Loading...
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