.
Councilman Stiern made the following statement:
Councilmen seldom have anything to elate them, their usual
routine is a rather lackluster effort to build good, sound local
government. I cannot withstand, however, a degree of elation at the
turn of events in our community as regards a very precious commodity
"Water."
Two factors have expedited this situation. (1) The alert
electorate which soundly defeated the "wrong-way" ballot proposal of
last May 23rd. (2) The overwhelming public interest solution of
the problem culminated in the last thirty days.
I am grateful that we have had outstanding professional
advice to rely on, a Council and administration to insist on the best
available solutions and Agency Directors prepared to reach solutions~
based not on speculations or profits for a few, but rather a just and
fair resolution of a difficult problem. We are ready and prepared to
continue working for the best solution in genuine cooperation with
this new, progressive Agency Board.
One local paper has drolly labelled us "Water Hawks", and
I guess we'll accept that label. We will not, however, become "Doves",
as they suggested. I think rather if we accept such an arian label,
the taxpayers would prefer that we become "Falcons", the bird noted
for perception in vision. We will continue to work for fair,
equitable solutions, we will watch with all our resources to see that
we achieve them.
Bakersfield, California, September 18, 1967 - Page 5
323
Councilman Hosking commented that as the sole remaining
member of the Committee he should say something, although he cannot
couch it on the wings of metaphor as Dr. Stiern has done. He stated
as follows:
I feel that we have accomplished primarily what we started
to do over two years age in setting up a situation that we can live
with in the City, where the taxes will be realistic and fairly
apportioned, so that we are paying for what we are getting. Naturally,
in the future, we will expect to subsidize agriculture, because we are,
after all, the center of an agricultural county, but I don't think we
are going to be unduly taxed. The problem of water is one that is
going to cost money however it is done, and we feel that this method
will cost the least and that Kern River water will be available to
this area, which were the two main things that we were attempting to do.
We received a lot of encouragement, particularly from the
voters, we are not patting ourselves on the back and saying "Well done,
boys", because it isn't done yet. Nonetheless, we think we are
headed in the right direction and think that it will be to the best
interests of the citizens in the Bakersfield area, not only in the
Bakersfield City limits.
Councilman Vetter said he would like to mention to the Council
and to the community in general, that the Bakersfield City Firemen and
the Kern County Firemen are involved in a project with the Associat~Lon
for Bakersfield Retarded Children to collect for the support of the
Association. This takes place on September 19th and 20th. Mr. Don
Doolin, the president of this Association was on the Council for many
years and this project is worthy of the public's support.
Mayor Karlen said he would like to remind the people in the
audience, the radio audience and the Council, that yesterday was the
180th Anniversary of the signing of the U. S. Constitution. He with
other Mayors in the United States, proclaimed it as "Citizenship Day"',
and this week is "Constitution Week". He would like to urge the students
present and others within the City to pledge themselves to carry on
324
Bakersfield, California, September 18, 1967 - Page 6
the defense of our country and support and defend the Constitution.
Reports.
Councilman Hosking, chairman of the Council Auditorium-
Recreation Committee, reported on a meeting of that Committee which
was held on September 14, 1967. It had been brought to the attention
of the Committee that a section of the A.B.C. Board's regulations
could cause a hardship on caterers getting permits to service
conventions and other users of public buildings. After careful
consideration of this regulation, the Committee requested the City
Attorney to draw a resolution asking the City Council to go on record
as requesting that a change be made in the A.B.C. Board's regulations
to relieve this situation. It was further requested that the
Auditorium-Recreation Manager be authorized to go to the October 6,
1967 scheduled meeting of the A.B.C. Board in Sacramento to present
the Bakersfield City Council's resolution.
Councilman Hosking explained that Title 4, California
Administrative Code, Rule 60.5 (4) provides, that any unlicensed
premises may be used for dispensing alcoholic beverages under a
caterer's permit for a maximum of 24 events per year, and stated that
the Committee believes this Rule should be amended to provide that
the 24 event per year limitation on use of a caterer's permit
shall not apply to events in the Auditorium or any public buildings,
which is the reason the Committee asked the Council to consider
the resolution prepared by City Attorney Hoagland.
Councilman Heisey said he had just received the
prior to coming into the Council meeting and did not have
to study it, however, he doesn't believe, to his knowledge, the City
has ever lost any activity at the Auditorium because it was restricted
from the use of alcoholic beverages. He said he doesn't believe the
public buildings should be promoted for the use of alcoholic beverages,
they don't do it in the public stadiums or schools, or any place else.
Frankly, he thinks it is a good ruling that the State is enforcing and
Resolution
an apportunity
Bakersfield, California, September 15, 1967 - Page 7
the City is being generous in permitting the serving of liquor in
the Auditorium 24 times a year.
Councilman Whittemore said he can appreciate Mr. Heisey's~
statements, because on the surface it would appear that way. There is
one particular group that uses up nine days of the 24 in their
functions, and if there are fights or sporting events, the balance
is used up very shortly. The building has to be rented out in order
to carry its own load, and this takes the burden off the taxpayer.
This is the reason why he is in favor of supporting this resolution.
Councilman Rucker said he doesn't think it was the intent
of the Committee to think in terms that this would be something to
induce people to come to the Auditorium. The idea was more or less
that it could only be used 24 times, and one or two individual groups
were using up most of the time, and that is one of the reasons why
they went along with the Auditorinm Manager's recommendation.
Mayor Karlen said when they do rent the hall, it is a
closed function, usually it is a group, a convention, that comes from
out of town, so they are not competing with other areas, they do this
for their membership. What it does is tie the hands of the Auditorium
Manager. The City is not trying to promote the use of alcoholic
beverages, it is trying to promote more conventions in the City and
might be jeopardizing the fine facilities it has if they are not used
to the maximum.
Councilman Vetter said he would like to go on record as
favoring the Resolution as it is written and asked Council Hosking
if other cities had adopted this resolution, are there moves in
other cities to pursue it on this basis.
Councilman Hosking said the matter came to the attention
of the Committee because San Diego had requested the Council to join
with them, not in asking a change in the regulation, which was the
Committee's suggestion, but in supporting them in their position at a
hearing which is being held next month. The Committee thought that they
Bakersfield, California, September 18, 1967 - Page 8
should go a step further and suggest that the regulation be reconsidered
by the A.B.C. and felt that they could probably be as effective by
passing a resolution to pass on to the A.B.C. and also the representatives
in Sacramento, to see if they couldn't have the matter studied at the
legislative and executive level, rather than from a hearing level, which
is purely an administrative hearing before the A.B.C. Board.
After some further discussion, upon a motion by Councilman
Rees, seconded by Councilman Rucker, Resolution No. 76-67 of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield supporting a change in Title 4 California
Administrative Code Rule 60.5 (4) to exempt public buildings from
such rule was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter, Whirremote
Noes: Councilman Heisey
Absent: None
The Auditorium-Recreation Manager was authorized to attend
the October 6, 1967 scheduled meeting of the A.B.C. Board in Sacramento
to present the Bakersfield City Council's resolution.
Councilman Hosking said he had a few words to say in answer
to Mr. Berenson's question. The Auditorium-Recreation Committee did
discuss at considerable length, the possibility of amending the dance
ordinance in connection with the request made by Mr. Berenson and
Mr. Maloy at last weeks Council meeting. No action was taken, simply
discussion. Besides the members of the Committee discussing it,
Councilman Hosking discussed it independently with (~ouncilmen Heisey
and Stiern, but has not had a chance as yet to talk to Councilmen
Vetter and Rees.
At this point there seems to be a great deal of opposition
to a flat change from 16 to 14 years, without an investigation being
made into what this would do in connection with parent's groups,
religious groups, etc. He told Mr. Berenson and Mr. Maloy that this
is not a simple a matter as they had been led to believe, that
it will take some time and thought on the part of the Committee
members, also the members of the Council, and probably before it is~
Bakersfield, California, September 18, 1967 - Page 9
accomplished, public hearings will have to be held on the amendment,
so it will probably be some time in coming.
Mayor Karlen stated there was one other report and he
requested the City Clerk to read a petition which was submitted to
the Council, signed by members of the Police Department, and reading as
follows:
To the Council of the City of Bakersfield:
We, the undersigned members of the Bakersi!ield Police
Department, wish to take this opportunity to advise the Council of
the City of Bakersfield that the members of this Police Department
are not represented by any employee group which professes to speak
for the employees of the City of Bakersfield or any segment thereof.
In view of this, it is our wish that the Council desregard,
as they apply to the Police Department, any future statements or
recommendations made by spokesmen of such employees' groups,
pertaining to salaries, employee or fringe benefits.
It is our intention to convey by means of this letter,
our confidence in the Council to enact such legislation concerning
employees as we believe will benefit City employees and the City of
Bakersfield.
Councilman Stiern said he thought it was important that
this petition be made a matter of record and moved that it be received
and placed on file and referred to the Governmental Efficiency
Committee. Councilman Whittemore seconded the motion.
Allowance of Claims.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Vouchers Nos. 951 to 1039 inclusive, in amount of $98,658.32,
as audited by the Voucher ApProval Committee, were allowed, and
authorization was granted for payment of same.
Acceptance of Bid of ~erican Rubber
Mfg. Company to furnish Fire Hose.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Heisey, bid of American Rubber Mfg. Company to furnish Fire Hose
Bakersfield, California, September 18, 1967 - Page 11
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution of Intention No.
826 of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield, California, declaring its
intention to order the vacation of the
alley in Block 413 A, City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, Resolution of Intention
No. 826 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California,
declaring its intention to order the vacation of the alley in Block
413 A, City of Bakersfield, which had been requested by Mercy
Hospital, and setting October 9, 1967 for hearing
the Council, was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore
on the matter before
Acceptance of Work and Mayor authorized
to execute Notices of Completion of
Contracts with Harmon Engineering and
Frank Johnson for the improvement of the
sound system and enclosure in the Civic
Auditorium Concert Hall.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, the Work was accepted and the Mayor was authorized to execute
the Notices of Completion of Contracts with Hannon Engineering and
Frank Johnson for the improvement of the sound system and enclosure
in the Civic Auditorium Concert Hall.
City Attorney instructed to prepare
Ordinance naming "Orin Way."
The Planning Commission recommended that County Road 1999,
which is located within the Pierce No. 1 Annexation, be changed
to "Orin Way." This request was made by the businesses located along
this road and the name of "Orin Way" was suggested by the developers.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman Stiern,
the City Attorney was instructed to prepare an Ordinance naming
"Orin Way."
Bakersfield, California, September 18, 1967 - Page 12
Date set for hearing before the Council
on recommendation by the Planning
Commission to amend Section 17.60.070
of the Municipal Code to increase certain
filing fees.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, date of October 2,
1967, was set for hearing before the Council on recommendation by
the Planning Commission to amend Section 17.60.070 of the Municipal
Code to increase the filing fees for change of zone, variance,
modification, appeal and a conditional use permit.
Approval of proposed boundaries for
annexation designated as Plaza #1.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Council-
man Vetter, proposed boundaries of an annexation designated as
Plaza #1, that area west of South "H" Street, north of Ming
Avenue, east of New Stine Road and south of Chester Lane, were
approved, and the City Attorney was instructed to prepare the
necessary proceedings to submit the annexation boundaries to the
Local Agency Formation Commission.
Approval of termination of Agreement
No. 64-60 with the Southern Pacific Company
for maintenance of a chain link fence at
the Kern Island Canal.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, seconded by Council-
man Rucker, Agreement No. 64-60 with the Southern Pacific Company
for termination of construction and maintenance of a chain link
fence within the Southern Pacific Company right of way at the
Kern Island Canal was terminated, and the Mayor was authorized
to execute the necessary documents.
Acceptance of Street Right of Way Deeds
from Sterling Transit Company, Robert
and Dorothy Lack and Morosa Brothers
Transportation Company.
Upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, seconded by Council-
man Heisey, Street Right of Way Deeds from Sterling Transit Company,
Robert and Dorothy Lack and Morosa Brothers Transportation Company
for the west half of Arrow Street north of Antonino Avenue and for
a cul-de-sac at the east end of Orin Way, were accepted.
Bakersfield, California, September 18, 1967 - Page 13
Hearings.
This was the time set for hearing on intention of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield to order the vacation of a Public Utilities
Easement in Lots 13, 14 and 15, Tract No. 1396, in the City of
Bakersfield, under Resolution of Intention No. 825. No protests or
objections being received, the Mayor declared the public hearing
closed for Council discussion and action. Upon a motion by
Councilman Heisey, seconded by Councilman Hosking, Resolution No.
77-67 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield ordering the vacation
of a Public Utilities Easement in Lots 13, 14 and 15, Tract No. 1396,
in the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter
Whittemore
None
None
This was the time set
Noes:
Absent:
for hearing objections to the proposed
work or improvement, or to the extent of the assessment district, or
to the proposed grades, under Resolution of Intention No. 822, the
construction of Sanitary Sewers along Hendricks Lane, Oscar Avenue
and Lacey Street, from Regent Street to South "H" Street. This
hearing had been duly advertised, posted and notices have been sent
to all property owners in the proposed district. No written
protests were received in the City Clerk's office. No person
present offering any protests or objections to the proposed public
improvement district, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed
for Council discussion and action. Upon a motion by Councilman
Whirremote, seconded by Councilman Hosking, Resolution No. 78-67
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield ordering the work in
Public Improvement District No. 822 and directing the City Clerk te
post notices inviting bids therefor, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter
Noes: None
Absent: None
Whittemore.
3¸32
Bakersfield, California, September 18, 1967 - Page 14
This was the time set for hearing on 1967 Weed Abatement
Program, Phase II, which commenced with a city-wide inspection and
the posting of 115 vacant lots during the period of August 21
through August 25.
On September l, "Notice to Destroy Weeds" were mailed to
the property owners and maps and ownership records were opened to
all persons interested in lot cleaning.
On September 11, the second inspection was made, and of
the 115 lots posted, there were 60 non-compliances.
The Council engaged in a discussion regarding the type o:~
notices being sent to the property owners. City Manager Bergen
explained that the lots are posted, postcards are then sent, and
after this hearing, registered letters would be sent to those
property owners who have not cleaned their lots.
During this discussion, Mr. Sam Rudnick addressed the
Council, pointing out that since the last notice was sent to him
he had cleaned his lot and did not wish to be billed by a con-
tractor. Me was informed that his lot would be deleted from the l:Lst.
City Manager Bergen was asked what action was needed
from the Council to wind up this hearing. He stated that Public
Works would go ahead and send out the registered letters to those
property owners who had not complied and that the weeds should be
declared a public nuisance. Councilman Heisey made the motion,
which was carried unanimously.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the CounciL1,
upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore the meeting was adjourned at
9;25 P.M.
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfiel~ati~C.
ATTE ST:
CI~C~ERK and Ex-Officio Cler~of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, September 25, 1967 333
Present:
Absent:
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City
Hall at eight o'clock P.M. September 25, 1967.
The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the Pledge
of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend John Spear of St. Luke's
Episcopal Church.
The City Clerk call the roll as follows:
Mayor Karlen, Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker,
Vetter, Whittemore
Stiern,
None
Minutes
of the regular meeting of September 18, 1967 were
approved as presented.
Council Statements.
Councilman Heisey commented that he has heard quite a few
adverse remarks regarding the opening of the Valley Plaza Theatre
and has read a letter to the editor of the Bakersfield Californian
which stated that the audience waited outside for an hour and a quarter
to get into the theatre, while the visiting movie stars and other
dignitaries were holding a cocktail party. He wished to state that
the members of the Council and the Mayor did not attend any cocktail
party, if one was being held, and they also waited impatiently for one
and a quarter hours to participate in the parade. Several members of
the Council agreed with Councilman Heisey.
Councilman Hosking called the attention of the Council to an
article on Page 19 of the September issue of "Nation's Cities" magazine
entitled "Should Your Town Sell Zoning and Rezoning", in which the use
of competitive bidding in urban land use changes is proposed by an
expert. Councilman Hosking stated that he thinks this is a good idea
and possibly one that should be investigated.
be zoned, there is no reason why it could not
franchise to the highest bidder and help keep
If an area is going to
be solid outright as a
the City solvent.
City Manager Bergen stated that he would have copies of the
article made and sent out to each member of the Council. Councilman
Rosking requested that a copy be sent to the Planning Cormnission for
its opinion on the matter.
Bakersfield, California, September 25, 1967 - Page 2
Councilman Stiern called the attention of the Council to
the presence of former Councilman Bill Park in the audience, who
is now administrative assistant to Congressman Bob Mathias. Mr
Park thanked the Council for the privilege of appearing before the
microphone and stated that it was a pleasure to be back in Bakers-
field and attend a Council meeting.
its achievements for the benefit of
Reports.
He commended the Council on
the community.
Mayor Karlen read a request from John I. Stockton,
electrical engineer, requesting that an extention of 45 days be
granted to the existing contract for the new stage lighting con-
trol system, to allow Ariel Davis Manufacturing to incorporate
engineering changes into the consoles, which will make the units
more reliable, faster servicing and easier to maintain. Upon a
motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Rucker, the
communication was received and ordered placed on file and the
request was granted.
Mayor Karlen read a report from the Planning Commission
on a special public hearing held on September 22, 1967, for the
purpose of hearing both oral and written evidence on the Golden
Corridor Plan for the revitalization of downtown Bakersfield.
After hearing evidence both for and against the Plan, it is the
opinion of the Commission that said Plan as proposed does not meet
with the acceptance of the majority of the downtown property owners.
An overwhelming majority protested the closing of Chester Avenue to
vehicular traffic. As proposed, Chester Avenue would be the main
backbone of the Golden Corridor Plan; and, accordingly, the pro-
test to the closing of Chester Avenue is a protest to the whole
concept of the Golden Corridor Plan design.
Property owners both for and against the Plan, expressed
a great concern for the revitalization of downtown Bakersfield and
Bakersfield, California, September 25, ].967 - Page 3
335
strongly urged the City to establish an agency which could work with
the downtown property owners and the City in re-evaluating the
revitalization of downtown Bakersfield and to develop a plan which
would meet with the approval of both the property owners and the
City of Bakersfield.
Based on these findings, the Commission would recommend
that no further action be taken on the Golden Corridor Plan design
as proposed, and that the Council take the necessary steps
a legal agency which could re-evaluate the program for the
of downtown and develop a plan which would be accepted and
A Letter from Roland S. Woodruff, Attorney for the Downtown
Businessmen's Association, was also read by the Mayor. He stated that
it is urgently recommended that the City Council establish a
revitalization agency, either pursuant to or patterned along the lines
of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California, with
such agency having its territorial jurisdiction or survey area the
downtown area of Bakersfield described as the benefited area in the
Golden Corridor Plan.
It is further recoramended that such agency be composed of
members who are appointed from among residents of Kern County who are
property owners in the downtown area who will act as the legislative
body of such agency, subject to the control and supervision of the
Planning Commission and City Council, as provided by the Act.
It is further recommended that there concurrently be
established, by the Council, a "Parking and Business Improvement Area",
with co-linear boundaries to the Revitalization Agency boundaries
and with an advisory commission or board composed of merchants from
within the affected area to recommend as to the use of the funds
made available under the additional tax levied under said law.
It is recognized that there will exist problems in regard to
the drafting of the enabling resolutions and ordinances so as to
satisfy the requirements of the Council and the property owners and
in forming
revitalizat ion
implemented.
336
Bakersfield, California, September 25, 1967 - Page 4
businessmen within the affected area. With this in mind, it is
recommended that this request be submitted to the City Attorney,
City Manager and staff with instructions to return a recommenda-
tion to the Council at the next regular meeting, for formation
of the above entities.
The Association will make its time and personnel availabe[e,
at the request of the City Staff, so that a plan for formation of
the necessary entities may be
the Council and which will be
intended.
adopted which will be acceptable to
adequate to accomplish the purposes
The members of the Council proceeded to ask Mr. Vincent
Casper and Mr. Woodruff questions regarding their request. Mr.
Casper stated that they were actually asking for two types of com-
missions, one a Promotion District, by which the merchants would ask
that a business license tax be levied upon themselw~s within the
boundaries to raise sufficient ~unds for promotion of business in
the downtown area. There was no objection of any kind to this. The
other commission to be formed within the same boundaries composed
of property owners, would provide for the district to be taxed.
Petitions were circulated on both commissions and a majority of
the persons affected signed the petitions.
Councilman Stiern said since this district is in the formu-
larive stage at this point, he would like to ask some questions to
bring out the thinking of the downtown group. One important question
which will affect the district considerably, is it the thinking of
the group that comprises the downtown business association, that
such a redevelopment district must have the power of eminent domain.
Woodruff: "Very definitely, yes. Any district that is
going to provide parking, or realignment of streets~ and that sort
of thing, definitely would have to have the power of eminent domain
or it would be completely valueless. However, the power of condemna-
tion should only be used as a last resort."
Mayor Karlen asked if the decision o~ the group are subject
to Council approval with regards to this.
Woodruff: "We are, of course, in a formularive stage at
this point and very willing to go along with any thinking. I think what
Bakersfield, California, September 25, ].967 - Page 5
we want you to do now, is to let us, with your staff, try to come up
with a vehicle that expresses some of your restrictions or controls,
and also gives the downtown association a means by which these things
can actually be accomplished. Some time ago we submitted a petition
which was signed by a majority of the property owners on an assessed
value basis. At that time we presented the idea of coming in with
four different districts; the business and parking area development
district, which we call a promotion district; a parking district,
which has the right o£ eminent domain built into it; another, an
improvement district, which again is a source of raising money to do
some of these improvements which probably are supplemental to your
right of eminent domain; and fourthly, a mall district, which has
the power of eminent domain, each of which overlapped to some degree.
We feel that perhaps we would be better off to come in with one
district which could do the planning and work with the Planning Cora-
mission and the City Council, but one body which could do all of
these things and has the means, really, of accomplishing the whole
picture rather than each taking a piecemeal part.
That is why we have come to this point where we feel thai;
there should be this one organization set up which would have the power
to proceed. We have been somewhat spinning our wheels, we've been
operating as a revitalization committee without any real authority
other than to suggest that certain things be done. We feel that we are
beyond that point, now we should get something off the ground that has
some ability to make some decisions to present for approval in order
to get any place.
Councilman Rees: You spoke o£ one body, and in your letter
you say that you recommend there currently be established a "Parking
and Business Improvement Area."
Woodruff: Let me explain that. I was referring to our
~ormer petition which had four different districts presented. We have
Bakersfield, California, September 25, 1967 - Page 6
actually come down at this point to two. Really, your business
promotion district is not a district as such. What it is merely
is what they call a parking and business development area, and this
allows the City Council to assess a different and additional city
business tax upon an area and to use that fund, through an advisory
body if they will, but for definite business promotion and procure-
ment purposes. This is really not an official district at all, but
this we do ask be formed, we feel that is an essential activity of
the downtown to compete in their business promotion with some of
the outlying shopping areas. But there are two things to be done.
One is merely making certain findings and setting certain boundaries,
fixing certain taxes, and perhaps appointing advisory bodies to
assist the Council in the spending of this money in this business
promotion business development method.
Councilman Vetter: Would the taxing be done in two
different methods?
Woodruff: First, the revitalization district or agency
could be an ad valorem tax based upon the people within the area,
this is what we are talking about. It doesn't have to have any tax
as a matter of fact, unless it comes up with a program that is
acceptable to all, there wouldn't be any tax. The other would
definitely be an increase in the license tax, and that portion
which represents the increase would be allocated into a fund for
business promotion and development in the area that pays the tax.
Councilman Hosking: I have been looking over the Com-
munity Redevelopment Law furnished by the City Attorney, and
assuming that this Law has not been modified or amended by the
1967 Legislature~ Section 33100 says that we already have this
body. "There is in each community a public body corporate and
politic,known as the Redevelopment Agency of the commaunity." Is
that what we are talking about, a Redevelopment Agency?
Woodruff: I have talked to the City Attorney on this. You
have the right to develop your own law in this respect, if you wish.
I think it is simpler from the standpoint of drafting the Act, and
from the standpoint of getting it approved by bond attorneys, that this
Bakersfield, California, September 25, 1967 - Page 7
339
Act, which has already been through the courts and found to be
completely legal, be used as the basis. However, you are not limited
to that, there can be modifications in it, deletions from it, etc.
This is what we feel is designed for this specific purpose. It is
really the purpose for which this Act was put on the books.
Councilman Hosking: Well, I think so, too. All districts
have the right of eminent domain with the exception of something like
this promotion district, which doesn't have any power except to raise
money and spend it. This redevelopment agency has all the powers of
the other three or four districts which you originally had in mind,
and, as I understand it, this or something like this redevelopment
agency, is what the downtown businessmen want at this time. This
requires the Council to make a finding that we need it, and I
assume this is what you want us to do. There is one section in
this Act.which makes some of the Council nervous. It provides that
bonds be issued, they are General Obligation Bonds issued by the
community, which is, of course, all of Bakersfield as a whole, issuing
bonds to raise money to put in the redevelopment fund. Now, this might
be something that some of the rest of the Council in different wards
may not buy.
Woodruff: Of course, when~you get down to it, this is not
just a problem of the downtown area, this is a general community problem.
What is happening here affects every property owner in the City of
B~kersfield, whether we want to admit it or not. However, the downtown
people say if people can't see the big problem that we have, let's buy
our own way, and we are willing to do it. This is why I say to you,
we are willing to modify, limit, delete from, etc., this Act here, to
accomplish the purpose of getting the show on the road.
Councilman Hosking: I think we had better go along with the
Act if we are going to go alone with anything, because as you say,
it has already been tested, assuming we can live with it the way its
been written. I don't know whether we can or not, because we haven't
looked through it very carefully. But if this is what is wanted. This
340
Bakersfield, California, September 25, 1967 - Page 8
is the problem we have been faced with. Our Council Committeeshas
been faced with that, and the whole Council has been faced with it,
because the newspapers have mentioned from time to time that we are
not doing anything. We want to do something but we want to know
what you want us to do, and I think we have finally come to the
point where at least we know what you want us to do.
Woodruff: It is not the Council's fault, either, I think
the Association has been floundering a little bit for the proper
vehicle to come and specifically ask you for. This is somewhat
historical and we have had a little bit of experience in this field
before, we maybe haven't hit the nail quite on the head, as we are
doing now, for perhaps matters of diplomacy, but we feel definitely
that this is the Act which is designed to accomplish this specific
purpose. Let us be frank, if it requires eminent domain to do it,
we know this and anyone you talk to who is in this :field will tell
you the same thing. You're either going to do the .job or you are
not.
City Attorney Hoagland said he believes that the Community
Redevelopment Act is the vehicle, either in this form or some modified
form to accomplish what the Association desires. He said he would
be very reluctant to take it on himself to draft an adequate law,
if this law is not adequate, because that could very well result
in financial chaos, if that particular Act was not acceptable to
bonding agencies, or in the event there
problems, which he understands there is
programs.
last week,
is bonding and financial
in all of these revitalization
Councilman Heisey: Since the Planning Colamission hearing
I believe there isn't complete unanimity amongst the
businessmen downtown regarding the formation of this district and
particularly in regard to this right of eminent domain. Normally we
think of eminent domain as condemning property for a street or some
public use whereby the property remains from that point forward vested
in the public body. I understand from some of the comments, it is
contemplated that four or five blocks would be condemned and then
Bakersfield, California, September 25) 1967 - Page 9
that property sold later to some other large enterprise that would
like to locate on it, which results in taking from one businessman
and giving to another businessman.
Councilman Hosking pointed out that this is not an Urban
Renewal District.
Woodruff: In all the meetings I have attended with the
downtown people, I have not heard any comment like that. But I
know where you have 150 people, you are going to have some difference
of opinion. However, I will say further, if there would be any
contemplation of doing what you say, this would be completely illegal.
You c~n't do it like that. The only reason that you can take property
by condemnation is to take it for a public purpose, you can't take it
for a private purpose at all, it is completely unconstitutional.
In a redevelopment area you can take property and you can
sell that property ultimately to other people, if the people who own
it don't want to comply with the way it was decided it should be
developed. The whole basis of revitalization, redevelopment, is
up-grading, face-lifting, and if you don't believe that this is within
the public purpose, then you shouldn't have an agency at all. However,
this has been determined in many cases before the Supreme Court to be
the public purpose, and the public purpose is something that affects
us in our everyday life, like the deterioration of downtown business,
the deterioration of a street or whatever it might be.
Councilman Hosking: The way this Act is written, the
Legislative body has to approve almost everything that is done, which
means the City Council, and this would include any eminent domain
activities.
Councilman Rucker asked if this would be similar to
Urban Renewal.
Woodruff:
to do these things.
California or any place has a basic local Act
Urban Renewal really is the use of federal funds
Probably every Urban Renewal that you have in
similar to a Redevelc,pment
342
Bakersfield, California, September 25, 1967 - Page l0
Act as its foundation~ to set up your basic political agency through
which these things are done. There is no such thing as an Urban
Renewal Agency as such, this is a concept of the Federal Government
to assist cities in problems that are beyond the capacity of cities
to take care of.
Councilman Stiern: Suppose that the Council should place
certain modifications or restrictions on this Act feeling that they
were wise and in the best interests of the city taxpayers as a whole,
and I'.m not thinking of eminent domain necessarily. It.occurs to me
that we might want to construct some kind of a close-ended affair
where, ~if there are outstanding obligations, the City as a whole may
not.be responsible for retiring.those obligations, but the District
should. Now, if we should, and if there were some disagreement
about effectuating such clauses that we might add and it were
appealed to a higher authority~ how valid would our changes be in
regard to the Act per se. Would the State Supreme Court decide that
our little penny ante Council amendments were not valid and that
the State Legislature's Act would prevail as it is written. '
Woodruff;: There is a section in the Act which provides
for chartered cities to laydown their own rules.
City Attorney Hoagland: It is not quite that broad. It
says that a charter city may enact its own procedural ordinance
and exercise the powers granted it by this part. To me when you
enact a procedural ordinance, you are talking about something
different than the powers in that statute. In other words, I think
that you can enact your own procedures by which these powers are
exercised. I would question, at this point, whether you could limit
the powers of this Act by your ordinance.
Councilman Hosking: These is a section in the Act where
the Planning Commission has to pass upon the plan, and if the Plan
is adopted, it has to be adopted by the Council. Another section
stated that the ordinance shall contain: (a) Purposes and intent of
the
legislative body with respect to the project area (I assume they are
Bakersfield, California, September 25, 1967 - Page ll
talking about the Council when they say legislative body) (b) The
Plan incorporated by reference (c) A designation of the approved
Plan is the official redevelopment plan of the project area (d) The
findings and determination of the legislative body that 1. The
project area is a blighted area and that redevelopment, etc. is
necessary. 2. The redevelopment plan would redevelop the area in
conformity with this part and in the interests of the public peace,
health, safety and welfare. 3. The adoption of the redevelopment
plan is economically sound and feasible. 4. The redevelopment
plan conforms to the master general plan of the community, etc.
All of which says that the Council, in this case, has got
to set everything out, exactly and precisely as it is going to be
done, and what the plan is and everything, before anybody turns
a wheel on the financing.
Woodruff: Pertaining to the financing, pertaining to
eminent domain, everything, the Council has the final say.
Councilman Stiern: In view of just these few weighty
questions that have been asked tonight, I wonder if Mr. Woodruff
would mind if we take a little more than one week to draw this up.
Ultimately, the City Council is going to be responsible for whatewer
horribles are included in this plan, it will fall back on our
responsibility, not the Board of the Agency, because we, after ally,
did create it, and I think we shou'ld give some thought to the type
of thing that we create.
Woodruff: I appreciate that this is a rather weighty
problem, as a matter of fact, one that is of utmost importance to the
City, and I'm surely not trying to do something hastily and half-way.
I have been asked by my group to try to expedite this now and I
couldn't think of any way to expedite it than to ask for a report
back at the next regular meeting. However, our purpose really, is
to get to work on this and to keep at work until we come up with
something that is satisfactory to all concerned and I am sure we can.
Councilman Rees: The tone of our conversations with Mr.
Casper and Mr. 'Woodruff tonight, would indicate that we are moving
ahead with cooperation. I would hope that from this point, theeparties
344
Bakersfield, California, September 25, 1967 - Page 12
involved here, which would be the property owners and the business.-
men's association on one side, and the Council and the staff on the
other, would assume that the other party is acting in good faith
to expedite this program, because it is so easy for one side to
say that the other side is holding it up, and the reading or listen-
ing public is prone to believe that the City Council is holding
revitalization up. I hope that we can work together in close
harmony from this point out.
Councilman Vetter: To your knowledge, Mr. Woodruff, is
there any city in this general area that is working on a project
under this Redevelopment Act?
Woodruff: Sacramento has a redevelopment agency, Fresno
and Los Angeles has a redevelopment agency, most larger cities do.
Councilman Hosking: Even though Mr. Rees is of the
opinion that sometimes we don't face up to problems such as this
when they come up, it is my understanding that this is precisely
the type of agency that is used in the Urban Renewal Plan in Los
Angeles and Sacramento and elsewhere. I think it might be tailor-
made for what we have to do downtown.
Councilman Whittemore: There seems to be some confusion
regarding the delay. I know that some years ago, the then Mayor
appointed a special committee from the Council, called a Revitali-
zation Committee, to work in cooperation with the DBA. We had
lunch together for about three years and I think we were both
sitting there waiting for the other to decide what vehicle was to
be used, Because I know that the Council Committee, the adminis-
trative staff and the City Manager kept saying "when are they going
to make the approach and what type of district do they want to form.."
And the Hugh Sill stood up here one night and said he was tired of
us dragging our feet, he wanted to get something done. I was
amazed, all we have been waiting for is for somebody to give a
constructive program so that the City Council could help the down-
town association get started.
I wasn't confused at all after the Planning Commission
meeting last week, but I am confused again tonight when they bring up
Bakersfield, California, September 25, ].967 - Page 13
revenue and
development
nature.
this. Act and the powers of this particular district. I think we
should get whatever committee necessary going on this right away
so that we can come back with a recommendation to you. It is my
understanding that you want to restrict this to a particular area,
the original proposed Golden Corridor Area. This is where the
taxation is going to come from, and is where the re-
is going to be, not G.O. Bonds or something of this
Woodruff: May I say in answer to this Urgan Renewal
question, it is the definite position and desire of the downtown
that this be borne by the downtown, this has been their position
all along and still is their position. They are willing to under-
take this themselves based upon moneys.that they can raise within
their area. This is still their position, there is no thought of
going into federal funds, in fact these is a definite thought
against it. They feel that they can develop a more vigorous,
stronger, vital downtown, if they do it themselves and this is
proven in other areas, this isn't entirely their own thought, this
is advice from other areas that have done this.
Councilman Whittemore: I think we should get together
with the right Committee and get going on it immediately. We have
the Business Development and Parking Committee with Mr. Hosking,
and can take advantage of his legal training. I think that would
probably be the appropriate committee because that is the one
that has been working on
Mayor Karlen:
on this as well.
this project.
That, plus the staff, who would be working
Councilman Hosking: This is up to Mr.~ Rucker, but it
appears to me that this is such a complex problem that it might be
well to first consider it before it is referred to committee, by the
Council as a committee of the whole, and have a special meeting on this
and discuss it with the staff. It would have to be public, perhaps it
would be better to do it this way before it goes to Committee, rather
than go to Committee then come out. I think everyone on the .Counci]L
is vitally interested in it and we ought to devote an evening to
discussing it, other than just having it referred to a committee.
346
Bakersfield, California, September 25, 1967 - Page 14
Mayor Karlen asked how soon the staff would be prepared to
discuss this with the City Council serving as a Committee of the
whole.
Hoagland:
this particular Act
I would strongly urge the Council to read
before any open discussion is held with the
staff, becuase there are a lot of things in this particular Act
and I am sure there are a lot of questions which would come to the
Council's mind upon reading the Act. I can only speak for myself,
not for the rest of the staff, but I do not wish to have the respon-
sibility of explaining after the act, rather than before the act
of creating such an agency.
Councilman Rucker asked Mr. Woodruff if this was not
somewhat similar to Urgan Renewal, except it pinpoints itself
down to one particular area, it does not cover the entire City and
all the .other taxpayers will not be responsible for this parti-
culardistrict.
Woodruff: It depends on the finding actually, this is
found under the Act, I think a survey area, which is then limited
to that. The way the Act reads now,'it has. powers of bonding which
would cover the entire area. These things that you should know
as Councilmen about the Act, I am sure this is the. reason your
Attorney says that you should read and study this. We're willing
to try to eliminate any of these things that are against either
your political philosophies or against your desires, or the wishes
of the people whom you represent.
We have a purpose to accomplish here and I don't think it
conflicts one iota with the basic problems that you have in representing
your constituents. As Mr. Roagland says,.you should familiarize
yourselves with the Act so that we can sit down and intelligently go
into these facets of the law to see what ones you like and what ones
you don't like, and then see if we can eliminate some or modify some.
I know that there is one that I have heard many times before and this is
you can never terminate an agency like this. Well, you can terminate it,
but there might be something to do along this line which is fine, we're
not concerned. Well, these things can be changed, these are not things
Bakersfield, California, September 25, 1967 - Page 15
347
which we necessarily want. There might be something in the Act which
we can work out, we are not after this type of thing at all, we're
after a vehicle that can start us to work downtown.
Councilman Stiern: I think Mr. Hosking's idea has merit
for the .Council to consider it as a Committee consisting of the entire
Council and that we have open meetings. I have asked Mr. Roagland
to write to the City of Pomona. It is my understanding that they do
have an agency which is purely a redevelopment agency and is not all
Urban Renewal Agency and does not involve any federal funds. At one
time, ~when I knew more about their Agency, they were pretty proud of
the £act that it was a community project that they were funding
themselves. It occurs to me that they have had some experience along
these lines and they may have made some errors which they can point
out to us, and we could benefit by them. I would like him to contact
the City of Pomona and get a copy of their ordinance.
Woodruff: I think we should realize clearly that Urban
Renewal is not an.agency, Urban Renewal is a method of financing
only, to borrow funds from the government. You don't have to borrow
funds from the government, we can finance it ourselves. You have a
local agency that sets out to do a job, it can finalice by different
means.
City Manager Bergen said he would like to.make some
suggestions. First of all, it would be proper for the City Attorney
to make copies of the. Redevelopment Act and make sure that each
Councilman receives a copy. He thinks that the Council should give
the City Attorney sufficient time to gather the information needed,
and he would suggest that they not think of anything less than 30
to 60 days for holding another meeting of the Council specifically
on the Redevelopment Agency. The DBA would prefer same action on the
Promotion District, which he thinks they can take action on separately
from the Redevelopment Agency. The Council might separate those two
in its thinking and it would give them an opportunity to work a little
faster on the Promotion District.
348
Bakersfield, California, September 25, 1967 - Page 16
Hoagland: The P~omotion District is Separate and apart
and you should keep it distinct from the Redevelopment Agency, it
is for a particular purpose for promotion of the particular area
that the DBA has asked for. There is one difficulty in that ordi-
nance, and here again it calls for increasing business license
taxes in categories. Now when you ask for an ordinance to estab-
lish the Promotion District, you not only have the boundaries, but
you have these different categories set out and how much you are
going to increase licenses for every category within that area. So
far we have no indication of what these categories should be, be-
cause you have to look at all categories within that district to
determine exactly how much money you anticipate raising annually
on these business licenses. And this takes a little thought and
certainly it is not the City Attorney's job to make that distinction.
Councilman Stiern: You spoke of increased license fees
to pay for this promotional district. Would these also be levied
an ad valorem tax on the property owners as well. It occurs to me
the lessees would pay a license tax, but the property owners would not.
Hoagland: No. It only affects business license taxes
within that designated area. But you understand that in most
communities that have this, they have various categories of in-
creased business licenseS. You double the business license tax, bnt
this has proven to be relatively unfair to certain categories within
that area who get little or no benefit out of the promotion. For
example, doctors and lawyers can't advertise anyway:, what are they
going to get except increased foot traffic or something in the area.
So these are the categories that have to be thought out.
Now as the Community Redevelopment Agency is concerned,
if you feel that this is the Agency which is necessary for the re-
vitalization of the downtown, and again I urge you to study this
particular law, frankly, the way I feel about it, it is most difficult
to come up with a precise vehicle which the downtown business assoc-
iation was talking about without an acceptable plan. Because you
take the plan which you envision will take place and then you create
Bakersfield,
California,
September 25, 1967 - Page l?
the agency, which will affect your plan, and as I understand it, we
do not hame a plan at the present time. This would have to be worked
out by the agency which is created, I assume.
Councilman Hosking: Well, no, the Planning Commission does
it under the Act.
Hoagland: .On this promotional district, I think that probably
the proper procedure, when you get these classifications, you prepare
an ordinance, which you are going to adopt later. And then you hold
a public hearing and every businessman who is going to be faced with
an increase.in his license taxes will be notified of what his taxes
are going to be and then at that time you will get an expression from
the public on precisely what is contemplated.
Mayor Karlen: In other words~ there would be an opportunity
for those who want to protest to do so.
City Manager Bergen stated that any recommendation on the
date for the reduction of the retail sales tax, on which a committee
has been working for some time, would be a good time to dovetail in a
promotion district tax. It was intended to recommend to have those
hearings before the first of the year, so that they could go into
effect on January 1. The staff would recommend that a hearing on
that be held sometime in the later part of October or the first of
November. The Business Development and Parking Committee and the
Downtown Business Association could get together and come up with a
specific recommendation for the promotion district and then set up
a hearing, other than a normal meeting night, and then have a hearing
on the recommendation that would come out of this Committee. This
would take care of the promotional district recommendation and then
in the meantime, in thirty to sixty days, another meeting could be
scheduled of the entire Council on the Redevelopment Agency. Treat
the two as two different subjects, even though they are related.
Councilman Rees then moved that in respect to the Promotion
District that it be referred to the Business Development and Parking
Committee who would consult with the staff and members of the Downtown
Business Association and report back to the Council as soon as possible.
350
Bakersfield, California, September 25, 1967 - Page 18
Approval Committee,
payment of same.
Councilman Heisey seconded the motion, which was amended to include
that the report of the Planning Commission and communication from
Mr. Roland Woodruff, be received and placed on file.
It was decided that a hearing date on the Redevelopment
Agency would be set after basic information and reports had been
furnished to the Council by the staff, and the Council would hold a
committee meeting with the discussion to be open to the public.
Allowance of Claims.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Vouchers Nos. 1040 to
1138 inclusive, in amount of $67,174.62 as audited hy the Finance
were allowed and authorization was granted for
Acceptance of bid of Threeway Chevrolet
Company for five cubic yard, 25,000 G.V.W.
Dump Truck.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by
Councilman Stiern, low bid of Three Way Chevrolet Company to
furnish five cubic yard, 25,000 G.V.W. Dump Truck was accepted,
and all other bids were rejected.
Action deferred for one week on bid
for Trailer Mounted Air Compressor.
Upon request of Councilman Heisey, action was deferred
for one week on bids for Trailer Mounted Air Compressor.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1698 New Series
adding Chapter 7.05 to the Municipal Code
of the City of Bakersfield providing for
and requiring a license and permit to paint
House Numbers on Curbs within the City of
Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Ordinance No. 1698 New
Series adding Chapter 7.05 to the Municipal Code of the City of
Bakersfield providing for and requiring a license and permit to
paint house numbers on Curbs within the City of Bakersfield, was
adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Bakersfield, California, September 25, 1967 - Page 19
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1699 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending the Municipal
Code.by amending Section 11.04.777
(Speed Limit on Planz Road), by
amending Section 11.04.787 (Speed
Limit on Ming Avenue); by adding
Section 11.04.788 (Speed Limit on
Stine Road), and by adding Section
11.04.789 (Speed Limit on White
Lane.)
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Council-
man Stiern, Ordinance No. 1699 New Series of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield amending the Municipal Code by amending Section 11.04.777
(Speed Limit on Planz Road), by amending Section 11.04.787 (Speed
Limit on Ming Avenue)~ by adding Section 11.04.788 (Speed Limit on
Stine Road), and by adding Section 11.04.789 (Speed Limit on White
Lane), was adopted. by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Meisey, Bosking, Rees, Rucker~ Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore.
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1700 New
Series of the City Council of the
City of Bakersfield_amending Municipal
Code Section 11.04.060 (One-Way
Streets and Alleys Established) by
amending Subsection (C) to include
a portion of the Oak Street Service
Road.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, seconded by Council-
man Stiern, Ordinance No. 1700 New Series of the City Council of
the City of Bakersfield amending Municipal Code Section 11.04.060
(One-Way Streets and Alleys Established) by amending Subsection (C)
to include a portion of the Oak Street Service Road,. was adopted by
the following vote:
Ayes:
· Councilmen Heisey, Rosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
352
Bakersfield, California, September 25, 1967 Page 20
Adoption of Ordinance No. 17011 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Section 7.52.090
(Advertising on Taxicabs) of the
Municipal Code of the City of
Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Council-
man Vetter, Ordinance No. 1701 New Series of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield amending Section 7.52.090 (Advertising on
Taxicabs) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, was
adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 79-67 finding
that certain Weeds growing on property
in the City of Bakersfield constitute
a public nuisance and directing the
Superintendent of Streets to destroy
said Weeds.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Vetter,
Resolution No. 79-67 finding that certain Weeds growing on property'
in the City of Bakersfield constitute a public nuisance and directing
the Superintehdent of Streets to destroy said Weeds, was adopted by
the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
City Attorney directed to record list
of property owners who have not complied
with Notice to Destroy Weeds.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, seconded by Council-
man Hosking the City Attorney was instructed to record the list of
property owners who have not complied with the Notice to destroy
Weeds, which constitutes a lien against the property, as soon as
it is legally possible to do so. Names are to be removed from this.
list when the lien is satisfied.
Bakersfield, California, September 25, ].967 - Page 21
Adoption of Resolution No. 80-67 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
ascertaining and determining the
prevailing rate of wages to be paid
in the matter of "Public Improvement
District No. 822", in said City.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Council-
man Stiern, Resolution No. 80-67 of the Council of the City of Bakers-
field ascertaining and determining the prevailing rate of wages to be
paid in the matter of "Public Improvement District No. 822", in said
City, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Approval of Agreement with the Downtown
Business Association for Holiday decorations..
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, Agreement with the Downtown Business Association for holiday
decorations was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Councilman Rees called attention to the fact that the Greater
Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce has announced that :it will no longer
be able to sponsor the annual Christmas Parade. ~All members of the
Council expressed regret at the decision of the Chamber.
Approval of Agreement with East
Bakersfield Progressive Club for holiday
decorations.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Agreement with the East Bakersfield Progressive Club for
holiday decorations was approved and the Mayor was authorized to
execute same.
354
Bakersfield, California, September 25, 1967 - Page 22
Approval of Contract with the Greater
BakerSfield Chamber of Commerce providing
for the operation of a Convention Bureau.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Council-
man Hosking, contract with the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
providing for the operation of a Convention Bureau was approved, and
the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Approval of Contract with the Greater
Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce for
the service of advertising the City and
promoting the Industrial Development
of the City.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Council-
man Rucker, Contract with the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of
Commerce for the service of advertising the City and promoting the
Industrial Development of the City was approved, and the Mayor was
authorized to execute same.
Approval of Salary Step Advancements
effective October l, 1967.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Council-
man Whittemore, the following salary step advancements were
approved, effective October 1, 1967:
M. L. Anderson Fire Captain 4 to 5
H. G. Crocker Equip. Operator I 3 to 4
R. E. Eastman Fire Engineer 4 to 5
J. D. Hawley Deputy Director of
Public Works 4 to 5
J. E. Heflin Fire Engineer 4 to 5
E. W. Hillis Eng. Technician 4 to 5
G. F. ~ohnson Motor Patrolman 4 to 5
R. A. Sholes Engineer III 4 to 5
L. Washington Fire Captain 4 to 5
C. E. Woods Fire Engineer 4 to 5
Bakersfield, California, September 25, 1967 - Page 23
Approval of Change Order No. 1 to
Contract No. 63-67 for the Paving and
Improving of South "H" Street between
Brundage Lane and Ming Avenue.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman
Heisey, Change Order No. i to Contract No. 62-67 for the Paving and
Improving of South "H" Street between Brundage Lane and Ming Avenue
was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Approval of Change Order No. 1 for
Contract No. 75-67 for construction of
Median Island Curbs on Mt. Vernon
Avenue between Columbus Street and
Panorama Drive.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Change Order No. 1 for Contract No. 75-67 for construction
of Median Island Curbs on Mr. Vernon Avenue between Columbus Street
and Panorama Drive,
execute same.
was approved and the Mayor was authorized to
Acceptance of Work and Notice of
Completion for installation of Traffic
Signals at the intersection of 17th and
"Q" Streets.
Upon a motion by Councilman Meisey, seconded by Council-
man Mosking, the work was accepted and the Mayor was authorized to
execute the Notice of Completion for installation of Traffic Signals
at the intersection of 17th and "Q" Streets.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, the meeting was adjourned at
10:00 P.M.
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfie~'alif.
ATTEST:
CITY'CLERK and Officio Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California